exercised in her dayes if the statute of the first Parlament had not giuen the same vnto her which had as good authority to giue it her as she to vse the same according to that which you haue seene declared in the former Chapters whereunto we referre our selues for the proofes laid downe The tenth Demonstration 85. And now to drawe to an end and to ioyne issue with M. Attorney in more plaine wordes and assertion my tenth and last demonstration shall be out of two of the most noble wise and famous Kings of our land and Monarches of the same before the Conquest Alfred to wit and Edgar who doe expresly sett downe the contrary proposition to that of M. Attorney about spirituall iurisdiction belonging to Kings and temporall Princes so as where the former demonstrations are but deductions and inferrences though clere and euident as you haue seene this last is a plaine and perspicuous asseueration of two such renowned Kings as were most eminent for wisdome learning religion and valour of all the ranke of those tymes Of King Alfred is recorded this speach of his Germanam genuinam esse Regis dignitatem dictitare solebat si in Regne Christi quae est Ecclesia se non Regem sed ciuem agnosceret si non supra sacerdotum leges se elatè efferres sed legibus Christi per sacerdotes promulgatis submisso se atque humili animo subderet He was wont to say that the true and proper dignity of a King consisted principally in this that in the Kingdome of Christ which is his Church he bare himself not as a King but as a citizen and that he should not arrogantly lift vp himself abouâ— the lawes of Priests but rather with a lowly and humble minde subiect himself to the lawes of Christ promulgated by Priests So he 86. But now touching King Edgar about a hundred yeares after him of whome Florentius Marianus and others doe write these wordes That he was the Monarch of the English world the flower ornament of all his predecessours the peaceable King no lesse memorable to English-men then Romulus to the Romanes Tyrus to the Persians Alexander to the Macedonians Arsaces to the Parthians and Charles the great vnto the French Of this man I say we haue extant a certaine oration of his made in the third yeare of his raigne vnto the Bishops of his land gathered togeather for reformation of the Clergie wherof S. Dunstane Archbishop of Canterbury was the chief and with him was S. Ethelwâ—ld B. of VVincester His oration is somewhat long and beginneth thus Quoniam magnificauit Dominus misericordiam suam facere nobiscum dignum est Patres Reuerendissimi vt innumeris illius beneficijs dignis responde amus operibus Neque enim in gladio nostro c. 87. For so much as our Lord hath exalted his mercy towardes vs it is conuenient most Reuerend Fathers that we endeauour to answere his innumerable benefitts with dew workes on our behalfe for that as the prophet saith we doe not possesse this land by our owne sword nor shall the strength of our arme saue vs but the right hand and holy arme of him that hath vouchsafed to take vs to his fauour And therfore it is iust and right that for so much as he hath subiected all vnder our feete that we subiect our soules vnto him in such sort as that we endeauour to bring them that he hath put vnder vs to be subiect also vnto his lawes and as for me my part is to gouerne lay men by the law of equity to doe iust iudgement betweene euery man and his neighbour to punishe sacrilegious men to represse rebells to take the poore man out of the hand of his stronger and deliuer the needy and impotent from such as oppresse and spoile them It belongeth also to my solicitude to prouide necessaries for Ministers of Gods Churches couents of Monkes cloysters of virgins to procure them peace and quietnes to serue Godâ— But vnto you it apperteyneth to make inquiry examination of their manners if they liue continently if they behaue themselues decently and with edification towards them that be in the world if they be solicitous in seruing God vigilant in teaching the people sober in diet moderate in habit and the like So he 88. And then after a long complaint of many disorders in those dayes crept into diuers of the Clergie the good zealous King hath these words These scandalous things are proclaimed euery where by souldiers muttered by the people sung by players and will you reuerend Fathers neglect dissemble spare them that so offend where is the sword of Leui where the zeale of Simeon where is the spirit of Moyses where the sword of Phinees the Priest Yea where is the spirit and feruour of S. Peter wherby he so dreadfully punished both auarice and heresie follow him follow him ô you Priests tempus faciendi contra eos qui dissipauerunt legem Dei it is high tyme to punish those that haue dissipated the law of God by their euill life Ego Constantini vos Petri gladium habetis in membus iungamus dexteras gladium gladio copulemus I haue the sword of Constantine you the sword of S. Peter in your hands let vs ioyne our forces and couple sword to sword vt eijciantur extra castra leprosi that leaprous and infectious people be cast out of the tents of God c. Thus this noble pious K. pronouÌ„ced in the presence of his Prelates and people with much more which for breuity I doe omitt 89. And now M. Attorney will see heere what accompt these two auncient Kings made of these two powers and swordes spirituall and temporall and of their distinction and subordination the one to the other And it seemeth that this speach of King Edgar was so memorable and famous to all his posterity that VVilliam Conquerour also did imitate the very same when in certaine lawes of his ordeyning that such lay men as were disobedient to the Bishops sentence should be punished by his temporall officers he vseth this phrase of Edgar saying Rex constringit malefactorem vt emendet primùm Episcopo deinde Regi sic erunt ibi duo gladij gladius gladium iâ—uabit The King shall compell the malefactor to make amends first to the Bishop and then to the King and so shall there be two swordes and the one sword shall assist the other Where we see that he did subordinate his owne sword to that of the Bishops and Ecclesiasticall power of the Church And the self same manner of speach and forme of beliefe as common to the whole world did Queene Eleanor wife to King 〈◊〉 the second vse in her epistle to Celestâ—nus the Pope when she â—â— treated him to excommunicate the Emperour and Duke of â—â—stria for deteining her sonne K. Richard the first prisoner which letter was written by Petrus Blesensis
euill and pernicious man by excommunication which is an act of externall Iurisdiction called by Canon lawyers Actus sori contentiosi As to absolue or retaine sinnes in the Sacrament are acts of Internall Iurisdiction appertaininge to sorum conscientiae the tribunall of conscience 17. So that as the temporall magistrate for furnishinge of his authoritie hath Power also to punish temporallie when occasion is offered and this either in goods body or life so haue Spirituall Magistrates also by Christ his appointment Ecclesiasticall Power not onlie to teach exhorte instruct and direct as hath been said but to punish in like maner by Spirituall Censures much more greiuous and dreadfull in respect of the life to come than are the fore named punishments of the ciuill magistrate for this life Which Censures are three in number answeringe after a certaine manner to the former three of the temporall magistrate and these are accordinge to Catholike diuinitie and Canons of the Church Suspension Interdict and Excommunication which I leaue further to discusse in this place THE SECOND PART OF THIS CHAPTER About the Subordination of these two Povvers the one to the other and different Greatnes of them both §. I. 18. Vpon these and other like considerations then and premisses Catholike deuines doe deduce that these two Povvers of Spirituall and Temporall Iurisdiction whensoeuer they meet togeather as in the Christian Common-wealth they doe they are subordinate the one to the other according to the rule of Aristotle in Philosophie which holdeth also in this case of diuinitie that whensoeuer the ends of anie faculties be subordinate and doe serue the one to the other there also the faculties themselues are subordinate And so wheras the end of Spirituall Authoritie is to direct men to euerlastinge Saluation of their soules and the end Temporall Gouernment to procure their temporall prosperitie but yet with referment and subordination to the attainment also of life euerlasting in the next world it followeth by most certaine consequence that Temporall Gouernment is subordinate to the spirituall which is so much the more excellent and eminent as is an euerlastinge end aboue a temporall our immortall soule before our corruptible bodyes and the Kingdome of heauen before worldlie prosperitie 19. Out of which considerations no doubt did proceed those speeches of ancient and holie Fathers about the comparison of these two Povvers Ecclesiasticall and Temporall which are founde euery where in their workes highly preferringe the one before the other and subiecting the one vnto the other An me liberè loquentem aequo animo feretis saith S. Gregorie Nazianzen to the Emperour Nam ves quoque c. will you heare me with patience to speake my minde freely vnto you Which truelie you ought to doe for so much as the law of Christ hath made you subiect to my Power and to my tribunall For wee Bishops haue an Empyre also and that more excellent and perfect then yours except you will saie that spirit is inferiour to flesh and heauenly things to earthly But I doubt not but that you will take in good parte this my freedome of speach you being a sacred sheepe of my holie flocke and a disciple of the great Pastor rightly instructed by the Holy-ghost euen from your young years c. So Gregorie Nazianzen to the Emperour 20. And heere we see what difference this greate Doctor and Father S. Gregorie Nazianzen almost 1300. yeares gone did put between these two Powers of Kings and Bishops Ciuill and Ecclesiasticall dignitie euen as much as between flesh and spirit heauen and earth And the same difference doth S. Chrysostome set downe in his bookes of Priesthood and elswere I shall alleadge some place or two out of him as breifly as I may that you may see his sense and iudgement therin though I would wish the Reader to peruse the places themselues heere cited for that they will fullie satisfie him in this matter 21. First then in his third booke of Priesthood comparinge the Power of a King with the Power of a Priest he hath these words Habent quidem terrestres Principes vinculi potestatem verum corporum solum c. It is true that earthlie Princes haue power to binde but our bodyes onlie But the bands which Priests can lay vpon vs doe touch the soule it self and reach euen vnto the heauens so far forth as whatsoeuer Priests shall determine heere beneath that doth God ratifie aboue in heauen and confirmeth the sentence of his seruants vpon earth And what is this I pray you but that God hath giuen all heauenlie Power vnto them according to those words of his VVhose sinnes soeuer you shall retaine they are retained And what Power I beseech you can there be greater then this I read that God the Father gaue all manner of Power vnto his Sonne And I see againe that God the Sonne hath giuen ouer the self same Power vnto Priests c. what a manifest madnes then is it for any man to despise this Princedome of Priests without which we cannot possibly be made partakers either of eternall saluation or of the good promises of our Sauiour c. Quo nomine sacerdotes non modo plus vereri debemus quam vel Principes vel Reges verum etiam maiori honore quam parentes proprios honorare In which respect wee ought to reuerence feare Priests more not only then Princes and Kings but honour them also more then our owne parents c. All these are S. Chrysostomn wordes 22. And the same Saint in his Homilies vpon Esay the Prophet writeth thus Rex quidem ea quae sunt in terris sortitu◠est administranda c. The King hath receiued the administration and gouernment of those things that are on the earth But the Priests authoritie commeth from heauen whatsoeuer you shall binde saith Christ vpon earth that shall be bound in heauen To my King are committed earthlie things but to me heauenlie and when I say to me I vnderstand a Priest c. To the King are committed the bodies to the Priest the soules the King can remitt bodily spotts but the Priest can take away the spotts of sinne Maior hic principatus This principallitie of Priests is greater then that of Kings 23. Aud yet further in another Homilie vpon the same Prophet Sacerdotium principatus est ipso etiam regno venerabilius maiu◠Ne mihi narres purpuram c. Priesthood is a Princedome yea more venerable and great then is a Kingdome Doe not tell mee of the purple or diademe or scepter or golden apparrell of Kings for these are but shaddowes and more vaine then flowers at the spring time Si vis videre descrimen quantum absit Rex à sacerdote expende modum potestatis vtrique traditae If you will see indeed the true difference between them and how much the King is inferiour to a Priest consider
tryall of all OF THE SECOND SORT OF PROOFES NAMED DE FACTO VVherto M. Attorney betaketh himselfe alleadging certaine Instances therin And first out of our Kings before the Conquest CHAP. V. THE whole bulke of M. Attorneyes booke such as it is consisteth as before hath byn noted in the recitall of certayne lawes or peeces of lawes and therfore called by him Reports or Relations of clauses found in his Commonlawes or Statutes that may seeme somwhat to sound against the absolute IurisdictioÌ„ Ecclesiasticall of the Bishops and Sea of Rome or to the restraint therof vnder certayne Kings and in certaine occasions and to ascribe vnto the said Kings some Ecclesiasticall power in those cases as afterwards shal be seene Wherin first is to be considered that which before hath been obserued that he abandoning as it were the first head of proofes De Iure flyeth only to the other De facto which alwayes holdeth not for that all factes doe not infer necessarily the right of equity and Iustice as before hath been shewed And secondly if all the examples De facto were graunted in the sense as by him they are set downe yet are they farr of from prouing his principall as often afterwards vpon many particular occasions shal be declared For that his said principall Conclusion is as yow may knowe that Queene Elizabeth by the ancient Common lawes of England had as full and absolute power and Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction as by any spirituall or Ecclesiasticall person had euer byn at might lawfully be exercised within the Realme And these Instances by him alleadged doe concerne but certaine peeces and parcells of Iurisdiction in some particular cases and causes as by examination wil be found Wherfore to drawe neere to this examination we must vnderstand that M. Attorney rightly deuideth the tymes of our Kings into before and after the Conquest and I shall willinglie follow him in this diuision and search out what Ecclesiastical lawes or Ordinances there were made in those dayes by our Kings of those ages for his or our purpose 2. And first before the Conquest when our best English Kings were most eminent if we respect pietie and religion as liuing neerer to the origen fountaine of their first conuersion fernour of Christian spirit out of this tyme I say and ranke of our Christian Kings froÌ„ Ethelbert the first to K. Edward the last before the Conquest for of K. Harold we make little accompt he being an intruder and raigning so small time and with so many troubles as he did they being otherwise aboue a hundred in number within the space of almost fiue hundred yeares two only inferences he produceth and these of very small moment as presently will appeare yet let vs heare how he beginneth and what Preface he maketh to his proofes in these words To confirme saith he those that hold the truth and to satisfye such as being not instructed know not the ancient and moderne lawes and customes of England euery man being perswaded as he is taught these few demonstratiue proofes out of the lawes of England in steed of many in order serie temporum are here added This is his Preface wherin he promiseth as yow see demonstratiue Proofes which are the strongest most cleer euident and forcible that logicke doth prescribe in any science but we shal be enforced afterward to admitt proofes of a lower degree then demonstrations as by experience you will find Wherefore to the matter 3. His first instance is taken out of the words of a certaine Charter giuen by King Kenulfus of the VVestsaxons some two hundred and fifty yeares after the conuersion of K. Ethelbert of Kent confirmed afterward by K. Edwin Monarch of all England which Charter beginneth thus Kenulfus Rex c. per literas suas patentes consilio consensu Episcoporum Senatorum gentis suae largitus fuit monasterio de Abindon in Comitatu Bark euidam Ruchino tunc Abbati monasterij c. quandam ruris sui portionem id est quindecim mansias in loco qui à ruriculis tunc nuncupabatur Culnam cum omnibus vtilitatibus tam in magnis quam in modicis rebus Et quod praedictus Ruchinus 〈◊〉 ab omni Episcopali iure in sempiternum esset quietus vt habitatores â—iuâ— nullius episcopi aut suorum officialium iugo inde deprimantur sed in cunctis rerum euentibus discussionibus causarum abbatis monasterij praedicti decretis subijciantur itae quod c. Thus goeth the Charter which though M. Attorney thought not good to put in English but to set downe both his pages in Latin yet wee shall translate the same for the better vnderstanding of all sortes of Readers K. Kenulfus c. by his letters parents with the Counsell and consent of the Bishops and Councellours of his nation did giue to the monasterie of Abindon in Barkshire and to one Ruchinus Abbot of that monastery a certaine portion of his land to witt fifteen mansians in a place called by the countreymen Culnam with all profittes and commodities both great and small appertaining therevnto And that the foresaid Ruchinus c. should bee quiet from all right of the Bishop for euer so as the inhabitants of that place shall not be depressed for the time to come by the yoke of any Bishop or his officers but that in all euents of thinges and controuersies of causes they shall be subiect to the decree of the Abbot of the said monasterie so as c. 4. Thus goeth the Charter which if it were all graunted by vs as it lyeth yet is it far of as you see from inferring M. Attorneys conclusion that K. Kenulfus was head of the Church or had supreame power Ecclesiasticall It might make it probable that hee had some Iurisdiction in some particular case but what or how much that was or whence hee had it either of himself or by delegation of another to wit of the Popes or Cleargie that is not euident by the Charter But let vs see what M. Attorney can make of these words for that lawyers commonly can make the most of matters to their aduauntage First he will needs inforce out of his Charter that this K. Kenulfus tooke vpon him Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction for thus hee writeth By this it appeareth that the King by this Charter made in Parlament for it appeareth to be made by the Councell and consent of his Bishops and Senatours of his kingdome which were assembled in Parlament did discharge and exempt the said Abbot from the Iurisdiction of the Bishop c. And by the same Charter did graunt to the same Abbot Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction vvithin his said Abbey VVhich Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction being deriued from the Crowne continued vntill the dissolution of the said Abbey in the raigne of K. Henry the 8. So hee 5. In which words three things are affirmed by him wherof I hould neuer a one to be
and hath these words Chrisicrux antecellit Caesaris aquilas gladius Petri gladio Constantini Apostolius sedes praeiudicat Imperatoriae potestati The crosse of Christ excelleth the spread-eagles in Cesars banners the sword of Peter is of more eminent power then the sword of Constantine and the Sea Apostolike is more potent then any Imperiall authority And this was the opinion sense and iudgement of these Princes and tymes wherin they made this difference degree of these two swordes without any such preiudice of taking away halfe their Monarchies from themselues or other Princes therby as M. Attorney and other such Prince-flatterers doe pretend The Conclusion vpon the former Demonstrations 90. Now therfore gentle Reader by these ten demonstrations thou hast seene what was the opinion iudgement and practise of all our ancient English Kings before the Conquest about this point of temporall and spirituall power and authority and heare I thinke thou wilt not deny but that my manner of proofe is and hath byn according to the rule of the Fathers touched before in the answere to the preface to wit KATH'HOLON or secundum totum bringing forth the whole body of this tyme that M. Attorneys proofe if it had byn a proofe that is to say if he had proued that which he propounded is secundum partem according to a part he only alleadging two sole petite instances out of all the ranke of aboue an hundred Kings for the space almost of fiue hundred yeares and these two also so weake and impertinent as no waye they can subsist in the sense wherin he alleadgeth them And herwithall in like manner thou mayst pleasâ— to call to remembraunce the auncient obseruation of old Tertullian aboue forteene hundred yeares gone Solemâ— est heretick c. It is a solemne tricke of heretickes by the occasion of some one doubtfull sentence or clause to wrest matters contra exercitum sententiarum against a whole army of sentences to the contrary And S. Cyprian in the next age after him noteth the like audacity of hereticke of his tyme that would take a part and leaue out a part and preferre some peece or parch before the whole And whether M. Attorney doe not follow the same spirit heere in peeping forth with two little miserable mistaken instances out of so great an army of plaine testimonyes to the contrary you haue already seene and out of your wisdome will easily iudge The like or worse dealing will you find afterward when we shall haue passed the Conquest whervnto now we hasten and for the euent I remit my self to the experience OF THE KINGS AFTER THE CONQVEST VNTO OVR TYMES And first of the Conquerour himself whether he tooke spirituall iurisdiction vpon him or no by vertue of his Crowne and temporall authority CHAP. VII HAVING pervsed what passed among our Kings before the Conquest to which pervse veiw we were led by M. Attorneys induction of two instances of those dayes as you haue seen we are now to follow him also beneath the said Conquest for tryall of our controversie where albeit as before I haue noted the further wee goe from the origen of our English conuersion and heate of that primitiue spirit of deuotion that God gaue our Kings in those first ages of their said conuersion to Christian religion the more coldnes we shall find in some cases and more worldly and secular spirit in diuers of our Norman and French Princes then waâ—â— the English before them yet for the substance of this point of controuersie between M. Attorney and mee about the acknowledgement of the Popes authority Ecclesiasticall we shall find them in effect no lesse resolute then the other if you respect the substance of the thing it self though in tendernesse of piety and deuotion their different liues and courses as after you shall se be witnesses vnto vs of no small difference 2. And this is seen in none more then in K. VVilliam the first himself the head stocke of al the rest who though in life action as a warryer and Conqueror were rough fierce boysterous especially in the former years of his raigne ouer EnglaÌ„d wherin vpoÌ„ ielosy of his vnsetled state he did many things de facto which were not so iustifiable de Iure for which Authors doe note that he was greatly punished by God both in himself in his children and childrens children yet in this point of true substantiall obedience to the Church when he was void of passion and out of occasion of any coÌ„straining necessity he all-wayes shewed himself dutifull respectiue humble towards the said Church according to his Oath taken at his Coronation before the Altar of S. Peter at VVestminster se velle Sanctas Dei Ecclesias ac rectores defendere saith Florentius that he would defend the holy Churches of God and the gouernours therof which to haue perfourmed he professed also at his death with teares as Iohn Stow more auncient writers then he doe beare him witnes some are of opinion that the long continuance of his line in the Crowne of England considering how he entered how some of them haue gouerned after him may principally be ascribed vnto this that he would not take in hand the enterprice of England but that first it should be consulted and approued by the Sea Apostolike at at Rome as presently you shall heare that it was and for that himself so firmely relied vpon the same afterward in all his greatest occasions and recommended the same especially to his sonnes on his death-bed when he was free from these interests which oftentimes before drew and wrested him to diuers actions which in that last houre he approued not but condemned and much bewayled 3. And of this later point many examples might be alleadged both of much bloudshed in England of spoiling and destroying the countrey of casting downe many townes and Churches for enlarging his hunting of vexing and oppressing the English-nation of ryfling and spoyling monasteryes and Churches where the English had hidden some of their wealth to maintaine themselues withall his detayning in prison all dayes of his life the Archbishop Stigand and diuers other Bishops and Abbots deposed in the Councell at VVinchester by Pope Alexander his legats in the fourth yeare of his raigne and of his brother Otho Bishop of Baion held in prison by him albeit this concerning Ecclesiasticall persons he professed to doe by licence and commission of the Sea Apostolike yet in truth the cheife cause was his owne vehement passion and ielousie of his temporall estate For I find a letter of Pope Gregory the seauenth that succeeded Alexander the second written vnto him vpon the yeare of Christ 1084. which was the 18. of K. VVilliams raigne wherin the said Pope though praising his religious zeale in other things which he would neuer haue done if he had byn opposite to his authority and iurisdiction yet doth he reprehend
Chancellour and Treasurer he was only abiured the Realme for euer The Catholicke Deuine 22. This case related out of Brookes Reporte if so it be there for I haue not the booke is but a particular case and shewed only de facto and not de iure whereas M. Attorneys booke notwithstanding is intituled De iure as often I haue and must still put him in mynd True it is that he noteth here in the margent that this was done by the Common-law of England before any Statute made But what reason can he bring or any man imagine why we should beleeue this to wit that this fact of bringing in a Bull of excommunication from Rome against a subiect in those dayes should be adiudged treason by the auncient Common-law of England For a man may demaund what is that CoÌ„mon-law or auncient CoÌ„mon-law not made by Statute nor introduced by any common custome that can be proued How was it made By whome where at what time vpon what occasion For to auouch a Common-law and auncient common-law without beginning author cause occasion or recorde of the introduction therof is a strange Metaphysicall contemplation for that lawes doe not growe vp without beginning but must needs be made or admitted by some Prince or people And whereas we haue shewed from time to time that all our English Princes people haue byn Catholicks from their first conuersion vnto this Kings time and vniforme also in this point of acknowledging the spirituall iurisdiction of the Sea of Rome and nothing more ordinary among them then censures and excommunications from Rome when necessity seemed to require how could this auncient common-law come in vre among them yea and be auncient in K. Edward the first his tyme contrary to the grounds and practise of the religion then in vse and euer before and no mention euer made therof in all antiquity till â—ow by M. Attorney and that only in the ayre as you see 23. Moreouer we read in Mathew of VVestminster that when this King Edward was in his most heat against the Clergy for denying him the halfe of their rents and goods as before hath byn said which they did vpon the prohibition of Pope Bonifacius he fearing least some men might bring in an excoÌ„munication against himself and them of the Clergy that yelded to pay the same and therby had bought his protection againe he only forbad Subpaena incarcerationis ne quis contra ipsum Regem ces qui iampridem suam protectionem quaesiêrant excommunicationis sententiam promulgaret prouocatione sacta pro se ad Romanam Curiam pro ipsis He prohibited vnder paine of imprisonment that no man should publish my sentence of excommunication against the King himself or those that had newly sought his protection yea his Maiesty made a prouocation or appeale also as well for himselfe as for them that stood on his side to the Courte of Rome So as if the King by speciall decree of his owne appointed only the paine of imprisonment for such as should publish any sentence of excommunication against himself for himself also appealed to Rome it is not likely that the auncient Common-lawes of England had made it treason before against the King his crowne and dignity to publish an excommunication against a subiect that was a thing most vsuall in those dayes 24. Well it may be that for repressing the vnquiet spiritts of some particular subiects that vpon light occasions and false suggestions would procure Bulls of excommunication from Rome some order might be taken at that tyme for seuere punishment of them that rashly without shewing the same to Iudges appointed for that purpose should publish the said Bulls in England as we see also at this dâ—y to be obserued in Spaine Naples Sicily France and other Catholike Realmes where no man may publish such things without a view and Placet of the Magistrate appointed to that effect and this not for denying or restrayning the said authority of the Sea Apostolicke but for keeping peace and orderly proceeding among subiects as is pretended and for better enforming his Holines if false suggestions haue byn giuen And that some like order might be at this time in England may appeere in parte by another obiection which M. Attorney hath afterward in the life of K. Edward the 3. saying that in an attachement vpon a prohibitioÌ„ the defendant pleading the Popes Bull of excoÌ„munication of the plaintiffe the Iudges demaunded of the defendaÌ„t if he had not the certificate of some Bishop within the realme testifying the excoÌ„municatioÌ„ c. Wherby it may appeare that priuate men were obliged to shew their Bulls vnto some Bishop before they published the same 25. But howsoeuer this be it is euident by this very Reporte of M. Attorneys text of Common-law cited by himself out of the one and thirtith yeare of King Edward the third which was many yeares after this other case that the bringing in or seruing of a Bull of excommunication against a particular subiect was not held for treason in those dayes Neither did the iudges make any such inference which is like they would haue done if it had byn treason against the King his Crowne and dignity by the ancient Common-lawes of England in the tyme of K. Edward the first aboue fifty yeares before the later case fell out And thus much for law though it might be that de facto in those dayes of suspition when K. Edward feared excommunication as you haue heard some man ad terrorem might be so sentenced by some chief Iusticer or Iudge as would be ready to pleasure the King in all things as most of them were though yet the party were not executed as here is confessed or else that there was some other particular aggrauant circumstance in this facte which here is not set downe though it may be also that the Reader shall find somewhat therof in M. Brookes booke if he looke it ouer out of whome this obiection without all circumstance is so barely cited And thus much of this first instance Now let vs contemplate the second as wise no doubt as the former The Attorney The said King Edward the first presented his Clerke to a benefice within the prouince of Yorke who was refused by the Archbishop for that the Pope by way of prouision had conferred it on another The King thervpon brought a Quare non admisit The Archbishop pleaded that the Bishop of Rome had long time before prouided to the same Church as one hauing supreme authority in that case and that he durst not nor had power to put him out which was by the Popes Bull in possession For which his high contempt against the King his Crowne and dignity in refusing to execute his Soueraignes commaundement fearing to doe it against the Popes prouision by iudgement of the Common-law the lands of his whole Bishopricke were seased into the Kings handes and
all appeals in causes Ecclesiasticall to the Court of Rome reducing all spirituall authority of determining the same vnto the body spirituall of the English Clergy for so the words of the statute are The body spirituall of the English Church saith he hauing power when any cause of the law diuine happened to come in question or of spirituall learning c. to declare and determine all such doubts to administer al such offices duties as to their roomes spiritual did appertaine without the intermedling of any exteriour person or persons c. Wherby it appeareth that by this Statute he reduceth all spirituall power to a certaine community of the Ecclesiasticall body of England but in the second Statute that followed in the yeare after against suing for licences dispensations facultyes graunts rescripts or delegacyes to Rome he seemeth to establish all authority in the Archbishop of Canterbury that was then Thomas Cranmer newly made by himself for allowing of his marriage with Lady Anne Bullen for so he saith in the statute That the Archbishop of Canterbury for the tyme being and his successours shall haue power and authority from tyme to tyme by their discretions to giue graunt and dispose by an instrument vnder the seale of the said Archbishop vnto the King and vnto his heirs successours Kings of this Realme as well all maÌ„ner of such licences dispensations compositions facultyes graunts rescrips delegacyes instruments and other writings for causes not being contrary or repugnant to the holy scriptures and lawes of God as heertofore had byn vsed and accustomed to be had and obtained by the King or any his most noble progenitors or any of his or their subiects at the Sea of Rome or any person or persons by authority of the same c. 12. Lo heer King Henry giueth authority to the Archbishop of Canterbury to giue vnto him to wit to King Henry himself and his successors Kings of England and their subiects all dispensations which they were wont to â—â—ke and obtaine at the Popes hand so as heer he acknowledgeth that in former times that authority belonged to the Pope and that his auncestors and progenitors were of that opinion but that now he being offended with him he would take it from him and bestow it vpon the Archbishop of Canterbury subiecting himself and his inheritours to aske and obtaine the said dispensations at his hands and his successours which was as you see to make Archbishop Cranmer Pope and not himself for this yeare as the whole body of the English Clergy was for the yeare past 13. And wheras it is euident that King Henry gaue this authority to Cranmer for dispensing c. to the end he should dispense with him for marrying of the said Lady Anne Bullen it seemeth strange that he would vse this so ridiculous circuyt as first to giue authority by Parlament to Cranmer to be able to dispense with him to wit with King Henry the giuer and would not take immediatly either by himself or by Parlament authority to himself to dispense with himself But it is well seen that he had some remorse or shame-fastnes therin at the first beginning though the very next yeare after he amended the matter or rather made it worse by assuming it to himself For calling another Parlament vpon the 26. of his raigne he made the first Statute of all with this Title An act concerning the Kings Highnes to be Supreme head of the Church of England and to haue authority to reforme and redresse all errors heresies and abuses in the same Wherby you may see what gradation was vsed in this matter or rather mistery giuing this power first to the Community of the English Clergy secondly to the Archbishop of Canterbury and thirdly to himself and all this in three distinct yeares immediately following one the other 14. And now if mens euerlasting saluation must depend vpon these mutations of spirituall iurisdiction as no doubt they did in thousands of our Countrey at that tyme and if the eternall wisdome of our Sauiour Christ hath left no more certainty for direction of our soules by spirituall gouernement and authority then this of our English Parlament which changeth so often and easely as you haue heard vpon euery Princes particuler inclination then are we doubtlesse in a pittifull plight for that as hath byn declared before of the certainty of this spirituall power for binding or loosing of our sinnes for SacrameÌ„ts instructions directions and all other spirituall helps and assistance in this life dependeth the surety of our euerlasting saluation or damnation in the life to come 15. But to goe forward a little further in this matter now we haue King Henry head of the Church and M. Attorney no doubt is glad therof for helping of his cause though it help it but little or nothing at all it being the first example that euer could be giuen therof in England or elswhere throughout the Christian world and so much the more to be misliked if we beleiue Iohn Caluin in his sharp reproofe of this attempt which he calleth Tyrannicall Anti-Christian But M. Attorney perhaps will not care for Caluin or Beza or any of their followers in this point for that it maketh not to his purpose Well then he must notwithstanding graunt this in all reason that if this supreme authoritie spirituall was wel and rightly and by gods direction spirit and allowance taken vpon himself by King Henry then is it likely that he was guided also by the same spirit afterward in making his decrees laws and ordinances for directing and gouerning the English Church by that authority and especially for reforming and redressing of all errors heresies and abuses therin according to the speciall title of his said authority before set down wherof it followeth that when vpon the 31. yeare of his raigne which was fiue after the said authoritie giuen him hee calling a Parlament determined six mayne and principall articles of protestant religion to bee heresies to witt The deniall of the reall presence of the communion vnder one kind only That Priests may marrie That vowes of chastitie may bee broken That priuate masses are not lawfull That sacramentall or auricular confession is not necessarie appointing them that should hould any of these heresies so coÌ„deÌ„ned by him to be burned as notorious hereticks it followeth I say that this was decreed by him out of the same spirit and direction of god for that otherwise his Ecclesiasticall supremacy had byn to small purpose if there were no certainty in his determinations or that God would permit him to erre so grosly in so importaÌ„t a busines as this was for the whole Church of England so soone after he had ginen him his said supreme authoritie Ecclesiasticall 16. And that this was done by him against the Protestants with great deliberation consultation aduise maturity in the fullnes of his power Ecclesiasticall appeareth