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
that from the beginning of the world there was neuer any such thing heard of either among Christians Iewes or Gentiles 48. Wherfore we hauing now proued this our negatiue â—e Iure against M. Attorney by so many different sortes of proofe as you haue heard aswell out of the Canon Ciuill lawes as of Nature Nations Mosaicall and Euangelicall and of all the partes and members therof as Scriptures Fathers Doctors of all sortes yea and by the testimony of our Common Municipall ancient lawes of England and the concurrence and consequence of reason it self and lastly by the consent and asseueration of the best-learned Protestants of ech sorte both Lutherans and Caluinians I doe not see what M. Attorney wil be able to bring to the contrary to proue his affirmatiue propositions De Iure with any shew of probability Wherfore I shall conclude this whole Chapter noting only to the Reader two considerations for his better memory out of all the premisses The one worthie of laughter the other of teares 49. The former is the euill lucke that M. Attorney had in making choyse of Q. Elizabeth for an example of Ecclesiasticall supremacy in a temporall Prince For wheras three Princes only of our Nation from the beginning of the world had taken vpon them this title to witt K. Henry the 8. K. Edward the 6. and Q. Elizabeth M. Attorney chose the worst and weakest of all the three to be defended For as for K. Henry though by the Canon-law he were incapable of Priesthood or holy orders wherof dependeth spirituall Iurisdiction for that he was marryed when he tooke the same vpon him and not only marryed but many times marryed which is another Canonicall impediment for he was not only Bigamus and Trigamus but twice also Trigamus hauing bene marryed the sixth tyme yet was all this in rigour of Ecclesiasticall power dispensable by the Church being but only Iuris humani impedimenta non diuini Impediments of humane not diuine lawe and so K. Henry either by dispensation or by occasion that this last wife had dyed might haue been made Priest and capable of spirituall Iurisdiction 50. But K. Edward being a child of 9. yeares old and consequently vnder the vse of reason when this supreame spirituall Iurisdiction was giuen vnto him he was so vncapable therof as by no dispensation it might be made lawfull vntill he came to the years of perfect reason and so doe proue both Canonists Ciuilians for that Iurisdiction cannot be giuen nor admitted but where perfect vse of reason is for that otherwise it should be no humane act But yet this impediment though not dispensable for the present would haue come afterwards to be remoued without dispensation by tract of tyme it self which would haue brought the perfect vse of reason 51. But in Q. Elizabeth in regard of her sex no tyme no dispensation no authority humane nor other circumstance could remoue the impediment or incapacity of her sex which God and nature had layd vpon her so as in this point M. Attorney his choyse was very erroneous but whether the Twynne of Ignorance were also conioyned which before he said to be inseparable from error I leaue to himself to consider And thus much of this former consideration 52. The other which I said to be worthie of greife and teares consisteth in this that the former position of the said Queenes Ecclesiasticall Supremacy being a thing vnpossible in it self for so many respects and causes as before hath byn shewed humane and diuine and that the very Protestants themselues of the more learned sort doe laugh at it and condemne the same as a new inuention neuer heard of in the world before yet notwithstanding that the same in our countrey should passe by Parlament as a matter of faith and to Religion and be prest vpon men by corporall oathes vnder paine of extreame punishments must needes be a matter of great compassion to euery pious mynd that considereth the infinite danger of soules therby Euery Archbishop and Bishop saith the Statute and euery Ecclesiasticall person of vvhat estate dignitie preheminence or degree soeuer he or they be and all and euery temporall Iudge Iusâ—icer Mayor and other lay or temporall officer c. And all that sâ—all suc out the liuery of their lands and inheritances when they come to lawfull age All that shall take any order office benefice promotion dignity or degree in the vniuersity c. shall make and take and receiue a corporall oath vpon the Euangelist according to the tenour and effect following I A.B. doe vtterly testifie and declare in my conscience that the Queenes highnes is the only Supreame Gouernour c. aswell in all spirituall or Ecclesiasticall things or causes as in temporall c. So goeth the oath And by the last words that giue her as much spirituall Iurisdiction in all things and causes Ecclesiasticall as she had or could haue in temporall you may see how farr they extended the meaning of this power though they left out the word Supreame head for the causes before mentioned 53. Now then pious and godly Reader consider with thy self out of thy Christian compassion Quae strages animarum What a slaughter of soules ensued vpon this new deuise And first how many thousands were forced or allured by feare and terror or desire of preferment to take this oath against their consciences the far greater parte of the Realme being then Catholike and condemning the said oath in their iudgments and beleefe And when afterward God styrred vp another generation that had more care of their said consciences and therupon refused so wilfully to damne themselues as to take such oathes with repugnant consciences what troubles what afflictions haue ensued therof in all the time of that Queene And among many others aboue an hundred learned preests that in conscience were most free and innocent in all matters meant against the State gaue their bloud for preseruation of their said consciences in that case and now both they and shee are gone to plead their cause before the high and euerlasting Iudge And if this matter of her spirituall supremacy were but a iest and fancy and new deuise for for the tyme as you haue heard the best sorte of forreine Protestants to affirme and as her self would sometimes merily but seriously say then was the same both deerly bought and sold in this life by some and will cost more deere in the other where now the matter is in handling 54. And this shall suffice for this chapter and for the first head of profe De Iure wherin you may haue seene how sparinge M. Attorney hath carryed himself we shall now passe to the other sorte of his proofes De facto wherin consisteth the whole corpes of his booke and shall examine whether any better substance may be found in that then hath byn in this The proofe wil be the
Chapter and fourth demonstration therof I will remitt the Reader therunto Only I cannot let passe to recite vnto you in this place a certaine Charter of K. Ethelbert of Kent our first Christian English King confirmed by a Bull in lead of S. Augustin first archbishop of Canterbury and legate of the Sea Apostolike vnto the monastery of S. Peter Paul in CaÌ„terbury erected by the said K. Ethelbert the words of the Charter are these In nomine Domini nostri Iesu Christi c. Ego Ethelbertus Rex Cantij c. In the name of our Lord Iesus c. I Ethelbert King of Kent with the consent of the venerable Archbishop Augustine and of the Princes of my Realme do giue and graunt in the honour of S. Peter and S. Paul a certaine peâ—ce of my land which lyeth in the East parte of Canterbury to this intention only that a monastery be buylded in that place with this condition that my said land be for euer in the power of the said Abbot which there shall be ordeined And therfore I doe adiure and commaund in the name of allmightie God that is the iust Iudge of all that the foresaid gift of lands made by mee be held for euer firme so as neither it bee lawful for mee or any of my Successours Kings or Princes or for any Ecclesiasticall person of what degree or dignitie soeuer to defraud the said monastery of the same or any parte therof And if any man shall goe about to impeach or diminish any point or parte of this donation let him bee seperated in this life from the holie communion of the body and bloud of Christ at the day of iudgment for the demeritt of his malice be sequestred from the company of Saints and all good men Giuen at Canterbury Anno Christi 605. the 8. indiction 12. Thus goeth that Charter and in the same forme went all other Chartes of this Kinde wherin is to be noted first the dreadfull imprecation against all breakers therof confirmed by the Authority of so great a Saint as S. Augustin was how many lamentable inheritours wee haue of these curses and imprecations in our countrey and round about vs at this day where all such pious works are ouer throwne And secondly for that he saith expresly that he did all by the counsell and consent of S. Augustine it may be inferred that whatsoeuer priuiledges he gaue that may seeme to appertaine to Ecclesiasticall matters or Iurisdiction he did them vnder ratihabition of the said S. Augustine that was not only Archbishop but legat also of the Sea Apostolike and confequentlie had authoritie to exempt the said monastery as we see he did not only from the Iurisdiction of all other Bishops but of his owne Sea also in such sorte as no Archbishop of Canterbury had any authoritie ouer them which is much more then the Charter of Kenulsus alleadged heere by M. Attorney And we doe reade that the monks of Canterbury did pleade this Charter of K. Ethelbert confirmed by S. Augustine for their liberties against the Archbishop Richard Successor of S. Thomas Becket in the yeare of Christ 1180. 13. Wherfore to conclude this matter it seemeth that M. Attorney hath gotten nothing at all by this his instance of K. Kenulfus whether in his Charter he meant of temporal or spiritual iurisdiction For if he meant of teÌ„porall that is to say that the Abbey of Abindon should be free from molestation of the Bishops officers in temporall affaires it is nothing to our purpose and if he meant of spirituall Iurisdiction cleere it is that the said King had it not of himself by right of his crowne as M. Attorney often repeateth and vrgeth without all grounde but either from the Bishops of his Realme gathered togeather in Parlament which seemeth very probable by the words of the Charter Consilio Consensu Episcoporum That he did it by the Counsell and Consent of his Bishops or that he had it immediatly from the Pope as we haue shewed the vse to be in those dayes shall doe more largly in the ensuing Chapter 14. And that which is yet more and seemeth to conuince the whole matter to decide our very case in particular I doe reade of one Bishop Rethurus who was Abbot also of Abindon during the reigne of the said Kenulfus who went to Rome to obteine the confirmation of priuiledges to the said Abbey of Abindon about the yeare .812 Romam profectus saith the Story Pontificia authoritate privilegia Canobij communiuit He going the Rome by consent no doubt of K. Kenulfus himself obteined the confirmation of the priuiledges of the said monastery of Abindon by the Apostolike authoritie of the Sea of Rome And it is no doubt that among other priuiledges this Charter also of Kenulfus was one which being so euery man may see how much this instance hath holpen M. Attorney his cause or rather made against him that Kenulfus procured the confirmation of his Charter from the Pope himself 15. And surely if in this M. Attorney committed an errour in alleadging Kenulfus for an example of one that tooke supreme IurisdictioÌ„ Ecclesiasticall vpon him he being so obedient and subordinate to the Church of Rome as we haue said much more did he erre in choosing S. Edward the Confessor for his second instance for he hath but two as before I haue said out of all our Kings before the Conquest which K. Edward of all others was most deuoutly obedient to the Sea Apostolicke as may appeare both by that which before we haue touched of him as by that which after we shall more largly shew in the next Chapter that he presumed not to found his monastery of VVestminster without particular licence and approbation of the Pope In like manner for that hauing made a vow to goe in pilgrimage to Rome to shew his deuotion and obedience to that Sea he finding afterward some difficulties therin in respect of his Kingdome that repined at his absence and of the troublesome times that then were he remitted all first to Pope Stephen the tenth and when he being dead to his successour Nicholas the 2. who determined that he should not take that voiage but bestow the charges therof vpon the buylding of that monastery of VVestminster to which effect both their letters are extaÌ„t in Alredus that liued about 400. years gone wrote the same Kings life The Kings letter hath this Title Summo vniuersalis Ecclesiae Patri Nicolâo Edwardus Dei gratia Anglorum Rex debitam subiectionem c. To the high Father of the vniuersal Church Nicolas Edward by the grace of God King of England doth offer due subiection and obedience Wherby is euident that if K. Edward did hold himself for supreme head and gouernour of the Church in spirituall matters as M. Attorney would inferr vpon certaine words of one of his lawes as presentlie you shall heare
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
annexed sequels 46. And I might alleadge heere diuers particular examples of King Kichards respectiue proceedings towards both the Sea of Rome and Clergy of his Countrey as namely in the first wheras Pope Vrban the 6. being truly and Canonically elected Pope in Rome afterward against him the Archbishop of Arles in France being chosen for Anti-Pope by a faction of French-Cardinals that named him Clement the 7. King Richard stood zealously with the said true Pope and not only made a Statute in Parlament that whosoeuer should be obedient to any other person as Pope but only to Pope Vrban should be out of the Kings protection and his goods seased as the words of the Statute are but also some yeares after that againe when the said Pope Vrban had appointed Henry Bishop of Norwich to be his Captaine general to passe ouer into Flanders and by force to constraine the said schismaticall Pope to surcease that diuision the said King not only allowed but assisted also that enterprise 47. And as for the Clergy of his Realme and their spirituall iurisdiction how much he respected it appeareth by that the Archbishop of Canterbury and some other Bishops that assisted him hauing publikely pronounced the sentence of excommunication vpon the yeare 1379. against certaine persons that had broken the priuiledges of Sanctuary in the Church and Monastery of VVestminster and shed bloud therin for taking out a certaine person in the Kings name the said King albeit he was thought to haue byn the abetter â—hereof yet did he finally obay the said Censures and soone after in the same yeare at his Parlament of London it was ordained saith VValsingham Quod immunitates priuilegia Ecclesia VVestmonasteriensis illibata manerent that the libertyes priuiledges of the Church of VVestminster should remaine whole and inuiolate 48. Wherefore now to answere the instance or obiectioÌ„ which M. Attorney alleadgeth out of the foresaid Statute of the 16. yeare of this King where the law of Premunire the losse of goods and lands other punishments are appointed for such as doe procure processe and sentences of excoÌ„municatioÌ„ which touched the king their Lord against him his crowne and his regalitie c. as larglie you maie see it set downe in the whole Statute out of M. Attorneys booke I answere that whosoeuer shall attentiuelie read the whole contexture of this Statute with that which before wee haue sett downe both in this in the precedent kings life he shall see that this Statute doth rather make against M. Attorneys purpose of supreme spirituall iurisdiction then anie waie for him For that first of all the verie proposition to the Parlament doth concerne temporal power and not spirituall saying that the Crowne of England hath been at all times free and onlie subiect to God immediatlie and to none other and that the same ought not in anie thing touching the maiesty or regalitie of the same Crowne bee submitted to the Bishop of Rome nor the laws and Statutes thereof to bee taken away or mablect by him c. 49. This then being the proposition of the Commons which is euidently to bee vnderstood of temporall regalitie and thinges thereunto belonging the temporall Lords assented absolutelie vnto it But the Archbishop Bishops Abbots and other Ecclesiasticall Prelates that made the cheife and highest parte of the Parlament distinguished yea made protestations as the Statute saith that it was neuer their meaning to witt either in K. Edwards daies or now to saie that the Bishop of Rome might not excommunicate Bishops or make translation of Prelates from one Sea to another after the law of holie Church yet if this should bee done at anie time in great preiudice of the King or his realme as that sage men or Counsellours should therby be drawne from him without his knowledge or against his will or that the substance and treasurie of his Realme should bee in daunger to be destroyed by sending out money or giuing it to his aduersaries or other like inconueniences ensue against the Kings state and realme indeed then they did graunt that this might bee esteemed against the Kings regalitie c. whereby wee see in what sense and with what limitation they did yeeld to such like Statutes in those daies pressed by the importunitie of the laie partie but yet far from the meaning of M. Attorney who would haue men thinke that heerby they confessed K. Richard to bee Head of the Church which himself expresly denieth in his forenamed Statute in fauour of Pope Vrban whom hee calleth the onlie true head of the Church and for such commaundeth him to bee obaied and respected vnder the paines before mencioned And so much of K. Richard who not long after fell into great misery lost both his commaundry and life and came to a pitifull end full of affliction and desolation as our histories doe testify and set forth at large OF THE THREE KING HENRYES OF THE HOVSE OF LANCASTER The fourth fifth and sixth vvho raigned for the space of threescore years And what is obserued out of their raignes concerning our Controuersie with M. Attorney CHAP. XIII AFter the three Edwards before mentioned vnder whom the first restraints were made for the exercise of certaine externall points of Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction as you haue heard and after the pitifull end of their successor inheritour K. Richard the 2. entred and ensued in the Crowne three Henries of the line of Lancaster who had variable successe in their liues and temporall affaires though in religion and particularly in this point of our controuersie about spirituall power and iurisdiction they were all one 2. King Henrie the 4. being Duke of Lancaster and sonne of the often fore named Iohn of Gaunt that was the fourth sonne of K. Edward the 3. seing the disorderly gouernment of K. Richard the 2. his Cosen germaÌ„ the auersion of his peoples affection from him for the same cause came out of France where he liued in banishement raised powers against him pursued and tooke his person caused him to be deposed by Parlament and himself chosen in his place with great applause of the people which yet turning away from him soone after againe he was forced for his safetie defence not onlie to make away the same K. Richard in Pomfret Castle but also to take armes suppresse and cut of the greatest and cheifest men that had aided and assisted him to gaine the said Kingdome And finallie after a troublesome raigne of 13. yeres he died vsing these words before his death as they are registred by Stow and others I sore repent mee that euer I charged my self with the Crowne of this Realme c. 3. King Henry the 5. his eldest sonne succeeded him for the space of ten years and though he were a most excellent Prince warlike and fortunate gained the possession of almost the whole Kingdome of France yet had
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-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
respect of his supreme Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction is altogeather childish For that first to present includeth no Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction at all and much lesse supreme and may be exercised by meer lay-men as before hath byn declared at large vnder King VVilliam the Conquerour Secondly for the King to present to his free Chappels was as much to say in those dayes as that those Chappels being made free and exempted by priuiledges and franquises frō the Sea Apostolicke for otherwise they could not be freed from iurisdiction of their Ordinary the King presented vnto them by vertue of the Canon-law and commission of the said Sea Apostolicke as founder therof 26. And thirdly that he presented after the Deane and by lapse only and not in the first place signifieth plainely that his iurisdiction in that point if presentation may be called iurisdiction as in some sense it may was lesse then that of the Deane And so Fitzherberts words are to be vnderstood that in that particular case the King presēted by lapse as ordinary that is to say wheras in other benefices when the patron or partie to whom the election nomination or presentation first cheifly appertaineth presenteth not within such a tyme the Ordinary may present as hauing by composition the second right or power in that case and after him the Metropolitan and last of all the King Heer in the case of Free Chappels wherof the King is presumed to be founder after the Deane which hath the first right and this by no other meanes then by cōcession of the Sea Apostolicke in those dayes the King by priuiledge of the same Sea had right to enter in the second place insteed of the Bishop which proueth the quite contrary to M. Attorneys conclusion for it sheweth that the King had not supreme Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction in the case proposed but secondary and subordinate to that of the Deane But let vs see further The Attorney An excommunication vnder the Popes Bul is of no force to disable any man within England and the Iudges said that he that pleadeth such Buls though they concerne the excommunication of a subiect were in a hard case if the King would extend his iustice against him If excommunication being the extreme and finall end of any suite in the Court at Rome be not to be allowed within England it consequently followeth that by the ancient Common-laws of England no suite for any cause though it be spirituall rising within this Realme ought to be determined in the Court of Rome Quia frustra expectatur euentus cuis effectus nullus sequitur and that the Bishops of England are the immediate officers and ministers to the Kings Courts In an attachment vpon a prohibition the defendant pleaded the Popes Bull of excommunication of the Plaintife the Iudges demaunded of the defendāt if he had not the certificate of some Bishop within the Realme testifying this excommunication to whom the Counsell of the defendant answered that he had not neither was it as he supposed necessary for that the Buls of the Pope vnder lead were notorious inough but it was adiudged that they were not sufficient for that the Courte ought not to haue regard to any excommunication out of the Realme and therefore by the rule of the Courte the 〈◊〉 was thereby disabled Reges sacro oleo vncti sunt spiritualis iurisdictionis capaces The Catholicke Deuine 27. All that is heere said against the acceptance or admittance of the Popes Bulls for excommunication in England for of this only as speach in this place if it be meant of this K. Edwards time only as according to the argument it must and we haue seen that vnder former Kings the contrary was allwayes in practice how then doth M. Attorney talke heere againe of his auncient Common-lawes For if it began first vnder this King then was it a new law and not auncient and if further wee find no Decree or Statute therof at all in this Kings life as hitherto we haue not nor doth M. Attorney cite or quote any then might it be a matter only de facto of some Iudges who according to the current of that time and as they should see the King affected pleased or displeased with the Popes of those dayes would reiect or admit their Buls at their discretion And then doe you see vpon what goodly ground M. Attorney inferreth his conclusion that if the Popes Buls of excōmunication were not respected in those dayes it consequently followeth that by the auncient common laws of England no suite for any cause though it be spirituall rising within this Realme might be determined in the Courte of Rome And why so For that the Popes excommunication was not obayed in England 28. But I would aske him whether no sentence could be giuen without excommunication Or whether to such as beleeued the Popes authority in those dayes it were sufficient in conscience that the said excommunications were not admitted by some Iudges in their tribunals Or at least-wise no iudiciall notice taken of them except they came notified also from some Bishop as the second Case heer set downe doth touch therby insinuateth the solution of the whole riddle to wit that Iudges were not bound vnder this K. Edward to take publicke and Iudiciall notice of anie Bull of excommunication come from abroad and presented by any priuate person except the same came notified from some Bishop in authoritie within the Realme Which caution is vsed also at this day in diuers other Catholicke Countreys round about vs for auoiding trouble deceit and confusion to wit that Bulls and other authenticall writings from Rome must be seen and certified by some persons of authority within the Realme before they can be pleaded in Courte or admitted generally 29. To the last instance that Kings annointed with sacred oyle are capable of spirituall iurisdiction we denie it not but graunt with the great Ciuill-lawyer Baldus before mentioned and all Canonists that diuers cases of spirituall iurisdiction may be graunted by the Sea Apostolicke vnto annoynted Kings and so often it hath been done especially to Kings of England as former examples haue declared namelie of K. Edward the Confessor But this assertion of capacitie abilitie to receiue some sorte of spirituall iurisdiction if it be committed vnto them doth not proue that they had the said iurisdiction in themselues or of themselues by vertue of their Crownes or annoynting as M. Attorney would haue men beleeue But let vs heare further The Attorney Where a Prior is the Kings debitor and ought to haue tithes of another spirituall person he may choose either to sue for subtraction of his tithes in the Ecclesiasticall Courte or in the Exchequer and yet the persons and matter also was Ecclesiasticall For seing the matter by a meane concerneth the King hee may sue for them in the Exchequer as well as in the Ecclesiasticall Courte and there shall the