same Officers in the following Ages' to the world's end, the orders of ministers like their powers being by divine commission. 'To continue this Account after the Church was taken into the Protection of the Civil Powers, to vindicate the Supremacy of Christian Princes, and to adjust it with the Rights of the Church', Potter recognized, 'will require another Book'. This he never completed, becoming instead Bishop of Oxford in 1715 and Archbishop of Canterbury in I737.12
It remained for another Whig High Churchman, Edmund Gibson, Bishop of London from 1723 to 1748, to give the lasting legal interpretation of the relation of the church, as conceived by Potter, to the state. Gibson's Codex, published in two folio volumes in 1713 and reprinted in 1761, was recognized as the definitive compendium on canon law. Gibson insisted both on the union of church and state, and also on the church's separate authority. From a detailed historical survey, he argued that the documents defining the church's relation to the state acknowledged the church's spiritual independence. Statutes were generally only 'Enforcements of the ancient Ecclesiastical Laws' designed to strengthen them 'in the same Chanel', not to be replacements of them. Bishops therefore exercised 'Government and Disciplin' upon 'the foot of Divine, as well as Human, Authority'. The church was not, therefore, 'a meer Creature of the State'. But this was not a preliminary to an alliance, since the Christian prince's supremacy in the state and the church gave the two an inseparable unity.13 The jurist Sir Edward Coke, argued Gibson, had been wrong to claim that only the clergy, and not the laity, would be bound by legislation passed by Convocation (the provincial assembly of the clergy) but not by parliament. It was this High Church vision that was made problematic, but not necessarily refuted, by the suspension of Convocation in 1717.
A similar but importantly modified position was expressed by the lawyer Thomas Wood in a standard compendium of 1720. 'Law in General' was built most notably on 'the Law of Nature' (commonly called 'the Law of Reason'), and 'the Revealed Law of God: Hence it is that our Law punishes Blasphemies, Perjuries &c. and receives the Canons of the Church duly made, and sup-poseth a Spiritual Jurisdiction and Authority in the Church'. Wood gave a careful account of the mutual roles of ecclesiastical and civil courts: both were subject to the royal supremacy, and there was in Wood's account no evident clash of jurisdictions. For Wood, however, 'the Legislative Power in the Church, and the Canons that are made concerning the Church with the Royal Assent bind the Clergy, but not the Laity'.14 So it was for a churchman and lawyer like Richard Burn, who by I763 explicitly accepted the doctrine of the common lawyers in Cox's case (1700) and Middleton v. Croft (1736)
Was this article helpful?