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
it must needs bee that he was gouernour vnder the Pope to whome he professeth as you haue heard obedience and subiection 16. But what proofe think you hath M. Attorney out of this King to shew that he exercised spirituall iurisdiction by vertue of his temporall crowne You shall heare it all as it lyeth in his booke for the whole narration is but of 3. or 4. lines taken out of K. Edward his lawes The words are these in Latin Rex autem qui vicarius summi regis est ad hoc constitutus est vt regnum populum Domini super omnia Sanctam Ecclesiam regat defendat ab iniuriosis malefices autem destruat Which M. Attorney Englisheth thus The King who is the vicar of the highest King is ordeined to this end that he should rule and gouerne the Kingdome people of the land and aboue all things the holy Church that he defend the same from wrong-doers and destroy and roote out workers of mischeif Which words supposing them to be truly alleadged as they lye haue a plaine and easy interpretation which is that the King as Gods minister for so S. Paul called also the hea-Magistrate must gouerne the Church and Cleargie of his land in temporal matters for that they are members also of the Common-wealth as before we shewed In which respect they are subiect to the sayd temporall Magistrate and in that sense to be gouerned by him though not in spirituall things 17. And if M. Attorney will inferre that because the King is cal-called Gods Vicar he hath spirituall Iurisdiction then may he as well inferre that the heathen Magistrate had spirituall Iurisdiction ouer Christians for that S. Paul calleth him the minister of God which is as much in effect as Vicar for that the minister supplieth the maisters place And thus you see that albeit we admit these words as heere they ly alleadged by M. Attorney noe aduantage can be rightly inferred against vs by them But I am forced to suspect some little fraud or shuffling to be vsed in the citation of this peece of law and therfore I intreate the Iudicious Reader who is learned and hath the commodity to see the Originals that he will examine both this and the former instance of K. Kenulfus in the authors whence they are taken for I haue them not by mee 18. The reasons of suspicion are first for that I see M. Attorney his translation in these few lines not to be very exact as it will appeare to him that examineth the same and secondly for that I find this clause of S. Edwards law differently alleaged heare by M. Attorney from that which is cited by Roger Houeden in the life of K. Henry the second as also from another allegation therof by Iohn Fox in his Acts and Monuments by all which may be gathered that the verbe regat is wrongly placed in M. Attorneys allegation which being amended and the said verbe placed before in his dew place the sense is perfect to witt vt Rex regnum terrenum populum Domini regat sanctam eius veneretur ecclesiam ab iniuriosis defendat c. that the King rule his earthly Kingdome and the people of God and reuerence and defend the holy Church Thus I say ought the words to stand to make good and congruons sense and not as they are transposed both by M. Attorney and Iohn Fox to make a blind sense who yet agree not in their allegations therof as in the places cited you may see 19. And this our assertion concerning the true sense meaning of the former clause is confirmed yet further by the words of K. Edward immediatly following in the same law omitted heere by M. Attorney but sett downe by Fox which are these Quod nisi secerit nomen regis in eo non constabit verum Papa Ioanne testante nomen Regis perdet If a King doe not perfourme the points before mentioned of gouerninge his people and defending the Church the name of a King agreeth not to him but he must leese that name as testifieth Pope Iohn So he And the same K. Edward in the end of this speach doth cite the authority of the said Pope Iohn againe saying that the wrote to Pipinus and his sonne Charles beâ—ore they came to be Kings of France that no man was worthy to be called a King except he did vigilantly defend and gouerne the Church and people of God So as now this gouernment of the Church which M. Attorney hitherto hath vrged so much against the Popes authority must be vnderstood according to the meaning and sense only of Pope Iohn who I suppose notwithstanding will not meane that temporall Princes shall be heads of the Church and to haue supreme spirituall Iurisdiction in causes Ecclesiasticall deriued from their Crownes as M. Attorneys meaning is And so you see vnto what good issue he hath brought this argument out of S. Edwards lawes which is that Kings haue so much gouernmeÌ„t ouer the Church as Pope Iohn allowed them and no more 20. And finally let vs heare the words of Pope Nicolas the second to this verie K. Edward concernining the gouernment he had ouer the Church for thus he writeth to him Vobis verò posteris vestris Regibus committimus aduocationem eiusdem loci omnium totius Angliae Ecclesiarum vt vite nostrae cum Consilio Episcoporum Abbalum constituatis vbique quae iusta sunt c. We doe coÌ„mitte vnto you and to the Kings of England your Successours the aduocation and protection of the same place or monastery of VVestminster and of all the Churches throughout England to the end that in our name and authoritie you may by the counsell of your Bishops and Abbots appoint euery-where those thinges that are iust c. By which words is easie to see what gouernment and iurisdiction K. Edward had ouer the Church of England to witt by commission of the Pope noe otherwise By which coÌ„mission also diuers other Catholike Princes haue had in sundrie cases coÌ„mitted vnto them haue at this day spirituall Iurisdiction as namely the Kings of Sicily doe pretend to haue had to haue supreme spirituall authority in that Kingdome as legati à latere by concession of Pope Vrbanus the 2. graunted vnto Roger the Norman Earle of Sicily aboue fiue hundered years past to witt from the yeare of Christ 1097. And yet will none of those that defend this spirituall monarchy at this day for by that name it is called say that it descendeth by right of their Crownes but by concession and delegation of Popes And so much of this matter HOW THE ATTORNEY NOT BEING ABLE TO PROVE HIS AFFIRMATIVE PROPOSITION Of English Kings Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall before the Conquest VVe doe ex abundanti proue the negatiue by ten seuerall sortes of most euident demonstrations that there was no such thing in that
Queenes priuie Counsell and vvhether they vvere true or false yet touched they not Fa Garnet vvho neuer had acquaintance or treaty vvith them 36. And vvhereas you saie that he came into England with purpose to prepare the way against the great compounded nauy that followed in the yeare 1588. It is euident that his comming into England vvas tvvo yeares and a halfe at the least before the saied time vvhen there vvas neither notice nor speach nor perhapps so much as a thought of that nauie to come and vvhen aftervvard it appeared on our seas it had not so much as one English Priest or Iesuit in all that multitude of men vvhich is like it vvould haue had if M. Henry Garnet and M. Robert South-well that came in togeather had byn sent to prepare the vvaie for the same Your combinations also of bookes and attemptes the one allwaies as you saie accompanying the other though you esteemed it perhaps a vvittie fine deuise and probable to the vnlearned hearers that cannot distinguish of times or things yet others that looked into the matter more iudiciouslie and found neither coherence of time or subiect betvveene the booke by you named and the attempts pretended laughed in their sleeues remembring the saying of the Poet Non sat commodè diuisa sunt temporibus tibi Daue haec I vvill reapeat your vvordes of one onlie comparison and thereof let the rest be iudged Then cometh forth Squiar saie you with his plot of treason but this not alone neither but was accompanyed with another pernicious booke written by Dolman vvhich vvordes importe that Dolmans booke did accompanie Squiars treason but he that shall examine the order of Chronologie shal fynde in this matter that Dolmans booke vvas in print foure yeares at least before Squiars treason if he committed treason vvas euer heard of nor hath the argument of the booke anie more affinitie at all vvith Squiars fact then hath a fox vvith a figg tree but onlie that your floating Chimeraes intoxicating to vse your ovvne vvordes your hearers braynes doe make you seeme to speake oftentimes mysticallie vvhen in deede you speake miserablie 37. Yovv remember I thinke hovv the aforesaid gentleman in his booke for others doe not forget it gaue you a friendlie reprehension by the vvordes of the famous Orator Catulus or rather of Cicero in his name for a ridiculous fact of yours in vveeping and shedding manie teares in follovving the fiction of Squiars conspiracie at the barre therebie to vvynne credit and shevv your self admirable at that time to the Earle of Essex and others in authoritie but novv I am to expostulate vvith you vpon this occasion for another no lesse patheticall excesse vttered in pleading against M. Garnet vvherein not so much your teares did run as your haires did stand and stare and your eares glovv to heare blasphemie vttered by him in a certaine letter of his intercepted VVherein saie you was conteyned one of the most horrible blasphemyes that euer I heard proceed from any Atheist and maketh my haire to stand on end to thinke of it So you saie 38. And vvhat vvas this horrible blasphemie good Syr that put your tender and religious hart in such a pittifull plight and horror It follovveth that he had written with the iuyce of a lemmō to his friendes abroad out of the tower that he had byn often examined but nothing was produced against him but yet necesse est vt vnus homo moriatur pro populo So you alleadged the text and added presentlie See how he assumeth most blasphemously to himself the wordes that were spoken of Christ our Sauiour but I hope ere he dy he will repent him of this blasphemy 39. But good Syr did you looke vpon the place of S. Iohns gospell before you recited the same and plaied this pageant in so solemne an essemblie Yf you did then vvill you fynd that these vvordes vvere spoken by an euill man vnto an euill sense in his ovvne meaning to vvit by Caiphas that persuaded first in a Councell gathered vpon the resuscitation of Lazarus to put Christ to death thereby to content the Romanes vvho had the vvhole Ievvish nation in iealosie of their loyaltie tovvardes the Emperour and that novv by putting one to death that vvas accused though falslie to denie tribute to be paied to Cesar they should cleere their credit vvith the said Emperour and by his onlie death preuent the destruction of the said Ievvish people by the Romane armies and therefore he said Expedit nobis vt vnus homo moriatur pro populo non totagens pereat It is expedient for vs that one man dy for the people to the end the vvhole nation be not destroied And therefore he saieth not necesse est as you cite the vvordes but expedit to shevv his politicall drift therein 40. And this being Caiphas his crastie and vvicked counsaile and his vvordes in his sense bearing this meaning the holie ghost vvhich as S. Chrysostome and other holie Fathers doe affirme ostantum non scelestum eius cor attigit moued his tongue and not his vvicked mind and vvas in his vvordes not in his sense made him vnvvittinglie to vtter a prophesie and a great high misterie that except one man to vvit Christ should die for the sinnes of the people none could be saued Novv then Syr this sentence of Caiphas hauing tvvo meanings and senses as you haue heard let vs examine vvhich vvas most probable to be vsed and alluded vnto by M. Garnet vvho gathering by manie coniectures that you and some other of his good friendes had a great desire to bring the Iesuitts vvithin the compasse of this late odious treason or at least-vvise vvithin the suspition or hatred thereof for that the lay-gentlmen partakers of the fact vvere thought to be deuoted tovvardes them and their Order and seing that God vnexpectedlie had deliuered him into your handes he might verie vvell thinke that he at least should paie for the rest and die also of likeli-hood for disgracing the rest and in that sense alluded to the vvordes of Caiphas tending to like policie 41. But novv for the second sense vvhich particularlie designed the death of Christ our Sauiour for the redemption of man-kinde none I thinke is so simple as vvould imagine M. Garnet to applie to himself though in this point also M. Attorney is to be taught out of true diuinitie that diuerse places vttered litterallie of Christ in holie scripture maie secondarily also by allusion be applied vnto men and this vvithout all horror of blasphemie or imputation of Atheisme vvhich are M. Attorneyes passionate accusations in this place As for example vvhere the Prophet vvriteth of him Et cum iniquis reputatus est he vvas esteemed vvith the vvicked vvhich vvas meant immediatlie and principallie by the holie-ghost of Christ and yet by allusion it maie be applied to anie of his seruants And that
this fierce and warlike Prince did beare vnto this Prelate as also how singular authority and confidence the good Archbishop had with him 22. But as we haue said his true sense meaning will best be sene by owne his words behauiour at his death when finding himself in great affliction and perplexity of mynd with the â—â—ror therof as before hath byn touched and of Gods iudgemenâ— ensuing theron for that to vse his owne words he saw himself â—â—den with many and greiuous sinnes and greatly polluted with the effuâ—â—â—â— much bloud and ready to be taken by and by vnto the terrible examination 〈◊〉 God c. In this plight I say which Stow and others 〈◊〉 downe out of auncient authors his greatest comfort◠〈…〉 he had byn euer obedient to the Church whervnto by 〈…〉 he assigned the most parte of his treasure adding this 〈◊〉 therof that those things that had byn heaped vp by wicked deeds might be disposed to holy vses of Saincts And then turning his speach to Ecclesiasticall men he said You remember how sweetly I haue euer loued you and how strongly against all emulations defended you The Church of God which is our mother I neuer violated but in euery place where reason required did willingly honour I haue not sold Ecclesiasticall dignityes and Symony I allwayes detested in the election of Pastors I euer searched out the merits of his life his learning and wisdome and so neer as I could committed the gouernment of the Church vnto the most worthy this may be seen in Lanfranke Archbishop of Canterbury and in Anselme Abbot of Becke and others c. This course haue I followed from my first years this I leaue vnto my heirs to be kept in all tymes In this doe you my Children euer follow me to the end that heerby you may please both God and man c. 23. And this was the last speach of the Conquerour to his children and others standing by at the day of his death which doth sufficiently declare what his sense iudgement was concerning this point of spirituall iurisdiction And to impugne and ouerthrow all this our aduersary the Attorney had need to bring many and strong batterings as you see Let vs passe then to examine what they are The first Instance taken out of the raigne of this K. VVilliam the Conquerour §. III. 24. One instance only doth M. Attorney find to be alleadged during the raigne of this Prince which we shall alleadge in his owne words as they ly in his booke and this shall we obserue commonly through all his instances Thus then he saith The Attorney It is agreed that no man only can make any appropriation of any Church hauing cure of soules being a thing Ecclesiasticall and to be made to some person Ecclesiasticall but he that hath Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction But William the first of himself without any other as king of England made appropriâ—tâ—â—â— of Churches vvith Cure to Ecclesiasticall persons vvherefore it followeth that he had Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction The Catholike Deuine 25. This is the only one argument or instance as hath bene said which M. Attorney hath found in all the life of K. VVilliam the first wherby to proue his principall Conclusion which is that K. VVilliam had as much Ecclesiasticall power and iurisdiction by the auncient common lawes of England as euer had Queene Elizabeth and she as much as euer anie Ecclesiasticall person had or might haue in EnglaÌ„d And yet you se that if al were grauÌ„ted which heere is set downe it amounteth to no more but that K. VVilliam did bestow a benefice with Cure vpon an Ecclesiasticall person which he might doe either by nominating or presenting as patrone of the benefice or by some indult from the Pope or Bishop of the diocesse in that behalfe or vnder ratihabition as before in Charters hath been declared or finallie he might doe it De facto and not De Iure as oftentimes it falleth out in such actions of Princes And in all these senses though we graunt whatsoeuer M. Attorney saith setteth downe in this place it commeth so far short to proue supreame Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction in K. VVilliam as it proueth not anie spirituall iurisdiction at all for that all he saith may be grauuted in any lay-man whatsoeuer which wee shall endeauour to make cleere by explication and distinction of those things which heere are set downe confusedly by M. Attorney 26. First then this instance consisteth of a Syllogisme as you see the Maior wherof is related out of the collection of some law booke as may appeere by his quotation in the margent though I haue not the booke by me and we graunt the proposition to be true in his due sense to wit that no man can appropriate a Church or benefice with Cure to an Ecclesiasticall man but he that hath Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction And then we deny the Minor proposition which â—â— of M. Attorneys owne addition to wit that K. VVilliam did so appropriate or bestow any benefice with Cure vpon an Ecclesiasticall person except it were in one of the fower manners before specified And M. Attorney ought to haue proued his said Minor if he had delt substantially 27. And moreouer I find that he faltereth somewhat also 〈◊〉 setting downe the very words of his Maior proposition though much more in the true sense as presently shall be declared For wheras he beginneth It is agreed that no man can make any appropriation c. the latin words of this Report cited by himself are Inter omnes conuenit quod nemo possit appropriare c. which haue this sense that it is a common receiued opinion to wit from the Canon-law that no man can appropriate or bestow a Church with Cure except he haue Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction But M. Attorney by shutting out the word inter omnes and translating the rest it is agreed would make his reader thinke that it was an agreement or resolution only of the temporall Iudges in this case in K. Edward the 3. his raigne and that they first founded this Maxime about Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction wheras they related it only as an auncient Maxime receaued in the Canon and Ciuill law in this sense which presently we shall declare 28. And wheras he translateth the word appropriare Ecclesiam Ecclesiasticae personae To make appropriation of any Church to an Ecclesiasticall person this may haue two senses be meant either of appropriations or collations of benefices wherin there is little difference in respect of our controuersie for that neither appropriation nor collation can be truly and properly made without spirituall iurisdiction either ordinary or delegate And as for appropriations which consisted coÌ„monly in this that the gleab-lands and the better tithes were vnited to some religious houses or Parsons leauing the lesser tithes vnto their Vicars they could not be made nor graunted but by the licence of the Sea Apostolicke as neither in our
respect of his supreme Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction is altogeather childish For that first to present includeth no Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction at all and much lesse supreme and may be exercised by meer lay-men as before hath byn declared at large vnder King VVilliam the Conquerour Secondly for the King to present to his free Chappels was as much to say in those dayes as that those Chappels being made free and exempted by priuiledges and franquises frō the Sea Apostolicke for otherwise they could not be freed from iurisdiction of their Ordinary the King presented vnto them by vertue of the Canon-law and commission of the said Sea Apostolicke as founder therof 26. And thirdly that he presented after the Deane and by lapse only and not in the first place signifieth plainely that his iurisdiction in that point if presentation may be called iurisdiction as in some sense it may was lesse then that of the Deane And so Fitzherberts words are to be vnderstood that in that particular case the King presēted by lapse as ordinary that is to say wheras in other benefices when the patron or partie to whom the election nomination or presentation first cheifly appertaineth presenteth not within such a tyme the Ordinary may present as hauing by composition the second right or power in that case and after him the Metropolitan and last of all the King Heer in the case of Free Chappels wherof the King is presumed to be founder after the Deane which hath the first right and this by no other meanes then by cōcession of the Sea Apostolicke in those dayes the King by priuiledge of the same Sea had right to enter in the second place insteed of the Bishop which proueth the quite contrary to M. Attorneys conclusion for it sheweth that the King had not supreme Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction in the case proposed but secondary and subordinate to that of the Deane But let vs see further The Attorney An excommunication vnder the Popes Bul is of no force to disable any man within England and the Iudges said that he that pleadeth such Buls though they concerne the excommunication of a subiect were in a hard case if the King would extend his iustice against him If excommunication being the extreme and finall end of any suite in the Court at Rome be not to be allowed within England it consequently followeth that by the ancient Common-laws of England no suite for any cause though it be spirituall rising within this Realme ought to be determined in the Court of Rome Quia frustra expectatur euentus cuis effectus nullus sequitur and that the Bishops of England are the immediate officers and ministers to the Kings Courts In an attachment vpon a prohibition the defendant pleaded the Popes Bull of excommunication of the Plaintife the Iudges demaunded of the defendāt if he had not the certificate of some Bishop within the Realme testifying this excommunication to whom the Counsell of the defendant answered that he had not neither was it as he supposed necessary for that the Buls of the Pope vnder lead were notorious inough but it was adiudged that they were not sufficient for that the Courte ought not to haue regard to any excommunication out of the Realme and therefore by the rule of the Courte the 〈◊〉 was thereby disabled Reges sacro oleo vncti sunt spiritualis iurisdictionis capaces The Catholicke Deuine 27. All that is heere said against the acceptance or admittance of the Popes Bulls for excommunication in England for of this only as speach in this place if it be meant of this K. Edwards time only as according to the argument it must and we haue seen that vnder former Kings the contrary was allwayes in practice how then doth M. Attorney talke heere againe of his auncient Common-lawes For if it began first vnder this King then was it a new law and not auncient and if further wee find no Decree or Statute therof at all in this Kings life as hitherto we haue not nor doth M. Attorney cite or quote any then might it be a matter only de facto of some Iudges who according to the current of that time and as they should see the King affected pleased or displeased with the Popes of those dayes would reiect or admit their Buls at their discretion And then doe you see vpon what goodly ground M. Attorney inferreth his conclusion that if the Popes Buls of excōmunication were not respected in those dayes it consequently followeth that by the auncient common laws of England no suite for any cause though it be spirituall rising within this Realme might be determined in the Courte of Rome And why so For that the Popes excommunication was not obayed in England 28. But I would aske him whether no sentence could be giuen without excommunication Or whether to such as beleeued the Popes authority in those dayes it were sufficient in conscience that the said excommunications were not admitted by some Iudges in their tribunals Or at least-wise no iudiciall notice taken of them except they came notified also from some Bishop as the second Case heer set downe doth touch therby insinuateth the solution of the whole riddle to wit that Iudges were not bound vnder this K. Edward to take publicke and Iudiciall notice of anie Bull of excommunication come from abroad and presented by any priuate person except the same came notified from some Bishop in authoritie within the Realme Which caution is vsed also at this day in diuers other Catholicke Countreys round about vs for auoiding trouble deceit and confusion to wit that Bulls and other authenticall writings from Rome must be seen and certified by some persons of authority within the Realme before they can be pleaded in Courte or admitted generally 29. To the last instance that Kings annointed with sacred oyle are capable of spirituall iurisdiction we denie it not but graunt with the great Ciuill-lawyer Baldus before mentioned and all Canonists that diuers cases of spirituall iurisdiction may be graunted by the Sea Apostolicke vnto annoynted Kings and so often it hath been done especially to Kings of England as former examples haue declared namelie of K. Edward the Confessor But this assertion of capacitie abilitie to receiue some sorte of spirituall iurisdiction if it be committed vnto them doth not proue that they had the said iurisdiction in themselues or of themselues by vertue of their Crownes or annoynting as M. Attorney would haue men beleeue But let vs heare further The Attorney Where a Prior is the Kings debitor and ought to haue tithes of another spirituall person he may choose either to sue for subtraction of his tithes in the Ecclesiasticall Courte or in the Exchequer and yet the persons and matter also was Ecclesiasticall For seing the matter by a meane concerneth the King hee may sue for them in the Exchequer as well as in the Ecclesiasticall Courte and there shall the
word or two concerning the Title whose inscription is Reports of diuers Resolutions and Iudgements giuen vpon great deliberation in matters of great Importance and Consequence by the Reuerend Iudges Sages of the law togeather with the Reasons Causes â—f their Resolutions and Iudgments published c. By which words of â—reat Deliberation great Importance and Consequence Reuerend Sages the like M. Attorney like a studious Rhetorician procureth to purchase credit and estimation to this his worke of Reports Alâ—eit I be confident to the contrary that vpon the ensuing search â—hese Reports directed by hym to the impugning of Catholike reâ—â—gion being only bare and naked Reports indeed without profe or reason alleaged at all will neither proue so graue Resolutions â—udgemeÌ„ts nor to haue byn giuen alwayes vpoÌ„ so great deliberation â—or of so great importance Consequence as he pretendeth and that when the reasons and causes therof shall bee examined they â—ill rather ouerthrow than establish his principal conclusion wherin I remitt my self to the euent â— There followeth the same title to knitt vp the page this pleaâ—â—ng sentence of Cicero in his Tusculane questions Quid enim laeâ—ro nisi vt veritas in omni quaestione explicetur verum dicentibus facilè ceâ—â—m What doe I endeuour but that the truth should be laied open in euery question with resolution to yeld to them that shall speake the truth This sentence I say giueth mee great comforte yf M. Attorney will doe as he insinuateth and follow the indifferencie of his Author alleaged who in the matters he handled which were of philosophye is knowne to haue byn so equall as he was not well resolued what part to take Yet doe I not exact so much equality in this our controuersie of diuinitie presuming my aduersary to be preoccupated with the preiudice of one parte but shall rest well satisfied with his desire to haue the truth examined in euery point and much more with his readines to yeeld vnto her whersoeuer she shall be founde 3. And with this I shall passe to his Preface notinge only one point or two more by the way wherof I shall haue occasion to speake againe afterward The first is that wheras this booke of Reports is set forth with two distinct Columnes in euery page the one in Latin the other in English the Title or superscription of the one runneth thus De iure Regis Ecclesiastico The other hath this interpretation Of the Kings Ecclesiasticall law As though the word Ius which signifieth Right were alwayes well translated by the word Law Wherof afterward he seeketh to make his aduantage But the error or fraude is euident for that the word Ius hath a much larger signification then Lex which may be proued as well out of auncient Lawyers as Deuines For that Paulus Iurisconsultuâ— doth affirme the word Ius to be extended ad omne quod quouis modo bonum aequum est to whatsoeuer is any waye good or right And then in another signification the same Paulus doth say that it signifieth Sententiam iudicis The sentence of the Iudge And in another signification Vlpian and Celsus two auncient Lawyers take it for the science skill of law And Aristotle in his Ethicks pro omni eo quod est legitimum for all that which is any way lawfull And so S. Thomas and other School-deuines doe affirme Ius to be obiectum Iustitiae the obiect of Iustice that is to say about which all iustice is exercised And finaly Isidorus sayth Lex est species Iuris Law is a braunch or kind of right and consequently M. Attorney doth not so properly throughout his whole booke interprete Ius by the word Law which I would not haue noted so largly but that he being so great a lawyer had obligation to speake more exactly though noe man deny but that Ius and Lex may sometimes be taken for the same but not euer nor properly in this case For that the question is not nor was not of Q. Elizabeths Ecclesiasticall lawes but of the right shee had to make such lawes 4. The second point worth the noting is that wheras both the title and subiect of all this booke is of the Kings Ecclesiasticall law M. Attorney in the whole Course therof from the begining of our Christian Kings vnto K. Henry the eight who were aboue an hundered twenty in number neuer citeth so much as one Ecclesiasticall law made by anie of them For that they being Catholikes made not but receiued Ecclesiasticall lawes from such as had authoritie to make them in the Catholique Church And such later Statutes Decrees and Ordinances as were made by some later Kings from K. Edward the first downward for restraint of some execution of the Popes ecclesiasticall power in certaine externall points were not made by them as ecclesiasticall but as temporall laws in respect of the common wealth for auoiding certaine pretended hurtes and incommodities therof And M. Attorney is driuen to such pouerty straights in this case as not being able to alleadge anie one instance to the contrary out of all the foresaid ages hee runneth euery where to this shift that the Popes Ecclesiasticall and Canon laws being admitted in England mâ—y bee called the Kings ecclesiasticall laws for that they are admitted and allowed by him and his realme In which sense the Euangelicall law may bee called also the Kings law for that he admitteth the Bible But of this wee shall haue occasioÌ„ to speake more often afterward For that M. Attorney doth often run to this refuge Now then to the Preface in his owne words The Attorney to the Reader It is truly saide good Reader that Error Ignorance being her inseparable twynne doth in her proceeding so infinitely multiplie herselfe produceth such monstrous and strange chimeraes floateth in such and so many incertainties and sucketh downe such poison from the contagious breath of Ignorance as all such into whom shee infuseth any of her poisoned breath shee dangerously infects or intoxicates and that which is wonderfull before shee can come to any end she bringeth all things if shee be not preuented by confusion to a miserable and vntimely end Naturalia veâ—é artificialia sunt finita Nulius terminus false Error immensus The Catholik Deuine 5. To this so vehement accusation of Error and Ignorance I could 10. Moreouer our Deuines doe handle this matter of Ignorance so exactly in al their writings as by treating of Ignorance they proue themselues not ignorant but most learned For first defininge IgnoraÌ„ce in generall to be want or lake of knowledge they distinguish the same into two sortes The one Negatiue the other Priuatiue And as for the Negatiue which importeth only a simple pure want of science it is not reprehensible of it self for that it might be in man euen before his fall in the state of innocency is now in
this shall suffice to this point Now will M. Attorney passe to another of the commendation of Truth as though that were with him and his And wee shall follow him to examine that point also as wee haue done this other about Ignorance The Attorney On the other side Truth cannot be supported or defended by any thing but by Truth herselfe and is of that constitution and constancy that she cannot at any time or in any part or point be disagreable to her self She hateth all bumbasting and sophistication and bringeth with her certainty vnity simplicity and peace at the last Putida salsamenta amant origanum veritas pèr se placet honesta per se decent falsa fucis turpia phaleris indigent Ignorance is so far from excusing or extenuating the error of him that had power to finde out the truth which necessarily he ought to know wanted only will to seeke it as she will be a iust cause of his great punishment Quod scire debes non vis non pro ignorantia sed pro contemptu habers debet Error and falshood are of that condition as without any resistance they will in tyme of themselues fade and fall away But such is the state of Truth that though many doe impugne her yet will she of her self euer preuaile in the end and flourish like the palme-tree she may peraduenture by force for a tyme be troden downe but neuer by any meanes whatsoeuer can she be troden out The Catholike Deuine 16. None do more willinglie heare the commendation of Truth then we who say with S. Paul VVee can do nothing against truth but for truth And therfore do I willinglie ioyne with M. Attorney in this point of praisinge Truth Wee do mislike also no lesse then he all bumbasting and sophistication neither are we delighted with stinkinge salt-fish that had need of Orygon to giue it a good sauour Wee allow in like manner of his other latin phrases and do confesse that Truth herselfe may be troden downe for a tyme by force but neuer troden out But what is all this to the purpose we haue in hand of findinge out the Truth in this our controuersie Let vs suppose for the present that both partes do like well of her but what meanes is giuen heere or may be giuen to discouer where she lyeth In all other controuersies lightly our aduersaries are wont to remit vs only to scriptures for tryall which was an old tryck in like manner of their foresaid forernuners as the auncient Fathers testify for that scriptures being subiect to more cauillation many times both for the interpretation and sense then the controuersie it selfe gaue them commodity to make their contentions immortall 17. But the same Fathers vrging them with a shorter way asked them still Quid prius quid posterius What was first and what after for that heresie is nouelty and commeth in after the Catholike Truth first planted And for that euery hereticke pretendeth his heresie to be ancient and from the Apostles the said Fathers do vrge further that this Truth of our Religion must not only be eldest but must haue continued also from tyme to tyme at least with the greater part of Christians Quia proprium est hareticorum omnium saith old Tertullian pauca aduersus plâ—â—a posteriora aduersus priora defendere It is the property of all hereticks and their peculiar spirit to defend the lesser number against the greater and those things that are later against the more auncient Which agreeth with another saying of Tertullian Quod apud multos vnum inuenitur non est erratum sed traditum That which is found one and the self-same with many to witt the greater parte in the Christian Church is no error but commeth downe by tradition So hee But S. Augustine deliuereth another direction much conformable to this in sense though different in words Consider saith he what is KATH'HOLON Id est secundum totum non secundum partem According to the whole and not only to a part and this is the truth And another of his tyme saith Teneamus quod ab omnibus creditum est hoc enim verè Catholicum Let vs hold that which hath byn beleeued by all for this is truly Catholike and consequently Truth it self And another Father before them both Catholicum est quod vbique vnum That is Catholike vndoubtedly trew which euery where is one and the same And this both in tyme place and substance 18 These are the ancient Fathers directions now let vs apply them to our present question which is so much the easier to discusse for that albeit it comprehend some part of doctrine in controuersie concerninge the Right of temporall Princes to spirituall Iurisdiction yet is it principally and properly a question of fact to witt whether by the ancient common laws of England and practice of our Princes according to the same spiritual Iurisdiction they were exercised by them in former ages by force and vertue of their Imperiall crownes as Queene Elizabeth did or might do by the authority giuen her by an Act of Parlament in the first yeare of her raigne wherby she was made head of the Church and supreme gouernesse as well in all causes Ecclesiasticall as temporall In discussion wherof if we wil vse the directions of the forsaid Fathers for cleere and infallible tryall we shall easily find out where the Truth lyeth which is the but we ought to shoore at and not to contend in vayne for that our assertion quite contrary to that of M. Atourneys is That if we consider the whole ranke of our Christian English Kings from the very first that was conuerted to our Christian faith to witt King Ethelbert of Kent vnto the reigne of King Henry the eight for the space of more then nine hundered years and King Henry himself for the greater and best part of his reigne did all and euery one of them confesse acknowledg the spirituall power and Iurisdiction of the Sea of Rome and did neuer contradict the same in any one substantiall point either by word law or deed but did infinite wayes confirme the said authority ech one in their ages reignes And this is that KATH'HOLON or secundum totum which S. Augustine requireth and vbique vnam which the other Fathers do mention which is a Catholike proofe in a Catholike cause and M. Attorney must needs fly ad partem to a parte only to witt to two or three later Kings of aboue halfe a hundered that went before which is a schismaticall proofe as S. Augustine sheweth Contra partem Donati Against the parte of the heretick Donatus And before him Opratus Mileuitanus and diuers other Fathers who alwayes call Sectaries a Part For that they follow indeed but a part and Catholiks the whole and therof saith S. Augustine their name is deriued And thus much shall serue for our
English Catholiks at this day what reason haue they to sinne so damnably as to write against their owne consciences seeing that by following their consciences they might follow also their commodities Wâ—at new opinions haue they inuented of their owne or taken vpon them to follow inuented by others for which they should be drawne to write against the knowne truâ—hâ— that is to saie as all Fathers do expounde it the Catholike truth For that is knowne receiued and acknowledged and hath byn from time to time throughout Christendome wheras new opinions are not knowne truthes but presumed truthes by a few in some particuler place or countrey and for some certaine time past and not publiklie continued from the beginning 31. As for example in the present controuersie to pretermit all others English Catholiks saie that they approue noe other Ecclesiastical power than that which all the Kings of England from the first that was conuerted vnto King Henry the eight togeather with their Counsellours lawyers and Sages both spirituall and temporall haue allowed receiued practised and confirmed by their owne municipal lawes M Attorney on the other side holdeth the contrary and bringeth only for his direct proofe the constitutioâ—s of two or three late Princes Q. Elizabeth a woman K. Edward a child and some parte of King Henries raigne distracted from the rest and deuided also from himselfe in all other points of Relâ—gion besides Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction but for indirect proose he cyteth certaine peeces and parcells of Ordinances Lawes and Decrees of some former Catholike Princes which seeme to restraine or suspend in some particular cases the execution of the said Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction in matters not meerly spirituall but mixt with temporalities as to them it seemed and not denying therby any parte of the spirituall power it self as after shall be shewed 32. Now then wheras he alleadgeth three Princes Decrees against the Popes authoritie interrupted by a fourth for that Queene Marie annulled the two that went before her and ioyned fully with her auncient progenitors wee one the contrary side for these three interrupted doe produce neere threescore by descent without interruption and for threescore yeares more or lesse wherin they made these lawes wee alleadge more then three times three hundered and for a part or parcell of tâ—e Sages of our Land which in these later dayes vpon art feare or industrious induction were drawne to consent vnto these new lawes against the old with vtter mislike of the sar greateâ—t part wee â—ay forth the whole vniforme consent of all sortes beginning with the first very planting of Christian Religion in our countrey continued for more than nine hundrâ—d years togeather so as we alleadg both antiquitie prioritie vniuersalitie continuance and succession without interruption which are all the markes of Catholike verity and consequently when we write for defence of this in euery controuersie of our dayes how can the Attorney saie or pretend to imagine that we write against our consciences and the knowne truth 33. And as for the imaginarie causes of discontentment which he deuiseth either for that men haue not atteined vnto their ambitious and vniust desires or for that in the eye of the State their vices and wickednes haue deserued punishment and disgrace and therfore doe oppose themselues against the current of the present These speculations I saie cannot fal any way vpon English Catholiks not doe subsist of themselues Not the later for that they are knowne to be temperate men so will the countrey commonlie where they liue beare them wittnes and the experience of their singuler patience vnder the pressures of the late Queene doth manifestly testifie the same Not the first for that if conscience did not retaine them they might gaine more and more aduaunce their ambitious desires if they haue any by following the Current of the time with M. Attorney and others than by standing against it to suffer themselues to be ouerflowne therwith And it is a great presumption in all reason that he hath a good conscience who standeth thervnto with his losse that might run downe the hill with the current to his gaine and preferment For that this later is easie and vulgar and common to the worst men as well as to good the other is hard and rare and needeth grâ—at vertue and fortitude of mind wherof I may chaunce to haue occasion to speake more largely afterward at the end of this booke in a speciall chapter to M. Attorney himselfe when our principall controuersie shal be tryed shewing what vrgent forcible and peremptorie reasons Catholike men haue though with neuer so great losse temporall to stand for the defence of their consciences not to runne downe the current with him and others that swymme with full sayle therin And so much of this 34. Some other few pointes of litle importance doe remaine in this passage of M. Attorneys Preface which might be touched and examined as where he saith that the particular and approued custome of euery nation is the most vsuall binding and assured law and for more authoritie of this asseueration as also of whatsoeuer he saith besides or pretendeth to say out of our lawes in his ensuing Treatise he addeth that he hath byn a student therof for these 35. yeares but I could bring forth lawyers of no lesse standinge and study though perhaps with lesse gaine that would contradict him in both these points First that custome is not allwayes the most vsuall binding law either in conscience or otherwise with these would run all the ministers of Englaud in the case of Catholike and Protestant Religion wherin custome by their owne confession is against them And in the second point concerning the peeces parcelles heere alleadged out of our Common-lawes against the Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction as M. Attorney would haue it seeme these men would alleadge twenty for one not shredes or liberts of lawes but intyre lawes themselues authorizinge and confirminge with full vniformity and vniuersality of our English nations consente the said Iurisdiction from time to time and the vse and practise therof But of this afterward 35. Now to conclude with M. Attorney in this his Preface if his end and desire be as he saith that such as are desirous to se to know may be instructed and such as haue byn taught amisse may se and satisfie themselues with the truth and such as know and hold the truth may be comforted and confirmed I shall gladlie ioyne with him in this end and desire pâ—aying almightie God that himself also and many more with him may bee in the first two members for that in the third none can be but true Catholiks And this shall suffice for this place For as for the Latin sentence out of Macrobius that our ignorance in many things proceedeth of that we reade not diligently the work of ancient authors I haue touched in parte before and doe allow of the sense now againe
other especiallie in these points following which Catholike deuines and Canon-lawyers doe larglie handle But I shall breiflie touch the sunne onlie in this place so far is it may appertaine to better decision of this our controuersie Noting first by the way for the Reader his better aduertisement that these two Powers of Spirituall and Temporall Iurisdiction being different as hath been said and hauing so different ends and obiects and proceeding so differentlie from God by different means and manners and that they may be separated and remaine seuerally and alone in different subiects as they did for diuers ages togeather in the primitiue Church All this I saie being so it followeth that it is no good argument but rather a manifest fallacie to inferre the one of the other as to saie he hath spiritual Iurisdiction ouer me and therfore also temporall which followeth not and much lesse the contrarie he hath temporall Authoritie ouer any ergo spiritual also And least of all as M. Atorney argueth euery-where A Prince or Monarch hath supreame authoritie temporal ergo also spirituall for that the one may be without the other as comming downe from one origen by different means and to different ends as before hath been declared Now then let vs passe to the decisions aboue mencioned for due Subordination in these two Powers THE THIRD PART OF THIS CHAPTER Shewing how these two Povvers and Iurisdictions may stand well togeather in agreement peace and vnion 4. II. 33. The first affertion both of Deuines and Canonists is that notwithstanding the former Prerogatiues of Spirituall Power aboue Temporall yet when they are conioyned in one Common-wealth as they haue been in the Catholike Church for these thirteene hundred years at least since the Conuersion of Constantine the Emperour the Cleargie and Ecclesiasticall persons of euerie Realme as members of that Common-wealth are subiect vnto the Emperour King or other head of that Ciuill and politicke body or Common-wealth in al temporall laws and ordinances not contrary to Gods law nor the Cannons of holie Church and are punishable for the same though not in temporall courts but spirituall as after ward in the third assertion shall be declared As for example when the Ciuill magistrate appointeth things to be solde at such or such price that no man goe by night with armes or carry out cōmodities of the Realme without licence and the like cleargie men as Cittizens of the Common-wealth are subiect also vnto these laws which are made for direction of of the Common-wealth to peace aboundance and prosperitie and consequentlie are to be obserued also by Bishops Priests and Cleargie-men 34. And in this sense are to be vnderstood the words both of our Sauiour and his Apostles when they ordaine all obedience to be exhibited by all Christians to their temporall Princes without exception of anie yea though they were euill men or infidells AS namely where S. Paul saith Omnia anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit Let euery soule be subiect to higher powers which S. Peter expoundeth siuè Regi siuè Ducibus c. Whether it be to Kings Dukes and the like Vpon which place to S. Paul the holie Doctor S. Chrysostome inferreth that politicall and temporall laws are not abrogated by the ghospell but that both Priests and monkes are bound to obey the same in temporall affairs And Valentinian the good Christian Emperour in a certaine Epistle of his to the Bishops of Asia aboue 12. hundred years gone said◠that good Bishops doe obey not only the laws of God but of Kings likewise Which Pope Nicolas the first writing to Michaell the Emperour doth proue when he saith that Christian Emperours doe need Bishops for the attaining of euerlasting life But that Bishops doe need Kings and Emperours onlie to vse their laws for their direction in temporall affaires And finally the matter is cleer not onlie by the testimonie and practise of the primitiue Church say our Deuines but also by reason it selfe For that if any sorte of people should liue in a Common-wealth and not obserue the laws therof it would be a perturbation to the whole And for that these Ciuill laws albeit their immediate end be temporall good yet may the obseruation therof be referred also to a higher spirituall end by good men and therfore are all good subiects bound to obey them And this for the first point 35. The second is that in causes meere Ecclesiasticall and Spirituall which appertaine to Religion Faith Sacraments holie Orders and the like and are to be determined out of the ghospell Councells Canons and Doctors of the Church In all these affaires Catholike deuines holde that Ecclesiasticall persons are no way subiect to temporall Princes for the reasons before alleadged of preheminēcy of Spiritual Power aboue Temporal in these affaires In respect wherof the holie auncient Bishops did stand with Christian Emperours and auerre their Authoritie to be aboue the others as before out of S. Gregorie Nazianzen S. Ambrose S. Chrisostome and others you haue heard declared So as heere you se a mutuall Subordination of Preists to Princes in Ciuill and temporall matters and of Princes to Preists and Bishops in spirituall affaires which according to S. Gregorie Nazianzen his comparison before mencioned may thus be expressed that the soule in matters of this life though with some griefe and regreate of spirit in good men is bound to follow the direction and law of the body for health strength and other such corporall commodities and the body in matters of life euerlasting must be content to follow the soule and direction of spirit and so is bound to doe though with repugnance oftentimes of the flesh as in fasting praying pennance other such like exercise And wheresoeuer these two mutuall subordinations be wel obserued there the Common wealth goeth forward wel and prosperouslie and contrarywise where the said subordination is neglected or perturbed there all goeth out of order and ioynt 36. But now there remaineth a third point of further moderation between these two Powers which is accordinge to our deuines and Canon-lawyers That albeit Ecclesiastical men be subiect to the obseruation of temporall laws as before is said yet are as well their persons as their goods free and exempted from the temporall magistrate and his tribunalls euen in those causes also in so much that if Cleargie men doe offend against the laws of the Common-wealth they are to be iudged and condemned by Ecclesiasticall iudges in the Courts and tribunals of their prelats and afterward to be deliuered to secular power to inflict the decreed punishmēt vpon them which they shall be found worthie of Their goods also both Ecclesiasticall and temporall are exempted from all secular power and their impositions or exactions by auncient Decrees and Constitutions as well of the Church as of old Christian Emperours in honorem Cleri in honour of the Cleargy to vse the auncient word
especially in this place where our question is only of spirituall Iurisdiction in Ecclesiasticall causes which that it could not be in a woman in regarde of her sex all Catholique deuines doe proue by these reasons following 21. First by the disposition of the Canon-law which contayning the sense of Gods vniuersall Church from time to time both in the right and practise of this affayre of spirituall gouerment ought to be and is with wise learned Godly men of principall accompt credit and authority For that the said Canon-law is deduced from the decrees of Councells Synodes Popes auncient Fathers Doctors and Bishops and from the custome and practise of the said Church from time to time directed by Gods holy spirit according to his promise and receiued throughout all christendome from age to age though now contemned by certayne new maisters whose maistery standeth in this to scoffe at that which they vnderstand not or list not to follow be it neuer so good 22. This law then and iudgment of the Church is so far of euer hath been from graunting spirituall Iurisdiction to be in any Queene as in Capite by right of any temporall Crowne to be deriued from her to others as it doth not allow any woman to be capable of any spiritual power or Iurisdiction though it be but delegated giuen by commission substitution from another as appeareth by the textes of Canon-law cited heere in the margent And the princypall reason herof is that all spirituall power being of two sorts Ordinis Iurisdictionis of holy order Iurisdiction the femynine sex is capable of neither of them Not of the power of Order saith S. Thomas which belongeth to the administring of Sacraments for that a woman by her sex cannot administer them nor is capable of Preist-hood or sacred orders required therunto And in this both Caluin and Cluinists agree with vs though Luther at the beginning held that all Christians baptized might be preists and administer Sacraments aswell women as men yea children and diuells also if they vsed the wordes institution of Christ as in the places of this worke◠here quoted may be seene 23. The second part of Spirituall power appertayning to Iurisdiction either internall or external in fore conscientia or in sore contentioso that is to absolue or loose in the secret Trybunall of conscience or in the open Court of externall contention cannot fall vpon a woman for the infirmity and indecency of her sex saith the Canon-law and for many other absurdities that would ensue therof if a woman should be admitted to the actes of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction which are principally two Docere Iudicare saith the said law to teach and iudge wherof neither of them standeth well in a woman to exercise ouer men the same lawe noting that albeit Christ our Sauiour loued well Mary Magdalen and other holy women that followed him and serued him vnto his death yet is it neuer read that he committed any part of Iurisdiction in gouerning his Church vnto them no not vnto the blessed Virgin his mother though she were replenished with grace full of the holy Ghost And this of the Canō-law 24. For the Ciuill albeit little occasiō was giuen therin amongst the ancient heathen Romanes the chief Authors therof to talke of of this controuersy of Spirituall Iurisdiction their whole subiect being of temporall Ciuill affayres yet in a certayne Treatise De Regulis Iuris of the rules of that law they haue this direction Faeminas remotas esse ab officijs publicis ideo iudices esse non posse That women are to be remoued by the Ciuill law from all publique offices therfore cannot be Iudges And if in Ciuill matters by that law they could not be Iudges how much lesse can they be supreame Iudges in spirituall causes which are of a far higher dignitie and indecency for women to meddle therin All which better appeare by that which is to eusue out of the law both of Nature and Grace which are the groundes of these Ciuill and Canonicall Constitutions For as the Ciuill law followed the one so the Canon followeth the other or rather both for that both proceed from God and are his lawes 25. To consider then of the law of Nature which is common to all Nations we read in the booke Genesis that the order obserued by God in the creation of man and woman was this that first Adam and all other Creatures were made and placed in paradise and afterward Eua was created for man and out of man and to the liknes of man as man was created before to the likenes of God Out of which order of Creation S. Paul doth in diuers places gather the naturall subiection of woman vnto man especially in spirituall matters appertayning to God to be eternally established by this law of their creation 26. For when to Tymothie he had said Docere autem mulieres non permitto neque deminari in virum I doe not permitt women to teach nor to haue dominion ouer her husband he addeth presently for his reason these words For Adam was first created and then Eua And Adam was not seduced but the woman was seduced And the same Apostle writing to the Corinthians about a certayne precept and ordination of his that woman should be couered in the Church men not and men to haue their hayre cutt women not in signe of subiection and subordination the one to the other he saith I doe prayse you brethren for that you are mindfull of me in all things and doe obserue my precepts as I deliuered them vnto you I will haue you knowe that Christ is the head of euery man and man the head of the woman and God the head of Christ. And as euery man that prayeth or prophesieth with his head couered dishonoreth his head which is Christ so euery woman praying or prophesying with her head not couered dishonoureth her head which is man And the man ought not to couer his head for that he is the Image and glory of God but the woman is the glory of the man for man was not made of the woman but the woman out of man not was the man created for woman but the woman for man c. Ipsa natura docet vos Nature it self doth teach you c. 27. Now then out of these deductions from the law of Nature so much vrged as you see by S. Paul for subiection and subordination of women euen in little small points concerning Religion as about speaking teaching and veiling their heads in the Church it may be inferred how earnest the same Apostle would haue bene if the question had been propoūded about the highest poynt honour office of Religion which is to exercise the place of Christ by mediation betweene God and man and to be as it were high-priest and President ouer men
daies they can in Catholike countries vpoÌ„ this pretence of a greater good to ensue therby vnto the Church and Countrey where they are graunted and consequently if K. VVilliam in his dayes did make any such appropriatioÌ„s in this sense it is to be vnderstood that the same was first allowed by the Sea Apostolicke as before we haue shewed in the examples of Charters for buylding establishing of Churches monasteryes and other pious workes And the same may be gathered also out of the Ordinances made about the said appropriations afterward in the 15. yeare of K. Richard the second and 4. of K. Henry the fourth by Parlament wherin the Bishops did fit as cheife in these affaires 29. Collations also of benefices require spirituall power and iurisdiction in him that doth giue or confer the same though in this there may be diuers degrees which are declared 〈…〉 Canon-law And M. Attorney being so eminent in the common-law ought not alltogeather to haue omitted them For first wheras the word Benefice or Church with Cure or Parish for all these are vsed oftentimes for the same doth comprehend as well a Bishopricke as a lower benefice if M. Attorney will vnderstand it heere of the former that is to say that no man can appropriate or bestow a Bishoprick vpon any person but he that hath Ecclesiastical iurisdiction he must remember if before he knew it that three things doe concurre in making of a Bishop by diuine and Canon-law to wit Election Confirmation and Consecration as may be seen by the places therof heere quoted in the margent not to trouble the text therewith to vnskillfull Readers 30. And albeit the first to wit Election when it is iustly made doe giue right to the elected to pretend the second and third that is confirmation and consecration nor can they be denyed vnto him without iniury except vpon iust cause as the same law saith yet can he not vpon his only Election exercise any part of his office of a Bishop either in iurisdiction or order But when he hath the second parte which is confirmation and induction to the benefice which is properly called inuestiture then hath he iurisdiction vpon those people and may exercise the Acts therof by visiting punishing or the like but not the Acts of Order vntill he haue consecration also that is to say he cannot make Priests nor administer the sacrament of confirmation nor doe other such actions as are peculiar to Episcopall Order 31. Now for these three things the first which is election or nomination may be perfourmed by any Prince or lay-man that hath lawfull authority therevnto which diuers wayes he may haue as after shall be shewed either by Ius patronatus of the benefice or prerogatiue graunted him by the Church The second which is confirmation and giuing of iurisdiction must only proceed from him that is the fountaine of all spirituall iurisdiction vnder Christ which is the Bishop of Rome or some Metropolitan or Bishop vnder him that hath authority and commission from him The third which is consecration must be done according to the Canon-law by three Bishops at the least And by this also may wee vnderstand what is necessary for the appropriating or conferring of any lower Benefice with Cure to an ordinary Priest to wit the two first election or presentation which may be done by a secular man and confirmation or inuestiture which allwayes must come as hath byn said either from the Sea Apostolicke or some Bishop authorized vnder him for that it giueth spirituall power and iurisdiction ouer soules which no man can doe but he that hath it in himself no man can haue it but he that receaued it from those that had it immediatly from Christ to wit S. Peter the rest of the Apostles and their Successors Gouernours of the Church as before in the second Chapter of this Answere we haue declared 32. And yet further it is to be noted for more cleernes and distinction that the first of these three to wit Election is of foure distinct sortes in the Canon-law The one called election properly or choise by suffrages and voyces of such as haue to choose The second is termed Postulation when one is offred that is not altogeather capable of the benefice but hath need of dispensation The third is called presentation when he that is patron or hath the aduouson of any benefice presenteth one by right of that Ius patronatus the right of patronage The fourth is called nomination which hath diuers curious differences noted in the law ouer long heer to be discussed But this is sufficient for our purpose that all these foure wayes doe comprehend but only the first degree of appropriating a benefice to any incumbent And albeit originally they doe all foure appertaine to Ecclesiasticall power for that they concerne an Ecclesiasticall thinge yet for many ages haue they byn imparted also by authority and commissioÌ„ of the Sea Apostolicke or by right of patronage to secular lay-men both Princes and others I meane to choose postulate present and nominate fit persons both for Bishops and Pastors And this we see in vse now for many ages in all Catholike Countreys throughout Christendome especially concerning Bishopricks and greatest dignityes Ecclesiasticall But yet no Prince taketh that authority as descending from his Crowne but as by commission graunt or indult of the Sea Apostolicke which they hold to be the fountaine of all spirituall authority and iurisdiction 33. All which being well vnderstood it is easy to distinguish and therby euacuate the argument of M. Attorney in this place which is a plaine Sophisme and deceitfull Syllogisme hauing one sense in the Maior another in the minor For if in the maior proposition wherin he saith out of the Reporte of his law that no man can appropriate an ecclesiasticall benefice with Cure but he that hath spâ—rituall iurisdiction If he vnderstand I say the first degree only which is to choose postulate present or nominate then the said maior is false for that lay-men may doe it also by commission as before we haue said and then doe we graunt his minor proposition that K. VVilliam did or might so appropriate But if he vnderstand in the second or third degree of confirmation and consecration of Bishops then is the maior true the minor false And so M. Attorneys syllogisme euery way is found faulty and guylfull nor worthy of his place and credit 34. And yet will I add one thing more for conclusion of this matter which is that as diuers secular Princes in former ages and in ours also haue had the first degree of approprition as hath been declared to wit to nominate fit persons so haue diuerse pretended as well in our Countries as elswhere to haue in a certaine manner the second from the Sea Apostolicke that is to say to giue the inuestitures in Bishopricks Abbyes and other chiefe
of heresie being high treason against the allmighty but by the Archbishop and all the Clergy of that prouince and after abiured therevpon and after that newly conuicted and condemned by the Clergy of that prouince in their generall Councell of Conuocation But the Statute of 2. H. 4. cap. 15. doth giue the Bishop in his Diocesse power to condemne an hereticke and that before that Statute he could not be committed to the secular power to be burnt vntill he had once abiured and was againe relapsed to that or some other heresie Wherby it appeareth that the King by consent of Parlament directed the proceedings in the Ecclesiasticall Courte in case of heresie and other matters more spirituall The Pope cannot alter the lawes of England The Catholicke Deuine Why doth not M. Attorney set dovâ—ne those auncient laws Ecclesiasticall of this Realme Will he say that they were any other then the Common Canon laws of the Roman Church in those daies He cannot with any probability And as for the matter heere touched that no man could be conuicted of heresie but by the Archbishop and all the Clergie of that Prouince and after abiured and then newly conuicted and condemned againe by a generall Councell of Conuocation c In some points he hitteth right but in other not For when any new heresie is discouered it must be iudged and condemned by some such Synod or Councell as heer is mentioned if the head of the Church haue not condemned it before But when the heresie is condemned it was neuer necessary to call such Synods or Councell for conuicting of euery particular man that shall be accused of that heresie and much lesse was it needfull that there should be two seuerall conuictions the one before abiuration the other after except in such as were relapsed for what if the hereticke should stand stiffely to it vpon his first conuiction and would not abiure but defend his heresie did the anncient laws Ecclesiasticall of England thinke you forbid him in this case to be punished I thinke not 10. But M. Attorney hath a note in the margent wherat I cannot but maruaile for that he hearing in this place out of the old sense of our ancient lawes heresie to be held for high treason against God and that as he supposeth it must be twise conuicted which is only true in relapse saith in the margent This had a resemblance to an Attainder of treason wherin there must be first an indictment by one Iury and a conuiction by another But I deny this resemblance to be of any moment for the forme of proceeding though for the thing I graunt that heresie is truly treason against God but this double conuiction heer mentioned by two Iuries hath little or no similitude with the other of relapsed heresie where the party is first permitted to abiure his first fault and not punished except he offend the second time in the same Which yet I persuade my self M. Attorney will not allow in humane treasons against the Prince that he must twise iterate his fault before he can be punished and so the parity or similitude holdeth not 11. But now to the principall point where the Attorney saieth that the Statute of K. Henry the 4. doth giue the Bishop in his Diocesse power to condemne an hereticke and that before that Statute he could not be committed to the secular power to be punished vntill he had once abiured and was againe relapsed c. and that heerby it appeareth that the King directed Ecclesiasticall proceedings c. Diuerse errors are heere couched togeather and then if ignorance be the inseperable twynne of euery error as M. Attorney in his Preface holdeth you know what will ensue 12. First then it is presumed in this assertion that no hereticke could be put to death in old tyme except he were relapsed that is to say had once at least abiured his heresie and fallen vnto it againe which is false For that albeit such people were most of all to be punished for their periury and inconstancy yet other also that neuer abiured if they stood obstinate might by ancient laws as well Ciuill as Canonicall be punished by death as in the Ciuill is auerred by the particular laws and ordinations of Theodosius Valentinian Martian Iustinian and other Christian Emperours extant in the Code And in the Canon law in like manner is determined by diuers definitions there to be seen that incorrigible hereticks are to be deliuered ouer to the secular power to be punished by them whether they be relapsed or not relapsed though more the relapsed And all this was before the Statute of K. Henry the 4. which did nothing els but allow and confirme the vse and exercise of the said laws For so it appertained vnto him as King of the Realme to consider whether the exercise of these Ecclesiasticall laws haue any incoÌ„uenience against the State or no. 13. And moreouer where it is heer said that the Statute of K. Henry giueth the Bishop power in his Diocesse to condemne an hereticke as though before he had it not by Canon-law is another grosse error For that this fact of K. Henry was nothing els but an approbation of a more auncient decree made before by Pope Gregory the 9. extant in the Decretals of the Canon-law in these words Quoniam Episcoporum numerus c. For that the number of Bishops appointed by auncient Canons for the degradation of Clergy-men cannot alwayes so easily come togeather we graunt vnto you Archbishop of Rhemes that when any Priest or Clerke being within holy Orders is either to be giuen ouer to the secular Courte to be punished for heresie or perpetually to be walled vp you calling togeather the Abbots and other Prelates and religious persons and learned men of your Diocesse which you shall thinke good may alone degrade him in their presence you being his Bishop c. 14. This was the Decree of Pope Gregory aboue two hundred yeares before King Henryes Statute for giuing licence to euery Bishop within his Diocesse alone with the help of his learned counsell and other assistance heer mentioned to condemne degrade and deliuer ouer to secular power any obstinate hereticke relapsed or not relapsed though such as were not relapsed and acknowledged their faultes might be dealt withall more mildly as by walling or shutting them vp as heer is mentioned And that this Decree of Pope Gregory was an exception or priuiledged forme of proceeding from the auncient Canons that appointed a certaine precise number of Bishops to be called togeather for the deposition of Deacons Priests and Bishops appeareth by the words thereof that doe mention the said Canons which you may see in the body of the Canon-law cited out of the Councell of Carthage aboue twelue hundred years past So as M. Attorneys inference that heerby K. Henry tooke vpon him to direct the proceedings of the Ecclesiasticall Courte in
charge And in this point I will remit me to the iudgement and censure of the best most learned Deuines of all Christendome at this day either Protestants or Catholickes whether restitution of fame iustice or innocency violated by him be not in this case necessarily to be made Quia non dimittitur peccatum nisi restituatur ablatum 15. As for example if M. Attorney in presenting his booke to his Maiestie laying open the same did say Lo Syr heer is all this ranke of English laws to proue that the Kings of this land did and might from tyme to tyme take vpon them Supreme spirituall iurisdiction no lesse then Queen Elizabeth did by peculiar Act of Parlament in the first yeare of her raigne yf he vsed this or the like speach as I haue byn informed that he did and that now it be proued that no one of those laws nor al put togeather doe proue that Conclusion and if he affirmed moreouer that by the said auncient English-laws whosoeuer did not ascribe Supreme spirituall authority to Queen Elizabeth did deny the perfection of temporall Monarchy in her and consequently were guilty of treason or Laesae Maiestatis which no auncient English-law euer spake or meant but all the contrary 16. If in like manner he told his Maiestie as he did and made him beleiue that it was true that no person of what persuasion soeuer in religion did refuse at any tyme for the first eleuen yeares of the Queens raigne to goe to the Church and that then their motiue was for that they held her not for Queen If these suggestions I say assertions were then made and lest imprinted in the royall mind and memory of his maiestie now are proued to be far otherwise I am coÌ„tent as I said to remit my self to any learned Deuine whatsoeuer that knoweth what cases of Conscience doe meane to determine what M. Attorneys obligation of restitution is in this behalfe 17. Neither may he solace himself as I thinke he will not in this point thinking that these are but veniall sinnes for Purgatory and to be purged in the transitory fire if he omit these restitutions for that S. Augustine in many places expresly excepteth and excludeth the same and saith that sinnes of this quality committed against charity are for hell-fire and not for the transitory purging fire if they be not amended and satisfied for in this life and to that sense interpreteth he the place of S. Paul 1 Cor. 3. If any man buyld vpon the foundation which is Christ not gold and siluer but wood straw and chaffe his works shall burne c. And thus much of this first expostulation THE SECOND EXPOSTVLATION In the behalfe of all English Catholickes in generall §. II. 18. As the former expostulation was in the name of Recusant-Catholickes especially for that the charge most concerned them in particular so now am I to adioyne some few lines more in behoofe of all Catholickes in generall that prosesse or defend the said religion by word or pen either at home or abroade whome M. Attorney accuseth in his Preface not only of Error and of her inseparable twynn Ignorance to vse his phrase but of intollerable and miserable malice also if it were true as it is not to wit that they impugne the knowne truth against their owne consciences and this either vpon discontentment for not attaining their ambitious and vniust desires or for deserued punishments and disgraces iustly laid vpon them by the State for their vices and wickednes To which vniust vncharitable charge though I haue answered somewhat before in the Preface and first Chapter of this booke yet doe I remember to haue made promisse also in that place to say somewhat more in this for giuing satisfaction in that behalfe to all charitable indifferent people especially in this point that our standing out against the current of the present time to vse M. Attorneys phrase is not either of so grâ—sse ignorance and lacke of instruction as hee would haue men to beleiue by his often repetition therof and so I presume will in parte appeare by this our answere to his Booke or of ambitious desires frustrated which Catholicke English men of all other sortes of people can best bee content and haue best learned by theyr sufferings in these our daies to moderate laie aside so that iâ— other points their consciences were not racked galled and molested and finally much lesse of punishments and disgraces receiued from the Sate for their vices and wickednes in which Kind it may bee auerred I weene by good records that fewer haue been and are punished for those causes then of anie other sorte of men or religion whatsoeuer 19. Wherefore laying aside all passion and animositie of part-taking and sincerely to ioyne franke issue with M. Attorney in this point wee say and affirme out of the testimonie of a good conscience in the sight of him that seeth all hearts and cogitations that his accusations and charges are false in this behalfe and that our only staie and stopp from not running with him and others in this their prosperous Current of the present time is the barre of conscience only which if wee could remoue or hee for vs who would not bee glad to take parte of so faire and pleasing fortunes as hee and others enioy by that Current And wee might also euery man in his degree and ranke according to the merit qualitie talent and industrie of ech one of vs enioy our partes therof yf this obstacle of conscience were not or if the onlie feare and dread of allmightie God and his iudgment did not terrifie vs from breaking through the same by violence of will against the testimonie of our said consciences and iudgment 20. The same God also doth know how great a greife it hath been and is vnto vs in respect of the world that wee haue not been able to conforme our selues in these externall things concerning the profession of our religion vnto the iudgment tast and will of our temporall Prince and State being withholden and terrified from it by those two knowne threats of our Sauiour and his Apostle the one telling vs that if wee denie wee shall bee denied the other that our consciences must bee the sole wittnesses to condemne or deliuer vs at the last daie which consciences wee finding to repine and resist are forced to hearken vnto them now to the end they may stand for vs and not against vs at that day 21. And if the iudgment of auncient Christian writers and Fathers and namelie Eusebius in the life of our Constantine the Great that liued with him was good in commending so highly his Father CoÌ„staÌ„tius for that being yet a Pagan he more esteemed those Christians throughout his gouernment that professed freely their religion and refused to doe against the same at his commaundement then hee did the other that dissembled obaied