portrait of William Laud 
William Laud. Arch-B: of Canterbury Prymat of England.    

THE ARGUMENT OF NICHOLAS FULLER OF Grayes inn Esquire, in the Case of Tho. Lad, and Rich. Mansell his Clients.  
Wherein it is plainly proved, that the ecclesiastical Commissioners have no power by their Commission, to imprison, or to fine any of his Majesties subjects, or to put them to the Oath EX OFFICIO.  
LONDON, Printed for N. Vavasour. 1641.   

To my worshipful friend, W.W.  
worshipful Sir, I sand you here-inclosed the thing which you sent for so long since. What the drift of it is I understand in part, as having red it over. How well it is performed, I am not able to judge, because it is out of my Element. The Gentleman arguing the Case is known to many, but diversty both thought and reported of, upon occasion of his present troubles. His person and cause I leave to them, to whom it belongeth justly to determine of such great matters. But touching the point itself, I hope that as you( out of the depth of your judgement and great experience) are able to speak much, both for the matter and manner of it, so you will not bee unwilling to declare your mind, as occasion shall bee offered, either in the like or dislike of it. And so having no more at this time to trouble your Worship withall, but patiently waiting for your opinion herein( if you so think it good) and wishing always all manner of good unto you, I humbly take my leare.   

Gentle Reader, because the French( quoted in this Argument) is somewhat mis-printed, and the latin( though it be not much) may yet notwithstanding stumble the simplo and such as be unlearned: I have thought it not amiss to English both the one and the other; referring thee every where to the page., and line, where either of them is.  
Pag. 5. line 9. Because the Kings power ought not to bee Wanting to holy Church.  
Ibid. line. 19. but by the lawful judgement of his peers, or the law of the land.  
Pag. 7. line 7. as before, pag. 5. line 9.  
ibidem line 27. &c. Supplication is made to the most excellent and gracious Prince, our Lord the King, on the behalf of your humble Orators, the Prelates and clergy of your kingdom of England, that whereas the catholic faith founded upon Christ, and by his Apostles, and Church, &c.  
Which petitions of the Prelates and clergy before expressed, our Lord the King, with the consent of his Nobles and other peers of his realm assembled in present Parliament, hath granted: and in every of them according to the form, &c.  
Pag. 8. line 8. Also the Commons pray, that sith it is contained in the great Charter, that none should be arrested, or imprisoned, without answer, or due process of law, which Charter is confirmed in every Parliament, &c. And besides they entreat, that if any bee arrested or imprisoned contrary to the form of the Charter aforesaid, that he may come and appear to his answer, and take his judgement, even as the law requireth: also that no such Arrest or Imprisonment may be drawn into custom, to the destruction of the law of the King.  
Ibid. line 16. Let the Statutes, and the common law be kept.  
Ibid. line 20 &c. Also the Commons beseech, that where as a statute was made in the last Parliament, in these words. It is ordained in this Parliament, that the Kings Commissions be directed to the Sheriffes, and other officers of the King, or to other sufficient persons, after and according as the certificates of the Prelates were wont to be in the Chancery, from time to time, and that such preachers, their favourers, abetiours, &c.  
Which was never assented unto, nor granted by the commons, but that which was done therein was done without their assent, and so the Statute is of no force. For it was never their meaning to justify it, nor to bind themselves, nor their successors, to the Prelates any more then their ancestors had done in times past.  
It pleaseth the King.  
Pag. 10. line 31. Because no man is bound to betray himself.  
Pag. 11. line 9 An Oath in a mans own cause is the device of the devil, to throw the souls of poor men into Hell.  
Pag. 12. line 19. Nature is a preserver of itself.  
Ibid. line 27. Without a certain Author of the Bill exhibited no accusations ought to have place, for it is both a thing of very evil example, and not the manner of these times.  
Pag. 14. line 26. &c. The King can do nothing upon earth( seeing he is the servant and lieutenant of God) but that which he may lawfully do: because that power belongeth onely to God, but the power of doing wrong belongeth to the devil, and not to God, and the works of which soever of these the King shall do, his servant be is.  
Pag 15. line 12. Condemned for what cause soever.  
Pag. 18. line 2. We will not have the laws of England to be changed.   

Errata.  
Pag, 12. line 22. for nulli crimini read nulla crimina. pag. 17. line 7. for exigent read Exigenter. pa. 29. line 21. for perused read pursued.   

THE argument OF MASTER NICHOLAS FVLLER, IN THE CASE OF Thomas Lad, and Richard Maunsell, his clients. wherein it is plainly proved, that the ecclesiastical Commissioners have no power, by virtue of their Commission, to Imprison, to put to the oath Ex Officio, or to fine any of his Majesties Subjects.  
THE CASE.  
THomas Lad, a merchant of Yarmouth, in norfolk, was brought before the chancellor of Norwich, for a supposed Conventicle; because that he, on the Sabbath dayes after the Sermons ended, sojourning in the house of M. Iackler in Yarmouth, who was late Preacher of Yarmouth, joined with him in repeating of the substance and heads of the sermons that day made in the Church, at which Thomas Lad was usually present: and was forced upon his oath to answer certain articles touching that meeting, which he could not see until he was sworn; and having answered upon his oath twice before the chancellor there, he was brought to Lambeth before the ecclesiastical Commissioners, to make a further anwer, upon a new oath, touching the supposed Conventicle: which he refused to do, without sight of his former answers( because he was charged with perjury) and therefore was imprisoned by the Commissioners a long time, and could not be bailed; whereupon the writ of Habeas Corpus was granted out of the Kings bench, to bring the prisoner to the Bar.  
Richard Maunsell, the other prisoner, being a Preacher, was charged to have been a partaker in a Petition exhibited to the Commons house of Parliament: and for refusing to take the oath ex officio, to answer to certain articles, which he could not be permitted to see, he was imprisoned by the Commissioners at Lambeth, where he remained very long, and could not be bailed, and was brought to the bar, upon the writ of habeas Corpus.  
These imprisonments of Thomas Lad, and Richard Maunsel by the Commissioners, for the supposed contempts aforesaid, were unlawful( as the said Nicholas Fuller said) and therefore he said that the prisoners ought to be discharged; And, before he began his Argument, he the said Nicholas Fuller did confess, that it was a blessed thing, in all kingdoms, to have the Church, and Common wealth to agree together as Hippocrates twins: And the means to continue a perfect agreement between them was( as he said( to give to Caesar that which is Caesars, and to God that which is Gods. Which right distribution of the jurisdiction of the Church in England, and jurisdiction of the Common laws in England, set forth and proved vpon good grounds of the ancient laws and statutes of the realm, would( as he thought) continue a peace between the Church and Common wealth of England for ever; which he desired from his heart, and it was his labour to effect by this his Argument. Wherein, for the better understanding of his purpose and drift of his Argument, he did divide the same into 5 parts.  
1 And( first because the ecclesiastical Commission is grounded upon the Statute of Anno 1. Eliz. cap. 1 the title and intent of which statute is, the restoring to the crown the ancient jurisdiction over the ecclesiastical and spiritual estate, and the abolishing of all foreign jurisdiction repugnant to the same) he declared what that ancient spiritual jurisdiction was, which was ment in that Act to be restored, and by the Commissioners to be executed, and therein be proved, that the power to imprison subjects, to fine them, or to force them to accuse themselves upon their own enforced oaths, there being no accuser known, was no part of the ancient ecclesiastical jurisdiction, nor used in England by any spiritual jurisdiction, before the Statute of 2 Hen. 4. cap. 15. which was procured by the Popish prelates.  
2 That the Statute of 2 Hen 4. cap. 15. which first gave authority to the Bishops to imprison subjects, fine them, and force them to accuse themselves, was procured by the Popish prelates in the time of darkness( if not without a full consent of the Commons, yet to their great mislike) and that the said Statute, and every thing in the same contained, is revoked, as being against the rule of equity and common justice, and against the laws of the land, and very hateful to all the subjects of the realm: and in the 2. part he proved, according to the words of the statute, that the Oath ex officio was against the law of England, and against the rule of equity and Iustice.  
3 That the laws of England are the high inheritance of the realm, by which both the King and the subjects are directed; And that such grants, Charters, and Commissions, as tend to charge the body, lands, or goods of the subjects, otherwise then according to the due course of the laws of the realm, are not lawful, or of force, unless the same Charters and Commissions, do receive life and strength, from some Act of Parliament.  
4 That, in this Commission ecclesiastical, there are some things tending to charge the body, lands, & goods of the subjects, otherwise then according to the course of the laws of the realm; and especially in imprisoning them, fining them, & forcing them to accuse themselves( upon their own oath) without any accuser.  
5. That the Act of Parliament of Anno. 1. Eliz. cap. 1. whereupon the ecclesiastical Commission is founded, doth not give life or strength to such parts of the Commission, as concern imprisonment of subjects, fining them, or forcing them to accuse themselves; but doth make void and abolish the same, as repugnant to the ancient Ecclesiastical jurisdiction which by the Statute was to be restored. And so he said that the imprisonment of his clients was unlawful & the proceeding of the Commissioners, upon the Oath ex officio, without an accuser, not warranted by law, but erroneous and void.  
Touching the first part of the division, which was to prove, that, before the statute of 2. Hen. 4. cap. 15. the Ordinaries had no power to imprison the subjects, or to fine them, it appeareth both by the preamble of that Statute, where it is declared, that, before that time, they could not by their spiritual jurisdiction, without aid of the royal Majesty, sufficiently correct perverse people, who did contemn their spiritual jurisdiction and keys of the Church( which was, at the uttermost, to lock them out of the Church by Excommunication) and also by the book case of 10. Hen. 7. arguing upon the point of the same statute, where it is set forth, that the Ordinaries, before the Statute of 2. Hen. 4. had no power to imprison subjects, but the keys of the Church: and the like is also confessed by the Statute of 1. and 2. of Philip and Mary which was made after the former Statute of 2 Hen. 4. was revoked by 25. Hen. 8. c. 14. which do show as much, viz. that the Ordinaries had no power but the keys.  
And by the Common law it is apparent, that when the Ordinary or ecclesiastical judge had proceeded so far as they could, by Excommunicating the offendor to look him out of the Church, then the common law, upon significavit, did assist them by the writ of Excommunicato Capiendo: Quia potestas regia sacro sanctae Ecclesiae deesse non debet, as is said in the Register. But in this case the Common law still retained power to discharge the subjects so imprisoned( upon an Excommunicato capiendo) without assent of the Ordinary, 
Fitz. H. f. 42  both by the writ of Cautione admittenda, and by the writ of scirefacias, upon an appeal; where a supersedeas was usually awarded, to discharge the person imprisoned, against the will of the Ordinary. For the laws of England did so much regard and preserve the liberty of the subjects, as that none should be imprisoned, nisi per legal judicium parium svorum aut legem terrae, as it is said in Magna Charta cap 29. which Charter, 
42. Edw. 3. cap. 3.  by divers other statutes after, is confirmed, with such strong enforcements in some of them, as to make void such statutes, as should be contrary to Magna Charta.  
And, in the 15. Ed. 3. the first article of the commons Petition in Parliament, was, 
In the Tower amongst the Parliament Rolls. 15. E. 3.  that the great charter may in all points be observed, so as such persons as are neither appealed, indicted, nor followed at the suit of the party, and have their goods, lands, or possessions taken away, may be restored thereunto again.  
Whereunto the King answered thus.  
The King granteth for him & his heires, that if any person commit an act against the form of the great Charter, 
Responsio, Regis.  or any other good law, & he shall answer in Parliament or else where; he ought to answer according to law. And therefore if any free subject were wrongfully imprisoned, the Common law did not leave him to an action of false imprisonment onely, but provided the writ De homine replegiando, to set him free of his imprisonment, unless he were imprisoned for such particular cause, 
Fitzh. f. 40. Ed. 3. fo. 36  as is expressed in the same writ de homine replegiando: which writ is part of the subjects inheritance, and should not be denied them. And this freedom of the subjects did make Markham the judge in the 4 Hen. 7. Tit. prerog. 139. Brook: declare that the King could not arrest a subject upon suspicion of felony, as a common person might do; because that against the one an action of false imprisonment would lie, but not against the King ( for the subjects liberty must be preserved) and by the Statute of Win. 1. cap. 15. whosoever shall detain subjects in prison, who are bailable by law, shall be grievously amerced.  
And to show that it was thought an unmeete thing to leave power in the Ordinaries to commit subjects to prison, although they contemned their decrees never so much, appeareth partly by the statutes of 27. Hen. 2. ca. 20 and 32. Hen. 8. ca. 7. which were made after the revocation of the former statute of 2. Hen. 4. by which latter statutes power is given to two Iustices of peace, or to some of the honourable privy counsel, upon certificate of the Ordinary, to commit such offenders to prison, who should contemn the decrees of the Ordinary: denying to the Ordinary, that made the decree, that he should have any such power to commit the subjects to prison: & in 5. Eliz. ca. 23. which statute, not allowing Excommunicate persons to be imprisoned by any ecclesiastical jurisdiction, limits by very special manner, how they shall bee apprehended by the temporal power. For although the Bishop of Rome useth two swords, the spiritual and temporal; yet the common laws of England, and the Parliament in divers ages, thought not so meet, for the Bishops or ecclesiastical jurisdiction in England to use two swords, but according to the Register, Regia potestas sacro-sanctae Ecclesiae deesse non debet.  
2 Touching the second part( wherein he was, to prove that the statute of 2. Hen. 4. cap. 15 which first gave authority to the Ordinaries to imprison subjects, or to set fines on them, & force them to accuse themselves upon their own oaths, was procured by the Popish prelates in the time of darkness) he said that the very act itself did very plainly show it; it being thus; And where it is shewed to the King, on the behalf of the Prelates and Clergy of England, &c. And that the same was procured to suppress the gospel, which then began to spring or revive, both the body of the Act, and the book of Acts and Monuments written by M. Fox, & other Chronicles do show it plainly; for that those persons, whom they termed heretics, preached in those dayes against the Sacrament of the Church, which was their mass. And that the said Statute of 2. Hen 4. cap. 15. was procured by the prelates, without assent of the commons, thus much appeareth by the records of the Parliament, remaining in the Tower. 
Ex rotulo Parliamenti de an 2. H. 4. Petitio cleri contra heretices. Resp. Regis.  Excellentissimo ac gratiosissimo Principi, Domino nostro Regi, supplicatur, ex parte vestrorum humilium oratorum, prelatorum, et cleriregni vestri Angliae, quod cum fides catholica supper Christum fundata, et per Apostolos suos, et Ecclesiam, &c rehearsing al the words of the Act. Quas quidem petitiones prelatorum et cleri superius expressatas dominus noster Rex, de consensu magnatum, et aliorum procerum regni sui in presenti parliamento existentium concessit, et in singulis juxta formam &c. wherein the Commons are not mentioned. And it is the more likely that the Commons gave no assent to this statute of 2. Hen. 4. both for that in the Parliament rolls of the same year of 2. Hen. 4. in the Tower, there is to be seen the Petition of the Commons to the King, thus.  

The Petition of the commons.  Item prient less commons, depuis q' uill est contenu en la grande chartre, quenul sera areste ne enprisone sans response, ou due process de la lay, quell chartre est confirm en charmi perlement, et ore ills supplient, queen si aucun soit areste ou enprisone encontre la form deal charte avaunt dict q' ill veigne, et appierge a sa response, et preigne son judgment, sicome le lay demand, anssiq ' nul tiel areste ne imprisonment soit trait en ' custom, en ' destruction de la lay du Roy. Whereto the King answered.  

The answer of the King.  Soient less statutes etla comen lay tenus; As also for that the prelates had not long before procured anothere act against the Lolards, in Anno 5. Rich. 2. cap. 5. without assent of the Commons; as appeareth by the Parliament rolls, in the Tower, of anno 6. R. 2. which is thus. Item supplient less commons, q' comen vn statute fuit fait en darrein perlement, en ces paroles: Ordone est en cest perlement, q' Commissions du Roy soient directes a viscountes et autres ministres du roy, ou autres suffisantz persons, apres et selon queen less certificates des prelates eut affair in chancellerie, du temps en temps, touts tiels precheurs elour fautors mamtenours, &c.  
La quell ne fuit unque assent ne grant per less commons, mes ce q' fuit par le de ce, fuit sans assent de lour q' celi estatue soit anea ati car il nestoit mi lour intent justifiez ne obliger lour ne lour successorers as Prelates plus q' lour auncestres nont east en temps passez.  
Resp: Il plest au Roy.  
And it is also reported by M. Fox in the said book of Acts and Monuments, 
Act. & Mo. fol. 539.  that the same Act of 2. Hen. 4. ca. 15. was procured without assent of the Commons; and that the Commons did greatly repine at it from time to time, many godly men writing against it, some of them terming it a bloody law, and a cruel law. And because the prelates( out of the words of that law which gave them power to imprison some suspected of heresy, until they should canonically purge themselves) did streinedly force subjects without any accuser to accuse themselves, therefore the title of that act is set down in the book of Acts and Monuments, the statute Ex officio; 
Act. & Mo. fol. 481.  at which time it was not commonly used to give titles to Acts of Parliament.  
And, to show how much the subjects misliked that kind of proceeding, appeareth by several Petitions of the subjects to the Kings of the realm, and to the house of Parliament, by the statute of 25. Hen. 8. cap. 14. by which statute it is said, that the proceeding by the oath Ex officio, to force a man to accuse himself, is contrary to the rule of right and good equity, and contrary to the laws of England, and unreasonable that, upon suspicion conceived upon thefantasye of the Ordinaries, men should be forced to answer, &c. And therefore they then revoked, and made void the statute of 2. Hen. 4. cap. 15.  
And to prove, that, according to the opinion of that Parliament house, the oath Ex officio is against the laws of England both ecclesiastical & temporal, and against the rule of Justice and good equity, he said, that by the laws of England( if a subject had been cited, by the Ordinary or ecclesiastical Judge, pro salute aiae, which is the oath ex officio, to accuse himself) a Prohibition did lie at the common law, and an attachment against the Ordinary, if he did proceed in that case contrary to that prohibition, as appeareth in Fitz. H. fol 42. and the statute of 2. H. 5. which was made soon after the said statute of 2. Hen. 4.( giving warrant to grant a prohibition to the Ordinary for default of a libel) doth cross the proceeding by oath Ex officio; where he is forced to a libel, as appeareth 4. Ed. 4. fol. 37. and Fitz. H. fol. 43. &c.  
And by the words of the statute of 42. Edw 3. cap. 3.( which was made before those statutes procured by the Prelates, when Ordinaries had no power to imprison subjects) it is expressed, in what manner the proceeding should be against subjects upon accusations, thus viz. It is assented & accorded, for the good government of the Commons, that no man be put to answer, without presentment before Justices, or thing of Record, by due process, and writ original, according to the old law of the land; And if any thing be done from henceforth to the contrary, it shall be void in law and holden for error; wherein it is worthy the noting, that it is said according to the old laws of England.  
And to prove the old law of England to be so, the ordinary case of daily experience, touching the challenge of Jurors, doth sufficiently declare. For if the Juror be challenged for kindred to either of the parties, or for want of free-hold, the Juror shall answer upon his oath, to clear that matter; because it toucheth not the Juror in loss or credit: but if the challenge do tend to touch the Juror any way in his credit, or his loss, he shal not be forced, upon his oath, 
49. Edw. 3. fol. 2.  to answer, although his answer might tend to further Justice; quia nemo tenetur prodere seipsum, as is ruled 49. Edw. 3. fol. 2. And the case of wager of law, which is allowed to the defendant in no criminal case, which might bring imprisonment to the party by the course of the common law as in trespass, &c. but onely in debt and detinewe: and the statute of Magna Charta, cap. 28. enacting, that no bailiff shall put a man to his open law, nor to an oath, upon his own bare saying, without faithful witnesses brought in for the same, tendeth to like effect: and S. Edward cook, in his argument made in Slades Case, said well, that in criminal causes ( juramentum in propria causa est inventio diaboli ad detrudendum animas miserorum in infernum) according to whose saying it appeareth, that when those oaths were used by the parties accused, by the border laws between England and Scotland, those oaths did bring no furtherance to the truth, but manifest perjury every day; as was confessed by all that knew the practise there: and therefore that manner of trial was rejected.  
And to prove it against Iustice and good equity, he said that this oath Ex officio, to force a man in a criminal cause to accuse himself, was( he thought) directly against the rule of the law of God. For it is said in Deut. cap. 19.15. that one witness shall not arise against a man for any trespass, or for any sin, or for any fault that he offendeth in; but at the mouth of two witnesses, or 3. witnesses shall the matter be established. Which rule is confirmed under the gospel, as appeareth Math. 18.16. 2 Cor. 13.1. where it is said, In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word stand; and Christ said to the woman accused of adultery, where be thine accusers? &c. But without any witness or accuser to establish the matter, upon the enforced oath of the party, hath no coherence with the rule of Gods law, which should be a direction to all Christian Princes in making of their laws, we being now the people of God the Jews being cut off; the Judgements being now the judgements of God, and not of men alone.  
But here may be objected, that by the laws of England one witness is sufficient: to which he answered, that the Jurors being all sworn to try the particular matter in fact, wherewith the party defendant is charged, may well supply the want of one witness, being 12. persons indifferent, without any affinity to either party, who better know the witnesses then the Judge, and may perhaps know the cause in question, as well as the witness: which kind of trial is so behoveful for the subjects, as it may prevent much wrong and oppression from high authority, if the Jurors be just & faithful persons, as they ought to be; and their verdict also may be redressed by attaint, if they should do wrong therein: which writs of attaint, and error, are part of the subjects inheritance.  
Also this oath Ex officio hath no coherence with the law of nature. For, as Aristotle saith, natura est conservatrix sui, as is said in 49. Edw. 3. fol. 2. but this tendeth to a mans own overthrow; & it hath no coherence with the laws of Nations, as he gathered by the writing of trajan the Emperour, being a very wise & just man; who writing to Plinie the second, his lieutenant of some Provinces in Asia minor, for direction in his government, against those, who at that time were opposite to his religion, saith thus, ( Sine authore certo propositi libelli nulli crimini locum habere debent; nam & pessimi exempli, nec nostri seculi est.) According to which direction, Felix the governor of the Iewes under the Emperor, 
Acts 23.35.  when Paul the Apostle was brought before him, said to Paul, that he would hear him, when his accusers were come; holding it as unjust, without an accuser, to charge him.  
And it is much worse then auricular confession; because that is voluntary, this by constreint; that to be concealed, this to be revealed to the parties shane; that to induce pardon, this to induce punishment to himself. And where an oath should be the end of strife, this oath Ex officio is often-times the beginning of strife; yea it hath been so hateful as some Martyrs have written against it, as a bloody law; and therefore not without just cause, that the whole estate assembled in Parliament in an. 25. Hen. 8. held it not to be agreeing with the rule of right and equity, and to be contrary to the laws of England, and therfore revoked the said statute of 2. Hen. 4. and did thereby limit another form of proceeding against persons accused or suspected, thus, viz. upon Inditement or two witnesses at the least( according to Gods law) with words of restraint, not to proceed otherwise: since which time, no custom, or colour of prescription in the ecclesiastical Courts, can take place against that law, to uphold the oath Ex officio in case of heresy.  
And touching fines, by the statute of Articuli cleri, cap. 1. by the Register and by Fitzh. Natura brev. fo. 51. & 52. and by the statute of 15. Edw. 3. cap. 6. it is so shewed, that, by ancient ecclesiastical jurisdiction, they ought not to set fines of money upon subjects, unless it were upon commutation of a penance; so as it need no further proof of that matter.  
The third matter which he endeavoured to prove, was, that the laws of the kingdom of England, and the manner of proceeding in cases of law and justice, are settled in the realm, as part of the inheritance of the subjects, and rightly termed by some Judges in 19. Hen. 6. fo. 62. to be the most high inheritance of the kingdom, by which both King and subjects are guilded: & that without laws there would be neither King nor inheritance in England. 
Bract. fol. 5. cap. 8.  Which laws, by long continuance of time and good endeavour of many wise men, are so fitted to this people, and this people to them, as it doth make a sweet harmony in the government; all things being as readily obeied on the one part which are agreeing to law, as they are willingly commanded on the other part according to law: every officer, by the rule of the law, knowing the duties of their places, as Sheriffes, bailiffs, 
a) Stam. fol. 99.  Constables, Coroners, Eschetors; &c. the band of an oath, both for government and obedience, being mutually made on each part.  
For the laws in a Common-wealth are like the sinews in a natural body, by which the hand, foot, and other parts of the body do readily move, by the direction of the head; but if the hand, or foot, bee forced above the strength of the sinew, it either taketh away the use of that part, or else it maketh it a weak or halting member: so is it, if the laws be strained against any part of the common-wealth, above it right, and natural strength, it will make that part weak, or halting: and therefore it is excellently said in 8. Hen. 4. fol. 19. in the come. fol. 236. and in the Case of Alton woods, that the law admeasureth the Kings prerogative, 
8. Hen. 4. fol. 19. come. fol. 236.  so as it shall not extend to hurt the inheritance of the subjects on the on part: and as Bracton saith, nihil aliud potest rex in terris, cum sit Dei minister & vicarius, quam quod de jure potest: quia illa potestas solius Dei est; potestas autem injuriae diaboli est, & non Dei; & cujus horum opera fecerit rex, ejus minister est.  
And the law doth restrain the liberal words of the Kings grant, for the benefit both of the King and the subjects, and to the great happiness of the realm; especially when the Iudges are men of courage, fearing God; as is to be proved by many Cases adjudged in these Courts of Kings Bench, and Common-pleas; which Courts are the principal preservers of this high inheritance of the law: whereof he rehearsed some few cases on the part of the King, and on the part of the subjects divers Cases; as in 45. Ass. p. 15. where the King did grant to I.S. & his heires, the manor of Dale, and all the woods, and underwoods, and Mynes within the said Mannor; yet Mynes of gold and silver did not pass: and in the 22. Ass 49. the King did grant to I.S. the goods and chattels of persons within Dale, qualitercunque damnatorum; yet the goods of persons attainted of treason did not pass, for the benefit of the King: because the same are so annexed to the crown, as by no general words they may pass from the crown, by the rule of law. And of late yeares what great benefit hath grown to the Kings and queens of this realm, upon construction, according to the rules of law, of the Kings grants, the case of Alton woods, the statute lately made for confirmation of Charters granted to the Citizens of London, and the many cases preferred by Tipper and his fellowes, do sufficiently prove.  
And, on the other side, if any grant or Commission from the King doth tend to charge the body, lands, or goods of the subjects unlawfully, the Iudges will redress the same. For if the King grant the lands or goods of I. S. that is so manifestly against law, as it needs no proof.  
But( he said) he would put such cases, as being grounded upon prerogative, have a show of good to the Common-wealth, and yet are not allowable, because they tend to charge the subject, without the assent of the subject: as the Case, 13. Hen. 4. where the King did grant an office of measuring of cloath in London to I.S. with a Fee to be received for the same measuring: and although the office tend to further commutative Justice, whereof the power is in the King for weight and measure; yet because this fee did tend to charge the subject, without his assent, it was adjudged, by the learned Judges, upon long debate, to be void: and the case of Protection, 39 Hen. 6. fol. 39. where the King did grant a protection to A.B. his servant, quia profecturus, for a voyage to Rome, for service of the King and Common-wealth for weighty causes, to continue for three yeares; and yet it was disallowed by the Judges, because it was for three yeares, where, by the rules of the law, it should be but for one; & because there was no exception of dower, assize, and quare impedit which by law should have been excepted: and that protection did not bar the subjects right, but only delayed his svit.  
And in 3. Edw. 3.14. nor. assize. 445. come. fol. 48. the King did pardon I.S. the making of a bridge: and because the subjects had interest in the passage over that bridge; the Kings pardon was not sufficient, to discharge I.S. from the making thereof. In the case of 42. Ass. 5. a Commission from the King, under the great seal of England, was directed to A. and B. to take I. S. and him imprison in the Castle of P. and to take his goods; which was done accordingly by the Commissioners: and because it was done without any inditement, or due course of law, the proceedings of the same Commissioners were adjudged void.  
The like case was 42. Ass. p. 12. Where, upon the Kings Writ directed to the Justices of labourers. I.S. was indicted for something not pertaining to the Justices of labourers, and therefore adjudged void, they having no Commission so to do. For although the sheriff, or officer, cannot judge of the Kings writ, but must execute it: yet the judge may refuse to execute the same writ, when it is against law, or impossible to be done, 
1. Ed. 3. fol. 26.  according to 1. Edw. 3. fol. 26. and in the 1. & 2. Eliz. Scrogges his Case; where a Commission was awarded to some Iudges, and persons of credit, to hear the cause concerning the Office of exigent of London, which Scrogges did challenge; & if Scrogges refused to submit himself to their order, to commit him to prison: upon which Commission Scrogges was committed to prison & he was discharged, by the Iudges of his imprisonment, by writ of habeas Corpus, because his imprisonment was not lawful: which writs of habeas corpus are usually granted in the said Courts of Kings bench, and Common pleas, thereby to relieve the subjects, which are many times in other Courts, & by some Commissioners, unlawfully imprisoned: yea many times, although the Commissions be grounded upon acts of Parliament, as the Commission of Sewers, the Commission of bankrupts, and the ecclesiastical Commission: and many times they grant Prohibitions to the ecclesiastical Court, to the admiral Court, and to the Court of Requests, and other inferior Courts, when they exceed their authority.  
And many other cases he would have put to prove those points, but that in a former argument made by him in the court of Kings bench, against Monopoly Patents of M. Darcie, Mich. 44. Eliz. all the Iudges then seemed to yield the same to the law, without any doubt, as he conceived; 
Fitz H. f. 31 H. 8. prohib.  which high inheritance of the law the Common wealth hath always so preserved, as without Act of Parliament it cannot be changed, as appeareth by the answer of the Barons, when the Bishop sought to have the law changed, touching children born before marriage, although the marriage after ensued, to be held as bastards: the LL. said, Nolumus leges Anglia mutari; and as is apparent by book cases, where it is adjudged, that the King, by a non obstante may dispense with a statute law, but not with the common law, nor alter the same as is adjudged 49. Ass. p. 8. and bosoms Case; nor put the subjects from their inheritance of the law, 
bosoms Case cook fol. 35.  as is 8. Hen. 4. fol. 19. which was always accounted one of the great blessings of this land, to have the law the meat-yard, & the Judges the measurers. For, in all well governed Common-wealths, Religion and Iustice are the two principal pillars, wherein the power of God appeareth; and many times weak women do rule, and command many thousand strong men, touching their lives, lands, and goods, without resistance; which the love and regard of Justice procureth.  
For the better proof of the fourth part, he did read verbatim the parts of the ecclesiastical Commission, which he thought to be against the laws of England, and liberties of the subjects; remembering first to mark and consider, how, whereas the whole drift of the Act of Parliament. 1. Eliz. cap. 1 was, to restore to the crown the ancient jurisdiction over the ecclesiastical & spiritual estate, and, for that purpose, did give power to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, to execute the premises in the said Act contained, for the correcting, and amending, and reforming of such heresies, errors, schisms, contempts, and enormities, as by the ecclesiastical laws might lawfully be reformed, according to the tenor and effect of the said Letters Patents, this commission is since enlarged, and how it giveth power to the Commissioners, to inquire not onely of the premises, mentioned in the statute of 1. Eliz. cap. 1. but also of all offences, and contempts: against the statute of 1. Eliz. cap. 2. entitled, an Act for uniformity of Common prayer, and service of the Church, and administration of the sacraments, and of all offences, and contempts against these statutes following, which were all made since anno 1. Eliz. viz. the statute of 5. Eliz. ca. 1. entitled, an Act for the assurance of the queens Majesties power, over all states and subjects, within her dominions; the statute of 13. Eliz. cap. 12. entitled, an Act to reform certain disorders, touching the Ministers of the Church; the statute of 35. Eliz cap. 1. entitled, an Act to retain her majesties subjects in their due obedience; the statute of 35. Eliz. cap. 2. entitled, an Act to restrain some Popish recusants to some certain places of abode; the statute of anno. 1. Jacobi. entitled, an Act for the due execution of the statutes against Jesuits, Seminaries, Priests, Recusants, &c.  
Also power is given to the Commissioners, or any three or more of them, not only upon these penal laws and upon every offence therein contained, but also upon all seditious books, contempts, conspiracies, private conventicles, false rumors or tales, seditious misbehaviours, and many other civill offences particularly name in the Letters patents, to call before them all and every offendor in any of the premises, and all such, as, by them or any three or more of them, shall seem to be suspected persons in any of the premises; and every of them to examine, upon their corporal oaths, touching every or any of the premises, which they shall object against them; and to proceed against them and every of them, as the nature and quality of the offence or suspicion, in that behalf, shall require; And to inquire of adulteries, fornications, outrageous misbehaviours, & disorders in marriages, and of all other grievous and great crimes, and offences, within any part of the realm, which are punishable or reformable by the Ecclesimariage laws of this realm, according to the tenor of the laws on that behalf, or according to their wisedoms, and discretions, or the discretions of any three of them.  
The commissioners, or any three of them, are further authorised, willed, and commanded to use and device all such good; lawful, reasonable, and convenient ways, for the trial and searching out of all the premises and proceedings therein, as by any three or more of them shall be thought most expedient, and necessary.  
They, or any 3. or more of them, have authority to order and a ward such punishment to every such offender, by fine, imprisonment, censures of the Church, or other lawful way, or by all or any of the said ways; and to take such order for the redress of the same, as to the wisdoms and discretions of any three or more of them shall be thought meet, and convenient.  
For contempt in not appearance, or not obeying the decree of any three of them, they have power to fine them at their discretions, and to commit them to ward, there to remain, until, by any three of them, they shall be enlarged, according to their discretions.  
They have power to take recognisance of every offendor, and suspected person, as well for their personal appearance, as for the performance of such order, and decrees, as to any three of them shall seem reasonable, and convenient in that behalf.  
They have also power to command all & every sheriffes, Iustices, and other officers, and subjects within this realm, & in all places, as well exempt as not exempt, by their letters and other process, to apprehended, or cause to be apprehended, any person or persons, which they shall think meet to be convented, and take such bonds for their appearance, as any three of them shall prescribe, &c. or to commit them to prison.  
They have power to execute the premises, notwithstanding any appellation, provocation, privilege, or exemption; any laws, statutes, proclamations, other grants, privileges, or other ordinances, which be or may seem contrary to the premises, notwithstanding.  
Vpon which parts of the said Commission, being so indefinite without limitation or restraint, he noted, that if the Commission should bee executed according to the letter thereof; the subjects, notwithstanding any laws or customs to the contrary, might bee cited out of their own Dioces, yea from the furthest part of the realm, for any cause, or suspicion conceived by the Commissioners, or any three of them, and forced to attend the commissioners, where they will appoint, in time of harvest, or time of plague, with the danger of a mans life: as he was forced to attend many weekes in danger of his life: they refusing to delay the cause, until the ten, upon any bail or bond. And they may force any subject to appear, at what dayes and houres any three of them shall appoint, for such matters sometimes; as are more proper to be heard in other course.  
And although the penalties of the statutes be never so great, as praemunire, Abjuration, forfeiture of lands & goods, whereof some offences are by the same statute limited to be tried only in the Kings bench, yet the party suspected may be forced, by this commission, to accuse himself upon his own oath, upon such captious Interrogatories, as the wit of man can device, when there is neither accuser, nor libel of accusation: And that in many things they may inflict what punishment any three of them shal think meet in their discretions, and force men to perform such order as they shall make, by the parties bond, before any order made: and that their judgements, or decrees whatsoever, should not be subject to any Writ of Error, attaint, or appeal and that they may device means, at their own discretion, for the trial and finding out of any the said offences. Which kind of proceedings how far they do differ from the common laws of England, which is the inheritance of the subjects, and what jars, and harsh tunes they make in the sweet harmony therof, settled by so long continuance, with a most happy success, any wise man may see, without any enforcement from him; and how much of this they do daily execute, he did leave to see it.  
Only so much as came under his own view, he said, that, the last day of Easter term, he moved at the Exchequer bar, for 20. person, his Clients, dwelling in yorkshire, whereof some, as they  told him, were very poor, who were fined by the ecclesiastical Commissioners for not appearing at their dayes appointed, many of them to 30. pounds a piece, one only at ten, and all the rest at twenty a piece, which was not salvo contenemento, according to the statute of Magna Charta cap. 14. And one client, being an householder in Fleet-street, name William Goulder, prayed advice for his hard & close imprisonment many daies, with great Irons on him, by the Commissioners, upon some suspicion conceived by some of the Commissioners, that some person was hide in his house; and was after freed without any conviction of his supposed offence. And because the said Nicholas Fuller did except against the Commissioners, as not competent Judges, in their own cause, of him and of his argument, made against them at the Kings bench bar, they threatened to set 500. pounds fine on him, and to imprison him. And when( he finding their proceeding by the oath Ex officio to vary from the Common laws, which he had long time practised) he said to them, it seemed to him, that he was in a new world, or other Common-wealth: thereupon they threatened to imprison him, if he spake one word more to the disgrace of the Commission.  
Wherefore he held it strong, in his opinion( because his Majesties Commission, which they term High, is, by the true intent of the statute, only a Commission executory, but for so long time onely as shall please the King, and is no settled court of continuance for ever, as they would have it, comparing the authority thereof with the Kings bench, and preferring it above it) that, in all the parts and points above rehearsed, the Commission is not of force in law, nor warranted by law, except some Act of Parliament do give it life.  
And now touching the last and principal part of his division, viz. that no Act of Parliament doth give life to the Commission ecclesiastical, in the parts above mentioned, it is to be noted, that the Commission is founded only upon the statute of an. 1. Eliz. cap. 1. and that this Act of an. 1. Eliz. neither doth, nor can give life to this Commission, by any right construction, in these parts above rehearsed, but contrariwise doth expressly abolish their Jurisdiction to imprison subjects, fine them, and force them to accuse themselves, as repugnant to the Ancient ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, which, by this Act, is restored to the crown: and he hoped to make that point so plain and apparent to all the hearers, that would attentively regard, it as that they might be fully satisfied therein. For, besides the book Cases, which he meant to put, in that point, to prove his assertion, he said, that the title in the Act of an. 1. Eliz. the preamble of the Act, and the matter preceding the preamble in that Act, and the body of that Act, which giveth power to the Commissioners to execute the premises( by colour whereof they challenge this great power to imprison subjects, &c.) do all concur, by their being rightly applied, to condemn and overthrow these points of the Commission ecclesiastical, before spoken of and rehearsed by him, as unlawful, and unjust.  
The title is, an Act, restoring to the crown the ancient jurisdiction over the ecclesiastical and spiritual estate, and abolishing all foreign jurisdiction, repugnant to the same. What the ancient jurisdiction over the ecclesiastical and spiritual estate is, he hath sufficiently before declared, and proved it to be that ecclesiastical jurisdiction( viz. keys or censures of the Church) which was lawfully used in England, before the statute of 2. Hen. 4. the uttermost whereof was, to lock men out of the Church by excommanication, termed, the keys of the Church. Which statute first gave power to the Ordinaries, to imprison subjects, to fine them, and force them to accuse themselves by their own oaths, which was ever hateful to the subjects of England.  
And to prove plainly, that this Parliament of an. 1. Eliz meant to abolish that power to imprison subjects, & force them to accuse themselves, the matter precedent before the preamble doth fully prove; for that, in this very statute of an. 1. Eliz. the lawmakers, as wise farmers of a Common-wealth, before they go about to annex the ancient right ecclesiastical jurisdiction to the crown, do by express words, at the request of the subjects, est ablish and enact, that the statute of 5. Rich. 2. cap. 5. and 2. H. 4. cap. 15.( which did give authority to the Ordinaries to imprison, fine, and force the subjects to accuse themselves, as above) and all and every branches, articles, clauses, and sentences contained in the said several statutes, and every of them, should, from the last day of that Parliament, be utterly repealed, void, and of none effect, any thing in the said several Acts, or any of them, contained, or any other matter or cause to the contrary notwithstanding. So as the imprisonment of the subjects, fining of them, and forcing of them to accuse themselves, being the matters, branches, and articles of those statutes, howsoever they came into the power of the clergy of England, by these statutes or otherwise, being thought, by the Parliament, to bee repugnant to the ancient Jurisdiction ecclesiastical( as revera they are being a temporal sword) were repealed and made void by express words of this statute of anno 1. Eliz. as repugnant to the ancient spiritual Jurisdiction.  
And to make the meaning of the law-makers more apparent, that they allowed not, that any offences should be tried by the parties own oath, but by witnesses; as in the beginning of this statute of an. 1. Eliz. ca. 1. it doth abolish the oath Ex officio, by making void the statute of 2 H. 4. cap. 15. which first gave life to that kind of proceeding; so in the end of the said statute it addeth this clause, And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that no person, or persons, shal be hereafter indicted, or arraigned for any the offences, made, or deigned, revived or adjudged by this Act, unless there be two sufficient witnesses, or more, to testify and declare the said offence, whereof he shalbe indicted, &c. and the same witnesses, or so many of them as shalbe living, and within the Realm, at the time of the arraignment of such persons so indicted, shall be brought forth in person, face to face, before the party so arraigned and there shall testify & declare what they can, against the party so arraigned, if he require the same.  
By which words fith it is plain, that no offence, ordained or revived by that statute, should receive trial, but by two witnesses brought face to face; that they ment not to give power, by any Commission grounded upon that statute, to have the offences of the subjects( which touch so deep as praemunire, abjuration, and forfeiture of lands and goods) should be tried by the parties own forced oath, against his will, without any witness or accuser, as this Commission limits; and yet it is pretended to bee grounded upon this statute. And therefore it were a most violent construction, and absurd, that the general words in this statute, viz. to execute the premises according to the tenor and effect of the Letters Patents, should revive that by an intendment, which was, by so plain words of all the assembly in Parliament, revoked and abolished, as a most hateful thing to the subjects of England, and of which they meant to purge the Church & ecclesiastical government. For that were to make one part of the statute contrary to the other, and to construe the words of the law, indefinitely set down, directly against the meaning of the law makers plainly expressed by words; which Judges never did, nor, as he hoped, ever would do.  
And the title and preamble of the statute do further restrain the over-large construction of those general words, to execute the premises: because the premises, being the ancient jurisdiction ecclesiastical and spiritual, purged from that temporal Jurisdiction, as above, is meant to be restored onely over the ecclesiastical and spiritual estate, and not over all the subjects of the realm; and because, in the preamble, the Commissioners, who are to be name, are enabled, touching ecclesiastical or spiritual Jurisdiction only, to reform, correct, and amend all such heresies, errors, schisms; contempts, &c. which by any spiritual or ecclesiastical power, authority, or jurisdiction, might lawfully be reformed, and not all abuses of the Common-wealth mentioned in their Commission, or any abuse not proper to the ecclesiastical or spiritual Jurisdiction, whereof there are many name in their Commission, which are temporal Jurisdictions, viz. to imprison and fine subjects, and to execute laws upon them; for that the spiritual law should not meddle with that, for which there was remedy by common law, as is 22. Edw. 4 fol. 20. and the statute of 24. Edw. 1. cap. 1.  
And to prove, that the titles and preambles of other statutes do many times, in construction of statutes, restrain the general words of the same statutes following, he put the case upon the statute of perjury, anno 5. Eliz. where the words of the statute are, that every person and persons who shall commit voluntary and corrupt perjury, shall forfeit twenty pounds. And because the preamble and matter precedent touched witnesses only, therefore that penalty is restrained, by construction, to charge witnesses onely therewith, and not such persons as shall commit voluntary and corrupt perjury, in their own cases. And so upon the statute of 7. Edward 6. against Receivers, bailiffs, &c. although the words of that statute extend generally, to lay a penalty of 6. shillings 8. pence for every penny that receivers shall take unlawfully; yet because the preamble of that statute touched only the Kings officers, It is, in construction, restrained to take force against the Kings officers onely, and against none other receivers, or bailiffs.  
And to conclude this point of the exposition of the words of the statute, he did demand, why the exposition and construction of all statutes is left to the Judges of the law, but for this cause, for that they are, and always have been thought the most careful, judicious, and jealous preservers of the laws of England? And is it not apparent, that, to uphold the right of the laws of England, the Judges in ages past have advisedly construed some words of divers statutes contrary to the common sense of the words of the statute, to uphold the meaning of the common laws of the realm? as in the statute of 25. Ed. 3. where it is said, that, non tenor of parcel shall abate the Writ but for parcel; yet if by the Writ an entier manor be demanded, non tenor of parcel shall abate the whole Writ. And where, by the statute of Marlbrig. ca. 4. it is prohibited, that no distress shalbe driven out of the County where it is taken, yet, if one manor extend into two Counties, there the distress may be driven from one county into another county. And, upon the statute of Prerogative, which toucheth the King, although the words be general, that the King shall have the custody of all the lands of his tenant where part is holden in Capite, yet if part of the lands of his tenant do descend to several heires, on the part of the Father, and on the part of the Mother, there the King shall not have all the lands of his tenant, during the minority of the heir; for that, in all these Cases, the great regard of the rule and right of the common laws doth control the general or common sense of the words of those statutes.  
And why then should this statute receive construction, by the Judges of the law, contrary to the rule of all other statutes, to this effect that by an intendment gathered out of the general words of the Act, according to the tenor of the said Letters Patents, there might bee erected, in this common wealth of England, a course of an arbitrary government at the discretion of the Commissioners, directly contrary to the happy long continued government and course of the common laws of the realm, and directly contrary to Magna Charta: which if the statute of 24. Edw. 3. did so highly regard, as to make void Acts of Parliament contrary to the same, it would, a sortiori, make voided all construction of statutes contrary to Magna Charta, which have no express words, but an intendment or construction of words, with much violence to be wrested to that end. And for such as would make such construction of the statute, as that whatsoever should bee contained in the Letters Patents should be as a law; he would have them remember, that the King may make new letters Patents for these matters( ecclesiastical causes every day altering the same in the penalties and manner of procoeding) and that, if the letter of the statute should be perused, the King may change the Commissioners every day, and make any persons Commissioners, being natural born subjects to the King, although not born in England: which were against the meaning of the Act; which meaning of the Act is the life of the Act, and not the letter of the Act.  
And, besides those former errors of the Commission before remembered, he said, that he did not see, how, by colour of the stature of 1. Eliz. which gave power to the Commissioners to execute the promises contained in that Act, they should enlarge their Patent to inquire of 〈◇〉 contrary to other statutes, made thirty or forty yeares, and more, after an. 1. Eliz. which then were not dreamed of, nor meant to be any part of the premises contained in the said statute of anno. 1. Eliz. and of other civill and temporal things, for which if the ecclesiastical court had held plea, a prohibition did lie at the common law, according to the statute of 24. Edw. 1. cap 1. and 22. Ed. 4. fol. 20. and in 13. Hen. 7. fol. 39. brook and Fitzh. fol. 43.22. Hen. 8. because, for the same things, redress may bee had at the common laws and in 7. Hen. 8. fol. 181. the Bishops of the Convocation house, for meddling against Doctor Standish for a temporal cause by him disputed before the LL. of the council, were adjudged, by all the Judges, to be in danger of praemunire. But it willbe objected, that use is the best expositor of the statute: and then the continuance of this Commission, since the statute of 1. Eliz. being above 40. yeares, will prevail much; to which he answered, that long use, in a settled court, maketh it the law of the court; and the judgements in one Court are not examinable in every other Court, or in any, but in the proper Court, by Writ of error, false judgement, or appeal: unless the inferior Court meddle with that which is not within their power; and then in many cases their judgement is coram non Judice, and so void.  
But this ecclesiastical Commission is but a Commission executory, by the intent of the statute of 1. Eliz. to continue so long as should please the queen, or King, and no settled Court: and was meant at the first( as he thought) to have continuance for a short time, to strengthen the authority of the Bishops, against whose Ordination and instalment the Papists did at the first except. In which cases of things done by Commissions, whatsoever the Commissioners do, it is examinable in every Court where it shall come in question, at any time after; whether that they have pursued their Commission or authority, in due form or no. For their Decrees and sentences are not pleadable in law, as Judgements in Courts of Record are: and the many yeares use of the Commissioners, especially being ecclesiastical men for the most part, who know not the laws of the realm, will give no enforcement to their proceeding if it be contrary to law.  
But as in this Commission( touching causes of praemunire, Abjuration, and other Cases where the forfeiture of lands and goods do ensue) the Commissioners ecclesiastical say, they use not in these cases to force any subject to accuse themselves although the words of their Commission do extend so far; because they see it apparently contrary to law and right: so the Judges may say the like, that, in other cases of less penalty( to their knowledge) until of late yeares, the Commissioners used not either to force any to accuse themselves, or to imprison them for refusing so to do. And he did further answer, according to the learning and difference which is taken in 44. Edw. 3. fol. 17. that albeit the allowance in Oier of some Commission may be of great force to give strength unto the same Commission, yet the allowance, or toleration in some other Court of such Commissions many times( if it after appear to be contrary to law) bindeth neither the right of the King, nor subjects, but that the Judges of the law may judge thereof according to law.  
Upon all which matters he did conclude, that although the Commission bee of force to execute the ancient Jurisdiction over the ecclesiastical and spiritual estate; yet because this Commission, and the proceedings of the Commissioners, did much vary from the course of the old Common laws of England, expressed in the statute of 42. Ed. 3. cap. 3. and from the ancient Jurisdiction ecclesiastical; for that no pretended custom, against those statutes which prohibit such kind of proceeding, can be of force, and especially for that the Act of Parliament of 1. Eliz. did not give life or strength to the said Commission, in those parts so varying, but the contrary: therefore he did hold the proceeding of the ecclesiastical Commissioners against the subjects, by force of the said Commission, in these points, to be void, and erroneous, according to the words of the said statute 42. Edw. 3. and did humbly pray, that his Clients may bee discharged from their Imprisonment, and the subjects freed from such erroneous proceedings, too too heavy and burdensome to them.  
FINIS.  Lev. 19.15. 
Ye shall not do unjustly in judgement. Thou shalt not favour the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty; but thou shalt judge thy neighbour justly.  Deut. 1.17. 
Ye shall have no respect of person in judgement, but shall hear the small, as well as the great: ye shall not fear the face of man; for the judgement is Gods.