which is intituled De temporibus diabus pacis Domini Regis Of the times and daies of peace and freedome of our Lord the King he doth explicate that it belongeth to the King and his officers to see these liberties of Ecclesiasticall peace franquises and freedome be exactlie obserued to Ecclesiasticall persons especiallie to punish them double which refuse to put in execution the Bishops sentence of iustice Quod si aliquis â—i foris fecerit saith he Episcopus inde iustitiam faciat veruâ—tamen si quis arrogans pro Episcopali iustitia emendare noluerit Episcopâ—â— Regi notum faciat Rex autem constringet malefactorem vt emendet cui foris facturum fecit scilicet primum Episcopo deinde Regi sic erunt ibi due gladij gladius iuuabit If anie man shall doe anie hurt to him that hath the peace of the Church let the Bishop doe him Iustice but if anie man will bee arrogant not make amends according to the sentence of iustice giuen by the Bishop let the Bishop make it knowne to the King or his Courts and the King shall constraine the malefactor to make amends to him vnto whom hee did the hurte to wit first vnto the Bishop and then to the King and so there shall bee two swords against malefactors and the one sword shall help the other And heere let be considered what he saith of two swords one in the Bishops hand and the other in the Kings and that this must assist that of the Bishops as the principall superiour which is conforme to the speach of K. Edgar if you remember whereof we made mention in the former Chapter and last demonstration therof Wherby is made euident that these auncient Kings beleeued not to any haue spirituall sword or authoritie by right of their Crowns but onlie the temporall to command punish in temporall affaires and to help and assist the others in causes belonging vnto them 18. The third law hath this Title De Iustitia Sanctae Ecclesiae Of the iustice of the holy Church and prerogatiue therof which she is to receiue in temporall tribunals In which law is determined in these words Vbicunque Regis iustitia vel cuiuscunque sit placita tenuerit si vllus Episcopus venerit illuc aperuerit causam Sanctae Ecclesiae ipsa prius terminetur Iustitia enim est vt Deus vbique prae caeteris honoretur Whâ—rsoeuer the Kings Iustice or the Iustice of what other Lord soeuer shall hold pleas or keep courts if any Bishop come thither and open a cause of the holy Church let that cause of all other be first determined for it is iust that God be honoured euery where before all other Marke his reason why the expedition of the Bishops cause is to be preferred before that of the King for that he holdeth the place of God and thereafter must be respected 19. The fourth law hath this Title De vniuersis tenentibus de Ecclesia Of the priuiledges of all those that are any way tenants of the Church And then it followeth in the law Quicunque de Ecclesia aliquid tenuerit vel in fundo Ecclesiae mansionem habuerit extra curiam Ecclesiasticam coactus non placitabit quamuis foris fecerit nisi quod absit in Curia Ecclesiastica rectum defecerit Whosoeuer doth hold any thing of the Church or hath his mansion-house within the land of the Church shall not be constrained to plead any matter of his though he bee a malefactor out of the spirituall courte except which God forbid iustice could not be had in the said Ecclesiasticall court 20. These are the first lawes of all that were made by King VVilliam and after these doe ensue fiue more to the same effect of Churches priuiledges wherof the first hath this Title De reis ad Ecclesiam fugientibus Of malefactors that fly to the Church how they are to haue Sanctuary and protection The second De fractione pacis Ecclesiae Of breaking the peace of the Church that is to say of her priuiledges the breakers wherof are appointed to be sharply punished first by the Bishop then by the King if he be arrogant The third De decimis Ecclesiae maioribus Of the greater tythes belonging to the Church The fourth De minut is decimis Of lesser tythes all which are commaunded to be payed exactly And finally the fifth law which is the tenth in order hath this Title De denario S. Petri qui Anglicè dicitur Rome-scot Of Peter-pence called in old English Rome-scot wherin is appointed the order how the said Peter-pence shall be gathered and made ready against the feast of S. Peter and S. Paul or at the furthest against the feast of S. Peters Chaines as we haue seen also before ordeined by the law of K. Kanutus By all which is vnderstood and much to be considered that neither K. VVilliam nor any of his auncestors tooke vpon them to make any Ecclesiasticall law at all of spirituall matters as of their owne but only did second and strenthen and confirme the lawes of the Church by their temporall lawes by defending the same and punishing the breakers therof Which is a far different thing from the Ecclesiasticall power which M. Attorney will needs haue vs beleeue to haue byn in the auncient Kings of England according to the meaning of the auncient Common-lawes therof but produceth none And I persuade my self he will hardly alleadge me any so auncient as these though he haue studied them as he saith 35. years but fiue hundred more were necessary to find out that which he affirmeth And thus much of lawes for the present 21. There remaineth only one argument more concerning K. VVilliam which is the time of his death and of what sense and iudgment he was in this point at that time when commonly men doe se more cleerly the truth of matters especially Princes then before in their life health and prosperity when passion honour or interest may oftentimes either blind or byasse them And albeit of K. VVilliam diuers ancient writers doe recorde that notwithstanding in his anger vnto secular men he was fierce terrible yet vnto Ecclesiasticall persons he bare still great respect wherof among others this example is recorded by Nubergensis that when at a certaine time Archbishop Aldred of Yorke that had crowned him and was much reuerenced by him while he liued intreating him for a certaine pious worke and not preuailing turned his back and went away with shew of displeasure the Conquerour tooke hold of him and fell downe at his feet promising to doe what he would haue him and when the Nobles that stood round about began to cry to the Arch-bishop that he should take vp the King quickly from his knees he answered let him alone he doth but honour the feet of S. Peter in kneeling at myne Which well declareth saith Nubergensis both what great reuerence
drawing vnto thee those things that appertayne vnto the Church thou doe inuolue thy selfe in a hainous synne Giue vnto Cesar those things which are of Cesar saith the Scripture and to God those things that are of God therfore as yt is not lawfull for vs to meddle with thy earthly Empire so hast not thou power ô Emperour ouer sacred things which I write vnto thee for the care I haue of thy saluation c. 8. And doe you see here this liberty of speech in Ecclesiasticall Prelates of the primitiue Church towards their Kings aud Emperours doe you see what difference and distinction they make betwene Ecclesiastical temporal power yet we read not that any Attorney or Aduocate of these Emperours did euer accuse these Bishops of treasoÌ„ for speaking as they did or once obiected that they meant hereby to take away any parte or parcell of their entire and absolute Monarchies No though S. Athanasius for his parte went yet further for when he saw that all these admonitions and reprehensions would not preuaile but that the said Constantius went forward to intermeddle more and more in Ecclesiasticall affayres he wrote thus in the same Epistle I am dâ—nuò in locum Ecclesiasticae cognitionis suum palatium Tribunal constituit c. Now againe hath the Emperour Constantius made his pallace a Tribunall of Ecclesiasticall causes in place of an Ecclesiasticall Courte and hath made himself the chiefe Prince and Author of spirituall pleas c. These things are grieuous and more then grieuous but yet are such as may well agree to him that hath taken vpon him the image of Anti-christ for who is there that seing him to beare himself as Prince in the determyning of Bishops causes and to sitt as Arbiter in Ecclesinsticall iudgemeÌ„t will not worthily say the AbhominatioÌ„ foretold by Daniel to be now come c. So he And there were no end if I would prosecute all that might be said out of the sense and iudgement of the ancient Fathers against this first argument of M. Attorney That teÌ„porall Princes are not absolute Monarches except you giue them spirituall iurisdiction also But we must be myndfull of breuity and so this for the first shall suffice remiâ—ting you to that which hath bin spoken more largly hereof in the second chapter before 9. An other Argument yt seemeth M. Attorney would insinuate for vrge it he doth not by the consideration of two Tribunalls or Courtes of the King of England the one Temporall the other Ecclesiasticall and seuerall causes belonging vnto them You shall heare it out of his owne speach and then iudge if it make for him or against him The kingly head sayth he of this politike bodie is instituted and surnished with plenary and entire power prerogative and Iurisdiction to render iustice and right to euery parte and member of this bodie both Clergie and Laytie of what state degree or calling soeuer in all causes c. and as in temporall causes the King by the mouth of the Iudges in his Courtes of Iustice doth iudge and determine the same by the temporall lawes of England so in causes Ecclesiasticall spirituall as namely blasphemy â—â—stâ—â—y from Christianity Heresies Schismes Ordering Admissions Institutions of Clerkes Rites of matrimony Diuorces otherlike the conusaunce wherof belong not to the Common-lawes of England the same are to be determined and decyded by Ecclesiasticall Iudges according to the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawes of this Realme So M. Attorney making this note in the margent VVhat causes belonge to the Ecclesiasticall Courtes see Circumspecte agatis 13. yeare of Edward the first c. And VVest 2. and 13. Edward â— Cap. 5. art Cleri Edward 2. 9. Wherunto though I might oppose the Authority and speaches of all the auncient Fathers before mencioned that in this matter of diuinitie ought to weigh more with vs then any particular Ordination of secular lawes though they were against vs yet in this case I dare ioyne yssue with M. Attorney vpon this very Argument which he hath alleadge for that truly I doe not see what could be produced more effectually either against himself or for vs then here is sett downe For as we willingly graunt the former part of his speach to witt that the kingly head of the politicke body is instituted and furnished with plenarie power to render iustice and right in all causes that belong to his â—â—â—â—ticke and temporall gouernment endes and obiects therof â—o all persons of his Realme as before hath bene declared So heere the very naming of two generall partes of the kingdome which M. Attorney graunteh that the ancient law of England deuideth into Clergy and Laytie and the mencioning of two seuerall Courtes and distinct causes to be handled therin by distinct Iudges in such manner as the one cannot haue conusaunce of the other inferreth plainly two distinct powers desceÌ„ding from two distinct origens the one Temporali the other Ecclesiasticall and so doe the places quoted by him of Circumspectè agatis westm the second and Articul Cleri vnder K. Edward the first and second most euidently declare 10. And first I would aske M. Attorney what the distinction of Clergie and Laity doth meane not made or brought in first by our Common-lawes as he would insynuate when he saith that the lawe deuideth our Politicall body into two generall partes the Clergie the Laity but rather instituted by the Apostles themselues and admitted only by our CoÌ„mon-lawes and continued from that tyme to ours as before hath bene shewed This distinction I say of Clergie and Layty wherof the former signifyeth the portion of God that is to say those persons that be peculyarly appropriated to the seruice of Almighty-God the other of Laity taking their name of from the common people I would aske of M. Attorney what it importeth especially in this case of Queene Elizabethes supreme primacy doth it not argue a distinct order of men gouerned by distinct lawes distinct Iudges and distinct power Iurisdiction But you will say the Queene was head of them both and we grannt it as they are members of one Common-wealth but in their seuerall distinction and seperation as they are Clergie and lay people she could not be of both but of one only to witt of the Laity For that no man will say that she was also a Clerke or of the Clergie And yet in this partition no man will deny but that the Clergie is the worthier parte and member and so is placed first in all our lawes wherof is inferred that the said Clergie as Clergie is of a higher degree according to our Common-lawes then the temporall Prince which is of the laitie only and not Clerke as in Q. Elizabeth is confessed and consequently she could not be head of the Clergie as Clergie that is in Ecclesiasticall Clergie matters belonging to Religion Wherof we may take a notable example from the great Emperour
Valentinian the elder who refused to be present and much more President in certaine conferences about religion betwene the Catholicke Bishops the Arrians vpon consideration of these two distinct Orders of Clergie and lay-men though he were inuited therunto by Catholicke Bishops themselues Mihi quidem saith he cum vnus de populo sim fas non est talia perscrutari verum sacerdotes qui bus haec cura est apud semetipsos congregentur vbi voluerint Vnto me that am but one of the lay people it is not lawfull to examine such things as appertayne vnto religion but let priests to whome this care is committed meet togeather amoÌ„g themselues to discusle the matter where they will So much was this distinction between lay-men and priests esteemed by this auncient Christian Emperour 11. Secondly I demaund of M Attorney concerning his distinction of Courtes and causes to be handled therin Temporll Spirituall how it commeth to passe that the Conusaunce of such causes as here he calleth Spirituall belong not as he saith to the Common-lawes of England No nor as presently after he affirmeth could not belong For that they are not within the conusaunce of the sayd Common-laws And why is this I praye you For if the temporall Prince be equallie head in both causes and in both Iurisdictions and that the power to knowe discerne iudge in both sortes doe descend only from the temporall Prince as before out of the Statute of King Edward the 6. you haue heard by the Statute-makers determined and M. Attorney confirmeth euery where in these Reportes then should the common-Lawes of our Realme which are the temporall Princes law be coÌ„mon indeed according to their name to all causes aswel Spirituall as Temporall for that their author and origen which is the King hath equall Power Iurisdiction in both for that it is a maxime vncontrollable that according to the Iurisdiction of the Lâ—w maker vertue and power of the law doth extend it selfe And then doth M. Attorney affirme that the conusaunce of so many Ecclesiasticall causes as he setteth downe is not within the compasse of our Common-lawes or what compasse will he assigne or lymitt to that Princes lawes that according to this assertion hath power in all Is not this to contradict himself and to ouerthrow with the one hand that which he goeth about to establish with the other For if the Kings power be common to both causes aswell Ecclesiasticall as Temporall then must the Kings Common-lawes be common to both Courtes and matters therin handled 12. But let vs see a certaine sleight or euasion of his worth the noting As in temporall causes saith he the King by the mouth of the Iudges in his Courtes of Iustice doth iudge and determyne the same by the temporall lawes of England so in causes Ecclesiasticall as Blasphemy Apostacy Heresyes Ordering Institutions of Clerkes c. the same are to be determined and decyded by Ecclesiasticall Iudges according to the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawes of this Realme Marke here gentle reader how M. Atnorney playeth wyly beguyly For according to the proportion of his coÌ„parison he should haue coÌ„cluded thus So the King by the â—outh of his Ecclesiasticall Iudges doth iudge and determine the said Spirituall Ecclesiastical causes by his owne Ecclesiasticall lawes But this he foresaw would include this great inconuenience among others that if he said that the King did iudge determine by the mouthes of his spirituall Iudges the aforesaid spirituall causes as he doth the temporall then might he doe the same yea and exercise them also immediatly by himself if need were aswell as by others for in all temporall iudgments and affayres the King may sit himself in courte and performe in person whatsoeuer his Officers by his authority doe or may doe which yet M. Attorney saw would be somwhat absurde to graunt in the spirituall causes proponed by him of Blasphemy Ordering of Priests or giuing holy Orders Institutions of Clerkes Celebration of diuine seruice and the like to witt that the King should performe them immediately in his owne person for who would not say it were absurde for example that the King should sing or say the common seruice to the people or administer the Sacrament of Absolution or Marriage or giue holy Orders and the like which yet the Bishop of Rome and all other Bishops or Prelates neuer so great doe may doe without inconuenience And in truthe it followeth euidently that he who can giue authority or power for another to doe a thing as from himself and in his name may performe the same in person also if he list at least wise it cannot be vnlawfull for him so to doe And therfore coming to the application of his comparison he changeth his phrase and saith that the same are to be determined and decyded by Ecclesiasticall Iudges according to the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawes of this Realme 13. Wherin you must note another shifte more poore and silly then the former for that hauing declared vnto vs before that there are two generall partes and members of the Realme to witt the Clergy and the Laity and that these two haue two seuerall Tribunalls in their affaires gouerned by two sortes of different lawes Temporall and Ecâ—lesiasticall Common and Canon and these deriued from two different Authors and origens the Common-law from the temporall Prince and Commonweath Ecclesiasticall from others saith M. Atorney but specifieth not from whom or whence though all the world knowe that they come originally from the Church Sea Apostolique all which inferreth distinct originall Iurisdictions M. Attorney by his great witt hath deuised a newe sleight neuer perhaps yet heard of in the world before which is to make these Ecclesiasticall lawes though deriued from others to be the Kings owne lawes for that he approueth and alloweth them within the Realme and consequently that all lawes both Temporall and Spirituall doe come from the King as their Author which is a token that he hath full Supreame power And this singular deuise pleaseth him so well as he repeateth the same sundrie tymes in this Treatise You shall heare the same in his owne words in this place how dangerous and preiudicyall a Conclusion he buildeth vpon the same against Catholiques 14. For as the Romans saith he fetching diuers lawes from Athens yet being approued and allowed by the State there called them notwithstanding Ius Ciuile Romanum And as the Normans borrowing all or most of their lawes from England yet baptized them by the name of the lawes or customes of Normandy so albeit the Kings of England deriued their Ecclesiasticall lawes from others yet so many as were approued and allowed here by and with a generall consent are aptly rightly called the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawes of England which whosoeuer shall deny he denyeth that the King hath full and plenary power c. And consequently that he is no coÌ„plete Monarch nor head
out of King Henry which shall goe in this owne words as before we haue accustomed The Attorney In all the time of K. Henry the third and his progenitours Kings of England and ouer sithence if any man doe sue afore any Iudge Ecclesiasticall within this Realme for any thing wherof that court by allowance and custome had not lawfull Conusaunce the King did euer by his writ vnder the great seale prohibite them to proceed And if the suggestion made to the King whervpon the prohibition was grounded were after found vntrue then the King by his writ of consultation vnder his great seale did allow and permit them to proceed Also in all the raigne of Henry the third and his progenitours Kings of England and euer sithence if any issue were ioyned vpon the loyalty of marriage generall bastardy or such like the King did euer write to the Bishop of that Diocesse as mediate officer minister to his courte to certifie the loyalty of marriage bastardy or such like all which doe apparantly proue that those Ecclesiasticall Courts were vnder the Kings iurisdiction and commaundement and that one of the Courts were so necessarily incident to the other as the one without the other could not deliuer iustice to the parties as well in these particular cases as in a number of cases before specified wherof the Kings Ecclesiasticall Courte hath iurisdiction Now to commaund and to be obayed belonge to soueraigne and supreme gouernment c. The Catholike Deuine 28. The conclusion or inference vpon this narration must be noted by the Reader to be M. Attorneys owne and not to be taken out of any other lawyers booke as the former parte of the narratiō is that telleth vs how the King appointeth that ech Court both spirituall and temporall shall handle matters and causes proper and peculiar vnto them and the one not to intrude it self into the affaires of the other and to this effect are his vvrits appointed of prohibition where matters are assumed which ought not in that Courte to be treated and of consultation to will them to proceed when their right is knowne All which maketh for vs shewing that the King would haue the subordination between these two Courts to be obserued and the spirituall to direct the temporall where any one thing might belonge vnto them both As for example if any man were impeached of bastardy thervpon his inheritance were claimed by another the Ecclesiasticall Court was first to giue sentence of the marriage whether it were lawfull or no then according to that sentēce was the tēporal Court to giue possession or not of the inheritāce 29. And that this was the true sincere meaning of the law at that time intending therby to shew the excellency and prerogatiue of the Bishops spirituall Courts aboue the Kings temporall is plaine and euident by an other Statute of this maner which M. Attorney would not see made in the 9. yeare of King Henry the 6. where it is ordained in explication of the former that when any such Plea of bastardie is held in any Courte of the Kings the Iudges therof shall make proclamation once in their Courte the Chauncelour of England certified therof by them shall cause to be made 3. seuerall proclamatiōs in 3. seuerall moneths in the Chaūcery That al persons pretending any interest to obiect against the party shall sue to the Ordinary or Bishop to whom the writ of certificate from the said Iudge or Iudges is or shall be directed to make their allegations and obiections against the party as the law of Holy Church requireth And that without this forme obserued al other processe shal be voide c. 30. And by this we may see how carefull the auncient lawes were to haue the spirituall Courte as the superiour well informed according to the law of Holy Church and how not only ordinary Iudges but the Chauncellour of England himself his highest Court of Chauncery was appointed to serue vnto this for that of the spirituall Courts iudgement depended in all such causes the iudgement of the temporall Courts And by this you will se also the vaine sleight of M. Attorney in telling vs that the King did euer write vnto the Bishop of that Diocesse as mediate officer and minister to his Courte to certifie the loyaltie of marriage c. For where doth he find in any ancient law at all those words as mediate officer and minister to his Courte in the latine himself leaueth out the words to his Courte though in calling the Bishop mediate officer or minister which is as much to say as superior officer for that in mediation and subordination of officers and ministers that gouerne the mediate hath the higher roome in respect of the people and Court wherof he is officer he includeth a contradiction against himselfe for then is the said Bishop also aboue all immediate temporall Iudges that must giue him certificate wherof the Chauncellour we se is one euen in the Kings temporall Courts themselues 31. But the inference is much more subtile when M. Attorney saith All which doe apparantly proue that those Ecclesiasticall Courts were vnder the Kings iurisdiction and cōmaundement But M. Attorney must not so huddle vp iurisdiction and commaundement for that no man will deny but that all sortes of persons as before hath byn said are vnder the cōmaundement gouernement of the temporall Prince whom he may commaund ech one to doe their office duty in the Cōmon-wealth And so may he appoint Ecclesiastical Courts to notifie their sentences iudgements proceedings to his Courts his Courts to informe the Ecclesiastical Courts for good mutuall correspondence between them both which we graunt also to be necessary in euery Common-wealth 32. But iurisdiction which M. Attorney craftely confoundeth heer and shuffleth vp with commaundement is a far different thing importing a higher authority in the same kinde as if the temporall Prince haue iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall vpon Bishops and their spirituall Courtes then doth it follow that all their power in spirituall matters is subordinate to him and deriued from him and so were there no necessity of this distinction and subordination of spirituall and temporall Courts For that the Prince hauing both powers in himself might giue the same vnto any temporal Iudge to decide Ecclesiastical matters also in his Court which yet M. Attorney doth often deny that the Common-lawes can take conusaunce of such affaires And surely it is worth no lesse then laughter to heare him repeat so often The Kings Ecclesiasticall Courte as though this were sufficient to proue the Kings Ecclesiasticall authority in those Courts for that all Courts are the Kings Courts in that they are vnder his protection gouernement and direction and to the vse and profit of his people And so were also the Ecclesiasticall Courts of King Henry the third in this sense who yet chalenged no spirituall authority therin as by
made vnder all three Edwards for remedying of this abuse as for example vnder Edward the first the foresaid Statute hath this determination That the 〈◊〉 or chief Iustice of the King for the tyme being if they see that the case 〈◊〉 be redressed by any writ out of the Chauncery but that the spirituall 〈◊〉 ought to determine the matters that then they shall write to the Ecclesiasticall Iudges before whome the case was first moued to proceed therin notwithstanding the Kings prohibition vnto them before 49. And to like effect is this other ordination here mentioned by M. Attorney of Circumspectè agatis wherby is ordeyned that temporall Iudges shall vse themselues circumspectly in medling with causes that belong to spirituall courtes And to the same effect is this Statute here alleadged vnder King Edward the second as also this other set downe in these words They that purchase prohibition and attachement against the Ordinaryes of a thing that belongeth not to the lay Court shall yeeld damages to the Ordinaryes by the award of the Iustices And yet further to the same effect it was decreed by King Edward the third after this manner That no prohibition goe out of the Chauncery but in case where we haue the conusaunce and of right ought to haue 50. And finally to passe no further in this the Statute made in the 9. yeare of this King intituled Articuli Cleri Articles of the Clergy conteyning sixteene braunches doe apperteyne to this affaire to shew and declare what causes doe belong to the spirituall courte and what to the temporall and wherof both the one and the other may take conusaunce and consequently in what matters the Kings prohibition may goe forth or not all which is cleerly against M. Attorney his purpose For if the temporall Prince were properly head of the one and the other courte and fountaine both of the one and other lawe and iurisdiction this adoe needed not but that the King might indifferently dispose of all 51. But consider I pray you M. Attorneys note or commentary in the margent wherby he would seeme to answere our former demaund why he bringeth in this instance By these statutes saith he the iurisdiction of the Ecclesiasticall Courtes is allowed and warranted by consent of Parlament in all cases wherein they haue iurisdiction so as these lawes may be iustly called the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawes or the Ecclesiastical lawes of England So he And you will easily see herby how much he delighteth himself in this new witty inuention of his owne so often repeated by him wherby he would make the Popes Canon-lawes to be the King of Englands lawes for that they are admitted and obeyed in England â— of which sylly consequence I haue oftentymes made mention before shewing the weakenes and incongruity therof For that by this reason the self same Canon-lawes receaued admitted by all particular states of Christendome may be said to be the peculiar lawes of euery particular state And if this be a superiority as M. Attorney would inferre to admit and allow another Princes lawes then is euery particular state of Christendome aboue the Pope Generall Councells which made these lawes Wherfore as well in this as in all the rest we see the weakenes of M. Attorneys cause and so we shall passe to other Princes that doe follow leauing this disasterous K. Edward the second who soone after fell into a pitifull plight of calamity being depriued both of his Crowne and life for his ill gouernment and his young sonne placed in his roome as our historyes at large doe declare OF K. EDWARD THE THIRD And K. Richard the second his Nephevv and Successour And vvhat instances or arguments M. Attorney draweth from their two raignes which continued betweene them for seauenty yeares CHAP. XII THESE two are the Kings aboue all the rest from the beginning vnto K. Henry the 8. vnder whose gouernment M. Attorney gathereth and layeth togeather most obiections to proue the small respect they had or vsed in certaine cases and occasions and at some times towards the Sea Apostolicke and Ecclesiasticall power therof for that they made most restrictions by penall lawes and punishments against the practice and vse therof in certaine cases mixt as they presumed and conioyned with temporalityes or affaires of the State and so not meerly Ecclesiasticall 2. For albeit before this there had byn great murmurings and complaints as you haue seen from the tyme of K. Henry the 3. and his father King Iohn against some parte of the exercise of the Popes authority in bestowing benefices and Bishopricks vpon straÌ„gers as also of the often reseruing the collations of the cheife to himself and his Court of demaunding and graunting tithes contributions vpon the English Clergy as well for his owne as other publike necessityes yet find we not hitherto any expresse penall law put in vre and practice though mention be found of one made at Carleile vnder K. Edward the first the 2. yeare of his raigne to this effect for restrayning prouisions and other ordinances from the Court of Rome and the execution thereof by English subiects vntill vnder these two Kings Edward the 3. and Richard the 2. and not by the former vntill after many yeares of his raigne when by his continuall warrs with France and Scotland his temporall necessityes and other respects drew him therevnto And some men doe note that the lamentable ends of both these Kings wherof the worst seemed to some to be that of King Edward though he died in his bed togeather with infinite bloudshed afterward by their successours deuided in their owne bowells vpon the controuersie of Lancaster and Yorke did easily shew how vngratefull to all mighty God this breach of theirs and violence vsed with their Mother the holy Church was though it might seeme to them and some others also that it was either in temporall matters or in Ecclesiasticall conioyned as hath byn said with temporalities and that besides they were vrged therevnto by important clamours of their people partly vpon emulation against the Clergy and partly vpon some abuses and aggreiuances as they pretended in their supplications and declarations to the Popes themselues about these affaires pretending to hold still as no doubt they did their inward faith beliefe deuotion and obedience to the Sea Apostolicke though outwardly they were forced to take the way of redresse against some excesses which they did 3. And now wee haue already heard the foresaid complaints oftentymes iterated in the liues of the former Kings but especially vnder Henry the third and the two precedent Edwards that â—â—sued him which being continued vnder this third of the same name he being a warriour hauing therby all wayes commonly great need of money was induced at length for increasing his owne temporall wealth to lay hands vpon the spiritual especially such as was wont to goe out of the Realme to the Court of Rome or accrew to
cases of heresie hath no substance in it at all for so much as you see it was directed by the Canon law long before K. Henry was borne 15. Wherefore to his last instance that the Pope cannot alter the laws of England I answere it is true touching temporall laws for they are to be made or altered by the English Prince and Parlament but Ecclesiasticall laws of the Church if they be positiue not deuine he might in all those auncient times vpon iust causes alter as I thinke M. Attorney will not deny and then by good consequence if it be true which euery where he striueth to proue that Ecclesiasticall laws though made by the Pope are laws also of England and may be called English lawes when they are admitted in England it followeth I say against himself in this assertion that the Pope might alter the lawes of England in that he might alter those Canon-lawes that were admitted in England thereby made English lawes The Attorney 1. The Iudges say that the Statutes which restraine the Popes prouisions to the benefices of the aduowsons of spirituall men were made for that the spiritualty durst not in their iust cause say against the Popes prouisions so as those Statutes were made but in affirmance of the common laws 2. Excommunication made by the Pope is of no force in England and the same being certified by the Pope into any Courte in England ought not to be allowed neither is any certificate of any excommunication auailable in law but that is made by some Bishop in England for the Bishops are by the common laws the immediate officers ministers of iustice to the Kings Courts in causes Ecclesiasticall 3. If any Bishop doe excommunicate any person for a cause that belongeth not vnto him the King may write vnto the Bishop and commaund him to assoile and absolue the party 4. If any person of religion obtaine of the Bishop of Rome to be exempt from obedience regular or ordinary he is in case of Premunire which is an offence as hath byn said contra Regem Coronam Dignitatem suam The Catholicke Deuine 16. I haue conioyned three or foure obiections togeather for that indeed all make not the due waight of one Wherfore to the first I answere that little it importeth to our controuersie what those Iudges said why the Statutes were made against the Popes prouisions in affirmance of the Common-laws for this may be said of euery new Statute whatsoeuer that it is made in affirmance of ancient Common-law albeit the said law supposed to be common no where appeare nor any reason proofe or probability be alleadged why it should be Common-law before that fact or Statute appeared So as this Common-law is now by M. Attorney made so common as it cometh to be Ens transcendens embracing all that is or can be deuised by any of his Iudges or Reuerend Sages or rather he maketh it Ens rationis or a meere Chymera that as Logitians hold hath no essence or being at all à parte rei but only in imagination For seing that the Popes prouisions had endured in England for so many ages before as all doe and must graunt how may the common law be presumed all that while to haue byn against the same yet no mention euer made therof These are morall impossibilityes to say no more 17. The second point doth answere it self and we haue touched the same before that by agreement in England the Popes Buls of Excommunication when they were sent should not be admitted ordinarily but by the certificate of some Bishop of England for preuenting the fraudes or false suggestions which particular men might vse therein And wheras M. Attorney heere againe saith that the Bishops are by the Common lawes the immediate officers and ministers to the Kings Courtes in causes Ecclesiasticall he runneth againe to his old Chymera of imaginary Common lawes For where is this Common-law that maketh Bishops to be officers and ministers to the Kings Courts in causes Ecclesiasticall For if the Common-law or Iudges thereof cannot so much as heare or take conusaunce of any spiritual causes belonging to Bishops Courts as often M. Attorney affirmeth in this his booke how much lesse can it or they by vertue therof appoint Iudges or make them officers in those spirituall Courts which haue their authority from the Canon and not Common lawes 18. To the third obiection little answere is needfull For who seeth not but that euery King in his Kingdome may commaund all â—â—â—es of people to doe their duty to surcease from wrong And so if a Bishop for a cause not belonging vnto him should excommunicate any the Prince may commaund him to absolue 〈◊〉 party whome vniustly he hath excommunicated if the iniustice bee so apparant as heere is presumed But M. Attorney should haue proued that the King himself might haue absolued him as in truth he might if he had Superiour authority to the Bishop in Ecclesiasticall causes as he may absolue immediately by himself all that are censured or sentenced adiudged or condemned by his Chauncellour lay Iudges or temporall officers and ministers nor hath he need to send the party to be assoiled by them or to will them to doe it as heer he doth the Bishop but might doe it himself or by some other giuing him authority thervnto which yet neuer King of England did attempt before King Henry the 8. 19. To the 4. braunch is answered that by good reason it was agreed that no religious man hauing made his vow of obedieÌ„ce in England should seeke to Rome for exemption therof without proposing his causes first in England it self for that otherwise vpon false informations suggestions of the party against his Superiours many troubles and inconueniences might follow by such exemptions and this is that which is touched in the Statute it self here alleadged affirming that no man shall goe to Rome for that which may be determined in England c. And now consider I pray you what all these foure instances laid togeather doe weigh in poyse of good reason But let vs see further 20. A fourth instance of M. Attorneys is taken out of a Statute of the 6. yeare of K. Henry the 4. where the commons doe againe make complaint of other new aggreiuances by the Courte of Rome to wit that such as are to be preferred to Bishopricks Archbishopricks and other Prelacyes cannot be admitted vntill they haue compounded with the Popes Chamber for paying of the first fruites of the said benefices and other dutyes required vvhervpon the King saith the Statute by the aduise and assent of the Great men of his Realme in Parlament and note that he nameth not heer the spirituall Lords did ordaine that whosoeuer should pay heerafter to the said Chamber or otherwise for such fruites and seruices greater summes of money then had byn accustomed in time past