1 
 
 ly" 
 
 y
 
 J 
 
 L I E> RARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UN IVLR.SITY 
 
 or ILLI NOIS

 
 BISHOP OF LINCOLN 
 
 Rev. canon HOLE 
 
 ON 
 
 LORD PENZANCES DECISIONS. 
 WITH NOTES. 
 
 James Williamson 
 
 RIVINGTONS 
 
 3i:ontfon, ©iforU, anu CambriUgt 
 
 1877 
 
 \^Price One Penny. ^
 
 PREFACE, 
 
 Hatikg been requested to reprint the following 
 Correspondence, published by Canon Hole, I have 
 taken the opportunity of enlarging one or two para- 
 graphs in my Letter, and of adding a few Notes at 
 the end, in illustration and confirmation of the state- 
 ments in it. 
 
 C. L. 
 
 January 2UJi, 1877.
 
 Cauuton Mauor, Newark, January 8th, 1877. 
 My dear Lord Bishop, 
 
 The enclosed circular has been sent to me to- 
 day, as Chairman of the Newark and Southwell branch 
 of the English Church Union. I shall feel very grate- 
 ful to your Lordship if you will kindly favour m.e with 
 your opinion upon the resolution which it is proposed 
 to submit to the meeting. By that opinion I shall 
 not only be myself guided, but shall be able to influence 
 many others. 
 
 With sincere respect and love, I remain. 
 
 Your Lordship's affectionate and faithful servant, 
 S. Eexnolds Hole. 
 
 To the Right Rev. 
 The LoED Bishop or Lincoln. 
 
 Riseholme, Lincoln, January 10th, 1877. 
 
 My dear Canon Hole, 
 
 I received your letter yesterday, enclosing a 
 resolution, which, as Chairman of the Newark and 
 Southwell branch of the English Church L^nion, you 
 forward to me, and which you inform me is to be 
 proposed at a meeting of the members of several 
 branches of the Union to be held on Tuesday next at 
 Newark, in this diocese. 
 
 That resolution is as follows : — 
 
 " In consequence of recent action taken by the Court created 
 under the Public Worship Regulation Act, this Meeting declares 
 that in its judgment any sentence of suspension or inhibition 
 pronounced by any Court sitting under the aforesaid Act is 
 spiritually null and void, and that should any Priest feel it to be 
 his duty to continue to discharge his spiritual functions notwith- 
 standing such sentence, he is hereby assured of our sympathy, 
 A 2
 
 4 Letter from the Bishop of Lincoln, 
 
 and of such support and assistance as the circumstances of the 
 case might demand." 
 
 In your letter to me you ask for my opinion on this 
 resolution, and you add that you will be guided by 
 that opinion, and will make use of it for the guidance 
 of others. 
 
 I therefore feel bound to comply with your request. 
 This resolution involves grave questions of Theology 
 and Law, human and divine. 
 
 The fundamental principles which ought to be care- 
 fully borne in mind by all who deal with it are as 
 follows : — 
 
 1. — All authority is from God. This is clearly 
 stated in Holy Scripture by St. Paul {Rom, xiii. 1, 2), 
 *' Let every soul be subject to the higher powers (or 
 authorities), for there is no power (or authority) but of 
 orod ; the powers (or authorities) that be are ordained 
 or God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power 
 rrsisteth the ordinance of God ; and they that resist 
 shall receive to themselves damnation ;" and St. Peter 
 says (1 JPeter ii. 13), "Submit yourselves to every 
 ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether it be to 
 the king as supreme, or unto governors ;" and St. 
 Paul therefore writes to the Bishop of Crete 
 {Titus iii. 1), " Put them in mind to be subject to 
 principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be 
 ready to every good work, to speak evil of no man." 
 
 Kesistance to supreme human authority in lawful 
 commands is disobedience to God, from Whom all 
 authority flows. 
 
 2. — If the supreme human authority commands 
 what is plainly contrary to the law of God, Whose 
 representative and vicegerent the supreme human 
 authority is, in such cases the authority is not to be 
 obeyed, because all men are under a prior and para- 
 mount obligation to obey God. This was exemplified 
 in the history of the three childien at Babylon 
 refusing to commit idolatry at the bidding of the king ; 
 
 
 J
 
 Letter frotn the Bishop of Lincoln. 5 
 
 and in that of Daniel refusing to omit his prayers in 
 obedience to the decree of Darius ; and in that of the 
 Apostles refusing to desist from preaching at the 
 command of the Jewish rulers. In all such cases as 
 these we must say with the Apostles, " We ought to 
 obey God rather than men " {Acts v. 29 ; iv. 19). 
 We must obey men for the sake of God, but we must 
 not disobey God for the sake of men. 
 
 3. — In I'^ngland the supreme human authority, under 
 Christ, over all persons, spiritual as well as temporal, 
 and in all causes, ecclesiastical as well as civil, is vested 
 in the Sovereign. This is affirmed by the Church of 
 England in her Articles (Art. xxxvii.), (which were 
 agreed upon by the Church in Convocation,) and also 
 in her Canons (Canons 1, 2). Therefore they who 
 appeal to the authority of the Church aud to her 
 Canon law, are bound to acknowledge the Eoyal 
 Supremacy, properly understood ; and he that resists 
 that authority in anything which is not plainly re- 
 pugnant to the law of God, not only resists the law of 
 the State, but of the Church; he resists God, from 
 Whom all the authority of rulers and laws is derived. 
 
 4. — In the realm of England the laws of the land 
 are the laws of the sovereign. They have no validity 
 before they receive the Eoyal assent. In the words of 
 Bishop Sanderson (in his seventh lecture on Conscience 
 and on the efficient cause of human Law), " Our laws in 
 England are called the King's laws, because the kings of 
 England are the fountains of law and justice, and 
 because God has bestowed upon them a sovereign 
 imperial power, by which they give a force to the 
 laws themselves, and cause them to be received as 
 such." 
 
 And this is not only the case with regard to laws 
 concerning civil matters, but also with respect to laws 
 ecclesiastical, as the same author reminds us in the 
 same lecture. The Canons framed by the Church in 
 her Convocations and Synods " have no obligatory
 
 6 Letter from the Bishop of Lincoln. 
 
 force till they receive the assent of the Sovereign, by 
 ■whose piibh'c authority as soon as they are confirmed 
 they immediately pass into a law, and obhge the 
 conscience of the subject." 
 
 5. — It is not indeed to be imagined that Bishops 
 and Clergy of the Church of England derive their 
 authority to preach or minister the sacraments from 
 any human source. No ; they derive it from Christ, 
 and from Christ alone. Who is supreme over all human 
 authority ; and from Whom all authority comes. But 
 the designation oi thQ places in which (such as dioceses 
 and parishes), their divinely appointed authority is to 
 be exercised and applied by Bishops and Clergy, and 
 the exttrnal jurisdiction by which that authority is 
 supported, are from the laws of the realm, and from 
 the supreme human authority in it. 
 
 6. — Not only all Laws in England which have any 
 co-active authority, whether civil or ecclesiastical, are 
 acknowledged by our greatest theologians to be the 
 laws of the Sovereign ; but all Courts, whether eccle- 
 siastical or civil, are, strictly speaking, the Queen^s 
 Courts.''^ 
 
 This is distinctly stated in the statute of the first 
 year of King Edward the Sixth, in these words, " all 
 Courts Ecclesiastical are kept by no other authority 
 than that of the King's most excellent Majesty," and 
 this is very fully set forth in Bishop Sanderson's 
 treatise, " on Episcopacy not prejudicial to lioyal 
 Power," (p. 47, ed. Lond., 1673, or in Bishop 
 Jacobson's edition, vol. v,, p. 162), to which I beg to 
 refer you.* 
 
 7. — Let me now apply these principles to the re- 
 solution which you have sent me. 
 
 I do not intend to say that in laws which concern 
 
 the Clergy and their public ministrations it is not very 
 
 desirable that the temporal power should avail itself 
 
 of the counsel of Bishops and Clergy in Provincial 
 
 • See the Notes at the end of this Letter, pp. 15, 16.
 
 Letter from the Bishop of Lincoln. 7 
 
 Synods, duly convened under royal authority, according 
 to the principle laid down in the celebrated statute of 
 appeals (24 Hen. viii., c. 12). 
 
 For the better framing of such laws, and for the 
 readier acceptance of them by the Clergy, such a 
 course is certainly very expedient, and I stated as 
 much in the Parliamentary debates on the Public 
 Worship Eegulation Bill, on April 28th and June 4th, 
 1874, in the House of Lords, and also in a tract then 
 published by me, entitled " Senates and Synods.'" * 
 
 The question, however, raised in your letter to me, 
 is not, — Whether the " Public Worship Regulation 
 Act " would not have been a much better measure, if 
 it had been passed with the consent of the Church in 
 her Convocations, — but the question is, whether the 
 decisions of the Court of Arches, as modified by that 
 Act, have no spiritual validity, and ought to be 
 resisted by the Clergy ? 
 
 And here let us refer to our history. The Second 
 Prayer 13ook of Edward the Sixth, and the Prayer 
 Book of Elizabeth were put forth by the Crown, with 
 the advice of certain Bishops and Divines, and with 
 the authority of Parliament, but not of Convocation. 
 The additions to the Church Catechism, and other 
 changes in the Prayer Book in the reign of King 
 James the First, did not receive the assent of Con- 
 vocation tni after their promulgation by the Crown. 
 (See Canon 80.) The use of our Authorized Version 
 of the Bible of 1611 does not rest on the sanction of 
 Convocation. The Legislative measures which have 
 altered the constitution and condition of our Cathedral 
 Churches, and the " Church Discipline Act," have 
 been passed without Synodical sanction. 
 
 These are examples of anomalies which we reason- 
 ably regret ; and we shall do well to endeavour to 
 prevent their recurrence by all well-considered measures 
 
 * "Senates and Synods; with reference to the Public Worship 
 Regulation Bill." Price One Penny. Eivingtons, 1874.
 
 8 Letter frot7i the Bishop of Lincoln. 
 
 in our power ; especially by reference to the action of 
 tlie House of Commons with regard to the " Com- 
 prehension BllV^ in 1689 (see Senates and Synods, 
 p. 14). 
 
 Again, the question which is raised in the resolution 
 which you have sent me, is whether sentences of 
 suspension or inhibition pronounced by the Court of 
 Arches, as recently modified by the Public Worship 
 Regulation Act, are " spiritually null and void,^^ and 
 whether it be right to encourage the Clergy of the 
 Church of England to " continue to discharge their 
 spiritual functions," notwithstanding such sentences, 
 by assuring them not only of sympathy, but of " such 
 support and assistance as the circumstances of the case 
 might demand." 
 
 The precise meaning of the word spiritually in this 
 resolution is not clear ; it may signify what appertains 
 to the Church as distinct from the State, and be 
 equivalent to ecclesiastical, or it may mean what is 
 divine, and affects the conscience. 
 
 Let us consider it in both these senses. 
 
 The Court in question is an JEcclesiastical Court, it 
 is the Court of the Province in which a Judge sits 
 who is delegated by the Metropolitan. 
 
 The Court of Arches is also one of the Queen's Courts; 
 and has been constituted by a legislative enactment, 
 which is one of the Queen's laws ; and the Queen's 
 Majesty is acknowledged by the Church of England to 
 be supreme, under God, over all persons, spiritual as 
 well as temporal, and in all causes, ecclesiastical as 
 well as civil. Accordingly, ever since the Reformation 
 in the 16th century, there has been an Appeal to the 
 Crown in all causes, spiritual or ecclesiastical, and not 
 only so, but every Priest of the Church of England 
 solemnly pledged himself in the House of Grod, at his 
 ordination to the priesthood, to " minister the doctrine 
 and sacraments and discipline of Christ as the Lord 
 hath commanded, and as this Church and Bealm hath 
 received the same."
 
 Letter from the Bishop of Lincoln. 9 
 
 We may, or we mav not, regard this state of things 
 as satisfactory. It has, I think, its imperfections 
 in practice, as all earthly things have. But, my dear 
 friend, we need not hesitate to prefer our own system 
 of Church Government to other systems ; such, for 
 example, as the Papal, where all authority, human and 
 Divine, is subjected to the will of one man; or the 
 Puritan, where, under a professed zeal for the royalties 
 of Christ, all is made subordinate to consistories of 
 human invention ; or the Erastian, where Divine law 
 is to give way to the human will ; or to the still more 
 modern theory of Government, where everything is at 
 the mercy of popular plebiscites. And the ecclesiastical 
 system of " disestahlished churches,^' as far as we have 
 seen it, is not very happy in its resnlts. Perhaps 
 some of those, who now court Disestablishment, would 
 be the first to rue it. 
 
 But after all we must remember, this is not the 
 question. The question is whether we, the Bishops 
 and Clergy of the Church of England, who have been 
 admitted to our offices and benefices under certain 
 conditions freely accepted by ourselves, are at liberty 
 to violate those conditions, and then to claim a right 
 to hold those offices and benefices. 
 
 Such a course seems to be at variance with the 
 duty which we owe, as Clergymen, to the Church. 
 
 And now suppose it to be alleged that the Court in 
 question, which has been recently modified witlioat 
 the consent of the Church, cannot by any of its judg- 
 ments oblige our consciences to obedience. Let me 
 answer again, in the words of an author already quoted, 
 that " temporal authority may have a spiritual effect 
 derived to it from the power of some superior cause under 
 which it acts. A magistrate when he justly executes 
 his legislative power which God has put into his 
 hands, acts by virtue of a divine authority and by the 
 appointment of God, Who is a spirit, and Who, as the 
 Lord and Father of spirits, has sovereign authority 
 over the spirits of men." {Bishop Sanderson, Lecture
 
 lo Letter from the Bishop of Liticoln. 
 
 5.) Here the words of the Apostle apply, " We must 
 needs be subject not only for wrath {i. e., for fear of 
 punishment) but for conscience sake." {Bom. xiii. 
 
 To resist such authority, in things which are not 
 clearly contrary to the Divine Law, is to resist God ; 
 and such an offence is greater in the Clergy, who have 
 pledged themselves to be subject to the Sovereign as 
 " supreme over all persons, and in all causes ecclesias- 
 tical and civil ;" and who are bound to teach others 
 by example as well as by precept " to be subject to 
 principalities and powers, to obey magistrates." {Titus 
 iii. 13.) 
 
 8. — When also a Clergyman, who has solemnly 
 promised at his ordination to obey his Ordinary {i. e., 
 the Bishop of the Diocese), is commanded by his 
 Bishop, in the exercise of his Episcopal authority, to 
 submit to the decisions of the Court of Arches, as now 
 constituted, I confess that I cannot understand how 
 in such a case " the decisions of the Court have no 
 spiritual validity/,'' but on the contrary, a Clergyman 
 who sets them at defiance, appears to be openly 
 despising and resisting both spiritual and temporal 
 authority. 
 
 9. — It ma}^ indeed be alleged by some well- meaning 
 persons that such clergymen are suffering persecution, 
 and have claims to sympathy and support. But the 
 fact is, such clergymen are not martyrs, hut per- 
 secutors. They are persecuting the Church of which 
 they are ministers, by disturbing its peace, and by 
 stirring up strife, and by spreading confusion and 
 anarchy, and by marring its efficacy, and imperilling 
 its safety. 
 
 As was observed long ago by St. Augustine, such 
 persons are like Agar and Ishmael, who complained of 
 persecution, but who persecuted Sarah and Isaac. 
 {Galat. iv. 29.) 
 
 10. — The resolution in question pledges all who
 
 Letter from the Bishop of Lincoln. 1 1 
 
 vote for it, to give to those who resist the authority of 
 the Court of Arches " such support and assistance as 
 the circumstances of the case may demand." 
 
 In other words, it will bind them not only to help 
 in defraying the legal expenses of such clergymen as 
 may resist those decisions, but also to provide main- 
 tenance for them and their families during suspension 
 and after deprivation ; and also to build for them 
 churches and parsonages, when, in consequence of such 
 resistance, they may be deprived of the churches in 
 which they now minister, and of the houses in which 
 they now dwell. 
 
 This may be a very serious matter ; but it vanishes 
 into insignificance when compared with the con- 
 sequences of the separation of pastors from their flocks, 
 and of the disruption of the Church of England, and 
 of all the calamitous results of such a disruption, moral 
 and religious, not only to the Church but to the Nation. 
 
 11. — This resolution must, if carried, lead its 
 supporters much further. 
 
 They who resist the decisions of the Court of Arches 
 on the grounds alleged by them, must by parity of 
 reasoning proceed also to resist the authority of the 
 Final Court of Appeal, namely, the Judicial Committee 
 of Privy Council, which has succeeded the Court of 
 Delegates, and has been constituted by legislative 
 enactments, without the advice or assent of the Church. 
 Indeed, this is already avowed by some. And, my 
 dear friend, who can foresee what will be the end of 
 such a conflict as this ? 
 
 12. — In writing thus, I shall not be supposed to say 
 that our present system of Ecclesiastical Judicature, 
 and our present mode of legislating on ecclesiastical 
 and religious questions are not open to serious ob- 
 jections, and do not require amendment. On the 
 contrary, I fully admit the force of much that is 
 pleaded in both these respects. I am of opinion that 
 for the sake of the State^ as well as for that of the
 
 12 Letter from the Bishop of Lincoln. 
 
 Church, much more liberty ought to be given to her, 
 and much more importance be attached to the judg- 
 ment of the spiritualty in Ecclesiastical causes, and to 
 the action of the Church of England in her Synods, 
 diocesan and provincial, so that she may be recognized 
 in her authentic character, as grounded on Holy 
 Scripture, interpreted by the consent and practice of 
 the ancient Catholic Church. 
 
 But we shall never obtain these benefits by violent 
 resistance to constituted authorities. On the contrary, 
 by such resistance we shall provoke violent reprisals, 
 and greatly injure the cause we desire to maintain. 
 
 13. — And here let us consider the example of our 
 blessed Lord Himself and His Holy Apostles. Their 
 days were evil days for the ancient Hebrew Church of 
 God. Bad men sat in high places, civil and eccle- 
 siastical. And yet our Lord commanded His disciples 
 to obey them in all matters not contrary to God's law 
 {Mattheiv xxiii. 2). The Hebrew High Priesthood, 
 instituted by God Himself, was no longer hereditary 
 for life, but high priests were made and unmade by the 
 heathen power of Bome. Yet our Lord communicated 
 with them in the temple, and pleaded before them ; 
 and His Apostle St. Paul stood at the tribunal of one 
 of the worst of that number, and owned him as the 
 ruler of God's people, and corrected himself for speak- 
 ing evil of him {Acts xxiii. 4, 5). And he pleaded, in 
 a cause of religion, even before Felix Agrippa,and Festus 
 {Acts XXV. xxvi.) 
 
 14. — No age of the Church can be mentioned in 
 which there have not been many flaws and blemishes 
 in the relations of the civil and ecclesiastical authorities. 
 But the way to remove them is not by disobeying God 
 in resistance to lawful authority, but by judicious reme- 
 dial measures, and by doing our own duties in our 
 respective callings, and by improving the diocesan and 
 parochial system of the Church of England, especially 
 in our large towns; and by diffusing her benign influence
 
 Notes, 1 3 
 
 in the hearts of the population, so that hy their means 
 acting on the Legislature, wise and wholesome laws may 
 be enacted, and the spiritual and temporal authorities 
 may move in harmonious concert for the promotion of 
 the Divine glory, in obedience to the Divine will and 
 word, for the honour of the Crown of England, for the 
 peace and stability of the Church, and for the safety 
 and prosperity of the realm. 
 
 I am, my dear Canon Hole, yours affectionately, 
 
 C. Ll]S^COLN". 
 The Eev. Cais"o:n' Hole, Rural Deaa, 
 Cauntou Manor, Xewark-on-Trent. 
 
 Caunton Manor, Xewark, January 11th, 1877. 
 My dear Lord Bishop, 
 
 I feel most thankful to your Lordship for the 
 letter which I have received this morning, and I am 
 convinced that the publication of it, which you kindly 
 permit, will not only stablish, strengthen, settle many 
 a doubtful mind, but will promote in this diocese, and 
 wherever it is read, the spirit of obedience, loyalty, and 
 peace. 
 
 Believe me to remain, with affectionate respect, 
 Tour Lordship's grateful and faithful servant, 
 S. Eeynolds Hole. 
 
 [The following is from Bishop Sanderson On Epis- 
 copacy,^c.,'}^2i^es 26 — 35, ed. Lond. 1673. Bishop 
 Sanderson's authority in the Convocation and 
 Church of England was evinced by his being ap- 
 pointed to write the Preface to our Book of Common 
 Prayer, at the last revision of it.] 
 
 TLe Ministerial Potoer (in the Church) is that which is 
 common to Bishops with their fellow Presbyters, viz, the Preach- 
 ing of the Word, and the Administration of the Sacraments, and 
 is confesst-d to he from heaven, and of God. 
 
 And yet no prfjudice is at all conceived to be done thereby to 
 the regal power, because the Ministers, who exercise that power.
 
 14 Notes, 
 
 ai'e the King's subjects, and are also, in the executing of those 
 very acts, that are proper to their ministerial functions, to be 
 limited and ordered by the Ecclesiastical Laws, i.e. by such Laws 
 as have been by regal power established in this reahn. 
 
 The King doth no more challenge to himself, as belonging to 
 him by virtue of his Supremacy Ecclesiastical, the power of 
 ordaining Ministers, ezcommunicating scandalous offenders, or 
 doing any other act of Episcopal office in Ids otvn poioer, than 
 he doth the power of Preaching, administering the Sacraments, 
 or doing any other act of Ministerial Office in his own person ; 
 but he leaveth the performance of all such acts, of either sort, 
 unto such persons as the said several respective powers do of 
 divine right belong unto ; viz. of the one sort to a Bishop, and 
 of the other to all I^ricsts. 
 
 Yet doth the King, by virtue of that supremacy, challenge 
 a power as belonging to him, in the right of his Crown, to make 
 Laws as well concerning Preaching, administering the Saci'aments, 
 and other acts belonging to the function of a Priest, as concern- 
 ing Ordination of Ministers, proceedings of matters Ecclesiastical 
 in the Spiritual Court, and other acts belonging to the functions 
 of a Bishop ; to which Laws as well the Priests as the Bishops 
 are subject, and ought to submit to be limited and regulated 
 thereby, in the exercise of those their several powers; their 
 claim to a jus divinum, and that their said several powers are 
 from Goil, notwithstanding. 
 
 All power, to the exercise whereof our Bishops have pretended, 
 cometh under one of the two heads; of Order, or of Juris- 
 diction. 
 
 The power of Order consisteth partly in Preaching the Word, 
 and other Offices of Public Worship, common to them with 
 their fellow-ministers; partly in Ordaining Priests and Deacons, 
 admitting tliem to their Sacred Cures, and other things of like 
 nature, peculiar to them alone. 
 
 The power of Jurisdiction is either internal, in retaining and 
 remitting sins in faro conscientifB, common to them also, for the 
 «Mj*^awceof the authority, though with some difference o^ degree, 
 with other ministers ; or external, for the outward government 
 of the Church in some parts thereof, peculiar to them alone. 
 
 That external power is either directive in prescribing rules 
 and orders to those under their jurisdictions, and making Canons 
 and Constitutions to be observed by the Church ; wherein the 
 inferior Clergy, by their representatives in Convocation, have 
 their voice, as well as the Bishops ; and both dependently upon 
 the King; for they cannot either meet without the writ, or treat 
 without his commission, or establish without his royal assent. 
 
 Or it is judiciary and coercive in giving sentence, in foro 
 exieriori, in matte s of Ecclesiastical cognizance.
 
 Notes. 15 
 
 Of these powers some branches, not only in the exercise thereof, 
 but even in the very substance of the power itself (as, namely, 
 that o^ external jurisdiction coercive), are by the Laws declared, 
 and by the Clergy acknowledged to be wholly and entirely 
 derived from the King, as the sole fountain of all Authority of 
 external Jurisdiction, whether spiritual or temporal, within the 
 realm, — Bishop Sanderson. 
 
 Richard Hooker, Laws of Eccl. Polity, viii. 8, thus writes, 
 "As the person of the King may for just considerations, even 
 where the cause is civil, be notwithstanding withdrawn from the 
 seat of judgment, and others under his authority he fit, he unfit 
 himself, to judge; so the considerations for which it v.ere haply not 
 convenient for kings to sit and give sentence in spiritual courts, 
 where causes ecclesiastical are usually debated, can be no bar 
 to that force and efficacy, which their sovereign power hath over 
 those very consistories, and for which we hold without any 
 exception that all Courts are the King's." 
 
 And see Bishop Andreives, Tortura Torti, p. 380, where is 
 probably the clearest and most comprehensive statement of the 
 nature, offices, and limits of the exercise of the Royal Supremacy. 
 
 The whole may be summed up as follows . — 
 
 1. All authority is from God alone. 
 
 2. In England, the Sovereign is, under God, supreme over all 
 persons, spiritual and temporal ; and in all causes, Ecclesiastical 
 and Civil. 
 
 3. The Sovereign is the Fountain of Justice. 
 
 All Courts, strictly speaking, are (in the words of Richard 
 Hooker) Courts of the Sovereign, and derive authority, as far as 
 it is external and co-active, from the Sovereign. 
 
 4. The Sovereign dispenses justice, in Diocesan Courts, by the 
 Bishop of the Diocese, who has been accustomed to delegate his 
 authority to the Chancellor of the Diocese. 
 
 5. The Sovereign dispenses justice, in the Court of the Provincej 
 by the Metropolitan, who has delegated his authority to the 
 Dean of the Court of Arches. 
 
 6. The Sovereign, finally, receives Appeals in Ecclesiastical 
 Causes, in the Judicial Committee of Privy Council, which has 
 no power of deciding causes, and does not pronounce any judicial 
 sentence, but gives advice on the causes brought before it to the 
 Sovereign, who, after hearing the advice of her Prelates and 
 Councillors, pronounces final sentence thereupon in person — in 
 Her Majesty's Privy Council. 
 
 Bishop Andrewes thus writes, page 365, " There ought to be 
 conjunction between the Realm and the Church, but not con- 
 fusion. As they have distinct causes, so they ought to have 
 separate Courts ; but the Church, not less than the Realm, ought 
 to hold her Courts under the King, by whose authority Judges
 
 1 6 Notes. 
 
 preside ; Amariah in the Courts of the Church, Zebadiah in the 
 Courts of the Reahii (see 2 Chron. xix. 11), but both by com- 
 mand of the King." 
 
 Bishop Stillwgjleet thus writes (Ecclesiastical Cases, ii. 99): — 
 "As in temporal matters the King's supreme authority is exer- 
 cised in his ordinary Courts, so likewise in Ecclesiastical Courts, 
 which derive their jurisdiction from the King as supreme." 
 Bishop Stillingfleet uses the term jurisdiction because (in the 
 words of Bishop Andreives, Tortura Torti, p. 380) "we do not 
 attribute to the King the potoer of the Keys, i. e., of spiritual 
 censures and excommunication-/' but we, as Francis Mason 
 says (de Minister. Angl. iii., c. 3, p. 271), hold that the "King 
 may command those, who have that power, to use it rightly." 
 
 In the above quotations from Eichard Hooker, Bishop Andrewes, 
 Bishop Sanderson, and Bishop Stillingflf'et, we have the opinions 
 of our greatest divines of the 16th and 17th centuries. 
 
 Let me add some testimonies of eminent Laymen. 
 
 King Charles I. (in his First Paper at the Isle of Wight) thus 
 speaks: — "informer times, under Pagan Princes, the Church 
 was a distinct body of itself, divided from the Commonwealth, 
 and was governed by its own rulers." He proceeds to exemplify 
 this by reference to the acts of Christian Bishops in those times, 
 and then goes on to say : — "After that the Church, under Christian 
 Princes, began to be incorporated in the Commonwealth (where- 
 upon there must of necessity follow a complication of the Civil 
 and Ecclesiastical Powers) ; the jurisdiction of Bishops, in the 
 outward exercise of it, was subordinate unto and limitable by 
 the supreme Civil Power, and hath been, and is at this day,, so 
 acknowledged by the Bishops of the realm." 
 
 Chief Justice Coke (4 Inst. 321) : — " Those who have spiritual; 
 urisdiction, as Archbishops and Bishops, are the King's Judges." 
 
 Lord Chancellor Clarendon (Religion and Policy, lutroduc. 
 tion, p. 1 — 7) : — ■' The King cannot prescribe what Laws they 
 please contrary to the law of Nature and of God, so they cannot i 
 impose what religion they please contrary to what He hath 
 enjoined; but the way to propagate the same is committed to thei 
 Sovereign Power, to provide for the peace of Church and State. 
 
 Sir Roger Twysden, in his learned Vindication of the English i 
 Reformation, says, p. 115 : — " When we say that the Prince as ■ 
 the principal, without whom nothing is done, may be rightly 
 termed head in the act of reformation, our meaning is not that] 
 he will deal in points of Ecclesiastical cognizance without the j 
 advice of his Bishops and other learned of the Clergy; wej 
 know in things proper Joshua is to take counsel of Eleazar] 
 (Num. xxvii. 21) and the Kings of this nation have everj 
 done 80. 
 
 GILBERT AND RIVINGTON, PRINTERS, ST. JOHN'S SQUARE, LONDON.
 
 ^v