IVRISDICTION REGALL EPISCOPALL PAPALL WHEREIN IS DECLARED HOW THE POPE HATH INTRVDED Vpon the Iurisdiction of Temporall Princes and of the Church The intrusion is discouered and the peculiar and distinct Iurisdiction to each properly belonging recouered Written by GEORGE CARLETON IOHN 18. 36. My kingdome is not of this world if my kingdome were of this world my seruants would surely fight LONDINI Impensis Iohannis Norton 1610. THE CONTENTS OF THE SEVERAL Chapters of this Booke THe state of the question CHAP. I. That Kings in the time of the law of nature had all Ecclesiasticall power both of Order and Iurisdiction II. Externall coactiue Iurisdiction is a right belonging to Soueraigne Princes vnder the law III. Externall coactiue Iurisdiction was not left by Christ to his Church nor practised by the Church all that while that the Church was without Christian Magistrates IIII. Of the estate and Iurisdiction of the Church from the end of the first three hundred yeares vntill the yeare of Christ 600. V. Of the estate and Iurisdiction of the Church from the yeare of Christ 600. vntill the conquest of England VI. How the Papall Iurisdiction was aduanced from the time of the conquest and somewhat before vntill the yeare of Christ 1300. conteyning the meanes of raising that Iurisdiction by forgery Friars Oathes and the parts of the pretended Iurisdiction Inuestitures Exemptions lawes imposed Appellation deposing of Kings and absoluing their subiects from faith and Alleageance VII How this Iurisdiction after it was thus declared by the Popes Clerks was refuted by the learned men of the Church of Rome and repressed by Councels VIII TO THT MOST REVEREND FATHER IN GOD MY VERY GOOD LORD THE Lord Archbishop of CANTERBVRIE his Grace Metropolitan and Primate of al England and one of his Maiesties most Honourable Priuie Counsell IOb the man of God most Reuerend Father in God entring into the meditation of the care labor danger and deliuerance that we find in this present life compareth it for danger to a warfare for care and trauell to the dayes of an hireling which estate as euery member of the Church findeth in this life so the same is much more apparant in the whole Church which for the time of her warfare here as she is so is called militant As this assured and expected warfare from the beginning hath kept the Church in continuall exercise and watch against many and strong aduersaries so toward the end of this warfare that is toward the end of this world the aduersaries growing more skilfull more bòld and desperate then before the warfare must of necessitie bee made more daungerous The greatnesse of which daunger may draw the gouernours of the Church to a more sensible apprehension of their duties who according to the daunger of the Church cannot but vnderstand that their care industry vigilancy and courage must be increased for the preseruation of the peace and good of the Church of God which they gouern so that the malice industrie and desperate attempts of the aduersaries are to them so many prouocations stirring theÌ„ vp more carefully to watch Which care hath singularly appeared in your Grace who as a Generall in this warfare haue giuen no rest to your selfe but by preuenting the purposes of the enemies by espying their secrets by answering their present incounters by incouraging inferiours haue declared your carefull seruice in this warfare setting the battel in order and incouraging euery souldier in his proper standing and place vnder this conduct haue I vndertaken this peece of seruice for the opening the truth of â—…urisdiction of late so much oppugned defaced and confounded by the aduersaries Wherein as I can not promise any worth of my seruice so I shall bee able with a good conscience to challenge the reward of faithfull and sincere dealing The question I confesse requireth a man as skilful in distinguishing this confused masse of Iurisdiction which they now haue cast vpon the Pope as Archimedes was in examining the gouldsmithes fraude who hauing receiued a certaine Weight of gould of Hiero King of Sicily to make a goulden crowne which he would offer to his Gods stoale away much of the gold and put siluer in the place thereof rendring to Hiero his true weight againe To examine this fraud without melting of the crowne was a worke to exercise the great wit of Archimedes himselfe such is this masse of Iurisdiction wherin fraudulent workmen as they who confound gold siluer coper and brasse together haue taken the Iurisdiction of the Church and of kings and mingling both together adding much of their owne drosse thereto haue made it as a deceiptfull crowne to offer to their great God to set it vpon his hâ—…ad To distinguâ—…sh this confused maâ—…se to giue to each his own right was a thing wherin I fouÌ„d the greater difficulty because none of late yeeres hath troden this path before me whose footsteppes might haue directed me For the question of the Supremacy is handled learnedly worthithily by others who though they haue giuen some light to this question of Iurisdiction yet they doe it but in some passages not handling the question fully and purposely but by occasion sometimes falling into some parts thereof Wherefore I thought it would be a necessary seruice to the Church if this thing might be truely brought to knowledge and the fraudulent confusion of tâ—…is crowne of Iurisdiction standing vpon the proud head of the Pope examined distinguished the siluer seuered from the gold and the drosse from both As Iurisdiction lay thus confounded by those false workemen of Rome so at the first triall of it when it was examined by vnskilfull and deceitfull triars who fet the rules of their triall not from the truth but from ambition and adulation they taking vpon them to be triars of truth made things as bad or farre worse by their handling then they were before and so wrapped this question in newe difficulties For when Henrie the eight tooke this title of supreme head of the Church of England though the sounder and more iudicious part of the Church then vnderstood the words of that title so as no offence might iustly rise by it yet they that were suddenly brought from their olde opinion of perie not to the loue of the truth but to the obseruance of the Kings religion retained a grosse and impure sense of those words as most coÌ„monly by such is retained to this day For when Stephen Gardiner Bishop of Winchester was at Ratisbon in Germanie vpon the Kings affaires he there taking occasion to declare the meaning of that title supreme head of the Church giuen to king Henrie the eight taught that the King had such a power that hee might appoint and prescribe new ordinances of the Church euen matters concerning faith and doctrine and abolish old as namely that the King might forbid the marriage of Priests and might take away the vse of the cup in the Sacrament of the
tearme it from whence all Spirituall Iurisdiction must proceed to others some adde also Temporall of Spirituall Iurisdiction Bellarmine saith all Bishops receiue Iurisdiction from the Pope The like some of them or some others teach also of Temporall power the difference which they obserue is that Spirituall power is deriued from the Pope to all Bishops but Temporall power is giuen to execute some seruice Augustinus Triumphus of Ancona who wrote about three hundreth yeeres agoe at the commaundement of Iohn 22. Pope set foorth of late by the authoritie and priuiledge of Gregorie 13. did long before the Iesuits dispute this question of the Popes Soueraigne authoritie ouer Princes since which time the Friars haue closely followed his footsteps His assertion is Omnis potestas imperatorum regum est subdelegata respectu potestatis Papae And againe in the same place Omnis potestas saecularis est restringenda amplianda executioni mandanda ad imperium Papâ—… These and the like positions are now resolutely and stiffely maintained by the Iesuits and others of that faction 3. This agreeth well with the Canon lawes which are the fundamentall lawes of the court of Rome For thus they say Nos tam ex superioritate quam ad imperium non est dubium nos habere c. That is we aswell by that soueraignetie and right which without all doubt we haue to the Empire as also by that power whereby we succâ—…ed the Emperour in the vacancie of the Empire and no lesse also by the fulnesse of that power which Christ the King of kings and Lord of lords hath in the person of Saint Peter graunted to vs though vnworthy declare all such sentences and processes made by Henry 7. void and of none effect Thus saith Clement 5. Pope against Henrie 7. Emperour To the same purpose saith Boniface 8. Pope in a Constitution of his Oportet gladâ—…um esse sub gladio c. That is one sword must be vnder another sword and the Temporall authoritie must be subiected to the Spirituall authoritie for when the Apostle saith there is no power but of God and the powers that are are ordained of God They could not be ordinated vnlesse one sword were vnder another and a little after Thus of the Church and of the power Ecclesiasticall is verified the prophecie of Ieremie behold I haue sâ—…t thee ouer nations and kingdomes to plucke vp and to root out and to destroy and to throw downe and to build and to plant And againe we declare we say we define we pronounce that it is necessarie to saluation to beleeue that euery humane creature is subiect to the Pope of Rome These be the lawes of the court of Rome which some of late haue so much adored as to call them Catholike Diuinitie and which for truth and certaintie and for authoritie ouer their consciences they hold comparable euen with the holy Scriptures 4. By all which wee collect the doctrine of the court of Rome or the Popes faction to be that the Pope hath all power Spirituall and Temporall aboue all other whatsoeuer This I call the opinion of the Court of Rome or the Popes faction because we finde the most learned of the Church of Rome to hold the contrary For concerning spirituall power the best learned of the Church of Rome yea and whole councels maintaine the Spiritual power of the Church to be aboue the Pope as hereafter we shall declare And for this Temporall power aboue Kings and Emperours claimed by the Popes in their Canon Lawe maintained by their flatterers it seemeth so straunge so new and absurd that they who maintaine it are not as yet agreed vpon the state of the question For some hold that the Pope hath this power directly ouer Princes as the Canonists to whom some of the Shoole-men may be added as Triumphus and some of late called Congregationis Oratorij as Cardinall Baronius Bozius and such Others denying this direct power hold that the Pope hath the same power but indirectly as depending vpon his Spirituall power of this opinion is Cardinall Bellarmine and others these both hold the same conclusion but differ in the manner of holding it Others there be who are in some sort content to allowe the Popes Fatherhood in spirituall matters in case lie would not prooue incorrigible but vtterly denie this power ouer princes both direct and indirect of this opinion was Guil. Occham Ma' silius Patauinus and other learned men of the Church of Rome And of late Guil. Berclaius a French Lawyer hath with great learning refuted both the former opinions of the Popes power direct and indirect against Bozius and Bellarmine and yet this man professeth himselfe to be resolued to liue and die a Papist so that on the one side stand all the reformed Churches and many of the best learned of the Church of Rome I may say all the Church of old and of late On the other side standeth the Pope with his faction that is his flatterers and this I call with some of former ages the Court of Rome this is the opinion of our aduersaries 5. Our positiue sentence against this standeth in two parts as the Pope hath incroached on two sides both vpon the right of Kings and of the Church Concerning the Kings right we hold that in externall coactiue Iurisdiction the King hath supreame authoritie in all causes and ouer all persons Ecclesiasticall aswell as Ciuill This is that which hath bene published by diuerse writings and ordinances which by publike authoritie haue beene enacted and published declaring that the King within hi Dominions hath this soueraigne authoritie and that heerein there is no forraine power aboue the King The authority of the Church hath beene in like sort vsurped by the Pope by drawing to himselfe a supposed title of the head of the vniuersall Church by deuising a straunge authority in the fulnesse of power by claiming a newe and straunge priuiledge of his not erring iudgement and making himselfe the onely iudge of controuersies of faith This power in iudging and determining of controuersies of faith and religion being partly in the Church partly in the Scriptures the Pope hath wrested from both first extolling the Church aboue the Scriptures and then setting himselfe aboue the Church Then that the limits of each power may be truely knowne we giue all spirituall power to the Church all externall coactiue iurisdiction to the King when each of these shall haue taken vp his owne right there will not be so much left to the Pope as these great flatterers the Iesuits seeke to heape vpon him Our purpose is first to dispute the right which Kings haue in coactiue power ouer all persons and in all causes euen Ecclesiasticall within his dominions by persons ecclesiasticall wee vnderstand Archbishops Bishops Deans Rectors and all other set in calling and place Ecclesiasticall by causes Ecclesiasticall wee vnderstand causes Ecclesiasticall of externall coactiue
and answereth to an obiection which I will set downe in his own words Quod si Christiani non deposuerunt olim Neronem Diocletianum Iulianum Valentem similes iâ—…suerat quia deerant vires temporales Christianis That is If Christians of old deposed not Nero Diocletian Iulian Valens and the like this was because Christians then wanted Temporall forces They will shortly without blushing tell vs that Iesus Christ also submitted himselfe to the heathen Emperours and to their deputies because he wanted power to resist them for this they may say with some sophisticall shew of reason aswell as that which they doe say Then his opinion is that the Pope as Pope hath not any Temporall power but yet the Pope and onely the Pope hath Temporall power aboue all Kings and Emperours This is one of the greatest points wherein the Pope hath incroached vpon the right of Kings 9. Besides this Temporall Iurisdiction there is another part of Iurisdiction called spirituall which the writers of the Church of Rome deuide into internall and externall internall they referre to the Sacraments onely Gerson de potest ecclesi consid 1. Bellar. de Rom. pont lib. 4. cap. 22. Bellarmine in the place last cited disputing of Iurisdiction saith there is a triple power in the Bishop of Rome first of order secondly of internall Iurisdiction thirdly of externall Iurisdiction the first is referred to the Sacraments the second to inward gouernment which is in the court of conscience the third to that externall gouernment which is practised in externall courts and confesseth that of the first and second there is no question betweene vs but onely of the third De primâ secundâ non est questio sed solum de tertiâ saith he Then of this wee are agreed that the question betweene vs and them is onely of Iurisdiction in the third sense and therein especially of Iurisdiction coactiue in externall courts binding and compelling by force of law and other externall mulcts and punishments beside excommunication as for Spirituall Iurisdiction of the Church standing in examinations of controuersies of faith iudging of heresies deposing of heretickes excommunication of notorious and stubborne offenders ordination of Priests and Deacons institution and collation of benefices and spirituall cures c. This we reserue intire to the Church which Princes cannot giue or take from the Church This power hath bene practised by the Church without coactiue Iurisdiction other then of excommunication But when the matters handled in the Ecclesiasticall consistorie are not matters of faith and religion but of a ciuill nature which yet are called Ecclesiasticall as being giuen by Princes and appointed to be within the cognisance of that consistorie and when the censures are not spirituall but carnall compulsiue coactiue here appeareth the power of the ciuill magistrate This power we yeeld to the magistrate and here is the question whether the magistrate hath right to this power or Iurisdiction which is thus described by the Romanists Externall Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall is a power coactiue giuen to gouerne Christian people in contentious courts this is the principal question which we haue here to search Our English flatterers of the Pope that write now and of late haue written vndertake to prooue that this Iurisdiction is first and principally in the Pope and from him deriued to Bishops and that Kings haue not this power at all or any part of it vnlesse by commission from the Pope our assertion is contrary that this power of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction externall and coactiue beâ—…ongs to Kings only not to Ecclesiasticall persons but as they â—…aue commission from their Princes And because we would â—…ot be mistaken in the question we will set down the words of the best of that side for better euidence and assurance who take the question thus and not otherwise Iohn Gerson saith Potestas Ecclesiastica Iurisdictionis in foro exteriori est potestas Ecclâ—…siastica coactiua quae valet exerceri in alterum etiam iâ—…uitum Bellarmine speaking of the same power saith it is ad regendum populum Christianum iâ—… foro exteriori 10. Then this is the thing which wee are to prooue that Ecclesiasticall coactiue power by force of lawe and corporall punishments by which Christian people are to be gouerned in externall and contentious courts is a power which of right belongeth to Christian Princes Concerning the power of orders and institutions of excommunication and deposition and of internall Iurisdiction in the court of Conscience in administration of Sacraments absolution by power of the keyes this we giue not to Princes but Princes as they are preseruers of Religion and nurcing fathers of the Church are to see that Bishops and all inferiour ministers performe their faithfull duties in their seuerall places and if they be found faulty to punish them because that belongeth to external Iurisdiction coactiue Thus much may suffice for the state of the question For the manner of handling I purpose to search the right of Kinges first in the law of nature secondly in the written law giuen by Moses continued vntill the comming of our Lord Iesus Christ thirdly to declare the confirmation of the same right by Christ and his Apostles and the Church succeeding vntill that time that the Pope drew a newe estate and Iurisdiction to himselfe After which time I purpose to obserue how the Pope hath incroached first vpon the Bishops then vpon the right of kings and last vpon the right of the Church and generall Councels By all which will appeare how late how new and strange that Iurisdiction is which the flatterers of the court of Rome now yeeld to the Pope CHAP. II. Kings in the time of the Law of nature had all power Ecclesiasticall both of order and Iurisdiction IN the Law of nature we haue not many examples of Kings that gouerned a people where the Church of God was planted there is onely mention of Melchisedecke King of Salem of him it is said Gen. 14. Melchisedecke King of Salem was a priest of the high God In his person these two offices the kingdom the priesthood were ioyned both which offices followed the prerogatiue of the birthright for that this Melchisedeck was Sem is the receiued opinion of many interpretours wherein is some difference Some take Sem to be the eldest sonne of Noah but others from a probable collation of Scriptures hold him to be the second sonne but whether hee were eldest or not it is apparant and out of doubt by that blessing Gen. 9. that he had the birthright for Canaan is made his seruant which is the auncient stile and euidence of the birth-right as is expressed in the birthright of Iacob Iaphet is perswaded to dwell in the tents of Sem. Whereas therefore hee hath that honor aboue both his brethren the birthright is euidently confirmed vnto him Canaan being made his seruant and Iaâ—…het being directed to repaire to his
distinctly set in two persons Moses keeping the ciuill gouernment and Aaron the Priesthood The gouernment of Moses and his successours being more ciuil The Priesthood of Aaron his successors ceremoniall it followeth that this ancient ordinance of the law of nature was altered by such positiue lawes of God which were either ciuil or ceremoniall and consequently that this alteration taketh not away the auncient right 6. If I might therefore in a matter of this nature declare my poore opinion leauing the censure hereof to the learned that are able to iudge I take it that as it is not simply vnlawfull that a King may be a Priest and neuerthelesse keepe his kingdome so I suppose this thing cannot be done without not only a lawfull but also an ordinarie calling from God and from the Church For no man taketh this honour to himselfe but he that was called thereto as was Aaron And this cannot bee done without an ordinary calling for when Kings were Priests and the first borne sacrificers as in the law of nature then they had an ordinary calling therto for that was then the ordinance of God ordinarie in the Church which now is not But if a man were first ◅ Priest and afterward aduanced to a kingdome by some Temporal right in this case it were assuredly vnlawfull for him to shake off his holy estate and betake himselfe wholly and only to his Temporall gouerment as some Cardinals haue done Then by the law of nature the King had both the power of order and Iurisdiction and howsoeuer this is altered by a positiue ordinance of God yet all is not taken away there remaineth still that part of Iurisdiction so farre as it standeth in power coactiue in respect wherof the common law of this land saith the King is persona mixta because he hath both Ecclesiasticall and Temporall Iurisdiction 7. This example of Melchisedeck both King and Priest hath much lifted vp the Pope and his flatterers for of this they take especiall hold and thinke hereby to prooue the Pope to be King of the Church because Melchisedeck was both King and Priest But to this we aunswere Melchisedeck had both these honours by a lawfull and ordinarie calling but so hath not the Pope for his Priesthood we graunt he had once thereto a lawfull calling both by locall and doctrinall succession which doctrinall succession Irenaeus calleth successionem principalem Tertullian doctrinae cōsanguinitatē cum Apostolica Ecclesia but now haue they forsaken that principall succession and haue nothing left to glory in but bare personall and locall succession Then to the office of a Bishop the Pope may shew some colour though the colour be now worne thredbare but to the princely office which he claimeth ouer the Church he can shew neither calling nor colour so that the example of Melchisedek which the Popes parasites drawe with such violence to him doth helpe him nothing but rather helpeth the cause of Christian Kings against him for it is certaine that Kings were Priests by an ordinary calling before these two offices were distinguished but it can neuer be prooued that Priests were Kings by such an ordinary calling after that these two offices were set in distinct persons If any man suppose that we haue stretched the example of Melchisedeck too farre because he was a type of Christ I aunswere this is nothing against my purpose that Melchisedeck was a type of Christ. For many men in their ordinary standing and executing ordinary functions did also beare some type extraordinarie thus did Moses Ioshua Dauid Solomon and others I speake of Melchisedeck as I finde him in his ordinary place a King and a Priest 8. By all which we conclude that vnder the law of Nature Kings were in the beginning inuested with all power Ecclesiasticall both of orders and Iurisdiction and therefore these things are not incompatible by nature All this time which lasted about the space of two thousand and fiue hundred yeeres Kings had Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction without question And therefore this Iurisdiction of Princes which we haue vndertaken to examine is found aunswerable to the first gouernment of the world vntill the time of the law giuen by Moses CHAP. III. All externall Iurisdiction coactiue was a right belonging to Kings vnder the Law NOw let vs search what Iurisdiction in matters Ecclesiasticall was found due and acknowledged to belong to the Kings right all that time vnder the Law Then we find by an especiall commaundement of God these two offices of King and Priest were distinguished and set in two seuerall persons the one in Moses the other in Aaron And the tribe of Leui was taken to the seruice of God in stead of the first borne by an expresse commaundement and the first borne which in number exceeded the number of the Louites were redeemed by fiue shekels a man for the number of the first borne was taken 22273. the number of the Leuites 22000. so that the number of the first borne exceeded the number of the Leuites by 273. These were redeemed and after that redemption the first borne of other tribes were discharged from the attendance of the seruice of God the Leuites tooke vp their place Now the Kings office and the Priests being thus distinguished we must consider what things did properly belong to each office 2. First we find that Moses who had the place of a King in gouernement as he is also called a King doth consecrate Aaron the Priest Moses is commaunded to consecrate him and his son s Exod. 28. and performeth it Leuit. 8. therefore it is repeated Num. 3. These are the names of the sonnes of Aaron the anointed Priests whom Moses did consecrate to minister in the Priests office Heere then appeareth some Iurisdiction of Moses ouer Aaron But this I meane not to vrge for it may bee thought extraordinailry to belong to Moses as Gods Apostle or Ambassadour and lawgiuer vnto Israel for in such great chaunges as was from the law of Nature to the written law somewhat must bee admitted extraordinary and this I could be well content to vnderstand so though many doubts arise for the princes right against the Priests For first it may be obiected seeing there was a Prince and a Priest set vp distinct one from the other why should the Prince consecrate the Priest and not the Priest the Prince But here we finde that Aaron doth not consecrate Moses to be Prince but Moses doth consecrate Aaron to be Priest Another doubt may be moued why Moses should consecrate not onely Aaron but his sonnes also For though we should admit the consecration of Aaron to be done by Moses of necessitie as a thing extraordinary at the first beginning of this Priesthood yet this necessitie appeareth not so much in Aarons sonnes for they might haue beene consecrated by Aaron after that himselfe had bene once consecrated by Moses And yet we find that the
to command for otherwise the Kings command is but as the word of a priuat man or of a child if he haue not power to iudge and punish 14. Moreouer whereas Iehosaphat commandeth the Priests and Leuites to iudge betweene blood and blood Law and precepts statutes and iudgements In things that concerned questions of blood as when blood was shed by casualtie in which case the party offending had remedy by sanctuary and the high Priest was the immediat iudge as also in matters concerning lawes precepts â—…tutes iudgements that is ordinances ceremoniall or morall In these things stood the Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction which then was practised in the Church for to take that distinction which we must often remember in this question it is confessed that all Ecclesiasticall power is either of order or Iurisdiction In both which the King hath a part bâ—…t differently In the power of orders the Kings part and office was to see that things of that nature were orderly done and the breach thereof punished but himselfe was not to execute any thing whereunto the Priests were apointed by the power of their orders as to offer incense c. Wherefore Vzziah was smitten with leprosie for medling with that part of the Priests office Now Iurisdiction is diuided into power internall which as often wee haue said belongeth not to the King and power externall which power externall when it is coactiue is nothing but that which wee call the Kings Iurisdiction though it be in matters Ecclesiastical And this Iurisdiction is here testified to be in Iehosaphat and from him deriued to all to all iudges vnder him both Temporall and Ecclesiasticall For as he commaunded the Temporall iudges so in like sort he commaunded the Ecclesiasticall And as the Ecclesiasticall iudges might replie if they had bene such as now these are of the Romane Clergie that Ecclesiasticall iudgements were holy and the cause of God and not of the King so doth the King witnesse of Temporall iudgements for speaking to Temporall iudges he saith you execute not the iudgements of man but of the Lord. Then Temporall iudgements are the Lords cause aswell as Ecclesiasticall and herein they differ not 15. Now this Iurisdiction which is in coactiue power wee prooue to be in the King and onely in the King I speake according to the forme of the state of Israel in those dayes wherof we now speake aunswerable to which is the Soueraigne magistrate in any other state This right I say we prooue to bee onely in the King and from him deriued to other iudges both Temporall and Spirituall by these reasons first the King and onely the King commaundeth both iudges to doe their duties in their seuerall places and hath lawfull power to punish them if they doe otherwise therfore the Kings Iurisdiction coactiue is ouer both sorts alike The antecedent hath two parts the first drawen from the expresse words of the Scripture in this text the second followeth by a necessitie For the commaund of a King is ridiculous and no commaund vnlesse he haue authoritie to punish The consequence followeth by the very definition of Iurisdiction which will prooue the second part of the antecedent For this Iurisdiction for which we plead is defined by the most learned of the Church of Rome authority coactiue If it be authoritie it may command if coactiue it may punish then it followeth that where Iehosaphat had first authoritie to commaund and last to punish that questionlesse hee had this Soueraigne Iurisdiction 16. If against this any obiect that the King may command in matters of orders of preaching the Word administring the Sacraments c. In all these things the King may lawfully command the parties to doe their duties and may punish them if they doe otherwise and yet no man will put the Kings Iurisdiction in these matters of orders Preaching Sacraments c. For aunswere let me intreat the reader with attention to consider these three things First to commaund secondly to execute thirdly to punish Iurisdiction standeth wholly in the first and last and nothing at all in the second that is in authoritie and not in action So that though the King should execute a thing which belongeth to his office yet in the execution therof his Iurisdiction should not appeare howsoeuer his wisedome knowledge and actiue vertues might appeare therein for Iurisdiction is in the authoritie of commaunding and power of punishing and supereminence that riseth from both And therefore in the preaching of the Word administration of Sacraments the King hath no part because therein Iurisdiction standeth not these things being matters of execution not of commaund but the authoritie to commaund these things by making or vrging lawes for them and to punish the transgression by corporall punishments this because it includeth coactiue power is in the Soueraigne Magistrate onely If the Magistrate should either neglect his dutie as the heathen did or commaund false doctrines to be preached as the Arian Emperours did in this case the Church hath warrant to maintaine the truth but without tumults and rebellion and rather in patience to loose their liues then to forgo any part of the truth 17. Another reason to prooue this Soueraigne authoritie coactiue to be only in the King and from him respectiuely deriued to both sorts of iudges may thus bee drawen For the iudges Temporall there is not so much question made all the doubt is of iudges Ecclesiasticall the chiefe of which iudges Ecclesiasticall in the Church of Israel was the high Priest Then this Iurisdiction whereof we speake must be confessed to haue been principally and originally either in the king or in the high Priest but in the high Priest it was not Therefore in the King it must be That it was not in the high Priest we proue by these reasons The high Priest is commaunded corrected punished and deposed by the King and not the King by the Priest therefore the Soueraigne Iurisdiction is not in the high Priest but in the King Againe the high Priests did neuer practise coactiue authoritie vnlesse when they were Soueraigne Magistrates as sometimes the high Priests in Israel were but as high Priestâ—… they had no such power for the causes betweene blood and blood which were of their cognisance are by the interpreters vnderdood such cases wherein a man was killed by chaunce without the purpose or against the will of the offender in which case the high Priest might graunt him the prâ—…uiledge of sanctuary and so deliuer him from the auenger of blood but he had no power coactiue to inflict death or such punishments at his pleasure which trueth was so constantly receiued and preserued in the Church afterward that euen in the greatest power highest ruffe of Poperie the Church of Rome did not take this full â—…oactiue power but onely proceeded to degradation and then to deliuer men vp to the secular powers which was a â—…ecret confession that they had no right to
this power coactiue though they had vsurped many parts thereof 18. A third reason to prooue this authoritie to bee in the Ciuill Magistrate is as I teached before confirmed by the right of Appellations For in matters of coactiue Iurisdiction a man might appeale from the high Priest to the King as Saint Paul did to Caesar which was vtterly vnlawfull for him to doe vnlesse he might as lawfully haue appealed to a King if that state of Israel had then beene ruled by a King as at other times it was For that right which Saint Paul giueth to Nero to heare Appellations he would vndoubtedly yeeld to Dauid or Ezekâ—…as or any other godly King in his owne Dominions Wherefore it followeth that either Saint Paul must be condemned for yeelding an vnlawful power to Emperors or Kings must haue the same priuiledge which thing being admitted in matters Ecclesiasticall doth inuincibly prooue the Kings Iurisdiction in such matters The same thing is also confirmed from those words of the Apostle he is the minister of God and he beareth the sword If the Magistrate be the minister of God then he hath full authoritie and Iurisdiction from God whose minister and vicegerent he is if he beare the sword hee hath all power coactiue for coactiue power doth alwayes follow tâ—… sword which God hath giuen to the Ciuill Magistrate to beare Therefore Ioh. Chrysostoâ—… saith Regi corpâ—…ra commissa sunt sacerdoti animâ—… reâ—… maculas corporum remittit sacerdos maculas peccatorum illâ—… cogit hic exhâ—…rtatur ille habet arma sensibilia hic arma spiritualia Hâ—…m 4. de verb. Esa. vidi dom Then the true difference betweene the Magistrate and the Priest concerning this point is Ille cogit hic exhâ—…rtatur so that coactiue power is left wholy to the Magistrate Ambrosâ—… likewise speaking of the authoritie of the Church and of Bishops saith Coactus 〈◊〉 nâ—…n noui arma enim nostra preces sunt 〈◊〉 â—…at iâ—… Auxâ—…t where he declareth the difference betweene these two powers leauing nothing to the Church but preces 〈◊〉 wherin there is no coaction In which sense Thomas Aquinâ—…s faith vindicta quae fit authâ—…ritate publicae potestatâ—… sâ—…cundum 〈◊〉 iudicis pertieet ad iusticiam commutatiuam 2. 2. qu. 8. art 1. Therefore vindicatiue power or coaction belonges not to the Church but the Magistrate that exerciseth coâ—…utatiue iustice 19. In regard of which high power Princes are called Gods I haue said you are Gods And because an aduersarie of late hath told vs that this name is giuen aswell to Ecclesiasticall gouernours as to Kings we reply that it cannot be shewed that this name is giuen to Ecclesiasticall gouernours but either where such gouernours haue receiued authoritie from the Ciuill Magistrate or where themselues are the chiefe Magistrates so that it is a name giuen in respect of Soueraigne power For to manifest the Soueraigne emmency of the Prince compare the Prince and Priest togâ—…ther and by this comparison wee shall euidently know the truth for we find the Prince called a God not onely in respect of the people but in respect of the Priest also Where the Lord himselfe speaketh to Moses of Aaron comparing their power and offices together he saith thus He shall be thy spokesman vnto the people and he shall be as thy mouth and thou shalt be to him in stead of God In this comparing of these two great offices Moses is the directour Aaron the interpretour and preacher Where the Prince or Soueraign Magistrate is called a God not onely in respect of the people as in diuers other Scriptures but in respect of the Priest thou shalt be to him euen to Aaron as a God We find then that the Prince is called a God in respect of the Priest but we can neuer find that the Priest is called a God in respect of the Prince This declareth a Soueraigne authoritie of the Prince in matters of God and of Gods true Religion For he who by his office is to establish true Religion in his dominions doth heerein represent a liuely exâ—…mple both of the goodnesse and power of God and therefore Magistrates are called Gods as being Gods Vicegerents for establishing of true Religion 20. And this our Sauiour Christ confirmeth for whereas Psal. 82. They are called Gods I haue said you are Gods Our Lord expoundeth that place declaring in what sense they are so called For he saith If he called them Gods vnto whom the word of God was giuen and the Scripture cannot be broken c. Then the Magistrates who are here called Gods are such to whom the word of God is giuen For further declaration of the truth let this question be demaunded to whom is the word of God principally giuen to whose Soueraigne custodie is the word of God committed The words of our Sauiour Christ containe an aunswere to the Ciuill Magistrate For it is certaine that all that Psalme whence Christ taketh those words is wholly and intirely vnderstood of the Ciuill Magistrates and not of Priests or Ecclesiasticall gouernours Why then and is not the word of God giuen to Ecclesiasticall gouernours aswell as to Kings Yes verily but diuersly for to Ecclesiasticall gouernours the knowledge of the word is giuen to publish by preaching For the Priests lippes shall preserue knowledge and they shall seeke the law at his mouth for hee is the messenger of the Lord of hostes Then if the question be asked to whom is the word giuen by the way of knowledge to preach and publish it The answere is to the Priest but Christ speaketh not here of that manner of giuing the word but he toucheth that Commission which is giuen to Magistrates For to Magistrates it is not giuen by way of especiall knowledge to preach it but by way of an especiall commission to keepe it to establih it by authoritie to command obedience vnto it and to punish the violatours of it This is the authority of a Christian Prince for he hath called them Gods to whom the word was giuen Whom hath hee called Gods Ciuill Princes for of such onely of such that Psalme speaketh Why are they called Gods Because they are Gods vicegerents by their authority to establish Gods word Therefore they are acknowledged to bee custodes vtâ—…insque tabulae for which cause it was an ancient ceremony in the Church of Israel that at the Kings Coronation the Booke of God should be giuen into the hand of the King as we read in the Coronation of Ioash Which thing is confirmed by a commaundemant in the Law why was this thing so solemnly commanded so religiously preached but to shew that God hath committed the care of Religion principally to the King that by the vtmost of his power and authority it might be established in his Dominions 21. This doth proue that Moses was a Prince and not a Priest and Aaron a Priest but not a Prince because Moses
is called Aarons God but Aaron is not called Moses his God but his mouth Which thing though it bee so euident as that it seemeth to be the vndertaking of an idle and vn-necessary discourse to proue it yet because many bookes are of late filled with this conceit that Moses was a Priest which thing is taken as an especiall ground to build vp the Popes temporall Monarchie Let vs in a few wordes refute this fancy Franciscus Bozius who vndertaketh to proue this taketh a foundation so ruiâ—…ous and fallacious that it is no maruell if his whole building be answerable for he concludeth that Moses was a Priest properly so called because Psal. 99. it is written Moses and Aaron among his Priests and Samuel among such as call vppon his name The answere is easie and vulgarly knowne for Cohanim which word is there vsed signifieth both Priests and Ciuill gouernors It is vsed for Ciuill gouernors which stand in some honourable place 2. Sam. 8. 18 where the sonnâ—…s of Dauid are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which cannot be translated Priests as the Latin vulgar hath it Though this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 somtimes be takeÌ„ for a Priest yet it is certaine that Dauids sonnes were not Priests but chiefe rulers about the King as it is expounded 1. Chron. 18. 17. Then we answere that no proofe can bee drawne from this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to proue Moses a Priest because the word is ambiguous applyed both to Priests and to Ciuill gouernours And therefore the word is fitly applied to Moses and Aaron comprising both their Offices in one short word But that Moses was no Priâ—…st we prooue thus If he were a Priest it must be either before that Aaron and his successors were assumed to that Office or after Before the law assumed Aaron and his sonnes to be Priests Moses could not bee Priest because the Priesthood was annexed to the birth-right But Moses was not the first borne of Amram but Aaron was the eldest for we read Num. 33. Aaron was one hundred twentie three yeares old when he died But Moses out liuing Aaron was but one hundred twenty yeares old when he dyed Deut. 34. Theresore Aaron was questionlesse the elder brother If any obiect that the birth-right was sometimes taken from the eldest by an especiall appointment of God as appeareth in Sem and Iacob I answere this cannot help in this point for Aaron was so farre from loosing this priuiledge of his birth-right by any appointment of God that he had the Priesthood famously confirmed to him and to his posterity So that neither by the law of nature nor by any precept of God can Aaron be said to loofe any priuiledge that belonged to the Priesthood Then before the institution of the Leuiticall Priesthood Moses could not be Priest After the institution thereof the Priesthood was so appropriated to Aarons house that none could be Priests but Aaron and his sonnes onely Therefore it was not possible that Moses could be a Priest at all either before the consecration of Aaron or after 22 Another reason may be drawn from those places which declare that Iosua was appointed by God to succeede Moses and to gouerne as he did In all which places it appeareth that Iosua succeeded Moses in his place and function and was that in Israel in his time which Moses was before him But it is certaine that Iosua was no Priest therfore as certaine that Moses was no Priest For Iosua was the full and entire successour of Moses The same appeareth by the whole course of Moses his gouernment Who commandeth as a Prince is obeyed as a Prince both by the Priests and people By which command in matters temporall and ecclesiasticall if they suppose that a Priesthood is proued by the same reason all the Kings of Israel may as well be concluded to haue been Priests For they commaunded in all such thinges as Moses did Some obiect that Moses sacrificed Exod. 24. But this obiection is friuolous For the words of the Scripture are against it It is expresly said that Moses sent young men to sacrifice these were the first borne of the 12 Tribes For this was before the institution of the Leuiticall Priesthood If any obiect that Moses did something which might seeme to belong to the office of a Priest I answer so did the Kings of Israell some things which might seeme to belong to the office of a Priest For Iosias when all the people were gathered together read in their eares all the words of the booke of the couenant Which thing might seeme to belong to the Priests office So true is that principle of our common Law founded vpon the profound principles of diuinitie and good gouernment Rex est persona mixta because he hath both temporall and ecclesiasticall iurisdiction 23 And thus haue wee declared the Kings right vnder the Law from the precept of the Law practise of godly Kings Thus did Ezekiah thus did Iosiah and others and in so doing they vsurped no vnlawfull power but stood faithfull in the execution of that lawfull right which GOD committed to them From this commission they may not turne either to the right hand or to the left For as it was a great sinne in Vzziah on the one side to vsurpe the Priests office so should it be a great sinne on the other side for a King to neglect any part of a Kings office From all which wee collect the power of a Prince in matters ecclesiasticall to stand in these things He is to establish all ecclesiasticall Lawes for which no power is sufficient without his Neither is it reason that they should establish Lawes in whom there is no power to defend and maintaine the Maiestie of those Lawes so made He is to punish all transgressours of those Lawes hee is to appoint ecclesiasticall Ministers their places to be Iudges in matters of ecclesiasticall Lawes and if they offend to punish them hee may place and displace according to their merits So Salomon displaced Abiathar made Zadock high Priest in his roome But because of late suborned Mat. Tortus speaking of this example saith that Salomon did displace the high Priest as he was a Prophet not as hee was a King let vs by the way open the vanity of this shift The fault that Abiathar had committed was worthy of death as Salomon saith Thou art worthy of death But yet hee shewed him mercy because hee had borne the Arke of the Lord before his Father Dauid and had suffered in all things wherein Dauid was afflicted So that the thing which Salomon did to Abiathar he did as iudge of life and death To be a Iudge of life death was not the osfice of a Prophet but of the King therefore Salomon did it not as a Prophet but as a King Againe the Prophets office was extraordinary but this thing is so far from an
much lesse dissolution to the states of this world but the gouernement of the court of Rome now commonly called the Church of Rome breedeth trouble and dissolution to the states of this world therefore the gouernment of that court is contrary to the gouernment of Christs Church the assumption is a confessed truth too well knowen that the gouernment of the Popes court or Church breedeth trouble and dissolution to States by excommunications The proposition is prooued by the aunswere of Christ to Pilats feares my kingdome is not of this world whereby hee satisfieth Pilate that he needed not feare any trouble or dissolution of established authoritie by him for this was Pilats feare So that if wee admit that Christ did aunswere to the purpose and that Pilats feares and suspitions were remooued by his aunswere it must be confessed that by that aunswere the State was secured that Christs gouernement would not raise any trouble to it or procure the dissolution thereof And it must be well obserued that Christ thus securing the present State doth not speake of his owne person onely but vndertaketh for all that belong to him and his kingdome Therefore he saith not I am not or my person is not of this world but my kingdome is not of this world Then as hee secureth this State from any trouble that they might feare from his person so he secureth all States of the world during the time of this world from all troubles that they might feare from his members and from his kingdome which is his Church Wherby it followeth by strong euidence of reason that they who put States in feare of troubles or work the dissolutiō of Ciuill gouernment as the Pope doth by excommunication are not the members of Christ nor belonging to his kingdom 15. This is further declared in the same place by the words following If my kingdome were of this world then would my seruants surely fight that I should not be deliuered to thee In which words wee finde that Christes seruants may not fight not stirre vp tumults vproares and warres for the maintaining of their kingdome Therefore that Kingdome for which they raise so much warre is not the kingdome of Christ not Christs Church nor they that raise vp such warres Christs seruaunts Christ forbiddeth his seruaunts to fight for him and his kingdome the Pope commandeth his seruants to fight for him and his kingdome Can you haue two kingdomes more opposite two Kings more contrary 16. This doctrine that the Church may not stirre vp any vproares or warr◅s against the Magistrate hath beene alwayes maintained by the auncient Fathers For we finde that in the greatest persecutions the auncient Bishops taught Christians alwayes to liue in peace and to pray for the Emperours and gouernours though they were persecutors according to the commaundement of Christ Loue your enemies and pray for them that persecute you Iustin Martyr saith We pray that you speaking of the Emperour may be found to haue a good and sound mind with your imperiall power Plinie writing to Traian of the auncient manner of Christians saith they assembled to worfhip Christ and bound themseluer in a Bond not to set vppon any wicked practise Sed ne furta ne latrocinia ne adulteria committerent ne sidem fallerent Contrary to which practise the Pope by his excommunication deposing of Princes and discharging subiects from their oath and Allegeance bindeth men to raise warres and tumults to breake and violat◅ their faith and to commit many disorders Tertullian saith Cramus pro Imperatoribus c. That is We pray for Emperours for their deputies for powers for the State of this world for the quiet and peaceable gouernment of things Contrarie to which the Popes raise warres make the gouernment of States tumultuous and take away peace from the earth Optatus saith For good cause doth Paul teach that we must obey Kings and powers yea though an Emperour were such an one as liued after the manner of the Gentiles Augustine saith we are not to yeeld this power to any but onely to God the power I say to giue kingdomes c. Who giueth earthly kingdomes both to godly and vngodly And in another place hee prooueth that euill Kings and Tyrants are to be obeyed wherof he giueth a reason because saith hee Men consist of two parts a bodie and a soule as long as wee are in this life and neede the helpes of this life we must by that part which belongeth to this life be subiect to the powers of this world but by that part whereby we beleeue in God we owe no subiection to man but onely to God Ambrose saith If the Emperour should commaund any thing vnlawfull hee would not obey neither durst he resist by force but onely beare with patience Arma enim nosta sunt preces lachrymae Gregorie the first was so farre from this tumultuous disposition of his successours that hee held himselfe bound to obey the Emperour in the promulgation of that law which he thought the Emperour should not haue made Ego quidem iussioni tuae subiectus saith he to the Emperour Maurice eandem legem per diuersas terrarum partes transmitti feci quia lex ipsa omnipotenti deo minime concordat ecce per suggestionis meae paginam serenissimis dominis nunciaui vtrobique ergo quae debui exsolui quia Imperatori obedientiam praebui pro deo quod sensi minime tacui So farre were these auncient Fathers from the newe and strange practises of disobedience and rebellion against Magistrates which is nowe so stiffely taught and vnmercifully executed by the Popes vassals vnder pretence of Religion 17. But they tell vs that the Pope vseth onely his spirituall censures hee excommunicateth Kings for heresie or schisme and thereby deposeth them and dissolueth the obedience of Subiects I answer excōmunication as it is a censure of Christs Church containeth no coactiue power that is no such power as to depose Princes or to dissolue the faith and alleageance of Subiects Which thing is proued both by the vse of excommunication and by the power of the Church First if we consider the vse of excommunication we finde it was vsed in the Church of the Iewes and from them taken by the Church of Christians Then excommunication being found among the Iewes in his full vse and force all the kindes there of being distinctly obserued by the learned Iewes namely by Elias Leuita who obserueth out of the writings of the auncient Rabbines three diuers kindes of excommunication in vse in the Iewish Church it followeth that this censure of the Church can be no farther extended in the Church of Christians then it was in the Church of Israel where it was first instituted and established But in the Church of Israel it was neuer extended to deposing Kings and destroying obedience of Subiects therefore in the Church of Christians it may
partes of this Iurisdiction as wee finde the same practised at this time when it was at his height The partes of this Iurisdiction so much pursued by Popes we gather to be these power ouer Bishops power ouer generall Councels Inuestitures exemption of criminous Clerkes the Popes power in giuing lawes appellation and last of all a power to depose and depriue Kings In all which the Pope hath proceeded dâ—… facto to practise that power whereunto hee neuer had right The two first we purpose not to speake of here because of the first we haue spoken already Chapt. 5. Of the second we purpose to speake in the last Chapter the rest are here to be handled in Order and first of Inuestitures 44. The first Pope that claimed Inuestitures was Hildebrand William Malmsbury saith Hic Hildebranduâ—… quod alij iâ—…usitauerant palam eâ—…tulit excommunicans electos qui Inuestituras 〈◊〉 de manu Laici per annulum bacuâ—…m accipereâ—… That is He openly by excommunication thrust out them that had taken Inuestitures of Churches from a Lay hand by a Ring and a Staffe which thing before Hildâ—…bi and other Popes had not done Whereunto all the Histories of this time giue consent declaring that the first claime that the Popes made for Inuestitures was begunne by Hildebrand And because that the Popes were so peremptorie herein raising and continuing so great and so long a contention about this thing therefore it is thought by many that this right of Inuestitures was the Churches right and consequently the Popes And that Emperours and Kings did vsurpe it by inuasion and intrusion first priuately and then more publiquely We are therfore to seeke out this point to whose right Inuestitures did auncieâ—…tly belong whether to Kings or to Popes Now that they were a part of the auncient right of Emperours and Kings it is witnessed by Gratian for he bringeth an ancient testimonie which doth witnesse That Pope Hadrian did intreat Charles the great to come to Rome and defend the affaires of the Church and that there the Emperour held a Synode in which this auncient right was confirmed to him by Pope Hadrian Hâ—…drianus autem Papa cum vniuersa Synodo Carolo ius potâ—…statem eligendi pontificem ordinandi Apostolicam sedem dignitatem quoque patritiatus ei concesserunt Et Episcopos per singulas prouinciaâ—… ab eo Inuestituram accipere defiâ—…iuit vt nisi à rege laudetâ—…r Iâ—…uestiatur Episcopus à nemine consecretur That is Pope Hadrian with the whole Synode graunted to Charles the right and power of choosing the Pope and ordaining the Sea Apostolike and the priuiledge of the Romane Nobility and defined that Bishoppes through all Prouinces should take Inuestitures from him that a Bishoppe should be consecrated by none vnlesse he were first inuested by the Emperour Thus much is also testified by Sigebert and many moe The same is confirmed by Pope Leo who graunteth this to be the right of Otho the first as Hadrian did to Charles for thus saith Leo Othoni primo Teâ—…tonicorum Regi eiusque sâ—…ccessoribus c. perpetuam facultatem â—…ligendi successorem summae sedis Apostolicae Pontificem ac per hoc Archiepisâ—…opos seâ—… Episcopos vt ipsi ab eo Inuestituram accipiant To Otho the first Germane Emperour and to his Successours c. We grant the chusing our successour the Bishop of the chiefe Apostolicke Sea and by this to chuse Archbishoppes and Bishoppes that they may receiue Inuestitures from him 45. In both these Decrees as wel of Hadrian as of Leo there is Anathema denounced to the violators thereof Now Hildebrand was the first violator of them The things which the Popes decree in their Consistory in a full Synode vnder Anathema are things which must be vnchangeably kept or els there may be errours and vncertainty in the Decrees of his Holines which the Iesuites will not confesse But some of late presume that the Popes first graunted these Inuestitures to temporall Princes and that they haue no greater right or Title to them then from the Popes gift and the same authority say they which gaue them may reuoke this gift We answere this was yeelded to Charles when he was first made Emperour as the auncient right of the Empire This is proued first because in the same Distinction of Grâ—…tian this is often called antiqua consuetudo and prisca conâ—…uetudo and cap. 18. Pope Stephen answereth that he deferred the consecration of a Bishoppe Quod imperialem nobis vt mos est absolutionis minimè detulit Epistolam And a little after Uestrâ—… solertia imperialâ—… vt prisca dictat consuetudo percepta licentia nobis quem â—…dmodum vos scire credmus imperiali directa Epistola tunc voluntati vâ—…strae de hoc parebimuâ—… And againe Non debet ordinari qui electus fuerit nisi prius deâ—…retum generale introducatur in regiam vrbem secundum antiquam consuetudinem vt cum â—…ius scientiâ iussionâ—… debeat ordinaâ—…io prouenire Then the Bishops of Rome themselues graunt that this was the auncient vse and custome of the Empire The same is also confirmed from the reason that drew Charles then from the siege of Ticinum to that Synod it was to haue the auncient rights of the Empire confirmed to him Which thing is declared by diuers Histories especially by Theodoricus de Niem who testifieth that the reason which drew Charles to Rome at that time was to haue the right and auncient vses of the Empire clearely knowne There was saith he a Synod holden by Pope Hadrian and one hundred fifty three Bishops Abbats exquirentibâ—…s vsus leges mores eiusdem Ecclesiâ—… Imperij That is Making search of the vses lawes and customes of the same Church and of the Empire For all that could bee proued to be the auncient priuiledges of the Empire was Charles to haue then to be confirmed to him but then were Inuestitures confirmed to him therefore they were part of the auncient priuiledges of the Empire 46. Hincmâ—…rus Archbishop of Rhemes liued and wrote about the yeare eight hundred sixtie At what time without any question the auncient practise was continued of choosing Bishops by the consent of the King For he writing to the Bishops of France saith of the manner of choosing Bishops Consensu principis terrae qui res Ecclesiasticas diuino iudicio ad 〈◊〉 defendendas suscepit electione cleri atque plebis quisque ad Ecelesiasticum regimeâ—… absque vlla venalitate â—…rouehi debet That is By the consent of the Prince of the land who by the Diuine ordinance hath vndertaken the defence and preseruation of Ecclesiasticall causes and by the election of the Clergy and people ought euery one to be promoted to the Ecclesiasticall gouernment without Simony This then is the auncient right of euery Prince within his owne dominions As the same Hincmarus saith afterward Principi terrae
ten pounds of gold the place where such conuenticles were kept should be forfeited to the Emperors Exchequer And againe he saith thus Mâ—…rantur quia coÌ„mouentur potestates Christianae aduersus detestaÌ„dos dissipatores Ecclesiae Si noÌ„ ergo mouerentur quomodo redderent rationeÌ„ de Imperio suo Deo And much more he saith to this purpose FroÌ„ these few places of August we obserue First that in his time there was no doubt made among Catholicks but that the Magistrate should punish criminous Clarks by his coactiâ—…e power Otherwise they could not reÌ„der to God an account of their gouernment which standeth full against the doctrine of the present court of Rome 2. That they who first sought priuiledges exemptions from the sword of the Magistrate were Donatists wherein the Court of Rome succeedeth them taking other errours from other filthie heretiques and this from the Donatists 73. This was the auncient Doctrine but now at Rome they teach the contrary Bellarmine saith that such Clerkes as are within the Dominions of any King are not subiects to that King meaning that they are the Popes subiects and therefore not the Kings He saith also that Clerkes owe no obedience to Kings neither by Gods law nor mans Non sunt amplius Reges Clericorum superiores proinde non tenentur iure Diuino nec humano eis parere nisi quantum ad leges directinas That is Kings are not now any more Soueraignes of Clerkes and therefore Clerkes are not bound to obey them by Gods Lawe or mans law vnlesse it be in respect of lawes directiue What his meaning is by lawes directiue he expoundeth thus That Princes haue no coactiue power ouer the Clergie but onely power directiue If the Prince direct some things for the good of the Common-wealth Clerkes saith he are to obey such directions but he addeth Nec volumus dicere his legibus teneri Clericos obligatione coactiua sed solum directiua vt sunt leges principum quanquam ijsdem legibus vt ab Eeclesia approbantur rataehabentur etiam coactiua obligatione teneantur Wee graunt not saith he that Clerkes are bound by these lawes of Princes in a bond coactiue but onely directiue as they are lawes of Princes Albeit the same Lawes being approoued and ratified by the Church bindeth Clerkes in a bond coactiue By this new and admirable doctrine Princes hane no coactiue power ouer their Clergy but the Church hath coactiue power ouer them by the Church he meaneth the Pope here and therefore comparing the lawes of Princes with the Popes Canon lawes he saith Legi Canonicae etiam in causis criminalibus câ—…dere debet lex imperialis That is The imperiall law ought in matters criminall to giue place to the Canon law by which doctrine we finde that they tread the pathes and fil vp the measure of their forefathers the olde Friars maintaining that which Iohn Wiclife obserueth was first begunne by Friars that the King was not Lord of the Clergie but the Pope was their Lord. Thus a new King is raised vp ouer the Popes Clerkes and the Scripture is verified which saith And they haue a King ouer them which is the Angell of the bottomlesse pit whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon and in Greeke he is named Apollyon 74. The Laterane Councel was held in the yeare one thousand twoâ—…hundred and fifteene It is decreed in the same Councell That Heretickes being condemned should be deliuered ouer to the secular power from which time these pretended priuiledges haue growen so great and swollen vp so bigge that not being able to holde together they are burst in the midst hauing drawne vpon themselues the iust vengeance of God and of Magistrates so procuring their owne ruine But because Bellarmine cyteth a few testimonies to prooue the exemption of Clerks from secular iudgements we may first breefly examine them and so proceede Hee cyteth thus Concil Mileuitan Can. 13. Matiscon Can. 8. These places he quoteth producing no words He cyteth also other places thus Sulpitius lib. 2. Sacrae histor refert â—… Martinum aliquando dixisse nouum esse inauditum nefas vt causam Ecclesiae iudex saeculi iudicaret Item Ambrosius Epist. 78. ad Theophilum et August Epist. 162. These places are cyted or quoted by Bellarmine barely without the Authours wordes We answere in a word All this toucheth nothing our question of exempting criminous Clerkes from temporall Courts for these places speake not one word of this thing 75. The first place Concil Mileuit can 13. to preuent such busie fellowes of the Clergy which caried their causes to Rome as then some did ordeyned that euery Clerke should be gouerned by his owne Superiour What is this to the purpose This is all which that Canon saith The next Canon of the Matiscon Councell saith that if one Clerke had a matter against another Clerke he should not complaine to the secular Iudge but to the Bishoppe This maketh as little to the purpose Afterward he citeth for exemption from punishment these places 〈◊〉 Chalced. can 9. Si Clericus aduersus Clericum habet negotium non relinquat EpiscopuÌ„ suum ad saecularia iuaicia non recâ—…rrat c. Concil Agathens can 32. Clericum nullus praesumat apud saecularem iudicem Episcopo non permittente pulsare c. Concil Carthag 3 can 9. â—…oletan 3. can 13. Matiscon cap. 8. These testimonies speake as little for him as the other The 9. Canon of the Chalced. Councell speaketh not of the immunities of criminous Clerkes but onely prescribeth how one Clerke should accuse another before the Bishoppe and not before the ciuill Iudge And this is the purpose of all the other places cytâ—…d out of Concil Agathens Cartbag Toletan and Matiscon all speake of one thing Onely here one part of their knowne knauery is to be opened for he cyteth Concil Agathens can 32. thus Clericum nullus praesumat apudsaecularem iudicem Episcopo non permittente pulsare Marke good Reader a worke of darkenesse an example of Romish impudency by true sound and vnsuspected Recordes these priuiledges which now are in question betweene vs cannot be proued to haue beene established of old or to haue any testimonie of antiquity but by vertue of their expurgatoriall tables they are able to shew vs this auncient Canon of the Councell of Agatha corrupted by themselues For the Canon which Bellarmine cyteth of this Councell and the masked Romish Catholicke Diuine taketh from Bellarmine in some later Editions hath these wordes as they are cyted by him but in the first incorrupt Edition of Councels set forth by Peter Crab the wordes of that Canon are thus set downe Clericus nec quenquam praesumat apud saecularem iudicem Episcopo non permitente pulsare And thus it is read by them that aunciently cyte the same Now this agreeth well with the ninth Canon of the Chalced Councell which ordeyneth that if one Clerke will accuse another
coactiue power to the spirituall Iurisdiction of the Church This is the meaning of the imperiall Constitutions that are in this manner set forth by Emperors of religions and doctrinall matters For the Emperours neuer tooke vpon them by their authority to define matters of faith and Religion that they left to the Church but when the Church had defined such truthes against Heretiques and had deposed those Heretiques then the Emperours concurring with the Church by their imperiall Constitutions Sicque Diuina 〈◊〉 â—…umana concurrentia saith Iustinian in the same place vnam consonantiam rectis sententijs fecere did by their coactiue power giue strength to the Canons of the Church Aâ—…d thus was the Church then gouerned by the Canons of auncient approued Synodes for matters of faith and doctrine and by the Constitutions of Christian Princes for matters of externall coactiue Iurisdiction That Constantine by whose authority the sixt Synod was held at Constantinople declareth that the Canons of the fiue generall Councels adding this second Constantinopolitan to the other â—…ouce were the rules or Canons of the Church 86. So long as those Canons of auncient Councels stood for Church lawes executed by the Bishoppes who were the Gouernours so long the Gouernement of the Church stood vp in peace order and Godlinesse one Bishoppe incroached not vpon the Iurisdiction of another But after that the Pope had intruded vpon the Iurisdiction of the Church and was growen so great as that by coactiue power hee was able to maintaine his intrusion then began hee to giue lawes such as are comprised in the Decretals of Gregory the ninth who was Pope in the yeare one thousand two hundred and thirty the first publisher of those lawes which were continued by 〈◊〉 the eight 〈◊〉 fift Iohn the two and twentieth 〈◊〉 by some other Popes vnto the yeare one thousand foure hundred and eightie for then liued Sixtus the fourth whose Decrees are published in that part that is called extraâ—… Commun since which times those lawes haue beene in some force in diuers nations where they did not crosse the imperiall lawes of those nations nor the Iurisdiction of the Kings thereof Now seeing that the Popes Iurisdiction is so much set forth and aduanced by these Canon lawes let vs in few wordes examine how he came to this Iurisdiction to giue lawes and by what right he maintaineth it If any man haue right to make and giue lawes this right must either be from God giuen him or from men who haue had this right before in themselues for euery man cannot giue this right but onely such as haue it and haue power to giue it But the Pope receiued not this right of giuing lawes to all Churches from God for God hath no where giuen any such Commission to him The ancient Bishops of Rome either did not claime any such Iurisdiction or if any were carried by leuity and ambition out of their bounds they were presently recalled and repressed by the godly Bishoppes of that age As Anicet was by Polycâ—…rp Victor by 〈◊〉 Polyâ—…rates and the other Bishoppes of Asia Zozimus Boniface and 〈◊〉 by S. Augustine and the Affrican Bishoppes so that the Bishoppes of Rome could neuer be suffered to make lawes to the Church for one thousand or twelue hundred yeares after Christ therefore this right was not from Christ. 87. For if it had beene from Christ then should the Pope haue beene suffered to haue practised the same before twelue hundreth yeares were expired For the godly auncient Fathers did neuer withstand the Bishop of Rome in any Iurisdiction which hee could claime from Christ. But in this thing it is knowne that they withstoode him therefore this Iurisdiction whereunto after so many hundreth yeares hee intruded himselfe against the iudgement of the auncient Fathers who resisted him heerein is not from God Neither can this right bee claimed from man because they who chalenge it will haue it to be a diuine right not humane And they quarrell vs for that we admit that temporall Princes may haue such Iurisdiction so that they vtterly denie that this Iurisdiction is deriued from any humane power Now he 〈◊〉 to execute Iurisdiction which is neither giuen him from God nor man must needs be conuinced to be an intruder and to come in his owne name and consequently to fulfill that Scripture I came in my Fathers name and you receiue mee not If another shall come in his owne name him you will receiue Which the auntient Fathers expound of the comming of Antichrist in his owne name And what more pregnant proofe can be brought of this his comming in his owne name then is this intruding himselfe into a Iurisdiction which he had neither from God nor from the Princes of this world And because the Pope after one thousand and two hundred yeares had no more right to giue Lawes to the Church then in former ages he had therefore this Iurisdiction is vnlawfull which by these Lawes hee practiseth Wherein onely defacto he is found to doe that whereunto he neuer had right 88. Moreouer if Bellarmine haue declared the true conditions of iust and lawfull Lawes it will followe that the Canon Lawes are no iust Lawes Bellarmine confesseth that foure conditions are required in a Law to make it iust the first is drawne from the end for it must be referred to the common good for herein saith Aristotle a King differeth from a tyrant because a King respecteth the common good of his subiects but a tyrant looketh onely vpon his owne priuate profit and thus saith Bellarmine doth a iust Law differ from a tyrannicall Law Then are the Popes Canon Lawes proued tyrannicall and vniust because they respect not the common good but the priuate wealth of the Pope as all those doe that draw all appellations to him The second condition which in Bellarmines iudgement maketh a Law iust is drawne from the efficient For it must be from a man that hath full authority Nemo enim potest legem imponere â—…nsibi subdiâ—…o saith he By this it will likewise follow that the Popes Canons are no iust Lawes because the Pope hath no authority to make such Canons binding them that are not his subiects as we haue declared before The third condition that maketh a Law iust is drawne from the matter saith 〈◊〉 for it must not forbid vertue nor commaund vice but the Canon Lawes are such as forbid vertue and commaund vice as appeareth by all those Canons that proceede with their non obstante I will note one example of many There is a Canon that runneth thus Quum aliquibus recipiendi aliquem in Canonicum alicuius Ecclesiae non obstantibus ciusdem Ecclesiae priuilegijs consuetudinibus vel statutis â—…uramento confirmatione Apostolica vel quacunque firmitate alia roboratis per nostras literas concedimus facultatem c. That is When wee graunt power to any by our letters to receiue any to be
they whom he had banished from Parma were returned thither by the Popes practise and taking the Towne by force had giuen a great ouerthrow to the other Citizens fearing least this example might draw other Cities to the like reuolt he gaue ouer the iourney to Lions and wrote Letters to the French King and all Prelates refuting the Popes friuolous obiections declaring the iustice of his cause and his innocency Innocentius regarding neither iustice nor innocency pursued him by violence malice open warres secret conspiracies seeking all meanes that his vnholy head could inuent to take away the life of Fredericke As he was taking his recreation in hauking at Grossetum by the Sea shore neare to Sien the Pope drew his owne seruants to a conspiracy the conspiracy was detected and the traytors had the reward of their treason Innocentius who could not rest till he had done some Pontificall exploit against the life of this Prince stirred vp the Princes of Germany to thrust downe Fredericke and to set vp another first was set vp Henry Lantgraue of Thuringia this man besieging Vâ—…mes was wounded by the shot of an Arrow and shortly after resigned both his life and the Empire After this was William Earle of Holland set vp this man was slaine in the warres which he had gaged against the Frisians neither of these saith Naucler were numbred among the Emperours At last after so many secret traps laid for the life of this Prince behold the end of the Popes malice where strength faileth the Emperour was destroyed by poison King Iohn of England 124. THe King of England sped no better then others for by this vnbridled power of vsurped Iurisdiction King Iohn with the whole Kingdome was brought into great trouble and perplexity these troubles grew vpon a quarrell of Election betweene the Monkes of Canterbury and the Suffraganes in the seuenth yeare of King Iohn for after the death of Hubert Archbishoppe of Canterbury the Monkes without the knowledge of the King or respect of the Suffraganes chose Reynold the Subpriour of the house to be Archbishoppe who secretly went to Rome to haue this his election confirmed by the Pope but stay was made at Rome because he shewed not Letters commendatory from the King The Monkes perceiuing that without those letters commendatory they could not proceede made request to the King that they might chuse another whom the King might commend this the King liked well and commended Iohn Gray the Bishoppe of Norwich being his Chaplaine and President of his Counsell as Hollinshed saith but Mat. Paris whom he cyteth hath not so much The Monkes gladly obeyed the Kings request and madâ—… choise of this man but the Pope refusing both thrust vpon them Stephen Langton commanding and compelling so many of those Monkes of that Couent as were then at Rome to chuse him the King was herewith much moued because Stephen Langton was brought vp vnder the French King and bound to him betweene whom and King Iohn there was at that time much warre and dissention wherefore the King banished the Monkes that had chosen Stephen and wrote to the Pope that he had no reason to admit Stephen to such a place in his Kingdome a man promoted by the French King and at his commaund This contention continuing the Pope sent to the Bishoppes of England commaunding them to put the King and his land vnder the sentence of interdiction denouncing him and his land accursed The Bishoppes to whom the Pope wrote being by this time become the Popes subiects and sâ—…ruants and not the Kings which is the end which the Pope seeketh by his Iurisdiction denounced the interdiction and then fledde to Rome King Iohn seeing many fall from his obedience to the obedience of the Pope drewe his people to an Oath of Alleageance After this came Paâ—…dulph Legat from the Pope who after that he had beene here a while was commaunded by the Pope to repaire to the French King there with Stephen Langton to take Councell and to stirre vp the French to make warres vpon King Iohn Thus King Iohn was depriuâ—…d of his Gouernement his subiects absolued from their Alleageance by which practise many reuolted from him so that he was left weake and when the Popâ—… had thus weakned him then he set vp the French King in armes against him The issue was this The King circumuented by these practises of the Pope and oppressed being also bereaued of all helpe was forced to deliuer his Crowne to Pandulph and receiued it from him againe as from the Popes hands And thus was Stephen Langton made Archbishoppe this was done in the fifteenth yeare of King Iohn An. Dom. 1213. The Earle of Tholous 125. WHen Frederick the second liued so persecuted by the Pope as we haue declared a new and strange generation rose vp of a suddaine neuer seene in the world before starting vp like those armed Souldiers which the Poets faine to haue sprung vp suddenly of the Serpents teeth being sowed by Cadmus Such a serpentine generation of Friars were newly hatched at this time the first founders of them were Francis and Doâ—…inick For the Popes hauing a purpose to raise themselues aboue the Church and aboue Kings and Emperours as both by their profession and claime in the Canon Law and by their practise was apparant and for this purpose thundring out their excommunications vpon euery occasion practising this power in deposing Princes found themselues much crossed in these courses by Bishops and especially by the Bishops of Germany who stood out for a long time faithfull in the Church and couragious against the Popes tyranny Auentiâ—…us giueth many testimonies of the courage of the German Bishops as else-where also we haue obserued of the English Bishops for he writing of the times of Frederick the second the Bishops then saith he were not as now they are addict to the seruice of the Pope giuen to idlenesse and pleasure but learned industrious louing Christ and declaring their loue by feeding their flockes diligently These were not for the Popes purpose For in diuers Synodes they censured the Popes folly and ambition freely and withstood his tyrannie Then was the Church so gouerned by Bishops all matters so iudged and determined that the Pope might aduise but hee could not by authority attempt any thing in the Prouince of any Bishop thinges being guided by truth law the iudgement of the wisest and best learned in the Prouince and by the Councel and common consent of the Clergy of that Prouince Who had reason to know the estate of their Church and Prouince better then the Pope or any stranger could doe This godly order in the Church the Pope had a purpose to confound to oppâ—…esse the Bishops authority and to draw all power to himselfe Hoc iâ—…stitutum to vse the words of Aueâ—…tinus tollere antiquare Episcoporum autoruatem Labefactare ad vnius cuâ—…cta potestatem redigere complacitum est 126. This being the purpose of Popes
successe for fire shall come downe from God out of heauen and deuoure the enemies Vnto which seruice there is nothing so effectuall to animate the princes of Christendome as is this new and strange claime of the popes Iurisdiction ouer princes which thing because it is so much pursued by the Popes and their flatterers and onely by them as the great marke whereunto they addresse all their attempts and the very summe of all their Religion therfore I haue endeuoured to open the whole to distinguish the parts and to set this question in such a light as I could if not to satisfie all yet at least to giue an occasion to the iudicious I was desirous to leaue no part vntouched that all might come to a triall and am ready also withall to bring my selfe to the triall willing to learne and to amend any error after that it shall be manifested by the truth to bee an errour for which cause I submit all to the iudicious and godly censure of the Church My care was also after my seruice to God to performe herein a true seruice to his Maiesty by opening the Iurisdiction of Kings which I haue done not as they vse to doe who serue the Pope respecting no other rules of that seruice then his pleasure and their adulation but I haue disputed the Kings right with a good conscience from the rules of Gods word knowing that the noble disposition of his Maiesty will admit of no seruice whereby God or the truth is preiudiced All which as I commend to your Graces fauour and protection to whom God hath committed the care of his Church here so with my hearty prayers I commend your Grace to the faâ—…our and protection of God who inrich your heart with his plentifull graces that as for your proper comfort and direction you may enioy them so you may vse them to the glory of God and the comfort of his Church through Iesus Christ. Your Graces to be commanded in all duety GEORGE CARLETON An Admonition to the Reader IT may bee thought strange that so many are found to write in this contradicting age one contrary to another the trueth cannot bee on both sides and therefore there is a great fault on the one side the Reader that is desirous to trie where the fault is may be intreated to marke with aduised obseruation some things wherein our aduersaries wanting either knowledge or sinceritie haue broken all the rules of right writing to deceiue such as cannot iudge of which sort the greatest part consisteth I doe therefore intreat the Readers especially such as reade my Booke with a purpose to answere it to consider these things wherein we challeng our aduersaries for euil dealing in this particular Controuersie First In setting downe our opinion they make it not that which we hold but another thing and then make large discourses in vaine they should vnderstand our cause as we deliuer it for we deuise not their opinion but take it out of their owne bookes especially from the Popes Canons Secondly when they would refute vs they bring their owne Canon law which was deuised in preiudice of the freedome of Princes and is our aduersarie and therefore cannot bee our Iudge Thirdly When they produce the testimonies of ancient fathers the abuse for which we challenge them is that they will not vnderstand the question for the fathers write for the spirituall Iurisdiction of the Church aboue Princes which thing we neuer denied But against the coactiue Iurisdiction of Prinees in matters Ecclesiasticall which thing we hold the Fathers neuer wâ—…ote but they are for it If these things were faithfully obserued as they are all peruerted in this cause by one that termeth himself the Catholick Diuine and if the truth were sought with conscience and not preiudice maintained with resolution men would neuer presume so much vpon the simplicitie of the Readers nor in the confidence of their wit and learning would they suffer themselues to be set to the maintenance of any cause whatsoeuer Let me farther intreate him that would aunswere me to enter into this short and serious meditation with himselfe thus Either my purpose is to serue God for the truth and then I may looke for a blessing vpon my labours or else to serue man though against the truth and then I may looke for a curse vpon my selfe and my labours let this Meditation rule thy pen and heart I aske no more Last of all let me intreate thee of curtesie to amend the faults escaped in printing with thy pen thus P. 2. Lin. 10. Or some others superfluous p. 13. l. 2. as superfluous p. 14. l. 29 for more read meer p. 22. l. 28. the superfluous p. 30. l. 15 for teached r. touched p. 52. marg r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 73. l. 28 r. against the infringers of the priuiledges of the Sea Apostolick p. 85. l. 19. therto superfluous p. 98. l. 27. full superfluous p. 105. l. 8. r. M. Luther p. 107. l. 2. r. M. Luther p. 108. l. 16. r. M. Bucer p. 108. l. 20. r. M. Antonius Flam. p. 109. l. 10. r. M. Chemnicius p. 195. l. 19. Deposed by Pope Stephen r. deposed or his deposition allowed by the consent of Pope Stephen p. 198. l. 4. for the Bishops r. some Bishops p. 211. l. 11. for opportunelyr opportunity p. 228. l. r2 some report the poyson to haue beene giuen in the bread and some in the cup. p. 229. l. 31. for great r. greatest p. 234 l. 15. for Frederic r. Lodouic p. 234. l. 22. for Rhenes r. Rense p. 234. l. 27. for Rhenes r. Rense p. 236. l 19. generall superfluous p. 250. l. 28. r. adhaerentium adhaerere volentium p. 262. l. 21. for ver r. viri p. 272. l. 18. for chusing r. choosen p. 272. l. 22. for to r. in p. 279. l. 30. no supeâ—…fluous p. 294. l. 16. for cultus r. cultu OF THE IVRISDICTION OF PRINCES IN Causes and ouer Persons Ecclesiasticall CHAP. I. The state of the Question THe lawfull authoritie and Iurisdiction of Kings in matters Ecclesiasticall is now and hath beene for some ages heeretofore much impugned by such who by vsurpation hauing incroached vpon the right of Kings seeke by all subtill and colourable deuises to maintaine that by skill and some shew of learning which they haue gotten by fraud All this mischiefe proceedeth from the Bishop of Rome who vsurping powre and taking to himselfe that honour whereunto God hath not called him hath brought all authoritie Ecclesiasticall and Ciuill into great confusion by vsurping the right both of the Church and of States Now our desire being to open the truth and to declare the lawfull right of Princes and power of the Church it seemeth needfull first to set downe what power is giuen to the Pope by them that flatter him so shall the right of the King and of the Church better appeare 2 They yeeld to the Pope a fulnesse of power as they
Iurisdiction 6. From this consideration of persons and causes arise two great questions First concerning the exemption of all causes Ecclesiasticall from the Kings Iurisdiction secondly concerning the exemption of Ecclesiasticall persons from temporall audience and iudicature For the better vnderstanding hereof we may proceede by some distinctions for when our aduersaries teach that the Pope is the head of the Church and we that the King is the supreame gouernor of the Church though in some sound of wordes these things seeme not much to differ yet in truth there is great difference betweene their meaning and ours For they calling the Pope the head to distinguish him from Christ whom the Apostle calleth the head of the Church say that the Pope is the ministeriall head which deuise was first brought in by the Schoolemen for among the auncients it was not knowne but all that speake of the head of the Church before acknowledge none but Christ. Concerning this deuise of the ministeriall head we say with the ancient Fathers that the Catholike Church is but one and hath one head Christ Iesus because to one bodie there can bee but one head from whom grace is infused to the whole body This Catholike Church is as that head is both perfectly known to God not to man this then is but one in all times and places But the visible Churches or particular are many at many times in many places and therefore must haue heads or gouernours aunswerable to themselues for many Churches many gouernours These are either Spirituall gouernours or Temporall The spirituall gouernment of the Church is committed to spirituall gouernours as first from Christ to his twelue Apostles of whom none was aboue the rest in this spirituall gouernment or kingdome of Christ as the Lord doth often expresly declare to them from them to Bishops and Pastors their successors Temporall gouernours are such as haue the custody of externall coactiue Iurisdiction both in Temporall and Ecclesiasticall causes for the power of the Church with all her spirituall Iurisdiction neuer reached to coaction This was by God first giuen to Magistrates and neuer reuoked in all times practised but when the Church and Kings were oppressed by the great power of Antichrist When wee call the King the supreame gouernour of the Church our meaning is that hee is appointed by God to be a Father and preseruer of religion a keeper of Ecclesiasticall discipline and as the Prophet Isaiah calleth him a nourcing father of the Church he is the soueraigne in all affaires of coactiue Iurisdiction Likewise this word Church is not taken in the same sense by them and vs for our aduersaries saying that the Pope is the head of the Church vnderstand thereby the. Catholike Church spread ouer the whole world but we vnderstand a particular Church yeelding the King to bee gouernour next and immediatly vnder God of his own dominions and consequently of persons and causes within his owne dominions so that there is much difference betweene their meaning and ours Then we must come to such an issue wherein without equiuocating the question betweene vs is set for wee shall otherwise run into that fault which is so rife with the Popes Clarks that Bellarmine himselfe confesseth it Notandum est saith he multos ex nostris tempus terere dum probant quod Caluinus caeteri haeretici concedunt This is most common among them to bee large in disputing that which is not in question betweene vs and it is a signe of some ingenuitie to confesse it but neither doth himselfe for all his confession auoid it neither doe they that write since and depend vpon his learning shunne it after so faire warning neither in truth can a false cause be maintained in so many bookes and large volumes as now they set out vnlesse they tooke this libertie to themselues to be large in disputing things which are not in question The question then is concerning the lawfull authoritie of Kings in their owne dominions touching this part of Iurisdiction which is called Ecclesiasticall coactiue Iurisdiction 7. For better proceeding let the distinction be remembred which is vsually receiued of Ecclesiasticall power for all power Ecclesiasticall is commonly deuided into power of order and of Iurisdiction The power of order by all writers that I could see euen of the Church of Rome is vnderstood to be immediatly from Christ giuen to all Bishops and Priests alike by their consecration wherein the Pope hath no priuiledge aboue other Thus teach Bonauentuâ—…e in 4. sent d. 17. q 1. August Triumphus lib. de potest eccles qu. 1. ar 1. Ioh. Gerson li. de potest eccles consid 1. Cardinal Cusanus lib. de cathol concord 2. cap. 13. Cardinal Contarenus tract de eccles potest pontificis Bellarm. lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. cap. 22. This then being the common confession of all that the Pope hath no more power herein then any other Bishop or Pastor we moue no contradiction in this As they confesse that in this power the Pope hath no praeeminence but that it is giuen from Christto all Bishops and pastors equally so wee confesse that in this power the prince hath no part and that Bishops and pastors haue this power onely from the diuine ordinance and not from earthly princes then our question is onely of the power of Iurisdiction 8. This power of Iurisdiction is diuersly vnderstood by the writers of the Church of Rome Augustinus Triumphus doth deliuer it thus The power of Iurisdiction is Temporall or Spirituall and this power considered in generall is threefold immediate deriued or giuen to execute some seruice the power of Iurisdiction immediate of all things Spirituall and Temporall is onely in the Pope The power of Iurisdiction deriued is in Bishops to them deriued from the Pope the power of Temporall Iurisdiction giuen to execute some seruice for the helpe of the Church is in Emperours Kings and secular princes this power is not immediat from God but is giuen first to the Pope and so to Kings for the vse of the Church and â—…elpe of Pope and Prelates I haue deliuered this in the â—…ery words of Triumphus whom in this thing others followe though of late some of the finer Iesuits who hold the same are growen more cunning in the manner of deliuering it Bellarmine loath to leaue the opinion and ashamed so grossely to propose it deuiseth a mollification of it thus Asserimus Pontiâ—…icem vt pontiâ—…icem et si non habeat vllam meré temporalem potestatem tamen habere in ordine ad spirituale bonum summam potestatem disponendi de temporalibus rebus omnium Christianorum That is We auer that the Pope albeit he hath not any power merely Temporall as Pope yet hath power supreame in respect of Spirituall good to dispose of all the Temporalties of all Christians And in the next Chapter concludeth that the Pope hath authoritie to depose hereticall kings and princes
gouernments I meane Ecclesiasticall and Temporal be directed by coactiue power there is no difference in the point of Iurisdiction betweene Temporall and Ecclesiasticall authoritie For the King and only the King is to appoint iudges in matters Temporall and Ecclesiasticall the King hath no more authoritie in reuersing the iudgement of the one then of the other being true iust and lawfull So that the Kings Iurisdiction standeth not in a power to dissanull true and righteous iudgemens but in a power supereminent by which he is charged First to confirme lawes Ecclesiasticall and Temporall Secondly to place Iudges for both causes Thirdly to see that those iudges of both sortes iudge iustly according to right and equity Fourthly to punish them if they shall be found to giue vniust and corrupt sentences Fiftly and last of all his Iurisdiction appeareth in appellations 7. But heere a question will be moued whether a man may appeale from an Ecclesiasticall iudge to the Prince For that one may appeale from a Temporall iudge I suppose it is not doubted at least I see no reason why it should be doubted But in a cause Ecclesiasticall and from a iudge Ecclesiasticall to appeale to the Temporall Magistrate of this some Romish Doctors doubt This doubt which the Canonists haue made may be increased by that place Deu. 17. 10. Thou shalt not decline from that thing which they shall shew thee neither to the right hand nor to the left And that man that will do presumptuously not hearkning to the Priest that standeth before the Lord thy God to minister there or vnto the iudge that man shall die It might seeme to be collected hence that there is no appellation from the Priest no though hee should iudge as some Rabbins expound the words I will declare their exposition because it sauoureth much like the expositions of some Papists where the text saith thou shalt not decline to the right hand nor to the left they expound it that if the Priest shall say thy right hand is thy left or thy left is thy right this sentence thou must receiue and therein rest 8. But this is a fond assertion not only without reason but against the expresse words of the Scripture for it is said according to the law which shall teach thee and according to the iudgement which they shall tell thee thou shalt doe Where we finde two rules for these two kindes of Iudges the Priest and the iudge the sentence of the Priest must be according to the written lawe the sentence of the other according to the truth of iustice and iudgement If a man be able to shew that he is wronged he may vndoubtedly appeale to a Superiour now a man may be able to shew that he is wronged if hee can shew that the Priest declineth from the law of God which is appointed his rule or the Temporall iudge from iustice And therefore if there be a Superiour in the land he may appeale but if there be no Superiour he is without remedie as when Hely was both Priest and iudge from him at that time there could be no appellation but where the forme of a kingdome is established where one King is set vp in lawfull authoritie by whose power iudges Spirituall and Temporall are placed in his dominions heere appeareth a fountaine of Iurisdiction deriued as it were into two inferiour riuers and from these inferior powers appellation may be brought if they shall not in their sentences keepe their rules prescribed to them the lawe and iustice for the appellation being grounded vpon the lawe of Nature to moderate the peruersitie and partialitie of iudges it were an absurd thing to denie this in causes Ecclesiasticall vnlesse a man would suppose that persons Ecclesiasticall may not be corrupt in their iudgements Now if we shall once graunt appellations then assuredly wee confirme the Iurisdiction of Princes in all matters wherein appellation may bee made to them And because Iurisdiction is assuredly proued by appellation we will for the farther manifestation of the truth seeke to cleere this point the rather becâ—…use our aduersaries tell vs confidently that in matters Ecclesiasticall all appellation belongeth to the Pope The Popes say so and they beleeue them we hold that appellation in causes Ecclesiasticall is to bee directed to the King who is by God set ouer the persons appellant 9. In the Old Testament we haue fewe examples or none that I remember of any that appealed from any inferior iudge Ecclesiasticall to the Soueraigne but in the New Testament there is one example sufficient to confirme the truth S. Paul being accused for causes Ecclesiasticall appealed from the high Priest to Câ—…sar Therfore it is lawfull in matters Ecclesiasticall to appeale from iudges Ecclesiasticall to the Ciuill Magistrate The consequence resteth vpon this that Saint Paul heerein did nothing but that which he might doe iustly and lawfully which thing I suppose the greatest enemie of Saint Pauls Doctrine will not denie for he came vp to Ierusalem with this profession and purpose I am ready not to bee bound onely but euen to die for the name of the Lord Iesus Neither durst he for sauing of his life giue a scandall to the Gospell The antecedent consisteth of these two parts First that the matters for which Saint Paul was accused were matters Ecclesiasticall Secondly that therein he appealed from the high Priest both are witnessed by the expresse words of the Scripture For Festusâ—…aith â—…aith They brought no crime against him but had certaine questions against him of their owne superstition and of one Iesus which was dead whom Paul affirmed to be aliue These questions be out of doubt Ecclesiasticall euen in the iudgement of our aduersaries that he appealed from the high Priest reskuing himselfe from his iudgement it is euident by the words in the twentie three Chapter where the Apostle speaketh to the high Priest as to his iudge Thou sittest to iudge me according to the law And when he was reskued from the Priests by Lysias and sent to Felix and left by him to Festus he neuer thinketh of appealing from any of theâ—…e ciuill gouernours But when Festus asked him if he will goe to Ierusalem and there be iudged of these things then Pâ—…ul vtterly refusing the high-Priest appealed to Câ—…sar by which it followeth that in matters Ecclesiasticall a man may appeale from iudges Ecclesiasticall to the Soueraigne Prince Whereupon this vndoubtedly followeth that there resteth Soueraigne Iurisdiction in the Prince And therefore the Popes their flatterers vnderstanding well that Supreame Iurisdiction could neuer bee prooued to rest in the Popes vnlesse first Appellation should be made to them wrought by all subtilty as hereafter we shall declare by right or wrong they neither cared nor spared to cause Appellations to be made to them which thing when once they had obtained that in all causes Ecclesiasticall Appellation might be made to the Popes then and not before
this opinion was r◅olued that Supreame Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction was in the Popes And therefore we prouing that Supreame and last Appellation doth by the law of God belong to none but to the Soueraigne Prince conclude vndoubtedly that Supreame Iurisdiction belongeth to him onely 10. Heere a question may be mooued whether Saint Paul did well and orderly when he appealed to Caesar and whether Caesar was made iudge of these questions which were Doctrines We aunswere Saint Paul had no meaning to make C◅sar iudge of any point of faith But whereas hee was persecuted by the high Priests who sought his life in this matter of coactiue power Saint Paul giueth Iurisdiction to Caesar. There is also a difference betweene that power which heathen Princes haue and that which Christian Princes haue for heathen Princes haue all power coactiue whatsoeuer the cause be and without this helpe the Church could neuer deale in matters of this nature Christian Princes besides this coactiue power haue also as appeareth in the gouernment of Israel externall discipline in matters Ecclesiasticall 11. Thus we haue declared the distinct right of the King and the Priest after that they were distinguished by the written law of God we haue prooued that the Soueraigne Iurisdiction coactiue resteth in the Prince by a right which God hath giuen and therefore may not be taken away by man It followeth to consider how this right hath beene accordingly exercised by the godly Kings of Israel Ios◅ commanded the people to be circumcised and not Eleazerus the cause was Eccles◅ticall but to command in such causes declareth iurisdiction Dauid reduceth the Arke he appointeth Priests Leuites Singers Porters to serue at the Tabernacle he assigneth Officers of the sonnes of Aaro◅ All which being matters Ecclesiasticall the Prince as hauing soueraigne authority in both causes ordaineth Solomon buildeth the Temple and consecrateth it Asa remoueth Idols and dedicated the Altar of God that was before the porch of the Lord. Iehosaphat abolisheth Idolatry cutteth downe the groues sendeth Priests and Leuites to teach in Townes and Cities Setteth vp Iudges both ciuill and Ecclesiasticall and commandeth both to iudge according to godlinesse truth and Iustice. Because in the words of Iehosaphat these things are distinctly deliuered we will obserue the whole place The wordes are these And hee set iudges in the land throughout all the strong Cities of Iuda Citie by Citie And said to the Iudges take heed what you doe for you execute not the iudgement of man but of the Lord and he will be with you in the cause and iudgement Wherefore now let the feare of the Lord be vpon you take heed and doe it for there is no iniquitie with the Lord our God neither respect of persons nor receiuing of reward Moreouer in Ierusalem did Iehosaphat set of the Leuites and of the Priests and of the chiefe of the families in Israel for the iudgement and cause of the Lord and they returned to Ierusalem And he charged them saying thus shall you doe in the feare of the Lord with a perfect heart And in euery cause that shall come to you of your brethren that dwell in your Cities betweene blood and blood betweene Law and precept Statutes and iudgements you shall iudge them and admonish them that they trespasse not against the Lord that wrath come not vpon you and vpon your brethren And behold Amariah the high Preist shall be the chiefe ouer you in all matters of the Lord. 12. From which words we collect thus much concerning ◅he Kings Iurisdiction and the things wherein it consisteth ◅irst the King appointeth and placeth both Temporall and clesi◅sticall Iudges and commandeth and chargeth them so placed to execute their functions faithfully we inferre vpon this command in both alike that hee hath Iurisdiction ouer both causes But here let me remember a trifling obiection which some of our aduersaries haue deuised of late they would distinguish betweene command and Iurisdiction For they deny not but that all sortes of persons are vnder the Kings commaund and gouernment whom he may command each to doe their Office and yet they vtterly deny the Kings Iurisdiction and tell vs that command and Iurisdiction must not be hudled vp together Now let vs consider what hudling is in this when the Kings command and his Iurisdiction are set as things depending and cohaering one to the other When we say the King may command we meane plainely as we speake that the King hath from God lawfull authoritie to command and to punish them that breake his command This is the common vnderstanding of the Kings command But these Romish sophisters when they say the King may command do not vnderstand neither will they acknowledge at any hand that the King hath lawfull authoritie from God to punish the breach of his command for they vtterly deny that the King hath any authoritie to punish a Clarke though he should breake his commandement And call you this a command The King may command and goe without as the saying is This is the deuils sophistry taken vp by men hardned against shame content to stoupe downe to gather vp the meanest and basest shifts to dazell the simple The Iesuites resolue of this as of a truth most soundly concluded in their schooles That the King may not punish Ecclesiasticall persons that the Kings Court may not heare examine and iudge them though they should commit murders adulteries robberies or what other wickednesse soeuer And yet they tell vs that the King may command them Now to say one thing and yet to let the world see that they are resolued in the contrary this sauoreth strongly of the spirit of illusion when reason learning honestie and all faileth yet well fare a bold and hardned face which neuer faileth this generation 13. The truth is if the King haue not lawfull authority to punish he hath not lawfull authoritie to command and punish he cannot vnlesse he hath authority to iudge or cause iudgement to be done so that they who take away from the King power to iudge persons Ecclesiasticall take from him power to punish and consequently power to command but the Doctrine of the Papists this day as shall hereafter appeare in his due place taketh from the king power to iudge per sons Ecclesiastical therefore they rob him of power to punish and to cōmaund for nothing can more strongly take away the Kings command then to deny him power to punish and to iudge And yet they are not ashamed to tell vs that they deny not the kings cōmand but his Iurisdiction Then to leaue these men with their absurd and perplexed contradictions where the King ◅ay command he may iudge and punish the breach of that command and therefore his Iurisdiction appeareth in his lawfull authority and command Then by this charge and commaund of Iehosaph◅ is declared his Iurisdiction in these causes wherein he hath this authority
extraordinary example that wee see rather that Salomon doth mitigate the ordinary punishment of that crime which Abiathar had committed Moreouer to punish or to release the punishment of treason belongeth not to the office of a Prophet but of the King but Salomon in this action punishing the treason of Abiathar releaseth some part of it All which proue the distorted shift of Tortus to be so vaine and shamelesse that the blushing Hat of a Cardinall is not broad enough to couer the shame In these things and in supreame appellation standeth Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction which by diuine right was placed in these Kings and by them practised CHAP. IIII. Externall Coactiue Iurisdiction was not left by Christ to his Church nor practised by the Church all that while that the Church was without Christian Magistrates wherein is declared the Iurisdiction of the Church and of Bishops that the power of excommunication proceeded not to Coaction NOw let vs make search in the Church of Christians wherein we will consider first the state of the Church after it was called by Christ and his Apostles and gouerned by the Fathers for the space of the first three hundred yeeres in all which time no Christian was the Soueraigne Magistrate In this time it will be to good purpose to search the Iurisdiction of the Church for this is the time wherein it will most cleerely appeare And Christ that appointeth all times states for his Church appointed that all this time she should be without Princes for her nourcing Fathers that by wanting it so long we might vnderstand the greatnesse of this blessing But when the Church of Rome grew insolent by abusing this blessing taking the right of Princes from them and thereby remouing the ancient bounds of the Ordinances which God had set of old then it was not to bee marueiled that such iudgements followed of blindnesse and ignorance among the people of confusion and contempt vpon Princes and Kings which iudgements haue beene so famously apparant in the sight of the world But let vs proceed to the examination of the Churches Iurisdiction for if we consider what Iurisdiction Iesus Christ left to his Church it will consequently appeare what Iurisdiction is in Ciuill Princes for all that Christ gaue not to his Church remaineth with Princes 2. The places from which they would prooue Iurisdiction are these Mat. 18. Whatsoeuer you shall binde on earth shall be bound in heauen And whosoeuers sinnes you retaine shall be retained Now these places make no proofe of this Iurisdiction which is in question For all Popish writers that I could see vpon this question acknowledg these Scripturs not to be meant of externall Iurisdiction coactiue which is our question but of the inward power of remitting of sinnes practised within the court of conscience by the power of Gods spirit and declared by the Priest and ordinarily practised in excommunication or otherwise The greater condemnation deserueth that Catholike Diuine who to disprooue the Iurisdiction of Princes and to proue the Popes pretended Iurisdiction bringeth these places of Scripture which speake of neither Other places they cite as that Thou art Peter and vpon this rocke will I build my Church and I will giue to thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen And Simon louest thou mee feede my Lambes c. These and such like places they bring to proue the Popes Iurisdiction All of this sort are throughly handled with exact iudgement and learning in that worthy conference written by Doctor Raynolds of blessed memory which booke as a gantlet of one of the worthies of our Church hath lien long betweene vs and the host of the Philistims and none of our adueâ—…saries hath had the courage to take it vp and to aunswere it 3. It is sufficient for vs to pleade that none of the auncient Fathers did euer expound these Scriptures thus or did euer dreame of such senses as they haue found of late out of their owne decretall Epistles It is sufficient that some of their owne best learned writers yea some of their most learned Popes before they were Popes haue with such learning and iudgement refuted their new deuised expositions of these Scriptures as that from themselues and out of their owne mouthes God hath drawen testimonies to ouerthrow these carnall and absurd expositions of Scriptures Iohn Gerson saith that these texts thus by the Popes flatterers applied to prooue his Iurisdiction are vnderstood by them Grossé non secundum regulam Euangelicam And Aenaeas Siluius hath with great life and learning ouerthrowen these grosse and corrupt expositions of whom we shall speake hereafter in due place where it will fully appeare that these expositions of Scripture are by the learned free and iudicious men of that side acknowledged to bee inuented by flatterers as the same Pope Pius the second witnesseth to be new and straunge and to be vrged by miserable and wretched soules which will not vnderstand that these challenges of their Iurisdiction are nothing but either the words of the Popes themselues that would inlarge their fringes without measure or of their flatterers who being blinded by ambition and caried with the winde of vaineglory doe flatter the Popes in hope of reward Though now those flatterers haue gotâ—… the vpper hand in the Councell of Trent and haue vsurped the name of the Church who before were alwayes esteemed a base company standing for the Popes Iurisdiction against the graue and learned men of that Church 4. Then for the places of Scripture which they bring for this Iurisdiction we say with their owne best learned men that they are in that sense wherein they vse them new deuises drawen of late by strange and absurd contortions into this new flattering sense by the Popes flatterers against the auncient expositions of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church Concerning the Iurisdiction which Christ left to his Church let all the Scriptures be searched and there will nothing be found of externall Iurisdiction consisting in power coactiue but all that Christ left was partly yea principally inward and spirituall power partly externall for establishing doctrines of faith and good order in the Church by Councels determinations iudicature spirituall censures excommunication deposing and dispatching of the disobedient so farre as the Church could proceede without coactiue power For by this spirituall power without coaction the Church was called faith was planted diuils were subdued the nations were taken out of the power of darkenesse the world was reduced to the obedience of Christ by this power the Church was gouerned for three hundred yeeres together without any coactiue Iurisdiction But what coactiue power may worke in the Church without this we haue a lamentable experience in the present court of Rome falling away from the truth and from the comfort of the spirit and therefore from the true vse of the power of the spirit of God when the Popes being destitute of this
gouernment which is reserued to Bishops as the Apostles successours After which example Gregorie the first writeth thus Serenissimi domini animum non ignoro quod se in causis sacerdotalibus miscere non soleat Gregorie calleth those causes with which the Emperours medled not causas sacerdotales meaning therby the same which Ambrose calleth causes of faith 12. Besides this Spirituall gouernment which is peculiar to Bishops there is also another part of gouernment giuen to Bishops which commeth from Princes which Constantine first gaue as hereafter we shall declare Of this Chrysostome saith I am vero pars illa quam Episcopum tractare in iudicijs conuenâ—…t infinita odia infinitas offensiones parit quae ipsa praetâ—…r quam quod negâ—…tijs quamplurimis plena est tam multas etiam difficultaies affert quam multas ne forenses quidem iudices sustinent and much more to the same purpose Augustine complaineth that he was too much troubled with these matters of iudic ture And Synosius professeth that he can not attend both businesses Antiquum tempus saith he tulit eosdem sacerdoâ—…es iudices eâ—…nim Aegyptij Hebraeorumque gens multum temporis â saceraotibus gubernata est and a little after Non condemno Episcopos qui versantur in negotiis c. Si qui vero sunt qui à rerum diuersarum aggressione non laeduntur illi for sitan possunt simul â—… fungi ciuâ—…tatibus praeesse In all these parts of Episcopal Iurisdiction which either by Apostolicall right or institution or by the fauour of Princes haue beene giuen to them the Pope hath intruded like a Foxe and maintaineth his intrusion like a Lion For as Christ left an equalitie and paritie among his Apostles often affirming and confirming that one of them should not be greater then another and yet the Apostles were in gouernement aboue other Ministers and that by the institution of Christ himselfe For the Lord after that he had chosen his twelue Apostles did chuse also seuentie Disciples and sent them two and two bâ—…fore him into euery citie where he himselfe should come saith S. Luke then Christ himselfe is the authour of this order in the Church which the Church hath since that time euer held the Bishops succeeding the Apostles as the inferiour Pastors succeeded the seuentie Disciples So the Apostles after them left the like equality among Bishops that one of them should not bee aboue another and yet Bishops in gouernment aboue other Ministers for Iurisdiction was neuer in the multitude but in gouernours the Bishops theÌ„ being the gouernors after the Apostles the like IurisdictioÌ„ was in all As Cypr. saith Episcopatus vnus est cuius à singulis pars in solidum tenetur And Hierom saith Vbicunque fuerit Episcopus siue Romae siue Eugubij c eiusdem meriti eiusdâ—…m est sacerdotij Which power in Bishops the Pope hath by surreption drawen to himselfe and now out of his fulnesse imparteth to Bishops at his pleasure as if hee were the fountaine of Iurisdiction 13. As thus he hath drawen their auncient right from Bishops so hath he drawen from Temporall Princes that which of auncient right was theirs we shall better vnderstand what he hath taken from Temporall Princes if we consider the true limits beâ—…weene the power of Princes and the power of the Church We say therefore that the Iurisdiction of the Church was neuer extended to coactiue power because God hath giuen all coactiue power to the Ciuill Magistrate to whom hee hath committed the sword And as coactiue power belongeth not to the Church so neither dooth it belong to the power of the Church to erect or establish to dissanull or dissolue this coactiue power as the Pope pretendeth to doe by excommunication deposing Kings and freeing their subiects from their faith and allegeance This dissolution of coactiue power cannot belong to the Church because this is both Temporall and coactiue the power of the Church being Spirituall cannot bee called either Temporall or coactiue Now that the power exercised by the Pope in excommunication is Temporall and coactiue is the graunt of Bellarmine for hee saith that the Church of old did not depose Nero Diocletian Iulian â—… c. Quia deerant vires temporales then he graunteth that in this present practise of the Popes there are vires temporales what is this but temporall coaction The Church in old time had all that power which Christ committed to his Church but then by the confession of Bellarmine the Church had no coactiue power therefore this coactiue power which the Pope vseth by Temporall force in deposing of Kings was not by Christ graunted to his Church And if we should yeeld Temporall coaction to the Church what power is left to the Magistrate Thus we see the auncient hedge is plucked vp and the bounds are chaunged which of old stood betweene these two powers Ciuill and Spirituall 14. Against this disordering of the auncient bounds wee haue the words of our Sauiour Christ. My kingdome is not of this world i f my kingdome were of this world my seruaunts would surely fight that I should not bee deliuered c. But because when these wordes are vrged against our aduersaries they looke ascant vpon them as if they touched them not Let vs consider how the kingdome of the Pope and his pretended Iurisdiction in deposing of Kings is vtterly ouerthrowen by these words which declare the power properly belonging to Christs kingdome that is to his Church Christ aunswereth heere to Pilats question Verse 33. Art thou the King of the Iewes By which question it appeareth there was some suspition and feares that Christ pretending for a kingdome might conspire against the state and worke the trouble and dissolution of the gouernment established For as Herod when he heard that Iesus was borne the King of the Iewes was troubled and all Ierusalem with him and entred into such feares and suspition that mooued him to kill all the young children from two yeeres old and vnder so the high Priests suggested the same suspitions to Pilate From this ground riseth this question of Pilate Art thou the King of the Iewes To this he aunswereth my kingdome is not of this world From which aunswere applied to such a question these positions issue It is against the nature of the kingdome of Christ to worke any trouble to the kingdomes of the world And that kingdome which worketh trouble to the kingdomes of this world is not the kingdome of Christ. Christs kingdome which is not of this world is his Church which is in this world but not of this world as himselfe saith If you were of this world the world would loue her owne but because you are not of this world but I haue taken you out of this world therefore this world hateth you Then we reason thus The gouernment of Christs Church breedeth no trouble
not be extended to these practises What can be denied heere For neither can they denie but that the censures of the Church should bee of greatest power there where they were first instituted neither can they denie that excommunication was first instituted in that Church of the Iewes neither can they shew vs that any King of that Nation was at any time deposed for pretended heresie or for knowne and professed idolatry though the Kings there were often great idolaters though the Priests were bolde and couragious in Gods cause yet we neuer finde that any Priest did by excommunication depose the King or destroy the bond of allegeance This thing then being neither practised by the Iewes where these censures were in first and chiefe force nor by Christ and his Apostles nor by the Fathers of the Primitiue Church nor known in the Church for the space of almost a thousand yeares as hereafter wee shall declare wee haue great reason to conclude that excommunication as it is an Ecclesiasticall censure hath no power coactine to alter any temporall authority to depose Kings to destroy and dissolue allegeance or to trouble any lawfull authority established in this world 18 This will no lesse appeare if wee consider the power which the Church hath alwaies practised for coactiue power was a thing which the Chnrch yeelded alwayes to the â—…iuill Magistrate And if the Bishops of Rome did sometimes breake out beyond their bounds yet were they in those ancient times alwayes repressed by the authority of the Church For that we may take a short suruay of the Iurisdiction of the Church during the first three hundred yeres so long as the Apostles liued no man doubteth but that they ruled all and that the greatest Iurisdiction of the Church was in them if we speake of spirituall Iurisdiction And if any one Apostle liued after the rest there was more power acknowledged to be in him then in any one that liued in the Church in his time Now it is for an assured historicall truth recorded by Eusebius and before him by Irenaeus whom the full consent of the auncients follow heerein that S. Iohn liued after all the other Apostles were dead that he continued in the gouernment of the Church vntill the times of Traian Emperour In which time the Bishops of Rome after Peter are recorded to be these Linus Anacletus Clemens Eâ—…aristus Alexander If the Bishop of Rome had then been the head of the Church the chiefe Pastor the Monarch the fountaine of all Iurisdiction as his flatterers now make him it must be confessed that Alexander in his time and Euaristus before him was S. Iohns head and before him Clemens and before him Anaclet and before him Linus Did these rule and gouerne S. Iohn or S. Iohn them shall we say that they had Iurisdiction ouer S. Iohn or S. Iohn ouer them If these Bishops each in his time had Iurisdiction ouer S. Iohn then there was an authority in the Church aboue the authority of the Apostles If they were gouerned by him then the Bishop of Rome was not the head of the Church There is no sober spirit that can doubt of these things or can thinke that in those dayes any liued in the Church who was not vnder the Iurisdiction of an Apostle 19 After Saint Iohns death who was liuing in the yeare of Christ 100. and after in the Church of Rome were Sixtus Telesphorus Hyginus Pius Anicetus Soter Eleutherius Victor These gouerned the Church of Rome in succession by the space of one hundred yeares together In which times they seemed willing to put to their helping hands to aduance the Church of Rome For Sathan hauing a purpose thence to raise Antichrist began betime to worke and to abuse those good men as it was not hard for him to beguile better men then they were though we admit them to be good men and holy Martyres Then were they drawne into a loue to aduance their seate and Iurisdiction yet so as neither in them is proued pernicious neither was it thought by the church to be very dangerous seeing they yeelded and submitted themselues in the end to the graue and godly aduise of the Church 20 The things wherein the Bishops of Rome sought first to aduance their power was by imposing ceremonies vpon other Churches Thus did Anicet contend for the celebration of Easter but was quieted by Polycarp who for the peace of the Church made a iourney to Rome and pacified Anicetus And was so much honoured of Anicetus that there he practised the function of a Bishop as Eusebius reporteth taking the storie from Irenaeus Thus was peace and loue then maintained on all sides whilest the Bishops of Rome were content to be ruled by others 21 A little after Victor grewe more violent in the fame quarrell and excommunicated the Easterne Churches which did not obserue Easter after the maner of the Church of Rome But Uictor was resisted and sharply reproued by Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus and the rost of the Easterne Bishops as also by Irenaeus Bishop of Lions in Fraunce These did freely reproue Victor for that he regarded not the peace of the Church they declare that in ceremonies there was great difference of olde and yet the Bishops liued in loue and peace together that the differences in ceremonies did not breake the consent in faith that these differences were before the time of Victor and that hee was therein to followe the examples of his auncients who preserued loue and peace and the doctrines of faith sincere with some diuersity in outward ceremonies This was all that the Bishops of Rome attempted in those dayes wherein there appeareth no Iurisdiction ouer others but rather the contrary For the godly Bishops of Asia reproued them and made them see and acknowledge their owne rashnesse and caused them to desist therefore the Church did not then acknowledge the Popes Iurisdiction 22 Betweene Victor and Syluester the first succeeded 18. Bishops of Rome in the space of 100 yeares next In which time there was no great attempt made for superiority or Iurisdiction onely the Bishops of other Churches did honour the Bishop of Rome following the Apostles rule In giuing honor goe one before another Which honour if they could haue remembred as well to giue to others as they did to receiue from others there could haue risen no question of Iurisdiction but that which began in loue and courtesie was afterward drawne to Iurisdiction We denie not but some of the auncients haue yeelded to S. Peter a Priority among the rest of the Apostles because of his great zeale and loue to Christ and to his trueth and for his excellent vertâ—…es and to the Bishops of Rome wee finde likewise that the auncients yeelded great and honourable titles but this was in respect of their vertue learning and integrity For the auncients knewe no other rule of fauouring men but vertue he was in the Church most honourable and
and Kings by their office must call Councâ—…ls Secondly that their office is likewise by coactiue power to see the things maintained and obserued which are defined in general Councels 12. Hitherto then haue we found the Soueraigne Iurisdiction alwayes in Christian Magistrates and neuer in the Bishop of Rome How then commeth the Bishop of Rome to this practise of Iurisdiction which now he claimeth Let vs here consider one Pageant of theirs which will declare the first claime and beginning of Iurisdiction which they haue so much increased since The first attempt was to winne Iurisdiction ouer Bishops the second was to get the same power ouer Kings and by that meanes ouer all These we meane to open with as much breuitie as we can and the matter will beare First then to bring Bishops of other Nations vnder their power a shamelesse deuise was plotted by the Bishop of Rome discried and reiected by the auncient Fathers that then liued but yet so closely followed afterward by the Popes that in the end it preuailed I will declare the storie as it is deliuered by their owne writers who haue collected the tomes of the Councels 13. The sixt Councell of Carthage was gathered in the yeere of our Lord foure hundred and twentie against the heresie of Pelagius it lasted sixe yeeres and more In it were gathered two hundred and seuenteene Bishops among whom was that worthy Father Saint Augustine and others of famous note as Prosper Orosius and diuers other of great vertue and learning Aurelius Bishop of Carthage Metropolitan of Affrica was chiefe In the time of this Councell three Bishops of Rome succeeding one another mooued great contention and quarell with the Fathers of this Councell for Iurisdiction which the Popes then began to claime affirming that they had Iurisdiction ouer the Church of Affrica which thing these Fathers of this Councell vtterly denied the contention began vpon this occasion 14. Apiarius a Priest of the Church of Sicca in Affrica was for his infamous and scandalous life excommunicated not onely by Vrbanus Bishop of Sicca but by a whole Synode of Bishops met together This fellow thus censured in Affrica fled to Zozimus Bishop of Rome to him he complained of wrong that the Bishops of Affrica had done him as he said Zozâ—…mus without examination of the cause vndertooke to maintaine him and admitted him to the Communion After this vnderstanding that the Bishops of Affrica were gathered in their Synode he sendeth to them Faustinus Bishop of Potentia and with him two Priests Philip and Asellus Them hee chargeth to defend the cause of Apiarius to cause the Synode of Affrica to recciue him to their Communion to excoÌ„municate Vrbanus Bishop of Sicca or else to call him to Rome vnlesse hee will reforme that is vndoe all that he had done against Apiarius Further he commaundeth them to draw the Councell to yeeld to the Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome and to acknowledge it lawfull for any Bishop or Priest to appeale from the sentence of their Metropolitan to Rome he commaundeth them also to signifie that he sent his Legate into Affrica who might vnderstand the causes of appellants that were grieued To effect this thing the better he chargeth them to declare that the Nicen Councell hath giuen this Iurisdiction to the Bishops of Rome for proofe hereof he deliuereth vnto them in writing a counterfeited Canon of the Nicen Councell 15. Faustinus comming to Affrica with these instructions and being admitted into the Councell declared that he had from Zozimus a Commission which he called Commonitorium and withall he declared the Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome confirmed by a Canon of the Nicen Councell Aurelius Prosident of the Councel answered let this Commission first be read which our brethren haue brought hereupon Daniel the notary reade and recited the Commission thus Zozimus Bishop of Rome to our brother Faustinus Bishop to our fons Philip Asellus Priests this businesse you know you are to doe all things as if our presence were with you nay because it is with you and the rather seeing you haue both our expresse commaund and the words of the Canons which for more full assurance we haue added to this Commission For thus most beloued brethren it is decreed in the Councell of Nice concerning the appellation of Bishops And then forsooth the forged Canon os the Councell of Nice followeth thus Placuit autem vt si Episcopus accusatus fuerit iudicauerint congregati Episcopi regionis ipsius de gradu suo deiecerint eum appellasse Episcopus videatur confugerit ad beatissimum Ecclesiae Romanae Episcopum valuerit audiri iustum putauerit vt reuocetur examen sâ—…ribere his Episcopis dignetur qui infinitima propinqua prouincia sunt vt ipsi diligentur omnia requirant iuxta fideÌ„ veritatis definiant Quoâ—… si is qui râ—…gat causam suam iterum audiri deprecatione sua mouerit Episcopum Romaâ—…uÌ„ vt è Latere suo presbyterum mittat erit in potestate Episcopi Romani quid velit quid existimet si decreuerit mittendos esse qui presentes cum Episcopis iudicent habentes authoritatem eius à quo destinati sunt erit in suo arbitrio Si vero crediderit sufficere Episcopos vt neggtio terminum imponant faciot quod sapientissimo consilio suo iudicauerit That is We thought good that if a Bishop be accused and the Bishops of that Prouince haue giuen sentence and deposed him if this Bishop seeme to appeale and flie to the most blessed Bishop of Rome and desire to be heard â—…f he thinke good to reuoke the sentence it may please him to write to those Bishops which are in that Prouince that they may diligently search the matter and iudge it truely But if he that moueth his cause may be heard againe shall by his petition intreat the Bishop of Rome to send a Legat from his side it shall be in the power of the Bishop of Rome to doe what hee thinketh best And if he decree to send some who with the Bishops of the Prouince may be present to iudge hauing authoritie from him from whom they are sent it shall be in his pleasure And if he thinke that the Bishops of that Prouince may suffice to end the businesse let him doe whatsoeuer in his most wise Councell he iudgeth best Before I proceed in this narration let some things of note bee obserued First the Bishops of Rome were now growen from the honest and godly conuersation of their Auncestours to admirable impudency that durst suborne a Canon of the Nicen Councell and publish their owne shame in the sight of the Church then and leaue an eternall monument thereof to the world for euer extant in publike Councels Secondly the ground of the Iurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome is forgerie famously attempted and famously conâ—…icted at that present time And yet this practise
the second Pope espying this weaknesse and watching for an opportunitie to take the Empire at such disaduantage to driue the Emperour quite out of Italie vsed the helpe of the Lumbards against him and preuailed so far that he gaue the Emperors army the ouerthrow in a pitched field and slew Paulus the Exarch in battell â—…ac tempestate saith Palmerius inter ' Pontificem imperatorem maxima discordia fuit quam ob causam contra Pontificâ—…m in Italiam missi sunt primum Paulus Exarchâ—…s mox eo nterempto in eius locum substituitur Eutychus sub quo variè pugnatum est diuisa Italia In quo bello Antipharium Longobaraorum ducem auailia Pontifici praebuisse Constat That is At this time a great discord rose betweene the Pope and the Emperour for which cause first Paul the Exarch was sent to Italy but he was slaine and Euâ—…ychus sent in his place vnder whom many battels were fought with variable fortune Italy being diuided In which warre it is well knowen that Antipharius Duke of the Lombardes did aide the Pope against the Emperour Nauclerus declareth that one especiall occasion of this breach betweene Leo the Emperour and Gregorie the second Pope was that Leo abolished images which were worshipped and commanded the Pope to do so wherat the Pope was so inraged that hee drewe all Italie from the obedience of the Emperour Tantamque authoritatem tune habuerunt Romani Pont. decreta saith Nauclâ—…r vt Rauennates primi exinde Venetia populi atque milites apertaÌ„ in ImperatoreÌ„ Exarchumque rebellioneÌ„ pra se tulerint Ac eo processit rebellio vt depositis Exarchi magistratibus singulae ciuitates singula oppida proprios magistratus quos duces apellabant creare prasicere eurarent Such authority then had the Popes decrees that first the Rauennates after that the Venetians did raise an open rebellion against the Emperour and the Exarch And this rebellion proceeded so farre that euery city and euery towne put downe the Exarches and created proper Magistrates to themselues whom they called Dukes Thus fell the gouernment of Italy into so many partes euery one catching what they could as men vse to doe at a great shipwracke And the Pope was carefull to prouide that his part should not be the least 8. When thus the Pope had driuen the Emperour out of all Italie and by that meanes had drawen Italie into as many Dominions in a manner as there were great Cities the strongest began to pray vpon the weaker Heere began the fire of emulation to kindle betweene the Pope and the Lumbards for the Lumbards were the strongest part of Italie then and the Popes part was the second all other were weake in respect of these two and these two thereto agreeing well hitherto so long as both conspired against the Empire began now to fall at variance about the deuiding of the spoile The Pope finding the Lumbards too strong for him in this parting of the spoile of the Empire as before hee had vsed the strength of the Lumbards to suppresse the Emperour so now following the same arte called Pipin the Constable of Fraunce into Italie by whose power hee repressed the Lumbards and compelled Astulphus their King to receiue conditions of peace Platina saith that Gregorius chiefe Secretary to the Emperor did meet Pipin as he came into Italie and intreated him that if he should ouercome the Lumbards he would restore the Exarchate of Rauenna to the Emperour to whom of right said hee it belonged All that poore right that then he sought to hold in Italie detained as then by the Lumbards but presently falling vnto the Popes share and that he would not yeeld it to the Pope The aunswere of Pipin was he came into Italie to gratifie the Pope and that he would helpe him as much as he could That which after the victorie fell to the Popes part and to Rome was saith Platina all that lieth betweene Padus and the Appennine from Placentia to the Venetian standing waters and whatsoeuer is contained betweene the riuer Isaurus and Appennine Paulus Aemylius saith all that which before was called Flaminia wherein was Rauenna was hereupon commaunded to bee called Romandiola The match by negotiation betweene Pipin and the Pope was made thus that all that which was recouered from the Lumbards being before parcell of the Empire should be adiudged to the Pope and to Rome and Pipin for his seruice should bee made King of Fraunce by the Pope and Chilperic the lawfull King should be deposed All this was accordingly performed and Pipin was absolued from the Oath of Allegeance and so were all the Barons and people of France absolued from the Oath of obedience which before they had taken to Chilperic or as some call him Hilderic their King 9. This Storie I haue briefly set downe that the ground of the Popes Iurisdiction may be the better obserued for from such straunge grounds these Romane Catholikes draw the Popes Iurisdiction and the parts thereof as a man of ordinary reason would least suspect so capricious are they now growen As for example from this fact of Pope Zacharie who absolued subiects from the Oath of Allegeance to their true King who would thinke that the Popes Iurisdiction could bee drawen who would not rather iudge that the Popes arrogancy pride vsurpation oppression corruption might by this be prooued And yet Augustinus Anconitanus maketh this fact the onely ground and proofe of his Iurisdiction we looke for such a Iurisdiction as Christ left to his Church we looke for proofes from Scripture but we find no other Iurisdiction prooued then the Iurisdiction of Antichrist opposite to Christs Iurisdiction and ouer Princes for proofes out of the word of God we find no other proofes then such as are drawen from the Popes rebellion and conspiracie against the auncient Emperours from their vniust vsurpation and oppression of lawfull Kings from an impious power pretending authority to breake and violate oaths and faith and Allegeance of subiects And this manner of proose is held so strong that nothing is more common among them then thus to proue Iurisdiction One of that ranke would after the same maner proue this IurisdictoÌ„ by the Popes dispensing against oathes and vowes For saith he Edward the Confessour had made a vowe to goe in person to Rome but was dispensed by Pope Leo the ninth King Iohn sued to Pope Innocentius the third to be dispensed with all for his oath which he had made to the Barons of England And Henrie the seuenth procured from Pope Iulius the 2. that notorious dispensation for Prince Henrie his sonne to maâ—…ry the Princesse Katherine of Spaine left by his brother Arthur Hereupon hee inferreth thus these alone are sufficient to shew what opinion was held from time to time by the Kings of England concerning the Popes Soueraigne Supreme Iurisdiction in spiritual matters belonging to conscience and directing of soules thus farre the Romane
quarrell I purpose to handle and discusse in the next Chapter in his proper place Theodoricus de Niem writing of this councell and of the end and purpose of those that held it saith that this Synod was gathered purposely to search out the auncient vses lawes and customes of the Empire and Church that each power knowing their owne limits the one might not encroach vpon the other Celebrata est saith he ab 153. viris religiosis Episcopis Abbatibus c. ab vniuersis regionibus et oramibus almae vrbis à cuncto etiâ—…m Clero huius sanctae Rom. Ecclesiae ex quirentibus vsus leges mores eiusdem Ecclesiae et imperij That is It was celebrated by one hundred and fifty three religious men Bishops Abbots c. by all the regions and degrees of the City of Rome by all the Clergy of this holy Church of Rome making search and inquisition for the vses lawes and customes both of this Church and of the Empire Then we see that Charles recouered some part of the auncient Iurisdiction of the Empire Which notwithstanding since his time the Popes by inuincible contentions wrested from the Emperours chalenging it to be a part of their owne Iurisdiction and charging the Emperours with Heresie and Schisme for practising that right which other Popes before them acknowledged to bee the auncient right of the Empire 14 And because to the Iurisdiction of Princes it belonged of olde both to call councels and to confirme them therefore Charles did not omit this part of Iurisdiction though as the euent declared it was much against the Popes pleasure He called a Synod at Frankford wherein was condemned the doctrine of worshipping of images which doctrine the Pope had late before confirmed The occasion hereof grew thus Leo Isaurus Emperour being much offended that the Saracines had that great and iust exception against Christians that they worshipped images called a Synod at Constantinople wherein the worship of images was condemned and the images burned He sent also to the Bishop of Rome as then Gregory the second commaunding him to doe the like if he would haue his fauour saith Paulus Diaconus Gregory the second tooke this in suâ—…h indignation that he rebelled against the Emperour and raised all Italy into a rebellion by which meanes the Emperour lost all that then was left in Italy Gregory the second in the middes of these stirres died and Gregory the third succeeded who prosecuting the purpose of his predecessour called a Synod at Rome in the yeare seuen hundred thirty three by Sigebert seuen hundred thirty nine by Palmerius In this Synod the doctrine of worshipping images was confirmed Leo the Emperor was excommunicated and depriued Thus began the Pope to practise a new Iurisdiction in deposing Emperours After this Constantine sirnamed or rather nick-named Copronimus in the yeare of Christ saith Sigebert seuen hundred fifty fiue called a Synod at CoÌ„stantinople wherein the worship of images was againe condemned But another Synod was held at Rome by Pope Stephen the third in the yeare of Christ seuen hundred threescore and eight wherein the worshipping of images was againe approued Which was more famously confirmed in the yeare of Christ seuen hundred foure score and eight by another Constanstine and his mother Irene who called the second Nycen Synod wherein Imagerie preuailed much by the helpe of Pope Hadrian 15. Vpon these stirres Charles the great was moued to call a Synod at Franckford Thither sent Pope Hadrian the acts of the second Nicen Synod to be approued there and to direct this Synod at Frankford if they would take any direction from the Pope But the Fathers of this Synode not regarding the Popes direction tooke a meane course betweene the Greekes who destroyed and defaced images and the Church of Rome which maintained the worship thereof For they decreed that it was not impious to set vp images but to giue any worship to them this they held to be vtterly against Christian faith and to be a thing receiued from the superstition of the Gentiles This Synod was called and confirmed by Charles the great Then belike the Pope had not gotten all Iurisdiction ouer Kings which now he claimeth For the Emperour called Synods not the Pope Neither as then had hee gotten Iurisdiction ouer all Bishops because we see many Bishops were found in Germany France Aquitany and England for all these Nations Charles nameth in his letter to Elepandus Metropolitane of Tolet as fauouring and maintaining the trueth against the worship of images which resisted the Pope in this matter so that his great and soueraigne Iurisdiction was not then established 16. About this time that most worthy most religious and learned King Alfred raigned in England Aser Meneuensis writing his life entituleth him Omnium Britanniae insulae Christianorum rectorem Which title doth not much differ from that which is now in part giuen to the King supreame Gouernour of all persons Ecclesiasticall For whereas at this day the discipline of the Court of Rome exempteth Clerkes from the Kings Courts and consequently from the Kings gouernment it appeareth that in King Alfreds time this thing was vtterly vnknowne to the world therefore this King is called and acknowledged to bee the Gouernour of all Christians within his dominions Now because Bishops and Clerks were Christians he was hereby questionlesse vnderstood the gouernour of Clerkes aswell as of others As then all forraine gouernement and Iurisdiction was excluded by that title so nowe there is no other thing sought but in like sort to exclude all forraine power and Iurisdiction whether the Popes or any other At this time whe n King Alsred liued and raigned the sense iudgement and vnderstanding of the world was no other but that Kings were supreme gouernours of all persons and caufes Ecclesiasticall and Temporall within their owne Dominions Ivnderstand gouernment here as throughout this question I haue often admonished gouernment or power coactiue for this exemption of criminous Clarkes from their Kings Courts was a thing vnknowen in the world in those dayes And therfore whereas it is commonly taken by our aduersaries who vse to begge such principles as they cannot prooue that the religion sense and iudgement of the world ranne wholly for the Iurisdiction which now is practised in the Court of Rome this wee vtterly denie For we are able to shew when the sense iudgement and religion of the Church was against them in euery part of their pretended Iurisdiction For first whereas the Pope claimeth Iurisdiction ouer Bishops this is one part of his Iurisdiction and is now the sense and iudgement of the Court of Rome but in the times of the sixt and seuenth Carthaginian Councels of the Affrican and Mileuitan Synodes at this time I say and alwayes before the religion sense and iudgement of the whole world ran contrary If any obiect that these were not generall Councels but prouinciall I
aunswere wee vrge not their Canons onely to rule the Pope but their testimonies to know the truth of those times and before For they made an exact and diligent search through all the famous Churches of Christendome for the Popes Iurisdiction ouer Bishops and hauing once so famously refuted that Iurisdiction we take and reuerence their testimonies which will for euer be held honorable in the Church Before these times the religion sense and iudgement of the world was not that any Bishop or Clarke of forraine Prouinces might appeale to Rome which now is the sense and iudgement of the Court of Rome The Pope claimeth now this Iurisdiction likewise to depose Princes to dissolue and vndoe the obedience of subiects this is now the sense and iudgement of the Court of Rome but before the time of King Pipin the sense and iudgement of the world ran alwayes contrary That the Pope is vniuersall Bishop and the Church of Rome the head of other Churches yea the Pope the head of the vniuersall Church is now the sense and iudgement of the Court of Rome but this was not the sense iudgement and religion of the Church of Rome before the time of Gregorie the first as the same Gregorie doth sufficiently witnesse That criminous Clarkes should be exempted from the Courts of their Kings is now the practise and iudgement sense and religion of the Court of Rome but before the yeere one thousand this was not the sense and iudgement of the world That the Pope is aboue a generall Councell is now the sense and religion of the present Court of Rome but it was not the sense and religion of the Church of Rome before the time of the Councell of Trent In like sort of any part of their Iurisdiction whereof here we speake we are able to point to the time when it was not the sense and iudgement of the Church of Rome 17. About the time wherein Alfred raigned who began his raigne in the yeere of Christ eight hundred seuenty two died in the yeere nine hundred The Popes hauing already intruded vpon the Iurisdiction of Bishops and Archbishops beganne to make many desperate attempts vpon the Iurisdiction of Kings also but they were repressed where the Emperours had any power to resist and though they assumed Iurisdiction ouer Emperours yet they brought not all to an effect Cranâ—…zius speaking of those times saith The Emperour placed a Bishop in Monster and maruaile not that a Bishop was appointed by the Emperour for this was the Custome of those times when Emperours had power to place and displace Popes for there was no free election of Chapters as now the Apostolicall confirmation was not then necessary for whomsoeuer the Prince did nominate that man was to be consecrated a Bishop by the next adioyning Bishops Concerning this Iurisdiction there was a long contention between the Papacie and the Empire this was the Iurisdiction which the two Henries the father and the sonne which the two Frederickes likewise the Grand-father and the Grand-child sought long to defend and maintaine but the sword of the Church preuailed and forced the Emperours to relinquish their right to the Churches By this it may appeare that before the yeere one thousand the Popes entred into no great contention with the Germane Emperours concerning this Iurisdiction But as the contentions betweene the two Henrics and the two Fredericks and others did fully open and reueale to the world the Popes purpose for Iurisdiction so when it was once reuealed and fully knowen to the world it was denied and oppugned by the men of the best learning that then liued in the Church of Rome which thing we are more fully to declare hereafter CHAP. VII How the Papall Iurisdiction was aduanced from the time of the conquest and somewhat before vntill the yeere of Christ one thousand three hundred The meanes raising that Iurisdiction is declared to be by Forgeries Friars Oathes and the parts of the Iurisdiction inuestitures exemptions lawes imposed appellation deposing of Kings and absoluing their subiects from faith and Allegeance IN the time of William the Conquerer about the seuenth yeere of his raigne Hildebrand was chosen Pope named Gregorie the seuenth This man aduaunced the Popes Iurisdiction to an higher pitch then euer it was before Now all that power which was extorted from Princes by such violent practises as Hildebrand vsed was afterward supposed to belong to the Popes Iurisdiction And these late Iesuits make no doubt to tell vs that all came from Christ and his Apostles and that it was a thing neuer heard that Temporall Princes should meddle in such matters and that the Religion deuotion sense and iudgement of all men ranne wholly for it Wee are therefore to obserue how the Popes wrested Iurisdiction from temporall Princes This thing will appeare better if we take a suruay of these times and of the meanes and parts of that Iurisdiction which wee finde chalenged by the Popes in these ages 2. At this time the Popes began first of all to striue for inuestitures Pope Gregory the seuenth began this contention with Henry the fourth Emperour which was the occasion of great warres and blood-shed through Christendome especially in Germany I will for the better vnderstanding of these proceedings with breuity and fidelity report out of the stories of this time in what state the Church of Rome then stoode In the time of Henry the third Emperour the Court of Rome was pestered with a sort of men infamous prodigious who taught Necromancy practised poisoning set vp as it were a schoole of vnlawfull Arts abominable to God and pernicious to men One chiefe of this profession was Theophilactus which was afterward Pope Benedictus the eight called Benedictus the ninth This Theophilact was Master to Hildebrand in his Art Magick who for his better furtherance in that knowledge was also instructed by Laurentius the Malfilan Archbishop and by Iohn the Archpriest of S. Iohn de porta latina This Theophilact gaue himselfe wholly to the sacrifices of deuils with his complices and schollers as he had beene iâ—…structed by Gerbertus which was Pope Syluester the second By these Masters and meanes Hildebrand aspiring to the Papacy ioyned himselfe in a strict league with one Brazutus who poisoned sixe Popes in the space of thirteene yeres their names mine Author setteth down in order thus Clemens this was Clemens the second Damasus 2 Leo 9 Victor 2 Stephaâ—…us 10. Benedictus this Pope escaped the poison but was cast out by force and cunning of Hildebrand Nicholaus 2. Thus he practised to make way for himselfe to the Papacy by poisoning all that stood in his way 3. For redressing of these enormities Henry the third Emperour was entreated by the religious sort of Cardinalls to purge the Church of this hellish rabble that thus pestered it The Emperor being drawne to seeke some reformation of these disorders because many Popes vsurped the Papacie at once he
an end of the institution of these orders to make some chaunge in that ancient religion which before stood in the Church of Rome in some tollerable measure and to vexe and persecute the professors thereof and especially to bring in a new Iurisdiction of the Pope it will better appeare if wee consider what hath bene in the beginning of their institution and since obserued of their innouations libertie luxuriousnesse and what desolation they haue brought into the Church That these men may better be knowen I will note what Iohn Wiclife and some others haue obserued Friars taught saith Wiclife that the King of England is not Lord of the Clargie but that the Pope is their Lord. Friars so streitched the priuiledges of the Clargie that though an Abbot and all his couent ben open traitours conspiring vnto death of the King and Queene and other Lords and inforce them to destroy all the Realme the King may not take fro them an half-penny ne farthing worth When Parish-churches ben appropred to men of singular religion that is to Friars such appropriation is made by false suggestion that such religious men han not ynough for lifelode and healing but in truth they han ouâ—…rmuch Let me obserue this by the way as being now better instructed in the opinion of Iohn Wiâ—…life concerning tithes Whereas he seemeth to be against tithes it is to be vnderstood as he doth in diuers places open himselfe against tithes as then they were abused by Fryars For Fryers then had power from the Pope to appropriate tithes to their Couents by which meanes tithes came into their possession This thing Wiclife thought vnlawfull and would haue had tithes reduced to their ancient vse againe now let vs returne to his obseruations Fryers sayen that their religion founden on sinfull men is more perfit then that religion or order which Christ himselfe made They sayen also that begging is lawfull the which is damned of God both in the old Testament and in the new Fryers after they had procured impropriations and left a poore Curat in place drewe also from Curats their office and Sacraments they got the confession of Lords and Ladies They pursuen true Priests and letten them to preach the Gospell Christ chargeth all his Priests to preach the Gospell truely and they pursuen them for this deed yea to the fire they will slea Priests for they doe Gods bidding When the King by his officers prisons a man that is commonly done for great and open trespasse and that is good warning to other misdoers some profit comes of the Kings Ministers but when Friars prisonen their brethren the paine is not knowen to men though the sinne were neuer so open and slaunderous and that does harme to other Liegemen Friars sayen that they han more power then the Curat and thus they make dissention and discord among Ch istian men Friars labour to roote out true Priests that preach Christs Gospel themselues han their chamber and seruice like Lords or Kings and senden out idiots full of couetise to preach not the Gospell but Chronicles Fables and leesings to please the people to rob them And yet for sending of those couetous fooles that ben limitors goes much Symonie enuy much foule Marchandise And who can best rob the poore people by false begging and other deceits that shall haue this Iudas office and so a nest of Antichrists Clarkes is maintained They shew not to the people their great sinnes and namely to mighty men of the world but pursuen other true preachers for they will not glose mighty men and comfort them in their sins Thus mighty men hire by great costs a false traitour to lead them to hell Friars deceiuen the people in faith and robben them of Temporall goods make the people trust more in dead parchment sealed with leesings and in vaine prayers of hypocrites that in case ben damned deuils then in the holy helpe of God and their owne good liuing Friars peruert the right faith of the Sacrament of the Auter bringing in a new heresie saying there is an accident withouten subiect which heresie neuer came into the Church till the foule fende Satan was vnbounden after a thousand yeeres Friars vndoe Parish Churches by building other needlesse meaning Abbeyes and Priories c. They destroy the obedience of Gods law magnifien singular obedience made to sinfull men and in case to diuels this is blind obedience brought in by them which obedience Christ insampled neuer ne in himselfe ne in his Apostles Friars being made Bishops robben men by extorsion as in punishing of sin for money and suffren men to lie in sinne they beare out the gold of our land to Aliens and sometimes to our enemies to get of Antichrist false exemptions They teach Lords and Ladies that if they die in Francis habite they shall neuer come to hell They are neither ruled by Gods law ne lawes of the Church ne lawes of the King They ben the cause and procuratours of all warres They say apertly that if the King and Lords and other standen thus against their false begging c. they will goe out of the land and come againe with bright heads and looke whether this be treason or none They teach and maintaine that holy writ is false and so they putten falsnesse vpon our Lord Iesus Christ and vpon the holy Ghost and vpon the blessed Trinitie Friars teach that it is not lawfull to a Priest or any other man to keepe the Gospell in his bounds and cleannesse without errour of sinnefull men but if he haue leaue thereto of Antichrist Friars by hypocrisie binden them to impossible things that they may not doe for they binden them ouer the commaundements of God as they say themselues hence are works of supererogation They burne Priests and the Gospell of Christ written in English to most honour of our Nation They call the curse of God the lesse curse and the curse of sinfull men the more curse They distroyen this Article of Christian mens faith I beleeue a common or generall Church For they teachen that tho men that shall be damned be members of holy Church and thus they wedden Christ and the diuell together They waste the treasures of the land for dispensations and vaine Pardons They ben most subtill and priuy procurators of Symonie and most priuily make Lords to maintaine the Pope and his robbing our land of treasure by his Pardons Priuiledges first fruits of Benefices in our land and Disâ—…es and Subsidies 23. By this wee may in part see those innouations which Friars brought into the Church raysing a new Iurisdiction to the Pope defrauding and robbing the King of his auncient Iurisdiction these are they who first taught and practised obedience to another Soueraigne then the King conspiracy against the life of Princes
nation of the Iewes did take sauing o◅ely the Pharises And therefore these Pharises he describeth to be seditious and intollerable stirrers in States euen such as the Friars prooued afterward The words of Iosephus though they be long yet I will set downe because they open the practise of this Oath of Allegance the consent of the auncient Church of the Iewes and the seditious and pestiferous practise of the Pharises that the Iesuites the broode of these Vipers may the better be knowen his words are these There was a sort of men among the Iewes glorying in the scrupulositie and subtiltie of the law by hypocrisie and simulation counterfeiting the holy worship of God by whom women were much moued and drawen c. These were called Pharises who had great power either to helpe or to hurt the kings State For they were troublesome seditious the stirrers of wars iniurious and immoderate prouokers of trouble without cause or ground For when the whole nation of the Iewes bound themselues by an Oath to be faithfull and true to Caesar and to obey him only these Pharises did not sweare these were in number somewhat aboue sixe thousand whom the King punished with a mulct pecuniarie which summe of money the wife of Pherora disbursed for them But they to recompence this her great liberalitie tooke vpon them the foretelling of things to come as men forsooth indued with diuine inspiration they prophesied that K. Herods end was at hand decreed by the diuine Maiestie and the end of all his issue and kinred and that this woman their Benefactour with her husband Pherora and the children descending of them should be Kings When this practise of the Pharises came to the Kings knowledge he killed them as stirrers of sedition and traitours to the State Thus fa◅re Iosephus Whereby we vnderstand that this Oath of Allegeance was well approoued of the Church of the Iewes and onely denied by the seditious Pharises who then inueigled women and weake men and by such meanes stirred rebellions as now their successors the Iesuites doe In like manner was this Oath practised in the Church of Christians as appeareth by the testimonies before cited and by these that followe The second Synode of Rhemes was gathered about the yeere nine hundred and ninetie against Arnulphus Archbishop of Rhemes where it was witnessed of that Archbishop that in the presence of the Kings and Bishops and Clergie and people he was of his owne consent bound by an Oath that to the vtmost of his skill and power he would be true and faithfull in Councell and aide to his Prince the manner and forme of his Oath is set downe thus Ego Arnulphus gratia Dei praeueniente Rhemorum Archiepiscopus promitto regibus Francorum Hugoni Rotberto me sidem purissimam seruaturum consilium auxi lium secundum meum scire posse in omnibus negotijs praebiturum inimicos ◅orū nec consilio nec auxilio ad eorum infidelitatem scienter adiuturum And so it proceedeth with a long execration vpon the breaker 30. Nauclerus doth likewise obserue that Fredericke Barbarossa Emperour perceiuing that the Pope by his excommunications practised secret conspiracies drawing subiects from Allegeance from faith and obedience to preuent these new and subtill practises did exact an Oath of Allegeance of all Bishops vnder his Dominions commaunding the Popes Agents to bee excluded from Germany vnlesse hee sent for them The same exclusion of the Papall Legats was often vsed by the Kings of England and France after that these Princes perceiued that the end of such Legacies was to strengthen the Popes excommunications and to stirre the people to rebellions or to robbe the land of tr◅asure The same Fredericke did also forbid his subiects to appeale to Rome and to goe thither By this iniunction of Fredericke the Popes Legate being forced to trudge home returning to Pope Hadrian made a grieuous complaint the Pope hereupon wrote a letter to the Emperour which because it openeth the Popes meaning concerning the Oath of Allegeance I will here set it downe Hadrian the fourth seruant of Gods seruants to Fredericke Emperour of Romanes health and Apostolicall blessing 31. THe law of God promiseth a long life to them that honour their parents and threatneth the sentence of death to such as curse their Father or Mother And we are taught by the voice of the truth it selfe that hee that exalteth himselfe shall be brought lowe Wherfore my sonne beloued in the Lord we maruaile not a little at your wisedome for that you seeme not to yeeld so much reuerence to S. Peter and the Church of Rome as you ought to doe for in the letters which you wrote to vs you set your name before curs wherein you doe incurre the note of insolency that I may not say arrogancie What shall I say of the Allegeance by you promised and sworne to S. Peter and to vs How can you keepe that Allegeance seeing that you your selfe require homage Allegeance of those that are Gods That are the sons of the most high that is Bishops and you haue held their hallowed hands in your hands manifestly declaring your selfe contrary to vs you shut out our Cardinals not onely out of your Churches but euen out of your Cities Repent therfore repentwe aduise you for whilst you seeke the Crown and Consecration at our hands we feare that seeking more you will loose that which you haue 32. By this wee perceiue the Popes meaning in denying that Kings ought to exact an Oath of Allegeance of Clarkes especially of Bishops for they finding that the Oath of Allegeance draweth subiects to the obedience of Princes resist it by all possible meanes because the Popes seeke Soueraigne Allegeance which cannot be performed both to the Pope and to Princes so that if the Popes purposes stand ciuill obedience to Princes cannot stand And howsoeuer the Iesuites cauill at the late Oath of Allegeance by Parliament enacted quarrelling against it as if it were not a meere Ciuill Oath yet this is but their friuoulous exception for it is euident by this Epistle of the Pope that an Oath of meere Ciuill Allegeance standeth against the Popes purposes For this Oath which Fredericke exacteth was for meere Ciuill Allegeance and yet the Pope denieth that the Emperour ought to take such an Oath of Bishops the reason was that which Iohn Wiolife descried because Bishops must be the Popes subiects not the Kings This was also a part of that quarrell wherewith Thomas Becket troubled the State in his time for he hauing first taken the Oath of Allegeance to King Henrie the second afterward repenting sought to be absolued of the Pope 33. Then this Oath of Allegeance to Kings was in vse before we finde it exacted by the Pope the Pope did first exact it of Archbishops The first that I can find to binde himselfe in an Oath to the Pope was Boniface tearmed the Germane
magnoperè prouidendum est â—…e in his Deus offendatur per quos religio Christiâ—…na consistere debet Marsilius Patauin hath a testimony which if it were of doubtlesse authority might moue some doubt For hee saith that Pope Simplicius did forbid Inuestitures to bee taken at a lay hand albeit saith he by that decree it is manifest that his predecessours exhibiting all due and humble reuerence to Princes did vse to take Inuestitures from Lay-men It is manifest by this that Marsilius had seene a decree of Simplicius to this purpose Which if it were the true decree of Simplicius then were Inuestitures acknowledged the Princes right long before Charles but if that decree were forged as doubtlesse it was with many moe Let the Romane forgery be acknowledged and the Masters of that mint knowne Howsoeuer it is out of question that Inuestitures were acknowledged the auncient right of the Empire by Haâ—…rian yeelded to Charles graunted also by diuers Popes as is apparant by their expresse confessions of whome some were more auncient then Charles the great and some since 47. The reason why it should belong to temporal Princes is so great that it moued Popes Emperours and Kings to enter into the greatest and hottest contentions the one to purchase a new title the other to retaine their auncient right For vntill the time of Constantine wee finde little or no mention at all of these things because the Iurisdiction was then vnmixt this power coactiue was not then practised by the gouernours of the Church But when Constantine had enriched the Church giuen place and authority to Bishops adding vnto that power which they had a new part of Iurisdiction which they had not before as we haue declared And by this example of Constantine other Emperours and Kings adding thereto so that a temporall Lordship was added in the end to a Bishoprick which thing was first instituted by Otho the second Emperour in the opinion of Cardinall Cusanus For writing of this Otho hee saith Câ—…edidit perpetuis temporibus imperio subiectis pâ—…cem darâ—… posse si temporalia dominia â—…am Rom. Ecclesiae quam alijs adiungerentur cum certi seruiâ—…ij obseruatione tunc enim cultus diuinus augmentaretur religionem in magnam reuerentiam exaltandam credidit quando sanctissimi Episcopi magnae potentiae alijs Principibus intermiscerentur A mixt Iurisdiction thus being committed to Bishops Then was it good reason that Bishops hauiâ—…g receiued such an externall coactiue power from temporall Princes that these Princes should bee well secured of their fidelity to them for so much of their authoritie as they receiued from such Princes 48. This example of gouernment the first Christian Princes set vp in the Church drawne from the gouernement of the Church of Iewes as we haue said so that Christian Kings haue the same power ouer Bishops which the godly Kings of Israell had ouer the Priests in that state From this ground riseth Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction which being taken by the first Christian Emperours from the example of the state of Israell was continued by them and their successours without question or contradiction till the time of Hildebrand For Gregory the first speaking of this auncient right which Emperours had in his time and before declareth that this right of theirs in placing of Bishops was an order so auncient so established that the contrary thereof was neuer knowne or heard of in the Church And therefore writing to Constantia Augustâ—… he saith Salonitâ—… ciuitatis Episcopus me ac responsali meo nesciente ordinatus est Eâ—… facta res est quae sub nullis anterioribus principibus eâ—…nit Quod egâ—… audiens ad eundem praeuaricaâ—…orem qui 〈◊〉 ordinatus est protinus misi vt omnâ—…no missarum 〈◊〉 celebrarâ—… nullo 〈◊〉 praesumeret nisi 〈◊〉 à serenissimis Dominis 〈◊〉 si hâ—… fieri ipsi iuâ—…sissent That is The Bishop of Sâ—…lone was ordained without the knowledge of my selfe and my Chaplaine And that thing is done which neâ—…er hapned vnder any of the former Princes Which when I vnderstoode I sent presently to that 〈◊〉 which was inordinately ordained that he should not in any case presume to celebrate Masse vnlesse first I might vnderstand of my most serene Lords the Emperours whither they commaunded this Which testimonie â—…is also cited Desâ—… 63. to proue that the Emperors ought to chuse Bishops as Hadrian acknowledged the right to Charles and Lâ—…o to Otho Gregory saith that the Bishop who iâ—…truded vpon that Church not onely without his knowledge but also without the consent of the Emperour should not be suffered to exercise his function before that he might vnderstand whether the Bishoppe had the Emperoâ—…s consent herein he saith also that this practise of intruding without the Emperours consent was a thing neuer practised vnder any Prince before that time Facta res est quae sub nullis anterioribus principibus euenit For tâ—…at these wordes are referred to that intrusion without the Emperours knowledge it is euident because he saith not that this was neuer practised vnder any Pope but not practised vnder any Prince and that he will send to the Prince to know whether the Prince commanded this thing and therefore hee calleth him a Praeuaricator that presumed to crosse this auncient right of Princes Then he condemneth a number of his successours for Prâ—…uaricators Gregory knew well what he wrote hauing the perfect Register of things of this kinde done betweene the time of Constantine and his time therefore his testimonie maketh faire and full euidence that this was the right of Christian Magistrates long before Pope Hadrian did yeeld it to Charles The same thing is also witnessed by the twelfth Toletan Counsell which was hâ—…ld in the time of Pope Agatho in the yeare sixe hundred and eightie that is long before that time wherein Hadrian yeelded this right to Charles as the olde right of the Empire 49. But Cardinall Baroniuâ—… striken with a strange fury in this question of Inuestitures ventureth vpon a new and desperat course denieth all Antiquities and bringeth a more shamelesse handling to these things then euer was brought by any man before him He denieth the whole with all the parts of it that is reported of Hadrian yeelding this to Charles but most of all he breaketh all rules of patience and moderation against Sigebert because among many he also hath reported this Storie Sigeâ—…ert saith he like an Impostor first deuised and forged this tale that Pope Hadrian yeelded Inuestitures to Charles and this he wrote in the fauour of a sâ—…hismaticall Emperour Why Baronius should put vpon Sigeâ—…ert Imposture and subornation we see no reason vnlesse it be that he thinketh that if 〈◊〉 could be put to silence herein there could no proofe appeare in all Antiquity for Inuestitures If this beâ—… his meaning he is much decâ—…iued for before this word Inuestiture was in vse the Princes right was alwaies acknowledged Long before
point and am more willing to search the truth herein because it is a matter of especiall importance concerning this question of Iurisdiction which wee seeke to know For Robert Persons the masked Catholique diuine confesseth in effect thus much that if wee can proue that Inuestitures belong to temporall Princes we haue in his iudgement questionlesse obtained the cause for which we striue Let me set downe his owne words Three things saith he do concurre in making of a Bishop by diuine and Canon law to wit election confirmation and consecration The first to wit election when it is iustly made doth giue right to the elected to pretend the second and third c. Yet can he not vpon his only Election exercise any part of his office of a Bishop either in Iurisdiction or order But when he hath the second part which is confirmation and induction to the benefice which is properly called Inuestiture then hath he Iurisdiction vpon those people and may exercise the Acts thereof by visiting punishing or the like but not the Acts of order vntill he haue consecration also that is to say he cannot make Priests nor administer the Sacrament of confirmation c. And a little after he saith the second which is confirmation and giuing of Iurisdiction must onely proceede from him that is the fountaine of all spirituall Iurisdiction vnder Christ which is the Bishoppe of Rome or some Metropolitane or Bishoppe vnder him that hath authority and Commission from him Thus much the Catholicke Diuine 66. I forgiue many particular escapes in this short discourse not spending time in the examination of by-points I would meete him there where he thinketh himselfe strongest For where he saith confirmation which also he calleth induction or which properly as he graunteth may be called Inuestiture giueth Iurisdiction this we yeeld And then heere wee ioyne issue with olde Sir Robert in that part of his Collection whereon he layeth his greatest hold and are content to trie the whole cause thereon whether Inuestiture which by his confession and the doctrine of his Church and the consent of all giueth Iurisdiction belong of ancient right to the Pope or to temporall Princes If he be able to proue by any auncient full cleare vnsuspected witnesse that the Popes within the space of the first thousand yeares or before Hildebrand either had that right or did practise or so much as challenge that right I will for my part yeeld the cause and will confesse mine errour if thus much be euidently euicted But seeing we haue proued by vndoubted Histories by the consent of Popes themselues by the Decrees established in Councels that this was an auncient right of temporall Princes called Prisca consuetudo by Pope Stephen Antiqua consuetudo by another that the contrarie was neuer heard of vnder any Christian Prince confessed by Gregory the first Then hath he reason either to yeelde vs the cause wholly or to reuoke his wordes againe that Inuestiture giueth Iurisdiction 67. Then the right of Inuestitures standing as the auncient right of our Kings being neuer questioned in Christendome before the time of Pope Gregory the seuenth neuer questioned in this land before the time of Henry the first that King had reason to pleade the vse of his father and brother for himselfe because it being a thing quietly possessed by them was out of doubt peaceably inioyed before them because before them the Popes neuer made title thereto Now concerning the tumults warres blood and confusion in Christendome both in the Church and temporall states which for this quarrell the Popes procured for fiftie yeares together as Malmsbury witnesseth of this it is not my purpose to speake It is enough for mee to open the time when it began and before which time it was neuer challenged by any Pope and to declare that the Popes late practise is condemned by the Iudgement of the auncient Church §. V. Exemption of criminous Clerkes 68. OVr purpose being to take a suruey of that Iurisdiction which we finde challenged by Popes at and somewhat after the time of the Conquest of England at what time the Popes power was at the highest we are to consider in the next place Exemption of criminous Clerkes for as Inuestiture of Bishoppes began then to be claimed so about these times crept exemption of the Popes Clerkes which is taken to be another part of this Iurisdiction My purpose is not to speake of lawfull exemption of the Clergie for both Diuine and humane lawes approue such immunities without which how could the Clergie attend vpon their heauenly businesse These immunities which Emperours and Princes haue giuen to the Church the Church ought to inioy without disturbance and to withdraw such immunities were high sacriledge and impiety against God and his Church But the question is not of these immunities which Christian Kings haue giuen to the Church but of those immunities which the Pope without the leaue or authoritie of Princes hath bestowed out of his fulnesse of power vpon the Clergie which liue vnder the gouernement of other Princes by which the Clergie inioyed a protection from punishment for any sinne This is the thing for which they are not ashamed to striue euen at this day as earnestly as they did in the midst of blindenesse This thing will be better knowne if we search the originall foundation of this errour from the beginning and the occasion by which it grew in the Church For now this opinion is and for some late hundred yeeres hath beene so rooted in the Court of Rome that the Clergie though neuer so much offending by murther treason theft robberies or such like is priuiledged from all temporall Courts of Princes and punishment from the Laity vnlesse first the Church proceede against them and make them no Clerks that they are perswaded both of the truth and antiquity hereof as of a point of faith the occasion grew thus 69. The first auncient and famous Emperours did out of their godly and zealous affections and as we may well iudge vpon good reasons to helpe the Church and to preserue discipline ioyne the aide of their coactiue lawes to the spirituall censures of the Church ordeining that whosoeuer by the gouernours of the Church could not be brought to obedience and order should by the seuerity of temporall punishment be reduced to obedience The vsuall punishment which Emperours did inflict vpon Clerkes was deportation So did Constantine the great punish Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia and Theognius Bishoppe of Nice And albe it some were threatned with capitall punishment as appeareth by a Letter which Constantine wrote to the Bishoppes of the Nicen Councel recorded by Socrates and inserted in the first Tome of Councels yet the vsuall censure of the Emperour was exile This kind of punishment was often inflicted by other Emperors vpon Bishops the examples are famously knowne and acknowledged I need not to speake of them Insomuch that it began to be
it must be before his Bishoppe if he will accuse the Bishoppe it must be in a prouinciall Synode if he will draw a Metropolitane to answer for some things which he hath done it must be either before the Primate or before the Bishoppe of Constantinople All this we graunt to be orderly established the things intended are matters of Ecclesiasticall Cognisance which are to bee heard in such Courts but our question is of Clerks that are conuinced to be murtherers or Traytors c. Whether such are to bee exempt from triall at Common Law Of which exemptions these auncient Bishops neuer dreamed 76. It is moreouer to be noted that diuers of these places which he citeth as that from Sulpitius of S. Martin and from Ambrose c. are vnderstoode of another thing and not of exemption of Clarkes at all For the auncient Bishops as before I haue declared thought it not lawfull that matters of faith and doctrine should be determined in ciuill Courts by ciuill Magistrates This is true and this is that which those testimonies speake of but what is this to criminous Clarks that Robbers Traytors murtherers of the Clergy should be protected by reason of their Order from triall in Kings Courts this is a doctrine neuer knowne to the auncients It was first knowne in England in the dayes of Henry the second stirred seditiously by Thomas Becket Archbishop of Canterbury when as before that time it was neuer heard of in this land The manner heereof I will briefly recite out of Roger Houeden 77. In the yeare of Christ 1163. the contention concerning exemption of Clerkes grew famous betweene King Henry the second and Thomas Becket Archbishop Rex volebat saith Houeden Presbyteros Diaconos Subdiaconos alios Ecclesiae rectores si comprehensi fuissent in latrocinio vel murdra vel felonia vel iniqua combustione vel in his similibus ducere ad saecularia examina punire sicâ—…t laicum Contra quod Archiepiscopus dicebat quod si Clericus in sacris ordinibus constitutus vel quilibet alius rector Ecclesiae calumniatus fuerit de aliqua re per viros Ecclesiasticos in curia Ecclesiastica debet iudicari Et si conusctus fuerit ordines suos amittere sic alâ—…enatus ab officio beneficio Ecclesiastico si postea forisfecerit secundum voluntatem Regis baliuorum suorum iudicetur That is The King required that Priests Deacons Subdeacons and other Rectors of Churches if they were taken in murther robbery felony burning of houses or such like should be brought to secular Courts and there punished as Lay-men were Against this the Archbishop affirmed that if a Clerke being within holy Orders or any other Parson of a Church were accused of any thing he must be iudged by Ecclesiasticall Iudges in the Ecclesiasticall Court and if he were conuict he should loose his orders And so being excluded from office and benefice Ecclesiasticall if after this he incurred the like fault then might he be iudged at the pleasure of the King and his Officers Thus farre Houeden 78. This manner of degrading and afterward deliuering criminous Clarkes to the Secular power crept in about the time of the Conquest Bellarmine pretending greater antiquity for it can neither bring reason nor testimony for his opinion For whereas he saith Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia was first deposed by the Nicen Councell and afterward banished by Constantine by this offering to proue that they must first be deliuered to the Secular power before the Magistrate may punish and reproueth Caluin for not considering thus much We answere Bellarmine sheweth his skill in shifting and hiding the truth to deceiue the simple For Caluin in that place which he citeth against this Romish immunitie proueth two things First that coactiue power is in the hand of the Prince and not of the Church Ecclesia cogendi non habet potestatem de ciuili coactione loquor saith he Secondly that criminous Clarkes had no immunities from the ciuill Courts of Princes Now that Bellarmine saith Eusebius was first deposed by the Councell and then banished is nothing against Caluin but for him For the Church did not inflict the coactiue punishment of banishment but the Emperour And Caluin proueth at large in the same place that Kings and Emperours haue no authority to iudge in causes of faith Producing the example of Ambrose who in such a cause resisted the Emperour Valentinian Such a cause was that of Eusebius the Emperour knew not whether he was in fault or not before the Church had iudged the cause But Caluines iudgement and our question standeth in two thinges against which Bellarmine doth not so much as speake one word First that coactiue power was not then in the Church but in the Emperour Secondly that criminous Clerkes were then punished by the Magistrate Eusebius is not there proposed as a criminous Clerke but as an example wherein the coactiue power of the Magistrate appeared But now they say if a Clerke bee proued to be a felon murderer traytor c. the Kings Courts may not censure this man before he be degraded Against these immunities wee speake for which Bellarmine offereth not any proofe Let the manner of Bellarmines answering bee considered for it is easie for him thus to answere Caluin and all Protestants when he toucheth not the point in question but singling out of some peece from the whole wresteth that also from the true intent that he may shape a mis-shapen answere to it Then we say that before those desperate times wherein Iohn Wiclife saith and often affirmeth that Satan was loosed no man claymed such a beastly priuiledge as to be exempt from the Kings Lawes for murder treason and such like Godlinesse reason and the light of Nature seemeth to be extinguished in these men that being contented to take the benefite of Lawes will not be contented to bee ordered by Lawes This hath forced some Princes and States to ordaine Lawes that such should be out of the Kings protection Thus did that noble Prince Edward the third King of England Wherein the King seemed to open the true way to his successors to deale with these men for seeing as then they did so now they doe denie themselues to be the Kings subiects and affirme that neither by Diuine nor humane right they are bound to obey the King with his coactiue Lawes and that they are onely vnder the subiection of the Pope that for no crimes they are to bee examined in the Kings Courts is it not great reason that the protection of the King and of his Lawes should bee denyed to them that reiect both 79. Houeden declareth also that in the yeare one thousand one hundred sixtie foure the King called a Synod and required the Bishops vpon their allegeance to receiue his Graundfathers Lawes to vse and obserue them Thomas Becket answered for him and the rest they would keepe all the Lawes
Now this is the crueltie of our Lord the King that is so much spoken of through the world against the Church this is that persecution that he raiseth Then it is an auncient complaint of these Romish Catholickes to call the iust lawfull godly and necessary execution of iustice crueltie and persecution this complaint hath beene euer since continued by them and most of all where there is least cause euen in the milde and mercifull gouernement of the late Queene of famous memory What crueltie did they impute to her What persecution to her Gouernement When they are not able to proue that one man was executed for Religion but for treason Which was so much the more dangerous because it was masked with the visard of Religion but Religion is not nor euer was the cause why our Kings punished the Popes Clerkes but onely Iurisdiction For when the Pope will stretch his Iurisdiction so farre as to include coactiue power and to exclude Kings from the gouernement of their Subiects drawing the Clergie from the obedience of their Kings to the obedience and subiection of the Pope drawing the subiects of other Kings vnder his subiection by an Oath of Allegiance and hereupon perswading al that will hearken to him that they may not yeelde an Oath of Alleageance to their owne Princes the Popes Iurisdiction being drawne to these points as now by the confession of themselues they are the question betweene the Pope and Christian Princes is not of Religion but of Iurisdiction of ciuill and coactiue Iurisdiction and the summe of all is this Whether the Princes of Christendome shall be free Princes or the Popes Vassals 82. By this which we haue declared we see the cause of our Kings iustified against the Archbishoppe and the exemption of Clerkes for which the Archbishoppe stroue and which since that time is claimed to be an especiall priuilege of that Church to be condemned by the chiefe of the Clergy by all the Bishops of that Prouince and that euen to the Pope himselfe Which thing the Bishoppes of the English Church would neuer haue done vnlesse they had beene well assured that the Kings cause was good and that the contrary opinion was a pernicious nouelty a late vpstart deuice in the Church But howsoeuer the Popes Clerkes pretended their new forged priuiledges yet the Kings of this land held still their olde course in the auncient manner of execution of iustice against them that offended And therefore Henry the second by law commaunded as Houeden saith that the Bishoppes of London and Norwich should be summoned that they might be before the Kings Iustices to answere for that they against the statutes of the kingdome did interdict the land of the Earle Hugh 83. This exemption of Clarks was a new practise in the time of Marsilius of Padua and not so new as pestiferous occasioning the ruine of States and being as a furie sent abroad from hell to disorder all gouernment For thus he complaineth of it Quibus non contenti sed saecularium contra Christi Apostolorum praeceptum appetentes fastigia in legum Lationes seorsum ab ijs quae Ciuium vniuersitatis sunt proruperuut Omnem clerum ab his decernentes exemptum ciuile sâ—…hisma principatuum supremoruÌ„ pluralitatâ—…m inducentes ex ipsis c. Haec pestilentiae Italici regni radix est origo ex qua cuncta scandala germinauerunt prodeunt qua stante nunquaÌ„ ciuiles ibidem cessabunt discordiae c. That is Not content herewith they the Popes seeking the honour of secular gouernement against the commandement of Christ and his Apostles haue taken vpon them the ordaining of Lawes and Canons other then such as serue for the common good They decree that all the Clergie are exempt from temporall Princes heereby inducing a pluralitie of Soueraignties c. This is the roote and spring of the pestilence of the Empire from whence all scandals grow and which standing ciuill discord shall neuer haue an end c. Thus were these exemptions then found and acknowledged to be the pestilence and ruine of all states especially of the Empire And his reason is well to be obserued because saith he it bringeth in Pluralitatem supremorum principatuum quam velut impossibilem humanae quieti demonstrauimus he proueth the plurality of Soueraignty a thing impossible to stand with the quiet and peaceable Gouernement of the world Now this exemption must eyther induce a plurality of Soueraignties when the Pope is one Soueraigne and the Prince another which is impossible in nature saith Marsilius or else it denieth the Kings Soueraignty to establish the Popes which thing can neuer bee indured by any Prince §. VI. Of the Popes power in giuing lawes 84. ANother thing whereby this new Iurisdiction of the Pope was so highly aduanced was giuing of Lawes to Princes and their subiects whereas before Princes had giuen lawes to him Marsilius in the wordes last cyted in the end of the last Paragraffe speaking of these laws saith They now break out into a practise of Iurisdiction taking vpon them to make lawes separat and distinct from such lawes as are for the common and publique good of all meaning the Canon lawes which because they intend onely the priuate aduancement of the Pope and not the publique good of the Church being also made onely by the authority of the Pope and not by the publique consent of the Church therefore he doth not account them lawes but Oligarchicall and tyrannicall Decrees these lawes are to be considered because they make so great a shew of the Popes Iurisdiction 85. The Church before was gouerned by Bishoppes and Metropolitanes in such order that the affaires of euery particular Diocesse were ordered by the Bishoppe or by a Synode of his calling the affaires of the Prouince were determined by the Metropolitane or by a Prouinciall Synode of his calling from an Episcopall Synode a man might appeale to a prouinciall Synode and from a Prouinciall Synode to a nationall but from a prouinciall or from a nationall Synode none might appeale to the Bishoppe of Rome for which thing diuers Decrees were made in prouinciall Synodes as we haue before declared As the Bishoppes were Gouernours so the lawes whereby they did then gouerne the Church were the Canons of auncient Councels especially of those foure most famous Councels of Nice Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon For that the Canons of these Councels were held for the lawes of the Church it appeareth by a Constitution of Iustinian extant in the fift Synode held at Constantinople wherein Iustinian the Emperour declareth that Aâ—…thimus was deposed from the Bishoprike of Constantinople by Pope Agapetus and a whole Synode with him consenting for that he had departed from the doctrines of those foure holy Synodes the Nicen the Constantinopolitan the Ephesian and the Chalcedonian The Emperor also declareth that he being deposed by the Church should be banished by him ioyning his
maintained the lawes and customes of his father against the Pope and Henry the first the lawes and customes of his brother and father and Henry the second the lawes and customes of the Kingdome vsed by his Grandfather Henry the first or any other afterward referring themselues to the same lawes the lawes and customes of which they speake are the auncient lawes and priuiledges of this land confirmed by the Conquerour receiued from King Edward proceeding from King Edgar and before him from King Alphred And are therefore of much greater antiquity then the Popish Religion lately concluded in the Councell of Trent as many parts of that Religion were Then it appeareth that the auncient lawes of this land did forbid an appeale to Rome neither is that to be much maruelled for why should it be thought strange that an appeale to Rome was vtterly forbidden by the Church and State of England feeing long before that time we finde the same thing forbidden by the Church of Africa After this time wherein Appeales to Rome were forbidden in England we finde that in Fraunce the same thing was prohibited by the law which the French call the pragmaticall Sanction for in the yeare one thousand two hundred threescore and eight Lewes the ninth French King called S. Lewes ordeined the pragmatical Sanction wherein all the oppressions of the Church of Rome are vtterly forbidden that none of those things be practised in Fraunce vnlesse it be by the expresse and free consent of the King and Church of that Kingdome Thus haue Kings alwaies prescribed against the Pope in matters of Iurisdiction as the Church in like sort hath prescribed against the Pope in matters of faith and Religion as hereafter in the last Chapter shall be declared §. VIII Of deposing and depriuing Kings and dissoluing the Oath of Alleageance wherein consisted the highest pitch of this pretended Iurisdiction 96. THE last and greatest point of this Iurisdiction wherein the strings of this authority were stretched vp to the highest was that their practise of Deposing Kings and discharging Subiects from their Alleageance By which practise the Church was confounded the States of the world ouerturned Kings robbed of their right subiects of their faith and truth euery nation scourged with warres and blood-shed and in the common vexation of all Christendome onely the Popes state and worldly glory increased who could not otherwise rise but with the ruine of the Church and States In this place therefore I will as breefely as I can passe through by way of short History the practise of the Popes in deposing of Kings That it may be apparant to the world that we are so farre from being afraid to confesse this power which they so much boast of that we are rather readie to publish it to the world For hereby all men which haue any vnderstanding of that power which Iesus Christ left to his Church may know the Tyrannie vsurpation pride vaine-glory ambition and madnesse of him who exalteth himselfe in the Church against God and against them that are called Gods Wherein we may learne to be armed with patience to suffer for a time whatsoeuer the lust of proud and bloud-sucking Popes haue leaue to do for the sinnes of our Princes and people and Churches For their time is set and drawing to an end and nothing hath beene done but that which is fore-warned in the Scripture So that by these ambitious and bloudy practises wee shall finde how the Scriptures are fulfilled 97. For one Scripture saith that a starre must fall from heauen who must be a King of the Locusts which is called also the Angell of the bottomlesse pit whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon and in Greeke Apollyon that is a destroyer Which Prophesie of his destroying power is verified most apparantly in this practise of excommunicating Kings and loosing the knot of obedience Whereby confusion and destruction is brought vpon all Kingdomes of Christendome Hereby he is proued to be a destroyer an exterminator an excommunicator Therefore the vulgar translation addeth significantly Latine habens nomen exterminans Another Scripture saith The tenne Kings shall giue their power and authority to the beast Though the Kings of Christendome did neuer directly yeeld to the Pope this authority ouer their owne Kingdomes and ouer themselues that the Popes might depose and displace them at his pleasure yet this they gaue him in effect and by consequence For they gaue him so much that he might vpon their owne graunt challenge this and they who had graunted him so much had no reason to except against his challenge For though the King which was to be depriued denied the Pope this power yet such Princes did yeeld it to him to whom the Pope had giuen the Kingdom of the deposed Prince he did yeeld it who should vse the benefit of the Popes vsurped power For example though the late Kings of France haue alwaies denied that the Pope had any Authority to depose the French Kings yet the Kings of France haue giuen him this power For the former Kings yeelded it as Pipin and Charles For they had no other title to the Kingdome then from this power of the Pope Therefore they yeelded that the Pope had power and authority to giue Kingdomes and in that sense gaue their power and authority to the beast So that when these first French Kings honoured the Pope with this vndue honour though then they seemed to receiue Kingdomes from him yet the Scripture looketh farther into these practises then they did which practised them For they respected onely themselues their owne present greatnesse but in receiuing such power from the Popes they gaue in trueth their power and authority to the Popes For how could they in iustice denie but that the same power which deposed other Kings to raise them might as well haue deposed them to raise other Thus most of the Kings of Christendome gaue their kingdomes to the Popes That this new and strange power of Antichrist may better appeare I will open the beginning and continuance of the Popes practise herein Leo Iconomachus 98. THe first Prince vpon whom the Pope began this practise was Leo the Emperour whom Platina calleth Leo the third he was called Iconomachus for defacing of Images This Prince was deposed by Gregory the third who was Pope in the yeare seuen hundred ninety sixe Pope Gregory the second prepared the way thus When Leo the Emperour being much offended at the superstitious and foule abuse of Images which he saw daily then growing in the Church did vtterly deface Images in Churches and commaunded Pope Gregory the second then Bishop of Rome to doe the like the Pope tooke his aduise in such indignation that he raised all Italy in rebellion against him So the Emperour lost his holde in Italy and a number of little States were raised in Italy euery City striuing to make it selfe a free State Gregory the second hauing done thus much died and left the
Dominion of Sicily for which hee was also excommunicated by the Pope and deposed After him Conradus sonne to Frederic the second obtained the Kingdome of Sicily and Apulia for which Pope Innocent the fourth deposed him from the Empire and set vp Guilliaâ—… Lantgraue of Thuring commanding the Princes to make choice of him Conrad being excommunicate and deposed maintained his right by strength of armes but was secretly taken away by the practise of poison This was supposed to be the practise of Mamphred 131. Mamphrâ—…d the bastard sonne of Frederick the second tooke and held possession of these Kingdomes after the death of 〈◊〉 Tâ—…is man was also excommunicated by the Pope and deposed the Pope seeking alwaies to bring this Kingdome vnder the obedience of the Church of Rome Pope Urâ—…an the fourth a French-man borne finding his owne power too weake to effect this Mastery ouer Sicily and Apulia gaue these Kingdomes which neuer were his to giue to Charles brother to the French King Lewes the ninth who was called S. Lewes This was the beginning of those troubles which afterward brought so great warres and bloud-shed and thereby wel-nigh the vtter ruine of Italy Charles King of Sicily and Conradinus 132. FOR Charles comming with an Army into Italy at the Popes motion ioyning battell with Mamphrâ—…d ouerthrew him and slew him in battell neare to Beneuentum Pope Clement the fourth succeeding Vrban the fourth vnderstanding that after the death of Mamphred Couradinus the sonne of Conradus then but yong prepared forces in Germany to recoâ—…er his inheritance of Sicily made Charles brother to the French King the Vicar of the Empire to giue him â—…trength against Conradinus and wrote Letters to all Christians forbidding all men to write to Conradinus as to the King of Sicily And to the Princes of Germany hee wrote likewise forbidding them vnder the terrible paine of excommunicatiâ—… to chuse Conradinus Emperour by which meanes the 〈◊〉 was without a Soueraigne Magistrate for the space of two and twenty yeares In which time Alphonsus King of Spaine and Richard Earle of Cornewall brother to Henry the third King of England contended for the Empire These had the titles of the Emperour bestowed vpon them by their friends but the Emperour was not placed till Rodolph Count of Habspurge was chosen In the meane time Charles grew strong in Italy being made by the Pope Vicar generall of the Empire 133. When Conradinus vnderstood thâ—…se practises of the Pope against him perceiuing that the Popes had a resolution to roote out the seede and vtterly to extinguish the blood of Frederic he wrote a lamentable Epistle deploring his owne fortunes and the Popes iniquities Innocent the fourth saith he hath ouerthrowne me an innocent man for Conradus my father King of Sicily left me yong and tender in the custody of the Church then Pope Innocâ—…ntins pretending my wealth professing himselfe a trusty Tutor inuaded the whole Kingdome and when once he had gotten the possession thereof he sought vnmercifully to extinguish my name and blood deuiding my lands and Countries and distributing the same among his owne kinsemen and Nephewes After his death Alexander succeeding inuited others into the possession of that Kingdom excluding mâ—… After his death Vrbanus dealt very inurbanâ—…ly for hee drewe Mamphred in excluding my selfe the true heyre The same Pope disanulling that match with Mamphred drew Charles to vndertake thâ—… businesse against my selfe After his death Clement vsed all indemency against me setting vp another King and not content herewith thundreth out his Processes against me thinking it a small matter that against God and against Iustice he hath robbed me of my Kingdome vnlesse he proceede also to take the title from me Last of all he hath established Charles Vicar of the Empire to preiudice and defeat me by all meanes Thus doth he complaine by which complaint we may vnderstand somewhat of the Popes purposes Conradinus gathered an Army and came into Italy the Pope as he passed by 〈◊〉 fome doe witnesse did prophesie his death which was not 〈◊〉 for him to doe when hee had so strongly prepared the meanes thereof Conradinus therefore was ouerthrowne by Charles and so was all the bloud of Frederick And thus was that noble line of the Dukes of Sueuia vtterly extinguished 134. When Charleâ—… had at the Popes suggestion made this distruction in the house of Sueuia the Popes not knowing how to liue in peace and quietnesse began to turn their malice vpon Charles And first Pope Nâ—…cholas the third onely fearing that Charles should be too great in Italy hauing no quarrell against hiâ—… tooke from hiâ—… the oâ—…fice of Deputy of Hetruria pretending that Râ—…dolph Emperour was therewith so much offended that vnlesse Charles would deliuer vp into his handes that regiment he would not vndertake the iourney to the holy land seâ—…ing that place belonged to the Emperour by right But when the Pope had gotten this both from the Emperor from Charles together with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Exarch of Rauenna he kept all saith Platina in his owne custody and thither he sent his Nephew Thus must all the world be troubled that principalities may bee procured to the Popes bastards This â—…ope saith 〈◊〉 had a desire to create two Kings in Italy of the Vrsini one of Hetruriâ—… against the French forces now placed in Sicily and Naples the other to be King of Lumbards against the Germanes and imperiall forces But first for the more speedy ouerthrow of Charleâ—… whom the former Popes had drawen into Italy as into a trap he conspired against him labouring by all his power to throw him out and therefore gaue his Kingdomes to Peter King of Arragon The great offence between Pope 〈◊〉 and Charles grew saith 〈◊〉 qâ—…ia 〈◊〉 aâ—…entiri noluit vt suâ—…s consanguineus contraheret cum 〈◊〉 Pontificis Charles would not agree that his kinred should match with the Popes kinred Pâ—…ter King of Aragon 135. PEter King of Aragon being thus drawne in to the quarrell of Sicily by Pope Nicholas the third For saith Naucler the Pope perswaded Peter to take the Kingdom of Sicily in the right of his wife Constance who was the daughter of Mamphred and Niece to Conradinus brought an Army into Sicily and inuaded the Kingdome But Martin the fourth who succeeded Pope Nicholas excommunicated Peter deposed him depriuing him also of the Kingdome of Aragon Thus were these Princes first drawne into bloudy wars by the Popes who sometimes inuited them and laughed vpon them as louing friends sometimes plunged them in bloud as taking a delite in their destruction Let the Princes of Christendom once awake and consider the sauage nature of this wilde beast that is not onely drunk with the bloud of Saints but fed also fat with the bloud of Princes Thus the Popes filled all Christendome full of bloud with their excommunications Are these Christs Vicars are these the censures of Christes Church Martin then excommunicated Peter gaue
time greeuously troubled and vexed for want of the Emperors presence and had twise ouerthrown Ruperi or as some call him Robert King of Sicily the son of Charles whence grewe a new vexation of Italy betweene these two Pâ—…inces and as Platina saith the blame was laid vpon Clement who had called the Emperour with an Armie into Italy hee came to Rome for the Emperiall Crowne as Clement had inuited him thereto But because the Popes must bee alwaies like themselues Clement first denied his Coronation afterward hee consented vpon condition that Henry should take an Oath of Alleageance to the Pope This the Emperour refused as being a thing strange and without example Heere is descried an other end of these excommunications the Popes purpose to bring Kings and Emperours vnder them in respect of temporall Iurisdiction therefore they required of Emperours an Oath of Alleageance Clement the fift in one of his Canons maketh a long processe to proue that Henry tooke an Oath of Alleageance and that such an Oath is due to the Pope from Emperours 140. Clement pursuing his hatred against Henry aduanced the Title of Robert to Sicily whom the Emperour had by an ordinary processe of law condemned for Treason and declared an enemy to the Empire The Popes exception against Henry was that the Kingdome of Sicily belonged not to the Empire but he alleaged saith Platina that it was the Popes right to bestow the Kingdome of Sicily on this side and beyond Pharus vpon whom he pleased or to take it from whom hee would hence began great stirres to grow betweene the Pope and Emperor The Emperour pursuing his right brought an Armie into Italy and comming to Bonauentum his purpose was there to rest himselfe a few daies and to betake himselfe to prayer and fasting and other good workes that his lawfull labours and purposes might be blessed of God intending on the feast of the assumption to take the holy Sacrament The Bishoppe of Trent his Confessour was absent at that time being sent to Pope Clement but there was one sent backe in his roome a Iacobin Friar of S. Dominicks Order suborned for to worke a feate this man at that time administring the Sacrament hauing mingled Adamantin dust which is thought to be the strongest poyson in the flower whereof the Eucharist was made gaue it so prepared to the Emperour the poyson was so strong that the Emperour presently perceiued the danger and when the Masse was ended he called the Friar and said to him O Sir depart quickly for if my seruants shall knowe what a mischiefe you haue done vpon me you should die a miserable death but God forgiue you And so the Friar escaped and the Emperour died Lodouicus Bauarus 141. AFter the death of Henry the seuenth the Princes Electors were at variance for a successour some were for Frederiâ—…ke Duke of Austria others for Lodouicâ—… Duke of Bauare Iohn the two and twentieth Pope apprehended the occasion to dash one of these Princes against the other First he reiected Fredericâ—… with great contumely for when Fredericke had sent a Bishoppe to moue the Pope to ratifie his Election and the Bishoppe eloquently declared the Nobility of Fredericke and his valiant Progenitours vsing that speech Fortes crâ—…antur fortibus bonis the Pope with Pontificall arrogancy answered that Solomon the wisest man that euer was begot a most foolish sonne Against Lodouicke likewise hee pretended a quarrel for that he tooke more vpon him then belonged to his place and sometimes seeming to fauour the one and sometimes the other at last he promised Fredericke that hee would make him Emperour if hee would bring an Army into Italy to reueng him of Maphaeus and of his sonnes called Vicounts By this means great warres were raised vp in Italy and in Germany the two Princes Lodouicke and Fredericke met also in a battell fought from Sunne rising to Sunne setting wherein Lodouicke had the victory Fredericke was taken prisoner 142. Whereupon Pope Iohn without lawfull processe excommunicated Lodouicke in his Consistory at Auinion and declared him to be schismaticall hereticall and rebellious against the Church and depriued not onely Fredericke himselfe of all his Dominions as much as in him lay but depriued also all Clerkes that should giue him councell or aide Against this excommunication the Emperour appealed the forme of which Appellation is to be well obserued for albeit some write that he appealed from the Pope mis-informed to the Pope truly foâ—…d and to a generall Councell yet this is but the relation of such as fauoured the Popes Iurisdiction thinking that no appeale could be made from the Pope simply And therefore no relation of others can satisfie vs in this point so well as the very authenticke writ of Lodouicke himselfe wherein hee declareth his appeale which writ or declaration is set downe at large in Naucler from whence I would obserue some things which the Emperour declareth concerning the Popes Iurisdiction for therein he toucheth many points of his Iurisdiction and taketh exception against such partes of Iurisdiction which the Pope claimed partly in preiudice of the temporall Magistrate partly in preiudice of the Church For the question of Iurisdiction was better studied by learned men in the time of this Emperor then euer it was since 143. Lodouick then vnderstanding by men of greate learning in humane and diuine lawes which that age brought forth that the Pope had incroached vpon the right of temporall Princes and vpon the Iurisdiction of the Church and that hee ought to be gouerned iâ—… temporall affaires by the Emperour in spirituall affaires by the Church appealed from the Pope to a generall Councel and to the Catholicke Church thus the Emperour declareth his appeale appellauimus ad futurum generale Concilium ad sanctam Catholicam Ecclesiam This was done in an Assembly held at Franckfort published as a Decree against the Processes of Iohn the two and twentieth which Decree though it be somewhat large yet because it conteineth the iust claime of the temporall Magistrate against the pretended Iurisdiction of the Pope I must draw at least the summe of it to giue some satisfaction to the Reader He declareth the Popes claime for he claimed that hee had temporall Iurisdiction ouer Princes that the imperiall power was from the Pope that he that is chosen King of the Romanes hath no Iurisdiction by his sole Election vntill he be annointed consecrated and crowned that in temporall matters the Pope hath a fulnesse of power This was first the Popes claime whereunto the Emperour answereth That this standeth against the auncient Canons of the Church against law and against reason Hee cyteth for this diuers Canons to proue that the Emperour hath not his power from the Pope but from God alone Against each of the foresaid Positions he cyteth diuers Canons out of the Decrete of Gratian. Secondly Pope Iohn the two and twentieth obiected against the Emperour that hee the
some Emperours haue giuen some â—…emporalities to Popes as 〈◊〉 gaâ—…e to Siluestâ—… wee must not thinke that they gaue that which was their owne but onely restored that which vniustly and tyrannically was taken from Popes These things are such that in the iudgement of all men that are not destitute of iudgment need no reâ—…utation He saith also in the same place Potestâ—… omnis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subâ—…legata respectu 〈◊〉 Papâ—… All power of Emperoâ—…s and Kings is to them delegated by the Popes power This is the Iurisdiction which is fought a temporall Iurisdiction ouer Princes this doctrine was deuised onely to maintaine the practise of the Popes excommunication And as this new and strange doctrine was found out for the defence of that new and strange practise so the manner of the defence is no lesse strange for he declareth that this Iurisdiction for which he pleadeth so much is not in the Pope as he is a Priest or Bishoppe but as he is a Prince It followeth then in his confession that this Iurisdiction is proper to Princes and not to Priests For thus he saith Papatus est nomen Iurisdictionis noâ—… ordinis That is The Papacy is a name of Iurisdiction and not of Order And againe Potest Papa habere omnem potestatem pertinentem ad Papam tamen â—…arere potestatâ—… ordinis That is The Pope may haue all Iurisdiction beloâ—…ging to the Pope and yet be no Priest This new doctrine teacheth great wonders that the Pope may haue all Iurisdiction and bee no Priest The Iesuites and our owne Popish Countrie-men crye out against vs for giuing Iurisdiction to such as are no Priests but onely temporall Princes It will be hard for them to accuse vs and defend their owne Doctors 4. Because this manner of maintaining the Popes Iurisdiction is grosse to set him aboue temporall Princes in temporall Iurisdiction therefore diuers since this time haue sought to mollifie this harsh manner of speech by a distinction which they haue found out of late betweene Power direct ouer Princes and indirect These men say that the Pope hath power to depose Princes not directly but indirectly in respect of some spirituall good But when they come to the application of this distinction it appeareth nothing but a Miste to dazzle the eyes of men wherein there is no simplicity or truth Bellarmine is one of those that admitteth this Distinction vpon which Distinction graunted by Cardinall Bellarmine Master Blackwel thinketh he hath a good ground for taking the Oath of Alleageance And when Bâ—…llarmine reproueth him for that he answereth him by his owne Distinction a reasonable answere aâ—…d yet such is the Mist of this Distinction that you can hardly tell whether of these two speaketh more cunningly For Bellarmine saith that the Pope hath power to depose Princes not directly but in respect of some spirituall good but when Master Blackwell saith that in his particular case the spirituall good of Catholickes was respected This Bellarmine will denie for he will say that no priuate man must be iudge of this spirituall good but onely the Pope Now let the Pope bee Iudge and then this Distinction is as good as nothing for whensoeuer the Pope deposeth a Prince or dischargeth his subiects from their Oath of Alleageance he will iudge it to be for some spirituall good So that in this vnderstanding and sense of Bellarmine there is no reall difference betweene direct power and indirect 5. In like sort when Master Blackwell saith the Pope hath power to depose Princes indirectly or in respect of some spirituall good and iudgeth the taking of the Oath of Alleageance to respect a spirituall good end giuing this reason because the refusal of this Oth wold bring vpon vs the ruines of Catholicke families the lamentable extirpation of the whole Catholicke estate among vs We say the case of this man and of those that depend vpon him is much better then the case of them that refuse the Oath but yet to drawe them a little further into the loue of obedience let vs note the imperfection of his defence We commend his action and speake here onely of his manner of defending it for the reason that draweth him to obedience and to take this Oath is not a conscience of that commaundement of God which commaundeth obedience to Magistrates but the danger of Catholickes and of himselfe which proueth an indirect obedience So that in pleading for a verball distinction of power direct or indirect they descry a reall distinction of obedience direct or indirect Now there is not much difference betweene these three opinions of them that holde the Popes direct power and his indirect power and that say his power is to respect the present danger of the Catholickes For whatsoeuer Triumphus bringeth vnder his direct power that Cardinall Bellarmine will reduce vnder indirect power so that though they differ in the manner how this power commeth to the Pope directly or indirectly yet they both are agreed that the Pope hath this power and this is also Master 〈◊〉 iudgement For remooue the danger of his Catholickes and then he hath nothing to say against this power of the Pope so that the question is not how he hath it but whether he hath this power or not Vnto which question all Romance Catholickes answer affirmatiuely and we negatiuely 6. Thus did those learned men conceiue the question that first began to handle it these later distinctions came in by such as would hide themselues in a miste and seeme to say something when they say nothing Now let vs declare the 〈◊〉 of those men that first came to the handling of this question of the Popes power after that it was fully made knowen to the world by the Popes decrees and the writings of 〈◊〉 Triâ—…phus The first occasion that set men on worke vpon the studâ—…e of this question was partly as I haue said the writings of 〈◊〉 but this occasion was â—…otoriously promoted by the vniust vexâ—…ions which the Popes offered to Lodoâ—…icke Duke of Bauâ—…re Emperour in prosecuting of their pretended Iurisdiction ouer Kings and Emperours This Emperour being persecuted by the Popes as before wee haue declared was desirous to know the iudgements of the best learned men that then liued in the world who with 〈◊〉 did search out and by learning did ouâ—…rthrowe this new sophiâ—…ent right The chiefe of them who then wrote â—…gainst the Popes Iurisdiction was Maâ—…sitius 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 Ocâ—… Of these and of some other that in one pâ—…rt or other haue conâ—…uted this Iurisdiction of Popes I am now to speake in order §. I. Obserâ—…ations out of the writings of Marsilius Pat. against the Popes Iurisdiction 7. MArsiliâ—…s about the yeere of Christ one thousand three hundred twentie and foure set ouâ—… that booke which he Intituleth 〈◊〉 pacis wherein hee shaketh the rotten and ruinous reasons of such as maintained this Iurisdiction because the booke is written with
〈◊〉 legâ—… aliqâ—… obligarentur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is aut institutis Ecclesia vel 〈◊〉 Râ—…manorum plusquam â—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—…e 〈◊〉 rationabili 〈◊〉 qua fideles in vnitate amplius seruabantur eo quod tune fideli 〈◊〉 legislatore ipsos in ordine reducente 〈◊〉 in vâ—…itate seruante c. That is Albeit about the beginning of the Church other Bishops and Churches of beleeuers were not bound by any diuine or humane law to obey the mandates of the Church or Bishop of Rome rather then the contrary yet this profitable and reasonable custome preuailing by which beleeuers were better kept in vnitie because they wanted then a Christian Magistrate to reduce them to order and preferue them in vnitie therefore they were afterward bound as by a diuine law to this obedience in things honest and lawfull 11. But because the Popes and their flatterers did couer all their practiseâ—… with plâ—…nitudo 〈◊〉 as with a mist therfore he doth with great light of learning and truth dispell that mist This saith hâ—… is Loâ—…us 〈◊〉 â—…nde etiaÌ„ paralâ—…gismus quâ—… reges principantes â—…o singâ—…los coactiua 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subiectos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 trâ—…xit origineâ—… That is This is a Sophisme whence that Paralogisme drew his beginning by which they striue to draw Kings and Princes and all other vnder their subiection by coactiue Iurisdiction And therfore iâ—… he belaboreth exâ—…ctly and at full to open this fallacion of fulnesse of power the suâ—…e whereof is this By a pretended fulneâ—…e of power the Pope wiâ—…hout ground or reason onely led thereto by pride and ambition intruded vpon the right of Iesus Christ and vpon the right of the Church and vpon the right of Temporall Princes wresting all authority to himselfe this he calleth fulnes of power â—…or iâ—…by fulnes of power be vnderstood tâ—…at power wherby all men and all creatures are commanded and directed to what end the commauâ—…der will this power is giuen onely to Iesus Christ and to no other man according to that Scripture all power is giueâ—… vnto me in heauen and in â—…arth But if by fulnesse of power be vnderstood power to preach to excommunicate to binde to loose to interpret Scripture to determine controuersies this power is in the Church partly in Bishops partly in doctors partly in Councels and not more in the Pope then in another Bishop Last of all if by this fulnesse of power be vnderstood Soueraigne Iurisdiction coactiue then it is in Temporall Princes Marsiliuâ—… maketh moe parts hereof bâ—…t I draw him summarily and presume that to these three heads all that he saith may be reduced 12. And therefore whereas the Pope claimeth such â—… power intruding vpon the right of each of these he saith Ex vnâ—… 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 â—…ransiuit Romanâ—…s 〈◊〉 Thâ—…t is The Pope hath from one presumption passed into another The same Author declareth how the Popes proceeded in these their incroachings vpon Iurisdiction First saith he they made some constitutions to gouerne the Clergie then they proceeded by way of exhortâ—…tion intreaty to perswade the laitie to keepe fastes to abstaine from meats When they saw that laymen did willingly receiue suâ—…h obseruations theÌ„ they proceeded to ordaine the same things as laws to denounce excoÌ„municatioÌ„ against the transgrâ—…ssours thereof And all this was done saith he Suâ—… 〈◊〉 diuinâ—… culâ—…us speciâ—… That is Vnder a shewe of godlinâ—…sse and the worship of God The same Author addeâ—…h Cresâ—…ente autem 〈◊〉 ipsis appâ—… 〈◊〉 ampliâ—… domiâ—…di attendentibâ—…s deuotoâ—… fideliâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ignauiaâ—… diuinâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui ad â—…a 〈◊〉 sacerdoteâ—… indicebantur obligari credebanâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aeternâ—… praesumpseruâ—…t 〈◊〉 Episcopâ—… Romaâ—…i cum suo clericoruâ—… coetu â—…ligarchica quaedam edicta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 actus 〈◊〉 c. That is But as the appetite of ruling farther continually increased in them when they sawe that deâ—…ote Christians were kept in feare with such proceedings through slothfulnesse and ignorance of Gods worship which Christians ignorant thought themselues bound vnder the paine of eternall damnation to all that was inioyned them of the Priests then the Bishops of Rome with their Clergie presuming further made certaine Oligarchicall Edicts concerning ciuill actions Thus saith hee the Bishoppe of Rome began first to practise expemptions And that hee might draw a number of the Laiety into the loue of those practises he extended these exemptions to diuers companies of Lay persons and so defrauded the Magistrate of due honour and obedience and brought in that confusion whereof the same Authour complaineth thus Hâ—…c est pestilentiae Italici regniradix origo ex qua cuncta scandala germinauerunt prodeunt c. Qua stante nunquamciuiles ibidem cessaâ—… discordiae pâ—…testatem enim hanc ad quam paulatim latenti prâ—…aricatione subintrauit ex consuetudine aut abusione verius dudum detinuit Rom. Episcopus eandem sibi per principem reuocari formidans merito propter commissos excessus creationeâ—… atque 〈◊〉 Rom. Principis omni maligna sollicitudiâ—… vitat That is This is the roote and fountaine of the pestilence which troubleth the Empire from whence all scandals growe and proceede and which standing ciuill discords shall neuer cease in Italy for the Pope fearing that this power may be reuoked by the Emperor and that deseruedly for the excesse committed therein into which power he hath by little and little stolne by secret preuarication of custome or to say more truely of abuse hauing holden it some while he hindreth the creation and promotion of the Emperor by all malice and spite Wherupon saith he some Popes haue broken out into such impudency as in their Decretals is to be seene that they aâ—…ouch that the Emperor is bound to them in an Oath of Alleageance as if the Emperour were vnder them subiected by coactiue Iurisdiction 13. Then Marsiliuâ—… hath discouered the reason why the Popes haue so much opposed themselues against the Emperors to be because they were affraid least the Emperours should call them to a reckoning for their Exemptions for the abuse of their excommunications for intruding themselues into the office of the ciuill Magistrate and taking a newe authority vpon themselues from themselues without warrant of the Emperour This is that thing which caused them to stirre so much against Emperours and at last to procure the decay of the Empire so much as at this day they haue made it so weake that now they are out of the feare thereof Other things for breuities sake I omit this is sufficient to vnderstand what reason learned men had then to withstand the Popes Iurisdiction This booke of Marsilius was neuer answered and hereafter is not like to be But Iohn the two and twentieth against whom this booke was intended did in stead of aunswering condemne this worthy Writer which thing was much more easie for him to doe §. II. William Occham and Michael Cezena 14. BVT the truth could not be suppâ—…ssed