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
Bishoppe of Meath whom my Adversary mentioneth in his Epistle Dedicatorie I shall neede to say nothing of him because himselfe will ever be best able to speake for himselfe whensoever anie shall shew themselves in opposition against him But to proceede with mine Adversary if he be as he saith he is debarred from pleading for not taking the Oath of Supremacie Whom can he blame therein but himselfe for his so unjust refusing to take so just an Oath Against which throughout all his answere himselfe neyther sheweth nor is able to shew any good exception which no doubt hee would there have shewed where the Supremacie was purposely debated if he had beene able to have shewed it But to make him yet the more in excusable if he will still be obstinate which I would have neyther him nor any others to be I have here further and at large declared the right of the Kings Supremacie over all manner of Persons and in all kindes of causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill for his all other mens most ample and most full satisfaction in that point And yet my Adversarie saith That he will Arme himselfe with little Divinitie and lesse Philosophie to enter the lists against mee which though it be spoken after the Papisticall manner proudly scornefully and like another Goliah yet therein hee speaketh truer then he was aware of For not to speake of his Philosophy which he sheweth indeede to be verie little this my Reply to his Answere will discover him to be as very a Punie in Divinitie as touching any good skill or found judgement in it as he is in Law In somuch that upon reading of this Booke his answere will appeare to be as good as no Answere yea that it had beene better for his cause if hee had beene silent and spoken nothing in it Such is the advantage that truth ever getteth against falshood when falshood dare be so bold to stand in opposition against it As for the multitude of his idle words his many needelesse Sillogismes his extravagant sentences and impertinent discourses I passe them over for the most part not vouchsafing an Answere to them they being inserted but to fill up paper to mispend time and vainely to delight and please himselfe and his followers But where he hath alledged any thing that 〈◊〉 materiall and pertinent to the cause and of weight or moment to that have I answered and replied as was fit I should In which my reply I have considered him not as he is Iohn at Stile for in that respect Iohn at Downe had beene fittest to reply unto him but as one that is an Adversarie to that Cause I propounded in my former Booke whatsoever his name or profesion bee And therefore doe I not so much answere the Man as the matter by him objected and alledged Now then although these be the Workes of a Lay-Man yet if you find truth in them esteeme them never the worse because of that For non quis dicat sed quid dicatur attende saith Isocrates to Demonicus And Gerson de exam doctr Panor tit de Elect. Caâ—â—gnificasti Saepè etiam est Holitor valde opportuna locutus And you know also who taught to this effect that plus credendum est vel simplici Laico Scripturamâ—â— proferenti quam vel Papae vel toti simul Concilio For my part I desire no further to be beleeved then that shall be found true that I write neyther ought any others in their writings he they professed Divines or whosoever else any further to be beleeved then so And yet if that would any thing the more prevayle with the pretended Catholickes I can assure them that the Positions and Doctrine in both these Bookes of mine delivered be the Positions and Doctrine not onely of one but of many and those learned professed Divines as is to be seene at large in their sundrie workes and writings extant against the Papists which the Papists were never yet able nor ever will be able substantially and soundly to refell and confute And therefore I have no cause to be ashamed of my Teachers but doe thinke it rather honour and reputation freely ingeniously and thankefully to acknowledge as I doe where of whom I have learned these things But having thus answered his Epistle Dedicatorie I now proceede to that which followeth Of the first Chapter of the former Booke Concerning the Sapremacie MY Adversarie before hee commeth to answere to that Chapter in the first part of my former Booke concerning the Supremacie busieth himselfe much to declare two Positions The first is that the Regall Priestly powers or Offices bee distinct and for proofe of this he citeth Gelasius and some other testimonies But why doth he thus trouble himselfe in vaine For this the Protestants doe confesse namely that the Prince-hood and Priest-hood the Regall and Episcopall Powers or Offices be things distinct So that neyther the King may administer or execute that which is proper or peculiar to the Office of Bishoppes Pastors or Ministers Ecclesiasticall nor on the other side may any Bishoppe Pastor or Minister by vertue of that his Ecclesiasticall office or calling intrude or take upon him the use or exercise of the Civill or Temporall sword which rightly and properly belongeth to Kings and Princes Rom. 13.4 and to such as have that authoritie derived from them And therefore doth S. Chrysostome distinguishing their Offices say Ille cogit hic exhortatur Chrysost hom 4. de verb Esai Vâ—ai Dom. Ille habet arma sensibilia hic arma spiritualia The King compelleth the Priest exhorteth The King hath sensible weapons the Priest hath spirituall weapons According whereunto S. Paul also saith of himselfe and of all Ecclesiasticall Ministers 2. Cor. 10.4 That the weapons of their warfare are not carnall but mightie through God It is true which my adversarie saith that the subject on which the spirituall authority worketh is the 〈◊〉 of man and the subject on which the Regall or Temporall authoritie worketh is the bodie of man But this difference maketh nothing for him as touching the point in Question For all men know it and himselfe will confesse it if he be not extreamely perverse that it is not the Soules of men but their Bodies that the King by his Regall authoritie worketh upon and which he commaundeth and externally compelleth to dutie and good obedience if otherwise they will not become obedient Neyther doth he punish any offendors in Ecclesiasticall causes Ecclesiastically and by Church Censures as Bishoppes and Ecclesiasticall Ministers doe but Civilly in a Temporall manner as namely by fining imprisonment banishment and such like corporall pecuniarie punishments as properly belong to the Regall Temporall authoritie to inflict But mine adversarie saith further that the end whereat the Regall authoritie aymeth is correspondencie of humane societie witnesse saith he S. Paul ut quietam tranquillam vitam agamus But why doth he leave out the
strange Clearke be received or Ordered without Letters of Commendation and licence from his owne Bishop Cap. 50. 25. That no man be made Priest under thirtie yeares of age neyther then at randome but appointed and fastned to a certaine Cure Cap. 11. That no Bishop meddle with giving orders in another mans Diocesse Cap. 2â— Cap. 42. That onely the Bookes Canonicall be reade in the Church That the false name of Martyres and uncertaine memories of Saints be not observed Cap. 15. Cap. 82. That Sunday be kept c. That the Pastors and Ministers rightly preach and teach the people committed to their charge Jbidem That they suffer not any man under them to propose to the people opinions of their owne devising not agreeable to the holy Scriptures but shall themselves teach profitable and good doctrine tending to life everlasting and instruct others to doe the like Cap. 22. And first of all they shall teach all men generally to beleeve the Father the Sonne and the Holy Ghost to bee one Omnipotent and Eternall and invisible God Creator of Heaven and Earth and of all things in them And that there is but one God-head Substance and Majestie in the three Persons of the Father the Sonne and the Holy Ghost Item They shall preach E dâ—m cap. 82. That the Sonne of God tooke flesh by the working of the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary shee remayning alwayes a Virgin for the salvation and reparation of makinde That he suffered was buried the third day rose againe and ascended into heaven and that he shall come againe in Majestie to judge all men c. Item Ibidem They shall diligently preach the Resurrection of the dead Item They shall teach all men with all diligence Ibidem for what offences they shall be condemned with the Divell to paines everlasting The Apostle telling us That the workes of the flesh are manifest which are fornication uncleannesse wantonnesse idolatrie witchcraft enmities emulations wrath contentions seditions heresies envie murthers drunkenesse gluttonie and such like of which I tell you now as I tould you before saith the Apostle That they which commit such things shall not inherit the kingdome of God These things therefore which the great Preacher of the Church of God reckoâ—eth by name let them be with all care prohibited remembring how terrible that saying is That they which doe such things shall not come into Gods kingdome Moreover Admonish them saith he Ibidem with all earnestnesse concerning the love of God and of their neighbour concerning Faith and Hope in God Humilitie Patience Chastitie Continencie Liberalitie Mercie giving of Almes acknowledging of their sinnes And concerning forgiving of such as trespasse against them according to the Lords Prayer assuring them that they which doe these things shall obtaine the kingdome of God This we charge and enjoyne you saith he speaking to the Bishops and Cleargie men with so much the more diligence because we know that in the latter times shall come false teachers as the Lord in the Gospell foretold and his Apostle Paul to Timothy testifieth Caroli praefat in Leges Franc. And againe he saith thus therefore you Pastors of Christs Church and Guides of his flocke c have we directed Commissioners unto you who together with you are in our Name and by our Authoritie to redresse those things which neede reformation And to this end have wee here annexed certaine briefe Chapters of Canonicall or Ecclesiasticall institution such as we thought meetest Let no man thinke or judge this our admonition to Godlinesse to be presumpteous whereby wee seek to reforme things amisse to cut off things superfluous and to bring men to that which is right but let them rather receive it with a charitable minde For in the Booke of Kings wee reade what paines that Godly King Iosias tooke to bring the kingdome given him of God to the true worship of the same God by visiting correcting and instructing them not that we compare our selves with his sanctitie but that wee should alwayes imitate such examples of the Godly Here wee see the reason why these Chapters or Lawes were made and Commissioners appointed and sent from the King to put them in execution and that also the examples of Iosiah and such other Godly Kings of Israell and Iuda are to be made patternes and precedents and to be imitated by all Kings and Princes in the Christian Church as touching the good care endevour and paines they are to take everie way they can for the advancement of Gods Religion Legum Franc. lib. 2. cap. 1. After Charles the great were Lodowicke and Lotharius Emperors which Emperors also spake thus to the Bishops and Magistrates of their Dominions You have all no doubt eyther seene or heard that our Fathers and Progenitors after they were chosen by God to this place made this their principall studie how the honour of Gods holy Church and the state of their kingdome might be decently kept Cap. 2. And we for our parts following their example seeing it hath pleased God to appoint us that we should have care of his Church and of this kingdome are very desirous so long as we live to labour earnestly for three speciall things viz. to defend exalt honour Gods holy Church and his servants in such sort as is fitâ— to preserve Peace and to doe Iustice to all the people And though the chiefe of this service consist in our person Cap 9. yet by Gods and Mans Ordinance it is so devided that everie one of you in his place and calling hath a part of our charge So that I should be your admonisher and you all my coadjutors Yea not only did these Emperors extend their Authority to causes Ecclesiasticall and concerning Religion but had also the Supremacie over all Bishops even over the Bishop of Rome himselfe in their times For so it appeareth by the submission which Leo the fourth Bishop of Rome made to this Lodowicke the Westerne Emperor in these words If saith he we have done otherwise then well Caus 2 quast 7. Cap. Nos si and not dealt uprightly with those that are under us we will amend all that is amisse by the judgement of your highnesse beseeching your hignesse for the better triall of these surmises to send such as in the feare of God may narrowly sift not onely the matters informed but all our doings great and small aswell as if your Majestie were present So that by lawfull examination all may be finished and nothing left undiscussed or undetermined In all things great and small this Bishop of Rome as you see submitted himselfe to the Emperor and to those Commissioners which he wou'd please to send for the sifting and examination of those matters layd to his charge promising to amend all that was amisse in him according to the Emperors owne judgement Wherefore this was not a matter of modesty or
Emperor Constantius wisheth him as Athanasius testifieth not to meddle in Ecclesiasticall matters It is true that Hosius Cordubensis did and had just cause to reprove Constantius and to wish and advise him not to meddle in matters Ecclesiasticall in such sort as he did he using or rather abusing all his authoritie in matters Ecclesiasticall to the mantaynance of the Arrians and arrianisme against the true Christian and Orthodoxe Bishops and against the truth of the God-head of CHRIST For Athanasius in the same Epistle sheweth that Paulinus and other Bishops being called before the Emperor the Emperor commanded them to subscribe against Athanasius Ibidem and to communicate with the Arrians They mervayled at this and answering that the Ecclesiasticall Canons would not suffer them to doe so He replied But what I will let that be taken for a Canon The Bishops of Syria endure this speech of mine Eyther therefore doe you as I will you or else goe you also into banishment And when the Bishops held up their hands to God and proposed their reasons shewing him That the kingdome was not his but Gods of whom he received it that it was to be feared least he that gave it him would speedily take it from him Setting also before his eyes the day of judgement and advising him Not to subvert Ecclesiasticall order nor to bring the Arrian heresie into the Church of God He would neyther heare them nor permitt them to speake but grievously bending his browes for that they had spoken and shaking his Sword at them commanded them to be taken away Yea what crueltie tyrannie and persesecution was used and raysed by Constantius in the behalfe of the Arrians against the Orthodoxe and right beleeving Christians is further declared by the same Athanasius shewing Ibidem that even Pagans were set to invade the Churches of the right and true Christians and to beate the people with slaves and stones The Bishops Priests Monkes were bound with chaines and scourged with râ—ds The 〈◊〉 were haled by the haire to the judgement seate The virgins were tosted by the fire and whipt with prickles others were banished strangled and trampled under feete to death and their limmes and joyntes rent and torne a sunder after they were dead In somuch that Athanasius crieth out saying Who was not amazed at these things Who would yeeld them the name of heathen men much lesse the name of Christian men Who would thinke them to have conditions of men and not rather of beasts Yea who perceived not the Arrians to be crueller then beasts The strangers standing by yea the very Ethnickes detested the Arrians as Antichrists and Butchers of men Oh new-found heresie saith he which in villanies and impieties hast put on the fulnesse of the Divell how great soever it be Againe he saith Whom hath not Constantius banished Ibidem that was accused by the Arrians When did he not give them both audience and allowance Whom did he ever admitte to say any thing against them Or what did he not admitte which they spake against others He ever doth that which the Arrians would have and they againe say that which him liketh And Athanasius saith yet further of him That whensoever he called an Assembly Iudgement or Councell of Bishops it was but for a shew For he did neverthelesse what himselfe listed What libertie for persuasion or what place of advise saith he is there when he that contradicteth shall for his labour loose eyther his life or his countrey Why hath the Emperor gathered so great a number of Bishops partly terrified with threats partly inticed with promises to condescend that they will no longer communicate with Athanasius This violent oppressing of Bishops in their Synods or Councells working them to his owne will Hiler lib. 1. contra Constant. doth S. Hilary also witnesse saying thus unto him Thou gatherest Synods or Councells and when they be shut up together in one Citie thou terrifiest them with threats thou pinest them with hunger thou lamest them with cold thou depravest them with dissembling Againe hee saith Ibidem Oh thou wicked one what a mockery dost thou make of the Church Onely dogges returne to their vomite and thou compellest the Priests of CHRIST to suppe up those things which they have spet forth and commandest them in their confessions to allow that which before they condemned What Bishops hand hast thou left innocent What tongue hast not thou forced to falshood Whose heart hast not thou brought to the condemning of his former opinion Thou hast subjected all to thy will yea to thy violence Good cause therefore had Hosius Cordubensis to say as he did unto that Emperor Meddle not Emperor with Ecclesiasticall matters namely in this sort as thou dost for the maintaynance of arrianisme making thy will to stand for a law c. For if you will have these words Ne te misceas Ecclesiasticis Meddle not with Ecclesiasticall matters to be taken absolutely and without restriction to debarre Kings and Princes from all intermedling in Ecclesiasticall causes any kind of way such an exposition were not onely contrarie to the Acts of Constantine the Lawes of Iustinian the Chapters and doings of Charles the Great and the Historie of all the Christian Emperors for the space of many hundred yeares after CHRIST but it were also contrarie to the opinion and practise even of Athanasius himselfe who is the reporter of those words of Hosius For it is evident that Athanasius himselfe was never of that minde to exclude Christian Kings and Princes from all intermedling in causes Ecclesiasticall Yea he was a cleare approver of that Authoritie in them as appeareth by this That when he was commanded to conferre with one Arius concerning matters of Faith He answered Who is so farre out of his wits that he dare refuse the commandement of the Prince Disput Athan. cum Aâ—â—o Lao dicea habâ—ta Athanas aâ—â—l 2. Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 21. 22. lat Yea the Emperors commandement made him to appeare before the Councell of Tyrus and finding that Councell not to be indifferent but partially affected he and the rest of the Orthodoxe Bishops that toâ—ke part with him appealed to the Emperor himselfe He also in person fled to the Emperor desiring him to send for the Bishops of the Councell of Tyrus and to examine their doings which the Christian Emperor did accordingly So that it is manifest that Athanasius did approve of the Authoritie of the Emperors in Ecclesiasticall causes albeit hee would not have them to use their authoritie cruelly or tyrannically to serve their owne violent wills and pleasures nor thereby to doe any thing whatsoever against CHRIST and his Religion as that Arrian Emperor Constantius did But when all this is granted it maketh nothing against those Christian Emperors Kings and Princes which in good sort use their authoritie not against CHRIST as he did but for CHRIST his trueth and Religion
Peter in saying Subjecti estote Be yee subject distinguisheth the Christians to whom he writeth from the rest that were their adversaries and were heathens and Infidels But why doth he say againe that these words Subjecti estote Be yee subject doe no more specifie Subjects then Princes For is it not a senselesse thing to say or suppose when men are by expresse wordes exhorted to be subject to their Kings and Princes that these wordes should require no more of Subjects then they doe of Kings and Princes Yea when he requireth Christians to be subject to everie humane creature whether it be to the king as being the chiefe or unto governours as unto them that are sent of him 1. Pet. 2.13.14 for the punishment of evill doers and for the prayse of them that doe well doth he not by this his distribution of the humane creature apparantly shew that he meaneth thereby the King as Chiefe or Supreme and the other Temporall Magistrates Rulers or Governors that be appointed or allowed under him Little reason therefore had my Adversarie to say That by every humane creature in the Text thus distinguished by the Apostle himselfe into the King as Chiefe or Supreme and into others that be Rulers or Governors under him The King is no more compresed then the Pope For you see that the King is directly comprised and intended yea expressely named and so is not the Pope And this is so evident that even the Rhemists themselves doe likewise so teach and expound it namely That by everie humane creature in this Text S. Peter meaneth the Temporall Magistrates Rhem. Annot. 5. in 1. Pet 2.13 Howbeit hee calleth not Kings and Princes and other inferior Magistrates under them an humane creation as though they were not also a Divine creation and of Gods institution For there is no power but of God Rom. 13.1 2. Ioh. 19.11 But they are called an humane creation in respect that the externall forme and maner of their creation is usually such as that God hath beene pleased to allow men to ordayne and appoint it for the use behoofe and benefit of men For touching Kings and Princes some are so by election and some by birth and discent of inheritance and concerning inferior Magistrates under Kings Princes they be also created and made some after one sort and some after another But what forme of creation soever they receave from men yet when they are once so appointed 1. Pet. 2.13 they are then to be obeyed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Propter DominuÌ„ for the Lords sake as S. Peter here teacheth to shew that they be also Gods ordinance and of his approbation And therefore doth S Paul likewise teach That Christians must be subject to them Rom 13.1.2.3.4 5. not onely for feare or for wrath but also for conscience sake as being also Gods owne institution But my Adversarie at last confesseth that this part of the Text Whether it be to the King as excelling or to Rulers as sent by him with a reference to the precedent wordes doth establish in the King the Regall and Temporall Supremacie And this is enough if he would be constant and stand to his wordes For no other Supremacie or Authoritie in matters Ecclesiasticall doth the King clayme but that which is Regall and Temporall In asmuch as he claymeth not to punish any offendors in Ecclesiasticall causes otherwise then by finings imprisonments and such like Civill and Temporall penalties and punishments which belong to that his Regall and Temporall Authoritie to inflict and in asmuch as hee also meddleth not with preaching the Word Ministring the Sacraments Excommunication Absolution or whatsoever else that is proper and peculiar to the Bishops or Ministers function And seeing he is so equall and just as to denie Cleargie men nothing that of right belongeth to them Why should any Cleargie men or any men whosoever be so unequall and unjust as to denie unto him any thing that is his proper due as namely a Regall and Temporall Power and Authoritie to be extended and used against offendors in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as in Civill For what Shall offendors in causes Ecclesiasticall that be and persist wilfull obstinate and perpetuall contemners of al Divine admonitions Church censures and Christian courses be held not fit to be restrained or punished Civilly or by Temporall Authoritie Would not such a libertie and impunitie prove extremely and intollerably mischievous And yet must such a mischiefe be endured or at least hazarded where Ecclesiasticall Authoritie is contemned and set at naught and that withall such contemners shal neverthelesse not be permitted to be restrained by the Civill Sword and Authoritie of Kings and Princes This argument I alledged in the first Chapter of my former Booke pag. 6. but my Adversarie is of such an excellent skill as that he can tell how to passe it over as he doth many things more without making any answere thereunto Wherefore that his evasion and distinction which is likewise the common evasion and distinction of all the Papists viz that Kings and Princes are to be obeyed when they command for matters Civill and Temporall but not when they command for God and his Religion or in matters Ecclesiasticall 〈◊〉 appeareth to be a most false most idle distinction being both in my former Booke and in this also much more largely reselled and confuted Yea it is so grosse and absurd as that at the very first hearing of it in this sort produced it sheweth it selfe to be verie senselesse and ridiculous For shall the King be obeyed when he commandeth for men and shall he not be obeyed when he coÌ„mandeth for God Is not this to preferre Men before God Earth before Heaven the Bodie before the Soule the Common-weale before the Church and things worldly terrestriall and externall before things divine celestiall and eternall Rhem. Annot 6 in 1. Pet. 2.13 As for that which the Rhemisâ—s say That this Text giveth no more to any Prince then may and ought to be done and granted to an heathen Magistrate it maketh not for them but against them For if they will grant no more to Christian Kings and Princes then is due to heathen Princes yeâ— even so much sufficeth as touching this point if it be well 〈◊〉 Because it is verie cleare that even heathen Kings and Princes are and ought to bee obeyed Ezra 1.1.2.3 c. when they command for God his service Religion as is evident by Cyrus King of Persia who though he were an heathen King gave commandement to build the Temple in Ierusalem Ez a. 61.23 c. and was therein obeyed Darius also another heathen King gave commandement for the continuing of the building of that Temple and for the Sacrifices to be offered in it Ezra 7.12.13 c. and was therein obeyed In like sort did Artaxerxes though an heathen King give commandement for the reforming of the Church according to the
the spreading of his Religion For Aug. Epist. â—0 as the same S. Augustine againe saith a King serveth God one way as he is a man and another way as he is a King As a Man he serveth God by living well and faithfully But as he is a King he serveth God by setting forth Lawes to command that which is good and to remove the contrarie So that Kings as Kings serve God in doing that for his service which none but Kings can doe Wherefore my Argument to prove the Authoritie of Emperors Kings and Princes in both those points together out of this Text of Rom. 13. is this whosoever hath Authoritie to punish evill-doers without exception of any person and without exception of any cause hath Authoritie over all persons and in all causes aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill But the Emperor within his Empyre and the King within his Kingdomes hath Authoritie to punish evill-doers without exception of any person and without exception of any cause as is apparant by the Text it selfe wherein no exception is to be found Ergo the Emperor within his Empyre and the King within his kingdomes hath authoritie over all persons and in all causes aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill 6 But now from this Text of Rom. 13. alledged in the 5. pag. of that first Chapter in my Booke concerning the SUPREMACIE My Adversarie commeth next to the point of Appeales mentioned in the same first Chapter pag. 24. So that he here skippeth over 9. whole leaves together at one leape and I must follow him in his course It is true that in the pag. 24. I said that when Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage was accused by Donatus some other of that saction Constantine the Emperor commanded Caecilianus to come to Rome with a certaine number of Bishops that accused him and by his Commission extant in Eusebius authorized and appointed Miltiadâ—s the then Bishop of Rome some others with him for the hearing and ending of that matter These Commissioners condemned Donatus who appealed from their sentence to the Emperor which appeale also the Emperor received Where beside that you see that this Christian Emperor made Commissioners in this Episcopall and Ecclesiastical cause observe withall that Miltiades the then Bishop of Rome was one of those Commissoners and there withall you may also note that the Bishops of Rome were then verie clearely subject and not superior to the Emperor So that a Christian King or Prince not onely may make Commissioners in Ecclesiasticall causes but may also have Appeales made unto him as is here apparant To this my Adversarie maketh divers answers First he saith that this instance concerning Appeales maketh more against me then for me because it was an Appeale made by Hereticks viz. the Donatists unto the Emperor But this reason of his maketh more against him then set him For if it were lawfull for Heretickes who thought themselves wronged by the inferior Iudges to appeale to the Emperor no lesse if not much more lawfull was it for the Orthodoxe Bishops if they were wronged to appeale to him And if Constantine that Orthodoxe godly and Christian Emperor thought it lawfull for him as hee did for otherwise hee would never have meddled with it to entertaine and receave an appeale made to him from Heretickes much more would hee have thought it lawfull and meete to receave Appeales from such as were Orthodoxe right true Christians and men for Faith Religion like himselfe But that he may know that not onely heretickes but Orthodoxe Bishops also Athan. Apolog. 2 cap. Quum multas did appeale to the Emperor Let him take for an evident proofe of it the example of Athanasius and of the other Bishops joyned with him who as is before shewed appealed from the Councell of Tyrus Socrat lib. 1. cap. 33. 34. unto the same godly Emperor Constantine which appeale the same Emperor likewise receaved Neyther would Athanasius nor any other good and godly Bishops have appealed unto him if they had not thought it lawful both for them so to doe and for the Emperor also to receive such appeales Neyther did the Donatists appeale onely from Miltiades the Bishop of Rome and those that were joyned with him by Commission from the Emperor But they appealed also from those other Bishops that were afterward assembled at Arle in France for the hearing and ending of the same cause And both these Appeales did the Emperor receive and upon the last appeale he sate himselfe in person and gave Iudgement for Caecilianus against the Donatists whose proceedings and Iudgments upon those appeales S. Augustine disliked not but well liked and allowed alledging them as being substantiall proofes for the Catholickes and lawfull good and effectuall judgements against the Donatists I grant that Constantine was loth at the first to be Iudge in this Episcopall cause in his owne person Aug Epist. 166 and therefore S. Augustine saith Eam discutiendam atque finiendam Episcopis delegavit He delegated and appointed Bishops to discusse and determine it namely Miltiades and his Colleagues Ibidem And when Miltiades and his Colleagues had pronounced Caecilianus innocent and condemned Donatus as Author of the schisme raysed at Carthage Your side saith S. Augustine to the Donatists Ibidem came backe to the Emperor and complayned of the judgement of the Bishops against them The most patient and milde Emperor the second time gave them other Iudges namely the Bishops that met at Arle in France And your men saith he seaking still to the Donatists appealed from the Bishops of Arle also to the Emperors owne person and never left till the Emperor himselfe in person tooke the hearing of the cause betweene them which he did and upon hearing it pronounced Caecilianus innocent and those his accusers Idem Epist. 162 to be malicious wranglers Againe the same S. Angustine saith that the Donatists appealed from Ecclesiasticall judgement to the end that Constantine might heare the cause Whither when they came both parties standing before him Caecilianus was adjudged to be innocent and the Donatists overthrowne To prove this I will further bring you saith S. Augustine the very wordes of Constantine where he witnesseth That upon judiciall hearing of both sides he found Caecilianus to be cleare Yea S. Augustine sheweth further what followed upon this judgement Aug. Epist 166. Then did Constantine saith he make a sharpe law to punish the Donatists his sonnes continued the same Reade vvhat Valentinian reade when you vvill vvhat Gratian and Theodosius Decreed against you Why vvonder you then at the Children of Theodosius as if they had follovved any other president in this cause then the judgement of Constantine vvhich so many Christian Emperors have kept inviolate Though Constantine bee dead yet the judgement of Constantine given against you liveth For vvhen Emperors command that vvhich is good it is Christ and no man else that commandeth by them Thus you see how much this
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
and confuting the imagination and devise of his owne braine For the affirmative clause in the Oath is not as he imperfectly and lamely relateth it but it is this That the King is the onely Supreme Governor of this Realme and of all other his Highnesse Dominions and Countries aswell in all Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall things or causes as Temporall The negative clause followeth and is this That no forraine Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction power superioritie preheminence or authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme This word Onely in the affirmative clause hath he left out which if he had added together with all the rest of the wordes that follow in that affirmative clause he would very easily have found that to be true which I wrote namely that the effect of the negative clause is included in the former affirmative For he that affirmeth the King to be the onely Supreme Governor within his owne Dominions that in all things or causes Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall aswell as temporall doth in that speech exclude every forraine Prince person Prelate State or Potentate from having any supreme governement or any government at all without his leave and licence within his Dominions Yea it is very evident that the former affirmative clause includeth the negative clause and more For the negative clause excludeth forrain Princes persons Prelates States Potētates only from Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall Authoritie but the former affirmative excludeth them from authoritie in all things or causes both temporall spirituall Againe you see that the negative clause extendeth onely to forraine persons but the affirmative clause extendeth to any persons whosoever whether forraine or domesticall Thirdly the negative clause excludeth forraine persons from having any jurisdiction power superioritie preheminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or spirituall within this Realme But the former affirmative clause extendeth not only to this Realme or that Realme in particular but generally to all his Majesties Realms Dominiōs Countries So that the former affirmative clause in the Oath appeareth to be much more generall and of a farre larger extent then the negative is And therefore I hope I spake truely and within compasse when I said though in a parenthesis that the effect of the negative clause was included in the former affirmative I did not say as mine Adversarie supposeth me to hold that the Regall power includeth the Sacerdotall or Episcopall This is but his owne dreame imagination in the confutation whereof he laboureth in vaine For neyther I nor any of the Protestants doe hold that opinion but contrariewise doe hold them to be things distinct as is before declared But because he will needes carpe at my Logicke when he hath no cause let other men judge what a great Logician he is whilst he argueth thus The Regall power includeth not the Sacerdotall Ergo the affirmative clause in the Oath of SUPREMACIE includeth not the negative clause in the same Oath Hitherto then you see that my Adversarie notwithstanding all his storishes braggs and bravadoes hath shewed himselfe to be not onely a punie Lawyer as he confesseth himselfe to be but a punie Logician also most of all a punie Divine and that he hath not beene able to make any good Answere or to refell and confute any one Argument contayned in this first Chapter of my former Booke concerning the Supremacie and yet hath he also left a great part of that Chapter unanswered Neyther hath he made throughout his whole discourse and pleading so much as one good argument to prove his Clients cause that is the Popes supremacie though he purposed and laboured to doe it Where is it not a mervaile that he being a Lawyer and a Subject to our Soveraigne Lord the KING will date neverthelesse admitte of such a Client as the Pope is and of his cause which he knoweth before hand to be condemned by the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme and which he now may see if hee saw it not before to be also condemned by the Lawes and Statutes of God himselfe and by all the most ancient Ecclesiasticall Records But if hee be not ashamed of such a Client and his cause his Client I suppose will be ashamed of him and entertaine him no longer to pleade for him unlesse he could doe it better And yet indeede when his Clients cause is foule naught as here it appeareth to be what Lawyer be he never so learned or what Divine be hee never so profound is able to justifie it or to make it good Notwithstanding his demurrer therefore and notwithstanding that by this his plea his purpose was to arrest and stay mens judgements I trust they will all now no cause appearing to the contrarie proceede without any further delay to give their sentence against his Client for in the behalfe of these two most worthy Peerles Princes who be the complaynants against him namely for Christ IESVS in their acknowledging and publishing him onely to be the onely universall Bishop supreme Pastor and head of the whole Church Militant upon Earth aswell as of the Triumphant in Heaven and for the King in declaring and publishing him under God to be the onely Supreme Governor over all manner of persons and in all kinde of causes aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill within his Dominions Neyther doe I doubt but all mens judgements whensoever upon good and well advised deliberation they shall please to give them will passe accordingly In the meane time let us goe one to the second Chapter see if he have any better successe in that then he hath found in the former Concerning the second Chapter IN this second Chapter of my former Booke my Adversarie supposeth that my maine scope and purpose was to prove our Church that is the Church of the Protestants to have beene in the Apostles times But never was there saith he poore Assertion so miserably mangled And true it is indeede that it is miserably mangled and cut in pieces But by whom namely by himselfe For my Assertion is not so short as he relateth it nor is to end where he maketh it to end but is of a longer and larger extent and being produced not by parts or pieces but wholy and intirely as it ought it is this viz. That our Church was in the Apostles dayes and in all times and ages since howsoever or notwitstanding that Poperie did as an infection or corruption grow unto it the meaning true sence whereof is no more but that the growing of Poperie it being but as an infection or corruption to the Church is no impediment or argument to the contrarie but that our Church had a being in the Apostles dayes and in all succeeding times and ages that notwithstanding This will the better appeare if you take the whole Proposition or assertion and turne it into a Question For then the Question will not be as mine Adversary maketh it viz.
S. Cyprian lived no true Church Euseb lib. 7. cap. 5. in tâ—e greeke and cap. 5. latin or was S. Cyprian no true Christian or had he no true Religion in him because he held the error of Rebaptization Or were none of those true Churches nor had any of them any true Religion in them which held the Chiliasticke error or error of the Millenaries Or were S. Augustine S. Ierome or any of the rest of the ancient Fathers therefore no true Christians or had they onely an imaginarie and no true Religion in them because of some error they held Yea he may aswell conclude out of this Text if he make no care nor conscience to abuse it that everie one whosoever that erreth fayleth in any point eyther of doctrine 1. Iohn 1.8 or manners or that sinneth in any sort by breaking any one of Gods Commandements is onely an imaginarie and no true Christian at all Whereupon would follow this grosse absurditie and untruth that there were then no true Christians at all in the whole world because there be none but have some sinne or other in them It is true Ephes 4.3.4.5 c. that there is but one true Faith and right Religion and that we should all endevour to observe and keepe it as likewise we ought all to endevour so much as is possible to keepe all everie one of Gods CoÌ„mandements but if by reason of the frayltie and imperfection that is in all men any Church doe erre in some one thing or any man doe erre sinne or offend in some one point you see by the premisses that no such inference can be made that therefore it is no true Church or therefore he is no true Christian or hath no good nor true Religion in him because of that one sinne or error committed All which neverthelesse I speake not to justifie or defend any errors in any Church or any sinne transgression or fault in any person nor yet as though he could justly taxe our true Christian Church with any error in Faith or doctrine but onely to shew him his owne error and the fault of his owne idle brainesicke opinion Whereunto also may be adjoyned another Paradoxe or strange opinion of his and not onely his for it is the opinion also of the Rhemists and other Papists where they hold that the blasphemie or sinne against the holy Ghost is remissible may be forgiven which is directly and cleane contratie to the expresse words of Christ Iesus himselfe declaring that the sinne against the Father and the Sonne is remissible Math. 12 31.32 Luk 12.10 Mark 3.28 29. and may be forgiven But the sinne against the holy Ghost saith he shall not be forgiven neyther in this world nor in the world to come And S. Marke relateth it thus That he which committeth that sinne shall never have forgivenesse but is culpable of eternall damnation Now then let all men judge whether of these we should beleeve namely whether Christ or the Papists in this case Lastly he falleth into a consideration what sinne it is that I committed in making and setting forth my Booke distinguishing sinne into three sorts viz. some of Frailtie some of Ignorance some of Malice he freeth me of that of frailty and of that of malice and therefore concludeth that it was a sinne of ignorance Thus out of his ignorance for I hope there is no malice in him he argueth ex non concessis For how doth hee prove it to be any sinne at all to penne such a Booke and to set it forth Ipse dixit is all his proofe What Is it a sinne to speake or write in defence of Gods truth religion Yea is it not cleane contrariewise a sinne and a very great most fearefull sin for my Adversary to write as he doth against God his truth religion against his Church people against the King also in the point of his Supremacie against the Lawes Statutes of the Realme also which establish those two points for which I write and speake and all for defence of the whore of Babylon of that man of sinne the grand Antichrist Is not this a sinne meete for him to repent of This his great sinne therefore all other wicked workes wayes of blind Poperie I would wish him to forsake in time Ephes 5 8. to become walke As one of the children of light which if he desire to doe as I trust he doth he must then with the Psalmist make not his owne Psalm 119.105 or other mens pleasures but Gods will word to be the Lanterne unto his feete and the light unto his path thereby must he be directed Esa 8.20 both for points of doctrine for life conversation also For if any doe not or speake not according to this word 1. Io. 1.5.6 it is because as the Scriptures teach they have not that light in theÌ„ which they should have It is true which he saith That Christ the supreme Iudge of Heaven Earth will most certainely come to judgement and will judge most justly But it were good he would remember withall how Iohn 12 48. Rom. 2.16 by what rule he will judge namely that he will judge according to his owne word Gospell For according to that his Word Gospell it is that hee will judge us all in the last day as himselfe his true faithfull Apostle S. Paul doe both assure us In the meane time then can there be any better course taken or any better wisedome shewed then for both him me for us al humbly willingly to submitte our selves our lives conversations all our positions opinions to be controlled reformed over-ruled judged by that word Gospell according whereunto we shall all be judged in that last day This grace wisedome therefore God of his mercie grant unto us all if it be his will to his honour and glorie and to our owne everlasting comforts through Iesus Christ our whole and onely Mediator Saviour and Redeemer Amen FINIS Post scriptum LEt none hereafter expect any more from mee touching these matters untill my former Booke which by this my Adversarie is promised to be answered according to the three conditions required by me be first accordingly answered and that this Reply be also therewithall Answered and all this to be done in Print and not in Manuscripts with the Answerers right and true name also thereunto subscribed ERRATA CORRECTA IN the Epistle Dedicat. pag. 1. line 12 this word first blotte out In the Epist to the Reader pag. 1 l 2â— for satisfactory satisfactorily p. 8. l 5. for suffertus suffenus p 9. lin 33 for scripturiam scripturam p. 10. l. 14. for ingeniosly ingenuously In the first Chapter of the Booke p 2 l. 5. for will soule p. 13 23. this word secondly blotte out in stead thereof put this figure 2 to note it to be the second section of that Chapter so reade on forward thus It being then a thing very demonstratively evident c p. 13. l. 32. for Ministers Ministery p. 15. l 6. for writeth citeth p. 17. l 6. for makinde mankinde p. 24. in the margent for 2. Sam 20 17 put 2. Sam. 20 26. In p. 24 l. 31. 32 reade it thus Aaron and his sonnes were appointed to the office of priesthood p. 26. l. 31 this word Thirdly blotte out in lieu thereof put the figure of 3. to note it to be the Third section of that Chap p 26. l. 33. for wisheth wished p. 34 l. 10. for youg young p. 38. l 12. for divert direct p. 39. l. 19. reade as unto the chiefe p. 42. l 6. 7. for Iohn 9 11 Iohn 19 11 p. 44 l. 17. for yea yet p. 44 l 18 for construed considered p 45. l. 26 for advantagement advantage p. 51 l. 23 for ingeniously ingenuously p 52. l 10 for Aquinus Aquinas p. 52. 32. for cause clause p. 13. l. 19. betweene as and other Bishops put this word over pag 38. l 16. for worth worthy p 40 l. 5 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 43. l. 33. this word as blotte out p 57 l. 3 this word and blotte out p. 66. l 2. for shall should p 70 l 24 for States seates p. 79. l 24. for under made p 82 l 18 for how now p 83 l 7 for Episcopus Episcopos p 84 l 12 after but reade by pag 15 against l 24 in the margent for Novel const 123 Novel const 133 p 19 l 22 for hignesse highnesse pag 100 l vlt for proferant vel Apo pag 88 l 26 for Airam Hiraâ—â— in margine for 1 Sam 5 1â— reade 2 Sam 5 11 p 88. l 8 for use used p 94 l 3 for could would p 96 l 19 betweene neverthelesse admit put this word to p 97 l 16 for one on p 97 ly the first onely blotte out pag 93 l 9 for grant reade perceave p. 102 l 22 after their reade dayes p 102 l 21 for make made p. 82 l 11 for Bithinijs Bithiniae And if any other faults have escaped in the Printing I desire the Reader to correct them with his pen.