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 men it will come to nought Vers. 39. But if it be of God ye cannot overthrow it lest happily ye be found even to fight against God A Sober Question Proposed Whether the aforesaid Doctor of Law belonging to that Ecclesiastical Court who was a Pharisce and did thus favour those poor Dissenters Or Saul who also was a Pharisee and did violently Prosecute those Non-Conformists even to Imprisonment and Death and caused some faint-hearted Professors to Blaspheme that so they might escape those punishments that he inflicted upon many by that Authority which he received from the high Priest who was Judge of the aforesaid Ecclesiastical Court Be the best Pattern and Example for a Spiritual Judge The Resolution shall be left for Doctor Pinfold and all other violent Prosecutors of them that fear God to be considered and Resolved as they will answer it before the Lord Chief Justice of the whole World viz. The Lord Jesus Christ Acts. 17. 31. Rom 2. 16. ERRATA Page 2. Line 45. for Sir Thomas's Read St. Thomas's The Admonisher Admonished OR A MODEST and IMPARTIAL NARRATIVE OF The late Proceedings of the Ecclesiastical-Court against JAMES JONES c. THe Subject of the Ensuing Narrative being chiefly matter of Fact and the Design of it being only to give the World an Account of the Proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Court against several hundred of his Majesties Subjects and in particular against James Jones I shall without any Preface acquaint you That upon the 16th of November last there was a Citation left at his House by an Ecclesiastical Officer the form whereof was that which followeth To Mr. Jones of the Parish of St. Bartholomew Exchange I Cite you by vertue of a Process under Seal to appear before the Right Worshipful Thomas Pinfold Doctor of Laws and Official to the Arch-Deacon of London or his Lawful Surrogate or any other Competent Iudge in that behalf in the Parish-Church or Tabernacle of St. Mary Magdalen Old-Fish-street London On the 17th day of November between the Hours of Nine and Eleven in the Forenoon of the same day then and there to Answer to a Presentment given in and Exhibited against you by the Church-Wardens of your said Parish as by Law you are bound And further to do and Receive as by Law and Iustice shall Appertain Francis Speke Officer From this Citation the said Jones doth observe these following things and desireth others to consider and well improve them 1. That this Citation is not in the Kings Name only I Cite you 2. Though there is Mention made of a Process under Seal by vertue of which the said Jones was Cited it is not said By vertue of a Commission from his Majesty given to Impower that Court so to proceed 3. Though there is mention made of Law and Justice in the said Citation that is no Demonstration of the Legallity of the aforesaid Court and how much of Law and Justice hath been managed there let those Judge that have been handled in the said Court and what may yet be expected of Law and Justice must be very patiently waited for by those that suffer The next day being the 17th day of November aforesaid the said Jones with others of his Protestant Neighbours did appear before the said Doctor Pinfold thinking thereby to avoid a strange thing called Cotumacy or Contempt in that Court Supposing he should have had further Citations before any further Proceedings but he found himself greatly mistaken for the said Doctor was very nimble with the honest Neighbours of the said Jones as they were particularly called by their Names and presently concluded them Guilty of the matters in the Church-Wardens Presentment viz. of not coming to Church and not Receiving the Sacrament without Positive Proof of those matters by Persons appearing Face to Face though the Truth is the said Doctor did not put any of those before him to accuse themselves but did presently proceed to Admonish them To come to Church and to take the Sacrament in their own Parish Church and bring a Certificate they had so done from the Doctor of the said Parish by the 6th day of December following And when most of the said Jones's Neighbours had been called the Clark called for one Mr. Jones The said Jones Replyed His Name was Jones and he was come to see whether he was the man intended in the Presentment The Doctor concluded that because the Citation was left at his house Jones confessed there was a Citation left at his house but that was no Proof that he was the same Person intended Especially considering that his Whole Name was not in the Citation only Mr. Jones and there might be other Jones's in the said Parish Then the Doctor inquired of the Apparitor who said that one of the Church-Wardens did direct him to the house of the said Jones where he left the Citation and said he was the same Jones in the Presentment Jones then told the Doctor That if he were the Person he would not needlesly contend but however he thought the Citation was not legally served it being not given into his own hand neither had he seen the Seal of the Court mentioned in the Citation To which Doctor Pinfold Replying Allowed that it was not a Legal Citation and that if the said Jones had not then appeared the Court would have sworn their Officer who if upon Oath he had said he could not find the said Jones then they would have set up a Viis Modis upon the Church door or upon his own door requiring him to appear in the Ecclesiastical Court but being the said Jones did appear the Citation was at an end and there was no need of any more Citations Then the said Jones perceived that he was got into a Trap by being so ready to go with his honest Neighbours to that Court upon a Supposition that the Citation being not served upon his Person nor his full Name in the Citation was not right and therefore thought he should have had a Dismission for that time till a new Citation was sent and served upon him he very well knowing that the Ecclesiastical Courts did formerly proceed very slowly but it seems Sir Thomas's day was near at hand for the Citizens of London to choose a New Common Conncil and it was high time to hasten Excommunications thereby if it were possible to prevent the Priviledge of such Persons in their Election of that Honourable Court of Common Council but this is a happyness to the Loyal City of London that the Citizens of London do understand the Statute Law by which the Kings Power and the Peoples Priviledge is maintained though they may not so well understand the Roaring Cannons of Ecclesiastical Courts viz. The Canon Law and now the said Jones doth humbly desire his fellow Protestants to bear with this Digression and not count it a Transgression but he thinks it advisible that such as are not cited with a Citation upon their own
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
it upon the Affidavit of the said Jones then read in Court the truth of which Affidavit the said Jones would have sworn before all the Judges of England viz. that he had been at the Registers Office and demanded a Copy of his Libel and could not obtain it though he offered paymnent for the same and in this very case the Law hath provided a Prohibition for the the releif of the Kings Subjects who are too often vexed by the Ecclesiastical Courts See the Statute of the 2 Hen. V. chap. 3. the words are these Item Forasmuch as divers of the Kings liege people be daily Cited to appear in the Spiritual Court before Spiritual Iudgee there to Answer to divers pexsons as well of things which touch Free-hold Debts Trespass Covenants and other things wherof cognisance partaineth to the Courts of our Lord the King as of Matrimony and Testament and when such persons so Cited appear and demand a Libel of that which against them is surmised to be informed to give their answer thereunto or otherwise to purchase a Writ of our Lord the King of Proâ—ibition according to their Case which Libel to them is denied by the said Spiritual Iudges to the intent that such persons should not be aided by any such Writ against the Law and to the great damage of such persons so impleaded our said Lord the King by the advice and assent of his Lords Spiritual and Temporal and at the request and iâ—stance of the said Commons hath Ordained and established that at what time the Libel is grantable by the Law that it may be granted and delivered to the party without any difficulty From which good Statute let these things be considered 1. That the Spiritual Courts ought to have Libels of those matters that are surmised against the Kings Leige people 2. That upon demand without any delaies copies of such Libels ought to be given to such of the Kings Leige people as make a demand of them that thereby they may be enabled to make a legal defence for themselves either respecting the matter of fact surmised against them or any illegal Proceedings in the mannagement thereof 3. That such of the Kings leige people as are denied or cannot obtain a copy of such Libel when grantable by Law shall have the Kings Writ of Prohibition for their releif or if the matters surmised against them in the Spiritual Court be such things whereof cognisance pertaineth to the Court of our Lord the King besides those of Freehold Debt Trespass or Covenants they may have for their releif a Prohibition Now the said Jones humbly conceives that the matters surmised against him in the Spiritual Courts are such things whereof cognisance pertaineth to the Court of our Lord the King viz. an uncertain Information of the Church-Wardens saying in their Presentment They could not of their own knowledge prove who of the Parishioners have and who have not been at Church and that they did not remember to have seen the said Jones at Church for some time past or to have Received the Sacrament for three Months past and besides these things surmised when they were in the Ecclesiastical Court a Copy of a Libel concerning them could not be obtained when demanded upon which the said Jones moved for a Prohibition but Sir George Jefferies in mannaging the cause for Doctor Pinfold did plead there was no Libel in that case and therefore the Ecclesiastical Court could not grant it when demanded and that Doctor Pinfold had proceeded by the Presentment of the Church-Wardens The said Jones doth not blame Sir George for making this Plea for the Doctor but the question is Whether Doctor Pinfold ought not to have a Libel in the Case as well as a Presentment the Statute mentioning a Libel of things surmised against the Kings liege people however the Kings Subjects have good cause to esteem the Proceedings of the Kings Courts of Justice where there is not only Presentments but afterwards Indictments and time allowed to the Kings Subjects to defend themselves and the Accusers brought to the face of the Accused and upon not making substantial proof of matters of fact the Kings accused subjects are by the Judges and the Law discharged but the said Jones and a multitude of his fellow Protestants have not had such fair dealings in Doctor Pinfold's Court and therefore the said Jones hath cause to say From such Courts and such Proceedings Good Lord deliver us And whereas the said Jones is informed that Sir George did reflect upon him for moving in the Kings Court of Common Pleas before he came to move in the Kings Bench for a Prohibition as being willing to have two strings to his Bow the said Jones doth humbly desire Sir George to consider that it is every mans concern to do his best and use the utmost means in a legal way to accomplish his relief and the said Jones doth believe that if it had been his happiness to have engaged Sir George Jefferies as his Conncel in this case it had not been lost for want of speaking to it as it was by the Silence of some Serjeants at Law that were expected to make some Reply in that Case and the Lord Chief Justice Pemberton then Sitting upon the Bench was willing to hear a Reply What was the cause of that silence whether because they could not speak or because they would not speak or because they dared not to speak or because they had not sufficient Fees to speak Grand-father Time must shew But whether because one Serjeant spoke so much and others said nothing at all Prohibitions weare overthrown in Westminster-Hall shall be lest to consideration However the said Jones saith That he was encouraged to take this way because divers of the Kings Subjects have thereby had releif formerly from the power of the Ecclesiastical Courts who were under the same circumstances and therefore the said Jones doth humbly pray Sir George Jefferies to consider that not every cause he hath mannaged either for the Plaintiff or Defendant hath gone currant before the Judges in Westminster-Hall which is a sufficient evidence that either the cause undertaken was not right or else that Sir George's Clients had some wrong and therefore no marvel if one or other of these things have attended poor Jones and others who have proceeded by the Advice of the Learned in the Law however this little victory over Jones and his fellow Protestants gave occasion to Doctor Pinfold to rejoice and boast and glory that night at Doctors Commons as if his cause were fifty in the hundred the better for that daies work but it is humbly desired by the said Jones that the Doctor would seriously cousider that saying in a good old Book called The Holy Bible Let not him that girdeth on his harness Boast himself as he that putteth it off 1 Kings 20. 11. Furtthermore The said Jones doth certifie Doctor Pinfold and all others concerned That he hath a