Car. II. chap. 12. yet the Ecclesiastical Party have thereby no power or Authority given or left unto them but such ordinary power as they had before the making the Repealed Statute 3. That the Imposing of Oaths by Ecclesiastical persons to the damage of any of His Majesties Subjects is plainly forbiden by the Statutes of 16 Car. I. chap. 11. and 13 Car. II. chap. 12 4. That the Ecclesiastical Party have not any power to proceed against any of His Majesties Subjects or to make or confirm any Cannon or Ecclesiastical Laws otherwise then was Allowed and Confirmed to them by Acts of Parliament and the Established Laws of the Land as they stood in the Year 1639. and how much or how little that was shall be left to further Search And since the making of the aforesaid Statute of 13 Car. II. viz. in the 27th year of his Majesties Reign one Thomas Watersfeild Church-Warden of the Parish of Arundel in the County of Sussex was Imposed upon by the Bishop of Chichester to take an Oath That be should with his utmost dilligence Present every person which then or lately was inhabiting within the said Parish of Arundel who hath done any Offence or neglected any Duty mentioned in certain Articles contained in a certain printed Book In which book amongst other things there was contained this Question viz. Whether every person inhabiting or sojourning within the Parish of Arundel aforesaid did daily resort every Lords day and Festival daies Appointed for Divine Service to the Church And whether they did there remain the whole time of Divine Service quietly with Reverence order and decency Which Oath the said Church-Warden did refuse to take and for it was afterward Excommunicated by the said Bishop But the said Watersfeild brought his Case before His Majesties Judges of the Court of Common Pleas who relieved and released him by a Prohibition in which and wherein it is plainly Declared on the behalf of the Kings Majesty as followeth viz. That by the Laws of this our Realm of England no person ought to be cited to appear in any Court Christian before any Judge Spiritual to take any Oath unless it be only in Cases Matrimonial or Testamentary And the aforesaid Bishop is in the said Prohibition Charged with Breach of the aforesaid Statute of 13 Car. II. and of the Common Law of this Realm and therefore was required to Release and dissolve all Decrees and Sentences against the said Thomas Watersfeild And for your further satisfaction pray go and look the Prohibition But to teturn to our Narrative The said Jones further saith That upon the Sixth day of December instead of carrying a Certificate of his taking the Sacrament he carried his Plea in Law to Doctor Pinfold's Court then held in the Tabernacle in Old-Fish-street London and took witnesses with him and presented his Plea to the Doctor but he refused to take it saying he would go thorrow what he was then upon The said Jones bid the Doctor take notice he was there and he would wait which he did above an hour till the Doctor spoke of Adjourning the Court. Then Jones spoke to the Doctor as followeth Doctor this Paper is a Plea in Law against the Presentment of the Church-Wardens I desire you to receive it and of Right demand you to Record it in your Court Book and Doctor I pray do not take what I am now going to say to you as an Angry word proceeding from my own breast but I am Advised to say Excommunicate me at your peril this is my Plea and I will stand by it Then the Doctor said Leave it and Jones said Record it this was spoken several times over by each at which Instant somebody pulled off a Gentlemans Hat and some busle was like to be in the Court and Jones desired the Doctor to Record his Plea and he would be gone and not be concerned with any Tumult The Doctor said Leave it and I will presently Adjourn the Court which was done accordingly A Copy of the forementioned Plea is as followeth The Answer of James Jones of London to the pretended Charge or Presentment o Geroge Cole and William Barron Church-Wardens of the Parish of St. Bartholomew Exchange Exhibited on the Fourteenth day of November last before the Worshipful Thomas Pinfold one of the Judges of the Ecclesiastical Courts 1. THE said James Jones alwaies reserving to himself and praying the liberty of a further and more full Answer and in more due form of Law and the benefit of all Legal Exceptions to the said Charge or Presentment saith that he the said James Jones cannot determin the bounds of Diocesses and Parishes and therefore whether he the said James Jones be and during the time in the said pretended Presentment was an Inhabitant within the said Parish but referreth himself to the due proof thereof according to Law 2. The said James Jones saith he is credibly informed and hopes to prove the same that the said Church-Wardens sometime since their being in that Office and before the pretended Presentment did upon their Oaths Return into the Court Omnia bene c. or did not Charge the said James Jones with any Offence and therefore if he the said James Jones were an Inhabitant within the said Parish as the pretended Presentment supposes he the said James Jones ought to be supposed innocent and free from any fault And for the time of such their first Presentment he the said James Jones referreth himself and demands the sight and proof thereof 3. The said James Jones saith That the now pretended Presentment against this Respondent c. is not sufficient in the Law it being not positive but doubtful and uncertain and therefore he the said James Jones ought not to Answer thereunto or to receive any admonition upon such an Illegal Presentment for that all Presentments as the said James Jones is advised ought to be certain and not doubtful before any Answer by Law ought to be given The Law of this Realm of England not compelling any person to accuse himself and by the words of this pretended Presentment the said Church-Wardens have not accused him of any Crime but only saith they cannot of their own knowledge know who of the Parishoners who have and who have not been at Church c. And further they do not remember to have seen the said James Jones c. at Church for three months last past which is no Charge according to Law for that it ought to be certain that the said James Jones c. did not come to his Parish Church 4. The said James Jones saith That it doth not appear by the pretended Presentment That he the said James Jones is the person Presented forasmuch as his full and compleat Name was not in the Presentment at the time of the Exhibition thereof And he the said James Jones conceives it cannot be Legally inserted ar added afterwards in the said Presentment All which the said James Jones
does insist upon and prays this Court to take the same into their Consideration and that he may be hence Discharged Subscribed and delivered into the Ecclesiastical Court by the hand of James Jones on the Sixth day of December 1682. THE said Jones having thus proceeded he waited several daies thinking he should be Cited to have some kind of Answer to his Plea whether it was Accepted or Rejected but not hearing any thing at all upon the Eleventh of December the said Jones went again to Doctor Pinfolds Court in the Tabernacle of Old-Fish-Street London that so he might observe Proceedings and to make answer if he should be called upon Which day many Pleas were delivered into the said Court which the Doctor received with great civillity and promised a Hearing of them all the next Fryday following The said Jones being not that day called kept silence and did not urge his own Case least he should be counted a Troubler of that Court and therefore resolved to attend Doctor Pinfold the Fryday following concluding that then he should have opportunity to have his Plea debated as well as others Especially considering that his Plea was one of the first that was delivered into that Court. When Fryday came which was the Fourteenth of December the said Jones with a great number of His Majesties Protestant Subjects went to Doctors Commons for Doctor Pinfold had ordered the Hearing of the Pleas to be there in a very large place like a great Hall which looked somewhat more like a Court than the Tabernacle At which time Doctor Pinfold appeared as Judge And Counsellor Welden and Counsellor Hooke and one of the Doctors belonging to the same Court viz. Doctor Rains appeared to Plead for them that had put in their Pleas. And the Cause of Mr. Mortymer and one Mr. Duberry were debated with great Soberness and strength of Argument touching the Errors of the Presentments and that Courts Imposing the Sacrament at such particular times as the the Law doth not Impose it upon any of His Majesties Subjects Doctor Pinfold saw he was hard put to it in the beginning of this work and therefore after a little Debate of the matter between him and the Counsellers he spread forth his hands and said he would hear no more Pleas but he would Answer them all by the Seal of the Court to morrow morning And so the Doctor went away without any Formal Adjourning the Court or dismissing that great Assembly not any Officer appearing to open his mouth so much as to say God save the King And so that great Assembly departed in very peaceable manner as became His Majesties peaceable Subjects though greived in their minds at such proceedings The said Jones was ready to appear in his own Case if he had been called or if there had been opportunity he being prepared with a Supplyment to his Plea drawn up by the Learned in the Law A Copy whereof take as followeth The further Answer and Supplyment of James Jones to the Presentment aforesaid THE said James Jones saving and reserving as in his former Answer he hath already prayed saith That it doth not appear by the said Presentment or pretended Presentment That the same was made upon the Oaths of the said Church-Wardens which the said James Jones is Advised ought to have been Asserted in the said Presentment or pretended Presentment in regard as the said Jones is advised no Presentment is legal and sufficient in the Law to be Answered unto nor ought the said Jones to Answer any Presentment but what is given in upon Oath to this Court. The Laws and Customs of this Land not pemitting any of the Kings Leige Subjects to be any ways vexed or greived or to be called into question by any Court whatsoever thereby to be Charged with any Offence but upon the Oath of One or more persons Nor ought any Accusations to be received by this Court against the said James Jones but upon Oath For that the said James Jones is a free born Subject of England unconvicted or Accused legally of any Crime and therefore is Advised he ought not to make any Answer to such a Presentment until it doth appear to be according to Law 2. And the said James Jones saith That by no Law of this Realm any Lay-man can be compelled or Obliged to Receive the Sacrament more or oftner than three times in the year viz at Easter and the two other times in the year are left free and Indifferent to the party when he is best fitted and prepared And the said James Jones saith he is a Layman and doth not know of any Law that doth Abridge him of that Liberty or oblige him to Receive it oftner or otherwise in any fixed time wherefore forasmuch as the Church-Wardens that made the said Presentment or pretended Presentment could not Legally Present the said James Jones for any Offence but such as do or shal arise since Easter last and for that there is abundantly sufficient time for him the said James Jones to perform what by Law is required viz. to Receive the Sacrament twice betwixt this and Easter and once then And that as the said James Jones hath not broken any Law so neither as he conceives and is advised is there any ground for any Citation or Admonition against him nor that any Admonition should or can limit him where the Law hath left him free nor may this Court Compell him by Ecclesiastical Censures or otherwise to Receive the Holy Sacrament in a shorter or fixed Time or any otherwise limit him than the Law hath specified directed or allowed Which the said James Jones insists upon with what before he hath already insisted on and prayed as before he hath already prayed James Jones An Addition to the Supplyment AND furthermore the said Jones saith That besides all that is contained in his Plea and Supplyment to the said Plea he had more Matter to be Argued in his Defence against the aforesaid Presentment to show the deficiency and insufficiency thereof A brief account of which take as followeth 1. He the said Jones saith That there is no mention of what Diocess the aforesaid Parish and he as Inhabitant thereof is which should have been plainly Expressed in the said Presentment 2. The said Jones saith That he was Prosecuted for Non-conformity before His Majesties Justices of the Peace in the County of Surrey and particularly for not coming to Church which is the same thing mentioned in the Church-Wardens Presentment and for which the said Jones is Excommunicated Now for the said Jones to be punished in the Temporal Courts and in the Ecclesiastical Court at or about the same time seems be contrary to the Statute of Anno primo Regni Eliz. Chap. 2. which saith Provided alwaies and be it Enacted That whatsoever persons Offending in the premises shall for their Offences first receive Punishment of the Ordinary having a Testimonial thereof under the said Ordinaries Seal shall not
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