Land c. 43. and therefore the Feudists say That Felony is delictum Vasalli adversus Dominum From the Gothick Fell or Fehl which signifies in general a Fault And in this Case the Breach of Trust towards his Lord Of which sort of Felonies the Feudists reckon up some twenty some thirty any one of which makes a Forfeifeiture So that here is no such mighty Difference that the poor Clergymen must only have Conditional and Attendant Freeholds as though other Men's were Absolute whereas Sir Thomas Smith affirms all in England are Fiduciary i. e. Conditional Freeholders beside the King. It is easie enough for any one to frame such a Distinction of Freeholds and to say That these who have but such a Freehold may be ejected without any Trial at Common Law But he ought to have shewed That Magna Charta or the Ancient Laws made such a Difference between Ecclesiastical Freeholds and others which he hath not preended to do and therefore such a Distinction ought not to be allowed especially since I have produced an Act of Parliament 14 Edward 3. c. 3. which saith That Clergymen shall not be ejected out of their Temporalties without a True and Just Cause according to the Law of the Land This was none of those Statutes which are in Print but never enrolled for Sir Robert Cotton owns the enrolment of it and that it was made into a Statute and Mr. Pryn himself had nothing to object against it But now it seems their Conditional Freholds may be taken from them without any due Course of Law. II. There is more to be said concerning the Rights of Ecclesiastical Persons in Colledges because they are Lay Corporations For in Appleford's Case it was declared to be the Opinion of all the Judges in Pattrick 's Case That a Colledge was a Temporal Corporation And therefore some notable Difference in Point of Law must be shewed Why Men may be deprived of some Freeholds without due Course of Law and not of others for I cannot imagine That Colledges being founded for the encouragement of Learning should lay Men more open to Arbitrary Proceedings than any other Legal Societies are However Deprivation in Coveney's Case was agreed to be a Temporal Thing and for that Reason his Appeal was rejected as not relating to a Matter of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction which was only provided for 24. and 25. Henr. 8. But it was allowed That he might bring an Action at Common Law. Our Author several times mentions this Case but puts it off till he comes to Treat of Appeals i. e. to the Place he knew it to be improper in For the Question is not Whether an Appeal doth lie to the King in Chancery in a Case of Deprivation but Whether there be not a Remedy at Common Law if a Person be deprived of a Free-hold without due form of Law And after a great deal of Impertinency about the manner of Appeals he at last concludes The Remedy had been at Common Law only which is clear giving up the Point For then in case a Person be deprived without due course of Law of his Free-hold he grants that he is to have his Remedy at Law and consequently that a Deprivation of such a Free-hold without due Course of Law is not sufficient For the Law provides no Remedy where there is no Injury done nor just Cause to seek for Redress And so I come to the second Objection which is this 2. That to deny the Jurisdiction of this Court is to deny the King's Supremacy and that is a dangerous thing by the Law. The Case was this Dr. F. of Magdalen College in Oxford being summoned before the Commissioners denied the Authority of the Court and persisted in so doing which our Author saith in another Kings Reign perhaps might have been interpreted a Questioning the very Supremacy it self which how fatal it was to John Fisher Bishop of Rochester and Sir Thomas Moor is worthy to be considered both as a Demonstration of our Kings Clemency and that the Doctor hath not so much reason to complain of his hard Usage The Meaning whereof is this That if they had proceeded in Justice against him he ought to have suffered as Bishop Fisher and Sir Thomas Moor did This is more than a bare Insinuation That to deny the Jurisdiction of this Court is to deny the Kings Supremacy and that it is meer Clemency not to deal by them who do it as H. 8. did by Bishop Fisher and Sir Thomas Moor. But 1. It is by no means evident That those two Persons suffered meerly on that Account For their Attainder in Parliament was for refusing the Oath of Succession and King James I. mentions the Words of Sir Thomas Moor to that purpose which he spake to the Lords when he was condemned And their Attainder if I mistake not was in the same Parliament which made it Treason to deprive the King of his Dignity Title or Name of his Royal Estate and therefore could not be by an Act not then passed But 2. Suppose that they were at last proceeded against on the Act then passed what is this to the present Case when Coke saith This Act was twice Repealed And it is no extraordinary Clemency not to be proceeded against by a Law that hath no force 3. The Statute in Force 5 Eliz. c. 1. is against those who defend or maintain the Authority Jurisdiction or Power of the Bishop of Rome or of his See heretofore claimed used or usurped within this Realm or by any Speech open Deed or Act advisedly wittingly attribute any such manner of Jurisdiction Authority or Preheminence to the said See of Rome or any Bishop of the same for the time being within this Realm So that it cannot be denied that there is occasion for his Majesties Clemency but it is to another sort of Men. 4. It is very hard straining to make the denying the Jurisdiction of this Court to be denying the Kings Supremacy when a Person hath done all which the Law requires him to do towards owning the Supremacy If he had said Dr. F. had taken Possession of his Fellowship there without taking the Oath of Supremacy which the Law requires he had then indeed given ground to suspect him for denying the Kings Supremacy but to take no notice of those who refused to do as the Law requires and to talk thus of what Severity might be used to one that hath done it looks in him neither like Clemency nor Justice 5. It was always looked on as a Legal Right to make Exception to the Jurisdiction of a Court especially when newly established without Act of Parliament and to any ordinary Understanding in flat Contradiction to it It is very new Doctrine that in a Legal Government Exceptio Fori shall be interpreted a Denial of supreme Authority which was not only allowed by the Canon and Civil Laws but by the most Ancient Common Lawyers we have
Principum suorum confirmavit saith the Textus Roffensis He likewise confirmed Charters as the Saxons had done that to Battel Abby was Consilio Episcoporum Baronum meorum But the most considerable thing he did as to Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction was separating the Courts Ecclesiastical from the Hundred Courts by his Charter to Remigius and others which he saith was granted in a great Council and by the Advice of the Archbishops Bishops and all the Great Men of his Kingdom So that still extraordinary Acts relating to Church Matters were passed in Parliament by General consent And what now doth the Appropriation of a Church with a Cure of Souls signifie to prove his Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction When those things in his Time were not brought under such strict Rules as they were afterwards but Appropriation might have been made by any Lay Person that never pretended to the least Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and he might as well have brought his demolishing so many Churches in the New Forest for an Instance of his Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction In the Reign of William the Second In William Rufus his time a great Heat arose between him and Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury about owning the Pope Whether the Archbishop could do it without the King's Consent the Business was referred to Parliament which the King called on purpose at Rockingham saith Eadmerus who was there present The Bishops declared they could not deprive him as the King would have had them to whom they had promised Obedience After which it was again referred to Parliament but Anselm not yielding he went out of the Land. In the Reign of King Henry the First In the Reign of Henry the First a new Controversie arose between the King and the same Archbishop about the Ancient Right of the Crown as to Investiture of Bishops the King calls a Parliament about it wherein the Bishops and Lords joyned with the King afterwards Anselm desired The Advice of the Bishops and Nobles might be heard at Easter which shews that both Sides referred it to the Parliament In his Time a Council was called and several Canons passed and the Archbishop desired of the King That the Primates Regni might sit with them that all things might pass utriusque Ordinis concordi cura with the Consent of both Estates The King afterwards takes the Advantage of these Canons and prosecutes the Breakers of them and raises Money upon Pretence of Forfeitures to the great Grievance of the Clergy Anselm although then in Disfavour writes to the King about it and tells him This was a new Method of Proceeding because it belonged to the Bishops in their Diocesses to call the Clergy to an Account or if they neglected to the Archbishop and Primate The King Answers That his Barons were to meet him on Ascension-day and by their Advice he would give an Answer but upon Anselms Return this Prosecution ceased Other Affairs of the Church were then referred to the Parliament at Easter from thence to Pentecost and by reason of Anselm's Sickness to August and then the Bishops Abbots and Lords of the Kingdom met in the King's Palace at London and by Consent of Parliament Investiture was turned into Homage In his time the Bishoprick of Ely was erected by the King's Consent in Parliament Regi Archiepiscopo caeterisque Principibus Regni visum fuit saith Eadmerus The Consecration of an elect Archbishop of York was transacted in Parliament the King advising with the Bishops and Nobles about it for Anselm before his Death had sent an Inhibition to the Bishops Not to consecrate him unless he made the Profession of Obedience to the Archbishop of Canterbury The Bishops resolved to adhere to Anselm's Inhibition and the King yielded After Anselm's Death the King advised with his Parliament at Windsor about a Successor to him and the Bishop of Rochester at the Request of the Bishops was agreed upon And the King filled the Abbies before he went into Normandy consisto Principum Episcoporum suorum In the latter End of Henry the First many Disputes hapned about Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction as between the Bishops of S. Davids and Glamorgan which were debated in magno Placito apud London saith Henry of Huntingdon And for such Causes saith he another Assembly was held in the beginning of Lent and again in Rogation Week In all this time when the Norman Kings asserted all the Rights of Sovereignty with great Zeal yet they never pretended to appoint any Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes but still referred them to Parliaments In the Reign of King Henry the Third The next Instance the Lord Coke brings falls as low as the Time of Henry the Third The first whereof is the King 's granting a Writ of Prohibition if any man sued in the Ecclesiastical Court for any thing of which by Allowance and Custom it had not lawful Cognizance But how doth the King's Power of granting Prohibitions prove his Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction It effectually proves the King 's Right to preserve his Crown and Dignity as the Prohibition implies but how doth it hence appear that the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction comes from his Crown and Dignity The contrary seems rather to follow viz. That the Ecclesiastical Courts were held from another Power but all Matters of Temporal Cognizance did belong to the Crown There is no Question but since the Acts for restoring Jurisdiction to the Crown the supream Jurisdsction both in the Ecclesiastical and Civil Courts is derived from the Crown And in whose-soever Names the Courts are kept the Authority of keeping them is from the King. For it is declared by Act of Parliament 1 Eliz. 1. 17. That all Ecclesiastical Power is united and annexed to the Imperial Crown of this Realm which all Bishops do own in taking the Oath of Supremacy and therefore the old Form continuing can signifie nothing against the Law of this Realm and their own Oaths But as long as the main Points were secured by the Laws there was no necessity apprehended of altering the Forms for on the other side it was objected that since the Laws had placed all Jurisdiction in the Crown it seemed as unreasonable to continue the old Form of Prohibitions in laesionem Coronae Dignitatis Regiae how can this be say they when the Jurisdiction Ecclesiastical as well as Civil is owned to be from the Crown It is said in Answer That a Prohibition implies that the thing is drawn into aliud Examen than it ought to be and this is contra Coronam Dignitatem Regiam Why not then as well when an Ecclesiastical original Cause is brought into a Temporal Court for that is aliud Examen then by Confession on that side and if Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction be derived from the Crown the aliud Examen must relate only to the Court and not to the Crown All that I infer from hence is that the old Forms were thought fit to be continued both Parties reconciled them as well
as they could to the Laws in force But the Judges confessed That although de jure both the Jurisdictions were ever in the Crown yet the one was sometimes usurped by the See of Rome which is a plain acknowledgment that by the Matters of Fact in those times the Right could not be proved and especially in the times of H. 3. when the Popes Usurpations here were at so great a height that the King upon Writs of Enquiry sent into the several Counties found That the Revenues of the Roman Court by Provisions Extortions c. exceeded the Kings And the King had so little Authority left that the Pope put Bishops upon him Rege penitus irrequisito saith Matt. Westm. so that he was so far from Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction that he had not the Nomination of his Bishops nor so much as a Consent to their Election unless the Pope thought fit sometimes to gratifie him in it For the Pope pretended to the Right of Disposal of Church Preferments by Vertue of his Ordinary Jurisdiction which was said to be twofold 1. Voluntary in the Collation of Benefices 2. Judicial in the hearing of Causes the former might be done at Rome but the other in the Ordinary Ecclesiastical Courts And Bracton who was a Judge in his time owns the Pope as much to have the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction as the King had the Temporal but yet he adds That if an Ecclesiastical Judge did meddle with Matters out of their Cognizance the King's Prohibition did lye against him and he ought to supersede his Proceedings till it were tryed in the King's Court to whom the Jurisdiction belonged But it is still harder to prove the King's Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction because the Spiritual Courts were to certifie the Kings Courts in case of Bigamy Bastardy and such like For the Question is not about their Temporal Subjection to the King in signifying the Sentence of the Court but whence they derived their Authority of holding the Ecclesi astical Courts over which Bracton saith the Pope had the ordinary Jurisdiction the Power to delegate others to execute it What doth it signifie to the Kings Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction that the Barons of England would not receive that part of the Canon Law which concerned the Legitimation of Children born before Wedlock For it depended upon the Barons Consent Whether a Canon of the Church should be made the Law of the Land concerning the Rights of Inheritance In the Reign of King Edward I. In the Time of Ed. I. we may expect some brisker Sallies towards the Kingdoms Deliverance from the Popes Usurpations which were thought so intolerable even by the Monkish Historians in his Fathers Reign What that Bull was the bringing whereof the Law-Books say was then adjudged Treason it would have been worth our while to have known For it is hard to imagine that at that time the meer bringing a Bull should be so Capital a Crime when so many were brought without danger both before and after But it seems by the Certificate of the Judges concerning it still in the Tower the Matter of it was very prejudicial to the Crown And it argues no Spiritual Jurisdiction for Princes to examine and refuse when they see cause Bulls that come from Rome For this is practised in those Countries which profess Obedience to the Popes Jurisdiction Covarruvias affirms it of Spain In Portugal when John the Second would have given up that Right to the Pope the Estates of the Kingdom would not permit him Peter the Second Duke of Britain forbad receiving any Bull before Examination by his Council under pain of Corporal Punishments and Confiscation of Goods Ant. Faber saith in Savoy No Bulls have Authority there till they are approved by the Senate and an Appeal lies from them tanquam ab Abusu Even in Naples it self Ferdinand the Catholick King gave a severe Reprimand to his Vice-Roy for not hanging up a Person who would have executed a Bull without his Authority The Letter it self is Published in the Jus Belgarum where many other things may be seen to the same purpose The Right of Patronage is a Civil Right in Princes as well as others and therefore E. 1. Without pretending to Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction might justly punish the Archbishop of York for his obstinate refusing to admit the Kings Clerk because of a Papal Provision The Statute of Bigamy might very well be interpreted in Parliament and yet the King have no Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction For it was no more than declaring in what sense a Law should be taken i. e. Whether it should extend to Bigamy before the Constitution of the Council of Lyons or after The Act of Parliament made at Carlisle 35 E. 1. against Aliens possessing Benefices is no more than hath been done in Countries where the Popes Jurisdiction is the most owned As in Spain Covarruvias saith They have Prescription and Pragmatical Sanctions against Aliens possessing Benefices The Laws of Poland and many Edicts in France exclude Strangers But I shall now produce some considerable Precedents in the time of Ed. 1. to shew that the Proceedings against the Arch-Bishops and Bishops for Misdemeanors or Contempts was in Parliament and not by Commissioners the inferior Clergy being left to the Jurisdiction of their Ordinaries 3 Ed. 1. E. Warren complained to the King That the Archbishop of Canterbury had contemned his Orders in not taking off Excommunication from some of his Servants The King sends to him to proceed no further against the Earl or his Servants usque ad Parliamentum where the Matter of Contempt might be debated But in the mean time the Archbishop sends to the King a true Account of the Matter and how far he was from Contempt which is still extant in the Records of the Tower. 7 E. 1. John Peckam Archbishop of Canterbury was summoned to Parliament to answer to a Charge of Misdemeanors against him for some Passages in the Council at Reading which he was fain to revoke and to declare that no Articles there passed should create any Prejudice to the Crown or Kingdom 8 E. 1. The Archbishop went about to Visit the Kings Free Chappels The King hearing of it sent a Writ to him to forbear usque ad proximum Parliamentum ut tunc ex unamini mutuo consensu provideamus quid fieri debeat in Praemissis 21 E. 1. John Roman Archbishop of York was Attached upon a Contempt for Excommunicating the Bishop of Durham while he was in the King's Service And after a full hearing in pleno Parliamento he was condemned and upon Submission was Fined to the King sour thousand Marks 28 E. 1. A Controversie arose between the King and the Bishop of Chichester about his refusing to admit a Person Presented to a Prebend in the Free Chappel of Hastings the King sends his Writ to the Warden of Cinque-Ports extant in the Tower among the Writs of that Time to enquire into this Matter
Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction are either such as other Princes have an equal Right to or else they must imply such proper Eclesiastical Jurisdiction as follows the Power of Order and then how can the Pope give the one without the other Such a Gift is like an Appropriation of a Benefice with a Cure to a Nunnery which the Lord Hobart saith is void in Law by reason of the incapacity of the Persons But the Supremacy which our Law gives is not any proper immediate spiritual Jurisdiction like that of Bishops but an Authoritative and Legislative Supremacy without any foreign Appeals as will appear afterwards But the Rights which the Kings of Sicily challenge are these 1. That they have the same Powers which Legates a Latere have and may judge of the same Causes and proceed in the same manner with Ecclesiastical Censures 2. That no Appeal lies from the King's Commissioner even to Rome it self and it is common to appeal from the Censure of the Bishop to him The former is a Power which our Kings never pretended to by vertue of their Supremacy for it is a Delegation of the Power of the Keys which the Legates à Latere exercise by vertue of their Function as well as their Commission But the Legal Supremacy with us is a Right to govern all sorts of Men by our own Laws without any foreign Jurisdiction and that with respect to Ecclesiastical Matters as well as Temporal But to prevent Mistakes and Cavils about this Matter it will be necessary to clear the Notion of Supremacy as it hath been owned and received in the Church of England And for this we have two Authentic Declarations of it to rely upon The first is mentioned 5 Eliz. c. 1. § 14. Where the Supremacy is declared to be taken and expounded in such form as is set forth in the Admonition annexed to the Queens Injunctions published in the first year of her Reign And the Words there are That the Queen neither doth nor will challenge any Authority but such as was of ancient time due to the Imperial Crown of this Realm that is under God to have the Sovereignty and Rule over all manner of Persons born within these her Realms Dominions and Countries of what Estates either Ecclesiastical or Temporal soever they be so as no other foreign Power shall or ought to have any superiority over them The Second is in the 37th Article wherein it is declared That by the Supremacy is meant that only Prerogative which we see to have been always given to all Godly Princes in Holy Scriptures by God himself that is that they should rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their Charge by God whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal and restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and evil doers So that granting a Commission for proceeding by Ecclesiastical Censures is no part of that Supremacy which our Church owns And thus the Divines of our Church have understood it By the Supremacy saith Bishop Andrews we do not attribute to the King the Power of the Keys or Ecclesiastical Censures R. Thompson in his Desence against Becanus saith The Supremacy is not to be defined by Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction but by Supream Government Becanus urged this as an Argument against the Kings Supremacy That he had no Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Dr. Burrhil answered That the Supremacy implied many other things as the Power of calling Convocations of confirming Canons of giving Commissions of Delegates of taking Cognizance of the Misdemeanors of Church-men as well as others but for proper Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction he denies it to belong to Supremacy And after asserts That the King's Supremacy is preserved if he takes care that those who have the Power of Ecclesiastical Censures do exercise them and not as though it belonged to the Supremacy to give an immediate Power to proceed by Ecclesiastical Censures which was not supposed to belong to it but a supreme Right of governing all sorts of Persons by our Laws The King's Supremacy in Ecclesiastical Matters doth not saith Mason imply the Power of the Keys which the King hath not but he may command those who have them to use them rightly All these wrote in King James I. his Reign when the Point of Supremacy was throughly sifted on both sides And the King himself who very well understood these Matters saith That the Oath of Supremacy only extended to the King's Power of Judicature over all Persons as well Civil as Ecclesiastical excluding all foreign Powers and Potentates to be Judges within his Dominions Not as though the King hereby challenged to himself a Power of inflicting Ecclesiastical Censures on Persons but leaving the Spiritual Jurisdiction to those who have the Power of the Keys it belonged to him to exercise his Supreme Authority over Ecclesiastical Persons and Causes as he did over Temporal For saith Archbishop Bramhal our Laws never invested the King with any Spiritual Power or Jurisdiction witness the Injunctions of Q. Eliz. witness the Publick Articles of Our Church witness the Professions of King James witness all our Statutes themselves The King of England saith he by the Fundamental Constitution of the Monarchy hath plenary Power without the Licence or Help or Concurrence of any Foreign Prelate or Potentate to render final Justice that is to receive the last Appeals of his own Subjects without any Fear of any Review from Rome or at Rome for all Matters Ecclesiastical and Temporal Ecclesiastical by his Bishops Temporal by his Judges And thus our Laws were in the Right when they called the Act of Supremacy Restoring the Rights of the Crown for if we take away all the Papal Usurpations as to Appeals Exemptions of Persons Dispensations Provisions making Canons sending Legates to hold Courts to call Convocations c. we may easily understand what the Supremacy is viz. a Power of Governing all Sorts of Men according to the Laws Ecclesiastical and Temporal without any Foreign Jurisdiction But as in Temporal Matters the King 's Supreme Authority is exercised in his Ordinary Courts so likewise in Ecclesiastical Which deriving their Jurisdiction from the King as Supreme his Supremacy is preserved in the ordinary Ecclesiastical Courts but as to extraordinary Jurisdiction that deper ds on the Legislative Power And whether that be not now taken away by it is the thing in Question Having endeavoured to set this Matter in as clear a Light as I could I now return to the Instance of Edward the Confessor And those Words of his as they are in Hoveden signifie no more than a General Right of Protecting and Defending the Church which is not denied to belong to Kings where the Pope's Authority is the most owned I cannot but take notice of a different Reading in the Lord Cokes Copy from all that I have seen for where he hath it Sanctam Ecclesiam regat defendat Lambard veneretur regâ—t but Hoveden revereatur ab
and to bring an Account next Parliament ad quod praedictum Episcopum adjornavimus are the Words of the Writ And that the Business was heard in Parliament appears by the Records 31 E 1. The King seized on the Temporalities of the Bishop of Durham upon a Judgment given against him in Parliament for extending his Spiritual Jurisdiction too far as appears by the Record of the Concord made between the King and him In the Reign of King Edward the Second In the Reign of K. E. 2. nothing is produced but the Statute 9 E. 2. for Regulating the Proceedings between the Civil and Ecclesiastical Courts But how the Kings Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction is proved hereby is hard to understand It appears indeed that the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction is allowed and limited by Parliament But from hence saith he it follows that these Laws may be called the Kings Eccclesiastical Laws or the Ecclesiastical Laws of England There is no question but they may But there is a Difference between Laws so called by Acceptation and Allowance and such as have their whole Force and Authority from the King. For otherwise where the Popes Jurisdiction is owned and received the Pope must receive his Authority from the King. But a Liberty to exercise Authority and deriving Authority are two Things In the Reign of King Edward the Third In the Time of E. 3. many things are alledged and to more purpose but yet a short Answer will serve If the first Instance doth hold viz. That the Sentence of Excommunication by the Archbishop holds against the Sentence of the Pope or his Legate it only proves that the Eccesiastical Jurisdiction here by Law is in the Archbishop and not in the Pope or his Legate But there may be another Reason mentioned by Fitz Herbert viz. That the Certificate of the Archbishop might be more Authentick than the Seal of a Legate The second sixth and eighth only prove the King Supreme Patron and a Right of Patronage is distinct from a Right of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and so it was resolved in Grendon's Case Pl. f. 498. That the King presents by Lapse as Supreme Patron and not as Supreme Ordinary For this belongs to him as King the Land on which Churches are built being originally held of him And this Right the King enjoyed when the Pope was owned to be Supreme Ordinary But in the Case of his own free Chapels Fitz-Herbert saith right That in Case of Lapse by the Dean the King presents as Ordinary the Archbishop and Bishop having no Authority there as Ordinaries The third fourth and fifth are about Exemptions from Episcopal Jurisdictions granted by the King especially in his own free Chapels which are only visitable by Commission from the King. But this very Pretence of Exemptions from Episcopal Jurisdiction was founded upon the Belief of the Pope's being Supreme Ordinary for exempt Places were not supposed to be free from all Ordinary Jurisdiction but from that of Inferior Ordinaries being immediately subject to the Pope A Bishop by the Canon Law may grant an Exemption from his Right of Jurisdiction but not from his Right of Visitation but the Pope from both And in the Grant of Exemption the immediate Subjection to the Roman See is expressed As to the King 's free Chapels their Exemption was by an express Bull of Innocent III to King John and in the Case of the free Chapels of S. Martins Henry III granted a Prohibition wherein it is inserted That it was a free Chapel ab omni Jurisdictione Episcopali per Sedem Apostolicam exempta And 45 Hen. 3. in a Prohibition concerning the free Chapel of Wolverhampton the Grant of Innocent III is repeated The Right to extra-parochial Tithes is Provisional and not by way of Inheritance and so it may belong to the King although he have no Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction As to the severe Proceeding about Bulls from Rome I have given an Account of that already in E. 1. The anointing of Kings proves no more their Capacity of Spiritual Jurisdiction than it proves the Kings of Israel to have been High Priests There is no doubt the Ecclesiastical Courts may be limited by the Laws of the Land and there are some Causes which belong to them not originally of a Spiritual Nature but they have been a long time possessed of them by Custom and are allowed by Law which is well expressed in 24 Hen. 8. c. 12. where it is said That all Causes Testamentary Causes of Matrimony and Divorces Rights of Tithes Oblations and Obventions the Knowledge whereof by the Goodness of Princes of this Realm and by the Laws and Customs of the same appertaineth to the Spiritual Jurisdiction of this Realm shall be determined within the Kings Jurisdiction and Authority It doth not seem probable That the King by his own Authority would remove Secular Canons and put in Regular when Hoveden saith in the same Case H. 2. did it by the Pope's Authority and with the free Consent of the Parties The Statutes of Provisors were excellent Statutes but are said to be enacted for the Good and Tranquility of the Realm which no doubt the King and his Parliament were bound to take care of But they prove no more Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction than the Pragmatick Sanctions of Lewis IX and Charles VII in France did which were of the same nature The following Instances in other Reigns are many of them of the same kind with those already answered but what seems to have any new Force shall be considered In the Reign of King Henry the Fourth 2 H. 4. c. 15. is urged to prove That the King by consent of his Parliament did direct the Proceedings of the Spiritual Courts in Cases of Heresie and other Matters more Spiritual but it is evident by the Act it self That the Spiritual Jurisdiction was left wholly to the Ordinaries and only an Inforcement of it by the Civil Power was added by the Law then made for the Words are Whereas the Diocesans of the said Realm cannot by their Jurisdiction Spiritual without Aid of the said Royal Majesty sufficiently correct c. Therefore a Power to Imprison and Fine was given to the Ordinaries who might before have proceeded by Ecclesiastical Censures but these being contemned by them the Ordinaries called in the Assistance of the Civil Power If there had been a Power before to have proceeded against Hereticks by Common Law when convict by their Ordinaries I cannot see any Reason why that Law should be made In case of Apostacy i. e. Renouncing Christianity Bracton saith The Person convict is to be burned and he instanceth in the Deacon who turned Jew in the Council of Oxford And Fleta speaks only of Apostates whether Clerks or others and those are the Miscreants in Briton and in Horn Heresie was then the same with renouncing Baptism or turning Jew or Turk or using Sorcery but after Wickliff's Time the Ordinaries inlarged the Notion of Heresie and took
own Contracts no man could trust them and consequently all Society with them would be dissolved And whatever Supreme Power may do as to such Acts as are properly its own yet where there is Jus quaesitum alteri as in all Contracts there is that cannot be taken away by it But all this was answered on the other side by the Plenitude of the Popes Power for it was a Contradiction they said to own that and to say That there was any Engagement by Oath or otherwise which he could not Dispense with For as Hank 11 H. 4. 37. says Papa omnia potest And therefore all such Oaths and Promises as limit the Popes Dispensing Power are void in themselves And as to Ecclesiastical Laws or Constitutions they easily resolved all Difficulties about them upon such Principles as these 1. That the Popes have the supreme Power in the Church 2. That the Ecclesiastical Laws were the Popes Laws 3. That it is an inseparable Prerogative in the Pope to Dispense with Ecclesiastical Laws upon Necessity and urgent Occasions 4. That the Pope is the sole Judge of that Necessity 5. That this was not a Trust given to the Pope by Councils or Conclaves but by God and St. Peter and therefore cannot be taken away from her But I shall endeavour to give a clearer Light into this Matter by shewing the several Steps and Degrees how this Dispensing Power came into the World and how it passed from the Ecclesiastical to other Laws when Princes assumed such a Plenitude of Power in Civils which the Popes practised in Ecclesiasticals The first time we read of Dispensations was with respect to the Ancient Canons of the Church and it implied a Relaxation of the Rigour of them not with respect to their Force or binding Power but as to the Penance which Persons were to undergo for the Violation of them And herein the Notion of Dispensing was very different from what the Canonists made it afterwards when they declared it to be a Relaxation of the Law it self so that it should not have that Force upon the Conscience which it otherwise had For a Dispensation with them is a Licence to do that which they cannot lawfully do without it and that with a non-obstante to that which otherwise makes it Unlawful De Jure illicitum fit ex Dispensatione licitum hic est proprie effectus Dispensationis saith Pyrrhus Corradus who gives a large Account of the Practice of Dispensations in the Court of Rome which conclude with a non-obstante to any former Constitutions or Canons of Councils But no such thing can be found in the Ancient Practice of the Church because the Popes themselves were then believed to be under the Canons But when it was supposed That the severe Execution of the Canons would rather hinder than advance the Good of the Church the Governours of it thought they had sufficient Authority to abate the Rigorous Execution of them As about the Times of Penance the Translation of Bishops from one See to another the Intervals of Orders and such like But the Popes then pretended to be strict Observers of the Canons when the particular Bishops took upon them to Dispense with the Execution of them as appears by Ivo's Preface to his Collection of Canons where he distinguisheth the Immoveable or Moral Precepts from the Canonical which he calls Moveable In the former saith he no Dispensation is to be allowed But in those things which only concern Discipline the Bishops may Dispense provided there be a Compensation i. e. That the Church's Interest may be better secured or advanced thereby as he there discourses at large And his Rule is Ibi Dispensatio admittenda est ubi rigor periculosus est But by this means the Severity of the Primitive Discipline was quite lost The Bishops of Rome observing this thought it a proper time for them to appear zealous for the Ancient Canons which gained them a great Reputation in the World and by this means the Custody of the Canons was looked on as their particular Province Which they improved so well that at last they turned the Guardianship of the Canons into a Power over them and then they found Fault with the Bishops Dispensing with them for another Reason viz. Because the Dispensing Power was a Prerogative of the Roman See and Inferior Bishops could act no farther in it than they had Authority from it We find that in S. Bernard's time the Pope did take upon him to Dispense too far to his great Dissatisfaction for by his Dispensing Power he saith he overthrew the Order of the Church Murmur loquor saith he querimoniam Ecclesiarum The Pope dispensed with the Ecclesiastical Laws in Exemptions of Abbots and others from that Subordination they stood in to their proper Superiors He saith He could not see how this Dispensing Power could be justified You do indeed shew a plenitude of Power but it may be not of Justice you shew what you can do but it is a Question whether you ought or not and you ought to consider First Whether it be lawful then whether it be decent and lastly whether it be expedient At last he allows a Dispensing Power in two Cases Urgent Necessity and Common Good otherwise he saith It is not fidelis Dispensatio sed crudelis Dissipatio an overthrow of all Order and Government In one of his Epistles he speaks sharply against getting a Dispensation to do that which it was not lawful to do without one And he thinks he hath disproved it by invincible Reason For a Licence from the Pope can never make that Lawful which without it were Unlawful When the Practice of the Dispensing Power grew more common there were two great Questions raised concerning it Whether if a Dispensation were granted without Just Cause it were Lawful or not And Whether if it were not Lawful yet it was valid There were some who flattered the Dispensing Power so much that they allowed it in all Cases whether there were a just Cause or not These were the high-flown Canonists who resolved all Laws into Will and Pleasure But others who allowed a Dispensing Power upon a Just Cause yet thought it repugnant to the Original Design of Government for those who are entrusted with Care of the Laws to Dispense with them without such a Cause as answers the End of Government And some went so far as to deny any Validity in a Dispensation granted upon Pleasure for as an unjust Law hath no Force so said they an unjust Dispensation of a Good Law hath none Upon this Point two great Schoolmen differ Suarez whom the Lord Chief Justice Vaughan commends for his Learning in this Matter goes upon these Grounds 1. That a Prince is not Dominus sed Dispensator Legum although the Force of a Law depends upon his Authority and therefore in Dispensing with a Law he doth not act by Absolute Power but by Administration For
Statutes And it cannot be supposed that at that time when the Pope was allowed to be Head of the Church and consequently Supreme Patron of the Benefices of it that the Acceptance of a Title to an Ecclesiastical Benefice from him should be thought Malum in se. But these Statutes being in force I shall make it appear that the King did own he had no Power to Dispense with them but as the Parliament thought fit to allow it I begin with 15 R. 2 at a time when the Kingdom was in quiet and however could not be in any disturbance on the Account of the Statute of Provisors which the Nation desired and only those who depended on the Court of Rome opposed But the Court-Bishops suggested that it was for the Kings Interest in dealing with the Court of Rome to have a Power to Relax and to Dispense with these Statutes as he saw Cause Therefore the Arch-Bishop of York then Chancellor proposed it in the opening of the Parliament as one of the things for which it was called viz. To find out a Temperament in that Matter so as the Pope might not lose his Right nor the King his After this Matter was debated the Commons declare their Assent en plein Parliament That without prejudice to the Rights of those who were in Possession by virtue of the Statute the King by the Advice and Consent of the Lords might Dispense with the said Statute so as should seem reasonable and useful till the next Parliament but so as the said Statute be repealed in no Article of it And they reserve to themselves the Liberty of disagreeing the next Parliament And they conclude with a solemn Protestation That this was a Novelty not practised before and ought not to be drawn into an Example and Precedent for the future and they desire this Protestation might be Entred and Recorded in the Rolls of Parliament which the King commanded to be done Doth this now look like a Declaratory Act and made in Affirmance of the Kings Dispensing Power It might as well be said That an Act for Restraining the Prerogative is made in Affirmance of it It is true there is a Dispensing Power granted but with such Restrictions and Limitations as shew that such a Power was not then thought to be inherent in the Crown For 1. Why should it be proposed to the Parliament to grant it if the King had it before Did the King ever put it to the Parliament to grant him a Power to Pardon Malefactors But in the case of Dispensing with a Law it was not only proposed but assigned as one Reason of calling the Parliament 2. Why till the next Parliament if it were owned to be an inherent Right of the Crown Would the Parliament go about to bound and limit an inseparable Prerogative in such a manner 3. Why is it called a Novelty and a thing not to be drawn into example Was ever any thing like this said of a Declaratory Act The Natural Consequence whereof is just contrary that whereas some just Right of the Crown hath been contested and denied for the future it ought to be owned and submitted to by all Persons It is hard to think of Words more inconsistent with a meer Declaratory Act than those Ne soit trait en ensample nen Consequence en temps avenir 4. If this were a Declaratory Act what need it be repeated so often in Parliament afterwards Were the Commons so forgetful of the Kings Prerogative as to need making so many Declaratory Acts about the same thing Yet thus we find it about this Dispensing Power as to the Statutes of Provisors For 16 R. 2. The Archbishop of York again declared in the opening of the Parliament That one Cause of calling it was to settle this Matter about Provisors And the Commons again yielded The King should have such a Power to moderate it as he should with his Council judge expedient but so as it be all laid open before the next Parliament that they might upon good Advice agree to it 17 R. 2. Tydeman Abbot of Beauley was by the Popes Provision made Bishop of Landaff But the King notwithstanding the former Proceedings did not take upon him to dispense with the Statute but left it to the Parliament and his Dispensation was passed by Act of Parliament the King Lords and Commons assenting thereto 20 R. 2. The Commons in Parliament do again Assert de bon gre de leur parte en plein Parlement That the King with his Council may dispense with the Statute of Provisors as shall seem fit so as the same be heard and examined the next Parliament and so corrected as shall be thought convenient by the King with the Advice of his Council in Parliament 1 H. 4. The Commons in like manner give their Assent That the King should have the same Power of Dispensing with the Statute which his Predecessors had and to Repeal and Annul it as should seem expedient to him Which was no more than a General Dispensation Yet notwithstanding this was recorded in Parliament 2 H. 4. The Commons appearing before the King and the Lords it was declared That the Dispensation should not extend to Cardinals or other Strangers At the same Parliament a Petition was presented to the King That if any one did accept a Benefice by Papal Provision against the Statute and had his Pardon from the King for it yet if he went about to disturb the present Possessor by virtue of his Provision then his Pardon should be void and he should incur the Penalty of the Statute To which the King gave his Assent 3 H. 4. The King having granted particular Licenses for Dispensations as to this Statute and finding the great Inconveniences which came by them he generally and universally revovoked them and promised in Parliament to find out some proper Remedy in this Matter 7 H. 4. The King was moved in Parliament to confirm that Revocation but he then took time to consider But 9 H. 4. c. 8. the King reinforced in Parliament all the Statutes against Provisors as it is in Print 1 H. 5. The Commons pray That the Statutes may stand in full force against Provisors and that no Protection or Grant made by the King to hinder the Execution of the said Statutes shall be allowable or of any force and whatever is done contrary to them shall be null The Answer is Let the Statutes be observed and kept But if the Statutes were to be strictly observed what saving can there be to the King's Prerogative since the Statutes were Universal and the King 's particular Grants in this Case were the great Motive of the Commons Desire to have them reinforced in the beginning of this King's Reign And these Statutes continued in full Force to the Time of H. 8. insomuch that Cardinal Woolsey was prosecuted by the King's Attorney for offending against them by his Legatine Power
Particular Statute made for the Security of our Religion or for a Suspension of our Ecclesiastical Laws CHAP. IV. Of the Alterations made in the Supremacy by the Statutes of Henry the Eighth with an Answer to the Objections I Now come to the Alterations made in our Laws about the King's Supremacy in the Time of Henry the Eighth 24 Hen. 8. c. 12. An Act passed for taking away all Appeals to Rome which is founded on the King 's Natural and Independent Right of Governing and doing Justice to all his People and the Sufficiency of his own Clergy for Hearing and Determining such Matters as belonged to their Function and therefore all Causes are to be Heard Discussed Examined finally and definitively Adjudged and Determined within the King's Jurisdiction and Authority and not elswhere in the Courts Spiritual and Temporal But if the King be concerned then it is referred to the Upper-House of Convocation The Preamble of this Act against Appeals to Rome is considerable Whereas by divers Authentick Histories and Chronicles it is manifestly declared and expressed That this Realm of England is an Empire governed by one Supreme Head and King c. with plenary whole and entire Power Preheminence Authority Prerogative and Jurisdiction c. for final determination of Causes c. so that here is an Appeal to Ancient History in this Matter and we have still sufficient Evidence of it before the Popes Encroachments prevailed The Bishops and Barons told Anselm in William Rufus his time It was a thing unheard of and contrary to the Custom of his Realm for any one to go to Rome without the King 's Leave which is after explained by way of Appeal Anselm made but a shuffling Answer to this although he had sworn to observe the Customs of the Realm and he could not deny this to be one but he pretended It was against S. Peter 's Authority and therefore could not observe it for this were saith he to abjure S. Peter From whence I infer That the Custom of the Realm was then thought by Anselm to be inconsistent with the Pope's Authority For whatever they talk of S. Peter it is the Pope they mean. In the Reign of H. 1. the Pope complains grievously That the King would suffer no Appeals to be made to him and that due Reverence was not shewed to S. Peter in his Kingdom and that they ended Ecclesiastical Causes at Home even where Bishops were concerned and very learnedly quotes the Deâ—retal Epistles against them Afterwards the Pope sent his Legate and the King denied him Entrance and the whole Parliament rejected it as contrary to the Ancient Custom and Liberty of England That Passage in the Laws of H. 1. c. 5. which seems to allow of Appeals is a mere Forgery the whole Chapter being a Rapsody taken out of the Canonists H. Huntingdon saith That Appeals were brought in in King Stephen 's time by Henry Bishop of Winchester his Brother being the Pope's Legate By the Constitutions of Clarendon c. 8. the Appeal lay from the Archbishop to the King which is well expressed by Robert of Gloucester And the K. amend solde the Ercbishops deed And be as in the Pope's sted and S. Thomas it withsteed And although H. 2. in his Purgation for the Death of the Archbishop did swear That he would hinder no Appeals to Rome in Ecclesiastical Causes and that he would quit the Ancient Customs of the Realm Yet Hoveden saith The Constitutions of Clarendon were renewed in the Parliament at Northampton and the Justices in Eyre were sworn to observe them and to make others observe them inviolably And for those who went out of the Kingdom in Case of Appeals the Justices were to enquire per consuetudinem Terrae according to the Ancient Custom and if they did not return and stand to the King's Court they were to be outlawed In the Time of R. 1. the Popes complained much of Geofry Archbishop of York for slighting Appeals made to Rome and imprisoning those that made them Celestine doth it twice and in the same Words And Innocent the Third in King John's Time renews the same Complaint of him That he shewed no regard to Appeals made to the Apostolick See. But when the Rights of the Crown were given up by King John to the Pope no Wonder if the Liberties of Appeals were granted by him But yet in the succeeding Reigns we have several Instances upon Record of Persons imprisoned by the King for making Appeals to Rome John of Ibstock in the Time of E. 1. The Abbot of Walden and a Prebendary of Banbury in the Reign of E. 2. The Parson of Leighe Harwoden and the Prior of Barnwel in the time of E. 3. So that this Right was still owned by our Princes when the Matter came into Contest and therefore the Act of H. 8. against Appeals was but a just Resuming of the Ancient Rights of the Crown 25 H. 8. c. 19. A Commission is appointed for reviewing the Canons And it is observable That because it could not be done in Parliament Time the King hath Power given him by Act of Parliament to nominate the thirty two Persons to act in this Matter in these Words Be it therefore enacted by the Authority aforesaid That the King's Highness shall have Power and Authority to nominate and assign at his Pleasure the said thirty two Persons of his Subjects whereof sixteen to be of the Clergy and sixteen to be of the Temporality of the Upper and Nether House of Parliament And because the last Resort was to the Arch-Bishop in the former Act of Appeals therefore to prevent any Inconveniences thereby a new Power is granted by this Act i. e. Upon an Appeal to the King in Chancery a Commission is to be directed to such Persons as the King shall appoint who are to hear and determine such Appeals and the Causes concerning the same 25 H. 8. c. 21. After the Submission of the Clergy and the King being owned Supreme Head yet the Power of dispensing with the Canons in particular Cases did not pass by Commission from the King but by Act of Parliament The Words are It standeth therefore with natural Equity and good Reason that all and every such Laws human made without this Realm or induced into this Realm by the said Sufferance Consents and Custom Your Royal Majesty your Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons representing the whole State of your Realm in this your High Court of Parliament have full Power and Authority not only to dispense but also to Authorize some elect Person or Persons to dispense c. So that the Power of granting Faculties at a time when the Prerogative was highest was not executed by Commission from the King by vertue of his Supremacy and Prerogative Royal but was granted to the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury in the manner expressed in that Act. A late Author has stretched this Statute to a Power of dispensing in other