Church and such as had cheife spirituall authoritie therin from time to time of whome Christ meant when he said Dic Ecclesiae denounce it to the Church and againe If he heare not the Church let him be to thee as a heathen or publican so in like manner must we say in these daies nor haue we any other reasonable answere why we beleeue any one booke of the new or old Testament to be scripture that is to saie to containe doctrine of the holie ghost and not of man but for that the gouernours of our Church which haue spirituall power among vs doe tell vs so 4. Yea all Sectaries likewise of what sorte or sect soeuer are forced to follow the same rule for that whatsoeuer they admit to be scripture they admit the same either vpon the credit of our Church and gouernours therof or of their owne or of both but especially indeed of their owne which is seen by their doubting or reiecting of any parcels of scripture doubted of or reiected by their owne leaders though admitted by ours As for example the booke of vvisedome of Toby Iudith Ecclesiasticus the first and second of Machabees and other parcels of the old Testament reiected by Luther and Lutherans as also the Epistle of S. Iames the second and third of S. Peter the Apocalips and other peeces of the new testament which our Church admitteth simply But Caluin and Caluinists though expreslie they reiect them not with the Lutherans as appeareth by our English Church where they are left to stand in the Bible yet is their admission so could and conditionall as it may rather seeme a curteous dimission then any way a faithfull or confident acceptation 5. And the same may be said of any other particular point or points of doctrine of any Religion or sect whatsoeuer the leaders or gouernours that are presumed to haue cheife authoritie must iudge and discerne distinguish expound and determine what is to be beleued or not what is to be held and taught or reiected and finallie what is to be done and practised what Sacraments what Ceremonies what Customes are to be vsed hovv where and when And last of all this second part of power and authoritie rule order gouerment and iurisdiction is that which giueth light direction and life to euerie religion And for so much as there can be but one true that can bring vs to saluation it followeth that whersoeuer this true spirituall power and iurisdiction is found there is the onlie true religion also which a man may securelie follow yea that vnder paine of eternall damnation he is bound to follow for that this authoritie will lead him to life euerlasting Christ hauing giuen the keies of heauen thervnto that is to say full power to shut and open heauen by binding or loosing sinnes vpon earth and that in such sort saith S. Chrysostome and all other ancient Fathers with him that the Courte or Tribunall of heauen standeth expecting vvhat is done vpon earth to confirme the same there for so much as euer since this admirable vniuersall and dreadfull authoritie was giuen say they by Christ vpon earth vnto the Gouernours of his Church nothing is done in that Court of heauen but by presidence and predetermination of that which is done or sentenced in the Tribunall of the militant Church on earth that is to say he that is here absolued is absolued there he that is here condemned is condemned there without remission VVherof also the said Fathers do inferre that to find out this authoritie and to follow the same and the direction therof is the only sure way to saluation And that the erring herin either wilfully or of ignorance is the most certaine path to damnation for that by no other ordinary means since this Commission giuen and authoritie instituted among Christians is any grace fauour pardon light direction or other spirituall benefit to be receiued from God but by way of this subordination of spirituall authoritie appointed in his Church 6. VVherfore al hope of life depēding as you see of this soueraigne point so as whosoeuer erreth in this erreth in al ech man wil easilie cōsider how much it importeth him to looke well thervnto and to stand attentiue and vigilant in the discussion therof to see whence and how and by what means and from what sourge and fountaine this authoritie and spirituall Iurisdiction is deriued In which point the three professors of different religions before mentioned doe principally differ and distinguish themselues The Protestāt deducing this spiritual power from the temporall Prince or rather Princesse vnder Q. Elizabeth The Puritane from the people The Catholicke from the succession of Bishops from Christs time downe wards and especially from the highest which they hold to be S. Peter and his successours And which part soeuer of these three hitteth right goeth happely securelie the other two doe run to euerlasting perditiō 7. The Protestant for his ground hath those sayings of scripture That all orderly authoritie is from God That vve must giue to Cesar that vvhich is Cesars That Princes are to be honoured and obeyed for God and Kings as highest in dignitie and that he vvhich resisteth lavvfull authoritie resisteth Gods ordination and therby incurreth damnation c. All which the other two parties granting doe affirme to haue byn vnderstood of temporall authoritie only for gouerning the Commonwealth and not of spirituall for gouerning of soules which they proue for that all Kings and Princes were then infidels and especially the Roman Emperours of whom this was principally meant who by these places of scriptures cannot be said to haue receiued Commission to gouerne the Christian Church which was in their times and vnder their dominions but onlie in temporall matters and Ciuill affaires And that the spirituall power and iurisdiction wherof we talke was at that time in another sorte of men to wit in the Apostles and their successours which were Bishops according to the testimonie of S. Paul in the Acts of the Apostles speaking vnto them and saying The holie Ghost hath placed you Bishops to gouerne his Church vvhich he hath purchased vvith his ovvne bloud 8. The Puritanes or rigid Caluinists haue for their ground certaine elections made by the people and recorded as well in the Acts of the Apostles as in other histories of the Primitiue Church as for example when they chose two in the place of Iudas to wit Ioseph and Matthias to bee determined by lot which of them should be And when afterward they chose S. Stephen six others to supply the place of Deacons many times afterward in the primitiue Church we read that the people did choose or name their Bishops But to this the other two parties doe answere that in the first two examples out of the Acts of the Apostles it is euident by the Text that those elections or nominations
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
by the Emperour required to haue certaine Church-vessels deliuered vnto them S. Ambrose writeth thus Cum esset propositum vt Ecclesiae vasa iam traderenpius hoc responsi reddidi c. when it was proposed vnto me by the Emperours officers that we should presently deliuer vp the vessels of the Church behold Church-vessels of price in those daies I gaue this answere that if anie things of mine were demaunded either land or house or gold or syluer or anie other things that lay in my power to giue I would willinglie offer the same but from the Church of God I could take nothing away nor deliuer that which I had receiued to be kept And that in this point I did respect the health principally of the Emperours soule for that it was not expedient for me to deliuer the said Vessels nor for him to receiue them And that he should take in good parte the speach of a free Priest If the Emperour did loue himself he should doe well to cease from offeringe iniurie to Christ. So he And what would he haue said thinke you or answered if he had been in our English Parliament when K. Henry the 8. both demaunded and obtained not onlie the Vessels of many hundred Churches but the lands liuings houses and Churches also themselues which he pulled downe equalled with the ground or from sacred translated them to prophane vses 28. But let vs heare the same Doctor and Father handling this subiect more cleerly in another place to witt in a publike sermon to the people wherin he instructeth them of the true nature and subordination of these two Powers Spirituall and Temporall Ecclesiasticall and Imperiall Soluimus saith he quae sunt Caesaris Caesari quae sunt Dei Deo c. we doe pay vnto Caesar those things that belong to Caesar and we giue vnto God the things that appertaine vnto him Is it Caesars tribute that is demaunded we deny it not Is it the Church of God It ought not to be giuen vp to Caesar. For that the Temple of God cannot be the right of Caesar which we speake to the Emperours honour for what is more honorable vnto him then that he being an Emperour be called a child of the Church which when it is said it is spoken without sinne and to his grace for that a good Emperour is within the Church but not aboue the Church and he seeketh rather help of the Church than refuseth the same this as we speake in humilitie so with constancie wee freelie affirme it And albeit some doe heere threaten vs fire sword and exile yet we being Christs seruaunts haue learned not to feare such things and him that feareth not no threats can daunt 29. And finallie not to be longer in this matter the same good Bishop some few years after hauing occasion to reprehend and correct by his Ecclesiasticall Power and Iurisdiction the famous Emperour Theodosius the Great he failed not to vse the same and therby shewed the eminency of his iurisdiction aboue the other The occasion was for that the said good Emperour had suffered himself by the incitation of certaine of his courte about him to permit the sackage or spoile of the Citty of Thessolonica for certaine howers to his souldiars in reuenge or chastisement of a certaine disorder committed by them but the said sackage and massacre proceedinge further vpon furie of souldiars then the Emperours meaninge was and many thousands of innocent people slaine S. Ambrose wrote first an earnest epistle to the said Emperour laying before him the grieuousnes of his sinne and exhortinge him to doe pennance Wherin he when the Emperour performed not so much as hee desired proceeded further And when the Emperour came one day to the Church the foresaid Bishop went forth and met him without the Church dore forbidding him to enter therin as vnworthy the communion of Christian faithfull people vntill he had done sufficient pennance for his sinne which the good Emperour meeklie obaied as he did afterward also when he comminge to the Church to be reconciled and hauing made his offring he remained within the chauncell amonge the Priests But S. Ambrose sending vnto him his Deacon signified that that place was only for Priests and Clergie men and therfore he should departe forth into the body of the Church amonst lay men adding this sentence Purpurae Imperatores non sacerdotes efficit Purple robes make Emperours but not Priests Which admonition saith Theodorete the most faithfull Emperour tooke in good parte and said that he did not stay vvithin the chauncell vpon any presumption but for that he had learned that custome in Constantinople and therefore gaue him thankes also for this wholsome admonition So he 30 But all which is seene what eminency of Spirituall Authoritie was ascribed by these holy Fathers and Doctors to Bishops Priests and Clergie-men aboue Kings and Emperours and I might adde much more out of them to the same effect for confutation of M. Attorneys Paradox but that I am to reserue diuers things to the fourth chapter of this booke where I must answere his principall argument That vvhosoeuer ascribeth not all supreame power to Princes as well in Ecclesiasticall as Temporall matters maketh them no complete monarches But these holy Fathers of the auncient primitiue Church were of another iudgement as you see 31. Wherfore this being so that in the Church Common-wealth of Christ though Kings and Emperours be Supreame in temporall Authoritie and both honour obedience and tribute due vnto them in their degree as Christ and his Apostles doe teach yet that in spirituall and Ecclesiasticall matters concerning the soule Priests and Bishops are more eminent in Authoritie Hence it was deduced that for combininge these two Powers and Authoritie togeather in peace and vnion and due subordination in the Christian Common wealth the one hauinge need of the other for that neither the temporall partie can saue their soules without the spirituall function neither the Ecclesiasticall State be defended without the temporal sword hence I say it proceeded that presentlie after the entrance of Constantine the Emperour into the Church wherby Temporall Spirituall Power were to be conioyned togeather and exercised in one body though in different tribunalls distinct affaires seuerall laws and ordinances were set downe and agreed vpon how they should liue togeather in peace and concord and dutifull respect the one to the other the Ecclesiasticall partie by an auncient name euen from the Apostles time downwards being called the Cleargie which signifieth the Lott or peculiar in heritance of God himself and the temporall partie named the Laity which importeth as much as the rest of the people besides the Cleargie 32. These two parties I say are directed by most anncient laws both diuine and humane how to liue togeather in vnion due subordination giuing to each power and gouernment that which is due to each
imò à quoâ—iâ— alio de veritate contrarij si quis eam nouerit humiliter informati We being ready alwayes to be humbly informed of the truth of the contrary not only from your holy iudgement which gouerneth all but from any other that knoweth the same 9. So K. Edward to the Pope at that time concerning his great controuersie of France And albeit he was neuer wholy deuoid of the ielousies suspicions before mentioned that those French Popes did fauour more his enemies the Kings of France then himself and did assist them also oftentymes with graunts of great pecuniary succours vpon the Clergy as himself in some letters doth complaine yet did he neuer for this loose any inward respect reuereÌ„ce or obedience to the said Sea Apostolicke No nor did the said Sea cease for many years after to vse her auncient custome of prouiding Bishopricks and Prelacies in England though commonly they were English-men only As for example the very next yeare after to wit 1344. and 18. of King Edwards raigne the said Pope Clement made Bishop of Norwich one VVilliam Bate-man that had byn Auditour of his Pallace and Courte in Auinion And in the yeare 1362. Pope Vrbanus the fifth made Bishop of Lincolne by his prouision one Iohn Buckingham and of Chichester one VVilliam Lynne and King Edward admitted the same without resistance And foure years after that againe the same Pope vpon the death of Simon Islep Archbishop of Canterbury gaue that Bishopricke by his prouision to Simon Langtham that was Bishop of Ely and translated Iohn Barnet Bishop of Bath from that Sea to Ely and one M. Iohn Harwell being commended greatly by Prince Edward of VVales to the said Pope was admitted by him to the said Bishoprick of Bath as also VVilliam VVickham bearer of the Kings priuy signet was preferred by the said Pope vnto the Bishopricke of VVinchester Domino Rege procurante saith Walsingham that is King Edward procuring and labouring for the same 10. And two yeares after this againe in the yeare 1368. we read that the foresaid Simon Langtham being made Cardinall by Pope Vrbanus and therevpon resigning his Archbishopricke of Canterbury the Pope by his prouision gaue the same to VVilliam VVriothesley Bishop of VVorcester and the foresaid Lynne Bishop of Chichester he translated vnto the Bishopricke of VVorcester and vnto the Church of Chichester he promoted one VVilliam Roade In all which wee read not that K. Edward made any difficulty And the very next yeare after this againe wee find registred that the same Pope prouided the Churches of Norwich Hereford and Exceâ—â—â— of Bishops by his owne prouision only it is said of the later of the three quod Thomas Brangthingham fauore literarum Domini Regis Edwardi ad Exoniensem Ecclesiam promotus est Thomas Brangthingham was promoted by the Pope to the Church of Excester through fauour of the letters of K. Edward 11. And finally this matter went on in this manner vntill towards the later end of K. Edwards raigne when he growing old and feeble as well in iudgement as in body and matters depending most vpon his sonne Iohn of Gaunt who was a disorderly man in those dayes and much cried out vpon by all the Common-wealth as may appeare by that he was afterward deposed by Parlament from al gouernment though it lasted not long shewed himself enemy to the State of the Clergy as soone after he well declared by the imprisoning of VVilliam VVickham Bishop of VVinchester assayling Courtney Bishop of London fauoring the famous hereticke Iohn VVickcliffe at his beginning publickly and other such signes and demonstrations at this time I say being the 47. of the raigne of K. Edward according to VValsingham or 49. according to Polidor though the booke of Statutes doth appoint in the 25. and 27. years of the said Kings raigne were the Statutes made or perhaps begun to be put in execution against recourse to Rome except in causes of appellation and against prouisions of benefices to be gotten or procured from thence not at home by the patrons thereof Rex Edwardus saith Polidor primus omnium de Consilij sententia indixit immanem illis paenam qui in posterum impetrarent vbiuis gentium Anglicana sacerdotia à Romano Pontifice aut causas nisi per appellat tonem ad eundem deferrent c. Lex prouisionis siue de Praemoneri vocitatur King Edward first of all other Kings by the sentence of his Counsell did decree most horrible punishment vnto those that for the time to come should in any parte of the world obtaine English benefices from the Pope of Rome or should carry any causes vnto him but only by appellation The law is called the law of Prouision or Praemunire 12. And the same Author addeth further that Pope Gregory the 11. hearing of this law tooke the matter greiuously and wrote to King Edward for the reuocation therof but there ensuing presently a great schisme in the Church of Rome which endured allmost 50. years vntill the tyme of Martin the 5. King Edward also not liuing many years after and the disordinate gouernment of his Nephew K. Richard the 2. with the tumultuation of the VVickcliffians succeeding nothing was done therin And yet doth it appeare by VValsingham that vpoÌ„ that very same yeare of 1374. which was the 48. of K. Edwards raigne there was a treaty begun in the moneth of August at Bruges in Flaunders between Embassadors sent both from the sorsaid Pope Gregory and King Edward to treat of these points and that the said treaty endured almost two yeares Et tandem saith he concordatum est inter eos quod Papa de catero reseruationibus beneficiorum minimè vteretur quod Rex beneficia per literas Quare impedit vlterius non conferret At length it was agreed between them that the Pope for the time to come should not vse reseruations of benefices to himself and that the King should no more bestow benefices by his writ of Quare impedit 13. Thus much writeth VValsingham and toucheth no other points which yet probably may be presumed to haue byn treated at that time namely that the Kings for the time to come should haue the nominations of Bishops and the Pope only the confirmation and inuestiture except in certaine cases as afterward we haue seen practised not only in England but in most Catholicke Kingdomes round about but this by concession and agreement of the Sea Apostolicke it self without any least intention in the said Princes to deny the supreme spirituall power authority of the said Sea much lesse to take it vpon themselues as M. Attorney would inferre that they did out of these peeces of Statutes which he alleadgeth for that purpose Whervnto now we shall answere breifly as they ly in this booke M. Attorneys obiections out of the Raigne of King Edvvard the third §. I. 14. For that these obiections are many
and little pertinent as you will see to the manie conclusion which he should proue that this King did take supreme spirituall authority and iurisdiction vpon him And for that the grounds of all that is heer obiected haue byn discussed and answered in that wee haue set downe before and this booke groweth to more length then was purposed at the beginning and finally for that the law-bookâ—◠〈◊〉 cited of collections and obseruations by later authors which bookes I haue not by mee are of small authority to our purpose I shall passe ouer the said obiections with the greatest breuity that I can remitting mee for the most part to that which before hath byn said and answered The Attorney An excommunication by the Archbishop albeit it be disanulled by the Pope or his Legats is to be allowed neither ought the Iudges giue any allowance of any such sentence of the Pope or his Legate The Catholicke Deuine 15. This assertion I doe not see how it can be admitted for true as it lieth for so much as no author maketh mention that K. Edward did euer deny absolutely the Popes authority to excommunicate by himself or by his Legats in England especially vpon the 16. yeare of his raigne as heere it is noted in the margent when he was most deuout to the Sea Apostolicke wrote the humble letter before mentioned the next yeare after according to the date of the said letter as you haue heard only there might be this accorde between them for more authority of the said Archbishop and peace of the Realme that when he had giuen forth any excommunication no annullation therof from the Pope which might perhaps be procured by false suggestion should be admitted or executed vntill the Pope were informed of the truth this is vsed also in other Catholicke Kingdomes at this day 16. And it were to much simplicity to imagine that English men in those dayes admitting the Archbishops excommunication as heer they doe and for confirmation therof we doe read in VValsingham that vpon the yeare 1340. and 14. of King Edwards raigne Iohn Stratford Archbishop of Canterbury threatned the said King to excommunicate all his counsell if he amended not certaine points wherin they offered iniury to Clergy men it were simplicity I say to thinke that the said Archbishops excommunication could not be controlled by that of the Pope from whom they acknowledged the said Archbishop at that time to haue his spirituall authority if he had any at all For froÌ„ whence should they imagine him to haue it for that the Kings as we haue seen had not so much as the nomination or presentation of Archbishops in that season but only the Popes much lesse their induction confirmation or inuestiture Whervpon it must needs follow that he which gaue them spirituall iurisdiction had greater higher iurisdiction himself though in some cases by agreement not to be vsed as before hath byn said The Attorney It is often resolued that all the Bishopricks within England were founded by the Kings progenitours and therfore the aduowsons of them all belong to the King and at the first they were donatiue and that if an incumbent of any Church with Cure dy if the Patron present not within six moneths the Bishop of that Diocesse ought to collate to the end the Cure may not be destitute of a Pastor If he be negligent by the space of six moneths the Metropolitan of that Diocesse shall confer one to that Church and if he also leaue the Church destitute by the space of six moneths then the Common-law giueth to the King as to the supreme within his owne Kingdome and not to the Bishop of Rome power to prouide a competent pastor for that Church The Catholicke Deuine 17. Is it be true which M. Attorney hath so often repeated before that the Conusaunce and deciding of Ecclesiasticall causes doe not appertaine to the Common-law and that the prouision or induction of Clerks to benefices and giuing them spirituall iurisdiction ouer the soules of those that be within the compasse of that benefice be of the number of those causes which I take to be set downe in like manner by M. Attorneys owne pen before vnder the names of admissions and institutions of Clerks then how can it be true which heere is said that the Common-law giueth to the King as to the supreme to prouide competent Pastors for that or those Churches that within the space of a yeare and halfe are not prouided by the particular patron Diocesian or metropolitan Or where is this Common-law How or when did it begin as often elswhere I haue demaunded Either by vse or statute or common agreement between the Prince and people For none of these haue we heard of hitherto vnder former Kings though for presenting and nomination to benefices we haue oftentymes said that there is no difficulty but that the temporall Prince may present in such benefices or Bishopricks as he is patron of either founding the said benefices or by particular concession of the Sea Apostolicke vnto him as we haue shewed more largly before in the life of K. VVilliam the Conquerour and before him againe vnder K. Edward the Confessor to whom the Sea of Rome in those dayes gaue spirituall iurisdiction also in some cases ouer the Abbey of VVestminster some other places of his Realme 18. But that the Common-law should dispose of these things and especially giue spiritual iurisdiction to the King ouer benefices for so must the meaning of M. Attorney be if he delude not his Reader with equiuocation of words this I say is both contrary to his owne rule before set downe and much more to reason For that to giue Ecclesiasticall iurisdictiom is much more then to haue the conusaunce of Ecclesiasticall causes which he denying to his Common-law in diuers places of his booke as before we haue seen caÌ„not in reasoÌ„ ascribe to th' other 19. Wherefore though we graunt this graduation heer set dovvne as good and conueuient that if the particular patron doe not present within six moneths nor the Ordinary or Metropolitan within their tymes prescribed the Prince as supreme gouernour of the Common-wealth to see all things done in due order may present as if he were patron to the said benefice yet first this cannot come originally from the Common-law for the reasons alleadged Secondly this proueth no spirituall iurisdiction at all in any presentor but only power of presentation which may be in any man that hath Ius patronatus allowed by the Church and head therof as before hath byn said Thirdly much lesse doth this proue supreme authority spirituall in the Prince as M. Attorney would inferre which is euident among other reasons by this For that the Prince when he doth present in this manner by lapse of tyme or omission of others is the last in power of presentation after the Metropolitans and Bishops which yet
should incurre the forfaiture of as much as they may forfaite towards the King c. So saith the Statute 21. And now heere I would aske the discreet Reader whether M. Attorney ouerthroweth not himself by alleadging such matters as these are For heere King Henry alloweth manifestly the repaire to Rome of Bishops Archbishops Abbots other Prelates for their induction admittance to their dignityes which he would neuer doe if he had taken himself to haue supreme authority Ecclesiasticall in that behalfe of giuing them spirituall iurisdiction immediately from himself And albeit he doe binde them to pay at Rome no more then the ordinary accustomed paiments for such their admittance therby perhaps to induce the said Courte of Rome to aske no more of them when they should vnderstand that it was forbidden vnto them to pay it yet doth he allow not only their recourse to Rome in such affaires but to make likewise the ordinary payments which were accustomed to be paid in old times past according to the words of the Statute which is sufficient to proue our purpose and ouer-throw M. Attorneys And thus much for the tyme of K. Henry the 4. For as for an other instance alleadged by M. Attorney conteyning a prohibition that Buls for exemption of tythes from Parish Churches should not be put in execution for that the effect therof is repeated againe in the next obiection out of the raigne of K. Henry the fifth one answere shall serue for them both Out of the raigne of K. Henry the fifth that was the fourtenth King after the Conquest §. II. The Attorney In an act of Parlament made in the third yeare of K. Henry the 5. it is declared that wheras in the time of K. Henry the 4. Father to the said King in the 7. yeare of his raigne to eschew many discordes debates and diuerse other mischeifes which were likely to arise and happen by cause of many prouisions then made or to be made by the Pope and also of licence therevpon graunted by the said late King amongst other things it was ordained and established that no such licence or pardon so graunted should be auailable to any benefice full of any incumbent at the day of the date of such licence or pardon graunted Neuerthelesse diuers persons hauing prouisions of the Pope of diuers â—â—nâ—fices in England and elswhere and licences royall to execute the same prouisions haue by colour of the same prouisions licences and acceptations of the said benefices subtily excluded diuers persons of their benefices in which they had byn incumbents by a longe season of the collation of the very patrons spirituall to them duely made to their intent to the finall destruction and eneruation of the states of the same incumbents The King willing to auoid such mischeifes hath ordained and established that al the incumbents of euery benefice of holy Church of the patronage collation or presentation of spirituall patrons might quietly and peaceably enioy their said benefices without being inquieted molested or any wayes greiued by any colour of such prouisions licences and acceptations And that all the licences and pardons vpon and by such prouisions made in any manner should be voide and of no valour And if any feele himself greiued molested or inquieted in any wise from thenceforth by any by colour of such prouisions licences pardons or acceptations that the same molestors greiuers or inquieters euery of them haue and incurre the paines punishments contained in the Statutes of Prouisors before that tyme made as by the said Act appeareth The Catholicke Deuine 22. This Statute maketh as little for M. Attorneys purpose of supreme authoritie spirituall as anie of the former and I haue set it downe at large to the end you maie see what smal store of stuffe he hath to furnish his booke when he filleth paper with such impertinencyes for that the whole subiect of this Statute tendeth onlie to the reforme of certaine abuses in some quarreling and troublesome people who meaning to molest others that were in quiet possession of their benefices went to Rome and there framing manie complaints calumniatioÌ„s and accusations against them and against the lawfullnes of their hauing those benefices and pretending that the due collation thereof appertained to the Sea Apostolicke for diuers respects demaunded onlie that the same Sea would giue her right vnto them and so got out prouisions oftentimes to that effect which prouisions it seemeth by the words of this statute that K. Henry the 4. was content they should runne and gaue royall licences for the same and that the title should be tried not withstaÌ„ding the prohibitions of such prouisions made vnder K. Edward and King Richard as you haue heard and all this maketh against M. Attorney But now K. Henry the 5. being informed of the inconueniences that ensued therof and that diuers incumbents were therby excluded of their benefices and the patrons spirituall of their presentatioÌ„s ordained that for the time to come no such incumbents or patrons should bee disquieted or molested by colour of such prouisions from the Pope of benefices that are not actually voide or by vertue of licences from the King for prosecuting the same This is the Statute and you see how little helpe M. Attorney getteth by it But let vs see another instance out of this Kings raigne as wisely alleadged as the former The Attorney A Statute was made for extirpation of heresie and Lollardy wherby full power and authoritie was giuen to the Iustices of peace and Iustices of assise to inquire of those that hold errors heresies or Lollardy and of their maintainers c. And that the Sheriffe or other officer c. maie arrest and apprehend them Infoelix lolium steriles dominantur auena Virgil. Et careant lolijs oculos vitiantibus agri Ouid. The King by coÌ„sent of Parlament giueth power to Ordinaries to inquire of the foundation erection and gouernance of Hospitals other then such as be of the Kings foundation and thervpon to make correction and reformation according to the Ecclesiasticall law The Catholicke Diuine 23. If M. Attorneys store-howse of arguments were not extreme poore emptie he would neuer alleadge such matter as this is for demonstratiue proofes which before he promised vs in his Preface For out of the later example that Ordinaries are appointed to inquire of the foundation execution and gouernment of Hospitals what can be deduced for M. Attorneys purpose or against vs For so much as the foundation erection and gouernment of Hospitals were for the most part meere temporall things except some priuiledges graunted vnto them by the Sea Apostolicke 24. And that in the former example Iustices of peace and assise were commaunded by the King to inquire after Lollards VVickcliffians and such other hereticks it was to apprehend and imprison their persons and not to iudge of their heresies which belonged to their Bishops and Ordinaries
also calumnious what shall wee saie of M. Attorney in this behalfe that presumeth so confidentlie to put such open vntruths in print 4. First then for the former point not onlie many Catholicks in the first eleuen yeares by him prescribed did refuse publikely to come to the Protestants Church but many Puritans also from the verie first entrance of Queen Elizabeth to her Crowne and so is it testified by publike authoritie of diuers books set forth by order and approbation of the Bishops of England themselues these years past against the said Puritans recounting the beginning ofspring and progresse of that Sect and faction one of them wriâ—â—ng thus Vpon the returne of Goodman VVhittingham Gylby with â—he rest of their associates from Geneua to England although it greiued them at the heart that they might not beare as great a â—way heer in their seuerall Consistories as Caluyn did it Geneua c. yet medled not they much in shew with matters of this discipline but rather busied themselues about the apparrell of ministers ceremonies prescribed and in picking of quarrells against the Communion booke c. Thus writeth hee of the first Geneâ—ian English preachers that returned from thence to England after the Queens raigne and that for these quarrels against the Common and Communion-booke they refused to come to the Protestants Church in those daies as much as Catholikes it is euident But yet you shall heare it affirmed plainly and distinctly out of the same Author quite opposite to M. Attorneys asseveration though hee bee of his religion if yet he haue made his choise 5. For the first ten or eleuen yeares of her Maiestyes raigne saith hee through the peeuish frowardnes the outcries exclamations of those that came home from Geneua against the garments prescribed to ministers and other such like matters no man of anie experience is ignorant what great contentioâ— and strife was raised in so much as their Sectaries deuided themselues from their ordinarie coÌ„gregations meeting togeather in priuate howses in woods and fields had and kept there their disorderly and vnlawfull Conuenticles which assemblees notwithstanding the absurdnes of them in a Church reformed M. Cart-wright within a while after tooke vpon him in a sorte to defend c. So hee And thus much for Puritanes whome if M. Attorney will graunt to bee of anie perswasion what soeuer in Christian religion he then must needs graunt also that hee was much oâ—ershott in this his first so generall a Proposition affirming that none of what persuasion soeuer did at anie time refuse within that compasse to goe to Church But lett vs see how wee can ouerthrow the same in like manner concerning Catholickes of whom principally hee meant it 6. Hee that shall but cast backe the eye of his memorie vpon the beginning of Queen Elizabeths raigne and shall consider how many Archbishops Bishops Deans Archdeacons Heads of Colledges Chanons Priests Schollers Religious persons of diuers sortes and sexes Gentle-men Gentle-weomen and others did refufe openly to conforme themselues to that new change of Religion then made and published by authority of the said Queen at the beginning of her raigne will maruaile how and in what sense and whether in iest or earnest sleeping or waking M. Attorney set downe in writing so generall a negatiue assertion For that he shall see so many conuictions therof as there be particular witnesses of credit against him in that behalfe And truly it seemeth that either he was an infant or vnborne at that time and hath vnderstood little of those affaires since or els forgot himself much now in affirming so resolutely a proposition refutable by so infinite testimonyes 7. For if he looke but vpon Doctor Sanders Monarchy in latin in his 7. booke where he handleth the matters that fell out vpon the first change of religion in Queen Elizabeths dayes he shall find 14. Bishops at least of England only besides ten more of Ireland and Scotland togeather with Doctor Fecknam Abbot of VVestminster Father Maurice Chasey and VVilson Priors of the Carthusians 13. Deans of Cathedrall churches 14. Archdeacons 15. heads of Colledges almost 50. Chanons of Cathedrall churches aboue eightscore other Priests wherof diuers were Doctors or Bachlers of diuinity Ciuill and Canon-law depriued from their liuings and offering themselues either to voluntary banishment abroad or to imprisonment and disgrace at home for maintenance of Catholicke religion to omit all the rest of the lay sort both of the Nobility Gentry and others that stood openly to the defence of the same Religion All which did refuse to goe to the Protestant-seruice euen in those first dayes which is testimony inough to conuince the open and notorious falsity of M. Attorneys assertion that no person of what persuasion soeuer in Christian religion did at any time refuse to goe to Church though I deny not but that many other besides these throughout the Realme though otherwise Catholickes in heart as most then were did at that tyme and after as also now either vpon feare or lacke of better instruction or both repaire to Protestant-Churches the case being then not so fully discussed by learned men as after it was whether a man with good conscience may goe to the Church and seruice of a different Religion from his owne which releiueth little M. Attorneys affirmation And so this shall suffice for the first point 8. In the second point being no lesse notoriously vntrue then the first he offereth the said Catholickes much more iniury in affirming that vpon this occasion of the Bul of Pius quintus against Q. Elizabeth they first refused to goe to the Church as not holding her for true and lawfull Queene insinuating therby another consequence also much more false and malicious then this to wit that the same may be said and vnderstood of Recusant Catholickes at this day in respect of his Maiesty that now is But the vntruth of this assertion is most manifest both by that we haue shewed before that great multitudes of Catholickes refused euen from the beginning to goe to Protestant-Churches though then the matter was not much vrged against them as also by this other reason for that their holding the Queene for true or vnlawfull was and is impertinent to the matter of going to Church Nay their holding her for not Queen if any so did did rather disoblige then oblige them to this recusancy 9. The reason heerof is for that one principall cause binding them in conscience not to goe to the seruice of a different or opposite religion to their owne was the precept and commaundement giuen by the said Queene that all should repaire to the said seruice to shew their conformity c. For that the obeying of this precept in matters of religioÌ„ they offering themselues otherwise to goe to any Church for temporall matters was a kind of publike denying their owne faith As for example if in Persia at this day or other
Church and Church-men § 2. pag. 165. The first Instance of M. Attorney taken out of the raigne of K. William the Conquerour refuted § 3. pag. 169. Of King William Rufus and Henry the first that were the Conquerours sonnes and of K. Stephen his nephew And how they agreed with the said Conquerour in our Question of Spiritual Iurisdiction acknowledged by them to be in others and not in themselues Chap. VIII pag. 176. Of King Henry the first who was the third King after the Conquest § 1. pag. 180. Of the raigne of King Stephen the fourth King after the Conquest § 2. pag. 189. Of the Raigne of K. Henry the second great Grand-child to the Conquerour the fifth King after the Conquest with his two sonnes K. Richard and K. Iohn and their comformityes in this Controuersy Chap. IX pag. 196. Of the Raigne of K. Richard the first the sixt King after the Conquest § 2. pag. 208. Of the Raigne of K. Iohn who was the seauenth King after the Conquest § 3. pag. 222. Of King Henry the third that was the eight King after the Conquest and the first that left Statutes wrytten And what M. Attorney alleadgeth out of him for his purpose Chap. X. pag. 232. Two Instances alleadged out of the raigne of K. Henry the third by M. Attorney and of what weight they be § 1. pag. 245. Of the liues and raignes of K. Edward the first and second Father and Sonne And what Arguments M. Attorney draweth from them towards the prouing of his purpose Chap. XI pag. 256. Of K. Edward the first who was the nynth King after the Conquest § 1. pag. 257. Of King Edward the second which was the tenth King after the Conquest § 2. pag. 278. Of King Edward the third and K. Richard the second his nephew and successour And vvhat Instances or Arguments M. Attorney dravveth from their tvvo raignes vvhich continued betvveene them for seauenty yeares Chap. XII pag. 285. M. Attorneyes obiections out of the raigne of K. Edward the third aforesaid § 1. pag. 292. Of the raigne of K. Richard the second the tvveluth King after the Conquest § 2. pag. 308. Of the three King Henryes of the house of Lancaster the fourth fifth and sixth vvho raigned for the space of threescore yeares And vvhat is obserued out of their raignes concerning our Controuersy vvith M. Attorney Chap. XIII pag. 312. Instances alleadged by M. Attorney out of the raigne of K. Henry the fourth vvho vvas the thirteenth King after the Conquest § 1. pag. 315. Out of the raigne of K. Henry the fifth that vvas the fourteenth King after the Conquest § 2. pag. 322. Out of the Raigne of K. Henry the sixt the fifteenth King after the Conquest § â— pag. 326. Of the Raigne of fâ—ure ensuing Kinges to vvit Edward the fourth Edward the fifth Richard the third and Henry the seauenth And hovv confoâ—me they vvere vnto their Ancestors in this point of Controuersy vve haue in hand Chap. XIIII pag. 328. Iâ—stâ—nces out of the Raigne of K. Edward the fourth the sixteenth King after the Conquest § 1. pag. 331. Out of the Râ—igne of K. Henry the seauenth vvho vvas the nynteenth King after the Conquest § 2. pag. 337. Of the Raigne of K. Henry the eight and of his three Children King Edward Queâ—ne Mary and Queene Elizabeth And hovv the first innouatiâ—n thout Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction vvas made and continued in their daies Châ—p XV. pag. 341. The ansvvere to certayne Instances of M. Attorney out of the Raigne of K. Henry the eight § 2. pag. 351. Of King Edward the six the one and tvventith King after the Conquest § 3. pag. 357. Of the Raigne of Queene Mary the tvvo and tvventith Princesse after the Conquest § 4. pag. 359. Of the Raigne of Queene Elizabeth vvho vvas the three and tvventith Princesse after the Conquest and last of K. Henryes race § 5. pag. 361. Certaine Expostulations vvith M. Attorney about euill preceeding iniuryes offered to diuers sortes of men in this his booke of Reportes especially to â—ards the end therof Togeather with the Conclusion of the whole worke Chap. XVI pag. 368. The first expostulation in the behalfe of Recusant-Catholickes of England grieuâ—â—sly iniured by M. Attorney § 1. pag. 369. The second Expostulation in the behalfe of all English Catholickes in generall § 2. pag. 376. The third Expostulation in the name of all moderate and peace-louing subiects whatsoâ—uer § 3. pag. 384. An Index or Table of the particular matters conteyned in the vvhole worke THE PREFACE TO THE READER Concerning the weight and importance of this our Controuersie wherby may be resolued whatsoeuer is in question between men of different Religions at this day in England ALBEIT the moment and vtility of that we haue in hand discreet Reader will best be seene by perusall of the Treatise it self and by thy iudicious consideration therof yet for thy better encouragement to this labour and to stirr thee vp to more attention herin I haue thought good to touch some points in generall at this first entrance remitting the larger and more particular declaration therof vnto that which is to ensue throughout the whole discussion of the Controuersie 2. First then to pretermit the whole view of our English Christian antiquities which heer by fit and necessarie occasion is searched laid open togeather with the liues and laws gouerment and Religion of all our Christian Kings both before and after the Conquest This one point seemeth to me to be of most moment for the present that wheras vnder the raigne of Queen Elizabeth about whome principallie is our question three sortes of Religion did stand vp striue togeather and doe vnto this day the Protestant the Puritane â—nd the Catholicke their whole contention seemeth to mee to ly within the limits of this Controuersie moued by M. Attorney about Q. Elizabeths spirituall iurisdiction and that out of the same the whole may easily be determined as presentlie you shall see 3. For wheras there are two principall partes of any Religion whatsoeuer the one doctrine or precepts for instruction the other power and authoritie for direction and gouerment albeit the first be the ground and foundation wheron to buyld and worke yet is the second that which giueth life and motion to the former and must try and iudge the same for that in euery religion or societie of men professing one and the self same faith those that are the cheife meÌ„bers therof presumed to â—aue principal power and spiritual iurisdiction therin are they that must authorize discerne and iustifie the doctrine therof to their followers For as S. Augustine said in â—is daies to the Manichies that pressed him to beleeue certaine thinges out of the scripture in their sense That he vvould not beleeue the ghospell it self to be the ghospel except the authority of the Chuch did moue him thervnto that is to say the cheife gouernours of the