George Cole and William Baron Church-Wardens of the Parish of St. Bartholomew Exchange each do declare as followeth Whereas we cannot of our own knowledge prove who of the Parishoners have and who have not been at Church and for that Mr. Robert Key the late Church-Warden did promise to give in and make up his Accounts we gave in our Presentments as we did For the Persons following we do not Remember to have seen them at Church in some time past or to have received the Sacrament for three Months past Mr. Robert Key Mr. Peter Kid. Mr. Michael Bayly Mr. Job Sargant Mr. … Jones Mr. … Walker Mr. Francis Miller Mr. John Millward Mr. Thomas Netherway Mr. George Sterman Mr. … Jacksen And as touching the aforesaid Presentment the said Jones doth verily believe that the Church-wardens did not do it as an Act of Envy or ill will to their Neighbours for as much as the names of the before mentioned Parishoners were carried to Doctors-Commons by some body else and then the Church-Wardens were sent for to Doctors-Commons and required to put them into a Presentment and the said Church-wardens did then forbear to do so but about a week after they did it at the importunity of some person at Doctors-Commons However the said Jones cannot but take notice that the Church-wardens were very sparing of their words in the Presentment there is no harsh Expressions against any of their Neighbours neither have they made it a Positive charge thereby demonstrating they were men cautious of what they did in matters of Accusation but it seems any small hint at things of an Accusing nature may serve as a Foundation of the Proceedings of that Court. And the said Jones further saith that if the aforesaid Church-wardens had not consented to make this Presentment they could not have been punished by that Court And seeing the names were carried into Court by some other person they might have left him to be Prosecutor who was so forward to turn Informer But this matter being done it cannot be now undone and poor Jones doth yet hope he shall not be quite undone by it And for the Benefit and help of Church-wardens who are required by the Ecclesiastical Courts to take an Oath to make Presentments of Crimes and Ofences let the Statute of Anno Decimo Sexto Caroli Prim. Chap. 11. Paragr 4. be well considered that so they may not be Imposed upon in such matters The words of the Statute are as followeth And be it also Enacted by the Authority aforesaid that no Arch-bishop Bishop nor Vicar General nor any Chancellor Official nor Commissary of any Arch-bishop or Vicar General nor any Ordinary whatsoever Nor any other Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Iudge Officer or Minister of Iustice nor any other Person or persons whatsoever exercising Spiritual or Ecclesiastical power Authority or Iurisdiction by any grant Licence or Commission of the Kings Majesty his Heirs or Successors or by any Power or Authority derived from the King his Heirs or Successors or otherwise shall from and after the first day of August which shall be in the year of our Lord God one thousand six hundred and forty one Award impose or inflict any pain penalty Fine amerciament Imprisonment or other Corporal Punishment upon any of the Kings Subjects for any Contempt Misdemeanour Crime Offence Matter or thing whatsoever belonging to Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Cognizance or Iurisdiction or shall Ex-Officio or at the Instance or Promotion of any other person whatsoever urge Enforce Tender give or minister unto any Church-Warden Sideman or other person whatsoever any Corporal Oath whereby he or she shall or may be charged or Obliged to make any Presentment of any Crime or offence or to confess or to Accuse himself or herself of any Crime Offence Delinquency or Misdemeanour or any Neglect matter or thing whereby or by Reason whereof he or she shall or may be Liable or Exposed to any Censure pain penalty or punishment whatsoever upon pain and Penalty that every person who shall Offend contrary to this Statute shall forfeit and pay Treble Damages to every person thereby grieved and the sum of one hundred pounds to him or them who shall first demand and Sue for the same which said Treble Damages and sum of one hundred pounds shall and may be demanded and Recovered by Action of Debt Bill and plaint in any Court of record wherein no priviledge Essoine protection or Wager of Law shall be admitted or Allowed to the Defendant But it will be objected by some that this Statute is repealed unto which it is answered by the said Jones that the first part of the afore-recited Statute is repealed but the second part viz that in which mention is made of imposing the Oath Ex-Officio or any other Oath to the damage of any of the Kings Subjects is repeated and Confirmed by the Statute of Decimo tertio-Caroli Secundi Chap. 12. Paragraph 4. Provided also and it is hereby further Enacted that it shall not be Lawful for any Arch-bishop Bishop Vicar General Chancellor Commissary or any other Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Iudge Offices or Minister or any other person having or Exercising Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction to Tender or Administer unto any person whatsoever the Oath usually called the Oath Ex-Officâ—i or any other Oath whereby such person to whom the same is tendered or Administred may be charged or Compelled to confess or Accuse or to purge him or herself of any Criminal matter or thing whereby he or she may be Liable to Censure or punishment any thing in this Statute or any other Law Custom or Vsage heretofore to the contrary hereof in any wise notwithstanding And for a better Understanding what Power or Authority Ecclesiastical Persons have or have not consider well the last clause oâ— the before recited Statute Provided always That this Act or any thing therein contained shall not extend or be construed to Extend to give unto any Arch-bishop Bishop or any other Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Iudge Officer or other person or persons aforesaid any power or Authority to Exercise Execute Inflict or Determine any Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction Censure or Coertion which they might not by Law have done before the year of our Lord 1639. nor to Abridge or Diminish the Kings Majesties Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Matters and Affairs not to confirm the Canons in the year 1640. nor any of them nor any other Ecclesiastical Laws or canons not formerly confirmed Allowed or Enacted by parliament or by the Established Laws of the Land as they stood in the year of our Lord 1639. From which two Statutes these things are to be Considered 1. That the Statute of 1 Eliz. Chap. 1. Sect. 18. by which some Power and Authority extraordinary was Exercised by Ecclesiastical Persons to the great wrong and damage of his Majesties Subjects is repealed and made void by Car. 1. and Car. 2. 2. That though the Repealing Statute of Car. I. chap. 11. be Repealed by 13th
of Edward the 6th Chap. 2. which take as followeth ANd whereas the Arch-Bishops and Bishops and other Spiritual Persons in this Realm do use to make and send out their Summons Citations and other Processes in their own names and in such Form and manner as was used in the time of the Vsurped Power of the Bishop of Rome contrary to the Form and Order of the Summons and Process of the Common-Law used in this Realm seeing that all Authority of Iurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is derived and deducted from the Kings Majesty as Supream Head of these Churches and Realms of England and Ireland and so justly acknowledged by the Clergy of the said Realms That all Courts Ecclesiastical within the said two Realms be kept by no other Power or Authority either Forreign or within the Realm but by the Authority of his most excellent Majesty Be it therefore further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid that all Summons and Citations or other Process Ecclesiastical in all Suits and Causes of instance betwixt party and party and all Causes of correction and all Causes of Basterdy or Bigamy or Inquiry de Jure Patronatus Probates of Testaments and Commissions of Administrations of Persons deceased and all Acquittances of and upon Accounts made by the Executors Administrators or Collectors of goods of any dead Person be from the first day of July next Following made in the Name and with the Style of the King as it is in Writs Original or Iudicial at the Common Law and that the Teste thereof be in the Name of the Arch-bishop or bishop or other having Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction who have the commission and Grant of the Authority Ecclesiastical immediately from the Kings Highness and that his Commissary Official or Substitute Exercising Iurisdiction under him shall put his name in the Citation or Process after the Teste Furthermore be it Enacted by the Authority aforesaid that all manner of person or persons who have the Exercise of Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction shall have from the first day of July before expressed in their Seals of Office the Kings Highnesses Arms decently set with certain Characters under the Arms for the Knowledge of the Diocess and shall use no other Seal of Iurisdiction but wherein his Majesties Arms be ingraven upon pain that if any person shall use Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction after the day expressed in this Realm of England Wales or other his Dominions or Territories and not send or make out the Citation or Process in the Kings Name or use any Seal of Iuri sdiction other then before Limited that every such Offender shall incur and run in the Kings Majesties Displeasure and Indignation and suffer Imprisonment at his Highnesses Will and Pleasure Now whether the Ecclesiastical Courts have such Authority from the Kings Majesty by Commission under the great Seal of England and do proceed in the Exercise thereof according to the recited Statute of the 1 Edw. 6. the said Jones doth humbly leave it with Doctor Pinfold to give a Satisfactory Demonstration of it However the said Jones hath yet no cause to conclude that the Ecclesiastical Courts have such Power or have so Legally Proceeded with him and many other Persons first because the first step of Proceeding viz. the Citation was not in the Kings Name Secondly Because Doctor Pinfold refused to show the Kings Commission when humbly desired and honestly demanded in the place where he held his Court which if the said Doctor had been impowered according to the former Statute it had been very easy for him to have given some convincing Demonstration thereof and then the said Jones would have so declared the matter to others of his fellow Protestants as might have prevented many People from finding fault with the said Court and have caused them to give the more Reverence and Respect because of his Majesties Authority according to Law But it may be some will say that the aforesaid Statute of 1 Edw. 6. 2. hath been Repealed The said Jones doth grant that to be true but then let it be well considered by whom it was Repealed and that was by Queen Mary a shee-Popish Successor an Enemy to the Protestent Religion and to Protestants of all sorts who made a change in Ecclesiastical Courts as well as in other Courts Popish Persons being made Judges Officials and Surrogates to manage Ecclesiastical Affairs according to the Popish way and then were the poor Protestants the Dissenters of that time and were handled accordingly being Cited to the Ecclesiastical Courts and Excommunicated and then delivered up to the Temporal Power for Imprisonment and death also because they were the Non-Conformists of that day and did not in all things submit themselves to the Government as Established by Law though they had the holy word and Law of God on their sides This may teach all Persons to take heed of insisting too much upon National Laws in matters of Religion because they who are the Conformists in one Kings Raign may be the Non-Conformists in his Successors Raign and they would not think it a sufficient Argument against them that their Opinions and Practices are contrary to the Government Established by Law But whether the men of Doctors-Commons may not believe that a change of Religion Established by Law is not a sufficient Argument to keep their places and plead Conformity shall be left for time to manifest And now the said Jones will return to the Repeal of the former Statute Anno Primo Mariae Sessio Secunda chap. 2. A Repeal was made of the Statute of the first of Edw. 6. 2. called an Act for the Election of Bishops which is the afore-cited Statute But then it must be again considered the Statute of Repeal of 1 Mary 2. was repealed by King James see Anno 1 Jacobi Regis Chap. 25. in these very words And be it â—urther enacted by the Authority of this present parliament that an Act made in the first year of the Reign of Queen Mary Entituled An Act for the Repeal of certain Statutes made in the time of King Edward the sixth shall stand Repealed and Void So that now it is Evident that Queen Maries repealing Statute being repealed and made void by King James those Statutes of King Edward the sixth are now in full force they being left in the same Life and Strength as when they were first made unless it can be proved that a Repeal of them hath been made since the Statute of 1 Jacobi Chap. 25. And so the said Jones will return to give a further Account of his owne Case and further saith that between the time of the Admonition and the time appointed by Doctor Pinfold for him to take the Sacrament he did advise with such as were learned in the Laws of England and had a Plea in Law prepared and drawn up as an Answer to what he was charged with in the Presentment of the Church-wardens of his said Parish A Copy of which Presentment take as followeth
Car. II. chap. 12. yet the Ecclesiastical Party have thereby no power or Authority given or left unto them but such ordinary power as they had before the making the Repealed Statute 3. That the Imposing of Oaths by Ecclesiastical persons to the damage of any of His Majesties Subjects is plainly forbiden by the Statutes of 16 Car. I. chap. 11. and 13 Car. II. chap. 12 4. That the Ecclesiastical Party have not any power to proceed against any of His Majesties Subjects or to make or confirm any Cannon or Ecclesiastical Laws otherwise then was Allowed and Confirmed to them by Acts of Parliament and the Established Laws of the Land as they stood in the Year 1639. and how much or how little that was shall be left to further Search And since the making of the aforesaid Statute of 13 Car. II. viz. in the 27th year of his Majesties Reign one Thomas Watersfeild Church-Warden of the Parish of Arundel in the County of Sussex was Imposed upon by the Bishop of Chichester to take an Oath That be should with his utmost dilligence Present every person which then or lately was inhabiting within the said Parish of Arundel who hath done any Offence or neglected any Duty mentioned in certain Articles contained in a certain printed Book In which book amongst other things there was contained this Question viz. Whether every person inhabiting or sojourning within the Parish of Arundel aforesaid did daily resort every Lords day and Festival daies Appointed for Divine Service to the Church And whether they did there remain the whole time of Divine Service quietly with Reverence order and decency Which Oath the said Church-Warden did refuse to take and for it was afterward Excommunicated by the said Bishop But the said Watersfeild brought his Case before His Majesties Judges of the Court of Common Pleas who relieved and released him by a Prohibition in which and wherein it is plainly Declared on the behalf of the Kings Majesty as followeth viz. That by the Laws of this our Realm of England no person ought to be cited to appear in any Court Christian before any Judge Spiritual to take any Oath unless it be only in Cases Matrimonial or Testamentary And the aforesaid Bishop is in the said Prohibition Charged with Breach of the aforesaid Statute of 13 Car. II. and of the Common Law of this Realm and therefore was required to Release and dissolve all Decrees and Sentences against the said Thomas Watersfeild And for your further satisfaction pray go and look the Prohibition But to teturn to our Narrative The said Jones further saith That upon the Sixth day of December instead of carrying a Certificate of his taking the Sacrament he carried his Plea in Law to Doctor Pinfold's Court then held in the Tabernacle in Old-Fish-street London and took witnesses with him and presented his Plea to the Doctor but he refused to take it saying he would go thorrow what he was then upon The said Jones bid the Doctor take notice he was there and he would wait which he did above an hour till the Doctor spoke of Adjourning the Court. Then Jones spoke to the Doctor as followeth Doctor this Paper is a Plea in Law against the Presentment of the Church-Wardens I desire you to receive it and of Right demand you to Record it in your Court Book and Doctor I pray do not take what I am now going to say to you as an Angry word proceeding from my own breast but I am Advised to say Excommunicate me at your peril this is my Plea and I will stand by it Then the Doctor said Leave it and Jones said Record it this was spoken several times over by each at which Instant somebody pulled off a Gentlemans Hat and some busle was like to be in the Court and Jones desired the Doctor to Record his Plea and he would be gone and not be concerned with any Tumult The Doctor said Leave it and I will presently Adjourn the Court which was done accordingly A Copy of the forementioned Plea is as followeth The Answer of James Jones of London to the pretended Charge or Presentment o Geroge Cole and William Barron Church-Wardens of the Parish of St. Bartholomew Exchange Exhibited on the Fourteenth day of November last before the Worshipful Thomas Pinfold one of the Judges of the Ecclesiastical Courts 1. THE said James Jones alwaies reserving to himself and praying the liberty of a further and more full Answer and in more due form of Law and the benefit of all Legal Exceptions to the said Charge or Presentment saith that he the said James Jones cannot determin the bounds of Diocesses and Parishes and therefore whether he the said James Jones be and during the time in the said pretended Presentment was an Inhabitant within the said Parish but referreth himself to the due proof thereof according to Law 2. The said James Jones saith he is credibly informed and hopes to prove the same that the said Church-Wardens sometime since their being in that Office and before the pretended Presentment did upon their Oaths Return into the Court Omnia bene c. or did not Charge the said James Jones with any Offence and therefore if he the said James Jones were an Inhabitant within the said Parish as the pretended Presentment supposes he the said James Jones ought to be supposed innocent and free from any fault And for the time of such their first Presentment he the said James Jones referreth himself and demands the sight and proof thereof 3. The said James Jones saith That the now pretended Presentment against this Respondent c. is not sufficient in the Law it being not positive but doubtful and uncertain and therefore he the said James Jones ought not to Answer thereunto or to receive any admonition upon such an Illegal Presentment for that all Presentments as the said James Jones is advised ought to be certain and not doubtful before any Answer by Law ought to be given The Law of this Realm of England not compelling any person to accuse himself and by the words of this pretended Presentment the said Church-Wardens have not accused him of any Crime but only saith they cannot of their own knowledge know who of the Parishoners who have and who have not been at Church c. And further they do not remember to have seen the said James Jones c. at Church for three months last past which is no Charge according to Law for that it ought to be certain that the said James Jones c. did not come to his Parish Church 4. The said James Jones saith That it doth not appear by the pretended Presentment That he the said James Jones is the person Presented forasmuch as his full and compleat Name was not in the Presentment at the time of the Exhibition thereof And he the said James Jones conceives it cannot be Legally inserted ar added afterwards in the said Presentment All which the said James Jones