Bishops Abbots Matth. Paris in Heâ—rico secundo Anno 1164. Pryors Earles Barons and great Men of the Realme there was made a rehearsall of some part of the Customes and liberties of his Auncestors as of King Henry his Grand-father and others which ought to be kept in this Realme and observed of all c. Amongst which customes and liberties being sixteene in Number these were some namely That no Archbishop Bishop nor any other person of the Realme may goe out of the Land without the Kings leave And as touching appeales if any be made they shall come from the Archdeacon to the Bishop from the Bishop to the Archbishop And if the Archbishop fayle in doing justice it shall be lawfull to come last of all to the King that by his commandement the matter may be ended in the Archbishops Court So that no man shall proceede to appeale any further without the Kings consent These customes liberties of the Crowne the Archbishops Bishops Abbots Pryors and Cleargie with the Earles Barons and all the Nobles sware and by word of mouth faithfully promised should be kept and observed to the King and his heires for ever simply without any fraud Yea Thomas Becket Archbishop of Canterbury himselfe condescended to them Matth Paris ibidem promised also with an Oath to keepe them although afterward he revolted and brake his Oath and fled to Rome But saith mine Adversarie The Pope of Rome Alexander the third would not confirme these lawes or liberties though the King requested it What of this The liberties lawes and customes of the kingdome were good enough without his confirmation Yet the King perceaving his so just and reasonable a request to be repelled by the Pope was not a little offended thereat and therefore wrote Letters to all his Shiriffes Lieutenants in England on this wise I commande you that if any Cleargie-man or Lay-man in your Countie appeale to the Court of Rome you attach him and hold him in fast-ward till our pleasures be knowne And to his Iudges also he wrote in this sort If any shall be found to bring letters or a mandate from the Pope or from Thomas the Archbishop interdicting the Realme of England Let him be taken and kept in Prison till I signifie what shall be done with him They that wrote the life of the same Thomas Becket doe report it thus Let him be forthwith apprehended for a Traytor In quadrilog de â—ita Thom. Cant and execution done upon him which agreeth with that which likewise pag. 25. cap. 1. of my Booke I cited out of Hoveden where he saith that Si quis inventus fuerit literas vel mandatum ferens Domini Papae â—â—veden Henr. 2 c. Capiatur de eo sicut de Regis traditore regni sine dilatione fiat justitia If any shall be found bringing letters or a mandate from the Pope let him be apprehended and let justice be done upon him without delay as upon a traytor to the King and the kingdome Where it is also further said that Generaliter interdictum est ne quis appellet ad Dominum Papam It was generally prohibited that none should appeale to the Pope Wherefore you see that which I wrote concerning Anselmus and concerning Appeales to be verie true Yea how earnest and vehement this valiant and worthy Prince King Henry the second was against the Pope for maintenance of his Regall rights appeareth further by an Epistle of his written to the Archbishop of Colen Matth. Paris in Hen. 2 An. 1168 in these wordes I have long desired saith he to finde a just occasion to depart from Pope Alexander and his perfidious Cardinals which presume to maintaine my Traytor Thomas of Canterbury against me Whereupon by the advise of my Barons and Cleargie I meane to send the Archbishop of Yorke the Bishop of London the Archdeacon of Poictiers c. to Rome which shall publikely denounce and plainely propose in my behalfe and in the behalfe of all the Dominions I have to Pope Alexander and his Cardinals that they maintayne my Traytor no longer but rid me of him that I with the advise of my Cleargie may set another in the Church of Canterbury They shall also require them to frustrate all that Becket hath done and exact an Oath of the Pope that he and his successors as much as in them lyeth shall keepe and observe inviolable to me and all mine for ever the Royall customes of King Henry my Grand-father If they refuse any of these my demaunds neyther I nor my Barons nor my Cleargie will yeelde them any kinde of obedience any longer Yea rather we will openly oppugne the Pope and all his and whosoever in my land shall be found hereafter to adhere to the Pope shall be banished my Realme Here then by the way let me demaund why any Papists doe call this Thomas Becket a martyr whom the King calleth a traytor The manner of his death being done by private violence and not by publike authoritie nor in a legall sort I utterly dislike But is not also his stout standing in that quarrell against his King and against his owne oath also and against the punishing of murtherers theeves and other malefactors by the Kings Lawes if they were Cleargie-men justly worthy to be condemned Or can he that dieth in and for so bad a cause deserve to be called a martyr But such it seemeth be the martyrs of the Popish Church But not onely these Kings of England before mentioned namely King William Rufus King Henry the first and King Henry the second and some others thus contended opposed themselves against the Popes of Rome Ex Lanfranc Epistolis M. S. in Biblioth Cotton Baron Anno. 1079. §. 25. for maintenance of their Regall rights but King William the Conqueror also who was before all these 〈◊〉 the like Kingly opposition For when Hildebrand otherwise called Pope Gregory the seaventh was bold to demaund of the King an oath of fealtie to be made to him as if the King were to hold his kingdome of him as of his Soveraigne Lord. This King would by no meanes yeelde thereunto but sent him a full negative answere writing thus unto him Fidelitatem facere nolui nec volo quia nec ego promisi nec antecessores meos antecessoribus tuis id fecisse comperio I neyther would doe nor will doe fealtie because I neyther promised it nor doe I finde that any of my predecessors have done it to any of your predecessors This answere of the King is extant in an Epistle of his written to the same Pope which you may see set downe more at large by that excellent antiquarie and learned godly divine Doctor Vsher late Lord Bishop of Meath and the now most Reverend and worthy Lord Archbishop of Ardmagh Primate and Metropolitan of all Ireland in his Booke De Christianarum Ecclesiarum successione statu pag. 182. Neyther neede I
judgement of Constantine upon this Appeale made to him though by Donatists was not onely justified and approved by S. Augustine but embraced also by other Christian Emperors as Vertuous and confirmed as Religious and honoured of the whole Orthodoxe Church in that time So little cause hath mine Adversarie or any other Papists to mislike of Constantine his meddling therein as if it were unlawfull But secondly my Adversarie answereth that the then Emperor Constantine the Great did remit Caecilianus and the Donatists for the decision and determining of their difference unto Miltiades Bishop of Rome as to his proper and right Iudge It is true that he committed the hearing and determining of that cause unto Miltiades Bishop of Rome but not to him alone as if he were the sole and onely proper and rightfull Iudge in the case but to him together with others For Marcus Rheticius Maternus and Marinus were interested with him in the same Commission The Commission is yet extant in Eusebius to be seene in these words Constantine the Emperor unto Miltiades Bishop of Rome Euseb li. 10. c. 5 and to Marcus sendeth greeting For asmuch as many such Epistles are brought unto mee from Anilinus Lieutenant of Africke wherein it is said that Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage is reprehended in many things by divers of his Colleagues abiding in Africke and this seemeth unto me very grievous that there should be found in those Provinces which the providence of God hath allotted peculiarly unto my government a great multitude of people prone unto the worse and disagreeing And that amongst Bishops there should be such variance My pleasure therefore is that Caecilianus with ten Bishops of his accusers and ten other of his favourers doe come to Rome there to be heard before you both joyning with you Rheticius Maternus and Marinus your Colleagues whom purposely for that matter I haue coÌ„manded with speed to repaire thither unto you c. And S. Augustine likewise hath before told you Aug Epist 166. that the Emperor committed this cause Non Episcopo sed Episcopis Not to one Bishop in the Singular number but to Bishops in the Plurall number eam discutiendam atque finiendam Episcopis delegavit And againe he saith Collaâ— 3 diei cum Donatistâ—â— cap 5 Causam Caecilian injunxit eis audiendam elsewhere he also saith Constantinum dedisse Iudices iterum Idem Epist 166 That Constantine gave them Iudges a second time And hee further proveth that those Iudges both the first and second might lawfully judge in that case Idem Epist 162. Eo quod Imperator illos Iudices dedisset Because the Emperor had given those Iudges So that it appeareth very fully and clearely that not Miltiades alone as Bishop of Rome and in his owne right but Miltiades associated and joyned with others namely with Marcus Rheticius Maternus and Marinus were the Iudges in this case and that by Commission and Authoritie granted from the Emperor Yea you see there was afterward also an Appeale from their sentence to the Emperor whereupon the Emperor a second time gave other Iudges From these also 〈◊〉 there a second Appeale to the Emperor himselfe in person who at the last in his owne person heard and judged the cause and without the Bishop of Rome by his owne authoritie pronounced finall sentence therein The least of these facts proveth the Emperors Supremacie in those times aswell over the Bishop of Rome as over other Bishops What force then have they when they be all united and joyned together Yet thirdly my Adversarie answereth that Constantine the Emperor did but pronounce and declare the justnesse of the sentence given formerly against the Donatists by their competent Iudge Pope Miltiades But first why doth he still say That the sentence against the Donatists was given by Miltiades as though it had beene given onely by him For it is manifest that it was not only his sentence and judgement but the sentence and judgement of the rest of his Colleagues and fellow Commissioners joyned with him Secondly why doth he speake of Miltiades Bishop of Rome as if he were the onely competent Iudge when he not only seeth others to be joyned and made Iudges with him but an Appeale also to be made and allowed from his and their sentence and from other Iudges also afterward given to Iudge of the same cause And thirdly though Constantine the Emperor did by this sentence upon hearing of the cause cleare and acquite Caecilianus and condemne the Donatists and so approved the first sentence and judgement given by Miltiades and his Colleagues and the second sentence also that was given by the other Bishops assembled at Arle in France Yet doth this approbation of his or declaration of the Bishop of Romes sentence in this case to be just and right no more prove a supremacie in Miltiades the Bishop of Rome then it doth in Marcus Rheticius Maternus and Marinus or then it doth in those other Bishops that were afterward assembled at Arle whose sentence he likewise approved and declared to be just Neyther doth it any way impayre or detract from Constantine his judgement but that hee was also a Iudge and held the place and office of Iudicature all this notwithstanding For else may you say that those Bishops assembled at Arle whom S. Augustine expressely calleth Iudices Iudges were also no Iudges because they likewise aswell as Constantine acquited Caecilianus and condemned the Donatists and so approved the sentence of Miltiades and his Colleagues declaring it to be just If a Writt of Error be brought in the Kings bench of a Iudgement given in the Common-pleas upon hearing of the cause the Iudges in the Kings Bench approve and confirme the judgement formerly given in the Common pleas and so declare it to be just and right Doth this any way prove that therefore those in the Kings bench be no Iudges or doth it in any sort detract from their Authoritie So upon the Appeale made to the Emperor when he in his own person sate as Iudge therein having power in himselfe eyther to affirme or disaffirme the former sentences and judgements given by others as he shall find the cause upon hearing to require If he upon hearing it finding the former sentences and judgements given for Caecilianus against the Donatists to be just and right doth by his final sentence pronounce and declare them so to be Doth this therefore prove him to be no Iudge or doth it any way detract from his supremacie Yea it doth rather verie strongly and most strongly prove the Emperor to bee a Iudge and the Chiefest and highest Iudge under God and to have the Supremacie over the Bishop of Rome aswell as over other Bishops within the precincts of the Empyre For as Carerius also confesseth and teacheth Summum Imperium penes eum esse constat â—arer de potest Rom. Pont. lib. 1. cap. 10. ad cujus Tribunal provocatur It is manifest that to
to insist onely upon these former Kings of England For doe but reade further the Statutes of Provision and Praemunire made in that kingdome See the Statutes of Proviâ—ion and Premunire in Rastall fol. 354. c. and thereby you may see at full that many sundrie other Kings of England likewise and the whole Realme also concurring and joyning with them therein have in severall Parliaments made Lawes and Statutes against the Popes incrochments and usurpations in maintenance and defence of their Regall rights freedomes and liberties And among many other good reasons they shew for those their doings this is not the least that they say expressely in one of those Acts of Parliament See this in the Statute of 16. Rub. 2 cap. 5. That the Crowne of England hath beene so free at all times that it hath beene in subjection to no Realme but immediately subject to God and to none other in all things touching the Regalitie of the same Crowne And therefore doe they there utterly dislike in plaine tearmes That it should be submitted to the Bishop of Rome Wherefore it is apparant that even the ancient Kings of England long before the dayes of K. Henry the VIII of famous memorie have stood and contended not onely for the freedome of the Crowne generally not allowing it to be in subjection to any but to God onely but also in a particular sort for divers their particular Regall rights liberties Amongst which you may perceave this to be one namely that Appeales even in Ecclesiasticall causes they would have to be determined within their owne kingdomes and not to be made transferred or carried without their consent to the Pope or Sea of Rome 8 But now what meaneth mine Adversarie to be so extreamely audacious as to denie the first foure generall Councells to have beene called by the Emperors Let therefore the Ecclesiasticall Historie shew and decide it Touching the first generall Councell at Nice Ruffin li. 10. c. 1. Ruffinus saith expressely that Constantinus apud urbem Nicenam Episcopale Concilium convocavit The Emperor Constantine called the Councell of Bishops together at the Citie of Nice Euseb de vita Const. l b. 3. c. 6 lib. 1. cap. 37 Eusebius that wrote the life of Constantine saith of that Emperor that Generalem Synodum congregavit He assembled the generall Councell Socrates saith likewise that Constantine Socrat. lib 1. c. 8 in the greeke cap. 5. in the lat Synodum Oecumenicam congregavit omnes qui fuerunt undique Episcopos in Nicaeam confluere hortatus est Assembled a generall Councell and willed all the Bishops every where to meete at Nice Theodoret saith that the Emperor Theodoret. libr. 1 cap. 17. celebreÌ„ illaÌ„ coegit Nicea Synodum c. Assembled that famous Councell of Nice Sozomen saith that Constantine Indixit Concilium Niceae scripsitque ad omnes Ecclesiarum praesides Soz. lib. 1. ca. 16. lat ut ad diem praestitutum adessent Summoned the Councell of Nice and wrote to all the Prelates of the Churches to be there at the day prefixed And the same Sozomen saith That hee sent his letters to the Apostolicke Seas To Macarius Bishop of Ierusalem to Eustathius Bishop of Antioch To Alexander Bishop of Alexandria and to Iulius Bishop of Rome Who being an old man and not able to come himselfe hee sent in his stead Vitus and Vincentius The Nicene Fathers themselves by their Synodall Epistle Theodoret. lib. 1. cap 9. extant in Theodoret which they wrote to the Church of Alexandria doe restifie That they were assembled by the authoritie of the Emperor Constantine And if the Bishop of Rome had had the power and authoritie to call the Councell he would no doubt being an old man and not able to travell have had it at Rome or in some part of Italy rather then at Nice in Bithinia so farre remote from Rome Nicephorus also saith that Imperator Nicaenam Synodum promulgabat literis locorum omnium Episcopos Niceph. li. 8. c. 14 ad constitutum diem eo evocavit The Emperor proclaymed the Councell at Nice and by his letters called thither the Bishops of all places to be there at the day appointed Zonaras Zonaras saith that Imperator provinciarum Episcopos Niceae Bithiniâ—â— urbis convenire jussit The Emperor commanded the Bishops of the Provinces to meete together at Nice Platina in vita Silvestri a Citie in Bithinia And Platina also writeth that this generall Councell of Nice was summoned or called Constantini mandato by the commandement of Constantine the Emperor It is therefore abundantly manifest that this first generall Councell of Nice was called not by the authoritie of any Pope but of the Emperor How then is it not an over great if not a most intollerable impudencie in Papists to denie so manifest and palpable a trueth As touching that answere which Bellarmine and other Papists make when they say That this Councell was called or summoned by the advise and consent of the Bishop of Rome First Ruffin lib. 1. c. 1. Ruffinus saith that it was assembled or called Ex sacerdotum sententia by the advise and consent of the Priests and not of the Bishop of Rome alone Epiphan lib 2. Tom 2. haeres 68 Yea Epiphanius saith That it was obtayned of the Emperor at the suite of Alexander Bishop of Alexandria But secondly it maketh no matter at whose suite or request or by whose advise or consent the Councell was summoned For the question is not by whose perswasion or suite or by whose advise or consent but by whose authoritie it was called Now it is verie apparant that it was called and assembled by the authoritie and commandement not of any Bishop of Rome but of the Emperor The second generall Councell which was the first Constantinopolitane was also called not by Damasus Bishop of Rome but by the Emperor Theodosius the elder This is also evident First by Theodoret who saith Theodor. li. 5. c. 7 Hujus rei gratia Theodosius Episcopas Constantinopoli congregari jussit For this cause Theodosius commanded the Bishops to be assembled at Constantinople Socrat. lib 5. ca. 8 Soz li. 7. c. 6. lat Zonar in Theod. In dedicatoria ad I Theodosium Socrates and Sozomen likewise doe both testifie that Theodosius summoned assembled this Councell Zonaras saith that this second generall Councell was summoned Iussu Imperatoris by the commandement of the Emperor 150. godly fathers being there assembled And the very Councell it selfe speaking to Theodosius doe testifie the same and say thus Wee being assembled at Constantinople by the Letters of your Pietie The third generall Councell namely the first Ephesine was also called not by the authoritie coÌ„mandement of Celestinus Bishop of Rome but by the Emperor Theodosius the younger This is verie manifest Evagr lib. 1. c. 3. for Evagrius saith directly That by the appointment or command of Theodosius
strange Clearke be received or Ordered without Letters of Commendation and licence from his owne Bishop Cap. 50. 25. That no man be made Priest under thirtie yeares of age neyther then at randome but appointed and fastned to a certaine Cure Cap. 11. That no Bishop meddle with giving orders in another mans Diocesse Cap. 2â— Cap. 42. That onely the Bookes Canonicall be reade in the Church That the false name of Martyres and uncertaine memories of Saints be not observed Cap. 15. Cap. 82. That Sunday be kept c. That the Pastors and Ministers rightly preach and teach the people committed to their charge Jbidem That they suffer not any man under them to propose to the people opinions of their owne devising not agreeable to the holy Scriptures but shall themselves teach profitable and good doctrine tending to life everlasting and instruct others to doe the like Cap. 22. And first of all they shall teach all men generally to beleeve the Father the Sonne and the Holy Ghost to bee one Omnipotent and Eternall and invisible God Creator of Heaven and Earth and of all things in them And that there is but one God-head Substance and Majestie in the three Persons of the Father the Sonne and the Holy Ghost Item They shall preach E dâ—m cap. 82. That the Sonne of God tooke flesh by the working of the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary shee remayning alwayes a Virgin for the salvation and reparation of makinde That he suffered was buried the third day rose againe and ascended into heaven and that he shall come againe in Majestie to judge all men c. Item Ibidem They shall diligently preach the Resurrection of the dead Item They shall teach all men with all diligence Ibidem for what offences they shall be condemned with the Divell to paines everlasting The Apostle telling us That the workes of the flesh are manifest which are fornication uncleannesse wantonnesse idolatrie witchcraft enmities emulations wrath contentions seditions heresies envie murthers drunkenesse gluttonie and such like of which I tell you now as I tould you before saith the Apostle That they which commit such things shall not inherit the kingdome of God These things therefore which the great Preacher of the Church of God reckoâ—eth by name let them be with all care prohibited remembring how terrible that saying is That they which doe such things shall not come into Gods kingdome Moreover Admonish them saith he Ibidem with all earnestnesse concerning the love of God and of their neighbour concerning Faith and Hope in God Humilitie Patience Chastitie Continencie Liberalitie Mercie giving of Almes acknowledging of their sinnes And concerning forgiving of such as trespasse against them according to the Lords Prayer assuring them that they which doe these things shall obtaine the kingdome of God This we charge and enjoyne you saith he speaking to the Bishops and Cleargie men with so much the more diligence because we know that in the latter times shall come false teachers as the Lord in the Gospell foretold and his Apostle Paul to Timothy testifieth Caroli praefat in Leges Franc. And againe he saith thus therefore you Pastors of Christs Church and Guides of his flocke c have we directed Commissioners unto you who together with you are in our Name and by our Authoritie to redresse those things which neede reformation And to this end have wee here annexed certaine briefe Chapters of Canonicall or Ecclesiasticall institution such as we thought meetest Let no man thinke or judge this our admonition to Godlinesse to be presumpteous whereby wee seek to reforme things amisse to cut off things superfluous and to bring men to that which is right but let them rather receive it with a charitable minde For in the Booke of Kings wee reade what paines that Godly King Iosias tooke to bring the kingdome given him of God to the true worship of the same God by visiting correcting and instructing them not that we compare our selves with his sanctitie but that wee should alwayes imitate such examples of the Godly Here wee see the reason why these Chapters or Lawes were made and Commissioners appointed and sent from the King to put them in execution and that also the examples of Iosiah and such other Godly Kings of Israell and Iuda are to be made patternes and precedents and to be imitated by all Kings and Princes in the Christian Church as touching the good care endevour and paines they are to take everie way they can for the advancement of Gods Religion Legum Franc. lib. 2. cap. 1. After Charles the great were Lodowicke and Lotharius Emperors which Emperors also spake thus to the Bishops and Magistrates of their Dominions You have all no doubt eyther seene or heard that our Fathers and Progenitors after they were chosen by God to this place made this their principall studie how the honour of Gods holy Church and the state of their kingdome might be decently kept Cap. 2. And we for our parts following their example seeing it hath pleased God to appoint us that we should have care of his Church and of this kingdome are very desirous so long as we live to labour earnestly for three speciall things viz. to defend exalt honour Gods holy Church and his servants in such sort as is fitâ— to preserve Peace and to doe Iustice to all the people And though the chiefe of this service consist in our person Cap 9. yet by Gods and Mans Ordinance it is so devided that everie one of you in his place and calling hath a part of our charge So that I should be your admonisher and you all my coadjutors Yea not only did these Emperors extend their Authority to causes Ecclesiasticall and concerning Religion but had also the Supremacie over all Bishops even over the Bishop of Rome himselfe in their times For so it appeareth by the submission which Leo the fourth Bishop of Rome made to this Lodowicke the Westerne Emperor in these words If saith he we have done otherwise then well Caus 2 quast 7. Cap. Nos si and not dealt uprightly with those that are under us we will amend all that is amisse by the judgement of your highnesse beseeching your hignesse for the better triall of these surmises to send such as in the feare of God may narrowly sift not onely the matters informed but all our doings great and small aswell as if your Majestie were present So that by lawfull examination all may be finished and nothing left undiscussed or undetermined In all things great and small this Bishop of Rome as you see submitted himselfe to the Emperor and to those Commissioners which he wou'd please to send for the sifting and examination of those matters layd to his charge promising to amend all that was amisse in him according to the Emperors owne judgement Wherefore this was not a matter of modesty or
It is true that the same Hosius Bishop of Corduba spake further unto the Emperor in this sort Athanas ad soâ—tariam vitam agentes God saith he hath committed the Empyre to thee to us the things of the Church And as he that envieth thy Empyre contradicteth the ordinance of God So take thou heede least drawing unto thy selfe the things of the Church thou be guiltie of great sinne It is written give unto Caesar that which is Caesars and unto God that which is Gods It is therefore neyther lawfull for us that be Bishops to hold a kingdom on earth neyther host thou power ô Prince over sacrifices and sacred things Howbeit these wordes doe onely distinguish and put a difference betweene the office and function of Priests and the office and function of Kings and Princes shewing that the one may not incroch or intrude upon that which râ—ghtly and properly belongeth unto the other but that every one should keepe himselfe within the bounds of his owne proper calling office And so teach the Protestants also and therefore if any King or Prince usurpe or intrude upon that which is proper and peculiar unto the Priests office as King Vzziah entred into the Temple to burne Incense 2 Chron. 26.16.17.18 which pertayned to the Priests office onely they utterly dislike and condemne it Now then let all this be granted that Kings and Princes may not doe any thing that is proper and peculiar to the Priests office nor may meddle in Ecclesiasticall causes after a cruell and tyrannicall maner nor use their authoritie in Ecclesiasticall causes for the maintenance of Arrianisme or of any other heresie or error nor doe any thing against God or his truth and Religion Yet what doth all this or any of this make against those Godly and Christian Kings and Princes that extend and use their authoritie in Ecclesiasticall causes in a good sort and for God and for the maintenance of his trueth Religion and ordinances It maketh as you see just nothing at all against them But it is further objected that S. Ambrose when Valentinian the Emperor would have had a Church in Millan for the Arrian heretickes answereth thus Neyther is it lawfull for me to yeelde unto it Ambros libr. 5. epist. 3â— nor expedient for you ô Emperor to take it The house of a private man you cannot by right invade Doe you thinke then you may take away the house of God It is alledged that the Emperor may doe what he list But I answere burthen not your selfe ô Emperor to thinke that you have any Imperiall right over those things that be Gods Exalt not your selfe so high but if you will raigne long be subject unto God For it is written give unto Caesar that which is Caesars and to God that which is Gods Palaces belong to Emperors Churches to Priests Epist â—â— The Church is Gods it ought not to be yeelded by me to Caesar The Temple of God cannot he Caesars right I cannot deliver that to Heretickes which I receaved to keepe on Gods behalfe I would to God Epist 32. it were apparant to me that my Church should not be delivered to the Arrians I would willingly offer my selfe to the judgement of your highnesse I would to God that it were decreed Orat. onâ— Auxenâ— that no Arrian should trouble my Churches and of my person pronounce what sentence you will With my consent I will never forgoe my right if I be compelled I have no way to resist I can sorrow I can weepe I can sigh Teares are my weapons Priests have onely these defences By other meanes I neyther ought nor may resist To flie and forsake my Church I use not least any should thinke it done to avoyde some sorer punishment Ibidem Epist 33. If my goods be sought for take them If my bodie I will be readie Will you put mee in Irons or lead mee to death You shall doe me a pleasure I will not guard my selfe with multitudes of people but I will gladly he sacrificed for the Altars of God All this maketh against the favourers and maintayners of Arrianisme but nothing against that authoritie in Ecclesiasticall matters which Kings and Princes have to commande for God and for the good of his Church and the advancement of his Religion against Arrianisme and against all other heresies and errors whatsoever My Adversarie therefore objecteth further that S. Ambrose saith Ambros Epist Lib. 5 cont Aux That a good Emperor is within the Church and not above the Church Indeede seeing the Church is the mother of Christian Emperors aswell as of other Christians it becommeth a Christian Emperor as a good Child and Sonne of such a mother to account â—t his greatest honour to submit himselfe as he ought to the word rules and ordinances which God hath set in the same his Church and not to exaâ—t himselfe aboue them as Valentinian did when he was so forward for the advancement of Arrianisme Arrian assemblies against the true Church of God and the Orthodoxe Bishops therein For that by the Church here S. Ambrose meaneth the things of God in the Church appeareth not only by that Text which he citeth of Give unto Caesar the things that be Caesars and unto God the things that be Gods but by those other words of his likewise where he saith plainely Ambr. lib. 5. c. 33 Ea quae divina saÌ„t imperatoriae potestati non esse subjecta The things that be divine be not subject to the Emperors power And yet the same S. Ambrose affirmeth nevertheles That the Emperor had power over the persons of all men within his Empyre Ambros de obien Theoâ—osij Here then you must learne of S. Ambrose to distinguish betweene the things in the Church and the persons in the Church For over all the persons he confesseth That the Emperor had power but not over the Divine things therein And this also doe the Protestants hold that a Christian King hath power over the persons of all Bishops Pastors and Ecclesiasticall Ministers in the Church within his owne Dominions But not over the Divine things therein as namely not over Gods Word his Religion Sacraments and other his Institutions and Ordinances in his Church Yet againe it is objected by some that S. Ambrose reproved the Emperor Valentinian the younger for that he would take upon him to be Iudge in a matter of Faith cause Ecclesiasticall but the reason of it must be knowne For Valentinian a young Prince not yet baptized and a novice in the mysteries of Religion would upon the perswasion and counsell of his Mother Iustina an Arrian needes have Ambrose to come and dispute with Auxentius the Arrian in his Palace or Consistorie before him Ambr â— 5. Orat. coâ—r Auxent Epist. 53. and he would be the Iudge whether of their two Religions were truest Whereunto Ambrose made answere and gave it in writing to Valentinian shewing him amongst
the spreading of his Religion For Aug. Epist. â—0 as the same S. Augustine againe saith a King serveth God one way as he is a man and another way as he is a King As a Man he serveth God by living well and faithfully But as he is a King he serveth God by setting forth Lawes to command that which is good and to remove the contrarie So that Kings as Kings serve God in doing that for his service which none but Kings can doe Wherefore my Argument to prove the Authoritie of Emperors Kings and Princes in both those points together out of this Text of Rom. 13. is this whosoever hath Authoritie to punish evill-doers without exception of any person and without exception of any cause hath Authoritie over all persons and in all causes aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill But the Emperor within his Empyre and the King within his Kingdomes hath Authoritie to punish evill-doers without exception of any person and without exception of any cause as is apparant by the Text it selfe wherein no exception is to be found Ergo the Emperor within his Empyre and the King within his kingdomes hath authoritie over all persons and in all causes aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill 6 But now from this Text of Rom. 13. alledged in the 5. pag. of that first Chapter in my Booke concerning the SUPREMACIE My Adversarie commeth next to the point of Appeales mentioned in the same first Chapter pag. 24. So that he here skippeth over 9. whole leaves together at one leape and I must follow him in his course It is true that in the pag. 24. I said that when Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage was accused by Donatus some other of that saction Constantine the Emperor commanded Caecilianus to come to Rome with a certaine number of Bishops that accused him and by his Commission extant in Eusebius authorized and appointed Miltiadâ—s the then Bishop of Rome some others with him for the hearing and ending of that matter These Commissioners condemned Donatus who appealed from their sentence to the Emperor which appeale also the Emperor received Where beside that you see that this Christian Emperor made Commissioners in this Episcopall and Ecclesiastical cause observe withall that Miltiades the then Bishop of Rome was one of those Commissoners and there withall you may also note that the Bishops of Rome were then verie clearely subject and not superior to the Emperor So that a Christian King or Prince not onely may make Commissioners in Ecclesiasticall causes but may also have Appeales made unto him as is here apparant To this my Adversarie maketh divers answers First he saith that this instance concerning Appeales maketh more against me then for me because it was an Appeale made by Hereticks viz. the Donatists unto the Emperor But this reason of his maketh more against him then set him For if it were lawfull for Heretickes who thought themselves wronged by the inferior Iudges to appeale to the Emperor no lesse if not much more lawfull was it for the Orthodoxe Bishops if they were wronged to appeale to him And if Constantine that Orthodoxe godly and Christian Emperor thought it lawfull for him as hee did for otherwise hee would never have meddled with it to entertaine and receave an appeale made to him from Heretickes much more would hee have thought it lawfull and meete to receave Appeales from such as were Orthodoxe right true Christians and men for Faith Religion like himselfe But that he may know that not onely heretickes but Orthodoxe Bishops also Athan. Apolog. 2 cap. Quum multas did appeale to the Emperor Let him take for an evident proofe of it the example of Athanasius and of the other Bishops joyned with him who as is before shewed appealed from the Councell of Tyrus Socrat lib. 1. cap. 33. 34. unto the same godly Emperor Constantine which appeale the same Emperor likewise receaved Neyther would Athanasius nor any other good and godly Bishops have appealed unto him if they had not thought it lawful both for them so to doe and for the Emperor also to receive such appeales Neyther did the Donatists appeale onely from Miltiades the Bishop of Rome and those that were joyned with him by Commission from the Emperor But they appealed also from those other Bishops that were afterward assembled at Arle in France for the hearing and ending of the same cause And both these Appeales did the Emperor receive and upon the last appeale he sate himselfe in person and gave Iudgement for Caecilianus against the Donatists whose proceedings and Iudgments upon those appeales S. Augustine disliked not but well liked and allowed alledging them as being substantiall proofes for the Catholickes and lawfull good and effectuall judgements against the Donatists I grant that Constantine was loth at the first to be Iudge in this Episcopall cause in his owne person Aug Epist. 166 and therefore S. Augustine saith Eam discutiendam atque finiendam Episcopis delegavit He delegated and appointed Bishops to discusse and determine it namely Miltiades and his Colleagues Ibidem And when Miltiades and his Colleagues had pronounced Caecilianus innocent and condemned Donatus as Author of the schisme raysed at Carthage Your side saith S. Augustine to the Donatists Ibidem came backe to the Emperor and complayned of the judgement of the Bishops against them The most patient and milde Emperor the second time gave them other Iudges namely the Bishops that met at Arle in France And your men saith he seaking still to the Donatists appealed from the Bishops of Arle also to the Emperors owne person and never left till the Emperor himselfe in person tooke the hearing of the cause betweene them which he did and upon hearing it pronounced Caecilianus innocent and those his accusers Idem Epist. 162 to be malicious wranglers Againe the same S. Angustine saith that the Donatists appealed from Ecclesiasticall judgement to the end that Constantine might heare the cause Whither when they came both parties standing before him Caecilianus was adjudged to be innocent and the Donatists overthrowne To prove this I will further bring you saith S. Augustine the very wordes of Constantine where he witnesseth That upon judiciall hearing of both sides he found Caecilianus to be cleare Yea S. Augustine sheweth further what followed upon this judgement Aug. Epist 166. Then did Constantine saith he make a sharpe law to punish the Donatists his sonnes continued the same Reade vvhat Valentinian reade when you vvill vvhat Gratian and Theodosius Decreed against you Why vvonder you then at the Children of Theodosius as if they had follovved any other president in this cause then the judgement of Constantine vvhich so many Christian Emperors have kept inviolate Though Constantine bee dead yet the judgement of Constantine given against you liveth For vvhen Emperors command that vvhich is good it is Christ and no man else that commandeth by them Thus you see how much this
he must governe and rule as hee that must give an account of his doings unto God and therefore concludeth that Oportet eos quibus praesumus non circumcursare c. Those that be under our rule and governement ought not to runne thus about to Rome but ought there to plead their cause where they may finde both accusers and witnesses unlesse perhaps saith he a few desperate and loose Companions suppose the authoritie of a Bishop of Africke to be lesse then the authoritie of the Bishop of Rome which hee speakes as accounting it absurd for any man to suppose the Authoritie of the one to be greater then the Authoritie of the other His third example is of Athanasius who being deposed from his Bishopricke made his appeale saith he to Pope Iulius and was by him restored It is true that Athanasius the Patriarch of Alexandria being oppressed and wrongfully thrust from his Bishopricke as diverse other Bishops likewise were in those dayes fled to the Bishop of Rome not to acknowledge any supremacie in him over all other Bishops as now he claymeth but as to a friend and Patron at whose hands he expected and hoped to finde some helpe and defence in that his distresse Sozomen libr. 3. cap. 6. lat The Bishops throughout the East that favored the Nicene Faith were saith Sozomen deposed and the chiefest States invaded by the Arrians as Alexandria in Egipt Antioch in Syria the Royall Citie of Constantinople Criminationem illi obiectam in so serâ—â—uns in Hellespont This the Bishop of Rome and the Priests of the West tooke to be their reproch therefore verie freely entertayned Athanasius at his comming to them and tooke upon them the defence of his cause Where you see that Athanasius had ayde and defence not onely of the Bishop of Rome but of the Priests of Rome also wherefore that his flying to Rome and receiving helpe and defence from them doth no more prove a supremacie in the Bishop of Rome then it doth in the Priests of Rome Yea Athan. Apolog. contra Arrian the letters which Athanasius brought with him to Rome from the Bishops of his communion in the East witnessing the wrongs which he suffered and earnestly craving helpe therein were not written to Iulius alone but Omnibus ubique Ecclesiae Catholicae Episcopis To all the Bishops of the Catholicke Church wheresoever And accordingly was this matter heard and examined by a Synod or Councell of Bishops In which Synod and not by Iulius alone it was that Athanasius was receaved and restored as Bishop of Alexandria notwithstanding his former deposition Neyther did Iulius the Bishop of Rome Sozom. lib. 3. c 11 lat Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 20. in the greeke cap 16. in the latin call or summon this Councell but by the commandement of both the Emperors saith Socrates the one in the West signifying the same by his letters the other which ruled in the East willingly condescending thereunto there was proclaymed a generall Councell that all should meete at Sardica a Citie of Illiricum c. Yea so farre was Iulius the Bishop of Rome in that time from having any supremacie over all the Bishops in Christendome that when hee wrote to the Bishops of the East more freely and sharpely and as if hee tooke some authoritie upon him over them as they conceaved these Easterne Bishops assembled together in a Councell at Antioch formed an Epistle by uniforme consent of them all Socrat. lib 2. cap. 15. in the greeke cap 11. in the latin Sozom. lâ—b 3. cap. 7. lat wherein they inveigh bitterly against Iulius and tell him plainely That if any were banished the Church and excommunicate by their decree and censure it belonged not to him to intermeddle with it nor to sit in judgement upon their Censure So that howsoever the Bishops of the East and of the West might and did give mutuall helpe counsell comfort and assistance one to another yet if the Bishop of Rome would at any time goe beyond his bounds and seeme to take authoritie over them We see that these Bishops of the East would by no meanes endure it but gave it the repulse The fourth and last example which he citeth is that of S. Iohn Chrysostome who being deposed from his Bishopricke Appealed as he saith to Pope Innocentius the first Bellarmine hath also this example aswell as all the rest so that my Adversarie taketh indeede all his weapons and artillarie out of his store-house But both Bellarmine and He doe but deceive their Readers For Chrysostome in his Epistle doth not pray ayde and helpe onely of Innocentius the Bishop of Rome Chrysos Epist. 1. ad Innocent Tom. C nâ— 1. edit Venet. 158â— pag. 799. as they suggest but of other Bishops likewise in the West aswell as of him speaking not in the Singular but in the Plurall number thus Domini igitur maximè venerandi pij cum haec ita se habere didiceritis studium vestrum magnam diligentiam adhibete quo retundatur haec quae in Ecclesias irrupit iniquitas Therefore most religious and reverend Lords since you see how things be carried extend your diligence and endeavour that this wickednesse which is broken into the Churches may be beaten backe Quippe si mos hic invaluerit scitote quod brevi transibunt omnia Quapropter ne confusio haec omnem quae subcoelo est nationem invadat obsecro ut scribatis ut haec tam inique facta robur non habeant Nobis vero literis vestris charitate vestra frui concedite For if this grow to be a custome know yee that all things will shortly come to nought and therefore least this confusion invade everie nation under heaven I beseech you write that those things so unjustly done may beare no sway And grant that vve the wronged Bishops of the East may eâ—â—oy your letters and your favours And so he goeth on with Verbes of the Plurall number to the end concluding his Epistle with these words and in this manner Haec omnia cum ita se habere intellexeritis a Dominis meis prentissimis nostris Episcopis obsecro ut praestetis id quod petent officij All these things when yee shall perceave to be true by these my Lords and most godly brethren the Bishops I beseech you to yeelde them that assistance they shall desire All which clauses in that Epistle I thus the rather rehearse to the end you may the better judge whether it be not more fitly and more cohaerently to be reade Obsecro ut scribatis in the Plurall number as the Protestants say it ought to be reade then Obsecro ut scribas in the Singular number as Bellarmine and other Papists following the faultie and vicious copies would have it For when he speaketh to his most Reverend and Religious Lords the Bishops in the West were it not verie absurd to say thus unto them Obsecro ut scribas but
to say Obsecro ut scribatis is verie consonant and most fit and congruous Againe how can Obsecro ut scribas well stand with these words Literis vestris frui concedite or with didiceritis adhibete or with Scitote and intellexeritis or with praestetis or with all the rest of the Verbes that be of the Plurall number But let this be as it will This is certaine and cannot be denied that Chrysostome prayed ayde aswell of the other Bishops of the West as of Innocentius Bishop of Rome of them all alike So that this example and times of Chrysostome Innocentius make nothing for the Bishop of Rome his supremacie but much against it For when Chrysostome was deposed from his Bishopricke in a Councell â—f Bishops at Calcedon hee appealed from them not to the Bishop of Rome but to a generall Councell This Socrates witnesseth saying Socrat. lib. 6. cap. 15. in greeke cap. 14 in the lat Iohannes eos à quibus vocabatur tanquam inimicos exceptione recusabat universalem Synodum appellabat Iohn Chrysostome refused those that called him to that Councell upon this exception that they were his enemies and appealed to a generall Councell Secondly those Bishops assembled in that Councell for the deposing of Chrysostome were so assembled not by the commandement of the Bishop of Rome but by the Emperors commandement Ibidem for so also doth Socrates testifie Thirdly when Innocentius saw that the matter could not be ended but in a generall Councell he sent Legats to Honorius and Arcadius Emperors to beseech them to call a Councell and to appoint the time and place for it where also his suite and supplication was so little regarded That his Legats were sent away with reproch Sozom. libr. 8. cap. 28. as disturbers of the West Empyre as Sozomen witnesseth Now if Innocentius Bishop of Rome had had the power and authoritie in those times to call generall Councells Why did hee not call them Yea why did he by his Legats intreate and beseech the Emperors to doe it if it were a right belonging to himselfe or if it were not a right belonging to the Emperors in those dayes Or if he were then the supreme commander of all the Christian world as the Popes now clayme to be how commeth it to passe that he was such an humble suter to the Emperors for a Councell and yet could not obtaine it Doe not all these things strongly and invincibly declare that in those times not the Popes but the Emperors had clearely the supremacie Then afterward though much out of his due time and place and very immethodically for the exception had beene fitter in the next Chapter then in this hee taketh this exception that in the first part of my Booke Cap. 2. and pag. 42. in the Margent there is a misquotation in this sort viz. Bern. de cons ad Eug. lib. 6. cap. 3. 8. where it should have beene Bern. de cons ad Eug. lib. 4 cap. 2. For indeede in this place it is that S. Bernard calleth the Popes doctrines and pastures Daemonum potius quam ovium pascua which be the wordes I cited S. Bernard for and which are accordingly there expressely to be found What a poore exception then is this to carpe at a Quotation in the margent when the verie wordes and matter are there to be found in the Author himselfe whom I cited namely in S. Bernard Is he not farre driven that is forced to this kinde of exception And yet if hee had beene pleased to have looked into the Errata of my Booke he might have found in the conclusion of them that such like faults as this I desired the Reader to correct with his Pen which he might very easily have done if he had so pleased But as it seemeth he is an hard man that neyther out of his owne courtesie nor yet upon the intreatie of others will be moved to shew so small a kindenesse What Is it because better matter fayled him that he tooke this silly exception and standeth so much upon it Or is it because by this meanes he loveth to declare himselfe to bee as voyde of good humanitie as he is of true and sound divinitie For my part I may say that he giveth me herein cause to joy and rejoyce that hee can justly take no exception to the matter contayned in my Booke but onely to a marginall Quotation thus misprinted and mistaken Howbeit hee seemeth yet further verie willing and forward to carpe at these wordes in my Booke Cap. 1 pag. 25. where I say that in the time of King William Rufus Anselmus the Archbishop of Canterbury would have appealed to Rome but not onely the King but the Bishops also of England were therein against him but the trueth of this is verie cleare and apparant For Malmesbury Malmesh lib. 1. de gesâ—i Pont. Angl. whom I there cite for proose hereof witnesseth That both the King disliked that his doing and that therein also Omnes Episcopi Angliae Primati suo suffragiuÌ„negarunt All the Bishops in England denied their voyces unto their Primate Yea Matthew Paris further testifieth Matth Paris in Gulielmâ— 2 An. 1094. that when Anselmus Archbishop of Canterbury asked leave of King William Rufus to goe to Rome The King replyed That no Archbishop nor Bishop of his Realme should be subject to the Pope or Court of Rome especially for that he had all those rights in his kingdome which the Emperor had in his Empyre And for this cause was Anselmus Convented by the King as an offendor against the State And to this accusation did also the rest of the Bishops Ibidem except the Bishop of Rochester give their consents And because he ventured to goe over the Seas to Rome without leave All his goods were seised to the Kings use Ansel Epist 46. aâ— Paschalem is 3. Colon. 1612. all his acts and proceedings in the Church of England reversed and himselfe constrained to live in banishment during the life of King William whereof Anselmus himselfe complayned in his Epistle to Pope Paschalis Yea afterward also Matâ—â— Paris in Hen. 1. An. 1104 in the time of King Henry the first when the same Anselmus was returning home from Rome the Kings Atturney in his Masters name forbad him to enter the Land unlesse he would faithfully promise to keepe all the customes both of William the Conqueror his Father and of William Rufus his brother And when the King perceaved the Pope and the Archbishop to continue their former purpose against his Royall liberties he seised the Bishopricke into his hands and arrested all Anselmus goods that were to bee found To these and certaine other liberties of the Crowne Did also King Henry the second not long after cause all his Bishops and Nobles to be sworne For in the yeare of our Lord God M.C.LXIIII This King Henry the second being at Claredon in the presence of the Archbishops
the younger the first Ephesine Councell was assembled Liberat. in hist de Concil Ephes Liberatus likewise writeth That the Emperor wrote to all Bishops that they should assemble at Ephesus to judge of the Bookes of Nestorius and Cyrillus Epist Synod And in their Epistle to all the Bishops thus writeth the Councell it selfe Cum essemus Ephesi secundum pias Imperatoris literas congregati When we were at Ephesus assembled according to the pious letters of the Emperor Socrates also saith that Imperatoris mandato Episcopi ex omnibus locis Ephesum conveniunt Socrat. li. 7. c 33 in the lat ca. 34. in the greeke The Bishops of all places came together to Ephesus by the commandement of the Emperor Zonaras saith These things being knowne Caelestinus Bishop of Rome Cyrillus Bishop of Alexandria Iohn Bishop of Antioch and Iuvenall Bishop of Ierusalem relate the matter to Theodosius the Emperor and to Pulcheria the Empresse desiring that he would summon a Councell Niceph. lib. 14. cap 34. c. Nicephorus also saith Theodosius Imperialibus literis in Metropoli Epheso locorum omnium Episcopos convenire jussit That Theodosius by his Imperiall letters commanded the Bishops of all places to meete together at Ephesus the Metropolitan Citie The fourth generall Councell was the Councell of Chalcedon and this also was summoned not by authoritie and commandement of Leo the first Bishop of Rome as my Adversarie affirmeth but the Emperors Authority and commandement This may appeare even by Leo himselfe Epist. 43.53 and sundrie other of his Epistles But we neede not to cite other testimonies For the verie Councell of Chalcedon it selfe Conc. Chalcedon Actione prima doth testifie that it was summoned by the Emperors and that the Bishop of Rome was also called thither who because he could not be there in person sent others in his steade Yea that Leo Bishop of Rome did not summon this Councell nor any other generall Councell in those dayes but acknowledged it to be a right belonging to the Emperors is further verie manifest by the Epistle he writeth to the Emperor wherein he saith thus unto him Pietas vestra suggestioni ac supplicationi nostrae dignetur annuere Leo Epist 9 ut intra Italiam jubeatis haberi Episcopale Concilium Let your pietie vouchsafe to yeld to our suggestion and supplication in this that you command a Councell of Bishops to be held within Italy Againe hee saith thus Leo Epist. 24. Lovan 1575. Omnes partium nostrarum Ecclesiae omnes mansuetudini vestrae cum gemitibus lachrimus supplicant sacerdotes ut generalem Synodum jubeatis infra Italiam celebrari All the Churches that take part with us and all the Priests with sighes and teares doe humbly beseech your mansuetude that you will command a generall Councell to be celebrated within Italy He also sollicited the Princesse Pulcheria Leo Epist. 26. 23. and the Nobles Cleargie and people of Constantinople for a Councell to be held in Italie But neyther in his first suite nor in this last did he prevaile all this notwithstanding For as touching his former suite which was in the time of the Emperor Theodosius the younger that Emperor as before appeareth assembled the Councel not within Italie as Leo desired but at Ephesus And as touching the latter it is also apparant that by the Emperors appointment and commandement the Councell was assembled not in Italie as the Pope would have had it but at Chalcedon I might proceede further and shew that beside these first foure generall Councells other Councells were likewise summoned and assembled by the Authoritie and commandement of the Emperors and not of the Bishops of Rome For there was also a fift generall Councell summoned or called Mandato Iustiniani By the commandement of the Emperor Iustinian as Evagrius witnesseth And so likewise saith Nicephorus that Imperator Iustinianus Evagr. lib 4 c. 11. Nâ—â—ph libr. 17. cap. 27. sanctam quiatam Oecumenicam Synodum Episcopis omnium Ecclesiarum convocatis coegit The Emperor Iustinian assembled the fift holy generall Councell by calling the Bishops of all Churches together The Councell of Sardica also Socrat. lib. 2 cap. 20 in the gâ—eek cap. â—6 in the â—a in Theoâ—oret lâ—b 2. cap. â— Sâ—crat lib. 〈…〉 greeke cap. â—9 in the 〈◊〉 Cusaâ— de 〈◊〉 lib. 2 â—ap 25. was called by the Emperors Authoritie and commandement as Socrates and Theodoret declare And so were also those Councells of Selencia and Aâ—imiâ—â—â— called by the Emperors Authoritie and commandement Yea what generall Councell was there called in those ancient times but by the Emperors In somuch that Cardinall Cusanus himselfe ingenuously confesseth and affirmeth that The first eight generall Councells were called by the Emperors Is there then any credite at all to be given to those Papists in these dayes who doe and dare denie this so cleare manifest and evident a truth Wherefore it being a thing most apparant that in ancient times the Emperors by their Authoritie and commandement called the generall Councells it followeth necessarily thereupon that the Emperors thereby commanded aswell the Bishop of Rome as the other Bishops and consequently had the Supremacie aswell over the one as over the other 9 But yet further to prove the Supremacie of the Emperors I alledged that the Emperors in ancient time banished imprisoned and otherwise also punished by their Authoritie even some of the Bishops of Rome themselves aswell as other Bishops Whereunto mine Adversarie answereth that These things they did de facto but not warrantable de jure But why were they not warrantable de jure I grant that a banishment or imprisonment may possibly be sometimes wrongfull and unjust in respect of the man and the matter that deserveth it not but this is no impeachment or argument therefore against the lawfulnesse of the authoritie As if an Emperor or King doe banish or committe a man to prison for professing any point of true Religion this banishment and imprisonment is wrongfull and unjust in respect of the cause which deserveth no punishment at all Yet it cannot be denied but he hath power Authoritie good and lawfull enough both to banish and to committe to prison notwithstanding when there is a just cause For that which is but an abuse of Authoritie doth not take away the lawfull use of it So that if any Bishop of Rome or any Bishop whosoever within the Dominions of the Empyre did offend so farre as to deserve banishment imprisonment or other Temporall and Civill punishment it was a thing lawfull and just for the Emperor to inflict those punishments upon them aswell as upon any other For it is indeede to these Higher Powers namely to Emperors Rom. 13.1.2.3.4 Kings and Princes that God hath committed the Civill and Temporall sword for the encouragement and prayse of them that doe well for the discouragement terror punishment of those that doe evill And these
be Ministri Dei The Ministers of God as S. Paul also sheweth instituted for that verie end and purpose Now none will denie but banishment and imprisonment be punishments Civill and Temporall and not Ecclesiasticall and doe rightly and properly belong to the Authority of Emperors Kings and Princes and not to the function and office of Bishops and Ecclesiasticall Ministers And therefore the banishment and imprisonment that any Emperors or Kings used against any Bishops or others upon just cause and when they deserved it must needes be granted to be things done by them both in respect of the authoritie and in respect of the cause also aswell de jure as de facto that is to be things lawfull warrantable and justifieable in all respects For as for those distinctions that Emperors and Kings have Authoritie over persons Temporall but not Ecclesiasticall and a Power directive but not Coactive and in causes Civill and Temporall but not in Ecclesiasticall The untruth absurditie folly impietie of all these distinctions hath beene before so sufficiently discovered that I shall not neede to speake any more of them And by this time I hope that even the Papists themselves bee ashamed of them Sure I am they have good cause so to be if they did duely ponder and consider them Seeing then it is confessed that the Emperors did in ancient time by their Authoritie banish imprison and otherwise punish even Bishops of Rome aswell as other Bishops that no reason can be shewed against the doing hereof when they be such offenders as that they justly deserve such punishment it is thereby undeniably apparant that the Bishop of Rome in those dayes had not the supremacie over the Emperors but that cleane contrariewise the Emperors had the Supremacie over him aswell as over any others within their Empyâ—e Another Argument which I use consisteth in this that I say even Kings of Rome did also sometimes send the Bishops of Rome as their Embassadors By this argument my Adversarie saith That he supposeth that I meant but to make men merry Why In serious matters I love not to be as he is many times ridiculous but to be serious and to deale seriously First therefore hereby I prove that the Bishop of Rome was not in those dayes superior or greater then the King that sent him For those wordes of Christ must ever be true where he saith The Servant is not greater then his Master Iohn 13 16. nor the messenger greater then he that sent him And secondly I say further that this is a verie good and strong argument to prove the Supremacie to be in those dayes in the Kings of Rome and not in the Bishops of Rome For the King that sendeth any as his Embassador is in all common understanding supposed and to be supposed superior unto him that is his Embassador As when Hiram King of Tyrus sent messengers to King David 2. Sam 5.11 1. Chron. 14 1. 1. King â—â— 2 1. Chron. 19.2 or when Benâ—â—adad King of Aram or Siria sent messengers to Ahab King of Israell or when King David sent messengers unto the King of the Amm â—ites In all these cases and every such like for Nec in caeteris est contrarium videre were those Kings superior or greater then the messengers or Embassadors whom they sent And therefore when Theodorick sent Iohn Bishop of Rome as his Embassador unto the Emperor Iustine and when King Theodatus sent Agapetus Bishop of Rome as his Embassador to Iustinian the Emperor It must be confessed that these Kings were likewise superiors to the Bishops of Rome and had the command of them and not contrarywise that those Bishops of Rome had the superioritie or command over those Kings For amongst men the Master is wont to send the Servant and the King his Subject and the superior his inferior But where did you ever reade heare or know the Servant to send his Master or the Subject to send his King and Soveraigne or the inferior to send his Superior on a message I grant that an inferior or equall may intreate a Superior to doe a businesse for him and that a King a Master or Superior may goe by his owne consent or of his owne accord somewhither to doe his Subject Servant or inferior a good turne But it cannot be rightly and properly said that any of these inferiors have sent their Superiors upon their errand service message or embassage Yea it would be held verie absoneous and absurd so to speake But my Adversary I see mistaketh the Mâ—lâ—r proposition of my argument For it reacheth not so high as heaven much lesse to the most glorious incomprehensible and ineffable Trinitie blessed for ever but onely to men upon earth and not to all men neyther but onely to Kings and Bishops Neyther had my Adversary any ust cause or reason to streach or extend it any further For the question was onely concerning them whether of them had the Superioritie or Supremacie over the other in that time namely whether the Kings that then raigned over Rome or those that were the Bishops thereof I to prove the Superioritie or Supremacie to be in the Kings and not in the Bishops alledged this for my reason that the Kings of Rome did sometimes send the Bishops of Rome as their Embassadors to other Princes So that my Argument upon the whole matter appeareth to be this What Kings soever I speake of earthly Kings sent any at any time as their Embassadors to other Princes those Kings were Superior and greater then those Embassadors whom they sent But the Kings of Rome did send the Bishops of Rome as their Embassadors to other Princes Ergo the Kings of Rome were Superior and greater then the Bishops of Rome The Maior is apparant by induction of particulars by ordinarie common experience in the world The Minor is manifest by Ecclesiasticall historie which testifieth That King Theodoricke sent Iohn Bishop of Rome Lib Pontific in Iohan. 1. Et Anact in Agapeto Diaconus Platina as his Embassador to the Emperor Iustine And that King Theodatus sent likewise Agapetus Bishop of Rome as his Embassador to the Emperor Iustinian And therefore the conclusion must needes follow and cannot bee gainsaid By this time then mine Adversarie seeth I hope that such is the evident strength of this Argument as that he with all his wit and learning will never bee able to make any good answere thereunto 10 In my former Booke Cap. 1. pag. 13. 14. 15. I also shewed that against the title and appellation of Vniversall Bishop or head of the universall Church did two Bishops of Rome oppose themselves namely Pelagius and Gregory the great when it was first affected by Iohn the Patriarch and Bishop of Constantinople And that neverthelesse afterward a Bishop of Rome namely Boniface the third got obtayned it of Phocas the Emperor Hereunto mine Adversarie answereth as Bellarmine likewise doth That this fact of
Phocas was but a declaratioÌ„ of that which was ever before belonging to the Bishops of Rome What Had the former Bishops of Rome all the predecessors to Gregorie this title of universall Bishop peculiarized appropriated unto them Why then did Gregorie himselfe say Greg. lib. 4 Epist 32.36 38.39 None of my predecessors Bishops of Rome ever consented to use this so ungodly a name or why did he say That no Bishop of Rome ever tooke upoÌ„ him this name of singularitie Yea he saith We the Bishops of Rome will not receave this honour being offered unto us Wherefore it is apparant that neyther before the times of Gregorie nor in the times of this Gregory any of the Bishops of Rome had this title Yea you see this title detested and rejected even by and in the Bishops of Rome themselves aswell as in any other Bishops So that they did not onely condemne it in Iohn the Patriarch of Constantinople but generally in all Bishops whatsoever as being injurious not onely to other Bishops but especially to CRIST IESVS the onely right and true Vniversall Bishop and the sole and onely Head of the Vniversall Church Vniversa sibi tentat ascribere saith Gregory Greg libr. 4. Epist 36. omnia quae soli uni capiti cohaerent videlicet Christo per elationem pompatici sermonis ejusdem Christi sibi studet membra subjugare He goeth about to ascribe all to himselfe saith he and endevoureth by the loftinesse of his pompous title to subjugate unto himselfe all the members of Christ which of right are to cleave to one onely head which is Christ This title then of Vniversall Bishop or head of the whole Church upon earth appeareth to be as wicked and as unlawfull in Boniface the third Bishop of Rome and his successors as it was or would have beene in Iohn Bishop of Constantinople and his successors if it had rested in them For that which Boniface the third obtayned of Phocas the Emperor is the very same thing which Iohn Bishop of Constantinople sought to get and obtaine This if any make a doubt of it is apparant For first Paulus Diaconus saith Hic Phocas rogante Papa Bonifacio statuit sedem Romanae Ecclesiae ut caput esset omnium Ecclesiarum Paul warnefrid Phoca quia Ecclesia Constantinopolitana primam se omnium Ecclesiarum scribebat This Emperor Phocas at the suite of Pope Boniface ordayned that the Sea of Rome should be the head of all Churches because the Church of Constantinople wrote her selfe the chiefe of all Churches Vspergens Chronic In like sort speaketh Abbas Vspergensis Post SabintanuÌ„ Bonifacius eligitur ad Pontificatum cujus rogata Phocas constituit sedem Romanae Apostolicae Ecclesiae caput esse ommium Ecclesiarum nam antea Constantinopolitana se scribebat primam omnium After Sabinian saith he was Boniface chosen to the Popedome at whose request Phocas ordayned that the Sea of the Romane and Apostolicke Church should be the head of all Churches for formerly the Church of Constantinople had written her selfe the chiefe of all Platin Bonifac. 3 PlaÌ„tina also saith that Bonifacius a Phoca Imperatore obtinuit magna tamen contentione Boniface obtayned this of Phocas the Empeâ—â—or but with great contending for it quem quidem loctâ—m Ecclesia Constantinopolitana sibi vendicare conabatur Which place saith he the Church of Constantinople endevoured to challenge to her selfe Blondus Blondus also saith Ad huâ—us Bonifâ—â—â— petitionem Phocas Antistitem Romanum principem Episcoporum omniuÌ„ dixit Nauclerus vol 2 Generat 21. At the suite of this Boniface did Phocas affirme the Bishop of Rome to be the Prince of all Bishops And Nauclerus likewise saith that Bonifacium insolentiam Patriarchae Constantinopolitani 〈…〉 appellantis compesâ—â—t Phocas cuim Pontificis suasione publica aâ— ad untâ—ersum orbem dimissa sanctione constituit ut Romanae Ecclesiae Romanoque Pontifici omnes orbis Ecclesiae obedirent Boniface repressed the insolencie of the Patriarch of Constantinople calling himselfe Oecumenicall or universall Bishop For Phocaâ— by the perswasion of the Pope ordayned by a publicke Decree sent to the whole world that all the Churches of the world should be obedient to the Church of Rome By all these testimonies then you perceave that what Iohn the Bishop of Constantinople did formerly desire and seeke after that did Boniface the third Bishop of Rome obtaine of Phocas the Emperor and consequently that title of universall Bishop must needes be as hatefull and damnable in Boniface the third Bishop of Rome and his successors as it was or would have beene by the judgement of Pelagius and Gregorie in Iohn the Bishop of Constantinople and his successors As also I trust you now sufficiently great how fond and false an evasion that is which my Adversarie and Bellarmine also useth For if this granting of the title of the universall Bishop to Boniface the third had beene as they say nothing else but a declaration of the thing ever before acknowledged to belong to the Bishops of Rome What cause or neede was there for Boniface the third Bishop of Rome to have beene such an earnest and importunate surer for the obtayning of it at this time Or why did those two Patriarches the one of Constantinople the other of Rome strive and contend at this time so much for it Or why was Phocas himselfe so hardly and not without much a doe induced to yeeld it to Rome rather then to Constantinople which was then the seate of the Emperors Or if it were a thing ever before acknowledged to be due to the Bishops of Rome why did those two Bishops of Rome so hotely and eagerly oppose themselves against it utterly detesting and condemning it not onely in Iohn Bishop of Constantinople but generally in all Bishops whosoever as their speeches arguments and reasons doe declare Yea how can it be true that the Bishops of Rome had evermore this title when Gregorie the great Bishop of Rome himselfe testifieth the cleane contrarie saying as you heard before that none of his predecessors Bishops of Rome did at any time consent to use so ungodly a name and that no Bishop of Rome at any time tooke upon him this name of singularitie and that they the Bishops of Rome could not take it though it were offered to them Is it not then a point of grosse impudencie in Papists still to denie such apparant and manifest truths But afterward againe in a scoffing manner hee saith that I give notice that I am a Logician by affirming in the 11. pag. of the first part of my Booke that the effect of the negative clause in the Oath of Supremacie is included in the former affirmative clause of the same Oath The affirmative clause saith he of the Oath is that the King is the Supreme Governor in his owne Dominions The negative clause is that no forraine Prince Person Prelate c. And so he goeth on mispending his time
and confuting the imagination and devise of his owne braine For the affirmative clause in the Oath is not as he imperfectly and lamely relateth it but it is this That the King is the onely Supreme Governor of this Realme and of all other his Highnesse Dominions and Countries aswell in all Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall things or causes as Temporall The negative clause followeth and is this That no forraine Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction power superioritie preheminence or authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme This word Onely in the affirmative clause hath he left out which if he had added together with all the rest of the wordes that follow in that affirmative clause he would very easily have found that to be true which I wrote namely that the effect of the negative clause is included in the former affirmative For he that affirmeth the King to be the onely Supreme Governor within his owne Dominions that in all things or causes Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall aswell as temporall doth in that speech exclude every forraine Prince person Prelate State or Potentate from having any supreme governement or any government at all without his leave and licence within his Dominions Yea it is very evident that the former affirmative clause includeth the negative clause and more For the negative clause excludeth forrain Princes persons Prelates States Potētates only from Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall Authoritie but the former affirmative excludeth them from authoritie in all things or causes both temporall spirituall Againe you see that the negative clause extendeth onely to forraine persons but the affirmative clause extendeth to any persons whosoever whether forraine or domesticall Thirdly the negative clause excludeth forraine persons from having any jurisdiction power superioritie preheminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or spirituall within this Realme But the former affirmative clause extendeth not only to this Realme or that Realme in particular but generally to all his Majesties Realms Dominiōs Countries So that the former affirmative clause in the Oath appeareth to be much more generall and of a farre larger extent then the negative is And therefore I hope I spake truely and within compasse when I said though in a parenthesis that the effect of the negative clause was included in the former affirmative I did not say as mine Adversarie supposeth me to hold that the Regall power includeth the Sacerdotall or Episcopall This is but his owne dreame imagination in the confutation whereof he laboureth in vaine For neyther I nor any of the Protestants doe hold that opinion but contrariewise doe hold them to be things distinct as is before declared But because he will needes carpe at my Logicke when he hath no cause let other men judge what a great Logician he is whilst he argueth thus The Regall power includeth not the Sacerdotall Ergo the affirmative clause in the Oath of SUPREMACIE includeth not the negative clause in the same Oath Hitherto then you see that my Adversarie notwithstanding all his storishes braggs and bravadoes hath shewed himselfe to be not onely a punie Lawyer as he confesseth himselfe to be but a punie Logician also most of all a punie Divine and that he hath not beene able to make any good Answere or to refell and confute any one Argument contayned in this first Chapter of my former Booke concerning the Supremacie and yet hath he also left a great part of that Chapter unanswered Neyther hath he made throughout his whole discourse and pleading so much as one good argument to prove his Clients cause that is the Popes supremacie though he purposed and laboured to doe it Where is it not a mervaile that he being a Lawyer and a Subject to our Soveraigne Lord the KING will date neverthelesse admitte of such a Client as the Pope is and of his cause which he knoweth before hand to be condemned by the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme and which he now may see if hee saw it not before to be also condemned by the Lawes and Statutes of God himselfe and by all the most ancient Ecclesiasticall Records But if hee be not ashamed of such a Client and his cause his Client I suppose will be ashamed of him and entertaine him no longer to pleade for him unlesse he could doe it better And yet indeede when his Clients cause is foule naught as here it appeareth to be what Lawyer be he never so learned or what Divine be hee never so profound is able to justifie it or to make it good Notwithstanding his demurrer therefore and notwithstanding that by this his plea his purpose was to arrest and stay mens judgements I trust they will all now no cause appearing to the contrarie proceede without any further delay to give their sentence against his Client for in the behalfe of these two most worthy Peerles Princes who be the complaynants against him namely for Christ IESVS in their acknowledging and publishing him onely to be the onely universall Bishop supreme Pastor and head of the whole Church Militant upon Earth aswell as of the Triumphant in Heaven and for the King in declaring and publishing him under God to be the onely Supreme Governor over all manner of persons and in all kinde of causes aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill within his Dominions Neyther doe I doubt but all mens judgements whensoever upon good and well advised deliberation they shall please to give them will passe accordingly In the meane time let us goe one to the second Chapter see if he have any better successe in that then he hath found in the former Concerning the second Chapter IN this second Chapter of my former Booke my Adversarie supposeth that my maine scope and purpose was to prove our Church that is the Church of the Protestants to have beene in the Apostles times But never was there saith he poore Assertion so miserably mangled And true it is indeede that it is miserably mangled and cut in pieces But by whom namely by himselfe For my Assertion is not so short as he relateth it nor is to end where he maketh it to end but is of a longer and larger extent and being produced not by parts or pieces but wholy and intirely as it ought it is this viz. That our Church was in the Apostles dayes and in all times and ages since howsoever or notwitstanding that Poperie did as an infection or corruption grow unto it the meaning true sence whereof is no more but that the growing of Poperie it being but as an infection or corruption to the Church is no impediment or argument to the contrarie but that our Church had a being in the Apostles dayes and in all succeeding times and ages that notwithstanding This will the better appeare if you take the whole Proposition or assertion and turne it into a Question For then the Question will not be as mine Adversary maketh it viz.
whether our Church were in the Apostles dayes for that coÌ„priseth not the whole Proposition but is onely a part or piece of it Neyther can that be any more the Question then whether it were in the succeeding and aftertimes and ages But the Question will bee as I have signified before viz. Whether the growth and comming in of Poperie as an infection or corruption to the Church did hinder or was any such obstacle or impediment as that by reason thereof our Church had no being at all in the Apostles dayes nor in the dayes and times succeeding It is true that if I had said that our Church was in the Apostles times and had gone no further it had beene an absolute and direct affirmation of our Church to have beene in those dayes But when I goe further and say that our Church was in the Apostles dayes notwithstanding that the seeds of Popery began then to be sowen in this speech I doe not absolutely and simply affirme that our Church was then but that it was then notwithstanding that the seeds of Poperie began then to be sowen that is the beginning and growth of Poperie was no obstacle impediment or argument against the being of our Church in those dayes As likewise if I say that the conveyance made to Iohn at Stile is good notwithstanding that there was no liverie of seisin made upon it this is no direct affirmation that his conveyance is simply good to all intents and purposes but that it is good notwithstanding this exception that there was no liverie and seisin made that is the not making of liverie of seisin is no obstacle or impediment to hinder the goodnesse of it In like sort if I say that K. Salomon was a saved soule notwithstanding that by the enticement of his wives he became an Idolater this is no absolute or direct affirmatioÌ„ that he was a saved soule But that he was a saved soule notwithstanding that reason or allegation that is to say his committing of Idolatrie upon the enticement of his wives is no such obstacle or proofe to the contrarie but that he might be a saved soule that reason or objection notwithstanding As againe if I say that my Adversarie is a good Grecian or a good Hebritian notwithstanding that he hath not shewed it in his Answere this is no direct affirmation that hee is eyther a good Grecian or a good Hebritian but the sence and meaning of that speech is that his not shewing of skill in Greeke or Hebrew in his Answere is no obstacle or argument to the contrarie but that he may be a good Grecian or a good Hebritian that nothwithstanding Wherefore if mine Adversarie would have opposed himselfe against that proposition or assertion of mine before mentioned he should have shewed proved if he had beene able that the comming in and growth of Poperie was such an impediment or obstacle as that by reason thereof our Church could haue no being in the Apostles dayes or in the times or ages that succeeded which because he hath not done he hath spent his breath and talked idly and in vaine and to no purpose And yet hee seemeth to glorie and insult over me that my conclusion assertion being as he saith that our Church was in the Apostles times I brought not so much as one argument there to prove it how much more cause now have I if I were so disposed to glorie and insult over him who by his cutting curtalling and mangling my assertion and not taking it wholy and intirely as of right he should hath utterly mistaken the Question not answered one word to that which was the Question indeede For the question to be deduced out of this entier Proposition not being as he hath strangely mistaken whether our Church was in the Apostles times nor yet whether it were in the succeeding and aftertimes But whether Poperie were such an obstacle or impediment as that it did cause that our Church could not by reason thereof have any being at all eyther in the Apostles times or in the times and ages that succeeded To this it is that I answered and adressed my speech in that second Chapter and to this Question also it is that mine Adversarie should have answered and adressed his speech if he would have spoken materially and to the purpose And yet even this verie assertion that our Church that is men beleeving and professing the same Faith and Religion that we doe was in the Apostles times and by them taught and approved is a thing evidently declared not in one Chapter alone of my former Booke for one Chapter alone would not suffice for so many points and positions as did to such a matter belong but in all the severall Chapâ—ers and whole Contents of my Booke put together And the truth of it may summarily briefely thus appeare namely by that excellent rule and fundamentall ground Tertul. prescript â—avers haeret which Tertullian giveth For hee saith that even those Churches quae licet nullum ex Apostolis vel Apostolicis authoreÌ„ suuÌ„ proferaÌ„t ut multo posteriores quae denique quotidie instituuÌ„tur tameÌ„ in eadeÌ„ fide coÌ„spiraÌ„tes noÌ„ minus Apostolicae dâ—putaÌ„tur pro consanguinitate doctrinae which cannot bring any of the Apostles or Apostolicke men for their authors as those that be much later such as are begun every day yet agreeing with theÌ„ in the same faith are for this coÌ„sanguinitie or agreemeÌ„t in doctrine held to be no lesse Apostolicke then the rest Againe he saith Ipsa doctrina eorum Tertul. traescrip advers haeret cap. 32 cum Apostolica comparata ex diversitate contrarietate sua pronunciabit neque Apostoli alicujus authoris esse neque Apostolici Their verie doctrine it selfe being compared with the Apostolicke by the diversitie and contrarietie that is betweene them will pronounce that it had for the Author neyther any Apostle nor any man that was Apoâ—tolicall From this rule and fundamentall ground I deduce and make two Arguments the one for our Church the other against the Church of Rome For our Church my Argument is this That Church which holdeth the same Faith doctrine Religion that the Apostles taught in their dayes is Apostolicall But our Church that is the Church of the Protestants holdeth the same Faith doctrine and Religion that the Apostles taught in their Ergo our Church that is the Church of the Protestants is Apostolicall The Maior is verie evident of it selfe and by the testimonie also of Tertullian neyther can it be denied The Minor is also evident by conferring and comparing our Faith doctrine Religion with the Apostolicall writings the rest of the Canonicall Scriptures And it is also manifest by the whole Contents of my former Booke whether I referre you for the proofe of it if any make doubt of it And therefore the conclusion must bee granted On the other side against the Church of Rome from that