And as for Ecclesiasticall Constitutions to this effect made as well by generall Councells as particular Popes euen downe from the primitiue Church sufficient testimonies or rather aboundant are extant and may be seen collected togeather by Gratian and others in the sixt Booke of Decretalls especially out of two Lateran Generall Councells and manie other particular decrees Laws and Ordinances Ecclesiasticall tending to this purpose And many ages before this the same exemptions be recorded especially for the immunitie of their persons from secular power and tribunals as in the Councel of Calcedon and 9. Canon The Councel Agathense and 32. Canon and the third Councel of Carthage wherin S. Augustine himself was present and diuerse other Councels 37. And there doe not want many learned deuines who are of opinion that this exemption of Ecclesiastical persons and their goods is not onlie Iuris humani Ecclesiastici by positiue and humane Ecclesiasticall laws But Iuris diuini also that is to saie by right of diuine law in a certaine sorte which is thus to bee vnderstood That albeit God hath not expreslie commaunded it in the written law of Scripture yet is it conforme both to the law of nature which is also Gods law as likewise it may be deduced inferred from exaÌ„ples recorded in Scripture vnder the old TestameÌ„t that God would haue this honour of exemption and immunitie in temporall things to be exhibited to his Cleargy And therfore we doe reade in Genesis that Ioseph the Patriarch in the law of Nature did exempt the Priests of the Egyptians from all temporall tributes And in the bookes of Esdras we read that Artaxerxes King of the Persians out of the same law of Nature did make free also the Priests of Israell And that the very Gentiles did the same to their Priests out of the same law and instinct of Nature is euident out of Aristotle in his second booke Oeconomicorum And of Caesar in his sixt booke De bello Gallico And out of Plutarch in the life of Camillus and other Pagan writers And in the written law we read as well in Exodus as in the booke of Numbers That God did often affirme that he would haue the order of Leuites to be his and to be freelie giuen and made subiect onlie to Aaron their high Priest and to paye no tribute Out of which is inferred that if God in the law of Nature and of Moyses would haue Priests and Leuites to be free in their persons goods from temporall exactions much more may it be presumed that he will haue it so in the new Law of the Ghospel where to vse the words of S. Leo. Et Ordo clarior Leuitarum dignit as amplior seniorum sacratior vnctio sacerdotum c. The order of Leuites is more eminent and the dignitie of elders more excellent and the annointing of Priests more sacred and holy among Christians then they were among the Iewes And thus much of Ecclesiasticall Laws for exemption of the Cleargie 38. But now vpon the very self same Considerations temporall Princes also comming to be Christians did voluntarily consume establish by their politicall laws the same exemptions as first of all our first Christian Emperour Constantine the Greate as soone as he came to receiue that Grace and light of the ghospell did vpon his singular deuotion make al the Ecclesiastical persons immunes à communibus Reipublicae oneribus Free from al publicke charges and burthens of the Common-wealth which laye men did vnder goe as by his epistle sett downe by Eusebius is cleere And the same example did other Christian Emperours follow after him as may appeere by diuers laws as well in the Code of Theedosius as also of Iustinian And the same doth S. Hiâ—rome signifie to haue been in vse in his daies and S. Ambrose also in his so much as appertaineth to the freedome of their persons though for their lands and possessions he saith Agri Ecclesiae solnâ—nt tributum That the lands of the Church did paie a certaine tribute at that tyme which may be vnderstood in the respect of the Emperours publicke necessitie through warrs vpon which or like due coÌ„siderations Clergie men haue all waies been ready and ought to be to contribute willinglie and gratefully according to their abilities towards the publike charges of their temporall Princes affaires notwithstanding their exemptions by law and iustice 39. Particular Kings and Princes in like manner vpon their deuotions and to the imitation of their foresaid good Emperours haue by their particular lawes in euery Christian countrey confirmed the franquises freedomes and immunities of the Church and Cleargie and perhaps in no one nation morâ— throughout Christendome than in our English Realme whether we consider times either before the Conquest or after And before the Conquest it may be seen by the collectioÌ„ of old English lawes of euery Kingdome sett forth by K. Edgar and K. Edward the Confessor and after the Conquest by the Coâ—querour himseâ— as after shall be shewed And after him againe by the very first Statutes that are extant in Print namelie from the great Charter made by K. Henry the third in the 9. yeare of his Raigne and the articles of the Cleargie established in the 9. yeare of K. Edward the second in the fauour of the said Cleargie the said great Charter being reiterated and ratified in most of the insuing Parlaments for authorizing and establishinge the foresaid exemptions and priuiledges of Clergie-men which were from time to time by al our Kings confirmed as afterward shall more largely and perticularly be proued vntill the later times of K. Henry the eight 40. Now then matters standing thus and the Church in euery countrey throughout Christendome being in possession of these liberties freedomes and immunities for their persons and goods and acknowledging for their supreame superiour in Spirituall Power and Iurisdiction the Bishop of Rome and their temporall Kings in Ciuill and temporall matters there grew in processe of time many difficulties and entanglements about the execution and subordination of these two Iurisdictions Temporall and Spiritual the one to th' other sometimes by abuse passioÌ„ or indiscretioÌ„ of some vnder-officers of these two supreame powers tribunals within our land ech side seeking to incroach vpon the other or at leastwise not to be content with their owne limits For as between the spirit and flesh in this life to vse againe S. Gregorie Nazianzens similitude there is some continuall strife and struglinge so hath it been allwayes in a certaine sorte between these two powers of Spirituall and Temporall Iurisdiction or at leastwise in the exercise therof especially as riches temporalityes grew more in the Clergie and therby gaue matter of enuy and emulation and lesse deuotion to the laytie towards them in so much that at length for auoidinge worse inconueniences limitations conditions concordates and transactions were made
OF THE CONTROVERSY Discussed throughout this vvorks WHat is in the 〈…〉 in the 〈◊〉 yeare of 〈…〉 there is giuen 〈…〉 power and 〈…〉 as by any 〈…〉 hath 〈…〉 may lavvfully bee 〈…〉 did assigne 〈…〉 great Seale of England 〈…〉 diction whatsoeuer vvhich â—â— any manner â—pirituall 〈…〉 Authority or Iurisdiction can or may lavvfully be vsed to correct and 〈◊〉 errors heresies schismes abuses c. The question is Whether this authority and spirituall 〈…〉 to the ancient lawes of England in former times 〈…〉 were a Statute not introductory 〈…〉 lavv 〈…〉 only of an old so as if the said Act had neuer 〈◊〉 made yet the 〈…〉 that authority and might haue giuen it to others as 〈…〉 holdeth the affirmatiue part and the Catholicke 〈…〉 TO THE RIGHT VVORSHIPFVLL SYR EDVVARD COOKE KNIGHT His Maiesties Attorney generall SYR I had no sooner taken a sight of your last Booke entituled The fifth Part of Reportes vvhich vvas some number of monethes after the publication therof in England but there entred vvith the reading a certaine appetite of ansvvering the same and this vpon different motiues as vvell in regarde of your person and place abilitie and other circumstances depending theron as also of the subiect and argument it selfe vvhich yovv handled and manner held in handling therof to â—he greatest preiudice vvrong and disgrace of Catholickes and Catholicke religion that you could deuise And first in your person and place I considered your facultie and profession of the common lavves of our Realme your long standing and speciall preferment therin your experience and iudgemeÌ„t gathered thereby your estimation and credit in the Common-vvealth and your authority honour and riches ensuing thervpon all vvhich drevv me to the greater consideration of your Booke but principally your said profession of our Common temporall Municipall lawes vvhich science aboue all other next to Diuinitie it selfe doth confirme and conuince vnto the vnderstanding of an English-man the truth of the Catholicke Roman religion For so much as from our very first Christian Kings Queenes vvhich must nedes be the origen and beginning of all Christian common lavves in England vnto the raigne of King Henry the eight for the space of more then nyne hundred yeares all our Princes and people being of one and the selfe same Catholicke Roman religioÌ„ their lavves must needes be presumed to haue byn conforme to their sense and iudgment in that behalfe and our lavvyers to the lavves so as novv to see an English temporall lavvyer to come forth and impugne the said Catholicke religion by the antiquity of his Common-lavves throughout the tymes and raignes of the said Kings in fauour of ProtestaÌ„ts Lutheranes Caluinistes or other professors not knovvne in those dayes is as great a nouelty and vvonder as to see a Philosopher brought vp in Aristotles schole to impugne Aristotle by Aristotles learning in fauour of Petrus Ramus or any other such nevv aduersary or lately borne Antagonist Or as to behold an ancient Phisitian trayned vp in Galens tents to fight against Galen and Galenistes out of their ovvne bul-vvarkes or fortresses yea and this in ayde of Paracelsians or any other fresh crevv of Alchimian doctors vvhatsoeuer 3. This first consideration then of your person place and profession did inuyte me strongly to come and see vvhat you said in this behalfe but no lesse did the argumeÌ„t or subiect of your booke togeather vvith your maÌ„ner of treating the same of vvhich tvvo points I shall speake seuerally for that they haue seuerall ponderations all in my opinion both important rare and singular For vvhat more important matter can be thought of among ChristiaÌ„s then to treat of Spirituall Power Ecclesiasticall Authority being the kinges bench of Christ on earth the table of his scepter the tribunall of his dominion iurisdiction vvhereof dependeth the vvhole direction of soules the remission of our sinnes the efficacy of his Sacraments the lavvfulnes of all priesthoode and ministery the gouernment of the vvhole Church and finally the vigour frute effect of all Christian religion This is the importance of your argument M. Attorney and consider I pray you vvhether it standeth vs not much in hand to be attentiue vvhat you say and hovv substantially you pleade in this matter 4. And as for the other tvvo circumstances of rarenes and singularity vvhere may they more be seene then in this so vveighty a case conteyning the vvhole povver of the sonne of God both in heauen and earth for so much as belongeth to remission of sinnes and gouernement of his earthly inheritance vvhich is heere handled and ouer-ruled by a temporall lavvyer and by him giuen to a temporall Lady and Queene and this not only by force of a temporall Statute made in ParlameÌ„t to that effect the first yeare of her raigne vvhereby Ecclesiasticall Supremacy vvas ascribed vnto her but by the very vigour of her temporall crovvne it self vvithout any such Statute and by vertue of the ancient pretended Common-lavves of our Realme vvhich Common-lavves being made receaued introduced and established by Catholicke Kings and Queenes as hath byn said maketh the matter so strange and rare the vvonder admiration so great as neuer paradox perhaps in the vvorld seemed more rare singular in the eyes of Philosophers then this in the iudgement of learned Deuines And vvho then vvould not be allured vvith this singular nouelty to search somvvhat after the depth of so nevv deuised a mystery 5. After this ensueth as considerable your methode manner of handling this subiect vvhich to me seemeth nothing vulgar and consequently to you and 〈…〉 particularitâ—es 〈…〉 ‑ cero That yo◠〈…〉 uersies and 〈…〉 forth All that 〈…〉 grâ—â—e repâ—â—â—â—◠〈…〉 your side 〈…〉 vse your 〈…〉 the truth for 〈…〉 modesty and 〈…〉 7. All thâ—â—â—â—hin 〈…〉 encourage 〈…〉 reuievv o◠〈…〉 hope to my 〈…〉 modesty and 〈…〉 so much comm 〈…〉 ued and intenâ—â—◠〈…〉 cleere face 〈…〉 in your 〈…〉 you vvill doe 〈…〉 ‑ cile cedes 〈…〉 your self â—â— the 〈…〉 animo digâ—â—â—â—◠〈…〉 se sua spoâ—te 〈…〉 in deed to confessâ—◠〈…〉 fortitude but 〈…〉 ner goeth grea◠〈…〉 soules neuer-dying 〈…〉 â—e accompted our highest interest for that the â—uestion novv in hand betvveene you and me â—oÌ„cerneth the same most neerly as in the sequent â—reface vvill more largelie appeare â— Novv only I am to say promise also on my â—ehalfe that I meane to proceed in the prosecuâ—ion of this vvorke according to your foresaid â—rescriptions of truth temperance modesty and vrâ—anity and this both in center and circumference â—s neere as I can and if necessity at anie time or â—pon anie occasion shall enforce me to be more earnest it shall be rather in the matter it self then against the man I meane your self vvhose person and place I shall alvvaies haue in devv regard though I may not omit to tell you that in some partes of your booke especially tovvardes the end
word or two concerning the Title whose inscription is Reports of diuers Resolutions and Iudgements giuen vpon great deliberation in matters of great Importance and Consequence by the Reuerend Iudges Sages of the law togeather with the Reasons Causes â—f their Resolutions and Iudgments published c. By which words of â—reat Deliberation great Importance and Consequence Reuerend Sages the like M. Attorney like a studious Rhetorician procureth to purchase credit and estimation to this his worke of Reports Alâ—eit I be confident to the contrary that vpon the ensuing search â—hese Reports directed by hym to the impugning of Catholike reâ—â—gion being only bare and naked Reports indeed without profe or reason alleaged at all will neither proue so graue Resolutions â—udgemeÌ„ts nor to haue byn giuen alwayes vpoÌ„ so great deliberation â—or of so great importance Consequence as he pretendeth and that when the reasons and causes therof shall bee examined they â—ill rather ouerthrow than establish his principal conclusion wherin I remitt my self to the euent â— There followeth the same title to knitt vp the page this pleaâ—â—ng sentence of Cicero in his Tusculane questions Quid enim laeâ—ro nisi vt veritas in omni quaestione explicetur verum dicentibus facilè ceâ—â—m What doe I endeuour but that the truth should be laied open in euery question with resolution to yeld to them that shall speake the truth This sentence I say giueth mee great comforte yf M. Attorney will doe as he insinuateth and follow the indifferencie of his Author alleaged who in the matters he handled which were of philosophye is knowne to haue byn so equall as he was not well resolued what part to take Yet doe I not exact so much equality in this our controuersie of diuinitie presuming my aduersary to be preoccupated with the preiudice of one parte but shall rest well satisfied with his desire to haue the truth examined in euery point and much more with his readines to yeeld vnto her whersoeuer she shall be founde 3. And with this I shall passe to his Preface notinge only one point or two more by the way wherof I shall haue occasion to speake againe afterward The first is that wheras this booke of Reports is set forth with two distinct Columnes in euery page the one in Latin the other in English the Title or superscription of the one runneth thus De iure Regis Ecclesiastico The other hath this interpretation Of the Kings Ecclesiasticall law As though the word Ius which signifieth Right were alwayes well translated by the word Law Wherof afterward he seeketh to make his aduantage But the error or fraude is euident for that the word Ius hath a much larger signification then Lex which may be proued as well out of auncient Lawyers as Deuines For that Paulus Iurisconsultuâ— doth affirme the word Ius to be extended ad omne quod quouis modo bonum aequum est to whatsoeuer is any waye good or right And then in another signification the same Paulus doth say that it signifieth Sententiam iudicis The sentence of the Iudge And in another signification Vlpian and Celsus two auncient Lawyers take it for the science skill of law And Aristotle in his Ethicks pro omni eo quod est legitimum for all that which is any way lawfull And so S. Thomas and other School-deuines doe affirme Ius to be obiectum Iustitiae the obiect of Iustice that is to say about which all iustice is exercised And finaly Isidorus sayth Lex est species Iuris Law is a braunch or kind of right and consequently M. Attorney doth not so properly throughout his whole booke interprete Ius by the word Law which I would not haue noted so largly but that he being so great a lawyer had obligation to speake more exactly though noe man deny but that Ius and Lex may sometimes be taken for the same but not euer nor properly in this case For that the question is not nor was not of Q. Elizabeths Ecclesiasticall lawes but of the right shee had to make such lawes 4. The second point worth the noting is that wheras both the title and subiect of all this booke is of the Kings Ecclesiasticall law M. Attorney in the whole Course therof from the begining of our Christian Kings vnto K. Henry the eight who were aboue an hundered twenty in number neuer citeth so much as one Ecclesiasticall law made by anie of them For that they being Catholikes made not but receiued Ecclesiasticall lawes from such as had authoritie to make them in the Catholique Church And such later Statutes Decrees and Ordinances as were made by some later Kings from K. Edward the first downward for restraint of some execution of the Popes ecclesiasticall power in certaine externall points were not made by them as ecclesiasticall but as temporall laws in respect of the common wealth for auoiding certaine pretended hurtes and incommodities therof And M. Attorney is driuen to such pouerty straights in this case as not being able to alleadge anie one instance to the contrary out of all the foresaid ages hee runneth euery where to this shift that the Popes Ecclesiasticall and Canon laws being admitted in England mâ—y bee called the Kings ecclesiasticall laws for that they are admitted and allowed by him and his realme In which sense the Euangelicall law may bee called also the Kings law for that he admitteth the Bible But of this wee shall haue occasioÌ„ to speake more often afterward For that M. Attorney doth often run to this refuge Now then to the Preface in his owne words The Attorney to the Reader It is truly saide good Reader that Error Ignorance being her inseparable twynne doth in her proceeding so infinitely multiplie herselfe produceth such monstrous and strange chimeraes floateth in such and so many incertainties and sucketh downe such poison from the contagious breath of Ignorance as all such into whom shee infuseth any of her poisoned breath shee dangerously infects or intoxicates and that which is wonderfull before shee can come to any end she bringeth all things if shee be not preuented by confusion to a miserable and vntimely end Naturalia veâ—é artificialia sunt finita Nulius terminus false Error immensus The Catholik Deuine 5. To this so vehement accusation of Error and Ignorance I could 10. Moreouer our Deuines doe handle this matter of Ignorance so exactly in al their writings as by treating of Ignorance they proue themselues not ignorant but most learned For first defininge IgnoraÌ„ce in generall to be want or lake of knowledge they distinguish the same into two sortes The one Negatiue the other Priuatiue And as for the Negatiue which importeth only a simple pure want of science it is not reprehensible of it self for that it might be in man euen before his fall in the state of innocency is now in
to a Colledge to visit the same for certaine defects with particular order how to proceed and punish the said offences though in many things he haue greater Authoritie by his extraordinarie commission then is the ordinarie of the President and fellows and other ordinarie officers yet cannot hee either tacitè or à fortiore by vertue of this Maximè take vnto him all the power and manner of proceeding which the said President and fellowes haue by their ordinarie Authoritie of Statutes in admitting and reiecting schollers giuing and changing offices setting and letting of lands and the like except it be epresslie in his Commission Noe not in punishments neither concerning those defects which he hath to visit may he exceed his prescript order they being things as I say stricti Iuris which both law reason and conscience doe forbid to be enlarged beyond his commission And so doth M. Attorney seeme to graunt that it should be so in any iudgement giuen by Commissioners of Oyer and Terminer or other Commissioners or Iudges of the common law insinuating belike that the Canon or Ecclesiasticall law now vsed in England is abritrary to be applied as they please that sit in Authoritie 10. And this seemeth greatlie to be confirmed by another Resolution of his Iudges made to another argument of Caudery wherein his Counsell vrged for him that according to the commission sentence should haue been giuen against him by three at least of the Commissioners ioyntlie concurring which was not obserued but giuen onlie by the Bishop though he pretendeth that it was also by the consent of some of his Colleage It was resolued saith M. Attorney by the whole Courte that the sentence giuen by the Bishop with Consent of his Colleags was such as the Iudges of the Common Law ought to allow to be giuen according to the Ecclesiasticall laws Consider I praie you this Resolution that they out of the Common-law doe allow it to be well done according to the Ecclesiasticall laws but heare the reason for it importeth much to se therby the manner of proceeding for seeing saith hee that their authoritie is to proceed and giue sentence in Ecclesiasticall causes according to the Ecclesiasticall law and they haue giuen a sentence in a cause Ecclesiasticall vpon their proceedings by sorce of that law the Iudges of the common law ought to giue faith and credit to their sentence and to allow it to be done according to the Ecclesiasticall law For Cuilibet in sua arte perito est credendum VVee must beleeue euery skillfull man in his arte c. So hee And is not this a strange Reason of a iudiciall sentence thinke you that for so much as the Bishop of London had depriued Caudery by pretence of an Ecclesiasticall law his fact must be allowed by vertue of this maxime That euery skillfull man is to be credited in his art And was not the poore plainteife well holpen vp who after foure years trauell and cost as it appeereth wherin he followed the suite at the Common-law against the said Bishop he was now answered That euerie skillfull man must be beleeued in his art without further inquiring 11. And yet M. Attorney heere auerreth that it is a common receiued opinion of all bookes and citeth diuerse booke-cases for the same And albeit I haue not by me the bookes themselues nor doe professe my self skillfull therin yet must I needs ascribe so much equitie prudence reason vnto the Common law as to presume that it will not admit this Maxime without some distinction or reasonable restriction As for example that this Peritus or skillfull man that must be so beleeued be eminent in his art and be not interessed nor passionate in the Case proposed For other-wise absurde effects would insue as for example If a surgeon hyred to cure a wound should be suspected to haue intoxicated the same and that the Plainteife should haue this answere that euery skillfull man is to be beleiued in his arte it were iniustice For that he might either of ignorance haue erred therin if he be not knowne to be very well learned in his arte or of malice if he might be presumed to hope or expect gaine by the wounded mans death And howsoeuer it be the matter in right conscience were not to be shuffled ouer with such an answere of the appointed Iudges but the Case were to be examined other surgeons to be consulted them ans skill honestie and reputation to be inquired of and other such diligence to be vsed as might content and satisfie the afflicted partie wherof none was done as it seemeth in the behalfe of Caudery 12. For wheras in this case the Bishop of London was interessed in his honour to defend that which he had done not perhaps the greatest Canoinst or Ciuilian Lawyer in the world for his skill and this poore plainteife as I saie hauinge followed the Common Lawyers to iudge the case for so many years it seemeth a sleight shifting off for the Iudges to tell him now in fauour of the said Bishop and his Colleags Cuilibet in sua arte perito est credendum We must beleeue euery man skilfull in his science which is as much as if they had said he hath depriued you and he is skilfull in depriuing and therfore you must thinke that he hath done it very well And this is all the remedy you are like to haue 31. And by this the reader may also perceiue how much is to be ascribed to M. Attorneyes words before recited when he saith of those Iudges of the Common law from whome he citeth some certaine little peeces of Interpretations Ordinances Statutes or decrees in proofe as he would haue it seeme of the Queens Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction persuading vs that they could not bee daunted vvith any feare moued by any affection nor corrupted vvith any reward which as I beleiue in some so the experience of these our daies and of these our fornamed Iudges and moderne Sages may teach vs to suspect the same in others also of those auncienter times who may be presumed to haue followed the current of their dayes and to haue been no lesse ready to run after their Princes humours than we see many lawyers and Deuines also in our dayes to doe But now to the last argument of Caudery finall Resolution against him 14. After that he had declared the three defects before mentioned of the Bishop of Londons sentence against him First that he was depriued vpon the first accusation Secondlie that hee was conuicted by no Iury wittnesses or confession but vpon not appearance Thirdlie that the sentence was not giuen by three or more Commissioners ioyntlie All which are expresse clauses of their commission sleightly euacuated as before you haue heard he came to the fourth point which is that the Statute wherby this supreame Ecclesiastcall power was giuen to the Queene herself by the Parlament hath a clause
the Archbishops and bishops seals of office for testisying of this the Kings Highnes armes be decentlie sett with Characters vnder the said Armes for the knowledge of the diocesse that they shall vse noe other seale of Iurisdiction but wherin his Maiestyes armes be engraued c. 23. Lo heere not onlie the name and Authoritie of head of the Church giuen to K. Edward the Child and taken from the Pope but all Iurisdiction also and signe of Iurisdiction spirituall taken from the Archbishops and Bishops of England excepting onlie so far forth as it was imparted vnto them by the said Child K. Which importeth much if you consider it well For this is not onlie to haue power to visitt and gouerne Ecclesiasticall persons and to reforme abuses Set downe in the Queenes graunt by parlament but to haue all Ecclesiasticall and spirituall power and iurisdiction originallie included in his owne person and so to be able from him self as from the first fountaine and highest origen on earth to deriue the partes parcells thereof to others which you may consider how different it is from that which here the Statute would seeme to ascribe to the Queene and opposite and contrarye to all that which the ancient Fathers in the precedent chapter did affirme protest not to be in their Kings and Emperours at all but in Bishops and Preists onlie as deliuered immediatlie to them by Christ our Sauiour and by them and from them onlie to be administred to others for their saluation But by this new order of the English Parlament the contrarie course is established to witt that it must come to Bishops and Preists from a laie man yea a Child and from a lay-woman also as the other Parlament determineth and then must it needs follow also as after more larglie shall bee proued that both the one and the other I meane K. Edward and Queen Elizabeth had power not onlie to giue this Ecclesiasticall iurisdictiō vnto others but much more to vse and exercise the same in like manner in their owne persons if they would as namelie to giue holie orders create consecrate Bishops confirme Children absolue sinnes administer Sacraments teach and preach iudge and determine in points of faith and beleife sitt in iudgement vpon errors and heresies and the like And this for K. Edward 24. Now then if it may be presumed as I thinke it may that Queene Elizabeths meaning was to haue no lesse Authoritie Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall giuen vnto her and acknowledged in her then her said Father and Brother had vsed before why did not the makers of this Statute set it downe in plaine words as the other did but disguised the matter by such māner of speach as they might seeme to giue but little wheras they gaue all and more then all The Cause was that which I haue said before for which they laboured not to be vnderstood of all men but to speake as it were in mysterye not to offend so publikelie the Caluinists and yet to include matter inough to ouerthrow Catholikes But the said exacter parte and purer Caluinists quicklie found out the matter and so they began verie shortly after to mutter and write against this and diuers other points of the Statute and so haue continued euer since and the Controuersie betweene them is indeterminable 25. Well then for so much as now we haue laid open the true state of the Question and that M. Attorney is bound to proue his proposition in this sense and explication that heere is sett downe out of K. Henry and K. Edwards Statutes to witt that Q. Elizabeth had all plenarie power of Spirituall Iurisdiction in her self to deriue vnto others at her pleasure as from the head and fountaine thereof And that no Bishop Archbishop or other Ecclesiasticall person within the Realme had or could haue anie spirituall power or iurisdiction but from the wellspring and supreame sourge thereof And this not onlie by vertue of the foresaid Statute of the first yeare of her raigne but before without this also by the verie force of her Princely Crowne according to the meaning of the old and most auncient cōmon laws of England It will be time now to passe on to the veiw of his proofes which for so new strange and weightie an assertion that toucheth if wee beleiue the former alleadged Fathers the very quicke and one of the neerest means of our eternal saluation or damnation ought to bee very cleere sound and substantiall We shall see in the sequent Chapter what they are VVHERAS IN THE CASE PROPOSED THERE MAY BE TVVO KINDES OF PROOFES The one DE IVRE the other DE FACTO M. Attorney is shewed to haue fayled in both and that we doe euidently demonstrate in the one and in the other And first in that DE IVRE CHAP. IIII. THat the late Queene of England had such plenary Ecclesiasticall Power as before had byn said this by the intent meaninge of the old ancient Common-lawes of Englād though vnto me to many others it seeme a most improbable Paradox and doe meane afterwardes by Gods assistance to prooue and euidently demonstrate the same and shew that from our first Christiā Kings vnto K. Henry the eight the Common-lawes of our Land were euer conforme and subordinate to the Canō Ecclesiasticall lawes of the Roman Church in all spirituall affayres yet for so much as M. Attorney hath taken vpon him to prooue the contrary two heades of proofe he may follow therin The first De Iure the second De facto And albeit he entitle his Booke according to the first to witt De Iure Regis Ecclesiastico yet doth he nothing lesse then prosecute that kind of proofe but rather flippeth to the second which is De Facto endeauoring to prooue that certaine Kings made certaine lawes or attempted certaine factes somtimes and vpon some occasions that might seeeme somwhat to smel or taste of Ecclesiasticall power assumed to themselues in derogation or restraint of that of the Bishops Popes or Sea of Rome 2. Now albeit this were so and graunted as after it will be reproued yet well knoweth M. Attorney that an argument De facto inferreth not a proofe De Iure For if all the factes of our Kings among others should be sufficient to iustifie all matters done by them then would for example fornication be proued lawfull for that some of them are knowne to haue had vnlawfull children and left bastardes behinde them And the like we might exemplify in other things Neither doe I alleadge this instance without peculiar cause or similitude For as in that vnlawfull act of the flesh they yelded rather to passion and lust then to their owne reason iudgment knowing well inough that they did amisse when they were voyd of the same passion so in some of these actions of contention about Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction some of them were byassed with interest somtymes by indignation
of the whole entire body of the Realme 15 You see whervnto this deuise tendeth to make yt a matter of treason to deny this fancy of M. Attorney that for so much as the Canons and Ecclesiasticall lawes of the Church made by Popes and by Generall Councells from tyme to tyme and receued vniuersally for spirituall and Ecclesiasticall matters throughout the Christian world were receued also and allowed by the Kings Comnn wealth of England which was an euident argument of their acknowledging of the said Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction of the Church and spirituall gouernours therof of this approbation and allowance he would inferr that these lawes were the Kings lawes though deriued as he sayth from others that is to say from Popes and Bishopps At which inference I doubt not but that his fellow-lawyers will smile And truly I am sory that he being accoumpted so great a man in that faculty which is wont to reason well hath giuen so manifest occasion of laugther For that euery puney young student of law will see by common reason that the admitting of an other mans lawe doth not make it his lawe or that he had power to make that lawe of himself but rather to the contrary it sheweth that the admitter acknowledgeth the other for his Superiour in all matters contained vnder that law For the power of making lawes is the highest power that principally proueth dominion in any Prince and the admitting and obeying therof by another Prince is an euident argument of inferiority and subiection and so here the admitting of the Popes Ecclesiasticall and Canon-lawes was an argument that the admitters acknowledged his supreme authority in Ecclesiasticall affayres 16. Neyther is M. Attorneys example of the Romans or Normans any thinge to the purpose all For that the Romans did not take from the Athenians any formall lawes made by them for the gouernment of the Romans for that had been to acknowledg superiority as before hath bene said but rather they taking a suruey of all the Grecian lawes aswell of Athens as other Common-wealthes or States they tooke parcells therof here and there and applied the same to their Common-wealth which was properly to make lawes of them selues And the like may be sayd of the Normans if they borrowed any of their lawes from England which yet I neuer read in any Author besides M. Attorney but rather that the Normans gaue lawes to England 17. But nowe in the Canon-lawes receiued in England for almost a thousand yeares together after our first Conuersion the matter is farr different for that these were receiued wholy and formally as lawes made by another superior power in a different Tribunall different causes sent expresly to England and to all other Christian Kingdomes to be receiued and obserued and some also out of the same Ecclesiasticall power made within the land by Synodes and Prelates therof and promulgated to be obserued both by Prince and people formally and punctually as they lay and so were receiued admitted allowed and put in execution by the said Prince and his Officers except perhaps some tymes some clause or parte therof might seeme to bring some inconuenience to the temporall State for which exception was made against it and the matter remedied by common consent And this was another manner of admitting lawes then the Romans admitted some peeces of there lawes from Athens or rather translated some pointes of the Athenian lawes into theyrs which was to make them selues Maisters of thus lawes and not receiuers or admitters And finally wee see by this to what poore and pittifull plight M. Attorney hath brought the title of his booke De Iure Regis Ecclesiastico Of the Kings Ecclesiasticall law to witt that it is the Popes Ecclesiasticall law◠in deed made and promulgated by him and his but receiued and obeyed by the King and consequently not the Kings law but the Popes 18. Wherfore to conclude the first part of this Chapter for so much as M. Attorney by these two arguments De Iure which are the only he mentioneth hath proued no right at all of supreme spirituall Iurisdiction to haue accrewed to Q. Elizabeth by the title and interest of her temporall Crowne but rather the contrary to witt that both his Arguments haue proued against himself we see therby how vnable he is to proue his said affirmatiue proposition by this first head and sorte of proofe De Iure I shall now in the second part of this chapter endeuour to prooue the negatiue by as many sortes of rightes and lawes as any thing may be proued that is to say not only by Canonicall Ciuill lawes but by law of Nature also of Nations Mosaycall Euangelicall and by our ancient Common-lawes of England all which doe concu◠in this that Q. Elizabeth being a woman could not haue any supreame spirituall power or Iurisdictiō in Ecclesiasticall matter◠THE SECOND PART OF THIS CHAPTER VVherin is shevved that Q. Elizabeth in regard of her sex could not haue supreame Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction §. I. 19. First then being to performe this we are professe in this place that we meane not to imitate the proceeding of some Protestants in this behalf who following no certayne rule of doctrine no◠moderation in their doings or writings doe passe to extreames therfore feeling themselues greiued vnder Q. Maryes raigne with the course of Catholike religion then held tooke vpon them to publishe that women were not capable of any gouerment at all Temporall or Spirituall nor to be further obeyed than they would make Reformation in Religion for so they called it comforme to their willes and prescriptions as appeareth by the bookes writings and actions both of Goodman VVhitingham Gilbye Knockes others who taking their fire of fury from Geneua sought first to kindle the same in England and being repulsed thence brake into open flames of combustion in Scotland and neuer coassed vntill it brought two Noble Queens mother and daughter to their ruyne and afterward put their heire and successor into such plunges by those and other heades of like doctrine and desperate attemptes answerable therunto as Gods right hand did only preserue him from like ruyne 20. But we are not of this spirit to seeke reuenge by such new brayn-sicke doctrine we graunt that Queens may lawfully raigne inherite that Successiō which euery Countrey by their peculiar lawes doth allow them The great Kingdome of France doth excude them so doe many lesser States in Italie and Germany and other Countryes yet doth Spaine England Scotland and Flanders admitt them for preuenting other inconueniences when Male-sucessors doe fayle So as for this point of Q. Elizabeths temporall gouerment we haue no controuersie in this place If any fell out betweene her and the Bishop of Rome whose authority she tooke from him and applyed it to her self and many otherwayes exasperated him that fact appertayneth not to vs that are priuate men to iudge
tryall of all OF THE SECOND SORT OF PROOFES NAMED DE FACTO VVherto M. Attorney betaketh himselfe alleadging certaine Instances therin And first out of our Kings before the Conquest CHAP. V. THE whole bulke of M. Attorneyes booke such as it is consisteth as before hath byn noted in the recitall of certayne lawes or peeces of lawes and therfore called by him Reports or Relations of clauses found in his Commonlawes or Statutes that may seeme somwhat to sound against the absolute IurisdictioÌ„ Ecclesiasticall of the Bishops and Sea of Rome or to the restraint therof vnder certayne Kings and in certaine occasions and to ascribe vnto the said Kings some Ecclesiasticall power in those cases as afterwards shal be seene Wherin first is to be considered that which before hath been obserued that he abandoning as it were the first head of proofes De Iure flyeth only to the other De facto which alwayes holdeth not for that all factes doe not infer necessarily the right of equity and Iustice as before hath been shewed And secondly if all the examples De facto were graunted in the sense as by him they are set downe yet are they farr of from prouing his principall as often afterwards vpon many particular occasions shal be declared For that his said principall Conclusion is as yow may knowe that Queene Elizabeth by the ancient Common lawes of England had as full and absolute power and Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction as by any spirituall or Ecclesiasticall person had euer byn at might lawfully be exercised within the Realme And these Instances by him alleadged doe concerne but certaine peeces and parcells of Iurisdiction in some particular cases and causes as by examination wil be found Wherfore to drawe neere to this examination we must vnderstand that M. Attorney rightly deuideth the tymes of our Kings into before and after the Conquest and I shall willinglie follow him in this diuision and search out what Ecclesiastical lawes or Ordinances there were made in those dayes by our Kings of those ages for his or our purpose 2. And first before the Conquest when our best English Kings were most eminent if we respect pietie and religion as liuing neerer to the origen fountaine of their first conuersion fernour of Christian spirit out of this tyme I say and ranke of our Christian Kings froÌ„ Ethelbert the first to K. Edward the last before the Conquest for of K. Harold we make little accompt he being an intruder and raigning so small time and with so many troubles as he did they being otherwise aboue a hundred in number within the space of almost fiue hundred yeares two only inferences he produceth and these of very small moment as presently will appeare yet let vs heare how he beginneth and what Preface he maketh to his proofes in these words To confirme saith he those that hold the truth and to satisfye such as being not instructed know not the ancient and moderne lawes and customes of England euery man being perswaded as he is taught these few demonstratiue proofes out of the lawes of England in steed of many in order serie temporum are here added This is his Preface wherin he promiseth as yow see demonstratiue Proofes which are the strongest most cleer euident and forcible that logicke doth prescribe in any science but we shal be enforced afterward to admitt proofes of a lower degree then demonstrations as by experience you will find Wherefore to the matter 3. His first instance is taken out of the words of a certaine Charter giuen by King Kenulfus of the VVestsaxons some two hundred and fifty yeares after the conuersion of K. Ethelbert of Kent confirmed afterward by K. Edwin Monarch of all England which Charter beginneth thus Kenulfus Rex c. per literas suas patentes consilio consensu Episcoporum Senatorum gentis suae largitus fuit monasterio de Abindon in Comitatu Bark euidam Ruchino tunc Abbati monasterij c. quandam ruris sui portionem id est quindecim mansias in loco qui à ruriculis tunc nuncupabatur Culnam cum omnibus vtilitatibus tam in magnis quam in modicis rebus Et quod praedictus Ruchinus 〈◊〉 ab omni Episcopali iure in sempiternum esset quietus vt habitatores â—iuâ— nullius episcopi aut suorum officialium iugo inde deprimantur sed in cunctis rerum euentibus discussionibus causarum abbatis monasterij praedicti decretis subijciantur itae quod c. Thus goeth the Charter which though M. Attorney thought not good to put in English but to set downe both his pages in Latin yet wee shall translate the same for the better vnderstanding of all sortes of Readers K. Kenulfus c. by his letters parents with the Counsell and consent of the Bishops and Councellours of his nation did giue to the monasterie of Abindon in Barkshire and to one Ruchinus Abbot of that monastery a certaine portion of his land to witt fifteen mansians in a place called by the countreymen Culnam with all profittes and commodities both great and small appertaining therevnto And that the foresaid Ruchinus c. should bee quiet from all right of the Bishop for euer so as the inhabitants of that place shall not be depressed for the time to come by the yoke of any Bishop or his officers but that in all euents of thinges and controuersies of causes they shall be subiect to the decree of the Abbot of the said monasterie so as c. 4. Thus goeth the Charter which if it were all graunted by vs as it lyeth yet is it far of as you see from inferring M. Attorneys conclusion that K. Kenulfus was head of the Church or had supreame power Ecclesiasticall It might make it probable that hee had some Iurisdiction in some particular case but what or how much that was or whence hee had it either of himself or by delegation of another to wit of the Popes or Cleargie that is not euident by the Charter But let vs see what M. Attorney can make of these words for that lawyers commonly can make the most of matters to their aduauntage First he will needs inforce out of his Charter that this K. Kenulfus tooke vpon him Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction for thus hee writeth By this it appeareth that the King by this Charter made in Parlament for it appeareth to be made by the Councell and consent of his Bishops and Senatours of his kingdome which were assembled in Parlament did discharge and exempt the said Abbot from the Iurisdiction of the Bishop c. And by the same Charter did graunt to the same Abbot Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction vvithin his said Abbey VVhich Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction being deriued from the Crowne continued vntill the dissolution of the said Abbey in the raigne of K. Henry the 8. So hee 5. In which words three things are affirmed by him wherof I hould neuer a one to be
it must needs bee that he was gouernour vnder the Pope to whome he professeth as you haue heard obedience and subiection 16. But what proofe think you hath M. Attorney out of this King to shew that he exercised spirituall iurisdiction by vertue of his temporall crowne You shall heare it all as it lyeth in his booke for the whole narration is but of 3. or 4. lines taken out of K. Edward his lawes The words are these in Latin Rex autem qui vicarius summi regis est ad hoc constitutus est vt regnum populum Domini super omnia Sanctam Ecclesiam regat defendat ab iniuriosis malefices autem destruat Which M. Attorney Englisheth thus The King who is the vicar of the highest King is ordeined to this end that he should rule and gouerne the Kingdome people of the land and aboue all things the holy Church that he defend the same from wrong-doers and destroy and roote out workers of mischeif Which words supposing them to be truly alleadged as they lye haue a plaine and easy interpretation which is that the King as Gods minister for so S. Paul called also the hea-Magistrate must gouerne the Church and Cleargie of his land in temporal matters for that they are members also of the Common-wealth as before we shewed In which respect they are subiect to the sayd temporall Magistrate and in that sense to be gouerned by him though not in spirituall things 17. And if M. Attorney will inferre that because the King is cal-called Gods Vicar he hath spirituall Iurisdiction then may he as well inferre that the heathen Magistrate had spirituall Iurisdiction ouer Christians for that S. Paul calleth him the minister of God which is as much in effect as Vicar for that the minister supplieth the maisters place And thus you see that albeit we admit these words as heere they ly alleadged by M. Attorney noe aduantage can be rightly inferred against vs by them But I am forced to suspect some little fraud or shuffling to be vsed in the citation of this peece of law and therfore I intreate the Iudicious Reader who is learned and hath the commodity to see the Originals that he will examine both this and the former instance of K. Kenulfus in the authors whence they are taken for I haue them not by mee 18. The reasons of suspicion are first for that I see M. Attorney his translation in these few lines not to be very exact as it will appeare to him that examineth the same and secondly for that I find this clause of S. Edwards law differently alleaged heare by M. Attorney from that which is cited by Roger Houeden in the life of K. Henry the second as also from another allegation therof by Iohn Fox in his Acts and Monuments by all which may be gathered that the verbe regat is wrongly placed in M. Attorneys allegation which being amended and the said verbe placed before in his dew place the sense is perfect to witt vt Rex regnum terrenum populum Domini regat sanctam eius veneretur ecclesiam ab iniuriosis defendat c. that the King rule his earthly Kingdome and the people of God and reuerence and defend the holy Church Thus I say ought the words to stand to make good and congruons sense and not as they are transposed both by M. Attorney and Iohn Fox to make a blind sense who yet agree not in their allegations therof as in the places cited you may see 19. And this our assertion concerning the true sense meaning of the former clause is confirmed yet further by the words of K. Edward immediatly following in the same law omitted heere by M. Attorney but sett downe by Fox which are these Quod nisi secerit nomen regis in eo non constabit verum Papa Ioanne testante nomen Regis perdet If a King doe not perfourme the points before mentioned of gouerninge his people and defending the Church the name of a King agreeth not to him but he must leese that name as testifieth Pope Iohn So he And the same K. Edward in the end of this speach doth cite the authority of the said Pope Iohn againe saying that the wrote to Pipinus and his sonne Charles beâ—ore they came to be Kings of France that no man was worthy to be called a King except he did vigilantly defend and gouerne the Church and people of God So as now this gouernment of the Church which M. Attorney hitherto hath vrged so much against the Popes authority must be vnderstood according to the meaning and sense only of Pope Iohn who I suppose notwithstanding will not meane that temporall Princes shall be heads of the Church and to haue supreme spirituall Iurisdiction in causes Ecclesiasticall deriued from their Crownes as M. Attorneys meaning is And so you see vnto what good issue he hath brought this argument out of S. Edwards lawes which is that Kings haue so much gouernmeÌ„t ouer the Church as Pope Iohn allowed them and no more 20. And finally let vs heare the words of Pope Nicolas the second to this verie K. Edward concernining the gouernment he had ouer the Church for thus he writeth to him Vobis verò posteris vestris Regibus committimus aduocationem eiusdem loci omnium totius Angliae Ecclesiarum vt vite nostrae cum Consilio Episcoporum Abbalum constituatis vbique quae iusta sunt c. We doe coÌ„mitte vnto you and to the Kings of England your Successours the aduocation and protection of the same place or monastery of VVestminster and of all the Churches throughout England to the end that in our name and authoritie you may by the counsell of your Bishops and Abbots appoint euery-where those thinges that are iust c. By which words is easie to see what gouernment and iurisdiction K. Edward had ouer the Church of England to witt by commission of the Pope noe otherwise By which coÌ„mission also diuers other Catholike Princes haue had in sundrie cases coÌ„mitted vnto them haue at this day spirituall Iurisdiction as namely the Kings of Sicily doe pretend to haue had to haue supreme spirituall authority in that Kingdome as legati à latere by concession of Pope Vrbanus the 2. graunted vnto Roger the Norman Earle of Sicily aboue fiue hundered years past to witt from the yeare of Christ 1097. And yet will none of those that defend this spirituall monarchy at this day for by that name it is called say that it descendeth by right of their Crownes but by concession and delegation of Popes And so much of this matter HOW THE ATTORNEY NOT BEING ABLE TO PROVE HIS AFFIRMATIVE PROPOSITION Of English Kings Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall before the Conquest VVe doe ex abundanti proue the negatiue by ten seuerall sortes of most euident demonstrations that there was no such thing in that
which is the very decision of our Question For that by these phrases clauses is signified as in the Canon-law and particulerly throughout the sixt booke of Decretals may be sene is properly meant that the Church and Clergie is free from all iurisdiction of temporall Princes except only in Ciuill matters and that their goods and persons are exempted from Princes secular Courtes that they are immediatly vnder their Prelates and they againe vnder the Sea Apostolike vnto which may lawfully be made appeales when iust occasion is offered that no lay iudge may sitt in iudgement vpon them or giue sentence ouer them or lay hand vpon their persons or goods but referre them to their owne Ecclesiastical Emperours other such points as may be seen in the Canon-law in the places before cited And you haue heard before in the second Chapter of this booke how conforme all these things are to Gods law and how willingly they were embraced approued and allowed by the first Christian Emperour Constantine and his Successours and by all Christian Catholike Princes since that tyme throughout the world but especially and aboue others in comparison by our English Kings before the Conquest and after also as in their dew places shal be shewed 6. And so when the forenamed Kings Edgar Edward in their very first law doe sett downe and determine as Fox also confesseth that the Kings office is to keepe cherishe mainteyne and gouerne the Church within his Kingdome which worde gouerne I haue shewed before to be wrongfully put in out of his due place and to apperteyne only to the gouernement of the Common-wealth with all integrity liberty according to the constitution of all their Auncestors and predecessours and to defend the same against all enemyes c. they doe in all this but approue and second the Popes Canon-lawes decrees therof for the preheminence of the Clergie and therby they doe directly ouerthrowe M. Attorneys proposition so doe all the Kings in like manner after the Conquest who following this example doe euer in the beginning of their lawes renew and confirme this lawe of King Edward for the libertyes and priuiledges of the Church and Church men As first the Conquerour himself as afterwarde in the next Chapter more largely shall appeare when we come to speake of him in particular whose lawes are sett downe by Houaden and others and are as effectuall for the Church as could be deuised after him to omitt K. Iohn and others Henry the third who was the chief founder of our present later Common-lawes and author of the Great Charter His first law likewise is for the foresaid liberties of holy Church in these wordes VVe haue graunted to God and by this our present Charter haue confirmed for vs and our heyres for euermore that the Church of England shal be free and haue all her rights wholie and her liberties inuiolated c. 7. This Charter of K. Henry did Edward the first his sonne publishe and confirme after him as appeareth by his owne preface prefixed before the said Magna charta And Edward the second that ensued after him not only ratifyed the same but added other Statutes also called Articuli Cleri in fauour of the same Clergie And in K. Edward the third his tyme I finde the same Charter confirmed and ratifyed by diuers and seuerall Statutes as namely in the first second fourth fifth and fourtenth yeare of his raigne and the like in the first sixt seuenth eight nynth yeare of K. Richard the second and in the first second fourth seauenth nynth and thirtenth yeare of K. Henry the 4. and in the third and fourth of K. Henry the 5. and in the sixt of K. Henry the sixt c. 8. And herby now though we goe no lower may the indifferent Reader see how vayne M. Attorneys vaunt was and is that he would proue and demonstrate by the auncient lawes of our Realme that Q. Elizabeth had supreme iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall by vertue of her Crowne And yet hitherto hath he alleadged no one lawe at all within the compasse of nyne hundred yeares togeather but only certaine impertinent scraps and raggs nothing making to the purpose nor worthy the gathering vp as after when we come to examine them will appeare And we on the contrary syde haue so many so auncient and so authenticall lawes as you haue heard and afterwardes shall be more particulerly declared for proofe of the opposite proposition iâ— his that all spirituall iurisdiction was only in Ecclesiasticall persons both bâ—sore and after the Conquest vntill K. Henry the 8. his dayes And thus much of this first demonstration concerning lawes The second Demonstration 9. The second demonstration is deduced from an other consideration not inferiour to the former which is that when â— Ethelbert of Kent for example was sirst of all other Kings conuerted to Christian faith by S. Augustine the Monke sent from Pope Gregorie the first to that effect vpon the yeare of Christ 600. and that by this occasion a new Ecclesiasticall Common-wealth was to be instituted and erected within his dominion concerning matters depending of Religion farre different from that which passed in his Realme before when he was a Pagan as namely to omitt matters of doctrine and meere spirituall gouernment concerning marriages legitimation of children burying paying of tythes iurisdiction of Bishops and priests the like that might seeme in some sorte to be mixt and concerne also the Common-wealth to whome was the recourse made sor direction counsaile and ordinance in these affaires to K. Ethelbert think you or to S. Gregorie the Pope no man will say I think to K. Ethelbert for that he was yet but a nouice in Christian religion though as capable of spirituall iurisdiction by his Crowne as either Q. Elizabeth being a woman or K. Edward the sixt a child of nyne yeares old when he was proclaimed Head of the Church of England as well in spirituall as temporall affaires 10. But in our case vnder K. Ethelbert we reade both in S. Bede and S. Gregory himself that in all Ecclesiasticall matters recourse was made to the said S. Gregory as hauing supreme authority in these affayres and therfore the said King was no sooner conuerted S. Augustine made Archbishop but the said Archbishop according to his office sent two messengers to Rome Laurentius a priest and Petrus a Monke to aske counsaile and direction in diuers cases as namely about the distribution of oblations at the aultar diuersitye of customes obserued in diuers contreys in saying Masse about punishing of sacriledge in such as steale from Churches about degrees of kinred or propinquity to be obserued in marriages about ordination of Bishops how he should proceed with the Bishops of France and Britany about baptizing women with child and churching â—hem after their child-birth and the like 11. To all which questions S. Gregory answereth
bestowing of Ecclesiasticall benefices 〈◊〉 inuiolate and that such as are Patrons of benefices may present fit men of your nation when they shall fall void c. 23. But yet the next yeare after the King calling a generall Parlament at London and the former greiuances not seeming to be sufficiently remedied by the said recourse to the Councell answers and promises of the Pope the same complaints were renewed againe with greater exasperation then before and the said greiuances put downe in writing All which being considered and weighed by the Parlament Vnanimiter consenserâ—â—t omnes saith Mathew Paris vt adhuc ob reuerentiam Sediâ— Apostolicae Domino Papae humiliter deuotè tam per Epistolas quam per solennes Nunciâ—s supplicarent vt tam intollerabilia grauamina iugum subtraheret importabile The whole Parlament did agree that yet once more for reuerence of the Sea Apostolike humble and deuout supplication should be made to the Pope both by their letters and solemne messengers that he would take from them the intollerable greiuances and importable yoke which by the foresaid abuses they felt to ly vpon them And so presently were written letters seuerally to be sent by the said messengers Frist by the Archbishops and Bishops Secondly by the Abbots Priors religious men Thirdly by the Earls Barons and communitie of the Parlament Fourthly by the King himself who wrote not only to the Pope as the rest did but a seueral letter also to the Cardinals to further the suite which letters are set downe by Mathew Paris at length and are to long for this place 24 Yet one thing I cannot omit that wheras the King wrote most deuoutly humbly both to the Pope Cardinals saying that he did make recourse in these complaints of his nobility and subiects to the Church of Rome Vt filius ad matrem quem suis lactavit vberibus as a sonne to his mother whome she hath nourished with her teates of mylke The said Barons though oftentimes repeating the words implorantes humiliter ac deuotè we beseeching you humbly and deuoutly vt dignemini miscricorditer exaudire that you wil vouchsafe mercifully to heare vs Yet adioyned they also this threat in the end that except they were eased of these burthens laid vpon them the Realme and their King they should be forced to put themselues as a wall for defence of the liberties of the said Kingdome which hitherto for reuerence of the Sea Apostolike they had differred to doe nor could expect any longer then the returne of their Embassadours So they 25. And by this we may se where the beginning was of those restraints which afterward in the dayes of other ensuing Kings were made against prouisions from Rome and benefices to be giuen to strangers as also against appeals in certaine cases other such like ordinances which seeme to containe some restraint of the execution of the Popes Ecclesiasticall authority in England Which did not rise as you see vpon any change of former faith or iudgement in religion or calling in question the said Popes spirituall iurisdiction ouer soules but only vpon temporall respects reasons of state and the like which concerned nothing at all faith or beleife or substance of religion And this one only consideration ouerthroweth all the poore obiections which M. Attorney hath picked out vnder the raigne of this other Kings that follow which now we shall take in hand to examine and discusse euery one as they come in their place Two instances alleadged out of the Raigne of this King Henry the third and of what weight they be §. I. 26. And first what doe you thinke M. Attorney bringeth out of this Kings raigne or can bring to ouerthrow all that we haue alleadged before in the same Kings life beleife gouernment and actions Doth he alleadge any one Law or Statute of his for that he was the father and founder of our Statute-lawes as he confesseth doth he produce any one decree wherby he declared that he thought himself to haue supreme spirituall authority or denyed or called in question that of the Sea Apostolike notwithstanding all the greiuances which before haue byn mentioned No truly no one word is alleadged therof though otherwise as I said this K. Henry made many Statutes at sundry Parlaments as for example vpon the 9. yeare of his raigne he made the famous Charter wherof we haue spoken before called Magna Charta containing 37. Chapters which may in effect be called so many different Statutes The first wherof beginneth thus VVe haue graunted to God and by this our present Charter haue confirmed for vs and for our heirs for euermore that the Church of England shall be free and shall haue all her holy rites and libertyes inuiolable So 〈◊〉 first and most ancient Statute and the cheifest liberty of the Church of England is vnderstood to haue byn their free dependance of the Sea Apostolike and their recourse therevnto without interruption or intermedling of any secular power in their Ecclesiasticall affaires 27. Besides this there was made by him in the same 9. yeare of his raigne the other notorious Charter named Charta de Foresta coÌ„taining 16. Chapters or brauÌ„ches as also the other named Merton vpon the 20. yeare of the said Kings raigne that hath six seuerall braunches or Statutes as diuers others also made vpon the 51. year of the said Kings raigne intituled vnder diuers particular titles as Dies communes in Banco Dies communes in dote Districtâ—â—â— Scaeccariae Iudicium Collistrigij de compositione mensurarum and the like And finally the other booke of Statutes made vpon 52. yeare called Marle-bridge containing 16. braunches or statutes In all which no one thing is found in fauour of M. Attorney or his assertion but many for vs if we would examine the partes and clauses of euery one For that the religion of England in that tyme being perfectly Catholike and agreeing in all things with it self with other Kingdomes of the world in one manner of beliefe and acknowledgement of the dependance of Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall power from the Sea Apostolike they could not make lawes for ordering their temporall affaires but must needs enterlace many things that did testifie the conformitie and subordination therof to the spirituall And if any temporall lawyer in England at this day though of far inferiour account and place to M. Attorney would take vpon him to write a booke alleadge all the lawes both common and statute and braunches therof that doe confirme allow or strengthen the Catholike Religion from most auncient tymes wherin any memory is of our lawes he might so far ouerbeare M. Attorney both in bulke and substance and truth of his allegations as S. Augustines volumes for example doe exceed in all these points Esops fables And this will you see in parte by that which we are now first to examine in this place I meane his first obiection set downe
out of King Henry which shall goe in this owne words as before we haue accustomed The Attorney In all the time of K. Henry the third and his progenitours Kings of England and ouer sithence if any man doe sue afore any Iudge Ecclesiasticall within this Realme for any thing wherof that court by allowance and custome had not lawfull Conusaunce the King did euer by his writ vnder the great seale prohibite them to proceed And if the suggestion made to the King whervpon the prohibition was grounded were after found vntrue then the King by his writ of consultation vnder his great seale did allow and permit them to proceed Also in all the raigne of Henry the third and his progenitours Kings of England and euer sithence if any issue were ioyned vpon the loyalty of marriage generall bastardy or such like the King did euer write to the Bishop of that Diocesse as mediate officer minister to his courte to certifie the loyalty of marriage bastardy or such like all which doe apparantly proue that those Ecclesiasticall Courts were vnder the Kings iurisdiction and commaundement and that one of the Courts were so necessarily incident to the other as the one without the other could not deliuer iustice to the parties as well in these particular cases as in a number of cases before specified wherof the Kings Ecclesiasticall Courte hath iurisdiction Now to commaund and to be obayed belonge to soueraigne and supreme gouernment c. The Catholike Deuine 28. The conclusion or inference vpon this narration must be noted by the Reader to be M. Attorneys owne and not to be taken out of any other lawyers booke as the former parte of the narratiō is that telleth vs how the King appointeth that ech Court both spirituall and temporall shall handle matters and causes proper and peculiar vnto them and the one not to intrude it self into the affaires of the other and to this effect are his vvrits appointed of prohibition where matters are assumed which ought not in that Courte to be treated and of consultation to will them to proceed when their right is knowne All which maketh for vs shewing that the King would haue the subordination between these two Courts to be obserued and the spirituall to direct the temporall where any one thing might belonge vnto them both As for example if any man were impeached of bastardy thervpon his inheritance were claimed by another the Ecclesiasticall Court was first to giue sentence of the marriage whether it were lawfull or no then according to that sentēce was the tēporal Court to giue possession or not of the inheritāce 29. And that this was the true sincere meaning of the law at that time intending therby to shew the excellency and prerogatiue of the Bishops spirituall Courts aboue the Kings temporall is plaine and euident by an other Statute of this maner which M. Attorney would not see made in the 9. yeare of King Henry the 6. where it is ordained in explication of the former that when any such Plea of bastardie is held in any Courte of the Kings the Iudges therof shall make proclamation once in their Courte the Chauncelour of England certified therof by them shall cause to be made 3. seuerall proclamatiōs in 3. seuerall moneths in the Chaūcery That al persons pretending any interest to obiect against the party shall sue to the Ordinary or Bishop to whom the writ of certificate from the said Iudge or Iudges is or shall be directed to make their allegations and obiections against the party as the law of Holy Church requireth And that without this forme obserued al other processe shal be voide c. 30. And by this we may see how carefull the auncient lawes were to haue the spirituall Courte as the superiour well informed according to the law of Holy Church and how not only ordinary Iudges but the Chauncellour of England himself his highest Court of Chauncery was appointed to serue vnto this for that of the spirituall Courts iudgement depended in all such causes the iudgement of the temporall Courts And by this you will se also the vaine sleight of M. Attorney in telling vs that the King did euer write vnto the Bishop of that Diocesse as mediate officer and minister to his Courte to certifie the loyaltie of marriage c. For where doth he find in any ancient law at all those words as mediate officer and minister to his Courte in the latine himself leaueth out the words to his Courte though in calling the Bishop mediate officer or minister which is as much to say as superior officer for that in mediation and subordination of officers and ministers that gouerne the mediate hath the higher roome in respect of the people and Court wherof he is officer he includeth a contradiction against himselfe for then is the said Bishop also aboue all immediate temporall Iudges that must giue him certificate wherof the Chauncellour we se is one euen in the Kings temporall Courts themselues 31. But the inference is much more subtile when M. Attorney saith All which doe apparantly proue that those Ecclesiasticall Courts were vnder the Kings iurisdiction and cōmaundement But M. Attorney must not so huddle vp iurisdiction and commaundement for that no man will deny but that all sortes of persons as before hath byn said are vnder the cōmaundement gouernement of the temporall Prince whom he may commaund ech one to doe their office duty in the Cōmon-wealth And so may he appoint Ecclesiastical Courts to notifie their sentences iudgements proceedings to his Courts his Courts to informe the Ecclesiastical Courts for good mutuall correspondence between them both which we graunt also to be necessary in euery Common-wealth 32. But iurisdiction which M. Attorney craftely confoundeth heer and shuffleth vp with commaundement is a far different thing importing a higher authority in the same kinde as if the temporall Prince haue iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall vpon Bishops and their spirituall Courtes then doth it follow that all their power in spirituall matters is subordinate to him and deriued from him and so were there no necessity of this distinction and subordination of spirituall and temporall Courts For that the Prince hauing both powers in himself might giue the same vnto any temporal Iudge to decide Ecclesiastical matters also in his Court which yet M. Attorney doth often deny that the Common-lawes can take conusaunce of such affaires And surely it is worth no lesse then laughter to heare him repeat so often The Kings Ecclesiasticall Courte as though this were sufficient to proue the Kings Ecclesiasticall authority in those Courts for that all Courts are the Kings Courts in that they are vnder his protection gouernement and direction and to the vse and profit of his people And so were also the Ecclesiasticall Courts of King Henry the third in this sense who yet chalenged no spirituall authority therin as by
Chancellour and Treasurer he was only abiured the Realme for euer The Catholicke Deuine 22. This case related out of Brookes Reporte if so it be there for I haue not the booke is but a particular case and shewed only de facto and not de iure whereas M. Attorneys booke notwithstanding is intituled De iure as often I haue and must still put him in mynd True it is that he noteth here in the margent that this was done by the common-Common-law of England before any Statute made But what reason can he bring or any man imagine why we should beleeue this to wit that this fact of bringing in a Bull of excommunication from Rome against a subiect in those dayes should be adiudged treason by the auncient Common-law of England For a man may demaund what is that CoÌ„mon-law or auncient CoÌ„mon-law not made by Statute nor introduced by any common custome that can be proued How was it made By whome where at what time vpon what occasion For to auouch a Common-law and auncient common-law without beginning author cause occasion or recorde of the introduction therof is a strange Metaphysicall contemplation for that lawes doe not growe vp without beginning but must needs be made or admitted by some Prince or people And whereas we haue shewed from time to time that all our English Princes people haue byn Catholicks from their first conuersion vnto this Kings time and vniforme also in this point of acknowledging the spirituall iurisdiction of the Sea of Rome and nothing more ordinary among them then censures and excommunications from Rome when necessity seemed to require how could this auncient common-law come in vre among them yea and be auncient in K. Edward the first his tyme contrary to the grounds and practise of the religion then in vse and euer before and no mention euer made therof in all antiquity till â—ow by M. Attorney and that only in the ayre as you see 23. Moreouer we read in Mathew of VVestminster that when this King Edward was in his most heat against the Clergy for denying him the halfe of their rents and goods as before hath byn said which they did vpon the prohibition of Pope Bonifacius he fearing least some men might bring in an excoÌ„munication against himself and them of the Clergy that yelded to pay the same and therby had bought his protection againe he only forbad Subpaena incarcerationis ne quis contra ipsum Regem ces qui iampridem suam protectionem quaesiêrant excommunicationis sententiam promulgaret prouocatione sacta pro se ad Romanam Curiam pro ipsis He prohibited vnder paine of imprisonment that no man should publish my sentence of excommunication against the King himself or those that had newly sought his protection yea his Maiesty made a prouocation or appeale also as well for himselfe as for them that stood on his side to the Courte of Rome So as if the King by speciall decree of his owne appointed only the paine of imprisonment for such as should publish any sentence of excommunication against himself for himself also appealed to Rome it is not likely that the auncient Common-lawes of England had made it treason before against the King his crowne and dignity to publish an excommunication against a subiect that was a thing most vsuall in those dayes 24. Well it may be that for repressing the vnquiet spiritts of some particular subiects that vpon light occasions and false suggestions would procure Bulls of excommunication from Rome some order might be taken at that tyme for seuere punishment of them that rashly without shewing the same to Iudges appointed for that purpose should publish the said Bulls in England as we see also at this dâ—y to be obserued in Spaine Naples Sicily France and other Catholike Realmes where no man may publish such things without a view and Placet of the Magistrate appointed to that effect and this not for denying or restrayning the said authority of the Sea Apostolicke but for keeping peace and orderly proceeding among subiects as is pretended and for better enforming his Holines if false suggestions haue byn giuen And that some like order might be at this time in England may appeere in parte by another obiection which M. Attorney hath afterward in the life of K. Edward the 3. saying that in an attachement vpon a prohibitioÌ„ the defendant pleading the Popes Bull of excoÌ„munication of the plaintiffe the Iudges demaunded of the defendaÌ„t if he had not the certificate of some Bishop within the realme testifying the excoÌ„municatioÌ„ c. Wherby it may appeare that priuate men were obliged to shew their Bulls vnto some Bishop before they published the same 25. But howsoeuer this be it is euident by this very Reporte of M. Attorneys text of Common-law cited by himself out of the one and thirtith yeare of King Edward the third which was many yeares after this other case that the bringing in or seruing of a Bull of excommunication against a particular subiect was not held for treason in those dayes Neither did the iudges make any such inference which is like they would haue done if it had byn treason against the King his Crowne and dignity by the ancient Common-lawes of England in the tyme of K. Edward the first aboue fifty yeares before the later case fell out And thus much for law though it might be that de facto in those dayes of suspition when K. Edward feared excommunication as you haue heard some man ad terrorem might be so sentenced by some chief Iusticer or Iudge as would be ready to pleasure the King in all things as most of them were though yet the party were not executed as here is confessed or else that there was some other particular aggrauant circumstance in this facte which here is not set downe though it may be also that the Reader shall find somewhat therof in M. Brookes booke if he looke it ouer out of whome this obiection without all circumstance is so barely cited And thus much of this first instance Now let vs contemplate the second as wise no doubt as the former The Attorney The said King Edward the first presented his Clerke to a benefice within the prouince of Yorke who was refused by the Archbishop for that the Pope by way of prouision had conferred it on another The King thervpon brought a Quare non admisit The Archbishop pleaded that the Bishop of Rome had long time before prouided to the same Church as one hauing supreme authority in that case and that he durst not nor had power to put him out which was by the Popes Bull in possession For which his high contempt against the King his Crowne and dignity in refusing to execute his Soueraignes commaundement fearing to doe it against the Popes prouision by iudgement of the Common-law the lands of his whole Bishopricke were seased into the Kings handes and
should be first if he were supreme in that sorte of authority and that the matter went by rigour of law not by composition agreemeÌ„t And finally for that the Prince in this case cannot put in a Pastor immediatly from himself giuing him spiritual iurisdiction ouer soules but must present him to the Bishop or Metropolitan to be induced by him indued with that iurisdiction which he should not doe if his owne authority spirituall were greater then the said Bishops or Archbishops And so we see that M. Attorney proueth nothing by this allegation against vs but rather against himself The Attorney The King may not only exempt any Ecclesiasticall person froâ—â—â— the iurisdiction of the Ordinary but may graunt vnto him Episcopall iurisdiction as thus it appeareth there the King had done of auncient tyme to the Archdeacon of Rick-mond All religious or Ecclesiasticall houses wherof the King was founder are by the King exempt from ordinary iurisdiction and only visitable and corrigible by the Kings Ecclesiasticall commission The Abbot of Bury in Suffolke was exempted from Episcopall iurisdiction by the Kings Charter The King presented to a benefice and his presented was disturbed by one that had obtained Bulles from Rome for which offence he was condemned to perpetuall imprisonment Tithes arising in places out of any parish the King shall hâ—â—e for that he hauing the supreme Ecclesiasticall iurisdictioâ— is bound to prouide a sufficient Pastor that shall haue the Cure of soules of that place which is not within any Parish And by the common lawes of England it is euident that no man vnlesse he be Ecclesiasticall or haue Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction can haue inheritance of tithes The King shall present to his free Chappels in default of the Deane by lapse in respect of his supreme Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction And Fitz-herbers saith that the King in that case doth present by lapse as Ordinary The Catholicke Deuine 20 Heere be diuers particulars breifly touched which I shall answere with like breuity especially for so much as they are but notes and obseruations out of particular collections of Law-writers and not Laws nor Statutes themselues First then it is denied that in the time of this K. Edward the 3. his raigne either he or any other Prince temporall could exempt any Ecclesiasticall person from the iurisdiction of his Ordinary Bishop and much lesse graunt vnto him Episcopall iurisdiction as of himself and by his owne power only he might procure it by his suite to the Sea Apostolicke as before hath byn shewed vnder K. Edward the Confessor and other Kings before the Conquest and diuers after also namely K. Henry the third and his children And whatsoeuer is said heer to the contrary for those dayes is either â—ror or mistaking for that it was common Catholicke doctrine â—â— that time as it is now that Episcopall iurisdiction cannot be giuen by 〈◊〉 but by him that hath it eminently with superiority in himself which must be by ordination commission descent from th'Apostles to whom it was giuen in Capite as before we haue declared to descend downe by succession and the said ordination and imposition of hands to the worlds end vpon Bishops Prelates and Pastores by lawful subordination the one vnto the other which cannot fall vpon any lay Princes that haue not this ordination Ecclesiasticall as euery man of iudgement and void of passion will easily see and discerne And the example before alleadged of the great Christian Emperour Valentinian the elder that professed himself to be vnum de populo non de Clero one of the lay people and not of the Clergy and consequently not to haue authority to iudge among them and much lesse to giue or exercise spirituall iurisdiction doth shew what the faith and practice of the Catholicke Church was in this point aboue twelue huÌ„dred years gone 21. Heerby then it is euident how those religious houses wherof King Edward was founder namely the Abbey of Bury which is the 3. obiection were exempted by the Kings Charter from Episcopall iurisdiction to wit the King procured the same first from the Sea Apostolicke then confirmed it by his Charter as by many examples you haue seen diuers precedent Chapters of this Booke and namely vnder King Edward the Confessor King Edgar King Kenulph and King Inas before the Conquest 22. If one was condemned to perpetuall imprisonment for disturbing the Kings presentation by the Popes Bulles it is a question de facto as you see not de iure and such might the Kings anger or offence be as he might also be put to death for it some Iudges neuer wanting to be ready to satisfie Princes pleasures in such affaires yet this doth not proue the lawfulnes of the fact And we haue seen before that this King Edward the 3. vpon the 48. yeare of his raigne promised the Pope that he would neuer vse more that manner of proceeding by his writts of Quare impedit wherby it is like this man was so greiuously punished 23. The instance of tithes allotted to the King for maintenance of a Pastor in places without the compasse of any parish is a very poore and triflying instance First for that those places that are out of all Parishes are to be presumed to be very few and secondly what great matter is it if so small a thing be left in depossto with the King for vse of the incumbent that is to ensue We haue seen in our dayes that tithes and rents of the Archbishopricke of Toledo for example in Spaine being valued at three hundred thousand Crownes by the yeare were depositated many years togeather in the Kings hands that last dyed whiles the Archbishop Carança was called to Rome imprisoned there vpon accusations of heresie and other crimes laid against him and in the end sentence being giuen a great parte of that money was graunted to the said King by the Sea Apostolicke for his wars against Infidels And yet doth not this proue that the King of Spaine had this by any spirituall iurisdiction of his owne but by concession of the Sea Apostolicke 24. And wheras M. Attorney saith heere that by the common laws of England it is euident that no man vnlesse he be Ecclesiasticall or haue Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction can haue inheritance of tithes I would aske him first how he proueth that the King of England had these tithes by inheritance and not by ordination agreement or conuention And secondly how his Common law can determine that no man may enioy tithes but he that hath Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction wheras before in the 9. leafe of his booke he maketh tithes to be an Ecclesiasticall cause and out of the Conusaunce of the said common-Common-law 25. And finally his last inference that for so much as the King is to present to his free Chappels in default of the Deane by lapse that this is done in
cases of heresie hath no substance in it at all for so much as you see it was directed by the Canon law long before K. Henry was borne 15. Wherefore to his last instance that the Pope cannot alter the laws of England I answere it is true touching temporall laws for they are to be made or altered by the English Prince and Parlament but Ecclesiasticall laws of the Church if they be positiue not deuine he might in all those auncient times vpon iust causes alter as I thinke M. Attorney will not deny and then by good consequence if it be true which euery where he striueth to proue that Ecclesiasticall laws though made by the Pope are laws also of England and may be called English lawes when they are admitted in England it followeth I say against himself in this assertion that the Pope might alter the lawes of England in that he might alter those Canon-lawes that were admitted in England thereby made English lawes The Attorney 1. The Iudges say that the Statutes which restraine the Popes prouisions to the benefices of the aduowsons of spirituall men were made for that the spiritualty durst not in their iust cause say against the Popes prouisions so as those Statutes were made but in affirmance of the common laws 2. Excommunication made by the Pope is of no force in England and the same being certified by the Pope into any Courte in England ought not to be allowed neither is any certificate of any excommunication auailable in law but that is made by some Bishop in England for the Bishops are by the common laws the immediate officers ministers of iustice to the Kings Courts in causes Ecclesiasticall 3. If any Bishop doe excommunicate any person for a cause that belongeth not vnto him the King may write vnto the Bishop and commaund him to assoile and absolue the party 4. If any person of religion obtaine of the Bishop of Rome to be exempt from obedience regular or ordinary he is in case of Premunire which is an offence as hath byn said contra Regem Coronam Dignitatem suam The Catholicke Deuine 16. I haue conioyned three or foure obiections togeather for that indeed all make not the due waight of one Wherfore to the first I answere that little it importeth to our controuersie what those Iudges said why the Statutes were made against the Popes prouisions in affirmance of the Common-laws for this may be said of euery new Statute whatsoeuer that it is made in affirmance of ancient Common-law albeit the said law supposed to be common no where appeare nor any reason proofe or probability be alleadged why it should be Common-law before that fact or Statute appeared So as this Common-law is now by M. Attorney made so common as it cometh to be Ens transcendens embracing all that is or can be deuised by any of his Iudges or Reuerend Sages or rather he maketh it Ens rationis or a meere Chymera that as Logitians hold hath no essence or being at all à parte rei but only in imagination For seing that the Popes prouisions had endured in England for so many ages before as all doe and must graunt how may the common law be presumed all that while to haue byn against the same yet no mention euer made therof These are morall impossibilityes to say no more 17. The second point doth answere it self and we haue touched the same before that by agreement in England the Popes Buls of Excommunication when they were sent should not be admitted ordinarily but by the certificate of some Bishop of England for preuenting the fraudes or false suggestions which particular men might vse therein And wheras M. Attorney heere againe saith that the Bishops are by the Common lawes the immediate officers and ministers to the Kings Courtes in causes Ecclesiasticall he runneth againe to his old Chymera of imaginary Common lawes For where is this Common-law that maketh Bishops to be officers and ministers to the Kings Courts in causes Ecclesiasticall For if the Common-law or Iudges thereof cannot so much as heare or take conusaunce of any spiritual causes belonging to Bishops Courts as often M. Attorney affirmeth in this his booke how much lesse can it or they by vertue therof appoint Iudges or make them officers in those spirituall Courts which haue their authority from the Canon and not Common lawes 18. To the third obiection little answere is needfull For who seeth not but that euery King in his Kingdome may commaund all â—â—â—es of people to doe their duty to surcease from wrong And so if a Bishop for a cause not belonging vnto him should excommunicate any the Prince may commaund him to absolue 〈◊〉 party whome vniustly he hath excommunicated if the iniustice bee so apparant as heere is presumed But M. Attorney should haue proued that the King himself might haue absolued him as in truth he might if he had Superiour authority to the Bishop in Ecclesiasticall causes as he may absolue immediately by himself all that are censured or sentenced adiudged or condemned by his Chauncellour lay Iudges or temporall officers and ministers nor hath he need to send the party to be assoiled by them or to will them to doe it as heer he doth the Bishop but might doe it himself or by some other giuing him authority thervnto which yet neuer King of England did attempt before King Henry the 8. 19. To the 4. braunch is answered that by good reason it was agreed that no religious man hauing made his vow of obedieÌ„ce in England should seeke to Rome for exemption therof without proposing his causes first in England it self for that otherwise vpon false informations suggestions of the party against his Superiours many troubles and inconueniences might follow by such exemptions and this is that which is touched in the Statute it self here alleadged affirming that no man shall goe to Rome for that which may be determined in England c. And now consider I pray you what all these foure instances laid togeather doe weigh in poyse of good reason But let vs see further 20. A fourth instance of M. Attorneys is taken out of a Statute of the 6. yeare of K. Henry the 4. where the commons doe againe make complaint of other new aggreiuances by the Courte of Rome to wit that such as are to be preferred to Bishopricks Archbishopricks and other Prelacyes cannot be admitted vntill they haue compounded with the Popes Chamber for paying of the first fruites of the said benefices and other dutyes required vvhervpon the King saith the Statute by the aduise and assent of the Great men of his Realme in Parlament and note that he nameth not heer the spirituall Lords did ordaine that whosoeuer should pay heerafter to the said Chamber or otherwise for such fruites and seruices greater summes of money then had byn accustomed in time past
tribunals no one thing in all the libertyes and priuiledges of the Church and Church-men being more ordinary not vsuall nor generally receiued then this though M. Attorney presumeth to affirme heere that this Decree had neuer any force within England which seemeth to me so manifest an vntruth as I marueile he would affirme it so flattly For to let passe all that I haue said before in the second Chapter of this our confutation for the confirmation of the exemptions of Clerks their persons and goods out of the Decrees of auncient Christian Emperours that ratified the Church-Canons in that behalfe and the conformity therevnto of our Christian Kings before the Conquest handled in the 5. 6. Chapters of this booke besides this I say the assertion of M. Attorney may euidently be ouerthrowne by all the laws vse and custome since the said Conquest and namely and expressly by the laws of the Conquerour himself recited before by me in the 7. Chapter of this answere which were continued by all the said Conquerours posterity vntill the tyme of King Henry the 3. when written Statutes had first their beginning namely that of Magna Charta by which lawes and Statutes the said priuiledge and exemption was often and ordinarily ratified and confirmed 21. As for example in the third yeare of King Edward the first sonne to the said King Henry the Statute speaketh thus when a Clerke is taken for guylte of felony and is demaunded by the Ordinary he shall be deliuered to him according to the priuiledge of holy Church on such perill as belongeth to it after the custome aforetymes vsed c. Behold the contradictory words to M. Attorneys that said this decree had neuer any force nor was approued in England The instance also of Bigamyes alleadged before by M. Attorney and answered by vs in the 11. Chapter of this booke vnder the raigne of this King Edward the first doth euidently confirme that which we say and refuteth M. Attorney For that the Kings Counsell refusing there to deliuer certaine felons demaunded by the Prelates in respect only that they were Bigamyes or had byn twice marryed therby were excluded by the generall Councell of Lions from the priuiledge of Clergy-men this I say doth shew that before that Councell Bigamyes also had that priuiledge by the Latin words of the law wherin it is said Praelati tanquam Clericos exigâ—runt sibi liberandos These prelates or Bishops did exact or require those felons to be set free vnto them as Clerks doth manifestly declare that they demaunded it by the knowne law of the land generally receiued in those dayes 22. And conforme to this vnder King Edward the second sonne to the former Edward we find the law to speake in these words A Clerke flying to the Church for felony to obtaine the priuiledge of the Church if he affirme himself to be a Clerke shall not be compelled to abiure the Realme but yeelding himself to the law of the Realme shall enioy the priuiledges of the Church according to the laudable customes of the Realme heeretofore vsed So there where you see that this was no new thing in those dayes 23. And I might ad to this diuers other like Decrees of the succeeding Kings as namely of King Edward the third in the 18. and 25. yeares of his raigne and of King Henry the 4. in the 4. yeare of his raigne vnder whome it is written in the records of Canterbury Church that the Archbishop Arundel seeing this ancient priuiledge of the Clergy to haue byn somwhat weakned by former Kings he dealt with the said King Henry effectually and obtained saith the Register vt vetus Cleri praerogatiua per Regem renouaretur ne Clerici ad Regium tribunal raperentur That the auncient prerogatiue of Clergy-men might be renewed by the King that Clerks should not be drawne to the Kings tribunall And this was a point so notoriously knowne in England in those dayes as when vpon the yeare 1405. in the said King Henry the fourth his raigne the Archbishop of Yorke Richard Scroope togeather with some others of the nobility had risen in armes against him and the King in his choller would needs haue him condemned and executed as he was Gaston the cheife Iustice as Harpesfield noteth out of the said Bishops life and the addition of Poli-chronicon knowing that by the law he could not be condemned by a secular Iudge refused to sit vpon him and so he was condemned by Syr Raph Euers and Syr VVilliam Fulthrop knights authorized therevnto by the Kings armed commission wherof the Clergy greatly complaining Pope Innocentius the seauenth excommunicated the doers and denounced to K. Henry by the Archbishop of Canterbury that he would proceed in like manner against himself if he gaue not good satisfaction in that behalfe but he dying soone after and a great schisme thervpon ensuing in the Roman Church nothing was done 24. But much auncienter then this wee might alleadge diuers examples out of the raignes of King Henry the 3. and Edward the 3. wherof wee haue made mention also in parte before treating of their times as of one Peter Riâ—all who had been Treasurer to King Henry the 3. and being apprehended by the Kings commission and to bee sent to the Tower said to him thus as Matthew Paris writeth Domine Clericus sum nec debeo incarcerari vel sub Laicorum custodia deputari My leige I am a Clerke and therefore I ought not to bee imprisoned nor to bee kept vnder the custody of Laie-men The King answered Te vt laicum hactenûs gesâ—isti à te igitur vt à laico cui meum commisi thesaurum exigo Thou hast borne thy self hitherto as a laie-man and therefore as of a laie-man to whom I committed my treasure I exact an account of the same And for that he was found with armour vnder his Clergie attyre both for this because the Archbishop of Canterburie there present seemed not willing to answere for him he was sent to the Tower yet after two daies saith our author he was deliuered againe thence by the said Archbishop and carried to VVinchester and there left in the Cathedrall Church 25. And some fiue yeares after that againe one Raph Briton a Clerke and Chaâ—on of S. Pauls Church who likewise had been K. Henries Treasurer being accused to the said King of diuers crimes touching treason and by his commission to the Maior of London apprehended and sent to the Tower was by the instance of the Clergie vrging their said priuiledge dismissed Rex dictum Ranulsum saith Paris licet inuitus solui in pace dimitti praecepit the King though vnwilling commaunded the said Raph to bee let forth of prison and peaceably dismissed So as this exemption was no new thing at that time as M. Attorney would haue it seeme And of King Edward the third aboue a hundred yeares after that againe Thomas
VValsingham alleadgeth this confirmation of the said priuiledge in his time Quod nullus Clericus sit arrei ratuâ— coram Iustitiarijs suis siue ad sectam suam siue partes si Clericus suae Clerimoniae se submittat dicens se membrum Ecclesiae Sanctae non debere ipsis Iustitiarijs respoÌ„dere That no Clerk maie bee arraygned before the Kings Iustices at the suite of the said King or of anie other party yf the said Clerk doe submitt himself to his Clergie affirming that hee being a member of holy Church ought not to answere to the said Iustices So VValsingham And this shall bee sufficient to meete with the assertion of M. Attorney to the contrary and herewith shall we end our speach of King Henry the eight Of King Edvvard the sixt the one and twentith King after the Conquest §. III. 26. This younge Prince being but a child of 9. yeares old when his father King Henry died as often hath been said was by his Tutors and Gouernours especially his Vncle Earle of Hartford after made Duke of Somerset and some others that followed his appetite in the desire of innouation about matters of religion declared Head of the Church vnder the same stile as his father had been before and by that headship and pretence therof they took to theÌ„selues authoritie to make that change which after ensued partly to the opinions of Luther partly of Zuinglius for Caluin was not yet so famous or forward in credit for some years after and to ouerthrow and alter in effect all that King Henry by his headship had ordained and established before concerning religion as may appeare by the seuerall and particular repeals of the most parte of all his Statutes touching that affaire except only this of his departure from the Pope and obedience of the Sea Apostolicke 27. But yet one principall declaration and important constitution they added in this matter as before hath been touched aboue that of King Henry according to the saying facile est inuentis addere and this is that whereas the Father K. Henry taking from the Pope his accustomed iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall did transferre it vnto his Clergie of England and afterward declaring himself Spirituall head of that Clergie did consequentlie inferre he was head of the English Church also in spirituall matters yet did he not explaine from what origen properly this spirituall power did flow which point the said Gouernours of the child-King Edward did interprete and decide shewing that all spirituall iurisdiction power and authority ouer soules by loosing or binding of sinnes or other spirituall actions in Bishops Prelates and Priests proceeded and was deriued from this young child who yet notwithstanding as ech man may consider was not of yeares to haue perfect vse of reason for disposing so much as temporall matters and how much lesse in spirituall For so affirmeth plainly S. Paul to the Galathians Quanto tempore haeres parâ—ulus est nihil differt à seruo cum sit Dominus omnium sed sub tutoribus actoribus est vsque ad praefinitum tempus à Patre All the time that the heire is young or vnder age though he be Lord of all by inheritance yet doth he differ nothing from a seruant or bound-man in subiection but is vnder Tutors and Administrators vntill the tyme of his age appointed by his Father So the Apostle 28. And if then this young King had not yet authority as of himself to dispose of any temporall affaires which are of much lesse moment we may easily consider what may be thought of spirituall and Ecclesiasticall that require more the vse of reason and iudgement for exercising of iurisdiction therin then doth the other But you will say perhaps that the same Tutors and Administrators that gouerned him in secular Ciuill affaires might take vpon them also iurisdiction in the spirituall likewise and so the Duke of Somerset for example with his assistants might be secondary or Vicar-heads of the Church of England vnder him for the tyme to absolue or bind sinnes determine of heresies dispose of Sacraments and the like 29. But to this â—s easily answered according to the principles set downe in the secoÌ„d Chapter of this booke that for so much as all temporall power is giuen first of all by God in the law of Nature vnto the people or multitude who thereby haue authority to transferre the same to what manner of gouernement they like either Monarchie or other it followeth also that the Common-wealth that had authority to choose or appoint the state of Kings to raigne ouer them had and hath power to giue sufficient authority in like manner to Tutors and Administrators to gouerne the said Common-wealth in temporall affaires during the tyme of their Kings minority or non-age But that the origen of spirituall power comming not by this way of the people nor being giuen to them at all but immediatly by Christ our Sauiour to his Apostles and their Successours Bishops and Prelates by lawfull Ordination and Succession of Priesthood and imposition of hands to the end of the world no temporall Tutors or Administrators could rightly get into this authority except they were first made Priests and this also by Caluins opinion and assertion as well as ours as before hath byn declared 30. By this then wee see how and by what assurance this headship of the Church and supreme Ecclesiasticall authoritie therof passed from the Father to the sonne which was such as it liked not M. Attorney to alleadge anie one Statute of this mans time against vs though all in deed were made against vs and against the said Father as maie bee easily imagined considering the Current of that time And the very first of all was in fauour of Luthers opinioÌ„ about the Reall presence which afterward they changed into that of Zwinglius They changed also twyce their Communion booke and forme of seruice and Sacraments first vpon the second and third yeares of King Edwards raigne and secondly vpon the 5. and 6. as appeareth in the particular Statutes of those yeares They repealed a great number of K. Henries Statutes as by name concerning treasons and heresies They repealed his famous Statute for PrecoÌ„tracts in marriages as also dissolued diuers of his Courts that he had set vp And finally they respected nothing the said King Henries headship nor his prescription or direction therin but followâ—d their owne for the time that their power endured And yet all was published vnder the name of the Ghospell and New reformation established by negociation in Parlament as though the matter had proceeded from very sound and founded Ecclesiasticall authoritie And this for that time wherof M. Attorney alleadging no one example against vs I haue no further need to enlarge my self Of the raigne of Queene Mary the two and twentith Princesse after the Conquest §. IIII. 31. As M. Attorney doth preâ—ermitt
charge And in this point I will remit me to the iudgement and censure of the best most learned Deuines of all Christendome at this day either Protestants or Catholickes whether restitution of fame iustice or innocency violated by him be not in this case necessarily to be made Quia non dimittitur peccatum nisi restituatur ablatum 15. As for example if M. Attorney in presenting his booke to his Maiestie laying open the same did say Lo Syr heer is all this ranke of English laws to proue that the Kings of this land did and might from tyme to tyme take vpon them Supreme spirituall iurisdiction no lesse then Queen Elizabeth did by peculiar Act of Parlament in the first yeare of her raigne yf he vsed this or the like speach as I haue byn informed that he did and that now it be proued that no one of those laws nor al put togeather doe proue that Conclusion and if he affirmed moreouer that by the said auncient English-laws whosoeuer did not ascribe Supreme spirituall authority to Queen Elizabeth did deny the perfection of temporall Monarchy in her and consequently were guilty of treason or Laesae Maiestatis which no auncient English-law euer spake or meant but all the contrary 16. If in like manner he told his Maiestie as he did and made him beleiue that it was true that no person of what persuasion soeuer in religion did refuse at any tyme for the first eleuen yeares of the Queens raigne to goe to the Church and that then their motiue was for that they held her not for Queen If these suggestions I say assertions were then made and lest imprinted in the royall mind and memory of his maiestie now are proued to be far otherwise I am coÌ„tent as I said to remit my self to any learned Deuine whatsoeuer that knoweth what cases of Conscience doe meane to determine what M. Attorneys obligation of restitution is in this behalfe 17. Neither may he solace himself as I thinke he will not in this point thinking that these are but veniall sinnes for Purgatory and to be purged in the transitory fire if he omit these restitutions for that S. Augustine in many places expresly excepteth and excludeth the same and saith that sinnes of this quality committed against charity are for hell-fire and not for the transitory purging fire if they be not amended and satisfied for in this life and to that sense interpreteth he the place of S. Paul 1 Cor. 3. If any man buyld vpon the foundation which is Christ not gold and siluer but wood straw and chaffe his works shall burne c. And thus much of this first expostulation THE SECOND EXPOSTVLATION In the behalfe of all English Catholickes in generall §. II. 18. As the former expostulation was in the name of Recusant-Catholickes especially for that the charge most concerned them in particular so now am I to adioyne some few lines more in behoofe of all Catholickes in generall that prosesse or defend the said religion by word or pen either at home or abroade whome M. Attorney accuseth in his Preface not only of Error and of her inseparable twynn Ignorance to vse his phrase but of intollerable and miserable malice also if it were true as it is not to wit that they impugne the knowne truth against their owne consciences and this either vpon discontentment for not attaining their ambitious and vniust desires or for deserued punishments and disgraces iustly laid vpon them by the State for their vices and wickednes To which vniust vncharitable charge though I haue answered somewhat before in the Preface and first Chapter of this booke yet doe I remember to haue made promisse also in that place to say somewhat more in this for giuing satisfaction in that behalfe to all charitable indifferent people especially in this point that our standing out against the current of the present time to vse M. Attorneys phrase is not either of so grâ—sse ignorance and lacke of instruction as hee would haue men to beleiue by his often repetition therof and so I presume will in parte appeare by this our answere to his Booke or of ambitious desires frustrated which Catholicke English men of all other sortes of people can best bee content and haue best learned by theyr sufferings in these our daies to moderate laie aside so that iâ— other points their consciences were not racked galled and molested and finally much lesse of punishments and disgraces receiued from the Sate for their vices and wickednes in which Kind it may bee auerred I weene by good records that fewer haue been and are punished for those causes then of anie other sorte of men or religion whatsoeuer 19. Wherefore laying aside all passion and animositie of part-taking and sincerely to ioyne franke issue with M. Attorney in this point wee say and affirme out of the testimonie of a good conscience in the sight of him that seeth all hearts and cogitations that his accusations and charges are false in this behalfe and that our only staie and stopp from not running with him and others in this their prosperous Current of the present time is the barre of conscience only which if wee could remoue or hee for vs who would not bee glad to take parte of so faire and pleasing fortunes as hee and others enioy by that Current And wee might also euery man in his degree and ranke according to the merit qualitie talent and industrie of ech one of vs enioy our partes therof yf this obstacle of conscience were not or if the onlie feare and dread of allmightie God and his iudgment did not terrifie vs from breaking through the same by violence of will against the testimonie of our said consciences and iudgment 20. The same God also doth know how great a greife it hath been and is vnto vs in respect of the world that wee haue not been able to conforme our selues in these externall things concerning the profession of our religion vnto the iudgment tast and will of our temporall Prince and State being withholden and terrified from it by those two knowne threats of our Sauiour and his Apostle the one telling vs that if wee denie wee shall bee denied the other that our consciences must bee the sole wittnesses to condemne or deliuer vs at the last daie which consciences wee finding to repine and resist are forced to hearken vnto them now to the end they may stand for vs and not against vs at that day 21. And if the iudgment of auncient Christian writers and Fathers and namelie Eusebius in the life of our Constantine the Great that liued with him was good in commending so highly his Father CoÌ„staÌ„tius for that being yet a Pagan he more esteemed those Christians throughout his gouernment that professed freely their religion and refused to doe against the same at his commaundement then hee did the other that dissembled obaied