this opinion was r◅olued that Supreame Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction was in the Popes And therefore we prouing that Supreame and last Appellation doth by the law of God belong to none but to the Soueraigne Prince conclude vndoubtedly that Supreame Iurisdiction belongeth to him onely 10. Heere a question may be mooued whether Saint Paul did well and orderly when he appealed to Caesar and whether Caesar was made iudge of these questions which were Doctrines We aunswere Saint Paul had no meaning to make C◅sar iudge of any point of faith But whereas hee was persecuted by the high Priests who sought his life in this matter of coactiue power Saint Paul giueth Iurisdiction to Caesar. There is also a difference betweene that power which heathen Princes haue and that which Christian Princes haue for heathen Princes haue all power coactiue whatsoeuer the cause be and without this helpe the Church could neuer deale in matters of this nature Christian Princes besides this coactiue power haue also as appeareth in the gouernment of Israel externall discipline in matters Ecclesiasticall 11. Thus we haue declared the distinct right of the King and the Priest after that they were distinguished by the written law of God we haue prooued that the Soueraigne Iurisdiction coactiue resteth in the Prince by a right which God hath giuen and therefore may not be taken away by man It followeth to consider how this right hath beene accordingly exercised by the godly Kings of Israel Ios◅ commanded the people to be circumcised and not Eleazerus the cause was Eccles◅ticall but to command in such causes declareth iurisdiction Dauid reduceth the Arke he appointeth Priests Leuites Singers Porters to serue at the Tabernacle he assigneth Officers of the sonnes of Aaro◅ All which being matters Ecclesiasticall the Prince as hauing soueraigne authority in both causes ordaineth Solomon buildeth the Temple and consecrateth it Asa remoueth Idols and dedicated the Altar of God that was before the porch of the Lord. Iehosaphat abolisheth Idolatry cutteth downe the groues sendeth Priests and Leuites to teach in Townes and Cities Setteth vp Iudges both ciuill and Ecclesiasticall and commandeth both to iudge according to godlinesse truth and Iustice. Because in the words of Iehosaphat these things are distinctly deliuered we will obserue the whole place The wordes are these And hee set iudges in the land throughout all the strong Cities of Iuda Citie by Citie And said to the Iudges take heed what you doe for you execute not the iudgement of man but of the Lord and he will be with you in the cause and iudgement Wherefore now let the feare of the Lord be vpon you take heed and doe it for there is no iniquitie with the Lord our God neither respect of persons nor receiuing of reward Moreouer in Ierusalem did Iehosaphat set of the Leuites and of the Priests and of the chiefe of the families in Israel for the iudgement and cause of the Lord and they returned to Ierusalem And he charged them saying thus shall you doe in the feare of the Lord with a perfect heart And in euery cause that shall come to you of your brethren that dwell in your Cities betweene blood and blood betweene Law and precept Statutes and iudgements you shall iudge them and admonish them that they trespasse not against the Lord that wrath come not vpon you and vpon your brethren And behold Amariah the high Preist shall be the chiefe ouer you in all matters of the Lord. 12. From which words we collect thus much concerning ◅he Kings Iurisdiction and the things wherein it consisteth ◅irst the King appointeth and placeth both Temporall and clesi◅sticall Iudges and commandeth and chargeth them so placed to execute their functions faithfully we inferre vpon this command in both alike that hee hath Iurisdiction ouer both causes But here let me remember a trifling obiection which some of our aduersaries haue deuised of late they would distinguish betweene command and Iurisdiction For they deny not but that all sortes of persons are vnder the Kings commaund and gouernment whom he may command each to doe their Office and yet they vtterly deny the Kings Iurisdiction and tell vs that command and Iurisdiction must not be hudled vp together Now let vs consider what hudling is in this when the Kings command and his Iurisdiction are set as things depending and cohaering one to the other When we say the King may command we meane plainely as we speake that the King hath from God lawfull authoritie to command and to punish them that breake his command This is the common vnderstanding of the Kings command But these Romish sophisters when they say the King may command do not vnderstand neither will they acknowledge at any hand that the King hath lawfull authoritie from God to punish the breach of his command for they vtterly deny that the King hath any authoritie to punish a Clarke though he should breake his commandement And call you this a command The King may command and goe without as the saying is This is the deuils sophistry taken vp by men hardned against shame content to stoupe downe to gather vp the meanest and basest shifts to dazell the simple The Iesuites resolue of this as of a truth most soundly concluded in their schooles That the King may not punish Ecclesiasticall persons that the Kings Court may not heare examine and iudge them though they should commit murders adulteries robberies or what other wickednesse soeuer And yet they tell vs that the King may command them Now to say one thing and yet to let the world see that they are resolued in the contrary this sauoreth strongly of the spirit of illusion when reason learning honestie and all faileth yet well fare a bold and hardned face which neuer faileth this generation 13. The truth is if the King haue not lawfull authority to punish he hath not lawfull authoritie to command and punish he cannot vnlesse he hath authority to iudge or cause iudgement to be done so that they who take away from the King power to iudge persons Ecclesiasticall take from him power to punish and consequently power to command but the Doctrine of the Papists this day as shall hereafter appeare in his due place taketh from the king power to iudge per sons Ecclesiastical therefore they rob him of power to punish and to cōmaund for nothing can more strongly take away the Kings command then to deny him power to punish and to iudge And yet they are not ashamed to tell vs that they deny not the kings cōmand but his Iurisdiction Then to leaue these men with their absurd and perplexed contradictions where the King ◅ay command he may iudge and punish the breach of that command and therefore his Iurisdiction appeareth in his lawfull authority and command Then by this charge and commaund of Iehosaph◅ is declared his Iurisdiction in these causes wherein he hath this authority
and answereth to an obiection which I will set downe in his own words Quod si Christiani non deposuerunt olim Neronem Diocletianum Iulianum Valentem similes iâ—…suerat quia deerant vires temporales Christianis That is If Christians of old deposed not Nero Diocletian Iulian Valens and the like this was because Christians then wanted Temporall forces They will shortly without blushing tell vs that Iesus Christ also submitted himselfe to the heathen Emperours and to their deputies because he wanted power to resist them for this they may say with some sophisticall shew of reason aswell as that which they doe say Then his opinion is that the Pope as Pope hath not any Temporall power but yet the Pope and onely the Pope hath Temporall power aboue all Kings and Emperours This is one of the greatest points wherein the Pope hath incroached vpon the right of Kings 9. Besides this Temporall Iurisdiction there is another part of Iurisdiction called spirituall which the writers of the Church of Rome deuide into internall and externall internall they referre to the Sacraments onely Gerson de potest ecclesi consid 1. Bellar. de Rom. pont lib. 4. cap. 22. Bellarmine in the place last cited disputing of Iurisdiction saith there is a triple power in the Bishop of Rome first of order secondly of internall Iurisdiction thirdly of externall Iurisdiction the first is referred to the Sacraments the second to inward gouernment which is in the court of conscience the third to that externall gouernment which is practised in externall courts and confesseth that of the first and second there is no question betweene vs but onely of the third De primâ secundâ non est questio sed solum de tertiâ saith he Then of this wee are agreed that the question betweene vs and them is onely of Iurisdiction in the third sense and therein especially of Iurisdiction coactiue in externall courts binding and compelling by force of law and other externall mulcts and punishments beside excommunication as for Spirituall Iurisdiction of the Church standing in examinations of controuersies of faith iudging of heresies deposing of heretickes excommunication of notorious and stubborne offenders ordination of Priests and Deacons institution and collation of benefices and spirituall cures c. This we reserue intire to the Church which Princes cannot giue or take from the Church This power hath bene practised by the Church without coactiue Iurisdiction other then of excommunication But when the matters handled in the Ecclesiasticall consistorie are not matters of faith and religion but of a ciuill nature which yet are called Ecclesiasticall as being giuen by Princes and appointed to be within the cognisance of that consistorie and when the censures are not spirituall but carnall compulsiue coactiue here appeareth the power of the ciuill magistrate This power we yeeld to the magistrate and here is the question whether the magistrate hath right to this power or Iurisdiction which is thus described by the Romanists Externall Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall is a power coactiue giuen to gouerne Christian people in contentious courts this is the principal question which we haue here to search Our English flatterers of the Pope that write now and of late haue written vndertake to prooue that this Iurisdiction is first and principally in the Pope and from him deriued to Bishops and that Kings haue not this power at all or any part of it vnlesse by commission from the Pope our assertion is contrary that this power of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction externall and coactiue beâ—…ongs to Kings only not to Ecclesiasticall persons but as they â—…aue commission from their Princes And because we would â—…ot be mistaken in the question we will set down the words of the best of that side for better euidence and assurance who take the question thus and not otherwise Iohn Gerson saith Potestas Ecclesiastica Iurisdictionis in foro exteriori est potestas Ecclâ—…siastica coactiua quae valet exerceri in alterum etiam iâ—…uitum Bellarmine speaking of the same power saith it is ad regendum populum Christianum iâ—… foro exteriori 10. Then this is the thing which wee are to prooue that Ecclesiasticall coactiue power by force of lawe and corporall punishments by which Christian people are to be gouerned in externall and contentious courts is a power which of right belongeth to Christian Princes Concerning the power of orders and institutions of excommunication and deposition and of internall Iurisdiction in the court of Conscience in administration of Sacraments absolution by power of the keyes this we giue not to Princes but Princes as they are preseruers of Religion and nurcing fathers of the Church are to see that Bishops and all inferiour ministers performe their faithfull duties in their seuerall places and if they be found faulty to punish them because that belongeth to external Iurisdiction coactiue Thus much may suffice for the state of the question For the manner of handling I purpose to search the right of Kinges first in the law of nature secondly in the written law giuen by Moses continued vntill the comming of our Lord Iesus Christ thirdly to declare the confirmation of the same right by Christ and his Apostles and the Church succeeding vntill that time that the Pope drew a newe estate and Iurisdiction to himselfe After which time I purpose to obserue how the Pope hath incroached first vpon the Bishops then vpon the right of kings and last vpon the right of the Church and generall Councels By all which will appeare how late how new and strange that Iurisdiction is which the flatterers of the court of Rome now yeeld to the Pope CHAP. II. Kings in the time of the Law of nature had all power Ecclesiasticall both of order and Iurisdiction IN the Law of nature we haue not many examples of Kings that gouerned a people where the Church of God was planted there is onely mention of Melchisedecke King of Salem of him it is said Gen. 14. Melchisedecke King of Salem was a priest of the high God In his person these two offices the kingdom the priesthood were ioyned both which offices followed the prerogatiue of the birthright for that this Melchisedeck was Sem is the receiued opinion of many interpretours wherein is some difference Some take Sem to be the eldest sonne of Noah but others from a probable collation of Scriptures hold him to be the second sonne but whether hee were eldest or not it is apparant and out of doubt by that blessing Gen. 9. that he had the birthright for Canaan is made his seruant which is the auncient stile and euidence of the birth-right as is expressed in the birthright of Iacob Iaphet is perswaded to dwell in the tents of Sem. Whereas therefore hee hath that honor aboue both his brethren the birthright is euidently confirmed vnto him Canaan being made his seruant and Iaâ—…het being directed to repaire to his
to command for otherwise the Kings command is but as the word of a priuat man or of a child if he haue not power to iudge and punish 14. Moreouer whereas Iehosaphat commandeth the Priests and Leuites to iudge betweene blood and blood Law and precepts statutes and iudgements In things that concerned questions of blood as when blood was shed by casualtie in which case the party offending had remedy by sanctuary and the high Priest was the immediat iudge as also in matters concerning lawes precepts â—…tutes iudgements that is ordinances ceremoniall or morall In these things stood the Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction which then was practised in the Church for to take that distinction which we must often remember in this question it is confessed that all Ecclesiasticall power is either of order or Iurisdiction In both which the King hath a part bâ—…t differently In the power of orders the Kings part and office was to see that things of that nature were orderly done and the breach thereof punished but himselfe was not to execute any thing whereunto the Priests were apointed by the power of their orders as to offer incense c. Wherefore Vzziah was smitten with leprosie for medling with that part of the Priests office Now Iurisdiction is diuided into power internall which as often wee haue said belongeth not to the King and power externall which power externall when it is coactiue is nothing but that which wee call the Kings Iurisdiction though it be in matters Ecclesiastical And this Iurisdiction is here testified to be in Iehosaphat and from him deriued to all to all iudges vnder him both Temporall and Ecclesiasticall For as he commaunded the Temporall iudges so in like sort he commaunded the Ecclesiasticall And as the Ecclesiasticall iudges might replie if they had bene such as now these are of the Romane Clergie that Ecclesiasticall iudgements were holy and the cause of God and not of the King so doth the King witnesse of Temporall iudgements for speaking to Temporall iudges he saith you execute not the iudgements of man but of the Lord. Then Temporall iudgements are the Lords cause aswell as Ecclesiasticall and herein they differ not 15. Now this Iurisdiction which is in coactiue power wee prooue to be in the King and onely in the King I speake according to the forme of the state of Israel in those dayes wherof we now speake aunswerable to which is the Soueraigne magistrate in any other state This right I say we prooue to bee onely in the King and from him deriued to other iudges both Temporall and Spirituall by these reasons first the King and onely the King commaundeth both iudges to doe their duties in their seuerall places and hath lawfull power to punish them if they doe otherwise therfore the Kings Iurisdiction coactiue is ouer both sorts alike The antecedent hath two parts the first drawen from the expresse words of the Scripture in this text the second followeth by a necessitie For the commaund of a King is ridiculous and no commaund vnlesse he haue authoritie to punish The consequence followeth by the very definition of Iurisdiction which will prooue the second part of the antecedent For this Iurisdiction for which we plead is defined by the most learned of the Church of Rome authority coactiue If it be authoritie it may command if coactiue it may punish then it followeth that where Iehosaphat had first authoritie to commaund and last to punish that questionlesse hee had this Soueraigne Iurisdiction 16. If against this any obiect that the King may command in matters of orders of preaching the Word administring the Sacraments c. In all these things the King may lawfully command the parties to doe their duties and may punish them if they doe otherwise and yet no man will put the Kings Iurisdiction in these matters of orders Preaching Sacraments c. For aunswere let me intreat the reader with attention to consider these three things First to commaund secondly to execute thirdly to punish Iurisdiction standeth wholly in the first and last and nothing at all in the second that is in authoritie and not in action So that though the King should execute a thing which belongeth to his office yet in the execution therof his Iurisdiction should not appeare howsoeuer his wisedome knowledge and actiue vertues might appeare therein for Iurisdiction is in the authoritie of commaunding and power of punishing and supereminence that riseth from both And therefore in the preaching of the Word administration of Sacraments the King hath no part because therein Iurisdiction standeth not these things being matters of execution not of commaund but the authoritie to commaund these things by making or vrging lawes for them and to punish the transgression by corporall punishments this because it includeth coactiue power is in the Soueraigne Magistrate onely If the Magistrate should either neglect his dutie as the heathen did or commaund false doctrines to be preached as the Arian Emperours did in this case the Church hath warrant to maintaine the truth but without tumults and rebellion and rather in patience to loose their liues then to forgo any part of the truth 17. Another reason to prooue this Soueraigne authoritie coactiue to be only in the King and from him respectiuely deriued to both sorts of iudges may thus bee drawen For the iudges Temporall there is not so much question made all the doubt is of iudges Ecclesiasticall the chiefe of which iudges Ecclesiasticall in the Church of Israel was the high Priest Then this Iurisdiction whereof we speake must be confessed to haue been principally and originally either in the king or in the high Priest but in the high Priest it was not Therefore in the King it must be That it was not in the high Priest we proue by these reasons The high Priest is commaunded corrected punished and deposed by the King and not the King by the Priest therefore the Soueraigne Iurisdiction is not in the high Priest but in the King Againe the high Priests did neuer practise coactiue authoritie vnlesse when they were Soueraigne Magistrates as sometimes the high Priests in Israel were but as high Priestâ—… they had no such power for the causes betweene blood and blood which were of their cognisance are by the interpreters vnderdood such cases wherein a man was killed by chaunce without the purpose or against the will of the offender in which case the high Priest might graunt him the prâ—…uiledge of sanctuary and so deliuer him from the auenger of blood but he had no power coactiue to inflict death or such punishments at his pleasure which trueth was so constantly receiued and preserued in the Church afterward that euen in the greatest power highest ruffe of Poperie the Church of Rome did not take this full â—…oactiue power but onely proceeded to degradation and then to deliuer men vp to the secular powers which was a â—…ecret confession that they had no right to
of his auncetours Saluo in omnibus or dine suo honore dei saâ—…cta ecclesiâ—… This clause was thought new scrupulous and offensiue The King would haue him yeeld without exception but the Archbishop would not In this contention Philippus a Legat from the Popes side came into England by him the Pope and all the Cardinals commanded the Archbishop to yeeld to the King without exception whereupon hee did so but afterward reuolted from that promise Hence a new contention began but being againe perswaded hee promised obedience to the Kings Lawes The King to hold fast this slippery Merchant required all the Bishops to fet to their approbation and seales to those Lawes Hereunto when other assented the Archbishop swore that hee would neuer set his seale to them nor allowe them Afterward the Archbishop suspended himselfe from celebrating Masse and desired to goe to Rome but the King denied him The Bishop of London accused him of Magick The King perceiuing his rebellious disposition required the Barons to giue iudgement of him that being his subiect would not be ruled by his Lawes Cito facite mihi iusticiâ—…m de illo qui homo meus ligius est stare iuri in curia mea recusat As the Barons were attending this seruice and now ready to giue sentence I prohibite you quoth the Archbishop in the behalfe of Almighty God to giue sentence vpon me for I haue appealed to the Pope And so he departed Omnibus clamantibus saith mine Author quo progrederis prodiâ—…er exspecta â—… iudicium tuum The Archbishop after this stole away out of the land changing his apparrell and name for hee called himselfe Deerman The Archbishop thus conueying himselfe out of the land came to the Pope and shewed him a Copy of these Lawes which the King called his Grandfathers Lawes When the Pope heard them reade in the presence of his Cardinals and diuers others he condemned the Lawes and excommunicated all that maintained them Condemnauit illas in perpâ—…tuum anaâ—…hematizauit omnes qui eaâ—… tenerent alâ—…quo modo fauerent saith Houeden 80. Thus did the Popes then stirre to aduance their spirituall Iurisdiction as they called it to such an height that the Kings of the earth who are set vp by God to iudge the world could not execute iustice and iudgement vpon offenders might not be suffered according to the commaundements of God to take vengeance of murtherers robbers incendiaries traytors might not execute that office for which onely they beare the sword Now because the deuotion sense and iudgement of all ages is pretended to be for the Popes Iurisdiction and against the Kings let vs obserue the iudgement of the men that liued at this time We shall finde in all this question of Iurisdiction and of these exemptions in particular that the king was iustified and the Archbishop condemned The Kings auncient Iurisdiction acknowledged the Popes new Iurisdiction and the Archbishops disobedience disallowed and abhorred of all For all the Bishops of the Prouince of Canterbury wrote a letter to the Archbishop the letter is extant in Houeden Therein they entreat him to yeeld to the King they commend the Kings care and zeale for the Church They testifie that the king requireth no more of him then the due honour which his ancestours haue alwaies had Rex a Domino constitutus pacem prouidet subiectorum per omnia vt haâ—…c conserâ—…et Ecclesijs commissis sibi populis dignitates regibus ante se debitas exhibitas sibi vult exhiberi exigit The King ordained by God prouideth his subiects peace by all meanes that he may preserue this in the Churches and people vnder him hee requireth and exacteth that Iurisdiction which was due and exhibited to the Kings which were before him They charge him with rashnesse and furious anger for suspending and condemning the Bishop of Salisbury and the Deane before any question of their fault was moued Ordo iudiciorum nouus say they hic est huc vsque legibus eanonibus vt speramus incognitus damnare primum dâ—… culpa postremo cognoscere This is a new proceeding of iudgements and as wee hope vnknowne in Lawes and Canons to this day first to condemne a man and last of all to know the fault 81. And that the iustification of the King in this cause and the condemnation of the Archbishoppe might be made more euident to all the world the same Suffraganes that is all the Bishops of the Prouince of Canterbury wrote to Pope Alexander the third to whom they giue a worthy famous testimonie of the Kings iustice temperance and chastitie declaring that the King could not be suffred to execute his Princely office nor effect his good and godly purposes in execution of Iustice for the filthinesse of some of the Clergie Rex say they fide Christian ssimus in copula â—…oiugalis castimonij honestissimus pacis iusticiae coÌ„seâ—…uator dilataâ—…or incoÌ„parabiliter strenuissimus hoc voâ—… is agit totis in his feruet desiderijs vt de regno suo tollantur scandala cuÌ„spurciâ—…ijs suis eliminentur peccata pax totum obtineat atque iustitia c. Qui cum pacem regnisui enormi insolentium quorundam Clericorum excessu non medioâ—…riter turbari cognosceret c. That is The King in faith most Christian in the bond of matrimoniall chastity most honest for preseruation and dilatation of peace and iustice without comparison the stoutest doeth with great zeale and affections desire this that scandals may be remoued out of his Kingdome that sinnes with their filth may be banished c. and finding the peace of his Kingdome not a little troubled with the enormous excesse of some insolent Clerks c. And thus they proceede declaring wherein those strange exemptions stood which then began first to bee knowne in the world For say they if a Clerke should commit murder c. the Archbishoppe would haue him punished onely by degrading but the King thought that punishment not sufficient for establishing of peace and order and for execution of iustice Hiâ—… non dominationis ambitâ—… non opprimendae Ecclesia libertatis intuitâ—… sed solummodo pacis affectu eò Rex progressus est vt regni sui consuetudines regibus ante se in regno Angliae à personis Ecclesiasticis obseruatas pacificè reuerenter exhibitas Dominus noster Rex deduci vellet in medium That is Hereupon not through ambition of Domination not with any purpose to oppresse the liberties of the Church but onely in a zeale of peace the King proceedeth thus farre as that hee will haue the customes of his Kingdome now brought to open knowledge which Ecclesiasticall persons haue obserued and peaceably and reuerently exhibited vnto the Kings of the kingdome of England before him And a little after Haec est Domini nostri regis in Ecclesiam Dei toto orbe declamata crudelitas hac ab eo persecutio That is
consecration of Aaron and his sonnes is done altogether by Moses These things though they make faire shew for the Princes Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall ouer Priests yet wee purpose not to stand vpon them 3. But when the Priest was once consecrated and ordained and all things fully perfected concerning his function and two seuerall and distinct functions set vp then will appeare without faile in Moses his successors the right of Princes in Aaron his successors the right of Priests After all things thus perfected we finde that all the lawes which in truth proceeded originally from God were established by the authoritie of Moses and this we finde true not onely in Iudiciall and Ciuill Lawes which were to rule that state but euen in ceremoniall and Morall Lawes which were to rule the Church There is not so much as one ceremoniall law established by the authoritie of Aaron but in all the name and authoritie of Moses is expressed only we finde concerning Aaron that if any doubt in the lawes ceremoniall did arise for the interpretation of those lawes and of such doubts the high Priest must sit as iudge For the people are charged in matters that are hard to consult with the Priest and ciuill iudge Deut. 17. 8. c. Which the learned interpreters vnderstand thus that if the cause be mixt partly Ciuill partly Ceremoniall or doubâ—…full that then both the Ciuill Magistrate and the Priest must iointly determine it but if the people haue distinct causes some Ciuill other Ceremoniall the Ciuill Magistrate must iudge the causes Ciuill and the Priest must iudge the causes Ceremoniall from the consideration of which place we may drawe certaine inferences 4. First all Lawes euen Ceremoniall that is Lawes whereunto Spirituall or Canon Lawes are answerable are established by the authoritie of the Ciuill Magistrate This taketh away all authoritie of the Popes Canon law in all Christian kingdomes where it is not established by the authoritie of Kings in their kingdomes For it is against all reaâ—…on and rules whether we looke vpon the light of nature or vpon the Scriptures or the lawfull practife of authoritie since the Scriptures were written that any Lawes should be imposed vpon a Prince against or without his consent as the Popes haue indeuoured to impose the Canon Lawes vpon Princes And this appeareth in the practise of Christian Magistrates so long as lawfull authoritie stood up without confusion in the world But heere we consider the fountaine of that practise which was from Gods Law wherein we see all Lawes confirmed and established by the authoritie of the Ciuill Magistrate And if it could bee prooued that in some Lawes Ceremoniall the authoritie of Aaron was requisite yet this helpeth them nothing that plead for the Popes Canons For these men would impose these Canons vpon Princes without their consent but in all these Lawes of Moses wherein is a perfect patterne for all law-makers they cannot shew one Law though neuer so nearely concerning the Church which is established without the authoritie of Moses the Ciuill Magistrate If they obiect these things were all done by an especiall commaundement of God I aunswere this doth more establish the authoritie of Princes and confirme our purpose for let them aunswere why God would haue all these things established by the Ciuill Magistrate and not by the Priest This then maketh a greater and clearer confirmation of the Princes right Then the Church may interpret Scripture determine controuersies of faith but cannot establish a Law the reason is because for the establishing of Lawes coactiue power is requisite which is in the Ciuil Magistrate not in the Church And therefore the Canon Lawes can haue no force of lawes but as they are receiued and established by Princes in their seuerall kingdomes For neither can the law haue the force of a law without coactiue power neither hath the Pope any coactiue power in the kingdomes of other Princes but onely in such places where himselfe is a Temporall Prince 5. Secondly we obserue that the high Priest is appointed by God a iudge for interpretation of those lawes that concerne the Church in questions of conscience in causes mixt or doubtfull This might moderate the humours of some who in loue to innouation would leaue no place of iudicature to Ecclesiasticall persons for these things are insert into Moses lawe taken from the law of Nature and not as things Ceremoniall which thing is apparant from the end vse and necessitie thereof for the things which had a necessary vse before the written law and must haue a necessary vse after the abrogation of that law must be acknowledged to be taken from a perpetuall law because there must be a perpetuall rule for a perpetuall necessity This then being perpetuall and necessary matters of question and of Ecclesiasticall audience still arising the hearing and iudging of such things belong to such as are most skilfull in those affaires And hence is the iudicature of fuch things assigned to the Priest which right of Ecclesiasticall iudgements and courts standeth no lesse now due to them in the time of grace then it was under the law because this office in iugdeing hearing and determining is not heere giuen to Priests as a thing Ceremoniall but as I haue declared deriued from the law of Nature as a perpetuall seruice for a perpetuall vse 6. Thirdly we consider that the lawes Ecclesiastical are established by the authoritie of the Ciuill Magistrate but for interpretation of them the Priest is appointed to iudge Hence riseth the ground of Iurisdiction both Temporall and Spirituall wee consider Iurisdiction here as our question importeth authority coactiue in externall iudicature in the execution of lawes The fountaine of this authoritie is in him principally by whose authoritie the law is established and without whose authoritie it is not The execution of this authoritie is in them that are appointed iudges And heerein there is no difference betweene Temporall and Ecclesiasticall authoritie I speake not nowe of Spirituall gouernment by the lawes of God executed within the court of Conscience but of Ecclesiasticall gouernment in the execution of lawes Ecclesiasticall wherin there is vse of coactiue power These two things being in themselues and in nature so distinct if this one distinction might be remembred it is ynough to aunswere all the confused collections of that Catholike Diuine who wrote of late against the fift part of Reports of the Lord Cooke For all that hee writeth there resting vpon no other ground then vpon the confounding of Spirituall and Ecclesiasticall power is answered in one word by this one poore distinction betweene these two powers Now the distinction is apparant because in Spirituall gouernment there is no coactiue power but in Ecclesiasticall iudicature there is coactiue power which maketh an euident and famous difference in Iurisdiction because this is most certaine that all that Iurisdiction wherin coactiue power is vsed is from the Ciuill Magistrate Then if these two
enacted by Emperours to be a law that all of the Clergie that offended might know their punishment for that Constantine by whose authority the sixt Synode at Constantinople was held in a Decree inserted in that Councell saith Si quidem Episcopusest vel Clericus vel monachico circundatus habitu deportationis paenam exsoluet Carâ—…omannus in a French Synode decreeth imprisonment Si ordinat us presbyter fuerit duos annos in carcere permaneat These punishments were inflicted vpon such Clerkes as would not be ordered by Ecclesiasticall censures of their Bishoppes for so Guntranus doth testifie a French King by whose authority the Councel of Matiscan was held Quicunque Sacerdctum saith he in a Writ added to that councell aut saecularium in intentione mortifera perdurantes crebrius admoniti si se emendare neglexerint c. alios canonica seueritas corrigat alios ligatâ—…s paena percellat And a little after he saith Conuenit vt iustitâ—…ae â—…quitatis in omnibus vigore seruato distringat legalis vltio iudicum quos non corrigit canonica praedicatio Sacer dotum 70. Then the ancient practise was that the temporall Magistrate should punish such as offended of the Clergy as well as of the Laity Concerning the antiquity of this exemption of Clerkes from temporall Courts wee finde no president for it all the while that the Emperours had any gouernement and commaund in Italy But when the Pope was able to meet the Emperour in battell and giue him the worse then began the authority of the ciuill Magistrate to decay in Rome and fell at the last into contempt And the Pope hauing cast off the yoak of obedience which before he held to the Emperour as to his Soueraigne began to take an authority to himself which neither God nor man had giuen him Hence proceeded that vsurpation of power to giue Lawes to other Pope Nicholas the first in the eight hundred and threescore yeare of Christ writeth in his Epistle to the Emperour Michael in another stile then his predecessours had vsed to write to Emperours before Among other things contained in th Epistle whereas the Emperour had written for a Clarke that had offended him and was fled to the Pope whom the Emperour required to be sent back again to Constantinople Pope Nicholas to this maketh this answere Wee haue from the great power of Peter and Paul right and power to call Clerkes from any other Diocesse if wee thinke good and to inuite them to vs. This is our right but Christian Emperours haue no right at all to make any inquisition for Monks vnlesse it be in fauour to pity them 71. Here we obserue the difference betweene the spirits of Popes in this time and the spirits of auncient Popes who held the doctrine of obedience as the Fathers then did drawing the doctrine from the Scripture and examples of Christ and his Apostles Christ when he was vniustly condemned exempted not himselfe from the punishment of the ciuill Magistrate and yet he wanted no power to haue done so if hee would These late Romane counterfait Catholiques when by their rebellious doctrine and bloudy practises they haue iustly 〈◊〉 the Magistrate against them yet forsooth will denie him authority to punish them Saint Paul teacheth Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers S. Peter teacheth the same doctrine Submit your selues to all manner ordinance of man The Fathers receiued this doctrine from the Scriptures and preserued it faithfully in the Church Chrysostome and after him Oecumenius expounding that place of ' Paul say thus Omnem animam instruens siue Sacerdos sit quispiam siue monachus siue Apostolus vt Magistratibus subdatur nam haec subiectio non euertit pietâ—…tem A learned man of late which also was Pope speaking of these words Omnis anima subdita sic c. saith Nec animam Papaeexcipit So doth God sometimes draw testimonies for the truth out of the mouthes of them that oppugne it The auncients helde this truth vp in great sincerity Gregory Nazianzen saith Homines cuncti c. All men are ordered in subiection vnder the higher powers Hee that saith all men includeth the Pope and his Clarkes Augustine saith Generale pactum est societatis humanae obedire gregibus suis. Leo the first saith Ad imperialem pertinet potestatem vâ—… perturbatores Ecclesiae pacis reipub quae Christianis principibus merito gloriatur inimici sollicitius comprimantur These troublers of the peace of the Church and state of whom he speaketh were Clergy men For in that Epistle Leo writeth against certaine of the Clergy who embraced the errour of Eutyches Then in the time of Pope Leo this was not the doctrine of the Church of Rome which now these Romane Libertines haue brought in Gregory the first writeth to the same purpose Potestas super omnes homines dominorum meorum pietaticaelitus data est vt qui bona appetâ—…nt adiâ—…uentur vt caelorum via largius pateat vt terrestre Regnum coelesti Regnofamuletur In the same Epistle he induceth Christ thus speaking to the Emperour Sacerdotes meos tuae manui commisi Then Gregory knew no other doctrine but that Priests were subiect by Christ subiected to the Magistrate And whereas the Emperour commanded a law to be executed which Gregory misliked hee writeth thus to the Emperor Ego quideÌ„ iussioni tuae subiectus eandem legem per diuersas terrarum partes transmitti feci That is I being subiect to your coÌ„mand haue caused that law to be sent to diuers Prouinces but because the law consenteth not with the law of Almighty God behold I haue signified the same by my letters to your most excellent Lordship so that on both parts I haue payed what I ought for I haue yeelded obedience to the Emperor haue not coÌ„cealed what I thought for God Then Gregory knew no exemption he accounteth himselfe among them that owe subiection and obedience to Emperors 72. Concerning the punishment of Heretiques Schismatiques that were criminous there was no other means knowne in S. Augustines time then the coactiue power of the ciuil Magistrate For thus he saith Si nec hoc volunt Donatistae c. If the Donatists will not grant this power to the Emperour why doe they acknowledge the force of the Lawes to be iustly executed against other malefactors and deny the same to be done against hereticks and Schismaticks seeing by the Apostolicall authority they are all alike numbred with the same fruits of iniquity Must not these humane ordinaÌ„ces regard such things Why then doth he beare the sword c. Thus saith Augustine And in the same place he declareth that there is one law imperial general against all that professe theÌ„selues Christians but are not true Catholicks but keep priuate conuenticles that either he that ordaineth such a Clerke or the Clerke so ordained should loose
coactiue power to the spirituall Iurisdiction of the Church This is the meaning of the imperiall Constitutions that are in this manner set forth by Emperors of religions and doctrinall matters For the Emperours neuer tooke vpon them by their authority to define matters of faith and Religion that they left to the Church but when the Church had defined such truthes against Heretiques and had deposed those Heretiques then the Emperours concurring with the Church by their imperiall Constitutions Sicque Diuina 〈◊〉 â—…umana concurrentia saith Iustinian in the same place vnam consonantiam rectis sententijs fecere did by their coactiue power giue strength to the Canons of the Church Aâ—…d thus was the Church then gouerned by the Canons of auncient approued Synodes for matters of faith and doctrine and by the Constitutions of Christian Princes for matters of externall coactiue Iurisdiction That Constantine by whose authority the sixt Synod was held at Constantinople declareth that the Canons of the fiue generall Councels adding this second Constantinopolitan to the other â—…ouce were the rules or Canons of the Church 86. So long as those Canons of auncient Councels stood for Church lawes executed by the Bishoppes who were the Gouernours so long the Gouernement of the Church stood vp in peace order and Godlinesse one Bishoppe incroached not vpon the Iurisdiction of another But after that the Pope had intruded vpon the Iurisdiction of the Church and was growen so great as that by coactiue power hee was able to maintaine his intrusion then began hee to giue lawes such as are comprised in the Decretals of Gregory the ninth who was Pope in the yeare one thousand two hundred and thirty the first publisher of those lawes which were continued by 〈◊〉 the eight 〈◊〉 fift Iohn the two and twentieth 〈◊〉 by some other Popes vnto the yeare one thousand foure hundred and eightie for then liued Sixtus the fourth whose Decrees are published in that part that is called extraâ—… Commun since which times those lawes haue beene in some force in diuers nations where they did not crosse the imperiall lawes of those nations nor the Iurisdiction of the Kings thereof Now seeing that the Popes Iurisdiction is so much set forth and aduanced by these Canon lawes let vs in few wordes examine how he came to this Iurisdiction to giue lawes and by what right he maintaineth it If any man haue right to make and giue lawes this right must either be from God giuen him or from men who haue had this right before in themselues for euery man cannot giue this right but onely such as haue it and haue power to giue it But the Pope receiued not this right of giuing lawes to all Churches from God for God hath no where giuen any such Commission to him The ancient Bishops of Rome either did not claime any such Iurisdiction or if any were carried by leuity and ambition out of their bounds they were presently recalled and repressed by the godly Bishoppes of that age As Anicet was by Polycâ—…rp Victor by 〈◊〉 Polyâ—…rates and the other Bishoppes of Asia Zozimus Boniface and 〈◊〉 by S. Augustine and the Affrican Bishoppes so that the Bishoppes of Rome could neuer be suffered to make lawes to the Church for one thousand or twelue hundred yeares after Christ therefore this right was not from Christ. 87. For if it had beene from Christ then should the Pope haue beene suffered to haue practised the same before twelue hundreth yeares were expired For the godly auncient Fathers did neuer withstand the Bishop of Rome in any Iurisdiction which hee could claime from Christ. But in this thing it is knowne that they withstoode him therefore this Iurisdiction whereunto after so many hundreth yeares hee intruded himselfe against the iudgement of the auncient Fathers who resisted him heerein is not from God Neither can this right bee claimed from man because they who chalenge it will haue it to be a diuine right not humane And they quarrell vs for that we admit that temporall Princes may haue such Iurisdiction so that they vtterly denie that this Iurisdiction is deriued from any humane power Now he 〈◊〉 to execute Iurisdiction which is neither giuen him from God nor man must needs be conuinced to be an intruder and to come in his owne name and consequently to fulfill that Scripture I came in my Fathers name and you receiue mee not If another shall come in his owne name him you will receiue Which the auntient Fathers expound of the comming of Antichrist in his owne name And what more pregnant proofe can be brought of this his comming in his owne name then is this intruding himselfe into a Iurisdiction which he had neither from God nor from the Princes of this world And because the Pope after one thousand and two hundred yeares had no more right to giue Lawes to the Church then in former ages he had therefore this Iurisdiction is vnlawfull which by these Lawes hee practiseth Wherein onely defacto he is found to doe that whereunto he neuer had right 88. Moreouer if Bellarmine haue declared the true conditions of iust and lawfull Lawes it will followe that the Canon Lawes are no iust Lawes Bellarmine confesseth that foure conditions are required in a Law to make it iust the first is drawne from the end for it must be referred to the common good for herein saith Aristotle a King differeth from a tyrant because a King respecteth the common good of his subiects but a tyrant looketh onely vpon his owne priuate profit and thus saith Bellarmine doth a iust Law differ from a tyrannicall Law Then are the Popes Canon Lawes proued tyrannicall and vniust because they respect not the common good but the priuate wealth of the Pope as all those doe that draw all appellations to him The second condition which in Bellarmines iudgement maketh a Law iust is drawne from the efficient For it must be from a man that hath full authority Nemo enim potest legem imponere â—…nsibi subdiâ—…o saith he By this it will likewise follow that the Popes Canons are no iust Lawes because the Pope hath no authority to make such Canons binding them that are not his subiects as we haue declared before The third condition that maketh a Law iust is drawne from the matter saith 〈◊〉 for it must not forbid vertue nor commaund vice but the Canon Lawes are such as forbid vertue and commaund vice as appeareth by all those Canons that proceede with their non obstante I will note one example of many There is a Canon that runneth thus Quum aliquibus recipiendi aliquem in Canonicum alicuius Ecclesiae non obstantibus ciusdem Ecclesiae priuilegijs consuetudinibus vel statutis â—…uramento confirmatione Apostolica vel quacunque firmitate alia roboratis per nostras literas concedimus facultatem c. That is When wee graunt power to any by our letters to receiue any to be
a Canon in some Church notwithstanding the priuiledges of that Church the customes to the contrary or statutes confirmed either by Oath or by Apostolicall confirmation or by any other strength c. By this Lawe as by many other it appeareth that the Popes Canons allowe that men should goe against their owne Oathes when the Popes letters doe commaund them so to doe Which is a forbidding of things honest iust and godly and commanding thinges euill and vnlawfull Therefore these Lawes forbid vertue and commaund vice and are consequently no iust Lawes in the iudgement of Bellarmine 89. The last condition that in Bellarmines opinion is required to make a Law iust is drawne from the forme Because saith hee the Law must keepe that proportion in distributing honours which the Subiects haue in the Common-wealth For example saith he if the Pope should make a Law that onely rich and noble men should be made Bishoppes and not poore and meane men otherwise more learned and more worthy this Law were simply vniust but it is certaine that the Popes Lawes are such I speake not here of their corrupt practise which since the Canon lawes came in was neuer found without strong and strange Simonie but I speake of their Lawes which command it For who made that Law which saith Pallium non datur nisi fortiter postulaâ—…i The Pall is not giuen to any man vnlesse he make a strong suit What is meant by a strong suit they know best that haue purchased Palls at the Popes hand But it is certaine that a poore man did neuer purchase a Pall therefore poore men though more learned then the rich purchaser are excluded from this honour by the Law that alloweth none to make suit but such as can make strong suit then the Law is vniust by Bellarmines confession It is also an vniust and an vngodly Law which saith Though the Pope should draw innumerable soules with himselfe downe into hell yet no mortall man may presume to say to him Sir why do you so It is an vncleane Law which so strictly denying the mariage of Priests yet doth allow them to haue Concubines Many other Lawes there be of this forme So that by all those conditions which Bellarmine will haue to be requisite in all Lawes that bee iust the Popes Lawâ—…s are found to be vniust By all which is euinced that the Pope commeth in his owne name maketh Lawes to rule those Subiects ouer whom he hath no authority respecteth therein his owne ends taketh vp a new Iurisdiction which hath beene denied by the auncient Bishops and which was vnknowne in the world all the while that the Popes liued vnder the obedience of the Emperours as other Bishoppes did vnder seuerall Princes § 7. Of Appellation 90. ANother part of this pretended Iurisdiction stoode in appellation to the Pope This they haue chalenged but it hath alwayes beene denied by the Kings of this land as being a thing preiudiciall to the auncient Lawes and customes of the Kingdome The first question about appeales in this land that I can finde began by Anselme Archbishop of Canterburie in the time of William Rufus For after that some breach was made betweene the King and the Archbishop the Archbishoppe Anselme desired leaue to depart the land to goe to Rome for his Pall. The King perceiuing that hee had a purpose to appeale to the Pope Aunswered That if hee should appeale to Pope Vrban or any other for at that time two stroue for the Papacy without his leaue then should he falsifie his alleageance The King reasoned thus saith Malmsbury Consuetudo Regâ—…imes est à Patre meo instituta vt nullus praeter licentiam Regis appelletur Papa Qui consuetuâ—…ines Regnitollit potestatem quoque toronam Regni violat qui coronam mihi aufert inimicitias infidelitatem in me agit For there was contention betweene the King the Archbishop First because the Archbishop would nominate a Pope without the Kings leaue Secondly because he would appeale to the Pope Concerning this matter of appeale the same Author a little after declareth that there grew an hot contention betweene them Anselme his answere was Tues Petrus super hanc Petram c. And therfore quoth he to the King the obedience which I offer to S. Peters Vicar is not against mine alleageance to the King Thus had the Popes with a strong kind of poyson as it were so enchaunted those words of holy Scripture as to make them serue for a cloake of disobedience and breach of alleageance to temporall Princes Anselme being further vrged by the King that he had promised to keepe all the customes of his kingdome and hee was bound to performe alleageance aunswereth thus What doe you tell me that I breake mine alleageance to the King by appealing to the Sea Apostolique I grant I promised but conditionally that I would keepe those customes which are agreeable to the lawes of God and honesty And therfore where you tell me that I haue broken mine alleageance by preuaricating your laws in appealing to the Sea Apostolique sauing your honour it is not true if another had spoken it For the faith which Iowe to the King I haue it from the faith of God whose Vicar is S. Peter to whose Sea I appeale with much stirre and strife to this effect Anselme held his resolution stiffely 91. Nowe let the Reader bee entreated to compare these times with the times of the Affrican Councell and Anselme Archbishop of Canterburie with Augustine Bishop of Hippo. S. Augustine with the rest of the Affrican Councell condemned appellations to Rome as standing against godlinesse order the freedome of the Church as quenching the light of simplicitie as inducing darkenesse pride and ambition into the Church Now that which in Saint Augustines time was vngodly can it be made godly and lawfull in Anselmes time Yet Anselme we see maketh this thing the cause of God Augustine condemned appellations to Rome simply without consideration of disobedience to Princes What then would he haue done if thereunto had beene added the commaundement of his Prince against such Appellations Anselme standing for Appellation to Rome which Augustine denied and withstanding the iust and 〈◊〉 commaundement of his Soueraigne hath no other coâ—… to cast ouer the matter then the pretence of God and Saint Peters Vicar If this obedience had beene required of God to Saint Peters Vicar in Anselmes time Why was not the same required and yeelded in Saint Augustines time This is the difference betweene the opinions brought in by men and the truths of God that the one standeth alwayes the same in the Church without chaunge the other hath his times of rising and falling as this opinion of Appellation to the Pope which was so strongly reiected by Augustine found a time to rise vp betweene the pride of the Popes and the seruile flattery of some Bishoppes And what greater signe of pride in the Pope and
Persians and that of the Persians by the Macedonians and that of the Macedonians by the Romanes so shal that of the Romanes be destroyed by Antichrist and that of Antichrist by our Lord Iesus Christ. 101. By all which wee findè by the consenting iudgement of the Fathers that Antichrist must rise vp vpon the ruine of the Romane Empire And finding the power and gouernement of the auncient Romane Emperours to be vtterly ruinated by Gregory the second the title of the Empire to be taken away from those Emperours by Gregory the third the rule of the City of Rome which was the auncient seate of the Empire taken vp and surprised by the Pope the Cities of the Empire neere adioyning to Rome to bee brought vnder the subiection of the Pope by conferring the Prophesies of Scripture interpreted by the Fathers with these euents which by History are truly recorded laying one thing to another the conclusion is euident My purpose is not to speake of Antichrist but onely passing through these Stories of the Popes temporall exaltation I thought it a small labour for the Reader to compare the Prophesies of Scripture and the iudgement of auncient Fathers with the euent which fell out in the time of the two Gregories the second and third Before which time the Popes neuer entred into such furious attempts against their Soueraigne Lords the Emperours For they yeelded exact obedience to Emperours from the time of the first Christian Emperour vntill the time of Gregory the first All which while they refused not to be ruled commaunded directed by the Emperours as by their Soueraignes not onely in ciuill affaires but euen in matters concerning the externall Discipline of the Church as calling of Councels and confirming them punishing and censuring disorderous Clarkes and Bishops that offended the Imperiall Lawes and such like In such things the Emperours ruled the Popes obeyed no striuing no threatning no casting off of the yoake appeared all this while But after that Phocas had granted to Beniface the third Pope the title of Oecumenicall Bishop and that the Church of Rome should be head of all other Churches then began that starre to fall from heauen falling from the simplicity of truth from sincerity of obedience into pride ambition and noysome lusts and neuer ceased rolling downwards till at last it fell into the deepe practises of the bottomlesse pit Thus when they began to fall they had one fall after another They fell not into the practise of deposing Princes vntill the time of Gregory the third Childeric or Chilperic 102. THe Popes hauing proceeded thus farre in deposing the Emperour thought all their labour lost vnlesse they might haue those Territories made subiect to themselues from which they had expulsed the Emperor Their feare was that either the seuerall Cities would procure their owne Freedome or that some that were strongest would surprise all the rest and so a small part might come to the Popes share The Lumbards were then strongest in Italy and had soone gotten the rest vnder their Dominion To preuent their rising and to inrich S. Peter with a new Patrimonie the Popes after they had vsed the power of the Lumbards against the Emperour so now against the Lumbards begin to call new aides into Italie drawing first Pipin and then Charles against the Lumbards by whose meanes they obteyned their purpose Pipin was made King of Fraunce for this seruice and Childeric the right King was deposed by Pope Stephen saith Harmannus Contractus other attribute this to Pope Zachary Childeric was shauen and thrust into a Monastery After all this there stuck a scruple in the conscience of Pipin for he had taken an Oath of Allegeance to Childeric his Soueraigne this scruple the Pope vndertooke to remoue For saith Vspergensis Pope Stephen absolued him of his Oath which in former times he had taken to his Soueraigne Childeric Thus were these great affaires ordered and disordered the Emperour deposed his subiects raised in rebellion against him the Pope exalted and inriched by the spoiles of the Empire the French king deposed his subiects absolued from their Oathes and Alleageance another set vp in the kingdome These were practises which before this time were neuer attempted by Popes From these beginnings and examples the succeeding Popes tooke light and made rules of their Gouernement and therefore after this the world could take no rest for the Popes Moreouer after these examples of Pipin and Charles they who through ambition aspired without right or Title to kingdomes haue deuoted their seruice wholly to the Pope And what holdeth the Spaniard so stiffe in Popery but onely an hope that by the Popes authority he may inlarge his Dominions in the same sort It is to be noted also that they who thus offer their seruice to the Pope are honoured by him as the onely defenders of the Church whereas none haue spoiled the Church more then these for Paulus Aemylius recordeth that Carolus Martellus father to Pipin being then Constable of France robbed the Churches and Monasteries of France at his pleasure promising that if he should obtain victorie against the Sarracins he would bountifully repay all But after most great and rich victories he not onely repayed nothing but thrust also the Bishpppes from their Seas held the Seas empty to pay souldiers which thing brought a foule confusion vpon the Church of Fraunce yet this man for his seruice to the Pope was accounted a great defendor of the Church Henry the fourth Emperour 103. THe auncient manner of choosing Popes was by the Emperours consent after that Emperours became Christian This was practised from the time of Constantine till Hadrian the third saith Platina who maketh this Hadrian the first who altred this auncient manner he tooke the opportunity of the absense of Charles the grosse then Emperor who was so incumbred with the warres of the Normanes that he could not attend this businesse But Onuphrius in his Chronicle of Popes setteth Iohn the fift to be the first Pope that was chosen without the Emperours commaundemâ—…nt and appointing both may be well reconciled for Onuphrius speaketh of the Popes vnder the auncient Emperours Platina of the Popes vnder the French and Germane Emperours for from Constantine till Iohn the fift Pope no Pope was chosen without the Emperours consent from Iohn the fift Pope till Charles the first no Pope was chosen by the Emperours consent Charles the first recouered the auncient rights of the Empire as before we declared from his time till Hadrian the third no Pope was chosen without the Emperours consent from Hadrian the third the consent of the Emperour was not required if Plaâ—…ina say true others witnesse that the Popes were alwaies chosen by the consent of the Emperor till Hildebrand The Popes thus striuing to cast off the ancient yoake when Gregory the seuenth was chosen Pope he added vnto this practise of reiecting the Emperours consent many moe practises by blood
said Pope had annihilated the Emperours Election and that therefore the Emperor had no right to administer the imperiall lawes but that this administration belonged by right to the Pope To this the Emperour answereth That this standeth against the liberties of the Empire and against the liberties of them that are Electors against the lawes and liberties of all the Princes and subiects of Germany 144. And whereas thirdly the Pope obiecteth that he hath excommunicated all that shall adhaere performe obedience and reuerence to the Emperour and saith that the iudgement of the Pastor whether it be iust or vniust is to be obserued To this the Emperor answereth That these denunciations are of none effect for it is a rule that if a Prelat in commaunding or forbidding shall not keepe the forme prescribed by the Canons they who disobey him doe not incurre the sentence of excommunication Now the Canons and the Church doe take from the Pope power in temporalities which power Iohn the two and twentieth vsurpeth this is one of those cases wherein the sentence of a Prelat is not to be feared Another reason is because by law that sentence is of no force where there is an expresse errour in the sentence as if a subiect should be commanded not to obey his Superiour or if something should be commaunded against God or against holy Scripture Now it is manifest that Iohn the two and twentieth hath commaunded the subiects of the Empire not to obey vs whom they are bound to obey by the lawes of God and man Another reason is because it is a thing confessed that the sentence which is giuen after a lawfull appeale is void and of no strength but it is well knowne that from Iohn the two and twentieth and his Processes against God and iustice we appealed to a generall Councell and to the holy Catholicke Church which appellation was brought to the knowledge of the said Iohn before he published Excommunication against them that fauour vs. 145. If it be said the Pope hath no Superiour and therefore no man may appeale from him To this the Emperour answereth thus It is manifest by the Catholicke doctrine that the Pope in matters of faith is subiect to Councels 16. dist sicut in tex in Gloss. 25. q. 2. sunt quidam 19. di Anastasius 40. di Si Papa Moreouer in matters of diuine right a Councell is aboue the Pope Thus then we haue appealed to a Superiour that is to a generall Councell against our aduersaries who impugne vs the Empire the Catholicke faith which the holy Church of Rome handleth This is the summe of that Decree which the Emperour published against the Pope it was dated at Franckfort the eighth of August Anno one thousand three hundred thirty and eight The processe of this worthy Prince giueth vs occasion to consider some things which declare the sense iudgement and Religion of the Ghurch of Rome at this time By the Church of Rome I vnderstand these Westerne parts of Christendome for so I find it tearmed heere and other-where separate and distinct from the Pope 146. For first by this appeale from the Pope to a generall Councell we finde that it was the iudgement and common receiued sentence of that age that a general Councel is aboue the Pope may iudge the Pope censure and depose him this is here declared and confirmed this was not onely the doctrine of the Church then but long after it continued and was neuer denied by the Church of Rome before the Councell of Trent as hereafter we shall declare Moreouer we finde a distinction obserued by the learned men that held this Assembly that is by the Prelates of the Empire for so the Decree runneth De concilio ac assensu Praelatorum omnium c. And many other learned men of Christendome yea many Friars which were here assembled especially the Minorites who were then oppressed by the Pope The distinction I say betweene the Pope and his flatterers on the one side and the Church of Rome on the other side For the Emperour appealeth from the Pope to the Church and this was a practise vsed by diuers as hereafter we shall obserue Then the Pope and his flatterers did not represent the Church of Rome as now they pretend to doe Againe wee obserue that the Emperour being defamed for heresie and appealing to a generall Councell as he denieth the Pope to be his Iudge so he refuseth not to be iudged by the Church for as S. Ambrose saith Imperator intra Ecclesiam non supra Ecclesiam est Then the authority of the Church bindeth the greatest members thereof euen Kings and Emperours If our aduersaries obiect against vs and our Church why then doe you giue to the King the Title of supreame head or Gouernour of the Church We answere such obiections proceede from an obstinate and wilfull ignorance in mistaking of our doctrine For when the question is of Iurisdiction externall coactiue wee giue to the King the place of a supreame Iudge but if the question bee of faith and Religion we say the King is no Iudge but to be iudged by the Church as we see godly Princes haue beene and namely this worthy Prince Lodouicke who being accused of heresie by the Pope appealeth to the Church 147. Last of all we obserue in the sense and iudgement of this Emperour and of the learned men that were assembled with him that in the point of Iurisdiction no such thing is left to the Pope as he claimeth For in matters of faith the Iurisdiction is in the Church as here it is acknowledged in matters of coactiue power the Iurisdiction is in the Emperor as all these learned men did yeelde in this Councell and after the Councell did maintaine by their writings For wee finde the same trueth maintained by William Ockham Marsilius Patauinus Michael Caesina and many moe who with great courage and learning did maintaine the Emperours Iurisdiction heerein against the Popes vsurpation This wisedome and moderation of the Emperour in defending his right not onely by force of Armes but by learning and iudgement moued the Pope who succeeded Iohn the two twentieth that is Benedict the twelfth in spite of malice to giue him many hoâ—…orable testimonies to promise to restore him by absolâ—… agâ—…ine to this place But the Pope did but fraudulently put him off from day to day which thing when the Emperour perceiued he called a Diet of the Empire at Rensium where he did with that wisedome courtesie and liberality binde the Princes Electours to him that they tooke a solemne Oath to maintaine the liberties of the Empire and decreede that all the processes of Iohn once Pope against Lodâ—…uick were of no force and that the Pope ought not to attempt such things against the Emperour seeing their Iurisdictions were so much distinct 148. Clement the sixth sucoeeded Benedict the twelfth this Clement falling into deeper fits of rage against the Emperour then his Predecessours
great learning and iudgement I will record heere some obseâ—…uations of his for it seemeth that he had a purpose to reâ—…ute that former worke of Triumpâ—…us though the truth is hee nameth not Triumphâ—…s throughout all his booke concerning this point of Iurisdiction one especiall ground which hee layeth is this Ab â—…fficio principatâ—…s siâ—…e 〈◊〉 iurisdiction is 〈◊〉 soâ—… coactiuâ—… 〈◊〉 cuiuslibet in hoc sâ—…lo Christâ—…s seipsum Apostâ—…los exclusit 〈◊〉 vâ—…luit That is Christ hath excluded and purposed to exclude hiâ—…selfe and his Apostles from principalitie or contentious iurisdiction or regiment or any coactiue iudgment in this world Which thing he prouâ—…th at large both by Scriptures Fathers because Christ â—…aith his kingdome is not of this world by which words coactiue Iurisdiction is excluded as was the doctrine of Christ such was his example of obedience for he was alwayes subiect to the coactiue power of the Magistrate Thus by the â—…ound and cleere Scriptures with the expositions and iudgement of the ancient Fathers he resuâ—…eth that noueltiâ—… which had no other ground then the Popes decretals 8. Therefore he examineth the authority of the Popes deâ—…retals and giueth a learned and iuditious distinction declaring thereby how the Pope may bee obeyed or not obeyed commaunding against the Emperour for saith he if the Emperour commaund any thing against the law of God and the Pope commaund things agreeable to that law thou must ouâ—… of doubt obey the Pope and not the Emperour But if the Emperour commaund something according to his imperial law the Pope command somthing according to his decretals against the imperiall lawes no man subiect to the Emperour ought in such things to obey the Pope Which thing he proueth at large because the ciuill Magistrate beareth the sword because he is the Minister of God the reuenger of disobedience because euery soule is subiect to him Which things saith hee are not spoken of any spiritual Gouernour but of the Temporall Magistrate For the Goueâ—…nours to whom in coactiue Iuâ—…isdiction we must obey are such as by armed power defend their Countries and people which in no case can agree to a Bishop or Priest 9. By such reasons he proceedeth and proueth infallibly his purpose and conclusion that no spirituall Gouernour hath from Christ any Iurisdiction coactiue but this power is left wholly in the hands of the ciuill Magistrate And thus doth cut in sunder the sinewes of their disputations who plead for the Popes Iurisdiction which Iurisdiction they make to consist in power coactiue Of the Popes decretals which then were lately deuised Lawes against the auncient Iurisdiction of the Church as also against the Iurisdiction of Princes he saith Vt ipsi fabulantur in sâ—…is decretalibus quâ—… secundum veritatem nihil aliud sunt quà m ordinationes quaedam Oligarchicae quibus in nullo obedire tenentur Chrsti fideles in quuntum hâ—…smodi That is As they bable in their decretals which in truth are nothing but certaine Oligarchicall ordinations to which Christians are in no case bound to obey as they proceed from the Pope Wherein he deliuereth thus much that these Canon lawes or decretals ought to haue no force among Christians vnlesse they be confirmed by the lawes of the land and by Princes in their Dominions so many as Princes shall thinke fit for the gouernment of the Church in their proper Dominions may be established being established ought to be obeyed but not as the Popes laws vse but as the laws of those Princes for that is it which Marsilius saith the decretals are not to be obeyed in quaÌ„tuÌ„huiusmodi Now that all coactiue power is by God deliuered to the Temporall Magistrate hee prooueth solidly from these words he is the Minister of God to take vengeance by vengeance all coactiue power is vnderstood Neither doth he denie but that the Church gouernours may execute coactiue power but then they must haue it from Princes and from such Temporall powers which haue the same Which being expresly and distinctly written by him three hundred yeres agoe is no other thing then that which we now maintaine at which our aduersaries seeme to wonder as at some new doctrine neuer heard before when the same truth after the saâ—… manner beene maintained by the learned men that haue handled this question before vs. Nec in quenquam presbyterum saith he aut non pres byterum conâ—…enit coactiâ—…am in hoc saeculo Iurisdictionem habere quenquam Episcopum siâ—…e Papam â—…isi eadem siâ—…i per humanum legisâ—…atorem concessa fuerit in cuiâ—…s potestate semper est hanc ab ipsis reuocare That is No man Priest or not Priest can haue Iurisdiction coactiue in this world Bishop or Pope vnlesse it be granted to them by the humane law-maker in whose power it is at his pleasure to recall it from them 10. Concerning the right of calling Councels his determination is this If a cause of religion rise in question the Pope saith he may signifie the same to the chiefe Temporall Gouernour but the authority of gathering and calling the Councell belongeth to him that hath coactiue Iurisdiction and ought to bee gathered by his coactiue precept When it is gathered he leaueth the first and chiefe seat therein to the Bishop of Rome hee giâ—…eth him the honour to propose the matter to collect all together that is spoken to communicate the things determined to others and to excommunicate the transgressors And all this to doe not at his owne pleasure or vpon his owne head sed ex concilij sententia onely by the direction of the Councell This principality he yeeldeth to the Bishop of Rome and to that Church so long as thus it standeth and so long as it doth nothing to the contrary whereby this honour may be iustly withdrawen Secundum quâ—…m modum saith hee Romanae vrbis quamdiâ—… extiterit obicemque ad hoc non apposuerit populus ille c. poterit licitè ac debebit iâ—…m â—…ict a principalitas in Episcopo Eccleâ—…a continue reseruari That is According to which maner this principality may lawfully and ought to be reserued alwayes for that Bishop and that Church as long as it thus standeth and doth nothing to the contrary This honour if the Pope would haue held himselfe contented therewith might long time enough beene reserued vnto him But when this could not content him but he must haue all Iurisdiction ouer the Church and ouer secular Princes if he finde not that honour yeelded to him which hee expecteth he may thanke himselfe because he hath procured his owne contempt and by vsurpation of vndue honour he hath lost that which though it was not due to him yet from some custome was giuen might haue beene continued to this day if himselfe had not caused the Church to withdraw it For saith mine Author Licet circa 〈◊〉 Ecclâ—…sia 〈◊〉 Episcopi Ecclesiae fidelium neque diuina neque