Cohanim that is Princes or great Rulers so it is explayned 2. Sam 20.26 and declared in 1 Chron. 18.17 And so it is likewise said of Ira the Iairite that hee was Cohen le David that is a Prince or chiefe Ruler about David For to conster these to be Priests in the proper and usuall signification of the word they not being of the Tribe of Levi were verie absurd And to these thus formerly alledged in my Reply you have answered nothing in your Rejoynder Yea S. Ierome himselfe in his owne observation sheweth that the Hebrew word though he translate it Sacerdotes in the one case and Sacerdos in the other case yet signifieth as I before affirmed For saith he Ira Iairites erat sacerdos David Hier. tradit Hebr. in libros Regum to 3 id est Magister sicut alibi scriptum est Filij autem David erant sacerdotes idest Magistri fratrum suorum But because you also object S. Augustine as the Iesuites likewise did object both S. Ierome and S. Augustine in this case writing upon this Psalm 99. to prove Moses to bee a Priest I had rather you should take your Answer thereunto from the wordes of that reverend and learned Bishop Doctor Bilson then from me who answereth the Iesuites and consequently you in this sort In his Booke called the difference betweene Christian subiection unchristian rebellion part 3. pag. 102.103 Hier. in Psal 98. Aug. in Psal 98. All that S. Ierome saith is this that Moses had the rule of the Law and Aaron of the Priesthood and that eyther of them did foreshew the comming of Christ with a Priestly kinde of Proclamation Moses with the sound of the Law and Aaron with the Bels of his garments Where S. Hierome calleth the Propheticall function of Moses to teach the people the lawes of God a Priestly kinde of Proclamation foreshewing that the Son of God should come in the flesh to teach us the will of his Father S. Augustine useth the word in the like sence for that sacred service which Moses yeelded to God in reporting his lawes and precepts to the people And therefore in the same place he saith of Samuel also that hee was made high Priest which is expressely against the Scriptures if you take the Priest for him that was annointed to offer sacrifice unto God For Samuel was but a Levite and no Priest much lesse an high Priest The sons of Samuel 1. Chron. 6. are reckoned in the Scripture it selfe among the Levites apart from the Priests office and linage And the high Priesthood was long before given to Phinees and his house Num. 25.13 1. Sam. 14. 1. Chron. 6. by covenant from Gods owne mouth and in the dayes of Samuel was held by Abiah the sonne of Ahitub who was directly of the discent of Phinees S. Augustine elsewhere debating this question of Moses and Aaron resolveth in doubtfull manner Moses and Aaron were both high Priests or rather Moses the chiefe and Aaron under him or else Aaron chiefe for the Pontificall attire and Moses for a more excellent Ministerie And in that sence Moses may be called a Priest if you meane as S. Augustine doth an interpreter of Gods will to Aaron others which is the right vocation of all Prophets that were no Priests common to them all save that by a more excellent prerogative then any other Prophet of the Olde Testament Numb 12. Exod. 33. had God spake to Moses mouth to mouth and face to face as a man speaketh to his friend But this doth not hinder his civill power which was to bee chiefe Iudge and soveraigne executor of Iustice amongst them and by vertue thereof to put them to death that were offenders against the Law of God And in his stead succeeded not Eleazar nor Phinees the sonnes of Aaron but Ioshuah and Iudah the Captaines and leaders of Israel So farre hee Thus then you see in what sence it is that both S. Ierome and S. Augustine did or might call Moses a Priest and yet not bee such a Priest strictly and properly taken as you fancie him Yea you see that S. Augustine likewise affirmeth Samuel to be a Priest who neverthelesse revera Bellarmin de verb. Dei lib. 3. cap. 4. and properly was not a Priest as before is shewed And Bellarmine also himselfe confesseth somuch of Samuel saying expressely Samulem non fuisse sacerdotem sed Iudicem tantum Non enim descendit ex familia Aaron sed Core consobrini ejus 1. Paralip 6. That Samuel was not a Priest but onely a Iudge for he descended not of the family of Aaron but of Core And he saith further that S. Hierome likewise libr. 1. in Iovinianum ostendit Samuelem non fuisse Sacerdotem shewed that Samuel was not a Priest As for those two Chapters of Exodus 28. and 29. cited by Bellarmine whereby he will prove Moses to be truely and properly a Priest If you reade those Chapters you shall finde no such matter but rather the contrary namely that not Moses but Aaron and his sonnes Exod. 28 1.2 3.4 were the Priests For God saith there to Moses Take Aaron thy Brother and his Sonnes with him from amongst the children of Israel that he may minister unto me in the Priests Office even Aaron Nadab and Abibu Eleazar and Ithamar Aarons sonnes It is true that there you may reade that Moses made holy Garments Exod. 29.1.2.3.4 c. and offered certaine Sacrifices But observe withall that all this was done by Gods owne expresse and speciall commaundement and to no other end but this viz for the conseruating of Aaron and his Sonnes to the Priesthood So that by those two Chapters it further appeareth that not Moses but Aaron onely and his Sonnes were the Priests But as the Iesuites In his booke before named part 3. pag. 103. 104. in time past would have proved Samuel to be a Priest because it is said that he Sacrificed so you say the same of King Saul that he also sacrificed and thereby would likewise prove him to be a priest Howbeit the former reverēd learned Bishop D. Bilson doth againe shew both them and you how much you deceave your selves by such phrazes and maner of speeches and that when they are rightly vnderstood they inferre no such conclusion as you and they would deduce out of them My collection saith he is grounded upon the law of God Samuel was none of the Sonnes of Aaron Ergo 1. Sam. 7. Samuel was no Priest It is true that the Scripture saith He tooke a sucking lambe and offered it for a burnt offering unto the Lord. So Iephta said Iudg. 11. That thing which first cometh out of the Dores of my house to me I will offer it for a burnt offering And yet Iephtah was neither Priest nor Levite So the Angell said to Manoah Iudg. 13. If thou wilt make a burnt offering offer it unto the
of Germanie are abused by the Pope whom hee leadeth and handleth like bruite beasts both for spoile and slaughter at his owne pleasure This Poperie saith hee is lively described by S. Peter 2. Pet. 2. where bee saith They despise Rulers or Governours by Rulers signifying secular Princes Now the Popish Cleargie have by their owne authoritie exempted themselves from tributes subiection and all charges of the Common-weale contrarie to the doctrine of Peter and Paul Yea so farre is the Pope from acknowledging the soveraignetie of Princes over him that hee will scarce admitte them to kisse his feete Calvine likewise writeth thus The word of God Calvin Instit. lib. 4. cap. 2. sect 22. saith hee teacheth us to obey all Princes who are established in there thrones be it by what meanes soever Yea though they doe nothing lesse then the office of Kings yet must they bee obeyed and though the King be never so wicked and indeede unworthy the name of a King yet must subiects acknowledge the image of Divine power in his publike authoritie and as touching obedience they must reverence and honour him aswell as if hee were the godlyest King in the world Nebuchadnezzar was a mightie invader and subduer of other Nations yet God saith by his Prophet that he had given those lands and countries unto him Ezech. 29. Dan. 2. Neyther would he have any rebellion or resistance to be offered but contrarywise commaunded obedience to be performed unto him Iere. 27. And therefore we must never suffer these seditious conceites to possesse our mindes as to thinke an evill King must be so dealt withall as hee deserveth but we are directly charged to obey the King though he bee a savage Tyrant and never so bad Beza confess cap. 5. sect 45 Beza also speaketh in like sort Private men amongst whom I account inferiour Magistrates in respect of their King have no other remedie saith hee against Tyrants to whom they are subiect but amendment of their lives prayers and teares which God in his good time will not despise And if it so fall out that wee cannot obey the commandement of the King but that wee must offend God the King of kings Then must wee rather obey God then man Yet so as that wee remember that it is one thing not to obey and another thing Ibidem to resist and to betake ourselves to Armes which wee may not doe Againe hee saith The impudencie of our Adversaries is herein most notorious that they who contrarie to the word of God have openly subiected Kings and kingdomes to their authoritie and be themselves the most rebellious sect under heaven yet dare netwithstanding to obiect the guilt of that crime unto us These being the doctrines and positions of Luther Calvine Beza and other Protestants concerning Kings and kingdomes let the equall Reader Iudge what and how great the wrong is you doe unto them and whether also that is or can possibly be true which you write both in your Answer and againe in your Reioynder namely That Kings and Princes may more confidently build the safetie of their persons Act. 17.7 Ioh. 18.36 Ephes 1.21.22.23 Ephes 4.15.16 Coloss 1.17.18 and estates upon the loyaltie of their Catholicke subiects then upon any Protestant subiects Why more confidently I pray you For is this a good reason which you bring viz. because although Papists give the spirituall supremacie headship and Monarchie over the whole Church upon earth unto the Pope which indeed they should not do in asmuch as it is a Regall right and Prerogative properly belonging unto Christ Iesus yet doe they acknowledge in Kings a supremacie in Temporall matters yea this reason if you did well observe it maketh rather much against you For it sheweth that Papists bee revera neyther so good Christians nor yet so good subiects Colos 2.19 as Protestants bee Not so good Christians because They bold not the head CHRIST IESVS as S. Paul speaketh but have without any warrant or commission from him errected to themselves another head Monarch and Spirituall King namely the Pope of Rome Not so good subjects because they acknowledge not to belong unto Kings an authoritie over persons Ecclesiasticall and in causes also Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill and Temporall as Protestants doe For whereas you say that the Protestant Subjects doe take from the King the Temporall supremacie aswell as the Spirituall it is too lewd and loud a slaunder Yea what is there that the Protestants doe more earnestly contend for against the Pope and against his partakers then the Spirituall supremacie or Spirituall kingdome to be given to Christ Iesus And the Civill or Temporall supremacie over persons Ecclesiasticall and in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as Temporall to bee given unto Kings and Princes within their Dominions But because you yet further object against the Protestants both rebellious doctrines and rebellious practises and affirme that many instances of this kinde may bee reade in the Booke of dangerous Positions For a cleere and full Answer to all that you have said or rather Papists have or can say in that case I referre you unto that Booke which is called An exact Discoverie of Romish Doctrine in the Case of Conspiracie Rebellion and the Reply to him that calleth himselfe the Moderate Answerer thereof In which Bookes so conjoyned in one Volume you may reade and see at large a cleere justification of Luther Calvine Beza and other Protestants in this point and contrarywise the Papists to bee notoriously guiltie therein And this you may also see further debated and shewed in that Booke which is called The true difference betweene Christian subiection and unchristian Rebellion In the third part whereof be refelled the Iesuites reasons and authorities which they alleadge for the Popes depriving of Princes and the bearing of Armes by Subjects against their Soveraignes and where the tyrannies and injuries of Antichrist seeking to exalt himselfe above Kings and Princes bee further discovered and declared c. These things I would not here thus farre have spoken of had not you provoked me thereunto not only by your first beginning but by your continuance still stiffe-standing in these your needlesse cōparisons calumniations But you proceed come next from p. 50. in my Reply to p. 79. where againe you skippe over fourteene leaves more together in the same booke In that pag. 79. It is true that I said That not onely those kings of England before mentioned namely King William Rufus king Henry the First and King Henry the Second and some others thus contended and opposed themselves against the Pope of Rome But King William the Conqueror also who was before all these made the like Kingly opposition For when Hildebrand otherwise called Pope Gregory the Seventh was bold to demand of this King an Oath of fealtie to bee made to him as if the King were to hold the kingdome of him as of his Soveraigne Lord This King would by
once thus satisfied and resolved of the truth and true religion might afterward the better and the more freely apply themselves to the good and due practise of it in their affections words workes lives and conversations refusing all other religions of humane invention whatsoever and the wayes thereof But now though the truth be never so manifest and apparant yet some there be of that froward and perverse disposition that they will not yeelde unto it but as Iannes and Iambres withstood Moses 2. Tim. 3.8 so doe these also resist the truth being men of corrupt mindes and reprobate concerning the faith as S. Paul speaketh of which sort of men if I could helpe it I would not have you to be though you be mine Adversarie yea though you were mine utter enemie And therefore as to the answere which you made to the two Chapters contayned in the first part of my first Booke I replyed so to your Rejoynder I have here also thought it good to make a Surreplication wherein I must not omit to tell you that as touching the second Chapter of my Reply you have in your Rejoynder made no answere at all unto it but it remaineth wholly and entirely unanswered and consequently in his full force strength against you And as touching the first Chapter of my Reply concerning the Supremacie upon which point it seemeth that all your thoughts were wholly fixed imployed although you make some kinde of answere in your Rejoynder unto it and such as perchance you and your partakers may thinke to be somewhat strong yet it is indeede of that great debilitie as that upon the matter it is as good as no answere as will appeare by the sequele and yet have you moreover left a great part even of that first Chapter also unanswered Beside that you have againe in your Reioynder sundry things which were before answered in my Reply and much other idle futile and frivolous stuffe which I suppose you would never have inserted into your booke but fro want of better matter in your cause For first what an idle exception is this that you take to my Reply in that I dedicated it to the Right Honourable the Lord Deputie Why might I not doe so Was it not lawfull Or was there any inconvenience or indecorum in it You say that his Lordship hath taken the Oath of Supremacie which maketh him a direct Partie being a Partie he may not also be a Iudge in the same cause What have you so soone forgotten what your selfe did For when you made your answere to the two Chapters of my first Booke you may remember that you dedicated it To your dearest countreymen the Lawyers of Ireland You then thought it lawfull and seemely enough for you so to dedicate it notwithstanding that by their refusall and utter dislike to take the Oath of Supremacie they manifestly shewed themselves to be Parties And was this lawfull for you to doe and was not the other as lawfull at least or rather much more lawfull and seemely all things considered for mee to doe Howbeit you know also that Bookes be not alwayes dedicated to men to make them Iudges but sometimes and usually to the end they should be the Patrons thereof albeit therein also they be not disallowed but well allowed to passe their judgement and censure upon the same But indeede no reason had you to dislike of the dedication of that my Booke unto his Lordship in whom your selfe doe acknowledge that there is sufficiencie to understand wisedome to discerne and power to commaund A like second exception you take for that I call the Papists of this kingdome Pretended Catholickes which title say you they doe not acknowledge But whether they acknowledge it or no it must bee graunted that whilest they call themselves Catholickes when re vera they bee not so as I have shewed and prooved in my first Booke they can bee no other but Pretended Catholickes As likewise hee that calleth himselfe an honest man when revera he is not so is at the most but a pretended honest man Yet another exception you take in this that you say I call you Canis festinans and Luscus inter caecos But you mistake in both For in that my epistle dedicatorie of my Reply I did not say that you were Caniâ— festinans but that whilest in your Answere you strived to make more hast then good speede you shewed your selfe to be like Canis festinans caecos edens catibos which is a proverbiall speech tolerable enough in the judgment of such as be not over captious and often and ordinarily vsed in that sort and sence to that purpose that I used it Neither did I say definitely expressely of you that you were Luscus inter caecos but my words be these Regnat inter caecos Luscus which may be aswell spoken of any other as of you vnlesse you will needs be the man and so take and apply it as you doe to your selfe particularly 2. After these exceptions you come next to the the three requests I made to him that would take upâ—n him to answer my first booke in the first whereof I desired that he would answere it not by parts or peasemeals but wholly and entirely from the beginning of it unto the end The second was that he would doe it not superficialie and sophistically but substantially soundly satisfactorily if he could Thirdly I desired him to doe it as in love and charity so also with an affection only to follow Gods truth and with all to set his name unto it as I had done to that booke of mine But hereunto you take divers exceptions though now somewhat lately in your Reioynder First you say that these being conditions they should have beene agreed upon by the mutuall consent of parties and that if any advantage be given it should be in favour of the defendant as in matter of challenge for the defendant appoints the weapon time and place But in this challenge of mine contrary unto law and custome I have say you assumed unto my selfe being the challenger the proposing of such conditions as doe disadvantage the defendant It is true that in contracts and bargaines betweene man and man the conditions must be agreed upon by mutuall consent of parties before it be or can be a perfect contract or a perfect bargaine howbeit conditions for all that not onely may be but also must be first propounded before they can bee assented unto or agreed upon Againe there is aswell a subsequent agreement as a precedent As if a man propound or offer unto you a Lease for yeares of lands upon certaine conditions you may choose whether you will accept of it or no upon those conditions but if though not at the first yet afterward you having the election doe declare your consent and acceptance of it by entring upon the lands manuring them taking the profits is it not reason you should performe the conditions thereunto annexed
You know how to make the application And yet neyther was I when I made that my Booke contracting or bargaining with you or with any other man in particular For I then neyther did nor could possibly know before hand who was to be the Answerer of it with whom I might so contract nor did I take upon me the person of a Challenger as you affirme For I knew of no duell that was in the case And as for my defending of Protestancie against Poperie it no more proveth me to be a challenger then your defending of Poperie against Protestancie proveth you to be the challenger Yea in the conclusion of that my first booke Pag. 417. it appeareth that I was so farre from taking upon me the person or using the words of a challenger that cleane contrariwise I used onely the peaceable and friendly words of Desiring and Requesting For there I desire of him whosoever hee were that would take upon him to answere that booke of mine that hee would in that his answere be pleased to observe and performe those three requests or three conditions before mentioned which I there propounded All which were reasonable conditions and such as if you well consider them were not as you say disadvantageable but much advantageable rather to the cause of the answerer if hee had performed them But here by the way you tell me of a verie compendious course how that my whole first booke is answered and confuted For you say that he which fayleth in one point of faith fayleth in all and that a refutation or disproofe of any one particular in my booke is a refutation and disproofe of all And for proofe hereof you cite S. Iames cap. 2. Iam. 2.10 This you also cited and alledged in your first booke This is a verie speedy course and briefe manner of answering and confuting whole bookes and volumes if it might be allowed Howbeit touching that text of S. Iames which you somuch abuse and touching that your Paradoxe and strange opinion you have been before sufficiently answered in my Reply Chap. 2. pag. 110. 111. 112. Whereunto you in your Reioynder have said nothing But admit your Maior proposition were true which is indeede utterly untrue yet how doe you prove your Minor that is to say how doe you prove any one point or position of mine contayned in that booke to be false Shew or name that one which you have disproved or confuted if you can but you are not able to doe it From henceforth therefore bee not so prodigall of your words But yet further to derogate from the credite of that my first booke you say that it is onely a collection out of Protestant authors and that you can discover the Bookes Chapters and Pages of Master Fulke Master Whitakers Master Downam of others whence I have borrowed verbatim whatsoever is expressed in it This is too overlavish a speech and more then you will bee ever able to prove Indeede as touching the substance of the matter and doctrine contayned in that my first booke and in my second and in this also I thinke it no shame but contrarywise I thinke it honour and reputation freely to confesse that I have learned it of those and of such other learned and reverend Protestant Divines Yea I hold it a part of dutie in me not onely ingenuously but thankefully also to acknowledge those my teachers especially considering that what they have taught mee herein appeareth to bee certainely and irrefutably true This therefore doth rather adde credite to the matter and doctrine contayned in those my bookes then derogate or take any from them But was there ever any reader of other mens workes that was not allowed to take collections out of theÌ„ to make use of theÌ„ as occasion requireth yea if that were an exception sufficient I might also say that as touching the matter all that you have spoken eyther in yovr first answer or in your Reioyâ—der is likewise but a collection out of Popish authors and that the Bookes Chapters Pages of Bellarmine Stapleton Suarez and of others might be shewed whence you have borrowed and taken them all But to what end were this For the question is not what I have learned or collected out of the one or you out of the other but whether of those doctrines and religions which wee have severally learned of those our severall teachers bee the truer and which of them is approved of God and by his word namely whether Protestancie or Poperie Heere then as touching the substance of the matter delivered in all my bookes you might have spared your labour for you have therein tould no newes nor any more then my selfe had before affirmed confessed and acknowledged But you proceede and say that although you for your part have answeted but onely to two Chapters of that my first booke the force of which your answer I have also overthrowne in my Reply that the whole booke is neverthelesse answered and compleatly finished and extant any time these two yeares and a halfe past and yet not divulged for want of meanes and opportunitie for the impression And for that cause doe you desire of mee that I would bee a meane to procure it to bee Printed by the Protestant Presse here in Dublin A verie bold unbeseeming and strange request to be demaunded especially at my hands But if it be as you say it is fully answered and compleatly finished so long since why is not printed all this while For whereas you pretend want of meanes and opportunitie for the impression It is well knowne that the Papists as sundrie other their workes printed sufficiently declare doe if they list want neyther meanes nor opportunitie for the impression And I have tould you heretofore that if your workes and bookes bee so excellent and so worthy the printing as you make shew for you might got them to bee Printed eyther at Doway or at Rhemes or at some other place beyond the Seas And therefore it was altogether idle for you to give me this election eyther to receive it in a Manuscript or to procure the printing of it for it is needlesse to receive it in a Manuscript when it may be Printed And for the printing of it not I but your selfe must procure it if you will have it done So that as touching that choyce or offer you make mee I hold my selfe free and not necessarily tyed or bound to doe eyther the one or the other Yea the very name of a Protestant Presse if there were no more might have beene sufficient to tell you that it were utterly unmeete for Popish workes to come into it especially those that bee purposely and directly made and contrived against such cleere high and important points as bee also by law established Now then to come to my second request I trust you likewise finde nothing in it unreasonable for I therein desired no more of the answerer but to answer not superficially or
sophistically but substantially soundly and satisfactorily if he could so that if he could not make such an answer hee might have said so and so have beene excused But you are loth to disable your selfe and therefore as touching the answer you made to the two Chapters of that my first booke you say that I am not to judge whether it be substantiall sound and satisfactory but that the equall and indifferent Reader is to judge of it which I am well contented hee should doe by conferring my Reply with that your ananswer And therefore I proceede to my third request which consisteth of two partes for I make not foure requests or foure conditions as you surmise The first part of that my third request was this that I would have him whosoever was to be the answerer to answer in love and charitie and with an affection onely to follow Gods truth Thus far I am sure you cannot denie it to bee a reasonable request And as touching the other part of it whereby I desired him that would answer to put his name to his answer as I had done to that booke of mine although this be it you chiefly except against yet even this part of it also was not unreasonable and therefore did I justly reprove you for that in stead of your right name you gave your selfe the wrong false counterfeite name of Iohn at Stile But yet in your Reioyâ—der you herein seeke to excuse defend your selfe by the example of Abram who comming into Pharaohâ— Court in Egipt Gen. 12.11.12.13 c. called Sarai his wife by the name of his Sister and you adde further and say that Matthew Sutcliffe a Protestant writer did put for his name unto his worke O.E. First concerning Abram though hee were an holy man yet hee had his faults and imperfections amongst which this is reckoned for one which you here alleage And can then that which was a fault in him make yours to bee no fault But yet in all that hee neyther changed his name nor his wifes name into a false and counterfeite name as you did For hee still called himselfe Abram and his wife Sarai without any alteration or change of those their proper names And as touching Doctor Sutcliffe the reason why hee put for his name those two letters O. E. was because the man whom hee answered had likewise for his name subscribed certaine letters but the case betweene you and mee is not like For I subscribed my name truely and as it was and therefore so should you also have done Howbeit at the first you excused your selfe herein by reason of the Statute of 2. Eliz. which doth say you in your first answer binde mens tongues and pennes within this kingdome with the cord of a Premunire from oppugning the Supremacie eyther by word or writing Vpon which answer of yours it is true I did and who could otherwise suppose but that you then thought whatsoever you say now that the penaltie for that your first offence against that Statute in oppugning the Kings Supremacie was a Premunire For to what end else doe you so specially mention that to bee the penaltie if you had not thought so I did not therefore wrong you as you now alleage in your Reioynder when I taxed you being a Lawyer See the Statute it selfe of 2. Eliz. cap. 1 made in Ireland with ignorance in your owne profession concerning that Statute For that Statute doth not as you then supposed for any mans first offence inflict the penaltie of a Premunire but as I then likewise tould you the losse of goods and chattels after once conviction and attainder it is indeede for the second offence a Premunire after twice conviction attainder it is for the third offence high treason Did you then account it a wrong done unto you that I supposed this to be your first offence against that statute Or would you have had me to think which was more then I knew at that time more then yet I know that you had bin once before convicted attainted of that offence that this was your second offence in that kinde For unlesse this were thus your second offence you needed not to have feared or mentioned a Premunire to have beene your penaltie in the case you might aswell as wisely have named mentioned the penaltie to have beene high treason in asmuch as for the third offence that Statute also maketh it to be high treason aswell as it maketh it for the second offence to bee a Premunire But I conceived as I thinke any man else not knowing any thing to the contrarie would have conceived that it was not any your second offence nor third offence that you then and there meant or had any reason or purpose to speake of but your first offence the penaltie of which first offence is by that Statute neyther Premunire nor high treason as I said before and consequently if you would deale ingenuously you must confesse that you then mistooke and were deceived in opinion whilest you thought the penaltie for that your first offence to bee a Premunire by that Statute But then you say that you will not bee so sawcie as to taxe mee with ignorance in my profession concerning the same Statute and yet you see not say you how the subscribing of your name unto the answer could have beene any legall plea to have saved you from penaltie if you had beene indicted upon that Statute Neyther doe I see how it could although you would faine wrest my words from their true sence unto that construction For whereas you have said that my requiring of the Answerer to put his name unto the Answer was in effect asmuch as to debarre any man from answering unto it I thereunto replyed that hee that in answering is required to put his name to his answere is so farre from being debarred from answering that cleane contrarywise hee is thereby that is by such requiring of him to answer in that sort permitted to answer if hee please so as hee put his name thereunto I did not say as you seeme purposely to misconstrue and mistake that by answering in that sort viz. with his name subscribed to his answer he was to be freed from all manner of penaltie contayned in that Statute of 2. Eliz. I was never so absurd or sencelesse to say or thinke it Yea you might have observed that I there shewed and expressely affirmed the cleane contrarie namely that the penaltie even for the first offence against that Statute whether with his name subscribed or not subscribed or howsoever was losse of goods and chattels And therefore whether this were ignorance of that point of the Statute in me or grosse perverse and malicious cavilling and quarrelling in you let the equall Reader judge But yet in your Reioynder you further say that you cannot imagine why I should so much covet the answerers right name unlesse it be by advantage of the
Statute in persecuting him to confine him into the Castle there to argue with him as the Gaoler doth with his prisoner I know no reason you have thus to charge me with so much coveting of the Authors or Answerers name For though it bee lawfull for mee so to doe yet have I not beene much inquisitive after it much lesse reason have you to charge mee in your imaginations with persecuting him or seeking to confine him as a prisoner within the Castle which I never did though I confesse hee deserveth it and a farre greater punishment then that because contrary to the lawes and statutes of the Kingdome which himselfe professeth being as he saith hee is a Lawyer and contrary to that dutie which as a Subject he oweth to our most noble most gracious religious and most worthy Soveraigne Lord King CHARLES and contrarie to that fealtie also or fidelitie which professing himselfe to bee a Christian hee likewise oweth unto CHRIST IESVS the onely spirituall King Monarch head of the whole Church Militant aswell as of the triumphant hee doth and dareth thus audaciously to offend Neyther is prosecuting or punishing of such bold and notorious offenders to bee called as you after the Romanisticall manner untruly call it Persecuting For though Prosecution doth well befit delinquents and offenders yet Persecution is a word properly and usually applyed to the Martyrs of Christ and is not attributed to any professors of Antichrist or Antichristian doctrine unlesse it bee Catacrestically abusively Howbeit I deale not with you by authoritie or as a Iudge or Iusticer but doe onely debate dispute and reason the matter with you seeking and endeavouring first by this meanes if I can to reduce and reclayme you and the like unto you from those your grand errours unto a most certaine and evident truth But if yet still you urge the Statute of 2. Eliz. made in this kingdome which maketh the penaltie even for the first offence to be although not a Premunire yet losse of goods and chattels and that therefore in respect of this losse and damage it was not a thing reasonable for me to demaund an answer with the Answerers name thereunto subscribed Thereunto I then further say First that I know no reason why you or any man else should make any answer or any Bookes or writings at all against the Kings Supremacie which you ought in all good dutie to uphold and defend Secondly I demaunded not any answer at all to be made eyther by you or any other but if any did or would answer then I desired that hee would answer in that sort viz. with his name subscribed so that hee might have chosen whether hee would have answered yea or no and by not answering hee might have kept and freed himselfe from penaltie of the Statute but if hee would needes answer then hee was to doe it at his owne perill if any perill did ensue And yet I might also further tell you that such a one possibly might have beene the Answerer as needed not to feare that perill or penaltie For be there not divers Schollers in Colledges and Vniversities and elsewhere that live onely upon other mens exhibition and beneficence and have no manner of goods or chattels lands or tenements of their owne Might not such an one have answered and put his name to his Answer without any feare of that penaltie Againe might not some forrein-borne Papist living out of the Kings Dominions and that were no Subject to the King having well and perfectly learned the English tongue have beene the Answerer and put his name likewise to his Answer without any feare of that danger Or which was most likely might not some English mâ—n or some Irish man living abiding perpetually at Rhemes Rome Doway or some other place beyond the Seas have beene the Answerer And would you then have thought it a thing unreasonable for such a one to have beene demaunded to put and subscribe his name to his Answer For these men living continually beyond Sea out of the Kings Dominions feare not as wee see by experience nor thinke so long as they be so farre distant that they neede to feare the penaltie or danger of any Law or Statute amongst us to bee executed upon them Yea what if it were your selfe that were the Answerer of it as you tooke upon you to be the Answerer of two Chapters in it had it beene unreasonable to have demaunded of you to put your name to the Answer in respect of any feare of penaltie or danger upon that Statute or of any other Statute whatsoever For what penaltie or danger upon any Statute should you feare who in your first Answer in the Epistle to your Countrey-men write so confidently in this your supposed Catholicke cause as if you feared no manner of danger at all but would willingly undergoe all disasters in the world for attestation and defence of it But I am now glad to see that you have some feare in you For indeede feare in everie man and not forwardnesse or boldnesse in any best becommeth yours so bad a cause But yet further what reason have you now in your Reioynder to except against any of these three conditions or three requests or against any part of any of them as unreasonable which in your first Answer you tooke no exception against Yea which you then seemed well to approve and allow well of saying concerning the same my whole first Booke that It should shortly be answered in my owne straine of Divinitie with the three conditions required by me Yea lastly if you would needs be as you were the Answerer to a part of that my first Booke namely to two Chapters therein and thought it not fit to put your right and true name unto it yet should you not in stead thereof have given your selfe a wrong false and counterfeyte name which is the thing I reproved in you For as I said formerly in my Reply so I say againe that it had beene much better for you to have put no name at all to that your Answer then a false wrong and counterfeyte name as you did 3. From thence you goe on and renevv a former taxation of yours namely for that being a Lawyer by profession I neverthelesse meddle with these matters of Divinitie concerning religion But concerning this I told you before that I had made a sufficient Apologie for these my doings in that my first Booke whereto as yet I see no Answer made and I added further in my second Booke namely my Reply that even you your selfe did justifie mee therein in asmuch as you being likewise a Lawyer as you then affirmed and yet still affirme your selfe to bee did neverthelesse meddle with these matters of Divinitie and concerning religion aswell as I. Neyther is it any excuse or defence for you to say as you doe that I began to commit this fault and that you doe but follow me therein For if you saw
office and function of the Ecclesiasticall Ministers As for that your other reason whereby you would disswade me because these are points of great difficultie surpasse a Lawyers abilitie as you speake although I arrogate nothing to my selfe yet why should you say that it surpasseth a Lawyers abilitie to deale in these things when as you your selfe being a Lawyer doe neverthelesse intermedle in them Or why should it surpasse or exceede a Lawyers talent or a Lawyers abilitie in mee more then in you Indeede if a man be nothing else but a meere Lawyer in respect of that his meere worldly calling he is not fitte to deale in matters concerning God and his religion But if hee bee a Christian Lawyer exercised in the Booke of God and well grounded in the points of his faith and religion as all Lawyers and other lay-men ought to be then in respect of that his divine and Christian calling hee may meddle with points of Divinitie and Christianitie Eatenus Quatenus so farre forth as is before shewed and as is in my first Booke more at large declared And yet there is also a more speciall reason why I should bee permitted to intermeddle herein because being not onely a Lawyer but a Iudge also in the Common-weale it well becommeth mee and is my dutie as I conceive it for that reason so much as in me lyeth to seeke to have the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme especially in these most high and most important points aswell as in other that bee inferiour points unto them to be observed of all his Majesties Subjectes within this kingdome Neyther are there any such great doubts or difficulties in these points as you would perswade yea they bee verie cleare plaine open and evident points and such as any man though but of meane understanding may easily and readily conceive and apprehend For first the verie name of a Subject if there were no more may serve to teach any man that the King whose Subject hee is hath of due right a Regall and Temporall Supremacie not onely over him but over all the rest of his Subjects within his owne Dominions and secondly the verie name of a Christian may serve to teach a man to beleeve and to professe no other religion but that which Christ himselfe taught eyther by himselfe or by his Apostles as also to acknowledge no other to bee the spirituall King head and Monarch of the whole Christian Church but the same CHRIST IESVS onely 4. Now then you are come at last to the matter it selfe Where first of all you affirme and confesse two Supremacies the one spirituall the other temporall The spirituall Supremacie or spirituall Monarchie which indeede rightly Iob. 18.36.57 1 Cor. 15.25 Ephes 1.20.21.22.23 and properly belongeth unto CHRIST IESVS you attribute unto the Pope of Rome But by what right Namely as being his Deputie Vicar or Attorney as you call him But can you shew any letter of Attorney or any Letters Patents Commission or Warrant from him or from his word to prove the same You have sought long but could never yet finde or shew any such warrant although you have pretended divers which prove no such matter If then it bee high treason in a subject to take upon him to bee a Vice-roy or Lord-Deputie in a terrestriall kingdome without a warrant or Commission from his King Is it not likewise as grand as high a treason in the Bishop of Rome to take upon him to bee Vice-roy or Deputie unto Christ in his spirituall kingdome without any warrant or commission from him But as in the point of the spirituall supremacie hee thus intolerably wrongeth Christ Iesus himselfe his Crowne and dignitie so doth hee also intolerable wrong to Emperours Kings and Princes and to their Crownes and dignities in respect of their Civill and Temporall supremacie authoritie rightly aunciently belonging to them over Persons Ecclesiasticall and in causes also Ecclesiasticall within their severall Dominions And this to men that bee not extreamely wilfull perverse and froward I have very sufficiently and abundantly proved in my first and second Bookes whereunto you neyther in your first Answer nor yet in your second which is your Rejoynder have alledged any thing that is of force or weight sufficient to refell or confute any one Argument I brought in that behalfe And herein I refuse not the judgement of any equall and judicious person whosoever Howbeit in that your Reioynder to prove the Popes supremacie you cite one Text of Scripture namely Deut. 17. The wordes whereof because you doe not fully set them downe I will here recite that the Reader may the better perceive how well or ill they fitte your purpose Deut. 17.8.9 10 11.12.13 the wordes be these If there arise a matter to hard for thee in judgement betweene bloud and bloud betweene plea and plea and betweene stroke and stroke being matter of controversie within thy Gates then shalt thou arise and get unto the place which the Lord thy God shall choose And thou shalt come unto the Priests Levites and unto the Iudge that shall be in those dayes and enquire and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgement and thou shalt doe according to the sentence which they of that place which the Lord shall choose shall shew thee according to the sentence of the Law which they shall teach thee thou shalt doe Thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee to the right hand nor to the left And the man that will doe presumptuously and will not bearken unto the Priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God or unto the Iudge even that man shall die and thou shalt put away the evill from Israel and the people shall heare and feare and doe no more presumptuously Here for the honour of the Priest you say that hee is in this case to bee obeyed upon penaltie of death and why doe you not say asmuch for the honour of the Iudge that is of the civill Magistrate For the wordes of the Text doe shew that disobedience aswell to the one as to the other was punishable with death But you will say peradventure as the Iesuites did that the Latin translation called S. Ieromes was in times past Ex decreto Iudicis morietur home ille By the decree of the Iudge shall that man die that obeyeth not the Priest In his Booke against the Iesuites part 3. pag. 33. 34 35. To whom that reverend and learned Bishop Doctor Bilson answereth that it was a corrupt translation and that the verie same translation not long sithence was not Ex decreto Iudicis but decreto Iudicis hee that obeyeth not the commaundement of the Priest and the decree of the Iudge that man shall die This was saith he the text of the Bible which you call S. Ieromes Nich. de Lyâ—… in Deut. 17. not much more then two hundred yeares since when
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
Iudge in Spaine or Hungarie or other kingdomes to prove the supremacie to bee likewise in their kings And why not For it is a thing of right belonging to all Kings to have the supremacie within their severall Dominions and to use and extend that their power and authoritie for God and for the advancement of his true service and right religion aswell as for the advancement of Civill Iustice and externall peace amongst their subjects And what hurt were it to any if all the Kings in Christendome yea if all the kings in the world did this or rather how great ample unspeakeable a benefite would thereby accrew and come not onely to all Christendome but to the whole world If all the Kings in Christendome or in the whole world did extend their authoritie 2 Thess 2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12 Rev. 17 1.2.3.4 c. Revel 18.4 for the maintenance and advancement of Popery which is indeede the adulterate corrupt and false Religion it being as the holy Scripture it selfe hath notified and declared it to be the Religion of the grand Antichrist and of the whore of Babylon which all Gods people be commaunded to forsake even Papists themselves out of the error of their judgement would thinke it to bee well done How much more in true judgement ought you and they to thinke it to be well done if they did all imploy their Civill sword power and authoritie for the advancement of that which is indeed the most auncient true Christian Catholicke and Apostolicke Religion But you have yet still a conceite that it is requisite necessarie to have a Pope of Rome as a supreme Pastor or a supreme Iudge to decide and determine all heresies errors doubts questions and controversies concerning faith and religion that arise in the Church and so to preserve peace and unitie in it by his infallible and unerrable judgement Howbeit first why should the Bishop of Rome be this supreme Pastor or supreme Iudge more then the Bishop of Antioch Constantinople Alexandria Ierusalem or any other Bishop For where hath God constituted the one to bee so more then the other Secondly how doe you prove the Bishop of Rome to have an infallible an unerrable judgement more then other Bishops have Yea even in the Preface of my first Booke pag. 14.15 16. and againe in the second part of that same my first Booke Chap. 1. pag. 54.55 I have proved that the Bishop of Rome may erre even in matters of faith aswell as any other Bishop and the same doth also before appeare in this Booke likewise Thirdly if the supremacie and Monarchie of the Bishop of Rome have this vertue in it to keepe and maintayne peace and unitie in the Church and to decide and determine certainely truely and infallibly all doubts questions and controversies in Religion Why doth hee not decide and determine all those questions controversies that so it might experimentally appeare to have that vertue in it or what neede is there then of Generall Councels yea of any Councels at all For the use and end of Synods and Councels is to decide and determine questions and controversies that doe arise and spread themselves to the disquiet and trouble of the Church all which bee superfluous if the certaine truth in everie question may be had immediately from his mouth But indeede this institution of Synods or Councels is a divine institution and therefore must stand although that humane invention of the Popes supremacie needelesly erected for the same use and end doe utterly fall and be disanulled And what necessitie is there of him For even Generall Conncels were summoned and convocated in times past by the Emperours and may be still at this day convocated by the unanimous consent and authoritie of the severall Kings and Princes of the severall Nations Neyther is the judgement of one man as namely of the Bishop of Rome or of any other so strong or powerfull to pull out errors that be rooted in mens mindes Conc. Affric cap. 138. epist â—ad CelestinuÌ„ as is the judgement and consent of many in a Synod or Councell Vnlesse there be any that thinketh God inspireth one particular person with righteousnesse forsaketh a number of priests assembled together in a Councell which the Councell of Affrica held to be verie absurd and repugnant to Christ his promise so long as they meete together in his name and for advancement of his truth And here you may observe a difference betweene the wisedome of God and the wisedome of Men For in the Apostles times there arose at Antioch a great question which was whether Circumcision were necessarie to salvation Act. 15 1.2 3.4 5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12 13. c. what doe they in this case Doe they choose and appoint some one man as chiefe to whom they will referre the deciding and determining of this question No such matter And yet if they would have had the controversie decided and determined by One who was fitter to have beene that one then S. Paul whom they had amongst them But they take no such course but send Paul and Barnabas and certaine others to Ierusalem What to doe Was it to desire the judgement only of some one man there as namely of S. Peter or of any one other No. But to have the matter decided by a Synod or Councell of the Apostles Elders and others therein to be assembled for that purpose and in which Synod or Councell it was determined accordingly If then in those times of the Apostles when there was so great abundance of the gifts of God and when as controversies might without danger of error have beene referred unto one onely The rule of One above all the rest was not held meete and convenient Now when the gifts are lesse and the danger of error more Can is be thought a wisedome consonant to the wisedome of the holy Ghost to erect and constitute as the seduced world hath done One man namely the Bishop or Pope of Rome to be the Iudge and that a verie sure and infallible one as they account him for the deciding and determining of all doubts questions and controversies that arise throughout the whole world concerning Faith and Religion and upon whom as being in their opinions the Monarch and head of the whole and universall Church upon Earth they doe though overboldly and dangerously relye and depend It is true that the regiment or governement of the Church is Monarchiall but that is not in respect of the Pope but in respect of CHRIST IESVS who is indeede the right true and sole Monarch and head of his whole Church But in respect of the Bishops and Pastors that be rulers or governours under Christ it is as the Protestants have rightly taught and defended against the Papists not Monarchiall but Aristocraticall Yea Christ Iesus himselfe told his Apostles and in them all Bishops their successors when they contended for a Majoritie or Monarchy among themselves that Reges gentium