Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	error_n	judge_n	writ_n	1,482	5	9.3217	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61536	A discourse concerning bonds of resignation of benefices in point of law and conscience by ... Edward Lord Bishop of Worcester.	Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.	1695 (1695)	Wing S5572; ESTC R7708	38,719	132

soever it be and so they are both in Law and Conscience to see the Places well supplied And by the Statutes of Dissolution as they do enjoy the Rights so they are bound to provide for the Churches and where they were Parochial to see that there were a fixed Incumbent with a competent Maintenance which the Law always took a particular Care of II. It is time now to consider the Precedents which have been produced to shew that these Bonds of Resignation are not against Law The first is of Iones and Laurence 8 Iac. A Bond was given to resign the Benefice he was presented to within three Months upon Request and it was alledged in Court that it was a Simoniacal Contract and against Law On the other side it was said That there doth not appear any Simony upon the Condition and therefore Iudgment was given for the Bond. But a Writ of Error was brought in the Exchequer Chamber and the principal Error insisted on was That this Condition was against Law But the Judges of the Common Bench and Barons of the Exchequer held That the Obligation and Condition are good enough For a Man may bind himself to resign upon good and valuable Reasons without any Colour of Simony as to be obliged to resign in Case of Plurality or Non-Residence or if his Son be at Age. But if it had been for a Lease of the Glebe or Tythes or a Summ of Money That had been Simony c. and so the Judgment was affirmed To this Precedent I answer That the Reason of the Judges is insufficient For it comes to this the Bond is good because there may be good Reason for it May it not be said on the other side The Bond is naught because there may be a very bad Reason for it And a Bond that may be turned to so very ill Uses it cannot but seem strange to me that the Judges should affirm it to be a good Bond. If the particular Reasons had been made the Conditions of the Bond they might have judged upon them but the Bond was general and no Condition in it but Notice Therefore their Judgment must be that a Bond is reasonable if no bad Condition appears in it which makes the Incumbent a Slave to the Patron and overthrows the just Rights and Liberties of the Clergy and lays them open to Perjury when they give such a Bond meerly to obtain a Presentation And they very well knew that none could be possessed of a Benefice without an Oath against all Simoniacal Contracts either directly or indirectly Why did not the Judges declare that it was Simony within their Oath But they were onely to judge of the Law And how could they judge this not to be a Simoniacal Bargain Because there was no Simoniacal Condition in it But what is a Simoniacal Condition Where hath the Common Law determin'd it And by what Rule Yes say they A Lease for Tythes or a Bargain for Money had been Simony But how come they to determine that no other Contracts are Simoniacal when they own That Simony is not under their Cognisance Did they ever offer to advise with the Civilians What was a Simoniacal Contract according to the Ecclesiastical Law Not the least mention of this and therefore I cannot but think this a Judgment without sufficient Reason to support it The same Cause came on again the next Year and there it is declared That it was not Simony but good Policy to tie him to resign and if it were it is not material Here are two good Points declared 1. That Bonds of Resignation are good Policy To what End To insnare Mens Consciences to make the Church a Prey to corrupt Patrons to keep Men from doing their Duties lest they should displease their Patrons If this be good Policy let it rather pass for that than for good Law 2. That it is not material as to the Goodness of the Bond whether it be Simony or not Then it seems a Simoniacal Contract holds good in Law which I think was no good Policy for Judges to declare But we are told That 15 Iac. in the Case of Paschal and Clerk it was said by the Court upon Evidence That if the Patron takes a Bond of Resignation at three Months warning it was Simony within the Statute And for this we are referr'd to the Roll 2051. I wonder this Judgment is not hitherto disproved if the Roll be falsified and if not here is Judgment against Judgment But again in the Case of Babington and Wood it was resolved on the same Grounds with that of Iones and Laurence and so deserves no new Consideration and several other Judgments are said to have been given since on the same Grounds But let us compare this Case with such as have been adjudged to be Simony in the Courts of Common Law In the Case of Byrte and Manning The Court held that if a Man entred into a Contract to procure a Presentation in Consideration of the Marriage of his Son that had been a Simoniacal Contract Why is not a Bond of Resignation as much Simony as a Consideration of Marriage when both are made equally the Conditions of obtaining a Presentation If a Simoniacal Contract be made and the Person presented not at all privy to it he is to incurr the Penalty of it but if a Man be Privy to a Bond of Resignation in order to a Presentation he shall not be guilty And yet in the one Case a Man swears with a good Conscience which I think he cannot in the other In the Case of Winchcomb and Pulleston it was declared to be Simony to purchase the next Presentation when the Incumbent was still alive but in a Fit of the Strangury And yet this was not within the Letter of the Law for the Living was not actually void Therefore such Acts as are against the Design and Reason of the Law are forbidden by it And the like was affirmed by Iustice Hutton in the Case of Sheldon and Bret. In a late Judgment in Chancery Bonds of Resignation at Pleasure to Patrons by their Clerks are damned in Equity when any ill use is made of them But why should any such Bonds be allowed in Law which are liable to such ill Uses I conclude with the Words of my Lord Coke That the Common Law doth detest Simony and all corrupt Bargains for Presentation to any Benefice and its design is that a fit Person for the Discharge of the Cure should be presented freely without Expectation of any thing How then can Bonds of Resignation be agreeable to Law Having thus dispatched the main Point against all General Bonds which are made the Conditions of obtaining a Presentation there remain only some Quaere's to be resolved 1. Suppose a Bond be required onely to tie Men up to do their Duties and to keep them from Non-Residence I answer 1. That the Patron is to blame to pitch