Selected quad for the lemma: judgement_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
judgement_n	according_a	judge_n	law_n	4,882	5	5.2868	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A44187	A letter of a gentleman to his friend, shewing that the bishops are not to be judges in Parliament in cases capital	Holles, Denzil Holles, Baron, 1599-1680.	1679 (1679)	Wing H2461; ESTC R204379	41,325	145

that the Archbishop was then charged with Treason Gervasius Dorobernensis saith he was charged with two things one not doing Justice in his Ecclesiastical Court to one Iohn who was Iohn the Mareschal that complained of the Archbishops detaining some Land from him the other that being sent for by the King upon occasion of Mareschals complaint he came not The first he excused laying the fault upon Mareschal himself for abusing the Court bringing veterum cantuum codicillum and old Song-Book to swear upon and refusing to swear super Evangelium ut moris est upon the Evangelists as the Custom is whereby he said he did Curiam suam infamare Defame his Court. The other he answered proving by two sufficient Witnesses Per duos legales viros that it was sickness hindred him and not any contempt This is the account which Gervasius gives and saith not a word of any Treason neither doth Matthew Paris nor Roger Hoveden who both of them give a relation of that proceeding at Northampton against the Archbishop And to say the truth it would be a strange High Treason only not to come being sent for by the King though there had been no sickness in the case at most it could have been but a High Contempt and punishable by Fine and Imprisonment or the like and probable it is that Fitz-Stephen who was a Creature of the Archbishops might represent it so only to draw more Odium upon the King for his severity against the Bishop even to an injustice when in truth there was no such thing However we may look upon it as but a weak President for the Bishops to lay any weight upon to prove their right to sit and vote and judge in a Capital cause Causa sanguinis being at the best but out of a blind Manuscript of an Author justly suspected of great partiality against the tenour of all the ancient Writers that give an account of the same business But we must go a step further to clear this matter in question for it seems some of the Bishops do say that though they will have no part in the Condemnation and pronouncing Judgment upon a Criminal person as to loss of Life or Member yet they may and will vote and Judge in such things as are but Preliminary and Preparatory to that condemnation and yet think they have no hand in bloud though they have a hand in doing that which will infallibly cause the taking away of of a mans Life and shedding of his Blood so they would divide two things which in truth have so near a relation and dependency the one upon the other as they are only separated by a little time coming between one thing to be done first and that being done the other must necessarily follow and be done presently after And they doing the former may be well said to do the latter and if any Law prohibit them from having to do with the latter the same Law doth and must prohibit them medling with the former It is a rule in Logick Causa causae est causa causati If the Judgments of the Bishops determine one thing which is the necessary cause of any other thing their Judgment may be said and really it doth determine the other thing As take for example the particular case upon which this Question hath been moved the Earl of Danbyes Pardon of the validity or invalidity whereof they will be Judges It is hoped they will be just Judges and incline neither way but according to the merits of the Cause before them so what their Judgment will be till they have heard all themselves cannot tell Now if by their Judgment the Pardon be determined to be invalid and illegal and that carry with it a conviction of the Crime of which he stands impeached as some will have it to do saying that the taking of a Pardon implies a guilt and is in Law a confession of the Crime pardoned and so his condemnation must necessarily follow even for Treason the impeachment being so doth not their Judgment subject him to that condemnation How then can they say we will have no part in condemning him Is not this something like the Frier in Chaucer that would have of a Capon the Liver of a Pig the Head yet would that nothing for him should be dead So they forsooth will take upon them to Judge his Pardon to be no Pardon which brings on infallibly his condemnation and yet say with that Frier God forbid he should die for us That we should have any hand in his bloud But certainly this will not pass for currant either in Foro Iudicii or Foro Conscientiae to excuse them from being Actors in his Condemnation To evade this some say the Bishops may be present and hear what will be said Pro and Con concerning this Pardon and those only shall deliver their opinions and judgments of it who are satisfied of the Validity and Legality of it but those amongst them who are of another mind shall withdraw and give no vote and then it cannot be said that any of them have a hand in condemning him But how this will sute with the Office of a Judge let any man judge whose duty it is to condemn the Guilty as well as to acquit the Innocent and who ought to do the one or the other in every business that comes before him as he finds ground for it upon hearing the Allegations and Proofs And besides it is most Unparliamentary for in Parliament all who are at the debate of a business ought to give their vote to the Question one way or other according to their sense of it and as they in their consciences think it just But to break thorough all at once they will have it That it is only by the Canon Law that this restraint is upon them and that the forbearance of their Predecessors being Papists and so subject to that Law was only in that respect which Law being of no force at present and taken away by Act of Parliament they are now at Liberty though in modesty they think sit sometimes to withdraw but have a right to continue sitting if they please To which in answer I shall say that I will not deny but that the Canon Law might give the first rise and a beginning to such an usage and no Law could be of greater force to introduce and establish such a thing as being that to which only the Clergy of those times would be subject conceiving themselves to be above and not bound by any other But it is most clear that it came afterwards to receive a Civil Sanction and to have not only the stamp of the Authority of Parliament set upon it by the continual practice there and we know that Consuetudo Parliamenti est Lex Parliamenti The Custom of Parliament is the Law of Parliament But that two several times there have been particular and express Confirmations and Ratifications of it in Parliament which makes it