decernenda Censuerit ibidem Tab. 2. In Synod Nationali vel provinciali Regis rescripto convocato nihil tractari aut determinari potest nisi eo assentiente nec quicquam vim legis obtinet priusquam Regalis assensus adhibitus fuerit Dr. Zouch Descript Juris Eccles. p. 1. Sect. 2. See also to the same purpose Dr. Duck de authoritate Juris civilis in Anglia lib. 2. cap. 8. p. 3. Sect 27. And the Lord chief Justice Cook 4. p. Instit cap. 74. cited thereby him 2 The King himself in the Proclamation before mentioned declares that such Canons Constitutions c. agreed upon by the Arch-bishops Bishops and Clergie of Ireland to the end and purpose by him limited and prescribed unto them He has given His Royal assent according to the form of a certain statute or Act of Parliament made in that behalf And by his Prerogative Royal and Supream Authority in matters Ecclesiastical he has ratified and confirmed the said Canons being one hundred in number by his Letters Patents under his great Seal of Ireland And then follows His Majesties strict injunction upon all His loving Subjects of this Kingdom to obey and execute the same which I insisted upon before 3. Besides His Majesties Prerogative Royal and Supream Authority in causes Ecclesiastical the King is likewise by Act of Parliament vested with power for this purpose and that is the Statute 25 Hen. 8. cap. 19. called the Petition and Submission of the Clergie to the King For the Bishops and Clergie in Convocation having each one severally promised in verbo sacerdotis never henceforth to presume to attempt alledge claim or put in use or enact promulge or execute any new Canons Constitutions or Ordinances without the Kings most Royal assent had and obtained thereunto upon which promise and submission it was enacted by Authority of Parliament That all Convocations in time to come should always be assembled by the Authority of the Kings Writ And that the Kings license and authority being had they might make promulge and Execute such Canons Constitutions and Ordinances Provincial and Synodal which being ratified confirmed and approved under His Majesties Great Seal they then become of legal force upon the Subject This Proviso indeed follows That no Canon nor Ordinance shall be made or put in Execution by the Authority of the Convocation of the Clergie which shall be contrariant or repugnant to the Kings Prerogative Royal or the Customs and Statutes of this Realm c. Rastals collection word Rome numb 1. * Which Statutis is but declaratoâ—y of the Common Law says my Lord Coke 4. Instit cap. 74. p. 323. So that the same is grounded both on Statâ—to and Common Law The like Statute to this particular we have enacted in Ireland Entituled An Act against the Authority of the Bishop of Rome in vicessimo Octavo Hen. 8. and referred to in the Proclamation before spoken of in the second consideration A Great Lawyer one Mr. J.M. in a speech before a Committee of the Lords at the Parliament held Anno 1641. Having occasion to speak of this Statute for his speech was against the Canons made the year before avouched plainly that that clause The Clergie shall not make Canons without the Kings leave implyeth not that by his leave alone they may make them But certainly the most knowing men in any Science or faculty have not the priviledge of never mistaking in what they say for to him that advisedly considers the matter and scope of that Statute it will appear plainly That the abridging the over-growing power of the Clergie assumed by them in making and enacting Canons and pressing their authority on others And together with this the cutting them off from any relation to the Bishop of Rome and making them dependants on the King alone for the better ordering of what should be debated and determined in their Synodical meetings were if not the only yet the principal aims of that Statute Add here further that a successive and continued practice from the time when that Statute was made to this day delivers the best and truest sense of it * Practiea est legum optima intellectrix Baldus For thus as I have set down it was practised in the times of Edward the 6th Queen Elizabeth 1562. King James Anno 1603. King Charles the first in this Kingdom of Ireland Anno 1634. And though I say nothing of the Canons themselves made in the year 1640. because all authority as to them is annulled by Act of Parliament Anno 13 Caroli Secundi yet the Commission granted to the Convocation of that year at the first opening of the Parliament and of it was according to Law and this speaks plainly of the Kings leave and license granted and alone needful herein see more fully thereof in Dr. Heylins life of the Arch-bishop of Canterbury p. 423.424.425 I conclude this matter with the decision of a great Casuist He in discoursing of Ecclesiastical Laws and the manner how they are enacted in the Church of England Jus condendi leges Ecclesiasticas saies he est paenes Episcopos Presbyteros aliasque personas à totius Regni clero rite electas in legitima Synodo rite congregatas Ita tamen ut ejus juris sine potestatis exercitium in omni Repub. Christiana ex Authoritate Supremi Magistrat us Politici pendere debeat Idque aparte Ante ut loqui solemus aparte post vir ut nec iis statuendi Canones Ecclesiasticos causâ liceat convenire nisi autipsius mandato inssu ad id negotii convocatis aut ejus saltem authoritate Venia ab eo petita obtenta munitis Nec Canones in quos illi sic consenserint tali sint aut vim aliquam habeant obligandi quoad supremi Magistratus assensus accedat Cujus approbatione publica authoritate simulac confirmati fuerint illico pro legibus habendi sunt subditos obligant Bishop Sanderson de conscient obligat Praelect 7. Sect. 30. Mr. Hooker Eccles. Polit. Book 8. in p. 219.220.221 c. Thus much has been said touching the Canons of our Church and their Authority so far forth at this present as suits with the present occasion and what they were produced in proof of In several Provincial Constitutions we find it Decreed That concerning matters belonging to Ecclesiastical cognizance proceedings may be made against any Layman or publick Officers as Sheriffs and others even to the inflicting publick Censures upon them Many of this kind will occur to the Reader that is conversant in them That Constitution Aeterna Sanctis de paenis Enacted in a Council at Lambeth under Boniface Archbishop of Canterbury Anno 1260. In the time of King Henry the third And that Constitution ut invadentibus de immunitate Ecclesiae Enacted by the same Boniface likewise the Constitution contingit aliquando eodem And Accidit Novitate perversa eodem Enacted by John Stratford Archbishop of Canterbury in the time
which are criminal To pass by other statutes I instance in these two only The one De Excommunicato capiendo in 5 Elizab. c. 23. where the several crimes therein mentioned subject all such as shall be detected and found guilty of any of them to the Ecclesiastical Tribunal The other is the statute for Uniformity of Common-Prayer c. 1 Elizab. cap. 2. In this statute after a charge given in this Solemn and strict manner The Queens most Excellent Majesty The Lords Temporal and all the Commons in this present Parliament assembled do in Gods Name earnestly require and charge all the Archbishops and Bishops to endeavor their utmost for the due execution thereofâ—â— And then it follows for their power and authority in this behalf Be it further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid That all and singular the said Archbishops Bishops c. and all other their officers exercising Ecclesiastical jurisdiction as well in places exempt as not exempt within their Diocess shall have full power and authority by this Act to reform correct and punish by censures of the Church all and singular Persons which shall offend within any of their Jurisdictions or Diocesses after the said Feast of St. John the Baptist next coming against this Act or Statute any other Law Statute Priviledge liberty or provision heretofore made had or suffered to the contrary notwithstanding See a so the statute made secundo Elizab. cap. 2 here in Ireland The thing we had in hand to make good was this That all persons whatsoever within any Diocess regularly and de jure communi are subject to the Bishop of that Diocess in matters and causes of Ecclesiastical cognizance that this position is not repugnant to the statute Laws of these Kingdoms This I think has been fully evidenced and needs no further enlarging upon And to give one instance of this jurisdictive and coercive power in Bishops over all indefinitely it shall be in the matter of substracting and detaining of Tythes a cause properly and anciently cognizable before them That ample Charter granted by King William the first to the Clergie and mentioned at large by Mr. Selden in his History of Tythes cap. 8. p. 225. The conclusion of which is after this manner Quicunque decimam detinuerit per justitiam Episcopi Regis si necesse fuerit ad redditionem arguatur Startle not Reader at the eying of this that the Bishops power of Justicing has here precedency of place before the Kings conceive not that this was to set Episcopal power on high and make Regal Authority subordinate to it But this declares to whose judicial cognizance under the King the proceeding against detainers of Tythes of what quality and condition soever they be does immediatery appertain who is the Officer and Minister of Justice therein And the Kings power being after mentioned is so set down by way of judicial order and consequence not of subordination in power and Authority Thus much these very words si necesse fuerit plainly do import as if it were said should any of these detainers prove refractory and contumacious against the Bishops authority so that there were a necessity of invoking the secuâ—ar power the King would then be present therewith and by poenal coercions compel them to give obedience thereto Now for what concerns any other part of the Common Law it may be also both safely and truly in respect of the thing it self affirmed That Ecclesiastical proceedings according to the position laid down bears no contrariety therewith as is set down by Dr. and Student lib. 1 c. 6. That Episcopal jurisdiction is of force in this Kingdom even by the Laws of this Realm in certain particular instances mentioned is reported by Dr. Cosen from a certain Author writing in King Hen. 8th time Apol. part 1. p. 7. The Author is shewing that the Bishop of Rome has not nor ought to have any jurisdiction in His Majesties Kingdoms by the Laws of this Realm The medium whereby he proves this thing is this because Certificates of Bishops in certain cases are allowed by the Common Law and admitted in the Kings Courts But the Popes Certificate is not admitted vid. Lord Coke Instit 4. cap. 74. circa initium de jure Regis Ecclesiastico p. 23. 26. diversos casus thidem citatos Besides in the statute of Appeals 24 Hen. 8. cap. 12. mention is made of spiritual jurisdiction exercised in causes belonging to the same and it is there expresly said That such exercise is grounded on the Laws and customs of this Realm circa mitium dicti statuti Now certainly a statute best informs any one what is truly and what is agreeable to the Common Law The Bishops are by the Common Law the immediate Officers and Ministers of Justice to the Kings Courts in causes Ecclesiastical Lord Coke de jure Regis Ecclesiastico pag. 23. And for what belongs to any custom or ancient usage that has the force of Law among us I cannot find out any such that is impugned by what I have affirmed But thus I may safely determine That if any manner and course of things established by long use and consent of our Ancestors and still kept on foot by daily continuance and practice be a custom and may set up for a Law not-written Then certainly the thing that has been affirmed that is the exercise of Ecclesiastical jurisdiction by Bishops over all persons within their respective Diocesses and in causes belonging to it and thus far endeavoured to be pâ—oved is not at all contrariant thereto but of perfect agreement yea of the same Nature with it Are there any that after all this will make their reply and tell us of persons exempted from Episâ—â— paâ— power and the exercise thereof bound up and restrained in respect of such and for proof of this will alledge the Authoritative proceeding of King William the Conqueror who would not suffer any Bishop to Excommunicate any of his Barons or Officers for Adultery Incest or any such Heinous crime except by the Kings command first made acquainted therewith By the way it must be known that the word Baron is not to be taken in that limited and restrictive sense as to understand thereby the Higher Nobility to which Votes in Parliament do belong But generally for such who by Tenure in chief or in Capite held land of the King Selden spicelegium ad Eadmerum referente Tho. Fullero B. 3. Histor Eccles p. 4. Whatsoever now shall be collected hence to overthrow what has been before said is easily answered For King William very well understood his own Imperal power and right over the whole body Politick whereof the Clergie were a part And that by vertue thereof the Actual Exercise of both Civil and Ecclesiastical jurisdiction did flow from him And that he might where and when he saw cause restrain the Execution of either how long or in respect of what persons he pleased and this by special
any dare to say That they pare off some rights or pluck some flowers from the Kings Imperial Crown I suppose not How comes it to pass then that the Bishops jurisdiction does Whatsoever may be alledged in defence of the other may be said and it may be something more too in justification of this And know moreover That proceedings in these Temporal distinct jurisdictions go much further upon the persons of men than those of any Ecclesiastical Court does even to the imprisoning of them and in all of them except that of the University to the inflicting of capital punishments And it deserves our further observing what the great Lawyer Sir Edward Coke sayes touching this very thing Albeit the proceedings and process in the Ecclesiastical Courts be in the Name of the Bishops c. It followeth not therefore that either the Court is not the Kings or that the Law whereby they proceed is not the Kings Law for taking one example for many every Leet and View of franck pledge holden by a subject is kept in the Lords Name and yet it is the Kings Court and all the proceedings therein are directed by the Kings Laws and many subjects in England have and hold Courts of Record and other Courts and yet all their proceedings be according to the Kings Laws and customs of the Realm De jure Regis Eccles p. 39. The Learned Bishop Sanderson has convincingly demonstrated That Citations and Decrees in the Bishops Name no way encroacheth on the Kings Authority and that they who urge the contrary have this meaning rather to do the Bishops hurt than the King service and that their affections so far as by what is visible we are able to judge are much what alike towards both His Book called Episcopacy not prejudicial to Regal power p. 3 4. Bishops proceedings in Ecclesiastical Courts under the Name Stile and Seal of the Bishop See this largely discussed and declared to be warrantable by Law by my Lord Coke's comment on the Statute of Marriage 32 Hen. 8. p. 685 686 687. But this Objection is taken up again and urged with new force from hence That in the First year of King Edward the Sixth it was by Statute Enacted That the Bishops should make their processes in the Kings Name and that their Seals should be the Kings Arms. This Statute sayes Mr. Rastall was repealed 1 Mariae 1. And that Statute not being revived by Queen Elizabeth in her Reign all proceeded well enough without danger But in the first Parliament of King James there passed an Act for continuing and reviving divers Statutes and for repealing of some others 1 Jaccb c. 29. Into the body whereof a clause was cunningly conveyed for the repealing of that Statute of the Reign of Queen Mary by which King Edward 's stood repealed Upon this account it was that a little before our late turbulent confusions in England this very thing was urged against the Bishops and their proceedings were declared to be bold usurpations and encroachments on the Prerogative Royal and violations of the Law But as it is usual where men are prepossessed against any thing they are apt to run into many mistakes about the sâ—me It happened so in this very matter Much â—â—lse was raised much stir made hereupon by the Antiâ—prelatical party as if the Bishops who had given themselves out to be the most zealous assertors were indeed become the onely dangerous impugners of the Kings Prerogative That now they were deprehended in the very design and therefore must needs fall having no plea to make for themselves and having the mischief of their own visible and illegal actings witnessing against them At this rate their Adversaries vaunted and fore-judged them and no doubt as matters went in those times the severest animadversion that could have followed hereupon would have been made if further proceedings therein had not been seasonably prevented by the wisdom of a pious and prudent Prince For the Blessed King Charles the First having beee made acquainted what advantage these forward and busie people were designing to make hereof to the overthrow of His Ecclesiastical Courts and the Bishops His Judges in them He did as Dr. Heylin reports in the life of Archbishop Laud p. 342. call together in the year 1637 the two Lords Chief Justices the Lord Chief Baron and the rest of the Judges and Barons and propounds to them these three following particulars to be certified of 1. Whether processes may not issue out of the Ecclesiastical Courts in the Name of the Bishops 2. Whether a Patent under the Great Seal be necessary for the keeping of Ecclesiastical Courts and enabling Citations Suspensions Excommunications and other censures of the Church 3. Whether Citations ought to be in the Kings Name and under His Seal of Arms And the like for Institutions and Inductions to Benefices and corrections of Ecclesiastical Offences And the like for Visitations whether an express Commission or Patent under the Great Seal of England were requisite To which three Proposals the said Judges unanimously on the First of July in the fore mentioned year concurred and certified under their Hands By Answering to the First thing propounded affirmatively and to the other two negatively And that the fore-mentioned Statute of Edward the Sixth is not now in force Whereupon the King issues out His Proclamation wherein having first taxed the libellous Books and Pamphlets published against the Bishops and after a recital made of these proceedings He concludes the Proclamation thus That His Majestie thought good with the advice of His Council that a publick Declaration of these the opinions of His Reverend and Learned Judges being agreeable to the judgement and resolution of former times should be made known to all His Subjects as well to vindicate the legal proceedings of His Ecclesiastical Courts and Ministers from the unjust and scandalous imputation of invading or intrenching on His Royal Prerogative as to settle the minds and stop the mouths of all unquiet spirits That for the future they presume not to censure His Ecclesiastical Courts or Ministers in these their just and warranted proceedings And hereof His Majesty admonisheth all His subjects to take warning as they will Answer the contrary at their peril c. * Resolutions unanimously given by all the Judges and the Earons of the Exchequer saith my Lord Coke are for matters of Law of Highest Anthority next unto the Court of Parliament Sir Edward Coke 2 Instit p. 618. But some mens minds will not be satisfied with any thing of this nature yet are willing to embrace what is fortified with Parliamentary Authority Both therefore to gratifie them and more throughly to confirm the matter in hand we have also this Parliamentary Authority to offer unto them For although by an Act of Parliament in the Seventeenth year of King Charles the First all jurisdiction Ecclesiastical was quite abrogated and annulled I speak in respect of England for here in Ireland no such Act
nor Religion Here is no need of that Writ in the Kings behalf called Ad quod Damnum As what damage and prejudice will come to the King by confirming Episcopal Jurisdidiction and allowing the actual exercise thereof for in truth the exercise thereof kept in its right constitution and dependance for such a Jurisdiction is only here intended is so far from diminishing the Right and darkning the Jewels of the Crown that they receive a greater lustre and resplendency thereby We have spoken of the Kings Oath which He is pleased at the time of His Coronation to take for the benefit and security of His Subjects There is also the Subjects Oath which they are to take in Recognition of the Kings Sovereignty and in testimony of their fidelity to him I mean the Oath of Supremacy a consideration of which is very proper and pertinent to the matter in hand especially that one branch which the Taker there fâ—swears to and declares that To his power he will assist and defend all Jurisdictions Priviledges Preheminences and Authorities united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm In which words the Eâ—â— esiastical Jurisdiction is if not only yet speciaâ—ly aimed at Now let such persons that are pâ—aced in Offices of civil Power and Authority and conceit themselves not subject to Ecclesiasticaâ— Jurisdiction because of their being in such Offices and who yet do take this Oath at the entrance into their Offices let them I say soberly and advisedly bethink themselves how consistent an Oath taken for the observance and defence of the Ecclesiastical Jâ—râ—sdiction is with a plain disowning of such Juâ—â—ction as to themselves or impugning of it and bearing themselves disobediently to it or exempting themselves from it in matters which the Law has clearly appropriated to it or in a word to act any thing to the prejudice of the lawful proceedings thereof It is frivolous and vain to alledge that they acknowledge and will submit to this Jurisdiction in the King and yet at the same time deny their submission to the exercise of it by the Bishops This I say is a vain and frivolous Allegation because it is not a notional and speculative acknowledgment that such a Jurisdiction is united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm which only fulfills the impâ—rt of this Oath But it is an obedience in practice by submitting to the lawful exercise of it that is the soope and intendment of it Now the King exercises no judiciary power in His own person but commits it to His Judges the King hath wholly left matters of Judicature according to His Laws to His Judges * Lord Cole 4 Inâ—it p 71. And the Bishops are those Judges to whom the Ecclesiast Jurisdiction is committed and to them the execution thereof belongeth now what is done in deregation of that power and authority derivatively residing in them is done in like manner in deregation of the same power primitively that is as it is originally in and derives from the King Himself I have said thus much concerning this branch of the Oath of Supremacy not that I take upon me to judge any man but because I take it to be my duty to recommend the consideration of this thing as a matter of very weighty concernment and fit to be made with all sobriety and seriousness I sum up all delivered on this first Proposition under this Head That Bishops proceeding by Authority and deriving the actual exercise of their Jurisdiction from the King are the Kings Ecclesiastical Judges dispensing Justice in the Kings Ecclesiastical Courts according to the Kings Ecclesiastical Laws And that the same Jurisdiction reaches to and over all persons whatsoever within their respective Diocesses all which is agreeable to the Ecclesiastical Laws of these Kingdoms and not repugnant to the Temporal Laws thereof nor yet infringing in any kind the Kings Prerogative Royal and therefore the Bishop of Waterford's Jurisdiction in the Case before laid down was legally founded in respect of the persons proceeded against Prob. II. The second Proposition is this The Bishops Jurisdiction over these persons was legally founded in respect of the cause that this proceeding was made upon The cause was the rendring an accompt of Moneys given and received to pious uses and rendring of an accompt of a large Rate levied to the use of the Church as also concerning the Reparation of the Body of the Cathedrall Church at Waterford That the Bishop is the proper competent Judge to exact an accompt of all such Moneys so given and so to be disposed of will not I suppose be denied or if it be denyed the worst of it is 't is but the being put to the proof of it which is no very difficult task and for sureness sake shall by and by be made good And for the Reparation of Churches that the same belongs to Ecclesiastical though the Law be clear for it will yee be made more clear by having those Laws for it produced But before that be entred upon some notice must be taken of what has been alledged and passed roundly from the mouths of many that concern'd them selves much in his matter That by ancient contract the Mayor Sheriffs and Commonalty of Waterford stand obliged to the making good this Reparation whence the Inference it made That all contracts being of civil cognizance therefore the Bishop was no competent Judge of that branch of the cause which was brought before him the same being not cognizable in the Ecolesiastical Court This Allegation at the first hearing seemed mighty fair and plausible insomuch as some persons otherwise no Enemies to Episcopal Jurisdiction were much concerned and startled thereat And when they first heard it they concluded presently that the Bishop had taken a matter in hand which he ought not to have moved a hand towards as not appertaining to his jurisdiction and so has usurped on the Temporal Courts Nay so strangely transported were some that in their heats they did not stick to affirm that the Bishop by doing what he did had incur'd some heavy penalty which they would not abate of an Ace less than a praemunire it self And many and hard and bitter were the cenfures that several open mouths pronounced upon him But causes as well as persons are sometimes prejudged and both were so in this case As a preparative to the clearing and making good that both cause and person were thus prejudged I shall speak something concerning the matter of contract so mainly insisted upon and that which raised the cry as if the Bishop grounded his proceeding on that contract and therein encroached on the Temporal Jurisdiction Let it therefore for the present be supposed That the Bishop did ground his Ecclesiastical proceeding on that contract although indeed the cause was not so laid yet supposing it were the inference that is thence made peradventure is not good as that the doing thereof was an encroachment on the Temporal Jurisdiction Peradventure
in foro externo contentioso in such causes as belong thereto so in the exercise and proceedings made in the same he depends upon the King from whom he derives his a thority and right to exercise In all Appeals made to the King in His Chancery He defers to him as habenti Supremam authoritatem Ecclesiasticam being the chief and Supreme Ordinary and acquiesces in his final and ultimate decisions A little before I mentioned a Grant of King William the Conqueror wherein great scope was given to Episcopal Jurisdiction it is now proper to set down what that was and this Historical account we may take thereof By this King an entire Jurisdiction was assigned to the Bishops by themselves wherein they should have cognizance of all matters and causes relating to Religion It seems by the Ancient Saxon Law the Bishops and Sheriffs jointly kept their Courts together at certain set times of the year in the Conquerors time these two Jurisdictions thus concurring were parted asunder Fullers Church History of Britain Book 3. p. 5. from Eadmer who lived in the time of King Henry the first gives some account hereof * Spelman in Glossar v. Hundredum But I shall set down the same in the words of a late and a learned Writer proper to the occasion he was upon Conquestor porro Forum Ecclesiasticum à Laico distinxit Nam cum antea sub Anglo-Saxonibus singulis mensibus Aldermannus seu Praeses unà cum Episcopo jus dixissent in Curia Centenaria quam Hundredum dicimus mandavit Episcopis Archidiaconis ne deinceps jus dicant in Curia Centenaria sed in loco per Episcopum designando ibique judicent secundum Canones Leges Episcopales contumaces contra corum mandata Excommunicationis sententiâ Brachio Regio parere cogantur cum Praecepto Vicecomitibus Praepositis Regiis dato ne aliquem in jus vocent coram se de iis quae ad Forum Episcopalem spectant Dr. Duck de Authoritate Juris Civilis in Regno Angliae lib. 2. cap. 8. p. 2. sect 26. And in the margent of his Book alledges * Apud quemâ—â— See this Charter more amply and fully declared the same being granted and directed to Rhemigius the first Bâ—shop of Lincoln ib. Coke's Instit p. 4. cap. 54. lib. 2. cap. 6. sect 135. Char. 2. Rich. 2. m. 1. By this it appears how early the exercise of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction by Bishops was on foot in the Kingdom of England and that as it derived it self from the Crown for besides this distinct constituting of an Ecclesiastical Court from the Court of the Tourn even before the separation before spoken of was made yet the Bishops had then the judicial cognizance of Ecclesiastical causes and matters peculiarly reserved to them so it is plainly colligible from the Laws of King Edgar among which this was one Celeberimus autem ex omni Satrapia conventus his quotannis Agitor cui quidem illius Dioceseos Episcopus Aldermannus intersunto quorum alter jura divina alter jura humana populum edoceto Lord Coke on the Statute of Circumspecte Agatis v. Curia Christianitatis I might yet trace Antiquity higher in this point but my reading is too slender and my opportunities too mean that I should think my self able to give a punctual and exact Account thereof Take notice only in brief what the Pen of a learned Writer has set down The British Saxon and Danish Kings did usually with their Clergy or great Council make Ecclesiastical Laws and regulate the external Discipline of the Church within their Dominions Among the Laws of King Edward the Confessor these were two of them one that makes it the office of a King to govern the Church as the Vicar of God another supposes a paramount power in the King over the Ecclesiastical Courts because they were to take cognizance of wrong done in Ecclesiastical Courts Archbishop Bramhall's Vindication of the Church of England c. p. 67. King Edward the Confessor was indeed after the time of King Edgar before mentioned but taking both together and what was done by both thence is shewed that the practice of former Kings was followed by them and that there was an Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction then and before exercised by Bishops which exercise thereof derived from and was regulated by these and other preceding Kings of England That which has been said makes very fair for our purpose and points out to us to take notice of these several observable things 1. That the Exercise of Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical by Bishops in the right constitution thereof in the Kingdom of England had no deperdance on Rome 2. That much of the intermediate practice in this kind degenerated from its first and right institution and until the time of Henry the eighth was a meer usurpation and encreachment on the English Crown 3. That whereas 't is said The Bishops were to judge secundum Canones Leges Episcopales by Canons I understand the Canons of General and Provincial Councils abroad especially the first four General Councils according as was Enacted by the Emperor Justinian Authent collat 9. Novell 131. cap. de Regulis cap. Sancimus igitur And by Leges Episcopales I understand their Home-laws I mean the Ecclesiastical Laws made by the British Saxon and Danish Kings with the Council of their Bishops variety of which may be found by him that will consult Sir Henry Spelman's Councils The body of the Canon Law was not then in being my meaning is it was not so as such The several particulars that the Decrees consist and were made up of were indeed then and long before in being but they were not compiled together till near fourscore years after thisâ—s and that was done by Gratian the Monk in the year as some say for there is much difference in the computation of this time 11 49. Ridley's view c. p. 74. And by Eugenius the third allowed to be read in the Schools * Of Greg. 9. set forth Anno 1230. The Decret in sexto Anno 1297. The Clementines of Clent 5 set forth Anno 1317. And not long after were extant the Extravagan's of John the 22d and other Popes and to be alledged for Law And for the Decretals c. Clementines and Extravagants they came in successively along while after Here by the way is seen the vanity and wildness of some mens fancies that by all means will have Bishops Courts to be of Popâ—sh extraction and that both in their Erection and Constitution they receive influence and authority from the Romish Consittory Than which nothing is more untrue in its self and unhist or ical as to the right deducing the primitive Institution hereof not to speak of the Eastern Churches even in the Kingdom of England it self 4. This is also hence observable That the present course commanded and observed by the Bishops in the Exercise of this Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction suits nearly with
the ancient state thereof and is so far from damnifying the Prerogative Royal that it mainly asserts and vindicates the same It might perhaps be doubted That different Jurisdictions in one Kingdom and those exercised by persons of different professions though deriving from one Supreme Head would rather cause than prevent many inconveniencies and those inconveniencies so bad in their nature as to detract from rather than adde to the Supreme Magistrates Dignity and Prerogative as namely by introducing confusion and disorder in the management of both and in the causes and matters to be managed in them and occasioning continual jealousies and distastes betwixt the persons appointed to manage them observed by my Lord Bacon's Advancement of Learning Aphor. 96. But in truth no such ill Effects do follow hereupon for distinct Jurisdictions exercised by persons of several orders and professions in these Kingdoms and vested with authority from the Supreme Magistrates so to do though juridical proceedings therein be different from the ordinary form and prescribed coursel of the Common Law argues unplenitude not a defect of power an advancing of it not derogating from it in that Supreme Magistrate granting the same his great wisdom and prudence in a determinate stating the nature and bounds of each Jurisdiction the appropriating certain causes to be heard and determined in them respectively commanding all His Subjects to give due obedience thereunto in such causes as are limited to those Courts and which any Subject may be concerned in And as both derive from soito depend upon him in an equal poise as to the Authority belonging to each so that all the supposed inconveniencies are sufficiently provided against And the ordering all these things in this set manner is an effect of the Kings high Prerogative enabling him so to do and is both by Custom and Law among us allowed of * The King is the indifferent Arbitrator in all Jurisdictions as well Spiritual as Temporal and it is a Right of His Crown to distribute to them that is to declare their bounds Lord Hobbarts Reports Dr. Jame 's Case observe with me these following instances The Kings Majesty is plyased to confirm a peculiar Jurisdiction granted by His Royal Progenitors to the two Universities of Cambridge and Oxford The Chancellor of each University or his Commissary administer Justice according to the Civil Law and the Customs and Statutes of the University where the persons at variance together are Students or one of them at least is such insomuch as in personal Actions for Debt matters of Accounts or any Contracts made within their own Precincts and in some criminal matters likewise none of them may be called to Westminster Hall but the cognizance thereof belongs to the Chancellor of the said University or his Commissary as is before said If any Appeals be made from Sentences given in any such Trials they are first interposed to the Regents last of all to the Kings Majesty himself Cowell Interp. in verbo Privilege Dr. Duck ut supra sect 30. Will any man now say That the Exercise of this power is intrenching on the Kings Prerogative because His great Courts at Westminster are not applied to and a Jurisdiction distinct from and independent upon them is exercised Surely no because the Exercise of this power is granted by Royal Charter it proceeds from it depends upon it is done in an acknowledgment of the Kings Supreme Power and Prerogative There is a Court of great Dignity and Honour called the Court of the Constable and Earl Marshal of England Herein are determined all Contracts touching Deeds of Arms out of the Realm as Combats Blazons of Armory and the right of bearing Arms c. proper to particular Families the manner of proceeding in this Court is according to the form of the Civil Law * L. Coke Jurisdiction of Courts ca. 17. the use and authority of which is of great sway herein Appeals that are interposed from any definitive sentence in this Court are brought to the Kings Majesty Himself not to His Chancellor the municipal Law is altogether secluded from hence Justice is administred Delinquents are punished without any relation to that or the Judges thereof yet the Kings Prerogative is not infringed by the exercise of this Jurisdiction because it is derived from the King I might add here the Court of the Admiralty the peculiar Jurisdiction exercised within the Cinque Ports by the Lord Warden thereof In these Courts matters both civil and criminal are tryed according to the course prescribed by the civil Law but in the following Leafs I shall have occasion more distinctly to write something relating to these matters and respectively to these two Courts Now as it is in these different Jurisdictions they derive from the King His Subjects are bound by command from Him to obey the Authority thereof if they refuse to obey by poenal coercions proper to each they may be compelled to it yet still the Royal Prerogative is not any whit diminished nor the Rights of the Crown at all impaired hereby As it is thus I say in the distinct Jurisdictions so it is in the exercise of Episcopal Jurisdiction in the Ecclesiastical Courts And now I have uttered thus much I perceive my self beginning to walk on a narrow slippery ridge where a steep precipice is on each side The danger of falling on one hand is least I abase the Prerogative so low as to subject the King in Ecclesiastical causes and matters under the Resolves and Decisions of Classical Assemblies * Huic Disciplinae omnes orhis principes Monarchas fasers suos submittere parere necesse est Travers Disciplin Ecclesiast p. 142 143. Bishop White in his Preface to his Treatise concerning the Sabbath as the Presbyterians do or bring Him in subordination to the Bishop of Rome as the Papists do The danger on the other hand is the over-exalting of the Prerogative so that it might be thought we attribute to the King as sometimes the Papists object to us a power to exercise Sacerdotal Offices in the Church to inflict censures * And yet our Law attributes much in this particular and that very highly to the King Reges Sacro olco unctâ— spiritualis Jurisdictionâ—s sunt capaces 33 Edw. 3. Ayde de Roy. 107. Coke Cawdrie's case p. 16. c. Now to walk even and steddy betwixt these two dangerous downfalls is that which must be endeavoured and therefore whereas we own and solemnly recognize the Kings Supremacy in Ecclesiastical matters and causes it is to be understood according to the sense and meaning set down in the words of the 37th Article of the Church of England and also in the Article of the Church of Ireland concerning civil Magistrates The Kings Majesty hath the chief Government of all Estates Ecclesiastical and Civil within His Dominions see Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions set forth in the first year of Her Reign Now this Supremacy keeps the King above all