Beveridge on Article XXXVII: Of the Civil Magistrates

But for the better opening and confirming of this we must call to mind how the most high God, the supreme Governor of all churches and states in the world, hath been pleased, for the more orderly government of both, to settle a distinct power in each, the power of the keys in the church, and the power of the sword in the state, answerable to the two essential parts of man, his soul and his body; for the power of the keys committed to the church, that reacheth to the soul only, not to the body; and the power of the sword com- mitted to the civil magistrate, that reacheth to the body only, not to the soul; but both together they have influence both upon the soul and body, or outward man. And though both these powers be united in God, the fountain of all power, yet when derived from Him they are still separated from one another, so that they are not seated together in one and the same person; but the civil magistrate, to whom the power of the sword is granted, to him is the power of the keys denied ; and the church, to which the power of the keys is granted, to it is the power of the sword denied. And therefore was

: Peter, who had the power of keys, commanded to put up his sword, Matt. xxvi. 52, and Uzziah, who had the power of the sword, punished for using the keys, 2 Chron. xxvi.; so that the priest hath no power to execute any part of the king’s office, neither hath the king any power to execute any part of the priest’s office; but these being two distinct offices and ordinances appointed by God, he that hath the keys must use them, not the sword, and he that hath the sword must use it, and not the keys.

And hence it is that when the power of the civil magistrate was asserted to extend itself to ecclesiastical persons and causes, as well as civil, it is forthwith added, Where we at- tribute to the king’s majesty the chief government, (by which titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended,) we give not to our princes the ministering either of God’s word or of the sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our queen do most plainly testify. In which words we being referred to the queen’s Injunctions for the

558 Of the Civil Magistrate. Art.

further explication of this particular, we must consider what is there written to this purpose; and amongst other things we find it there said, 2“ And further, her majesty forbiddeth all manner of her subjects to give ear or credit to such perverse and malicious persons, which most sinisterly and maliciously labour to notify to her loving subjects, how, by the words of the same oath, (viz. of supremacy,) it may be collected, the kings or queens of this realm, possessors of the crown, may challenge authority and power of ministry of divine offices in the church, wherein her said subjects are much abused by such evil disposed persons. For certainly her majesty. neither doth nor ever will challenge any other authority than that was challenged and lately used by the said noble kings of famous memory, king Henry the Eighth and king Edward the Sixth, which is and was of ancient time due to the imperial crown of this realm, that is, under God to have the sovereignty and rule over all persons born within these her realms, dominions, and countries, of what estate, either ec- clesiastical or temporal, soever they be, so as no other foreign power shall or ought to have any superiority over them.” And for the confirmation of this sense put upon the oath of supremacy, and so the king’s sovereignty, there was a proviso also established by act of parliament to this purpose: » “ Pro- vided also that the oath expressed in the same act made in the first year shall be taken and expounded in such form as is set forth in an admonition annexed to the queen’s majesty’s Injunctions, published in the first year of her majesty’s reign ; that is to say, to confess and acknowledge in her majesty, her heirs and successors, none other authority than that was challenged and lately used by the noble king Henry the Eighth and king Edward the Sixth, as in the said admonition may more plainly appear.” By which we may see how vain and groundless the scandal is which is usually cast upon the oath of supremacy, as if we there acknowledged the king to have the keys as well as the sword committed to him, and that he might administer the word and sacraments in spiritual, as well as justice and judgment in secular affairs ;

a.n the admonition annexed to queen Elizabeth’s Injunctions. [p. 83. Sparrow’s coll. | > Stat. of 5 Elizab. cap. 1.

[…]

whereas the same power that asserted the king’s supremacy hath still denied it to extend to the exercise of any spiritual function. ;

But though the power of the sword and that of the keys be not seated in one and the same subject, yet it doth not follow but they may be exercised upon one and the same object, so that the selfsame person, yea, for one and the same crime, may be punished by both powers; for though they be two distinct powers, yet each of themis to be custos utrius- que tabule, to look to the observance and punish the breach of both tables, but still keeping themselves within their own limits: as for example, theft, treason, murder, are breaches of the second table, and therefore to be punished by the civil magistrate; yet the persons guilty of such crimes may be punished by the church also, even excommunicated for them. So, on the other side, blasphemy, heresy, and idolatry, are breaches of the first table, and so to be punished immediately by the church ; yet they may, yea, and ought to be punished by the civil magistrate too; neither is there any other power whereby a heretic or blasphemer can be put to death, but only by the power of the sword: and therefore it must needs be granted, that as the breaches of the second table may be punished by the power of the keys as well as by the power of the sword, ©so may the breaches of the first table be punished by the power of the sword as well as by the power of the

keys; and if so, the power of the civil magistrate must needs reach to spiritual or ecclesiastical, as well as secular or temporal causes; for all the first table consists of nothing else. And this, the punishing with the civil sword all manner of persons guilty of ecclesiastical as well as secular crimes,

seems to be the prerogative

© Quomodo ergo reges Domino serviunt in timore nisi ea que contra jussa Domini fiunt religiosa severitate prohibendo, atque plec- tendo? Aliter enim servit quia homo est, aliter quia etiam rex est: quia homo est, ei servit vivendo fideliter, quia vero etiam rex est, servit leges justa precipientes et contraria prohibentes convenient

here principally given to the

vigore sanciendo. Sicut servivit Hezechias lucos et templa idolorum et illa excelsa que contra precepta Dei fuerant extructa destruendo, sicut servivit Jozias talia et ipse faciendo, sicut servivit rex Ninivi- tarum universam civitatem ad pla- candum Dominum compellendo. Aug. epist. ad Bonifac. [185. 19. vol. I.]

560 Of the Civil Magistrate. Art.

king’s majesty in this article, as appears in these words: But we give to our princes only that prerogative, Sc. that they should rule all states and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil-doers: so that the supremacy that is here given him is, that he may punish all manner of persons for all manner of crimes, whether ecclesiastical or temporal, with the civil sword.

And seeing all manner of persons and causes are thus to be subject to him and punishable by him, it necessarily follows that he hath power and authority over them, whether ec- clesiastical or civil. So that he may command ecclesiastical as well as civil persons to give obedience to ecclesiastical as ‘well as civil laws, yea, and punish them for their disobedience. What disorders are brought into the church, he may and ought to reform them; what needless or dangerous contro- versies arise in the church, he may and ought to still them; as also he may and ought to see that all things be done decently and in order ; and to that end may, either of himself or by the advice of a council, prescribe rules and canons to be observed in the external order of divine worship; so that he may call a council when he pleaseth, dismiss it when he pleaseth, and confirm their decrees and constitutions so far as himself pleaseth ; so that nothing they prescribe is obligatory under any temporal penalty without his consent, though what he prescribes is obligatory without their consent. And thus king James, who was a person well acquainted with the extent of his own power: ¢The king’s supremacy, saith he, implies a power to command “ obedience to be given to the word of God, by reforming religion according to his prescribed will, by assisting the spiritual power with his temporal sword, by reformation of corruption, by procuring due obedience to the church, by judging and cutting off all frivolous questions and schisms, as Constantine did, and finally, by making decorum to be observed in all indifferent things for that purpose, which is the only intent of the oath of supremacy.” To which we may also add, that appeals ought to be made in all causes, ecclesiastical and civil, from all other persons unto

eX VI. Of the Civil Magistrate. 561

him,‘and to him only. So that it is lawful to appeal from any other unto him, but not from him to any other. And in the exercise of this his power he is to make the testimonies of God the men of his counsel, as king David did, Psalm exix. 24, but is not bound to give account of his actions and exercise of his power to any person upon earth, but only to the God of heaven ; and therefore may well be styled supreme governor (under God) over all persons, and in all causes, ecclesiastical as well as civil, within his majesty’s realms and dominions. Neither is this any other prerogative than what hath been still given to godly princes in the holy scriptures by God himself; for thus we find king David, @ man after God’s own heart, gathered together all the princes of Israel, with the priests and Levites, prescribing them rules to be observed in the wor- ship of God, 1 Chron. xxiii. 2, &c. xxv. and xxvi; and there- fore it is said, All these were under the hands of their father . Jor song in the house of the Lord, with symbols, psalteries, and harps, for the service of the house of God, according to the king’s order to Asaph, Jeduthun, and Heman, ec. xxv.6; so that it seems the king had given them order about the service of God. Thus good king Josiah commanded Hilkiah the high priest, and the priests of the second order, and the keepers of the door, to bring forth out of the temple of the Lord all the vessels that were made for Baal, &c. 2 Kings xxiii. 4. And certainly he would not have commanded such ecclesiastical persons un- less he had had the command over them. Neither had he power over ecclesiastical persons only, but in ecclesiastical causes too, otherwise he could never have made such a refer- mation in the church as he then did, ibid. ¢. xxii. and ¢. xxiii. And thus did prince Moses burn the golden calf, Exod. xxxii.20. And king Hezekiah removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made, 2 Kings xviii. 4. And king Jehoshaphat charged the priests and Levites, saying, Thus shall ye do in the fear of the Lord faithfully and with a perfect heart, 2 Chron. xix.9. Nay, so great was the power of the princes then over ecclesiastical persons, that the high priests themselves were reproved or deposed at the princes’ pleasure: for thus we find Aaron the high priest reproved by Moses, Exod. xxxui, 21,

si a

562 Of the Civil Magistrate. Arr. and Abiathar the high priest deposed by Solomon, 1 Kings ii. 26,27. And to manifest the prince’s power in ecclesiastical eauses too, Mordecai, who then was the only prince amongst the Jews, ordained the feast of Purim, Hsth. ix. 20, 21, 26; even as our king, now upon occasion, appoints fasting or thanksgiving days to be observed by all his people.

And if we pass from the Old to the New Testament, there we have a strict command from the great God by St. Paul, saying, Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, Rom. xiii.1; where, as St. Chrysostom observes, “ the apostle °shewing how he commands this to all, both priests and monks, and not only to secular persons, he makes it clear from the first words, saying, Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, though he be an apostle, though he be an evangelist, though he be a prophet, or whosoever he be ;” so that ecclesiastical as well as lay persons are to be subject to the higher powers. But what higher powers? Why St. Basil tells us: ‘‘* Paul the apostle, writing to the Romans, commands that they be sub- ject to all powers that have the preeminence, to secular not spiritual powers; and this he manifests by what he adds, speaking of tribute and custom.” So that ecclesiastical per- sons also are here commanded to be subject to the civil ma- gistrate, and then the civil magistrate must needs have power over ecclesiastical persons. And therefore doth St. Peter write to all persons, of what quality or degree soever, saying, Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, 1 Pet. ii.13; where by every ordinance of man he meaneth ‘kings and governors, as himself in the words immediately following explaineth himself, saying, whether it be to the king,

[…]

loc. [p. 499. vol. II.]

Of the Civil Magistrate. 563

as supreme; or unto governors, as [unto] them that are sent by him: where we may also observe how the apostle supposeth the king to be supreme. So that to deny him to be supreme would be as much as to deny him to be king; I say supreme, and that not only in civil but in ecclesiastical causes ; and therefore it was that St. Paul in an ecclesiastical cause (to wit, whether he was a seducer, or whether his doctrine was to be allowed of, or he to be condemned for it or no) appeals to Czsar, Acts xxv. 11; yea, and in the verse immediately foregoing he saith, I stand at Casar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judged, v.10. So that it was Czesar that ought to determine the controversy; and if heathen princes were, it cannot be denied but that Christian kings must needs be the supreme governors in all causes, and over all per- sons, ecclesiastical as well as civil, within their realms and -dominions.

And if we consult the practice of the primitive church in this particular, Socrates tells us expressly, » ““ We often com- prehend kings in our history, because that from the time they began to be Christians, the business of the church, or eccle- siastical causes, depended upon them.” And certainly Con- stantine the Great looked upon himself as much concerned in ecclesiastical affairs, when in his letters to the churches he saith expressly, ‘“‘ Having had experience from the prosperity of our common or secular affairs, how great the grace of God hath been towards us, I judged it my duty, before all other things, to consider how, in the blessed multitude of the catho- lic church, one faith, and sincere love, and unanimous piety towards Almighty God might be preserved ;” which certainly, if there be any, were truly ecclesiastical causes ; yet he, though a secular prince, esteemed it his duty to look after them in

[…]

564 Of the Civil Magistrate. ote ae

the first place. And therefore, ‘ mustering as it were the army of God, he gathered together an cecumenical synod, calling by his honourable letters the bishops from all places to make haste thither. Neither was the command all, but the authority of the king helped much.” By which it ap- pears, that he looked upon himself as the chief governor over ecclesiastical persons as well as in ecclesiastical causes, other- wise he could not have laid such commands upon them to take such journeys as many of them did at his will and pleasure. Neither did the emperor only call that famous council, but it was he that confirmed their decrees too. For ’“ Athanasius,” saith Theodoret, “ going to Constans. the emperor, minded him of his father and of the great synod which he gathered together, and how he, being present at the assembly, con- firmed by a law what was written by them.” From whence it appears, that then the civil magistrate had power not only over persons but in causes ecclesiastical, seeing the convoca- tion and confirmation of councils depended upon them. But we need not insist any longer upon cecumenical councils, for we have shewed before, art. X XI., how none of them were gathered together but by the commandment and will of princes.

But the principal question is concerning national or pro- vincial councils, whether every particular prince (and so ours) hath power to gather them together and confirm their decrees or no. For certainly, if the convocation and confirmation of all ecclesiastical councils within his realm depends solely and principally upon him, it must needs follow, that he is supreme both over persons and in causes ecclesiastical as well as civil, it being in such councils that all ecclesiastical causes are determined.

And for the resolving of this question, though we cannot

[…]

_—

Of the Civil Magistrate. 565

deny that the primate and metropolitan of the province hath sometime used to gather the bishops of his province together mto a council where himself pleased, yet we cannot but also aver, that they could not do it without the commandment and will of princes; yea, and that the kings themselves have still had power to gather them together at his pleasure and command, otherwise, certainly Gregory the Great would never have written to king ™Theodoricus and » Theodobertus, that they would gather synods together in their own kingdoms. And if we search into the primitive church, we shall still find kings and princes still calling the ecclesiastical councils toge- ther. The first council at Orleans, in a letter to king Clo- doveus, begins thus: °“ To their lord, the most glorious king Clodoveus, the son of the catholic church, All the priests which you commanded to come to the council. Because your so great care of the glorious faith to the worship of the catholic religion hath stirred you up, that, with the affection of a priestly mind, you have commanded all priests to be gathered together, to treat about necessary things,” Se. And the second council at Orleans begins, Pp“ When by the command of our most glorious kings we were met together in the city of Orleans, to treat, by the help of God, concerning the observation of the catholic law.” And so the fifth council at Orleans, 4“*Our most gracious prince therefore, famous with triumphant titles, our lord Childeberte, when for his love of the faith and care of religion he had gathered together the

priests in the city of Orleans.”

[…]

The second council at Paris,

[…]

P Cum ex preceptione gloriosissi- morum regum in Aurelianensem urbem, de observatione legis catho- licee tractaturi, (Deo auxiliante) con- venissemus. Concil. Aurel. 2. init. [p. 1174. ibid.]

[…]

-in Aurelianensium urbem congre-

asset in unum dominos sacerdotes. oncil, Aurel. 5. init. [p. 1443. ibid. ]

566 Of the Civil Magistrate. Arr, r When we were come to the city Paris, at the invitation of our most glorious lord and king Childeberte.” And concern- ing the first council at Cabilone, Gregorius Turonensis saith, s“In the fourth year also of king Childeberte, which was the eighteenth year of the king Guntheramnus and Childericus, there was a synod gathered together at the city Cabilone, by the command of prince Guntheramnus.” The first council at Matiscum, t‘ When being called out by our glorious lord king Guntheramnus, both for public causes and for the necessities of the poor, our meanness was met together in the city Ma- tiscum,” &c. And concerning the second council at the same place, Gregorius Turonensis saith, *“In the meanwhile the day comes, and the bishops, by the command of king Guntheramnus, were gathered together at the city Ma- tiscum.” The third council at Toledo, w ‘“ When, for the sin- cerity of his faith, the same glorious prince Richard had commanded all the priests within his dominion to come toge- ther.” And presently, the king saith to the council, *“I suppose it is not unknown unto you, that for the re- storing the form of ecclesiastical discipline I called you out to the presence of our serenity.” Thus was the fourth council at Toledo gathered together by yking Sisenand, the 7 fifth and *sixth by Chintillan, the > seventh by Chindasiund, the Ceighth,

[…]

x Non incognitum reor esse vo- bis, reverendissimi sacerdotes, quod propter instaurandam discipline ec- elesiasticee formam ad nostre vos serenitatis presentiam evocaverim, Ibid.

[…]

® Et gratias agimus Christianis- simo et gloriosissimo Chintillano principi nostro, cujus studio advo-

Of the Civil Magistrate. 567

ninth, and tenth by Reecesiunth, the 4eleventh by king Wamban, the ‘twelfth by Eryingius. ‘The council at Cly- piacum was gathered together by Clodoveus, the second king of France. And Sigebertus, in his chronicles, reports how &Theodoricus, king of France, gathered together a council too. h And the famous council at Constantinople, that condemned the worshipping of images, Theophanes tells us, was gathered together by the emperor Constantine. iCharles the Great gathered one council together at Duria, and several other in other places, as we shall see presently.

And to pass by many others which might be produced to the same purpose, if we should call to mind the ancient synods gathered together here in England, we shall find, that though the primate did sometimes with the consent of the king call them, yet at other times the king himself is expressly recorded to have gathered them together. As in particular, the coun- cil at Northampton, in the year 1138, «was gathered together

[…]

¢ Anno quinto orthodoxi atque gloriosi et verze clementie dignitate precipui Reccesiunthi regis, cum omnes divine ordinatio voluntatis, ejusdem principis serenissimo jussu, in basilica sanctorum apostolorum ad sacrum synodi coegisset congre- gari conventum. Concil. Tolet. 8. init. [p. 953- ibid.] v. et concil. Tolet. 9 et 10. init.

[…]

€ Cum ex gloriosissimi preedicti principis Eryngii jussu in unum fuissemus aggregati conyentum.

Concil. Tolet.12. init. [p.1715. ibid. ]

[…]

i Carolus contra Saxones hoc anno pugnaturus ad componendum prius statum ecclesie et reipublicee Chris- tianze pro more suo plissimo episco- pos et abbates convocavit in Duria. Annal. France. in vita Caroli magni.

[…]

_

Art.

568 Of the Civil Magistrate.

by king Stephen, in which Turstan, archbishop of York, was president ; and not long after, there was another council held at the same place, wherein Thomas, archbishop of Canterbury, was accused by the king of perjury, and commanded to give up his accounts for the many sums he had received when chancellor, in which office it seems he had been for many years; which he refusing to do, Gilbert, then lord bishop of London, (as it is related in the life of the said archbishop of Canterbury,) said, “that ! considering the malice of the times, and what ruin might hang over the catholic church if the king should be resisted in these things, the archbishop ought to obey him and give place unto him ;” and to this agreed the whole council, except Henry, bishop of Winchester. And Robertus de Monte relates, how ™“ Henry, king of England, gathered together all the bishops of Normandy, and abbots, and barons at New Market.” From whence it appears, that both in this and other kingdoms kings have had the supreme power of the convocation of synods.

And as the civil magistrate hath still gathered synods together, so hath he confirmed them too. And therefore the first general council at Constantiople, in their synodical letter to Theodosius the emperor, say, »“‘ We desire now your humanity, that the sentence of the synod might be confirmed by your religious writing or letters patent, that as you ho- noured the church by the letters whereby you called us, so you would strengthen with your seal the end of the decrees.” And Flavius Constantinus, in his letter to the western people concerning the sixth general council, or the third at Constan- tinople, saith, 0“ And we therefore, desiring also to strengthen

[…]

m Henricus rex Anglorum con- gregavit omnes episcopos Norman- niz et abbates et barones apud No- vum mercatum. Rob. de monte, in

[…]

_© Idcirco et nos, que ab iis defi- nita sunt, corroborare atque firmare

fin

XXXVI.

Of the Civil Magistrate. 569

and confirm what was decreed by them, have put forth this present pious edict, holding out the confession of the true faith in divinity, according to the ecclesiastical statutes.” So that the sixth general council was confirmed by Flavius Con- stantinus, as the first was by Constantinus Magnus ; of which before. And for particular councils Regino tells us, P “that, by the command of Charles the Great, councils were cele- brated by bishops all over France, concerning the state of the churches ; whereof one was gathered together at Mentz, an- other at Rhemes, the third at Tours, a fourth at Caballon, a fifth at Arles; and the constitutions which were made by every one of them were confirmed by the emperor.” And to name no more, at the end of the third council at Toledo it is expressly said, 4“‘The council was confirmed by the public edict of the king, and every particular chapter being reduced to one head, he confirmed them, saying, ‘I, Flavius Receare- dus, king, confirming what is here delivered, which we with the holy synod have defined, have subscribed or set my hand to it.” By which it plainly appears, that in the primitive ehurch ecclesiastical councils, wherein all ecclesiastical causes were concluded upon, were not only called but confirmed by the civil magistrate, who cannot therefore but be acknowledged to have had the supremacy in ecclesiastical as well as civil causes.

And hence it is, that in the primitive church appeals were made also ultimately to the civil magistrate from all other persons whatsoever, as evidently appears in the case of Do- natus, who, having accused Ceecilian, bishop of Carthage, of

[…]

est ; et constitutiones, que in sin- gulis facte sunt, ab imperatore con- firmate sunt. Regino ad an. [813. p- 40. vol. I. Pistorii scriptt. ]

[…]

an

ART.

570 Of the Civil Magistrate.

several crimes, referreth the cause to the emperor Constantine, . who, not willing to pass a final sentence upon a bishop him- self, appoints other bishops to decide it, whereof the bishop of Rome, Melchiades, was one, who, searching into the case, found Cecilian innocent; but Donatus appeals from them again to the emperor; the emperor, willing to have it ended, refers it to a council at Arles, who determining it against Do- natus, heappealsfrom them too to the emperor, until he at length put a period to it. This is that which St. Augustine relates in his 166th [105th] epistle, where, writing to the Donatists, he saith, ’“‘ Know ye that your ancestors referred the cause of Cecilian to the emperor Constantine. Exact this of us, we can prove it to you, and if we shall not prove it, do with us what ye can. But because Constantine durst not judge himself in the case of a bishop, he referred it to bishops to be discussed and ended: which also was done in Rome, Mel- chiades the bishop of that city being president, with many of his colleagues: who when they had pronounced Cecilian innocent, and had condemned Donatus, which had caused a schism at Carthage, your ancestors came again to the em- peror, complaining of the judgment of the bishops, in which they were conquered-; for how can a wicked striver pray to those judges by whose judgment he is conquered? But yet the most gracious emperor made other bishops again judges at Arles, a city of France; and from them also did your an- cestors appeal to the emperor himself; until he also had taken cognizance of the cause, and had pronounced Ceecilian innocent, and them reproachers.” By which we may see, that

¥ Scitote quod primi majores ve- stricausam Ceeciliani ad imperatorem Constantinum detulerunt. Exigite hoc a nobis, probemus vobis, et si non probaverimus, facite de nobis quicquid potueritis. Sed quia Con- stantinus non est ausus de causa episcopi judicare, eam discutiendam atque finiendam episcopis delegavit. Quod et factum est in urbe Roma presidente Melchiade episcopo illius ecclesia cum multis collegis suis. Qui cum Cecilianum innocentem pronunciassent, et Donatum qui schisma Carthagini fecerat, sententia

percussissent, iterum vestri ad im- peratorem venerunt, de judicio epi- scoporum, in quo victi fuerant, mur- murarunt ; quomodo enim potest malus litigator laudare judices, qui- bus judicantibus victus est? _Iterum tamen clementissimus imperator ali- os judices episcopos dedit apud Arelatum Galliz civitatem; et ab ipsis vestri ad ipsum imperatorem appellarunt ; donec etiam ipse cau- sam cognosceret, et Ceecilianum in- nocentem, illos calumniosos pronun- ciaret. Aug. epist. ad Donatistas, [105, 8. p. 299. vol. II.]

appeals were then made from several bishops, (whereof he of Rome was one,) yea, and from a whole council too, to the civil magistrate ; but when he had once decided the contro- versy, though they were not yet satisfied, yet they had no further to appeal, even in that ecclesiastical cause. So that the civil magistrate only having the supreme power in calling and confirming ecclesiastical synods, and unto whom appeals in ecclesiastical causes are ultimately to be made, we must needs grant that he is supreme in causes and over persons ecclesiastical as well as civil; and by consequence, that if our king be the supreme civil magistrate of this nation, (which to deny is downright treason,) he cannot but be acknowledged to be the person unto whom the chief government of all estates of this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes doth appertain.

Of the Civil Magistrate.

The bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England.

About the year of our Lord 587, «Johannes Nestenta, being then patriarch of Constantinople, the imperial city, ina synod gathered together in that place he endeavoured to get the name of an universal or cecumenical bishop or patriarch ; >for which Pelagius the Second, then bishop of Rome, severely rebuked him; and Gregory the Great, Pelagius’s successor, most vehemently inveighed against it, calling the name he strove for a ¢“ foolish, ‘frivolous, ¢ proud, ‘new,

[…]

illa que illic de causa venerande memorize Gregorii episcopi Antio- cheni sunt habita, valida omnino districtione cassavit, districtissima illum increpatione corripiens, ut se a noyo et temerario superstitionis nomine cohiberet: adeo ut suum illi diaconum, nisi tantum nefas emen- daret, procedere prohiberet. Ibid.

¢ EKundem vero fratrem et con- sacerdotem meum studiose admo- nere curavi, ut si habere pacem omnium concordiamque desiderat, ab stulti vocabuli se appellatione compescat. Ibid. ad Mauricium Augustum, 1, [7. ep. 33-]

@ De qua re mihi in suis jussio-

Of the Civil Magistrate.

Art.

£ profane, ® pestiferous, ‘ superstitious, ‘perverse, lwicked, yea, a ™blasphemous name,” a name which he discoursing of breaks forth into this expression : “ But I confidently affirm, that whosoever calls himself or desires to be called an uni- versal priest or bishop, is in his pride the forerunner of Anti- christ, because he proudly prefers himself before others ;” a name ° which, as he saith, none of his predecessors in the bishopric of Rome would assume unto themselves nor accept

of from others.

[…]

e Et quia non solus ego sed tota turbatur ecclesia, quia pie leges, quia venerande synodi, quia ipsa Domini nostri Jesu Christi mandata superbi atque pompatici cujusdam sermonis inventione turbantur. Ibid. ad eundem, l. [5. ep. 20. |

f Quis est iste, qui contra statuta evangelica, contra canonum decreta, novum sibi usurpare nomen pre- sumit? Ibid.

& Et vir sanctissimus consacerdos meus Johannes vocari universalis episcopus conatur. Exclamare com- pellor ac dicere, o tempora, o mores ! Ecce cuncta in Europe partibus barbarorum juri sunt tradita &c. Et tamen sacerdotes, qui in pavi- mento et cinere flentes jacere debu- erunt, vanitatis sibi nomina expetunt, et novis ac profanis vocabulis glo- riantur. Ibid.

_} Sed tamen de eodem supersti- tioso et superbo vocabulo eum ad- monere studui, dicens quia pacem nobiscum habere non posset, nisi elationem preedicti verbi corrigeret, quam primus apostata invenit. Ibid.

[…]

k Quis rogo in hoc tam perverso vocabulo, nisi ille ad imitandum proponitur, qui despectis angelorum legionibus secum socialiter consti- tutis ad culmen conatus est singu- laritatis erumpere, ut et nulli sub- esse, et solus omnibus preeesse vide- retur. Ibid. ad Johannem, l. 5. [ep.

i Bece ex hoc nefando elationis vocabulo ecclesia scinditur. Ibid. [p. 745-] In isto enim scelesto vo~ cabulo consentire nihil est aliud quam fidem perdere. Ibid. epist. [19.| ad Sabinianum diaconum.

m Sed absit a cordibus Christia- norum nomen illud blasphemie, in quo omnium sacerdotum honor adi- mitur, ut ab uno sibi dementer arro- gatur. Ibid. ad Mauricium Augus- tum, l. [5. ep. 20. |

[…]

© Certe pro beati Petri apostolo-

rum principis honore per venerandam Chalcedonensem synodum Romano pontifici oblatum est. Sed nullus eorum unquam hoc singularitatis nomen assumpsit, nec uti consensit, ne dum privatum aliquid daretur uni, honore debito sacerdotes priva- rentur universi. [bid. ad eundem, 1, [5- ep. 20.| Sed nullus unquam de- cessorum meorum hoc tam profano vocabulo uti consensit. Ibid. epist. [43.] ad Eulog.

Of the Civil Magistrate. 573

But though they that went before St. Gregory in this bishopric had refused the title of universal bishop, and himself had said so much against it, yet they that came after him both sought for it and at length attained to it. For after that Gregory and his immediate successor Sabinian (who sat in the chair not wholly two years) were dead, P Boniface the Third, his next successor, obtained of Phocas the emperor (and murderer of Mauritius) that the church of Rome should be called the head of all churches, and so the bishop of that place an universal or cecumenical bishop. And ever since this time hath the church of Rome pretended to an universal authority over all the churches in the world, her bishop look- ing upon himself as an universal bishop : but the patriarch of Constantinople still opposed it, and the contention about the preeminence was not perfectly decided till at length they agreed amongst themselves that the bishop of Constantinople

should be called an universal patriarch, and the bishop of Rome an universal pope. From whence it came to pass that the title pope hath since been appropriated to the bishop of Rome, 4 which before was common to all bishops, presbyters,

and clergymen whatsoever.

P Bonifacius tertius obtinuit apud Phocam principem ut sedes apo- stolica, B. Petri apostoli caput esset omnium ecclesiarum quia ecclesia Constantinopolitana primam se om- nium ecclesiarum scribebat. Anastas. Rom. eccles. biblioth. de vita ponti- ficum, p. 62. in vita Bonifacii. Unum porro sanxit quod laude me- ruit, hoc est urbem Romam totius salutaris vite caput esse, cum antea propter sedem principis Constanti- nopolis haberetur. Pompon. Leet. in Phoca, [p. 555-] Bonifacius a Phoca imp. obtinuit, magna tamen conten- tione, ut sedes B. Petri, que est caput omnium ecclesiarum, ita di- ceretur, et haberetur ab omnibus: quem quidem locum ecclesia Con- stantinopolitana sibi vendicare cona- batur. Platin. in vita Bonifac. tert. [init.] Bonifacius Gregorii successor a Phoca petiit et impetravit, ut sedem Romane ecclesiz caput omnium ec- clesiarum statueret, quia Constanti-

[…]

574 Art.

The bishop of Rome having thus stretched his name beyond his power, he presently labours to extend his power as far as his name. And having once got the name of universal pope, he takes occasion from that to endeavour after an universal power; and for an accomplishment of his design, as the emperor’s power grew weaker and weaker in the East, he made his grow stronger and stronger in the West, till at the length, about the year 680, Benedict the Second wholly shook off the emperor’s jurisdiction ; and afterwards, by the help of the French kings, he much enlarged the territories both of his spiritual and temporal dominion: and at the length, amongst other nations, he had got footing in England too, yea, so far, that in the days of king John he had gotten an absolute

Of the Civil Magistrate.

[…]

XXXVII. Of the Civil Magistrate. 575

surrender both of England and Ireland to himself, which were granted back again by him to the king, to hold of him and his successors in the see of Rome, in fee farm, and vassalage. And so the bishop of Rome for a while kept this nation in slavery, till at last his yoke grew so heavy that neither king nor people could endure it any longer, but both endeavoured to shake it off. And to this end were there laws made in the time of Edward I. IT. IT. Richard IT. Henry IV. against this foreign usurpation ; but it was not totally abo- lished till the time of Henry the VITIth, in whose days there were several statutes made whereby all ecclesiastical as well as temporal power was reduced within his majesty’s dominion, and no foreign power whatsoever suffered to have any juris- diction in any of the territories belonging to him; which statutes were afterwards reviewed and confirmed again in the days of queen Elizabeth ; and for the further confirmation of it we have it here also inserted amongst our Articles, that the bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England. He hath no jurisdiction, neither spiritual nor temporal; and indeed if he have no spiritual he can have no temporal, his temporal jurisdiction being grounded only upon his spiritual. And therefore in speaking to this part of the article I need not insist upon his temporal, but only his spiritual or ec- clesiastical power in or over this realm; for if he have no spiritual, he hath much less any temporal jurisdiction in it. And to prove that the bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm, it will be only necessary for us to examine the title whereby he lays claim to such a jurisdiction ; which is that whereby he claims the same in all Christian kingdoms over the whole world, even ‘because he is Peter’s successor, and so an universal bishop, yea, the head of the whole church. But if we examine this title throughly, we shall find many flaws and defects in it, yea, such as will shew it to be of no force at all. For first, it is very questionable whether Peter was ever bishop of Rome or no; nay, it seems clear to me, that he was not bishop of that nor any one particular place

[…]

516 Of the Civil Magistrate. Ant.

else, for his commission was as large as the other apostles’, even to the preaching the gospel and exercising his ministerial function in all places of the world whithersoever he should come; whereas, to make him the bishop of any one place would be to limit his power in one particular place. That Peter was at Rome, though it cannot be demonstrated from scripture, yet it being the general tenet of the ancients, I shall not deny it; but though he was there, it doth not follow that he was bishop of that place more than any other; or such a bishop as Linus, Anacletus, Clemens, and Evaristus were, and the bishops of that place now are. He might be there as an apostle, not as a mere bishop; ‘and therefore do ancient writers, in their enumeration of the bishops of Rome, not put Peter into the number of them, but begin at Linus or else at Clemens ; t or if Peter be reckoned amongst them, yet Paul is still jomed with him, and so Paul must be the bishop of Rome too as well as Peter, and so either two bishops of Rome at one time, (which they utterly deny,) or else neither of them properly bishops, such as are there now,

[…]

XXXVIL

Of the Civil Magistrate. 577

but rather apostles, (which are sometimes called bishops too, both in seripture and other authors.) And this appears also in that there was another bishop of that place besides them ordained by themselves, to wit Linus; for so those words of Irenzeus seemed clearly to intimate to us: “The blessed apostle,” saith he, “founding and instructing the church, delivered the administration of the episcopacy or bishopric to Linus :” so that they only founded the church, and then made another person to be the bishop of it. “ And there- fore,” saith Ruffinus, “also ~ Linus and Cletus were bishops of Rome before Clemens, but Peter being yet alive, viz. that they might undergo the care of the episcopacy, but he fulfil the office of the apostleship. As he is found also to have done at Czesarea, where, when himself was present, yet he ordained Zacchzus bishop of the place.” So that though Peter was at Rome, yet not as the bishop of the place, but only as an apostle, unless we grant that there were more than one bishop of Rome at the same time. To which we may also add, that had Peter been bishop of the place, what need he have ordained any other to be bishop there whilst he himself was present? or to exercise that office before himself the first bishop was removed? That Linus was bishop of Rome whilst Peter himself was there cannot be denied; and therefore either there must be acknowledged two bishops of the same place, which none of the Romish party will grant, or else Peter was not bishop of the place, which is the thing we stand for. And if Peter was not the bishop of Rome, the bishops of Rome cannot be said to succeed Peter; I mean, not in the office of the bishopric. And so all their title to any ecclesiastical jurisdiction in this or any other realm, by

[…]

w Linus et Cletus fuerunt quidem

ante Clementem episcopi in urbe Roma, sed superstite Petro, videlicet ut illi episcopatus curam gererent, ipse vero apostolatus impleret off- cium, Sicut invenitur etiam apud Cesaream fecisse; ubi cum ipse esset praesens, Zacheum tamen a se ordinatum habebat episcopum. Ruffin. prefat. ad lib. recognit. [Clem. Rom. p. 398.]

gl

578 Of the Civil Magistrate. Art.

virtue of their succession from Peter, must needs be null and void.

But secondly, suppose we grant that Peter was bishop particularly of Rome, and so the bishop of Rome succeeded Peter in his bishopric, it doth not yet follow that he succeeds him in his apostleship too. For he was ordained an apostle by a special commission from our Saviour himself, which commission was granted to his person only, not his successors; and therefore what privileges he had by virtue of that com- mission were to determine with himself. Indeed, a special commission from Christ himself was so necessary to the settling any one in the office of an apostle, that when Judas was fallen by transgression from the office, the apostles them- selves durst not invest another with it, but only nominating two, cast lots which should be the person, so leaving the determination of it unto God himself; whereas they of them- selves ordained the bishop of Rome; which plainly shews that the bishop of Rome receiving his commission not immediately from God (as the apostles did), but only from the apostles, he never was nor is any apostle, but only a bishop. Neither do we read of any more apostles chosen after Matthias; we read indeed how the apostle James was killed by Herod, Acts xii. 2, but not of any other substituted in his place by God. No, after the apostles, who were immediately chosen by Christ himself, were dead, there was none that ever pretended to succeed them in their apostleships but the bishop of Rome; though there were several ordained bishops of such places where the apostles had in a peculiar manner exercised their apostolical function, as Peter did at Rome; for thus did x James sit at Jerusalem; and yet Simeon, Justus, Zacchzeus, and the rest that succeeded in that bishopric, never so much as dreamed of being themselves apostles by virtue of an apostle’s sitting in the place where they were bishops; yea

[…]

XXXVII- Of the Civil Magistrate. 579

and Peter himself sat at Antioch too, before he came to Rome, where St. Paul withstood him to the face, Gal. ii. ik and yet YEvodius, Ignatius, Heros, and the succeeding bishops of that place, did never lay any claim to an universal bishopric or apostleship because Peter’s successors. And how comes Rome, the younger sister, to have the apostleship settled upon her, rather than Antioch, the elder? or what respect did Peter find at Rome more than at Antioch, that he should be at Antioch before Rome, and yet prefer Rome before Antioch? It is true, he was crucified at Rome, and not at Antioch: but is that a sufficient reason why Rome rather than Antioch should have his apostleship entailed upon it? No certainly, the bishop of Antioch, or indeed any bishop, may lay claim to an apostolical commission as well as he of Rome; who having no special or immediate call from God, cannot without a solecism be termed an apostle, nor be thought to have any jurisdiction at all, without his own diocese or province, nor by consequence in this realm of England.

Thirdly, suppose further that the bishop of Rome be Peter’s successor, it doth not yet follow that he is head of the church, or an cecumenical bishop, for that is more than Peter himself was; though he was an apostle, yet he was no more than an apostle, nor by consequence any way superior to the other apostles. He was a member of the church as well as his fellows, not the head of it above them, their fellow-servant, not their master. And therefore the apostles sent him with John to Samaria, Acts vill. 14: and certainly if he had been their master, he would not have been their messenger; had he been their head, he would not have been their feet to go up and down upon their errands. And hence also doth St. Paul say plainly, for J suppose I was not behind

[…]

reckons Euodius the first bishop. z The vulgar Latin is here far from rendering the right sense of

our translation, And I suppose I was not behind the very chiefest apostles ; according to which sense the Syriac

Pp2

580 Of the Civil Magistrate. Arr.

the very chiefest of the apostles, 2 Cor. xi.5; For in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, chap. xii. 11. So that St. Paul did not look upon himself as any way inferior to any of the apostles; no not to Peter himself; and therefore when Peter did amiss, (for it seems Peter could err, though the pope cannot,) St. Paul withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed, Gal. ii. 11; intimating that he *reproved, yea and resisted Peter himself; which certainly he would never have done had he been the head of the church, and so his superior. Nay, St. Paul did not only look upon St. Peter as his equal, but St. Peter looked upon St. Paul as his supe- rior; for, saith St. Paul, When James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave unto me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship ; that we should go to the heathen, and they to the circumoision, ver.9. So that Peter was so far from accounting himself to be above all, that he doth himself give the right hand of fellowship to St. Paul and Barnabas; and therefore, what- soever the church of Rome would make of Peter now, be sure he never took himself for the head of the church, but only as a fellow worker with the other apostles; and there- fore we may well: say with Cyprian, ‘“‘ What Peter was, that was also the other apostles, endowed with the like fellowship of honour and power.”

But Peter’s supremacy being the foundation of the pope’s

also translates the words too, {aj {.;

Irrordo co 2; 72 VW s0yS0? pag

jAado Ql} —a.| that is (not as the Latin translation hath it, Ar- bitror enim nihil me minus presti- tisse quam apostoli illi admodum prestantes, but), I suppose I am in nothing less than the apostles, which are most excellent ; plainly intimating that there was none of the apostles above St. Paul, nor by consequence any of them the head of the church more than he; for then he must needs have come behind him. Where QOcumenius observes he saith, oddev vorépnoa, ovde evédurov, 4) Karémw HrOov Trav mept Tlérpov. Cicum. in

[…]

Hoc erant utique et czeteri apo- stoli quod Petrus, pari consortio prediti, et honoris et potestatis. Cyprian. de unit. eccles. [p. 107.]

XXXVII. Of the Civil Magistrate. 581

authority, to uphold this they bring every thing that hath but the face of an argument to maintain that; well knowing that if the apostle Peter was but equal to the other apostles, the bishop of Rome eannot be thought to have jurisdiction over other bishops; and therefore, for the further confir- mation of this truth, it will be necessary to examine what they have to say against it. Now the Goliath which these Philistines send forth to defy the army of the Israelites, the principal argument they bring to prove Peter’s supremacy over the other apostles, and so the pope’s authority over the whole church, is the words of our Saviour to the same apostle, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church, Matt. xvi. 18. From whence they would persuade us that Peter was appointed by our Saviour to be the foundation of the whole church. But surely, while they force such a gloss upon that place of scripture, they quite forget what St. Paul saith, Por other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ, 1 Cor. iii.11; so that whatsoever sense they put upon the words, certainly it is the next door to blasphemy to take away Christ from being the foundation of the church, and to thrust Peter into his place ; to take away Christ that purchased his church with his own blood, and to put in Peter that most shamefully denied Christ; to take away Christ that conquered Satan, and to put in him to whom Christ saith in the same chapter, Ge thee behind me, Satan. In a word, what is if this be not blasphemy, to say not he who is the ehief corner stone, 1 Pet. 1. 6, but he who was a rock of offence to Christ, Matt. xvi. 23, is the founda- tion of the church of Christ.

But, for my own part, I cannot but admire how these words came at first to be wrested to such a sense, which of them- selves they can by no means bear ; for our Saviour doth not ’ say, Thou art Peter, and upon thee I will build my church, but, Thou art Peter, and ‘upon this rock will I build my church

¢ To evade the force of the words Peter, in which language xp) signi- upon this rock, the papists Bellarfies both Peter and a stone, without mine, Maldonate, Petrus de Bollo, any change of the gender. ‘To which and others, object it was not the I answer, t. It is true our Saviour Greek but Syriac language, wherein spoke these words not in the Greek our Saviour spoke these words to but Syriac language; but howso-

Arr.

582 Of the Civil Magistrate.

viz. upon him whom thou hast now confessed to be the Son of God, or upon this confession which thou hast made of him. And howsoever the church of Rome may force another sense upon the words, certainly this is the exposition which the primitive church gave of them. Some of the Fathers ex- pressly avouching Christ himself to be the rock here under- stood, others Peter’s confession of Christ and faith in him; all which come to one and the same thing; therefore saith St. Augustine, 4“ Christ is the foundation in the structure of a wise architect.” This wants no exposition; for it is plainly said, Mor other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Christ; but if Christ, then without doubt the faith of Christ, for Christ dwells in our hearts by faith; so that to say Christ, or faith in Christ, or Peter’s confession of him, all comes to one and the same thing, all of them making Christ still, not Peter, to be the rock upon which the

church is built.

Let these of the Fathers speak for the rest. ¢ “ The Lord,”

ever St. Matthew wrote them not in Syriac but in Greek, and therefore it is the Greek that is the original, not the Syriac. But, 2. it’is plainly false that xp signifies both Peter and a stone without the change of the gender, or in the same gender. For that x as it denotes Peter is of the masculine gender, I hope they will not deny (unless they will make Peter such a one as his pretended successor Joan was), whereas xp for a stone or rock is always of the feminine, as [alo Maas. Qm20 A\as;(o Et Jacob accepit Cepha et erexit eam, Gen, xxxi. 45. 80, Lalo [2p00. (AojD ZpaxnD Cepha probata, angularis, pretiosa, sai, xxvill, 16. Zon 2; lala Cepha magna erat, Mar. xvi. 4, and go else- where. Nay, 3. in this very place too xb, when spoken of Peter whose name it was, is of the mascu- line, but when used for a rock or stone is of the feminine gender, lols [2 Xo et super hane Ce- pha, non hunc, for then it should have been ha not hon, which is a

pronoun of the feminine gender. And therefore it is in vain to seek any elusion of the place from the Syriac, that being as plain against them as the Greek; for as in the Greek Ilérpos and wérpa are of dif- ferent genders, so are the first and second {alo in Syriac of different genders too.

e Dominus est petra fidei, tan- quam fundamentum, ut ipse Domi- nus ait ad principem apostolorum, Tu es Petrus, et super hane petram edificabo eeclesiam meam, super con- fessionem videlicet Christi, quia dix- erat: Tu es Christus filius Dei vi- ventis. Greg. Nyssen. testim. contra Judeos, c. ult. [p. 162. vol. II. ]

XXXVII. Of the Civil Magistrate. 583

saith Gregory Nyssen, “is the rock of faith, as the foundation, as the Lord himself saith to the chief of the apostles, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church, viz. wpon the confession of Christ ; for he had said, Thow art Christ, the Son of the living God.” St. Augustine ; f* Thou art there- fore,” saith he, “ Peter, and upon this rock which thou hast eonfessed, upon this rock which thou hast acknowledged, saying, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build my church, I will build thee upon me, not me upon thee.” And again; §“ For therefore saith the Lord, Upon this rock will I build my church, because Peter had said, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God; upon this rock therefore, saith he, which thou hast confessed, will I build my church. That rock was Christ, upon which foundation Peter himself is also built.” And again; “ What means that, Upon this rock will I build my church ? Upon this faith, upon that which was said, Thou art Ohrist, the Son of the living God.” i* And upon this rock,” saith St. Chrysostome, “I will build my church, that is, upon the faith of this confession.” And again; *‘*Upon this rock; he did not say upon Peter, for he did not build his church upon a man, but upon faith; but what faith was it? Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.” And St. Jerome ; !“ By the rock we signify Christ; for if we

t Tu es ergo, inquit, Petrus; et super hane petram quam confessus es, super hance petram quam cogno- visti, dicens, Tu es Christus filius Dei vivi, edificabo ecclesiam meam. Super me edificabo te, non me su- per te. Aug. de verbis Domini, sec. Mat. serm. [76. 1. vol. V.]

& Ideo quippe ait Dominus, Super hane petram edificabo ecclesiam meam, quia dixerat Petrus, Tu es Christus filius Dei vivi: super hanc ergo, inquit, petram, quam confessus es, edificabo ecclesiam meam. Petra erat Christus: super quod funda- mentum etiam ipse edificatus est Petrus. Id. in Joh. tract. 124. [5. par. ii. vol. III.]

h Quid est, super hanc petram edificabo ecclesiam meam? Super hanc fidem, super id quod dictum

est, Tu es Christus filius Dei viven- tis. Id. in epist. Joh. tract. ro. [1. ibid. ]

[…]

1 Per petram significamus Chri- stum quem Petrus confessus est. Nam si capiamus Petrum pro petra fundamentali, zque essent et czteri apostoli, sicut legirnus in apoc. Jo- hannis. Hieron. 1n loc.

Arr.

584 Of the Civil Magistrate.

take Peter for a fundamental rock, the other apostles would be as much as he, as we read in the Revelations of John.” Basil of Seleucia; ™“‘ Christ calling his confession a rock named him Peter that first acknowledged it.” ”“ Let us see,” saith Eusebius Emissenus, ‘‘ what this means, And upon this rock will I build my church: Upon this rock which thou even now confessedst, saying, Thow art Christ, the Son of the living God, upon this rock and upon this faith will I build my […] saith St. Ambrose, “the Lord saith to Peter, Upon this rock 1 will build my church ; that is, in this confession of the catholic faith I appoint believers to life.’ Yea, and pope Adrian himself the first”, “ Upon this rock which thou hast confessed, and from which thou ob- tainedst the dignity of thy name, upon this soundness of faith, I will build my church.” And Felix the Third, 4“ Upon this confession will I build my church.” So unanimous were the fathers of the primitive church in striking at the founda- tion of the pope’s supremacy. For it is upon this place it is chiefly built; which being not to be understood of Peter’s person, but his confession, or rather not of Peter that con- fessed Christ, but of Christ whom Peter confessed, neither Peter nor his successors can claim any jurisdiction in this or any other Christian realms from these words.

Another foundation they would ground Peter’s primacy, and so the pope’s supremacy upon, is the verse following the words we have already cleared from their false glosses; viz. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and

[…]

om. in natal. S. Petri, [p. . vol. VI. Max. Bibl. Patr.] ne

[…]

siam meam, hoc est, in hac catholicze fidei confessione statuo fideles ad vitam. Ambros. in Eph. c. 2. [p. 236. app. vol. II.]

[…]

XXXVI.

Of the Civil Magistrate. 585

whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Matt. xvi. 19. From which words they conclude that the power of the keys was granted only to Peter ; not considering that what is here said to Peter in the singular is elsewhere spoken to all the disciples in the plural number ; Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, Matth. xviii. 18: and, Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them ; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained, John xx. 23. So that the power of the keys was not only committed to Peter, but to all the disciples, and so not to the pope only, but to all ministers rightly ordained. +“ For all the apostles,” saith St. Jerome, “ received the keys of the kingdom of hea- ven.” And ’ “what is it else,” saith Pacianus, “that he saith to the apostles, Whatsoever ye bind on earth,” &e.: so that it was not to Peter only, but to all the apostles that these words were said. ‘ And therefore,” saith Augustine, t “ the church which is founded in Christ received in Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven from him, that is, power to bind and loose sins.” And St. Basil; ”‘ And he gave the like power to all pastors and masters, which appears in that all bind and loose alike as well as he,” viz. Peter. And St. Cyprian; W “ Christ after his resurrection gave the like power to all his apostles, and said, As my Father hath sent me, so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost: if you remit to any his sins, they are remitted unto him: of you retain them, they shall be retained.” Theophy-

[…]

s Quid est aliud quod apostolis dicit, Que ligaveritis mm terris ligata erunt in celis, &c. Pacian. ad Sym- pron. ep. 1. [p. 306. vol. I1V. Max. Bibl. Patr.] ;

t Ecclesia ergo, que fundatur in Christo, claves ab eo regni celorum accepit in Petro, id est, potestatem ligandi solvendique peccata. Aug. in Joh. tract. 124. [5. par. ii. vol. Il.)

[…]

ART.

586 Of the Civil Magistrate.

lact; *“ For those that after Peter are thought worthy of the episcopal grace have power to loose and bind. For though it be said to Peter only I will give to thee, yet the same power was given to all the apostles, when he said, Whose soever sins ye remit shall be remitted.” Leo the First ; ¥ “ This power of the keys is translated also to all the apostles and presidents of the church. But the reason why it was com- mended singly to Peter was because the example of Peter was propounded to all the pastors of the church.” To name no more; z “It is to be noted,” saith Anselme, “ that this power was not given to Peter only, but as Peter answered one for all, so in Peter he gave this power to all.” By which cloud of witnesses it evidently appears, that this place makes as little for them as the other, Peter having no greater share in the power of the keys than the other apostles had.

The third and last place they bring for the pope’s supre- macy (for all their other places are not worth naming) is that in St. John, He saith unto him, (Peter,) Feed my sheep, John xxi. 16; from whence they argue, that Peter only had the eare of the church committed to his charge; whereas in the chapter before, our Saviour saith to all his apostles, As my Father sent me, so send I you, John xx. 21. What did he send them to do? why, Go ye and teach all nations, baptiz- ing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Matth. xxviii. 19. So that not only Peter, but all the apo- stles were to preach the gospel, and to look to the settlement and propagation of the church. And therefore saith St. Cy- prian, *“ All are pastors, but only one flock is shewn, which

[…]

Y Heec clavium potestas ad omnes etiam apostolos et ecclesie preesules est translata. Quod autem sigilla- tim Petro sit commendata, ideo factum est quod Petri exemplum

[…]

z Notandum est, quod hec potes- tas non solum Petro data est, sed sicut Petrus unus pro omnibus re- spondit, sic in Petro omnibus hane potestatem dedit. Anselm. in loc.

Lp. 89.1

& Pastores sunt omnes, sed grex unus ostenditur, qui ab apostolis omnibus unanimi consensione pas- catur. Cyprian. de unitate ecclesiz, [p. 195. ed. Bened. |

Of the Civil Magistrate. 587

is with an unanimous consent fed by all the apostles.” And St. Augustine ; > “Christ commended his lambs to Peter, who did himself feed Peter. Therefore, my brethren, hear with obedience, that ye are all Christ’s sheep, because we also hear with trembling, Weed my sheep.” So that St. Augustine looked upon that command as laid upon him and other ministers as well as Peter. Many more testimonies I might produce to this purpose, but these may suffice for the present, to shew, that as not the power of the keys, so neither was the care of the church committed to Peter only, but that other apostles then as well as Peter, and other ministers now as well as the pope, are to feed the sheep of Christ, the Shepherd of our souls. And therefore, that the pope cannot by virtue of these places of scripture before mentioned, nor by consequence of any other, (these being the principal,) claim any power or jurisdiction over any churches out of his own province, and by consequence not in this realm.

Neither is this assertion, that “the bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm,” contrary to the custom and practice of the primitive church, especially for the first six hundred years after Christ ; in all which time, as the bishop of Rome was not termed an universal pope, so neither did he exercise an universal power. For the confirmation of which we may take notice of these following canons of the ancient and most renowned councils. As first, the first and famous council at Nice, ¢ “ Let ancient customs be observed, in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, so that the bishop of Alexandria have authority over all those places; because the same custom is observed by the bishop of Rome too. And so likewise in Antioch and other provinces, let the dignities and privileges

b Commendabat Christus agnos suos Petro qui pascebat et Petrum. Ergo fratres cum obedientia audite oves vos esse Christi, quia et nos cum timore audimus Pasce oves meas. Aug. de verb. Dom. serm. x46, 1: vol. V.]

[…]

588 Of the Civil Magistrate. ART.

be preserved to the churches.” °“ Which canon,” as Balsa- mon saith, “and the seventh determined that the patriarchs, to wit of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem be honoured according to the ancient customs, and that he of Alexandria be over the provinces of Egypt, Libya, and Penta- polis. He of Antioch also over Syria, Coelesyria, Mesopota- mia, and both Cilicias; he of Jerusalem over the provinces of Palestine, Arabia, and Phcenice, as they say the bishop of Rome is also over the western provinces.” Whence we may observe from this council, 1. that the bishop of Rome hath no other authority over the churches near him, than the bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem have over those near them; and so, 2. that in the judgment of this renowned council, the bishop of Rome is no universal bishop, nor head over the whole church, there being other bishops that have as much to do in one part of the church as he in another. 3. That what authority he hath it is not of divine right, but only of custom, as the words of the canons expressly declare.

The next general council was held at Constantinople, and determined ©“ that the bishops of any diocese should not go to any churches beyond their limits or diocese, nor eon- found the churches ; but that according to the canons the bishop of Alexandria look to the church affairs in Egypt

[…]

XXXVII. Of the Civil Magistrate. 589

only; and the bishops of the east govern the east only, the privileges granted to the church of Antioch by the canons of the Nicene council being preserved. And that the bishops of the Asian diocese administer the ecclesiastical affairs in Asia only; they of Pontus in Pontus only ; and they of Thracia in Thracia only. But that no bishop, unless he be called, go out of his own diocese for ordination, or any other ecclesiastical administration. But the canon concerning the dioceses being observed, it is plain that, according to the determination of the Nicene council, the council of the province administer and govern every province.” Whence we may learn, 1. that no bishop is to exercise any authority out of his own province or diocese, and by consequence not the bishop of Rome; 2. that in case the bishops particularly cannot decide any contro- versy, the bishops of the province where it is started must end it, without any appeals to him of Rome. But Constantine having now removed his court from Rome to Byzantium, (from whom it was afterwards called Constantinople,) this council determined also “that the bishops of Constantinople have the ‘privilege of honour next after the bishop of Rome, because it is now new Rome;” which shews that the bishop of Rome was so much honoured only because it was the emperor’s seat, and that the honour still followed the emperor : so that when he was removed to Byzantium, a city of no great note before, nor mentioned in the Nicene council as having any patriarch belonging to it, yet the emperor seating himself there. there is not only a patriarch ordained of the place, but he is preferred before Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, and is placed next to Rome, who is therefore placed first, because the emperor’s seat was still there.

To this purpose also makes the twenty-eighth canon of the fourth general council, viz. at Chalcedon : “ In all things fol-

[…]

590 Of the Civil Magistrate. Art.

lowing the determinations of the holy Fathers, and acknow- ledging the canon lately read of the hundred and fifty holy bishops, we also decree and appoint the same things concern- ing the privileges of the most holy church at Constantinople, new Rome. For the Fathers did likewise give privileges to the throne of old Rome, because that city obtained the empire. And the hundred and fifty holy bishops, (in the second general council,) moved with the same reason, granted the like privileges to the most holy throne of new Rome; rightly judging, that the city which is honoured with the empire and senate, and enjoyeth the same privileges with the old queen Rome, should also be magnified in ecclesiastical affairs as highly as she, being the second after her.” Where we may take notice, 1. how the bishop of Constantinople hath as great power and privileges in ecclesiastical affairs as he of Rome, only placed after it; and so the bishop of Rome no universal bishop. 2. That here also it is expressly delivered that the reason why the bishopric of Rome was so highly ex- alted in former times above others, was not because Peter sat there, but because the emperor sat there. And this canon was also afterwards confirmed again in the sixth general council. 5‘ Renewing,” say they, “the determinations of the hundred and fifty holy Fathers assembled in this divinely pre- served and royal city, and the six hundred and thirty gathered together in Chalcedon, we determine also that the throne of Constantinople receive equal privileges with the throne of old Rome, and be magnified and accounted in ecclesiastical affairs as high as it, being the second after it: after which is

—,

[…]

XXXVI.

Of the Civil Magistrate. 591

the throne of Alexandria; and after that of Jerusalem.” So that still the bishop of Constantinople is of equal power and authority with him of Rome; and therefore the bishop of Rome no more the head of the church than he of Constanti- nople, and the patriarch of Constantinople may as well claim jurisdiction in this realm as the bishop of Rome.

But there was another passage in this the sixth general council also that makes much against the bishop of Rome’s authority ; for here Honorius by name, bishop of Rome, was condemned for a heretic. For in the acts of the same council it is expressly said, ‘* But with these, viz. Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paulus, Petrus, bishops of Constantinople, Cyrus of Alexan- dria, Theodorus of Pharan, with these we saw that Honorius, who was bishop of old Rome, be cast out of the catholic church, and anathematized, because we find by writings from him to Sergius, that in all things he followed his judgment and confirmed his wicked opinions.” And in the first canon of the said council it is said, the sixth general council con- demned *‘ such as disturbed and adulterated the right doc- trine of faith, and teach the people one will and one operation in our Lord Jesus Christ ; we mean Theodorus the bishop of Pharan, Cyrus the bishop of Alexandria, Honorius the bishop of Rome, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paulus, Petrus, bishops of this city,” &c.; and in the epistle of Leo the Second to Con- stantine, !“ We also anathematize the inventors of the new errors, viz. Theodorus bishop of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria,

[…]

ue anathematizari previdimus, et

onorium, qui fuerat papa antique Rome, eo quod invenimus per scrip- ta, que ab eo facta sunt ad Sergium, quia in omnibus mentem ejus se- cutus est, et impia dogmata confir- mavit. Concil. Trul. act. 1 a2 |p. I 334. ibid. ]

[…]

! Pariterque anathematizamus novi erroris inventores, id est, Theodo- rum Pharanitanum episcopum, Cy- rum Alexandrinum, Sergium, Pyr- rhum, Paulum, Petrum Constanti- nopolitanz ecclesiz successores, ma- is quam presules, nec non et

onorium, qui hance apostolicam ecclesiam non apostolice traditionis doctrina lustrayit, sed profana pro- ditione immaculatam fidem subver- tere conatus est. Leo sec. epist. ad Constant. inter act. concil. Trul.

[p. 1475. ibid.]

592 Of the Civil Magistrate. Art.

Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paulus, Petrus, successors rather than go- vernors of the church of Constantinople, and Honorius also, who adorned not this apostolical church with doctrine of apostolical tradition, but by profane treachery endeavoured to subvert the unspotted faith.” From all which it is clear, 1. that the bishop of Rome is not infallible, and by con- sequence no successor of St. Peter in his apostolical privileges ; for here we see Honorius, a bishop of that place, is condemned for monothelicism; as Eleutherius, Liberius, Anastasius the Second, John the Twenty-second, and many other of the bishops of that place, were tainted with other heresies. 2. Here we may also see that the bishop of Rome is not the head of the church ; for if he had, certainly so many learned men as there were met together would not have presumed to have passed such a sentence upon him. But we see they make no more of him than they did of the other heretics, even condemned him for joining with them.

But that the bishop of Rome had not so much authority in the primitive church as he pretends now, is clear also in that appeals were not to be made to him. For besides that Do- natus appealed both from him and a whole council too to the emperor, as we saw in the foregoing part of this article, the council at Antioch expressly decreed, ™“ That if any bishop, being accused of certain faults, be judged by all the bishops in the province, and all unanimously pass the same sentence upon him; let him not be judged any more by others, but let the unanimous sentence of the bishops of the province remain firm.” And the second council at Milevi, 2“ It pleaseth us also that bishops, deacons, and other inferior clergymen, in

any causes which they shall

[…]

Item placuit ut episcopi, dia- coni, vel ceteri inferiores clerici, in causis quas habuerint, si de judiciis

have, if they complain of the

episcoporum suorum questi fuerint, vicini episcopi eos audiant; et inter eos quicquid est finiant, adhibiti ab eis ex consensu episcoporum suo- rum. Quod si et ab tis provocandum putaverint, non provocent, nisi ad Africana concilia, vel ad primates provinciarum suarum. Ad transma- rina autem qui putaverint appellan- dum, a nullo intra Africam in com- munionem suscipiatur. Concil. Mi- levit. 2. cap. 22. [p. 1221. ibid.]

a ie ——

“XXXVII.

Of the Civil Magistrate. 593

judgments of their own bishops, let the neighbour bishops hear them. But if they think also that appeal should be made from them, let them not appeal, but only to the African councils, or the primates of their provinces. But whosoever shall think that appeals should be made to any foreign power, ar beyond the seas, let them not be received by any into communion within Africa.” And if all causes must be deter- mined in the province where they rise, and no foreign power must be appealed to, then certainly not the bishop of Rome, unless the question arise in his own province. And this is that which was determined also in the council of Nice, the fifth canon whereof is, °“ Concerning those as are excommu- nicated, either of the clergy or laity, by the bishops of every province, let this rule be observed, according to the canon that pronounceth, that they that are excommunicated by some bishops do not go to others. But let it be examined whether it be for hatred, contention, or any other fault of the bishop, that they are excommunicated ; for the better exami- nation of which, it seemeth well that in each province twice a year councils meet; that all the bishops of the province meeting together, such questions may be examined ; and so they that have evidently offended their bishop, may seem to all justly excommunicated, until it shall seem good to the bishops to pass a milder sentence upon them.” Where we may take notice, 1. that they that are excommunicated by the bishops of one province ought not to appeal to the bishops of any other province whatsoever, and by consequence not to the bishop of Rome; 2. that all questions should be deter- mined in the province where they arise ; 3. that such persons as are excommunicated be so accounted by all till the bishops

[…]

xlav emirkdmov, Kpateira 1 yvopy

[…]

Se, pt) puxpowrxia, 7) prdoverkia, i

[…]

aq

ART.

594 - Of the Civil Magistrate.

themselves, by whom they were excommunicated, receive them into the church again, no respect at all being had in this particular to the bishop of Rome more than to other bishops.

For the further clearing of this particular, we have also a remarkable passage in the sixth council of Carthage, an. Dom. 419; for the African bishops having deposed Celestius and Apiarius for certain crimes objected against them, they pre- sently appeal from them to Zosimus then bishop of Rome, who, contrary to the Nicene decree before recited, restores them again; and for the better confirmation of this his resti- tution, the said bishop sends legates, viz. Faustinus, a bishop, Phillipius and Asellus, priests, with the foresaid Apiarius, to the council then met at Carthage, to prevail with the said council for their restitution of him also; and for the better accomplishing of his design, he ordered them to plead, that _ the first council of Nice decreed, that appeals should be made to the bishop of Rome, who might send priests from his side for the decision of the controversy. The legates being come to the council, and their orders being read, the council unani- mously agreed, that in P their copies of the council of Nice there was no such thing as that appeals should be made to the bishop of Rome, as he pleaded. But, howsoever, for their fuller satisfaction in that particular, they hasted messengers away to Constantinople and Alexandria, for the true and authentic copies of the said council. Atticus, bishop of Con- stantinople, and Cyril, of Alexandria, answer their desires. The councils having gotten the true Greek copies of the Nicene canons, they consult them too, but still find no such thing as the bishop of Rome pleaded, upon which they send to Celestinus, then bishop of Rome, (for Zosimus, before spoken of, yea, and Boniface too, his immediate successor, by this time were dead, and Celestinus sat in the chair, to whom the council of Carthage sends word,) amongst other things,

P Quamvis enim plurimos codices legerimus, sed nunquam in Niceno concilio in Latinis codicibus legi- mus, quemadmodum in supradicto commonitorio inde directa sunt: tamen quia hic in nullo codice

[…]

Of the Civil Magistrate. 595

saying: 4“ After our due salutation of you, we desire that hereafter you would not easily admit such as come from hence to your ears, nor hereafter receive into communion such as are excommunicated by us; for your worship may easily perceive, that this was also defined by the council at Nice.” And presently ; “And the Nicene decrees did most clearly commit both the clergy of lower degree and the bishops them- selves to the metropolitans; for they saw most prudently and justly, that all businesses should be ended in the places where they began ; and that the grace of the Holy Ghost is not wanting to every province.” And again; s“ Or how can any foreign judgment stand good, to which the necessary wit- nesses, either by reason of the infirmity of their sex, or age, or many other impediments intervening, cannot be brought ; for that any should be sent from your holiness’s side, we do not find it appointed by any synod.”

Now in this passage of this African or Carthaginian coun- cil there are these things worthy our observation: 1. that no less than three bishops of Rome, one after another, knew no

[…]

tionis officio, impendio deprecamur, ut deinceps ad vestras aures hinc venientes non facilius admittatis, nec a nobis excommunicatos in commu- nionem ultra velitis excipere: quia hoe etiam Niczno concilio defini- tum facile advertat venerabilitas tua. Epist. concil. Afric. sive Carthag. ad Celestinum, [p. 947. ibid. |

r Et decreta Niczna sive inferio- ris gradus clericos, sive ipsos epi- scopos, suis metropolitanis apertis- sime commiserunt: prudentissime enim justissimeque viderunt, que- cungue negotia in suis locis, (ubi orta sunt,) finienda; nec unicuique provincie gratiam S. Spiritus defu- turam. Ibid.

Ss Aut quomodo ipsum transma- rinum judicium ratum erit, ad quod testium necessarie persone, vel propter sexus, vel propter senectu- tis infirmitatem, vel multis aliis intercurrentibus impedimentis, ad- duci non poterunt? Nam ut aliqui tanquam a tue sanctitatis latere mittantur, nulla invenimus patrum

which last words the fourth and fifth canon of the council at Sardice decreeing appeals to Rome seem to be supposititious. For certainly, if that council had decreed any such thing, this that was not long after it (and therefore could not but be acquainted with their decrees) would not have said, Ut aliqui tanquam a tuze sanctitatis latere mittantur, nul- la invenimus patrum synodo con- stitutum. Especially considering that Athanasius, in his second apo- logy to the emperor, reckons up no fewer than thirty-six African _bi- shops that were present at the Sar- dicean council, every one of which, it is more than probable, carried the canons of the council home with them, and so what that council de- termined could not but be known to this. And this made Casanus Cardinalis himself ingenuously pro- fess, Satis posse dubitari an Sardi- censis concilii constitutio existat, De concord. cathol, 1. 2. c. 25,

qaqa

596 Of the Civil Magistrate. Art.

divine right for the authority or jurisdiction of that bishopric over others ; for here we see they are forced to fly to the con- stitution of a council for the confirmation of it, whereas had they thought that those words, Upon this rock will I build my church, ov any other text of scripture, made any thing for it, they would never have run to a council for the proving of it. 2. That a whole council of famous bishops, amongst whom were Augustinus, Aurelius, and above two hundred others, though certainly well skilled in scripture, yet neither did they so much as dream of any place of scripture that proved the same ; for had they, surely they would never have spent so much time in sending into Greece for the true copies of the Nicene council, to see whether that had decreed any such thing or no. 3. It is observable also, that this assertion is so far from being grounded upon scripture, that it was never so much as determined by a general council, but the bishop of Rome is forced to forge a canon for it. 4. It is observable also, that the bishop of Rome is fallible; for he either knew that the canon which he pleaded was not any canon of the council of Nice, or he did not know it. If he did dnot know it, he must needs be fallible, so shamefully erring in so plain a thing as that was, which scarce any one could be ignorant of : if he did know it was not the council of Nice, and said it was that council that decreed it, he lied not only to the coun- cil, but to his own conscience too, confidently avouching that to be established by the council of Nice which himself knew was not. 5. That in the judgment of these reverend and learned fathers, the council of Nice decreed, that all ecclesias- tical controversies whatsoever should be ended in the province where they ‘arose, and no appeals to be made to foreign powers. Lastly, it is also here observable, that this council did unani- mously determine, that no appeals should be made from foreign provinces to the bishop of Rome in particular ; which certainly they would not, they could-not have done, had they thought that he had any jurisdiction over the whole church, or over any churches out of his own provinces ; all which being considered, we may well conclude, that the bishop of Rome hath not any power Sor jurisdiction in the church of this realm in particular.

4 not om. MS. Y arise MS. S in MS.

Of the Civil Magistrate. 597

Neither was the bishop of Rome’s supremacy over the church of Christ in general only thus denied ; but his author- ity in the realm of England in particular hath been long ago resisted. Indeed, William the Conqueror himself, whom they pretend to be so much devoted to the pope’s service, when pope Hildebrand, otherwise called Gregory the Seventh, sent his legate Hubertus to gather up the Peter-pence, and to require an oath of allegiance and fidelity to the pope from him, the king, in his letter to him sends him express word, t« Your legate Hubertus, religious father, coming unto me, he admonished me of your part that I would swear fidelity to you and your successors, and consider better of the money which my predecessors used to send to the church of Rome; one of these things I have admitted, the other I have not admitted; I would not then, neither will I now swear to be faithful to you, because I neither promised any such thing, neither do I find that my predecessors did ever do so to your predecessors.” From whence we may observe, how neither William the Conqueror nor his predecessors were absolutely subject to the pope, (for then he durst not have sent him such an answer,) and by consequence, that the pope even then had no absolute jurisdiction in this realm. And William the Conqueror being dead, and his second son, William Rufus, sueceeding him in his kingdom, he did openly and expressly assert, that ’‘“‘no archbishop nor bishop of his kingdom should be subject to the court of Rome or the pope,” and the reason he gave of it was, “because they do not follow the steps of Peter, gaping after rewards ; they do not retain his power, whose holiness they are proved not to imitate.” In this king’s reign it was also that Anselme, archbishop of Can-

Baron. an. 1079. [p.555. vol. XI.];

t Hubertus legatus tuus, religiose pater, ad me veniens ex tua parte me admonuit, quatenus tibi et suc- cessoribus tuis fidelitatem facerem, et de pecunia, quam antecessores mei ad Romanam ecclesiam mittere solebant, melius cogitarem. Unum admisi, alterum non admisi. Fide- litatem facere nolui, nec volo; quia nec ego promisi, nec antecessores meos antecessoribus tuis id fecisse comperio. Ex Lanfranc. epist. apud

et MS. in Biblioth. Cotton. exscript. a Jacob. Armach. [vid. Cat. Cott. MSS. p. 584.]

u Quod nullus archiepiscopus vel episcopus regni sui curiae Romane vel papze subesset. Mat. Paris. hist. ad an. 1094. [p. 19. |

w Quod Petri non herent vesti- giis premiis inhiantes; non ejus potestatem retinent cujus sanctita- tem probantur non imitari. Ibid.

ArT.

598 Of the Civil Magistrate.

terbury, being denied leave by the king to go and fetch his pall from pope Urban, he presently appealed from the king to the pope, upon which the king told him, in plain terms, x “that if he would desist from his purpose, and promise upon the gospels that he would not visit the thresholds of the apostles, nor for any business appeal to the seat of Rome, then he might peaceably use and enjoy his own and his friends’ goods, and be over the principal of the kingdom in every gift; but if he shall purpose otherwise, it would be free for him to go over the sea, but that he would do unwisely, for he should never after have hope of returning home again.” Nay, and Anselme himself saith, in an epistle to Paschalis, then bishop of Rome, ¥“I asked leave of the king to go to the apostolical seat, to ask counsel about my soul and the office enjoined me. The king answered, that I sinned against him for the very asking of this leave; and he propounded to me, that I would either make satisfaction for this thing as for a fault, and assure him that I would never more ask such leaves nor ever after appeal to the see of Rome, or else that I would presently go out of his kingdom.” And not only so, but in a council gathered together, an. 1095, Hdinerus, who was one of the council, relates how # “all the bishops there present (he of Rochester expected) denied due subjection and obedience to him. And the king himself took away all his confidence of him, and swore he would not take him any longer for an arch-

y Petii licentiam ab. eo (rege), se- dem adeundi apostolicam, ut inde consilium de anima mea, et de offi- cio mihi injuncto acciperem. Re- spondit rex, me in se peccasse, pro

sola postulatione hujus licentize; et proposuit mihi, ut aut de hac re, sicut de culpa, satisfacerem, et secu- rum illum redderem, ne amplius peterem hanc licentiam, nec aliquan- do apostolicum appellarem, aut de terra ejus cito exirem. Anselm. epist. 1, 3. epist. 40. ad Pasch. [p. 70. ]

[…]

XXXVITI. Of the Civil Magistrate. 599

bishop or a father, unless he would deny that he would ever after give obedience to the vicar of St. Peter.” From whence it appears, that almost six hundred years ago both the king and council determined that obedience ought not to be given by the subjects of this realm to the bishop of Rome, and by consequence, that the bishop of Rome even then had no juris- diction in this realm.

And as the bishop of Rome had little or no authority in this realm in the days of the two Williams, kings of England, so had he as little in the days of the two Henrys which succeeded them. What power he had in the days of king Henry the First (brother to William Rufus, third son to William the conqueror) appears from the pope’s letter to the said king, wherein, amongst other things, he said, a‘ Seeing thou hast plentifully received from the hand of the Lord honour, riches, and peace, we much wonder and are grieved, that in thy kingdom and dominion St. Peter, (himself he meant,) and in St. Peter, the Lord hath lost his honour and right. For the messengers or letters of the apostolical seat obtain no reception or entrance into your dominion without the command of the royal majesty: there are no appeals from thence, no judgment is from thence appointed to the apostolical seat.” So that it seems the pope had but small power here in the days of Henry the First ; and truly he being dead, and Stephen also his immediate successor, the pope’s power was as small in the days of king Henry the Second too; for in his reign were there several laws and constitutions made at Clarendon which the clergy and nobility were to subscribe to; and Thomas Becket, archbishop of Canterbury, was much troubled for opposing of them: as, that St. Peter’s pence should no more be paid to the apo- stolical seat; that no decree or command proceeding from the

a Cum de manu Domini largius honorem divitias pacemque sus- ceperis, miramur vehementius et gravamur quod in regno potestate-

ue tua B. Petrus et in B, Petro ona honorem suum justitiam- que perdiderit. Sedis enim apo- stolicee nuncii vel literee preter jussum regiz majestatis nullam in

[…]

600 Of the Civil Magistrate. Arr.

authority of the pope or the bishop of Canterbury (then out of the kingdom) be received in this realm; and amongst other things it was decreed, as an ancient custom of this realm still to be observed, > “that no appeals be made to the apostolical see without leave from the king and his officials ;” or, ag it is more largely set down in the life of Thomas Becket, °“« Concerning appeals, if they go from the archdeacon they ought to proceed to the bishop, from the bishop to the archbishop, and if the archbishop be wanting in the exercise of justice, it must be brought last of all to the lord the king, that by his precept in the archbishop’s court the controversy may be ended. So that it ought not to proceed any further without the consent of our lord the king.” By all which it evidently appears, that though the king might reverence the bishop of Rome, yet the bishop of Rome had no authority in his kingdom any further than the king himself would give him leave.

I might trace the opposition that hath been made to the pope’s supremacy in this realm of England almost in every king’s reign since; but that would be a needless thing; what we have said already being enough upon which to affirm, approve, and pronounce, with the university of Cambridge, (that debated this question in their regent house, an. Dom, 1534.) that the bishop of Rome hath no more state, authority, or jurisdiction given him by God in the scriptures over this realm of England than any other externe bishop hath; and so, to conclude with what I began, the bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction or authority in this realm of England.

’ Quod non appellaretur pro defuerit in justitia exhibenda ad

[…]

¢ De appellationibus si emerserint ab archidiacono debent procedere ad episcopum, et ab episcopo ad archiepiscopum, et si archiepiscopus

dominum regem proveniendum est postremo; ut preecepto ipsius in curia archiepiscopi controversia ter- minetur; ita quod non debet ultra procedi absque assensu domini regis. Quadrilog. de vita Thom. Cantua- riensis, [c. 8. Rescr. initio 1. 5.]

XXXVII. Of the Civil Magistrate. 601

The laws of the vealm may punish Christian men with death for heinous and grievous offences.

It is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.

I having transgressed my intended limits in speaking to the former parts of this article, I shall touch the more lightly upon these, especially considering that there is less opposition made against them, and therefore it is not so needful to ex- patiate upon the confirmation of them. First therefore of the first, that the laws of the realm may punish Christian men with death for heinous and grievous offences ; for the proof of which truth I need go no further than the judicial laws of Moses, whereby several sorts of offenders were to be put to death for their several offences ; as, murderers, Numb. xxxv. 30, Exod. xxi. 12; idolaters, Deut. xvii. 5; the smiter of his father or mother, Exod. xxi.15; a manstealer, ver. 16; he that curses father or mother, ver. 17; witches, c. xxi. 18 ; he that lieth with a beast, ver. 19; and many such like offenders, were to be punished with death, and that by the command of God himself. Now though it be not necessary for these and the like judicial laws to be received into a Christian kingdom or commonwealth, yet it cannot but be lawful to receive them and act according to them. It is true these laws were made and enacted for the government of the Jewish nation only, and therefore not necessarily to be ob- served by others: but howsoever, seeing it was God himself that did establish them, whose will is a law, and whose pleasure is the ground of duty, it cannot possibly be that they should be unlawful in themselves, having once the stamp of divine authority upon them. Had not it been lawful to punish offenders with death, God would never have com- manded it; or rather, seeing God was pleased to command it, it cannot but be therefore lawful ; lawful I say, though not absolutely necessary; it is so lawful as that they may do it without sin, not so necessary as that they must do it or else sin. Seeing God enacted those laws, they are lawful to be received by all, though, seeing God enjoined them only to

602 Of the Civil Magistrate. Arr.

the Jews, they are necessarily to be observed only by them ; though not necessarily to be observed now by them neither, they being no longer a peculiar nation, our Saviour by his cross having broken down the partition wall, and made of Jew and Gentile one sheepfold under himself, the chief Shepherd of our souls. And therefore Christ by his coming did not only abrogate the ceremonial but the judicial law too, so that after that time neither Jew nor Gentile 2 are obliged to the observation of them. But howsoever, though he did abrogate the necessity, he did not disannul the lawfulness of them, but it is still as lawful for all to observe those laws since his passion, as it was necessary for the Jews to observe them before his incarnation: and therefore such laws in particular as commanded offenders to be put to death may be observed now as well as then; or though those particular laws be not observed themselves, this general law deduced from them may, and ought certainly to be observed, even that heinous and grievous offenders be put to death.

Neither do I speak this as if it was never lawful before Moses to punish any offenders with death; for it was long before Moses commanded by God, Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man, Gen. ix. 6, and repeated by Christ, Matt. xxvi. 52; which plainly shews that it was not only lawful but necessary even before Moses’s time to punish murderers with death. And as it was before his laws were established, it must needs be also after that his laws are repealed, even necessary as well as lawful to punish him with death that was the cause of another’s death ; especially considering that here is the reason of the law annexed, because én the image of God made he man, which reason always remaining, the law must need continue in foree. And what is said of murder may also be applied to other the like offences, which whosoever are guilty of may justly be punished with death for them. Nay, such offences not only in justice may, but in justice ought to be so punished, for the magistrate beareth not the sword in vain, for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evik, Rom. xiii. 4; and therefore @ wise king scattereth the wicked, and bringeth the

2 MS. was.

XXXVII. Of the Civil Magistrate. 603

wheel over them, Prey. xx.26. And that it is lawful howsoever to punish heinous offenders with death St. Augustine intimates to us, saying, 2“ But he is no murderer who oweth his service to him that commandeth, as a sword is a help to him that useth it ; and therefore they do not at all transgress against this command, whereby it is said, Thou shalt do no murder, who, God being the author, serve in war, or representing the person of the public power, do according to his laws, that is, according to the command of the most just reason, punish the wicked with death.” So that it is not only lawful but most just to punish wicked offenders with death.

And as for the second thing, that it is lawful for Christian men at the command of the magistrate to serve in war, ap- pears in that it was lawful for the Jews, then the only people of God, even under the Old Testament, so to do; yea, God himself commanded them to go out to war, Num. xxxi. 2, 3. Jos. vill. 21. 1 Sam. xxiii. 2. And what was lawful for them cannot be sinful for us, though there were many things sinful to them which are now lawful to us. And this also further appears in the answer which John the Baptist gave to the soldiers that came unto him, for the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely, and be content with your wages, Luke iii. 14. He doth not say, Throw aside your weapons, and serve no more in war, but rather adviseth them, or howsoever permits them to continue in the same employment, by shewing them how to behave themselves in it, even being content with their wages. And thus nei- ther doth our Saviour command the centurion to resign his office, Luke vii, nor the apostles condemn Cornelius for being a centurion, Acts x; but to serve the magistrate in war was still looked upon as lawful as to serve him in any other employment, which in reason indeed we cannot but ac- knowledge, as considering the nature of a lawful war, (of which only we now speak,) which is nothing else but a just

a Non autem ipse occidit, qui gesserunt, aut personam gerentes ministerium debet jubenti, sicut publice potestatis secundum ejus adminiculum gladius est utenti: et leges, hoc est, justissime rationis ideo nequaquam contra hoc pre-imperium, sceleratos morte puni-

ceptum fecerunt, quo dictum est, erunt. Aug. de civitate Dei, 1. 1. Non occides, qui Deo autore bella c. 21. [vol. VII.]

604 Of the Civil Magistrate. Art. defence of the magistrate’s person, kingdom, and prerogatives, which certainly are so lawful to be defended that it is sinful not to endeavour to defend them.

And thus did the Fathers of old teach. >“ For the Fathers,” saith St. Basil, “ accounted slaughters in war to be no mur- ders, as I think excusing such as strive for temperance and piety ;” which they would not have done if they had thought it unlawful. And St. Augustine, speaking of those words of God to Joshua, Lay thee an ambush for the city behind it, saith, c “ We are hence admonished that this is not unjustly done by such as wage a just war; that a just man should not take much thought about these things, but only that he under- take a just war, to whom it is lawful to war or to serve in war.” The first council at Arles decreed, 4‘ Concerning those that use their arms in peace, it pleaseth us that they be ex- communicated ;” implying that it is lawful to use them in war, not in peace. And the council at Magunce; ©“ We (ministers) who have left the world, this we will by all means observe, that having spiritual arms, we lay aside our secular : but the lay persons which are with us we do not hinder from wearing weapons ; because it is an ancient custom, and hath been brought down even to us.” And Sigebertus Gemblacensis tells us how in an ancient assembly of French bishops, f “* one

Tovds ev modepors hdvovs of waré- quus mos est, et ad nos usque per-

venit.

[…]

¢ Hine admonemur non injuste fieri ab his, qui justum bellum ge- runt; ut nihil homo justus pracipue cogitare debeat in his rebus, nisi ut justum bellum suscipiat, cui bellare fas est. Aug. in Jos. 1.6, quest. 10. [vol. III. ]

© Nos autem qui relinquimus se- culum, id modis omnibus observare yolumus, ut arma spiritualia haben- tes secularia dimittamus. Laicis vero, qui apud nos sunt, arma por- tare non preejudicemus ; quia anti-

Cone. Magunt. c. 17. [p. 1013. vol. IV. ibid.

f Unus eorum dixit, ccelitus sibi delatas esse literas quee pacem mo- nerent renovandam in terra; quam rem mandavit ceteris, et hee tra- denda dedit populis; Arma quis- quam non ferret, direpta non repe- teret, &c. Gerardus Cameracensis, (qui solus Lothariensium appende- bat ad parochiam Francorum,) nul- lius hortatu potuit adduci ad hee recipienda, sed singula capitula re- fellebat ; dicens, genus hominum ab initio trifariam esse divisum, in oratoribus, pugnatoribus, agriculté- ribus, et unum duorum, et duos unius egere auxilio, ideo debere arma ferri, et rapinas reddi per auc- toritatem legis et gratiz. Sigebert.

ad an. 1032. [p. 595. |

_

Notes

• King James’s apolog. p. [284. of his Works. ]
• Cognoscat siquidem fraternitas vestra Johannem quondam Constan- tinopolitane civitatis antistitem, contra Deum, contra pacem ecclesiz, in omnium conspectu et injuria sa- cerdotum modestiz et mensureze suze terminos excessisse, et illicite in sy- nodo superbum ac pestiferum_ cecu- menicum hoc est universalis sibi vocabulum usurpasse. Ibid. 1. [9. ep. 68. ]
• Additum ut pape nomen, quod omnium vocabulorum episcopalium excellentius esse statutum est, solus Romanus pontifex, cum ante omni- bus commune esset episcopis, reti- neret. Onuph. in addit. ad Plat. in vit. Bonifac. tert. [p.67.] Papa cu- jusdam paternitatis nomen est et clericorum congruit dignitati. Wa- lafr. Strabo de rebus ecclesiasticis, c. 7. Nomen pape, tametsi hodie
• Fundamentum Christus est in structura architecti sapientis: hoe expositione non indiget. Aperte enim dictum est, Fundamentum enim aliud nemo potest ponere preter id quod positum est, quod est Christus Jesus. Si autem Christus, proculdubio fides Christi. Per fidem quippe habitat Christus in cordibus nostris. Aug. de fide et operibus, [27. vol. VI.]
• Quod si cceptis desisteret, si propositis evangeliis promitteret, se nec apostolorum limina visitaturum, nec pro quovis negotio Romane sedis audientiam appellaturum, tunc et suis et rebus suorum, cum omni tranquillitate posse uti et frui, et regni majoribus in omni donatione preesse. Sin secus ei visum est, trajicere quidem hberum esse, sed inconsulto id facturum, siquidem nullam revertendi spem imposterum ei futuram. Id. in major. Angl. hist. [p.19.]
• De his qui arma projiciunt in pace, placuit abstinere eos a com- munione. Cone. Arel. 1. can. 3. [p. 263. vol. I. Conc. Hard. ]