3. CHAP. III. Whether two heads may be in the Church, one visible and another invisible.
CHAP. III. Whether two heads may be in the Church, one visible and another invisible.
T hey do not (saith God unto Samuel) reject thee but me. And Gideon in the Book of Judges, when the kingdom was offered unto him: I (saith he) will not reign over you, but the Lord shall reign over you. Here it may be demanded whether when he was chosen King, God ceased to govern his people, or whether he persevered to govern together with kings, that there should be one king to be looked upon, and another that might not be seen?
Hereof also ariseth another question: For if this be true, why also can there not be two heads in the Church. For if God may be king together with a visible king, why may he not together with a visible head be an invisible head? But these two questions cannot be resolved both after one manner. As to the first: the rule of a king doeth not exclude the Empire of God: nay rather a king is the minister of God and executeth his office: for God ruleth together with good kings, why then doeth the Lord say: They have not rejected thee, but me? Wherefore said Gideon, I will not reign over you, but the Lord shall reign over you. These things are therefore said, because the people would innovate the state of the commonwealth by God prescribed.
For this was to despise God himself. For if God described this state of the commonwealth, why should the same be changed by the people? But yet God did not for that cause depart with his governance which he before had over the people. On the other part they seemed to reject God, because they went about to change the commonwealth without the commandment of God. Further God reigneth together with good kings, because they nowhere else receive the form of governing the commonwealth than by the law of God. Again, because they be not only careful that the bodies and goods of subjects should be well provided for: (For that is the office of a herdsman and shepherd, not of a king) but that men may live rightly and with virtue and godliness. But they be not always godly, nor they do not always desire the rule of governing by the law of God. Whether doeth God reign also with these men? These things it behooveth to distinguish wisely. There is no government so evil, that hath not also many goods things. Who was ever worse than Nero? Yet public peace was maintained under him: there were presidents in the provinces. The law was executed. Paul by using of Nero's name, brought to pass, that he was not delivered to the will of the Jews.
When he was to be beaten with rods, He cried out that he was a Citizen of Rome, and so he escaped: He was also dismissed out of prison. These things being good, cannot be denied to be of God: For every good thing is of the father of light from above. But if thou ask of the wickedness of ungodly kings, those things they have of themselves, neither is there any need that because of them men should complain of God. For God doeth blame, reprove, punish and condemn those things, yet as they be punishments of sins, it cannot be denied but that they are of God. For they have a respect of Justice. For so doth God oftentimes for the sins of the people raise up an ungodly Prince. But although he be ungodly he must be
obeyed, howbeit so far forth as Religion shall permit. And if he shall command ungodly things, he must not be heard. Neither is it lawful with silence to dissemble anything that the King doeth perversely and ungodly.
We ought to warn, counsel, reprove, chasten and amend him, for so did the Prophets. Also for defense of the commonwealth we must obey without exception. Therefore Cicero, Cato, Pompeius, and others must not be blamed who took wars in hand against Caesar. But when he had once attained to the Empire, no private man ought to have taken arms against him. Therefore when Augustus Caesar, had heard railing words to be spoken against Marcus Cato being now dead, because he dealt tyrannously against Julius, answered, that Cato was a good Citizen in that he would not have the present state of the commonwealth to be changed. So that God reigneth together with kings, whether they be good or evil. And kings may be called the heads of the commonwealth. For so David writeth of himself.
Thou hast set me to be the head of the Nations. Yet are they not properly but Metaphorically called heads. For even as from the head is derived all the sense and motion into the body, so the senses by good laws, and motions, by edicts and commandments are derived from the prince unto the people.
And this strength exceedeth not the natural power.
2. Now as touching the other question, none may after this manner be called the head of the Church, for here the consideration is far otherwise than in a commonwealth. For the Church is a celestial, divine, and spiritual body; Sense can be given unto her by no mortal man. For those things which pertain to the sense of the Church be of such sort as neither ear hath heard, nor eye hath seen, neither have they ascended into the heart of man: for all quickening of the Church proceedeth from the holy Ghost. So as they which will raise up unto us a new head of the Church, are not well advised
what they say. For regeneration and remission of sins do flow from the spirit of Christ, and not from man. Also the Scriptures do sufficiently testify, that Christ alone is given to be head of the Church. Paul unto the Ephesians saith: Christ is the head of the Church, by whom all the members by order of assistance make increase of the body. And unto the Colossians, speaking of hypocrites: They hold not (saith he) the head whereby all the body is knit together by sinews and joints. And again unto the Ephesians:
Let us therefore grow up in him which is the head: namely Christ. So that every sense and moving of the Church floweth from Christ alone, not from any mortal man. But thou wilt object: that Princes undoubtedly cannot engender civil virtues in the minds of their people. Wherefore the reason on both parts is a like. Yes verily they can: for that doth not exceed the power of nature. For virtue springeth of frequented Actions. So when as princes by laws and edicts drive their subjects unto actions, they also drive them unto virtues. But the spirit of God and regeneration is not attained by many actions, but only by the blessings of God. For these gifts of God flow unto the Church, by joints and sinews, that is, by preachers and ministers. For their part is to teach the people to minister the Sacraments, to excommunicate offenders, and to reconcile the penitent. For albeit that Christ is the only head of the Church, yet doth he use the ministry of these men.
3. But thou wilt say, that although the inward senses and moving's of the Church be of Christ, yet there may be an outward head to rule ministers, and to keep them all in their duty. There may not be, neither undoubtedly is it lawful to change the order appointed by God. For God would that in the Church there should be a government of the best men, that Bishops should take the charge of all these things, and should choose Ministers, yet so, as
the voices of the people should not be excluded. But even as the Israelites cast away the government of God, that they might make themselves a king, even so they that would have the Pope to be the Head of the Church, have cast away Christ the true head of the Church. Paul unto the Ephesians saith: that Christ Gaue some to be Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Pastors, some Teachers, for edifying of the Church: neither addeth he that he set one over all these persons. Who commanded these men to alter this order? Further when Matthias was to be substituted in the place of Judas, and when Deacons should be created, the matter was referred, not unto the Pope, but unto the people. Besides this, if the Pope were head of the Church, he should be the bishop of bishops or the universal bishop: which thing no reason would bear. But least that the Papists should think that there is small weight in my words, let them hear Gregory the chief of all Popes. He in the fourth book of the register in the Epistles unto
Mauricius the Emperor, unto Constantia the Empress, unto the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, and unto John of Constantinople, writeth at large of this matter. I will comprise his arguments in as few words as I can.
There cannot (saith he) be one head of the whole Church. For if peradventure that head should fall into any heresy, it would of necessity be, that the whole Church should be corrupted. And that the same head may be corrupted, Nestorius, and Macedonius may be a trial, who sometimes governed the Church of Constantinople. The one of these affirmed distinct persons to be in Christ, the other denied the holy Ghost to be God.
Furthermore if there might be one only head of the Church, he saith it would of necessity be, that the authority of all other Bishops should be derived unto him. But that would be absurd. Therefore Cyprian saith, that there is one Bishopric whereof a part is wholly holden in gross of everyone.
He addeth further, that whosoever will arrogate this title unto himself is Antichrist. Here we will add the Minor: But the Pope challengeth unto himself this title: Wherefore the Papists must bear it with an indifferent mind if we call the Pope Antichrist. Lastly in the Epistle unto John of Constantinople: What answer (saith he) wilt thou make before the tribunal seat of Christ, whose office thou hast so arrogantly usurped? Here Gregory confesseth that this title is meet for Christ only. But the foundation and strength of these reasons is, that it is not lawful to reverse the order which Christ hath appointed.
4. Yea verily say they, Christ himself appointed one head in the Church:
For he saith, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock, &c. But these men lean to a ruinous foundation. Peter confessed Christ to be the son of God: Then
Christ: Thou (saith he) shalt be Peter, because thou hast confessed the rock that is me, being the foundation of the Church: And upon this rock which thou hast confessed I will build my Church. But now saith Paul, none can lay any other foundation, but that which is laid, Christ Jesus. But if at any time we read among the Fathers, that the Apostles be foundations, as in the Apocalypse we read that there be twelve foundations of new Jerusalem, foundation is not here put for the root of the building, but for the xii. stones which are next unto the foundation. For otherwise Christ is the foundation even of the Apostles. But they object that the keys were committed unto
Peter: Yea rather they were given to all the Apostles without difference. For Christ gave the holy Ghost unto all, and said unto all: Go ye, preach ye: The which in very deed be the keys of the Church. But unto Peter it was said:
Feed, feed: Yea rather they were all bidden, and they ought to feed. And Peter in his Epistle writeth unto the other Bishops: Feed ye as much as in you lieth the flock of Christ. Why then was it chiefly said unto Peter before
others, Feed thou? Because when he had thrice openly denied Christ, he might have seemed to have fallen from his first dignity. Wherefore Christ as though he had restored him into his place, bad him by name to feed.
Howbeit what he spake unto him alone, he spake unto all. By this also he signified, that he which will teach in the Church ought to be endued with singular love towards Christ. Paul, although after the death of Christ he were made an Apostle, yet he saith, That he learned nothing of Peter, or conferred anything with any of the Apostle. But if so be that Peter had been the prince and head of the Church, nothing ought to have been done without his authority and sufferance. Nay rather Peter and Paul so allotted the Provinces between them, as Peter taught among the Jews, and Paul among the Gentiles. Further Peter admonisheth the Bishops that they should not reign over the Clergy. Therefore how may any one obtain the kingdom over others and bear himself as head? But this reason is first of all to be noted:
John the Apostle lived until the time of Domitian: Peter died at Rome under Nero. Him did Linus, Cletus, and Clemens succeed. Now if they will the Pope to be head of the Church, they must of necessity confess that John the Apostle was subject unto Clement. So then let them either deny the Popes to be heads of the Church, or if they will not, let them subject the Apostlesunto them. The Epistles of Clemens although they be manifestly feigned and invented, yet are they oftentimes cited and highly esteemed by them.
Then let it be lawful for us also to consider, what he writeth. His Epistle unto James the Apostle hath this inscription: Clemens unto James, the brother of the Lord, the Bishop of Bishops, ruling all the Churches of God which are founded everywhere by his Providence. Wherefore Rome the head of the Church shall be translated to Jerusalem. To this, how may the universal Church be ruled by one man? Sometime the Roman Empire was
the greatest, yet could it not embrace the Parthians, Scythians, Indians, and Ethiopians: and although it obtained not the whole world, yet (as Titus
Linius saith) it was weary of his own burden: Even so these men when they saw that no one man might embrace the whole Church, they instituted as it were a Quadrumvirate, that is, that the world should be ruled by four
Patriarchs: Namely, that the Patriarch of Antioch should be over Syria, the Patriarch of Alexandria over Egypt, and Ethiopia: The Patriarch of Constantinople over Asia, Greece and Illyricum: The Patriarch of Rome, over all the West part. But what came to pass at the length? Verily this, that they strove among themselves and rent the world in sunder: for each one would reign over all. And this well near is wont to be the end of human counsels. But Paul said, that he took care of all the Churches: I grant, but yet he said, he had a care, not a dominion: and that therefore he rather wrote unto, admonished, counseled, and reproved the Churches: but never called nor could have called himself the head of the Church.
5. But we are sometimes wont to say: If the Church should have one head in heaven and another in earth, it should be double headed, and so seem a monster. This argument the Bishop of Rochester derideth: For a wife also hath both her own head and her husbands; so by this means every wife should be a monster. But I marvel at Rochester, being so great a Logician, that he noted not a false argument in that which he reporteth of the wife. For those two heads of the wife be not of one and the same order, for one is natural and other is Economical. But it would be a monstrous thing if a wife should have two natural heads, or two Economical heads, or two husbands.
But they add: The Pope is only a ministerial head, he poureth not into the Church senses and spiritual motions, for that is only the part of Christ.
Wherefore the Pope and Christ be not two heads of one and the same kind.
If thou require of Papists, they will never grant that their Pope is only the civil head of the Church: Nay rather they will have them to be called spiritual fathers: So as they have two heads of one and the same kind. For they will never suffer themselves to be enclosed within these bounds. For they dispense against the word of God: they forbid marriages, they apply the merits of Christ and of the saints, they ordain new Sacraments, they sell
Pardons. This pertaineth not to a civil head. Wherefore let them grant that their Church hath two heads, and that it is a monster. But I will deal frankly.
Admit the Pope be a civil head, yet do ye fall into the self-same error. For seeing the Magistrate also is a civil head, ye shall be constrained to confess that in the Church there be two civil heads both of one order, and that so your Church is a monster. But these men as they be importunate, dream of two heads: First that the Pope is the civil head of his ministers, and so is one head of the Church. For they will have ministers to be exempted from the power of the civil Magistrate. But this is a vain conceit. For Paul commandeth that every soul should be subject unto the Civil power: he exempteth none. Yea and Chrysostom saith that neither the Apostles, nor Evangelists ought to be excepted. Peter also exhorteth ministers, that they should obey the civil power. Wherefore in vain do they babble, and ridiculously do they adjoin two heads unto their ministers. What then wilt thou say? Shall the Magistrate bear rule over ministers and Preachers? I answer: that the word of God and the Sacraments are subject to no potentate. But ministers are subject two manner of ways; both in respect of manners, and of their function: For if either they live wickedly or do not their duty, they may be both rejected by the Magistrate and deprived.
6. But these men still dream of one civil power that is Ecclesiastical, and of another that is profane. The one of the which they attribute unto the
Pope, and the other unto the Magistrate: but all in vain: For as much as pertaineth unto Ecclesiastical power, the civil Magistrate is sufficient. For he, as saith Aristotle in his Politics, must provide, that all men do their duty: both lawyers, Physicians, husband men, Apothecaries: among whom we may also reckon ministers and Preachers. What need have we here to multiply heads? Solomon, David, and Josiah, being civil Magistrates, yet did they not think religion to be without the compass of their charge.
Constantine, Theodosius, and Justinian thought upon nothing more than to set in order the true church of God. So then there was no need that these men should raise up a new head unto themselves in the Church: and especially for the setting up of tyranny. For the Church hath Elders, who must provide in what order all things ought to be done, and that all things be in order the Magistrate ought to provide. But what if the Magistrate be wicked? Yet there is a Church, there be Elders, there be Bishops: by these it must be decreed and appointed what ought to be done in Religion. And this perhaps is it, why the king of England would be called head of his own
Church next unto Christ. For he thought that that power which the Pope usurped to himself was his, and in his own kingdom pertained to himself.
The title indeed was unwonted, and displeased many godly men: Howbeit if we consider the thing itself, he meant nothing else but that which we have now said.
7. But they object, that after the Pope, once became a Monarch, and that we see that Christ is not thereby excluded, he must not rashly be removed.
For so the Israelites, although they had made themselves a king without the commandment of God, he being once appointed, they did not afterward revolt from him. I answer: The reason is not alike, For the Israelites in creating their king had the voice of God: which thing if these men can show
of their Pope, we will confess that the reason on both parts is alike. But they cannot do it, nay rather they have the contrary out of the holy Scriptures.
Wherefore we conclude first, that it is not agreeable for the Church to have a double head. Secondly, that although it might be agreeable, yet that one mortal man cannot rule and regard the whole world, for that doth far exceed man's strength. But thou wilt say, If this reason be of force, even a civil
Monarch ought not to be suffered, who hath more Provinces than he is able to take the charge of. Wherefore if a king be not able to provide for all that be his, shall we revolt from him as ye have done from the Pope? I answer, that these Empires largely extended, cannot be without fault: For seeing the kings cannot deal in all things themselves, they commit their Provinces unto insatiable and greedy cormorants, by whom the people is miserably drawn dry and sucked out. And in ancient times, when things were better, several cities had several kings. We read that Nynus first made war upon the nations adjoining, and amplified his borders. So we read of so many kings, that were in the land of Canaan being no very great Region. Indeed it is an ill thing to have so large a dominion, yet must not the people for that cause revolt from their kings. Howbeit, if they will command anything against God, they must in no wise be heard. Christ came not to change the order of commonwealths. For my kingdom (saith he) is not of this world. Neither did Paul at any time persuade, that there should be any defection from Nero.
So as we have the word of God that we should obey the Magistrate whosoever he be, but we have no word to obey the Pope.
8. But admit that there may be someone head of the Church, why should he rather be at Rome than elsewhere? Because Peter, say they, sat in Rome.
First that doth not sufficiently appear: For by some it is denied. But be it he was at Rome: he was also at Antioch and Jerusalem: Why then should not
the Bishops of these Cities be heads of the Church? But Peter, say they, died at Rome. And Christ died at Jerusalem which is more. We declared at the first, that the Pope hath no word of God whereby he should appoint his kingdom: then, that no one man can be overseer of the whole world: lastly if he might, yet he ought not anymore to be the Bishop of Rome, then any other Bishop. Besides this, the authority which they boast of, either they have it of God or of men: if of God, let them bring forth some testimony of the word of God that we may believe: But if they will say of men: yet men cannot nor ought not determine of the kingdom of God. For that were to usurp upon another man's kingdom. Neither do we only shake off this power, but also in a manner all the elder Fathers. In the time of Cyprian there were such as would appeal out of Africa unto Rome. Of that matter
Cyprian wrote unto Cornelius: Let causes be heard where they be committed. There is one Bishopric, a part whereof is thoroughly possessed by each one. Apiarius the Priest being condemned of his own bishops, appealed to the bishop of Rome: who commanded that he should be wholly restored. The council of Carthage had decreed that if any man had appealed beyond the sea, he should be excommunicated. And so the Bishops of Africa receive not Apiarius: and answer that this is not lawful unto the Roman Bishop. Unto them was sent Potentinus a bishop. The Africans demand from whence the Pope challengeth so great authority: he answereth not of Christ, not of Peter (for as yet they became not so shameless) but of the Synod of Nice. The Africans desired the original copy. The Pope made delay: for he had not what to show. They send to Alexandria,
Constantinople, and Antioch, in the Libraries of which Cities they doubted not but that all decrees of the Nicene council were extant. But no such thing is there to be found. Afterward the Pope by no very faithful dealing instead
of the council of Nice foisted in the council of Sardis. But the authority of that council was over light. Gregory writeth, that this title in in the council of Chalcedon, was tendered unto Leo the Bishop of Rome, but that he would not accept the same. But now as touching doctrine, we shall find, that the Pope doeth teach in a manner all things contrary unto Christ:
Justification by works, invocation of the dead, maiming of the Sacraments, prayers in a strange and foreign language. By these Arguments which we have spoken of, is sufficiently proved, that there is no head in the Church besides Christ.
9. Now will we weigh the four strongest Arguments of our adversaries, what force they bear. First they say: Christ went into heaven, therefore the Church hath need of a visible guide. Further, Christ loveth his Church, therefore to the intent that the same might be the better governed, he would have it to be provided for by one head. For even as the body cannot be governed without the soul, so neither the Church without a head. Thirdly they say, that the old Fathers had always refuge to the Roman Church, as unto the head. Lastly they say, The ministers be not equal among themselves. Therefore least the matter should grow to a tumult, one must be chosen, who should be preferred among others, and have a preeminence of voice in councils. As touching the first Argument: Christ so went his way, as he nevertheless remaineth perpetual lie in his Church: not in body, but in spirit, grace, and providence. For so he promiseth: Behold I am with you even to the end of the world. And wheresoever two or three be gathered together in my name, there am I. Wherefore Christ is always with us, that is in our hearts. Further he left his word, from whence the form of governing the Church must be sought. But so, thou wilt say, as he cannot be seen: I grant it. And your Pope also when is he seen of the Indians or Ethiopians?
But thou wilt say: The Pope hath his legates: As though Christ hath not likewise his Legates. To the second Argument: Christ would have the Church to be provided for, therefore he would have one head thereof. The Argument followeth not. For the Church may be otherwise provided for.
The Roman and Athenian commonwealths were best administered, and were most flourishing when they were ruled by Senators. Wherefore in the Church there may be Aristocratia, that all things be ordered and ruled in councils: as in times past it was done among the Apostles, and in the ancient
Church. For what? Cannot Helvetia be safe without a king? Yet so strong are the Arguments of Pighius, although to himself he may seem very sharp.
Thirdly, the ancient Bishops being wronged, repaired always unto the Roman Church: therefore it was the head. I deny the Argument. For in the commonwealth, if perhaps a man receive injury, he flieth unto some
Senator, whom he believeth to be a good man: shall it therefore follow that the same Senator is the head of the commonwealth? In those days the Roman Bishop was more holy, more learned, and less corrupt than others: he was of great authority and in great place about the Emperor, therefore
Athanasius, Chrysostom and others went unto him for refuge; not that they took him for the head of the Church. And in that government of the four
Patriarchs, of which we have spoken before, the west part did not so commit itself unto the Roman Bishop as unto their head, but took his advice in doubtful causes: and afterward referred the matter unto a council.
10. Unto the fourth, Ministers be not all equal among themselves:
Therefore least there might be a confusion of all things, it were necessary there should be one head. I answer. He that is better learned and more spiritual, let him be above the rest. So was there very much ascribed to Athanasius and Basil, not for the worthiness of the seat, but for doctrine and
holiness sake. Many in all parts, for learning sake, took counsel of Augustine: but the posterity bound all the dignities unto certain chairs, namely of Alexandria, Constantinople, Antioch, and Rome, because they hoped that in these seats there would always be most learned and holy
Bishops. But it fell out otherwise; for afterward the Emperors chose Bishops, not the worthiest, but those whom they most favored. Augustine being most learned, was a Bishop of Hippo, being a place of no great name.
Aurelius being a man much more unlearned, was Bishop of Carthage a famous City. But since they fear confusion, let the Roman Bishop sit in the first place in Councils, the Bishop of Constantinople in the second place, and afterward others in their place: but let not one reign over all. Let the government be Aristocratia, which order seemed always the best. For it is harder to corrupt many than one. For even blind men may see that the Popes are most shamefully corrupted by those their flatterers and parasites. For De electione & electi potestate in the Chapter Fundamentum, in the Gloss it is written, that the Pope is no man. In the Proem of the Epistles of Clement in the gloss it is written, that he is neither God nor man: Wherefore he is directly opposite to Christ. For Christ was both God and man: he is neither
God nor man. Therefore he is either an Angel or a beast: but he is no Angel, therefore he is a beast. In the Extravagants de verborum significatione in the chapter Ad Conditorem, it is written, that the Pope is no pure man. This
I easily believe, for he is oftentimes an impure Ruffian. Gelasius in the Decret the 9th Quaest. 3. chapter Cuncta per orbem: The Roman seat (saith he) ought to judge of all men: none of it. It is lawful for all men to appeal unto it: and from it, it is not lawful. The same may condemn those that be absolved in Councils, and absolve them that be condemned. In the Extravagants De concessione Praebendarum, in the chapter Ad
Apostolorum: None ought to say unto the Pope: Sir why doest thou this?
And in Quaest. 2. in the chapter Abtulisti, and they be the words of Anacletus: God is the father because he hath made, The Church is the mother because it hath regenerated. Here of Panormitanus in the treatise of the council of Basil. Therefore (saith he) the Pope is the son of the Church, therefore he must obey the Church. Which nevertheless Eugenius, and Paul the third in the council of Trent would not. But I of these words do also gather another thing: He is the son of the Church, therefore he is not head.
He is the son, therefore he is not the spouse, unless he will confess himself to be incestuous.