Emperours and Kings doe which persecute the true and Orthodoxe Christians This is not the right using but abusing of the sword and authoritie committed to them So that the power and authoritie is the same to both but the difference is in the use or abuse of that Authoritie All the supremacie power and authoritie graunted from God to any Emperours Kings and Princes within their Dominions ought to be imployed for God and not against him in any sort And according hereunto the true Christian Emperours and Kings use their Civill swords and authorities for God and for advancement of his service truth and religion And although Heathen and Infidell Emperours and Kings doe commonly abuse that sword and authoritie which God hath given them against God and against his service servants and religion Ezra 1.2.3 c. Ezra 6.1.2 3 c. Ezra 7.12.13.14.15.16.17 18. c. Dan. 3.28.29 Dan. 6.24.25.26 Yet if any Heathen Emperour or King doe commaund any thing for God or for his service worship or religion as they may doe and sometimes have done as appeareth by the examples of King Cyrus King Darius King Artaxerxes King Nabuchadnezzar and others therein they are no lesse to bee obeyed then if it had beene commaunded by the godlyest best professed Christian King in the world And this you may see further declared in my first Booke Chap. 1. pag 7. and in my Reply pag. 44. 45. Wherefore it is evident that even Pagan and Heathen Kings have the same supremacie power and authoritie within their Kingdomes and Dominions to commaund for God his service religion which Christian Kings and Princes have although they doe not as they should evermore use extend and imploy that their power and authoritie accordingly for God and his religion and consequently the defect is not in respect of any power or authoritie which they want not but in respect of their understandings wils and affections which being depraved and corrupted and not rectified or sanctified nor converted to Christ and Christianitie doe carrie them awry and the wrong way But you propound unto mee yet further another question which is this What if the King of Slavonia or any other king misled by frailtie ignorance or malice should imploy their powers to force their subjectes from the true Religion and thereby subvert and ruinate not onely their owne soules but the soules of their subjects also Might not the King in this case being as you call him a scabbed sheepe all other meanes fayling of his recoverie be compelled by the Bishop of Rome to imbrace Gods true faith and religion and to permitte the same freedome unto his subjects I answer no. For first what right or authoritie from God hath the Bishop of Rome in this case to compell Kings and Princes more thâ—n other Bishops have Yea neyther the Bishop of Rome nor any other Bishop or Ecclesiasticall Minister hath any such power or authoritie included or comprised within those their Ecclesiasticall callings and Ministeries as by worldly power and externall force of Armes to compell a King to the right religion It is true that the Ministers of Christ may exhort perswade the best they can a King erring in his Religion from his error and may doe what their Ecclesiasticall commission graunted them from Christ will warrant them to doe but no further may they goe for then doe they Fines alienos invadere Rom 13.4 Invade other mens bounds S. Bernard speaketh as kings have the temporall sword to commaund and to compell Bishops Pastors and Ministers Ecclesiasticall have not that but another sword to use namely a spirituall sword or sword of the spirit which is the word of God Ephes 6.17 as S. Paul calleth defineth it And therefore these two swords must bee distinguished and not confounded Yea Christ Iesus himselfe whilst hee was here upon earth would not meddle with worldly or temporall matters For when one spake unto him desiring him to bid his brother to devide the inheritance with him Luke 12.13 14. Math 16.19 hee refused and said Man who made mee to be a Iudge or a devider over you If you object that Christ said to Peter Whatsoever thou bindest on earth shal be bound in heaven and whatsoever thou loosest on earth shal be loosed in heaven Remember that hee spake also the same thing plurally to all the Apostles giving to them all alike the same authoritie Math. 18.18 saying thus Quicquid ligaveritis c. Whatsoever yee binde on earth shal be bound in heaven and whatsoever yee loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven You cannot therefore by vertue of those wordes inferre that Peter or his successors had any more authoritie to depose Kings or to compell them in any sort to the right religion or to any thing else then eyther Iames or Iohn or the rest of the Apostles or any of their successors had in the like case For the same authoritie and in the same wordes is as you see graunted aswell to the one as to the other Neyther againe must you forget or omit the former part of those wordes spoken by CHRIST unto Peter which bee these I will give unto thee the keyes of the kingdome of heaven Mat. 16.19 For the subsequent wordes spoken to him of binding and loosing have reference thereunto and are therefore to bee expounded not of things earthly or concerning terrestiall matters or worldly kingdomes but of things concerning another world and kingdome namely concerning the kingdome of heaven And so also doth S. Bernard directly declare saying thus to Eugenius Bishop of Rome Ergo in criminibus non in possessionibus Bernard de considerat ad Eugen. lib. 2. potestas vestra Quoniam propter illa non propter has accepistu claves regni coelorum Your power saith hee concerneth sinnes and not matters of possession because for those and not for these yee have received the keyes of the kingdome of heaven Yea that the keyes of the kingdome of heaven were also graunted equally and alike to all the Apostles I have further shewed very fully and plainely in my first Booke pag. 292. 293. 294. c. And that no part of the power of those keyes no not Excommunication it selfe were it never so justly or lawfully awarded is of any force by Gods law and institution to depose Kings or to disanall the duetie allegeance of subjects I have likewise shewed in the same my first Booke pag. 299. 300. 301. By what right or reason then shall or can the Bishop of Rome who is also revera no Minister of Christ at all but the very apparant grand Antichrist as I have proved at large throughout the third part of my first Booke clayme to have any such externall power coactive or compulsive over Kings But moreover this question here propounded by you was sufficently answered and resolved before by S Chrysostome in the case of king Vzziah otherwise called Ozias where hee putteth this difference
choose which was in aftertimes Ierusalem where the Temple was builded and where Iehosaphat also according to this law erected and constituted a Synedrion or Councell consisting of Levites Priests and of the chiefe of the Fathers of Israel 2 Chron. 19.8.9 But none is bound at this day to goe to Ierusalem to have his litigious and doubtfull cases to bee decided and determined by any Leviticall Priest or other Iudges there Neyther is Rome that Ierusalem nor is the Pope of Rome or his Priests any of those Priests descended of the Tribe of Levi. And therefore also will not this text of Deut. 17. any way serve your turne nor helpe to maintayne your Popes so long vainely fancied Supremacie 5. But I proceede prosecuting matters not confusedly as you doe but for the most part in that sort and order as they be layed downe in my Reply that so the Reader also may the better and the more easily perceive both what you have Answered in this your Reioynder and what and how much you have left unanswered Chrysost hom 4. de verb. Esa vid. Dom. as also how good or bad your Answers bee In my Reply therefore pag. 1. I said that S. Chrysostome distinguishing those two offices viz. the Regall and Sacerdotall did say thus Ille cogit hic exhortatur ille habet arma sensibilia hic arma spiritualia The King compelleth the Priest exhorteth the King hath sensible weapons the Priest hath spirituall weapons Hereunto you Answer that S. Chrysostome meant onely that the King with his sensible weapons of imprisonment banishment pecuniarie mulcts temporall death and other penalties should force when other meanes fayled the rebellious children of the Church to performe their dutie unto their Prince Prelate not that the Prince hath any power over the Pastor unto whom say you by the ordinance of God hee is subjected and thus you make the King to have power onely over such as you here call the children of the Church but not over Bishops Pastors and other Ecclesiasticall Ministers and of this opinion you would drawe S. Chrysostome to bee against his owne good will and liking But although by his words precedent and subsequent which you so much speake of it appeareth that Kings and Princes are to bee subject to Bishops and Pastors in respect of the due administration of those their sacred offices functions and ministeries committed to them from God yet in respect of themselves and of their owne Persons hee held them verie clearely to bee not superiour but subject to Kings and Princes Rom. 13.1 Chrys ho. 23. in epistol ad Rom. For whereas S. Paul speaketh thus Let everie soule be subject to the higher powers The same S. Chrysostome saith which I mervaile you have so soone forgotten that omnibus ista praecipiuntur Sacerdotibus quo que ac Monachis non solum secularibus These things be cōmanded to all even to Priests also to Monckes and not to lay or secular men onely Yea hee saith further in the same place that though you bee an Apostle though an Evangelist though a Prophet or whatsoever you bee you must be subiect to these higher powers Remember againe Chrys ad Populū Antioch homil 2. that speaking of the Emperour hee saith that Non habet parem ullum super terram He hath no Peere nor equall upon earth Yea hee saith of him that hee was Caput summit as omnium super terras hominum The head and one that had the supremacie over all men upon earth Yea S. Chrysostome himselfe did yet further really and actually declare this subjection to these higher powers even in his owne person For did not the Emperour exile and banish him Socrat. lib. 6. cap. 15. graec cap. 14. Latine Theodor. lib. 2 cap. 2.4.13 Theodor. lib. 2 cap. 2.4 13. And did not hee though Archbishop of Constantinople humbly submit himselfe thereunto and yeelde obedience Was not likewise Liberius though a Bishop of Rome exiled and banished by the Emperour and did not hee also quietly submit himselfe unto it as being done by the Emperours commaundement and authoritie And was not also Atbanasius banished by the Emperours authoritie and did not he likewise patiently and obediently undergoe it You see then that not onely lay people and such as you call the children of the Church but even those also that were Fathers in the same as namely Bishops and Pastors Archbishops and even Bishops of Rome themselves were in those former and auncient times Pelag. Epist. 16. Concil edit Bin. tom 2. pag. 633. subject to these higher powers viz. to Emperours Kings and Princes Quibus nos etiam subditos esse sanctae Scripturae praecipiunt To whom saith also Pelagius another Bishop of Rome the holy Scriptures commaund even us that be Bishops and the Bishops of Rome to be subiect So that those Bishops in those dayes performed this subjection and obedience unto them as being moved thereunto out of dutie and good conscience and because God in his holy Scriptures had so commaunded But these two points namely that Emperours Kings and Princes bee subject to that authoritie message and ministerie which God hath committed to Bishops and Pastors And that Bishops againe and Pastors all Ministers Ecclesiasticall be neverthelesse subject to Emperours Kings and Princes in respect of their owne persons is largely declared both in my first Booke in my Reply also aswell as here As for those precedent and subsequent wordes in S. Chrysostome which you so often speake of even you aswell as I might verie well have omitted them as being needlesse to be mentioned because the matter and substance of them was before graunted and confessed by me in my former Bookes as it is likewise here againe in this and yet you never the neerer of your purpose And therefore you had no cause to complaine of the omission of thē by me when the recitall of them by you will do you no more good nor prove or inferre any more matter in your behalfe then that which was formerly by me confessed and granted unto you But least reason of all had you to insinuate as though by omission of those precedent and subsequent wordes I had a meaning to delude my Reader by concealing the truth For you see that I had no such purpose or meaning to conceale that truth which my selfe had formerly delivered and graunted and which I still confesse with S. Chrysostome touching the subjection of Princes to Gods authoritie committed to his Ministers But it is your selfe in verie deede which abuse delude your Reader in this case by concealing truth For although you tell some truth you tell not the whole truth as you ought but conceale a part of it or which is worse you denie a part of it inasmuch as you affirme the subjection of Emperours Kings and Princes to that authoritie which God hath committed to his Bishops and Pastors But the other part of truth concerning
citie of Nyce And when againe you likewise intending to alledge Damasus against me doe affirme that he saith That Constantine did not gather the councell but cum consensu Silvestri Damasus lin Pont. concil 6 act 18. with the consent of Sylvester and that so much also is expressed in the sixt councell Doe you not in all this sufficiently confesse that the Emperour Constantine did by his commanding authoritie call this councell of Nyce although hee did it by the consent or approbation of Sylvester Bishop of Rome and of other Priests Now then to come to the second generall Councell which was the first Constantinopolitane I have likewise proved in my Reply pag 83. by the testimonies of Theodoret Socrates Sozomen Zonaras and the verie Councell it selfe speaking to the Emperour Theodosius the elder that it was called by the commaundment or commaunding Authoritie of the same Emperour To all which proofes and testimonies yon according to your wonted learning wisdome answer nothing in your Reioynder But in your first auswer to prove this Councell not to bee called by the commaundement of the Emperour but of Damasus Bishop of Rome you cited Theodoret libr. 5. cap. 9. and in your Reioynder you prosecute it and say That the Bishops meeting in this second generall councell writing to Pope Damasus doe testifie that they assembled at Constantinople by reason of his letter sent the yeare before to Theodosius But what meane you thus to abuse your Reader For first there is no such thing in that place of Theodoret Theodor lib. 5 cap. 9. that doth prove this second Generall Councell to have beene any more called by Damasus then by the other Bishops mentioned in the same Letter or in the same Epistle For that Letter or Epistle was not written or directed to one alone as namely to Damasus as you would make men beleeve but to many and diverse Bishops plurally For thus is the direction viz. To our most honourable Lords our verie Reverend brothers and fellowes in Office Damasus Ambrosius Britton Valerian Acholius Anemius Basil and the rest of the holy Bishops assembled in the noble Citie of Rome The holy Councell of Orthodoxe Bishops gathered together in the great Citie of Constantinople send Greeting So that it was not Damasus alone as here you see but the rest of those reverend Bishops also assembled at Rome that sent those Letters mentioned in that Epistle to the most holy Emperour Theodosius And secondly even those Letters of Damasus and of the rest of the Bishops sent to the Emperour concerning that matter of calling the Councell were onely perswasive and not commaunding Letters In asmuch as it is before by my Reply verie evident that this Councell was assembled by the commaundement or commaunding Letters of the Emperour And consequently it was not Damasus alone but other Bishops also joyned with him that sent those their Letters to the Emperour whereby hee was excited moved and perswaded to call and commaund that Councell to bee assembled at Constantinople Now then seeing that Theodoret whom you cite to prove that Pope Damasus by his commaunding Letters called this Councell Theodor. l. b. 5 cap. 7. proveth no such matter Yea hee expressely witnesseth the contrarie affirming it directly to have beene called by the commaundement of the Emperour Doth or can this any way helpe to excuse you Or doth it not rather so much the more inlarge and aggravate your fault herein Concerning the third Generall Councell which was the first Ephesine that That was called by the commaundement of the Emperour Theodosius the younger I have also proved in in my Reply pag. 83. by the testimonies of Evagrius Liberatus Socrates Zonaras Nicephorus by the Synodall Epistle it selfe And yet you would make men beleeve that it was called not by the commaundement of the Emperour but of Celestinus Bishop of Rome And for proofe hereof you cite Prosper in Chronico affirming it to have beene held Caelestini authoritate By the authority of Celestine But you still much mistake for this was no commandement or commaunding authoritie in Celestinus but a perswasive onely which Bishops might and did use to the Emperours verie often for the obtayning of Councels So that by these wordes is no more meant or signified but that Celestinus used such authoritie that is such power credite and estimation as hee had with the Emperour to cause and procure this Councell to bee assembled And that this word Authoritas doth so signifie and is verie often used in that sence your Dictionaries and Latine writers will sufficiently teach you Yea your selfe in your Rejoynder doe cite Paulus Diaconus in his Historicall collections that hee speaketh of the last of the first foure Generall Councels which was the Councell of Calcedon in this sort Papae Leonis auctoritate c. Paul Diac. lib. 15. By the authoritie of Pope Leo and commaund of Martian the Emperour the Councell of Culcedon was summoned Here you see a plaine distinction made betweene this authoritie the commaund The commaund or commanding authoritie being attributed to the Emperour Martian and the other authoritie namely the perswasive being attributed to Leo Bishop of Rome And yet neyther was it onely Celestinus Bishop of Rome but other Patriarkes and Bishops likewise as namely Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria Iohn Bishop of Antioch Zonar in Theodos Iuniore and Iuvenall Bishop of Ierusalem that perswaded and excited the Emperour to call and commaund this third Generall Councell at Ephesus as Zonaras testifieth And as touching the fourth Generall Councell which was as I said that at Calcedon I have proved in my Reply pag. 85. by the testimonie of the verie Councell it selfe and by sundry Epistles also of Leo Bishop of Rome that this Councell of Calcedon was summoned by the commaundement of the Emperour whereunto may be also added that your owne testimonie of Paulus Diaconus before cited who saith as even your selfe alledged him that this fourth Generall Councell of Calcedon was summoned or called by the commaundement of Martian the Emperour and not of Leo although Leo did also interpose and use his authoritie and credite with the Emperour for the effecting of it Now then when beside the cleerenesse of other proofes you saw by this expresse testimonie or Prulus Diaconus whom your selfe alledged that this Councell of Calcedon was summoned or called by the commaundement of the Emperor Martian why should you or any man else say or suppose the contrarie thereunto Yea even Leo himselfe in divers of his Epistles sheweth as I said before that neyther hee nor any other Bishop of Rome did in those dayes summon or call eyther this or any other Generall Councell but that it belonged to the Emperours so to doe as you may see more fully by the wordes and actions of the same Leo formerly mentioned in my Reply pag. 84.85 But I there also further alledged a fifth Generall Councell called Mandato Iustiniani By the commaundement of
Iustinian the Emperour And other Councels I likewise there alledged called by Emperours to all which you answer nothing Nor doe you answer to Cardinall Cusanus there also produced by me confessing and affirming expressely though it were against the Pope that The first eight Generall councels were called by the Emperours Yea this is so cleere a case and so evident a truth that S. Hierome maketh it to bee of the essence of a Generall Councell Dic quis Imperator jusserit hanc SynoduÌ„ convocari Tell us Hieron lib. 2. in Ruffin saith hee what Emperour commaunded this councell to be assembled thereby declaring that it was held for no Generall Councell in those dayes unlesse it were called and assembled by the commaundement of the Emperour Now then upon all these premisses I leave it to the equall Reader to judge whether hee that denieth this so cleere plaine and palpable a truth be not justly worthy to bee accounted at least Extreamely audacious if not extreamely impudent 14. And yet you would seeme to say further that S. Peter by his authoritie and commaundement called the Councell which was at Ierusalem in the Apostles times Act. 15. and that hee was also the President therein But you prove it not neyther is there any such thing in the Text appearing that hee commaunded or called that Councell Yea hee had no such commaunding or compulsive authoritie over the rest of the Apostles The Greeke Scholiast saith That hee did nothing imperiously â—r Schol. in Act. 2. or with commaunding authoritie but all things by common consent And therefore in those times of the Apostles did that Councell at Ierusalem Act. 15.6 come together and was assembled by common consent and agreement amongst themselves But afterward indeede in the succeeding times when the Emperours became Christians The Ecclesiasticall affaires saith Socrates did much depend upon them so that the greatest Councels were in time past and still are saith hee Socrat. libr. 5. in Prooemio at this day called by their appointment Neyther was Peter the first man that spake in that Councell as you affirme seeking thereby to prove him to bee also the President therein For the Text sheweth that there had beene great disputation before Peter rose up and spake Act. 15.7 Yea it seemeth that Iames rather then Peter was the President in that Councell For Iames was he that gave the definitive sentence Act. 15.19.20 to that sentence of his did both Peter and the rest of that Councell consent and condescend and accordingly was the decree drawne and made up in that Councell and sent unto the Churches as appeareth Act. 15.22.23 24.25.26.27.28.29 Neyther is it true that to Preside or to be President in Councels is a right properly belonging to the Pope whatsoever you say Yea it is verie evidently and abundantly disproved in Ecclesiasticall historie by sundrie Councels wherein others Aâ—han ad solitar vitan agentes and not the Bishops of Rome were the Presidents And Athanasius himselfe saith expressely of Hosius that hee was in his time Conciliorum Princeps the chiefe Prince or President of the Councels 15. But in my Reply pag. 30. I said further that Athanasius did approve of the Authoritie of the Emperours in Ecclesiasticall causes and this I proved by two instances and not by one onely as you say The first was this that when Athanasius was commaunded to conferre with one Arius concerning matters of faith hee answered Who is so farre out of his wits that hee dare refuse the commaundement of his Prince The other was this That the Emperours commaundement made him to appeare before the Councell of Tyrus and finding that councell not to be indifferent but partially affected Hee and the rest of the Orthodoxe Bishops appealed to the Emperour To the former you answer nothing at all in your Rejoynder To the latter you speake somewhat and doe say that That which I call the councell of Tyrus was no councell at all And this you would prove by the testimonie of Athanasius himselfe where he saith thus Qua fronte talem conventum Synodum appellare audent cui comes Praesedit With what face dare they call such an assembly a Synod or Councell in which the Count did Preside But doe you thinke this to be a reason sufficient to prove it to be no councell at all or in any sort because a Count being a Lay-man did Praeside in it as Deputie or Lieuftenant to the Emperour and in his stead Doth not your selfe say in your Rejoynder that the Emperour Theodosius the Younger sent Count Candidianus as his Lieustenant to the Councell of Ephesus will you therefore conclude that this Councell of Ephesus was also therefore no Councell at all because this Count Candidianus being a lay-man was President or Lieuftenant it it in stead of the Emperour For you may aswell conclude the one as the other by that reason Doe not therefore misconster nor mistake that holy man Athanasius nor wrong nor delude your Reader by a fallacie à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter For if you reade him diligently and observantly you will finde that he denyed it not to bee a Councell simply and absolutely but in some respects as namely in respect it consisted of Arrian Bishops and of that Arrian President and that their plotte purpose and endeavour was to advance Arrianisme against Gods truth and the Orthodexe Bishops of that time and against the decrees of the former famous Councell of Nyce in that point and in respect also that not justice but violence or tyranny was there intended and such like And this you might have perceived if you had gone on with the words of Athanasius which are these viz. Qua fronte talem conventum Athan. apolo 2 pag. 567. Synodum appellare audent cui Comes praesidet Et ubi speculator apparchat Et Comentariensis sive Carcerarius pro Diaconis Ecclesiae adventantes introducebat ubi Comes verba faciebat caeteri praesentes in silentio erant vel potius Comiti obsequium suum accommodabant c. Againe he there saith Qua species ibi Synodi Ibid. p. 566. ubi vel caedes vel exilium si Caesari placuisset constituebatur And againe hee saith Niceni Concilij Decreta irrita sua autem rata volunt Et Synodi vocabulo uti audent qui tantae Synodo non obtemperant Nihil illis Synodi curae sunt sed inanem speciem Synodi praetexunt ut sublatis Orthodoxi viris ea quae verae magnae Synodâ— Ibid. p. 619. de Arianis statuta sunt demoliantur And therefore hee saith further thus Quaeres cumita agerentur ab ijs tanquam è concilio injurioscrum recessimus Quod enim libuit fecere That whilst these things were thus done wee saith hee departed from them as from a Councell of injurious persons For they did what they listed You see then in what respects it is that Athanasius disliked and condemned this Councell of Tyrus
mightie through God that is they bee divine and spirituall and not worldly or terrestriall And in respect of this his spirituall kingdome or spirituall supremacie all Emperours Kings Princes and Potentates Psal 72.11 Phil. 2.9.10.11 Math. 28.18 Ephes 1.20.21.22.23 aswell as all Bishops and others of what degree soever must acknowledge their subjection unto him For to him is given all power both in heaven and in earth And hee it is whom God hath set at his right band farre above all principalitie and power might and dominion and everie name that is named not in this world onely but also in that which is to come And hee hath made all things subiect under his feete and hath given him over all things to bee the bead to the church which is his body the fulnesse of him that filleth all in all 1. Cor. 15.25 And Hee must raigne untill he hath put all his enemies under his feete You see then that this spirituall kingdome or spirituall Monarchy and supremacie belongeth onely to Christ Iesus and not to any terrestriall Emperour King Prince Pope or Prelate whatsoever And therefore when you attribute as you doe the spirituall supremacie to the Pope of Rome consider well how great intolerable the offence is For is it not as I said before direct high treason in a subject to intrude and usurpe upon the kingdome of his soveraigne and to exercise his supremacie Royall rights authorities and Prerogatives therein without any warrant or commission from him And is it then any lesse then high treason for the Bishop of Rome to doe the same in the spirituall kingdome of CHRIST IESVS If you say that the Bishop of Rome is but onely the Vicar or Vice-roy or Deputie unto Christ in that his kingdome I demaund who constituted or appointed him to bet so For is not he still a traytor to his King that entreth upon his kingdome possesseth and enjoyeth it under colour and pretence that hee is appointed by his soveraigne to bee the Vice-roy or Lord deputie of the kingdome when revera whatsoever he pretendeth hee neyther hath nor can shew any Letters-Patents Warrant or Commission from his King for the same Such is the case of the Bishop of Rome For neyther the Pope nor all his partakers doe or be able to shew any warrant or commission from Christ in that behalfe They have beene long seeking out such a warrant and commission but they could never yet nor ever will be able to finde it If then this be high treason against Christ in the Pope do your selfe judge what offence it is in you or others that take part with him therein and bee his adherents followers and maintayners The second question you demaund of mee is whether the whole Church being but one there be any moe heads of it then one I answer that the whole Church 1. Cor. 12.12 13.14 c. Ephes 1.22.23 Ephes 4.15 Coloss 1.8 Coloss 2.10 being as S. Paul calleth it The body of Ghrist This one body can have no moe then one head and that one head is CHRIST IESVS as the same S. Paul againe expressely teacheth and affirmeth And therefore this head is not the Pope of Rome as you verie strangely dreame your selfe incline to this that there should be but one Head to this one Body How then can you admit any moe heads unto it then this one which is Christ Iesus For if you make CHRIST IESVS to be one head and the Pope to be another head you make this one body to have two heads and so make it a Monster As for your distinction of a Vitall head and a Ministeriall head it is before removed and taken away in my first Booke pag 94. 95. 96. 97. whereto you have not answered And whereas you say that the Church Militant consisting both of Iewes and Gentiles is but Vnum ovile One sheepefould and that this one Sheepefould Ioh. 10.16 there is but unus Pastor on pastor or one sheepheard it is true but this unus pastor one sheepheard is not Ioh. 10.11.14 as you still fondly fancie the Bishop of Rome but CHRIST IESVS onely as appeareth in the same Chapter And in this respect he is also called Magnus pastor ovium The great sheepheard of the Sheepe Heb. 13.20 Yea the chiefe or supreme Pastor over all the severall Pastors of all the severall flockes in the world 1. Pet. 5.2 3 4. For thus S. Peter speaketh to them all Feede the flocke of God which dependeth upon you caring for it not by constraint but willingly not for filthy lucre of a readie minde not as though yee were Lords over Gods heritage but that yee may be examples to the flocke And when the chiefe Sheepheard shall appeare yee shall receive an incorruptible crowne of glory Here you see that S. Peter sheweth very plainely that not himselfe though hee were an Apostle much lesse the Bishop of Rome or any other Bishop was to have this high and transcendent name of Chiefe or supreme Pastor over all the rest of the severall Pastors For to CHRIST IESVS onely hee attributeth and appropriateth this tittle as being his peculiar and prerogative in asmuch as it is Christ Iesus onely and not the Bishop of Rome nor any other man mortall whosoever that can give this incorruptible crowne of glorie he there speaketh of Not the Pope then nor any other but CHRIST IESVS onely appeareth to bee the chiefe or supreme Pastor or which commeth all to one reckoning the Vniversall Bishop over all the severall Bishops and severall Pastors dispersed in the world Your owne translation in this Text of 1. Pet. 5.4 is Princeps Pastorum the Prince of Pastors which likewise still sheweth that not the Pope but CHRIST IESVS onely is the supreme Pastor or the Prince of the severall Pastors dispersed on the face of the Earth And therefore was it also decreed in the Councell of Carthage 3. ca. 26. that Primae sedis Episcopus non appelletur Princeps sacerdotum vel summus sacerdos aut aliquid huiusmodi sed tantum primae sedis Episcopus The Bishop of the first Sea may not bee called the Prince of Priests or the the chiefe Priest or any such like but onely Bishop of the first Sea And Gratian addeth further as touching the title of Vniversall Bishop Distinct. 99. prim sed Neyther let the Bishop of Rome be so called Now then to come to answere you also touching Nero and other Heathen persecuting Emperours and Kings It is true that they have the same Civill sword power and authoritie committed to them from God which the Christian Emperours and the Christian Kings have and to the same end namely 1. Pet. 2.13.14 Rom. 13.3.4 for the punishment of evill doers and for the prayse of them that doe well But if they punish good and godly men and well-doers as Nero did when hee put S. Peter and S. Paul to death and as the other
dominanturijs vos autem non sic Luke 22.24 25.26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quis eorum Maior The kings of Nations beare dominion over them but yee may not doe so one over another For of this was the question or contention and therefore of this must the answere bee accordingly understood These words then doe cleerely declare that there should bee no Ecclesiasticall King or Ecclesiasticall Monarch amongst them to rule or raigne over all the rest although terrestriall Kings and Monarches did and are well allowed to raigne and rule over the people of those Nations whereof they be Kings But againe hath not S. Gregorie himselfe told us long agone not onely how needelesse and superfluous but how pernicious also and dangerous it was to the whole Church to admitte of one to bee an universall Bishop or an Ecclesiasticall Monarch to rule Gregorie and raigne over all the rest For then saith he if hee which is the Ecclesiasticall Monarch or the universall Bishop doe fall the whole and universall Church falleth with him And what Gregory thus spake and as it were prophecied so long since was afterward found true and came to passe accordingly to the lamentable woe of the whole Church in the succeeding times by that meanes Yea the same S. Gregory hath yet further certified us how pernicious and dangerous this was and would bee not onely to the whole Church but even to himselfe also that would take upon him to be the Ecclesiasticall Monarch or supreme and universall Bishop over all Gregory For saith hee what wilt thou answer unto Christ who is the true head of the universall Church in that day of iudgement when by this name of universall Bishop thou seekest to subiugate all the members of his Body unto thy selfe Whom dost thou imitate herein save onely him who in contempt of those legions of Angels which were his fellowes sought to mount aloft to the top of singularitie where hee might bee subiect to none and all others might be subiect unto him As for the having of Bishops of Dioceses and Provinces it no more proveth that therefore there may or must be one universall Bishop or Ecclesiasticall Monarch over all then that because there be divers Kings in divers and severall Kingdomes therefore there should be one universall King over all the Kings and kingdomes in the world And besides there were Bishops of Dioceses and Provinces in the times both of Pelagius and Gregorie Bishops of Rome whom neverthelesse they tooke no exception against nor disallowed But him that would take upon him to be an Ecclesiasticall Monarch or a supreme and universall Bishop over the whole Church him they would not endure but vehemently impugned and detested him and that not without verie apparant just and good cause as here you see But moreover did you never reade Iohn Gerson de Auferibilitate Papae What he affirmed in some cases may generally and absolutely be affirmed namely That the Pope may bee utterly abolished and taken cleane away that without any lesse or hurt at all to Christendome yea to the great and ample good not onely of Christendome but of all the world beside if the matter be well weighed and rightly and throughly considered 18. But touching this point of supremacie you seeme at last in words to appeale to the judgement of the Primitive Church I would you would doe as you say and stand to the judgement of it in verie deede For I have proved which you have not disproved nor ever will bee able to disprove That for the space of eight hundred yeares and more after Christ even the Bishops of Rome themselves aswell as other Bishops were subject to the Emperours And that the Christian Emperours had also authoritie in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill and temporall within their Dominions and nothing doe you or can you alledge against it but what hath beene many and sundrie times sufficiently abundantly answered confuted by the Protestants As for that Catalogue of Emperours Kings and Princes which you affirme to have beene exemplarily punished in this world by violent and miserable deathes for oppugning and striving against the Monarchie and supremacie of the Bishop of Rome you onely say suppose it but doe not prove it And it is an overbold part in you to enter into Gods secret counsels and to affirme that to be the cause which you know not nor be able to prove For there might be and so no doubt there were other just causes of their punishments As for the oppugning of the Popes supremacie that could not be the cause of those or of any other punishments in asmuch as the grosse wrongs and utter unlawfulnesse of it hath before plentifully appeared and that neyther the Pope nor all his partakers be able to shew any commission or warrant from God for the approbation of it Yea how could the oppugning or contending against the Popes Monarchie and supremacie be any cause of punishment when in the holy Scriptures themselves it appeareth as in my first Booke I have shewed at large that Papall Rome is the whore of Babylon and that the Pope of Rome the head and ruler of that adulterate and Popish Church is the verie grand Antichrist Doe not therefore deceive your selfe nor others any longer by mistaking the cause which is you know a fallacie à causa non ut causa Yet you further say that I am argued by the wisest in this Enterprize to have discovered in consideratively much arrogancie of witt in not well weighing the mayne importance of this difficultie farre surmounting the talent of a Lawyer But first there is no such difficultie in it Reges Gentium dominaâ—tur as you speake of and this I have formerly declared Secondly why doth it surmount or exceede a Lawyers talent and abilitie more in mee then in you Wherefore if I bee as you say I am censured or argued by the wisest of much arrogancie because being a Lawyer I meddle in this matter Must not those wisest in all justice and equitie condemne you likewise of much arrogancie for the same cause For you have hitherto in your writings affirmed your selfe to be a Lawyer if all this while you neverthelesse be not a Lawyer you have done your selfe a great deale of discredite and dishonour in affirming it Neyther can any man then tell how to beleeve you in any thing you speake or write So that herein you gull not mee but your selfe and others It would therefore best become you to unmaske your selfe and to discover your selfe plainely For you must thinke howsoever you would conceale your selfe that you are sufficiently knowne and goe not invisible But thirdly who are those whom you call and account the wisest For there bee some that be wise in their owne conceite and some that be Antichristianly wise and some that bee worldly wise 1. Cor. 3.19 whose wisedome is as S. Paul affirmeth it foolishnesse with God For hath not God saith hee made the wisedome of this world 1. Cor. 1.20 foolishnesse The world accounteth the wisedome of God to bee foolishnesse But hee saith that the foolishnesse of God is wiser then men and the weakenesse of God 1. Cor. 1.25 stronger then men The wisest men then doubtlesse bee those that humbly submit all their learning and wisedome to Gods word and wisedome and that bee divinely and Christianly wise as for the rest they must as the same S. Paul teaceth them 1. Cor 3.18 become fooles that they may bee wise Whatsoever therefore you say I beleeve that which Christ Iesus himselfe hath spoken to bee true and that it will ever bee found verified Luke 7.35 videlicet That wisedome is iustified of all her Children But lastly what arrogancie eyther of wit or learning doe I shew or discover when I neyther brag nor boast of eyther and when I further franckly and freely confesse in all my Bookes that such matter as is therein contayned I have learned of others and so attribute nothing to my selfe The wit and learning I have how small slender or meane soever you or others esteeme it I thanke God for it and doe humbly pray him to give mee the Grace to use and imploy it to his honour and glorie and not to mine owne Yea how weake or meane soever it bee in respect of it selfe yet such is the strength of the cause which I defend and the strength of the Almightie who hath enabled mee in it and to whom I give all the thankes and the glorie Psal 4.13 as that it now appeareth I hope to everie understanding equall and judicious Person to bee undoubtedly victorious and triumphant Hereafter therefore I shall not neede to write any more in it which is now made thus manifest cleere apparant and invincible So that everie man that will speake truely may sâ—â— of it that Magna est veritas praevalet God open our eyes if it bee his will and inlighten all our understandings that wee may all see and know his truth acknowledge reverence embrace and professe it and walke in the wayes of it evermore AMEN FINIS
powers Who saith S. Bernard hath excepted you speaking to an Archbishop from this generalitie Hee that bringeth in an exception saith hee useth but a delusion And you may remember that even S. Chrysostome also himselfe as hee subjecteth Kings to Bishops Priests and Pastors in respect of their power and commission graunted them from God So on the other side in respect of the Regall sword power and authoritie given and graunted likewise from God to Kings and Princes he declareth verie fully that Bishops Priests Pastors and all Ecclesiasticall Ministers whatsoever aswell as lay people are to be subject to them But this point concerning the subjection of all Bishops Priests and Pastors and even of the Bishop of Rome himselfe aswell as of others unto Emperours Kings and Princes as also in causes even Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill and temporall is so cleerely plainely and plentifully proved both in my first and second Bookes and in this also all your answers evasions quirkes and quiddities being therein utterly frustrated confuted and confounded as that it is to mee a matter of wounder that you should not see and so acknowledge the truth of it But it seemeth you cannot see the wood for trees which I am sorrie for 8. Howbeit to make this point yet the more evident viz the subjection of Priests and Ecclesiasticall Ministers unto the King and therewithall the Kings supremacie or supreame commaund over them even in causes Ecclesiasticall I alledged in my Reply cap. 1. pag. 5. the example of Moses who commaunded not onely the Levites Deut. 31.25.26 and that in a matter Ecclesiasticall and concerning their verie office but hee commaunded also even Aaron the high Priest in a matter likewise Ecclesiasticall and concerning his verie office Numb 16.46.47 saying thus unto him Take the censer and put fire therein of the Altar and put therein incense and goe quickely unto the congregation and make an attonement for them for there is wrath gone out from the Lorde the plague is begun then Aaron tooke as Moses had commaunded him c. Here you say I abuse my Reader by falsely citing this text for the right wordes say you are these Moses said to Aaron take the Censer and drawing fire from the Altar put incense upon it going quickely to the people to pray for them To pray say you and to make attonement doe differ and be not all one howbeit indeede not I but you are the man that abuse your Reader by falsely citing the wordes of this Text For you therein follow the wordes of your vulgar Latin translation which is untrue and unsound and I follow our English translation which is according to the Originall in Hebrew and therefore true which you also if you were a good Hebrician would know and perceive even in this verie particular But whether wee take your translation of Praying for the people or our translation of Attonement-making it commeth all to one passe as touching that purpose for which I cited it namely to prove that Moses commaunded Aaron the high Priest in a matter Ecclesiasticall cōcerning his verie office For your selfe do say that this praying for the people was a religious act to bee wrought by Aaron as being intermediate betweene the people God to reconcile or gaine unto them the favours of heaven And on the other side we say that to burne incense to mak attonement for the people 2. Chron. 26.18 is likwise expressely a thing properly pertayning to the Priests office So that as touching that purpose for which I cited that text it maketh as I said before no difference But then you go further seem to speake as if Moses had not there commanded Aaron But when Moses spake to Aaron in this sort Accipe thuribulū Take the censer Be not these wordes of commaunding especially in this case and at this time being also spoken by a Superior namely by him that was as the Scripture calleth him a king in the common-weale of Israel Deut. 33.5 Deut. 31.25 26.27 Yea bee they not wordes of as full and cleere commaund as when hee spake in like sort to the Levites saying Take the booke of this law and put yee it in the side of the Arke of the Covenant of the Lord our God c. The Text it selfe sheweth that these were wordes of commaunding in Moses And so witnesseth also your owne translation that herein Moses praecepit Levitis Moses commaunded the Levites Yea that Moses aswell as his successor Ioshuah commaunded not onely the Levites but the Priests also and all the congregation and people of Israel appeareth by that answer and acclamation they gave to the same Ioshuah saying thus unto him Iosh 1.16.17.18 All that thou hast commaunded us wee will doe and whethersoever thou sendest us wee will goe As wee have obeyed Moses in all things so will we obey thee onely the Lord thy God be with thee as bee was with Moses whosoever shall rebell against thy commaundement and will not obey thy wordes in all that thou commaundest him let him bee put to death But then when you cannot gainesay but that Moses commaunded Aaron and that in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning his very office you come to your last refuge and doe say that Moses was the high Priest and so as an high Priest commaunded Aaron But first how doe you prove this that Moses was an high Priest And yet if you could prove it what would you or could you gaine from thence for your selfe doe say that Moses was as well a king as a Priest therefore why might hee not commaund him as hee was a king rather then otherwise for did he in his time commaund the Priests Levites the whole People of Israel otherwise or in any other sort or sence then Ioshuah his successor did who was no Priest how be it if Moses had been both a Priest and a King would not the holy Scripture somewhere haue testified and expressed so much aswell as it doth in the like case of Melchisedech Gen. 14.18 Hebr. 7.1 For as touching those Texts of Scripture which you bring to prove Moses to be a Priest it shall by and by appeare that they prove it not Againe if Moses were the high Priest what will you make Aaron to be for it is evident and confessed of all sides that Aaron was the high Priest and if Moses were also another high Priest at the same time Deut. 33.5 then beside that there should be two high Priests together at one time how could the one commaund the other they being both of equall authority Or can he be rightly and truely called Summus Sacerdos that hath a Superior Priest over him to commaund him It is cleere that the Scripture doth expressely testifie of Moses that he was a King and therefore of that there can be no doubt but that he was also a Priest or an high Priest as you suppose it doth not affirme no not in that Place
Lord And yet Manoah was of the tribe of Dan. Of David that was no Priest the Scripture saith Then David offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the Lord. And againe David built there an Altar unto the Lord and offered burnt offerings 1. Sam. 10. and peace-offerings and the Lord was appeased towards the Land And likewise of Salomon The King went to Gibeon to sacrifice there 1. King 3. a thousand burnt offerings did Salomon offer upon the Altar Thrise a yeare did Salomon offer burnt offerings and peace offerings upon the Altar 1. King 9. which he built to the Lord and he burnt incense upon the Altar that was before the Lord. Nothing is oftner in the Scriptures then these kinde of speeches By the which no more is meant but that either they brought these things to be offered or else they caused the Priests to offer them For in their owne Persones they could not sacrifice them because they were no Priests In that sence the Scripture saith of Saul That he offered burnt offerings at Gilgal before Samuel came not that Saul offered it with his owne hands 1. Sam. 13. as you before did fondly imagine and said Hee was deposed for aspiring to the spirituall function 1. Sam. 14. v. 3.18 But he commaunded the Priest to doe it who was then present in the host with the Arke of God as the next chapter doth witnesse in two speciall Places And as for the reproofe that Samuel gave to King Saul it was saith he for distrusting and disobeying God For when God first advanced Saul to the Kingdome he charged him by the Mouth of Samuel to goe to Gilgal and there to stay seaven Dayes 1. Sam. 10. before he ventured to doe any Sacrifice till the Prophet were sent to shew him what he should doe 1 Sam 13. But seeing his enemies gathered to fight against him on the one side and his people â—hâ—inking from him on the other side because Samuel came not he began to suspect that Samuel had beguiled him and therefore upon his owne head against the commandement of God willed the Priest to goe foreward with his Sacrifices and to consult God what he should doe This secret distruct and presumption against the charge which God had given him was the thing that God tooke in so evill part And since he would not submitte himselfe to be ruled by God and expect his leasure God reiected him as unfitte to governe the People Neither did Samuel challenge him for invading the Priests Office but for not staying the time that God prefixed him before the Prophet should come So farre he whom I thus recite the more at large for your better satisfaction in this Point But yet moreover that worthy In his Booke of iurisdiction Regall Episcopall Papall pag. 31. 32. 33. c. learned and reverend Bishop also D. Carleton amongst other arguments which he bringeth to prove Moses to be a Ciuill Magistrate and a Prince but not a Priest alledgeth that Text of Exodus 4.16 where Moses is said to be as a God to Aaron and Aaron as a Mouth to Moses The word there used is Elohim and the same that is also used in Psal 82. and is never applyed throughout the whole Scriptures when it is given to men but to such as were Kings Princes Iudges and other Civil Magistrate and at no time to Priests vnles they were themselves the chiefe Magistrates or received Authority from the Chiefe Magistrate Give you an instance in the holy Scripture to the Contrary if you can or else confesse the truth of it And here you may also observe one reason among the rest which Christ himselfe giveth why they be called Gods in that Psalm 82. Psal 82.6 For in that Psalme it is that these words are written I have said ye are Gods which be the words that Christ citeth in the Gospell of S. Iohn Ioh. 10.34.35 and saith thereupon thus If hee called them Gods unto whom the word of God was given c. So that this appeareth to be one reason why Kings Princes and Civill Magistrates Deut. 17.18 19 Iosh 1.8 2 King 11.12 be called Gods namely because they have the word of God given or committed to them although not to preach it as Bishops Pastors and Doctors doe yet by way of speciall commission to keepe it to establish it by Authority to commaund obedience to it to punish the Violaters of it and to encourage countenance protect and defend the Professors and Practisers of it For it is certaine that all that Psalme whence Christ tooke those words is wholy and entirely understood of Kings Princes and such like Civill Magistrates not of Priests Bishops or other Ecclesiasticall Ministers as any man may perceave that will reade that Psalme Seeing then this word Elohim is given to Moses and that comparatively and in respect of Aaron the Priest it must be graunted that Moses was a Civil Magistrate and as a King or Prince in respect of him and others But neither Priest nor high Priest as you surmise And as for that Text before mentioned of Psalm 99. vers 6. how much soever you and others stand vpon it yet give me leave here once more to tell you that being well considered you may in your owne iudgment easily perceave that you can enforce nothing thereout to prove Moses to be a Priest properly so called although Aaron was for the purpose and intention of those words is no more but this to shew that not onely Moses a Civill Magistrate but Aaron also a Chiefe Priest amongst the other Priests and Samuel likewise a Prophet amongst others that called upon the name of the Lord were all heard of him when they prayed Now because all those when they prayed called vpon the name of the Lord were heard and obtained their requests is that any argument that therefore they were all Priests properly so called No man I thinke will be so absurd as to make such an inference 9. I therefore now come to Ioshuah the Successor of Moses he aswell as Moses did as a Prince or King commaund the Priests Levites and all Israell and dealt in matters also Ecclesiasticall aswell as Temporall as I have shewed in my Reply pag. 6. hereunto you in your Reioynder answere nothing that is of any weight or moment Your best answer is That what Iosuah did in matters Ecclesiasticall he did it by the direction and advise of Eleasar the Priest which if it be graunted maketh nothing to the Question For the Question is not by whose direction or advise but by whose Authority those things were done It is not denyed but that Priests might as was fitte they should give their best direction and advise vnto their Kings and Princes But this derogateth nothing from that Authority which Kings and Princes have and beare within their owne dominions Yea how impertinent weake and feeble this your answere is you might have perceived
87. But secondly when the Text it selfe speaketh of this fact of King Solomon by way of approbation of it doth it become you or any man else to say or suppose that it was error facti in him Or that it was an Act not lawfull for him so to doe For hath not the Scripture it selfe before expressely tould vs That Solomon deposed or cast out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord 1. King 2.27 that hee might fulfill the words of the Lord which hee spake against the house of Ely in Shiloh Now then can that be said to bee erroniously or unlawfully done which God himselfe well liked and allowed and would have to bee done for the performance and fulfilling of his owne wordes Yea consider yet further that the Kings of Israel and Iudah had power and authoritie over the Priests not onely to depose them but also to put them to death And this you may see in King Saul who put to death divers Priests â— Sa. 22.18 â— Chron. 24. â—0 21. and in King Ioash also who put to death Zachariah the sonne of Iehoida the Priest How justly or unjustly worthily or unworthily these Priests were put to death I here dispute not but I mention these examples to shew the power authoritie that the Kings had in those times namely even to put Priests to death aswell as lay-persons upon just cause and if they did offend so farre as to deserve it 11. But now though there were a supremacy over the high Priests aswell as over the other Priests and Levites in the Kings under the Old Testament and that they also dealt in maters Ecclesiasticall yet thereupon it followeth not say you That Kings and Princes under the New Testament have the like Supremacy over Bishops and other Clergy men or the like Authority in causes Ecclesiasticall and concerning religion Why so because say you there is now a change and alteration of the Priesthood and of the Law Heb. 7.12 But doth not the same Epistle to the Hebrews which you cite tell you wherein that Alteration and change consisteth namely that it is in respect of the Leviticall Priesthood under the ould Law or under the ould Testament which is now changed into the Priesthood of Christ under the new Law or under the new Testament why then will you stretch and extend it any further yea neither doth that Epistle nor any other sacred or canonicall Scripture testifie an Alteration or change in this Point or as touching this Particular whereof we now speake but the cleane contrary videlicet that aswell under the new Testament as under the ould Kings and Princes are to have a supremacy over all Bishops Pastors and other Ecclesiasticall Ministers and an Authority also in causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as civill and temporall within their dominions The first part of this Assertion is manifest by that Text in the new Testament which I have so often recited and where S. Paul saith expressely thus Rom. 13.1 Chrysost in Rom. hom 23 Let every soule be subiect to the higher Powers yea Though you be an Apostle though an Evangelist though a Prophet or whosoever you be saith S. Chrisostome But what shall I neede to prove this so cleere a Point so many times and so often For both in my first Booke Cap. 1. pag. 1. 2. 3. c. and in my Reply chap. 1. pag. 39. 40 41. c. and pag. 51. 52. 53. 54. c. this pointe is fully and abundantly proved Yea the Bishops of Rome themselves in former an ancient times for the space of divers hundreth yeares after Christ did acknowledge this Subiection to these higher powers namely to their Emperors as I have demonstratively shewed by the examples of Milciades Leo and Gregorie the great mentioned in my first Booke pag. 23. 24. 25. 26. And by Anastasius the second Pelagius the first Agatho Hadrian and Leo the fourth mentioned in my Reply chap. 1 pag. 11. 12. 13. 19. To all which though particularly alledged by me you according to your wonted wise maner thought it best to answere nothing Yea both the parts of this Assertion namely that Emperors Kings and Princes under the new Testament have Authority not onely over Persons Ecclesiasticall but in causes also Ecclesiasticall I have so sufficiently proved throughout the first Chapter of my first Booke and throughout the first Chapter of my second Booke which is my Reply and in this booke also as that all the Power and force you have brought or can bring against it will never be able so much as to shake it much lesse to subdue or overthrow it Yet for the more abundant proofe of this Authority of Emperors and Kings in maters Ecclesiasticall and concerning religion I alledged in my Reply chap. 1. pag. 13 14. the president and Example of that famous Christian Emperor Constantine the Great whereunto in your Reioynder you have as well became your great learning and wisedome answered iust nothing at all I alledged also in the same my Reply pag. 15. the example of Iustinian that Christian Emperor where you deny not this Emperors making of Constitutions and Lawes in Ecclesiasticall causes and concerning Bishops and other Ecclesiasticall Persons But you say those Lawes be not observed by the Protestant Cleargie and you give an instance in one particular What is this to the purpose For the question was not nor is whether our Protestant Cleargie observe those Lawes and Constitutions yea or no But whether Iustinian that Christian Emperour made those or any such lawes and Constitutions concerning Ecclesiasticall causes and Ecclesiasticall persons Now then whilst you graunt that hee made those Lawes and Constitutions concerning Ecclesiasticâ—ll causes and concerning Ecclesiasticall persons you graunt so much as I contended for that is to say you graunt the whole matter that was in question And therefore why should I dispute any longer with you Neverthelesse you yet further say that I much disadvantage my cause by alleadging Iustinian the Emperour who accounted called the Bishop of Rome the chiefe and head of all the holy Churches But you should doe well to observe in what sence and respects the Emperour so called and accounted him namely not that hee had in those dayes a supremacie over Iustinian who was then the Emperour â—uthen const 〈◊〉 15. Novel â— 3. For Iustinian himselfe testifieth the cleane contrarie to that conceit Wee commaund saith hee the most holy Archbishops and Patriarkes of Rome of Constantinople of Alexandria of Antioch and of Ierusalem â—vag lib. 4. c. 1 â—iceph libr. â—7 cap. 27. Yea the fifth generall Councell it selfe was also called by the commandement of this Emperor Iustinian So that it clearely appeareth that hee had the supremacie commanding authoritie over them all But in respect of the soundnesse of the faith which the Bishop of Rome held in those times against heresies and errors it was that the Emperour preferred him before the other Bishops accounting himselfe chiefe or head
betweene the King and the Priest that Ille cogit Châ—ysosto de verbis Esaiae vidi DominuÌ„ homil 4. hic exhortatur Ille habet arma sensibilia hic arma spiritualia The King compelleth the Priest exhorteth the King hath the sensible weapons the Priest the spirituall weapons And when the Priest or Ecclesiasticall Minister hath gone as far as he can go in his Ecclesiasticall Ministerie he must not go any further to use any externall power coactive or compulsive as he there also teacheth 〈◊〉 21.1 but must in every such case leave men unto God who hath the hearts of all kings aswell as of others in his hands and moveth and turneth them when Chrys de Sacerlotisâ—h 2. and which way sâ—ever he pleaseth Yea S. Chrysoâ—tome saith yet further expressely That it is not lawfull for a Bishop to oure men with so great authoritie as a sheepheard doth his sheepe for it is free for a sheepheard forcibly to binde his sheepe to drive them from their feeding to scare them and to cut them but in the other case the facilitie of the cure consisteth no in him that giveth but onely in him that taketh the medicine This that admirable teacher perceiving said to the Corinthians Not that wee have any Dominion over you under the name of faith but that wee are helpers of your ioy For of all men Christian Bishops must not correct the faults of offenders by force or violence Externall Iudges when they take any transgressing the lawes they shew themselves to be endued with great authoritie and power and doe compell them whether they will or no to change their manners But here saith hee non vim afferre sed suadere tantum oportet atque hac ratione meliorem efficere quem emendandum susceperis You may not use violence but perswasion onely and by this meanes make him better whom you have taken upon you to amend Againe hee saith If any sheepe goe out of the right way Chrysost de Sacerdotio lib. 2. and leaving the plentifull pastures graze on barren and steepe places The sheepheard somewhat exalteth his voyce to reduce the dispersed and stragling sheepe and to force them to the flocke But if any man wander from the right path of the Christian faith The Pastor must use great great paines care and patience Neque enim vis illi inferenda neque terrore ille cogendus verum suedendu tantùm ut de integro ad veritatem redeat For hee may nor be forced or constrained with terror but perswaded onely that so hee may returne againe to the truth If then your late Councell of Lateran under Pope Innocentius the third decreed as you say this externall power coactive to bee in the Bishop of Rome You see it is not to be regarded Because such a decree if any such were is directly contrarie to the testimonie of all former approved antiquitie But yet you must also remember what Platina writeth concerning that Councell Plantina de vita Innocen 3. Venêre multa tum quidem in consultationem nec decerni tamen quicquam apertè potuit Many things saith hee came into consultation in that Councell but nothing could plainely be decided by reason the Pope departing to compose some tumults then suddainely risen died by the way So that this your great Councell of Lateran consulting how to defeate Kings and Princes of their Temporall kingdomes and Dominions but not decreeing or concluding any thing therein as being prevented by the Popes hastened and unexpected death will also doe you no pleasure in this case But now why may not I after so many questions of yours answered propound you also one question which is this What if the Bishop of Rome for maintenance of his worldly pompe pride pleasure and ambition carelesly neglect all right religion and bee so extremely wicked both for life doctrine as that hee careth not to carrie innumerable soules together with his owne by heapes to hell who shall correct restraine represse or punish him For answer whereunto you might say that in former and auncient times The Emperours had the correction and the punishment aswell of the Bishops of Rome as of other Bishops that were offenders within their Dominions But now the case is altered and the world turned topsie turvie and the Bishop of Rome growne to that height and licenciousnesse as that hee will not allow himselfe to be censured or judged by any men mortall be they Emperus Kings Princes Bishops Generall Councels or whosoever they bee But whilst he is thus mounted not onely above other Kings and Princes but even above the Emperours also himselfe What saith Optatus of such a one Optat. libr. 3. pag. 85. Cùm super Imperatorem non sit nisi solus Deus qui fecit Imperatorem certè quise super Imperatorem extollit iam quasi hominum excesserit metas se ut Deum non hominem aestimat Forasmuch as saith he there is none above the Emperour but God onely that made the Emperour Certainely be that exalteth himselfe above the Emperour as one that hath gone beyond the bounds of men esteemeth himselfe not now any longer as a mac but as God And whilest withall hee thus exempteth himselfe from the Lawes censure and judgement of all men upon earth what doth hee else by all this but shew himselfe to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That lawlesse person mentioned by S. Paul in 2. Thess 2.8 And which also sitteth in the Church or temple of God as God 2. Thess 2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12 and is exalted above all those men upon earth that be called Gods in the Scriptures of which sort be Kings and Princes and even above the Emperour also himselfe to whom belongeth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sebasma mentioned in the same place of 2. Thessal 2.4 in asmuch as hee is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sebastos that is Augustus as the Scripture also it selfe expressely calleth him Act. 25.21.25 But lastly It is well knowne that by Gods owne institutution the power of the Civill and Temporall sword rightly properly belongeth to Emperours â—om 13.1.2 â— 4.5.6 Kings and Princes and not to Bishops Pastors or other Ecclesiasticall Ministers therefore may Kings and Princes lawfully commaund compell and punish all Bishops Pastors and Ecclesiasticall Ministers whatsoever if they offend aswell as lay-Persons by authoritie of that their sword committed to them from God But Bishops on the other side may not by that their Ecclesiasticall office and function use that temporall sword nor any temporall externall power coactive thereunto incident or belonging against any King or other Person for any cause whatsoever because that sword is not committed to them from God Yea this opinion concerning compelling of Kings savoureth more of treason then of reason and therefore is utterly to bee detested and abhorred 17. But then you say further that whatsoever I alledged to invest our King with the supremacie the same might be alledged by any