domini, et super omnia sanctam veneretur ecclesiam ejus, et regat, et ab injuriosis defendat, et maleficos ab ea evellat et destruat, et penitus disperdat. Quod nisi fecerit, nec nomen regis in eo constabit, verum, testante papa Johanne, nomen regis perdit. Cui Pipinus et Carolus filius ejus nondum reges, sed principes, sub rege Francorum stulto scripserunt, quærentes si ita permanere deberent Francorum reges solo regio nomine contenti? A quo responsum est; illos decet vocari reges, qui vigilanter defendunt et regunt ecclesiam Dei, et populum ejus, imitati regem psalmographum dicentem, "Non habitabit in medio domus meæ, qui facit superbiam," &c. The Council of Clarendon, p. 435, canon 8. "If appeals arise, they ought to proceed from the archdeacon to the bishop, from the bishop to the archbishop, and, lastly, to the king, (if the archbishop fail in doing justice ;) so that the controversy be ended in the Archbishop's Court by a precept from the king, and so that it go no farther without the king's consent." (Johnson's Ecclesiastical Canons, v. 2;) 16 Rich. ii., c. 5, which records that the "crown of England hath been so free at all times, that it hath been in no earthly subjection, but immediately subject to God in all things touching the regality of the same crown, and to none other." See also 24 Hen.VIII., c. 12; 25 Hen. VIII., c. 19;

26 Hen. VIII., c. 1; and the statutes of Edw. I., Edw. III., Rich. II., Hen. IV., recited in the 24 Hen. VIII., c. 12. See also what was intended regarding appeals in the "Reformatio Legum," edit. 1571, p. 148, c. 2. See also Goodman's case in Dyer's Reports, and the case of Haver v. Thorold in Littleton's Reports.

From which authorities it appears that the Crown has ALREADY power to grant a commission of review, in cases of appeal, after judgment pronounced by the high court of delegates, and to grant, review after review, as was done in Goodman's case, so that this bill directly invades the Queen's supremacy, in various ways, by what it proposes to enact. See also Canons xii. and cxxxix.; 25 Hen. VIII., c. 21; 1 Edw. VI., c. 2; art. xxxvii., and the injunctions of Queen Elizabeth, (A.D. 1559,) in Sparrow's Collection of Articles, p. 83, 84.

II. IT ANNULS THE RIGHTFUL PRE-EMINENCE OF

THE ARCHBISHOPS, AND DEPRIVES HIS GRACE THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY OF HIS PREROGATIVES. IT ALSO TRANSFERS TO THE BISHOPS AN AUTHORITY TO BE FINAL JUDGES IN RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSIES WHICH BELONGS, ACCORDING TO THE ARTICLES OF RELIGION, ΤΟ THE CHURCH.

Article xx. declares that the Church (not the bishops) hath power to determine rites or ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith, which determining is lawfully made by the Church representative in a general council, such as that of Nice. It is truly stated by that able canonist, Bishop Wiseman, "that the appeal to a convocation or synod, in a matter which has passed the Archiepiscopal Court, even if direct, would be" a "thing unheard of in ecclesiastical jurisprudence." The course now imagined by the Bishop of London's Bill is completely a new figment, unknown in canon law, most unconsonant with its principles and practice. It is also contradictory of Art xxi. and Art. xxxvii., canons xii. and cxxxix., as well as at variance with the oath, of due obedience to the archbishop, taken by all bishops at their

consecration. This Bill proposes a thing unheard of: that bishops should be a final appeal in causes determined in the Archbishop's Court, excluding the Archbishop from their deliberations, in case he should be a party to the suit ; for he cannot, in a certain sense, fail to be a party, in every suit, which annuls his rightful jurisdiction. And the bishops, who act under the provisions of this Bill, cannot do otherwise than violate their oaths of canonical obedience? for it is contrary to the canon law that the bishops of a particular church should be final judges in religious controversies. But it is according to the canon law and the statute law of England, that the Archbishop of Canterbury, as a lawful Patriarch, should have authority, preeminence, and prerogatives, over the bishops of the Church of England, and the right of visitation throughout the province and his Patriarchate. It is also not contrary to the canon law, but the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury by consent and custom of the Universal Church, to take precedence of all archbishops at a general council. He is "Legatus natus," and all his prerogatives and dispensing powers are especially reserved by acts of parliament, see 24 Hen. VIII., c. 12; 25 Hen. VIII., c. 19. Instead, therefore, of being in any case excluded from a college or court of English bishops, as this bill

attempts, he is under the Queen, in all cases, ecclesiastically supreme over them, having in such a court the Bishops of London, Winchester, Lincoln, Salisbury, and Rochester, not as equals in authority, and sometimes superior, as this bill presumes to make them, but as his Grace's officers.

The following question regarding this bill, is therefore most respectfully added by the undersigned.

Question 2.

Whether it does not attempt to confer a novel and exorbitant power upon the bishops of the Church of England, which is repugnant (see Art. xx.) to the Articles of Religion; at variance with the ecclesisastical and statute law of England; the canon law, as it exists in force; and the oath taken, of canonical obedience, to the Archbishop of Canterbury, by the said bishops?

See the form of ordaining or consecrating bishops in the Prayer Book. See Field on the Church, book v. p. 406, 407, Oxford folio, 1628; Stephens on the Laws relating to the Clergy, vol. i., p. 39–44; Bingham's Origines Ecclesiasticæ, book ii., chap. 17, § 16, of Pa