had the supremacie because hee as you say deposed King Benhadad and put Hazael in his place Howbeit you are therin much deceived For it is not reade in like sort that Elias deposed the one King and put the other in his place Dan. 4.12.22.17.25 Luke 2.52 Dan. 2.37 The power to depose Kings belongeth onely unto God who giveth kingdomes to whomsoever hee pleaseth But what the Prophet Elias did concerning Hazael to bee king over Syria and concerning Iehu also to bee King over Israel hee had a speciall and direct commaundement for it from God himselfe For the Lord said thus unto Elias Goe returne on thy way 1. King 19.15 to the wildernesse of Damascus and when thou commest annoynt Hazael to bee King over Syria And Iehu the sonne of Nimshi shalt thou annoynt to be King over Israel So that it was God and not Elias that put downe the one King and raysed up the other As for Elias and Elisha 2. King 9.1.2.3 c. and other Prophets they were but the publishers and declarers of Gods will and pleasure in all such cases and not the deposers of any Kings Touching that you say of Queene Athalia there was good reason for her to bee deposed For shee was a meere usurper and Ioas was the true and rightfull heyre For Behold saith the Text the Kings sonne must raigne 2. Chr. 23.3 as the Lord hath said of the sonnes of David Neyther was it Iehoida the Priest alone but the rest of the rulers and people also that according to their duties both to God and the King by an unanimous consent deposed that wicked usurper Athalia and put Ioas in the kingdome to whom the right of it appertayned For the words of the Text are 2. Chron. 23.11 Then they brought out the Kings sonne and put upon him the Crowne and gave him the testimonie and made him King and Iehoida and his sonnes annoynted him and said God save the King And concerning King Vzziah otherwise called Ozias whom you also mention it is true that he went into the Temple of the Lord to burne Incense upon th' Altar of incēse that Azariah the Priest went in after him with him fourescore Priests of the Lord which withstood Eziah said unto him It pertayneth not to thee Vziah 2. Chron. 26.16.17.18.19.20 to burne Incense unto the Lord but to the Priests the sons of Aaron that are consecrated to offer incense Goe thou forth of the sanctuarie for thou hast transgressed c. And for this his presuming to burne incense he was stricken with a leprosie which when Azariah the chiefe Priest and the other Priests saw and beheld they caused him hastily to depart from thence and hee was even compelled to goe out because the Lord had smitten him So that hee was not compelled to goe out of the Temple by reason of any force weapons or violence offered to his person by Azariah or any other of the Priests but because the Lord had smitten him viz. with a leaprosie And therefore even your owne translation which you call S. Hieromes hath it thus Sed ipse perterritus acceleravit egredi eo qued sensisset illico plagam Domini That hee made hast himselfe to goe out as being terrified with the present sence of the Lords blow upon him It is true that Azarias the Priest and the other Priests with him withstood the King But how by words onely as namely by telling him of his sinne advising him to goe out of the Temple and using divine threats and such other lawfull and allowable courses as became Priests to use but not by swords and weapons force of armes or such like externall power coactive And thus doth S. Chrysostome also himselfe testifie even in this verie case and therefore bringeth in the Priest saying thus unto God Chrysost de verbis Esaiae vidi Dominū homil 4. I have done saith hee my dutie to warne and reprove him I can goe no further Nam sacerdotis est tantùm arguere c. For it is the Priests office onely to reprove and freely to admonish and not saith he to assaile with armes not to use targets not to handle speares not to bend bowes not to cast darts but onely to reprove and freely to admonish c. But if it had beene so that Azariah and the rest of the Priests with him had forcibly and by bodily and externall violence expelled and thrust the King out of the Temple which neverthelesse you see S. Chrysostome expressely denieth to have beene done yet were this no proofe that therefore they expelled deposed or deprived him of his kingdome Yea this king Vziah otherwise called Ozias notwithstanding whatsoever these Priests did against him and notwithstanding his leaprosie wherewith hee was stricken was neverthelesse not deposed nor deprived of his kingdome For although he was a leaper unto the day of his death and dwelt as a leaper in an house apart from others according to the law yet during the time of that his leaprosie 2. Chron. 26.21.23 did hee continue King of Iudah and all that while was Iotham his son over all the kings house and iudged the people of the land as a regent or curator like a Lord Protector or Lieutenant to his father Neyther is it said that Iotham his sonne raigned in his stead or governed as a king in his owne right untill after the death of that his Father Ioseph antiq lib. 9. cap. 11 2. Chron. 26 1.3 And this appeareth to bee evidently true by computation of time for Vzziah lived but sixtie eight yeares in all as Iosephus witnesseth and hee was sixteene yeares olde when hee began to raigne and hee raigned fiftie two yeares as the Scripture it selfe testifieth So that from the time hee began to be a King hee continued a King unto his dying day But what meane you by all this For if hereby you would proove it lawfull for the Bishop of Rome to depose Kings you see that the former precedents and examples of those Prophets and Priests which you produce doe warrant no such matter admitting that the Bishop of Rome were the chiefe or high Priest in the Christian Church which hee is not as I have now and often said and shewed before Yea they rather declare the cleane contrarie to that detestable Romish and rebellious position But if I will needes still urge that Salomon as a King did depose Abiathar the high Priest and put Zadocke in his place It may bee answered say you that this act of Solomons was error facti and consequently not warrantable de Iure It seemeth by this your manner of answering that you care not much what you answer so that you make any answer at all bee it never so grosse absurde or unsound For first this your distinction of de facto and de Iure in this and the like cases I have refelled and confuted before in my Reply pag. 13. pag. 86.
choose which was in aftertimes Ierusalem where the Temple was builded and where Iehosaphat also according to this law erected and constituted a Synedrion or Councell consisting of Levites Priests and of the chiefe of the Fathers of Israel 2 Chron. 19.8.9 But none is bound at this day to goe to Ierusalem to have his litigious and doubtfull cases to bee decided and determined by any Leviticall Priest or other Iudges there Neyther is Rome that Ierusalem nor is the Pope of Rome or his Priests any of those Priests descended of the Tribe of Levi. And therefore also will not this text of Deut. 17. any way serve your turne nor helpe to maintayne your Popes so long vainely fancied Supremacie 5. But I proceede prosecuting matters not confusedly as you doe but for the most part in that sort and order as they be layed downe in my Reply that so the Reader also may the better and the more easily perceive both what you have Answered in this your Reioynder and what and how much you have left unanswered Chrysost hom 4. de verb. Esa vid. Dom. as also how good or bad your Answers bee In my Reply therefore pag. 1. I said that S. Chrysostome distinguishing those two offices viz. the Regall and Sacerdotall did say thus Ille cogit hic exhortatur ille habet arma sensibilia hic arma spiritualia The King compelleth the Priest exhorteth the King hath sensible weapons the Priest hath spirituall weapons Hereunto you Answer that S. Chrysostome meant onely that the King with his sensible weapons of imprisonment banishment pecuniarie mulcts temporall death and other penalties should force when other meanes fayled the rebellious children of the Church to performe their dutie unto their Prince Prelate not that the Prince hath any power over the Pastor unto whom say you by the ordinance of God hee is subjected and thus you make the King to have power onely over such as you here call the children of the Church but not over Bishops Pastors and other Ecclesiasticall Ministers and of this opinion you would drawe S. Chrysostome to bee against his owne good will and liking But although by his words precedent and subsequent which you so much speake of it appeareth that Kings and Princes are to bee subject to Bishops and Pastors in respect of the due administration of those their sacred offices functions and ministeries committed to them from God yet in respect of themselves and of their owne Persons hee held them verie clearely to bee not superiour but subject to Kings and Princes Rom. 13.1 Chrys ho. 23. in epistol ad Rom. For whereas S. Paul speaketh thus Let everie soule be subject to the higher powers The same S. Chrysostome saith which I mervaile you have so soone forgotten that omnibus ista praecipiuntur Sacerdotibus quo que ac Monachis non solum secularibus These things be cōmanded to all even to Priests also to Monckes and not to lay or secular men onely Yea hee saith further in the same place that though you bee an Apostle though an Evangelist though a Prophet or whatsoever you bee you must be subiect to these higher powers Remember againe Chrys ad Populū Antioch homil 2. that speaking of the Emperour hee saith that Non habet parem ullum super terram He hath no Peere nor equall upon earth Yea hee saith of him that hee was Caput summit as omnium super terras hominum The head and one that had the supremacie over all men upon earth Yea S. Chrysostome himselfe did yet further really and actually declare this subjection to these higher powers even in his owne person For did not the Emperour exile and banish him Socrat. lib. 6. cap. 15. graec cap. 14. Latine Theodor. lib. 2 cap. 2.4.13 Theodor. lib. 2 cap. 2.4 13. And did not hee though Archbishop of Constantinople humbly submit himselfe thereunto and yeelde obedience Was not likewise Liberius though a Bishop of Rome exiled and banished by the Emperour and did not hee also quietly submit himselfe unto it as being done by the Emperours commaundement and authoritie And was not also Atbanasius banished by the Emperours authoritie and did not he likewise patiently and obediently undergoe it You see then that not onely lay people and such as you call the children of the Church but even those also that were Fathers in the same as namely Bishops and Pastors Archbishops and even Bishops of Rome themselves were in those former and auncient times Pelag. Epist. 16. Concil edit Bin. tom 2. pag. 633. subject to these higher powers viz. to Emperours Kings and Princes Quibus nos etiam subditos esse sanctae Scripturae praecipiunt To whom saith also Pelagius another Bishop of Rome the holy Scriptures commaund even us that be Bishops and the Bishops of Rome to be subiect So that those Bishops in those dayes performed this subjection and obedience unto them as being moved thereunto out of dutie and good conscience and because God in his holy Scriptures had so commaunded But these two points namely that Emperours Kings and Princes bee subject to that authoritie message and ministerie which God hath committed to Bishops and Pastors And that Bishops againe and Pastors all Ministers Ecclesiasticall be neverthelesse subject to Emperours Kings and Princes in respect of their owne persons is largely declared both in my first Booke in my Reply also aswell as here As for those precedent and subsequent wordes in S. Chrysostome which you so often speake of even you aswell as I might verie well have omitted them as being needlesse to be mentioned because the matter and substance of them was before graunted and confessed by me in my former Bookes as it is likewise here againe in this and yet you never the neerer of your purpose And therefore you had no cause to complaine of the omission of thē by me when the recitall of them by you will do you no more good nor prove or inferre any more matter in your behalfe then that which was formerly by me confessed and granted unto you But least reason of all had you to insinuate as though by omission of those precedent and subsequent wordes I had a meaning to delude my Reader by concealing the truth For you see that I had no such purpose or meaning to conceale that truth which my selfe had formerly delivered and graunted and which I still confesse with S. Chrysostome touching the subjection of Princes to Gods authoritie committed to his Ministers But it is your selfe in verie deede which abuse delude your Reader in this case by concealing truth For although you tell some truth you tell not the whole truth as you ought but conceale a part of it or which is worse you denie a part of it inasmuch as you affirme the subjection of Emperours Kings and Princes to that authoritie which God hath committed to his Bishops and Pastors But the other part of truth concerning
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
betweene the King and the Priest that Ille cogit Châ—ysosto de verbis Esaiae vidi DominuÌ„ homil 4. hic exhortatur Ille habet arma sensibilia hic arma spiritualia The King compelleth the Priest exhorteth the King hath the sensible weapons the Priest the spirituall weapons And when the Priest or Ecclesiasticall Minister hath gone as far as he can go in his Ecclesiasticall Ministerie he must not go any further to use any externall power coactive or compulsive as he there also teacheth 〈◊〉 21.1 but must in every such case leave men unto God who hath the hearts of all kings aswell as of others in his hands and moveth and turneth them when Chrys de Sacerlotisâ—h 2. and which way sâ—ever he pleaseth Yea S. Chrysoâ—tome saith yet further expressely That it is not lawfull for a Bishop to oure men with so great authoritie as a sheepheard doth his sheepe for it is free for a sheepheard forcibly to binde his sheepe to drive them from their feeding to scare them and to cut them but in the other case the facilitie of the cure consisteth no in him that giveth but onely in him that taketh the medicine This that admirable teacher perceiving said to the Corinthians Not that wee have any Dominion over you under the name of faith but that wee are helpers of your ioy For of all men Christian Bishops must not correct the faults of offenders by force or violence Externall Iudges when they take any transgressing the lawes they shew themselves to be endued with great authoritie and power and doe compell them whether they will or no to change their manners But here saith hee non vim afferre sed suadere tantum oportet atque hac ratione meliorem efficere quem emendandum susceperis You may not use violence but perswasion onely and by this meanes make him better whom you have taken upon you to amend Againe hee saith If any sheepe goe out of the right way Chrysost de Sacerdotio lib. 2. and leaving the plentifull pastures graze on barren and steepe places The sheepheard somewhat exalteth his voyce to reduce the dispersed and stragling sheepe and to force them to the flocke But if any man wander from the right path of the Christian faith The Pastor must use great great paines care and patience Neque enim vis illi inferenda neque terrore ille cogendus verum suedendu tantùm ut de integro ad veritatem redeat For hee may nor be forced or constrained with terror but perswaded onely that so hee may returne againe to the truth If then your late Councell of Lateran under Pope Innocentius the third decreed as you say this externall power coactive to bee in the Bishop of Rome You see it is not to be regarded Because such a decree if any such were is directly contrarie to the testimonie of all former approved antiquitie But yet you must also remember what Platina writeth concerning that Councell Plantina de vita Innocen 3. Venêre multa tum quidem in consultationem nec decerni tamen quicquam apertè potuit Many things saith hee came into consultation in that Councell but nothing could plainely be decided by reason the Pope departing to compose some tumults then suddainely risen died by the way So that this your great Councell of Lateran consulting how to defeate Kings and Princes of their Temporall kingdomes and Dominions but not decreeing or concluding any thing therein as being prevented by the Popes hastened and unexpected death will also doe you no pleasure in this case But now why may not I after so many questions of yours answered propound you also one question which is this What if the Bishop of Rome for maintenance of his worldly pompe pride pleasure and ambition carelesly neglect all right religion and bee so extremely wicked both for life doctrine as that hee careth not to carrie innumerable soules together with his owne by heapes to hell who shall correct restraine represse or punish him For answer whereunto you might say that in former and auncient times The Emperours had the correction and the punishment aswell of the Bishops of Rome as of other Bishops that were offenders within their Dominions But now the case is altered and the world turned topsie turvie and the Bishop of Rome growne to that height and licenciousnesse as that hee will not allow himselfe to be censured or judged by any men mortall be they Emperus Kings Princes Bishops Generall Councels or whosoever they bee But whilst he is thus mounted not onely above other Kings and Princes but even above the Emperours also himselfe What saith Optatus of such a one Optat. libr. 3. pag. 85. Cùm super Imperatorem non sit nisi solus Deus qui fecit Imperatorem certè quise super Imperatorem extollit iam quasi hominum excesserit metas se ut Deum non hominem aestimat Forasmuch as saith he there is none above the Emperour but God onely that made the Emperour Certainely be that exalteth himselfe above the Emperour as one that hath gone beyond the bounds of men esteemeth himselfe not now any longer as a mac but as God And whilest withall hee thus exempteth himselfe from the Lawes censure and judgement of all men upon earth what doth hee else by all this but shew himselfe to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That lawlesse person mentioned by S. Paul in 2. Thess 2.8 And which also sitteth in the Church or temple of God as God 2. Thess 2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12 and is exalted above all those men upon earth that be called Gods in the Scriptures of which sort be Kings and Princes and even above the Emperour also himselfe to whom belongeth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sebasma mentioned in the same place of 2. Thessal 2.4 in asmuch as hee is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sebastos that is Augustus as the Scripture also it selfe expressely calleth him Act. 25.21.25 But lastly It is well knowne that by Gods owne institutution the power of the Civill and Temporall sword rightly properly belongeth to Emperours â—om 13.1.2 â— 4.5.6 Kings and Princes and not to Bishops Pastors or other Ecclesiasticall Ministers therefore may Kings and Princes lawfully commaund compell and punish all Bishops Pastors and Ecclesiasticall Ministers whatsoever if they offend aswell as lay-Persons by authoritie of that their sword committed to them from God But Bishops on the other side may not by that their Ecclesiasticall office and function use that temporall sword nor any temporall externall power coactive thereunto incident or belonging against any King or other Person for any cause whatsoever because that sword is not committed to them from God Yea this opinion concerning compelling of Kings savoureth more of treason then of reason and therefore is utterly to bee detested and abhorred 17. But then you say further that whatsoever I alledged to invest our King with the supremacie the same might be alledged by any
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