Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	action_n	court_n	defendant_n	1,397	5	10.0062	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A43611	The black non-conformist, discover'd in more naked truth proving, that excommunication, confirmation, the two great Episcopal appurtenances & diocesan bishops, are not (as now in use) of divine, but human make and shape, and that not only some lay-men, but all the keen-cringing clergy are non-conformists ... : also a libel, and answer (thereunto) fitted to every man's case (be it what it will) that is cited to ecclesiastical courts, whose shallow foundation is unbared, and a true table of ecclesiastical court fees, as it was return'd into the star-chamber, Anno Domini 1630, by the ecclesiastical fellows themselves, and compar'd with the statutes : also concerning the unlawfulness of granting licences to marry, Quakers-marriages, folly, as well as other evil consequences of that new law-maxim, viz. that no non-conformists ought to be jury-men : shewing also, that, religion, religion, that should have been the world's great blessing, is become the plague of mankind, and the curse of Christendom ... / by Edm. Hickeringill ...	Hickeringill, Edmund, 1631-1708.	1682 (1682)	Wing H1797; ESTC R22899	136,499	106

Grandeur of a Reverend Bishop to be an Informer or Promoter But the Half-crafty Proctor the said Nucourt was got into a Dilemma and knew not how well to extricate himself For when this Defendant urg'd the Statute of 23 H. 8.9 against Sir Robert Wiseman with the Penalty of 10 l. besides Costs and Damages for citing this Defendant out of the Diocess of London where he Inhabits to salve the business it was thought fit rather to let Doughty's said Promotion fall but then Costs should have been given this Defendant but it was denyed and refused against the Rules of their own Courts and Methods as if they had the Law in their own hands And to salve the Statute of 23 H. 8 9. and the Penalties there Henry Bishop of London was Inserted Promoter though this Defendant was never Cited to answer his Suit and Promotion Nay it looks like a Wheedle or a Trepan to drill a Man into a Court by Process in a feigned Suit and then clap an Action on his Back at another Man's Suit and without his Privity too but any methods to carry on the Cause The Cause Besides according to the usual Methods of this Court no Man is obliged to accept a Libel except the Promoter become bound in sufficient Penalty not only with responsable and sufficient Sureties but such as are capable of being Arrested in case of Non-suit or failure of proof to pay to the Defendant his Costs and Damages But no such thing is done for this Defendant new Lords new Laws This Defendant is like to thrive amongst you in the Interim CHAP. VIII NEvertheless this Defendant to vindicate himself and the integrity of his unblemish't he hopes he may say without offence in this his just and forc't defence Life and Conversation and to manifest that the said Protestations Answers and Pleas are not dilatory and on purpose to decline a particular Answer or evade the discussing of the merits of the Cause and Crimes alledged against him in the said Articles he this Defendant saving to himself the benefit of his former Allegations Pleas and Protestations further Particularly answereth and saith 1. That the first Article in the said Libel as being only in course is true and all the other false further than is hereafter declared 2. That the 2 3 4 and 5th Articles are Instances and Accusations against this Defendant as a common-mover exciter and maintainer of Suits and Quarrels which is Barretry an offence against the Statute Law and Common-Law of this Realm and therefore ought not to be Tryed in any Ecclesiastical-Court as forbidden in the Statute of Provisors 16 R. 2.5 In derogation of the Courts of our Lord the King mark how the Spiritual-Courts and the Kings-Courts are oppos'd implying necessarily that the King and Parliament did not then look upon the Spiritual Courts to be the Kings Courts but the High-Priests Courts nor do they to this day hold them in the King's Name and Style and all their Acts under His Seal what Policy is it at this time of day to be Independents I mean Noun-Substantives and stand by our selves The said Statute too 16 R. 2.5 is in pain of a Praemunire and has a mighty fetch and reach even over the water as well as on this side for the Statute says The Court of Rome or elsewhere 3. The said Defendant Mr. Hickeringill had an Information brought against him for Barretry in the Crown-Office and at a Tryal at Chelmnesford Assizes March 3. 1680. for the County of Essex thereupon amongst 24 Heads of the charge of Barretry exhibited against him then and there tried the 23d Head was the substance of the said 2d 3d 4th and 5th Articles in the Libel aforesaid mentioned and this Defendant though pleading his own Cause was acquitted with honour of this malicious Charge the Right Worshipful Knights and Gentlemen of that Special Jury not stirring from the Bar nor the least proof of the Charge made out against him in any one Particular nor any proof but of the Folly as well as Malice of the Informers Conspirators and Promoters then and there And must he now again for the same matters be tried again by the Ecclesiastical Men after acquittal in the Courts of our Lord the King and by Prosecutors that were then Accessories at least to the said causeless and malicious Prosecution and in defiance too of the said Statute of Provisors CHAP. IX 4. THE Title of not only a fourth part which is ground enough for a Prohibition but all the small Tythes of St. Botolph's Parish as in Article 4. is in question and controversie For the said Promoter Henry Bishop of London pretends Right to dispose of the said Tythes by Sequestration nay has dispos'd of the said Tythes but shall the Defendant suffer it to one Harris whereas the Defendant has enjoyed the Tythes 19 or 20 years and yet enjoys them as Rector of the Rectory of All-Saints in Colchester in the said County of Essex in Right of and belonging to his said Rectory as his Predecessors the Rectors of All-Saints aforesaid have done quietly and 'till now without disturbance ever since the dissolution of Monasteries and amongst others the Priory of St. Botolph's in Colchester aforesaid granted sold or given by King Henry VIII to Thomas Lord Audley then Lord Chancellor of England and from him and his Brother and Heir Thomas Audley Esq together with his Executors joining together granted unto Robert Plumton Clerk Rector of the Rectory of All-Saints aforesaid and to his Successors for ever whose present lawful Successor and for above 19 years has been and now is this Defendant by Deed a true Copy whereof follows in these words verbatim TO all Christian People to whom this present Writing shall come Edward North and Thomas Pope Knights Edmund Martin Esq and Thomas Gimblet Gentleman Executors of the Testament or last Will of Thomas Audley whil●st he lived Knight of the Noble Order of the Garter Lord Audley of Walding and Lord Chancellor of England and Thomas Audley Esq Brother to the said Lord Audley do send Greeting Whereas the said Lord Audley in his Life-time for and in consideration of certain Covenants Grants and Agreements made between him and the Parishioners of the Parish-Church of All-Saints in the Town of Colchester in the County of Essex did give grant bargain sell and confirm unto the Rector of the said Purish-Church and to his Successors for ever All the Tythes as well of Hay Wood and Corn as of any other kind or sort whatsoever to him belonging in the Town of Colchester aforesaid by reason of the Dissolution or Resignation of his House or Priory of St. Botolphs in the said Town of Colchester Know ye therefore That we the aforenamed Edward North Thomas Pope Edmund Martin Thomas Gimblet and Thomas Audley Esq for the more sure and perfect accomplishment performance and execution of the said Covenants Grants and Agreements as also in Consideration and for the Sum of Forty Pounds

came in the said Parish not once since June last but hired out himself a Curate in London under Dr. Grove to this day so that the Defendants said Parish of which he is Patron is miserably abus'd the Cure deserted the Flock neglected the Fleece only expected and neither His Majesties Tenths paid nor the Vicaridge disburthen'd thereof for the payment of which Tenths to His Majesty this Defendant desires this Court to sequester the Profits and better provide for the Cure both which the Bishop of London the said Promoter neglects to do so that great harm but no good is done by this Interruption and Fingringhoe has also cause to say Seldom comes a better Nor is it any great additional Honour to the Pastoral Staff that pretends a whole Diocess to be its Flock Cure and Charge even of All the Souls therein a pretty great burden and weight for a single shoulder that not satisfied to be well paid for sitting still must be doing and medling though it had much better do nothing than do mischief and harm 'T is well the Archbishop is the Bishop of Bishops and as much superior and elevated above the common or ordinary Bishop as a Bishop above the little Presbyters And 't is proper in this Case to let the Archbishop know that he may take notice and correct the neglect of the said Promoter the said Bishop of London in neglecting to collect His Majesties Arrearages of the Tenths aforesaid due from the said Harris the said little Vicar of Fingringhoe and his sin of omission in neglecting personally to demand the said great Arrearages of Tenths of the said Harris when he has as he has frequently met with him or upon refusal and non-payment to have declared the said Vicaridge ipso facto void of the said Incumbent as if he was dead as is enjoined by and in the said Statute 23 H. 8. That so the Patron might present a better man and the neglect of His Majesties said Revenue be no longer conniv'd and wink'd at nor the Cure of Souls in Fingringhoe aforesaid be so neglected and abandoned and much worse provided for by the said Bishop the Promoter in this Case than ever Whil'st there is none to Administer the Holy Sacraments there nor to Baptize or Catechize their Children Bury the Dead Read Divine Service nay nor so much as a Sermon read by the said Curate Harris or rather Reader for he can do nothing else but read whil'st the honest Parishioners have cause to bewail these Contrivances and bemoan the fruits of this Discord that whil'st the said Promoter intended to strike this Defendant he mist his blow and hit none but the harmless Parishioners who good men pay for all and All for nothing For though the said Harris has let out himself to work a kind of Journey-work under the said Dr. Grove yet he has not quite so forgot his Parishioners but that he has most magisterially commanded them to send him money for half a years Tythes or else he has threatned them that he will Ay that he will 'T is meet that this Court of Arches or Archbishop if it can do any thing that it should correct the faults of Bishops We must even turn the Tables Nor will any Body pity those busie Medlers and Master-workmen that cannot be content to oversee the Labourers hard at work and well wrought and employed but they must be placing and displacing stones in the Building and set them a tumbling and rowling 'till they fall upon their own Pates Nay no matter Harm watch Harm catch So that the 2 3 4 and 5th Articles are already answer'd by Statute Law and so shall all the rest besides what has been already pleaded and professed together with another Law that has no Law Necessity Therefore CHAP. X. 7thly AS to the 6 7 and 8 Articles or last Articles they urge a Transgression in solemnizing or rather prophaning Matrimony well-worded and cunningly but if the Register and Sir Thomas Exton had had eight shillings for every Marriage as they have had for many years together above 40 l. of this Defendant upon that Score and at that Rate then bonas noches and not a word of prophaning Matrimony without Banes or Licence contrary to the Canons and Constitutions of the Church of England Alas Poor Church of England Thou must be made a Skreen a Pretence and a Colour for Mens Avarice Oh Hypocrisie To which this Defendant answereth particularly and saith First That this Charge against him is in its self null and void in Law Reason Equity and Conscience for the uncertainty in not naming what particular Canons and Constitutions of the Church of England are thereby transgrest since the Canons and Constitutions of the Church of England that go under that Name Colour and Title are contrary to one another in many Particulars too long here to recite But in this particular Case of solemnizing Matrimony without Banes or Licence the Canons or Constitutions that go under the name of Queen Elizabeth and King James in Print are vastly different one from the other Queen Elizabeth's Canons and Injunctions ordaining for such Offence a Suspension ab officio onely and so particularly exprest onely for the space of six months But those under the names of King James ordain for the like Offence a Suspension for three long years a long time for a painful and laborious Minister to live with his mouth stopt and upon such an occasion too that not one word is said to it nor any body aggrieved if the said Registers and Commissaries go but swips in the pretended Licence and have a feeling in the hand Which makes it more than probable that those said Canons and Constitutions of the Church of England are not truly Printed nor is any man bound to take notice of them except they be Recorded in a Court of Record and a true Copy be produced in such Court and particularly in this Court upon this Suit and this occasion and the Truth thereof sworn upon Oath of good and creaible Witnesses which this Defendant does hereby require in this Case and Suit according to the Rules and Methods of Law and Justice Reason and Equity Besides the said pretended Canon of King James ordaining Suspension in general ought by the Rules of the Civil Law Reason and Common Law be taken in the mildest sense For there being two kind of Suspensions namely 1. Ab Officio 2. A Beneficio The first only damages the Flock and Parish The second also starves the poor Priest and all his Family oh Cruelty for a Peccadillo when no man is damnified thereby but a greedy Register and Commissary they that buy must sell and if their mouths be but stopt with Guinees the Minister's shall never be stop't the Fault 's alledged against this Defendant for solemnizing or rather prophaning Matrimony without Banes being only in the years 1680 and 1681. when he took but about 5 s. for the same the People being the gainers

Aldham in the County of Essex and Everert of the said Parish Widdow Et Objicimus Articulamur ut supra 8. Item Objicimus Articulamur quod praemissa fuerunt sunt vera publica notoria manifesta pariter famosa ac de super eisdem laboravit in Praesenti laborat publica vox fama unde firma fide de jure in hac parte requisita petit pars ista proponens jus justitiam sibi fieri Ministrari cum effectu nec non prefatum Edmundum Hickeringill pro tanto suae temeritatis excessu in delictis criminibus suis praedictis Canonice corrigi puniri a dicta sua Rectoria omnium Sanctorum in Villa Colcestria praedicta per triennium juxta Canones Constitutionis praedictꝰ suspendi ac pro sic suspenso denunciari declarari doctumque Edmundum Hickeringill in expensis Legitimis ex parte per partem Thomae Doughty in hujnsmodi causa factꝰ faciendum eidemque se ad omnia singula promissa probanda sed quatenus probaverit in premissis catenus obtineat in petitis officium Domini Judicantis humiliter implorando To which Libel at my second appearance before them in Doctors-Commons of which this is the News November 12. 1681. I gave in over and above the Protestations to be seen in my first Printed News from Doctors-Commons This following Answer CHAP. VII ALLEGATIONS humbly propounded in the Court vulgarly called the Arches held in Doctors Commons London in further Protestation Plea and Answer to certain Articles in a Libel against Mr. Edmund Hickeringill Clerk Defendant Exhibited before Sir Robert Wiseman there upon a Citation at the Promotion of Thomas Doughty Gent. alias at the Promotion of Henry Bishop of London Novemb. 21. 1681. THIS Defendant saving to himself all Advantages and Benefit of Exceptions already made by Protestation against the Proceedings of this Court by reason of the Statute 1 Edw. 6.2 against all Process Ecclesiastical wherein the Name and Style and Seal of the King is not inserted which with the Penalties at the Peril of the Transgressors thereof is now in force as this Defendant is informed by his Councel learned in the Law notwithstanding some Opinion given to the contrary during the Awe and Terror of the High-Commission-Court now blessed be God abolished Saving also the benefit of such other Statutes and Reasons by this Defendant formerly alledged in the said Protestation All which being saved to this Defendant he further Protesteth and saith First That under Favor of this Court and with submission to better Judgments this Defendant humbly conceives that there is a Statute made in 16 Car. 1.11 whereby not only that branch of 1 Eliz. 1. is repealed But also It is further Enacted by the said Statute That no Archbishop Bishop Archdeacon Commissary Official Statute print c. shall inflict any Pain Penalty c. for any Misdemeanors or Contempt c. in pain of One hundred pounds and Costs and Damages to the Party grieved Upon which it is acknowledged by 13 Car. 2.12 that doubt did arise whether by 17 Car. 1. and yet there never was any Statute made in that 17 Year All Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction was not thereby suspended which doubts whether well-grounded this Defendant does not take upon him to determine but rather thinks that Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction as to purely Spirituals and purely Spiritual Weapons is not thereby taken away nor should the Weapons of their Warfare be Carnal but Spiritual But this Defendant humbly conceives That the said Statute comes fully home to this his present Case in the said Articles and is without doubt The last Article of the said Libel threatning this Defendant with no small Pain and Penalty but no less than that of being suspended for Three Years from his Rectory of All-Saints in Colchester in that County of Essex And also to pay money for Costs Both which are great Pains and Penalties though not so bad as corporal Punishment yet they are Punishments not Spiritual but Temporal Pains and Penalties All which that Statute takes right and good reason from their Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical or Spiritual as well as Corporal punishments As ill becoming Church-men that never learn'd this of their Saviour Nor as this Defendant is informed by his Councel learned in the Law is this Statute of 16 Car. 1.11 repealed nor whether any reason it should be repealed this Defendant thinks it not proper for him to determine but humbly thinks that it is impossible that the repealing the 17 Car. 1. should repeal 16 Car. 1. But doubts not but it is available to him to defend him from the force of the said Article and to keep his said Rectory Tythes and Profits from the reach of this Spiritual Court. Besides The said Article threatning to suspend this Defendant from his Rectory for Three Years and the said Rectory being this Defendants Freehold the validity of this Defendants Title thereunto ought not to be tried in any Ecclesiastical Court but in the Courts of our Lord the King as in the Statute of Provisors 16 Rich. 2.5 For the Plenarty of a Benefice or whether a Benefice be full shall not be tried in the Ecclesiastical Court or Court Christian says the Lord Cook but in the Kings Courts as in the other Statute of Provisors 25 Edw. 3. 9 Edw. 1.2 18 Edw. 3.5 16 Car. 1.11 And in cause of disturbance as this is concerning the Right of Tythes pertaining to a Rectory when it is deraigned then shall the Plea pass in Court Christian as far forth as and no further at their peril then it is deraigned in the Kings Courts as in the said 9 Edw. 1.2 18 Edw. 3.5 28 Edw. 3.3 A Jury not an Official or Commissary Bishop nor Archdeacon shall determine Mens Freeholds such are all Rectories and Vicaridges Secondly In the said Process or Citation the ground or leading Process to the after-proceedings against this Defendant in the said Court the said Defendant is cited to answer certain Articles at the Promotion of Thomas Doughty Gent. But such Articles at the said Doughty's Promotion are not deliver'd to this Defendant nor were exhibited against him at his first appearance upon the said Citation as is provided by 2 Hen. 5.3 nor such Libel or Declaration answerable to the Process charged upon this Defendant to this day and therefore he ought by the said Statute to be dismist with Costs But instead thereof another Libel was deliver'd to this Defendant wherein Henry Bishop of London is Promoter Richard Nucourt the Proctor in presence of this Defendant blotted out for the Ink was not dry when the Libel was deliver'd Thomas Doughty the aforesaid Promoter and in his Room very sawcily and no doubt without the said Bishops privity being absent inserted Henry Bishop of London as Promoter nor will the said Bishop have very much cause to thank him for the Place or Preferment it being much below the