where the purpose of the holy Ghost was to shew what Offices he bare during all his life time and what maner of man he was amongst the Israelites so long as he had been amongst them vntill that time that he was to die and to take his last farewell of them Deut. 33.5 Deut. 34.10 for there it onely appeareth that he was a King and a Prophet but not a Priest Had he bene also a Priest no doubt it would not haue bene there omitted but specified likewise aswell as his other two Offices Yea reade throughout the whole Bible the historie concerning Moses you will still finde that he was a supreame civill Magistrate a supreme Commaunder Exod. 18.13 14.15.16.17.18.19.20.21.22.23.24.25.26 and supreame Iudge in Israell For it is saide that When Moses sate to iudge the people the People stood about Moses from morning vnto even And when Iethro Moses Father in Law saw all that he did to the People he said what is this thou doest to the People Why sittest thou thy selfe alone and all the People stand about thee from morning vnto even And because this was too toylsome troublesome a businesse for him alone to doe he advised him to appoint some others to help him to beare the Burthen with him in hearing judging of causes Wherupon Moses chose able men out of all Israel and made them heads over the People Rulers over thousands Rulers over hundreths Rulers over fifties and Rulers over tens And these iudged the people at all seasons the hard Causes they brought to Moses but every small matter they iudged themselves When againe Moses heard the murmuring and saw the weeping of the People of Israel throughout their families he was much grieved and speake thus to the Lord Numb 11.10.11.12.13.14.15 c. Wherefore hast thou afflicted thy servant and why have not I found favor in thy sight seeing thou hast put the charge of all this People vpon me c. By all which you see that Moses was as a King Prince or supreame commaunder over all Israel and consequently as a King commaunded Aaron and the rest of the Priests aswell as he commaunded the Levites or any of the rest of the People Moreover if Moses had bene the high Priest Exod. 24.5 he might haue offered Sacrifice himselfe and needed not to haue sent others as he did to sacrifice neither needed he to haue commaunded Numb 16.46.47 or required Aaron to burne incense as he did to make an Attonement for the People for himselfe might haue done it But whatsoever Bellarmine or other Papists hould in this case you for your part doe not hould them to be both high Priests together at one and the selfe same time but in succession one after another accounting Moses to be the high Priest first and then Aaron Heb◠5 4. afterwards Howbeit the Scripture saith that No man taketh this honor to himselfe but he that is called of God as was Aaron If then Moses were called of God to this honor of high Priesthood let the like warrant be shewed from God for the Authorizing of him therevnto that is to be shewed for Aaron But this you cannot shew Besides if Moses were the high Priest first and Aaron afterward why doth that Epistle to the Hebrews mention for the Patterne or President in that Case not Moses but Aaron For if Moses had bene the first high Priest no doubt he would haue said That no man taketh this honor vnto himselfe but he that is called of God as was Moses But he saith not so but he speaketh in this sort viz No man taketh this honor to himselfe but he that is called of God as was Aaron As if Revera not Moses at all but Aaron onelie were the first high Priest And so indeede S. Chrisostome directly affirmeth Chrysost de verbis Isaiae vidi Dominū homil 5. for speaking of Aaron he saith expressely that Is primus fuit Pontifex He was the first high Priest Againe if Moses were the high Priest so constituted of God how came he afterward to loose that honor or to be deprived of it and another namely Aaron to be put in his Place in his life time he committing no fault nor any fault declared to be in him for which he should be deprived of that his Priesthood But lastly what cause or neede is there to suppose Moses to be as you fancy him an high Priest extraordinarily elected and appointed when there was to be seene at the same time an High Priest after the ordinary maner in Esse and allowed of God namely the same Aaron For in my Reply pag. 22. 23. I haue proved that the Priesthood before the law given did ordinarily belong to the first borne and of these two Brothers Moses and Aaron I haue also there proved that not Moses but Aaron was the Elder and consequently that by right of Primogeniture Aaron was the Priest and not Moses Yea I haue there further proved that the Priesthood thus being in Aaron was so farre from being removed or taken from him that contrariwise it was continued in him and afterward confirmed vnto him by God himselfe and to his seede after him But yet you would prove Moses to be a Priest Exod. 40.12 13.14.12 because he did consecrate and annoynte Aaron and his sonnes to the Priesthood But to this I have answered before in my Reply pag. 25. 26. shewing that this proveth not Moses to be a Priest properly so called for he did this by Gods owne speciall commandement which he might not disobey or refuse but stood bound to obey and performe although he were a Civill Magistrate King Prince Prophet or what office calling soever hee had You cite also Deut 18.18 where God saith thus to Moses I will raise them up a Prophet amongst their brethren like unto thee c. This prooveth that Moses was a Prophet and that Christ of whom these wordes are a Prophecie was likewise a Prophet Act. 3.21 Act. 7.37 but they prove not Moses therefore to be a Priest because he was a Prophet But the chiefe text you rely upon is that in Psal 99. vers 6. where it is said Moses and Aaron amongst the Priests Samuel amongst them that call upon his name these called upon the Lord and he heard them Howbeit to this also I have answered before in my Reply pag. 23.24 First that the being of Moses Aaron with or among the Priests is no proofe that therefore they were Priests It is true that Aaron was a Priest but that is proved by other cleere places of Scripture and not necessarily deduced out of this because a man may be among Priests yet be no Priest Secondly I shewed that the Hebrew word there used is Cohanim which is a word of an ambiguous signification signifying aswell Princes as Priests 2. Sam. 8.18 As for example The sonnes of King David are said to bee
and observed wherein and in what respects it was that this excellencie of the one above the other did 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 bee preferred before the Regall or Temporall So no lesse true is it that in respect of the temporall power of the sword externally to commaund compell and to punish offenders in causes both Ecclesiasticall and Civill the Regall and temporall office and authoritie is to bee preferred before the Episcopall or Sacerdotall This distinction because it killeth and striketh dead your cause you cannot endure and therefore doe you in your Reioynder exclayme against it and call it a distinction never heard of before and that it was lately hatched in the Vniversitie of Mollinmighan as you scoffingly speake in the Colledge there of your owne divising and nomination and whereof you are the father and the founder But to let this passe as an idle fiction of a fantasticall braine why will you not acknowledge the truth of this distinction which is so cleare plaine and evident in it selfe The first part of it you neyther doe nor can denie namely that in respect of converting soules Chrys in Mat hom 83. Ad popul antioch homil 60. and fitting them for Gods kingdome by preaching of Gods word administring of the Sacraments and exercise of the Ecclesiasticall discipline the spirituall office and authoritie is to bee preferred before the Regall or Temporall For this is verie apparant even by S. Chrysostome himselfe who speaketh to Ecclesiasticall Ministers on this wise No small vengeance saith hee hangeth over your heads if you doe suffer any hainous offender to be partaker of the Lords Table his bloud shall be required at your hands whether hee be a Captaine Lieutenant or a crowned King forbid him in these cases thy power is greater then his Againe hee saith Si vis videre discrimen quantum absit Rex à Sacerdote expende modum potestatis vtrique traditae Chrysost de verb. Esa vidi Dom. hom 5. If you will see the difference how great it is betweene the King and the Priest weigh the measure of the power or authoritie graunted unto them both And there shewing the power and authoritie which God hath committed to the Priest he saith Eoque Deus ipsum regale caput sacerdotis manibus subiecit and in that respect saith hee hath God subiected the head of the King to the hand of the Priest So that it is onely in respect of their Ministerie power and authoritie graunted them from God not in all respects nor to all intents and purposes that this their excellencie and preheminencie consisteth Yea he further sheweth that their power and offices bee distinct and limitted and that the one may not intrude into the office and bounds of the other For when King Vzziah otherwise called Ozias 2. Chron. 26.16.17 18. entred into the Temple to burne incense which pertayned to the Priests office and not to the King S. Chrysostome reproving and condemning this saith thus unto the King Chrysost de verbis Esaiae vidi Dom. homil 4. Mane intra tuos terminos alij sunt termini Regni alij termini sacerdotis Keepe you within your owne bounds For the limits or bounds of the Regall calling be one and the limits or bounds of the Sacerdotall calling be another And againe hee saith that Res est mala non manere intra fines nobis à Deo praescriptos It is an ill thing not to abide within the limits or bounds prescribed unto us of God Hee againe thus distinguisheth their offices Regi corpora commissa sunt sacerdoti animae Rex maculas corporum remittit Sacerdos autem maculas peccatorum Ille cogit hic exhortatur Ille necessitate hic consilio Ille habet arma sensibilia hic arma spiritualia Ille bellum gerit cum barbaris mihi belium est adversus Daemones To the King saith he Homil. 5. Idem ibidem hom 4. are bodies committed to the Priest soules the King remitteth the spots of the bodies the Priest the spots of sinnes The King compelleth the Priest exhorteth the one with necessitie or constraint the other with advice or counsaile The King hath sensible weapons the Priest hath spirituall weapons The King maketh warre with the Barbarians and the Priest hath warres against the Divels Againe hee saith Regi ea quae hic sunt commissa sunt mihi caelestia mihi quum dico sacerdotem intelligo To the King are those things committed that bee here To mee are things heavenly committed And when I say to mee I meane saith hee the Priest So that although hee there affirmeth the Sacerdotall power or office to bee more excellent or greater then the Regall yet withall hee sheweth you wherein and in what respects it is namely as I said before in respect of those things which properly belong to the office ministerie and function of a Priest or Bishop of which sort is preaching of Gods word administring of the Sacraments and binding and loosing of sinners by Excommunication or Absolution as the case requireth But hee may not by vertue of that his Ecclesiasticall and Priestly office use any externall civill coactive power or compulsion which you see even by the evident testimonie of the same S. Chrysostome himselfe rightly and properly belongeth to the King and not to the Priest Now then here you may perceive withall the other part of my distinction to be likewise undoubtedly true namely That in respect of the Temporall power of the sword thereby externally to commaund compell and to punish offendors in causes both Ecclesiasticall and Civill the Regall and temporall office and authoritie is to bee preferred before the Episcopall or Sacerdotall For it is cleare that God hath committed this Civill and Temporall sword onely to Kings and Princes and such like terrestriall Potentates and not to Bishops or Priests For so also doth S. Paul himselfe directly shew And who is there but hee knoweth that it properly appertayneth to the power office of this civill and temporall sword to commaund compell and to punish offendors civilly and in a temporall manner For the same Apostle saith of everie of these higher powers that beare this temporall Sword that hee beareth it not in vaine Yea hee saith that hee is the Minister of God a revenger unto wrath to him that doth evill Here is no exception of any person or of any cause but hee that offendeth or doth evill bee hee a lay-man or a cleargie-man or be he an offendor in a cause Civill or cause Ecclesiasticall hee appeareth to bee subject to this sword and authoritie of these higher powers For seeing the expresse wordes of the Text be Bernard ad Senonen Arobiepisc epist 42. Chrysost in Rom. hom 23 Let everie soule be subiect to the higher
powers Who saith S. Bernard hath excepted you speaking to an Archbishop from this generalitie Hee that bringeth in an exception saith hee useth but a delusion And you may remember that even S. Chrysostome also himselfe as hee subjecteth Kings to Bishops Priests and Pastors in respect of their power and commission graunted them from God So on the other side in respect of the Regall sword power and authoritie given and graunted likewise from God to Kings and Princes he declareth verie fully that Bishops Priests Pastors and all Ecclesiasticall Ministers whatsoever aswell as lay people are to be subject to them But this point concerning the subjection of all Bishops Priests and Pastors and even of the Bishop of Rome himselfe aswell as of others unto Emperours Kings and Princes as also in causes even Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill and temporall is so cleerely plainely and plentifully proved both in my first and second Bookes and in this also all your answers evasions quirkes and quiddities being therein utterly frustrated confuted and confounded as that it is to mee a matter of wounder that you should not see and so acknowledge the truth of it But it seemeth you cannot see the wood for trees which I am sorrie for 8. Howbeit to make this point yet the more evident viz the subjection of Priests and Ecclesiasticall Ministers unto the King and therewithall the Kings supremacie or supreame commaund over them even in causes Ecclesiasticall I alledged in my Reply cap. 1. pag. 5. the example of Moses who commaunded not onely the Levites Deut. 31.25.26 and that in a matter Ecclesiasticall and concerning their verie office but hee commaunded also even Aaron the high Priest in a matter likewise Ecclesiasticall and concerning his verie office Numb 16.46.47 saying thus unto him Take the censer and put fire therein of the Altar and put therein incense and goe quickely unto the congregation and make an attonement for them for there is wrath gone out from the Lorde the plague is begun then Aaron tooke as Moses had commaunded him c. Here you say I abuse my Reader by falsely citing this text for the right wordes say you are these Moses said to Aaron take the Censer and drawing fire from the Altar put incense upon it going quickely to the people to pray for them To pray say you and to make attonement doe differ and be not all one howbeit indeede not I but you are the man that abuse your Reader by falsely citing the wordes of this Text For you therein follow the wordes of your vulgar Latin translation which is untrue and unsound and I follow our English translation which is according to the Originall in Hebrew and therefore true which you also if you were a good Hebrician would know and perceive even in this verie particular But whether wee take your translation of Praying for the people or our translation of Attonement-making it commeth all to one passe as touching that purpose for which I cited it namely to prove that Moses commaunded Aaron the high Priest in a matter Ecclesiasticall cōcerning his verie office For your selfe do say that this praying for the people was a religious act to bee wrought by Aaron as being intermediate betweene the people God to reconcile or gaine unto them the favours of heaven And on the other side we say that to burne incense to mak attonement for the people 2. Chron. 26.18 is likwise expressely a thing properly pertayning to the Priests office So that as touching that purpose for which I cited that text it maketh as I said before no difference But then you go further seem to speake as if Moses had not there commanded Aaron But when Moses spake to Aaron in this sort Accipe thuribulū Take the censer Be not these wordes of commaunding especially in this case and at this time being also spoken by a Superior namely by him that was as the Scripture calleth him a king in the common-weale of Israel Deut. 33.5 Deut. 31.25 26.27 Yea bee they not wordes of as full and cleere commaund as when hee spake in like sort to the Levites saying Take the booke of this law and put yee it in the side of the Arke of the Covenant of the Lord our God c. The Text it selfe sheweth that these were wordes of commaunding in Moses And so witnesseth also your owne translation that herein Moses praecepit Levitis Moses commaunded the Levites Yea that Moses aswell as his successor Ioshuah commaunded not onely the Levites but the Priests also and all the congregation and people of Israel appeareth by that answer and acclamation they gave to the same Ioshuah saying thus unto him Iosh 1.16.17.18 All that thou hast commaunded us wee will doe and whethersoever thou sendest us wee will goe As wee have obeyed Moses in all things so will we obey thee onely the Lord thy God be with thee as bee was with Moses whosoever shall rebell against thy commaundement and will not obey thy wordes in all that thou commaundest him let him bee put to death But then when you cannot gainesay but that Moses commaunded Aaron and that in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning his very office you come to your last refuge and doe say that Moses was the high Priest and so as an high Priest commaunded Aaron But first how doe you prove this that Moses was an high Priest And yet if you could prove it what would you or could you gaine from thence for your selfe doe say that Moses was as well a king as a Priest therefore why might hee not commaund him as hee was a king rather then otherwise for did he in his time commaund the Priests Levites the whole People of Israel otherwise or in any other sort or sence then Ioshuah his successor did who was no Priest how be it if Moses had been both a Priest and a King would not the holy Scripture somewhere haue testified and expressed so much aswell as it doth in the like case of Melchisedech Gen. 14.18 Hebr. 7.1 For as touching those Texts of Scripture which you bring to prove Moses to be a Priest it shall by and by appeare that they prove it not Againe if Moses were the high Priest what will you make Aaron to be for it is evident and confessed of all sides that Aaron was the high Priest and if Moses were also another high Priest at the same time Deut. 33.5 then beside that there should be two high Priests together at one time how could the one commaund the other they being both of equall authority Or can he be rightly and truely called Summus Sacerdos that hath a Superior Priest over him to commaund him It is cleere that the Scripture doth expressely testifie of Moses that he was a King and therefore of that there can be no doubt but that he was also a Priest or an high Priest as you suppose it doth not affirme no not in that Place
before by my Reply pag. 9. 10. if you had so pleased Touching King Iosuah I said in my Reply pag. 6. 7. That he commaunded the high Priest aswell as the other Priests and dealt also in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning Gods service and religion And amongst other Text of Scripture for proofe thereof I alledged that Text of 2 King 23.4 where it is accorded that the King commaunded Hilkiah the high Priest and the Priests of the second order c. Hereunto you answere that there is no such matter in the Place by me cited and that the force of this Argument consisteth in these coyned words of mine The King commaunded Hilkiah whom you call Helcias which words not being in Scripture say you I am a wilie Wittnesse for strengthning my cause to produce so shamefull an untruth and though I be a Iudge yet you see no commission I have to use falshood These words be able to provoke a mans patience But you must know that bad words and a bould face will doe you no good Let others therefore iudge whether you or I be the honester man in this Point You say there is no such matter in the Place by me cited Wherefore I desire the Reader but to turne to that place I cited which is according to our English Bibles 2. Kings 23.4 and according to your Latine Bibles 4. Reg. 23.4 and there shall he see whether there be any such matter or no and whether these words The King commaunded Hilkiah whom you call Helcias be words coyned by me as you shame not to speake or whether they be in the Scripture it selfe extant and apparant For first those words be in the Hebrew Secondly they be in our English Translations and thirdly they be also even in your owne vulgar Latine Translation For even in that your owne Translation the words be these Et praecepit Rex Helciae Pontifici Sacerdotibus secundi ordinis c. And the King commaunded Helcias the high Priest and the Priests of the second order c Now then is it not Impudency intollerable in you to deny this You shall therefore doe well yet at last to confesse that this good and godly King Iosias commaunded Hilkiah otherwise called Helcias the high Priest and the Priests of the second Order and that he also dealt in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning religion as I there sayed and have further declared in the same place of my Reply pag. 6.7 To that which I alledged concerning King Asa and King Hezekiah in my Reply pag. 7. 8. who likewise had Authority as is there shewed over Persons Ecclesiasticall and in causes also Ecclesiasticall you answer nothing in your Reioinder that deserveth to be replyed unto And concerning King Iehosaphat also your answere is likewise very idle and friuolous and scarce worthy the mentioning For whereas I alledged amongst other things 2. Chron. 19 8.9.10.11 That this King Iehosaphat did constitute or set in Hierusalem of the Levites and of the Priests and of the Chiefe of the families of Israel for the iudgment and cause of the Lord c. which words were sufficient to prove my purpose there namely the Kings Authority over Priests and Levites and in causes also Ecclesiasticall you to shew your great learning and iudgment in this point doe taxe me for omitting or not rehearsing of some subsequent words in the which verse of that Chapter which when they be vttered and rehearsed doe indeede make more against you then for you for the words be these And behould saith the King Amoriah the high Priest shall be the Chiefe over you in all matters of the Lord and Zebadiah the sonne of Ishmaell a Ruler of the house of Iudah shall be for all the Kings affaires By which words it appeareth That King Iehosaphat did aswell constitute and appointe Amariah the Priest to be the Chiefe over that Assembly Councell or Synedrion which he set at Hierusalem for all matters of the Lord as he did constitute and appoint Zebadiah to be the Chiefe amongst them for all the Kings affaires For the words of the Text put no difference but that he might and did constitute the one to be the Chiefe in the one case aswell as he did constitute the other to be the Chiefe in the other case As for that reason you bring for a difference it is nothing worth for it is graunted that the King did not nor could by his Regall Authority without a speciall commaundement or warrant from God consecrate or make a Priest neither is it there said That King Iehosaphat did consecrate or make Amariah to be a Priest But he being a Priest before the King did there constitute and appoint him as lawfully he might to be the President or Chiefe in that Synedrion or Assembly in all matters of the Lord aswell as he did or might constitute Zebadiah to be therein the Chiefe or President for all the Kings affaires 10. Now then to come to King Solomon I proved him also in my Reply pag. 7. to have had authoritie over the Priests and Levites and to have dealt likewise in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning Religion But to that Text of 2. Chron. 8.14.15 by mee alledged for proofe thereof you answer not Onely to that Text of 1. King 2.27.35 where Solomon deposed Abiathar the high Priest and put Sadocke in his place you answer and graunt it to be true that hee did so But this say you hee did as being a Prophet and not as a King This answer of yours I before confuted and tooke a way in my Reply pag. 20. 21. whether I againe referre you because that standeth still in full force against you you having said nothing against it in your Reioynder But now I adde further unto it that it doth moreover appeare even by the wordes of the Text it selfe that Solomon did not doe this as a Prophet but as a King because hee therein did no more but execute that which a Prophet or man of God had before spoken from God concerning the house of Ely For so the words of the Text doe shew that Solomon cast out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord that hee might fulfill the wordes of the Lord which hee spake against the house of Ely in Shilo 1. King 2.27 and 1. Sam. 2.27.28.29.30.31 c. where the Prophet or man of God as hee is called that uttered the Prophesie and the King that executed the Prophesie must of necessitie bee distinguished And therefore as hee that received and uttered the Prophesie is in the receiving and uttering of it to bee called and supposed a Prophet So King Solomon that was onely the executer and performer of that Prophesie is in the execution and performance of it to be tearmed and deemed a King and not a Prophet But whilst I thus prove the authoritie of Kings over the high Priest because King Solomon deposed Abiathar and put Sadock in his place You would inferre that Elias by the like reason
87. But secondly when the Text it selfe speaketh of this fact of King Solomon by way of approbation of it doth it become you or any man else to say or suppose that it was error facti in him Or that it was an Act not lawfull for him so to doe For hath not the Scripture it selfe before expressely tould vs That Solomon deposed or cast out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord 1. King 2.27 that hee might fulfill the words of the Lord which hee spake against the house of Ely in Shiloh Now then can that be said to bee erroniously or unlawfully done which God himselfe well liked and allowed and would have to bee done for the performance and fulfilling of his owne wordes Yea consider yet further that the Kings of Israel and Iudah had power and authoritie over the Priests not onely to depose them but also to put them to death And this you may see in King Saul who put to death divers Priests â— Sa. 22.18 â— Chron. 24. â—0 21. and in King Ioash also who put to death Zachariah the sonne of Iehoida the Priest How justly or unjustly worthily or unworthily these Priests were put to death I here dispute not but I mention these examples to shew the power authoritie that the Kings had in those times namely even to put Priests to death aswell as lay-persons upon just cause and if they did offend so farre as to deserve it 11. But now though there were a supremacy over the high Priests aswell as over the other Priests and Levites in the Kings under the Old Testament and that they also dealt in maters Ecclesiasticall yet thereupon it followeth not say you That Kings and Princes under the New Testament have the like Supremacy over Bishops and other Clergy men or the like Authority in causes Ecclesiasticall and concerning religion Why so because say you there is now a change and alteration of the Priesthood and of the Law Heb. 7.12 But doth not the same Epistle to the Hebrews which you cite tell you wherein that Alteration and change consisteth namely that it is in respect of the Leviticall Priesthood under the ould Law or under the ould Testament which is now changed into the Priesthood of Christ under the new Law or under the new Testament why then will you stretch and extend it any further yea neither doth that Epistle nor any other sacred or canonicall Scripture testifie an Alteration or change in this Point or as touching this Particular whereof we now speake but the cleane contrary videlicet that aswell under the new Testament as under the ould Kings and Princes are to have a supremacy over all Bishops Pastors and other Ecclesiasticall Ministers and an Authority also in causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as civill and temporall within their dominions The first part of this Assertion is manifest by that Text in the new Testament which I have so often recited and where S. Paul saith expressely thus Rom. 13.1 Chrysost in Rom. hom 23 Let every soule be subiect to the higher Powers yea Though you be an Apostle though an Evangelist though a Prophet or whosoever you be saith S. Chrisostome But what shall I neede to prove this so cleere a Point so many times and so often For both in my first Booke Cap. 1. pag. 1. 2. 3. c. and in my Reply chap. 1. pag. 39. 40 41. c. and pag. 51. 52. 53. 54. c. this pointe is fully and abundantly proved Yea the Bishops of Rome themselves in former an ancient times for the space of divers hundreth yeares after Christ did acknowledge this Subiection to these higher powers namely to their Emperors as I have demonstratively shewed by the examples of Milciades Leo and Gregorie the great mentioned in my first Booke pag. 23. 24. 25. 26. And by Anastasius the second Pelagius the first Agatho Hadrian and Leo the fourth mentioned in my Reply chap. 1 pag. 11. 12. 13. 19. To all which though particularly alledged by me you according to your wonted wise maner thought it best to answere nothing Yea both the parts of this Assertion namely that Emperors Kings and Princes under the new Testament have Authority not onely over Persons Ecclesiasticall but in causes also Ecclesiasticall I have so sufficiently proved throughout the first Chapter of my first Booke and throughout the first Chapter of my second Booke which is my Reply and in this booke also as that all the Power and force you have brought or can bring against it will never be able so much as to shake it much lesse to subdue or overthrow it Yet for the more abundant proofe of this Authority of Emperors and Kings in maters Ecclesiasticall and concerning religion I alledged in my Reply chap. 1. pag. 13 14. the president and Example of that famous Christian Emperor Constantine the Great whereunto in your Reioynder you have as well became your great learning and wisedome answered iust nothing at all I alledged also in the same my Reply pag. 15. the example of Iustinian that Christian Emperor where you deny not this Emperors making of Constitutions and Lawes in Ecclesiasticall causes and concerning Bishops and other Ecclesiasticall Persons But you say those Lawes be not observed by the Protestant Cleargie and you give an instance in one particular What is this to the purpose For the question was not nor is whether our Protestant Cleargie observe those Lawes and Constitutions yea or no But whether Iustinian that Christian Emperour made those or any such lawes and Constitutions concerning Ecclesiasticall causes and Ecclesiasticall persons Now then whilst you graunt that hee made those Lawes and Constitutions concerning Ecclesiasticâ—ll causes and concerning Ecclesiasticall persons you graunt so much as I contended for that is to say you graunt the whole matter that was in question And therefore why should I dispute any longer with you Neverthelesse you yet further say that I much disadvantage my cause by alleadging Iustinian the Emperour who accounted called the Bishop of Rome the chiefe and head of all the holy Churches But you should doe well to observe in what sence and respects the Emperour so called and accounted him namely not that hee had in those dayes a supremacie over Iustinian who was then the Emperour â—uthen const 〈◊〉 15. Novel â— 3. For Iustinian himselfe testifieth the cleane contrarie to that conceit Wee commaund saith hee the most holy Archbishops and Patriarkes of Rome of Constantinople of Alexandria of Antioch and of Ierusalem â—vag lib. 4. c. 1 â—iceph libr. â—7 cap. 27. Yea the fifth generall Councell it selfe was also called by the commandement of this Emperor Iustinian So that it clearely appeareth that hee had the supremacie commanding authoritie over them all But in respect of the soundnesse of the faith which the Bishop of Rome held in those times against heresies and errors it was that the Emperour preferred him before the other Bishops accounting himselfe chiefe or head