A Second Reply to an Answer Made by Doctor Whitgift Part 2, Part 7
OF THE AƲTORITY OF THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE, IN CAVSES ECcleſiaſtical: Tract. the tvuelfth and tvuentith, according to the D. page 694.
THere ys a proper place, where the D. (if he had bene able) should hauehave shewed, that I agree in this cauſe, with the Papiſtes: namely in the end of this treatiſe, where I shew, how far I ſtand from them in this behalf. Howbeit hauīg (beſide vntrw ſurmiſes) little or nothing at al to mayntein him ſelf with, he hath, to ſtrike a preiudice into the minde of the reader, and to ſet (as it were) a bias of his iudgment, to draw it vntounto his ſide, here in the forefront ſet vp this vntrue accuſation: whereunto I wil anſwer, when I come to that place. Now for better clearing of this matter, the diſtinction betvuene the church and cōmon vuealth vnderunder a Chriſtian Magiſtrate, denied by him: is to be confirmed.
Vuherin as towching the autority of the word of god, boeth owt of the ould Teſtamēt and the nue: I refer the reader, to that which I aIn the 7. Tract diui. 8 p. 755.hauehave writtē. ſauing that the place of the Cronicles cōmeth after to be towched again. In the churches after the Apoſtles, and that vnderunder godly Princes: the ſame differēce, hath bene diligētly obſerued, by the eccleſiaſtical writers. As when it is ſaid, that the church and common vuealth, Socr. 5. li. in praefat. Soz. 3. libr. 26. cap.not onelyonly ſuffer but florish togither: keping this diſtinction, as wel in the church is proſperity, as in her aduerſity. Alſo, bEuſe. 3. li. de vita Cō ſtan.that the hovuſes of prayer, being restored to the church: other places vuere adiudged to the vſe of the commō vueaelth. Likewiſe, cAug. epiſt. 167. ad Apung.that there is one cauſe of the Prouince: and another of the church.
Yf he can not cōceiue, how this should be: he may be giuē to vnderſtand it, after this ſort. that a man may, by excommunicatiō, be ſundred frō the church: which forthwith leeſeth not of neceſsity, his Burgeship or freedome in the city, or common wealth. Likewiſe, that the ciuil Magiſtrate may, by bannishment, cut of a man from being a member of the common wealth: whome the church can not by and by, caſt owt by excommunication. Again, when one is for his misbehauior depriued of his priuileges, boeth in the church and common wealth: albeit the church be, vponupon his repentance, bound to receiu him in again, as a member thereof: yet the common wealth, is at her liberty whether she wil reſtore him or no. Finally infidels vnderunder a Chriſtian Prince, may, vntil ſuch tyme as they refuſe inſtruction, be members of the common wealth: yet are they not therefore, members of the church. where, if the church and common wealth, were (as he ſaith) vnderunder a Chriſtian Prince, al one: it should folow, that whoſoeuer is a part of one, should needes be a part of the other: and contrawiſe, whoſoeuer is cut of from one, muſt be cut of from the other.
His autority pretended againſt this diſtinction, owt of Muſculus, pag. 180. et 695.that the Chriſtian Magiſtrate is not profane: is to no vſe. For, not onelyonly the high dignity of the ciuil Magiſtrate, but the moſte baſeſt handicraftes: are holy, when they are directed to the honour of god: but to conclude thereof, that they are not diſtinguished from eccleſiaſtical cauſes, is to much vnaduiſednes. For wil he conclude, that for becauſe the gouernment of the hows, and the gouernment of the commō wealth, are boeth holy: that therfore, the gouernment of the hows, is not diſtinguished, from the gouernment of the cō mon wealth: or wil he ſay, becauſe the company of a man with his wife in lawful matrimony is holy, that therefore it is a church matter?
This diſtinction, of the church and common wealth, vnderunder2. Diuiſ. pa. 697. a Chriſtian Prince, being ſo apparant in certein caſes, there is no reaſon, why it should not be ſo, in the reſt: which shal yet better appear, in this diſcours: where, commeth firſt to be conſidered, what he anſwereth to the place of the Cronicles: where, vponupon that certeyn Priestes and Leuites, had 2. Chro. 19. verſ. 8. 11.the handling of matters perteyning vntounto god, and certeyn others the matters perteyning vntounto the king: I concluded, that the church iudgmentes ovught ordinarily to be handled, by the church officers. His anſwer hereunto is, that forſomuch as Iehoſaphat the king, by his autority committed boeth eccleſiaſtical, and ciuil cauſes: therfore he had power him ſelf of boeth. whereunto I reply, that he committed not thoſe eccleſiaſtical matters, vntounto the Prieſtes and Leuites, as thoſe which he might hauehave reteyned with him ſelf, or as a thing in his own diſcretiō: but vſed onelyonly his princely autority, to put in executiō, that which the lord had commanded. For yt is manifeſt, that the ſelf ſame thing which Iehoſaphat did here, was commandedDeut. 17. 8. &c. to be doen, in the law. And if this proue, that the iudgment of eccleſiaſtical cauſes perteyneth to the king, becauſe he confirmed by his autority the eccleſiaſtical Iudges: it proueth alſo, that boeth the ordination of Miniſters, and the preaching of the word, belong vntounto hym: conſidering that this very king, is 2. Cronicles 17. 7. 8. 9.ſaid to hauehave ſent forth preachers into al lury.
But let the reader obſerue, how he hath here vtterly paſſed by the weight of my argument, which ſtandeth in this, that the holy goſt maketh this partition, that ſome matters pertayn to god, and others to the king: whereas, if the matters pertayning vntounto god, pertayned alſo to the king, the partition should be fauty. Nether by matters pertayning vntounto the king, are vnderſtanded thoſe which pertayn vntounto his own perſon, or his family, but matters within the compas of his princely iudgment: as appeareth, by the example of the cauſe of blood, which the ſcripture ſetteth down,verſ. 10. eſpecially if this place be compared, with that of Deuteronomy, where this example is put particularly, and oppoſed to the iudgment of aDeu. 17. 8leproſy, which then belonged vntounto the prieſt.
To the place in the bHeb. 5. 1.Hehrues, that the high Prieſt is appointed, ouer thinges vuhich appertayn vntounto god: he anſwereth, that the Apostle declareth, that thoſe thinges are to offer giftes &c. which is nothing worth. For, the propoſition is general, wherupon the Apoſtle concludeth ſo much, as ſerued for the preſent purpoſe: otherwiſe yow may as wel ſay, that yt belonged not to the high Prieſt, to preach, becauſe the Apoſtle mentioneth not that part of his office, in that place. Seing then it is apparant, owt of the Cronicles, that iudgment in church matters pertayneth vntounto god: Seing likewiſe, it is euident owt of this teſtimony of the Apoſtle, that the high Prieſt is ſet ouer thoſe matters in gods behalf: it muſt needes folow, that the principality or direction of the iudgment of them, is by gods ordināce pertayning vntounto the high Prieſt, and conſequently to the miniſtery of the church. And if it be by gods ordinance, apparteyning vntounto thē: how can it be translated from them, vntounto the ciuil Magiſtrate?
That which I ſaid, of Leuites vſed to the iudgment of ciuil cauſes, for that they could not al be employed to the ministery, conſidering that, ſo there should hauehave bene almoste for eueryevery xijmē a Leuite: is barely denied, and nether the reaſon which I browght cōfuted, nether any of his ſet down. whereunto may be added the reaſon, why the Leuites not occupied in the church miniſtery: were willingly taken, for aſsiſtance in ciuil iudgmentes. which is, becauſe they being better acquainted, with the law of god, then commonly the reſt of the tribes: were conſequently better ſeen in the iudicials, by which the common wealth of the Iſraelites was gouerned. And that al the Leuites, were not applied vntounto the miniſtery, may appear by the example of a Banaias, the high …. Reg. 4. 4.Priests ſon, high Conſtable or general of the host.
Before I come to the Anſ. arguments, I deſire the readerDiuiſ. 3. p. 698. to obſerue, that althowgh he hath owt of the auncient writers, borowed certein places, to iuſt with thoſe, which I hauehave taken from thence: yet owt of the holy ſcripture, whereof he should hauehave made the baſe and foundation of his defence, he hath browght nothing. But let vsus ſee them ſuch as they are. Euſebius (ſaith he) calleth Conſtantine, as yt were a general Bishop. That maketh no more to proue, that the iudgment of eccleſiastical cauſes, belonged vntounto him: then that he calleth hym a Doctor, Euſeb. 1. li. de vita Cō ſtan.apointed of god to al nations, proueth hym to hauehave bene a publik preacher of the word. Rather, as he was called a Doctor, becauſe that the doctrine taught by the Bishops, was maynteyned by his autority, not for that he taught him ſelf: ſo he is called the general Bishop, for that he cauſed them to meet in Councel, protected them when they were there, kept them in peace, maynteyned with his princely autority, that which was godlyly decreed, not for that he determined the matters hym ſelf. This may alſo appear, in his epiſtle to the churches, where willing to draw credit vntounto the decrees of that Councel, he doeth not ſay that they were his, but the Bishops decrees. And in deed yt might more iuſtlyEuſeb. 3. li. de vita Cō ſtan. be concluded, that he was a miniſter of the word by the one place, then by the other, that he made eccleſiaſtical lawes, of his own autority: conſidering, that the place browght by him, is delaied and laid in water, by that he calleth him not a Bishop ſimply, but as it vuere a Bishop: where as, the other place is not ſo.
And it is further to be obſerued, that the word Bishop is taken ſome tymes generally, for any ouerſeer: and not onelyonly for the church Miniſter. In which reſpect, Conſtantyne calleth him ſelf a Bishop, but putteth a manifeſt difference, betwene his Bishoprik and theirs: namely, that the church officers were Bishops and ouerſeers of thinges vuithin Euſeb 4. li. de vita Cō ſtan.the church, and he, Bishop or ouerſeer of thoſe that vuere vuithovut the church. whereby he clearly alſo eſtablisheth, the diſtinction of the church and common wealth vnderunder a Chriſtian Prince. Hether alſo may be referred, that of Hillary: which exhorteth Conſtans, that he wouldIn lib. ad Conſtan. prouide, that the gouernours of his prouinces vnderunder hym, should not praeſume to take vponupon them, the iudgment of eccleſiastical cauſes: where alſo the ſame autor further affirmeth, that the common vuealth matters onelyonly belonged vntounto them. Likewiſe that Ambroſe ſaith: That Palaces belong vntounto the Emperour, but the churches Amb. lib. 5. Epist. 33.vntounto the Minister: and that he had autority of the commō vualles of the city, and not ouer holy thinges.
That of Conſtantyne, and after of Iuſtinian, making lawes touching godlines, as againſt the worship of Images &c. is idle, conſidering that it is nothing but an execution of that, which is commanded of god, and withowt the compas of thinges, which fal into the church is conſultation. For in thinges, which he is aſſured of, to be the vnuariable truth of god: who douteth but that he not onelyonly may, but owght alſo to mayntein them, with his autority. Sauing that, if there be a general dowt raiſed, what is the law of god therein: to the end that the the truth may hauehave better cours, and that the conſcience may be prouided for, there is herein great caution to be vſed. For leaſt that which is godly, should be doē vngodlily, that is to ſay ignorantly or doutfully, and to the end that the autors of error (being conuinced) may doe les hurt, and finally to the end that the punishmēt of the obſtinate, may be boeth more iuſt, and les grudged at: yt belongeth vntounto the ciuil Magiſtrate, to cal (as did the godly Emperour Cō ſtantine) a councel of the miniſtery, by whome, as by gods interpreters, the people may receiu a reſolution, warranted by ſubſtantial groundes owt of hys word.
Yet ſo far it is, that we ſuſpend vponupon the Councels determination, the putting in execution of ſuch as he is aſſured to be the vnchangeable commaundementes of god: that boeth before, in, and after the Councel, yea and howſoeuer they determin, we eſteme that the Prince owght to procure by al godly and conuenient meanes, that ſuch lawes of god hauehave place: at the leaſt that the contrary be not ſuffered, not ſo much as (if it might be) one onelyonly hower.
That owt of the Chalcedon councel, that the orders there made were by the Emperours autority, becauſe they cried long life vntounto the Senate and Emperour: is vnſufficient. For, althowgh it was vnmeet, that in ſuch graue meetinges, there should be vſed ſuch shoutinges, as then appeared to hauehave bene the maner, when they liked or misliked any thing, which was more fit for ſtage playes, then for ſuch a graue company: yet who ſeeth not, that there was cauſe enowgh, why thanckes should be giuen vntounto the Emperour for his care, his paynes, and his charges in calling and confirming yt, althowgh nether the iudgment were his, nor apperteyned vntounto him.
Now touching the places alledged by me, in the firſt, gros ouerſight there is none: ſeing there is not a word in that place, which enforceth external buildinges. For in ſteed of that which is turned buildinges: the greek hath, vuorkes or affaiers. foreign.alſo for that, of ſelling the buildinges: there is no ſuch thing in1 lib cap. 15 the greek, nether (as I think) owght to be. For the place, which (no dowt) is afor inſted of that Euſeb. hath foreign yt should hau… bene foreign.corrupt in Euſebius: may be reſtored owt of Theodoret, that reporteth the ſame epiſtle. Howbeit whether it be vnderſtood of the owtward, or inward buildinges, I wil not ſtriue: and I rather think, that it is of the ow…ward, then otherwiſe: conſidering, that that ſeemeth to be more ſimple.
To the ſecond, where the bSoz…. 1. li. cap 17.Emperour confeſſeth the Bishops matters, not to pertayn to him: he anſwereth, that the Emperour of modeſty refuſed the determination. But what modeſty is yt, to ſay that which is vntrue: or what modeſty, to affirm that yt belongeth not to hym, which is (by yow) his office, and committed to him of god, eſpecially vntounto his ſubiectes? For it might hauehave more colour, if yow had ſaid, that it were modeſty for a Bishop to ſay: that to adminiſter the word and ſacramentes belong not to hym, but vntounto the Prince. Beſide that, yf he would hauehave shewed forth modeſty: he would hauehave rather ſaid, that he was not worthy, then to ſay that it vuas not lavuful for him to doe yt.
To that, that the Emperour vuould not determin of Arius hereſy, but committed yt to the Synod: he anſwereth, that yt letteth not but that he had autority, ſauing that, therby he shewed his wiſdome, in committing matters of doctrine to them, which are moste fit to entreat of them. A ſtraunge kinde of wiſdome, to put ouer that which belonged vntounto his office, to them to whoſe office that did not belong: verely this is not the wiſdome, which commeth from aboue. For althowgh it be lawful for a Prince, to diſcharge part of his burthen vponupon others, for the more commodity of his ſubiectes: yet, if this belong vntounto him, as he is appointed of god the ciuil Magiſtrate, he can not put yt vntounto any other, thē vntounto a ciuil Magiſtrate, as I hauehave aTract. 7.before shewed.
Here alſo, I would ask of him, how the Councel of Nice was fitter to iudg of the matter, then the Emperour? was it by ſome ſinguler caſe, or by reaſon of their office of being Bishops? Yf (as needes he muſt) he anſwer, that they are by calling and by office, fitter to iudg of ſuch cauſes: how muſt not that pertein vntounto them, which are hereof, by calling, the fitteſt Iudges. For, althowgh there be found ſometymes, ſome ciuil gouernour which hath more skil to iudg in church matters, then ſome Bishop, as alſo ſome Bishops to hauehave more skil in common wealth matters, then ſome ciuil gouernour: yet notwithſtanding, nether the one, nor the other hath this kunning, by any gift incident into his office which he exerciſeth. So that, the Anſwerer, in reputing it, for wiſdome in the Emperour, to commit theſe matters vntounto the Bishops, as vntounto the most able Iudges, maketh a deep wound in the wiſdome of god, whileſt he ſuppoſeth, that god hath committed that to be doen by the Magiſtrate, whereof, by office, he is not the fitteſt doer: which is a voice, vnworthy of a very ſukling, much more, of a D. in diuinity. And, that this is moſt properly belonging1. Tit. vntounto a Bishop, it appeareth, in that the Apoſtle requireth, that he should be able to conuince the gainſayers: which he neuer required of the ciuil Magiſtrate: and notwithſtanding would hauehave required yt, if the deciſion of ſuch cauſes, had apperteyned vntounto him. For the lord, calleth no man to any thing: of whome he requireth not giftes, meet to furnish his calling.
Not vnlike to this reaſon, is that in the 5. diuiſion page 701, which is: that for ſo much as the Ministers, are moſte able to decide of church matters, that therfore, the deciſion belongeth vntounto them. whereunto he anſwereth firſt, that it is Hardings reaſon, but sheweth not, where it is to be found: where I alledging it, as his own reaſon, pointed hym the place, wherunto he anſwereth not a word. Secondly, he ſaith, that yt proueth onelyonly, that it is most conuenient and neceſſary, that the ministers, while they be godly and learned, may hauehave the deciding of matters in religion. Here, if the Anſw. had not fumbled, and faultered in his ſpeach: we had had hym, if not altogither, yet very nigh conſenting with vsus. therefore, let the reader note, that whereas he hath borowed boeth his anſwers, and al his auncient autorities from the Bishop and M. Nowel, withowt confeſsing any (one onelyonly place owt of the Bishop excepted:) in this anſwer, wherein the cheif point of the queſtion doeth conſiſt, he hath giuen them boeth the slip. For they boeth doe flatly confes, that as long as the Miniſters be godly and learned, yt is neceſſary, Defence of the Apol. 6. part. ch. 11. diu. 11. and 12. ch. di. 4. M. Novuel. Tom. 2. pa. 35. 38. 34. 27.they should decide theſe matters, that the Prince is commanded to hauehave recours vntounto them in dovutful matters, that it belongeth to the Bishops office to decide of ſuch cauſes: but that Christian Princes, hauehave rather to doe vuith theſe matters, then ignorant and vuicked Prieſtes, and that in caſe of neceſsity (meaning when the miniſtery is wicked) the Prince ovught to prouide for cōueniēt remedy: the very ſelf ſame thing, which we maynteyn, in ſaying, vuhen there is no lavuful ministery, that then the Prince ovught, to take order in theſe thinges.
Now, becauſe he diſſenting from them, would yet ſeeme to be at one, he alſo hath ſet down, that it is neceſsary: but how? mark I pray yow, and yow shal ſee that, in ſtryuing againſt a manifeſt truth, he became ſpeachles. Forſooth it is neceſſary, that they may decide: he durſt not ſay that it is neceſſary they should, but that they may decide. where in ſaying that it is neceſſary, he leaueth no choiſe: again, in ſaying that they may, he deſtroyeth the neceſsity, which he had before put, leauing it in the Princis power, whether they shal or no. Thus as the mous kleauing fast in the pitchbox, in one ſentence: he affirmeth that a godly and learned miniſtery, muſt of neceſsity, and not of neceſsity, decide of theſe cauſes.
That which he addeth, that the autority doeth as wel stil remain in the Prince, when the Miniſters decide, as when the Iudges determin of ciuil cauſes: is vntrw. Yf, as he pretendeth, it were at the Princis chois, whether a godly myniſtery, should decide of them or no, then yt were true he ſaith: but if it be true, which the Bishop and M. Nowel ſay, that yt is neceſſary, that a godly miniſtery should decide of them, and that yt belongeth to the the Bishops office ſo to doe: then the compariſon, is moſt vnequal. For the iudgment of ciuil cauſes, doeth ſo be long vntounto the Magiſtrate, that he is not bound by the law of god, to translate yt vntounto other. Nay the law of god, wil hauehave, that Princes them ſelues (ſo far as they may, and are able) shal bear their dominion vponupon their own shoulders, and iudg the cauſes of their ſubiectes in their own perſons: cōſidering that the ſcripture calleth al princes, Iudges, and ſetteth eueryevery one a Throne, to iudg the cauſes of his people. Now (to return bak, where I leaft) foloweth his anſwer to the Councel of Conſtantinople: that it is to late a testimony, being other in the year 549 or 681. which might hauehave place in this caſe, where the queſtion is of the Bishopes iuriſdiction, as that which in proces of tyme did owtreach: were it not confirmed, by other teſtimonies of the former age. In the firſt of which Councels, Menna the Patriark being preſident, it is ſaid that the decree of the Bishopes firm in yt ſelf, vuas cō firmed by the Emperour. Now ſeing the Bishops, had then this autority: how much more, by his own confeſsion, had they the ſame, in the other which was later. And the ſame Conſtantine which the D. ſpeaketh of, giueth more to the Bishopes, then we doe: namely that he vuould compel none to the truth, oneles they concluded ſomething.
That yt was ſaid, that the Emperour confirmed the decrees of the Councel, and not that the Emperour made the decrees: ſerueth alſo wel for this purpoſe. For, if ether he had made them, or they had bene made vnderunder his name: they should hauehave bene ſaid, to hauehave bene made by him: as decrees made by the Princis deputies, are ſaid to be made by the Prince.
That which he addeth, of the Emperour being moderator of the Councel, beſide that yt proueth not his cauſe, conſidering that the Moderator had not al the autority: it is vntrue, and contrary to the practis of Councels in al tymes: oneles by moderatorship, he mean the appointing of the tyme of the Councels aſſembly and diſmiſsion, the houers of their ſitting, the ciuil punishment of them which behaue them ſelues tumultuously, or otherwiſe diſorderly. If he doe, it is that which we willingly graunt: but, which maketh nothing for this purpoſe.
To that alledged owt of Ambroſe, vuho refuſed to Diuiſ. 4. p. 700. Amb. li. Epiſt. 5. 32.hauehave a church matter before the Emperour Ʋalentinian, firſt, he anſwereth that he was young: as thowgh his tender yeares, could diminish his right: or that a Prince of 18 or 20 yeares ould, had not as ample autority as one of 40. Secondly, that he was not baptized: which was not, for that he refuſed baptim, but becauſe the maner then was not to baptiz, before the hower of death was ſuppoſed to approch. For, the Arians them ſelues, doe not pretend any enmity, or refuſal of baptim. And howſoeuer ſome hauehave alledged yt, yow might hauehave bene ashamed to alledg yt: which before, affirmed thatpag. 146. Ambroſe was meet to be choſen Bishop, notwithstāding that he were not baptized.
The laſt exception is, that he was an Arian heretik: ſo that no equal iudgment, was to be hoped for at his hand. which is no ſufficient anſwer: conſidering that Ambroſe denieth the Emperour the determination of the cauſe, not for that he was a wicked Emperour, but becauſe it was not red in ſcripture, nor heard of before, that any Emperour, (and therfore nether godly nor vngodly) was Iudg ouer a Bishop, in a cauſe of faith. which was not his iudgment onelyonly, but the iudgment of other Bishops round abowt. Therefore, it is vntru, that Ambroſe ſtayed him ſelf chiefly, of a priuiledg graunted by Theodoſius: not onelyonly, for that it was not lawful for Theodoſius, to hauehave paſſed the right of the ciuil Magiſtrate, to the Bishops: but becauſe Ambroſe fetched his defence, from the ſcripture and auncienter tymes, then was Theodoſius priuiledg. Beſide that, if Theodoſius had graunted that to the Bishops, which belonged vntounto hym: his heir could be no more bound by his graunt herein, then the committing of ciuil iudgmentes vntounto them, should hauehave hindred him to cal them bak again, into his own hand. So that, when Valentinian had declared, that he would hauehave the hearing of the matter hym ſelf: that could not be, any iuſt defence.
Moreouer, if it belong vntounto the ciuil Magiſtrate, to iudg in cauſes eccleſiaſtical, no abuſe or diſorder of his, can depriue hym of yt, ſo long as he remayneth in the ful eſtate of a Prince: no more then men can take away from him, the right of iudgment in ciuil cauſes, and erect another court againſt his, becauſe he peruerteth iudgment, ether by giftes or fauour. Therefore, if it be true that the D. houldeth, that this right belongeth to Ceſar: Ambroſe owght to hauehave appeared, and to hauehave waited, what the Emperours iudgment would hauehave bene. If it had bene againſt the truth, then to hauehave anſwered as the Apoſtles to the Councel, that he vuould Act: 5.rather obey god then man. This may yet better appear, for that if the Emperour had ſent for Ambroſe, and giuen hym ſummonce, to shew what was his iudgment, withowt pretending to be Iudg in the cauſe: Ambroſe could not hauehave refuſed yt, althowgh the Emperour would after hauehave ſaid, that he was an heretik. Laſt of al, thys being obiectedpart. 6. chap. 12. diuiſ. …. by Harding, that there is the ſame right of a Chriſtiā Prince and of a Tyrā: is not denied of the Bishop of Sarisbury. For the ordinance of god is one: euen as there is the ſame right of a heathen maſter, husband, and father, ouer a Chriſtian ſeruant, Son and wife, as if they were Chriſtian. And yt was an error, againſt which the Apoſtles labored: that priuate men, might deny vntounto Princes and other their ſuperiors, which did not their duties, thinges which, otherwiſe, were due vntounto thē. Nether owght the D. more to charge me with this ſaying, becauſe Harding hath yt: then I charge hym with his opiniō, of the ſame kinde in this behalf with Pigghius: whoHier. 5. lib. cap. 4. teacheth, another right of a Chriſtian, and of a profane Magiſtrate.
The relation of Athanaſius matter, to the Emperour: was (asApolog. 2. may appear) becauſe the moſte part of the Bishops, were he retikes, ether Coluthans, Arians, or Miletians.
That owt of Auguſtin, demaunding why the Donatiſtes made the Emperour Iudg, if it were not lawful for him to giuegive ſentence in a matter of Religion: was onelyonly to beat them with their own rod, not that Auguſtin alowed their fact, in making the Emperour their Iudg. which is manifeſt in other places, where he doeth preciſely reproue them for it: and caſt yt in their teeth, that aAugust. in pſal. contra partent Donat. and Epiſt. 68.they preferred the Emperours iudgment vntounto the Bishops: when, notwithſtanding, the Emperour gaue the ſame iudgment which the Bishops did, and was, for his godlines, the perl of al Emperours. Vuherein, it is alſo to be obſerued, that Auguſtin in another place ſaith, that the Emperour, bEpiſt. 166not daring to iudg of the Bishops cauſe, committed yt vntounto the Bishops: and that he did, not once but twiſe. Likewiſe, that he was driuen by cEpiſt. 162the Donatistes importunity, which made no end of appealing vntounto hym, to giuegive ſentēce in that matter: for the which alſo, he vuas to craue pardō of the Bishopes. Hetherto maketh ſingulerly, that Auguſtin puttethd Li. prim… contra literas Parmenian. ca. 7. a playn diſtinction betwene theſe iudgmentes: ſaying of the Donatiſtes, which of their priuate autority ruſshed vpō the catholiks, that yt vuas nether by eccleſiastical lavu nor by the kings lavu: which were ridiculous, if (as the D. ſaith) the eccleſiaſtical lawes, were alſo the kings lawes.
That owt of Sozom. 4. lib. 16, owght not to hauehave bene alledged: conſidering that boeth the Emperour Conſtantius, which required to hauehave the ending of the matter, and the moſte of the Bishops in the Councel of Syrm, which agreed vntounto his requeſt, were infected with Arianiſm. Likewiſe, that owt of Socrates 5 book, cap. 10, is idle: ſeing nothing is doen there by Theodoſius, which is not confeſſed to belong vntounto the Magiſtrate. The next is anſwered before.
Vuhere I preſſed him with his own wordes, affirming thatdiuiſ. 6. pa. 702. &c. alſo the firſt diu. p. 694. the church hath autority to make ceremonies: he anſwereth that he included the Prince, as cheif gouernour of the church: which is not ſufficient. For ether the Prince alone, muſt be the church, or els one of his ſentences, goeth to ground: ether that which ſaith, that the church hath autority, or this affirming that the Prince hath al the autority, to make ceremonies.
I alledged for further anſwer, againſt his shameful slaunders of vsus, as if we were ioyned with the papiſtes in this cauſe: as foloweth. Firſt, that the papiſtes exempt their Priestes from the punishment of the ciuil Magistrate: vuhich vue doe not. whereto he anſwereth, that Harding and Saunders doe as much: which is vtterly vntrw. For by the wordes, he citeth owt of Saunders, yt appeareth, that he doeth not ſubiect them vntounto the Magiſtrate, in reſpect of their priesthood. Owt of Harding, he nether citeth wordes, nor quoteth place: which his burning deſire, of coupling vsus with the papiſtes, would not hauehave paſſed, if it could hauehave bene found.
And that the reader, may better know his great vnfaithfulnes in ſo weighty a matter: let him take Hardings own wordes to the Bishop, which are theſe. aApolo. 6. part cap. 9. diui. 1. & 2.Yovu teach princes, to vſe violence against Priestes, as thovugh their fautes could not be redreſſed, by the Prelates of the cleargy. And after, yt is not conuenient, that the king should cal Priestes before hym, to his ovun ſeat of iudgment. I aſsigned alſo another difference, that vuhere the papistes, vuil hauehave the Prince execute vuhatſoeuer they conclude, be yt good or bad: vue ſay, that if there be no lavuful miniſtery, as in the ruinous decayes of religion, that then the Prince ovught to ſet order. And if, vuhen there is a lavuful ministery, it shal agree of any vnlavuful thing: that the Prince ovught to stay yt, and to driue them, to that vuhich is lavuful. This difference, althowgh he could not deny, and althowgh, by it, we are ſundred from the papiſtes, as far as he is frō him that ſaid, the kyng of Perſia might doe vuhat he luſted: yet he continueth his former slaunder, that we shake handes with the papiſtes: and feareth not ſtil to ſay, that he ſeeth not wherein (in this article) we differ from them.
But not able to deny this difference, he cauilleth at yt: asking firſt, why the prince owght rather to determin of eccleſiastical cauſes when there is no lawful miniſtery, thē whē there is: forſooth becauſe the Magiſtrate is bound to ſee, the ſeruice of god maynteined in his dominion. which, when yt can not be by the1. Tim. 2. meanes, which god hath appointed ordinary, yet for as much as his bond ſtil remayneth, the next is, that yt be doen as nerely vntounto that order as may be: vntil ſuch tyme (which owght to be with al poſsible ſpeed) as the ſtanding, and ſet order, be eſtablished. I ſay, as nere as may be vntounto the order preſcribed of god, leaſt any should think, that becauſe that order can not be preciſely kept, he were by and by at liberty, to ſet vp clean another order, which should ſeem beſt to hym: neglecting, vponupon occaſion of the vnability of obſeruing al, the obſeruation of thoſe thinges which may be obſerued. For herein owght to be folowed, the example of the godly learned Prieſt Abimelech: which admitted Dauid and his company, to the participation of the shew bread, that was otherwiſe lawful for the Prieſts onelyonly to eat of. who, althowgh (to kepe charity which is the end of the law) he brake ſo much of the ceremonye, as the preſent neceſsity did require:1. Sam. 21. 4… yet he ceaſed not therefore, to be careful of the obſeruation of the reſt: as appeareth, in that he asked, vuhether they had abſteyned from the company of their vuiues.
Again, yt is known, that the Prieſtes and Prophetes hauehave extraordinarily meddled with ciuil affaires, in confuſed tymes: wil he therfore ſay, that this power is ordinarily annexed vntounto the Bishops office. The caſes, I graunt, are not altogither like: yet to his queſtion, which ſuppoſeth that there is no cauſe, why the Magiſtrate should not iudg of church matters, aſwel when there is a lawful miniſtery, as when there is none: this may ſerue, for part of an anſwer.
Moreouer, as in ſiknes, there is another diet, then in health: ſo the church in her greuous diſeas, hath an other kinde of gouernment, then that which is ordinary, and vſed in a good conſtitution of her body. which thing, being ſaid of the ruinous eſtate of the church, is to be vnderſtood alſo, of her beginninges and, as yt were, infancy: where ether there was no church before, or hauing bene, yt was raſed from the foundations. Yf this content him not: let him anſwer me, why the Prince muſt of neceſsity, commit theſe matters to the miniſtery when it is learned and godly, rather then when yt is otherwiſe: if, at the leaſt, he wil now at the laſt, hauehave this the meaning of this broken english. And of his anſwer, to this queſtion, wil eaſely riſe an anſwer to his.
But ſome sharper Aduerſary, might here hauehave obiected: that Moſes, Dauid, and Salomō, being Princes in the moſte florishing eſtate of the church: did notwithſtanding make church orders. whereunto I anſwer, that they did ſo, partly, for that they were not kinges onelyonly and Princes, but alſo Prophetes of god: partly, for that they had ſpecial and expres direction therto, from god by the prophete: whereby they did euen thoſe thinges in the church, which, withowt ſuch ſpecial reuelation, was not lawful, for the Prieſtes thē ſelues to hauehave doē. And althowgh, the truth of this anſwer, be apparant: yet, that it may hauehave the more autority, eſpecially with the D. that taſteth nothing withowt this ſauce: he may vnderſtand, that it is M. Caluins anſwer of Moſes, and Dauid, and that in this preſent cauſe now debated.Lib. epiſtol. Gal. pa. 46
His other quarrel againſt this anſwer is, that if a lawful miniſtery determining ſome thing vnlawful, wil not be browght to that which is iust, that then the Prince must hauehave ether that which they wil, or no religiō. As thowgh, ſuch a miniſtery were a lawful miniſtery, that is obſtinate. or as if, this obſtinacy being general or for the moſte part, the ſtate is not here ruinous: ſo that the Prince may, after due meanes, aſſaied to bring them home, procure that other be put in their places. we herby appeareth, that the remedy of this inconuenience, which (he ſaith) he can not ſee: was comprehended, in the firſt part of the ſecond difference, betwene ours, and the Papiſts iudgment.
But, if for that, a lawful miniſtery is ſubiect to error, or doeth er in the deciſion of eccleſiaſtical cauſes, he think that yt should not therefore handle theſe matters: he may as wel take from them, the preaching of the word: conſidering that an error, may as wel be found in the pulpit, as in the Councel hows. And look what remedy the Magiſtrate hath againſt a miniſtery, teaching falsly or inconueniently in the pulpit: the ſame hath he againſt yt, determining ſo in Councel.
And, to make the partition wal, betwene the papiſtes and vsus in this queſtion, one cubite higher, that thoſe which wil not open their eys to ſee it, may feel yt, in not onelyonly ſtumbling, but running alſo their heades againſt yt: I wil ad this muche, that in aſcribing vntounto the miniſtery, the deciſion of matters in controuerſy, and the making of church ceremonies: our meaning is not vtterly to ſeclude the Magiſtrate. For, when aRuff 1. li. cap. 3.experience teacheth vsus, that often tymes a ſimple man, and, as the prouerb ſaith, the Gardener hath spoken to good purpoſe, but b2. Croni. 30. verſ. 20. 4. and 34. verſ. Act. 11. 2. 4. & 15. 22. & 21. 22.eſpecially when in the holy ſcripture, the ould Teſtament and the nue: and thirdly, when in the c1. Tom. cō cil. in praef. …. conci. Carthag. Ambroſe Epiſt. lib. 532 Hether belōgeth that vuhich the bishop hath vuritten in defence of the Apologie 6. part. chap. 3. diuiſ. 3.eccleſiaſtical writers, yt is found, that there hauehave bene of the people admitted vntounto theſe conſultations: when further it is found, that they hauehave had their conſent there, and ſometyme alſo their ſpeach: with far greater reaſon, may the Chriſtian Magiſtrate, boeth be aſsiſtant, and hauehave his voice in ſuch aſſemblies.
That then, which we giuegive vntounto the miniſtery in ſuch church conſultations, which are not of the dayly miniſtery, as Synods be: is boeth a fore conſultation, as we ſee to hauehave bene doen in the aAct. 21. 18ſcripture, to the end that the matter being digeſted, and as it were cut owt, and prepared a forehand, yt might be the better handled in a fuller aſſembly: as alſo the direction and moderation of that meeting, where theſe matters are defined and concluded of.
But in the cheef point, he is ſure we agree with the papiſtes: euen as the godly and learned writers, ould and of our age, doe agree with them, and none otherwiſe. whereof two, the D. is him ſelf conſtreyned to cōfes: meaning (as I think) M. bCal. Inſt. 4. booK 11. cha. ſect. 15. & 12. ſect. 7.Caluin and cBeza Epi. 8.Beza. whether he doe or no, ſo they are, as may appear. And how durſt he ſay of thoſe two, vponupon no ground, that in this article of the Magistrats autority, they differ nothing from the papiſtes. For ſo he ſaith in effect, when he ſaith ſo of vsus: whome he is compelled to confes, to hauehave their aſsiſtance in this cauſe. Althowgh they are not (as he ſaith) alone: but hauehave diuers others bearing them company. Amongeſt whome, M. Bucer may ſeem to be worthy of the cheif place: which affirmeth, that the magiſtrate ovught not to adminiſter d Bucer lib. de cura anim.the diſcipline of the church.
So that, ſo far as we conſent here with the papiſtes, we doe it, as in the article of the holy Trinity, where we hauehave with warrant of the word of god, the approbation alſo of the beſt. we hould with them, thinges in common: in which reſpect, we are not afraid to confes, that we conſent in ſome point, with the Iues and Turkes, or they rather with vsus. But yow are foūd in diuers places, in their priuate orcheyardes, gathering your frute of trees, which their handes did firſt plant: and from thence yow bring your ſtockes, which yow would place in the lords vineyard. And euen in this queſtion, whome hauehave yow oppoſed vntounto theſe two: which yow cō fes of our iudgmēt. yow pretend in deed, the Bishops of Sarisbury and wincheſter, with M. Nowel: but for two of them, I hauehave shewed, that they are in effect of the ſame iudgment we are: aſſured I am, they are further from yow then from vsus: of the third alſo (albeit I hauehave not ſeen hym (I perſwade my ſelf likewiſe.
There remaineth onelyonly Muſculus, whoſe ſaying if I should deny not to be charged vponupon vsus, but on the papiſtes onelyonly, ſeing we doe not deny altogither as they doe, that he hath autority to make church lawes: yow ſe we hauehave hould, which yow can not eaſely put vsus from. But becauſe, when I confeſſed ſome of contrary iudgment: I meant him, at the leaſt as one which (if he thowght as we) did not ſufficiently expres yt: let vsus graunt yow, this reed to ride vponupon, and to bear your ſelf vp, in this great triumph. And let it be graunted yow, to make your faut ſeem ſo much the les: that yow hauehave one learned man, of the ſame iudgment with yow.
That I hauehave no other reaſons then the papiſtes, is vntrue: at leaſt yow shew yt not. And I may holily profes, and in the preſence of god, that I went not to the papiſtes for them: but in reading the ſcriptures, and the autors them ſelues, obſerued them. Nether could the papiſtes abuſing them, to the maintenance of their tyranny ouer Princes, and the whole church, affray me to vſe them, as I hauehave: no more, then they affraied M. Caluin and others, which hauehave vſed of them in like maner.
Of al which matter, the reader may vnderſtand, how vnworthy owtcries they be, which he ſo oftē raiſeth againſt vsus: that we giuegive no more to a godly Chriſtian magiſtrate, then to the Turk or Nero, with ſuch like. For who wil communicate the church matters, with Nero, open to hym the neceſsity of houlding a Councel, deſire his confirmation of the church orders, pray his aid in the maynteyning them, cal vponupon him aſwel for making them, where the lawful miniſtery faileth, as for redres of the euil?
Yt is trw, the Turk and Nero, owght to doe al theſe: euen as they owght to doe, whatſoeuer belongeth vntounto a godly Chriſtian Prince: for the leauing of which vndoen (much more for doeyng the contrary) the wrath of the lord reſteth vponupon them, and theirs. But for as much, as they profes enmity of the truth: as they muſt want boeth the honour in this world, and reward in the world to come, which the lord giueth vntounto a Chriſtian magiſtrate: ſo the church muſt paciently bear, the want of theſe thinges vnderunder the one, which she enioyeth vnderunder the other.
To end this matter, ſeing the church and common wealth, are diſtinguished aſwel vnderunder a Chriſtian Prince, as vnderunder an vnchriſtian, and that thereof foloweth the diſtinctiō one from another, not onelyonly of the lower, but alſo of the higher members, which are the gouernours in boeth the bodies: ſeing alſo, the lord hath appointed the Miniſters, to be ouer the matters perteyning to him ſelf: Seing further, the miniſtery of the church is, by calling and giftes incidēt thereunto, the fitteſt Iudg of the church matters: laſt of al, ſeing the auncient practis of the church, houldeth vp her hand hereunto: I conclude, that as wel in the deciſion of the doctrine, as in the chois of the variable ceremonies of the church, the principal autority belōgeth vntounto the miniſtery. The reſt of the ſections in this tractate, as thoſe which require no reply: I wil not towch, but leau them to the readers iudgment.