Nicolaus the fift was chosen in his place All this while the Councell of Basil stood vp so that a new Schisme was like to rise but all was compounded thus Felix the fift should abdicate the office which he was content to doe seeing Eugenius was dead who was deposed by the Synode Nicolaus should be acknowledged and confirmed Pope This Nicolaus thus confirmed should by his bull approue and confirme all the things done and concluded in the Councell of Basill all this was performed and Pope Nicolaus by his Bull maketh a solemne confirmation and approbation of this Synode which Bull is annexed to the Synode bearing date Calend. Iul. 1449. But the Synode seemed not much to respect this confirmation because they rested vpon that authority which the Church hath from Christ. 43. Now let vs consider how this Synode prescribed against the Popes Iurisdiction so much that if the reformed Churches by the power and godly labours of their Princes might once obtaine that which they haue so long wished a generall free lawfull holy Councell they would not desire much more freedome therein then was practised in this Synod of Basill For first concerning the safe conduct for comming to the Councell and manner of proceeding there is so much graunted by this Councell to the Bohemians whom the Councell inuited to a disputation that more then this none will desire For besides the safe conduct for comming and going freely and safely they are agreed vpon the iudge of controuersies admitting that iudge which onely was alwayes acknowledged the iudge in all generall Councels for the Pope was neuer acknowledged to be the iudge This Synode of Basil admitting herein the manner of proceeding held in auncient Councels reiecteth the Pope and admitteth another iudge in these words Lex diuina praxis Christi Apostolica Ecclesiae primitiuae vna cum concilijs doctoribusque fundantibus se veraciter in eadem pro verisfimo indifferente iudice in hoc Basiliensi concilio admittentur That is The law of God the practise of Christs Apostles and of the primitiue Church together with Councels and doctors founding themselues truely vpon the same shall be admitted for the most true and indifferent iudge in this Councell of Basil. Now this is far from the iudgement of our aduersaries who will admit no other iudge of controuersies saue the Pope onely Wee haue the iudgement of the Church against them both of old time and at this time of late and before the Councell of Trent it was neuer otherwise 44. Moreouer whereas the Pope sent his Legates to this Councell of Basil requiring that they might be admitted as Presidents of the Councell in his place this the Councell granted limiting the same graunt with these conditions that these who thus were admitted Presidents of the Councel in the place of Pope Eugenius should be in that place without all coactiue Iurisdiction that the manner of proceeding by disputations should stand inuiolate that all the Councell being equally deuided into foure deputations nothing should be concluded but that which was confirmed by three deputations at the least that the things thus confirmed should be inrolled by the Presidents or one of them that if they refused to inroll such things then should it be lawfull for any other man which was in one of the deputations to doe it which must after this be brought to the congregation and read there and publikely approoued before it be concluded They condition also that all the Actes of the Councell shall be done and dispatched in the name and vnder the seale of the Councell 45. Further in these late Councels there is no memorable mention of the fiue nations There was free accesse for all nations that would come but there is especiall mention of fiue nations because these were the principall nations of these westerne parts they are named in the first session of the Councell of Basill Italy Brittaine Germanie France and Spaine nothing might be concluded vnlesse it were first diuers times published in the presence of the fiue nations and by the generall consent of them confirmed If things had passed in this manner in the Councell of Trent that free accesse might be giuen to all nations that the Scriptures with the Fathers founding themselues vpon Scriptures might bee admitted the onely iudge of controuersies that the Pope should haue no coactiue authoritie that nothing should be concluded but by the consent of the fiue nations then would wee admit that Councell to bee free and generall but because in stead of these the contrary was practised in Trent that no iudge could be admitted there but the Pope that none might haue accesse to that Synod but they who were first bound in an oath to the Pope that therein the Pope practised coactiue power that nothing could there be concluded but by the direction of the Pope therefore when we reiect the Councell of Trent we doe no more then onr forefathers did in the Councell of Basill before that in the Councell of Constance and before that in the Councell of Pisa. We are the children of them that held these Councels whom seeing we finde to be so peremptor ily bent against the Pope and against the proceedings of the late Councell of Trent haue we not warrant following the footsteps of our forefathers vtterly to reiect and to condemne the Popes Iurisdiction which wee haue now found to be so late so basely bred without antiquitie honour honesty or libertie Against the Popes pretensed Iurisdiction what can wee say more then hath beene already concluded by these Councels 46. For they haue concluded that a Councell hath authoritie aboue the Pope that the Church may correct and hath corrected Popes Ecclesia Catholica Saepenumero summos Pontificos siue à fide delirantes siue prauis moribus notorie Ecclesiam scandalizantes correxit iudicauit Neque vbi de fidei periculo aut scandalo religionis Christianae agebatur Romanis Pontificibus pepercit They haue concluded that the Popes may erre as well as other men Certum est Papam errare posse It is certaine that the Pope may erre and in the same place it is said experience prooueth it for we haue often found and read that the Popes haue erred this Christ declareth if thy brother offend against thee dic Ecclesiae tell the Church and if he heare not the Church let him bee to thee as an heathen or Publican this compriseth all men euen Peter and his successors This Paul declareth that resisted Peter to the face and before all then he said it openly in the Church and to the Church which he said before all The Popes that haue not heard the Church haue beene accompted as heathen and Publicanes as we read of Anastasius and Liberius And a little after answering to a testimonie of Thomas Aquinas who held the Pope Peters successor and Pastor of the vniuersall Church they say thus De singularibus Ecclesijs
this opinion was r◅olued that Supreame Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction was in the Popes And therefore we prouing that Supreame and last Appellation doth by the law of God belong to none but to the Soueraigne Prince conclude vndoubtedly that Supreame Iurisdiction belongeth to him onely 10. Heere a question may be mooued whether Saint Paul did well and orderly when he appealed to Caesar and whether Caesar was made iudge of these questions which were Doctrines We aunswere Saint Paul had no meaning to make C◅sar iudge of any point of faith But whereas hee was persecuted by the high Priests who sought his life in this matter of coactiue power Saint Paul giueth Iurisdiction to Caesar. There is also a difference betweene that power which heathen Princes haue and that which Christian Princes haue for heathen Princes haue all power coactiue whatsoeuer the cause be and without this helpe the Church could neuer deale in matters of this nature Christian Princes besides this coactiue power haue also as appeareth in the gouernment of Israel externall discipline in matters Ecclesiasticall 11. Thus we haue declared the distinct right of the King and the Priest after that they were distinguished by the written law of God we haue prooued that the Soueraigne Iurisdiction coactiue resteth in the Prince by a right which God hath giuen and therefore may not be taken away by man It followeth to consider how this right hath beene accordingly exercised by the godly Kings of Israel Ios◅ commanded the people to be circumcised and not Eleazerus the cause was Eccles◅ticall but to command in such causes declareth iurisdiction Dauid reduceth the Arke he appointeth Priests Leuites Singers Porters to serue at the Tabernacle he assigneth Officers of the sonnes of Aaro◅ All which being matters Ecclesiasticall the Prince as hauing soueraigne authority in both causes ordaineth Solomon buildeth the Temple and consecrateth it Asa remoueth Idols and dedicated the Altar of God that was before the porch of the Lord. Iehosaphat abolisheth Idolatry cutteth downe the groues sendeth Priests and Leuites to teach in Townes and Cities Setteth vp Iudges both ciuill and Ecclesiasticall and commandeth both to iudge according to godlinesse truth and Iustice. Because in the words of Iehosaphat these things are distinctly deliuered we will obserue the whole place The wordes are these And hee set iudges in the land throughout all the strong Cities of Iuda Citie by Citie And said to the Iudges take heed what you doe for you execute not the iudgement of man but of the Lord and he will be with you in the cause and iudgement Wherefore now let the feare of the Lord be vpon you take heed and doe it for there is no iniquitie with the Lord our God neither respect of persons nor receiuing of reward Moreouer in Ierusalem did Iehosaphat set of the Leuites and of the Priests and of the chiefe of the families in Israel for the iudgement and cause of the Lord and they returned to Ierusalem And he charged them saying thus shall you doe in the feare of the Lord with a perfect heart And in euery cause that shall come to you of your brethren that dwell in your Cities betweene blood and blood betweene Law and precept Statutes and iudgements you shall iudge them and admonish them that they trespasse not against the Lord that wrath come not vpon you and vpon your brethren And behold Amariah the high Preist shall be the chiefe ouer you in all matters of the Lord. 12. From which words we collect thus much concerning ◅he Kings Iurisdiction and the things wherein it consisteth ◅irst the King appointeth and placeth both Temporall and clesi◅sticall Iudges and commandeth and chargeth them so placed to execute their functions faithfully we inferre vpon this command in both alike that hee hath Iurisdiction ouer both causes But here let me remember a trifling obiection which some of our aduersaries haue deuised of late they would distinguish betweene command and Iurisdiction For they deny not but that all sortes of persons are vnder the Kings commaund and gouernment whom he may command each to doe their Office and yet they vtterly deny the Kings Iurisdiction and tell vs that command and Iurisdiction must not be hudled vp together Now let vs consider what hudling is in this when the Kings command and his Iurisdiction are set as things depending and cohaering one to the other When we say the King may command we meane plainely as we speake that the King hath from God lawfull authoritie to command and to punish them that breake his command This is the common vnderstanding of the Kings command But these Romish sophisters when they say the King may command do not vnderstand neither will they acknowledge at any hand that the King hath lawfull authoritie from God to punish the breach of his command for they vtterly deny that the King hath any authoritie to punish a Clarke though he should breake his commandement And call you this a command The King may command and goe without as the saying is This is the deuils sophistry taken vp by men hardned against shame content to stoupe downe to gather vp the meanest and basest shifts to dazell the simple The Iesuites resolue of this as of a truth most soundly concluded in their schooles That the King may not punish Ecclesiasticall persons that the Kings Court may not heare examine and iudge them though they should commit murders adulteries robberies or what other wickednesse soeuer And yet they tell vs that the King may command them Now to say one thing and yet to let the world see that they are resolued in the contrary this sauoreth strongly of the spirit of illusion when reason learning honestie and all faileth yet well fare a bold and hardned face which neuer faileth this generation 13. The truth is if the King haue not lawfull authority to punish he hath not lawfull authoritie to command and punish he cannot vnlesse he hath authority to iudge or cause iudgement to be done so that they who take away from the King power to iudge persons Ecclesiasticall take from him power to punish and consequently power to command but the Doctrine of the Papists this day as shall hereafter appeare in his due place taketh from the king power to iudge per sons Ecclesiastical therefore they rob him of power to punish and to cōmaund for nothing can more strongly take away the Kings command then to deny him power to punish and to iudge And yet they are not ashamed to tell vs that they deny not the kings cōmand but his Iurisdiction Then to leaue these men with their absurd and perplexed contradictions where the King ◅ay command he may iudge and punish the breach of that command and therefore his Iurisdiction appeareth in his lawfull authority and command Then by this charge and commaund of Iehosaph◅ is declared his Iurisdiction in these causes wherein he hath this authority
to command for otherwise the Kings command is but as the word of a priuat man or of a child if he haue not power to iudge and punish 14. Moreouer whereas Iehosaphat commandeth the Priests and Leuites to iudge betweene blood and blood Law and precepts statutes and iudgements In things that concerned questions of blood as when blood was shed by casualtie in which case the party offending had remedy by sanctuary and the high Priest was the immediat iudge as also in matters concerning lawes precepts â—…tutes iudgements that is ordinances ceremoniall or morall In these things stood the Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction which then was practised in the Church for to take that distinction which we must often remember in this question it is confessed that all Ecclesiasticall power is either of order or Iurisdiction In both which the King hath a part bâ—…t differently In the power of orders the Kings part and office was to see that things of that nature were orderly done and the breach thereof punished but himselfe was not to execute any thing whereunto the Priests were apointed by the power of their orders as to offer incense c. Wherefore Vzziah was smitten with leprosie for medling with that part of the Priests office Now Iurisdiction is diuided into power internall which as often wee haue said belongeth not to the King and power externall which power externall when it is coactiue is nothing but that which wee call the Kings Iurisdiction though it be in matters Ecclesiastical And this Iurisdiction is here testified to be in Iehosaphat and from him deriued to all to all iudges vnder him both Temporall and Ecclesiasticall For as he commaunded the Temporall iudges so in like sort he commaunded the Ecclesiasticall And as the Ecclesiasticall iudges might replie if they had bene such as now these are of the Romane Clergie that Ecclesiasticall iudgements were holy and the cause of God and not of the King so doth the King witnesse of Temporall iudgements for speaking to Temporall iudges he saith you execute not the iudgements of man but of the Lord. Then Temporall iudgements are the Lords cause aswell as Ecclesiasticall and herein they differ not 15. Now this Iurisdiction which is in coactiue power wee prooue to be in the King and onely in the King I speake according to the forme of the state of Israel in those dayes wherof we now speake aunswerable to which is the Soueraigne magistrate in any other state This right I say we prooue to bee onely in the King and from him deriued to other iudges both Temporall and Spirituall by these reasons first the King and onely the King commaundeth both iudges to doe their duties in their seuerall places and hath lawfull power to punish them if they doe otherwise therfore the Kings Iurisdiction coactiue is ouer both sorts alike The antecedent hath two parts the first drawen from the expresse words of the Scripture in this text the second followeth by a necessitie For the commaund of a King is ridiculous and no commaund vnlesse he haue authoritie to punish The consequence followeth by the very definition of Iurisdiction which will prooue the second part of the antecedent For this Iurisdiction for which we plead is defined by the most learned of the Church of Rome authority coactiue If it be authoritie it may command if coactiue it may punish then it followeth that where Iehosaphat had first authoritie to commaund and last to punish that questionlesse hee had this Soueraigne Iurisdiction 16. If against this any obiect that the King may command in matters of orders of preaching the Word administring the Sacraments c. In all these things the King may lawfully command the parties to doe their duties and may punish them if they doe otherwise and yet no man will put the Kings Iurisdiction in these matters of orders Preaching Sacraments c. For aunswere let me intreat the reader with attention to consider these three things First to commaund secondly to execute thirdly to punish Iurisdiction standeth wholly in the first and last and nothing at all in the second that is in authoritie and not in action So that though the King should execute a thing which belongeth to his office yet in the execution therof his Iurisdiction should not appeare howsoeuer his wisedome knowledge and actiue vertues might appeare therein for Iurisdiction is in the authoritie of commaunding and power of punishing and supereminence that riseth from both And therefore in the preaching of the Word administration of Sacraments the King hath no part because therein Iurisdiction standeth not these things being matters of execution not of commaund but the authoritie to commaund these things by making or vrging lawes for them and to punish the transgression by corporall punishments this because it includeth coactiue power is in the Soueraigne Magistrate onely If the Magistrate should either neglect his dutie as the heathen did or commaund false doctrines to be preached as the Arian Emperours did in this case the Church hath warrant to maintaine the truth but without tumults and rebellion and rather in patience to loose their liues then to forgo any part of the truth 17. Another reason to prooue this Soueraigne authoritie coactiue to be only in the King and from him respectiuely deriued to both sorts of iudges may thus bee drawen For the iudges Temporall there is not so much question made all the doubt is of iudges Ecclesiasticall the chiefe of which iudges Ecclesiasticall in the Church of Israel was the high Priest Then this Iurisdiction whereof we speake must be confessed to haue been principally and originally either in the king or in the high Priest but in the high Priest it was not Therefore in the King it must be That it was not in the high Priest we proue by these reasons The high Priest is commaunded corrected punished and deposed by the King and not the King by the Priest therefore the Soueraigne Iurisdiction is not in the high Priest but in the King Againe the high Priests did neuer practise coactiue authoritie vnlesse when they were Soueraigne Magistrates as sometimes the high Priests in Israel were but as high Priestâ—… they had no such power for the causes betweene blood and blood which were of their cognisance are by the interpreters vnderdood such cases wherein a man was killed by chaunce without the purpose or against the will of the offender in which case the high Priest might graunt him the prâ—…uiledge of sanctuary and so deliuer him from the auenger of blood but he had no power coactiue to inflict death or such punishments at his pleasure which trueth was so constantly receiued and preserued in the Church afterward that euen in the greatest power highest ruffe of Poperie the Church of Rome did not take this full â—…oactiue power but onely proceeded to degradation and then to deliuer men vp to the secular powers which was a â—…ecret confession that they had no right to
accounted chiefe in succeeding the Apostles whose life and conuersation was most Apostolicall Wherefore as the auncients gaue this honour to the Bishops of Rome for their godly liues to call them the Apostles successours so when they found other Bishops who in vertue excelled they gaue these titles in as great honour to them as euer was giuen to the Romane Bishop For we finde these titles as much or more giuen to others then wee can finde giuen to the Romane Bishops Basill writing to S. Ambrose saith of him that he doth hold the sterne of that great and famous ship the Church of God and that God had placed him in the primary and chiefe seat of the Apostles Of the Bishop of Rome it is hard to finde in all antiquity a more honourable title then this is of Ambrose Now if S. Ambrose helde the sterne of that ship the Church of God and if hee sate in the chiefe and highest seat of the Apostles it must follow that an inferiour seat was reserued for the Bishop of Rome as long as Ambrose liued and that hee was esteemed the chiefest in Apostolicall succession who came neerest the Apostolicall vertues or that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 presidents alike in Christs Church And throughout all the Epistles of Basil wee obserue that albeit hee wrote often to the Westerne Church wee finde no such honourable mention of the Bishop of Rome but somewhat sounding to the contrary For in the tenth Epistle he noteth the pride and ambition which then began to be espied in the Bishops of Rome complaining to Eusebius Bishop of Samosata that the Church could haue no help from the pride and ambition of the West Then concerning this title to be called the successour of the Apostles it was somtimes giuen to the Bishops of Rome onely in regard of their vertue godlinesse and faith which once appeared in those Bishops And so it is giuen to Ambrose and to other Bishops In this sense we vnderstand those titles giuen by Sidonius Appollinaris Bishop of Aruern to diuers Bishops in France in his time For writing to Pope Lupus as he calleth him a Bishop in France he testifieth that hee had liued 45 yeares in the sea Apostolicall Insede Apostolica nouem iam decursa quinquennia And againe to the same man he saith Pater officium quod incomparabiliter eminenti Apostolatuituo sine fine debetur c. The same title he giueth also to Fontellus another Bishop in France declaring that therein he greatly reioyced Quod Apostolatus vestri patrocinium copiosissimum conferre vos comperi And writing to the same Fontellus Ego quoque saith he ad Apostolatus tui noticiam accedâ—… 23. Then by this Title Apostolicall no Iurisdiction will rise to the Bishops of Rome seeing the same is giuen to others as well as to them Neither was there then in the Bishop of Rome any power aboue others neither in the whole Church was câ—…actiue power found To prooue this Eusebius reporteth a Storie which we wish to bee well obserued because it maketh an euident proofe of the Iurisdiction of the Church which thing wee seeke The Storie is thus Paulus Samosatenus Bishop of Antioche taught that Christ was a meere man To represse this wicked heresie a Councell was gathered at Antioche The Church was then without the helpe of a Christian Magistrate In chiefe accompt among them that liued in the Church at that time was Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria a man for his great learning and godlinesse much renowned in the Church then and alwayes since he was so aged and weake at that time that he could not be present in the Councell but by writing confirmed the truth against Paulus the Hereticke Among them that were assembled there was Gregorius Bishop of Caesaria who had the gift of working miracles in which respect Basil maketh honourable mention of him in diuers places Dionysius was then Bishop of Rome The famous Bishops of the East had diuers meetings against Paulus the last meeting was in the time of Aurelianus Emperour about the yeere of Christ two hundred seuentie and fiue At what time Paulus was fully refuted and repressed especially by the labour industry and learning of Malchion hee was condemned saith Eusebius of all the Churches of Christ which are vnder heauen After the conuiction of this Heresie the Councell wrote to Dionysius Bishop of Rome and to Maximus Bishop of Alexandria for Dionysius died before this Councell ended and Maximus succeeded him in Alexandria and to all the Church of Christ vnder heauen The Epistle is extant in Eusebius and was directed to these Bishops that by them other Churches might haue knowledge of this thing 24. After all this Paulus Samosatenus held the Church of Antioche and gaue no place to Domnus whom the Councell excommunicating and deposing Paulus had decreed should take his place The Bishops in this case were driuen to seeke the aide of the heathen Emperour Aurelian at the suit of the Councell the Emperour commaunded that the Church of Antioche should be deliuered to him to whom the Church of Italie and the Bishop of Rome would write By this it appeareth that the Church had no Iurisdiction coactiue for when the Bishops of this Councell had proceeded as farre as they could by Ecclesiasticall censures against all which censures Paulus held the Church by force finding that without coactiue power Paulus could not be repressed and finding no such power in themselues they were forced to seeke the Emperours helpe acknowledging thereby that all coactiue power rested in the Emperor Moreouer by this we obserue the beginning of that practise which afterward drew the opinion of Iurisdiction after it For the Bishop of Rome had no authoritie then ouer other Bishops neither did he challenge any And when some fewe of that Sea did seeme to pretend some authoritie in matters of conformitie and ceremonies as Anicetus Victor and some few other they were quickly repressed by the Church were content to be ruled by the Church But because the heathen and persecuting Emperours were content for the glory of Italy to giue this honour to the Church there and especially to the Bishop of Rome that other Bishops should find fauour for his sake as appeareth euidently by this Story wherein it is recorded that the Bishops of that Councell had no meanes to helpe themselues but by the Emperour and the Emperour not regarding the cause onely to honour the Bishop of Rome referred the matter to him hence as reason was the Churches were compelled to make much of the Bishop of Rome and to seeke his fauour without which they sawe the heathen Emperours would not be drawen to doe them iustice 25. About this time Stephanus Bishop of Rome threatned likewise to Excommunicate some Bishops for rebaptising of heretickes but he was repressed by Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria Some also that were excommunicate in Africa came to Rome
to seeke the fauour of Cornelius who without examination of the cause receiued them to the Communion Of which thing Cyprian complaineth much they saile to Rome saith he cum merce mendaciorum Against this hee declareth that it was ordained that neither the Bishop of Rome nor any straunger should be iudge of the causes of their Church And to Cornelius he writeth thus Quum statutum sit ab omnibus aquum sit pariter ac iustum vt vniuscuiusque causa illic audiatur vbi est crimen admissum singulis pastoribus portio gregis sit ascripta quam regat vnusquisque gubernet c. Opoâ—…tet vtiqueâ—…os quibus praesumus non circumcursare episcoporum concordiam cohaerentem sua subdola fallaci temeritate collidere sed agere illic causam vbi accusatores habere testes sui criminis possunt That is Seeing it is decreed by all and it is a thing both equall and iust that euery mans cause should be heard there where the crime was committed and a part of the flocke is appointed to each Pastor which each in seuerall must rule and guide c Verily it behooueth that they whom we gouerne should not gad and run about to others nor by their crafty and fallatious rashnesse breake in sunder the coherent concord of Bishops but there ought they to plead their cause where they may haue accusers and witnesses of their crime 26. Thus albeit the Bishops of Rome did seeke some inlarging of their authoritie sometimes by giuing countenance and patronage to criminous and scandalous men yet they were repressed and brought into order by the godly and learned Bishops that then liued in the Church Who would not suffer the priuiledges of the Church to be lost or any title of Iurisdiction to grow where there was no right Thus for the first three hundred yeeres the Church of Rome had no Iurisdiction ouer other Churches but the Bishops there were reuerenced by other partly for their wisedome learning and godlinesse partly because the Emperours fauoured them aboue other and because they were Bishops of the chiefe citie and seat of the Empire For as they had some fauour aboue the rest with heathen Emperours so they found much more fauour from Christian Emperours which thing caused them to be regarded by other Bishops but no Iurisdiction was as yet acknowledged CHAP. V. Of the estate and Iurisdiction of the Church from the end of the first three hundred yeeres vntill the yeere of Christ sixe hundred Wherein is declared that coactiue power was in the Christian Emperors from whom the Church receiued some parts of coactiue Iurisdiction The Popes began to seeke Iurisdiction by forgerie NOwe let vs consider the times that followed when the Church had peace from persecution and found the fauour of Christian Emperours In which time no Iurisdiction will be found in the Church of Rome aboue other and all coactiue Iurisdiction was acknowledged without question to bee in the Christian Emperours from whom the Church receiued some part thereof 2. Constantine who did as much honour the Church and was as much honoured of the Church as euer any Christian Emperour leauing therein an example which standeth as yet alone without a match did notwithstanding take all that to himselfe which is now called Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction coactiue without any let or contradiction nay by the generall approbation of all that then liued When Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage was accused by Donatus and some other of that faction for deliuering the holy Scriptures to the enemies of Religion to be burned Constantine commaunded Caecilianus to come to Rome with a certaine number of Bishops which accused him and other that might heare and vnderstand the cause And commaunded the Bishop of Rome then Milciades with certaine Bishops of Fraunce to the number saith Optatus of nineteene to heare and end the matter the Bishops condemned Donaâ—…us who appealed from the sentence and albeit the Emperour was much offended at his appellation yet hee could not choose but receiue it In all this processe the Emperours Soueraigne Iurisdiction appeared the cause was a pretended crime of a Bishop the Emperour appointeth iudges and receiued the appellation which things declared Iurisdiction 3. Likewise after he had banished Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia and Theognis Bishop of Nice he wrote an Epistle to the people of Nicomedia declaring the iust causes of their banishment and signifieth that his especiall pleasure and desire is to haue Bishops castos orthodoâ—…os humanos and shutting vp his speech he saith Quoasi quis audacter inconsulteque ad memoriam pestium illarum exarserit illius statim audaeia ministri dei hoc est mea exequutione coercebitur Where we see Constantine vseth coactiue Iurisdiction ouer Bishops he punisheth them he declareth the true ground of his Iurisdiction from the word of God by which warrant he is placed the Minister of God This is that coactiue Iurisdiction ouer Ecclesiasticall persons which did alwayes belong to the Soueraigne Magistrate and was neuer by God giuen to any other 4. It was alwayes held by all sober writers of the Church of Rome as hereafter shall be further declared that in the Church there is no power aboue the power of a Councell And yet this authoritie of a Councell so much and so worthily reuerenced could not restraine Constantine but he vpon good and iust causes brought the rash proceedings of some Councels to a newe examination For when Athanasius was wronged by a Councell of Arians he complained to Constantine The Emperour sent for all the Bishops of that Councell to render an accompt of their proceedings before him which declareth that his Iurisdiction coactiue was aboue the power coactiue of the Councell For heere we consider onely Iurisdiction coactiue and not the matter or subiect for otherwise wee acknowledge as before is declared that the determinations of generall Councels are matters of an higher truth and authoritie then the Statutes or decrees of any Emperour But wee speake heere of that Soueraigne Iurisdiction coactiue which hath alwayes appeared in the power of the ciuill Magistrate and wherein the Church had no more part then that she receiued from the liberalitie of godly Emperours for as Kings receiue the knowledge of faith and Religion from the Church and not the Church from Kings so coactiue Iurisdiction the Church receiueth from Kings and not Kings from the Church 5. There was no Councell held in Constantines time whether of Orthodoxe or heretikes but either by the expresse commaundement or license of the Emperour Ruffinus saith he called the Councel of Nice at the request of the Bishops Ex sacer dotum sententia apud vrbem Nicaeam concilium Episcopale conuocat Epiphanius saith that Councell was obtained of the Emperour at the suit of Alexander Bishop of Alexandria So the Bishops who then liued in the Church held it to be of the Emperours right and Iurisdiction to call Councels
among many and the best in the Church of Rome he declareth to be thus Secâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ecclesiâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. de Vniuersitate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christi But according to another signification and that most truely and properly answering to the first imposition of this name the Church is called the Vniuersall company of all faithâ—…ull beleeuers which call vpon the name of Christ. Then the Church of Rome as the Pope is the Gouernour thereof was obserued to be but a particular Church and not the Catholicke Church which conteineth all Beleeuers 21. Occham hath also written another Booke Intituled Super potestate suâ—…i Pontifieis 〈◊〉 quoâ—… decisiones From whence I will obserue some things concerning our question of Iurisdiction disputing of that which the Friars and flatterers of Popes called 〈◊〉 potestatis he handleth it so that in the conclusion he putteth the Pope downe as low as the flatterers extolled him vp on high For thus he saith Principatui optimo repugnare videtur quod principans illam habeat plenitudinem potestatis c. Nam omnes subditi hâ—…benti talem plenitudinem sunt serui secundum strictissimam significationem vocabuli serui That is It seemeth to be vtterly against the nature of the best Gouernment that the Gouernour should haue this fulnes of power c. For all that are subiects to him that hath such fulnesse are his slaues according to the most strict vnderstanding of a bondslaue And because the Pope then began to flatter himselfe strangely and to swell with those words of pride that he was to iudge all men but no man might iudge him no man might accuse him Occham represseth this swelling vanitie thus Papa potest ab homine accusari destitâ—…i deponi omnis enim accusatio est coram iudice facienda Nec de hoc debet Papa perturbari ne contra doctrinam Christi Apostolis pro se propraelatis Ecclesiae traditam velit tanquam sal infatuatum mitti foras ab omnibus conculcari ne contra praeceptum eiusdem velit pro salute eius corporis mystici vt membrum putridum amputari ne desideret ipse potestatem qua se ex charitate correptum quamuis etiam Ecclesiam non audiret tanquam Ethnicus publicanus non siâ—…at se vt carnes putridas resecari vt ouem scabiosam repellendaâ—… â stabulis expurgandum vt fermentum quod totam massam corrumpit sed velit vt sibi parcatur vt vniuersa Ecclesia ad interitum perducatur Quae omnia à desiderio Papae qui aâ—…imam suam tenetur pro subditis ponere conuenit exulari That is The Pope may be accused forsaken deposed by a man for all accusation must be before the iudge Neither must this thing trouble the Pope otherwise he might sâ—…eme to make himselfe vnprofitable salt good for nothing but to be trod vnderfoot against the doctrine of Christ deliuered to his Apostles for themselues and for the Prelates of the Church and against the commaundement of Christ to be cut off like a rotten member for the preseruation of his mysticall body And so he might seeme to desire such a power by which being reprooued in charitie albeit like an heathen and Publican he should not heare the Chuâ—…ch yet he would not suffer himselfe to be cut of like dead flesh and like a scabbed sheepe to be driuen from the folds and to be purged like leauen that corrupteth the whole lumpe But he should by this seeke that for sparing him the whole Church might be brought to ruine All which ought to be farre from the Pope who ought to giue his life for his flocke Then this man foresaw and in some sort foretold all that mischiefe which fell vpon the Church by the Popes claime of this strange Iurisdiction which Iurisdiction if once it should be obtained by the Pope then hath Occham plainely foretolde that which since this time by too great experience we haue found that the Pope would hereby prooue vnsauery salt good for nothing but to be troden vnderfoot of men a rotten member cut off from the body of the true Church as rotten flesh to be cut off for the preseruation of the whole as a scabbed sheepe to bee kept from the fold as old leauen to be purged from corrupting and infecting the whole lumpe And that for sparing him the vniuersall Church must bee brought to desolation and ouerthrow All this William Occham foresaw all this we haue found by lamentable experience too true and all this followed vpon his intrusion into this Iurisdiction 22. Through this booke William Occham was driuen to carry himselfe cunningly for feare of the Popes greatnesse mouing many questions and doubts and reasoning after the manner of the schooles on both sides making no professed determination or conclusion but he leaueth such strength of reason on the one side and taketh away all obiections on the other side that any man may inferre the conclusion and vnderstand the reason why himselfe did not conclude For thus he saith in the end of that booke Haec breuâ—…er conferendo allegendo disputando sunt dicta non vt certa veritas in dubium reuocetur sed vt aliqua habeatur occasio c. Quid autem sentiam de praedictis non expressi quia hoc vt puto veritati non prodesset That is These things haue we said by conferring alleadging disputing not that a knowen truth should be called into question but to giue an occasion c. I haue not declared what mine opinion is of these things because as I take it that would not helpe the truth Another booke William Occham Intituleth Dialogus from whence I will cite onely one Sillogisme contained in few words but so strongly and soundly collected that it may make an end of all this controuersie his words are these Papa non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â Iurisdictione 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 iudicumquaâ—… fuerat Christus Apostoli sed Câ—…ristus 〈◊〉 fuerunt ab impâ—…ratore quantuÌ„ ad IurisdictioneÌ„ câ—…actiuam 〈◊〉 That is The Pope is no more exempt from the Iurisdiction of the Emperors other secular iudges then Christ his Apostles were but Christ his Apostles were iudged by the Emperor in respect of coactiue IurisdictioÌ„ therfore so the Pope ought to be iudged This Syllogisâ—…e to this day was neuer answered In respect of which sound and pithy handling of these things as Occhâ—… was surnamed Doctor inuincibilis in arguâ—…nto so the sense and iudgement of learned men was wholly for Occham Insomuch that Naucler witnesseth that this worthy William Occhâ—… threw downe all the Popes Temporall Dominion in the dust and carried the glory in all these disputations wherin many learned men followed him For he speaking of Daâ—…es that learned Florentine saith that this Dante 's also wrote a Booke De Monarchia wherein he prooueth that the Empire hath no