That double-beneficed men be not suffered | dutiful submission, referring ourselves to to hold, some two, some three, benefices your Majesty's pleasure for your gracious with cure, and some two, three, or four answer as God shall direct you, we most dignities besides. That impropriations humbly recommend your Highness to the annexed to bishoprics and colleges be de- Divine Majesty, whom we beseech, for mised only to the preachers incumbents, Christ's sake, to dispose your royal heart for the old rent. That the impropriations to do herein what shall be to His glory, of laymen's fees be charged, with a sixth the good of His Church, and your endless or seventh part of their worth, to the comfort. Your Majesty's most humble maintenance of the preaching minister. subjects, "The ministers of the Gospel (4) For Church discipline: that the discip- that desire not a disorderly innovation, line and excommunication may be minis- but a due and godly reformation.””tered according to Christ's own institution, Fuller. or at least that enormities may be redressed, as, namely, that excommunication come not forth under the name of lay persons, chancellors, officials, etc.; that men be not excommunicated for trifles and twelvepenny matters; that none be excommunicated without consent of his pastor. That the officers be not suffered to extort unreasonable fees. That none process, (B) ALTERATIONS MADE IN THE PRAYER-BOOK AFTER THE HAMPTON COURT CONFERENCE. In the calendar, August 26, Prov. xxx. instead of Bel and the Dragon; October 1 and 2, Exod. vi., Josh. xx. and xxii., in stead of Tobit v. vi. viii. Into the title of the Absolution the insertion of the words, or remission of sins. A prayer for the queen, the prince, and royal family, after prayer for the king; a corresponding petition in the Litany. Thanksgivings for rain, fair weather, plenty, peace, and victory, deliverance from plague in two forms, added to occasional prayers, and styled an enlargement of thanksgiving for divers benefits, by way of explanation. In Gospels for 2d Sunday after Easter, and 20th Sunday after Trinity, the words "unto his disciples" omitted, and Christ said and Jesus said to be printed in letters differing from the text. In heading of Private Baptism, instead of them that be in-baptized in private houses in time of necessity, of them that are to be baptized in private houses in time of necessity by the minister of the parish or any other lawful minister that can be procured. In the second Rubrick, instead of "they baptize not their children," they procure not their children to be baptized. In the third Rubrick similar insertion of the words the lawful minister. In the inquiry as to baptism, the words, and because some things essential to this sacrament may happen to be omitted through fear or haste in such times of extremity, therefore I demand further, to be inserted; confirmation explained by adding, or laying on of hands on children baptized and able to render an account of their faith according to the Catechism following. The concluding portion on the sacraments was added to the Catechism, being the work of Dean Overal, prolocutor of Convocation, afterwards bishop.-Procter's Hist. of Prayer-book. CHAPTER XXIII. COLLISIONS BETWEEN THE ECCLESIASTICAL AND LAY AUTHORITIESREVISION OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THE BIBLE-BISHOPS FOR SCOTLAND. 1605-1610. § 1. The Judges begin to issue Prohibitions. § 2. Bancroft exhibits Articles of Complaint against them to the Council. §3. The answer of the Judges. § 4. Contest between the two authorities. § 5. Bishops and Judges before the King. § 6. Parliament jealous of ecclesiastical claims. § 7. Dr. Cowell's Interpreter. § 8. Demands made by Parliament as to Church abuses. § 9. Bancroft's letter to his Suffragans. § 10. Bitter spirit evoked in Parliament and the country. § 11. The policy of employing the Church against the Romanist. § 12. Divines drawn into controversy with Rome. § 13. The revision of the translation of the Bible determined on. §14. Preparations for it. § 15. Arrangements for carrying on the work. § 16. Character of the work. § 17. Restoration of the Episcopate to Scotland. § 18. Death of Bancroft, estimate of his work. § 1. THE vigorous working of the ex-animo subscription test, and the high claims made for Church authority by Archbishop Bancroft soon awakened the jealousy of the judges. The power of prohibitions issued by the temporal courts had been learned in the last days of Queen Elizabeth, and the need of them seemed now to be still more apparent. These prohibitions had the effect of bringing many of the matters, cited before the ecclesiastical courts, to be tried by the common law of the land. This was extremely distasteful to the archbishop. § 2. In Michaelmas term 1605, Bancroft exhibited to the Privy Council twenty-five articles of complaint on the part of the clergy against the judges. This document states that 570 prohibitions had been granted, since the late queen's reign, to the Court of Arches alone. It pleads that as both the ecclesiastical and temporal jurisdictions are now united in his Majesty, it is absurd to allow one to impede the other, as though the jurisdictions were separate and distinct. It brings together all the arguments in favour of the free action of the Church courts, and calls upon the Council to remedy the grievance. § 3. The Council referred the matter to the judges, who, in Easter term 1606, replied in a paper agreed upon unanimously. 112 They had on a former occasion committed themselves to a complete approval of the powers of the High Commission Court. Soon, however, they had shown themselves of a different mind. Within five months after giving that opinion they had issued a prohibition to stay a suit, because the accused had not received a copy of the articles charged against him. They had delivered, by writs of habeas corpus, two persons committed to prison by the Commission Court, and when persons were arrested under the writ of de excommunicato capiendo, the judges had ordered the sheriffs to bring them into their courts and then had discharged them.1 This decided action against the ecclesiastical jurisdiction the judges now undertook to justify. "To each of the articles of complaint they made separate answers, in a rough, and some might say, in a rude style, but pointed, and very much to the purpose.' They accuse the bishops of "strange presumption," and of utter ignorance of law. They say that so bad is the character of the ecclesiastical courts for justice, that a temporal man will prefer to have a claim for tithes tried against him in the King's Courts, though there, if cast, he will have to pay treble value, rather than in the spiritual courts, which are not allowed to award more than double value. They accuse the clergy of vexing their parishioners with claims for tithes which they never had, and to which they have no right. One minister had demanded seventeen different sorts of tithes, but on a prohibition, eight or nine of these were at once struck off. It was a common practice when suing for tithes to put in seven or eight additional claims, though without reason. As to the point that the king being the source of all jurisdiction could appoint what each of the courts was to concern itself with, the judges answer that nothing less than an Act of Parliament could alter the course of justice established by law.3 § 4. The rough answer of the judges only incited the archbishop to go all lengths in upholding what he regarded to be the privileges and rights of the Church. A strife commenced between the two jurisdictions not salutary for either of them. Thomas Ladd, a merchant at Great Yarmouth, and Richard Munsell, a preacher, were committed to prison by the Court of High Commission, but on the application of Nicholas Fuller, a bencher of Gray's Inn, writs of habeas corpus were granted by the Court of King's Bench, and they were discharged. Upon this Mr. Fuller himself was arrested by the High Commission Court. He applied 1 Bancroft's Articuli cleri, printed in Cardwell, Doc. Annals, ii. 82-105. 2 Hallam, Const. Hist. i. 318. 3 Coke's Institute, p. ii. Collier well points out that this ruling of the judges being in their own cause, could not be held as determining the law. -Ch. Hist. vii. 324. to the judges for a prohibition. The judges granted him one so far as respected anything he had said as an advocate. It was declared that he was arrested, not for this, but for heresy. With this the judges could not interfere. Mr. Fuller was fined £200 before he was released, and in a short time afterwards was again in custody. How long he remained in ward is not known, but two years afterwards he appears to have been in his place in Parliament.1 § 5. In 1609 the archbishop made another attempt to reduce the judges by the authority of the king. At a meeting of the rival functionaries held before his Majesty, Bancroft stated that the judges were the king's delegates, and that he might take any causes he pleased out of their hands. This doctrine was flatly contradicted by Sir Edward Coke. The king upheld it, and something like a quarrel took place between him and the resolute Chief-Justice. The judges, it appears, would not allow to the Church officers any power of interpreting statutes. Their courts, they maintained, were bound to take the law from them. They had no right to fine or imprison except for heresy. As to the ipso facto excommunication, they refused to recognise it. The ecclesiastical lawyers retorted, and the king, unable to settle the dispute, could only exhort them to live in peace one with another.2 § 6. These collisions between the two jurisdictions had no doubt an influence upon the temper of Parliament, ever jealous of the ecclesiastical courts. When Parliament met in 1610, very violent attacks were made on the Court of High Commission. So bitterly did the members attack the Church jurisdiction, that the king endeavoured to bring them to a better mind by a lecture. His speech was heard in silence, but did not serve to change men's minds. It was generally believed that he was in favour of the purest absolutism, and had an utter dislike of all constitutional checks. § 7. Not long before he was known to have commended publicly a book written by Dr. Cowell, reader of civil law at Cambridge, named The Interpreter. In this work it was contended that the king was bound by no laws, that he could make laws at his pleasure, and though the Parliament was assembled to grant subsidies, this was a matter of favour and not of right. The king may quash any law made by Parliament. "It is uncontrollable that the King of England is an absolute king." 3 The open approval of 1 It is said by Fuller (Ch. Hist. x. iii. 29) that he died in prison. This is shown to be incorrect by Mr. Gardiner.-Hist. England, i. 443. Gardiner, Hist. of England, i. 446, sq. 3 Cowell's Interpreter, quoted by Hallam, Const. Hist. i. 319; Gardiner, Hist. Eng. i. 452. such monstrous doctrines as these, taken together with the fact that the clergy in their Convocation had constructed a number of canons on civil government, which asserted the divine right of kings in the strongest manner, might well alarm the Parliament. A conference was held between the two Houses. It was determined that the author of such an exposition of law as that which appeared in The Interpreter, should be punished. Dr. Cowell was imprisoned, and his book suppressed by proclamation. § 8. The Commons, angry with the king and the clergy, demanded, when prorogued in July (1610), that the deprived ministers should be restored. They complained of pluralities, nonresidence, and the abuse of excommunication. The king absolutely 66 2 refused the first request. It would be fatal, he said, to the very existence of the Church. As to the other matters, he said he would look to them. In fulfilment of this promise, he gave charge at once to the archbishop to look into and abate all cases of real abuse. § 9. The Primate wrote to his suffragans to inform them that upon the grievances exhibited to his Majesty by the Lower House of Parliament, he hath been pleased to undertake much on our behalf, and to lay a great burden upon me, which I am otherwise not able to bear, but by assistance of your lordship and others our brethren the bishops. These are therefore to pray your lordship to inform yourself how many ministers have two benefices within your diocese, and whether every one of them hath a preaching minister to supply his absence. If not, cause him to supply that defect. If any give your lordship froward answers, suspend them for that contempt, and sequester the fruits of the benefice, and allow a reasonable portion for a curate that is a preacher. All prebendaries are to be required to reside on their benefices, and there to preach every Sunday. You are to examine very narrowly the proceedings of your commissaries, chancellor, archdeacons, and officials; for while we repose so much trust in them as we do, and they intend little but their own profit, many true complaints and mischiefs do arise. You are to take care that all parsons keep the houses belonging to their benefices in good repair. In spite of the constitutions and canons, there never was such excessive luxury in clerical attire as at present. All dress like bishops. You shall find deans usually either in their velvet, damask, or satin cassocks, with their silk nether stock. Nay, some archdeacons and inferior ministers having two benefices are likewise so attired; to omit that their wives in the cost and vanity of their apparel do exceed as 1 For an account of these canons, which ultimately appeared as a treatise called "Bishop Overall's Convocation Book," see Notes and Illustrations to this chapter. 2 State Papers of James I., liii. 123, 124. |