No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Episcopacy and the Common Law
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 July 2008
Extract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
In the year 1771 a Virginian politician, Richard Bland, wrote to Thomas Adams on issues thrown up by the steadily worsening relations between the legislatures of mainland America and the Imperial government. His letter moved on to the subject of religion, and to the suggestion made increasingly in recent years that colonial worship and ministry according to the English Prayer Book would be strengthened by the introduction of personal episopacy on the model of the mother country. On this Bland commented.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Ecclesiastical Law Society 2003
References
1 Letter dated 1 August 1771, quoted in Mills, Frederick V, Bishops by Ballot–An Eighteenth-Century Ecclesiastical Revolution (New York 1978), p. 106.Google Scholar
2 The special marriage licence jurisdiction exercised by the Archbishop of Canterbury, for example, is not inherent in his office, but exists because he is (as licences themselves state) ‘by authority of Parliament lawfully empowered for the purposes herein written’.Google Scholar
3 Ecclesiastical Appeals Act 1532 (24 Hen 8, c 12), s 1.Google Scholar
4 Submission of the Clergy Act 1533 (25 Hen 8, c 19), s 1Google Scholar
5 Cp the Ecclesiastical Appeals Act 1532, s 4, with the Submission of the Clergy Act 1533, ss 4. 6.Google Scholar
6 Monastic jurisdictions to which the Suppression of Religious Houses Act 1539 (31 Hen 8, c 13), s23, applied were subjected to the bishop of the geographical diocese as Ordinary unless the king otherwise directed; but contrary provision was by no means unusual.Google Scholar
7 Bowker, Margaret, ‘The Supremacy and the Episcopate—the Struggle for Control 1534–40’. (1975) 18 Historical Journal 227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 From the oath prescribed in the Act of Supremacy 1558 (1 Eliz l, c 1), s 9.Google Scholar
9 Lawes, VIII. 326: ‘When we oppose the Church and the Commonwealth in a Christian societie, we meane by the Commonwealth that societie with relation to all the publique affayres thereof, only the matter of true religion excepted. By the Church, that same societie with only reference unto the matter of true religion… Page reference toGoogle ScholarHooker's, Lawes of Ecclesiastical Politie are to the Folger Library Edition, Binghampton, N.Y., 1977–1993.Google Scholar
10 Lawes, VIII. 318–19, 386, 393, 403: the wisdom of clerical councils, without ‘the general consent of all’, ‘could be no more unto us than the counsels of physitions to the sick’.Google Scholar
11 Lawes, VII. 147. 167.Google Scholar
12 Caudrey's Case (1591) 5 Co Rep la. at 8b–9a.Google Scholar
13 Mackonochie v Lord Penzance (1881) 6 App Cas 424 at 446. HL.Google Scholar
14 Lawes, VII. 167.Google Scholar
15 Abolition of High Commission Court 1640 (16 Cha l. c 11), and Clergy Act 1640 (16 Cha 1. c 27).Google Scholar
16 Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Act 1661 (13 Cha 2, St 1, c 12).Google Scholar
17 Draft letters patent for the erection of such a See were prepared in 1660 but never sealed: text in Perry, William S., ed., Historical Collections relating to the American Colonial Church, vol. I (1870).Google Scholar
18 These requirements were imposed respectively by th Act Uniformity 1662 (14 Cha 2. c 4), s 10 and the rubric following the 1662 Prayer Book's Confirmation service. The rubric had no counterpart in earlier Prayer Books, and it has been suggested that section 10 also imposed a requirement not previously universal in the reformed English Church.Google Scholar
19 Bill of Rights 1688 (I Will & Mar, Sess 2, c 2), s 1; Prelacy Act 1689 (June 5, c 4) (Parliament of Scotland).Google Scholar
20 Middleton v Crofts (1736) 2 Atk 650.Google Scholar
21 Doe, , Hill, , Ombres, , eds., English Canon Law (Cardiff 1998).Google Scholar
22 Bishop of Exeter v Marshall (1868) LR 3 HL 17.Google Scholar
23 Gorham v Bishop of Exeter (1850) Moo Sp Rep 122. PC.Google Scholar
24 The provision for defining heresy contained in the Act of Supremacy 1558 (1 Eliz 1. c 1). s 20, indeed did so, although it also stipulated the concurrence of the convocations. This provision for identifying new heresies was never invoked.Google Scholar
25 Parliamentary approval of the Articles of Religion was implied in the Ordination of Ministers Act 1571 (13 Eliz 1. c 12); and of the 1662 Prayer Book, by the Act of Uniformity 1662 (14 Cha 2, c 4) introducing it.Google Scholar
26 Hansard sess 1850. cols 598ff.Google Scholar
27 A typical example being Wood, Edward, The Regal Power of the Church, or the Fundamentals of the Canon Law, 1888, republished with an introduction by Eric W Kemp (London 1948).Google Scholar
28 Occasionally the courts might still restrict the significance of this: see e.g. Long v Bishop of Cape Town (1863) 1 Moo PCC NS 411, indicating the limited significance of the oath of canonical obedience (whether at home or in a ceded colony), andGoogle ScholarMerriman v Williams (1882) 7 App Cas 484, PC, distinguishing the non-legal concept of ‘communion with the Church of England’ from the ‘connexion’ enjoyed by religious structures created by the colonial application of English law.Google Scholar
29 During the nineteenth century the revived practice of visitation fell into the first category; the summoning of the first diocesan conferences, the admission of Readers and the requirement of theological college training into the second.Google Scholar
30 I.e. the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919.Google Scholar
31 The Canon Law of the Church of England—Report of the Archbishops' Commission (London, 1947), 77.84.Google Scholar
32 The Garbett Commission's draft Canons cxii–cxxv formed the starting point for the work culminating in the Lloyd-Jacob Report. The Ecclesiastical Courts—Principles of Reconstruction (London, 1954).Google Scholar
33 Letters Fisher to Attlee. 3 July 1951: Ede to Attlee, 10 July 1951; Public Record Office. London, CAB 21/3880.Google Scholar
34 Permanent Secretary's memorandum to Home Secretary 26 January 1948: PRO HO45/21648.Google Scholar
35 Canon Law Steering Committee minutes 14–15 January 1953, in Fisher Papers. Lambeth Palace Library.Google Scholar
36 (1956) York Journal of Convocation 60–63. Chronicle of Convocation 49–50. 81.Google Scholar
37 Wand/Chase drafting commission minutes, 19 October 1956, 29 November 1956. 26 May 1959 (Fisher Papers).Google Scholar
38 Canon Law Steering Committee Executive minutes 23 July 1957 and annexed ‘Document K’ (Fisher Papers).Google Scholar
39 ‘Document K’: see previous note.Google Scholar
40 Revised Canons Ecclesiastical, Canon HI; Synodical Government Measure 1969.Google Scholar
41 Phillimore, Robert J., Ecclesiastical Law (2nd Edn, ed Phillimore, Walter, London, 1895).Google Scholar
42 Marshall v Graham [1907] 2 KB 112 at 126.Google Scholar
43 Constitution of the Ecclesiastical Law Society, art. 1.2, (1988) 3 Ecc LJ 41.Google Scholar
44 Ecclesiastical Judges and Legal Officers Measure 1976.Google Scholar
45 For example the reluctance with which Smith J granted an injunction to restrain an illegal ordination in Gill v Davies (19 December 1997); judgement in full inGoogle ScholarHill, Mark, Ecclesiastical Law (2nd edn) (Oxford, 2001), p. 707.Google Scholar
46 Bennett, Bruce S., ‘Bannister v Thompson and afterwards—the Church of England and the Divorced Wife's Sister Marriage Act’ (1998) 49 Journal of Ecclesiastical History 668.Google Scholar
You have
Access