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
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
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
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