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
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
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
by whole-sale is altogether needless in a Constitution wherein Concitò reformari possunt by the same Authority that made them In Forty days time a Parliament may be summoned to consent to what alteration they shall think fit to be made And it is the constant practice observed to this day that at the beginning of every Parliament a Committee is appointed to consider what Laws are inconvenient and have need to be altered continued or repealed If the Parliament shall not think fit to make any alteration the Laws must remain in force and ought to be put in execution for there can be no Reformation of them made Sine Communitatis Procerum assensu And the reason is because by such assent Primitus emanârant The Repealing of a Law or which is all one a total Suspension of a Law is making a new Law whatever quibbles and foolish distinctions may be pretended to be made in the Case Now the Laws of England do not oriri Principis voluntate and rherefore a Repeal or total Suspension of a Law grounded upon the voluntas Principis only is not warranted by that model of the English Government that Fortescue presents us with He that asserts such a Power in the King to Suspend Laws Enacted by the Consent of the whole Kingdom turns the Government of this Nation topsie turvie Lord Chief Justice Herbert in Sir Edward Hales his Case And makes the Laws of England indeed the King's Laws contrary to the style of all Antiquity of all History and contrary to the forms of Legal Proceedings even to this day Lex terrae and Leges terrae Leges Consuetudines Angliae Leges Angliae Statuta Angliae Assiza Regni are known and common Expressions Leges Regis sounds harsh the phrase is uncouth because the Notion included in it is false nor was ever thought of by our Forefathers The Statutes of Praemunire and Provisors and the method of dispensing with them before the Reformation will abundantly disclose to us where the power of dispensing with Acts of Parliament even in Ecclesiastical Matters was vested In the 16th Year of King Richard the Second the Archbishop of Canterbury declared the Causes of the Parliament The second of which was to provide some remedy touching the Statute of Provisors for eschewing debate betwixt the Pope and the King and his Parliament Cot. Records p. 346. King Richard needed not have put himself to the trouble of convening his Parliament in order to provide a Remedy in such case if by the Law as it was then understood he might by his Perogative have dispensed with the Statutes of Provisors and all other Laws concerning Ecclesiastical Matters In the 17th R. 2. It was enacted in Parliament that Tydeman late Abbot of Beawliew and Elect of Landaffe by the Popes Provision should enjoy the same Bishoprick notwithstanding any Act so always as this be taken for no Example Ibid. p. 354. So that tho Tydeman had a Dispensation from the King he durst not trust to it without getting his Title to his Abby confirmed in Parliament The like President occurs in 18 H. 6. The Archbishop of Roan had the Profits of the Bishoprick of Ely granted to him by the Pope and confirmed in Parliament Ibid. p. 623. But in the Fifteenth year of King Richard the Second the Commons for the great Affiance which they reposed in the King granted that the King by the Advice of his Lords might make such Toleration touching the Statute of Provision as to him should seem good until the next Parliament so as the Statute be repealed in no Article thereof nor none disturbed of his lawful Possession So also as they may disagree thereto at the next Parliament with this Protestation That this their Assent being in truth a Novelty be had or taken for no Example Ibid. p. 342. And in the Sixteenth year of the same King the Commons grant to the King that he by the Advice of his Lords should have power to moderate the Statute of Provisions to the Honour of God and saving the Rights of the Crown and to put the same in execution so as the same be declared in the next Parliament to the end the Commons may then agree to the same or no. Ibid. pag. 347. The occasions of these Concessions were the then circumstances of the Kings Affairs who was often at enmity with France and made advantage of the Pope's Friendship which he obtained by this and other Methods of the like kind The like Instances occur in the same Collection p. 362 In the Twentieth year of the same King. p. 393 In the First year of King Henry the Fourth p. 406 In the Second year of King Henry the Fourth From hence it appears that those Times had no notion of any absolute Power any inseparable Perogative in the King himself of dispensing with those Laws without his Parliaments consent For they grant the King such Power and that but for a time and so as they may disagree to it at their next Meeting and with a protestation that this their Assent be not drawn into Example and declare their giving the King such Power to be a Novelty And all this they do with a saving to the Rights of the Crown which let them if they can explain the meaning of who imagine that the uniting of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to the Crown of England by the Statute of 1 Eliz. is a vesting of it in the King's Person In this same interval of Time the Statutes of Praemunire were enacted viz. 27 Edw. 3. cap. 1. and 38 Edw. 3. cap. 1. 16 R. 2. and some others with which how far it was lawful for the King to dispense take an account from what hapned to Cardinal Wolsey in King Henry the Eighths time He had a Commission from the Pope to exercise his Office of Legate here in England he had the King's leave so to do he exercised that Office many years without controul and was submitted to almost universally I remember but one Obstruction offered to have been made to him and that was by Hunne a Merchant-Taylor in London The History of which may be read at large in Fox and Dr. Burnet's History of the Reformation And yet the whole Clergy were afterwards attainted of a Praemunire for submitting to such Foreign Authority as the same Authors the Lord Herbert and others abundantly testifie But Stephen Gardiner's Letter to the Duke of Somerset concerning that Matter as it is very remarkable for many other Passages so this ensuing part I think proper to be here inserted because it will save me the trouble of relating the History and of endeavouring to open the Reasons of that Proceeding Now whether the King may command against an Act of Parliament and what Danger they may fall in that break a Law with the King's consent I dare say no Man alive at this day hath had more Experience with the Judges and Lawyers than I First I had experience in my
either allowed or condemned The principal Cases in our Modern Books in which the conceits of latter times are display'd are these following Coke's 8th Report the Princes Case The Case of the City of London 11th Report the Case of the Taylors of Ipswich and the Case of Monopolies Dyer 52. a. 54. a. 224. b. 270. a. 303. a b. Plo. Com. Grendon against the Bishop of Lincoln Vaughan's Reports Thomas and Sorell's Case V. Roll's Abridgment Second Part p. 179 180. Lett. Y. Co. 12th Report p. 18 19. Sir John Davie's Reports Le Case de Commenda p. 68 c. Moor's Reports p. 244 245 c. cs 384. But how correspondent the reason of some of these Judgments is to the sense of former Parliaments and consequentially to the Judgment of the whole Nation and the very Constitution of this Government take a hint from a notable Record in the Fiftieth Year of King Edward the Third whereby it appears That Richard Lyons Merchant of London was impeached and accused by the Commons of many Deceits Extortions and other evil Deeds committed by him against our Lord the King and his People as well in the time that he had been belonging to the House and Council of the King as otherwise during the time that he was Farmer of the Subsidies and Customs of the King and more especially for that the said Richard by Covin had between him and some of the Privy Council of our Lord the King for their singular Profit and Advantage had procured and gotten many Patents and Writs of Licence to be made to carry great Faith and Credit whereby Skins Wool and other Merchandizes were transported otherwise than to the Staple of Calice against the Ordinances and Defences made in that behalf concerning the same before time in Parliament He was charged with other particular Crimes to some of which he offered to make a Defence but to others and this amongst the rest he made no answer Wherefore the said Richard was a warded to Prison during the King's pleasure and distrained to Fine and Ransom according to the quantity of his Trespass and that he should lose his Freedom of the City of London and be no more in Office under the King and to incur other Penalties and Forfeitures as may be seen at large in the Record printed by Mr. Selden in a Book entituled The Priviledges of the Baronage of England pag. 34 35 36 c. So that Licences for the shipping of Wool contrary to an Act of Parliament tho mentioned by Rocliffe in the Book of King Henry the Seventh as legal and grantable by the King with a Non Obstante and countenanced sufficiently by latter Judicial Authorities Vide Dyer 52. a 54. a c. Yet appeared otherwise to antient Parliaments and if the Judgment of a Parliament be of greater Authority than that of a Court in Westminster-Hall or indeed than that of all the Judges put together and if Judicial Presidents do not make the Law but ought to declare it only then is the Legal Perogative in dispensing with Acts of Parliament much straiter if any at all than modern Opinions would represent it to us And that Parliamentary Presidents are of the highest Authority in this Nation will appear by considering that in former Times it was very frequent with the Judges in Westminster-Hall if any Case of Difficulty came before them especially if it depended upon the Construction of an Act of Parliament to be so cautious of making any new unwarranted Presidents that they frequently adjourned the Matter ad proximum Parliamentum By the Statute of Westminster the Second made Anno 13. Edwardi primi cap. 23. It 's enacted That Quotiescunque de caetero evenerit in Cancellaria quod in uno Casu reperitur breve in consimili casu cadente sub eodem Jure simili indigente Remedio non reperitur concordent Clerici de Cancellariâ in brevi faciendo vel atterminent querentes in proximum Parliamentum escribantur Casus i◠quibus concordare non possunt referant eos ad proximum Parliamentum My Lord Coke in his Second Institutes pag. 407. tells us That before this Act the Justices did punctually hold themselves to the Writs in the Register because they could not change them without an Act of Parliament And pag. 408. That Matters of great Difficulty were in antient Times usually adjourned into Parliament to be resolved and decided there And that this was the antient Custom and Law of the Kingdom Bracton bears witness Si aliqua nova inconsueta emerserint quae nunquam priùs evenerunt obscurum difficile sit eorum judicium tunc ponantur judicia in respectu usque ad Magnam Curiam ut ibi per Concilium Curiae terminentur And hereof the Lord Coke says There are infinite Presidents in the Rolls of Parliament and quotes in his Margent many Presslents out of the Year Books Observable to this purpose is the Statute of 14 Edw. 3. cap. 6. which reciting that divers Mischiefs have hapned for that in the Chancery King's Bench Common Bench and Exchequer Judgments have been delayed sometimes by Difficulty and sometimes by divers Opinions of the Judges and sometimes for some other Cause It is assented established and accorded That from henceforth at every Parliament shall be chosen a Prelate two Earls and two Barons which shall have Commission and Power of the King to hear by Petition delivered to them the Complaints of all those that will complain them of such Delays and they shall have power to cause to come before them at Westminster or elsewhere the Tenor of Records and Processes of such Judgments so delayed and cause the same Justices to come before them which shall be then present to hear the cause of such Delays Which Cause and Reason so heard by good Advice of themselves the Chancellor Treasurer the Justices of the one Bench and of the other and other of the King's Council as many and such as they shall think convenient shall proceed to take a good Accord and make a good Judgment So that our Parliaments of antient Time looked upon the Judges not as absolute Oracles of the Law but as Men that were both liable to Mistakes and under the Regulation and Direction of Parliaments even in their Ordinary Proceedings The Nation did not so far intrust them as they themselves would persuade us of late In the Three and thirtieth of H. 6. a Question arose in the Exchequer Chamber Whether a Record then and there certified as an Act of Parliament were really an Act of Parliament or no Fortescue who gave the Rule says They would be well advised before they annulled an Act of Parliament and the Matter was adjourned to the next Parliament that they might be certified by them of the certainty of the Matter 33 Hen. 6. Fol. 18. Indeed the Question Whether such or such a Record certified were an Act of Parliament or no may seem too high for
This Prerogative that our Kings now have in the Election of Bishops stands upon the foundation of this Act of Parliament and other it has none The Supreme Headship it seems did not include the power of appointing Bishops for that had been allow'd two Years ago and is acknowledged by way of recital in this Session cap. 21. and yet the Election and Consecration of Bishops is appointed by Act of Parliament so that the title of Supreme Head did not then imply any such exorbitant Power as some have imagin'd Next comes the Act entituled No Imposition shall be paid to the Bishop of Rome c. It recites That where this your Grace's Realm recognising no Superior under God but only your Grace hath been and is free from subjection to any Man's Law but only to such as have been devised made and ordained within the same for the Wealth of the said Realm or to such other as by sufferance of your Grace and your Progenitors the People of this Realm have taken at their free Will and Liberty by their own Consent to be used among them and have bound themselves by long use and custom to the observance of the same not as to the observance of the Laws of any foreign Prince Potentate or Prelate but as to the accustomed and ancient Laws of this Realm originally establish'd as Laws of the same by the said sufferance consent and custom and none otherwise These other Laws which the People of this Realm are said to have taken at their free Will and Liberty by their own Consent and are said to have bound themselves to as to the Established Laws of the Realm by the said sufferance consent and custom and none otherwise are the Canon Laws Which here the Parliament disclaim any Obligation to the observance of otherwise than as they had bound themselves by their own sufferance and consent And consequently they did not look upon any Ecclesiastical Laws as obligatory to themselves and their Posterity but what themselves had or for the time to come should Consent to This would never have proceeded from them if they had imagin'd that the Legislative Power in Ecclesiastical Matters was or ever had been vested in the King's Person as some amongst us have not stuck to assert of late But the Act goes on It standeth therefore with natural equity and good Reason that in all and every such Laws humane made within this Realm or induced into this Realm by the said sufferance consent and custom your Royal Majesty and your Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons representing the whole state of your Realm in this your most high Court of Parliament have full Power and Authority not only to dispense but also to authorize some Elect Person or Persons to dispense with those and all other humane Laws of this your Realm c. and also the same to abrogate amplifie or diminish as it shall seem to your Majesty and the Nobles and Commons of your Realm present in your Parliament meet and convenient c. Here is no dispensing Power acknowledged to be personal in the King. Nor is the Parliament so much a stranger to Matters of Religion as not to have a share even in the dispensing as well as the abrogating Power with respect to Ecclesiastical Laws You see as soon as ever the foreign Yoke was cast off they put in for their share of the Supremacy nor did the King look upon it as any diminution to his own legal right to admit their claim It was in concurrence with them and with their assent that the method of prosecuting Appeals had been settled they joyn'd with him in tying up the hands of the Clergy from promulging any Constitutions without the Royal Assent their Authority concurr'd in appointing how Bishops should be Elected Invested and Consecrated and here they impower the Archbishop and the King to grant Dispensations Then they proceed to Enact how and by whom and in what cases Dispensations shall be granted for the future And first they impower the Archbishop of Canterbury for the time being and his Successors to grant Dispensations to the King his Heirs and Successors for causes not contrary to the Scriptures and the Laws of God. How Could not the King by vertue of his inherent Prerogative dispense with himself Dr. Hicks Was not this involv'd in the formal conception of Imperial Soveraignty No. If he will act contrary to Law he must have a Dispensation and that Dispensation granted by a Subject impowered by Act of Parliament so to do This is the first and only Act that gives the King a power of dispensing in Ecclesiastical Matters and the Archbishop of Canterbury may dispense in all cases which the King by vertue of this Act may dispense in only in cases unwont to be dispensed in at Rome he must advertise the King or his Councel who if they determine that such Dispensation shall pass then the Archbishop having the King's Licence shall dispense accordingly But who ever heard of the King 's Licensing an Archbishop to dispence with an Act of Parliament How would it found in our Ears if Divinâ Providentiâ Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus should issue a Non Obstante to an Act of the King Lords and Commons in Parliament And yet the Archbishop may grant Dispensations with the King's allowance in all Cases whatsoever that that Act extends to Therefore I say the King's Power of dispensing by vertue of that Act is with the Canon Law only which in effect was no Law at all To say that the King is not restrain'd by this Act Hob. p 146. in Colt and Glovers Case but his power remains full and perfect as before and he may grant them still as King for all Acts of Justice and Mercy flow from him is a sound of words only vox praetereà nihil And yet we find by Experience that hae nugae seria ducunt in mala there is likewise a strange Expression in Moor's Reports 542. cs 719. Al tierce point ils semblont que la Royne poit granter dispensations come le Pape puissoit en cases lou l'Archevesque n'ad authority per le Stat. de 25 H. 8. de granter dispensations quia tout l'authority que le Pape usoit est done al Corone But these and many other scattered Cases and extravagant Expressions of Reporters which have been made use of as Judgments in after times there may possibly be some account given hereafter in a Discourse by it self The latter part of the Statute of 25 H. 8. c. 21. concerns the visiting of Colleges Hospitals and places exempt It is enacted that the Archbishop of Canterbury or any other person or persons shall have no Power and Authority by reason of this Act to visit or vex any Monasteries Abbeys Priories Colleges Hospitals Houses or other places Religious which be or were exempt before the making of this Act but that Redress Visitation and Confirmation shall be had by the King's Highness
Anselm's contempt consist in Disobeying the Law and not the King 's Personal and Arbitrary Will and Pleasure If any Man depart the Realm at this Day after a Writ of Ne Exeat Regnum served upon him he becomes a Fugitive and the King may seize his Estate as he did the Archbishops Temporalities And yet we have no Act of Parliament for this now upon Record but Custom Time out of Mind which we call Common-Law Yet among the Laws of Clarendon this is one VIZ. Archiepiscopis Episcopis Personis Regni non liceat Exire Regnum absque Licentia Domini Regis Decem Scriptores pag. 1386 1387. Matth. Paris pag. 100. And Polydore Virgill pag. 171. carries this Law up as high as to the Reign of King William Rufus Publico Edicto Vetuit says he Vnumquemque sine Licentiâ suâ Ex Angliâ egredi qui mos lexve dicitur Ne Exeas Regnum Quae adhuc cùm ita res requirit usurpatur And it appears by the Register Fol. 193 194. That Religious Persons purchased Licences to go beyond the Sea. And Bracton tells us Lib. Quinto Fol. 413. b. That those Writs were de Communi Consilio totius Regni Concessa Approbata Of which more hereafter And great Reason there was that they who were then strugling with the Government to Introduce a Foreign Jurisdiction should when they went beyond Sea Assecurare Regem quod nec in eundo vel redeundo vel moram faciendo perquirerent malum sive damnum Domino Regi Constitution Clarend Suprad But as Mr. Selden says in his Metamorphosis Anglorum pag. 237. Huc referas Scil. ad temp Henrici Secundi an cum Polydoro ad Rufum an ad posteriora tempora rescriptum quod in Regesto NE EXEAS REGNVM habetur haud ità multùm interest nec quaestionem accurare operae pretium est Quis enim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 tam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 verum potis est elicere It being almost impossible to find out the Original of this Law and it appearing by the Register that whenever it did begin it began by Authority of Parliament and since nothing is known to the contrary but that it might begin in King William Rufus his Time to whose Time Polydere Virgill refers it and if it did not since Parliaments were frequently held then and One famous one at Rochingham during this very Controversie betwixt the King and Anselm Eadmer pag. 38. about his going to Rome in which he asked leave to depart and was denyed it Who knows but there might then be a particular Prohibition to him by the King in that Great Council But be that how it will the Truth in this Matter lies too deep by reason of the loss of almost all the Civil Laws made in the Reigns of Our First Norman Kings through the Embezelment of Records and the Carelessness of the Monks of those times for the Doctor to draw a good Argument from hence of the Danger of disobeying the King 's Personal Command Nay further if this Instance were never so much for him First It was in King William Rufus his Reign the Irregularities and Tyranny of whose Government was such and the Matters of Fact so lamely Reported to us that no Argument drawn from what he might do will be very conclusive to the Legality or Illegality of any thing And Secondly There is a very good Law made since VIZ. Ann. 14 Edwardi 3. cap. 6. to Protect the Clergy from incurring any such prejudice for the future for not doing whatsoever they are bid to do We Will and Grant for Vs and our Heirs that from henceforth We nor our Heirs shall not take nor cause to be taken into our Hands the Temporalities of Archbishops Bishops Abbots Priors nor other People of Holy Church of what Estate or Condition they be without a Just and True Cause according to the Law of the Land and Judgment thereupon given The Doctor makes account pag. 146 147. that the Oath which he says Anselm had taken whereby he promised the King Eadmer pag. 39. lib. 2. se usus ac leges suas usquequaque deinceps servaturum eas sibi contra omnes homines fideliter defensurum was no ways like the present Oath of Supremacy Whereby he would represent the Supremacy as a quite other thing and much more Exorbitant since the Reformation than it was in King William Rufus his Time Which is a great Errour For the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of the Kings of England was then almost entire and in puris naturalibus Foreign Jurisdiction had not then grown upon our Constitution The Bishops indeed were warping Rome-wards which caused the Government to have a watchful Eye upon them and to enjoyn Oaths upon them for security against Vsurpations then feared because attempted as after the Reformation they were enjoyned to prevent the return of them But the Oath of Supremacy prescribed by primo Elizabeth being only to Assist and Defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges Preheminencies and Authorities Granted or Belonging to the Queen's Highness her Heirs and Successors Or Vnited and Annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm is the same in Substance with Swearing in King William Rufus his Time to Keep and Defend the Laws and Vsages of the Realm For those Jurisdictions Priviledges Preheminencies and Authorities which having been torn from the Crown were restored by the primo Elizabeth and by the several Acts of King Henry the Eighth thereby revived were in being and actually enjoyed in King William Rufus his Time and before and for some time after He was the Supreme Governour of the Realm in Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Things and Causes as well as Temporal Witness that Law of King Edward the Confessor revived and confirmed by King William the First Rex quia Vicarius summi Regis est ad hoc est Constitutus ut Regnum terrenum populum Domini super omnia Sanctam Veneretur Ecclesiam ejus Regat ab injuriosis defendat maleficos ab eâ evellat destruat penitùs disperdat Lambard leg pag. 142. And the several Branches afterwards lopped off from the King's Supremacy were endeavoured to be preserved and secured by the Laws of Clarendon The Third Chapter of which provides against the Exemption of Clerks from the King's Justice The Eighth against Appeals to Rome The Twelfth secures the King's Right and Interest in the Elections of Archbishops Bishops Abbots and Priors c. These Constitutions then called the Avitae Consuetudines Regni Archbishop Becket promisit in verbo sacerdotali de plano se velle custodire Similiter Episcopi promiserunt Juraverunt Gerv. Dorob Coll. pag. 1366. This was no other than the Modern Oath of Supremacy without any material difference The Archbishop did not pretend that the Laws of Clarendon as Wicked and Unjust as he might think them were any other than Explanations and Assertions of the Ancient Vsages of the Realm His Suffragans tell him in a Letter
out of Parliament endow Bishopricks because they could not distrahere patrimonium Regni And a further Consideration to this purpose may be drawn from the Exemptions which the possessions of the Church enjoy'd from all secular service Except the Trinoda necessitas Which Exemptions were all Granted by Charters Assented to in Parliament as appears undeniably by the several Charters Granted in divers Kings Reigns successively to the Abby of Crowland All inserted in haec verba into Ingulphus his History of that Monastery and by the Monasticon In which it appears further that all Exemptions from Episcopal Jurisdiction Except of the King 's free Chappels which were of his own Foundation were granted in Parliament I mean all such Exemptions granted by our Kings For the Pope used to grant Exemptions by Bulls and those Papal Exemptions were confirm'd by Parliament temp Henr. 8. King William the Conquerour Founded Battle-Abby in Sussex in the place where he overcame Harald and Exempted it from Episcopal Jurisdiction But whether he did it in Parliament or not let the Charter it self testifie viz. Willielmus Dei Gratia Rex Anglorum c. Notum sit Vobis me Concessisse confirmasse cum Assensu Lanfranci Archiepiscopi Cantuariensis Stigandi Episcopi Cicestrensis Consilio etiam Episcoporum Baronum meorum ut Ecclesia Sancti Martini de Bello quam Fundavi ex voto ob Victoriam quam mihi Deus in eodem loco concessit libera sit quieta in perpetuum ab omni servitute omnibus quaecunque humana mens excogitare potest c. Nec liceat Episcopo Cicestrensi quamvis in illius Dioecesi sit in Ecclesia illa vel Maneriis ad illam pertinentibus ex consuetudine hospitari contra voluntatem Abbatis nec Ordinationes aliquas facere ibidem nec Abbatiam in aliquo gravare sed neque super illam Dominationem aliquam aut vim aut potestatem exerceat sed sicut mea Dominica Capella libera sit omnino ab omni ejus Exactione c. Hoc etiam Regali Authoritate Episcopolum Baronum meorum Attestatione constituo quatenus Abbas Ecclesiae suae leugae circumjacentis per omnia Judex sit Dominus The Fourteenth Particular is that our Kings have by their Writs commanded Bishops to keep resident Which considering that it was their Duty incumbent on them by Law what great Power does it argue in the King to command his Subjects to do what the Law enjoyns them The Sixteenth is That they have commanded their Bishops by reason of Schism or Vacancy in the Popedom c. not to seek Confirmation from Rome but the Metropolitans to be charged by the King 's Writ to bestow it on the Elected For this Sir Roger quotes Rot. Parl. 16. Mart. 3 Hen. 5. nu 11. Anno Domini 1414. Now that was done by Act of Parliament Which because it is observable to many purposes shall be transcrib'd at large Our Lord the King considering the long Vacancy of the Apostolick See by reason of the damnable Schism which has now continued a long time in Holy Church and is not known how long it may yet last And that certain Cathedral Churches within the Kingdom which are of the Foundation of his Noble Progenitors and belong to his Patronage have been for some while and are yet destitute of Parochial Government because the Persons that are elected into the same cannot be confirmed in Parts beyond the Sea for want of an Apostle Altho' our said Lord the King bath thereunto given his Royal Assent to the Great decrease of Divine Service in the said Churches substraction of Hospitality Great peril of many Souls Devastation and Destruction of the Lordships and Possessions belonging to the same and the Impoverishment of such Bishops Elect And that by possibility all the Cathedral Churches within the Realm may become void in like manner and so be destitute of Government and the King and his Realm of Council Comfort and Aid which they ought to have of the Prelacy And considering also that in divers foreign Parts since the Voidance of the said See divers Confirmations have been and are daily made by the Metropolitans of the places as he is credibly informed and Willing for that cause for ousting the said Mischiefs chiefs to provide such remedy as it behoves By the full and deliberate Advice and Assent of the Lords and Commons of his Realm in this present Parliament Wills and Ordains that the persons so chosen and to be chosen within his Kingdom during the Vacancy of the said See Apostolick shall be comfirmed by the Metropolitans of the Places without Excuse or further delay in that behalf And that the King's Writs if need be be directed to the Metropolitans straitly charging them to make the said Confirmations And to perform all that to their Office belongeth As also to the Bishops Elect that they on their part Effectually prosecute their Confirmations that through default of such Metropolitans or Bishops Elect dammage or prejudice may not ensue to our Lord King and his Kingdom and to his Realm and to the said Churches for the Cause aforesaid which God forbid Here it is plain that what Sir Roger ascribes to the King was really done by the full and deliberate Advice and Assent of the Lords and Commons of his Kingdom in Parliament And therefore that the supreme Jurisdiction in matters Ecclesiastical was not in the notion of that Age Lodg'd personally in the King but in the King by Law in the King with his Parliament about him Pursuant to this President we find in King Henry the Eighth's time a Notable Act in the 28th Year of his Reign cap. 16. In which there is this clause viz. And that it may be also Enacted by Authority of this present Parliament that all Arch bishops and Bishops of this Realm or of any the King's Dominions Consecrated and at this present time taken and reputed for Arch-bishops and Bishops may by Authority of this Present Parliament and not by vertue of any Provision or other Forein Authority Licence Faculty or Dispensation keep enjoy and retain their Arch-bishopricks in as large and ample manner as if they had been promoted Elected and consecrated according to the due course of the Laws of this Realm And that every Arch-bishop and Bishop of this Realm and of other the King's Dominions may minister use and Exercise all and every thing and things pertaining to the Office or Order of an Arch bishop and Bishop with all Tokens Ensigns and Ceremonies thereunto Lawfully belonging This Act in the 2d paragraph had made void all Bulls Dispensations Breves c. obtain'd at Rome contrary to the statutes of Premunire Provisors whereby many Bishopricks would have become void To prevent which the Clause here recited makes them legal Bishops notwithstanding and supplies all the Ceremonies of Election and Consecration Which I suppose no man will take upon him to say that the King might then
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
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
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
Anselm about Anselm's going to fetch his Pall from Vrban And that betwixt Lanfrank Arch-bishop of Canterbury and Thomas Arch-bishop of York concerning the Profession of Canonical Obedience which the former required of the Latter the Chusing Bishops and Arch-Bishops the Controversies betwixt King Henry the 2d and Thomas Becket all heard debated and determined in General Assemblies of Clergy and Laity and not by our Kings apart from their Great Councels The Eleventh is That they permitted No appeals to Rome 'T is true nor did they ever determine them themselves either in person or by Commission And therefore the Statute of Clarendon which gives Appeals from the Arch-Bishop to the King was never understood to be to the King in person but to the King in his Court. As we may see by what Ger. Dorobern Anno 1176. Coll. p. 1433 And Hoveden fol. 313 314 tell us of the statute made at Northampton in King Henry the second 's time Which both of them call a renewing of the Assize of Clarendon Now in these Laws made at Northampton there is this close Expression concerning Appeals Justiciae faciant quaerere per consuetudinem terrae illos qui à Regno recesserunt nisi redire voluerint infrà terminum nominatum stare ad Rectum in Curià Domini Regis Vtlagentur So that though King Henry as far as in him lay had given ways to Appeals to Rome for when he was absolv'd of the Guilt that he was supposed to have contracted by having occasioned the death of Thomas Becket part of the satisfaction enjoyn'd him was quod licebit Appellationes libere fieri Radulph de Diceto p. 560 yet the Kingdom afterward meeting in Parliament at Northampton would not quit their interest But renew'd the Laws of Clarendon against forein Appeals And explain the Appeals ad Regem to be meant of Appeals ad Curiam Regis But it is a common errour with Men that are ignorant of our Laws wherever they find they King's name in any Acts of Parliament or Judicial Proceedings to imagine that the King has some Personal Authority out of his Courts But for the present I will give but one Instance to detect that mistake The Stat. of Westm 1. Enacts cap. 15. what persons shall be replevisable and what not Amongst others those that are taken by Commandement le Roy are appointed not to be bayl'd by that Statute My Lord Coke in his Commentary upon that Law 2d Institut pag. 186. says thus viz. 1. The King being a body Politick cannot command but by matter of Record for Rex praecipit and lex praecipit are all one For the King must command by matter of Record according to Law. 2. When any Judicial Act is by Act of Parliament referred to the King it is to be understood to be done in some Court of Justice according to Law. The words of the Statute of Rich. 2. cap. 12. are si non que il sort per briefe ou auter maundement del Roy. And yet it was resolved by all the Judges of England that the King cannot do it by any Commandment but by Writ or by Order or Rule of some of his Courts of Justice where the Cause dependeth And Fortescue speaking to the Prince to instruct him against he should be King Melius says he per alios quà m per teipsum Judicia reddes quo proprio ore Nullus Regum Angliae usus est tamen sua sunt omnia Judicia Regni licet per alios ipsa reddantur sicut judicum â—lim sententias Josaphat asseruit esse judicia Dei. The Great Case in tertio Caroliprimi of Habeas Corpus turn'd upon this point The Judges indeed betray'd the Nation in that cause as they have done in others in these Hundred years last past as far as in them lay but how that Judgment was resented in Parliament the Reader may inform himself out of the 1st Vol. of Rushworth's Collections and the 1st part of Doctor Nalson The Law was declared upon that occasion to be that Voluntas Regis est secundum legem et Justiciarios suos in Guriâ suâ non in Camerâ according to 2 R. 3. f. The Twelfth particular is that Our Kings bestowed Bishopricks on such as they liked and translated Bishops from one See to another concerning our Kings bestowing Bishopricks something has been said already As for their translating Bishops from one See to another I desire to hear any one Instance in any age of any Bishop translated by the King against his own will. The Pope pretended to such a power and sometimes Exercised it and that was one of the mischiefs which occasioned the making of the Statutes of Provisors But could never yet find that any of our Kings attempted it The Thirteenth particular is Erecting New Bishopricks The Instances given by Sir Roger are 1st the erecting of the Bishoprick of Ely by King Henry the 1st Anno 1009. taking it out of Lincoln-Diocess And yet nothing is more evident then that this was done by Act of Parliament The Instrument Runs thus viz. In Nomine sanctae individuae Trinitatis Patris Filii spiritus sancti Anno ab Incarnatione Domini MCVIII Indictione Anno Pontificatus Domini Paschalis Papae 2. decimo Regni quoque mei similiter decimo Ego Henricus Providente Divina Clementia Rex Anglorum Normannorum Dux Wilhelmi Magni Regis Filius qui Edwardo Regi Haereditario jure successit in Regnum videns Ecclesiae messem in Regno meo multam esse Agricolas quidem paucos et ab hoc plurimum laborantes in Messe et in ipsa Lincolniensem Ecclesiam multa plebe foecundam ex Authoritate Consilio predicti Papae Paschalis Assenfu simul prece Roberti Lincolniensis Episcopi totius Capituli sui cum ipso annuente Domino Anselmo Beatae memoriae Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo Thoma secundo Venerabili Eboracensium Archiepiscopo Universis Episcopis Abbattibus totius Angliae sed omnibus Ducibus Comitibus Principibus Regni mei Elyense Monasterium c. in Episcopalem sedem sicut caeteros Episcopatus Regni mei liberam absolutam perenniter statuo confirmo vid. Mr. Selden 's Notas Spicilegium ad Eadmer Et Dugdale's Monasticon And what if All the Bishopricks of England Erected both before and after were Erected by Acts of Parliament and not by the King's Letters Patents only In King Edward the Elder 's time upon the Letter of Pope Formosus Congregata est synodus Senatorum Procerum Populorum Nobilium Gentis Angliae In quâ Presidebat Plegmundus Archiepiscopus Tum sibi Rex cum suis et Plegmundus Archiepiscopus salubre Concilium iniverunt and Constituted and Elected five Bishops in the Province of the Gewissi where there had till then been but two dividing those two Bishopricks into five by Act of Parliament Spelman's Counc Volum 1. pag. 387 388. Malmesbury de Gestis
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
little or none Effect or Force Therefore it is ordained and enacted by Authority of this present Parliament That all and singular Persons as well Lay as those that be Married being Doctors of the Civil Law c. The enacting of a thing by Parliament to silence all Doubts to give credit to the Proceedings of such Lay-men as then did actually exercise Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction by Commission or otherwise shews sufficiently that even in Matters never so Spiritual the Act of King Lords and Commons carryed a greater Authority than any Commission Dispensation or other Act whatsoever proceeding from the King solely and that at a time when the Supremacy was at the height There were many other Acts passed in this Kings Reign concerning Church men and Matters confessedly of Ecclesiastical Conusance as 21 Hen. 8. cap. 5. concerning Probates of Wills. Cap. 6. Concerning Mortuaries taken by Priests and others Cap. 13. Against Pluralities of Benefices and taking of Farms by Spiritual Men. 23 Hen. 8. Cap. 1. Abridging the Power of Ordinaries and taking away the Benefit of Clergy in some Cases Cap. 9. That no Man be cited into any Ecclesiastical Court out of the Diocess wherein he dwells unless in certain Cases Cap. 10. Concerning Feoffments and Assurances to the use of any Church or Chappel 25 Hen. 8. Cap. 14. For the punishment of Heresie and Hereticks limiting the manner of proceeding against them defining what shall be Heresie how it shall be punisht and abridging the Authority of the Bishops and the Canon Law. Cap. 16. Concerning Pluralities 26 Hen. 8. Cap. 3. For the payment of the First Fruits of all Dignities Benefices Promotions Spiritual and Tenths to the King and his Heirs abolishing the Pope's Usurpation and Authority herein Cap. 13. For abolishing the Priviledge of Sanctuary in Cases of High Treason Cap. 15. Against some Exactions of Spiritual Men within the Archdeaconry of Richmond 27 Hen. 8. Cap. 8. That the King 's Spiritual Subjects shall pay no Tenths whilst they are in their First Fruits Cap. 19. Limiting Sanctuaries and Sanctuary Persons Cap. 20. Concerning the Payment of Tythes within the City and Suburbs of London Cap. 28. For the suppressing of Monasteries Priories and Religious Houses vesting their Revenues in the King and erecting a Court of Augmentations 28 Hen. 8. Cap. 10. For extinguishing the Authority of the Bishop of Rome prescribing an Oath of Abjuration of it and Popery together with the Pope's Usurpations and excellently setting forth the King's Supremacy and Parliaments Authority in Matters Ecclesiastical Cap. 11. For the Restitution of the Profits arising during the Vacation of a Benefice to the next Incumbent Cap. 13. Compelling Spiritual Persons to reside upon their Livings Cap. 16. Releasing such as had obtain'd pretended Licences and Dispensations from the See of Rome 31 Hen. 8. Cap. 16. Enabling such as were Religious Persons to purchase Lands to sue and to be sued in all manner of Actions which they were disabled formerly to do by the Common and Canon Law. Cap. 9. Enabling the King to make Bishops by his Letters Patents and to erect new Bishopricks which he did Cap. 13. For dissolving all Monasteries and Religious Houses and vesting them in the King. Cap. 14. For abolishing diversity of Opinions in Matters of Religion most fully and exactly demonstrating the Parliaments Jurisdiction in Matters of Religion 32 Hen. 8. Cap. 7. For the true Payment of Tythes and Offerings Cap. 10. For the Punishment of incontinent Priests and Women offending with them Cap. 12. Concerning Sanctuaries and the Priviledges of Churches and Church-Yards Cap. 15. Prescribing the manner of proceeding against Hereticks and impugners of the Act for abolishing of enormous Opinions in Christians Religion Cap. 25. Dispensing with the Marriage between the King and the Lady Ann of Cleve 33 Hen. 8. Cap. 29. For enabling Religious Persons to sue and be sued Cap. 31. Severing the Bishopricks of Chester and the Isle of Man from the Jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Canterbury and uniting them to the Province and Archbishoprick of York Cap. 32. Making the Church of Whitegate a Parish Church by it self and severing it from the Parish of Over All these Acts and perhaps some few not here enumerated evince beyond all possibility of contradiction that the whole Fabrick of the English Church both as to the Doctrin Discipline Ceremonies Censures Rights Jurisdictions Endowments Priviledges c. was from time to time ordered moulded governed altered improved or impaired by Authority of Parliament and not by the King in right of his meer Supremacy nor by the Clergy upon the score of any pretended Authority derived from from Christ or from the King as SUPREME HEAD on Earth That no one Pin was fastned in this Tabernacle but according to what the Legislative Body of the Kingdom prescribed and directed from time to time That this Age had no other Notion of the King's Supremacy by common right than our Fore-Fathers had before the Pope and his Faction grew upon our Constitution That many Powers and Authorities given to King Henry the Eighth by Parliament which are now either abrogated or expired as they shew that our King 's were not nor are entituled to them of common Right nor can justifie the executing any such Authority by Presidents in his Reign which were grounded upon Laws then in being but which are now of no force so they shew unquestionably that there is a greater and more Soveraign Supremacy in Matters Spiritual and Ecclesiastical in the King and both Houses of Parliament than is lodged in the King himself or in the King and Convocation It appears farther that those Temporary Powers given to that King expiring with him and the Act of 26 Hen. 8. Cap. 1. being now Repeal'd the Legal and Ancient Jurisdiction of the Crown in Matters Ecclesiastical is the same now that it was Five hundred Years ago notwithstanding any thing that pass'd in this Reign only that a new Course is now settled and that by Act of Parliament too for the Electing of Bishops and Prosecuting of Appeals Only one Thing more I shall add viz. That in Matters Spiritual as well as Temporal several Resolutions of the Judges being grounded on Temporary Acts of Parliament then in being following Judges both Ecclesiastical and Civil meeting with such Resolutions and not considering that those Acts upon which such Resolutions were made were but Temporary or Repeal'd they have made such Judgments to be Presidents to graft their Modern Opinions upon FINIS An Answer to CHAP. 4. SECT 1. Of a late BOOK Entituled the King 's Visitatorial Power Asserted By way of APPENDIX SInce the foregoing Papers were Written a late Mercenary Writer One Nathaniel Johnson Doctor in Physick has publish'd a Book Entituled The King 's Visitatorial Power Asserted in which Book he has inserted a long Section how pertinently to his main design in that Treatise may perhaps be shewn hereafter concerning the King's Supremacy and Power in Ecclesiastical Causes and
Visitations page 144. c. to page 160. In which Section because he pretends to set up an imaginary Personal Supremacy quite different from what I have endeavoured to assert from some Remarks upon Ancient Histories and late Acts of Parliament but agreeable enough with some Opinions that have been espous'd of late and made use of to warrant some late Proceedings I thought it might not be amiss to trace him through that Section and submit to the Judgment of the Unprejudiced Reader whether the Doctor has afforded the World a right Scheme of the King 's Ecclesiastical Supremacy I beg the Reader 's Pardon if he meet with some few passages over again here that were touch'd upon in the foregoing Discourse I hope their usefulness will excuse the repetition of them and the Answer would not have been so clear without it He tells us pag. 144. that long before the Reformation several Kings of England permitted no Canons or Constitutions of the Church or Bulls and Breves of the Apostolick See to be executed here without their Allowance Which I agree to be very true only the Doctor saying without their Allowance implies and it appears by the whole drift of his Discourse in this Chapter and indeed by the main Scope of his Book that he would be understood that With their Allowance such Canons and Constitutions Bulls and Breves might lawfully be Executed Which I deny And hope to make it evident that Our Kings could not by their own Personal Authority let in upon their Subjects a foreign Jurisdiction He adds pag. 145. that since the Supremacy has been Established by Act of Parliament in the Crown The Kings of England may according to the Laws in force not only Exercise all the Powers they could What Powers those are no Man knows but Filmer Brady Johnson Hicks Sir. Roger L'Estrange and a very few others of yesterday as Sovereign Princes but likewise whatever the Pope de jure if not de facto could or did do in the outward Regiment of Ecclesiastical matters and consequently that whatsoever was done in Visitations by the Authority of the Popes Metropolitans or Diocesan Bishops may now be done by the Kings of England as Supreme Ordinaries Which is a very wild Assertion and without the least Foundation of Truth He does not here speak it out roundly That the King may by the Law do whatever the Pope de facto did but minces the matter a little by saying Whatever the Pope de jure if not de facto could or did do And yet with the same breath he says positively that whatever was done in Visitations by Authority of the Pope may now be done by the King. So that however the King may be limited and tyed up in other Parts of his Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to what the Popes de jure could do in Visitations at least he has Authority to do whatever the Popes Archbishops or Bishops actually did The Doctor did not consider that the several Branches of the Supremacy now restored by Act of Parliament are guided directed and limited by positive and particular Laws made about the time of the Reformation And that the Act of primo Elizabeth in that general Clause which Restores the Supremacy Vnites and Annexes only such Jurisdiction and Authority as had or might be lawfully Exercised by any Spiritual Person c. Not that the Pope to speak strictly could Exercise any Jurisdiction lawfully within this Realm for the Old Laws and Customs of the Realm and the Statutes of Premunire and Provisors were firm Bars to his Right but a Jurisdiction may be lawful in it self that is for so I would be understood the Acts of a Person Assuming Jurisdiction may be lawful in themselves considered separate and a-part from the Person of him that Exerts it though the Person Exercising such Jurisdiction have no legal Authority If an Usurper should possess himself of any Government and carry on the Administration of it in the same Method and Course of Justice that the Lawful Prince did or ought to do in strictness of Law there might perhaps be a Nullity in all his Acts and yet considered Abstracted from his Person his Government would be said to be lawful that is according to Law and the course of Proceedings that had been setled and obtained before his Usurpation So whatever the Pope did in this Nation as pretending to be Head of the English Church which was not in it self contrary to the Law of the Realm in Church or State but might lawfully be done though not by him is by the said Act of primo Elizabeth Vnited and Annexed to what Why to the Imperial Crown of this Realm Whereas by the Act of Supremacy that passed in King Henry the Eighths time All such Jurisdiction Authority c. was personally vested in the King his Heirs and Successors But of that distinction more shall be said God willing some other time Pursuant to this imagination of the Pope's Power being Translated to the King he tells us that latter Laws have devolved upon the King even the Power of the Pope in foro externo pag. 145. He says pag. 145 146. that during the Schism in the Papacy between Vrban and Clement King William Rufus claimed as other Princes did a Right to declare to which Pope he would adhere And that none should be received as Pope in England without his Licence and Election Here if I understand the Doctor aright he takes for granted that if there should happen a Schism in the Popedom the King might declare whether or which of the Competitors himself thought fit to be Pope within this Realm Which I deny that he could do without the Assent of the Clergy and Laity in a General Assembly He says pag. 145. that if the Archbishop of Canterbury called and presided in a General Council of Bishops King William allowed nothing to be appointed or forbidden unless they were accommodated to his Will and were first ordained by him These are the Words of Eadmerus out of whom the Doctor Quotes them Eadm Lib. 1. Fol. 6. But if the Doctor would here insinuate as he does and consonantly to his own Hypothesis must mean that the King's Will concurring with the Assent of a General Council of Bishops could make an Ecclesiastical Law to bind the whole Kingdom without the Assent of the Laity that is what I deny and hope to make it very clear in the following Discourse Whereas he says pag. 145. out of the same Author Eadmerus that King William suffered not any of his Barons or Officers to undergo any Ecclesiastical Censure but by his precept I hope it will appear that this was not an Arbitrary Power assumed by the King but that the Law of the Realm was so He says pag. 146 147. that the Oath of Fidelity which Anselme had taken to King William Rufus was no ways like the present Oath of Supremacy He says pag. 148 149. As to the legantine Power it is apparent by