and goes no higher And since there were no such Commissions of Charitable Vses before that Statute therefore the Statute being introductive of a new Law must be pursued and where the Statute does not provide a Remedy there is none Now the Statute of 24 H. 8. cap. 12. and 25 Hen. 8. cap. 19. So far forth as they concern Appeals are for the most part introductive of New Laws too And the latter of them gives Appeals to the King in Chancery which never lay before And therefore as the Act gives them he ought to take them and no otherwise for the Act is his title and it has negative words But the Lord Coke's Error in ascribing that Power Jurisdiction and Authority to the King in person which was ab origine in King Lords and Commons runs through almost all that he has written upon that Subject And our Lawyers who look upon him as an Oracle for his Learning and Judgment in the Controversial profitable part of the Law in which he was unquestionably a very great Man follow him blind-fold in some mistakes They study Resolutions of Judges in cases of Property and till of late have gone by that lazy rule that the latest authorities are the best So they forget Antiquity and hardly cast their thoughts further backward than Dyer and Plowden Those of them that are more inquisitive go as high as to the Quadragesms and Book of Assizes But the Government is not so much beholden to them as were to be wisht They deserve worse of it than other Men for it being the only honour of their Profession to support it by understanding and asserting it and the natural bent of their Studies carrying them into it their narrow Spirits private Interests Et illud quod dicere nolo prevail with too many of them to betray it by neglecting it The Lord Coke's second Reason for a Commission of Review to examine a definitive Sentence given by the Delegates is because the Pope as Supreme Head by the Canon Law us'd to grant a Commission ad revidendum and such Authority as the Pope had claiming as Supreme Head doth of right belong to the Crown and is annexed thereunto by the Statutes of 26 Hen. 8. cap. 1. and 1 Eliz. cap. 1. And so it was resolved says he in the King's Bench Trin. 39 Eliz. You see the English on't is the King may do so because the Pope did so for the Pope was Supreme Head then or claimed to be so and the King is acknowledged to be so now This pretended Translation of the Pope's Power to the King is another fiction that has contributed exceedingly to raise the Supremacy in some Mens Imaginations But it will appear by running through the several Acts made in King Henry the Eighth's King Edward the Sixth's and Queen Elizabeth's Reigns concerning Religion and Church Government that no Power given to the King or acknowledged to be in him has any respect or relation whatsoever to the Pope's pretended Power heretofore exercised The Pope's Power was abolish'd and abrogated Stat. 28. Hen. 8. cap. 10. The Ancient Jurisdiction of the Crown which by the Common Law and Fundamental Constitution of our Government was inherent in it was restored only some branches of it put into another method of Administration And that by the Supreme Power of the Nation from whose Authority and Jurisdiction nothing within this Kingdom is exempted That such Authority as the Pope had does of right belong to the King he would prove by the Statutes of 26 Hen. 8. cap. 1. 1 Elizabeth cap. 1. The first of which to wit that of 26 Hen. 8. cap. 1. was repealed long before the Case in 39 Eliz. came in question and consequently is there alledged to no purpose As for the Second that of 1 Eliz. cap. 1. how far that goes we shall have occasion to enquire hereafter when we come to it in order of time He gives us a Corollary viz. that upon a Sentence given by the High Commissioners a Commission of Review may be granted by vertue of an express Clause in the Commission and if no such Clause had been says he yet a Commission of Review might have been granted Quia sicut fontes Communicant aquas fluminibus cumulativè non privative sic Rex subditis suis Jurisdictionem communicat in causis Ecclesiasticis vigore Statuti in ejusmodi casibus editi provisi cumulativè non privativè by construction upon that Act. But a Commission of Review upon a Sentence given by the High Commissioners is not now disputed The High Commission was erected long after the 25 Hen. 8. And consequently a Review of their Sentences which it seems some construction upon that Act gave colour for was not provided against by that Statute But by what Law a Review should be granted of a Sentence given by the Delegates which by the Act is to be Definitive I am yet to seek I would fain know whether a Cause determined by Virtue of this Act in the Vpper House of Convocation for there Ecclesiastical Causes in which the King himself is concerned are to be definitively determined may be drawn in question ever after before Commissioners ad revidendum or not And if not why is a Sentence of the Delegates liable to be examined any more than that Do these Men really believe that the Judicial Authority of the Nation is by the Law lodg'd in the King's Person What means then the Act of 16 Car. 1. cap. 10. That neither his Majesty nor his Privy Council have or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power or Authority by English Bill Petition Articles Libel or any other Arbitrary Way whatsoever to examine or draw in question determine or dispose of the Lands Tenements Hereditaments Goods or Chattels of any the Subjects of this Realm but that the same ought to be tryed and determined in the Ordinary Courts of Justice and by the Ordinary Course of Law. If it be said the King appoints the Judges and hath formerly sate in the King's Bench in Person For his appointing the Judges since the time is known when it was otherwise that cannot be urged as a Perogative originally inherent in the King That our Kings have sometimes sate in the King's Bench in Person I yield and will agree to all the Inferences that can be drawn from it do but allow me which cannot be deny'd that Writs of Error lye from the Court of King's Bench and Appeals out of Chancery whoever sits there before the Lords in Parliament who whether the King be present or absent agreeing with or disagreeing from the Sense of the House affirm or reverse the Judgments and Decrees as they see Cause And were it not more honourable to ascribe no Judicial Power at all to the King in Person than to make him Judge of an Inferior Court. But you 'l find that our Kings never sate in the King's Bench or the Starr Chamber Juridically The Courts gave the Judgments
For he can appoint no Commissioners to determine Matters of civil Right but where special Acts empower him and no Act had yet impowered him to do so in Ecclesiastical Matters nor did his Predecessors or himself practise it till afterwards For his divers sundry old Histories and Chronicles afforded him no president of any such thing and therefore it could not be either in the nature of the thing or in the sense and meaning of the King and his Parliament any essential part of his Legal Supreme Headship to have a Personal Supremacy either independant of the Estates of the Realm or which might be administred otherwise than in the Course setled by Law i. e. by proper Officers appointed thereunto either by express Act of Parliament or the Original Constitution of the Government or both The Body of the Act prohibits Appeals to the See of Rome and enacts That in such Cases where heretofore any of the King's Subjects and Resiants have used to pursue c. any Appeal to the See of Rome and in all other cases of Appeals in and for the Causes aforesaid they may and shall from henceforth take have and use their Appeals within this Realm and not elsewhere in manner and form as hereafter ensueth and not otherwise that is to say First From the Arch-deacon or his Official if the Matter or Cause be there begun to the Bishop Diocesan of the said See if in any case the Parties be aggrieved And in like wise if it be commenced before the Bishop Diocesan or his Commissary from the Bishop Diocesan or his Commissary within fifteen days next ensuing the Judgment or Sentence thereof there given to the Archbishop of the Province of Canterbury if it be within his Province and if it be within the Province of York then to the Archbishop of York and so likewise to all other Archbishops within the King's Dominions c. there to be Definitively and Finally ordered decreed and adjudged according to Justice without any other appellation or provocation to any Person or Persons Court or Courts By the next Clause Matters or Contentions to be commenced before the Archdeacon of any Bishop or his Commissary are appointed in case either Party be aggrieved to be brought by Appeal to the Court of Arches or Audience of the same Archbishop of the Province there to be Definitively and Finally determined The next Clause appoints that Causes to be commenced before any of the Archbishops shall before the same Archbishop be definitively determined saving always the Prerogative of the Archbishop and Church of Canterbury in all the aforesaid Causes of Appeals in such and like wise as they have been accustomed and used heretofore Then it is Enacted that Causes touching the King his Heirs and Successors shall be finally decreed by the Prelates Abbots and Priors of the Vpper House of Convocation Hitherto no Appeal lay to the King in Person or in Chancery You have heard already that originally the ultimate Appeal in Ecclesiastical and Temporal Matters was to one and the same Tribunal Afterwards the See of Rome gained Appeals by Usurpation and Connivance Now they are lodged in the Diocesan the Archbishop and Vpper House of Convocation and their Sentences respectively are appointed to be final and definitive And therefore neither the Clergy in their Submission wherein they Recogniz'd the King to be the Supreme Head of the English Church V. Burnet's Collect. ad Vol. 1. p. 128 129. nor this Parliament who had been inform'd by Old Authentick Histories and Chronicles that the Spiritualty and Laity of this Realm are governed by One Supreme Head and King did so much as imagine that by vertue of that Office or Title the Supreme Cognisance of Appeals belonged to him personally If Appeals to the King in Person or in Chancery or Commissions of Review had then been dreamt of there needed not another Act in the Year ensuing to take off the odium of these definitive Sentences from the Archbishops It is the Stat. of 25. H. 8. cap. 19. Wherein it is Enacted That for lack of Justice at or in any of the Courts of the Archbishops of this Realm or in any of the King's Dominions it shall be lawful to the parties grieved to Appeal to the King's Majesty in the King's Court of Chancery And that upon every such Appeal a Commission shall be directed under the Great Seal to such persons as shall be named by the King's Highness his Heirs or Successors like as in case of Appeals from the Admiral 's Court to hear and Definitively to determine such Appeals By a subsequent Clause Appeals from the Jurisdiction of any Abbots Priors or other Heads and Governours of Monasteries c. and places exempt c. shall be made immediately to his Majesty into the Court of Chancery which Appeals so made shall be Definitively determined by Authority of the King's Commission It looks like a blemish to the Notion of Supreme Head in the modern acceptation of the Word to have the final Judgment in Causes Ecclesiastical referr'd by the Parliament to the Bishops Archbishops or to Commissioners appointed by vertue of an Act of Parliament c. and yet the Parliament in 25 Hen. 5. cap. 21. takes Notice of and allows the Clergy's Recognition nor was it till many Years after to wit the 39 of Eliz. that the Lawyers found out a way to make these Acts consistent with their imaginary personal Supreme Headship and that was by introducing Commissions of Review Which they tell us the King after such a definitive sentence may grant as Supreme Head Ad revidendum 4 Instit p. 341. Where two reasons are given for it First For that it is not restrained by the Act which seems to be a mistake For it is restrain'd by the Act as much as it was capable of being restrain'd and that by these words viz. that such Judgment and Sentence as the said Commissioners shall make and decree in and upon such Appeals shall be good and effectual and also definitive How could Commissions of Review be restrain'd more expresly than by these words They are not nam'd indeed and good reason why viz. because there never had been any such things in our Law before For he that will apply to this Case that common Rule of Law viz. that where the King is not named in a Statute he is not intended to be bound by it must prove that Appeals lay to the King in Person or in Chancery before these Acts were made And then perhaps I may yield that such Commissions of Review are not hereby restrained How comes it to pass V. Cr. Car. 40 Jones Rep. p. 147. Duke's Law of Char. Uses p. 62. Windsor and Hilton's Case that the Chancellor's Decree upon Complaint of a person aggrieved by a Decree of the Commissioners of Charitable Vses is final upon which no Bill of Review is to be allow'd Why because the Statute of 43 Eliz. cap. 4. gives an Appeal to him
several Instances that none Exercised any here without the King's leave Which is true and as true it is and apparent by as many Instances that the King singly could not give any such leave He says pag. 154. that What Visitations were made of the Vniversity of Oxford by the Pope's Legates do no ways infer that thereby the King's Power of Visiting is Exauctorated but that whatever they did was in Subordination to the King's pleasure or as ordain'd by his Laws The Doctor does well to disjoin the King's Pleasure and his Laws for they did not always agree But this Paragraph must be altered to make it tolerable Sence viz. Whatever the legates did in Visiting the Vniversity of Oxford if it were not contrary to the King's Laws was in Subordination to the King's Authority Some other passages tending to the same purpose with those already taken notice of will offer themselves as we go along through the several parts of the Chapter Whereas the Doctor says that several Kings permitted no Canons or Constitutions of the Church or Bulls c. to be Executed here without their Allowance Intimating thereby that those Kings might of their own Personal Authority give such Allowance And that with their Allowance Foreign Canons and Constitutions might be Executed here I take leave to say That it never was in the Power of a King of England legally to Subject his People to a Foreign Jurisdiction nor to Oblige them to the Observance of any Law without their own Assent And therefore the King's Allowance could not make a Foreign Canon Obligatory here unless it were received by the People with their own Assent Nor could his giving leave legally Subject his People to Processes from Rome as will abundantly appear by and by But before I go on I desire the Doctor to take notice of an Old Act of Parliament for such it was though the Word Parliament was not then in being amongst us made in King Edward the Confessor's Time if not before and Confirmed by King William the First Debet Rex omnia ritè facere in Regno per Judicium Procerum Regni Debet enim Jus Justitia magis regnare in Regno quà m voluntas prava Lex est semper quod jus facit Voluntas autem Violentia Vis non est Jus. And again in the same Chapter Debet Rex Judicium Rectum in Regno facere Justitiam per Consilium Procerum Regni sui tenere Ista verò debet omnia Rex in propriâ personâ inspectis tactis Sacrosanctis Evangeliis super sacras sanctas reliquias coram Regno Sacerdotio Clero jurare antequà m ab Archiepiscopis Episcopis Regni coronetur Lambard de Priscis Anglorum legibus page 138. page 142. Hence we see that Judicium Procerum Consilium Procerum are Essential to the English Government Without which Right and Justice cannot Reign but a Perverse Will would Rule the Roast Hence it was that King Edward the First Prynn's Collect Tom. 3. Pag. 158. When Pope Gregory the Tenth sent Reymundus de Nogeriis his Chaplain as his Nuntio into England c. amongst other things to Demand and Receive from the King Eight Years Arrears of the Annual Tribute and Peter-pence then due to the Church of Rome Wrote to him a very remarkable Letter In which among other things he tells him That his last Parliament was Dissolved the sooner by reason of his own Sickness so that he could not then Super Petitione census ejusdem deliberationem habere cum Praelatis Proceribus Regni sui sine Quorum Communicato Consilio Sanctitati Vestrae super praedictis non possumus respondere jure-jurando in Coronatione nostra praestito sumus Astricti quod jura Regni nostri servabimus illibata nec aliquid quod diadema tangit Regni ejusdem absque ipsorum requisito Concilio faciemus And therefore he deferred returning the Pope an Answer till the next Session of Parliament Pro firmo scituri Pie Pater Domine quòd in alio Parliamento nostro quod ad festum Sancti Michaelis intendimus celebrare habito Communicato Consilio cum Praelatis Proceribus memoratis Vobis super praemissis ipsorum consilio dabimus Responsionem By this Letter it appears that whatever did Diadema Regni tangere could not nor ought to be done sine Concilio Prelatorum Procerum Regni By which as is evident enough by the Letter it self a Parliament is meant Now that the Bringing in of Bulls and Executing Process from Rome within the Realm did Diadema Regni tangere with a Witness will appear by perusing the Statutes of Praemunire and Provisors Anno 27 Edward the Third cap. 1. Because it is shewn unto Our Lord the the King by the Grievous and Clamorous Complaints of the great Men and Commons how that diverse of the People be and have been drawn out of the Realm to Answer of diverse things the Cognisance whereof appertaineth to the King's Court and also that the Judgments given in the same Court be impeached in another Court In Prejudice and Disherison of Our Lord the King and of his Crown and of all the People of his Realm and to the Vndoing and Destruction of the Common Law of the said Realm at all times used Another Statute mentioning Citations out of the Court of Rome and Provisions of Benefices and Offices in the Church says that by means thereof the Good Antient Laws Franchises and Vsages of the Realm have been greatly Impeached Blemished and Confounded the Crown of Our Lord the King abated and the great Men Commons and Subjects of the Realm in Bodies and Goods damnified 38 Statute Edwardi tertii cap. 1 2 3 4. The Statute of 16 Rich. 2. cap. 5. Entituled Praemunire for purchasing Bulls from Rome The Crown of England subject to none mentions frequently All these things as being to the Disherison of the King's Crown and against his Crown and Regality And therefore in the five and twentieth Year of King Edward the Third the Commons prayed the King that since the Right of the Crown of England and the Law of the Realm was such that upon the Mischiefs and Damages which happen'd to his Realm he ought and was bound by his Oath with the Accord of his People in his Parliament thereof to make remedy and Law That it may please him thereupon to Ordain remedy Which he does accordingly by the Assent of the Great Men and Commonalty of the said Realm having regard to a Statute made in the time of his Grandfather Anno 25th Edward the First against Provisions which holdeth his force and was never Defeated Repealed or Annulled in any Point and by so much he is bounden by his Oath to cause the same to be kept as the Law of the Land. The Laws of Praemunire and against Provisions were but Declaratory Laws of the Vsages of the Realm in opposition to Papal Bulls c. And here we see our
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