Linguistic DNA - Concept Modelling Demonstrator

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	cause_n	king_n	kingdom_n	3,220	5	5.7515	4	false

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A16615	A myld and iust defence of certeyne arguments, at the last session of Parliament directed to that most Honorable High Court, in behalfe of the ministers suspended and deprived &c: for not subscribing and conforming themselues etc Against an intemperat and vniust consideration of them by M. Gabril Powell. The chiefe and generall contents wherof are breefely layd downe immediatly after the epistle.	Bradshaw, William, 1571-1618.	1606 (1606)	STC 3522; ESTC S104633	109,347	172

not Circumcising Cain and Abell did contrary to the law given for Circumcision to Abraham many yeares after Or whither Ishmael persecuted Isaack before Isack was borne Or whether stealing of horses an hundred yeares past were punishable with death before any law made for death in that behalfe One thing cannot be sayd contrary to an other that is not neyther ever was extant in rerum natura The Second part of this Quere whether since the granting of Magna Charta unto this age the judiciall acts of deprivation of Bishops etc were ever held to be contrary to the law of this kingdome and Magna Charta we shall answer if God permit more plentifully anone Quere 3 G. Powel 3 Quere Whether any Iudge of this Realme or any cheife officer lerned in the lawes be of opinion that such sentences of deprivation as haue lately passed in due forme in any Ecclesiasticall Court be contrary to any much lesse to many statuts Reply Though it were a sufficient answer to bid him goe looke and himselfe to aske the opinion of every judge learned officer yet will I not altogether yeld him so short and cutted an answer And though it be a principle in Philosophy that forma dat esse rei yet to the beyng of every thing there must be matter to which the forme giveth being And therefore in this case besides due forme there must be also due matter inserted in due sentences Wherupon I craue a resolute and direct answer whether by those words passed in due forme he meane passed for matter and forme in due forme Or whether he meane passed without due matter in due forme onely For if he meane by passed for matter and forme in due forme then is his question without question either a foolish question or no question at all For who would question whether any Iudge or learned officer could doubt that a sentence passed for matter and forme in due forme were a sentence contrary to any much lesse to many statuts As though there were any Statuts so ridiculous and absurd On the other side if he meane by passed in due forme only due forme without due matter then we answer that the same sentence may be unjust for want of due matter and yet be just by reason of due forme And so on the other parte we affirme that a sentence may be iust by reason of due matter and yet unjust by reason of an undue forme How many sentences therefore of deprivation soever as haue been lately given without due and just matter or without due and iust forme we answer so many not to haue passed in due matter and forme and so contrary to some lawes or statuts But were this question wholly graÌ„ted what ease and advantage can the opinion of any iudg or learned officer yeeld to those Iudiciall acts of deprivation wherupon the controversie is grounded which are not passed in any due forme of any law or Statute Ecclesiasticall whatsoever Furthermore touching this question if the Prelats did intend that all their senteÌ„ces should be according to law wherfore did they make a Canon against the ordinary prosecution of appeales Yea what needed such a Canon What benefite is there to any appellant by his appeale from a just sentence Or what danger to the Iudge a quo by such appeales The whole danger is to the appellant himselfe For the sentence beyng just he shall be sure to get nothing neither the Iudge a quo to lose any thing by the appeale G. Powel VVho having but halfe an eye doth not see but that by pleading Magna Charta cap. 29 they would not onely weaken but also subvert and utterly overthrow all jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall Doth every one that desireth limitation of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction Reply and laboreth to restrayne it from all communion of forreyne lawes seeke the subversion therof If also the lawes Ecclesiasticall be the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawes and the jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall the Kings Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction then is this place of Magna Charta so farre from subverting the jurisdiction or law Ecclesiasticall as that by that place the same law and jurisdiction is up held and more throughly established That the law jurisdiction Ecclesiastical ever hath been and yet is accounted the Kings Ecclesiasticall law and juridiction shall be shewed anone G. Powel The sentences and graue determinations whereof that is of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction haue never yet in any age or Country been submitted to popular triall by the judgment of Peeres etc Reply All sent ces of Ecclesiasticall Courts are not so graue but that some are somtymes repealed by Higher courts and sometymes revoked by themselues Sometyme also they meddle with matters not belonging unto them and therfore by ordinary course of Commmon law they are prohibited to proceed Finally in some case the Bishop giveth not Institution to a benefice untill by a Iury of 12. men whereof 6. are to be of the Clergy and 6 of the Layity the controversie de iure patronatus be decided Yea sometyme the Bishop having instituted a clarke is forced by writ from the common law to admit of another clark presented by another Patrone and so to displace him whom before he had instituted G. Powel The place of Magna Charta cannot be understood of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction or the practise thereof especially if we consider the end why this law was made and the tyme when The Prelats should make sure worke indeed Reply if they could make that no lawes were against their power TheÌ„ might they take upon them without controlment what they would under coloure of Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction as indeed they doe now pretily beginne to doe G. Powel The end was that the Kings of this Realme might not challenge an infinit and absolute power as some Kings else where did and yet doe without judgment and lawfull proceedings to take away any mans liberty life Country goods or lands Then belike the Kings Majestie is restrayned by Magna Charta but the Prelacy is not Reply Is not this good stuffe The King shall weare the Crowne but the Prelats will beare the sword Whether now doe they that are falsely called Puritans or the Prelats most encroch upon the Royall authoritye G. Powel It was made at such time as the Kings thought Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction no more in right then in fact to belong to the Crowne Therfore the words haue no relation to Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction This is utterly false Reply yea the falshood therof is evident by the testimony of that worthy and renowned Lawyer S. Edward Cooke in the booke alleadged by the answerer For he sayth expresely that as in temporall causes the King by the mouth of Iudges in his Courts of Iustice doth iudge the same by the temporall lawes of England lib. de jure regis Eccle. fol 8 so in causes Ecclesiasticall etc. the connusance wherof doth not belong to the common lawes of

England the same are to be iudged and determyned by Ecclesiasticall Iudges according to the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawes etc. fol. 39 And againe obserue good reader sayth S. Edward Cooke seeyng that the determination of heresies etc. belongeth not to the Common law how necessary it was for administration of Iustice that his Maiesties progenitors Kings of this Realme did by publike authority authorize Ecclesiasticall Courts under theÌ„ to determyne those great and important causes etc. by the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawes The jurisdiction therfore Courts and lawes Ecclesiasticall in the opinion of the Kings progenitors were thought held to be their own Kingly lawes Courts and jurisdiction The same is further proved by the sayd S. Edward Cooke fol. 9 by the president of Renulphus in discharging and exempting the Monastery and Abbot of Abinden from the jurisdiction of the Bishops and granting also to the saide Abbot Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction etc by the president of William the first fol 10. 11 who made inpropriatioÌ„ of Churches with cure to Ecclesiasticall persons etc. and by divers presidents of other Kings since the conquest That which in this parte of the answer is afterward added of the necessary restitution of the right of Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction to the Crowne is also confuted by the same S. Edward Cooke who plainely saith that though there had been no such law of restitution made yet it was resolved by all the Iudges that the Kings and Queenes of EnglaÌ„d for the tyme being by the auncient prerogatiue law of England may make such a Commision etc. And therfore by the auncient lawes of this Realme this kingdome of England is and absolute Empire and Monarchy consisting of one head which is the King and of a body politike c. Also that the Kingly head of this body politike is furnished with plenary power c. to render iustice and right to every part and member of this body Thus farre S. Edward Cooke From all which it followeth that the restitution of the auncient right howsoever lawfully made as being made by the whole body of the kingdome was notwithstaÌ„ding not necessarily made as though without it the King or Queene for the tyme being could not haue used their auncient right That which followeth in the 2. 3. and 4. branches of this 4 answer to the consequence of this 8 Argument doth not belong to the matter because it doth nothing justifie the proceedings of the Bishops or other Ecclesiasticall Iudges in depriving of the Ministers pleaded for in such manner and for such causes as for which they haue depriveded them The question is not whether jurisdiction Ecclesiasticall by the lawes of the land doth be long under the King unto the ordinaryes nor whether the Ordinaryes in the exercise of the Kings jurisdiction Ecclesiiasticall and Consistoriall trialls ought to proceed by vertue of Peeres etc but whether some Ordinaryes exercising the Kings Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction haue proceeded in their Ecclesiasticall Consistories against some Ministers without authority of the Kings Ecclesiasticall law therfore in that respect contrary to Magna Charta which requyreth nothing to be doone without the Kings law Further De jure Regis Ecclesi fol. 9 although we grant as S. Edw. Cooke instructeth us all lawes Ecclesiasticall derived from other which by and with a generall consent are approved and allowed here to be aptly and rightly called the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawes of England yet I deny that all lawes Ecclesiasticall derived by the Kings progenitors either before or since the Conquest from others are now in this age our Soveraigne Lord King Iames his Ecclesiasticall lawes and therefore howsoever many judiciall Acts of deprivation of Bishops Preists from their benefices c. according to the Ecclesiasticall law which is called ius Pontificium which was derived by the Kings Progenitors from the Bishops of Rome either before or since the Conquest unto Magna Charta and since that to the 25 of King Henry the eyght were never all held to be contrary but were ever all held to be agreable to the lawes of this kingdome yet notwithstanding I affirme that all Iudiciall Acts and sentences 25. Hen. 8 cap. 17 how many soever of deprivation of Ministers from their benefices had made and given by the Ecclesiasticall Iudges since the 25. of King Henry the 8. onely according or onely by force and vertue of the sayd ius Pontificium or Bishop of Rome his law the sentences given in the time of Queene Mary excepted are and ought to be holden not to be had made given by the lawes of this kingdome or by the Kings Ecclesiasticall law And why Even because the whole ius Pontificium or Bishop of Romes law was altogether excepting the tyme of Queene Mary abrogated adnulled and made voyd by an Act of Parlament and consequently is but a meere Alien Forraine and straunge law and no municipall law of England and therefore not the Kings Ecclesiasticall law Wherefore our Soveraigne Lord King Iames by this graunt of Magna Charta made by his progenitors beyng obliged to suffer no Free man of the Realme to be taken or imprisoned or disseissed of his Frrehold or liberties c. Nor to passe upon him nor condemne him but by lawfull judgment of his Peeres or by the law of the land We agayne assume from this statute of the great Charter that sundry sentences of deprivation of Ministers from their benefices for causes before specified are unlawfull because such Ministers haue been condemned and judgment hath been passed upon them without lawfull judgment of their Peeres or law Ecclesiasticall of the land For heere we must giue the answerer to witt by these words or law of the land that all the Kings lawes of what nature or quality soever whether Ecclesiasticall or temporall and not only the lawes temporall as he insinuateth are included As therefore no temporall Free man of the Realme may be condemned passed upon or disseissed of his liberty and freehold c. in a temporall cause and in a temporall Court without lawfull judgment of his Peeres or temporall law of the land Even so likewise no Ecclesiasticall person beyng a freeman of the Realme may be condemned passed upon or disseissed of his liberty or frehold but by lawfull Ecclesiasticall judgement according to the law Ecclesiasticall of the land And heereupon we graunt if the King haue any law Ecclesiasticall of the laÌ„d for the deprivation of a Minister from his liberty and frehold for not subscription perjurie contempt of Canonical so called obedience omission of Rites and Ceremonyes not precise observation of the booke of Common prayer c. Then we graunt that the Ordinaryes being the Kings Iudges Ecclesiasticall may rightly depriue a Minister from his benefice for these offences And yet still we deny and shall be able to mainteyne that sundry sentences of deprivation made and given by sundry Ordinaries against svndry Ministers be either unjust or unlawfull or no sentences at

Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Text snippets containing the quad