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
to Christian Emperors Kings and Princes which is allowed to farre inferior and meaner persons Yea these chiefly and principally in regard of their high places and callings are to be allowed this right Whereas therefore my Adversarie saith that Bishops and Cleargie men should be Iudges for determining of Dogmaticall questions and Controversies of Faith and Religion and that Christian Emperors Kings and Princes are to be guided directed taught and instructed by them all this is granted Yet withall let Christian Kings and Princes have also herein their dues and that right which to them belongeth Which is to search the Scriptures thereby to trie examine whether the doctrine of their Teachers be true or false For Act 17.12 Basil 〈◊〉 dâ—f 77. pag. 432. it behoueth the Hearers saith S. Basill that be instructed in the Scriptures to trie those things which are spoken by their Teachers and receiving that which agreeth with the Scriptures to reject the contrarie And so S. Augustine likewise Aug in Iohan. tract 46. Sua vero si velint docere nolite audire nolite facere That if they will teach their owne devises you must neyther heare them nor doe as they teach you Although then Bishops Pastors Ministers Ecclesiasticall are first of all to be consulted with to â—udge of matters of Faith controversies in Religion yâ—â— are they not absolute and infallible Iudges nor absolute and infallible Teachers or directors but are themselves limited and to be directed in all their Iudgements Doctrines and Decrees by that onely absolute and infallible rule of trueth the sacred and Canonicall Scriptures So that if they shall judge direct decree or teach any thing not according to the Divine Scriptures but contrarie thereunto as the Arrian Bishops in time past did and as the Popish Bishops and Teachers in these dayes doe all that is â—ustly worthy to be refused by all Christian Emperors Kings and Princes as is verie evident both by all good reason and by that which is before delivered Now then although these two points be granted to my Adversarie viz. That the Regall and Priestly offices be things distinct and that those that beare Regall Authoritie be also subordinate and subject to that Authoritie message and Ministerie which God hath coÌ„mitted to Bishops Pastors and Ministers Ecclesiasticall yet when there is further a third point appearing which he must acknowledge namely that Bishops Pastors and Ecclesiasticall Ministers be also subordinate and subject to the sword and Authoritie of Christian Kings and Princes and that in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning Religion aswell as in matters Civill and Temporall as is before at large declared What benefite or advantage doth he get thereby Yea is not his cause thereby for ever overthrowen Thus farre then you see that the plea which hee hath put in for a demurrer or stay of mens judgements is altogether insufficient for that purpose and therefore for any matter yet shewed by him or appearing to the contrarie all mens judgements may and ought to proceede and to be given against him and his cause unlesse in that which followeth he can shew better matter then as yet he hath shewed Let us therefore now see whether hee hath any better matter in that then he hath found in those his two points before mentioned For those his two former points appeare not worth a poynt nor of any value or validitie at all against the Kings SUPREMACIE 4 First it is true that I alledged that Text of 1. Pet. 2.13 To prove the KINGS SUPREMACIE over all persons aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill within his owne Dominions And what can my Adversary say against it Doth not S. Peter expressely require of all Christians that live within the Dominion of any King 1. Pet. 2.13 That they should submit themselves unto him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto the Chiefe or Supreme person over them Hee cavilleth at my argument because it is thus propounded interrogatively and not affirmatively A verie childish exception if it be not more then childish For is he so sillie and ignorant that he knoweth not that an interrogative speech doth sometime carrie the force of the greater more Emphaticall affirmation And yet if hee had but read and remembred the verie next words following that interrogative he might have found a redditive and a direct affirmative answere thereunto For the words next and immediately following bee these It is evident say I that he calleth the King Chiefe or Supreme not onely in respect of Dukes Earles or other Temporall governors as the Rhemists would have it but in respect of all the rest likewise were they Bishops Pastors Cleargie men or whosoever For he writeth that his Epistle not to Heathens but to Christians and amongst them not to the Lay people onely but to such also as were Presbiters and did 〈…〉 1. Pet 112.34 5. 〈…〉 5 1.2 doe the office of Bishops amongst them requiring even them aswell as the rest to yeelde their subjection submission unto him Now then seeing this direct affirmative in my Booke pag. 1. of that Chapter and that the words of S. Peter in the Text it selfe be also direct affirmative 1. Pet. 2.13 for these be his words Be yee therefore subject c. What doth he or can he answere thereunto He stiâ—l cavilleth at the words of the Text playing with them ad libitum and maketh the reason of it to be because he is a Lawyer as though it were lawfull or allowable for a man of that profession to be a wrangling Lawyer or as though because he is a Lawyer it were as free for him to cavill and sport himselfe with Divine Texts and evidences as with humane or as though he had never heard nor learned That Non est bonum ludere cum Sanctis Seeing I am a Lawyer saith he let me article and make my argument or plea upon the Text And then hee goeth on and saith That these wordes in the Text Be subject doe no more specifie the Christians then the Heathens nor any more the Subjects then the Princes Be not these strange asseverations For when S. Peter writeth that his Epistle not to Heathens 1. Pet. 1.2 3.4 c. but to Christians dispersed through Pontus Galatia Capadocia Asia and Bithinia and saith thus unto them Subjecti estote Be yee subject Can these words thus directly and purposely spoken to Christians no more specifie or intend Christians then Heathens Where were the mans wits I mervaile when he wrot thus absurdly Yea himselfe afterward confuteth himselfe For mentioning both this Text of S. Peter and that also of S. Paul in Rom. 13.1 c. He saith that in these two cited places both these Apostles Exhort to obedience and the reason saith he why the King is mentioned Is because in those dayes Christians were by the malice of their Adversaries accused of sedition and rebellion against Princes Doth hee not by these wordes make it verie evident that S.
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
him belongeth the Supremacie to whose Tribunall the appeale is made But my Adversarie faith yet further that Appeales to Emperors and Kings were alwayes in Temporall matters but therein he is aâ—so much deceaved For Appeales were made to them sometimes in matters Ecclesiasticall as even this very particular Appeale here made to the Emperor in the cause betweene Caecilianus and the Donatists doth plainely declare For Donatus and his partakers objected that Cacilianus could not be Bishop of Carthage for many crimes surmised against him and especially for that Felix which imposed hands on him had as they said betrayed or burnt the Scriptures Whereupon they not only refused his Communion but procured also his condemnation in a Provinciall Synod by IXX. African Bishops and in a tumult erected another Bishop So that the great Question in this cause was whether Caecilianus thus accused and ordayned by the imposition of hands of Felix and condemned by that Provinciall Synod in Africke were the right Bishop of Carthage or he that was erected by the Donatists Which what is it else but a matter Ecclesiasticall For the parties accusing and accused were Ecclesiasticall namely Bishops the crimes and faults objected were objected as just impediments to the Episcopall dignitie the things surmised and to be tried were the right election of Bishops the lawfull deposing of them the needfull Communion with them the schismaticall dissenting from them What causes can be more Ecclesiasticall then these And yet even in this Episcopall and Ecclesiasticall cause was there as before appeareth an Appeale made to the Emperor accepted by him approved by sundry Emperors and allowed also by S. Augustine and the whole Orthodoxe Church in that time That famous Appeale also from the Councell of Tyrus to the Emperor by Athanasius and other Orthodoxe Bishops ioyning with him was it not likewise in a matter Ecclesiasticall For the crimes objected against them were these viz. Overthrowing the Lords Table dashing in pieces the Mysticall Cup Socrat lib. 1. cap. 27. after the Greeke c. 20. in Latin Act. 25.10.11 burning the holy Bible using a dead mans hand to sorcerie c. The appeale also which S. Paul himselfe made from the high Priest and Councell of the Iewes unto Caesar was it not also in a cause Ecclesiasticall For were not the matters for which S. Paul was accused matters Ecclesiasticall Festus himselfe witnesseth that Pauls accusers brought no crime against him of such matters as he supposed but had certaine questions against him of their owne superstition Act. 25.18.19 and of one IESVS that was dead whom Paul affirmed to be alive And this even S. Paul also himselfe declareth in his answere when he saith thus unto them Act. 26 8. Why should it be thought a thing incredible unto you that God should rayse againe the dead And so also wrote Claudius Lysias unto Felix the governor Act. 23.28.29 that when Paul was brought before the Councell of the Iewes There I perceaved saith hee that Paul was accused of questions of their Law but had no crime against him worthy of death or bonds Yea S. Paul saith againe expressely thus Of the resurrection of the dead it is that I am accused of you this day It is therefore very apparant Act. 24.20.21 that S. Pauls appeale from them to the Emperor was in and concerning a matter Ecclesiasticall And if which is a thing evident S. Paul in a cause Ecclesiasticall and concerning Religion thought it lawfull and meete for him to appeale to the Emperor when hee was an heathen much more would hee have thought it lawfull and meete to Appeale to the Emperor being a Christian For though an heathen Emperor hath in him the power and authoritie to receave such an appealeâ— yet upon such an appeale in a cause Ecclesiasticall and concerning Religion is he not so well able to judge of the cause in respect of skill and knowledge as he that is a Christian Emperor And herein doth also that reverend and renowned Bishop Athanasius speake thus unto the Emperor of his time Athan. ad Const Apolog. Si apud alios accusatus essem ad tuam Majestatem provocarem quemadmodum Apostolus dixit Caesarem appello cessatum est ab insidijs contra eum Iam quum apud te calumniam mihi ausi sunt intentare ad quem 〈◊〉 quaeso appellare potero nisi ad patrem ejus qui dixit ego sum veritas If I were accused before others I would appeale to your Majestie as the Apostle said I appeale to Caesar and then was there no longer lying in wayte for him but now that they are bold to calumniate me to your Majestie to whom I beseech you may I appeale from you unlesse it be to the Father of him that said I am the trueth In which wordes he sheweth that this fact and example of the Apostle Paul in the appealing to the Emperor was to be imitated and followed of Christians in after times and that beyond the Emperor there was also in those times of Athanasius no appeale to be made but to God onely But here now my Adversarie goeth about by alledging Appeales to have beene made to the Bishop of Rome to inferre a supremacie to belong unto him and for proofe thereof he citeth some examples as namely First that of Marcion who being excommunicate Epiph. haeros 42. went to Rome to be absolved by the Bishop there as he alledgeth out of Epiphanius Howbeit Epiphanius doth not say that he desired this absolution of the Bishop of Rome but of diverse plurally namely a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly Epiphanius sheweth that these of the Church of Rome in that time answered him That they might not receave or absolve him without the consent or permission of his Reverend Father the Bishop that had excommunicated him And thirdly against this course of running to Rome it was afterwards purposely decreed in the Councell of Nice Conc. Nic. 1. c. â— That they that were excommunicate by one Bishop should not be absolved of another Wherefore all this maketh much against the supremacie of the Bishop of Rome but nothing for him His second example is of Fortunatus and Felix who being wicked men excommunicate in Africke fled to Rome to be absolved there by Cornelius the Bishop of Rome And for proofe hereof he citeth S. Cyprian But doth S. Cyprian allow of this their flying to Rome No Cyprian lib. 1. Epist 3. but cleane contrariewise he utterly misliketh and condemneth it For writing to the same Cornelius he saith That certaine persons condemned in Africke by the Bishops there Romam cum mendacioruÌ„ suoruÌ„ merce navigaverunt Sayled to Rome with their fraite of lyes And against this hee addeth further That it is a thing equall and right that everie mans cause should be there heard where the crime was committed Againe he saith That every Pastor hath a portion of the Lords flock assigned unto him vvhich
c. Ioshua the successor of Moses did likewise as a King or Prince commaund even the Priests and Levites aswell as the rest of the people as appeareth by the acclamation and answere they made unto him Iosh 1.17.18 saying thus As vve obeyed Moses in all things so will wee obey thee c. Whosoever shall rebell against thy commandement and will not obey thy words in all that thou commandest him let him be put to death Iosh 6.6 Iosh 5 3.4 Iosh 5.10 Iosh 7.24.25 Iosh 8 30. Iosh 8.34.35 And it is further manifest that he also dealt in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as Temporall for he would have the children of Israell to be Circumcised and the Passeover to be kept and the Man that had offended in the excommunicate thing to be punished He also builded an Altar for their sacrifices offerings He reade the whole Law unto them the blessings and cursings There was not a word of all that Moses had commanded which Ioshua reade not before all the Congregation of Israell aswell before the Women and the Children as the stranger that was conversant among them Hee renewed the Covenant between God and the people and caused them to put away the strange Gods that were amongst them Iosh 24.23.24.25.31 Insomuch that by his diligent care and good governement Israell served the Lord all the dayes of Ioshua Likewise of that Godly King Iosiah it is recorded that he commanded the high Priest aswell as the other Priests and dealt in matters also Ecclesiasticall and concerning Gods service and Religion For thus it is written of him That hee commanded Hilkiah the high Priest 2 King 23.4 and the priests of the second Order and the keepers of the Doore to bring out of the Temple of the Lord all the vessels that were made for Baal and for the Grove and for all the Hoste of heaven and he burnt them without Ierusalem in the fields of Kedron 2 King 23.5 and carried the powder of them into Bethel And hee put downe the Chemarims whom the kings of Iuda had founded to burne incense in the high places and in the Cities of Iuda and about Ierusalem and also them that burnt incense unto Baal to the Sunne and to the Moone and to the Planets and to all the Hoste of heaven c. He commanded also the Passeover to be kept c. Hee purged Iuda and Ierusalem vers 21. from the high places the Groves and the carved and molten Images Yea 2 Chro. 34. vers 3.4.7.33 he tooke away all the abominations out of all the countries that pertayned to the Children of Israell â— compelled all that were found in Israell to serve the Lord their God Had not also King Salomon authoritie over the Priests and Levites and did not he likewise deale in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning Religion when he set the courses of the Priests to their offices according to the order of David his Father 2. Chro. 8.14.15 the Levites in their watches to prayse and minister before the Priests everie day and the Porters by their courses at everie Gate For so was the commandement of David the man of God And the Text saith That they declined not from the commandement of the King concerning the Priests and the Levites c. He removed also Abiathar from being priest unto the Lord and set Sadoc in his roome 1. King 2.27.35 1 King 8.22.23 24.25.26.27 Hee also builded an house and Temple unto God and did dedicate the Temple in his owne person Did not also King Asa meddle with men and matters Ecclesiasticall 2 Chro. 14.3.4.5 when he tooke away the Altars of the strange Gods and the high places and brake downe the Images and cut downe the groves and commanded Iuda to seeke the Lord God of their Fathers and to doe according to the Law commandement c. Therefore the kingdome was quiet before him And he tooke an oath of all Iuda that Whosoever would not seeke the Lord God of Israell should be slaine whether he were small or great Man or Woman And they sware unto the Lord with a loud voyce and with shouting and with Trumpets and with Cornets And all Iuda rejoyced at the Oath 2 Chron 15.12 13 14.15.16 c. for they had sworne unto the Lord with all their heart and sought him with an whole desire and he was found of them Hee also deposed Maachah his Mother from her regencie because shee had made an Idoll in a Grove and hee broke downe her Idoll and stamped it and burnt it at the brooke Kidron King Iehosaphat did the like when he sought the Lord God of his Fathers 2. Chron. 17.3 4 5.6.7.8.9 and walked in his commandements and not after the doings of Israell Therefore the Lord stablished the kingdome in his hand And all Iuda brought to Iehosaphat presents and he had riches and honour in abundance And he lift up his heart unto the wayes of the Lord. Moreover he tooke away the high Places and Groves out of Iuda Hee also sent his Princes and with them Priests and Levites to teach in the Cities of Iuda they taught in Iuda had the Booke of the Law of the Lord with them and went throughout all the Cities of Iuda â— Chron. 19 8. and taught the people Againe in Ierusalem Iehosaphat set of the Levites and of the Priests and of the chiefe of the Families of Israell for the judgement and cause of the Lord c. Did not also that good and Godly king Hezekiah shew his authoritie over Priests and Levites 2. Chron. 29 3 4.5.6.7.8.9.10 11 12.13.14.15.16 and in matters also Ecclesiasticall when he opened the dores of the house of the Lord and brought in the Priests and the Levites and said thus unto them Heare me yee Leuites sanctifie now your selves and sanctifie the house of the Lord God of your fathers and carrie forth the filthinesse out of the Sanctuarie c. And they gathered their brethren and sanctified themselves and came according to the commandement of the King and by the wordes of the Lord to clense the house of the Lord And the Priests went into the inner parts of the house of the Lord to clense it and brought out all the uncleannesse that they found in the Temple into the Court of the house of the Lord And the Levites tooke it to carrie it out to the brooke Kidron Hee also commanded the Priests Vers 21 2â— the Sonnes of Aaron to offer sacrifices on the Altar of the Lord And hee sent to all Israell and Iuda wrote Letters to Ephraim and Manasseh that they should come to the house of the Lord at Ierusalem to keepe the Passeover unto the Lord God of Israell Hee appointed the courses of the Priests and Levites 2. Chron. 30.1 by their turnes everie man according to his Office 2 Chron. 31.2 both Priests and Levites for the burnt offerings
It is true that the same Hosius Bishop of Corduba spake further unto the Emperor in this sort Athanas ad soâ—tariam vitam agentes God saith he hath committed the Empyre to thee to us the things of the Church And as he that envieth thy Empyre contradicteth the ordinance of God So take thou heede least drawing unto thy selfe the things of the Church thou be guiltie of great sinne It is written give unto Caesar that which is Caesars and unto God that which is Gods It is therefore neyther lawfull for us that be Bishops to hold a kingdom on earth neyther host thou power ô Prince over sacrifices and sacred things Howbeit these wordes doe onely distinguish and put a difference betweene the office and function of Priests and the office and function of Kings and Princes shewing that the one may not incroch or intrude upon that which râ—ghtly and properly belongeth unto the other but that every one should keepe himselfe within the bounds of his owne proper calling office And so teach the Protestants also and therefore if any King or Prince usurpe or intrude upon that which is proper and peculiar unto the Priests office as King Vzziah entred into the Temple to burne Incense 2 Chron. 26.16.17.18 which pertayned to the Priests office onely they utterly dislike and condemne it Now then let all this be granted that Kings and Princes may not doe any thing that is proper and peculiar to the Priests office nor may meddle in Ecclesiasticall causes after a cruell and tyrannicall maner nor use their authoritie in Ecclesiasticall causes for the maintenance of Arrianisme or of any other heresie or error nor doe any thing against God or his truth and Religion Yet what doth all this or any of this make against those Godly and Christian Kings and Princes that extend and use their authoritie in Ecclesiasticall causes in a good sort and for God and for the maintenance of his trueth Religion and ordinances It maketh as you see just nothing at all against them But it is further objected that S. Ambrose when Valentinian the Emperor would have had a Church in Millan for the Arrian heretickes answereth thus Neyther is it lawfull for me to yeelde unto it Ambros libr. 5. epist. 3â— nor expedient for you ô Emperor to take it The house of a private man you cannot by right invade Doe you thinke then you may take away the house of God It is alledged that the Emperor may doe what he list But I answere burthen not your selfe ô Emperor to thinke that you have any Imperiall right over those things that be Gods Exalt not your selfe so high but if you will raigne long be subject unto God For it is written give unto Caesar that which is Caesars and to God that which is Gods Palaces belong to Emperors Churches to Priests Epist â—â— The Church is Gods it ought not to be yeelded by me to Caesar The Temple of God cannot he Caesars right I cannot deliver that to Heretickes which I receaved to keepe on Gods behalfe I would to God Epist 32. it were apparant to me that my Church should not be delivered to the Arrians I would willingly offer my selfe to the judgement of your highnesse I would to God that it were decreed Orat. onâ— Auxenâ— that no Arrian should trouble my Churches and of my person pronounce what sentence you will With my consent I will never forgoe my right if I be compelled I have no way to resist I can sorrow I can weepe I can sigh Teares are my weapons Priests have onely these defences By other meanes I neyther ought nor may resist To flie and forsake my Church I use not least any should thinke it done to avoyde some sorer punishment Ibidem Epist 33. If my goods be sought for take them If my bodie I will be readie Will you put mee in Irons or lead mee to death You shall doe me a pleasure I will not guard my selfe with multitudes of people but I will gladly he sacrificed for the Altars of God All this maketh against the favourers and maintayners of Arrianisme but nothing against that authoritie in Ecclesiasticall matters which Kings and Princes have to commande for God and for the good of his Church and the advancement of his Religion against Arrianisme and against all other heresies and errors whatsoever My Adversarie therefore objecteth further that S. Ambrose saith Ambros Epist Lib. 5 cont Aux That a good Emperor is within the Church and not above the Church Indeede seeing the Church is the mother of Christian Emperors aswell as of other Christians it becommeth a Christian Emperor as a good Child and Sonne of such a mother to account â—t his greatest honour to submit himselfe as he ought to the word rules and ordinances which God hath set in the same his Church and not to exaâ—t himselfe aboue them as Valentinian did when he was so forward for the advancement of Arrianisme Arrian assemblies against the true Church of God and the Orthodoxe Bishops therein For that by the Church here S. Ambrose meaneth the things of God in the Church appeareth not only by that Text which he citeth of Give unto Caesar the things that be Caesars and unto God the things that be Gods but by those other words of his likewise where he saith plainely Ambr. lib. 5. c. 33 Ea quae divina saÌ„t imperatoriae potestati non esse subjecta The things that be divine be not subject to the Emperors power And yet the same S. Ambrose affirmeth nevertheles That the Emperor had power over the persons of all men within his Empyre Ambros de obien Theoâ—osij Here then you must learne of S. Ambrose to distinguish betweene the things in the Church and the persons in the Church For over all the persons he confesseth That the Emperor had power but not over the Divine things therein And this also doe the Protestants hold that a Christian King hath power over the persons of all Bishops Pastors and Ecclesiasticall Ministers in the Church within his owne Dominions But not over the Divine things therein as namely not over Gods Word his Religion Sacraments and other his Institutions and Ordinances in his Church Yet againe it is objected by some that S. Ambrose reproved the Emperor Valentinian the younger for that he would take upon him to be Iudge in a matter of Faith cause Ecclesiasticall but the reason of it must be knowne For Valentinian a young Prince not yet baptized and a novice in the mysteries of Religion would upon the perswasion and counsell of his Mother Iustina an Arrian needes have Ambrose to come and dispute with Auxentius the Arrian in his Palace or Consistorie before him Ambr â— 5. Orat. coâ—r Auxent Epist. 53. and he would be the Iudge whether of their two Religions were truest Whereunto Ambrose made answere and gave it in writing to Valentinian shewing him amongst
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
law of God Dan. 3.29 by the Ministerie of Ezra that learned Scribe Nebuchadnezzar also though an heathen King gave a commandement and made a decree that none should blaspheme the GOD of Shadrach Dan 6 25 26. Meshach and Abednego King Darius likewise gave commandement made a decree that in all the Dominions of his kingdom men should tremble feare before the Lord God of Daniel whose God was the true God Some heatheÌ„ Emperors also gave commandment that men should cease from persecuting the Christians that Christians should have the free exercise of their Religion build Oratories places for their meetings and assemblies Euseb li 7. cap. â—8 cap 12. quietly possesse them for the service of their God Were not these such like commandments good lawful coÌ„mendable Euseb lib. 9 cap. 16. cap. 8. lat though given by heathen Emperors and in causes Ecclesiasticall and concerning Religion And were they not meete to be obeyed If then heathen Kings and Princes may as is manifest lawfully and laudably command for God his worship service and Religion and are therein dutifully to be obeyed By what right or reason can it bee denied to Christian Kings and Princes to have at least the like authoritie to command in matters Ecclesiasticall for God his service and Religion For shall Christian Kings and Princes be in worse case then heathen Kings Or shall they fare the worse or have the lesse Regall power and authority because of their Religion of Christianitie God forbid This argument I likewise alledged in the first Chapter of my former Booke pag. 7. whereto my Adversarie againe like a wise man still knoweth how to answere nothing And yet he saith he will propose my defused argument in a succinct forme the most for my advantageâ—â— But I neyther desire nor looke for any advantage at his hands Let him make his owne Arguments the best hee can for his owne advantage As for mine I would not have him to frame them unlesse hee would doe it more truely Hee would indeede make my Argument defused or rather confused by his confused maner of answering jumbling things together which I had Methodically and expressely distinguished For first my purpose was to prove his Majesties SUPREMACIE over all persons within his owne Dominions and then afterward in the second place to shew his Authoritie in respect of Causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill In the first Section of that Chapter pag. 1.2.3.4 I handle the first point concerning his Supremacie in respect of persons and in the second section pag. 5. and not before it is that I begin to handle his Authoritie in respect of causes This Text then of S. Peter being alledged as it is in the first section and pag. 1. was by me produced to prove onely his Majesties Supremacie over all persons aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill within his owne Dominions and not for any such end or purpose as thereby to prove his Majesties Authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill as he misconceaveth But sith he will needes have it so used I am well content with it because that Text doth indeede serve verie sufficiently to prove both those purposes For the first the argument is verie apparant and may be framed thus If all persons aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill are to be subject to their King as to the Chiefe or Supreme within his owne Dominions then hath their King a cleare Supremacie over them all But all persons aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill are to be subject to their King as to the Chiefe or Supreme within his owne Dominions for so S. Peter directly teacheth Ergo their King hath a cleare Supremacie over them all And for the second point the argument is also very open and evident For the King is not called the Chiefe or Supreme in respect onely of the excellencie of his person above all his subjects but in respect also of his Authoritie Rule and Governement he hath over them yea in this respect specially he is so called as appeareth by this That S. Peter distribuâ—es the humane creature he there speaketh of that is the Temporall Magistrates Rulers or Governors into the King as being the Chiefe or Supreme Governor and into other that be governors under him So that here we finde the Kings Title of Supreme Governor very manifestly proved and directly ratified and confirmed And that his governement and authoritie extendeth also to all manner of causes and consequently to causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill it is thus also made verie apparant out of this Text. For S. Peter here sheweth 1. Pet 2.13.14 that the King as the Supreme Governor and the other that bee inferior governors under him be all constituted to this end viz. For the punishment of evill doers and for the prayse of them that doe well Now be there not or may there not be evill doers aswell in the Church as in the Commonweale and transgressors and offendors aswell in matters Ecclesiasticall as Civill and Temporall Shall not then aswell the one sort of these offendors as the other be held punishable by the Kings Civill and Temporall Sword especially when they grow and continue obstinate wilfull perverse and unruly and will not otherwise be reclaymed The Text maketh no such difference or distinction as the Papists fondly doe betweene offendors in causes Ecclesiasticall and offendors in causes Civill and Temporall but generally or indefinitely it would have Evill doers of what sort soever without any distinction exception or restriction to bee punished by this Civill sword And ubi lex non distinguit ibi nec nos distinguere debemus The Argument then for the Kings Authoritie in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as in Civill out of this Text of S. Peter is and may be framed thus Whosoever hath authoritie from God to punish Evill doers by the Civill sword without any distinction restriction or exception of causes hath Authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill But the King hath Authoritie from God to punish â—â—â—-â—oers by the Ciuill sword without any distinction restriction or exception of causes Ergo The King hath Authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill The Matoâ— is evident in it selfe The Miror is proved and apparant by the Text and therefore the conclusion must be granted My Adversarie neverthelesse still urgeth that as touching spirituall and Ecclesiasticall causes and matters and concerning Religion obedience must be performed to the Supreme Pastor and head of the Church And who denieth this Yea this is granted unto him so hee take it rightly For not the Pope as he and other Papists strangely suppose but CHRIST IESVS onely is the Chiefe Sheepheard or Supreme Pastor and head of the Church as hath beene often declared and as is apparant As for that he saith That the Militant Church must have some visible head in Earth to rule and governe it 1. Pet. 5.4 Hebr. 13 20. Colos 1.18 Ephes 1 2â—.23 He onely saith it but
to say Obsecro ut scribatis is verie consonant and most fit and congruous Againe how can Obsecro ut scribas well stand with these words Literis vestris frui concedite or with didiceritis adhibete or with Scitote and intellexeritis or with praestetis or with all the rest of the Verbes that be of the Plurall number But let this be as it will This is certaine and cannot be denied that Chrysostome prayed ayde aswell of the other Bishops of the West as of Innocentius Bishop of Rome of them all alike So that this example and times of Chrysostome Innocentius make nothing for the Bishop of Rome his supremacie but much against it For when Chrysostome was deposed from his Bishopricke in a Councell â—f Bishops at Calcedon hee appealed from them not to the Bishop of Rome but to a generall Councell This Socrates witnesseth saying Socrat. lib. 6. cap. 15. in greeke cap. 14 in the lat Iohannes eos à quibus vocabatur tanquam inimicos exceptione recusabat universalem Synodum appellabat Iohn Chrysostome refused those that called him to that Councell upon this exception that they were his enemies and appealed to a generall Councell Secondly those Bishops assembled in that Councell for the deposing of Chrysostome were so assembled not by the commandement of the Bishop of Rome but by the Emperors commandement Ibidem for so also doth Socrates testifie Thirdly when Innocentius saw that the matter could not be ended but in a generall Councell he sent Legats to Honorius and Arcadius Emperors to beseech them to call a Councell and to appoint the time and place for it where also his suite and supplication was so little regarded That his Legats were sent away with reproch Sozom. libr. 8. cap. 28. as disturbers of the West Empyre as Sozomen witnesseth Now if Innocentius Bishop of Rome had had the power and authoritie in those times to call generall Councells Why did hee not call them Yea why did he by his Legats intreate and beseech the Emperors to doe it if it were a right belonging to himselfe or if it were not a right belonging to the Emperors in those dayes Or if he were then the supreme commander of all the Christian world as the Popes now clayme to be how commeth it to passe that he was such an humble suter to the Emperors for a Councell and yet could not obtaine it Doe not all these things strongly and invincibly declare that in those times not the Popes but the Emperors had clearely the supremacie Then afterward though much out of his due time and place and very immethodically for the exception had beene fitter in the next Chapter then in this hee taketh this exception that in the first part of my Booke Cap. 2. and pag. 42. in the Margent there is a misquotation in this sort viz. Bern. de cons ad Eug. lib. 6. cap. 3. 8. where it should have beene Bern. de cons ad Eug. lib. 4 cap. 2. For indeede in this place it is that S. Bernard calleth the Popes doctrines and pastures Daemonum potius quam ovium pascua which be the wordes I cited S. Bernard for and which are accordingly there expressely to be found What a poore exception then is this to carpe at a Quotation in the margent when the verie wordes and matter are there to be found in the Author himselfe whom I cited namely in S. Bernard Is he not farre driven that is forced to this kinde of exception And yet if hee had beene pleased to have looked into the Errata of my Booke he might have found in the conclusion of them that such like faults as this I desired the Reader to correct with his Pen which he might very easily have done if he had so pleased But as it seemeth he is an hard man that neyther out of his owne courtesie nor yet upon the intreatie of others will be moved to shew so small a kindenesse What Is it because better matter fayled him that he tooke this silly exception and standeth so much upon it Or is it because by this meanes he loveth to declare himselfe to bee as voyde of good humanitie as he is of true and sound divinitie For my part I may say that he giveth me herein cause to joy and rejoyce that hee can justly take no exception to the matter contayned in my Booke but onely to a marginall Quotation thus misprinted and mistaken Howbeit hee seemeth yet further verie willing and forward to carpe at these wordes in my Booke Cap. 1 pag. 25. where I say that in the time of King William Rufus Anselmus the Archbishop of Canterbury would have appealed to Rome but not onely the King but the Bishops also of England were therein against him but the trueth of this is verie cleare and apparant For Malmesbury Malmesh lib. 1. de gesâ—i Pont. Angl. whom I there cite for proose hereof witnesseth That both the King disliked that his doing and that therein also Omnes Episcopi Angliae Primati suo suffragiuÌ„negarunt All the Bishops in England denied their voyces unto their Primate Yea Matthew Paris further testifieth Matth Paris in Gulielmâ— 2 An. 1094. that when Anselmus Archbishop of Canterbury asked leave of King William Rufus to goe to Rome The King replyed That no Archbishop nor Bishop of his Realme should be subject to the Pope or Court of Rome especially for that he had all those rights in his kingdome which the Emperor had in his Empyre And for this cause was Anselmus Convented by the King as an offendor against the State And to this accusation did also the rest of the Bishops Ibidem except the Bishop of Rochester give their consents And because he ventured to goe over the Seas to Rome without leave All his goods were seised to the Kings use Ansel Epist 46. aâ— Paschalem is 3. Colon. 1612. all his acts and proceedings in the Church of England reversed and himselfe constrained to live in banishment during the life of King William whereof Anselmus himselfe complayned in his Epistle to Pope Paschalis Yea afterward also Matâ—â— Paris in Hen. 1. An. 1104 in the time of King Henry the first when the same Anselmus was returning home from Rome the Kings Atturney in his Masters name forbad him to enter the Land unlesse he would faithfully promise to keepe all the customes both of William the Conqueror his Father and of William Rufus his brother And when the King perceaved the Pope and the Archbishop to continue their former purpose against his Royall liberties he seised the Bishopricke into his hands and arrested all Anselmus goods that were to bee found To these and certaine other liberties of the Crowne Did also King Henry the second not long after cause all his Bishops and Nobles to be sworne For in the yeare of our Lord God M.C.LXIIII This King Henry the second being at Claredon in the presence of the Archbishops
be Ministri Dei The Ministers of God as S. Paul also sheweth instituted for that verie end and purpose Now none will denie but banishment and imprisonment be punishments Civill and Temporall and not Ecclesiasticall and doe rightly and properly belong to the Authority of Emperors Kings and Princes and not to the function and office of Bishops and Ecclesiasticall Ministers And therefore the banishment and imprisonment that any Emperors or Kings used against any Bishops or others upon just cause and when they deserved it must needes be granted to be things done by them both in respect of the authoritie and in respect of the cause also aswell de jure as de facto that is to be things lawfull warrantable and justifieable in all respects For as for those distinctions that Emperors and Kings have Authoritie over persons Temporall but not Ecclesiasticall and a Power directive but not Coactive and in causes Civill and Temporall but not in Ecclesiasticall The untruth absurditie folly impietie of all these distinctions hath beene before so sufficiently discovered that I shall not neede to speake any more of them And by this time I hope that even the Papists themselves bee ashamed of them Sure I am they have good cause so to be if they did duely ponder and consider them Seeing then it is confessed that the Emperors did in ancient time by their Authoritie banish imprison and otherwise punish even Bishops of Rome aswell as other Bishops that no reason can be shewed against the doing hereof when they be such offenders as that they justly deserve such punishment it is thereby undeniably apparant that the Bishop of Rome in those dayes had not the supremacie over the Emperors but that cleane contrariewise the Emperors had the Supremacie over him aswell as over any others within their Empyâ—e Another Argument which I use consisteth in this that I say even Kings of Rome did also sometimes send the Bishops of Rome as their Embassadors By this argument my Adversarie saith That he supposeth that I meant but to make men merry Why In serious matters I love not to be as he is many times ridiculous but to be serious and to deale seriously First therefore hereby I prove that the Bishop of Rome was not in those dayes superior or greater then the King that sent him For those wordes of Christ must ever be true where he saith The Servant is not greater then his Master Iohn 13 16. nor the messenger greater then he that sent him And secondly I say further that this is a verie good and strong argument to prove the Supremacie to be in those dayes in the Kings of Rome and not in the Bishops of Rome For the King that sendeth any as his Embassador is in all common understanding supposed and to be supposed superior unto him that is his Embassador As when Hiram King of Tyrus sent messengers to King David 2. Sam 5.11 1. Chron. 14 1. 1. King â—â— 2 1. Chron. 19.2 or when Benâ—â—adad King of Aram or Siria sent messengers to Ahab King of Israell or when King David sent messengers unto the King of the Amm â—ites In all these cases and every such like for Nec in caeteris est contrarium videre were those Kings superior or greater then the messengers or Embassadors whom they sent And therefore when Theodorick sent Iohn Bishop of Rome as his Embassador unto the Emperor Iustine and when King Theodatus sent Agapetus Bishop of Rome as his Embassador to Iustinian the Emperor It must be confessed that these Kings were likewise superiors to the Bishops of Rome and had the command of them and not contrarywise that those Bishops of Rome had the superioritie or command over those Kings For amongst men the Master is wont to send the Servant and the King his Subject and the superior his inferior But where did you ever reade heare or know the Servant to send his Master or the Subject to send his King and Soveraigne or the inferior to send his Superior on a message I grant that an inferior or equall may intreate a Superior to doe a businesse for him and that a King a Master or Superior may goe by his owne consent or of his owne accord somewhither to doe his Subject Servant or inferior a good turne But it cannot be rightly and properly said that any of these inferiors have sent their Superiors upon their errand service message or embassage Yea it would be held verie absoneous and absurd so to speake But my Adversary I see mistaketh the Mâ—lâ—r proposition of my argument For it reacheth not so high as heaven much lesse to the most glorious incomprehensible and ineffable Trinitie blessed for ever but onely to men upon earth and not to all men neyther but onely to Kings and Bishops Neyther had my Adversary any ust cause or reason to streach or extend it any further For the question was onely concerning them whether of them had the Superioritie or Supremacie over the other in that time namely whether the Kings that then raigned over Rome or those that were the Bishops thereof I to prove the Superioritie or Supremacie to be in the Kings and not in the Bishops alledged this for my reason that the Kings of Rome did sometimes send the Bishops of Rome as their Embassadors to other Princes So that my Argument upon the whole matter appeareth to be this What Kings soever I speake of earthly Kings sent any at any time as their Embassadors to other Princes those Kings were Superior and greater then those Embassadors whom they sent But the Kings of Rome did send the Bishops of Rome as their Embassadors to other Princes Ergo the Kings of Rome were Superior and greater then the Bishops of Rome The Maior is apparant by induction of particulars by ordinarie common experience in the world The Minor is manifest by Ecclesiasticall historie which testifieth That King Theodoricke sent Iohn Bishop of Rome Lib Pontific in Iohan. 1. Et Anact in Agapeto Diaconus Platina as his Embassador to the Emperor Iustine And that King Theodatus sent likewise Agapetus Bishop of Rome as his Embassador to the Emperor Iustinian And therefore the conclusion must needes follow and cannot bee gainsaid By this time then mine Adversarie seeth I hope that such is the evident strength of this Argument as that he with all his wit and learning will never bee able to make any good answere thereunto 10 In my former Booke Cap. 1. pag. 13. 14. 15. I also shewed that against the title and appellation of Vniversall Bishop or head of the universall Church did two Bishops of Rome oppose themselves namely Pelagius and Gregory the great when it was first affected by Iohn the Patriarch and Bishop of Constantinople And that neverthelesse afterward a Bishop of Rome namely Boniface the third got obtayned it of Phocas the Emperor Hereunto mine Adversarie answereth as Bellarmine likewise doth That this fact of
Religion and the care and observance thereof in their life time will be able to afford But being debarred froÌ„ pleading for not taking the oath of Supremacie he saith he was desirous to reade what solide arguments I had made to invest the King with the supremacie finding them as Belshazzar being weighed was found in the Prophecie of Daniel minus habens that is too light Dan. 5.27 he saith he was encouraged to answere them But first how cometh he now to answere any part of my Booke who had said before in the same his Epistle Dedicatory that he presented it to some of the most learned of his catholicke Clergie that none of them after a mature deliberation held it worthy of an answer what will he thinke it worthy of an answere which those of the most learned of his Catholicke clergie thought it not worthy of Secondly if he had weighed my arguments not with false Romish weights but with true divine weights that is in such a ballance as God weighed Belshazzar he would have found them weighty enough though Belshazzar was found light Thirdly little reason hath he to call account those arguments light somewhereof be such as he dares not touch nor medle with theÌ„ but doth as childreÌ„ use to do who what they caÌ„not reade they skippe over So what he can no way answere he pretermitteth those which he dare be bold to touch doe neverthelesse shew themselves to be of that weight and strength as that he is not able to stirre or move them much lesse to remove them or to lift them up from that ground whereon they rest Himselfe doth what he can to answere them yet distrusting his ovvne Answere as minus habens to use his owne wordes against him that is as being too light weake and insufficient hee promiseth a more satisfying Answere that should afterward come forth from those that have more Lavv and Divinitie then eyther he or I. Yea he saith againe That my Booke shall be shortly answered in my owne straine of Divinitie with the three conditions required by me So that both by this his owne answere as also by that further future promised answere it is verie câ—â—dent that howsoeâ—â—â— in words hee and his partakers would â—â—â—me to slight any â—â—â—ke the matter therein contayned yeâ— revera and indeede they thinke the force and strength of it to be such against both Pope and Poperie as that they can have â—oâ—â— nor quiet in their mindes untill they have made which they wâ—â—never be able to doe a good sufficient and satisfactorie Answere thereunto As for that hee saith that if in steed thereof I had made a solide Compendium of the Law I had gained an applause I would have him know that neyther in this kind of learning nor in any other doe I seeke oâ— hunt after ostentation vaine-glory popular applause or prayse of men which be the things that Papists in their writings doe too much affect but both in that my former worke in this also the things that I sought still doe seeke after is Gods glory the advancement preferment of his truth religion the due authority true honour belonging to our most gracious most godly Christian Soveraigne which was then K. Iames is now K. Charles his most worthy successor whom God ever blesse protect preserve therewithall the generall publicke benefit both of Church and Common-weale I graunt that my profession and place would have allowed me to have written of points of Law and concerning Civill Iustice and externall Peace But I have rendered the reason in the Epistle Dedicatorie of my former Booke why I medled not with those things Namely because the pretended Catholickes of this Kingdome in those points shewed no refractarinesse or opposition but good conformitie and obedience And that their defect was onely in the two other points viz. Concerning the Kings Supremacie and the Religion whereof therefore there then was still is greatest neede and most urgent occasion to treate Wherefore hee that in such a Case would rather have had a Compendium of the Law then these two most necessarie and most important matters to bee dealt in for the generall good of the kingdome seemeth in my understanding to have made a great dispendium of his wit and judgement Neverthelesse hee proceedeth and saith that because hee cannot commaund the Presse he will imploy his endevours to answere in a Manuscript my first Booke he meaneth the first part of my Booke contayning those two Chapters aforesaid But what necessitie was there for him thus to publish his Answere in a Manuscript which he might have put in Print if he had so pleased For although he could not commaund the Protestants Presse neyther was it fit he should yet the Presse which some say the Papists have of their owne within this kingdome he might have eyther commaunded or intreated or if they have no Presse within this kingdome he might have sent or carried his Answere unto Doway or to Rhemes or to some other place beyond the Seas where it might have beene printed if they had held it worthy the Printing Seeing then that hee might have printed it Why did he rather choose to divulge it in a Manuscript Did he thinke that by that course used he might the more freely speake and write what he listed and that no man would answere or reply unto it though he be never so much touched in it or be the cause therein handled of never so great importance But what reason is there for any man to clayme expect or to be allowed such a priviledge Yea inasmuch as mens hearts may be poysoned and seduced aswell by Manuscripts and written Bookes and Pamphlets as by those that be Printed especially after they be once scattered and dispersed abroad as this his Answere is into diverse mens hands and are withall supposed by the pretended Catholickes for whose sake all that labour is bestowed to contayne nothing but truth I see not but I may bee as bold to reply to his Manuscript in Print the cause also so requiring as he made bold to answere a part of my Printed Booke in a Manuscript And therefore have I here replied unto it partly in respect of my selfe whom it concerneth to justifie and make good the matter contayned in those two Chapters of my former Booke which he oppugneth and partly in respect of himselfe vvho seemeth to be â—â—oâ— suffertus over highly conceited of himselfe Prover 26.5 whom therefore Salomon in his Proverbs adviseth to answere and partly chiefely in respect of the pretended Catholikes of this Nation whom by that meanes he seeketh to seduce abuse in the pâ—ints both of his Majesties Supremacie the Religion Both which points they being so high and eminent it behooveth all good Christians and all good Subjects evermore carefully dutifully to defend and mantaine As for that godly learned Reverend and worthy
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
courtesie in the Pope as Gratian most ungratiously would perswade but a matter of bounden duetie Ibidem Cap. Petrus and without all dissembling and seriously meant and intended by him in such manner and sort as he by those his words plainely declareth And consequently you now perceive verie fully I hope that for the space of eight hundred yeares and more after CHRIST the Bishops of Rome were subject to the Emperors and that the Christian Emperors also had Authoritie in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill within their Empyres But here now doe some Papists take exception and answere as touching Salomon his displacing of Abiathar the high Priest and putting Sadoc in his place that Salomon did this as he was a Prophet not as hee was a King But first this is but a meere supposition and conceit not found warranted in the Text. Yea the untruth of it may appeare if you please but to reade the Chapter For the offence which Abiathar 1. King 2.22.23.24 25.26.27.28 29 c. the high Priest had committed was High Treason in joyning with Adoniah against King Salomon for the kingdome Ioah also was in the same Treason and Conspiracie The King therefore caused Adoniah to be put to death he caused also Ioab to be put to death touching Abiathar the high Priest hee was also as worthy of death as the rest although for some causes and respects he was spared for that time Thou art worthie of death 1. King 2 26.27 saith the King but I will not this day kill thee because thou barest the Arke of the Lord God before David my Father and because thou hast suffered in all wherein my Father hath beene afflicted So Salomon cast out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord. And the King put Benaiah in the roome of Ioab over the Hoste and the King set Sadoc the priest Vers 35. in the roome of Abiathar In which words you see that Salomon doing these things is not styled or called by the name of a Prophet but expressely by the name of a King thereby signifying and declaring that what Salomon did touching the removing of Abiathar and putting Sadoc in his place he did it as a King aswell as when he put Benaiah in the place of Ioab Secondly you see that the offence which Abiathar had committed was treason and that therefore he deserved to die aswell as Adoniah or Ioab or any other of the conspirators But yet for the reasons and respects before mentioned hee would not then put him to death though he had deserved it but was content in lieu thereof for that time to inflict this punishment upon him to have him removed from his Priest-hood Now to deale in cases of Treason and to be a Iudge of matters concerning life and death and to award execution of death or in mercie to mitigate and alter the severitie of that punishment and in lieu thereof to have a milder or not so severe a punishment as death to be inflicted be things not properly belonging to the office of a Prophet but to the office of a King they doe rightly and properly enough belong And therefore what Salomon did herein it is evident that he did it as a King not as a Prophet And consequently it still remayneth firme and sure even by this example of King Salomon as also by other examples mentioned in my former Booke whereto my adversarie is still pleased to answere nothing that Kings as Kings have power to place Bishops and againe to displace them when there is cause and to put others in their roome And as touching Moses some Papists doe also answere that he was a Priest the high Priest Bellar. de verb. Dei lib 3. cap. 4â— for so saith Bellarmine and therefore that Aaron performed that reverence obedience and subjection to him that hee did as being high Priest My Adversarie likewise saith the same that God Almightie made Moses an high Priest and citeth for proofe of it Num. 27. but there is no such thing written in that Chapter nor in any other Chapter of the whole Bible beside Deut. 33.5 I reade that Moses was as a King or Prince in Israell but I no where reade throughout the whole Booke of God that God constituted Moses to be the high Priest yea it is well knowne that in Moses time Aaron was the high Priest what necessitie then was there for Moses also to be an high Priest But that Moses was no Priest properly so called much lesse an high Priest is thus made manifest For if Moses were a Priest it must be eyther before the consecration of Aaron or after But after the consecration of Aaron and his Sonnes to the Priest-hood it is cleare that not Moses but Aaron and his Sonnes were the Priests as having the Priest-hood appointed and specially given unto them by Gods owne direction Thou saith God to Moses Numb 3.10 shalt appoint Aaron and his Sonnes to execute their Priests offices and the stranger that commeth here shall be slaine So that none but Aaron and those that were of his seede might execute the Priests office For which cause Moses neyther did not durst execute the Priests office Num. 16.46.47 but commanded Aaron to burne Incense and to make an attonement for the people Wherefore it is very apparant that after the consecration of Aaron Moses was not a Priest And that Moses was also no Priest before the consecration of Aaron is likewise very evident because before that time the priest-hood was annexed to the birth-right and did belong to the first borne in whose place the Levites afterward came Numb 3.12.41.45 Lyra in Num. 3.12 Ibidem and were appointed So saiâ—h Lyra reporting the received judgements of the best interpreters that Ante legem datam ad Primogenitos pertinebat offerre sacrificia Before the Law given it belonged to the first-borne to offer sacrifices Againe hee saith expressely that Levitae successerunt loco eorum The Levites succeded in their place And againe he saith Lyra. in Gen. 14. Sacerdotium fuit annexum Primogeniturae usque ad legem dataÌ„ per Mosem The Priest-hood was annexed to the first borne untill the Law given by Moses Now of these two brothers Moses Aaron the Sonnes of Amram it is manifest that not Moses but Aaron was the eldest and first borne For we reade in Num. 33. Num. 33.39 That Aaron was one hunded twentie and three yeares old when he died But Moses outliving Aaron Deut. 34.7 was but one hundred and twentie yeares old when he died So that Aaron appeareth questionlesse and undoubtedly to be the elder brother and the first borne and consequently even by the right of Primogeniture did the Priest-hood belong to Aaron and not to Moses If any say that the birthright was sometime taken from the eldest by a speciall appointment of God and given to the younger it hath no place here For no such especiall appointment from
God can be shewed in this case Yea Aaron was so farre from loosing this priviledge of his birthright by any appointment from God that cleane contrarywise he had the Priest-hood famously confirmed to him by God himselfe Thou saith God speaking to Aaron and thy Sonnes with thee Num. 18.7 shall keepe your Priests office In asmuch then as it is apparant that Moses was no Priest neyther before the consecration of Aaron nor after it must therefore be concluded that he was no Priest at all but was as the Scripture calleth him as a King or a Prince A second reason is this viz. Deut. 33.5 That Ioshua was appointed by God himselfe to succeede Moses in his place and office But it is certaine that Ioshua Deut. 31.14 c Num. 27 17.18 Ios 1.16.17.18 his successor was no Priest but a civill Magistrate even the chiefe ruler and commander under God both of the Priests People of Israell in his times as before appeareth and therefore also must Moses be so supposed But it is objected out of Psal 99. That Moses and Aaron were among the Priests Psal 99.6 doth this prove them therefore to be Priests because they were among them Howbeit the Hebrewe word there used is Cohanim which signifieth aswell Princes 2. Sam. 8.18 as Priests or any that be in high eminent and honourable place as in 2. Sam. 8. The Sonnes of David are said to be Cohanim 1. Chron. 18.17 that is chiefe Rulers For so it is also explained in 1. Chron. 18. Where it is said of the Sonnes of David That they were chiefe or principall men about the King 2. Sam. 20. â—â— Againe it is said in 2. Sam. 20. that Ira the Iairite was Cohen le David that is a Prince or chiefe Ruler about David For it were absurd and against the Law of God that then was to suppose Ira to bee a Priest who was a meere stranger and not of the Tribe of Levi. Although then Aaron was a Priest yet when it is said of Moses and Aaron together that they were Cohanim It may signifie verie well that they were great Rulers or men of high and eminent place in Israell the one in respect of the civill Magistracie and the other in respect of the Priest-hood But for any to say and argue thus Moses was a Cohen or reckoned amongst the Cohanim Ergo hee was a Priest by his proper office and function is a plaine non sequitur and no better then if you should likewise argue and say Ira the Iairite was a Cohen and the Sonnes of David were also Cohanim Eâ—go these were Priests by their proper office and function If you further object that Moses was of the Tribe of Levi and Aarons brother yet neyther doth that prove him therefore to be a Priest For everie one that was of the Tribe of Levi was not a Priest Yea even the Priests and Levites Numb 3.6.7.8.9.10 1 Chro 6 48 49 Numb 18.3 were distinguished For Aaron and his Sonnes were appointed to the office But of the Levites it is said they shall not come neere to the Altar least they die So that although the Levites were of the Tribe of Levi yet wee see they might not meddle with the Priests office least they should die And therefore also Moses though he were Aarons brother and of the Tribe of Levi yet was he not therefore a Priest or to execute the Priests office Neyther did he execute the office of a Levite as the Levites used to doe in wayting and tending upon the Priests and as being in office inferior unto them and at their command Yea it is before shewed and apparant that Moses although he were of the Tribe of Levi yet was hee so farre exalted and advanced as that he was by place and office as a King or Prince in Israell and commanded both Priests and Levites and not onely the Tribe of Levi but all the other Tribes of Israell also as Ioshua his successor likewise did Yet some to prove Moses to be a Priest doe alledge that he sacrificed and for this doe cite Exod. 24.5 Exod. 24.5 But the words of that Text be not that Moses did sacrifice but That he sent young men to sacrifice which were indeede the first borne of the children of Israell to whom the Priesthood did then belong it being a thing done before the institution of the Leviticall priest-hood Other some againe doe alledge that Moses did consecrate and annoynt Aaron and his Sonnes to the Priest-hood And that therefore he was a Priest But this also followeth not especially in the first erection of the Leviticall priest-hood For though Moses were a Prince a civill Magistrate yet wheÌ„ God gave him a direct and speciall commandement to consecrate and annoynt Aaron and his Sonnes he was bound to doe it And that he was expressely so commanded is apparant by the Text it selfe where God spake thus to Moses Thou shalt bring Aaron and his Sonnes unto the dore of the Tabernacle of the congregation Exod. 40.12.13.14.15 16. and wash them with water And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments and shalt annoynt him sanctifie him that he may minister unto me in the Priests office Thou shalt also bring his Sonnes and cloth them with garments and shalt annoynt them as thou didst annoynt their Father that they may minister unto me in the Priests office For this annoyntment shall be asigne that the Priest-hood shall be everlasting unto them throughout their generations So Moses did according to all that the Lord commanded him So did he This sheweth then that Moses was duetifull and obedient in performing Gods commandement in this case But it is no proofe that therefore he was a Priest For even a civill Magistrate not onely may but ought to consecrate and annoynt men to the office of Priest-hood if he be so required and commanded from God himselfe as Moses was wherefore it still remayneth firme that what reverence subjection and obedience Aaron the high Priest performed to Moses he did it to him not as being any Priest or high Priest but to him as being as a Prince or King in Israell that had the supreme commandement and rule both of the high Priest and of the rest of the Priests and of the Levites and of all the people within that Common-weale So that now I trust you verie fully perceave that Moses and Ioshua and the good and Godly Kings of Israell and Iuda had Authoritie aswell over the high Priests as all other Priests and Levites in causes also Ecclesiasticall aswell as civill and Temporall And that the Christian Emperors for the space of many hundred yeares after CHRIST had likewise the Supremacie over all persons and in all causes aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill within their Empyres and Dominions 3. 〈◊〉 But my Adversarie objecteth that famous Hosius Cordubensis Athan Epist ad solitarium vitâ agenâ—es reproving the Arrian
power over the Cleargie-men but onely power directive This distinction was not knowne in the Apostolicke Primitive and ancient Church nor so long as the Bishops of Rome were subject to the Emperors but when the Bishops of Rome contrarie to all lawes both humane and divine had trayterously and wickedly subdued the Emperors and that it could be said of Emperors and Kings as Bellarmine speaketh that Non sunt amplius ClericoruÌ„ superiores They are no longer Soveraignes or superiors to Cleargie-men Then did this distinction arise or grow that the Kings might have a directive power but no coactive power over theÌ„ that is might direct them to what was good but might not compell theÌ„ to it And so faith also mine Adversarie that coactive power imposeth penalties Now this distinction is easily answered and confuted yea he might have perceaved it in my former Booke pag. 7.8.9.10 to have beene sufficiently answered and confuted For besides other proofes Aug lib. 1 in fine contr Epist Parmen it is there shewed by diverse testimonies out of S. Augustine himselfe against the Donatists That Kings and Princes may not onely direct or command but may also by Lawes penalties and punishments compell their Subjects and consequently Cleargie-men asvvell as others to obedience in that vvhich is good and godly Yea it is the proper and peculiar right of Kings and Princes externally to use a power coactive by reason of the sword committed to them from God which Ecclesiasticall Ministers by vertue of their Ecclesiasticall calling and office cannot doe And seeing Parents have a power coactive over their children and Masters in a familie over their servants verie strange it were if Kings should not be allowed to have a power coactive over their subjects But it is indeede verie well knowne that the Christian Emperors in ancient time did use a power coactive even over Cleargie-men aswell as over others inflicting penalties and punishments upon them As for example Constantine that Christian Emperor exiled and banished Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia Theoderes lib. 1. cap. 20. and Theognius Bishop of Nice and hee saith further That if any man whether Bishop or other were offended at that his banishing of them and would grow malepart thereupon Illius statim audacia Ministri Dei hoc est mea executione coercebitur His boldnesse shall forthwith be repressed by the execution of Gods minister that is of my selfe Another Constantine also by whose Imperiall Authoritie the sixt Councell at Constantinople was held in a Decree inserted in that Councell Synod 6. Act. 18 Conc. edit â—in to â— pag. 92. saith Siquidem Episcopus est vel Clericus vel Monachico circundatus habitu deportationis paenam exsolvet If he be a Bishop or a Clearke or a Moncke let him be punished with deportation or banishment Charle-Mayne also in a French Synode Tom 2. Concil decreed imprisonment Si ordinatus Presbiter fuerit duos annos in carcere permaneat Aug. lib. 1. in fine contr epist. Par. S. Augustine againe declareth that there was a Law Imperiall against those that professed themselves Christians and true Catholickes and yet were not so but kept private Conventicles 〈◊〉 that he that ordayned a Clearke for that purpose or the Clearke so ordained should loose ten pounds of gold and the place also where such Conventicles were kept should be forfeyted to the Emperor You see then for the refelling and overthrowe of that foolish and false distinction that the Christian Emperors had power coactive over Bishops and Cleargie-men punishing them sometime with deportation exile or banishment sometime with imprisonment and sometime with penalties and losses of summes of money and other forfeytures And upon some kinde of offendors you may read that they inflicted the punishment of death And indeede to what end hath the King this Regall and Temporall Authoritie jurisdiction the power coactive in his hands by reason of the Sword committed to him from God if hee may not use it and put it in execution Yea my Adversarie himselfe confesseth and saith that Iurisdictio nullius videretur esse momenti si coertionem aliquam non haberet Iurisdiction might seeme to be of no regard if it had not some coertion or power coactive joyned with it Againe he saith Cui jurisdictio data est ea quoque concessa intelliguntur sine quibus jurisdictio expleri non potest To whom jurisdiction is given all those things be also understood to be granted without which that jurisdiction cannot be performed Wherefore even by those Maximes which himselfe citeth and approveth it is manifest that seeing the King hath a power jurisdiction and Authoritie to direct command Cleargie-men he hath also a power coercitive or coactive over them to compell correct and punish them if otherwise they will not obey those his directions and commandements So that my Adversarie needed to have no better confuter of this his idle distinction then himselfe But pag. 5. in that first Chapter of my former Booke I alledged that Text of Rom. 13. to prove also the Kings Authoritie in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill or Temporall And indeede this Text serveth also verie sufficiently for that purpose For as there is here no exception of any person so is there also no exception of anie cause or matter but whosoever doth evill be it in what kinde of cause soever he is here made subject to this sword and Temporall Authoritie of Emperors Kings and Princes For the Text saith That they are the ordinance of God and the Ministers of God attending employed and constituted to this verie end and purpose for the prayse countenancing and encouraging of the good and wel-doers and for discountenancing Aug. Epist 50. discouraging and punishing of the bad and such as be evill-doers And therefore doth S. Augustine say that Quicunque legibus Imperatorum quae pro Dei veritate fâ—runtur obtemperare non vult grande acquirit supplicium Whosoever will not obey the Lawes of the Emperor which are made for the trueth of God doth purchase to himselfe a great punishment Aug. Epist 166. For saith he in another place Hoc jubent Imperatores quod jubet Christus quia cum jubent bonum per illos non jubet nisi Christus The Emperors command that which Christ also commandeth because when they command that which is good it is Christ himselfe that commandeth by them Aug de Civit. Dei lib. 5. cap. 24 Yea S. Agustine was so farre from this point of Poperie to denie or disallow the Authoritie of Emperors Kings and Princes in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning Religion as that he doth evermore teach and defend it whensoever there was occasion to speake of it in somuch that he saith Imperatores foelices dicimus si suam potestatem ad Dei cultum maxime dilatandum c. We affirme the Emperors to be happie if they extend their Authoritie the most they can to doe service unto God in
judgement of Constantine upon this Appeale made to him though by Donatists was not onely justified and approved by S. Augustine but embraced also by other Christian Emperors as Vertuous and confirmed as Religious and honoured of the whole Orthodoxe Church in that time So little cause hath mine Adversarie or any other Papists to mislike of Constantine his meddling therein as if it were unlawfull But secondly my Adversarie answereth that the then Emperor Constantine the Great did remit Caecilianus and the Donatists for the decision and determining of their difference unto Miltiades Bishop of Rome as to his proper and right Iudge It is true that he committed the hearing and determining of that cause unto Miltiades Bishop of Rome but not to him alone as if he were the sole and onely proper and rightfull Iudge in the case but to him together with others For Marcus Rheticius Maternus and Marinus were interested with him in the same Commission The Commission is yet extant in Eusebius to be seene in these words Constantine the Emperor unto Miltiades Bishop of Rome Euseb li. 10. c. 5 and to Marcus sendeth greeting For asmuch as many such Epistles are brought unto mee from Anilinus Lieutenant of Africke wherein it is said that Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage is reprehended in many things by divers of his Colleagues abiding in Africke and this seemeth unto me very grievous that there should be found in those Provinces which the providence of God hath allotted peculiarly unto my government a great multitude of people prone unto the worse and disagreeing And that amongst Bishops there should be such variance My pleasure therefore is that Caecilianus with ten Bishops of his accusers and ten other of his favourers doe come to Rome there to be heard before you both joyning with you Rheticius Maternus and Marinus your Colleagues whom purposely for that matter I haue coÌ„manded with speed to repaire thither unto you c. And S. Augustine likewise hath before told you Aug Epist 166. that the Emperor committed this cause Non Episcopo sed Episcopis Not to one Bishop in the Singular number but to Bishops in the Plurall number eam discutiendam atque finiendam Episcopis delegavit And againe he saith Collaâ— 3 diei cum Donatistâ—â— cap 5 Causam Caecilian injunxit eis audiendam elsewhere he also saith Constantinum dedisse Iudices iterum Idem Epist 166 That Constantine gave them Iudges a second time And hee further proveth that those Iudges both the first and second might lawfully judge in that case Idem Epist 162. Eo quod Imperator illos Iudices dedisset Because the Emperor had given those Iudges So that it appeareth very fully and clearely that not Miltiades alone as Bishop of Rome and in his owne right but Miltiades associated and joyned with others namely with Marcus Rheticius Maternus and Marinus were the Iudges in this case and that by Commission and Authoritie granted from the Emperor Yea you see there was afterward also an Appeale from their sentence to the Emperor whereupon the Emperor a second time gave other Iudges From these also 〈◊〉 there a second Appeale to the Emperor himselfe in person who at the last in his owne person heard and judged the cause and without the Bishop of Rome by his owne authoritie pronounced finall sentence therein The least of these facts proveth the Emperors Supremacie in those times aswell over the Bishop of Rome as over other Bishops What force then have they when they be all united and joyned together Yet thirdly my Adversarie answereth that Constantine the Emperor did but pronounce and declare the justnesse of the sentence given formerly against the Donatists by their competent Iudge Pope Miltiades But first why doth he still say That the sentence against the Donatists was given by Miltiades as though it had beene given onely by him For it is manifest that it was not only his sentence and judgement but the sentence and judgement of the rest of his Colleagues and fellow Commissioners joyned with him Secondly why doth he speake of Miltiades Bishop of Rome as if he were the onely competent Iudge when he not only seeth others to be joyned and made Iudges with him but an Appeale also to be made and allowed from his and their sentence and from other Iudges also afterward given to Iudge of the same cause And thirdly though Constantine the Emperor did by this sentence upon hearing of the cause cleare and acquite Caecilianus and condemne the Donatists and so approved the first sentence and judgement given by Miltiades and his Colleagues and the second sentence also that was given by the other Bishops assembled at Arle in France Yet doth this approbation of his or declaration of the Bishop of Romes sentence in this case to be just and right no more prove a supremacie in Miltiades the Bishop of Rome then it doth in Marcus Rheticius Maternus and Marinus or then it doth in those other Bishops that were afterward assembled at Arle whose sentence he likewise approved and declared to be just Neyther doth it any way impayre or detract from Constantine his judgement but that hee was also a Iudge and held the place and office of Iudicature all this notwithstanding For else may you say that those Bishops assembled at Arle whom S. Augustine expressely calleth Iudices Iudges were also no Iudges because they likewise aswell as Constantine acquited Caecilianus and condemned the Donatists and so approved the sentence of Miltiades and his Colleagues declaring it to be just If a Writt of Error be brought in the Kings bench of a Iudgement given in the Common-pleas upon hearing of the cause the Iudges in the Kings Bench approve and confirme the judgement formerly given in the Common pleas and so declare it to be just and right Doth this any way prove that therefore those in the Kings bench be no Iudges or doth it in any sort detract from their Authoritie So upon the Appeale made to the Emperor when he in his own person sate as Iudge therein having power in himselfe eyther to affirme or disaffirme the former sentences and judgements given by others as he shall find the cause upon hearing to require If he upon hearing it finding the former sentences and judgements given for Caecilianus against the Donatists to be just and right doth by his final sentence pronounce and declare them so to be Doth this therefore prove him to be no Iudge or doth it any way detract from his supremacie Yea it doth rather verie strongly and most strongly prove the Emperor to bee a Iudge and the Chiefest and highest Iudge under God and to have the Supremacie over the Bishop of Rome aswell as over other Bishops within the precincts of the Empyre For as Carerius also confesseth and teacheth Summum Imperium penes eum esse constat â—arer de potest Rom. Pont. lib. 1. cap. 10. ad cujus Tribunal provocatur It is manifest that to
he must governe and rule as hee that must give an account of his doings unto God and therefore concludeth that Oportet eos quibus praesumus non circumcursare c. Those that be under our rule and governement ought not to runne thus about to Rome but ought there to plead their cause where they may finde both accusers and witnesses unlesse perhaps saith he a few desperate and loose Companions suppose the authoritie of a Bishop of Africke to be lesse then the authoritie of the Bishop of Rome which hee speakes as accounting it absurd for any man to suppose the Authoritie of the one to be greater then the Authoritie of the other His third example is of Athanasius who being deposed from his Bishopricke made his appeale saith he to Pope Iulius and was by him restored It is true that Athanasius the Patriarch of Alexandria being oppressed and wrongfully thrust from his Bishopricke as diverse other Bishops likewise were in those dayes fled to the Bishop of Rome not to acknowledge any supremacie in him over all other Bishops as now he claymeth but as to a friend and Patron at whose hands he expected and hoped to finde some helpe and defence in that his distresse Sozomen libr. 3. cap. 6. lat The Bishops throughout the East that favored the Nicene Faith were saith Sozomen deposed and the chiefest States invaded by the Arrians as Alexandria in Egipt Antioch in Syria the Royall Citie of Constantinople Criminationem illi obiectam in so serâ—â—uns in Hellespont This the Bishop of Rome and the Priests of the West tooke to be their reproch therefore verie freely entertayned Athanasius at his comming to them and tooke upon them the defence of his cause Where you see that Athanasius had ayde and defence not onely of the Bishop of Rome but of the Priests of Rome also wherefore that his flying to Rome and receiving helpe and defence from them doth no more prove a supremacie in the Bishop of Rome then it doth in the Priests of Rome Yea Athan. Apolog. contra Arrian the letters which Athanasius brought with him to Rome from the Bishops of his communion in the East witnessing the wrongs which he suffered and earnestly craving helpe therein were not written to Iulius alone but Omnibus ubique Ecclesiae Catholicae Episcopis To all the Bishops of the Catholicke Church wheresoever And accordingly was this matter heard and examined by a Synod or Councell of Bishops In which Synod and not by Iulius alone it was that Athanasius was receaved and restored as Bishop of Alexandria notwithstanding his former deposition Neyther did Iulius the Bishop of Rome Sozom. lib. 3. c 11 lat Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 20. in the greeke cap 16. in the latin call or summon this Councell but by the commandement of both the Emperors saith Socrates the one in the West signifying the same by his letters the other which ruled in the East willingly condescending thereunto there was proclaymed a generall Councell that all should meete at Sardica a Citie of Illiricum c. Yea so farre was Iulius the Bishop of Rome in that time from having any supremacie over all the Bishops in Christendome that when hee wrote to the Bishops of the East more freely and sharpely and as if hee tooke some authoritie upon him over them as they conceaved these Easterne Bishops assembled together in a Councell at Antioch formed an Epistle by uniforme consent of them all Socrat. lib 2. cap. 15. in the greeke cap 11. in the latin Sozom. lâ—b 3. cap. 7. lat wherein they inveigh bitterly against Iulius and tell him plainely That if any were banished the Church and excommunicate by their decree and censure it belonged not to him to intermeddle with it nor to sit in judgement upon their Censure So that howsoever the Bishops of the East and of the West might and did give mutuall helpe counsell comfort and assistance one to another yet if the Bishop of Rome would at any time goe beyond his bounds and seeme to take authoritie over them We see that these Bishops of the East would by no meanes endure it but gave it the repulse The fourth and last example which he citeth is that of S. Iohn Chrysostome who being deposed from his Bishopricke Appealed as he saith to Pope Innocentius the first Bellarmine hath also this example aswell as all the rest so that my Adversarie taketh indeede all his weapons and artillarie out of his store-house But both Bellarmine and He doe but deceive their Readers For Chrysostome in his Epistle doth not pray ayde and helpe onely of Innocentius the Bishop of Rome Chrysos Epist. 1. ad Innocent Tom. C nâ— 1. edit Venet. 158â— pag. 799. as they suggest but of other Bishops likewise in the West aswell as of him speaking not in the Singular but in the Plurall number thus Domini igitur maximè venerandi pij cum haec ita se habere didiceritis studium vestrum magnam diligentiam adhibete quo retundatur haec quae in Ecclesias irrupit iniquitas Therefore most religious and reverend Lords since you see how things be carried extend your diligence and endeavour that this wickednesse which is broken into the Churches may be beaten backe Quippe si mos hic invaluerit scitote quod brevi transibunt omnia Quapropter ne confusio haec omnem quae subcoelo est nationem invadat obsecro ut scribatis ut haec tam inique facta robur non habeant Nobis vero literis vestris charitate vestra frui concedite For if this grow to be a custome know yee that all things will shortly come to nought and therefore least this confusion invade everie nation under heaven I beseech you write that those things so unjustly done may beare no sway And grant that vve the wronged Bishops of the East may eâ—â—oy your letters and your favours And so he goeth on with Verbes of the Plurall number to the end concluding his Epistle with these words and in this manner Haec omnia cum ita se habere intellexeritis a Dominis meis prentissimis nostris Episcopis obsecro ut praestetis id quod petent officij All these things when yee shall perceave to be true by these my Lords and most godly brethren the Bishops I beseech you to yeelde them that assistance they shall desire All which clauses in that Epistle I thus the rather rehearse to the end you may the better judge whether it be not more fitly and more cohaerently to be reade Obsecro ut scribatis in the Plurall number as the Protestants say it ought to be reade then Obsecro ut scribas in the Singular number as Bellarmine and other Papists following the faultie and vicious copies would have it For when he speaketh to his most Reverend and Religious Lords the Bishops in the West were it not verie absurd to say thus unto them Obsecro ut scribas but
to insist onely upon these former Kings of England For doe but reade further the Statutes of Provision and Praemunire made in that kingdome See the Statutes of Proviâ—ion and Premunire in Rastall fol. 354. c. and thereby you may see at full that many sundrie other Kings of England likewise and the whole Realme also concurring and joyning with them therein have in severall Parliaments made Lawes and Statutes against the Popes incrochments and usurpations in maintenance and defence of their Regall rights freedomes and liberties And among many other good reasons they shew for those their doings this is not the least that they say expressely in one of those Acts of Parliament See this in the Statute of 16. Rub. 2 cap. 5. That the Crowne of England hath beene so free at all times that it hath beene in subjection to no Realme but immediately subject to God and to none other in all things touching the Regalitie of the same Crowne And therefore doe they there utterly dislike in plaine tearmes That it should be submitted to the Bishop of Rome Wherefore it is apparant that even the ancient Kings of England long before the dayes of K. Henry the VIII of famous memorie have stood and contended not onely for the freedome of the Crowne generally not allowing it to be in subjection to any but to God onely but also in a particular sort for divers their particular Regall rights liberties Amongst which you may perceave this to be one namely that Appeales even in Ecclesiasticall causes they would have to be determined within their owne kingdomes and not to be made transferred or carried without their consent to the Pope or Sea of Rome 8 But now what meaneth mine Adversarie to be so extreamely audacious as to denie the first foure generall Councells to have beene called by the Emperors Let therefore the Ecclesiasticall Historie shew and decide it Touching the first generall Councell at Nice Ruffin li. 10. c. 1. Ruffinus saith expressely that Constantinus apud urbem Nicenam Episcopale Concilium convocavit The Emperor Constantine called the Councell of Bishops together at the Citie of Nice Euseb de vita Const. l b. 3. c. 6 lib. 1. cap. 37 Eusebius that wrote the life of Constantine saith of that Emperor that Generalem Synodum congregavit He assembled the generall Councell Socrates saith likewise that Constantine Socrat. lib 1. c. 8 in the greeke cap. 5. in the lat Synodum Oecumenicam congregavit omnes qui fuerunt undique Episcopos in Nicaeam confluere hortatus est Assembled a generall Councell and willed all the Bishops every where to meete at Nice Theodoret saith that the Emperor Theodoret. libr. 1 cap. 17. celebreÌ„ illaÌ„ coegit Nicea Synodum c. Assembled that famous Councell of Nice Sozomen saith that Constantine Indixit Concilium Niceae scripsitque ad omnes Ecclesiarum praesides Soz. lib. 1. ca. 16. lat ut ad diem praestitutum adessent Summoned the Councell of Nice and wrote to all the Prelates of the Churches to be there at the day prefixed And the same Sozomen saith That hee sent his letters to the Apostolicke Seas To Macarius Bishop of Ierusalem to Eustathius Bishop of Antioch To Alexander Bishop of Alexandria and to Iulius Bishop of Rome Who being an old man and not able to come himselfe hee sent in his stead Vitus and Vincentius The Nicene Fathers themselves by their Synodall Epistle Theodoret. lib. 1. cap 9. extant in Theodoret which they wrote to the Church of Alexandria doe restifie That they were assembled by the authoritie of the Emperor Constantine And if the Bishop of Rome had had the power and authoritie to call the Councell he would no doubt being an old man and not able to travell have had it at Rome or in some part of Italy rather then at Nice in Bithinia so farre remote from Rome Nicephorus also saith that Imperator Nicaenam Synodum promulgabat literis locorum omnium Episcopos Niceph. li. 8. c. 14 ad constitutum diem eo evocavit The Emperor proclaymed the Councell at Nice and by his letters called thither the Bishops of all places to be there at the day appointed Zonaras Zonaras saith that Imperator provinciarum Episcopos Niceae Bithiniâ—â— urbis convenire jussit The Emperor commanded the Bishops of the Provinces to meete together at Nice Platina in vita Silvestri a Citie in Bithinia And Platina also writeth that this generall Councell of Nice was summoned or called Constantini mandato by the commandement of Constantine the Emperor It is therefore abundantly manifest that this first generall Councell of Nice was called not by the authoritie of any Pope but of the Emperor How then is it not an over great if not a most intollerable impudencie in Papists to denie so manifest and palpable a trueth As touching that answere which Bellarmine and other Papists make when they say That this Councell was called or summoned by the advise and consent of the Bishop of Rome First Ruffin lib. 1. c. 1. Ruffinus saith that it was assembled or called Ex sacerdotum sententia by the advise and consent of the Priests and not of the Bishop of Rome alone Epiphan lib 2. Tom 2. haeres 68 Yea Epiphanius saith That it was obtayned of the Emperor at the suite of Alexander Bishop of Alexandria But secondly it maketh no matter at whose suite or request or by whose advise or consent the Councell was summoned For the question is not by whose perswasion or suite or by whose advise or consent but by whose authoritie it was called Now it is verie apparant that it was called and assembled by the authoritie and commandement not of any Bishop of Rome but of the Emperor The second generall Councell which was the first Constantinopolitane was also called not by Damasus Bishop of Rome but by the Emperor Theodosius the elder This is also evident First by Theodoret who saith Theodor. li. 5. c. 7 Hujus rei gratia Theodosius Episcopas Constantinopoli congregari jussit For this cause Theodosius commanded the Bishops to be assembled at Constantinople Socrat. lib 5. ca. 8 Soz li. 7. c. 6. lat Zonar in Theod. In dedicatoria ad I Theodosium Socrates and Sozomen likewise doe both testifie that Theodosius summoned assembled this Councell Zonaras saith that this second generall Councell was summoned Iussu Imperatoris by the commandement of the Emperor 150. godly fathers being there assembled And the very Councell it selfe speaking to Theodosius doe testifie the same and say thus Wee being assembled at Constantinople by the Letters of your Pietie The third generall Councell namely the first Ephesine was also called not by the authoritie coÌ„mandement of Celestinus Bishop of Rome but by the Emperor Theodosius the younger This is verie manifest Evagr lib. 1. c. 3. for Evagrius saith directly That by the appointment or command of Theodosius
Phocas was but a declaratioÌ„ of that which was ever before belonging to the Bishops of Rome What Had the former Bishops of Rome all the predecessors to Gregorie this title of universall Bishop peculiarized appropriated unto them Why then did Gregorie himselfe say Greg. lib. 4 Epist 32.36 38.39 None of my predecessors Bishops of Rome ever consented to use this so ungodly a name or why did he say That no Bishop of Rome ever tooke upoÌ„ him this name of singularitie Yea he saith We the Bishops of Rome will not receave this honour being offered unto us Wherefore it is apparant that neyther before the times of Gregorie nor in the times of this Gregory any of the Bishops of Rome had this title Yea you see this title detested and rejected even by and in the Bishops of Rome themselves aswell as in any other Bishops So that they did not onely condemne it in Iohn the Patriarch of Constantinople but generally in all Bishops whatsoever as being injurious not onely to other Bishops but especially to CRIST IESVS the onely right and true Vniversall Bishop and the sole and onely Head of the Vniversall Church Vniversa sibi tentat ascribere saith Gregory Greg libr. 4. Epist 36. omnia quae soli uni capiti cohaerent videlicet Christo per elationem pompatici sermonis ejusdem Christi sibi studet membra subjugare He goeth about to ascribe all to himselfe saith he and endevoureth by the loftinesse of his pompous title to subjugate unto himselfe all the members of Christ which of right are to cleave to one onely head which is Christ This title then of Vniversall Bishop or head of the whole Church upon earth appeareth to be as wicked and as unlawfull in Boniface the third Bishop of Rome and his successors as it was or would have beene in Iohn Bishop of Constantinople and his successors if it had rested in them For that which Boniface the third obtayned of Phocas the Emperor is the very same thing which Iohn Bishop of Constantinople sought to get and obtaine This if any make a doubt of it is apparant For first Paulus Diaconus saith Hic Phocas rogante Papa Bonifacio statuit sedem Romanae Ecclesiae ut caput esset omnium Ecclesiarum Paul warnefrid Phoca quia Ecclesia Constantinopolitana primam se omnium Ecclesiarum scribebat This Emperor Phocas at the suite of Pope Boniface ordayned that the Sea of Rome should be the head of all Churches because the Church of Constantinople wrote her selfe the chiefe of all Churches Vspergens Chronic In like sort speaketh Abbas Vspergensis Post SabintanuÌ„ Bonifacius eligitur ad Pontificatum cujus rogata Phocas constituit sedem Romanae Apostolicae Ecclesiae caput esse ommium Ecclesiarum nam antea Constantinopolitana se scribebat primam omnium After Sabinian saith he was Boniface chosen to the Popedome at whose request Phocas ordayned that the Sea of the Romane and Apostolicke Church should be the head of all Churches for formerly the Church of Constantinople had written her selfe the chiefe of all Platin Bonifac. 3 PlaÌ„tina also saith that Bonifacius a Phoca Imperatore obtinuit magna tamen contentione Boniface obtayned this of Phocas the Empeâ—â—or but with great contending for it quem quidem loctâ—m Ecclesia Constantinopolitana sibi vendicare conabatur Which place saith he the Church of Constantinople endevoured to challenge to her selfe Blondus Blondus also saith Ad huâ—us Bonifâ—â—â— petitionem Phocas Antistitem Romanum principem Episcoporum omniuÌ„ dixit Nauclerus vol 2 Generat 21. At the suite of this Boniface did Phocas affirme the Bishop of Rome to be the Prince of all Bishops And Nauclerus likewise saith that Bonifacium insolentiam Patriarchae Constantinopolitani 〈…〉 appellantis compesâ—â—t Phocas cuim Pontificis suasione publica aâ— ad untâ—ersum orbem dimissa sanctione constituit ut Romanae Ecclesiae Romanoque Pontifici omnes orbis Ecclesiae obedirent Boniface repressed the insolencie of the Patriarch of Constantinople calling himselfe Oecumenicall or universall Bishop For Phocaâ— by the perswasion of the Pope ordayned by a publicke Decree sent to the whole world that all the Churches of the world should be obedient to the Church of Rome By all these testimonies then you perceave that what Iohn the Bishop of Constantinople did formerly desire and seeke after that did Boniface the third Bishop of Rome obtaine of Phocas the Emperor and consequently that title of universall Bishop must needes be as hatefull and damnable in Boniface the third Bishop of Rome and his successors as it was or would have beene by the judgement of Pelagius and Gregorie in Iohn the Bishop of Constantinople and his successors As also I trust you now sufficiently great how fond and false an evasion that is which my Adversarie and Bellarmine also useth For if this granting of the title of the universall Bishop to Boniface the third had beene as they say nothing else but a declaration of the thing ever before acknowledged to belong to the Bishops of Rome What cause or neede was there for Boniface the third Bishop of Rome to have beene such an earnest and importunate surer for the obtayning of it at this time Or why did those two Patriarches the one of Constantinople the other of Rome strive and contend at this time so much for it Or why was Phocas himselfe so hardly and not without much a doe induced to yeeld it to Rome rather then to Constantinople which was then the seate of the Emperors Or if it were a thing ever before acknowledged to be due to the Bishops of Rome why did those two Bishops of Rome so hotely and eagerly oppose themselves against it utterly detesting and condemning it not onely in Iohn Bishop of Constantinople but generally in all Bishops whosoever as their speeches arguments and reasons doe declare Yea how can it be true that the Bishops of Rome had evermore this title when Gregorie the great Bishop of Rome himselfe testifieth the cleane contrarie saying as you heard before that none of his predecessors Bishops of Rome did at any time consent to use so ungodly a name and that no Bishop of Rome at any time tooke upon him this name of singularitie and that they the Bishops of Rome could not take it though it were offered to them Is it not then a point of grosse impudencie in Papists still to denie such apparant and manifest truths But afterward againe in a scoffing manner hee saith that I give notice that I am a Logician by affirming in the 11. pag. of the first part of my Booke that the effect of the negative clause in the Oath of Supremacie is included in the former affirmative clause of the same Oath The affirmative clause saith he of the Oath is that the King is the Supreme Governor in his owne Dominions The negative clause is that no forraine Prince Person Prelate c. And so he goeth on mispending his time
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.