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
of any inherent Prerogative or by vertue of his Imperial Soveraignty or as incident to his lately recognis'd title of Supreme Head of breaking through all Acts of Parliaments relating to Religion and Ecclesiastical Affairs that now in the 32 Year of his Reign when he had been declared the Supreme Head by Act of Parliament Six Years ago when every Act of Parliament about Church Matters carried an acknowledgment of that Declaration in the front of it when a Legislative Power as to Doctrine and Ceremonies was given him by Act of Parliament yet even then when the Supremacy blaz'd like a Meteor and had so malignant an influence as to strike opposers dead when it was armed with such a Power as never any King of England enjoyed before or since yet then were Acts of Parliaments accounted so Sacred that nothing was to be ordained or defined by this new Legislative Authority contrary to the Laws and Statutes of the Realm And this very Legislative Power owing its birth to a Parliamentary Concession which qualified it with a Restriction which perhaps was not acceptable is sufficient to inform us that a Parliament can give more power and larger Prerogatives to the King even in Ecclesiastical Matters than he has by common right and that 's all the use that can be made of this Act now in our days The next Act is that of Marriages cap. 38. of this Session the Conusance of Marriage had time out of mind belonged to the Spiritual Jurisdiction which was now vested in a great measure in the King's Person the executive part he might administer by Commissioners delegated by vertue of the Stat. of 26 Hen. 8. cap. 1. as hath been said a Legislative Power was given him by 32 Hen. 8. cap. 26. But that Act did not enable him to make any binding Laws about Marriage for the Declarations Decrees Definitions Resolutions and Ordinances which he was impowered to make according to God's Word and Christ's Gospel with his Bishops and Doctors to be appointed were only in Matters of Christian Faith and the lawful Rites and Ceremonies of the same And the setling of the Degrees of Marriage not falling under either of those two Heads viz. Matters of Faith or Ceremonies it was necessary there should be an Act of Parliament to make a Regulation therein The next Act is the 34 and 35 Hen. 8. cap. 1. which prohibits the setling or using of any Books of the Old or New Testament of Tindal's Translation or comprizing any Matter of Christian Religion Articles of Faith or Holy Scripture contrary to the Doctrin set forth since Anno Dom. 1540. or to be set forth by the King prohibits the retaining any English Books or Writings concerning Matters against the Holy and Blessed Sacrament of the Altar or for Maintenance of the Anabaptists or other Books abolished by the King's Proclamation forbids any thing to be taught contrary to the King's Instructions c. under severe Penalties In which there is this farther Clause And be it farther enacted That the King's Majesty our said Soveraign Lord that now is King Henry the Eighth may at any time hereafter at his Highness liberty and pleasure change and alter this present Act and Provisions of the same or any Clause or Article therein contained as to his Highness most excellent Wisdom shall seem convenient any thing in this Act to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding So that a Power in the King of Changing and Altering and consequently of Suspending which in effect is Repealing Acts of Parliament concerning Matters of Religion unless given by a Parliament is not according to the Constitution of our Government nor is it a Perogative inherent in the King of common Right For if he had had such a Power in himself this Clause which no doubt was put in by the King's Order would have been vain and nugatory The Act of 35 Hen. 8. cap. 16. gives the King Authority during his Life to name Thirty two Persons viz. sixteen Spiritual and sixteen Temporal to examine all Canons Constitutions and Ordinances Provincial and Synodal and to establish all such Laws Ecclesiastical as shall be thought by the King and them convenient to be used in all Spiritual Courts This the King could not do by Vertue of the Act of 32 Hen. 8. cap. 26. For that Act gave him a Power concerning Matters of Christian Faith and Ceremonies only Nor could the King and the Clergy settle these Canons and Constitutions without an Act of Parliament for the Laity in all Matters Ecclesiastical in all things of Spiritual Conusance were to be bound by them Nor would the Parliament trust the King and the Spiritualty to settle the Canon Law without an equal number of the Temporalty added to them The next and last Act that I shall observe in this King's Reign is the 37 Hen. 8. cap. 17. ' which Act reciting That the Archbishops Bishops Archdeacons and other Ecclesiastical Persons have no manner of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical but by under and from the King Enacts That all Persons as well Lay as Marryed Men being Doctors of the Civil Law may lawfully execute and exercise all manner of Jurisdiction and all Censures and Coercions appertaining to or in any wise concerning the same c. any Law Constitution or Ordinance to the contrary notwithstanding What can be more purely Spiritual than exercising Ecclesiastical Censures and yet this King though he had a Personal executive Power given him in all Matters Ecclesiastical by the 26 Hen. 8. cap. 1. a Legislative Power in part by the Statutes of 31 Hen. 8. cap. 8. and 32 Hen. 8. cap. 25. and a Power of Dispensing with the Canon Law by the Statute of 25 Hen. 8. cap. 21. yet thought it convenient at least to have the concurrence of his Parliament in breaking through those Ordinances and Constitutions whereby Lay-men and Marryed-men were disabled to exercise any Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical or be Judge or Register in any Court commonly called Ecclesiastical Court. I cannot well deny but that the King might have dispens'd with those Canons and Constitutions by Vertue of the Statute of the 25 Hen. 8. cap. 21. which impowered him to allow the Archbishop of Canterbury to grant Licences and Dispensations even in Cases not wont to be dispensed in at Rome Nay and these Constitutions whereby Lay and Married Men were disabled as aforesaid are in the Preamble of this Statute said to be utterly abolish'd frustrated and of none effect by a Statute made in the Twenty fifth Year of the Kings most Noble Reign By which seems to be meant the Nineteenth Chapter of the then Session of Parliament And yet because the Archbishops Bishops Archdeacons and other Ecclesiastical Persons practised the contrary which might give occasion to some evil disposed Persons to think and little to regard the Proceedings and Censures Ecclesiastical made by your Highness and your Vicegerent Officials and Commissaries Judges and Visitors being also Lay and Married Men to be of
Ecclesiastical Commission such as c. by the Antient Perogative and Law of England never yet came in question judicially before any Court whatsoever The Case betwixt Cawdry and Atton turned upon this Point viz. Whether the High Commissioners might deprive for the first Offence whereas the Act of 1 mo Eliz. cap. 2. inflicts it only for the second Pop. Rep. pag. 59 60. And resolved that the Statute is to be understood when they prosecute upon the Statute by way of Indictment and not to restrain the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction What 's this to the Question Whether such a Commission might have been issued without an Act of Parliament impowering the Queen to issue it Nor do the Judges in that Case nor the Lord Coke in his double-tongued Report of it nor the post prandium Judges and Serjeants so much as pretend to any manner of Authority for their Opinion there delivered that the King might grant such a Commission by his Perogative at Common Law Nor do's the late Defender quote any antient Record History Maxim of Law or any other Legal Authority or Historical Proof whatsoever to clear the Point Nor will I reflect upon some Resolutions of Judges that have been in former times or in this Age of ours Ship-Money which gained so little Credit upon their Authorities that exemplary Punishments have and may be inflicted upon some of the Resolvers But tho this Point be left so forlorn by the Defender as having nothing to support it on his side but an ipse dixit and tho we live in an Age in which blessed be God most Men have a better Opinion of their own Understandings than to take things upon trust yet because this Question concerning the Legality of an Ecclesiastical Commission resolves it self into the mistaken notion of a Personal unbounded Supremacy and because some of our Clergy give us Schemes of Government according to which this Commission is the most justifiable thing in the World I am desirous to offer a few Observations concerning the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of the Kings of England in doing of which the only thing I aim at is the putting others who are better qualified and perhaps misinformed upon farther Inquiries if haply I may compass that We are told that our Common Lawyers have often affirmed Legality of c. defended pag. 38.39 That whatever the Pope de facto formerly did within this Realm by the Canon Law that of right belongs to our Kings That on this ground it has been adjudged That the Legislative Power in Matters Ecclesiastical is lodged in the King. The Pope made Laws for the Government of the Clergy and so may the King and so much Queen Elizabeth as supreme Head of the Church of England exercised c. And that the Power in the King in Matters Ecclesiastical is too ample to be bounded by an Act of Parliament But notwithstanding these and other Bravado's we are told also that the Acts of Parliament which restore the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to the Crown are but Declarative Vindication pag. 6. Legality of c. defended pag. 8. that they give no new Power but recognize what always was de Jure the King 's Right Which naturally sends us back to Antiquity to enquire how the Supremacy was then managed and exerted before a Forreign Power had made inroads upon it They that affirm this or the other Act to be but Declarative and that this or that may be done by the Common Law always alledge if they intend to perswade some Judicial or other President some Record or other some anciently received Maxime or Rule of Law They that resolve without such grounds for their Resolution set up for Law-makers and not Interpreters Now it was to difficult matter to resolve that the Supreme Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical as well as Temporal did originally belong to the Crown of England Every Chronicle Writer can tell us when the power of the Court of Rome prevailed to lop off some of its Branches And the Crown must needs have it before it could lose it But whether our modern conceptions of the Supremacy are adequate to that Ancient Legal Supremacy at the Common Law of which we agree the restoring of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction by Act of Parliament to be but Declarative is certainly worth their Enquiry who pretending that All Laws concerning it are but declarative must either justifie that Position and other modern Ascriptions from Antiquity or confess the vanity of them The Ancient Ecclesiastical Supremacy of the Kings of this Realm was no personal Prerogative But our Kings were Head of the Church as they were Head of the State governing both by Laws made by the same Authority if designed to be binding to all and administred in the same Courts till King William the Conqueror's Reign and from that time downwards in the Spiritual and Temporal Courts apart All Matters whatsoever concerning Religion Discipline Ceremonies with all Laws Canons and Articles whatsoever relating thereunto by which the Laity were to be bound were anciently Enacted by the same Authority that made our Temporal Laws and without such Authority are not binding to the Laity to this day nor ever were Nor has the King any power by the Law to impose any New Article Ceremony Practice Rule or Order whatsoever upon the Clergy or any of them under any sort of Penalty without an Act of Convocation at least In the first place I will give a few Instances before the entry of the Saxons by which it will appear in some measure how the Law stood in those days with respect to the Supremacy In the Year 448 Germanus and Lupus two Learned Bishops were sent hither out of France to suppress the Pelagian Heresie Upon which occasion a Synod was assembled at Verolam Aderat Populus expectabatur futurus Judex Adstabant partes c. After a long debate Populus arbiter vix manus continet Judicium clamore contestando c. In this first Synod that we read of in England the People were present and were Judges and by their determination a great Controversie of Religion was settled * Vide Spelm. Concil Tom. 1. p. 47 48. An Account of this Council and of the time when it was held Bed. Eccl. Histor Gent. Anglor Lib. 1. Cap. 17. Thus it was in the first Christian Council that ever sate viz. the 15th Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles After the matter had been debated whether the believing Gentiles ought to be Circumcised and to keep Moses his Law verse 22d It pleased the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church to send c. And they wrote Letters after this manner The Apostles and Elders and Brethren send Greeting unto c. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us c. So that the Laity as well as the Clergy had in this Council decisive Votes And if it shall appear by what follows that the People of this Nation never were nor can to this day be
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
Co. 12. Rep. p. 64. and they were entred per Curiam Nay take in their Hypothesis Brady Johnson Filmer who would persuade us that Parliaments of old time before they were christen'd by that Name were but Assemblies of the King's Tenants in the nature of a Court-Baron Why even in a Court-Baron the Suitors are Judges And all the Judges of England told King James the First Co. 12. Rep. 64. That the King could not in Person adjudge any Case If therefore our King 's have no Judicial Power personally in them how can they derive to others what themselves have not How comes it to pass that the King can grant a Commission to review a Decree when himself cannot review it nor is impowered by Act of Parliament to grant any such Commission I will dwell no longer upon these Acts concerning Appeals It appears I hope already that Appeals which by the Antient Law of the Realm were to the Curia Regis had been gain'd from it to the Court of Rome That King Henry the Eighth caused such Foreign Appeals to be restrain'd and directed how they should be prosecuted within the Realm for the future Which Direction ought to be pursued for so far forth as it gives Appeals to the King in Chancery it is introductive of a New Law Which I must believe till I can be inform'd that our Kings in former times ever received Appeals out of Parliament or their Magna Curia what ever that was The next thing in our way is another part of the fore-mentioned Statute of 25 Hen. 8. cap. 19 viz. That the Clergy in their Convocations shall enact no Constitutions without the King's Assent The words of the enacting Clause are That they the Clergy nor any of them from henceforth shall presume to attempt alledge claim or put in ure any Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial or Synodals or any other Canons nor shall enact promulge or execute any such Canons Constitutions or Ordinances Provincial by whatsoever Name or Names they may be call'd in their Convocations in time coming which alway shall be assembled by Authority of the King 's Writ unless the same Clergy-men have the King 's most Royal Assent and Licence to make promulge and execute such Canons Constitutions and Ordinances Provincial or Synodal upon pain of every one of the Clergy doing contrary to this Act and being thereof convict to suffer Imprisonment and make Fine at the King 's Will. This Act cannot be pretended to give the King and the Clergy any new power For it is penn'd in Negative Words It is but declarative of what the Antient Law of the Kingdom was The Clergy had frequent Provincial Synods ever since the Christian Faith was introduc'd amongst us but till the Pope had set his Foot here our Kings sometime presided were frequently present in them Their Assent was had to all Constitutions made for the Government of the Church And Canons intended to bind the Laity never obtain'd as Ecclesiastical Laws here without the Assent of the Temporalty But when the Clergy had got an Exemption from the Temporal Laws and lookt upon themselves as a distinct separate Body of Men from the rest of the King's Subjects as having a dependance upon and owing Canonical Obedience to a Foreign Head then they proceeded to make Canons without consent of the King or the Temporalty But even in those days when ever they entrench't upon the Common Law of the Realm which was the Subjects Fence and Protection the Temporal Courts gall'd them with Prohibitions They had not in the times of Popery a Power of binding the Laity even in Matters of Religion without their Assent But themselves they bound and the inferior Clergy were all subjected to the Power of Provincial Synods because of their Oath of Canonical Obedience And these Canons by which they bound the whole Body of the Clergy never had any Royal Assent to them since King Stephen's days No Ecclesiastical Laws other than what were enacted in Parliament having since that King's Reign derived their Authority from the King. This Act therefore ties up the Clergy from any power of making Canons and Constitutions without the King. But since it gives them no manner of Power or Authority whatsoever their Power even the Royal Assent taken in is no other since this Act than it was before they had withdrawn themselves from the King and the Laity Which how far it extended has been sufficiently explain'd already I will not go so far as some have done to affirm Sir Edward Bagshaw's Argument concerning the Canons that the King's Assent here spoken of must be understood of his Assent in Parliament But I think it is very observable that the Parliament did by this Act appoint Sixteen of the Two and thirty Commissioners who were to view search and examine the Canons Constitutions and Ordinances Provincial and Synodal heretofore made in order to the keeping of some and rejecting others to be of the Vpper and Nether House of Parliament They would have Committees of their own Houses inspect all Canons formerly made and judge which were fit to be retain'd How can we then imagine that they had any thoughts of subjecting themselves and their Posterities to the King and the Convocation of the Clergy in Matters of Religion for the future Nay they seem as it were jealous lest this Act tho as cautiously penn'd as the Wit of Man could contrive it should be made use of to colour some unwarrantable Power of the Clergy in Convocation having the Royal Assent to their Constitutions And therefore they add a special Proviso that no Canons Constitutions or Ordinances shall be made or put in execution within this Realm by the Authority of the Convocation of the Clergy which shall be contrariant or repugnant to the King's Perogative Royal or the Customs Laws or Statutes of the Realm Now whether it was against the Laws of the Realm or not in the Opinion of this Parliament for the King and the Clergy to top any Laws upon them without their consent will appear by the Preamble of another Act of this very Session of Parliament and therefore I will pass it by now Nor was there any thing in the future practice of this King's Reign which gave or asserted any Power to the King and Convocation to bind or conclude the People without an Act of Parliament concurring and enforcing the same The next Act is the Twentieth Chap. of this same Session of Parliament concerning the Election and Consecration of Bishops This Act does not resume the Election to the Parliament from whom it had been gain'd but leaving a shadow of Election in the Consistory impowers the King to name the Person commands the Dean and Chapter under the Penalty of a Praemunire to choose the Person nominated to them in the Writ of Conge d'eslire and appoints how he shall be Consecrated without Pall Bulls or other things formerly requisite to be obtained at the See of Rome
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
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
whereas Subjects might Collate in those Days Churches of their own Foundation to any Clerk in Orders and give him the Investiture even without so much as a Presentation to the Bishop yet our Antient Kings Collated Bishopricks no otherwise than in Curia suâ For though Bishopricks were Royal Foundations yet they were Founded by Acts of Parliament as will appear by and by And one Great Reason why our Kings at least in those Days could not Erect Bishopricks and endow them otherwise was because they could not in those Days Alien their Crown Lands without the Assent of their Barons Non poterat Rex distrahere Patrimonium Regni And though King John told Pandulphus the Legate Omnes Praedecessores mei contulerunt Archiepiscopatus Episcopatus Abbathias in thalamis suis Monast Burton pag. 264. That must be understood to have been done since the Norman Conquest only though the contrary was frequently practised even in those Days and especially since the Constitutions of Clarendon For the Instance that he there gives of Wolstan's being made Bishop of Worcester in King Edward the Confessor his Time was far from a Collation in Thalamo if we believe himself when he resigned his Pastoral Staff at the Confessor's Tomb There concurred Electio Plebis Petitio Voluntas Episcoporum Gratia Procerum a full Parliament as well as the Authoritas Voluntas of the King himself Matth. Paris pag. 20 21. As for our Kings seizing the Temporalties of Bishops into their Hands and so suspending them à beneficio which the Doctor speaks of pag. 155. of which he says many Instances may be found in Mr. Prynn 's Historical Collections I suppose he would not be understood as if our Kings either might or used to seize them ad Libitum but by legal process and for some contempt for which by the Law they were liable to Seizure They were held of the King by Barony and though the Bishops pretended to an Exemption as to their Persons from the Laws of the Land yet their Temporalties which were held of the King and for which they did him Fealty were no-wise Exempted but that if they should commit Offences for which the King might by Law capere se ad Baronias suas they as well as the Laity that held by the same Tenure were equally liable to the Course and Rigour of the Law. What use this is of to the Doctor for the setting up some Notional Supremacy lodged in the King Personally I know not as yet Irregularities and Oppressions might well be used upon such occasions and Seizures made when there was no cause but the Statute of the fourteenth of Edward the Third cap. 6. aforementioned was provided to prevent such Mischiefs for the future But the Doctor was very ill advised in quoting pag. 155. to clear the point the Statutes of Provisions For those Statutes which every body knows and the Doctor will not deny to be only new Bullwarks to secure Old Rights were yet such as the King could never dispense with But when the Circumstances of his Affairs were such that to gratify the Pope and tye him to his Interest he found it convenient to have some Relaxation made of those Laws then were Parliaments called and at their first meeting one cause of their Convention declared to be to provide remedy touching the Statutes of Provisions for eschewing debate between the Pope and the King and his Realms And then we find leave given to the King from time to time to dispense with those Laws and that but for a time and this declar'd to be a Novelty Vid. Cotton's Abridgment pag. 341. 346. Annis 15. 16. Rich. 2. And the Complaints of the English Nation in Matth. Paris against the Pope's Provisions were grounded upon this VIZ. That Patroni Ecclesiarum ad eas cum Vacaverint Clericos idoneos praesentare non poterant sed conferebantur Ecclesiae Romanis qui penitùs Idioma Regni ignorabant pecuniam extra Regnum asportabant These Oppressions fell chiefly upon the Clergy as appears by most of the Laws against Provisions of which hereafter for the Pope assum'd a greater Power over them and Churches of which they were Patrons then he could pretend to over the Laity and they sometimes comply'd with his Provisions and submitted to collate Italians and Foreigners as at other times they did to heavy Exactions insomuch that in the year 1240. misit Dominus Papa praecepta sua Domino Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo Edmundo Sarisberiensi Lincolniensi Episcopis ut trecentis Romanis in primis beneficiis Vacantibus providerent scientes se suspensos à beneficiorum Collatione donec tot competenter providerentur Matth. Paris pag. 532. And it appears by the same Author that these and more were provided of Ecclesiastical Benefices in England Praebendas Ecclesias varios redditus opimos plusquam trecentos ad suam vel Papae contulerat legatus Otto voluntatem id p. 549. But many grievous Complaints and Petitions in Parliaments and in Letters to the Pope occur in Mr. Prynne's Historical Collections and in the Parliament Rolls against these Provisions as intolerable Grievances and contrary to all Law and Reason If at some times they were comply'd with upon condition that the Persons recommended by the Pope were of good condition and worthy of Promotion how does that relate to its being in the King's power even to admit the persons to the Dignity and Office as the Doctor ignorantly and childishly asserts But his conclusion VIZ. That the Exercise of their Government was according to the King's Laws I do not Quarrel with him about for it was or ought to have been so But not according to the King's Pleasure Nor would any unbyassed Man in Reading King Alfred's Laws have readily made such an Inference as the Doctor does pag. 155 156 telling us out of L. l. Alvredi that King Alfred reserved to himself the liberty even of Dispensing with the Marriage of Nuns Which he would represent as a thing prohibited by the Canons only and that the King reserved to himself a Power of Dispensing with it though without his Especial Dispensation he suffered the Canon to take place Now the Marriage of Nuns was really prohibited by a Law of the State by an Act of Parliament of that Age For Brompton giving us an Account of King Alfred's Laws says thus Ego Alfredus West-Saxonum Rex ostendi haec omnibus sapientibus meis dixerunt Placet ea Custodire And many Temporal Laws are amongst them all Enacted by the same Authority And the same Law or Canon that prohibits Nuns from Marrying gives the King and not only him but the Bishop of the Diocess leave to Dispense so that the Doctor might as well have argu'd for the Bishops as the Kings reserving a Power to himself of Dispensing The Words are Si quis Sanctimonialem ab Ecclesiâ abduxerit sine Licentia Regis vel Episcopi c. Then he says That our Kings Presided sometimes
bound by the settling or determining any point of Religion any where else than by themselves in Parliament then at least the power of settling and determining Points of Doctrine and Practice either is no part of the King 's Ecclesiastical Supremacy or is not personal But must be exerted in Parliament In the British times Bishopricks were conferred in Parliament Petivit Rex Arthurus Eboracum instantis Natalis Domini Festum celebraturus Cumque urbem intrasset visa Sacrarum Ecclesiarum desolatione condoluit Expulso namque beato Samsone Archiepiscopo cunctisque sanctae Religionis viris Templa semi-usta ab officio Dei cessabant Tanta etenim Paganorum insania praevaluerat Exin convocato Clero Populo Capellanum suum Metropolitanae sedi Destinat Ecclesias usque ad solum dirutas renovat Atque Religiosis caetibus Virorum Mulierum exornat Galfrid Monumeth lib. 9. cap. 8. Here King Arthur in an Assembly of his Clergy and People makes an Arch-Bishop restores ruinous Churches and replenishes Monasteries with Monks and Nuns If a Judge or a Lawyer should say tho' he took along with him the concurrence and assistance of his Parliament yet he might have done all this by his Prerogative without them I must insist upon proof of such Prerogative If a Divine tells me that by the Law of God such Prerogatives belong to Princes for that the Power of the Prince is Superior to that of the Law not given by Law but from God then cannot I comprehend how our Churchmen can value themselves upon their being Established by Law if they acknowledge a Power upon Earth above the Law. But if it shall appear by what follows that till the Reign of King John Arch-Bishopricks Bishopricks and other Ecclesiastical Dignities were conferred in and by the Parliament then will a common mistake appear to run through many of the Books of Law wherein we frequently read Cr. Jac. 553 554. Ro. rep 2d part 130. Sir John Dav. rep that before his time they were donative and conferred by the King Per Traditionem annuli baculi Confounding the Election with the Investiture and ascribing that to the King solely which was the Act of the King and Parliament Bishop Vsher in his Antiqu. p. 63. Britan. Eccles Gives us other Instances of Bishops Elected in Parliaments or Great Councils Postquam praedicti senioris Germanus Lupus Pelagianam Haeresin extirpaverant Episcopos pluribus in locis Britanniae consecraverunt Super omnes autem Britannos dextralis partis Britanni beatum Dubricium summum Doctorem à Rege ab omni Parochia Electum Archiepiscopum consecraverunt Hac dignitate ei à Germano Lupo data constituerunt ei Episcopalem sedem concessu Regis Maurici Principum Cleri Populi apud Podium Lantavi Addit Galfridus ab eodem Dubricio Vrbis Legionum tunc Archiepiscopo Arthurum Regni Britannici diademate insignitum eundemque Dubricium in Curia illa magna quam apud urbem legionum Arthurus tenuisse dicitur in eremiticam vitam anhelantem sese ab Archiepiscopali sede deposuisse Eodem tempore Davide procurante Meneviam Metropolitanae sedis factam esse translationem refert Giraldus Cambrensis postea in Breviensi Synodo confirmatam In illâ scil Synodo magnâ omnium Episcoporum Abbatum totius Cambriae nec non Cleri Universi una cum Populo Collecta propter Pelagianiam Haeresin that Doctrin it seems revived tho it had been publickly over-ruled ubi unanimi totius Conventus tam Electione quam Acclamatione quanquam invitus renitens David in Archiepiscopum est sublimatus Usher Britan. Antiqu. pag. 64. Now if in the times of the Britains the People assembled in the Common Councils of the Nation had decisive Votes in Controversies of Religion in the Election of Arch-Bishops and Bishops if by their Authority ruinous Churches and Houses of Religion were repaired and furnished with Monks and Nuns Bishops Sees founded and translated if in those Assemblies Resignations of Bishopricks were made c. Then we may reasonably conclude that the Supremacy commonly so called was lodged and vested just where the Legislative Power in Temporal Matters resided to wit in the King 's together with their Commune concilium Regni But the first is true as appears by the foregoing Authorities Ergo c. Nor was it peculiar to this Nation V. Dr. Burnet's History of the Rights of Princes in the disposing of Ecclesiastical Benefices c. to have the People chuse Bishops It was the Universal Practice of all Christendom for many hundred years as is notoriously known to all that read any History In the second place I will exhibit a very few Instances of the Saxon Times during the Heptarchy The Reader may consult many more at his leisure No marvel if we find this People submitting to nothing in Religion but what was ordain'd by themselves Tacitus de moribus Germanorum cap. 11. De majoribus omnes was one of their Fundamental Constitutions before they came hither and it is continued here to this day And Matters of Religion were amongst their Majora even before they received Christianity Accordingly Edwin King of Northumberland Vid. Bed. Eccl. Hist Lib. 2. Cap. 13. Huntington Lib. 3. Pag. 188. habito cum sapientibus concilio renounced his Paganism and he and they embraced the Christian Faith. This is described in Bede and Huntington to have been done in such an Assembly of Men as the Parliaments of those days are generally mentioned to consist of After the Christian Religion had spread amongst the Saxons the Bishops and Clergy frequently held Synods without the Laity for Church-Visitation Vid. Spelm. Conc. ubique and made constitutions for the Regulation of the Clergy which they obeyed and submitted to by reason of their Oath of Canonical Obedience But as nothing transacted in those Assemblies of the the Clergy bound the People so can no instance be produced of the Clergy's being bound by any Act of the King not assented to in the Provincial Synods of those Times But the Clergy themselves both as to Doctrin Discipline and Ceremonies were bound by the publick Laws of the Kingdom enacted in the Great Councils of the Nation In the year 673 Matt. West pag. 122 123. Concilium Herudfordiae celebratum est sub initio primi anni Lotharii Regis Cantiae Praesidente Theodoro Cantuariae Archiepiscopo At this Council says Matthew of Westm were present Episcopi Angliae Reges Magnates Vniversi Where Theodore proposed decem capitula out of a Book of Canons before them All which were there Assented to and Subscribed The first was concerning the observation of Easter the ninth that the number of Bishops should be encreased crescente fidelium numero The rest were concerning Bishops Bishopricks Monks Marriage Fornication c. Spelm. Council Vol. 1. pag. 152 153. The Presence of the Bishops and all the Magnates makes this Assembly appear to have been a Parliament of
being assembled Singulis tribubus Gervisiorum West-Saxonum Singulos constituerunt Episcopos quod olim duo habuerunt in quinque diviserunt Spelm. Conc. 387 388. The Ecclesiastical Laws of King Edward the Elder and Guthrune the Dane begin with this Proaemium Haec sunt Senatus consulta ac instituta quae primò Aluredus Guthrunus Reges deindè Edwardus Guthrunus Reges illis ipsis temporibus tulêre cum pacis faedus Daci Angli ferierunt Quaeque postea à sapientibus Tha Witan saepiùs recitata atque ad Communem Regni utilitatem aucta atque amplificata sunt The Titles of some of these Laws are De Apostatis De Correctione Ordinatorum i.e. Sacris initiatorum De incestu De jejuniis c. All of Ecclesiastical Cognisance or at least of After-times so reputed These are called Senatûs Consulta than which a more apposite Word could scarce have been used for Acts of Parliament and were assented to by the Wyten from which Word the Saxon term for Parliaments Wytena Gemot is derived Spelm. Conc. 390 c. A Concilium Celebre was held under King Athelstane in quo Leges plurimae tum Civiles tum Ecclesiasticae statuebantur It 's true the Civil Laws are omitted and Sir Henry Spelman gives us an account only of the Ecclesiastical Laws made at this Assembly which conclude Decreta actaque haec sunt in celebri Gratanleano Concilio cui Wulfelmus interfuit Archiepiscopus cum eo Optimates Sapientes ab Athelstano evofrequentissimi Spel. Conc. p. 396 c. King Edmund held a Council Anno 944 where many Ecclesiastical as well as Secular Laws were made as De vitae castitate eorum qui Sacris initiantur De fani instauratione De pejerantibus De iis qui barbara factitârunt Sacrificia c. And this Council is expressed to have been Conventus tam Ecclesiasticorum quam Laicorum celebris tam Ecclesiasticorum quam Laicorum frequentia Spelm. Conc. p. 419 c. I will give no more instances before the Conquest tho numbers are to be had which lye scattered up and down in the Monkish Histories and being compared with one another will sufficiently disclose what I assert For sometimes Laws that concern Temporal Affairs as well as Ecclesiastical are said to have been made by such or such a King in one Author which very Laws another Historian tells us were made in the Great Council which yet they have no Uniform appropriated Expression Term or Denomination for Just as we in common Parlance say King Edward the Third or King Henry the Seventh made such or such a Law which yet every Man understands to have been made in Parliament because else it were not a Law. That Bishopricks and other Ecclesiastical Dignities For the Election of Wulstan Bishop of Worc. Temp. Edw. Confess v. Matt. Paris p. 20. That in his Election there concurr'd Plebis Petitio Voluntas Episcoporum Gratia Procerum Regis Authoritas were in the Saxon times conferred in Parliament we have the further Testimony of Ingulphus who was Abbot of Crowland in King William the Conquerors Reign A multis annis retroactis nulla erat electio Praelatorum merè Libera Canonica Sed omnes Dignitates tam Episcoporum quam Abbatum Regis Curia pro sua complacentia conferebat Ingulph Hist Fol. 509. b. Concerning Appeals in Ecclesiastical Causes I shall say more in the next Division Only here it will be proper to insert that the Constitutions of Clarendon one of which is expresly concerning Appeals are said to contain the Avitae Consuetudines Regni Malmesbur de gestis Pontificum Anglor Lib. 3. And William of Malmesbury relates a remarkable Story of Wilfrid Archbishop of York whose Archbishoprick being divided by the Common Council of the Northumbrian Kingdom into four Bishopricks he appealed to the Pope who wrote Letters to the King in his behalf upon the receipt of which the King told the Legates Se quidem Legatorum Personis honorem ut parentibus deferre caeterùm assensum legationi omninò abnuere quod esset contra rationem homini jam bis à toto Anglorum Concilio damnato propter quaelibet Apostolica Scripta communicare This shews that tho a Prelate thought the Pope's Authority might stand him in stead yet the Nation acknowledged no Foreign Jurisdiction and that the Supreme Judicature here from which the Archbishop appealed was that of the Parliament and not of the King. The Power of dispensing with Laws concerning Church Matters could not be a Personal Perogative in the King in these days for Dispensations were not born till Two hundred years after the Conquest as will appear hereafter The fourth Period of Time shall be from the Norman Entrance down to the Reign of King John In this time it was that the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of the Crown suffered a Rape and that four very considerable Branches were cut off By this time the Pope had shaken off his Dependance upon the Emperor the Laity were excluded from voting in his Election And the Game plaid at Rome was by setting the Clergy in a state of Exemption from Temporal Laws as to their Persons and Possessions and excluding the Laity King's themselves as well as Parliaments from Ecclesiastical Power to govern Mens Consciences first and then all they had directly or indirectly But this was a work of Time and could not be effected but by degrees King William the First made one step this way by dividing the Spiritual and Temporal Courts without which perhaps it had been impossible for the Canon Law to have broken in upon us But yet in his time tho he was certainly in the sense of his Great Council Lambard de priscis Anglorum Regibus p. 138 142. Hoved. p. 345. as much Head of the English Church as any of his Predecessors were or his Successors are by Law for he was declared to be Vicarius summi Regis ad hoc constitutus ut Regnum terrenum Populum Domini super omnia Sanctam veneretur Ecclesiam ejus regat ab injuriosis defendat maleficos ab eâ evellat destruat penitus disperdat Quod nisi fecerit nec Regis nomen in eo constabit Yet in his time I say a Personal Supremacy independant of the Great Council of the Nation was never pretended to For he reformed the Ecclesiastical Laws and Canons of the Church no otherwise than de Communi Consilio Archiepiscoporum Episcoporum Seld. Not. Specileg ad Eadmer p. 167 Lamb. de priscis Anglor Legib p. 158. Abbatum omnium Procerum Regni sui c. Nor was this the Constitution of the English Church only Ordericus Vitalis Folio 552. gives us a remarkable Instance out of Normandy of the same platform there Rex Guillielmus in Festo Pentecostes Anno ab Incarnatione Domini 1080. apud Illebonam resedit ibique Gulielmum Archiepiscopum omnes Episcopos Abbates Comitesque
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
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
Regum Anglorum Lib. 2. cap. 5. This Council Matthew Westminster pag. 181. Anno Dom. 9051 calls Concilium Grande Episcoporum Abbatum fidelium populorum in Provinciâ Geviseorum In the same Council the bounds of their Diocesses were Limitted which the same Historian describes He tells us likewise that in the same Council two other Bishops were chosen One to the Bishoprick of Dorchester and another to that of Chichester In King Henry the Eighth's time six New Bishopricks were erected by the King's Letters Patents viz. Glocester Bristol Chester Peterborough Oxford and Westminster But those Letters Patents had the Authority of an Act of Parliament to warrant them made in the One and thirtieth year of that King's Reign cap. 9. Be it Enacted by the Authority of this present Parliament that his Highness shall have full power and Authority from time to time to declare and nominate by his Letters Patents c. such number of Bishops such number of Cities Sees for Bishops Cathedral Churches and Diocesses by metes and bounds c. as to his most Excellent Wisdom shall be thought necessary and convenient And also shall have power and Authority to make and devise Translations Ordinances Rules and Statutes concerning them All and every of them c. And that all and singular such Translations Nominations of Bishops Cities Sees and limitation of Diocesses for Bishops Erections Establishments Foundations Ordinances Statutes Rules c. shall be of as good strength force value and effect to all Intents and purposes as if such things c. had been done made and had by Authority of Parliament This is most apparently an Enabling Act Power is here given to the King by Authority of Parliament and it is Enacted that the Contents of his Letters Patents to be made for perfection of the Premises shall be as valid as if they had been Enacted in Parliament So that in that King's Judgment force and validity was by this Act given to his Letters Patents which otherwise they would have been destitute of and have been invalid for the End to which they were designed This was but a Temporary Act and dyed with that King for no such Power is given by the Act to his Successors And therefore in King Edward the sixth's time a Bill was brought into the House of Commons and read the first time To authorize that King to make New Bishopricks by Letters Patents As I find in a Manuscript Journal of King Edward the Sixth's Parliaments Anno Regni 7. What became of it afterwards I know not It was brought in towards the End of the Session and did not pass into a Law. But the bringing of it in shews that the King was not conceived to have any such Authority of Common Right Nor did that King exercise any such Authority For the Bishoprick of Durham was in his Reign divided into two by Act of Parliament And when it was restored to its former Estate in Queen Mary's time it was done by Act of Parliament Vid. Dr. Burnet's History of the Reform vol. 2. p. 215. Rastal's Statutes 1 Mariae Parl. 2. That Act of King Henry the Eighth by which he was impowered to Erect New Bishopricks was Repealed 1 2 Phil. Mar. And to the End that by the Repeal of the Act those Bishopricks that had been Erected by vertue of it might not be consequentially dissolved A Clause was inserted into the Act of Repeal That all Bishopricks Cathedral Churches Hospitals Colledges Schools and such other Foundations then continuing made by Authority of Parliament or otherwise according to the Order of the Laws of the Realm since the schism should be confirmed and continued for ever So that then the Bishopricks that had been newly Erected by King Henry the Eighth stood upon this Foundation viz. A Confirmation by Parliament notwithstanding the Repeal of 31 Henr. 8. cap. 9. But now that the Statute of 1 2 Phil. et Mar. cap. 8. is Repeal'd by Primo Eliz. and this clause of Confirmation not excepted out of the Repeal I know not upon what bottom they stand at this day So far were our Kings from assuming a Power to Erect and divide Bishopricks at their pleasure as a late Author in a Book intituled A Vindication of the King 's Sovereign Rights c. pag. 12. takes upon him to affirm That they never so much as divided Parishes nor could make Vnions and Consolidations of Parochial Churches without Authority of Parliament Witness the Statutes of 33 Henr. 8. cap. 32.32 Hen. 8. cap. 44.37 Hen. 8. cap. 21.17 Car. 2. cap. 3.22 Car. 2. cap. 11.22 23 Car. 2. cap. 15. c. Sir Roger mentions likewise the Bishoprick of Carlisle which was Erected by King Henry the First Anno Dom. 1133. The Prior of Hagulstad speaks of this in General terms Coll. pag. 257. Consecratus est Adulphus Prior de Nostlia ad Vrbem Karleol quam Rex Henricus initiavit ad sedem Episcopalem Math. Westm in like manner pag. 241. Rex Henricus Novum fecit Episcopatum apud Carleolum in Limbo Angliae et Galwalliae et posuit ibi primum Episcopum nomine Ethelulphum sancti Oswaldi Priorem Abbas Jorvallensis tells us the story in like terms Collect. pag. 1019. Eodem Anno Rex fecit Novum Episcopatum apud Karliolum quem Arnulfo Priori de sancto Bertulpho Contulit But it appears by Radulph de Diceto Coll. pag. 505. that in this very year a Parliament was held and a very solemn one Rex Henricus Convocatis Regni sui Principibus filiam suam haeredes filiae suae sibi successorres instituit In which Parliament it is not unlikely that this Bishoprick of Carlisle was erected notwithstanding these loose Expressions of the Monks For the same Authors express themselves in the same terms concerning the Bishoprick of Ely Which yet was erected by Act of Parliament Radulphus de Diceto Collect. pag. 501. Rex Henricus Abbathiam Elyensem ad Episcopalem mutavit sedem Herveum ibi praesecit Math. Westminst pag. 238. Rex Henricus Abbbathiam Elyensem in Episcopalem sedem commutavit Abbas Jorvallensis pag. 1003. Collect. Abbathiam de Ely ad sedem Episcopalem convertit primum Episcopum Herveum Bangorensem constituit So that no Argument can be drawn from these Historians mentioning the King's Founding the Bishoprick of Carlisle without naming the Parliament as a party to it to prove that therefore it was not Erected by Authority of Parliament For if the Charter of the Foundation of the Bishoprick of Ely had been lost the same Argument would have lain against it And all the Bishopricks in England of whose first Foundations there is any particular Account given by our Historians appear to have been Founded by Our Kings in Parliament or by vertue of an Authority given by Act of Parliament I suppose it will not be deny'd but whenever any Bishoprick in Particular was Founded at the same time it was endow'd Now Our Ancient Kings could not
have done notwithstanding his Newly restor'd Supremacy Sir Roger's 16th Particular is that Our Kings placed by a Lay hand Clerks in Prebendary or Parochial Churches Ordinariis penitus irrequisitis But if he had considered that Originally all Church livings in England were Donatives And that Presentations to Ordinaries Admissions Institutions and Inductions thereupon obtain'd in England in compliance with the Canons many years after the Conquest he would not have mentioned that as a special prerogative in the King which was but common to him with All his subjects that had been Founders and were Patrons of Benefices Mr Selden tells us in his History of Tythes cap. 12. sect 5. that it was not till about the year MCC that the Decretals and the Encreasing Authority of the Canons had settled the Vniversal course here of filling Churches by Presentation to the Bishop Archdeacon Vicar of the Bishop or Guardian of the Spiritualties and that then the use of Investitures of Churches and tythes severally or together practised by Lay-men was left off And a Division of secular and Ecclesiastical Right from thence been continued in practice And in the same Section pag. 392. he says that whilst the use of Lay-Investitures was in being all Churches so given were properly Donatives For further satisfaction as to that Particular I refer to him Sir Roger's seventeenth Particular is that Our Kings prohibited the Laity from yielding Obedience or answering by Oath to their Ecclesiastical Superior enquiring de peccatis subditorum This take out of the Additaments to Matth. Paris pag. 200. num 9. from whence Sir Roger quotes it Item cum Praelati Ecclesiastici inquirere volunt de peccatis subditorum prohibentur laici ne de veritate dicendâ aut de credulitate aliquod juramentum exponant aut Praelatis super hujusmodi obediant propter quod multorum excessus peccata mortalia incorrecta impunita relinquuntur sic praestatur audacia delinquendi peccandi facultas Now this was no other then protecting the Laity from being impos'd upon by the Oath ex officio And innumerable Authorities might be cited to prove that no kinds nor forms of Oaths can be made or imposed on the King's Subjects nor prescribed to them in any new cases but by Act of Parliament onely And that no Bishop or Subject whatsoever hath any power to make or enjoyn any new Oaths or forms of Oaths nor any Authority to administer an Oath to any Man without some Legal Commission from the King under the Great Seal or some Act of Parliament especially Authorizing him to give or take an Oath unless in Courts of Record or other Courts who have Authority to administer Oaths by Prescription But Anno Dom. 1237. Otho the Pope's Legate in a Council at London made this Constitution touching Oaths in Spiritual Causes in Ecclesiastical Courts till that time not known nor used in England as appears by the words of the Constitution Jusjurandum Calumniae in causis Ecclesiasticis quibuslibet de veritate dicenda in spiritualibus quoque ut Veritas aperiatur facilius causae celerius terminentur statuimus de caetero Praestari in Regno Angliae secundum canonicas Legitimas sanctiones Obtentâ in contrarium Consuetudine Non obstante vid. Matth. Paris 454. A clear resolution that till that time the custom of England and the Law of the Land was to the contrary and that they could not enforce any Man to his Oath in such cases After which Grosthead Bishop of Lincoln Anno 1246. Vpon the suggestion of the Fryers Predicant and Minorites raged more than was meet or Expedient they are the words of Matthew Paris against those of his Diocess making strict inquisition in his Bishoprick by his Arch-deacons and Deans concerning the Chastity and manners as well of noble as ignoble upon Oath to the enormous hurt and scandal of the reputations of many Quod nunquam antea fieri consueverat The King hearing the Grievous Complaints of his people Consilio Curiae suae scripsit Vicecomiti Hertfordiae in haec verba Henricus Dei Gratia Rex Angliae c. Praecipimus tibi quod sicut teipsum omnia tua diligis non permittas quod aliqui laici de Ballivâ tuâ ad voluntatem Episcopi Lincolniensis Achidiaconorum vel Officialium seu Decanorum Ruralium in aliquo loco Conveniant de caetero ad cognitiones per sacramentum eorum vel attestationes aliquas faciendas nisi in causis matrimonialibus Testamentariis Matth. Par. p. 716. And the very next year following in pursuance hereof the King by Parliament Enacted and Commanded That if any Lay-man were convented before any Ecclesiastical Judge for breach of Faith and Perjury that they should be prohibited by the King and that the Ecclesiastical Judge should be prohibited to hold plea for all Causes against Lay-men unless they were of Matrimony and Testament All which Matth. Paris precisely relates pag. 727. Which Prohibition and Statute nullified the Constitution of Otho and put a stop to this his innovation But yet about nine years after Boniface Arch-bishop of Canterbury published this peremptory Constitution in affront to them both Statuimus quod laici ubi de subditorum peccatis excessibus corrigendis per Praelatos Ecclesiasticos judices inquiritur ad praestandum de Veritate dicendâ juramentum per Excommunicationis sententias si opus fuerit Compellantur Impedientes vero ne hujusmodi juramenta praestentur for the Judges with many others then generally oppugned and hindred the ushering in of this Innovation per interdicti excommunicationis sententiam arceantur To evacuate which illegal Constitution trenching both upon the people's Liberties and the Courts of Justice too the Judges frequently Granted out sundry General Prohibitions to all or most of the Sheriffs of England as is evident by the Register of Writs Pars 2. fol. 36.43.50 Fitzherbert's Nat. Brev. fol. 41. A. Auxy home poit suer prohibition direct al Viscount que le Viscount ne permit ne suffer les lay subjects del Roy de vener a ascun lieu al citation del Evesque ad faciend aliquas recognitiones vel sacrament prestand nisi in causis matrimonialibus Testamentariis Rastal's Abridment of the statutes Title Prohibit nu 5. Vpon which Prohibitions this Attachment followed The King to the Sherifs Greeting Cause such a Bishop to put in sureties to appear before our Justices c. to shew cause why he made certain Lay persons to be summoned and distrained by Ecclesiastial censures to appear before him at his pleasure to take an Oath against their Wills In Grave Praejudicium Coronae Dignitatis nostrae Regiae necnon contra consuetudinem Regni nostri By all which and by the Petition of Right it self it appears evidently that this Juramentune Calumniae or Oath ex officio was utterly against Law. For one of the Grievances complain'd of in that Petition was that the King's Subjects had had an Oath administred to
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