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
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
to seeke the fauour of Cornelius who without examination of the cause receiued them to the Communion Of which thing Cyprian complaineth much they saile to Rome saith he cum merce mendaciorum Against this hee declareth that it was ordained that neither the Bishop of Rome nor any straunger should be iudge of the causes of their Church And to Cornelius he writeth thus Quum statutum sit ab omnibus aquum sit pariter ac iustum vt vniuscuiusque causa illic audiatur vbi est crimen admissum singulis pastoribus portio gregis sit ascripta quam regat vnusquisque gubernet c. Opoâ—…tet vtiqueâ—…os quibus praesumus non circumcursare episcoporum concordiam cohaerentem sua subdola fallaci temeritate collidere sed agere illic causam vbi accusatores habere testes sui criminis possunt That is Seeing it is decreed by all and it is a thing both equall and iust that euery mans cause should be heard there where the crime was committed and a part of the flocke is appointed to each Pastor which each in seuerall must rule and guide c Verily it behooueth that they whom we gouerne should not gad and run about to others nor by their crafty and fallatious rashnesse breake in sunder the coherent concord of Bishops but there ought they to plead their cause where they may haue accusers and witnesses of their crime 26. Thus albeit the Bishops of Rome did seeke some inlarging of their authoritie sometimes by giuing countenance and patronage to criminous and scandalous men yet they were repressed and brought into order by the godly and learned Bishops that then liued in the Church Who would not suffer the priuiledges of the Church to be lost or any title of Iurisdiction to grow where there was no right Thus for the first three hundred yeeres the Church of Rome had no Iurisdiction ouer other Churches but the Bishops there were reuerenced by other partly for their wisedome learning and godlinesse partly because the Emperours fauoured them aboue other and because they were Bishops of the chiefe citie and seat of the Empire For as they had some fauour aboue the rest with heathen Emperours so they found much more fauour from Christian Emperours which thing caused them to be regarded by other Bishops but no Iurisdiction was as yet acknowledged CHAP. V. Of the estate and Iurisdiction of the Church from the end of the first three hundred yeeres vntill the yeere of Christ sixe hundred Wherein is declared that coactiue power was in the Christian Emperors from whom the Church receiued some parts of coactiue Iurisdiction The Popes began to seeke Iurisdiction by forgerie NOwe let vs consider the times that followed when the Church had peace from persecution and found the fauour of Christian Emperours In which time no Iurisdiction will be found in the Church of Rome aboue other and all coactiue Iurisdiction was acknowledged without question to bee in the Christian Emperours from whom the Church receiued some part thereof 2. Constantine who did as much honour the Church and was as much honoured of the Church as euer any Christian Emperour leauing therein an example which standeth as yet alone without a match did notwithstanding take all that to himselfe which is now called Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction coactiue without any let or contradiction nay by the generall approbation of all that then liued When Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage was accused by Donatus and some other of that faction for deliuering the holy Scriptures to the enemies of Religion to be burned Constantine commaunded Caecilianus to come to Rome with a certaine number of Bishops which accused him and other that might heare and vnderstand the cause And commaunded the Bishop of Rome then Milciades with certaine Bishops of Fraunce to the number saith Optatus of nineteene to heare and end the matter the Bishops condemned Donaâ—…us who appealed from the sentence and albeit the Emperour was much offended at his appellation yet hee could not choose but receiue it In all this processe the Emperours Soueraigne Iurisdiction appeared the cause was a pretended crime of a Bishop the Emperour appointeth iudges and receiued the appellation which things declared Iurisdiction 3. Likewise after he had banished Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia and Theognis Bishop of Nice he wrote an Epistle to the people of Nicomedia declaring the iust causes of their banishment and signifieth that his especiall pleasure and desire is to haue Bishops castos orthodoâ—…os humanos and shutting vp his speech he saith Quoasi quis audacter inconsulteque ad memoriam pestium illarum exarserit illius statim audaeia ministri dei hoc est mea exequutione coercebitur Where we see Constantine vseth coactiue Iurisdiction ouer Bishops he punisheth them he declareth the true ground of his Iurisdiction from the word of God by which warrant he is placed the Minister of God This is that coactiue Iurisdiction ouer Ecclesiasticall persons which did alwayes belong to the Soueraigne Magistrate and was neuer by God giuen to any other 4. It was alwayes held by all sober writers of the Church of Rome as hereafter shall be further declared that in the Church there is no power aboue the power of a Councell And yet this authoritie of a Councell so much and so worthily reuerenced could not restraine Constantine but he vpon good and iust causes brought the rash proceedings of some Councels to a newe examination For when Athanasius was wronged by a Councell of Arians he complained to Constantine The Emperour sent for all the Bishops of that Councell to render an accompt of their proceedings before him which declareth that his Iurisdiction coactiue was aboue the power coactiue of the Councell For heere we consider onely Iurisdiction coactiue and not the matter or subiect for otherwise wee acknowledge as before is declared that the determinations of generall Councels are matters of an higher truth and authoritie then the Statutes or decrees of any Emperour But wee speake heere of that Soueraigne Iurisdiction coactiue which hath alwayes appeared in the power of the ciuill Magistrate and wherein the Church had no more part then that she receiued from the liberalitie of godly Emperours for as Kings receiue the knowledge of faith and Religion from the Church and not the Church from Kings so coactiue Iurisdiction the Church receiueth from Kings and not Kings from the Church 5. There was no Councell held in Constantines time whether of Orthodoxe or heretikes but either by the expresse commaundement or license of the Emperour Ruffinus saith he called the Councel of Nice at the request of the Bishops Ex sacer dotum sententia apud vrbem Nicaeam concilium Episcopale conuocat Epiphanius saith that Councell was obtained of the Emperour at the suit of Alexander Bishop of Alexandria So the Bishops who then liued in the Church held it to be of the Emperours right and Iurisdiction to call Councels
the world liueth more miserably then the Pope that to be a Pope is to succeed Romulus in Parricide not Peter in feeding that no Pope can bee saued when all this is proued by the Church of Rome confessed by Popes themselues after all this to say the Pope cannot erre is nothing but collusion No man can be drawen to such an opinion by conscience but by such worldly respects as doe binde and blinde and lay waste the conscience of them that will not loue the truth 64. 〈◊〉 Siluius proceedeth and out of S. Hierome expounding those word pâ—…rtas inferi the gates of hell he proueth that they are to be vnderstood of sinnes And declareth that great sinnes and malignant spirits cannot preuaile against the Church Quod de Rom. Pontisice saith he qui homo est nemo dixerit nec illis praestemus aures qui illa verba Christi â—…raui pro te Petre ne deficiat fides tua nolunt ad Ecclesiam referri That is Which thing no man can say of the B. of Rome who is a man neither are we to hearkeÌ„ to theÌ„ who will not haue those words of Christ vnderstood as spoken to the Church when he saith Peter I haue prayed for thee that thy faith failenot Where he proueth out of S. Augustine that those words are to be referred to the Church And that they cannot be vnderstood oâ—… the Bishops of Rome he is resolued giueth such reasons as may resolue any other that will not wilfully blindfold himselfe as many do that the blind doctrine of Iesuits may work more powerfully in them For saith he Romani Episcopi aut haeretici aut infecti vitijs sunt reperti That is The Bishops of Rome haue bin found either Hereticks or vicious men And concerning this Iurisdiction he saith Omnis anima potest atibus sublimioribus subdita sit nec excipit animam Papae That is The Apostle saith let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers hee excepteth not the soule of a Pope And again Maximè Rom. Pontisicem subiectuÌ„ Ecclesiae verba Christi ostendâ—…nt quum PetruÌ„ futurum Papam ad Ecclesiam remittat dic Ecclesiae And afterward Si haeretiâ—…us est qui Romanae Eocle siae primatum aufert c. quanto magis haereticus erit qui Ecclesiae detrahitâ—… qua Romana omnes aliae continentur In which words we find that by the Church of Rome he vnderstandeth not the Catholicke Church dispersed ouer the world but only a particular Church among many other hauing only in his iudgment this priuiledge that in respect of other Churches it had a Primacy This he saith not for the Pope but for the Church of Rome which Church he holdeth but a part of the Catholick Church For if we vnderstand the Church of Rome that particular Church which of old hath bin gouerned by the Romane Bishops this is but a particular Church of this particular the B. of Rome is the chiefe head inspirituall matters But if by the Church of Rome we vnderstand an aâ—…sembly or vnited consent of these westerne Churches among which the Church of Rome hath bin honored as a Mother Church in which respect all these Churches as they are vnited are sometimes called the Romane Church In which sense also I find that distinctioÌ„ obserued between the Church of Rome the court of Rome In this sense the particular Church of Rome is vnderstood a part and member of this and the Pope hath alwayes beene vnderstood as subiect to this Church and not aboue it 65. Now that distinction which before wee haue obserued betweene the Church of Rome on the one side and the Pope with his flatterers on the other side is noted also by the same Author For of the Church he saith thus Opiniâ—… omnium mortuorum est si opinio vocari debet quae idoneis confirmatur authoritatibus quia Rom. Pontifex vniuersali 〈◊〉 subiectus existâ—… That is It is the opinion of all that are dead before vs if it may be called an opinion which is confirmed by such pregnant authorities that the Pope is subiect to the vniuersall Church In which words he declareth the iudgement of the Church which was before his time But speaking of the Pope with his flatterers he saith Sunt aliqui siue auids gloriae fiue quod 〈◊〉 praemia exspectent qui perigrinas quasdam omnino nouas praedicare doctrinas caeperunt ipsumque summum Pontificem ex Iurisdictione sacri concily demere non vâ—…rentur excaecauit â—…os ambitio That is There be some who either because they are greedy of glorie or because by flatterie they hope for rewards begin to preach certaine straunge and altogether new doctrines they are not afraid to exempt the Pope out of the Iurisdiction of an holy Councell ambition hath blinded them This is the religion which the Iesuites would make so auncient heere is their high antiquitie In the time of Aenaeas 〈◊〉 who wrote in the yeere one thousand foure hundred and fiftie their religion is called an absurd a new and a straunge doctrine herein Siluius is a witnesse without exception for so much of their religion as concerneth the Papall Iurisdiction which is in summe all the religion of the Iesuites When thus it is marked and marked by a Pope their mouthes are stopped for euer For he doth deliuer the sense iudgement and religion of the Church in his time faithfully and freely against which testimonie no exception can be taken 66. And that these men that haue brought in this newe straunge monstrous religion may be throughly knowen and no doubt or scruple left behinde hee describeth them thus Alius dicit quod primam sedem nemo iâ—…dicabit quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Augusto neque ab omni clero nec à regibus c. iudicars valeat 〈◊〉 â—…ere non veretur Rom. PontificeÌ„ quamuis animas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ad inferos trahat nullius reprehensioni fore subiâ—…ctum Nec considerant miseri quia quâ—… praedicant tantopere verba aut ipsaâ—… summorum Pontificum sunt suas fimbriâ—…s extendentium aut eorum quieis adulabaâ—…tur That is One saith that no man may iudge the first sea that he may not be iudged either of the Emperour nor by all the Clergie nor by Kings c. Another is not ashamed to affirme that though the Pope should draw innumerable soules with himselfe to hell yet no man ought to reprooue him Neither doe these wretches consider that these doctrines which thus they would aduâ—…nce are either the wordes of the Popes themselues inlarging their fringes or the words of their flatterers Then in his iudgement it is cleere that the Church on the one side held the truth euen till his time in this point of Iurisdiction and on the other side the Pope and his flatterers maintained as he calleth them new and straunge doctrines of Iurisdiction It is well to be obserued that 〈◊〉 Siluiâ—… before he was Pope could so freely condemne this Papall
consecration of Aaron and his sonnes is done altogether by Moses These things though they make faire shew for the Princes Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall ouer Priests yet wee purpose not to stand vpon them 3. But when the Priest was once consecrated and ordained and all things fully perfected concerning his function and two seuerall and distinct functions set vp then will appeare without faile in Moses his successors the right of Princes in Aaron his successors the right of Priests After all things thus perfected we finde that all the lawes which in truth proceeded originally from God were established by the authoritie of Moses and this we finde true not onely in Iudiciall and Ciuill Lawes which were to rule that state but euen in ceremoniall and Morall Lawes which were to rule the Church There is not so much as one ceremoniall law established by the authoritie of Aaron but in all the name and authoritie of Moses is expressed only we finde concerning Aaron that if any doubt in the lawes ceremoniall did arise for the interpretation of those lawes and of such doubts the high Priest must sit as iudge For the people are charged in matters that are hard to consult with the Priest and ciuill iudge Deut. 17. 8. c. Which the learned interpreters vnderstand thus that if the cause be mixt partly Ciuill partly Ceremoniall or doubâ—…full that then both the Ciuill Magistrate and the Priest must iointly determine it but if the people haue distinct causes some Ciuill other Ceremoniall the Ciuill Magistrate must iudge the causes Ciuill and the Priest must iudge the causes Ceremoniall from the consideration of which place we may drawe certaine inferences 4. First all Lawes euen Ceremoniall that is Lawes whereunto Spirituall or Canon Lawes are answerable are established by the authoritie of the Ciuill Magistrate This taketh away all authoritie of the Popes Canon law in all Christian kingdomes where it is not established by the authoritie of Kings in their kingdomes For it is against all reaâ—…on and rules whether we looke vpon the light of nature or vpon the Scriptures or the lawfull practife of authoritie since the Scriptures were written that any Lawes should be imposed vpon a Prince against or without his consent as the Popes haue indeuoured to impose the Canon Lawes vpon Princes And this appeareth in the practise of Christian Magistrates so long as lawfull authoritie stood up without confusion in the world But heere we consider the fountaine of that practise which was from Gods Law wherein we see all Lawes confirmed and established by the authoritie of the Ciuill Magistrate And if it could bee prooued that in some Lawes Ceremoniall the authoritie of Aaron was requisite yet this helpeth them nothing that plead for the Popes Canons For these men would impose these Canons vpon Princes without their consent but in all these Lawes of Moses wherein is a perfect patterne for all law-makers they cannot shew one Law though neuer so nearely concerning the Church which is established without the authoritie of Moses the Ciuill Magistrate If they obiect these things were all done by an especiall commaundement of God I aunswere this doth more establish the authoritie of Princes and confirme our purpose for let them aunswere why God would haue all these things established by the Ciuill Magistrate and not by the Priest This then maketh a greater and clearer confirmation of the Princes right Then the Church may interpret Scripture determine controuersies of faith but cannot establish a Law the reason is because for the establishing of Lawes coactiue power is requisite which is in the Ciuil Magistrate not in the Church And therefore the Canon Lawes can haue no force of lawes but as they are receiued and established by Princes in their seuerall kingdomes For neither can the law haue the force of a law without coactiue power neither hath the Pope any coactiue power in the kingdomes of other Princes but onely in such places where himselfe is a Temporall Prince 5. Secondly we obserue that the high Priest is appointed by God a iudge for interpretation of those lawes that concerne the Church in questions of conscience in causes mixt or doubtfull This might moderate the humours of some who in loue to innouation would leaue no place of iudicature to Ecclesiasticall persons for these things are insert into Moses lawe taken from the law of Nature and not as things Ceremoniall which thing is apparant from the end vse and necessitie thereof for the things which had a necessary vse before the written law and must haue a necessary vse after the abrogation of that law must be acknowledged to be taken from a perpetuall law because there must be a perpetuall rule for a perpetuall necessity This then being perpetuall and necessary matters of question and of Ecclesiasticall audience still arising the hearing and iudging of such things belong to such as are most skilfull in those affaires And hence is the iudicature of fuch things assigned to the Priest which right of Ecclesiasticall iudgements and courts standeth no lesse now due to them in the time of grace then it was under the law because this office in iugdeing hearing and determining is not heere giuen to Priests as a thing Ceremoniall but as I haue declared deriued from the law of Nature as a perpetuall seruice for a perpetuall vse 6. Thirdly we consider that the lawes Ecclesiastical are established by the authoritie of the Ciuill Magistrate but for interpretation of them the Priest is appointed to iudge Hence riseth the ground of Iurisdiction both Temporall and Spirituall wee consider Iurisdiction here as our question importeth authority coactiue in externall iudicature in the execution of lawes The fountaine of this authoritie is in him principally by whose authoritie the law is established and without whose authoritie it is not The execution of this authoritie is in them that are appointed iudges And heerein there is no difference betweene Temporall and Ecclesiasticall authoritie I speake not nowe of Spirituall gouernment by the lawes of God executed within the court of Conscience but of Ecclesiasticall gouernment in the execution of lawes Ecclesiasticall wherin there is vse of coactiue power These two things being in themselues and in nature so distinct if this one distinction might be remembred it is ynough to aunswere all the confused collections of that Catholike Diuine who wrote of late against the fift part of Reports of the Lord Cooke For all that hee writeth there resting vpon no other ground then vpon the confounding of Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall power is answered in one word by this one poore distinction betweene these two powers Now the distinction is apparant because in Spirituall gouernment there is no coactiue power but in Ecclesiasticall iudicature there is coactiue power which maketh an euident and famous difference in Iurisdiction because this is most certaine that all that Iurisdiction wherin coactiue power is vsed is from the Ciuill Magistrate Then if these two
conclude directly against the Emperours purposes Thus doth Socrates report the calling of that councell but Sozomen saith it was not obtained of Valens but of Valentinian 9. Besides these publique and generall Synods there were also some more priuate and particular in calling whereof the Bishops had power The Bishop of the Diocesse vsed to call a Synod of his Clergy but could proceed no farther Prouinciall Synodes were called by Metropolitanes but in a generall Synod of many Nations the Emperour had alwayes the right of calling it as a King hath the onely right of calling a Synod of those Nations that are vnder his gouernment For as the counsell of Nice was called by Constantine so were all the counsels of these next three hundred yeares called by the Emperours that gouerned at such times Theodosius gathered the councell of Constantinople against the heresie of Macedonius in the third yeare of his raigne which was the yeare of Christ 383. saith Prosper The councell of Ephesus against Nestorius was gathered by the authority of Theodosius the younger and the fourth generall councell at Chalcedon by the authority of Martianus and Valentinianus Emperours Leo the first was a great man in these affaires and hee is the fittest to certifie vs of the truth against whose witnesse our aduersaries haue no reason to except This Pope then writing to the Emperour Theodosius saith Pietas vestra apud Ephesum constituit Synodale concilium And afterward declaring his obedience and conformity thereto saith Meum studium commodaui vt Clementiae vestrae studijs pareatur And againe Ne autem pijssimi Principis dispositioni nostra videatur praesentia defuisse fratres meos misi c. he hath the same also Epist. 23. ad Theodosium Againe hee writeth to Pulcheria to moue the Emperour to command a councell to be holden within Italy declaring that he wrote to the Emperour to intreat the same Which thing hee moueth also in other Epistles And though he much desired this that the Emperour would haue beene intreated to hold a councell within Italy yet could he not obtaine it and therefore was ready to obey the Emperour attending his pleasure therein who appointed it in another place 10 Which thing we obserue the rather because our aduersaries oflate haue yeelded this as a proper right to the Pope to call councels Catholici munus conâ—…andi concilia generalia saith Bellarmine ad Romanum pontificem propriè pertinere volunt And when they are driuen by these open and euident testimonies they shift it thus as to say another may doe it by the Popes consent but if the Pope neither appoint the place nor no other by his commaundement or consent then it is no councell but a conciliable These bee vaine and friuolous shifts of Friars For it is true that the Popes consent was to these auncient councels but no otherwise then as the consent of all other Bishops They consented because they could not chuse because they were resolued to be obedient but they could not appoint either place or time For Leo could not haue it where hee would but it was where and when the Emperour appointed 11 Before the councell of Chalcedon there is the Writ of the Emperours Valentinian and Martian called Sacra to call Bishops to Nicaea But another Sacra is sent to reuoke that and to call them to Chalcedon So that all this while the Emperors rule as those that haue Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction They call councels they punish offenders of the Clergy they establish Ecclesiasticall Courts they are acknowledged the nourcing Fathers of Religion the keepers and preseruers of both Tables and of the discipline of the Church And therefore Leo writing to Constantinus Emperour who called the sixt Synod saith thus Cognouimus quod sancta vniuersalis maxima sexta Synodus quae per Dei gratiam imperiali decreto in regia vrbe congregata est c Wee know that the holy and vniuersall great sixt Synod which by the grace of God is called and gathered by the imperiall decree in the imperiall City c. And a little after Pietas vestra fructus misericordiae potestas custos disciplinae Your godlinesse is the fruit of Gods mercy your power is the keeper of discipline And againe Nec enim minor regnantium cura est praua corrigere quam de aduersarijs triumphare quia einimirum potestatem suam seruiendo subijciunt cuius munere imperare noscuntur c. Vnde diuinitus praordinata vestra Christianissima pietas c. Caput Ecclesia Dominum Iesum Christum veram pietatis regulam amplectendo c. For Gouernours ought to haue no lesse care to correct vngodly things then to triumph ouer their aduersaries for they submit their power to his seruice by whofe power they are knowne to rule c. Therefore your most Christian zeale preordained of God c. acknowledging our Lord Iesus Christ the true rule of godlinesse to bee the head of the Church Wherein the Bishop of Rome doth acknowledge first that the generall councell is to be called onely by the authority of the Emperour imperiali decreto Secondly that the Emperours power is such a power as is custos disciplinae Hee speaketh here in an Ecclesiasticall cause and of Ecclesiasticall affaires Now that power which is custos disciplinae Ecclesiae what is it but Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction This word Iurisdiction was not then worne in such vse as now it is but we see the auncients vse words counteruailing it The Bishop of Rome acknowledgeth Ecclesiasticall power and Iurisdiction to be in the Emperour when hee yeeldeth him such a power as is preseruer of the discipline Ecclesiasticall Thirdly he confesseth that the care of the Church Church-gouernment for establishing the truth doth no lesse belong to the office of a Prince then to triumph ouer his foes in warre Fourthly the Bishop of Rome as then acknowledgeth no other head of the Church then Iesus Christ as appeareth by his words To the same purpose Saint Augustine saith Diuinitus praecipi regibus vt in regno suo bona iubeant mala prohibeant non solum quae pertinent ad humanam societatem verum etiam quae ad diuinam religionem Contra Crescentium li. 3. cap. 51. That is Kings are commaunded to estalish good things and prohibite euill in their Kingdomes not onely in things belonging to Ciuill societie but in such things also that belong to diuine Religion Gregorie the great following the footsteppes of his Fathers yeeldeth the fame authoritie to the King For writing to Theodoricus King of France he saith Iterata vos per vestram mercedem adhortatione pulsamus vt congregari Synodum iubeatis This part of Iurisdiction for calling of Councels is so fully confirmed to be the Emperours right by the Aunceants that Cardinall Cusanus sure no Lutheran disputing of this priuiledge concludeth from the confessed testimonies of the Aunceants these two things First That Emperours
personis id intelligendum est non de vniuersali Ecclesia quae saepe obedientiam iustis de causis Romanis Pontificibus subiraxit vt Marcellino Anastasio Liberio Ioha 12. Benedict 9. Benedicto 13. Iohanni 23. That is That is to be vnderstood of particular Churches persons not of the Vniuersall Church which many times vpon iust occasions hath withdrawen obedience from the Bishops of Rome as for example from Marcellinus Anastasius Liberius Iohn the twelfth Benedict the ninth Benedict the thirteenth Iohn the twentie three They haue in like sort concluded that the Popes Gouernment in the Church is to be admitted not that he rule at his pleasure but according to the doctrine of Saint Peter Ut ipse Ecclesiam Dei salubriter regat non quidem vt pro libito voluntatis suae cuncta peragere velit spreâ—…is canonibus sacrorum conciliorum sed iuxta beatiss Petrâ—… doctrinam sic regat non vt dominans in clero sed vt formafactus gregis Romanus enim Pontifex est vniuersalis Ecclesiae minister non Dominus That is That he may soundly rule the Church of God not that he should doe all things according to the lust of his owne will reiecting the Canons of holy Councels but according to the doctrine of Saint Peter let him so rule not as a lord ouer the Lords inheritance but as examples to their flockes for the Bishop of Rome is the Minister of the Vniuersall Church and not the Lord. They haue concluded that if this Iurisdiction bee graunted to the Pope which he claimeth aâ—…d which his flatterers pretend for him that by this meanes the way is laid wide open for Antichrist Aperite oculos videte qualis ex hoc daretur ingressus Antichristo That is Open your eyes and behold what an entrance by this meanes would be made for Antichrist So that they who yeeld any authoritie and reuerence to these Councels must needs acknowledge that the Popes Iurisdiction is laid downe in the dust 47. Now let Bellarmine come with his fine distinctions and tell vs that these Councels are partly confirmed partly reiocted partim confirmata partim reprobata these be pleasant heads that can take of these Councels what pleaseth them and reiect all that is against them but let them collude with their owne consciences as they list they are not able to answere that which we vrge or any way to shift vs off for wee doe not vrge these conclusions as decrees of Councels though against them they may iustly stand for such but wee doe not produce them to that end but onely to declare the religion sense and iudgement of Christendome what it was at this time and before what was the doctrine of the Church concerning Iurisdiction What the wisest the most learned and best men in Christendome then taught What was the iudgement of the Church of Rome then This is euidently declared by these Councels and that we may vrge no more but this by this wee haue enough to proue that the Church of Rome then stood fully against the Popes Iurisdiction If they tell vs that Eugenius and they who followed him was the Church and not these that were gathered in Basil I aunswere this doth more and more confirme that which I haue obserued betweene the Church of Rome on the one side and the Pope with his flatterers on the other side who albeit they haue gotten the vpper hand by force and fraud yet let them know the basenesse of their birth and progeny they are but a late vpstart generation beginning when Friars began lifted vp by the winde which themselues did raise for increasing the Popes pride crossed and contradicted yea refuted and condemned by the learned and godly that liued in the Church of Rome neuer fully preuailing before the Councell of Trent Then let them not demaund of vs such fâ—…iuolous questions where was our Church before M. Luther for we are able to shew both our Church and their Church the antiquitie and not interrupted continuance of the one and the base vpstart and late rising of the other §. V. Iohn Gerson 48. HAuing thus farre declared the iudgement of the Church of Rome assembled in diuers Councels now let vs consider how in particular the learned men of these ages stood affected in this question and who they were that tooke part with these Councels to aduance the authoritie of the Church aboue the Pope for they who followed the Pope in this faction were onely Friars and flatterers but on the other side were these as then the great lights of Christendome for learning that I may of many remember a few 49. First Iohn Gerson a man of great authoritie in the Councell of Constance who hath written diuers bookes wherein he preferreth the authority of a Councell before the Popes authoritie and speaketh much otherwise of Iurisdiction then the Court of Rome vseth now to speake His booke De potestate Ecclesiastica was pronounced and approued in the Councell of Constance in the yeere of Christ one thousand foure hundred and seuenteene as in the end thereof appeareth from whence I will obserue some things declaring his iudgement in our question of Iurisdiction First he describeth that spirituall power which Christ hath left to his Church thus Potestas Ecclesiastica est potestas quae à Christo supernatur aliter specialiter collata est suis Apostolis discipulis ac eoruÌ„ successoribus legitimis vsque ad fineÌ„ saeculâ—… â—…d aedificationeÌ„ Ecclesiae militantis secunduÌ„ leges Euangelicas pro 〈◊〉 faelicitatis aeternae That is Ecclesiasticall power is a power supernaturally especially giuen by Christ to his Apostles and Disciples and their lawfull successors vnto the end of the world for the edification of the Church Militant according to the Euangelicall lawes for the obteining of eternall life This power we acknowledge with Gerson nay with all the auncients who speake no otherwise of the power which Christ hath committed to his Church But then we wish that our aduersaries might vnderstand how they wander in ignorance and confusion confounding this power which is spirituall executed secundum leges Euangelicas with that power which is coactiue and executed secundum leges Canonicas It is their common manner to confound these things and thereby to perplexe themselues and their readers but of all that euer I read he surpasseth who calleth himselfe the Catholike diuine for confused vnlearned handling of these things Then the power which Christ left to his Church is practised secundum leges Euangelicas this is the true power of the Church But our question hath beene altogether of Iurisdiction coactiue executed not secundum leges Euangelicas therefore not giuen by Christ to his Church but belonging to such lawes to whom all coactâ—…ue power peculiarly belongeth 50. Of this coactiue power the same Gerson saith thus Potestas Ecclesiastica Iurisdictionis in foro exteriori est potest as Ecclesiastica