Bishops Abbots Matth. Paris in Heâ—rico secundo Anno 1164. Pryors Earles Barons and great Men of the Realme there was made a rehearsall of some part of the Customes and liberties of his Auncestors as of King Henry his Grand-father and others which ought to be kept in this Realme and observed of all c. Amongst which customes and liberties being sixteene in Number these were some namely That no Archbishop Bishop nor any other person of the Realme may goe out of the Land without the Kings leave And as touching appeales if any be made they shall come from the Archdeacon to the Bishop from the Bishop to the Archbishop And if the Archbishop fayle in doing justice it shall be lawfull to come last of all to the King that by his commandement the matter may be ended in the Archbishops Court So that no man shall proceede to appeale any further without the Kings consent These customes liberties of the Crowne the Archbishops Bishops Abbots Pryors and Cleargie with the Earles Barons and all the Nobles sware and by word of mouth faithfully promised should be kept and observed to the King and his heires for ever simply without any fraud Yea Thomas Becket Archbishop of Canterbury himselfe condescended to them Matth Paris ibidem promised also with an Oath to keepe them although afterward he revolted and brake his Oath and fled to Rome But saith mine Adversarie The Pope of Rome Alexander the third would not confirme these lawes or liberties though the King requested it What of this The liberties lawes and customes of the kingdome were good enough without his confirmation Yet the King perceaving his so just and reasonable a request to be repelled by the Pope was not a little offended thereat and therefore wrote Letters to all his Shiriffes Lieutenants in England on this wise I commande you that if any Cleargie-man or Lay-man in your Countie appeale to the Court of Rome you attach him and hold him in fast-ward till our pleasures be knowne And to his Iudges also he wrote in this sort If any shall be found to bring letters or a mandate from the Pope or from Thomas the Archbishop interdicting the Realme of England Let him be taken and kept in Prison till I signifie what shall be done with him They that wrote the life of the same Thomas Becket doe report it thus Let him be forthwith apprehended for a Traytor In quadrilog de â—ita Thom. Cant and execution done upon him which agreeth with that which likewise pag. 25. cap. 1. of my Booke I cited out of Hoveden where he saith that Si quis inventus fuerit literas vel mandatum ferens Domini Papae â—â—veden Henr. 2 c. Capiatur de eo sicut de Regis traditore regni sine dilatione fiat justitia If any shall be found bringing letters or a mandate from the Pope let him be apprehended and let justice be done upon him without delay as upon a traytor to the King and the kingdome Where it is also further said that Generaliter interdictum est ne quis appellet ad Dominum Papam It was generally prohibited that none should appeale to the Pope Wherefore you see that which I wrote concerning Anselmus and concerning Appeales to be verie true Yea how earnest and vehement this valiant and worthy Prince King Henry the second was against the Pope for maintenance of his Regall rights appeareth further by an Epistle of his written to the Archbishop of Colen Matth. Paris in Hen. 2 An. 1168 in these wordes I have long desired saith he to finde a just occasion to depart from Pope Alexander and his perfidious Cardinals which presume to maintaine my Traytor Thomas of Canterbury against me Whereupon by the advise of my Barons and Cleargie I meane to send the Archbishop of Yorke the Bishop of London the Archdeacon of Poictiers c. to Rome which shall publikely denounce and plainely propose in my behalfe and in the behalfe of all the Dominions I have to Pope Alexander and his Cardinals that they maintayne my Traytor no longer but rid me of him that I with the advise of my Cleargie may set another in the Church of Canterbury They shall also require them to frustrate all that Becket hath done and exact an Oath of the Pope that he and his successors as much as in them lyeth shall keepe and observe inviolable to me and all mine for ever the Royall customes of King Henry my Grand-father If they refuse any of these my demaunds neyther I nor my Barons nor my Cleargie will yeelde them any kinde of obedience any longer Yea rather we will openly oppugne the Pope and all his and whosoever in my land shall be found hereafter to adhere to the Pope shall be banished my Realme Here then by the way let me demaund why any Papists doe call this Thomas Becket a martyr whom the King calleth a traytor The manner of his death being done by private violence and not by publike authoritie nor in a legall sort I utterly dislike But is not also his stout standing in that quarrell against his King and against his owne oath also and against the punishing of murtherers theeves and other malefactors by the Kings Lawes if they were Cleargie-men justly worthy to be condemned Or can he that dieth in and for so bad a cause deserve to be called a martyr But such it seemeth be the martyrs of the Popish Church But not onely these Kings of England before mentioned namely King William Rufus King Henry the first and King Henry the second and some others thus contended opposed themselves against the Popes of Rome Ex Lanfranc Epistolis M. S. in Biblioth Cotton Baron Anno. 1079. §. 25. for maintenance of their Regall rights but King William the Conqueror also who was before all these 〈◊〉 the like Kingly opposition For when Hildebrand otherwise called Pope Gregory the seaventh was bold to demaund of the King an oath of fealtie to be made to him as if the King were to hold his kingdome of him as of his Soveraigne Lord. This King would by no meanes yeelde thereunto but sent him a full negative answere writing thus unto him Fidelitatem facere nolui nec volo quia nec ego promisi nec antecessores meos antecessoribus tuis id fecisse comperio I neyther would doe nor will doe fealtie because I neyther promised it nor doe I finde that any of my predecessors have done it to any of your predecessors This answere of the King is extant in an Epistle of his written to the same Pope which you may see set downe more at large by that excellent antiquarie and learned godly divine Doctor Vsher late Lord Bishop of Meath and the now most Reverend and worthy Lord Archbishop of Ardmagh Primate and Metropolitan of all Ireland in his Booke De Christianarum Ecclesiarum successione statu pag. 182. Neyther neede I
other words that follow namely In omni pietate c Take all the words of S. Paul together and they be these I exhort saith he that first of all supplications prayers intercessions 1. Tim. 2.1.2 and giving of thankes be made for all men for Kings and all that are in authoritie that we may leade a quiet and peaceable life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all godlinesse and honestie By which words so put together it appeareth That S. Paul would have Christians to pray thus specially for Kings and Princes not onely to this end which my Adversary supposeth viz. for the mantainance and preservation of externall peace and correspondencie of humane societie but to this end also and that chiefely that Pietie Godlinesse and Religion may by their meanes be continued countenanced and protected amongst them And this had the Christian Emperors learned in ancient time For Iustinian that Christian Emperor in his dayes Novel Const. 6. spake thus The true Religion of God and honest conversation of the Priests is our chiefest care Legum Theod. Noâ—â—el tit 3. de Inâ—aeâ—â— Samaritaine And in this sort likewise spake Valentinian and Theodosius Emperors saying The search of true Religion we finde to be the chiefest care of the Imperiall Majestie And therefore also did S. Augustine say long agone That it is enjoyned Kings from God Aug. contr Crescun lib. 3 cap â—1 that in their kingdomes they should commaund good things and forbid evill things not onely such things as belong to humane societie but such things also as belong to Gods Religion This cleare and most evident testimonie of S. Augustine to declare the authoritie of Kings aswell in matters Divine and concerning Religion as in matters Civill Temporall I alledged in the first Chapter of my former Booke pag. 10. whereunto neverthelesse as to many other things in my booke contayned My Adversarie is pleased to answere nothing The second Position he busieth himselfe in is that the Regall Power or authoritie is subordinate to the Sâ—cerdotall or Spirituall It is true that Kings Princes notwithstanding their Regall power be subordinate and subject to God and his authoritie But what of this Indeede if Ecclesiasticall Ministers spake to Kings and Princes in their owne names and by their owne authoritie and uttered their owne will and pleasure there might be some reason in that which he would conclude but seeing they are to speake unto them not their owne will but the will and word of the Almightie and in his Name and as Embassadors Ministers Messengers and servants unto him no such consequent can be inferred 2. Cor 5 20. 1 Cor. 4 1.2 For if a King send an Esquier or any other inferior servant of his on a message to a Duke Earle or other Noble-man of the Realme This servant speaking in the King his Masters name and delivering his message is therein to be obeyed Will any thereupon conclude Ergo That Esquier or servant is greater or superior as in respect of himselfe or of his owne person then eyther the Duke or the Earle or the Noble-man No man I thinke will be so absurd And yet my Adversarie goeth on and amplifieth the Sacerdotall and spirituall power saying That how much the Soule in perfection exceedes the Bodie The eternall blisse the temporall felicitie The Divine Lawes the humane lawes By somuch doth the Spirituall authoritie exceede the Temporall But all this while he should remember and observe wherein and in what respects it is that this excellencie of the one above the other doth consist For as it is true that in respect of converting soules and fitting them for Gods kingdome by preaching of Gods Word Administring of the Sacraments and exercise of the Ecclesiasticall Discipline the Spirituall function and authoritie is to be preferred before the Regall or temporall So no lesse true is it that in respect of the temporall Power of the Sword externally to command compell and to punish offendors in causes both Ecclesiasticall and Civill the Regall Temporall Office and Authoritie is to be preferred before the Episcopall or Sacerdotall When therefore he supposeth that the King or Prince in respect of the Priest is but as the bodie is in respect of the Soule and that hee hath no more power and authoritie over Priests and Bishoppes then the bodie hath over the Soule How doth he prove this fond conceite For it is not the credite or testimonie of his S. Thomas as he calleth him who lived more then 1200. yeares after CHSIST and was overwhelmed with the corruption of his time and wedded to the Sea of Rome that can bee any sufficient proofe of that idle fantazie Yea it is apparant that to some purposes the Regall Power Office hath in it the nature and resemblance of the soule aswell as the Sacerdotall or Episcopall hath to some other purposes For as the soule commandeth the bodie so hath the King power to command the Priest and may by as good right punish all maner of offendors Civilly and by temporall punishments as Bishops and Clergie men may punish any Ecclesiastically and by the Church censures To make this the better to appeare beside that which is spoken in my former Booke observe first that Moses who was as a King or a Prince in Israell commanded not only the Levites Deut. 33.5 Deut. 31 2â—.26 which bare the Arke of the Covenant of the Lord and that in a matter Ecclesiasticall and concerning their very Office but he commanded also even Aaron the high Priest in a matter likewise Ecclesiasticall and concerning his verie Office saying thus unto him Take the Censer Numb 16 46.4â— and put fire therein off the Altar and put therein Incense and goe quickely unto the Congregation make an Attonement for them For there is wrath gone out from the Lord the plague is begun Then Aaron tooke as Moses commanded him c. He Exod. 32.21 2â— moreover called Aaron the high Priest to an account for his bad doings and removed him for the same Whereupon Aaron answered humbly and submissively unto him as to his Soveraigne Lord saying Let not the wrath of my Lord waxe fierce c. Numb 12.11 In like sort did Aaron speake unto Moses in another place saying My Lord I beseech thee c. 1. Sam. 22.12.15 So did also Abimelech the high Priest answere to his king submissively and dutifully saying thus unto him Here am I my Lord c. Let not the King impute any thing to his servant nor to all the house of my Father for thy servant knew nothing of all this lesse or more The Prophets likewise as well as the Priests and high Priests did acknowledge this humble submission and subjection unto their kings as is evident by the example of the Prophet Nathan who when he came into the presence of the King 1. King 1 23. c. he made obeysance to the king upon his face to the ground
c. Ioshua the successor of Moses did likewise as a King or Prince commaund even the Priests and Levites aswell as the rest of the people as appeareth by the acclamation and answere they made unto him Iosh 1.17.18 saying thus As vve obeyed Moses in all things so will wee obey thee c. Whosoever shall rebell against thy commandement and will not obey thy words in all that thou commandest him let him be put to death Iosh 6.6 Iosh 5 3.4 Iosh 5.10 Iosh 7.24.25 Iosh 8 30. Iosh 8.34.35 And it is further manifest that he also dealt in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as Temporall for he would have the children of Israell to be Circumcised and the Passeover to be kept and the Man that had offended in the excommunicate thing to be punished He also builded an Altar for their sacrifices offerings He reade the whole Law unto them the blessings and cursings There was not a word of all that Moses had commanded which Ioshua reade not before all the Congregation of Israell aswell before the Women and the Children as the stranger that was conversant among them Hee renewed the Covenant between God and the people and caused them to put away the strange Gods that were amongst them Iosh 24.23.24.25.31 Insomuch that by his diligent care and good governement Israell served the Lord all the dayes of Ioshua Likewise of that Godly King Iosiah it is recorded that he commanded the high Priest aswell as the other Priests and dealt in matters also Ecclesiasticall and concerning Gods service and Religion For thus it is written of him That hee commanded Hilkiah the high Priest 2 King 23.4 and the priests of the second Order and the keepers of the Doore to bring out of the Temple of the Lord all the vessels that were made for Baal and for the Grove and for all the Hoste of heaven and he burnt them without Ierusalem in the fields of Kedron 2 King 23.5 and carried the powder of them into Bethel And hee put downe the Chemarims whom the kings of Iuda had founded to burne incense in the high places and in the Cities of Iuda and about Ierusalem and also them that burnt incense unto Baal to the Sunne and to the Moone and to the Planets and to all the Hoste of heaven c. He commanded also the Passeover to be kept c. Hee purged Iuda and Ierusalem vers 21. from the high places the Groves and the carved and molten Images Yea 2 Chro. 34. vers 3.4.7.33 he tooke away all the abominations out of all the countries that pertayned to the Children of Israell â— compelled all that were found in Israell to serve the Lord their God Had not also King Salomon authoritie over the Priests and Levites and did not he likewise deale in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning Religion when he set the courses of the Priests to their offices according to the order of David his Father 2. Chro. 8.14.15 the Levites in their watches to prayse and minister before the Priests everie day and the Porters by their courses at everie Gate For so was the commandement of David the man of God And the Text saith That they declined not from the commandement of the King concerning the Priests and the Levites c. He removed also Abiathar from being priest unto the Lord and set Sadoc in his roome 1. King 2.27.35 1 King 8.22.23 24.25.26.27 Hee also builded an house and Temple unto God and did dedicate the Temple in his owne person Did not also King Asa meddle with men and matters Ecclesiasticall 2 Chro. 14.3.4.5 when he tooke away the Altars of the strange Gods and the high places and brake downe the Images and cut downe the groves and commanded Iuda to seeke the Lord God of their Fathers and to doe according to the Law commandement c. Therefore the kingdome was quiet before him And he tooke an oath of all Iuda that Whosoever would not seeke the Lord God of Israell should be slaine whether he were small or great Man or Woman And they sware unto the Lord with a loud voyce and with shouting and with Trumpets and with Cornets And all Iuda rejoyced at the Oath 2 Chron 15.12 13 14.15.16 c. for they had sworne unto the Lord with all their heart and sought him with an whole desire and he was found of them Hee also deposed Maachah his Mother from her regencie because shee had made an Idoll in a Grove and hee broke downe her Idoll and stamped it and burnt it at the brooke Kidron King Iehosaphat did the like when he sought the Lord God of his Fathers 2. Chron. 17.3 4 5.6.7.8.9 and walked in his commandements and not after the doings of Israell Therefore the Lord stablished the kingdome in his hand And all Iuda brought to Iehosaphat presents and he had riches and honour in abundance And he lift up his heart unto the wayes of the Lord. Moreover he tooke away the high Places and Groves out of Iuda Hee also sent his Princes and with them Priests and Levites to teach in the Cities of Iuda they taught in Iuda had the Booke of the Law of the Lord with them and went throughout all the Cities of Iuda â— Chron. 19 8. and taught the people Againe in Ierusalem Iehosaphat set of the Levites and of the Priests and of the chiefe of the Families of Israell for the judgement and cause of the Lord c. Did not also that good and Godly king Hezekiah shew his authoritie over Priests and Levites 2. Chron. 29 3 4.5.6.7.8.9.10 11 12.13.14.15.16 and in matters also Ecclesiasticall when he opened the dores of the house of the Lord and brought in the Priests and the Levites and said thus unto them Heare me yee Leuites sanctifie now your selves and sanctifie the house of the Lord God of your fathers and carrie forth the filthinesse out of the Sanctuarie c. And they gathered their brethren and sanctified themselves and came according to the commandement of the King and by the wordes of the Lord to clense the house of the Lord And the Priests went into the inner parts of the house of the Lord to clense it and brought out all the uncleannesse that they found in the Temple into the Court of the house of the Lord And the Levites tooke it to carrie it out to the brooke Kidron Hee also commanded the Priests Vers 21 2â— the Sonnes of Aaron to offer sacrifices on the Altar of the Lord And hee sent to all Israell and Iuda wrote Letters to Ephraim and Manasseh that they should come to the house of the Lord at Ierusalem to keepe the Passeover unto the Lord God of Israell Hee appointed the courses of the Priests and Levites 2. Chron. 30.1 by their turnes everie man according to his Office 2 Chron. 31.2 both Priests and Levites for the burnt offerings
the ground and prostrate saith he before your feete I beseech and in the presence of God doe earnestly desire c. And in another Epistle againe hee speaketh thus Obsecrantes ex animi fervore In Conc. Niâ—em 2. act 2. ibidem pag. 312. vestram mansuetudinem obtestando veluti praesentes genibus advoluti coram vestigia pedum volutando ego cum fratribus coram Deo supplico obtestor c. Beseeching you out of the fervor of our minde by intreating your gentlenesse and as if wee were present being cast upon our knees and kneeling before your presence I with my brethren in the presence of God am an humble suppliant and doe earnestly beseech c. By all which you see verie clearely and infallibly that for the space of many hundred yeares after CHRIST even the Bishops and Popes of Rome themselves were and so did declare themselves to be not superiors but inferiors yea humble suppliants and subject to the Emperors and consequently that the Emperors in all those times as well de Iure as de facto had the Supremacie over them aswell as other Bishpos For so it appeareth 〈◊〉 that they had and ought to have in asmuch as Pope Pelagius himselfe expressely affirmeth as you heard before Quibus nos etiam subditos esse sanctae Scripturae praecipiunt inquit Pelagius that the holy Scriptures aid so command Secondly Jt being a thing verie demonstratively evident That the Christian Emperors in those former and ancient times had the Supremacie and command even of the Bishops of Rome aswell as of other Bishops let us now proceede and see whether they did not also deale in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as the good and Godly kings of Israell and Iuda did And it is also very apparant that they did For proofe whereof Constantine that Godly and Christian Emperor spake in this sort Euseb de vita Const lib. 2 c. 28 Socrat. lib 1. cap. 22. las By my Ministerâ— saith he mankind is brought to the keeping and observing of the most sacred Law by the service which I performe to God all things every where are setled in order Yea the barbarous Nations which till this time knew not the trueth now prayse the name of God sincerely whom they reverence for dread of us He also called Councells when cause required Euseb de vita Const. lib. 1 c. 37 lib. 3 cap. 63. He decreed that Heretickes should have no Temples and that in no place publicke or privat from that day forward any of their assemblies should be permitted Socrat lib. 1. cap. 20. lat When the Councell of Tyrus was assembled he commanded them first to discusse the trueth of such crimes as were objected against Athanasius Athanasius also was loth to come before that Councell save that he feared the threatning Letters of Constantine written to this effect If any Euseb de vita Const lib. 4. c. 42. saith he which I thinke not in contempt of Our mandate sayle to come before you Wee will send a warrant from our Royall Authoritie that he shall bee banished To teach him what it is for Bishops and Cleargie men to withstand the commandement of the Chiefe Ruler defending the trueth Athanas apol 2. Câ—m multas videre 〈◊〉 Socrat. li. 1 ca. 21. lat Wherefore Athanasius and the Bishops of his part appeared But finding that Councell very partiall they appealed from them to the Emperor And Athanasius himselfe fled to the Emperor beseeching him to send for the Bishops of that Councell to examine their Acts which that Christian Emperor did accordingly and thereupon wrote thus to the who e Councell Your Synod saith he hath decreed Socrat lib. 1 cap. 22. lat I know not what in a tumult and uprore whilst you seeke to pervert trueth by your pestilent disorder for hatred against your fellow Bishops But the divine providence will I doubt not scatter the mischiefe of your contention and make it plaine in our sight whether your Assembly hath had anâ— regard of trueth or no. You are therefore all of you t resort hither to shew the reas n of yâ—ur doings for so it doth seeme good and expedient unto me For which end I wiâ—ed this rescript to be sent unto you That as many of you as were present at the Councell of Tyrus without delay repayre to the place of our abode there to give account how sincerely and soundly yee have judged and that before me whom your selves shall not denie to be the sincere Minister of God in these Cases Observe yet further Cod. lib 1. tit 4. 2 3. tit â— 7.9.11 That Iustinian that Christian Emperor in his Code â—citeth many and sundry Lawes made by former Emperors concerning matters Ecclesiasticall As namely touching the Christian Faith Baptisme and Churches Novel consâ— 5 7. 42. 1â— and touching Heretickes Apostatas Iewes and Infidels And in his Authentickes he maketh many new Constitutions Concerning the Sacraments in what places by what persons with what loudnesse of voyce they should be ministred Novel const 123 1â—1 Novel const 5. 131 3 67 79. 5 123. 133. 6. 12â— Concerning Synods or Councells when they shall be kâ—pt what things shall be reformed in them and what Canons of Councells shall stand in the same strength with his Lawes Concerning Priests Deacons and other Servitors in the Church Hee limiteth their Age Condition Learning and good report before they be received to that Office and their diligent sober and chaste behaviour afterward And concerning Bishops how they shall be chosen what manner of men they should be both for life and doctrine what causes they should meddle withall in their Consistorâ—s what punishment they should undergoe for wrongfull excommunication and other offences c. Novel const â—â—3 And he saith further That there is no kinde of thing exempted from the Prince his inquisition who hath received from God a common Regiment and Soveraignetie over all men And those things which concerne God must saith he be preserved from corruption by the Saâ—red Prelatâ—s and civill Magistrates but most of all by our Majestie who use not to neglect any divine causes But proceede Legâ—m 〈◊〉 libr. 1. and goe on further to the times of Charles the great who was Emperor of the West parts about eight hundred yeares after CHRIST and therein consider the Directions Chapters or Lawes made by him which Ansegisus gathered together within a few yeares after his death For thereby shall you likewise clearely perceive that Kings and Princes even in those dayes did meddle both with Persons causes Ecclesiasticall I will here recite some of them unto you for your better and most full satisfaction in this point viz. Cap. 1. That no man excommunicate in one place should be taken into Communion in another place Cap 2. That when any Clearke is Ordered his faith and lâ—fe be first exactly tried Cap. 3. That no
courtesie in the Pope as Gratian most ungratiously would perswade but a matter of bounden duetie Ibidem Cap. Petrus and without all dissembling and seriously meant and intended by him in such manner and sort as he by those his words plainely declareth And consequently you now perceive verie fully I hope that for the space of eight hundred yeares and more after CHRIST the Bishops of Rome were subject to the Emperors and that the Christian Emperors also had Authoritie in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill within their Empyres But here now doe some Papists take exception and answere as touching Salomon his displacing of Abiathar the high Priest and putting Sadoc in his place that Salomon did this as he was a Prophet not as hee was a King But first this is but a meere supposition and conceit not found warranted in the Text. Yea the untruth of it may appeare if you please but to reade the Chapter For the offence which Abiathar 1. King 2.22.23.24 25.26.27.28 29 c. the high Priest had committed was High Treason in joyning with Adoniah against King Salomon for the kingdome Ioah also was in the same Treason and Conspiracie The King therefore caused Adoniah to be put to death he caused also Ioab to be put to death touching Abiathar the high Priest hee was also as worthy of death as the rest although for some causes and respects he was spared for that time Thou art worthie of death 1. King 2 26.27 saith the King but I will not this day kill thee because thou barest the Arke of the Lord God before David my Father and because thou hast suffered in all wherein my Father hath beene afflicted So Salomon cast out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord. And the King put Benaiah in the roome of Ioab over the Hoste and the King set Sadoc the priest Vers 35. in the roome of Abiathar In which words you see that Salomon doing these things is not styled or called by the name of a Prophet but expressely by the name of a King thereby signifying and declaring that what Salomon did touching the removing of Abiathar and putting Sadoc in his place he did it as a King aswell as when he put Benaiah in the place of Ioab Secondly you see that the offence which Abiathar had committed was treason and that therefore he deserved to die aswell as Adoniah or Ioab or any other of the conspirators But yet for the reasons and respects before mentioned hee would not then put him to death though he had deserved it but was content in lieu thereof for that time to inflict this punishment upon him to have him removed from his Priest-hood Now to deale in cases of Treason and to be a Iudge of matters concerning life and death and to award execution of death or in mercie to mitigate and alter the severitie of that punishment and in lieu thereof to have a milder or not so severe a punishment as death to be inflicted be things not properly belonging to the office of a Prophet but to the office of a King they doe rightly and properly enough belong And therefore what Salomon did herein it is evident that he did it as a King not as a Prophet And consequently it still remayneth firme and sure even by this example of King Salomon as also by other examples mentioned in my former Booke whereto my adversarie is still pleased to answere nothing that Kings as Kings have power to place Bishops and againe to displace them when there is cause and to put others in their roome And as touching Moses some Papists doe also answere that he was a Priest the high Priest Bellar. de verb. Dei lib 3. cap. 4â— for so saith Bellarmine and therefore that Aaron performed that reverence obedience and subjection to him that hee did as being high Priest My Adversarie likewise saith the same that God Almightie made Moses an high Priest and citeth for proofe of it Num. 27. but there is no such thing written in that Chapter nor in any other Chapter of the whole Bible beside Deut. 33.5 I reade that Moses was as a King or Prince in Israell but I no where reade throughout the whole Booke of God that God constituted Moses to be the high Priest yea it is well knowne that in Moses time Aaron was the high Priest what necessitie then was there for Moses also to be an high Priest But that Moses was no Priest properly so called much lesse an high Priest is thus made manifest For if Moses were a Priest it must be eyther before the consecration of Aaron or after But after the consecration of Aaron and his Sonnes to the Priest-hood it is cleare that not Moses but Aaron and his Sonnes were the Priests as having the Priest-hood appointed and specially given unto them by Gods owne direction Thou saith God to Moses Numb 3.10 shalt appoint Aaron and his Sonnes to execute their Priests offices and the stranger that commeth here shall be slaine So that none but Aaron and those that were of his seede might execute the Priests office For which cause Moses neyther did not durst execute the Priests office Num. 16.46.47 but commanded Aaron to burne Incense and to make an attonement for the people Wherefore it is very apparant that after the consecration of Aaron Moses was not a Priest And that Moses was also no Priest before the consecration of Aaron is likewise very evident because before that time the priest-hood was annexed to the birth-right and did belong to the first borne in whose place the Levites afterward came Numb 3.12.41.45 Lyra in Num. 3.12 Ibidem and were appointed So saiâ—h Lyra reporting the received judgements of the best interpreters that Ante legem datam ad Primogenitos pertinebat offerre sacrificia Before the Law given it belonged to the first-borne to offer sacrifices Againe hee saith expressely that Levitae successerunt loco eorum The Levites succeded in their place And againe he saith Lyra. in Gen. 14. Sacerdotium fuit annexum Primogeniturae usque ad legem dataÌ„ per Mosem The Priest-hood was annexed to the first borne untill the Law given by Moses Now of these two brothers Moses Aaron the Sonnes of Amram it is manifest that not Moses but Aaron was the eldest and first borne For we reade in Num. 33. Num. 33.39 That Aaron was one hunded twentie and three yeares old when he died But Moses outliving Aaron Deut. 34.7 was but one hundred and twentie yeares old when he died So that Aaron appeareth questionlesse and undoubtedly to be the elder brother and the first borne and consequently even by the right of Primogeniture did the Priest-hood belong to Aaron and not to Moses If any say that the birthright was sometime taken from the eldest by a speciall appointment of God and given to the younger it hath no place here For no such especiall appointment from
It is true that the same Hosius Bishop of Corduba spake further unto the Emperor in this sort Athanas ad soâ—tariam vitam agentes God saith he hath committed the Empyre to thee to us the things of the Church And as he that envieth thy Empyre contradicteth the ordinance of God So take thou heede least drawing unto thy selfe the things of the Church thou be guiltie of great sinne It is written give unto Caesar that which is Caesars and unto God that which is Gods It is therefore neyther lawfull for us that be Bishops to hold a kingdom on earth neyther host thou power ô Prince over sacrifices and sacred things Howbeit these wordes doe onely distinguish and put a difference betweene the office and function of Priests and the office and function of Kings and Princes shewing that the one may not incroch or intrude upon that which râ—ghtly and properly belongeth unto the other but that every one should keepe himselfe within the bounds of his owne proper calling office And so teach the Protestants also and therefore if any King or Prince usurpe or intrude upon that which is proper and peculiar unto the Priests office as King Vzziah entred into the Temple to burne Incense 2 Chron. 26.16.17.18 which pertayned to the Priests office onely they utterly dislike and condemne it Now then let all this be granted that Kings and Princes may not doe any thing that is proper and peculiar to the Priests office nor may meddle in Ecclesiasticall causes after a cruell and tyrannicall maner nor use their authoritie in Ecclesiasticall causes for the maintenance of Arrianisme or of any other heresie or error nor doe any thing against God or his truth and Religion Yet what doth all this or any of this make against those Godly and Christian Kings and Princes that extend and use their authoritie in Ecclesiasticall causes in a good sort and for God and for the maintenance of his trueth Religion and ordinances It maketh as you see just nothing at all against them But it is further objected that S. Ambrose when Valentinian the Emperor would have had a Church in Millan for the Arrian heretickes answereth thus Neyther is it lawfull for me to yeelde unto it Ambros libr. 5. epist. 3â— nor expedient for you ô Emperor to take it The house of a private man you cannot by right invade Doe you thinke then you may take away the house of God It is alledged that the Emperor may doe what he list But I answere burthen not your selfe ô Emperor to thinke that you have any Imperiall right over those things that be Gods Exalt not your selfe so high but if you will raigne long be subject unto God For it is written give unto Caesar that which is Caesars and to God that which is Gods Palaces belong to Emperors Churches to Priests Epist â—â— The Church is Gods it ought not to be yeelded by me to Caesar The Temple of God cannot he Caesars right I cannot deliver that to Heretickes which I receaved to keepe on Gods behalfe I would to God Epist 32. it were apparant to me that my Church should not be delivered to the Arrians I would willingly offer my selfe to the judgement of your highnesse I would to God that it were decreed Orat. onâ— Auxenâ— that no Arrian should trouble my Churches and of my person pronounce what sentence you will With my consent I will never forgoe my right if I be compelled I have no way to resist I can sorrow I can weepe I can sigh Teares are my weapons Priests have onely these defences By other meanes I neyther ought nor may resist To flie and forsake my Church I use not least any should thinke it done to avoyde some sorer punishment Ibidem Epist 33. If my goods be sought for take them If my bodie I will be readie Will you put mee in Irons or lead mee to death You shall doe me a pleasure I will not guard my selfe with multitudes of people but I will gladly he sacrificed for the Altars of God All this maketh against the favourers and maintayners of Arrianisme but nothing against that authoritie in Ecclesiasticall matters which Kings and Princes have to commande for God and for the good of his Church and the advancement of his Religion against Arrianisme and against all other heresies and errors whatsoever My Adversarie therefore objecteth further that S. Ambrose saith Ambros Epist Lib. 5 cont Aux That a good Emperor is within the Church and not above the Church Indeede seeing the Church is the mother of Christian Emperors aswell as of other Christians it becommeth a Christian Emperor as a good Child and Sonne of such a mother to account â—t his greatest honour to submit himselfe as he ought to the word rules and ordinances which God hath set in the same his Church and not to exaâ—t himselfe aboue them as Valentinian did when he was so forward for the advancement of Arrianisme Arrian assemblies against the true Church of God and the Orthodoxe Bishops therein For that by the Church here S. Ambrose meaneth the things of God in the Church appeareth not only by that Text which he citeth of Give unto Caesar the things that be Caesars and unto God the things that be Gods but by those other words of his likewise where he saith plainely Ambr. lib. 5. c. 33 Ea quae divina saÌ„t imperatoriae potestati non esse subjecta The things that be divine be not subject to the Emperors power And yet the same S. Ambrose affirmeth nevertheles That the Emperor had power over the persons of all men within his Empyre Ambros de obien Theoâ—osij Here then you must learne of S. Ambrose to distinguish betweene the things in the Church and the persons in the Church For over all the persons he confesseth That the Emperor had power but not over the Divine things therein And this also doe the Protestants hold that a Christian King hath power over the persons of all Bishops Pastors and Ecclesiasticall Ministers in the Church within his owne Dominions But not over the Divine things therein as namely not over Gods Word his Religion Sacraments and other his Institutions and Ordinances in his Church Yet againe it is objected by some that S. Ambrose reproved the Emperor Valentinian the younger for that he would take upon him to be Iudge in a matter of Faith cause Ecclesiasticall but the reason of it must be knowne For Valentinian a young Prince not yet baptized and a novice in the mysteries of Religion would upon the perswasion and counsell of his Mother Iustina an Arrian needes have Ambrose to come and dispute with Auxentius the Arrian in his Palace or Consistorie before him Ambr â— 5. Orat. coâ—r Auxent Epist. 53. and he would be the Iudge whether of their two Religions were truest Whereunto Ambrose made answere and gave it in writing to Valentinian shewing him amongst
other things That he was young in yeares a novice in Faith not yet baptised and that he was as yet rather to learne then to judge of Bishops That the Palace was no fit place for a Priest to dispute in where the hearers should be Iewes or Gentiles and so scoffe at CHRIST and the Emperor himselfe partiall as appeared by the law published before that time against the trueth Ibidem Auxentius saith Ambrose being driven to his shifts hath recourse to the craft of his forefathers seeking to procure us envie by the Emperors name saying That he ought to be Iudge though he be yong though he be not yet baptised though he be ignorant of the holy Scriptures and that in the Consistorie Jdem libr. 5. Epist 32. And to the young Emperor himselfe he spake thus Your Father a man of riper yeares said it is not for me to judge betweene Bishops Doth then your clemencie at these yeares say I ought to judge He a man baptised in CHRIST thought himselfe unable for the weight of so great a judgement Doth then your Clemencie that hath not yet attayned to the Sacrament of Baptisme challenge to judge of matters of Faith when as yet you know not the mysteries of Faith c In these words you see the reason why S. Ambrose reproved Valentinian disliked that he should challenge or take upon him to judge in a matter of Faith namely not for that he had not authoritie to deale in matters of Faith and causes Ecclesiasticall but in respect of other defects in him viz. For that he was so young and as yet unbaptised a Novice in the Faith and ignorant in the Scriptures c. But then you will say that even Valentinian the elder the Father of this young Valentinian did himselfe refuse and dislike to judge in the same matter But S. Ambrose likewise sheweth you the reason of it namely because Ambr. lib. 5. Epist. 32. inhabilem se c. He then thought himselfe unable to judge in so weightie a cause The great question being whether CHRIST was of the same substance with the Father yea or no. Concerning which question when Valentinian was afterward better instructed then did he judge of the trueth of it and thereupon by his Imperiall Authoritie commanded it as a trueth to be preached as appeareth evidently by the Epistle which he and Valens and Gratian being then the Emperors Theodoret. lib. 4. cap. 7.8 wrote to the Bishops of Asia Phrygia Cyrophrygia and Placatia wherein the Emperors write thus unto them After great disputation had to and fro in a full Councell held at Illyria about our Saviour those blessed Bishops have demonstratively proved That there is a consubstantiall Trinitie The Father the Sonne and the holy Ghost from which they would not depart one jott but gave due reverence unto the Religion of the Almighty God And we also say they by our Authoritie have commanded the same to be preached So that although Valentinian at the first for a while untill he were better instructed would not Yet afterward upon better instruction receaved you see that he did take upon him to judge that is to discerne of the trueth of that controversie and by his Imperiall authoritie aswell as the other Emperors commanded it as a truth to be preached Theodosius also that Christian Emperor whom S. Ambrose himselfe so much commendeth judged of the truth of the same controversie betweene the Homousians and the Arrians determining and appointing by a solemne Edict which of them should be accounted Catholickes Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 10. and which Heretickes For seeing the divisions and dissentions that were then in the Church he willed everie sect to put their Faith in writing There was a day prefixed The Bishops being called met at the Emperors Palace There came thither Nectarius and Agelius for the Homousians Demophilus for the Arrians Eunomius himselfe for his followers and Eleusius for the Macedonians When they were come the Prince admitted them to his presence And taking the paper of each mans opinion earnestly besought GOD to helpe him in choosing the truth Then reading their Confessions hee rejected all the rest as deviding and severing the Sacred TRINITIE and tore them in pieces and onely approved and embraced the Homousian faith and therewithall he made a law Cod lib. 1. tit 1 de summa Trinitate fide catholica S. cunctos that such as followed the Faith of the Homousians that is of such as beleeved CHRIST to be of the same substance with the Father and that beleeved one God-head of the Father Sonne and holy Ghost of equall Majestie in the sacred Trinitie should be held and taken for Christian Catholickes and the rest to be held infamous Heretickes So likewise the Emperor Gratian the Sonne of Valentinian after that the Empyre came intirely to his hands judged and condemned the Arrian heresie Theodor. li. 5. c. 2 and thereupon commanded the Preachers of that blasphemie as wilde and savage beasts to be driven from their Churches and the good Pastors to be restored to their Churches againe And the execution of this law he cōmitted to Sapores a famous Captaine of that time Evagrius libr. 1. cap. 12. In like maner did Theodosius the younger also judge and decree against the Nestorian heresie that they which followed the wicked faith of Nestorius or cleaved to his unlawfull doctrine if they were Bishops or Cleargie men they should be cast out of their Churches and if they were Lay-men they should be excommunicate Sozomen libr. 4 cap. 16. And doth not moreover Sozomen record in a certaine case That the Emperor commanded That ten Bishops of the East and ten Bishops of the West chosen by the Councell should repaire to the Court and open unto him the Decrees of the Councell that he might further determine and conclude what were best to be done Yea S. Augustine himselfe Aug. cont epist. Pavin lib 1 c. 7. expostulating this matter with the Donatists saith thus unto them Is it not lawfull for the Emperor to give sentence in a matter of religion Why then went your messengers to the Emperor Why made they him judge of their cause By these premisses then it is very apparant That although none may be judge of Faith and Religion if you speake and meane of an absolute infallible soveraigne and supreme Iudge but God onely Yet if you take judging for discerning as often and usually it is then not onely Christian Kings and Emperors but even all Lay Christians also whatsoever by the tenor of the Scriptures may and ought so farre forth as they shall be able to judge that is to discerne of the doctrines of men whether they be true or false as is more at large declared in the Preface of my former Booke Shall any then be so absurd or unreasonable as to denie this right of judging that is of discerning of the trueth in the doctrines of men
law of God Dan. 3.29 by the Ministerie of Ezra that learned Scribe Nebuchadnezzar also though an heathen King gave a commandement and made a decree that none should blaspheme the GOD of Shadrach Dan 6 25 26. Meshach and Abednego King Darius likewise gave commandement made a decree that in all the Dominions of his kingdom men should tremble feare before the Lord God of Daniel whose God was the true God Some heatheÌ„ Emperors also gave commandment that men should cease from persecuting the Christians that Christians should have the free exercise of their Religion build Oratories places for their meetings and assemblies Euseb li 7. cap. â—8 cap 12. quietly possesse them for the service of their God Were not these such like commandments good lawful coÌ„mendable Euseb lib. 9 cap. 16. cap. 8. lat though given by heathen Emperors and in causes Ecclesiasticall and concerning Religion And were they not meete to be obeyed If then heathen Kings and Princes may as is manifest lawfully and laudably command for God his worship service and Religion and are therein dutifully to be obeyed By what right or reason can it bee denied to Christian Kings and Princes to have at least the like authoritie to command in matters Ecclesiasticall for God his service and Religion For shall Christian Kings and Princes be in worse case then heathen Kings Or shall they fare the worse or have the lesse Regall power and authority because of their Religion of Christianitie God forbid This argument I likewise alledged in the first Chapter of my former Booke pag. 7. whereto my Adversarie againe like a wise man still knoweth how to answere nothing And yet he saith he will propose my defused argument in a succinct forme the most for my advantageâ—â— But I neyther desire nor looke for any advantage at his hands Let him make his owne Arguments the best hee can for his owne advantage As for mine I would not have him to frame them unlesse hee would doe it more truely Hee would indeede make my Argument defused or rather confused by his confused maner of answering jumbling things together which I had Methodically and expressely distinguished For first my purpose was to prove his Majesties SUPREMACIE over all persons within his owne Dominions and then afterward in the second place to shew his Authoritie in respect of Causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill In the first Section of that Chapter pag. 1.2.3.4 I handle the first point concerning his Supremacie in respect of persons and in the second section pag. 5. and not before it is that I begin to handle his Authoritie in respect of causes This Text then of S. Peter being alledged as it is in the first section and pag. 1. was by me produced to prove onely his Majesties Supremacie over all persons aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill within his owne Dominions and not for any such end or purpose as thereby to prove his Majesties Authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill as he misconceaveth But sith he will needes have it so used I am well content with it because that Text doth indeede serve verie sufficiently to prove both those purposes For the first the argument is verie apparant and may be framed thus If all persons aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill are to be subject to their King as to the Chiefe or Supreme within his owne Dominions then hath their King a cleare Supremacie over them all But all persons aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill are to be subject to their King as to the Chiefe or Supreme within his owne Dominions for so S. Peter directly teacheth Ergo their King hath a cleare Supremacie over them all And for the second point the argument is also very open and evident For the King is not called the Chiefe or Supreme in respect onely of the excellencie of his person above all his subjects but in respect also of his Authoritie Rule and Governement he hath over them yea in this respect specially he is so called as appeareth by this That S. Peter distribuâ—es the humane creature he there speaketh of that is the Temporall Magistrates Rulers or Governors into the King as being the Chiefe or Supreme Governor and into other that be governors under him So that here we finde the Kings Title of Supreme Governor very manifestly proved and directly ratified and confirmed And that his governement and authoritie extendeth also to all manner of causes and consequently to causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill it is thus also made verie apparant out of this Text. For S. Peter here sheweth 1. Pet 2.13.14 that the King as the Supreme Governor and the other that bee inferior governors under him be all constituted to this end viz. For the punishment of evill doers and for the prayse of them that doe well Now be there not or may there not be evill doers aswell in the Church as in the Commonweale and transgressors and offendors aswell in matters Ecclesiasticall as Civill and Temporall Shall not then aswell the one sort of these offendors as the other be held punishable by the Kings Civill and Temporall Sword especially when they grow and continue obstinate wilfull perverse and unruly and will not otherwise be reclaymed The Text maketh no such difference or distinction as the Papists fondly doe betweene offendors in causes Ecclesiasticall and offendors in causes Civill and Temporall but generally or indefinitely it would have Evill doers of what sort soever without any distinction exception or restriction to bee punished by this Civill sword And ubi lex non distinguit ibi nec nos distinguere debemus The Argument then for the Kings Authoritie in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as in Civill out of this Text of S. Peter is and may be framed thus Whosoever hath authoritie from God to punish Evill doers by the Civill sword without any distinction restriction or exception of causes hath Authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill But the King hath Authoritie from God to punish â—â—â—-â—oers by the Ciuill sword without any distinction restriction or exception of causes Ergo The King hath Authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill The Matoâ— is evident in it selfe The Miror is proved and apparant by the Text and therefore the conclusion must be granted My Adversarie neverthelesse still urgeth that as touching spirituall and Ecclesiasticall causes and matters and concerning Religion obedience must be performed to the Supreme Pastor and head of the Church And who denieth this Yea this is granted unto him so hee take it rightly For not the Pope as he and other Papists strangely suppose but CHRIST IESVS onely is the Chiefe Sheepheard or Supreme Pastor and head of the Church as hath beene often declared and as is apparant As for that he saith That the Militant Church must have some visible head in Earth to rule and governe it 1. Pet. 5.4 Hebr. 13 20. Colos 1.18 Ephes 1 2â—.23 He onely saith it but
doth not prove it and it is indeede but an humane devise and conceit and such as is before confuted in my former Booke pag. 95.96 97. whereunto he full maketh no answere And yet it is there shewed that the Companie both Militant and Triumphant make but one body and one Church unto CHRIST IESVS whereof he is the Head and that though in his bodily presence and humanitie hee be in heaven yet by his Deitie and power of his Spirit and word he is in Earth with his Church and can tell how to rule governe comfort confirme guide and direct it and to give all giftes and graces requisite and to doe and performe all the offices of an Head unto it much better then the Pope of Rome or any man mortall whosoever Yea himselfe confuteth himselfe when he saith that in these words of CHRIST Reddite quaesunt Caesaris Caesari quaesunt Dei Deo By this word Caesari is understood saith he The Supreme Governor in Temporall affaires and by the word Deo the Supreme Governor in Spirituall affaires For thereupon it followeth that then is not the Pope of Rome the supreme governor in those spirituall and Ecclesiasticall affaires unlesse he will say that the Pope is God But whereas he maketh Caesar or the Emperor to be the supreme Governour in Temporall affayres onely as though he had no Authoritie in spirituall or Ecclesiasticall matters also therein is still his error because it is before most manifestly proved that even the heathen Emperors and much more those that were Christian Emperors lawfully might did coÌ„mand for God his service Religion dealt in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill Temporall Yea Rex est persona mixta as our law also calleth him in respect of that his interest Authoritie in causes both Ecclesiasticall Civill For which cause likewise amongst Divines he is said to bee Custos utriusque Tabulae As for that his calumnious speech against Luther and Calvine which he here also inserteth Luther tom 1. in Genes cap. 9. tom 3. Annâ—t in Deut. 6. fol. 40. tom 2. responed Ambr Catherinum fol 150. 152. c. Calvin Inst. l b. 4 cap 20. in Rom 13. c. as though they wrote against the obedience due to Princes and their lawes it hath beene often answered by sundrie Protestants and the untruth of it is so notorious as that the workes and writings of them both doe shew and openly proclayme the contrarie to the world if men would please to read them and not to wrest their wordes but to take them everie where in a right sense But what meaneth he by this that he saith Kings and Princes may more confidently build the safetie of their persons estates upon the loyaltie of their Catholicke subjects then upon any Protestant subjects what are Papists whom he calleth Catholicks more loyall to Protestant Kings and Princes then Protestants Is there any likelihood of trueth in this Or doth he thinke that Protestant Kings and Princes will or can be so perswaded For is it possible that they who for love or affection to the Pope and Popish Religion denie and oppugne the Kings SUPREMACIE and the true Christian RELIGION he professeth and defendeth can be more loyall or better subjects unto him then those that acknowledge his SUPREMACIE RELIGION by his Authoritie established Thankefully and joyfully embracing them both praying unto God for the continuance of them and for all maner of happinesse and prosperitie upon him and his which is the defendor and maintayner of them both amongst us and thinke themselves bound in duetie and conscience so to doe Comparisons they say are odious and therefore I could have wished that he had forborne them neyther needed he to have used them For if wee all both Protestants and Papists bee in all respects and at all times found faithfull true and good Subjects to his Majestie as of right duetie we all ought and as I hope we all shall be I doubt not but it will suffice although we strive not thus to provoke one another by Comparative or Superlative termes But what reason hath he further to call Calvine as he doth the sensuall Libertine of this age who wrote against the libertines and against all licentiousnesse and all manner of ungodlinesse and impietie whatsoever For so his many learned laborious godly and worthy workes doe abundantly testifie and declare to the world Will Papists never cease their malitious and untrue accusations against Luther Calvine Beza and other Protestants 5 The second Text I alledged to prove the Kings Supremacie over all persons Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill within his owne Dominions is taken out of S. Paul in Rom. 13. where S. Paul saith thus Rom. 13.1.2.3.4.5.6 c. Let everie Soule be subject to the higher powers for there is no power but of God and the powers that be be ordained of God Whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves condemnation For Magistrates are not to bee feared for good workes but for evill Wilt thou then be without feare of the power Doe well so shalt thou have prayse for the same For he is the Minister of God unto thee for thy good but if you doe evill feare For hee beareth not the Sword in vaine For he is the Minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evill Wherefore yee must be subject not onely because of wrath but also for conscience sake And for this cause pay yee tribute also For they are Gods Ministers imploying themselves for that very purpose By the higher powers in this Text whereto subjection is required which beare the sword for the punishment of the evill doers and for the prayse of them that doe well is meant 1. Pet. 2.13.14 as S. Peter also hath before shewed those that be Kings Princes and such like Civill and Temporall Magistrates And this is so evident as that though my Adversary doth not yet the Rhemists doe ingeniously confesse Rhem. Annot. in Rom. 13. vers 4. and teach it For That the Apostle meaneth here specially of Temporall powers we may see say they by the sword tribute and externall compulsion he here attributeth to them Neyther was there then as they say any doubt conceaved by Christian men whether they should obey their Spirituall powers or Spirituall Governors yea or no which is another reason they them give to shew that this Text is not to bee expounded of Spirituall Origen in hunc locum but of Civill and temporall Rulers and Magistrates Origen likewise declareth the same affirming them to be Non Antistites Principes Ecclesiarum sed Mundi judices seculi potestates Not Bishops and Prelates of Churches but worldly Iudges and secular Powers In like sort S. Ambrose affirmeth them to be Reges Ambros in hunc locum Aug. de Catech. rudibus cap. 21. seculi
power over the Cleargie-men but onely power directive This distinction was not knowne in the Apostolicke Primitive and ancient Church nor so long as the Bishops of Rome were subject to the Emperors but when the Bishops of Rome contrarie to all lawes both humane and divine had trayterously and wickedly subdued the Emperors and that it could be said of Emperors and Kings as Bellarmine speaketh that Non sunt amplius ClericoruÌ„ superiores They are no longer Soveraignes or superiors to Cleargie-men Then did this distinction arise or grow that the Kings might have a directive power but no coactive power over theÌ„ that is might direct them to what was good but might not compell theÌ„ to it And so faith also mine Adversarie that coactive power imposeth penalties Now this distinction is easily answered and confuted yea he might have perceaved it in my former Booke pag. 7.8.9.10 to have beene sufficiently answered and confuted For besides other proofes Aug lib. 1 in fine contr Epist Parmen it is there shewed by diverse testimonies out of S. Augustine himselfe against the Donatists That Kings and Princes may not onely direct or command but may also by Lawes penalties and punishments compell their Subjects and consequently Cleargie-men asvvell as others to obedience in that vvhich is good and godly Yea it is the proper and peculiar right of Kings and Princes externally to use a power coactive by reason of the sword committed to them from God which Ecclesiasticall Ministers by vertue of their Ecclesiasticall calling and office cannot doe And seeing Parents have a power coactive over their children and Masters in a familie over their servants verie strange it were if Kings should not be allowed to have a power coactive over their subjects But it is indeede verie well knowne that the Christian Emperors in ancient time did use a power coactive even over Cleargie-men aswell as over others inflicting penalties and punishments upon them As for example Constantine that Christian Emperor exiled and banished Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia Theoderes lib. 1. cap. 20. and Theognius Bishop of Nice and hee saith further That if any man whether Bishop or other were offended at that his banishing of them and would grow malepart thereupon Illius statim audacia Ministri Dei hoc est mea executione coercebitur His boldnesse shall forthwith be repressed by the execution of Gods minister that is of my selfe Another Constantine also by whose Imperiall Authoritie the sixt Councell at Constantinople was held in a Decree inserted in that Councell Synod 6. Act. 18 Conc. edit â—in to â— pag. 92. saith Siquidem Episcopus est vel Clericus vel Monachico circundatus habitu deportationis paenam exsolvet If he be a Bishop or a Clearke or a Moncke let him be punished with deportation or banishment Charle-Mayne also in a French Synode Tom 2. Concil decreed imprisonment Si ordinatus Presbiter fuerit duos annos in carcere permaneat Aug. lib. 1. in fine contr epist. Par. S. Augustine againe declareth that there was a Law Imperiall against those that professed themselves Christians and true Catholickes and yet were not so but kept private Conventicles 〈◊〉 that he that ordayned a Clearke for that purpose or the Clearke so ordained should loose ten pounds of gold and the place also where such Conventicles were kept should be forfeyted to the Emperor You see then for the refelling and overthrowe of that foolish and false distinction that the Christian Emperors had power coactive over Bishops and Cleargie-men punishing them sometime with deportation exile or banishment sometime with imprisonment and sometime with penalties and losses of summes of money and other forfeytures And upon some kinde of offendors you may read that they inflicted the punishment of death And indeede to what end hath the King this Regall and Temporall Authoritie jurisdiction the power coactive in his hands by reason of the Sword committed to him from God if hee may not use it and put it in execution Yea my Adversarie himselfe confesseth and saith that Iurisdictio nullius videretur esse momenti si coertionem aliquam non haberet Iurisdiction might seeme to be of no regard if it had not some coertion or power coactive joyned with it Againe he saith Cui jurisdictio data est ea quoque concessa intelliguntur sine quibus jurisdictio expleri non potest To whom jurisdiction is given all those things be also understood to be granted without which that jurisdiction cannot be performed Wherefore even by those Maximes which himselfe citeth and approveth it is manifest that seeing the King hath a power jurisdiction and Authoritie to direct command Cleargie-men he hath also a power coercitive or coactive over them to compell correct and punish them if otherwise they will not obey those his directions and commandements So that my Adversarie needed to have no better confuter of this his idle distinction then himselfe But pag. 5. in that first Chapter of my former Booke I alledged that Text of Rom. 13. to prove also the Kings Authoritie in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill or Temporall And indeede this Text serveth also verie sufficiently for that purpose For as there is here no exception of any person so is there also no exception of anie cause or matter but whosoever doth evill be it in what kinde of cause soever he is here made subject to this sword and Temporall Authoritie of Emperors Kings and Princes For the Text saith That they are the ordinance of God and the Ministers of God attending employed and constituted to this verie end and purpose for the prayse countenancing and encouraging of the good and wel-doers and for discountenancing Aug. Epist 50. discouraging and punishing of the bad and such as be evill-doers And therefore doth S. Augustine say that Quicunque legibus Imperatorum quae pro Dei veritate fâ—runtur obtemperare non vult grande acquirit supplicium Whosoever will not obey the Lawes of the Emperor which are made for the trueth of God doth purchase to himselfe a great punishment Aug. Epist 166. For saith he in another place Hoc jubent Imperatores quod jubet Christus quia cum jubent bonum per illos non jubet nisi Christus The Emperors command that which Christ also commandeth because when they command that which is good it is Christ himselfe that commandeth by them Aug de Civit. Dei lib. 5. cap. 24 Yea S. Agustine was so farre from this point of Poperie to denie or disallow the Authoritie of Emperors Kings and Princes in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning Religion as that he doth evermore teach and defend it whensoever there was occasion to speake of it in somuch that he saith Imperatores foelices dicimus si suam potestatem ad Dei cultum maxime dilatandum c. We affirme the Emperors to be happie if they extend their Authoritie the most they can to doe service unto God in
the spreading of his Religion For Aug. Epist. â—0 as the same S. Augustine againe saith a King serveth God one way as he is a man and another way as he is a King As a Man he serveth God by living well and faithfully But as he is a King he serveth God by setting forth Lawes to command that which is good and to remove the contrarie So that Kings as Kings serve God in doing that for his service which none but Kings can doe Wherefore my Argument to prove the Authoritie of Emperors Kings and Princes in both those points together out of this Text of Rom. 13. is this whosoever hath Authoritie to punish evill-doers without exception of any person and without exception of any cause hath Authoritie over all persons and in all causes aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill But the Emperor within his Empyre and the King within his Kingdomes hath Authoritie to punish evill-doers without exception of any person and without exception of any cause as is apparant by the Text it selfe wherein no exception is to be found Ergo the Emperor within his Empyre and the King within his kingdomes hath authoritie over all persons and in all causes aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill 6 But now from this Text of Rom. 13. alledged in the 5. pag. of that first Chapter in my Booke concerning the SUPREMACIE My Adversarie commeth next to the point of Appeales mentioned in the same first Chapter pag. 24. So that he here skippeth over 9. whole leaves together at one leape and I must follow him in his course It is true that in the pag. 24. I said that when Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage was accused by Donatus some other of that saction Constantine the Emperor commanded Caecilianus to come to Rome with a certaine number of Bishops that accused him and by his Commission extant in Eusebius authorized and appointed Miltiadâ—s the then Bishop of Rome some others with him for the hearing and ending of that matter These Commissioners condemned Donatus who appealed from their sentence to the Emperor which appeale also the Emperor received Where beside that you see that this Christian Emperor made Commissioners in this Episcopall and Ecclesiastical cause observe withall that Miltiades the then Bishop of Rome was one of those Commissoners and there withall you may also note that the Bishops of Rome were then verie clearely subject and not superior to the Emperor So that a Christian King or Prince not onely may make Commissioners in Ecclesiasticall causes but may also have Appeales made unto him as is here apparant To this my Adversarie maketh divers answers First he saith that this instance concerning Appeales maketh more against me then for me because it was an Appeale made by Hereticks viz. the Donatists unto the Emperor But this reason of his maketh more against him then set him For if it were lawfull for Heretickes who thought themselves wronged by the inferior Iudges to appeale to the Emperor no lesse if not much more lawfull was it for the Orthodoxe Bishops if they were wronged to appeale to him And if Constantine that Orthodoxe godly and Christian Emperor thought it lawfull for him as hee did for otherwise hee would never have meddled with it to entertaine and receave an appeale made to him from Heretickes much more would hee have thought it lawfull and meete to receave Appeales from such as were Orthodoxe right true Christians and men for Faith Religion like himselfe But that he may know that not onely heretickes but Orthodoxe Bishops also Athan. Apolog. 2 cap. Quum multas did appeale to the Emperor Let him take for an evident proofe of it the example of Athanasius and of the other Bishops joyned with him who as is before shewed appealed from the Councell of Tyrus Socrat lib. 1. cap. 33. 34. unto the same godly Emperor Constantine which appeale the same Emperor likewise receaved Neyther would Athanasius nor any other good and godly Bishops have appealed unto him if they had not thought it lawful both for them so to doe and for the Emperor also to receive such appeales Neyther did the Donatists appeale onely from Miltiades the Bishop of Rome and those that were joyned with him by Commission from the Emperor But they appealed also from those other Bishops that were afterward assembled at Arle in France for the hearing and ending of the same cause And both these Appeales did the Emperor receive and upon the last appeale he sate himselfe in person and gave Iudgement for Caecilianus against the Donatists whose proceedings and Iudgments upon those appeales S. Augustine disliked not but well liked and allowed alledging them as being substantiall proofes for the Catholickes and lawfull good and effectuall judgements against the Donatists I grant that Constantine was loth at the first to be Iudge in this Episcopall cause in his owne person Aug Epist. 166 and therefore S. Augustine saith Eam discutiendam atque finiendam Episcopis delegavit He delegated and appointed Bishops to discusse and determine it namely Miltiades and his Colleagues Ibidem And when Miltiades and his Colleagues had pronounced Caecilianus innocent and condemned Donatus as Author of the schisme raysed at Carthage Your side saith S. Augustine to the Donatists Ibidem came backe to the Emperor and complayned of the judgement of the Bishops against them The most patient and milde Emperor the second time gave them other Iudges namely the Bishops that met at Arle in France And your men saith he seaking still to the Donatists appealed from the Bishops of Arle also to the Emperors owne person and never left till the Emperor himselfe in person tooke the hearing of the cause betweene them which he did and upon hearing it pronounced Caecilianus innocent and those his accusers Idem Epist. 162 to be malicious wranglers Againe the same S. Angustine saith that the Donatists appealed from Ecclesiasticall judgement to the end that Constantine might heare the cause Whither when they came both parties standing before him Caecilianus was adjudged to be innocent and the Donatists overthrowne To prove this I will further bring you saith S. Augustine the very wordes of Constantine where he witnesseth That upon judiciall hearing of both sides he found Caecilianus to be cleare Yea S. Augustine sheweth further what followed upon this judgement Aug. Epist 166. Then did Constantine saith he make a sharpe law to punish the Donatists his sonnes continued the same Reade vvhat Valentinian reade when you vvill vvhat Gratian and Theodosius Decreed against you Why vvonder you then at the Children of Theodosius as if they had follovved any other president in this cause then the judgement of Constantine vvhich so many Christian Emperors have kept inviolate Though Constantine bee dead yet the judgement of Constantine given against you liveth For vvhen Emperors command that vvhich is good it is Christ and no man else that commandeth by them Thus you see how much this
judgement of Constantine upon this Appeale made to him though by Donatists was not onely justified and approved by S. Augustine but embraced also by other Christian Emperors as Vertuous and confirmed as Religious and honoured of the whole Orthodoxe Church in that time So little cause hath mine Adversarie or any other Papists to mislike of Constantine his meddling therein as if it were unlawfull But secondly my Adversarie answereth that the then Emperor Constantine the Great did remit Caecilianus and the Donatists for the decision and determining of their difference unto Miltiades Bishop of Rome as to his proper and right Iudge It is true that he committed the hearing and determining of that cause unto Miltiades Bishop of Rome but not to him alone as if he were the sole and onely proper and rightfull Iudge in the case but to him together with others For Marcus Rheticius Maternus and Marinus were interested with him in the same Commission The Commission is yet extant in Eusebius to be seene in these words Constantine the Emperor unto Miltiades Bishop of Rome Euseb li. 10. c. 5 and to Marcus sendeth greeting For asmuch as many such Epistles are brought unto mee from Anilinus Lieutenant of Africke wherein it is said that Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage is reprehended in many things by divers of his Colleagues abiding in Africke and this seemeth unto me very grievous that there should be found in those Provinces which the providence of God hath allotted peculiarly unto my government a great multitude of people prone unto the worse and disagreeing And that amongst Bishops there should be such variance My pleasure therefore is that Caecilianus with ten Bishops of his accusers and ten other of his favourers doe come to Rome there to be heard before you both joyning with you Rheticius Maternus and Marinus your Colleagues whom purposely for that matter I haue coÌ„manded with speed to repaire thither unto you c. And S. Augustine likewise hath before told you Aug Epist 166. that the Emperor committed this cause Non Episcopo sed Episcopis Not to one Bishop in the Singular number but to Bishops in the Plurall number eam discutiendam atque finiendam Episcopis delegavit And againe he saith Collaâ— 3 diei cum Donatistâ—â— cap 5 Causam Caecilian injunxit eis audiendam elsewhere he also saith Constantinum dedisse Iudices iterum Idem Epist 166 That Constantine gave them Iudges a second time And hee further proveth that those Iudges both the first and second might lawfully judge in that case Idem Epist 162. Eo quod Imperator illos Iudices dedisset Because the Emperor had given those Iudges So that it appeareth very fully and clearely that not Miltiades alone as Bishop of Rome and in his owne right but Miltiades associated and joyned with others namely with Marcus Rheticius Maternus and Marinus were the Iudges in this case and that by Commission and Authoritie granted from the Emperor Yea you see there was afterward also an Appeale from their sentence to the Emperor whereupon the Emperor a second time gave other Iudges From these also 〈◊〉 there a second Appeale to the Emperor himselfe in person who at the last in his owne person heard and judged the cause and without the Bishop of Rome by his owne authoritie pronounced finall sentence therein The least of these facts proveth the Emperors Supremacie in those times aswell over the Bishop of Rome as over other Bishops What force then have they when they be all united and joyned together Yet thirdly my Adversarie answereth that Constantine the Emperor did but pronounce and declare the justnesse of the sentence given formerly against the Donatists by their competent Iudge Pope Miltiades But first why doth he still say That the sentence against the Donatists was given by Miltiades as though it had beene given onely by him For it is manifest that it was not only his sentence and judgement but the sentence and judgement of the rest of his Colleagues and fellow Commissioners joyned with him Secondly why doth he speake of Miltiades Bishop of Rome as if he were the onely competent Iudge when he not only seeth others to be joyned and made Iudges with him but an Appeale also to be made and allowed from his and their sentence and from other Iudges also afterward given to Iudge of the same cause And thirdly though Constantine the Emperor did by this sentence upon hearing of the cause cleare and acquite Caecilianus and condemne the Donatists and so approved the first sentence and judgement given by Miltiades and his Colleagues and the second sentence also that was given by the other Bishops assembled at Arle in France Yet doth this approbation of his or declaration of the Bishop of Romes sentence in this case to be just and right no more prove a supremacie in Miltiades the Bishop of Rome then it doth in Marcus Rheticius Maternus and Marinus or then it doth in those other Bishops that were afterward assembled at Arle whose sentence he likewise approved and declared to be just Neyther doth it any way impayre or detract from Constantine his judgement but that hee was also a Iudge and held the place and office of Iudicature all this notwithstanding For else may you say that those Bishops assembled at Arle whom S. Augustine expressely calleth Iudices Iudges were also no Iudges because they likewise aswell as Constantine acquited Caecilianus and condemned the Donatists and so approved the sentence of Miltiades and his Colleagues declaring it to be just If a Writt of Error be brought in the Kings bench of a Iudgement given in the Common-pleas upon hearing of the cause the Iudges in the Kings Bench approve and confirme the judgement formerly given in the Common pleas and so declare it to be just and right Doth this any way prove that therefore those in the Kings bench be no Iudges or doth it in any sort detract from their Authoritie So upon the Appeale made to the Emperor when he in his own person sate as Iudge therein having power in himselfe eyther to affirme or disaffirme the former sentences and judgements given by others as he shall find the cause upon hearing to require If he upon hearing it finding the former sentences and judgements given for Caecilianus against the Donatists to be just and right doth by his final sentence pronounce and declare them so to be Doth this therefore prove him to be no Iudge or doth it any way detract from his supremacie Yea it doth rather verie strongly and most strongly prove the Emperor to bee a Iudge and the Chiefest and highest Iudge under God and to have the Supremacie over the Bishop of Rome aswell as over other Bishops within the precincts of the Empyre For as Carerius also confesseth and teacheth Summum Imperium penes eum esse constat â—arer de potest Rom. Pont. lib. 1. cap. 10. ad cujus Tribunal provocatur It is manifest that to
to say Obsecro ut scribatis is verie consonant and most fit and congruous Againe how can Obsecro ut scribas well stand with these words Literis vestris frui concedite or with didiceritis adhibete or with Scitote and intellexeritis or with praestetis or with all the rest of the Verbes that be of the Plurall number But let this be as it will This is certaine and cannot be denied that Chrysostome prayed ayde aswell of the other Bishops of the West as of Innocentius Bishop of Rome of them all alike So that this example and times of Chrysostome Innocentius make nothing for the Bishop of Rome his supremacie but much against it For when Chrysostome was deposed from his Bishopricke in a Councell â—f Bishops at Calcedon hee appealed from them not to the Bishop of Rome but to a generall Councell This Socrates witnesseth saying Socrat. lib. 6. cap. 15. in greeke cap. 14 in the lat Iohannes eos à quibus vocabatur tanquam inimicos exceptione recusabat universalem Synodum appellabat Iohn Chrysostome refused those that called him to that Councell upon this exception that they were his enemies and appealed to a generall Councell Secondly those Bishops assembled in that Councell for the deposing of Chrysostome were so assembled not by the commandement of the Bishop of Rome but by the Emperors commandement Ibidem for so also doth Socrates testifie Thirdly when Innocentius saw that the matter could not be ended but in a generall Councell he sent Legats to Honorius and Arcadius Emperors to beseech them to call a Councell and to appoint the time and place for it where also his suite and supplication was so little regarded That his Legats were sent away with reproch Sozom. libr. 8. cap. 28. as disturbers of the West Empyre as Sozomen witnesseth Now if Innocentius Bishop of Rome had had the power and authoritie in those times to call generall Councells Why did hee not call them Yea why did he by his Legats intreate and beseech the Emperors to doe it if it were a right belonging to himselfe or if it were not a right belonging to the Emperors in those dayes Or if he were then the supreme commander of all the Christian world as the Popes now clayme to be how commeth it to passe that he was such an humble suter to the Emperors for a Councell and yet could not obtaine it Doe not all these things strongly and invincibly declare that in those times not the Popes but the Emperors had clearely the supremacie Then afterward though much out of his due time and place and very immethodically for the exception had beene fitter in the next Chapter then in this hee taketh this exception that in the first part of my Booke Cap. 2. and pag. 42. in the Margent there is a misquotation in this sort viz. Bern. de cons ad Eug. lib. 6. cap. 3. 8. where it should have beene Bern. de cons ad Eug. lib. 4 cap. 2. For indeede in this place it is that S. Bernard calleth the Popes doctrines and pastures Daemonum potius quam ovium pascua which be the wordes I cited S. Bernard for and which are accordingly there expressely to be found What a poore exception then is this to carpe at a Quotation in the margent when the verie wordes and matter are there to be found in the Author himselfe whom I cited namely in S. Bernard Is he not farre driven that is forced to this kinde of exception And yet if hee had beene pleased to have looked into the Errata of my Booke he might have found in the conclusion of them that such like faults as this I desired the Reader to correct with his Pen which he might very easily have done if he had so pleased But as it seemeth he is an hard man that neyther out of his owne courtesie nor yet upon the intreatie of others will be moved to shew so small a kindenesse What Is it because better matter fayled him that he tooke this silly exception and standeth so much upon it Or is it because by this meanes he loveth to declare himselfe to bee as voyde of good humanitie as he is of true and sound divinitie For my part I may say that he giveth me herein cause to joy and rejoyce that hee can justly take no exception to the matter contayned in my Booke but onely to a marginall Quotation thus misprinted and mistaken Howbeit hee seemeth yet further verie willing and forward to carpe at these wordes in my Booke Cap. 1 pag. 25. where I say that in the time of King William Rufus Anselmus the Archbishop of Canterbury would have appealed to Rome but not onely the King but the Bishops also of England were therein against him but the trueth of this is verie cleare and apparant For Malmesbury Malmesh lib. 1. de gesâ—i Pont. Angl. whom I there cite for proose hereof witnesseth That both the King disliked that his doing and that therein also Omnes Episcopi Angliae Primati suo suffragiuÌ„negarunt All the Bishops in England denied their voyces unto their Primate Yea Matthew Paris further testifieth Matth Paris in Gulielmâ— 2 An. 1094. that when Anselmus Archbishop of Canterbury asked leave of King William Rufus to goe to Rome The King replyed That no Archbishop nor Bishop of his Realme should be subject to the Pope or Court of Rome especially for that he had all those rights in his kingdome which the Emperor had in his Empyre And for this cause was Anselmus Convented by the King as an offendor against the State And to this accusation did also the rest of the Bishops Ibidem except the Bishop of Rochester give their consents And because he ventured to goe over the Seas to Rome without leave All his goods were seised to the Kings use Ansel Epist 46. aâ— Paschalem is 3. Colon. 1612. all his acts and proceedings in the Church of England reversed and himselfe constrained to live in banishment during the life of King William whereof Anselmus himselfe complayned in his Epistle to Pope Paschalis Yea afterward also Matâ—â— Paris in Hen. 1. An. 1104 in the time of King Henry the first when the same Anselmus was returning home from Rome the Kings Atturney in his Masters name forbad him to enter the Land unlesse he would faithfully promise to keepe all the customes both of William the Conqueror his Father and of William Rufus his brother And when the King perceaved the Pope and the Archbishop to continue their former purpose against his Royall liberties he seised the Bishopricke into his hands and arrested all Anselmus goods that were to bee found To these and certaine other liberties of the Crowne Did also King Henry the second not long after cause all his Bishops and Nobles to be sworne For in the yeare of our Lord God M.C.LXIIII This King Henry the second being at Claredon in the presence of the Archbishops
to insist onely upon these former Kings of England For doe but reade further the Statutes of Provision and Praemunire made in that kingdome See the Statutes of Proviâ—ion and Premunire in Rastall fol. 354. c. and thereby you may see at full that many sundrie other Kings of England likewise and the whole Realme also concurring and joyning with them therein have in severall Parliaments made Lawes and Statutes against the Popes incrochments and usurpations in maintenance and defence of their Regall rights freedomes and liberties And among many other good reasons they shew for those their doings this is not the least that they say expressely in one of those Acts of Parliament See this in the Statute of 16. Rub. 2 cap. 5. That the Crowne of England hath beene so free at all times that it hath beene in subjection to no Realme but immediately subject to God and to none other in all things touching the Regalitie of the same Crowne And therefore doe they there utterly dislike in plaine tearmes That it should be submitted to the Bishop of Rome Wherefore it is apparant that even the ancient Kings of England long before the dayes of K. Henry the VIII of famous memorie have stood and contended not onely for the freedome of the Crowne generally not allowing it to be in subjection to any but to God onely but also in a particular sort for divers their particular Regall rights liberties Amongst which you may perceave this to be one namely that Appeales even in Ecclesiasticall causes they would have to be determined within their owne kingdomes and not to be made transferred or carried without their consent to the Pope or Sea of Rome 8 But now what meaneth mine Adversarie to be so extreamely audacious as to denie the first foure generall Councells to have beene called by the Emperors Let therefore the Ecclesiasticall Historie shew and decide it Touching the first generall Councell at Nice Ruffin li. 10. c. 1. Ruffinus saith expressely that Constantinus apud urbem Nicenam Episcopale Concilium convocavit The Emperor Constantine called the Councell of Bishops together at the Citie of Nice Euseb de vita Const. l b. 3. c. 6 lib. 1. cap. 37 Eusebius that wrote the life of Constantine saith of that Emperor that Generalem Synodum congregavit He assembled the generall Councell Socrates saith likewise that Constantine Socrat. lib 1. c. 8 in the greeke cap. 5. in the lat Synodum Oecumenicam congregavit omnes qui fuerunt undique Episcopos in Nicaeam confluere hortatus est Assembled a generall Councell and willed all the Bishops every where to meete at Nice Theodoret saith that the Emperor Theodoret. libr. 1 cap. 17. celebreÌ„ illaÌ„ coegit Nicea Synodum c. Assembled that famous Councell of Nice Sozomen saith that Constantine Indixit Concilium Niceae scripsitque ad omnes Ecclesiarum praesides Soz. lib. 1. ca. 16. lat ut ad diem praestitutum adessent Summoned the Councell of Nice and wrote to all the Prelates of the Churches to be there at the day prefixed And the same Sozomen saith That hee sent his letters to the Apostolicke Seas To Macarius Bishop of Ierusalem to Eustathius Bishop of Antioch To Alexander Bishop of Alexandria and to Iulius Bishop of Rome Who being an old man and not able to come himselfe hee sent in his stead Vitus and Vincentius The Nicene Fathers themselves by their Synodall Epistle Theodoret. lib. 1. cap 9. extant in Theodoret which they wrote to the Church of Alexandria doe restifie That they were assembled by the authoritie of the Emperor Constantine And if the Bishop of Rome had had the power and authoritie to call the Councell he would no doubt being an old man and not able to travell have had it at Rome or in some part of Italy rather then at Nice in Bithinia so farre remote from Rome Nicephorus also saith that Imperator Nicaenam Synodum promulgabat literis locorum omnium Episcopos Niceph. li. 8. c. 14 ad constitutum diem eo evocavit The Emperor proclaymed the Councell at Nice and by his letters called thither the Bishops of all places to be there at the day appointed Zonaras Zonaras saith that Imperator provinciarum Episcopos Niceae Bithiniâ—â— urbis convenire jussit The Emperor commanded the Bishops of the Provinces to meete together at Nice Platina in vita Silvestri a Citie in Bithinia And Platina also writeth that this generall Councell of Nice was summoned or called Constantini mandato by the commandement of Constantine the Emperor It is therefore abundantly manifest that this first generall Councell of Nice was called not by the authoritie of any Pope but of the Emperor How then is it not an over great if not a most intollerable impudencie in Papists to denie so manifest and palpable a trueth As touching that answere which Bellarmine and other Papists make when they say That this Councell was called or summoned by the advise and consent of the Bishop of Rome First Ruffin lib. 1. c. 1. Ruffinus saith that it was assembled or called Ex sacerdotum sententia by the advise and consent of the Priests and not of the Bishop of Rome alone Epiphan lib 2. Tom 2. haeres 68 Yea Epiphanius saith That it was obtayned of the Emperor at the suite of Alexander Bishop of Alexandria But secondly it maketh no matter at whose suite or request or by whose advise or consent the Councell was summoned For the question is not by whose perswasion or suite or by whose advise or consent but by whose authoritie it was called Now it is verie apparant that it was called and assembled by the authoritie and commandement not of any Bishop of Rome but of the Emperor The second generall Councell which was the first Constantinopolitane was also called not by Damasus Bishop of Rome but by the Emperor Theodosius the elder This is also evident First by Theodoret who saith Theodor. li. 5. c. 7 Hujus rei gratia Theodosius Episcopas Constantinopoli congregari jussit For this cause Theodosius commanded the Bishops to be assembled at Constantinople Socrat. lib 5. ca. 8 Soz li. 7. c. 6. lat Zonar in Theod. In dedicatoria ad I Theodosium Socrates and Sozomen likewise doe both testifie that Theodosius summoned assembled this Councell Zonaras saith that this second generall Councell was summoned Iussu Imperatoris by the commandement of the Emperor 150. godly fathers being there assembled And the very Councell it selfe speaking to Theodosius doe testifie the same and say thus Wee being assembled at Constantinople by the Letters of your Pietie The third generall Councell namely the first Ephesine was also called not by the authoritie coÌ„mandement of Celestinus Bishop of Rome but by the Emperor Theodosius the younger This is verie manifest Evagr lib. 1. c. 3. for Evagrius saith directly That by the appointment or command of Theodosius
be Ministri Dei The Ministers of God as S. Paul also sheweth instituted for that verie end and purpose Now none will denie but banishment and imprisonment be punishments Civill and Temporall and not Ecclesiasticall and doe rightly and properly belong to the Authority of Emperors Kings and Princes and not to the function and office of Bishops and Ecclesiasticall Ministers And therefore the banishment and imprisonment that any Emperors or Kings used against any Bishops or others upon just cause and when they deserved it must needes be granted to be things done by them both in respect of the authoritie and in respect of the cause also aswell de jure as de facto that is to be things lawfull warrantable and justifieable in all respects For as for those distinctions that Emperors and Kings have Authoritie over persons Temporall but not Ecclesiasticall and a Power directive but not Coactive and in causes Civill and Temporall but not in Ecclesiasticall The untruth absurditie folly impietie of all these distinctions hath beene before so sufficiently discovered that I shall not neede to speake any more of them And by this time I hope that even the Papists themselves bee ashamed of them Sure I am they have good cause so to be if they did duely ponder and consider them Seeing then it is confessed that the Emperors did in ancient time by their Authoritie banish imprison and otherwise punish even Bishops of Rome aswell as other Bishops that no reason can be shewed against the doing hereof when they be such offenders as that they justly deserve such punishment it is thereby undeniably apparant that the Bishop of Rome in those dayes had not the supremacie over the Emperors but that cleane contrariewise the Emperors had the Supremacie over him aswell as over any others within their Empyâ—e Another Argument which I use consisteth in this that I say even Kings of Rome did also sometimes send the Bishops of Rome as their Embassadors By this argument my Adversarie saith That he supposeth that I meant but to make men merry Why In serious matters I love not to be as he is many times ridiculous but to be serious and to deale seriously First therefore hereby I prove that the Bishop of Rome was not in those dayes superior or greater then the King that sent him For those wordes of Christ must ever be true where he saith The Servant is not greater then his Master Iohn 13 16. nor the messenger greater then he that sent him And secondly I say further that this is a verie good and strong argument to prove the Supremacie to be in those dayes in the Kings of Rome and not in the Bishops of Rome For the King that sendeth any as his Embassador is in all common understanding supposed and to be supposed superior unto him that is his Embassador As when Hiram King of Tyrus sent messengers to King David 2. Sam 5.11 1. Chron. 14 1. 1. King â—â— 2 1. Chron. 19.2 or when Benâ—â—adad King of Aram or Siria sent messengers to Ahab King of Israell or when King David sent messengers unto the King of the Amm â—ites In all these cases and every such like for Nec in caeteris est contrarium videre were those Kings superior or greater then the messengers or Embassadors whom they sent And therefore when Theodorick sent Iohn Bishop of Rome as his Embassador unto the Emperor Iustine and when King Theodatus sent Agapetus Bishop of Rome as his Embassador to Iustinian the Emperor It must be confessed that these Kings were likewise superiors to the Bishops of Rome and had the command of them and not contrarywise that those Bishops of Rome had the superioritie or command over those Kings For amongst men the Master is wont to send the Servant and the King his Subject and the superior his inferior But where did you ever reade heare or know the Servant to send his Master or the Subject to send his King and Soveraigne or the inferior to send his Superior on a message I grant that an inferior or equall may intreate a Superior to doe a businesse for him and that a King a Master or Superior may goe by his owne consent or of his owne accord somewhither to doe his Subject Servant or inferior a good turne But it cannot be rightly and properly said that any of these inferiors have sent their Superiors upon their errand service message or embassage Yea it would be held verie absoneous and absurd so to speake But my Adversary I see mistaketh the Mâ—lâ—r proposition of my argument For it reacheth not so high as heaven much lesse to the most glorious incomprehensible and ineffable Trinitie blessed for ever but onely to men upon earth and not to all men neyther but onely to Kings and Bishops Neyther had my Adversary any ust cause or reason to streach or extend it any further For the question was onely concerning them whether of them had the Superioritie or Supremacie over the other in that time namely whether the Kings that then raigned over Rome or those that were the Bishops thereof I to prove the Superioritie or Supremacie to be in the Kings and not in the Bishops alledged this for my reason that the Kings of Rome did sometimes send the Bishops of Rome as their Embassadors to other Princes So that my Argument upon the whole matter appeareth to be this What Kings soever I speake of earthly Kings sent any at any time as their Embassadors to other Princes those Kings were Superior and greater then those Embassadors whom they sent But the Kings of Rome did send the Bishops of Rome as their Embassadors to other Princes Ergo the Kings of Rome were Superior and greater then the Bishops of Rome The Maior is apparant by induction of particulars by ordinarie common experience in the world The Minor is manifest by Ecclesiasticall historie which testifieth That King Theodoricke sent Iohn Bishop of Rome Lib Pontific in Iohan. 1. Et Anact in Agapeto Diaconus Platina as his Embassador to the Emperor Iustine And that King Theodatus sent likewise Agapetus Bishop of Rome as his Embassador to the Emperor Iustinian And therefore the conclusion must needes follow and cannot bee gainsaid By this time then mine Adversarie seeth I hope that such is the evident strength of this Argument as that he with all his wit and learning will never bee able to make any good answere thereunto 10 In my former Booke Cap. 1. pag. 13. 14. 15. I also shewed that against the title and appellation of Vniversall Bishop or head of the universall Church did two Bishops of Rome oppose themselves namely Pelagius and Gregory the great when it was first affected by Iohn the Patriarch and Bishop of Constantinople And that neverthelesse afterward a Bishop of Rome namely Boniface the third got obtayned it of Phocas the Emperor Hereunto mine Adversarie answereth as Bellarmine likewise doth That this fact of
and confuting the imagination and devise of his owne braine For the affirmative clause in the Oath is not as he imperfectly and lamely relateth it but it is this That the King is the onely Supreme Governor of this Realme and of all other his Highnesse Dominions and Countries aswell in all Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall things or causes as Temporall The negative clause followeth and is this That no forraine Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction power superioritie preheminence or authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme This word Onely in the affirmative clause hath he left out which if he had added together with all the rest of the wordes that follow in that affirmative clause he would very easily have found that to be true which I wrote namely that the effect of the negative clause is included in the former affirmative For he that affirmeth the King to be the onely Supreme Governor within his owne Dominions that in all things or causes Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall aswell as temporall doth in that speech exclude every forraine Prince person Prelate State or Potentate from having any supreme governement or any government at all without his leave and licence within his Dominions Yea it is very evident that the former affirmative clause includeth the negative clause and more For the negative clause excludeth forrain Princes persons Prelates States Potētates only from Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall Authoritie but the former affirmative excludeth them from authoritie in all things or causes both temporall spirituall Againe you see that the negative clause extendeth onely to forraine persons but the affirmative clause extendeth to any persons whosoever whether forraine or domesticall Thirdly the negative clause excludeth forraine persons from having any jurisdiction power superioritie preheminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or spirituall within this Realme But the former affirmative clause extendeth not only to this Realme or that Realme in particular but generally to all his Majesties Realms Dominiōs Countries So that the former affirmative clause in the Oath appeareth to be much more generall and of a farre larger extent then the negative is And therefore I hope I spake truely and within compasse when I said though in a parenthesis that the effect of the negative clause was included in the former affirmative I did not say as mine Adversarie supposeth me to hold that the Regall power includeth the Sacerdotall or Episcopall This is but his owne dreame imagination in the confutation whereof he laboureth in vaine For neyther I nor any of the Protestants doe hold that opinion but contrariewise doe hold them to be things distinct as is before declared But because he will needes carpe at my Logicke when he hath no cause let other men judge what a great Logician he is whilst he argueth thus The Regall power includeth not the Sacerdotall Ergo the affirmative clause in the Oath of SUPREMACIE includeth not the negative clause in the same Oath Hitherto then you see that my Adversarie notwithstanding all his storishes braggs and bravadoes hath shewed himselfe to be not onely a punie Lawyer as he confesseth himselfe to be but a punie Logician also most of all a punie Divine and that he hath not beene able to make any good Answere or to refell and confute any one Argument contayned in this first Chapter of my former Booke concerning the Supremacie and yet hath he also left a great part of that Chapter unanswered Neyther hath he made throughout his whole discourse and pleading so much as one good argument to prove his Clients cause that is the Popes supremacie though he purposed and laboured to doe it Where is it not a mervaile that he being a Lawyer and a Subject to our Soveraigne Lord the KING will date neverthelesse admitte of such a Client as the Pope is and of his cause which he knoweth before hand to be condemned by the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme and which he now may see if hee saw it not before to be also condemned by the Lawes and Statutes of God himselfe and by all the most ancient Ecclesiasticall Records But if hee be not ashamed of such a Client and his cause his Client I suppose will be ashamed of him and entertaine him no longer to pleade for him unlesse he could doe it better And yet indeede when his Clients cause is foule naught as here it appeareth to be what Lawyer be he never so learned or what Divine be hee never so profound is able to justifie it or to make it good Notwithstanding his demurrer therefore and notwithstanding that by this his plea his purpose was to arrest and stay mens judgements I trust they will all now no cause appearing to the contrarie proceede without any further delay to give their sentence against his Client for in the behalfe of these two most worthy Peerles Princes who be the complaynants against him namely for Christ IESVS in their acknowledging and publishing him onely to be the onely universall Bishop supreme Pastor and head of the whole Church Militant upon Earth aswell as of the Triumphant in Heaven and for the King in declaring and publishing him under God to be the onely Supreme Governor over all manner of persons and in all kinde of causes aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill within his Dominions Neyther doe I doubt but all mens judgements whensoever upon good and well advised deliberation they shall please to give them will passe accordingly In the meane time let us goe one to the second Chapter see if he have any better successe in that then he hath found in the former Concerning the second Chapter IN this second Chapter of my former Booke my Adversarie supposeth that my maine scope and purpose was to prove our Church that is the Church of the Protestants to have beene in the Apostles times But never was there saith he poore Assertion so miserably mangled And true it is indeede that it is miserably mangled and cut in pieces But by whom namely by himselfe For my Assertion is not so short as he relateth it nor is to end where he maketh it to end but is of a longer and larger extent and being produced not by parts or pieces but wholy and intirely as it ought it is this viz. That our Church was in the Apostles dayes and in all times and ages since howsoever or notwitstanding that Poperie did as an infection or corruption grow unto it the meaning true sence whereof is no more but that the growing of Poperie it being but as an infection or corruption to the Church is no impediment or argument to the contrarie but that our Church had a being in the Apostles dayes and in all succeeding times and ages that notwithstanding This will the better appeare if you take the whole Proposition or assertion and turne it into a Question For then the Question will not be as mine Adversary maketh it viz.