Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	francis_n	sir_n	william_n	36,923	5	8.8615	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A43638	The test or tryal of the goodness & value of spiritual-courts in two queries: I. Whether the statute of I Edw. 6.2. be in force (against them) at this day, obliging them to summon and cite the Kings subjects (not in their own names and styles, as now they do, but) in the name and stile of the Kings Majesty (as in the Kings Courts Temporal) and under the seal of the Kings arms? II. Whether any of the cannon-law, or how much of the cannon-law is (at this day) the law of England, in Courts Christian? Highly necessary to be perused by all those that have been, or may be cited to appear at Doctors Commons. By Edm. Hickeringill.	Hickeringill, Edmund, 1631-1708.	1683 (1683)	Wing H1829; ESTC R216804	57,574	47

For the true words are As any Arch-bishop or Bishop of this Realm without offending the Prerogative Royal of the Crown and the Laws and Customes of this Realm might at any time heretofore do Which clause by Cook wilfully or weakly omitted and left out quite alters the Case and gives the Arch-Bishops and Bishops no power to act do execute or Issue out any Processes Ecclesiastical as Popish Bishops used to do in their own Names and Styles sealed with their own Arms and not the Kings Armes because it is contrary to the Law and Statute of 1 Edw. 6. 2 And those Armes are usually Papa in Cathedra● as 〈…〉 of my Court in the Soken of Essex is the Mitred Pope sitting 〈…〉 Chair so that still I say The Kings Armes engraven in all Cour● 〈…〉 ● would be a good Recognition that all the Ecclesiastical Co 〈…〉 His and He Head of the Church as the Popes Picture of old ● Court-Seales with the two Cross-keys in his hand did seem 〈…〉 Popes Supremacy and Authority as chief head of their old 〈…〉 Ecclesiastical Courts 〈…〉 the second and third Ligaments or Cords said to bind the force of this Act namely 1 2 Phil. Mar. 8. 1 Eliz. 1. does not so much as touch upon 1 Edw. 6. 2. no not obliquely much less do they repeal it expresly and by name and least of all could it be any ways possible that the Legislators had the least thoughts to strike it dead by 1 2 Phil. Mar. 8. or 1 Eliz. 1. when they knew it was dead and buryed before by 1 Mar. 2. CHAP. V. THis Beloved Statute then is got loose from the pretended shackles that Phillip and Mary or Queen Elizabeth are said to design against it alas they could not possibly be so weak as to plant their Artillery against a thing that the Queen had struck dead whilst she was a maid a year before they had not the least thought of it I dare say for them Much less had Queen Elizabeth the least thoughts of destroying this Statute by any thing in 1 Eliz. 1. when they very well knew that it was dead or repealed by 1 Mar. 2. And though 1 Eliz. 1 does obliquely glance at it by making the old fashion of making Bishops Legal in a Protestant Church yet she does not empower by a revival of 25. Hen. 8. 20. any Arch-bishop or Bishop to transgress any Statute allready in force much less any Statute that should come to be in force after Queen Elizabeth was dead and buryed Which is the very case here For had Queen Elizabeth as Queen Mary or any other King or Queen by name expresly Repealed this Statute with which Cords Learned Coke makes such a Pother to no purpose yet by his own Arguments all his Pother is an idle Pother and nothing that King Phillip and Mary nor Queen Mary alone nor Queen Elizabeth alone nor all of them united can do is able to repeal 1. Edw. 6. 2. for ever For if an after-King and Parliament do but repeal their Repeal the Statute Repealed gets New Life and is born again as Coke infallibly proves and affirms in his discourse upon the Revival of this very Statute For he says that by the Repealing of a Repeal the first Act is Reviv'd which is most true for remoto Impedimento reviviscit Statutum And therefore the Force of this Statute about which Coke does so puzzle himself with this Three-fold Cord easily appears and Breaks loose from any Tye that 1 Mar. or 1 2 Phil. Mar. or Q. Eliz. could possibly shackle it and fetter it with which Shackles shall bind no longer then till they or some of the succeeding Kings and Parliament do unbind and take them off All which was soon done in the first of King James in his first Parliament Repealing by Name 1 Mar. 2. that by Name had Repealed this Royal Statute so advantagious to the Kings Supremacy and Prerogative Royal and also thereby through its Revival Virtually Repealing all Precedent Statutes whether of Phil. Mar. or Mary or Queen Elizabeth that went before it if contrary to it or in tanto For in Statute Law contrary to the Laws of Heraldry The Junior always takes place of the Senior But the Arch-bishops or Bishops ought to have used their own names Styles c. in their Processes whilst 1 Edw. 6. 2. stood repealed during the Reigns of the two Sisters Mary Elizabeth and no longer it seems then till Primo Jacobi It was revived The only difficulty that ever I could find that seem'd to question the force of this Statute of 1 Edw. 6. 2. Is its Repeal by 1 Mar. 2. which though its self be Repealed by 1 Jacobi yet the 1 Edw. 6. 2 being not revived by Name therefore some doubt its vigour though the Force it lay under be quite taken away Because say they It is not reviv'd in express words by 1 Jacobi But the Lord Coke makes no difficulty at all of that for he has these Words on this very occasion namely It was strongly urged and enforced c. that all their the Bishops Process and Proceedings being in their own Names Stiles and Seals where by the said Act they ought to have been in the Kings Name and under the Kings Seale were all unlawful and voyd Ay! And to prove that the said Act of Anno 1 Edw 6. was n●w in force They alleadged that this Act of 1 Edw. 6. was Repealed by the said Act of 1 Mar. above mentioned which Act of Repeal being Repealed by the said branch of Primo Regis Jacobi ●●nsequently the said Act of 1 Edw. 6. was thereby revived For when an Act of Repeal is Repealed The first Act that was Repealed is Revived A plain Case Remo●o Impedimento Reviviscit Statutum And herewith agreeth the Book Case in 15 Edw. 3. Tit. Petition Placit 2. And this is true and cannot be denyed Thus far Coke Why is it so Then truly I think 't is no great sin to be of my Lord Chief Justice Pembertons Opinion I mean whilst he was at the Bar urging the force Validity of this Statute in Mr. Wealds Case of Much-Waltham in Essex moving with Mr. Rotheram for a Prohibition against the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical mens Process against Mr. Wealds because their Process against him run in their own Names sealed with their own Seales and not the Kings-Arms But because Sir William Scrogs nestled and nestled and Scracht his Head Sir Francis Pemberton it seems easily perceived his Disease and therefore seemed to Compassionate the Lord Chief Justice Scrogs by saying My Lord I have urged the Statute of 1 Edw. 6. but I will not be warm upon it because I perceive your Lordship is not prepar'd at this time to give it an Answer or he used words to the like effect in Presence of above an hundred Witnesses The Truth is the time Sir Francis Pemberton urg'd this Statute was Parliament-time