dominanturijs vos autem non sic Luke 22.24 25.26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Quis eorum Maior The kings of Nations beare dominion over them but yee may not doe so one over another For of this was the question or contention and therefore of this must the answere bee accordingly understood These words then doe cleerely declare that there should bee no Ecclesiasticall King or Ecclesiasticall Monarch amongst them to rule or raigne over all the rest although terrestriall Kings and Monarches did and are well allowed to raigne and rule over the people of those Nations whereof they be Kings But againe hath not S. Gregorie himselfe told us long agone not onely how needelesse and superfluous but how pernicious also and dangerous it was to the whole Church to admitte of one to bee an universall Bishop or an Ecclesiasticall Monarch to rule Gregorie and raigne over all the rest For then saith he if hee which is the Ecclesiasticall Monarch or the universall Bishop doe fall the whole and universall Church falleth with him And what Gregory thus spake and as it were prophecied so long since was afterward found true and came to passe accordingly to the lamentable woe of the whole Church in the succeeding times by that meanes Yea the same S. Gregory hath yet further certified us how pernicious and dangerous this was and would bee not onely to the whole Church but even to himselfe also that would take upon him to be the Ecclesiasticall Monarch or supreme and universall Bishop over all Gregory For saith hee what wilt thou answer unto Christ who is the true head of the universall Church in that day of iudgement when by this name of universall Bishop thou seekest to subiugate all the members of his Body unto thy selfe Whom dost thou imitate herein save onely him who in contempt of those legions of Angels which were his fellowes sought to mount aloft to the top of singularitie where hee might bee subiect to none and all others might be subiect unto him As for the having of Bishops of Dioceses and Provinces it no more proveth that therefore there may or must be one universall Bishop or Ecclesiasticall Monarch over all then that because there be divers Kings in divers and severall Kingdomes therefore there should be one universall King over all the Kings and kingdomes in the world And besides there were Bishops of Dioceses and Provinces in the times both of Pelagius and Gregorie Bishops of Rome whom neverthelesse they tooke no exception against nor disallowed But him that would take upon him to be an Ecclesiasticall Monarch or a supreme and universall Bishop over the whole Church him they would not endure but vehemently impugned and detested him and that not without verie apparant just and good cause as here you see But moreover did you never reade Iohn Gerson de Auferibilitate Papae What he affirmed in some cases may generally and absolutely be affirmed namely That the Pope may bee utterly abolished and taken cleane away that without any lesse or hurt at all to Christendome yea to the great and ample good not onely of Christendome but of all the world beside if the matter be well weighed and rightly and throughly considered 18. But touching this point of supremacie you seeme at last in words to appeale to the judgement of the Primitive Church I would you would doe as you say and stand to the judgement of it in verie deede For I have proved which you have not disproved nor ever will bee able to disprove That for the space of eight hundred yeares and more after Christ even the Bishops of Rome themselves aswell as other Bishops were subject to the Emperours And that the Christian Emperours had also authoritie in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill and temporall within their Dominions and nothing doe you or can you alledge against it but what hath beene many and sundrie times sufficiently abundantly answered confuted by the Protestants As for that Catalogue of Emperours Kings and Princes which you affirme to have beene exemplarily punished in this world by violent and miserable deathes for oppugning and striving against the Monarchie and supremacie of the Bishop of Rome you onely say suppose it but doe not prove it And it is an overbold part in you to enter into Gods secret counsels and to affirme that to be the cause which you know not nor be able to prove For there might be and so no doubt there were other just causes of their punishments As for the oppugning of the Popes supremacie that could not be the cause of those or of any other punishments in asmuch as the grosse wrongs and utter unlawfulnesse of it hath before plentifully appeared and that neyther the Pope nor all his partakers be able to shew any commission or warrant from God for the approbation of it Yea how could the oppugning or contending against the Popes Monarchie and supremacie be any cause of punishment when in the holy Scriptures themselves it appeareth as in my first Booke I have shewed at large that Papall Rome is the whore of Babylon and that the Pope of Rome the head and ruler of that adulterate and Popish Church is the verie grand Antichrist Doe not therefore deceive your selfe nor others any longer by mistaking the cause which is you know a fallacie à causa non ut causa Yet you further say that I am argued by the wisest in this Enterprize to have discovered in consideratively much arrogancie of witt in not well weighing the mayne importance of this difficultie farre surmounting the talent of a Lawyer But first there is no such difficultie in it Reges Gentium dominaâ—tur as you speake of and this I have formerly declared Secondly why doth it surmount or exceede a Lawyers talent and abilitie more in mee then in you Wherefore if I bee as you say I am censured or argued by the wisest of much arrogancie because being a Lawyer I meddle in this matter Must not those wisest in all justice and equitie condemne you likewise of much arrogancie for the same cause For you have hitherto in your writings affirmed your selfe to be a Lawyer if all this while you neverthelesse be not a Lawyer you have done your selfe a great deale of discredite and dishonour in affirming it Neyther can any man then tell how to beleeve you in any thing you speake or write So that herein you gull not mee but your selfe and others It would therefore best become you to unmaske your selfe and to discover your selfe plainely For you must thinke howsoever you would conceale your selfe that you are sufficiently knowne and goe not invisible But thirdly who are those whom you call and account the wisest For there bee some that be wise in their owne conceite and some that be Antichristianly wise and some that bee worldly wise 1. Cor. 3.19 whose wisedome is as S. Paul affirmeth it foolishnesse with God For hath not God saith hee made the wisedome of this world 1. Cor. 1.20 foolishnesse The world accounteth the wisedome of God to bee foolishnesse But hee saith that the foolishnesse of God is wiser then men and the weakenesse of God 1. Cor. 1.25 stronger then men The wisest men then doubtlesse bee those that humbly submit all their learning and wisedome to Gods word and wisedome and that bee divinely and Christianly wise as for the rest they must as the same S. Paul teaceth them 1. Cor 3.18 become fooles that they may bee wise Whatsoever therefore you say I beleeve that which Christ Iesus himselfe hath spoken to bee true and that it will ever bee found verified Luke 7.35 videlicet That wisedome is iustified of all her Children But lastly what arrogancie eyther of wit or learning doe I shew or discover when I neyther brag nor boast of eyther and when I further franckly and freely confesse in all my Bookes that such matter as is therein contayned I have learned of others and so attribute nothing to my selfe The wit and learning I have how small slender or meane soever you or others esteeme it I thanke God for it and doe humbly pray him to give mee the Grace to use and imploy it to his honour and glorie and not to mine owne Yea how weake or meane soever it bee in respect of it selfe yet such is the strength of the cause which I defend and the strength of the Almightie who hath enabled mee in it and to whom I give all the thankes and the glorie Psal 4.13 as that it now appeareth I hope to everie understanding equall and judicious Person to bee undoubtedly victorious and triumphant Hereafter therefore I shall not neede to write any more in it which is now made thus manifest cleere apparant and invincible So that everie man that will speake truely may sâ—â— of it that Magna est veritas praevalet God open our eyes if it bee his will and inlighten all our understandings that wee may all see and know his truth acknowledge reverence embrace and professe it and walke in the wayes of it evermore AMEN FINIS
powers Who saith S. Bernard hath excepted you speaking to an Archbishop from this generalitie Hee that bringeth in an exception saith hee useth but a delusion And you may remember that even S. Chrysostome also himselfe as hee subjecteth Kings to Bishops Priests and Pastors in respect of their power and commission graunted them from God So on the other side in respect of the Regall sword power and authoritie given and graunted likewise from God to Kings and Princes he declareth verie fully that Bishops Priests Pastors and all Ecclesiasticall Ministers whatsoever aswell as lay people are to be subject to them But this point concerning the subjection of all Bishops Priests and Pastors and even of the Bishop of Rome himselfe aswell as of others unto Emperours Kings and Princes as also in causes even Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill and temporall is so cleerely plainely and plentifully proved both in my first and second Bookes and in this also all your answers evasions quirkes and quiddities being therein utterly frustrated confuted and confounded as that it is to mee a matter of wounder that you should not see and so acknowledge the truth of it But it seemeth you cannot see the wood for trees which I am sorrie for 8. Howbeit to make this point yet the more evident viz the subjection of Priests and Ecclesiasticall Ministers unto the King and therewithall the Kings supremacie or supreame commaund over them even in causes Ecclesiasticall I alledged in my Reply cap. 1. pag. 5. the example of Moses who commaunded not onely the Levites Deut. 31.25.26 and that in a matter Ecclesiasticall and concerning their verie office but hee commaunded also even Aaron the high Priest in a matter likewise Ecclesiasticall and concerning his verie office Numb 16.46.47 saying thus unto him Take the censer and put fire therein of the Altar and put therein incense and goe quickely unto the congregation and make an attonement for them for there is wrath gone out from the Lorde the plague is begun then Aaron tooke as Moses had commaunded him c. Here you say I abuse my Reader by falsely citing this text for the right wordes say you are these Moses said to Aaron take the Censer and drawing fire from the Altar put incense upon it going quickely to the people to pray for them To pray say you and to make attonement doe differ and be not all one howbeit indeede not I but you are the man that abuse your Reader by falsely citing the wordes of this Text For you therein follow the wordes of your vulgar Latin translation which is untrue and unsound and I follow our English translation which is according to the Originall in Hebrew and therefore true which you also if you were a good Hebrician would know and perceive even in this verie particular But whether wee take your translation of Praying for the people or our translation of Attonement-making it commeth all to one passe as touching that purpose for which I cited it namely to prove that Moses commaunded Aaron the high Priest in a matter Ecclesiasticall cōcerning his verie office For your selfe do say that this praying for the people was a religious act to bee wrought by Aaron as being intermediate betweene the people God to reconcile or gaine unto them the favours of heaven And on the other side we say that to burne incense to mak attonement for the people 2. Chron. 26.18 is likwise expressely a thing properly pertayning to the Priests office So that as touching that purpose for which I cited that text it maketh as I said before no difference But then you go further seem to speake as if Moses had not there commanded Aaron But when Moses spake to Aaron in this sort Accipe thuribulū Take the censer Be not these wordes of commaunding especially in this case and at this time being also spoken by a Superior namely by him that was as the Scripture calleth him a king in the common-weale of Israel Deut. 33.5 Deut. 31.25 26.27 Yea bee they not wordes of as full and cleere commaund as when hee spake in like sort to the Levites saying Take the booke of this law and put yee it in the side of the Arke of the Covenant of the Lord our God c. The Text it selfe sheweth that these were wordes of commaunding in Moses And so witnesseth also your owne translation that herein Moses praecepit Levitis Moses commaunded the Levites Yea that Moses aswell as his successor Ioshuah commaunded not onely the Levites but the Priests also and all the congregation and people of Israel appeareth by that answer and acclamation they gave to the same Ioshuah saying thus unto him Iosh 1.16.17.18 All that thou hast commaunded us wee will doe and whethersoever thou sendest us wee will goe As wee have obeyed Moses in all things so will we obey thee onely the Lord thy God be with thee as bee was with Moses whosoever shall rebell against thy commaundement and will not obey thy wordes in all that thou commaundest him let him bee put to death But then when you cannot gainesay but that Moses commaunded Aaron and that in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning his very office you come to your last refuge and doe say that Moses was the high Priest and so as an high Priest commaunded Aaron But first how doe you prove this that Moses was an high Priest And yet if you could prove it what would you or could you gaine from thence for your selfe doe say that Moses was as well a king as a Priest therefore why might hee not commaund him as hee was a king rather then otherwise for did he in his time commaund the Priests Levites the whole People of Israel otherwise or in any other sort or sence then Ioshuah his successor did who was no Priest how be it if Moses had been both a Priest and a King would not the holy Scripture somewhere haue testified and expressed so much aswell as it doth in the like case of Melchisedech Gen. 14.18 Hebr. 7.1 For as touching those Texts of Scripture which you bring to prove Moses to be a Priest it shall by and by appeare that they prove it not Againe if Moses were the high Priest what will you make Aaron to be for it is evident and confessed of all sides that Aaron was the high Priest and if Moses were also another high Priest at the same time Deut. 33.5 then beside that there should be two high Priests together at one time how could the one commaund the other they being both of equall authority Or can he be rightly and truely called Summus Sacerdos that hath a Superior Priest over him to commaund him It is cleere that the Scripture doth expressely testifie of Moses that he was a King and therefore of that there can be no doubt but that he was also a Priest or an high Priest as you suppose it doth not affirme no not in that Place
87. But secondly when the Text it selfe speaketh of this fact of King Solomon by way of approbation of it doth it become you or any man else to say or suppose that it was error facti in him Or that it was an Act not lawfull for him so to doe For hath not the Scripture it selfe before expressely tould vs That Solomon deposed or cast out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord 1. King 2.27 that hee might fulfill the words of the Lord which hee spake against the house of Ely in Shiloh Now then can that be said to bee erroniously or unlawfully done which God himselfe well liked and allowed and would have to bee done for the performance and fulfilling of his owne wordes Yea consider yet further that the Kings of Israel and Iudah had power and authoritie over the Priests not onely to depose them but also to put them to death And this you may see in King Saul who put to death divers Priests â— Sa. 22.18 â— Chron. 24. â—0 21. and in King Ioash also who put to death Zachariah the sonne of Iehoida the Priest How justly or unjustly worthily or unworthily these Priests were put to death I here dispute not but I mention these examples to shew the power authoritie that the Kings had in those times namely even to put Priests to death aswell as lay-persons upon just cause and if they did offend so farre as to deserve it 11. But now though there were a supremacy over the high Priests aswell as over the other Priests and Levites in the Kings under the Old Testament and that they also dealt in maters Ecclesiasticall yet thereupon it followeth not say you That Kings and Princes under the New Testament have the like Supremacy over Bishops and other Clergy men or the like Authority in causes Ecclesiasticall and concerning religion Why so because say you there is now a change and alteration of the Priesthood and of the Law Heb. 7.12 But doth not the same Epistle to the Hebrews which you cite tell you wherein that Alteration and change consisteth namely that it is in respect of the Leviticall Priesthood under the ould Law or under the ould Testament which is now changed into the Priesthood of Christ under the new Law or under the new Testament why then will you stretch and extend it any further yea neither doth that Epistle nor any other sacred or canonicall Scripture testifie an Alteration or change in this Point or as touching this Particular whereof we now speake but the cleane contrary videlicet that aswell under the new Testament as under the ould Kings and Princes are to have a supremacy over all Bishops Pastors and other Ecclesiasticall Ministers and an Authority also in causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as civill and temporall within their dominions The first part of this Assertion is manifest by that Text in the new Testament which I have so often recited and where S. Paul saith expressely thus Rom. 13.1 Chrysost in Rom. hom 23 Let every soule be subiect to the higher Powers yea Though you be an Apostle though an Evangelist though a Prophet or whosoever you be saith S. Chrisostome But what shall I neede to prove this so cleere a Point so many times and so often For both in my first Booke Cap. 1. pag. 1. 2. 3. c. and in my Reply chap. 1. pag. 39. 40 41. c. and pag. 51. 52. 53. 54. c. this pointe is fully and abundantly proved Yea the Bishops of Rome themselves in former an ancient times for the space of divers hundreth yeares after Christ did acknowledge this Subiection to these higher powers namely to their Emperors as I have demonstratively shewed by the examples of Milciades Leo and Gregorie the great mentioned in my first Booke pag. 23. 24. 25. 26. And by Anastasius the second Pelagius the first Agatho Hadrian and Leo the fourth mentioned in my Reply chap. 1 pag. 11. 12. 13. 19. To all which though particularly alledged by me you according to your wonted wise maner thought it best to answere nothing Yea both the parts of this Assertion namely that Emperors Kings and Princes under the new Testament have Authority not onely over Persons Ecclesiasticall but in causes also Ecclesiasticall I have so sufficiently proved throughout the first Chapter of my first Booke and throughout the first Chapter of my second Booke which is my Reply and in this booke also as that all the Power and force you have brought or can bring against it will never be able so much as to shake it much lesse to subdue or overthrow it Yet for the more abundant proofe of this Authority of Emperors and Kings in maters Ecclesiasticall and concerning religion I alledged in my Reply chap. 1. pag. 13 14. the president and Example of that famous Christian Emperor Constantine the Great whereunto in your Reioynder you have as well became your great learning and wisedome answered iust nothing at all I alledged also in the same my Reply pag. 15. the example of Iustinian that Christian Emperor where you deny not this Emperors making of Constitutions and Lawes in Ecclesiasticall causes and concerning Bishops and other Ecclesiasticall Persons But you say those Lawes be not observed by the Protestant Cleargie and you give an instance in one particular What is this to the purpose For the question was not nor is whether our Protestant Cleargie observe those Lawes and Constitutions yea or no But whether Iustinian that Christian Emperour made those or any such lawes and Constitutions concerning Ecclesiasticall causes and Ecclesiasticall persons Now then whilst you graunt that hee made those Lawes and Constitutions concerning Ecclesiasticâ—ll causes and concerning Ecclesiasticall persons you graunt so much as I contended for that is to say you graunt the whole matter that was in question And therefore why should I dispute any longer with you Neverthelesse you yet further say that I much disadvantage my cause by alleadging Iustinian the Emperour who accounted called the Bishop of Rome the chiefe and head of all the holy Churches But you should doe well to observe in what sence and respects the Emperour so called and accounted him namely not that hee had in those dayes a supremacie over Iustinian who was then the Emperour â—uthen const 〈◊〉 15. Novel â— 3. For Iustinian himselfe testifieth the cleane contrarie to that conceit Wee commaund saith hee the most holy Archbishops and Patriarkes of Rome of Constantinople of Alexandria of Antioch and of Ierusalem â—vag lib. 4. c. 1 â—iceph libr. â—7 cap. 27. Yea the fifth generall Councell it selfe was also called by the commandement of this Emperor Iustinian So that it clearely appeareth that hee had the supremacie commanding authoritie over them all But in respect of the soundnesse of the faith which the Bishop of Rome held in those times against heresies and errors it was that the Emperour preferred him before the other Bishops accounting himselfe chiefe or head
as not worthy the name of a Councell Yet for all that hee affirmed it not to be no Councell at all simply and absolutely and to all intents and purposes as you would perswade For if it had been no Councell at all or in any sort why was it convocated or assembled as a Councell Or why was Athanasius commaunded by the Emperour to appeare there Or why did the same Athanasius afterward appeale from theÌ„ce to th Emperor yea even Athanasius himselfe affirmeth it to be a councell such a one as it was giveth it expressely the name of a Councell when he saith as you heard before that he and the rest of the Orthodoxe Bishops departed from thence tanquam è Concilio iniuriosorum as from a Councell of iniurious Persons So that a Councell himselfe here acknowledged it to bee though a bad Councell though a Councell of injurious and wicked Persons and a Councell not worthy to bee called a Councell because it thus intended and endeavored the advancement of Arrianisme But what Will you say that the many and sundrie Councels convocated and assembled in times past wherein Arrianisme was established were therefore no Councels at all or in any sort Yea this of Tyrus aswell as those was held to be a Councell though a wicked and impious one not onely by Athanasius but by Socrates also and by Theodoret likewise Socrat. libr. 1. c 20. c. 21 ca. 22. Theodor. lib. 1. c. 28. c. 29 c. 30.31 who in their severall Ecclesiasticall Histories doe often call it expressely by that name of the Councell of Tyrus And even that Christian Emperour also Constantine himselfe wrote unto them by the same name calling them the Councell of Tyrus And it is yet further recorded that by the Emperours commaundement this Councell of Tyrus expressely againe so called was removed from Tyrus to Ierusalem But then you say that the fact whereof Athanasius was accused by the Arrians in that Councell of Tyrus was a meere civill crime belonging to the Temporall Tribunall to wit the killing of Arsenius and cutting of his hand But you are full deceived For it was not onely the killing of Aâ—senius and the cutting of his hand as you alledge but it was further the using of that hand Socrat libr. 1 â—ap 20. so suggested to bee cut of to Magicke and Sorcerie that was layd to his charge Yea sundrie other things also were layd to his charge as namely that hee had deflowred a virgin Theodoret. lib 1. cap. 30. and that one of his Cleargie had beaten downe the Altar overthrowne the Lords Table broken the holy Cuppe and burned the blessed Bible For all which misdemeanours his accusers sought to get him displaced and deposed in that Councell So that it was not a meere Civill crime that was layd to his charge as you suppose but they were mixt offences partly Civill and Temporall and partly Episcopall and Ecclesiasticall And therefore well might it bee called in some respect Negotium Imperatorium Athan. apolog 2. p. 568. a matter Imperiall namely in respect of the accusation of killing of Arsenius and the cutting of his hand if you goe no further but to consider these facts onely singly and apart from the rest For so also did the Emperour Constantine himselfe as it seemeth for a while conceive of it and therefore wrote to Dalmatius the Censor that hee should call before him such as were accused heare the matter and punish the offenders Socra libr. 1. cap. 20. But afterward hee altered his opinion and stopped that course of hearing Athanasius matters before the Censor and would have them to bee heard and determined before the Councell of Bishops which was assembled at Tyrus and which was afterward removed from thence to Ierusalem to consecrate a Temple or Church which the Emperour had builded there The Emperour saith Secrates willed the Bishops assembled at Tyrus to debate together with other matters the contentions raysed about Athanasius to the end all quarells being removed they might afterward cheerefully solemnize the consecration of that Church and dedicate the same unto God So that all the matters layd to Athanaesius his charge being not singly and severally but joyntly together considered and they all tending to the slaunder defamation and deposing of so worthy reverend and renowned a Bishop it appeareth by the event that it was at last in those times held and concluded to bee Negotium Synodale Episcopale a matter meete for a Synode or Councell of Bishops to consider of and to determine And so indeede was it done accordingly Now then when Athanasius went to the Emperour for refuge appealing from this wicked and injurious Councell of Tyrus unto the same Emperour in this his Episcopall Ecclesiasticall cause Is it not thereby verie evident that hee approved of the authoritie of the Emperour in a cause Ecclesiasticall But if yet you make any doubt hereof you may see further in my Reply pag. 68. that as the Apostle Paul appealed to Cesar so Athanasius himselfe saith that by that example of the Apostle hee would likewise appeale to the Emperour of his time and hee saith there further that beyond the Emperour there was in his dayes no appeale to be made to any but to God onely and consequently not to the Pope 16. But you demaund of me certaine questions wherein you would be resolved The first is whether I hold and conclude the spirituall supremacie to be in the King I cannot but wonder at this question of yours For I have often told you in my Reply that it is a Civill and Temporall supremacie over persons Ecclesiasticall and in causes also Ecclesiasticall which I give unto Kings What have wee beene so long disputing about the point of Supremacie And doe you not yet know the state of the question betwixt us S. Paul speaketh of some that would bee Doctors of the Law 1. Tim. 1.6 and yet understand not what they speake nor whereof they affirme Of this sort it seemeth you are by this question propounded But I answere you once more that it is not as you have often said and often mistaken a spirituall but a Civill and Temporall supremacie that I attribute to Emperours Kings and Princes in causes Ecclesiasticall and over Persons Ecclesiasticall And as for the Spirituall supremacie it belongeth rightly and properly to Christ Iesus the onely Spirituall King Head and Monarch of his whole Church For when hee was demaunded touching his kingdome hee answered thus My kingdome is not of this world Ioh. 18 36. thereby declaring that hee was not a worldly or terrestriall King but a spirituall King And therefore also when they would have 〈◊〉 him a terrestriall King Ioh. 6.15 hee would none of it 〈…〉 and departed from them And so likewise testifieth 〈…〉 true and faithfull Apostle speaking of himselfe 〈◊〉 of the rest of the Ecclesiasticall Ministers that the weapons of their warfare â— Cor. 10.4 are not carnall but
Statute in persecuting him to confine him into the Castle there to argue with him as the Gaoler doth with his prisoner I know no reason you have thus to charge me with so much coveting of the Authors or Answerers name For though it bee lawfull for mee so to doe yet have I not beene much inquisitive after it much lesse reason have you to charge mee in your imaginations with persecuting him or seeking to confine him as a prisoner within the Castle which I never did though I confesse hee deserveth it and a farre greater punishment then that because contrary to the lawes and statutes of the Kingdome which himselfe professeth being as he saith hee is a Lawyer and contrary to that dutie which as a Subject he oweth to our most noble most gracious religious and most worthy Soveraigne Lord King CHARLES and contrarie to that fealtie also or fidelitie which professing himselfe to bee a Christian hee likewise oweth unto CHRIST IESVS the onely spirituall King Monarch head of the whole Church Militant aswell as of the triumphant hee doth and dareth thus audaciously to offend Neyther is prosecuting or punishing of such bold and notorious offenders to bee called as you after the Romanisticall manner untruly call it Persecuting For though Prosecution doth well befit delinquents and offenders yet Persecution is a word properly and usually applyed to the Martyrs of Christ and is not attributed to any professors of Antichrist or Antichristian doctrine unlesse it bee Catacrestically abusively Howbeit I deale not with you by authoritie or as a Iudge or Iusticer but doe onely debate dispute and reason the matter with you seeking and endeavouring first by this meanes if I can to reduce and reclayme you and the like unto you from those your grand errours unto a most certaine and evident truth But if yet still you urge the Statute of 2. Eliz. made in this kingdome which maketh the penaltie even for the first offence to be although not a Premunire yet losse of goods and chattels and that therefore in respect of this losse and damage it was not a thing reasonable for me to demaund an answer with the Answerers name thereunto subscribed Thereunto I then further say First that I know no reason why you or any man else should make any answer or any Bookes or writings at all against the Kings Supremacie which you ought in all good dutie to uphold and defend Secondly I demaunded not any answer at all to be made eyther by you or any other but if any did or would answer then I desired that hee would answer in that sort viz. with his name subscribed so that hee might have chosen whether hee would have answered yea or no and by not answering hee might have kept and freed himselfe from penaltie of the Statute but if hee would needes answer then hee was to doe it at his owne perill if any perill did ensue And yet I might also further tell you that such a one possibly might have beene the Answerer as needed not to feare that perill or penaltie For be there not divers Schollers in Colledges and Vniversities and elsewhere that live onely upon other mens exhibition and beneficence and have no manner of goods or chattels lands or tenements of their owne Might not such an one have answered and put his name to his Answer without any feare of that penaltie Againe might not some forrein-borne Papist living out of the Kings Dominions and that were no Subject to the King having well and perfectly learned the English tongue have beene the Answerer and put his name likewise to his Answer without any feare of that danger Or which was most likely might not some English mâ—n or some Irish man living abiding perpetually at Rhemes Rome Doway or some other place beyond the Seas have beene the Answerer And would you then have thought it a thing unreasonable for such a one to have beene demaunded to put and subscribe his name to his Answer For these men living continually beyond Sea out of the Kings Dominions feare not as wee see by experience nor thinke so long as they be so farre distant that they neede to feare the penaltie or danger of any Law or Statute amongst us to bee executed upon them Yea what if it were your selfe that were the Answerer of it as you tooke upon you to be the Answerer of two Chapters in it had it beene unreasonable to have demaunded of you to put your name to the Answer in respect of any feare of penaltie or danger upon that Statute or of any other Statute whatsoever For what penaltie or danger upon any Statute should you feare who in your first Answer in the Epistle to your Countrey-men write so confidently in this your supposed Catholicke cause as if you feared no manner of danger at all but would willingly undergoe all disasters in the world for attestation and defence of it But I am now glad to see that you have some feare in you For indeede feare in everie man and not forwardnesse or boldnesse in any best becommeth yours so bad a cause But yet further what reason have you now in your Reioynder to except against any of these three conditions or three requests or against any part of any of them as unreasonable which in your first Answer you tooke no exception against Yea which you then seemed well to approve and allow well of saying concerning the same my whole first Booke that It should shortly be answered in my owne straine of Divinitie with the three conditions required by me Yea lastly if you would needs be as you were the Answerer to a part of that my first Booke namely to two Chapters therein and thought it not fit to put your right and true name unto it yet should you not in stead thereof have given your selfe a wrong false and counterfeyte name which is the thing I reproved in you For as I said formerly in my Reply so I say againe that it had beene much better for you to have put no name at all to that your Answer then a false wrong and counterfeyte name as you did 3. From thence you goe on and renevv a former taxation of yours namely for that being a Lawyer by profession I neverthelesse meddle with these matters of Divinitie concerning religion But concerning this I told you before that I had made a sufficient Apologie for these my doings in that my first Booke whereto as yet I see no Answer made and I added further in my second Booke namely my Reply that even you your selfe did justifie mee therein in asmuch as you being likewise a Lawyer as you then affirmed and yet still affirme your selfe to bee did neverthelesse meddle with these matters of Divinitie and concerning religion aswell as I. Neyther is it any excuse or defence for you to say as you doe that I began to commit this fault and that you doe but follow me therein For if you saw
and observed wherein and in what respects it was that this excellencie of the one above the other did consist For as it is true that in respect of converting soules and fitting them for Gods kingdome by preaching of Gods word administring of the Sacraments and exercise of the Ecclesiasticall discipline the spirituall function and authoritie is to bee preferred before the Regall or Temporall So no lesse true is it that in respect of the temporall power of the sword externally to commaund compell and to punish offenders in causes both Ecclesiasticall and Civill the Regall and temporall office and authoritie is to bee preferred before the Episcopall or Sacerdotall This distinction because it killeth and striketh dead your cause you cannot endure and therefore doe you in your Reioynder exclayme against it and call it a distinction never heard of before and that it was lately hatched in the Vniversitie of Mollinmighan as you scoffingly speake in the Colledge there of your owne divising and nomination and whereof you are the father and the founder But to let this passe as an idle fiction of a fantasticall braine why will you not acknowledge the truth of this distinction which is so cleare plaine and evident in it selfe The first part of it you neyther doe nor can denie namely that in respect of converting soules Chrys in Mat hom 83. Ad popul antioch homil 60. and fitting them for Gods kingdome by preaching of Gods word administring of the Sacraments and exercise of the Ecclesiasticall discipline the spirituall office and authoritie is to bee preferred before the Regall or Temporall For this is verie apparant even by S. Chrysostome himselfe who speaketh to Ecclesiasticall Ministers on this wise No small vengeance saith hee hangeth over your heads if you doe suffer any hainous offender to be partaker of the Lords Table his bloud shall be required at your hands whether hee be a Captaine Lieutenant or a crowned King forbid him in these cases thy power is greater then his Againe hee saith Si vis videre discrimen quantum absit Rex à Sacerdote expende modum potestatis vtrique traditae Chrysost de verb. Esa vidi Dom. hom 5. If you will see the difference how great it is betweene the King and the Priest weigh the measure of the power or authoritie graunted unto them both And there shewing the power and authoritie which God hath committed to the Priest he saith Eoque Deus ipsum regale caput sacerdotis manibus subiecit and in that respect saith hee hath God subiected the head of the King to the hand of the Priest So that it is onely in respect of their Ministerie power and authoritie graunted them from God not in all respects nor to all intents and purposes that this their excellencie and preheminencie consisteth Yea he further sheweth that their power and offices bee distinct and limitted and that the one may not intrude into the office and bounds of the other For when King Vzziah otherwise called Ozias 2. Chron. 26.16.17 18. entred into the Temple to burne incense which pertayned to the Priests office and not to the King S. Chrysostome reproving and condemning this saith thus unto the King Chrysost de verbis Esaiae vidi Dom. homil 4. Mane intra tuos terminos alij sunt termini Regni alij termini sacerdotis Keepe you within your owne bounds For the limits or bounds of the Regall calling be one and the limits or bounds of the Sacerdotall calling be another And againe hee saith that Res est mala non manere intra fines nobis à Deo praescriptos It is an ill thing not to abide within the limits or bounds prescribed unto us of God Hee againe thus distinguisheth their offices Regi corpora commissa sunt sacerdoti animae Rex maculas corporum remittit Sacerdos autem maculas peccatorum Ille cogit hic exhortatur Ille necessitate hic consilio Ille habet arma sensibilia hic arma spiritualia Ille bellum gerit cum barbaris mihi belium est adversus Daemones To the King saith he Homil. 5. Idem ibidem hom 4. are bodies committed to the Priest soules the King remitteth the spots of the bodies the Priest the spots of sinnes The King compelleth the Priest exhorteth the one with necessitie or constraint the other with advice or counsaile The King hath sensible weapons the Priest hath spirituall weapons The King maketh warre with the Barbarians and the Priest hath warres against the Divels Againe hee saith Regi ea quae hic sunt commissa sunt mihi caelestia mihi quum dico sacerdotem intelligo To the King are those things committed that bee here To mee are things heavenly committed And when I say to mee I meane saith hee the Priest So that although hee there affirmeth the Sacerdotall power or office to bee more excellent or greater then the Regall yet withall hee sheweth you wherein and in what respects it is namely as I said before in respect of those things which properly belong to the office ministerie and function of a Priest or Bishop of which sort is preaching of Gods word administring of the Sacraments and binding and loosing of sinners by Excommunication or Absolution as the case requireth But hee may not by vertue of that his Ecclesiasticall and Priestly office use any externall civill coactive power or compulsion which you see even by the evident testimonie of the same S. Chrysostome himselfe rightly and properly belongeth to the King and not to the Priest Now then here you may perceive withall the other part of my distinction to be likewise undoubtedly true namely That in respect of the Temporall power of the sword thereby externally to commaund compell and to punish offendors in causes both Ecclesiasticall and Civill the Regall and temporall office and authoritie is to bee preferred before the Episcopall or Sacerdotall For it is cleare that God hath committed this Civill and Temporall sword onely to Kings and Princes and such like terrestriall Potentates and not to Bishops or Priests For so also doth S. Paul himselfe directly shew And who is there but hee knoweth that it properly appertayneth to the power office of this civill and temporall sword to commaund compell and to punish offendors civilly and in a temporall manner For the same Apostle saith of everie of these higher powers that beare this temporall Sword that hee beareth it not in vaine Yea hee saith that hee is the Minister of God a revenger unto wrath to him that doth evill Here is no exception of any person or of any cause but hee that offendeth or doth evill bee hee a lay-man or a cleargie-man or be he an offendor in a cause Civill or cause Ecclesiasticall hee appeareth to bee subject to this sword and authoritie of these higher powers For seeing the expresse wordes of the Text be Bernard ad Senonen Arobiepisc epist 42. Chrysost in Rom. hom 23 Let everie soule be subiect to the higher
where the purpose of the holy Ghost was to shew what Offices he bare during all his life time and what maner of man he was amongst the Israelites so long as he had been amongst them vntill that time that he was to die and to take his last farewell of them Deut. 33.5 Deut. 34.10 for there it onely appeareth that he was a King and a Prophet but not a Priest Had he bene also a Priest no doubt it would not haue bene there omitted but specified likewise aswell as his other two Offices Yea reade throughout the whole Bible the historie concerning Moses you will still finde that he was a supreame civill Magistrate a supreme Commaunder Exod. 18.13 14.15.16.17.18.19.20.21.22.23.24.25.26 and supreame Iudge in Israell For it is saide that When Moses sate to iudge the people the People stood about Moses from morning vnto even And when Iethro Moses Father in Law saw all that he did to the People he said what is this thou doest to the People Why sittest thou thy selfe alone and all the People stand about thee from morning vnto even And because this was too toylsome troublesome a businesse for him alone to doe he advised him to appoint some others to help him to beare the Burthen with him in hearing judging of causes Wherupon Moses chose able men out of all Israel and made them heads over the People Rulers over thousands Rulers over hundreths Rulers over fifties and Rulers over tens And these iudged the people at all seasons the hard Causes they brought to Moses but every small matter they iudged themselves When againe Moses heard the murmuring and saw the weeping of the People of Israel throughout their families he was much grieved and speake thus to the Lord Numb 11.10.11.12.13.14.15 c. Wherefore hast thou afflicted thy servant and why have not I found favor in thy sight seeing thou hast put the charge of all this People vpon me c. By all which you see that Moses was as a King Prince or supreame commaunder over all Israel and consequently as a King commaunded Aaron and the rest of the Priests aswell as he commaunded the Levites or any of the rest of the People Moreover if Moses had bene the high Priest Exod. 24.5 he might haue offered Sacrifice himselfe and needed not to haue sent others as he did to sacrifice neither needed he to haue commaunded Numb 16.46.47 or required Aaron to burne incense as he did to make an Attonement for the People for himselfe might haue done it But whatsoever Bellarmine or other Papists hould in this case you for your part doe not hould them to be both high Priests together at one and the selfe same time but in succession one after another accounting Moses to be the high Priest first and then Aaron Heb◠5 4. afterwards Howbeit the Scripture saith that No man taketh this honor to himselfe but he that is called of God as was Aaron If then Moses were called of God to this honor of high Priesthood let the like warrant be shewed from God for the Authorizing of him therevnto that is to be shewed for Aaron But this you cannot shew Besides if Moses were the high Priest first and Aaron afterward why doth that Epistle to the Hebrews mention for the Patterne or President in that Case not Moses but Aaron For if Moses had bene the first high Priest no doubt he would haue said That no man taketh this honor vnto himselfe but he that is called of God as was Moses But he saith not so but he speaketh in this sort viz No man taketh this honor to himselfe but he that is called of God as was Aaron As if Revera not Moses at all but Aaron onelie were the first high Priest And so indeede S. Chrisostome directly affirmeth Chrysost de verbis Isaiae vidi Dominū homil 5. for speaking of Aaron he saith expressely that Is primus fuit Pontifex He was the first high Priest Againe if Moses were the high Priest so constituted of God how came he afterward to loose that honor or to be deprived of it and another namely Aaron to be put in his Place in his life time he committing no fault nor any fault declared to be in him for which he should be deprived of that his Priesthood But lastly what cause or neede is there to suppose Moses to be as you fancy him an high Priest extraordinarily elected and appointed when there was to be seene at the same time an High Priest after the ordinary maner in Esse and allowed of God namely the same Aaron For in my Reply pag. 22. 23. I haue proved that the Priesthood before the law given did ordinarily belong to the first borne and of these two Brothers Moses and Aaron I haue also there proved that not Moses but Aaron was the Elder and consequently that by right of Primogeniture Aaron was the Priest and not Moses Yea I haue there further proved that the Priesthood thus being in Aaron was so farre from being removed or taken from him that contrariwise it was continued in him and afterward confirmed vnto him by God himselfe and to his seede after him But yet you would prove Moses to be a Priest Exod. 40.12 13.14.12 because he did consecrate and annoynte Aaron and his sonnes to the Priesthood But to this I have answered before in my Reply pag. 25. 26. shewing that this proveth not Moses to be a Priest properly so called for he did this by Gods owne speciall commandement which he might not disobey or refuse but stood bound to obey and performe although he were a Civill Magistrate King Prince Prophet or what office calling soever hee had You cite also Deut 18.18 where God saith thus to Moses I will raise them up a Prophet amongst their brethren like unto thee c. This prooveth that Moses was a Prophet and that Christ of whom these wordes are a Prophecie was likewise a Prophet Act. 3.21 Act. 7.37 but they prove not Moses therefore to be a Priest because he was a Prophet But the chiefe text you rely upon is that in Psal 99. vers 6. where it is said Moses and Aaron amongst the Priests Samuel amongst them that call upon his name these called upon the Lord and he heard them Howbeit to this also I have answered before in my Reply pag. 23.24 First that the being of Moses Aaron with or among the Priests is no proofe that therefore they were Priests It is true that Aaron was a Priest but that is proved by other cleere places of Scripture and not necessarily deduced out of this because a man may be among Priests yet be no Priest Secondly I shewed that the Hebrew word there used is Cohanim which is a word of an ambiguous signification signifying aswell Princes as Priests 2. Sam. 8.18 As for example The sonnes of King David are said to bee
before by my Reply pag. 9. 10. if you had so pleased Touching King Iosuah I said in my Reply pag. 6. 7. That he commaunded the high Priest aswell as the other Priests and dealt also in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning Gods service and religion And amongst other Text of Scripture for proofe thereof I alledged that Text of 2 King 23.4 where it is accorded that the King commaunded Hilkiah the high Priest and the Priests of the second order c. Hereunto you answere that there is no such matter in the Place by me cited and that the force of this Argument consisteth in these coyned words of mine The King commaunded Hilkiah whom you call Helcias which words not being in Scripture say you I am a wilie Wittnesse for strengthning my cause to produce so shamefull an untruth and though I be a Iudge yet you see no commission I have to use falshood These words be able to provoke a mans patience But you must know that bad words and a bould face will doe you no good Let others therefore iudge whether you or I be the honester man in this Point You say there is no such matter in the Place by me cited Wherefore I desire the Reader but to turne to that place I cited which is according to our English Bibles 2. Kings 23.4 and according to your Latine Bibles 4. Reg. 23.4 and there shall he see whether there be any such matter or no and whether these words The King commaunded Hilkiah whom you call Helcias be words coyned by me as you shame not to speake or whether they be in the Scripture it selfe extant and apparant For first those words be in the Hebrew Secondly they be in our English Translations and thirdly they be also even in your owne vulgar Latine Translation For even in that your owne Translation the words be these Et praecepit Rex Helciae Pontifici Sacerdotibus secundi ordinis c. And the King commaunded Helcias the high Priest and the Priests of the second order c Now then is it not Impudency intollerable in you to deny this You shall therefore doe well yet at last to confesse that this good and godly King Iosias commaunded Hilkiah otherwise called Helcias the high Priest and the Priests of the second Order and that he also dealt in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning religion as I there sayed and have further declared in the same place of my Reply pag. 6.7 To that which I alledged concerning King Asa and King Hezekiah in my Reply pag. 7. 8. who likewise had Authority as is there shewed over Persons Ecclesiasticall and in causes also Ecclesiasticall you answer nothing in your Reioinder that deserveth to be replyed unto And concerning King Iehosaphat also your answere is likewise very idle and friuolous and scarce worthy the mentioning For whereas I alledged amongst other things 2. Chron. 19 8.9.10.11 That this King Iehosaphat did constitute or set in Hierusalem of the Levites and of the Priests and of the Chiefe of the families of Israel for the iudgment and cause of the Lord c. which words were sufficient to prove my purpose there namely the Kings Authority over Priests and Levites and in causes also Ecclesiasticall you to shew your great learning and iudgment in this point doe taxe me for omitting or not rehearsing of some subsequent words in the which verse of that Chapter which when they be vttered and rehearsed doe indeede make more against you then for you for the words be these And behould saith the King Amoriah the high Priest shall be the Chiefe over you in all matters of the Lord and Zebadiah the sonne of Ishmaell a Ruler of the house of Iudah shall be for all the Kings affaires By which words it appeareth That King Iehosaphat did aswell constitute and appointe Amariah the Priest to be the Chiefe over that Assembly Councell or Synedrion which he set at Hierusalem for all matters of the Lord as he did constitute and appoint Zebadiah to be the Chiefe amongst them for all the Kings affaires For the words of the Text put no difference but that he might and did constitute the one to be the Chiefe in the one case aswell as he did constitute the other to be the Chiefe in the other case As for that reason you bring for a difference it is nothing worth for it is graunted that the King did not nor could by his Regall Authority without a speciall commaundement or warrant from God consecrate or make a Priest neither is it there said That King Iehosaphat did consecrate or make Amariah to be a Priest But he being a Priest before the King did there constitute and appoint him as lawfully he might to be the President or Chiefe in that Synedrion or Assembly in all matters of the Lord aswell as he did or might constitute Zebadiah to be therein the Chiefe or President for all the Kings affaires 10. Now then to come to King Solomon I proved him also in my Reply pag. 7. to have had authoritie over the Priests and Levites and to have dealt likewise in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning Religion But to that Text of 2. Chron. 8.14.15 by mee alledged for proofe thereof you answer not Onely to that Text of 1. King 2.27.35 where Solomon deposed Abiathar the high Priest and put Sadocke in his place you answer and graunt it to be true that hee did so But this say you hee did as being a Prophet and not as a King This answer of yours I before confuted and tooke a way in my Reply pag. 20. 21. whether I againe referre you because that standeth still in full force against you you having said nothing against it in your Reioynder But now I adde further unto it that it doth moreover appeare even by the wordes of the Text it selfe that Solomon did not doe this as a Prophet but as a King because hee therein did no more but execute that which a Prophet or man of God had before spoken from God concerning the house of Ely For so the words of the Text doe shew that Solomon cast out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord that hee might fulfill the wordes of the Lord which hee spake against the house of Ely in Shilo 1. King 2.27 and 1. Sam. 2.27.28.29.30.31 c. where the Prophet or man of God as hee is called that uttered the Prophesie and the King that executed the Prophesie must of necessitie bee distinguished And therefore as hee that received and uttered the Prophesie is in the receiving and uttering of it to bee called and supposed a Prophet So King Solomon that was onely the executer and performer of that Prophesie is in the execution and performance of it to be tearmed and deemed a King and not a Prophet But whilst I thus prove the authoritie of Kings over the high Priest because King Solomon deposed Abiathar and put Sadock in his place You would inferre that Elias by the like reason
citie of Nyce And when againe you likewise intending to alledge Damasus against me doe affirme that he saith That Constantine did not gather the councell but cum consensu Silvestri Damasus lin Pont. concil 6 act 18. with the consent of Sylvester and that so much also is expressed in the sixt councell Doe you not in all this sufficiently confesse that the Emperour Constantine did by his commanding authoritie call this councell of Nyce although hee did it by the consent or approbation of Sylvester Bishop of Rome and of other Priests Now then to come to the second generall Councell which was the first Constantinopolitane I have likewise proved in my Reply pag 83. by the testimonies of Theodoret Socrates Sozomen Zonaras and the verie Councell it selfe speaking to the Emperour Theodosius the elder that it was called by the commaundment or commaunding Authoritie of the same Emperour To all which proofes and testimonies yon according to your wonted learning wisdome answer nothing in your Reioynder But in your first auswer to prove this Councell not to bee called by the commaundement of the Emperour but of Damasus Bishop of Rome you cited Theodoret libr. 5. cap. 9. and in your Reioynder you prosecute it and say That the Bishops meeting in this second generall councell writing to Pope Damasus doe testifie that they assembled at Constantinople by reason of his letter sent the yeare before to Theodosius But what meane you thus to abuse your Reader For first there is no such thing in that place of Theodoret Theodor lib. 5 cap. 9. that doth prove this second Generall Councell to have beene any more called by Damasus then by the other Bishops mentioned in the same Letter or in the same Epistle For that Letter or Epistle was not written or directed to one alone as namely to Damasus as you would make men beleeve but to many and diverse Bishops plurally For thus is the direction viz. To our most honourable Lords our verie Reverend brothers and fellowes in Office Damasus Ambrosius Britton Valerian Acholius Anemius Basil and the rest of the holy Bishops assembled in the noble Citie of Rome The holy Councell of Orthodoxe Bishops gathered together in the great Citie of Constantinople send Greeting So that it was not Damasus alone as here you see but the rest of those reverend Bishops also assembled at Rome that sent those Letters mentioned in that Epistle to the most holy Emperour Theodosius And secondly even those Letters of Damasus and of the rest of the Bishops sent to the Emperour concerning that matter of calling the Councell were onely perswasive and not commaunding Letters In asmuch as it is before by my Reply verie evident that this Councell was assembled by the commaundement or commaunding Letters of the Emperour And consequently it was not Damasus alone but other Bishops also joyned with him that sent those their Letters to the Emperour whereby hee was excited moved and perswaded to call and commaund that Councell to bee assembled at Constantinople Now then seeing that Theodoret whom you cite to prove that Pope Damasus by his commaunding Letters called this Councell Theodor. l. b. 5 cap. 7. proveth no such matter Yea hee expressely witnesseth the contrarie affirming it directly to have beene called by the commaundement of the Emperour Doth or can this any way helpe to excuse you Or doth it not rather so much the more inlarge and aggravate your fault herein Concerning the third Generall Councell which was the first Ephesine that That was called by the commaundement of the Emperour Theodosius the younger I have also proved in in my Reply pag. 83. by the testimonies of Evagrius Liberatus Socrates Zonaras Nicephorus by the Synodall Epistle it selfe And yet you would make men beleeve that it was called not by the commaundement of the Emperour but of Celestinus Bishop of Rome And for proofe hereof you cite Prosper in Chronico affirming it to have beene held Caelestini authoritate By the authority of Celestine But you still much mistake for this was no commandement or commaunding authoritie in Celestinus but a perswasive onely which Bishops might and did use to the Emperours verie often for the obtayning of Councels So that by these wordes is no more meant or signified but that Celestinus used such authoritie that is such power credite and estimation as hee had with the Emperour to cause and procure this Councell to bee assembled And that this word Authoritas doth so signifie and is verie often used in that sence your Dictionaries and Latine writers will sufficiently teach you Yea your selfe in your Rejoynder doe cite Paulus Diaconus in his Historicall collections that hee speaketh of the last of the first foure Generall Councels which was the Councell of Calcedon in this sort Papae Leonis auctoritate c. Paul Diac. lib. 15. By the authoritie of Pope Leo and commaund of Martian the Emperour the Councell of Culcedon was summoned Here you see a plaine distinction made betweene this authoritie the commaund The commaund or commanding authoritie being attributed to the Emperour Martian and the other authoritie namely the perswasive being attributed to Leo Bishop of Rome And yet neyther was it onely Celestinus Bishop of Rome but other Patriarkes and Bishops likewise as namely Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria Iohn Bishop of Antioch Zonar in Theodos Iuniore and Iuvenall Bishop of Ierusalem that perswaded and excited the Emperour to call and commaund this third Generall Councell at Ephesus as Zonaras testifieth And as touching the fourth Generall Councell which was as I said that at Calcedon I have proved in my Reply pag. 85. by the testimonie of the verie Councell it selfe and by sundry Epistles also of Leo Bishop of Rome that this Councell of Calcedon was summoned by the commaundement of the Emperour whereunto may be also added that your owne testimonie of Paulus Diaconus before cited who saith as even your selfe alledged him that this fourth Generall Councell of Calcedon was summoned or called by the commaundement of Martian the Emperour and not of Leo although Leo did also interpose and use his authoritie and credite with the Emperour for the effecting of it Now then when beside the cleerenesse of other proofes you saw by this expresse testimonie or Prulus Diaconus whom your selfe alledged that this Councell of Calcedon was summoned or called by the commaundement of the Emperor Martian why should you or any man else say or suppose the contrarie thereunto Yea even Leo himselfe in divers of his Epistles sheweth as I said before that neyther hee nor any other Bishop of Rome did in those dayes summon or call eyther this or any other Generall Councell but that it belonged to the Emperours so to doe as you may see more fully by the wordes and actions of the same Leo formerly mentioned in my Reply pag. 84.85 But I there also further alledged a fifth Generall Councell called Mandato Iustiniani By the commaundement of
betweene the King and the Priest that Ille cogit Châ—ysosto de verbis Esaiae vidi DominuÌ„ homil 4. hic exhortatur Ille habet arma sensibilia hic arma spiritualia The King compelleth the Priest exhorteth the King hath the sensible weapons the Priest the spirituall weapons And when the Priest or Ecclesiasticall Minister hath gone as far as he can go in his Ecclesiasticall Ministerie he must not go any further to use any externall power coactive or compulsive as he there also teacheth 〈◊〉 21.1 but must in every such case leave men unto God who hath the hearts of all kings aswell as of others in his hands and moveth and turneth them when Chrys de Sacerlotisâ—h 2. and which way sâ—ever he pleaseth Yea S. Chrysoâ—tome saith yet further expressely That it is not lawfull for a Bishop to oure men with so great authoritie as a sheepheard doth his sheepe for it is free for a sheepheard forcibly to binde his sheepe to drive them from their feeding to scare them and to cut them but in the other case the facilitie of the cure consisteth no in him that giveth but onely in him that taketh the medicine This that admirable teacher perceiving said to the Corinthians Not that wee have any Dominion over you under the name of faith but that wee are helpers of your ioy For of all men Christian Bishops must not correct the faults of offenders by force or violence Externall Iudges when they take any transgressing the lawes they shew themselves to be endued with great authoritie and power and doe compell them whether they will or no to change their manners But here saith hee non vim afferre sed suadere tantum oportet atque hac ratione meliorem efficere quem emendandum susceperis You may not use violence but perswasion onely and by this meanes make him better whom you have taken upon you to amend Againe hee saith If any sheepe goe out of the right way Chrysost de Sacerdotio lib. 2. and leaving the plentifull pastures graze on barren and steepe places The sheepheard somewhat exalteth his voyce to reduce the dispersed and stragling sheepe and to force them to the flocke But if any man wander from the right path of the Christian faith The Pastor must use great great paines care and patience Neque enim vis illi inferenda neque terrore ille cogendus verum suedendu tantùm ut de integro ad veritatem redeat For hee may nor be forced or constrained with terror but perswaded onely that so hee may returne againe to the truth If then your late Councell of Lateran under Pope Innocentius the third decreed as you say this externall power coactive to bee in the Bishop of Rome You see it is not to be regarded Because such a decree if any such were is directly contrarie to the testimonie of all former approved antiquitie But yet you must also remember what Platina writeth concerning that Councell Plantina de vita Innocen 3. Venêre multa tum quidem in consultationem nec decerni tamen quicquam apertè potuit Many things saith hee came into consultation in that Councell but nothing could plainely be decided by reason the Pope departing to compose some tumults then suddainely risen died by the way So that this your great Councell of Lateran consulting how to defeate Kings and Princes of their Temporall kingdomes and Dominions but not decreeing or concluding any thing therein as being prevented by the Popes hastened and unexpected death will also doe you no pleasure in this case But now why may not I after so many questions of yours answered propound you also one question which is this What if the Bishop of Rome for maintenance of his worldly pompe pride pleasure and ambition carelesly neglect all right religion and bee so extremely wicked both for life doctrine as that hee careth not to carrie innumerable soules together with his owne by heapes to hell who shall correct restraine represse or punish him For answer whereunto you might say that in former and auncient times The Emperours had the correction and the punishment aswell of the Bishops of Rome as of other Bishops that were offenders within their Dominions But now the case is altered and the world turned topsie turvie and the Bishop of Rome growne to that height and licenciousnesse as that hee will not allow himselfe to be censured or judged by any men mortall be they Emperus Kings Princes Bishops Generall Councels or whosoever they bee But whilst he is thus mounted not onely above other Kings and Princes but even above the Emperours also himselfe What saith Optatus of such a one Optat. libr. 3. pag. 85. Cùm super Imperatorem non sit nisi solus Deus qui fecit Imperatorem certè quise super Imperatorem extollit iam quasi hominum excesserit metas se ut Deum non hominem aestimat Forasmuch as saith he there is none above the Emperour but God onely that made the Emperour Certainely be that exalteth himselfe above the Emperour as one that hath gone beyond the bounds of men esteemeth himselfe not now any longer as a mac but as God And whilest withall hee thus exempteth himselfe from the Lawes censure and judgement of all men upon earth what doth hee else by all this but shew himselfe to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That lawlesse person mentioned by S. Paul in 2. Thess 2.8 And which also sitteth in the Church or temple of God as God 2. Thess 2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12 and is exalted above all those men upon earth that be called Gods in the Scriptures of which sort be Kings and Princes and even above the Emperour also himselfe to whom belongeth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sebasma mentioned in the same place of 2. Thessal 2.4 in asmuch as hee is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sebastos that is Augustus as the Scripture also it selfe expressely calleth him Act. 25.21.25 But lastly It is well knowne that by Gods owne institutution the power of the Civill and Temporall sword rightly properly belongeth to Emperours â—om 13.1.2 â— 4.5.6 Kings and Princes and not to Bishops Pastors or other Ecclesiasticall Ministers therefore may Kings and Princes lawfully commaund compell and punish all Bishops Pastors and Ecclesiasticall Ministers whatsoever if they offend aswell as lay-Persons by authoritie of that their sword committed to them from God But Bishops on the other side may not by that their Ecclesiasticall office and function use that temporall sword nor any temporall externall power coactive thereunto incident or belonging against any King or other Person for any cause whatsoever because that sword is not committed to them from God Yea this opinion concerning compelling of Kings savoureth more of treason then of reason and therefore is utterly to bee detested and abhorred 17. But then you say further that whatsoever I alledged to invest our King with the supremacie the same might be alledged by any
amongst them for that cause In which regard also it is that hee would have the Easterne Churches to be imitators of him and to follow him Neither did this Emperor Iustinian write unto him as to an universall or supreme Bishop in those dayes over all but onely as to a Bishop of a Province or of a parte of the Christian world and namely in this sort Iohanni Sanctissimo Archiepiscopo almae urbis Romae â—de libr. 1. â— 4 lib. 4 â— 6 Patriarchae To Iohn the most holy Archbishop and Patriarch of the famous Citie of Rome Againe in that Epistle he desired this Iohn the Bishop of Rome to write his letters to him and to the Bishop of that his royall Citie of Constantinople whom hee there calleth brother to the Bishop of Rome and not his servant or subject Whereupon the Glosse it selfe maketh this observation and saith thus Hic eum parificat Here the Emperour equalleth the B shop of Constantinople to the Bishop of Rome And indeede the first Generall Councell of Constantinople consisting of 150. Bishops Canon 2. 3. and the Generall Councell of Chalcedon also consisting of 630. Bishops Act. 16. and the sixt Generall Councell of Constantinople Can. 36 doe all decree the Sea of Constantinople to be equall to the Sea of Rome except onely that in the meeting and assembly of the Bishops the Bishop of Rome was for Order sake to have the first Place and the Bishop of Constantinople the second Place which together with the reason thereof you may see more fully declared in my first Booke chap. 1. pag. 17. 18. I alledged further in my Reply pag. 15. 16. 17. 18. many and sundry Chapters Lawes made by the Emperour Charles the great otherwise called Charlemaine concerning men and matters Ecclesiasticall the Particulars whereof you may there see which because you knew not how to answere you passe them over with this saying that they are not worth the answering why so in regard say you there is thereby no more discovered then by those before mentioned of Iustinian And is not that mough if it were no more but so and yet is there more discovered in the one then in the other Howbeit Act. 2.36 5.31 Iohn 18.36.37 1. Cor. 15.25 Heb. 1.8.13 Ephes 1.20.21.22.23 Coloss 2.10.8.19 the Lawes of those two Emperors vizt both of Iustinian Charlemaine I alledged not to any such end as you still evermore untruly suppose vizt thereby to prove the Spirituall Supremacy to belong to Emperours or Kings for the spirituall Monarchy and Supremacy I attribute as I said before neither to Emperor nor King nor to Pope nor Prelate but to Christ Iesus onely the sole Monarch and head of his whole Church but to this end and purpose onely namely to prove that Emperours and Kings had in those former and auncient times Authority over Persons Ecclesiasticall in causes also Ecclesiasticall which because you neither doe nor can deny what doe you else but graunt them consequently you here graunt once againe the thing that is in question as a matter cleere and vndenyable and therefore what neede I to dispute or debate this matter any longer with you But here if I doe not mistake you you seeme much to restraine the Power and Authority of Emperors and Kings as though they might not make any new Lawes or Constitutions but onely strengthen confirme and put in execution the olde and former Ecclesiasticall lawes If this be your meaning you see how this conceit is confuted confounded even by those former precedents and examples of Iustinian and Charlemaine For it is evident that Iustinian made many new lawes and new Constitutions which were not before and so did also Charles the Great frame and make divers and sundrie new lawes Chapters and Constitutions And did not Constantine that first famous Christian Emperour also make many new Lawes and new Constitutions concerning Ecclesiasticall persons and Ecclesiasticall matters which were not made before his dayes You may also remember Aug. Epist 50. that S. Augustine saith Serviunt Reges Christo leges ferendo pro Christe Kings serve Christ by making lawes for Christ And therefore they may as occasion requireth aswell make new lawes for Christ as commaund those that were formerly made for him to bee put in execution But if you meane that you would have Emperours and Kings to make no lawes nor cause any to bee put in execution concerning the Church but such as will well stand with the Lawes of God his truth Religion and Ordinances you therein say the same thing that Protestants doe 2. Cor. 13.8 For they say with S. Paul that they may doe nothing against the truth but for the truth And that the power authoritie of Emperours Kings and Princes if it be rightly used and not abused is for God and not against God and for Christ his Church and Religion and not for Antichrist or any untruths heresies or errors whatsoever Or if your meaning bee that you would have Emperours Kings and Princes in their making of lawes concerning God his Church Religion to take the advise direction counsell of godly learned Orthodoxe Bishops and teachers this is also not denied but graunted unto you But then must you graunt on the other side that if they bee not Orthodoxe Bishops and true teachers but false teachers or if they be such as deliver errors in stead of truths such mens erroneous counsailes directions and advises are not to be followed but to bee rejected as I have shewed more fully in my Reply pag. 37. 38. 12. But after these times of Charles the Great mentioned in my Reply pag. 18. you come next in your Reioynder to your accusation of Luther Calvine mentioned in my Reply p. 49. So that here you skip over no lesse then fifteen whole leaves together in that my Reply Yet what have you now to say against Luther and Calvine In your first Answer you tooke occasion for I gave you none to inveigh against them as if they had beene Adversaries to Kings and Princes and to the obedience due to them In that my Reply pag. 49. I said that the works and writings of them both did shew openly proclayme the contrarie to the world And this is indeede verie apparant Luth. tom 1. in Gen. cap. 9. tom 3. annota in Deut capit 6. fol. 4. fol. 552. Rom. 13.1.2 3.4.5.6 Luth. tom 2. resp ad Ambros cather fo 150. 152 For where as some objected That the rule or governement of one man over another might seeme a tyrannous usurpation because all men are naturally of like condition To this saith Luther must wee that have the word of God oppose the commaundement and ordinance of God who hath put a sword into the hand of the Magistrate whom therefore the Apostle calleth Gods Minister Againe hee saith I grieve and blush and groane to see how scornefully our Emperours and Princes