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
he nor the two Sheriffs did give the Bishop a meeting as was desired of them whereupon the Bishop orders a Process to issue out and Convents them before him in the Consistory They refuse to appear though being duly Summoned and so run into Contempt Being called again and then appearing they were for their former Contempt enjoined an easie Penance They aggravate their former with this new Contempt in disobeying the Bishops Injunction and thereupon are mildly Censured by the Bishop Not Excommunicated as was falsely rumor'd and mouth'd abroad by Men that regarded not what proceeded from them whether Truth or Falshood so it might but serve their purposes but large intermissions of time there were betwixt every of these Proceedings as will be shewed hereafter And thus stands the matter of Fact in this whole Transaction Upon a Reflection now made on this whole matter in one Review Will not the Carriage of these persons appear of a strange form and kind to any sober and indifferent Man Hardly I think will it be parallel'd by President of any such that has formerly been Hardly be entertained with Credit that any such had lately been And the whole Proceeding being so as is here briefly declared Let the Persons concerned herein be so ingenuous as freely to confess and acknowledge the same If yet this be denied so may the truest Narrative of things be and yet have never the less of Truth in it for all that yet there is so much and so clear Evidence to Verifie what has been set down That if any Attempt be made of standing to such a Denial then an easie producing of this Evidence will both shame those Deniers and add to the Confirmation of the Truth hereof Howbeit some particularities in several passages of this Proceeding may find in the following Sections a more seasonable Discovery and Enlargement In the mean time the Question de Jure falls in to be discussed concerning the justifiableness of the Bishops proceedings herein Three main Exceptions I find much insisted upon and urged against these Proceedings The first is in relation to the Persons thus Convented and Censured for they being the Mayor and Sheriffs of a City under His Majesties Government and representing His Person it is said That thereupon they became exempt from any Episcopal Jurisdiction The second Exception is in relation to the Cause they were called in question upon for that is affirmed not to be of Ecclesiastical but Civil cognizance because said to be grounded on a real Contract betwixt the Corporation and the Church and so the holding Plea and judging of Contracts belongs not to the Consistory but to the Temporal Courts The third Exception is in relation to the manner of Proceedings which are affirmed to have been precipitous and hasty without such form and regularity as ought to be observed therein and therefore illegal and unjustifiable To these three Exceptions I shall oppose and endeavour to make good these three following Propositions which will both invalidate any force that might be in the Exceptions and likewise assert and make good the Legality of what was done herein I. Prop. The Bishops Jurisdiction in the Case before mentioned was Legally founded in respect of the Persons proceeded against II. Prop. The Bishops Jurisdiction over these persons was Legally founded in respect of the Cause proceeded upon III. Prop. The Bishops Jurisdiction was Legally managed in this Cause against these Persons in respect of the manner observed in the proceedings thereof I. Prop. The first Proposition The Bishops Jurisdiction in the case before mentioned was legally founded in respect of the Persons proceeded against To make this good is that which I am first obliged to endeavour And I do it thus by laying my foundation in this received Maxime concerning Spiritual jurisdictions That in all matters and causes of Ecclesiastical cognizances all Persons within any Diocess regularly and de jure communi are subject to the jurisdiction of the Bishop of that Diocess The original proceeding of which institution I mean as to the actual Exercise of such jurisdiction depends upon and derives principally from the bounty and munificence of Christian Emperors and Princes As for jurisdiction meerly spiritual convei'd in and at the time of Consecration inhaerent in every Bishop as he is such I here speak not of otherwise than as it is the foundation and ground from which this Actual exercise does arise and has the enlargements made to it both subjectively in respect of persons made subordinate thereto and objectively in respect of matters and causes appropriated to it Sundry instances making this Assertion good might be had in the Imperial Law But so it will appear to be to him that will but consult Titulum de Episcopali judicio in Codice Theodosiano Et Titulum de Episcopali Audientia in Codice Justinaneo Et legomni innovatione cessante leg Privilegia ibidem de Sacro Sanctis Ecclesiis whence Tholosanus Syntagmat lib. 47. de divisione judicii num 12. 13. Inferrs this rule Prelati sunt ordinarii Judices Rerum Personarum suae jurisdictionis And moreover adds this Caesares tuentur defendunt sacerdotate judicium Privilegia ejus legibus stabiliunt And Gothofred on the former of these Laws infers this as a standing rule Innovatum contra Canones non subsistit By the ancient Canons Bishops were invested with this judiciary power Christian Emperours favourably confirm the same and any innovation thereupon is of no force The same power of jurisdiction in Bishops is allowed of and made good by Charles the Great In Capitular lib. 6. cap. 28. Paulus Fiacesius in his Book called Praxis Episcopalis cap. 4. Articul S.N.S. Layes down this Rule Episcopus in sua dioecesi habet intentionem fundatam super omnes de diaecesi And to confirm the said rule so laid down by him he produces there the Authority of many places in the body of the Canon Law Indeed where the matter is not of Ecclesiastical cognizance It is the incompetency of the matter or cause not the quality or place or office of any person that exempts him from that jurisdiction for as the fâ—rementioned Author observes Num. 2 Ibidem Episcopus alium Episcopum morantem in sua dioecesi ratione delicti ibidem commissi judicare punire potest If a Bishop have jurisdiction over another Bishop within his own Diocess where the Fuct is of Ecclesiastical cognizance there is certainly the â—ike if not a more forcible reason that the Bishops power should reach to all others of his Diocess And Javolenus has delivered this Rational and elegant Rule Cui jurisdictio Data est ea quoque concessa esse videntur sine quibus jurisdictio Explicari non potest L. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de jurisdictione omnium judicum The granting of a jurisdiction implyes a grant of all those things that conduce to a right discharge and exercise of it A power is included herein of presiding over and
priviledge and immunity granted by him to such persons And yet that jurisdiction so restrained be no more impeached thereby than the ordinary setled course of the common Law by the Exemption of one or more particular persons from being proceeded against therein Let us seek to understand this by a very plain and familiar example every day obversant before us His Majesty has a standing Army in Ireland in Pay and under His Command All the Officers and private Souldiers therein for some good reasons best known to himself in His great wisdom are exempted from any Civil or criminal Impleadments before the Ecclesiastical or Temporal Tribunals without leave first had and obtained from His Royal self or His Vice gerent here Now will it not be a weak inconsequent way of arguing to conclude from hence that the Judges in the Peinpora Courts have not an universal jurisdiction subjectively in respect of those over whom they are appointed because a few aâ—e by special priviledge exempted from it It will be so too certainly to conclude the like of the Bishops the Kings Ecclesiastical Judges in the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction because sâ—â—re certain person or persons may by peculiar dispensation be taken out of the same let the utmâ—st be urged that can be fetch 't out of this present instance from William the Conqueror yet we shall find enough to stil and quiet that and in the same kind too remember we but the 12th chapter of the statute caâ—ed Articuli Cleri aâ— tâ—e before mentioned By that it will be apparent That King William even in this particular did not so narrowly bound Episcopal jurisdiction as King Edward the second did let it loose extend and enlarge it The one exempted his servants and Tenants from the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction The other almost three hundred years after and by a statute Law gave both up and fully submitted them to it Withâ—ut more adoe The question is not whether the King as Supream Governour over all persons in all Ecclesiastical things and causes may exempt any of his Retainers or any subordinate Officers in places of Civil power under Him from being impleaded or proceedâ—d against in Ecclesiastical Courts But the question is whether he has Actually done it or no or if done it whether to persons so qualified as our case proceeds upon The former I do not I must not I dare not deny For the Regal power and Supremacy reaches as far in granting priviledges and immunities to any who are thought worthy of the same in respect of Ecclesiastical matters and tryals as it does in respect of civil matters and tryals What he may do in the one he may do in the other Thus I read That the King by His Prerogative may give protection to such persons as are His debtors so as not to be sued by their Creditors till Himself be satisfied Fitz. Nat. br fol. 28. B. Instances more might be given of this kind So he may likewise exempt from the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction But that His Majestie has Actually done this to persons so qualified as our case proceeds upon and quatenus as they are so qualified is that thing the contrary to which I have hitherto engaged my self to make clear and have yet something remaining to add thereto For the present instance from William the Conqueror It was no restraining of Episcopal jurisdiction but in such a particular matter reserving to himself the power of appointing the exercise of it or if it yet will be looked upon as a restraint put thereon yet it must be withall considered that he did not so much limit and restrain in this case as he was pleased to give greater scope to it in a matter of far greater importance as shall be shewed by and by Mean while I sum up this point thus That the Established course of Ecclesiastical proceedings is not repugnant to the Municipal Laws of this Kingdom that by the gracious indulgence concessions of our Pious Princes a liberty and power is granted by them to the Bishops to exercise actually Ecclesiastical jurisdiction upon the Subjects of the Crown That they may be summoned That refractory and contumacious persons may by coercive power be reduced to good order That compulsories may be issued forth and censures inflicted where just occasion requires and all due requisits have preceded They may hear and determine in causes of instance between party and party and also proceed against any criminals under Ecclesiastical cognizance of what quality and condition soever they be for correction and reformation of manners 3. This Position That all persons within any Diocess regularly and de jure communi are subject to the jurisdiction of the Bishop of that Diocess in all matters and causes of Ecclesiastical cognizance is not any way intrenching upon or infringing His Majesties Prerogative Royal. The Kings Prerogative is called by Sir Henry Spelman Glossar ibid. Lex Regie dignitatis by the Civilians Jus Imperii by the later Feudists jus Regaliorum And the import of all these is comprised in this description given thereof The Kings Prerogative is that special power preheminence or priviledge that the King hath in any kind over and above other persons and above the ordinary course of the Common Law Cowell ibidem A branch of this is the Kings Legistative power in Ecelesiastical matters and causes with the advice and consent of such as are appointed thereto And by the Statute of King Edward the second in the Seventeenth year of His Reign called Prerogativa Regis it is said That whatsoever Gracious concessions the King is pleased to make unto the Honour of Gods Church and good of the Common wealth and for the remedy of such as be grieved He would not that at any time they should turn in prejudice of Himself or of His Crown but that such Rights as appertain to Him should be saved in all points Rastal's Collection ibidem Now the Actual Exercise of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical being that which by special Favour of our Kings is granted to the Bishops after a very large and ample manner if any thing therefore in that Grart should tend to the diminution of the Rights of the Crown yet by the Statute before mentioned these is still a salvo to them in all respects whatsoever so that in regard of His Majesties Prerogative Royal in this particular branch of it as well as in all the rest the Position before set down does not nay cannot indeed infringe the same I touched a little before the derivation of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction as to the executive part of it from the Crown As every Bishop at the time of his Consecration dâ—es by Solemn Oath recognize the Kings Majesty to be the onely Supreme Governor in this Realm in all Spiritual and Ecclesiastical things and causes as Temporal and by receiving from the King a Patent of Restitution of His Temporalities is thereby invested with Actual Jurisdiction that is a power to exercise and execute such Jurisdiction
nor Religion Here is no need of that Writ in the Kings behalf called Ad quod Damnum As what damage and prejudice will come to the King by confirming Episcopal Jurisdidiction and allowing the actual exercise thereof for in truth the exercise thereof kept in its right constitution and dependance for such a Jurisdiction is only here intended is so far from diminishing the Right and darkning the Jewels of the Crown that they receive a greater lustre and resplendency thereby We have spoken of the Kings Oath which He is pleased at the time of His Coronation to take for the benefit and security of His Subjects There is also the Subjects Oath which they are to take in Recognition of the Kings Sovereignty and in testimony of their fidelity to him I mean the Oath of Supremacy a consideration of which is very proper and pertinent to the matter in hand especially that one branch which the Taker there fâ—swears to and declares that To his power he will assist and defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges Preheminences and Authorities united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm In which words the Eâ—â— esiastical Jurisdiction is if not only yet speciaâ—ly aimed at Now let such persons that are pâ—aced in Offices of civil Power and Authority and conceit themselves not subject to Ecclesiasticaâ— Jurisdiction because of their being in such Offices and who yet do take this Oath at the entrance into their Offices let them I say soberly and advisedly bethink themselves how consistent an Oath taken for the observance and defence of the Ecclesiastical Jâ—râ—sdiction is with a plain disowning of such Juâ—â—ction as to themselves or impugning of it and bearing themselves disobediently to it or exempting themselves from it in matters which the Law has clearly appropriated to it or in a word to act any thing to the prejudice of the lawful proceedings thereof It is frivolous and vain to alledge that they acknowledge and will submit to this Jurisdiction in the King and yet at the same time deny their submission to the exercise of it by the Bishops This I say is a vain and frivolous Allegation because it is not a notional and speculative acknowledgment that such a Jurisdiction is united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm which only fulfills the impâ—rt of this Oath But it is an obedience in practice by submitting to the lawful exercise of it that is the soope and intendment of it Now the King exercises no judiciary power in His own person but commits it to His Judges the King hath wholly left matters of Judicature according to His Laws to His Judges * Lord Cole 4 Inâ—it p 71. And the Bishops are those Judges to whom the Ecclesiast Jurisdiction is committed and to them the execution thereof belongeth now what is done in deregation of that power and authority derivatively residing in them is done in like manner in deregation of the same power primitively that is as it is originally in and derives from the King Himself I have said thus much concerning this branch of the Oath of Supremacy not that I take upon me to judge any man but because I take it to be my duty to recommend the consideration of this thing as a matter of very weighty concernment and fit to be made with all sobriety and seriousness I sum up all delivered on this first Proposition under this Head That Bishops proceeding by Authority and deriving the actual exercise of their Jurisdiction from the King are the Kings Ecclesiastical Judges dispensing Justice in the Kings Ecclesiastical Courts according to the Kings Ecclesiastical Laws And that the same Jurisdiction reaches to and over all persons whatsoever within their respective Diocesses all which is agreeable to the Ecclesiastical Laws of these Kingdoms and not repugnant to the Temporal Laws thereof nor yet infringing in any kind the Kings Prerogative Royal and therefore the Bishop of Waterford's Jurisdiction in the Case before laid down was legally founded in respect of the persons proceeded against Prob. II. The second Proposition is this The Bishops Jurisdiction over these persons was legally founded in respect of the cause that this proceeding was made upon The cause was the rendring an accompt of Moneys given and received to pious uses and rendring of an accompt of a large Rate levied to the use of the Church as also concerning the Reparation of the Body of the Cathedrall Church at Waterford That the Bishop is the proper competent Judge to exact an accompt of all such Moneys so given and so to be disposed of will not I suppose be denied or if it be denyed the worst of it is 't is but the being put to the proof of it which is no very difficult task and for sureness sake shall by and by be made good And for the Reparation of Churches that the same belongs to Ecclesiastical though the Law be clear for it will yee be made more clear by having those Laws for it produced But before that be entred upon some notice must be taken of what has been alledged and passed roundly from the mouths of many that concern'd them selves much in his matter That by ancient contract the Mayor Sheriffs and Commonalty of Waterford stand obliged to the making good this Reparation whence the Inference it made That all contracts being of civil cognizance therefore the Bishop was no competent Judge of that branch of the cause which was brought before him the same being not cognizable in the Ecolesiastical Court This Allegation at the first hearing seemed mighty fair and plausible insomuch as some persons otherwise no Enemies to Episcopal Jurisdiction were much concerned and startled thereat And when they first heard it they concluded presently that the Bishop had taken a matter in hand which he ought not to have moved a hand towards as not appertaining to his jurisdiction and so has usurped on the Temporal Courts Nay so strangely transported were some that in their heats they did not stick to affirm that the Bishop by doing what he did had incur'd some heavy penalty which they would not abate of an Ace less than a praemunire it self And many and hard and bitter were the cenfures that several open mouths pronounced upon him But causes as well as persons are sometimes prejudged and both were so in this case As a preparative to the clearing and making good that both cause and person were thus prejudged I shall speak something concerning the matter of contract so mainly insisted upon and that which raised the cry as if the Bishop grounded his proceeding on that contract and therein encroached on the Temporal Jurisdiction Let it therefore for the present be supposed That the Bishop did ground his Ecclesiastical proceeding on that contract although indeed the cause was not so laid yet supposing it were the inference that is thence made peradventure is not good as that the doing thereof was an encroachment on the Temporal Jurisdiction Peradventure
I say it is not For I will not be positive in what I am about to write but referring my self to better judgments I freely submit to their decisions herein This I propose then That all matters of contract arising from or upon causes originally of Spiritual cognizance are not excâ—â—ded from the Ecclesiastical Tribunal I put this case not much differing from that which we have before us Titius a parishioner of Dale with leave of the Parson and rest of the parishioners builds up an Isle or Out chappel adjoyning to the Parish Church of Dale and intends to reserve the same to himself and relations for the use of a burying place and undertakes to keep this Out-chappel from time to time in sufficient good and decent repair Notwithstanding this obligation so to do the repair of the same is neglected If the question were put to me before whom and in what Court Titius may be sued and compelled to make good the reparation thereof I should not doubt to answer that Titius may be proceeded against by the Ordinary ex Officio or impleaded by any voluntary Promoter of the Office in causa reparationis Capellae c. The Church wardens may present that neglect and the person guilty of it One Article usually given to present upon is this Whether the Church or Chappel in the Body and Chancel of it be in good repair If it be not through whose defaclt comes it to pass that it is not and this Article is grounded on the 93d Canon of this Church So then as the neglect and default is punishable by the Ordinary the reformation likewise thereof in making good the repair otherwise by contract undertaken for is to be enjoyned by the Ordinary Moreover Pensions out of Churches or any Annual Portion beeoming due from any Colledge Bishoprick Cathedral Church or Deanry to be paid to any Rector Vicar or Curate of a Parish Church if they be detained the same are demandable and to be recovered in the Ecclesiastical Court according to the Statute viz. 34 35 Hen. 8. cap. 19. Now the Right of paying any such Pensions and Annual Portions is grounded on Ancient-contract obliging thereunto In Compositions Real for Tythes made either between the Parson of one and the Parson of another parish for the stating and setling each others right and to prevent litigious impleadings of each other Also compositions made between the Parson and some one or more of his parishioners touching the not paying any Tythes at all but a certain setled and determinate sum in lieu thereof This is usual in this Kingdom for Mills that grind corn to compound for a certain sum to be paid instead of the Toll-tythe Now the Ecclesiastical Judge before whom these compositions are to be alledged may hear and determine thereof Tit. 120. Cler. Prax. Sir Thomas Ridley's View c. part 3. chap. 3. Sect. 6. Coseâ— Apol. p. 1. ch 10. There is a cause of Ecclesiastical cognizance called Negotium subtractionis Dotis causa nuptiarum promissae The case is thus Titius in consideration of Matrimony to be contracted and solemnized with his Daughter Partia by Sempronius promised Ten pounds to Sempronius The Matrimeny being solemnized and Titius not paying the promised sum Sempronius impleads him before the Ecclesiastical Judge for the same Titius sues out a prohibition Notwithstanding which Sempronius obtains a consultation wherein is affirmed That the Court Ecclefiastical may proceed therein This you may find reported by Dr. Cosen Apol. p. 1. pag. 26. And the several Opinions of Common Lawyers concurring therein More instances might be given of this kind to evince That all contracts arising from matters which are in their Original of Spiritual cognizance are not excluded from the Ecclesiastical Tribunal observe what is further said Although promises and contracts of Money are generally pleadable in the Courts of the common Law yet as Bracton writes Causae de rebus promissis ob causam Matrimonii in foro Ecclesiastico terminari debent quia cujus juris jurisdictionis est principale ejusdem erit accessorium And in another place he gives a reason for the same quia semper videndum propter quid aliquid sit aut permittatur Zouch Jurisdiction of the Admiralty p. 64. I do not affirm an absolute parity between these cases and that which is before us I refer'd my self before and do now still submit what is said to the judicious decisions of others But this is yet upon the supposal that what is objected was really so as is objected the contrary to which is most clear for as touching what relates to this Vindication there is no need at all to strain any doubtful or disputable case to make it favour the matter in hand for the contract here pretended was not insisted upon so as to make a foundation of any jurisdictive proceeding in the Ecclesiastical Court thereupon 'T is true the contract gave occasion to the Bishop to call upon and admonish the Mayor and Sheriffs of Waterford to look after what belonged to their duty to be done They being thus stirred up make rates levy and collect Money from the several Inhabitants for this end of repairing the Body of the Cathedral c. They receive the voluntary contributions for the Bells The Money thus levied collected and received is little disposed of for the uses intended The Church remains unrepaired the other works are neglected now what was regularly and legally to be done in this case was regularly and legally entred upon the work of reparation it self the accounting for Money levied raised contributed and received for that purpose and other matters relating to the Church are the grounds of this proceeding as by the several Acts of Court remaining in the Registry of Waterford may more fully appear Now that these are justisiable grounds whereon legally to found an Ecclesiastical proceeding comes to be made good which I shall do by laying down and proving these three Assertions 1. The rendring an accompt of Moneys given and received for pious causes and the right disposing thereof belongs to the Bishop within his own Diocess to call for and see performed 2. Reparations of Churches with all the incidents thereunto both by Temporal and Spiritual Law appertain to Ecclesiastical cognizance 3. The penalty of Praemunire will not be incurr'd by any Ecclesiastical Judge for making such proceedings 1. The rendring an accompt of Moneys given and received for pious causes and the right disposing thereof belongs to the Bishop within his own Diocess to call for and see performed Pious causes are set down in the Law to be of many and various kinds and to enjoy many and various priviledges for the many and various kinds of them see Leg. illud Leg. Sancimus Cod. de Sacro-sanctis Ecclesiis and Lindwood in cap. it a quorundam ad Verb. pias causas de Testamentis lib. 3. Provincial Constitut Among which these especially fall under our disquisition namely Legacies or other Donations
truly this is bad enough but not so bad neither as to bring under the guilt of praemunire If it were observe the consequence what that would be for it would as certainly and unavoidably expose a temporal Judge to the penalty of a praemunire if he proceed to hear and determine in a matter of Ecclesiastical cognizance because that is beyond his Commission as 〈◊〉 would expose a spiritual Judge to the same penalty that he intermeddles with causes of temporal cognizunce for observe well what Bracton sayes in relation to both Jurisdictions and the proper Judges of each Cum diversi sint hinc inde Jurisdictiones diversi Judices diversae causae debet quilibet ipsorum imprimis aestimare an sua sit Jurisdictio ne falcem videatur ponere in Messem alienam Again Non pertinet ad Judices Soeculares non pertinet cognoscere de iis quae sunt spiritualibus annexa sicut de decimis c. Bract. l. 5. c. 2. apud Hookerum Ecclesiast Pol. lib. 8. p. 218. I may be thought to have made a strange confident and odd inversion upon these two cases but for my share freely I do acknowledge that it is above the reach of my reason to conceive of any difference herein for as both Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Courts are now constituted deriving from the same Regal Supremacy that the Temporal Courts do the consequence is as good on one hand as on the other Indeed I should not have exposed my self to the censure of being thought too bold in the concerns of Temporal Courts and Temporal Judges especially in such an inversion as this so lyable to be frown'd upon But the truth is I found it made to my hand by the person whose name I have often used and whose Authority I much depend upon Is not sayes he the Prerogative Royal in and for causes Ecclesiastical as high and as rightly setled in the Prince and incident to Her Highness Crown and Regality as the same is for Temporal power and authority What cause is there then seeing seu alibi in the Statute signifieth in true construction any place â—hatsoever besides Rome That every holding Plea by an Ecclesiastical Court of a matter wherein it ought not to hold should at this time be reckoned a thing contrary to the Queens Regality more than dealing in any Ecclesiastical cause should be in any temporal Court at Westminster for no Statute of provision or praemunire assigneth these for causes which have indeed grown since by collections whil'st the Popes usurpation was continued in the Land Against which oftentimes the Remedy by prohibition could not serve the turn Cosen Apol. par 3. ch 7. p. 87. But admit the worst let there be a disparity allowed let the failing be on the Ecclesiastical Judges side yet still he is the Kings Ecclesiastical Judge And there is a favour alwayes on a Judges side so far as to presume That he is fit to Act in what he is appointed to and that he does Act according to what he is best informed of by his skill and from his conscience Sacrilegii instar est dubitare an is Dignus sit quem Imperator elegerit That persons merit and integrity is not to be doubted of whom his Princes will has appointed to any publick Office and Employment say the Emperors Grat. Valent. Theod. in Leg. Tertia C. de crimine Sacrilegii Now it is not to be rationally supposed that any one exercising the Office of a Judge will designedly and purposely hold Plea of such a cause which he either knows to be or is propounded to him as belonging to Temporal cognizance But it may so happen that by nearness and coherence of one cause with another that which indeed is a Temporal may be supposed to be an Ecclesiastical cause and if an Ecclesiastical Judge minding to do his duty as the nature of his office doth require do yet by resemblance and near coherence of one cause with another proceed in that which is Temporal shall this presently cast him under a Praemunire That is shall the exceeding some bounds and limits that the Prince under whom he exercises Jurisdiction has prescribed to him bring him under such punishments as the very enemies and underminers of his State are to endure This certainly were very harsh and rigorous I know nothing more to be declined than such an Office where the exercise of it puts a man into that ticklish and tottering condition That he is ready every day without that exact circumspection as is morally impossible for the carefullest man alive alwayes to have to fall into the greatest penalties and dangers It has been said That a corrivality betwixt the Ecclesiastical and common Lawyer has still made the one seek his own elevation by the depression of the other But here the common Lawyer has got an insuperable advantage over the other for let him but hold to this Opinion and by his Authority make it good That the bare holding Plea of a Temporal cause in an Ecclesiastical Court makes liable to the penalties of Prâ—â—munire and the contest is at end There will then be few that will care to study the Ecclesiastical Laws fewer that will dare to execute any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction A grave and sober person delivers his mind touching this matter with a great deal of ingenuous freedom and truth Hoc Austerum supplicium speaking of Braemunire aliqui Jurisperiti nostri Lucri Ambitionis aestu accensi verborum quae in uno Statuto observant generalitatem ad quemvis levem Judicum lapsum praesertim Ecclesiasticorum nimis violenter extendunt sed hic corum candorem desideramus aliquorum etiam inscitiam lugemus Dr. Cowell Instit de Publicis Judicis Sect. 43. King James a wise and discerning Prince easily discovered the Grievances that this profession laboured under and was pleased earnestly to concern himself in redressing of them This great King speaking of the usefulness of the Civil and Canon Law among His own Subjects in matters of Pyracy Wills Marriages and things of like nature proceeds thus And this Law has been so much encroached upon sithence my coming to the Crown and so had in contempt that young men are discouraged from studying it and the rest weary of their lives that do profess it and would be glad to seek any other craft * K. James's Speech in the Star Chamber to the Judges about the 14th year of His Reign And some pages after in the same speech when He comes to give His particular charge to the Judges he has these words What greater misery can there be to the Law than contempt of the Law and what readier way to contempt then when questions come what shall be determined in this Court and what in that whereupon two Evils do arise the one that men come not now to Courts of Justice to hear matters of right pleaded and Decrees given accordingly But only out of a curiosity to hear questions of the
which I mentioned before when some busie Sticklers were active and forward in fixing a Praemunire upon the Officers of the Chancery No Praemunire sayes He can be granted but at the Kings Suit and how can the King grant a Praemunire against Himself In the Court of Admiralty many more Prohibitions are brought than in the Ecclesiastical Courts There is a greater vicinity and likeness betwixt the matters tryable in that Court and those tryable at common Law and consequently greater occasion and probability of mistaking Now certainly such frequency of Prohibitions with the consequences of them would be very dilatory and tedious if the more compendious way of Praemunire were effectual and why not Praemunire lie here as well as in the Court Christian This is another Court or a Court under the large meaning of Alibi proceedings are divers therein from those of the common Law and I do not remember to have read any Praemunire brought for suing in the Admiralty excepting in two cases the one 38 Hen. 6. the other in 9 Hen. 7. Nevertheless saith Dr. Zouch although it be said that two Praemunires were brought upon such occasions yet it doth not appear that any judgment was given upon them See more to this purpose in his Jurisdiction of the Admiralty asserted But never to mince the matter Is it not here that the Shooe wrings It is the Ecclesiastical Court and that is become the great Eye-sore a thing that will not be looked upon as an offence in another Court is beheld by men through a magnifying Glass in this There are too many that cannot away at any hand with a Bishops Jurisdiction and what they do not like they easily quarrel at hence are all the prejudices that upon very little occasions are taken up and yet though good reasons be given are hardly laid down again The Spiritual Court shall be sure to have all the opprobrious and all the scurrilous imputations fastned to it Men love those sins too dearly that are punishable there and they love to hold too tenaciously those rights from others that are recoverable there Now no Delinquent loves that Judge who coâ—rects him for the sin he loves to câ—ntinue in or will force from him the rights of others which he has no mind to part withall I wish it have not been from these or any other such grâ—unds that the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction has had so many opposites and that there has been such lying at catch and waiting for advantages against it so as to terrifie with the name of Praemunire whensoever men have a mind to say there is or that there is indeed some real miscarriage therein Thus far I have enlarged in making good the second Proposition I shall collect together under one view what has been delivered thereon It was not the matter of any civil contract but a cause indisputably of Ecclesiastical cognizance that was the ground of these proceedings and therefore no Praemunire imputable on that Accompt and admitting the contract had been the ground of these proceedings yet for the reasons before shewed no Praemunire could have been incurr'd hereby and therefore the Bishop of Waterford's Jurisdiction in the case before laid down was legally founded in respect of the cause proceeded upon PROP. III. The Bishops Jurisdiction was legally managed in this cause against these persons in respect of the manner observed and followed therein It was in favour to the Mayor and Sheriffs that a civil intimation was given to them from the Bishop desiring their meeting with him This civil intimation was I will not say despised but not answered with a correspondent civility in them for they did not give the meeting to the Bishop which he desired they would And yet the end of this desired meeting was in order to a fair accompting for Moneys received by them for the Churches use and for making good the reparation of the Body of the Cathedral Church They not giving I say the Bishop this desired meeting some competent time afterwards I think a weeks space intervening Process was caused to issue forth to call them to appear before the Bishop in his Consistory on a certain day after following I cannot go forward to the sequele of this proceeding thus begun without making some little animadversion on these persons I shall forbear giving it any worse term disingenuous carriage in their Petition of Complaint Exhibited to the Lord Deputy and Council In the first Section of which they say That they the Petitioners about Ten of the Clock in the Forenoon on the twentieth of July last received a Verbal Summons from the Apparator of the Diocess of Waterford to Appear at the Consistory Court of the said Diocess before the Lord Bishop of Waterford at Two of the clock the same day The disingenuity that I observe herein is most notorious for first they speak of a Verbal Summons from an Apparator than which nothing can be more ridiculous shall I say or more false 'T is both contrary to practice for any Verbal Summons to be given by an Apparator to any person and it is of no force nor validity if any such were given and it is contrary to Truth that any such was given The Bishop of Waterford better understands both what is the ordinary practice and what will hold good and is justifiable in practice than to order his Apparator to call any of his Diocess before him without a formal Process by Verbal Summons only Next it is said That this Verbal Summons was given at Ten of the clock in the Forenoon to appear at Two of the clock in the Afternoon of the same day Here is disingenuity again There being no Accord betwixt what is thus alledged and the Acts of Court that have been expedited in this proceeding I have made it my endeavour carefully to consult these and find that an Original Citation issued out of the Registry against these persons to appear on Wednesday the 22d of July betwixt the hours of Eight and Ten in the Forenoon of the same day And I find that this Citation was executed on the persons of these men by one Michael Curren the usual Mandatary of the Court according as he declared upon Oath on the 21 day of the Month of July which was Tuesday This is the first Act of proceedings in this cause and if we will credit that as it is attested by the Register a Sworn Officer and Notary Publick then the first Section of the Petition as it relates to these proceedings contains nothing of Truth in it And as little there is in the first part of the second Section for whereas the Petitioners say That on the Two and twentieth of the said Month they were Summoned to Appear at Ten of the clock at the said Court the same day The falsity of this appears plainly by what the aforesaid Mandatary upon Oath declared namely That he had Summoned them on the Tuesday which Tuesday was the One and twentieth not the