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
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
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
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 râ—…olued that Supreame Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction was in the Popes And therefore we prouing that Supreame and last Appellation doth by the law of
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
Iurisdiction 6. From this consideration of persons and 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
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
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
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
power of the spirit tooke vpon them power aboue the Ciuill Magistrate practising wholly coactiue power which they called Spirituall when they had forsaken the power of the spirit and reiected it from them 5. The Iurisdiction which the Apostles practised was partly from the commission of Christ spirituall partly from the law of Nature and from the example of that gouernment which was established in the Church of the Iewes The things which belonged to Apostolicall Iurisdiction either concerned the gouernment of the ministery or of the whole Church Touching the gouernement of the ministery these things belonged to the Apostles so long as they liued and afterward to Bishops their successours First a power to ordaine ministers Thus did Paul and Barnabas when they called Churches through Lycaonia Pisidia and Pamphylia They ordained Elders in euery Church Elders that is Pastors Preachers to preserue the Doctrine continually which the Apostles had once planted And this charge to ordaine Elders or Priests did the Apostles leaue also to them that succeeded in the gouernement of the Church This commission Saint Paul gaue to Titus For this cause I left thee in Crete that thou shouldest continue to redresse the things that remaine and ordaine Elders in euery city as I appointed thee which ordaining signifieth also institution in the place or cure they ministred in 6. The Apostles had also in themselues and left to their successours power and Iurisdiction to command those Pastors which thus they had ordained to preach the truth without mixture of false doctrines This power as Saint Paul had in himselfe so he left the same to Timothie and consequently to others As I besought thee to abide still in Ephesus when I departed to Macedonia so doe that thou maist command some that they teach no other doctrine These were the principall parts of Iurisdiction which the Apostles left to their successors to continue in the Church for euer For the end and vse of this gouernment is perpetuall as to ordaine Preachers and to see that they so ordained should teach the truth without heresie It followeth certainely that such gouernours as the Apostles themselues ordained in the Church for these perpetuall vses are to remaine perpetuall gouernours in the Church Thus was the gouernement of Bishops placed by the Apostles to stand and continue till the end of the world because the Apostles placed such for the ordination of ministers and the preseruation of true Doctrines For they who aunswere that these offices and places wherin the Apostles placed Timothie and Titus were either extraordinarie or to indure for a short time do not consider the end and vse of these places which end and vse is neither extraordinary nor temporary but ordinary and perpetuall For ministers must be ordained commanded to preserue the truth without heresie as long as the Church standeth Then the necessitie and vse of the ends will prooue the like necessitie and vse of these gouernours which by the Apostles were placed for these endes 7. Another part of this Iurisdiction and depending vpon the last was that which the Apostle leaueth in commission to Titus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to stoppe their mouthes For which cause the Angell of the Church of Thyatira is reprooued by Christ because he suffered a false Prophetesse to teach and to deceiue the people and to make them commit fornication and to eate meat sacrificed to idols If Titus be commaunded to put some to silence and the other reprooued for suffering a false teacher to teach then the gouernours of the Church haue authoritie and Iurisdiction in these things but how farre it is extended we shall consider hereafter But because it may be questioned whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be to silence ministers or to conuince them by argument To this wee ' aunswere that albe it wee denie not conuiction by reason to be also included in the word yet there is a further meaning of iudiciall proceeding by authoritie heere vnderstood which thing will appeare by conference of this and other places For Saint Paul hauing first declared that he left Titus at Crete to ordaine Elders describeth what manner of men they must be that are so to be ordained For a ' Bishop must be vnreproueable c. Then he declareth that many be otherwise for there are many disobedient and vaine talkers and deceiuers c. If the question be demaunded what shall be done to these deceiuers the wordes immediatly following containe an aunswere whose mouthes must be stopped So that the sense of these words is the same with that which hee saith to Timothie charging him to command some that they teach no other Doctrine Then the word containeth not only conuiction by argument but Iurisdiction also For conuiction by argument onely would not haue serued to suppresse the false Prophetesse of Thyatyra And if a minister be accused of heresie or such like he was to be iudged by such as were set in chiefe authoritie in the Clergie For that there was a consistory and iudiciall proceedings set vp it is euident and no lesse euident that the Bishop was iudge Against an Elder saith S. Paul to Timothie receiue none accusation but vnder two or three witnesses Now he that is appointed to heare accusations to receiue the testimonies of witnesses is placed in a place of iudgement with Iurisdiction and therefore hath authoritie not onely to conuince by argument but also to proceed iudicially against false teachers and to put them to silence 8. Thus farre was Iurisdiction practised ouer ministers the things which follow touched the whole Church Another part of Iurisdiction practised by the Apostles touching the Church in generall was to call Councels for the determination of such controuersies as were raised vp by them that troubled the doctrines of the truth and peace of the Church Such was the Councell gathered by the Apostles Act 15. Consisting of Apostles and Elders that is of persons Ecclesiasticall wherin sentence proceeded after good deliberation and great disputation This is the greatest power or Iurisdiction of the Church because the whole or many chiefe parts together is greater then any one part 9. Further concerning the extension of this Iurisdiction it cannot be denied but that there is a power in the Church not only internall but also of externall Iurisdiction of internall power there is no question made Externall Iurisdiction being vnderstood all that is practised in externall Courts or consistories is either definitiue or mulctatiue Authority definitiue in matters of faith and religion belongeth to the Church Mulctatiue power may be vnderstood either as it is referred to spirituall censures or as it is with coaction as it standeth in spirituall censures it is the right of the Church and was practised by the Church when the Church was without a Christian Magistrate and since But coactiue Iurisdiction was neuer practised by the Church when the Church was without
Christian Magistrates but was alwayes vnderstoode to belong to the ciuill Magistrate whether he were Christian or heathen We denie not but that the Apostles did sometimes take vengeance vpon the disobedient but that was not by the materiall sword in the power whereof we place coaction but by the spirituall sword which alwayes shewed it selfe in their Ministery sometimes in an extraordinary manner as in the striking of Ananias and Saphira with present death in the striking of Elimas the Sorcerer with blindnesse and such like These were signes of extraordinary power but wee seeke heere the ordinary Iurisdiction of the Apostles which they left to their successours 10 Vpon these grounds ioyned with the assured knowledge of the History of those times the auncient Fathers deliuer it as a truth neuer questioned nor doubted that in the gouernment of the Church the Bishops are the vndoubted successours of the Apostles Irenaeus speaking of heretikes saith Omnes hi posteriorâ—…s sunâ—… episcopis quibus apostoli tradiderunt ecclesias If Bishops were before any heretikes they were questionlesse in the Apostles time and by the Apostles instituted because some heretikes were euen in the Apostles time Irenaeus saith also Habemus annumer are eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt episcopi in Ecclesiis And a little after Quibus etiam ipsas Ecclesias committebant And againe in the same place Quos successo es reliquerunt suum ipsorum locum magisterij tradentes Cyprian saith Potestas peccatorum remittendorum Apostolis data est Ecclesiis quas illi à Christo missi constuuerunt et episcopis qui eis ordinatioâ—…e 〈◊〉 successerunt The same hee hath also Epist. 69. Hierome saith Potentia diuitiarum paupertatis humilitas vel sublimiorem vel inferiorem Episcopum non facit Caeterum omnes Apostolorum successores sunt It were hard to kicke against all these pricks Against so euident grounds of Scripture so expresse testimonies of Fathers to deuise a new gouernment of the Church Leauing the auncient and knowne gouernment which hath the testimonie of those that liued in the first age and heard and sawe those that were endued with miraculous gifts as Irenaeus testifieth of himselfe that hee heard those which spake by the spirit in all languages and sawe them who often raised the dead to life againe Leauing I say the testimonie of these whose name and authority is so reuerend in the Church and striuing for a gouernment which came but of late to the knowledge of men seemeth to proceede from affections too much blinded with the loue of innouation 11 But though this be true that Bishops in the gouernment of the Church succeede the Apostles yet we are cautelously to distinguish betweene the things wherein they succeede the Apostles and those things which since the Apostles times haue beene added to their gouernment by godly Princes For the preseruation of true doctrine in the Church the Bishops are the great watch-men Herein they are authorized by God If Princes withstand them in these things they haue warrant not to obey Princes because with these things Christ hath put them in trust Therefore S. Paul saith not that it is the Kings office but the Bishops to commaund that they teach no other doctriâ—…e Vpon which ground S. Ambrose was bolde to withstand Valentinian Emperour For Ambrose as the watch-man of the Church of Millaine would not suffer Auxentius an Arian Bishop to haue any place to teach in his Diocesse Auxentius complained to the Emperour as the contention grew thus betweene them the one like a vigilant watch-man seeking to remoue all dangers from his flocke the other like a Wolfe seeking to spoile at the earnest entreaty of Auxentius the Emperour willed that the cause betweene these two might be heard in the Ecclesiasticall consistorie and that the Emperour might sit as Iudge in the cause This thing Ambrose vtterly denied and of this hee writeth thus to the Emperour Quando audisti clemeÌ„tissime imperator in causasidei Laicos de Episcopo iudicasse And againe Sivel Scripturarum seriem diuinarum vel catera tempora retractemus quis est qui abnuat in causa fidei in causa inquamsidei Episcopos solere de imperatoribus Christianis non imperatores de Episcopo iudicare And in another place Volens nunquam ius deseram coactus repugnare non nout arma enim nostra preces sunt lachrymae This example of Ambrose his courage is worthily commended by all posterity wherein this worthy man seemeth to direct a true rule of obedience For Iustina the Emperours mother seeing she could not draw Ambrose to fauour the Arians purposed to put him from the gouernment of the Church Which thing would haue beene effected if he had not refused to appeare in the Court where the Emperour was to sit as Iudge There appeared in him courage godlinesse and exact obedience all truly tempered He denieth the Emperour to be a sufficient Iudge in a cause of faith and religion In causafidei in causa inquam fidei For this hee repeateth precisely desirous to be rightly vnderstood he would rather die then admit such an example as to betray the trueth and that commission and charge wherein GOD had set him And yet if the Emperour would by force doe any thing he denieth that there is any power in him or in the Church to resist by force The faith and right of the Church was not in his iudgement to be maintained by force and armes but by prayers and teares Thus resolute is this godly man in the cause of faith against the Emperour but in other causes he claimeth no priuiledge no immunities and therefore in the same place hee faith Si tributum petit imperator non negamus agri Ecclesiae tributum soluunt Athanasius ad solitar vitam agentes speaking to Constans the Emperour saith Let religious Bishops perswade the Emperor that he corrupt not the Church nor mingle the Romane Empire with Ecclesiasticall constitutions And Hillarie writing to Constantius saith to the same purpose Prouideat decernat clementia tua c. Let your clemency prouide and establish that all Iudges to whom the care of publike businesse belongeth may abstaine from religious constitutions Thus did the auncient Bishops gouerne the Church not suffering any King or Emperour to meddle with the determinations of matters of faith For of such matters are these testimonies to be vnderstood and onely of such In like manner Chrysostome resisted Gaina generall of the forces of Arcadius Emperour Who would haue had a Church within Constantinople for himselfe and the Arians The Emperour was willing to gratifie him or not willing to displease him for his greatnesse but Iohn Chrysostome did vtterly denie it as a thing vnlawfull Thus by the warrant of Scriptures and examples of Fathers we giue to Caesar all coactiue power which is due to him but spirituall gouernment we giue not to him this is that
not be extended to these practises What can be denied heere For neither can they denie but that the censures of the Church should bee of greatest power there where they were first instituted neither can they denie that excommunication was first instituted in that Church of the Iewes neither can they shew vs that any King of that Nation was at any time deposed for pretended heresie or for knowne and professed idolatry though the Kings there were often great idolaters though the Priests were bolde and couragious in Gods cause yet we neuer finde that any Priest did by excommunication depose the King or destroy the bond of allegeance This thing then being neither practised by the Iewes where these censures were in first and chiefe force nor by Christ and his Apostles nor by the Fathers of the Primitiue Church nor known in the Church for the space of almost a thousand yeares as hereafter wee shall declare wee haue great reason to conclude that excommunication as it is an Ecclesiasticall censure hath no power coactine to alter any temporall authority to depose Kings to destroy and dissolue allegeance or to trouble any lawfull authority established in this world 18 This will no lesse appeare if wee consider the power which the Church hath alwaies practised for coactiue power was a thing which the Chnrch yeelded alwayes to the â—…iuill Magistrate And if the Bishops of Rome did sometimes breake out beyond their bounds yet were they in those ancient times alwayes repressed by the authority of the Church For that we may take a short suruay of the Iurisdiction of the Church during the first three hundred yeres so long as the Apostles liued no man doubteth but that they ruled all and that the greatest Iurisdiction of the Church was in them if we speake of spirituall Iurisdiction And if any one Apostle liued after the rest there was more power acknowledged to be in him then in any one that liued in the Church in his time Now it is for an assured historicall truth recorded by Eusebius and before him by Irenaeus whom the full consent of the auncients follow heerein that S. Iohn liued after all the other Apostles were dead that he continued in the gouernment of the Church vntill the times of Traian Emperour In which time the Bishops of Rome after Peter are recorded to be these Linus Anacletus Clemens Eâ—…aristus Alexander If the Bishop of Rome had then been the head of the Church the chiefe Pastor the Monarch the fountaine of all Iurisdiction as his flatterers now make him it must be confessed that Alexander in his time and Euaristus before him was S. Iohns head and before him Clemens and before him Anaclet and before him Linus Did these rule and gouerne S. Iohn or S. Iohn them shall we say that they had Iurisdiction ouer S. Iohn or S. Iohn ouer them If these Bishops each in his time had Iurisdiction ouer S. Iohn then there was an authority in the Church aboue the authority of the Apostles If they were gouerned by him then the Bishop of Rome was not the head of the Church There is no sober spirit that can doubt of these things or can thinke that in those dayes any liued in the Church who was not vnder the Iurisdiction of an Apostle 19 After Saint Iohns death who was liuing in the yeare of Christ 100. and after in the Church of Rome were Sixtus Telesphorus Hyginus Pius Anicetus Soter Eleutherius Victor These gouerned the Church of Rome in succession by the space of one hundred yeares together In which times they seemed willing to put to their helping hands to aduance the Church of Rome For Sathan hauing a purpose thence to raise Antichrist began betime to worke and to abuse those good men as it was not hard for him to beguile better men then they were though we admit them to be good men and holy Martyres Then were they drawne into a loue to aduance their seate and Iurisdiction yet so as neither in them is proued pernicious neither was it thought by the church to be very dangerous seeing they yeelded and submitted themselues in the end to the graue and godly aduise of the Church 20 The things wherein the Bishops of Rome sought first to aduance their power was by imposing ceremonies vpon other Churches Thus did Anicet contend for the celebration of Easter but was quieted by Polycarp who for the peace of the Church made a iourney to Rome and pacified Anicetus And was so much honoured of Anicetus that there he practised the function of a Bishop as Eusebius reporteth taking the storie from Irenaeus Thus was peace and loue then maintained on all sides whilest the Bishops of Rome were content to be ruled by others 21 A little after Victor grewe more violent in the fame quarrell and excommunicated the Easterne Churches which did not obserue Easter after the maner of the Church of Rome But Uictor was resisted and sharply reproued by Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus and the rost of the Easterne Bishops as also by Irenaeus Bishop of Lions in Fraunce These did freely reproue Victor for that he regarded not the peace of the Church they declare that in ceremonies there was great difference of olde and yet the Bishops liued in loue and peace together that the differences in ceremonies did not breake the consent in faith that these differences were before the time of Victor and that hee was therein to followe the examples of his auncients who preserued loue and peace and the doctrines of faith sincere with some diuersity in outward ceremonies This was all that the Bishops of Rome attempted in those dayes wherein there appeareth no Iurisdiction ouer others but rather the contrary For the godly Bishops of Asia reproued them and made them see and acknowledge their owne rashnesse and caused them to desist therefore the Church did not then acknowledge the Popes Iurisdiction 22 Betweene Victor and Syluester the first succeeded 18. Bishops of Rome in the space of 100 yeares next In which time there was no great attempt made for superiority or Iurisdiction onely the Bishops of other Churches did honour the Bishop of Rome following the Apostles rule In giuing honor goe one before another Which honour if they could haue remembred as well to giue to others as they did to receiue from others there could haue risen no question of Iurisdiction but that which began in loue and courtesie was afterward drawne to Iurisdiction We denie not but some of the auncients haue yeelded to S. Peter a Priority among the rest of the Apostles because of his great zeale and loue to Christ and to his trueth and for his excellent vertâ—…es and to the Bishops of Rome wee finde likewise that the auncients yeelded great and honourable titles but this was in respect of their vertue learning and integrity For the auncients knewe no other rule of fauouring men but vertue he was in the Church most honourable and
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
Theodoret rehearseth a Dialogue betweene Constans the Emperour and Liberius Bishop of Rome who afterward for feare and through weakenesse and irksomnesse of his exile was drawen to subscribe to Arianisme as witnesseth Hierom Ruffinus Platina and other In that Dialogue these words are worth the noting Constans willing Liberius to forsake the Communion with Athanasius and to condemne him Liberius his answere is Ecclesiastica iudicia cum summa iusticiae obseruatione fieri debent quare situae pietati places iudicium cogi impera vbi si damnandus Athanasius videatur sententiam illum ordine modoque Ecclesiastico feratur nam fieri nequit vt condemnetur à nobis de quo iudicium datum non sit That is Ecclesiasticall iudgements ought to proceed with exact obseruation of iustice Therefore if it please your Godlinesse command a Councell to be called wherein if Athanasius seeme worthy to be condemned let sentence passe against him in Ecclesiasticall order and manner For it cannot be that by vs hee should bee condemned seeing wee haue no authoritie to iudge him The Bishop of Rome here confesseth first That Iudicia Ecclesiastica Ecclesiasticall iudgements are to be appointed and established by the Emperour then he graunteth him Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction and granteth that to call a Councell belongeth to his Iurisdiction Secondly the Emperour cannot make a man an hereticke but this must be done by a Councell or by the iudgement Ecclesiasticall This being a thing not of coactiue Iurisdiction but of knowledge in the word of God Thirdly the Bishop of Rome renounceth all right and authority of iudicature vpon Athanasius therefore in those daies hee had no Iurisdiction ouer other Bishops 6. This mixt Iurisdiction which now is practised by Bishops began in the time of Constantine So Nicephorus witnesseth Constantinus Clericos omnes constitutione lata immunes liberosque esse permisit iudiciumque iurisdictionem in eos Episcopis si ciuilium iudicum cognitionem declinare vellent mandauit quod Episcopi iudicassent id robur autoritatem sententiae omnem habere debere decreuit That is Constantine by an edict graunted the priuiledge of immunity to all Clerkes and graunted to Bishops iudgement and Iurisdiction ouer Clerkes in case they would decline from the courts of ciuill Iudges and he decreed that whatsouer the Bishops iudged that should stand in all strength and authority of a decree Sozomen declareth by what occasion it grew first For some began then to appeale from ciuill iudgements to Ecclesiasticall and some Bishops receiued the appellations which thing being approued by Constantine gaue great authority to this kind of Iurisdiction Episcopi saith he in causis ciuilibus sententias pronuntiarunt si qui à iudicibus ciuilibus ad eorum autoritatem appellassent Quam rem propter venerationem Episcoporum adeò approbauit Constantinus vt ratas haberi pâ—…tioresque quam aliorum iudicum sententias nec minus quam ab ipso imperatore essent pronunciatae per Magistratus milites Magistratuum ministres ad effectum perduci lege edixerit That is Bishops pronounced sentence in ciuill causes if any appeaed to them from ciuill Iudges This thing for the reuerence of Bishops Constantine approued so much that hee ordained by Law that these iudgements should be ratified and of greater authority then the sentences of other Iudges yea to be held of â—…o lesse force then if the Emperour himselfe had pronounced â—…hem so to be executed by the Shriefs their seruants 7 By which it appeareth that these courts with this Iurisdiction were vnderstood then no other then the Emperours courts The Emperour graunteth this Iurisdiction saith Nicephorus the Emperour ratifieth these iudgements saith Sozomen the Emperour commaundeth that the sentence of the Bishop should be euery where receiued as if it proceeded out of his owne mouth Which words are well to be obserued For the Emperour commaundeth not that the Bishops sentence should be receiued as a diuine sentence but only as an humane not as proceeding from the mouth of God but as proceeding from the mouth of the Emperour Now if these Courts were then so euidently proued to be the Emperours Courts our aduersaries may acknowledge their owne ignorance folly who make declamations and many idle discourses without solid proofe against them that call Ecclesiasticall Courts the Kings Courts as if this were a thing new strange and neuer heard of before these late yeares Their error is that common Sophisme which filleth most of their bookes which Aristotle calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 compounding confounding those things which we distinguish and which are distinct in nature For in this word of Iurisdiction they confound these two distinct things both that which is spirituall Iurisdiction yeelded by vs the right of the Church and all that also which Princes haue giuen to Ecclesiasticall Courts such as these priuiledges which Constantine gaue to Bishops Courts and other Princes since haue continued and enlarged If these things be not distinguished the truth can neuer appeare in this question by this the Reader may vnderstand who they are that hide and deface the truth by new varnishing of olde rotten Sophismes 8 Then all coactiue Iurisdiction came into the Church from the authority of Princes for as the power of the Church is internall and spirituall so externall and coactiue power was the right of Princes To this purpose Eusebius reporteth a speach of Constantine at a banquet calling himselfe a Bishop for things externall as they were for matters internall His words are these Vos quidem eorum quae intus sunt in Eccle sia agendâ—… ego vtro eorum quae extra hanc sunt Episcopus à Deo sum constitutus And whereas Iurisdiction is best knowne by appellations it hath been often seen that froÌ„ the Pope men haue appealed to a councel as hereafter we are todeclare but from a councel we find no appellation to the Pope but to the Emperor for some personall wrong Athanasius being vniustly condemned by the Synod of Tire appealed to Cinstantine as Socrates witnesseth In like sort Flauianus appealed to the Emperour when the Synod of Capua had referred his cause to Theophilus and the Bishops of Egypt Yea the heretiques themselues in those dayes knew no means to appeale from the Emperour Augustine saith that Donatus did still appeale to the Emperour being condemned by the Bishops and by Synodes And so religious were these auncient Bishops in preseruing the Emperors Iurisdiction and yet maintaining the truth without feare that when they were oppressed by Arians and by the power of an Arian Emperour yet they would vse no other meanes then these direct meanes And therefore the Bishops hauing a purpose to condemne the Arians craued a counsell of Valens an Arian Emperor who granted them a counsell at Lampsacum wherein they condemned the Arian doctrine So that without the Emperour they would not gather a counsell though it were to
the bright day of humilitie to such as desire to see God Thus write the Fathers of that Councell to Pope Caelestinus intimating by what meanes that smoke did begin to rise to darken the Church which is prophesied in the Reuelation which came out of the bottomlesse piâ—…t like the smoke of a great furnace Vpon these reasons they make a decree to preuent his ambitious desires by which decree they forbid all appellations to Rome or to any other place from Affrica it is extant in the Affrican Councell and this it is Item placuit vt presby teri Diaconi vel caeteri inferiores Clerici causis quas habuerint si de iudicijs Episcoporum suorum questi fuerint vicini Episcopi eos audiant Moreouer it was thought good that Priests Deacons or other inferiour Clarkes if in their causes they complaine of the iudgements of their Bishops they shall bee iudged by the next adioyning Bishops c. And a little after Quod si ab ijs prouocandum putauerint non prouocent nisi ad Affricana Concilia vel ad primates Prouinciarum suarum Ad transmarina autem qui putauerit appellandum â nullointer Affricam in Communionem suscipiatur And if they appeale from them they shall not appeale but to the Affrican Councels or to the Primates of their Prouinces Whosoeuer appealeth to outlandish places shall be admitted to the Communion by none within Affrica This was not so much a new decree as the maintaining of that auncient decreed right which Cyprian doth mention testifying that it was decreed euen in his time by all the Bishops of Affrica Statutum est ab omnibus that the cause should bee there heard and examined where the fault was committed This Canon which was thus established in the Affrican Councell is for clearing of the truth and preuenting of these ambitious courses and claimes of Rome repeated and confirmed also in the Mileuitan Councell where Saint Augustine was also present For it must be obserued that the sixt Carthaginian the seuenth Carthaginian the Affrican and Meleuitan Councels were held all about this time by the same men so great was the care and diligence of the Fathers that by many Councels as it were by so many lights they might dispell the smoake of the darkenesse which they saw then rising out of the Church of Rome which smoake after those times quenched the light and couered the sight of the Church as a mist couereth the heauens 20 Thus did these worthy Fathers dispell this smoke for that time and reiect the yoake of the Popes Iurisdiction In all this businesse S. Augustine had an especiall hand and head And as long as he liued the Popes could neuer preuaile But the Bishops of Rome hauing thus once cast off all regard of truth and modesty were resolued to proceed on in this wretched course and neuer gaue ouer till at last they obtained their purpose There is an Epistle of Boniface the second written after these times extant in the Tomes of councels which whether it bee true or counterfait as much other stuffe is of this argument we are to obserue something out of it because it concerneth this question This Epistle is intituled De reconciliationae Carthaginensis Ecclesiae written to Eulalius Bishop of Alexandria he certifieth the Bishop of Alexandria of great ioy for as much as the Church of Carthage is now returned saith hee ad communionem nostram and receiueth all our mandates which by our Legates wee send them Hee signifieth that supplications must be made to GOD that other Churches may likewise be brought home to the same obedience That the Bishop of Alexandria must giue notice heereof to all the brethren about him that they cease not to giue thanks for such benefites of the heauenly fauour For saith he Aurelius praefatae Carthaginensis Ecclesiaeolim Episcopus cum collegis suis instigante diabolo superbire temporibus praedecessorum nostrorum Bonifacij atque Coelestini contra Romanam Ecclesiam coepit c. That is Aurelius once Bishop of Carthage began with his colleagues by the instigation of the diuell to wax proud against the Romane Church in the dayes of our predecessours Boniface and Coelestinus But Eulalius at this time Bishop of Carthage finding himselfe for the sins of Aurelius cut off from the coÌ„munion of the Church of Rome hath humbled himselfe and sought peace and the communion of the Church of Rome by his subscription and together with his colleagues hath by Apostolicall authority vtterly condemned all Scriptures and Writings which by any wit haue beene framed against the priuiledges of the Church of Rome 21 Whether this Epistle be forged or not it commeth all to one reckoning For if it be forged let the Bishop of Rome take the shame of the fórgery If it be the true writing of the Bish of Rome then he auoucheth that the holy worthy maÌ„ of God S. Augustine with Aurelius and the rest of his colleagues were stirred vp by the instigation of the diuell to withsâ—…and this Romane Iurisdiction We may the better beare the reproaches of the Romish Sinagogue when they sharpen their tongues and pennes against the seruants of GOD in our times seeing they laue done as much against the auncient godly Fathers For what can the late Popes say more against M. Luther Iohn Caluin or any other of the worthies of the reformed Churches then this Boniface the second saith against holy S. Augustine that he with the rest of his company were stirred and instigated by the diuell to stand against the Iurisdiction of the Romish Church Then when we denie their Iurisdiction wee denie it with the Fathers when wee are therefore condemned by the Pope and his Court we are condemned with the auncient Fathers with them we suffer with them we are reuiled and condemned The goodnesse of our cause the fellowship of the auncient Saints the warrant of the truth is able to support vs against the impotent malice and fury of these men that haue no other cause to be offended at vs then their Fathers had against S. Augustine and the rest of the auncient and holy Fathers who haue resisted the Romish Iurisdiction and therein haue left a worthy example to vs to follow their foot-steps Thus we see the Popes Iurisdiction was first attempted by forgery and afterward by falshood and tyrannie effected 22 Other Churches were afterward in time drawne to the obedience of this Iurisdiction The Churches of Rauenna Aquileia and Millane were long after this brought vnder the same yoake by Pope Stephen the third saith Sabellicus But Platina saith that Millaine was drawne to this obedience by Stephen the ninth If this be true then Millain stoode out till the yeare of Christ nine hundred and fourty And thus the quarrell for Iurisdiction was begun by Zozimus maintained by Boniface and Caelestinus but reiected by these Affrican Councels The cause was much helped by some that succeeded as Leo and
an end of the institution of these orders to make some chaunge in that ancient religion which before stood in the Church of Rome in some tollerable measure and to vexe and persecute the professors thereof and especially to bring in a new Iurisdiction of the Pope it will better appeare if wee consider what hath bene in the beginning of their institution and since obserued of their innouations libertie luxuriousnesse and what desolation they haue brought into the Church That these men may better be knowen I will note what Iohn Wiclife and some others haue obserued Friars taught saith Wiclife that the King of England is not Lord of the Clargie but that the Pope is their Lord. Friars so streitched the priuiledges of the Clargie that though an Abbot and all his couent ben open traitours conspiring vnto death of the King and Queene and other Lords and inforce them to destroy all the Realme the King may not take fro them an half-penny ne farthing worth When Parish-churches ben appropred to men of singular religion that is to Friars such appropriation is made by false suggestion that such religious men han not ynough for lifelode and healing but in truth they han ouâ—…rmuch Let me obserue this by the way as being now better instructed in the opinion of Iohn Wiâ—…life concerning tithes Whereas he seemeth to be against tithes it is to be vnderstood as he doth in diuers places open himselfe against tithes as then they were abused by Fryars For Fryers then had power from the Pope to appropriate tithes to their Couents by which meanes tithes came into their possession This thing Wiclife thought vnlawfull and would haue had tithes reduced to their ancient vse againe now let vs returne to his obseruations Fryers sayen that their religion founden on sinfull men is more perfit then that religion or order which Christ himselfe made They sayen also that begging is lawfull the which is damned of God both in the old Testament and in the new Fryers after they had procured impropriations and left a poore Curat in place drewe also from Curats their office and Sacraments they got the confession of Lords and Ladies They pursuen true Priests and letten them to preach the Gospell Christ chargeth all his Priests to preach the Gospell truely and they pursuen them for this deed yea to the fire they will slea Priests for they doe Gods bidding When the King by his officers prisons a man that is commonly done for great and open trespasse and that is good warning to other misdoers some profit comes of the Kings Ministers but when Friars prisonen their brethren the paine is not knowen to men though the sinne were neuer so open and slaunderous and that does harme to other Liegemen Friars sayen that they han more power then the Curat and thus they make dissention and discord among Ch istian men Friars labour to roote out true Priests that preach Christs Gospel themselues han their chamber and seruice like Lords or Kings and senden out idiots full of couetise to preach not the Gospell but Chronicles Fables and leesings to please the people to rob them And yet for sending of those couetous fooles that ben limitors goes much Symonie enuy much foule Marchandise And who can best rob the poore people by false begging and other deceits that shall haue this Iudas office and so a nest of Antichrists Clarkes is maintained They shew not to the people their great sinnes and namely to mighty men of the world but pursuen other true preachers for they will not glose mighty men and comfort them in their sins Thus mighty men hire by great costs a false traitour to lead them to hell Friars deceiuen the people in faith and robben them of Temporall goods make the people trust more in dead parchment sealed with leesings and in vaine prayers of hypocrites that in case ben damned deuils then in the holy helpe of God and their owne good liuing Friars peruert the right faith of the Sacrament of the Auter bringing in a new heresie saying there is an accident withouten subiect which heresie neuer came into the Church till the foule fende Satan was vnbounden after a thousand yeeres Friars vndoe Parish Churches by building other needlesse meaning Abbeyes and Priories c. They destroy the obedience of Gods law magnifien singular obedience made to sinfull men and in case to diuels this is blind obedience brought in by them which obedience Christ insampled neuer ne in himselfe ne in his Apostles Friars being made Bishops robben men by extorsion as in punishing of sin for money and suffren men to lie in sinne they beare out the gold of our land to Aliens and sometimes to our enemies to get of Antichrist false exemptions They teach Lords and Ladies that if they die in Francis habite they shall neuer come to hell They are neither ruled by Gods law ne lawes of the Church ne lawes of the King They ben the cause and procuratours of all warres They say apertly that if the King and Lords and other standen thus against their false begging c. they will goe out of the land and come againe with bright heads and looke whether this be treason or none They teach and maintaine that holy writ is false and so they putten falsnesse vpon our Lord Iesus Christ and vpon the holy Ghost and vpon the blessed Trinitie Friars teach that it is not lawfull to a Priest or any other man to keepe the Gospell in his bounds and cleannesse without errour of sinnefull men but if he haue leaue thereto of Antichrist Friars by hypocrisie binden them to impossible things that they may not doe for they binden them ouer the commaundements of God as they say themselues hence are works of supererogation They burne Priests and the Gospell of Christ written in English to most honour of our Nation They call the curse of God the lesse curse and the curse of sinfull men the more curse They distroyen this Article of Christian mens faith I beleeue a common or generall Church For they teachen that tho men that shall be damned be members of holy Church and thus they wedden Christ and the diuell together They waste the treasures of the land for dispensations and vaine Pardons They ben most subtill and priuy procurators of Symonie and most priuily make Lords to maintaine the Pope and his robbing our land of treasure by his Pardons Priuiledges first fruits of Benefices in our land and Disâ—…es and Subsidies 23. By this wee may in part see those innouations which Friars brought into the Church raysing a new Iurisdiction to the Pope defrauding and robbing the King of his auncient Iurisdiction these are they who first taught and practised obedience to another Soueraigne then the King conspiracy against the life of Princes
impropriations turning tithes first from their true and auncient vse persecution for preaching the Gospell exemptions the vse of Legends in the Church and reading of fables to the people Symonie flattery pardons indulgences the heresie of an accident without a subiect singular and blind obedience the vse of commutation of penance into money they were instruments of warres and bloodshed they inuented works of supererogation the doctrin that reprobates are members of the Catholike Church to robbe the land of money These are the things in part which are obserued by Wiclife to haue beene first inuented by Friars Now whereas Iohn Wiclife was reputed an hereticke wee finde that this imputation was laid vpon him especially by Friars For he was a professed enemie to them and to their innouations holding with the Church of Rome and maintaining no other doctrine then that which he found publikely maintained and receiued in the world before Friars altered it Still he pleadeth the cause of the Priests against Friars which sheweth that he taught no otherwise then those Priests did teach And albeit the Friars did marueilouslly disorder the Church in his time yet hee witnesseth that the third part of the Clergie of England defended the truth against Friars Then the Friars being set vp to alter the auncient doctrine and Iurisdiction and to induce new did labour herein throughly imploying their best skill and power for the aduancement of the Pope and suppressing of the truth Heerein the Iesuites succeed their forefathes in this inheritance of innouation daily adding some new monsters to those which these old Friars left to their hands 24. The Vniuersitie of Paris hath likewise declared their iudgement against Friars somewhat before this time wherein Wiclife liued They gathered seuen Articles against Friars which because they proue Friars to be the authors introducers of innouation in the Church I will here set them downe First we say that Friars are not to be admitted into our Scholasticall societie except by our consent because the society ought not to be coact but voluntarie Secondly because wee haue found by experience that their fellowship hath beene many wayes hurtfull and dangerous to vs. Thirdly seeing they are of a diuerse profession from ours for they are regulars and wee schollers we ought not to be ioined or mingled together in one scholasticall office For the Spanish Councell saith Thou shalt not plow with an Oxe an Asse thatis thou shalt not associate men of diuers professions together in one office for how can they agree together whose studies vowes and purposes are diuers Fourthly because they raise dissentions offences but the Apostle saith we beseech you brethren that you obserue them that is that you discerne such as make dissentions for the doctrine which you haue learned of the Apostles and eschewe them for they serue not the Lord but their belly Gloss. for they flatter some they backbite others that they may fill their bellies and by glosing words and their benedictions they beguile the hearts of the simple Fiftly because we feare least they bee such as enter into houses because they thrust themselues into euery mans house they search and sift the consciences of men seduce such as they find like women ready to be seduced And whō they haue once seduced them they draw from the Councels of their owne Prelates to their Councels for they bind them by oath to their Councels such the Apostle commaundeth to eschew Sixtly because we feare they are false Prophets for they are not Bishops nor Parish-priests nor their Vicars nor by them inuited yet they preach being not sent against the Apostle saying Rom. 10. How shall they preach except they be sent For they worke no miracles thereby to witnesse that they may preach the Church then ought to auoid such men being so dangerous Seuenthly because they are curious and hauing no lawfull calling in the Church they busie themselues with other mens businesse thrust themselues into other mens callings and yet they are neither Apostles nor their successours that is Bishops neither are they of the seuenty and two Disciples of the Lord neither their helpers or Vicars as before is said Now the Apostle commaundeth vs to eschewe such as will liue so saying 2. Thess. vlt. We declare brethren to you in the name of the Lord Iesus Christ that you withdraw your selues from euery brother that walketh inordinately and not according to that tradition which they haue receiued of vs c. 25. Thus haue we set downe the sincere iudgement of that Vniuersitie before it was corrupted and infected with Friars They haue prooued that Friars haue no lawfull calling in the Church to preach or administer the Sacraments because they haue no institution of Christ or his Apostles And howsoeuer since those times the iudgement of that Vniuersitie was chaunged after they had once receiued these serpents into their bosomes yet the reasons which they haue brought against Friars are vnchaungeably true and will alwayes prooue that which then they prooued that neither the old Friars nor the new Iesuits haue any lawfull calling in the Church As thus they haue beene the bane of the Church in chaunging the old bounds so they haue beene the ruine of Princes and the cause of great warres and bloodshed yea of all the persecutions that haue bene since For before that time that the orders of Friars were brought foorth by a new and monstrous birth in the Church there was no bloodshed nor persecution offered by the Pope nor the Church of Rome for matters of Religion Berengarius was forced to a Recantation before but no blood was shed But after that Dominicke had instituted the order of the Iacobites or preaching Friars and Francis the order of the Minorites professed beggars then began great bloodshed and persecution to be practised vpon men that did not allow the Popes Iurisdiction in blood was it first founded and so it hath beene euer since maintained 26. The first persecution began against them that were called Albingenses whose opinions are made hainous by some that write affectionately since that time but by the writers of that time there appeareth no other thing wherewith they were charged but onely that they withstood the Popes pride and Iurisdiction for which they were persecuted The Earle of Tholouse who fauoured them was depriued of his Earledome his landes were giuen to Simon Monford the forces of the French and the Pope were raised against him when they were not able to vanquish him by force by fraud and falshood of the Friars and Popish Bishops they ouerthrew him In this ouerthrow of the Earle the industry and valour of Dominicke is much celebrated by the stories of this time Insomuch as the whole praise is attributed to him of him Platina witnesseth thus much Quos Albingenses Dominicus mira celeritate compescuit adiuuante etiā Simone Monteforti non enim disputationibus verum armis opus fuit adeo
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
point and am more willing to search the truth herein because it is a matter of especiall importance concerning this question of Iurisdiction which wee seeke to know For Robert Persons the masked Catholique diuine confesseth in effect thus much that if wee can proue that Inuestitures belong to temporall Princes we haue in his iudgement questionlesse obtained the cause for which we striue Let me set downe his owne words Three things saith he do concurre in making of a Bishop by diuine and Canon law to wit election confirmation and consecration The first to wit election when it is iustly made doth giue right to the elected to pretend the second and third c. Yet can he not vpon his only Election exercise any part of his office of a Bishop either in Iurisdiction or order But when he hath the second part which is confirmation and induction to the benefice which is properly called Inuestiture then hath he Iurisdiction vpon those people and may exercise the Acts thereof by visiting punishing or the like but not the Acts of order vntill he haue consecration also that is to say he cannot make Priests nor administer the Sacrament of confirmation c. And a little after he saith the second which is confirmation and giuing of Iurisdiction must onely proceede from him that is the fountaine of all spirituall Iurisdiction vnder Christ which is the Bishoppe of Rome or some Metropolitane or Bishoppe vnder him that hath authority and Commission from him Thus much the Catholicke Diuine 66. I forgiue many particular escapes in this short discourse not spending time in the examination of by-points I would meete him there where he thinketh himselfe strongest For where he saith confirmation which also he calleth induction or which properly as he graunteth may be called Inuestiture giueth Iurisdiction this we yeeld And then heere wee ioyne issue with olde Sir Robert in that part of his Collection whereon he layeth his greatest hold and are content to trie the whole cause thereon whether Inuestiture which by his confession and the doctrine of his Church and the consent of all giueth Iurisdiction belong of ancient right to the Pope or to temporall Princes If he be able to proue by any auncient full cleare vnsuspected witnesse that the Popes within the space of the first thousand yeares or before Hildebrand either had that right or did practise or so much as challenge that right I will for my part yeeld the cause and will confesse mine errour if thus much be euidently euicted But seeing we haue proued by vndoubted Histories by the consent of Popes themselues by the Decrees established in Councels that this was an auncient right of temporall Princes called Prisca consuetudo by Pope Stephen Antiqua consuetudo by another that the contrarie was neuer heard of vnder any Christian Prince confessed by Gregory the first Then hath he reason either to yeelde vs the cause wholly or to reuoke his wordes againe that Inuestiture giueth Iurisdiction 67. Then the right of Inuestitures standing as the auncient right of our Kings being neuer questioned in Christendome before the time of Pope Gregory the seuenth neuer questioned in this land before the time of Henry the first that King had reason to pleade the vse of his father and brother for himselfe because it being a thing quietly possessed by them was out of doubt peaceably inioyed before them because before them the Popes neuer made title thereto Now concerning the tumults warres blood and confusion in Christendome both in the Church and temporall states which for this quarrell the Popes procured for fiftie yeares together as Malmsbury witnesseth of this it is not my purpose to speake It is enough for mee to open the time when it began and before which time it was neuer challenged by any Pope and to declare that the Popes late practise is condemned by the Iudgement of the auncient Church §. V. Exemption of criminous Clerkes 68. OVr purpose being to take a suruey of that Iurisdiction which we finde challenged by Popes at and somewhat after the time of the Conquest of England at what time the Popes power was at the highest we are to consider in the next place Exemption of criminous Clerkes for as Inuestiture of Bishoppes began then to be claimed so about these times crept exemption of the Popes Clerkes which is taken to be another part of this Iurisdiction My purpose is not to speake of lawfull exemption of the Clergie for both Diuine and humane lawes approue such immunities without which how could the Clergie attend vpon their heauenly businesse These immunities which Emperours and Princes haue giuen to the Church the Church ought to inioy without disturbance and to withdraw such immunities were high sacriledge and impiety against God and his Church But the question is not of these immunities which Christian Kings haue giuen to the Church but of those immunities which the Pope without the leaue or authoritie of Princes hath bestowed out of his fulnesse of power vpon the Clergie which liue vnder the gouernement of other Princes by which the Clergie inioyed a protection from punishment for any sinne This is the thing for which they are not ashamed to striue euen at this day as earnestly as they did in the midst of blindenesse This thing will be better knowne if we search the originall foundation of this errour from the beginning and the occasion by which it grew in the Church For now this opinion is and for some late hundred yeeres hath beene so rooted in the Court of Rome that the Clergie though neuer so much offending by murther treason theft robberies or such like is priuiledged from all temporall Courts of Princes and punishment from the Laity vnlesse first the Church proceede against them and make them no Clerks that they are perswaded both of the truth and antiquity hereof as of a point of faith the occasion grew thus 69. The first auncient and famous Emperours did out of their godly and zealous affections and as we may well iudge vpon good reasons to helpe the Church and to preserue discipline ioyne the aide of their coactiue lawes to the spirituall censures of the Church ordeining that whosoeuer by the gouernours of the Church could not be brought to obedience and order should by the seuerity of temporall punishment be reduced to obedience The vsuall punishment which Emperours did inflict vpon Clerkes was deportation So did Constantine the great punish Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia and Theognius Bishoppe of Nice And albe it some were threatned with capitall punishment as appeareth by a Letter which Constantine wrote to the Bishoppes of the Nicen Councel recorded by Socrates and inserted in the first Tome of Councels yet the vsuall censure of the Emperour was exile This kind of punishment was often inflicted by other Emperors vpon Bishops the examples are famously knowne and acknowledged I need not to speake of them Insomuch that it began to be
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
Now this is the crueltie of our Lord the King that is so much spoken of through the world against the Church this is that persecution that he raiseth Then it is an auncient complaint of these Romish Catholickes to call the iust lawfull godly and necessary execution of iustice crueltie and persecution this complaint hath beene euer since continued by them and most of all where there is least cause euen in the milde and mercifull gouernement of the late Queene of famous memory What crueltie did they impute to her What persecution to her Gouernement When they are not able to proue that one man was executed for Religion but for treason Which was so much the more dangerous because it was masked with the visard of Religion but Religion is not nor euer was the cause why our Kings punished the Popes Clerkes but onely Iurisdiction For when the Pope will stretch his Iurisdiction so farre as to include coactiue power and to exclude Kings from the gouernement of their Subiects drawing the Clergie from the obedience of their Kings to the obedience and subiection of the Pope drawing the subiects of other Kings vnder his subiection by an Oath of Allegiance and hereupon perswading al that will hearken to him that they may not yeelde an Oath of Alleageance to their owne Princes the Popes Iurisdiction being drawne to these points as now by the confession of themselues they are the question betweene the Pope and Christian Princes is not of Religion but of Iurisdiction of ciuill and coactiue Iurisdiction and the summe of all is this Whether the Princes of Christendome shall be free Princes or the Popes Vassals 82. By this which we haue declared we see the cause of our Kings iustified against the Archbishoppe and the exemption of Clerkes for which the Archbishoppe stroue and which since that time is claimed to be an especiall priuilege of that Church to be condemned by the chiefe of the Clergy by all the Bishops of that Prouince and that euen to the Pope himselfe Which thing the Bishoppes of the English Church would neuer haue done vnlesse they had beene well assured that the Kings cause was good and that the contrary opinion was a pernicious nouelty a late vpstart deuice in the Church But howsoeuer the Popes Clerkes pretended their new forged priuiledges yet the Kings of this land held still their olde course in the auncient manner of execution of iustice against them that offended And therefore Henry the second by law commaunded as Houeden saith that the Bishoppes of London and Norwich should be summoned that they might be before the Kings Iustices to answere for that they against the statutes of the kingdome did interdict the land of the Earle Hugh 83. This exemption of Clarks was a new practise in the time of Marsilius of Padua and not so new as pestiferous occasioning the ruine of States and being as a furie sent abroad from hell to disorder all gouernment For thus he complaineth of it Quibus non contenti sed saecularium contra Christi Apostolorum praeceptum appetentes fastigia in legum Lationes seorsum ab ijs quae Ciuium vniuersitatis sunt proruperuut Omnem clerum ab his decernentes exemptum ciuile sâ—…hisma principatuum supremoruÌ„ pluralitatâ—…m inducentes ex ipsis c. Haec pestilentiae Italici regni radix est origo ex qua cuncta scandala germinauerunt prodeunt qua stante nunquaÌ„ ciuiles ibidem cessabunt discordiae c. That is Not content herewith they the Popes seeking the honour of secular gouernement against the commandement of Christ and his Apostles haue taken vpon them the ordaining of Lawes and Canons other then such as serue for the common good They decree that all the Clergie are exempt from temporall Princes heereby inducing a pluralitie of Soueraignties c. This is the roote and spring of the pestilence of the Empire from whence all scandals grow and which standing ciuill discord shall neuer haue an end c. Thus were these exemptions then found and acknowledged to be the pestilence and ruine of all states especially of the Empire And his reason is well to be obserued because saith he it bringeth in Pluralitatem supremorum principatuum quam velut impossibilem humanae quieti demonstrauimus he proueth the plurality of Soueraignty a thing impossible to stand with the quiet and peaceable Gouernement of the world Now this exemption must eyther induce a plurality of Soueraignties when the Pope is one Soueraigne and the Prince another which is impossible in nature saith Marsilius or else it denieth the Kings Soueraignty to establish the Popes which thing can neuer bee indured by any Prince §. VI. Of the Popes power in giuing lawes 84. ANother thing whereby this new Iurisdiction of the Pope was so highly aduanced was giuing of Lawes to Princes and their subiects whereas before Princes had giuen lawes to him Marsilius in the wordes last cyted in the end of the last Paragraffe speaking of these laws saith They now break out into a practise of Iurisdiction taking vpon them to make lawes separat and distinct from such lawes as are for the common and publique good of all meaning the Canon lawes which because they intend onely the priuate aduancement of the Pope and not the publique good of the Church being also made onely by the authority of the Pope and not by the publique consent of the Church therefore he doth not account them lawes but Oligarchicall and tyrannicall Decrees these lawes are to be considered because they make so great a shew of the Popes Iurisdiction 85. The Church before was gouerned by Bishoppes and Metropolitanes in such order that the affaires of euery particular Diocesse were ordered by the Bishoppe or by a Synode of his calling the affaires of the Prouince were determined by the Metropolitane or by a Prouinciall Synode of his calling from an Episcopall Synode a man might appeale to a prouinciall Synode and from a Prouinciall Synode to a nationall but from a prouinciall or from a nationall Synode none might appeale to the Bishoppe of Rome for which thing diuers Decrees were made in prouinciall Synodes as we haue before declared As the Bishoppes were Gouernours so the lawes whereby they did then gouerne the Church were the Canons of auncient Councels especially of those foure most famous Councels of Nice Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon For that the Canons of these Councels were held for the lawes of the Church it appeareth by a Constitution of Iustinian extant in the fift Synode held at Constantinople wherein Iustinian the Emperour declareth that Aâ—…thimus was deposed from the Bishoprike of Constantinople by Pope Agapetus and a whole Synode with him consenting for that he had departed from the doctrines of those foure holy Synodes the Nicen the Constantinopolitan the Ephesian and the Chalcedonian The Emperor also declareth that he being deposed by the Church should be banished by him ioyning his
a Canon in some Church notwithstanding the priuiledges of that Church the customes to the contrary or statutes confirmed either by Oath or by Apostolicall confirmation or by any other strength c. By this Lawe as by many other it appeareth that the Popes Canons allowe that men should goe against their owne Oathes when the Popes letters doe commaund them so to doe Which is a forbidding of things honest iust and godly and commanding thinges euill and vnlawfull Therefore these Lawes forbid vertue and commaund vice and are consequently no iust Lawes in the iudgement of Bellarmine 89. The last condition that in Bellarmines opinion is required to make a Law iust is drawne from the forme Because saith hee the Law must keepe that proportion in distributing honours which the Subiects haue in the Common-wealth For example saith he if the Pope should make a Law that onely rich and noble men should be made Bishoppes and not poore and meane men otherwise more learned and more worthy this Law were simply vniust but it is certaine that the Popes Lawes are such I speake not here of their corrupt practise which since the Canon lawes came in was neuer found without strong and strange Simonie but I speake of their Lawes which command it For who made that Law which saith Pallium non datur nisi fortiter postulaâ—…i The Pall is not giuen to any man vnlesse he make a strong suit What is meant by a strong suit they know best that haue purchased Palls at the Popes hand But it is certaine that a poore man did neuer purchase a Pall therefore poore men though more learned then the rich purchaser are excluded from this honour by the Law that alloweth none to make suit but such as can make strong suit then the Law is vniust by Bellarmines confession It is also an vniust and an vngodly Law which saith Though the Pope should draw innumerable soules with himselfe downe into hell yet no mortall man may presume to say to him Sir why do you so It is an vncleane Law which so strictly denying the mariage of Priests yet doth allow them to haue Concubines Many other Lawes there be of this forme So that by all those conditions which Bellarmine will haue to be requisite in all Lawes that bee iust the Popes Lawâ—…s are found to be vniust By all which is euinced that the Pope commeth in his owne name maketh Lawes to rule those Subiects ouer whom he hath no authority respecteth therein his owne ends taketh vp a new Iurisdiction which hath beene denied by the auncient Bishops and which was vnknowne in the world all the while that the Popes liued vnder the obedience of the Emperours as other Bishoppes did vnder seuerall Princes § 7. Of Appellation 90. ANother part of this pretended Iurisdiction stoode in appellation to the Pope This they haue chalenged but it hath alwayes beene denied by the Kings of this land as being a thing preiudiciall to the auncient Lawes and customes of the Kingdome The first question about appeales in this land that I can finde began by Anselme Archbishop of Canterburie in the time of William Rufus For after that some breach was made betweene the King and the Archbishop the Archbishoppe Anselme desired leaue to depart the land to goe to Rome for his Pall. The King perceiuing that hee had a purpose to appeale to the Pope Aunswered That if hee should appeale to Pope Vrban or any other for at that time two stroue for the Papacy without his leaue then should he falsifie his alleageance The King reasoned thus saith Malmsbury Consuetudo Regâ—…imes est à Patre meo instituta vt nullus praeter licentiam Regis appelletur Papa Qui consuetuâ—…ines Regnitollit potestatem quoque toronam Regni violat qui coronam mihi aufert inimicitias infidelitatem in me agit For there was contention betweene the King the Archbishop First because the Archbishop would nominate a Pope without the Kings leaue Secondly because he would appeale to the Pope Concerning this matter of appeale the same Author a little after declareth that there grew an hot contention betweene them Anselme his answere was Tues Petrus super hanc Petram c. And therfore quoth he to the King the obedience which I offer to S. Peters Vicar is not against mine alleageance to the King Thus had the Popes with a strong kind of poyson as it were so enchaunted those words of holy Scripture as to make them serue for a cloake of disobedience and breach of alleageance to temporall Princes Anselme being further vrged by the King that he had promised to keepe all the customes of his kingdome and hee was bound to performe alleageance aunswereth thus What doe you tell me that I breake mine alleageance to the King by appealing to the Sea Apostolique I grant I promised but conditionally that I would keepe those customes which are agreeable to the lawes of God and honesty And therfore where you tell me that I haue broken mine alleageance by preuaricating your laws in appealing to the Sea Apostolique sauing your honour it is not true if another had spoken it For the faith which Iowe to the King I haue it from the faith of God whose Vicar is S. Peter to whose Sea I appeale with much stirre and strife to this effect Anselme held his resolution stiffely 91. Nowe let the Reader bee entreated to compare these times with the times of the Affrican Councell and Anselme Archbishop of Canterburie with Augustine Bishop of Hippo. S. Augustine with the rest of the Affrican Councell condemned appellations to Rome as standing against godlinesse order the freedome of the Church as quenching the light of simplicitie as inducing darkenesse pride and ambition into the Church Now that which in Saint Augustines time was vngodly can it be made godly and lawfull in Anselmes time Yet Anselme we see maketh this thing the cause of God Augustine condemned appellations to Rome simply without consideration of disobedience to Princes What then would he haue done if thereunto had beene added the commaundement of his Prince against such Appellations Anselme standing for Appellation to Rome which Augustine denied and withstanding the iust and 〈◊〉 commaundement of his Soueraigne hath no other coâ—… to cast ouer the matter then the pretence of God and Saint Peters Vicar If this obedience had beene required of God to Saint Peters Vicar in Anselmes time Why was not the same required and yeelded in Saint Augustines time This is the difference betweene the opinions brought in by men and the truths of God that the one standeth alwayes the same in the Church without chaunge the other hath his times of rising and falling as this opinion of Appellation to the Pope which was so strongly reiected by Augustine found a time to rise vp betweene the pride of the Popes and the seruile flattery of some Bishoppes And what greater signe of pride in the Pope and
flatterie in his seruants then to resume these old condemned priuiledges and therewithall to patch yp a Iurisdiction standing so directly against the iudgement and practise of the ancient godly Fathers 92. And yet was Anselme as resolute in this as Augustine was in the contrarie But heerein a great difference appeared which might much sway the iudgement of indifferent readers if there were no other meanes to informe them that Saint Augustine standing against appellations to Rome had heerein the full consent of all his fellow Bishoppes not one dissenting But Anselme standing for appellations to Rome stood alone without the consent of so much as one Bishoppe which thing I report for the honour of the Church of England and of all the Bishoppes of England at this time who heerein resisted their Archbishoppe standing for the ancient liberties of the Church William Malmsburie witnesseth thus much In his exequendis saith he omnes Episcopi Angliae Primati suo suffragium negarunt That is In the execution of these things all the Bishops of England denied their consent to their Primate This sheweth that Archbishoppes were made the Popes seruants before Bishoppes were the reason was because the Archbishoppes vsed to purchase a Pall from the Pope which Pall Anselme had not yet at this time of his variance with the King obtained for Malmsbury saith he first asked leaue to goe to Rome for the Pall. Now the Pope in graunting the Pall conueyed an Oath of Alleageance with it as before we haue obserued which was the reason that moued our Archbishopps to stirre such rebellious tumults against the Kings of this land Such was this faction which Anselme maintained for the Pope against the King wherein he was condemned by all the Bishops of England in the question of Appellation as Thomas Becket was after this time condemned by all the Bishoppes in like sort in the question of Inuestitures 93. And therefore Henry the second had iust cause to publish that law which Roger Houeden calleth graue edictum execrabile against the Pope beginning Si quis inuentus fuerit literas vel mandatū ferens Domini Papae c. capiatur de eo sicut de regis traditore regui siue dilatione fiat iusticia That is If any be found bringing in the Popes Letters or Mandat c. let him be apprehended and let iustice be executed without delay vpon him as vpon a traytor to the King and Kingdome In the same law it is said Item generaliter interdictum est ne quis appellet ad Dominum Papam That is It is simply by law prohibited that no man appeale to the Pope This was not a new law now inuented by Henry the second but an auncient law now renued and vpon a iust occasion put in execution for William Rufus as before we haue declared vrged this law against Anselme proouing it to be one of his Fathers lawes and auerring that such appeales did stand against the auncient lawes and customes of his Kingdome so that the Kings Iurisdiction in such matters was maintained by the auncient lawes of this land 94. But because the antiquity of the lawes of our land is questioned by our aduersaries though this thing belong not to my profession yet let me in a few wordes declare what I haue met with in Stories concerning this point that it may appeare that the lawes of this land are much more auncient then that Religion which now is called the Religion of the Church of Rome King William Rufus the Conquerours sonne declareth as Malmsbury witnesseth that it was a custome of this kingdome confirmed by his father that without the Kings licence no man might appeale to the Pope Now these lawes and customes which William the Conquerour did publish and confirme were the auncient lawes and customes of the Saxons before him not first inuented by the Conquerour though enacted and established by him For Roger Houeden writing of these lawes which the Conquerour enacted saith that the King being once in minde to establish the lawes of the Danes was after much and earnest intreaty of the Barons perswaded to yeelde that the lawes of King Edward the Confessour should be retained still The Barons saith Houeden vrged the King Pro anima regis Eduardi qui et post diem suum concesserat coronam regnum cuius erant Leges Unde Concilio habito praecatui Baronum tandem acquieuit ex illa ergo die visa authoritate veneratae per vniuersam Angliam corroboratae confirmatae sunt prae caeteris patriae legibus leges Eduardiregis quae prius inuentae Constitutae erant in tempore Adgari aui sui For King Edwards soule who bequeathed him his Crowne and Kingdome after his death and whose lawes they were whereupon holding a Parliament he yeelded at last to the Barons request from that day forward the lawes of King Edward were by his authority honoured established and confirmed through all England which lawes were before found out and enacted in the time of Edgar Grandfather to King Edward After this Houeden entreth into a large discourse to proue that the lawes which the Conquerour established were King Edwards lawes which lawes saith he were called King Edwards lawes not because hee inuented them first but because after they had beene buried in some neglect lying vnregarded and not put in due execution for the space of three score and eight yeares after Edgars death for so many yeares are betweene King Edgars death and S. Edwards Coronation he reuiued them And thus much he confirmeth that the lawes established by the Conquerour were S. Edwards lawes and the same which were in vse here in the daies of that peaceable King Edgar And it is not without good reason collected that the same lawes proceeded from King Alphred for he like another Iustinian is reported to haue compiled certaine volumes of lawes not onely from the lawes of the Britaines Saxons and Danes but also of the ancient Grecians and other Besides that he translated into the Saxon tongue those lawes which were called the Molmucin lawes and also the Martia◅ lawes the one of Dunwallo Molmucius an auncient Brittish King the other so named of Martia Proba an auncient Brittish Queene And that William the Conquerour established the Saxon lawes it is likewise testified by Henry Huntingdon who saith thus Saxones pro viribus paulatim terram bello capessentes captam obtiuebant obtentam aedificabant aedificatam legibus regebant Nee non Normanici cito breuiter terram subdentes sibi victis vitam libertatem legesque antiquas regni iure concesserunt The Saxons by a strong hand ouercame the land in time by war built as they ouer came and as they built gouerned it by lawes The Normans also quickly subduing the land vnder them yet graunted by the right of the Kingdome lise and libertie and the auncient lawes to them whom they subdued 95. Then whereas William Rufus
magno maturo consilio ab ipso Domino Iohanne à dicta eius assertione arrestationâ—… infratempus Legitimum meo nomine omnium fratrum mihi adhâ—…rentium Uolentium ac dictâ—… ordinis secundum quod tradunt Canonicâ—… sanctiones ad sanctam Romanam Ecclesiam Catholicam Apostolicam appello That is After great and mature deliberation first had I appeale from the same Pope Iohn and from his said assertion and arrest within lawfull time for my selfe and for all my brethren that do adhaere or will hereafter adhaere to me and for the said Order according as the Canonicall Constitutions doe allow vnto the holy Romane Catholicke and Apostolicke Church In which place he professeth that he doth this by the example of diuers other who had done the like before 18. From whence I would obserue some things declaring the sense iudgement and religion of the men that then liued And first where he saith that he doth this by great and mature deliberation and that herein he hath the approbation of diuers learned men of diuers Vniuersities and that hee doth it by the examples of such as were before him we note that this is not the iudgement of one man but of the most famous learned men of this age For farther confirmation hereof we obserue also that Naucler speaking of this particular and of the cause of Lodouicke Emperour saith that many learned and godly men of Christendome held that Pope Iohn the two and twentieth was an Hereticke conuict of assured errours Iohannem Papam saith he magni multi theologi scientia vita probatidogmatizabant esse haereticum propter cersos errores And speaking of the learned men that wrote against the same Pope he nameth Dante 's and Occhaâ—… among other This agreeth with that which OcchaÌ„ witnesseth of this Pope that his own conscience accusing himselfe of his errors he durst not come to the iudgement of a generall Councell Then I note not here onely the iudgement of these learned men but the sense and iudgement of Christendome of a generall Councell of the Church of Rome For Cezena and Occham who was combined with Cezena in this cause would neuer haue appealed to the Church of Rome or to a generall Councell then representing that Church vnlesse they had been fully secured herein that the Church to which they appealed had condemned the errours of the Pope from whom they appealed They then knowing the sense and iudgement of that Church appealed from the Pope to it â—… which thing is further also confirmed by that which he saith in his appeale Secundum quod tradunt Canonicâ—… sanctiones as the Canonicall Constitutions deliuer then the Canons of the Church allow and approue such an appeale howsoeuer since this time the Popes haue alteâ—…ed the Canons and discipline of the Church yet then this discipline was in force and acknowledged through Christendome that the Pope might be censured in a generall Councell 19. Another thing which we obserue in this appeale is a remarkeable distinction famously obserued in the sense iudgement and religion of the men of this age betweene the Church of Rome and the Court of Rome For Cezeâ—…a after that hee hath appealed from the Pope to the Church of Rome complaineth much of the Court of Rome as being wholly gouerned by the Pope from whence he appealing to the Church of Rome declareth euidently that by the Church of Rome he vnderstood another thing then that which our aduersaries now cal by that name an assembly whereof the Pope is the heade which are wholly to be guided gouerned and directed by the Pope This is now commonly called the â—…hurch of Rome but at this time wherein Cezeâ—… liued the Church of Rome was vnderstood to be a free lawfull holy generall Councell assembled of the Churches of these Westerne parts of Christendome This is the Church of Rome which our forefathers haue so much honoured The sentence of this Câ—…urch they reuerence 〈◊〉 authority of this Church they acknowledge appealing from the Popes sentence as vniust reâ—…ecting his authority as vnlawfull still resting in the iudgement of the Church of Rome This declareth that the Pope may bee separated from the Church of Rome though not from the Court of Rome Now separate once the Pope from the Church of Rome as by these appeales it must so be vnderstood and then it followeth by infallible â—…nference that the Church of Rome as now it is commonly knowne by that name is no other thing then that which â—…se learned men called the Court of Rome and that this prâ—…ent Church of Rome is not that which our fathers called the Church of Rome It is not the same thing for from that Church of Rome the Pope might be separated from this he cannot From the Pope to that Church a Christian might appealâ—… which sentence was iustified by the most learned that then liued From the Pope to this Church there is no appeale Thus much I obserue from this appeale and from the appeale of Lodouâ—… the fourth Emperour which before we haue declared being to the same end and agreeing in the same forme with this being from the Pope to a generall Councell which also he calleth the holy Church of Rome In which same manner did Philip King of Fraunce appeale from Pope Boniface besides diuers other who vsed the same course as Michael Cizena witnesseth 20. Hence riseth this Corollary that the reformed Churches haue made no separation from the Church of Rome but onely from the Court of Rome And that the Pope and his Court that is Friars and Canonists who depend wholly vpon him terming themselues now the Church of Rome haue made the separation and haue altred the auncient bounds of the Church and plucked vp the old hedge which was the partition between the Church and Court of Rome Thus they reteyning onely the name haue chaunged all things and turned them vpside down So that albeit that which I shall say may seeme a strange Paradox yet it is a truth which will euery day bee more and more knowne and confessed The auncient Church of Rome yâ—… euen that Church of Rome which stood in the world before the Councell of Trent can now bee found no where in the world but among Protestants Marsilius Pâ—… obserued the beginning of this alteration thus Apud Mâ—…rnos Ecelesiâ—… 〈◊〉 importat ministros Presbyteros Episcâ—… c. 〈◊〉 Ecclesiâ—… Rom â—…rbis hoâ—… 〈◊〉 obtinuit cuius ministri praâ—…identes sunt Paâ—…a Râ—… Cardinâ—… ipsius qui 〈◊〉 ex usu quodâ—…â—…runt dici 〈◊〉 The Church importeth as much as Ministers Priests Bishoppes in late vse c. as the Church of the Citie of Rome hath now obtained this name whose Ministers and Gouernours are the Pope and his Cardinals who now from a certaine vse are called the Church But that vse was but late brought in especially by Friars for the auncient vse of this which was also long continued
coactiua quae valet exerceri in alterum etiam inuitum That is Ecclesiasticall power of Iurisdiction in the exteriour Court is an Eccleâ—…iasticall power coactiue which may be exercised against another though it be against his will And a little after speaking of the same coactiue power he saith Potestas haec Iurisdictionis Ecclesiasticae adeo vicina est Iurisdictioni faeculari politicae quodlaicis imò mulieribus pleruinque in multis casibus communicari potest executio vel commiâ—…ti That is This power of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction commeth so neere to secular and Ciuill Iurisdiction that the execution hereof may be communicated or committed for the most part and in many cases to Lay-men yea euen to women Then this power is not from Christ directed to Church-gouernours which may be executed by Lay-men and women For Christ gaue no Iurisdiction to his Church which may be executed by such Now if this coactiue Iurisdiction may be executed by Lay-men why not by Magistrates If by women of which thing most of the Popish writers are agreed how then standeth it against the lawes of nature and grace the Ciuill and the Canonicall lawes and I know not what other lawes as the Catholicke diuine telleth vs that a woman should haue this Iurisdiction for if a woman may be a Magistrate it must needs follow that a woman may haue that power which God hath giuen to Magistrates 51. Gerson speaking of the power of the Church not this coactiue but that which is giuen secundum leges Euangelicas declareth that it is founded vpon the text of Mat. 18. Dic Ecclesiae c. Fundaâ—…ur in hoc textu saith he Plenitudo potestatis gladis spiritualis executio eius in Ecclesia super quemlibet Christianum quiest frater noster etiam si Papa fuerit nec accipiendum hic dic Ecclesiae id est Papae quia Christus Petro loquebatur qui non dixisset sibi ipsi That is The fulnesse of the spirituall sword aboue any Christian that is our brother though he be a Pope is founded vpon this Text neither must we take it so tell the Church that is the Pope for Christ spake this to Peter who was not bidden to tell it to himselfe He declareth also and much complaineth that the Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction was by the practise of Popes intruding â—…pon Ciuill Gouernment so strangely confounded that a man could not in those dayes decerne the difference betweene the right of the Church and of Princes Potestatem Ecclesiasticam confundit magna caligine â—…upiditas ambitiosa quaerens quae sua sunt quae crescentibus beneficâ—…orum dotationibus impudenter excreuit Ita vt vix decerni modo possit quid ex primaria institutione Christi vel inuariabilâ—… iure diuino tenendum sit That is Ambitious coueteousnesse seeking her owne and impudently inlarging her power as the dotation of benefices increased hath confounded the Ecclesiasticall power with a great mist So that now it may scarsely bee decerned what we are to hold of the first institution of Christ or by the inuariable diuine law Then this Iurisdiction was by the Popes hurled into such a confusion that men of the best learning were much troubled with distinguishing this confused masse And so farre did this confusion growe by meanes of the Canonistes extolling the Popes Iurisdiction without measure that the same Author was forced to complaine bitterly thereof thus Hinc â—… quiuocatio per dominos iuristas qui loquentes de plenitudine Ecclesiasticae poâ—…estatis Papalis solum loqui videntur de potestate Iurisdictionis ex qua locutione videtur haec absurditas sequi quod purè Laicus imo foemina posset esse Papa habere plenitudinem Ecclesiasticae potestatis That is Hence commeth equiuocation induced by my masters the Canonists who speaking of the fulnesse of the Papall Ecclesiasticall power seeme to speake onely of the power of Iurisdiction by which speech this absurdity seemeth to follow that a pure Lay-man yea a wòman may be Pope and haue the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power 52. And thus I trow they will bring their Iurisdiction to a faire issue that if wee should graunt it as they claime it this inference must also goe with it that a Lay man or a woman may be Pope were it not much better to giue to each his own right to the Magistrate all power coactiue to the Church power ouer the soules of men according to the lawes of the Gospell then to follow all these absurd fancies by taking away from the Church and Magistrates their distinct rights and casting a new vnlawfull confounded Iurisdiction vpon the Pope And that we may vnderstand how the Papal Iurisdiction grew onely by the Popes flatterers of such knaues he saith thus Adulatio negat PapaÌ„posse Simoniacam committere quoniam sua sunt omnia Ecclesiastica bona concedit quod super 〈◊〉 est potens ab altero ius suum tollere quod nec ab eo appellari neque eum iudicâ—…aliter euocari nec obeaientiam ab â—…o subâ—…rahi hic 〈◊〉 symbolum fideâ—… condere hic solus causas eiusdem fidei tractare potest Solus definitiones regulas leges Canones condit alioquin quic quid per alios definitur statuitur c. irritum est fallor si non ante celebrationem huius Concilij Constantiensis sic occupauerat mentes plurimorum ista traditio vt oppositorum dogmatizatio fuisseâ—… de hereticâ—… prauitate vel notata vel damnata That is Flatterie denieth that the Pope can commit Simony because al Ecclesiastical goods are his it graunteth that the Pope is aboue law able to take from a man his right and that neither an appeale may be made from him neither may he be called iudicially to triall nor obedience be drawne from him he onely must make Articles of faith he onely must determine the causes of faith onely hee must make definitions rules laws and Canons otherwise whatsoeuer is defined ordeined by other c. it is voide I am deceiued if before the celebration of this Councell of Constance this tradition did not possesse the mindes of most men insomuch that they who taught otherwise were noted or condemned for hereticall prauity 53. In these words some things are obseruable First That this vnlimited Iurisdiction is giuen to the Pope onely by base fellows flattering knaues against the iudgement of the learned and graue men of the Church of Rome and against the iudgement of these Councels Secondly that the iudicious and graue men of this age as Gerson and such like yea all that were assembled in this Councell were noted by these base flatterers and suspected or condemned of heresie The Pope and his flatterers wanted no good will then to haue made them al hereticks And it is to be obserued that the heresie which most of all troubled the Pope with his flatterers stood in this pretensed Iurisdiction for this is the cause wherefore flatterie as Gerson saith
reward that is reserued for you you will commaund that a Synode may bee gathered Another part of the office of a Prince is saith he Confirmare custodire in concilijs 〈◊〉 which thing hee proueth by diuerse auncient authorities and concludeth that Emperours haue euer had this authoritie Hee saith that in this thing hee had made diligent search and had found this practise continued in all generall Councels vntill the eight Synode inclusiuely In which search saith hee I finde by the acts of all generall Councels aswell in Chalceon as in Constantinople Nice Ephesus that either the Emperour was present in person or some iudges his Vicegerents and those not aboue twentie seldome fifteene but when the Emperour himselfe was present in person I finde saith he that hee was alwayes Presedent of the Councell no other secular Prince hath right to be present in the Councell sauing the Emperour Vnlesse the Emperour appoint some to be present but being present they haue no voice in the Councell but may sit onely to heare this he proueth by that testimony of Ambrose in the cause of faith Bishops are the iudges and not the Emperours 61. And whereas this auncient Iurisdiction of Princes was so disordered by the Pope that by Papall intrusions and incroachments the Princes had well-nigh lost their right and temporall Iurisdiction turned into spiritual Iurisdiction of this he much complaineth and openeth the true cause of all this disorder to be in the insatiable couetousnes of the Court of Rome for thus he saith Rabidus appetitus ad ipsa terrena Ecclesijs annexa Dominia Episcopis ambitiosis hodie inest c. de temporalibus omnis cura de spiritualibus nulla Non fuit ista intentio Impâ—…ratorum non volebant spiritualia à temporalibus absorberi c. dum vacant Ecclesiae semper in periculo schismat is existunt c. Si perelectionem prouidendum est ambitio procurat diâ—…isionem vâ—…torum Si per curiam facilius persuadetur pro plus offerente omnia illâ—… grauamina adueniunt pauperibus subditis curia attrahit quicquid pingue est id quod Imperium contulit pro Deicultus bono publico ordiâ—…auit sanctissime auaritia cupiditate exorta palleatis rationibus nouis adinuentionibus totaliter peruertitur Imperiale efficitur Papale spirituale temporale That is Such a rauenous appetite is in ambitious Bishoppes at this day toward the temporall Dominions annexed to Churches c. all their care is for the temporalties not for spirituall matters this was not the meaning of Princes they meant not that the spirituall labours should be deuoured by temporalties c. Whilst the Churches are vacant there is alwaies some danger of a schisme c. If they proceed by election ambition procureth a diuision of the voyces If by the Court he that bringeth most is best heard and soonest preuaileth And all these greeuances come vpon the poore subiects whatsoeueris fat and rich the Court of Rome draweth to her selfe and that which the Empire as well for the worship of God as for the publicke good hath conferred vpon the Church and ordeined to an holy end all is vtterly peruerted through filthy couetousnesse and certaine painted reasons and new inuentions are deuised to colour it And thus the Imperiall right is now made Papall and temporall right is made spirituall Then these be the obseruations of the learned men of the Church of Rome long before vs that the Pope had intruded vpon the Emperours right now what soeuer the Pope had once practised that must be called spirituall Thus the Iurisdiction of the Emperor being once by cunning or force wrested from the Emperour being found in the Popes hand it was presently called spirituall Iurisdiction as he doth most truely obserue Imperiale efficitur Papale spirituale temporale 62. By all which we find the iudgement of this man to be directly against the Popes pretensed Iurisdiction and for the right of temporall Magistrates when we finde the Cardinals of the Church of Rome to write thus before the time of the contention and before M. Luther was borne wee are not so much to consider their priuate iudgements in these things as the receiued iudgement of the Church wherein they liued that is the Church of Rome from the iudgement of that Church they departed not but in these things do faithfully deliuer vnto vs the iudgement of the same Church standing against the iudgement of the Pope and his Court consisting of Friars and flatterers Thus we see the cause of the Reformed Churches throughly iustified by this learned Cardinall their separation from the Pope and the Court of Rome warranted because the Pope hath first made the separation from the profession of Saint Peter and from the faith of holy Scriptures and the idugement of auncient fathers In which case he granteth that the Church may depart from the Pope and thereby doth iustifie the separation that is made §. VII Aeneas Siluius 63. AT this time wrote Aeneas Siluius afterward called Pope Pius the second he hath written a booke of the actes and proceedings of the Councell of Basil from which I will note some things wherein the iudgement of this man may appeare concurring with the iudgement of the Church of Rome in his time but repugnant to the Pope and his flatterers First handling that Text Tues Petrus super hane Petram c. he saith thus A quibus verbis ideó placuit exordiri quod aliqui verba hâ—…c ad extollendam Rom Pontificis authoritatem solent adducere sed vt statiâ—… patebit alius est vâ—…rborum Christi sensus That is With which words I thought good to begin because some vse to alledge these words to extoll the authoritie of the Bishop of Rome but as it shall soone appeare there is another sense of Christs words Who are they who in the iudgment of this man do peruert the words of Christ Let the Iesuites aunswere and let them giue vs some reason able to satisfie a man of reason why that cause should not bee helde damnable which is condemned by their owne writers their Bishoppes their Cardinals their Popes Let them not tell vs that this Pope Pius was of another mind afterward when he was Pope and before he was Pope he might erre but after he was once Pope he could not erre these bee plaine collusions of them who write such things and illusions of such as beleeue them For it is not possible that any man should write or speake or thinke such things from conscience Shall I thinke that any learned man can thinke in conscience this to bee true that the Pope cannot erre when I heare the testimonie of the Church so full against it When I heare such as come to be Popes refute it before they come to that place When I heare such as haue beene in the place exclaime in the extremitie of desperation that no man in
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