ground also I thus frame my argument That Church which holdeth a Religion Faith and doctrine differing or contrarie to that which was taught by the Apostles in their times is not Apostolicall But the Popish Church holdeth a Religion Faith and doctrine differing or contrarie to that which was taught by the Apostles in their times as is apparant if you compare them together examining the severall and particular Positions in these points of Controversie by the writings of the Apostles the rest of the Canonicall Scriptures as is also shewed at large in my former book whether I likewise referre you for the proofe of this Minor Proposition And therefore the Popish Church is not Apostolicall But mine Adversarie taketh here exception to our Church affirming it in three points to be hereticall First in the point of Iustification For he saith it was the heresie of the Symonians and Eunomians to hold Iustification in Gods sight by grace and by faith onely as the Protestants doe And that S. Augustine also affirmeth it to be an error that sprung up even in the Apostles dayes But touching the Symonians they held Irâ—n libr. 1. c. 20 as Irenaeus declareth That they were to be saved by the grace of Simon Magus their sect Master whom they make their God and Saviour The Protestants hold no such abominable thing but contrarywise hold that they are to be saved by the grace of CHRIST What Is it all one with Papists to be saved by Simons grace and by the grace of CHRIST As for the Eunomians such was their doctrine of Faith as that they rejected or made no reckoning of good workes at all Aug. hares 54. Yea they held as S. Augustine sheweth Quod nihil homini obesset quorumlibet perpetratio peccatorum That the committing of any sinnes whatsoever did not hurt a man The Protestants teach no such wicked and damnable doctrine but cleane contrarywise doe teach that the Faith that justifieth and saveth a man is not a dead but a lively Faith that is such as is accompanied with good works and with a godly conversation although Ierem. 23.6 Ierem. 33.16 2. Cor. 5.21 Rom. 10 4. Rom. 9.30.31 32 Rom. 3.14 Ioh 3.14 15 16. Iohn 1.12 in the act of our justification in Gods sight and censure it is Faith alone and not the workes that is the hand or instrument whereby wee apprehend or receave CHRIST IESVS who is indeede our righteousnesse As the eye in respect of the rest of the members wherewith it is accompanied is not alone yet in respect of the power and facultie of seeing it is sole and alone And as in fire likewise there is both heare and light and the heate is not alone but accompanied with the light and yet it is the heate onely and not the light that warmeth the bodie So in a man justified there is Faith and good workes accompanying it and in respect of the good workes wherewith it is accompanied it is not sole and alone but yet in the Act and point of Iustification in Gods sight as it apprehendeth Christ our righteousnesse it is sole and alone good works having no part with it in that action As for that which is alledged out of S. Augustine I answered it in my former Booke and now I answere it once againe Aug. de fide oper cap. 14. or rather S. Augustine himselfe answereth it whilst he sheweth That the error which sprung up in the Apostles dayes was of such as held Faith onely to be sufficient to salvation although they did no good works at all but lived wickedly dissolutely lewdly which is indeede an error and a grosse error Galat. 5.6 Iam. 2 14. 1. Petâ— 29.11 12 2 Pet 1 10. 1. Iohn 3.10 and which the Protestants with S. Augustine with S. Paul with S. Iames with S. Peter with S. Iohn with all the rest of the sacred Scriptures doe likewise utterly condemne The second point wherein he supposeth heresie in our Church is concerning their Popish Purgatorie It is true that we denie it Neyther are the Papists able to prove the deniall of it to be eyther heresie or error My Adversarie saith That Luther Calvine others did likewise denie it what of that was it therefore heresie Or in what Church was it censured and condemned to be heresie If by any he must say it was by his owne the Popish Church which condemneth indeede not only that but all other doctrines and Positions of the Protestants wherein they differ from them be they never so true But it is proved in my former Booke Colâ—s 2.19 That Papal Rome is the whore of Babylon and that the Popish Church hath not Christ but Antichrist to be the head and to rule and raigne over it Neyther is it mine opinion alone that the Pope of Rome the head and ruler thereof is the grand Antichrist and consequently his Church the false Antichristian Church but it is the opinion and position of all sound Protestants likewise as their many and sundrie learned Works written in defence of that Protestant Position against the Papists doe plentifully and at large declare Now then is it any mervaile or any matter that the false adulterate and Antichristian Church condemneth the right beleeving Orthodoxe and true Christian Church and her Positions Yea in this point against their Purgatorie did the Apostolicke Primitive and most ancient Church beleeve as wee doe For S. Paul saith 2. Cor. 5.6 8. Thil. 1.23 of all Gods people That whilst they are in the bodie they are absent from the Lord and that when they goe out of the bodie they are present with the Lord. And so holdeth S. Cyprian Cyprian de mortalitat sect 2 â—dâ—t 159â— That the servants of God then have peace and then enjoy free and quiet rest And that being drawen out from the stormes of this world they arrive at the haven of their everlasting habitation and securitie Againe he saith Ad refrigerium justi vocantur ad supplicium rapiuntur injusti The righteous are called to a refreshing Ibidem sect 11. the unrighteous are haled to torment Ibidem sect 14. In somuch that hee saith further concerning godly persons when they die that Nec accipiendas esse hic atras vestes quando 〈◊〉 ibi indumenta alba iam sumpseriut For them blacke mourning garments are not to be worne here because they have there alreadie put on white rayment Iustin respons ad Orthodox quaest 75. Iustine Martyr likewise saith That after the departure of the soule out of the bodie there is presently made a difference betwixt the just and the unjust For the soules of the just goe to Paradise where they have the comerce and sight of Angels and Archangels c The soules of the unjust to the places in Hell Hilar. in Psal 2. S. Hillarie also observeth out of that which is mentioned in the Gospell concerning the Rich-man Lazarus that as
whether our Church were in the Apostles dayes for that coÌ„priseth not the whole Proposition but is onely a part or piece of it Neyther can that be any more the Question then whether it were in the succeeding and aftertimes and ages But the Question will bee as I have signified before viz. Whether the growth and comming in of Poperie as an infection or corruption to the Church did hinder or was any such obstacle or impediment as that by reason thereof our Church had no being at all in the Apostles dayes nor in the dayes and times succeeding It is true that if I had said that our Church was in the Apostles times and had gone no further it had beene an absolute and direct affirmation of our Church to have beene in those dayes But when I goe further and say that our Church was in the Apostles dayes notwithstanding that the seeds of Popery began then to be sowen in this speech I doe not absolutely and simply affirme that our Church was then but that it was then notwithstanding that the seeds of Poperie began then to be sowen that is the beginning and growth of Poperie was no obstacle impediment or argument against the being of our Church in those dayes As likewise if I say that the conveyance made to Iohn at Stile is good notwithstanding that there was no liverie of seisin made upon it this is no direct affirmation that his conveyance is simply good to all intents and purposes but that it is good notwithstanding this exception that there was no liverie and seisin made that is the not making of liverie of seisin is no obstacle or impediment to hinder the goodnesse of it In like sort if I say that K. Salomon was a saved soule notwithstanding that by the enticement of his wives he became an Idolater this is no absolute or direct affirmatioÌ„ that he was a saved soule But that he was a saved soule notwithstanding that reason or allegation that is to say his committing of Idolatrie upon the enticement of his wives is no such obstacle or proofe to the contrarie but that he might be a saved soule that reason or objection notwithstanding As againe if I say that my Adversarie is a good Grecian or a good Hebritian notwithstanding that he hath not shewed it in his Answere this is no direct affirmation that hee is eyther a good Grecian or a good Hebritian but the sence and meaning of that speech is that his not shewing of skill in Greeke or Hebrew in his Answere is no obstacle or argument to the contrarie but that he may be a good Grecian or a good Hebritian that nothwithstanding Wherefore if mine Adversarie would have opposed himselfe against that proposition or assertion of mine before mentioned he should have shewed proved if he had beene able that the comming in and growth of Poperie was such an impediment or obstacle as that by reason thereof our Church could haue no being in the Apostles dayes or in the times or ages that succeeded which because he hath not done he hath spent his breath and talked idly and in vaine and to no purpose And yet hee seemeth to glorie and insult over me that my conclusion assertion being as he saith that our Church was in the Apostles times I brought not so much as one argument there to prove it how much more cause now have I if I were so disposed to glorie and insult over him who by his cutting curtalling and mangling my assertion and not taking it wholy and intirely as of right he should hath utterly mistaken the Question not answered one word to that which was the Question indeede For the question to be deduced out of this entier Proposition not being as he hath strangely mistaken whether our Church was in the Apostles times nor yet whether it were in the succeeding and aftertimes But whether Poperie were such an obstacle or impediment as that it did cause that our Church could not by reason thereof have any being at all eyther in the Apostles times or in the times and ages that succeeded To this it is that I answered and adressed my speech in that second Chapter and to this Question also it is that mine Adversarie should have answered and adressed his speech if he would have spoken materially and to the purpose And yet even this verie assertion that our Church that is men beleeving and professing the same Faith and Religion that we doe was in the Apostles times and by them taught and approved is a thing evidently declared not in one Chapter alone of my former Booke for one Chapter alone would not suffice for so many points and positions as did to such a matter belong but in all the severall Chapâ—ers and whole Contents of my Booke put together And the truth of it may summarily briefely thus appeare namely by that excellent rule and fundamentall ground Tertul. prescript â—avers haeret which Tertullian giveth For hee saith that even those Churches quae licet nullum ex Apostolis vel Apostolicis authoreÌ„ suuÌ„ proferaÌ„t ut multo posteriores quae denique quotidie instituuÌ„tur tameÌ„ in eadeÌ„ fide coÌ„spiraÌ„tes noÌ„ minus Apostolicae dâ—putaÌ„tur pro consanguinitate doctrinae which cannot bring any of the Apostles or Apostolicke men for their authors as those that be much later such as are begun every day yet agreeing with theÌ„ in the same faith are for this coÌ„sanguinitie or agreemeÌ„t in doctrine held to be no lesse Apostolicke then the rest Againe he saith Ipsa doctrina eorum Tertul. traescrip advers haeret cap. 32 cum Apostolica comparata ex diversitate contrarietate sua pronunciabit neque Apostoli alicujus authoris esse neque Apostolici Their verie doctrine it selfe being compared with the Apostolicke by the diversitie and contrarietie that is betweene them will pronounce that it had for the Author neyther any Apostle nor any man that was Apoâ—tolicall From this rule and fundamentall ground I deduce and make two Arguments the one for our Church the other against the Church of Rome For our Church my Argument is this That Church which holdeth the same Faith doctrine Religion that the Apostles taught in their dayes is Apostolicall But our Church that is the Church of the Protestants holdeth the same Faith doctrine and Religion that the Apostles taught in their Ergo our Church that is the Church of the Protestants is Apostolicall The Maior is verie evident of it selfe and by the testimonie also of Tertullian neyther can it be denied The Minor is also evident by conferring and comparing our Faith doctrine Religion with the Apostolicall writings the rest of the Canonicall Scriptures And it is also manifest by the whole Contents of my former Booke whether I referre you for the proofe of it if any make doubt of it And therefore the conclusion must bee granted On the other side against the Church of Rome from that
Religion and the care and observance thereof in their life time will be able to afford But being debarred froÌ„ pleading for not taking the oath of Supremacie he saith he was desirous to reade what solide arguments I had made to invest the King with the supremacie finding them as Belshazzar being weighed was found in the Prophecie of Daniel minus habens that is too light Dan. 5.27 he saith he was encouraged to answere them But first how cometh he now to answere any part of my Booke who had said before in the same his Epistle Dedicatory that he presented it to some of the most learned of his catholicke Clergie that none of them after a mature deliberation held it worthy of an answer what will he thinke it worthy of an answere which those of the most learned of his Catholicke clergie thought it not worthy of Secondly if he had weighed my arguments not with false Romish weights but with true divine weights that is in such a ballance as God weighed Belshazzar he would have found them weighty enough though Belshazzar was found light Thirdly little reason hath he to call account those arguments light somewhereof be such as he dares not touch nor medle with theÌ„ but doth as childreÌ„ use to do who what they caÌ„not reade they skippe over So what he can no way answere he pretermitteth those which he dare be bold to touch doe neverthelesse shew themselves to be of that weight and strength as that he is not able to stirre or move them much lesse to remove them or to lift them up from that ground whereon they rest Himselfe doth what he can to answere them yet distrusting his ovvne Answere as minus habens to use his owne wordes against him that is as being too light weake and insufficient hee promiseth a more satisfying Answere that should afterward come forth from those that have more Lavv and Divinitie then eyther he or I. Yea he saith againe That my Booke shall be shortly answered in my owne straine of Divinitie with the three conditions required by me So that both by this his owne answere as also by that further future promised answere it is verie câ—â—dent that howsoeâ—â—â— in words hee and his partakers would â—â—â—me to slight any â—â—â—ke the matter therein contayned yeâ— revera and indeede they thinke the force and strength of it to be such against both Pope and Poperie as that they can have â—oâ—â— nor quiet in their mindes untill they have made which they wâ—â—never be able to doe a good sufficient and satisfactorie Answere thereunto As for that hee saith that if in steed thereof I had made a solide Compendium of the Law I had gained an applause I would have him know that neyther in this kind of learning nor in any other doe I seeke oâ— hunt after ostentation vaine-glory popular applause or prayse of men which be the things that Papists in their writings doe too much affect but both in that my former worke in this also the things that I sought still doe seeke after is Gods glory the advancement preferment of his truth religion the due authority true honour belonging to our most gracious most godly Christian Soveraigne which was then K. Iames is now K. Charles his most worthy successor whom God ever blesse protect preserve therewithall the generall publicke benefit both of Church and Common-weale I graunt that my profession and place would have allowed me to have written of points of Law and concerning Civill Iustice and externall Peace But I have rendered the reason in the Epistle Dedicatorie of my former Booke why I medled not with those things Namely because the pretended Catholickes of this Kingdome in those points shewed no refractarinesse or opposition but good conformitie and obedience And that their defect was onely in the two other points viz. Concerning the Kings Supremacie and the Religion whereof therefore there then was still is greatest neede and most urgent occasion to treate Wherefore hee that in such a Case would rather have had a Compendium of the Law then these two most necessarie and most important matters to bee dealt in for the generall good of the kingdome seemeth in my understanding to have made a great dispendium of his wit and judgement Neverthelesse hee proceedeth and saith that because hee cannot commaund the Presse he will imploy his endevours to answere in a Manuscript my first Booke he meaneth the first part of my Booke contayning those two Chapters aforesaid But what necessitie was there for him thus to publish his Answere in a Manuscript which he might have put in Print if he had so pleased For although he could not commaund the Protestants Presse neyther was it fit he should yet the Presse which some say the Papists have of their owne within this kingdome he might have eyther commaunded or intreated or if they have no Presse within this kingdome he might have sent or carried his Answere unto Doway or to Rhemes or to some other place beyond the Seas where it might have beene printed if they had held it worthy the Printing Seeing then that hee might have printed it Why did he rather choose to divulge it in a Manuscript Did he thinke that by that course used he might the more freely speake and write what he listed and that no man would answere or reply unto it though he be never so much touched in it or be the cause therein handled of never so great importance But what reason is there for any man to clayme expect or to be allowed such a priviledge Yea inasmuch as mens hearts may be poysoned and seduced aswell by Manuscripts and written Bookes and Pamphlets as by those that be Printed especially after they be once scattered and dispersed abroad as this his Answere is into diverse mens hands and are withall supposed by the pretended Catholickes for whose sake all that labour is bestowed to contayne nothing but truth I see not but I may bee as bold to reply to his Manuscript in Print the cause also so requiring as he made bold to answere a part of my Printed Booke in a Manuscript And therefore have I here replied unto it partly in respect of my selfe whom it concerneth to justifie and make good the matter contayned in those two Chapters of my former Booke which he oppugneth and partly in respect of himselfe vvho seemeth to be â—â—oâ— suffertus over highly conceited of himselfe Prover 26.5 whom therefore Salomon in his Proverbs adviseth to answere and partly chiefely in respect of the pretended Catholikes of this Nation whom by that meanes he seeketh to seduce abuse in the pâ—ints both of his Majesties Supremacie the Religion Both which points they being so high and eminent it behooveth all good Christians and all good Subjects evermore carefully dutifully to defend and mantaine As for that godly learned Reverend and worthy
other words that follow namely In omni pietate c Take all the words of S. Paul together and they be these I exhort saith he that first of all supplications prayers intercessions 1. Tim. 2.1.2 and giving of thankes be made for all men for Kings and all that are in authoritie that we may leade a quiet and peaceable life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all godlinesse and honestie By which words so put together it appeareth That S. Paul would have Christians to pray thus specially for Kings and Princes not onely to this end which my Adversary supposeth viz. for the mantainance and preservation of externall peace and correspondencie of humane societie but to this end also and that chiefely that Pietie Godlinesse and Religion may by their meanes be continued countenanced and protected amongst them And this had the Christian Emperors learned in ancient time For Iustinian that Christian Emperor in his dayes Novel Const. 6. spake thus The true Religion of God and honest conversation of the Priests is our chiefest care Legum Theod. Noâ—â—el tit 3. de Inâ—aeâ—â— Samaritaine And in this sort likewise spake Valentinian and Theodosius Emperors saying The search of true Religion we finde to be the chiefest care of the Imperiall Majestie And therefore also did S. Augustine say long agone That it is enjoyned Kings from God Aug. contr Crescun lib. 3 cap â—1 that in their kingdomes they should commaund good things and forbid evill things not onely such things as belong to humane societie but such things also as belong to Gods Religion This cleare and most evident testimonie of S. Augustine to declare the authoritie of Kings aswell in matters Divine and concerning Religion as in matters Civill Temporall I alledged in the first Chapter of my former Booke pag. 10. whereunto neverthelesse as to many other things in my booke contayned My Adversarie is pleased to answere nothing The second Position he busieth himselfe in is that the Regall Power or authoritie is subordinate to the Sâ—cerdotall or Spirituall It is true that Kings Princes notwithstanding their Regall power be subordinate and subject to God and his authoritie But what of this Indeede if Ecclesiasticall Ministers spake to Kings and Princes in their owne names and by their owne authoritie and uttered their owne will and pleasure there might be some reason in that which he would conclude but seeing they are to speake unto them not their owne will but the will and word of the Almightie and in his Name and as Embassadors Ministers Messengers and servants unto him no such consequent can be inferred 2. Cor 5 20. 1 Cor. 4 1.2 For if a King send an Esquier or any other inferior servant of his on a message to a Duke Earle or other Noble-man of the Realme This servant speaking in the King his Masters name and delivering his message is therein to be obeyed Will any thereupon conclude Ergo That Esquier or servant is greater or superior as in respect of himselfe or of his owne person then eyther the Duke or the Earle or the Noble-man No man I thinke will be so absurd And yet my Adversarie goeth on and amplifieth the Sacerdotall and spirituall power saying That how much the Soule in perfection exceedes the Bodie The eternall blisse the temporall felicitie The Divine Lawes the humane lawes By somuch doth the Spirituall authoritie exceede the Temporall But all this while he should remember and observe wherein and in what respects it is that this excellencie of the one above the other doth consist For as it is true that in respect of converting soules and fitting them for Gods kingdome by preaching of Gods Word Administring of the Sacraments and exercise of the Ecclesiasticall Discipline the Spirituall function and authoritie is to be preferred before the Regall or temporall So no lesse true is it that in respect of the temporall Power of the Sword externally to command compell and to punish offendors in causes both Ecclesiasticall and Civill the Regall Temporall Office and Authoritie is to be preferred before the Episcopall or Sacerdotall When therefore he supposeth that the King or Prince in respect of the Priest is but as the bodie is in respect of the Soule and that hee hath no more power and authoritie over Priests and Bishoppes then the bodie hath over the Soule How doth he prove this fond conceite For it is not the credite or testimonie of his S. Thomas as he calleth him who lived more then 1200. yeares after CHSIST and was overwhelmed with the corruption of his time and wedded to the Sea of Rome that can bee any sufficient proofe of that idle fantazie Yea it is apparant that to some purposes the Regall Power Office hath in it the nature and resemblance of the soule aswell as the Sacerdotall or Episcopall hath to some other purposes For as the soule commandeth the bodie so hath the King power to command the Priest and may by as good right punish all maner of offendors Civilly and by temporall punishments as Bishops and Clergie men may punish any Ecclesiastically and by the Church censures To make this the better to appeare beside that which is spoken in my former Booke observe first that Moses who was as a King or a Prince in Israell commanded not only the Levites Deut. 33.5 Deut. 31 2â—.26 which bare the Arke of the Covenant of the Lord and that in a matter Ecclesiasticall and concerning their very Office but he commanded also even Aaron the high Priest in a matter likewise Ecclesiasticall and concerning his verie Office saying thus unto him Take the Censer Numb 16 46.4â— and put fire therein off the Altar and put therein Incense and goe quickely unto the Congregation make an Attonement for them For there is wrath gone out from the Lord the plague is begun Then Aaron tooke as Moses commanded him c. He Exod. 32.21 2â— moreover called Aaron the high Priest to an account for his bad doings and removed him for the same Whereupon Aaron answered humbly and submissively unto him as to his Soveraigne Lord saying Let not the wrath of my Lord waxe fierce c. Numb 12.11 In like sort did Aaron speake unto Moses in another place saying My Lord I beseech thee c. 1. Sam. 22.12.15 So did also Abimelech the high Priest answere to his king submissively and dutifully saying thus unto him Here am I my Lord c. Let not the King impute any thing to his servant nor to all the house of my Father for thy servant knew nothing of all this lesse or more The Prophets likewise as well as the Priests and high Priests did acknowledge this humble submission and subjection unto their kings as is evident by the example of the Prophet Nathan who when he came into the presence of the King 1. King 1 23. c. he made obeysance to the king upon his face to the ground
to Minister and to give thankes and to prayse in the Gates of the Tents of the Lord Hee also tooke away the high Places 2. King 18.41 and brake the Images and cut downe the Groves and brake in pieces the brazen Serpent that Moses had made for unto those dayes did the Children of Israell burne incense to it Yea reade the historie of all every one of the Godly kings of Israell and Iuda and you will finde that they all as Supreme governors within their own Dominions commanded aswell the Priests as the people and dealt in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning Religion aswell as in matters Civill and Temporall Why then should not Christian Kings and Princes have the like Authoritie within their Kingdomes which those good and Godly kings of Israell and Iuda had within theirs Will any say that those Kings of Israell and Iuda dealt in those matters Ecclesiasticall by the counsell and advise of the Prophets and the Priests What if they did or what is this to the matter For the Question is not by whose Counsell or advise but by whose Authoritie those things were done Kings even in Civill and Temporall affaires be also Counselled and advised by learned wise and grave Men Doth this therefore prove that they have no Supreme Authoritie in matters Civill and Temporall For by such a reason you may aswell conclude against the one as against the other The direction then advise and counsell which Bishops or others give to Kings and Princes in matters eyther Ecclesiasticall or Civill doth not impeach or oppugne their Supreme commands or Supreme Authoritie eyther in the one case or in the other But some doe then here object that those Kings and Princes of Israell and Iuda had an high Priest or chiefe Priest among them and therefore that there must be likewise an high priest or supreme Pastor in the Christian Church Howbeit first the high Priest in that Iudaicall and Israeliticall Church was not Supreme but subject to those Kings and their commaund as before appeareth Secondly it is granted that there is also an high Priest in the Christian Church but it is not as they fondly suppose the Pope of Rome but CHRIST IESVS onely as the Epistle to the Hebrewes abundantly declareth who is therefore expressely called and affirmed to be our high Priest Hebr. 9.11 Hebr 5.5 H b 4 14. Hebr 7 26. For such an high Priest saith that Epistle it became us to have which is holy harmelesse undefiled separate from sinners and made higher then the heavens of which sort I am sure the Pope of Rome is not Againe S. Peter sheweth that not himselfe much lesse the Pope of Rome his pretended successor nor any other mortall man whatsoever 1. Pet. 5.4 but CHRIST IESVS onely is the Supreme Pastor or chiefe Sheepheard over all Pastors and Sheepheards of the severall flockes of CHRIST in the world and in respect of that his high Prerogative Hebâ— 13.20 he is also called the great Sheepeheard of the sheepe So that if any would know whom God hath appointed to be the high Priest the Supreme Pastor over the whole Christian Church Militant upon earth They here see that it is not the Pope but CHRIST IESVS onely Yea as touching the Pope of Rome whom they so much dote upon they were never yet able nor ever will be able to prove that God hath any where in his Word constituted and appointed him to be the high Priest or Supreme Pastor over all the Pastors and Bishops in the world much lesse to beare the Supremacie over all Emperors Kings and Princes Yea for the space of divers hundred yeares after CHRIST did even the Bishops of Rome themselves acknowledge and performe subjection to the Emperors as appeareth not onely by those three examples of Meltiades Leo Gregory the great mentioned in my former Booke whereunto my Adversarie is still pleased to answere nothing but by other Bishops of Rome likewise For also Anastasius the second Bishop of Rome spake thus to the Emperor Anastasius Pro fide Catholica humilis pietati tuae precator occurro c. I come saith he Epist ad Anast an humble suppliant to your pietie for the Catholicke faith And hee saith further That God would have not himselfe though he were the Bishop of Rome but the Emperor velut eius Vicarium praesidere in terris as his vicar or in his stead Jbid. cap. 6 to be the cbiefe upon earth Pelagius also the first a Bishop of Rome writing to Childebert King of France being required to make a confession of his faith that so he might shew himselfe not to differ from those that were of the Orthodoxe beleefe Pelag Epist. 16. Concil ediâ— Bin tom 2. pag 633. speaks likewise in this humble and duetifull maner unto him Quanto nobis studio ac labore satagendum est ut pro auferendo suspitionis scandalo obsequium confessionis nostra Regibus ministremus quibus nos etiam subditos esse sanctae Scripturae praecipiunt With how great care and labour ought we to strive and endevour for the taking away of the scandall of suspition to yeelde the obedience of our confession unto Kings to whom the holy Scriptures also command us to bee subject From him passe to the times of Agatho another Bishop of Rome in whose dayes was assembled the sixth Councell of Constantinople In that Councell there is an Epistle of his to the Emperor who required him to send some to supply his place Concil Constant 6. act 4 Câ—ncil edit Bin. tom 3. pag. 13. in that Councell To whom Pope Agatho answereth and writeth in that Epistle That to those things which the Emperor commanded hee would promptam obedientiam exhibere yeelde ready obedience Againe he saith Hoc Imperialis benignitas vestra clementer jubens hortata est nostra pusillitas quod jussum est obsequenter implevit This your Imperiall benignitie gently commanding hath required and our meanesse What was commanded hath obediently performed Yea he speaketh yet further in this most submissive sort to the Emperor Obsecro itaque piâ—ssime atque clementissime Auguste atque una cum mea exiguitate Sub finem omnis Anima Christiana flexo genu suppliciter deprecatur c. I therefore beseech you most pious and clement Emperor and together with my meanesse every Christian soule with bended knee humbly intreateth c. Goe on to the times of Pope Hadrian in whose daies it was That the second Nicene Councell was assembled There also you may observe in what humble sort he likewise writeth to the Emperor Concil Nicen 2 â—pist 1. Concil edit Bin. tom 3. pag. 257. Deprecantes cum magna cordis dilectione mansuetissimam vestram Clementiam tanquam praesentialiter humo stratus vestris vestigijs provolutus quaeso coram Deo deposco Praying with great affection of heart your most milde Clemencie and as in your presenâ—e being cast upon
to say Obsecro ut scribatis is verie consonant and most fit and congruous Againe how can Obsecro ut scribas well stand with these words Literis vestris frui concedite or with didiceritis adhibete or with Scitote and intellexeritis or with praestetis or with all the rest of the Verbes that be of the Plurall number But let this be as it will This is certaine and cannot be denied that Chrysostome prayed ayde aswell of the other Bishops of the West as of Innocentius Bishop of Rome of them all alike So that this example and times of Chrysostome Innocentius make nothing for the Bishop of Rome his supremacie but much against it For when Chrysostome was deposed from his Bishopricke in a Councell â—f Bishops at Calcedon hee appealed from them not to the Bishop of Rome but to a generall Councell This Socrates witnesseth saying Socrat. lib. 6. cap. 15. in greeke cap. 14 in the lat Iohannes eos à quibus vocabatur tanquam inimicos exceptione recusabat universalem Synodum appellabat Iohn Chrysostome refused those that called him to that Councell upon this exception that they were his enemies and appealed to a generall Councell Secondly those Bishops assembled in that Councell for the deposing of Chrysostome were so assembled not by the commandement of the Bishop of Rome but by the Emperors commandement Ibidem for so also doth Socrates testifie Thirdly when Innocentius saw that the matter could not be ended but in a generall Councell he sent Legats to Honorius and Arcadius Emperors to beseech them to call a Councell and to appoint the time and place for it where also his suite and supplication was so little regarded That his Legats were sent away with reproch Sozom. libr. 8. cap. 28. as disturbers of the West Empyre as Sozomen witnesseth Now if Innocentius Bishop of Rome had had the power and authoritie in those times to call generall Councells Why did hee not call them Yea why did he by his Legats intreate and beseech the Emperors to doe it if it were a right belonging to himselfe or if it were not a right belonging to the Emperors in those dayes Or if he were then the supreme commander of all the Christian world as the Popes now clayme to be how commeth it to passe that he was such an humble suter to the Emperors for a Councell and yet could not obtaine it Doe not all these things strongly and invincibly declare that in those times not the Popes but the Emperors had clearely the supremacie Then afterward though much out of his due time and place and very immethodically for the exception had beene fitter in the next Chapter then in this hee taketh this exception that in the first part of my Booke Cap. 2. and pag. 42. in the Margent there is a misquotation in this sort viz. Bern. de cons ad Eug. lib. 6. cap. 3. 8. where it should have beene Bern. de cons ad Eug. lib. 4 cap. 2. For indeede in this place it is that S. Bernard calleth the Popes doctrines and pastures Daemonum potius quam ovium pascua which be the wordes I cited S. Bernard for and which are accordingly there expressely to be found What a poore exception then is this to carpe at a Quotation in the margent when the verie wordes and matter are there to be found in the Author himselfe whom I cited namely in S. Bernard Is he not farre driven that is forced to this kinde of exception And yet if hee had beene pleased to have looked into the Errata of my Booke he might have found in the conclusion of them that such like faults as this I desired the Reader to correct with his Pen which he might very easily have done if he had so pleased But as it seemeth he is an hard man that neyther out of his owne courtesie nor yet upon the intreatie of others will be moved to shew so small a kindenesse What Is it because better matter fayled him that he tooke this silly exception and standeth so much upon it Or is it because by this meanes he loveth to declare himselfe to bee as voyde of good humanitie as he is of true and sound divinitie For my part I may say that he giveth me herein cause to joy and rejoyce that hee can justly take no exception to the matter contayned in my Booke but onely to a marginall Quotation thus misprinted and mistaken Howbeit hee seemeth yet further verie willing and forward to carpe at these wordes in my Booke Cap. 1 pag. 25. where I say that in the time of King William Rufus Anselmus the Archbishop of Canterbury would have appealed to Rome but not onely the King but the Bishops also of England were therein against him but the trueth of this is verie cleare and apparant For Malmesbury Malmesh lib. 1. de gesâ—i Pont. Angl. whom I there cite for proose hereof witnesseth That both the King disliked that his doing and that therein also Omnes Episcopi Angliae Primati suo suffragiuÌ„negarunt All the Bishops in England denied their voyces unto their Primate Yea Matthew Paris further testifieth Matth Paris in Gulielmâ— 2 An. 1094. that when Anselmus Archbishop of Canterbury asked leave of King William Rufus to goe to Rome The King replyed That no Archbishop nor Bishop of his Realme should be subject to the Pope or Court of Rome especially for that he had all those rights in his kingdome which the Emperor had in his Empyre And for this cause was Anselmus Convented by the King as an offendor against the State And to this accusation did also the rest of the Bishops Ibidem except the Bishop of Rochester give their consents And because he ventured to goe over the Seas to Rome without leave All his goods were seised to the Kings use Ansel Epist 46. aâ— Paschalem is 3. Colon. 1612. all his acts and proceedings in the Church of England reversed and himselfe constrained to live in banishment during the life of King William whereof Anselmus himselfe complayned in his Epistle to Pope Paschalis Yea afterward also Matâ—â— Paris in Hen. 1. An. 1104 in the time of King Henry the first when the same Anselmus was returning home from Rome the Kings Atturney in his Masters name forbad him to enter the Land unlesse he would faithfully promise to keepe all the customes both of William the Conqueror his Father and of William Rufus his brother And when the King perceaved the Pope and the Archbishop to continue their former purpose against his Royall liberties he seised the Bishopricke into his hands and arrested all Anselmus goods that were to bee found To these and certaine other liberties of the Crowne Did also King Henry the second not long after cause all his Bishops and Nobles to be sworne For in the yeare of our Lord God M.C.LXIIII This King Henry the second being at Claredon in the presence of the Archbishops
be Ministri Dei The Ministers of God as S. Paul also sheweth instituted for that verie end and purpose Now none will denie but banishment and imprisonment be punishments Civill and Temporall and not Ecclesiasticall and doe rightly and properly belong to the Authority of Emperors Kings and Princes and not to the function and office of Bishops and Ecclesiasticall Ministers And therefore the banishment and imprisonment that any Emperors or Kings used against any Bishops or others upon just cause and when they deserved it must needes be granted to be things done by them both in respect of the authoritie and in respect of the cause also aswell de jure as de facto that is to be things lawfull warrantable and justifieable in all respects For as for those distinctions that Emperors and Kings have Authoritie over persons Temporall but not Ecclesiasticall and a Power directive but not Coactive and in causes Civill and Temporall but not in Ecclesiasticall The untruth absurditie folly impietie of all these distinctions hath beene before so sufficiently discovered that I shall not neede to speake any more of them And by this time I hope that even the Papists themselves bee ashamed of them Sure I am they have good cause so to be if they did duely ponder and consider them Seeing then it is confessed that the Emperors did in ancient time by their Authoritie banish imprison and otherwise punish even Bishops of Rome aswell as other Bishops that no reason can be shewed against the doing hereof when they be such offenders as that they justly deserve such punishment it is thereby undeniably apparant that the Bishop of Rome in those dayes had not the supremacie over the Emperors but that cleane contrariewise the Emperors had the Supremacie over him aswell as over any others within their Empyâ—e Another Argument which I use consisteth in this that I say even Kings of Rome did also sometimes send the Bishops of Rome as their Embassadors By this argument my Adversarie saith That he supposeth that I meant but to make men merry Why In serious matters I love not to be as he is many times ridiculous but to be serious and to deale seriously First therefore hereby I prove that the Bishop of Rome was not in those dayes superior or greater then the King that sent him For those wordes of Christ must ever be true where he saith The Servant is not greater then his Master Iohn 13 16. nor the messenger greater then he that sent him And secondly I say further that this is a verie good and strong argument to prove the Supremacie to be in those dayes in the Kings of Rome and not in the Bishops of Rome For the King that sendeth any as his Embassador is in all common understanding supposed and to be supposed superior unto him that is his Embassador As when Hiram King of Tyrus sent messengers to King David 2. Sam 5.11 1. Chron. 14 1. 1. King â—â— 2 1. Chron. 19.2 or when Benâ—â—adad King of Aram or Siria sent messengers to Ahab King of Israell or when King David sent messengers unto the King of the Amm â—ites In all these cases and every such like for Nec in caeteris est contrarium videre were those Kings superior or greater then the messengers or Embassadors whom they sent And therefore when Theodorick sent Iohn Bishop of Rome as his Embassador unto the Emperor Iustine and when King Theodatus sent Agapetus Bishop of Rome as his Embassador to Iustinian the Emperor It must be confessed that these Kings were likewise superiors to the Bishops of Rome and had the command of them and not contrarywise that those Bishops of Rome had the superioritie or command over those Kings For amongst men the Master is wont to send the Servant and the King his Subject and the superior his inferior But where did you ever reade heare or know the Servant to send his Master or the Subject to send his King and Soveraigne or the inferior to send his Superior on a message I grant that an inferior or equall may intreate a Superior to doe a businesse for him and that a King a Master or Superior may goe by his owne consent or of his owne accord somewhither to doe his Subject Servant or inferior a good turne But it cannot be rightly and properly said that any of these inferiors have sent their Superiors upon their errand service message or embassage Yea it would be held verie absoneous and absurd so to speake But my Adversary I see mistaketh the Mâ—lâ—r proposition of my argument For it reacheth not so high as heaven much lesse to the most glorious incomprehensible and ineffable Trinitie blessed for ever but onely to men upon earth and not to all men neyther but onely to Kings and Bishops Neyther had my Adversary any ust cause or reason to streach or extend it any further For the question was onely concerning them whether of them had the Superioritie or Supremacie over the other in that time namely whether the Kings that then raigned over Rome or those that were the Bishops thereof I to prove the Superioritie or Supremacie to be in the Kings and not in the Bishops alledged this for my reason that the Kings of Rome did sometimes send the Bishops of Rome as their Embassadors to other Princes So that my Argument upon the whole matter appeareth to be this What Kings soever I speake of earthly Kings sent any at any time as their Embassadors to other Princes those Kings were Superior and greater then those Embassadors whom they sent But the Kings of Rome did send the Bishops of Rome as their Embassadors to other Princes Ergo the Kings of Rome were Superior and greater then the Bishops of Rome The Maior is apparant by induction of particulars by ordinarie common experience in the world The Minor is manifest by Ecclesiasticall historie which testifieth That King Theodoricke sent Iohn Bishop of Rome Lib Pontific in Iohan. 1. Et Anact in Agapeto Diaconus Platina as his Embassador to the Emperor Iustine And that King Theodatus sent likewise Agapetus Bishop of Rome as his Embassador to the Emperor Iustinian And therefore the conclusion must needes follow and cannot bee gainsaid By this time then mine Adversarie seeth I hope that such is the evident strength of this Argument as that he with all his wit and learning will never bee able to make any good answere thereunto 10 In my former Booke Cap. 1. pag. 13. 14. 15. I also shewed that against the title and appellation of Vniversall Bishop or head of the universall Church did two Bishops of Rome oppose themselves namely Pelagius and Gregory the great when it was first affected by Iohn the Patriarch and Bishop of Constantinople And that neverthelesse afterward a Bishop of Rome namely Boniface the third got obtayned it of Phocas the Emperor Hereunto mine Adversarie answereth as Bellarmine likewise doth That this fact of
soone as this life is ended everie one without delay goeth eyther to Abrahams bosâ—me or to the place of torment and in this place is reserved till the day of judgement S. Ambrose also teachech That death is a certaine haven to them Ambros de bono mortis cap. 4. who being tossed in the great sea of this world desire the station of a safe rest And therefore he saith further That whereas fooles doe feare death as the chiefe of evills Wise men doe desire it as a rest after labours and an end of their evills S Basil saith Basil procem in regular fusius disputat This present world is the time of repentance the other of retribution this of working that of rewarding this of patient suffering that of receaving comfort Gregory Nazianzen also in his Funeral orations hath many sayings to this purpose Greg. Nâ—z Orat. 9. ad Iustanum orat 42 in Pasch orat 15 in â—lagam grandinis and was so farre from supposing any Purgatorie or purging prepared for men after their death that hee plainely denieth That after the night of this present life there is any purging to be expected And therefore he giveth us all good counsell telling us That it is better to be corrected and purged now then to be sent unto torments there where the time of punishing is and not of purging And concerning the third point wherein he objecteth heresie It is true that Popish Priests cannot forgive sinnes because they be not the Ministers of Christ but of Antichrist and therefore for any to resort or to goe unto them for absolution or forgivenesse of sinnes must needs rather increase their sinnes then take away any The authoritie neverthelesse of Christ his Ministers to binde and loose and to remitte and retaine sinnes we denie not but affirme and maintaine against the Novatians or whatsoever other heretickes and therefore most injurious is my Adversarie other Papists in charging us with the heresie of the Novatians Micah 7.18 Esai 43. â—5 Mar. 2.7 Luk. 5.21 Revel 3.7 in that point Howbeit it is not an absolute but a Ministeriall limited power and authoritie which the Ministers of Christ have herein received For to forgive sinnes properly and absolutely is a priviledge prerogative proper unto God And therefore did Gregory the great Greg exposit 2. Psalm Poenit. Bishop of Rome say Quis enim potest peccata dimittere nisi solus Deus For who can forgive sinnes but God alone The power of releasing sins saith also Radulphus Ardens Radulph Ard. homil Dominic 1 post Pasch belongeth to God alone But the Ministerie which is also improperly called a power hee hath granted to his substitutes who after their manner doe binde and absolve that is doe declare that men are bound or absolved For God doth first inwardly absolve the sinner by compunction then the Priest outwardly by giving the sentence doth declare that he is absolved Peter Lombard also Master of the Sentences Pet. Lombard lib. 4. Sentent distinct 18. E.F. saith That God alone doth forgive and retayne sinnes and yet hath he given power of binding loosing unto his Church But he bindeth and looseth one way and the Church another For he onely by himselfe forgiveth sinnes who both clenseth the soule from inward blot looseth it from the debt of everlasting death this he hath not granted unto Priests to whom notwithstanding he hath given the power of binding and loosing that is to say of declaring men to be bound or loosed Est ergo in universis servientibus non dominium Optat. libr. 5. sed ministerium There is therefore saith Optatus in all the officers or servants not a dominion but a ministerie Behold Ambr de Spir. Sanct. 〈◊〉 â— c. 10 saith S. Ambrose that by the holy Ghost sinnes are forgiven men to the forgivenesse of sinnes bring but their Ministerie they exercise not any authoritie or power The power of forgiving sinnes saith S. Basil is not given to Christs Ministers absolutely Basil regul Brevior quast 25. but upon the obedience of the penitent his consent with him that hath the care of his foule Yea saith S. Ambrose neyther Angell nor Archangell can Ambros Epist. 28 ad Theod. Imp. nor the Lord himselfe when we have sinned doth release us unlesse we bring repentance with us Christ his Ministers therefore doe not nor ought to declare or pronounce remission and forgivenesse of sinnes to any but to such as Christ their Lord Master by the Tenor of his word hath warranted remission of sinnes unto For if they doe otherwise it is not ratified in heaven which they doe upon earth But all these three points have I handled in my former Booke where aswell as here they appeare to be Apostolicall and Orthodoxe truths and not hereticall or erroneous opinions Now then let all equall men judge how well and wisely this Quidam homo or quoddam animal Anomolon Pseudonymon this Adversarie of mine dealeth with me whilst he termeth me as he pleaseth and resembleth me to a Phripiers Prentice whose office is saith he speaking like a man of skil in that arte or occupation to goe from one Corner unto another searching old Ragges to line new clothes For I have borrowed saith he the shreds of my Religion from Simon Magus the Novatians and other heretickes How much this man is deceaved and mistaken doth now I hope more then sufficiently appeare by that which is before spoken Neyther indeed is it ours but his the Popish Religion that is thus patched and pieced of many and sundrie errors and heresies being therein like a beggars cloake consisting of many ragges and shreds sowed together as diverse Protestants and amongst the rest Doctor Willet in his Tetrastylon Papismi and that learned and Reverend Bishop Doctor Morton in his Catholicke Appeale for the Protestants being an Answere to Brerely the Priest have declared at large and in the many and sundrie particulars thereof Notwithstanding therefore whatsoever mine Adversarie hath said or can say to the contrarie it is apparant by the consanguinitie and agreement in Faith and doctrine which our Church hath with the Apostolicall writings that it was in the Apostles times and by them approved And this being the undoubted true Church and builded upon that inuincible and unruinable Rocke Christ Iesus against which the gates of Hell shall never prevaile must it not needes be supposed to have also a continuance in all succeeding times and ages even to the worlds end notwithstanding that Poperie or whatsoever other errors or heresies did grow up with it like Tares among the good Corne Yea that our Church that is people beleeving and professing the Faith and Religion that we doe was in the times and ages succeeding the Apostles even untill the dayes of the grand Antichrist and during all the time also even of the grand antichrist his raigne is likewise declared in my former
booke not only in this second Chapter of the first part but chiefely and specially in the second Chapter of the second part of it where I have set downe this Position and proved it that the Church is not so visible as to be alwayes at all times openly seene knowne to the wicked and persecuting world And for proofe hereof Aug. in Psal 1â— De Baptis contr Donatâ—st lib. 6. cap 4. I alledged S. Augustine who therefore compareth the Church to the Mâ—one which is often obscured and hid yea he confesseth and teacheth That the Church may sometime be so hidden as that the verie members thereof shall not know one another It is true that the men whereof the Church consisteth are alwayes visible and may be seene as being men but the Faith and Religion they beleeve and hold is not so visible as to be alwayes seene discovered known to the wicked and malignant world although sometime it be which point you may see there further declared And therefore they be not Chymicall arguments as my Adversarie in his Chymericall and Alchymisticall Divinitie surmiseth but solide and sound proofes that I bring to declare that the true Church is sometimes visible and to be seene of this wicked world and sometimes invisible Revel 9.13 Revel 10.1.2.10.11 and not to be seene of it that is to say it is sometimes a Patent and sometimes a Latent Church of which sort because the Papists will not grant their Church to be but will have it alwayes visible evermore splendently appearing to the eyes of the world it is a plaine demonstrative argument against them that therefore theirs cannot be the true Church I further shewed in this second Chapter that the true Church planted by the Apostles was afterward by little and little and by degrees to grow corrupted and to continue in those her errors corruptions and deformities for a long time even till after the sixt Angell had begun to blow the Trumpet according to the prediction Prophecie thereof in the Revelation of S. Iohn which Prophecie because it is found to agree with our Church and that it cannot be made to agree with theirs which they will not grant to be capable of any corruption or error It thereupon also followeth that not theirs but ours must needs be the true Church planted by the Apostles These arguments I here the rather mention that my adversary might see That the blast of the sixt Angels trumpet did not blow away all the arguments which I should have brought for my purpose as he scoffingly speaketh being not able otherwise or in other then a scoffing sort to answere them For what better argument can there be to prove our Church and to disprove confute theirs then this that ours doth agree with the predictions prophecies contayned in the sacred and Canonicall Scriptures and theirs neyther doth nor can be made to agree with them And here also falleth to the ground that Paradoxe and untrue opinion which he holdeth that one error in the Church overthroweth the whole Church making it to be no true Church but onely an imaginarie Church It is true 1 Cor. 5.6 that S. Paul saith That a little leaven leaveneth the whole lumpe of dow But hee doth not say that it utterly overthroweth nullifieth and extinguisheth it yea even this Church of Corinth wherein this leaven was by reason of that wicked incestuous man permitted to remaine unseperated 2. Cor. 1.2 unexcommunicated amongst them to the indangering of others by his example was neverthelesse the Church of God and so doth S. Paul expressely call it notwithstanding that error amongst them Againe in the same Church of Corinth there were also Contentions amongst them 1. Cor. 15 12. 1. Cor. 1.11 1. Cor. 3.3 1. Cor. 11 18.19 1. Corinth 1.2 and envying and strife and divisions yea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 schismata haereses schismes heresies and yet was it a true Church of God all these errors and faults notwithstanding as S. Paul declareth The Church of Ephesus Rev. 1.2.2 â—4 5 was likewise a true Church of God for sundrie things much commended yet had God some thing against her because she had left her first love Remember therefore saith he from whence thou art fallen and repent Revel â—2 12.13.14.15 doe the first workes c. The Church of Pergamus was also a true Church of God Yet I have saith God a few things against thee because thou hast there them that maintaine the doctrine of Balaam c. And them that maintaine the doctrine of the Nicolaytans which thing I hate The Church of Thiatyra Rev. 2.18.19.20 was likewise a true Church of God and for many things also much commended Notwithstanding saith God I have a few things against thee because thou sufferest the woman Iesabell which calleth her selfe a Prophetesse to teach and deceave my servants c. By all which you see that one error or one fault in a Church doth not therefore prove it to be no Church or no true Church Yea it appeareth that a Church and a true Church may bee though divers defaults and errors bee in it which bee not fundamentall How much then doth mine Adversarie abuse that Text of S. Iames where hee saith Qui deficit in uno factus est omnium reus Iames. 2.10.11 Whosoever shall keepe the whole law and yet fayle in one point he is guilty of all For he that said thou shalt not commit adulterie said also thou shalt not kill now though thou commit no adultery yet if thou killest thou art a transgressor of the law For what S. Iames meaneth by this that he which faileth or offendeth in breaking though but one of Gods Commandements Galat. 3.10 Deut. 27.26 is guilty of all himselfe here sheweth when he saith that he is thereby become a transgressor of the law and consequently guiltie of the curse inflicted by the sentence of the Law upon every one that continueth not in all things that are written in the booke of the Law to doe them So that he is guiltie of all not that he hath broken all the Commandements by breaking only of one nor that he which breaketh onely one shall be punished in hell asmuch and with as great a measure of torments as hee that carelesly breaketh them all but that by this breaking but of one Commandement he hath offended the Majestie of the Law-giver incurred his displeasure and made himselfe aswell lyable to the curse of the law that is hath deserved to suffer eternall tormeÌ„ts though not in so great high a degree and measure as if he had broken them all He therefore much wrongeth this Text when he applyeth it to prove that it cannot be a true Church which hath any error in it or that he that fayles in one point of Religion hath only an imaginarie Religion and no true Religion in him What was the Church wherein