Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
cause_n appear_v great_a see_v 1,485 5 2.9490 3 false
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A26419 The admonisher admonished in, a modest and impartial narrative of the proceedings of the ecclesiastical court, against James Jones citizen of London, of the parish of St. Bartholomew Exchange : being a true account of matter of fact, from his citation to Doctors Commons, to their taking out the writ of excommunicato capiendo against him : and also an account of the several ways made use of for the taking off the said writ : with useful observations upon several particular passages and statutes : dedicated to the worshipful Doctor Pinfold. 1683 (1683) Wing A591; ESTC R11117 28,325 22

There are 2 snippets containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

does insist upon and prays this Court to take the same into their Consideration and that he may be hence Discharged Subscribed and delivered into the Ecclesiastical Court by the hand of James Jones on the Sixth day of December 1682. THE said Jones having thus proceeded he waited several daies thinking he should be Cited to have some kind of Answer to his Plea whether it was Accepted or Rejected but not hearing any thing at all upon the Eleventh of December the said Jones went again to Doctor Pinfolds Court in the Tabernacle of Old-Fish-Street London that so he might observe Proceedings and to make answer if he should be called upon Which day many Pleas were delivered into the said Court which the Doctor received with great civillity and promised a Hearing of them all the next Fryday following The said Jones being not that day called kept silence and did not urge his own Case least he should be counted a Troubler of that Court and therefore resolved to attend Doctor Pinfold the Fryday following concluding that then he should have opportunity to have his Plea debated as well as others Especially considering that his Plea was one of the first that was delivered into that Court. When Fryday came which was the Fourteenth of December the said Jones with a great number of His Majesties Protestant Subjects went to Doctors Commons for Doctor Pinfold had ordered the Hearing of the Pleas to be there in a very large place like a great Hall which looked somewhat more like a Court than the Tabernacle At which time Doctor Pinfold appeared as Judge And Counsellor Welden and Counsellor Hooke and one of the Doctors belonging to the same Court viz. Doctor Rains appeared to Plead for them that had put in their Pleas. And the Cause of Mr. Mortymer and one Mr. Duberry were debated with great Soberness and strength of Argument touching the Errors of the Presentments and that Courts Imposing the Sacrament at such particular times as the the Law doth not Impose it upon any of His Majesties Subjects Doctor Pinfold saw he was hard put to it in the beginning of this work and therefore after a little Debate of the matter between him and the Counsellers he spread forth his hands and said he would hear no more Pleas but he would Answer them all by the Seal of the Court to morrow morning And so the Doctor went away without any Formal Adjourning the Court or dismissing that great Assembly not any Officer appearing to open his mouth so much as to say God save the King And so that great Assembly departed in very peaceable manner as became His Majesties peaceable Subjects though greived in their minds at such proceedings The said Jones was ready to appear in his own Case if he had been called or if there had been opportunity he being prepared with a Supplyment to his Plea drawn up by the Learned in the Law A Copy whereof take as followeth The further Answer and Supplyment of James Jones to the Presentment aforesaid THE said James Jones saving and reserving as in his former Answer he hath already prayed saith That it doth not appear by the said Presentment or pretended Presentment That the same was made upon the Oaths of the said Church-Wardens which the said James Jones is Advised ought to have been Asserted in the said Presentment or pretended Presentment in regard as the said Jones is advised no Presentment is legal and sufficient in the Law to be Answered unto nor ought the said Jones to Answer any Presentment but what is given in upon Oath to this Court. The Laws and Customs of this Land not pemitting any of the Kings Leige Subjects to be any ways vexed or greived or to be called into question by any Court whatsoever thereby to be Charged with any Offence but upon the Oath of One or more persons Nor ought any Accusations to be received by this Court against the said James Jones but upon Oath For that the said James Jones is a free born Subject of England unconvicted or Accused legally of any Crime and therefore is Advised he ought not to make any Answer to such a Presentment until it doth appear to be according to Law 2. And the said James Jones saith That by no Law of this Realm any Lay-man can be compelled or Obliged to Receive the Sacrament more or oftner than three times in the year viz at Easter and the two other times in the year are left free and Indifferent to the party when he is best fitted and prepared And the said James Jones saith he is a Layman and doth not know of any Law that doth Abridge him of that Liberty or oblige him to Receive it oftner or otherwise in any fixed time wherefore forasmuch as the Church-Wardens that made the said Presentment or pretended Presentment could not Legally Present the said James Jones for any Offence but such as do or shal arise since Easter last and for that there is abundantly sufficient time for him the said James Jones to perform what by Law is required viz. to Receive the Sacrament twice betwixt this and Easter and once then And that as the said James Jones hath not broken any Law so neither as he conceives and is advised is there any ground for any Citation or Admonition against him nor that any Admonition should or can limit him where the Law hath left him free nor may this Court Compell him by Ecclesiastical Censures or otherwise to Receive the Holy Sacrament in a shorter or fixed Time or any otherwise limit him than the Law hath specified directed or allowed Which the said James Jones insists upon with what before he hath already insisted on and prayed as before he hath already prayed James Jones An Addition to the Supplyment AND furthermore the said Jones saith That besides all that is contained in his Plea and Supplyment to the said Plea he had more Matter to be Argued in his Defence against the aforesaid Presentment to show the deficiency and insufficiency thereof A brief account of which take as followeth 1. He the said Jones saith That there is no mention of what Diocess the aforesaid Parish and he as Inhabitant thereof is which should have been plainly Expressed in the said Presentment 2. The said Jones saith That he was Prosecuted for Non-conformity before His Majesties Justices of the Peace in the County of Surrey and particularly for not coming to Church which is the same thing mentioned in the Church-Wardens Presentment and for which the said Jones is Excommunicated Now for the said Jones to be punished in the Temporal Courts and in the Ecclesiastical Court at or about the same time seems be contrary to the Statute of Anno primo Regni Eliz. Chap. 2. which saith Provided alwaies and be it Enacted That whatsoever persons Offending in the premises shall for their Offences first receive Punishment of the Ordinary having a Testimonial thereof under the said Ordinaries Seal shall not
for the same Offencee eftsoons be Convict before the Iustices and likewise Receiving for the said Offence punishment first by the Iustices shall not for the same Offence eftsoons Receive punishment of the Ordinary any thing contained in this Act to the contrary notwithstanding 3. And he the said Jones saith That the Church-Wardens did not in their Presentment Alledge against him That he had not any Lawful or Reasonable Cause to show why he had not been at Church or Sacrament of so long a time mentioned in the presentment See 1 Eliz. Cap. 2. Paragraph 14. 4. And he the said Jones saith That whereas Errors in an Indictment at Sessions or Assizes or Errors in a Mittimus whereby a man is Committed to prison will when Legally Pleaded overthrow and make void such Indictment or Commitment and so relieve the Indicted and Committed person Even so and much more should the said Jones by reason of a Deficient and Insufficient Presentment be Discharged from the Ecclesiastical Court as he prayed in his aforesaid plea and Supplyment and therefore the said Jones doth conclude that it is better to be concerned with the Kings Justices and Judges who Sitt by Commission from the King in the Kings Courts of Record than to be concerned with any Ecclesiastical Court and such as are Doctors and Judges in the said Courts The said Jones further saith he heard no more from Doctors-Commons till the Twentieth of December and then the Doctor of his Parish viz. St. Bartholomew Exchange did in very friendly manner acquaint the said Jones that an Excomunication against him was come from Doctors Commons and that the said Doctor was ordred to publish the said Excommunication next morning being St. Thomas's day unto which the said Jones Reply'd That the Ecclesiastical Court had proceeded Illegally in going so far as an Excommunication and demonstrated the same in two Particulars First that he the said Jones had given a Plea in Law to that Court against the aforesaid Presentment and was never admitted to be heard upon his Plea which is contrary to the Laws of England to have any Sentence pass upon any man to his damage without his Cause be Legally heard and Debated Secondly That it was not in the power of the Ecclesiastical Court Legally to Excommunicate the said Jones for not taking the Sacrament at any such time as that Court should at their pleasure Appoint there being but one time of the year named for Receiving the Sacrament viz Easter The aforesaid Doctor reply'd he was sorry things were brought to such a point but he could not avoid obeying the Order of Doctors Commons and so the next day being Dec. 23. called St. Thomas day the Excommunication was published in the Parish Church called St. Barth●lomew Exchange and upon the Twenty third day of the same Month the said Jones went with a Witness with him to the Registers Office and demanded a Copy of the Libel against him but the said Jones could not have it though he offered payment for the said Libel And upon the Twenty Sixth of the same Month the said Jones took witness with him and demanded a Copy of all the Proceedings of the Court and particularly a Copy of his Plea the Clerk did promise a Copy of the proceedings of the Court but could not let him have them at that time And upon the Thirtieth day of the same Month the said Jones went and a witness with him for the aforesaid Copy but it was not done the said Jones then allowed the Clerk till the next Monday and the Clerk would not promise to have those things copied by that time pleading it was Holy-daies and that was the reason they were not done the said Jones replyed That it was a strange thing to him they could not write their own proceedings upon a Holy-day as well as Excommunicate him upon a Holy-day The said Jones waited till Wedensday the Third of January and then went with his friend for the aforesaid Copy and then the Clerk said That he whom he had appointed to draw out the aforesaid Copy was out of the way himself was going from the Office at that time and so the said Jones came away without what he so much endeavored to have going more times to the Office than he was bound to do Thus things remained till about a fortnight before Hilary Term and then the said Jones went and made Affidavit before Judge Charleton the form of the said Affidavit is as followeth James Jones of London Merchant-Taylor deposeth upon Oath That he was Cited into the Ecclesiastical Court before Doctor Pinfold and made his appearance and since hath been at the Registers Office and there demanded a Copy of his Libel but could not obtain it though he offered payment for the same And after this upon the twenty third day of January 1682. being the first day of the Term the said Jones with a few others moved the Honourable Judges of the Kings Court of Common Pleas for Prohibitions upon the not obtaining Copies of their Libels when demanded and payment offered for the same the particular Affidavits of that matter being read in Court and moved by several Serjeants at Law the Judges were pleased to grant Prohibitions with a Nisi causa viz. if Doctor Pinfold could not shew cause against them and a Rule of Court was served upon Doctor Pinfold to Appear before the Judges of the Common Pleas on Fryday the twenty Sixth of the same Month but the said Jones thought it expedient to move the honourable Judges of the Kings-Bench for a Prohibition and therefore made Affidavit of not obtaining a Copy of his Libel before the honourable Judge Dolben and it was read before the Judges of the Kings Bench upon the twenty fifth of the same Month and that honourable Bench was pleased to grant a Prohibition for the said Jones but the next day being the twenty sixth of January Doctor Pinfold engaged Sir George Jefferies who is well known to be a Lawyer that will stoutly defend and maintain the cause he is engaged in either for the King or any of his own Clients against the plaintiff or defendant on the other side and in this Case there was no want of words by Sir George to overthow the Prohibitions both at Kings Bench and Common Pleas but the said Jones doth take it a little unkindly that Sir George Jefferies should with such sharpness of Spirit reflect upon him before the honourable Judges as if he had surreptitiously obtained the grant of a Prohibition and highly blamed the said Jones for moving in two of His Majesties Courts for the said Prohibition but if the said Jones had been then in Court he would have ventured by humble desire to the honourable Judges to make a modest and honest reply to that Gentleman without being so sharp upon him and therein have shewed that the obtaining that Grant of a Prohibition could not fairly be counted Surreptitious because the honourable Judges granted