SOME OBSERVATIONS UPON THE Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction OF THE KINGS of ENGLAND WITH AN APPENDIX In Answer to part of a Late Book Intitled The KING' 's Visitatorial Power Asserted LONDON Printed for William Battersby at Thavies-Inn Gate in Holborn and Thomas Basset at the George in Fleet-street 1689. To the Reader A Late Declaration for Liberty of Conscience whereby the King Assum'd a Power of Suspending All Penal Laws in matters of Religion The Ecclesiastical Commission and suspending by vertue of it the Bishop of London and depriving the Fellows of Magdalen-Colledge occasioned a general dissatisfaction in the Nation and produc't some Pamphlets to justifie all those Proceedings viz. One Entituled The King 's Right of Indulgence in Spiritual Matters with the Equity thereof Asserted Another A Vindication of the Proceedings of his Majestie 's Ecclesiastical Commissioners against the Bishop of London and the Fellows of Magdalen-Colledge A Third The Legality of the Court held by his Majestie 's Ecclesiastical Commissioners Defended And last of all The King 's Visitatorial power asserted Perusing these Pamphlets I could not but observe that one and the same inveterate error ran through them All viz. Their ascribing to the King all such power Jurisdiction and Authority as by the Law of England and the very Original Constitution of our Government is lodged in the Legislative body of the Kingdom and which the King is intrusted onely with the Administration of and that in his Courts of Justice I had attempted the answering more than one of those Pamphlets but I found that at every turn I met with that mistake in the Authors who either through Ignorance or Design or both argue for the King's Prerogative from whatever they find to have been done in Great Councils of the Realm or in Ordinary Courts of Justice this one mistake together with some rash and unwarranted expressions glean'd out of a few late Writers will be found to be the main strength of their Cause I thought therefore that it might be a work of some use especially at this time to endeavour the removal of this rubbish and the laying open in some measure the nature of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of the Crown of England both because we have lately seen how dangerous and fatal these mistakes are and because although much has been written since the Reformation by Mr. Prynn Sir Roger Twisden and others to vindicate the Ecclesiastical Supremacy from Forein Pretensions and Vsurpations yet I know not whether any has yet taken in hand to give an Account of it as stands by Law here at home I do therefore offer these few Observations upon it to the publick desiring the Judicious Reader 's pardon for what slips and imperfections he may find herein and have added in an Appendix an Answer to a Section in the Book concerning Visitatorial Power wherein I hope the Reader will be satisfied how groundless and weak most of the arguments are which our Prerogative-mongers pretend to draw from Antiquity These following Observations are brought down no lower then to the latter end of King Henry the eighth's Reign I design a Continuation with Remarks upon some Judicial Presidents that have pass't since the Reformation if these Papers are well received if not I shall save time and be eas'd of trouble SOME OBSERVATIONS Upon the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Of the King 's of ENGLAND IT is obvious enough to judicious and intelligent Persons by what unhappy Circumstances it comes to pass that one great Mean of our Preservation seems at present in a manner hid from our Eyes But since Experience is said to be the Mistress of Fools it is hoped that at least in this our Day we may see the things that belong to our Peace Luke 19.42 and remember that the reason why the Ostrich leaveth her Eggs in the Dust Job 39.13 14 15 17. forgetting that the Foot may crush them is because God hath deprived her of Wisdom neither hath he imparted to her Vnderstanding If Interest or Ambition have swayed with some of us Prov. 22.28 as far as in them lay to remove the antient Land-Marks which our Fore-Fathers have set Josh 7.19 let such give Glory to God and take Shame to themselves In the mean time what effect soever these ensuing Papers may have upon our Friends at least let our Adversaries see that there is a Remnant left in Israel 1 Kings 19.18 that have not bowed their Knees to Baal An Arch-Bishop may tell us The Legality of the Ecclesiastical Commission defended pag. 6 7. that the King may take what Causes he pleases to determin from the Determination of the Judges and determin them himself and that it is clear in Divinity that such Authority belongs to the King by the Word of God. But as we are not to receive even the Word of God it self under the Sanction of a Human Law from the Mouth of an Arch-Bishop or from the whole Body of the Clergy much less are we bound to submit to any Courtly Glosses upon that Sacred Text concerning the Power of Kings whose Authority as we suppose it to be grounded wholly upon Municipal Laws so we know the Law to be a better Foundation and a better Security than any imaginary Authority pretended from Scripture And if the Defender would have observed what the Lord Coke in the Presence and with the clear consent of all the Judges and Barons of the Exchequer Coke 12. Rep. pag. 63 64 65. answered upon that occasion before the King himself both from Reason and Authority he would have silenced the Arch-Bishops Divinity and saved me the trouble of taking notice of that part of his Discourse It was their Opinion that the King could not in Person adjudge any Case Which they confirm with such Reasons and Authorities from judicial Records and Acts of Parliament that it seems very imprudent in the Defender to urge that as an Authority which received so solid so learned and so honest an Answer Judges and Serjeants may entertain themselves with what Discourse they please post prandium Legality of c. defended pag. 10 11. Coke 12. Rep. pag. 19 c. and in their mooting upon one extrajudicial Point may talk of another by the by and if one of the Company put this transient Discourse into Paper so that afterwards it gets into the Press Good God! what condition are we come into when Tablechat must be obtruded upon us for Law To go a little further Judges in Courts of Justice may pretend to resolve what Points of Law they please but if their Resolutions are not pertinent to the Matter depending before them in Judgment and necessary for the deciding it such Resolutions go for nothing because the Judges had no Authority so to resolve And I am fully assured that this Point Legality of c. defended Pag. 8.9 Coke 5. Rep. Cawdry's Case viz. Whether any King or Queen of England for the time being might issue an
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
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
by whole-sale is altogether needless in a Constitution wherein Concitò reformari possunt by the same Authority that made them In Forty days time a Parliament may be summoned to consent to what alteration they shall think fit to be made And it is the constant practice observed to this day that at the beginning of every Parliament a Committee is appointed to consider what Laws are inconvenient and have need to be altered continued or repealed If the Parliament shall not think fit to make any alteration the Laws must remain in force and ought to be put in execution for there can be no Reformation of them made Sine Communitatis Procerum assensu And the reason is because by such assent Primitus emanârant The Repealing of a Law or which is all one a total Suspension of a Law is making a new Law whatever quibbles and foolish distinctions may be pretended to be made in the Case Now the Laws of England do not oriri Principis voluntate and rherefore a Repeal or total Suspension of a Law grounded upon the voluntas Principis only is not warranted by that model of the English Government that Fortescue presents us with He that asserts such a Power in the King to Suspend Laws Enacted by the Consent of the whole Kingdom turns the Government of this Nation topsie turvie Lord Chief Justice Herbert in Sir Edward Hales his Case And makes the Laws of England indeed the King's Laws contrary to the style of all Antiquity of all History and contrary to the forms of Legal Proceedings even to this day Lex terrae and Leges terrae Leges Consuetudines Angliae Leges Angliae Statuta Angliae Assiza Regni are known and common Expressions Leges Regis sounds harsh the phrase is uncouth because the Notion included in it is false nor was ever thought of by our Forefathers The Statutes of Praemunire and Provisors and the method of dispensing with them before the Reformation will abundantly disclose to us where the power of dispensing with Acts of Parliament even in Ecclesiastical Matters was vested In the 16th Year of King Richard the Second the Archbishop of Canterbury declared the Causes of the Parliament The second of which was to provide some remedy touching the Statute of Provisors for eschewing debate betwixt the Pope and the King and his Parliament Cot. Records p. 346. King Richard needed not have put himself to the trouble of convening his Parliament in order to provide a Remedy in such case if by the Law as it was then understood he might by his Perogative have dispensed with the Statutes of Provisors and all other Laws concerning Ecclesiastical Matters In the 17th R. 2. It was enacted in Parliament that Tydeman late Abbot of Beawliew and Elect of Landaffe by the Popes Provision should enjoy the same Bishoprick notwithstanding any Act so always as this be taken for no Example Ibid. p. 354. So that tho Tydeman had a Dispensation from the King he durst not trust to it without getting his Title to his Abby confirmed in Parliament The like President occurs in 18 H. 6. The Archbishop of Roan had the Profits of the Bishoprick of Ely granted to him by the Pope and confirmed in Parliament Ibid. p. 623. But in the Fifteenth year of King Richard the Second the Commons for the great Affiance which they reposed in the King granted that the King by the Advice of his Lords might make such Toleration touching the Statute of Provision as to him should seem good until the next Parliament so as the Statute be repealed in no Article thereof nor none disturbed of his lawful Possession So also as they may disagree thereto at the next Parliament with this Protestation That this their Assent being in truth a Novelty be had or taken for no Example Ibid. p. 342. And in the Sixteenth year of the same King the Commons grant to the King that he by the Advice of his Lords should have power to moderate the Statute of Provisions to the Honour of God and saving the Rights of the Crown and to put the same in execution so as the same be declared in the next Parliament to the end the Commons may then agree to the same or no. Ibid. pag. 347. The occasions of these Concessions were the then circumstances of the Kings Affairs who was often at enmity with France and made advantage of the Pope's Friendship which he obtained by this and other Methods of the like kind The like Instances occur in the same Collection p. 362 In the Twentieth year of the same King. p. 393 In the First year of King Henry the Fourth p. 406 In the Second year of King Henry the Fourth From hence it appears that those Times had no notion of any absolute Power any inseparable Perogative in the King himself of dispensing with those Laws without his Parliaments consent For they grant the King such Power and that but for a time and so as they may disagree to it at their next Meeting and with a protestation that this their Assent be not drawn into Example and declare their giving the King such Power to be a Novelty And all this they do with a saving to the Rights of the Crown which let them if they can explain the meaning of who imagine that the uniting of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to the Crown of England by the Statute of 1 Eliz. is a vesting of it in the King's Person In this same interval of Time the Statutes of Praemunire were enacted viz. 27 Edw. 3. cap. 1. and 38 Edw. 3. cap. 1. 16 R. 2. and some others with which how far it was lawful for the King to dispense take an account from what hapned to Cardinal Wolsey in King Henry the Eighths time He had a Commission from the Pope to exercise his Office of Legate here in England he had the King's leave so to do he exercised that Office many years without controul and was submitted to almost universally I remember but one Obstruction offered to have been made to him and that was by Hunne a Merchant-Taylor in London The History of which may be read at large in Fox and Dr. Burnet's History of the Reformation And yet the whole Clergy were afterwards attainted of a Praemunire for submitting to such Foreign Authority as the same Authors the Lord Herbert and others abundantly testifie But Stephen Gardiner's Letter to the Duke of Somerset concerning that Matter as it is very remarkable for many other Passages so this ensuing part I think proper to be here inserted because it will save me the trouble of relating the History and of endeavouring to open the Reasons of that Proceeding Now whether the King may command against an Act of Parliament and what Danger they may fall in that break a Law with the King's consent I dare say no Man alive at this day hath had more Experience with the Judges and Lawyers than I First I had experience in my
of the Patronage and Foundation of the King the Ordinaries by vertue of the King's Commissions to them directed shall enquire of the manner and foundation of the said Hospitals and of the Governance and Estate of the same and of all other matters requisite and necessary in that behalf and the Inquisitions thereof shall certifie into the King's Chancery And as to other Hospitals which be of another Foundation and Patronage than of the King the Ordinaries shall enquire of the manner of the Foundation Estate and Governance of the same and of all other Matters and Things necessary in this behalf and upon that make due correction and reformation according to the Laws of Holy Church as to them belongeth This Act apparently makes a distinction betwixt Hospitals that are and that are not of the King's Foundation and Patronage with respect to the Right of Visitation Those of the King's Foundation the Ordinaries were to visit by the King's Commission But those that were not of the King's Foundation the Ordinaries were to visit too but how Not by any Commission from the King but as special Commissioners special Visitors appointed by that Act. The King did not pretend to issue a Commission to Visit an Hospital of a Subject's Foundation The Parliament were strangers to such a conceit The right of Visiting de communi Jure belongs to the Founder he that gave the Laws ought to see them executed If the Parliament had appointed that Hospitals of the Foundation of Subjects should be Visited by the Ordinaries by Commission from the King they had in effect translated the Rights of all Founders that were Subjects to the King which they never intended For the Legal Notion of Visitation in such Cases is no more than this viz. A Man Founds and Endows a College The Rule of Law and of Natural Reason teaches cujus est dare ejus est disponere As a Man may give Lands to a private person upon what condition the Donor pleases provided it be not against Law so a Man may give Lands to a Society of Men upon what terms he pleases The terms exprest in the Foundation are called the private Laws by which the Society is to be ordered and governed And just as when a Man makes a Lease for Life or Years the Lessor may enter of right to see whether waste be done or no so a Founder may come and enquire whether those of his Foundation observe the Rules and Orders prescribed by him or his Ancestors and proceed according to the Statutes and the Powers thereby reserved in case he find any neglect or misdemeanour What right the King has to interpose his Authority in such case any more than in the Government of a private Family I cannot discern But Colleges in Vniversities are pretended to be visitable by the King's Commission by vertue of his Ecclesiastical Authority Here we must distinguish A College of Divines for Example founded by a Subject and Endowed and receiving Laws for their Governance from their Founder are visitable by their Founder and his Heirs or Successors They may be also for any thing here alledged to the contrary visitable by the Bishop of the Diocess or if exempt from Episcopal Jurisdiction by the King's Commission But what Power have these Visitors The Founder enquires whether the Statutes of the Foundation are observed and punishes according to the Statutes but goes no farther The Ordinary or Archbishop or if the place be exempt the King's Visitors enquire Whether they profess the Doctrin and observe the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England If the King had any thing to do to intermeddle with the Statutes and Government of such a College in the first Instance by virtue of his Ecclesiastical Supremacy it seems very strange that in the third and fourth Year of Queen Elizabeth's Reign when the Bishop of Winchester Founder of Maudlyn College in Oxford had at a Visitation deprived the President and he appealed to the Queen in Chancery the Judges and Civilians having had a Conference upon the Business agreed that the Appeal lay not as the Law then stood for that this Case was out of the Statutes of 24 and 25 Hen. 8. which direct Appeals to the King in Chancery and this Deprivation was a meer Temporal Thing and inflicted as by a Lay Patron And that if he were wrongfully expelled he might have an Assize or other Suit at Common Law. Concerning the King's Power with respect to the private Statutes of a College of a Subjects Foundation I will acquaint the Reader with one Act of Parliament made 1 Mariae which will yield some very useful Inferences The Act recites Whereas the late Noble Prince of Famous Memory King Henry the Eighth Father unto our most Gracious Sovereign Lady the Queen amongst other his godly Acts and Doings did erect make and establish divers and sundry Churches as well Cathedral as Collegiat and endowed every of the same with divers Mannors Lands Tenements and Possessions for the maintenance of the Deans Prebendaries and Ministers within the same and for other charitable Acts to be done and executed by the same Deans Prebendaries and Ministers and also did incorporate the same Deans Prebendaries and Ministers and made them Bodies politick in perpetual Succession according to the Laws of this Realm of England And where also as the said late King for the better maintenance and preservation of the said Churches in a godly Unity and good Order and Governance granted unto the several Corporations and Bodies Corporate of every of the said Churches that they should be ruled and governed for ever according unto certain Ordinances Rules and Statutes to be specified in certain Indentures then after to be made by his Highness and to be delivered and declared to every of the Bodies Corporate of the said several Churches as by the said several Erections and Foundations of the said Churches more plainly it doth and may appear Since which said Erections and Foundations the said late King did cause to be delivered to every of the said Churches so as is aforesaid erected and incorporated by certain Commissioners by his Highness appointed divers and sundry Statutes and Ordinances made and decreed by the same Commissioners for the Order Rule and Governances of the said several Churches and of the Deans Prebendaries and Ministers of the same which said Statutes and Ordinances were made by the said Commissioners and delivered unto every of the Corporations of the said several Churches in writing but not indented according to the Form of the said Foundations and Erections by reason whereof the said Churches and the several Deans Prebendaries and Ministers of the same have no Statutes or Ordinances of any Force or Authority whereby they should be ruled and governed and therefore remain as yet not fully established in such sort as the godly intent of the said late King Henry the Eighth was to the great imperfection of the Churches and the hindrance of God's Service and
Pastoral Office committed to the Pastors of the Church by Christ and his Apostles and that the Supremacy then pretended to was no such extravagant Power as some imagine Sixthly That the Supremacy ascribed to the King by this Act had no reference to any such absolute Power as the Pope pretended to appears by the whole course of the King's Reign forasmuch as the Exercise of this Supremacy in every Branch of it was directed by particular and positive Laws made much about the same time nor perhaps were any Acts of Supremacy exerted during this King's Reign that some Act of Parliament or other did not warrant as will appear in our Progress The truth of it is that no more can be made of it than an utter Exclusion of the Pope's pretended Authority and an acknowledgment that the King is not an absolute Dominus fac-totum in Spiritualibus but the Fountain of Justice to be administred according to Law in Cases commonly called Ecclesiastical as well as Temporal without any dependance upon a Foreign Potentate Hence it is that in these Acts of King Henry the Eighth concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs the Crown of England is so often mentioned to be an Imperial Crown and the Realm of England an Empire Sir Edward Haleâ—'s Case Tho that Word has been made use of of late to countenance a very strange and unheard of Judgment But the Gentleman that made use of the Word either understood it not or wilfully misapplyed it The Crown of England is said to be an Imperial Crown because it is subject to no Foreign Jurisdiction The Kings of England are not Homagers nor ever were for their Kingdom to any other as many Kings have been A Regal Crown does not ex vi termini exclude a Subordination an Imperial Crown does The Emperor of Germany whose Crown must needs be Imperial has less Power in the Empire than most Princes in their own Dominions But it must be confess'd that the Word Supreme Head tho legally understood it be no such Bug-bear yet was a Term borrowed from Antichrist a Word that gave offence especially to those that knew little of its Signification but what they had learnt from a Jurisdiction pretended to be exercis'd by the Pope as such and claiming to be so as Vicar General to Christ Papists thought the Right of St. Peters Successor injuriously invaded and Protestants though universally submitting to the Legal Power of the Crown yet many of them boggl'd at the Title as making too bold with our Saviours Prerogative of being the only HEAD of the Church And so great Powers were given to King Henry the Eighth by Acts of Parliament of which by and by in Ecclesiastical and Spiritual Matters which though given by particular Laws and those Laws occasion'd by the then Circumstances of Affairs yet by some unadvised Persons are confounded with his Legal and Original Supremacy at the Common Law or at least are lookt upon as incident to the Title Style and Dignity of Supreme Head that no wonder the Title has found little countenance from Protestant Writers The other part of this short Act of 26 Hen. 8. cap. 1. is very observable and discovers a Secret that few observe but rightly considered lays open a very fine Scene and gives an undeniable Answer to the only material Argument that can be produced in favor of the late Ecclesiastical Commission The Argument lies thus King Henry the Eighth issued a Commission to Cromwell whereby he constituted him his Vicegerent in Ecclesiastical Matters and delegated to him the Exercise of all his Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction long before the 1 Eliz. which impowered Queen Elizabeth and her Successors from time to time to issue such Commissions And this Commission to Cromwell cannot be deny'd to have been a Legal Commission because it is recited in an Act of Parliament 31 Hen. 8. cap. 10. admitted to be according to Law and a place appointed him in respect of that Office above the Archbishop of Canterbury in the House of Lords And there having been no Act of Parliament in King Henry the Eighths time whereby he was expresly impowered to issue such a Commission the Commission was warranted by the Common Law. This being the Argumentum palmarium tho foolishly omitted by those that have undertaken to write in Vindication of the Proceedings of the late Commissioners receives a full and satisfactory Answer from this very Act of Parliament this being the Act which was the Ground and Foundation of that Commission and as far as I know of the Commission did really warrant it The Words are these viz. And that our Sovereign Lord the King his Heirs and Successors Kings of this Realm shall have full Power and Authority from time to time to visit repress redress reform order correct restrain and amend all such Errors Heresies Abuses Offences Contempts and Enormities whatsoever they be which by any manner Spiritual Authority or Jurisdiction ought or may be lawfully reformed repressed ordered redressed corrected restrained or amended most to the Pleasure of Almighty God the increase of Vertue in Christs Religion and for the conservation of the Peace Vnity and Tranquillity of this Realm any Vsage Custom foreign Laws foreign Authority Prescription or any thing or things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding By these Words a Personal Authority not of Legislation but of visiting redressing correcting c. is given to whom To the King his Heirs and Successors This Power was given by the Parliament nor was enjoyed or exercised by the King or any of his Predecessors before and being vested in the King his Heirs and Successors may consequentially be delegated to Commissioners After this Act was pass'd out comes Cromwell's Commission of Vicegerency and not till then tho the Clergy had recogniz'd the Supremacy two years ago and the Parliament in the 24 Hen. 8. cap. 12. and the 25 Hen. 8. cap. 21. had in effect done so too Yet was not the recognis'd restor'd and declar'd Supremacy lookt upon as any Warrant for an Ecclesiastical Commission till a new Power was given to the King by this Act And this Act of Parliament having been Repealed by the First and Second of Phil. and Mar. and never since reviv'd there is now no ground from this Act or from that President of Cromwell's Commission for a like Commission in our Days How far the Statute of 1 Eliz. gives countenance thereunto shall be enquired into when we come to it The next Act that I shall take notice of is the Thirteenth Chapter of this same Session entituled By whom Suffragans shall be nominated and elected The Act recites that sithen the beginning of this present Parliament good and honourable Laws and Statutes have been made and established for Elections Presentations Consecrations and investing of Archbishops and Bishops of this Realm with all Ceremonies appertaining to the same yet nevertheless no Provision hath been made for Suffragan Bishops and therefore enacts what Towns shall be taken and accepted
a tresmale ensample Nostre Seignor le Roy fist monstre ses dites Letters as Prelates Seignors auters Grand Sages de son Royalme esteant a dit Parlement Et vewes entendus les Letters avant dits Et ewe molt deliberation sur la matter estoit per Les dits Prelates pronunciez publiez per plusors grands notables reasons illeoques monstrez en plein Parlement cy bien per matter trove en les dites Letters que autrement que le dit Vrban etoit duement esleu en Pape que ensy est doit etre veroy Pape luy come Pape Chef de Saint Esglise â—â—on doit accepter obeyir Et a ceo faire s'accordent touts les Prelates Seignors Commens en la Parlement avant dit c. Stat. 2 Rich. 2. cap. 7. Here the Whole Parliament heard the Reasons debated and after a full Hearing agreed to admit Vrban Now whereas the Government as to the Essential parts of it was in King William the Conqueror's Time the same that it is now saving some Inroads that have since been made by the Prerogative And whereas in times subsequent to his the King in Parliament determined who should be received as Pope and who not And since there is nothing more common with the Monks than to mention things as done by Our Kings which were either Judicial Acts of their Courts or done by them in their Great Councils and consequently were Acts of Parliament of which some Instances will be given hereafter in this Discourse upon what Grounds can any rational Man conceive otherwise than that the Constitution afore-mentioned to be made by King William the Conqueror was a Law or an Act of Parliament made in his Time And that his Commanding who should be owned as Pope within his Dominions was to be a Command by him in Parliament since the Law in his Time was such That the King was to do all publick things no otherwise than per Judicium Consilium Procerum Regni The Second Complaint of Eadmerus is That None should receive the Pope's Letters unless they were first shewed to him By which if Letters of Provision only are meant I shall have occasion to speak further of them hereafter If all Provisions and Process from Rome be meant then was not this introduced by King William for that the bringing in of Bulls Citations Exemptions Faculties Dispensations Provisions c. from Rome was in those Days and antecedent to this Constitution contrary to Law and in Derogation of the Rights of the Crown and the Liberties of the People Nor could the shewing them to the King and his Personal Approbation or Allowance give them any Legal Authority within this Kingdom and consequently the Concurrence of the Great Council must be here understood though not expressed by the Monk. The Third is That If the Archbishop of Canterbury called and presided in a General Synod of the Bishops he allowed nothing to be Appointed or Forbidden unless they were accommodated to his Will and were first Ordain'd by him Which is such another Law as that of the Twenty fifth of King Henry the Eighth cap. 19. That the Clergy shall not presume to Attempt Alledge Claim or put in Vre any Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial or Synodal or any other Canons nor Enact Promulge or Execute any such Canons c. in their Convocations c. without the King's Assent This Law of King Henry the Eighth was not Introductory of a new Law for there the King 's Humble and Obedient Subjects of the Clergy of this Realm of England acknowledged According to Truth that the Convocations of the same Clergy are always have been and ought to be Assembled by the King 's Writ And that their Promise in verbo sacerdotii that from thenceforth they would not presume to Attempt Allege Claim or put in Vre Enact Promulge or Execute any New Canons Constitutions c. unless the King 's most Royal Assent and Licence may to them be had c. was but in Affirmance of the Old Law of the Realm even before King William the Conqueror's Reign appears abundantly by Sir Henry Spelman's Councils where I think no Ecclesiastical Laws appear to have been made without the King's Assent before the Conquest nor for some Reigns after His Fourth Complaint is That He would not suffer any of his Barons or Officers to Vndergo any Ecclesiastical Censure but by his Precept This was afterwards One of the Laws of Clarendon Vid. Decem Script pag. 1387. Matth. Par 100. And the reason of it given by Radulphus de Diceto is Ne Rex ignorantiâ lapsus Communicet Excommunicato Decem Scriptor pag. 596. This Mr. Selden calls a Law first made by King William the First Titl of Honor pag. 583. The Doctor pag. 145 146 147. relates the Controversie betwixt King William Rufus and Anselm in such a manner as If the Episcopi Abbates Principes Regni had had no more to do in it than to carry Messages betwixt him and the King. Whereas upon Anselm's desiring to go and fetch his Pall from Pope Vrban whom the Nation had not then received for Pope When the King told him that he could not keep the Faith which he owed to him Simul obedientiam Apostolicae se dis contra suam voluntatem Anselmus petivit inducias ad istius rei examinationem quatenus Episcopis Abbatibus Cunctisque Regni Principibus unà coeuntibus commun-Assensu definiretur utrum salvâ reverentiâ obedientiâ sedis Apostolicae posset fidem terreno Regi servare annon For Anselm whilst he was Abbot of Bec in Normandy had submitted to Vrban as Pope and as he told the Parliament afterward had professed as much when the King and they chose him Archbishop This Question betwixt the King and Himself he desired the Parliament might decide Dantur ergo Induciae atque ex Regiâ sanctione fermè totius Regni Nobilitas quinto Idus Martii pro ventilatione illius causae in unum apud Rochingham coit And the Matter was discussed and debated before them Vid. Eadmer pag. 25 26 27 28 29 c. The Doctor tells us pag. 146. that When in the same King's Reign the Archbishop was Sollicitous to have leave to go to Rome and Visit the Successor of St. Peter for the being better Instructed in the Government of the Church he received Answer from the King That if he went he should for certain know that he would seize his whole Archbishoprick into his Hands nor would he receive him for Archbishop any more like as now the Writ Ne Exeat Regnum is used with a Penalty specified Notwithstanding which the Archbishop went beyond Sea and the King was as good as his Word This the Doctor says may be a document to some not obstinately to oppose their Prince But now if by the Law of the Land no Archbishop Bishop or other Great Man might depart the Realm without the King's leave then did
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
would have us believe was an Act of the King 's Personal Authority in Ecclesiastical Affairs was a Parliamentary Charter or an Act of Parliament Willielmus Dei gratiâ c. Sciatis c. quod leges Episcopales quae non benè nec secundum sanctorum Canonum praecepta usque ad mea tempora in Regno Anglorum fuerunt Communi Consilio Archiepiscoporum meorum caeterorum Episcoporum Abbatum omnium Procerum Regni mei emendandas Judicavi Propterea mando praecipio ut nullus Episcopus vel Archidiaconus de legibus Episcopalibus amplius in Hundret placita teneat c. This Mr. Selden understood to be an Act of Parliament for having given an account of his Diaploma to Battle-Abbey and recited it at length in his Notes Specilegium ad Eadmerum p. 165 166. which was granted Assensu Lanfranci Archiepiscopi Cantuariensis Stigandi Episcopi Cicestrensis Concilio etiam Episcoporum Baronum meorum says he id genus etiam est sancitum ejus quo Sacrum à Civili discriminavit Forum The same Author speaking in another of his Works of King William the Conquerour's bringing the Possessions of the Church under Military Service of which though Roger Wendover out of whom Matthew Paris took the Relation says that Episcopatus Abbathias omnes quae Baronias tenebant in purâ perpetuâ Eleemosynâ eatenus ab omni servitute Seculari Libertatem habuerant sub servitute statuit Militari irrotulans singulos Episcopatus Abbathias pro Voluntate suâ quot milites sibi successoribus suis hostilitatis tempore voluit à singulis exhiberi Yet says Mr. Selden how it is likely he brought them to this kind of Tenure may be conjectured by other circumstances of the stories of the the same time And observe especially That he held a Parliament the same Year so that perhaps this Innovation of their Tenures was done by an Act of that Parliament Seld. Titles of Honour p. 578. Which I mention only to shew that things said to have been done by the Conquerour and especially Laws and Constitutions mention'd to have been made by Him must not presently be suppos'd to have proceeded from his own single personal Authority but to have been made More Anglico cum assensu Ordinum Regni as has been even now observed out of Mr. Selden What follows in the Doctor p. 156 157 concerning the King 's Temporal Courts being Judges whether a Cause belonged to the Jurisdiction of the Temporal or Ecclesiastical Courts is very true And so is the Account that he gives of King William the First his settling many particulars to belong to the Jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Judges in a Council at Illibon in Normandy Anno 1080. But it is an inveterate Error of the Doctor 's to confound the King 's personal Authority with his Authority in his Courts and his Authority in and with the Assent of his Great Councils or Parliaments That Councel of Illebon mention'd by the Doctor is related by Ordericus Vitalis in this manner viz. Anno ab Incarnatione Domini MLXXX Rex Gulielmus in festo Pentecostes apud Illebonam resedit ibique Gulielmum Archiepiscopum omnes Episcopos Abbates Comitesque cum aliis Proceribus Normanniae simul adesse praecepit Vt Rex jussit factum est Igitur Octavo Anno Papatus Domini Gregorii Papae septimi Concilium apud Jullam bonam celebratum est de statu Ecclesiae Dei totiusque Regni providentiâ Regis cum Baronum suorum consilio utiliter tractatum est And then follow the Canons all being concerning matters Ecclesiastical Now what use the Doctor makes of this Paragraph I know not For the Jurisdiction of the King in his Courts where the Law of the Land is the Judges rule to restrain All Inferiour Courts within their proper bounds no man denies And the King's Authority to limit erect and appoint Consilio Baronum suorum And unà cum Episcopis Comitibus Proceribus Regni sui what Causes shall belong to the cognisance of Ecclesiastical Judges and what not no man that is a Protestant questions How many Acts of Parliament in every Age might be reckon'd of this nature vid. Stat. de Circumspecte agatis temp Edwardi 1. Stat. de Articulis Cleri tempore Edward 2. Statutum pro Clero tempore Edw. 3. and innumerable others Then the Doctor refers his Readers for farther satisfaction how far the Kings of England have exercised Jurisdiction in Ecclesiastical matters to Sir Roger Twiselen pag. 108 109 c. who instanceth in eighteen particulars I will not stand with the Dr. for the number but referr him to Mr. Prynn's second Tome of his Chronological Vindication of the King 's Supreme Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction out of the Introduction to which Volume he might have named five and twenty But because he has chosen to quote Sir Roger Twisden's eighteen let us examin those Particulars and Sir Roger's Authorities upon which he grounds them and it will presently appear how far they make for his Hypothesis 1. The first is that they permitted none to be taken for Pope but by the King's appointment For which he quotes Eadmerus pag. 26. But of this matter having spoken already I shall say no more of it in this place The Second is That none were to receive Letters from the Pope without shewing them to the King who caused all words prejudicial to him or his Crown to be renounced For which he quotes Eadmerus pag. 113. In whom are these words in a Letter from Pope Paschal to King Henry the First viz. Sedis eni◠Apostolicae Nuntii vel Literae praeter jussum sum Regiae Majestatis nullam in potestate tuâ susceptionem aut aditum promerentur This was but the Law of England not to be subject to any Foreign Power asserted by a Law in King William the Conquerour's time and afterwards over and over in opposition to Papal Encroachments and Usurpations confirm'd by the Statutes of Praemunire and Provisors and effectually secured by the Laws made at and since the Reformation and particularly by that Remarkable Statute of 14 Henr. 8. cap. 12. concerning Appeals And that the King could not of himself let in a Forein Power upon his People appears sufficiently by what has been said already The two Passages quoted by Sir Roger out of Thorn Collect pag. 2151 2152 and 2194 shew that two Persons to whom the Pope had conferr'd by Provisions the Monastery of St. Austin in Canterbury were enforced before their Admittance to renounce all such words in their Bulls of Provision as were prejudicial to the King and his Crown i.e. to the Laws of the Realm in and over which the King was Supreme Magistrate and Governour After which renunciation made they did fealty to the King and were by the Escheator put into possession of their Temporalties The King might by Law have oppos'd these Provisions but the Monks who had the Right of