the ground and prostrate saith he before your feete I beseech and in the presence of God doe earnestly desire c. And in another Epistle againe hee speaketh thus Obsecrantes ex animi fervore In Conc. Niâ—em 2. act 2. ibidem pag. 312. vestram mansuetudinem obtestando veluti praesentes genibus advoluti coram vestigia pedum volutando ego cum fratribus coram Deo supplico obtestor c. Beseeching you out of the fervor of our minde by intreating your gentlenesse and as if wee were present being cast upon our knees and kneeling before your presence I with my brethren in the presence of God am an humble suppliant and doe earnestly beseech c. By all which you see verie clearely and infallibly that for the space of many hundred yeares after CHRIST even the Bishops and Popes of Rome themselves were and so did declare themselves to be not superiors but inferiors yea humble suppliants and subject to the Emperors and consequently that the Emperors in all those times as well de Iure as de facto had the Supremacie over them aswell as other Bishpos For so it appeareth 〈◊〉 that they had and ought to have in asmuch as Pope Pelagius himselfe expressely affirmeth as you heard before Quibus nos etiam subditos esse sanctae Scripturae praecipiunt inquit Pelagius that the holy Scriptures aid so command Secondly Jt being a thing verie demonstratively evident That the Christian Emperors in those former and ancient times had the Supremacie and command even of the Bishops of Rome aswell as of other Bishops let us now proceede and see whether they did not also deale in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as the good and Godly kings of Israell and Iuda did And it is also very apparant that they did For proofe whereof Constantine that Godly and Christian Emperor spake in this sort Euseb de vita Const lib. 2 c. 28 Socrat. lib 1. cap. 22. las By my Ministerâ— saith he mankind is brought to the keeping and observing of the most sacred Law by the service which I performe to God all things every where are setled in order Yea the barbarous Nations which till this time knew not the trueth now prayse the name of God sincerely whom they reverence for dread of us He also called Councells when cause required Euseb de vita Const. lib. 1 c. 37 lib. 3 cap. 63. He decreed that Heretickes should have no Temples and that in no place publicke or privat from that day forward any of their assemblies should be permitted Socrat lib. 1. cap. 20. lat When the Councell of Tyrus was assembled he commanded them first to discusse the trueth of such crimes as were objected against Athanasius Athanasius also was loth to come before that Councell save that he feared the threatning Letters of Constantine written to this effect If any Euseb de vita Const lib. 4. c. 42. saith he which I thinke not in contempt of Our mandate sayle to come before you Wee will send a warrant from our Royall Authoritie that he shall bee banished To teach him what it is for Bishops and Cleargie men to withstand the commandement of the Chiefe Ruler defending the trueth Athanas apol 2. Câ—m multas videre 〈◊〉 Socrat. li. 1 ca. 21. lat Wherefore Athanasius and the Bishops of his part appeared But finding that Councell very partiall they appealed from them to the Emperor And Athanasius himselfe fled to the Emperor beseeching him to send for the Bishops of that Councell to examine their Acts which that Christian Emperor did accordingly and thereupon wrote thus to the who e Councell Your Synod saith he hath decreed Socrat lib. 1 cap. 22. lat I know not what in a tumult and uprore whilst you seeke to pervert trueth by your pestilent disorder for hatred against your fellow Bishops But the divine providence will I doubt not scatter the mischiefe of your contention and make it plaine in our sight whether your Assembly hath had anâ— regard of trueth or no. You are therefore all of you t resort hither to shew the reas n of yâ—ur doings for so it doth seeme good and expedient unto me For which end I wiâ—ed this rescript to be sent unto you That as many of you as were present at the Councell of Tyrus without delay repayre to the place of our abode there to give account how sincerely and soundly yee have judged and that before me whom your selves shall not denie to be the sincere Minister of God in these Cases Observe yet further Cod. lib 1. tit 4. 2 3. tit â— 7.9.11 That Iustinian that Christian Emperor in his Code â—citeth many and sundry Lawes made by former Emperors concerning matters Ecclesiasticall As namely touching the Christian Faith Baptisme and Churches Novel consâ— 5 7. 42. 1â— and touching Heretickes Apostatas Iewes and Infidels And in his Authentickes he maketh many new Constitutions Concerning the Sacraments in what places by what persons with what loudnesse of voyce they should be ministred Novel const 123 1â—1 Novel const 5. 131 3 67 79. 5 123. 133. 6. 12â— Concerning Synods or Councells when they shall be kâ—pt what things shall be reformed in them and what Canons of Councells shall stand in the same strength with his Lawes Concerning Priests Deacons and other Servitors in the Church Hee limiteth their Age Condition Learning and good report before they be received to that Office and their diligent sober and chaste behaviour afterward And concerning Bishops how they shall be chosen what manner of men they should be both for life and doctrine what causes they should meddle withall in their Consistorâ—s what punishment they should undergoe for wrongfull excommunication and other offences c. Novel const â—â—3 And he saith further That there is no kinde of thing exempted from the Prince his inquisition who hath received from God a common Regiment and Soveraignetie over all men And those things which concerne God must saith he be preserved from corruption by the Saâ—red Prelatâ—s and civill Magistrates but most of all by our Majestie who use not to neglect any divine causes But proceede Legâ—m 〈◊〉 libr. 1. and goe on further to the times of Charles the great who was Emperor of the West parts about eight hundred yeares after CHRIST and therein consider the Directions Chapters or Lawes made by him which Ansegisus gathered together within a few yeares after his death For thereby shall you likewise clearely perceive that Kings and Princes even in those dayes did meddle both with Persons causes Ecclesiasticall I will here recite some of them unto you for your better and most full satisfaction in this point viz. Cap. 1. That no man excommunicate in one place should be taken into Communion in another place Cap 2. That when any Clearke is Ordered his faith and lâ—fe be first exactly tried Cap. 3. That no
doth not prove it and it is indeede but an humane devise and conceit and such as is before confuted in my former Booke pag. 95.96 97. whereunto he full maketh no answere And yet it is there shewed that the Companie both Militant and Triumphant make but one body and one Church unto CHRIST IESVS whereof he is the Head and that though in his bodily presence and humanitie hee be in heaven yet by his Deitie and power of his Spirit and word he is in Earth with his Church and can tell how to rule governe comfort confirme guide and direct it and to give all giftes and graces requisite and to doe and performe all the offices of an Head unto it much better then the Pope of Rome or any man mortall whosoever Yea himselfe confuteth himselfe when he saith that in these words of CHRIST Reddite quaesunt Caesaris Caesari quaesunt Dei Deo By this word Caesari is understood saith he The Supreme Governor in Temporall affaires and by the word Deo the Supreme Governor in Spirituall affaires For thereupon it followeth that then is not the Pope of Rome the supreme governor in those spirituall and Ecclesiasticall affaires unlesse he will say that the Pope is God But whereas he maketh Caesar or the Emperor to be the supreme Governour in Temporall affayres onely as though he had no Authoritie in spirituall or Ecclesiasticall matters also therein is still his error because it is before most manifestly proved that even the heathen Emperors and much more those that were Christian Emperors lawfully might did coÌ„mand for God his service Religion dealt in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill Temporall Yea Rex est persona mixta as our law also calleth him in respect of that his interest Authoritie in causes both Ecclesiasticall Civill For which cause likewise amongst Divines he is said to bee Custos utriusque Tabulae As for that his calumnious speech against Luther and Calvine which he here also inserteth Luther tom 1. in Genes cap. 9. tom 3. Annâ—t in Deut. 6. fol. 40. tom 2. responed Ambr Catherinum fol 150. 152. c. Calvin Inst. l b. 4 cap 20. in Rom 13. c. as though they wrote against the obedience due to Princes and their lawes it hath beene often answered by sundrie Protestants and the untruth of it is so notorious as that the workes and writings of them both doe shew and openly proclayme the contrarie to the world if men would please to read them and not to wrest their wordes but to take them everie where in a right sense But what meaneth he by this that he saith Kings and Princes may more confidently build the safetie of their persons estates upon the loyaltie of their Catholicke subjects then upon any Protestant subjects what are Papists whom he calleth Catholicks more loyall to Protestant Kings and Princes then Protestants Is there any likelihood of trueth in this Or doth he thinke that Protestant Kings and Princes will or can be so perswaded For is it possible that they who for love or affection to the Pope and Popish Religion denie and oppugne the Kings SUPREMACIE and the true Christian RELIGION he professeth and defendeth can be more loyall or better subjects unto him then those that acknowledge his SUPREMACIE RELIGION by his Authoritie established Thankefully and joyfully embracing them both praying unto God for the continuance of them and for all maner of happinesse and prosperitie upon him and his which is the defendor and maintayner of them both amongst us and thinke themselves bound in duetie and conscience so to doe Comparisons they say are odious and therefore I could have wished that he had forborne them neyther needed he to have used them For if wee all both Protestants and Papists bee in all respects and at all times found faithfull true and good Subjects to his Majestie as of right duetie we all ought and as I hope we all shall be I doubt not but it will suffice although we strive not thus to provoke one another by Comparative or Superlative termes But what reason hath he further to call Calvine as he doth the sensuall Libertine of this age who wrote against the libertines and against all licentiousnesse and all manner of ungodlinesse and impietie whatsoever For so his many learned laborious godly and worthy workes doe abundantly testifie and declare to the world Will Papists never cease their malitious and untrue accusations against Luther Calvine Beza and other Protestants 5 The second Text I alledged to prove the Kings Supremacie over all persons Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill within his owne Dominions is taken out of S. Paul in Rom. 13. where S. Paul saith thus Rom. 13.1.2.3.4.5.6 c. Let everie Soule be subject to the higher powers for there is no power but of God and the powers that be be ordained of God Whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves condemnation For Magistrates are not to bee feared for good workes but for evill Wilt thou then be without feare of the power Doe well so shalt thou have prayse for the same For he is the Minister of God unto thee for thy good but if you doe evill feare For hee beareth not the Sword in vaine For he is the Minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evill Wherefore yee must be subject not onely because of wrath but also for conscience sake And for this cause pay yee tribute also For they are Gods Ministers imploying themselves for that very purpose By the higher powers in this Text whereto subjection is required which beare the sword for the punishment of the evill doers and for the prayse of them that doe well is meant 1. Pet. 2.13.14 as S. Peter also hath before shewed those that be Kings Princes and such like Civill and Temporall Magistrates And this is so evident as that though my Adversary doth not yet the Rhemists doe ingeniously confesse Rhem. Annot. in Rom. 13. vers 4. and teach it For That the Apostle meaneth here specially of Temporall powers we may see say they by the sword tribute and externall compulsion he here attributeth to them Neyther was there then as they say any doubt conceaved by Christian men whether they should obey their Spirituall powers or Spirituall Governors yea or no which is another reason they them give to shew that this Text is not to bee expounded of Spirituall Origen in hunc locum but of Civill and temporall Rulers and Magistrates Origen likewise declareth the same affirming them to be Non Antistites Principes Ecclesiarum sed Mundi judices seculi potestates Not Bishops and Prelates of Churches but worldly Iudges and secular Powers In like sort S. Ambrose affirmeth them to be Reges Ambros in hunc locum Aug. de Catech. rudibus cap. 21. seculi
God can be shewed in this case Yea Aaron was so farre from loosing this priviledge of his birthright by any appointment from God that cleane contrarywise he had the Priest-hood famously confirmed to him by God himselfe Thou saith God speaking to Aaron and thy Sonnes with thee Num. 18.7 shall keepe your Priests office In asmuch then as it is apparant that Moses was no Priest neyther before the consecration of Aaron nor after it must therefore be concluded that he was no Priest at all but was as the Scripture calleth him as a King or a Prince A second reason is this viz. Deut. 33.5 That Ioshua was appointed by God himselfe to succeede Moses in his place and office But it is certaine that Ioshua Deut. 31.14 c Num. 27 17.18 Ios 1.16.17.18 his successor was no Priest but a civill Magistrate even the chiefe ruler and commander under God both of the Priests People of Israell in his times as before appeareth and therefore also must Moses be so supposed But it is objected out of Psal 99. That Moses and Aaron were among the Priests Psal 99.6 doth this prove them therefore to be Priests because they were among them Howbeit the Hebrewe word there used is Cohanim which signifieth aswell Princes 2. Sam. 8.18 as Priests or any that be in high eminent and honourable place as in 2. Sam. 8. The Sonnes of David are said to be Cohanim 1. Chron. 18.17 that is chiefe Rulers For so it is also explained in 1. Chron. 18. Where it is said of the Sonnes of David That they were chiefe or principall men about the King 2. Sam. 20. â—â— Againe it is said in 2. Sam. 20. that Ira the Iairite was Cohen le David that is a Prince or chiefe Ruler about David For it were absurd and against the Law of God that then was to suppose Ira to bee a Priest who was a meere stranger and not of the Tribe of Levi. Although then Aaron was a Priest yet when it is said of Moses and Aaron together that they were Cohanim It may signifie verie well that they were great Rulers or men of high and eminent place in Israell the one in respect of the civill Magistracie and the other in respect of the Priest-hood But for any to say and argue thus Moses was a Cohen or reckoned amongst the Cohanim Ergo hee was a Priest by his proper office and function is a plaine non sequitur and no better then if you should likewise argue and say Ira the Iairite was a Cohen and the Sonnes of David were also Cohanim Eâ—go these were Priests by their proper office and function If you further object that Moses was of the Tribe of Levi and Aarons brother yet neyther doth that prove him therefore to be a Priest For everie one that was of the Tribe of Levi was not a Priest Yea even the Priests and Levites Numb 3.6.7.8.9.10 1 Chro 6 48 49 Numb 18.3 were distinguished For Aaron and his Sonnes were appointed to the office But of the Levites it is said they shall not come neere to the Altar least they die So that although the Levites were of the Tribe of Levi yet wee see they might not meddle with the Priests office least they should die And therefore also Moses though he were Aarons brother and of the Tribe of Levi yet was he not therefore a Priest or to execute the Priests office Neyther did he execute the office of a Levite as the Levites used to doe in wayting and tending upon the Priests and as being in office inferior unto them and at their command Yea it is before shewed and apparant that Moses although he were of the Tribe of Levi yet was hee so farre exalted and advanced as that he was by place and office as a King or Prince in Israell and commanded both Priests and Levites and not onely the Tribe of Levi but all the other Tribes of Israell also as Ioshua his successor likewise did Yet some to prove Moses to be a Priest doe alledge that he sacrificed and for this doe cite Exod. 24.5 Exod. 24.5 But the words of that Text be not that Moses did sacrifice but That he sent young men to sacrifice which were indeede the first borne of the children of Israell to whom the Priesthood did then belong it being a thing done before the institution of the Leviticall priest-hood Other some againe doe alledge that Moses did consecrate and annoynt Aaron and his Sonnes to the Priest-hood And that therefore he was a Priest But this also followeth not especially in the first erection of the Leviticall priest-hood For though Moses were a Prince a civill Magistrate yet wheÌ„ God gave him a direct and speciall commandement to consecrate and annoynt Aaron and his Sonnes he was bound to doe it And that he was expressely so commanded is apparant by the Text it selfe where God spake thus to Moses Thou shalt bring Aaron and his Sonnes unto the dore of the Tabernacle of the congregation Exod. 40.12.13.14.15 16. and wash them with water And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments and shalt annoynt him sanctifie him that he may minister unto me in the Priests office Thou shalt also bring his Sonnes and cloth them with garments and shalt annoynt them as thou didst annoynt their Father that they may minister unto me in the Priests office For this annoyntment shall be asigne that the Priest-hood shall be everlasting unto them throughout their generations So Moses did according to all that the Lord commanded him So did he This sheweth then that Moses was duetifull and obedient in performing Gods commandement in this case But it is no proofe that therefore he was a Priest For even a civill Magistrate not onely may but ought to consecrate and annoynt men to the office of Priest-hood if he be so required and commanded from God himselfe as Moses was wherefore it still remayneth firme that what reverence subjection and obedience Aaron the high Priest performed to Moses he did it to him not as being any Priest or high Priest but to him as being as a Prince or King in Israell that had the supreme commandement and rule both of the high Priest and of the rest of the Priests and of the Levites and of all the people within that Common-weale So that now I trust you verie fully perceave that Moses and Ioshua and the good and Godly Kings of Israell and Iuda had Authoritie aswell over the high Priests as all other Priests and Levites in causes also Ecclesiasticall aswell as civill and Temporall And that the Christian Emperors for the space of many hundred yeares after CHRIST had likewise the Supremacie over all persons and in all causes aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill within their Empyres and Dominions 3. 〈◊〉 But my Adversarie objecteth that famous Hosius Cordubensis Athan Epist ad solitarium vitâ agenâ—es reproving the Arrian
Emperor Constantius wisheth him as Athanasius testifieth not to meddle in Ecclesiasticall matters It is true that Hosius Cordubensis did and had just cause to reprove Constantius and to wish and advise him not to meddle in matters Ecclesiasticall in such sort as he did he using or rather abusing all his authoritie in matters Ecclesiasticall to the mantaynance of the Arrians and arrianisme against the true Christian and Orthodoxe Bishops and against the truth of the God-head of CHRIST For Athanasius in the same Epistle sheweth that Paulinus and other Bishops being called before the Emperor the Emperor commanded them to subscribe against Athanasius Ibidem and to communicate with the Arrians They mervayled at this and answering that the Ecclesiasticall Canons would not suffer them to doe so He replied But what I will let that be taken for a Canon The Bishops of Syria endure this speech of mine Eyther therefore doe you as I will you or else goe you also into banishment And when the Bishops held up their hands to God and proposed their reasons shewing him That the kingdome was not his but Gods of whom he received it that it was to be feared least he that gave it him would speedily take it from him Setting also before his eyes the day of judgement and advising him Not to subvert Ecclesiasticall order nor to bring the Arrian heresie into the Church of God He would neyther heare them nor permitt them to speake but grievously bending his browes for that they had spoken and shaking his Sword at them commanded them to be taken away Yea what crueltie tyrannie and persesecution was used and raysed by Constantius in the behalfe of the Arrians against the Orthodoxe and right beleeving Christians is further declared by the same Athanasius shewing Ibidem that even Pagans were set to invade the Churches of the right and true Christians and to beate the people with slaves and stones The Bishops Priests Monkes were bound with chaines and scourged with râ—ds The 〈◊〉 were haled by the haire to the judgement seate The virgins were tosted by the fire and whipt with prickles others were banished strangled and trampled under feete to death and their limmes and joyntes rent and torne a sunder after they were dead In somuch that Athanasius crieth out saying Who was not amazed at these things Who would yeeld them the name of heathen men much lesse the name of Christian men Who would thinke them to have conditions of men and not rather of beasts Yea who perceived not the Arrians to be crueller then beasts The strangers standing by yea the very Ethnickes detested the Arrians as Antichrists and Butchers of men Oh new-found heresie saith he which in villanies and impieties hast put on the fulnesse of the Divell how great soever it be Againe he saith Whom hath not Constantius banished Ibidem that was accused by the Arrians When did he not give them both audience and allowance Whom did he ever admitte to say any thing against them Or what did he not admitte which they spake against others He ever doth that which the Arrians would have and they againe say that which him liketh And Athanasius saith yet further of him That whensoever he called an Assembly Iudgement or Councell of Bishops it was but for a shew For he did neverthelesse what himselfe listed What libertie for persuasion or what place of advise saith he is there when he that contradicteth shall for his labour loose eyther his life or his countrey Why hath the Emperor gathered so great a number of Bishops partly terrified with threats partly inticed with promises to condescend that they will no longer communicate with Athanasius This violent oppressing of Bishops in their Synods or Councells working them to his owne will Hiler lib. 1. contra Constant. doth S. Hilary also witnesse saying thus unto him Thou gatherest Synods or Councells and when they be shut up together in one Citie thou terrifiest them with threats thou pinest them with hunger thou lamest them with cold thou depravest them with dissembling Againe hee saith Ibidem Oh thou wicked one what a mockery dost thou make of the Church Onely dogges returne to their vomite and thou compellest the Priests of CHRIST to suppe up those things which they have spet forth and commandest them in their confessions to allow that which before they condemned What Bishops hand hast thou left innocent What tongue hast not thou forced to falshood Whose heart hast not thou brought to the condemning of his former opinion Thou hast subjected all to thy will yea to thy violence Good cause therefore had Hosius Cordubensis to say as he did unto that Emperor Meddle not Emperor with Ecclesiasticall matters namely in this sort as thou dost for the maintaynance of arrianisme making thy will to stand for a law c. For if you will have these words Ne te misceas Ecclesiasticis Meddle not with Ecclesiasticall matters to be taken absolutely and without restriction to debarre Kings and Princes from all intermedling in Ecclesiasticall causes any kind of way such an exposition were not onely contrarie to the Acts of Constantine the Lawes of Iustinian the Chapters and doings of Charles the Great and the Historie of all the Christian Emperors for the space of many hundred yeares after CHRIST but it were also contrarie to the opinion and practise even of Athanasius himselfe who is the reporter of those words of Hosius For it is evident that Athanasius himselfe was never of that minde to exclude Christian Kings and Princes from all intermedling in causes Ecclesiasticall Yea he was a cleare approver of that Authoritie in them as appeareth by this That when he was commanded to conferre with one Arius concerning matters of Faith He answered Who is so farre out of his wits that he dare refuse the commandement of the Prince Disput Athan. cum Aâ—â—o Lao dicea habâ—ta Athanas aâ—â—l 2. Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 21. 22. lat Yea the Emperors commandement made him to appeare before the Councell of Tyrus and finding that Councell not to be indifferent but partially affected he and the rest of the Orthodoxe Bishops that toâ—ke part with him appealed to the Emperor himselfe He also in person fled to the Emperor desiring him to send for the Bishops of the Councell of Tyrus and to examine their doings which the Christian Emperor did accordingly So that it is manifest that Athanasius did approve of the Authoritie of the Emperors in Ecclesiasticall causes albeit hee would not have them to use their authoritie cruelly or tyrannically to serve their owne violent wills and pleasures nor thereby to doe any thing whatsoever against CHRIST and his Religion as that Arrian Emperor Constantius did But when all this is granted it maketh nothing against those Christian Emperors Kings and Princes which in good sort use their authoritie not against CHRIST as he did but for CHRIST his trueth and Religion
to Christian Emperors Kings and Princes which is allowed to farre inferior and meaner persons Yea these chiefly and principally in regard of their high places and callings are to be allowed this right Whereas therefore my Adversarie saith that Bishops and Cleargie men should be Iudges for determining of Dogmaticall questions and Controversies of Faith and Religion and that Christian Emperors Kings and Princes are to be guided directed taught and instructed by them all this is granted Yet withall let Christian Kings and Princes have also herein their dues and that right which to them belongeth Which is to search the Scriptures thereby to trie examine whether the doctrine of their Teachers be true or false For Act 17.12 Basil 〈◊〉 dâ—f 77. pag. 432. it behoueth the Hearers saith S. Basill that be instructed in the Scriptures to trie those things which are spoken by their Teachers and receiving that which agreeth with the Scriptures to reject the contrarie And so S. Augustine likewise Aug in Iohan. tract 46. Sua vero si velint docere nolite audire nolite facere That if they will teach their owne devises you must neyther heare them nor doe as they teach you Although then Bishops Pastors Ministers Ecclesiasticall are first of all to be consulted with to â—udge of matters of Faith controversies in Religion yâ—â— are they not absolute and infallible Iudges nor absolute and infallible Teachers or directors but are themselves limited and to be directed in all their Iudgements Doctrines and Decrees by that onely absolute and infallible rule of trueth the sacred and Canonicall Scriptures So that if they shall judge direct decree or teach any thing not according to the Divine Scriptures but contrarie thereunto as the Arrian Bishops in time past did and as the Popish Bishops and Teachers in these dayes doe all that is â—ustly worthy to be refused by all Christian Emperors Kings and Princes as is verie evident both by all good reason and by that which is before delivered Now then although these two points be granted to my Adversarie viz. That the Regall and Priestly offices be things distinct and that those that beare Regall Authoritie be also subordinate and subject to that Authoritie message and Ministerie which God hath coÌ„mitted to Bishops Pastors and Ministers Ecclesiasticall yet when there is further a third point appearing which he must acknowledge namely that Bishops Pastors and Ecclesiasticall Ministers be also subordinate and subject to the sword and Authoritie of Christian Kings and Princes and that in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning Religion aswell as in matters Civill and Temporall as is before at large declared What benefite or advantage doth he get thereby Yea is not his cause thereby for ever overthrowen Thus farre then you see that the plea which hee hath put in for a demurrer or stay of mens judgements is altogether insufficient for that purpose and therefore for any matter yet shewed by him or appearing to the contrarie all mens judgements may and ought to proceede and to be given against him and his cause unlesse in that which followeth he can shew better matter then as yet he hath shewed Let us therefore now see whether hee hath any better matter in that then he hath found in those his two points before mentioned For those his two former points appeare not worth a poynt nor of any value or validitie at all against the Kings SUPREMACIE 4 First it is true that I alledged that Text of 1. Pet. 2.13 To prove the KINGS SUPREMACIE over all persons aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill within his owne Dominions And what can my Adversary say against it Doth not S. Peter expressely require of all Christians that live within the Dominion of any King 1. Pet. 2.13 That they should submit themselves unto him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto the Chiefe or Supreme person over them Hee cavilleth at my argument because it is thus propounded interrogatively and not affirmatively A verie childish exception if it be not more then childish For is he so sillie and ignorant that he knoweth not that an interrogative speech doth sometime carrie the force of the greater more Emphaticall affirmation And yet if hee had but read and remembred the verie next words following that interrogative he might have found a redditive and a direct affirmative answere thereunto For the words next and immediately following bee these It is evident say I that he calleth the King Chiefe or Supreme not onely in respect of Dukes Earles or other Temporall governors as the Rhemists would have it but in respect of all the rest likewise were they Bishops Pastors Cleargie men or whosoever For he writeth that his Epistle not to Heathens but to Christians and amongst them not to the Lay people onely but to such also as were Presbiters and did 〈…〉 1. Pet 112.34 5. 〈…〉 5 1.2 doe the office of Bishops amongst them requiring even them aswell as the rest to yeelde their subjection submission unto him Now then seeing this direct affirmative in my Booke pag. 1. of that Chapter and that the words of S. Peter in the Text it selfe be also direct affirmative 1. Pet. 2.13 for these be his words Be yee therefore subject c. What doth he or can he answere thereunto He stiâ—l cavilleth at the words of the Text playing with them ad libitum and maketh the reason of it to be because he is a Lawyer as though it were lawfull or allowable for a man of that profession to be a wrangling Lawyer or as though because he is a Lawyer it were as free for him to cavill and sport himselfe with Divine Texts and evidences as with humane or as though he had never heard nor learned That Non est bonum ludere cum Sanctis Seeing I am a Lawyer saith he let me article and make my argument or plea upon the Text And then hee goeth on and saith That these wordes in the Text Be subject doe no more specifie the Christians then the Heathens nor any more the Subjects then the Princes Be not these strange asseverations For when S. Peter writeth that his Epistle not to Heathens 1. Pet. 1.2 3.4 c. but to Christians dispersed through Pontus Galatia Capadocia Asia and Bithinia and saith thus unto them Subjecti estote Be yee subject Can these words thus directly and purposely spoken to Christians no more specifie or intend Christians then Heathens Where were the mans wits I mervaile when he wrot thus absurdly Yea himselfe afterward confuteth himselfe For mentioning both this Text of S. Peter and that also of S. Paul in Rom. 13.1 c. He saith that in these two cited places both these Apostles Exhort to obedience and the reason saith he why the King is mentioned Is because in those dayes Christians were by the malice of their Adversaries accused of sedition and rebellion against Princes Doth hee not by these wordes make it verie evident that S.
Peter in saying Subjecti estote Be yee subject distinguisheth the Christians to whom he writeth from the rest that were their adversaries and were heathens and Infidels But why doth he say againe that these words Subjecti estote Be yee subject doe no more specifie Subjects then Princes For is it not a senselesse thing to say or suppose when men are by expresse wordes exhorted to be subject to their Kings and Princes that these wordes should require no more of Subjects then they doe of Kings and Princes Yea when he requireth Christians to be subject to everie humane creature whether it be to the king as being the chiefe or unto governours as unto them that are sent of him 1. Pet. 2.13.14 for the punishment of evill doers and for the prayse of them that doe well doth he not by this his distribution of the humane creature apparantly shew that he meaneth thereby the King as Chiefe or Supreme and the other Temporall Magistrates Rulers or Governors that be appointed or allowed under him Little reason therefore had my Adversarie to say That by every humane creature in the Text thus distinguished by the Apostle himselfe into the King as Chiefe or Supreme and into others that be Rulers or Governors under him The King is no more compresed then the Pope For you see that the King is directly comprised and intended yea expressely named and so is not the Pope And this is so evident that even the Rhemists themselves doe likewise so teach and expound it namely That by everie humane creature in this Text S. Peter meaneth the Temporall Magistrates Rhem. Annot. 5. in 1. Pet 2.13 Howbeit hee calleth not Kings and Princes and other inferior Magistrates under them an humane creation as though they were not also a Divine creation and of Gods institution For there is no power but of God Rom. 13.1 2. Ioh. 19.11 But they are called an humane creation in respect that the externall forme and maner of their creation is usually such as that God hath beene pleased to allow men to ordayne and appoint it for the use behoofe and benefit of men For touching Kings and Princes some are so by election and some by birth and discent of inheritance and concerning inferior Magistrates under Kings Princes they be also created and made some after one sort and some after another But what forme of creation soever they receave from men yet when they are once so appointed 1. Pet. 2.13 they are then to be obeyed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Propter DominuÌ„ for the Lords sake as S. Peter here teacheth to shew that they be also Gods ordinance and of his approbation And therefore doth S Paul likewise teach That Christians must be subject to them Rom 13.1.2.3.4 5. not onely for feare or for wrath but also for conscience sake as being also Gods owne institution But my Adversarie at last confesseth that this part of the Text Whether it be to the King as excelling or to Rulers as sent by him with a reference to the precedent wordes doth establish in the King the Regall and Temporall Supremacie And this is enough if he would be constant and stand to his wordes For no other Supremacie or Authoritie in matters Ecclesiasticall doth the King clayme but that which is Regall and Temporall In asmuch as he claymeth not to punish any offendors in Ecclesiasticall causes otherwise then by finings imprisonments and such like Civill and Temporall penalties and punishments which belong to that his Regall and Temporall Authoritie to inflict and in asmuch as hee also meddleth not with preaching the Word Ministring the Sacraments Excommunication Absolution or whatsoever else that is proper and peculiar to the Bishops or Ministers function And seeing he is so equall and just as to denie Cleargie men nothing that of right belongeth to them Why should any Cleargie men or any men whosoever be so unequall and unjust as to denie unto him any thing that is his proper due as namely a Regall and Temporall Power and Authoritie to be extended and used against offendors in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as in Civill For what Shall offendors in causes Ecclesiasticall that be and persist wilfull obstinate and perpetuall contemners of al Divine admonitions Church censures and Christian courses be held not fit to be restrained or punished Civilly or by Temporall Authoritie Would not such a libertie and impunitie prove extremely and intollerably mischievous And yet must such a mischiefe be endured or at least hazarded where Ecclesiasticall Authoritie is contemned and set at naught and that withall such contemners shal neverthelesse not be permitted to be restrained by the Civill Sword and Authoritie of Kings and Princes This argument I alledged in the first Chapter of my former Booke pag. 6. but my Adversarie is of such an excellent skill as that he can tell how to passe it over as he doth many things more without making any answere thereunto Wherefore that his evasion and distinction which is likewise the common evasion and distinction of all the Papists viz that Kings and Princes are to be obeyed when they command for matters Civill and Temporall but not when they command for God and his Religion or in matters Ecclesiasticall 〈◊〉 appeareth to be a most false most idle distinction being both in my former Booke and in this also much more largely reselled and confuted Yea it is so grosse and absurd as that at the very first hearing of it in this sort produced it sheweth it selfe to be verie senselesse and ridiculous For shall the King be obeyed when he commandeth for men and shall he not be obeyed when he coÌ„mandeth for God Is not this to preferre Men before God Earth before Heaven the Bodie before the Soule the Common-weale before the Church and things worldly terrestriall and externall before things divine celestiall and eternall Rhem. Annot 6 in 1. Pet. 2.13 As for that which the Rhemisâ—s say That this Text giveth no more to any Prince then may and ought to be done and granted to an heathen Magistrate it maketh not for them but against them For if they will grant no more to Christian Kings and Princes then is due to heathen Princes yeâ— even so much sufficeth as touching this point if it be well 〈◊〉 Because it is verie cleare that even heathen Kings and Princes are and ought to bee obeyed Ezra 1.1.2.3 c. when they command for God his service Religion as is evident by Cyrus King of Persia who though he were an heathen King gave commandement to build the Temple in Ierusalem Ez a. 61.23 c. and was therein obeyed Darius also another heathen King gave commandement for the continuing of the building of that Temple and for the Sacrifices to be offered in it Ezra 7.12.13 c. and was therein obeyed In like sort did Artaxerxes though an heathen King give commandement for the reforming of the Church according to the
law of God Dan. 3.29 by the Ministerie of Ezra that learned Scribe Nebuchadnezzar also though an heathen King gave a commandement and made a decree that none should blaspheme the GOD of Shadrach Dan 6 25 26. Meshach and Abednego King Darius likewise gave commandement made a decree that in all the Dominions of his kingdom men should tremble feare before the Lord God of Daniel whose God was the true God Some heatheÌ„ Emperors also gave commandment that men should cease from persecuting the Christians that Christians should have the free exercise of their Religion build Oratories places for their meetings and assemblies Euseb li 7. cap. â—8 cap 12. quietly possesse them for the service of their God Were not these such like commandments good lawful coÌ„mendable Euseb lib. 9 cap. 16. cap. 8. lat though given by heathen Emperors and in causes Ecclesiasticall and concerning Religion And were they not meete to be obeyed If then heathen Kings and Princes may as is manifest lawfully and laudably command for God his worship service and Religion and are therein dutifully to be obeyed By what right or reason can it bee denied to Christian Kings and Princes to have at least the like authoritie to command in matters Ecclesiasticall for God his service and Religion For shall Christian Kings and Princes be in worse case then heathen Kings Or shall they fare the worse or have the lesse Regall power and authority because of their Religion of Christianitie God forbid This argument I likewise alledged in the first Chapter of my former Booke pag. 7. whereto my Adversarie againe like a wise man still knoweth how to answere nothing And yet he saith he will propose my defused argument in a succinct forme the most for my advantageâ—â— But I neyther desire nor looke for any advantage at his hands Let him make his owne Arguments the best hee can for his owne advantage As for mine I would not have him to frame them unlesse hee would doe it more truely Hee would indeede make my Argument defused or rather confused by his confused maner of answering jumbling things together which I had Methodically and expressely distinguished For first my purpose was to prove his Majesties SUPREMACIE over all persons within his owne Dominions and then afterward in the second place to shew his Authoritie in respect of Causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill In the first Section of that Chapter pag. 1.2.3.4 I handle the first point concerning his Supremacie in respect of persons and in the second section pag. 5. and not before it is that I begin to handle his Authoritie in respect of causes This Text then of S. Peter being alledged as it is in the first section and pag. 1. was by me produced to prove onely his Majesties Supremacie over all persons aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill within his owne Dominions and not for any such end or purpose as thereby to prove his Majesties Authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill as he misconceaveth But sith he will needes have it so used I am well content with it because that Text doth indeede serve verie sufficiently to prove both those purposes For the first the argument is verie apparant and may be framed thus If all persons aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill are to be subject to their King as to the Chiefe or Supreme within his owne Dominions then hath their King a cleare Supremacie over them all But all persons aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill are to be subject to their King as to the Chiefe or Supreme within his owne Dominions for so S. Peter directly teacheth Ergo their King hath a cleare Supremacie over them all And for the second point the argument is also very open and evident For the King is not called the Chiefe or Supreme in respect onely of the excellencie of his person above all his subjects but in respect also of his Authoritie Rule and Governement he hath over them yea in this respect specially he is so called as appeareth by this That S. Peter distribuâ—es the humane creature he there speaketh of that is the Temporall Magistrates Rulers or Governors into the King as being the Chiefe or Supreme Governor and into other that be governors under him So that here we finde the Kings Title of Supreme Governor very manifestly proved and directly ratified and confirmed And that his governement and authoritie extendeth also to all manner of causes and consequently to causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill it is thus also made verie apparant out of this Text. For S. Peter here sheweth 1. Pet 2.13.14 that the King as the Supreme Governor and the other that bee inferior governors under him be all constituted to this end viz. For the punishment of evill doers and for the prayse of them that doe well Now be there not or may there not be evill doers aswell in the Church as in the Commonweale and transgressors and offendors aswell in matters Ecclesiasticall as Civill and Temporall Shall not then aswell the one sort of these offendors as the other be held punishable by the Kings Civill and Temporall Sword especially when they grow and continue obstinate wilfull perverse and unruly and will not otherwise be reclaymed The Text maketh no such difference or distinction as the Papists fondly doe betweene offendors in causes Ecclesiasticall and offendors in causes Civill and Temporall but generally or indefinitely it would have Evill doers of what sort soever without any distinction exception or restriction to bee punished by this Civill sword And ubi lex non distinguit ibi nec nos distinguere debemus The Argument then for the Kings Authoritie in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as in Civill out of this Text of S. Peter is and may be framed thus Whosoever hath authoritie from God to punish Evill doers by the Civill sword without any distinction restriction or exception of causes hath Authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill But the King hath Authoritie from God to punish â—â—â—-â—oers by the Ciuill sword without any distinction restriction or exception of causes Ergo The King hath Authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill The Matoâ— is evident in it selfe The Miror is proved and apparant by the Text and therefore the conclusion must be granted My Adversarie neverthelesse still urgeth that as touching spirituall and Ecclesiasticall causes and matters and concerning Religion obedience must be performed to the Supreme Pastor and head of the Church And who denieth this Yea this is granted unto him so hee take it rightly For not the Pope as he and other Papists strangely suppose but CHRIST IESVS onely is the Chiefe Sheepheard or Supreme Pastor and head of the Church as hath beene often declared and as is apparant As for that he saith That the Militant Church must have some visible head in Earth to rule and governe it 1. Pet. 5.4 Hebr. 13 20. Colos 1.18 Ephes 1 2â—.23 He onely saith it but
power over the Cleargie-men but onely power directive This distinction was not knowne in the Apostolicke Primitive and ancient Church nor so long as the Bishops of Rome were subject to the Emperors but when the Bishops of Rome contrarie to all lawes both humane and divine had trayterously and wickedly subdued the Emperors and that it could be said of Emperors and Kings as Bellarmine speaketh that Non sunt amplius ClericoruÌ„ superiores They are no longer Soveraignes or superiors to Cleargie-men Then did this distinction arise or grow that the Kings might have a directive power but no coactive power over theÌ„ that is might direct them to what was good but might not compell theÌ„ to it And so faith also mine Adversarie that coactive power imposeth penalties Now this distinction is easily answered and confuted yea he might have perceaved it in my former Booke pag. 7.8.9.10 to have beene sufficiently answered and confuted For besides other proofes Aug lib. 1 in fine contr Epist Parmen it is there shewed by diverse testimonies out of S. Augustine himselfe against the Donatists That Kings and Princes may not onely direct or command but may also by Lawes penalties and punishments compell their Subjects and consequently Cleargie-men asvvell as others to obedience in that vvhich is good and godly Yea it is the proper and peculiar right of Kings and Princes externally to use a power coactive by reason of the sword committed to them from God which Ecclesiasticall Ministers by vertue of their Ecclesiasticall calling and office cannot doe And seeing Parents have a power coactive over their children and Masters in a familie over their servants verie strange it were if Kings should not be allowed to have a power coactive over their subjects But it is indeede verie well knowne that the Christian Emperors in ancient time did use a power coactive even over Cleargie-men aswell as over others inflicting penalties and punishments upon them As for example Constantine that Christian Emperor exiled and banished Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia Theoderes lib. 1. cap. 20. and Theognius Bishop of Nice and hee saith further That if any man whether Bishop or other were offended at that his banishing of them and would grow malepart thereupon Illius statim audacia Ministri Dei hoc est mea executione coercebitur His boldnesse shall forthwith be repressed by the execution of Gods minister that is of my selfe Another Constantine also by whose Imperiall Authoritie the sixt Councell at Constantinople was held in a Decree inserted in that Councell Synod 6. Act. 18 Conc. edit â—in to â— pag. 92. saith Siquidem Episcopus est vel Clericus vel Monachico circundatus habitu deportationis paenam exsolvet If he be a Bishop or a Clearke or a Moncke let him be punished with deportation or banishment Charle-Mayne also in a French Synode Tom 2. Concil decreed imprisonment Si ordinatus Presbiter fuerit duos annos in carcere permaneat Aug. lib. 1. in fine contr epist. Par. S. Augustine againe declareth that there was a Law Imperiall against those that professed themselves Christians and true Catholickes and yet were not so but kept private Conventicles 〈◊〉 that he that ordayned a Clearke for that purpose or the Clearke so ordained should loose ten pounds of gold and the place also where such Conventicles were kept should be forfeyted to the Emperor You see then for the refelling and overthrowe of that foolish and false distinction that the Christian Emperors had power coactive over Bishops and Cleargie-men punishing them sometime with deportation exile or banishment sometime with imprisonment and sometime with penalties and losses of summes of money and other forfeytures And upon some kinde of offendors you may read that they inflicted the punishment of death And indeede to what end hath the King this Regall and Temporall Authoritie jurisdiction the power coactive in his hands by reason of the Sword committed to him from God if hee may not use it and put it in execution Yea my Adversarie himselfe confesseth and saith that Iurisdictio nullius videretur esse momenti si coertionem aliquam non haberet Iurisdiction might seeme to be of no regard if it had not some coertion or power coactive joyned with it Againe he saith Cui jurisdictio data est ea quoque concessa intelliguntur sine quibus jurisdictio expleri non potest To whom jurisdiction is given all those things be also understood to be granted without which that jurisdiction cannot be performed Wherefore even by those Maximes which himselfe citeth and approveth it is manifest that seeing the King hath a power jurisdiction and Authoritie to direct command Cleargie-men he hath also a power coercitive or coactive over them to compell correct and punish them if otherwise they will not obey those his directions and commandements So that my Adversarie needed to have no better confuter of this his idle distinction then himselfe But pag. 5. in that first Chapter of my former Booke I alledged that Text of Rom. 13. to prove also the Kings Authoritie in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill or Temporall And indeede this Text serveth also verie sufficiently for that purpose For as there is here no exception of any person so is there also no exception of anie cause or matter but whosoever doth evill be it in what kinde of cause soever he is here made subject to this sword and Temporall Authoritie of Emperors Kings and Princes For the Text saith That they are the ordinance of God and the Ministers of God attending employed and constituted to this verie end and purpose for the prayse countenancing and encouraging of the good and wel-doers and for discountenancing Aug. Epist 50. discouraging and punishing of the bad and such as be evill-doers And therefore doth S. Augustine say that Quicunque legibus Imperatorum quae pro Dei veritate fâ—runtur obtemperare non vult grande acquirit supplicium Whosoever will not obey the Lawes of the Emperor which are made for the trueth of God doth purchase to himselfe a great punishment Aug. Epist 166. For saith he in another place Hoc jubent Imperatores quod jubet Christus quia cum jubent bonum per illos non jubet nisi Christus The Emperors command that which Christ also commandeth because when they command that which is good it is Christ himselfe that commandeth by them Aug de Civit. Dei lib. 5. cap. 24 Yea S. Agustine was so farre from this point of Poperie to denie or disallow the Authoritie of Emperors Kings and Princes in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning Religion as that he doth evermore teach and defend it whensoever there was occasion to speake of it in somuch that he saith Imperatores foelices dicimus si suam potestatem ad Dei cultum maxime dilatandum c. We affirme the Emperors to be happie if they extend their Authoritie the most they can to doe service unto God in
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
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
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.