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
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
A SVRREPLICATION TO THE REIOYNDER OF A POPISH ADVERSARIE VVherein THE SPIRITVALL SVPREMACY of Christ Iesus in his Church and the Civill or Temporall Supremacie of Emperours Kings and Princes within their owne Dominions over Persons Ecclesiasticall in causes also Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill and Temporall be yet further declared defended and maintayned against him By CHRISTOPHER SIBTHORP Knight one of his Majesties Iustices of his Court of Chiefe-place in IRELAND Give therefore unto Cesar the things that bee Cesars and unto God the things that be Gods Matth. 22.21 He that is not with mee saith Christ is against me And he that gathereth not with me scattereth Luke 11.23 Imprinted at DVBLIN by the Societie of Stationers Anno Domini M.DC.XXVII To the Reader I Did expect Courteous Reader that before I had written any word in these matters both my first Booke and my second also which is my Reply should first have beene answered and that in such sort as in the Postscript annexed at the end of the same my Reply is declared but therein I perceive mine expectation is deceaved and that my Adversarie without any regard had to that which I desired hath taken his owne course and put forth a Rejoynder to that my Reply In which his Rejoynder I am sorry to see how much he debating the point of Supremacie wrongeth not onely Me and his Reader and the auncient Christian Emperours and auncient Fathers but even CHRIST IESVS also himselfe and all Kings and Princes generally in respect of their severall rights to them belonging Wherfore I thought it not meete or seemely for me in this case to be silent or to desist but being thus provoked to proceede and to make and publish a Surreplication to that Rejoynder And this I doe the rather that so a third book being added to my two former they all three together might serve so much the more strongly to perswade him and the rest of the pretended Catholickes to the truth in this cause for vis unita fortior a threefold corde is not easily broken If by all or any of my labours I shall bee a meane or helpe to worke their conformitie or reformation I shall be glad of it for it is the maine thing I seeke after but if they hate to be reformed and will in contempt and scorne of all admonitions live die in their errors which were a case most fearefull desperate and lamentable whom can they blame therein but themselves and their Popish teachers by whom they are so much misled and abused My Adversarie when he tooke upon him to answer the two Chapters in my first Booke did not prefixe those two Chapters of mine to his answer neyther when hee answered my Reply did he prefixe my Reply to his Rejoynder And therefore also neyther did I prefixe his answere to my Reply nor his Rejoynder to this my Surreplication Whereat neyther he nor any other for him hath cause to be offended or to take exception in asmuch as I doe therein but follow his owne president and example which himselfe first used and wherein hee began unto mee The substance neverthelesse marrow pith and strength of all his Bookes and of his reasons and arguments therein contayned I omit not but mention and that usually or rather evermore in his owne words and doe also make answere thereunto But I am loth any longer to detaine you and therefore I here leave you to the reading of that which followeth and that which followeth to your owne judicious just and equall censure Beseeching God to guide us all unto his truth to keepe establish us therein continually after that wee once see and know it Amen A SVRREPLICATION TO THE REIOYNDER OF A POPISH ADVERSARIE To my Adversarie SIR As you throughout your Rejoynder addressed your speech to me in particular so doe I in like sort here direct my speech unto you in this worke of mine For although I neyther purposed nor promised it nor others I suppose expected it yet that which you have of late published against my Reply hath provoked me once more to set penne to paper in defence of that cause which you so much strive against in vaine In the beginning of that your Rejoynder you say that although wee bee different in religion yet you desire much that wee be united in affection This speech of yours I dislike not because it savoureth as I conceive it of that humanitie and charitie which is to be entertayned and continued amongst us notwithstanding these differences in points of religion as also of some good affection and inclination in you unto Gods trueth wherein chiefely it is that wee are to be united For as touching any other kindes of unitie namely that which is in error and falsehood I hope you desire it not because it is as S. Augustine rightly calleth it Error is conspiratio a conspiracie of error against the truth The unitie which is joyned with divine veritie is it which S. Paul calleth The unitie of the spirit and which hee would have all Christians to be evermore verie carefull to observe saying Ephes 4.3 Endevour to keepe the unitie of the spirit in the bond of peace and hee saith againe thus Ephes 4.15 Let us follow the truth in love and in all things grow up into him which is the head that is Chirist This truth if we did all earnestly seeke after and follow and that in love and in a charitable manner as here we are required to doe all our controversies would the better and the sooner be ended and determined which have now so long disquieted many mens mindes and doe so much hinder that which is indeede most requisite namely the good and due practise of true religion in the world For how can any practise religion aright before they know which is the right religion which they are to practise and to walke in Or how can they know which is the right religion they are to walke in so long as they be doubtfull of it by reason of questions and controversies that doe perplexe and distract them The first thing then which men desirous to live good and godly lives are to seeke after is in the middest of all these controversies to get obtain within themselves a resolution of a right religion which resolution they can never certainely have or attaine unto but by meanes of the sacred and Canonicall Scriptures which be the onely infallible rule of all divine truth as I have shewed in my first Booke So that the purpose and intention of that my first Booke as likewise of the second which is my Reply and of this also was not nor is to have men to dwell continually and everlastingly in controversies but cleane contrariwise to have them all ended and determined and that as speedily as might bee in every mans conscience by diligent searching of those holy Scriptures and finding out thereby what is the undoubted trueth in them that men being
is a King hee serveth God in setting forth lawes to commaund 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 Yea that Kings may punish Idolatrie blasphemie sacriledge schisme heresie and all the offences against the first Table aswell as Thefts Rapes Murthers Adulteries and other offences against the second Table of his law Aug. cont 2. Gaudentis epist li. 2. c. 11 S. Augustine yet further directly sheweth against the Donatists saying Cry thus if you dare let murthers be punished let adulteries be punished let other degrees of lust and sinne be punished onely sacriledges that is wronging of Gods truth and his Church we will not have to be punished by Princes lawes Againe Aug. contr epist Parmen lib. cap. 7. Galat. 5.19.20.21 he speaketh thus Will the Donatists though they were convinced of a sacrilegous schisme say that it belongeth not to the Princes power to correct or punish these things Is it because such powers doe not extend to corrupt false religion The workes of the flesh S. Paul reckoneth to be these Adulterie fornication uncleannesse wantonnesse idolatrie witchbraft hatred debate emulation wrath contentious seditious Cont. Epistol â—armen libr. cap. 7. heresies envie murthers drunkennesse gluttonie and such like What thinke these men saith S. Augustine May the crime of idolatrie bee iustly revenged by the Magistrate or may witches be rightly punished by the rigor of Princes lawes and yet will they not acknowledge that heretikes and sâ—bismatickes may be repressed by the same when S. Paul rehearseth them al ogether with the other fruites of iniquitie Wâ—ll they reply that earthly powers are not to meddle with such matters â—o what end then doth he beare the sword Luke 14.23 which is called Gods minister serving to punish malefactors Christ saith in the Gospell Goe out into the high wayes and hedges and compell them to come in Aug. cont 2. Gaud. Epist. lib 2 cap. 17. Epistol So. â—ont 2. Gaud. epist lib. 2. cap 17. epistol 48. that mine house may be filled Wee take wayes saith S Augustine for heresies and hedges for schismes because wayes in this place signifie the diversenesse and hedges the perversenesse of opinions If then those that be found in the high wayes and hedges that is in heresies and schismes must be compelled to come in let them not mislike that they be forced For this commanding by Princely power occasioneth many to be saved who though they be violently brought to the feast of the great housholder and compelled to come in yet being there they finde cause to rejoyce that they did enter though at first against their wills But here you tel me though somewhat unseasonably that you cited in your Answere a Decree or Canon made in the first Councell of Nyce declaring evidently that the Bishop of Rome whom you unjustly and untruely call the supreame Pastor of the whole Militant Church had the Supreamacie in that time that unto this pregnant proofe produced by you I onely reply as Maskers doe with Mumme Why what needed any reply at all unto it For I had answered it before in my first Booke cap. 1. pag. 12. Where I affirmed and shewed it to bee a forged and counterfeyte Canon by diverse Councels as namely by the sixth Councell of Carthago cap. 3. by the Affrican Councell cap. 92. 101. 105. and by the Milevitane Councell cap. 22. Yea the verie fifth and sixth Canons which bee confessed to bee undoubtedly true Canons of the Councell of Nyce doe themselves sufficiently declare that other Canon which you and other Papists also alledge to bee false and forged And not onely those Councels but the Decrees of other Councels also decreeing against the supremacie of the Bishop of Rome as is shewed in the same my first booke c. 1. p. 16. 17. 18. do therby likewise consequently declare that Canon of the Councell of Nice which you speake of to be a new forged thing But if you desire yet further proofe thereof against the objections and allegations that Papists make in this case then reade that Booke of jurisdiction Regall Episcopall Papall made by that worthy learned and reverend Bishop Doctor Carleton cap. 5. pag. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. And reade also for the same purpose The Catholicke Appeale for the Protestants made by that reverend worthy and learned Bishop Doctor Morton lib. 4. cap. 8. pag. 467 468 469. 470. 471. 472. 473. 474. 475. 476. and there shall you see this Canon so fully maintayned to bee forged against the adversaries as that it is now a shame for you or any other Papist to cite or produce it for a witnesse of the Popes supremacie But upon such false and forged testimonies it is that the Popes supremacie is chiefely founded Howbeit I hope by this time you perceive that howsoever the Pope and Poperie have beene heretofore long maskers in the world and gone disguised yet at last they have beene discovered and made knowne to bee such as they bee indeede and that it had beene much better for you to have beene mute or mum then by this your provocation to have occasioned the shame and ignominie of the Pope and Popish Church in the point of forgerie to be thus displayed and layd open as also you may here see that I have no way wronged S. Augustine or wrested him to a wrong construction as you calumniate when I alledged him to prove the Kings authoritie aswell in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning Religion as in matters Civill and Temporall Which that you and everie man else may yet the better and the more fully perceive I have here thought it good to set downe his owne verie wordes in Latine Aug. contra Crescon lib. 3. cap 51. and they be these In hoc enim Reges sicut eis divinitus praecipitur Deo serviunt in quantum Reges sunt si in suo regno bona iubeant mala prohibeant non solum quae pertinent ad humanam societatem verumetiam quae ad divinam religionem For in this saith he doe Kings as is commaunded them from God serve as they be Kings if in their kingdomes they commaund good things and forbid euill things not onely those things which belong to humane societie but those things also which belong to Gods Religion Can any thing be more plainely or more directly spoken for proofe of this point 7. Here then you may withall perceive the truth of that distinction which I used in my Reply cap. 1. pag. 4. For whereas you in your Answer amplifying the Sacerdotall or spirituall power had said that how much the foule in perfection exceeds the bodie the eternall blisse the temporall felicitie the divine lawes the humane lawes By so much did the spirituall authoritie exceede the temporall Thereunto I replyed and sayed that whilest you thus spake you should have remembred
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