Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	bench_n	king_n	writ_n	1,949	5	9.3440	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A10783	A vievv of the ciuile and ecclesiastical lavv and wherein the practise of them is streitned, and may be relieued within this land. VVritten by Thomas Ridley Doctor of the Ciuile Law.	Ridley, Thomas, Sir, 1550?-1629.	1607 (1607)	STC 21054; ESTC S115989	186,085	248

the rest of the matters that belong to the triall of the Ecclesiasticall Courts some are acknowledged to be absolutely in vse some other are challenged to be but in a certein measure in vse In absolute vse are those which neuer had any opposition against them which almost are those alone which belong to the Bishops degrée or order for all things which come within the compasse of the Ecclesiasticall Law are either belonging to the Bishops degrée or his Iurisdiction To his degrée or order belong the ordering of Ministers and Deacons the confirmation of Children the dedication of Churches and Churchyards and such like none of which haue béen challenged at any time to belong to any other Law The second sort is of them that belong to the Bishops iurisdiction which is partly voluntarie partly litigious Voluntarie is when those with whom the dealing is stand not against it but litigious it is when it is oppugned by the one part or the other Of this latter sort many things in sundry ages haue bin cald in question but yet rescued and recouered againe by the wise graue Iudges themselues who haue found the challenge of them to be vniust But what doth belong to either of them in priuat or what causes do appertaine to the whole Iurisdiction in generall because they haue bin alreadie particulerly set downe by that famous man of worthy memory Doctor Cosin in his learned Apologie for certaine Cos in in his Apologie part 1. c. 2. procéedings in Ecclesiasticall Courts I will not make a new catalogue of them but send the Reader for the knowledge thereof vnto his Booke but yet in my passage will I note which of them haue bin most chiefly oppugned and as occasion shall fall out speak to them And thus much as concerning those parts of the Ecclesiasticall Law which are here in vse with vs Now it followeth to shew whereby the exercise of that Iurisdiction which is granted to be of the Ciuile and Ecclesiasticall cognizance is defeated impeached by the Common Law of this Land which is the third part of this Diuision The impeachment therefore is by one of these meanes by Praemunire by Prohibition by Iniunction by Supersedeas by Indicauit or Quare impedit but because the fower last are nothing so frequent nor so harmfull as the others and that this Booke would grow into a huge volume if I should prosecute them all I will only treat of the two first and put ouer the rest vnto some better opportunitie A Praemunire therefore is a writ awarded out of the kings Bench against one who hath procured out any Bull or like processe of the Pope from Rome or elsewhere for any Ecclesiasticall place or preferment within this Realme or doth sue in any forteine Ecclesiasticall Court to defeat or impeach any Iudgement giuen in the Kings Court whereby the bodie of the offender is to be imprysoned during the Kings pleasure his goods forfeyted and his lands seized into the Kings hand so long as the offender liueth This writ was much in vse during the time the Bishop of Romes aucthoritie was in credit in this land and very necessary it was it should be so for being then two like principal authorities acknowledged within this Land the Spirituall in the Pope and the Temporall in the King the Spirituall 25. Edw. 2. 27. Edw. 3. ca. 1. 38 Edw. 3. ca. 1. 2. 7. Rich. 2. ca. 12. 13. Rich. 2. ca. 2. 2. H. 4. cap. 3. grew on so fast on the temporal that it was to be feared had not these statutes bin prouided to restraine the Popes interprises the spirituall Iurisdiction had deuoured vp the temporall as the temporall now on the contrary side hath almost swallowed vp the spiritual But since the forreine authoritie in Spirituall matters is abolished and eyther Iurisdiction is agnised to be setled wholy and only in the Prince of this land sundry wise mens opinion is there can lye no Praemunire by those Statutes at this day against any man exercising any subordinat Iurisdiction vnder the King whether the same be in the kings name or in his name who hath the same immediatly from the King for that now all Iurisdiction whether it be Temporall or Ecclesiasticall is the Kings and such Ecclesiasticall Lawes as now are in force are called the Kings Ecclesiasticall Lawes and the Kings Ecclesiasticall Courts For that the King cannot haue in himselfe a contrarietie of Iurisdiction fighting one against the other as it was in the case betwéene himselfe and the Pope although he may haue diuersitie of Iurisdiction within himselfe which for order sake and for auoyding of confusion in gouernment he may restraine to certeine seuerall kinds of causes and inflict punishment vpon those that shall go beyond the bounds or limits that are prescribed them but to take them as enemies or vnderminers of his state he can not for the question here is not who is head of the cause or Iurisdiction in controuersie but who is to hold plea thereof or exercise the Iurisdiction vnder that head the Ecclesiasticall or temporall Iudge Neyther is that to moue any man that the Statutes made in former time against such Prouisors which vexed the King and people of this land with such vniust suits doe not onely prouide against such processe as came from Rome but against all others that came elsewhere being like conditioned as they for that it was not the meaning of those Statutes or any of them thereby to taxe the Bishops Courts or any Consistory within this land for that none of them euer vsed such malepert sawsinesse against the King as to call the Iudgements of his Courts into question although they went far in strayning vpon those things and causes which were held to be of the Kings Temporall cognisance as may appeare by the Kings Prohibition thereon framed And beside the Archbishops Bishops and other Prelats of this Land in the greatest heat of all this businesse being then present in the Parliament whith the rest of the Nobilitie disauowed the Popes insolencie toward the King in this behalfe and assured him they would ought to stand with his Maiestie against the Pope in these and all other cases touching his Crowne and Regalitie as they were bound by their allegeance so that they being not guilty of these enterprises against the King but in as great a measure troubled in theyr owne Iurisdiction by the Pope as the King himselfe was in the right of his Crowne as may apppeare out of the course of the said Statutes The word Elsewhere can in no right sence be vnderstood of them or their Consistories although some of late time thinking all is good seruice to the Realme that is done for the aduancement of the Common Law and depressing of the Ciuill Law haue so interpreted it but wythout ground or warrant of the Statutes themselues who whollie make prouision against forreine authoritie and speak no word of domesticall proceedings But

matrimony or that I was borne after that my father and mother were lawfully married together in both which you sée there is a mariage confessed the question onely is of the priority or posteriority of the natiuitie of him that is charged withall whither it hapned before or after his parents marriage which as they hold is the other member of speciall bastardie and yet this prioritie or posterioritie of natiuitie by vertue of the Kings writ comes no lesse in inquirie to the Ordinary in the case of the generall bastardie than they make it to be trauersable in the speciall bastardie and therfore the writ to the Ordinary for generall bastardie is conceiued in this manner viz. Inquiratis Lib. Intrac fol. 35. vtrum praedictus A. pars rea genitus vel natus fuit ante matrimonium contractum inter talem patrem suum et talem G●anuill Lib. 7. cap. 15. matrem suam vel post So that eyther they must consesse there is no such bastardy as they make shew there is diuerse from that that is tried before the Ecclesiastical Iudge or that themselues do confound the members that should diuide the same and make them one or the other as them list for both simply they cannot be vnlesse they be distinguished with other notes and differences than hitherto I find they are But to say the truth if these things be well weyghed and considered speciall Bastardy is nothing else but the definition of the generall and the generall againe is nothing but the definite of the speciall for whosoeuer is borne out or before lawfull Matrimonie he is a bastard and he againe is a bastard that is borne before or out of lawful matrimony so that these things to be a bastard and to be borne out of lawfull matrimony are conuertible one with the other so then as it were very hard to make a diuorce betwéene these things that are so néere in nature one to the other being conuertible termes one to the other so hard again it were in policie to disioyne these things in triall that are so neere in affinitie one to the other because they are the same in substance nature as the other are and therfore eodem iure censeri debent 1● q. ca. 2. cogno●imus then nè continentiae causarū diuidantur which is no lesse absurditie in Law than it is a grosnesse in other learning to deny a principle or generall Maxime of the profession And so far hitherto as concerning the reasons arguments that may be brought against this speciall Bastardy Now it resteth that I shew by ancient precedents both these sorts of Bastardy haue appertained to the Ecclesiastical Courts only and the first precedent is in the incident the other in the principall and the precedent is no lesse auntient than Henry the seconds time as that which hapned vnder Alexander the third about the yeare of our Lord 1160. the case is this A certaine man of Norwich Diocesse called R. H. had issue Ca. Lator. ext qui filij sunt legitimi I. H. who had a sonne called C. H. I. H. deceasing before R. H. his father C. H. succéeded in his Grandfathers in heritance his said Grandfather being dead but M. H. brother to the said Grandfather pretending the said I. H. was a Bastard draweth the said C. H. into the Temporall Court vpon the inheritance whereupon C. H. called the said M. H. into the Bishop of Norwich his Court for the triall of his natiuitie but the Bishop long protracting the cause C. H. appealed to the Pope who delegated the same cause to the Bishop of Excester and the Abbot of Hereforde with order That if the said M. H. should not within two Monethes prooue that which he obiected against C. H. that then they should Intimate the same to the seculer Iudge before whom the inheritance was in question that he should not stay any longer vpon the question of legitimation but procéed to Iudgement in the cause of the inheritance Which president though it be long before the Statute of Bastardie made by Henry the 6. and so no writ went from the temporall Court for the certificat therof yet it shewes that the Temporall Iudges in those daies did not procéed to iudgement in the principall cause before the incident were decided by the Ordinary that they counted bastardy then to be of the Ecclesiast cognisance and that it was lawful for him that was pretēded to be a bastard to appeal from his Ordinary if either the Ordinary detracted the determination therof or were suspected of parciality And thus far of the incident There is an other much like precedent to this in the same Kings dayes but that is in the principall for that the inheritance came not first in question but the legitimation it selfe and the case is as followeth A certain man called Raphe kept one Analine the wife of one Ca. Causam ext qui filij sunt legitim● Allin by whom he was supposed to haue begot one Agatha who also being married had a sonne called Richard Raphe going beyond the Sea left Richard and his Mother Agatha in possession of all his goods lands but newes being after brought that the said Raphe was dead beyond sea Frauncis the brother of the said Raphe spoyled the said Richard of the possession of all the goods lands he had of the said Raphe his grandfather for that he did pretend the said Agatha his niece Mother of the said Richard was not borne of lawfull Matrimonie so that neither shée her selfe nor her sonne ought to succéed the brother of the said Frauncis but that the inheritance thereof did belong vnto himselfe whereupon the said Richard being thus spoiled by Frauncis his great vncle obtained letters of restitution to the Bishop of London the B. of Worcester the B. of Excester vnder this forme That before they entred into the principall cause which was this whether the said Agatha were borne in lawfull Matrimonie or not they should restore the said Richard to his Grandfathers inheritance But the Bishop of Rome after vnderstanding by the said Delegats that the plea of inheritance within this Realme did not belong vnto the Church but vnto the King recald that part of his rescript which concerned the restitution of the said Richard to his inheritance gaue order to the foresaid Bishops to procéed in the cause of legitimation willing them to inquire whether the said Agatha were borne of the said Aneline in the life time of her husband Allin and when shée dwelt cohabited with him as with her husband or whether the said Raphe father of the said Agatha kept the said Aneline openly publikely while the said Allin yet liued And if they found it to be so then they should pronounce her the said Agatha to be a Bastard for that Aneline her Mother could not be counted to be a wife but a whore which defyling her husbands bed