other sorts of men because of their Religion and their abilities above all other men to defend it On the other side the Puritanes who envied their power and some great ones about the Court who having tasted the sweet of Sacriledge in the times of the two last Kings thirsted after the remainder of their Revenues complyed either with other for their several respective ends against the Bishops Which being so it had been the foolishest thing in the world for the Bishops to have used that power or interest they had with the Queen upon whose favour or displeasure their whole livelyhood depended for the procuring of her consent to any Act to be done in favour of them that malice it self could with any colourable construction interpret either to savour of Popery or to trench upon the Royal Supremacy That Queen having both by her sufferings before and actions after she came to the Crown sufficiently witnessed to the world her averseness from Popery and being withall a Princess of a great Spirit and particularly jealous in the point of Prerogative XXIX Whence I think we may with good reason conclude that the ancient custome of the Bishops in making Summons c. in their own names after it was by the Act of Repeal 1. Mar. restored was continued by Queen Elizabeth and her successours ever since without interruption or reviving of the Statute of King Edward neither out of any inadvertency in the State nor through any importune or indirect labouring of the Bishops as by the Objectors is weakly presumed but advisedly and upon important considerations viz. that the devising of such a new way as is set forth and appointed in the said Statute was not only a needless thing and Laws should not be either made or altered but where it is needful so to do but subject also to manifest both inconvenience and Scandal XXX That it was altogether needless to change the old Custome may appear by this that all the imaginable necessity or utility of such a change could be onely this To secure the King by using his Name in their Processes c. as a real acknowledgement that their Iurisdiction is derived from him and no other that the Bishops had no intention in the exercise of their Episcopal power to usurp upon his Ecclesiastical Supremacy Which Supremacy of the King and Superiority of his Jurisdiction Authority over that which the Bishops exercised being already by so many other wayes and means sufficiently secured it could argue nothing but an impertinent jealousie to endeavour to strengthen that security by an addition of so poor and inconsiderable regard XXXI The Kings of England are secured against all danger that may accrue to their Regal power from Episcopal Iurisdiction as it hath been anciently and of later times exercised in this Realm First by the extent of their Power over the persons and livelihoods of the Bishops and over the whole State Ecclesiastical as in the ancient right of the Crown which how great it was may appear by these three particulars XXXII First the Collation and Donation of Bishopricks together with the nomination of the persons to be made Bishops in case they did by their Writ of Conge d'eslier permit the formality of Election to others did alwayes belong to the Kings of this Realm both before and since the Conquest as in right of their Crown Our learned Lawyers assure us that all the Bishopricks of this Realm are of the Kings foundation that they were originally donative and not elective and that the full right of Investiture was in the King who signified his pleasure therein per traditionem baculi annuli by the delivery of a ring and a Crosier-staff to the person by him elected and nominated for that office The Popes indeed often assayed to make them elective either by the Dean and Canons of the Cathedral or by the Monkes of some principal Abbey adjoyning but the Kings still withstood it and maintained their right as far as they could or durst Insomuch as King Henry the First being earnestly sollicited by the Pope to grant the election of Bishops to the Clergy constanter allegavit saith the story and verbis minacibus he stoutly and with threats refused so to do saying he would not for the loss of his Kingdome lose the right of those Investitures It is true that King Iohn a Prince neither fortunate nor couragious being overpowred by the Popes did by Charter in the Seventeenth year of his Raign grant that the Bishopricks of England should be eligible But this notwithstanding in the Raign of King Edward the Third it was in open Parliament declared and enacted that to the King and his heirs did belong the collation of Archbishopricks c. and all other dignities that are of his Advowson and that the elections granted by the Kings his progenitors were under a certain form and condition viz. that they should ask leave of the King to elect and that after the election made they should obtain the Kings consent thereunto and not otherwise XXXIII Secondly the King hath power if he shall see cause to suspend any Bishop from the execution of his Office for so long time as he shall think good yea and to deprive him utterly of the dignity and office of a Bishop if he deserve it Which power was de facto exercised both by Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth in the beginning of their several Raigns upon such Bishops as would not conform to their Religion XXXIV Thirdly the Kings of England have a great power over the Bishops in respect of their Temporalties which they hold immediately of the King per Baroniam and which every Bishop Elect is to sue out of the Kings hands wherein they remained after the decease of the former Bishop during the Vacancy and thence to take his only restitution into the same making Oath and fealty to the King for the same upon his Consecration Yea and after such restitution of Temporalties and Consecration the King hath power to seize the same again into his own hands if he see just cause so to do Which the Kings of England in former times did so frequently practice upon any light displeasure conceived against the Bishops that it was presented as a grievance by the Arch-bishop of Canterbury and the other Prelates by way of request to King Edw. 3. in Parliament and thereupon a Statute was made the same Parliament that thenceforth no Bishops Temporalties should be seized by the King without good cause I finde cited by Sir Edward Coke out of the Parliament Rolls 18. H. 3. a Record wherein the King straightly chargeth the Bishops not to intermeddle in any thing to the prejudice of his Crown threatning them with seisure of their Temporalties if they should so do The words are Mandatum est omnibus Episcopis quae conventuri sunt apud Gloucestr ' the King having before summoned them by writ to a Parliament to be holden at Gloucester
firmiter inhibendo quod sicut Baronias suas quas de Rege tenent diligunt nullo modo praesumant concilium tenere de aliquibus quae ad Coronam pertinent vel quae personam Regis vel Statum suum vel Statum concilii sui contingunt scituri pro certo quod si fecerint Rex inde capiet se ad Baronias suas c. By which Record together with other the premisses it may appear that the Kings by their Ancient right of Prerogative had sundry wayes power over the Bishops whereby to keep them in obedience and to secure their Supremacy from all peril of being prejudiced by the exercise of Episcopal Iurisdiction XXXV Yet in order to the utter abolishing of the Papal usurpations and of all pretended forraign power whatsoever in matters Ecclesiastical within these Realms divers Statutes have been made in the Raign of King Henry the Eighth and since for the further declaring and confirming of the Kings Supremacy Ecclesiastical Wherein the acknowledgement of that Supremacy is either so expresly contained or so abundantly provided for as that there can be no fear it should suffer for lack of further acknowledgement to be made by the Bishops in the style of their Courts Amongst other First by Statute made 25. H. 8. 19. upon the submission and petition of the Clergy it was enacted that no Canons or Constitutions should be made by the Clergy in their Convocation without the Kings licence first had in that behalfe and his royal assent after and likewise that no Canon c. should be put in execution within the Realm that should be contrariant or repugnant to the Kings Prerogative Royal or the Customes Lawes or Statutes of the Realm Then Secondly by the Statute of 1. Eliz. cap. 1. all such Ecclesiastical Iurisdictions Priviledges Superiorities and Pre-eminences as had been exercised or used or might be lawfully exercised or used by any Ecclesiastical power or authority was declared to be for ever united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm And Thirdly it was also in the same Statute provided that the Oath of Supremacy wherein there is contained as full an acknowledgement of the Kings Ecclesiastical Suprenacy as the wit of man can devise should be taken by every Archbishop and Bishop c. which hath been ever since duely and accordingly performed XXXVI Lastly from receiving any prejudice by the Bishops and their Iurisdiction the Regal power is yet farther secured by the subordination of the Ecclesiastical Laws and Courts to the Common Law of England and to the Kings own immediate Courts For although the Ecclesiastical Laws be allowed by the Laws of this Realm and the proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts be by the way of the Civil and not of the Common Law yet are those Laws and proceedings allowed with this limitation and condition that nothing be done against the Common Law whereof the Kings prerogative is a principal part nor against the Statutes and Customes of the Realm And therefore the Law alloweth Appeales to be made from the Ecclesiastical Courts to the King in Chancery and in sundry cases where a cause dependeth before a Spiritual Iudge the Kings prohibition lyeth to remove it into one of his Temporal Courts XXXVII Having so many several ties upon the Bishops to secure themselves and their Regal authority from all danger that might arise from the abuse of the Ecclesiastical Power and Iurisdiction exercised by the Bishops in their Courts by the ancient prerogative of their Crown by the provisions of so many Statutes and Oaths by the remedy of the Common Law the Kings of England had no cause to be so needlesly cautelous as to be afraid of a meere formality the Style of a Court. Especially considering the importance of the two Reasons expressed in the Statute of King Edward as the onely grounds of altering that Style not to be such as would countervaile the Inconvenience and Scandal that might ensue thereupon XXXVIII For whereas it was then thought convenient to change the Style used in the Ecclesiastical Courts because it was contrary to the form used in the Common-Law-Courts within this Realm which is one of the Reasons in the said Statute expressed it might very well upon further consideration be afterwards thought more convenient for the like reason to retain the accustomed Style because otherwise the forme of the Ecclesiastical Courts would be contrary to the form of other Civil-Law-Courts within the Realm as the Admiralty and Earle-Marshals Court and of other Courts of the Kings grant made unto Corporations with either of which the Ecclesiastical Courts had a nearer affinity then with the Kings Courts of Record or other his own immediate Courts of Common Law Nor doth there yet appear any valuable reason of difference why Inconformity to the Common Law-Courts should be thought a sufficient ground for the altering of the forms used in the Ecclesiastical Courts and yet the like forms used in the Admiralty in the Earle-Marshals Court in Courts Baron in Corporation-Courts c. should notwithstanding the same inconformity continue as they had been formerly accustomed without alteration XXXIX If any shall alledge as some reason of such difference the other Reason given in the said Statute viz. that the form and manner used by the Bishops was such as was used in the time of the usurped power of the Bishop of Rome besides that therein is no difference at all for the like forms in those other aforesaid Courts were also in use in the same time there is further given thereby great occasion of Scandal to those of the Church of Rome And that two wayes First as it is made a Reason at all and Secondly as it is applyed to the particular now in hand First whereas the Papists unjustly charge the Protestant Churches with Schism for departing from their Communion it could not but be a great Scandal to them to confirm them in that their uncharitable opinion of us if we should utterly condemn any thing as unlawful or but even forbid the use of it as inexpedient upon this onely grouud or consideration that the same had been used in the times of Popery or that it had been abused by the Papists And truly the Puritanes have by this very means given a wonderful Scandal and advantage to our Adversaries which they ought to acknowledge and repent of when transported with an indiscreet zeal they have cryed down sundry harmeless Ceremonies and customes as superstitious and Antichristian onely for this that Papists use them Whereas godly and regular Protestants think it agreeable to Christian liberty charity and prudence that in appointing Ceremonies retaining ancient Customes and the use of all other indifferent things such course be held as that their moderation might be known to all men and that it might appear to their very Adversaries that wherein they did receed from them or any thing practised by them they were not thereunto carried by a Spirit of contradiction but either cast
in his name and Right alone Whereupon his Majesties said Iudges having taken the same into their serious consideration did unanimously concur and agree in opinion and the first day of July last certified under their hands as followeth That Processes may issue out of the Ecclesiastical Courts in the name of the Bishops and that a Patent under the great Seal is not necessary for the keeping of the said Ecclesiastical Courts or for enabling of Citations Suspensions Excommunications and other Censures of the Church And that it is not necessary that Summons Citations or other Processes Ecclesiastical in the said Courts or Institutions or Inductions to Benefices or correction of Ecclesiastical offences by Censure in those Courts be in the Kings name or with the style of the King or under the Kings Seal or that their Seals of Office have in them the Kings Arms And that the Statute of Primo Edvardi Sexti cap. secundo which enacted the contrary is not now in force And that the Bishops Arch-Deacons and other Ecclesiastical persons may keep their Uisitations as usually they have done without Commission under the great Seal of England so to do which opinions and resolutions being declared under the hands of all his Majesties said Iudges and so certified into his Court of Star-Chamber were there recorded and it was by that Court further ordered the fourth day of the said moneth of July that the said certificate should be inrolled in all other his Majesties Courts at Westminster and in the High Commission and other Ecclesiastical Courts for the satisfaction of all men That the proceedings in the High Commission and other Ecclesiastical Courts are agreeable to the Laws and Statutes of the Realm And his Royal Majesty hath thought sit with advice of his Councel that a publick Declaration of these the opinions and resolutions of his Reverend and Learned Iudges being agreeable to the Iudgement and Resolutions of former times should be made known to all his Subjects as well to vindicate the legal proceedings of His Ecclesiastical Courts and Ministers from the unjust and scandalous imputation of invading or entrenching on his Royal Prerogative as to settle the minds and stop the mouths of all unquiet Spirits that for the future they presume not to censure his Ecclesiastical Courts or Ministers in these their Iust and warranted proceedings And hereof his Majesty admonisheth all his Subjects to take warning as they shall answer the contrary at their perils Given at the Court at Lyndhurst the 18. day of August in the 13. year of his Majesties Raign God save the King Imprinted at London by Robert Barker Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majesty and by the Assignes of Iohn Bill 1637. Primo Julii 1637. The Iudges Certificate concerning Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction May it please your Lordships ACcording to your Lordships Order made in his Majesties Court of Star-Chamber the Twelfth of May last we have taken consideration of the particulars wherein our Opinions are required by the said Order and we have all agreed That Processes may issue out of the Ecclesiastical Courts in the name of Bishops and that a Patent under the great Seal is not necessary for the keeping of the said Ecclesiastical Courts or for the enabling of Citations Suspensions Excommunications or other Censures of the Church And that it is not necessary that Summons Citations or other Processes Ecclesiastical in the said Courts or Institutions or Inductions to Benefices or Correction of Ecclesiastical offences by censure in those Courts be in the Kings name or with the Style of the King or under the Kings Seal or that their Seals of Office have in them the Kings Arms. And that the Statute of Primo Edvardi Sexti Cap. 2. which enacted the contrary is not now in force We are also of opinion That the Bishops Archdeacons and other Ecclesiastical persons may keep their Visitations as usually they have done without Commission under the great Seal of England so to do Io. Bramstone Io. Finch Humfrey Davenport Will. Iones Io. Dinham Richard Hutton George Croke Tho. Trevor George Vernon Ro. Berkley Fr. Crawley Ric. Weston Inrolled in the Courts of Exchequer Kings Bench Common Pleas and Registred in the Courts of High Commission and Star-Chamber EPISCOPACY not Prejudicial to Regal Power SECT I. The two great Objections proposed I. HE that shall take the pains to inform himself rightly what power the Kings of England have from time to time claimed and exercised in Causes and over Persons Ecclesiastical as also by whom how and how far forth their said Power hath been from time to time either opposed or maintained shall undoubtedly find that no persons in the world have more freely acknowledged and both by their writings and actions more zealously judiciously and effectually asserted the Soveraign Ecclesiastical power of Kings then the Protestant Bishops and Divines whom our new Masters have been pleased of late to call the Prelatical party in the Church of England have done Yet so far hath prejudice or something else prevailed with some persons of quality in these times of so much loosness and distraction as to suffer themselves to be led into a belief or at leastwise to be willing the people should be deceived into the belief of these two things First that the Opinion which maintaineth the Ius divinum of Episcopacy is destructive of the Regal power And secondly that Episcopal Iurisdiction as it was exercised before and at the beginning of this present Parliament was derogatory from the honour of the King and prejudicial to the just Rights and Prerogatives of his Crown II. Truely they that know any thing of the practises and proceedings of the Anti-prelatical party cannot be ignorant that their aims these or whatsoever other pretensions notwithstanding are clearly to enlarge their own power by lessening the Kings and to raise their own estates upon the ruines of the Bishops And therefore howsoever the aforesaid pretensions may seem at the first appearance to proceed from a sense of Loyalty and a tenderness of suffering any thing to be continued in the kingdom which might tend to the least diminution of his Majesties just power greatness yet till their actions look otherwise then for some time past they have done the pretenders must give us leave to think that their meaning therein is rather to do the Bishops hurt then to do the King service and that their affections so far as by what is visible we are able to judge thereof are much what alike the same towards them both But to leave their Hearts to the judgement of him to whom they must stand or fall for the just defence of truth and that so far as we can help it the people be not abused in this particular also as in sundry others they have been by such men as are content to use the Kings name when it may help on their own designs I shall first set forth the two main Objections severally to the best advantage of
bring down the Regal Power and set up their own 3. That upon these very grounds the custome was altered by Act of Parliament and a Statute made 1. Ewd. VI. howsoever since repealed and discontinued that all Processes Ecclesiastical should be made in the Kings name and not in the Bishops V. As to the first point true it is that the manner used by the Bishops in the Ecclesiastical Courts viz. in issuing out Summons Citations Processes giving Iudgments c. in their own names and not in the Kings is different from the manner used in the Kings Bench Exchequer Chancery and sundry other Courts But that difference neither doth of necessity import an independency of the Ecclesiastical Courts upon the King nor did in all probability arise at the beginning from the opinion of any such independency nor ought in reason to be construed as a disacknowledgement of the Kings authority and Supremacy Ecclesiastical For VI. First there is between such Courts as are the Kings own immediate Courts and such Courts as are not a great difference in this point Of the former sort are especially the Kings Bench and Chancery as also the Court of Common Pleas Exchequer Iustices of Goal-delivery c. In the Kings Bench the Kings themselves in former times have often personally sate whence it came to have the name of the Kings Bench neither was it tyed to any particular place but followed the Kings Person At this day also all Writs returnable there run in this style Coram nobis and not as in some other Courts coram Iustitiariis nostris or the like and all judicial Records there are styled and the Pleas there holden entred Coram Rege and not coram Iustitiariis Domini Regis Appeals also are made from inferiour Iudges in other Courts to the King in Chancery because in the construction of the Lawes the Kings Personal Power and Presence is supposed to be there and therefore Sub-poena's granted out of that Court and all matters of Record passed there run in the same style Coram Rege c. Forasmuch as in the Iudges in these two Courts there is a more immediate representation of the Kings Personal power and presence then in the Iudges of those other Courts of Common Pleas Exchequer c. Which yet by reason of his immediate virtual power and presence are the Kings immediate Courts too In regard of which his immediate virtual power although the style of the Writs and Records there be not Coram nobis Coram Rege as in the former but onely Coram Iustitiariis Coram Baronibus nostris c. yet inasmuch as the Iudges in those Courts are the Kings immediate sworn Ministers to execute justice and to do equal right to all the Kings people in his name therefore all Processes Pleas Acts and Iudgements are made and done in those Courts as well as in the two former in the Kings name But in such Courts as do not suppose any such immediate Representation or presence of the Kings either personal or virtual Power as that thereby they may be holden and taken to be the Kings own immediate Courts the case is far otherwise For neither are the Iudges in those Courts sworn the Kings Iudges to administer Justice and do right to the Kings subjects in his name and stead nor do they take upon them the authority to cite any person or to give any sentence or to do any act of Jurisdiction in the Kings name having never been by him authorized so to do Of this sort are amongst others best known to them that are skilled in the Laws of this Realm all Courts-Baron held by the Lord of a Manner Customary Courts of Copyholders c and such Courts as are held by the Kings grant by Charter to some Corporation as to a City Borough or Vniversity or els by long usage and prescription of time In all which Courts and if there be any other of like nature Summons are issued out and Iudgements given and all other Acts and Proceedings made and done in the name of such persons as have chief authority in the said Courts and not in the name of the King So as the styles run thus A. B. Major civitatis Ebor. N. M. Cancellarius Vniversitatis Oxon. and the like and not Carolus Dei gratia c. VII Upon this ground it is that our Lawyers tell us out of Bracton that in case of Bastardy to be certified by the Bishop no inferiour Court as London Yorke Norwich or any other Incorporation can write to the Bishop to require him to certify but any of the Kings Courts at Westminister as Common Pleas Kings Bench c. may write to him to certify in that case The reason is Because Nullus alius praeter Regem potest Episcopo demandare inquisitionem faciendam Which maketh it plain that the Kings immediate powe either personal or virtual is by the Law supposed to be present in Courts of the one sort not of the other the one sort being his own immediate Courts and the other not VIII Now that the Ecclesiastical Courts wherein the Bishops exercise their Jurisdiction are of the latter sort I doubt not but our Law-books will afford plenty of arguments to prove it beyond all possibility of contradiction or cavil Which being little versed in those studies I leave for them to find out who have leisure to search the books and do better understand the nature constitution differences and bounds of the several Courts within this Realm One argument there is very obvious to every understanding which because I shall have fit occasion a little after to declare I will not now any longer insist upon taken from the nature of the Iurisdiction of these Courts so far distant from the Iurisdiction appertaining to those other Courts that these are notoriously separated and in Common and vulgar speach distinguished from all other by the peculiar name and appellation of the Spiritual Courts But another Argument which those books have suggested I am the more willing here to produce for that it not only sufficiently proveth the matter now in hand but is also very needful to be better known abroad in the world then it is for the removing of a very unjust censure which meerly for want of the knowledge of the true cause hath been laid upon the Bishops in one particular to their great wrong and prejudice It hath been much talked on not only by the Common sort of people but by some persons also of better rank and understanding and imputed to the Bishops as an act of very high insolency that in their Processes Patents Commissions Licences and other Instruments whereunto their Episcopal Seale is affixed so oft as they have occasion to mention themselves the Style runneth ever more in the Plural number Nos G. Cantuar-Archiepiscopus Coram nobis Salvo nobis c. just as it doth in his Majesties Letters Patents and Commissions thereby shewing themselves say they as if they were his
Fellows and Equals All this great noise and clamour against the pride of the Bishops upon this score proceedeth as I said meerly from the ignorance of the true original cause and ground of that innocent and ancient usage and therefore cannot signify much to any reasonable and considering man when that ground is discovered which is this viz. that every Bishop is in construction of our Laws a Corporation For although the Bishop of himselfe and in his private and personal capacity be but a single person as other men are and accordingly in his letters concerning his own particular affairs and in all other his actings upon his own occasions and as a private person writeth of himselfe in the singular number as other private men do yet for as much as in his publike and politick capacity and as a Bishop in the Church of England he standeth in the eye of the Law as a Corporation the King not only alloweth him acting in that capacity to write of himselfe in the plural number but in all writs directed to him as Bishop as in Presentations and the like bespeaketh him in the plural number Vestrae Diocesis vobis praesentamus c. The Bishop then being a Corporation and that by the Kings authority as all other Corporations whether Simple or Aggregate whether by Charter or Prescription are it is meet he should hold his Courts and proceed therein in the same manner and form where there is no apparent reason to the contrary as other Corporations do And therefore as it would be a high presumption for the Chancellour and Scholars of one of the Universities being a Corporation to whom the King by his Charter hath granted a Court or for the Major and Aldermen of a City for the same reason to issue Writs or do other acts in their Courts in the Kings name not having any authority from the King or his grant or from the Laws and Customs of England so to do so doubtless it would for the same reason be esteemed a presumption no less intolerable for the Bishops to use the Kings name in their processes and judicial acts not having any sufficient legal warrant or authority for so doing IX Which if it were duly considered would induce any reasonable man to beleive and confesse that this manner of proceeding in their own names used by the Bishops in their Courts is so far from trenching upon the Regal power and authority which is the crime charged upon it by the Objectors that the contrary usage unless it were enjoyned by some Law of the Land as it was in the Raign of King Edward the Sixth might far more justly be charged therewithal For the true reason of using the Kings name in any Court is not thereby to acknowledge the emanation of the power or jurisdiction of that Court from or the subordination of that power unto the Kings power or authority as the Objectors seeme to suppose but rather to shew the same Court to be one of the Kings own immediate Courts wherein the King himselfe is supposed in the construction of the Law either by his personal or virtual power to be present And the not using of the Kings name in other Courts doth not infer as if the Iudges of the said Courts did not act by the Kings authority for who can imagine that they who hold a Court by virtue of the Kings grant only should pretend to act by any other then his authority but only that they are no immediate representatives of the Kings person in such their jurisdiction nor have consequently any allowance from him to use his name in the exercise or execution thereof X. Secondly there is another observable difference in this point between the Kings Common-law-Courts such as are most of those afore-mentioned and those Courts that proceed according to the way of the Civil Law If the King appoint a Constable or Earle-Marshal or Admiral of England for as much as all tryals in the Marshals Court commonly called the Court of Honour and in the Admiralty are according to the Civil Law all Processes therefore Sentences and Acts in those Courts go in the names of the Constable Earle-Marshal or Admiral and not in the Kings name Which manner of proceeding constantly used in those Courts sith no man hitherto hath been found to interpret as any diminution at all or dis-acknowledgement of the Kings Soveraignty over the said Courts it were not possible the same manner of proceeding in the Ecclesiastical Courts should be so confidently charged with so heinous a crime did not the intervention of some wicked lust or other prevail with men of corrupt minds to become partial judges of evil thoughts Especially considering that XI Thirdly there is yet a more special and peculiar reason to be given in the behalf of the Bishops for not using the Kings name in their Processes c. in the Ecclesiastical Courts then can be given for the Iudges of any other the above-mentioned Courts either of the Common or Civil Laws in the said respect arising as hath been already in part touched from the different nature of their several respective Iurisdictions Which is that the summons and other proceedings and acts in the Ecclesiastical Courts are for the most part in order to the Ecclesiastical censures and sentences of Excommunication c. The passing of which sentences and other of like kind being a part of the power of the Keyes which our Lord Iesus Christ thought fit to leave in the hands of his Apostles and their Successors and not in the hands of Lay-men the Kings of England never challenged to belong unto themselves but left the exercise of that Power entirely to the Bishops as the lawful Successors of the Apostles and inheritours of their Power The regulating and ordering of that power in sundry circumstances concerning the outward exercise thereof in foro externo the godly Kings of England have thought to belong unto them as in the right of their Crown and have accordingly made Laws concerning the same even as they have done also concerning other matters appertaining to Religion and the worship of God But the substance of that power and the function thereof as they saw it to be altogether improper to their office and calling so they never pretended or laid claim thereunto But on the contrary when by occasion of the title of Supream Head c. assumed by King Henry the Eighth they were charged by the Papists for challenging to themselves such power and authority spiritual they constantly and openly disavowed it to the whole world renouncing all claim to any such power or authority As is manifest not onely from the allowed writings of many godly Bishops eminent for their learning in their several respective times in vindication of the Church of England from that calumny of the Papists as Archbishop Whitgift Bishop Bilson Bishop Andrews Bishop Carleton and others but also by the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth and the admonition prefixed thereunto