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
amongst them for that cause In which regard also it is that hee would have the Easterne Churches to be imitators of him and to follow him Neither did this Emperor Iustinian write unto him as to an universall or supreme Bishop in those dayes over all but onely as to a Bishop of a Province or of a parte of the Christian world and namely in this sort Iohanni Sanctissimo Archiepiscopo almae urbis Romae â—de libr. 1. â— 4 lib. 4 â— 6 Patriarchae To Iohn the most holy Archbishop and Patriarch of the famous Citie of Rome Againe in that Epistle he desired this Iohn the Bishop of Rome to write his letters to him and to the Bishop of that his royall Citie of Constantinople whom hee there calleth brother to the Bishop of Rome and not his servant or subject Whereupon the Glosse it selfe maketh this observation and saith thus Hic eum parificat Here the Emperour equalleth the B shop of Constantinople to the Bishop of Rome And indeede the first Generall Councell of Constantinople consisting of 150. Bishops Canon 2. 3. and the Generall Councell of Chalcedon also consisting of 630. Bishops Act. 16. and the sixt Generall Councell of Constantinople Can. 36 doe all decree the Sea of Constantinople to be equall to the Sea of Rome except onely that in the meeting and assembly of the Bishops the Bishop of Rome was for Order sake to have the first Place and the Bishop of Constantinople the second Place which together with the reason thereof you may see more fully declared in my first Booke chap. 1. pag. 17. 18. I alledged further in my Reply pag. 15. 16. 17. 18. many and sundry Chapters Lawes made by the Emperour Charles the great otherwise called Charlemaine concerning men and matters Ecclesiasticall the Particulars whereof you may there see which because you knew not how to answere you passe them over with this saying that they are not worth the answering why so in regard say you there is thereby no more discovered then by those before mentioned of Iustinian And is not that mough if it were no more but so and yet is there more discovered in the one then in the other Howbeit Act. 2.36 5.31 Iohn 18.36.37 1. Cor. 15.25 Heb. 1.8.13 Ephes 1.20.21.22.23 Coloss 2.10.8.19 the Lawes of those two Emperors vizt both of Iustinian Charlemaine I alledged not to any such end as you still evermore untruly suppose vizt thereby to prove the Spirituall Supremacy to belong to Emperours or Kings for the spirituall Monarchy and Supremacy I attribute as I said before neither to Emperor nor King nor to Pope nor Prelate but to Christ Iesus onely the sole Monarch and head of his whole Church but to this end and purpose onely namely to prove that Emperours and Kings had in those former and auncient times Authority over Persons Ecclesiasticall in causes also Ecclesiasticall which because you neither doe nor can deny what doe you else but graunt them consequently you here graunt once againe the thing that is in question as a matter cleere and vndenyable and therefore what neede I to dispute or debate this matter any longer with you But here if I doe not mistake you you seeme much to restraine the Power and Authority of Emperors and Kings as though they might not make any new Lawes or Constitutions but onely strengthen confirme and put in execution the olde and former Ecclesiasticall lawes If this be your meaning you see how this conceit is confuted confounded even by those former precedents and examples of Iustinian and Charlemaine For it is evident that Iustinian made many new lawes and new Constitutions which were not before and so did also Charles the Great frame and make divers and sundrie new lawes Chapters and Constitutions And did not Constantine that first famous Christian Emperour also make many new Lawes and new Constitutions concerning Ecclesiasticall persons and Ecclesiasticall matters which were not made before his dayes You may also remember Aug. Epist 50. that S. Augustine saith Serviunt Reges Christo leges ferendo pro Christe Kings serve Christ by making lawes for Christ And therefore they may as occasion requireth aswell make new lawes for Christ as commaund those that were formerly made for him to bee put in execution But if you meane that you would have Emperours and Kings to make no lawes nor cause any to bee put in execution concerning the Church but such as will well stand with the Lawes of God his truth Religion and Ordinances you therein say the same thing that Protestants doe 2. Cor. 13.8 For they say with S. Paul that they may doe nothing against the truth but for the truth And that the power authoritie of Emperours Kings and Princes if it be rightly used and not abused is for God and not against God and for Christ his Church and Religion and not for Antichrist or any untruths heresies or errors whatsoever Or if your meaning bee that you would have Emperours Kings and Princes in their making of lawes concerning God his Church Religion to take the advise direction counsell of godly learned Orthodoxe Bishops and teachers this is also not denied but graunted unto you But then must you graunt on the other side that if they bee not Orthodoxe Bishops and true teachers but false teachers or if they be such as deliver errors in stead of truths such mens erroneous counsailes directions and advises are not to be followed but to bee rejected as I have shewed more fully in my Reply pag. 37. 38. 12. But after these times of Charles the Great mentioned in my Reply pag. 18. you come next in your Reioynder to your accusation of Luther Calvine mentioned in my Reply p. 49. So that here you skip over no lesse then fifteen whole leaves together in that my Reply Yet what have you now to say against Luther and Calvine In your first Answer you tooke occasion for I gave you none to inveigh against them as if they had beene Adversaries to Kings and Princes and to the obedience due to them In that my Reply pag. 49. I said that the works and writings of them both did shew openly proclayme the contrarie to the world And this is indeede verie apparant Luth. tom 1. in Gen. cap. 9. tom 3. annota in Deut capit 6. fol. 4. fol. 552. Rom. 13.1.2 3.4.5.6 Luth. tom 2. resp ad Ambros cather fo 150. 152 For where as some objected That the rule or governement of one man over another might seeme a tyrannous usurpation because all men are naturally of like condition To this saith Luther must wee that have the word of God oppose the commaundement and ordinance of God who hath put a sword into the hand of the Magistrate whom therefore the Apostle calleth Gods Minister Againe hee saith I grieve and blush and groane to see how scornefully our Emperours and Princes
as not worthy the name of a Councell Yet for all that hee affirmed it not to be no Councell at all simply and absolutely and to all intents and purposes as you would perswade For if it had been no Councell at all or in any sort why was it convocated or assembled as a Councell Or why was Athanasius commaunded by the Emperour to appeare there Or why did the same Athanasius afterward appeale from theÌ„ce to th Emperor yea even Athanasius himselfe affirmeth it to be a councell such a one as it was giveth it expressely the name of a Councell when he saith as you heard before that he and the rest of the Orthodoxe Bishops departed from thence tanquam è Concilio iniuriosorum as from a Councell of iniurious Persons So that a Councell himselfe here acknowledged it to bee though a bad Councell though a Councell of injurious and wicked Persons and a Councell not worthy to bee called a Councell because it thus intended and endeavored the advancement of Arrianisme But what Will you say that the many and sundrie Councels convocated and assembled in times past wherein Arrianisme was established were therefore no Councels at all or in any sort Yea this of Tyrus aswell as those was held to be a Councell though a wicked and impious one not onely by Athanasius but by Socrates also and by Theodoret likewise Socrat. libr. 1. c 20. c. 21 ca. 22. Theodor. lib. 1. c. 28. c. 29 c. 30.31 who in their severall Ecclesiasticall Histories doe often call it expressely by that name of the Councell of Tyrus And even that Christian Emperour also Constantine himselfe wrote unto them by the same name calling them the Councell of Tyrus And it is yet further recorded that by the Emperours commaundement this Councell of Tyrus expressely againe so called was removed from Tyrus to Ierusalem But then you say that the fact whereof Athanasius was accused by the Arrians in that Councell of Tyrus was a meere civill crime belonging to the Temporall Tribunall to wit the killing of Arsenius and cutting of his hand But you are full deceived For it was not onely the killing of Aâ—senius and the cutting of his hand as you alledge but it was further the using of that hand Socrat libr. 1 â—ap 20. so suggested to bee cut of to Magicke and Sorcerie that was layd to his charge Yea sundrie other things also were layd to his charge as namely that hee had deflowred a virgin Theodoret. lib 1. cap. 30. and that one of his Cleargie had beaten downe the Altar overthrowne the Lords Table broken the holy Cuppe and burned the blessed Bible For all which misdemeanours his accusers sought to get him displaced and deposed in that Councell So that it was not a meere Civill crime that was layd to his charge as you suppose but they were mixt offences partly Civill and Temporall and partly Episcopall and Ecclesiasticall And therefore well might it bee called in some respect Negotium Imperatorium Athan. apolog 2. p. 568. a matter Imperiall namely in respect of the accusation of killing of Arsenius and the cutting of his hand if you goe no further but to consider these facts onely singly and apart from the rest For so also did the Emperour Constantine himselfe as it seemeth for a while conceive of it and therefore wrote to Dalmatius the Censor that hee should call before him such as were accused heare the matter and punish the offenders Socra libr. 1. cap. 20. But afterward hee altered his opinion and stopped that course of hearing Athanasius matters before the Censor and would have them to bee heard and determined before the Councell of Bishops which was assembled at Tyrus and which was afterward removed from thence to Ierusalem to consecrate a Temple or Church which the Emperour had builded there The Emperour saith Secrates willed the Bishops assembled at Tyrus to debate together with other matters the contentions raysed about Athanasius to the end all quarells being removed they might afterward cheerefully solemnize the consecration of that Church and dedicate the same unto God So that all the matters layd to Athanaesius his charge being not singly and severally but joyntly together considered and they all tending to the slaunder defamation and deposing of so worthy reverend and renowned a Bishop it appeareth by the event that it was at last in those times held and concluded to bee Negotium Synodale Episcopale a matter meete for a Synode or Councell of Bishops to consider of and to determine And so indeede was it done accordingly Now then when Athanasius went to the Emperour for refuge appealing from this wicked and injurious Councell of Tyrus unto the same Emperour in this his Episcopall Ecclesiasticall cause Is it not thereby verie evident that hee approved of the authoritie of the Emperour in a cause Ecclesiasticall But if yet you make any doubt hereof you may see further in my Reply pag. 68. that as the Apostle Paul appealed to Cesar so Athanasius himselfe saith that by that example of the Apostle hee would likewise appeale to the Emperour of his time and hee saith there further that beyond the Emperour there was in his dayes no appeale to be made to any but to God onely and consequently not to the Pope 16. But you demaund of me certaine questions wherein you would be resolved The first is whether I hold and conclude the spirituall supremacie to be in the King I cannot but wonder at this question of yours For I have often told you in my Reply that it is a Civill and Temporall supremacie over persons Ecclesiasticall and in causes also Ecclesiasticall which I give unto Kings What have wee beene so long disputing about the point of Supremacie And doe you not yet know the state of the question betwixt us S. Paul speaketh of some that would bee Doctors of the Law 1. Tim. 1.6 and yet understand not what they speake nor whereof they affirme Of this sort it seemeth you are by this question propounded But I answere you once more that it is not as you have often said and often mistaken a spirituall but a Civill and Temporall supremacie that I attribute to Emperours Kings and Princes in causes Ecclesiasticall and over Persons Ecclesiasticall And as for the Spirituall supremacie it belongeth rightly and properly to Christ Iesus the onely Spirituall King Head and Monarch of his whole Church For when hee was demaunded touching his kingdome hee answered thus My kingdome is not of this world Ioh. 18 36. thereby declaring that hee was not a worldly or terrestriall King but a spirituall King And therefore also when they would have 〈◊〉 him a terrestriall King Ioh. 6.15 hee would none of it 〈…〉 and departed from them And so likewise testifieth 〈…〉 true and faithfull Apostle speaking of himselfe 〈◊〉 of the rest of the Ecclesiasticall Ministers that the weapons of their warfare â— Cor. 10.4 are not carnall but
dominanturijs vos autem non sic Luke 22.24 25.26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quis eorum Maior The kings of Nations beare dominion over them but yee may not doe so one over another For of this was the question or contention and therefore of this must the answere bee accordingly understood These words then doe cleerely declare that there should bee no Ecclesiasticall King or Ecclesiasticall Monarch amongst them to rule or raigne over all the rest although terrestriall Kings and Monarches did and are well allowed to raigne and rule over the people of those Nations whereof they be Kings But againe hath not S. Gregorie himselfe told us long agone not onely how needelesse and superfluous but how pernicious also and dangerous it was to the whole Church to admitte of one to bee an universall Bishop or an Ecclesiasticall Monarch to rule Gregorie and raigne over all the rest For then saith he if hee which is the Ecclesiasticall Monarch or the universall Bishop doe fall the whole and universall Church falleth with him And what Gregory thus spake and as it were prophecied so long since was afterward found true and came to passe accordingly to the lamentable woe of the whole Church in the succeeding times by that meanes Yea the same S. Gregory hath yet further certified us how pernicious and dangerous this was and would bee not onely to the whole Church but even to himselfe also that would take upon him to be the Ecclesiasticall Monarch or supreme and universall Bishop over all Gregory For saith hee what wilt thou answer unto Christ who is the true head of the universall Church in that day of iudgement when by this name of universall Bishop thou seekest to subiugate all the members of his Body unto thy selfe Whom dost thou imitate herein save onely him who in contempt of those legions of Angels which were his fellowes sought to mount aloft to the top of singularitie where hee might bee subiect to none and all others might be subiect unto him As for the having of Bishops of Dioceses and Provinces it no more proveth that therefore there may or must be one universall Bishop or Ecclesiasticall Monarch over all then that because there be divers Kings in divers and severall Kingdomes therefore there should be one universall King over all the Kings and kingdomes in the world And besides there were Bishops of Dioceses and Provinces in the times both of Pelagius and Gregorie Bishops of Rome whom neverthelesse they tooke no exception against nor disallowed But him that would take upon him to be an Ecclesiasticall Monarch or a supreme and universall Bishop over the whole Church him they would not endure but vehemently impugned and detested him and that not without verie apparant just and good cause as here you see But moreover did you never reade Iohn Gerson de Auferibilitate Papae What he affirmed in some cases may generally and absolutely be affirmed namely That the Pope may bee utterly abolished and taken cleane away that without any lesse or hurt at all to Christendome yea to the great and ample good not onely of Christendome but of all the world beside if the matter be well weighed and rightly and throughly considered 18. But touching this point of supremacie you seeme at last in words to appeale to the judgement of the Primitive Church I would you would doe as you say and stand to the judgement of it in verie deede For I have proved which you have not disproved nor ever will bee able to disprove That for the space of eight hundred yeares and more after Christ even the Bishops of Rome themselves aswell as other Bishops were subject to the Emperours And that the Christian Emperours had also authoritie in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill and temporall within their Dominions and nothing doe you or can you alledge against it but what hath beene many and sundrie times sufficiently abundantly answered confuted by the Protestants As for that Catalogue of Emperours Kings and Princes which you affirme to have beene exemplarily punished in this world by violent and miserable deathes for oppugning and striving against the Monarchie and supremacie of the Bishop of Rome you onely say suppose it but doe not prove it And it is an overbold part in you to enter into Gods secret counsels and to affirme that to be the cause which you know not nor be able to prove For there might be and so no doubt there were other just causes of their punishments As for the oppugning of the Popes supremacie that could not be the cause of those or of any other punishments in asmuch as the grosse wrongs and utter unlawfulnesse of it hath before plentifully appeared and that neyther the Pope nor all his partakers be able to shew any commission or warrant from God for the approbation of it Yea how could the oppugning or contending against the Popes Monarchie and supremacie be any cause of punishment when in the holy Scriptures themselves it appeareth as in my first Booke I have shewed at large that Papall Rome is the whore of Babylon and that the Pope of Rome the head and ruler of that adulterate and Popish Church is the verie grand Antichrist Doe not therefore deceive your selfe nor others any longer by mistaking the cause which is you know a fallacie à causa non ut causa Yet you further say that I am argued by the wisest in this Enterprize to have discovered in consideratively much arrogancie of witt in not well weighing the mayne importance of this difficultie farre surmounting the talent of a Lawyer But first there is no such difficultie in it Reges Gentium dominaâ—tur as you speake of and this I have formerly declared Secondly why doth it surmount or exceede a Lawyers talent and abilitie more in mee then in you Wherefore if I bee as you say I am censured or argued by the wisest of much arrogancie because being a Lawyer I meddle in this matter Must not those wisest in all justice and equitie condemne you likewise of much arrogancie for the same cause For you have hitherto in your writings affirmed your selfe to be a Lawyer if all this while you neverthelesse be not a Lawyer you have done your selfe a great deale of discredite and dishonour in affirming it Neyther can any man then tell how to beleeve you in any thing you speake or write So that herein you gull not mee but your selfe and others It would therefore best become you to unmaske your selfe and to discover your selfe plainely For you must thinke howsoever you would conceale your selfe that you are sufficiently knowne and goe not invisible But thirdly who are those whom you call and account the wisest For there bee some that be wise in their owne conceite and some that be Antichristianly wise and some that bee worldly wise 1. Cor. 3.19 whose wisedome is as S. Paul affirmeth it foolishnesse with God For hath not God saith hee made the wisedome of this world 1. Cor. 1.20 foolishnesse The world accounteth the wisedome of God to bee foolishnesse But hee saith that the foolishnesse of God is wiser then men and the weakenesse of God 1. Cor. 1.25 stronger then men The wisest men then doubtlesse bee those that humbly submit all their learning and wisedome to Gods word and wisedome and that bee divinely and Christianly wise as for the rest they must as the same S. Paul teaceth them 1. Cor 3.18 become fooles that they may bee wise Whatsoever therefore you say I beleeve that which Christ Iesus himselfe hath spoken to bee true and that it will ever bee found verified Luke 7.35 videlicet That wisedome is iustified of all her Children But lastly what arrogancie eyther of wit or learning doe I shew or discover when I neyther brag nor boast of eyther and when I further franckly and freely confesse in all my Bookes that such matter as is therein contayned I have learned of others and so attribute nothing to my selfe The wit and learning I have how small slender or meane soever you or others esteeme it I thanke God for it and doe humbly pray him to give mee the Grace to use and imploy it to his honour and glorie and not to mine owne Yea how weake or meane soever it bee in respect of it selfe yet such is the strength of the cause which I defend and the strength of the Almightie who hath enabled mee in it and to whom I give all the thankes and the glorie Psal 4.13 as that it now appeareth I hope to everie understanding equall and judicious Person to bee undoubtedly victorious and triumphant Hereafter therefore I shall not neede to write any more in it which is now made thus manifest cleere apparant and invincible So that everie man that will speake truely may sâ—â— of it that Magna est veritas praevalet God open our eyes if it bee his will and inlighten all our understandings that wee may all see and know his truth acknowledge reverence embrace and professe it and walke in the wayes of it evermore AMEN FINIS
powers Who saith S. Bernard hath excepted you speaking to an Archbishop from this generalitie Hee that bringeth in an exception saith hee useth but a delusion And you may remember that even S. Chrysostome also himselfe as hee subjecteth Kings to Bishops Priests and Pastors in respect of their power and commission graunted them from God So on the other side in respect of the Regall sword power and authoritie given and graunted likewise from God to Kings and Princes he declareth verie fully that Bishops Priests Pastors and all Ecclesiasticall Ministers whatsoever aswell as lay people are to be subject to them But this point concerning the subjection of all Bishops Priests and Pastors and even of the Bishop of Rome himselfe aswell as of others unto Emperours Kings and Princes as also in causes even Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill and temporall is so cleerely plainely and plentifully proved both in my first and second Bookes and in this also all your answers evasions quirkes and quiddities being therein utterly frustrated confuted and confounded as that it is to mee a matter of wounder that you should not see and so acknowledge the truth of it But it seemeth you cannot see the wood for trees which I am sorrie for 8. Howbeit to make this point yet the more evident viz the subjection of Priests and Ecclesiasticall Ministers unto the King and therewithall the Kings supremacie or supreame commaund over them even in causes Ecclesiasticall I alledged in my Reply cap. 1. pag. 5. the example of Moses who commaunded not onely the Levites Deut. 31.25.26 and that in a matter Ecclesiasticall and concerning their verie office but hee commaunded also even Aaron the high Priest in a matter likewise Ecclesiasticall and concerning his verie office Numb 16.46.47 saying thus unto him Take the censer and put fire therein of the Altar and put therein incense and goe quickely unto the congregation and make an attonement for them for there is wrath gone out from the Lorde the plague is begun then Aaron tooke as Moses had commaunded him c. Here you say I abuse my Reader by falsely citing this text for the right wordes say you are these Moses said to Aaron take the Censer and drawing fire from the Altar put incense upon it going quickely to the people to pray for them To pray say you and to make attonement doe differ and be not all one howbeit indeede not I but you are the man that abuse your Reader by falsely citing the wordes of this Text For you therein follow the wordes of your vulgar Latin translation which is untrue and unsound and I follow our English translation which is according to the Originall in Hebrew and therefore true which you also if you were a good Hebrician would know and perceive even in this verie particular But whether wee take your translation of Praying for the people or our translation of Attonement-making it commeth all to one passe as touching that purpose for which I cited it namely to prove that Moses commaunded Aaron the high Priest in a matter Ecclesiasticall cōcerning his verie office For your selfe do say that this praying for the people was a religious act to bee wrought by Aaron as being intermediate betweene the people God to reconcile or gaine unto them the favours of heaven And on the other side we say that to burne incense to mak attonement for the people 2. Chron. 26.18 is likwise expressely a thing properly pertayning to the Priests office So that as touching that purpose for which I cited that text it maketh as I said before no difference But then you go further seem to speake as if Moses had not there commanded Aaron But when Moses spake to Aaron in this sort Accipe thuribulū Take the censer Be not these wordes of commaunding especially in this case and at this time being also spoken by a Superior namely by him that was as the Scripture calleth him a king in the common-weale of Israel Deut. 33.5 Deut. 31.25 26.27 Yea bee they not wordes of as full and cleere commaund as when hee spake in like sort to the Levites saying Take the booke of this law and put yee it in the side of the Arke of the Covenant of the Lord our God c. The Text it selfe sheweth that these were wordes of commaunding in Moses And so witnesseth also your owne translation that herein Moses praecepit Levitis Moses commaunded the Levites Yea that Moses aswell as his successor Ioshuah commaunded not onely the Levites but the Priests also and all the congregation and people of Israel appeareth by that answer and acclamation they gave to the same Ioshuah saying thus unto him Iosh 1.16.17.18 All that thou hast commaunded us wee will doe and whethersoever thou sendest us wee will goe As wee have obeyed Moses in all things so will we obey thee onely the Lord thy God be with thee as bee was with Moses whosoever shall rebell against thy commaundement and will not obey thy wordes in all that thou commaundest him let him bee put to death But then when you cannot gainesay but that Moses commaunded Aaron and that in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning his very office you come to your last refuge and doe say that Moses was the high Priest and so as an high Priest commaunded Aaron But first how doe you prove this that Moses was an high Priest And yet if you could prove it what would you or could you gaine from thence for your selfe doe say that Moses was as well a king as a Priest therefore why might hee not commaund him as hee was a king rather then otherwise for did he in his time commaund the Priests Levites the whole People of Israel otherwise or in any other sort or sence then Ioshuah his successor did who was no Priest how be it if Moses had been both a Priest and a King would not the holy Scripture somewhere haue testified and expressed so much aswell as it doth in the like case of Melchisedech Gen. 14.18 Hebr. 7.1 For as touching those Texts of Scripture which you bring to prove Moses to be a Priest it shall by and by appeare that they prove it not Againe if Moses were the high Priest what will you make Aaron to be for it is evident and confessed of all sides that Aaron was the high Priest and if Moses were also another high Priest at the same time Deut. 33.5 then beside that there should be two high Priests together at one time how could the one commaund the other they being both of equall authority Or can he be rightly and truely called Summus Sacerdos that hath a Superior Priest over him to commaund him It is cleere that the Scripture doth expressely testifie of Moses that he was a King and therefore of that there can be no doubt but that he was also a Priest or an high Priest as you suppose it doth not affirme no not in that Place
no meanes yeeld thereunto but sent him a full negative Answer writing thus unto him Fidelitatem facere nolui nec volo quia nec ego promisi nec antecessores meos antecessoribus tuis id fecisse comperio I neyther would doe nor will doe fealtie because I neyther promised it nor doe I finde that any of my Predecessors have done it to any of your predecessors I have here recited the whole entire sentence not produced onely a part of it as you did verie lamely and imperfectly And now what have you to say against it First concerning that of King William the Conquerour you answer not a word And touching those particulars which I had before alleadged concerning the others Kings namely concerning William Rufus King Henry the First and King Henry the Second and other Kings of England that contended and opposed themselves against the Pope of Rome his encreachments and usurpations your answer is verie idle and impertinent For you answer as if I had affirmed that those Kings had utterly renounced abolished or put downe the Popes supremacie in their times whereas I affirmed onely that they contended and made opposition against him which they might and did doe although they then made not an utter extirpation and abolition of him out of that their kingdome And that they made opposition to him I have shewed and proved in my Reply pag. 75. 76. 78. 79. 80. And verie ignorant are you in the histories of England if you know not so much and verie perverse if knowing so much you will not acknowledge it 13. From thence you come to pag. 81 of my Reply where I write thus But now what meaneth my adversarie to bee so extreamely audacious as to denie the first foure Generall Councels to have beene called by the Emperours Here you say I was pleased to salute you with that language which better fitted an inconsiderative Iester then a deliberate Iudge Why what is the language or what are the words which so much offend you You afterward shew namely because I there used that terme of extreamely audacious But what is it else but extreme audaciousnesse to denie as you then did and still doe so cleere evident and plaine a truth For my part the matter considered I see not but you might have thought that I spake moderately and temperately enough whilst I spake in that sort and gave you no worse language For some others possibly would have said that you had beene therein extreamely and intolerably impudent But you forget as it seemeth or care not to remember what language or words you here utter concerning me which I have more cause to take ill at your hands then you have to bee offended at those other words of mine But to come to those foure Generall Councels I affirmed them which you denied to have beene called by the Emperours The first of them is The first Generall Councell of Nyce That this was called by the Emperour I proved in that my Reply pag. 81.82 by the testimonie of Ruffinus Eusebius Socrates Theodoret Sozomon Zonaras Nicephorus Platina and by the Synodall Epistle of the Nycene Fathers themselves And doth not hee then deserve to bee accounted at least extreamely audacious that will dare to denie this so manifest and palpable truth testified so abundantly and by so many witnesses But whilst among other witnesses for proofe of this point I produced Ruffinus affirming that Constantine apud urbem Nicaeam Episcopale Concilium convocavit Râ—ffin lib. 1. cap. 1. Called the Councell of Bishops together at the Citie of Nyce You say that I there used a little wile which amongst the vulgar sort will bee called Craft or Cousenage because say you I omitted those wordes Ex sacerdotum sententia which bee in Ruffinus and which words if they had beene mentioned would have declared that the Emperour Constantine summoned or called the Councell of Nyce by the advise consent or approbation of the Priests Howbeit first it is not of necessitie that the omission of those wordes must inferre it to bee done with a minde and purpose to defraude deceive and cousen as you verie odiously suggest Yea secondly to shew that I did not craftily or couseningly conceale or omitte those wordes for mine owne advantage as you alleadge behold you shall finde in the verie next page namely pag. 82. that I doe expressely mention them and doe directly affirme Ruffin lib. 1. cap. 1. out of the same Ruffinus that this Councell of Nyce was assembled or called Ex sacerdotum sententia By the advise and consent of the Priests and thereby I also proved that it was not done by the advise consent of the Bishop of Rome alone Now then who is the wily Craftie and Cousening Companion I hope the honest and equall Reader will by this time easily discerne and judge But thirdly I did there further answere as I doe likewise here againe that it maketh nothing to the matter in question at whose suite or request or by whose advise or consent that Councell was summoned For the question was not nor is by whose perswasion or suite or by whose advise or consent but by whose commaunding authoritie it was called Now it is verie apparant by those former testimonies that it was called and assembled by the commandement or commanding authoritie of the Emperour which declareth infallibly the supremacie and authority which the Emperour had in those dayes over all the Bishops and even over the Bishop of Rome himselfe aswell as over the rest whilst hee might and did thus commaund aswell the one as the other to appeare in a Generall Councell I also cited Eusebius Socrates and Theodoret and their wordes to prove likewise that the Emperour Constantine called and assembled that Generall Councell at Nyce But you are pleased not to see or not to acknowledge where those wordes are to bee found in their Authors And yet might you have seene and found them if you had so pleased in their severall Authors as namely in Eusebius de vita Constantini lib. 3 cap. 6. lib 1. cap. 37 in Socrates lib. 1. cap. 8. in the Greeke and cap. 5 in the Latin and in Theodoret lib. 1 cap 7. So that even that also which I cited out of Theodoret is not a famous fiction as you infamously and untruely report it but a verie certaine apparant truth as there you may see And all the rest of the Authors which I there cited doe likewise testifie and prove the same thing for which I there alleadged them Yea this point is so cleere and evident that whilst you thought to confute it you have your selfe further confirmed and confessed it Ruffin lib. 1. cap. 1. For when you purposing to alledge Ruffinus against mee doe cite his wordes thus Tumille Then hee meaning Constantine ex sacerdotum sententia apud urbem Nycaeam Episcopale concilium convocavit By the sentence or consent of the Priests did call the councell of Bishops at the
citie of Nyce And when againe you likewise intending to alledge Damasus against me doe affirme that he saith That Constantine did not gather the councell but cum consensu Silvestri Damasus lin Pont. concil 6 act 18. with the consent of Sylvester and that so much also is expressed in the sixt councell Doe you not in all this sufficiently confesse that the Emperour Constantine did by his commanding authoritie call this councell of Nyce although hee did it by the consent or approbation of Sylvester Bishop of Rome and of other Priests Now then to come to the second generall Councell which was the first Constantinopolitane I have likewise proved in my Reply pag 83. by the testimonies of Theodoret Socrates Sozomen Zonaras and the verie Councell it selfe speaking to the Emperour Theodosius the elder that it was called by the commaundment or commaunding Authoritie of the same Emperour To all which proofes and testimonies yon according to your wonted learning wisdome answer nothing in your Reioynder But in your first auswer to prove this Councell not to bee called by the commaundement of the Emperour but of Damasus Bishop of Rome you cited Theodoret libr. 5. cap. 9. and in your Reioynder you prosecute it and say That the Bishops meeting in this second generall councell writing to Pope Damasus doe testifie that they assembled at Constantinople by reason of his letter sent the yeare before to Theodosius But what meane you thus to abuse your Reader For first there is no such thing in that place of Theodoret Theodor lib. 5 cap. 9. that doth prove this second Generall Councell to have beene any more called by Damasus then by the other Bishops mentioned in the same Letter or in the same Epistle For that Letter or Epistle was not written or directed to one alone as namely to Damasus as you would make men beleeve but to many and diverse Bishops plurally For thus is the direction viz. To our most honourable Lords our verie Reverend brothers and fellowes in Office Damasus Ambrosius Britton Valerian Acholius Anemius Basil and the rest of the holy Bishops assembled in the noble Citie of Rome The holy Councell of Orthodoxe Bishops gathered together in the great Citie of Constantinople send Greeting So that it was not Damasus alone as here you see but the rest of those reverend Bishops also assembled at Rome that sent those Letters mentioned in that Epistle to the most holy Emperour Theodosius And secondly even those Letters of Damasus and of the rest of the Bishops sent to the Emperour concerning that matter of calling the Councell were onely perswasive and not commaunding Letters In asmuch as it is before by my Reply verie evident that this Councell was assembled by the commaundement or commaunding Letters of the Emperour And consequently it was not Damasus alone but other Bishops also joyned with him that sent those their Letters to the Emperour whereby hee was excited moved and perswaded to call and commaund that Councell to bee assembled at Constantinople Now then seeing that Theodoret whom you cite to prove that Pope Damasus by his commaunding Letters called this Councell Theodor. l. b. 5 cap. 7. proveth no such matter Yea hee expressely witnesseth the contrarie affirming it directly to have beene called by the commaundement of the Emperour Doth or can this any way helpe to excuse you Or doth it not rather so much the more inlarge and aggravate your fault herein Concerning the third Generall Councell which was the first Ephesine that That was called by the commaundement of the Emperour Theodosius the younger I have also proved in in my Reply pag. 83. by the testimonies of Evagrius Liberatus Socrates Zonaras Nicephorus by the Synodall Epistle it selfe And yet you would make men beleeve that it was called not by the commaundement of the Emperour but of Celestinus Bishop of Rome And for proofe hereof you cite Prosper in Chronico affirming it to have beene held Caelestini authoritate By the authority of Celestine But you still much mistake for this was no commandement or commaunding authoritie in Celestinus but a perswasive onely which Bishops might and did use to the Emperours verie often for the obtayning of Councels So that by these wordes is no more meant or signified but that Celestinus used such authoritie that is such power credite and estimation as hee had with the Emperour to cause and procure this Councell to bee assembled And that this word Authoritas doth so signifie and is verie often used in that sence your Dictionaries and Latine writers will sufficiently teach you Yea your selfe in your Rejoynder doe cite Paulus Diaconus in his Historicall collections that hee speaketh of the last of the first foure Generall Councels which was the Councell of Calcedon in this sort Papae Leonis auctoritate c. Paul Diac. lib. 15. By the authoritie of Pope Leo and commaund of Martian the Emperour the Councell of Culcedon was summoned Here you see a plaine distinction made betweene this authoritie the commaund The commaund or commanding authoritie being attributed to the Emperour Martian and the other authoritie namely the perswasive being attributed to Leo Bishop of Rome And yet neyther was it onely Celestinus Bishop of Rome but other Patriarkes and Bishops likewise as namely Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria Iohn Bishop of Antioch Zonar in Theodos Iuniore and Iuvenall Bishop of Ierusalem that perswaded and excited the Emperour to call and commaund this third Generall Councell at Ephesus as Zonaras testifieth And as touching the fourth Generall Councell which was as I said that at Calcedon I have proved in my Reply pag. 85. by the testimonie of the verie Councell it selfe and by sundry Epistles also of Leo Bishop of Rome that this Councell of Calcedon was summoned by the commaundement of the Emperour whereunto may be also added that your owne testimonie of Paulus Diaconus before cited who saith as even your selfe alledged him that this fourth Generall Councell of Calcedon was summoned or called by the commaundement of Martian the Emperour and not of Leo although Leo did also interpose and use his authoritie and credite with the Emperour for the effecting of it Now then when beside the cleerenesse of other proofes you saw by this expresse testimonie or Prulus Diaconus whom your selfe alledged that this Councell of Calcedon was summoned or called by the commaundement of the Emperor Martian why should you or any man else say or suppose the contrarie thereunto Yea even Leo himselfe in divers of his Epistles sheweth as I said before that neyther hee nor any other Bishop of Rome did in those dayes summon or call eyther this or any other Generall Councell but that it belonged to the Emperours so to doe as you may see more fully by the wordes and actions of the same Leo formerly mentioned in my Reply pag. 84.85 But I there also further alledged a fifth Generall Councell called Mandato Iustiniani By the commaundement of
betweene the King and the Priest that Ille cogit Châ—ysosto de verbis Esaiae vidi DominuÌ„ homil 4. hic exhortatur Ille habet arma sensibilia hic arma spiritualia The King compelleth the Priest exhorteth the King hath the sensible weapons the Priest the spirituall weapons And when the Priest or Ecclesiasticall Minister hath gone as far as he can go in his Ecclesiasticall Ministerie he must not go any further to use any externall power coactive or compulsive as he there also teacheth 〈◊〉 21.1 but must in every such case leave men unto God who hath the hearts of all kings aswell as of others in his hands and moveth and turneth them when Chrys de Sacerlotisâ—h 2. and which way sâ—ever he pleaseth Yea S. Chrysoâ—tome saith yet further expressely That it is not lawfull for a Bishop to oure men with so great authoritie as a sheepheard doth his sheepe for it is free for a sheepheard forcibly to binde his sheepe to drive them from their feeding to scare them and to cut them but in the other case the facilitie of the cure consisteth no in him that giveth but onely in him that taketh the medicine This that admirable teacher perceiving said to the Corinthians Not that wee have any Dominion over you under the name of faith but that wee are helpers of your ioy For of all men Christian Bishops must not correct the faults of offenders by force or violence Externall Iudges when they take any transgressing the lawes they shew themselves to be endued with great authoritie and power and doe compell them whether they will or no to change their manners But here saith hee non vim afferre sed suadere tantum oportet atque hac ratione meliorem efficere quem emendandum susceperis You may not use violence but perswasion onely and by this meanes make him better whom you have taken upon you to amend Againe hee saith If any sheepe goe out of the right way Chrysost de Sacerdotio lib. 2. and leaving the plentifull pastures graze on barren and steepe places The sheepheard somewhat exalteth his voyce to reduce the dispersed and stragling sheepe and to force them to the flocke But if any man wander from the right path of the Christian faith The Pastor must use great great paines care and patience Neque enim vis illi inferenda neque terrore ille cogendus verum suedendu tantùm ut de integro ad veritatem redeat For hee may nor be forced or constrained with terror but perswaded onely that so hee may returne againe to the truth If then your late Councell of Lateran under Pope Innocentius the third decreed as you say this externall power coactive to bee in the Bishop of Rome You see it is not to be regarded Because such a decree if any such were is directly contrarie to the testimonie of all former approved antiquitie But yet you must also remember what Platina writeth concerning that Councell Plantina de vita Innocen 3. Venêre multa tum quidem in consultationem nec decerni tamen quicquam apertè potuit Many things saith hee came into consultation in that Councell but nothing could plainely be decided by reason the Pope departing to compose some tumults then suddainely risen died by the way So that this your great Councell of Lateran consulting how to defeate Kings and Princes of their Temporall kingdomes and Dominions but not decreeing or concluding any thing therein as being prevented by the Popes hastened and unexpected death will also doe you no pleasure in this case But now why may not I after so many questions of yours answered propound you also one question which is this What if the Bishop of Rome for maintenance of his worldly pompe pride pleasure and ambition carelesly neglect all right religion and bee so extremely wicked both for life doctrine as that hee careth not to carrie innumerable soules together with his owne by heapes to hell who shall correct restraine represse or punish him For answer whereunto you might say that in former and auncient times The Emperours had the correction and the punishment aswell of the Bishops of Rome as of other Bishops that were offenders within their Dominions But now the case is altered and the world turned topsie turvie and the Bishop of Rome growne to that height and licenciousnesse as that hee will not allow himselfe to be censured or judged by any men mortall be they Emperus Kings Princes Bishops Generall Councels or whosoever they bee But whilst he is thus mounted not onely above other Kings and Princes but even above the Emperours also himselfe What saith Optatus of such a one Optat. libr. 3. pag. 85. Cùm super Imperatorem non sit nisi solus Deus qui fecit Imperatorem certè quise super Imperatorem extollit iam quasi hominum excesserit metas se ut Deum non hominem aestimat Forasmuch as saith he there is none above the Emperour but God onely that made the Emperour Certainely be that exalteth himselfe above the Emperour as one that hath gone beyond the bounds of men esteemeth himselfe not now any longer as a mac but as God And whilest withall hee thus exempteth himselfe from the Lawes censure and judgement of all men upon earth what doth hee else by all this but shew himselfe to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That lawlesse person mentioned by S. Paul in 2. Thess 2.8 And which also sitteth in the Church or temple of God as God 2. Thess 2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12 and is exalted above all those men upon earth that be called Gods in the Scriptures of which sort be Kings and Princes and even above the Emperour also himselfe to whom belongeth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sebasma mentioned in the same place of 2. Thessal 2.4 in asmuch as hee is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sebastos that is Augustus as the Scripture also it selfe expressely calleth him Act. 25.21.25 But lastly It is well knowne that by Gods owne institutution the power of the Civill and Temporall sword rightly properly belongeth to Emperours â—om 13.1.2 â— 4.5.6 Kings and Princes and not to Bishops Pastors or other Ecclesiasticall Ministers therefore may Kings and Princes lawfully commaund compell and punish all Bishops Pastors and Ecclesiasticall Ministers whatsoever if they offend aswell as lay-Persons by authoritie of that their sword committed to them from God But Bishops on the other side may not by that their Ecclesiasticall office and function use that temporall sword nor any temporall externall power coactive thereunto incident or belonging against any King or other Person for any cause whatsoever because that sword is not committed to them from God Yea this opinion concerning compelling of Kings savoureth more of treason then of reason and therefore is utterly to bee detested and abhorred 17. But then you say further that whatsoever I alledged to invest our King with the supremacie the same might be alledged by any