Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A Word B Word C Word D Occurrence Frequency Band MI MI Band Prominent
cause_n ecclesiastical_a jurisdiction_n king_n 2,975 5 4.2912 3 true
View all documents for the selected quad

Text snippets containing the quad

ID Title Author Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) STC Words Pages
A48227 A letter to the author of the Vindication of the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners concerning the legality of that Court by Philonomus Anglicus. Philonomos, Anglicus. 1688 (1688) Wing L1728; ESTC R4715 5,954 21

There is 1 snippet containing the selected quad. | View lemmatised text

partly gained by his Countenance and Blessing Hereupon he sent two Legates into England c. but no Decree was pass'd or put in Execution in his time without his Royal Assent In his Successor William Rufus his time they attempted to draw Appeals to the Court of Rome but prevailed not In the succeeding Reigns of King H. I. King Steven King Henry II. and King John Investitures of Bishopricks Appeals to Rome and exemption of Clerks were contended for and with much difficulty obtained and in King Stephen's time when the Clergy were Lords Paramount the Canon-Law got footing amongst us and has been in part received and submitted to ever since It was introduced by the power of the Clergy without assent of the Legislative Power of the Nation and from that time till the Reformation Kings and Parliaments were axcluded from the enacting of Canons and Constitutions for the Government of the Church The Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of the Crown was during that time under an Eclipse which King Henry the eighth Restor'd to its Lustre but because whatever he did was undone again by Queen Mary we may date the Restitution of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction from primo Eliz Which Restitution being in general terms and relating to former usage we cannot know by that Act what the Ancient Iurisdiction of the Crown was in Ecclesiastical Matters The true notion of which as it would dispel some Mists that Ignorance and Flattery have occasioned so it must be fetch 't from those times in which it was genuine unadulterated by forreign usurpations or modern impertinent and vain ascriptions Appeals to Rome were gain'd in King Stephen's Time and not till then Therefore before his time Appeals in Ecclesiastical Causes were to the King. But how To the King in Person I meet with no such thing in my little Reading Nor any foot-steps of Commissions of Delegates till King Henry the 8th's time But Appeals were to the King in Parliament or in the Language of those times to the Commune Concilium Regni Of which there are many instances Investitures and Elections of Bishops were gain'd from the Crown in King Henry the 1st and King John's Time. But before their days it was not a personal Prerogative in the King to elect and invest them For Bishopricks were then conferr'd by the Curia Regis pro suâ complacentiâ In like manner the Power of making Canons for the Government of the Church and of receiving and incorporating into our Government Canons made beyond Sea by General Councils or Councils so reputed was in the Crown as was the Power of making Temporal Laws for the Government of the State. But how to be exercis'd In an Arbitrary despotick manner No but with the concurrence of the Great Council of the Realm And by that Authority were all the Laws made in those days for the Government both of Church and State. Those Ecclesiastical Laws thus made were administred by the Bishops and others having Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and before the entrance of the Normans in the Hundred and County-Courts and at the Turnes where the Bishop and the Earl sate together And in the Conquerour's days since in the Bishops Courts who by a Law in his Reign were impowered to hold their Courts apart from the Laity But no Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction was ever Delegated to Commissioners Records of those times are lost in a great and deplorable measure But many Histories and all written by Church-men are extant which could not have fail'd giving some hint thereof if any such thing had ever been Now if no such Commission was ever granted till the Reformation then was that Branch of primo Eliz. which sets up the High-Commission introductive of a New Law. It gave the Queen Power which she had not before which power consequently ceased when the foundation upon which it rested was taken away For Commissions are not such Arbitrary things as some mistaken men fondly imagine Though Commissioners are but Substitutes and Deputies Persons that Act in his Name that impowers them and execute his Authority not their own And how plausibly so ever it be said that what Power a man has in himself he may delegate to another Yet this difference must be admitted betwixt Persons commissionated by the King in matters of Government and Persons Authorized by Private men to act for them and in their stead viz. that private men may by Law do those things in Person which they impower others to do for them But the King commissionates Persons to do what himself cannot by Law do in Person And consequently they do not receive their Authority from him onely but from the Law of the Realm which Authorizes him to commissionate them and where the Law does not impower the King to issue a Commission he can issue none to exercise Jurisdiction The Law by which the King Reigns has already distributed his Justice to his hands and committed the Administration of it to the several Temporal and Spiritual Courts the Jurisdiction of which he can neither enlarge nor abridge Circumstances of Affairs sometimes require the issuing out of Commissions of a new and perhaps an extraordinary nature and the Representative Body of the Kingdom which by the Law is to be assembled once a year in Parliament do from time to time impower the Crown to issue Commissions according as the case requires All which Acts of Parliament would be needless if his Majesty might issue Commissions at Pleasure The King is impowered by the Law to grant a Commission when either an Act of Parliament warrants it or custome immemorial which presupposes a Law. When both fail the Commission is illegal Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer of Assize Nisi priùs Goal-Delivery and the Peace are all by vertue of Acts of Parliaments as was the High-Commission whilst it was in being But the foundation thereof being taken away this Modern one is built upon Sand and when the wind blows it will fall Civil causes where Acts of Parliament do not warrant it cannot be determined by Commission and yet the King is the head of the State as much as of the Church and the fountain of Temporal as well as of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and all Judges derive their Authority from him But there is no Law for it and therefore it cannot be So that I take it very clearly that our Kings Antient Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction was not a Personal Supremacy separate and distinct from the States of the Realm that it was lodged in the Crown of England in the King encompassed with Peerage and Cominalty and to be administred in the Bishops Courts and no otherwise but in cases of Appeals which were to the Parliament But admitting that primo Eliz. with respect to the High-Commission were but declarative yet it seems to me beyond all manner of Scruple that the Statute of 16 Car. 1. has taken away the Commission it self Root and Branch and not only the Power to Fine and Imprison and minister the Oath ex officio