Selected quad for the lemma: justice_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
justice_n	chief_a	lord_n	treasurer_n	2,704	5	10.8093	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A61556	The grand question, concerning the Bishops right to vote in Parliament in cases capital stated and argued, from the Parliament-rolls, and the history of former times : with an enquiry into their peerage, and the three estates in Parliament.	Stillingfleet, Edward, 1635-1699.	1680 (1680)	Wing S5594; ESTC R19869	81,456	194

possumus nec debemus intendit nec vult aliquis eorundem in praesenti Parlamento dum de hujusmodi materiis agitur vel agetur quomodolibet interesse sed nos eorum quemlibet in ea parte penitùs absentare jure Paritatis cujuslibet eorundem interessendi in dicto Parlamento quoad omnia singula mihi exercenda nostris eorum cujuslibet statu ordine congruentia in omnibus semper salvo Ad haec insuper protestamur eorum quilibet protestatur quòd propter hujusmodi absentiam non intendimus nec volumus nec eorum aliquis intendit vel vult quòd processus habiti habendi in praesenti Parlamento super materiis antedictis in quibus non possumus nec debemus ut premittitur interesse quantum ad nos eorum quemlibet attinet futuris temporibus quomodolibet impugnentur infirmentur seu etiam infringentur This Protestation setting aside the legal Formalities of it consists of 3 parts 1. A Declaration of their undoubted Right as Peers of the Realm by virtue of their Baronies to Sit and Vote in all Debates of Parlament 2. Of their intention to withdraw this Parlament because several matters were to be handled at which it was not lawfull for them according to the Canons to be present 3. That by this absenting themselves they did not intend as far as concerned them to null the proceedings of that Parlament Here now arise three main Points to be discussed 1. Upon what Grounds the Prelats declared it was not lawfull for them to be present in Parlament at such matters 2. How far the Parlament's receiving that Protestation makes it a Law 3. Whether on supposition it were a part of Canon-Law then in force it continues so still since the Reformation 1. Upon what Grounds they declared it unlawfull for them to be present in Parlament at such matters One would think the very reading the Protestation were sufficient to convince any man for the Bishops declare as plainly as men could do that it was out of regard to the Canons of the Church and not from any Law of the Land For how was it possible that the same men should declare that by reason of their Baronies they had full Right to be personally present in all Debates of Parlament if there were some Law in force which made it unlawfull for them to be personally present The greater force there is in the Protestation 's being receiv'd in Parlament the greater strength there is in this Argument For if the Protestation 's being allowed by King Lords and Commons make it as the Authour of the Letter affirms a perfect and compleat Law then their Right to be present in all Debates of Parlament is a Law and so much the more considerable because it is no enacting Law making that to be so which was not before but declarative of what was confessed to be their undoubted Right by King Lords and Commons And therefore I do not wonder that the Authour of the Letter so conveniently to his purpose left out all the beginning of the Protestation which so fully clears the sense of the rest For the very same thing which afterwards the Bishops say they are forbid to doe by the Canons that is personaliter interesse to give their personal attendance they say at first by Right of their Peerage as Barons by tenure did belong to them for there the words are personaliter interesse too Therefore that personal attendance in such matters which they said was unlawfull to them by the Canons they challenge to themselves as their just Right by virtue of their Baronies But is it possible to imagine if they had been precluded from sitting by any antecedent Law that ever such a publick avowing their Right would have passed the King and both Houses So unsuccessfull hath the Authour of the Letter been in his Statute-Laws that there can be no stronger evidence of the Bishops Right to sit in such Cases then those which he produceth against them But he goes about to prove this Prohibition cannot be understood onely of the Canon-Law for the Canon-Law saith he was to them above all Laws and what was forbidden by that Law they could not have a thought that it could in any sort be lawfull for them to challenge as their Right upon any account I confess I can see no force in this Reasoning For when a thing is forbidden to men meerly by a positive Law of the Church and the penalty of it is bare Irregularity by the Canons why may not such men challenge their own Right notwithstanding those Canons because the Irregularity might be dispensed with when the Pope saw convenient And by the Constitutions of O●hobon which were made in the time of H. III. we find that if an Inferiour Clergy-man transgressed this Canon it was in the power of the Diocesan to absolve him from his Irregularity And this Canon was receiv'd and inforc'd most here in England on the inferiour Clergy as appears by the Canons of Stephen Langton in the Council of Oxford and other Synodall Constitutions here For it is a Rule in Lyndwood Clericus ex vi verbi non comprehendit Episcopum sed cum adjuncto sic in quantum illud adjunctum potest concernere Episcopum That by Clerici we are not to understand Bishops unless there be some adjunct that implieth it And among the Decretals there is one from Alexander III. to the Archbishop of Canterbury under the Title Nè Clerici to the same purpose Where the Glosse I grant comprehends Prelats therefore I will not deny but they were to be irregular by the Canon-Law as well as others But then we are to consider how far the Legatine Power vested in the Archbishop of Canterbury might extend in such a Case and that there was the same severity in the Canons against Clergy-men's taking upon them any Secular Office and yet in this very Parlament Thomas Arundell Bishop of Ely was Lord Chancellour and after him William of Wickham Bishop of Winchester and before them R. Baybroke Bishop of London and the Bishops of Durham and Exceter were Lords Treasurers under R. II. and in H. III's time we find 3 Clergy-men Lords Chief Iustices Pateshull Lovell and Mansell notwithstanding these Canons and in Edward III's time almost all the great Offices of the Court were executed by Clergy-men By which we see they did not think themselves so strictly bound to observe those Canons or it was so easy to be dispensed with that they had great Reason to insist upon the challenge of their own Right notwithstanding the Canon-Law The truth is the Canon-Law as it was managed in those days was one of the most mysterious pieces of Ecclesiasticall Policy it was an Engine which the artificial Church-men could screw up or let down as they pleased If it were in a matter likely to be prejudicial to their interest as it was most apparently the case in