Visitations page 144. c. to page 160. In which Section because he pretends to set up an imaginary Personal Supremacy quite different from what I have endeavoured to assert from some Remarks upon Ancient Histories and late Acts of Parliament but agreeable enough with some Opinions that have been espous'd of late and made use of to warrant some late Proceedings I thought it might not be amiss to trace him through that Section and submit to the Judgment of the Unprejudiced Reader whether the Doctor has afforded the World a right Scheme of the King 's Ecclesiastical Supremacy I beg the Reader 's Pardon if he meet with some few passages over again here that were touch'd upon in the foregoing Discourse I hope their usefulness will excuse the repetition of them and the Answer would not have been so clear without it He tells us pag. 144. that long before the Reformation several Kings of England permitted no Canons or Constitutions of the Church or Bulls and Breves of the Apostolick See to be executed here without their Allowance Which I agree to be very true only the Doctor saying without their Allowance implies and it appears by the whole drift of his Discourse in this Chapter and indeed by the main Scope of his Book that he would be understood that With their Allowance such Canons and Constitutions Bulls and Breves might lawfully be Executed Which I deny And hope to make it evident that Our Kings could not by their own Personal Authority let in upon their Subjects a foreign Jurisdiction He adds pag. 145. that since the Supremacy has been Established by Act of Parliament in the Crown The Kings of England may according to the Laws in force not only Exercise all the Powers they could What Powers those are no Man knows but Filmer Brady Johnson Hicks Sir. Roger L'Estrange and a very few others of yesterday as Sovereign Princes but likewise whatever the Pope de jure if not de facto could or did do in the outward Regiment of Ecclesiastical matters and consequently that whatsoever was done in Visitations by the Authority of the Popes Metropolitans or Diocesan Bishops may now be done by the Kings of England as Supreme Ordinaries Which is a very wild Assertion and without the least Foundation of Truth He does not here speak it out roundly That the King may by the Law do whatever the Pope de facto did but minces the matter a little by saying Whatever the Pope de jure if not de facto could or did do And yet with the same breath he says positively that whatever was done in Visitations by Authority of the Pope may now be done by the King. So that however the King may be limited and tyed up in other Parts of his Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction to what the Popes de jure could do in Visitations at least he has Authority to do whatever the Popes Archbishops or Bishops actually did The Doctor did not consider that the several Branches of the Supremacy now restored by Act of Parliament are guided directed and limited by positive and particular Laws made about the time of the Reformation And that the Act of primo Elizabeth in that general Clause which Restores the Supremacy Vnites and Annexes only such Jurisdiction and Authority as had or might be lawfully Exercised by any Spiritual Person c. Not that the Pope to speak strictly could Exercise any Jurisdiction lawfully within this Realm for the Old Laws and Customs of the Realm and the Statutes of Premunire and Provisors were firm Bars to his Right but a Jurisdiction may be lawful in it self that is for so I would be understood the Acts of a Person Assuming Jurisdiction may be lawful in themselves considered separate and a-part from the Person of him that Exerts it though the Person Exercising such Jurisdiction have no legal Authority If an Usurper should possess himself of any Government and carry on the Administration of it in the same Method and Course of Justice that the Lawful Prince did or ought to do in strictness of Law there might perhaps be a Nullity in all his Acts and yet considered Abstracted from his Person his Government would be said to be lawful that is according to Law and the course of Proceedings that had been setled and obtained before his Usurpation So whatever the Pope did in this Nation as pretending to be Head of the English Church which was not in it self contrary to the Law of the Realm in Church or State but might lawfully be done though not by him is by the said Act of primo Elizabeth Vnited and Annexed to what Why to the Imperial Crown of this Realm Whereas by the Act of Supremacy that passed in King Henry the Eighths time All such Jurisdiction Authority c. was personally vested in the King his Heirs and Successors But of that distinction more shall be said God willing some other time Pursuant to this imagination of the Pope's Power being Translated to the King he tells us that latter Laws have devolved upon the King even the Power of the Pope in foro externo pag. 145. He says pag. 145 146. that during the Schism in the Papacy between Vrban and Clement King William Rufus claimed as other Princes did a Right to declare to which Pope he would adhere And that none should be received as Pope in England without his Licence and Election Here if I understand the Doctor aright he takes for granted that if there should happen a Schism in the Popedom the King might declare whether or which of the Competitors himself thought fit to be Pope within this Realm Which I deny that he could do without the Assent of the Clergy and Laity in a General Assembly He says pag. 145. that if the Archbishop of Canterbury called and presided in a General Council of Bishops King William allowed nothing to be appointed or forbidden unless they were accommodated to his Will and were first ordained by him These are the Words of Eadmerus out of whom the Doctor Quotes them Eadm Lib. 1. Fol. 6. But if the Doctor would here insinuate as he does and consonantly to his own Hypothesis must mean that the King's Will concurring with the Assent of a General Council of Bishops could make an Ecclesiastical Law to bind the whole Kingdom without the Assent of the Laity that is what I deny and hope to make it very clear in the following Discourse Whereas he says pag. 145. out of the same Author Eadmerus that King William suffered not any of his Barons or Officers to undergo any Ecclesiastical Censure but by his precept I hope it will appear that this was not an Arbitrary Power assumed by the King but that the Law of the Realm was so He says pag. 146 147. that the Oath of Fidelity which Anselme had taken to King William Rufus was no ways like the present Oath of Supremacy He says pag. 148 149. As to the legantine Power it is apparent by
SOME OBSERVATIONS UPON THE Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction OF THE KINGS of ENGLAND WITH AN APPENDIX In Answer to part of a Late Book Intitled The KING' 's Visitatorial Power Asserted LONDON Printed for William Battersby at Thavies-Inn Gate in Holborn and Thomas Basset at the George in Fleet-street 1689. To the Reader A Late Declaration for Liberty of Conscience whereby the King Assum'd a Power of Suspending All Penal Laws in matters of Religion The Ecclesiastical Commission and suspending by vertue of it the Bishop of London and depriving the Fellows of Magdalen-Colledge occasioned a general dissatisfaction in the Nation and produc't some Pamphlets to justifie all those Proceedings viz. One Entituled The King 's Right of Indulgence in Spiritual Matters with the Equity thereof Asserted Another A Vindication of the Proceedings of his Majestie 's Ecclesiastical Commissioners against the Bishop of London and the Fellows of Magdalen-Colledge A Third The Legality of the Court held by his Majestie 's Ecclesiastical Commissioners Defended And last of all The King 's Visitatorial power asserted Perusing these Pamphlets I could not but observe that one and the same inveterate error ran through them All viz. Their ascribing to the King all such power Jurisdiction and Authority as by the Law of England and the very Original Constitution of our Government is lodged in the Legislative body of the Kingdom and which the King is intrusted onely with the Administration of and that in his Courts of Justice I had attempted the answering more than one of those Pamphlets but I found that at every turn I met with that mistake in the Authors who either through Ignorance or Design or both argue for the King's Prerogative from whatever they find to have been done in Great Councils of the Realm or in Ordinary Courts of Justice this one mistake together with some rash and unwarranted expressions glean'd out of a few late Writers will be found to be the main strength of their Cause I thought therefore that it might be a work of some use especially at this time to endeavour the removal of this rubbish and the laying open in some measure the nature of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of the Crown of England both because we have lately seen how dangerous and fatal these mistakes are and because although much has been written since the Reformation by Mr. Prynn Sir Roger Twisden and others to vindicate the Ecclesiastical Supremacy from Forein Pretensions and Vsurpations yet I know not whether any has yet taken in hand to give an Account of it as stands by Law here at home I do therefore offer these few Observations upon it to the publick desiring the Judicious Reader 's pardon for what slips and imperfections he may find herein and have added in an Appendix an Answer to a Section in the Book concerning Visitatorial Power wherein I hope the Reader will be satisfied how groundless and weak most of the arguments are which our Prerogative-mongers pretend to draw from Antiquity These following Observations are brought down no lower then to the latter end of King Henry the eighth's Reign I design a Continuation with Remarks upon some Judicial Presidents that have pass't since the Reformation if these Papers are well received if not I shall save time and be eas'd of trouble SOME OBSERVATIONS Upon the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Of the King 's of ENGLAND IT is obvious enough to judicious and intelligent Persons by what unhappy Circumstances it comes to pass that one great Mean of our Preservation seems at present in a manner hid from our Eyes But since Experience is said to be the Mistress of Fools it is hoped that at least in this our Day we may see the things that belong to our Peace Luke 19.42 and remember that the reason why the Ostrich leaveth her Eggs in the Dust Job 39.13 14 15 17. forgetting that the Foot may crush them is because God hath deprived her of Wisdom neither hath he imparted to her Vnderstanding If Interest or Ambition have swayed with some of us Prov. 22.28 as far as in them lay to remove the antient Land-Marks which our Fore-Fathers have set Josh 7.19 let such give Glory to God and take Shame to themselves In the mean time what effect soever these ensuing Papers may have upon our Friends at least let our Adversaries see that there is a Remnant left in Israel 1 Kings 19.18 that have not bowed their Knees to Baal An Arch-Bishop may tell us The Legality of the Ecclesiastical Commission defended pag. 6 7. that the King may take what Causes he pleases to determin from the Determination of the Judges and determin them himself and that it is clear in Divinity that such Authority belongs to the King by the Word of God. But as we are not to receive even the Word of God it self under the Sanction of a Human Law from the Mouth of an Arch-Bishop or from the whole Body of the Clergy much less are we bound to submit to any Courtly Glosses upon that Sacred Text concerning the Power of Kings whose Authority as we suppose it to be grounded wholly upon Municipal Laws so we know the Law to be a better Foundation and a better Security than any imaginary Authority pretended from Scripture And if the Defender would have observed what the Lord Coke in the Presence and with the clear consent of all the Judges and Barons of the Exchequer Coke 12. Rep. pag. 63 64 65. answered upon that occasion before the King himself both from Reason and Authority he would have silenced the Arch-Bishops Divinity and saved me the trouble of taking notice of that part of his Discourse It was their Opinion that the King could not in Person adjudge any Case Which they confirm with such Reasons and Authorities from judicial Records and Acts of Parliament that it seems very imprudent in the Defender to urge that as an Authority which received so solid so learned and so honest an Answer Judges and Serjeants may entertain themselves with what Discourse they please post prandium Legality of c. defended pag. 10 11. Coke 12. Rep. pag. 19 c. and in their mooting upon one extrajudicial Point may talk of another by the by and if one of the Company put this transient Discourse into Paper so that afterwards it gets into the Press Good God! what condition are we come into when Tablechat must be obtruded upon us for Law To go a little further Judges in Courts of Justice may pretend to resolve what Points of Law they please but if their Resolutions are not pertinent to the Matter depending before them in Judgment and necessary for the deciding it such Resolutions go for nothing because the Judges had no Authority so to resolve And I am fully assured that this Point Legality of c. defended Pag. 8.9 Coke 5. Rep. Cawdry's Case viz. Whether any King or Queen of England for the time being might issue an
Which any one may have recourse to in Spelm. Concil Eadmer Hist Mat. Paris and others In the beginning of King Henry the Second's Reign there was another Schism in the Popedom between Alexander and Victor upon which a great Council of Clergy and Laity out of the Kingdoms of England and France met to determine whether of the two should be acknowledged Pope within those Realms The matter was debated in Conspectu Regum Praesulum coram universâ quae convenerat multitudine Cleri Populi And Alexander was received for Pope and the Schismaticks Excommunicated The History is in Nubrig Lib. 2. c. 9. Pursuant to which President when there hapned in King Richard the Second's time to be another Schism in the Papacy and Act. of Parliament was made to declare who should be received Pope in England and a Law made for punishing any of the Clergy that should acknowledge the other Pope Vide Catt Records Ann. 2. Rich. 2. p. 180. What thing can be more purely Ecclesiastical than the determining who it lawfully chosen to be the Vniversal Bishop And yet neither the King nor the King and the Clergy would settle the point without the Laity By what has been said it appears That the Ancient Supremacy of the Kings of England in Ecclesiastical Matters was a very different thing not so much from what it is now by Law as from what it is apprehended to be by many amongst us The Error is fundamental and consists in ascribing Things Acts Powers c. to the King in person which belonged to were done and exercised by him no otherwise than in his Courts Appeals are said to have been to the King at Common Law And so an Abridgment of Law has it so Fox Rolls cap. 8. vid. Chron. Gerv. p. 1387. Speed and others And the Authority quoted is the Assize of Clarendon which in one Chapter directs that Appeals shall be from the Bishop to the Archbishop from the Archbishop to the King. But another Act of Parliament made about 12 years after clears the matter Sir Roger Twisden For in the mean time Becket was Murdered and King Henry the Second being put to hard Pennance for it part of his satisfaction was that he should agree not to hinder Appeals to Rome in Causes Ecclesiastical Mat. Paris p. 126. yet so as the party going was to give Security that he would not endeavour Malum Regis nec Regni But within Four Years after the Nation Assembled in Parliament would not quit their interest But the Assize of Clarendon was again renewed and a more close expression used concerning Appeals and such persons as had prosecuted any Justitiae faciant quaerere per consuetudinem terrae illos qui à Regno recesserunt nisi redire voluerint infra terminum nominatum stare Juri in Curiâ Domini Regis utlagentur c. This Gervas Dorobern who well understood it tells us was but renewing the Assize of Clarendon Rex Angliae Henricus convocatis Regni Primoribus apud Northamptoniam renovavit Assizam de Clarendon Here we see that such as were aggrieved by a Sentence given by the Archbishop were pursuant to the Statutes of Clarendon not to appeal to Rome but to the King Which the Statute of Northampton made but twelve years after explains to be to the Curia Regis By this and by what has been said before upon this Subject it appears that the ultimate Appeal in Causes Ecclesiastical as well as Temporal was to the Curia Regis or Parliament and that as the same Assemblies made Laws both for the Government of Church and State so the Supreme Judicature Ecclesiastical and Temporal was one and the same After that time Appeals were sometimes prosecuted in the Court of Rome that Statute and the Assize of Clarendon notwithstanding but this was only by connivance At last when the Pope got the better of King John who lay under great Disadvantages as all our Historians tell us and that in his Magna Charta these words were inserted V. Matth. Paris Pag. 258. Liceat unicuique de caetero exire de Regno nostro redire salvò securè per terram aquam salvâ fide nostra c. Then Appeals to Rome multiplyed for every little Cause and the Master-piece of Papal Encroachments was wrought effectually But it cannot be too often inculcated that the Laws of Clarendon which gave the ultimate Appeal to the Curia Regis as aforesaid are so often stiled the Avitae Consuetudines Regni Which shews sufficiently where the Supreme Judicature resided according to our old Constitution It appears by what has been said that King William the Conqueror was acknowledged to be God's Vicar appointed to govern his Church and yet that neither He nor his Successors pretended to make any Ecclesiastical Laws to bind the whole Kingdom but in a General Council of the Kingdom That the King's Supremacy was so far from being Personal that an Archbishop did as it were appeal from himself in Person to himself in Parliament and that the King submitted and owned the Jurisdiction That the same Archbishop understood the Law to be that the Assent of the Laity was necessary to the making of Ecclesiastical Laws by which they were to be bound That the King could not of his own Authority permit a Legate to exercise his Office within the Realm That leave to exercise his Office could not be given him but in Parliament That the King could not part with Investitures if he would without the Assent of the People That Parliaments determined who ought to be received as Pope within the Realm That Appeals were to the Curia Regis by the Avitae Consuetudines Regni And that Bishops were elected in Parliament Whence I conclude that a Personal Supremacy has no warrant from Antiquity The clearing the Antient Supremacy and stating the Matter aright is of great use in this present Age in which as one sort of Men over-stock us with Jure Divino's so the Lawyers accost us often with the Common Law and the King's Perogative at Common Law and that this and the other Act is but declarative of the Common Law and gives the King no new Power And yet as the Divines have little or no ground for their Jure Divine's no more have the Lawyers in these Matters of the Supremacy any thing to warrant their late Hyperbole's but Shadows and Imaginations They found a Power exercised by the Pope which they had good reason to think injurious to the Crown they had heard that from the beginning it was not so And thus far they were right But how it was exercised before the Court of Rome and the Clergy invaded it they had forgot it having been usurpt upon Four hundred years before they were born For it is in vain to look for a true Scheme of the Antient Legal Supremacy at a nearer distance than from the Reigns of King John King Richard the First King Henry the
of the Patronage and Foundation of the King the Ordinaries by vertue of the King's Commissions to them directed shall enquire of the manner and foundation of the said Hospitals and of the Governance and Estate of the same and of all other matters requisite and necessary in that behalf and the Inquisitions thereof shall certifie into the King's Chancery And as to other Hospitals which be of another Foundation and Patronage than of the King the Ordinaries shall enquire of the manner of the Foundation Estate and Governance of the same and of all other Matters and Things necessary in this behalf and upon that make due correction and reformation according to the Laws of Holy Church as to them belongeth This Act apparently makes a distinction betwixt Hospitals that are and that are not of the King's Foundation and Patronage with respect to the Right of Visitation Those of the King's Foundation the Ordinaries were to visit by the King's Commission But those that were not of the King's Foundation the Ordinaries were to visit too but how Not by any Commission from the King but as special Commissioners special Visitors appointed by that Act. The King did not pretend to issue a Commission to Visit an Hospital of a Subject's Foundation The Parliament were strangers to such a conceit The right of Visiting de communi Jure belongs to the Founder he that gave the Laws ought to see them executed If the Parliament had appointed that Hospitals of the Foundation of Subjects should be Visited by the Ordinaries by Commission from the King they had in effect translated the Rights of all Founders that were Subjects to the King which they never intended For the Legal Notion of Visitation in such Cases is no more than this viz. A Man Founds and Endows a College The Rule of Law and of Natural Reason teaches cujus est dare ejus est disponere As a Man may give Lands to a private person upon what condition the Donor pleases provided it be not against Law so a Man may give Lands to a Society of Men upon what terms he pleases The terms exprest in the Foundation are called the private Laws by which the Society is to be ordered and governed And just as when a Man makes a Lease for Life or Years the Lessor may enter of right to see whether waste be done or no so a Founder may come and enquire whether those of his Foundation observe the Rules and Orders prescribed by him or his Ancestors and proceed according to the Statutes and the Powers thereby reserved in case he find any neglect or misdemeanour What right the King has to interpose his Authority in such case any more than in the Government of a private Family I cannot discern But Colleges in Vniversities are pretended to be visitable by the King's Commission by vertue of his Ecclesiastical Authority Here we must distinguish A College of Divines for Example founded by a Subject and Endowed and receiving Laws for their Governance from their Founder are visitable by their Founder and his Heirs or Successors They may be also for any thing here alledged to the contrary visitable by the Bishop of the Diocess or if exempt from Episcopal Jurisdiction by the King's Commission But what Power have these Visitors The Founder enquires whether the Statutes of the Foundation are observed and punishes according to the Statutes but goes no farther The Ordinary or Archbishop or if the place be exempt the King's Visitors enquire Whether they profess the Doctrin and observe the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England If the King had any thing to do to intermeddle with the Statutes and Government of such a College in the first Instance by virtue of his Ecclesiastical Supremacy it seems very strange that in the third and fourth Year of Queen Elizabeth's Reign when the Bishop of Winchester Founder of Maudlyn College in Oxford had at a Visitation deprived the President and he appealed to the Queen in Chancery the Judges and Civilians having had a Conference upon the Business agreed that the Appeal lay not as the Law then stood for that this Case was out of the Statutes of 24 and 25 Hen. 8. which direct Appeals to the King in Chancery and this Deprivation was a meer Temporal Thing and inflicted as by a Lay Patron And that if he were wrongfully expelled he might have an Assize or other Suit at Common Law. Concerning the King's Power with respect to the private Statutes of a College of a Subjects Foundation I will acquaint the Reader with one Act of Parliament made 1 Mariae which will yield some very useful Inferences The Act recites Whereas the late Noble Prince of Famous Memory King Henry the Eighth Father unto our most Gracious Sovereign Lady the Queen amongst other his godly Acts and Doings did erect make and establish divers and sundry Churches as well Cathedral as Collegiat and endowed every of the same with divers Mannors Lands Tenements and Possessions for the maintenance of the Deans Prebendaries and Ministers within the same and for other charitable Acts to be done and executed by the same Deans Prebendaries and Ministers and also did incorporate the same Deans Prebendaries and Ministers and made them Bodies politick in perpetual Succession according to the Laws of this Realm of England And where also as the said late King for the better maintenance and preservation of the said Churches in a godly Unity and good Order and Governance granted unto the several Corporations and Bodies Corporate of every of the said Churches that they should be ruled and governed for ever according unto certain Ordinances Rules and Statutes to be specified in certain Indentures then after to be made by his Highness and to be delivered and declared to every of the Bodies Corporate of the said several Churches as by the said several Erections and Foundations of the said Churches more plainly it doth and may appear Since which said Erections and Foundations the said late King did cause to be delivered to every of the said Churches so as is aforesaid erected and incorporated by certain Commissioners by his Highness appointed divers and sundry Statutes and Ordinances made and decreed by the same Commissioners for the Order Rule and Governances of the said several Churches and of the Deans Prebendaries and Ministers of the same which said Statutes and Ordinances were made by the said Commissioners and delivered unto every of the Corporations of the said several Churches in writing but not indented according to the Form of the said Foundations and Erections by reason whereof the said Churches and the several Deans Prebendaries and Ministers of the same have no Statutes or Ordinances of any Force or Authority whereby they should be ruled and governed and therefore remain as yet not fully established in such sort as the godly intent of the said late King Henry the Eighth was to the great imperfection of the Churches and the hindrance of God's Service and
for Sees of Bishops Suffragans And gives the King Power and Authority to give to one of two Persons to be presented to him by any Archbishop or Bishop the Stile Title and Name of a Bishop of such a See c. provides for the Consecration of such Bishops limits what Authority they shall have in the Diocess c. Hence I infer that the Parliament had its share in the Government of the Church The Letters Patents made pursuant to this Act conclude Vigore Statuti in ejusmodi casu editi provisi Dr. Burnet Coll. of Rec. ad Vol. 1. p. 130. notwithstanding the Restitution of the Supremacy and the King could not as SUPREME HEAD without this Act of Parliament appoint the number of Suffragan Bishops or give limit or bound their Power and Authority In the Twenty eighth Year of this King it was enacted That all Archbishops and Bishops of this Realm or of any the Kings Dominions consecrated and at this present Parliament taken and reputed for Archbishops and Bishops may by the Authority of this present Parliament and not by Vertue of any Provision or other Foreign Authority Licence Faculty or Dispensation keep enjoy and retain their Archbishopricks and Bishopricks in as large and ample manner as if they had been promoted elected confirmed and consecrated according to the due Course of the Laws of this Realm And that every Archbishop and Bishop of this Realm and of other the King's Dominions may minister use and exercise all and every thing and things pertaining to the Office or Order of an Archbishop or Bishop with all Tokens Insigns and Ceremonies thereunto lawfully belonging Here the Parliament impowers the Archbishops and Bishops that then were to use and exercise their Offices and Orders not by Virtue of any Foreign Authority but by Authority of this present Parliament This the King could not have done without consent of Parliament because he could not dispense with the Statutes of Praemunire and Provisors as has been said already and as appears by a notable Act in the Twenty fifth Year of this King's Reign Burnett's Collect. of Records ad Vol. 1. pag. 121 122 123. concerning the Deprivation of the Bishops of Salisbury and Worcester The Act recites That where by the laudable Laws and Provisions of this Realm it had been established that no Person or Persons of of what Degree Estate or Quality should take or receive within this Realm of England to Farm by any Procuracy Writ Letter of Attorney Administration by Indenture or by any other Mean any Benefice or other Promotion within this Realm of any Person or Persons but only of the King 's true and lawful Subjects being born under the King's Dominions And also that no Person or Persons of what Estate and Degree soever by reason of any such Farm Procuracy Letter of Attorney Administration Indenture or by any other Mean should c. Notwithstanding which said wholsom Laws Statutes and Provisions the King's Highness being a Prince of great Benignity and Liberality having no Knowledge or due Information or Instruction of the same Laws Statutes and Provisions hath heretofore nominated and preferred and promoted Laurence Compegius Bishop of Sarum with all the Spiritual and Temporal Possessions c. belonging to the same And hath also nominated preferred and promoted Hierome being another Stranger to the See of Worcester c. Be it enacted by Authority of this present Parliament That the said two several Sees of Salisbury and Worcester shall be taken reputed and accounted in Law void c. Here we see the King was not allowed to act contrary to Acts of Parliament concerning Ecclesiastical Matters We see Bishops depriv'd by Act of Parliament and by the Act of 28 H. 8. cap. 16. other Bishops and Archbishops who in strictness of Law were no Bishops of those Sees by reason of their foreign Provisions quieted in the injoyment of their Bishopricks and authoriz'd to exercise their Episcopal Function there by Act of Parliament though it is not to be doubted but if the Rolls of those times were searcht Dispensations formerly granted to those Bishops would be found amongst them But they stood them in no stead because contrary to the Laws Statutes and Provisions aforesaid So that here the King and Parliament acknowledging that the King had no knowledge or due Information or Instruction of the said Statutes which is a modest and respectful way of expressing the King's doing an illegal thing what else can we infer than that they disown and he disclaims any personal Prerogative inherent in himself to violate those and consequently other Laws concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs Which shews both that the King's Supremacy was not accounted any such unbounded Power as some fancy and that the Parliament retain'd its share in the Jurisdiction over Ecclesiastical Persons and Things notwithstanding the restitution recognition or call it what you will of the Supremacy I pass by the Act of 31 H. 8. c. 14. whereby certain Opinions then accounted Heresie and Marriage of Priests are brought within the compass of Treason and Felony for that the inflicting of such Punishments for what Crimes or pretended Crimes soever is an Act of Civil not of Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and come to the Act of 32 H. 8. cap. 26. which laid the top stone of King Henry the Eighths Supremacy and mounted it one story higher than ever it was carried before or since It was thereby enacted that All Decrees and Ordinances which according to God's Word and Christ's Gospel by the Kings Advice and Confirmation by his Letters Patents shall be made and ordained by the Archhishops Bishops and Doctors appointed or to be appointed by his Royal Majesty or else by the whole Clergy of England nota benè in and upon the matter of Christian Religion and Christian Faith and the lawful Rites Ceremonies and Observations of the same shall be in every point thereof believed obeyed and performed to all intents and purposes upon the pains therein comprised Here Matters of Doctrin and Worship are given up to the King's determination and appointment But he was to determine by such Advice as was appointed by the Act. And this Power was personal died with him and was never pretended to by any of his Successors It was given him by Parliament who could not have given it him if they had not had it themselves for there was no Act of Convocation in the case He had it not before for then there would have been no need of the Act. It is greater to give than to receive They give it him with a restriction that affords a good Argument against a pretended power in the King of dispensing with all Acts of Parliament concerning matters of Religion viz. Provided that nothing shall be ordained or defined which shall be repugnant to the Laws and Statutes of the Realm It seems the Parliament at that time was so far from apprehending any power lodged in the King either by vertue
That the King desired only dignitates Regibus ante debitas sibi exhiberi Hoved. pag. 292. b. And in another Letter to the Pope on the King's behalf they declare the same ibid. pag. 292 293. Our Archbishops indeed used to fetch their Palls from Rome but that Entitled the Pope to no Jurisdiction here So that the Subject Matters of the Laws of Clarendon then Enacted into Statute-Laws were in King William Rufus his Time the Laws and Vsages of the Realm and therefore Anselm's and Becket's Oaths were in Substance the same And those Laws and Vsages having been usurp'd upon since and the Usurpation purged by the Laws made about the time of the Reformation the Oath of Supremacy is now the same in Substance with those Ancient Oaths aforementioned Not but that the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction in some of its Branches may now be settled in another course of Administration than it was so long ago But those Alterations which yet are not very considerable have been made by Acts of Parliament by which if Men had been content to stand or fall many Notions that are now too rise amongst us would never have been hatched The Writ from R. de Glanville to the Abbot of Battle mentioned by the Doctor pag. 148. whereby he Commands him on the King's behalf by the Faith which he owed him not to proceed in the Cause that was depending betwixt the Monks of Canterbury and the Archbishop donec indè mecum fueris locutus was no other than a Probibition to him to proceed in a Cause depending before him and the Abbots of Feversham and St. Augustine as Judges appointed by the Pope to hear and determine it They had cited the Archbishop to appear before them they had sent him Comminatoriam Epistolam eique diem peremptorium praefixerant They had no Legal Authority to Exercise Jurisdiction within the Realm for the Pope could give them none And therefore the Chief Justice prohibits them in the King's Name The Writ may be Read in Chron. Gervas Coll. pag. 1503. from whence the Doctor Quotes the Story Though he relates it Knavishly enough We find a Writ saith he to the Abbot of Battle c. wherein he Commands him on the part of the King by the Faith which he owes him and by the Oath which he made to him to do what he then enjoyned Never telling us that the thing enjoyn'd was the keeping of his Oath and observing the Law and that the Method observed by the King in sending him this Injunction was according to the Ordinary course of Justice and of proceedings at Law in the like Cases But the Doctor would raise a little Dust by this and a few other such pitiful Scraps to amuse his Readers and create an Opinion that the King may enjoyn any thing As to the Legantine Power he says pag. 148. It is apparent by several Instances that none Exercised any here without the King's leave whether by the Grant of Pope Nicholas to Edward the Confessor he disputes not But the Doctor takes for granted that with the King's leave a a Legate might be sent and Exercise his Office here Though what he Quotes for it out of Eadmerus pag. 125 126. concerning what passed betwixt King Henry the First and Pope Calixtus at Gisors makes nothing for his purpose Rex à Papa impetravit ut omnes Consuetudines quas Pater suus in Angliâ habuerat in Normanniâ sibi concederet maximè ut neminem aliquando legati Officio in Angliâ fungi permitteret si non ipse aliquâ praecipuâ querelâ exigente quae ab Archiepiscopo Cantuariorum caeterisque Episcopis Regni terminari non posset hoc fieri à Papâ postularet The coming in of a Legate at the King's Request to determine some great and difficult Controversie in particular which could not be decided by all the Bishops of England is one thing and the coming in of a Legate with a General Power to Exercise Jurisdiction over all the King's Subjects and to hold a Legantine Court is a quite other thing The Doctor says pag. 151. that Anno Domini 1138 Tertio Regis Stephan Albert or Alberic Cardinal of Hostia was the Pope's Legate and Consecrated Theobald Archbishop of Canterbury and called the Clergy to a Colloquium by Apostolical Authority by which it appears says he That the Canons of the Church now obtained and the King Assented to the Powers the Legate had so that what was Decreed had the King's Allowance It seems provided what was Decreed had the King's Allowance all was well and there needed no more But Gerv. Dorobern Coll. pag. 1344. tells us that Praedictus Albericus Apostolicâ Legatione functus venit in Angliam Domini Papae litteras ad Regem deferens lectis itaque litteris coram Rege Primoribus Angliae licèt non in primis vix tandèm pro Reverentiâ Domini Papae susceptus est So that this Legate was admitted by the Consent of the Primores Angliae as well as of the King. And consequently his Exercising his Office here with such Assent as aforesaid is no Argument that the King 's Personal Assent to his Powers without the Concurrence of his Primores would have made them ever a whit the better And when this Legate Celebrated his Synod at Westminster there were present Episcopi diversarum Provinciarum Numero XVII Abbates ferè XXX Cleri Populi Multitudo Numerosa See Spelman's Councils Volume the Second pag. 39. and Gerv. Dorobern Collect. pag. 1347. So that as the Assent of the Primores was had to his Entry so the Multitudo Numerosa Cleri Populi Assented to the Canons then made And the King 's single Assent to either would not have been sufficient Besides this I shall take leave to oppose the Judgement and Opinion of King Henry the First to that of the Doctor concerning the King's having or not having Authority to Admit a Legate hither from Rome When in his Reign Petrus Monachus Cluniacensis came hither from Pope Calixtus with a Legantine Power perductus ad Regem dignè ab eo susceptus est Et expositâ sui adventûs causâ Rex obtensâ expeditione in quâ tunc erat nam super Walenses eâ tempestate exercitum duxerat dixit se tanto negotio operam tunc quidem dare non posse cum Legationis illius stabilem Authoritatem non nisi per conniventiam Episcoporum Abbatum Procerum ac totius Regni Conventum roborari posse constaret Eadmer Lib. 6. pag. 137 138. He tells it him as a known Truth constaret that his Legacy could not be of any validity in this Nation without the Consent of the whole Kingdom in Parliament Which by reason of his Wars with the Welsh he was not then at leisure to call The Words following are Remarkable VIZ. Super haec patrias Consuetudines ab Apostolicâ sede sibi concessas nunquam se aequanimiter amissurum fore testabatur in quibus haec
de maximis una erat quae Regnum Angliae liberum ab omni legati ditione constituerat donec ipse vitae praesenti superesset So that this Patria Consuetudo of the Kingdoms being free from the Jurisdiction of any Legate and which had been confirmed by the Pope was not a Priviledge Granted to the King himself nor was he the Object of that Papal pretended Indulgence but the Kingdom whom he declares that himself could not deprive of the Benefit thereof without their own Consent And therefore the King's Assent and the King's Leave so frequently mentioned in the Monks upon this occasion must be understood of his Assent in a Great Council or Parliament Hence it was that when Johannes Cremensis came Legate hither Anno Domini 1125. And was permitted so to do by the King being then in Normandy for what private considerations betwixt the Pope and himself I know not it was look'd upon by the Wise Men of the Nation as a notorious breach of the Antient and known Laws and Liberties of the Kingdom Quam gravi multorum mentes scandalo vulneravit inusitata negotii Novitas Antiqui Regni Anglorum detrita libertas satis indicat Toti enim Regno Anglorum circumjacentibus Regionibus cunctis notissimum est eatenùs à primo Cantuariensi Metropolitano Sanctissimo Augustino usque ad istum Wilhelmum Cantuariensem Archiepiscopum omnes ipsius Augustini Successores Monachos Primates Patriarchas nominatos habitos nec ullius unquam Romani legati ditioni addictos Gervas Dorob Collect. pag. 1663. And when afterwards in King Henry the Third's Time Circa festum Apostolorum Petri Pauli Otto sancti Nicholai in carcere Tulliano Diaconus Cardinalis nesciebatur ad quid per Mandatum Regis venit Legatus in Angliam Nescientibus Regni Magnatibus plures adversus Regem Magnam conceperunt indignationem dicentes Omnia Rex pervertit Jura fidem promissa in omnibus transgreditur Nota bend Nunc se matrimonio sine suorum amicorum hominum naturalium consilio Alienigenae copulavit Nunc Legatum Regni totius immutatorem clam vocavit c. Dictum est autem quod Archiepiscopus Cantuariensis Edmundus Regem talia facientem increpavit praecipuè de Vocatione Legati sciens inde in suae dignitatis praejudicium magnam Regno imminere Jacturam Matth. Par. 440. The Historian blames those that went to meet this Legate and that made him Honourable Presents of Scarlet Cloath c. In quo facto says he nimis à multis meruerunt reprehendi tam pro dono quà m pro dandi modo quia in panno ejus colore videbatur legationis Officium Adventum acceptari Which is a remarkable testimony that the King 's calling in a Legate did not in the judgment of those times give him any Legal Authority here if it were done Nescientibus Regni Magnatibus i. e. to speak in Eadmerus his Words if he were otherwise admitted than per Conniventiam Episcoporum Abbatum Procerum totius Regni conventum The same Historian Matth. Par. speaking afterward pag. 446. of the same Legate Rex says he spreto naturalium hominum suorum consilio magis magis ut caepit deliravit Et se voluntati Romanorum praecipuè Legati quem inconsultiùs advocaverat mancipavit c. And again His aliis deliramentis Rex omnium Nobilium suorum corda cruentavit Consiliarios quoque habuit suspectos infames qui hujus rei fomentum esse dicebantur quos idcircò magis habebant Nobiles Angliae exosos But the Instance which the Doctor himself gives pag. 154. of Henry Beaufort Bishop of Winchester and Great Unkle to King Henry the Sixth is as full against him as any thing that he could have pitch'd upon For that Bishop being Cardinal of St. Eusebius was sent Legate into England Anno 1429. Which was Anno Octavo of King Henry the Sixth And was fain to be beholden to an Act of Parliament for his Pardon for having offended against the Laws made against Provisors by bringing in and Executing Papal Bulls within the Realm For Anno 10. Henr. 6. The King by the Common Assent of all the Estates pardoneth to the said Cardinal all Offences Punishments and Pains incurred by him against the Statutes of Provisors Vid. Cotton 's Abridgement of Records 10. Henr. 6. nu 16. Which would have been needless if either the King 's giving leave to his Entrance or Assent to his Decrees could have justified his Proceedings and added any Legal Authority to them By what has been said I conceive it to be very clear that all Foreign Jurisdiction being utterly against the Law of the Realm and an intolerable Usurpation upon the King's Crown and Regality and upon the Rights and Liberties of his Subjects it was never conceived that the King could by his own Personal Authority without the Consent of his People in Parliament subject them to it no more than he could subject himself and his Crown in Temporal Matters Which that he could not do we have these two Remarkable Authorities When after the Death of Alexander the Third King of Scots the Succession to that Crown was in dispute and Ten several Competitors claim'd it and that Edward the First King of England challenged a Jurisdiction of determining to which of them the Right of Succession appertained the Pope that then was pretended that it belonged to him in Right of his Apostleship to decide the Controversie and Wrote to the King a Letter requiring him to desist any further Proceeding therein In answer to which Letter of the Pope the King wrote a long Letter containing Historical Proofs of his being Supreme Lord of Scotland and that the King of Scots was his Homager and at the same time the Parliament of England then Assembled at Lincoln wrote another Letter to the Pope upon the same Subject In which are these Words VIZ. Ad observationem defensionem Libertatum Consuetudinum Legum Paternarum ex debito praestiti Sacramenti adstringimur quae manutenebimus toto posse totisque viribus cum Dei Auxilio defendemus nec etiam permittimus aut aliquatenùs permittemus sicut nec possumus nec debemus praemissa tam insolita indebita praejudicialia alià inaudita Dominum nostrum Regem etiamsi vellet facere seu quomodolibet attemptare praecipuè cùm praemissa cederent in exhaeredationem juris Coronae Regis Angliae Regiae Dignitatis ac subversionem Status Ejusdem REgni notoriam necnon in praejudicium Libertatum Consuetudinum ac Legum Paternarum Sealed by One hundred and four Earls and Barons and in the Name of all the Commonalty of England V. Co. 2d Inst pag. 196. and Fox his Book of Martyrs Vol. 1. pag. 387 388 389. By which it appears that the King could not legally if he would have given way to the Pope's determining the Controversie about the Succession in Scotland since it belonged to himself in
Anselm about Anselm's going to fetch his Pall from Vrban And that betwixt Lanfrank Arch-bishop of Canterbury and Thomas Arch-bishop of York concerning the Profession of Canonical Obedience which the former required of the Latter the Chusing Bishops and Arch-Bishops the Controversies betwixt King Henry the 2d and Thomas Becket all heard debated and determined in General Assemblies of Clergy and Laity and not by our Kings apart from their Great Councels The Eleventh is That they permitted No appeals to Rome 'T is true nor did they ever determine them themselves either in person or by Commission And therefore the Statute of Clarendon which gives Appeals from the Arch-Bishop to the King was never understood to be to the King in person but to the King in his Court. As we may see by what Ger. Dorobern Anno 1176. Coll. p. 1433 And Hoveden fol. 313 314 tell us of the statute made at Northampton in King Henry the second 's time Which both of them call a renewing of the Assize of Clarendon Now in these Laws made at Northampton there is this close Expression concerning Appeals Justiciae faciant quaerere per consuetudinem terrae illos qui à Regno recesserunt nisi redire voluerint infrà terminum nominatum stare ad Rectum in Curià Domini Regis Vtlagentur So that though King Henry as far as in him lay had given ways to Appeals to Rome for when he was absolv'd of the Guilt that he was supposed to have contracted by having occasioned the death of Thomas Becket part of the satisfaction enjoyn'd him was quod licebit Appellationes libere fieri Radulph de Diceto p. 560 yet the Kingdom afterward meeting in Parliament at Northampton would not quit their interest But renew'd the Laws of Clarendon against forein Appeals And explain the Appeals ad Regem to be meant of Appeals ad Curiam Regis But it is a common errour with Men that are ignorant of our Laws wherever they find they King's name in any Acts of Parliament or Judicial Proceedings to imagine that the King has some Personal Authority out of his Courts But for the present I will give but one Instance to detect that mistake The Stat. of Westm 1. Enacts cap. 15. what persons shall be replevisable and what not Amongst others those that are taken by Commandement le Roy are appointed not to be bayl'd by that Statute My Lord Coke in his Commentary upon that Law 2d Institut pag. 186. says thus viz. 1. The King being a body Politick cannot command but by matter of Record for Rex praecipit and lex praecipit are all one For the King must command by matter of Record according to Law. 2. When any Judicial Act is by Act of Parliament referred to the King it is to be understood to be done in some Court of Justice according to Law. The words of the Statute of Rich. 2. cap. 12. are si non que il sort per briefe ou auter maundement del Roy. And yet it was resolved by all the Judges of England that the King cannot do it by any Commandment but by Writ or by Order or Rule of some of his Courts of Justice where the Cause dependeth And Fortescue speaking to the Prince to instruct him against he should be King Melius says he per alios quà m per teipsum Judicia reddes quo proprio ore Nullus Regum Angliae usus est tamen sua sunt omnia Judicia Regni licet per alios ipsa reddantur sicut judicum â—lim sententias Josaphat asseruit esse judicia Dei. The Great Case in tertio Caroliprimi of Habeas Corpus turn'd upon this point The Judges indeed betray'd the Nation in that cause as they have done in others in these Hundred years last past as far as in them lay but how that Judgment was resented in Parliament the Reader may inform himself out of the 1st Vol. of Rushworth's Collections and the 1st part of Doctor Nalson The Law was declared upon that occasion to be that Voluntas Regis est secundum legem et Justiciarios suos in Guriâ suâ non in Camerâ according to 2 R. 3. f. The Twelfth particular is that Our Kings bestowed Bishopricks on such as they liked and translated Bishops from one See to another concerning our Kings bestowing Bishopricks something has been said already As for their translating Bishops from one See to another I desire to hear any one Instance in any age of any Bishop translated by the King against his own will. The Pope pretended to such a power and sometimes Exercised it and that was one of the mischiefs which occasioned the making of the Statutes of Provisors But could never yet find that any of our Kings attempted it The Thirteenth particular is Erecting New Bishopricks The Instances given by Sir Roger are 1st the erecting of the Bishoprick of Ely by King Henry the 1st Anno 1009. taking it out of Lincoln-Diocess And yet nothing is more evident then that this was done by Act of Parliament The Instrument Runs thus viz. In Nomine sanctae individuae Trinitatis Patris Filii spiritus sancti Anno ab Incarnatione Domini MCVIII Indictione Anno Pontificatus Domini Paschalis Papae 2. decimo Regni quoque mei similiter decimo Ego Henricus Providente Divina Clementia Rex Anglorum Normannorum Dux Wilhelmi Magni Regis Filius qui Edwardo Regi Haereditario jure successit in Regnum videns Ecclesiae messem in Regno meo multam esse Agricolas quidem paucos et ab hoc plurimum laborantes in Messe et in ipsa Lincolniensem Ecclesiam multa plebe foecundam ex Authoritate Consilio predicti Papae Paschalis Assenfu simul prece Roberti Lincolniensis Episcopi totius Capituli sui cum ipso annuente Domino Anselmo Beatae memoriae Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo Thoma secundo Venerabili Eboracensium Archiepiscopo Universis Episcopis Abbattibus totius Angliae sed omnibus Ducibus Comitibus Principibus Regni mei Elyense Monasterium c. in Episcopalem sedem sicut caeteros Episcopatus Regni mei liberam absolutam perenniter statuo confirmo vid. Mr. Selden 's Notas Spicilegium ad Eadmer Et Dugdale's Monasticon And what if All the Bishopricks of England Erected both before and after were Erected by Acts of Parliament and not by the King's Letters Patents only In King Edward the Elder 's time upon the Letter of Pope Formosus Congregata est synodus Senatorum Procerum Populorum Nobilium Gentis Angliae In quâ Presidebat Plegmundus Archiepiscopus Tum sibi Rex cum suis et Plegmundus Archiepiscopus salubre Concilium iniverunt and Constituted and Elected five Bishops in the Province of the Gewissi where there had till then been but two dividing those two Bishopricks into five by Act of Parliament Spelman's Counc Volum 1. pag. 387 388. Malmesbury de Gestis
them not warrantable by the Laws and Statutes of the Realm Now what use the Doctor can make of this Particular viz. of the King 's prohibiting the Clergy from Oppressing his Lay-Subjects contrary to Law I cannot discover Sir Roger's eighteenth and last particular is an observation in Matth. Paris where the Ecclesiasticks having enumerated several cases in which they held themselves hardly dealt with add That in all of them if the Spiritual Judge proceeded contrary to the King's prohibition he was attached and appearing before the Justices constrained to produce his proceedings that they might determine to which Court the Cause belonged By which says he it is manifest how the King's Courts had the superintendency over the Ecclesiastick This makes nothing for any Extrajudicial Personal Arbitrary power in the King in the Ecclesiastical matters and is so far from impugning that it corroborates my hypothesis That the Temporal and Ecclesiastical Courts often quarrel'd about their Jurisdiction and that the Clergy sometimes made and attempted to put in execution Canons directly contrary to the Laws of the Realm thereby endeavouring to usurp and encroach upon many matters which apparently belonged to the Common Laws as the tryal of Limits and Bounds of Parishes the Right of Patronage the tryal of right of Tythes by Indicavit Writs to the Bishop upon a recovery in a Quare impedit the tryal of Titles to Church-Lands concerning Distresses and Attachments within their own Fees and many other things which belonged to the King 's Temporal Courts That the Temporal Courts granted Prohibitions in these and other like cases that the Clergy hereupon complain'd not to the King but to the Parliament Ann. 51 H. 3. twice during the Reign of Edw. 1. and afterwards nono Edw. 2. may be read at large in the Lord Coke's second Institutes 599 600 601 c. So that the King determined to which Court Causes belonged either in his Courts of Ordinary Justice or if the Clergy remain'd unsatisfied with the Opinions of the Judges in his High Court of Parliament and no otherwise But we need not wonder that such a Prelate as Arch bishop Bancroft whose Divinity had taught him that the King may take what causes he shall please to determine from the determination of the Judges and determine them himself and that such Authority belonged to Kings by the Word of God in the Scripture we need not wonder I say to find him in King James the First 's time Exhibiting Articles of Abuses in granting Prohibitions against the Judges to the Lords of the Privy Council As if the Lords of the Privy Council had any Authority to direct the Judges in their administration of Justice or to set bounds to the Jurisdiction of any Court. Vid. 2 Inst 601 602 c. 12 Co. p. 63 64 65. By what has been said I hope it appears sufficiently that the Ancient Jurisdiction of our Kings in Ecclesiastical matters was such a Jurisdiction and no other than they had in Temporal matters viz. in their Great Councels and in their Ordinary Courts of Justice And that not only our Mercenary Doctor but more learned and wiser men than he have unwarily confounded that Jurisdiction with a Fiction of their own brains by which they have ascribed to the King a Personal Supremacy without any warrant from Antiquity Law or History Witness these loose Expressions in Sir Roger Twiden's Historical Vindication c. It cannot be denyed but the necessity of being in union with the true Pope at least in time of schism did wholly depend on the King pag. 2. The English have ever esteemed the Church of Canterbury in Spirituals that is quae sui sunt ordinis without any intervening Superior omnium nostrum mater comunis sub sponsi sui Jesu Christi dispositione in other things as points of Government the Ordering that of Right and Custom ever to have belonged to the King assisted with his Councel of Bishops and others of the Clergy who was therefore called Vicarius Christi c. pag. 21. The King and the Arch bishop or rather the Arch-bishop by the King's will and appointment had ever taken cognizance of all matters of Episcopacy as the Erection of Bishopricks disposing and translating of Bishops c. p. 24. and innumerable others But to go on with Dr. Johnston and draw to a conclusion he acknowledges pag. 157 that he does not find that by immediate Commission the Kings of England Visited before King Henry the Eighth's time And if no such thing can be found then what authority can our Kings now have to exercise such a Jurisdiction unless by vertue of some Act of Parliament made in or since his time But says he we have sufficient grounds to judge that whatever was done was by the King's Power and Authority which is a wild extravagant ignorant expression and hardly common sense And therefore says he Sir Edward Coke in Cawdrie's case Lays it down for a Rule That as in Temporal Causes the King by the Mouth of the Judges in the Courts of Justice doth judge and determine the same by the Temporal Laws of England so in causes Ecclesiastical and spiritual by his Ecclesiastical Judges according to the Ecclesiastical Laws of the Realm and that so many of the Ecclesiastical Laws as were proed approved and allowed here by and with general consent are aptly and rightly called the King's Ecclesiastical Laws and whosoever denyeth this denyeth the King to have full and plenary power to deliver Justice in all cases to all his Subjects c. pag. 157. which that he has he proves by the Preamble of stat 24 Hen. 8. cap. 12. And what then May the King therefore erect New Courts directly contrary to positive Laws Command things arbitrarily upon pain of suspension deprivation c. and Command things contrary to Law by vertue of his Ecclesiastical Laws The Doctor concludes this Section with the Act of 26 Hen. 8. cap. 1. commonly called the Act of Supremacy which now stands Repealed And with 1 Eliz. by which he says all the Powers given by the Act of 26 H. 8. are restored to the Crown under the name of Supreme Governour But the former Discourse was designed to be brought down no lower then to the end of King Henry the Eighth's Reign And therefore I shall say nothing in this place of the Act of 1 Eliz. but perhaps I may have occasion to shew hereafter that the Doctor understands the Act of 1 Eliz. as little as any thing else that he pretends to write upon FINIS
cum aliis Proceribus Normanniae simul adesse praecepit ut Rex jussit factum est Igitur 8. Anno Papatus Domini Gregorii Papae 7. Celebre Concilium apud Jullam bonam Celebratum est Et de Statu Ecclesiae Dei totiusque Regni Providente Rege cum Baronum suorum consilio utiliter tractatum est Then he inserts the Laws made there all concerning Ecclesiastical Matters In the next Reign that of King William Rufus there was a Schism in the Popedom between Clement and Vrban Anselme whilst he was Abbot of Bec in Normandy had Sworn Obedience to Vrban and being Elected Archbishop of Canterbury desired leave to go out of the Realm to fetch his Pall from him This the King opposed for that Vrban had not been received for Pope in England and told the Archbishop he could not keep his Fealty to him his Prince saving the Obedience which he owed to Vrban Anselme upon this referred himself to the Judgment of the Archbishops Bishops Proceres c. in Parliament who accordingly were Convened at Rochingham Ex Regia Sanctione and the matter discussed before them If the Archbishop had had any Notion of a Personal Supremacy in the King separate from and independant of the Great Council of the Realm it had been absurd in him not to acquiesce in the King's Judgment but Appeal to a Parliament If the King himself had been possessed with an opinion of any Legislative or Supreme Judicial Power in Ecclesiastical Matters lodged in his Person he would never have consented to call a Parliament to determine a cause which himself as far as in him lay had determined already The History may be read at large in Eadmer Hist Nov. Lib. 2 page 24 25 26 c. In King Henry the First 's time Anno Dom. 1102. A Council was held at London in which at Anselm's request to the King the Laity were present Quatenus quicquid ejusdem Concilii authoritate decerneretur utriusque Ordinis curâ sollicitudine ratum servaretur Sic enim necesse erat Quum multis retro annis Synodali culturâ cessante vitiorum vepribus succrescentibus Christianae Religionis fervor in Angliâ nimis tepuerat This is a clear Testimony that the Assent of the Laity was necessary to the Enacting such Ecclesiastical Laws as they were to be bound by And that neither the King by his Prerogative nor the King and the Clergy could impose any Constitutions upon them without their Assent Eadmer Histor Nov. Lib. 3. Will. Malmesb. De Gest Pontif. Anglor Lib. 1. p. 129. But tho' the King could not make Laws Himself could he not permit a Legate to exercise his Legatine Power here King Henry the Eight indeed permitted Wolsey to exercise his Office here and afterward brought the whole Clergy under a Premunire for submitting to him and owning his Authority But the Statutes of Praemunire were then in being Could not our ancient Kings that Reigned before any Act of Parliament now upon Record was extant they that must needs have had all the inherent Prerogatives that are involved in the Notion of Imperial Soveraignty Doctor Hicks they that understood their power somewhat better perhaps than it is now understood because they lived nearer to the creation of it and exercised it before it was sophisticated could not they I say by vertue of their Ecclesiastical Supremacy permit the Popes Legate to domineer a while within the Realm Why King Henry the First was very well satisfied that himself had no such power For when Petrus Monachus Cluniacensis was sent hither by Calixtus the Pope to exercise his Office of Legate within this Realm the King would not suffer him so much as to Lodg upon the Road in any Religious House And when he came into his presence and had told him his Errand Rex obtensâ expeditione So Anno Dom. 1225. Magister Otto Domini Papae nuncius in Angliam veniens promagnis Ecclesiae Rom. negotiis Regi literas praesentavit sed Rex cognito literarum tenore Respondit quod solus non potuit definire nec debuit negotium quod omnes Clericos laicos totius Regni tangebat Matth. Paris p. 325. in quâ tunc erat nam super Walenses eâ tempestate exercitum duxerat dixit se tanto negotio operam tunc quidem dare non posse cum Legationis illius stabilem authoritatem non nisi per conniventiam Episcoporum Abbatum Procerum ac totius Regni Conventum roborari posse constaret Eadmer Hist Nov. p. 138. And so the Legate went back as he came He tells it him as a known truth Constaret that the giving him leave to exercise his Office here was too great a work for him to go about as his affairs then stood for that it could not be done but in and by the Parliament If the Parliament had not a share in the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction how came their Assent to be necessary If they had when did they lose it If the King's Supremacy was personal why might not he if he would have licensed him himself If it was not personal then but is so now then do not assert over and over that the late Acts of Restitution are all declarative and give no new power If the Pope's power de facto exercised be translated to the King shew the conveyance This same King in a Letter to Pope Paschall about Investitures tells him that if himself should be so mean in tantâ me dejectione ponerem as to part with them yet Optimates mei imò totius Angliae Populus id nullo modo pateretur Decem Scriptores 999. The Investitures were performed by the King in person but subsequent to an Election by the Parliament and yet the Parliament were so concerned in them that they were not nor could be parted with but by an Act of Parliament Which accordingly ensued notwithstanding the King's resoluteness at first for when Anselme came from Rome the King was perswaded to with-draw his claim and it was granted in a Parliament held at London Astantibus Archiepiscopis caeteraque multitudine maxima Procerum Magnatum ut ab eo tempore in anteâ nullus electus per dationem Baculi pastoralis vel Annuli de Episoopatu vel Abbathia investiretur per Regem vel aliam quamcunque personam secularem Ibid. Et Sim. Mon. Dun. 228 229 230. But tho' Investitures were lost Elections remained as they were at least of right till King John's time Concessit Rex Johannes liberas in omnibus Ecclesiae Anglicanae electiones Matth. Par. p. 262 263. The Charter it self which was certainly an Act of Parliament See Presidents of many Bishops and Abbots Elected in Parliament in the Reigns of King Stephen and King Henry the Second In Spelm. Conc. Second Part. p. 42 119. Innumerable are the instances of Canons and Constitutions made in the Reigns of the first Norman Kings in their Great and General Councils concerning Churchmen and Church Matters
21. They tell the King That this his Grace's Realm recognising no Superiour under God but only his Grace hath been and is free from subjection to any Man's Laws but only to such as have been devised made and ordained within this Realm for the wealth of the same or to such other as by sufferance of your Grace and your Progenitors the People of this your Realm have taken at their free Liberty by their own consent to be used amongst them and have bound themselves by long use and custom to the observance of the some not as to the Laws of any foreign Prince Potentate or Prelate but as to the accustomed and anoient Laws of this Realm originally establisht as Laws of the same by the said sufferance consent and custom and none otherwise By those other Laws not ordained within the Realm they mean the Canon Law. For the Clergy extended the bounds of it daily and always got ground But the Sufferance and Cousent here spoken of was not a bare tacit Submission to it by the People but a Consent in Parliament Where they not only received foreign Canons into the body of our Municipal Laws but also from time to time came to a Compremise with the Clergy with respect to several Matters of which the Clergy claimed Cognisance as appertaining to what they called Spiritual Jurisdiction First For our Records of Parliament yet extant go no higher by the Statute De Circumspecte agati◠but that would not satisfie them In King Edward the Second's time they got Jurisdiction in many other Causes as you may see in the Statute of Articuli Cleri And in King Edward the Third's time they went yet farther Nine new Points were gained 25 Edw. 3. by the Statutum pro Clero The Conusance of these Matters which by these Statutes were left to the Clergy belonged before to the King's Courts as part of the Common Laws of the Realm by which the King governed his People and which he administred in his ordinary Courts of Justice and by the ordinary proceedings of Law. And therefore before they were allowed to the Cognisance of the Ecclesiastical Courts by Act of Parliament Prohibitions were granted * The King 's Right of Indulgence page 28. The granting of Prohibitions in these Cases is urged by a late Author as an instance of the King 's Ancient Supremacy and urged amongst other things to prove a right in the King's Person to dispense with Civil Laws about Ecclesiastical Matters Whereas Prohibitions were granted then no otherwise than as they are now to Spiritual and other Courts when they exceed the bounds of their Jurisdiction When the Spiritual Jurisdiction broke in upon the Temporal and the Ecclesiastical Courts assum'd an Authority in Cases not allowed by the Laws of the Realm to be within their Cognisance this was an Offence against the King's Crown and Regality as the Statutes of Premunire run and Contra Coronam Dignitatem Regis as the forms of some Prohibitions in the Register run and yet the Kings Temporal Jurisdiction was not personal In this period of time it was that Dispensations brake forth They began in King Henry the Third's time which is not old enough to give the Crown a title to them by Prescription for it is within the time of Memory The History of their Nativity may be read in Matth. Paris The Pope led up the Dance taking upon him by Non Obstante's to revoke his own Grants and to dispense with the Canons upon a pretence of some plenitudo potestatis or other derived to him as Pastor of the Vniversal Church by Succession from St. Peter And Secular Princes Writ after his Copy in taking upon them to dispence with their own Penal Laws Which before were religiously observed as the Laws of the Medes and Persians Sir John Daries Case De Commenda which could not be dispensed with And therefore a Canonist says that Dispensatio vulnerat jus commune And another says that all Abuses would be reformed Si duo tantum verba viz. Non Obstante non impedirent And Matthew Paris Anno Dom. 1246. having recited certain Decrees made in the Council of Lyons which were beneficial to the Church of England Sed omnia haec alia says he per hoc repagulum Non Obstante infirmantur Dav. Rep. 69 70. c. Secular Princes it seems had not learnt that part of their Prerogative till they were taught it by their Ghostly Father Nor could they well have any notion of it since as Sir Henry Spelman tells us in his Glossary tit Assisa Reges Proceres in condendis Legibus earum olim jurabant observantiam Hence Bracton calls the Laws of England Leges Juratas Now the taking of an Oath to observe them and the being allowed a power by Law to break them seem to me very inconsistent things It 's observable to this purpose what Bracton tells us concerning the Laws of England Legis vigorem habet quicquid de Consilio Consensu Magnatum Reipublicae Communi sponsione authoritate Regis sive Principis praecedente justè fuerit definitum approbatum So that a Statute of the Kingdom of England is an Agreement betwixt all parties concerned Which for any one of them to set aside is against Natural Reason And Fortescue who was Lord High Chancellor of England in the Reign of King Henry the Sixth cannot be supposed to have known of any such Prerogative in the King by the account that he gives us of the Solemnity of Enacting Laws here in England and of the course that was to be taken when any of them were found by Experience to be inconvenient Pag. 39 40. Statuta tunc Angliae bona sunt necne solum restat explorandum Non enim emanant illa Principis solùm voluntate ut Leges in Regnis quae Regaliter tantum gubernantur ubi quandoque Statuta ità constituentis procurant commodum singulare quod in ejus subditorum ipsa redundant dispendium jacturam Quandoque enim inadvertentiâ Principum hujusmodi sibi consulentium inertiâ ipsa tam inconsultè eduntur quòd corruptelarum potiùs quà m Legum nomina mereantur Sed non sic Angliae Statuta oriri possunt dum nedum Principis voluntate sed totius Regni assensu ipsa conduntur quo Populi laesuram illa essicere nequeunt vel non eorum commodum procurare Prudentiâ enim Sapientiâ necessariò ipsa esse referta putandum est dum non unius aut centum solùm consultorum virorum prudentiâ sed plusquam trecentorum electorum hominum quali numero olim Senatus Romanorum regebatur ipsa edita sunt Et si Statuta haec tanta solemnitate prudentia edita efficaciae tantae quantae conditorum cupiebat intentio non esse contingant concito reformari ipsa possunt non sine Communitatis Procerum Regni illius assensu quali ipsa primitùs emanarunt A Power in the Prince to suspend Laws