Fellows and Equals All this great noise and clamour against the pride of the Bishops upon this score proceedeth as I said meerly from the ignorance of the true original cause and ground of that innocent and ancient usage and therefore cannot signify much to any reasonable and considering man when that ground is discovered which is this viz. that every Bishop is in construction of our Laws a Corporation For although the Bishop of himselfe and in his private and personal capacity be but a single person as other men are and accordingly in his letters concerning his own particular affairs and in all other his actings upon his own occasions and as a private person writeth of himselfe in the singular number as other private men do yet for as much as in his publike and politick capacity and as a Bishop in the Church of England he standeth in the eye of the Law as a Corporation the King not only alloweth him acting in that capacity to write of himselfe in the plural number but in all writs directed to him as Bishop as in Presentations and the like bespeaketh him in the plural number Vestrae Diocesis vobis praesentamus c. The Bishop then being a Corporation and that by the Kings authority as all other Corporations whether Simple or Aggregate whether by Charter or Prescription are it is meet he should hold his Courts and proceed therein in the same manner and form where there is no apparent reason to the contrary as other Corporations do And therefore as it would be a high presumption for the Chancellour and Scholars of one of the Universities being a Corporation to whom the King by his Charter hath granted a Court or for the Major and Aldermen of a City for the same reason to issue Writs or do other acts in their Courts in the Kings name not having any authority from the King or his grant or from the Laws and Customs of England so to do so doubtless it would for the same reason be esteemed a presumption no less intolerable for the Bishops to use the Kings name in their processes and judicial acts not having any sufficient legal warrant or authority for so doing IX Which if it were duly considered would induce any reasonable man to beleive and confesse that this manner of proceeding in their own names used by the Bishops in their Courts is so far from trenching upon the Regal power and authority which is the crime charged upon it by the Objectors that the contrary usage unless it were enjoyned by some Law of the Land as it was in the Raign of King Edward the Sixth might far more justly be charged therewithal For the true reason of using the Kings name in any Court is not thereby to acknowledge the emanation of the power or jurisdiction of that Court from or the subordination of that power unto the Kings power or authority as the Objectors seeme to suppose but rather to shew the same Court to be one of the Kings own immediate Courts wherein the King himselfe is supposed in the construction of the Law either by his personal or virtual power to be present And the not using of the Kings name in other Courts doth not infer as if the Iudges of the said Courts did not act by the Kings authority for who can imagine that they who hold a Court by virtue of the Kings grant only should pretend to act by any other then his authority but only that they are no immediate representatives of the Kings person in such their jurisdiction nor have consequently any allowance from him to use his name in the exercise or execution thereof X. Secondly there is another observable difference in this point between the Kings Common-law-Courts such as are most of those afore-mentioned and those Courts that proceed according to the way of the Civil Law If the King appoint a Constable or Earle-Marshal or Admiral of England for as much as all tryals in the Marshals Court commonly called the Court of Honour and in the Admiralty are according to the Civil Law all Processes therefore Sentences and Acts in those Courts go in the names of the Constable Earle-Marshal or Admiral and not in the Kings name Which manner of proceeding constantly used in those Courts sith no man hitherto hath been found to interpret as any diminution at all or dis-acknowledgement of the Kings Soveraignty over the said Courts it were not possible the same manner of proceeding in the Ecclesiastical Courts should be so confidently charged with so heinous a crime did not the intervention of some wicked lust or other prevail with men of corrupt minds to become partial judges of evil thoughts Especially considering that XI Thirdly there is yet a more special and peculiar reason to be given in the behalf of the Bishops for not using the Kings name in their Processes c. in the Ecclesiastical Courts then can be given for the Iudges of any other the above-mentioned Courts either of the Common or Civil Laws in the said respect arising as hath been already in part touched from the different nature of their several respective Iurisdictions Which is that the summons and other proceedings and acts in the Ecclesiastical Courts are for the most part in order to the Ecclesiastical censures and sentences of Excommunication c. The passing of which sentences and other of like kind being a part of the power of the Keyes which our Lord Iesus Christ thought fit to leave in the hands of his Apostles and their Successors and not in the hands of Lay-men the Kings of England never challenged to belong unto themselves but left the exercise of that Power entirely to the Bishops as the lawful Successors of the Apostles and inheritours of their Power The regulating and ordering of that power in sundry circumstances concerning the outward exercise thereof in foro externo the godly Kings of England have thought to belong unto them as in the right of their Crown and have accordingly made Laws concerning the same even as they have done also concerning other matters appertaining to Religion and the worship of God But the substance of that power and the function thereof as they saw it to be altogether improper to their office and calling so they never pretended or laid claim thereunto But on the contrary when by occasion of the title of Supream Head c. assumed by King Henry the Eighth they were charged by the Papists for challenging to themselves such power and authority spiritual they constantly and openly disavowed it to the whole world renouncing all claim to any such power or authority As is manifest not onely from the allowed writings of many godly Bishops eminent for their learning in their several respective times in vindication of the Church of England from that calumny of the Papists as Archbishop Whitgift Bishop Bilson Bishop Andrews Bishop Carleton and others but also by the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth and the admonition prefixed thereunto
the exercise thereof but even in the very substance of the Power it selfe as namely that of external jurisdiction coercive are by the Laws declared and by the Clergy acknowledged to be wholly and entirely derived from the King as the sole fountain of all authority of external Iurisdiction whether Spiritual or Temporal within the Realm and consequently not of divine right Other-some although the substance of the power it self be immediately from God and not from the King as those of Preaching Ordaining Absolving c. Yet are they so subject to be inhibited limited or otherwise regulated in the outward exercise of that power by the Laws and Customes of the Land as that the whole execution thereof still dependeth upon the Regal Authority And how can the gross of that Power be prejudicial to the King or his Supremacy whereof all the parts are confessed either to be derived from him or not to be executed without him XIII Fifthly that if Episcopacy must be therefore concluded to be repugnant to Monarchy because it claimeth to be of divine Right then must Monarchs either suffer within their dominions no form of Church-government at all and then will Church and with it Religion soon fall to the ground or else they must devise some new model of Government such as never was yet used or challenged in any part of the Christian world since no form of Government ever yet used or challenged but hath claimed to a Ius divinum as well as Episcopacy yea I may say truly every one of them with far more noise though with far less reason then Episcopacy hath done And therefore of what party soever the objectors are Papists Presbyterians or Independents they shew themselves extreamly Partial against the honest Regular Protestant in condemning him as an enemy to Regal Power for holding that in his way which if it be justly chargeable with such a crime themselves holding the very same in their several wayes are every whit as deeply guilty of as he XIIII Lastly that this their partiality is by so much the more inexcusable by how much the true English Protestant for his government not onely hath a better title to a Ius divinum then any of the other three have for theirs but also pleadeth the same with more caution and modesty then any of them do Which of the four Pretenders hath the best title is no part of the business we are now about The tryal of that will rest upon the strength of the arguments that are brought to maintain it wherein the Presbyterians perhaps will not find any very great advantage beyond the rest of those that contest for it But let the right be where it will be we will for the present suppose them all to have equal title and thus far indeed they are equal that every one taketh his own to be best and it shall suffice to shew that the Ius Divinum is pleaded by the Episcopal party with more calmeness and moderation and with less derogation from Regal Dignity then by any other of the three XV. For First the rest when they spake of Ius Divinum in reference to their several waves of Church-Government take it in the highest elevation in the first and strictest sense The Papist groundeth the Popes Oecumenical Supremacy upon Christs command to Peter to execute it and to all the Flock of Christ Princes also as well as others to submit to him as their universal Pastor The Presbyterian cryeth up his Model of Government and Discipline though minted in the last by-gon Century as the very scepter of Christs Kingdome whereunto all Kings are bound to submit theirs making it as unalterable and inevitably necessary to the being of a Church as the Word and Sacraments are The Independent Separatist also upon that grand principle of Puritanisme common to him with the Presbyterian the very root of almost all the Sects in the world viz That nothing is to be ordered in Church-matters other or otherwise then Christ hath appointed in his Word holdeth that any company of people gathered together by mutual consent in a Church-way is Iure Divino free and absolute within it self to govern it self by such rules as it shall judge agreeable to Gods Word without dependence upon any but Christ Iesus alone or subjection to any Prince Prelate or other humane person or Consistory whatsoever All these you see do not onely claim to a Ius Divinum and that of a very high nature but in setting down their opinions weave in some expresses tending to the diminution of the Ecclesiastical Supremacy of Princes Whereas the Episcopal Party neither meddle with the power of Princes nor are ordinarily very forward to press the Ius Divinum but rather purposely decline the mentioning of it as a term subject to misconstruction as hath been said or else so interpret it as not of necessity to import any more then an Apostolical institution Yet the Apostles authority in that institution being warranted by the example and as they doubt not the direction of their Master Iesus Christ they worthily esteem to be so reverend and obligatory as that they would not for a world have any hand in or willingly and deliberately contribute the least assistance towards much less bind themselves by solemn League and Covenant to endeavour the extirpation of that Government but rather on the contrary hold themselves in their consciences obliged to the uttermost of their powers to endeavour the preservation and continuance thereof in these Churches and do heartily wish the restitution and establishment of the same wheresoever it is not or wheresoever it hath been heretofore under any whatsoever pretence unhappily laid aside or abolished XVI Secondly the rest not by remote inferences but by immediate and natural deduction out of their own acknowledged principles do some way or other deny the Kings Supremacy in matters Ecclesiastical either claiming a power of Iurisdiction over him or pleading a priviledge of Exemption from under him The Papists do it both wayes in their several doctrines of the Popes Supremacy and of the Exemption of the Clergy The Puritances of both sorts who think they have sufficiently confuted every thing they have a mind to mislike if they have once pronounced it Popish and Antichristian do yet herein as in very many other things and some of them of the most dangerous consequence symbolize with the Papists and after a sort divide that branch of Antichristianisme wholly between them The Presbyterians claiming to their Consistories as full and absolute spiritual Iurisdiction over Princes with power even to excommunicate them if they shall see cause for it as the Papists challenge to belong to the Pope And the Independents exempting their Congregations from all spiritual subjection to them in as ample manner as the Papists do their Clergy Whereas the English Protestant Bishops and Regular Clergy as becometh good Christians and good Subjects do neither pretend to any Iurisdiction over the Kings of England nor withdraw
firmiter inhibendo quod sicut Baronias suas quas de Rege tenent diligunt nullo modo praesumant concilium tenere de aliquibus quae ad Coronam pertinent vel quae personam Regis vel Statum suum vel Statum concilii sui contingunt scituri pro certo quod si fecerint Rex inde capiet se ad Baronias suas c. By which Record together with other the premisses it may appear that the Kings by their Ancient right of Prerogative had sundry wayes power over the Bishops whereby to keep them in obedience and to secure their Supremacy from all peril of being prejudiced by the exercise of Episcopal Iurisdiction XXXV Yet in order to the utter abolishing of the Papal usurpations and of all pretended forraign power whatsoever in matters Ecclesiastical within these Realms divers Statutes have been made in the Raign of King Henry the Eighth and since for the further declaring and confirming of the Kings Supremacy Ecclesiastical Wherein the acknowledgement of that Supremacy is either so expresly contained or so abundantly provided for as that there can be no fear it should suffer for lack of further acknowledgement to be made by the Bishops in the style of their Courts Amongst other First by Statute made 25. H. 8. 19. upon the submission and petition of the Clergy it was enacted that no Canons or Constitutions should be made by the Clergy in their Convocation without the Kings licence first had in that behalfe and his royal assent after and likewise that no Canon c. should be put in execution within the Realm that should be contrariant or repugnant to the Kings Prerogative Royal or the Customes Lawes or Statutes of the Realm Then Secondly by the Statute of 1. Eliz. cap. 1. all such Ecclesiastical Iurisdictions Priviledges Superiorities and Pre-eminences as had been exercised or used or might be lawfully exercised or used by any Ecclesiastical power or authority was declared to be for ever united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm And Thirdly it was also in the same Statute provided that the Oath of Supremacy wherein there is contained as full an acknowledgement of the Kings Ecclesiastical Suprenacy as the wit of man can devise should be taken by every Archbishop and Bishop c. which hath been ever since duely and accordingly performed XXXVI Lastly from receiving any prejudice by the Bishops and their Iurisdiction the Regal power is yet farther secured by the subordination of the Ecclesiastical Laws and Courts to the Common Law of England and to the Kings own immediate Courts For although the Ecclesiastical Laws be allowed by the Laws of this Realm and the proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts be by the way of the Civil and not of the Common Law yet are those Laws and proceedings allowed with this limitation and condition that nothing be done against the Common Law whereof the Kings prerogative is a principal part nor against the Statutes and Customes of the Realm And therefore the Law alloweth Appeales to be made from the Ecclesiastical Courts to the King in Chancery and in sundry cases where a cause dependeth before a Spiritual Iudge the Kings prohibition lyeth to remove it into one of his Temporal Courts XXXVII Having so many several ties upon the Bishops to secure themselves and their Regal authority from all danger that might arise from the abuse of the Ecclesiastical Power and Iurisdiction exercised by the Bishops in their Courts by the ancient prerogative of their Crown by the provisions of so many Statutes and Oaths by the remedy of the Common Law the Kings of England had no cause to be so needlesly cautelous as to be afraid of a meere formality the Style of a Court. Especially considering the importance of the two Reasons expressed in the Statute of King Edward as the onely grounds of altering that Style not to be such as would countervaile the Inconvenience and Scandal that might ensue thereupon XXXVIII For whereas it was then thought convenient to change the Style used in the Ecclesiastical Courts because it was contrary to the form used in the Common-Law-Courts within this Realm which is one of the Reasons in the said Statute expressed it might very well upon further consideration be afterwards thought more convenient for the like reason to retain the accustomed Style because otherwise the forme of the Ecclesiastical Courts would be contrary to the form of other Civil-Law-Courts within the Realm as the Admiralty and Earle-Marshals Court and of other Courts of the Kings grant made unto Corporations with either of which the Ecclesiastical Courts had a nearer affinity then with the Kings Courts of Record or other his own immediate Courts of Common Law Nor doth there yet appear any valuable reason of difference why Inconformity to the Common Law-Courts should be thought a sufficient ground for the altering of the forms used in the Ecclesiastical Courts and yet the like forms used in the Admiralty in the Earle-Marshals Court in Courts Baron in Corporation-Courts c. should notwithstanding the same inconformity continue as they had been formerly accustomed without alteration XXXIX If any shall alledge as some reason of such difference the other Reason given in the said Statute viz. that the form and manner used by the Bishops was such as was used in the time of the usurped power of the Bishop of Rome besides that therein is no difference at all for the like forms in those other aforesaid Courts were also in use in the same time there is further given thereby great occasion of Scandal to those of the Church of Rome And that two wayes First as it is made a Reason at all and Secondly as it is applyed to the particular now in hand First whereas the Papists unjustly charge the Protestant Churches with Schism for departing from their Communion it could not but be a great Scandal to them to confirm them in that their uncharitable opinion of us if we should utterly condemn any thing as unlawful or but even forbid the use of it as inexpedient upon this onely grouud or consideration that the same had been used in the times of Popery or that it had been abused by the Papists And truly the Puritanes have by this very means given a wonderful Scandal and advantage to our Adversaries which they ought to acknowledge and repent of when transported with an indiscreet zeal they have cryed down sundry harmeless Ceremonies and customes as superstitious and Antichristian onely for this that Papists use them Whereas godly and regular Protestants think it agreeable to Christian liberty charity and prudence that in appointing Ceremonies retaining ancient Customes and the use of all other indifferent things such course be held as that their moderation might be known to all men and that it might appear to their very Adversaries that wherein they did receed from them or any thing practised by them they were not thereunto carried by a Spirit of contradiction but either cast
the Objectors and then endeavour by a clear and satisfactory answer to discover the weakness and vanity of them both III. The former objection Whereas in the Oath of Supremacy the supreme power Ecclesistical is acknowledged to be in the King alone and by the Statute of 1. Eliz. All jurisdictions and preeminencies Spiritual and Ecclesiastical within the Realm of England are restored to the Crown as the ancient right thereof and forever united and annexed thereunto the Bishops claiming their power and jurisdiction to belong unto them as of divine right seemeth to be a manifest violation of the said Oath and Statute and a real diminution of the Regal power in and by the said Oath and Statute acknowledged and confirmed For whatsoever power is of divine right is immediatly derived from God and dependeth not upon any earthly King or Potentate whatsoever as superiour thereunto These two tearms to be from Heaven and to be of Men being used in the Scriptures as terms opposite and inconsistent and such as cannot be both truly affirmed of the same thing IV. The latter objection Setting aside the dispute of jus divinum and whatsoever might be said either for or against the same the very exercising of Episcopal jurisdiction in such a manner as it was with us the Bishops issuing out their Summens giving Censures and acting every other thing in the Ecclesiastical Courts in their own and not in the Kings name seemeth to derogate very much from the Regal power in the point of Ecclesiastical Soveraignty For whereas the Judges in the Kings Bench Common Plees and other Common-Law-Courts do issue out their Writts and make all their Iudgments Orders Decrees c. in the Kings name thereby acknowledging both their Power to be depending upon and derived from the Kings authority and themselves in the exercise of that Power to be but his Ministers sent and authorzied by him and so give him the just honour of his Supremacy temporal The Bishops on the other side exercise a spiritual power or jurisdiction in their own names and as it were by their own authority without any the least acknowledgment of the effluxe or emanation of that power or jurisdiction from the King Which custome as it had undoubtedly its first rise and after-growth from the exorbitant greatness of the Bishops of Rome who have usurped an unjust authority as well over Kings and Princes as over their Fellow-Bishops laboured all they could to lessen the authority of Kings especially in matters Ecclesiastical so is the continuance thereof no otherwise to be esteemed then as a rag or relique of that Anti-Christian tyranny which was retained as some other things also of evil consequence were in those imperfect beginnings of Reformation when the Popes power was first abrogated under King Henry the Eighth But it was afterwards in a more mature and perfect reformation taken in to consideration in the Raign of King Edward the Sixth and remedy provided there-against by an Act of Parliament made in the first year of his Raign Wherein it was enacted that all Summons Citations and other Processes Ecclesiastical should be made in the Kings name and with the style of the King as it is in Writts original and judicial at the Common Laws and that the Teste thereof only should be in the name of the Bishop V. It is true indeed that this Statute of King Edward was within a few years after repealed and so the old usage and form again restored primo Mariae and hath ever since so continued during the Raigns of the said Queen of Queen Elizabeth of K. Iames and of his Majesty that now is until this present Parliament without any alteration or interruption But the repealing of the Statute of primo Edw. 6. and the reception of the former usage insuing thereupon ought not to be alleaged by the Bishops or to sway with any Protestant inasmuch as that repeal was made by Queen Mary who was a professed Papist and who together with that form of proceeding in the Ecclesiastical Courts restored also the whole Popish Religion whereof that was a branch Neither ought the un-interrupted continuance of the said form under Queen Elizabeth and the succeeding Kings whether it happened through inadvertency in the State or through the incessant artifices and practises of the more active Bishops some or other whereof had alwayes a prevalent power with those Princes in their several Raigns to hinder but that as the said manner of proceeding was in the said first year of Edward 6. by the King and the three Estates in Parliament adjudged to favour the usurped power of the Bishops of Rome and to trench upon the Kings just and acknowledged authority in matters Ecclesiastical as by the preamble of the said Act doth sufficiently appear so it ought to be still no otherwise esteemed then as a branch of the Papal usurpation highly derogatory to the honour of the King and the rights of his Crown This is as I conceive the sum of all that hath been and the utmost of what I suppose can be said in this matter THE II. SECTION In answer to the former Objection I. WHereunto I make answer as followeth To the former Objection I say first that it is evidently of no force at all against those Divines who for the maintenance of Episcopacy lay their claim under another notion and not under that of Ius Divinum Which expression for that it is by reason of the ambiguity thereof subject to be mistaken and that captious men are so willing to mistake it for their own advantage might peradventure without loss of Truth or prejudice to the Cause bâ— with as much prudence laid aside aâ— used as in this so in sundry other disputes and controversies of these Times II. If it shall be replyed that then belike the Proctors for Episcopacy are not yet well agreed among themselves by what title they hold and that is a shrewd prejudice against them that they have no good title For it is ever supposed he that hath a good title knoweth what it is and we are to presume the power to be usurped when he that useth it cannot well tell how he came by it I say therefore secondly that the difference between the Advocates for Episcopacy is rather in the different manner of expressing the same thing then in their different judgement upon the substance of the matter The one sort making choise of an expression which he knoweth he is able to make good against all gainsayers if they will but understand him aright the other out of wariness or condescension forbearing an expression no necessity requiring the use of it which he seeth to have been subject to so much mis-construction III. For the truth is all this ado about Ius divinum is in the last result no more then a meer verbal nicety that term being not alwayes taken in one and the same latitude of signification Sometimes it importeth a divine precept which is indeed
their subjection from them but acknowledge them to have Soveraign Power over them as well as over their other subjects and that in all matters Ecclesiastical as well as Temporal By all which it is clear that the Ius Divinum of Episcopacy as it is maintained by those they call stylo novo the Prelatical party in England is not an opinion of so dangerous a nature nor so derogatory to the Regal Powers as the Adversaries thereof would make the world believe it is but that rather of all the forms of Church-government that ever yet were endeavoured to be brought into the Churches of Christ it is the most innocent in that behalf THE III. SECTION In Answer to the later Objection 1. HAving thus cleared the Opinion held concerning Episcopacy in the Church of England from the crime unjustly charged upon it by the Adversaries but whereof in truth themselves are deeply guilty in their former Objection our next business will be the easier to justifie it in the Practise also from the like charge laid against it in the later Objection by shewing that the Iurisdiction exercised by the Bishops within this Realm and namely in that particular which the Objectors urge with most vehemency of acting so many things in their own names is no way derogatory to the Kings Majesties Power or Honour Wherein it were enough for the satisfaction of every understanding man without descending to any farther particularities to shew the impertinency of the Objectors from these two general Considerations II. First that the Bishops have exercised no Iurisdiction in foro externo within this Realm but such as hath been granted unto them by the successive Kings of England neither have challenged any such Iurisdiction to belong unto them by any inherent right or title in their persons or Callings but onely by emanation and derivation from the Royal Authority The very words of the Statute primo Edw. 6. in the objection mentioned run thus Seeing that all authority of jurisdiction Spiritual and Temporal is derived and deducted from the Kings Majesty as Supream head and so justly acknowledged by the Clergy of the said Realms and that all Courts Ecclesiastical be kept by no other power or authority either forraign or within the Realms but by the authority of his most Excellent Majesty c. Now the regular exercise of a Derived power is so far from destroying or any way diminishing that Original power from whence it is derived as that it rather confirmeth and establisheth the same Yea the further such derived power is extended and enlarged in the exercise thereof so as it be regular that is so long as it containeth it self within the bounds of its grant and exceedeth not the limits prefixed thereunto by that Original power that granted it the more it serveth to set forth the honour and greatness of that Original power since the vertue of the efficient Cause is best known by the greatness of the effect for propter quod unumquodque est tale illud ipsum est magis tale As the warmth of the room doth not lessen the heat of the fire upon the hearth but is rather a signe of the greatness of that heat nor doth the abundance of sap in the branches cause any abatement in the root but is rather an evident demonstration of the greater plenty there III. Secondly that it is one of the greatest follies in the world to endeavour in good earnest to maintain any thing by argument when we have the evidence of Sence or Experience to the contrary For what is it cum ratione insanire if this be not To deny fire to be hot or water to be moist or snow to be white when our sences enform us they are such Or to prove by argument that life may be perpetuated by the help of art and good dyet or that infants are capable of faith or instruction by ordinary means when Experience sheweth the contrary Now the Experience of above fourscore years ever since the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Raign doth make it most evident that the exercise of Episcopal Iurisdiction by the Protestant Bishops here was so far from diminishing the power or eclipsing the glory of the Crown that the Kings and Queens of England never enjoyed their Royal power in a fuller measure or flourished with greater lustre honour and prosperity then when the Bishops by their favour enjoyed the full liberty of their Courts jurisdictions honours and priviledges according to ancient grants of former Kings and the Lawes and Customes of England On the other side in what condition of power and honour otherwise then in the hearts of his oppressed Subjects our most pious and gracious Soveraign that now is hath stood and at this present standeth through the prevalency of the Smectymnuan Faction ever since they had the opportunity and forehead from lopping off as was at first pretended some luxuriant superfluities as they at least imagined them to be in the branches of Episcopal Jurisdiction as High Commission Oath ex officio c. to proceed to take away Episcopacy it self Root and Branch it were a happy thing for us if the lamentable Experience of these late Times would suffer us to be ignorant So as we now look upon that short Aphorisme so usual with his Majesties Royal Father NO BISHOP NO KING not as a sentence onely full of present truth when it was uttered but rather as a sad prophecy of future events since come to pass The miseries of these wasting divisions both in the Church and Common-wealth we cannot with any reason hope to see an end of until it shall please Almighty God in his infinite mercy to a sinful nation to restore them both King and Bishops to their Antient Just and Rightful power and in order thereunto graciously to hear the weak prayers of a small oppressed Party yet coming from loyal hearts and going not out of feigned lips beyond the loud crying Perjuries Sacriledges and Oppressions of those that now exercise an Arbitrary Soveraignty over their fellow Subjects without either Iustice or Mercy together with the abominable hypocrisie and disloyalty that hath so long raigned in them and their adherents IV. Those two general Considerations although they might as I said suffice to take away the force of the Objection without troubling our selves or the Reader with any farther answer thereunto yet that the Objectors may not have the least occasion given them to quarrel the proceedings as if we did purposely decline a just tryal we shall come up a little closer and examine more particularly every material point in the order as they lye in the Objection aforesaid And the Points are three 1. That the manner used by the Bishops in sending out their Summons c. in their own names is contrary to the form and order of other Courts 2. That such forms of Process seem to have at first proceeded from the Usurped power of the Bishops of Rome who laboured by all possible means to
bring down the Regal Power and set up their own 3. That upon these very grounds the custome was altered by Act of Parliament and a Statute made 1. Ewd. VI. howsoever since repealed and discontinued that all Processes Ecclesiastical should be made in the Kings name and not in the Bishops V. As to the first point true it is that the manner used by the Bishops in the Ecclesiastical Courts viz. in issuing out Summons Citations Processes giving Iudgments c. in their own names and not in the Kings is different from the manner used in the Kings Bench Exchequer Chancery and sundry other Courts But that difference neither doth of necessity import an independency of the Ecclesiastical Courts upon the King nor did in all probability arise at the beginning from the opinion of any such independency nor ought in reason to be construed as a disacknowledgement of the Kings authority and Supremacy Ecclesiastical For VI. First there is between such Courts as are the Kings own immediate Courts and such Courts as are not a great difference in this point Of the former sort are especially the Kings Bench and Chancery as also the Court of Common Pleas Exchequer Iustices of Goal-delivery c. In the Kings Bench the Kings themselves in former times have often personally sate whence it came to have the name of the Kings Bench neither was it tyed to any particular place but followed the Kings Person At this day also all Writs returnable there run in this style Coram nobis and not as in some other Courts coram Iustitiariis nostris or the like and all judicial Records there are styled and the Pleas there holden entred Coram Rege and not coram Iustitiariis Domini Regis Appeals also are made from inferiour Iudges in other Courts to the King in Chancery because in the construction of the Lawes the Kings Personal Power and Presence is supposed to be there and therefore Sub-poena's granted out of that Court and all matters of Record passed there run in the same style Coram Rege c. Forasmuch as in the Iudges in these two Courts there is a more immediate representation of the Kings Personal power and presence then in the Iudges of those other Courts of Common Pleas Exchequer c. Which yet by reason of his immediate virtual power and presence are the Kings immediate Courts too In regard of which his immediate virtual power although the style of the Writs and Records there be not Coram nobis Coram Rege as in the former but onely Coram Iustitiariis Coram Baronibus nostris c. yet inasmuch as the Iudges in those Courts are the Kings immediate sworn Ministers to execute justice and to do equal right to all the Kings people in his name therefore all Processes Pleas Acts and Iudgements are made and done in those Courts as well as in the two former in the Kings name But in such Courts as do not suppose any such immediate Representation or presence of the Kings either personal or virtual Power as that thereby they may be holden and taken to be the Kings own immediate Courts the case is far otherwise For neither are the Iudges in those Courts sworn the Kings Iudges to administer Justice and do right to the Kings subjects in his name and stead nor do they take upon them the authority to cite any person or to give any sentence or to do any act of Jurisdiction in the Kings name having never been by him authorized so to do Of this sort are amongst others best known to them that are skilled in the Laws of this Realm all Courts-Baron held by the Lord of a Manner Customary Courts of Copyholders c and such Courts as are held by the Kings grant by Charter to some Corporation as to a City Borough or Vniversity or els by long usage and prescription of time In all which Courts and if there be any other of like nature Summons are issued out and Iudgements given and all other Acts and Proceedings made and done in the name of such persons as have chief authority in the said Courts and not in the name of the King So as the styles run thus A. B. Major civitatis Ebor. N. M. Cancellarius Vniversitatis Oxon. and the like and not Carolus Dei gratia c. VII Upon this ground it is that our Lawyers tell us out of Bracton that in case of Bastardy to be certified by the Bishop no inferiour Court as London Yorke Norwich or any other Incorporation can write to the Bishop to require him to certify but any of the Kings Courts at Westminister as Common Pleas Kings Bench c. may write to him to certify in that case The reason is Because Nullus alius praeter Regem potest Episcopo demandare inquisitionem faciendam Which maketh it plain that the Kings immediate powe either personal or virtual is by the Law supposed to be present in Courts of the one sort not of the other the one sort being his own immediate Courts and the other not VIII Now that the Ecclesiastical Courts wherein the Bishops exercise their Jurisdiction are of the latter sort I doubt not but our Law-books will afford plenty of arguments to prove it beyond all possibility of contradiction or cavil Which being little versed in those studies I leave for them to find out who have leisure to search the books and do better understand the nature constitution differences and bounds of the several Courts within this Realm One argument there is very obvious to every understanding which because I shall have fit occasion a little after to declare I will not now any longer insist upon taken from the nature of the Iurisdiction of these Courts so far distant from the Iurisdiction appertaining to those other Courts that these are notoriously separated and in Common and vulgar speach distinguished from all other by the peculiar name and appellation of the Spiritual Courts But another Argument which those books have suggested I am the more willing here to produce for that it not only sufficiently proveth the matter now in hand but is also very needful to be better known abroad in the world then it is for the removing of a very unjust censure which meerly for want of the knowledge of the true cause hath been laid upon the Bishops in one particular to their great wrong and prejudice It hath been much talked on not only by the Common sort of people but by some persons also of better rank and understanding and imputed to the Bishops as an act of very high insolency that in their Processes Patents Commissions Licences and other Instruments whereunto their Episcopal Seale is affixed so oft as they have occasion to mention themselves the Style runneth ever more in the Plural number Nos G. Cantuar-Archiepiscopus Coram nobis Salvo nobis c. just as it doth in his Majesties Letters Patents and Commissions thereby shewing themselves say they as if they were his
other sorts of men because of their Religion and their abilities above all other men to defend it On the other side the Puritanes who envied their power and some great ones about the Court who having tasted the sweet of Sacriledge in the times of the two last Kings thirsted after the remainder of their Revenues complyed either with other for their several respective ends against the Bishops Which being so it had been the foolishest thing in the world for the Bishops to have used that power or interest they had with the Queen upon whose favour or displeasure their whole livelyhood depended for the procuring of her consent to any Act to be done in favour of them that malice it self could with any colourable construction interpret either to savour of Popery or to trench upon the Royal Supremacy That Queen having both by her sufferings before and actions after she came to the Crown sufficiently witnessed to the world her averseness from Popery and being withall a Princess of a great Spirit and particularly jealous in the point of Prerogative XXIX Whence I think we may with good reason conclude that the ancient custome of the Bishops in making Summons c. in their own names after it was by the Act of Repeal 1. Mar. restored was continued by Queen Elizabeth and her successours ever since without interruption or reviving of the Statute of King Edward neither out of any inadvertency in the State nor through any importune or indirect labouring of the Bishops as by the Objectors is weakly presumed but advisedly and upon important considerations viz. that the devising of such a new way as is set forth and appointed in the said Statute was not only a needless thing and Laws should not be either made or altered but where it is needful so to do but subject also to manifest both inconvenience and Scandal XXX That it was altogether needless to change the old Custome may appear by this that all the imaginable necessity or utility of such a change could be onely this To secure the King by using his Name in their Processes c. as a real acknowledgement that their Iurisdiction is derived from him and no other that the Bishops had no intention in the exercise of their Episcopal power to usurp upon his Ecclesiastical Supremacy Which Supremacy of the King and Superiority of his Jurisdiction Authority over that which the Bishops exercised being already by so many other wayes and means sufficiently secured it could argue nothing but an impertinent jealousie to endeavour to strengthen that security by an addition of so poor and inconsiderable regard XXXI The Kings of England are secured against all danger that may accrue to their Regal power from Episcopal Iurisdiction as it hath been anciently and of later times exercised in this Realm First by the extent of their Power over the persons and livelihoods of the Bishops and over the whole State Ecclesiastical as in the ancient right of the Crown which how great it was may appear by these three particulars XXXII First the Collation and Donation of Bishopricks together with the nomination of the persons to be made Bishops in case they did by their Writ of Conge d'eslier permit the formality of Election to others did alwayes belong to the Kings of this Realm both before and since the Conquest as in right of their Crown Our learned Lawyers assure us that all the Bishopricks of this Realm are of the Kings foundation that they were originally donative and not elective and that the full right of Investiture was in the King who signified his pleasure therein per traditionem baculi annuli by the delivery of a ring and a Crosier-staff to the person by him elected and nominated for that office The Popes indeed often assayed to make them elective either by the Dean and Canons of the Cathedral or by the Monkes of some principal Abbey adjoyning but the Kings still withstood it and maintained their right as far as they could or durst Insomuch as King Henry the First being earnestly sollicited by the Pope to grant the election of Bishops to the Clergy constanter allegavit saith the story and verbis minacibus he stoutly and with threats refused so to do saying he would not for the loss of his Kingdome lose the right of those Investitures It is true that King Iohn a Prince neither fortunate nor couragious being overpowred by the Popes did by Charter in the Seventeenth year of his Raign grant that the Bishopricks of England should be eligible But this notwithstanding in the Raign of King Edward the Third it was in open Parliament declared and enacted that to the King and his heirs did belong the collation of Archbishopricks c. and all other dignities that are of his Advowson and that the elections granted by the Kings his progenitors were under a certain form and condition viz. that they should ask leave of the King to elect and that after the election made they should obtain the Kings consent thereunto and not otherwise XXXIII Secondly the King hath power if he shall see cause to suspend any Bishop from the execution of his Office for so long time as he shall think good yea and to deprive him utterly of the dignity and office of a Bishop if he deserve it Which power was de facto exercised both by Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth in the beginning of their several Raigns upon such Bishops as would not conform to their Religion XXXIV Thirdly the Kings of England have a great power over the Bishops in respect of their Temporalties which they hold immediately of the King per Baroniam and which every Bishop Elect is to sue out of the Kings hands wherein they remained after the decease of the former Bishop during the Vacancy and thence to take his only restitution into the same making Oath and fealty to the King for the same upon his Consecration Yea and after such restitution of Temporalties and Consecration the King hath power to seize the same again into his own hands if he see just cause so to do Which the Kings of England in former times did so frequently practice upon any light displeasure conceived against the Bishops that it was presented as a grievance by the Arch-bishop of Canterbury and the other Prelates by way of request to King Edw. 3. in Parliament and thereupon a Statute was made the same Parliament that thenceforth no Bishops Temporalties should be seized by the King without good cause I finde cited by Sir Edward Coke out of the Parliament Rolls 18. H. 3. a Record wherein the King straightly chargeth the Bishops not to intermeddle in any thing to the prejudice of his Crown threatning them with seisure of their Temporalties if they should so do The words are Mandatum est omnibus Episcopis quae conventuri sunt apud Gloucestr ' the King having before summoned them by writ to a Parliament to be holden at Gloucester