Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	bring_v	law_n	sin_n	1,446	5	5.0523	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A01338	The argument of Master Nicholas Fuller, in the case of Thomas Lad, and Richard Maunsell, his clients Wherein it is plainely proved, that the Ecclesiasticall Commissioners haue no power, by vertue of their commission, to imprison, to put to the Oath ex officio, or to fine any of his Maiesties subiects.	Fuller, Nicholas, 1543-1620.	1607 (1607)	STC 11460; ESTC S102744	22,550	38

en ces paroles Ordone est en cest ꝑlement q̄ Comissions du Roy soient directes a viscountes et autres ministres du roy ou autres suffisantz persons apreset selon que les certificates des prelates eut affaire in chancellerie du temps en temp̄s touts tiels precheurs c●lour fautours mamtenours etc. La quel ne fuit unque assente ne grante ꝑ les Comens mes ce q̄ fuit parle de ce fuit sans assent de lour q̄ celi estatue soit an●a ati car il nestoit mi lour entent iustisiez ne obliger lour ne lour successorers as Prelates plus q̄ lour auncesstres nont este en temps passez Resp Il plest au R●● And it is also reported by M. Fox in the sayd booke of Acts and Monuments that the same Act of 2. Hen. 4. ca. 1● was procured without assent of the Commons and that the Commons did greatly repyne at it frō time to time many godly men writyng against it some of them terming it a bloodie law and a cruell law And because the Prelats out of the wordes of that law which gaue them power to imprison some suspected of heresie untill they should canonically purg themselues did streinedly force subjectes without any accuser to accuse themselues therfore the title of that Act is sett downe in the booke of Acts Monuments the statute Ex officio at which time it was not commonly used to giue titles to Acts of Parliament And to shew how much the subjectes misliked that kind of proceeding appeareth by severall Petitions of the subjectes to the Kings of the Realme and to the house of Parliament by the statute of 25. Hen. 8. cap. 14. by which statute it is sayd that the proceeding by the oath Ex officio to force a man to accuse himselfe is contrary to the rule of right and good equity and contrary to the lawes of England and unreasonable that upon suspition conceaved upon the fantasye of the Ordinaries men should be forced to answer c. And therefore they then revoked and made voyd the statute of 2. Hen. 4. cap 15. And to proue that according to the opinion of that Parliament house the oath Ex officio is against the lawes of England both Ecclesiasticall temporall and against the rule of Iustice and good equitie he sayd that by the lawes of England if a subject had been cyted by the Ordinary or Ecclesiasticall Iudge pro salute aīae which is the oath Ex officio to accuse himselfe a Prohibition did lye at the cōmon law and an attachment against the Ordinary if he did proceed in that case contrary to that prohibition as appeareth in Eliz. H. fol. 42. and the statute of 2. H. 〈…〉 made soone after the sayd statute of 2. Hen. 4. giving warrant to graunt a prohibition to the Ordinary for default of a libell doth crosse the proceeding by oath Ex offi●i● where he is forced to a libell as appeareth 4. ●d 4. fol. 3● and Fitz. H. fol. 43. etc. And by the words of the statute of 42. Edw. 3. cap. 3. which was made before those statutes procured by the Prelates when Ordinaries had no power to imprison subjectes it is expressed in what manner the proceeding should be against subjectes upon accusations thus viz. It is assented accorded for the good governement of the Commons that no man be put to answer without presentment before Iustices or thing of Record by due proces and writt originall according to the ould law of the land And if any thing be done from henceforth to the contrary it shal be voyd in law holden for error wherin it is worthy the nothing that it is sayd according to the old lawes of England And to proue the old law of England to be so the ordinary case of dayly experience touching the challenge of Iurors doth sufficiently declare For if the Iuror be challenged for kindred to either of the parties or for wāt of freehould the Iuror shall answer upon his oath to cleare that matter because it toucheth not the Iuror in losse or credit but if the challenge doe tend to touch the Iuror any way in his credit or his losse he shal not be forced upon his oath to answer although his answer might tend to further Iustice quia nemo tenetur prodere s●ipsum as is ruled 49. Edw. 3. fol. 2. And the case of wager of law which is allowed to the defendant in no criminall case which might bring imprisonment to the partie by the course of the common law as in trespas c but onely in debt and detinewe and the statute of Magna Charta 〈◊〉 28. inacting that no Bailife shall put a man to his open law nor to an oath upon his owne bare saying without faithfull witnesses brought in for the same tōdoth to like effect and S. Edward Cooke in his argument made in Slades Case sayd well that in criminall causes iuramentū in propria causa est inventio diaboli ad detrudendum animas miserorum in infernum according to whose saying it appeareth that when those oathes were used by the parties accused by the border lawes between England Scotland those oathes did bring no furtherance to the truth but manifest perjury every day as was confessed by all that knewe the practise there and therefore that manner of triall was soone rejected And to proue it against Iustice and good equity he sayd that this oath Ex officio to force a man in a criminall cause to accuse himselfe was he thought directly against the rule of the law of God For it is sayd in Deut. cap. 19. 15. that one witnes shall not arise against a man for any trespas or for any sin or for any fault that he offēdeth in but at the mouth of two witnesses or .3 witnesses shall the matter be established Which rule is confirmed under the Gospell as appeareth Math 18.16 2. Cor. 13.1 where it is sayd In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word stand and Christ sayd to the woman accused of adultery where be thine accusers c. But without any witnes or accuser to establish the matter upon the inforced oath of the partie hath no coherence with the rule of Gods law which should be a direction to all Christian Princes in making of their lawes we being now the people of God the Iewes being cut of the Iudgments being now the iudgments of God and not of men alone But here may be objected that by the lawes of England one witnes is sufficient to which he answered that the Iurors being all sworne to trie the particuler matter in fact wherewith the party defendant is charged may well supplie the want of one witnes being 12 persons in different without any affinitie to either partie who better knowe the witnesses then the Iudge and may perhaps know the cause in question aswell as the witnes which kinde of triall is so