Selected quad for the lemma: virtue_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
virtue_n	power_n	spiritual_a	temporal_a	1,927	5	9.8031	5	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A09106	A quiet and sober reckoning vvith M. Thomas Morton somewhat set in choler by his aduersary P.R. concerning certaine imputations of wilfull falsities obiected to the said T.M. in a treatise of P.R. intituled Of mitigation, some part wherof he hath lately attempted to answere in a large preamble to a more ample reioynder promised by him. But heere in the meane space the said imputations are iustified, and confirmed, & with much increase of new vntruthes on his part returned vpon him againe: so as finally the reconing being made, the verdict of the Angell, interpreted by Daniel, is verified of him. There is also adioyned a peece of a reckoning with Syr Edward Cooke, now L. Chief Iustice of the Co[m]mon Pleas, about a nihil dicit, & some other points vttered by him in two late preambles, to his sixt and seauenth partes of Reports.	Parsons, Robert, 1546-1610.	1609 (1609)	STC 19412; ESTC S114160	496,646	773

appertayne to the temporall good and prosperity therof 11. Next after the declaratiō of these three pointes to wit of the origens ends obiects of these two powers spirituall and ●ēporall the sayd Catholicke Deuine deduceth out of the same the differēt dignity excellency eminency of the one the other power the one being called Deuine the other Humane for that the ends and obiects of the one are immediatly concerning the soule as now we haue declared and the other concerning humane affaires immediatly though mediatly in a Christian Common wealth referred also to God And this di●ference of these two powers he declareth by the similitude likenesse of flesh and spirit out of S. Gregory Nazianzen who in a certaine narration of his doth most excellently expresse the same by the comparison of spirit and flesh soule and sense which thing saith he may be considered as two distinct Common wealthes separated the one from the other or conioyned togeather in one Common wealth only An example of the former wherin they are separated may be in beasts and Angels the one hauing their common wealth of sense only without soule or spirit and the other Cōmon wealth of Angels being of spirit only without flesh or body but in man are conioyned both the one the other And euen so sayth he in the Common wealth of Gentils was the Ciuill and Poli●icall Earthly and Humane power giuen by God to gouerne worldly and humane things but not spirituall for the soule wheras cōtrarywise in the primitiue Chri●tian Church for almost three hundred yeares togeather none or few Kings Princes or Potentates being conuerted the Common wealth of Christians was gouerned only or principally by spirituall authority vnder the Apostles and Bishops that succeeded them 12. Out of which consideration confirmed and strengthened by sundry places of holy scripture ancient Fathers alleaged by him he sheweth the great eminency of spirituall Authority aboue temporall being considered seuerally in themselues though they may stand ioyntly and both togeather in a Christian Common wealth where the temporall Princes be Christiās though with this necessary subordination that in spirituall and Ecclesiasticall affaires belonging to the soule the spirituall gouernours be chiefly to be respected as in Ciuill affaires the temporall magistrate is to be obeyed and this he sheweth by diuers examples and occasions out of S. Ambrose S. Chrysostome S. Gregory Nazianzen and other Bishops and Prelats that in Ecclesiasticall affayres prefered themselues and their authorities before that of Christian Emperours with whome they lyued expresly affirming that in those respects they were their Superiours Pastours the said Emperours their sheep subiects though in temporall affaires they acknowledged them to be their Superiours 13. All this is set downe by the Catholicke Deuine with great variety of proofes many examples facts and speaches of ancient Fathers And will Syr Edward Cooke say that this was frō the purpose a Nihil dicit doth not this quite ouerthrow his assertiō that all tēporall Kings by vertue power of their temporall Crownes haue supreme authority also in spiritual affaires If the forsaid three Fathers to pretermit all others S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Chrysostome and S. Ambrose that had to do with Christian Emperours which had tēporall authority ouer all or the most part of the Christian world did yet notwithstanding affirme vnto their faces that they had no authority at all in spirituall matters belonging to soules but were and ought to be subiect to th●m their Pastours in that Ecclesiasticall gouerment how much lesse could a woman-Prince haue the same by right of her temporall Crowne as most absurdly M. Attorney auerreth Which absurdity the Catholicke Deuine doth conuince so largely by all sortes of proofes both diuine and humane as well vnder the law o● Nature as Mosay●all and Christian that a person of the feminine s●xe is not capable of supreme Spirituall iurisdiction ouer man as nothing seemeth can be answered therūto And was this also ●rom the purpose to proue that Queene Elizabeth could not haue it What will Syr Edward answere here for his Nihil dicit 14. After all this and much more alleaged by the Catholicke Deuine which I pretermit for breuities sake he commeth to reduce the whole controuersie betweene M. Attorney and him vnto two generall heads of proofe the one de Iure the other de facto that is of right and fact shewing that in the first of these two proofes de Iure which is the principall M. Attorney did not so much as attempt to say any thing ●or proofe that by right Queene Elizabeth or any of her Ancestours had supreme iurisdiction in causes Ecclesiasticall but only that de ●acto some of them had sometymes taken and exercised such an authority Which if it were without right was as yow know nothing at all and therfore the sayd Deuine hauing proued more at large that by no right of any law whatsoeuer diuine or humane Queene Elizabeth or her predecessours had or could haue supreame authority Spirituall he cōmeth to ioyne with M. Attorney also in the second prouing that neyther in fact any such thing was euer pretended or practised by any of her Predecessours before the tyme of her Father K. Henry the viij either before or after the Conquest 15. And as for before the Conquest there haue beene more then an hundred Kings of different Kingdomes within the land he proueth by ten large demonstrations that none of them did euer take vpon him such supreme spirituall authority but acknowledged it expresly to be in the Bishop of Rome of which demōstrations the first is of lawes made by them generally in fauour and confirmation of the liberties of the English Church according to the directions and Canons deriued ●rom the authority of the Sea Apostolicke The second that Ecclesiasticall lawes in England made before the Conquest were made by Bishops and Prelats who had their Authority from Rome and not by temporall Kinges The third that all determination of weighty Ecclesiasticall affayres were referred not only by the Christian people generally of that Realme as occasions fell out but by our Kings also in those dayes vnto Rome and the Sea Apostolicke The ●ourth that the Confirmations of all Priuiledges Franchises of Churches Monasteries Hospitals and the like were in those dayes demaunded and obteyned from the Pope The fifth that in all Ecclesiasticall controuersies suites and grieuances there were made Appeales and complaints to the Sea of Rome for remedy The sixth the succession of Bishops Archbishops in England during that time all acknowledging the supremacy of the Pope were notwithstanding in high fauour and reuerence with the English Kings with whom they lyued wherof is in●erred that these Kings also must needs be of the same iudgment and beliefe and consequently make lawes conforme to that their fayth and beliefe as contrariwise since the schisme began by K. Henry the 8.

truthes as if the credit of his whole worke consisted vpon the certainty of euery particuler period which if it be true then must it needs inferre a great preiudice to the credit first of the said 6. Part of Syr Edwards Reportes for so much as so many periods haue beene now found false in this very Preface And secondly it cannot but import the like discredit vnto his said fifth part for which he framed his former protestation for that vpon better view of the bookes Statutes lawes by him cyted it is found that he doth not only misalledge many both wordes and texts resolutions and iudgments but peruerteth many other by wrong inferences arguments detorsions and amplifications of his owne quite contrary to his former protestation which now breifly shall be declared more in particuler 82. First then not to iterate againe the number of those many and manifold falshoods vsed by Syr Edward in the cyting of the Charter of King Kenulphus before the Conquest for giuing priuiledge of Sanctuary to the Church of Cul●am belonging to the Abbey of Abindon both by concealing the wordes that most imported That all was done by the consent and authority of Pope Leo as also the like vnsincere dealing in Iustice Thorps case concerning the question whether it were treason in the ●aigne of K. Edward the first for one subiect to b●ing in a Bull of excommunication against another subiect wherof we haue treated in two seuerall precedent Paragraphes of this Chapter and conuinced that there was much false and fraudulent dealing in them both this I say pretermitted we shall note some more examples out of his other instances vnder English kings since the Conquest 83. First he alleageth this instance vnder the Conquerour himselfe not out of any law of his but out of a fact K. VVilliam saith he the first did of himselfe as K. o● England make appropriation of Churches with Cure to Ecclesiasticall persons wherof he inferreth that he had Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction and cyteth for the proofe of his assertion 7. Ed. 3. tit Quare impedit 19. which obiection though it be fully and substantially answered by the Deuine shewing sundry and diuers waies and namely foure wherby a lay man may come to haue the collation or appropriation of bene●ices yet the booke by him cyted being since that tyme examined it is found that Syr Edward dealt very vnsincerly in alleaging this case to his purpose which maketh wholy against him For this is the case set downe briefly by Brooke in his Abridgement but much more larger by the law-booke it selfe of 7. Ed. 3. fol. 4. 84. In the 7. yeare of King Edward the third by reason of an action of Quare impedit brought against the Deane Chapter two Prebends of the Church of S. Peter of Yorke by the Abbot of Newenham for that they had refused to admit his Clerke presented by him to the Church of T. wherunto he pretended to haue right to present the case was handled in the Kings Bench and the defendants pleading Plenarty for their defence that is to say that the place was full and not voyd for that there was an appropriation or vnion made of the said Church of T. with soke sake that is with the appurtenances vnto the foresaid Church of S. Peter of Yorke and vnto two Prebends of the same by a Charter of King VVilliam the Conquerour and afterward by another of K. Ed. 1. The chiefe Iustice at that tyme named Herle did foure or fiue tymes at least during the discussion of that case giue his iudgement that by law the Conquerour nor K. Edward could not make any such appropriation And of the like opinion were the rest of the Iudges or at least contradicted not the same to wit Syr Iohn Stoner Syr Io●n Cantabridge Syr Iohn Iugge Syr Iohn Shardelow and the rest though two of them spake in the case as may be seene and gathered by reading the booke it selfe and Stouffe and Trew that were of Coūcell of the Plaintife affirmed flatly that no such appropriation could be made by the Cōquerour All which the Attorney craftily concealed in his narration of the case to the end that it might be deemed that the iudgemēt of the Court had beene in K. Edward the thirds tyme vnder whome this case was handled that the Conquerour might according to the cōmon-law make an appropriation by his letters patent And is this good dealing euen in the very first case which he proposeth a●ter the Conquest 85. After this he passeth ouer all the Conquerours lyfe and six other kings ensuing as VVilliam Rufus Henry the first K. Stephen Henry the second Richard the first and K. Iohn fynding no one example among all those Kings actions lawes or orders that might seeme to haue any shew of spirituall Iurisdictiō but only that in the lyfe of K. H. 1. he alleageth a Charter of the said King wherin he as founder of the Abbey of Reading doth appoynt out certayne orders and lawes about the temporalityes of that Abbey a thing very iust and lawfull for all founders to doe by their owne right and consequently maketh nothing to the purpose of our questiō of Ecclesiastical power and moreouer the Deuine proueth by diuers examples that sundry Popes were wont to giue faculty to Princes and other founders to prescribe spirituall priuiledges for diuers pious workes erected by them which the Popes themselues would afterward confirme and ratify so as this also was a fraud in M. Attorney to alleage so impertinent an example but it sheweth his pouerty and barennesse in examples of those yeares which being aboue 150. vnder 7. kings as hath beene said he could fynd but these two poore examples nothing prouing the purpose to bring forth in all this tyme wheras if he would looke ouer the tyme since K. Henry the 8. tooke vpon him indeed Ecclesiasticall authority by vertue of his temporall Crowne and the other three Princes who in that haue followed him whole volumes might be written of examples and presidents giuen therin of practising spirituall power wherby it is euident that those former Princes from the Cōquest downward were not of the opinion and iudgement of these later Princes and that Syr Edward doth but squeese and strayne them to make them say or signify somewhat which they neuer meant indeed and this iniquity is not the least in the Attorneys proceeding in this matter and yet doth M. Morton say of him as you haue heard exhorting euery man to resort vnto Syr Edwards storehouse for aboundance of good proofes saying habet ille quod det dat nemo largius he hath store to giue and no man giueth more liberally Now then we shall peruse some of his store 86. Vnder K. Edward 1. he alleageth this instance for proofe of his supposed Ecclesiasticall Iurisdictiō that when Pope Gregory the tenth had determined in a Councell at Lyons Bigamos omni priuilegio

not truly that they denyed the Sacramentall vse therof Or for so much as Protestants do not concurre with the Noua●ians in the one they do not in the other is a most absu●d kynd of reasoning called by Logitians à dispara●i● fo● that both may be true and one excludeth not the other For it is most true which Bellarmin saith that Nouatianorū error praecipuus erat c. The principall errour of the Nouatians which word principall importing that they had other errors besids is craftily cut o● by M. Mort. was that there is not power in the Church to recō●le men to God but only by Baptisme which last words also bu● only by Baptisme were by M. Mort. and by the same art shifted ou● of the text for that they haue relation to the Priests of the Church to whom it appertayneth by publicke ordinary office to baptize and in this the Protestants are accused by Bellarmine to concur●● with them in denyall of pēnance as it is a Sacramēt 71. And togeather with this it may be true that besides this praecipuus error the principall errour the Nouatians some or all denyed the fruit of all kynd of priuate and particuler pennance as sorrow teares punishment of the body and th● like wherin diuers Protestants do not agree with them nor yet are accused therof Wherby it appeareth that all this counterfait contradiction which M. Morton hath so much laboured to establish heere betweene Bellarmine on the one syde and Castro Vega Maldona●e on the other commeth to be right nothing at all for that Bellarmine speaketh expresly of Pennance as it is a Sacrament and in that sense only saith that the Protestants deny it togeather with the Nouatians as they do also the vse of Chrisme in the Sacrament of Con●irmation which was an other errour of theirs obiected by Bellarmine to Protestants as much as the form●r but wholy dissembled by M. Morton The other three Authors as they do not exclude but rather include the Sacrament of Pennance yet do they m●ke ●ention of the other part of the Nouatian error ●●at seemed to deny all pennance in generall whe●●er Sacramentall or not Sacramentall and of this ●●e not Protestants accused by Bellarmine but expre●●y rather exempted by the words which heere M. ●orton setteth downe of his So as for him to play ●●on his owne voluntary Equiuocation and mista●●ng of the word Pēnance Nouatian heresy about the ●●me is toto grosse an illusion Wherfore if you ●●ease let vs briefly see how many false trickes he ●●eth in this place ●2 The first of all may be that wheras Cardinall ●●llarmine to proue that our moderne Protestants do ●●mbolize and agree with the old Nouatian heresyes ●●leageth two particuler instances the one in deny●●g the power of the Church to remit synnes by ●●e Sacrament of pēnance the other in denying the 〈◊〉 of holy Chrisme in the Sacrament of Confirmatiō ● Morton hauing nothing to say to the second reply●th only to the first by an Equiuocation as you haue ●●ard and yet if the second only be true Bellarmine 〈◊〉 iustified in noting the Protestāts of Nouatianisme ●nd therfore to deny the one dissemble the other ●ust needs proceed of witting fraud granting that which is chiefly in controuersy to wit that Pro●estants do hold in somewhat Nouatianisme ●3 The second fraud is for that in reciting Cardinall Bellarmines charge against Protestants he cut●eth from the latin sentence of Bellarmine being very small short in it selfe both the beginning end to wit Praecipuus error post baptismum as yow haue heard and that for the causes which now I haue declared 74. Thirdly he doth bring in guylfully the foresaid testimonyes of Castro Vega Maldonate as contrary to Bellarmine whereas they speake of an other thing to wit of pēnance in another sense b●syde● this do all expres●y set downe the two errou●s o● the Nouatians to witt that they did deny as wel● the Sacrament of Pennāce as also the priuate vse ther●f as it is a particuler vertue and that the Protes●an●● of our dayes do concurre with them in the fi●st● though not in the second and that he could not bu● euidently see and know this and so did write it against his conscience to deceyue the Reader 75. Fourthly when M. Morton doth alleadge B●llarmine lib. 3. de Iustis cap. 6. to confesse that Protestants do require repentance in Christians that they may be iu●tified he well knew that this was not cōtrary to that which he had said before in his accusation lib. 4. de Notis Ecclesiae cap. 9. that Prot●stants did ioyne with the Nouatiās in denying all power of the Church for r●conciling men to God for he knew that in the former Bellarmine meant of priuate pennance as it is a vertue which euery man may vse of himsel●e but in the second he meant of the Sacrament and keyes of the Church which require absolution of the Priest Heere then was wil●ull and malicious mistaking and so much the more for that in the very next wordes heere set downe by him both in English latin out of Bellarmines first booke de po●nit●ntia cap. 8. the Cardinall doth expresly declare that only Controuersy betweene Catholickes and Protestants in this matter is about the sacrament of pēnance with absolutiō of the Church not the priuate pēnance which euery particuler man may vse of himselfe So as vnder the cloud of priuate and sacramentall pēnance he craftily endeauoreth to make some shew of a contradictiō which is none indeed 76. The fifth falshood is that M. Morton to make Cardinall Bellarmine contrary to himselfe or very forgetfull he alleadging heere his latin wordes maketh him to say first that Protestants require faith repentance to iustifica●ion and then presently in another place Luther reiec●eth pennance as though Luther were no Prote●●ant wheras this is no contradiction in Cardinall Bellarmine but in Luther himsel●e and anoto●ious fraud in M. Morton so pa●pably to d●ceaue his Reader for that Cardinall Bellarmines wordes are these Lutherus lib. de Captiuitate Babylonica tria tan●um agnoscit Sacramenta Baptism●m Poenitentiam Panem tamen infra cap. de extrema Vnctione reij●it Poen●tentiam Luther in his booke of Babylonicall Captiuity in the Chapter o● the Eucharist acknowledgeth only three Sacramēts Baptisme Pennance and Bread and yet afterward in the same booke and in the Chapter of Extreme Vnction he reiecteth pēnance These are the wordes of Bellarmine which M. Morton could not but haue seene and considered● and yet to make some litle shew of ouersight in Bellarmine he was content against his cōscience to set downe Lutherus reijcit Poeni●entiam and to conceale and dissemble all the rest of the sentence alleadged When will he be able to produce one of our Authours with so manifest a wilfulnes 77. Let vs conclude then that M. Mort. is in a poore case when he is driuen to

had Catholicks therin But yet I must needs say that the fiction is one of the most vnlikely things and the most impossible in morall reason that any man can deuise For that Pope Pius Quintus albeit some man would imagine him to be so good a fellow as to care for no Religiō who is knowne to haue byn most zealous yet had he aduentured his Popedome by making such an offer For he should haue allowed of diuers points in the Cōmunion booke which are held by the Catholicke Church for heresy and so condemned by the Councell of Trent and other Councells And now you know it is a ground among vs that a Pope that should be an Hereticke or approue of heresy thereby ceaseth to be Pope how improbable then is this of Pius Quintus his offer And why had not this Letter in so many yeares byn published to the world for the credit of the English Seruice and discredit of the Popes And yet the voice is that the Lord Cooke did so earnestly auouch this matter as he pawned therein not only his credit and honesty by expresse termes of protestation but euen his ●aith also to God and man a great aduēture no doubt And for that I assure my self that the greater part of the Auditory being discreet men did imagine it to be quite false as I and others in effect do know it to be it mu●t needs be a great blemish to my Lords credit at the beginning of his ●udgship that in other things also he be not belieued 52. But I vnderstād that the Booke of this speach or charge now printed is expected shortly togeather with some other appertayning to the same man and then it may be that some body will examine matters more particulerly especially those that appertaine to the iniuring of Catholicks and afterward returne with the agrieuances to the Iudge him selfe seing he is now a Iudge to giue sentence of his owne ouersightes Albeit I must confesse that as well my selfe as diuers other men haue lost great hope of his Lordship by this accidēt for before we did thinke that his ouerlashing in speaches when he was Attorney did proceed in great part of the liberty of that office and that when he came to be Iudge he would reforme his Consciēce ratione Status in regard of his state of life but now it seemeth that he is far worse though this I say shal be left by me to others to be discussed vpon the sight of the foresaid printed Bookes 53. My speach at this time shall be only about that which passed in his Booke of Reportes while he was Attorney and which hath byn disputed these monethes past betweene him and a Catholicke Deuine of our party in his answere to the said Reports which Answere is in England And albeit thereby may easily be seene the talēt which M. Attorney had while he was Attorney in this kind of worst Equiuocation notwithstanding his often declamations against the other sort that with due circumstances we haue proued to be lawfull yet will I heere adioyne one example more but such a one as is worth the noting and bearing away And it is this 54. That whereas in answering of diuers lawes statutes and ordinances which the Attorney alleaged out of the Raignes of sundry ācient Kinges to proue that they did exercise spirituall authority and iurisdiction the Deuine sometymes not hauing the law bookes by him out of which the said lawes or authorities were cyted supposing the allegations to be ordinarily true ●or who would suspect lawiers to be false in their citations that were wont to be accompted most exact in that point did answere the same with that sincerity of truth and reason as to a man of his profession apperteyned though sometymes also he was forced to suspect some fraude and therepon requested such as had commodity in England to see the Bookes that they would peruse the places and take them out Verbatim which some haue done and haue found such store of Equiuocations and false dealing in the alleaging therof as neuer could be imagined in a man of his calling I shal only set down one example and it shal be the first that is cited by him in the whole Booke to wit of the Charter of King Kenidphus of the VVest Saxons vnto the Abbey of Abindon in Barkshire which Charter M. Attorney set downe with this Preface To confirme saith he those that hold the truth and to satisfy such as being not instructed know not the ancient and moderne lawes c. these few demonstratiue prooses shall serue 55. And then beginneth he with the said Charter of king Kenulphus before the cōquest meaning to proue therby that the said king did giue vnto the said Abbey of Abindō spirituall iurisdiction by vertue of his temporall Crowne exempting the same from all authority of the Bishop which indeed was done by the Pope and so the Charter it self doth plainly expresse if it had byn truly related by M. Attorney And for that the Case is not long I shall set it downe Verbatim as the Attorney hath it in his Booke pag. 9. only putting into English that which is recited by him in Latin and left without any translation to make the matter more obscure then shall we lay forth also the true Case whereby wil be seene how true a dealer M. Attorney is in those his writyngs and protestations which after we shall more largely consider of Thus then beginneth the Charter 56. Kenulphus Rex c. per literas suas Patentes cōsilio consensu Episcoporum Senatorū Gentis suae largitus fuit Monasterio de Abindon in Comitatu Bark cuidam Ruchino tunc Abbati Monasterij c. quandam ruris sui portionem id est quindecim mansias in loco qui à Ruricolis tunc nuncupabatur Culnam cum omnibus v●i●itatibus ad eandem pertinentibus tam in magnis quàm in mod●cis rebus in aeternam haereditatem Et quòd praedictus Ruchinus c. ab omni Episcopali iure in sempiternum esset quietus vt inhabitatores eius nullius Episcopi aut suorum Officialium iugo inde deprimantur Sed in cunctis rerum euentibus discussionibus causarum Abbatis Monasterij predicti decreto subiiciantur ita quòd c. Thus goeth the Charter as M. Attorney alleageth it which in English is as followeth 57. King Kenulphus c. by his letters Patents with the Counsayle consent of the Bishops and Counsaylours of his Nation did giue to the Monastery of Abindon in Barkeshire and to one Ruchinus Abbot of that Monastery a certaine portion of his land to wit ●ifteene Mansions in a place called by the Country men Culnam with all pro●its and co●modities gr●●t ●nd small appertayning thereunto for ●ue●las●ing in●eritance And that the ●oresaid R●●●inus c. should be quiet from all right of the Bishop for euer so as the inhabitāts of that place shall not be depressed