Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	according_a	court_n	law_n	1,543	5	4.8094	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
B20656	A second account in short, of the substance of the proceeding in the court of Kingstone upon Thames, upon the matter between R. Mayo the priest, plaintiffe, and E. Burrough defendant, the 25. of the seventh moneth 1658.	Cooke, Edward, fl. 1658-1670.	1658 (1658)	Wing C6005; Interim Tract Supplement Guide 855.f.3[42]; ESTC R229342	9,318	9

THE Cause why this is first Printed before it come to your hands is because I would not give cause of Suspition that I seek any thing in secret or under-hand of you But would have all things come to Light and publick view for I love the Light and the Truth to be justified thereby or to suffer for the Testimony thereof A second Account in short of the substance of the proceeding in the Court of Kingstone upon Thames upon the matter between R. Mayo the Priest Plantiffe and E. Burrough Defendent the 25. of the seventh Moneth 1658. ●irst THe Judgement of the Court was earnestly craved and desired by R. Mayo and his Councellors against E B. upon a verdict on record in the Court formerly given by an injust jury as my former account of the former proceeding declareth And E. B. was called ● answer for himselfe and shew what reason he could that Judgement ●ould not be given against him who did appear and answer in the ●ar of the Lord saying that he was come before their judgement seat ●ith great boldnesse because he had the Lord on his side and Truth ●n his side and the witnesse of God in all Consciencies on his side to ●●stifie him that he had done R. Mayo no wrong but had spoken the ●ruth of him And for this cause judgement ought to be arrested and ●ot given against him because said he the Law condemnes no man ●or speaking the Truth and he had spoken nothing but the Truth con●erning R. Mayo as he was alwayes ready to prove that R Mayo had ●eld forth damnable Doctrine and Error and this was sufficient reason ●hat judgement ought to be arrested and not given nor he condemned ●or speaking the Truth And he referred himselfe to the Court and ●o the witnesse of God in them all whether they would condemn ●im or justify him but and if they did passe judgement upon him it ●as onely for speaking the Truth and not for any wrong done by him ●nd it should lye upon themselves and be their burden though he ●ight unjustly suffer in this life by unjust judgement yet theirs would ●e the judgement and the suffering in the life to come when God did ●●●eward every man according to his work and he would leave it upon ●hem and to this purpose he spoke unto them Then R. Mayos Coun●ellors and the Court pleaded that there was a verdict by jury against ●im and that the Court was to go upon the verdict which appeared ●pon record against the defendant to which E. B. replyed it was true ●n unjust verdict they had against him but what then he would ●pply himselfe and his cause to the Judge in the sight of the Lord if ●ossibly he might be convinced of the unrighteousnesse of the verdict ●nd might not he then justly mitigate in the judgement and deferre it ●nd deny the verdict and he did appeal to their Consciencies that it was an unjust verdict for the jury had brought the matter to a wrong ●ssue and had not determined and judged according to the Truth and ●nnocency of the matter nor brougth it to a Lawful issue but had damnified him falsely before they found any matter of fact against him or the Tru●h of the matter was not searched into nor the Doctrine ●as not tryed nor determined of by the jury which he had charged and ●roved in Court against R. Mayo which Doctrine was damnable and error but of the Doctrine the Jury had not judged whether it was sound and true or damnable and error which the true issue of the matter stood upon but the Jury had unjustly damnified him for speaking maliciously as they said before any matter of fact truly found and made appear according to equity and that was injust and therefore again judgement ought to be arrested upon that reason because they had not truly tryed the matter whether R. Mayos sayings charged and proved against him were damnable Doctrine and Error or whether they were not so which was the true cause to be tryed but they had condemned him for speaking such words not trying and determining whether the words were true or false words and till that was tryed and his words proved false words he could be no Transgressor this was the substance and intent of his words then R. Mayos Councel again replyed that he might then blame the Jury but according to the verdict upon record against the defendent the Court was to proceed then the Recorder of the Court said reasonably to this purpose that the Jury was Judges of matter of fact and he was judge in matter of Law and if any thing could be objected or error discovered in the businesse as in matter of Law by what appeared upon record to that he would harken for R. Mayo had in his Replication laid in that E B. spoke the words charged against him without any such cause by him in his plea alledged c. Whereupon T. Moor gave divers Arguments as in matter of Law and also produced the judgement of one Judge and three Lawers in writing under their hands shewing divers sound reasons wherefore judgement ought to be arrested in this cause shewing clearly according to Law that the words charged against E. B. to wit saying R. Mayo held forth damnable Doctrine and Error which is reckoned his offence and wherefore the Jury gave verdict against him and the Priest and his Councellors begged judgement are not actionable in Law instancing out of Cookes Institutes particular causes of the like nature which could not bear an action and much as to that purpose was spoken and shewed under the four mens hands as afore said which were just exceptions in point of Law against the verdict upon record wherefore judgement ought to be arrested and not passed in this cause against the defendant but to all what was shewed and spoken to that purpose R. Mayos Councels replyed the time was now past to aledge these things for the Jury had given their verdict upon oath against the defendant wch was upon record and thereupon waved all the reasons that could be given though never so sound and begged the judgement of the Court as afore said against him but then E. B. returned to the naked Truth and came again to the simplicity and innocency of the matter and waved all the multitude of Arguments that could be spoken about points and formalities of the Law pleading that whereas the Court had given him liberty according to his right and birth right priviledge that he might plead his own cause and he instanced the time of his alledgement wherein he did say peradventure he might not plead his cause in the formalities and punctilios in the course of Law yet he could plead the justness and simplicity of the Truth in the matter and the Court then had said that would serve and be sufficient and said E. B. the Court having thus spoken formerly must I now be condemned for the want of a

form and punctilio in Law wanting no part of Truth on my side nor manifestation of it if they did might not he say they had as it were betrayed him though yet he could not say so and at this Argument some of the Court seemed to be highly offended as if he reflected upon them wronging and retorting upon their former kindnesse to him which he did not but spoke simply and innocently in the matter onely to manifest Truth and to perswade them to do Truth and Justice alwayes keeping close to the Truth of the cause and still affirmed as lawfully he may that the particulars which is declared in my first account charged and proved against R. Mayo the Plantiffe in open Court are damnable Doctrine and Error and that he would justifie if there he were pleading for his life as it was but for his liberty at most he would nor could in Conscience say no lesse and if they would condemne him and judge him in an hundred pounds for speaking the truth he would bear it in patience and suffer as for righteousnesse sake and he doubted not in the Lord but to have the peace and presence of the everlasting Father with him if he suffered all his dayes to this purpose he spoke and thus shewed great courage in the Lord against all unrighteous judgement looking onely to the Lord and above all the World and suffering in it as if he mattered nothing of all what they could do against him saying when they had done all that could be against him the Law whereby he might proceed against them was the Law of Christ and he might pray for his Enemies and blesse them that persecute and say the Lord forgive them when they had done the evil they could still affirming that he had spoken the Truth concerning his adversary Then R. Mayo being sitting upon the bench he made some answer seeming to justify his Doctrine formerly delivered by him and charged against him to be damnable wch he repeated and would have vindicated and said that the light which Christ lighteth every man withall John 1.9 is carnall and darkness 2. And that he did exhort the people in his Sermon to follow and obey a light which is not Christ nor the light of the Gospel 3. The Apostle Paul did exhort the Saints to follow and obey a light which was not the Light of the Gospel 4. Christ was not that word that David walked by when he said thy word is a light c. 5. A man may be a righteous man and not a godly man He seemed a little to vindicate these things but to no purpose as to men of understanding in the things of God for he brought not one scripture to prove his Doctrine at that time though some of the Court his friends bid him so its manifest he continues in ignorance and blindness still and his own folly cannot reprove him nor make him ashamed Then T. Moor said he would take in hand to prove to all people in the steeple house or any other publique place where R. Mayo would meet him if he would give him a meeting that he was guilty of holding forth damnable Doctrine and error and he should maintain it in Argument against him at any time and place where he would meet him that the particulars held forth by him and proved in Court against him are damnable doctrine and error then John Feilder spoke to the Judges that R. May● should come off the bench for it was against Act of Parliament that any Priest sould sit upon the bench in any Judicatory and I say it was also unseemly that the plantiffe and Accuser should sit upon the bench as if he was Judge in his own cause and the Defendant and accused stand as at the Barr but the Court caused R. Mayo to come down off the bench who did with shame and his practise shewed he is truly such a one as Christ cryed wo against who loved the Chief-seats and uppermost rooms in the Assemblies Mat. 23. But R. Mayo the Priest seemed to speak something as if he would give T. Moor a meeting with 20. people as such a number but before he had ended his words as to that the Court stopped him and his own friends would not suffer him to speak further to it then he sell upon the matter in hand much desiring he was and craved to have judgement by the Court against E. B. and produced the opinion in writing of Serjeant Maynard to this purpose that if the word were true he deserved deprivation of his place c. and therefore the words spoken against him were actionable c. some controversy arose about the meaning of the words if the words be true and by if the words be true we understood and said he meant if that it was true that he was guilty of preaching damnable doctrine and error then he disserved deprivation c. but R. Mayo and his Councel would have given some other meaning upon the words for their own advantage and what the true meaning of Serjeant Maynard is remains in his own brest the words seemed doubtful And now I come to some more particulars of R. Mayos damnable Doctrines charged against him and perferred to be proved in open Court whereby his wickednesse and E. Bs. guiltlesseness may more appear first it was charged that R. Mayo had affirmed that the Devill is the power of God 2ly That the Gospel was not the power of God a rose-cake is as much the power of God 3ly R. Mayo affirmed if one man killed and murthered another he did it by the power of God These things were charged upon R. Mayo and not denyed by him but he went to justify them in open Court and affirmed that the Devil is the power of God and said he would prove it by Scripture and brought that Scripture Acts 8 9 10. where the unclean Spirits and poor bewiched people of Samaria whom Simon Magus the Scorcerer had bewiched said of him this man is the great power of God as you may read and this was his proof that the Devill is the power of God and here all may see R. Mayos error and damnable doctrine and wickednesse and ignorance and blasphemie who hath brought the Testimony of poor bewitched people and unclean Spirits that know not God but were wholly without him in the World to prove what he affirmed to wit that the Devil is the power of God and its the same Spirit in him that affirmes it as it was in the bewitched people that said the Sorcerer was the great power of God who are his Witnesses and Testimonie of what he affirms and he may as well say Christ hath a Devil and bring the Pharisees words who said thou hast a Devil and this is the same in nature with his vvords but the vvhole Court savv his folly and ignorance and he vvas sensible of his ovvn blindnesse and might be of the deceit of his ovvn heart And is not