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
they whom he had banished from Parma were returned thither by the Popes practise and taking the Towne by force had giuen a great ouerthrow to the other Citizens fearing least this example might draw other Cities to the like reuolt he gaue ouer the iourney to Lions and wrote Letters to the French King and all Prelates refuting the Popes friuolous obiections declaring the iustice of his cause and his innocency Innocentius regarding neither iustice nor innocency pursued him by violence malice open warres secret conspiracies seeking all meanes that his vnholy head could inuent to take away the life of Fredericke As he was taking his recreation in hauking at Grossetum by the Sea shore neare to Sien the Pope drew his owne seruants to a conspiracy the conspiracy was detected and the traytors had the reward of their treason Innocentius who could not rest till he had done some Pontificall exploit against the life of this Prince stirred vp the Princes of Germany to thrust downe Fredericke and to set vp another first was set vp Henry Lantgraue of Thuringia this man besieging Vâ—…mes was wounded by the shot of an Arrow and shortly after resigned both his life and the Empire After this was William Earle of Holland set vp this man was slaine in the warres which he had gaged against the Frisians neither of these saith Naucler were numbred among the Emperours At last after so many secret traps laid for the life of this Prince behold the end of the Popes malice where strength faileth the Emperour was destroyed by poison King Iohn of England 124. THe King of England sped no better then others for by this vnbridled power of vsurped Iurisdiction King Iohn with the whole Kingdome was brought into great trouble and perplexity these troubles grew vpon a quarrell of Election betweene the Monkes of Canterbury and the Suffraganes in the seuenth yeare of King Iohn for after the death of Hubert Archbishoppe of Canterbury the Monkes without the knowledge of the King or respect of the Suffraganes chose Reynold the Subpriour of the house to be Archbishoppe who secretly went to Rome to haue this his election confirmed by the Pope but stay was made at Rome because he shewed not Letters commendatory from the King The Monkes perceiuing that without those letters commendatory they could not proceede made request to the King that they might chuse another whom the King might commend this the King liked well and commended Iohn Gray the Bishoppe of Norwich being his Chaplaine and President of his Counsell as Hollinshed saith but Mat. Paris whom he cyteth hath not so much The Monkes gladly obeyed the Kings request and madâ—… choise of this man but the Pope refusing both thrust vpon them Stephen Langton commanding and compelling so many of those Monkes of that Couent as were then at Rome to chuse him the King was herewith much moued because Stephen Langton was brought vp vnder the French King and bound to him betweene whom and King Iohn there was at that time much warre and dissention wherefore the King banished the Monkes that had chosen Stephen and wrote to the Pope that he had no reason to admit Stephen to such a place in his Kingdome a man promoted by the French King and at his commaund This contention continuing the Pope sent to the Bishoppes of England commaunding them to put the King and his land vnder the sentence of interdiction denouncing him and his land accursed The Bishoppes to whom the Pope wrote being by this time become the Popes subiects and sâ—…ruants and not the Kings which is the end which the Pope seeketh by his Iurisdiction denounced the interdiction and then fledde to Rome King Iohn seeing many fall from his obedience to the obedience of the Pope drewe his people to an Oath of Alleageance After this came Paâ—…dulph Legat from the Pope who after that he had beene here a while was commaunded by the Pope to repaire to the French King there with Stephen Langton to take Councell and to stirre vp the French to make warres vpon King Iohn Thus King Iohn was depriuâ—…d of his Gouernement his subiects absolued from their Alleageance by which practise many reuolted from him so that he was left weake and when the Popâ—… had thus weakned him then he set vp the French King in armes against him The issue was this The King circumuented by these practises of the Pope and oppressed being also bereaued of all helpe was forced to deliuer his Crowne to Pandulph and receiued it from him againe as from the Popes hands And thus was Stephen Langton made Archbishoppe this was done in the fifteenth yeare of King Iohn An. Dom. 1213. The Earle of Tholous 125. WHen Frederick the second liued so persecuted by the Pope as we haue declared a new and strange generation rose vp of a suddaine neuer seene in the world before starting vp like those armed Souldiers which the Poets faine to haue sprung vp suddenly of the Serpents teeth being sowed by Cadmus Such a serpentine generation of Friars were newly hatched at this time the first founders of them were Francis and Doâ—…inick For the Popes hauing a purpose to raise themselues aboue the Church and aboue Kings and Emperours as both by their profession and claime in the Canon Law and by their practise was apparant and for this purpose thundring out their excommunications vpon euery occasion practising this power in deposing Princes found themselues much crossed in these courses by Bishops and especially by the Bishops of Germany who stood out for a long time faithfull in the Church and couragious against the Popes tyranny Auentiâ—…us giueth many testimonies of the courage of the German Bishops as else-where also we haue obserued of the English Bishops for he writing of the times of Frederick the second the Bishops then saith he were not as now they are addict to the seruice of the Pope giuen to idlenesse and pleasure but learned industrious louing Christ and declaring their loue by feeding their flockes diligently These were not for the Popes purpose For in diuers Synodes they censured the Popes folly and ambition freely and withstood his tyrannie Then was the Church so gouerned by Bishops all matters so iudged and determined that the Pope might aduise but hee could not by authority attempt any thing in the Prouince of any Bishop thinges being guided by truth law the iudgement of the wisest and best learned in the Prouince and by the Councel and common consent of the Clergy of that Prouince Who had reason to know the estate of their Church and Prouince better then the Pope or any stranger could doe This godly order in the Church the Pope had a purpose to confound to oppâ—…esse the Bishops authority and to draw all power to himselfe Hoc iâ—…stitutum to vse the words of Aueâ—…tinus tollere antiquare Episcoporum autoruatem Labefactare ad vnius cuâ—…cta potestatem redigere complacitum est 126. This being the purpose of Popes
and answereth to an obiection which I will set downe in his own words Quod si Christiani non deposuerunt olim Neronem Diocletianum Iulianum Valentem similes iâ—…suerat quia deerant vires temporales Christianis That is If Christians of old deposed not Nero Diocletian Iulian Valens and the like this was because Christians then wanted Temporall forces They will shortly without blushing tell vs that Iesus Christ also submitted himselfe to the heathen Emperours and to their deputies because he wanted power to resist them for this they may say with some sophisticall shew of reason aswell as that which they doe say Then his opinion is that the Pope as Pope hath not any Temporall power but yet the Pope and onely the Pope hath Temporall power aboue all Kings and Emperours This is one of the greatest points wherein the Pope hath incroached vpon the right of Kings 9. Besides this Temporall Iurisdiction there is another part of Iurisdiction called spirituall which the writers of the Church of Rome deuide into internall and externall internall they referre to the Sacraments onely Gerson de potest ecclesi consid 1. Bellar. de Rom. pont lib. 4. cap. 22. Bellarmine in the place last cited disputing of Iurisdiction saith there is a triple power in the Bishop of Rome first of order secondly of internall Iurisdiction thirdly of externall Iurisdiction the first is referred to the Sacraments the second to inward gouernment which is in the court of conscience the third to that externall gouernment which is practised in externall courts and confesseth that of the first and second there is no question betweene vs but onely of the third De primâ secundâ non est questio sed solum de tertiâ saith he Then of this wee are agreed that the question betweene vs and them is onely of Iurisdiction in the third sense and therein especially of Iurisdiction coactiue in externall courts binding and compelling by force of law and other externall mulcts and punishments beside excommunication as for Spirituall Iurisdiction of the Church standing in examinations of controuersies of faith iudging of heresies deposing of heretickes excommunication of notorious and stubborne offenders ordination of Priests and Deacons institution and collation of benefices and spirituall cures c. This we reserue intire to the Church which Princes cannot giue or take from the Church This power hath bene practised by the Church without coactiue Iurisdiction other then of excommunication But when the matters handled in the Ecclesiasticall consistorie are not matters of faith and religion but of a ciuill nature which yet are called Ecclesiasticall as being giuen by Princes and appointed to be within the cognisance of that consistorie and when the censures are not spirituall but carnall compulsiue coactiue here appeareth the power of the ciuill magistrate This power we yeeld to the magistrate and here is the question whether the magistrate hath right to this power or Iurisdiction which is thus described by the Romanists Externall Iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall is a power coactiue giuen to gouerne Christian people in contentious courts this is the principal question which we haue here to search Our English flatterers of the Pope that write now and of late haue written vndertake to prooue that this Iurisdiction is first and principally in the Pope and from him deriued to Bishops and that Kings haue not this power at all or any part of it vnlesse by commission from the Pope our assertion is contrary that this power of Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction externall and coactiue beâ—…ongs to Kings only not to Ecclesiasticall persons but as they â—…aue commission from their Princes And because we would â—…ot be mistaken in the question we will set down the words of the best of that side for better euidence and assurance who take the question thus and not otherwise Iohn Gerson saith Potestas Ecclesiastica Iurisdictionis in foro exteriori est potestas Ecclâ—…siastica coactiua quae valet exerceri in alterum etiam iâ—…uitum Bellarmine speaking of the same power saith it is ad regendum populum Christianum iâ—… foro exteriori 10. Then this is the thing which wee are to prooue that Ecclesiasticall coactiue power by force of lawe and corporall punishments by which Christian people are to be gouerned in externall and contentious courts is a power which of right belongeth to Christian Princes Concerning the power of orders and institutions of excommunication and deposition and of internall Iurisdiction in the court of Conscience in administration of Sacraments absolution by power of the keyes this we giue not to Princes but Princes as they are preseruers of Religion and nurcing fathers of the Church are to see that Bishops and all inferiour ministers performe their faithfull duties in their seuerall places and if they be found faulty to punish them because that belongeth to external Iurisdiction coactiue Thus much may suffice for the state of the question For the manner of handling I purpose to search the right of Kinges first in the law of nature secondly in the written law giuen by Moses continued vntill the comming of our Lord Iesus Christ thirdly to declare the confirmation of the same right by Christ and his Apostles and the Church succeeding vntill that time that the Pope drew a newe estate and Iurisdiction to himselfe After which time I purpose to obserue how the Pope hath incroached first vpon the Bishops then vpon the right of kings and last vpon the right of the Church and generall Councels By all which will appeare how late how new and strange that Iurisdiction is which the flatterers of the court of Rome now yeeld to the Pope CHAP. II. Kings in the time of the Law of nature had all power Ecclesiasticall both of order and Iurisdiction IN the Law of nature we haue not many examples of Kings that gouerned a people where the Church of God was planted there is onely mention of Melchisedecke King of Salem of him it is said Gen. 14. Melchisedecke King of Salem was a priest of the high God In his person these two offices the kingdom the priesthood were ioyned both which offices followed the prerogatiue of the birthright for that this Melchisedeck was Sem is the receiued opinion of many interpretours wherein is some difference Some take Sem to be the eldest sonne of Noah but others from a probable collation of Scriptures hold him to be the second sonne but whether hee were eldest or not it is apparant and out of doubt by that blessing Gen. 9. that he had the birthright for Canaan is made his seruant which is the auncient stile and euidence of the birth-right as is expressed in the birthright of Iacob Iaphet is perswaded to dwell in the tents of Sem. Whereas therefore hee hath that honor aboue both his brethren the birthright is euidently confirmed vnto him Canaan being made his seruant and Iaâ—…het being directed to repaire to his
distinctly set in two persons Moses keeping the ciuill gouernment and Aaron the Priesthood The gouernment of Moses and his successours being more ciuil The Priesthood of Aaron his successors ceremoniall it followeth that this ancient ordinance of the law of nature was altered by such positiue lawes of God which were either ciuil or ceremoniall and consequently that this alteration taketh not away the auncient right 6. If I might therefore in a matter of this nature declare my poore opinion leauing the censure hereof to the learned that are able to iudge I take it that as it is not simply vnlawfull that a King may be a Priest and neuerthelesse keepe his kingdome so I suppose this thing cannot be done without not only a lawfull but also an ordinarie calling from God and from the Church For no man taketh this honour to himselfe but he that was called thereto as was Aaron And this cannot bee done without an ordinary calling for when Kings were Priests and the first borne sacrificers as in the law of nature then they had an ordinary calling therto for that was then the ordinance of God ordinarie in the Church which now is not But if a man were first ◅ Priest and afterward aduanced to a kingdome by some Temporal right in this case it were assuredly vnlawfull for him to shake off his holy estate and betake himselfe wholly and only to his Temporall gouerment as some Cardinals haue done Then by the law of nature the King had both the power of order and Iurisdiction and howsoeuer this is altered by a positiue ordinance of God yet all is not taken away there remaineth still that part of Iurisdiction so farre as it standeth in power coactiue in respect wherof the common law of this land saith the King is persona mixta because he hath both Ecclesiasticall and Temporall Iurisdiction 7. This example of Melchisedeck both King and Priest hath much lifted vp the Pope and his flatterers for of this they take especiall hold and thinke hereby to prooue the Pope to be King of the Church because Melchisedeck was both King and Priest But to this we aunswere Melchisedeck had both these honours by a lawfull and ordinarie calling but so hath not the Pope for his Priesthood we graunt he had once thereto a lawfull calling both by locall and doctrinall succession which doctrinall succession Irenaeus calleth successionem principalem Tertullian doctrinae cōsanguinitatē cum Apostolica Ecclesia but now haue they forsaken that principall succession and haue nothing left to glory in but bare personall and locall succession Then to the office of a Bishop the Pope may shew some colour though the colour be now worne thredbare but to the princely office which he claimeth ouer the Church he can shew neither calling nor colour so that the example of Melchisedek which the Popes parasites drawe with such violence to him doth helpe him nothing but rather helpeth the cause of Christian Kings against him for it is certaine that Kings were Priests by an ordinary calling before these two offices were distinguished but it can neuer be prooued that Priests were Kings by such an ordinary calling after that these two offices were set in distinct persons If any man suppose that we haue stretched the example of Melchisedeck too farre because he was a type of Christ I aunswere this is nothing against my purpose that Melchisedeck was a type of Christ. For many men in their ordinary standing and executing ordinary functions did also beare some type extraordinarie thus did Moses Ioshua Dauid Solomon and others I speake of Melchisedeck as I finde him in his ordinary place a King and a Priest 8. By all which we conclude that vnder the law of Nature Kings were in the beginning inuested with all power Ecclesiasticall both of orders and Iurisdiction and therefore these things are not incompatible by nature All this time which lasted about the space of two thousand and fiue hundred yeeres Kings had Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction without question And therefore this Iurisdiction of Princes which we haue vndertaken to examine is found aunswerable to the first gouernment of the world vntill the time of the law giuen by Moses CHAP. III. All externall Iurisdiction coactiue was a right belonging to Kings vnder the Law NOw let vs search what Iurisdiction in matters Ecclesiasticall was found due and acknowledged to belong to the Kings right all that time vnder the Law Then we find by an especiall commaundement of God these two offices of King and Priest were distinguished and set in two seuerall persons the one in Moses the other in Aaron And the tribe of Leui was taken to the seruice of God in stead of the first borne by an expresse commaundement and the first borne which in number exceeded the number of the Louites were redeemed by fiue shekels a man for the number of the first borne was taken 22273. the number of the Leuites 22000. so that the number of the first borne exceeded the number of the Leuites by 273. These were redeemed and after that redemption the first borne of other tribes were discharged from the attendance of the seruice of God the Leuites tooke vp their place Now the Kings office and the Priests being thus distinguished we must consider what things did properly belong to each office 2. First we find that Moses who had the place of a King in gouernement as he is also called a King doth consecrate Aaron the Priest Moses is commaunded to consecrate him and his son s Exod. 28. and performeth it Leuit. 8. therefore it is repeated Num. 3. These are the names of the sonnes of Aaron the anointed Priests whom Moses did consecrate to minister in the Priests office Heere then appeareth some Iurisdiction of Moses ouer Aaron But this I meane not to vrge for it may bee thought extraordinailry to belong to Moses as Gods Apostle or Ambassadour and lawgiuer vnto Israel for in such great chaunges as was from the law of Nature to the written law somewhat must bee admitted extraordinary and this I could be well content to vnderstand so though many doubts arise for the princes right against the Priests For first it may be obiected seeing there was a Prince and a Priest set vp distinct one from the other why should the Prince consecrate the Priest and not the Priest the Prince But here we finde that Aaron doth not consecrate Moses to be Prince but Moses doth consecrate Aaron to be Priest Another doubt may be moued why Moses should consecrate not onely Aaron but his sonnes also For though we should admit the consecration of Aaron to be done by Moses of necessitie as a thing extraordinary at the first beginning of this Priesthood yet this necessitie appeareth not so much in Aarons sonnes for they might haue beene consecrated by Aaron after that himselfe had bene once consecrated by Moses And yet we find that the
extraordinary example that wee see rather that Salomon doth mitigate the ordinary punishment of that crime which Abiathar had committed Moreouer to punish or to release the punishment of treason belongeth not to the office of a Prophet but of the King but Salomon in this action punishing the treason of Abiathar releaseth some part of it All which proue the distorted shift of Tortus to be so vaine and shamelesse that the blushing Hat of a Cardinall is not broad enough to couer the shame In these things and in supreame appellation standeth Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction which by diuine right was placed in these Kings and by them practised CHAP. IIII. Externall Coactiue Iurisdiction was not left by Christ to his Church nor practised by the Church all that while that the Church was without Christian Magistrates wherein is declared the Iurisdiction of the Church and of Bishops that the power of excommunication proceeded not to Coaction NOw let vs make search in the Church of Christians wherein we will consider first the state of the Church after it was called by Christ and his Apostles and gouerned by the Fathers for the space of the first three hundred yeeres in all which time no Christian was the Soueraigne Magistrate In this time it will be to good purpose to search the Iurisdiction of the Church for this is the time wherein it will most cleerely appeare And Christ that appointeth all times states for his Church appointed that all this time she should be without Princes for her nourcing Fathers that by wanting it so long we might vnderstand the greatnesse of this blessing But when the Church of Rome grew insolent by abusing this blessing taking the right of Princes from them and thereby remouing the ancient bounds of the Ordinances which God had set of old then it was not to bee marueiled that such iudgements followed of blindnesse and ignorance among the people of confusion and contempt vpon Princes and Kings which iudgements haue beene so famously apparant in the sight of the world But let vs proceed to the examination of the Churches Iurisdiction for if we consider what Iurisdiction Iesus Christ left to his Church it will consequently appeare what Iurisdiction is in Ciuill Princes for all that Christ gaue not to his Church remaineth with Princes 2. The places from which they would prooue Iurisdiction are these Mat. 18. Whatsoeuer you shall binde on earth shall be bound in heauen And whosoeuers sinnes you retaine shall be retained Now these places make no proofe of this Iurisdiction which is in question For all Popish writers that I could see vpon this question acknowledg these Scripturs not to be meant of externall Iurisdiction coactiue which is our question but of the inward power of remitting of sinnes practised within the court of conscience by the power of Gods spirit and declared by the Priest and ordinarily practised in excommunication or otherwise The greater condemnation deserueth that Catholike Diuine who to disprooue the Iurisdiction of Princes and to proue the Popes pretended Iurisdiction bringeth these places of Scripture which speake of neither Other places they cite as that Thou art Peter and vpon this rocke will I build my Church and I will giue to thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen And Simon louest thou mee feede my Lambes c. These and such like places they bring to proue the Popes Iurisdiction All of this sort are throughly handled with exact iudgement and learning in that worthy conference written by Doctor Raynolds of blessed memory which booke as a gantlet of one of the worthies of our Church hath lien long betweene vs and the host of the Philistims and none of our adueâ—…saries hath had the courage to take it vp and to aunswere it 3. It is sufficient for vs to pleade that none of the auncient Fathers did euer expound these Scriptures thus or did euer dreame of such senses as they haue found of late out of their owne decretall Epistles It is sufficient that some of their owne best learned writers yea some of their most learned Popes before they were Popes haue with such learning and iudgement refuted their new deuised expositions of these Scriptures as that from themselues and out of their owne mouthes God hath drawen testimonies to ouerthrow these carnall and absurd expositions of Scriptures Iohn Gerson saith that these texts thus by the Popes flatterers applied to prooue his Iurisdiction are vnderstood by them Grossé non secundum regulam Euangelicam And Aenaeas Siluius hath with great life and learning ouerthrowen these grosse and corrupt expositions of whom we shall speake hereafter in due place where it will fully appeare that these expositions of Scripture are by the learned free and iudicious men of that side acknowledged to bee inuented by flatterers as the same Pope Pius the second witnesseth to be new and straunge and to be vrged by miserable and wretched soules which will not vnderstand that these challenges of their Iurisdiction are nothing but either the words of the Popes themselues that would inlarge their fringes without measure or of their flatterers who being blinded by ambition and caried with the winde of vaineglory doe flatter the Popes in hope of reward Though now those flatterers haue gotâ—… the vpper hand in the Councell of Trent and haue vsurped the name of the Church who before were alwayes esteemed a base company standing for the Popes Iurisdiction against the graue and learned men of that Church 4. Then for the places of Scripture which they bring for this Iurisdiction we say with their owne best learned men that they are in that sense wherein they vse them new deuises drawen of late by strange and absurd contortions into this new flattering sense by the Popes flatterers against the auncient expositions of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church Concerning the Iurisdiction which Christ left to his Church let all the Scriptures be searched and there will nothing be found of externall Iurisdiction consisting in power coactiue but all that Christ left was partly yea principally inward and spirituall power partly externall for establishing doctrines of faith and good order in the Church by Councels determinations iudicature spirituall censures excommunication deposing and dispatching of the disobedient so farre as the Church could proceede without coactiue power For by this spirituall power without coaction the Church was called faith was planted diuils were subdued the nations were taken out of the power of darkenesse the world was reduced to the obedience of Christ by this power the Church was gouerned for three hundred yeeres together without any coactiue Iurisdiction But what coactiue power may worke in the Church without this we haue a lamentable experience in the present court of Rome falling away from the truth and from the comfort of the spirit and therefore from the true vse of the power of the spirit of God when the Popes being destitute of this
impropriations turning tithes first from their true and auncient vse persecution for preaching the Gospell exemptions the vse of Legends in the Church and reading of fables to the people Symonie flattery pardons indulgences the heresie of an accident without a subiect singular and blind obedience the vse of commutation of penance into money they were instruments of warres and bloodshed they inuented works of supererogation the doctrin that reprobates are members of the Catholike Church to robbe the land of money These are the things in part which are obserued by Wiclife to haue beene first inuented by Friars Now whereas Iohn Wiclife was reputed an hereticke wee finde that this imputation was laid vpon him especially by Friars For he was a professed enemie to them and to their innouations holding with the Church of Rome and maintaining no other doctrine then that which he found publikely maintained and receiued in the world before Friars altered it Still he pleadeth the cause of the Priests against Friars which sheweth that he taught no otherwise then those Priests did teach And albeit the Friars did marueilouslly disorder the Church in his time yet hee witnesseth that the third part of the Clergie of England defended the truth against Friars Then the Friars being set vp to alter the auncient doctrine and Iurisdiction and to induce new did labour herein throughly imploying their best skill and power for the aduancement of the Pope and suppressing of the truth Heerein the Iesuites succeed their forefathes in this inheritance of innouation daily adding some new monsters to those which these old Friars left to their hands 24. The Vniuersitie of Paris hath likewise declared their iudgement against Friars somewhat before this time wherein Wiclife liued They gathered seuen Articles against Friars which because they proue Friars to be the authors introducers of innouation in the Church I will here set them downe First we say that Friars are not to be admitted into our Scholasticall societie except by our consent because the society ought not to be coact but voluntarie Secondly because wee haue found by experience that their fellowship hath beene many wayes hurtfull and dangerous to vs. Thirdly seeing they are of a diuerse profession from ours for they are regulars and wee schollers we ought not to be ioined or mingled together in one scholasticall office For the Spanish Councell saith Thou shalt not plow with an Oxe an Asse thatis thou shalt not associate men of diuers professions together in one office for how can they agree together whose studies vowes and purposes are diuers Fourthly because they raise dissentions offences but the Apostle saith we beseech you brethren that you obserue them that is that you discerne such as make dissentions for the doctrine which you haue learned of the Apostles and eschewe them for they serue not the Lord but their belly Gloss. for they flatter some they backbite others that they may fill their bellies and by glosing words and their benedictions they beguile the hearts of the simple Fiftly because we feare least they bee such as enter into houses because they thrust themselues into euery mans house they search and sift the consciences of men seduce such as they find like women ready to be seduced And whō they haue once seduced them they draw from the Councels of their owne Prelates to their Councels for they bind them by oath to their Councels such the Apostle commaundeth to eschew Sixtly because we feare they are false Prophets for they are not Bishops nor Parish-priests nor their Vicars nor by them inuited yet they preach being not sent against the Apostle saying Rom. 10. How shall they preach except they be sent For they worke no miracles thereby to witnesse that they may preach the Church then ought to auoid such men being so dangerous Seuenthly because they are curious and hauing no lawfull calling in the Church they busie themselues with other mens businesse thrust themselues into other mens callings and yet they are neither Apostles nor their successours that is Bishops neither are they of the seuenty and two Disciples of the Lord neither their helpers or Vicars as before is said Now the Apostle commaundeth vs to eschewe such as will liue so saying 2. Thess. vlt. We declare brethren to you in the name of the Lord Iesus Christ that you withdraw your selues from euery brother that walketh inordinately and not according to that tradition which they haue receiued of vs c. 25. Thus haue we set downe the sincere iudgement of that Vniuersitie before it was corrupted and infected with Friars They haue prooued that Friars haue no lawfull calling in the Church to preach or administer the Sacraments because they haue no institution of Christ or his Apostles And howsoeuer since those times the iudgement of that Vniuersitie was chaunged after they had once receiued these serpents into their bosomes yet the reasons which they haue brought against Friars are vnchaungeably true and will alwayes prooue that which then they prooued that neither the old Friars nor the new Iesuits haue any lawfull calling in the Church As thus they haue beene the bane of the Church in chaunging the old bounds so they haue beene the ruine of Princes and the cause of great warres and bloodshed yea of all the persecutions that haue bene since For before that time that the orders of Friars were brought foorth by a new and monstrous birth in the Church there was no bloodshed nor persecution offered by the Pope nor the Church of Rome for matters of Religion Berengarius was forced to a Recantation before but no blood was shed But after that Dominicke had instituted the order of the Iacobites or preaching Friars and Francis the order of the Minorites professed beggars then began great bloodshed and persecution to be practised vpon men that did not allow the Popes Iurisdiction in blood was it first founded and so it hath beene euer since maintained 26. The first persecution began against them that were called Albingenses whose opinions are made hainous by some that write affectionately since that time but by the writers of that time there appeareth no other thing wherewith they were charged but onely that they withstood the Popes pride and Iurisdiction for which they were persecuted The Earle of Tholouse who fauoured them was depriued of his Earledome his landes were giuen to Simon Monford the forces of the French and the Pope were raised against him when they were not able to vanquish him by force by fraud and falshood of the Friars and Popish Bishops they ouerthrew him In this ouerthrow of the Earle the industry and valour of Dominicke is much celebrated by the stories of this time Insomuch as the whole praise is attributed to him of him Platina witnesseth thus much Quos Albingenses Dominicus mira celeritate compescuit adiuuante etiā Simone Monteforti non enim disputationibus verum armis opus fuit adeo
point and am more willing to search the truth herein because it is a matter of especiall importance concerning this question of Iurisdiction which wee seeke to know For Robert Persons the masked Catholique diuine confesseth in effect thus much that if wee can proue that Inuestitures belong to temporall Princes we haue in his iudgement questionlesse obtained the cause for which we striue Let me set downe his owne words Three things saith he do concurre in making of a Bishop by diuine and Canon law to wit election confirmation and consecration The first to wit election when it is iustly made doth giue right to the elected to pretend the second and third c. Yet can he not vpon his only Election exercise any part of his office of a Bishop either in Iurisdiction or order But when he hath the second part which is confirmation and induction to the benefice which is properly called Inuestiture then hath he Iurisdiction vpon those people and may exercise the Acts thereof by visiting punishing or the like but not the Acts of order vntill he haue consecration also that is to say he cannot make Priests nor administer the Sacrament of confirmation c. And a little after he saith the second which is confirmation and giuing of Iurisdiction must onely proceede from him that is the fountaine of all spirituall Iurisdiction vnder Christ which is the Bishoppe of Rome or some Metropolitane or Bishoppe vnder him that hath authority and Commission from him Thus much the Catholicke Diuine 66. I forgiue many particular escapes in this short discourse not spending time in the examination of by-points I would meete him there where he thinketh himselfe strongest For where he saith confirmation which also he calleth induction or which properly as he graunteth may be called Inuestiture giueth Iurisdiction this we yeeld And then heere wee ioyne issue with olde Sir Robert in that part of his Collection whereon he layeth his greatest hold and are content to trie the whole cause thereon whether Inuestiture which by his confession and the doctrine of his Church and the consent of all giueth Iurisdiction belong of ancient right to the Pope or to temporall Princes If he be able to proue by any auncient full cleare vnsuspected witnesse that the Popes within the space of the first thousand yeares or before Hildebrand either had that right or did practise or so much as challenge that right I will for my part yeeld the cause and will confesse mine errour if thus much be euidently euicted But seeing we haue proued by vndoubted Histories by the consent of Popes themselues by the Decrees established in Councels that this was an auncient right of temporall Princes called Prisca consuetudo by Pope Stephen Antiqua consuetudo by another that the contrarie was neuer heard of vnder any Christian Prince confessed by Gregory the first Then hath he reason either to yeelde vs the cause wholly or to reuoke his wordes againe that Inuestiture giueth Iurisdiction 67. Then the right of Inuestitures standing as the auncient right of our Kings being neuer questioned in Christendome before the time of Pope Gregory the seuenth neuer questioned in this land before the time of Henry the first that King had reason to pleade the vse of his father and brother for himselfe because it being a thing quietly possessed by them was out of doubt peaceably inioyed before them because before them the Popes neuer made title thereto Now concerning the tumults warres blood and confusion in Christendome both in the Church and temporall states which for this quarrell the Popes procured for fiftie yeares together as Malmsbury witnesseth of this it is not my purpose to speake It is enough for mee to open the time when it began and before which time it was neuer challenged by any Pope and to declare that the Popes late practise is condemned by the Iudgement of the auncient Church §. V. Exemption of criminous Clerkes 68. OVr purpose being to take a suruey of that Iurisdiction which we finde challenged by Popes at and somewhat after the time of the Conquest of England at what time the Popes power was at the highest we are to consider in the next place Exemption of criminous Clerkes for as Inuestiture of Bishoppes began then to be claimed so about these times crept exemption of the Popes Clerkes which is taken to be another part of this Iurisdiction My purpose is not to speake of lawfull exemption of the Clergie for both Diuine and humane lawes approue such immunities without which how could the Clergie attend vpon their heauenly businesse These immunities which Emperours and Princes haue giuen to the Church the Church ought to inioy without disturbance and to withdraw such immunities were high sacriledge and impiety against God and his Church But the question is not of these immunities which Christian Kings haue giuen to the Church but of those immunities which the Pope without the leaue or authoritie of Princes hath bestowed out of his fulnesse of power vpon the Clergie which liue vnder the gouernement of other Princes by which the Clergie inioyed a protection from punishment for any sinne This is the thing for which they are not ashamed to striue euen at this day as earnestly as they did in the midst of blindenesse This thing will be better knowne if we search the originall foundation of this errour from the beginning and the occasion by which it grew in the Church For now this opinion is and for some late hundred yeeres hath beene so rooted in the Court of Rome that the Clergie though neuer so much offending by murther treason theft robberies or such like is priuiledged from all temporall Courts of Princes and punishment from the Laity vnlesse first the Church proceede against them and make them no Clerks that they are perswaded both of the truth and antiquity hereof as of a point of faith the occasion grew thus 69. The first auncient and famous Emperours did out of their godly and zealous affections and as we may well iudge vpon good reasons to helpe the Church and to preserue discipline ioyne the aide of their coactiue lawes to the spirituall censures of the Church ordeining that whosoeuer by the gouernours of the Church could not be brought to obedience and order should by the seuerity of temporall punishment be reduced to obedience The vsuall punishment which Emperours did inflict vpon Clerkes was deportation So did Constantine the great punish Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia and Theognius Bishoppe of Nice And albe it some were threatned with capitall punishment as appeareth by a Letter which Constantine wrote to the Bishoppes of the Nicen Councel recorded by Socrates and inserted in the first Tome of Councels yet the vsuall censure of the Emperour was exile This kind of punishment was often inflicted by other Emperors vpon Bishops the examples are famously knowne and acknowledged I need not to speake of them Insomuch that it began to be
it must be before his Bishoppe if he will accuse the Bishoppe it must be in a prouinciall Synode if he will draw a Metropolitane to answer for some things which he hath done it must be either before the Primate or before the Bishoppe of Constantinople All this we graunt to be orderly established the things intended are matters of Ecclesiasticall Cognisance which are to bee heard in such Courts but our question is of Clerks that are conuinced to be murtherers or Traytors c. Whether such are to bee exempt from triall at Common Law Of which exemptions these auncient Bishops neuer dreamed 76. It is moreouer to be noted that diuers of these places which he citeth as that from Sulpitius of S. Martin and from Ambrose c. are vnderstoode of another thing and not of exemption of Clarkes at all For the auncient Bishops as before I haue declared thought it not lawfull that matters of faith and doctrine should be determined in ciuill Courts by ciuill Magistrates This is true and this is that which those testimonies speake of but what is this to criminous Clarks that Robbers Traytors murtherers of the Clergy should be protected by reason of their Order from triall in Kings Courts this is a doctrine neuer knowne to the auncients It was first knowne in England in the dayes of Henry the second stirred seditiously by Thomas Becket Archbishop of Canterbury when as before that time it was neuer heard of in this land The manner heereof I will briefly recite out of Roger Houeden 77. In the yeare of Christ 1163. the contention concerning exemption of Clerkes grew famous betweene King Henry the second and Thomas Becket Archbishop Rex volebat saith Houeden Presbyteros Diaconos Subdiaconos alios Ecclesiae rectores si comprehensi fuissent in latrocinio vel murdra vel felonia vel iniqua combustione vel in his similibus ducere ad saecularia examina punire sicâ—…t laicum Contra quod Archiepiscopus dicebat quod si Clericus in sacris ordinibus constitutus vel quilibet alius rector Ecclesiae calumniatus fuerit de aliqua re per viros Ecclesiasticos in curia Ecclesiastica debet iudicari Et si conusctus fuerit ordines suos amittere sic alâ—…enatus ab officio beneficio Ecclesiastico si postea forisfecerit secundum voluntatem Regis baliuorum suorum iudicetur That is The King required that Priests Deacons Subdeacons and other Rectors of Churches if they were taken in murther robbery felony burning of houses or such like should be brought to secular Courts and there punished as Lay-men were Against this the Archbishop affirmed that if a Clerke being within holy Orders or any other Parson of a Church were accused of any thing he must be iudged by Ecclesiasticall Iudges in the Ecclesiasticall Court and if he were conuict he should loose his orders And so being excluded from office and benefice Ecclesiasticall if after this he incurred the like fault then might he be iudged at the pleasure of the King and his Officers Thus farre Houeden 78. This manner of degrading and afterward deliuering criminous Clarkes to the Secular power crept in about the time of the Conquest Bellarmine pretending greater antiquity for it can neither bring reason nor testimony for his opinion For whereas he saith Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia was first deposed by the Nicen Councell and afterward banished by Constantine by this offering to proue that they must first be deliuered to the Secular power before the Magistrate may punish and reproueth Caluin for not considering thus much We answere Bellarmine sheweth his skill in shifting and hiding the truth to deceiue the simple For Caluin in that place which he citeth against this Romish immunitie proueth two things First that coactiue power is in the hand of the Prince and not of the Church Ecclesia cogendi non habet potestatem de ciuili coactione loquor saith he Secondly that criminous Clarkes had no immunities from the ciuill Courts of Princes Now that Bellarmine saith Eusebius was first deposed by the Councell and then banished is nothing against Caluin but for him For the Church did not inflict the coactiue punishment of banishment but the Emperour And Caluin proueth at large in the same place that Kings and Emperours haue no authority to iudge in causes of faith Producing the example of Ambrose who in such a cause resisted the Emperour Valentinian Such a cause was that of Eusebius the Emperour knew not whether he was in fault or not before the Church had iudged the cause But Caluines iudgement and our question standeth in two thinges against which Bellarmine doth not so much as speake one word First that coactiue power was not then in the Church but in the Emperour Secondly that criminous Clerkes were then punished by the Magistrate Eusebius is not there proposed as a criminous Clerke but as an example wherein the coactiue power of the Magistrate appeared But now they say if a Clerke bee proued to be a felon murderer traytor c. the Kings Courts may not censure this man before he be degraded Against these immunities wee speake for which Bellarmine offereth not any proofe Let the manner of Bellarmines answering bee considered for it is easie for him thus to answere Caluin and all Protestants when he toucheth not the point in question but singling out of some peece from the whole wresteth that also from the true intent that he may shape a mis-shapen answere to it Then we say that before those desperate times wherein Iohn Wiclife saith and often affirmeth that Satan was loosed no man claymed such a beastly priuiledge as to be exempt from the Kings Lawes for murder treason and such like Godlinesse reason and the light of Nature seemeth to be extinguished in these men that being contented to take the benefite of Lawes will not be contented to bee ordered by Lawes This hath forced some Princes and States to ordaine Lawes that such should be out of the Kings protection Thus did that noble Prince Edward the third King of England Wherein the King seemed to open the true way to his successors to deale with these men for seeing as then they did so now they doe denie themselues to be the Kings subiects and affirme that neither by Diuine nor humane right they are bound to obey the King with his coactiue Lawes and that they are onely vnder the subiection of the Pope that for no crimes they are to bee examined in the Kings Courts is it not great reason that the protection of the King and of his Lawes should bee denyed to them that reiect both 79. Houeden declareth also that in the yeare one thousand one hundred sixtie foure the King called a Synod and required the Bishops vpon their allegeance to receiue his Graundfathers Lawes to vse and obserue them Thomas Becket answered for him and the rest they would keepe all the Lawes
Now this is the crueltie of our Lord the King that is so much spoken of through the world against the Church this is that persecution that he raiseth Then it is an auncient complaint of these Romish Catholickes to call the iust lawfull godly and necessary execution of iustice crueltie and persecution this complaint hath beene euer since continued by them and most of all where there is least cause euen in the milde and mercifull gouernement of the late Queene of famous memory What crueltie did they impute to her What persecution to her Gouernement When they are not able to proue that one man was executed for Religion but for treason Which was so much the more dangerous because it was masked with the visard of Religion but Religion is not nor euer was the cause why our Kings punished the Popes Clerkes but onely Iurisdiction For when the Pope will stretch his Iurisdiction so farre as to include coactiue power and to exclude Kings from the gouernement of their Subiects drawing the Clergie from the obedience of their Kings to the obedience and subiection of the Pope drawing the subiects of other Kings vnder his subiection by an Oath of Allegiance and hereupon perswading al that will hearken to him that they may not yeelde an Oath of Alleageance to their owne Princes the Popes Iurisdiction being drawne to these points as now by the confession of themselues they are the question betweene the Pope and Christian Princes is not of Religion but of Iurisdiction of ciuill and coactiue Iurisdiction and the summe of all is this Whether the Princes of Christendome shall be free Princes or the Popes Vassals 82. By this which we haue declared we see the cause of our Kings iustified against the Archbishoppe and the exemption of Clerkes for which the Archbishoppe stroue and which since that time is claimed to be an especiall priuilege of that Church to be condemned by the chiefe of the Clergy by all the Bishops of that Prouince and that euen to the Pope himselfe Which thing the Bishoppes of the English Church would neuer haue done vnlesse they had beene well assured that the Kings cause was good and that the contrary opinion was a pernicious nouelty a late vpstart deuice in the Church But howsoeuer the Popes Clerkes pretended their new forged priuiledges yet the Kings of this land held still their olde course in the auncient manner of execution of iustice against them that offended And therefore Henry the second by law commaunded as Houeden saith that the Bishoppes of London and Norwich should be summoned that they might be before the Kings Iustices to answere for that they against the statutes of the kingdome did interdict the land of the Earle Hugh 83. This exemption of Clarks was a new practise in the time of Marsilius of Padua and not so new as pestiferous occasioning the ruine of States and being as a furie sent abroad from hell to disorder all gouernment For thus he complaineth of it Quibus non contenti sed saecularium contra Christi Apostolorum praeceptum appetentes fastigia in legum Lationes seorsum ab ijs quae Ciuium vniuersitatis sunt proruperuut Omnem clerum ab his decernentes exemptum ciuile sâ—…hisma principatuum supremoruÌ„ pluralitatâ—…m inducentes ex ipsis c. Haec pestilentiae Italici regni radix est origo ex qua cuncta scandala germinauerunt prodeunt qua stante nunquaÌ„ ciuiles ibidem cessabunt discordiae c. That is Not content herewith they the Popes seeking the honour of secular gouernement against the commandement of Christ and his Apostles haue taken vpon them the ordaining of Lawes and Canons other then such as serue for the common good They decree that all the Clergie are exempt from temporall Princes heereby inducing a pluralitie of Soueraignties c. This is the roote and spring of the pestilence of the Empire from whence all scandals grow and which standing ciuill discord shall neuer haue an end c. Thus were these exemptions then found and acknowledged to be the pestilence and ruine of all states especially of the Empire And his reason is well to be obserued because saith he it bringeth in Pluralitatem supremorum principatuum quam velut impossibilem humanae quieti demonstrauimus he proueth the plurality of Soueraignty a thing impossible to stand with the quiet and peaceable Gouernement of the world Now this exemption must eyther induce a plurality of Soueraignties when the Pope is one Soueraigne and the Prince another which is impossible in nature saith Marsilius or else it denieth the Kings Soueraignty to establish the Popes which thing can neuer bee indured by any Prince §. VI. Of the Popes power in giuing lawes 84. ANother thing whereby this new Iurisdiction of the Pope was so highly aduanced was giuing of Lawes to Princes and their subiects whereas before Princes had giuen lawes to him Marsilius in the wordes last cyted in the end of the last Paragraffe speaking of these laws saith They now break out into a practise of Iurisdiction taking vpon them to make lawes separat and distinct from such lawes as are for the common and publique good of all meaning the Canon lawes which because they intend onely the priuate aduancement of the Pope and not the publique good of the Church being also made onely by the authority of the Pope and not by the publique consent of the Church therefore he doth not account them lawes but Oligarchicall and tyrannicall Decrees these lawes are to be considered because they make so great a shew of the Popes Iurisdiction 85. The Church before was gouerned by Bishoppes and Metropolitanes in such order that the affaires of euery particular Diocesse were ordered by the Bishoppe or by a Synode of his calling the affaires of the Prouince were determined by the Metropolitane or by a Prouinciall Synode of his calling from an Episcopall Synode a man might appeale to a prouinciall Synode and from a Prouinciall Synode to a nationall but from a prouinciall or from a nationall Synode none might appeale to the Bishoppe of Rome for which thing diuers Decrees were made in prouinciall Synodes as we haue before declared As the Bishoppes were Gouernours so the lawes whereby they did then gouerne the Church were the Canons of auncient Councels especially of those foure most famous Councels of Nice Constantinople Ephesus and Chalcedon For that the Canons of these Councels were held for the lawes of the Church it appeareth by a Constitution of Iustinian extant in the fift Synode held at Constantinople wherein Iustinian the Emperour declareth that Aâ—…thimus was deposed from the Bishoprike of Constantinople by Pope Agapetus and a whole Synode with him consenting for that he had departed from the doctrines of those foure holy Synodes the Nicen the Constantinopolitan the Ephesian and the Chalcedonian The Emperor also declareth that he being deposed by the Church should be banished by him ioyning his
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
〈◊〉 legâ—… aliqâ—… obligarentur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is aut institutis Ecclesia vel 〈◊〉 Râ—…manorum plusquam â—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—…e 〈◊〉 rationabili 〈◊〉 qua fideles in vnitate amplius seruabantur eo quod tune fideli 〈◊〉 legislatore ipsos in ordine reducente 〈◊〉 in vâ—…itate seruante c. That is Albeit about the beginning of the Church other Bishops and Churches of beleeuers were not bound by any diuine or humane law to obey the mandates of the Church or Bishop of Rome rather then the contrary yet this profitable and reasonable custome preuailing by which beleeuers were better kept in vnitie because they wanted then a Christian Magistrate to reduce them to order and preferue them in vnitie therefore they were afterward bound as by a diuine law to this obedience in things honest and lawfull 11. But because the Popes and their flatterers did couer all their practiseâ—… with plâ—…nitudo 〈◊〉 as with a mist therfore he doth with great light of learning and truth dispell that mist This saith hâ—… is Loâ—…us 〈◊〉 â—…nde etiaÌ„ paralâ—…gismus quâ—… reges principantes â—…o singâ—…los coactiua 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 subiectos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 trâ—…xit origineâ—… That is This is a Sophisme whence that Paralogisme drew his beginning by which they striue to draw Kings and Princes and all other vnder their subiection by coactiue Iurisdiction And therfore iâ—… he belaboreth exâ—…ctly and at full to open this fallacion of fulnesse of power the suâ—…e whereof is this By a pretended fulneâ—…e of power the Pope wiâ—…hout ground or reason onely led thereto by pride and ambition intruded vpon the right of Iesus Christ and vpon the right of the Church and vpon the right of Temporall Princes wresting all authority to himselfe this he calleth fulnes of power â—…or iâ—…by fulnes of power be vnderstood tâ—…at power wherby all men and all creatures are commanded and directed to what end the commauâ—…der will this power is giuen onely to Iesus Christ and to no other man according to that Scripture all power is giueâ—… vnto me in heauen and in â—…arth But if by fulnesse of power be vnderstood power to preach to excommunicate to binde to loose to interpret Scripture to determine controuersies this power is in the Church partly in Bishops partly in doctors partly in Councels and not more in the Pope then in another Bishop Last of all if by this fulnesse of power be vnderstood Soueraigne Iurisdiction coactiue then it is in Temporall Princes Marsiliuâ—… maketh moe parts hereof bâ—…t I draw him summarily and presume that to these three heads all that he saith may be reduced 12. And therefore whereas the Pope claimeth such â—… power intruding vpon the right of each of these he saith Ex vnâ—… 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 â—…ransiuit Romanâ—…s 〈◊〉 Thâ—…t is The Pope hath from one presumption passed into another The same Author declareth how the Popes proceeded in these their incroachings vpon Iurisdiction First saith he they made some constitutions to gouerne the Clergie then they proceeded by way of exhortâ—…tion intreaty to perswade the laitie to keepe fastes to abstaine from meats When they saw that laymen did willingly receiue suâ—…h obseruations theÌ„ they proceeded to ordaine the same things as laws to denounce excoÌ„municatioÌ„ against the transgrâ—…ssours thereof And all this was done saith he Suâ—… 〈◊〉 diuinâ—… culâ—…us speciâ—… That is Vnder a shewe of godlinâ—…sse and the worship of God The same Author addeâ—…h Cresâ—…ente autem 〈◊〉 ipsis appâ—… 〈◊〉 ampliâ—… domiâ—…di attendentibâ—…s deuotoâ—… fideliâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ignauiaâ—… diuinâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 qui ad â—…a 〈◊〉 sacerdoteâ—… indicebantur obligari credebanâ—… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aeternâ—… praesumpseruâ—…t 〈◊〉 Episcopâ—… Romaâ—…i cum suo clericoruâ—… coetu â—…ligarchica quaedam edicta 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 actus 〈◊〉 c. That is But as the appetite of ruling farther continually increased in them when they sawe that deâ—…ote Christians were kept in feare with such proceedings through slothfulnesse and ignorance of Gods worship which Christians ignorant thought themselues bound vnder the paine of eternall damnation to all that was inioyned them of the Priests then the Bishops of Rome with their Clergie presuming further made certaine Oligarchicall Edicts concerning ciuill actions Thus saith hee the Bishoppe of Rome began first to practise expemptions And that hee might draw a number of the Laiety into the loue of those practises he extended these exemptions to diuers companies of Lay persons and so defrauded the Magistrate of due honour and obedience and brought in that confusion whereof the same Authour complaineth thus Hâ—…c est pestilentiae Italici regniradix origo ex qua cuncta scandala germinauerunt prodeunt c. Qua stante nunquamciuiles ibidem cessaâ—… discordiae pâ—…testatem enim hanc ad quam paulatim latenti prâ—…aricatione subintrauit ex consuetudine aut abusione verius dudum detinuit Rom. Episcopus eandem sibi per principem reuocari formidans merito propter commissos excessus creationeâ—… atque 〈◊〉 Rom. Principis omni maligna sollicitudiâ—… vitat That is This is the roote and fountaine of the pestilence which troubleth the Empire from whence all scandals growe and proceede and which standing ciuill discords shall neuer cease in Italy for the Pope fearing that this power may be reuoked by the Emperor and that deseruedly for the excesse committed therein into which power he hath by little and little stolne by secret preuarication of custome or to say more truely of abuse hauing holden it some while he hindreth the creation and promotion of the Emperor by all malice and spite Wherupon saith he some Popes haue broken out into such impudency as in their Decretals is to be seene that they aâ—…ouch that the Emperor is bound to them in an Oath of Alleageance as if the Emperour were vnder them subiected by coactiue Iurisdiction 13. Then Marsiliuâ—… hath discouered the reason why the Popes haue so much opposed themselues against the Emperors to be because they were affraid least the Emperours should call them to a reckoning for their Exemptions for the abuse of their excommunications for intruding themselues into the office of the ciuill Magistrate and taking a newe authority vpon themselues from themselues without warrant of the Emperour This is that thing which caused them to stirre so much against Emperours and at last to procure the decay of the Empire so much as at this day they haue made it so weake that now they are out of the feare thereof Other things for breuities sake I omit this is sufficient to vnderstand what reason learned men had then to withstand the Popes Iurisdiction This booke of Marsilius was neuer answered and hereafter is not like to be But Iohn the two and twentieth against whom this booke was intended did in stead of aunswering condemne this worthy Writer which thing was much more easie for him to doe §. II. William Occham and Michael Cezena 14. BVT the truth could not be suppâ—…ssed