Which any one may have recourse to in Spelm. Concil Eadmer Hist Mat. Paris and others In the beginning of King Henry the Second's Reign there was another Schism in the Popedom between Alexander and Victor upon which a great Council of Clergy and Laity out of the Kingdoms of England and France met to determine whether of the two should be acknowledged Pope within those Realms The matter was debated in Conspectu Regum Praesulum coram universâ quae convenerat multitudine Cleri Populi And Alexander was received for Pope and the Schismaticks Excommunicated The History is in Nubrig Lib. 2. c. 9. Pursuant to which President when there hapned in King Richard the Second's time to be another Schism in the Papacy and Act. of Parliament was made to declare who should be received Pope in England and a Law made for punishing any of the Clergy that should acknowledge the other Pope Vide Catt Records Ann. 2. Rich. 2. p. 180. What thing can be more purely Ecclesiastical than the determining who it lawfully chosen to be the Vniversal Bishop And yet neither the King nor the King and the Clergy would settle the point without the Laity By what has been said it appears That the Ancient Supremacy of the Kings of England in Ecclesiastical Matters was a very different thing not so much from what it is now by Law as from what it is apprehended to be by many amongst us The Error is fundamental and consists in ascribing Things Acts Powers c. to the King in person which belonged to were done and exercised by him no otherwise than in his Courts Appeals are said to have been to the King at Common Law And so an Abridgment of Law has it so Fox Rolls cap. 8. vid. Chron. Gerv. p. 1387. Speed and others And the Authority quoted is the Assize of Clarendon which in one Chapter directs that Appeals shall be from the Bishop to the Archbishop from the Archbishop to the King. But another Act of Parliament made about 12 years after clears the matter Sir Roger Twisden For in the mean time Becket was Murdered and King Henry the Second being put to hard Pennance for it part of his satisfaction was that he should agree not to hinder Appeals to Rome in Causes Ecclesiastical Mat. Paris p. 126. yet so as the party going was to give Security that he would not endeavour Malum Regis nec Regni But within Four Years after the Nation Assembled in Parliament would not quit their interest But the Assize of Clarendon was again renewed and a more close expression used concerning Appeals and such persons as had prosecuted any Justitiae faciant quaerere per consuetudinem terrae illos qui à Regno recesserunt nisi redire voluerint infra terminum nominatum stare Juri in Curiâ Domini Regis utlagentur c. This Gervas Dorobern who well understood it tells us was but renewing the Assize of Clarendon Rex Angliae Henricus convocatis Regni Primoribus apud Northamptoniam renovavit Assizam de Clarendon Here we see that such as were aggrieved by a Sentence given by the Archbishop were pursuant to the Statutes of Clarendon not to appeal to Rome but to the King Which the Statute of Northampton made but twelve years after explains to be to the Curia Regis By this and by what has been said before upon this Subject it appears that the ultimate Appeal in Causes Ecclesiastical as well as Temporal was to the Curia Regis or Parliament and that as the same Assemblies made Laws both for the Government of Church and State so the Supreme Judicature Ecclesiastical and Temporal was one and the same After that time Appeals were sometimes prosecuted in the Court of Rome that Statute and the Assize of Clarendon notwithstanding but this was only by connivance At last when the Pope got the better of King John who lay under great Disadvantages as all our Historians tell us and that in his Magna Charta these words were inserted V. Matth. Paris Pag. 258. Liceat unicuique de caetero exire de Regno nostro redire salvò securè per terram aquam salvâ fide nostra c. Then Appeals to Rome multiplyed for every little Cause and the Master-piece of Papal Encroachments was wrought effectually But it cannot be too often inculcated that the Laws of Clarendon which gave the ultimate Appeal to the Curia Regis as aforesaid are so often stiled the Avitae Consuetudines Regni Which shews sufficiently where the Supreme Judicature resided according to our old Constitution It appears by what has been said that King William the Conqueror was acknowledged to be God's Vicar appointed to govern his Church and yet that neither He nor his Successors pretended to make any Ecclesiastical Laws to bind the whole Kingdom but in a General Council of the Kingdom That the King's Supremacy was so far from being Personal that an Archbishop did as it were appeal from himself in Person to himself in Parliament and that the King submitted and owned the Jurisdiction That the same Archbishop understood the Law to be that the Assent of the Laity was necessary to the making of Ecclesiastical Laws by which they were to be bound That the King could not of his own Authority permit a Legate to exercise his Office within the Realm That leave to exercise his Office could not be given him but in Parliament That the King could not part with Investitures if he would without the Assent of the People That Parliaments determined who ought to be received as Pope within the Realm That Appeals were to the Curia Regis by the Avitae Consuetudines Regni And that Bishops were elected in Parliament Whence I conclude that a Personal Supremacy has no warrant from Antiquity The clearing the Antient Supremacy and stating the Matter aright is of great use in this present Age in which as one sort of Men over-stock us with Jure Divino's so the Lawyers accost us often with the Common Law and the King's Perogative at Common Law and that this and the other Act is but declarative of the Common Law and gives the King no new Power And yet as the Divines have little or no ground for their Jure Divine's no more have the Lawyers in these Matters of the Supremacy any thing to warrant their late Hyperbole's but Shadows and Imaginations They found a Power exercised by the Pope which they had good reason to think injurious to the Crown they had heard that from the beginning it was not so And thus far they were right But how it was exercised before the Court of Rome and the Clergy invaded it they had forgot it having been usurpt upon Four hundred years before they were born For it is in vain to look for a true Scheme of the Antient Legal Supremacy at a nearer distance than from the Reigns of King John King Richard the First King Henry the
have done notwithstanding his Newly restor'd Supremacy Sir Roger's 16th Particular is that Our Kings placed by a Lay hand Clerks in Prebendary or Parochial Churches Ordinariis penitus irrequisitis But if he had considered that Originally all Church livings in England were Donatives And that Presentations to Ordinaries Admissions Institutions and Inductions thereupon obtain'd in England in compliance with the Canons many years after the Conquest he would not have mentioned that as a special prerogative in the King which was but common to him with All his subjects that had been Founders and were Patrons of Benefices Mr Selden tells us in his History of Tythes cap. 12. sect 5. that it was not till about the year MCC that the Decretals and the Encreasing Authority of the Canons had settled the Vniversal course here of filling Churches by Presentation to the Bishop Archdeacon Vicar of the Bishop or Guardian of the Spiritualties and that then the use of Investitures of Churches and tythes severally or together practised by Lay-men was left off And a Division of secular and Ecclesiastical Right from thence been continued in practice And in the same Section pag. 392. he says that whilst the use of Lay-Investitures was in being all Churches so given were properly Donatives For further satisfaction as to that Particular I refer to him Sir Roger's seventeenth Particular is that Our Kings prohibited the Laity from yielding Obedience or answering by Oath to their Ecclesiastical Superior enquiring de peccatis subditorum This take out of the Additaments to Matth. Paris pag. 200. num 9. from whence Sir Roger quotes it Item cum Praelati Ecclesiastici inquirere volunt de peccatis subditorum prohibentur laici ne de veritate dicendâ aut de credulitate aliquod juramentum exponant aut Praelatis super hujusmodi obediant propter quod multorum excessus peccata mortalia incorrecta impunita relinquuntur sic praestatur audacia delinquendi peccandi facultas Now this was no other then protecting the Laity from being impos'd upon by the Oath ex officio And innumerable Authorities might be cited to prove that no kinds nor forms of Oaths can be made or imposed on the King's Subjects nor prescribed to them in any new cases but by Act of Parliament onely And that no Bishop or Subject whatsoever hath any power to make or enjoyn any new Oaths or forms of Oaths nor any Authority to administer an Oath to any Man without some Legal Commission from the King under the Great Seal or some Act of Parliament especially Authorizing him to give or take an Oath unless in Courts of Record or other Courts who have Authority to administer Oaths by Prescription But Anno Dom. 1237. Otho the Pope's Legate in a Council at London made this Constitution touching Oaths in Spiritual Causes in Ecclesiastical Courts till that time not known nor used in England as appears by the words of the Constitution Jusjurandum Calumniae in causis Ecclesiasticis quibuslibet de veritate dicenda in spiritualibus quoque ut Veritas aperiatur facilius causae celerius terminentur statuimus de caetero Praestari in Regno Angliae secundum canonicas Legitimas sanctiones Obtentâ in contrarium Consuetudine Non obstante vid. Matth. Paris 454. A clear resolution that till that time the custom of England and the Law of the Land was to the contrary and that they could not enforce any Man to his Oath in such cases After which Grosthead Bishop of Lincoln Anno 1246. Vpon the suggestion of the Fryers Predicant and Minorites raged more than was meet or Expedient they are the words of Matthew Paris against those of his Diocess making strict inquisition in his Bishoprick by his Arch-deacons and Deans concerning the Chastity and manners as well of noble as ignoble upon Oath to the enormous hurt and scandal of the reputations of many Quod nunquam antea fieri consueverat The King hearing the Grievous Complaints of his people Consilio Curiae suae scripsit Vicecomiti Hertfordiae in haec verba Henricus Dei Gratia Rex Angliae c. Praecipimus tibi quod sicut teipsum omnia tua diligis non permittas quod aliqui laici de Ballivâ tuâ ad voluntatem Episcopi Lincolniensis Achidiaconorum vel Officialium seu Decanorum Ruralium in aliquo loco Conveniant de caetero ad cognitiones per sacramentum eorum vel attestationes aliquas faciendas nisi in causis matrimonialibus Testamentariis Matth. Par. p. 716. And the very next year following in pursuance hereof the King by Parliament Enacted and Commanded That if any Lay-man were convented before any Ecclesiastical Judge for breach of Faith and Perjury that they should be prohibited by the King and that the Ecclesiastical Judge should be prohibited to hold plea for all Causes against Lay-men unless they were of Matrimony and Testament All which Matth. Paris precisely relates pag. 727. Which Prohibition and Statute nullified the Constitution of Otho and put a stop to this his innovation But yet about nine years after Boniface Arch-bishop of Canterbury published this peremptory Constitution in affront to them both Statuimus quod laici ubi de subditorum peccatis excessibus corrigendis per Praelatos Ecclesiasticos judices inquiritur ad praestandum de Veritate dicendâ juramentum per Excommunicationis sententias si opus fuerit Compellantur Impedientes vero ne hujusmodi juramenta praestentur for the Judges with many others then generally oppugned and hindred the ushering in of this Innovation per interdicti excommunicationis sententiam arceantur To evacuate which illegal Constitution trenching both upon the people's Liberties and the Courts of Justice too the Judges frequently Granted out sundry General Prohibitions to all or most of the Sheriffs of England as is evident by the Register of Writs Pars 2. fol. 36.43.50 Fitzherbert's Nat. Brev. fol. 41. A. Auxy home poit suer prohibition direct al Viscount que le Viscount ne permit ne suffer les lay subjects del Roy de vener a ascun lieu al citation del Evesque ad faciend aliquas recognitiones vel sacrament prestand nisi in causis matrimonialibus Testamentariis Rastal's Abridment of the statutes Title Prohibit nu 5. Vpon which Prohibitions this Attachment followed The King to the Sherifs Greeting Cause such a Bishop to put in sureties to appear before our Justices c. to shew cause why he made certain Lay persons to be summoned and distrained by Ecclesiastial censures to appear before him at his pleasure to take an Oath against their Wills In Grave Praejudicium Coronae Dignitatis nostrae Regiae necnon contra consuetudinem Regni nostri By all which and by the Petition of Right it self it appears evidently that this Juramentune Calumniae or Oath ex officio was utterly against Law. For one of the Grievances complain'd of in that Petition was that the King's Subjects had had an Oath administred to
cum aliis Proceribus Normanniae simul adesse praecepit ut Rex jussit factum est Igitur 8. Anno Papatus Domini Gregorii Papae 7. Celebre Concilium apud Jullam bonam Celebratum est Et de Statu Ecclesiae Dei totiusque Regni Providente Rege cum Baronum suorum consilio utiliter tractatum est Then he inserts the Laws made there all concerning Ecclesiastical Matters In the next Reign that of King William Rufus there was a Schism in the Popedom between Clement and Vrban Anselme whilst he was Abbot of Bec in Normandy had Sworn Obedience to Vrban and being Elected Archbishop of Canterbury desired leave to go out of the Realm to fetch his Pall from him This the King opposed for that Vrban had not been received for Pope in England and told the Archbishop he could not keep his Fealty to him his Prince saving the Obedience which he owed to Vrban Anselme upon this referred himself to the Judgment of the Archbishops Bishops Proceres c. in Parliament who accordingly were Convened at Rochingham Ex Regia Sanctione and the matter discussed before them If the Archbishop had had any Notion of a Personal Supremacy in the King separate from and independant of the Great Council of the Realm it had been absurd in him not to acquiesce in the King's Judgment but Appeal to a Parliament If the King himself had been possessed with an opinion of any Legislative or Supreme Judicial Power in Ecclesiastical Matters lodged in his Person he would never have consented to call a Parliament to determine a cause which himself as far as in him lay had determined already The History may be read at large in Eadmer Hist Nov. Lib. 2 page 24 25 26 c. In King Henry the First 's time Anno Dom. 1102. A Council was held at London in which at Anselm's request to the King the Laity were present Quatenus quicquid ejusdem Concilii authoritate decerneretur utriusque Ordinis curâ sollicitudine ratum servaretur Sic enim necesse erat Quum multis retro annis Synodali culturâ cessante vitiorum vepribus succrescentibus Christianae Religionis fervor in Angliâ nimis tepuerat This is a clear Testimony that the Assent of the Laity was necessary to the Enacting such Ecclesiastical Laws as they were to be bound by And that neither the King by his Prerogative nor the King and the Clergy could impose any Constitutions upon them without their Assent Eadmer Histor Nov. Lib. 3. Will. Malmesb. De Gest Pontif. Anglor Lib. 1. p. 129. But tho' the King could not make Laws Himself could he not permit a Legate to exercise his Legatine Power here King Henry the Eight indeed permitted Wolsey to exercise his Office here and afterward brought the whole Clergy under a Premunire for submitting to him and owning his Authority But the Statutes of Praemunire were then in being Could not our ancient Kings that Reigned before any Act of Parliament now upon Record was extant they that must needs have had all the inherent Prerogatives that are involved in the Notion of Imperial Soveraignty Doctor Hicks they that understood their power somewhat better perhaps than it is now understood because they lived nearer to the creation of it and exercised it before it was sophisticated could not they I say by vertue of their Ecclesiastical Supremacy permit the Popes Legate to domineer a while within the Realm Why King Henry the First was very well satisfied that himself had no such power For when Petrus Monachus Cluniacensis was sent hither by Calixtus the Pope to exercise his Office of Legate within this Realm the King would not suffer him so much as to Lodg upon the Road in any Religious House And when he came into his presence and had told him his Errand Rex obtensâ expeditione So Anno Dom. 1225. Magister Otto Domini Papae nuncius in Angliam veniens promagnis Ecclesiae Rom. negotiis Regi literas praesentavit sed Rex cognito literarum tenore Respondit quod solus non potuit definire nec debuit negotium quod omnes Clericos laicos totius Regni tangebat Matth. Paris p. 325. in quâ tunc erat nam super Walenses eâ tempestate exercitum duxerat dixit se tanto negotio operam tunc quidem dare non posse cum Legationis illius stabilem authoritatem non nisi per conniventiam Episcoporum Abbatum Procerum ac totius Regni Conventum roborari posse constaret Eadmer Hist Nov. p. 138. And so the Legate went back as he came He tells it him as a known truth Constaret that the giving him leave to exercise his Office here was too great a work for him to go about as his affairs then stood for that it could not be done but in and by the Parliament If the Parliament had not a share in the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction how came their Assent to be necessary If they had when did they lose it If the King's Supremacy was personal why might not he if he would have licensed him himself If it was not personal then but is so now then do not assert over and over that the late Acts of Restitution are all declarative and give no new power If the Pope's power de facto exercised be translated to the King shew the conveyance This same King in a Letter to Pope Paschall about Investitures tells him that if himself should be so mean in tantâ me dejectione ponerem as to part with them yet Optimates mei imò totius Angliae Populus id nullo modo pateretur Decem Scriptores 999. The Investitures were performed by the King in person but subsequent to an Election by the Parliament and yet the Parliament were so concerned in them that they were not nor could be parted with but by an Act of Parliament Which accordingly ensued notwithstanding the King's resoluteness at first for when Anselme came from Rome the King was perswaded to with-draw his claim and it was granted in a Parliament held at London Astantibus Archiepiscopis caeteraque multitudine maxima Procerum Magnatum ut ab eo tempore in anteâ nullus electus per dationem Baculi pastoralis vel Annuli de Episoopatu vel Abbathia investiretur per Regem vel aliam quamcunque personam secularem Ibid. Et Sim. Mon. Dun. 228 229 230. But tho' Investitures were lost Elections remained as they were at least of right till King John's time Concessit Rex Johannes liberas in omnibus Ecclesiae Anglicanae electiones Matth. Par. p. 262 263. The Charter it self which was certainly an Act of Parliament See Presidents of many Bishops and Abbots Elected in Parliament in the Reigns of King Stephen and King Henry the Second In Spelm. Conc. Second Part. p. 42 119. Innumerable are the instances of Canons and Constitutions made in the Reigns of the first Norman Kings in their Great and General Councils concerning Churchmen and Church Matters
21. They tell the King That this his Grace's Realm recognising no Superiour under God but only his Grace hath been and is free from subjection to any Man's Laws but only to such as have been devised made and ordained within this Realm for the wealth of the same or to such other as by sufferance of your Grace and your Progenitors the People of this your Realm have taken at their free Liberty by their own consent to be used amongst them and have bound themselves by long use and custom to the observance of the some not as to the Laws of any foreign Prince Potentate or Prelate but as to the accustomed and anoient Laws of this Realm originally establisht as Laws of the same by the said sufferance consent and custom and none otherwise By those other Laws not ordained within the Realm they mean the Canon Law. For the Clergy extended the bounds of it daily and always got ground But the Sufferance and Cousent here spoken of was not a bare tacit Submission to it by the People but a Consent in Parliament Where they not only received foreign Canons into the body of our Municipal Laws but also from time to time came to a Compremise with the Clergy with respect to several Matters of which the Clergy claimed Cognisance as appertaining to what they called Spiritual Jurisdiction First For our Records of Parliament yet extant go no higher by the Statute De Circumspecte agati◠but that would not satisfie them In King Edward the Second's time they got Jurisdiction in many other Causes as you may see in the Statute of Articuli Cleri And in King Edward the Third's time they went yet farther Nine new Points were gained 25 Edw. 3. by the Statutum pro Clero The Conusance of these Matters which by these Statutes were left to the Clergy belonged before to the King's Courts as part of the Common Laws of the Realm by which the King governed his People and which he administred in his ordinary Courts of Justice and by the ordinary proceedings of Law. And therefore before they were allowed to the Cognisance of the Ecclesiastical Courts by Act of Parliament Prohibitions were granted * The King 's Right of Indulgence page 28. The granting of Prohibitions in these Cases is urged by a late Author as an instance of the King 's Ancient Supremacy and urged amongst other things to prove a right in the King's Person to dispense with Civil Laws about Ecclesiastical Matters Whereas Prohibitions were granted then no otherwise than as they are now to Spiritual and other Courts when they exceed the bounds of their Jurisdiction When the Spiritual Jurisdiction broke in upon the Temporal and the Ecclesiastical Courts assum'd an Authority in Cases not allowed by the Laws of the Realm to be within their Cognisance this was an Offence against the King's Crown and Regality as the Statutes of Premunire run and Contra Coronam Dignitatem Regis as the forms of some Prohibitions in the Register run and yet the Kings Temporal Jurisdiction was not personal In this period of time it was that Dispensations brake forth They began in King Henry the Third's time which is not old enough to give the Crown a title to them by Prescription for it is within the time of Memory The History of their Nativity may be read in Matth. Paris The Pope led up the Dance taking upon him by Non Obstante's to revoke his own Grants and to dispense with the Canons upon a pretence of some plenitudo potestatis or other derived to him as Pastor of the Vniversal Church by Succession from St. Peter And Secular Princes Writ after his Copy in taking upon them to dispence with their own Penal Laws Which before were religiously observed as the Laws of the Medes and Persians Sir John Daries Case De Commenda which could not be dispensed with And therefore a Canonist says that Dispensatio vulnerat jus commune And another says that all Abuses would be reformed Si duo tantum verba viz. Non Obstante non impedirent And Matthew Paris Anno Dom. 1246. having recited certain Decrees made in the Council of Lyons which were beneficial to the Church of England Sed omnia haec alia says he per hoc repagulum Non Obstante infirmantur Dav. Rep. 69 70. c. Secular Princes it seems had not learnt that part of their Prerogative till they were taught it by their Ghostly Father Nor could they well have any notion of it since as Sir Henry Spelman tells us in his Glossary tit Assisa Reges Proceres in condendis Legibus earum olim jurabant observantiam Hence Bracton calls the Laws of England Leges Juratas Now the taking of an Oath to observe them and the being allowed a power by Law to break them seem to me very inconsistent things It 's observable to this purpose what Bracton tells us concerning the Laws of England Legis vigorem habet quicquid de Consilio Consensu Magnatum Reipublicae Communi sponsione authoritate Regis sive Principis praecedente justè fuerit definitum approbatum So that a Statute of the Kingdom of England is an Agreement betwixt all parties concerned Which for any one of them to set aside is against Natural Reason And Fortescue who was Lord High Chancellor of England in the Reign of King Henry the Sixth cannot be supposed to have known of any such Prerogative in the King by the account that he gives us of the Solemnity of Enacting Laws here in England and of the course that was to be taken when any of them were found by Experience to be inconvenient Pag. 39 40. Statuta tunc Angliae bona sunt necne solum restat explorandum Non enim emanant illa Principis solùm voluntate ut Leges in Regnis quae Regaliter tantum gubernantur ubi quandoque Statuta ità constituentis procurant commodum singulare quod in ejus subditorum ipsa redundant dispendium jacturam Quandoque enim inadvertentiâ Principum hujusmodi sibi consulentium inertiâ ipsa tam inconsultè eduntur quòd corruptelarum potiùs quà m Legum nomina mereantur Sed non sic Angliae Statuta oriri possunt dum nedum Principis voluntate sed totius Regni assensu ipsa conduntur quo Populi laesuram illa essicere nequeunt vel non eorum commodum procurare Prudentiâ enim Sapientiâ necessariò ipsa esse referta putandum est dum non unius aut centum solùm consultorum virorum prudentiâ sed plusquam trecentorum electorum hominum quali numero olim Senatus Romanorum regebatur ipsa edita sunt Et si Statuta haec tanta solemnitate prudentia edita efficaciae tantae quantae conditorum cupiebat intentio non esse contingant concito reformari ipsa possunt non sine Communitatis Procerum Regni illius assensu quali ipsa primitùs emanarunt A Power in the Prince to suspend Laws
of the Patronage and Foundation of the King the Ordinaries by vertue of the King's Commissions to them directed shall enquire of the manner and foundation of the said Hospitals and of the Governance and Estate of the same and of all other matters requisite and necessary in that behalf and the Inquisitions thereof shall certifie into the King's Chancery And as to other Hospitals which be of another Foundation and Patronage than of the King the Ordinaries shall enquire of the manner of the Foundation Estate and Governance of the same and of all other Matters and Things necessary in this behalf and upon that make due correction and reformation according to the Laws of Holy Church as to them belongeth This Act apparently makes a distinction betwixt Hospitals that are and that are not of the King's Foundation and Patronage with respect to the Right of Visitation Those of the King's Foundation the Ordinaries were to visit by the King's Commission But those that were not of the King's Foundation the Ordinaries were to visit too but how Not by any Commission from the King but as special Commissioners special Visitors appointed by that Act. The King did not pretend to issue a Commission to Visit an Hospital of a Subject's Foundation The Parliament were strangers to such a conceit The right of Visiting de communi Jure belongs to the Founder he that gave the Laws ought to see them executed If the Parliament had appointed that Hospitals of the Foundation of Subjects should be Visited by the Ordinaries by Commission from the King they had in effect translated the Rights of all Founders that were Subjects to the King which they never intended For the Legal Notion of Visitation in such Cases is no more than this viz. A Man Founds and Endows a College The Rule of Law and of Natural Reason teaches cujus est dare ejus est disponere As a Man may give Lands to a private person upon what condition the Donor pleases provided it be not against Law so a Man may give Lands to a Society of Men upon what terms he pleases The terms exprest in the Foundation are called the private Laws by which the Society is to be ordered and governed And just as when a Man makes a Lease for Life or Years the Lessor may enter of right to see whether waste be done or no so a Founder may come and enquire whether those of his Foundation observe the Rules and Orders prescribed by him or his Ancestors and proceed according to the Statutes and the Powers thereby reserved in case he find any neglect or misdemeanour What right the King has to interpose his Authority in such case any more than in the Government of a private Family I cannot discern But Colleges in Vniversities are pretended to be visitable by the King's Commission by vertue of his Ecclesiastical Authority Here we must distinguish A College of Divines for Example founded by a Subject and Endowed and receiving Laws for their Governance from their Founder are visitable by their Founder and his Heirs or Successors They may be also for any thing here alledged to the contrary visitable by the Bishop of the Diocess or if exempt from Episcopal Jurisdiction by the King's Commission But what Power have these Visitors The Founder enquires whether the Statutes of the Foundation are observed and punishes according to the Statutes but goes no farther The Ordinary or Archbishop or if the place be exempt the King's Visitors enquire Whether they profess the Doctrin and observe the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England If the King had any thing to do to intermeddle with the Statutes and Government of such a College in the first Instance by virtue of his Ecclesiastical Supremacy it seems very strange that in the third and fourth Year of Queen Elizabeth's Reign when the Bishop of Winchester Founder of Maudlyn College in Oxford had at a Visitation deprived the President and he appealed to the Queen in Chancery the Judges and Civilians having had a Conference upon the Business agreed that the Appeal lay not as the Law then stood for that this Case was out of the Statutes of 24 and 25 Hen. 8. which direct Appeals to the King in Chancery and this Deprivation was a meer Temporal Thing and inflicted as by a Lay Patron And that if he were wrongfully expelled he might have an Assize or other Suit at Common Law. Concerning the King's Power with respect to the private Statutes of a College of a Subjects Foundation I will acquaint the Reader with one Act of Parliament made 1 Mariae which will yield some very useful Inferences The Act recites Whereas the late Noble Prince of Famous Memory King Henry the Eighth Father unto our most Gracious Sovereign Lady the Queen amongst other his godly Acts and Doings did erect make and establish divers and sundry Churches as well Cathedral as Collegiat and endowed every of the same with divers Mannors Lands Tenements and Possessions for the maintenance of the Deans Prebendaries and Ministers within the same and for other charitable Acts to be done and executed by the same Deans Prebendaries and Ministers and also did incorporate the same Deans Prebendaries and Ministers and made them Bodies politick in perpetual Succession according to the Laws of this Realm of England And where also as the said late King for the better maintenance and preservation of the said Churches in a godly Unity and good Order and Governance granted unto the several Corporations and Bodies Corporate of every of the said Churches that they should be ruled and governed for ever according unto certain Ordinances Rules and Statutes to be specified in certain Indentures then after to be made by his Highness and to be delivered and declared to every of the Bodies Corporate of the said several Churches as by the said several Erections and Foundations of the said Churches more plainly it doth and may appear Since which said Erections and Foundations the said late King did cause to be delivered to every of the said Churches so as is aforesaid erected and incorporated by certain Commissioners by his Highness appointed divers and sundry Statutes and Ordinances made and decreed by the same Commissioners for the Order Rule and Governances of the said several Churches and of the Deans Prebendaries and Ministers of the same which said Statutes and Ordinances were made by the said Commissioners and delivered unto every of the Corporations of the said several Churches in writing but not indented according to the Form of the said Foundations and Erections by reason whereof the said Churches and the several Deans Prebendaries and Ministers of the same have no Statutes or Ordinances of any Force or Authority whereby they should be ruled and governed and therefore remain as yet not fully established in such sort as the godly intent of the said late King Henry the Eighth was to the great imperfection of the Churches and the hindrance of God's Service and
whereas Subjects might Collate in those Days Churches of their own Foundation to any Clerk in Orders and give him the Investiture even without so much as a Presentation to the Bishop yet our Antient Kings Collated Bishopricks no otherwise than in Curia suâ For though Bishopricks were Royal Foundations yet they were Founded by Acts of Parliament as will appear by and by And one Great Reason why our Kings at least in those Days could not Erect Bishopricks and endow them otherwise was because they could not in those Days Alien their Crown Lands without the Assent of their Barons Non poterat Rex distrahere Patrimonium Regni And though King John told Pandulphus the Legate Omnes Praedecessores mei contulerunt Archiepiscopatus Episcopatus Abbathias in thalamis suis Monast Burton pag. 264. That must be understood to have been done since the Norman Conquest only though the contrary was frequently practised even in those Days and especially since the Constitutions of Clarendon For the Instance that he there gives of Wolstan's being made Bishop of Worcester in King Edward the Confessor his Time was far from a Collation in Thalamo if we believe himself when he resigned his Pastoral Staff at the Confessor's Tomb There concurred Electio Plebis Petitio Voluntas Episcoporum Gratia Procerum a full Parliament as well as the Authoritas Voluntas of the King himself Matth. Paris pag. 20 21. As for our Kings seizing the Temporalties of Bishops into their Hands and so suspending them à beneficio which the Doctor speaks of pag. 155. of which he says many Instances may be found in Mr. Prynn 's Historical Collections I suppose he would not be understood as if our Kings either might or used to seize them ad Libitum but by legal process and for some contempt for which by the Law they were liable to Seizure They were held of the King by Barony and though the Bishops pretended to an Exemption as to their Persons from the Laws of the Land yet their Temporalties which were held of the King and for which they did him Fealty were no-wise Exempted but that if they should commit Offences for which the King might by Law capere se ad Baronias suas they as well as the Laity that held by the same Tenure were equally liable to the Course and Rigour of the Law. What use this is of to the Doctor for the setting up some Notional Supremacy lodged in the King Personally I know not as yet Irregularities and Oppressions might well be used upon such occasions and Seizures made when there was no cause but the Statute of the fourteenth of Edward the Third cap. 6. aforementioned was provided to prevent such Mischiefs for the future But the Doctor was very ill advised in quoting pag. 155. to clear the point the Statutes of Provisions For those Statutes which every body knows and the Doctor will not deny to be only new Bullwarks to secure Old Rights were yet such as the King could never dispense with But when the Circumstances of his Affairs were such that to gratify the Pope and tye him to his Interest he found it convenient to have some Relaxation made of those Laws then were Parliaments called and at their first meeting one cause of their Convention declared to be to provide remedy touching the Statutes of Provisions for eschewing debate between the Pope and the King and his Realms And then we find leave given to the King from time to time to dispense with those Laws and that but for a time and this declar'd to be a Novelty Vid. Cotton's Abridgment pag. 341. 346. Annis 15. 16. Rich. 2. And the Complaints of the English Nation in Matth. Paris against the Pope's Provisions were grounded upon this VIZ. That Patroni Ecclesiarum ad eas cum Vacaverint Clericos idoneos praesentare non poterant sed conferebantur Ecclesiae Romanis qui penitùs Idioma Regni ignorabant pecuniam extra Regnum asportabant These Oppressions fell chiefly upon the Clergy as appears by most of the Laws against Provisions of which hereafter for the Pope assum'd a greater Power over them and Churches of which they were Patrons then he could pretend to over the Laity and they sometimes comply'd with his Provisions and submitted to collate Italians and Foreigners as at other times they did to heavy Exactions insomuch that in the year 1240. misit Dominus Papa praecepta sua Domino Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo Edmundo Sarisberiensi Lincolniensi Episcopis ut trecentis Romanis in primis beneficiis Vacantibus providerent scientes se suspensos à beneficiorum Collatione donec tot competenter providerentur Matth. Paris pag. 532. And it appears by the same Author that these and more were provided of Ecclesiastical Benefices in England Praebendas Ecclesias varios redditus opimos plusquam trecentos ad suam vel Papae contulerat legatus Otto voluntatem id p. 549. But many grievous Complaints and Petitions in Parliaments and in Letters to the Pope occur in Mr. Prynne's Historical Collections and in the Parliament Rolls against these Provisions as intolerable Grievances and contrary to all Law and Reason If at some times they were comply'd with upon condition that the Persons recommended by the Pope were of good condition and worthy of Promotion how does that relate to its being in the King's power even to admit the persons to the Dignity and Office as the Doctor ignorantly and childishly asserts But his conclusion VIZ. That the Exercise of their Government was according to the King's Laws I do not Quarrel with him about for it was or ought to have been so But not according to the King's Pleasure Nor would any unbyassed Man in Reading King Alfred's Laws have readily made such an Inference as the Doctor does pag. 155 156 telling us out of L. l. Alvredi that King Alfred reserved to himself the liberty even of Dispensing with the Marriage of Nuns Which he would represent as a thing prohibited by the Canons only and that the King reserved to himself a Power of Dispensing with it though without his Especial Dispensation he suffered the Canon to take place Now the Marriage of Nuns was really prohibited by a Law of the State by an Act of Parliament of that Age For Brompton giving us an Account of King Alfred's Laws says thus Ego Alfredus West-Saxonum Rex ostendi haec omnibus sapientibus meis dixerunt Placet ea Custodire And many Temporal Laws are amongst them all Enacted by the same Authority And the same Law or Canon that prohibits Nuns from Marrying gives the King and not only him but the Bishop of the Diocess leave to Dispense so that the Doctor might as well have argu'd for the Bishops as the Kings reserving a Power to himself of Dispensing The Words are Si quis Sanctimonialem ab Ecclesiâ abduxerit sine Licentia Regis vel Episcopi c. Then he says That our Kings Presided sometimes
them not warrantable by the Laws and Statutes of the Realm Now what use the Doctor can make of this Particular viz. of the King 's prohibiting the Clergy from Oppressing his Lay-Subjects contrary to Law I cannot discover Sir Roger's eighteenth and last particular is an observation in Matth. Paris where the Ecclesiasticks having enumerated several cases in which they held themselves hardly dealt with add That in all of them if the Spiritual Judge proceeded contrary to the King's prohibition he was attached and appearing before the Justices constrained to produce his proceedings that they might determine to which Court the Cause belonged By which says he it is manifest how the King's Courts had the superintendency over the Ecclesiastick This makes nothing for any Extrajudicial Personal Arbitrary power in the King in the Ecclesiastical matters and is so far from impugning that it corroborates my hypothesis That the Temporal and Ecclesiastical Courts often quarrel'd about their Jurisdiction and that the Clergy sometimes made and attempted to put in execution Canons directly contrary to the Laws of the Realm thereby endeavouring to usurp and encroach upon many matters which apparently belonged to the Common Laws as the tryal of Limits and Bounds of Parishes the Right of Patronage the tryal of right of Tythes by Indicavit Writs to the Bishop upon a recovery in a Quare impedit the tryal of Titles to Church-Lands concerning Distresses and Attachments within their own Fees and many other things which belonged to the King 's Temporal Courts That the Temporal Courts granted Prohibitions in these and other like cases that the Clergy hereupon complain'd not to the King but to the Parliament Ann. 51 H. 3. twice during the Reign of Edw. 1. and afterwards nono Edw. 2. may be read at large in the Lord Coke's second Institutes 599 600 601 c. So that the King determined to which Court Causes belonged either in his Courts of Ordinary Justice or if the Clergy remain'd unsatisfied with the Opinions of the Judges in his High Court of Parliament and no otherwise But we need not wonder that such a Prelate as Arch bishop Bancroft whose Divinity had taught him that the King may take what causes he shall please to determine from the determination of the Judges and determine them himself and that such Authority belonged to Kings by the Word of God in the Scripture we need not wonder I say to find him in King James the First 's time Exhibiting Articles of Abuses in granting Prohibitions against the Judges to the Lords of the Privy Council As if the Lords of the Privy Council had any Authority to direct the Judges in their administration of Justice or to set bounds to the Jurisdiction of any Court. Vid. 2 Inst 601 602 c. 12 Co. p. 63 64 65. By what has been said I hope it appears sufficiently that the Ancient Jurisdiction of our Kings in Ecclesiastical matters was such a Jurisdiction and no other than they had in Temporal matters viz. in their Great Councels and in their Ordinary Courts of Justice And that not only our Mercenary Doctor but more learned and wiser men than he have unwarily confounded that Jurisdiction with a Fiction of their own brains by which they have ascribed to the King a Personal Supremacy without any warrant from Antiquity Law or History Witness these loose Expressions in Sir Roger Twiden's Historical Vindication c. It cannot be denyed but the necessity of being in union with the true Pope at least in time of schism did wholly depend on the King pag. 2. The English have ever esteemed the Church of Canterbury in Spirituals that is quae sui sunt ordinis without any intervening Superior omnium nostrum mater comunis sub sponsi sui Jesu Christi dispositione in other things as points of Government the Ordering that of Right and Custom ever to have belonged to the King assisted with his Councel of Bishops and others of the Clergy who was therefore called Vicarius Christi c. pag. 21. The King and the Arch bishop or rather the Arch-bishop by the King's will and appointment had ever taken cognizance of all matters of Episcopacy as the Erection of Bishopricks disposing and translating of Bishops c. p. 24. and innumerable others But to go on with Dr. Johnston and draw to a conclusion he acknowledges pag. 157 that he does not find that by immediate Commission the Kings of England Visited before King Henry the Eighth's time And if no such thing can be found then what authority can our Kings now have to exercise such a Jurisdiction unless by vertue of some Act of Parliament made in or since his time But says he we have sufficient grounds to judge that whatever was done was by the King's Power and Authority which is a wild extravagant ignorant expression and hardly common sense And therefore says he Sir Edward Coke in Cawdrie's case Lays it down for a Rule That as in Temporal Causes the King by the Mouth of the Judges in the Courts of Justice doth judge and determine the same by the Temporal Laws of England so in causes Ecclesiastical and spiritual by his Ecclesiastical Judges according to the Ecclesiastical Laws of the Realm and that so many of the Ecclesiastical Laws as were proed approved and allowed here by and with general consent are aptly and rightly called the King's Ecclesiastical Laws and whosoever denyeth this denyeth the King to have full and plenary power to deliver Justice in all cases to all his Subjects c. pag. 157. which that he has he proves by the Preamble of stat 24 Hen. 8. cap. 12. And what then May the King therefore erect New Courts directly contrary to positive Laws Command things arbitrarily upon pain of suspension deprivation c. and Command things contrary to Law by vertue of his Ecclesiastical Laws The Doctor concludes this Section with the Act of 26 Hen. 8. cap. 1. commonly called the Act of Supremacy which now stands Repealed And with 1 Eliz. by which he says all the Powers given by the Act of 26 H. 8. are restored to the Crown under the name of Supreme Governour But the former Discourse was designed to be brought down no lower then to the end of King Henry the Eighth's Reign And therefore I shall say nothing in this place of the Act of 1 Eliz. but perhaps I may have occasion to shew hereafter that the Doctor understands the Act of 1 Eliz. as little as any thing else that he pretends to write upon FINIS
SOME OBSERVATIONS UPON THE Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction OF THE KINGS of ENGLAND WITH AN APPENDIX In Answer to part of a Late Book Intitled The KING' 's Visitatorial Power Asserted LONDON Printed for William Battersby at Thavies-Inn Gate in Holborn and Thomas Basset at the George in Fleet-street 1689. To the Reader A Late Declaration for Liberty of Conscience whereby the King Assum'd a Power of Suspending All Penal Laws in matters of Religion The Ecclesiastical Commission and suspending by vertue of it the Bishop of London and depriving the Fellows of Magdalen-Colledge occasioned a general dissatisfaction in the Nation and produc't some Pamphlets to justifie all those Proceedings viz. One Entituled The King 's Right of Indulgence in Spiritual Matters with the Equity thereof Asserted Another A Vindication of the Proceedings of his Majestie 's Ecclesiastical Commissioners against the Bishop of London and the Fellows of Magdalen-Colledge A Third The Legality of the Court held by his Majestie 's Ecclesiastical Commissioners Defended And last of all The King 's Visitatorial power asserted Perusing these Pamphlets I could not but observe that one and the same inveterate error ran through them All viz. Their ascribing to the King all such power Jurisdiction and Authority as by the Law of England and the very Original Constitution of our Government is lodged in the Legislative body of the Kingdom and which the King is intrusted onely with the Administration of and that in his Courts of Justice I had attempted the answering more than one of those Pamphlets but I found that at every turn I met with that mistake in the Authors who either through Ignorance or Design or both argue for the King's Prerogative from whatever they find to have been done in Great Councils of the Realm or in Ordinary Courts of Justice this one mistake together with some rash and unwarranted expressions glean'd out of a few late Writers will be found to be the main strength of their Cause I thought therefore that it might be a work of some use especially at this time to endeavour the removal of this rubbish and the laying open in some measure the nature of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of the Crown of England both because we have lately seen how dangerous and fatal these mistakes are and because although much has been written since the Reformation by Mr. Prynn Sir Roger Twisden and others to vindicate the Ecclesiastical Supremacy from Forein Pretensions and Vsurpations yet I know not whether any has yet taken in hand to give an Account of it as stands by Law here at home I do therefore offer these few Observations upon it to the publick desiring the Judicious Reader 's pardon for what slips and imperfections he may find herein and have added in an Appendix an Answer to a Section in the Book concerning Visitatorial Power wherein I hope the Reader will be satisfied how groundless and weak most of the arguments are which our Prerogative-mongers pretend to draw from Antiquity These following Observations are brought down no lower then to the latter end of King Henry the eighth's Reign I design a Continuation with Remarks upon some Judicial Presidents that have pass't since the Reformation if these Papers are well received if not I shall save time and be eas'd of trouble SOME OBSERVATIONS Upon the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Of the King 's of ENGLAND IT is obvious enough to judicious and intelligent Persons by what unhappy Circumstances it comes to pass that one great Mean of our Preservation seems at present in a manner hid from our Eyes But since Experience is said to be the Mistress of Fools it is hoped that at least in this our Day we may see the things that belong to our Peace Luke 19.42 and remember that the reason why the Ostrich leaveth her Eggs in the Dust Job 39.13 14 15 17. forgetting that the Foot may crush them is because God hath deprived her of Wisdom neither hath he imparted to her Vnderstanding If Interest or Ambition have swayed with some of us Prov. 22.28 as far as in them lay to remove the antient Land-Marks which our Fore-Fathers have set Josh 7.19 let such give Glory to God and take Shame to themselves In the mean time what effect soever these ensuing Papers may have upon our Friends at least let our Adversaries see that there is a Remnant left in Israel 1 Kings 19.18 that have not bowed their Knees to Baal An Arch-Bishop may tell us The Legality of the Ecclesiastical Commission defended pag. 6 7. that the King may take what Causes he pleases to determin from the Determination of the Judges and determin them himself and that it is clear in Divinity that such Authority belongs to the King by the Word of God. But as we are not to receive even the Word of God it self under the Sanction of a Human Law from the Mouth of an Arch-Bishop or from the whole Body of the Clergy much less are we bound to submit to any Courtly Glosses upon that Sacred Text concerning the Power of Kings whose Authority as we suppose it to be grounded wholly upon Municipal Laws so we know the Law to be a better Foundation and a better Security than any imaginary Authority pretended from Scripture And if the Defender would have observed what the Lord Coke in the Presence and with the clear consent of all the Judges and Barons of the Exchequer Coke 12. Rep. pag. 63 64 65. answered upon that occasion before the King himself both from Reason and Authority he would have silenced the Arch-Bishops Divinity and saved me the trouble of taking notice of that part of his Discourse It was their Opinion that the King could not in Person adjudge any Case Which they confirm with such Reasons and Authorities from judicial Records and Acts of Parliament that it seems very imprudent in the Defender to urge that as an Authority which received so solid so learned and so honest an Answer Judges and Serjeants may entertain themselves with what Discourse they please post prandium Legality of c. defended pag. 10 11. Coke 12. Rep. pag. 19 c. and in their mooting upon one extrajudicial Point may talk of another by the by and if one of the Company put this transient Discourse into Paper so that afterwards it gets into the Press Good God! what condition are we come into when Tablechat must be obtruded upon us for Law To go a little further Judges in Courts of Justice may pretend to resolve what Points of Law they please but if their Resolutions are not pertinent to the Matter depending before them in Judgment and necessary for the deciding it such Resolutions go for nothing because the Judges had no Authority so to resolve And I am fully assured that this Point Legality of c. defended Pag. 8.9 Coke 5. Rep. Cawdry's Case viz. Whether any King or Queen of England for the time being might issue an
his Heirs and Successors by Commission under the Great Seal to be directed to such persons as shall be appointed requisite for the same c. This Act of Parliament having abrogated the Pope's Power here in England those places that had been exempt from ordinary Jurisdiction would naturally have fallen back within the Visitation of the Diocesan I mean such places as had been exempt by vertue of any Bulls Licences or Dispensations from Rome only if it had not been especially and expresly provided that nothing in the said Act should be taken nor expounded to the derogation or taking away of any grants or confirmations of any Liberties Priviledges or Jurisdiction of any Monasteries Abbies Priories or other Houses or places exempt which before the making of this Act have been obtained at the See of Rome and if the Visitation of them by Commission under the Great Seal had not been provided for In the next Year Ann. 26 H. 8. The Statute was made which enacts that the King our Soveraign Lord his Heirs and Successors Kings of this Realm shall be taken accepted and reputed the Only Supreme Head on Earth of the Church of England called Anglicana Ecclesia and shall have and enjoy united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm as well the title and stile thereof as all Honours Dignities Preheminences Jurisdictions Priviledges Authorities Immunities Profits and Commodities to the said Dignity of Supream Head of the same Church belonging and appertaining What was then meant understood recognis'd c. by the word Supreme Head will appear by these following Considerations First that the recital of the Act shews they intended not by that recognition to invest him with any new Power For they recite that the King's Majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the Supreme head of the Church of England and so is recognised by the Clergy of the Realm in their Convocations yet nevertheless for corroboration and confirmation thereof c. So that this Act so far forth as it gives or acknowledges the Title of SUPREME HEAD is but Declarative And consequently they that upon this Act ground a Translation of the Pope's Power by the Canon-law to the King utterly mistake the matter For our King 's Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction was not grounded upon the Canon Law but the Common Law of the Realm it was a Native of our own and not of any foreign extraction Secondly That this Supreme Head-ship of the Church consists only in his being Supreme head of that Church of England which then was called Anglicana Ecclesia and who they were appears First by the Statute of 24. Henr. 8. cap. 12. aforementioned The body Spiritual whereof of the Realm of England having Power when any Cause of the Law Divine happened to come in question or of Spiritual Learning that it was declared interpreted and shew'd by that part of the said body Politick called the Spiritualty now being usually called the English Church So that the Spiritualty are the Ecclesia Anglicana of whom the King is here declar'd the supreme head Secondly It appears by the Recognition of the Clergy who having no Authority to declare a Supreme Head in Ecclesiastical matters for the Laity did but by that Submission acknowledge themselves to be to all intents and purposes the King's Subjects and not the Pope's But Thirdly This same Parliament in this very Session tells us that the King had of right always been so It is in the third Chapt. for the payment of first-fruits to the King. The words are Wherefore his said humble and obedient Subjects as well the Lords Spiritual and Temporal as the Commons in this present Parliament Assembled c. do pray that for the more surety continuance and augmentation of his Highness Royal estate being not only now recognis'd as he always indeed hath heretofore been the only Supreme Head in Earth next and immediately under God of the Church of England but also their most assured and undoubted natural Lord and King having the whole Governance of this his Realm c. They tell him That he was not only the Supreme Head of the Church of England but their viz. the Temporalties Lord and King so that he had the Governance of the whole Realm and Subjects of the same What can be more plain than first That by Supreme Head of the Church of England was meant the Supreme Head of the Spiritualty which was necessary to be recogniz'd because they had acknowledged formerly another Supreme Head. Secondly That they gave no new Power by that word since they tell us that indeed he had always been so And Thirdly That his Supremacy consists only in a power of Governance Fourthly This title of Supreme Head does not give the King any power of dispensing with Acts of Parliament in Matters of Religion or Ecclesiastical Affairs whatsoever That power was never yielded to the Pope himself during that whole time that he was uncontroulably submitted to as Head of the Church That power they complain of in the Act of 25 H. 8. cap. 21. as an Vsurpation an Abuse a Cheat. They declare it to be in the King and themselves Fifthly Dr. Burnet in his History of the Reformation p. 142 143. First Part has these words But at the same time that they pleaded so much for the King's Supremacy and power of making Laws for restraining and coercing his Subjects it appears that they were far from vesting him with such an absolute Power as the Popes had pretended to for they thus defined the extent of the King's Power Institution of a Christian Man. To them speaking of Princes and Magistrates specially and principally it appertaineth to defend the Faith of Christ and his Religion to conserve and maintain the True Doctrine of Christ and all such as be true Preachers and setters forth thereof and to abolish Heresies Abuses and Idolatries and to punish with corporal pains such as of Malice be the occasion of the same And finally to oversee and cause that the said Bishops and Priests do execute their Pastoral Office truly and faithfully and speally in these Points which by Christ and his Apostles were given and committed to them and in case they shall be negligent in any part thereof or would not diligently execute the same to cause them to double and supply their lack and if they obstinately withstand their Prince's kind monition and will not amend their faults then and in such case to put others in their rooms and places And God hath also commanded the said Bishops and Priests to obey with all humbleness and reverence both Kings and Princes and Governors and all their Laws not being contrary to the Laws of God whatsoever they be and that not only propter iram but also propter conscientiam Thus it appears that they both limited obedience to the King's Laws with the due caution of not being contrary to the Law of God and acknowledged the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in discharge of the