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
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
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
whereas Subjects might Collate in those Days Churches of their own Foundation to any Clerk in Orders and give him the Investiture even without so much as a Presentation to the Bishop yet our Antient Kings Collated Bishopricks no otherwise than in Curia suâ For though Bishopricks were Royal Foundations yet they were Founded by Acts of Parliament as will appear by and by And one Great Reason why our Kings at least in those Days could not Erect Bishopricks and endow them otherwise was because they could not in those Days Alien their Crown Lands without the Assent of their Barons Non poterat Rex distrahere Patrimonium Regni And though King John told Pandulphus the Legate Omnes Praedecessores mei contulerunt Archiepiscopatus Episcopatus Abbathias in thalamis suis Monast Burton pag. 264. That must be understood to have been done since the Norman Conquest only though the contrary was frequently practised even in those Days and especially since the Constitutions of Clarendon For the Instance that he there gives of Wolstan's being made Bishop of Worcester in King Edward the Confessor his Time was far from a Collation in Thalamo if we believe himself when he resigned his Pastoral Staff at the Confessor's Tomb There concurred Electio Plebis Petitio Voluntas Episcoporum Gratia Procerum a full Parliament as well as the Authoritas Voluntas of the King himself Matth. Paris pag. 20 21. As for our Kings seizing the Temporalties of Bishops into their Hands and so suspending them à beneficio which the Doctor speaks of pag. 155. of which he says many Instances may be found in Mr. Prynn 's Historical Collections I suppose he would not be understood as if our Kings either might or used to seize them ad Libitum but by legal process and for some contempt for which by the Law they were liable to Seizure They were held of the King by Barony and though the Bishops pretended to an Exemption as to their Persons from the Laws of the Land yet their Temporalties which were held of the King and for which they did him Fealty were no-wise Exempted but that if they should commit Offences for which the King might by Law capere se ad Baronias suas they as well as the Laity that held by the same Tenure were equally liable to the Course and Rigour of the Law. What use this is of to the Doctor for the setting up some Notional Supremacy lodged in the King Personally I know not as yet Irregularities and Oppressions might well be used upon such occasions and Seizures made when there was no cause but the Statute of the fourteenth of Edward the Third cap. 6. aforementioned was provided to prevent such Mischiefs for the future But the Doctor was very ill advised in quoting pag. 155. to clear the point the Statutes of Provisions For those Statutes which every body knows and the Doctor will not deny to be only new Bullwarks to secure Old Rights were yet such as the King could never dispense with But when the Circumstances of his Affairs were such that to gratify the Pope and tye him to his Interest he found it convenient to have some Relaxation made of those Laws then were Parliaments called and at their first meeting one cause of their Convention declared to be to provide remedy touching the Statutes of Provisions for eschewing debate between the Pope and the King and his Realms And then we find leave given to the King from time to time to dispense with those Laws and that but for a time and this declar'd to be a Novelty Vid. Cotton's Abridgment pag. 341. 346. Annis 15. 16. Rich. 2. And the Complaints of the English Nation in Matth. Paris against the Pope's Provisions were grounded upon this VIZ. That Patroni Ecclesiarum ad eas cum Vacaverint Clericos idoneos praesentare non poterant sed conferebantur Ecclesiae Romanis qui penitùs Idioma Regni ignorabant pecuniam extra Regnum asportabant These Oppressions fell chiefly upon the Clergy as appears by most of the Laws against Provisions of which hereafter for the Pope assum'd a greater Power over them and Churches of which they were Patrons then he could pretend to over the Laity and they sometimes comply'd with his Provisions and submitted to collate Italians and Foreigners as at other times they did to heavy Exactions insomuch that in the year 1240. misit Dominus Papa praecepta sua Domino Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo Edmundo Sarisberiensi Lincolniensi Episcopis ut trecentis Romanis in primis beneficiis Vacantibus providerent scientes se suspensos à beneficiorum Collatione donec tot competenter providerentur Matth. Paris pag. 532. And it appears by the same Author that these and more were provided of Ecclesiastical Benefices in England Praebendas Ecclesias varios redditus opimos plusquam trecentos ad suam vel Papae contulerat legatus Otto voluntatem id p. 549. But many grievous Complaints and Petitions in Parliaments and in Letters to the Pope occur in Mr. Prynne's Historical Collections and in the Parliament Rolls against these Provisions as intolerable Grievances and contrary to all Law and Reason If at some times they were comply'd with upon condition that the Persons recommended by the Pope were of good condition and worthy of Promotion how does that relate to its being in the King's power even to admit the persons to the Dignity and Office as the Doctor ignorantly and childishly asserts But his conclusion VIZ. That the Exercise of their Government was according to the King's Laws I do not Quarrel with him about for it was or ought to have been so But not according to the King's Pleasure Nor would any unbyassed Man in Reading King Alfred's Laws have readily made such an Inference as the Doctor does pag. 155 156 telling us out of L. l. Alvredi that King Alfred reserved to himself the liberty even of Dispensing with the Marriage of Nuns Which he would represent as a thing prohibited by the Canons only and that the King reserved to himself a Power of Dispensing with it though without his Especial Dispensation he suffered the Canon to take place Now the Marriage of Nuns was really prohibited by a Law of the State by an Act of Parliament of that Age For Brompton giving us an Account of King Alfred's Laws says thus Ego Alfredus West-Saxonum Rex ostendi haec omnibus sapientibus meis dixerunt Placet ea Custodire And many Temporal Laws are amongst them all Enacted by the same Authority And the same Law or Canon that prohibits Nuns from Marrying gives the King and not only him but the Bishop of the Diocess leave to Dispense so that the Doctor might as well have argu'd for the Bishops as the Kings reserving a Power to himself of Dispensing The Words are Si quis Sanctimonialem ab Ecclesiâ abduxerit sine Licentia Regis vel Episcopi c. Then he says That our Kings Presided sometimes
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
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
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
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