tearme it from whence all Spirituall Iurisdiction must proceed to others some adde also Temporall of Spirituall Iurisdiction Bellarmine saith all Bishops receiue Iurisdiction from the Pope The like some of them or some others teach also of Temporall power the difference which they obserue is that Spirituall power is deriued from the Pope to all Bishops but Temporall power is giuen to execute some seruice Augustinus Triumphus of Ancona who wrote about three hundreth yeeres agoe at the commaundement of Iohn 22. Pope set foorth of late by the authoritie and priuiledge of Gregorie 13. did long before the Iesuits dispute this question of the Popes Soueraigne authoritie ouer Princes since which time the Friars haue closely followed his footsteps His assertion is Omnis potestas imperatorum regum est subdelegata respectu potestatis Papae And againe in the same place Omnis potestas saecularis est restringenda amplianda executioni mandanda ad imperium Papâ—… These and the like positions are now resolutely and stiffely maintained by the Iesuits and others of that faction 3. This agreeth well with the Canon lawes which are the fundamentall lawes of the court of Rome For thus they say Nos tam ex superioritate quam ad imperium non est dubium nos habere c. That is we aswell by that soueraignetie and right which without all doubt we haue to the Empire as also by that power whereby we succâ—…ed the Emperour in the vacancie of the Empire and no lesse also by the fulnesse of that power which Christ the King of kings and Lord of lords hath in the person of Saint Peter graunted to vs though vnworthy declare all such sentences and processes made by Henry 7. void and of none effect Thus saith Clement 5. Pope against Henrie 7. Emperour To the same purpose saith Boniface 8. Pope in a Constitution of his Oportet gladâ—…um esse sub gladio c. That is one sword must be vnder another sword and the Temporall authoritie must be subiected to the Spirituall authoritie for when the Apostle saith there is no power but of God and the powers that are are ordained of God They could not be ordinated vnlesse one sword were vnder another and a little after Thus of the Church and of the power Ecclesiasticall is verified the prophecie of Ieremie behold I haue sâ—…t thee ouer nations and kingdomes to plucke vp and to root out and to destroy and to throw downe and to build and to plant And againe we declare we say we define we pronounce that it is necessarie to saluation to beleeue that euery humane creature is subiect to the Pope of Rome These be the lawes of the court of Rome which some of late haue so much adored as to call them Catholike Diuinitie and which for truth and certaintie and for authoritie ouer their consciences they hold comparable euen with the holy Scriptures 4. By all which wee collect the doctrine of the court of Rome or the Popes faction to be that the Pope hath all power Spirituall and Temporall aboue all other whatsoeuer This I call the opinion of the Court of Rome or the Popes faction because we finde the most learned of the Church of Rome to hold the contrary For concerning spirituall power the best learned of the Church of Rome yea and whole councels maintaine the Spiritual power of the Church to be aboue the Pope as hereafter we shall declare And for this Temporall power aboue Kings and Emperours claimed by the Popes in their Canon Lawe maintained by their flatterers it seemeth so straunge so new and absurd that they who maintaine it are not as yet agreed vpon the state of the question For some hold that the Pope hath this power directly ouer Princes as the Canonists to whom some of the Shoole-men may be added as Triumphus and some of late called Congregationis Oratorij as Cardinall Baronius Bozius and such Others denying this direct power hold that the Pope hath the same power but indirectly as depending vpon his Spirituall power of this opinion is Cardinall Bellarmine and others these both hold the same conclusion but differ in the manner of holding it Others there be who are in some sort content to allowe the Popes Fatherhood in spirituall matters in case lie would not prooue incorrigible but vtterly denie this power ouer princes both direct and indirect of this opinion was Guil. Occham Ma' silius Patauinus and other learned men of the Church of Rome And of late Guil. Berclaius a French Lawyer hath with great learning refuted both the former opinions of the Popes power direct and indirect against Bozius and Bellarmine and yet this man professeth himselfe to be resolued to liue and die a Papist so that on the one side stand all the reformed Churches and many of the best learned of the Church of Rome I may say all the Church of old and of late On the other side standeth the Pope with his faction that is his flatterers and this I call with some of former ages the Court of Rome this is the opinion of our aduersaries 5. Our positiue sentence against this standeth in two parts as the Pope hath incroached on two sides both vpon the right of Kings and of the Church Concerning the Kings right we hold that in externall coactiue Iurisdiction the King hath supreame authoritie in all causes and ouer all persons Ecclesiasticall aswell as Ciuill This is that which hath bene published by diuerse writings and ordinances which by publike authoritie haue beene enacted and published declaring that the King within hi Dominions hath this soueraigne authoritie and that heerein there is no forraine power aboue the King The authority of the Church hath beene in like sort vsurped by the Pope by drawing to himselfe a supposed title of the head of the vniuersall Church by deuising a straunge authority in the fulnesse of power by claiming a newe and straunge priuiledge of his not erring iudgement and making himselfe the onely iudge of controuersies of faith This power in iudging and determining of controuersies of faith and religion being partly in the Church partly in the Scriptures the Pope hath wrested from both first extolling the Church aboue the Scriptures and then setting himselfe aboue the Church Then that the limits of each power may be truely knowne we giue all spirituall power to the Church all externall coactiue iurisdiction to the King when each of these shall haue taken vp his owne right there will not be so much left to the Pope as these great flatterers the Iesuits seeke to heape vpon him Our purpose is first to dispute the right which Kings haue in coactiue power ouer all persons and in all causes euen Ecclesiasticall within his dominions by persons ecclesiasticall wee vnderstand Archbishops Bishops Deans Rectors and all other set in calling and place Ecclesiasticall by causes Ecclesiasticall wee vnderstand causes Ecclesiasticall of externall coactiue
accounted chiefe in succeeding the Apostles whose life and conuersation was most Apostolicall Wherefore as the auncients gaue this honour to the Bishops of Rome for their godly liues to call them the Apostles successours so when they found other Bishops who in vertue excelled they gaue these titles in as great honour to them as euer was giuen to the Romane Bishop For we finde these titles as much or more giuen to others then wee can finde giuen to the Romane Bishops Basill writing to S. Ambrose saith of him that he doth hold the sterne of that great and famous ship the Church of God and that God had placed him in the primary and chiefe seat of the Apostles Of the Bishop of Rome it is hard to finde in all antiquity a more honourable title then this is of Ambrose Now if S. Ambrose helde the sterne of that ship the Church of God and if hee sate in the chiefe and highest seat of the Apostles it must follow that an inferiour seat was reserued for the Bishop of Rome as long as Ambrose liued and that hee was esteemed the chiefest in Apostolicall succession who came neerest the Apostolicall vertues or that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 presidents alike in Christs Church And throughout all the Epistles of Basil wee obserue that albeit hee wrote often to the Westerne Church wee finde no such honourable mention of the Bishop of Rome but somewhat sounding to the contrary For in the tenth Epistle he noteth the pride and ambition which then began to be espied in the Bishops of Rome complaining to Eusebius Bishop of Samosata that the Church could haue no help from the pride and ambition of the West Then concerning this title to be called the successour of the Apostles it was somtimes giuen to the Bishops of Rome onely in regard of their vertue godlinesse and faith which once appeared in those Bishops And so it is giuen to Ambrose and to other Bishops In this sense we vnderstand those titles giuen by Sidonius Appollinaris Bishop of Aruern to diuers Bishops in France in his time For writing to Pope Lupus as he calleth him a Bishop in France he testifieth that hee had liued 45 yeares in the sea Apostolicall Insede Apostolica nouem iam decursa quinquennia And againe to the same man he saith Pater officium quod incomparabiliter eminenti Apostolatuituo sine fine debetur c. The same title he giueth also to Fontellus another Bishop in France declaring that therein he greatly reioyced Quod Apostolatus vestri patrocinium copiosissimum conferre vos comperi And writing to the same Fontellus Ego quoque saith he ad Apostolatus tui noticiam accedâ—… 23. Then by this Title Apostolicall no Iurisdiction will rise to the Bishops of Rome seeing the same is giuen to others as well as to them Neither was there then in the Bishop of Rome any power aboue others neither in the whole Church was câ—…actiue power found To prooue this Eusebius reporteth a Storie which we wish to bee well obserued because it maketh an euident proofe of the Iurisdiction of the Church which thing wee seeke The Storie is thus Paulus Samosatenus Bishop of Antioche taught that Christ was a meere man To represse this wicked heresie a Councell was gathered at Antioche The Church was then without the helpe of a Christian Magistrate In chiefe accompt among them that liued in the Church at that time was Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria a man for his great learning and godlinesse much renowned in the Church then and alwayes since he was so aged and weake at that time that he could not be present in the Councell but by writing confirmed the truth against Paulus the Hereticke Among them that were assembled there was Gregorius Bishop of Caesaria who had the gift of working miracles in which respect Basil maketh honourable mention of him in diuers places Dionysius was then Bishop of Rome The famous Bishops of the East had diuers meetings against Paulus the last meeting was in the time of Aurelianus Emperour about the yeere of Christ two hundred seuentie and fiue At what time Paulus was fully refuted and repressed especially by the labour industry and learning of Malchion hee was condemned saith Eusebius of all the Churches of Christ which are vnder heauen After the conuiction of this Heresie the Councell wrote to Dionysius Bishop of Rome and to Maximus Bishop of Alexandria for Dionysius died before this Councell ended and Maximus succeeded him in Alexandria and to all the Church of Christ vnder heauen The Epistle is extant in Eusebius and was directed to these Bishops that by them other Churches might haue knowledge of this thing 24. After all this Paulus Samosatenus held the Church of Antioche and gaue no place to Domnus whom the Councell excommunicating and deposing Paulus had decreed should take his place The Bishops in this case were driuen to seeke the aide of the heathen Emperour Aurelian at the suit of the Councell the Emperour commaunded that the Church of Antioche should be deliuered to him to whom the Church of Italie and the Bishop of Rome would write By this it appeareth that the Church had no Iurisdiction coactiue for when the Bishops of this Councell had proceeded as farre as they could by Ecclesiasticall censures against all which censures Paulus held the Church by force finding that without coactiue power Paulus could not be repressed and finding no such power in themselues they were forced to seeke the Emperours helpe acknowledging thereby that all coactiue power rested in the Emperor Moreouer by this we obserue the beginning of that practise which afterward drew the opinion of Iurisdiction after it For the Bishop of Rome had no authoritie then ouer other Bishops neither did he challenge any And when some fewe of that Sea did seeme to pretend some authoritie in matters of conformitie and ceremonies as Anicetus Victor and some few other they were quickly repressed by the Church were content to be ruled by the Church But because the heathen and persecuting Emperours were content for the glory of Italy to giue this honour to the Church there and especially to the Bishop of Rome that other Bishops should find fauour for his sake as appeareth euidently by this Story wherein it is recorded that the Bishops of that Councell had no meanes to helpe themselues but by the Emperour and the Emperour not regarding the cause onely to honour the Bishop of Rome referred the matter to him hence as reason was the Churches were compelled to make much of the Bishop of Rome and to seeke his fauour without which they sawe the heathen Emperours would not be drawen to doe them iustice 25. About this time Stephanus Bishop of Rome threatned likewise to Excommunicate some Bishops for rebaptising of heretickes but he was repressed by Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria Some also that were excommunicate in Africa came to Rome
to seeke the fauour of Cornelius who without examination of the cause receiued them to the Communion Of which thing Cyprian complaineth much they saile to Rome saith he cum merce mendaciorum Against this hee declareth that it was ordained that neither the Bishop of Rome nor any straunger should be iudge of the causes of their Church And to Cornelius he writeth thus Quum statutum sit ab omnibus aquum sit pariter ac iustum vt vniuscuiusque causa illic audiatur vbi est crimen admissum singulis pastoribus portio gregis sit ascripta quam regat vnusquisque gubernet c. Opoâ—…tet vtiqueâ—…os quibus praesumus non circumcursare episcoporum concordiam cohaerentem sua subdola fallaci temeritate collidere sed agere illic causam vbi accusatores habere testes sui criminis possunt That is Seeing it is decreed by all and it is a thing both equall and iust that euery mans cause should be heard there where the crime was committed and a part of the flocke is appointed to each Pastor which each in seuerall must rule and guide c Verily it behooueth that they whom we gouerne should not gad and run about to others nor by their crafty and fallatious rashnesse breake in sunder the coherent concord of Bishops but there ought they to plead their cause where they may haue accusers and witnesses of their crime 26. Thus albeit the Bishops of Rome did seeke some inlarging of their authoritie sometimes by giuing countenance and patronage to criminous and scandalous men yet they were repressed and brought into order by the godly and learned Bishops that then liued in the Church Who would not suffer the priuiledges of the Church to be lost or any title of Iurisdiction to grow where there was no right Thus for the first three hundred yeeres the Church of Rome had no Iurisdiction ouer other Churches but the Bishops there were reuerenced by other partly for their wisedome learning and godlinesse partly because the Emperours fauoured them aboue other and because they were Bishops of the chiefe citie and seat of the Empire For as they had some fauour aboue the rest with heathen Emperours so they found much more fauour from Christian Emperours which thing caused them to be regarded by other Bishops but no Iurisdiction was as yet acknowledged CHAP. V. Of the estate and Iurisdiction of the Church from the end of the first three hundred yeeres vntill the yeere of Christ sixe hundred Wherein is declared that coactiue power was in the Christian Emperors from whom the Church receiued some parts of coactiue Iurisdiction The Popes began to seeke Iurisdiction by forgerie NOwe let vs consider the times that followed when the Church had peace from persecution and found the fauour of Christian Emperours In which time no Iurisdiction will be found in the Church of Rome aboue other and all coactiue Iurisdiction was acknowledged without question to bee in the Christian Emperours from whom the Church receiued some part thereof 2. Constantine who did as much honour the Church and was as much honoured of the Church as euer any Christian Emperour leauing therein an example which standeth as yet alone without a match did notwithstanding take all that to himselfe which is now called Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction coactiue without any let or contradiction nay by the generall approbation of all that then liued When Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage was accused by Donatus and some other of that faction for deliuering the holy Scriptures to the enemies of Religion to be burned Constantine commaunded Caecilianus to come to Rome with a certaine number of Bishops which accused him and other that might heare and vnderstand the cause And commaunded the Bishop of Rome then Milciades with certaine Bishops of Fraunce to the number saith Optatus of nineteene to heare and end the matter the Bishops condemned Donaâ—…us who appealed from the sentence and albeit the Emperour was much offended at his appellation yet hee could not choose but receiue it In all this processe the Emperours Soueraigne Iurisdiction appeared the cause was a pretended crime of a Bishop the Emperour appointeth iudges and receiued the appellation which things declared Iurisdiction 3. Likewise after he had banished Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia and Theognis Bishop of Nice he wrote an Epistle to the people of Nicomedia declaring the iust causes of their banishment and signifieth that his especiall pleasure and desire is to haue Bishops castos orthodoâ—…os humanos and shutting vp his speech he saith Quoasi quis audacter inconsulteque ad memoriam pestium illarum exarserit illius statim audaeia ministri dei hoc est mea exequutione coercebitur Where we see Constantine vseth coactiue Iurisdiction ouer Bishops he punisheth them he declareth the true ground of his Iurisdiction from the word of God by which warrant he is placed the Minister of God This is that coactiue Iurisdiction ouer Ecclesiasticall persons which did alwayes belong to the Soueraigne Magistrate and was neuer by God giuen to any other 4. It was alwayes held by all sober writers of the Church of Rome as hereafter shall be further declared that in the Church there is no power aboue the power of a Councell And yet this authoritie of a Councell so much and so worthily reuerenced could not restraine Constantine but he vpon good and iust causes brought the rash proceedings of some Councels to a newe examination For when Athanasius was wronged by a Councell of Arians he complained to Constantine The Emperour sent for all the Bishops of that Councell to render an accompt of their proceedings before him which declareth that his Iurisdiction coactiue was aboue the power coactiue of the Councell For heere we consider onely Iurisdiction coactiue and not the matter or subiect for otherwise wee acknowledge as before is declared that the determinations of generall Councels are matters of an higher truth and authoritie then the Statutes or decrees of any Emperour But wee speake heere of that Soueraigne Iurisdiction coactiue which hath alwayes appeared in the power of the ciuill Magistrate and wherein the Church had no more part then that she receiued from the liberalitie of godly Emperours for as Kings receiue the knowledge of faith and Religion from the Church and not the Church from Kings so coactiue Iurisdiction the Church receiueth from Kings and not Kings from the Church 5. There was no Councell held in Constantines time whether of Orthodoxe or heretikes but either by the expresse commaundement or license of the Emperour Ruffinus saith he called the Councel of Nice at the request of the Bishops Ex sacer dotum sententia apud vrbem Nicaeam concilium Episcopale conuocat Epiphanius saith that Councell was obtained of the Emperour at the suit of Alexander Bishop of Alexandria So the Bishops who then liued in the Church held it to be of the Emperours right and Iurisdiction to call Councels
conclude directly against the Emperours purposes Thus doth Socrates report the calling of that councell but Sozomen saith it was not obtained of Valens but of Valentinian 9. Besides these publique and generall Synods there were also some more priuate and particular in calling whereof the Bishops had power The Bishop of the Diocesse vsed to call a Synod of his Clergy but could proceed no farther Prouinciall Synodes were called by Metropolitanes but in a generall Synod of many Nations the Emperour had alwayes the right of calling it as a King hath the onely right of calling a Synod of those Nations that are vnder his gouernment For as the counsell of Nice was called by Constantine so were all the counsels of these next three hundred yeares called by the Emperours that gouerned at such times Theodosius gathered the councell of Constantinople against the heresie of Macedonius in the third yeare of his raigne which was the yeare of Christ 383. saith Prosper The councell of Ephesus against Nestorius was gathered by the authority of Theodosius the younger and the fourth generall councell at Chalcedon by the authority of Martianus and Valentinianus Emperours Leo the first was a great man in these affaires and hee is the fittest to certifie vs of the truth against whose witnesse our aduersaries haue no reason to except This Pope then writing to the Emperour Theodosius saith Pietas vestra apud Ephesum constituit Synodale concilium And afterward declaring his obedience and conformity thereto saith Meum studium commodaui vt Clementiae vestrae studijs pareatur And againe Ne autem pijssimi Principis dispositioni nostra videatur praesentia defuisse fratres meos misi c. he hath the same also Epist. 23. ad Theodosium Againe hee writeth to Pulcheria to moue the Emperour to command a councell to be holden within Italy declaring that he wrote to the Emperour to intreat the same Which thing hee moueth also in other Epistles And though he much desired this that the Emperour would haue beene intreated to hold a councell within Italy yet could he not obtaine it and therefore was ready to obey the Emperour attending his pleasure therein who appointed it in another place 10 Which thing we obserue the rather because our aduersaries oflate haue yeelded this as a proper right to the Pope to call councels Catholici munus conâ—…andi concilia generalia saith Bellarmine ad Romanum pontificem propriè pertinere volunt And when they are driuen by these open and euident testimonies they shift it thus as to say another may doe it by the Popes consent but if the Pope neither appoint the place nor no other by his commaundement or consent then it is no councell but a conciliable These bee vaine and friuolous shifts of Friars For it is true that the Popes consent was to these auncient councels but no otherwise then as the consent of all other Bishops They consented because they could not chuse because they were resolued to be obedient but they could not appoint either place or time For Leo could not haue it where hee would but it was where and when the Emperour appointed 11 Before the councell of Chalcedon there is the Writ of the Emperours Valentinian and Martian called Sacra to call Bishops to Nicaea But another Sacra is sent to reuoke that and to call them to Chalcedon So that all this while the Emperors rule as those that haue Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction They call councels they punish offenders of the Clergy they establish Ecclesiasticall Courts they are acknowledged the nourcing Fathers of Religion the keepers and preseruers of both Tables and of the discipline of the Church And therefore Leo writing to Constantinus Emperour who called the sixt Synod saith thus Cognouimus quod sancta vniuersalis maxima sexta Synodus quae per Dei gratiam imperiali decreto in regia vrbe congregata est c Wee know that the holy and vniuersall great sixt Synod which by the grace of God is called and gathered by the imperiall decree in the imperiall City c. And a little after Pietas vestra fructus misericordiae potestas custos disciplinae Your godlinesse is the fruit of Gods mercy your power is the keeper of discipline And againe Nec enim minor regnantium cura est praua corrigere quam de aduersarijs triumphare quia einimirum potestatem suam seruiendo subijciunt cuius munere imperare noscuntur c. Vnde diuinitus praordinata vestra Christianissima pietas c. Caput Ecclesia Dominum Iesum Christum veram pietatis regulam amplectendo c. For Gouernours ought to haue no lesse care to correct vngodly things then to triumph ouer their aduersaries for they submit their power to his seruice by whofe power they are knowne to rule c. Therefore your most Christian zeale preordained of God c. acknowledging our Lord Iesus Christ the true rule of godlinesse to bee the head of the Church Wherein the Bishop of Rome doth acknowledge first that the generall councell is to be called onely by the authority of the Emperour imperiali decreto Secondly that the Emperours power is such a power as is custos disciplinae Hee speaketh here in an Ecclesiasticall cause and of Ecclesiasticall affaires Now that power which is custos disciplinae Ecclesiae what is it but Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction This word Iurisdiction was not then worne in such vse as now it is but we see the auncients vse words counteruailing it The Bishop of Rome acknowledgeth Ecclesiasticall power and Iurisdiction to be in the Emperour when hee yeeldeth him such a power as is preseruer of the discipline Ecclesiasticall Thirdly he confesseth that the care of the Church Church-gouernment for establishing the truth doth no lesse belong to the office of a Prince then to triumph ouer his foes in warre Fourthly the Bishop of Rome as then acknowledgeth no other head of the Church then Iesus Christ as appeareth by his words To the same purpose Saint Augustine saith Diuinitus praecipi regibus vt in regno suo bona iubeant mala prohibeant non solum quae pertinent ad humanam societatem verum etiam quae ad diuinam religionem Contra Crescentium li. 3. cap. 51. That is Kings are commaunded to estalish good things and prohibite euill in their Kingdomes not onely in things belonging to Ciuill societie but in such things also that belong to diuine Religion Gregorie the great following the footsteppes of his Fathers yeeldeth the fame authoritie to the King For writing to Theodoricus King of France he saith Iterata vos per vestram mercedem adhortatione pulsamus vt congregari Synodum iubeatis This part of Iurisdiction for calling of Councels is so fully confirmed to be the Emperours right by the Aunceants that Cardinall Cusanus sure no Lutheran disputing of this priuiledge concludeth from the confessed testimonies of the Aunceants these two things First That Emperours
it must be before his Bishoppe if he will accuse the Bishoppe it must be in a prouinciall Synode if he will draw a Metropolitane to answer for some things which he hath done it must be either before the Primate or before the Bishoppe of Constantinople All this we graunt to be orderly established the things intended are matters of Ecclesiasticall Cognisance which are to bee heard in such Courts but our question is of Clerks that are conuinced to be murtherers or Traytors c. Whether such are to bee exempt from triall at Common Law Of which exemptions these auncient Bishops neuer dreamed 76. It is moreouer to be noted that diuers of these places which he citeth as that from Sulpitius of S. Martin and from Ambrose c. are vnderstoode of another thing and not of exemption of Clarkes at all For the auncient Bishops as before I haue declared thought it not lawfull that matters of faith and doctrine should be determined in ciuill Courts by ciuill Magistrates This is true and this is that which those testimonies speake of but what is this to criminous Clarks that Robbers Traytors murtherers of the Clergy should be protected by reason of their Order from triall in Kings Courts this is a doctrine neuer knowne to the auncients It was first knowne in England in the dayes of Henry the second stirred seditiously by Thomas Becket Archbishop of Canterbury when as before that time it was neuer heard of in this land The manner heereof I will briefly recite out of Roger Houeden 77. In the yeare of Christ 1163. the contention concerning exemption of Clerkes grew famous betweene King Henry the second and Thomas Becket Archbishop Rex volebat saith Houeden Presbyteros Diaconos Subdiaconos alios Ecclesiae rectores si comprehensi fuissent in latrocinio vel murdra vel felonia vel iniqua combustione vel in his similibus ducere ad saecularia examina punire sicâ—…t laicum Contra quod Archiepiscopus dicebat quod si Clericus in sacris ordinibus constitutus vel quilibet alius rector Ecclesiae calumniatus fuerit de aliqua re per viros Ecclesiasticos in curia Ecclesiastica debet iudicari Et si conusctus fuerit ordines suos amittere sic alâ—…enatus ab officio beneficio Ecclesiastico si postea forisfecerit secundum voluntatem Regis baliuorum suorum iudicetur That is The King required that Priests Deacons Subdeacons and other Rectors of Churches if they were taken in murther robbery felony burning of houses or such like should be brought to secular Courts and there punished as Lay-men were Against this the Archbishop affirmed that if a Clerke being within holy Orders or any other Parson of a Church were accused of any thing he must be iudged by Ecclesiasticall Iudges in the Ecclesiasticall Court and if he were conuict he should loose his orders And so being excluded from office and benefice Ecclesiasticall if after this he incurred the like fault then might he be iudged at the pleasure of the King and his Officers Thus farre Houeden 78. This manner of degrading and afterward deliuering criminous Clarkes to the Secular power crept in about the time of the Conquest Bellarmine pretending greater antiquity for it can neither bring reason nor testimony for his opinion For whereas he saith Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia was first deposed by the Nicen Councell and afterward banished by Constantine by this offering to proue that they must first be deliuered to the Secular power before the Magistrate may punish and reproueth Caluin for not considering thus much We answere Bellarmine sheweth his skill in shifting and hiding the truth to deceiue the simple For Caluin in that place which he citeth against this Romish immunitie proueth two things First that coactiue power is in the hand of the Prince and not of the Church Ecclesia cogendi non habet potestatem de ciuili coactione loquor saith he Secondly that criminous Clarkes had no immunities from the ciuill Courts of Princes Now that Bellarmine saith Eusebius was first deposed by the Councell and then banished is nothing against Caluin but for him For the Church did not inflict the coactiue punishment of banishment but the Emperour And Caluin proueth at large in the same place that Kings and Emperours haue no authority to iudge in causes of faith Producing the example of Ambrose who in such a cause resisted the Emperour Valentinian Such a cause was that of Eusebius the Emperour knew not whether he was in fault or not before the Church had iudged the cause But Caluines iudgement and our question standeth in two thinges against which Bellarmine doth not so much as speake one word First that coactiue power was not then in the Church but in the Emperour Secondly that criminous Clerkes were then punished by the Magistrate Eusebius is not there proposed as a criminous Clerke but as an example wherein the coactiue power of the Magistrate appeared But now they say if a Clerke bee proued to be a felon murderer traytor c. the Kings Courts may not censure this man before he be degraded Against these immunities wee speake for which Bellarmine offereth not any proofe Let the manner of Bellarmines answering bee considered for it is easie for him thus to answere Caluin and all Protestants when he toucheth not the point in question but singling out of some peece from the whole wresteth that also from the true intent that he may shape a mis-shapen answere to it Then we say that before those desperate times wherein Iohn Wiclife saith and often affirmeth that Satan was loosed no man claymed such a beastly priuiledge as to be exempt from the Kings Lawes for murder treason and such like Godlinesse reason and the light of Nature seemeth to be extinguished in these men that being contented to take the benefite of Lawes will not be contented to bee ordered by Lawes This hath forced some Princes and States to ordaine Lawes that such should be out of the Kings protection Thus did that noble Prince Edward the third King of England Wherein the King seemed to open the true way to his successors to deale with these men for seeing as then they did so now they doe denie themselues to be the Kings subiects and affirme that neither by Diuine nor humane right they are bound to obey the King with his coactiue Lawes and that they are onely vnder the subiection of the Pope that for no crimes they are to bee examined in the Kings Courts is it not great reason that the protection of the King and of his Lawes should bee denyed to them that reiect both 79. Houeden declareth also that in the yeare one thousand one hundred sixtie foure the King called a Synod and required the Bishops vpon their allegeance to receiue his Graundfathers Lawes to vse and obserue them Thomas Becket answered for him and the rest they would keepe all the Lawes
Lords supper and in such things might appoint what he list This manner of declaring the Kings Iurisdiction did so much offend the reformed Churches that Caluin the writers of the Centuries doe much complaine thereof and worthily For the Bishop of Winchester sought not like a curious triar of mettals to seuere the gold from the siluer and drosse from both but as hee found this massie crown of Iurisdiction vpon the Popes head so he tooke it with gold siluer coper drosse and all and set vpon the Kings head So that the thing which procured so much offence was not the title but the Bishops false and erronious declaration of that title If any obiect against me what then will you take vpon you to handle this thing better then such a learned and prudent Prelate I answer the Bishop wanted neither wit nor learning for the opening of this point but onely a loue to the truth which loue when I shall bring to this question I finde my selfe therby so supported that neither the perfections of other men nor mine owne imperfections can daūt me so much as to cause me to giue ouer the defence of the truth True it is that a more skilfull Archimedes might haue beene set on this worke to distinguish the things that haue lien so long confounded in this question or the common helpe of many might haue beene combined wherin our aduersaries are now growen wiser in their generation then the children of light And though it seeme to be true that an euill cause hath more need of helpes yet there is no reason that they who haue the handling of a good cause should in confidence of the cause neglect any helpe that possibly they may attain vnto Albeit we must confesse that the arme of God hath wonderfully declared it selfe by weak meanes against great For if a man should looke vpon the meanes on both sides with an eye of flesh he would thinke as Vzziah did When the Arke was shaken that the Church could not possibly stand vp by so weake meanes For on the one side the Pope sheweth himselfe with the riches of Saint Peters great and potent patrimony with the helpe of so many great Princes with the councell and policie of his Cardinals with the armies of his Canonists Priests secular and regular but especially in these later years of his Iesuites who glorying so much of their learning and filling the world with their vaunts being supported by wealth and policie abounding with all worldly meanes that their hearts can desire incouraged by preferments march like armed troupes entring a battell On the other side a company of poore men Luther Bucer Zuinglius O◅colampadius Martyr Caluin and such like v◅terly contemned of the Iesuites bringing no other furniture with them sauing a good conscience learning and a loue to the trueth seeme to make a poore shew without force without glory If Gods truth were to ◅e vpholden by humane meanes or if the seruants of the truth were drawne to speake in the Church as Lawyers are for their fees at the barre then what hope could wee haue to stand against the Iesuites the Popes Lawyers who by inuincible clamours facing and obstinacy make not truth but victory the end they aime at But as there is great oddes in the meanes on the one side so there appeareth no lesse difference in the successe on the other side For by these weake and contemned means the world is subdued vnto Christ deliuered from the bondage of superstition wisdome is iustified of her owne children and the truth triumpheth in the sincerity and godlinesse of weake meanes against the malice policy and strength of her prepotent aduersaries Which successe compared with the meanes on both sides doth manifest the arme of God to be in the cause that groweth so much against the expectation of the world and meanes For what other power could make so weake meanes preuaile so much against so great policy and strength but the same power though not in the sam◅ measure which by a company of poore Fishermen despised in the world subdued the whole world vnto the obedience of Christ As this successe and blessing by the presence of God hath beene hitherto apparant in this cause so the Iesuites take order that the same successe and blessing may continually hereafter follow our cause vntill it hath rooted out all the aduersaries that make opposition against it for what greater strength or aduantage can bee giuen to our cause then the wickednesse of our aduersaries doth giue How often doth Moses declare to the Church of Israell that the fauour of God was so much declared towards them not for their owne righteousnes but for the wickednes of their aduersaries So that if we should stand still and looke on and holde our selues in patience our aduersaries will worke the meanes by their owne strange cruelties in their Inquisitions by their prophane and vncleane conuersation by their grosse Idolatry by their horrible treasons and conspiracies against the liues of Princes by their diuelish deuises for subuersion of whole States at one blow by their hypocrisie falshood and aequiuocations and by that most admirable and exquisit villany that euer was inuented in deprauing corrupting altering and chaunging all auncient writers by these and the like practises of wickednes they themselues will worke the meanes of our successe and of their owne destruction And if the Prince of this world and his first begotten had not blinded their eyes and their hearts they could not choose but see and acknowledge the experience of Gods fauour and protection mightily declared from heauen vpon our cause our Prince and State and of late much increased and made apparant to all th◅ world by their owne wicked practises Then the difference being so great in the meanes and in the successe so great also betweene our conuersation and theirs must needes declare a great difference betweene our hopes and theirs our Religion and theirs they haue raised the Princes and armies of the world against vs when they pretended peace wee neuer vsed deceit or wrong against them they haue by barbarous deuises attempted to procure our vtter subuersion we desire hartily their conuersion to God they curse reuile and baspheme vs wee pray for them this difference may shew where truth and Religion is and might if they entred into the serious consideration of things drawe them to cease from all wicked attempts to follow and embrace one trueth and to worshippe one God with vs. But if there be no remedy but that Princes and States must be oppugned by a perpetuall league of Conspiracy from Rome if nothing can satisfie them but the blood of Kings then what remaineth but that the Princes of Christendome prepare themselues to that great battel which S. Iohn saith shal be fought in the plain of the earth against Gog and Magog When God shall raise the spirits of princes to that worke he will open the way and giue the
this opinion was r◅olued that Supreame Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction was in the Popes And therefore we prouing that Supreame and last Appellation doth by the law of God belong to none but to the Soueraigne Prince conclude vndoubtedly that Supreame Iurisdiction belongeth to him onely 10. Heere a question may be mooued whether Saint Paul did well and orderly when he appealed to Caesar and whether Caesar was made iudge of these questions which were Doctrines We aunswere Saint Paul had no meaning to make C◅sar iudge of any point of faith But whereas hee was persecuted by the high Priests who sought his life in this matter of coactiue power Saint Paul giueth Iurisdiction to Caesar. There is also a difference betweene that power which heathen Princes haue and that which Christian Princes haue for heathen Princes haue all power coactiue whatsoeuer the cause be and without this helpe the Church could neuer deale in matters of this nature Christian Princes besides this coactiue power haue also as appeareth in the gouernment of Israel externall discipline in matters Ecclesiasticall 11. Thus we haue declared the distinct right of the King and the Priest after that they were distinguished by the written law of God we haue prooued that the Soueraigne Iurisdiction coactiue resteth in the Prince by a right which God hath giuen and therefore may not be taken away by man It followeth to consider how this right hath beene accordingly exercised by the godly Kings of Israel Ios◅ commanded the people to be circumcised and not Eleazerus the cause was Eccles◅ticall but to command in such causes declareth iurisdiction Dauid reduceth the Arke he appointeth Priests Leuites Singers Porters to serue at the Tabernacle he assigneth Officers of the sonnes of Aaro◅ All which being matters Ecclesiasticall the Prince as hauing soueraigne authority in both causes ordaineth Solomon buildeth the Temple and consecrateth it Asa remoueth Idols and dedicated the Altar of God that was before the porch of the Lord. Iehosaphat abolisheth Idolatry cutteth downe the groues sendeth Priests and Leuites to teach in Townes and Cities Setteth vp Iudges both ciuill and Ecclesiasticall and commandeth both to iudge according to godlinesse truth and Iustice. Because in the words of Iehosaphat these things are distinctly deliuered we will obserue the whole place The wordes are these And hee set iudges in the land throughout all the strong Cities of Iuda Citie by Citie And said to the Iudges take heed what you doe for you execute not the iudgement of man but of the Lord and he will be with you in the cause and iudgement Wherefore now let the feare of the Lord be vpon you take heed and doe it for there is no iniquitie with the Lord our God neither respect of persons nor receiuing of reward Moreouer in Ierusalem did Iehosaphat set of the Leuites and of the Priests and of the chiefe of the families in Israel for the iudgement and cause of the Lord and they returned to Ierusalem And he charged them saying thus shall you doe in the feare of the Lord with a perfect heart And in euery cause that shall come to you of your brethren that dwell in your Cities betweene blood and blood betweene Law and precept Statutes and iudgements you shall iudge them and admonish them that they trespasse not against the Lord that wrath come not vpon you and vpon your brethren And behold Amariah the high Preist shall be the chiefe ouer you in all matters of the Lord. 12. From which words we collect thus much concerning ◅he Kings Iurisdiction and the things wherein it consisteth ◅irst the King appointeth and placeth both Temporall and clesi◅sticall Iudges and commandeth and chargeth them so placed to execute their functions faithfully we inferre vpon this command in both alike that hee hath Iurisdiction ouer both causes But here let me remember a trifling obiection which some of our aduersaries haue deuised of late they would distinguish betweene command and Iurisdiction For they deny not but that all sortes of persons are vnder the Kings commaund and gouernment whom he may command each to doe their Office and yet they vtterly deny the Kings Iurisdiction and tell vs that command and Iurisdiction must not be hudled vp together Now let vs consider what hudling is in this when the Kings command and his Iurisdiction are set as things depending and cohaering one to the other When we say the King may command we meane plainely as we speake that the King hath from God lawfull authoritie to command and to punish them that breake his command This is the common vnderstanding of the Kings command But these Romish sophisters when they say the King may command do not vnderstand neither will they acknowledge at any hand that the King hath lawfull authoritie from God to punish the breach of his command for they vtterly deny that the King hath any authoritie to punish a Clarke though he should breake his commandement And call you this a command The King may command and goe without as the saying is This is the deuils sophistry taken vp by men hardned against shame content to stoupe downe to gather vp the meanest and basest shifts to dazell the simple The Iesuites resolue of this as of a truth most soundly concluded in their schooles That the King may not punish Ecclesiasticall persons that the Kings Court may not heare examine and iudge them though they should commit murders adulteries robberies or what other wickednesse soeuer And yet they tell vs that the King may command them Now to say one thing and yet to let the world see that they are resolued in the contrary this sauoreth strongly of the spirit of illusion when reason learning honestie and all faileth yet well fare a bold and hardned face which neuer faileth this generation 13. The truth is if the King haue not lawfull authority to punish he hath not lawfull authoritie to command and punish he cannot vnlesse he hath authority to iudge or cause iudgement to be done so that they who take away from the King power to iudge persons Ecclesiasticall take from him power to punish and consequently power to command but the Doctrine of the Papists this day as shall hereafter appeare in his due place taketh from the king power to iudge per sons Ecclesiastical therefore they rob him of power to punish and to cōmaund for nothing can more strongly take away the Kings command then to deny him power to punish and to iudge And yet they are not ashamed to tell vs that they deny not the kings cōmand but his Iurisdiction Then to leaue these men with their absurd and perplexed contradictions where the King ◅ay command he may iudge and punish the breach of that command and therefore his Iurisdiction appeareth in his lawfull authority and command Then by this charge and commaund of Iehosaph◅ is declared his Iurisdiction in these causes wherein he hath this authority
to command for otherwise the Kings command is but as the word of a priuat man or of a child if he haue not power to iudge and punish 14. Moreouer whereas Iehosaphat commandeth the Priests and Leuites to iudge betweene blood and blood Law and precepts statutes and iudgements In things that concerned questions of blood as when blood was shed by casualtie in which case the party offending had remedy by sanctuary and the high Priest was the immediat iudge as also in matters concerning lawes precepts â—…tutes iudgements that is ordinances ceremoniall or morall In these things stood the Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction which then was practised in the Church for to take that distinction which we must often remember in this question it is confessed that all Ecclesiasticall power is either of order or Iurisdiction In both which the King hath a part bâ—…t differently In the power of orders the Kings part and office was to see that things of that nature were orderly done and the breach thereof punished but himselfe was not to execute any thing whereunto the Priests were apointed by the power of their orders as to offer incense c. Wherefore Vzziah was smitten with leprosie for medling with that part of the Priests office Now Iurisdiction is diuided into power internall which as often wee haue said belongeth not to the King and power externall which power externall when it is coactiue is nothing but that which wee call the Kings Iurisdiction though it be in matters Ecclesiastical And this Iurisdiction is here testified to be in Iehosaphat and from him deriued to all to all iudges vnder him both Temporall and Ecclesiasticall For as he commaunded the Temporall iudges so in like sort he commaunded the Ecclesiasticall And as the Ecclesiasticall iudges might replie if they had bene such as now these are of the Romane Clergie that Ecclesiasticall iudgements were holy and the cause of God and not of the King so doth the King witnesse of Temporall iudgements for speaking to Temporall iudges he saith you execute not the iudgements of man but of the Lord. Then Temporall iudgements are the Lords cause aswell as Ecclesiasticall and herein they differ not 15. Now this Iurisdiction which is in coactiue power wee prooue to be in the King and onely in the King I speake according to the forme of the state of Israel in those dayes wherof we now speake aunswerable to which is the Soueraigne magistrate in any other state This right I say we prooue to bee onely in the King and from him deriued to other iudges both Temporall and Spirituall by these reasons first the King and onely the King commaundeth both iudges to doe their duties in their seuerall places and hath lawfull power to punish them if they doe otherwise therfore the Kings Iurisdiction coactiue is ouer both sorts alike The antecedent hath two parts the first drawen from the expresse words of the Scripture in this text the second followeth by a necessitie For the commaund of a King is ridiculous and no commaund vnlesse he haue authoritie to punish The consequence followeth by the very definition of Iurisdiction which will prooue the second part of the antecedent For this Iurisdiction for which we plead is defined by the most learned of the Church of Rome authority coactiue If it be authoritie it may command if coactiue it may punish then it followeth that where Iehosaphat had first authoritie to commaund and last to punish that questionlesse hee had this Soueraigne Iurisdiction 16. If against this any obiect that the King may command in matters of orders of preaching the Word administring the Sacraments c. In all these things the King may lawfully command the parties to doe their duties and may punish them if they doe otherwise and yet no man will put the Kings Iurisdiction in these matters of orders Preaching Sacraments c. For aunswere let me intreat the reader with attention to consider these three things First to commaund secondly to execute thirdly to punish Iurisdiction standeth wholly in the first and last and nothing at all in the second that is in authoritie and not in action So that though the King should execute a thing which belongeth to his office yet in the execution therof his Iurisdiction should not appeare howsoeuer his wisedome knowledge and actiue vertues might appeare therein for Iurisdiction is in the authoritie of commaunding and power of punishing and supereminence that riseth from both And therefore in the preaching of the Word administration of Sacraments the King hath no part because therein Iurisdiction standeth not these things being matters of execution not of commaund but the authoritie to commaund these things by making or vrging lawes for them and to punish the transgression by corporall punishments this because it includeth coactiue power is in the Soueraigne Magistrate onely If the Magistrate should either neglect his dutie as the heathen did or commaund false doctrines to be preached as the Arian Emperours did in this case the Church hath warrant to maintaine the truth but without tumults and rebellion and rather in patience to loose their liues then to forgo any part of the truth 17. Another reason to prooue this Soueraigne authoritie coactiue to be only in the King and from him respectiuely deriued to both sorts of iudges may thus bee drawen For the iudges Temporall there is not so much question made all the doubt is of iudges Ecclesiasticall the chiefe of which iudges Ecclesiasticall in the Church of Israel was the high Priest Then this Iurisdiction whereof we speake must be confessed to haue been principally and originally either in the king or in the high Priest but in the high Priest it was not Therefore in the King it must be That it was not in the high Priest we proue by these reasons The high Priest is commaunded corrected punished and deposed by the King and not the King by the Priest therefore the Soueraigne Iurisdiction is not in the high Priest but in the King Againe the high Priests did neuer practise coactiue authoritie vnlesse when they were Soueraigne Magistrates as sometimes the high Priests in Israel were but as high Priestâ—… they had no such power for the causes betweene blood and blood which were of their cognisance are by the interpreters vnderdood such cases wherein a man was killed by chaunce without the purpose or against the will of the offender in which case the high Priest might graunt him the prâ—…uiledge of sanctuary and so deliuer him from the auenger of blood but he had no power coactiue to inflict death or such punishments at his pleasure which trueth was so constantly receiued and preserued in the Church afterward that euen in the greatest power highest ruffe of Poperie the Church of Rome did not take this full â—…oactiue power but onely proceeded to degradation and then to deliuer men vp to the secular powers which was a â—…ecret confession that they had no right to
this power coactiue though they had vsurped many parts thereof 18. A third reason to prooue this authoritie to bee in the Ciuill Magistrate is as I teached before confirmed by the right of Appellations For in matters of coactiue Iurisdiction a man might appeale from the high Priest to the King as Saint Paul did to Caesar which was vtterly vnlawfull for him to doe vnlesse he might as lawfully haue appealed to a King if that state of Israel had then beene ruled by a King as at other times it was For that right which Saint Paul giueth to Nero to heare Appellations he would vndoubtedly yeeld to Dauid or Ezekâ—…as or any other godly King in his owne Dominions Wherefore it followeth that either Saint Paul must be condemned for yeelding an vnlawful power to Emperors or Kings must haue the same priuiledge which thing being admitted in matters Ecclesiasticall doth inuincibly prooue the Kings Iurisdiction in such matters The same thing is also confirmed from those words of the Apostle he is the minister of God and he beareth the sword If the Magistrate be the minister of God then he hath full authoritie and Iurisdiction from God whose minister and vicegerent he is if he beare the sword hee hath all power coactiue for coactiue power doth alwayes follow tâ—… sword which God hath giuen to the Ciuill Magistrate to beare Therefore Ioh. Chrysostoâ—… saith Regi corpâ—…ra commissa sunt sacerdoti animâ—… reâ—… maculas corporum remittit sacerdos maculas peccatorum illâ—… cogit hic exhâ—…rtatur ille habet arma sensibilia hic arma spiritualia Hâ—…m 4. de verb. Esa. vidi dom Then the true difference betweene the Magistrate and the Priest concerning this point is Ille cogit hic exhâ—…rtatur so that coactiue power is left wholy to the Magistrate Ambrosâ—… likewise speaking of the authoritie of the Church and of Bishops saith Coactus 〈◊〉 nâ—…n noui arma enim nostra preces sunt 〈◊〉 â—…at iâ—… Auxâ—…t where he declareth the difference betweene these two powers leauing nothing to the Church but preces 〈◊〉 wherin there is no coaction In which sense Thomas Aquinâ—…s faith vindicta quae fit authâ—…ritate publicae potestatâ—… sâ—…cundum 〈◊〉 iudicis pertieet ad iusticiam commutatiuam 2. 2. qu. 8. art 1. Therefore vindicatiue power or coaction belonges not to the Church but the Magistrate that exerciseth coâ—…utatiue iustice 19. In regard of which high power Princes are called Gods I haue said you are Gods And because an aduersarie of late hath told vs that this name is giuen aswell to Ecclesiasticall gouernours as to Kings we reply that it cannot be shewed that this name is giuen to Ecclesiasticall gouernours but either where such gouernours haue receiued authoritie from the Ciuill Magistrate or where themselues are the chiefe Magistrates so that it is a name giuen in respect of Soueraigne power For to manifest the Soueraigne emmency of the Prince compare the Prince and Priest togâ—…ther and by this comparison wee shall euidently know the truth for we find the Prince called a God not onely in respect of the people but in respect of the Priest also Where the Lord himselfe speaketh to Moses of Aaron comparing their power and offices together he saith thus He shall be thy spokesman vnto the people and he shall be as thy mouth and thou shalt be to him in stead of God In this comparing of these two great offices Moses is the directour Aaron the interpretour and preacher Where the Prince or Soueraign Magistrate is called a God not onely in respect of the people as in diuers other Scriptures but in respect of the Priest thou shalt be to him euen to Aaron as a God We find then that the Prince is called a God in respect of the Priest but we can neuer find that the Priest is called a God in respect of the Prince This declareth a Soueraigne authoritie of the Prince in matters of God and of Gods true Religion For he who by his office is to establish true Religion in his dominions doth heerein represent a liuely exâ—…mple both of the goodnesse and power of God and therefore Magistrates are called Gods as being Gods Vicegerents for establishing of true Religion 20. And this our Sauiour Christ confirmeth for whereas Psal. 82. They are called Gods I haue said you are Gods Our Lord expoundeth that place declaring in what sense they are so called For he saith If he called them Gods vnto whom the word of God was giuen and the Scripture cannot be broken c. Then the Magistrates who are here called Gods are such to whom the word of God is giuen For further declaration of the truth let this question be demaunded to whom is the word of God principally giuen to whose Soueraigne custodie is the word of God committed The words of our Sauiour Christ containe an aunswere to the Ciuill Magistrate For it is certaine that all that Psalme whence Christ taketh those words is wholly and intirely vnderstood of the Ciuill Magistrates and not of Priests or Ecclesiasticall gouernours Why then and is not the word of God giuen to Ecclesiasticall gouernours aswell as to Kings Yes verily but diuersly for to Ecclesiasticall gouernours the knowledge of the word is giuen to publish by preaching For the Priests lippes shall preserue knowledge and they shall seeke the law at his mouth for hee is the messenger of the Lord of hostes Then if the question be asked to whom is the word giuen by the way of knowledge to preach and publish it The answere is to the Priest but Christ speaketh not here of that manner of giuing the word but he toucheth that Commission which is giuen to Magistrates For to Magistrates it is not giuen by way of especiall knowledge to preach it but by way of an especiall commission to keepe it to establih it by authoritie to command obedience vnto it and to punish the violatours of it This is the authority of a Christian Prince for he hath called them Gods to whom the word was giuen Whom hath hee called Gods Ciuill Princes for of such onely of such that Psalme speaketh Why are they called Gods Because they are Gods vicegerents by their authority to establish Gods word Therefore they are acknowledged to bee custodes vtâ—…insque tabulae for which cause it was an ancient ceremony in the Church of Israel that at the Kings Coronation the Booke of God should be giuen into the hand of the King as we read in the Coronation of Ioash Which thing is confirmed by a commaundemant in the Law why was this thing so solemnly commanded so religiously preached but to shew that God hath committed the care of Religion principally to the King that by the vtmost of his power and authority it might be established in his Dominions 21. This doth proue that Moses was a Prince and not a Priest and Aaron a Priest but not a Prince because Moses
obserued to speake in the Councell with some freedome as some did especiall marke was taken of such these were withdrawen and recalled thence that other might take their place Of this the Protestant Princes complaine to Charles Fuerunt in eo concessu pauci quidem aliquanto liberiores in dicendo sed inuenta ratio fuit vt ijs reuocatis atque summotis alij summitterentur nequiores That is Some were in that company wâ—…o vsed some freedome of speech but a meanes was inuented to remoue and recall them that other more seruile might be in their places The Pope thus giuing continuall direction to the Councell and appointing by intercourse of messages coÌ„tinually trauelling betweene Rome and Trent what should be concluded insomuch that a common prouerbe was then taken vp among them that the holy Ghost trauelled from Rome to Trent in a packet and finding that after all this his purposes were crâ—…ssed by a certaine number of voyces the number being precisely brought vnto him began to flie to his last reserued shift For of a suddaine he created thirteene Cardinals in one day all Italians to whom hauing giuen vncertaine titles but certaine instruction he sent them to the Councell whom the other Fathers of the Councell welcomed not knowing their end At the next meeting the matters being proposed as before it was found that the voices of these that were come so lately did alter all and east it at the Popes pleasure and yet their wretched pollicies rested not thus If any were supposed to excell in knowledge grauitie learning and godlinesse they were some before the Councell that their presence should not hinder or disturbe the Popes purposes some afterward secretly taken away by poyson this was the end of that worthy Cardinall Contaren and others who for their eminency in vertue were suspected of Lutheranisme And that the world might know and take full notice of the Popes end and scope in calling this Councell that it was not the true faith and religion of the Germanes that hee sought but their blood it is euident by his practise For whilest thus they held the Germanes and all the world in expectation of a Councell the Pope in the meane time raised an army and sent it against the Protestants to be ioyned with other armies prepared for their vtter destruction The generall of the Popes armie Octauius Farnesius Graundchild to Pope Paulus the third by whom hee was sent departing out of Italy was obserued to say That he would destroy so many Germanes that his horse might swimme in the blood of Lutherans This is their holy Councell of Trent consisting of a fewe and those fewe bound by an oath to the Pope restrained prohibited poysoned and at last with many shifts drawen to serue a purpose assembled without lawfull authority called by the vsurped power of the Pope drawen and pulled by fraud and subtiltie ending in blood and warres and remaining the onely cause of all the warres which haue beene raised within these westerne parts of Christendome since that time to this day §. II. Of Friars by whom this Iurisdiction was maintained 20. MY purpose being to note the meanes by which this Iurisdiction hath beene aduanced I thinke it needfull after forgeries to speake of Friars For they haue beene the chiefe aduancers of this Iurisdiction and the fittest instruments that the Pope hath found for his purpose Iohn Wiclife in diuers places declareth out of assured knowledge of storie himselfe being neere those times and therefore more able to iudge therof that before the yeere of Christ one thousand two hundred there were no Friars in the world About which time Dominicus a Spaniard and Francis an Italian began their new orders Fasciculus temporum setteth their beginning about the yeere one thousand two hundred and foure and that they were confirmed by Pope Honorius the third about the yeere one thousand two hundred and fourteene Ordines quatuor mendicantium saith he videlicet Praedicatorum Minorum Augustinensium Carmelitarum consirmantur ab Honorio praeponuntur Praedicatores Minoribus in literis Papalibus quia sex mensibus ante eos confirmatifuerunt Matthaeus Palmerius setteth the confirmation of the Dominicans in the yere one thousand two hundred and sixteene Of the Franciscaâ—…es in the yeere one thousand two hundred twentie and three so that Wiclife hath a good ground for that assertion that Friars were neuer known in the world before the yeere one thousand two hundred 21. This was the first thing that made the alteration of the Church of Rome famous For before the institution of Friars the doctrines of the Church of Rome stood sound and vnchanged in most things The alteration was afterward wrought especially by these Friars both in doctrine Iurisdiction For at the first Friars were set vp to oppresse the old Priests to alter the auncient religion and to exalt the Popes power in a greater measure then it was before In which businesse they haue not beene idle but taking directions onely from the Pope haue brought in a great chaunge in all things Wiclife obserued that Friars pursued imprisoned and burned Priests onely for reprouing their sinnes So that then questions of doctrine made not the quarrell betweene Priests and Friars but only the reproofe of the corrupt and vncleane liues of Friars as in corruption they began so they continue And this is testified by others also that the first cause of the Popes persecutions was not for doctrine but onely for the Popes Iurisdiction Reinerius writing against the Waldenses testifieth thus much that they differed from the Church of Rome in no point of doctrine but onely they denied the Popes Iurisdiction Haec secta Leonistarum for so they were called magnam habet speciem pietatis saith he eo quod coram hominibus iuste viuant benè omnia de Deo credant omnes articulos qui in Symbolo continentur solam Romanam Ecclesiam blasphemant oderunt So that all the heresie which then was found in them was onely against the Popes Iurisdiction they swarued not from the doctrines of the Church of Rome but the Friars made the alteration from that auncient doctrine Then howsoeuer since that time some Popish writers vpon humour and partialitie haue charged them in points of doctrine yet the writers of that age and neere it euen their aduersaries do therin iustifie them and shew that the quarrell was not for points of doctrine but only for the Popes Iurisdiction And it is worth obseruation that the same Reinerius confesseth that there was no origin of this sect knowen some saith he asfirme that this sect hath continued from the time of Siluester others thinke it continued from the time of the Apostles himselfe concludeth that out of question it is ancienter then any other sect Then out of doubt they were much more auncient then Friars and Friars were raised vp paâ—…tly to this end to pull them downe 22. And that this was
regni maiores admiratione permotos c. That is You signified to me by your Letters that the Princes and Barons of the Kingdome were mooued with admiration that the Pall was offered you by our Apocrisiaries that is Chaplanes with this condition that you should take that Oath which they brought you written from vs. Let them in like sort maruell at our Lord Iesus Christ in this cause Who committing the charge of his sheepe to Peter put thereto a condition saying If thou louest me feed my sheepe Now if the creator of consciences and searcher of secrets vsed this condition and that not once but the second time and againe till he had made him sorie What care then ought we to haue that so great a Prelateship of the Church bee not by vs committed to our brethren whose consciences we know not They obiect that all Oathes are prohibited by the Lord and that this practise of exacting Oathes is not found either established by the Apostles of Christ or by Councels What then is that which the Lord addeth as next following That which is more then this is of euill For euill compelleth and forceth vs the Lord permitting to exact this which is more For is not this euil to start from the Church and obedience of the Sea Apostolicke And to breake out against the constitutions of Canons Which many haue done after their Oath to the contrarie We are therefore compelled by this euill and by necessitie to exact an Oath for Fealtie for Obedience and Vnitie They obiect that this thing is not established by Councels as though any Councels may prescribe a Law to the Romane Church seeing all Councels are by the Authoritie of the Bishops of Rome enacted and haue their strength And in their Canons the Popes Authoritie is manifestly excepted 38. The Reader may be intreated hence to obserue First that this Oath in the time of Paschalis the second who wrote this for Gregorie the ninth Collected it from him was receiued with great admiration both of Temporall Lords and of the Archbishop himselfe as a thing neuer practised before that time Then we haue the antiquitie of imposing such an Oath Secondly we obserue this cursed boldnesse of the Pope in peruerting Scriptures to serue his pride and lust Without which blasphemous abuse of holy Scriptures this Iurisdiction could neither at first haue beene imposed nor since maintained Thus hee handleth all the Scriptures that he meeteth withall as in these few words two diuers Scriptures Thirdly he graunteth that euill compelled him to this God onely permitting which is as if he should say The diuell compelleth and driueth him to it God onely permitteth He who acknowledgeth thus much is wittingly and willingly the seruant of the diuell and of that euill which by his owne confession compelleth him Fourthly he reiecteth the authoritie of the Apostles and Councels as being himselfe aboue them Fifthly his reason is to bee noted drawen from Scripture Christ saith That which is more then this is of euill therefore the Pope may exact an Oath of Archbishops And the Popes Canons hauing once expounded this Scripture thus it must alwayes be the true sense of it For that say they is the true sense which the Pope giueth Sixthly where we find this Oath exacted of an Archbishop accounted a thing so strange by the Barons of the land We collect that the Pope at the first required this Oath of Archbishops onely which was the cause that mooued many Archbishops to ioyne with the Pope in the pursuite of this new Iurisdiction against their owne Soueraignes And hence we see a reason why Anselme withstood the King against the liking and consent of all the Bishops of the land as we shall hereafter declare Because this Oath was exacted of Archbishops Anselme had taken it For as by this Canon it appeareth it was conueyed with the Pall to the Archbishops if they will haue the Pall besides the other price they must take this Oath But the Bishops as then had not taken the Oath which made them freer to withstand Anselm Seuenthly and last of all obserue what kind of Oath the Pope required An Oath of Allegeance And therefore the summe and purpose of that former Canon is thus set downe in the Edition of Gregorie the thirteenth Electo in Archiepiscopum sedes Apostolica Pallium non tradet nisi prius praestet fideluatis obedientiae iuramentum That is The Sea Apostolike will not deliuer the Pall to any Elect for Archbishop except he first take an Oath of Fidelitie and Obedience Then the Oath which the Pope requires is an Oath of Allegeance By this the purpose reason Antiquitie and honestie of this Oath may the better appeare 39. Besides this Oath which Popes haue exacted of the Clergie they haue laboured to bring the Emperours also vnto their obedience by an Oath There is the forme of an Oath set downe Dist. 63. as exacted by Pope Iohn the twelfth of Otho the first Emperour but because in that distinction there is much counterfeited stuffe thrust in as that Canon which beginneth Ego Ludouicus c. which Carolus Molinaeus hath by irrefragable proofes manifested to be forged therfore this is to be suspected to be of the same kinde And this thing seemeth so vnlikely that there is no reason to receiue it without better story then the Popes Canons For Otho the first was a Prince of great worth wise and valiant and Iohn the twelfth a Pope that deserueth no better Titles of the Historiographers then a Monster and a Beast Neither was this Emperour at any time in the power of that Pope but the Pope in his for Iohn the twelfth helped Beringarius and his sonne against Otho which caused Otho to bring an Armie against him And as Luitprandus saith Iuramentum Othoni Papa Iohannes supra pretiosissimum corpus Petri praestitit se nunque Beringario Aberto eius filio auxiliaturum Naucler saith that this Iohn whom he also calleth a Monster and a Beast hauing intelligence that two Cardinals wrote to Otho to call him to Rome cut off the nose from the one and the hand from the other Then for any Oath that Otho should take to the Pope we finde nothing in Storie but the contrarie True it is that Henry the fourth Emperour was forced by Hildebrand to such an Oath for this Emperour being by him excommunicated his Nobles and Bishops falling from his obedience was driuen to come bare-foote with his wife and little sonne in a sharpe frost to Canusium where the Pope then lay and to stay at the gates of the Citie all night and though in greatest humility he intreated pardon yet Hildebrand was so busied forsooth in company of his Harlots that the Emperour was forced to attend three daies in this grieuous affliction before he might haue accesse to his holinesse And when hee came before him he must be contented to be bound by
an Oath to stand to the Popes iudgement that at the pleasure of the Pope before the triall of his cause he should be ready either to leaue or to retaine his Kingdom that he should vse no Princely habite or ornament in the meane time that hee should not vndertake any part of gouernement that he should not exact an Oath of Allegeance of his owne subiects that hee should neuer reuenge this wrong vpon the Pope When he had thus hampered the Emperour with an Oath and with such strange and mercilesse conditions such is the Popes mercy where he is Master behold a stratagem a president of humility godlinesse patience mildenesse of a Pope he set vp Rodolph Duke of Sueuia against him in battell 40. The Popes hauing once extorted an Oath of the Emperour were desirous vpon such presidents to make lawes for they had no other meanes to build vp their Iurisdiction therefore when as first by force they extorted some Oathes afterward they set such examples in their Canons and last of all they expounded those Oathes which sometimes Emperours tooke to be Oathes of Allegeance to the Popes For this purpose there is a Canon in the Clementines Clement the first confesseth that Henry the seuenth Emperour refused the Oath which he would haue imposed vpon him and so doe other stories witnesse that the Emperour refused to take that Oath But if we will beleeue Clement in his Canon Henry afterward yeelded to that Oath but would not acknwledge that it was an Oath of Allegeance because the Emperours neuer sweare Allegeance to Popes but Popes to Emperours therefore Clement in that Canon declareth that these which some Emperours yeelded to some Popes were Oathes of Allegeance Declaramns saith he iuramenta praedicta fidelitatis existere censeri debere That is We declare that the foresaid Oathes are and must be accounted to be Oathes of Allegeance 41. By this we see how highly they would aduance the hornes of this Iurisdiction And still we finde this confirmed that the Oath which is giuen to the Pope is vnderstood an Oath of Allegeance And to certifie vs yet more fully of their meaning it is set downe not onely as a law in their Decretals but published as an ordinarie Ceremony which al must take knowledge of In the booke of their Ceremonies it is said that an Oath is to be ministred to all Emperours before their Coronation and before they enter the territories of the Romane Church The Oath is there thus set downe I will exalt the Pope secundum meum posse vitam hee shall neither loose member nor honour by my will councell consent or exhortation In Rome I will make no Decree or ordination of any thing that belongeth to his Holinesse without his councell In the same booke and place before cited it is said that Fredericke the third Emperour tooke that Oath 42. In this Mysterie of Oathes they haue proceeded so far as to exhibite an Oath not onely to the Clergie but to the temporall subiects of other Princes whom they may poyson and peruert by reconciling them to the Pope which as it is a practise most dangerous to them that are so taken and insnared as Birds in the net of their owne destruction so is it no lesse pernitious for such Princes from whose obedience these are drawen whereby the Pope seemeth to bring the question of Iurisdiction to an issue with the Princes of Christendome whether he shall ouerthrow them or they him for it is not possible that both should stand vp together for what is left to Princes if their Crownes and the hearts of their subiects be taken from them Or what is it that Princes can haue a more tender feeling of then of their Crownes and of the hearts of their subiects And what is more forcible to steale away the hearts of subiects from their Prince then to binde them with an Oath of Allegeance to another Prince Then these men that haue bound themselues by an Oath to the Pope how is it possible they should performe true Allegeance to the King For that the Oath which is exhibited to the Pope is an Oath of Allegeance and fidelity the Popes themselues by their Decretals haue assured vs. And if you will seeke it out this you shall finde to be the true reason why Pope Paulus the fift in his late Breues hath forbidden the Recusants of this land to take the Oath of Allegeance to the King because they haue taken an Oath of Allegeance to the Pope Now it is not possible that a man should performe Allegeance to two Soueraignes if one be vassal to the other happily one may hold Allegeance to two as for example a Tenant may sweare homage to his Land-lord and to his Prince also but this cannot be done to two Soueraignes And if one shall take an Oath of Allegeance to diuers Lordes it is concluded that if the Pope be one of those Lords he must be obeyed before all other whatsoeuer Then it is not a Fatherhood in the Church that the Pope striueth for but a power ouer Princes by weakning and vndermining their authority withdrawing the hearts of subiects exacting an Oath of Allegeance of all whom they can reconcile and not permitting their Conuerts to take an Oath of Allegeance to their owne Soueraigne Princes And because we find that moderate and conscionable Papists as Master Hart in the conference with Doctor Reynolds and such like being driuen to vnderstand the cause aright cannot chuse but iustifie our cause and will not yeeld to the Pope a Princehood ouer the world but onely a Fatherhood of the Church not graunting to him a power to depose Princes confessing also that the power which we giue to Princes is not vnderstood of themselues for they before they will vnderstand our cause thinke that wee meane to giue as much to the Prince as they doe to the Pope therefore we haue reason to rest herein assured that if the Iesuites entred not into the Popes battels with a Pontificall furie the Pope would vtterly be forsaken in this wherein all moderate spirits haue already forsaken him or if hee would relinquish this part of the quarrell which hee maintaineth against temporall Princes happily he might make himselfe much more stronger then he is or possibly can be by following this coâ—…rse But as the end is not Religion but a worldly Principality that they shoot at so the meanes which they vse are not the courses of moderation conscience and religion but of force and furie they will haue all or loose all Wherein the wisedome of the Iesuites will be called into great question for setting the Pope vpon such desperate courses at least for being the onely instruments of these new and furious practises which doubtlesse will in the end make an end of his Kingdome §. IIII. Of Inuestitures 43. HAuing spoken somewhat of the meanes whereby this Iurisdiction was sought wee are now to speake of the