21. They tell the King That this his Grace's Realm recognising no Superiour under God but only his Grace hath been and is free from subjection to any Man's Laws but only to such as have been devised made and ordained within this Realm for the wealth of the same or to such other as by sufferance of your Grace and your Progenitors the People of this your Realm have taken at their free Liberty by their own consent to be used amongst them and have bound themselves by long use and custom to the observance of the some not as to the Laws of any foreign Prince Potentate or Prelate but as to the accustomed and anoient Laws of this Realm originally establisht as Laws of the same by the said sufferance consent and custom and none otherwise By those other Laws not ordained within the Realm they mean the Canon Law. For the Clergy extended the bounds of it daily and always got ground But the Sufferance and Cousent here spoken of was not a bare tacit Submission to it by the People but a Consent in Parliament Where they not only received foreign Canons into the body of our Municipal Laws but also from time to time came to a Compremise with the Clergy with respect to several Matters of which the Clergy claimed Cognisance as appertaining to what they called Spiritual Jurisdiction First For our Records of Parliament yet extant go no higher by the Statute De Circumspecte agati◠but that would not satisfie them In King Edward the Second's time they got Jurisdiction in many other Causes as you may see in the Statute of Articuli Cleri And in King Edward the Third's time they went yet farther Nine new Points were gained 25 Edw. 3. by the Statutum pro Clero The Conusance of these Matters which by these Statutes were left to the Clergy belonged before to the King's Courts as part of the Common Laws of the Realm by which the King governed his People and which he administred in his ordinary Courts of Justice and by the ordinary proceedings of Law. And therefore before they were allowed to the Cognisance of the Ecclesiastical Courts by Act of Parliament Prohibitions were granted * The King 's Right of Indulgence page 28. The granting of Prohibitions in these Cases is urged by a late Author as an instance of the King 's Ancient Supremacy and urged amongst other things to prove a right in the King's Person to dispense with Civil Laws about Ecclesiastical Matters Whereas Prohibitions were granted then no otherwise than as they are now to Spiritual and other Courts when they exceed the bounds of their Jurisdiction When the Spiritual Jurisdiction broke in upon the Temporal and the Ecclesiastical Courts assum'd an Authority in Cases not allowed by the Laws of the Realm to be within their Cognisance this was an Offence against the King's Crown and Regality as the Statutes of Premunire run and Contra Coronam Dignitatem Regis as the forms of some Prohibitions in the Register run and yet the Kings Temporal Jurisdiction was not personal In this period of time it was that Dispensations brake forth They began in King Henry the Third's time which is not old enough to give the Crown a title to them by Prescription for it is within the time of Memory The History of their Nativity may be read in Matth. Paris The Pope led up the Dance taking upon him by Non Obstante's to revoke his own Grants and to dispense with the Canons upon a pretence of some plenitudo potestatis or other derived to him as Pastor of the Vniversal Church by Succession from St. Peter And Secular Princes Writ after his Copy in taking upon them to dispence with their own Penal Laws Which before were religiously observed as the Laws of the Medes and Persians Sir John Daries Case De Commenda which could not be dispensed with And therefore a Canonist says that Dispensatio vulnerat jus commune And another says that all Abuses would be reformed Si duo tantum verba viz. Non Obstante non impedirent And Matthew Paris Anno Dom. 1246. having recited certain Decrees made in the Council of Lyons which were beneficial to the Church of England Sed omnia haec alia says he per hoc repagulum Non Obstante infirmantur Dav. Rep. 69 70. c. Secular Princes it seems had not learnt that part of their Prerogative till they were taught it by their Ghostly Father Nor could they well have any notion of it since as Sir Henry Spelman tells us in his Glossary tit Assisa Reges Proceres in condendis Legibus earum olim jurabant observantiam Hence Bracton calls the Laws of England Leges Juratas Now the taking of an Oath to observe them and the being allowed a power by Law to break them seem to me very inconsistent things It 's observable to this purpose what Bracton tells us concerning the Laws of England Legis vigorem habet quicquid de Consilio Consensu Magnatum Reipublicae Communi sponsione authoritate Regis sive Principis praecedente justè fuerit definitum approbatum So that a Statute of the Kingdom of England is an Agreement betwixt all parties concerned Which for any one of them to set aside is against Natural Reason And Fortescue who was Lord High Chancellor of England in the Reign of King Henry the Sixth cannot be supposed to have known of any such Prerogative in the King by the account that he gives us of the Solemnity of Enacting Laws here in England and of the course that was to be taken when any of them were found by Experience to be inconvenient Pag. 39 40. Statuta tunc Angliae bona sunt necne solum restat explorandum Non enim emanant illa Principis solùm voluntate ut Leges in Regnis quae Regaliter tantum gubernantur ubi quandoque Statuta ità constituentis procurant commodum singulare quod in ejus subditorum ipsa redundant dispendium jacturam Quandoque enim inadvertentiâ Principum hujusmodi sibi consulentium inertiâ ipsa tam inconsultè eduntur quòd corruptelarum potiùs quà m Legum nomina mereantur Sed non sic Angliae Statuta oriri possunt dum nedum Principis voluntate sed totius Regni assensu ipsa conduntur quo Populi laesuram illa essicere nequeunt vel non eorum commodum procurare Prudentiâ enim Sapientiâ necessariò ipsa esse referta putandum est dum non unius aut centum solùm consultorum virorum prudentiâ sed plusquam trecentorum electorum hominum quali numero olim Senatus Romanorum regebatur ipsa edita sunt Et si Statuta haec tanta solemnitate prudentia edita efficaciae tantae quantae conditorum cupiebat intentio non esse contingant concito reformari ipsa possunt non sine Communitatis Procerum Regni illius assensu quali ipsa primitùs emanarunt A Power in the Prince to suspend Laws
de maximis una erat quae Regnum Angliae liberum ab omni legati ditione constituerat donec ipse vitae praesenti superesset So that this Patria Consuetudo of the Kingdoms being free from the Jurisdiction of any Legate and which had been confirmed by the Pope was not a Priviledge Granted to the King himself nor was he the Object of that Papal pretended Indulgence but the Kingdom whom he declares that himself could not deprive of the Benefit thereof without their own Consent And therefore the King's Assent and the King's Leave so frequently mentioned in the Monks upon this occasion must be understood of his Assent in a Great Council or Parliament Hence it was that when Johannes Cremensis came Legate hither Anno Domini 1125. And was permitted so to do by the King being then in Normandy for what private considerations betwixt the Pope and himself I know not it was look'd upon by the Wise Men of the Nation as a notorious breach of the Antient and known Laws and Liberties of the Kingdom Quam gravi multorum mentes scandalo vulneravit inusitata negotii Novitas Antiqui Regni Anglorum detrita libertas satis indicat Toti enim Regno Anglorum circumjacentibus Regionibus cunctis notissimum est eatenùs à primo Cantuariensi Metropolitano Sanctissimo Augustino usque ad istum Wilhelmum Cantuariensem Archiepiscopum omnes ipsius Augustini Successores Monachos Primates Patriarchas nominatos habitos nec ullius unquam Romani legati ditioni addictos Gervas Dorob Collect. pag. 1663. And when afterwards in King Henry the Third's Time Circa festum Apostolorum Petri Pauli Otto sancti Nicholai in carcere Tulliano Diaconus Cardinalis nesciebatur ad quid per Mandatum Regis venit Legatus in Angliam Nescientibus Regni Magnatibus plures adversus Regem Magnam conceperunt indignationem dicentes Omnia Rex pervertit Jura fidem promissa in omnibus transgreditur Nota bend Nunc se matrimonio sine suorum amicorum hominum naturalium consilio Alienigenae copulavit Nunc Legatum Regni totius immutatorem clam vocavit c. Dictum est autem quod Archiepiscopus Cantuariensis Edmundus Regem talia facientem increpavit praecipuè de Vocatione Legati sciens inde in suae dignitatis praejudicium magnam Regno imminere Jacturam Matth. Par. 440. The Historian blames those that went to meet this Legate and that made him Honourable Presents of Scarlet Cloath c. In quo facto says he nimis à multis meruerunt reprehendi tam pro dono quà m pro dandi modo quia in panno ejus colore videbatur legationis Officium Adventum acceptari Which is a remarkable testimony that the King 's calling in a Legate did not in the judgment of those times give him any Legal Authority here if it were done Nescientibus Regni Magnatibus i. e. to speak in Eadmerus his Words if he were otherwise admitted than per Conniventiam Episcoporum Abbatum Procerum totius Regni conventum The same Historian Matth. Par. speaking afterward pag. 446. of the same Legate Rex says he spreto naturalium hominum suorum consilio magis magis ut caepit deliravit Et se voluntati Romanorum praecipuè Legati quem inconsultiùs advocaverat mancipavit c. And again His aliis deliramentis Rex omnium Nobilium suorum corda cruentavit Consiliarios quoque habuit suspectos infames qui hujus rei fomentum esse dicebantur quos idcircò magis habebant Nobiles Angliae exosos But the Instance which the Doctor himself gives pag. 154. of Henry Beaufort Bishop of Winchester and Great Unkle to King Henry the Sixth is as full against him as any thing that he could have pitch'd upon For that Bishop being Cardinal of St. Eusebius was sent Legate into England Anno 1429. Which was Anno Octavo of King Henry the Sixth And was fain to be beholden to an Act of Parliament for his Pardon for having offended against the Laws made against Provisors by bringing in and Executing Papal Bulls within the Realm For Anno 10. Henr. 6. The King by the Common Assent of all the Estates pardoneth to the said Cardinal all Offences Punishments and Pains incurred by him against the Statutes of Provisors Vid. Cotton 's Abridgement of Records 10. Henr. 6. nu 16. Which would have been needless if either the King 's giving leave to his Entrance or Assent to his Decrees could have justified his Proceedings and added any Legal Authority to them By what has been said I conceive it to be very clear that all Foreign Jurisdiction being utterly against the Law of the Realm and an intolerable Usurpation upon the King's Crown and Regality and upon the Rights and Liberties of his Subjects it was never conceived that the King could by his own Personal Authority without the Consent of his People in Parliament subject them to it no more than he could subject himself and his Crown in Temporal Matters Which that he could not do we have these two Remarkable Authorities When after the Death of Alexander the Third King of Scots the Succession to that Crown was in dispute and Ten several Competitors claim'd it and that Edward the First King of England challenged a Jurisdiction of determining to which of them the Right of Succession appertained the Pope that then was pretended that it belonged to him in Right of his Apostleship to decide the Controversie and Wrote to the King a Letter requiring him to desist any further Proceeding therein In answer to which Letter of the Pope the King wrote a long Letter containing Historical Proofs of his being Supreme Lord of Scotland and that the King of Scots was his Homager and at the same time the Parliament of England then Assembled at Lincoln wrote another Letter to the Pope upon the same Subject In which are these Words VIZ. Ad observationem defensionem Libertatum Consuetudinum Legum Paternarum ex debito praestiti Sacramenti adstringimur quae manutenebimus toto posse totisque viribus cum Dei Auxilio defendemus nec etiam permittimus aut aliquatenùs permittemus sicut nec possumus nec debemus praemissa tam insolita indebita praejudicialia alià inaudita Dominum nostrum Regem etiamsi vellet facere seu quomodolibet attemptare praecipuè cùm praemissa cederent in exhaeredationem juris Coronae Regis Angliae Regiae Dignitatis ac subversionem Status Ejusdem REgni notoriam necnon in praejudicium Libertatum Consuetudinum ac Legum Paternarum Sealed by One hundred and four Earls and Barons and in the Name of all the Commonalty of England V. Co. 2d Inst pag. 196. and Fox his Book of Martyrs Vol. 1. pag. 387 388 389. By which it appears that the King could not legally if he would have given way to the Pope's determining the Controversie about the Succession in Scotland since it belonged to himself in
Which any one may have recourse to in Spelm. Concil Eadmer Hist Mat. Paris and others In the beginning of King Henry the Second's Reign there was another Schism in the Popedom between Alexander and Victor upon which a great Council of Clergy and Laity out of the Kingdoms of England and France met to determine whether of the two should be acknowledged Pope within those Realms The matter was debated in Conspectu Regum Praesulum coram universâ quae convenerat multitudine Cleri Populi And Alexander was received for Pope and the Schismaticks Excommunicated The History is in Nubrig Lib. 2. c. 9. Pursuant to which President when there hapned in King Richard the Second's time to be another Schism in the Papacy and Act. of Parliament was made to declare who should be received Pope in England and a Law made for punishing any of the Clergy that should acknowledge the other Pope Vide Catt Records Ann. 2. Rich. 2. p. 180. What thing can be more purely Ecclesiastical than the determining who it lawfully chosen to be the Vniversal Bishop And yet neither the King nor the King and the Clergy would settle the point without the Laity By what has been said it appears That the Ancient Supremacy of the Kings of England in Ecclesiastical Matters was a very different thing not so much from what it is now by Law as from what it is apprehended to be by many amongst us The Error is fundamental and consists in ascribing Things Acts Powers c. to the King in person which belonged to were done and exercised by him no otherwise than in his Courts Appeals are said to have been to the King at Common Law And so an Abridgment of Law has it so Fox Rolls cap. 8. vid. Chron. Gerv. p. 1387. Speed and others And the Authority quoted is the Assize of Clarendon which in one Chapter directs that Appeals shall be from the Bishop to the Archbishop from the Archbishop to the King. But another Act of Parliament made about 12 years after clears the matter Sir Roger Twisden For in the mean time Becket was Murdered and King Henry the Second being put to hard Pennance for it part of his satisfaction was that he should agree not to hinder Appeals to Rome in Causes Ecclesiastical Mat. Paris p. 126. yet so as the party going was to give Security that he would not endeavour Malum Regis nec Regni But within Four Years after the Nation Assembled in Parliament would not quit their interest But the Assize of Clarendon was again renewed and a more close expression used concerning Appeals and such persons as had prosecuted any Justitiae faciant quaerere per consuetudinem terrae illos qui à Regno recesserunt nisi redire voluerint infra terminum nominatum stare Juri in Curiâ Domini Regis utlagentur c. This Gervas Dorobern who well understood it tells us was but renewing the Assize of Clarendon Rex Angliae Henricus convocatis Regni Primoribus apud Northamptoniam renovavit Assizam de Clarendon Here we see that such as were aggrieved by a Sentence given by the Archbishop were pursuant to the Statutes of Clarendon not to appeal to Rome but to the King Which the Statute of Northampton made but twelve years after explains to be to the Curia Regis By this and by what has been said before upon this Subject it appears that the ultimate Appeal in Causes Ecclesiastical as well as Temporal was to the Curia Regis or Parliament and that as the same Assemblies made Laws both for the Government of Church and State so the Supreme Judicature Ecclesiastical and Temporal was one and the same After that time Appeals were sometimes prosecuted in the Court of Rome that Statute and the Assize of Clarendon notwithstanding but this was only by connivance At last when the Pope got the better of King John who lay under great Disadvantages as all our Historians tell us and that in his Magna Charta these words were inserted V. Matth. Paris Pag. 258. Liceat unicuique de caetero exire de Regno nostro redire salvò securè per terram aquam salvâ fide nostra c. Then Appeals to Rome multiplyed for every little Cause and the Master-piece of Papal Encroachments was wrought effectually But it cannot be too often inculcated that the Laws of Clarendon which gave the ultimate Appeal to the Curia Regis as aforesaid are so often stiled the Avitae Consuetudines Regni Which shews sufficiently where the Supreme Judicature resided according to our old Constitution It appears by what has been said that King William the Conqueror was acknowledged to be God's Vicar appointed to govern his Church and yet that neither He nor his Successors pretended to make any Ecclesiastical Laws to bind the whole Kingdom but in a General Council of the Kingdom That the King's Supremacy was so far from being Personal that an Archbishop did as it were appeal from himself in Person to himself in Parliament and that the King submitted and owned the Jurisdiction That the same Archbishop understood the Law to be that the Assent of the Laity was necessary to the making of Ecclesiastical Laws by which they were to be bound That the King could not of his own Authority permit a Legate to exercise his Office within the Realm That leave to exercise his Office could not be given him but in Parliament That the King could not part with Investitures if he would without the Assent of the People That Parliaments determined who ought to be received as Pope within the Realm That Appeals were to the Curia Regis by the Avitae Consuetudines Regni And that Bishops were elected in Parliament Whence I conclude that a Personal Supremacy has no warrant from Antiquity The clearing the Antient Supremacy and stating the Matter aright is of great use in this present Age in which as one sort of Men over-stock us with Jure Divino's so the Lawyers accost us often with the Common Law and the King's Perogative at Common Law and that this and the other Act is but declarative of the Common Law and gives the King no new Power And yet as the Divines have little or no ground for their Jure Divine's no more have the Lawyers in these Matters of the Supremacy any thing to warrant their late Hyperbole's but Shadows and Imaginations They found a Power exercised by the Pope which they had good reason to think injurious to the Crown they had heard that from the beginning it was not so And thus far they were right But how it was exercised before the Court of Rome and the Clergy invaded it they had forgot it having been usurpt upon Four hundred years before they were born For it is in vain to look for a true Scheme of the Antient Legal Supremacy at a nearer distance than from the Reigns of King John King Richard the First King Henry the
modest Judges to take upon themselves the Resolution of Tho nothing can be too high nor too difficult for such Judges to determin who are wise enough to declare Acts of Parliament void Co. 8. Rep. Fol. 118. a. Moor's Reports pag. 828. But what shall we say of them in 40 Edward 3. who because the Statute of 14 Edw. 3. cap. 6. had impowered them to amend the misprision of a Clerk in writing a Letter or a Syllable too much or too little not only made a Question Whether they might amend where there was a Word wanting but went to the Parliament to know the Opinion of them that made the Law See the Story in Coke's 8 Report 158. a. So sacred were Acts of Parliament accounted in those days and so little was the Authority of the Judges in Westminster-Hall or rather of so great Credit and Authority were the Resolutions of Judges in those days when they were wary and cautious of making Alterations and in difficult Matters consulted their Superiors Other Examples of Adjournments ad proximum Parliamentum may be seen in Cotton's Abridgment of the Records in the Tower. But that which surprizeth us is That all our Judges since the Reformation should have attained to such an omniscience in the Law that I think I may confidently affirm there has not been an Adjournment ad proximum Parliamentum propter difficultatem these Hundred and fifty Years last past Sure I am that no President of any such thing appears in our modern Books of Law. And yet Cases of as great moment concern and consequence to the Government and the whole Nation have come in question within that space of time as ever did or could in former Ages But there is a Notion broached amongst us that the Kings of England have greater Power and larger Prerogatives in Ecclesiastical Matters than in Temporal and that by vertue of their Ecclesiastical Supremacy they may dispense with such Acts of Parliament as concern Religion But they that say so do not consider that before the Reformation the Kings of England had much less power in Ecclesiastical Matters than in Temporal and therefore they cannot have greater now unless some Act of Parliament give it them And therefore this power of dispensing with Acts of Parliament in Matters of Religion must be given by some Acts of Parliament since the Reformation or else the King has it not And admit for the present their Hypothesis who would invest the King with whatever power the Pope de facto exercised here Yet that will not serve the turn for as much as the Pope himself whatever power he might claim and attempt to exercise yet was never allowed a power to dispense with Acts of Parliament concerning Ecclesiastical Matters even when it was full Sea with him here in England Take one remarkable President out of Matt. Paris p. 699. that in the Year of our Lord 1245. The King the Prelates Earls Barons and Great Men of the Realm then Assembled in a most general Parliament at Westminster drew up several Articles of Grievances against the Popes Exorbitances and Illegal Oppressions one of which was conceived in these words viz. Item Gravatur Regnum Angliae ex adjectione multiplici illius infamis nuncii Non Obstante per quem juramenti Religio consuetudines antiquae Scripturarum vigor concessionum authoritas Statuta Jura Privilegia debilitantur evanescunt And it cannot but seem strange that after such publick Complaints for many others of the like nature might be cited of the whole Kingdom against Non Obstante's as intolerable Grievances they should be afterwards countenanced and screwed up to such a transcendent Soveraignty as to frustrate Laws Statutes and Acts of Parliament and that by vertue of an Ecclesiastical Supremacy by which the King is pretended to have whatever power the Pope had when the Pope himself was never allowed this To these Presidents and Authorities of former times it may not be improper to add what happened in the latter end of the Reign of King James the First and the beginning of King Charles the First upon occasion of the Spanish Match with relation to the Penal Laws against Roman Catholicks The whole Negotiation of that Affair may be read at large in Rushworth's first Volume of Historical Collections and in Prynne's Introduction to the Archbishop of Canterbury 's Tryal I will only point at two or three passages that are most material to the present purpose 1. King James in a Letter written with his own hand to the King of Spain has these words viz. Leges nostrates quae mulctam Catholicis non mortem irrogant aboleri aut rescindi à nobis Seorsim non posse leniri it a posse cùm erit usus exploratum habeat Serenitas vestra omnibus ut dictorum Catholicorum Romanorum animis mansuetudine ac lenitate nostrâ conciliatis c. he had promised that no Romish Priest or Catholick should be proceeded against for any Capital Crime but for the other Laws ut supra Yet afterwards when King James was made to believe that the Match was just upon the point of being concluded a Proclamation was prepared for granting a toleration to Papists tho' it never came out But Archbishop Abbot wrote a Letter in the nature of a Remonstrance to King James in which besides other Considerations of Religion and Policy these words follow Prynne's Introduct p. 40. Besides this Toleration which you endeavour to set by your Proclamation cannot be done without a Parliament unless your Majesty will let your Subjects see that you will take unto your self a Liberty to throw down the Laws of the Land at your pleasure And in the Second Year of King Charles the First the King commanded his Attorney General to charge the Earl of Bristol at the Bar of the House of Lords with High Treason and other Offences and Misdemeanours that they might proceed in a legal Course against him according to the Justice and usual Proceedings of Parliaments the fifth of which Articles is in these words That from the beginning of his Negotiation and throughout the whole managing thereof by the said Earl of Bristol and during his said Ambassage he the said Earl contrary to his Faith and Duty to God the true Religion professed by the Church of England and the Peace of the Church and State did intend and resolve that if the said Marriage so treated of as aforesaid should by his Ministry be effected that thereby the Romish Religion and the Professors thereof should be advanced within this Realm and other his Majesties Realms and Dominions and the true Religion and the Professors thereof discouraged and discountenanced And to that end and purpose the said Earl during the time aforesaid by Letters unto his late Majesty and otherwise often counselled and persuaded his said late Majesty to set at Liberty the Jesuits and Priests of the Romish Religion which according to the good Religious and Publick Laws of this Kingdom were
his Heirs and Successors by Commission under the Great Seal to be directed to such persons as shall be appointed requisite for the same c. This Act of Parliament having abrogated the Pope's Power here in England those places that had been exempt from ordinary Jurisdiction would naturally have fallen back within the Visitation of the Diocesan I mean such places as had been exempt by vertue of any Bulls Licences or Dispensations from Rome only if it had not been especially and expresly provided that nothing in the said Act should be taken nor expounded to the derogation or taking away of any grants or confirmations of any Liberties Priviledges or Jurisdiction of any Monasteries Abbies Priories or other Houses or places exempt which before the making of this Act have been obtained at the See of Rome and if the Visitation of them by Commission under the Great Seal had not been provided for In the next Year Ann. 26 H. 8. The Statute was made which enacts that the King our Soveraign Lord his Heirs and Successors Kings of this Realm shall be taken accepted and reputed the Only Supreme Head on Earth of the Church of England called Anglicana Ecclesia and shall have and enjoy united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm as well the title and stile thereof as all Honours Dignities Preheminences Jurisdictions Priviledges Authorities Immunities Profits and Commodities to the said Dignity of Supream Head of the same Church belonging and appertaining What was then meant understood recognis'd c. by the word Supreme Head will appear by these following Considerations First that the recital of the Act shews they intended not by that recognition to invest him with any new Power For they recite that the King's Majesty justly and rightfully is and ought to be the Supreme head of the Church of England and so is recognised by the Clergy of the Realm in their Convocations yet nevertheless for corroboration and confirmation thereof c. So that this Act so far forth as it gives or acknowledges the Title of SUPREME HEAD is but Declarative And consequently they that upon this Act ground a Translation of the Pope's Power by the Canon-law to the King utterly mistake the matter For our King 's Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction was not grounded upon the Canon Law but the Common Law of the Realm it was a Native of our own and not of any foreign extraction Secondly That this Supreme Head-ship of the Church consists only in his being Supreme head of that Church of England which then was called Anglicana Ecclesia and who they were appears First by the Statute of 24. Henr. 8. cap. 12. aforementioned The body Spiritual whereof of the Realm of England having Power when any Cause of the Law Divine happened to come in question or of Spiritual Learning that it was declared interpreted and shew'd by that part of the said body Politick called the Spiritualty now being usually called the English Church So that the Spiritualty are the Ecclesia Anglicana of whom the King is here declar'd the supreme head Secondly It appears by the Recognition of the Clergy who having no Authority to declare a Supreme Head in Ecclesiastical matters for the Laity did but by that Submission acknowledge themselves to be to all intents and purposes the King's Subjects and not the Pope's But Thirdly This same Parliament in this very Session tells us that the King had of right always been so It is in the third Chapt. for the payment of first-fruits to the King. The words are Wherefore his said humble and obedient Subjects as well the Lords Spiritual and Temporal as the Commons in this present Parliament Assembled c. do pray that for the more surety continuance and augmentation of his Highness Royal estate being not only now recognis'd as he always indeed hath heretofore been the only Supreme Head in Earth next and immediately under God of the Church of England but also their most assured and undoubted natural Lord and King having the whole Governance of this his Realm c. They tell him That he was not only the Supreme Head of the Church of England but their viz. the Temporalties Lord and King so that he had the Governance of the whole Realm and Subjects of the same What can be more plain than first That by Supreme Head of the Church of England was meant the Supreme Head of the Spiritualty which was necessary to be recogniz'd because they had acknowledged formerly another Supreme Head. Secondly That they gave no new Power by that word since they tell us that indeed he had always been so And Thirdly That his Supremacy consists only in a power of Governance Fourthly This title of Supreme Head does not give the King any power of dispensing with Acts of Parliament in Matters of Religion or Ecclesiastical Affairs whatsoever That power was never yielded to the Pope himself during that whole time that he was uncontroulably submitted to as Head of the Church That power they complain of in the Act of 25 H. 8. cap. 21. as an Vsurpation an Abuse a Cheat. They declare it to be in the King and themselves Fifthly Dr. Burnet in his History of the Reformation p. 142 143. First Part has these words But at the same time that they pleaded so much for the King's Supremacy and power of making Laws for restraining and coercing his Subjects it appears that they were far from vesting him with such an absolute Power as the Popes had pretended to for they thus defined the extent of the King's Power Institution of a Christian Man. To them speaking of Princes and Magistrates specially and principally it appertaineth to defend the Faith of Christ and his Religion to conserve and maintain the True Doctrine of Christ and all such as be true Preachers and setters forth thereof and to abolish Heresies Abuses and Idolatries and to punish with corporal pains such as of Malice be the occasion of the same And finally to oversee and cause that the said Bishops and Priests do execute their Pastoral Office truly and faithfully and speally in these Points which by Christ and his Apostles were given and committed to them and in case they shall be negligent in any part thereof or would not diligently execute the same to cause them to double and supply their lack and if they obstinately withstand their Prince's kind monition and will not amend their faults then and in such case to put others in their rooms and places And God hath also commanded the said Bishops and Priests to obey with all humbleness and reverence both Kings and Princes and Governors and all their Laws not being contrary to the Laws of God whatsoever they be and that not only propter iram but also propter conscientiam Thus it appears that they both limited obedience to the King's Laws with the due caution of not being contrary to the Law of God and acknowledged the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in discharge of the
for Sees of Bishops Suffragans And gives the King Power and Authority to give to one of two Persons to be presented to him by any Archbishop or Bishop the Stile Title and Name of a Bishop of such a See c. provides for the Consecration of such Bishops limits what Authority they shall have in the Diocess c. Hence I infer that the Parliament had its share in the Government of the Church The Letters Patents made pursuant to this Act conclude Vigore Statuti in ejusmodi casu editi provisi Dr. Burnet Coll. of Rec. ad Vol. 1. p. 130. notwithstanding the Restitution of the Supremacy and the King could not as SUPREME HEAD without this Act of Parliament appoint the number of Suffragan Bishops or give limit or bound their Power and Authority In the Twenty eighth Year of this King it was enacted That all Archbishops and Bishops of this Realm or of any the Kings Dominions consecrated and at this present Parliament taken and reputed for Archbishops and Bishops may by the Authority of this present Parliament and not by Vertue of any Provision or other Foreign Authority Licence Faculty or Dispensation keep enjoy and retain their Archbishopricks and Bishopricks in as large and ample manner as if they had been promoted elected confirmed and consecrated according to the due Course of the Laws of this Realm And that every Archbishop 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 Archbishop or Bishop with all Tokens Insigns and Ceremonies thereunto lawfully belonging Here the Parliament impowers the Archbishops and Bishops that then were to use and exercise their Offices and Orders not by Virtue of any Foreign Authority but by Authority of this present Parliament This the King could not have done without consent of Parliament because he could not dispense with the Statutes of Praemunire and Provisors as has been said already and as appears by a notable Act in the Twenty fifth Year of this King's Reign Burnett's Collect. of Records ad Vol. 1. pag. 121 122 123. concerning the Deprivation of the Bishops of Salisbury and Worcester The Act recites That where by the laudable Laws and Provisions of this Realm it had been established that no Person or Persons of of what Degree Estate or Quality should take or receive within this Realm of England to Farm by any Procuracy Writ Letter of Attorney Administration by Indenture or by any other Mean any Benefice or other Promotion within this Realm of any Person or Persons but only of the King 's true and lawful Subjects being born under the King's Dominions And also that no Person or Persons of what Estate and Degree soever by reason of any such Farm Procuracy Letter of Attorney Administration Indenture or by any other Mean should c. Notwithstanding which said wholsom Laws Statutes and Provisions the King's Highness being a Prince of great Benignity and Liberality having no Knowledge or due Information or Instruction of the same Laws Statutes and Provisions hath heretofore nominated and preferred and promoted Laurence Compegius Bishop of Sarum with all the Spiritual and Temporal Possessions c. belonging to the same And hath also nominated preferred and promoted Hierome being another Stranger to the See of Worcester c. Be it enacted by Authority of this present Parliament That the said two several Sees of Salisbury and Worcester shall be taken reputed and accounted in Law void c. Here we see the King was not allowed to act contrary to Acts of Parliament concerning Ecclesiastical Matters We see Bishops depriv'd by Act of Parliament and by the Act of 28 H. 8. cap. 16. other Bishops and Archbishops who in strictness of Law were no Bishops of those Sees by reason of their foreign Provisions quieted in the injoyment of their Bishopricks and authoriz'd to exercise their Episcopal Function there by Act of Parliament though it is not to be doubted but if the Rolls of those times were searcht Dispensations formerly granted to those Bishops would be found amongst them But they stood them in no stead because contrary to the Laws Statutes and Provisions aforesaid So that here the King and Parliament acknowledging that the King had no knowledge or due Information or Instruction of the said Statutes which is a modest and respectful way of expressing the King's doing an illegal thing what else can we infer than that they disown and he disclaims any personal Prerogative inherent in himself to violate those and consequently other Laws concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs Which shews both that the King's Supremacy was not accounted any such unbounded Power as some fancy and that the Parliament retain'd its share in the Jurisdiction over Ecclesiastical Persons and Things notwithstanding the restitution recognition or call it what you will of the Supremacy I pass by the Act of 31 H. 8. c. 14. whereby certain Opinions then accounted Heresie and Marriage of Priests are brought within the compass of Treason and Felony for that the inflicting of such Punishments for what Crimes or pretended Crimes soever is an Act of Civil not of Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and come to the Act of 32 H. 8. cap. 26. which laid the top stone of King Henry the Eighths Supremacy and mounted it one story higher than ever it was carried before or since It was thereby enacted that All Decrees and Ordinances which according to God's Word and Christ's Gospel by the Kings Advice and Confirmation by his Letters Patents shall be made and ordained by the Archhishops Bishops and Doctors appointed or to be appointed by his Royal Majesty or else by the whole Clergy of England nota benè in and upon the matter of Christian Religion and Christian Faith and the lawful Rites Ceremonies and Observations of the same shall be in every point thereof believed obeyed and performed to all intents and purposes upon the pains therein comprised Here Matters of Doctrin and Worship are given up to the King's determination and appointment But he was to determine by such Advice as was appointed by the Act. And this Power was personal died with him and was never pretended to by any of his Successors It was given him by Parliament who could not have given it him if they had not had it themselves for there was no Act of Convocation in the case He had it not before for then there would have been no need of the Act. It is greater to give than to receive They give it him with a restriction that affords a good Argument against a pretended power in the King of dispensing with all Acts of Parliament concerning matters of Religion viz. Provided that nothing shall be ordained or defined which shall be repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of the Realm It seems the Parliament at that time was so far from apprehending any power lodged in the King either by vertue
Visitations page 144. c. to page 160. In which Section because he pretends to set up an imaginary Personal Supremacy quite different from what I have endeavoured to assert from some Remarks upon Ancient Histories and late Acts of Parliament but agreeable enough with some Opinions that have been espous'd of late and made use of to warrant some late Proceedings I thought it might not be amiss to trace him through that Section and submit to the Judgment of the Unprejudiced Reader whether the Doctor has afforded the World a right Scheme of the King 's Ecclesiastical Supremacy I beg the Reader 's Pardon if he meet with some few passages over again here that were touch'd upon in the foregoing Discourse I hope their usefulness will excuse the repetition of them and the Answer would not have been so clear without it He tells us pag. 144. that long before the Reformation several Kings of England permitted no Canons or Constitutions of the Church or Bulls and Breves of the Apostolick See to be executed here without their Allowance Which I agree to be very true only the Doctor saying without their Allowance implies and it appears by the whole drift of his Discourse in this Chapter and indeed by the main Scope of his Book that he would be understood that With their Allowance such Canons and Constitutions Bulls and Breves might lawfully be Executed Which I deny And hope to make it evident that Our Kings could not by their own Personal Authority let in upon their Subjects a foreign Jurisdiction He adds pag. 145. that since the Supremacy has been Established by Act of Parliament in the Crown The Kings of England may according to the Laws in force not only Exercise all the Powers they could What Powers those are no Man knows but Filmer Brady Johnson Hicks Sir. Roger L'Estrange and a very few others of yesterday as Sovereign Princes but likewise whatever the Pope de jure if not de facto could or did do in the outward Regiment of Ecclesiastical matters and consequently that whatsoever was done in Visitations by the Authority of the Popes Metropolitans or Diocesan Bishops may now be done by the Kings of England as Supreme Ordinaries Which is a very wild Assertion and without the least Foundation of Truth He does not here speak it out roundly That the King may by the Law do whatever the Pope de facto did but minces the matter a little by saying Whatever the Pope de jure if not de facto could or did do And yet with the same breath he says positively that whatever was done in Visitations by Authority of the Pope may now be done by the King. So that however the King may be limited and tyed up in other Parts of his Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to what the Popes de jure could do in Visitations at least he has Authority to do whatever the Popes Archbishops or Bishops actually did The Doctor did not consider that the several Branches of the Supremacy now restored by Act of Parliament are guided directed and limited by positive and particular Laws made about the time of the Reformation And that the Act of primo Elizabeth in that general Clause which Restores the Supremacy Vnites and Annexes only such Jurisdiction and Authority as had or might be lawfully Exercised by any Spiritual Person c. Not that the Pope to speak strictly could Exercise any Jurisdiction lawfully within this Realm for the Old Laws and Customs of the Realm and the Statutes of Premunire and Provisors were firm Bars to his Right but a Jurisdiction may be lawful in it self that is for so I would be understood the Acts of a Person Assuming Jurisdiction may be lawful in themselves considered separate and a-part from the Person of him that Exerts it though the Person Exercising such Jurisdiction have no legal Authority If an Usurper should possess himself of any Government and carry on the Administration of it in the same Method and Course of Justice that the Lawful Prince did or ought to do in strictness of Law there might perhaps be a Nullity in all his Acts and yet considered Abstracted from his Person his Government would be said to be lawful that is according to Law and the course of Proceedings that had been setled and obtained before his Usurpation So whatever the Pope did in this Nation as pretending to be Head of the English Church which was not in it self contrary to the Law of the Realm in Church or State but might lawfully be done though not by him is by the said Act of primo Elizabeth Vnited and Annexed to what Why to the Imperial Crown of this Realm Whereas by the Act of Supremacy that passed in King Henry the Eighths time All such Jurisdiction Authority c. was personally vested in the King his Heirs and Successors But of that distinction more shall be said God willing some other time Pursuant to this imagination of the Pope's Power being Translated to the King he tells us that latter Laws have devolved upon the King even the Power of the Pope in foro externo pag. 145. He says pag. 145 146. that during the Schism in the Papacy between Vrban and Clement King William Rufus claimed as other Princes did a Right to declare to which Pope he would adhere And that none should be received as Pope in England without his Licence and Election Here if I understand the Doctor aright he takes for granted that if there should happen a Schism in the Popedom the King might declare whether or which of the Competitors himself thought fit to be Pope within this Realm Which I deny that he could do without the Assent of the Clergy and Laity in a General Assembly He says pag. 145. that if the Archbishop of Canterbury called and presided in a General Council of Bishops King William allowed nothing to be appointed or forbidden unless they were accommodated to his Will and were first ordained by him These are the Words of Eadmerus out of whom the Doctor Quotes them Eadm Lib. 1. Fol. 6. But if the Doctor would here insinuate as he does and consonantly to his own Hypothesis must mean that the King's Will concurring with the Assent of a General Council of Bishops could make an Ecclesiastical Law to bind the whole Kingdom without the Assent of the Laity that is what I deny and hope to make it very clear in the following Discourse Whereas he says pag. 145. out of the same Author Eadmerus that King William suffered not any of his Barons or Officers to undergo any Ecclesiastical Censure but by his precept I hope it will appear that this was not an Arbitrary Power assumed by the King but that the Law of the Realm was so He says pag. 146 147. that the Oath of Fidelity which Anselme had taken to King William Rufus was no ways like the present Oath of Supremacy He says pag. 148 149. As to the legantine Power it is apparent by
That the King desired only dignitates Regibus ante debitas sibi exhiberi Hoved. pag. 292. b. And in another Letter to the Pope on the King's behalf they declare the same ibid. pag. 292 293. Our Archbishops indeed used to fetch their Palls from Rome but that Entitled the Pope to no Jurisdiction here So that the Subject Matters of the Laws of Clarendon then Enacted into Statute-Laws were in King William Rufus his Time the Laws and Vsages of the Realm and therefore Anselm's and Becket's Oaths were in Substance the same And those Laws and Vsages having been usurp'd upon since and the Usurpation purged by the Laws made about the time of the Reformation the Oath of Supremacy is now the same in Substance with those Ancient Oaths aforementioned Not but that the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in some of its Branches may now be settled in another course of Administration than it was so long ago But those Alterations which yet are not very considerable have been made by Acts of Parliament by which if Men had been content to stand or fall many Notions that are now too rise amongst us would never have been hatched The Writ from R. de Glanville to the Abbot of Battle mentioned by the Doctor pag. 148. whereby he Commands him on the King's behalf by the Faith which he owed him not to proceed in the Cause that was depending betwixt the Monks of Canterbury and the Archbishop donec indè mecum fueris locutus was no other than a Probibition to him to proceed in a Cause depending before him and the Abbots of Feversham and St. Augustine as Judges appointed by the Pope to hear and determine it They had cited the Archbishop to appear before them they had sent him Comminatoriam Epistolam eique diem peremptorium praefixerant They had no Legal Authority to Exercise Jurisdiction within the Realm for the Pope could give them none And therefore the Chief Justice prohibits them in the King's Name The Writ may be Read in Chron. Gervas Coll. pag. 1503. from whence the Doctor Quotes the Story Though he relates it Knavishly enough We find a Writ saith he to the Abbot of Battle c. wherein he Commands him on the part of the King by the Faith which he owes him and by the Oath which he made to him to do what he then enjoyned Never telling us that the thing enjoyn'd was the keeping of his Oath and observing the Law and that the Method observed by the King in sending him this Injunction was according to the Ordinary course of Justice and of proceedings at Law in the like Cases But the Doctor would raise a little Dust by this and a few other such pitiful Scraps to amuse his Readers and create an Opinion that the King may enjoyn any thing As to the Legantine Power he says pag. 148. It is apparent by several Instances that none Exercised any here without the King's leave whether by the Grant of Pope Nicholas to Edward the Confessor he disputes not But the Doctor takes for granted that with the King's leave a a Legate might be sent and Exercise his Office here Though what he Quotes for it out of Eadmerus pag. 125 126. concerning what passed betwixt King Henry the First and Pope Calixtus at Gisors makes nothing for his purpose Rex à Papa impetravit ut omnes Consuetudines quas Pater suus in Angliâ habuerat in Normanniâ sibi concederet maximè ut neminem aliquando legati Officio in Angliâ fungi permitteret si non ipse aliquâ praecipuâ querelâ exigente quae ab Archiepiscopo Cantuariorum caeterisque Episcopis Regni terminari non posset hoc fieri à Papâ postularet The coming in of a Legate at the King's Request to determine some great and difficult Controversie in particular which could not be decided by all the Bishops of England is one thing and the coming in of a Legate with a General Power to Exercise Jurisdiction over all the King's Subjects and to hold a Legantine Court is a quite other thing The Doctor says pag. 151. that Anno Domini 1138 Tertio Regis Stephan Albert or Alberic Cardinal of Hostia was the Pope's Legate and Consecrated Theobald Archbishop of Canterbury and called the Clergy to a Colloquium by Apostolical Authority by which it appears says he That the Canons of the Church now obtained and the King Assented to the Powers the Legate had so that what was Decreed had the King's Allowance It seems provided what was Decreed had the King's Allowance all was well and there needed no more But Gerv. Dorobern Coll. pag. 1344. tells us that Praedictus Albericus Apostolicâ Legatione functus venit in Angliam Domini Papae litteras ad Regem deferens lectis itaque litteris coram Rege Primoribus Angliae licèt non in primis vix tandèm pro Reverentiâ Domini Papae susceptus est So that this Legate was admitted by the Consent of the Primores Angliae as well as of the King. And consequently his Exercising his Office here with such Assent as aforesaid is no Argument that the King 's Personal Assent to his Powers without the Concurrence of his Primores would have made them ever a whit the better And when this Legate Celebrated his Synod at Westminster there were present Episcopi diversarum Provinciarum Numero XVII Abbates ferè XXX Cleri Populi Multitudo Numerosa See Spelman's Councils Volume the Second pag. 39. and Gerv. Dorobern Collect. pag. 1347. So that as the Assent of the Primores was had to his Entry so the Multitudo Numerosa Cleri Populi Assented to the Canons then made And the King 's single Assent to either would not have been sufficient Besides this I shall take leave to oppose the Judgement and Opinion of King Henry the First to that of the Doctor concerning the King's having or not having Authority to Admit a Legate hither from Rome When in his Reign Petrus Monachus Cluniacensis came hither from Pope Calixtus with a Legantine Power perductus ad Regem dignè ab eo susceptus est Et expositâ sui adventûs causâ Rex obtensâ expeditione in quâ tunc erat nam super Walenses eâ tempestate exercitum duxerat dixit se tanto negotio operam tunc quidem dare non posse cum Legationis illius stabilem Authoritatem non nisi per conniventiam Episcoporum Abbatum Procerum ac totius Regni Conventum roborari posse constaret Eadmer Lib. 6. pag. 137 138. He tells it him as a known Truth constaret that his Legacy could not be of any validity in this Nation without the Consent of the whole Kingdom in Parliament Which by reason of his Wars with the Welsh he was not then at leisure to call The Words following are Remarkable VIZ. Super haec patrias Consuetudines ab Apostolicâ sede sibi concessas nunquam se aequanimiter amissurum fore testabatur in quibus haec
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