of the Exchequer my Lord chiefe Baron sir Humphrey Daverport and the other Barons of the Exchequer refusing to grant me a certiorarj to the High Commition Court to command them to certfie the cause to permit mee to pleade to the foresaid fine did the 10. of May 1633. commit me to the Fleet in execution of the foresaid fine there detained me a full yeare untill I to procure my liberty paid the fourth part of the said fine to Mr. Motershed pecunijs numeratis and stal'd the other three parts to the Kings use And for which and also for a Petition delivered at the Counsell Table to crave justice therein according to his Majesties mandate under sir Edward Powels hand to my Lord chiefe Justice sir Iohn Bramston and the other Judges of the Kings Bench court dated the 29. of December 1635. and delivered with mine owne hand to the said Judges in open Court the first day of Hilary Tearme 1635. I was by my most reverend Diocesan and provinciall William Lord Archbishop of Cant. his Grace and other right Honorable Lords of his Majesties most honorable privie Councell on the third day of February 1636. committed to custodie of the Warden of the Fleet by a warrant wherein no cause of commitment was exprest and there detain'd a prisoner by him untill Trinity Tearme 1639. and then upon an habeas corpus issuing out of the Kings Bench Court I was brought to that court in Trinity Tearme 1639. and the foresaid warrant for my commitment returned and then I was presently bayled and thereby tyed to appeare in court divers daies both that Tearme and the Tearme thence next following and because none of the Kings Counsell in all that time came in against me I was on the last day of that Michaelmas Tearme 1639. delivered from the said baile and imprisonment by the joynt consent of all the Reverend Judges then of that court As I formerly had beene in the same court Termino paschae 1629. after the first two yeares imprisonment upon the foresaid originall matter returned to an habeas and fully debated by Counsell on both sides and Mr Justice Bertley then the Kings Sergeant in open court professing himselfe fully satisfied And for the former originall matter onely may for nothing at all in the judgement of the Law even for the foresaid sentence of deprivation and degradation charging mee with grievous and enormous crimes excesses delicts mentioned in the said Articles and those Articles not given in evidence nor found by the Jury in the speciall verdict betweene Allen and Nash entred upon record in the Kings Bench court termino Sancti michaelis 8. Car. rot 508. my Lord chiefe Justice of that court sir Iohn Bramston did for himselfe and his brethren Termino Trinitatis 1637. affirme the foresaid sentence and deliver his opinion against me for the intruder Robert Carter Whence it followeth that if the Commissioners aforesaid first finall sentence against me the 500 pounds fine thereby imposed upon me the two yeares imprisonment thereby sustained by me be just legall then all the other sentences censures and punishments following and depending thereupon may be just and legall But if the former the only ground of all the rest be unjust and illegall then all the other must of necessity be unjust and illegall And whether the former be just or unjust let the indifferent reader judge impatially upon the perusall of the following argument MY Honoured Lord cheife Iustice and my Honored Iudges the first thing in this Controversie concerning the points of the Canon law in question whereunto cheifly I am to speake is the very stating of the controversie it selfe between me my adversaries And for that purpose in the first place I humbly desire your Lordship the Court to observe that the defendants charge me with faults of severall degrees some principall and especiall others inferiour and accessory· The Principall and Especiall are two as appeares by their first finall sentence alleaged in their plea wherein they say that upon the opening of the cause they found the aforesaid George Huntley charged in the said Articles with these two perticulers principally (a) This word specialiter in this sence is 3. times used in the defendants plea. twice in the first part of their first finall sentence and once in the Commission of 14. Articles obiected against me 12. doe expresly mention my refusall to Preach the Visitation sermon as a fault or prepare the way theieunto and the fourth saith that I offered two or three peeces to the Arch-deacon to procure one to preach that sermon only the sixth and thirteenth Articles doe not mention it or especially first that he refused to preach a visitation sermon at the Arch-deacons of Cant. Doctor Kingsleys command contrary to his Canonicall obedience and secondly that he raised an opinion amongst the Clergy that the said Arch-deacon had no power to command him the said Huntley or any other incmbent to preach the said visitation Sermon The Inferiours or Accessories are foure first that the said Huntley came unsent for or uncal'd for to Master Arch-deacon aforesaid he being in his visitation amongst the Clergie and sitting there to heare causes Secondly that the said Huntley did then and there very malepertly and irreverently charge the said Arch-deacon of falsehood or injustice thirdly that the said Huntley did at the same time and place in a very arrogant irrespective manner lay downe an hundred pounds in Gold upon the table and offered to lay wagers with him the said arch-deacon that he had done him the said Huntley wrong or the like in effect and fourthly and lastly that the said Huntley refused to performe his submission conceptis verbis as was enioyned him by the Commissioners and therein gave a great affront and contempt both against his Maiesties supreame power and authority in matters and causes Ecclesiasticall and also against the high commission court to whom the same by letters patents under the great seale of England is delegated and committed And for these six particulers the defendants confesse that they imprison'd me two yeares namely from the nineteenth day of Aprill 1627. to Aprill 1629. In which moneth upon my appearance in this court the first day of that Easter Terme 1629. to save my baile you Master Iustice Heath then the Kings Attourney Generall were first call'd for by the Court in the Kings behalfe against me and you came and confest that you had nothing to say against me and then Master Iustice Bertley being then the Kings Sergeant whose (b) Master Iustice Bertley at this time was in the custody of the Sheriffe of London absence I much lament whose presence I much desire was called for by the court for the same purpose against mee and hee came and confest that he had formerly spoken twice against mee upon the matter return'd to the habeas corpus which was the very same for substance that is now pleaded
obedience unto the canons testantibus ad versarijs the person but meane poore but a Presbyter a minister an incumbent and that onely of a single benefice and never any waies contumacious this matter belongs not to the cognisance of the High commission but to the jurisdiction of the ordinary and then it hath beene all this while coram non judice and so the sentence and whole proceedings are utterly voyd And thus much concerning this first question which my refusall to preach the Archdeacons visitation Sermon if it be a breach of Canonicall obedience begets namely that the breaches of canons or of canonicall obedience to the canons according to the Lawes and customes of his land belong to the jurisdiction of the Ordinary and not to the cognisance of the High commission court or that for the breach of a canon or of canonicall obedience to the canons according to the Lawes and customes of this land men are not to be fetcht from the judgement jurisdiction of the Ordinary up to the High Commission court and there to be fin'd imprisond but are to be left to the judgement and jurisdicton of the ordinary and he to proceede against them according to the power of the Keies Now on the other side my Lord if this my refusall to preach the Archdeacons visitation sermon be no breach of canonicall obedience then it begets this question whether the high commissioners your Lordship this court the Barons of the Exchequer and the Lords of the counsell have power to punish me for that which is no fault no breach of any law And least the high commissioners this court the Barons of the Exchequer and the Lordes of the counsell should all thinke to escape by maintaining the affirmative that they have power to punish me for that which is no fault no breach of any law and peradventure in a desperate case they will not sticke to maintaine a desperate opinion especially seeing your Lordship hath shew'd and lead them all the way For termino trinitatis 1637. When your Lordship delivered your opinion in the especiall verdict betweene Allen and Nash your Lordship not onely affirmed the high commission sentence of deprivation and degradation against me but also maintained that your Lordship and this court were bound to affirme it whether it were true or false grounded upon a cause or upon no cause Therefore my Lord to stoppe up that gap to prevent that starting hole to overthrow that parodox and with one argument to confute those foure Honorable senates whereof the first and the last the high commissioners and the Lords of the counsell challenge as great authority as the King himselfe hath and all of you in this my case usurpe a greater for you all punish me for that which is no fault no breach of any law I must in the first place Thesis 1 shew that no Magistrate whatsoever no not the supreame hath any power prerogative or authority to punish any man within his jurisdiction except it be for some fault some offence some vice some error some evill some sinne some transgression of some law Thesis 2 And secondly I must shew that my refusall to preach the Arch-deacons Visitation Sermon my principall or especiall fault in the judgement of my adversaries is no fault no offence no vice no error no evill no sinne no transgression of any Law whatsoever and that therefore neither the high commissioners your Lordship this court the Barons of the Exchequer the Lords of the counsell nor any other Magistrate whatsoever no not the supreme hath any power prerogative or authority to punish me muchlesse to imprison me for it And for the first of these positions that no Magistrate whatsoever no not the supreame hath any power Thesis 1. Tractatio prerogative or authority to punish any man within his jurisdiction except it be for some fault some offence some vice some error some evill some sinne some transgression of some law this appeares out of the 13. chapter to the Rom. verse 3. where the Apostle speaking of that Magistrate to whom the sword is committed of that Magistrate to whom we pay tribute of that magistrate to whom we must submit not onely for wrath but for conscience sake of that Magistrate to whom every soule is to be subject that is of the soveraigne supreme Monarchicall Magistrate Gods immediate deputy and vicegerent he saith of that Magistrate the Magistrate is not a terror to good workes but to evill wilt thou then be without feare of the power doe well so shalt thou have praise of the same for he is the Minister of God for thy wealth But if thou do evill then feare for he beares not the sword in vaine for he is the Minister of God to take vengeance on him that doth evill Saint Paul then is cleere that no Magistrate whatsoever can justly punish any man except it be for some evill And Saint Peter testifies as much 1 Epist 2. chap. 13. and 14. verses Submit your selves saith he to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake whether it be unto the King as the supreame or unto governours as them that are sent of him sent of him for what purpose Even for the same purpose that he before is sent of God namely for the punishment of them that doe evill and for the praise of them tbat doe well So that by the expresse word of God no Magistrate whatsoever no not the supreame hath any power prerogative or authority to punish any man within his jurisdiction except it be for some fault some offence some vice some error some evill some sinne some transgression of some law And this much my Lord king Artashast saw by the very light of nature as appeares by the wordes of his Commission granted to Ezra and expressed Ezra 7. chap. 25. 26. verse And thou Ezra after the wisedome of thy God that is in thy hand set Magistrates and Iudges which may judge all the people beyond the river even all that know the law of thy God and teach-yee them that know it not And whosoever will not doe the law of thy God and the law of thy King let judgement be speedily executed upon him whether it be unto death or to banishment to confifcation of goods or to imprisonment In which wordes King Artashast just as Saint Peter and Saint Paul before did gives power unto Ezra to punish men not for well doing but for evill doing no for keeping but for breaking Gods lawes and the Kings not for obedience but for disobedience not for vertue but for vice Nay God himselfe chalengeth no greater prerogative then to reward the observers and to punish the transgressers of his law Cursed be he saith Moses that confirmeth not all the wordes of Gods law to doe them Deut. 27. or as the Apostle expresseth it Gal. 3. Cursed is every man that continueth not in all things which are written in the booke of the law to doe them And if
matter it now appeared that the said Mr. Huntley in the moneths and yeares articulate especially since the 27 of March 1625. had beene by the said Mr. Archdeacon divers times willed or required to Preach a Uisitation Sermon and had time sufficient to provide himselfe that Mr. Huntley without all due respect of Mr. Archdeacon or the canonicall obedience hee ought unto him with words of scorne and contempt refused to performe that duty as was justified out of his owne answers both in words and writing that Mr. Doctor Kingsley hereupon appealed to the Lord Archbishop of Cant. his Grace who is immediate Ordinarie and Metropolitane to them both for redresse herein that his Grace upon notice thereof wrote a particular letter to said Mr. Huntley the true copy whereof after the originall shewed to Mr. Huntley was left with him and therein advised and required Mr. Huntley to prepare himselfe to preach a Uisitation Sermon he having time enough given him to prepare himselfe for that purpose which commandement of his Grace the said Mr. Huntley slighted and utterly refused to performe that duty and not desisting after such refusall came unsent for or uncalled for to Mr. Archdeacon aforesaid being in his Uisitation amongst the Clergie and sitting there to heare causes very malepartly and unreverently charged him the said Mr. Archdeacon of falsehood or injustice and in a very arrogant and irrespective manner laid downe an hundred pounds in gold upon the table and offered to lay wagers with him the said Mr. Docter Kingsley the Archdeacon that he had done him the said Huntley wrong or the like in effect without any due respect of the said Archdeacon his person or place and to the encouragement of other refractary persons as was there also proved to the Court for which his grosse abuses and contempts the Court held him well worthy to be punished and so much the rather because the court was of opinion and so proncunced that the said Mr. Huntley was by the Lords Grace of Cant. his Ordinary the Archdeacon aforesaid injoyned to doe no more then what by Law and custome according to his canonicall obedience hee was tyed to performe yet neverthelesse the court at this time reserving to themselves their further censure as occasion should be offered for the present only ordered him the said Mr. Huntley upon the commandment of the Archdeacon of Cant. upon a competent warning to bee given him to Preach a Sermon at the next Uisitation to be holden by Mr. Archdeacon of Cant. and afterwards before the Clergy in the said Uisitation to acknowledge his fault in conceptis verbis as shall be prescribed by any three or two of the Commissioners Judges of the Court unto whom it is now referred to set down the same he is juditially admonished and required to appeare here personally in this place the second court day of the next tearme to certifie of his due performance thereof accordingly whereupon afterwards namely one the 19. of Aprill Anno Dom. 1627. at Westminster aforesaid in the County of Middlesex aforesaid the aforesaid George Huntley then and there being publikely called appeared personally And being then there by the foresaid most Reverend father in Christ Lord the Lord George by Divine providence Archbishop of Cant. primate of all England and Metropolitane Richard of Durham Iohn of Rochester Lewis of Bangor Thomas of Coventry and Lichfield William of Bath and Welles Theophilus of Landaffe Robert of Bristoll respectively Bishops Dudley Digges and Henry Marten Knights Iohn Donne Walter Balcanqnall William Kingsley Thomas Worrall professors of Divinity Edmond Pope Hugh Barker Doctors of Law Commissioners aforesaid demaunded whether hee the said George had performed the foresaid order made the foresaid eigth day of February Ann. Dom. 1626. foresaid as is aforesaid or no to wit whether he had Preached his Uisitation Sermon according to the requisition and command of the foresaid Archdeacon of Cant. and made his submission conceptis verbis before the Clergie as was injoyned him by the foresaid Court of high Commission aforesaid he the said George Huntley then and there acknowledged that he had done neither and then and there alleaged frivolous matter in excuse thereof to witt that Mr. Archdeacon aforesaid had not warned him by a lawfull processe to Preach But it appeared to the said Court of high Commission by affidavit made that the foresaid Master Archdeacon had given him sufficient warning by a publike officer and a competent time to provide himselfe to Preach a Uisitation Sermon and he being a man sufficiently qualified by his gifts of learning for that purpose not withstanding contemptuously refused to performe his duty therein and also that he the said George Huntley refused to performe his submission conceptis verbis as was enjoyned unto him The said Court of High Commission unamimi consensu prononuced him guilty of a great affront and contempt not onely to the said Mr. Archdeacon and the Lord Archbishop of Cant. primate of all England and metropolitane and his the said Huntleys immediate Ordinary unto whom the said Huntley is tyed by oath to performe canonicall obedience but also against his Majesties supreame power and authority in matters and causes Ecclesiasticall and this Court unto whom the same by Letters Patents under the great Seale of England is delegated and committed and therefore the said Court of high Commission held the said George worthie to be punished and first fined him in five hundred pounds to his Majesties use committed him to the new prison namely to the custody of Brian Wilton then warden of the new prison and there ordered him to remaine untill he shall give sufficient bond with suerties in a competent summe to his Majestie use aswell for the payment of his fine as it shall bee mitigated as for the performance of his submission heretofore enjoyned him c. Now these two parts of the High Commissioners first finall sentence containe the whole originall matter for which alone the High Commissioners aforesaid did fine me five hundred pounds and imprisoned me on the 19 day of Aprill 1627. and kept me in prison two whole yeares And for which alone without any other crime or fault afterward objectd against mee in any new articles or in any additionalls or superadditionalles to the first articles the Commissioners did on the 25 day of Iune 1629. by a sentence wherin they charge me with grievous and enormous crimes excesses and delicts mentioned in the foresaid articles in which articles there is never a crime charged upon me deprive and degrade me and thereupon kept me a prisoner untill the 10 day of May 1633. And for which alone on their last court day in Hilarie Terme 1630. they did excommunicate me because I would not deliver up my orders diaconatus presbyteratus And for which alone yet neither certified into the Exchequer by the h High Commissioners together with the fine aforesaid nor legally seene nor understood by the Barons
power of the keies And though my Lord this question be no question if the high Commissioners by the first of the first of Elizabeth never had any power to fine or imprison for any crime within that statute and the cognisance of the high Commission as is declared by a statute made the first Session of this Parliament which statute makes wholely for me and against the high Commissioners and puts the former question out of question yet my Lord in favour of the high Commissioners and to my owne disadvantage I doe forbeare to take the benefit and advantage of the former statute and Declaration and granting to the high Commissioners a power to fine and imprison for crimes within the first of the first of Elizabeth according to the Commissioners practise before and at the time of my censure according to the wordes of their commission and the approbation both of the Exchequer who did imprison me for the 500. pounds fine estreated by the high Commissioners into the Exchequer and of this Court also which would not upon an habeas corpus deliver me from that imprisonement I doe in this sence and respect onely propose the former question whether for the breach of a Canon or Canonicall obedience unto the canons according to the lawes and customes of this land men are to be fetcht from the judgement and jurisdiction of the ordinary up to the high commission court and there to be fined and imprisoned or else whether they are to be left to the judgement and jurisdiction of the ordinary and he to proceed against them according to the power of the keys And though this question my Lord bee within the compasse and cognisance of the common Law and therefore ought to bee spoken unto by the worthy professors of this Honorab profession yet seeing it is in defence of the Episcopall or ordinary jurisdiction which the Bishops themselves have wrong'd and which at this time in this my case no common Lawyer will undertake to defend and that for this very reason as I conceive because they have mens persons in admiration for advantage sake Epist 16. as St. Iude speakes and do prefer the person of some Bishop before and above the Episcopall or Ordinary jurisdicton it self Therfore ut nequid detrementi capiat respublica Episcopalis vel ordinaria and to the intent that all men may know that I both truely love and reverence the Episcopall or Ordinary jurisdiction not onely above and beyond you the common Lawyers who will not according to your profession defend it but also above and beyond those Bishops who contrary to their callings have wrong'd it and also that I onely oppose the usurpation and presumption of some Bishops and not the Episcopall or ordinary jurisdiction it selfe I will endeavour to shew and that by seven reasons Thesis prima septem rationibus confirmaâ—a that the breaches of canons or of canonicall obedience unto the canons according to the Lawes custome of this land belong to the juridiction of the ordinary and not to the cognisance of the High commission court Ratio 1 My first reason my Lord is taken from the sence and meaning of this word Ordinary as it is expressed by Doctor Lyndewode in the first booke of his Prov. tit de constitut cap. Exterior habitus Verbo Ordinarij in these very words Nota quod haec dictio (c) Ordinarius dicitur quia habet ordinariam iurisdictionem in iure proprio non per deputationem Cokes institutes f. 96 Ordinarius principaliter habet locum de Episcopo aliis superioribus qui sunt universales in suis iurisdictionibus de iure communi solus Episcopus est ordinarius super omnes subditos suos sed sunt sub eo alij ordinarii hi vid. quibus competit iurisdictio ordinaria de iure privilegio vel consuetudine By which words my Lord it appeares though there be some other subordinate inferiour ordinaries under the Bishop in some parts of his Diocesse who have and hold under him in those parts an ordinary jurisdiction either iure privilegio vel consuetudine yet de iure communi over the whole Diocesse the Bishop only is Ordinary and onely hath a generall and an universall jurisdiction And this generall jurisdiction of the ordinary or Bishop extends not to all causes both Temporall and Ecclesiasticall but only to all causes meerely Spirituall so called not in respect of their owne nature but because they are assign'd to the Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction And those are of two sorts either civill Ecclesiasticall causes as Tithes Oblations Legacies Pentions and portions or else criminall causes and both these belong to the generall jurisdiction of the Ordinary for the former it appeares principally in two cap. of Lyndewodes Provinc and that in the very text first in his second booke tit de foro competenti cap. circumspecte agatis which though it be King Edw. 1. direction to his Judges or Justices or Commissioners concerning the Bishop of Norwich and other of the Clergy and bee extant among the Statutes 13. Edw. 1. yet seeing it treates of the spirituall jurisdiction of Ordinaries it is set downe by Lyndewode among the provinciall constitutions of our Archbishops of Cant. Secondly in his 5. booke tit de paenis cap. aeternae Sanctio voluntatis And for the latter namely criminall causes it appeares both in the two chapters before alleaged and more especially in the first booke of Lyndewodes Provinc tit de constitutionib c. exterior habitus ver Inquirant upon which word Lyndewode shewes that there is triplex inquisitio generalissima generalis specialis vel singularis and each of these is twofold either praeparatoria or Solemnis praeparatoria est fine exactione juramenti solemnis est cum juramento and the one of these makes way and worke for the other The preparatory inquisition findes out and starts the game and the solemne inquisition persues and takes it And the most generall inquisition both preparatory and solemne belongs to a generall councell or to a provinciall Synode but the inquisition generall and speciall both preparatory and solemne belongs to the jurisdiction of the Ordinary And this generall inquisition hath three degrees for it is generall either in respect both of persons and of crimes or it is generall onely in respect of persons and speciall or singular in respect of crimes or lastly it is generall in respect of crimes and speciall or singular in respect of persons as the Ordinary shall thinke fit and the matter require Now my Lord the High Commission hath nothing to doe with the first of these causes namely civill Ecclesiasticall causes no nor a generall jurisdiction in the latter namely criminall causes and both these are evident by divers judgements at the common Law Hilary 8. Iacobi In the common Pleas in the case of Huntley and Clifford it was resolved that the High Commission had not power to meddle with civill Ecclesiasticall
by that excommunication on the other side And as among the high Commissioners my Lord some are oftner or seldomer excommunicate according as they have had their fingers oftner or seldomer in my punishments so they that have beene actors and parties in all my six punishments are excommunicate full 13. times And whilst they stand and continue thus excommunicate without either pleading the Kings pardon or performing publicke penance I for my part shall account them fitter for Amsterdam and for Rome than for this orthodox Church of England out of which they have justly cast themselves by excommonicating me unjustly for my communion therewith and for my obedience thereto And this much my Lord concerning the principalls The Defendants 3. Arguments I should now proceed to the accessories but that their are three arguments first to be answered The first is taken from law the second from custome and the third from a title given to the Archdeacon in the canon law and alleaged in the defendants plea the third Article namely because the Archdeacon is oculus episcopi and therefore may enjoyne the incumbents within his Archdeaconry to preach his visitation sermon that thereby he may see and learne and know their sufficiency I will begin with the Argument taken from Law The law is the fift commandement of the decalogue Honour thy father and thy mother and from these wordes a right learned commissioner in giving the first part of the first finall sentence against me argued thus The first Argument You Sir saith he to me will doe nothing but what you are bound to doe by law will you and doth not the law bind you to preach the Arch-deacons visitation sermon doth not the fift Commandement bind you to honour your Father and is not the Arch-deacon your spirituall father and are not you his spirituall sonne and hath not a spirituall father power by the fift Commandement to command his spirituall sonne any spirituall worke and is not a spirituall sonne bound by the same commandement to obey the spirituall command of his spirituall father in doing the spirituall work commanded by him Ergo you Sir are bound by the fift commandement to doe this spirituall worke to preach the Arch-deacons visitation sermon at the Archdeacons command This was the argument my Lord Socratically drawne from law and this argument in and of it selfe is very weake and feeble all the strength of it depends upon the authority and credit of the argumentator and therefore unlesse I will be injurious to the argument it selfe and to the cause of my adversaries I must make known the Authour of this Argument that so the strength and validity thereof may the more appeare It was the right worthy and right worshipfull Sir Henry Martin vir cum cura dicendus a man not to be mentioned without singular reverence A man that hath a long time and did very lately Dominari in Curits Ecclesiasticis A man that deserved that Elogy which Eunapius gives to Longinus he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 A living Library and a walking study or as the same Eunapius saith of Plutarch that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The very Uenus and harpe of all Philosophy So wee may truely say of the eminently learned Sir Henry Martin that he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Uenus the delicacy the musicall instrument the Harpe the Lute the Theorbo the Polyphon of all the law both Civill and Canon he was like Servius Sulpitius Iurisconsultorum eloquentissimus eloquentium iurisconsultissimus And as one said of Saint Augustine Deest theologiae quicquid Augustino deest Wherein so ever Augustine is defective Theology it selfe is defective so Deest legi quicquid martino deest Wherein soever sir Henry Martin was defective the very law it selfe is defective and then surely the former argument if it bee answerable to the Author of it must needes be of great force and vertue or else the Law it selfe must needes be defective But my Lord though the Authour of this Argument was so accomplished yet if we examine the argument it selfe we shall finde it very weake and feeble and being reduced into a syllogisme it runnes thus By the fift commandement every spirituall Father may command his spirituall sonne any spirituall worke and by the same commandement every spirituall sonne is bound to obey the spirituall command of his spirituall father in doing the spirituall worke commanded by him But the Archdeacon is my spirituall father and I am his spirituall son and he hath commanded me a spirituall worke namely to preach his visitation sermon Ergo. By the fift commandement I am bound to doe that spirituall worke to preach that visitation Sermon at the Archbishops command This syllogisme my Lord in respect of the forme is good and all the doubt is concerning the matter of the major or first proposition If that be true then the conclusion is true if that be false then the conclusion will faile And first my Lord I will confute the major or first proposition wherein the whole strength of the argument lies by granting it and by shewing what a multitude of errors absurdities and inconveniencies will follow and flow from it The major or first proposition is this By the fifth Commandement every spirituall father may command his spirituall sonne any spirituall worke and by the same commandement every spirituall sonne is bound to obey the spirituall command of his spirituall father in doing the spirituall worke commanded by him Confutatio 1 And if this proposition be good Divinity then the Archdeacon may command me or any other incumbent within his Archdeaconry not onely to Preach one Uisitation Sermon for him which is the utmost that the Archdeacon himselfe challengeth as appeares in his plea the third Article but he may also command me to preach at every Uisitation holden by him so long as we two live together And besides he may command me to preach for him alwaies at his prebend at his Donative at his two benefices and so he shall take his ease and have all the gaines and I take all the paines and discharge his cures and neglect mine owne Neither shall Sir Henry Martin si reviviscoret interpose any limitation qualification restriction or exception to overthrow any of these consequences or collections from his major proposition but I by the same will overthrow his major proposition and free my selfe from preaching the Uisitation Sermnn Secondly if the foresaid proposition be good Divinity then thereby I will free my selfe and all other incumbents from preaching both at the Uisitation and in our owne cures and put both those workes upon our Parishioners For if the Archdeacon may command mee because I am his spirituall sonne to doe any spirituall worke and therfore to preach his Uisitation Sermon then I likewise being a spirituall Father to my Parishoiners may command any of them to do any spirituall worke and therefore to preach that visitation Sermon And if I may command any of
Archdeacon to warne me to preach that sermon And then my Lord how have I transgrest either the Archdeacons mandate or the order of the High-commission Court or what authority had that apparitor or publik officer to warne mee to preach that Uisitation Sermon just none at all as appeares by the 138. canon made 1. Iacobit where it is said all apparitors shall by themselves faithfully execute their offices neither shall they by any colour or pretence whatsoever cause or suffer their mandates to bee executed by any messengers or substitutes In which words my Lord it appeares that an apparitor doth then faithfully execute his office when he doth faithfully execute his mandates that is neither goe beyond nor come short of his mandates so that the apparitours have no power to warne or summon any man with out such a mandate No nor the Bishop Chancellour Archdeacon Officiall nor any other Ecclesiasticall Judge as appears by this 120 Canon No Bishop Chancellour Archdeacon Officiall or other Ecclesiasticall Judge shall suffer any generall Processes of Quorum nomina to be sent out of his Court except the names of all such as thereby are to be cited shall be first expressely entred by the hand of the Regester or his deputy under the said Processes and the said Processes and names be first subscribed by the Judge or his deputy and his seale thereto affixed So that whensoever any Bishop or any other Ecclesiasticall Judge will cite any man to appear before him he must send out by his Apparitor a mandate or processe and therein the name of the party to be cited must be first entred by the Regester or his deputy and then subscribed by the Judge or his deputy and his seale thereto affixed And if any Ecclesiasticall Judge whatsoever shall by his Apparitor without such a processe or mandate Summon any man to appeare before him the party is not bound to appeare and though he do not appear yet he is not culpable of any contumacy as appears by this 122 Canon When any Minister is complained of in any Ecclesiasticall Court belonging to any Bishop of this Province for any crime the Chancellour Commissary Officiall or any other having Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction to whom it shall appertaine shall expedite the cause by processes and other proceedings against him and upon contumacy for not appearing shall suspend him First then after complaint made against any one the Judge must cite the party by processe to appeare before him if the party obey not the processe he is then contumacious but without processe there is no contumacy If your Lordship shall aske me what authority the Apparitour pretended when he warned me to preach the said Visitation Sermon I answer that he pretended a processe or mandate from the Archdeacon and it is true my Lord that he had a processe and mandate from the Archdeacon and yet no processe or mandate from him He had a processe or mandate to warne me to appeare at the Archdeacons Visitation and there to pay my procurations due to him for Visiting and that processe or mandate was a publicke instrument out of the Archdeacons Court made in the Archdeacons name under the seale of his Office and the hand of a publicke Notary But he had no such mandate or processe to warne me to preach the Archdeacons Visitation Sermon but only an * In this particular Doctor Kingsley and the Commissioners are more Popish and presumptuous than the Pope himselfe For the Pope sends out only his Bulls Diplomaes or Mandates formally and regularly made sign'd and seal'd with out any postscript according to this old proverb Mittit plumbum exigit aurum But these together with their Mandates or Processes send out their said Postscripts and thereby they will abrogate the Word of God the Articles Statutes Canons his Maiesties Letters Patents royall Prerogative and oath of Supremacie Iust as the Pope presumeth to do with his Bulls And for the violation of these Postscripts they will Fine Imprison Deprive Degrade and Excommunicate which is a Popery pride and presumption more than papall apocryphall uncanonicall anticanonicall antidiplomaticall antiprerogative antisuprematicall postscript in these very words You are to warn George Huntley Parson of Stouremouth to preach at the time and place above mentioned And this postscript set under the processe after the test and Regesters hand was made in no mans name subscribed with no mans hand confirmed with no mans seale and is contrary to the Canons both for forme and matter for matter to the 49 Canon which forbids me being no licensed preacher to preach or expound any Scripture in mine own Cure or else-where for forme to the 120 Canon which forbids any thing to be written under a generall processe of Quorum nomina such as that was but only the names of the parties to be cited and those names must first be entred by the Regester or his deputy under the processe and then subscribed by the Judge or his deputy Here were not only names but also new matter namely the preaching of the Visitation Sermon and yet neither names nor matter either entred by the Regester or his deputy nor subscribed by the Judge or his deputy Unto this warning thus given by the Apparitour by vertue of his vicious postscript I gave only this answer that on the morrow I would send my answer in writing to Master Archdeacon and on the morrow I sent this letter to Master Archdeacon and he received it and it was read in the High-Commission Court by Doctor Ducke one of the Advocates for the Office against me the 19 day of Aprill 1627. when the second part of the first finall sentence was given against me and I Fined five hundred pounds and first imprisoned To the Right worshipfull Mr Doctor Kingsley Archdeacon of Cant. give these Sir I Marvell that being a member of the High-Commission you should not better observe the order of that Honorable Court Their order is that you must command me to preach a Visitation Sermon and that I must obey your command and this they say is the custome And therfore as I must obey according to custome so you must command according to custome What the custome in this point is Sir George Newmans answer ad septimum articulum declares who there deposeth that for these thirty years of his own knowledge the Archdeacon of Canterbury for the time being hath sent Processe by his Apparitor to command the Ministers to preach at his Visitation Do you observe this custome command me by Processe to preach at your Visitation and I will preach a sermon for your Visitation as effectually as I can Your Apparitor shewed me Processe and no Processe Processe to command me to appeare at your Visitation no Processe to command me to preach at your Visitation When you conceive meanly and not evilly of me you conceive as I my selfe do and both aright yet if I may speak it without arrogancie I am not so stupid and obtuse but