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
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
King by His Ecclesiastical Judges has the hearing of them and determining in their causes and His leave and licence goes along therewith By vertue of being thus deputed and commissionated by the King the Bishops have and execute an exterior Jurisdiction which is as extensive and universal over all persons in causes belonging thereunto as is the Temporal Jurisdiction in the management of the Temporal Judges and where the Kings Commission is there is His power and there is His consent And where that Commission does not abridge and limit there all proceedings made by power from it have assuredly the Kings leave and licence in conjunction with them But if still notwithstanding all that has been said it be persisted in that there is a disparity of power in the two Jurisdictions as to the extensiveness thereof subjectively so as that the Ecclesiastical Judge in his way of proceedings may not but the Temporal Judge in his way may proceed against any civil Officers as Mayors and Sheriffs c. found Delinquents in any kind I demand How does it appear to be so What Law is there that constitutes this Disparity What legal course prescribed and set down to restrain the Ecclesiastical Judge in case he will be intermedling with such persons for it is irrational to imagine there should be such a Law and yet that it should be destitute of sufficient means to uphold and maintain it self by Truly I am not so vain as to say there is no Law extant which constitutes this Disparity because I know no such but I have been seriously inquisitive and diligent in searching after this but cannot attain a knowledge of any such and would any be so kind to inform me I should thankfully own that kindness Next for any legal course prescribed and set down to restrain Ecclesiastical Judges in case they will be intermedling with such persons If there be any such it must be one or other of these three wayes 1. By Writ of Provision and Praemunire Or 2. By a Writ of Indicavit Or 3. By a Writ of Prohibition By one or other of these the Ecclesiastical Judge is restrained in his proceedings and câ—mmanded to desist from prosecuting further such matters as being before him are referred to in those Writs Now concerning the first That Provision and Praemunire has no place nor use in this matter I do for the present plainly declare and afterwards I shall have occasion more largely to prove it 2. Then for the Writ â—f Indicavit that is notoriously known to lie there where a Suit of Tythes is commenced in the Ecclesiastical Court which does amount to a fourth part or above of the whole Benefice or it lieth for the Patron where his Clerk is impleaded for the Advowson i. e. the Right of Patronage 3. There remains only the Writ of Prohibition This is said to be two-fold Prohibitio Juris Prohibitio Hominis Prohibitio Juris is such as is grounded on any Statute or Law of this Land Prohibitio Hominis is such as has no precise word or letter of the Law to sustain it but is raised up by Argument and by way of surmise and as the wit of man will suggest Now put these Prohibitions of both sorts together and I dare boldly affirm that none of either kind have been or can or ought to be granted so as to supersede the Ecclesiastical Judge from his legal proceedings against any person where the matter proceeded upon is indeed of Ecclesiastical cognizance meerly because such a person bears some office of civil power is a Mayor Sheriff Portrieve or any other in like place of authority And this is the reason why I take so much confidence in delivering this affirmation because it is the incompetency of the cause brought into tryal before the Ecclesiastical Judge and not this or that quality or condition of the parties proceeded against that alwayes makes way for moving for and granting of a Prohibition Thus much has been said for the removal of these Objections and still it is clear and evident that the exercise of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction by the Bishop over all persons whatsoever within his Diocess in matters and causes truly belonging thereunto tends not at all to the impaâ—ring or invading the Kings Royal Prerogative It has been the glory of our Kings to keep the Rights and Liberties of the Church safe and entire and never to interpret a just exerting and using of their Jurisdiction to be a diminishing of their Royal dignity In some old Presidents of the Writ de Excommunicato capiendo A priviledge peculiar to the Church of England above all the Realms of Christendom that I read of sayes Dr. Cosen Apol. par 1. p. 9. The King declares thus Nolumus quod libertas Ecclesiastica per nos vel Ministros nostros quoscunque aliqualiter violetur Register in bre orig p. 69. a. And again Jura libertates Ecclesiasticas illaesa volentes in omnibus observari ibidem But I have one greater instance hereof to add here At the time of His Majesties Coronation the Oath that He is pleased then to take has this Article therein That He will grant keep and confirm to His people of England the Laws and customs to them granted by the Kings of England His lawful and religious Predecessors and namely the Laws customs and Franchises granted to the Clergy by the glorious King St. Edward his Predecessor according to the Laws of God the true profession of the Gospel established in this Kingdom agreeable to the Prerogative of the Kings thereof and the ancient customs of this Land Afterwards one Bishop present reads this Admonition to the King before the people with a loud voyce Our Lord and King we beseech You to pardon and grant and to preserve unto us and to the Churches committed to our charge all Canonical Priviledges and due Law and Justice and that You would protect and defend us as every good King ought to be aâ— Protector and Defender of the Bishops and Churches under His Government Whereto the King answereth with a willing and devout heart I promise and grant my part and that I will preserve and maintain to you and the Churches c. By Canonical priviledges that belong to them and their Churches there must needs be implyed the Honour of their several Orders as that Bishops should be above Presbyters c. together with all their due Rights and Jurisdictions Dr. Stewards Answer to a Letter concerning the Church and the Revenues thereof Of these Laws Customs and Franchises granted to the Church and Clergy this of actual exercising Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical in causes belonging thereto is as I have before shewed one and that a principal one too Now to imagine that the King will bind Himself by Oath to the confirming of such Charters and Grants which he either resolves not to keep or such as are detrimental to Him and tend to the impairing His Prerogative is neither consistent with Reason nor Loyalty
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
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
the ancient state thereof and is so far from damnifying the Prerogative Royal that it mainly asserts and vindicates the same It might perhaps be doubted That different Jurisdictions in one Kingdom and those exercised by persons of different professions though deriving from one Supreme Head would rather cause than prevent many inconveniencies and those inconveniencies so bad in their nature as to detract from rather than adde to the Supreme Magistrates Dignity and Prerogative as namely by introducing confusion and disorder in the management of both and in the causes and matters to be managed in them and occasioning continual jealousies and distastes betwixt the persons appointed to manage them observed by my Lord Bacon's Advancement of Learning Aphor. 96. But in truth no such ill Effects do follow hereupon for distinct Jurisdictions exercised by persons of several orders and professions in these Kingdoms and vested with authority from the Supreme Magistrates so to do though juridical proceedings therein be different from the ordinary form and prescribed coursel of the Common Law argues unplenitude not a defect of power an advancing of it not derogating from it in that Supreme Magistrate granting the same his great wisdom and prudence in a determinate stating the nature and bounds of each Jurisdiction the appropriating certain causes to be heard and determined in them respectively commanding all His Subjects to give due obedience thereunto in such causes as are limited to those Courts and which any Subject may be concerned in And as both derive from soito depend upon him in an equal poise as to the Authority belonging to each so that all the supposed inconveniencies are sufficiently provided against And the ordering all these things in this set manner is an effect of the Kings high Prerogative enabling him so to do and is both by Custom and Law among us allowed of * The King is the indifferent Arbitrator in all Jurisdictions as well Spiritual as Temporal and it is a Right of His Crown to distribute to them that is to declare their bounds Lord Hobbarts Reports Dr. Jame 's Case observe with me these following instances The Kings Majesty is plyased to confirm a peculiar Jurisdiction granted by His Royal Progenitors to the two Universities of Cambridge and Oxford The Chancellor of each University or his Commissary administer Justice according to the Civil Law and the Customs and Statutes of the University where the persons at variance together are Students or one of them at least is such insomuch as in personal Actions for Debt matters of Accounts or any Contracts made within their own Precincts and in some criminal matters likewise none of them may be called to Westminster Hall but the cognizance thereof belongs to the Chancellor of the said University or his Commissary as is before said If any Appeals be made from Sentences given in any such Trials they are first interposed to the Regents last of all to the Kings Majesty himself Cowell Interp. in verbo Privilege Dr. Duck ut supra sect 30. Will any man now say That the Exercise of this power is intrenching on the Kings Prerogative because His great Courts at Westminster are not applied to and a Jurisdiction distinct from and independent upon them is exercised Surely no because the Exercise of this power is granted by Royal Charter it proceeds from it depends upon it is done in an acknowledgment of the Kings Supreme Power and Prerogative There is a Court of great Dignity and Honour called the Court of the Constable and Earl Marshal of England Herein are determined all Contracts touching Deeds of Arms out of the Realm as Combats Blazons of Armory and the right of bearing Arms c. proper to particular Families the manner of proceeding in this Court is according to the form of the Civil Law * L. Coke Jurisdiction of Courts ca. 17. the use and authority of which is of great sway herein Appeals that are interposed from any definitive sentence in this Court are brought to the Kings Majesty Himself not to His Chancellor the municipal Law is altogether secluded from hence Justice is administred Delinquents are punished without any relation to that or the Judges thereof yet the Kings Prerogative is not infringed by the exercise of this Jurisdiction because it is derived from the King I might add here the Court of the Admiralty the peculiar Jurisdiction exercised within the Cinque Ports by the Lord Warden thereof In these Courts matters both civil and criminal are tryed according to the course prescribed by the civil Law but in the following Leafs I shall have occasion more distinctly to write something relating to these matters and respectively to these two Courts Now as it is in these different Jurisdictions they derive from the King His Subjects are bound by command from Him to obey the Authority thereof if they refuse to obey by poenal coercions proper to each they may be compelled to it yet still the Royal Prerogative is not any whit diminished nor the Rights of the Crown at all impaired hereby As it is thus I say in the distinct Jurisdictions so it is in the exercise of Episcopal Jurisdiction in the Ecclesiastical Courts And now I have uttered thus much I perceive my self beginning to walk on a narrow slippery ridge where a steep precipice is on each side The danger of falling on one hand is least I abase the Prerogative so low as to subject the King in Ecclesiastical causes and matters under the Resolves and Decisions of Classical Assemblies * Huic Disciplinae omnes orhis principes Monarchas fasers suos submittere parere necesse est Travers Disciplin Ecclesiast p. 142 143. Bishop White in his Preface to his Treatise concerning the Sabbath as the Presbyterians do or bring Him in subordination to the Bishop of Rome as the Papists do The danger on the other hand is the over-exalting of the Prerogative so that it might be thought we attribute to the King as sometimes the Papists object to us a power to exercise Sacerdotal Offices in the Church to inflict censures * And yet our Law attributes much in this particular and that very highly to the King Reges Sacro olco unctâ— spiritualis Jurisdictionâ—s sunt capaces 33 Edw. 3. Ayde de Roy. 107. Coke Cawdrie's case p. 16. c. Now to walk even and steddy betwixt these two dangerous downfalls is that which must be endeavoured and therefore whereas we own and solemnly recognize the Kings Supremacy in Ecclesiastical matters and causes it is to be understood according to the sense and meaning set down in the words of the 37th Article of the Church of England and also in the Article of the Church of Ireland concerning civil Magistrates The Kings Majesty hath the chief Government of all Estates Ecclesiastical and Civil within His Dominions see Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions set forth in the first year of Her Reign Now this Supremacy keeps the King above all
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
displeased thereat for as one Historian informs us * Mat. Paris Anno 1250. p. 777. and he a Votary to the Pope in another case hapning but two years before viz. in the 36th year of this Kings Reign and which this passage must undoubâ—edly refer to Non sine redargutione peritorum haec fecit Dominus Rex quod scilicet conquestus fuerit super haec Domino Papae The Pope to be sure was forward enough to engage himself in the concerns of Princes and so would make himself more officious to gratifie the King than was needful whereas the provision which by the Laws was made against any such encroachments and the Kings own Regal power to put the same Laws in execution would have given him better relief than any indult or dispensation from the Pope could do Well upon the Reasons before specified prohibitions issued out from King Henry to keep the Bishops from censuring his Officers but notwithstanding them still they would be encroaching on the Kings Rights in his temporal Courts and so they continued to the time of King Edward the first the son and immediate successor of the former King and thence proceeded the issuing of that Kings prohibitory mandates Requiring and commanding the Bishops not to Excommunicate his Bayliffs and Officers without his previous Licence and Order That is as by what is to be collected from the state of affairs in these times until the King fully understood the nature of the cause these Officers and Bayliffs were convented upon for as I declared before they were often censured and excommunicated because they opposed the Popish encroachments on the Kings temporal Rights therefore the King would understand the true grounds of such proceedings that if the matter were of civil concernment his Officers might be freed from such vexatious and unjust prosecutions but if it appeared to be of Ecclesiastical cognizance they were then delivered up to the Jurisdiction thereof This I conceive to be the very genuine and true meaning hereof for these reasons first because it is consonant to the end and purport of other Writs of the like nature the Author has not recited these Records at large which if he had done very probably something plainly directing to this conception might have been found therein Moreover by the Statute called prohibitio formata de Statuto Articuli Cleri * Which Stature had â—eâ—â—â—ence to certain Articles of the Clergy â—â—h biâ—ed in Parlâ—ament hold Anno 51. Hen. 3. made the beginning of King Edwards Reign The spiritual Jurisdiction is not at all restrained subjectively that is respectively to persons being of this or that condition or quality but only objectively as to causes namely such as had been usurped before by the spiritual Courts Lastly this is made good also from approved practice in this very Kings Reign as will appear by this remarkable story that now follows Thomas the Noble Earl of Lancaster had to wife Alice only Daughter and Heir of Henry Earl of Lincoln at the same time John Earl of Warren was married to King Edward the first his Neece yet the said Earl Warren by great force and strong hand caused the said Alice Countess of Lancaster to be fetched from the Earl of Lancasters house in Canford in Dorset shire and in great pomp and bravery in despight of the Earl of Lancaster to be brought to him to his Castle of Ryeâ—gate in Surrey where they lived in open advowtry John Langton was then Bishop of Chichester and Chancellor of England and being a man of a brave spirit and fearing not the face of great men according to his office and duty he called the said Earl Warren in question for the said shameful and open Adultery and by Ecclesiastical censures Excommunicated him for the same as he well deserved sayes my Lord Coke who reports this Story * Expâ—fâ—â—ion on the Statute called Articuli super Chartas Anno 28 Edvard 1. page 573. This hapned about the 29th year of King Edv. 1. and surely is an instance proper to inform us what the right state of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction was then and that supposing the matter to be indeed belonging to the Ecclesiastical Tribunal no person of greatest dignity under the King nor any others in civil office and place of power are exempted from it nor did the Kings prohibitory Writs give any such exemption Thus it was while the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction did de facto stand divided from the Crown and before our Kings re-assumed their Rights in the same But forasmuch as now there is an entire Union of both jurisdictions in one supream King and Governour the exercise of the Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is certainly at least as extensive as full and as Universal now as it was before And whereas the obtaining and having the Kings leave and licence to the inflicting any censures on His Bayliffs and Officers is mentioned in those prohibitory Writs whence it may be inferred that admitting Ecclesiastical judges may proceed against and censure occasion so requiring it the Kings Officers in civil powers yet the Kings leave and order so to do must first be had and obtained To this I say that now by the right constitution of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction and as the exercise thereof is derived from the Crown the Kings leave and licence in the whole procedure thereof is implicitely indeed yet as truly and certainly had and obtained as if a particular and express mandate from the King were issued out upon each several cause civil or criminal that belongs to the cognizance thereof The Eâ—clesiastical judge acts by a power as immediately derived from the King as any Temporal Judge does The Bishop is as amply and compleatly Commissionated for the Exercise of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction both subjectively and objectively in foro Externo contentioso which Commission passes in His Majesties Letters Patents for Restauration of the Temporalities as any other Temporal Judge in any of the Kings Temporal Courts And upon this account it is as truly affirmed That nothing is done in the Ecclesiastical Court Rege inconsulto as the same is said concerning the Temporal Court Habet Rex diversas Curias in quibus diversae Actiones terminantur sayes Bracton and he lived in one of these Kings Reign viz that of King Henry 3d whence Sir Edward Coke draws this conclusion That the King hath committed and distributed all his whole power of Judicature to several Courts of Justice and in this he refers to Ecclesiastical Courts as well as Temporal And from the Statute 24 Hen. 8. cap. 2. he declares thus That the Laws Ecclesiastical and Temporal were and yet are administred adjudged and executed by sundry Judges * His Jurisdiction of Courts cap. 7. p. 70. c. Hence is that saying That the King does judge by his Judges Thus in matters of Ecclesiastical cognizance the King judges by His Ecclesiastical Judges and whatsoever persons are any way concerned therein and impleaded in the Ecclesiastical Court the
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
Supremacy is in him there can therefore lie no Praemunire at this day against any man exercising Jurisdiction subordinately under the King which every Ecclesiastical Judge both doth and acknowledges himself to do See to this purpose Dr. Cosen in his Apol. p. 1. cap. 18. Sir Tho Ridley ut supra Dr. Cowell in the word Praemnnire Whatsoever sayes he is now wrought or threatned against the Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical by colour of the same Statute of Praemuniâ—e is but in emulation of one Court to another and by consequent a derogation to that Authority from which all Jurisdiction is now derived and the maintenance whereof was by those Princes especially purposed Nam cessante ratione cessat Lek Sir Thomas Smith a person of great judgment one who well understood His Sovereigns Right and Prerogative and wouâ—d not detract any thing in the least manner from it declares his sense herein after this manner Verum in praesentiarum Curia Christianitatis perinde atque caeterae omnes virtutem vim authoritatem imperium jurisdictionemque suam praeterquam Serenissimae Majesti Diademâ—ti Regio post immortalem Deum Potestati aut Principi accepta resert Nemini Id si verum esse concedas quod esse constat verissimum tum Sanctioni Statuariae de Praemunire nullus per Angliam locus relinquitur quando alibi quam in Curia Regis ac Reginae jus nullum dicitur De Repub Anglicana lib. 3. cap. 11. There is a certain word indeed in that Statute viz. alibi the Court of Rome or elsewhere and this word is supposed to be meant of and refer to Bishops Courts So I read that Fitz. herbert a great Lawyer reporteth it Tit. praemunire num 5. Howbeit saving all respect to so great a Lawyer yet this is judged by many grave and learned persons see those before mentioned to be a forced and groundless construction made thereof The word it self is of an ambiguous and variable signification it may refer to the Bishops Consistories and it may as well not refer to them it may refer to any Forreign Courts and Judicatories and any other Courts of these Kingdoms that are not Courts of common Law * So it seems it may refer to the Court of Admiralty in my Lord Coke's opinion 4. Instit cap. 22. or any Courts whatsoever most agreeable to the purport of that Statute wherein any thing is done in derogation of the Regality of our Lord the King it is a slippery and uncertain word none can take sure hold of it no determinate and precise meaning can be affixed to it This word then being so doubtful and uncertain and the penalty of this Statute being so severe as Imprisonment during life for feiture of Goods Lands Chattels Tenements Ejection out of the Kings favour and protection and since the noted Rule is this in poenalibus causis benignius interpretandum est L. 145. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 de Reg. Juris parag finali Now it would be so far from a benigne as to prove indeed a most rigorous sentence to pronounce the falling under so great a penalty on occasion of this expression so full of ambiguity and uncertainty May I presume with the good leave of the Learned in the Municipal Laws of this Kingdom to interpose my conjecture concerning this word Alibi or elsewhere for where there is ambiguity there is room for conjecture I have the ground of what I have to say from Dr Cosen Apol. p. 1. cap. 18. It was in the sixteenth year of King Richard the second that this Statute was Enacted that was in the year of our Lord One thousand three hundred ninety and three at which time and for some time after the Schism about creating of Popes which is reckoned and so called the Twenty ninth Schism Isaacksons Cronolog p. 353. was very rife and hot in agitation Boniface the Ninth was at Rome and Clement called the Seventh made by the French Cardinals was at Avignion in France here was at the same time as had been before two Popes actually exercising Papal Jurisdiction both making Cardinals and both striving to extend their power and authority so far that other Kingdoms as well as the places where they were resident might be under the influence thereof Now so it was that this Statute of Praemunire being intended for the utter exclusion of all Forreign Authority it might be judged necessary to cut off all intercourse betwixt the Kings Subjects and the Popes Consistory whether at Rome or elsewhere and that Processes and other judicial Writs as well dated from Avignion or any other place as from Rome might make the purchasers and pursuers of them liable to the penalties intended by that Statute But there is something further alledged here That although the Ecclesiastical Courts as now established are not in the general intent included within this Statute yet then surely they are when causes belonging to the Temporal Courts are by Ecclesiastical Judges retained and proceeded in I know it passes as a very current Opinion among many That for an Ecclesiastical Judge to deal in any cause not belonging to his Jurisdiction is Praemunire Great is the Authority that bears up this Opinion and for the greatness sake of the Authority many are the Adherers to it In my Lord chief Baron Boltons Justice of the Peace cap. praemunire There is first a recital of the several Statutes concurring in and concerning this crime then follows certain Book cases or resolutions as his Lordship expresses it added for the better explanation of those Statutes One of the said cases is to this effect viz. the 21. Note that the words of the Statute are in Curia Romana vel alibi which is intended in Curia Episcopi And therefore if a man be Excommunicated or profecuted in the Spiritual Court for a thing which appertains to the common Law he that prosecutes such a Suit is in case of praemunire for this there is alledged in the margent 5 Ed. 4. fo 6. Before I was stopped with what is thus set down and what I find affirmed by others to the same effect I was ready to say That it must be a very forc't streining of that Statute that will be able to wring such a sense out of it But who am I that I should oppose my obscure meaness to the authority of so great a person May I have fair leave therefore to offer only a few things to be considered of touching this matter in behalf of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and the Judges belonging to the same And first whereas it is said that by the word alibi in the Statute is intended Curia Episcopi I refer the Reader to what has been before spoken of this particular thing and further I may now seasonably notifie one thing observable in the very Statute it self that may lead us by a more certain hand to perceive what this word alibi has a reference to and what it has not For whereas in the aforesaid Statute of