Ecumenical Christian Library

  • Loading…

VII.15. Concerning the civil power and authority which our Bishops have

159437 min read

XV. Of which nature that also is, wherein Bishops are over and besides all this accused “to have much more excessive power than the ancient, inasmuch as unto their ecclesiastical authority, the civil magistrate for the better repressing of such as contemn ecclesiastical censures, hath for divers ages annexed civil1. The crime of bishops herein is divided into these two several branches; the one, that in causes ecclesiastical they strike with the sword of secular punishments; the other, that offices are granted them, by virtue whereof they meddle with civil affairs.”

Touching the one, it reacheth no farther than only unto restraint of liberty by imprisonment (which yet is not done but by the laws of the land, and by virtue of authority derived from the prince). A thing which being allowable in priests amongst the Jews, must needs have received some strange alteration in nature since, if it be now so pernicious and venomous to be coupled with a spiritual vocation in any man which beareth office in the Church of Christ. Shemaiah writing to the college of priests which were in Jerusalem, and to Zephaniah the principal of them, told them they were appointed of God, “that they might be officers in the house of the Lord, for every man which raved, and did make himself a prophet2,” to the end that they might by the force of this their authority “put such in prison and in the stocks.” His malice is reproved, for that he provoketh them to shew their power against the innocent. But surely, when any man justly punishable had been brought before them, it could be no unjust thing for them even in such sort then to have punished.

As for offices by virtue whereof bishops have to deal in civil affairs, we must consider that civil affairs are of divers kinds, and as they be not all fit for ecclesiastical persons to meddle with, so neither is it necessary, nor at this day haply convenient, that from meddling with any such thing at all they all should without exception be secluded. I will therefore set down some few causes, wherein it cannot but clearly appear unto reasonable men that civil and ecclesiastical functions may be lawfully united in one and the same person.

First therefore, in case a Christian society be planted amongst their professed enemies, or by toleration do live under some certain state whereinto they are not incorporated, whom shall we judge the meetest man to have the hearing and determining of such mere civil controversies as are every day wont to grow between man and man? Such being the state of the church of Corinth, the Apostle giveth them this direction, “Dare any of you having business against another be judged by the unjust, and not under saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? If the world then shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge the angels? how much more things that appertain to this life? If then ye have judgment of things pertaining to this life, set up them which are least esteemed in the Church. I speak it to your shame; is it so that there is not a wise man amongst you? no not one that can judge between his brethren, but a brother goeth to law with a brother and that under the infidels? Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another; why rather suffer ye not wrong, why rather sustain ye not harm3?” In which speech there are these degrees: better to suffer and to put up injuries, than to contend; better to end contention by arbitrement, than by judgment; better by judgment before the wisest of their own, than before the simpler; better before the simplest of their own, than the wisest of them without; So that if judgment of secular affairs should be committed unto wise men, unto men of chiefest credit and account amongst them, when the pastors of their souls are such, who more fit to be also their judges for the ending of strifes? The wisest in things divine may be also4 in things human the most skilful. At leastwise they are by likelihood commonly more able to know right from wrong than the common unlettered sort.

And what St. Augustine did hereby gather, his own words do sufficiently shew. “I call God to witness upon my soul,” saith he5, “that according to the order which is kept in well-ordered monasteries, I could wish to have every day my hours of labouring with my hands, my hours of reading and of praying, rather than to endure these most tumultuous perplexities of other men’s causes, which I am forced to bear while I travel in secular businesses, either by judging to discuss them, or to cut them off by entreaty: unto which toils that Apostle, who himself sustained them not, for any thing we read, hath notwithstanding tied us not of his own accord, but being thereunto directed by that Spirit which speaks in him. His own apostleship which drew him to travel up and down, suffered him not to be any where settled to this purpose; wherefore the wise, faithful and holy men which were seated here and there, and not them which travelled up and down to preach, he made examiners of such businesses. Whereupon of him it is no where written, that he had leisure to attend these things, from which we cannot excuse ourselves although we be simple: because even such he requireth, if wise men cannot be had, rather than the affairs of Christians should be brought into public judgment. Howbeit not without comfort in our Lord are these travels undertaken by us, for the hope’s sake of eternal life, to the end that with patience we may reap fruit.” So far is St. Augustine from thinking it unlawful for pastors in such sort to judge civil causes, that he plainly collecteth out of the Apostle’s words a necessity to undertake that duty; yea himself he comforteth with the hope of a blessed reward, in lieu of travel that way sustained.

Again, even where whole Christian kingdoms are, how troublesome were it for universities and other greater collegiate societies, erected to serve as nurseries unto the Church of Christ, if every thing which civilly doth concern them were to be carried from their own peculiar governors, because for the most part they are (as fittest it is they should be) persons of ecclesiastical calling? It was by the wisdom of our famous predecessors foreseen how unfit this would be, and hereupon provided by grant of special charters that it might be as now it is in the universities; where their vice-chancellors, being for the most part professors of divinity, are nevertheless civil judges over them in the most of their ordinary causes.

And to go yet some degrees further; a thing impossible it is not, neither altogether unusual, for some who are of royal blood to be consecrated unto the ministry of Jesus Christ, and so to be nurses of God’s Church, not only as the Prophet6 did foretell, but also as the Apostle St. Paul was. Now in case the crown should by this mean descend unto such persons, perhaps when they are the very last, or perhaps the very best of their race, so that a greater benefit they are not able to bestow upon a kingdom than by accepting their right therein: shall the sanctity of their order deprive them of that honour whereunto they have right by blood? or shall it be a bar to shut out the public good that may grow by their virtuous regiment? If not, then must they cast off the office which they received by divine imposition of hands; or, if they carry a more religious opinion concerning that heavenly function, it followeth, that being invested as well with the one as the other, they remain God’s lawfully anointed both ways. With men of skill and mature judgment7 there is of this so little doubt, that concerning such as at this day are under the archbishops of Mentz, Colen, and Trevers, being both archbishops and princes of the empire; yea such as live within the Pope’s own civil territories, there is no cause why any should deny to yield them civil obedience in any thing which they command, not repugnant to Christian piety; yea, even that civilly for such as are under them not to obey them, were but the part of seditious persons. Howbeit for persons ecclesiastical thus to exercise civil dominion of their own, is more than when they only sustain some public office, or deal in some business civil, being thereunto even by supreme authority required.

As nature doth not any thing in vain, so neither grace. Wherefore if it please God to bless some principal attendants on his own sanctuary, and to endue them with extraordinary parts of excellency, some in one kind, some in another, surely a great derogation it were to the very honour of him who bestowed so precious graces, except they on whom he hath bestowed them should accordingly be employed, that the fruit of those heavenly gifts might extend itself unto the body of the commonwealth wherein they live; which being of purpose instituted (for so all commonwealths are) to the end that all might enjoy whatsoever good it pleaseth the Almighty to endue each one man with, must needs suffer loss, when it hath not the gain which eminent civil ability in ecclesiastical persons is now and then found apt to afford. Shall we then discommend the people of Milan for using Ambrose their bishop as an ambassador8 about their public and politic affairs; the Jews for electing their priests sometimes to be leaders in war; David for making the high-priest his chiefest counsellor of state: finally, all Christian kings and princes which have appointed unto like services bishops or other of the clergy under them? No, they have done in this respect that which most sincere and religious wisdom alloweth.

Neither is it allowable only, when either a kind of necessity doth cast civil offices upon them, or when they are thereunto preferred in regard of some extraordinary fitness; but further also when there are even of right annexed unto some of their places, or of course imposed upon certain of their persons, functions of dignity and account in the commonwealth; albeit no other consideration be had therein save this, that their credit and countenance may by such means be augmented. A thing if ever to be respected, surely most of all now, when God himself is for his own sake generally no where honoured, religion almost no where, no where religiously adored, the ministry of the word and sacraments of Christ a very cause of disgrace in the eyes both of high and low, where it hath not somewhat besides itself to be countenanced with. For unto this very pass things are come, that the glory of God is constrained even to stand upon borrowed credit, which yet were somewhat the more tolerable, if there were not that dissuade to lend it him.

No practice so vile, but pretended holiness is made sometime as a cloak to hide it. The French king Philip Valois9 in his time made an ordinance that all prelates and bishops should be clean excluded from parliaments where the affairs of the kingdom were handled; pretending that a king with good conscience cannot draw pastors, having cure of souls, from so weighty a business, to trouble their heads with consultations of state. But irreligious intents are not able to hide themselves, no not when holiness is made their cloak. This is plain and simple truth, that the councils of wicked men hate always the presence of them, whose virtue, though it should not be able to prevail against their purposes, would notwithstanding be unto their minds a secret corrosive: and therefore, till either by one shift or another they can bring all things to their own hands alone, they are not secure.

Ordinances holier and better there stand as yet in force by the grace of Almighty God, and the works of his providence amongst us. Let not envy so far prevail, as to make us account that a blemish, which if there be in us any spark of sound judgment, or of religious conscience, we must of necessity acknowledge to be one of the chiefest ornaments unto this land: by the ancient laws whereof, the clergy being held for the chief of those three estates, which together make up the entire body of this commonwealth, under one supreme head and governor, it hath all this time ever borne a sway proportionable in the weighty affairs of the land; wise and virtuous kings condescending most willingly thereunto, even of reverence to the Most High; with the flower of whose sanctified inheritance, as it were with a kind of Divine presence, unless their chiefest civil assemblies were so far forth beautified as might be without any notable impediment unto their heavenly functions, they could not satisfy themselves as having shewed towards God an affection most dutiful.

Thus, first, in defect of other civil magistrates; secondly, for the ease and quietness of scholastical societies; thirdly, by way of political necessity; fourthly, in regard of quality, care, and extraordinancy; fifthly, for countenance unto the ministry; and lastly, even of devotion and reverence towards God himself: there may be admitted at leastwise in some particulars well and lawfully enough a conjunction of civil and ecclesiastical power, except there be some such law or reason to the contrary, as may prove it to be a thing simply in itself naught.

Against it many things are objected, as first, “That the matters which are noted in the holy Scriptures to have belonged to the ordinary office of any ministers of God’s holy word and sacraments, are these which follow, with such like, and no other; namely, the watch of the sanctuary, the business of God, the ministry of the word and sacraments, oversight of the house of God, watching over his flock, prophecy, prayer, dispensations of the mysteries of God, charge and care of men’s souls10.” If a man would shew what the offices and duties of a chirurgeon or physician are, I suppose it were not his part so much as to mention any thing belonging to the one or the other, in case either should be also a soldier or a merchant, or an housekeeper, or a magistrate: because the functions of these are different from those of the former, albeit one and the same man may haply be both. The case is like, when the Scripture teacheth what duties are required in an ecclesiastical minister; in describing of whose office, to touch any other thing than such as properly and directly toucheth his office that way, were impertinent.

Yea, “but in the Old Testament11 the two powers civil and ecclesiastical were distinguished, not only in nature, but also in person; the one committed unto Moses, and the magistrates joined with him; the other to Aaron and his sons. Jehoshaphat in his reformation12 doth not only distinguish causes ecclesiastical from civil, and erecteth divers courts for them, but appointeth also divers judges.”

With the Jews these two powers were not so distinguished, but that sometimes they might and did concur in one and the same person. Was not Eli both priest and judge13? after their return from captivity, Esdras a priest, and the same their chief governor even in civil affairs also?

These men which urge the necessity of making always a personal distinction of these two powers, as if by Jehoshaphat’s example the same person ought not to deal in both causes, yet are not scrupulous14 to make men of civil place and calling presbyters and ministers of spiritual jurisdiction in their own spiritual consistories. If it be against the Jewish precedents for us to give civil power unto such as have ecclesiastical; is it not as much against the same for them to give ecclesiastical power unto such as have civil? They will answer perhaps, that their position is only against conjunction of ecclesiastical power of order, and the power of civil jurisdiction in one person. But this answer will not stand with their proofs, which make no less against the power of civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction in one person; for of these two powers Jehoshaphat’s example is: besides, the contrary example [examples?] of Eli and of Ezra, by us alleged, do plainly shew, that amongst the Jews even the power of order ecclesiastical and civil jurisdiction were sometimes lawfully united in one and the same person.

Pressed further we are with our Lord and Saviour’s example, who “denieth his kingdom to be of this world, and therefore, as not standing with his calling, refused to be made a king, to give sentence in a criminal cause of adultery15, and in a civil of dividing an inheritance16.” The Jews imagining that their Messiah should be a potent monarch upon earth, no marvel, though when they did otherwise wonder at Christ’s greatness, they sought forthwith to have him invested with that kind of dignity, to the end he might presently begin to reign. Others of the Jews, which likewise had the same imagination of the Messiah, and did somewhat incline to think that peradventure this might be he, thought good to try whether he would take upon him that which he might do, being a king, such as they supposed their true Messiah should be. But Christ refused to be a king over them, because it was no part of the office of their Messiah, as they did falsely conceive; and to intermeddle in those acts of civil judgment he refused also, because he had no such jurisdiction in that commonwealth, being in regard of his civil person a man of mean and low calling17. As for repugnancy between ecclesiastical and civil power, or any inconvenience that these two powers should be united, it doth not appear that this was the cause of his resistance either to reign or else to judge.

What say we then to the blessed Apostles, who teach18, “that soldiers entangle not themselves with the business of this life, but leave them, to the end they may please him who hath chosen them to serve, and that so the good soldiers of Christ ought to do.”

“The Apostles which taught this, did never take upon them any place or office of civil power. No, they gave over the ecclesiastical care of the poor, that they might wholly attend upon the word and prayer19.”

St. Paul indeed doth exhort Timothy after this manner20: “Suffer thou evil as a noble soldier of Jesus Christ: no man warring is entangled with the affairs of life, because he must serve such as have pressed him unto warfare.” The sense and meaning whereof is plain, that soldiers may not be nice and tender, that they must be able to endure hardness, that no man betaking himself unto wars continueth entangled with such kind of businesses as tend only unto the ease and quiet felicity of this life, but if the service of him who hath taken them under his banner require the hazard, yea the loss of their lives, to please him they must be content and willing with any difficulty, any peril, be it never so much against the natural desire which they have to live in safety. And at this point the clergy of God must always stand; thus it behoveth them to be affected as oft as their Lord and captain leadeth them into the field, whatsoever conflicts, perils, or evils they are to endure. Which duty being not such, but that therewith the civil dignities which ecclesiastical persons amongst us do enjoy may enough stand; the exhortation of Paul to Timothy is but a slender allegation against them.

As well might we gather out of this place, that men having children or wives are not fit to be ministers, (which also hath been collected, and that by sundry of the ancient21), and that it is requisite the clergy be utterly forbidden marriage: for as the burden of civil regiment doth make them who bear it the less able to attend their ecclesiastical charge; even so St. Paul doth say, that the married are careful for the world, the unmarried freer to give themselves wholly to the service of God. Howbeit, both experience hath found it safer, that the clergy should bear the cares of honest marriage, than be subject to the inconveniences which single life imposed upon them would draw after it: and as many as are of sound judgment know it to be far better for this present age, that the detriment be borne which haply may grow through the lessening of some few men’s spiritual labours, than that the clergy and commonwealth should lack the benefit which both the one and the other may reap through their dealing in civil affairs. In which consideration, that men consecrated unto the spiritual service of God be licensed so far forth to meddle with the secular affairs of the world, as doth seem for some special good cause requisite, and may be without any grievous prejudice unto the Church, surely there is not in the Apostles being rightly understood, any let.

That no Apostle did ever bear office, may it not be a wonder, considering the great devotion of the age wherein they lived, and the zeal of Herod, of Nero the great commander of the known world, and of other kings of the earth at that time, to advance by all means Christian religion.

Their deriving unto others that smaller charge of distributing of the goods which were laid at their feet, and of making provision for the poor, which charge, being in part civil, themselves had before (as I suppose lawfully) undertaken, and their following of that which was weightier, may serve as a marvellous good example for the dividing of one man’s office into divers slips, and the subordinating of inferiors to discharge some part of the same, when by reason of multitude increasing that labour waxeth great and troublesome which before was easy and light; but very small force it hath to infer a perpetual divorce between ecclesiastical and civil power in the same persons.

The most that can be said in this case is, “That sundry eminent canons, bearing the name of apostolical, and divers councils likewise there are, which have forbidden the clergy to bear any secular office22; and have enjoined them to attend altogether upon reading, preaching, and prayer: whereupon the most of the ancient fathers have shewed great dislikes that these two powers should be united in one person23.”

For a full and final answer whereunto, I would first demand, whether the commixtion and separation of these two powers be a matter of mere positive law, or else a thing simply with or against the law immutable of God and nature? That which is simply against this latter law can at no time be allowable in any person, more than adultery, blasphemy, sacrilege, and the like. But conjunction of power ecclesiastical and civil, what law is there which hath not at some time or other allowed as a thing convenient and meet? In the law of God we have examples sundry, whereby it doth most manifestly appear how of him the same hath oftentimes been approved. No kingdom or nation in the world, but hath been thereunto accustomed without inconvenience and hurt. In the prime of the world, kings and civil rulers were priests for the most part all. The Romans24 note it as a thing beneficial in their own commonwealth, and even to them25 apparently forcible for the strengthening of the Jews’ regiment under Moses and Samuel.

I deny not but sometime there may be, and hath been perhaps, just cause to ordain otherwise. Wherefore we are not so to urge those things which heretofore have been either ordered or done, as thereby to prejudice those orders, which upon contrary occasion and the exigence of the present time by like authority have been established. For what is there which doth let but that from contrary occasions contrary laws may grow, and each be reasoned and disputed for by such as are subject thereunto, during the time they are in force; and yet neither so opposite to other, but that both may laudably continue, as long as the ages which keep them do see no necessary cause which may draw them unto alteration? Wherefore in these things, canons, constitutions, and laws, which have been at one time meet, do not prove that the Church should always be bound to follow them. Ecclesiastical persons were by ancient order forbidden to be executors of any man’s testament, or to undertake the wardship of children. Bishops by the imperial law are forbidden to bequeath by testament or otherwise to alienate any thing grown unto them after they were made bishops26. Is there no remedy but that these or the like orders must therefore every where still be observed?

The reason is not always evident, why former orders have been repealed and other established in their room. Herein therefore we must remember the axiom used in the civil laws, “That the prince is always presumed to do that with reason, which is not against reason being done, although no reason of his deed be expressed.” Which being in every respect as true of the Church, and her divine authority in making laws, it should be some bridle unto those malapert and proud spirits, whose wits not conceiving the reason of laws that are established, they adore their own private fancy as the supreme law of all, and accordingly take upon them to judge that whereby they should be judged.

But why labour we thus in vain? For even to change that which now is, and to establish instead thereof that which themselves would acknowledge the very selfsame which hath been, to what purpose were it, sith they protest27, “that they utterly condemn as well that which hath been as that which is; as well the ancient as the present superiority, authority and power of ecclesiastical persons.”

← An answer unto those things which are object · Contents · The arguments answered, whereby they would p →

Footnotes

  1. [Adm. ap. Whitg. Def. 749. “In that they have civil offices joined to the ecclesiastical, it is against the word of God. As for an archbishop to be a lord president, a lord bishop to be a county palatine, a prelate of the garter, who hath much to do at St. George’s feast when the Bible is carried before the procession in the cross’s place, a justice of peace, a justice of quorum, an high commissioner, &c. And therefore they have their prisons, as Clinks, Gatehouses, Colehouses, towers and castles; which is against all the Scriptures; Luke ix. 60, 61; xii. 14; Rom. xii. 7; 1 Tim. vi. 11; 2 Tim. ii. 3, 4;” Answ. 114, &c.; T. C. i. 206, al. 165, &c.; Def. 749, &c.; T. C. iii. 1-31; Decl. of Discipl. 39-44, ed. 1617.] ↩

  2. Jer. xxix. 26. ↩

  3. 1 Cor. vi. 1-7. ↩

  4. Vide Barnab. Brisson. [Bernabé Brisson, an eminent French lawyer under Henry III, hung by the Leaguers Nov. 1591.] Antiq. Jur. lib. iv. c. 16. [“Conjunctam olim fuisse juris divini et humani scientiam. Ridiculum videtur nonnullis jurisprudentiam rerum divinarum et humanarum notitiam ab Ulpiano definiri, quod existimant rerum divinarum cognitionem nihil cum juris civilis scientia commune habere. Atqui ex veteribus memoriis certissimum est in utriusque facultatis cognitione consultos pares fuisse, tenuisseque et edocuisse eos quibus hostiis, quibus diebus, quo ritu, ad quæ templa sacra facienda essent, quæ sepulchrorum monumentorumque jura, quæ justorum funebrium solemnia essent. Quæ ad jus publicum et divinum referebantur omnia.” p. 136. Paris. 1606.] ↩

  5. Aug. de Oper. Monach. c. 29. [t. vi. 499. “Dominum Jesum, in cujus nomine securus hæc dico, testem invoco super animam meam, quoniam quantum attinet ad meum commodum, multo mallem per singulos dies, certis horis, quantum in bene moderatis monasteriis constitutum est, aliquid manibus operari, et cæteras horas habere ad legendum et orandum aut aliquid de divinis literis agendum liberas, quam tumultuosissimas perplexitates causarum alienarum pati, de negotiis sæcularibus vel judicando dirimendis, vel interveniendo præcidendis: quibus nos molestiis idem affixit Apostolus, non utique suo, sed ejus qui in eo loquebatur arbitrio; quas tamen ipsum perpessum fuisse non legimus: aliter enim se habebat Apostolatus ejus discursus … Sapientes ergo qui in locis consistebant, fideles et sanctos, non qui hac atque illac propter evangelium discurrebant, talium negotiorum examinatores esse voluit. Unde nunquam de illo scriptum est quod aliquando talibus vacaverit, a quibus nos excusare non possumus, etiamsi contemptibiles sumus, quia et hos collocari voluit, si sapientes defuissent, potius quam ut negotia deferrentur in forum. Quem tamen laborem non sine consolatione Domini suscipimus, pro spe vitæ æternæ, ut fructum feramus cum tolerantia.” Quoted by Bp. Jewel in Whitg. Answ. 325. See T. C. i. 171; Def. 771; T. C. iii. 26; Sarav. de Hon. Præs. c. 20.] ↩

  6. Isaiah xlix. 23. ↩

  7. Zanchius [Jerome Zanchi of Bergamo † 1590: he taught theology at Strassburg and Heidelberg 1553, 1568], p. 274. Observ. in Confess. [t. viii. 547. c. xxv. aphorism. 21. “Non diffitemur, episcopos, qui simul principes sunt, præterauctoritatem ecclesiasticam, sua etiam habere jura politica, sæcularesque potestates, quemadmodum et reliqui habent principes jus imperandi sæcularia, jus gladii, nonnullos jus eligendi confirmandique reges et imperatores, aliaque politica constituendi et administrandi, subditosque sibi populos ad obedientiam sibi præstandam cogendi. Ac proinde fatemur, politicis horum mandatis, quæ sine transgressione legis divinæ servari possunt, a subditis obtemperandum esse, non solum propter timorem sed etiam propter conscientiam.” And Append. p. 584. “Duæ longe diversæ sunt quæstiones, utrum episcopis liceat etiam esse principibus, principibusque esse episcopis, suis retentis principatibus; et, an qui episcopi jam sunt simul et principes, ii præter auctoritatem ecclesiasticam jura etiam habeant politica in cives sibi subjectos; eoque an subditi illis tanquam principibus obedire debeant necne. In meo aphorismo nihil prorsus de priori quæstione locutus sum, quia non fuit necesse, sed tantum de posteriori. Quis autem illis omnino obediendum esse, quo jure, quaque injuria principes fuerint creati, ex testimoniis a me allatis non videat aperte demonstrari? Cur enim qui subditi sunt Moguntino, Coloniensi, Trevirensi principibus Imperii simul et archiepiscopis, in rebus cum pietate Christiana minime pugnantibus non obtemperent? Seditiosorum certe fuerit non obtemperare. Quod si istis, cur non etiam Romano, iisdem in rebus et eandem ob causam, qui sub ejus vivunt imperio? Eadem enim horum omnium est ratio. De priori quæstione nihil (ut ante dixi) disserui; sed neque etiam nunc in hac mea brevi confessione disputare constitui; cum sciam, non omnium eandem esse sententiam; et in utramque partem multa dici possint.” ed. 1605.] ↩

  8. [Especially in the two embassies to Maximus, ad 383, and 387. vid. ep. xxiv. ed. Bened. t. ii. 888-891.] ↩

  9. [Hooker seems to refer to the conference at Paris, Dec. 1329, between the archbishop of Sens and Bertrand bishop of Autun as representatives of the Church, and Pierre de Cugnières as advocate for the royal and baronial authority: the particulars of which may be seen, Concil. Harduin. vii. 1544; or abstracted in the continuation of Fleury, liv. xciv. c. 2-5. Goldastus, Monarch. S. R. I. t. iii. p. 1383, having inserted the document, adds, “Sic re aliquamdiu ultro citroque agitata, cum episcopi et prælati se suo solito more reformarent, ita nempe, ut specie ac verbis injuriarum quandam alleviationem simularent, re autem ipsa ea potius augerent et aggravarent quam diminuerent; demum rex severam quandam legem fert, qua talem prælatorum audaciam et tyrannidem cohibet, seque ac suos in libertatem asserit.” But it seems clear from a papal letter to the king, quoted in Raynaud’s Continuation of Baronius, ad 1329, that this latter statement (which is similar to Hooker’s) must be erroneous. No authority for it is given. But in the proceedings of the conference complaint is made by the clergy, “quod quædam præconizationes factæ erant in præjudicium jurisdictionis ecclesiasticæ, quas supplicabant revocari. Tum dominus rex respondit ore proprio, quod non erant factæ de suo mandato, nec aliquid sciebat, nec eas ratas habebat.” Possibly the statement in the text may be traced to some of these ordinances, either spurious at first, or such as it was found convenient to disavow. Henault’s account is, “Le roi est favorable aux ecclésiastiques, mais cette querelle est le fondement de toutes les disputes qui se sont élevées depuis par rapport à l’autorité des deux puissances, et dont l’effet a été de restraindre la jurisdiction ecclésiastique dans des bornes plus étroites.” Abrégé Chronol. de l’Hist. de France, t. i. p. 52, Paris, 1768.] ↩

  10. [Eccl. Disc. fol. 57-64. “Episcopi nomen, a Græca voce ἐπισκοπει̑ν deductum, speculatorem aut vigilem significat, qui castris custodiendis, aut ad urbis vigilias ad hostium adventum denunciandum designatus est… Est autem episcopus, si vere illum definire volumus, minister ecclesiæ in rebus divinis, et ad Deum pertinentibus… Sic Timothei (quamvis evangelistæ) munus Paulus domus Dei gubernatione et administratione definivit. Et Apostolus ad Hebræos animarum procuratione τω̑ν ἡγουμένων curam complexus est… Videamus, recte ne eorum munus religione et cærimoniis tractandis definitum sit. Vetus enim opinio est, et ab antiquis ducta temporibus, episcopos non ita rei divinæ faciendæ terminis circumscribi, quin etiam humana tractare possint, ac simul quidem ecclesiam et rempublicam administrare. Hinc apud nos episcopi pacis et otii communis conservandi auctoritatem habent, et ejus violatores in carcerem atque vincula conjiciendi, testamentorum lites, et alias civilium controversias in suo foro audiendi, disceptandi judicandique potestatem.” &c. Decl. of Disc. 75-77, 85.] ↩

  11. [Eccl. Disc. 60, “Quum utraque potestas primo in Mose confusa esset, Deus, republ. Mosi relicta, ecclesiæ gubernationem ad Aaronem fratrem transtulit.” Decl. of Disc. 79.] ↩

  12. [T. C. iii. 7. “In saying that ‘although the godly magistrate ruleth in the Lord over us, yet that this title is given by excellency (1 Thess. v. 12.) to ecclesiastical officers,’ I do not dally; it is the distinction of the Holy Ghost himself. For albeit they that handle commonwealth matters serve the Lord, and do things tending to his glory, yet the Scripture comparing both these governments together giveth this title as a note to discern the ecclesiastical officers from the civil; as appeareth in the Chronicles, (2 Chr. xix. 11,) from whence (it is like) the Apostle took this manner of speech.”] ↩

  13. [Whitg. Answ. 217. ap. Def. 767. “What say you to Eli and Samuel? were they not both priests and judges?” T. C. i. 170, al. 211. “As for Eli and Samuel, they are extraordinary examples, which may thereby appear, for that both these offices first meeting in Melchisedech and afterward in Moses were by the commandment of God severed, when as the Lord took from Moses the priesthood, and gave it to Aaron and his successors.” Whitg. Def. 767. “It is not certain whether Moses were ever priest or no… Howsoever the priesthood and civil magistracy were divided in Moses and Aaron, yet met they both together again not only in Eli and Samuel, but in Esdras, Nehemias, Matthias and some other.” T. C. iii. 21. “Such were extraordinarily raised up of God, and not by any established order or election of men.”] ↩

  14. [Whitg. Def. 769. “Remember I pray you what you said before in the treatise of Seniors: you there set it down that they are ecclesiastical persons; and yet M. Beza as I have there declared saith that noblemen and princes may be of the seigniory; wherefore either may civil and ecclesiastical offices meet together in ecclesiastical persons (which you deny); or else cannot noblemen and princes be of your seigniory, as M. Beza affirmeth.”] ↩

  15. [S. John viii. 11. alleged by T. C. iii. 3.] ↩

  16. [S. Luke xii. 14. alleged by Adm. see Ans. 264, 266, al. 215; T. C. i. 165; Def. 751; T. C. iii. 2.] ↩

  17. [“He, because he came not but to be a Mediator between God and man, would not become a common divider and judge of every secular cause of title of land: … ‘Neither my heavenly Father sent me to that end, neither have I commission from thy brother to send thee into the moiety of the possession.’ Besides, if he had intermeddled in the matters of the commonwealth, it would have strengthened the conceit, that he sought an earthly kingdom, and to dispossess the Romans…Christ did not condemn the woman taken in the act of adultery: shall not therefore officers ecclesiastical condemn any such sinner? Christ refused to divide the inheritance: it was because he would not use the authority that he had as Lord of heaven and earth, when he came as a servant: not because either a Christian magistrate or minister should after his example lay aside all authority: τίς μὲ κατέστησε; implieth rather that if he had been appointed by both the parties, he might have done it; and so may any minister arbitrate and compound a controversy civil that is committed unto him.” Sutcliffe, Rem. to Dem. of Disc. 179.] ↩

  18. 2 Tim. ii. 4. [quoted in Adm. See Answ. 216; T. C. i. 166; Def. 754; T. C. iii. 6.] ↩

  19. [Acts vi. 4. ap. T. C. i. 167, al. 208; Def. 758; T. C. iii. 10.] ↩

  20. [Hooker here forsakes the rendering of the Geneva Bible, which he commonly adopts, and translates the verse for himself.] ↩

  21. “Convenit hujusmodi eligi et ordinari sacerdotes, quibus nec liberi sunt nec nepotes. Etenim fieri vix potest, ut vacans hujus vitæ quotidianæ curis, quas liberi creant parentibus maxime, omne studium omnemque cogitationem circa divinam liturgiam et res ecclesiasticas consumat.” [Cod. Justin. lib. i. tit. iii.] xlii. sect. 1. de Episc. et Cler. ↩

  22. [Can. Apost. 72. Εἴπομεν, ὅτι μὴ χρὴ ἐπίσκοπον καθει̑ναι ἑαυτὸν εἰς δημοσίας διοικήσεις, ἀλλὰ προσευκαιρει̑ν ται̑ς ἐκκλησιαστικαι̑ς χρείαις· ἢ πειθέσθω οὐ̑ν του̑το μὴ ποιει̑ν, ἢ καθαιρείσθω. οὐδεὶς γὰρ δύναται δυσὶ κυρίοις δουλεύειν, κατὰ τὴν κυριακὴν παρακέλευσιν. Ed. Coteler. t. i. 452. Conc. Chalc. can. 3. ἠ̑λθεν εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν σύνοδον, δτι τω̑ν ἐν τῳ̑ κλήρῳ κατειλεγμένων τινὲς δι’ οἰκείαν αἰσχροκερδείαν ἀλλοτρίων κτημάτων γίνονται μισθωταὶ, καὶ πράγματα κοσμικὰ ἐργολαβου̑σι, τη̑ς μὲν του̑ Θεου̑ λειτουργίας καταρραθυμου̑ντες, τοὺς δὲ τω̑ν κοσμικω̑ν ὑποτρέχοντες οἴκους, καὶ οὐσιω̑ν χειρισμοὺς ἀναδεχόμενοι διὰ ϕιλαργυρίαν. ὥρισε τοίνυν ἡ ἁγία συνόδος, μηδένα του̑ λοιπου̑, μὴ ἐπίσκοπον, μὴ κληρικὸν, μὴ μονάζοντα, ἢ μισθου̑σθαι κτήματα ἢ πράγματα, ἢ ἐπεισάγειν ἑαυτὸν κοσμικαι̑ς διοικήσεσι· πλὴν εἰ μή που ἐκ νόμων καλοι̑το εἰς ἀϕηλίκων ἀπαραίτητον ἐπιτροπὴν, ἢ ὁ τη̑ς πόλεως ἐπίσκοπος ἐκκλησιαστικω̑ν ἐπιτρέψοι ϕροντίζειν πραγμάτων, ἢ ὀρϕάνων καὶ χηρω̑ν ἀπρονοήτων, καὶ τω̑ν προσώπων τω̑ν μάλιστα τη̑ς ἐκκλησιαστικη̑ς δεομένων βοηθείας, διὰ τὸν ϕόβον του̑ Κυριου̑. εἰ δέ τις παραβαίνειν τὰ εἰρημένα του̑ λοιπου̑ ἐπιχειρήσοι, ὁ τοιου̑τος ἐκκλησιαστικοι̑ς ὑποκείσθω ἐπιτιμίοις. t. ii. 601, ed. Harduin. And can. 7, τοὺς ἅπαξ ἐν κλήρῳ κατειλεγμένους, ἢ καὶ μονασάντας, ὡρίσαμεν, μήτε ἐπὶ στρατείαν, μήτε ἐπὶ ἀξίαν κοσμικὴν ἔρχεσθαι· ἢ του̑το τολμω̑ντας, καὶ μὴ μεταμελουμένους, ὥστε ἐπιτρέψαι ἐπὶ του̑το, ὃ διὰ θεὸν πρότερον εἵλοντο, ἀναθεματίζεσθαι. ibid. 603. ap. T. C. i. 168, al. 210; Def. 762; T. C. iii. 15; who refers also to 4 Conc. Carthag. can. 20. “Ut episcopus nullam rei familiaris curam ad se revocet, sed lectioni et orationi et verbi Dei prædicationi tantummodo vacet.” ibid. i. 986.] ↩

  23. [S. Cypr. 1 Ep. ed. Fell. “Graviter commoti sumus… cum cognovissemus quod Geminius Victor frater noster de sæculo excedens … Presbyterum tutorem testamento suo nominaverit: cum jam pridem in concilio episcoporum statutum sit, ne quis de clericis et Dei ministris tutorem vel curatorem testamento suo constituat, quando singuli divino sacerdotio honorati et in clerico ministerio constituti non nisi altari et sacrificiis deservire et precibus atque orationibus vacare debeant. Scriptum est enim, ‘Nemo militans Deo obligat se molestiis sæcularibus.’ … Quod cum de omnibus dictum sit, quanto magis clerici molestiis et laqueis sæcularibus obligari non debent! … Quod episcopi antecessores nostri religiose considerantes, et salubriter providentes, censuerunt ne quis frater excedens, ad tutelam vel curam clericum nominaret: ac si quis hoc fecisset, non offerretur pro eo, nec sacrificium pro dormitione ejus celebraretur.” Ap. T. C. i. 166, al. 207; Def. 754; T. C. iii. 6. He quotes also S. Ambr. de Offic. i. 38. (36.) “Non te implices negotiis sæcularibus, quoniam Deo militas. Etenim si is qui imperatori militat a susceptionibus litium, actu negotiorum forensium, venditione mercium prohibetur humanis legibus: quanto magis qui fidei exercet militiam ab usu negotiationis abstinere debet: agelluli sui contentus fructibus, si habet; si non habet, stipendiorum suorum fructu.” And S. Jer. on Zephaniah, c. 1. “Eos, qui adorant Dominum et Melchom: qui sæculo pariter et Domino putant se posse servire, et duobus Dominis satisfacere, Deo et Mammonæ; qui militantes Christo obligant se negotiis sæcularibus, et eandem imaginem offerunt Deo et Cæsari, et cum Christi sacerdotes se esse dicant, filios consecrant Melchom, i. e. regi suo.” t. vi. 680.] ↩

  24. “Cum multa divinitus, pontifices, a majoribus nostris inventa atque instituta sunt, tum nihil præclarius, quam quod vos eosdem et religionibus deorum immortalium, et summæ reipub. præesse voluerunt.” Cic. pro Domo sua ad Pontific. [c. 1.] ↩

  25. “Honor sacerdotii firmamentum potentiæ assumebatur.” Tacit. Hist. lib. v. [c. 8. fin.] He sheweth the reason wherefore their rulers were also priests. The joining of these two powers, as now, so then likewise, profitable for the public state, but in respects clean opposite and contrary. For whereas then divine things being more esteemed, were used as helps for the countenance of secular power; the case in these latter ages is turned upside down, earth hath now brought heaven under foot, and in the course of the world, hath of the two the greater credit. Priesthood was then a strengthening to kings, which now is forced to take strength and credit from far meaner degrees of civil authority. “Hic mos apud Judæos fuit, ut eosdem reges et sacerdotes haberent, quorum justitia religioni permixta incredibile quantum evaluere.” Just. Hist. lib. xxxvi. [c. 2.] ↩

  26. Cod. Justin. I. iii. de Episcopis, &c. 42. § 2. [“De his vero episcopis, qui nunc sunt, vel futuri sunt, sancimus, nullo modo habere eos facultatem testandi vel donandi vel per aliam quamcunque excogitationem alienandi quid de rebus suis, quas postquam facti fuerint episcopi possederint et acquisierint, vel ex testamentis, vel ex donationibus, vel alia quacunque causa: exceptis duntaxat his, quas ante episcopatum habuerint ex quacunque causa, vel quæ post episcopatum a parentibus et theiis, h. e. patruis vel avunculis, et a fratribus ad ipsos pervenerunt, perventuraque sunt: quæcunque enim post ordinationem ex quacunque causa extra præfatas personas ad ipsos pervenerunt, ea jubemus ad sanctissimam ecclesiam, cujus episcopatum tenuerint, pertinere.” ad 528.] ↩

  27. T. C. lib. i. p. 126. [98, ap. Whitg. Def. 452. “I have done, only this I admonish the reader, that I do not allow of all those things which I before alleged in the comparison between our archbishops and the archbishops of old time, &c… . Only my intent is to show that although there were corruptions, yet in respect of ours they be much more tolerable.”] ↩

Backlinks