Land c. 43. and therefore the Feudists say That Felony is delictum Vasalli adversus Dominum From the Gothick Fell or Fehl which signifies in general a Fault And in this Case the Breach of Trust towards his Lord Of which sort of Felonies the Feudists reckon up some twenty some thirty any one of which makes a Forfeifeiture So that here is no such mighty Difference that the poor Clergymen must only have Conditional and Attendant Freeholds as though other Men's were Absolute whereas Sir Thomas Smith affirms all in England are Fiduciary i. e. Conditional Freeholders beside the King. It is easie enough for any one to frame such a Distinction of Freeholds and to say That these who have but such a Freehold may be ejected without any Trial at Common Law But he ought to have shewed That Magna Charta or the Ancient Laws made such a Difference between Ecclesiastical Freeholds and others which he hath not preended to do and therefore such a Distinction ought not to be allowed especially since I have produced an Act of Parliament 14 Edward 3. c. 3. which saith That Clergymen shall not be ejected out of their Temporalties without a True and Just Cause according to the Law of the Land This was none of those Statutes which are in Print but never enrolled for Sir Robert Cotton owns the enrolment of it and that it was made into a Statute and Mr. Pryn himself had nothing to object against it But now it seems their Conditional Freholds may be taken from them without any due Course of Law. II. There is more to be said concerning the Rights of Ecclesiastical Persons in Colledges because they are Lay Corporations For in Appleford's Case it was declared to be the Opinion of all the Judges in Pattrick 's Case That a Colledge was a Temporal Corporation And therefore some notable Difference in Point of Law must be shewed Why Men may be deprived of some Freeholds without due Course of Law and not of others for I cannot imagine That Colledges being founded for the encouragement of Learning should lay Men more open to Arbitrary Proceedings than any other Legal Societies are However Deprivation in Coveney's Case was agreed to be a Temporal Thing and for that Reason his Appeal was rejected as not relating to a Matter of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction which was only provided for 24. and 25. Henr. 8. But it was allowed That he might bring an Action at Common Law. Our Author several times mentions this Case but puts it off till he comes to Treat of Appeals i. e. to the Place he knew it to be improper in For the Question is not Whether an Appeal doth lie to the King in Chancery in a Case of Deprivation but Whether there be not a Remedy at Common Law if a Person be deprived of a Free-hold without due form of Law And after a great deal of Impertinency about the manner of Appeals he at last concludes The Remedy had been at Common Law only which is clear giving up the Point For then in case a Person be deprived without due course of Law of his Free-hold he grants that he is to have his Remedy at Law and consequently that a Deprivation of such a Free-hold without due Course of Law is not sufficient For the Law provides no Remedy where there is no Injury done nor just Cause to seek for Redress And so I come to the second Objection which is this 2. That to deny the Jurisdiction of this Court is to deny the King's Supremacy and that is a dangerous thing by the Law. The Case was this Dr. F. of Magdalen College in Oxford being summoned before the Commissioners denied the Authority of the Court and persisted in so doing which our Author saith in another Kings Reign perhaps might have been interpreted a Questioning the very Supremacy it self which how fatal it was to John Fisher Bishop of Rochester and Sir Thomas Moor is worthy to be considered both as a Demonstration of our Kings Clemency and that the Doctor hath not so much reason to complain of his hard Usage The Meaning whereof is this That if they had proceeded in Justice against him he ought to have suffered as Bishop Fisher and Sir Thomas Moor did This is more than a bare Insinuation That to deny the Jurisdiction of this Court is to deny the Kings Supremacy and that it is meer Clemency not to deal by them who do it as H. 8. did by Bishop Fisher and Sir Thomas Moor. But 1. It is by no means evident That those two Persons suffered meerly on that Account For their Attainder in Parliament was for refusing the Oath of Succession and King James I. mentions the Words of Sir Thomas Moor to that purpose which he spake to the Lords when he was condemned And their Attainder if I mistake not was in the same Parliament which made it Treason to deprive the King of his Dignity Title or Name of his Royal Estate and therefore could not be by an Act not then passed But 2. Suppose that they were at last proceeded against on the Act then passed what is this to the present Case when Coke saith This Act was twice Repealed And it is no extraordinary Clemency not to be proceeded against by a Law that hath no force 3. The Statute in Force 5 Eliz. c. 1. is against those who defend or maintain the Authority Jurisdiction or Power of the Bishop of Rome or of his See heretofore claimed used or usurped within this Realm or by any Speech open Deed or Act advisedly wittingly attribute any such manner of Jurisdiction Authority or Preheminence to the said See of Rome or any Bishop of the same for the time being within this Realm So that it cannot be denied that there is occasion for his Majesties Clemency but it is to another sort of Men. 4. It is very hard straining to make the denying the Jurisdiction of this Court to be denying the Kings Supremacy when a Person hath done all which the Law requires him to do towards owning the Supremacy If he had said Dr. F. had taken Possession of his Fellowship there without taking the Oath of Supremacy which the Law requires he had then indeed given ground to suspect him for denying the Kings Supremacy but to take no notice of those who refused to do as the Law requires and to talk thus of what Severity might be used to one that hath done it looks in him neither like Clemency nor Justice 5. It was always looked on as a Legal Right to make Exception to the Jurisdiction of a Court especially when newly established without Act of Parliament and to any ordinary Understanding in flat Contradiction to it It is very new Doctrine that in a Legal Government Exceptio Fori shall be interpreted a Denial of supreme Authority which was not only allowed by the Canon and Civil Laws but by the most Ancient Common Lawyers we have
of the same That the aforesaid Branch Clause Article or Sentence shall from henceforth be repealed annulled revoked annihilated and made void for ever any thing in the said Act to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding Then after a Clause relating to ordinary Jurisdiction repealed 13 Car. 2. c. 12. the Act concludes thus And be it further enacted That from and after the said first Day of August no new Court shall be erected ordained or appointed within this Realm of England or Dominion of Wales which shall or may have the live Power Jurisdiction or Authority as the said High-Commission-Court now hath or pretendeth to have but that all and every such Letters Patents Commissions and Grants made or to be made by his Majesty his Heirs and Successors and all Powers and Authorities granted or pretended or mentioned to be granted thereby and all Acts Sentences and Decrees to be made by virtue or colour thereof shall be utterly void and of none effect By the Act 13 Car. 2. c. 12. This Repeal stands good in the first Proviso and in the second Clause where that which concerns Ordinary Jurisdictions is repealed an Exception is put in in these Words Excepting what concerns the High-Commission-Court or the new erecting some such like Court by Commission The Case which arises from hence is Whether these Acts of Parliament only take away the Power of Fining and Imprisoning from any Ecclesiastical Commission granted by the King so that notwithstanding these Repeals the King may still constitute a Commission proceeding by Ecclesiastical Censures And for the same Ends which are expresly mentioned in the Statu te repealed viz. To exercise use occupy and execute all manner of Jurisdictions Privileges and Preheminences in any wise touching or concerning any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within this Realm of England and Dominion of Wales and to visit reform order correct and amend all Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormities whatsoever which by the Spiritual and Ecclesiastical Laws of this Realm can or may lawfully be reformed ordered redressed corrected restrained or amended to the Pleasure of Almighty God the Increase of Vertue and the Conservation of the Peace and Unity of this Realm These are the Powers of the present Commission and are the same which are mentioned in the Act of Repeal 17 Car. 1. c. 11. only Errors Heresies and Schisms being left out It cannot be denied That the Power of Fining and Imprisoning is most expresly taken away and that is assigned as one Reason and Occasion of repealing the Clause of 1 Eliz. 1. which establishes the Court but I cannot be satisfied that this was all that was intended by the Act 17 Car. 1. c. 11. And that for these Reasons 1. If no more had been intended then it had been sufficient to have destroyed the Letters Patents by which the Power of Fining and Imprisoning was granted without mentioning the Act of Parliament which gives no such Power But the Act of Repeal 17 Car. 1. c. 12. begins with the Act of Parliament Whereas in the Parliament holden in the first Year of Queen Eliz. there was an Act made and established c. In which Act among other things there is contained one Clause Branch Article or Sentence whereby it was Enacted to this effect c. Then follows all the Enactin Clause and after it the Abuses of the Power by the Letters Patents are reckoned up viz. Fining and Imprisoning and other great Mischiefs and Inconveniences Therefore for the repressing and preventing of them not meerly the Power to Fine and Imprison but the whole Clause and all things contained in it are from thenceforth repealed annulled revoked annihilated and utterly made void for ever What need all this if no more were designed than to take away the Power of Fining and Imprisoning It is plausibly argued by the Lord Coke That the Power to Fine and Imprison was not agreeable to the Design of the Act. 1. Because the Title of it is An Act restoring to the Crown the Ancient Jurisdiction but the Ancient Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical had not a Power to Fine and Imprison but proceeded only by Ecclesiastical Censures 2. Because the Power to reform order and correct all Errors Heresies c. was to be such as may be lawfully reformed corrected restrained or amended by any manner of Spiritual Ecclesiastical Power Authority or Jurisdiction which did not extend to Fine and Imprisonment 3. The Tenor of the Letters Patents was to exercise use and execute all the Premises Since therefore the Premises go no further than Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction the Letters Patents could give no such Power being in pursuance of the Act. But it is agreed saith he That before this Act no Man could be punished by Fine and Imprisonment by any Ecclesiastical Power unless it were by force of some Act of Parliament But because the Act saith They are to use and execute all the Premises according to the Tenor and Effect of the Letters Patents Others have thought That the Power to Fine and Imprison being within the Letters Patents the Act of Parliament did bear them out in pursuing what was in the Tenor of them But in my Opinion this Matter ought to be a little further cleared and therefore we must distinguish between the Original Commission and the Supplemental Power added to enforce it The Original Commission extended no farther than Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction as is plain from tho reading of the Statute and that of it self could go no further than Ecclesiastical Censure But because of the Circumstance of that Time when as the Lord Hobart in a M. S. Discourse of the High Commission observes The Persons most concerned did slight the Ecclesiastical Censures therefore it was thought necessary in the Letters Patents to grant them a new Commission to enforce the former and that extended to Fine and Imprisonment For in the High Commission for the Province of York which is preserved distinct Powers are granted which are not in the Act. For whereas the Act goes no further than the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction the Commission gives them Power to proceed after another manner than by Ecclesiastical Censures for the Words are Contumaces autem Rebelles si quos invenerint tam per Censuras Ecclesiasticas quam Personarum apprehensionem Incarcerationem c. ac quaecunque alia Juris Regni nostri Remedia compescendum c. Here we see plainly a Conjunction of the Power of Common Law added to that of the High Commission by virtue of the Act of Parliament and so in all probability it was in the Letters Patents for the High Commission in this Province which bore equal Date with the former And although the Date of the High Commission was before the Depriving of the Bishops I Eliz. Yet I see no ground for my Lord Coke 's Assertion which the Defendant takes for granted p. 13. That this Commission was first granted for depriving the Popish Bishops and that about Twenty were
deprived by it whereas in Fact there were but Fourteen deprived and that for not doing what they had done before in Henry the 8th's Time viz. for refusing to take the Oath of Supremacy which they had all taken in the time of H. 8. And as far as I can learn they were not deprived by the High Commission but by a particular Commission for that purpose as appears by the best Account we have of it in the Historians who lived nearest the time In the Month of July says Stow the old Bishops of England then living were called and examined by certain of the Queens Majesties Council where the Bishops of York Ely and London with others to the Number of Thirteen or Fourteen for refusing to take the Oath touching the Queens Supremacy and other Articles were deprived from their Bishopricks What he means by the other Articles I know not for there seem to be no other at that time for which they could be deprived by Law but refusing the Oath of Supremacy and so much Saunders himself owns for the other faults were not punishable with deprivation The Bishops being deprived by a special Commission of the Council then saith Stow Commissioners were appointed for all England For London Sir Richard Sackvile Dr. Horn Dr. Huick and Mr. Savage who called before them divers Persons of every Parish and swore them to enquire and present upon certain Injunctions With him Hollingshead agrees only adding that these Commissioners were sent according to an Act passed and confirmed last Parliament This was the Act for the High-Commission which then extended to particular Parishes with such such Powers of the Common Law as are already mentioned but are not of the Essence of the Commission according to the Act of Parliament and therefore the taking away those additional Powers doth not destroy the High Commission but the Repealing the Act of Parliament on which it was built takes away any such Court-Proceeding by Ecclesiastical Censures To make this more plain by a Parallel Instance The Court of Star-Chamber was taken away at the same time the High-Commission was and both determined the same day 17 Car. 1. Aug. 1. This Court was erected for extraordinary Civil Jurisdiction as the High Commission was for Spiritual but by the Act 17 Car. 1. c. 10. it was taken away much in the same manner with the Court of High-Commission For there is a Recital of the Statutes on which it was grounded 3 Hen. 7. c. 1. 21 Hen. 8. c. 20. And then it is alledged That they had exceeded the Bounds which the Law had given them in these Words But the said Judges have not kept themselves to the Points limited by the said Statute but have undertaken to punish where no Law doth warrant and to make Decrees for things having no such Authority and to inflict heavier punishments than by any Law is warranted And so by this very same way of Reasoning which the Vindicator uses another Court of Star-Chamber may be set up if it keeps it self within the Bounds of the Statutes But we are not to judge of the force of a Law by the particular Reason assigned but by the Enacting Clause Be it Ordained and Enacted by the Authority of this present Parliament That the said Court commonly called the Star-Chamber and all Jurisdictions Power and Authority belonging unto or exercised in the same Court c. be from the first of August 1641. clearly and absolutely dissolved taken away and determined If another Star-Chamber cannot be set up with some Limitations for Extraordinary Civil Jurisdictions how can another Ecclesiastical Court for extraordinary Spiritual Jurisdiction which is taken away after the same manner Only the Act against the High Commission is more express in the Conclusion against Setting up any other Court with like Power Jurisdiction or Authority for it was then foreseen that some other Court might be set up with some Alterations and to prevent any thing of that Nature the last Clause was annexed 2. The prohibiting Clause 17 Car. 1. c. 11. is very considerable to the purpose For the Force of the former Act was taken away by the Repealing Clause but that was not thought sufficient to prevent another Court rising up which might be like to it A Court may be like although not altogether the same It may be like in Jurisdiction although not in a Power to Fine and imprison But the Act saith That no new Court shall be Erected which shall or may have the like Power Jurisdiction or Authority as the said High-Commission now hath or pretendeth to have but that all and every such Letters Patents made or to be made by his Majesty or Successors and all Powers and Authorities granted or pretended or mentioned to be granted thereby ana all Asts Sentences and Decrees to be made by vertue or colour thereof shall be utterly void and of none effect Was all this meant only of such a Court as should proceed to Fine and Imprison Why was not this set down in as plain a manner as such a Law required But we are to observe 1. It not only voids the Letters Patents but declares the Constitution of the Court it self to be illegal but that doth not depend upon the Power to Fine and Imprison If it had been said No New Court shall be erected with a Power to Fine and Imprison the Matter had been clear for a New Court might have been erected proceeding by Ecclesiastical Censures without a Power to Fine and Imprison But the Act takes no notice here of any such Power but absolutely forbids any Court with the like Power Jurisdiction or Authority Had the High-Commission no Power Jurisdiction or Authority but only to Fine and Imprison Their Power and Authority by Act of Parliament was general to reform Abuses c. In case there had been no such Clause as Fining and Imprisoning in the Letters Patents had there been no Court no Power Jurisdiction or Authority belonging to it If then there be a Power Jurisdiction or Authority of a High Commission Court without a Power to Fine and Imprison then all such Power and Authority is taken away by the Prohibiting Clause 2. It forbids the Jurisdiction of such a Court But Jurisdiction is quite another thing from a Power to Fine and Imprison Jurisdictio saith Bracton is Authoritas judicandi sive juris dicendi inter partes and to the same purpose Fleta They both distinguish two kinds of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical and Civil Ecclesiastical saith Bracton is that which belongs to Ecclesiastical Causes Which shews That they looked on Ecclesiastical Proceedings by Censures as part of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction The first General Exception saith Fleta is against the Jurisdiction of a Court which is allowed to be made to those quibus deficit autoritas judicandi From hence it appears That the Power and Authority of medling in Ecclesiastical Causes is that which is implied in the Jurisdiction of the Court if it
injuriatoribus defendat Which is that Right of Protection which is allowed by all The Spanish Lawyers hold That there lies an Appeal to the Kings Courts by his Right of Protection in Case of any violent Proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts Which Violences are so many as make such Appeals so frequent and necessary that whole Volumes have been written about them And this they say Is not Introductory of a New Law but only declaratory of a Natural Right The French Lawyers allow Appeals from the Ecclesiastical Courts tanquam ab abusu which must be founded on an Original Right in the King to defend the Church both from Injuries and Abuses And as to the Church it self it is fully expressed in the Writ de Excommunicato capiendo in these Words Quia vero Potestas Regia Sacrosanctae Ecclesiae in querelis suis deesse non debet But such a Right of Protection and Assistance is different from that of Jurisdiction unless it be that which is only Coactive which is not the Jurisdiction we now enquire into But it is most considerable that King Edward saith He is God's Vicar and therefore could not look on himself as acting by Commission from the Pope It is true that in the third Charter of Westminster there is a Bull of Nicholas the Second wherein he gives to the King and his Successors the Protection and Defence of that Place and of all the Churches of England and a Power in his stead to make good Laws with the Advice of the Bishops and Abbots But I do not find that King Edward owned that he acted in these Matters by any Commission from the Pope but from God himself And this Law in Hoveden and others overthrows any such pretended Commission And yet the Pope himself doth not give him a Power to delegate his Authority to others but to act in it himself and that only with the Advice of Bishops and Abbots The Point then which was to be proved was not that the King had a Right to protect the Church from Injuries but such an Inherent Right of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction which he might delegate to others whether Bishops or not and impower them to proceed by Ecclesiastical Censures against Offenders summoned to appear before them And the Question now is not Whether by the Supreme Legislative Power of the Nation such an Authority might not in an extraordinary Case be Committed to particular Persons by Act of Parliament but Whether such an Act of Parliament being granted to be taken away the King by the Ancient Law of the Realm may appoint such Commissioners as he thinks fit Laymen or Bishops to proceed against the King's Subjects by Ecclesiastical Censures And this very stating of the Case as it ought to be shews how impertinent the remainder of his Examples are But to proceed In the Reign of King William the First In the time of William the Conqueror he only mentions a Case out of Fitz-Herbert That he made an Appropriation of Churches with Cure to Ecclesiastical Persons viz. to a Prebend of the Church of York now this saith he was agreed by all could not be done without Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction It is too common a Fault in some great Lawyers that what they find once setled for Law in their Books they imagine was never otherwise Thus Appropriations after Diocesses were setled being looked on as chiefly the Act of the Ordinary who is to take Care of the whole Diocess From hence they infer That in all Times an Appropriation must argue Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction But before the Parochial Rights were established there were many Volantary Appropriations made by particular Persons who thought there was no more Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in the Appropriation of Churches than in the Endowments of them and in the Right of Patronage only the one is setled on a Spiritual Corporation as perpetual Incumbent and the other on particular Persons in Succession It s true since the Acts for restoring Jurisdiction to the Crown the Power of making Appropriations in the King is said to be from his Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority Grindon's Case in Pl. f. 448. But then we are told It was because the Pope as Supreme Ordinary had such a Power without the Bishops which Reason will not hold as to such Times when the Pope was not owned to be Supreme Ordinary as he was not in the Conqueror's Time the Canon-Law not being then received in England But what a mean Proof is this in such a busie Time as that of William the Frst when so many great Churchmen were deprived of their Bishopricks being English and the Normans put in their Places Was this done by any Commission from William to his Great Lords and others to proceed against them by Ecclesiastical Censures nothing like it Stigand Archbishop of Canterbury if Spot's Story be true was too great a Friend to the English Liberties to be endured by him But he was too great a Dissembler to seem to have any thing to do in it himself and therefore knowing he was of the opposite Party to the prevailing Pope he privatly sends to him To send a Legate for that Purpose wherein the Pope and He had their several Ends and then in Parliament Time the King keeping his Easter at Winchester Stigand was deposed and Agilmarus Bishop of the East Angles and several others without any evident Reason saith Hoveden but only to make way for the Normans This was in Concilio Magno saith he and the rest for Easter was one of the three Seasons for the Parliamentary Meeting in the Year which William kept up in Imitation of the Saxons who at Christmas Easter and Pentecost held their Publick Courts and did wear their Crowns till the Times of H. 2. and then they did dispatch Publick Affairs Thus far he complied with the Saxon Customs but he had a new Work to do The Archbishop he could not rely upon and therefore was put to find out a new way by sending for a Legate from the Pope to serve his turn And thus William for his own Ends having so hard a Game to play here called in the Pope's Assistance who knew well enough how to draw his own Advantage out of it But William would go no further than his Interest carried him for afterwards he declared That he would maintain his own Rights which he enjoyed in Normandy viz. That nothing should be done without him in Convocation no Legate come but as he pleased c. But still he seemed to let them enjoy their Saxon Liberties in Matters of Ecclesiastical Proceedings so far as to have them debated in Parliament Thus the Controversie between the two Archbishops was referred to Parliament the King and the Great Men as well as the Bishops being present The Controversie between Lanfrank Archbishop of Canterbury and Odo Bishop of Baieux was referred saith Eadmerus to a Conventus Principum at Pinnedenen and when the King heard their Resolution cum consensu omnium
and to bring an Account next Parliament ad quod praedictum Episcopum adjornavimus are the Words of the Writ And that the Business was heard in Parliament appears by the Records 31 E 1. The King seized on the Temporalities of the Bishop of Durham upon a Judgment given against him in Parliament for extending his Spiritual Jurisdiction too far as appears by the Record of the Concord made between the King and him In the Reign of King Edward the Second In the Reign of K. E. 2. nothing is produced but the Statute 9 E. 2. for Regulating the Proceedings between the Civil and Ecclesiastical Courts But how the Kings Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction is proved hereby is hard to understand It appears indeed that the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction is allowed and limited by Parliament But from hence saith he it follows that these Laws may be called the Kings Eccclesiastical Laws or the Ecclesiastical Laws of England There is no question but they may But there is a Difference between Laws so called by Acceptation and Allowance and such as have their whole Force and Authority from the King. For otherwise where the Popes Jurisdiction is owned and received the Pope must receive his Authority from the King. But a Liberty to exercise Authority and deriving Authority are two Things In the Reign of King Edward the Third In the Time of E. 3. many things are alledged and to more purpose but yet a short Answer will serve If the first Instance doth hold viz. That the Sentence of Excommunication by the Archbishop holds against the Sentence of the Pope or his Legate it only proves that the Eccesiastical Jurisdiction here by Law is in the Archbishop and not in the Pope or his Legate But there may be another Reason mentioned by Fitz Herbert viz. That the Certificate of the Archbishop might be more Authentick than the Seal of a Legate The second sixth and eighth only prove the King Supreme Patron and a Right of Patronage is distinct from a Right of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and so it was resolved in Grendon's Case Pl. f. 498. That the King presents by Lapse as Supreme Patron and not as Supreme Ordinary For this belongs to him as King the Land on which Churches are built being originally held of him And this Right the King enjoyed when the Pope was owned to be Supreme Ordinary But in the Case of his own free Chapels Fitz-Herbert saith right That in Case of Lapse by the Dean the King presents as Ordinary the Archbishop and Bishop having no Authority there as Ordinaries The third fourth and fifth are about Exemptions from Episcopal Jurisdictions granted by the King especially in his own free Chapels which are only visitable by Commission from the King. But this very Pretence of Exemptions from Episcopal Jurisdiction was founded upon the Belief of the Pope's being Supreme Ordinary for exempt Places were not supposed to be free from all Ordinary Jurisdiction but from that of Inferior Ordinaries being immediately subject to the Pope A Bishop by the Canon Law may grant an Exemption from his Right of Jurisdiction but not from his Right of Visitation but the Pope from both And in the Grant of Exemption the immediate Subjection to the Roman See is expressed As to the King 's free Chapels their Exemption was by an express Bull of Innocent III to King John and in the Case of the free Chapels of S. Martins Henry III granted a Prohibition wherein it is inserted That it was a free Chapel ab omni Jurisdictione Episcopali per Sedem Apostolicam exempta And 45 Hen. 3. in a Prohibition concerning the free Chapel of Wolverhampton the Grant of Innocent III is repeated The Right to extra-parochial Tithes is Provisional and not by way of Inheritance and so it may belong to the King although he have no Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction As to the severe Proceeding about Bulls from Rome I have given an Account of that already in E. 1. The anointing of Kings proves no more their Capacity of Spiritual Jurisdiction than it proves the Kings of Israel to have been High Priests There is no doubt the Ecclesiastical Courts may be limited by the Laws of the Land and there are some Causes which belong to them not originally of a Spiritual Nature but they have been a long time possessed of them by Custom and are allowed by Law which is well expressed in 24 Hen. 8. c. 12. where it is said That all Causes Testamentary Causes of Matrimony and Divorces Rights of Tithes Oblations and Obventions the Knowledge whereof by the Goodness of Princes of this Realm and by the Laws and Customs of the same appertaineth to the Spiritual Jurisdiction of this Realm shall be determined within the Kings Jurisdiction and Authority It doth not seem probable That the King by his own Authority would remove Secular Canons and put in Regular when Hoveden saith in the same Case H. 2. did it by the Pope's Authority and with the free Consent of the Parties The Statutes of Provisors were excellent Statutes but are said to be enacted for the Good and Tranquility of the Realm which no doubt the King and his Parliament were bound to take care of But they prove no more Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction than the Pragmatick Sanctions of Lewis IX and Charles VII in France did which were of the same nature The following Instances in other Reigns are many of them of the same kind with those already answered but what seems to have any new Force shall be considered In the Reign of King Henry the Fourth 2 H. 4. c. 15. is urged to prove That the King by consent of his Parliament did direct the Proceedings of the Spiritual Courts in Cases of Heresie and other Matters more Spiritual but it is evident by the Act it self That the Spiritual Jurisdiction was left wholly to the Ordinaries and only an Inforcement of it by the Civil Power was added by the Law then made for the Words are Whereas the Diocesans of the said Realm cannot by their Jurisdiction Spiritual without Aid of the said Royal Majesty sufficiently correct c. Therefore a Power to Imprison and Fine was given to the Ordinaries who might before have proceeded by Ecclesiastical Censures but these being contemned by them the Ordinaries called in the Assistance of the Civil Power If there had been a Power before to have proceeded against Hereticks by Common Law when convict by their Ordinaries I cannot see any Reason why that Law should be made In case of Apostacy i. e. Renouncing Christianity Bracton saith The Person convict is to be burned and he instanceth in the Deacon who turned Jew in the Council of Oxford And Fleta speaks only of Apostates whether Clerks or others and those are the Miscreants in Briton and in Horn Heresie was then the same with renouncing Baptism or turning Jew or Turk or using Sorcery but after Wickliff's Time the Ordinaries inlarged the Notion of Heresie and took
own Contracts no man could trust them and consequently all Society with them would be dissolved And whatever Supreme Power may do as to such Acts as are properly its own yet where there is Jus quaesitum alteri as in all Contracts there is that cannot be taken away by it But all this was answered on the other side by the Plenitude of the Popes Power for it was a Contradiction they said to own that and to say That there was any Engagement by Oath or otherwise which he could not Dispense with For as Hank 11 H. 4. 37. says Papa omnia potest And therefore all such Oaths and Promises as limit the Popes Dispensing Power are void in themselves And as to Ecclesiastical Laws or Constitutions they easily resolved all Difficulties about them upon such Principles as these 1. That the Popes have the supreme Power in the Church 2. That the Ecclesiastical Laws were the Popes Laws 3. That it is an inseparable Prerogative in the Pope to Dispense with Ecclesiastical Laws upon Necessity and urgent Occasions 4. That the Pope is the sole Judge of that Necessity 5. That this was not a Trust given to the Pope by Councils or Conclaves but by God and St. Peter and therefore cannot be taken away from her But I shall endeavour to give a clearer Light into this Matter by shewing the several Steps and Degrees how this Dispensing Power came into the World and how it passed from the Ecclesiastical to other Laws when Princes assumed such a Plenitude of Power in Civils which the Popes practised in Ecclesiasticals The first time we read of Dispensations was with respect to the Ancient Canons of the Church and it implied a Relaxation of the Rigour of them not with respect to their Force or binding Power but as to the Penance which Persons were to undergo for the Violation of them And herein the Notion of Dispensing was very different from what the Canonists made it afterwards when they declared it to be a Relaxation of the Law it self so that it should not have that Force upon the Conscience which it otherwise had For a Dispensation with them is a Licence to do that which they cannot lawfully do without it and that with a non-obstante to that which otherwise makes it Unlawful De Jure illicitum fit ex Dispensatione licitum hic est proprie effectus Dispensationis saith Pyrrhus Corradus who gives a large Account of the Practice of Dispensations in the Court of Rome which conclude with a non-obstante to any former Constitutions or Canons of Councils But no such thing can be found in the Ancient Practice of the Church because the Popes themselves were then believed to be under the Canons But when it was supposed That the severe Execution of the Canons would rather hinder than advance the Good of the Church the Governours of it thought they had sufficient Authority to abate the Rigorous Execution of them As about the Times of Penance the Translation of Bishops from one See to another the Intervals of Orders and such like But the Popes then pretended to be strict Observers of the Canons when the particular Bishops took upon them to Dispense with the Execution of them as appears by Ivo's Preface to his Collection of Canons where he distinguisheth the Immoveable or Moral Precepts from the Canonical which he calls Moveable In the former saith he no Dispensation is to be allowed But in those things which only concern Discipline the Bishops may Dispense provided there be a Compensation i. e. That the Church's Interest may be better secured or advanced thereby as he there discourses at large And his Rule is Ibi Dispensatio admittenda est ubi rigor periculosus est But by this means the Severity of the Primitive Discipline was quite lost The Bishops of Rome observing this thought it a proper time for them to appear zealous for the Ancient Canons which gained them a great Reputation in the World and by this means the Custody of the Canons was looked on as their particular Province Which they improved so well that at last they turned the Guardianship of the Canons into a Power over them and then they found Fault with the Bishops Dispensing with them for another Reason viz. Because the Dispensing Power was a Prerogative of the Roman See and Inferior Bishops could act no farther in it than they had Authority from it We find that in S. Bernard's time the Pope did take upon him to Dispense too far to his great Dissatisfaction for by his Dispensing Power he saith he overthrew the Order of the Church Murmur loquor saith he querimoniam Ecclesiarum The Pope dispensed with the Ecclesiastical Laws in Exemptions of Abbots and others from that Subordination they stood in to their proper Superiors He saith He could not see how this Dispensing Power could be justified You do indeed shew a plenitude of Power but it may be not of Justice you shew what you can do but it is a Question whether you ought or not and you ought to consider First Whether it be lawful then whether it be decent and lastly whether it be expedient At last he allows a Dispensing Power in two Cases Urgent Necessity and Common Good otherwise he saith It is not fidelis Dispensatio sed crudelis Dissipatio an overthrow of all Order and Government In one of his Epistles he speaks sharply against getting a Dispensation to do that which it was not lawful to do without one And he thinks he hath disproved it by invincible Reason For a Licence from the Pope can never make that Lawful which without it were Unlawful When the Practice of the Dispensing Power grew more common there were two great Questions raised concerning it Whether if a Dispensation were granted without Just Cause it were Lawful or not And Whether if it were not Lawful yet it was valid There were some who flattered the Dispensing Power so much that they allowed it in all Cases whether there were a just Cause or not These were the high-flown Canonists who resolved all Laws into Will and Pleasure But others who allowed a Dispensing Power upon a Just Cause yet thought it repugnant to the Original Design of Government for those who are entrusted with Care of the Laws to Dispense with them without such a Cause as answers the End of Government And some went so far as to deny any Validity in a Dispensation granted upon Pleasure for as an unjust Law hath no Force so said they an unjust Dispensation of a Good Law hath none Upon this Point two great Schoolmen differ Suarez whom the Lord Chief Justice Vaughan commends for his Learning in this Matter goes upon these Grounds 1. That a Prince is not Dominus sed Dispensator Legum although the Force of a Law depends upon his Authority and therefore in Dispensing with a Law he doth not act by Absolute Power but by Administration For
Cases besides those which depended on the Canon-Law For saith he the Pope usurped such a Power in derogation of the Authority Royal and then that Power must be originally in the King otherwise in the Construction of the Act it could be no Usurpation But this is a very false way of Reasoning The Pope usurped such a Power on the Crown therefore the Crown hath it of Right For the Popes Usurpations were many of them unreasonable his Primacy according to Canons being allowed and our Law did restore to the King the ancient Right and Jurisdiction of the Crown and not put him into the Possession of all the extravagant Power which the Pope usurped For this Law charges the Pope with intolerable Exactions of great Sums of Money in Pensions Censes Peter-Pence Procurations Fruits Suits for Provisions and Expeditions of Bulls for Arch-Bishopricks and Bishopricks and for Delegates and Rescripts in Causes of Contentions and Appeals Jurisdictions Legantine as well as Dispensations Licenses Faculties Grants Relaxations Writs called Perinde valere Rehabilitations Absolutions c. Now all these were Usurpations in Derogation of the Crown but doth it therefore follow that the Crown hath a Right to them all But to go no further than the Business of Dispensations Hath the King a Right by this Statute to dispense as far as the Pope The Pope usurped a Power of dispensing in Matrimonial Contracts in Oaths in Vows in some positive Divine Laws which I suppose H. 8. by vertue of the Supremacy never pretended to So that it is a very mistaken Notion of some Men That the King had all the Power which the Pope usurped And as to the Act it is plain by the Words of it That the Original Power of Dispensing was lodged in the King Lords and Commons and the Ministerial Execution of it with the Arch Bishop of Canterbury even with respect to the King himself But if the King had pretended to all the Power which the Pope usurped he must have dispensed with himself But this Author offers to Prove That there is a Power in the Crown to dispense with Acts of Parliament even such as concern the Consecration of Bishops because it is said 8 Eliz. That the Queen by her Supreme Authority had dispensed with all causes or Doubts of any Imperfection or Disability in the Persons c. To give a clear Answer to this we must consider these Things 1. That 1 Eliz. 1. The Act of 25 H. 8. for the Order and Form of Electing and Making Arch-Bishops and Bishops was revived as appears by the same Act 8. Eliz. 1. 7. 2. That by another Act 1 Eliz. 2. The Book of Common-Prayer and Administration of Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England which were in use in the time of 6 E. and repealed by Queen Mary were re-inforced 1 Eliz. 2. 2. and the Repeal annulled But by the Act 5 and 6 E. 6. c. 1. § 5. the Form and Manner of making arch-Arch-Bishops Bishops Priests and Deacons was added to the Book of Prayer as of like Force and Authority with it 3. That the Act of E. 6. being revived with the express mention of the Alterations and Additions made to it there was ro Necessity apprehended 1 Eliz. to make a distinct Act for that which was in force already by the Name of Additions therein added and appointed by that Statute And this I conceive was the true Reason why a Bill did not pass 1 Eliz. to that purpose For I find by the Journals of the House a Bill was prepared and read the third time in the House of Lords but upon Consideration it was laid a side as superfluous 4. That the Popish Party took Advantage of this and pretended That the Book of Consecration c. was not established by Law being not expresly mentioned and therefore the Bishops made by it were not Legal Bishops And upon this Bonner resolved to stand the Trial against Horn Bishop of Winchester as may be seen in Dyer R. f. 234. So that the Papists then stood upon it That the Crown could not dispense with Laws otherwise Bonner's Plea signified nothing For if there were such an Inherent Right in the Crown to Dispense with Laws in Ecclesiastical Matters then these were Legal Bishops having all the Queen 's Dispensing Power for them 5. The Clause in the Queen's Letters Patents for Dispensing with Imperfections and Disability was put in out of abundant Caution and not for any Necessity that we can find But it was Customary in the Popes Bulls to put in such kind of Clauses and therefore they would omit no Power in that Case which the Pope did pretend to which the Act faith was for avoiding all Ambiguities and Questions 6. But after all lest there should be any Colour for Disputing this Matter left according to the express Letter of the Law therefore it was declared 8 Eliz. 1. 3. That not only the Book of Common-Prayer but the Form of Consecrating Archbishops Bishops c. which was set sorth in Edward the Sixth's Time and added to the Common Prayer shall stand and be in full Force and Effect And all Acts done by it are declared to be Good and Perfect to all Intents and Purposes So that this Act of Parliament doth rather overthrow a Dispensing Power for if there were then such a Supreme and Absolute Power in the Crown as to Ecclesiastical Matters what need such an Act of Parliament to Confirm and Ratifie what our Author supposes done by virtue of it But to return to the 25th of H. 8. In the same Act of Parliament care is taken for the Visiting Exempt Places as Monasteries Colledges and Hospitals by a particular Commission under the Great Seal But that which comes nearest to our Business is That 26 H. 8. c. 1. another Act passed wherein the King's Supremacy is acknowledged and a Power given by Act of Parliament for him to Visit Redress and Amend all Errors Heresies Abuses Contempts and Enormities whatsoever which by any manner of Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be Reformed in any Usage Custom Foreign Laws Foreign Authority Prescription or any Thing or things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding If the King had this Power by virtue of his Supremacy and Prerogative Royal can we imagin H. 8. so weak a Prince and so little a valuer of his own Prerogative as to have that given him by Act of Parliament which was acknowledged to be in him before But the Words are express And that our Sovereign Lord c. shall have full Power and Authority from Time to Time to Visit c. From whence it follows That in the Judgment of H. 8. and the Parliament such a Power was not personally inherent in him but that it did belong to the Legislative Power and therefore an Act of Parliament was required for it so that the Supremacy as then setled by Law lay in a total rejecting any Foreign Jurisdiction
and governing this Church and Kingdom by our own Laws Which is well expressed in the Preamble to the Act against Appeals viz. That this Realm of England is an Empire governed by one Supreme Head and King having the Dignity and Royal Estate of the Imperial Crown of the same unto whom a Body Politick compact of all Sorts and Degrees of People divided in Terms and by Names of Spiritualty and Temporalty been bounden and ought to bear next to God a Natural and Humble Obedience By virtue of this Act Cromwel was made Vicegerent and Vicar General for both are in the same Commission and the King gave to him omnem omnimodam Jurisdictionem Authoritatem sive Potestatem Ecclesiasticam quae nobis tanquam supremo Capiti hujusmodi competit c. which are the Words of his Commission It 's true That the Power of granting a Commission to exercise this Power is not expressed in the Act of Parliament but it being vested in the King by the Act he might appoint One or more Commissioners to do it in his name but the Case is very different where that very Power of Delegation is taken away by Act of Parliament for that is the present Case To make this clear we must consider the Words of this Act and compare them with 1 Eliz. 1. the 17 Car. 1. 12. and the present Commission The Words 26 H. 8. 1. are the same in effect with those 1 Eliz. 1. But with this observable Difference That whereas the Statute of H. 8. gives the King his Heirs and Successors full Power and Authority from Time to Time to Visit c. That of 1 Eliz. 1. unites the Jurisdiction to the Imperial Crown of this Realm but then it doth not proceed as the other did To give full Power and Authority to her her Heirs and Successors to visit c. but the Words are And that your Highness your Heirs and Successors Kings or Queens of this Realm shall have full Power and Authority by this Act by Letters Patents under the Great Seal of England to Assign Name and Authorise when and as often as your Highness your Heirs and Successors shall think meet to Exercise Use Occupy and Execute under your Highness your Heirs and Successors all manner of Jurisdictions Priviledges and Preheminences in any wise touching or concerning any Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction c. so that the Administration of this Extraordinary Jurisdiction is by this Act limited to such who are nominated and appointed by the Letters Patents The Fountain of all Jurisdiction is acknowledged to be in the Imperial Crown of this Realm but the Administration is twofold Ordinary in the Archbishops Bishops and Ecclesiastical Courts and to secure their Dependance on the Crown the Oath of Supremacy is required by this Act to be taken by every Archbishop Bishop and all Ecclesiastical Persons and Officers But besides this it was then thought fit That there should be an Extraordinary Administration of it which is limited by this Act to such as should be nominated and appointed in Letters Patents c. and no other Reason can be given of the Change from what it was in the Time of Henry the Eighth for it is not now placed absolutely as then in the Queen her Heirs and Successors but the Jurisdiction is annexed to the Crown and the Extraordinary Administration to be by Commission under the Broad Seal Now since this Power of nominating Commissioners for Extraordinary Jurisdictions is taken away by Act of Parliament the only Question is Whether notwithstanding the Right of Jurisdiction being still in the Crown a new Commission may not be granted for Extraordinary Jurisdiction There had been no Question in this Case if the Administration of Extraordinary Jurisdiction had not been setled 1 Eliz. 1. to be by Commission and that very Power of granting such a Commission had not been taken away by Act of Parliament But as the Matter now stands the only Pretence left for it is That the same Act which confirms the Repeal hath a Salvo for the King's Supremay in these Words Provided always That this Act shall not extend or be construed to extend to abridg or diminish the King's Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Matters or Affairs If these Words be taken strictly with Respect to the same Matter they make the Act inconsistent with it self For then the meaning would be The King's Supremacy shall not extend to the setting up such a Court always provided that his Supremacy notwithstanding this Act may extend to the setting up such another Court. Is it consistent with the Wisdom of a Parliament to make such delusory Acts Therefore we must understand the King's Supremacy in other Matters And there was this Reason for it All the Acts of Parliament touching the Supremacy in Henry the Eighth's Time were repealed by Queen Mary and the Restoring the Supremacy to the Crown was by the same Act which set up the High Commission and therefore when part of that Act was Repealed and that Repeal confirmed it was fitting to add a Clause That there was no intention to abridg or diminish the Supremacy setled by Law especially since by that Act the Ordinary Jurisdiction of the Bishops in their Courts was revived And it is very well known what Clamors had been made As though the Bishops Courts being held in their own Names were inconsistent with the King's Supremacy and although the Judges had declared July the first 1637. That there was no necessity that Processes Ecclesiastical should be in the King's Name and the King August the eighteenth in 13 Car. 1. published a Proclamation to that purpose Yet all this did not satisfie some but the Bishops were still thought by them in their Ordinary Jurisdiction to usurp upon the King's Supremacy and to abridg and diminish it therefore when this Act passed to revive their Jurisdiction it was no more than reasonable to add such a Clause to prevent Misconstruction viz. That this Act nor any thing in it be construed to extend to abridg or diminish the King's Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Matters as the Ordinary Jurisdiction of the Bishops had been thought to do And the Vindicator of the Ecclesiastical Commission could not forbear a Marginal Note to that purpose The Court held by his Majesties Ecclesiastical Commissioners is more legal than the Bishops Courts This is in the Kings Name theirs in their own Name only As though the new setting up a Court forbidden by Law did not make it illegal in whose Name soever it were and as though Courts expresly owned and allowed by Law were illegal meerly because the Forms of their Proceedings do not run in the Kings Name But I desire him to take an Answer from his own Oracle the L. Ch. J. Coke Now albeit the Proceedings and Process in the Ecclesiastical Courts be in the Name of the Bishops c. it followeth not therefore that either the Court is not the Kings or the Law whereby they proceed
Bracton observes several things which are material to this purpose 1. The first General Exception which is allowed he saith is contra Jurisdictionem Exceptions are either dilatory or Peremptory Some that are only dilatory as to the Action may be peremptory as to the Jurisdicton And these are to be put in ante Litem contestatam ad perimendum Judicium ne procedat And the first of this sort are the Exceptions contra Jurisdictionem contra Personas Judicantium quibus deficit Autoritas judicandi So that he supposes that such who do not deny the Kings Supreme Authority may have a Legal and just Exception against the Authority of a Court. 2. It was an allowable Exceptio Fori then if any Lay-Persons did take upon them to proceed by Ecclesiastical Censures In Ecclesiastical Causes saith he a Secular Judge hath no Cognizance because he hath not the Power of Coercion proper to them viz. by Ecclesiastical Censures therefore he saith in his Causis pertinet Cognitio ad Judices Ecclesiasticos His Reason is Because those only are the competent Judges who have the Power of Coercion proper to the Court. And for the same Cause Ecclesiastical Judges are not to interpose in Secular Causes cum jura sint separata limitata And although the Exemption of Ecclesiastical Persons from the Civil Courts be certainly taken away by the Acts of Supremacy yet it hath been still alledged by our Divines That the Ecclesiastical Censures were still reserved to the Ecclesiastical Functions either in the way of Ordinary or Delegate Jurisdiction If the High Commission did seem to go further then that Power being taken away by Act of Parliament it must return to the Ancient Course 3. There must be a Legal Authority to constitute a Legal Jurisdiction Ad hoc quod rata sint judicia videre oportet a◠Justic. Warrantum habeat à Rege quod judicare possit Si Warrantum non habuerit non valebit quod coram eo actum fuerit quasi coram non suo judice quia primo legi debet Breve Originale postmodum Breve per quod Justiciar constitutus est si nullum omnino habuerit aut si habuerit non tamen ad manum non erit ei parendum nisi it a forte sit quod Breve Originale de Justiciaria sua faciat mentionem Bracton l. 5. De Except c. 14. 1. There must be a Commission from the King which must be read and if either they have it not or it be not at hand the Jurisdiction is not to be owned unless it be mentioned in the Original Writ For Commissions in those days were most commonly granted by Writ saith the Lord Coke But by Bracton's Words it appears That commonly there was an Original Writ and a Commission besides but sometime the Commission was in the Original Writ and then the reading of that was sufficient The Mirror saith That the Jurisdiction may be denied if the seeing or hearing the Commission be denied 2. The Bounds of the Jurisdiction must be expressed and if those be exceeded he saith an Exception lies Which signifies nothing unless the Commission be known 3. The Commission must be according to Law For that is Bracton's standing Rule Nihil aliud potest Rex in Terris cum sit Dei Minister Vicarius nisi id solum quod Jure potest So that a Commission against Law is void in Law. He mentions the Common Saying in the Civil Law Quod Principi placet Legis habet Vigorem and answers it thus Quod Principi placet is not to be understood of his Presumptive but his Legislative Will Animo condendi Jura and with the Advice of his Magistrates the King himself giving Authority which is the Description of an Act of Parliament as we now call it Which he more fully expresses elsewhere Legis vigorem habet quicquid de Consilio de Consensu Magnatum Reipublicae Communi sponsione Authoritate Regis sive Principis praecedente juste fuerit Definitum Approbatum If this were the Ancient Law of England how comes the Exception against a Court to be a Denial of the King's Supremacy unless it be supposed impossible That there should be an Illegal Court with the King's Commission But we may suppose it possible for a new kind of Star-Chamber or Court of Wards to be set up must no Man question the Legality of such a Court without denying the King's Authority For this is a Question in Point of Law. And the King's Authority always goes with the Law and therefore to suppose it to be in any thing against Law is to suppose it to be contradictory to it self But our Author saith It is necessary for every Court to assert its own Jurisdiction Very true and to clear it too if it be liable to a just Exception I am very far from denying the King's Supremacy yet I may be as far from thinking such a Court to be Legal if an Act of Parliament can make a Court Illegal and to say no more for it but that every Court must assert its own Jurisdiction is to level it with the Infamous High Court of Justice which when King Charles the First of Blessed Memory denied their Authority all the Reply was That the Court was satisfied of its own Authority Which could give Satisfaction to no Body else And if this be all can be said for the Legality of it for all that I can see there is just Reason to deny it FINIS A Catalogue of Books Published by the Reverend EDWARD STILLINGFLEET D. D. Dean of St. Paul 's and Sold by Henry Mortlack at the Phoenix in St. Paul 's Church-yard A Rational Account of the Grounds of the Protestant Religion being a Vindication of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury's Relation of a Conference c. from the pretended Answer of T. C. Wherein the true Grounds of Faith are cleared and the False discovered the Church of England vindicated from the Imputation of Schism of the most important particular Controversies between us and those of the Church of Rome throughly examined the Second Edition Folio Sermons Preached upon several Occasions with a Discourse annexed concerning the true Reasons of the Sufferings of Christ wherein Crellius his Answer to Grotius is considered Folio Origines Britannicae Or the Antiquities of the British Churches with a Preface concerning some pretended Antiquities relating to Britain in vindication of the Bishop of St. Asaph By Edward Stillingfleet D. D. Dean of St. Pauls Folio Irenicum A Weapon-Salve for the Churches Wounds Quarto Origines Sacrae or A Rational Account of the Grounds of Christian Faith as to the Truth and Divine Authority of the Scriptures and Matters therein contained Quarto The Unreasonableness of Separation or an impartial Account of the History Nature and Pleas of the present Separation from the Communion of the Church of England to which several late Letters are annexed of eminent Protestant