though it is contrary to the privilege of his crown and dignity. Nor does a pledge of  faith, the taking of an oath, or a voluntary renunciation by the parties change his  jurisdiction, though here they may prejudice themselves by their consent.]1 The same  must be said of debts and chattels which are not testamentary or matrimonial or  connected with them.
A prohibition lies by reason of the persons concerned and the thing in question.
 A prohibition lies by reason of the person and the thing, as where a clerk draws a layman  (or a layman a clerk) into the ecclesiastical forum in connexion with any of the  aforesaid matters. Also by reason of the thing only, as where a clerk draws a clerk  into plea in the ecclesiastical forum with respect to any of the aforesaid, for if the  ecclesiastical judge gives judgment between such persons, he cannot order the execution  of his judgment, for there is no sheriff or other minister who would aid him in  putting it into effect, and if he himself wishes to execute it, an assise of novel disseisin  will lie against him and against him who sues. [Of lay fee, I say, to distinguish it  from free alms more properly called free, since they are dedicated to God, so to speak,  as land given to a church in the name of dower at the time of its dedication, which is  more privileged (and the cognisance of which belongs to the ecclesiastical forum)2  [than that], though3 it is free alms and pure, given to churches and men of religion,  as to which jurisdiction and cognisance belongs to the secular forum.]4 And so of a  lay fee which descends to a person by the causa of succession, as where an ecclesiastical  judge wished to take cognisance of succession; on the plaint of a clerk or a layman  a prohibition will lie because of the thing.
Also by reason of a contract.
 Also in the same way by reason of a contract, as where a clerk contracts with a layman  in connexion with the purchase and sale of some secular thing, the cognisance of  which pertains to the secular forum.
Also by reason of delict.
 Also and in the same way by reason of delict, as where a clerk transgresses against a  clerk or a layman, or a layman against a layman, in a temporal matter. 5By reason of  a delict committed in a temporal matter cognisance belongs to the secular forum,  both in an actio injuriarum and a criminal action, provided it is sued civilly;6 in all  these cases the secular judge has cognisance, jurisdiction and coercion, the ecclesiastical  judge nothing except through dissimulation. If it is sued criminally and for a  crime, the ecclesiastical judge