successe for fire shall come downe from God out of heauen and deuoure the enemies Vnto which seruice there is nothing so effectuall to animate the princes of Christendome as is this new and strange claime of the popes Iurisdiction ouer princes which thing because it is so much pursued by the Popes and their flatterers and onely by them as the great marke whereunto they addresse all their attempts and the very summe of all their Religion therfore I haue endeuoured to open the whole to distinguish the parts and to set this question in such a light as I could if not to satisfie all yet at least to giue an occasion to the iudicious I was desirous to leaue no part vntouched that all might come to a triall and am ready also withall to bring my selfe to the triall willing to learne and to amend any error after that it shall be manifested by the truth to bee an errour for which cause I submit all to the iudicious and godly censure of the Church My care was also after my seruice to God to performe herein a true seruice to his Maiesty by opening the Iurisdiction of Kings which I haue done not as they vse to doe who serue the Pope respecting no other rules of that seruice then his pleasure and their adulation but I haue disputed the Kings right with a good conscience from the rules of Gods word knowing that the noble disposition of his Maiesty will admit of no seruice whereby God or the truth is preiudiced All which as I commend to your Graces fauour and protection to whom God hath committed the care of his Church here so with my hearty prayers I commend your Grace to the faâ—…our and protection of God who inrich your heart with his plentifull graces that as for your proper comfort and direction you may enioy them so you may vse them to the glory of God and the comfort of his Church through Iesus Christ. Your Graces to be commanded in all duety GEORGE CARLETON An Admonition to the Reader IT may bee thought strange that so many are found to write in this contradicting age one contrary to another the trueth cannot bee on both sides and therefore there is a great fault on the one side the Reader that is desirous to trie where the fault is may be intreated to marke with aduised obseruation some things wherein our aduersaries wanting either knowledge or sinceritie haue broken all the rules of right writing to deceiue such as cannot iudge of which sort the greatest part consisteth I doe therefore intreat the Readers especially such as reade my Booke with a purpose to answere it to consider these things wherein we challeng our aduersaries for euil dealing in this particular Controuersie First In setting downe our opinion they make it not that which we hold but another thing and then make large discourses in vaine they should vnderstand our cause as we deliuer it for we deuise not their opinion but take it out of their owne bookes especially from the Popes Canons Secondly when they would refute vs they bring their owne Canon law which was deuised in preiudice of the freedome of Princes and is our aduersarie and therefore cannot bee our Iudge Thirdly When they produce the testimonies of ancient fathers the abuse for which we challenge them is that they will not vnderstand the question for the fathers write for the spirituall Iurisdiction of the Church aboue Princes which thing we neuer denied But against the coactiue Iurisdiction of Prinees in matters Ecclesiasticall which thing we hold the Fathers neuer wâ—…ote but they are for it If these things were faithfully obserued as they are all peruerted in this cause by one that termeth himself the Catholick Diuine and if the truth were sought with conscience and not preiudice maintained with resolution men would neuer presume so much vpon the simplicitie of the Readers nor in the confidence of their wit and learning would they suffer themselues to be set to the maintenance of any cause whatsoeuer Let me farther intreate him that would aunswere me to enter into this short and serious meditation with himselfe thus Either my purpose is to serue God for the truth and then I may looke for a blessing vpon my labours or else to serue man though against the truth and then I may looke for a curse vpon my selfe and my labours let this Meditation rule thy pen and heart I aske no more Last of all let me intreate thee of curtesie to amend the faults escaped in printing with thy pen thus P. 2. Lin. 10. Or some others superfluous p. 13. l. 2. as superfluous p. 14. l. 29 for more read meer p. 22. l. 28. the superfluous p. 30. l. 15 for teached r. touched p. 52. marg r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 73. l. 28 r. against the infringers of the priuiledges of the Sea Apostolick p. 85. l. 19. therto superfluous p. 98. l. 27. full superfluous p. 105. l. 8. r. M. Luther p. 107. l. 2. r. M. Luther p. 108. l. 16. r. M. Bucer p. 108. l. 20. r. M. Antonius Flam. p. 109. l. 10. r. M. Chemnicius p. 195. l. 19. Deposed by Pope Stephen r. deposed or his deposition allowed by the consent of Pope Stephen p. 198. l. 4. for the Bishops r. some Bishops p. 211. l. 11. for opportunelyr opportunity p. 228. l. r2 some report the poyson to haue beene giuen in the bread and some in the cup. p. 229. l. 31. for great r. greatest p. 234 l. 15. for Frederic r. Lodouic p. 234. l. 22. for Rhenes r. Rense p. 234. l. 27. for Rhenes r. Rense p. 236. l 19. generall superfluous p. 250. l. 28. r. adhaerentium adhaerere volentium p. 262. l. 21. for ver r. viri p. 272. l. 18. for chusing r. choosen p. 272. l. 22. for to r. in p. 279. l. 30. no supeâ—…fluous p. 294. l. 16. for cultus r. cultu OF THE IVRISDICTION OF PRINCES IN Causes and ouer Persons Ecclesiasticall CHAP. I. The state of the Question THe lawfull authoritie and Iurisdiction of Kings in matters Ecclesiasticall is now and hath beene for some ages heeretofore much impugned by such who by vsurpation hauing incroached vpon the right of Kings seeke by all subtill and colourable deuises to maintaine that by skill and some shew of learning which they haue gotten by fraud All this mischiefe proceedeth from the Bishop of Rome who vsurping powre and taking to himselfe that honour whereunto God hath not called him hath brought all authoritie Ecclesiasticall and Ciuill into great confusion by vsurping the right both of the Church and of States Now our desire being to open the truth and to declare the lawfull right of Princes and power of the Church it seemeth needfull first to set downe what power is giuen to the Pope by them that flatter him so shall the right of the King and of the Church better appeare 2 They yeeld to the Pope a fulnesse of power as they
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 Iurisdiction 6. From this consideration of persons and
gouernments I meane Ecclesiasticall and Temporal be directed by coactiue power there is no difference in the point of Iurisdiction betweene Temporall and Ecclesiasticall authoritie For the King and only the King is to appoint iudges in matters Temporall and Ecclesiasticall the King hath no more authoritie in reuersing the iudgement of the one then of the other being true iust and lawfull So that the Kings Iurisdiction standeth not in a power to dissanull true and righteous iudgemens but in a power supereminent by which he is charged First to confirme lawes Ecclesiasticall and Temporall Secondly to place Iudges for both causes Thirdly to see that those iudges of both sortes iudge iustly according to right and equity Fourthly to punish them if they shall be found to giue vniust and corrupt sentences Fiftly and last of all his Iurisdiction appeareth in appellations 7. But heere a question will be moued whether a man may appeale from an Ecclesiasticall iudge to the Prince For that one may appeale from a Temporall iudge I suppose it is not doubted at least I see no reason why it should be doubted But in a cause Ecclesiasticall and from a iudge Ecclesiasticall to appeale to the Temporall Magistrate of this some Romish Doctors doubt This doubt which the Canonists haue made may be increased by that place Deu. 17. 10. Thou shalt not decline from that thing which they shall shew thee neither to the right hand nor to the left And that man that will do presumptuously not hearkning to the Priest that standeth before the Lord thy God to minister there or vnto the iudge that man shall die It might seeme to be collected hence that there is no appellation from the Priest no though hee should iudge as some Rabbins expound the words I will declare their exposition because it sauoureth much like the expositions of some Papists where the text saith thou shalt not decline to the right hand nor to the left they expound it that if the Priest shall say thy right hand is thy left or thy left is thy right this sentence thou must receiue and therein rest 8. But this is a fond assertion not only without reason but against the expresse words of the Scripture for it is said according to the law which shall teach thee and according to the iudgement which they shall tell thee thou shalt doe Where we finde two rules for these two kindes of Iudges the Priest and the iudge the sentence of the Priest must be according to the written lawe the sentence of the other according to the truth of iustice and iudgement If a man be able to shew that he is wronged he may vndoubtedly appeale to a Superiour now a man may be able to shew that he is wronged if hee can shew that the Priest declineth from the law of God which is appointed his rule or the Temporall iudge from iustice And therefore if there be a Superiour in the land he may appeale but if there be no Superiour he is without remedie as when Hely was both Priest and iudge from him at that time there could be no appellation but where the forme of a kingdome is established where one King is set vp in lawfull authoritie by whose power iudges Spirituall and Temporall are placed in his dominions heere appeareth a fountaine of Iurisdiction deriued as it were into two inferiour riuers and from these inferior powers appellation may be brought if they shall not in their sentences keepe their rules prescribed to them the lawe and iustice for the appellation being grounded vpon the lawe of Nature to moderate the peruersitie and partialitie of iudges it were an absurd thing to denie this in causes Ecclesiasticall vnlesse a man would suppose that persons Ecclesiasticall may not be corrupt in their iudgements Now if we shall once graunt appellations then assuredly wee confirme the Iurisdiction of Princes in all matters wherein appellation may bee made to them And because Iurisdiction is assuredly proued by appellation we will for the farther manifestation of the truth seeke to cleere this point the rather becâ—…use our aduersaries tell vs confidently that in matters Ecclesiasticall all appellation belongeth to the Pope The Popes say so and they beleeue them we hold that appellation in causes Ecclesiasticall is to bee directed to the King who is by God set ouer the persons appellant 9. In the Old Testament we haue fewe examples or none that I remember of any that appealed from any inferior iudge Ecclesiasticall to the Soueraigne but in the New Testament there is one example sufficient to confirme the truth S. Paul being accused for causes Ecclesiasticall appealed from the high Priest to Câ—…sar Therfore it is lawfull in matters Ecclesiasticall to appeale from iudges Ecclesiasticall to the Ciuill Magistrate The consequence resteth vpon this that Saint Paul heerein did nothing but that which he might doe iustly and lawfully which thing I suppose the greatest enemie of Saint Pauls Doctrine will not denie for he came vp to Ierusalem with this profession and purpose I am ready not to bee bound onely but euen to die for the name of the Lord Iesus Neither durst he for sauing of his life giue a scandall to the Gospell The antecedent consisteth of these two parts First that the matters for which Saint Paul was accused were matters Ecclesiasticall Secondly that therein he appealed from the high Priest both are witnessed by the expresse words of the Scripture For Festusâ—…aith â—…aith They brought no crime against him but had certaine questions against him of their owne superstition and of one Iesus which was dead whom Paul affirmed to be aliue These questions be out of doubt Ecclesiasticall euen in the iudgement of our aduersaries that he appealed from the high Priest reskuing himselfe from his iudgement it is euident by the words in the twentie three Chapter where the Apostle speaketh to the high Priest as to his iudge Thou sittest to iudge me according to the law And when he was reskued from the Priests by Lysias and sent to Felix and left by him to Festus he neuer thinketh of appealing from any of theâ—…e ciuill gouernours But when Festus asked him if he will goe to Ierusalem and there be iudged of these things then Pâ—…ul vtterly refusing the high-Priest appealed to Câ—…sar by which it followeth that in matters Ecclesiasticall a man may appeale from iudges Ecclesiasticall to the Soueraigne Prince Whereupon this vndoubtedly followeth that there resteth Soueraigne Iurisdiction in the Prince And therefore the Popes their flatterers vnderstanding well that Supreame Iurisdiction could neuer bee prooued to rest in the Popes vnlesse first Appellation should be made to them wrought by all subtilty as hereafter we shall declare by right or wrong they neither cared nor spared to cause Appellations to be made to them which thing when once they had obtained that in all causes Ecclesiasticall Appellation might be made to the Popes then and not before
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
causes arise two great questions First concerning the exemption of all causes Ecclesiasticall from the Kings Iurisdiction secondly concerning the exemption of Ecclesiasticall persons from temporall audience and iudicature For the better vnderstanding hereof we may proceede by some distinctions for when our aduersaries teach that the Pope is the head of the Church and we that the King is the supreame gouernor of the Church though in some sound of wordes these things seeme not much to differ yet in truth there is great difference betweene their meaning and ours For they calling the Pope the head to distinguish him from Christ whom the Apostle calleth the head of the Church say that the Pope is the ministeriall head which deuise was first brought in by the Schoolemen for among the auncients it was not knowne but all that speake of the head of the Church before acknowledge none but Christ. Concerning this deuise of the ministeriall head we say with the ancient Fathers that the Catholike Church is but one and hath one head Christ Iesus because to one bodie there can bee but one head from whom grace is infused to the whole body This Catholike Church is as that head is both perfectly known to God not to man this then is but one in all times and places But the visible Churches or particular are many at many times in many places and therefore must haue heads or gouernours aunswerable to themselues for many Churches many gouernours These are either Spirituall gouernours or Temporall The spirituall gouernment of the Church is committed to spirituall gouernours as first from Christ to his twelue Apostles of whom none was aboue the rest in this spirituall gouernment or kingdome of Christ as the Lord doth often expresly declare to them from them to Bishops and Pastors their successors Temporall gouernours are such as haue the custody of externall coactiue Iurisdiction both in Temporall and Ecclesiasticall causes for the power of the Church with all her spirituall Iurisdiction neuer reached to coaction This was by God first giuen to Magistrates and neuer reuoked in all times practised but when the Church and Kings were oppressed by the great power of Antichrist When wee call the King the supreame gouernour of the Church our meaning is that hee is appointed by God to be a Father and preseruer of religion a keeper of Ecclesiasticall discipline and as the Prophet Isaiah calleth him a nourcing father of the Church he is the soueraigne in all affaires of coactiue Iurisdiction Likewise this word Church is not taken in the same sense by them and vs for our aduersaries saying that the Pope is the head of the Church vnderstand thereby the. Catholike Church spread ouer the whole world but we vnderstand a particular Church yeelding the King to bee gouernour next and immediatly vnder God of his own dominions and consequently of persons and causes within his owne dominions so that there is much difference betweene their meaning and ours Then we must come to such an issue wherein without equiuocating the question betweene vs is set for wee shall otherwise run into that fault which is so rife with the Popes Clarks that Bellarmine himselfe confesseth it Notandum est saith he multos ex nostris tempus terere dum probant quod Caluinus caeteri haeretici concedunt This is most common among them to bee large in disputing that which is not in question betweene vs and it is a signe of some ingenuitie to confesse it but neither doth himselfe for all his confession auoid it neither doe they that write since and depend vpon his learning shunne it after so faire warning neither in truth can a false cause be maintained in so many bookes and large volumes as now they set out vnlesse they tooke this libertie to themselues to be large in disputing things which are not in question The question then is concerning the lawfull authoritie of Kings in their owne dominions touching this part of Iurisdiction which is called Ecclesiasticall coactiue Iurisdiction 7. For better proceeding let the distinction be remembred which is vsually receiued of Ecclesiasticall power for all power Ecclesiasticall is commonly deuided into power of order and of Iurisdiction The power of order by all writers that I could see euen of the Church of Rome is vnderstood to be immediatly from Christ giuen to all Bishops and Priests alike by their consecration wherein the Pope hath no priuiledge aboue other Thus teach Bonauentuâ—…e in 4. sent d. 17. q 1. August Triumphus lib. de potest eccles qu. 1. ar 1. Ioh. Gerson li. de potest eccles consid 1. Cardinal Cusanus lib. de cathol concord 2. cap. 13. Cardinal Contarenus tract de eccles potest pontificis Bellarm. lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 22. This then being the common confession of all that the Pope hath no more power herein then any other Bishop or Pastor we moue no contradiction in this As they confesse that in this power the Pope hath no praeeminence but that it is giuen from Christto all Bishops and pastors equally so wee confesse that in this power the prince hath no part and that Bishops and pastors haue this power onely from the diuine ordinance and not from earthly princes then our question is onely of the power of Iurisdiction 8. This power of Iurisdiction is diuersly vnderstood by the writers of the Church of Rome Augustinus Triumphus doth deliuer it thus The power of Iurisdiction is Temporall or Spirituall and this power considered in generall is threefold immediate deriued or giuen to execute some seruice the power of Iurisdiction immediate of all things Spirituall and Temporall is onely in the Pope The power of Iurisdiction deriued is in Bishops to them deriued from the Pope the power of Temporall Iurisdiction giuen to execute some seruice for the helpe of the Church is in Emperours Kings and secular princes this power is not immediat from God but is giuen first to the Pope and so to Kings for the vse of the Church and â—…elpe of Pope and Prelates I haue deliuered this in the â—…ery words of Triumphus whom in this thing others followe though of late some of the finer Iesuits who hold the same are growen more cunning in the manner of deliuering it Bellarmine loath to leaue the opinion and ashamed so grossely to propose it deuiseth a mollification of it thus Asserimus Pontiâ—…icem vt pontiâ—…icem et si non habeat vllam meré temporalem potestatem tamen habere in ordine ad spirituale bonum summam potestatem disponendi de temporalibus rebus omnium Christianorum That is We auer that the Pope albeit he hath not any power merely Temporall as Pope yet hath power supreame in respect of Spirituall good to dispose of all the Temporalties of all Christians And in the next Chapter concludeth that the Pope hath authoritie to depose hereticall kings and princes
consecration of Aaron and his sonnes is done altogether by Moses These things though they make faire shew for the Princes Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall ouer Priests yet wee purpose not to stand vpon them 3. But when the Priest was once consecrated and ordained and all things fully perfected concerning his function and two seuerall and distinct functions set vp then will appeare without faile in Moses his successors the right of Princes in Aaron his successors the right of Priests After all things thus perfected we finde that all the lawes which in truth proceeded originally from God were established by the authoritie of Moses and this we finde true not onely in Iudiciall and Ciuill Lawes which were to rule that state but euen in ceremoniall and Morall Lawes which were to rule the Church There is not so much as one ceremoniall law established by the authoritie of Aaron but in all the name and authoritie of Moses is expressed only we finde concerning Aaron that if any doubt in the lawes ceremoniall did arise for the interpretation of those lawes and of such doubts the high Priest must sit as iudge For the people are charged in matters that are hard to consult with the Priest and ciuill iudge Deut. 17. 8. c. Which the learned interpreters vnderstand thus that if the cause be mixt partly Ciuill partly Ceremoniall or doubâ—…full that then both the Ciuill Magistrate and the Priest must iointly determine it but if the people haue distinct causes some Ciuill other Ceremoniall the Ciuill Magistrate must iudge the causes Ciuill and the Priest must iudge the causes Ceremoniall from the consideration of which place we may drawe certaine inferences 4. First all Lawes euen Ceremoniall that is Lawes whereunto Spirituall or Canon Lawes are answerable are established by the authoritie of the Ciuill Magistrate This taketh away all authoritie of the Popes Canon law in all Christian kingdomes where it is not established by the authoritie of Kings in their kingdomes For it is against all reaâ—…on and rules whether we looke vpon the light of nature or vpon the Scriptures or the lawfull practife of authoritie since the Scriptures were written that any Lawes should be imposed vpon a Prince against or without his consent as the Popes haue indeuoured to impose the Canon Lawes vpon Princes And this appeareth in the practise of Christian Magistrates so long as lawfull authoritie stood up without confusion in the world But heere we consider the fountaine of that practise which was from Gods Law wherein we see all Lawes confirmed and established by the authoritie of the Ciuill Magistrate And if it could bee prooued that in some Lawes Ceremoniall the authoritie of Aaron was requisite yet this helpeth them nothing that plead for the Popes Canons For these men would impose these Canons vpon Princes without their consent but in all these Lawes of Moses wherein is a perfect patterne for all law-makers they cannot shew one Law though neuer so nearely concerning the Church which is established without the authoritie of Moses the Ciuill Magistrate If they obiect these things were all done by an especiall commaundement of God I aunswere this doth more establish the authoritie of Princes and confirme our purpose for let them aunswere why God would haue all these things established by the Ciuill Magistrate and not by the Priest This then maketh a greater and clearer confirmation of the Princes right Then the Church may interpret Scripture determine controuersies of faith but cannot establish a Law the reason is because for the establishing of Lawes coactiue power is requisite which is in the Ciuil Magistrate not in the Church And therefore the Canon Lawes can haue no force of lawes but as they are receiued and established by Princes in their seuerall kingdomes For neither can the law haue the force of a law without coactiue power neither hath the Pope any coactiue power in the kingdomes of other Princes but onely in such places where himselfe is a Temporall Prince 5. Secondly we obserue that the high Priest is appointed by God a iudge for interpretation of those lawes that concerne the Church in questions of conscience in causes mixt or doubtfull This might moderate the humours of some who in loue to innouation would leaue no place of iudicature to Ecclesiasticall persons for these things are insert into Moses lawe taken from the law of Nature and not as things Ceremoniall which thing is apparant from the end vse and necessitie thereof for the things which had a necessary vse before the written law and must haue a necessary vse after the abrogation of that law must be acknowledged to be taken from a perpetuall law because there must be a perpetuall rule for a perpetuall necessity This then being perpetuall and necessary matters of question and of Ecclesiasticall audience still arising the hearing and iudging of such things belong to such as are most skilfull in those affaires And hence is the iudicature of fuch things assigned to the Priest which right of Ecclesiasticall iudgements and courts standeth no lesse now due to them in the time of grace then it was under the law because this office in iugdeing hearing and determining is not heere giuen to Priests as a thing Ceremoniall but as I haue declared deriued from the law of Nature as a perpetuall seruice for a perpetuall vse 6. Thirdly we consider that the lawes Ecclesiastical are established by the authoritie of the Ciuill Magistrate but for interpretation of them the Priest is appointed to iudge Hence riseth the ground of Iurisdiction both Temporall and Spirituall wee consider Iurisdiction here as our question importeth authority coactiue in externall iudicature in the execution of lawes The fountaine of this authoritie is in him principally by whose authoritie the law is established and without whose authoritie it is not The execution of this authoritie is in them that are appointed iudges And heerein there is no difference betweene Temporall and Ecclesiasticall authoritie I speake not nowe of Spirituall gouernment by the lawes of God executed within the court of Conscience but of Ecclesiasticall gouernment in the execution of lawes Ecclesiasticall wherin there is vse of coactiue power These two things being in themselues and in nature so distinct if this one distinction might be remembred it is ynough to aunswere all the confused collections of that Catholike Diuine who wrote of late against the fift part of Reports of the Lord Cooke For all that hee writeth there resting vpon no other ground then vpon the confounding of Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall power is answered in one word by this one poore distinction betweene these two powers Now the distinction is apparant because in Spirituall gouernment there is no coactiue power but in Ecclesiasticall iudicature there is coactiue power which maketh an euident and famous difference in Iurisdiction because this is most certaine that all that Iurisdiction wherin coactiue power is vsed is from the Ciuill Magistrate Then if these two
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
distinctly set in two persons Moses keeping the ciuill gouernment and Aaron the Priesthood The gouernment of Moses and his successours being more ciuil The Priesthood of Aaron his successors ceremoniall it followeth that this ancient ordinance of the law of nature was altered by such positiue lawes of God which were either ciuil or ceremoniall and consequently that this alteration taketh not away the auncient right 6. If I might therefore in a matter of this nature declare my poore opinion leauing the censure hereof to the learned that are able to iudge I take it that as it is not simply vnlawfull that a King may be a Priest and neuerthelesse keepe his kingdome so I suppose this thing cannot be done without not only a lawfull but also an ordinarie calling from God and from the Church For no man taketh this honour to himselfe but he that was called thereto as was Aaron And this cannot bee done without an ordinary calling for when Kings were Priests and the first borne sacrificers as in the law of nature then they had an ordinary calling therto for that was then the ordinance of God ordinarie in the Church which now is not But if a man were first ◅ Priest and afterward aduanced to a kingdome by some Temporal right in this case it were assuredly vnlawfull for him to shake off his holy estate and betake himselfe wholly and only to his Temporall gouerment as some Cardinals haue done Then by the law of nature the King had both the power of order and Iurisdiction and howsoeuer this is altered by a positiue ordinance of God yet all is not taken away there remaineth still that part of Iurisdiction so farre as it standeth in power coactiue in respect wherof the common law of this land saith the King is persona mixta because he hath both Ecclesiasticall and Temporall Iurisdiction 7. This example of Melchisedeck both King and Priest hath much lifted vp the Pope and his flatterers for of this they take especiall hold and thinke hereby to prooue the Pope to be King of the Church because Melchisedeck was both King and Priest But to this we aunswere Melchisedeck had both these honours by a lawfull and ordinarie calling but so hath not the Pope for his Priesthood we graunt he had once thereto a lawfull calling both by locall and doctrinall succession which doctrinall succession Irenaeus calleth successionem principalem Tertullian doctrinae cōsanguinitatē cum Apostolica Ecclesia but now haue they forsaken that principall succession and haue nothing left to glory in but bare personall and locall succession Then to the office of a Bishop the Pope may shew some colour though the colour be now worne thredbare but to the princely office which he claimeth ouer the Church he can shew neither calling nor colour so that the example of Melchisedek which the Popes parasites drawe with such violence to him doth helpe him nothing but rather helpeth the cause of Christian Kings against him for it is certaine that Kings were Priests by an ordinary calling before these two offices were distinguished but it can neuer be prooued that Priests were Kings by such an ordinary calling after that these two offices were set in distinct persons If any man suppose that we haue stretched the example of Melchisedeck too farre because he was a type of Christ I aunswere this is nothing against my purpose that Melchisedeck was a type of Christ. For many men in their ordinary standing and executing ordinary functions did also beare some type extraordinarie thus did Moses Ioshua Dauid Solomon and others I speake of Melchisedeck as I finde him in his ordinary place a King and a Priest 8. By all which we conclude that vnder the law of Nature Kings were in the beginning inuested with all power Ecclesiasticall both of orders and Iurisdiction and therefore these things are not incompatible by nature All this time which lasted about the space of two thousand and fiue hundred yeeres Kings had Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction without question And therefore this Iurisdiction of Princes which we haue vndertaken to examine is found aunswerable to the first gouernment of the world vntill the time of the law giuen by Moses CHAP. III. All externall Iurisdiction coactiue was a right belonging to Kings vnder the Law NOw let vs search what Iurisdiction in matters Ecclesiasticall was found due and acknowledged to belong to the Kings right all that time vnder the Law Then we find by an especiall commaundement of God these two offices of King and Priest were distinguished and set in two seuerall persons the one in Moses the other in Aaron And the tribe of Leui was taken to the seruice of God in stead of the first borne by an expresse commaundement and the first borne which in number exceeded the number of the Louites were redeemed by fiue shekels a man for the number of the first borne was taken 22273. the number of the Leuites 22000. so that the number of the first borne exceeded the number of the Leuites by 273. These were redeemed and after that redemption the first borne of other tribes were discharged from the attendance of the seruice of God the Leuites tooke vp their place Now the Kings office and the Priests being thus distinguished we must consider what things did properly belong to each office 2. First we find that Moses who had the place of a King in gouernement as he is also called a King doth consecrate Aaron the Priest Moses is commaunded to consecrate him and his son s Exod. 28. and performeth it Leuit. 8. therefore it is repeated Num. 3. These are the names of the sonnes of Aaron the anointed Priests whom Moses did consecrate to minister in the Priests office Heere then appeareth some Iurisdiction of Moses ouer Aaron But this I meane not to vrge for it may bee thought extraordinailry to belong to Moses as Gods Apostle or Ambassadour and lawgiuer vnto Israel for in such great chaunges as was from the law of Nature to the written law somewhat must bee admitted extraordinary and this I could be well content to vnderstand so though many doubts arise for the princes right against the Priests For first it may be obiected seeing there was a Prince and a Priest set vp distinct one from the other why should the Prince consecrate the Priest and not the Priest the Prince But here we finde that Aaron doth not consecrate Moses to be Prince but Moses doth consecrate Aaron to be Priest Another doubt may be moued why Moses should consecrate not onely Aaron but his sonnes also For though we should admit the consecration of Aaron to be done by Moses of necessitie as a thing extraordinary at the first beginning of this Priesthood yet this necessitie appeareth not so much in Aarons sonnes for they might haue beene consecrated by Aaron after that himselfe had bene once consecrated by Moses And yet we find that the
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
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
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
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