rectores Kings and secular Governors S. Augustine also saith that hereby is taught Ecclesiam Christi in omnibus sanctis ejus servituram esse sub Regibus seculi That the Church of Christ in all his Saints Lib. 2. dist 44. must serve under the Kings of this world The M. of the Sentences likewise saith that the Apostle speaketh of Princes and such like Aquinas also doth interprete them Aquinas in â—â—lle locum to be Potestates terrenas carnales Dominos Terrestriall powers and temporall Governors Aug contr epist Parmen li. 1. c. 7 S. Augustine againe in another place yet more fully declareth the same What credit then is to be given to mine Adversarie when contrarie to the testimonie of all these and contrarie also to the testimonie of the Rhemists and contrarie also to the cleare evidence of the Text it selfe he saith That in these higher Powers is no more included the Temporall then the Spirituall Powers Yea S. Chrysostome also yet further sheweth that Apostles Prophets Evangelists and such like Ecclesiasticall Ministers are to be reckoned in the number of those Soules that are to bee subject to the higher powers and therefore can none of them no not the Bishop of Rome himselfe be comprised or intended under the name of the higher Powers there mentioned Chrysost in Rom homiâ— 23. S. Chrysostomes wordes be these Let everie Soule be subject to the higher Powers Yea though you be an Apostle though an Evangelist though a Prophet Sive quisquis tandem fueris c. Or whosoever you be My Adversarie is so captious as that because in my former Booke pag. 2. cap. 1. there is an c. after these wordes in Latin Quisquis tandem fueris hee would make his Reader beleeve that there is some abstruse meaning in that Enigmaticall â—â—â—se as he calleth it which if I would unfold would declare how little it made for my purpose But why doth not himselfe unfold that aenigma Is it because Davus est non Oedipus For if himselfe had read the place in Chrysostome as it seemeth he did not he might easily have unfolded the aenigma discovered the fallacy or deceit if any had lyen inclosed or hidden in it But my selfe did indeed sufficiently unfold it in the verie same place pag. 2. where after that c. I added out of Chrysostome that which I meant by that c. namely these words Neque enim pietateÌ„ subvertit ista subjectio For neyther doth this subjection overthrow pietie or godlinesse The whole clause and sentence then that being also added which was intended by the c. is this viz. Let everie Soule be subject to the Higher powers Yea though you be an Apostle though an Evangelist though a Prophet or vvhosoever you be For neyther doth this subjection overthrow pietie or godlinesse Now he hath it wholy intirely unfolded What can he make of it eyther to advantage himselfe or to disadvantage mee Yea this unfolding expressing of it rather maketh for me because it directly affirmeth that this subjection of Apostles Prophets Evangelists all other Ministers Ecclesiasticall To these Higher powers standeth well with Christian Religion and doth no way subvert or overthrow any part of pietie or godlinesse Wherefore S. Chrysostome saith there yet further that Omnibus ista praecipiuntur Sacerdotibus quoque aâ— Monachis non solum secularibus These things be commanded to all even to the Priests also and to Monckes and not to secular-men onely I likewise alledged in that first Chapter of my Booke pag. 2. 3. Theodoret Theodoret. Theophil Oecumenius in Rom 13. Beâ—â—ar Epist 42 Greg. Epist. li. 2 Epist. 62. 65. Paris 1605. Theophilaâ—â— Oecumenius Aeneas Silvius Gregory and Bernard who all declare aswell as Chrysostome that even Bishops Priests and Cleargie-men and not Secular or Lay-men onely be in the number of those Soules that are to be subject to these higher Powers In somuch that Aeneas Silvius Aeneâ—â— Silvius lib. 1 de Geâ—â—â— Basil Concil who was himselfe sometime a Pope of Rome affirmeth that S. Paul saith Omnis anima potestatibus subli mioribus subdita fit nec excipit animam Papae Let everie Soule be subject to the higher Powers Neyther saith he doth S. Paul here except the soule of the Pope himselfe but that he also ought to be subject And for further proofe hereof Ortat contr Parmen lib 3. I alledged also the testimonie of Optatus who saith that super Imperatorem non est nisi solus Deus qui fecit Imperatorem Above the Emperor is not any but God onely that made the Emperor I cited also the testimonie of Tertullian Tertul ad Sâ—apul cap. 2. writing thus Colimus Imperatorem ut hominem à Deo secundum solo Deo minorem We Christians doe honour the Emperor as the man next unto God inferior onely unto God Agreeably whereunto he saith againe of the Emperors Ters Apolog. cap. â—0 that they be under the power of God onely à quo sunt secundi post quem primi from whom they be the second after whom they be the first And pag. 30. I alledged the testimonie Chrysost ad popul Antioch homil 2. once more of S. Chrysostome who saith of the Christian Emperor in his time that Non habet parem super terram He hath no peere or equall upon earth Yea he saith further of him that hee was Summitas caput omnium super terras hominum The head and one that had the supremacie over all men upon earth To all which my Adversarie according to his wonted wise and learned manner of answering thought it best to answere nothing Thus farre then have I proved against him that by the higher powers in this Text of S. Paul be meant Emperors Kings Princes such like temporall Magistrates and that by everie Soule in this Text which is to be subject to the higher Powers is meant all manner of persons whatsoever Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill and Temporall and consequently that the Bishop of Rome was then clearely subject to the Emperor of Rome and so ought still to have continued But my Adversary at last granteth That Bishops Priests and Cleargie-men be subject to the King and to his Lawes but with this distinction namely according to the directive power of them but not according to the coactive And this distinction he learned Bellar. de Clericis cap 28. not onely of Suarez but of Bellarmine also For thus likewise writeth Bellarmine Non sunt amplius Reges Clericorum superiores proinde non tenentur Iure divino nec humano eis parere nisi quantuÌ„ ad leges directivas Kings are not any longer Soveraignes or superiors to Cleargie-men and therefore are they not bound to obey them by Gods Law or Mans law unlesse it be in respect of lawes directive What Bellarmine meaneth by lawes directive himselfe declareth when he saith That Princes have no coactive
power over the Cleargie-men but onely power directive This distinction was not knowne in the Apostolicke Primitive and ancient Church nor so long as the Bishops of Rome were subject to the Emperors but when the Bishops of Rome contrarie to all lawes both humane and divine had trayterously and wickedly subdued the Emperors and that it could be said of Emperors and Kings as Bellarmine speaketh that Non sunt amplius ClericoruÌ„ superiores They are no longer Soveraignes or superiors to Cleargie-men Then did this distinction arise or grow that the Kings might have a directive power but no coactive power over theÌ„ that is might direct them to what was good but might not compell theÌ„ to it And so faith also mine Adversarie that coactive power imposeth penalties Now this distinction is easily answered and confuted yea he might have perceaved it in my former Booke pag. 7.8.9.10 to have beene sufficiently answered and confuted For besides other proofes Aug lib. 1 in fine contr Epist Parmen it is there shewed by diverse testimonies out of S. Augustine himselfe against the Donatists That Kings and Princes may not onely direct or command but may also by Lawes penalties and punishments compell their Subjects and consequently Cleargie-men asvvell as others to obedience in that vvhich is good and godly Yea it is the proper and peculiar right of Kings and Princes externally to use a power coactive by reason of the sword committed to them from God which Ecclesiasticall Ministers by vertue of their Ecclesiasticall calling and office cannot doe And seeing Parents have a power coactive over their children and Masters in a familie over their servants verie strange it were if Kings should not be allowed to have a power coactive over their subjects But it is indeede verie well knowne that the Christian Emperors in ancient time did use a power coactive even over Cleargie-men aswell as over others inflicting penalties and punishments upon them As for example Constantine that Christian Emperor exiled and banished Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia Theoderes lib. 1. cap. 20. and Theognius Bishop of Nice and hee saith further That if any man whether Bishop or other were offended at that his banishing of them and would grow malepart thereupon Illius statim audacia Ministri Dei hoc est mea executione coercebitur His boldnesse shall forthwith be repressed by the execution of Gods minister that is of my selfe Another Constantine also by whose Imperiall Authoritie the sixt Councell at Constantinople was held in a Decree inserted in that Councell Synod 6. Act. 18 Conc. edit â—in to â— pag. 92. saith Siquidem Episcopus est vel Clericus vel Monachico circundatus habitu deportationis paenam exsolvet If he be a Bishop or a Clearke or a Moncke let him be punished with deportation or banishment Charle-Mayne also in a French Synode Tom 2. Concil decreed imprisonment Si ordinatus Presbiter fuerit duos annos in carcere permaneat Aug. lib. 1. in fine contr epist. Par. S. Augustine againe declareth that there was a Law Imperiall against those that professed themselves Christians and true Catholickes and yet were not so but kept private Conventicles 〈◊〉 that he that ordayned a Clearke for that purpose or the Clearke so ordained should loose ten pounds of gold and the place also where such Conventicles were kept should be forfeyted to the Emperor You see then for the refelling and overthrowe of that foolish and false distinction that the Christian Emperors had power coactive over Bishops and Cleargie-men punishing them sometime with deportation exile or banishment sometime with imprisonment and sometime with penalties and losses of summes of money and other forfeytures And upon some kinde of offendors you may read that they inflicted the punishment of death And indeede to what end hath the King this Regall and Temporall Authoritie jurisdiction the power coactive in his hands by reason of the Sword committed to him from God if hee may not use it and put it in execution Yea my Adversarie himselfe confesseth and saith that Iurisdictio nullius videretur esse momenti si coertionem aliquam non haberet Iurisdiction might seeme to be of no regard if it had not some coertion or power coactive joyned with it Againe he saith Cui jurisdictio data est ea quoque concessa intelliguntur sine quibus jurisdictio expleri non potest To whom jurisdiction is given all those things be also understood to be granted without which that jurisdiction cannot be performed Wherefore even by those Maximes which himselfe citeth and approveth it is manifest that seeing the King hath a power jurisdiction and Authoritie to direct command Cleargie-men he hath also a power coercitive or coactive over them to compell correct and punish them if otherwise they will not obey those his directions and commandements So that my Adversarie needed to have no better confuter of this his idle distinction then himselfe But pag. 5. in that first Chapter of my former Booke I alledged that Text of Rom. 13. to prove also the Kings Authoritie in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill or Temporall And indeede this Text serveth also verie sufficiently for that purpose For as there is here no exception of any person so is there also no exception of anie cause or matter but whosoever doth evill be it in what kinde of cause soever he is here made subject to this sword and Temporall Authoritie of Emperors Kings and Princes For the Text saith That they are the ordinance of God and the Ministers of God attending employed and constituted to this verie end and purpose for the prayse countenancing and encouraging of the good and wel-doers and for discountenancing Aug. Epist 50. discouraging and punishing of the bad and such as be evill-doers And therefore doth S. Augustine say that Quicunque legibus Imperatorum quae pro Dei veritate fâ—runtur obtemperare non vult grande acquirit supplicium Whosoever will not obey the Lawes of the Emperor which are made for the trueth of God doth purchase to himselfe a great punishment Aug. Epist 166. For saith he in another place Hoc jubent Imperatores quod jubet Christus quia cum jubent bonum per illos non jubet nisi Christus The Emperors command that which Christ also commandeth because when they command that which is good it is Christ himselfe that commandeth by them Aug de Civit. Dei lib. 5. cap. 24 Yea S. Agustine was so farre from this point of Poperie to denie or disallow the Authoritie of Emperors Kings and Princes in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning Religion as that he doth evermore teach and defend it whensoever there was occasion to speake of it in somuch that he saith Imperatores foelices dicimus si suam potestatem ad Dei cultum maxime dilatandum c. We affirme the Emperors to be happie if they extend their Authoritie the most they can to doe service unto God in
and confuting the imagination and devise of his owne braine For the affirmative clause in the Oath is not as he imperfectly and lamely relateth it but it is this That the King is the onely Supreme Governor of this Realme and of all other his Highnesse Dominions and Countries aswell in all Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall things or causes as Temporall The negative clause followeth and is this That no forraine Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction power superioritie preheminence or authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme This word Onely in the affirmative clause hath he left out which if he had added together with all the rest of the wordes that follow in that affirmative clause he would very easily have found that to be true which I wrote namely that the effect of the negative clause is included in the former affirmative For he that affirmeth the King to be the onely Supreme Governor within his owne Dominions that in all things or causes Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall aswell as temporall doth in that speech exclude every forraine Prince person Prelate State or Potentate from having any supreme governement or any government at all without his leave and licence within his Dominions Yea it is very evident that the former affirmative clause includeth the negative clause and more For the negative clause excludeth forrain Princes persons Prelates States Potētates only from Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall Authoritie but the former affirmative excludeth them from authoritie in all things or causes both temporall spirituall Againe you see that the negative clause extendeth onely to forraine persons but the affirmative clause extendeth to any persons whosoever whether forraine or domesticall Thirdly the negative clause excludeth forraine persons from having any jurisdiction power superioritie preheminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or spirituall within this Realme But the former affirmative clause extendeth not only to this Realme or that Realme in particular but generally to all his Majesties Realms Dominiōs Countries So that the former affirmative clause in the Oath appeareth to be much more generall and of a farre larger extent then the negative is And therefore I hope I spake truely and within compasse when I said though in a parenthesis that the effect of the negative clause was included in the former affirmative I did not say as mine Adversarie supposeth me to hold that the Regall power includeth the Sacerdotall or Episcopall This is but his owne dreame imagination in the confutation whereof he laboureth in vaine For neyther I nor any of the Protestants doe hold that opinion but contrariewise doe hold them to be things distinct as is before declared But because he will needes carpe at my Logicke when he hath no cause let other men judge what a great Logician he is whilst he argueth thus The Regall power includeth not the Sacerdotall Ergo the affirmative clause in the Oath of SUPREMACIE includeth not the negative clause in the same Oath Hitherto then you see that my Adversarie notwithstanding all his storishes braggs and bravadoes hath shewed himselfe to be not onely a punie Lawyer as he confesseth himselfe to be but a punie Logician also most of all a punie Divine and that he hath not beene able to make any good Answere or to refell and confute any one Argument contayned in this first Chapter of my former Booke concerning the Supremacie and yet hath he also left a great part of that Chapter unanswered Neyther hath he made throughout his whole discourse and pleading so much as one good argument to prove his Clients cause that is the Popes supremacie though he purposed and laboured to doe it Where is it not a mervaile that he being a Lawyer and a Subject to our Soveraigne Lord the KING will date neverthelesse admitte of such a Client as the Pope is and of his cause which he knoweth before hand to be condemned by the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme and which he now may see if hee saw it not before to be also condemned by the Lawes and Statutes of God himselfe and by all the most ancient Ecclesiasticall Records But if hee be not ashamed of such a Client and his cause his Client I suppose will be ashamed of him and entertaine him no longer to pleade for him unlesse he could doe it better And yet indeede when his Clients cause is foule naught as here it appeareth to be what Lawyer be he never so learned or what Divine be hee never so profound is able to justifie it or to make it good Notwithstanding his demurrer therefore and notwithstanding that by this his plea his purpose was to arrest and stay mens judgements I trust they will all now no cause appearing to the contrarie proceede without any further delay to give their sentence against his Client for in the behalfe of these two most worthy Peerles Princes who be the complaynants against him namely for Christ IESVS in their acknowledging and publishing him onely to be the onely universall Bishop supreme Pastor and head of the whole Church Militant upon Earth aswell as of the Triumphant in Heaven and for the King in declaring and publishing him under God to be the onely Supreme Governor over all manner of persons and in all kinde of causes aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill within his Dominions Neyther doe I doubt but all mens judgements whensoever upon good and well advised deliberation they shall please to give them will passe accordingly In the meane time let us goe one to the second Chapter see if he have any better successe in that then he hath found in the former Concerning the second Chapter IN this second Chapter of my former Booke my Adversarie supposeth that my maine scope and purpose was to prove our Church that is the Church of the Protestants to have beene in the Apostles times But never was there saith he poore Assertion so miserably mangled And true it is indeede that it is miserably mangled and cut in pieces But by whom namely by himselfe For my Assertion is not so short as he relateth it nor is to end where he maketh it to end but is of a longer and larger extent and being produced not by parts or pieces but wholy and intirely as it ought it is this viz. That our Church was in the Apostles dayes and in all times and ages since howsoever or notwitstanding that Poperie did as an infection or corruption grow unto it the meaning true sence whereof is no more but that the growing of Poperie it being but as an infection or corruption to the Church is no impediment or argument to the contrarie but that our Church had a being in the Apostles dayes and in all succeeding times and ages that notwithstanding This will the better appeare if you take the whole Proposition or assertion and turne it into a Question For then the Question will not be as mine Adversary maketh it viz.
other words that follow namely In omni pietate c Take all the words of S. Paul together and they be these I exhort saith he that first of all supplications prayers intercessions 1. Tim. 2.1.2 and giving of thankes be made for all men for Kings and all that are in authoritie that we may leade a quiet and peaceable life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all godlinesse and honestie By which words so put together it appeareth That S. Paul would have Christians to pray thus specially for Kings and Princes not onely to this end which my Adversary supposeth viz. for the mantainance and preservation of externall peace and correspondencie of humane societie but to this end also and that chiefely that Pietie Godlinesse and Religion may by their meanes be continued countenanced and protected amongst them And this had the Christian Emperors learned in ancient time For Iustinian that Christian Emperor in his dayes Novel Const. 6. spake thus The true Religion of God and honest conversation of the Priests is our chiefest care Legum Theod. Noâ—â—el tit 3. de Inâ—aeâ—â— Samaritaine And in this sort likewise spake Valentinian and Theodosius Emperors saying The search of true Religion we finde to be the chiefest care of the Imperiall Majestie And therefore also did S. Augustine say long agone That it is enjoyned Kings from God Aug. contr Crescun lib. 3 cap â—1 that in their kingdomes they should commaund good things and forbid evill things not onely such things as belong to humane societie but such things also as belong to Gods Religion This cleare and most evident testimonie of S. Augustine to declare the authoritie of Kings aswell in matters Divine and concerning Religion as in matters Civill Temporall I alledged in the first Chapter of my former Booke pag. 10. whereunto neverthelesse as to many other things in my booke contayned My Adversarie is pleased to answere nothing The second Position he busieth himselfe in is that the Regall Power or authoritie is subordinate to the Sâ—cerdotall or Spirituall It is true that Kings Princes notwithstanding their Regall power be subordinate and subject to God and his authoritie But what of this Indeede if Ecclesiasticall Ministers spake to Kings and Princes in their owne names and by their owne authoritie and uttered their owne will and pleasure there might be some reason in that which he would conclude but seeing they are to speake unto them not their owne will but the will and word of the Almightie and in his Name and as Embassadors Ministers Messengers and servants unto him no such consequent can be inferred 2. Cor 5 20. 1 Cor. 4 1.2 For if a King send an Esquier or any other inferior servant of his on a message to a Duke Earle or other Noble-man of the Realme This servant speaking in the King his Masters name and delivering his message is therein to be obeyed Will any thereupon conclude Ergo That Esquier or servant is greater or superior as in respect of himselfe or of his owne person then eyther the Duke or the Earle or the Noble-man No man I thinke will be so absurd And yet my Adversarie goeth on and amplifieth the Sacerdotall and spirituall power saying That how much the Soule in perfection exceedes the Bodie The eternall blisse the temporall felicitie The Divine Lawes the humane lawes By somuch doth the Spirituall authoritie exceede the Temporall But all this while he should remember and observe wherein and in what respects it is that this excellencie of the one above the other doth consist For as it is true that in respect of converting soules and fitting them for Gods kingdome by preaching of Gods Word Administring of the Sacraments and exercise of the Ecclesiasticall Discipline the Spirituall function and authoritie is to be preferred before the Regall or temporall So no lesse true is it that in respect of the temporall Power of the Sword externally to command compell and to punish offendors in causes both Ecclesiasticall and Civill the Regall Temporall Office and Authoritie is to be preferred before the Episcopall or Sacerdotall When therefore he supposeth that the King or Prince in respect of the Priest is but as the bodie is in respect of the Soule and that hee hath no more power and authoritie over Priests and Bishoppes then the bodie hath over the Soule How doth he prove this fond conceite For it is not the credite or testimonie of his S. Thomas as he calleth him who lived more then 1200. yeares after CHSIST and was overwhelmed with the corruption of his time and wedded to the Sea of Rome that can bee any sufficient proofe of that idle fantazie Yea it is apparant that to some purposes the Regall Power Office hath in it the nature and resemblance of the soule aswell as the Sacerdotall or Episcopall hath to some other purposes For as the soule commandeth the bodie so hath the King power to command the Priest and may by as good right punish all maner of offendors Civilly and by temporall punishments as Bishops and Clergie men may punish any Ecclesiastically and by the Church censures To make this the better to appeare beside that which is spoken in my former Booke observe first that Moses who was as a King or a Prince in Israell commanded not only the Levites Deut. 33.5 Deut. 31 2â—.26 which bare the Arke of the Covenant of the Lord and that in a matter Ecclesiasticall and concerning their very Office but he commanded also even Aaron the high Priest in a matter likewise Ecclesiasticall and concerning his verie Office saying thus unto him Take the Censer Numb 16 46.4â— and put fire therein off the Altar and put therein Incense and goe quickely unto the Congregation make an Attonement for them For there is wrath gone out from the Lord the plague is begun Then Aaron tooke as Moses commanded him c. He Exod. 32.21 2â— moreover called Aaron the high Priest to an account for his bad doings and removed him for the same Whereupon Aaron answered humbly and submissively unto him as to his Soveraigne Lord saying Let not the wrath of my Lord waxe fierce c. Numb 12.11 In like sort did Aaron speake unto Moses in another place saying My Lord I beseech thee c. 1. Sam. 22.12.15 So did also Abimelech the high Priest answere to his king submissively and dutifully saying thus unto him Here am I my Lord c. Let not the King impute any thing to his servant nor to all the house of my Father for thy servant knew nothing of all this lesse or more The Prophets likewise as well as the Priests and high Priests did acknowledge this humble submission and subjection unto their kings as is evident by the example of the Prophet Nathan who when he came into the presence of the King 1. King 1 23. c. he made obeysance to the king upon his face to the ground
courtesie in the Pope as Gratian most ungratiously would perswade but a matter of bounden duetie Ibidem Cap. Petrus and without all dissembling and seriously meant and intended by him in such manner and sort as he by those his words plainely declareth And consequently you now perceive verie fully I hope that for the space of eight hundred yeares and more after CHRIST the Bishops of Rome were subject to the Emperors and that the Christian Emperors also had Authoritie in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill within their Empyres But here now doe some Papists take exception and answere as touching Salomon his displacing of Abiathar the high Priest and putting Sadoc in his place that Salomon did this as he was a Prophet not as hee was a King But first this is but a meere supposition and conceit not found warranted in the Text. Yea the untruth of it may appeare if you please but to reade the Chapter For the offence which Abiathar 1. King 2.22.23.24 25.26.27.28 29 c. the high Priest had committed was High Treason in joyning with Adoniah against King Salomon for the kingdome Ioah also was in the same Treason and Conspiracie The King therefore caused Adoniah to be put to death he caused also Ioab to be put to death touching Abiathar the high Priest hee was also as worthy of death as the rest although for some causes and respects he was spared for that time Thou art worthie of death 1. King 2 26.27 saith the King but I will not this day kill thee because thou barest the Arke of the Lord God before David my Father and because thou hast suffered in all wherein my Father hath beene afflicted So Salomon cast out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord. And the King put Benaiah in the roome of Ioab over the Hoste and the King set Sadoc the priest Vers 35. in the roome of Abiathar In which words you see that Salomon doing these things is not styled or called by the name of a Prophet but expressely by the name of a King thereby signifying and declaring that what Salomon did touching the removing of Abiathar and putting Sadoc in his place he did it as a King aswell as when he put Benaiah in the place of Ioab Secondly you see that the offence which Abiathar had committed was treason and that therefore he deserved to die aswell as Adoniah or Ioab or any other of the conspirators But yet for the reasons and respects before mentioned hee would not then put him to death though he had deserved it but was content in lieu thereof for that time to inflict this punishment upon him to have him removed from his Priest-hood Now to deale in cases of Treason and to be a Iudge of matters concerning life and death and to award execution of death or in mercie to mitigate and alter the severitie of that punishment and in lieu thereof to have a milder or not so severe a punishment as death to be inflicted be things not properly belonging to the office of a Prophet but to the office of a King they doe rightly and properly enough belong And therefore what Salomon did herein it is evident that he did it as a King not as a Prophet And consequently it still remayneth firme and sure even by this example of King Salomon as also by other examples mentioned in my former Booke whereto my adversarie is still pleased to answere nothing that Kings as Kings have power to place Bishops and againe to displace them when there is cause and to put others in their roome And as touching Moses some Papists doe also answere that he was a Priest the high Priest Bellar. de verb. Dei lib 3. cap. 4â— for so saith Bellarmine and therefore that Aaron performed that reverence obedience and subjection to him that hee did as being high Priest My Adversarie likewise saith the same that God Almightie made Moses an high Priest and citeth for proofe of it Num. 27. but there is no such thing written in that Chapter nor in any other Chapter of the whole Bible beside Deut. 33.5 I reade that Moses was as a King or Prince in Israell but I no where reade throughout the whole Booke of God that God constituted Moses to be the high Priest yea it is well knowne that in Moses time Aaron was the high Priest what necessitie then was there for Moses also to be an high Priest But that Moses was no Priest properly so called much lesse an high Priest is thus made manifest For if Moses were a Priest it must be eyther before the consecration of Aaron or after But after the consecration of Aaron and his Sonnes to the Priest-hood it is cleare that not Moses but Aaron and his Sonnes were the Priests as having the Priest-hood appointed and specially given unto them by Gods owne direction Thou saith God to Moses Numb 3.10 shalt appoint Aaron and his Sonnes to execute their Priests offices and the stranger that commeth here shall be slaine So that none but Aaron and those that were of his seede might execute the Priests office For which cause Moses neyther did not durst execute the Priests office Num. 16.46.47 but commanded Aaron to burne Incense and to make an attonement for the people Wherefore it is very apparant that after the consecration of Aaron Moses was not a Priest And that Moses was also no Priest before the consecration of Aaron is likewise very evident because before that time the priest-hood was annexed to the birth-right and did belong to the first borne in whose place the Levites afterward came Numb 3.12.41.45 Lyra in Num. 3.12 Ibidem and were appointed So saiâ—h Lyra reporting the received judgements of the best interpreters that Ante legem datam ad Primogenitos pertinebat offerre sacrificia Before the Law given it belonged to the first-borne to offer sacrifices Againe hee saith expressely that Levitae successerunt loco eorum The Levites succeded in their place And againe he saith Lyra. in Gen. 14. Sacerdotium fuit annexum Primogeniturae usque ad legem dataÌ„ per Mosem The Priest-hood was annexed to the first borne untill the Law given by Moses Now of these two brothers Moses Aaron the Sonnes of Amram it is manifest that not Moses but Aaron was the eldest and first borne For we reade in Num. 33. Num. 33.39 That Aaron was one hunded twentie and three yeares old when he died But Moses outliving Aaron Deut. 34.7 was but one hundred and twentie yeares old when he died So that Aaron appeareth questionlesse and undoubtedly to be the elder brother and the first borne and consequently even by the right of Primogeniture did the Priest-hood belong to Aaron and not to Moses If any say that the birthright was sometime taken from the eldest by a speciall appointment of God and given to the younger it hath no place here For no such especiall appointment from
It is true that the same Hosius Bishop of Corduba spake further unto the Emperor in this sort Athanas ad soâ—tariam vitam agentes God saith he hath committed the Empyre to thee to us the things of the Church And as he that envieth thy Empyre contradicteth the ordinance of God So take thou heede least drawing unto thy selfe the things of the Church thou be guiltie of great sinne It is written give unto Caesar that which is Caesars and unto God that which is Gods It is therefore neyther lawfull for us that be Bishops to hold a kingdom on earth neyther host thou power ô Prince over sacrifices and sacred things Howbeit these wordes doe onely distinguish and put a difference betweene the office and function of Priests and the office and function of Kings and Princes shewing that the one may not incroch or intrude upon that which râ—ghtly and properly belongeth unto the other but that every one should keepe himselfe within the bounds of his owne proper calling office And so teach the Protestants also and therefore if any King or Prince usurpe or intrude upon that which is proper and peculiar unto the Priests office as King Vzziah entred into the Temple to burne Incense 2 Chron. 26.16.17.18 which pertayned to the Priests office onely they utterly dislike and condemne it Now then let all this be granted that Kings and Princes may not doe any thing that is proper and peculiar to the Priests office nor may meddle in Ecclesiasticall causes after a cruell and tyrannicall maner nor use their authoritie in Ecclesiasticall causes for the maintenance of Arrianisme or of any other heresie or error nor doe any thing against God or his truth and Religion Yet what doth all this or any of this make against those Godly and Christian Kings and Princes that extend and use their authoritie in Ecclesiasticall causes in a good sort and for God and for the maintenance of his trueth Religion and ordinances It maketh as you see just nothing at all against them But it is further objected that S. Ambrose when Valentinian the Emperor would have had a Church in Millan for the Arrian heretickes answereth thus Neyther is it lawfull for me to yeelde unto it Ambros libr. 5. epist. 3â— nor expedient for you ô Emperor to take it The house of a private man you cannot by right invade Doe you thinke then you may take away the house of God It is alledged that the Emperor may doe what he list But I answere burthen not your selfe ô Emperor to thinke that you have any Imperiall right over those things that be Gods Exalt not your selfe so high but if you will raigne long be subject unto God For it is written give unto Caesar that which is Caesars and to God that which is Gods Palaces belong to Emperors Churches to Priests Epist â—â— The Church is Gods it ought not to be yeelded by me to Caesar The Temple of God cannot he Caesars right I cannot deliver that to Heretickes which I receaved to keepe on Gods behalfe I would to God Epist 32. it were apparant to me that my Church should not be delivered to the Arrians I would willingly offer my selfe to the judgement of your highnesse I would to God that it were decreed Orat. onâ— Auxenâ— that no Arrian should trouble my Churches and of my person pronounce what sentence you will With my consent I will never forgoe my right if I be compelled I have no way to resist I can sorrow I can weepe I can sigh Teares are my weapons Priests have onely these defences By other meanes I neyther ought nor may resist To flie and forsake my Church I use not least any should thinke it done to avoyde some sorer punishment Ibidem Epist 33. If my goods be sought for take them If my bodie I will be readie Will you put mee in Irons or lead mee to death You shall doe me a pleasure I will not guard my selfe with multitudes of people but I will gladly he sacrificed for the Altars of God All this maketh against the favourers and maintayners of Arrianisme but nothing against that authoritie in Ecclesiasticall matters which Kings and Princes have to commande for God and for the good of his Church and the advancement of his Religion against Arrianisme and against all other heresies and errors whatsoever My Adversarie therefore objecteth further that S. Ambrose saith Ambros Epist Lib. 5 cont Aux That a good Emperor is within the Church and not above the Church Indeede seeing the Church is the mother of Christian Emperors aswell as of other Christians it becommeth a Christian Emperor as a good Child and Sonne of such a mother to account â—t his greatest honour to submit himselfe as he ought to the word rules and ordinances which God hath set in the same his Church and not to exaâ—t himselfe aboue them as Valentinian did when he was so forward for the advancement of Arrianisme Arrian assemblies against the true Church of God and the Orthodoxe Bishops therein For that by the Church here S. Ambrose meaneth the things of God in the Church appeareth not only by that Text which he citeth of Give unto Caesar the things that be Caesars and unto God the things that be Gods but by those other words of his likewise where he saith plainely Ambr. lib. 5. c. 33 Ea quae divina saÌ„t imperatoriae potestati non esse subjecta The things that be divine be not subject to the Emperors power And yet the same S. Ambrose affirmeth nevertheles That the Emperor had power over the persons of all men within his Empyre Ambros de obien Theoâ—osij Here then you must learne of S. Ambrose to distinguish betweene the things in the Church and the persons in the Church For over all the persons he confesseth That the Emperor had power but not over the Divine things therein And this also doe the Protestants hold that a Christian King hath power over the persons of all Bishops Pastors and Ecclesiasticall Ministers in the Church within his owne Dominions But not over the Divine things therein as namely not over Gods Word his Religion Sacraments and other his Institutions and Ordinances in his Church Yet againe it is objected by some that S. Ambrose reproved the Emperor Valentinian the younger for that he would take upon him to be Iudge in a matter of Faith cause Ecclesiasticall but the reason of it must be knowne For Valentinian a young Prince not yet baptized and a novice in the mysteries of Religion would upon the perswasion and counsell of his Mother Iustina an Arrian needes have Ambrose to come and dispute with Auxentius the Arrian in his Palace or Consistorie before him Ambr â— 5. Orat. coâ—r Auxent Epist. 53. and he would be the Iudge whether of their two Religions were truest Whereunto Ambrose made answere and gave it in writing to Valentinian shewing him amongst
Peter in saying Subjecti estote Be yee subject distinguisheth the Christians to whom he writeth from the rest that were their adversaries and were heathens and Infidels But why doth he say againe that these words Subjecti estote Be yee subject doe no more specifie Subjects then Princes For is it not a senselesse thing to say or suppose when men are by expresse wordes exhorted to be subject to their Kings and Princes that these wordes should require no more of Subjects then they doe of Kings and Princes Yea when he requireth Christians to be subject to everie humane creature whether it be to the king as being the chiefe or unto governours as unto them that are sent of him 1. Pet. 2.13.14 for the punishment of evill doers and for the prayse of them that doe well doth he not by this his distribution of the humane creature apparantly shew that he meaneth thereby the King as Chiefe or Supreme and the other Temporall Magistrates Rulers or Governors that be appointed or allowed under him Little reason therefore had my Adversarie to say That by every humane creature in the Text thus distinguished by the Apostle himselfe into the King as Chiefe or Supreme and into others that be Rulers or Governors under him The King is no more compresed then the Pope For you see that the King is directly comprised and intended yea expressely named and so is not the Pope And this is so evident that even the Rhemists themselves doe likewise so teach and expound it namely That by everie humane creature in this Text S. Peter meaneth the Temporall Magistrates Rhem. Annot. 5. in 1. Pet 2.13 Howbeit hee calleth not Kings and Princes and other inferior Magistrates under them an humane creation as though they were not also a Divine creation and of Gods institution For there is no power but of God Rom. 13.1 2. Ioh. 19.11 But they are called an humane creation in respect that the externall forme and maner of their creation is usually such as that God hath beene pleased to allow men to ordayne and appoint it for the use behoofe and benefit of men For touching Kings and Princes some are so by election and some by birth and discent of inheritance and concerning inferior Magistrates under Kings Princes they be also created and made some after one sort and some after another But what forme of creation soever they receave from men yet when they are once so appointed 1. Pet. 2.13 they are then to be obeyed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Propter DominuÌ„ for the Lords sake as S. Peter here teacheth to shew that they be also Gods ordinance and of his approbation And therefore doth S Paul likewise teach That Christians must be subject to them Rom 13.1.2.3.4 5. not onely for feare or for wrath but also for conscience sake as being also Gods owne institution But my Adversarie at last confesseth that this part of the Text Whether it be to the King as excelling or to Rulers as sent by him with a reference to the precedent wordes doth establish in the King the Regall and Temporall Supremacie And this is enough if he would be constant and stand to his wordes For no other Supremacie or Authoritie in matters Ecclesiasticall doth the King clayme but that which is Regall and Temporall In asmuch as he claymeth not to punish any offendors in Ecclesiasticall causes otherwise then by finings imprisonments and such like Civill and Temporall penalties and punishments which belong to that his Regall and Temporall Authoritie to inflict and in asmuch as hee also meddleth not with preaching the Word Ministring the Sacraments Excommunication Absolution or whatsoever else that is proper and peculiar to the Bishops or Ministers function And seeing he is so equall and just as to denie Cleargie men nothing that of right belongeth to them Why should any Cleargie men or any men whosoever be so unequall and unjust as to denie unto him any thing that is his proper due as namely a Regall and Temporall Power and Authoritie to be extended and used against offendors in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as in Civill For what Shall offendors in causes Ecclesiasticall that be and persist wilfull obstinate and perpetuall contemners of al Divine admonitions Church censures and Christian courses be held not fit to be restrained or punished Civilly or by Temporall Authoritie Would not such a libertie and impunitie prove extremely and intollerably mischievous And yet must such a mischiefe be endured or at least hazarded where Ecclesiasticall Authoritie is contemned and set at naught and that withall such contemners shal neverthelesse not be permitted to be restrained by the Civill Sword and Authoritie of Kings and Princes This argument I alledged in the first Chapter of my former Booke pag. 6. but my Adversarie is of such an excellent skill as that he can tell how to passe it over as he doth many things more without making any answere thereunto Wherefore that his evasion and distinction which is likewise the common evasion and distinction of all the Papists viz that Kings and Princes are to be obeyed when they command for matters Civill and Temporall but not when they command for God and his Religion or in matters Ecclesiasticall 〈◊〉 appeareth to be a most false most idle distinction being both in my former Booke and in this also much more largely reselled and confuted Yea it is so grosse and absurd as that at the very first hearing of it in this sort produced it sheweth it selfe to be verie senselesse and ridiculous For shall the King be obeyed when he commandeth for men and shall he not be obeyed when he coÌ„mandeth for God Is not this to preferre Men before God Earth before Heaven the Bodie before the Soule the Common-weale before the Church and things worldly terrestriall and externall before things divine celestiall and eternall Rhem. Annot 6 in 1. Pet. 2.13 As for that which the Rhemisâ—s say That this Text giveth no more to any Prince then may and ought to be done and granted to an heathen Magistrate it maketh not for them but against them For if they will grant no more to Christian Kings and Princes then is due to heathen Princes yeâ— even so much sufficeth as touching this point if it be well 〈◊〉 Because it is verie cleare that even heathen Kings and Princes are and ought to bee obeyed Ezra 1.1.2.3 c. when they command for God his service Religion as is evident by Cyrus King of Persia who though he were an heathen King gave commandement to build the Temple in Ierusalem Ez a. 61.23 c. and was therein obeyed Darius also another heathen King gave commandement for the continuing of the building of that Temple and for the Sacrifices to be offered in it Ezra 7.12.13 c. and was therein obeyed In like sort did Artaxerxes though an heathen King give commandement for the reforming of the Church according to the
law of God Dan. 3.29 by the Ministerie of Ezra that learned Scribe Nebuchadnezzar also though an heathen King gave a commandement and made a decree that none should blaspheme the GOD of Shadrach Dan 6 25 26. Meshach and Abednego King Darius likewise gave commandement made a decree that in all the Dominions of his kingdom men should tremble feare before the Lord God of Daniel whose God was the true God Some heatheÌ„ Emperors also gave commandment that men should cease from persecuting the Christians that Christians should have the free exercise of their Religion build Oratories places for their meetings and assemblies Euseb li 7. cap. â—8 cap 12. quietly possesse them for the service of their God Were not these such like commandments good lawful coÌ„mendable Euseb lib. 9 cap. 16. cap. 8. lat though given by heathen Emperors and in causes Ecclesiasticall and concerning Religion And were they not meete to be obeyed If then heathen Kings and Princes may as is manifest lawfully and laudably command for God his worship service and Religion and are therein dutifully to be obeyed By what right or reason can it bee denied to Christian Kings and Princes to have at least the like authoritie to command in matters Ecclesiasticall for God his service and Religion For shall Christian Kings and Princes be in worse case then heathen Kings Or shall they fare the worse or have the lesse Regall power and authority because of their Religion of Christianitie God forbid This argument I likewise alledged in the first Chapter of my former Booke pag. 7. whereto my Adversarie againe like a wise man still knoweth how to answere nothing And yet he saith he will propose my defused argument in a succinct forme the most for my advantageâ—â— But I neyther desire nor looke for any advantage at his hands Let him make his owne Arguments the best hee can for his owne advantage As for mine I would not have him to frame them unlesse hee would doe it more truely Hee would indeede make my Argument defused or rather confused by his confused maner of answering jumbling things together which I had Methodically and expressely distinguished For first my purpose was to prove his Majesties SUPREMACIE over all persons within his owne Dominions and then afterward in the second place to shew his Authoritie in respect of Causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill In the first Section of that Chapter pag. 1.2.3.4 I handle the first point concerning his Supremacie in respect of persons and in the second section pag. 5. and not before it is that I begin to handle his Authoritie in respect of causes This Text then of S. Peter being alledged as it is in the first section and pag. 1. was by me produced to prove onely his Majesties Supremacie over all persons aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill within his owne Dominions and not for any such end or purpose as thereby to prove his Majesties Authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill as he misconceaveth But sith he will needes have it so used I am well content with it because that Text doth indeede serve verie sufficiently to prove both those purposes For the first the argument is verie apparant and may be framed thus If all persons aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill are to be subject to their King as to the Chiefe or Supreme within his owne Dominions then hath their King a cleare Supremacie over them all But all persons aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill are to be subject to their King as to the Chiefe or Supreme within his owne Dominions for so S. Peter directly teacheth Ergo their King hath a cleare Supremacie over them all And for the second point the argument is also very open and evident For the King is not called the Chiefe or Supreme in respect onely of the excellencie of his person above all his subjects but in respect also of his Authoritie Rule and Governement he hath over them yea in this respect specially he is so called as appeareth by this That S. Peter distribuâ—es the humane creature he there speaketh of that is the Temporall Magistrates Rulers or Governors into the King as being the Chiefe or Supreme Governor and into other that be governors under him So that here we finde the Kings Title of Supreme Governor very manifestly proved and directly ratified and confirmed And that his governement and authoritie extendeth also to all manner of causes and consequently to causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill it is thus also made verie apparant out of this Text. For S. Peter here sheweth 1. Pet 2.13.14 that the King as the Supreme Governor and the other that bee inferior governors under him be all constituted to this end viz. For the punishment of evill doers and for the prayse of them that doe well Now be there not or may there not be evill doers aswell in the Church as in the Commonweale and transgressors and offendors aswell in matters Ecclesiasticall as Civill and Temporall Shall not then aswell the one sort of these offendors as the other be held punishable by the Kings Civill and Temporall Sword especially when they grow and continue obstinate wilfull perverse and unruly and will not otherwise be reclaymed The Text maketh no such difference or distinction as the Papists fondly doe betweene offendors in causes Ecclesiasticall and offendors in causes Civill and Temporall but generally or indefinitely it would have Evill doers of what sort soever without any distinction exception or restriction to bee punished by this Civill sword And ubi lex non distinguit ibi nec nos distinguere debemus The Argument then for the Kings Authoritie in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as in Civill out of this Text of S. Peter is and may be framed thus Whosoever hath authoritie from God to punish Evill doers by the Civill sword without any distinction restriction or exception of causes hath Authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill But the King hath Authoritie from God to punish â—â—â—-â—oers by the Ciuill sword without any distinction restriction or exception of causes Ergo The King hath Authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill The Matoâ— is evident in it selfe The Miror is proved and apparant by the Text and therefore the conclusion must be granted My Adversarie neverthelesse still urgeth that as touching spirituall and Ecclesiasticall causes and matters and concerning Religion obedience must be performed to the Supreme Pastor and head of the Church And who denieth this Yea this is granted unto him so hee take it rightly For not the Pope as he and other Papists strangely suppose but CHRIST IESVS onely is the Chiefe Sheepheard or Supreme Pastor and head of the Church as hath beene often declared and as is apparant As for that he saith That the Militant Church must have some visible head in Earth to rule and governe it 1. Pet. 5.4 Hebr. 13 20. Colos 1.18 Ephes 1 2â—.23 He onely saith it but
doth not prove it and it is indeede but an humane devise and conceit and such as is before confuted in my former Booke pag. 95.96 97. whereunto he full maketh no answere And yet it is there shewed that the Companie both Militant and Triumphant make but one body and one Church unto CHRIST IESVS whereof he is the Head and that though in his bodily presence and humanitie hee be in heaven yet by his Deitie and power of his Spirit and word he is in Earth with his Church and can tell how to rule governe comfort confirme guide and direct it and to give all giftes and graces requisite and to doe and performe all the offices of an Head unto it much better then the Pope of Rome or any man mortall whosoever Yea himselfe confuteth himselfe when he saith that in these words of CHRIST Reddite quaesunt Caesaris Caesari quaesunt Dei Deo By this word Caesari is understood saith he The Supreme Governor in Temporall affaires and by the word Deo the Supreme Governor in Spirituall affaires For thereupon it followeth that then is not the Pope of Rome the supreme governor in those spirituall and Ecclesiasticall affaires unlesse he will say that the Pope is God But whereas he maketh Caesar or the Emperor to be the supreme Governour in Temporall affayres onely as though he had no Authoritie in spirituall or Ecclesiasticall matters also therein is still his error because it is before most manifestly proved that even the heathen Emperors and much more those that were Christian Emperors lawfully might did coÌ„mand for God his service Religion dealt in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill Temporall Yea Rex est persona mixta as our law also calleth him in respect of that his interest Authoritie in causes both Ecclesiasticall Civill For which cause likewise amongst Divines he is said to bee Custos utriusque Tabulae As for that his calumnious speech against Luther and Calvine which he here also inserteth Luther tom 1. in Genes cap. 9. tom 3. Annâ—t in Deut. 6. fol. 40. tom 2. responed Ambr Catherinum fol 150. 152. c. Calvin Inst. l b. 4 cap 20. in Rom 13. c. as though they wrote against the obedience due to Princes and their lawes it hath beene often answered by sundrie Protestants and the untruth of it is so notorious as that the workes and writings of them both doe shew and openly proclayme the contrarie to the world if men would please to read them and not to wrest their wordes but to take them everie where in a right sense But what meaneth he by this that he saith Kings and Princes may more confidently build the safetie of their persons estates upon the loyaltie of their Catholicke subjects then upon any Protestant subjects what are Papists whom he calleth Catholicks more loyall to Protestant Kings and Princes then Protestants Is there any likelihood of trueth in this Or doth he thinke that Protestant Kings and Princes will or can be so perswaded For is it possible that they who for love or affection to the Pope and Popish Religion denie and oppugne the Kings SUPREMACIE and the true Christian RELIGION he professeth and defendeth can be more loyall or better subjects unto him then those that acknowledge his SUPREMACIE RELIGION by his Authoritie established Thankefully and joyfully embracing them both praying unto God for the continuance of them and for all maner of happinesse and prosperitie upon him and his which is the defendor and maintayner of them both amongst us and thinke themselves bound in duetie and conscience so to doe Comparisons they say are odious and therefore I could have wished that he had forborne them neyther needed he to have used them For if wee all both Protestants and Papists bee in all respects and at all times found faithfull true and good Subjects to his Majestie as of right duetie we all ought and as I hope we all shall be I doubt not but it will suffice although we strive not thus to provoke one another by Comparative or Superlative termes But what reason hath he further to call Calvine as he doth the sensuall Libertine of this age who wrote against the libertines and against all licentiousnesse and all manner of ungodlinesse and impietie whatsoever For so his many learned laborious godly and worthy workes doe abundantly testifie and declare to the world Will Papists never cease their malitious and untrue accusations against Luther Calvine Beza and other Protestants 5 The second Text I alledged to prove the Kings Supremacie over all persons Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill within his owne Dominions is taken out of S. Paul in Rom. 13. where S. Paul saith thus Rom. 13.1.2.3.4.5.6 c. Let everie Soule be subject to the higher powers for there is no power but of God and the powers that be be ordained of God Whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves condemnation For Magistrates are not to bee feared for good workes but for evill Wilt thou then be without feare of the power Doe well so shalt thou have prayse for the same For he is the Minister of God unto thee for thy good but if you doe evill feare For hee beareth not the Sword in vaine For he is the Minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evill Wherefore yee must be subject not onely because of wrath but also for conscience sake And for this cause pay yee tribute also For they are Gods Ministers imploying themselves for that very purpose By the higher powers in this Text whereto subjection is required which beare the sword for the punishment of the evill doers and for the prayse of them that doe well is meant 1. Pet. 2.13.14 as S. Peter also hath before shewed those that be Kings Princes and such like Civill and Temporall Magistrates And this is so evident as that though my Adversary doth not yet the Rhemists doe ingeniously confesse Rhem. Annot. in Rom. 13. vers 4. and teach it For That the Apostle meaneth here specially of Temporall powers we may see say they by the sword tribute and externall compulsion he here attributeth to them Neyther was there then as they say any doubt conceaved by Christian men whether they should obey their Spirituall powers or Spirituall Governors yea or no which is another reason they them give to shew that this Text is not to bee expounded of Spirituall Origen in hunc locum but of Civill and temporall Rulers and Magistrates Origen likewise declareth the same affirming them to be Non Antistites Principes Ecclesiarum sed Mundi judices seculi potestates Not Bishops and Prelates of Churches but worldly Iudges and secular Powers In like sort S. Ambrose affirmeth them to be Reges Ambros in hunc locum Aug. de Catech. rudibus cap. 21. seculi
judgement of Constantine upon this Appeale made to him though by Donatists was not onely justified and approved by S. Augustine but embraced also by other Christian Emperors as Vertuous and confirmed as Religious and honoured of the whole Orthodoxe Church in that time So little cause hath mine Adversarie or any other Papists to mislike of Constantine his meddling therein as if it were unlawfull But secondly my Adversarie answereth that the then Emperor Constantine the Great did remit Caecilianus and the Donatists for the decision and determining of their difference unto Miltiades Bishop of Rome as to his proper and right Iudge It is true that he committed the hearing and determining of that cause unto Miltiades Bishop of Rome but not to him alone as if he were the sole and onely proper and rightfull Iudge in the case but to him together with others For Marcus Rheticius Maternus and Marinus were interested with him in the same Commission The Commission is yet extant in Eusebius to be seene in these words Constantine the Emperor unto Miltiades Bishop of Rome Euseb li. 10. c. 5 and to Marcus sendeth greeting For asmuch as many such Epistles are brought unto mee from Anilinus Lieutenant of Africke wherein it is said that Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage is reprehended in many things by divers of his Colleagues abiding in Africke and this seemeth unto me very grievous that there should be found in those Provinces which the providence of God hath allotted peculiarly unto my government a great multitude of people prone unto the worse and disagreeing And that amongst Bishops there should be such variance My pleasure therefore is that Caecilianus with ten Bishops of his accusers and ten other of his favourers doe come to Rome there to be heard before you both joyning with you Rheticius Maternus and Marinus your Colleagues whom purposely for that matter I haue coÌ„manded with speed to repaire thither unto you c. And S. Augustine likewise hath before told you Aug Epist 166. that the Emperor committed this cause Non Episcopo sed Episcopis Not to one Bishop in the Singular number but to Bishops in the Plurall number eam discutiendam atque finiendam Episcopis delegavit And againe he saith Collaâ— 3 diei cum Donatistâ—â— cap 5 Causam Caecilian injunxit eis audiendam elsewhere he also saith Constantinum dedisse Iudices iterum Idem Epist 166 That Constantine gave them Iudges a second time And hee further proveth that those Iudges both the first and second might lawfully judge in that case Idem Epist 162. Eo quod Imperator illos Iudices dedisset Because the Emperor had given those Iudges So that it appeareth very fully and clearely that not Miltiades alone as Bishop of Rome and in his owne right but Miltiades associated and joyned with others namely with Marcus Rheticius Maternus and Marinus were the Iudges in this case and that by Commission and Authoritie granted from the Emperor Yea you see there was afterward also an Appeale from their sentence to the Emperor whereupon the Emperor a second time gave other Iudges From these also 〈◊〉 there a second Appeale to the Emperor himselfe in person who at the last in his owne person heard and judged the cause and without the Bishop of Rome by his owne authoritie pronounced finall sentence therein The least of these facts proveth the Emperors Supremacie in those times aswell over the Bishop of Rome as over other Bishops What force then have they when they be all united and joyned together Yet thirdly my Adversarie answereth that Constantine the Emperor did but pronounce and declare the justnesse of the sentence given formerly against the Donatists by their competent Iudge Pope Miltiades But first why doth he still say That the sentence against the Donatists was given by Miltiades as though it had beene given onely by him For it is manifest that it was not only his sentence and judgement but the sentence and judgement of the rest of his Colleagues and fellow Commissioners joyned with him Secondly why doth he speake of Miltiades Bishop of Rome as if he were the onely competent Iudge when he not only seeth others to be joyned and made Iudges with him but an Appeale also to be made and allowed from his and their sentence and from other Iudges also afterward given to Iudge of the same cause And thirdly though Constantine the Emperor did by this sentence upon hearing of the cause cleare and acquite Caecilianus and condemne the Donatists and so approved the first sentence and judgement given by Miltiades and his Colleagues and the second sentence also that was given by the other Bishops assembled at Arle in France Yet doth this approbation of his or declaration of the Bishop of Romes sentence in this case to be just and right no more prove a supremacie in Miltiades the Bishop of Rome then it doth in Marcus Rheticius Maternus and Marinus or then it doth in those other Bishops that were afterward assembled at Arle whose sentence he likewise approved and declared to be just Neyther doth it any way impayre or detract from Constantine his judgement but that hee was also a Iudge and held the place and office of Iudicature all this notwithstanding For else may you say that those Bishops assembled at Arle whom S. Augustine expressely calleth Iudices Iudges were also no Iudges because they likewise aswell as Constantine acquited Caecilianus and condemned the Donatists and so approved the sentence of Miltiades and his Colleagues declaring it to be just If a Writt of Error be brought in the Kings bench of a Iudgement given in the Common-pleas upon hearing of the cause the Iudges in the Kings Bench approve and confirme the judgement formerly given in the Common pleas and so declare it to be just and right Doth this any way prove that therefore those in the Kings bench be no Iudges or doth it in any sort detract from their Authoritie So upon the Appeale made to the Emperor when he in his own person sate as Iudge therein having power in himselfe eyther to affirme or disaffirme the former sentences and judgements given by others as he shall find the cause upon hearing to require If he upon hearing it finding the former sentences and judgements given for Caecilianus against the Donatists to be just and right doth by his final sentence pronounce and declare them so to be Doth this therefore prove him to be no Iudge or doth it any way detract from his supremacie Yea it doth rather verie strongly and most strongly prove the Emperor to bee a Iudge and the Chiefest and highest Iudge under God and to have the Supremacie over the Bishop of Rome aswell as over other Bishops within the precincts of the Empyre For as Carerius also confesseth and teacheth Summum Imperium penes eum esse constat â—arer de potest Rom. Pont. lib. 1. cap. 10. ad cujus Tribunal provocatur It is manifest that to
the younger the first Ephesine Councell was assembled Liberat. in hist de Concil Ephes Liberatus likewise writeth That the Emperor wrote to all Bishops that they should assemble at Ephesus to judge of the Bookes of Nestorius and Cyrillus Epist Synod And in their Epistle to all the Bishops thus writeth the Councell it selfe Cum essemus Ephesi secundum pias Imperatoris literas congregati When we were at Ephesus assembled according to the pious letters of the Emperor Socrates also saith that Imperatoris mandato Episcopi ex omnibus locis Ephesum conveniunt Socrat. li. 7. c 33 in the lat ca. 34. in the greeke The Bishops of all places came together to Ephesus by the commandement of the Emperor Zonaras saith These things being knowne Caelestinus Bishop of Rome Cyrillus Bishop of Alexandria Iohn Bishop of Antioch and Iuvenall Bishop of Ierusalem relate the matter to Theodosius the Emperor and to Pulcheria the Empresse desiring that he would summon a Councell Niceph. lib. 14. cap 34. c. Nicephorus also saith Theodosius Imperialibus literis in Metropoli Epheso locorum omnium Episcopos convenire jussit That Theodosius by his Imperiall letters commanded the Bishops of all places to meete together at Ephesus the Metropolitan Citie The fourth generall Councell was the Councell of Chalcedon and this also was summoned not by authoritie and commandement of Leo the first Bishop of Rome as my Adversarie affirmeth but the Emperors Authority and commandement This may appeare even by Leo himselfe Epist. 43.53 and sundrie other of his Epistles But we neede not to cite other testimonies For the verie Councell of Chalcedon it selfe Conc. Chalcedon Actione prima doth testifie that it was summoned by the Emperors and that the Bishop of Rome was also called thither who because he could not be there in person sent others in his steade Yea that Leo Bishop of Rome did not summon this Councell nor any other generall Councell in those dayes but acknowledged it to be a right belonging to the Emperors is further verie manifest by the Epistle he writeth to the Emperor wherein he saith thus unto him Pietas vestra suggestioni ac supplicationi nostrae dignetur annuere Leo Epist 9 ut intra Italiam jubeatis haberi Episcopale Concilium Let your pietie vouchsafe to yeld to our suggestion and supplication in this that you command a Councell of Bishops to be held within Italy Againe hee saith thus Leo Epist. 24. Lovan 1575. Omnes partium nostrarum Ecclesiae omnes mansuetudini vestrae cum gemitibus lachrimus supplicant sacerdotes ut generalem Synodum jubeatis infra Italiam celebrari All the Churches that take part with us and all the Priests with sighes and teares doe humbly beseech your mansuetude that you will command a generall Councell to be celebrated within Italy He also sollicited the Princesse Pulcheria Leo Epist. 26. 23. and the Nobles Cleargie and people of Constantinople for a Councell to be held in Italie But neyther in his first suite nor in this last did he prevaile all this notwithstanding For as touching his former suite which was in the time of the Emperor Theodosius the younger that Emperor as before appeareth assembled the Councel not within Italie as Leo desired but at Ephesus And as touching the latter it is also apparant that by the Emperors appointment and commandement the Councell was assembled not in Italie as the Pope would have had it but at Chalcedon I might proceede further and shew that beside these first foure generall Councells other Councells were likewise summoned and assembled by the Authoritie and commandement of the Emperors and not of the Bishops of Rome For there was also a fift generall Councell summoned or called Mandato Iustiniani By the commandement of the Emperor Iustinian as Evagrius witnesseth And so likewise saith Nicephorus that Imperator Iustinianus Evagr. lib 4 c. 11. Nâ—â—ph libr. 17. cap. 27. sanctam quiatam Oecumenicam Synodum Episcopis omnium Ecclesiarum convocatis coegit The Emperor Iustinian assembled the fift holy generall Councell by calling the Bishops of all Churches together The Councell of Sardica also Socrat. lib. 2 cap. 20 in the gâ—eek cap. â—6 in the â—a in Theoâ—oret lâ—b 2. cap. â— Sâ—crat lib. 〈…〉 greeke cap. â—9 in the 〈◊〉 Cusaâ— de 〈◊〉 lib. 2 â—ap 25. was called by the Emperors Authoritie and commandement as Socrates and Theodoret declare And so were also those Councells of Selencia and Aâ—imiâ—â—â— called by the Emperors Authoritie and commandement Yea what generall Councell was there called in those ancient times but by the Emperors In somuch that Cardinall Cusanus himselfe ingenuously confesseth and affirmeth that The first eight generall Councells were called by the Emperors Is there then any credite at all to be given to those Papists in these dayes who doe and dare denie this so cleare manifest and evident a truth Wherefore it being a thing most apparant that in ancient times the Emperors by their Authoritie and commandement called the generall Councells it followeth necessarily thereupon that the Emperors thereby commanded aswell the Bishop of Rome as the other Bishops and consequently had the Supremacie aswell over the one as over the other 9 But yet further to prove the Supremacie of the Emperors I alledged that the Emperors in ancient time banished imprisoned and otherwise also punished by their Authoritie even some of the Bishops of Rome themselves aswell as other Bishops Whereunto mine Adversarie answereth that These things they did de facto but not warrantable de jure But why were they not warrantable de jure I grant that a banishment or imprisonment may possibly be sometimes wrongfull and unjust in respect of the man and the matter that deserveth it not but this is no impeachment or argument therefore against the lawfulnesse of the authoritie As if an Emperor or King doe banish or committe a man to prison for professing any point of true Religion this banishment and imprisonment is wrongfull and unjust in respect of the cause which deserveth no punishment at all Yet it cannot be denied but he hath power Authoritie good and lawfull enough both to banish and to committe to prison notwithstanding when there is a just cause For that which is but an abuse of Authoritie doth not take away the lawfull use of it So that if any Bishop of Rome or any Bishop whosoever within the Dominions of the Empyre did offend so farre as to deserve banishment imprisonment or other Temporall and Civill punishment it was a thing lawfull and just for the Emperor to inflict those punishments upon them aswell as upon any other For it is indeede to these Higher Powers namely to Emperors Rom. 13.1.2.3.4 Kings and Princes that God hath committed the Civill and Temporall sword for the encouragement and prayse of them that doe well for the discouragement terror punishment of those that doe evill And these
be Ministri Dei The Ministers of God as S. Paul also sheweth instituted for that verie end and purpose Now none will denie but banishment and imprisonment be punishments Civill and Temporall and not Ecclesiasticall and doe rightly and properly belong to the Authority of Emperors Kings and Princes and not to the function and office of Bishops and Ecclesiasticall Ministers And therefore the banishment and imprisonment that any Emperors or Kings used against any Bishops or others upon just cause and when they deserved it must needes be granted to be things done by them both in respect of the authoritie and in respect of the cause also aswell de jure as de facto that is to be things lawfull warrantable and justifieable in all respects For as for those distinctions that Emperors and Kings have Authoritie over persons Temporall but not Ecclesiasticall and a Power directive but not Coactive and in causes Civill and Temporall but not in Ecclesiasticall The untruth absurditie folly impietie of all these distinctions hath beene before so sufficiently discovered that I shall not neede to speake any more of them And by this time I hope that even the Papists themselves bee ashamed of them Sure I am they have good cause so to be if they did duely ponder and consider them Seeing then it is confessed that the Emperors did in ancient time by their Authoritie banish imprison and otherwise punish even Bishops of Rome aswell as other Bishops that no reason can be shewed against the doing hereof when they be such offenders as that they justly deserve such punishment it is thereby undeniably apparant that the Bishop of Rome in those dayes had not the supremacie over the Emperors but that cleane contrariewise the Emperors had the Supremacie over him aswell as over any others within their Empyâ—e Another Argument which I use consisteth in this that I say even Kings of Rome did also sometimes send the Bishops of Rome as their Embassadors By this argument my Adversarie saith That he supposeth that I meant but to make men merry Why In serious matters I love not to be as he is many times ridiculous but to be serious and to deale seriously First therefore hereby I prove that the Bishop of Rome was not in those dayes superior or greater then the King that sent him For those wordes of Christ must ever be true where he saith The Servant is not greater then his Master Iohn 13 16. nor the messenger greater then he that sent him And secondly I say further that this is a verie good and strong argument to prove the Supremacie to be in those dayes in the Kings of Rome and not in the Bishops of Rome For the King that sendeth any as his Embassador is in all common understanding supposed and to be supposed superior unto him that is his Embassador As when Hiram King of Tyrus sent messengers to King David 2. Sam 5.11 1. Chron. 14 1. 1. King â—â— 2 1. Chron. 19.2 or when Benâ—â—adad King of Aram or Siria sent messengers to Ahab King of Israell or when King David sent messengers unto the King of the Amm â—ites In all these cases and every such like for Nec in caeteris est contrarium videre were those Kings superior or greater then the messengers or Embassadors whom they sent And therefore when Theodorick sent Iohn Bishop of Rome as his Embassador unto the Emperor Iustine and when King Theodatus sent Agapetus Bishop of Rome as his Embassador to Iustinian the Emperor It must be confessed that these Kings were likewise superiors to the Bishops of Rome and had the command of them and not contrarywise that those Bishops of Rome had the superioritie or command over those Kings For amongst men the Master is wont to send the Servant and the King his Subject and the superior his inferior But where did you ever reade heare or know the Servant to send his Master or the Subject to send his King and Soveraigne or the inferior to send his Superior on a message I grant that an inferior or equall may intreate a Superior to doe a businesse for him and that a King a Master or Superior may goe by his owne consent or of his owne accord somewhither to doe his Subject Servant or inferior a good turne But it cannot be rightly and properly said that any of these inferiors have sent their Superiors upon their errand service message or embassage Yea it would be held verie absoneous and absurd so to speake But my Adversary I see mistaketh the Mâ—lâ—r proposition of my argument For it reacheth not so high as heaven much lesse to the most glorious incomprehensible and ineffable Trinitie blessed for ever but onely to men upon earth and not to all men neyther but onely to Kings and Bishops Neyther had my Adversary any ust cause or reason to streach or extend it any further For the question was onely concerning them whether of them had the Superioritie or Supremacie over the other in that time namely whether the Kings that then raigned over Rome or those that were the Bishops thereof I to prove the Superioritie or Supremacie to be in the Kings and not in the Bishops alledged this for my reason that the Kings of Rome did sometimes send the Bishops of Rome as their Embassadors to other Princes So that my Argument upon the whole matter appeareth to be this What Kings soever I speake of earthly Kings sent any at any time as their Embassadors to other Princes those Kings were Superior and greater then those Embassadors whom they sent But the Kings of Rome did send the Bishops of Rome as their Embassadors to other Princes Ergo the Kings of Rome were Superior and greater then the Bishops of Rome The Maior is apparant by induction of particulars by ordinarie common experience in the world The Minor is manifest by Ecclesiasticall historie which testifieth That King Theodoricke sent Iohn Bishop of Rome Lib Pontific in Iohan. 1. Et Anact in Agapeto Diaconus Platina as his Embassador to the Emperor Iustine And that King Theodatus sent likewise Agapetus Bishop of Rome as his Embassador to the Emperor Iustinian And therefore the conclusion must needes follow and cannot bee gainsaid By this time then mine Adversarie seeth I hope that such is the evident strength of this Argument as that he with all his wit and learning will never bee able to make any good answere thereunto 10 In my former Booke Cap. 1. pag. 13. 14. 15. I also shewed that against the title and appellation of Vniversall Bishop or head of the universall Church did two Bishops of Rome oppose themselves namely Pelagius and Gregory the great when it was first affected by Iohn the Patriarch and Bishop of Constantinople And that neverthelesse afterward a Bishop of Rome namely Boniface the third got obtayned it of Phocas the Emperor Hereunto mine Adversarie answereth as Bellarmine likewise doth That this fact of