and confuting the imagination and devise of his owne braine For the affirmative clause in the Oath is not as he imperfectly and lamely relateth it but it is this That the King is the onely Supreme Governor of this Realme and of all other his Highnesse Dominions and Countries aswell in all Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall things or causes as Temporall The negative clause followeth and is this That no forraine Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction power superioritie preheminence or authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme This word Onely in the affirmative clause hath he left out which if he had added together with all the rest of the wordes that follow in that affirmative clause he would very easily have found that to be true which I wrote namely that the effect of the negative clause is included in the former affirmative For he that affirmeth the King to be the onely Supreme Governor within his owne Dominions that in all things or causes Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall aswell as temporall doth in that speech exclude every forraine Prince person Prelate State or Potentate from having any supreme governement or any government at all without his leave and licence within his Dominions Yea it is very evident that the former affirmative clause includeth the negative clause and more For the negative clause excludeth forrain Princes persons Prelates States Potētates only from Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall Authoritie but the former affirmative excludeth them from authoritie in all things or causes both temporall spirituall Againe you see that the negative clause extendeth onely to forraine persons but the affirmative clause extendeth to any persons whosoever whether forraine or domesticall Thirdly the negative clause excludeth forraine persons from having any jurisdiction power superioritie preheminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or spirituall within this Realme But the former affirmative clause extendeth not only to this Realme or that Realme in particular but generally to all his Majesties Realms Dominiōs Countries So that the former affirmative clause in the Oath appeareth to be much more generall and of a farre larger extent then the negative is And therefore I hope I spake truely and within compasse when I said though in a parenthesis that the effect of the negative clause was included in the former affirmative I did not say as mine Adversarie supposeth me to hold that the Regall power includeth the Sacerdotall or Episcopall This is but his owne dreame imagination in the confutation whereof he laboureth in vaine For neyther I nor any of the Protestants doe hold that opinion but contrariewise doe hold them to be things distinct as is before declared But because he will needes carpe at my Logicke when he hath no cause let other men judge what a great Logician he is whilst he argueth thus The Regall power includeth not the Sacerdotall Ergo the affirmative clause in the Oath of SUPREMACIE includeth not the negative clause in the same Oath Hitherto then you see that my Adversarie notwithstanding all his storishes braggs and bravadoes hath shewed himselfe to be not onely a punie Lawyer as he confesseth himselfe to be but a punie Logician also most of all a punie Divine and that he hath not beene able to make any good Answere or to refell and confute any one Argument contayned in this first Chapter of my former Booke concerning the Supremacie and yet hath he also left a great part of that Chapter unanswered Neyther hath he made throughout his whole discourse and pleading so much as one good argument to prove his Clients cause that is the Popes supremacie though he purposed and laboured to doe it Where is it not a mervaile that he being a Lawyer and a Subject to our Soveraigne Lord the KING will date neverthelesse admitte of such a Client as the Pope is and of his cause which he knoweth before hand to be condemned by the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme and which he now may see if hee saw it not before to be also condemned by the Lawes and Statutes of God himselfe and by all the most ancient Ecclesiasticall Records But if hee be not ashamed of such a Client and his cause his Client I suppose will be ashamed of him and entertaine him no longer to pleade for him unlesse he could doe it better And yet indeede when his Clients cause is foule naught as here it appeareth to be what Lawyer be he never so learned or what Divine be hee never so profound is able to justifie it or to make it good Notwithstanding his demurrer therefore and notwithstanding that by this his plea his purpose was to arrest and stay mens judgements I trust they will all now no cause appearing to the contrarie proceede without any further delay to give their sentence against his Client for in the behalfe of these two most worthy Peerles Princes who be the complaynants against him namely for Christ IESVS in their acknowledging and publishing him onely to be the onely universall Bishop supreme Pastor and head of the whole Church Militant upon Earth aswell as of the Triumphant in Heaven and for the King in declaring and publishing him under God to be the onely Supreme Governor over all manner of persons and in all kinde of causes aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill within his Dominions Neyther doe I doubt but all mens judgements whensoever upon good and well advised deliberation they shall please to give them will passe accordingly In the meane time let us goe one to the second Chapter see if he have any better successe in that then he hath found in the former Concerning the second Chapter IN this second Chapter of my former Booke my Adversarie supposeth that my maine scope and purpose was to prove our Church that is the Church of the Protestants to have beene in the Apostles times But never was there saith he poore Assertion so miserably mangled And true it is indeede that it is miserably mangled and cut in pieces But by whom namely by himselfe For my Assertion is not so short as he relateth it nor is to end where he maketh it to end but is of a longer and larger extent and being produced not by parts or pieces but wholy and intirely as it ought it is this viz. That our Church was in the Apostles dayes and in all times and ages since howsoever or notwitstanding that Poperie did as an infection or corruption grow unto it the meaning true sence whereof is no more but that the growing of Poperie it being but as an infection or corruption to the Church is no impediment or argument to the contrarie but that our Church had a being in the Apostles dayes and in all succeeding times and ages that notwithstanding This will the better appeare if you take the whole Proposition or assertion and turne it into a Question For then the Question will not be as mine Adversary maketh it viz.
and sophistically but substantially soundly and satisfactorily if he could Thirdly I desired him to doe it as in love and Charitie so also with an affection onely to follow Gods truth and withall to set his name unto it as I had done to that Booke of mine But none of these requests hath this Answerer beene pleased to performe towards me For touching the first he is so farre from answering the whole Booke from the beginning of it to the end that he hath endevoured to answere onely two Chapters thereof namely the two Chapters contayned in the first part of it and no more And whereas secondly I desired a sound sufficient and satisfactory Answere to be made he hath answered even to those two Chapters which himselfe selected to make answere unto very sleightly slenderly and superficially and in no sorte substantially soundly and satisfactory as shall afterward appeare And touching my third request which consisteth of diverse branches let any man judge that hath seene and read his Answere whether it bee made as I desired in a good loving and Charitable manner which would best have beseemed him or in a scoffing and deriding fashion in sundrie places thereof which doth no way become him as also whether hee hath done it with this affection onely to follow Gods truth or with an affection rather to follow and advance mans errors and Constitutions against a manifest divine truth and lastly what reason he had not onely not to set his owne right and true name unto it but in steede thereof to set a false fictitious and counterfeit name calling himselfe Iohn at Stile What Is he ashamed of his owne right name Or doe any use to get credite by putting a wrong name to their worke But this is indeede Dignum patella operculum a false and counterfeite name being fittest most suteable to a false and counterfeite cause which is the thing he maintayneth Howbeit as one desirous to excuse himselfe herein he saith that my requiring of the Answerer to put his name unto the Answere is in effect asmuch as to debarre any man from answering unto it because of the Statute of 2. Elizabeth which doth saith he bind mens tongues and pennes within this Kingdome with the corde of a Praemunire from oppugning the Supremacie eyther by word or writing Whereunto I reply that he that in answering is required to put his name to his answere is so farre from being debarred from answering that cleane contrariewise hee is thereby permitted to answere if hee please so as he put his name thereunto Neyther doth that Statute of 2. Eliz. in this Kingdome inflict the penaltie of a Praemunire for the first offence See the Statute of 2. Eliz. c. 1. in Ireland as he surmiseth but onely losse of goods and Chattels It is indeede after once conviction for the second offence a Praemunire and for the third High Treason If then the penaltie of a Praemunire by that Statute be the thing he feared you see there was no cause for him to feare it hee being never before convicted or attaynted of that offence And is it not strange that he being a Lawyer as he saith he is and one of those as he likewise affirmeth that were debarred from pleading for not taking the Oath of Supremacie should neverthelesse be so ignorant in his owne profession concerning that Statute although himselfe also cite it as not to know what the penaltie is for the first offence therein May not then his owne words be here rightly returned to his owne bosome that seeing in his owne facultie he sheweth no greater skill Can it be imagined that going out of his owne element into the great Citie of Divinitie hee will doe any more then the fish on the shoare to gaspe a little for ayre But admit that for the first offence upon that Statute the penaltie had beene a Praemunire as hee conceived Will he therefore bee so faint-hearted in that his supposed Catholicke cause How doth this agree with that which he saith afterward that an Angell or a Man is bound by the instinct of Nature to love God better then themselves Yea he observeth that in the Naturall bodie of Man the hand will be content to loose it selfe for the preservation of the head and of the rest of the members And that in the Politicke Body of the Common-weale any good Subject will imbrace death for the conservation of his King and the Common-weale and thereupon he concludes that so also should any good Christian member of the Mysticall body of Christ willingly undergo all disasters in the world in attestation of his love to Christ and of his willingnesse to preserve the honour and common good of his Church And this motive saith he in that his Epistle Dedicatorie made him though a Lawyer to interpose himselfe for the defence of the Mysticall Body of Christ and to answere as he hath done in the behalfe thereof Now then doth it become him who seemeth here to be so magnanimous and couragious in his cause to shew himselfe neverthelesse so extreamely timorous as for feare of a Praemunire not to dare to set his right and true name unto that his Answere Yea the premises being well considered what reason hath he to taxe me as sometimes he doth for that being a Lawyer by profession I neverthelesse meddle in these matters of Divinitie and concerning Religion For I gave before as I thinke a sufficient Apologie for these my doings in the Preface of my former Booke which he answereth not nor is able to answere And here I now may and doe further adde that even this Man mine Adversarie hath by his owne example justified me inasmuch as he being likewise a Lawyer as himselfe affirmeth doth neverthelesse as you see by his answering those two Chapters in my Booke meddle in these matters of Divinitie and concerning Religion aswell as I. And not onely his personall example but the doctrine also and reason he delivereth namely that every good member of the Mysticall body of Christ ought to interpose himselfe for the defence of the honour of Christ of his Church serveth very strongly to justifie my doings herein not only as lawfull but as requisite and necessarie and such as in dutie ought not to bee omitted But moreover vvhy doth he Dedicate that his Answere being a worke of Divinitie to his dearest Countrie-men The Lawyers of Ireland if Lawyers had nothing to doe in these matters of Divinitie or if the knowledge of things of that kind did not belong unto them Yea who knoweth not that Lawyers and men of all professions and estates have soules to save and that at the houre of their death it is not their skill or knowledge in Law Physicke or any other their worldly callings professions which serve onely but for this life that can doe them that good or yeeld them that comfort touching the next world eternall happinesse that the knowledge of Divinitie and of Gods true
It is true that the same Hosius Bishop of Corduba spake further unto the Emperor in this sort Athanas ad soâ—tariam vitam agentes God saith he hath committed the Empyre to thee to us the things of the Church And as he that envieth thy Empyre contradicteth the ordinance of God So take thou heede least drawing unto thy selfe the things of the Church thou be guiltie of great sinne It is written give unto Caesar that which is Caesars and unto God that which is Gods It is therefore neyther lawfull for us that be Bishops to hold a kingdom on earth neyther host thou power ô Prince over sacrifices and sacred things Howbeit these wordes doe onely distinguish and put a difference betweene the office and function of Priests and the office and function of Kings and Princes shewing that the one may not incroch or intrude upon that which râ—ghtly and properly belongeth unto the other but that every one should keepe himselfe within the bounds of his owne proper calling office And so teach the Protestants also and therefore if any King or Prince usurpe or intrude upon that which is proper and peculiar unto the Priests office as King Vzziah entred into the Temple to burne Incense 2 Chron. 26.16.17.18 which pertayned to the Priests office onely they utterly dislike and condemne it Now then let all this be granted that Kings and Princes may not doe any thing that is proper and peculiar to the Priests office nor may meddle in Ecclesiasticall causes after a cruell and tyrannicall maner nor use their authoritie in Ecclesiasticall causes for the maintenance of Arrianisme or of any other heresie or error nor doe any thing against God or his truth and Religion Yet what doth all this or any of this make against those Godly and Christian Kings and Princes that extend and use their authoritie in Ecclesiasticall causes in a good sort and for God and for the maintenance of his trueth Religion and ordinances It maketh as you see just nothing at all against them But it is further objected that S. Ambrose when Valentinian the Emperor would have had a Church in Millan for the Arrian heretickes answereth thus Neyther is it lawfull for me to yeelde unto it Ambros libr. 5. epist. 3â— nor expedient for you ô Emperor to take it The house of a private man you cannot by right invade Doe you thinke then you may take away the house of God It is alledged that the Emperor may doe what he list But I answere burthen not your selfe ô Emperor to thinke that you have any Imperiall right over those things that be Gods Exalt not your selfe so high but if you will raigne long be subject unto God For it is written give unto Caesar that which is Caesars and to God that which is Gods Palaces belong to Emperors Churches to Priests Epist â—â— The Church is Gods it ought not to be yeelded by me to Caesar The Temple of God cannot he Caesars right I cannot deliver that to Heretickes which I receaved to keepe on Gods behalfe I would to God Epist 32. it were apparant to me that my Church should not be delivered to the Arrians I would willingly offer my selfe to the judgement of your highnesse I would to God that it were decreed Orat. onâ— Auxenâ— that no Arrian should trouble my Churches and of my person pronounce what sentence you will With my consent I will never forgoe my right if I be compelled I have no way to resist I can sorrow I can weepe I can sigh Teares are my weapons Priests have onely these defences By other meanes I neyther ought nor may resist To flie and forsake my Church I use not least any should thinke it done to avoyde some sorer punishment Ibidem Epist 33. If my goods be sought for take them If my bodie I will be readie Will you put mee in Irons or lead mee to death You shall doe me a pleasure I will not guard my selfe with multitudes of people but I will gladly he sacrificed for the Altars of God All this maketh against the favourers and maintayners of Arrianisme but nothing against that authoritie in Ecclesiasticall matters which Kings and Princes have to commande for God and for the good of his Church and the advancement of his Religion against Arrianisme and against all other heresies and errors whatsoever My Adversarie therefore objecteth further that S. Ambrose saith Ambros Epist Lib. 5 cont Aux That a good Emperor is within the Church and not above the Church Indeede seeing the Church is the mother of Christian Emperors aswell as of other Christians it becommeth a Christian Emperor as a good Child and Sonne of such a mother to account â—t his greatest honour to submit himselfe as he ought to the word rules and ordinances which God hath set in the same his Church and not to exaâ—t himselfe aboue them as Valentinian did when he was so forward for the advancement of Arrianisme Arrian assemblies against the true Church of God and the Orthodoxe Bishops therein For that by the Church here S. Ambrose meaneth the things of God in the Church appeareth not only by that Text which he citeth of Give unto Caesar the things that be Caesars and unto God the things that be Gods but by those other words of his likewise where he saith plainely Ambr. lib. 5. c. 33 Ea quae divina saÌ„t imperatoriae potestati non esse subjecta The things that be divine be not subject to the Emperors power And yet the same S. Ambrose affirmeth nevertheles That the Emperor had power over the persons of all men within his Empyre Ambros de obien Theoâ—osij Here then you must learne of S. Ambrose to distinguish betweene the things in the Church and the persons in the Church For over all the persons he confesseth That the Emperor had power but not over the Divine things therein And this also doe the Protestants hold that a Christian King hath power over the persons of all Bishops Pastors and Ecclesiasticall Ministers in the Church within his owne Dominions But not over the Divine things therein as namely not over Gods Word his Religion Sacraments and other his Institutions and Ordinances in his Church Yet againe it is objected by some that S. Ambrose reproved the Emperor Valentinian the younger for that he would take upon him to be Iudge in a matter of Faith cause Ecclesiasticall but the reason of it must be knowne For Valentinian a young Prince not yet baptized and a novice in the mysteries of Religion would upon the perswasion and counsell of his Mother Iustina an Arrian needes have Ambrose to come and dispute with Auxentius the Arrian in his Palace or Consistorie before him Ambr â— 5. Orat. coâ—r Auxent Epist. 53. and he would be the Iudge whether of their two Religions were truest Whereunto Ambrose made answere and gave it in writing to Valentinian shewing him amongst
to Christian Emperors Kings and Princes which is allowed to farre inferior and meaner persons Yea these chiefly and principally in regard of their high places and callings are to be allowed this right Whereas therefore my Adversarie saith that Bishops and Cleargie men should be Iudges for determining of Dogmaticall questions and Controversies of Faith and Religion and that Christian Emperors Kings and Princes are to be guided directed taught and instructed by them all this is granted Yet withall let Christian Kings and Princes have also herein their dues and that right which to them belongeth Which is to search the Scriptures thereby to trie examine whether the doctrine of their Teachers be true or false For Act 17.12 Basil 〈◊〉 dâ—f 77. pag. 432. it behoueth the Hearers saith S. Basill that be instructed in the Scriptures to trie those things which are spoken by their Teachers and receiving that which agreeth with the Scriptures to reject the contrarie And so S. Augustine likewise Aug in Iohan. tract 46. Sua vero si velint docere nolite audire nolite facere That if they will teach their owne devises you must neyther heare them nor doe as they teach you Although then Bishops Pastors Ministers Ecclesiasticall are first of all to be consulted with to â—udge of matters of Faith controversies in Religion yâ—â— are they not absolute and infallible Iudges nor absolute and infallible Teachers or directors but are themselves limited and to be directed in all their Iudgements Doctrines and Decrees by that onely absolute and infallible rule of trueth the sacred and Canonicall Scriptures So that if they shall judge direct decree or teach any thing not according to the Divine Scriptures but contrarie thereunto as the Arrian Bishops in time past did and as the Popish Bishops and Teachers in these dayes doe all that is â—ustly worthy to be refused by all Christian Emperors Kings and Princes as is verie evident both by all good reason and by that which is before delivered Now then although these two points be granted to my Adversarie viz. That the Regall and Priestly offices be things distinct and that those that beare Regall Authoritie be also subordinate and subject to that Authoritie message and Ministerie which God hath coÌ„mitted to Bishops Pastors and Ministers Ecclesiasticall yet when there is further a third point appearing which he must acknowledge namely that Bishops Pastors and Ecclesiasticall Ministers be also subordinate and subject to the sword and Authoritie of Christian Kings and Princes and that in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning Religion aswell as in matters Civill and Temporall as is before at large declared What benefite or advantage doth he get thereby Yea is not his cause thereby for ever overthrowen Thus farre then you see that the plea which hee hath put in for a demurrer or stay of mens judgements is altogether insufficient for that purpose and therefore for any matter yet shewed by him or appearing to the contrarie all mens judgements may and ought to proceede and to be given against him and his cause unlesse in that which followeth he can shew better matter then as yet he hath shewed Let us therefore now see whether hee hath any better matter in that then he hath found in those his two points before mentioned For those his two former points appeare not worth a poynt nor of any value or validitie at all against the Kings SUPREMACIE 4 First it is true that I alledged that Text of 1. Pet. 2.13 To prove the KINGS SUPREMACIE over all persons aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill within his owne Dominions And what can my Adversary say against it Doth not S. Peter expressely require of all Christians that live within the Dominion of any King 1. Pet. 2.13 That they should submit themselves unto him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unto the Chiefe or Supreme person over them Hee cavilleth at my argument because it is thus propounded interrogatively and not affirmatively A verie childish exception if it be not more then childish For is he so sillie and ignorant that he knoweth not that an interrogative speech doth sometime carrie the force of the greater more Emphaticall affirmation And yet if hee had but read and remembred the verie next words following that interrogative he might have found a redditive and a direct affirmative answere thereunto For the words next and immediately following bee these It is evident say I that he calleth the King Chiefe or Supreme not onely in respect of Dukes Earles or other Temporall governors as the Rhemists would have it but in respect of all the rest likewise were they Bishops Pastors Cleargie men or whosoever For he writeth that his Epistle not to Heathens but to Christians and amongst them not to the Lay people onely but to such also as were Presbiters and did 〈…〉 1. Pet 112.34 5. 〈…〉 5 1.2 doe the office of Bishops amongst them requiring even them aswell as the rest to yeelde their subjection submission unto him Now then seeing this direct affirmative in my Booke pag. 1. of that Chapter and that the words of S. Peter in the Text it selfe be also direct affirmative 1. Pet. 2.13 for these be his words Be yee therefore subject c. What doth he or can he answere thereunto He stiâ—l cavilleth at the words of the Text playing with them ad libitum and maketh the reason of it to be because he is a Lawyer as though it were lawfull or allowable for a man of that profession to be a wrangling Lawyer or as though because he is a Lawyer it were as free for him to cavill and sport himselfe with Divine Texts and evidences as with humane or as though he had never heard nor learned That Non est bonum ludere cum Sanctis Seeing I am a Lawyer saith he let me article and make my argument or plea upon the Text And then hee goeth on and saith That these wordes in the Text Be subject doe no more specifie the Christians then the Heathens nor any more the Subjects then the Princes Be not these strange asseverations For when S. Peter writeth that his Epistle not to Heathens 1. Pet. 1.2 3.4 c. but to Christians dispersed through Pontus Galatia Capadocia Asia and Bithinia and saith thus unto them Subjecti estote Be yee subject Can these words thus directly and purposely spoken to Christians no more specifie or intend Christians then Heathens Where were the mans wits I mervaile when he wrot thus absurdly Yea himselfe afterward confuteth himselfe For mentioning both this Text of S. Peter and that also of S. Paul in Rom. 13.1 c. He saith that in these two cited places both these Apostles Exhort to obedience and the reason saith he why the King is mentioned Is because in those dayes Christians were by the malice of their Adversaries accused of sedition and rebellion against Princes Doth hee not by these wordes make it verie evident that S.
the spreading of his Religion For Aug. Epist. â—0 as the same S. Augustine againe saith a King serveth God one way as he is a man and another way as he is a King As a Man he serveth God by living well and faithfully But as he is a King he serveth God by setting forth Lawes to command that which is good and to remove the contrarie So that Kings as Kings serve God in doing that for his service which none but Kings can doe Wherefore my Argument to prove the Authoritie of Emperors Kings and Princes in both those points together out of this Text of Rom. 13. is this whosoever hath Authoritie to punish evill-doers without exception of any person and without exception of any cause hath Authoritie over all persons and in all causes aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill But the Emperor within his Empyre and the King within his Kingdomes hath Authoritie to punish evill-doers without exception of any person and without exception of any cause as is apparant by the Text it selfe wherein no exception is to be found Ergo the Emperor within his Empyre and the King within his kingdomes hath authoritie over all persons and in all causes aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill 6 But now from this Text of Rom. 13. alledged in the 5. pag. of that first Chapter in my Booke concerning the SUPREMACIE My Adversarie commeth next to the point of Appeales mentioned in the same first Chapter pag. 24. So that he here skippeth over 9. whole leaves together at one leape and I must follow him in his course It is true that in the pag. 24. I said that when Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage was accused by Donatus some other of that saction Constantine the Emperor commanded Caecilianus to come to Rome with a certaine number of Bishops that accused him and by his Commission extant in Eusebius authorized and appointed Miltiadâ—s the then Bishop of Rome some others with him for the hearing and ending of that matter These Commissioners condemned Donatus who appealed from their sentence to the Emperor which appeale also the Emperor received Where beside that you see that this Christian Emperor made Commissioners in this Episcopall and Ecclesiastical cause observe withall that Miltiades the then Bishop of Rome was one of those Commissoners and there withall you may also note that the Bishops of Rome were then verie clearely subject and not superior to the Emperor So that a Christian King or Prince not onely may make Commissioners in Ecclesiasticall causes but may also have Appeales made unto him as is here apparant To this my Adversarie maketh divers answers First he saith that this instance concerning Appeales maketh more against me then for me because it was an Appeale made by Hereticks viz. the Donatists unto the Emperor But this reason of his maketh more against him then set him For if it were lawfull for Heretickes who thought themselves wronged by the inferior Iudges to appeale to the Emperor no lesse if not much more lawfull was it for the Orthodoxe Bishops if they were wronged to appeale to him And if Constantine that Orthodoxe godly and Christian Emperor thought it lawfull for him as hee did for otherwise hee would never have meddled with it to entertaine and receave an appeale made to him from Heretickes much more would hee have thought it lawfull and meete to receave Appeales from such as were Orthodoxe right true Christians and men for Faith Religion like himselfe But that he may know that not onely heretickes but Orthodoxe Bishops also Athan. Apolog. 2 cap. Quum multas did appeale to the Emperor Let him take for an evident proofe of it the example of Athanasius and of the other Bishops joyned with him who as is before shewed appealed from the Councell of Tyrus Socrat lib. 1. cap. 33. 34. unto the same godly Emperor Constantine which appeale the same Emperor likewise receaved Neyther would Athanasius nor any other good and godly Bishops have appealed unto him if they had not thought it lawful both for them so to doe and for the Emperor also to receive such appeales Neyther did the Donatists appeale onely from Miltiades the Bishop of Rome and those that were joyned with him by Commission from the Emperor But they appealed also from those other Bishops that were afterward assembled at Arle in France for the hearing and ending of the same cause And both these Appeales did the Emperor receive and upon the last appeale he sate himselfe in person and gave Iudgement for Caecilianus against the Donatists whose proceedings and Iudgments upon those appeales S. Augustine disliked not but well liked and allowed alledging them as being substantiall proofes for the Catholickes and lawfull good and effectuall judgements against the Donatists I grant that Constantine was loth at the first to be Iudge in this Episcopall cause in his owne person Aug Epist. 166 and therefore S. Augustine saith Eam discutiendam atque finiendam Episcopis delegavit He delegated and appointed Bishops to discusse and determine it namely Miltiades and his Colleagues Ibidem And when Miltiades and his Colleagues had pronounced Caecilianus innocent and condemned Donatus as Author of the schisme raysed at Carthage Your side saith S. Augustine to the Donatists Ibidem came backe to the Emperor and complayned of the judgement of the Bishops against them The most patient and milde Emperor the second time gave them other Iudges namely the Bishops that met at Arle in France And your men saith he seaking still to the Donatists appealed from the Bishops of Arle also to the Emperors owne person and never left till the Emperor himselfe in person tooke the hearing of the cause betweene them which he did and upon hearing it pronounced Caecilianus innocent and those his accusers Idem Epist. 162 to be malicious wranglers Againe the same S. Angustine saith that the Donatists appealed from Ecclesiasticall judgement to the end that Constantine might heare the cause Whither when they came both parties standing before him Caecilianus was adjudged to be innocent and the Donatists overthrowne To prove this I will further bring you saith S. Augustine the very wordes of Constantine where he witnesseth That upon judiciall hearing of both sides he found Caecilianus to be cleare Yea S. Augustine sheweth further what followed upon this judgement Aug. Epist 166. Then did Constantine saith he make a sharpe law to punish the Donatists his sonnes continued the same Reade vvhat Valentinian reade when you vvill vvhat Gratian and Theodosius Decreed against you Why vvonder you then at the Children of Theodosius as if they had follovved any other president in this cause then the judgement of Constantine vvhich so many Christian Emperors have kept inviolate Though Constantine bee dead yet the judgement of Constantine given against you liveth For vvhen Emperors command that vvhich is good it is Christ and no man else that commandeth by them Thus you see how much this
judgement of Constantine upon this Appeale made to him though by Donatists was not onely justified and approved by S. Augustine but embraced also by other Christian Emperors as Vertuous and confirmed as Religious and honoured of the whole Orthodoxe Church in that time So little cause hath mine Adversarie or any other Papists to mislike of Constantine his meddling therein as if it were unlawfull But secondly my Adversarie answereth that the then Emperor Constantine the Great did remit Caecilianus and the Donatists for the decision and determining of their difference unto Miltiades Bishop of Rome as to his proper and right Iudge It is true that he committed the hearing and determining of that cause unto Miltiades Bishop of Rome but not to him alone as if he were the sole and onely proper and rightfull Iudge in the case but to him together with others For Marcus Rheticius Maternus and Marinus were interested with him in the same Commission The Commission is yet extant in Eusebius to be seene in these words Constantine the Emperor unto Miltiades Bishop of Rome Euseb li. 10. c. 5 and to Marcus sendeth greeting For asmuch as many such Epistles are brought unto mee from Anilinus Lieutenant of Africke wherein it is said that Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage is reprehended in many things by divers of his Colleagues abiding in Africke and this seemeth unto me very grievous that there should be found in those Provinces which the providence of God hath allotted peculiarly unto my government a great multitude of people prone unto the worse and disagreeing And that amongst Bishops there should be such variance My pleasure therefore is that Caecilianus with ten Bishops of his accusers and ten other of his favourers doe come to Rome there to be heard before you both joyning with you Rheticius Maternus and Marinus your Colleagues whom purposely for that matter I haue coÌ„manded with speed to repaire thither unto you c. And S. Augustine likewise hath before told you Aug Epist 166. that the Emperor committed this cause Non Episcopo sed Episcopis Not to one Bishop in the Singular number but to Bishops in the Plurall number eam discutiendam atque finiendam Episcopis delegavit And againe he saith Collaâ— 3 diei cum Donatistâ—â— cap 5 Causam Caecilian injunxit eis audiendam elsewhere he also saith Constantinum dedisse Iudices iterum Idem Epist 166 That Constantine gave them Iudges a second time And hee further proveth that those Iudges both the first and second might lawfully judge in that case Idem Epist 162. Eo quod Imperator illos Iudices dedisset Because the Emperor had given those Iudges So that it appeareth very fully and clearely that not Miltiades alone as Bishop of Rome and in his owne right but Miltiades associated and joyned with others namely with Marcus Rheticius Maternus and Marinus were the Iudges in this case and that by Commission and Authoritie granted from the Emperor Yea you see there was afterward also an Appeale from their sentence to the Emperor whereupon the Emperor a second time gave other Iudges From these also 〈◊〉 there a second Appeale to the Emperor himselfe in person who at the last in his owne person heard and judged the cause and without the Bishop of Rome by his owne authoritie pronounced finall sentence therein The least of these facts proveth the Emperors Supremacie in those times aswell over the Bishop of Rome as over other Bishops What force then have they when they be all united and joyned together Yet thirdly my Adversarie answereth that Constantine the Emperor did but pronounce and declare the justnesse of the sentence given formerly against the Donatists by their competent Iudge Pope Miltiades But first why doth he still say That the sentence against the Donatists was given by Miltiades as though it had beene given onely by him For it is manifest that it was not only his sentence and judgement but the sentence and judgement of the rest of his Colleagues and fellow Commissioners joyned with him Secondly why doth he speake of Miltiades Bishop of Rome as if he were the onely competent Iudge when he not only seeth others to be joyned and made Iudges with him but an Appeale also to be made and allowed from his and their sentence and from other Iudges also afterward given to Iudge of the same cause And thirdly though Constantine the Emperor did by this sentence upon hearing of the cause cleare and acquite Caecilianus and condemne the Donatists and so approved the first sentence and judgement given by Miltiades and his Colleagues and the second sentence also that was given by the other Bishops assembled at Arle in France Yet doth this approbation of his or declaration of the Bishop of Romes sentence in this case to be just and right no more prove a supremacie in Miltiades the Bishop of Rome then it doth in Marcus Rheticius Maternus and Marinus or then it doth in those other Bishops that were afterward assembled at Arle whose sentence he likewise approved and declared to be just Neyther doth it any way impayre or detract from Constantine his judgement but that hee was also a Iudge and held the place and office of Iudicature all this notwithstanding For else may you say that those Bishops assembled at Arle whom S. Augustine expressely calleth Iudices Iudges were also no Iudges because they likewise aswell as Constantine acquited Caecilianus and condemned the Donatists and so approved the sentence of Miltiades and his Colleagues declaring it to be just If a Writt of Error be brought in the Kings bench of a Iudgement given in the Common-pleas upon hearing of the cause the Iudges in the Kings Bench approve and confirme the judgement formerly given in the Common pleas and so declare it to be just and right Doth this any way prove that therefore those in the Kings bench be no Iudges or doth it in any sort detract from their Authoritie So upon the Appeale made to the Emperor when he in his own person sate as Iudge therein having power in himselfe eyther to affirme or disaffirme the former sentences and judgements given by others as he shall find the cause upon hearing to require If he upon hearing it finding the former sentences and judgements given for Caecilianus against the Donatists to be just and right doth by his final sentence pronounce and declare them so to be Doth this therefore prove him to be no Iudge or doth it any way detract from his supremacie Yea it doth rather verie strongly and most strongly prove the Emperor to bee a Iudge and the Chiefest and highest Iudge under God and to have the Supremacie over the Bishop of Rome aswell as over other Bishops within the precincts of the Empyre For as Carerius also confesseth and teacheth Summum Imperium penes eum esse constat â—arer de potest Rom. Pont. lib. 1. cap. 10. ad cujus Tribunal provocatur It is manifest that to
him belongeth the Supremacie to whose Tribunall the appeale is made But my Adversarie faith yet further that Appeales to Emperors and Kings were alwayes in Temporall matters but therein he is aâ—so much deceaved For Appeales were made to them sometimes in matters Ecclesiasticall as even this very particular Appeale here made to the Emperor in the cause betweene Caecilianus and the Donatists doth plainely declare For Donatus and his partakers objected that Cacilianus could not be Bishop of Carthage for many crimes surmised against him and especially for that Felix which imposed hands on him had as they said betrayed or burnt the Scriptures Whereupon they not only refused his Communion but procured also his condemnation in a Provinciall Synod by IXX. African Bishops and in a tumult erected another Bishop So that the great Question in this cause was whether Caecilianus thus accused and ordayned by the imposition of hands of Felix and condemned by that Provinciall Synod in Africke were the right Bishop of Carthage or he that was erected by the Donatists Which what is it else but a matter Ecclesiasticall For the parties accusing and accused were Ecclesiasticall namely Bishops the crimes and faults objected were objected as just impediments to the Episcopall dignitie the things surmised and to be tried were the right election of Bishops the lawfull deposing of them the needfull Communion with them the schismaticall dissenting from them What causes can be more Ecclesiasticall then these And yet even in this Episcopall and Ecclesiasticall cause was there as before appeareth an Appeale made to the Emperor accepted by him approved by sundry Emperors and allowed also by S. Augustine and the whole Orthodoxe Church in that time That famous Appeale also from the Councell of Tyrus to the Emperor by Athanasius and other Orthodoxe Bishops ioyning with him was it not likewise in a matter Ecclesiasticall For the crimes objected against them were these viz. Overthrowing the Lords Table dashing in pieces the Mysticall Cup Socrat lib. 1. cap. 27. after the Greeke c. 20. in Latin Act. 25.10.11 burning the holy Bible using a dead mans hand to sorcerie c. The appeale also which S. Paul himselfe made from the high Priest and Councell of the Iewes unto Caesar was it not also in a cause Ecclesiasticall For were not the matters for which S. Paul was accused matters Ecclesiasticall Festus himselfe witnesseth that Pauls accusers brought no crime against him of such matters as he supposed but had certaine questions against him of their owne superstition Act. 25.18.19 and of one IESVS that was dead whom Paul affirmed to be alive And this even S. Paul also himselfe declareth in his answere when he saith thus unto them Act. 26 8. Why should it be thought a thing incredible unto you that God should rayse againe the dead And so also wrote Claudius Lysias unto Felix the governor Act. 23.28.29 that when Paul was brought before the Councell of the Iewes There I perceaved saith hee that Paul was accused of questions of their Law but had no crime against him worthy of death or bonds Yea S. Paul saith againe expressely thus Of the resurrection of the dead it is that I am accused of you this day It is therefore very apparant Act. 24.20.21 that S. Pauls appeale from them to the Emperor was in and concerning a matter Ecclesiasticall And if which is a thing evident S. Paul in a cause Ecclesiasticall and concerning Religion thought it lawfull and meete for him to appeale to the Emperor when hee was an heathen much more would hee have thought it lawfull and meete to Appeale to the Emperor being a Christian For though an heathen Emperor hath in him the power and authoritie to receave such an appealeâ— yet upon such an appeale in a cause Ecclesiasticall and concerning Religion is he not so well able to judge of the cause in respect of skill and knowledge as he that is a Christian Emperor And herein doth also that reverend and renowned Bishop Athanasius speake thus unto the Emperor of his time Athan. ad Const Apolog. Si apud alios accusatus essem ad tuam Majestatem provocarem quemadmodum Apostolus dixit Caesarem appello cessatum est ab insidijs contra eum Iam quum apud te calumniam mihi ausi sunt intentare ad quem 〈◊〉 quaeso appellare potero nisi ad patrem ejus qui dixit ego sum veritas If I were accused before others I would appeale to your Majestie as the Apostle said I appeale to Caesar and then was there no longer lying in wayte for him but now that they are bold to calumniate me to your Majestie to whom I beseech you may I appeale from you unlesse it be to the Father of him that said I am the trueth In which wordes he sheweth that this fact and example of the Apostle Paul in the appealing to the Emperor was to be imitated and followed of Christians in after times and that beyond the Emperor there was also in those times of Athanasius no appeale to be made but to God onely But here now my Adversarie goeth about by alledging Appeales to have beene made to the Bishop of Rome to inferre a supremacie to belong unto him and for proofe thereof he citeth some examples as namely First that of Marcion who being excommunicate Epiph. haeros 42. went to Rome to be absolved by the Bishop there as he alledgeth out of Epiphanius Howbeit Epiphanius doth not say that he desired this absolution of the Bishop of Rome but of diverse plurally namely a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Secondly Epiphanius sheweth that these of the Church of Rome in that time answered him That they might not receave or absolve him without the consent or permission of his Reverend Father the Bishop that had excommunicated him And thirdly against this course of running to Rome it was afterwards purposely decreed in the Councell of Nice Conc. Nic. 1. c. â— That they that were excommunicate by one Bishop should not be absolved of another Wherefore all this maketh much against the supremacie of the Bishop of Rome but nothing for him His second example is of Fortunatus and Felix who being wicked men excommunicate in Africke fled to Rome to be absolved there by Cornelius the Bishop of Rome And for proofe hereof he citeth S. Cyprian But doth S. Cyprian allow of this their flying to Rome No Cyprian lib. 1. Epist 3. but cleane contrariewise he utterly misliketh and condemneth it For writing to the same Cornelius he saith That certaine persons condemned in Africke by the Bishops there Romam cum mendacioruÌ„ suoruÌ„ merce navigaverunt Sayled to Rome with their fraite of lyes And against this hee addeth further That it is a thing equall and right that everie mans cause should be there heard where the crime was committed Againe he saith That every Pastor hath a portion of the Lords flock assigned unto him vvhich
he must governe and rule as hee that must give an account of his doings unto God and therefore concludeth that Oportet eos quibus praesumus non circumcursare c. Those that be under our rule and governement ought not to runne thus about to Rome but ought there to plead their cause where they may finde both accusers and witnesses unlesse perhaps saith he a few desperate and loose Companions suppose the authoritie of a Bishop of Africke to be lesse then the authoritie of the Bishop of Rome which hee speakes as accounting it absurd for any man to suppose the Authoritie of the one to be greater then the Authoritie of the other His third example is of Athanasius who being deposed from his Bishopricke made his appeale saith he to Pope Iulius and was by him restored It is true that Athanasius the Patriarch of Alexandria being oppressed and wrongfully thrust from his Bishopricke as diverse other Bishops likewise were in those dayes fled to the Bishop of Rome not to acknowledge any supremacie in him over all other Bishops as now he claymeth but as to a friend and Patron at whose hands he expected and hoped to finde some helpe and defence in that his distresse Sozomen libr. 3. cap. 6. lat The Bishops throughout the East that favored the Nicene Faith were saith Sozomen deposed and the chiefest States invaded by the Arrians as Alexandria in Egipt Antioch in Syria the Royall Citie of Constantinople Criminationem illi obiectam in so serâ—â—uns in Hellespont This the Bishop of Rome and the Priests of the West tooke to be their reproch therefore verie freely entertayned Athanasius at his comming to them and tooke upon them the defence of his cause Where you see that Athanasius had ayde and defence not onely of the Bishop of Rome but of the Priests of Rome also wherefore that his flying to Rome and receiving helpe and defence from them doth no more prove a supremacie in the Bishop of Rome then it doth in the Priests of Rome Yea Athan. Apolog. contra Arrian the letters which Athanasius brought with him to Rome from the Bishops of his communion in the East witnessing the wrongs which he suffered and earnestly craving helpe therein were not written to Iulius alone but Omnibus ubique Ecclesiae Catholicae Episcopis To all the Bishops of the Catholicke Church wheresoever And accordingly was this matter heard and examined by a Synod or Councell of Bishops In which Synod and not by Iulius alone it was that Athanasius was receaved and restored as Bishop of Alexandria notwithstanding his former deposition Neyther did Iulius the Bishop of Rome Sozom. lib. 3. c 11 lat Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 20. in the greeke cap 16. in the latin call or summon this Councell but by the commandement of both the Emperors saith Socrates the one in the West signifying the same by his letters the other which ruled in the East willingly condescending thereunto there was proclaymed a generall Councell that all should meete at Sardica a Citie of Illiricum c. Yea so farre was Iulius the Bishop of Rome in that time from having any supremacie over all the Bishops in Christendome that when hee wrote to the Bishops of the East more freely and sharpely and as if hee tooke some authoritie upon him over them as they conceaved these Easterne Bishops assembled together in a Councell at Antioch formed an Epistle by uniforme consent of them all Socrat. lib 2. cap. 15. in the greeke cap 11. in the latin Sozom. lâ—b 3. cap. 7. lat wherein they inveigh bitterly against Iulius and tell him plainely That if any were banished the Church and excommunicate by their decree and censure it belonged not to him to intermeddle with it nor to sit in judgement upon their Censure So that howsoever the Bishops of the East and of the West might and did give mutuall helpe counsell comfort and assistance one to another yet if the Bishop of Rome would at any time goe beyond his bounds and seeme to take authoritie over them We see that these Bishops of the East would by no meanes endure it but gave it the repulse The fourth and last example which he citeth is that of S. Iohn Chrysostome who being deposed from his Bishopricke Appealed as he saith to Pope Innocentius the first Bellarmine hath also this example aswell as all the rest so that my Adversarie taketh indeede all his weapons and artillarie out of his store-house But both Bellarmine and He doe but deceive their Readers For Chrysostome in his Epistle doth not pray ayde and helpe onely of Innocentius the Bishop of Rome Chrysos Epist. 1. ad Innocent Tom. C nâ— 1. edit Venet. 158â— pag. 799. as they suggest but of other Bishops likewise in the West aswell as of him speaking not in the Singular but in the Plurall number thus Domini igitur maximè venerandi pij cum haec ita se habere didiceritis studium vestrum magnam diligentiam adhibete quo retundatur haec quae in Ecclesias irrupit iniquitas Therefore most religious and reverend Lords since you see how things be carried extend your diligence and endeavour that this wickednesse which is broken into the Churches may be beaten backe Quippe si mos hic invaluerit scitote quod brevi transibunt omnia Quapropter ne confusio haec omnem quae subcoelo est nationem invadat obsecro ut scribatis ut haec tam inique facta robur non habeant Nobis vero literis vestris charitate vestra frui concedite For if this grow to be a custome know yee that all things will shortly come to nought and therefore least this confusion invade everie nation under heaven I beseech you write that those things so unjustly done may beare no sway And grant that vve the wronged Bishops of the East may eâ—â—oy your letters and your favours And so he goeth on with Verbes of the Plurall number to the end concluding his Epistle with these words and in this manner Haec omnia cum ita se habere intellexeritis a Dominis meis prentissimis nostris Episcopis obsecro ut praestetis id quod petent officij All these things when yee shall perceave to be true by these my Lords and most godly brethren the Bishops I beseech you to yeelde them that assistance they shall desire All which clauses in that Epistle I thus the rather rehearse to the end you may the better judge whether it be not more fitly and more cohaerently to be reade Obsecro ut scribatis in the Plurall number as the Protestants say it ought to be reade then Obsecro ut scribas in the Singular number as Bellarmine and other Papists following the faultie and vicious copies would have it For when he speaketh to his most Reverend and Religious Lords the Bishops in the West were it not verie absurd to say thus unto them Obsecro ut scribas but
be Ministri Dei The Ministers of God as S. Paul also sheweth instituted for that verie end and purpose Now none will denie but banishment and imprisonment be punishments Civill and Temporall and not Ecclesiasticall and doe rightly and properly belong to the Authority of Emperors Kings and Princes and not to the function and office of Bishops and Ecclesiasticall Ministers And therefore the banishment and imprisonment that any Emperors or Kings used against any Bishops or others upon just cause and when they deserved it must needes be granted to be things done by them both in respect of the authoritie and in respect of the cause also aswell de jure as de facto that is to be things lawfull warrantable and justifieable in all respects For as for those distinctions that Emperors and Kings have Authoritie over persons Temporall but not Ecclesiasticall and a Power directive but not Coactive and in causes Civill and Temporall but not in Ecclesiasticall The untruth absurditie folly impietie of all these distinctions hath beene before so sufficiently discovered that I shall not neede to speake any more of them And by this time I hope that even the Papists themselves bee ashamed of them Sure I am they have good cause so to be if they did duely ponder and consider them Seeing then it is confessed that the Emperors did in ancient time by their Authoritie banish imprison and otherwise punish even Bishops of Rome aswell as other Bishops that no reason can be shewed against the doing hereof when they be such offenders as that they justly deserve such punishment it is thereby undeniably apparant that the Bishop of Rome in those dayes had not the supremacie over the Emperors but that cleane contrariewise the Emperors had the Supremacie over him aswell as over any others within their Empyâ—e Another Argument which I use consisteth in this that I say even Kings of Rome did also sometimes send the Bishops of Rome as their Embassadors By this argument my Adversarie saith That he supposeth that I meant but to make men merry Why In serious matters I love not to be as he is many times ridiculous but to be serious and to deale seriously First therefore hereby I prove that the Bishop of Rome was not in those dayes superior or greater then the King that sent him For those wordes of Christ must ever be true where he saith The Servant is not greater then his Master Iohn 13 16. nor the messenger greater then he that sent him And secondly I say further that this is a verie good and strong argument to prove the Supremacie to be in those dayes in the Kings of Rome and not in the Bishops of Rome For the King that sendeth any as his Embassador is in all common understanding supposed and to be supposed superior unto him that is his Embassador As when Hiram King of Tyrus sent messengers to King David 2. Sam 5.11 1. Chron. 14 1. 1. King â—â— 2 1. Chron. 19.2 or when Benâ—â—adad King of Aram or Siria sent messengers to Ahab King of Israell or when King David sent messengers unto the King of the Amm â—ites In all these cases and every such like for Nec in caeteris est contrarium videre were those Kings superior or greater then the messengers or Embassadors whom they sent And therefore when Theodorick sent Iohn Bishop of Rome as his Embassador unto the Emperor Iustine and when King Theodatus sent Agapetus Bishop of Rome as his Embassador to Iustinian the Emperor It must be confessed that these Kings were likewise superiors to the Bishops of Rome and had the command of them and not contrarywise that those Bishops of Rome had the superioritie or command over those Kings For amongst men the Master is wont to send the Servant and the King his Subject and the superior his inferior But where did you ever reade heare or know the Servant to send his Master or the Subject to send his King and Soveraigne or the inferior to send his Superior on a message I grant that an inferior or equall may intreate a Superior to doe a businesse for him and that a King a Master or Superior may goe by his owne consent or of his owne accord somewhither to doe his Subject Servant or inferior a good turne But it cannot be rightly and properly said that any of these inferiors have sent their Superiors upon their errand service message or embassage Yea it would be held verie absoneous and absurd so to speake But my Adversary I see mistaketh the Mâ—lâ—r proposition of my argument For it reacheth not so high as heaven much lesse to the most glorious incomprehensible and ineffable Trinitie blessed for ever but onely to men upon earth and not to all men neyther but onely to Kings and Bishops Neyther had my Adversary any ust cause or reason to streach or extend it any further For the question was onely concerning them whether of them had the Superioritie or Supremacie over the other in that time namely whether the Kings that then raigned over Rome or those that were the Bishops thereof I to prove the Superioritie or Supremacie to be in the Kings and not in the Bishops alledged this for my reason that the Kings of Rome did sometimes send the Bishops of Rome as their Embassadors to other Princes So that my Argument upon the whole matter appeareth to be this What Kings soever I speake of earthly Kings sent any at any time as their Embassadors to other Princes those Kings were Superior and greater then those Embassadors whom they sent But the Kings of Rome did send the Bishops of Rome as their Embassadors to other Princes Ergo the Kings of Rome were Superior and greater then the Bishops of Rome The Maior is apparant by induction of particulars by ordinarie common experience in the world The Minor is manifest by Ecclesiasticall historie which testifieth That King Theodoricke sent Iohn Bishop of Rome Lib Pontific in Iohan. 1. Et Anact in Agapeto Diaconus Platina as his Embassador to the Emperor Iustine And that King Theodatus sent likewise Agapetus Bishop of Rome as his Embassador to the Emperor Iustinian And therefore the conclusion must needes follow and cannot bee gainsaid By this time then mine Adversarie seeth I hope that such is the evident strength of this Argument as that he with all his wit and learning will never bee able to make any good answere thereunto 10 In my former Booke Cap. 1. pag. 13. 14. 15. I also shewed that against the title and appellation of Vniversall Bishop or head of the universall Church did two Bishops of Rome oppose themselves namely Pelagius and Gregory the great when it was first affected by Iohn the Patriarch and Bishop of Constantinople And that neverthelesse afterward a Bishop of Rome namely Boniface the third got obtayned it of Phocas the Emperor Hereunto mine Adversarie answereth as Bellarmine likewise doth That this fact of