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
good Order and Regiment to be had and continued amongst the Ministers of the same And forasmuch as the Authority of the making of the said Statutes Ordinances and Orders was reserved only unto the said King and no mention made of any like Authority to be reserved unto his Heirs and Successors the same Orders and Statutes cannot now be made and provided without Authority of Parliament And then the Act proceeds to empower that Queen during her Life to prescribe such Orders and Statutes and to alter transpose change augment or diminish the said Orders Statutes c. And gives her likewise Authority to make ordain and establish Statutes Ordinances and Foundations for the good Order and Government of Grammar Schools erected by King Hen. 8. or King Edw. 6. and to alter Statutes already made V. Rastall's Statutes 1 Mar. Par. 2. Act 9. And she dying before the work was finished there was another Act in Queen Elizabeth's time impowering her to do the like and to alter the Statutes in being Hence I infer first if King Henry the Eighth having reserved a Power to himself of appointing private Laws c. as aforesaid and coming to die without executing that Power his Successor could not make such Laws though for the Government of Colleges c. of which the King himself was Founder as most evidently according to the Opinion of those two Queens and their Parliaments she could not and for the Government of Colleges c. that had no private Laws at all for their good Order and Government then a power given by Commission to Survey Alter Reform Amend c. the Statutes of the Foundation of Colleges Halls c. was not in those days look'd upon as Law. Secondly If the King could not appoint New Laws for the Government of Colleges c. of his own Foundation then he could not alter the Statutes of Colleges founded by Subjects I infer from hence in the third place that some Commission grounded upon these Statutes of Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth which were Temporary and gave those Queens Power but for Life has been the pattern for that Clause in a late Commission which relates to the Colleges in Vniversities c. And that the Gentleman who drew the late Commission had forgot those two Acts of Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth because the latter never was printed and the former being expired long before his Statute-Book was printed is left out of it but it is to be seen in Rastall And finding such a Commission upon the Roll he concluded the King had a Power by the Common Law to grant it Archbishop Laud pretended to visit both Vniversities Jure Metropolitico and it was decreed at the Council Table that he had right to visit but he claimed only a Right to visit them as to their Doctrin and Church Discipline and Ceremonies not to meddle with the private Statutes of their Foundation Which he disclaimed any Right to enquire into V. Rushworth's Collections I mention this only to shew how a College may be subject to a double Visitation diverso respectu The Question is not here concerning the King's Authority to visit the Vniversity but what Authority he has to visit a private College for their good Government and to meddle with their Statues himself not being the Founder I cannot see as yet HAVING given some Account of the Nature of the Antient Legal Jurisdiction which in former Ages the Crown claim'd and exercis'd in Ecclesiastical and Spiritual Matters come we now to King Henry the Eighth's Reign in whose time all Foreign Power was excluded the Antient Supremacy restor'd and New Powers given some to that King personally some to Him his Heirs and Successors I shall run through the Acts as they lye in order of Time. The first Act that made an open Breach with Rome was that of 24 Hen. 8. cap. 12. That no Appeals should be used but within the Realm The Preamble to that Act will afford us considerable Observations and very pertinent to the chief Subject and Occasion of this present Discourse It runs thus Where by divers sundry old authentick Histories and Chronicles it is manifestly declared and expressed That this Realm of England is an Empire and so hath been accepted in the World governed by one Supreme Head and King having the Dignity and Royal Estate of the Imperial Crown of the same Vnto whom a Body Politick compact of all sorts and degrees of People divided in Terms and by Names of Spiritualty and Temporalty been bounden and own to bear next to God a natural and humble Obedience He being also institute and furnished by the Goodness and Sufferance of Almighty God with plenary whole and entire Power Pre-eminence and Authority Prerogative and Jurisdiction to render and yield Justice and final determination to all manner of folk Resiants or Subjects within this his Realm in all Causes Matters Debates and Contentions happening to occur insurge and begin within the Limits thereof without restraint or provocation to any Foreign Princes and Potentates of the World The Body Spiritual whereof having Power when any cause of the Law divine cometh in question or of Spiritual Learning that it was declared and shewed by that part of the said Body Politick called the Spiritualty now being usually called the English Church which always hath been reputed and also found of that sort that both for Knowledge c. it hath been thought and is sufficient and meet of it self without the intermedling of any exterior Person or Persons to declare and determine all such Doubts and to administer all such Offices and Duties as to their Rooms Spiritual doth appertain And the Law Temporal for tryal of Property of Lands and Goods and for the conservation of the People of this Realm in Vnity and Peace without Rapine or Spoil was and yet is administred adjudged and executed by sundry Judges and Ministers of the other part of the said Body Politick called the Temporalty and both their Jurisdictions and Authorities do conjoin together in the due Administration of Justice the one to help the other From this part of the Preamble we may observe First That for the Kingdom of England's being an Empire consisting of two Estates of Men and governed by One Supreme Head the King and Parliament appeal to old authentick Histories and Chronicles and consequently wherein the power of this One Supreme Head doth consist must be learnt from Antiquity Secondly That the Exclusion of Foreign Jurisdiction was the main thing in their Eye without restraint or provocation to any Foreign Princes or Potentates of the World. Thirdly That as this Supreme Head administred ordinary Justice to his Subjects in Matters Temporal by proper Officers sundry Judges and Ministers so in Causes of the Law Divine or of Spiritual Learning the same was to be declared interpreted and shewn by the Spiritualty which is to be understood of ordinary Proceedings And consequently not by Commissioners appointed by the Supreme Head
old Master the Cardinal who obtained his Legacy by our late Sovereign Lord's request at Rome and in his sight and knowledge occupied the same with his two Crosses and Masses born before him many years yet because it was against the Laws of the Realm the Judges concluded it the Offence of the Praemunire which conclusion I bare away and take it for the Law of the Realm because the Lawyers so said but my Reason digested it not The Lawyers for confirmation of their Doings brought in a Case of the Lord Tiptoft as I remember a jolly Civilian he was Chancellor to the King who because in the Execution of the King's Commission he had offended the Laws of the Realm he suffered on Tower-Hill they brought in many Examples of many Judges that had Fines set on their Heads in like Cases for doing against the Laws of the Realm by the King's Commandment and then was brought in the Judge's Oath not to stay any Procesâ— or Judgment for any Commandment from the King's Majesty And one Article against my Lord Cardinal was that he had granted Injunctions to stay the Common Law and upon that occasion Magna Charta was spoken of and it was made a great matter the stay of the Common Law and this I learned in that Case sithence that time being of the Council when many Proclamations were devised against the Carriers out of Corn at such time as the Transgressors should be punished the Judges would answer It might not be by the Laws whereupon ensued the Act of Proclamations in the passing of which Act many liberal Words were spoken and a plain Proviso that by Authority of the Act for Proclamations nothing should be made contrary to an Act of Parliament or Common Law. A known and notorious Judgment has been lately given in favour of a Dispensation with an Act of Parliament Sir Edward Hales's Case in a cause of extraordinary great consequence and the Court grounded themselves upon a Case pretended to have been adjudged in the Second year of King Henry the Seventh concerning Sheriffs It had been enacted by several Statutes That no Sheriff Vnder-Sheriff c. should abide in his Office above one whole year as by the 14 Edw. 3. cap. 7. and the 42 Edw. 3. cap. 9. And in King Richard the Second's time it was enacted That no Man who had been Sheriff of any County by one whole year should be another time chosen into the said Office within three years ensuing c. Notwithstanding which Statutes the contrary was often practised by colour of Dispensations with those Laws Which Dispensations of what validity they were in Law in the Judgment of Parliaments may be seen by divers Instances in Cotton's Abridgment of the Records of the Tower V. Cott. Abr. p. 387. Anno 1. H. 4â— One Artic. of Impeachment against King Rich. 2. some of which are very untoward To obviate the mischief of these Non Obstante's the Parliament in the Twenty Third year of King Henry the Sixth enacts That the said Statutes above recited shall be duly observed and inflicts the Penalty of 200 l. upon any Sheriff Under-Sheriff c. that shall hold the said Office longer than a year And farther enacts That every Pardon thereafter to be made for such Offence or Occupation or forseiture of Sums before recited shall be void and not available and that all Patents made or to be made of any of the said Offices for term of Years for term of Life or in Fee Simple or in Fee Tail shall be void and of no value by the same Authority any Clause or Word of Non Obstante in any wise put or to be put in any such Patents notwithstanding And moreover that whosoever shall take upon him to have or occupy the said Office of Sheriff by vertue of such Grants or Patents now to be made for term of Years for term of Life Fee Simple or Fee Tail shall stand for ever and at all times disabled to bear the Office of Sheriff within any County of England That that Statute was ever after looked on as a Law binding to the King and restraining any Non Obstante's in such case for the future will appear by considering some Statutes subsequent to the Law it self both before and after the pretended Judgment in 2 H. 7. The first is that of 28 Hen. 6. cap. 3. Whereby it is ordained and granted that the Sheriffs c. which were for the year last passed shall be quit and discharged against our Soveraign Lord the King and all his Liege People of the Penalties and Forfeitures of 200 l. which they or any of them might fall in or incur by force of the said Statute made in the 23d Year of the said King as for the occupation or exercise of the Office of Sheriff longer than by a Year c. So that such Sheriffs as had exercised their Office longer than a Year contrary to the said Statute of 23 Hen. 6. could not be safe by any Dispensation granted by the King without an Act of Parliament to indemnifie them against him and his People In the Eighth Year of King Edw. 4. cap. 4. the Parliament reciting the Statute of the 14th of King Edward 3. and of the 42 of the said King above-mentioned and that of the 23th of King Hen. 6. concerning Sheriffs and that contrary to the said Ordinances divers Sheriffs c. in the First Second and Third Years of the said King Edward the 4th that then was the Realm then being in great trouble and the Peace not fully established did occupy over a Year the said King by Advice and Assent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and at the Request of the Commons ordained and established That no manner of persons being Sheriffs Vnder-Sheriffs c. in the said Three first Years of his Reign or any space within the same for the occupation of the Office of Sheriff c. in the said Three Years or any part or space within the same or of the same or any of the same above a Year altho their Occupation were against the Ordinances above recited be damnified nor in any wise hurt by any Action Pain or Forfeiture in the same Ordinances or any of them comprised c. Yet nevertheless the said Ordinances and every of them to remain in their strength and force against all Sheriffs Vnder-Sheriffs c. for their occupation all other Years than the said Three Years as aforesaid If the King's Pardon could have saved them harmless the Act of 26 H. 6. notwithstanding which provided that all such Pardons should be void then these Offenders had not need to have recourse to an Act of Parliament for their Security These two Laws subsequent to the said Act of 23 H. 6. cap. 8. and prior to the said pretenced Judgment of 2 H. 7. shew it to have been the Sense of the Parliaments and People of those times that all Pardons and Dispensations with the said Statute were
For he can appoint no Commissioners to determine Matters of civil Right but where special Acts empower him and no Act had yet impowered him to do so in Ecclesiastical Matters nor did his Predecessors or himself practise it till afterwards For his divers sundry old Histories and Chronicles afforded him no president of any such thing and therefore it could not be either in the nature of the thing or in the sense and meaning of the King and his Parliament any essential part of his Legal Supreme Headship to have a Personal Supremacy either independant of the Estates of the Realm or which might be administred otherwise than in the Course setled by Law i. e. by proper Officers appointed thereunto either by express Act of Parliament or the Original Constitution of the Government or both The Body of the Act prohibits Appeals to the See of Rome and enacts That in such Cases where heretofore any of the King's Subjects and Resiants have used to pursue c. any Appeal to the See of Rome and in all other cases of Appeals in and for the Causes aforesaid they may and shall from henceforth take have and use their Appeals within this Realm and not elsewhere in manner and form as hereafter ensueth and not otherwise that is to say First From the Arch-deacon or his Official if the Matter or Cause be there begun to the Bishop Diocesan of the said See if in any case the Parties be aggrieved And in like wise if it be commenced before the Bishop Diocesan or his Commissary from the Bishop Diocesan or his Commissary within fifteen days next ensuing the Judgment or Sentence thereof there given to the Archbishop of the Province of Canterbury if it be within his Province and if it be within the Province of York then to the Archbishop of York and so likewise to all other Archbishops within the King's Dominions c. there to be Definitively and Finally ordered decreed and adjudged according to Justice without any other appellation or provocation to any Person or Persons Court or Courts By the next Clause Matters or Contentions to be commenced before the Archdeacon of any Bishop or his Commissary are appointed in case either Party be aggrieved to be brought by Appeal to the Court of Arches or Audience of the same Archbishop of the Province there to be Definitively and Finally determined The next Clause appoints that Causes to be commenced before any of the Archbishops shall before the same Archbishop be definitively determined saving always the Prerogative of the Archbishop and Church of Canterbury in all the aforesaid Causes of Appeals in such and like wise as they have been accustomed and used heretofore Then it is Enacted that Causes touching the King his Heirs and Successors shall be finally decreed by the Prelates Abbots and Priors of the Vpper House of Convocation Hitherto no Appeal lay to the King in Person or in Chancery You have heard already that originally the ultimate Appeal in Ecclesiastical and Temporal Matters was to one and the same Tribunal Afterwards the See of Rome gained Appeals by Usurpation and Connivance Now they are lodged in the Diocesan the Archbishop and Vpper House of Convocation and their Sentences respectively are appointed to be final and definitive And therefore neither the Clergy in their Submission wherein they Recogniz'd the King to be the Supreme Head of the English Church V. Burnet's Collect. ad Vol. 1. p. 128 129. nor this Parliament who had been inform'd by Old Authentick Histories and Chronicles that the Spiritualty and Laity of this Realm are governed by One Supreme Head and King did so much as imagine that by vertue of that Office or Title the Supreme Cognisance of Appeals belonged to him personally If Appeals to the King in Person or in Chancery or Commissions of Review had then been dreamt of there needed not another Act in the Year ensuing to take off the odium of these definitive Sentences from the Archbishops It is the Stat. of 25. H. 8. cap. 19. Wherein it is Enacted That for lack of Justice at or in any of the Courts of the Archbishops of this Realm or in any of the King's Dominions it shall be lawful to the parties grieved to Appeal to the King's Majesty in the King's Court of Chancery And that upon every such Appeal a Commission shall be directed under the Great Seal to such persons as shall be named by the King's Highness his Heirs or Successors like as in case of Appeals from the Admiral 's Court to hear and Definitively to determine such Appeals By a subsequent Clause Appeals from the Jurisdiction of any Abbots Priors or other Heads and Governours of Monasteries c. and places exempt c. shall be made immediately to his Majesty into the Court of Chancery which Appeals so made shall be Definitively determined by Authority of the King's Commission It looks like a blemish to the Notion of Supreme Head in the modern acceptation of the Word to have the final Judgment in Causes Ecclesiastical referr'd by the Parliament to the Bishops Archbishops or to Commissioners appointed by vertue of an Act of Parliament c. and yet the Parliament in 25 Hen. 5. cap. 21. takes Notice of and allows the Clergy's Recognition nor was it till many Years after to wit the 39 of Eliz. that the Lawyers found out a way to make these Acts consistent with their imaginary personal Supreme Headship and that was by introducing Commissions of Review Which they tell us the King after such a definitive sentence may grant as Supreme Head Ad revidendum 4 Instit p. 341. Where two reasons are given for it First For that it is not restrained by the Act which seems to be a mistake For it is restrain'd by the Act as much as it was capable of being restrain'd and that by these words viz. that such Judgment and Sentence as the said Commissioners shall make and decree in and upon such Appeals shall be good and effectual and also definitive How could Commissions of Review be restrain'd more expresly than by these words They are not nam'd indeed and good reason why viz. because there never had been any such things in our Law before For he that will apply to this Case that common Rule of Law viz. that where the King is not named in a Statute he is not intended to be bound by it must prove that Appeals lay to the King in Person or in Chancery before these Acts were made And then perhaps I may yield that such Commissions of Review are not hereby restrained How comes it to pass V. Cr. Car. 40 Jones Rep. p. 147. Duke's Law of Char. Uses p. 62. Windsor and Hilton's Case that the Chancellor's Decree upon Complaint of a person aggrieved by a Decree of the Commissioners of Charitable Vses is final upon which no Bill of Review is to be allow'd Why because the Statute of 43 Eliz. cap. 4. gives an Appeal to him
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
would have us believe was an Act of the King 's Personal Authority in Ecclesiastical Affairs was a Parliamentary Charter or an Act of Parliament Willielmus Dei gratiâ c. Sciatis c. quod leges Episcopales quae non benè nec secundum sanctorum Canonum praecepta usque ad mea tempora in Regno Anglorum fuerunt Communi Consilio Archiepiscoporum meorum caeterorum Episcoporum Abbatum omnium Procerum Regni mei emendandas Judicavi Propterea mando praecipio ut nullus Episcopus vel Archidiaconus de legibus Episcopalibus amplius in Hundret placita teneat c. This Mr. Selden understood to be an Act of Parliament for having given an account of his Diaploma to Battle-Abbey and recited it at length in his Notes Specilegium ad Eadmerum p. 165 166. which was granted Assensu Lanfranci Archiepiscopi Cantuariensis Stigandi Episcopi Cicestrensis Concilio etiam Episcoporum Baronum meorum says he id genus etiam est sancitum ejus quo Sacrum à Civili discriminavit Forum The same Author speaking in another of his Works of King William the Conquerour's bringing the Possessions of the Church under Military Service of which though Roger Wendover out of whom Matthew Paris took the Relation says that Episcopatus Abbathias omnes quae Baronias tenebant in purâ perpetuâ Eleemosynâ eatenus ab omni servitute Seculari Libertatem habuerant sub servitute statuit Militari irrotulans singulos Episcopatus Abbathias pro Voluntate suâ quot milites sibi successoribus suis hostilitatis tempore voluit à singulis exhiberi Yet says Mr. Selden how it is likely he brought them to this kind of Tenure may be conjectured by other circumstances of the stories of the the same time And observe especially That he held a Parliament the same Year so that perhaps this Innovation of their Tenures was done by an Act of that Parliament Seld. Titles of Honour p. 578. Which I mention only to shew that things said to have been done by the Conquerour and especially Laws and Constitutions mention'd to have been made by Him must not presently be suppos'd to have proceeded from his own single personal Authority but to have been made More Anglico cum assensu Ordinum Regni as has been even now observed out of Mr. Selden What follows in the Doctor p. 156 157 concerning the King 's Temporal Courts being Judges whether a Cause belonged to the Jurisdiction of the Temporal or Ecclesiastical Courts is very true And so is the Account that he gives of King William the First his settling many particulars to belong to the Jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Judges in a Council at Illibon in Normandy Anno 1080. But it is an inveterate Error of the Doctor 's to confound the King 's personal Authority with his Authority in his Courts and his Authority in and with the Assent of his Great Councils or Parliaments That Councel of Illebon mention'd by the Doctor is related by Ordericus Vitalis in this manner viz. Anno ab Incarnatione Domini MLXXX Rex Gulielmus in festo Pentecostes apud Illebonam resedit ibique Gulielmum Archiepiscopum omnes Episcopos Abbates Comitesque cum aliis Proceribus Normanniae simul adesse praecepit Vt Rex jussit factum est Igitur Octavo Anno Papatus Domini Gregorii Papae septimi Concilium apud Jullam bonam celebratum est de statu Ecclesiae Dei totiusque Regni providentiâ Regis cum Baronum suorum consilio utiliter tractatum est And then follow the Canons all being concerning matters Ecclesiastical Now what use the Doctor makes of this Paragraph I know not For the Jurisdiction of the King in his Courts where the Law of the Land is the Judges rule to restrain All Inferiour Courts within their proper bounds no man denies And the King's Authority to limit erect and appoint Consilio Baronum suorum And unà cum Episcopis Comitibus Proceribus Regni sui what Causes shall belong to the cognisance of Ecclesiastical Judges and what not no man that is a Protestant questions How many Acts of Parliament in every Age might be reckon'd of this nature vid. Stat. de Circumspecte agatis temp Edwardi 1. Stat. de Articulis Cleri tempore Edward 2. Statutum pro Clero tempore Edw. 3. and innumerable others Then the Doctor refers his Readers for farther satisfaction how far the Kings of England have exercised Jurisdiction in Ecclesiastical matters to Sir Roger Twiselen pag. 108 109 c. who instanceth in eighteen particulars I will not stand with the Dr. for the number but referr him to Mr. Prynn's second Tome of his Chronological Vindication of the King 's Supreme Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction out of the Introduction to which Volume he might have named five and twenty But because he has chosen to quote Sir Roger Twisden's eighteen let us examin those Particulars and Sir Roger's Authorities upon which he grounds them and it will presently appear how far they make for his Hypothesis 1. The first is that they permitted none to be taken for Pope but by the King's appointment For which he quotes Eadmerus pag. 26. But of this matter having spoken already I shall say no more of it in this place The Second is That none were to receive Letters from the Pope without shewing them to the King who caused all words prejudicial to him or his Crown to be renounced For which he quotes Eadmerus pag. 113. In whom are these words in a Letter from Pope Paschal to King Henry the First viz. Sedis eni◠Apostolicae Nuntii vel Literae praeter jussum sum Regiae Majestatis nullam in potestate tuâ susceptionem aut aditum promerentur This was but the Law of England not to be subject to any Foreign Power asserted by a Law in King William the Conquerour's time and afterwards over and over in opposition to Papal Encroachments and Usurpations confirm'd by the Statutes of Praemunire and Provisors and effectually secured by the Laws made at and since the Reformation and particularly by that Remarkable Statute of 14 Henr. 8. cap. 12. concerning Appeals And that the King could not of himself let in a Forein Power upon his People appears sufficiently by what has been said already The two Passages quoted by Sir Roger out of Thorn Collect pag. 2151 2152 and 2194 shew that two Persons to whom the Pope had conferr'd by Provisions the Monastery of St. Austin in Canterbury were enforced before their Admittance to renounce all such words in their Bulls of Provision as were prejudicial to the King and his Crown i.e. to the Laws of the Realm in and over which the King was Supreme Magistrate and Governour After which renunciation made they did fealty to the King and were by the Escheator put into possession of their Temporalties The King might by Law have oppos'd these Provisions but the Monks who had the Right of
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