TO the end, that the prosecution, and issue of the parti­cular controuersie we haue in hand, about the Spiri­tuall authoritie of Q. Elizabeth, may be more cleere; it shall not be a misse perhapes, in this very beginning, to set downe breiflie, what Catholike Deuines, and other lear­ned men, doe write and holde of Power, and Iurisdiction in gene­rall, and of the origen, ofspring, author, diuision, and partes ther­of; wherin M. Attorney is wholie silent, vsing no explication, or distinction at all, and consequently giueth occasion therby to some confusion.

2. First then our Deuines affirme that almighty God is author of all lawfull Power whatsoeuer, God the author of all lavvful povver. both spirituall, and temporall according to that generall proposition of S. Paul, Non est potestas nisi à Deo. Rom. 13. There is no power but from God. For that, as it pleased his [Page 24] diuine maiestie, to imparte with man other sparkes of his ex­cellencyes, as wisdome, reason, knowledge, prouidence, and the like; so vouchsafed he also to make man partaker of his power, and authoritie not only to gouerne all other creatures of his in the worlde, but mankynde also, and this both in body and soule, temporall, and eternall things vnder him in this world, as his liestennant and substitute.

3. The differences which are betweene these two Powers, & Iurisdictions, Spirituall, and Temporall Ecclesiasticall, and Ciuill; are diuers and sundry, taken from the diuersitie of their ends & obiect; The diffe­rent ends & obiects, of spiritu­all, and temporall povver. The end of Spirituall Power being to direct vs, to euerla­sting saluation, both by instruction, discipline, and correction; and of the Temporall or Ciuill, by like meanes, and helps, to go­uerne well t [...]e Common-wealth, in peace, aboundance, order, iustice, and prosperitie. And accordinge to these ends, are also their obiects, matter, and meanes. As for example, the former hath for her obiect spirituall things belonginge to the soule, as matters of faith, Doctrine, Sacraments, and such other; and thy latter handleth the Ciuill affaires of the Realme, and Common-wealth, as they appertaine to the temporall good, and prosperi­tie thereof.

4. The ancient learned Father S. Gregorie Nazianzen in a cer­taine Oration of his, doth expresse, the nature, and conditions of these two Powers; Spirituall and Temporall. Ecclesiasticall, Spirituall & tēmporal povver, as spirit, and flesh in a man. and Ci­uill, by the similitude of spirit and flesh, soule, and sense; which he saith, may be considered, either as two distinct Common-wealths, seperated the one from the other; or conioyned togea­ther in one Common-wealth only. [...] An example of the former, wherin they are seperated, may be in Beasts, & Angells; the one hauing their Common-wealth of Sense onlie, without soule or spirit, and their end and obiects conforme thervnto, which are the nourishment, and preseruation of the body. And the other Common wealth of Angells, being of spirit only, without flesh or body; but in man are conioyned, both the one, and the other. And euen so in the Common wealth of the Gentiles, was onlie authoritie politicall, earthlie, and humane, giuen by God to go­uerne worldlie and humaine things, Temporal and spirituall au­thoritie separated in the Pri­ [...] [...]. but not spirituall for the soule; wheras contrarywise in the Primitiue Christian Church, for almost 300. yeare togeather, none or few Kings being yet conuerted, onlie spiritual authoritie was exercised by the Apostle [Page 25] and Christians Bishopps, their successours for gouerninge the Church in Ecclesiasticall affaires without temporall, accordinge to the saying of S. Paul in the Acts of the Apostles speaking to Bi­shops. Act. 20. Vos posuit Spiritus Sanctus Episcopos regere ecclesiam Dei. The ho­ly-ghost hath appointed you, that are Bishops to gouerne his Church.

5. And this Spirituall Iurisdiction in respect of the high end, and obiect therof, aboue the temporall, did the same Apostles by in­structiō of the same Holie Ghost, so highlie esteeme, as the same S. Paul writinge to the Corinthians, and reprehendinge them for going to law about temporall things, before the heathen magi­strate, said, 2. Cor. 6.4 that in secular matters, they should appoint for iudges, such as were contemptible in the Church, that is to say, men of meane account, which was spoken by him, not for that he contemned temporall Power, as the heretical Anabaptists out of this place would proue, Anabap­tists. (for so he should be contrarie to himselfe, who a litle before, as you haue heard, auowed, that all power is from God, Rom. 13. 1. Pet. 2. and in other places, that the King, and temporall magistrate, is to be honoured, and obeyed, as Gods minister, and the like) but onlie, he saith this in compari­son, the one of the other, and of their ends, and obiects, so diffe­rent in dignitie, & worthines, as you haue heard. And this con­tinued in the Primitiue Church, (to witt, Spirituall Iurisdiction, without Temporall) vntill Constantine the Great; and other Empe­rours and Kings after him, being conuerted to the Christian faith, entred into the said Church, retaininge their Temporall States, and Temporall Power, which before they had, but sub­mitting themselues in spirituall, and Ecclesiasticall matters, vn­to the spirituall gouernment and gouernours, which they found to haue been in the same Church before their conuersion.

6. Furthermore besides these differences, of the end, and ob­iects of these two Powers, the forsaid Deuines doe shew another no lesse considerable then the former, which is, that albeit, both of them be of God, and doe proceed from him; as the Author, & origen, as hath been said; yet far differentlie: for that Ecclesia­sticall authoritie, is immediatlie from God, and was giuen by Christ immediatlie to his Apostles, Act. 10. and Bishops, as before you haue heard, out of S. Paul, who addeth in the same place, that Christ gaue them this Spirituall Iurisdiction ouer that Church quam acqui fiuit sanguine suo, Spirituall iurisdictiō indepen­dent of Tēporall. which he had bought and purchased with his bloud, to make them and others, in respect of this dreadfull cir­cumstance, [Page 26] to esteeme and respect the more this Spirituall Iurisdi­ction ouer soules: which Iurisdiction Christ also himself, God and man, did exercise in person vpon earth, wholie seperated from the vse of all Temporall Iurisdiction, notwithstanding he was Lord of all, as the same Deuines out of the Ghospell doe proue. S [...]ew­ing therby and by the long continuance of his Church, without the said Temporall Authoritie, that Spirituall Iurisdiction is wholy independent therof, and vtterlie distinct by her owne nature.

7. And albeit Ciuill Power and Iurisdiction be of Gods institution also, Tempo [...]al povver not im­m [...]diat [...]ly but me­diately from God. and duelie to be honoured in his Church and Christian common wealth, as before wee haue shewed; yet doe they teach the same to be far otherwise deriued, and receiued from God, then is Spirituall Power, that is to saie, not immediatlie by Gods owne deliuerie therof, but mediatlie rather, to witt by medita­tion of the law of nature, and nations. For by the law of nature, God [...]ath ordeined that there should be politicall gouernment, for that otherwise no multitude could be preserued, which the law of nations assuming, hath transferred that gouernment vn­to one, or more, according to the particular formes therof, as Mo­narchie, Aristocracy or Democracy or mixt: wherin is to be noted, that the ordination of God by the law of nature, doth giue politicall Power vnto the multitude immediately, and by them mediately to one, or more, as hath been said. But Spirituall Power Christ gaue immediatly, and by himself, to the Apostles, and their Suc­cessors, by these words, [...] [...] Mat [...]. 18. whatsoeuer you shall bind vpon earth; the same s [...]all be bound in heauen. And whatsoeuer you shall loose one earth, shall be loo­sed in heauen. Wherby you se a generall large commission, graun­ted to them of binding, & loosing; Quaecunque, whatsoeuer, with­out exception. And the like to S. Peter, as head and chiefe, by spe­ciall power and commission of those words. Ioan [...]1. Pasce oues meas, Pasce agnos meos. Feed my sheep, feed my lambs, thryse repeated: signi­fying therby the Preheminence, [...]. and Primacy of his Pastorall Authoritie in Gods Church, as the auncient Fathers haue all­wayes vnderstood the same. For that to the office of Supreame feedinge, is required also all other authoritie necessarie to go­uerne, direct, commaund, restraine, and punish in like manner, when need requireth.

8. About which point, is to be obserued and considered atten­t [...]uelie (say Catholike Deuines, and most learned lawyers) that when God almightie giueth any office; he giueth also sufficient [Page 27] Power, and Authoritie, euery way to execute that office, as when he giueth the office of a King, or temporal Magistrate, for good of the Common-wealth, he giueth Authoritie therwith, not onlie to direct, command, and instruct; but to punish, and compell also, yea, and to extirpate, and cut of those (when need is) that are rebellions, or otherwise deserue that punish­ment. And the like is to be obserued in Spirituall Power, and Iu­risdiction, according to which the Ciuil law saith. Leg. 2 ff. de Iu [...]sd. [...] Iud. & l. vlt. ff. d [...]. cui mand. iuris­dict. Cui Iurisdictio data est, ea quoque concessa esse intelliguntur, sine quibus Iurisdictio expleri non potuit: To whosoeuer iurisdiction is giuen, to him also must we vnderstand to be graunted all those thinges, without which his Iurisdiction cannot be fulfilled. And the Canon law to the same effect. In cap pa­stora [...] in p [...]ip de offic. dele­gati. Iurisdictio, nullius videretur esse momenti, si coërcionem ali­quam non haberet: Iurisdiction would seeme to be of no moment, if it had not some power to compell. And finally it is a general rule giuen in the said Canon law; In c [...]p. prae­terea [...]od [...] tit. that when anie cause is committed to anie man, he is vnderstood to receiue also ful authoritie, in al matters be­longing to that cause.

9. Out of all which, is deduced, that for so much, as Christ our Sauiour, God, and Man, hauing purchased to him felfe, by the price of his owne blood, a most deerlie beloued Church, and committed the same as S. Paul saith to be gouerned by his A­postles, and Bishops their successours, vnto the worlds end; it must needs follow, that he hath indowed the same Church with sufficient spirituall Authoritie, both directiue, and coactiue, to that end, for gouerning our soules, no lesse than he hath done the temporal Cōmonwealth for affaires of the body. Nay much more, by how much greater the importance is of the one, than of the other, as before hath been said.

10. If you aske me yet more particularlie, where and how, by what commission, and to whom, Christ our Sauiour left this high Spiritual Power in his Church: VVhat is the spiri­tuall povver of the church & Pastors therof. what it is, and wherin it con­sisteth? I answere first to the last, that it consisteth (as often hath been said) in guiding our soules in this world, to euerlasting sal­uation in the next: Which thinge, for that principallie it depen­deth of this, that we auoide sinnes in this life; or if we committ them, that they be pardoned vs, or corrected by this Power; Christ our Sauiour, doth most aptlie giue and describe the same Power, by the words of binding, or loosing sinnes. And there­fore, in the foresaid place alleadged, out of S. Matthew his Ghos­pel, [Page 28] he giueth the said commission, as you haue heard. Math. 26. VVhat­soeuer you shal binde, or loose vpon earth, shal be bound or loosed in heauen. Wherby the Church of God, hath allwaies vnderstood, full au­thoritie of Iudicature, to haue been giuen to the Apostles, and their successors, to discerne, iudge, binde or loose in all things belonging to this end of directing soules.

11. Truth it is, that diuers learned deuines, are of opinion, that in these places, Christ did but promise to his Apostles to giue them this high iudiciall authoritie in his Church, when by his death, and resurrection, it should be founded. And that the actuall per­formance of this promise was made vnto them in the 20. if S. Iohns ghospell, where Christ said vnto them. Sicut misit me pater, & ego mitto vos. Ioan. 20. As my father sent me so I doe send you; and then presentlie breathing vpon then he addeth. Receiue the Holie-ghost: whose sinnes you shall forgiue, they are forgiuen vnto them, and whose you shal retaine, they are retained. Where we se, that Christ speaketh now in the present tense, they are forgiuen, and they are retained: and not in the future, as before in the place of S. Matthew his ghospell. And we must note that those words of our Sauiour ( As my father sent mee, so I doe send you.) are vnderstood by auncient Doctors, Se S. Cyril. l 12. in Ioan. [...]. 55. and S. Cyprian lib. de [...]nt. E [...]es [...]. & a [...]ist. 73 ad [...]. of Authoritie, as though he had said, that with the same power, & authoritie, that my father sent mee into this world, to gather, & gouerne my Church, I doe also send you; that is to saie, withall spirituall power, necessarie to your office, and charge, both on earth, and in heanen. And therfore he saith in S. Matthew his Ghospell: That whatsoeuer they shall binde, or loose vpon earth, (which are the Acts of high iudges) shall be loosed or bound in heauen.

12. And to S. Peter in like manner, as Cheif of the rest, the pro­mise of his Supreame, and singular power (besides the other, which out of the former general commission, he receiued with the rest of the Apostles) was made vnto him, first in S. Matthews ghospell, when Christ said, Thou art Peter, (which signifieth a stone, or rocke) and vpon this rock will I build my Church, and will giue vnto thee the keies of the Kingdome of heauen. Matth. 16. &c. Which he perfour­med afterward, in the 21. chapter of S. Iohn: after his resurrection, when asking him three times of his loue towards him, he as manie times gaue him cōmission of high-pastor ouer his flocke. Pasce oues meas, pasce agnos meos. &c.

13. This Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall Power then which Christ hath left for gouerning his Church, though it be to be exercised [Page 29] heere vpon earth, and by men; yet is it iustlie called by holie fa­thers, not humane Power, but diuine, and heauenlie, both for that, it was giuen immediatelie, and exercised also by Christ himself, that came from heauen, and for that it tendeth to heauen, and is approued in heauen; yea to vse the Phrase of S. Chrisostome, Chrysost. homil. 5. de verbis Esa. Vidi Domi­num. and other Fathers, directeth and commaundeth the verie Tribunall of heauen; which heauenlie Power on earth, S. Paul, as an Apostle extraor­dinary, hauing extraordinarilie also receiued, not by man, but by Iesus Christ as himself doth signifie, did so much glorie of, Galat. 1. as he wrote to the Corinthians. 1. Cor. 13. If I should glorie some what of our Power, which Christ hath giuen vs to edification, and not to destruction I would not blush at it. 2. Cor. 10. And a litle before in the same Chapter, he saith. Nam arma militiae nostrae non carnalia sunt, sed potentia Deo. &c. For the armour of our warrfare, are not carnall or wordlie armes, but are power from God. In promptu habentes, vlcisci omnem inobedientiam. &c. ha­uing speedy means to reuenge all inobedience. And yet further to the said Corinthians within two Chapters after. 2. Cor. 13. Quoniam si venero iterum, non parcam. If I come vnto you againe, I will not spare to punish. And a little after in the same place. S. Paules esteeme of the high povver gi­uen vnto him & to other A­postles & their Suc­cessours. Ideo absens scribo, vt non durius agam, secundum potestatem, quam Dominus dedit mihi. I doe write vnto you absent, to the end that when I shall come, and be pre­sent with you, I be not forced to deale more roughly according to the Power, which our Lord hath giuen me.

14. Beholde the dreadfull Spirituall Power, which S. Paul affir­meth to be giuen to him by Christ, as well to punish, as to in­struct and direct: and according to this Power, he writeth againe to the said Corinthians. Quid vultis? in virga veniam ad vos, an in chari­tate & spiritu mansuetudinis? what will you haue mee doe; shall I come vnto you in the power of the rodd, or in loue, and spirit of mildnes? As who would saie, choose which you will. And note that heer the Power of correction giuen to the Apostles, & their successours, is called the rodd in respect of strikinge, as before in the words of Christ, it was called the key of the kingdome of heauen, and the power, of binding, and loosing sinnes, in regard of the dreadfull shutting or opening heauen, or hell gates vnto vs. And accordinge to this power S. Paul afterward exercised iudgment, & gaue sentence in a certaine grieuous case of Incest among the said Corinthians in these words. 1. Cor. 5. Ego autem absens corpore, praesens autem spiritu iam iudicani, vt praesens, eum qui sic operatus est. I though absent in body yet present with you in spirit, haue gi­uen [Page 30] iudgment vpon him that hath committed this sinne, as though I were present in body. And the same Apostle writinge to his scholler Timothie doth tell of another sentence, 1. Tim. 1. and iudgment pronounced by him, vpon Hymenaeus and Alexander two seditions and hereticall men; quos tradidi Sathanae. (saith he) whome I haue deliuered ouer to Sathan: which is as much to saie, as I haue ex­communicated, & cut them of from the Church of God, wher­by they come to be no more in the protection of Christ, but in the power, and protection of Sathan.

15. And the like Spirituall Iudgment was exercised by S. Peter, vpon Simon Magus when he said vnto him, Diuers excomu­nications by the A­postles. Non est tibi pars, neque sors in ser­mone isto. Thou hast no parte nor participation with vs in this word of God which we preach. By which words of S. Peter, the 30. Canon of the Apostles doth affime, Act. 8. Simon Magus to haue bene excommunicated and cut of from the number of Christians and from all spirituall benefit belonging thervnto. Which (if we be­leue S. Augustine) was a more greiuous and dreadfull punishment, than if he had been sentenced, Aug. lib. 1. contra Ad­uer [...] & Proph. c. 10. to be burned vvith fire, drowned vvith vvater, or pearced through vvith a temporall sworde. In consideration wherof, holie S. Chrysostome cryed out in his time. Chrys [...]st hom. 4. ad Helr. & [...] fe [...]tur. 11. quaest. 3. cap. [...]1. Nemo contemnat vinculae Ecclesiastica, non enim homo est qui ligat, sed Christus qui nobis hant potestatem dedit. Oh let no man contemne the chaines, which ec­clesiasticall power laieth vpon him, (in bindinge, or loosinge his sinnes) for it is not man that bindeth, but Christ which hath gi­uen vnto vs (that are Gouernours of his Church) this power. And S. Augustine againe. Aug. ibid. Alligatur bomo amarius, & infaelicius Ecclesia cla­uibus, quam quibuslibet grauissimis, & durissimis ferreis, vel adamantini [...] nexibus. A man is bound more bitterlie, & miserably by the keyes of the Church, than by any most greiuous sharpe iron, or adamāt bounds. Wherof the holy Martyr and Bishop S. Cyprian gaue the reason, before them both, sayinge: Cypr. lib. 1. epist. 1. ad [...] Deut. 6. That in the old law, vvhich vvas Carnall, God gaue cōmaundement, that such as were rebellious to their Priests, and Iudges, should be slaine vvith the sword: Math. 16. But now in the lavv of Christ that is Spirituall, proude and disobedient men, are commaunded to be slaine eternallie vvith the spirituall svvord, vvhich is, their castinge out from the Church out of vvhich they cannot haue life.

16. This then is the Spirituall, and Ecclesiasticall dreadfull Power, which Christ hath planted in his Church, by his owne imme­diate commission for gouerninge the same, in the affaires of our soules, vnto the worlds end. And heere we may note also, that [Page 31] the same is double, or of two sortes: The one internall, concer­ning mans conscience onlie by loosinge or bindinge sinnes, by means of Sacraments. The other is external Iurisdiction, Tvvo points of Spirituall Iurisdictiō internall and exter­nall. in hea­ring, iudging, and determining causes in publicke affaires, that doe fall out in the Church, tending to the same end; and this distinction is founded in the words of Christ himself, as well for binding and loosing of sinnes in respect of our conscience, as also in that he addeth; Si ecclesiam non audierit, sit tibi tanquam Ethnicus, & Publicanus. Matth. 6. If he heare not the Church, let him be to thee, as a Heathen, or Publican; that is to say, (as holy Fathers expound) let him be excomunicated & cast out from the Church, and then fled and auoided, as one seperated, by the authoritie of the said Church, from all communion and fruite of Christian religion, as much as if he were an Infidell or Publican. Which meaning of our Sauiour, S. Paul well vnderstandinge, said of like men, 1. Cor. 5. Auferte malum ex vobisipsis. Take away and seperate the euill from among your selues: which words S. Augustine expoundinge, saith to be as much as if he had said. Aug lib. 2. retract. cap. 17. & l. de correct. & Gra. c. 15. Hominem malum, & pernicipsum à vo­bis seperate per excommunicationem; Doe you seperate from your selues an 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, Se [...] 3. in cap. Quaren de rebu [...] signi­fie. 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, Aristotle. (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, The eminency of Spirituall Povver a­boue 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? Greg. orat. Ad [...] t [...] ­mere p [...]r­ [...]ulso [...]. (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 [Page 33] 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, Chrys. lib. 3. de sacerdoti [...], Hom. 4. in cap. 6. Esai. 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. S. Chrysost. sentence of spiritu­all povver. 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. Ioan. 20. 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. Math. 28. 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. Chrys. ibid [...] In which respect, wee ought to reuerence, & feare Priests more, not only then Princes, and Kings; but honour them also [Page 34] more, then our owne parents, &c. All these are S. Chrysostomn wordes.

Chrysost. homil. 4 de versu [...]sa. Vidi Domi­num.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. Matth. 16. 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. Chrysost. vbi supra. hom. [...]. 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. Marke this nota­ble dis­course of S. Chryso­stome. ‘If you will see indeed the true difference between them, and how much the King is inferiour to a Priest; consider the manner of the Power deliuered to them both; and you shall see the Priests tribunall, much higher then that of the King, who hath receiued onlie the administration of earthly things.’ Nequè vltra potestatem hanc, quicquam habet pratereà au­thoritatis. ‘Neither hath he any authoritie, beyond this earthlie Power: But the Priests tribunall is placed in heauen, and hath au­thoritie to pronounce sentence in heauenlie affaires. And who affirmeth this?’ The King of heauen himself, who saith, vvhatsoe­uer you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heauen, and vvhatsoeuer you shal loose, shall bee loosed. Matth. 18. ‘Heer you see heauen, to take principall au­thority of iudging from earth, for that the Iudge sitteth on earth, and our Lord followeth his feruant: so as whatsoeuer the said seruant shall iudge heere beneath, that will his maister allow in heauen.’ So S. Chrysostome.

24. And consider heere (good Reader) that this holie Father and Doctor, wrote all this in Constantinople, where the Emperour was present, and many Courtyers togeather with the Empresse [Page 35] herself, auerted from him for his seueritie of discipline, and ready to note and take aduauntage against any thinge that he should say. A vveigh­ty consi­deration. And yet was this doctrine neuer obiected against him, as in­iurious to the Emperour, or to his Emperiall crowne: notwith­standing (as you see) he speaketh plainlie, both about the Subor­dination of temporall and spirituall Povver, the one to the other; as also that the Emperour had the one, and not the other. And if the same Father should preach this doctrine at Paules Crosse in these our daies, he would be hissed out, and be called into que­stion of treason by the tenor of M. Attorneyes booke; so far are our tymes differēt from these. But God & his truth are alwayes one.

25. And to this very same effect might I alleadg heere the say­ings, and doings of diuers other auncient Fathers and Bishops, Anno 116. (for all were of one spirit, opinion, and faith in this behalfe) but it would bee ouerlonge; yet S. Ambrose I cannot omitt, Diuers ex­amples of S. Ambrose who in two or three occasiōs with the Christian Emperours of his time, did expresse most manifestly, the iudgement of the Catholike Church in those daies. The first wherof was with Valentinian the the younger, who being induced by the Empresse Iustina to com­maund S. Ambrose Bishop of Millaine to dispute with AuxentiuS the Arrian Bishop, and other of his Sect, before the Emperour, and his Counsellours, and whole courte in his pallace, he refused the same, and gaue his reasons to the said Emperour in a seuerall booke which beginneth thus. Libellus Ambrosij. [...]. 32. Clementissimo Imperatori & Beatissimo Augusto Valentiniario, Ambrosius Episcopus, &c. and then he setteth downe how the Tribune Dalmatius with a publike Notarie did cite him in the Emperours name, to come to that conference, or disputation, and what he answered vnto him, which was in these words. ‘I answered (saith he) that which your Father of glorious memorie ( Vaelentinian the elder) not only answered in speach vpon like occasion, but confirmed also by his lawes, that in causes belonging to faith, Priests only should iudge of Priests:’ Yea further also that if a Bishop should bee called in question for his manners, this iudgment likewise should appertaine vnto Bi­shops: Episcopal authoritie greater then Im­periall in matters of faith. And who then of vs, doe answere more peruerslie? wee, that would haue you like your Father, or they that would haue you vnlike him, &c. Quando audisti, Clementissime Imperator, laicos in causa fidei de Episcopo iudicasse. ‘When haue you euer heard, most Cle­ment Emperour, that lay men did iudge Bishops in matters of faith. Certè si vel scripturaerum seriem diuinarum, vel vetera tempora re­tractemus, [Page 36] quis est qui abnuat in causa fidei, (in causa, inquam, fidei) Epis­copos solere de Imperatoribus Christianis, non Imperatores de Episcopis indi­care.’ ‘Truly if we will consider, either the whole course of diuine scriptures, or the vse of auncient times, no man can deny, but that in matrers of faith (I say in matters of faith) Bishops were wont to iudge of Christian Emperours, and not Emperours of Bishops.’ Eris, Deo sauente etiam senectutis maturitate prouectior, & tunc de hoc censebis qualis ille Episcopus sit, qui laicu ius sacerdotale substernit, Pa­ter nunc, vir maturioris aeui dicebat, Non est meum iudicare inter Episcopos; Tua nunc dicet Clementia; Ego debeo iudicare? You shall be, by Gods fa­uour, by the maturitie of old age (you being now in your youth) better informed, and then you will be able to iudge better of this point, what manner of Bishop he is to be accounted, that subie­cteth the right of Priestdome to laie men, your Father being a man of riper yeares, said, It belongeth not to me to be Iudge a­mongst Bishops; And will your Clemencie say now, that you ought to be their Iudge? so S. Ambrose in this occasion.

Anno 387.27. The next yeare after with the same Valentinian, who by instigation of the said Arrians, fauoured by Iustina the Empresse, decreed, that a Church in Millaine should be giuen vnto them, S. Ambrose resistinge the same, Lib. [...]. epi­stola [...]ū epi­stola. 13. had a notable combat, which be­sides other Authors, himself setteth downe at large in a certaine epistle to his sister Marcellina, where shewing the solemne denun­tiation of the Emperours Decree vnto him, with his answere, he saith. Conuenerunt me primò viri comites Consistoriani, &c. First, there came vnto me certaine Earles of the Court to commaund me to deliuer the Church, &c. S. Ambrose his com­bat about deliuering vp a Church to the Empe­rour. I answered that which belongeth to a man of my order, that the Church could not be giuen vp by a Priest, &c. ‘ Ego mansi in munere, missam faecere caepi, dum [...]ffero, raptum cognout, &c. I continued on in my Priestlie function, I began to say masse, and whilest I was offering, I vnderstood that one of the aduersarie parte, was taken by the people, I began bitterlie to weep, and beseech God in my oblation; that he would help, that no bloud might be shed in this cause of the Church; but that my bloud only, if it were his holie will, might bee shed not only for saftie of the people, but also for the wicked sorte themselues. &c. The Emperours Earles and Tribunes vrged me againe, that I should deliuer the Church sayinge. Imperatorem iure suo vti, eò quòd in potestate eius essent omnia. Respondi quae diuina sunt, Imperatoriae po­potestaeti non esse subiectae, &c. They said that the Emperour did but [Page 37] vse this owne right, and due authoritie, for that all was in his power. I answered that those things that were diuine, & belōged to God, are not subiect to the Emperours power.’ So S. Ambrose for defence of this his particular Church against the Emperours commaundement, which notwithstanding was but a materiall Church as you see; and yet he said the cause vvas diuine and not sub­iect to the Emperors power; but to a higher authoritie of the clergie.

27. ‘And yet further when the said Tribunes, sent by the Em­perour required to haue certaine Church-vessels deliuered vnto them. S. Ambrose writeth thus. Ambr. ibid. Cum esset propositum, vt Ecclesiae vasa iam traderenpius hoc responsi reddidi, &c. when it was proposed vnto me by the Emperours officers, that we should presently deliuer vp the vessels of the Church ( behold Church-vessels of price in those daies) I gaue this answere: that if anie things of mine were de­maunded, either land, or house, or gold, or syluer, or anie other things that lay in my power to giue, I would willinglie offer the same; but from the Church of God I could take nothing away, nor deliuer that which I had receiued to be kept. S. Ambros. conflict about Church vessells.’ And that in this point I did respect the health principally of the Emperours soule: for that it was not expedient for me to deliuer the said Vessels, nor for him to receiue them: And that he should take in good parte, the speach of a free Priest. ‘If the Emperour did loue himself, he should doe well to cease from offeringe iniurie to Christ. So he. And what would he haue said (thinke you) or answered, if he had been in our English Parliament, when K. Henry the 8. both demaunded, and obtained not onlie the Ves­sels of many hundred Churches, but the lands, liuings, houses, and Churches also themselues which he pulled downe, & equal­led with the ground, or from sacred, translated them to pro­phane vses.’

28. But let vs heare the same Doctor and Father, Ambros. concione de basilis non tradendit harot [...]i [...], aut genteli­bus. handling this subiect more cleerly in another place, to witt, in a publike ser­mon to the people, wherin he instructeth them of the true na­ture, and subordination of these two Powers, Spirituall, and Tempo­rall, Ecclesiasticall and Imperiall. ‘ Soluimus (saith he) quae sunt Caesaris, Caesari; & quae sunt Dei, Deo. &c. we doe pay vnto Caesar those things, Tom. 5. that belong to Caesar, and we giue vnto God, the things that ap­pertaine vnto him. Is it Caesars tribute that is demaunded? we de­ny it not. Is it the Church of God? It ought not to be giuen vp to Caesar. For that the Temple of God, cannot be the right of Caesar, [Page 38] which we speake to the Emperours honour, for what is more honorable vnto him, then that he being an Emperour, be called a child of the Church? The Em­perour a childe of the church and not aboue the Church. which when it is said, it is spoken with­out sinne, and to his grace, for that a good Emperour is within the Church, but not aboue the Church, and he seeketh rather help of the Church, than refuseth the same; this as we speake in humilitie, so with constancie wee freelie affirme it.’ ‘And albeit some doe heere threaten vs fire, sword, and exile, yet we being Christs seruaunts haue learned not to feare such things, and him that feareth not, no threats can daunt.’

29. And finallie not to be longer in this matter, the same good Bishop some few years after, hauing occasion to reprehend, and correct by his Ecclesiasticall Power and Iurisdiction, the famous Emperour Theodosius the Great, S. Ambrose his corre­ction of Theodosius the Em­perour. he failed not to vse the same, and therby shewed the eminency of his iurisdiction aboue the other. The occasion was, for that the said good Emperour had suffered himself, by the incitation of certaine of his courte about him, to permit the sackage, or spoile of the Citty of Thessolonica, Ambros. epist. 18. for cer­taine howers to his souldiars, in reuenge or chastisement of a certaine disorder committed by them, but the said sackage and massacre proceedinge further vpon furie of souldiars, then the Emperours meaninge was, and many thousands of innocent people slaine. S. Ambrose wrote first an earnest epistle to the said Emperour, laying before him, the grieuousnes of his sinne, and exhortinge him to doe pennance; Anno 390. Wherin he; when the Empe­rour performed not so much as hee desired, proceeded further. And when the Emperour came one day to the Church, the foresaid Bishop went forth, and met him without the Church dore, forbidding him to enter therin, as vnworthy the commu­nion of Christian faithfull people, vntill he had done sufficient pennance for his sinne, which the good Emperour meeklie obaied; as he did afterward also, when he comminge to the Church to be reconciled, and hauing made his offring, he remai­ned within the chauncell amonge the Priests. But S. Ambrose sending vnto him his Deacon, signified, that, that place was only for Priests and Clergie men, and therfore he should departe forth into the body of the Church amonst lay men, adding this sen­tence. Purpurae Imperatores, non sacerdotes efficit. Purple robes make Emperours, but not Priests. Which admonition (saith Theodorete) the most faithfull Emperour tooke in good parte, and said, that [Page 39] he did not stay vvithin the chauncell, vpon any presumption, but for that he had learned that custome in Constantinople: Theodoret. lib. 5. hist. cap. 17. and therefore gaue him thankes also, for this wholsome admonition. So he.

30 But all which is seene what eminency of Spirituall Authoritie, was ascribed by these holy Fathers and Doctors, to Bishops Priests, and Clergie-men, aboue Kings and Emperours; and I might adde much more out of them to the same effect for con­futation of M. Attorneys Paradox, but that I am to reserue diuers things, to the fourth chapter of this booke, where I must answere his principall argument; That vvhosoeuer ascribeth not all supreame power to Princes, as well in Ecclesiasticall as Temporall matters, maketh them no complete monarches: But these holy Fathers of the auncient pri­mitiue Church were of another iudgement, as you see.

31. Wherfore this being so, that in the Church, & Common-wealth of Christ, though Kings and Emperours be Supreame in temporall Authoritie, and both honour, obedience, and tri­bute due vnto them in their degree, Matth. 21. Rom. 13. 1. Pet. 4. as Christ and his Apostles doe teach: yet, that in spirituall, and Ecclesiasticall matters, con­cerning the soule, Priests and Bishops are more eminent in Au­thoritie. Hence it was deduced, that for combininge these two Powers, and Authoritie togeather in peace and vnion, and due sub­ordination in the Christian Common wealth, Hovv these tvvo povvers are to be comby­ned. the one hauinge need of the other (for that neither the temporall partie can saue their soules, without the spirituall function; neither the Eccle­siasticall State be defended without the temporal sword) hence (I say), it proceeded that presentlie after the entrance of Con­stantine the Emperour into the Church, wherby Temporall, & Spirituall Power were to be conioyned togeather, and exercised in one body (though in different tribunalls, & distinct affaires) seuerall laws, and ordinances were set downe, and agreed vpon, how they should liue togeather in peace, and concord, and duti­full respect the one to the other: See of the distinctiō of these 2. names the Canons of the Apo­stles. Can. 12. 13. 15. & Tertul. l. de Mo [...]g. and Conn. Nuo [...]. 1. Can. 1. [...]. [...]. 1. 17. 18. 19. &c. the Ecclesiasticall partie, by an auncient name, euen from the Apostles time downwards, being called the Cleargie, which signifieth the Lott, or peculiar in heritance of God himself; and the temporall partie named the Laity, which importeth as much as the rest of the people, besides the Cleargie.

32. These two parties I say, are directed by most anncient laws both diuine, and humane how to liue togeather in vnion, & due subordination, giuing to each power, and gouernment, that which is due to each other, especiallie in these points following, [Page 40] 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, Note. 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 [Page 41] 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: The obe­dience of Cleargie men, due to the Ci­uill magi­strates. 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. Rom. 2. Omnia anima potestatibus sublimioribus subdita sit. Let euery soule be subiect to higher powers, which S. Peter expoundeth, 1. Pet. 2. 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, Chrysost. comment. in Rom. 13. 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, Valent apud Theod. l. 14. hist. cap. 7. 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, Nicol. 1. epist. ad Mica [...]lem. Imper. 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 [Page 42] 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, Cleargie men in spirituall matters cannot be vnder the laytie. 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; Ha [...] clergie mens persons & good [...] are [...]mp [...]d [...] povver. 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 [Page 43] 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, See Concil. La [...]eran. sub Alex. 3. part l. c. 10. [...] s [...]b [...]. no [...]. 3. c 46. Item cap. Quanqu [...] de Censi­bus, & cap. Clericis, & cap. Nonnulli, &c. in 6. to vse the auncient word. And as for Ecclesiasticall Constitutions to this effect made as well by generall Councells as particular Popes, euen downe from the primitiue Church, sufficient testimonies, or rather a­boundant are extant, and may be seen collected togeather by Gratian, and others in the sixt Booke of Decretalls, especially out of two Lateran Generall Councells and manie other parti­cular decrees, Laws, and Ordinances Ecclesiasticall, tending to this purpose. And many ages before this, the same exemptions be recorded, especially for the immunitie of their per­sons from secular power, and tribunals, as in the Councel of Calcedon, and 9. Canon: See the Councell of To [...]t. also [...]on. 3. can. 13. & Matis [...]on, can. 8. The Councel Agathense, and 32. Canon, and the third Councel of Carthage, wherin S. Augustine himself was present, and diuerse other Councels.

37. And there doe not want many learned deuines, who are of opinion, that this exemption of Ecclesiastical persons, and their goods, is not onlie Iuris humani Ecclesiastici, by positiue and hu­mane Ecclesiasticall laws: Exemptiō of Clergie men en Iure diu [...]. But Iuris diuini also; that is to saie, by right of diuine law in a certaine sorte, which is thus to bee vn­derstood; That albeit God hath not expreslie commaunded it in the written law of Scripture, yet is it conforme both to the law of nature, which is also Gods law; as likewise it may be de­duced, & inferred from exāples recorded in Scripture, vnder the old Testamēt, that God would haue this honour of exemption, and immunitie in temporall things to be exhibited to his Clear­gy. Gen. 47. And therfore we doe reade in Genesis that Ioseph the Patriarch in the law of Nature, did exempt the Priests of the Egyptians, from all temporall tributes. 1. Esd. 7. And in the bookes of Esdras we read, that Artaxerxes King of the Persians, out of the same law of Nature, did make free also the Priests of Israell. And that the very Gentiles did the same to their Priests out of the same law, and in­stinct of Nature, is euident out of Aristotle in his second booke Oeconomicorum. And of Caesar in his sixt booke De bello Gallico. And out of Plutarch in the life of Camillus, and other Pagan wri­ters. And in the written law we read, as well in Exodus, Exod. 30. as in the booke of Numbers, 1. Num. 5. That God did often affirme, that he would haue the order of Leuites to be his, and to be freelie giuen, and made subiect onlie to Aaron their high Priest, and to paye no tribute. Out of which is infer­red, [Page 44] that if God in the law of Nature, and of Moyses, would haue Priests, and Leuites to be free in their persons, & goods, from tem­porall exactions; much more may it be presumed, that he will haue it so in the new Law of the Ghospel, S. Leo serm. 8. de p [...]ss. Dor [...]n [...]. where to vse the words of S. Leo. Et Ordo clarior Leuitarum, & dignit as amplior seniorum, & sa­cratior vnctio sacerdotum, &c. The order of Leuites is more eminent, and the dignitie of elders more excellent, and the annointing of Priests more sacred and holy among Christians, then they were among the Iewes. And thus much of Ecclesiasticall Laws, for exemption of the Cleargie.

Exemptiō of the Cleargie by Impe­riall [...]avves.38. But now vpon the very self same Considerations, tempo­rall Princes also comming to be Christians, did voluntarily con­sume, & establish by their politicall laws, the same exemptions, as first of all, our first Christian Emperour Constantine the Greate, as soone as he came to receiue that Grace, and light of the ghos­pell, Cons [...]antin [...] ad Auill apud Euses. [...]. 10. [...]ist. [...]p. 7 cod. Ib [...]d. [...]. 16. [...]t. & [...]. 26. & [...]od. [...] l. San [...]imu [...] [...] Eccl. Hi [...]ram. did vpon his singular deuotion, make al the Ecclesiastical persons, immunes à communibus Reipublicae oneribus. Free from al pu­blicke charges, and burthens of the Common-wealth, which laye men did vnder goe; as by his epistle sett downe by Eusebius is cleere. And the same example did other Christian Emperours follow after him, as may appeere by diuers laws, as well in the Code of Theedosius, as also of Iustinian. And the same doth S. Hi [...] ­rome signifie to haue been in vse in his daies, and S. Ambrose also in his, so much as appertaineth to the freedome of their persons; though for their lands, and possessions, he saith. [...] Agri Ecclesiae sol­n [...]nt tributum. That the lands of the Church did paie a certaine tribute at that tyme; which may be vnderstood in the respect of the Emperours publicke necessitie through warrs; vpon which or like due cōsiderations, Clergie men haue all waies been ready and ought to be, to contribute willinglie, and gratefully accor­ding to their abilities, towards the publike charges of their tem­porall Princes affaires; notwithstanding their exemptions by law, and iustice.

39. Particular Kings and Princes in like manner vpon their deuotions, and to the imitation of their foresaid good Empe­rours, haue by their particular lawes in euery Christian countrey confirmed the franquises, freedomes, and immunities of the Church and Cleargie: and perhaps in no one nation mor [...] throughout Christendome, than in our English Realme, whe­ther we consider times either before the Conquest, or after: And [Page 45] before the Conquest it may be seen by the collectiō of old English lawes of euery Kingdome, sett forth by K. Edgar, and K. Edward the Confessor; Exēptions confirmed by parti­culer Kings and Princes. and after the Conquest by the Co [...]querour himse [...], as after shall be shewed; And after him againe by the very first Sta­tutes, that are extant in Print, namelie, from the great Charter made by K. Henry the third in the 9. yeare of his Raigne, Magna Charta ar­ti [...]d. Cleri. and the articles of the Cleargie established in the 9. yeare, of K. Edward the second in the fauour of the said Cleargie; the said great Charter being reiterated and ratified, in most of the insuing Parlaments for authorizing, and establishinge the foresaid exemptions, and priuiledges of Clergie-men, which were from time to time by al our Kings confirmed (as afterward shall more largely and per­ticularly be proued) vntill the later times of K. Henry the eight.

40. Now then, matters standing thus, and the Church in eue­ry countrey throughout Christendome being in possession of these liberties, freedomes, and immunities, for their persons, and goods, and acknowledging for their supreame superiour in Spiri­tuall Power, and Iurisdiction, the Bishop of Rome, and their temporall Kings in Ciuill, and temporall matters: there grew in processe of time, many difficulties, and entanglements, about the execu­tion, and subordination of these two Iurisdictions Temporall, and Spiritual the one to th'other, sometimes by abuse, passiō, or indis­cretiō of some vnder-officers of these two supreame powers, & tribunals within our land; ech side seeking to incroach vpon the other, or at leastwise not to be content with their owne limits, For as between the spirit, and flesh in this life, (to vse againe S. Gregorie Nazianzens similitude) there is some continuall strife, and struglinge; The com­petence betvvene temporall and eccle­siasticall Magistra­tes in some ex­ternall things. so hath it been allwayes in a certaine sorte be­tween these two powers of Spirituall and Temporall Iurisdiction, or at leastwise in the exercise therof, especially as riches, & tem­poralityes grew more in the Clergie; and therby gaue matter of enuy, and emulation; and lesse deuotion to the laytie towards them; in so much, that at length for auoidinge worse inconue­niences, limitations, conditions, concordates, and transactions, were made and brought into vse, how far the execution of ech parties authoritie should be extēded in certaine inferiour things, that might seeme either mixt, or doubtful, as by many examples, both in France, Spaine, Sicily, Naples, Flaunders, England, and other countreys may be declared: Whervpon notwithstanding daylie wee see sundry difficulties, sutes, and controuersies to arise.

[Page 46] Hovv re­straints came in of exercising some points of the Popes auncient authority.41. Some States also, and Catholike Kingdomes, haue made certaine Decrees, or Restraints at sometimes de facto (whether rightfully or noe, I will not now dispute) for preuentinge, and remedyinge some pretended inconueniences, in the exercise of certaine points of the Popes Authority within their said Realmes, Some other also pretend to haue done the same with indult, consent, transaction, or conuiuency of the Pope himself. But none of all these (which is the mayne pointe) did euer deny, or call in question the said Authoritie it self, as after shall appeare; but rather did many wayes acknowledge, and confesse the same; and of this kind of Restrictions, or Interpretations, are the most part of these few peeces of Decrees, and Statutes, Customes, Laws, or Ordinances, that M. Attorney doth alleadge, which make no­thing at all for the proofe of his mayne question, that our English Kings before and after the Conquest, did take vpon themselues supreame Spi­rituall Authoritie, as deriued from the Right of their Crowne: nay rather they make fully against him, for that the very manner of making these restraintes, first by way of supplication to the Popes them­selues (as after shall be shewed) and then by domesticall ordi­nances, doth well declare what opinion the said Princes had of that power to be in the said Popes, & not in themselues. And this is so much as needeth to be said in this place for a generall light to the whole matter. Now shall we passe ouer, to treat of the par­ticular occasion, wherevpon M. Attorney thought good, to ground his whole discourse of Q. Elizabethes Ecclesiasticall Authoritie, as presently shall be declared.

MAister Attorney for preamble or entrance, to his designed Argument against recusant Catholicks (for that to be his purpose, the end of his booke declareth) he setteth down a pittifull case of one Robert Caudery Clerke, depriued of his bene­fice, or parsonage of North-looffennam in Ruland-shire, by the Bishop of London, as high Commissioner, with consent of some of his as­sociates, authorized in Causes Ecclesiastical by a Commission of the late Queene, graunted by her letters Patents the nynth day of December, in the 26. yeare of her Raigne. I doe call the case pit­tifull, not so much in respect of the poore man depriued and vexed, as after shall appeare, but much more of the publike par­tiality appearing to haue been vsed against him, by sway of the tyme, and by such men, as occupied the place of Iustice. You shall heare how the Case passed, and iudge therof your selues.

2. This Caudery in the Terme of S. Hilary (saith M. Attorney) in the 33. yeare of the raigne of Q. Elizabeth brought an action of trespasse, Caudery his Case. R [...]tulo. 304. Reportes. sol. 1. against one George Atton, for breaking of his cloase in North-looffennam aforesaide, vpon the 7. day of August in the 31. yeare of the said Q. ‘But Atton pleaded not guyltie; and the Iu­rie found, that the said Cauderie, had been depriued of that be­nefice, [Page 48] [...] [Page 49] [...] [Page 50] [...] [Page 51] [...] [Page 52] [...] [Page 53] [...] [Page 54] [...] [Page 55] [...] [Page 56] [...] [Page 57] [...] [Page 58] [...] [Page 59] [...] [Page 60] [...] [Page 61] [...] [Page 62] [...] [Page 63] [...] [Page 64] [...] [Page 65] [...] [...] [Page 68] [...] [Page 69] [...] [Page 70] [...] [Page 71] [...] [Page 72] [...] [Page 73] [...] [Page 74] [...] [Page 75] [...] [Page 76] [...] [Page 77] [...] [Page 80] [...] [Page 81] [...] [Page 82] [...] [Page 83] [...] [Page 84] [...] [Page 85] [...] [...] [Page 88] [...] [Page 89] [...] [Page 90] [...] [Page 91] [...] [Page 92] [...] [Page 93] [...] [Page 48] (in parte wherof the Cloase was broken) by a sentence of the said Bishop of London, Cum assensu A. B. C. D. &c. College­rum suorum. For that he had preached against the Booke of Com­mon-praier, and refused to celebrate diuine seruice according to the same.’

The groūd of the con­trouersie.3. Heerupon it came in question, how and by what Authori­tie, the said Bishop of London had giuen his sentence, either right­fully or wrongfully. And first it was alleadged by Cauderyes Coū ­sell, that the Authoritie of commission giuen to him (to witt to the forenamed Bishop of London) and certaine others his Col­leags, Statute for spiri­tuall au­thoritie Anno 1. Elizabethae. by the foresaid Q. Elizabeths letters Patents, was only founded vpon a Statute, made in the first yeare of her Raigne, by which it was enacted, ‘That such Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall, as by anie spirituall, or Ecclesiasticall power, hath heertofore been, or may lawfully be exercised, for the visitation of the Ec­clesiasticall estate, and persons, and for the reformation, order, and correction of the same, and of all manner of errours, here­sies, schismes, abuses, offences, contempts, and enormities with­in this Realme, should for euer be vnited and annexed to the Imperiall Crowne of this Realme. And that her highnes, her heyrs, and Successors should haue full power, and Authoritie, The Spiri­tuall au­thoritie giuen to Q. Eliza­beth by Statute. by vertue of that Act, by letters Patents vnder the great Seale of England, to assigne, nominate, and authorize such persons (being natural borne subiects) as her Highnes, her heirs, or Succes­sours should thinke meet, to exercise and execute, vnder her highnes, her heyrs, and successours, all, and all manner of Iuris­diction, Priuiledges, and Preheminences, in anie wise, touching or concerning anie spirituall, or Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction, within this Realme of England, and Ireland. And to visite, re­forme, redresse, order, correct, and amend all such errours, here­sies, schismes, abuses, offenses, contempts, and enormities whatsoeuer, which by anie manner of spirituall, or Ecclesiasti­call Power, Authoritie, or Iurisdiction, can or may lawfully be reformed, ordered, corrected, and amended. &c.’

4. This was the ground, wherby both the Queene was indued as you see, with all manner of Ecclesiasticall power, and Iurisdi­ction, and had authoritie also giuen her, to bestow the same v­pon others: without anie other condition heere expressed, but onlie that they should be naturall borne subiects. So as if it had pleased her Maiestie, to haue bestowed a Commission, vpon so many [Page 49] Ladies of the Courte, to visit some parte of the Cleargie, or Laitie; to redresse their errours, heresies, abuses, or other enor­mities; or insteed of the Bishops named by her, she had thought good to nominate their wiues for high commissioners ouer them, to reforme, order, redresse, correct, or amend abuses, I see not by the words of the Statute, why it had not been law­full; For so much, as there is no exception of sex therin. And as well might the Queene haue made women her substitutes in this point, as this Statute gaue all the power in capite to her self being a woman. I would aske moreouer, that wheras K. Henry the eight, when he was made head of the Church appointed for his Vicar-Generall in Spiritualibus the Lord Cromwell, Certaine cases of inconue­niences vpon Q. Elizabethes supreme spirituall authority. that was a meere lay man, and caused him to sit aboue all the Bishops in Synods and Councels, about Ecclesiasticall affaires: why his daughter Q. Elizabeth that had the same authoritie that he had, might not haue appointed my Lady Cromwell, or anie such other Ladie of that sex, wherof there were diuerse that professed good skill in diuinitie (at the beginning of her Reigne) for her Vicaresse-Generall, in Ecclesiasticall affaires. Nay why the feminne sex might not haue conspired togeather to haue put downe men for a time, and to haue taken the gouernment of the Church vpon themselues: making themselues the Clear­gie, as their husbands were the laity. And truly albeit this may seeme ridiculous; yet I see not, what in earnest can be answered heervnto, but onlie the noueltie, and indecency of the thinge. For, as for the lawfulnes, according to Luthers doctrine, Lutherus. lib. de abro­ganda mis­sa. Et [...] cap. Ba [...]il. that hol­deth all people, to be Priests, and capable of all spirituall functi­ons, both men and women, I se no great difficultie. And as for the said inconueniences of noueltie and indecency, there might seeme to be as great, or greater in giuing Ecclesiasticall primacy to a woman, as to make another woman her substitute, or Vica­resse; But we see the first done, and therfore the second in like manner might haue been done, if her Maiestie had pleased.

5. But leauing this we shall returne to our Case of Caudery the Clerke, who whether he were a Catholike Priest, or Puritan-minister, that was depriued for refusing to follow the Communi­on-booke, is vncertaine; but whatsoeuer he was, it seemeth that his cause was much ouer borne by the Current of the time, in fa­uour of the Bishop of London that depriued him, which I not­withstanding would not trouble my self, nor my Reader to re­peate [Page 50] in this place, but that I am forced therunto in regarde, that vpon his Plea, & Resolution of the temporall Iudges theron, ri­seth out the occasion of our particular Controuersie, about Q. Elizabeths Spirituall Iurisdiction.

The first argument of Caudery.6. First then the said Cauderyes Counsell pleaded for him, that wheras in the Statute concerning the foresaid Booke of Com­mon praier (which they said was made with much moderation, and equitie) it was appointed and ordained, that if any did of­fend against the same, he should for the first time loose onlie the profit of his Ecclesiasticall liuings for one yeare, and suffer im­prisonment for six moneths: And for the second offence, be de­priued ipso facto: And for the third, be imprisoned during his life; And that of euery of these offences, in order, the delinquent should be seuerally conuicted, & condemned iudiciallie; which they said, that the Bishop of London had not obserued, but had de­priued Caudery for the first offence; and this vpon no notorious euidence of the fact, or by his owne confession as the statute ordeyned: but onlie by default of his appearance. So as they al­leadged two great, and important defects, to haue been com­mitted by him; The reply against Caudery. Reportes fo [...]. 5. and consequentlie his fact to be voide. And yet not withstanding saith M. Attorney; it was resolued by the whole Courte, that the Bishops sentence was not to be impeached, for either of them; First, for that it was not said in the Queens Commission, that you shall proceed thus, and not other wise, or in no other manner or forme. Secon­dlie for that the Ecclesiasticall and temporall laws, haue seueral proceedings, and seuerall ends. And thirdlie, for that there is a certaine prouiso in the said Act, that all Archbishops and Bishops, and euery of their Chancellours, Commissaryes, Archdeacons, and other Ordinaries, hauing pe­culiar Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction; may inquire, and punish within their said Iurisdictions, by admonition, excommunication, sequestration, or depriua­tion. &c.

Three shiftes re­ [...]u [...]ed.7. But by M. Attorneyes leaue, none of these three shifts can sa­tisfie the reason of an indifferent man in this Case: 1 For first the Commission giuen to punish by the Queene, was stricti Iuris, and consequētly not to bee inlarged further, than the expresse words doe beare; especially seeing that it is in preiudice of others. 2 And the second euasion seemeth preiudicial to the Iudges them­selues, confessing therby in effect, that albeit by their Com­mon-law, which pretendeth to follow Reason, the Bishops pro­ceeding was not warrant-able: yet it might be so, by the Eccle­siasticall [Page 51] law, (that belike proceedeth without Reason) though how, or why, nothing is here sett downe, but onlie this, Reporte [...] fol. 6. that the temporall law is to inflict punishment vpon the body, lands, and goods; the other being spiritual, is pro salute anima; the one to punish the outward man; the other to reforme the inward: as though, this externall act of depriuing Caudery from his benefice, did not punish him out­wardlie, as well, as reforme him inwardlie: and yet doth M. At­torney, (as though he had said somewhat to the purpose) quote his 12. Isa [...]. [...]. 22. & 10. Edvv. 4. &c. booke for it, and theron maketh this conclusion. Then (saith he) both these distinct, and seuerall Iurisdictions, consist and stand vvell togea­ther, and doe ioyne in this, to haue the vvhole man inwardly, and outwardlie reformed. Which conclusion supposinge, as you see, all Ecclesia­sticall Iurisdiction, to be inward onlie, is denied by vs flattlie; for that we hold Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction to be both internall, and externall, in fore conscientia, & in fore contentioso: as in the prece­dent Chapter we haue shewed. And secondlie we saie, that this seemeth nothinge to the purpose, for releeuinge the Bishop of London his Act, in depriuinge Caudery beyond the forme of his Commission.

8. The third euasion also, Shifte. vnder colour of the forenamed pro­uiso, is to little purpose; for that it alloweth only ordinary Ec­clesiasticall Iudges within their proper Iurisdictions, to proceed by admonition, excommunication, sequestration, or depriuation; which was not so dangerous a matter, for so much as the partie aggreiued might allwaies appeale from them to higher courts for remedy, if he were aggreiued. But this authoritie of the high commissio­ners, being extraordinarie and supreame, hath no Appellation from it, and consequentlie it was more reason and needfull, that their Authoritie should be limited with some bounds; and that they should not exceed, the strict words of their commission, to the end, that the aggreiued might appeale, at leastwise to the faid Commission & clauses therof, when they found themselues iniured. And the argumēt vsed heere by M. Attorney, à fortiore, M. Attor­neys Ar­gument à fortiore of no force. hath no force at all; to witt, that for so much, as these inferiour Eccle­siasticall ordinarie Iudges had power to proceed, without re­straint of anie particular forme; much more, high Commissio­ners had that Authoritie giuen them; For that (saith he) Cui licet quod in maius est, non debet quod minus est non licere. Hee that may doe the greater, may not be denyed the lesser. This I say, is to simple to be brought forth, by so graue a Sage of the law, as M. Attorney is [Page 52] held to be. First, for that this Maximè agreeth not properly to out case: For albeit no man deny, but that high Commissioners could doe more and greater things, than these ordinarie Com­missaries; yet, for this it self, they needed more to be bound, and tyed to a prescript manner of iustifiable proceeding, as hath been said; least they might iniure, and oppresse men at their pleasure without remedy. And secondlie is is not allwayes true, that he which can doe the greater, can doe the lesse, when it is in diffe­rent kind of Iurisdictions, ordinary, or extraordinarie: as in our case it falleth out.

An exam­ple against M. Attor­ney.9. For if (for examples sake) a Visitour be sent to a Colledge to visit the same for certaine defects, with particular order, how to proceed, and punish the said offences; though in many things he haue greater Authoritie, by his extraordinarie commission, then is the ordinarie of the President and fellows, and other or­dinarie officers: yet cannot hee either tacitè or à fortiore by vertue of this Maximè take vnto him, all the power, and manner of pro­ceeding which the said President and fellowes haue, by their or­dinarie Authoritie of Statutes, in admitting and reiecting schol­lers, giuing, and changing offices, setting, and letting of lands, and the like: except it be epresslie in his Commission. Noe, not in punishments neither, concerning those defects, which he hath to visit may he exceed his prescript order; they being things, as I say, stricti Iuris, which both law, reason, and conscience doe for­bid to be enlarged beyond his commission. And so doth M. Attor­ney seeme to graunt that it should be so in any iudgement giuen by Commissioners, of Oyer and Terminer, or other Commissio­ners, or Iudges of the common law; insinuating belike, that the Canon, or Ecclesiasticall law now vsed in England, is abritrary, & to be applied, as they please that sit in Authoritie.

The secōd argument of Caude­ryes case.10. And this seemeth greatlie to be confirmed, by another Re­solution of his Iudges made to another argument of Caudery, wherein his Counsell vrged for him, that according to the com­mission, sentence should haue been giuen against him, by three at least of the Commissioners ioyntlie concurring, which was not obserued; but giuen onlie by the Bishop, though he preten­deth, that it was also by the consent of some of his Colleage. Strange resolutiō. It was resolued (saith M. Attorney) by the whole Courte that the sentence giuen by the Bishop, with Consent of his Colleags, was such, as the Iudges of the Common Law, ought to allow to be giuen according to the Ecclesiasticall [Page 53] laws. Consider, I praie you, this Resolution, that they, out of the Common-law, doe allow it to be well done, according to the Ecclesiasticall laws: but heare the reason, for it importeth much, to se therby the manner of proceeding: Reportes fol. 7. for seeing (saith hee) that their authori­tie is to proceed, and giue sentence in Ecclesiasticall causes, according to the Ecclesiasticall law, and they haue giuen a sentence in a cause Ecclesiasticall, vpon their proceedings; by sorce of that law, the Iudges of the common law, ought to giue faith, and credit to their sentence, and to allow it to be done according to the Ecclesiasticall law. For Cuilibet in sua arte perito est cre­dendum. VVee must beleeue euery skillfull man in his arte &c. So hee. And is not this a strange Reason of a iudiciall sentence thinke you? that for so much, as the Bishop of London had depriued Caudery by pretence of an Ecclesiasticall law, his fact must be allowed by vertue of this maxime: That euery skillfull man is to be credited in his art. And was not the poore plainteife well holpen vp, who after foure years trauell and cost, as it appeereth, wherin he followed the suite at the Common-law against the said Bishop, he was now answered, That euerie skillfull man, must be beleeued in his art, without further inquiring.

11. And yet M. Attorney heere auerreth, that it is a common, receiued opinion of all bookes, and citeth diuerse 11. Hen. 7. 9. 14. Hen. 6. 14. &c. booke-cases for the same. And albeit I haue not by me the bookes themselues nor doe professe my self skillfull therin; yet must I needs as­cribe so much equitie, prudence, & reason, vnto the Common law as to presume that it will not admit this Maxime without some distinction or reasonable restriction. As for example; that this Peritus or skillfull man, that must be so beleeued, be emi­nent in his art, and be not interessed, nor passionate in the Case proposed; For other-wise absurde effects would insue: as for example. If a surgeon hyred to cure a wound, should be suspe­cted to haue intoxicated the same, and that the Plainteife should haue this answere, that euery skillfull man is to be beleiued in his arte, it were iniustice: For that he might, either of ignorance, haue erred therin, if he be not knowne to be very well learned in his arte; or of malice, if he might be presumed to hope, or expect gaine by the wounded mans death. An exam­ple vvith the appli­cation therof. And howsoeuer it be, the matter in right, & conscience were not to be shuffled ouer with such an answere of the appointed Iudges, but the Case were to be examined, other surgeons to be consulted, them ans skill, ho­nestie, and reputation to be inquired of, and other such diligence [Page 54] to be vsed, as might content, and satisfie the afflicted partie; wherof none was done, as it seemeth, in the behalfe of Caudery.

12. For wheras in this case the Bishop of London was interessed in his honour, to defend that which he had done; Caudery shifted of [...]ightly. & not perhaps the greatest Canoinst, or Ciuilian Lawyer in the world for his skill; and this poore plainteife, as I saie, hauinge followed the Common Lawyers to iudge the case for so many years; it see­meth a sleight shifting off, for the Iudges to tell him now, in fa­uour of the said Bishop and his Colleags, Cuilibet in sua arte perito, est credendum. We must beleeue euery man skilfull in his science; which is as much as if they had said; he hath depriued you, and he is skilfull in depriuing, and therfore you must thinke that he hath done it very well. And this is all the remedy you are like to haue.

31. And by this the reader may also perceiue how much is to be ascribed to M. Attorneyes words before recited, when he saith of those Iudges of the Common law, from whome he citeth some certaine little peeces of Interpretations, Ordinances, Sta­tutes, or decrees, in proofe (as he would haue it seeme) of the Queens Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction; persuading vs, that they could not bee daunted vvith any feare, moued by any affection, nor corrupted vvith any reward: which as I beleiue in some, so the experience of these our daies, and of these our fornamed Iudges and moderne Sages, may teach vs to suspect the same in others also of those auncien­ter times, who may be presumed to haue followed the current of their dayes, and to haue been no lesse ready, to run after their Princes humours, than we see many lawyers and Deuines also in our dayes to doe. But now to the last argument of Caudery, & finall Resolution against him.

14. After that he had declared the three defects before mentio­ned of the Bishop of Londons sentence against him. First that he was depriued vpon the first accusation. Secondlie that hee was conuicted by no Iury, wittnesses, or confession, but vpon not appearance. Thirdlie that the sentence was not giuen by three, or more Commissioners ioyntlie. All which are expresse clauses of their commission sleightly euacuated, The third argument of Caude­ry & hovv it vvas an­svvered. as before you haue heard: he came to the fourth point, which is, that the Statute wherby this supreame Ecclesiastcall power was giuen to the Queene herself by the Parlament, hath a clause; that such as should be named for commissioners must be naturally borne subiects. Which his coun­sell [Page 55] said did not appeere by the special verdict of the Iury, to haue been obserued, & consequentlie that the sentence was not good and auailable in law. Heervnto (saith M. Attorney) a threefold ans­were vvas giuen, and resolued by the vvhole courte. Reportes fol. 7. First, that they which were Commissioners, and had places of iudicature, should be inten­ded to be subiects borne, and not aliens, &c. Quia stabitur praesumptioni, do­nec probetur in contrarium. The common presumption must bee fol­lowed, vntill the contrarie be proued. Heer you see how much this answere weigheth. It seemeth to me that this matter might easilie in foure years haue been verefied, if the Iudges had listed, whether these Commissioners were aliens, or borne Subiects, & not to reiect the Plainteife now with this shaddow, of common presumption, that they might be presumed or supposed to be natu­rally borne.

15. Secondlie, saith M. Attorney the Iurors haue found that the Queene, by her said letters Patents, did authorize them secundum formam Statuti praedicti: according to the forme of the said Statute that authorized her; and therfore it doth by a necessarie conse­quence amount to as much, as if they had found, that they had been subiects borne. Marke this kinde of reaso­ning. For if they were not subiects borne (saith he) they could not be so authorized secundum formam Statuti praedicti. This is the second answere somewhat weaker (as to mee it seemeth) than the former, of presumption and common intendement. For heere, insteed of prouing that the Commissioners were borne sub­iects, and consequentlie well anthorized; he subsumeth, and inferreth the contrary, to witt, that they were authorized by the Queene, secundum formam Statuti praedicti. ergo they were borne subiects: as who would saie the Queen, or those that counsel­led her, could not be deceiued or euill informed, or negligent in this point, about the obseruing of that clause: and yet this is all, that was answered by the Court to this matter. Which them­selues (belike) considering, fell to deuise a third answere, more absurde and paradoxicall, than all the rest, which haue giuen the ground or argument of this Sage fable or Comedy, which M. Attorney hath heere partlie reported, and partlie exhibited vnto vs, in this his booke, to the laughter of such as reade it, and doe consider the exorbitant vanitie therof. I shall set it downe in very few words.

16. When the forenamed Sages did perceiue, that the former two answers to Cauderyes fourth exception, against the Queens [Page 56] commission, The last ansvvere of the [...]dg [...]e [...]vherin [...] case [...] Caudery [...]s [...]uded. made out vpon vertue of the statute in the first yeare of her raigne, that gaue her all kinde of Spirituall power, and Iurisdiction did not satisfie, they fell vpon this third, that albeit the said Queene, had not obserued the clauses, and con­ditions specified in the said Statute for authorizing others in the like Iurisdiction: yet had she authority otherwise, to make out such a Commission, in that she was Queene, and this by the vertue of her Crowne, according to the auncient Common laws of England. [...]p [...]rtes [...]. [...].. You shall heare M. Attorneys owne words in this resolution. ‘This Act (saith he) of the first yere of the late Queene ( concerning Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction) was not an act intro­ductorie of a new law, but declaratorie of the olde: which ap­peereth as well by the Title of the said Act, Anno. 1. E [...]izabeth [...]. videlicet. An Act, resto­ring to the Crowne the auncient Iurisdiction ouer the State Ecclesiasticall & spirituall: &c. As also by the body of the Act in diuerse partes therof, for that this Act doth not annex anie Iurisdiction to the Crowne, but that which in truth was, or of right ought to be, by the auncient laws of the Realme, parcell of the Kings Iuris­diction, and vnited to his Imperiall Crowne, &c. so as, if the said Act of the first yeare of the late Queene, had neuer been made, it was resolued by all the Iudges, that the King or Queene of England for the time being, may make such an Ecclesiasticall commission, by the auncient prerogatiue, or law of England. Thus hee.’

17. And trulie I am sorye, that he affirmeth this strange Para­dox to haue been the resolution of all the Iudges there present. But to the end that all may not seeme to haue entred into this solemne folly, it were good that their particular names were knowne, that resolued the same; For certainlie, it will bee the most notorious iest, vnto forraine lawyers of all sortes, & vnto other graue, & learned men when it shall come abroad in other countryes (as shortelie it will, for that M. Attorney hath caused it also to be published in Latin) The ab­surdity & str [...]nge [...]a [...]l [...]y of this reso­ [...]u [...]ion. which hath happened in many years, if not ages; & much laughter it will cause, & will celebrate, solemnlie M. Attorneys name that is the Reporter therof. For this matter toucheth not onlie England and English-laws, but all o­ther Countryes besides, who haue runne ioyntlie with England for many hundered years, in the self same conformity of Catho­licke Religiou, and of temporall lawes confirming the same in ech Countrey, and particularlie in this point of the Popes Spiri­tuall [Page 57] Authoritie vniuersally receiued: So as, for so much as their kingdomes being entyre Empires, and Monarchies, (as ours is) they must needs be said, to haue had this Ecclesiasticall Iurisdi­ction also in the highest degree, included in their Kinglie right, as parcell of their Imperiall Crowne; wherof insueth, that either they, and their learned Counselours, Lawyers, and Sages, did not see or know the same, which had been great Ignorance: or esteemed it not, which had been great negligence; or (which is most li­kely) that our lawyers now will be thought by them ridiculous, to set forth such a strange Paradox to the worlde, contrary to that which so many thousand Sages of former tymes both in ge­nerall Councells and otherwise, haue resolued, decreed, and determined, vpon better deliberation, and more searche, both of diuinity, history, and lawe, than these temporall Iudges could doe vpon the suddaine in Cauderyes case, howsoeuer M. Attorney doth magnifye the same; whoe as I heare by some that will seeme to reporte it from his owne mouth, he that is the Reporter, is in great parte also the author, or at least wise affecteth to be thought so, as of a new witty inuention; hauing often, and vnto many promised to proue it, and now hath begun to sett vpon it. We shall see with what euent.

THE SECOND PART OF THIS CHAPTER, Vvith a more cleere explication of the Question. §. I.

18. But before wee come to treate of proofes, we must consi­der of one circumstance of the matter more, which is of no small importance, for iudging of the whole, and this is the circuite of words, and multitude of darke and dazeling phrases, which the foresaid Statute vseth, in deliuering, and setting downe the Ec­clesiasticall power & Iurisdiction, Reportes fol. 1. giuen to Q. Elizabeth, to wit; that all such Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall, as by anie spirituall, or Ecclesiasticall power, hath heertofore been, or may lawfully be exercised, for the visitation of the Ecclesiasticall estate and persons, and for their reformation, order, and [Page 58] correction of the same; and of all manner of errors, heresies &c. is given to the Queene, with full power and authoritie, to assigne, nominate, and au­thorize others also, to exercise and execute vnder her highnes all, and all manner of Iurisdiction, priuiledges, and preheminences, in anie wise touching or concerning, anie spirituall or Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction, and to visit, re­forme, redresse, order, correct, and amend, &c.

19. Which words may seem by their often naming of visitation and visiting, that they meant onlie to make the Queene a visitrix ouer the Cleargie, which importeth much limitation of supreme power, and yet on the other side, they giue her all Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall, that euer hath been heertofore, or may be exer­cised by anie Ecclesiasticall authoritie or person; and that both she, and her substitutes, haue all, and all manner of Iurisdiction, priuiledges, and preheminences concerning spirituall affaires, as you haue heard. VVhy so great cir­cuit of vvordes is vsed in the Sta­tute of Su­premacy. So as, on the one side, they seeme to restraine and limitt, not calling her head of the Church, as before in the stile of K. Henrie, and K. Edward was accustomed, but rather a supreme Visitrix, as by these words appeereth. And on the otherside they giuing her, all, and all manner of Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall that by anie power, or person Ecclesiasticall hath euer heertofore been vsed, or may be v­sed (including no doubt therin both the Pope, and all other Bishops, or Archbishops, that euer haue exercised Iurisdiction in England) they make her spirituall head of the Church in the highest degree; giuing her the thinge, without the name, and dazeling the eyes of the ordinarie Reader, with these multi­tude of words subtilie couched togeather. And why so thinke yon? I shall breefly disclose the mysterie of this matter.

20. When K. Henry the eight, had taken the Title of Supreame head of the Church vpon him; as also the gouernours of K. Edward had giuen the same vnto him, being but yet a child of 9. years old: the Protestants of other Countries, which were glad to se England, brake more and more from the Pope, whome they feared; yet not willing insteed therof to put themselues wholie vnder temporall Princes, but rather to rest at their owne liber­tie, of chosing congregations and presbyteryes, to gouerne; be­gan to mislike with this English stile of Supreame head, See Mar­ [...]mus [...] epist. ad [...]ector. Brand and Caluin in c. [...]. Amos. & epist. ad Myc [...]s. and Viretus d [...]alog 3. de a [...]s damonibus. &c. as well the Lutheranes, as appeereth by diuers of their writings, as also the Zuinglians; and much more afterward the Caluinists, where­upon Iohn Caluin their head and founder, in his Commentary v­pon Amos the Prophet inueigheth bitterlie against the said [Page 59] Title, and authoritie of supreame head taken first by King Henry, and saith it was Tyrannicall, and impious. And the same asser­tion he held during his life, as after by occasion, more particu­larlie shall be shewed. And the whole body of Caluinists, through­out other Countryes, are of the same opinion and faith, though in England, they be vpon this point deuided, into Protestants and Puritans, as all men know.

21. This then being the State of thinges, when Q. Elizabeth began her Raigne, those that were neerest about her, and most preuailed in Counsell, inclining to haue a change in Religion, that therby also other changes of dignities, offices, and liuings might insue, and desiring to reduce all to the new Queens dis­position; but yet finding great difficultie and resistance in many of the Caluinists, to giue the accustomed Title of headship, in res­pect of Iohn Caluins reprobation therof: A nevv deuise to giue the headship to Q. Eli­sabeth vvithout the title of Head. they deuised a new forme and featute of words, wherby couertly to giue the sub­stance without the name; that is to saie, the whole spirituall power, & iurisdiction of supreame head vnder the name of Visitrix, or supreame gouernesse, as in the Oath of the same Statute is set downe where euery man, vnder forfiture of all his lands and liuings, (and life also in the third time) is bound to sweare, and professe, that he beleiueth in his cōscience, that the said Qneene is supreame gouernesse in all causes Ecclesiastical in this sense; and that there is no other Spirituall power, or Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction ouer soules in England, but this of the Qneene, or such as com­meth from her. And this was also the high iniquitie of this tra­gicall Comedye among other; that the whole Realme being al­most all Catholike and of a contrarie beleife at that time, was forced to sweare, within thirtie daies after the said Act, to this fantasticall deuise of giuing supreame authoritie Spirituall to a wo­man, wherof by naturall, diuine, and humane law, she is not ca­pable, (as in the next chapter shall bee proued) being a deuise of some few, in a corner first, and then procured by negociation to passe in Parlament; or els to incurre the daunger of the foresaid penalties; that is to saie, either sacrilegiouslie to forsweare them­selues against their consciences, or to vndoe themselues and theirs in wordlie affaires; a hard and miserable choise.

22. But now to the point it self, what reall, and substantiall difference (thinke you) can their be imagined between the spiri­tuall Authortie of Head-ship giuen vnto K. Henry the 8. by the Sta­tute [Page 60] of the 26. yeare of his reigne, and this of visitrix or supreame gouernesse, giuen to Q. Elizabeth in the first of her reigne? Was not the self-same power and Iurisdiction ment to be giuen? And if there bee no difference in the thing it self why doe they fly the word in this, which they vsed in that; and why doe they vse such large circumloquutions, of visiting, ordering, redressing, and the like? For as for K. Henries statute, Statut. 26. Henr. 8 c. 1. anno Christi 1535. it beareth this Title. An act con­cerning the Kings highnes, to be supreame head of the Church of England &c. And in the statute it self it is said. Be it enacted by the Authoritie of this present Parlament, that the King our soueraigne Lord, his heirs, and successors, shall be taken, accepted, and reputed the onlie supreame head on earth of the Church of England, called Anglicana Ecclesia. And the same Title was 9. or 10. years after, giuen in like manner to K. Edward the sixt, by the same Authoritie of Parlament, if in this Case it had anie authoritie: anecting also therunto all Iurisdiction spi­rituall whatsoeuer; as it appeereth by a certaine declaration therof, made in the Statute of the first year of the said King. Statut. 1. Edvva [...]d. 6 an. Domin [...] 15 [...]7. It saith thus. That for so much as all authoritie of iurisdiction, spirituall, and temporall, is deriued and deducted, from the Kings Maiestie, as supreame head of these Churches, and Realmes of England, and Ireland, and so iustlie acknowledged by the Cleargie therof; and that all Courts Ecclesiasticall within these said two Realmes, be kept by no other power and authority, either forreine, or within the Realme, but by the Authoritie of his most exce­lent Maiesty: Be it therfore enacted, that all sommons and citations, and other processes Ecclesiasticall in all causes of Bastardy, Bygamye, and such like, cal­led Ecclesiasticall shall be made in the name of our King. &c. And that in the Archbishops, and bishops seals of office (for testisying of this) the Kings High­nes armes, be decentlie sett with Characters vnder the said Armes, for the knowledge of the diocesse: & that they shall vse noe other seale of Iurisdi­ction, but wherin his Maiestyes armes be engraued, &c.

23. Lo heere, not onlie the name, and Authoritie of head of the Church giuen to K. Edward the Child, and taken from the Pope; but all Iurisdiction also, and signe of Iurisdiction spirituall ta­ken from the Archbishops, and Bishops of England, excepting onlie so far forth as it was imparted vnto them by the said Child K. Which importeth much, if you consider it well: For this is not onlie to haue power, to visitt, and gouerne Ecclesiasticall persons and to reforme abuses &. Set downe in the Queenes graunt by parla­ment; but to haue all Ecclesiasticall and spirituall power, and iurisdiction originallie included in his owne person and so to be [Page 61] able from him self, as from the first fountaine and highest origen on earth, to deriue the partes & parcells thereof to others, which you may consider how different it is from that which here the Statute would seeme to ascribe to the Queene, and opposite and contrarye to all that which the ancient Fathers in the precedent chapter did affirme, & protest not to be in their Kings and Em­perours at all, but in Bishops and Preists onlie, as deliuered immediatlie to them by Christ our Sauiour, and by them, and from them onlie to be administred to others for their saluation. But by this new order of the English Parlament, The absurdities of the Sta­tute de­crees a­bout soue­raigne spirituall au­thority. the contrarie course is established, to witt, that it must come to Bishops and Preists, from a laie man; yea a Child, and from a lay-woman also, as the other Parlament determineth, and then must it needs follow also (as after more larglie shall bee proued) that both the one, and the other (I meane K. Edward, and Queen Elizabeth) had power, not onlie to giue this Ecclesiasticall iurisdictiō vnto others; but much more, to vse, and exercise the same in like manner in their owne persons if they would, as namelie to giue holie orders, create, & consecrate Bishops, confirme Children, absolue sinnes, administer Sacraments, teach, and preach, iudge, and determine in points of faith and beleife, sitt in iudgement vpon errors and heresies, and the like. And this for K. Edward.

24. Now then if it may be presumed, (as I thinke it may) that Queene Elizabeths meaning was, to haue no lesse Authoritie Spiri­tuall, and Ecclesiasticall giuen vnto her, and acknowledged in her, then her said Father and Brother had vsed before; why did not the makers of this Statute set it downe in plaine words as the other did, but disguised the matter, by such māner of speach as they might seeme to giue but little, wheras they gaue all, and more then all? The Cause was that which I haue said before, for which they laboured not to be vnderstood of all men, but to speake, as it were in mysterye; not to offend so publikelie the Caluinists, and yet to include matter inough, to ouerthrow Ca­tholikes. But the said exacter parte, and purer Caluinists, See G [...]lby in his Dia­logue. The ma [...] Cartvvright, [...] others. quicklie found out the matter, and so they began verie shortly after to mutter and write against this, and diuers other points of the Statute, and so haue continued euer since; and the Controuer­sie betweene them, is indeterminable.

25. Well then, for so much, as now we haue laid open the true state of the Question, and that M. Attorney is bound to proue [Page 62] his proposition in this sense and explication, that heere is sett downe out of K. Henry, and K. Edwards Statutes, to witt that Q. Elizabeth had all plenarie power of Spirituall Iurisdiction in her self, [...] state [...] the [...]stion. to deriue vnto others at her pleasure, as from the head, and fountaine thereof. And that no Bishop, Archbishop, or o­ther Ecclesiasticall person within the Realme, had, or could haue anie spirituall power, or iurisdiction, but from the wellspring, and supreame sourge thereof. And this not onlie by vertue of the foresaid Statute of the first yeare of her raigne, but before, & without this also by the verie force of her Princely Crowne, according to the meaning of the old, and most auncient cōmon laws of England. It will be time now to passe on to the veiw of his proofes, which for so new, strange, and weightie an asser­tion that toucheth (if wee beleiue the former alleadged Fathers) the very quicke, and one of the neerest means of our eternal saluation or damnation, ought to bee very cleere, sound and substantiall; We shall see in the sequent Chapter what they are.

THat the late Queene of England had such plenary Ec­clesiasticall Power, as before had byn said, & this by the intent & meaninge of the old ancient Common-lawes of Englād; though vnto me & to many others, it seeme a most improbable Paradox, and doe meane afterwardes, by Gods assistance, to prooue and euidently demonstrate the same, and shew that from our first Christiā Kings vnto K. Henry the eight, the Common-lawes of our Land, were euer conforme and sub­ordinate to the Canō Ecclesiasticall lawes of the Roman Church in all spirituall affayres: yet for so much as M. Attorney hath ta­ken vpon him, to prooue the contrary, two heades of proofe he may follow therin. Proofes de Iure and de Facto. The first De Iure, the second De facto. And al­beit he entitle his Booke according to the first, to witt, De Iure Regis Ecclesiastico; yet doth he nothing lesse then prosecute that kind of proofe, but rather flippeth to the second which is De Fa­cto, endeauoring to prooue, that certaine Kings made certaine lawes, or attempted certaine factes somtimes and vpon some oc­casions, that might seeeme somwhat to smel or taste of Ecclesiasti­call [Page 64] power, assumed to themselues in derogation or restraint, of that of the Bishops, Popes, or Sea of Rome.

2. Now albeit this were so, and graunted (as after it will be re­proued) yet well knoweth M. Attorney that an argument De facto inferreth not a proofe De Iure. For, if all the factes of our Kings among others, should be sufficient to iustifie all matters done by them; then would (for example) fornication be proued lawfull, for that some of them are knowne to haue had vnlaw­full children, and left bastardes behinde them: And the like we might exemplify in other things. Neither doe I alleadge this in­stance without peculiar cause or similitude; For as in that vn­lawfull act of the flesh, they yelded rather to passion and lust, then to their owne reason & iudgment, knowing well inough that they did amisse, when they were voyd of the same passion: so in some of these actions of contention, about Ecclesiasticall Iu­risdiction, some of them were byassed with interest somtymes, by indignation, ielousy, & other like motiues to doe or attempt that, (especially in these later ages) which reason and Religion did not allwayes approue, nor themselues nether vpon more mature deliberation. And yet doe I not graunt that M. Attorney bringeth any thing of moment in this kind of proofe de facto also, as after shall appeare, though all his pretences of proofes be in this kind only.

3. For, as for the first, though he entitle his booke De Iure as you haue heard, yet little or nothing doth he alleadge therin worthie to be repeated: Only he hath one Argument mencio­ned and refuted by vs before in the second Chapter of this An­swere: [...]portes fol. 9. which is that the Kingdome of England being an absolute Empire and Monarchie, consisting of one head, which is the King, and of a body poli­ticke deuided into two generall partes, the Clergie and the Layty: both of them next vnder God, must be subiect & obediēt to the same head in all causes, for that otherwise he should be no perfect Monarch or head of the whole bodye &c.

4. But to this the answere is playne, by the groundes we haue laid downe in the same Chapter, of the different origen of spiri­tuall and temporal power, and that it is sufficient to any tempo­rall Monarch and to the perfection of his Monarchie, that all sortes of people throughout his dominions, as well Clergie as Layty, be subiect vnto him in all temporall affayres: and that with this perfection of Monarchie were content both Constan­tyne [Page] the first christian Emperour, & also Valentinian, Gratian, Theo­dosius, Arcadius, Honorius, Iustinian, and other Emperours that eu­sued after him, as also Charles the Great in France with his Suc­cessours & all our English Kings before K. Henry the eight, who esteemed themselues for greate perfect Monarches ouer their people (as in deed they were) without this chalenge of Spirituall Iurisdiction in Ecclesiasticall matters. And therfore the said grea­test Emperours, were content also to beare patiently, and chri­stianly the denyall therof in diuers occasions, Freedome of speach in the Fa­thers to Empe­rours. by their good Bis­hops & Prelates, S. Basil, S. Gregory Nazienzen, S. Ambrose, & S. Chry­sostome, yea and checkes also for vsurping somtymes, either by themselues, or their officers, vpon Ecclesiasticall power that belon­ged not to them; wherof many examples might be alleadged, and some haue bene touched Sup. c. [...]. Nazian. orat. ad [...]ues timore por­culs [...]s. before in the place mencioned. For to this end was that admonishment of S. Gregory Nazienzen to the Emperour Valentinian, that he should vnderstand, that he being a Bishop had greater Authority than the said Emperour. To the same effect likwise was the resolute speech of S. Ambrose vnto the same Valentinian, Anno 387. Theodoret. lib. 8. hist. & Paul [...]. in v [...]ta S. Ambrosij Ruffin lib. 2. Inst. c. 18. Zozomen. lib. 7. c. 24. Ambros. e­pist. 33. ad Sororem. Nolite grauare Imperator. &c. Trouble not your self, Emperour, in cōmāding me to deliuer the Church, nor doe you perswade your self that you haue any Imperiall right ouer those things that are spirituall or diuine; exalt not your self, but be subiect to God if you will raigne; be content with those things that belong to Cesar, and leaue those which are of God vnto God. Pallaces appertaine to the Emperour, and Churches vnto the Priest. You haue right ouer the walles of the Cyttie, but not vpon sacred howses. So he; And the same S. Ambrose some 3. or .4. yeares after, vsed the like speech of supe­riority in spirituall matters to the good Emperour Theodosius checking him greiuously, yea keeping him out of the Church, and holding him vnder excommunication, for eight monethes togeather. And when the said good Emperour came humbly on foote unto him, saying: Ora vt mihi soluas vincula, & ne mihi occlu­das ianuam. I beseech you loose my bandes and shutt not the Church doore against me; The other answered, what pennance can you shew me that you haue done since the committing of your greiuous sinne. &c.

5. And the like libertie of speech might I alleadge out of S. Chrisostome, Chrisost. ho­mil 4. de verb. Isa. Vidi Do­minū. &c. where speaking of the presumption of King Ozias, that would meddle in Spirituall matters vsed this Apostrophe vnto [Page 66] him, Mane intra terminos tuos, aly sunt termini Regni, alij termini Sacer­doty: hoc Regnum illo maius; Stay king within thy bounds and li­mitts, for different are the boundes of a Kingdome and the li­mitts of Priest-hood, and this Kingdome ( of Priest-hood) is greater then the other; wherof he yeldeth this reason a little after, [...]odyes to [...]e Kinge [...]ules to [...]e priest. Regi corpora commissa sunt, sacerdoti animae? The bodyes be committed to the Kinge, the soules to the Priest. And in the next homily fol­lowing he inferreth this conclusion: Ideoque Deus &c. ‘Therfore hath God subiected the head of the King, to the handes of the Priest; instructing vs therby that the Priest is a greater Prince, then the king; Hebr. 7. for that (according to S. Paul) the lesser allwayes receaueth blessing from the greater, and more eminent. Other Fathers sayings to the same effect I purposely omitt for breui­tyes sake, but by these few M. Attorney may see, how he is deceiued in placing the perfection of a temporall Monarchie, in hauing spirituall Iurisdiction ouer Priestes in Ecclesiasticall affayres.’

6. We read that when Constantius the Emperour some to Const­antyne the Great, tooke vpon him to fauour the Arrian heresye, he called vnto him diuers Catholike Bishopps, as S. Athanasius doth relate and setteth downe their names, willing them to subscribe to that which he had appoynted for the bannishment of the said S. Athanasius, Athan [...]s. e­pist ad so [...] ­ [...]riam vitā [...]ge [...]tes. and communion with the Arrians: Quibus admirantib [...] &c. ‘Who marueling (saith he) at this commandement, as a new thing, and telling him that this was not according to the Eccle­siasticall Canons, the Emperour replyed, I will haue that held for Canon which I doe appoint, either obey or goe into banish­ment; The vvords of holy Bishops to Constan­tius. wherat they more wondering, and holding vp their hands to heauen, did with libertie propose their reasons vnto him, telling him that his Kingdome was not his, but from God who had giuen it vnto him, and that it was to be feared least he would take it againe from him, and finally denounced vnto him the last daie of iudgement, persuading him that he should not peruert the course of Ecclesiasticall affayres, nor intermeddle his Roman Empire, in dealing with Ecclesiasticall Constitutions &c.’ So Athanasius of these good Bishops.

7. And vnto the same Emperour, a little after, that great and famous Confessor Osius, Athanas. [...]. [...]d. who among the rest had sitten as Iudge in the Nicene Councell, vpon like occasion, wrote this graue and important admonition: Define quaeso, & memineriste mortalem esse, re­sormida diem iudicij, &c. Leaue of, I beseech thee, ô Emperour, and [Page 67] remember that thou art mortall, feare the day of iudgement, The resolute speech of Osius to the same Constātius. and keep they self pure from this kind of synne, and doe not inter­meddle with Ecclesiasticall causes. ‘Do not vse commandements to vs in this kinde, but rather learne of vs God hath com­mitted the Empire vnto thee, but vnto vs the things that ap­pertaine to his Church; and as those, that malignantly doe carpe at thy Empire, doe contradict the ordinance of God; so beware thou, least by drawing vnto thee those things that appertayne vnto the Church, thou doe inuolue thy selfe in a hainous synne, Giue vnto Cesar those things which are of Cesar (saith the Scripture) and to God those things that are of God; Matt. 22. Luc. 20. & therfore as yt is not lawfull for vs to meddle with thy earthly Empire; so hast not thou power, ô Emperour, ouer sacred things; which I write vnto thee for the care I haue of thy saluation. &c.’

8. And doe you see here this liberty of speech in Ecclesiasticall Pre­lates of the primitiue Church, towards their Kings aud Empe­rours? doe you see what difference and distinction they make betwene Ecclesiastical & temporal power? & yet we read not that any Attorney or Aduocate of these Emperours, did euer accuse these Bis­hops of treasō for speaking as they did, or once obiected that they meant hereby to take away any parte or parcell of their entire and absolute Monarchies. No though S. Athanasius for his parte went yet further; for when he saw that all these admonitions, and reprehensions would not preuaile, but that the said Constan­tius went forward to intermeddle more, and more in Ecclesiasti­call affayres; he wrote thus in the same Epistle. S. Athana­sius his se­uere re­prehen­sion of the Empe­rour Con­stantius. I am d [...]nuò in locum Ecclesiasticae cognitionis suum palatium Tribunal constituit, &c. Now a­gaine hath the Emperour Constantius made his pallace a Tribunall of Ecclesiasticall causes, in place of an Ecclesiasticall Courte, and hath made himself the chiefe Prince, and Author of spirituall pleas. &c. ‘These things are grieuous and more then grieuous, but yet are such as may well agree to him that hath taken vpon him the image of Anti-christ, for who is there, that seing him to beare himself as Prince, in the determyning of Bishops causes, and to sitt as Arbiter in Ecclesinsticall iudgemēt, will not worthi­ly say, the Abhominatiō foretold by Daniel to be now come, &c.’ So he. And there were no end if I would prosecute all that might be said out of the sense and iudgement of the ancient Fa­thers against this first argument of M. Attorney, That tēporall Princes are not absolute Monarches, except you giue them spirituall iurisdiction also. [Page 68] But we must be myndfull of breuity and so this for the first shall suffice, remi [...]ting you to that which hath bin spoken more largly hereof in the second chapter before.

9. An other Argument yt seemeth M. Attorney would insinuate (for vrge it he doth not) by the consideration of two Tribunalls or Courtes of the King of England: the one Temporall, the other Ecclesiasticall, and seuerall causes belonging vnto them. You shall heare it out of his owne speach, To the se­cond ar­gument of M. Attor­ney. and then iudge if it make for him or against him. The kingly head (sayth he) of this politike bodie, is instituted and surnished with plenary and entire power, prerogative, and Iurisdiction to render iustice and right to euery parte and member of this bo­die, Reportes f [...]l. 8. both Clergie and Laytie, of what state, degree, or calling soeuer, in all causes &c. and as in temporall causes, the King by the mouth of the Iudges in his Courtes of Iustice, doth iudge and determine the same, by the temporall lawes of England; so in causes Ecclesiasticall, & spirituall, as namely blasphe­my, [...]st [...]y from Christianity, Heresies, Schismes, Ordering, Admissions, In­stitutions of Clerkes, Rites of matrimony, Diuorces, & otherlike; the conu­saunce wherof, belong not to the Common-lawes of England; the same are to be determined and decyded by Ecclesiasticall Iudges, according to the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawes of this Realme. So M. Attorney making this note in the margent: VVhat causes belonge to the Ecclesiasticall Courtes; see Cir­cumspecte agatis 13. yeare of Edward the first, &c. And VVest. 2. and 13. Edward. [...] Cap. 5. art. Cleri Edward. 2. 9. Wherunto though I might oppose the Authority, and speaches of all the auncient Fathers, before mencioned that in this matter of diuinitie, ought to weigh more with vs then any particular Ordination of secular lawes, though they were against vs, yet in this case I dare ioyne yssue with M. Attorney vpon this very Argument, which he hath alleadge, for that truly I doe not see what could be produced more effectually either against himself, or for vs, then here is sett downe. For as we willingly graunt the former part of his speach, to witt, M. Attornes [...] [...]o [...]e. that the kingly head of the politicke body, is instituted and furnished with plenarie power, to render iustice, and right in all causes that belong to his [...]ticke and temporall gouernment, endes, and obiects therof [...]o all persons of his Realme as before hath bene declared: So heere the very na­ming of two generall partes of the kingdome, which M. Attorney graunteh, that the ancient law of England deuideth into Clergy, and Laytie and the mencioning of two seuerall Courtes, and di­stinct causes to be handled therin, by distinct Iudges, in such manner, as the one cannot haue conusaunce of the other, in­ferreth [Page 69] plainly two distinct powers, descēding from two distinct origens, the one Temporali the other Ecclesiasticall; and so doe the places quoted by him, of Circumspectè agatis, westm. the second and Articul. Cleri vnder K. Edward the first and second most eui­dently declare.

10. And first I would aske M. Attorney what the distinction of Clergie and Laity doth meane; Of Clergy and Lay men. not made or brought in first by our Common-lawes (as he would insynuate when he saith that the lawe deuideth our Politicall body into two generall partes, the Clergie & the Laity) but rather instituted by the See of the distinction of these names the Canons [...]f the Apostles Apostles themselues, and admitted only by our Cōmon-lawes, and continued from that tyme to ours, as before hath bene shewed. This distinction (I say) of Clergie and Layty wherof the former signifyeth the portion of God, that is to say, those persons that be peculyarly appropri­ated to the seruice of Almighty-God: the other of Laity taking their name of from the common people, can. 12. 13. 15 &c. Te [...]ul [...] de Mona. & Cont Nicen. [...]a [...]. 1. 2. 3. 5. 17. 1 [...]. 19 &c. I would aske of M. Attorney what it importeth, & especially in this case of Queene Elizabethes supreme primacy? doth it not argue a distinct order of men, go­uerned by distinct lawes, distinct Iudges, and distinct power & Iurisdiction? But you will say the Queene was head of them both, and we grannt it, as they are members of one Common-wealth, but in their seuerall distinction and seperation, as they are Clergie and lay people, she could not be of both, but of one only, to witt of the Laity: For that no man will say that she was also a Clerke, or of the Clergie. And yet in this partition, no man will deny, but that the Clergie is the worthier parte and member, and so is placed first in all our lawes: wherof is inferred that the said Clergie, as Clergie, is of a higher degree, according to our Com­mon-lawes, then the temporall Prince, which is of the laitie only, and not Clerke, as in Q. Elizabeth is confessed; and conse­quently she could not be head of the Clergie, as Clergie, that is in Ecclesiasticall Clergie matters, belonging to Religion. Wherof we may take a notable example from the great Emperour Valentinian the elder, who refused to be present, (and much more President) in certaine conferences about religion betwene the Catholicke Bishops & the Arrians, vpon consideration of these two distinct Orders of Clergie and lay-men, though he were inuited ther­unto by Catholicke Bishops themselues. Mihi quidem (saith he) cum vnus de populo sim, fas non est talia perscrutari, Hist Tr [...]. [...]. l [...]b. 7. cap. 12. verum sacerdotes qui bus haec cura est, apud semetipsos congregentur vbi voluerint. Vnto me that [Page 70] am but one of the lay people, it is not lawfull to examine such things (as appertayne vnto religion) but let priests, to whome this care is committed, meet togeather amōg themselues to dis­cusle the matter where they will. So much was this distinction between lay-men and priests esteemed by this auncient Chri­stian Emperour.

The diffe­ence of Courtes vvhat it proueth, Reportes sol. 9. 11. Secondly I demaund of M Attorney concerning his distin­ction of Courtes and causes to be handled therin, Temporll & Spi­rituall, how it commeth to passe, that the Conusaunce of such causes as here he calleth Spirituall, belong not, as he saith, to the Common-lawes of England: No, nor (as presently after he af­firmeth) could not belong: For that they are not within the conusaunce of the sayd Common-laws. And why is this, I praye you? For if the temporall Prince be equallie head in both causes, and in both Iurisdictions, and that the power to knowe, discerne & iudge in both sortes, doe descend only from the temporall Prince, as before out of the Statute of King Edward the 6. you haue heard, by the Statute-makers determined, and M. Attorney confirmeth e­uery where in these Reportes: then should the common-Lawes of our Realme which are the temporall Princes law be cōmon indeed according to their name to all causes, aswel Spirituall as Temporall, for that their author and origen, which is the King, hath equall Power, & Iurisdiction in both, for that it is a maxime vncontrollable, that, according to the Iurisdiction of the L [...]w maker, vertue and power of the law doth extend it selfe. And then doth M. Attor­ney affirme that the conusaunce of so many Ecclesiasticall causes as he setteth downe, is not within the compasse of our Com­mon-lawes, or what compasse will he assigne or lymitt to that Princes lawes, that according to this assertion, hath power in all? Is not this to contradict himself, and to ouerthrow with the one hand, that which he goeth about to establish with the other? For, if the Kings power be common to both causes, aswell Eccle­siasticall as Temporall, then must the Kings Common-lawes be common to both Courtes and matters therin handled.

12. But let vs see a certaine sleight or euasion of his worth the noting: As in temporall causes (saith he) the King by the mouth of the Iudges in his Courtes of Iustice, doth iudge and determyne the same by the temporall lawes of England; so in causes Ecclesiasticall, as Blasphemy, Apo­stacy. Heresyes, Ordering, Institutions of Clerkes, &c. the same are to be de­termined and decyded by Ecclesiasticall Iudges, according to the Kings Eccle­siasticall [Page 71] lawes of this Realme. Marke here (gentle reader) how M. At­norney playeth wyly beguyly; For according to the proportion of his cōparison, he should haue cōcluded thus: A [...]i [...]e of M. At­tor [...]ys po [...] oft. So the King by the [...]outh of his Ecclesiasticall Iudges, doth iudge and determine the said Spirituall & Ecclesiastical causes, by his owne Ecclesiasticall lawes. But this he foresaw would include this great inconuenience among others, that if he said, that the King did iudge & determine by the mouthes of his spirituall Iudges the aforesaid spirituall causes, as he doth the temporall, then might he doe the same, yea and exercise them also immediatly by himself, if need were, aswell as by others; for in all temporall iudgments and affayres, the King may sit him­self in courte, and performe in person whatsoeuer his Officers, by his authority doe or may doe: which yet M. Attorney saw would be somwhat absurde to graunt, in the spirituall causes proponed by him of Blasphemy, Ordering of Priests (or giuing holy Orders) In­stitutions of Clerkes, Celebration of diuine seruice, and the like, to witt, that the King should performe them immediately in his owne person; for who would not say it were absurde (for example) that the King should sing, or say the common seruice to the people; or administer the Sacrament of Absolution or Marriage, or giue holy Or­ders, and the like: which yet the Bishop of Rome and all other Bi­shops or Prelates, He that giueth povver to another to doe a thing must first haue it i [...] himselfe. neuer so great doe & may doe without incon­uenience. And in truthe it followeth euidently that he, who can giue authority or power for another to doe a thing as from him­self, and in his name, may performe the same in person also if he list, at least wise it cannot be vnlawfull for him so to doe. And therfore coming to the application of his comparison, he chan­geth his phrase, and saith, that the same are to be determined and de­cyded by Ecclesiasticall Iudges, according to the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawes of this Realme.

13. Wherin you must note another shifte more poore and silly, then the former; for that hauing declared vnto vs before that there are two generall partes and members of the Realme, to witt the Cler­gy and the Laity, and that these two haue two seuerall Tribunalls in their affaires, gouerned by two sortes of different lawes, Tem­porall and Ec [...]lesiasticall, Common and Canon, and these deriued from two different Authors and origens; the Common-law from the temporall Prince and Commonweath, Ecclesiasticall from others, saith M. Atorney, but specifieth not from whom, or whence, though all the world knowe, that they come originally [Page 72] from the Church & Sea Apostolique: (all which inferreth distinct originall Iurisdictions) M. Attorney by his great witt hath deuised a newe sleight neuer perhaps yet heard of in the world before which is to make these Ecclesiasticall lawes though deriued from others, to be the Kings owne lawes, for that he approueth and alloweth them within the Realme; and consequently that all lawes both Temporall and Spirituall doe come from the King, A [...]vv dem [...] to make Ecclesia­sticall lavves to be the Kings lavves. as their Author: which is a token that he hath full Supreame power. And this singular deuise pleaseth him so well, as he re­peateth the same sundrie tymes in this Treatise. You shall heare the same in his owne words in this place, & how dangerous and preiudicyall a Conclusion he buildeth vpon the same, against Catholiques.

14. ‘For as the Romans (saith he) fetching diuers lawes from Athens, yet being approued and allowed by the State there, called them notwithstanding, Reportes Ius Ciuile Romanum. And as the Normans borrowing all or most of their lawes from England, yet baptized them by the name of the lawes, or customes of Normandy; so al­beit the Kings of England, deriued their Ecclesiasticall lawes from others, yet so many as were approued and allowed here, by, and with a generall consent, are aptly & rightly called the Kings Ecclesiasticall lawes of England, which whosoeuer shall deny, he de­nyeth that the King hath full and plenary power, &c. And con­sequently that he is no cōplete Monarch, nor head of the whole entire body of the Realme.’

15, You see whervnto this deuise tendeth to make yt a mat­ter of treason, to deny this fancy of M. Attorney, that for so much as the Canons, and Ecclesiasticall lawes of the Church, made by Popes and by Generall Councells, from tyme to tyme, and rece­ued vniuersally for spirituall and Ecclesiasticall matters throughout the Christian world, were receued also and allowed by the Kings Comnn wealth of England. (which was an euident ar­gument of their acknowledging of the said Ecclesiasticall Iuris­diction of the Church, and spirituall gouernours therof) of this approbation and allowance, he would inferr, that these lawes were the Kings lawes, though deriued, as he sayth, from others; that is to say from Popes and Bishopps. At which inference I doubt not, but that his fellow-lawyers will smile. And truly, I am sory that he being accoumpted so great a man in that facul­ty, which is wont to reason well, hath giuen so manifest occa­sion [Page 73] of laugther. For that euery puney & young student of law, Admit­ting of other Prince [...] lavves shevveth rather subiection then supe­riority in the ad­mitter. will see by common reason, that the admitting of an other mans lawe, doth not make it his lawe, or that he had power to make that lawe of himself, but rather to the contrary it sheweth, that the admitter acknowledgeth the other for his Superiour in all matters contained vnder that law; For the power of making lawes, is the highest power that principally proueth dominion in any Prince, and the admitting and obeying therof by another Prince, is an euident argument of inferiority and subiection; and so here the admitting of the Popes Ecclesiasticall and Canon-lawes, was an argument that the admitters acknowledged his supreme authority in Ecclesiasticall affayres.

16. Neyther is M. Attorneys example of the Romans or Normans any thinge to the purpose all; The ans­vver to M. Attor­neys in­stance. For that the Romans did not take from the Athenians any formall lawes made by them, for the gouernment of the Romans (for that had been to acknowledg superiority as before hath bene said) but rather they taking a sur­uey of all the Grecian lawes, aswell of Athens as other Common-wealthes or States, they tooke parcells therof here and there, and applied the same to their Common-wealth, which was properly to make lawes of them selues. And the like may be sayd of the Normans, if they borrowed any of their lawes from England; which yet I neuer read in any Author besides M. Attor­ney, but rather that the Normans gaue lawes to England.

17. But nowe in the Canon-lawes receiued in England for almost a thousand yeares together after our first Conuersion, the matter is farr different; for that these were receiued wholy and formally, as lawes made by another superior power in a dif­ferent Tribunall & different causes, & sent expresly to England, Hovv the Canon-lavves vvere re­ceaued in England. and to all other Christian Kingdomes, to be receiued and obser­ued, and some also out of the same Ecclesiasticall power made within the land, by Synodes and Prelates therof, and promulga­ted to be obserued both by Prince and people formally and pun­ctually as they lay; and so were receiued, admitted, allowed, and put in execution by the said Prince and his Officers, except per­haps some tymes, some clause or parte therof might seeme to bring some inconuenience to the temporall State; for which ex­ception was made against it, and the matter remedied by com­mon consent. And this was another manner of admitting lawes, then the Romans admitted some peeces of there lawes from [Page 74] Athens, or rather translated some pointes of the Athenian lawes in­to theyrs, which was to make them selues Maisters of thus lawes, and not receiuers or admitters. And finally wee see by this, to what poore and pittifull plight M. Attorney hath brought the title of his booke, De Iure Regis Ecclesiastico. Of the Kings Ec­clesiasticall law, to witt that it is the Popes Ecclesiasticall law [...] in deed, made and promulgated by him and his, but receiued and obeyed by the King, and consequently not the Kings law, but the Popes.

18. Wherfore to conclude the first part of this Chapter, for so much as M. Attorney by these two arguments De Iure, (which are the only he mentioneth) hath proued no right at all of supreme spirituall Iurisdiction, The con­clusion of the first part of this chap­ter. to haue accrewed to Q. Elizabeth by the title and interest of her temporall Crowne, but rather the contrary, to witt, that both his Arguments haue proued against himself: we see therby how vnable he is to proue his said affirmatiue pro­position, by this first head and sorte of proofe De Iure. I shall now in the second part of this chapter endeuour to prooue the negatiue, by as many sortes of rightes and lawes as any thing may be proued, that is to say not only by Canonicall & Ciuill lawes, but by law of Nature also, of Nations, Mosaycall, Euangelicall, and by our ancient Common-lawes of England; all which doe concu [...] in this, that Q. Elizabeth being a woman could not haue any su­preame spirituall power or Iurisdictiō in Ecclesiasticall matter [...].

THE SECOND PART OF THIS CHAPTER, VVherin is shevved that Q. Elizabeth in regard of her sex, could not haue supreame Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction. §. I.

19. First then, being to performe this, we are professe in this place, that we meane not to imitate the proceeding of some Pro­testants in this behalf, who following no certayne rule of doct­rine, [Page 75] no [...] moderation in their doings or writings doe passe to ex­treames, & therfore feeling themselues greiued vnder Q. Maryes raigne, with the course of Catholike religion then held, tooke vpon them to publishe that women were not capable of any go­uerment at all, Temporall, or Spirituall, nor to be further obeyed, than they would make Reformation in Religion (for so they called it) comforme to their willes and prescriptions, as appeareth by the bookes, writings, and actions both of Goodman; See the Protestant Booke of Dangerous positions a­gainst the Puritanes anno. 1591, lib. [...]. c. 1. VVhitingham, Gilbye, Knockes & others, who taking their fire of fury from Geneua, sought first to kindle the same in England, and being repulsed thence, brake into open flames of combustion in Scotland, and ne­uer coassed, vntill it brought two Noble Queens, mother and daughter to their ruyne; and afterward put their heire and suc­cessor into such plunges, by those and other heades of like doct­rine, and desperate attemptes answerable therunto, as Gods right hand did only preserue him from like ruyne.

20. But we are not of this spirit to seeke reuenge by such new brayn-sicke doctrine, we graunt that Queens may lawfully raigne & inherite that Successiō, which euery Countrey by their peculiar lawes doth allow them. Of vvo­mens go­uerment. The great Kingdome of France doth excude them, & so doe many lesser States in Italie, and Ger­many and other Countryes, yet doth Spaine, England, Scotland and Flanders admitt them for preuenting other inconueniences when Male-sucessors doe fayle. So as for this point of Q. Elizabeths tem­porall gouerment, we haue no controuersie in this place: If any fell out betweene her and the Bishop of Rome, whose authority she tooke from him, and applyed it to her self, and many other­wayes exasperated him; that fact appertayneth not to vs, that are priuate men to iudge, 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. 1 First by the disposition of the Canon-law, Canon-lavve. 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 [Page 76] 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, Cap. de mo­nia [...]us desent: & ex­com & cap. Noua de pae­nis. & re­miss. & cap. Muli [...]rem [...]ausa 33. q. 5. vbe multa Patrū sent. Peferūtur & Silis. & [...] Sunesta in verbe Aba­tissa. 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. D. Th [...]. in 4. dist. 25. q. 2. Calu in An­ [...]id, a [...] can. 10. Concil. Trid. sess. 7. & l. 4. inst. cap. 3. & 15. Iuth. lib de Capt. Rabil. cap. de Or­dine & in articulu à Leone 10. da [...]na [...], art. 1 [...]. & lib. contra stuliam [...]on [...] 10. 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 Vbe supra. 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, Innocent 3. cap. noua de panet & re­ [...]ision. 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.

[Page 77]24. For the Ciuill, Of the Ciuill lavv. 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; Lib. 2. ff. de regul [...] Iu­ris. 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, The lavv 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, 2. Gen. [...]9. 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, 1. Tim. 2 [...]. 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, 1. Cor. 1 [...]. 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, A vvomā cannot be the head of man in spirituall matters. 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 [Page 78] 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, Absurdi­ties ensu­ing the suprema­cy Ecclesi­asticall of a vvoman. 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, in matters be­longing to their soules; Heb. 3. Gal. 3. Act. 3. for in this case all this law of Nature, would be broken and the women should be head ouer men, in the highest degree, and so should not be the glory of the man as S. Paul saith, that is, subordinate to his glory; as he is to the glory of Christ, and Christ to the glory of God; but the man should be her glory, that is to say, subordinate to her In iis quae sunt ad Deum. In those things that appertaine to God: yea she should be mediatrix betweene him and God, in place of him, that is chiefe priest. And so all this first naturall institution of God should be wholy peruerted, broken, and turned vpside-downe.

28. Neyther is it of any force, to obiect (as some doe) that a woman may be head of men in temporall affaires, as Queenes are, for that God hath left this free to m [...]n, to dispense in the vse of their naturall priuiledge of superiority for temporall gouern­ment, and to appoyn [...] women to gouerne them, for auoyding worse inconueniences, when there are no heyres-male to suc­ceed, as before hath been said. But the matter is farr different in spirituall gouernment, which dependeth immediatly of God himself; and was deliuered by him to men, & not to women; and so hath been continued, throughout all ages from Adam to our dayes; and vnder all lawes, both of Nature, Moyses, and Christ. For in the law of Nature, The sin­gularitie of Q. Eli­zabeths case. the first borne-male among the Patriarches was alwayes head of the family, both in temporall and spiri­tuall matters, and consequently also Priest. And in the law of Moyses the said priesthood, and presidency in spirituall matters, [Page 79] was annexed vnto a tribe of men, and no woman admitted therunto. And much more in the law of the ghospell as presen­tly we shall declare; and so we may conclude that from Eue, to Elizabeth there was neuer woman that was supreame head, con­cerning matters of Religion, before her self; so singular was she and her case in this point.

29. Now then for the Euangelicall law, Of the lavv Euan­gelicall. meaning, and sense of our Sauiour Iesus Christ, in founding of his Christian Church, that it was not to leaue any part or parcell of the spirituall gouer­ment and Iurisdiction therof vnto any woman (and much lesse the supreme in any Kingdome or Countrey) besides that which before hath been cyted, and pondered out of S. Paul that, women may not teach or speake in the Church (which yet is a necessary part to be able to doe if need require) and that which the Canon-law putteth in cōsideration, that Christ left no part of Ecclesiasticall gouerment, either to his mother, or to any other of his women-disciples; besides all this (I say) it is not hard to shew, out of the very Institution of Gods Church from the beginning, and the establishment and perfection therof, when Christ came in flesh, he excluded cleerly women from all dominion therin.

30. Fo [...] proofe wherof, first we are to suppose, according to the vnderstanding of all ancient Fathers, and declaration of scripture it self in many particulars, that concerning the worke of our first creation, That all miracu­lous acti­ons of God in the old te­stament are to be ascribed properly to Christ. and all ordinan [...] depending theron, as also the Miracles, and highest actions that fell out afterwards, from that creation to the tyme of our redemption, when any thing is ascribed peculiarly to Gods hand, saying that God did this, or God did that, we must vnderstand it princypally of the second person in Trinity sonne of God himself, who as he was to come downe to take our flesh and redeeme vs, and to make vs his Church, his Kingdome, his body, his price, his glory: so to that end did he create vs also, according to that saying of S. Sohn. Ioh. 4. Om­nia per ipsum facta sunt. All things were made and created by him: and S. Paul speaking of those myraculous assistances giuen to the people of Israell, going forth of Egipt, doth ascribe the same e­uery where to Christ. As doth S. Iude also, saying, Iud. 1. I would haue you to knowe, brethren, that Iesus, [...] first he saued the people of Israell, that he brought out of Egipt, so afterwards those that beleeued not, he destroyed.

31. This being supposed, we are to note further, that as Christ created Adam as the first head of his Church heere on earth vnder [Page 80] himself, and made him Lord of all both temporall and spirituall and as Priest to offer Sacrifice; and Eue out of him afterward [...] subiecting her therby vnto him, 1. Cor. 11. 1. Tim. 2. and to his perpetuall Domi­nion, (as before you haue heard S. Paul to collect out of this first institution); so the diuell taking vpon him presently to contra­dict and ouerthrow this worke of Christ; followed a quite con­trary order and went first to Eue, persuading her to goe & preach to Adam the sermon that he had taught her, as she did, & because his Doctor and Mistresse in this Ecclesiasticall function, & ther­by turned vpside-downe, to both their tuynes, and to the ruyne of vs all, the whole order of subordination which Christ had ap­poynted before: Wherby she should haue bene taught by Adam, and not he by her. Gen. 2. But Christ comming afterward to visit them againe, and to take accoumpt of this disorder, albeit he knew then that the woman had bene the author therof, yet would he not speake first to her, but according to the order appointed by himself, asked first for Adam. Our Lord called for Adam, saith the text, Gen. 3. & dixit ei, vbi es? and said vnto him, where art thou? And when afterwards the whole cause being examined he gaue sen­tence vpon ech part for this disorder; he specially confirmed a­gaine his first Institution, for the Dominion of man [...] and the subiection of woman, saying vnto her, Gen. 3. Sub viri potestate eris & ipso dominabitur tui. Thou shalt be vnder the power of man (thy hus­band) and he shall haue Dominion ouer thee. Which law and ordination is to be vnderstood in all kind of subiection, Hovv vv [...] ­man must be subiect to man in all re­spects. aswell domesticall and politicall, as Ecclesiasticall or diuine: so as in all these three kinds of affayres, man is made head, and gouernour both at home, in the common-wealth, and in the Church by this first institution of Christ, though in the former two, it is permit­ted vnto man, as hath been said, vpon some occasions, to yeld vp his right, when he will, though more in the second then in the first, for that the things are more arbitrary and tollerable, to witt that a woman should be head ouer all in the Common-wealth then at home ouer her husband. But in the third which is in the Church, and Church-matters, no dispensation is permitted, but that womans subiection must be perpetual. And therfore when S. Paul, as before hath been touched, cōmeth to talke of Church-matters, he suppresseth women presently by this law of Christ Mulieres (saith he) in Ecclesia tace ant, non enim permittitur eis loqui sod subditas esse sicut lex dicit. 1. Cor. 14. Let women hold their peace in the [Page 81] Church, for it is not per [...]itt [...]d into them to speake, but to be subiect, as the law saith.

32. This law named here by S. Paul, is the lawe instituted by Christ in the former wordes of Genesis, where he appointeth wo­men to be subiect not only at home vnto their husbandes, but especially & principally vnto the gouerment of man in Ecclesia­sticall matters, as you see by the application therof so often by S. Paul to Church affayres. For before in the eleuenth chapter to the Corinthians, 1. Cor. 11. he repeateth a precept of his owne made vnto them about veyling of womē in the Church, as you haue heard, founding the same vpon the first Institution of man and woman in paradise, prouing thence that the woman could not be head in the Church, Hovv ea­gerly S. Paul did stand a­gainst vv [...] mens su­perioritie in the Church. and therfore must couer her head; and therby yelde to her husband: & now in this place he giueth other strait precepts, about womens silence and subiection in the Church, and saith moreouer, Qua scribe vobis Domini sunt praecepta. These pre­cepts which I write vnto you, are not myne but of our Lord. Adding presently this terrible threat, Qui autem ignorat, ignor [...]bitu [...], he that knoweth not these things or will not know them, shall not be knowne by the same Lord. And finally the same Apostle vnto Tymothie vrgeth the same againe concerning the Church. Mulier in silentio discat cum omni subiectione. 1. Tim. 2. Let the woman (in the Church) learne in silence with all subiection. Marke the asse­ueration of all subiection. What would S. Paul haue said, if any woman in his tyme had challenged to her self all dominion in the Church, and yelded subiection to no Ecclesiasticall person whatsoeuer?

33. But to goe forward in the Institution of Christ, for the spi­rituall gouerment of his Church: when he had gouerned the same by men and not by women, for the space of foure thousand yeares and more, vnder the law both naturall and written, and comming now to institute a new, more exact and perfect go­uerment therof, vnder the law Euangelicall; what did he? was he vnmindfull of this his first Institution in paradise? No: For he chose men, to witt his Apostles, and their Successours to go­uerne his Church, saying vnto them, I [...]a [...]. 20. As my father sent me, so I send you, whose sinnes you forgiue they shalbe forgiuen, & whose you retaine shalbe retained. And to one of them in speciall. I vvill giue vnto thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen. Feed my sheep [...], feed my lambes. And S. Paul speaking to some of those spirituall Gouernours, Math. 16. Ioan. 21 Priests and [Page 82] Prelates, saith. [...] 20. The holy ghost hath placed you sor Gouernours of Gods Church vvhich he hath purchased vnto himself vvith his owne bloud. And againe the same Apostle to the Corinthians setting downe the sub­ordination of the said Gouernours of Christs primitiue Church, saith, 1. Cor. 12. that the first degree was of Apostles, the second of Pro­phets, the third of Doctors, &c. And in all this, is there no men­tion of women; V [...]ersall [...] [...]gainst M Attor­ [...] though there were many holy women among them, and one more high in Gods fauour then they all, as before hath been said. Neither euer is it recorded, that afterward any Apostle, Father, Doctor, Councell, Synode, Schole, Vniuersity, Pope, Prince, Nation, Countrey, Common-wealth, or priuate man in Christendome, did appoint, admit or allow any woman to be cheefe in spirituall matters, before the English Parlament in the beginning of Q. Elizabeths raigne; Nor can any Protestant in the world bring any one instance, example, or memory recor­ded by man or woman, against this vniuersall prescription, that I haue laid downe.

34. And this is sufficient for proofe out of the Euangelicall law, by Christs owne Institution; albeit many other might be alleadged in the conformitie and confirmation herof, as seuerall members of this proofe, to witt the School-doctors, that haue handled the same largely, in their cōmentaryes, and disputations vpon the 4. Booke of Sentences and els-where, [...] dist. [...] Yno. [...] and doe by sound foundations ouerthrow the imaginary monstrosity of giuing spirituall Iurisdiction to women, S [...]ole D [...]ors. which is ascribed as an old he­resie or madnes rather vnto the Cataphrygians and Pepuzians as may be read in Philastrius & S. Epiphanius: [...] & [...] in [...]. which heretiks notwith­standing did goe about to confirme their phantasy by those words of S. Paul. In Christo neque masculus neque faemina &c. that there is no difference of male or female in Christ, that is to say whether he be man or woman. Which the said doctors doe de­clare to haue byn meant of the faith of Christ, and vocation to Christian Religion; to witt, that all are called and receiued e­qually; but yet not to gouerment or Iurisdiction the in Church.

35. The ranke of other doctors also, that write of the morall part of diuinity appertayning to manners, and Cases of Cons­cience, doe handle the same at large vpon diuers occasions in their Treatises: [...] As also of the third sort of learned men Exposi­tors of the Scriptures, preachers, & teachers, especially the anciēt Fathers, [...] who albeit they handle not this question of ours in par­ticular, [Page 83] and proper tearmes, Doctors, Fathers, and expo­sitors. About the spirituall supremacy of a woman in the Church of God (for that they neuer imagined any such thing would, or could fall out) yet in other occasions, wherin great women sometymes, not as heads but helpers to vnlawfull pur­poses, would be medling in Ecclesiasticall affayres, as the Em­presse Eudoxia against S. Chrysostome & the Empresse Iustina against S. Ambrose and other the like: the said Fathers spake so sharply, and reiected them with such indignation, as a man may easely se what they would haue done, if any least insinuation had bene made, to challeng vnto them Ecclesiasticall power and Iuris­diction, and much more to be heads of the Church, which in those dayes was neuer so much as dreamed of. And if the said Fa­thers vpon occasion offered, did so earnestly deny vnto the hus­band of the one, & the sonne of the other, that were Emperours, the said supremacy in spirituall things, or that they had any power at all, in Ecclesiasticall causes, as you haue heard: what would they haue said to the women, if they had pretended any such matter? Let one short sentence of S. Chrisostome serue for all in generall, to declare his opinion of womens gouerment euen in temporall thinges, and much more in spirituall. Chrys [...]. 5. ser. Quid regulares famina vi­ris non [...] ­habitant. Caput omnino mulieris vir est (saith he) & magna saeditas esset si superiora fiant inferiora, & ciput deorsum, & pedes sursum. Man in all respects is head of the woman, and it should be a great deformitie, if the things which are the higher should bee made the lower, and that the head should be brought vnder, and the feet placed aboue.

36. But in another place, he decideth this our Question more in particular, concerning spirituall gouernment, remouing all women-kind, from the possibilitie therof, A notable discourse of S. Chrys. l. [...]. de sa­cordo [...]i [...]. sub initiu [...]. and for that his dis­course in the said place, is of great weight, and consideration being sett downe between him, & his deer freind S. Basil in Dia­logu-wise with much maturitie, and doth not only deny all spi­rituall gouernment to women, but placeth it where it ought to bee, in S. Peter, & his Successors aboue all others; I shall alleadge the place somewhat more at large, which containeth a graue ponderation of those words of our Sauiour vnto S. Peter in S. Iohns ghospell. Ioan. 21. Petre amas me, &c. Peter dost thou loue mee more then the rest, and he answearing that he did: Christ replied; if thou loue mee, feed my sheep. Wherof S. Chrysostome doth inferre, that Christ in these words did first of al specially commit the supreme charge of his said sheep to S. Peter, and his Successors. Pecud [...] [Page 84] curam (saith he) quas sanguine suo acquisierat, tum Petro, tum Petri Suc­cessoribus committebat. He committed to Peter, and to Peters Suc­cessours the care of his sheep which he had purchased with his owne bloud. And againe. Petrum Christus authoritate hac praeditum esse voluit, & reliquos item Apostolos longe praecellere. Christ would haue Pe­ter to bee indued with this supreme authority ouer his sheep, and therein far to excell all the rest of the Apostles, &c.

37. Secondlie S. Chrysostome maketh a deep ponderation vpon these words of our Sauiour, of the singular loue, which he would haue Pastors to beare vnto his sheep, and which hee bare him­self, giuing his bloud for them, and what hee exacted at this high Pastors hands for gouerning and feeding of them, in this his demaund or interrogation, concerning his loue. [...] cō ­ [...]dable [...] good [...]stor. Atque illi qui­dem licebat (saith he) verbis huiusmodi Petrum affari: Si me amas Petre, Ieiuniae exerce, super nudam humum dormi, &c. ‘Our sauiour Christ might haue spoken to Peter in this sorte (vpon his answeare of loue) if thou loue me Peter, exercise fasting, sleep on the bare ground, watch continuallie, releiue them that bee oppressed, shew thy self a Father to orphans, and bee vnto widdowes in­steed of their husbands.’ But now, Christ pretermitting all these other good works, what saith hee vnto him? Pasce oues meas, &c. Feed (and gouerne) my sheep: for that all the rest of those good works before mētioned, may bee perfourmed by many subiects, not only men but also women, At cum de ecclesiae Praefectura, de cre­denda huic vel illi, tam multarum animarum cura agitur; vniuersa quidem mulieris natura, functionis istius moli ac magnitudini caedat oportet, itemque & bona virorum pars. But when the Question is of any gouernmēt ouer the Church, or about committing to this or that person, the charge of so many soules; then must all women kind yeeld, A vvomē [...] ex­ [...]led [...] [...]urch-g [...]ern­ [...]nt. and giue place to the weight and greatnes of this function, and so must also a good parte of men, to witt all such as are of the lay sorte, and haue not Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction laid vpon them, by the ordinarie means before mentioned, of ordination & suc­cession in the Church of God, descending originally from this first fountaine, of all ecclesiasticall power vpon earth, commit­ted by the sonne of God to S. Peter, and his Successours, to en­dure to the worlds end.

38. And thus haue wee cleerlie the sentence, beleife, & iudge­ment, of S. Chrysostome concerning spirituall authority, for gouer­ning our soules, that it was giuen eminently to S. Peter and his [Page 85] Successors, aboue the rest of the Apostles, but so, as only men, and those not all, but Priests alone, and Cleargie-men, doe, or may succeed therein, and that all kinde of women are excluded, in respect of their sex from any superiority, or prefecture ouer the Church. Hovv much S. Chrysost. authoritie ought to be estee­med in this point. And what-soeuer S. Chrysostome held, preached, or left written in this behalfe, be being so great a Doctor, and pil­ler of Christs Church in his dayes, & the thing it self neuer con­tradicted, or reprehended by any other, may assuredly be held for the common doctrine, iudgement, sense, faith, and beleife, of the vniuersall Catholike Church in that age; and consequently also, both of the former and following ages, vntill our time. And how much this consideration ought to preuaile with a prudent man, that followeth not passion, but reason, and hath care of his owne soule, is easy to see. And so much of this matter.

39. And now further I remember that I promised to proue my negatiue also by the ancient common & municipall lawes of En­gland; of which, though I might say, as before I said of the Fa­thers and Doctors of former tymes, that they ordayned nothing expresly of this particular case; for that they neuer imagined that any such matter would fall out: The mu­nicipall lavvey of England. yet doe they determine that expresly which includeth this; which is that they confirme euery-where the libertyes, preheminencyes, and prerogatiues of of the Church, and Church-men of England: which doe princi­pally consist in this, that only Ecclesiasticall men haue Power and Iurisdiction in Ecclesiasticall affayres; and that no lay person (and much lesse a woman) can meddle therin; and that there be two distinct swords in a Christian Common-wealth the one temporall in the hands of the Prince, the other Ecclesiasticall in the hands of the Bishop; and that the Ecclesiasticall is greater and more soueraigne then the temporall, & that this later must help & be subordinate to the former. All which yow shall see decreed as well in the lawes of K. Edgar, and K. Edward before the Conquest, as also of the Conquerour himself which Infra. [...]. 6. demonstrat. 10. & in cap. 7. after in due places we shal set downe.

40. And to all this now may we ad certaine manifest reasons, which besides the foundations before laid, or rather out of them all, Manifest reasons. our Deuines doe alleadge whie a woman may not be head of the Church, or haue spirituall Iurisdiction in Ecclesiasticall affayres. 1 A vvoman can not be Priest Wherof the first is that Christ our Sauiour being a Priest according to the order of Melchisedech, and refusing to be a tempo­rall [Page 86] King, as out of the ghospell is euident, he left in his place Priests to gouerne his Church, as before hath bene declared, both out of Scriptures and ancient Fathers: but a woman cannot be a Priest, as both we and Caluinists doe hold; though Luther taught otherwise for a tyme (as hath bene said and is refuted at lardge, by K. Henry the 8. Q. Elizabeths Father in his booke against him) and therefore the said Q. Elizabeth could not hold the place of Christ, in spirituall Iurisdiction, in the Church of England.

2 41. A second reason is founded vpon the maxime before al­leadged by M. Attorney, Cui licet quod maius est, licet quod minus. He that can doe the greater, can doe the lesse: But it is more to be able to giue authority to others, to exercise spirituall funct­ions and Iurisdiction, than to doe the same in his owne person, ergo if Q. Elizabeth could giue authority to Bishops, and Pastors to make Ministers, administer the Sacraments, preach, and teach with the like (which belongeth to the head of the Church) than could she doe them also her self. Which conclusion not­withstanding all English Protestants commonly doe deny; yet is the Consequence euident, and the Minor proposition is proued. For that, he that giueth a power to an other, A [...]rdi­ [...] [...]f cō ­se [...] [...] is presupposed to haue it first in himself, for that no man can giue that which him­self hath not; so as if Q. Elizabeth did giue any spirituall Iurisdi­ction to her Bishops to teach, preach, make Ministers, absolute, & loose sinnes, and the like (who otherwise could haue no such authoritie at all) she might, no doubt, haue exercised the same in her owne person, as in all temporall Iurisdiction we see, that whatsoeuer power the King giueth to any Gouernour, Iudge or Magistrate to exercise in his name, he may exercise the same also him self if he wil. And the same holdeth in the Pope, for any spirituall Iurisdiction or function that he committeth to any Bishop, Priest or Clerk whatsoeuer.

3 42. A third reason is taken, ab inconueniente, to wit from this in­conuenience, that if a Queene could be spirituall head of the Church, and should marry without making hir husband King, A [...]eat [...] she should be his spirituall head also, to loose and bind his sinnes, and to exercise Ecclesiasticall Censures of Iurisdiction, Suspen­sion, or Excommunication against him at her pleasure, and he for his part should be bound in conscience vnder payne of sinne to heare and follow her doctrine, if at any time she list to preach vnto him, or to prescribe what he must beleeue or not beleeue [Page 87] in matters of faith; which besides that it should be contrary to that we haue alleadged before out of S. Paul, and Christ his Insti­tution, for the subiection of women in these causes, it would be very absurd and ridiculous also, as you see, and vnworthie of the excellent gouerment of Christ his Church, instituted and framed by the highest wisdome of almighty God.

4 43. Wherfore lastly to shutt vp this matter, after all these proo­fes alleadged, we shall adioyne one only more, which howsoe­uer it be esteemed of vs, Consent of Prote­stant vvri­ters. yet ought it to be of singular great mo­ment with M. Attorney, and this is the vniuersall agreement of all Protestants, both of Caluin & Luthers sect, commonly through­out the world, except only in England. And as for Caluinists the matter is cleere, if we respect France, Germany, Holland, Zeland, Scot­land, and other places, who all agree in this point; following therin their first Author Iohn Caluin, who not only in the place by me alleadged vpō Amos the prophet, but in diuers other places also of his workes, Caluin in cap. 6. A­mos & epist. 54. ad my­con [...]. doth earnestly impugne not only this Eccle­siasticall power of a woman, but of any temporall Magistrate whatsoeuer; affirming further in a certayne epistle of his, to his freind Myconius, that those who defend the same, are prophane spi­rits and mad-men, and that the Lord with the breath of his mouth shall de­stroy them, and that both he, and his, would encounter and fight against them with a valiant and inuincible Zeale &c. Of the same opinion and spi­rit, was Theodore Beza the cheife scholer and successour of Caluin, in his chayre of Geneua as appeareth by his writings, Beza in [...] ­fes [...]r [...]ne cap. 5. & de pr [...]sb. fol. 32. 43. Viretus Dia­log. 3. and another chiefe scoller and companion of them both, named Viretus, in his dialogue intituled, Of white Diuells, calling them false Christi­ans and dissembled diuells that defend this false position of Prin­ces Ecclesiasticall Supremacy, though they couer them selues (saith he) with the cloake of the Ghospell; and then setteth he downe, foure or fiue arguments, to proue the position to be false, which I pretermitt to recite in this place, for breuities sake, remitting the Reader to the booke it self, for that it is exstant in English. And I doe passe ouer the writings of many other prin­cipall men of that profession, both in England and abroad, who in this point are no lesse opposite, and earnest against M. Attorney, that we, and are knowne in England by the name of Puritanes or precise Caluinists, who being the farre greater parte, if we respect all Countreyes about vs, must needs in this point be confessed to haue more reason (the thing being affirmed so earnestly as [Page 88] you haue heard by Caluin himself,) than the other of that sect, who for pleasing of tēporall princes, are accused by them to hold the contrary. For that if Iohn Caluin be to be followed in all the rest, as they confesse; why not also in this? And if the holy-ghost fayled him in this so important a point, as comprehendeth the whole gouerment of their Church, and the lawfull or vn­lawfull vocation, and function of their whole Ministerie, what certaintie can they haue in any other thinge, or point of his do­ctrine.

44. But now not only those of the Caluinian sect, but others also of the Lutheranes, doe laugh at our English Protestants, for holding this position of M. Attorney, about Queene Elizabeths Spi­rituall and Ecclesiasticall Supremacie: wherin not to weary the Reader which enumeration of many witnesses; I shall alleadg only one for all, but yet such a one, as may well stand for all; For that he is the most eminent, and principall man of them all, to vvitt Mart [...]nus Keronitius, an ancient publike Reader of diuinity among the Lutherane Sect in Saxony, that hath written many vo­lumes for defence of the said sect in our dayes.

45. This man then being consulted and demaunded his opi­nion by the Prince Elector of Brandeburg, what was to be done in certaine points concerning those of the Caluinian sect, he an­swereth him in a large epistle extant in print, allowing first, and greatly praysing the Princes iudgment. [...] ad [...]burg. Quod consultum non esse iudi­cat, vt cum Caluinistis Generalis Synodus habeatur: That his Highnes thought it not expedient to hold any generall Synode with the Caluinists, as they desired for composing of Controuersyes be­tweene Lutherans, and them.

46. Secondly he addeth his owne iudgment vnto that of the Prince Elector about punishing the said Caluinists within his State, affirming. Non expedire, vt punitionis officium contrae Caluinistas intereà temporis penitus quiescat. It was not expedient that the office of punishing Caluinists should cease in the meane space, vntill the said generall Synode were held, as they demaunded.

[...] and [...] of [...]47. Thirdly and lastly hauing resolued these two points, he passeth ouer to giue his iudgment in like manner, to the said E­lector, about the Religion held in England, and of Q. Elizabeth her self, and her title of supremacy, saying first that no good thing in Religion was further to be expected from her; that she had vsed hardly the Protestants of Germany; that she saw and felt no [...] [Page 89] a third sect risen vp in her Realme of Puritanes, that hated both her and the other Caluinians that followed her, who were eni­mies in like manner to Lutherans; So he. And then passing yet further he scoffeth merily, that she being a woman had taken vpon her to make Ecclesiasticall lawes. Et quòd faemineo, & à saeculis inaudito fastu se Papissam & caput Ecclesia fecit. That with a wo­manly pride, neuer heard of in former ages, she had made her­self a She-pope, & head of the Church. Thus Kemnitius. And marke that he saith à saeculu inaudito that from the beginning of the world there was neuer any such thing heard of, either among Christi­ans, Iewes, or Gentiles.

48. Wherfore we hauing now proued this our negatiue [...]e Iure against M. Attorney by so many & different sortes of proofe as you haue heard, aswell out of the Canon & Ciuill lawes, as of Nature, Nations,, Mosaicall and Euangelicall, The repe­tition and cōclusion of all. and of all the partes and mem­bers therof, as Scriptures, Fathers, Doctors of all sortes: yea, and by the testimony of our Common Municipall ancient lawes of England, and the concurrence and consequence of reason it self; and lastly by the consent and asseueration of the best-learned Protestants of ech sorte, both Lutherans and Caluinians: I doe not see what M. Attorney wilbe able to bring to the contrary to proue his affirmatiue propositions De Iure, with any shew of probabili­ty. Wherfore I shall conclude this whole Chapter, noting only to the Reader two considerations, for his better memory out of all the premisses. The one worthie of laughter, the other of teares.

49. The former is the euill lucke that M. Attorney had in ma­king choyse of Q. Elizabeth for an example of Ecclesiasticall su­premacy in a temporall Prince; For wheras three Princes only of our Nation, from the beginning of the world, had taken vpon them this title, A point vvorthy of laughter. to witt K. Henry the 8. K. Edward the 6. and Q. Eli­zabeth; M. Attorney chose the worst and weakest of all the three, to be defended. For, as for K. Henry, K. Henry [...] though by the Canon-law he were incapable of Priesthood or holy orders (wherof depen­deth spirituall Iurisdiction) for that he was marryed when he tooke the same vpon him, and not only marryed but many times marryed, which is another Canonicall impediment (for he was not only Bigamus, and Trigamus, but twice also Trigamus, hauing bene marryed the sixth tyme) yet was all this in rigour of Eccle­siasticall power dispensable by the Church, being but only. [Page 90] Iuris humani impedimenta, & non diuini: Impediments of humane, & not diuine lawe; and so K. Henry either by dispensation, or by oc­casion, that this last wife had dyed, might haue been made Priest and capable of spirituall Iurisdiction.

Ed­ [...]d 6.50. But K. Edward being a child, of 9. yeares old, and conse­quently vnder the vse of reason, when this supreame spirituall Iurisdiction was giuen vnto him, he was so vncapable therof, as by no dispensation it might be made lawfull, vntill he came to the years of perfect reason, and so doe proue both Canonists, & Ciuilians; for that Iurisdiction cannot be giuen nor admitted, but where perfect vse of reason is; for that otherwise, it should be no humane act. But yet this impediment though not dispensable for the present, would haue come afterwards to be remoued without dispensation, by tract of tyme it self, which would haue brought the perfect vse of reason.

[...]51. But in Q. Elizabeth, in regard of her sex, no tyme, no dispen­sation, no authority humane, nor other circumstance could re­moue the impediment or incapacity of her sex, which God and nature had layd vpon her, so as in this point M. Attorney his choyse was very erroneous; [...]tvvin [...] cap 1. but whether the Twynne of Ignorance were also conioyned, which before he said to be inseparable from er­ror, I leaue to himself to consider. And thus much of this former consideration.

A point [...]rthy of [...].52. The other which I said to be worthie of greife and teares, consisteth in this, that the former position of the said Queenes Ecclesiasticall Supremacy being a thing vnpossible in it self for so many respects and causes, as before hath byn shewed, humane and diuine; and that the very Protestants themselues of the more learned sort doe laugh at it, and condemne the same as a new inuention neuer heard of in the world before: yet notwithstan­ding that the same in our countrey should passe by Parlament as a matter of faith, and to Religion, and be prest vpon men by cor­porall oathes vnder paine of extreame punishments; must needes be a matter of great compassion to euery pious mynd, that consi­dereth the infinite danger of soules therby. Euery Archbishop and Bi­shop (saith the Statute) and euery Ecclesiasticall person, of vvhat estate, [...] dignitie, preheminence, or degree soeuer he or they be; and all and euery tem­porall Iudge, Ius [...]icer, Mayor and other lay, or temporall officer, &c. And all that s [...]all suc out the liuery of their lands and inheritances, when they come to lawfull age: All that shall take any order, office, benefice, promotion, dignity, [Page 91] or degree in the vniuersity, &c. shall make, and take, and receiue a corporall oath vpon the Euangelist, according to the tenour and effect following. I A.B. doe vtterly testifie and declare in my conscience that the Queenes highnes is the only Supreame Gouernour, &c. aswell in all spirituall or Ecclesiasticall things or causes, as in temporall, &c. So goeth the oath; And by the last words that giue her as much spirituall Iurisdiction in all things, The oath of supre­macy exa­cted of Q. Elizabeth. and causes Ecclesiasticall, as she had, or could haue in temporall, you may see how farr they extended the meaning of this power, though they left out the word Supreame head for the causes before mentioned.

53. Now then (pious and godly Reader) consider with thy self out of thy Christian compassion, The finall considera­tion vpon all. Quae strages animarum: What a slaughter of soules ensued vpon this new deuise. And first how many thousands were forced, or allured by feare and terror, or desire of preferment to take this oath against their consciences, the far greater parte of the Realme being then Catholike, and condemning the said oath in their iudgments, and beleefe. And when afterward God styrred vp another generation, that had more care of their said consciences, and therupon refused so wil­fully to damne themselues, as to take such oathes with repug­nant consciences; what troubles, what afflictions haue ensued therof in all the time of that Queene? And among many others aboue an hundred learned preests, that in conscience were most free and innocent in all matters meant against the State, gaue their bloud for preseruation of their said consciences in that case: and now both they and shee are gone to plead their cause before the high and euerlasting Iudge. And if this matter of her spiri­tuall supremacy were but a iest and fancy, and new deuise for for the tyme, as you haue heard the best sorte of forreine Mon­sieur La [...] ­sa [...]. Embas­sador of the K. of Frāce and others vvherof see more. Prote­stants to affirme, and as her self would sometimes merily but se­riously say: then was the same both deerly bought and sold in this life by some, and will cost more deere in the other, where now the matter is in handling.

54. And this shall suffice for this chapter, Infra cap. 15. and for the first head of profe De Iure, wherin you may haue seene how sparinge M. Attorney hath carryed himself: we shall now passe to the other sorte of his proofes De facto wherin consisteth the whole corpes of his booke, and shall examine whether any better substance may be found in that, then hath byn in this. The proofe wilbe the tryall of all.