calling all parties under that jurisdiction to answer in judgement of using Coercive means to such as are refractory and contumacious and bringing matters to a final and full Execution Gothofred sayes well hereupon Quoties casus omissus virtute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expressi comprehendi potest toties ad illum fieri debet extensio But least this position may less pleasingly rellish with some pallates because of the Authority I have hither to made use of to establish it by The Imperial or Civil Law being not allowed in these Kingdoms save only in some particular Courts and causes which is to be said of the Canon Law likewise And in respect of the latter of these two some men are apt to look asquint upon any thing that is drawn out of it or grounded thereon They are ready to cry out upon such a thing as a Popish encroachment tending to Advance the Miter and Keyes above the Crown and Scepter * Yet these make up a part of the Kings Ecclesiastical Lawes being so qualified as by Statute is required in 25 Hen. 8. cap. 19. To prevent this or any the like imputation my next and that my principal endeavour is to shew its accordance with the State Constitution and Lawes of these Kingdoms of England and Ireland under His Majesties Government that is with the Ecclesiastical and with the Municipal Lawes thereof and with the Kings Prerogative Royal. In respect of all which I do not doubt to affirm That this position viz. That all persons whatsoever within any Diocess regularly and de jure communi are subject to the jurisdiction of the Bishop of that Diocess in matters and causes of Ecclesiastical cognizance That this position I say is agreeable to the Ecclesiastical Lawes of these Kingdoms Not repugnant to the Municipal Lawes thereof Neither is it thirdly any thing intrenching upon or infringing His Majesties Prerogative Royal These all require distinct and particular considerations 1. It is agreeable to the Ecclesiastical Lawes of these Kingdoms in His late Majesties Proclamation of Royal Assent given to the Book of Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical of this Church of Ireland Anno 1634. I observe two things relating to our present purpose the former is a strict injunction upon all persons whatsoever to observe and obey them We do not only by our said Prerogative Royal and Supream Authority in causes Ecclesiastical ratifie confirm and establish by these our Letters Patents the said Canons Orders Ordinances and Constitutions and all and every thing therein contained as is aforesaid but do likewise propound publish and streightly enjoyn and command by our said Authority and by these our Letters Patents the same to be diligently observed executed and equally kept by all our loving Subjects of this our Kingdom in all points wherein they do or may concern every or any of them according to this our Will and pleasure hereby signifyed and expressed The other thing I observe therein is that impartial Execution of them which is required to be made and by whom to be made upon all persons whatsoever that refuse to obey them so it afterwards follows Streightly charging and commanding all Arch-Bishops and all others that exercise any Ecclesiastical jurisdiction within this Realm to see and procure that the same Canons Constitutions Orders and Ordinances be in all points duly observed Not sparing to execute the penalties in them severally mentioned upon Any that shall wittingly or willingly break or neglect to observe the same as they tender the Honour of God the peace of the Church tranquility of the Kingdom and their duties and service unto Vs their King and Sovereign All are commanded to obey these none have an Immunity from being punished if they do not obey them In the last Canon of that Book It is decreed That if Any within this Nation shall despise and contemn the Constitutions thereof Ratified and confirmed by Regal power or affirm that none shall be subject to them but such as were present and gave their voyces to them He shall be Excommunicated and not restored until he shall publickly revoke his Error In the 140 Canon of the Church of England published Anno 1603. It is more particularly and expresly set down and declared that all manner of Persons both of Clergie and Laity are to be subject to the Decrees mentioned in them in causes Ecclesiastical Although they were not themselves particularly assembled in the same Sacred Synod Let us now put both these things observed together and the result is this Here is a jurisdiction declared in respect of certain matters and causes and in respect of Persons indefinitly set down over all And in whom is this jurisdiction declared to be namely in Arch-bishops Bishops c. over whom is it declared to be over all surely The injunction of inflicting penalties in case of disobedience is as universal and extensive subjectively as is the command of obedience Here is no distinction nor exemption made of any Persons under any qualification or Vested with any office or subordinate civil power so as they should be thereby priviledged from Ecclesiastical jurisdiction in matters appertaining thereunto And Vbi lex non distinguit ibi nec nos distinguere debemus where the Law makes none neither may we make any distinction I have made my first instance in these Canons as part of the Kings Ecclesiastical Lawes But I am not to learn that when the Authority of our Canons is urged and that obedience which is required to them is called for There are a generation of such as are wise in their own conceits men of mighty deep understandings who think they pierce further into things and understand more than their poor shallow Brethren are able to do And these will question the Validity of these Canons and their legal obligingness on the Kings Majesties Subjects To all such therefore I shall fairly offer a few considerations and then leave in to their own sober thoughts to determine wha◠Coherence there can be betwixt a disowning 〈…〉 the Authority of our Ecclesiastical 〈◊〉 and the profession of being dutiful and obediene Subjects 1 Many learned men both of the Municipal and Civil Law joyn in this opinion and affirm That the Kings Majesty may by virtue of His Supream Authority in matters Ecclesiastical confirm and ratifie into the force of Law Canons made in Convocations and that they be a part of the Kings Ecclesiastical Lawes Princeps tanquam supremus post Deum gubernator potest in causis Ecclesiasticis statuere quicquid verbo divino statutis consuetudinibus Regni sui non repugnaverit Cosen de Politeia Ecclesiastic Anglicana Tab. 1. A. And then he specifies the matter of his former Assertion thus viz. That this supream power of our King is in Condendis novis legibus sive canonibus in ijsdem administrandis relaxandis cirea statum Ecclesiasticum and this done cum Regius assensus fuerit adhibitus iis quae Synodus
decernenda Censuerit ibidem Tab. 2. In Synod Nationali vel provinciali Regis rescripto convocato nihil tractari aut determinari potest nisi eo assentiente nec quicquam vim legis obtinet priusquam Regalis assensus adhibitus fuerit Dr. Zouch Descript Juris Eccles. p. 1. Sect. 2. See also to the same purpose Dr. Duck de authoritate Juris civilis in Anglia lib. 2. cap. 8. p. 3. Sect 27. And the Lord chief Justice Cook 4. p. Instit cap. 74. cited thereby him 2 The King himself in the Proclamation before mentioned declares that such Canons Constitutions c. agreed upon by the Arch-bishops Bishops and Clergie of Ireland to the end and purpose by him limited and prescribed unto them He has given His Royal assent according to the form of a certain statute or Act of Parliament made in that behalf And by his Prerogative Royal and Supream Authority in matters Ecclesiastical he has ratified and confirmed the said Canons being one hundred in number by his Letters Patents under his great Seal of Ireland And then follows His Majesties strict injunction upon all His loving Subjects of this Kingdom to obey and execute the same which I insisted upon before 3. Besides His Majesties Prerogative Royal and Supream Authority in causes Ecclesiastical the King is likewise by Act of Parliament vested with power for this purpose and that is the Statute 25 Hen. 8. cap. 19. called the Petition and Submission of the Clergie to the King For the Bishops and Clergie in Convocation having each one severally promised in verbo sacerdotis never henceforth to presume to attempt alledge claim or put in use or enact promulge or execute any new Canons Constitutions or Ordinances without the Kings most Royal assent had and obtained thereunto upon which promise and submission it was enacted by Authority of Parliament That all Convocations in time to come should always be assembled by the Authority of the Kings Writ And that the Kings license and authority being had they might make promulge and Execute such Canons Constitutions and Ordinances Provincial and Synodal which being ratified confirmed and approved under His Majesties Great Seal they then become of legal force upon the Subject This Proviso indeed follows That no Canon nor Ordinance shall be made or put in Execution by the Authority of the Convocation of the Clergie which shall be contrariant or repugnant to the Kings Prerogative Royal or the Customs and Statutes of this Realm c. Rastals collection word Rome numb 1. * Which Statutis is but declaratoâ—y of the Common Law says my Lord Coke 4. Instit cap. 74. p. 323. So that the same is grounded both on Statâ—to and Common Law The like Statute to this particular we have enacted in Ireland Entituled An Act against the Authority of the Bishop of Rome in vicessimo Octavo Hen. 8. and referred to in the Proclamation before spoken of in the second consideration A Great Lawyer one Mr. J.M. in a speech before a Committee of the Lords at the Parliament held Anno 1641. Having occasion to speak of this Statute for his speech was against the Canons made the year before avouched plainly that that clause The Clergie shall not make Canons without the Kings leave implyeth not that by his leave alone they may make them But certainly the most knowing men in any Science or faculty have not the priviledge of never mistaking in what they say for to him that advisedly considers the matter and scope of that Statute it will appear plainly That the abridging the over-growing power of the Clergie assumed by them in making and enacting Canons and pressing their authority on others And together with this the cutting them off from any relation to the Bishop of Rome and making them dependants on the King alone for the better ordering of what should be debated and determined in their Synodical meetings were if not the only yet the principal aims of that Statute Add here further that a successive and continued practice from the time when that Statute was made to this day delivers the best and truest sense of it * Practiea est legum optima intellectrix Baldus For thus as I have set down it was practised in the times of Edward the 6th Queen Elizabeth 1562. King James Anno 1603. King Charles the first in this Kingdom of Ireland Anno 1634. And though I say nothing of the Canons themselves made in the year 1640. because all authority as to them is annulled by Act of Parliament Anno 13 Caroli Secundi yet the Commission granted to the Convocation of that year at the first opening of the Parliament and of it was according to Law and this speaks plainly of the Kings leave and license granted and alone needful herein see more fully thereof in Dr. Heylins life of the Arch-bishop of Canterbury p. 423.424.425 I conclude this matter with the decision of a great Casuist He in discoursing of Ecclesiastical Laws and the manner how they are enacted in the Church of England Jus condendi leges Ecclesiasticas saies he est paenes Episcopos Presbyteros aliasque personas à totius Regni clero rite electas in legitima Synodo rite congregatas Ita tamen ut ejus juris sine potestatis exercitium in omni Repub. Christiana ex Authoritate Supremi Magistrat us Politici pendere debeat Idque aparte Ante ut loqui solemus aparte post vir ut nec iis statuendi Canones Ecclesiasticos causâ liceat convenire nisi autipsius mandato inssu ad id negotii convocatis aut ejus saltem authoritate Venia ab eo petita obtenta munitis Nec Canones in quos illi sic consenserint tali sint aut vim aliquam habeant obligandi quoad supremi Magistratus assensus accedat Cujus approbatione publica authoritate simulac confirmati fuerint illico pro legibus habendi sunt subditos obligant Bishop Sanderson de conscient obligat Praelect 7. Sect. 30. Mr. Hooker Eccles. Polit. Book 8. in p. 219.220.221 c. Thus much has been said touching the Canons of our Church and their Authority so far forth at this present as suits with the present occasion and what they were produced in proof of In several Provincial Constitutions we find it Decreed That concerning matters belonging to Ecclesiastical cognizance proceedings may be made against any Layman or publick Officers as Sheriffs and others even to the inflicting publick Censures upon them Many of this kind will occur to the Reader that is conversant in them That Constitution Aeterna Sanctis de paenis Enacted in a Council at Lambeth under Boniface Archbishop of Canterbury Anno 1260. In the time of King Henry the third And that Constitution ut invadentibus de immunitate Ecclesiae Enacted by the same Boniface likewise the Constitution contingit aliquando eodem And Accidit Novitate perversa eodem Enacted by John Stratford Archbishop of Canterbury in the time
of King Edward the third Now if it be here said that these Constitutions were made before the Statute of Praemunire came forth and so proceeded more peremptorily and not with that submissive regard and dutiful obedience to the Crown as they ought to have done I answer by acknowledging those Constitutions to aim indeed at the restraining of the Kings Prerogative and of his Temporal Courts and therefore not of any force now or that proceedings should be guided thereby * Sir Tho. Ridley in his View c. leaves it without decision whether these constitutions be annulled by the Act of Parliament viz. 25. Hen. 8. c. 19. He determines not absolutely I say but refers it to better judgements But this mention is made of them to shew Historically what was then practised and held usually and moreover to evince that where the Rights of the Crown are not thereby impaired nor any of the Kings Temporal Courts invaded Ecclesiastical proceedings may be made against any Person and his being in any subordinate civil office does not exempt him therefrom I must yield to and acknowledge what the Statute 25 Hen. 8. cap. 19. has determined viz. All Canons Constitutions Ordinances and Synodals Provincial that had been then made are received into the body of the Ecclesiastical Laws and are Established to be the Ecclesiastical Lawes of England and become of good force and validity but with this necessary proviso herein quatenus consuetudinibus statutis Regninon repugnant nec prerogativae Regiae adversaâ—tur Dr. Zouch de jure Ecclesiast p. 1. Sect. 1. So the Statute it self reports of them that they are of force and still binding so far forth as they be not contrariant nor repugnant to the Laws customs and statutes of this Realm nor to the Danger or Hurt of the Kings prerogative Roya In the Formula of Juridical practice for causes Ecclesiastical set forth by Francis Clerk and which is approved in all the Consistories and other Ecclesiastical Courts of England and Ireland In this Formula I say There is a title namely the two hundred and fifteenth title of that Book after what manner to begin and proceed in any Ecclesiastical cause perhaps at the instance of a party against any Community as Dean and Chapter Master Fellows and Scholars of any Colledge c. In the body of which title the manner of proceeding against any Mayor and Community of a City particularly that of London is described whence I make this Collection That what is declared as a matter to be observed in Ecclesiastical practice when occasion requires a proceeding against any Mayor or Community of a City that does certainly imply that such a Mayor and Community are subject to Ecclesiastical jurisdiction and consequently to such penal coercions and censures the matter so requiring it as are properly inflicted thereby Hitherto concerning the first particular that this position is agreeable to the Ecclesiastical Law 2. As this position is agreeable to the Ecclesiastical Law so it is not repugnant to the Kings Temporal Laws or the Municipal Laws of these Kingdoms It is not repugnant to the Statute Law The Statute called Magna Charta confirmed by King Henry the Third in the Ninth year of His Reign and by so many Kings since this Statute said to be the Ancientest written Law that is now extant and the Breviate and Summary of all the written Laws of England and most beneficial to the Subject declares in the first Chapter thereof That the Church of England shall be free and have all her Holy rights and liberties inviolable * Et habeant omnia jur a sua integra that is all Ecclesiastical persons shall enjoy all their lawful jurisdictions and other rights without any diminution or substraction whatsoever D. Coke on Magna Charta cap. 1. Jura sua sayes the same Author ibidem prove plainly that no new rights were given to them but such as they had before hereby are confirmed so that it followes that what amplytude and fulness of jurisdiction they had before is hereby confirmed In the Thirty seven Chapter of the said Statute There is a Reserve to all Archbishops Bishops c. Of all their Liberties and Priviledges one branch of which Liberties and Priviledges and Rights is this power of jurisdiction over all persons in their respective Diocesses Edward the first the Son and Successor of this King ordained the Statute called circumspecte Agatis in the thirteenth year of His Reign It has been affirmed concerning this Law that it was a prelatical Constitution because inserted in the Provincial Constitutions in the title de foro competenti or at the most one onely of the Kings Writs issuing out on some occasion leading thereunto But to confirm the Authority hereof My Lord chief Justice Coke determines of it after this manner though some have said this was no Statute but made by the Prelates themselves Yet that it is an Act of Parliament is not only proved by our Books but also by an Act of Parliament Instit p. 2. p. 487. In this Statute then set down as a boundary betwixt the Spiritual and Temporal jurisdiction full power and authority is given or confirmed rather to the exercise of jurisdiction Ecclesiastical over all persons indistinctly in such cases as belong to and are mentioned in it In the Ninth year of His Son and Successor King Edward the second came forth the statute called Articuli cleri by the form and purport of which it appeareth that for any matter Ecclesiastical indefinitely Men may be cited and if cited then subject to all judicial consequences therein In the Twelfth Chapter of this statute The question is put Whether the Kings Tenants be subject to the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction as others are and if they may be Excommunicated for their manifest contumacie and after forty dayes continuing so whether they may be signified and attached by the Kings Writ The answer given to the question is such It was never yet denyed nor shall be hereafter * The close of which Statute is after this manner Ratifying confirming and approving all and every of the Articles aforesaid with all and every of the Answers made and contained in the same do grant and command them to be kept firmly and observed for ever willing and gran ting for us and our Heirs that the foresaid Prelates and Clergie and their Succeâ—sors shall use execute and practise for ever the jurisdiction of the Church in the Premises after the Tenor of the Answers aforesaid without quarrel inquieting or vexation of our Heirs or any of our Officers whatsoever they be Poult Collect of statutes pâ— 101. in fine cap. 16. It seems the Kings Tenants supposed themselves such specially priviledged persons as to be thereby exempted from spiritual jurisdiction but that would not serve their turns And so a pari what would not be sufficient for them will not be sufficient for others though in office under the King During the long Reign
the ancient state thereof and is so far from damnifying the Prerogative Royal that it mainly asserts and vindicates the same It might perhaps be doubted That different Jurisdictions in one Kingdom and those exercised by persons of different professions though deriving from one Supreme Head would rather cause than prevent many inconveniencies and those inconveniencies so bad in their nature as to detract from rather than adde to the Supreme Magistrates Dignity and Prerogative as namely by introducing confusion and disorder in the management of both and in the causes and matters to be managed in them and occasioning continual jealousies and distastes betwixt the persons appointed to manage them observed by my Lord Bacon's Advancement of Learning Aphor. 96. But in truth no such ill Effects do follow hereupon for distinct Jurisdictions exercised by persons of several orders and professions in these Kingdoms and vested with authority from the Supreme Magistrates so to do though juridical proceedings therein be different from the ordinary form and prescribed coursel of the Common Law argues unplenitude not a defect of power an advancing of it not derogating from it in that Supreme Magistrate granting the same his great wisdom and prudence in a determinate stating the nature and bounds of each Jurisdiction the appropriating certain causes to be heard and determined in them respectively commanding all His Subjects to give due obedience thereunto in such causes as are limited to those Courts and which any Subject may be concerned in And as both derive from soito depend upon him in an equal poise as to the Authority belonging to each so that all the supposed inconveniencies are sufficiently provided against And the ordering all these things in this set manner is an effect of the Kings high Prerogative enabling him so to do and is both by Custom and Law among us allowed of * The King is the indifferent Arbitrator in all Jurisdictions as well Spiritual as Temporal and it is a Right of His Crown to distribute to them that is to declare their bounds Lord Hobbarts Reports Dr. Jame 's Case observe with me these following instances The Kings Majesty is plyased to confirm a peculiar Jurisdiction granted by His Royal Progenitors to the two Universities of Cambridge and Oxford The Chancellor of each University or his Commissary administer Justice according to the Civil Law and the Customs and Statutes of the University where the persons at variance together are Students or one of them at least is such insomuch as in personal Actions for Debt matters of Accounts or any Contracts made within their own Precincts and in some criminal matters likewise none of them may be called to Westminster Hall but the cognizance thereof belongs to the Chancellor of the said University or his Commissary as is before said If any Appeals be made from Sentences given in any such Trials they are first interposed to the Regents last of all to the Kings Majesty himself Cowell Interp. in verbo Privilege Dr. Duck ut supra sect 30. Will any man now say That the Exercise of this power is intrenching on the Kings Prerogative because His great Courts at Westminster are not applied to and a Jurisdiction distinct from and independent upon them is exercised Surely no because the Exercise of this power is granted by Royal Charter it proceeds from it depends upon it is done in an acknowledgment of the Kings Supreme Power and Prerogative There is a Court of great Dignity and Honour called the Court of the Constable and Earl Marshal of England Herein are determined all Contracts touching Deeds of Arms out of the Realm as Combats Blazons of Armory and the right of bearing Arms c. proper to particular Families the manner of proceeding in this Court is according to the form of the Civil Law * L. Coke Jurisdiction of Courts ca. 17. the use and authority of which is of great sway herein Appeals that are interposed from any definitive sentence in this Court are brought to the Kings Majesty Himself not to His Chancellor the municipal Law is altogether secluded from hence Justice is administred Delinquents are punished without any relation to that or the Judges thereof yet the Kings Prerogative is not infringed by the exercise of this Jurisdiction because it is derived from the King I might add here the Court of the Admiralty the peculiar Jurisdiction exercised within the Cinque Ports by the Lord Warden thereof In these Courts matters both civil and criminal are tryed according to the course prescribed by the civil Law but in the following Leafs I shall have occasion more distinctly to write something relating to these matters and respectively to these two Courts Now as it is in these different Jurisdictions they derive from the King His Subjects are bound by command from Him to obey the Authority thereof if they refuse to obey by poenal coercions proper to each they may be compelled to it yet still the Royal Prerogative is not any whit diminished nor the Rights of the Crown at all impaired hereby As it is thus I say in the distinct Jurisdictions so it is in the exercise of Episcopal Jurisdiction in the Ecclesiastical Courts And now I have uttered thus much I perceive my self beginning to walk on a narrow slippery ridge where a steep precipice is on each side The danger of falling on one hand is least I abase the Prerogative so low as to subject the King in Ecclesiastical causes and matters under the Resolves and Decisions of Classical Assemblies * Huic Disciplinae omnes orhis principes Monarchas fasers suos submittere parere necesse est Travers Disciplin Ecclesiast p. 142 143. Bishop White in his Preface to his Treatise concerning the Sabbath as the Presbyterians do or bring Him in subordination to the Bishop of Rome as the Papists do The danger on the other hand is the over-exalting of the Prerogative so that it might be thought we attribute to the King as sometimes the Papists object to us a power to exercise Sacerdotal Offices in the Church to inflict censures * And yet our Law attributes much in this particular and that very highly to the King Reges Sacro olco unctâ— spiritualis Jurisdictionâ—s sunt capaces 33 Edw. 3. Ayde de Roy. 107. Coke Cawdrie's case p. 16. c. Now to walk even and steddy betwixt these two dangerous downfalls is that which must be endeavoured and therefore whereas we own and solemnly recognize the Kings Supremacy in Ecclesiastical matters and causes it is to be understood according to the sense and meaning set down in the words of the 37th Article of the Church of England and also in the Article of the Church of Ireland concerning civil Magistrates The Kings Majesty hath the chief Government of all Estates Ecclesiastical and Civil within His Dominions see Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions set forth in the first year of Her Reign Now this Supremacy keeps the King above all
any dare to say That they pare off some rights or pluck some flowers from the Kings Imperial Crown I suppose not How comes it to pass then that the Bishops jurisdiction does Whatsoever may be alledged in defence of the other may be said and it may be something more too in justification of this And know moreover That proceedings in these Temporal distinct jurisdictions go much further upon the persons of men than those of any Ecclesiastical Court does even to the imprisoning of them and in all of them except that of the University to the inflicting of capital punishments And it deserves our further observing what the great Lawyer Sir Edward Coke sayes touching this very thing Albeit the proceedings and process in the Ecclesiastical Courts be in the Name of the Bishops c. It followeth not therefore that either the Court is not the Kings or that the Law whereby they proceed is not the Kings Law for taking one example for many every Leet and View of franck pledge holden by a subject is kept in the Lords Name and yet it is the Kings Court and all the proceedings therein are directed by the Kings Laws and many subjects in England have and hold Courts of Record and other Courts and yet all their proceedings be according to the Kings Laws and customs of the Realm De jure Regis Eccles p. 39. The Learned Bishop Sanderson has convincingly demonstrated That Citations and Decrees in the Bishops Name no way encroacheth on the Kings Authority and that they who urge the contrary have this meaning rather to do the Bishops hurt than the King service and that their affections so far as by what is visible we are able to judge are much what alike towards both His Book called Episcopacy not prejudicial to Regal power p. 3 4. Bishops proceedings in Ecclesiastical Courts under the Name Stile and Seal of the Bishop See this largely discussed and declared to be warrantable by Law by my Lord Coke's comment on the Statute of Marriage 32 Hen. 8. p. 685 686 687. But this Objection is taken up again and urged with new force from hence That in the First year of King Edward the Sixth it was by Statute Enacted That the Bishops should make their processes in the Kings Name and that their Seals should be the Kings Arms. This Statute sayes Mr. Rastall was repealed 1 Mariae 1. And that Statute not being revived by Queen Elizabeth in her Reign all proceeded well enough without danger But in the first Parliament of King James there passed an Act for continuing and reviving divers Statutes and for repealing of some others 1 Jaccb c. 29. Into the body whereof a clause was cunningly conveyed for the repealing of that Statute of the Reign of Queen Mary by which King Edward 's stood repealed Upon this account it was that a little before our late turbulent confusions in England this very thing was urged against the Bishops and their proceedings were declared to be bold usurpations and encroachments on the Prerogative Royal and violations of the Law But as it is usual where men are prepossessed against any thing they are apt to run into many mistakes about the sâ—me It happened so in this very matter Much â—â—lse was raised much stir made hereupon by the Antiâ—prelatical party as if the Bishops who had given themselves out to be the most zealous assertors were indeed become the onely dangerous impugners of the Kings Prerogative That now they were deprehended in the very design and therefore must needs fall having no plea to make for themselves and having the mischief of their own visible and illegal actings witnessing against them At this rate their Adversaries vaunted and fore-judged them and no doubt as matters went in those times the severest animadversion that could have followed hereupon would have been made if further proceedings therein had not been seasonably prevented by the wisdom of a pious and prudent Prince For the Blessed King Charles the First having beee made acquainted what advantage these forward and busie people were designing to make hereof to the overthrow of His Ecclesiastical Courts and the Bishops His Judges in them He did as Dr. Heylin reports in the life of Archbishop Laud p. 342. call together in the year 1637 the two Lords Chief Justices the Lord Chief Baron and the rest of the Judges and Barons and propounds to them these three following particulars to be certified of 1. Whether processes may not issue out of the Ecclesiastical Courts in the Name of the Bishops 2. Whether a Patent under the Great Seal be necessary for the keeping of Ecclesiastical Courts and enabling Citations Suspensions Excommunications and other censures of the Church 3. Whether Citations ought to be in the Kings Name and under His Seal of Arms And the like for Institutions and Inductions to Benefices and corrections of Ecclesiastical Offences And the like for Visitations whether an express Commission or Patent under the Great Seal of England were requisite To which three Proposals the said Judges unanimously on the First of July in the fore mentioned year concurred and certified under their Hands By Answering to the First thing propounded affirmatively and to the other two negatively And that the fore-mentioned Statute of Edward the Sixth is not now in force Whereupon the King issues out His Proclamation wherein having first taxed the libellous Books and Pamphlets published against the Bishops and after a recital made of these proceedings He concludes the Proclamation thus That His Majestie thought good with the advice of His Council that a publick Declaration of these the opinions of His Reverend and Learned Judges being agreeable to the judgement and resolution of former times should be made known to all His Subjects as well to vindicate the legal proceedings of His Ecclesiastical Courts and Ministers from the unjust and scandalous imputation of invading or intrenching on His Royal Prerogative as to settle the minds and stop the mouths of all unquiet spirits That for the future they presume not to censure His Ecclesiastical Courts or Ministers in these their just and warranted proceedings And hereof His Majesty admonisheth all His subjects to take warning as they will Answer the contrary at their peril c. * Resolutions unanimously given by all the Judges and the Earons of the Exchequer saith my Lord Coke are for matters of Law of Highest Anthority next unto the Court of Parliament Sir Edward Coke 2 Instit p. 618. But some mens minds will not be satisfied with any thing of this nature yet are willing to embrace what is fortified with Parliamentary Authority Both therefore to gratifie them and more throughly to confirm the matter in hand we have also this Parliamentary Authority to offer unto them For although by an Act of Parliament in the Seventeenth year of King Charles the First all jurisdiction Ecclesiastical was quite abrogated and annulled I speak in respect of England for here in Ireland no such Act
of Fifty years of King Edward the Third the great Charter was several times confirmed The liberties priviledges and franchises of the Clergie were new ratified in the fourteenth and five and twentieth years of His Reign And so in the first sixth and eighth and twelfth years of Richard the second In the first second and fourth years of Henry the fourth It was enacted That the Lords Spiritual as well as Temporal should have and enjoy all their Rights and Liberties I grant indeed that in the Reign of two of these preceding Kings viz Edward the third and Richard the second that the two statutes of Proviso's and Praemunire were made But he that shall duly observe the end wherefore and the matter wherein and the persons against whom these statutes were made will not be able to find that any abridgment but rather a firmer settlement of Episcopal jurisdiction in the right Constitution of it was intended and came thereby That which was mainly aimed at and provided against in these statutes was to repress the encroachments of the Pope of Rome even upon the Bishops legal jurisdiction it self The Pope by His Emissaries in England from time to time drained the Kingdom of its Wealth He invaded the Kings Soveraign Rights by Mandates De providendo and expectative Graces granted of Ecclesiastical livings before the Incumbents were dead And besides He boldly intrenched on the Kings Temporal Courts many such unreasonable greivances there were which both King and People felt the load of and which to make them the heavier were fetch as far as Rome to be put upon them But all this while here are no exemptions to any particular persons or civil Officers to free them from Ecclesiastical jurisdiction where it proceeded in due manner and was exercised in matters properly cognizable by it That which must have the note of remark put upon it is this Provision is here made under severe penalties against acting by a derived power from and in an Usurped jurisdiction under the See of Rome This no English Bishop might do then This no Bishop in England or Ireland might or does or may do now One Act of Parliament will best serve to give light to another Now the statute 25 Hen. 8. cap. 21 affirms expresly that the statute of provision and praemunire of the 16th Richard secundi was made against such as sue to the Court of Rome against the Kings Crown and Dignity so that Episcopal jurisdiction in each respective Diocess and in matters of Ecclesiastical cognizance is so far from being impaired by these statutes that in truth it is more firmly fixed and corroborated thereby All these things were before the Reformation in England towards the dawning of which we meet with a noted statute in the 23th year of King Henry 8. cap. 9. designed as is conceived to restrain the Exorbitances used in summoning people out of the Diocess wherein they inhabit without leave of their Ordinaries which thing as it tended to the great vexation of the persons so cited it also aimed at the very encroaching on the several Ordinaries Rights on pretence of some legantine power or Nuncio's Court or other extraordinary cause In the preamble of which Statute it is affirmed That all persons of any quality or condition may be cited before their Ordinaries so it be in proper cause and due Order The body of that statute provideth that no citation be made out of the Diocess where the party dwelleth but where some spiritual offence or cause is committed or done So that a contrario sensu sayes the learned and judicious Dr. Cosen Apol. p. 67. in any offence or cause spiritual any Subject may be cited within his or her Diocess And in some peculiar causes there mentioned and recited they may be cited out of their Diocess Now the power of citing presupposes a full jurisdiction that is a power to proceed further thereupon in all due requisits and forms that belong to any cause whether it be upon instance or of matter of correction Since the Reformation that all jurisdiction Ecclesiastical is de facto as it was alwayes de jure united to and so derived from the Imperial Crown of England there is by the statute of the first of Queen Elizabeth cap. 1. Full power and authority given to the Ecclesiastical Judges for the Executing of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction as before time See also a statute made in Ireland in the 28. year of King Henry the 8. called an Act against the Authority of the Bishop of Rome towards the latter end thereof Provided that notwithstanding this Act or any other Act made for the taking away of the said Bishop of Romes Vsurped power Authority Preheminence Jurisdiction or any other thing or things in the same comprised That all and every Archbishop Bishop Arch-Deacon Commissary and Official and every of them shall and may use and exercise in the name of the King only Vid. infra p. 53. all such Canons Constitutions Ordinances and Synodals provincial being already made for the direction and order of Spiritual and Ecclesiastical causes which be not contrariant nor repugnant to the Kings Lawes statutes and customs of this Land nor to the Damage and Hurt of the Kings Prerogative Royal in such manner and form as they were used and Executed before the making of this Act till such time as the Kings Highness shall order and determine according to his Lawes of England and such order and determination as shall be requisite for the same and the same to be certified hither under the Kings Great Seal or otherwise ordered by Parliament And while I am thus enumerating the several statutes which the former position is not contrariant to but rather strengthned by I must not omit the making mention of those statutes and Acts of Parliament that are set out and published meerly upon Ecclesiastical causes and matters which are reckoned by some as those that enter into and make up the body of the Kings Ecclesiastical Laws Zouch de jure Eccles p. 1. Sec. 1. c. whether these be matters of a civil or criminal Nature matters of civil cognizance are either such as concern Precontracts and other matrimonial causes In Ireland 33 Hen. 8 cap. 6. In England 32 Hen. 8. c. 38. 1 and 2 Edward 6. c. 23. 1 Elizab. 1. oâ— such as concern Testamentary matters 21 Hen. 8. cap. 5. In this Kingdom 28 Hen. 8. cap. 18. Also matters of Tythes and the pursuits and impleadings thereup on Heâ—â— 33 Hen. 8. c. 12. In England to the two Statutes mentioned before called circumspecte Agatis and Articuli Cleris These may be added viz. 1 Richard 2. c. 14.27 and 28 Hen. 8. c. 20. 32 Hen. 8. c. 7. 2 Edward 6. cap. 13. Concerning all which all persons without distinction of place or office who are concerned in any of these causes they are subject to Episcopal jurisdiction to which the same causes do appertain and by which they are managed And for matters
which are criminal To pass by other statutes I instance in these two only The one De Excommunicato capiendo in 5 Elizab. c. 23. where the several crimes therein mentioned subject all such as shall be detected and found guilty of any of them to the Ecclesiastical Tribunal The other is the statute for Uniformity of Common-Prayer c. 1 Elizab. cap. 2. In this statute after a charge given in this Solemn and strict manner The Queens most Excellent Majesty The Lords Temporal and all the Commons in this present Parliament assembled do in Gods Name earnestly require and charge all the Archbishops and Bishops to endeavor their utmost for the due execution thereofâ—â— And then it follows for their power and authority in this behalf Be it further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid That all and singular the said Archbishops Bishops c. and all other their officers exercising Ecclesiastical jurisdiction as well in places exempt as not exempt within their Diocess shall have full power and authority by this Act to reform correct and punish by censures of the Church all and singular Persons which shall offend within any of their Jurisdictions or Diocesses after the said Feast of St. John the Baptist next coming against this Act or Statute any other Law Statute Priviledge liberty or provision heretofore made had or suffered to the contrary notwithstanding See a so the statute made secundo Elizab. cap. 2 here in Ireland The thing we had in hand to make good was this That all persons whatsoever within any Diocess regularly and de jure communi are subject to the Bishop of that Diocess in matters and causes of Ecclesiastical cognizance that this position is not repugnant to the statute Laws of these Kingdoms This I think has been fully evidenced and needs no further enlarging upon And to give one instance of this jurisdictive and coercive power in Bishops over all indefinitely it shall be in the matter of substracting and detaining of Tythes a cause properly and anciently cognizable before them That ample Charter granted by King William the first to the Clergie and mentioned at large by Mr. Selden in his History of Tythes cap. 8. p. 225. The conclusion of which is after this manner Quicunque decimam detinuerit per justitiam Episcopi Regis si necesse fuerit ad redditionem arguatur Startle not Reader at the eying of this that the Bishops power of Justicing has here precedency of place before the Kings conceive not that this was to set Episcopal power on high and make Regal Authority subordinate to it But this declares to whose judicial cognizance under the King the proceeding against detainers of Tythes of what quality and condition soever they be does immediatery appertain who is the Officer and Minister of Justice therein And the Kings power being after mentioned is so set down by way of judicial order and consequence not of subordination in power and Authority Thus much these very words si necesse fuerit plainly do import as if it were said should any of these detainers prove refractory and contumacious against the Bishops authority so that there were a necessity of invoking the secuâ—ar power the King would then be present therewith and by poenal coercions compel them to give obedience thereto Now for what concerns any other part of the Common Law it may be also both safely and truly in respect of the thing it self affirmed That Ecclesiastical proceedings according to the position laid down bears no contrariety therewith as is set down by Dr. and Student lib. 1 c. 6. That Episcopal jurisdiction is of force in this Kingdom even by the Laws of this Realm in certain particular instances mentioned is reported by Dr. Cosen from a certain Author writing in King Hen. 8th time Apol. part 1. p. 7. The Author is shewing that the Bishop of Rome has not nor ought to have any jurisdiction in His Majesties Kingdoms by the Laws of this Realm The medium whereby he proves this thing is this because Certificates of Bishops in certain cases are allowed by the Common Law and admitted in the Kings Courts But the Popes Certificate is not admitted vid. Lord Coke Instit 4. cap. 74. circa initium de jure Regis Ecclesiastico p. 23. 26. diversos casus thidem citatos Besides in the statute of Appeals 24 Hen. 8. cap. 12. mention is made of spiritual jurisdiction exercised in causes belonging to the same and it is there expresly said That such exercise is grounded on the Laws and customs of this Realm circa mitium dicti statuti Now certainly a statute best informs any one what is truly and what is agreeable to the Common Law The Bishops are by the Common Law the immediate Officers and Ministers of Justice to the Kings Courts in causes Ecclesiastical Lord Coke de jure Regis Ecclesiastico pag. 23. And for what belongs to any custom or ancient usage that has the force of Law among us I cannot find out any such that is impugned by what I have affirmed But thus I may safely determine That if any manner and course of things established by long use and consent of our Ancestors and still kept on foot by daily continuance and practice be a custom and may set up for a Law not-written Then certainly the thing that has been affirmed that is the exercise of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction by Bishops over all persons within their respective Diocesses and in causes belonging to it and thus far endeavoured to be pâ—oved is not at all contrariant thereto but of perfect agreement yea of the same Nature with it Are there any that after all this will make their reply and tell us of persons exempted from Episâ—â— paâ— power and the exercise thereof bound up and restrained in respect of such and for proof of this will alledge the Authoritative proceeding of King William the Conqueror who would not suffer any Bishop to Excommunicate any of his Barons or Officers for Adultery Incest or any such Heinous crime except by the Kings command first made acquainted therewith By the way it must be known that the word Baron is not to be taken in that limited and restrictive sense as to understand thereby the Higher Nobility to which Votes in Parliament do belong But generally for such who by Tenure in chief or in Capite held land of the King Selden spicelegium ad Eadmerum referente Tho. Fullero B. 3. Histor Eccles p. 4. Whatsoever now shall be collected hence to overthrow what has been before said is easily answered For King William very well understood his own Imperal power and right over the whole body Politick whereof the Clergie were a part And that by vertue thereof the Actual Exercise of both Civil and Ecclesiastical jurisdiction did flow from him And that he might where and when he saw cause restrain the Execution of either how long or in respect of what persons he pleased and this by special
others within His own Kingdoms and it keeps Him from a subordination either to the Presbytery or the Papacy and it is such a Supremacy as is only Political and Architectonical as it is phrased that is a power paramount over all His Subjects to see that each sort of such as are under His Government as well Ecclesiasticks as others do their duties in their several and respective stations and that all things be acted by proper and fit Agents for preserving both Church and State in tranquility and safety Thus it appears that nothing either belonging to Ecclesiastical Order or Jurisdiction is exercised by our Kings in their own persons according as is fully declared in the following parts of the said Article Neither does this give any countenance to Erastianism as some have improperly enough inferred from thence herein as has been described is seen the Kings Supremacy By it He is the Keeper of both Tables He governs and regulates Affairs so both in Church and State as may best conduce to the preservation of true Piety to God and right Justice to Men. From this power paramount and Supremacy does descend the Bishops power of exercising Jurisdiction that is exercising the same actually I say actually for as our Divines do distinguish Archbishop Bramhall's answer to R.C. p. 160 161. Bishop Sanderson de conscient obligat praelect 7. sect 29 30. Bishop Bilson of Subjection par 3. p. 293. in octavo Mr. Hooker Eccles Pol. B. 8. p. 213 c. There is an habitual and there is an actual Jurisdiction habitual Jurisdiction flows from Episcopal Order actual Jurisdiction is a Right and liberty granted opportunity and means afforded of exercising and reducing that habit into act and that in foro externo contentioso after a certain and peculiar manner appointed therein Thus the King has His Ecclesiastical Laws and His Ecclesiastical Courts and His Ecclesiastical Judges * See Sir Joh. Davies Reports Pramunire versus finem there are causes of such and such a Nature appointed by the King to be judged of by them in those Courts according to those Laws * Many things the Popes formerly have taken upon them to give directions of and Enact Canons concerning Episcopal Jurisdiction under this salvo in ordine ad spiritualia which things are matters meerly of civil intercourse and commerce betwixt man and man such are those titles in the Canon Law de emptione venditione de rerum permutatione de transactionibus de depesito c. Testamentary and Matrimonial and Decimal matters are amongst these likewise but although these may better seem to have the aspect of matters spiritual yet that spiritual men have any Jurisdiction therein must not be imputed to the nature of the things themselves nor to any superiority that they have over other men by reason of them but this must be imputed to the Roval bounty and munificence of pious Kings who for the Honor of the Church have so ordered those Causes to be of Ecclesiastical cognizance and that their Subjects concerned therein should be obedient to Ecclesiastical Judges therein Hereupon a Learned Bishop declares That the Popes Decrees Judgments and Executions in these Cases if claimed from Christ as things spiritual and not granted by Caesar are but open invasions of Princes Rights calling those things Spiritual which indeed be Civil and Temporal Bishop Bilson's Christian Subjection page 2. Sir Robert Wiseman The Law of Laws All persons within their respective Diocesses that is certain circuits and precincts of Jurisdiction by the King set out to each Bishop and those in their bounds and limits either to be contracted or extended as He pleases are commanded to be subject to them if they refuse may buâ— constrained to it In matters of Appeal the last complaint is ever to be made to Him He is the final and ultimate Judge who by fit Delegates appointed thereunto does redress grievances answer complaints and finally and absolutely determine what is brought before Him The Learned Archbishop and Primate of all Ireland a little before mentioned has given a full and satisfactory Account of this matter his words are these worthy our best observation Neither do we draw or derive any spiritual Jurisdiction from the Crown but either liberty and power to exercise actually and lawfully upon the Subjects of the Crown that habitual Jurisdiction which we received at our Ordination or the enlargement of our Jurisdiction objectively by the Princes referring more causes to the cognizance of the Church than formerly it had or lastly the increase of it subjectively by their giving to Ecclesiastical Judges an external coercive power which before they had not To go yet one step higher in cases that are indeed spiritual or meerly Ecclesiastical such as concorn the Doctrine of Faith or Administration of the Sacraments or the ordering or degrading of Ecclesiastical persons Sovereign Princes have and have only an Architectonical power to see that Clergy men do their Duties in their proper places but this power is alwayes most properly exercised by the advice and ministry of Ecclesiastical persons and sometimes necessary as in the degradation of one in Holy Orders by Ecclesiastical Delegates Vindication of the Church of England from Schism c. The Exercise of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction by Bishops thus being stated and setled in the likeness that it carries with the other instances before set down neither invades not impairs but much advances and amplifies the Kings Prerogative It comes to pass indeed by this means that the Kings Supremacy is preserved firm and safe in the Ecclesiastical Polity I know a great Objection is made against all this from hence because that in Ecclesiastical proceedings Citations Decrees and other instruments issue forth in the Bishops but not in the Kings Name whence would be infer'd That such attempts and judiciary proceedings made not in the Kings Name are invasive on the Royal Prerogative In order to the Answering of this Objection let it be observed That there are two great Offices in the Kingdom of England the one that of the Lord High Admiral the other that of the Lord Warden of the Onque Ports These have great inflience in foreign parts upon the Sea and within the Lands I before gave you some intimation of their distinct Jurisdiction and manner of jurisdical proceedings different from the Courts of the Common Law Both the jurisdictions of these two great Officers are ample and authoritative yet both the Lord Admiral and the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports do send forth Writs in their own Names and they do it sayes Dr. Cowell in verbo Court as the Bishops hold their Courts by the Kings Authority virtute Magistratus sui In the High Court of the Earl Maishal the same practice is observed In the Universities Processes and Writs issue forth in the Chancellor Vice-chancellor or their Commissaries Name Will any now presume to challenge any of these jurisdictions for invading the Kings Prerogative Will
was ever made nevertheless at the happy Restauration of our Gracious Sovereign that now is viz. Anno Dom. 1660. The said Act of the 17. of King Charles the First is repealed and that was Anno decimo tertio Caroli Secundi and in that Act of Repeal it is thus declared That the said Act of the 17. of King Charles the First notwithstanding All Archbishops Bishops and all others exercising Ecclesiastical jurisdiction may proceed determine sentence execute and exercise all manner of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction and all censures and coercions appertaining and belonging to the same before the making of the Act before recited in all causes and matters belonging to Ecclesiastical jurisdiction according to the Kings Majesties Ecclesiastical Laws used and practised in this Realm in as ample manner form as they did might lawfully have done before the making of the said Act. This Act is indeed attended with three Provisoes The first is concerning the High-commission Court which is excepted from having any revival or force or authority given to it or to the erection of any other such like Court by commission hereby The second Proviso is concerning the Oath called the Oath ex Officio which is excepted against and forbid to be tendred or administred unto any in the exercising of any Spiritual jurisdiction The third Proviso is to limit and confine the power of Ecclesiastical Judges in all their proceedings to what was and by Law might be used before the year 1639. observe the year mentioned to be 1639 which plainly includes allows and confirms King Charles the First His Proclamation in the year 1637. In this clause and branch of this Statute provision is also made against any confirmation to be given to the Canons made Anno 1640. These particulars onely excepted and here provided against all Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction as to it's exstensiveness in all causes of Spiritual cognizance over all persons of what quality and degree soever they be or in what Office soever they are in those causes is firmly ratified and established Bartolus his Rule is truly applicable here Exceptio firmat Regulam in non-exceptis But let all this be granted will the Excepters say that proceedings in Ecclesiastical Courts against private persons either in matters of instance or correction are not entrenching on the Prerogative Royal yet the case is otherwise when such proceedings are bent upon publick Officers as Mayors and Sheriffs c. because they are vested with the Kings Authority and nearly represent His Person They are His Ministers and Dispensers of Justice and by such proceedings against them publick affairs might be hindred of their dispatch and the Kings business not be executed I Answer there is no otherwise in this case For if the matter be justifiable that is if the cause any such proceeding is begun upon do belong to Ecclesiastical cognizance then the Spiritual Jurisdiction in the Bishops management reaches such publick Officers as well as others and that without invading or in the least violating the Kings Prerogative If occasions so require Ecclesiastical censures may be inflicted on them as well as on any other of the Kings subjects that do offend And yet the doing of that will not be a censuring the King in Effigie as some have with very little reason and but too much passion affirmed Observe we what may be done and adjuged against such publick Officers in the Kings Temporal Courts A Mayor and Sheriffs may be impleaded before the Kings Temporal Judges in causes Civil The people of Waterford may remember one or two instances hereof very lately when the School-master there sued the Mayor and Sheriffs before the Lords Justices of Assize for detaining the Salary they had contracted to pay him A Mayor of any City or Corporation may be arrested may during the time of his Mayoralty be sued to an Out-lawry in the Kings Temporal Courts The Kings Temporal Judges may upon contempts convent Mayors before them and occasion so requiring commit them to prison It is not long since that a case in Waterford was coming near this when in one Whaley's cause a Writ of Error was brought from the Court of the Kings Bench This the Mayor refusing to obey and complaint thereof being made to the Court a Pursuivant was ordered to attach the Mayor and bring him before the Judges there to answer his contempt which undoubtedly would have been done if the Execution of that Order had not been seasonably prevented by an Affidavit made to this effect That the Mayor did not refuse to obey the said Writ of Error but onely deferred the admitting of it until he sate judicially in Court the same having been before privately exhibited to him By this means that proceeding was stopped which else would have manifested that the Mayor of Waterford is not so absolute but is indeed under controll and may be convented and punished by the Kings temporal Judges without any affront done to the King in Effigie or to his power and authority which he the said Mayor in his proper station and within his own Precinct does bear And that Sheriffs even while they are in the exercise of their Office may be proceeded against in the Kings Temporal Courts none can be ignorant of that understands the practice of those Courts and remembers there is such a Court as the Exchequer or has undergone the Office of a Sheriff A Sheriff by the Statute of Westminster 1. cap. 9. Anno tertio Edvardi primi for not doing his Duty and for concealing of Felons may be fined and imprisoned One Bronchard in Queen Elizabeths time being Sheriff had an Information Exhibited in the Star-chamber against him for returning one that was not chosen a Knight of the Parliament Abridgement of the Reports of the Lord Dyer 425. A Sheriff of Barkshire was committed to the Fleet and fined by the Court of Common Pleas for unjust taking of Fees Brownloes Reports second part p. 283. I doubt not but the Learned in the Municipal Laws are able to furnish out plenty of instances of this kind Well then Mayors and Sheriffs may be Impleaded may be Out-lawed may be Arrested may be Fined may be Imprisoned in the Kings Temporal Courts by from and before his Temporal Judges And in all these Inflictions here 's no Fining no Arresting no Out-lawing no Imprisoning no Attaching the King in Effigie nor any intrenching upon his Authority from himself to his subordinate civil Officers Here 's no hindring the dispensing of Justice no obstructing the Kings business nor letting the execution of His Majesties service in the hands of these publick Officers that is at all dreaded hereby And pray How then comes it to pass that the case is not the same when in matters of Ecclesiastical cognizance the Kings Ecclesiastical Judge in his Ecclesiastical Courts proceeds against such persons by penalties proper and usually inflicted therein Is not the Kings Authority in His Ecclesiastical Courts in matters belonging to them as forcible and
coercive respectively to the manner of proceedings therein as the same Regal Authority is in the temporal Courts in matters belonging to them and respectively to the manner of proceedings therein The King hath both Jurisdictions united in Him as has been largely before shewed Rex habet omnia jura in manu sua It is a Maxim concerning the King which I read cited from Bracton lib. 2. c. 24. * So it is also said Rex est mixta persona quia tum Ecclesiasticam turn temporalem Jurisdictionem habet 11 Hen. 7.12 Now all is completed in these two Jurisdictions which although they may be diverse yet they are not contrary in him they are both radically and fundamentally in him and derivatively only in all Officers and Ministers of Justice in either kind Is the King then absolute in the one and yet limited in the other less powerful in his Ecclesiastical than in his civil Supremacy That is Supreme and not Supreme Thus to say is either to contradict ones self or neither better nor worse than plainly to derogate from the Kings Ecclesiastical Supremacy and to give him the Name but to deny the Thing It incurs the danger of implied if not direct disowning Regal Supremacy in all causes Ecclesiastical and over all persons that may be concerned therein It is plainly to make a magis and minus in that Authority which will not admit any such thing * Regia dignitas est indivisibilis Coke 4 Instit c. 48. it being alwayes equally and alike forcible in all that is chief and supreme in both Administrations Ecclesiastical and Civil Let 's state a Case or two for better illustration sake A Suit is commenced in the Ecclesiastical Court before the Bishop the Kings Ecclesiastical Judge presiding therein concerning a matter we will suppose not properly cognizable there The Defendant hereupon sues out a Prohibition which he exhibits before the Bishop the Ecclesiastical Judge This the Bishop refuses to admit and notwithstanding the same proceeds in the cause Complaint hereof being made to the Court granting the said Prohibition an Attachment is awarded against the Ecclesiastical Judge * It may be so and issues out of the Chanceâ—y although the Prohibition came from the King Bench or Common Pleas. Lord Coâ—e cap. 8. 4 Instit He is apprehended and brought to answer for his contempt in refusing to obey the Kings Prohibition I question not now but to have a free concurrency of every mans vote allowing this to be very legal and just because the Kings Authority in the Temporal Court and in such matters as belong thereunto is in this case contemned and disobeyed and therefore ought to be answered for by the contemners of it Now invert the case a little A Bishop the Kings Ecclesiastical Judge convents before him in the Kings Ecclesiastical Court a person bearing some civil Office suppose the Mayor of a Corporation or some Sheriff of a County perhaps at the instance of a party perhaps in a matter of correction This Mayor or Sheriff refuses to appear upon the Summoning or appearing refuses to obey such Injunctions as are given him by the Bishop and for his contempt therein has a censure inflicted on him Tell me now ought not this case be allowed as legal and just as the other The reason is certainly the same because the Kings Authority in his Ecclesiastical Court and matters belonging thereunto is contemned and disobeyed and therefore ought to be answered for by the contemners of it and if the reason be the same partiality or prejudice may make a disparity but in the true nature of the thing there is none at all For the Kings Authority being equally committed to both spiritual and temporal Judge in the concernancy of such things as belong to each the violaters and contemners of either be they of what quality and condition soever are justly punishable by those in either Jurisdiction who are vested with Authority respectively for executing the same But there are those who will not be satified with all this and that they may not seem to be without some grounds they are not without their Objections against it It will therefore be very pertinent to the present design to free our former Assertion from such Inferences as hence may be made contrary to it The Assertion was this That the Exercise of Episcopal Jurisdiction over persons in Office of civil power and trust is not any way intrenching upon or infringing His Majesties Prerogative Royal. To this there is first opposed that Branch and Article of the Statute of Clarenaon of which we find mention made by Matth. Paris in his History of the Reign of King Henry the second the chapter that begins thus Anno Domini 1164. in these words Nullus qui de Rege tenet in capite nec aliquis Dominicorum Ministrorum ejus Excommunicetur nec alicujus eorum terrae sub interdicto ponantur nisi prius Dominus Rex si in Regno fuerio conveniatur vei justitiarius ejus si fuerit extra Regnum ut rectum de eo faciat Et ita ut quod pertinebat ad Regis Curiam â—bi terminetur Et de eo quod spectat ad Curiam Ecclesiasticam ad eandem mittatur ut ibidem terminetur I did a little before and do now again acknowledge That the King of England may by His Prerogative Royal when and to whom he pleases give exemption from Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction But that He has done it to persons in subordinate Offices of civil power is not proved from this instance all the dispute will be who are comprehended under this expression Dominicorum Ministrorum what kind and sort of persons are pointed at thereby And here I say plainly that persons in subordinate Offices of civil power are not these Dominici Ministri Regis My Lord Cokes Exposition hereof is my warrantry and authority for saying so * 2 p. Instit Exposition on the 12th Article of the Statute called Articuli Cleri 9 Ed. 2. The place I refer to in the Margent will inform us That Dominici Ministri Regis are such as belonged to the Kings Houshold as the Tenentes de Capite are such as held of the King by Grand Serjeanty and Knights service and were to give their attendance on the Kings person whensoever required thereto To these is this exemption granted but note here withall that the exemption in this Statute is not absolute but proceeds with a reserve and a limitation that if the cause any such person is to be convented upon be judged by the King or His Justice in the Kings absence to belong to the Ecclesiastical Court thither both cause and person must be sent and that person notwithstanding such exemption be proceeded against and that cause there be determined That which is in the principal aim and provision of this Statute is this that the King be made acquainted before any censures be inflicted on any account upon any of His servants
and attendants But there is something further objected and that supposed to be more forcible by a late Author who has put himself to the expence of a great deal of labour and industry in searching out of some presidents and as he conceives warrantable Authorities whereby to evince the limiting and binding up of Episcopal Jurisdiction in respect of persons vested with secular power and command namely that such persons are by peculiar and that Regal exemption freed from all coercive authority thereof Among other things produced by him I pitch especially on two which appear to have the greatest stress laid upon them The one is an ancient Record in the time of King Henry the third of this Tenor. The Provest of Bourdeaux had been Excommunicated by the Archbishop of Bourdeaux without the Kings Licence whereupon King Henry writes to that Archbishop and sharply expostulates with him That he had Excommunicated His Provost without his Licence and commands him forthwith to absolve him Upon the like account saith the same Author King Edward the First Claus 8. Ed. 1. Dors 6. and Claus 31. Ed. 1. Dors 11. issued out Writs to his Bishops commanding them not to Excommunicate his Bayliffs and Officers and absolve them if Excommunicated without his previous Licence and Order Mr. Pryn's Animadversions c. on the fourth part of Sir Ed. Coke's Instit p. 404. At a distant view of these instances produced they may seem to have a goodly appearance and to serve well the end intended in their production but come we to a nearer inspection and more narrow examination thereof and they will be found weak and useless for any such purpose Let it be granted that by Bayliffs are understood Sheriffs and other Officers in secular Authority such as have the Government in Corporations as Mayors Portrives * Glossar added to that Edition of Mat. Paris printed at London 1640. c. Yet I make no doubt to affirm that still the former Assertion stands firm and unshaken To make good this a little recourse must be had to other Historical occurrences in the Reigns of these two Kings Henry the third and his son and successor Edward 1. For these will give us the best light and guidance to discover the grounds wherefore and and the matters wherein these prohibitory Writs issued out and the ends aimed at by them It has been said that that Age was the very Crisis of Regal and Papal power in the Kingdom of England then was the sharpest conflict betwixt both and thence forward the Papal power began to dwindle and decline And as a disease makes the sharpest assault upon Nature immediately before it begins to abate so did the Papal power at this time before its declension The exercise of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction did then de facto derive from and was dependant upon the See of Rome and so it came to pass that the spiritual Court or Court Christian was reputed aliud forum à foro Regio and King Henry the third experienced many attempts made to limit and restrain his Prerogative insomuch as with great insolence his Bishops threatned to Excommunicate Him * Sir Richard Bakers Chronicle the Reign of Heâ— 3d. They were propt up and supported by Papal Authority and after such a daring and confident manner were they inspirited from Rome as to look upon themselves in their actings utterly independent on the Crown and then it was chiefly that by the greatness and prevalency of Boniface Archbishop of Canterbury Uncle to Elianor then Queen of England that many Provincial constitutions were Enacted concerning matters of meer temporal cognizanced and encroachments were daily made on the secular Courts and Excommunications and other censures were thundred out against the Kings Bayliffs and Officers But why only because they opposed them in the execution of such constitutions Hereupon proceeded these prohibitions to the Bishops upon these grounds they were commanded not to censure such Officers and Bayliffs that is for so executing their Offices and discharging their Allegiance and Duty to their Princes Here was no intent to restrain the Bishops in the right exercise of their Jurisdiction touching such matters as truly belonged to it but to keep them from exceeding their own bounds and medling in matters which were not cognizable before them And thus much appears plainly from that clause in the very Record it self set down by this Author in the place before mentioned Si vero Praepositus noster aliquid deliquerit contra dignitatem Ecclesiasticam faciemus cum juri parere postquam delictum fuerit nobis denuntiatum pro quo interim eum absoâ—vi faciatis So that here is no more than what the ordinary Writs of prohibition do import The King requires to be informed of the true state of that cause his Officers are convented upon so he â—equires to be in the case of any of his other Subjects upon address made to him concerning the same If the matter be found to belong indeed to Eâ—câ—esiastical cognizance the parties concerned therein be they in any office or place of power so as belongs to the present case they must be subject thereunto But if the matter do not so belong the King will rescue them thence and shield them with his Regal protection and not suffer an incompetent Court to have any authority over them But see the ill luck that this Author has in alledging this Record for whilst he makes a shew of advancing the Kings Prerogative in one kind he does really depress it in anothers I cannot contain my self from calling upon the Reader and desiring him to observe and then wonder that any one should insist upon this Writ as any way advantagious to the thing he bestirs himself to make good thereby when it is said in the very body of it in relation to the Bishops Non attendentes quod ab ordinariis locorum non possint Excommunicari Ballivi nostri nisi de Excessibus eorum prius fuerit nobis relata querela propter sedis Apostolicae nobis indultum privilegium I wish the Reader would be at the pains to consult the very Record set down by this Author in the place of his Book referred to before And I pray let any one consider this advisedly and then tell me What right does that man to the Crown of England that whil'st he appears mightily busied in asserting the Supremacy thereof will yet make it dependant on Papal Authority Is it come to this That the King of England must ask leave of the Pope to put any restraint upon his own Bishops The production of this Record makes better to gratifie the Papists than to prove the thing it is produced for though in truth neither the one nor the other gets any real advantage hereby Historians observe many miscarriages in this Kings Government during his long Reign of fifty and six years among which this application which he made to Rome was not the least The most knowing of his Subjects were much
Sect. 37. And note sayes he That the Ecclesiastical Court hath cognizance of the reparation of the Body of the Church He instances in the Body of the Church because not-excluding the other parts mention is there made of the Parishioners to whom the repair belongs and who are to contribute to the same Dr Cosen in the First part of his Apology cap. 7 informs us thus touching this matter When a Prohibition was sued out sayes he for proceeding Ecclesiastically in a matter concerning the Reparation of the Body of a Church A judgement was given thereupon in a consultation to this effect which he sayes is recorded in the Register cited by him thus pag. 43. a. Vobis igitur significamus quod super emendatione reparatione defectuum corporis Ecclesiae juxta consuetudinem approbatam facienda procedere poteritis ea facere quae ad forum Ecclesiasticum nover it is pertinere 〈◊〉 a prohibitione non obstante And by reason of defects in the reparation of a Church sayes the same Author ibid. Money it self may lawfully be sued for in a Court Ecclesiastical as appears by another consultation Reg. pag. 48. a. And so it is provided in the very Stature of circumspecte agatis The words are these mentioned in it In which case none other penance can be enjoyned but pecuniary See Lindwood ad verbum Sub poena cap. Sint Ecclesiarum Rectores De Officio Archidiaconi Lord Coke de jure Regis Ecclesiastico p 9. 3. The penalty of praemunire will not be incurred by any Ecclesiastical Judge on account of any proceedings of this Nature The proof of this Assertion depends upon two things viz. The truth of the two former Assertions that the cause proceeded upon was properly belonging to the Ecclesiastical Tribunal and that the Bishop the Ecclesiastical Judge proceeding therein acted not by or from any foreign jurisdiction or power Both these are so manifestly true that I might supersede my self the labour of saying any more therein But because some mens mouths were opened wide and loud in that point as if when by Law they could not they would yet by their clamorous votes and confident affirmings involve the Bishop in the penalty of this Statute It will therefore I think be both a seasonable undertaking and proper to our purpose to write something more particularly concerning the same and the rather because the imputation of incurring the penalty contained in that Statute is oftentimes at least threatned against those that are careful and active in the discharge of their Office of Trust in matters of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction It has been the observation of a late Historian Fuller Church History Book 4. p. 149. that this Statute of pramunire has had the hard hap not to be honoured with so many readings thereon as other Statutes And therefore I suppose the course now taken by me in speaking something hereof will appear the more excusable If not having opportunity of viewing the few readings that have been made thereon by the Learned in the Common Law I have recourse to such other Writers as upon some occasional emergency or other incidental matter have treated thereof The Writ of praemunire facias grounded principally on the Statute made in the 16 year of King Richard the Second cap. 5. is awarded against those that have procured any Process or Bull of the Pope from Rome or elsewhere for any Ecclesiastical place or preferment within this Realm or doth sue in any foreign Ecclesiastical Court to defeat or impeach the Kings Courts and the party offending herein is liable to grievous penalties mentioned in the said Statute This account of a praemunire as abstracted by him from the Statute I take from Sir Thomas Ridley in his View of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Laws p. 3. c. 1. Sect. 1. Some later Statutes sayes Dr. Cowell in the word praemunire do cast this punishment on other offenders As denying the Kings Supremacy the second time by the Statute 1 Elizab. 1. falls under the punishment of praemunire And by the Statute 13 Eliz. cap. 2. He that affirmeth the Authority of the Pope and refuses to take the Oath of Supremacy falls under the like penalty so they do likewise by the Statute of the 13 of the Q. cap. 1. that are seditious talkers or affirm the Q. Majesty to be an Heretick Now let us put all these together and whatsoever else is collected from the Statutes made before and after the Reign of King Richard the Second touching these matters Put all these I say together and what either in gross or tale will they make to disadvantage the matter we have in hand or what can be found either in the Bishop or his proceedings impeachable from thence Is it his being appointed to and setled in the Epâ—scopal See of Waterford and Lismore None can affirm that For he receives not this by any Bull from Rome but by Donation and Investiture from the King of England Is it the actual exercising of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within his Diocess That cannot be neither because he is not empowred to this by any Foreign Authority but by his Majesties Letters Patents for his Consecration and by His Majesties Letters Patents for restauration of the Temporalities Are any of his proceedings against the Kings Crown and Dignity No They tend not to promote any foreign power but to maintain the Kings Prerogative and Supremacy over all persons in causes Ecclesiastical Does he refuse to take the Oath of Supremacy or fall under any of those crimes mentioned in the Statutes of Q. Elizabeth and which are liable to the penalties of praemunire This cannot be said He took the Oath of Supremacy on other occasions required by Law And he took it as is appointed at the time of his Consecration Lastly are any things done by him whereby the Kings Courts are impeached and defeated Not this because He the Kings Ecclesiastical Judge in the Diocess of Waterford and Lismore hears and determines matters of Ecclesiastical cognizance in the Kings Ecclesiastical Court there according to and by the Kings Ecclesiastical Laws Whence then may we conceive arises this imputation of a praemunire There is indeed no ground for it but in the fancies and would I had not reason to say in the wishes of such as are so ill affected that they do not patiently endure the Episcopal office much less allow the exercise of any Jurisdiction by a Bishop Observation of former times and reading besides present experience of things now brings to our knowledge the restless practises of some that endeavour by all contrivances of wit and policy to load with odious charges the exercise of Episcopal Jurisdiction and if it may be done to draw it within the penalties appointed by this Statute of Praemunire yet there are many sober and wise men who have declared openly enough their opinion That as all Jurisdiction whatsoever in these Kingdoms is radically in the King and so an Union of Ecclesiastical and Temporal
praemunire Anno 16. Richard 2d cap. 5. It is Ordained That none shall purchase or pursue in the Count of Rome or elsewhere any Processes Bulls c. nor the same bring within the Realm viz. these His Majesties Dominions This be it spoken under correction cannot rationally be intended de Curia Episcopi here within this Blealm the reason is plain because Curia Bomana velâ—alibi where such Processes and Bulls c. are purchased and pursued and from whence they are brought within the Realm these I say must be somewhere out of the Realm for the bringing in of a thing excludes the obeing of that thing there already but the Bishops Courts are within the Realm and none of these Processes brought into the Realm can be from them and therefore this word alibi has no reference to nor can it be intended of them Add hereunto That the occasion inducing this Statute and recited in the preamble to lit seems not all to favour this sense of the word The Coinmons in Parliament having with great vehemency and earnestness represented the several Grievances the Kingdom lay under among others these are especially mentioned viz. The Popes Excommunicating of Bishops for executing the Kings Commandments the Popes translating of them from See to See sometimes out of the Kingdom against their own and contrary to the Kings Will The Lords Spiritual being therefore demanded as the Lords Temporal had been before what their Advice and Will was in these cases The Archbishops and Bishops and other Prelates openly disclaimed the Popes insolent carriage towards the King and His Subjects and declared That they would and ought to stand with the King in these cases in lawfully maintaining of His Crown and in all other cases touching His Crown and Regality as they be bound by their Allegiance Whereupon sayes the Statute It is Ordained and Enacted That if any purchase or pursue c. from the Court of Rome or elsewhere c. May I not here well demand what relation either in the occasion or sense of the Stature can be made up betwixt Bishops Consistories and this word Alibi Bishops in their Jurisdictions were troubled by the Pope as the King Himself was in the right of His Crown both are complained of both redressed by this Statute How can that which is the Grievance complained of in the preamble of the Statute come to be the thing aggrieving in the latter part of it The truth is provision is here made against the setting up and abetting of all Forreign Authority but Domestical proceedings in Ecclesiastical Courts are not related to This I am confident to affirm by this Authority following The preamble sayes my Lord Coke from Pl. Com. fo 369. Stowells case in every Statute is to be considered for it is the Key to open the meaning of the makers of the Act and mischiefs which they intend to remedy Also from a case 4 Ed. 4. fo 4. 12. The same learned Judge declares thus Every Statute ought to be expounded according to the intent of them that made it where the words thereof are doubtful and uncertain and according to the rehearsal of the Statute and there a general Statute is construed particularly upon consideration had of the cause of making the Act and of the rehearsal of all the parts of the Act c. 4 Instit cap. 74. It is a general Rule allowed by all Laws in construction of Statutes Quamvis lex generaliter loquatur restringenda tamen est ut cessante ratione ipsa cesset cum enim ratio sit Anima vigorque ipsius legis non videtur Legislator id sensisse quod ratione careat etiamsi Verborum generalitas prima facie aliter suadeat Idem Ibidem And for the Book-case related to and the inference made therefrom hear what a learned person has delivered very fully and appositely concerning that not in answer to this Judges opinion for he wrote many years before him but to invalidate an Assertion of the same nature with this and from the same Book-case viz. 5 Ed. 4. fol. 6. praemunire and made by one he then contended with This case does but speak of the Excommunication by a Bishop and not of every dealing whatsoever in a matter belonging to the Kings Regality and what if it had been twice so adjudged both of them in such corrupt times when as the Royal Prerogative of the Kings of this Land to be Supreme Governors in all Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical due to them in Right and by Gods Law was not de facto united to the Crown For the Bishops then did not claim their Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical next and immediately under God from the Crown as now they do but seeing this part of Regal power is now no less truly and fully vested in the Crown than is the Temporal so as the Laws allowed for the Ecclesiastical Government are termed by sundry Parliaments the Queens Ecclesiastical Laws and Laws of this Realm as well as those that were first originally made here And the Bishops are proved to have their Authority and Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical derived down unto them from the Queens Highness under the Great Seal of England Is it then the like reason still to comprise their Jurisdictions and Courts under that word of Alibi as if their Courts and Jurisdictions were not now the Queens nor yet belonging to Her Regality Cosen Apol. p. 3. ch 7. Furthermore the holding plea of a matter belonging to the common Law by an Ecclesiastical Judge so constituted as he ought to be and now is does not tend to the disinherision of the Crown that is not to the impairing of any Regality Power or Preheminence belonging to the same and therefore cannot be the crime of praemunire The Statute 25 Hen. 8. cap. 21. declares concerning whom and how offending the Statute of the 16 Richard secundi was framed namely such as sue to the Court of Rome against the Kings Crown and Dignity Royal one Statute best explains another So then where the Authority that is acted by is the same a mistake in the matter to be proceeded upon or manner of proceeding in does not infringe that authority The reason is because the Kings authority empowring to act is still acknowledged and what is judicially done thereby proceeds by power derived from Him not from any power set up against him I presume it will be readily granted That the upholding and securing the Kings Supremacy in all causes and over all persons is that which principally if not solely is aimed at by this Statute And then it plainly follows that where that Supremacy is maintained no breach of that Statute can be made nor penalty incur'd by any for a mistake only of the matter that any Plea in Subordination to the King as Supream is held upon The worst that is to be said in this case is this That he who being a spiritual Judge does take cognizance of any temporal matter offends in going beyond his Commission and
contempt and disobedience If it should be here said That the censure of suspension ab ingressu in Ecclesiam though it be a milder censure far than the other was improperly inflicted in this case because Excommunication is the poenal coercion appropriated to this crime of contempt and if that contempt were really so scandalous and notorious why was not the penalty inflicted pro rata culpae Besides there is seldom mention of this kind of censure but in one case and that set down in the Statute Law viz. 6 Edvard sexti cap. 4. imposed on such as are Brawlers in Churches and Church-yards but of Excommunication it is said Aliarum censurarum Ecclesiasticarum una viz. Excommunicatio infligitur pro contumacia sola vel non comparendo in judicio vel non parendo mandatis Ecclesiae Dr. Cosen Polit. Eccles Anglic Tab. 5. A. Which being so and not applied in the case where it ought thence the proceedings in this cause become irregular and illegal To all this it may be returned first That lenity is there unhappily placed where they that have benefit by it would turn it to the prejudice of those that bestow it Besides Admit that the censure of Excommunication might justly have been inflicted in this case on these persons which most certainly might have been yet the not imposing that does not vitiate the proceedings and make them become irregular and illegal for this suspension is a kind of Excommunication and although by the Statute it seem peculiarly appropriated to the crime of brawling and quarrelling in Church or Church-yards yet that I conceive is to be understood in this sense That no other censure shall be inflicted upon that crime but the same censure may be inflicted on other crimes besides and so consequently on this which it was inflicted on here Suspension I said was a kind of Excommunication some call it Minor Excommunicatio Cowell word Suspension it is a degree below that which is usually called by that name for a man being deprived of a liberty of coming to Church he is thereby deprived of all publickcommunion with the rest of Gods faithful people in partaking of the Word and Sacraments and all other divine Offices It is called by some Interdictio divinorum illata in personas to distinguish from that which is the interdiction of a place Zouch de Jure Ecclesiastico part 2. sect 8. There are two things wherein this censure of Suspension differs from Excommunication properly so called I speak here only as to things in foro externo in respect of outward practice and proceeding thereupon 1. Because the Secular Arm cannot be implored or called upon for it 2. Because it does not render a person on whom it was imposed so incapable in sundry respects of Secular matters as the other does Nor indeed does the Rule laid down before so precisely bind the Ecclesiastical Judge to a literal observance of it that no other censure in such a case may be used instead thereof But it is within the latitude of his Authority That if there be hopes of attaining the ends of this greater censure as the reducing of refractory and contumacious persons by inflicting the lesser And if there be a concurrency of other peculiar respects besides inducing the Judge to use that lesser then surely the greater may be abstained from and the course and manner of proceedings still be good and justifiable I have been the longer in removing this Objection that might be made against the Bishops proceedings as to the manner of them in this particular because I have heard something debated touching the same and I have had some doubtings thereof in my self but as this censure was I verily believe with great deliberation and prudent resolve inflicted by the Bishop so I am now fully satisfied therewith both in respect of the nature of it and manner of proceeding to the inflicting of it For the coming of things to this head we must know was not precipitous and hudled up all on a sudden five several Court-dayes were employed in this Transaction betwixt every of which fair and competent intervals of time were allowed although I must needs say considering all circumstances lesser time might have served Canonically enough to dispatch a matter of as great concernment as this * In the Isle of Man the Ecclesiastical Judge makes much shorter wâ—â—k In hac insala Judex Ecclesiasticus citat dâ—fi it infra octo Dies parent aut carceri intruduntur Lord Coke 4 part Instit c. 69. But the Bishop resolved I suppose to move circumspectly and deliberatively in what he Decreed and therefore took time enough for it and he desired that they whom he had to deal withall would be tractable regular and advised in what they ought to have done and so he gave them time enough likewise So then to the inflicting this censure was this matter brought The passing of which the publication of it in the forementioned Cathedral at due time and in due manner The particular intimation thereof given to the persons themselves the grave admonition following to obey the same and retract their former contempts and refractoriness All these notwithstanding the Mayor and Sheriffs the next Sunday following come to Church in an unwonted strange and tumultuous manner attended with a confused and numerous Rabble of such as had not used to visit the Church at all nor would then have done it but that they were countenanced nay commanded indeed tâ— attend the Kings Sword such a phrase they used but such a concourse proved a disorderly and heady meeting together Thus was the Church censure contemn'd baffl'd trampled upon Thus was Episcopal power exposed to derision and mockery Thus was the Kings Authority in His Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction debased and made vile by those that gave themselves out to be the great upholders of it in matters of civil Jurisdiction and after all to make a shew of innocency in this whole proceeding they speed in all haste to complain first and would have it thought an argument of their being injuriously dealt withall so destitute were they of any other because they have got the start and cry out loudest that they are so They represent themselves as persons above any example the most unjustly dealt withall and aggrieved by strange arbitrary and unheard of proceedings Their Address was made to His Majesties most Honourable Privy Council in this Kingdom there they Exhibit their Complaint thence they expect relief The Bishop owns the Kings Authority wheresoever and in whomsoever it is represented but especially in that High and most Honourable Assembly and so submits him self and proceedings to the determination that by their Lordships should be made thereof I must not omit that to make sure work besides this Address the pretending Complainants become Appellants for they interpose an Appeal in Scriptis from the Bishop immediately to the King that if one course they had taken failed the other at least might be helpful to
them I cannot pass by although I do but touch at them the many Errors concurring in this latter Essay As that first the time of Appealing from that which they pretended themselves aggrieved with was lapsed when this Appeal was interposed Moreover that one and the same cause by the same persons at the same time was thus brought to tryal before two distinct Judicatories which is vexatious at least in those that procure the same to be done so That the intermediate Jurisdiction was passed by contrary to the ancient liberties and customs in such cases observed and which was among other matters digested into Articles and Chapters confirmed in the Parliament held at Clarendon in the Reign of King Henry 2d Anno Domini 1164. namely That all Appeals in England must proceed regularly from the Archdeacon to the Bishop from the Bishop to the Archbishop and if the Archbishop failed to do justice the last complaint must be to the King to give order for redress that is sayes my Lord Primate Bramhall Vindication of the Church of England p. 75. by fit Delegates See to this purpose The Statute of Appeals 24 Hen. 8. cap. 12. And this contrary to the 56 Canon of this Church Whereby the pain of Nullity is inflicted on all Acts which are sped in Appeals where the Jurisdiction intermediate is passed by for although it is true That the Kings Authority ought not to be disputed or disobeyed by any Subject where it does appear to be yet that must ever be esteemed a true and regular obedience which the King himself by Law has prescribed it should be And lastly supposing the Appeal entred by them to have been antecedently good that is good in respect of time and manner observed in interposing the same yet it is not good nor valid in its consequents because the time appointed for these pretended Appellants to receive their Apostles that is dimissory Letters from the Bishop or Judge Aquo intimating his deferring and yielding to the said Appeal and assigning of time for prosecution of the same is long since passed away without doing either And besides this slipping the Terminus Hominis that is the Term limited and appointed by the Judge from whom the Appeal is Moreover the primum fatale juris for prosecuting and ending of Appeals is likewise lapsed and no impediment can be warrantably alledged in favour and on behalf of the Appellants so as to enjoy benefit of restitution into and being allowed their secundum fatale or second year for prosecuting their former Appeal No impediment I say can warrantably be alledged by these Appellants to capacitate them for this restitution for although the matter and pretended Grievance complained of against the Bishop at the hearing thereof before the most Honourable Council was referâ—d to two Honourable Members of the same and in the issue thereof from those Hononrable Referrees something like the nature of a compromise was made between both parties which might seem sufficient to stop the running on of these Fatalia Juris namely in respect of the Complainants their engaging to perform what belonged to them to do and had been required from them by the Bishop as to give account of the Money received for the Churches use and making good the Reparation of the Body of the Cathedral and other particular matters before mentioned and in respect of the Bishop his promising to withdraw his proceedings against them thereupon Although I say this seeming compromise might appear as a sufficient ground of granting admission to the secundum fatale supposing the first to be irrecoverably past Nevertheless it is not at all sufficient thereto the reason is because conditions were not performed on which this respite and seeming compromise was grounded and this non-performance of conditions was on the Appellants own part The Bishop performed more than his part in desisting hitherto from any further proceeding against them And they not performing the conditions required on their parts not then nor since nor to this very day which yet they ought to have done forthwith the benefit therefore of the other fatale is not allowable to them but being uncapable of any restitution thereunto they are really in the lapse and the said Appeal may be pronounced pro desertâ and no advantage on the Appellants part to be expected therefrom And if the Bishop should thus pronounce and resume into his cognizance the whole proceeding again as there would be both Law and Right enough to justifie his so doing so there would be a want of both these and of every thing else that might be needful to make up a safe and warrantable defence for the Complainants It is a noted and approved Maxim in poenal proceedings That Contempts of all crimes are least capable of favour or lenity Upon the whole view it sufficiently appears how little of truth or reason this exception against the manner of proceedings has to bear its self up withall Look we upon the crimes censured they were deeply scandalous and provoking Look we upon the censure inflicted 't was comparatively to the crime and a greater censure that might have been inflicted moderate and easie Look we to the manner of proceeding it was proper and without the omission of any one requisite or formality that of right ought to be used therein Look we to the Order observed It was not loose and confused but grave and regular Look we upon the whole cognizance it self This was not hasty and precipitous but prudentially guided and proceeding with good maturity and deliberation convenient intervals of time dividing seasonably every Court throughout the whole Transaction and preventing any thing of surprize that might be suspected therein I pretend not much skill to these Affairs yet being upon the design of searching as well as I was able into the whole state of this matter I have viewed and reviewed the whole series of these proceedings with the several Acts of Court Decrees and other matters incident thereunto And according to the best of what I am able to judge I cannot find in the same where to fasten any Error no not in the very niceties and punctualities of practice much less in any material point and essential matter thereof And now after all If Offenders complaints against the forms and prescriptions of Courts may pass for just Exceptions and fair Vindications of themselves we shall have many crimes but few criminals many that will be bold to offend but few that will ever acknowledge their being legally convicted for their Offences 'T is high time for persons invested with judiciary power to look about them and provide some new wayes of securing the Authority of their judicial proceedings if every bold attempt to question the legality of them may pass for a justifiable Plea of not obeying them or imprint a nullity upon them When such Offenders so justly and mildly censured shall dare openly to tell my Lord the Kings Deputy and my Lords of His Majesties Council as