coÌ„mission of God to doe all thesâ— things The Suprem gouernour may practise any thing properly belonging to his gouernmeÌ„t It is not possible for a man 〈◊〉 haue the supreame gouernment in 〈◊〉 Ecclesiastical causes by lawful power aâ—â— right but that he should thereby haâ—â— also power and right to execute any 〈◊〉 those things which belong to such Ecclesiastical causes as are vnder his gâ—uernment Marck the point I say not he is bound to executâ— euery such matter as falleth vnder hâ—â— gouernment or that it is decent for hiâ— to doe it but that he may doe it anâ— hath right and power to doe it if he bâ— rightly the supream gouernour in thâ— behalf An exaÌ„ple in ciuil Matters For example the King who 〈◊〉 supream gouernour in the ciuil and teÌ„poral causes hath vnder him Iudges shriues maiors Capitains and constables If his maiesty will plaie the iudgâ— in Westminster hal or the shriue in any sessions or the Capitain in warre he surelie may doe it concerning the right â—f his Kingdome Yea he lacketh no â—ight nor lawfull power to play the Solâ—iour the Tailour the Mason Carâ—enter or Tanner albeit he perhappes doe lacke the cunning or experience â—o exercise or practise those Artes so as they ought to be practised Likewise an Archbisshoppe or Priuate who hath Bisshoppes An exaÌ„ple in Ecclesiastical matters Archedeacons Officials Priests and Clerks vnder him may by right of his Suâ—eriorie baptize anie childe blesse or geue benediction burie the dead approue their last wils by his own fact helpe a Priest to Masse cary the crosse in procession digge the graue and to be shorte he maie doe anie thing which anie man may doe who is vnder his iurisdiction If then the king haue the right and power of Supreme gouernement in al Ecclesiastical causes The applying of the rule to our purpose seing it belongeth to the right and power of Ecclesiastical causes that a man may preache baptize blesse or geue benedictioÌ„ to the people and administer the sacrament of Christes body and blood and binde or loose synnes it must needes be that the King euen by that his supreamicy should also haue power and right to preache to baptise to geue benediction to administer the sacrament of Christes supper and to binde or loose synnes A farther declaration I say not that he by his supremacie hath cunning either to preache or to baptize or to geue benediction or to administer the sacrament of Christes supper or to play the tailer or the mason but that no law right and power doth or can forbid him to doe these things if in these things he be the supreme gouernour so that if he otherwise had cunning he might with praise no lesse preache and baptise and geue benediction or administer the sacrament of Christes supper then he might build a howse with his own haÌ„ds or cutte a garment yf he were cuÌ„ning â—herein But now if all the world confesse 2. Para. 20 non est tui officij ô Rex sed sacerdotuÌ„ domini â—hat à King by his kinglie office doth â—ot only lack knowlege but also hath no â—ight or power at al to preache to bapâ—â—ze to geue benediction or to conseâ—rate the sacrament of Christes supper 〈◊〉 a although otherwise he be most cunâ—ing and excellently lerned except â—e haue the office of a priest also geuen â—im and be lawfullie sent and authoriâ—d by the imposition of the hand of â—riesthood doutlesse it ought to be conâ—essed 1. Tim. 4. that a King by his kinglie office â—ath no right or supreme power at all in â—cclesiastical causes vnlesse it be comâ—itted to him from the bisshop And â—hat as wel because he of him self can â—ot practise those causes though he wold as euen our aduersaries coÌ„fesse â—s also because his power be it neuer 〈◊〉 roial reacheth not so high as the â—ower of spiritual gouernmeÌ„t appointed by Christ doth And surely no man by the commission which he onely hath to rest or to prison men maie also hang them or burn them For the lesser authority doth not coÌ„prehend the greater Say now M. Horn whether to celebrate our Lords supper and to preache Gods word and to absolue or bind sins it be a lesser or a greater ministery theÌ„ the Kings authoritie If it be lesser you haue reason on your side For then a greater power may comprehend it being the lesser But if it be incomparablie greater to minister vnto men the heauenly Sacraments then to minister iustice in temporal things if that be a higher power which toucheth the soule then that which only toucheth the body then by what meanes extend you the commission of a King which hath to do with lesse maters not only to the commission of a Priest In the booke agâ—inst M. Feenâ—Ì„ but also aboue it You bring many examples euil applied to make an apparance of somewhat But they al concerne matters of fact which are for many circumstances subiect to much wrangling But either it was no good Prince who medled of his own authority with disposing holy matters Or if he were otherwise good that deed was not good Or if he did it wel he did it by coÌ„mission from a Prophet or froÌ„ a high Priest Or he was deceiued by flatterers Or els being forced by necessity which is vnder no law he only sought the publike peace in that his deed and not to set himself ordinarily aboue the spiritual gouernmeÌ„t For howsoeuer the deeds of men be vncertaine deceitful aÌ„d vnknowen in al their particular circuÌ„stances the word of God can not fail which saith to Peter and to other Bishops after him Feed my sheep Ioan. 21. Here I aske whether the King or Emperour who is christened be Peters sheep or no If he be not he is not only not aboue the Church but he is not at all of the Churche If he be his sheepe then I say boldly that as it is against the law of nature which neuer can be wholie changed for a shepe to rule his shepheard in anie manner of such sort wherein he is the shepheard euen so it is vtterly impossible for anie King or Prince to be in anie respect of Ecclesiastical gouernment aboue his own pastour who soeuer he be for the time And yet farther to make this matter more plaine be it that a Christian King doth take vpoÌ„ him the supreame gouernment in Ecclesiastical matters What if a bishop being called before him Epist 32. sequeÌ„t say boldlie as S. Ambrose in a like case did may it please your maiestie to coÌ„maund my goods my laÌ„ds my body my life it shal be at your coÌ„mandemeÌ„t But as for the ordering and gouerning of my bishoprike I will not yeld it to you because Christ and not your maiestie committed the same to me what could that Christian King doe to that bishop more theÌ„ Nero or Traian might haue done Could he excommunicate him by his roial power M.
not of that King who is also a bishop is greater then a bishoppes power which is spiriritual and heauenly What is this to say but onlie that the bodie is aboue the sowle the ciuill pollicy aboue the Church of Christ and the temporal reigne aboue the Kingdom of heauen This is a vehement marck to betraie our new brethern by For we speake not now of workes or maners that is to say whether a man loue the world more then God or whether a pope be more gredy of his temporal iurisdistion then of his spirituall dutie We speake not I say of these abuses lette him that hath them yea though he be a pope looke well to himself in that behalf but we speake of doctrine at this tyme. The Pope teacheth that euery spiritual pastour is of a higher dignity theÌ„ any temporal officer whatsoeuer he be And that because he is instituted of Christ for to help vs toward life euerlasting The Protestantes teache Ephes 4. that a Christian Emperour or Kinge is aboue all spiritual pastours in his own realm and may depose them by his own power which is the very doctrine of Antichrist For the Emperours and Kinges though they be Christians may not yet in spiritual matters rule the bishoppes and pastours of Gods people VVhat povver the ChristiaÌ„ pricÌ„e hath but onely they may with their teÌ„poral lawes and power defend the lawes and ordinances which the bisshops haue already made as Theodosius and al other good Emperours vsed to doe But if they wil vse their princelie power to change the old lawes of the Church or to make new lawes in spiritual matters which were not before made by the priests or to depose the auÌ„cient bishops who haue cure of their sowles then they are the members of Antichrist as great Athanasius hath at large declared in describing the heinouse factes of the Arrians in his tyme In epist ad Solitar vi tam agentes who reporteth that when Constantius the Emperour called Paulinus the Bishop of Treuers Lucifer the bishop of Sardinia Eusebius the bishop of Marcels and Dionysius the bishop of Millan before him willing them to subscribe against Athanasius because it was his pleasure and his procedings those blessed bishoppes exhorted him ne ecclesiastica corrumperet neue Romanum imperium ecclesiasticis constitutionibus immisceret that he should not corrupt Church matters and that he should not mingle the Roman Empire with the Ecclesiastical ordinances Here you see that the RomaÌ„ empire is discharged froÌ„ meddling with Church matters It is not onely saied Arrians or heretiks but it is said the Roman Empire ought not to mingle it selfe with Ecclesiasticall causes Euen a Bishoppe being an heretike is remoued from Churche matters but an Emperour is not onelie remoued from them if he be an hereticke but also because he is an Emperour onelie and not a Bisshop Onely this hath bene alwaies the custom that Emperors shuld be careful to maintaine the former coÌ„stitutions of Bisshoppes and the ciuil peace of the Church For they being Christians ought to vse the sword whiche they beare by Gods appointment for the Churche But the outward and ciuil peace aÌ„d the Ecclesiastical constitutions which towche the belefe and the inward direction of the sowle are two things much different Apud Athan. ibidem in so much that Pope Liberiê° said to the messinger of the same Emperour Constantius as Athanasius also doth witnesse after this sort If the Emperour will needes interpose his care for the Ecclesiasticall peace Ecclesiastical peace lette an Ecclesiasticall synode be made longè à palatio vbi nec Imperator praesto est nec Comes se ingerit nec iudex minatur Ecclesiastical synod caet Let the Ecclesiasticall meeting be made a great way of from the palaice where neither an Emperour is at hand nor a County thrusteth in himself nor a iudge threateneth but where the only feare of God and the institution of the Apostles is sufficient Thus he said not that an Emperour might in no case be at a Councel of bishops but because he might not be there to vse his Emperial authority in iudging the bishops or in prescribing what the Church shall decree or beleue but onely in maynteining that which the bishops according to the Apostolike institution either haue or shall agree vpon That Reuerend Father Hosius who after that he had suffered persecution for Christes faith vnder Maximian liued threescore yeres in the Churche being tempted by the same Constantius to subscribe againste Athanasius In epi ad Solitar vit ageÌ„t asketh first of him by letters whether his brother Constans the good and Catholik Emperour did vse to banish bishops or no and then whether ConstaÌ„s his brother aliquando iudicijs Ecclesiasticis intersuit was at any tyme a medler with the Ecclesiasticall iudgements Ibidem Last of all he saith to him Ne te misceas Ecclesiasticis neque nobis in hoc genere praecipe sed potius ea à nobis disce Tibi Deus imperiuÌ„ commisit nobis quae sunt Ecclesiae coÌ„credidit quemad modum qui tuum etiam imperium malignis oculis carpit contradicit ordinationi diuinae ita tu caue ne quae sunt Ecclesiae ad te trahens magno crimini obnoxius fias Date scriptum est quae sunt Caesaris Caesari quae Dei Deo neque igitur fas est nobis in terris imperiuÌ„ tenere neque tu thymiamatum sacroruÌ„ potestateÌ„ habes Imperator Doe thou not intermedle with Ecclesiastical matters neither do thou coÌ„mauÌ„d what we shal doe in this kind of matters but rather lern theÌ„ of vs. God hath committed the Empire vnto thee aÌ„d he hath put vs in trust with â—hose things which concern the Church and like as he that malignly â—arpeth thy Empire doth gainesay the â—rdinaunce of God so doe thow take â—hede lest in takiÌ„g vnto thee those things which beloÌ„g to the Church thow be made gilty of a great crime It is writen Math. 22. geue vnto Caesar those things which are Cesars and vnto God those things that are Gods Therfore it is neither lauful for vs to haue the rule of the Empire in earth neither hast thou ô Emperour any power ouer the holy incense and sacrifices Mark that it is rehersed for a praise in the Catholike Emperour Constans not to haue medled with Ecclesiastical iudgements Also Athanasius himself saith thus for his own part In epist vt antè Si istud est iudicium Episcoporum quid commune cum eo habet Imperator caet quando iudicium Ecclesiae authoritatem suam ab Imperatore cepit caet Paulus Apostolus habebat amicos in Caesaris familia per eos in literis salutabat Philippenses Philip. 4. non tamen eos in iudidicio socios assumpsit If this be the iudgemeÌ„t of bishops what hath the Emperor to doe with it aÌ„d coÌ„trarywise if these iudgements are gathered by the
and tHeir successours but also al kinde of primacie For â—he clergy must be altogether vnlike to â—he temporal gouernours To answere this obiection The ansvvere in very deede I doubt not but the end of that dominion which is practised among the gentils ought to be such that it should haue a special eye to thepreseruation of â—he common weale Gene. 10. NeÌ„roth But because at the first beginning Kings and Princes of â—he earth had not that end either only or specially before their eys but desired that dominion and practised it also because it was a pleasaunt and lordlike pleasure to be a prince and because the most part of Princes are prone to the worst therefore our sauiour Christ considering that which was first and which happeneth most oftentimes forbiddeth his Apostles and bisshops such a dominion and superiority as is vsed among the Princes of the earth and not altogeather such as ought to be among them Therefore it is not lawful for vs to desire any primacie for the primacies sake but for the traiuaile labour and end for which the primacie is ordeyned of Christ 1. Tim. 3. For he that desireth the office of a bishop desireth a good worck and not a vaine honour Againe albeit it be true that some wordly princes take the dominion and soueraintie vpon them for the profite of the common weale yet it is more that Christ requireth of his Apostles and Bisshops who are bound noâ— onely to see vnto the common weale but to the Christian common weale of which end no wordly princes could thincke when Christ spake those words because no Princes of the earth had receaued the faith of Christ at that time Wherefore that commaundement was specially geuen to the Apostles that they should direct their primacie and superioritie to the publick commoditie of faithfull men and to the saluation of their sowles to edifie withal 2. Cor. â— and not to destroye Farthermore albeit the King be faithfull and also vertuouse for his own person yet it is not the kinglie but the priestlie power which God chose from the beginning to rule his people withall Rom. 13. For although by his almightie goodnes he ordeined the Royal power and made the state of Kings to serue both his eternal purpose and also the coÌ„mon weale 1. Pet. 2. and willed euen the faithfull to obey them as being sent of God yet we reade not that the making of Kings ouer Gods owne people at the first came of God by the way of his mercifull grace and election but by the way of his angrie permission and iust iudgement Gen. 10. Hieron in quaest Hebrai in suffering thereby the paines of their great synnes to fall vpon them So NeÌ„rod that strong hunter the first King that we reade of either vsurped his kingdom by force or was auaunced to it by euil men without the graciouse appointement of God And when the people of Israël reiecting the gouernment of Samuel the priest 1. Reg. 8. wold nedes haue a King ouer them God accompted himself to be reiected of them doutlesse not because it was a synneful thing to haue a King but because it was a great dishonour to God who had appointed priests to gouern to haue his gouernment changed And it was lesse profit for their sowles to be ruled by a King then by a priest â— Reg. 8. For albeit a priest may be also naught as the sonnes of Samuel were yet he can neuer be so hurtful and slaunderouse to eternal saluation as the King may be partly because the state and as the world hath euer misiudged it the right and law of a King is to be secular and wordly In 1. Reg. lib. 4. c. 2. in so much that S. Gregorie said ea quae in iure regio continentur â—itanda potius quà m imitaÌ„da praedicuntur the things which are conâ—eined in the law that concerneth the Kings are foretold rather that they â—ay be auoided then folowed whereas â—he law and state of a priest is to be spirituall and godly and therefore it is â—lwaies a more perfit state and profession partly also because the making â—f a King had his beginning from the fact and consent of men working only according to the law of nations allowed in dede by God whereas the instiâ—uting of priestes came directly from God him self And who douteth but that it may be soner abused which men by good reason ordeined then that which God aboue al course of reason instituted by grace only In so much that the Iewes being prouided for by God himfelf of a spiritual gouernment did synne greuously and were forsaken of God concerning their act of choosing afterward a temporal King who shuld be aboue their high priest wherevpon Saint Gregorie saith In 1. Reg. lib. 4. c. 1. Meritò se abiectum Dominus conqueritur meritò regiam dignitatem concedit indignatus Tanta quidem erat iniquitas postulaÌ„tium vt cum illud peterent per quod à Deo recederent ex Dei iudicio permitti posset prohiberi non posset Our Lord did worthely lament himself to be abiected He being offended did iustly graunt the Royall dignitie â–ª so great was the iniquitie of the desirers that when they desired that whereby they should goe from God by the iudgement of God it might be permitted but prohibited it could not be But on the other side the first institution of Priests came not to Gods people by their own inuention but directly from God himself Genes 4. â— 22 to whome Abel Noë Abraham Aaron and his successours serued in that office by â—â—e gratiouse election of God vntill â—hrist fulfilling the figure of Melchiâ—â—dech instituted in his last supper â—â—e order of priesthood Lucae 22. according to â—he state of the new testament geâ—ing power to his Apostles to make â—nd by that meane to offer mystically â—is own body and blood witnessing â—hereby how much more he gaue them â—ll manner of necessarie or profitable â—ower ouer the Church his mystical â—odie For yf his priests be so great that â—hey haue taken power to make his â—wne body with their holy mowth as Saint Hierom speaketh shall â—ow any man disdaine Ad Euagrium to be vnder â—hat order which God hath so excelâ—ently honoured This much may be said for the whole order of priesthood But after that the Apostles were made Priests he ordeyned Saint Peter the general pastour anâ— high bishop of his whole flock and he did it with such protestation of loâ—â— and charitie that it must needes be coÌ„fessed euen by the despisers of Christe institutioÌ„ that there was neuer lightly any act don in this world by the sâ—â— of God with shewing of greater loâ—â— toward mankind then at what tyme hâ— himfelf in his own person appointed vâ— a pastour and shepheard Now this pastour being thus greater then the rest is not only primate iâ— a far other sort then the Kings of the vnfaithfull
nations but also in a fâ—â— more excellent kinde then the Christian Kings are For to what Christian King did Christ euer say Ioan. 20. As my father sent me I send thee Math. 16. or vpon this rock I will build miâ— Church Ioan. 21. or doest thow loue me more then these fede my shepe â–ª feede my lambs And yet is a King aboue priests â–ª yea aboue the high pastour of Christes flock he is so in dede with them who make lesse accompt of Christes heaueÌ„ly institution and Officer then of him that was first made either by the necessitie of wordly calamities to kepe away a greater euil from the common weale or els by the wanton and proud affection of earthly men ambitiously affecting tyrannical power Let no man thinck that I despise the authoritie of Kings God forbid but thei are a good thing brought in mercifully sumwhere to staye violent iniuries and robberies and other where permitted of God for our iust punishment 2. Cor. 5. and not any like thing to that diuine order of pastours which Christ ordeined purposely for our reconciliation to God the father and for the auoiding of al iust punishment otherwise deserued It was a King as Saint Gregorie In 1. Reg. lib. 4. c. 1 noteth who deuided the ten tribes from the Churche of God and made those by the iust punishment of God to be idolatours who so greedely preferred his gouernment before the gouerment of the priests And are not we now in the same case who for greedines to reiect the Vicar of Christ are come to preferre the secular and temporall power before the spirituall the body before the sowle and earth before heauen In 1. Reg. lib. 4. c. 1. Nonnulli saith Saint Gregory in tantum dementiae malum proficiunt vt commouere ipsum etiaÌ„ statum Ecclesiastici culminis non vereantur There are some who are come to so great madnes that they are not a feard to moue and trouble euen the state it self of the Ecclesiastical toppe or highest dignitie of the Churche And a little after His autem qui viuebant sub spiritali regimine Ibidem Regem petere quid aliud est quà m eandem spiritalem praelationem in seculaâ—m dominationem transferre geâ—re For those that did liue vnder the spiâ—â—tual gouernment to require a King â—hat other thyng is it then to goe aâ—out to transfer the same spiritual preâ—teship or gouernment into a tempoâ—al dominion Yf any man would deepely weigh with himself that God chose such a â—ecret and extraordinarie way to â—â—ue mankinde that no creature â—ould worck it beside his owne Almightie Sonne and that he comming â—nto the world was so farre from working his purpose by Kings and princes that whereas it was most easie for him to haue made manie Kings and Princes at the beginning to beleue in him 1. Cor. 1. he rather chose the weakest things of the world to confound the strong things and wrought the beginning and increase of his Church by the misbeliefe and persecâ—tion of princes if he would be thinâ— himself how farre the pouerty and hâ—militie of the Kingdome of heauen 〈◊〉 from the pompe and wordly distractiâ—â— of Kings Yea though thei be Christiaâ— and good also he wold much wondâ—â— what sense in holy matters thei haue who dare make that princely state sâ—preme head of the Church which of 〈◊〉 states came last to the faith and the pomp whereof is most contrary of aâ—â— other degrees to the profession of the same And yet what are they who persuade this matter The incoÌ„stancie of the protestants verely those who hauing iustly reproued some lewd and proud bishops for their wordly pompe afterward set vp Kings in the bishops places yea aboue them also as though any King had lesse wordly pompe then the bishops Yea they also doe it who protesting thei will beleue nothing but the expresse word of God yet beleue Kings to be the heads of the Church â—hich they not only can not find in â—ods word but thei rather finde there 1. Reg. â— â—at God was angrie when the â—ouernment of the highe priest â—as reiected and a kingly gouernment â—alled for Moreouer yf by this precept the â—ings of the nations haue domiâ—ion ouer them it shall not be so â—mong you not only all tyrannical or â—ordly power of life and death but also â—l spiritual primacie and superioritie be forbidden to the Apostles ouer the whole militant Church it is forbiddeÌ„â—ikewise that there should be any superiour in any one part of the Church For the parts accordiÌ„g to their degree are of the same nature whereof the whole is Therefore if the whole militant body may haue no one head much lesse any part thereof may haue a head If then no Apostle may be superiour or primate in any parte of the Church much lesse any other Christian maÌ„ wâ—â— is inferiour to an Apostle may be sâ—preme gouernour in any one part of thâ— same Church But euery King in thâ— behalf as he is a Christian is inferioâ—â— to the Apostles for he is both tawgâ—â— his faith of them Matth. 28 and baptized by them and in spiritual matters he must be guided by them therefore seing the King may not be supreame gouernour of any parte of Christes Church in that respect as he is a Christian maÌ„ if yet he shal be supreame head of his own Christian realme by any meane at all it must be by that power which he either had before his Christianity or beside it For by his christianity it is not possible that he shold haue any greater power then the Apostles had Ioan. 20 who were sent into the world with Christes authority If then a King be supreme gouernour of the Church where he is a King besides his christianity he is no otherwise supreame gouernour thereof then any Ethnik prince might haue beÌ„ And so it 〈◊〉 brought to passe by the doctrine of the â—rotestaÌ„ts that an infidel King hah suâ—reme power to visite to reforme to â—orrect and to depose any bishop â—ithin his own realm The which arâ—umeÌ„t wheÌ„ Antichrist or the great Turk shal make vnto the ProtestaÌ„ts â—hey must nedes yeld vnto it and grauÌ„t â—iÌ„ to be supreame head of their Church Be it so of their Church but the Caâ—holikes shal stil keepe them vnder the â—piritual gouernmeÌ„t of the bisshops and â—astours which Christ hath instituted To enter one degree farther in this matter let vs graunt that some King were so ê‘fit so poore in spirit so chast so liberal as euer any bishop or priest was required to be in Gods law VVhat things a King caÌ„ not doe caÌ„ he yet baptize caÌ„ he coÌ„secrate Christes body can he forgeue synnes can he preache can he excommunicate can he blesse the people can he iudge of doctrine by his kingly authority If he can not doe these things how can he be aboue theâ— coÌ„cerning these causes who haue receaued
Horn will not say so What is it theÌ„ which he could doe might he putte him in prison so might Nero and also the great Turk By this meane it appeareth that the King be he neuer so much christened hath yet no power ouer the Bisshops soule And yet al spiritual and ecclesiastical power towcheth the sowle Therefore the King hath no spiritual power ouer the bishop at all Epist 32. Si vel scripturarum seriem diuinarum vel vetera tempora retractemus quis est qui abnuat in causa in causa inquam fidei Episcopos solere de Imperatoribus non Imperatores de Episcopis iudicare If we call to mind either the processe of holy scriptures or the auncient tymes who can denie but that in a cause of faith in a cause I say of faith bishops are woÌ„t to iudge of Christian Emperours and not Emperours of Bisshops If then the King haue no Spirituall power ouer the Bisshop how shal he corect or depose the Bisshop according to any spiritual or ecclesiastical processe of iudgement Shall he cause a Synod of Bisshops to be gathered that therin he may depose the said disobedieÌ„t Bishop Put case the Synod find him not worthy to be deposed or els wil not depose the said Bisshop How caÌ„ the King come to exercise yet any spiritual power vpoÌ„ the Bisshop You wil say he shal constrain the Synod to depose him Wherewith I pray you By the spiritual sword or by the temporal Not by the spiritual for it was neuer committed to the king that whose sinnes he should retaine they should be retained If then he shal obteine his purpose by the temporal sword who seeth not that the last resolution of the kings power is vpon his temporal and secular iurisdictioÌ„ which he should haue had though he had not ben a Christian Therefore S. Augustine finding many â—imes great fault with the Donatists Homil. de pastor in Psalm cont part Donatist â—ecause they appealed froÌ„ the iudgement of Bishops to the Emperor â—alleth euen Constantin who was then 〈◊〉 christian Prince terraenuÌ„ regem an earthly king In epist 48 Datos sibi Episcopos â—udices apud terrenuÌ„ regeÌ„ accusaueruÌ„t They accused the Bisshops who were assigned to be their iudges before an earthly King For albeit he was a Christian yet his Kinglie power was earthlie in respect of that heauenly power which Christ brought with him and gaue to his Disciples What doe I stande about the woordes of menne A most plaine demonstration of the dignity of high priests aboue the dignitie of faithful princes euen in the sight of God is to be sene in the olde Testament Where God who is no parcial Iudge assigneth a sacrifice for the syn of euerie degree of men according to their dignitie euen at his own altar And first he beginneth with the highe priest Leuitici 4 Sacerdos saying Si Sacerdos qui vnctus est peccauerit delinquere faciens populum offeret pro peccato suo vitulum If the priest which is anoynted shall synne causing the people to synne he shall offer a calf for his synne The second degree is not the prince Turba oiÌ„s but the whole people Quôd si omnis turba filiorum Israel ignorauerint offeret pro peccato suo vitulum Yf the multitude of the childern of Israel do amisse by ignorance it shal offer a calf for his synne After these two degrees cometh in the Princes place Princeps Leuitic 4 si peccauerit princeps offeret hostiam coram Domino hircum etc. If the prince shall synne he shal offer a hee gote in sacrifice before the Lord. Behold the prince is not only in the third place both behind the highe priest and behinde the whole multitude but also his sacrifice is of lesse valew and of a baser conditioÌ„ theÌ„ theirs For a hee gote was not so honourable a sacrifice as a yong oxe or a calfe The fourth degree is Anima that if one of the common people synne he shal offer a shee gote Of this matter Philo writeth thus Decebat principem priuato homini praeferri vel in sacrificio De victimis sicut principi populuÌ„ quandoquidem totum est sua parte maius Pontificem verò aequiparari populo in expiatione impetrandáque peccatoruÌ„ venia Habetur tnÌ„ is honor pontifici non propter ipsum sed quia minister est populi publicè vota faciens soluenda totius gentis nomine It became the prince to be preferred before a priuate man euen in the sacrifice as also the people to be preferred before the prince because the whole is greater then the part But it became the bishop to be made equal with the people in purging and in obteyning pardon of his synnes Howbeit that honor is geueÌ„ to the bishop not for his own sake but because he is the minister of the people making his praiers or vowes publikely to be performed in the name of the whole nation Marke the comparison the prince is a minister of the people as wel as the bishop But because the bishop is a minister in holy matters he is preferred before the prince In Leuit. quaest 1. Theodoretus also writeth thereof Docet quanta fit sacerdotij dignitas quam vniuerso populo parem facit Principem autem qui praetergressus fuerit legem aliquam non vitulum sed hircum aut capruÌ„ anniculum offerre iubet tam procul abest à sacerdotali dignitate is cui corporeuÌ„ imperiuÌ„ coÌ„missum est God doth teach how great the dignity of priesthod is which dignity he made equal with the whole people But he coÌ„maundeth the prince that shall transgresse any lawe not to offer a calf but a he gote of one yeres age so farre is he to whom corporal power is committed behind the priestly dignitie If then the whole people be aboue the Prince as who are hable to chose and to make a Prince when one lacketh and yet the bishop be equal with the whole people and also be set before it in the order of the law as being made by God himself and not hable to be made by the people because they can not consecrate a bishop or geue him spiritual power what impudency is this to teache that a prince by his own right and power maie visit iudge correct and depose a bishop who is now well sene to be farre greater in the sight of God then the King himself Let this much suffise to shew that the Bishoplie or pastor all authoritie of the Church is not only distincted froÌ„ the tyrannical kingdome of the vnfaithful natioÌ„s but also from the moderate reigne of what so euer Kings though they be christened One thing now is brieflie to be touched that notwithstanding many Bishops be euil and vse not their Office wel yet they loose it not thereby but stil we are bound by Christes coÌ„maundemeÌ„t to do the things Math. 23 not which they doe but which they say
aboue al others is coÌ„fessed of al sides to haue ben the first aÌ„d chief in al assembles and meetings to whome by M. Iewels confession the prerogatiue of the first place did belong to directe and order Bisshops in their doings In his Replie 241. 242. Secondly because he onely sitteth in Saint Peters chaier and is his lawful successour Thirdly because the consent of the world hath taken it so aÌ„d so hath practised in deed for euer but euen by our Aduersaries confession froÌ„ the tyme of Pope Zosimus and Leo and so aboue a thousand yeares And although if I had no farther proufe this alone were neuer able to be auoided yet I haue so many other proufes that I am more troubled what to leaue vnsayed then I am to seeke what may be said I haue chosen to speak of that point speciallie whiche is of all other the moste hard For there is no greater obiection against Saint Peters Supremacie then to saye The obiection that all the Apostles vvere the same thinge which he vvas The same Rocke the same Pastour the same Confirmour of their brethern Whereby he may seeme to haue had no more then they had and consequentlie that all Bisshoppes are as good as the successour of S. Peter To which obiection if I should only answere The ansvvere by demaunding of the Protestantes in what Gospel or holy scripture it were writen that euery other Apostle was the same rock which S. Mathew testifieth S. Peter to haue bene seeing they haue bound themselues to beleue nothing which is not expreslie writen in the holy Scriptures Matth. 10 16. they were not able so to replie that their owne conscience might iustlie be quiet For if they brought me foorth S. Cyprian De vnit Eccles or S. Hierom it were sufficient for me to say that they were no Euangelists I shew it writen thou shalt be called Cephas and thou art Peter that is to say a rocke or of the qualitie of a rocke For as S. Hierom witnesseth Lib. 1. ad Gal. c. 2. that which the Greeks and Latins cal Petra the Hebrewes and Syrians cal Cephan Let them shew it writen where S. Mathew or S. Iohn is called such a Rock or is said to be of such a condition and qualitie that the Church shal be built vpon him How vnhappy are men now a daies that whereas they haue moste plaine scriptures in al pointes for the Catholike faith and none at al againste the same yet they pretend by the very scriptures to ouercomme the Catholikes And by the bare naming of Gods worde whiche they neither vnderstand nor loue they haue among pedlers won the spurs and amonge the ignorant haue gotteÌ„ the opinion of knouledge But seing there is an infinit treasure in Gods word to proue those things whereby the Catholike faith is fortified I wil take vpon me this one point for this time to shew by what meanes S. Peter exelled the other Apostles wherein I wil procede in this order It is certaine that S. Peter excelled the Apostles in some kind of honor and dignitie The Apostles had two kinds of dignitie The one proper to their Apostleship the other coÌ„mon with al Bishops How far S. Peter was aboue or equal with them in the Apostolike functioÌ„ That S. Peters great prerogatiue aboue the Apostles is most manifestlie knowen by his supremacie in the bishoplie power of gouerning the Churche of Christ That S. Peters bishoplie authoritie was an ordinarie power That it must continue in some one bisshop That it is the Bishop of Rome in whom S. Peters ordinarie power and supremacie resteth That S. Peter passeth far the other Apostles in some kinde of Ecclesiasticall dignitie The IX Chap. IF what soeuer authoritie any Apostle had concerning the gouernment of the Church S. Peter had the same and yet if besides he had verie manie things of greatest importance promised and geuen to him alone which no man els had it is out of all controuersie that S. Peter passed a great way the other Apostles in some kind of Ecclesiasticall dignitie Otherwise if he had no more authoritie then they or if his priuileges had bene only personal as the loue was which our Sauiour bore toward S. Iohn who laie vpon his brest at his last supper certeinlie S. Peter should either haue had nothing at all committed to him aboue and beside the reast of the Apostles Ioan. 13. or it should haue ben onlie some temporall priuilege and not any such function as had apperteined to the perpetual stablishment of Christes Church But now Matth. 10 for so much as he is not onelie first among the twelue but also he had the promise to be called Cephas or a Rocke Ioan 1. before the twelue were chosen and was really named Peter at the tyme of the choise Marc. 3. And for so much as although both S. Iohn Baptist had confessed Christes godhead before Ioan. 1. and Nathanael had said thou art the Son of God thou art the KiÌ„g of Israel yet only Peters confessioÌ„ being made long after was so highlie rewarded that Christ said to him alone thou art Peter Matth 16. and vpon this Rocke I will build my Church For so much as the keyes of the Kingdom of heauen are namely promised to Peter alone Matth. 16 And whereas the tribute of didrachma was due for the first begotten of euery familie Num. 3. Iosephus antiquit li. 13. c. 12 Chrysost in Matth. Hom. 59. Matth. 17 Yet Christ paid both for himself and for S. Peter also as being the vnderhead and first begotteÌ„ of his familie the Church And for so much as Christ although an other bote also were at hand yet he taught the people out of S. Peters bote to shew that in Peters chaire his doctrine shuld alwaies be stedily professed Luc. 5. Ambro. in 5. ca. Luc. And wheras al the Apostles were sure to be sifted of Sathan Lucae 22. yet the faith of Peter alone is praied for Leo serm 2. de â—at Petri Pauli that he being once conuerted might strenhgten his brethern And when word of Christes resurrectioÌ„ was sent to al the disciples for so much as Peter both entred first into the Sepulchre Luc. 24. and was not comprehended with the rest but was seuerallie named by himself Marci 16. whiles the Angel said tel his disciples and Peter In 24. ca. Lucae that he wil goe before you into Galilee and as S. Ambrose thincketh of men he was the first who saw Christ after his resurrection abeit some wemen had sene him before And whereas the other Apostles sailed in the sea within the cumpasse of a bote Ioan. 21. Bernard de consid lib. 2. yet S. Peter alone walked vpon the whole Sea without any particular bote betokenning that the whole world which is meant by the Sea was ordinarilie subiect vnto his iurisdictioÌ„ Farthermore for so much as some
can by his Kingly power iudge in the greater nor the priest who is the Kings superiour in the lesser can possibly but much more be his superiour in the greater The remouing of the obiection Or haue we diuerse Kinds of Ecclesiastical and of spiritual causes Be there neuer so manie the Act of parliament geueth the highest and the supreme gouernment of them all In al causes vnto the King And yet the King lacketh not onelie practise experience or cunning but also he lacketh spirituall and Ecclesiasticall power to heare confessions to absolue men from their synnes to inioyne penance to consecrate the Sacrament of the altar to Ordre bishops and priestes by the Imposition of hādes or to excommunicate open synners Here Master Iewel wolde say that he neuer meant the prince should be supreme gouernour either in administring or in frequenting or in directing others to frequent the holy mysteries or in any like sacramental functions Why then doth he and his fellowes sweare men The othe of the supremacy generally to acknowledge the secular Christian prince Supreme gouernour in all things and causes Why doth he not rather declame and speake with all his force against that most impiouse and blasphemouse othe Yea so impiouse that those Protestants who most earnestly pressed the setting foorth therof dare not now iustifie the foorm of it Shall men in a Christian realme be sworen vpon the holy Euangelistes to keepe beleue or acknowledge that which noman at all no not they who procured it dare mainteine See good Countrie men see the discretiō of your parlaments in matters of Religion A men aliue abhorre from that act which the Laity made and enacted as a form so warely drawen wherevnto men might commit their euerlasting saluation or damnation Mark I say that M. Nowel M. Horn M. Iewel dare not warrant the King to be suprem gouernour in al Ecclesiastical causes But rather they confesse that a Bisshop or Priest may and ought to gouerne the King concerning his comming to the Mysteries and in such like matters This much being said cōcerning Philippus the first Christian Emperour who obeyed but gouerned not the Bisshop in Ecclesiastical matters let vs now goe forward An. Dom. 324. Constantinus the Great perceiuing the Bisshops which came to the Synod at Nice to haue many quarels and sutes among them selues appoynted a day wherein euery man should offer his complaint in writing and when he had takē al their libels without disclosing the contents of them Ruffinus lib. 10. Eccles histor cap. 2. he said vnto the bishops Deus vos constituit Sacerdotes potestatē vobis dedit de nobis quoque iudicandi ideo nos a vobis rectè iudicamur vos autē nō potestis ab hominibus iudicari propter quod Dei solius inter vos expectate iudicium God hath made you priests or Sacrificers and hath geuen you power to iudge of vs also And therefore we are rightly iudged of you But yee can not be iudged of men For which cause expect yee or tary for the iudgemēt of God alone among you This discourse of Constantine conteineth three thinges worthie to be noted First he saith the bishoppes are Sacerdotes Priestes or men that haue publik authority to make externall sacrifice vnto God for the whole Heb. 5. peples synnes Secondly he saieth that they haue power to iudge euen of the Emperour himself And this their power of iudging dependeth of their power of priesthod For the highest power may iudge the lower But no power can be higher then the power of a priest because he is the minister of God in that office which most directly toucheth Gods honour and seruice Malac. 1. Wherupon S. Augustin hauing said what was Moyses if he were not a priest In Psal 98 geueth this reason of his words Nūquid maior Sacerdote esse poterat Whether could he be greater then a priest as who should say seing Moyses was the greatest officer amōg the Israelits and yet he could not be greater then a priest it must nedes be that he was a priest The priestes then of God being the greatest officers in earth haue power to iudge euen of an Emperour if any be in their parishes or Dioceses Thirdly of these former points Cōstātine deduceth an other conclusion that priestes can not be iudged of mē How then can they be iudged of the Emperour Neither doth it skill that Constantine seemeth to haue iudged certaine priests or Ecclesiastical causes when the Donatists appealed vnto hī for he did it as S. Augustine saieth à sanctis antistitibus postea veniam petiturus In epistol 162. as one that would afterward aske leaue or pardon of the holy bisshops Who asketh leaue or pardon for that which he may doe by his owne power He did it then through the importunat sute of heretickes for the peace of the Church otherwise detesting them that demaunded his iudgement after that the bishoppes had iudged Optat. li 2 August in epist 162. and finding great fault therewith himself as Optatus and S. Augustine also doe witnesse But take away importunity of heretikes and the commission leaue or pardon of the right bishoppes who may for diuerse respectes either committe certain Ecclesiasticall causes to lay mē or winck for a tyme at such iudgemēts take away I say heresie and permission and ordinarily it is against the law of God that any secular Prince who needeth the office of a priest for his reconciliation vnto God should sitte iudge vpon him in causes of the Churche 2. Cor. 5. at whose handes he must receaue the Sacramentes of the Churche and by whose ministery his soule must be purged Now if one priest doe iudge an other that is Gods iudgement Deut. 17. Num. 3 and not the iudgement of men For God hath sette one priest ouer an other as the high priestes was aboue the Leuites in Moyses lawe and as the Apostles wereof a higher degree then the seuenty Disciples or then the seuen Deacons These woordes then of Constantine vos non potestis ab hominibus iudicari Ruffin li. 1. cap. 2. yee ô priestes of God can not be iudged of men are thus meant the order of priesthood is such as is not subiect to anie secular or earthly iurisdiction And seing all the power of iudgement which euen Christian Emperours or Kinges haue by their own state is earthly and secular it wil follow that no King or Emperour can by his owne power iudge a priest in priestlie causes and in Ecclesiasticall matters That all the power of Emperours though they be Christians is secular Constantine himself pronounceth saying to the Donatists as Optatus recordeth Petitis á me in seculo iudicium De schism Donatist lib. 1. cùm ego ipse Christi iudiciū expectem Yee aske of me iudgement in the world whereas I my self looke for Christes iudgement There are then two iudgements one in the world an other
etiam vestrae innotescat sanctitati Caput quae caput est omnium sanctarum EcclesiaruÌ„ Neither doe we suffer anie thing that doth apperteine to the state of the Churches how manifest aÌ„d vndoubted so euer it be which is called in question but the same is also notified to your holines The Pope is head of all holie Churches who is the head of al holy Churches If the Pope be head of al holy Churches and therfore be made priuie to all ordinances aÌ„d lawes which apperteine to the state of Churches it must needes follow that the Church wherof a King or Emperour shal be suprem head is no holy Church but a profane Synagog aÌ„d a malignaÌ„t congregation such as those of the Arrians Donatists and Pelagians were who obeyed not the Bisshop of Rome nor suche bisshops as were of his fellowship Vvho vvas the supreme head of the Heretikes but either Iulianus the Renegate or Valens or the Kings of the Gothes and of the Vandals as the Histories of the Church doe witnesse Here the order and place requireth that I should declare also how Phocas the Emperour An. Dom. 609. in the time of Pope Bonifacius the third pronounced the See of Rome head of al churches but the Protestants not able to deny the storie sai that now first the See of Rome began to be accoÌ„pted the head of al Churches A false assertion Which thiÌ„g shal appere as true as the rest of their doctrine is For S. Gregorie being before Bonifacius An. Dom. 607. Lib. 11. epist 54. saith of the See of Rome Apostolica sedes omnium ecclesiarum caput est The Apostolike See is Head of all Churches Before him also the Bishop of Patara An. 538. being a Grecian said of Syluerius the Pope Ille Papa est super Ecclesiam muÌ„di totius He is Pope ouer the Church of the whole world An. 534. IustiniaÌ„ writing to Ioannes the Pope as I alleged before calleth his holines caput omnium Ecclesiarum Head of al Churches An. 486. Eugenius the Bishop of Carthage being an African had said before Iustinians time as Victor writeth Romana ecclesia caput eÌ„ omniuÌ„ ecclesiaruÌ„ Lib. 2. de persecut Vandal The Roman Churche is the head of all Churches Yea Prosper had writeÌ„ before Eugenius Sedes Roma Petri An. 460. De ingratis quae pastoralis honoris facta caput muÌ„do Rome the See of Peter which is made vnto the world An. 446. In natiuit Petri Paull the head of pastoral honour Leo the great being elder theÌ„ Prosper preached thus Roma per sacraÌ„ B. Petri sedeÌ„ caput orbis effecta Rome by the holy seat of Peter is made the head of the world â–ª and again ê‘quos vniuersalis ecclesiae cura ad vnaÌ„ b. Petri sedeÌ„ coÌ„fluit Ad Anastas ep 82 By whoÌ„ the cure of the vniuersal church floweth to the one See of Peter that nothiÌ„g might at any time dissent from his head Now the fourth general CouÌ„cel An. 456. albeit it was not elder in yeres then Leo yet coÌ„sisting of 630. Bisshops gathered out of the whol world it is worthy to be harkened vnto of al the ChristiaÌ„ flock as of most auÌ„cient and perelesse authoritie This great Councel making relatioÌ„ to Pope Leo of such things as had bene done there Act. 3. Sancta magna c. writeth to him Tu quidem sicut membris caput praeeras Thou wast ouer vs as the head is ouer his meÌ„bers And wheras the Church is coÌ„pared to a vineyard Isai 5. they there coÌ„fesse that vnto Pope Leo vineae custodia à Saluatore commissa est The keping of the vineyeard is committed of our Sauiour Note here gentle Readers that this famouse great and learned Councell referreth the matter to our Sauiour and not vnto Phocas or to any mortal man The keeping of the vineyard is committed to the Pope of Rome by our Sauiour himself An. D. 426 Lib. 12. in Ioan. c. 64 If we shal goe yet higher when Cyrillus confesseth S. Peter to haue ben caput Apostolorum the head of the Apostles doth he not confesse the successors of S. Peter who are the Bishops of Rome to be much more the heads of the successours of the Apostles which al bishops are Shall we goe from Cyrillus to S. Ambrose An. D. 308 who writing vpon S. Pauls epistle to Timothe In c. 3. 1. epistol ad Timoth. calleth Damasus the bisshop of Rome the ruler or gouernour of that Church in his tyme which Church is named of S. Paul the howse of God the pillour of truthe meaning that Pope Damasus was gouernour of the whole Militant Church and not only of any one parish or Diocese And what other thing is it to be a teÌ„poral ruler of Gods whole Church Tripar li. 4. c. 15. but to be the temporal head thereof Saith not Sozomenus that pope Iulius curaÌ„ gessit omniuÌ„ propter sedis propriae dignitatem He toke the cure of all for the worthinesse of his own See where al is comprised what can be excepted Optatus An. D 370 Lib. 2. de schism Donatist who proueth S. Peter to haue beÌ„ head because he was called of Christ Cephas a rock for the rock or foundation is that vnto the house which the head is to the body doth thereby refer the primacie of S. Peter and of his successours to Christ him selfe An. 300. If I shal goe now to the Councel of 300. Bisshops held at Sinuessa where although Marcellinus had confessed him selfe to haue done Idolatrie yet all the Bisshops answered Prima sedes non iudicabitur à quoquam Tom. 1. Concil the first See shal be iudged of no man wil it not therby appere that the See of Rome beig the first See was not preferred to that honor by any mortal maÌ„ otherwise he that had pÌ„ferred it might also haue iudged it but was made head of al churches by him who said to S. Peter vpon this rock I wil build my Churche Matt. 16. It is not therefore Phocas but Iesus Christ who making S. Peter the temporal fouÌ„dation and head Pastor of the church made the Bisshop of Rome his successour as I haue declared before Let vs now goe forward with other good Emperours aÌ„d KiÌ„gs shewing that not Phocas alone but others also after hiÌ„ honoured the See Apostolike as the highest power in the church of God ConstaÌ„tinus the fourth being a most Catholike Prince Beda de sex aetat mundi procured the sixth general Councel to be called aÌ„d therin coÌ„fessed himself to haue woÌ„dred at the relation of Pope Agatho as if it had beÌ„ the voice of Peter Act. 18. Synod 6. The same Emperor in the time of Benedictus the second Pope of that name decreed An 688. Platina in vita Benedict 2 vt deinceps queÌ„ clerus populus exercitusque Romanus in PontificeÌ„ delegisset
euÌ„deÌ„ statim verum Christi vicariuÌ„ esse omnes credereÌ„t That froÌ„ thence forward whom the Clergy people and the Roman armie should chose to be bishop all men should straight beleue him to be the true vicare of Christ The true VicareÌ„ of Christ He saith not the Vicare of Phocas or the Lieutenant of the Emperor but the Vicar and LieutenaÌ„t of Christ It was then the publicke faith not onlie in the Latine but also in the Greeke church that who so was duely chosen Bisshop of Rome was Christes own Vicare An. Dom. 749. Yf the whole nobilitie and people of Fraunce had not beleued the Pope of Rome to be of such authorie for what purpose would they haue sent to Rome to know the mind of Pope Zacharias who should be King of Fraunce whether Chilpericus Paenè nullius potestatis who hadde the bare name thereof without exercising any kingly power in maner or the greate Stuard Maior domus who exercised the publik office and power of the King without the name In Chron. The Pope answered as Ado testifieth Regem potius illum debere vocari qui rempublicam regeret That he rather should be called the King who ruled the common weal. VpoÌ„ which answere Pipinus was anointed King autoritate Apostolica FraÌ„ corum electione saith Sigebertus by the Apostolike authoritie In Chron. An. Dom. 750. and by the election of the Frenche men Neither may this so great credite whiche the whole people and Nobilitie of France reposed in the See Apostolike be righly imputed to the sentence of Phocas who before that had declared the See of Rome to be head of al Churches For euen after this election of King Pipinus the first Emperour of the French men or rather of the Germans for the French men came out of Germanie Carolus Magnus protesting his reuerence to the See Apostolike sheweth the cause why he honoureth it to be the Chaire of S. Peter and not the iudgement of Phocas His wordes are these In memoriam beati Petri Apostoli honoremus sanctam Romanam ecclesiaÌ„ ApostolicaÌ„ sedeÌ„ An. Dom. 806. 19. distiÌ„ct vt quae nobis sacerdotalis mater est dignitatis ecclesiasticae esse debeat magistra rationis Quare seruaÌ„da est cuÌ„ mansuetudine humilitas et licet vix fereÌ„duÌ„ ab illa sancta sede imponatur iugum tamen feramê° pia deuotione toleremus Let vs honor the holy Church of Rome and the See Apostolike for the remeÌ„brance of blessed Peter the Apostle The see of Rome is the mother of priestly Vvorship that as the same See is to vs the mother of priestlie dignitie so it may be the teacher of the Ecclesiasticall trade Wherefore humility is to be kept with meekenes And although a yoke be putte vppon vs from the same holy See which is scant to be born yet lette vs beare and suffer it with godly deuotion Thus we see that Carolus honoured the See of Rome not for Phocas but for S. Peters sake Ludouicus who for his singular vertue and godlines was surnamed Pius hauing ben triatorouslie ordered by Adalgisus the Duke of Beneuentum Regino in Chron. An. 872. who went about to kill him in his palaice and being afterward forced to sweare that he wold not reuenge that iniury was so far from taking himselfe to be the supreme head ouer the Bisshop of Rome that rather he was content to take absolution from his oth of Iohn the pope Authoritate Dei Sancti Petri by the authority not of Phocas but of God and of Saint Peter I woulde goe forward to shew at large the obedience of all good Emperours and Kings to the See Apostolik euen till this day but that it shoulde be accompted a superfluouse labour sith as I suppose no man doth doubt of it And verilie concerning our own countrie as aboue fourtene hundred yeres past An. D. 188 Lucius the first Christian King of the Britans did send to Eleutherius the Bisshop of Rome to receaue from thence by his authority the ordinary meane of administring the Sacraments for him and his realm eueÌ„ so Ethelbert the first Christian King of the English Saxons toke his faith and the gouernment of the Church from the See of Rome S. Gregorie being theÌ„ Pope by our Apostle S. Augustine An. D. 630 And the good King Osui of NorthumberluÌ„d Bedae lib. histo Angli 3. c. 29 and Ecbert the King of Kent vnderstaÌ„ding that the RomaÌ„ Church esset catholica Apostolica Ecclesia was the Catholik and the Apostolike Church sent Wichardus with the consent of al the faithfull of England to Rome that hauing ther takeÌ„ the degré of an Archbishop he might ordein bisshops to all the Catholike Churches through Britannie From that day forward it is euident by al our Chronicles which at the least were made before that schism and heresie began that as euery King not only of EnglaÌ„d but of all Christian CouÌ„tries was best aÌ„d most geueÌ„ to godlines and to vertue so was he most obedient and frindful to the bishop of Rome And coÌ„trariewise as euery of them was most licentious most geuen to extorsion to tyrannie or to robling of Churches so was he most disobedient to the See of Rome So that as all the heathen Emperours froÌ„ Nero to the Renegat Iulianus did alwaies persecute the Apostolike See of Rome and as afterward al the heretical Emperours did the same as wel those of CoÌ„stantinople as of the West so contrarywise all the good Constantines the Theodosians the MartiaÌ„s Carolus Ludouicus Otho and their good successours did so little thiÌ„ck themselues the supream heads ouer the bishops of Rome and of the other Christians in spiritual causes that contrarie wise they obeied them as their chiefe pastours and as the Vicars of Christ aÌ„d the successours of S. Peter And that they did not only being a part euery man in his own Realm but also when that most famouse battell against the Turkes and Saracens was by the inspiration of the holy Ghost begun at one tyme by the Spaniards Sigebertus in Chron. Anno Do. 1096. Gascons Britans Normans English Scotish and Frenchmen by the Burgundions Almains Lumbards and Italians when diuerse Dukes as Godfrid of Lorrain and Baiamund of Apulia wheÌ„ diuerse Erles as Baldwin of MoÌ„s one Robert of Flanders and an other of Normandy StepheÌ„ of Blese and Raimund when Hugh the brother of Philip the King of Fraunce toke that most holy warfare in hand when I say they were stirred vppe with one spirit and hart to recouer the holy land did not they shew as wel their own belief as the vniuersal faith of al their countries and nations in that they had Hamarus the bishop of Podium sette ouer them Apostolica authoritate by the Apostolike authoritie And how marueilouse successe of victory had they conquering as well Antioche as Hierusalem It can be vnknowen to no man who readeth
cap. 7. which thing Caluin accompted a beastlie matter Againe at Geneua his doctrine is decaied For wheras he beleued that Christes soule went downe into hell euen to the place where the soules are tormented in euerlasting fire In 2. Act. Apostol Beza so much misliketh him therein that he wil haue Christes soule to goe no lower then into the graue The which opinion the Englishe translation of the Actes of the Apostles made at Geneua doth embrace And concerning his opinion of the Sacramēt that I may omit how vehementlie Flacius Illyricus hath shaken it already in his bokes against Beza it can not long stande because the common sorte can not vnderstande it And worthelie for that whiche is not true is not able to be vnderstanded and his doctrine is altogeather grounded vppon imagination without any assurāce of God words To be short if the Anabaptists shall not by a worse heresie oppresse the glory of Caluins doctrine or if all other meanes to destroy it should faile at the lest by this one way it is sure to perish For as the Marcionists the Manichees the Arrians the Nestoriās the Eutychians the Monothelites the Pelagians the Donatists the Imagebreakers were at the last all wrapped in Apostasie and infidelity and were swalowed vppe by the Moores the Saracens and the Turcks euen so is it most certaine that if the Caluinists do scape other destructions they shal perish in the end either being made infidels or being conquered of others But in the meane tyme how safe stādeth the See Apostolik How many hundred yeres hath it dured alwaies like to it selfe How vnremoueable is that rock How doth the doctrine therof florish more and more euery daie Truth which is the dawghter of tyme hath now made many hereticks to confesse that they thought so much could neuer haue ben said for the Apostolike See of Rome as now they finde In so much that if al these things which are now reuealed had ben knowen before thowsands of them would neuer haue gonne that way But now either shame or slewth or couetousnes or feare of wordly princes or the hard profession of the Catholikes or desperation causeth them to stoppe their eyes and their eares lest perhaps they might see the truthe and be conuerted Ioan. 1◠Yet God to shew his almighty power doth daily reuoke some to his true Church both in Germannie and Fraunce and I beseche him to doe the like in our countrie of England also The fifth marck of an Antichristian THe fifth marck wherby to know the forerūners of Antichrist is if any man preache Gods Word without commission rom his superiours For such a one runneth before he be sent and cometh of himself as Antichrist shall doe Rom. 10. For how shall they preach saith S. Paul except they be sent Now as Christ the head preacher of all was sent of his Father visiblie in flesh so he visiblie sent his Apostles Ioan. 20. 2. Tim. 4. and they by imposition of hands sent others to preache And their successours frō age to age haue sent others in the Catholike Churche euen till this day So that all Catholike preachers are hable to reduce their commlssion from step to step vntil they come to Christ himself But seing Luther Zuinglius and Caluin rebelled against their own bisshops who are the successours of the Apostles and seing they were not sent of any in all the world who had a knowen and publike authority from the Apostles of Christ it must nedes follow that they came of themselues and were not lawfully sent at all As for temporall magistrates who are onely sheepe and which can not preache themselues can much lesse send others to preache For no man can send an other to doe that which him self is not able to do Ioan. 13. sith no Apostle or Legat is greater then he that sent him And yet it was not possible for any temporal magistrate or any common weale to send Luther to preache because they who should haue sent him were by his iudgement misbeleuers vntil he had conuerted them to a new faith And so when he had first preached his doctrine he was sent of no mā in all the world but came of himself ād therefore was an Antichrist Ioan. 5. who cōmeth in his own name as Christ hath tawght It is well knowen also that Luther would not send Zuinglius to preache against himself Neither would Zuinglius send Caluin to deface his own doctrine And consequently euery one of these is a false preacher who cometh not from Christ nor from his Apostles or their successours as the Pope doth who succedeth lineally S. Peter as it is knowen The sixth marck of an Antichristian THe sixth marke whereby to know this broode of Antichrist may be in that Antichrist himself being alltogether carnal shall prefer the temporal reign or sword before the spiritual A certaine signe wherof this is because he shall constraine men with force of armes not only to kepe their former faith for that were lawful for hī who is a true officer of God but also to take a new faith which thing no mā would doe except he were of this minde that mens consciences ought to yeld to his violent force And in dede when his master the diuel said to Christ Math. 4. If thou fal down and adore me I wil geue thee all these things shewing al the kingdōs of the world he declared himself to be of this minde to pluck the seruice dew to God to himself and to make vs prefer the kingdoms of the world before the faith of Christ And therefore Antichrist who is ruled by the deuill shall putte confidence also in an earthlie Kingdome And as Saint Paule saieth he shall come in virtute that is to say 2. Thess 2 in power and strength Whereunto it is very agreable that his preachers also doe preferre the iurisdiction of temporall princes Note In Horn against M. Fecknam aboue the iurisdiction of the spirituall ministers of Christ teaching that Kings are the supreame gouernours of Christes Churche And that secular princes may visite correct reforme and depose any bishop in their owne realmes Which is directly to say that the power of the Kinge is a higher and a greater power in Gods Church then the power of a bishop or of a pastour For as the lawiers know and natural reason teacheth Lege 3. 4. de Arbitris nec par in parem potestatē habet nec inferior in superiorem Neither any aequal hath power vpon his equal nor any inferiour hath power vpon his superiour But say the Protestants the temporal King may depose a bishop and yet that he can not doe iustly except he may first sitte iudge vppon a bishop euen as he is a bishop and sitte iudge ouer him as he is a bishop he can not except he he be his superiour therefore it is the protestants doctrine that a Kings temporal power for we speake
Apostoke Priesthood or Bisshoplie power is made greater by the chiefe Castell or Fortresse of Religion then by the Throne of Imperiall power In anuiuersa assumpt serm 2. Leo the Greate hauing saied that in Saint Peters Seat his own power liueth his authoritie excelleth in an other place sheweth himselfe to haue bene the successour of S. Peter and therefore to be the president of the Churche For thus he writeth to Iulianus the Bisshop epist 30. Memor sum me sub illius nomine Ecclesiae praesidere cuius à Domino Iesu Christo est glorificata confessio cuius fides omnes haereses destruit I am mindfull that I am Praesident of the Churche vnder his name Matth. 16 whose confession was made gloriouse of our Lorde Iesus Christe in epist 82. 87. and whose faith destroieth al heresies It were infinite to bring all that Leo saith in this behalfe Eulogius the Patriarche of Alexandria wrote to S. Gregorie after this sense Lib. 6. ep 37. as S. Gregory himself doth report it Suauissima mihi sanctitas vestra multa in epistolis suis de sancti Petri Apostolorum principis Cathedra locuta est dicens quòd ipse in ea nunc vsque in suis successoribus sedeat Your most swete Holinesse hath said manie things in his letters concerning the chair of S. Peter the prince of the Apostles saying that S. Peter himself sitteth it it euen til this present tyme in his successours And S. Gregory with great humility acknowlegeth it to be true affirming in an other place that Lib. 11. Ep. 54. the Apostolike See is head of all Churches For the honour of our country I wil not omit the testimony of S. Bede who in a sermon made vpon the Feast of a certain Abbate of England named Benedictus In Natali Benedicti inter homilias hyemales de Sanctis affirmeth him to haue gon to Rome vt ibi potius perfectā viuendi formam sumeret vbi per summos Christi Apostolos totius Ecclesiae caput eminet eximium That he might there rather take the perfit example of liuing where the excellēt head of the whole Churche doth appere aboue the reast through the highest Apostles of Christ Whereas much more may be alleaged yet these few testimonies may suffise to proue that the bishop of Rome is the Successour of S. Peter in his most principal and chiefe pastoral office And surely if we may be deceaued in any point of the faith which is so wel groūded in Gods word so vniformly cōfessed by the holy Fathers and so notoriously practised in the Catholike Churche as the Supremacy of S. Peter and of his successours in the See of Rome is I can not deuise when a man may be sure of any article of his faith But if there be a meane whereby a man may be sure of his belefe surely that meane whatsoeuer it be shall wel appeare to be found in the prouf of the supremacy of S. Peter and of his successours That the good Christian Emperours and Princes did neuer thinke them selues to be the Suprem Heads of the Churh in Spiritual causes but gaue that honour to Bisshops and Priests and most speciallie to the See of Rome for S. Peters sake as wel before as after the time of Phocas The XVI chap. An D. 246 PHilippus who was the first Christian Emperour did so litle think him selfe to haue bene the Heade of the Bisshoppes in Spirituall causes throughout his Dominion that wheras on Easter daie he would haue bene at the Vigils and holy watches and would haue communicated of the holy Mysteries the Bisshope of the place would not lette him doe it Nisi consiteretur peccata sua except he hadde first confessed his sinnes and stood amōg them that did penance and so by penance had washed awaie the faults which were reported of him Ferunt igitur libenter eum saith Eusebius quod à sacerdote imperatum fuerat suscepisse eccles histor lib. 6. c. 25. apud Ruffinum diuinum sibi inesse metum fidem religionis plenissimam rebus atque operibus comprobando They saie therefore that he toke gladly that whiche was inioyned to him of the Priest Imperatū making faith by the things and workes that the feare of God and most full persuasion of Religion was in him Is he chief in al causes who in some must obey the Priest the priest vvas aboue the Emperor in Ecclesiastical causes Or can he that is supreme gouernour in all things and causes Ecclesiastical haue an other aboue him in puttng him back from the mysteries and in enioyning him publik penaunce and in constreining him to confesse his sinnes Or is the comming to the Mysteries no cause Ecclesiastical or Spiritual Or is not the Bisshoppe or Priest who in this cause gouerneth the Emperour the Superiour and gouernour of the Emperour in the same cause Or is it not a kind of gouerning to command him to stand back to threaten him if he repine to punish him if he be stubborne Yea how to punish him to come to him in a rod as S. Paule speaketh that is to say 1. Cor. 4. in power and authoritie to beate or to correct And is not he a gouernour who may iustly beate the child If then in prescribing confessiō satisfaction and abstinence from communion the priest be the gouernour of the king I ask whether al other Ecclesiastical causes be greater or lesse then these are Note an infallible argument against your Antichristian supremacy The one parte of the Dilēma M. Nowel If other Ecclesiasticall causes be greater then these were surely the Emperour or king who is gouerned by a priest in the lesser Ecclesiasticall causes and therefore can not be supreme head in them is much more to be gouerned by a priest in the greater causes of the same kind And therefore he is much lesse supreme head in them For if when one thing standeth aboue an other I am to low to reache the lower much more I am to low to reache a higher then the other was But if other Ecclesiastical causes be lesser then the suspending from communion the other part or the inioyning of publike penance then the bishop or priest who is the gouernour of the Emperour or King in the greatest Ecclesiastical causes is much more his gouernour in the lesser Ecclesiasticall causes Because the lesser are of the same order kind and kinred whereof the greater are As therefore he that is supreme head in the greatest temporall causes as in iudging ouer life and death A similitude is much more supreme head in the lesser temporall causes as in iudging ouer lands or goods and as he that is not of sufficient authority to be supreme ruler in sitting iudge vppon mens lands or goods can much lesse sitte iudge ouer their liues by anie his former authoritie euen so neither the King who can gouern in the lesser causes