Priesthoode who with his Iron rodde bruseth the pride of Princes that rebell against his Spouse and kingdome in earth like a potters poâ—shard and hath right in his Church ouer all kingdomes to plant and plucke vp to buyld and destroy afore whom al kings shall fall downe and all Nations do him seruice Theo. That the Sonne of God will bruse the pride of those Princes with an Iron rodde which rebell against his Spouse and kingdome in earth like a potters shard and that he hath right both within and without his Church ouer all kingdomes to plant and plucke vp to buyld and destroy afore whom all kings on earth and Angels in heauen shall fall downe and doe him seruice these thinges are vndoubted with vs and brought in by you but onely for a windlace to make the reader cast his eyes on Christ and his kingdome while you closely conuey the Princes Scepter vnder the Popes feete Accursed bee hee that doeth not confesse the supereminent power which the Sonne of God hath ouer all kingdomes ouer all creatures ouer the States and liues bodies and soules of all men Wil you thence inferre the Pope hath the like In sooth masters you must make hard shift before these reasons will bee good Phi. Christs Priestly prerogatiue passing his owne regall dignitie much more excelling all other humane power of the worlde in most ample and exact termes is coÌ„municated to the chiefe Priest and Pastor of our soules and secondarily to the rest of the gouernours of the Church in other manner of clauses than any earthly Princes can shewe for their pretensed spirituall regiment Fie on that secular pride wilfull blind heresie so repugning against Gods expresse ordinaunce and yet is of wicked Sect-masters and flatterers vpholden to the eternall calamitie of themselues and of millions of others Theo. This is stale Rhetorike to come with an outcrie when you should make your conclusion Conclude first and rayle after otherwise you shewe your selues to trust more to the slippernes of your tongues than to the soundnes of your cause Phi. Our illation is euident Christ as a Priest bruseth the pride of Princes with his Iron rodde and hath right ouer all kingdomes to plant and plucke vppe buyld and destroy But Christs Priestly prerogatiue in most ample and exact termes is communicated to the chiefe Priest and Pastor of our soules The chiefe Pastor therefore hath the like right ouer all kingdomes to plant plucke vp buyld and destroy Theo. The power which you mention in your first proposition is attributed to Christ not as a Priest but as a king The wordes of the Psalme are very plaine to that end I haue set my king vpon my holy hill of Sion Aske of mee and I will giue thee the heathen for thine inheritaunce and the endes of the earth for a possession to thee Thou shalt crush them with a scepter of Iron and breake them in pieces like a potters vessell S. Iohn applieth the same place to the royal and not to the Priestly power of Christ. I saw the heauen open and beholde a white horse and hee that sate vpon him was called faithful and true and hee iudgeth and fighteth in righteousnes On his head were many Crownes and out of his mouth went a sharpe sword that with it he should smite the heathen and hee shal rule them with a rod of Iron And hee hath on his garment and on his thigh a name written the King of Kings and Lord of Lordes Howe thinke you His horse his Crowne his robe his traine his sworde his stile described in this place expresse they his Priestly or Princely prerogatiue As a Priest hee sacrificed himselfe on the crosse and had his owne blood shed for the remission of sinnes As a King hee subdueth his enemies and maketh them like dust vnder his feete bee they Princes or others Your Maior is therefore false that to bruse kings with an Iron rod and to breake them in pieces like a potters shard is a priuilege of Christs Priesthoode and not of his Princehoode Your Minor that Christs Priestly prerogatiue is communicated in most ample exact termes to the chiefe Priest and Pastor of the Church hath farre lesse trueth in it than your Maior For al the prerogatiue of Christs Priesthood is not communicated to any other Such an high Priest saith S. Paul it became vs to haue which shoulde be holy vndefiled separated from sinners made higher than the heauens who in the end of the world appeared once to put away sinne by the offering vp of himselfe and after that one sacrifice for sinne is set down for euer at the right hand of God hauing obtained eternal redeÌ„ption for vs and being able perfectly to saue them that come to God by him seeing he euer lyueth to make intercession for them These and many such prerogatiues of his Priesthood I hope you will not empart to the Pope lest wee crie fie on your blasphemous hearts and mouthes which set the man of sinne equall with the sonne of God If you restraine your Minor by confessing that not all but some of the prerogatiues of Christes Priesthoode are communicated to others then your conclusion hath no force both your premisses being meere particulars For though Christ gaue some part of his power honour to his Apostles yet this hee gaue not and therefore his gift to them can doe you no good vnlesse you prooue that hee gaue them this prerogatiue amongst the rest which he bestowed on them Phi. Hee sayd to Peter and his successours Whatsoeuer thou bindest on earth shall be bound in heauen and whatsoeuer thou losest in earth shall bee loosed in heauen Can you require a more ample graunt Theo. Peter and the rest were to bind and lose the sinnes and soules of men by the woord and sacraments not the Scepters and swords of Princes And so Christ himselfe expoundeth his graunt vnto them Whose sinnes soeuer you remit they are remitted vnto them and whose sinnes soeuer yee retaine they are retayned And in this place you leaue out the first part of the graunt which should direct the whole I will giue thee the keyes of the kingdome of heauen not of the kingdomes on earth Bernard though he were but of late yeeres yet was he not afraid to tel Pope Eugenius ergo in criminibus non in possessionibus potestas vestra quoniam propter illa non propter has accepistis claues regni caelorum Your power concerneth sinnes and not possessions because yee receiued the keyes of the kingdome of heauen for those thinges and not for these And so Theophilact Vnderstand the keyes which bind and lose to bee the pardoning or punishing of sinnes And so S. Ambrose The right of the holy Ghost consisteth in bynding and losing of sinnes As also Saint Augustine The keyes Christ gaue to his Church that what she loosed in earth should be
loosed in heauen and what she did bind in earth shoulde bee bound in heauen to witte that whosoeuer would not beleeue his sinnes might bee forgiuen in the Church should not haue them forgiuen and whosoeuer would beleeue it and depart from his sinnes by amending his life in the bosome of the same Church shoulde by that faith and conuersion be healed And neuer writer since Christs time did euer extend the power of the keyes vnto any thing saue vnto the forgiuing and retayning of sinnes Phi. No more doe wee this onely we adde that when Princes are bounde in earth for their sinnes they loose that interest which they had in their kingdomes Theo. That position you vndertooke to proue by the holy Scriptures but as yet you be wide you still suppose it and doe not proue it Phi. Now in the newe Testament all Christes sheepe without exception bee they Princes be they poore if they be Christian men are put to Peters feeding gouernement Now the keyes of heauen be deliuered to Christs Vicar in earth to let in to locke out to bind to loose to punish to pardon Now we be coÌ„manded euery one be we kings be we Caesars to obey our Prelats and Pastors and to bee subiect to them as to those that must make accompt to God for our soules wherein what Christian Prince may except himselfe Theo. You role from text to text abusing the woordes and peruerting the sense as you goe and when all is saide you bee euen as neere as you were at first before you began For what if al these places do concerne Princes as well as others wil you thence inferre that princes may be deposed Then these must be your argumentes Princes must bee taught ergo Princes may bee deposed Prieâ—tes may exclude them from the kingdom of heauen ergo likewise from their kingdomes on earth Princes must obey sounde doctrine comming from their Pastours mouthes ergo if they refuse they may be deposed Surely such reasons set not them besides their seates but you rather besides your wittes for what apparance of trueth haue these ridiculous and impious mockeries Feede my sheepe that is depose Princes I will giue thee the keyes of the kingdom of heauen that is I will giue thee the thrones of earthly kinges Be aduised by your leaders and yeeld to their good perswasions for they watch ouer your soules that is obey the Pope when he thrusteth you from your goods landes and liues Had you but one dramme of shame or sense in you you woulde neuer sende vs such sottish and vnsauorie sequeles Phi. They be of your framing we sent them not Theo. We annexe the conclusion which you must and would infer to the places which you alleadge and in so doing we can not abuse you Out of the 21. of S. Iohn what woulde you cite but this charge to Peter feed my sheepe In the 16. of S. Matthew what finde you there but the promise of our Sauiour I wil giue thee the keies of the kingdom of heaueÌ„ whatsoeuer thou bindest or losest in earth shal be bound and losed in heauen All the wordes which the 13. to the Hebrewes hath for your purpose are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yâ— is be perswaded by their words and giue place to their admonitions which watch ouer your soules Nowe what your conclusion is and must be neither can any man doubt nor do your selues dissemble For the fift chapter of your immodest and vntrue defence of English Catholikes as you call them proposeth purposely handleth the depriuation of Princes for heresie and falling from the faith So that helpe the matter how you can with your glozes and phrases these be your antecedeÌ„ts and this is your consequent Phi. Well if Peter must feede Princes why may not Peter depose Princes Theo. Taking their Crownes from them is not preaching the Gospell vnto them which Christ ment by feeding Phi. But Peter may correct them as well as feede them and depriuation is but correction Theo. Any Pastor may reproue them if they withstand the trueth that bindeth them in earth shutteth heauen against them But other correction on the goodes landes or bodies of priuate men preachers may not exercise much lesse intermeddle with the Seates and Scepters of Princes Phi. Be we kinges be we Caesars we are commaunded to obey our Prelates and Pastours and to be subiect to them Theo. Princes and all other christians must be reuerent and obedient to the word and Sacramentes which God hath put in the mouthes and handes of his messengers other subiection to Prelates or Pastors is none due Phi. And if they refuse to be subiect to the word or Sacramentes shall not Pastors punish them though they be Princes Theo. Let them sinke in their sinnes and leaue them to God that is punishment enough Phi. Shal they goe no farther Theo. Externall or corporall meanes by losse of life landes or goodes God hath not allowed any Pastour to compell or punish his sheepe withall Phi. Then may Princes freely despise both the word and the Preacher Theo. If you call that freedome to fall into the handes of the liuing God which S. Paul saith is a fearefull thing Whosoeuer shall not receiue you nor heare your wordes when you depart out of that house or that citie shake off the dust of your feete Truely I say vnto you it shall bee easier for them of the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of iudgement than for that citie Is not this reuenge sufficient for Princes that turne from the truth vnlesse you also must be fingering of their crownes and treadding on their necks Phi. That would terrifie them more than the threatning of helfire Theo. It may be that contenteth your appetites better but God hath reserued the punishment of Princes to himselfe and not assigned it ouer vnto you Howbeit why doe you wander thus from the question You should proue by the worde of God that Princes may be deposed Why then doe you linger and make so many profers before you come to your purpose Phi. Will you haue a plaine proofe out of the new Testament that Princes may be deposed Theo. That is it wee looked for all this while Phi. Pastours haue full authoritie to forbid vs the companie of heretikes blasphemers and idolaters and such like and not so much as to salute them much more not to obey them Theo. Is this your best discretion We must not be companions with idolaters ergo we must not be subiects to Princes Phi. If they be conuicted of heresie or idolatrie Theo. Put you no difference betwixt familiars and subiectes Phi. If we may not be familiar with them much lesse subiect vnder them Theo. Are you not low drawen when you come with such dregges Phi. Iest not at it but answere it Theo. Be earnest in any case It is a very profound and substantiall reason Phi. Substantial or
freshly approue and practise The correction that is here laide on you you euery where amplifie with wordes of the highest and hoattest degree as if it were tyranny to touche the hemmes of your garmentes notwithstanding you seeke to pull the Crowne from the Princes head and teach others to treadde the same path by your example but such is your daintinesse that you offering others fier and sword neuer thinke it sharp enough And tasting no quicker discipline with vs for twentie yeres than the losse of two shillings by the weeke or some restraint of libertie crie out of the greatest persecution and tribulation that euer was since the Gothes and Vandals times We speake of things that are in the eyes and eares of al men what punishment did the Lawes of this realme the first twenty yeres of her maiesties raigne inflict to any recusant for religion but either imprisonment or amercement Which was as easie as you coulde wish till within these sixe or seuen yeeres by the facilitie of the Lawe which you despised your attempts grewe so daungerous that the Prince was forced for the repressing of your audacious aduenture to temper her Lawes with more seueritie You must thanke your selues therefore if this latter affliction seeme some-what heauier till you gaue the onset to put the bull in execution which depriued her highnes of the crowne you were vsed with as much mercy and clemencie as was possible for a Christian prince to afford vnruly subiects whatsoeuer hath since fallen out must bee imputed not to her maiesties inclination whereof you had so good proofe for twenty yeeres but to your wicked and vndutifull affection that were perplexed to see her liue and gouerne in so long happynesse and therefore assayed to shorten her reigne Philand You neuer founde that affection in any Catholike Theoph. Wee neede not search your affections for it you haue made it an open point of your fayth which no Catholique as you teach must denie though the affirming of it shoulde cost him his life Philand What doe wee teach Theo. That if the Pope say the woorde none of your Catholiques within this Realme must obey or accompt her Maiestie for Queene of Englande And because you woulde bee sure to roote this perswasion in the heartes of your adherentes you deliuer it them as a part of their fayth which they must auouche and much more execute notwithstanding any daunger of death that may bee offered Philand Where doe wee teach so Theoph. In the cases of conscience wherewith you furnished the Iesuites that came into Englande There to the 55. article when you bee asked whether notwithstanding the bull of Pius the fifth that was giuen out or any bull that the Bishoppe of Rome can hereafter giue foorth all Catholikes bee bounde to yeelde obedience fayth and loyaltie to Queene Elizabeth as to their lawfull Prince and Soueraigne you make this resolution Qui hoc modo interrogat illud quaerit an id potuerit S. Pontifex facere Cui quaestioni quid debeat Catholicus respondere clarius est quà m vt a me hic explicetur Sirogatur ergo Catholicus credis Romanum Pontificem Elizabetham potuisse exauthorare respondebit non obstante quouis metu mortis credo Quaestio enim haec ad fidem spectat exigit confessionem fidei Hee that demaundeth this question asketh in effect whether the Pope might do it or no. To the which demand what a catholik ought to answere it is plainer than that I need here to explicate If therfore a catholike be asked do you beleeue the Bishoppe of Rome may depriue Queene Elizabeth of her crowne He must answere not regarding any danger of death I beleeue hee may For this question is a point of fayth and requireth the confession of our fayth And your selfe in your defence of English Catholiks say This was the right and power of Saint Gregorie to depriue Princes and this hath beene the fayth of Christian men euer sith our Countrie was conuerted Why then are you so angrie that Iesuites should bee counted traytours since you make treason to be a point of your fayth and religion And howe iust cause hath the Prince to banish you her land vnder payne of death when you doe with this cunning inueighle her subiects to rebell against her Phi. It is no treason to say the Pope may depose Princes Theo. Much lesse is it a poynt of Christian fayth that the Pope may depriue the Queene of her Crowne as you falsly absurdly and traiterously teach Phi. The Pope receiued that power from Christ. Theo. If you did prooue it you had some colour to beleeue it but nowe you require all Catholikes boldly to put that into their Creede which the Pope himselfe for a thousand yeeres was ashamed to professe Phi. Hath hee not the keyes of the kingdome of heauen Theo. But you must prooue hee hath the keyes of all earthly kingdomes Phi. Hee may binde and loose Theo. Sinnes hee may where hee hath charge but no where Scepters Phi. If Princes persist in sinne hee may take their Scepters from them Theo. That is it which all this while you were to prooue you teach that for religion which the woorde of GOD reiecteth for rebellion you imbrace it as pietie which the Church of Christ abhorred as iniquitie Giue to Caesar sayth the sonne of God the thinges which are Caesars The swoorde and scepter are Caesars this therefore is a plaine precept to Peter him-selfe and all other Christians to suffer Caesar to enioy his owne Nowe shewe you an other that you may take from Caesar that which is Caesars When one sayde Master bid my brother diuide the inheritance with mee the Lorde answered man who made mee iudge or diuider ouer you If Christ would not meddle with priuate mens inheritances as being without the compasse of his vocation I pray you who could make the Pope iudge and disposer of Princes crownes Our Sauiour being asked of Pilate what kingdome hee claymed openly auouched my kingdome is not of this world and you by one turne of the keies which he gaue to Peter and the rest of his Apostles would bring all the kingdomes of the woorlde to bee at the Popes appointing S. Augustine assureth Princes by force of these words that they shall not need to feare depriuation of their earthly kingdoms at Christs hands Why enuy you sayth he ye kings Marke enuie not Christ is a king but farre otherwise than you are which sayd my kingdome is not of this world Feare not therfore lest the kingdome of this worlde bee taken from you rather an other kingdome shall bee giuen you and that of heauen where hee is king And so expressely resolueth Kinges ought not to feare lest they loose their kingdome or that their kingdome bee taken from them as wretched Herode feared Which is vtterly against you that make it a point of your fayth for the Pope to take
foundation of the Church and the rest of the Apostles excluded but that which is here spoken to him they make common to all or as much elsewhere to be giuen to all Origen If onely vpon Peter thou thinkest the whole Church to be built what wilt thou say to Iohn and euery of the Apostles shall we dare say that against Peter onely the gates of hell shall not preuaile and against the rest of the Apostles they shall and not rather in them all and euerie one of them that to be true which is saide the gates of hell shall not preuaile and that also vpon this rocke will I build my Church For if this speech to thee will I giue the keyes of the kingdom of heauen be common to all why then should not all that which goeth before and followeth after as spoken to Peter be common to them all Hierom himselfe whose authoritie you pretend as he placeth Peter in the foundation of the Church so doth he the rest of the Apostles likewise Thou wilt say the Church is built on Peter notwithstanding the selfe same in another place is done vpon all the Apostles and they all receiue the keyes of the kingdom of heauen and the stedfastnesse of the Church is equally setled vpon them This sense doth somewhat agree with that place of S. Paul were he saith Ye bee built vpon the foundation not of Peter alone but of the Apostles and Prophets Iesus Christ being the head corner stone And in that respect Paul saith of Iames Peter Iohn iointly they that seemed to be the pillours gaue me their right handes of fellowship Both these constructions we can admit though we prefer the first as most religious cunning nearest the true meaning of our Sauiour but you wrest the wordes of S. Hierom quite against him selfe all the rest of the learned Catholike fathers It is one thing to say the church is built on Peter which Origē Hierom others affirme in the sense that I told you before an other thing to say the Church is built on Peters chaire at Rome which no Father euer said or thought And therefore if we shoulde graunt that S. Hierom in these wordes spake of Peter what are you the better This is no proofe that Rome is the Rocke on which the Church is built but onely that Peter is a Rocke laide in the foundation of the Church where also the rest of the Prophetes and Apostles are Phi. The place doth mention the chaire of Peter which is Rome Theo. The wordes stande so that they may respect either Peter himselfe or his chayre but the likenesse of the names Petrus and Petra both for sound for sense the alluding to that which Christ spake to Peter in the Gospell long before hee knewe Rome the generall consent of the Fathers expounding the Rocke to be taken either for Christ or for Peter and neuer for Rome import that these words in S. Hierom haue their relation to Peters person and not to his chaire This exposition the place which you brought confirmeth Petrus super quem Dominus fundanit Ecclesiam Peter on whom that is on whose person not on whose successors at Rome the Lord built his Church Phi. The rest of S. Hieroms wordes can not be referred to Peters person as namely these that next insue Without this house whosoeuer shall eate the Paschall Lambe is prophane And why shoulde the former more than these Theo. Peruse the words as they lie and you shall finde your owne error Vpon that rocke I know the Church is built The Church not of Rome only but of Christ generally Then followeth extra hanc domùm without this house What house but the church which he said before was built on the rock And out of this house meaning thereby not the particular Church of Rome but the Catholike church of Christ whosoeuer eateth the Passouer is indeed as Hierom saith aprophane person This is farre wide from the mark which you shoote at Phi. S. Augustine I trust shooteth streight when he applieth the wordes of Christ in the 16. of Matthew to the chaire of Peter Theo. That were maruaile if he which by no meanes would allow Peter him selfe to be the foundation of the Church be now content to yeelde that honor to the Bishop of Rome Phi. He doth so These be his wordes Numerate sacerdotes vel ab ipsa Petri sede in ordine illo Patrum quis cui successit videte Ipsa est Petra quam non vincant superbae inferorum portae Number the Priestes euen from Peters seate and see who succeded one an other in that rew of Fathers that is the Rocke which the proude gates of hell do not conquere Theo. This place proueth nothing vnlesse you bee suffered to referre the words Ipsa est Petra that is the rocke whither you list You can not refer them but either to the succession of Priests from Peter or else to Peters seate which is all one with Peters chaire Theo. Why not to Peter himself Phi. That were farre fet Theo. The wordes stand indifferent for both as S. Hieroms did and not onely the same reasons I made there serue here but also the proposition hath a manifest reference to Peters person He saith not number the Priests in Peters seat but number them vel ab ipsa Petri sede euen from the very seat of Peter that is from the time that Peter sate He is the Rock against which the proud gates of hell do not preuaile Phi. You seeme to reade Ipse est Petra He is the Rocke but the wordes are Ipsa est Petra that is the Rocke Theo. There are greater corruptions crept into S. Austens works by the negligence of Scribes than of a for e Neither did I translate the words but giue you the right meaning of them and yet ipsa est Petra in S. Austen may be referred to Peter him selfe as wel as super hanc Petram in the Gospell expounded for Peter which you all vphold But graunt which is more than euer you shall iustly conuince that Peters chaire is thereby ment Saint Austen doth not say that is the rocke on which the Church is built but that is the Rocke which the gates of hell do not conquere not promising that Rome still should but witnessing that Rome then did withstand the gates of hell by keeping the faith vndefiled which Peter deliuered Phi. What S. Austen lacketh S. Cyprian supplyeth Qui Cathedram Petri super quam edificata est Ecclesia deserit in Ecclesia se esse confidit He that forsaketh the chayre of Peter on which the Church is built doth he hope himselfe to be in the Church I trust these wordes be plaine enough Theo. The wordes as you set them bee plaine enough but where saith Cyprian so Phi. In his booke De vnitate Ecclesiae Catholicae you call it corruptly De simplicitate Praelatorum Theo.
the priest is Gods minister to reuēge male factors Peter himself was sharply rebuked by Christ for vsing the sword in Peter all Pastors Bishops are straitly charged not to meddle with it Al that take the sword shall perish with the sword And of al men a Bishop must be no striker For if he that should feede his masters houshold fal to striking he shall haue his portion with hypocrites The seruants of God must be gentle towards all instructing those that resist with mildnes not cōpelling any with sharpnes Their function is limited to the preaching of the word dispensing the sacraments which haue no kinde of cōpulsion in thē but inuite men only by sober perswasions to beleeue imbrace the promises of God To conclude pastors may teach exhort reproue not force cōmand or reuenge only princes be gouernors that is publik magistrates to prescribe by their lawes and punish with the sword such as resist them within their dominions which Bishops may not do speake we truth or no Phi. We grant Bishops be no magistrates neither haue they to do with the bodies or goods of mē which god hath permitted to the princes power but yet they be gouernors of soules which princes be not Theo. No better reason to warrāt our opinion The Bishops charge concerneth the souls of mē but the soule of mā can neither be forced nor punished by man ergo Bishops be no commanders nor punishers but only directors instructors of the flocke of Christ. Phi. That we know The. Thē since by gouernors we mean rulers such as God hath authorized to bear the sword why do you fondly cauil that the princes power to cōmand punish excludeth the Bishops vocation to teach exhort which is nothing so Phi. You say princes may command and punish as well Bishops as others Theo. If they bee subiectes no lesse than others why should they not obey the prince or abide the sword as wel as others Phi. Do you make them meere subiects Theo. Not I but he that said You must be subiect not only for feare of wrath but also for conscience sake Phi. Doth he speake that of clergymē Theo. He y◠speaketh of al exempteth none Let euery soule bee subiect to the higher powers c. In these words clergymen be not excepted ergo cōprised Out of this place Bernard reasoneth thus with an archbishop of Frāce Let euery soul be subiect If euery thē yours Who doth except you y◠be bishops frō this general speech He that bringeth an exceptiō vseth but a delusion For these things saith Chrysostom are commanded to all as well Priestes and Monks as secular men which appeareth by the first sentence Let euery soule bee subiect to the superiour powers yea though thou be an Apostle an Euangelist a Prophet or what soeuer thou be So Theodorete Whether he be Priest Bishop or Monk let them be subiect to Magistrates This doctrine dured in the Church a thousand yeares before your exemption of Clerkes from secular powers as you call them was knowen Paul teacheth euerie soule saith Theophilact whether he be Priest Monk or Apostle to be subiect and obey Princes He teacheth euery soule saith Oecumenius whether he be Priest Monk or Apostle to submit themselues to Magistrates Gregorie the first perceiued and yeelded this exposition to be true Power saith he ouer all men is giuen to my Lord the Emperour from heauen And least you should thinke priests exempted in the person of Christ he speaketh thus to Mauritius the Emperour Sacerdotes meos tuae manui commisi I haue put my Priestes into thy handes and dost thou withhold thy souldiers from my seruice And elsewhere writing of the same prince Christ hath granted him to be ruler not ouer souldiers only but ouer Priestes also This is euident by the whole course of the Scripture Whom did our Sauiour charge to giue to Caesar that which was Caesars Not Scribes and high Priests as well as others Christ himselfe was a priest and a prophet and yet he not onely submitted himselfe to the Romane Magistrate but confessed the presidēts power ouer him to be from heauen S. Paul appealed vnto Caesar appeared before Caesar as his lawful gouernor S. Iude detested thē for false prophetes that despised gouernment or spake euil of rulers It is no Religion it is rebellion against God his word for clergie men to exempt themselues from the princes power The commandement is general Let euery soule be subiect◠the punishment is eternall Whosoeuer resisteth power resisteth the ordināce of God and they that resist shall receiue to themselues damnation Phi. Yet reason the clergie be fauoured aboue the Laitie Theo. Tush we talke not what fauour princes may do well to shew but whether Clergie men by Gods law may chalenge an exemption from earthly powers or no Phi. Not except princes commaund against God And if they do so whom must lay men obey God or man Phi. No doubt God Theo. Then the prince cōmaunding against God all men are bound be they lay men or clerkes to prefer the will of God before the princes lawes but when the prince ioyneth with God and commaundeth for truth may the clergie resist the prince more than the people may Phi. They may not Theo. You say well Of the twaine they must rather obey that they may be teachers of obedience not in wordes onely but in deedes also For if they must admonish others to be subiect to principalities and obedient to Magistrates then must they not hinder their doctrine by their doings nor leade the rest by their example to contemn or resist powers which they should reuerence and obey Phi. By no meanes Theo. And in case the prince be repugnant to God may priestes or people be violent withstanders or must they rather be patient indurers of the sword Phi. They must not resist but in patience possesse their soules They that resist shal receiue iudgemēt Theo. Ergo whether princes be with God or against God Priests Bishops must with gladnes obey or with meekenes abide the sword Phi. They must Theo. And he that suffereth is a subiect as wel as he that obeyeth For if they be rulers that commaund punish certainely they be subiects that must obey the commandement or abide the punishment Phi. I think so Theo. Then monks Prists Bishops by Gods law be subiects as well as others and consequently Princes be Gouernours of all persons within their dominions bee they Prelates Prophetes Apostles or whatsoeuer they be Phi. In temporal things we graunt but not in spiritual Theo. Where Princes may lawfully commaund all subiects of dewtie must obey Phi. True but in Ecclesiastical causes Princes may not meddle Theo. So say you but if I proue that the Princes power and charge by Gods law reacheth as well vnto matters of religion as other things will you bethink your selues
all Princes one that shall commaund them and depose them at his pleasure what else is this but a resisting of the powers which God hath ordained â—recting and 〈◊〉 in the Church of Christ without authoritie that vnder the couert of binding and feeding shall make him-selfe Lorde of all kingdomes and countries Phi. Supreme is the worde that wee most impugne Theo. And Supreme is the worde which you shall neuer ouerthrow being a plaine and manifest deduction out of the wordes of S. Paul Let euerie soule saith hee bee subiect to the superiour Powers If all men must be subiect to them ergo they be superiour to all and superiour to all is supreme Consult both your Seminaries and refell this one sequele if you can marie cauill not as your Apologie doeth that Supreme bringeth Christ and his Sainctes in subiection to Princes The Apostle speaketh of mortall men and so doe wee And in comparison with them if Sainct Pauls words be true that euery soule must be subiect to Princes as vnto Superiours our consequent is irrefutable that Princes be supreme Phi. S. Paul maketh them superiours ouer all persons but not ouer all thinges Theo. That distinction is ours not yours we did euer interprete supreme for superiour to all men within their dominions Phi. And so wee graunt them to bee but not in all thinges For in temporall thinges they be superiours to all men in spirituall they bee not Theo. That restraint commeth too late The holy Ghost charging you to be subiect to them simply without addition it passeth your reach to limit in what thinges you will and in what thinges you will not be subiect Againe wee haue inuinciblie proued and you haue clearely confessed that Princes may commaunde for trueth and that they beare the sworde for the perfect obseruation and execution of Gods lawe and publike defence of the faith and Cannons of the Church which bee thinges not temporall but spirituall and out of all question where they may by Gods law command all men must obey them not onely for feare of wrath but also for conscience sake Lastly what better proofe can you wish that in all thinges they bee superiours to all men than that their sworde may not bee resisted for any temporall or spirituall cause but must bee rather indured with meekenes reuerence though they persecute truth shew themselues enemies to God and his church For so the Lord in his owne person taught vs his Apostles after him in their writings sufferings followed the same course Phi. Had Heathen tyrantes lawfull power ouer Christ and his Apostles in spirituall thinges Theo. Lawfull power of the sworde to rewarde and punish they had ouer Christ and his Apostles in thinges and causes spiritual The Lord of grace and life being deliuered by the Priests to the Magistrate for blasphemie which is a spirituall crime refused not the iudge but submitting him-selfe to the Princes Deputie confessed Pilates power ouer him to bee from heauen notwithstanding Pilates sentence against him was wrongfull and wicked S. Paul imprisoned for preaching the Gospel required to be sent to Caesar and to make answere before Caesar concerning his doctrine and doings S. Peter patiently endured Neroes sword euen vnto death for teaching the trueth and warned all Christians to doe the like Let none of you suffer publike punishment as a murderer or as a theefe or a malefactour or as a medler with other mens matters but if any man suffer as a Christian that is for religion let him not be ashamed but glorifie God in this respect They that resist especially wheÌ„ they be punished for religioÌ„ shal receiue to themselues iudgement and damnation for God is then most dishonoured when wee make religion a buckler for rebellion If none must resist that suffer as christians ergo by Gods ordinance al men be subiect to the Princes sword euen in spirituall causes as well as in temporall Phi. To suffer but not to obey Theo. Suffering is as sure a signe of subiection as obeying And yet whom you must indure commaunding that which is euill in matters of religion those you must obey when they commaunde that which is good in the selfe same causes which you heard concluded out of S. Augustine before Whosoeuer will not obey the lawes of Emperors which are made for the truth of God incurreth a grieuous iudgement And againe When Emperours hold truth they commaund for truth which whosoeuer despiseth purchaseth to himselfe iudgement So that all men are bound to be subiect to the sword in all thinges be they temporall or spirituall not only by suffering but also by obeying mary with this caution that in thinges which bee good and agreeable to the law of God the sword must be obeyed in things that be otherwise it must be indured This then is the supreme power of Princes which we soberly teach and you so bitterly detest that they be Gods ministers in their owne dominions bearing the sword freely to permit and publikely to defend that which God commaundeth in faith and good manners and in ecclesiasticall discipline to receiue and establish such rules and orders as the Scriptures and Canons shal decide to be needfull and healthfull for the Church of God in their kingdomes And as they may lawfully commaund that which is good in all thinges and causes bee they temporall spirituall or ecclesiasticall so may they with iust force remoue whatsoeuer is erronious vitious or superstitious within their Landes and with externall losses and corporall paines represse the brochers and abetters of heresies and all impieties from which subiection vnto Princes no man within their Realmes Monke Priest Preacher nor Prelate is exempted and without their Realmes no mortall man hath any power from Christ iudicially to depose them much lesse to inuade them in open field least of al to warraÌ„t their subiectes to rebell against them These be the things which we contend for not whether Princes be Christs masters or the functions to preach baptise impose hands forgiue sinnes must be deriued from the Princes power and lawes or the Apostles might enter to conuert countries without Caesars delagations those bee iestes and shiftes of yours no braunches nor sequeles of our opinion You see the partes proofes of our doctrine neither draw back nor dally but go to the matter and say what fault you finde with our assertion Phi. The former branches of your assertion might be receiued if it were agreed by whom the sword should be directed We our selues confesse that the Princes sworde should permit defend and execute that which is good in all spirituall and ecclesiasticall thinges causes and iudgementes and repell and punish the contrarie But least Princes shoulde wade too farre or tread awry we would haue their swords guided and if need be restrained by such as haue greater experience and better intelligence in those affaires For ecclesiasticall rules and
loue may abound yet more and more in knowledge in all iudgement that you may discerne the thinges which are best He that is spirituall discerneth all thinges You may haue a thowsand like both places proofes that the faithfull should looke and take heede that they be not seduced And except you will excuse the people before God if you misleade them why should you bar them al trial vnderstanding whether they folow faith vnto saluation or withdraw theÌ„selues vnto perdition WheÌ„ the blind leadeth the blind and they fall both into the pit of destruction is not hee that followeth as sure to perish as he that leadeth Phi. We be content they shall bee discerners but no iudges of their Pastors Theo. And Bishops themselues be no iudges but discerners of truth Phi. We be froÌ„ the matter that we began with we were speaking of Princes The. We bee right enough Princes haue the same charge to obey the trueth beware false Prophets that priuate men haue ergo they must haue the same freedome to discerne spirites and refuse straunge doctrines that all the faithfull haue Christ hath not appointed one way for Princes an other for their people to come by the knowledge of his wil but the same way for both Ergo the precepts which I last alleadged also the former pertaine to Magistrates as well as to subiects to make the rule more generall in discerning beleeuing and obeying the truth there is no distinctions of persons with God Phi. We receiue your rule infer vpon it that these words of S. Paul Obey your rulers bind as well Princes as priuate men to be subiect to Bishops The. Take with you this limitation which haue spoken to you the word of God which S. Paul giueth euen in the same chap. infer what you can To Bishops speaking the worde of God Princes as wel as others must yeeld obedieÌ„ce but if Bishops passe their commission and speake besides the worde of God what they list both Prince and people may despise them With this limitation our Sauiour sent his Apostles into the worlde Go teach all Nations but what To obserue all things whatsoeuer I haue commaunded you And this the Apostles them-selues do not conceale in doing their message The word of the Lord saith Peter indureth for euer and this is the word which is preached among you That which we haue seene saith Iohn heard that declare we to you that ye may haue felloship with vs. Let a man saith Paul so think of vs as of the ministers of Christ stewards of the mysteries of God And as for the rest it is requisite in stewardes that euery man be found faithful And to the Galat. Though we our selues or an Angel from heauen preach vnto you otherwise than that we haue preached vnto you let him be accursed Preach I now man or God I certifie you brethren that the Gospel which was preached of me was not after maÌ„ for I neither receiued it of man neither was I taught it by maÌ„ but by the reuelatioÌ„ of Iesus Christ. And this maketh him so diligeÌ„tly distinguish the precepts of Christ from his own counsels To the maried I command not I but the Lord to the rest I speake and not the Lord Yea hee requireth of them no more but that they follow him so far forth as he followeth Christ Be ye followers of me eueÌ„ as I am of Christ that is no longer nor farther than I â—ollow Christ. Chrysostom alleadging the words of S. Paul Obey your ouerseeers doth thus limit them Si quidem fidei dogma peruertat etiamsi Angelus sit obedire noli But if hee peruert any point of faith though hee be an Angell obey him not And streight after Ne Paulo quidem obedire oportet si quid dixerit proprium si quid hymanuÌ„ sed Apostolo ChristuÌ„ in se loquenteÌ„ circumferenti We must not obey Paul himself if he speak any thing of his own or as a maÌ„ but we must obey the Apostle bearing Christ about that speaketh in him Nobis nihil ex nostro arbitrio indulgere licet It is not lawful for vs saith TertulliaÌ„ to deuise any thing of our selues nor to follow that which others haue deuised We haue the Apostles of the Lord for our authors who deuised nothing of their own heads but deliuered faithfully to the nations the doctrine which they receiued of Christ. Therfore though an Angel froÌ„ heauen should preach otherwise we should couÌ„t him accursed Euery teacher is a seruant of the law because he may neither ad of his own sense vnto the law nor according to his own coÌ„ceit take any thing froÌ„ the law but preach that onely which is founde in the law If Apostles and Angels bee tied to this condition much more others our first addition which speake vnto you the worde of God is euerywhere intended in the Bishops function though it be not expressed Phi. If Bishops then speake the word of God Princes must obey them The. If princes resist the word of truth in the Preachers mouth they resist not the messenger but the master that sent him Phi. Hence we conclude that Bishops be superiour to Princes Theo. By what Logicke Phi. Princes must obey Bishops speaking the word of God ergo Bishops be superiour to Princes Theo. If Bishops spake to Princes in their owne names your argument were somwhat but since they speak to them as seruants in their masters name which is Lord of all and ouer all your consequent is very foolish For let any Prince send his seruaÌ„t in a message to the Nobles of his Realm wil you reason thus The seruant speaking in the princes name that which is coÌ„manded him must be obeied of the Nobles ergo the seruaÌ„t is superiour to the Nobles I thinke you will not or if you do you reason very loosely Phi. If the seruant haue commission from the Prince though he be neuer so meane and the Nobles haue none well they may excell him in Nobilitie but sure he excelleth them in authoritie Theo. He doth in those thinges which his Commission reacheth vnto Phi. But Bishops haue commission from God to rule yâ— church ergo they be superior to princes in the regiment of the church Our assumptioÌ„ we proue by S. Paul Take heed to your selues to the whol flock wherin the holy Ghost hath placed you Bishops to rule the church of God Theo. Your lucke is euil to light on such vnperfect proofes I told you before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did signifie to feed the church or flocke of Christ not to rule You now catch hold of the same corruption againe make it the ground of your conclusion If you trust not vs your selues in your Rhemish Testament haue so translated the word in S. Peter Feed the flock of God which is amoÌ„g you which is in the Greeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
of Rome coulde not erre which your selues dare not saie and yet you woulde wring it out of Cyprians wordes But God be thanked Sainct Paul hath preuented your wicked interprise Writing to the whole church of Rome and giuing them their due praise for their deuotion and zeale and entering at last into the reiection of the Iewes for their vnbeliefe hee warneth expresly the Romanes in these wordes Boast not thy selfe against the braunches and if thou boast thy selfe thou bearest not the roote but the roote thee Thou wilt say the braunches are broken off that I might bee graft in Well through infidelitie they are broken off thou standest by faith Be not high minded but feare For if God spared not the naturall braunches take heed lest he spare not thee Behold therefore the goodnes and seuerity of God toward them which haue fallen seueritie but towards thee goodnes if thou continue in his goodnes otherwise thou also shalt be cut off Whether the Apostle spake generally to the Gentiles and inclusiuely to the Romanes or namely to the Romanes and proportionablie to the rest it is all one to vs one of the twaine hee must needes Origen saith vppon these wordes of Paul I say to you Gentiles Now he plainely turneth his speech to the Gentiles but chiefly to those of the citie of Rome that beleeued S. Paul speaking to the Romanes no man may except the Romanes and they being included his admonition to them feare and beware least was vtterly superfluous if there coulde bee no daunger in them of swaruing from the faith and the condition implied otherwise if thou continue not and the commination annexed thou also shalt be cut off were both ridiculous and odious if it were not possible for them to fal or to be cut off Fight not therefore against the holy Ghost with broken reedes caught here and there out of the Fathers works Looke rather in time to this watchword which the apostle giueth you feare and take heede otherwise thou also shalt be cut off And marke his reason If the naturall braunches may be broken off much more the wild which were planted but in their steedes Phi. If that had beene the Apostles meaning doe you thinke the Fathers would haue gainesaide it Theo. I thinke they would not and I see they doe not and that maketh mee to interprete Cyprian in such sort as hee may agree with himselfe and not confront S. Paul Phi. His wordes do surely leane on our side Theo. They fit your humor and in that respect you be eger on them Otherwise I haue cleared Cyprian both of that speech of that intent And were you not vnshamefast wranglers you would perceiue that the ordinary vse of the phrase both in diuine and humane writinges doth acquite him of that opinion which you inforce vpon him But such is your profession you must go on as you haue begun Phi. If one alone had saide it we would not vrge it so often but S. Hierom hath likewise testified the same Know you that the Romane faith commended by the Apostles mouth will receiue no such deceites nor can be possibly changed though an Angell from heauen taught otherwise being fensed by S. Pauls authority Tom. 2. Apolog. aduers. Ruff. lib. 3. cap. 4. Theo. If S. Hierom say the same that Cyprian did he must be taken and vnderstood as Cyprian was and so you ease me of that labour Phi. He saith the same in effect but his words are more forcible Theo. That is your wilfulnesse in peruerting and racking the words of S. Hierom is more sensible For S. Hierom speaketh not one word of the persons that they shall neuer fall from the faith but auoucheth only that the doctrine which was first preached at Rome and then continued was so exact and perfect that an Angell from heauen might not bee heard against it And to this ende hee saide Scito Romanam fidem Apostolica voce laudatam istiusmodi praestigias non recipere etiamsi Angelus de coelo aâ—â—ter annunciet quam semel praedicatum est Pauli authoritate munitaÌ„ noÌ„ posse mutari Know you that the Romane faith commeÌ„ded by the Apostles voice receiueth no such delusions and that being armed with Pauls authority it may not bee changed if an Angell from hauen doe preach otherwise than once was preached Phi. You run againe to your former interpretation Non posse mutari it may not be changed in steede of it can not be changed Theo. Use which you will so you grant which I fully proued before that non posse doth vsually signifie as well that which is vnlawfull as that which is vnpossible Phi. I know non possum is vsed diuersely but how doth that answere S. Hierom Theo. You take hâ—lde of a word in Hierom which in all mens speech and writinges hath diuerse and sundrie significations by your owne confession and then you maruell why we doe not receiue the vntruest and vnlikeliest of them all for your pleasures without any farther proofe Non possum doth import that which is either vnpossible vnlawfull inconuenient or any waie impugnant to the ful persuasion and determination of our mindes as the places before alleadged doe manfestly declare and in all those accidentes our common speech is may be non possum I can not You would now by a text of Hieroms where he saith Romanam fidem non posse mutari etiam si Angelus de caelo c. The Romane faith may not or can not be charged though an Angel came from heauen infer that the Romanes vntill the worldes end can not possibly choose but abide in the same faith which was first deliuered them and that doe what they will to the contrarie they must be preserued in Christes trueth This is wee say a shamefull violence offered to Hieroms wordes against all learning against his meaning and against the spirit of God speaking in S. Paul First the wordes non posse mutari receiue both constructions a like that is either a change of the faith can neuer happen in the Romanes which is your sense or else their faith can not possibly bee changed without incurring infidelitie which is ours For it ceaseth to bee faith when once it is changed Next S. Hierom speaketh not of the persons but of the thing hee doth not say the Romanes can not change their mindes but the faith which was deliuered them in no wise may be chaunged And why Because it is the truth of God which neuer changeth Againe the authoritie of Paul writing to the Galathians which Hierom citeth doth not warrant that the Romanes shal not fall but onely that the faith once preached may not be changed though an Angell from heauen should attempt it especially since the Apostle commended the doctrine which they reserued to be the true christian faith What reason then haue you besides your parcial affectioÌ„ to the See of Rome to draw these words from their natiue sense
the Prophetes of Baal were conuicted to bee but false deceiuers and the whole assemblie fell on their faces and gaue the glorie to GOD and submitted themselues to followe his trueth Elias willed them to take Baals Prophetes and giue them the rewarde that deceiuers by Gods Lawe shoulde haue which was death Phi. This is your enlarging of the text Theo. The bookes of kinges are but short gatherings out of the larger Chronicles that were extant among the Iewes and the manner of the holy Ghost is briefly to touche the chiefest thinges and yet is there none of these partes but may bee plainely prooued by the circumstaunces of the text Phi. Howe prooue you the King consented Theo. The particular speach of no one is reported but the generall consent of the whole companie Where also the king was present is expressed and yet before the multitude was assembled the Kinges consent to Elias offer appeareth in that the king sent vnto all the children of Israel and gathered the Prophetes together for that purpose who woulde otherwise haue despised the message and woorde of Elias Againe the Prophetes of Baal woulde neuer haue ventered their liues vpon a needlesse miracle at Elias pleasure but the King and the whole Realme tied them to that condition vppon daunger else to reiect both them and their profession And lastly howe was it possible for one poore Prophet to catch and kill foure hundred and fiftie so that not a man of them escaped the king and the whole State standing with them Or howe was it lawfull for Elias to spill their bloud in the kinges presence without the kings consent Elias therefore made the motion which the king and the whole Realme there assembled did accept and ratifie with this answere It is well spoken and as hee should haue lost his life if hee had failed so when they fayled hee required iustice to bee done by the king and the Realme on them for that they were clearly conuicted to bee teachers of strange and false Gods Phi. Achab when he came home told Iezabel his wife how Elias had slaine all the Prophets with the sword Theo. Achab wee doubt not excused him selfe and cast the fault as much as hee coulde on Elias that Iezabels Prophets were slaine but this doth not shew that Achab did not consent His woords import that Elias was the procurer causer of their destruction but not the iudge nor officer that put them to death Phi. The Scripture sayth hee slew them Theo. So the Scripture sayth that Solomon buylt GOD an house thinke you therefore that Solomon was a Mason or Carpenter And Ioshua smote the fiue kinges of the Amorites and hanged them on fiue trees did Ioshua therefore play the hangman And king Roboam made shildes of brasse was Roboam therefore a brasse-smith Phi. No they commaunded or caused these thinges to bee done Theo. And so did Elias procure or cause them to bee slaine for in the Scripture the causer procurer and director are sayd to doe the deede though they bee but meanes and helpes to haue it done But what is this to the deposing of Princes Will you reason thus False Prophets may bee put to death my magistrates ergo Princes may bee deposed by priests I thinke you will not for very shame make such childish conclusions Phi. He himselfe slue king Ochasias his Captaines and messengers wasting them and an hundreth of their trayne by fire from heauen Theo. Elias was the speaker of the woorde but God was the doer of the deede and in that case God himselfe slue them and not Elias Phi. Hee called for fire from heauen Theo. Fire from heauen was not in Elias power but in Gods will Neither might Elias had he not been guyded by the speciall instinct of Gods Spirit haue presumed to call for that or any other kinde of reuenge from heauen for that is the manifest tempting of God as our Sauiour warned his Apostles when hee rebuked them for offering to imitate Elias and to call for fire from heauen as he did And sure it is as these thinges were not ordinarie so can you driue them to no conclusion for your purpose nor lay them forth for imitation to any no more than you may warrant men to steale because Israel robbed Egypt by Gods appointment or to perswade any to murder themselues because Samson did the like or teach them to curse kil children because Elizeus handled two and fourtie so that mocked him at Bethel And yet all this while you shew not that Elias so much as touched the king much lesse deposed him which you professe to proue Phi. Elias had commission to annoynt Hazael king of Syria and Iehu king of Israel and so to put downe the sonne and whole house of Achab which thereby lost all the tytle and right to the kingdome for euer Theo. Neither of them was annointed by Elias neither Hazael nor Iehu Elizeus only foretold Hazael that he should be king in Benhadads place His wordes were The Lord hath shewed me that thou shalt be king of Aram This Elizeus spake the day before Benhadad died and other annointing Hazael had none Iehu was indeed annointed by one of the Children of the Prophets whom Elizeus sent and charged by message from God to smite destroy the whole house of Achab his master and so he did For hee slew Ioram the King trod Iesabel vnder his horse feete and caused the seuentie sonnes of Achab that were nourced in Samaria to be slaine and slew all that remained of the house of Achab in Izrael and all that were great with him and his familiars and his Priests so that he let none of his remaine Phi. Then yet here was one king deposed Theo. Here was no king deposed by any Prophet but one slaine by Iehu to whom God gaue the Kingdome of Achab for this intent that he should roote out the whole house and offspring of Achab. Phi. Did Iehu well to kill his master and to take the kingdome from him and his heires Theo. Being expresly commanded thereto by God himselfe he did but his dutie For God may take and giue Kingdomes as hee will though man may not Phi. Authoritie so to doe Iehu receaued from Eliseus Theo. Unsay that for feare least you fal into a malicious and wicked vntruth The Prophet that annointed Iehu beganne his message with Thus saith the Lord God of Israel and not thus saith Elizeus Phi. But Elizeus sent him and gaue him instructions what to doe and what to say Theo. Let that bee so Then Elizeus taught him to doe this errand in Gods name and not in his own and consequently Iehu receiued authoritie from God and not from man Now view your argument God may giue kingdomes to whom he will and appoint the subiect to be the reuenger of his masters sinne ergo the Pope may do the like Be you not
opinion is common but not currant with vs If you meane to proue it you shall haue the longer and stiller audieÌ„ce Phi. S. Peter being but a meere spiritual officer and Pastor of mens soules yet for sacrilege and simulation stroke dead both man and wife S. Paul stroke blind Elymas the Magician So did he threaten to come to his contemners in rod of discipline So did be excoÌ„municate a Principal person in Corinth for incest not only by spiritual punishment but also by bodily vexation giuing him vp to Satans chastisement As he corporally also corrected and molested with an euill spirit Himeneus and Alexander for blasphemie and heresie Finally he boldly auoucheth that his power in God is to reuenge al disobedience and to bring vnder all loftie hearts to the loialtie of christ and of the Apostles and Sainctes in this life Nescitis quoth he quoniam Angelos iudicabimus quanto magis secularia knowe you not that wee shall iudge Angels how much more secular matters Theo. Such dissolute mariners were neuer like but to make such desperate aduentures You shoulde proue that spirituall Pastours haue power to sease the goods and possessions and chastise the bodies of such as they excommunicate and you shewe where God afflicted those for their sinnes which the Apostles cast out of the Church either with euill spirites or some corporall plague or death as hee sawe cause which is not pertinent to your purpose Can you not distinguish the finger of God from the factes of men Or see you no difference between miraculous vengeance from heauen and iudicial processe on earth God strake Ananias dead for tempting him in Peter and Elymas for resisting him in Paul May Preachers therefore putte out mens eyes and murther such as beleeue them not In deede you practise this new kinde of preaching but not by warrant from Christ or his Apostles Philand Did not Peter kill Ananias and Sapphira with his worde Theo. And since you can not do the like with your words you will take helpe of your handes Phi. With wordes or handes so they bee slaine all is one Theo. Not so The one is a miracle wrought by God the other is a murder committed by man which God prohibiteth and of all other thinges ought to bee farthest from the Preachers of peace Phi. Peter did so Theo. Peter reproued them for tempting the holie Ghost but the hande of God and not of Peter inflicted the punishment Reade the place Then saide Peter Ananias why hath Satan filled thine heart that thou shouldest he vnto the holie Ghost Thou hast not lied vnto men but vnto God Nowe when Ananias hearde these words saith the Scrâ—pture hee fell downe and gaue vppe the Ghost I aske not what faâ—t of Peters you finde that shoulde hasten the death of Ananias but what one worde purporting any such thing can you shewe vs in all that Peter saide to Ananias Phi. In his wordes to Sapphira wee can For hee saide to her The feete of them that haue buried thine husband are at the doore and shall carrie thee out Theo. Did Peter by these words kill her or foretell her that God would doe to her as hee had doone to her husbande Phi. Which say you Theo. Peter we say neither desired nor inflicted that iudgement on them but onely signified what God would doe The like we saie for Paul when Elymas was stroken blind He warned that Sorcerer what should befall him from God but himselfe did neither enuie nor iniurie the Sorcerers eyes His wordes were Wilt thou not cease to peruert the streight waies of the Lord Now therefore behold the hand of the Lord is vpon thee and thou shalt be blind not seeing the Sunne for a time Paul denounced Paul imposed not that corporall chastisement on him The deede was Gods who may iustly take from his enemies not onely their eies but their breathes and spirits when he wil and in what sort it pleaseth best his righteous and sacred wisedome Phi. But Paul himselfe corporallie corrected and molested with an euill spirite Himineus and Alexander for blasphemie and heresie So did he excommunicate a Principal Person in Corinth for incest not onely by spiritual punishment but also by bodilie vexation giuing him vp to Satans chastisement Theo. You drawe the word of God to your fansies by turning doubtes into certaineties antecedentes into consequentes mans actions into Gods iudgementes That the Apostle deliuered Himineus and Alexander vnto Satan and so the incestuous Corinthian whom you of your owne head without any witnesse call a Principal Person in Corinth because the slide you saw was easie from Principall to Princes is a matter out of question but that he corporally corrected and molested them with euil spirites these be your additamentes wherewith you thought to lengthen the text to your own liking Phi. S. Paul gaue iudgement of the Corinthian that he should bee deliuered vnto Satan for the destruction of the flesh And how could the flesh be destroied without bodily vexation affliction The. This phrase for the destruction of the flesh hath diuerse expositions therefore vpon a doubtful kinde of speech you can not build an vndouted conclusion S. Ambrose expoundeth the place thus The Apostle decreed that by the consent in the presence of all men he should be cast out of the Church Cum eijcitur traditur Satanae in interitum carnis Et anima enim corpus intereunt His casting him out of the Church is the deliuering of him to Satan to the destruction of the whole man which is nothing but flesh For both soule and bodie perish And lest you shoulâ— thinke it much that the soule is called fleshe he giueth this reason Victa anima libidine carnis fit caro the soule once ouercome by the lustes of the flesh becommeth flesh and is in the Scripture so commonly called the lusts of the flesh deliuereth the soule defiled with it and also the body to hell Phi. But S. Paul addeth that the spirite may bee saued in the day of our Lord Iesus Christ which can not stand with this exposition that both fleshe spirit were deliuered vnto perdition Theo. The same father will tell you that the spirit may be referred not to him that was excluded but to the rest that remained in the church as if S. Paul should haue saide I haue decreed to cast this vncleane person out from among you to his iust condemnation that the grace of Gods spirit may be preserued in the rest of you to the day of iudgement The same Sainct Augustine followeth What spirite doeth the Apostle affirme shoulde bee preserued when he saieth I haue deliuered that man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh c. The destruction of the flesh ment in this place is a man addicted to pleasures and fleshly delightes purchaseth hell to himselfe For by such sinnes the whole man becommeth
peeces to set vp the image of himselfe which God ouerthrew with fire froÌ„ heauen not in defence of the brasen shape but of his holy name prophaned and illuded by this Apostata Phi. This image the Apostles sawe and suffered Theo. A memoriall of their masters act not abused by the people and erected before they came to preach the Gospell to that place they might suffer but they neuer taught men to make the like nor allowed any to worshippe that Phi. Wee thinke they learned the setting vppe of this image from the Apostles Theo. Eusebius sayth they did it of an heathenish custome and not of an Apostolike instruction His wordes are And no maruell that the Heathens which were healed of our Sauiour did him this honour for so much as wee haue seene the images of his Apostles Paul and Peter and of Christ himselfe drawen in colours and kept in tables which kinde of honour antiquitie of a custome which they vsed when they were heathens was wont to yeelde to such as they counted Benefactors Sauiors Phi. By that you see the images of Christ his Apostles were expressed in colours and reserued by the auncient christians long before Eusebius Theo. Eusebius doeth not report it as a thing either openly receiued in Churches or generally vsed of all christians but as a secrete and seldome matter rising from the perswasion and affection of some which whiles they were heathen had yeelded that honour to other of their friendes fautors to whom they were most beholding For had the Apostles deliuered any such tradition or the Primatiue church of Christ vsed any publike erection of images as you suppose would the councell of Eliberis in Spaine assembled about the time of Constantine the great in plaine words haue banished them out of their churches Placuit picturas in ecclesiis esse non debere ne quod colitur aut adoratur in parietibus dâ— pingatur We haue decreed that pictures ought not to be in the churches lest that which is worshipped or adored be painted on walles Woulde S. Augustine thinke you haue pronounced them worthy to erre which sought Christ his Apostles in pictures paintings if the people had bin taught that way to seeke him Sic omnino errare meâ—uerunt qui Christum Apostolos eius non in sanctis codicibus sed in pictis parietibus quaesierunt So they deserued to erre which sought Christ and his Apostles not in the sacred Scriptures but in paynted walles Or would Epiphanius haue rent the image which he found hanging in the church by Ierusalem and pronounced such painted imagery notwithstanding it represented Christ or one of his Sainctes to be contrary to the Scriptures to the religion of Christ. His words are When I entered the church to pray I found hanging there in the enterance of the saide church a stained and a painted cloath hauing the image as it were of Christ or one of the Sainctes When I sawe this that against the authoritie of the Scriptures the image of a man was hanged vp in the church I did teare it in sunder And I pray you hereafter to command that such cloathes repugnant to our religion be not hanged in the church of Christ. It becommeth your fatherhood rather to haue this care to banish this superstition vnfit for Christes church and for the people committed to your charge By this you may see that images were not receiued much lesse adored in the church of Christ whiles these ancieÌ„t fathers liued and that to remoue them and keepe them out of the church was then adiudged a seemely care for Christian Bishoppes agreeable with the Catholike profession and publike vse of the church of Christ in those dayes Phi. Gregorie the first you know was of an other minde that images should be suffered and not defaced in the church Theo. Gregorie liued 300. yeares after the councell of Eliberis and 200. after Epiphanius in which time the painting of stories was crept into the church as an ornament for the naked walles and a meane to set before the peoples eyes the liues and labours of the Sainctes and Martyrs but that pictures or images in the church shoulde bee worshipped or adored Gregorie did in most manifest words abhorre alleadging the law of God which we do that nothing made with hands should be adored or serued Phi. Not with diuine honor Theo. You meane with no part of that honor which God requireth of vs. Phi. What else They must not haue diuine honour in whole or in part Theo. Then must they haue none at all For God requireth bodily honor no lesse than ghostly as due to him and by his law excludeth all thinges made with handes from hauing either in saying Thou shalt not bow down to them nor serue them Phi. Bowing the knee is not diuine honour but such as wee yeeld to Parents Magistrates Theo. Bowing the knee is a part of Gods honor as also holding vp the handes and lifting vp the eyes To me saith God shall euery knee bow For this cause saith Paul doe I know my knees vnto the father of our Lord Iesus Christ shewing that the bowing of our knees is an honour due to God euen as the lifting vppe of our handes and eyes belongeth likewise vnto him As long as I liue sayeth Dauid I will magnifie thee on this maner and lift vp my handes in thy name I will sayeth the Apostle that the men pray euerie where lifting vp pure handes And so for the rest Vnto thee saith Dauid do I lift vp mine eyes thou that dwellest in the heauens And againe Mine eyes are euer vnto the Lord. And so of our Sauiour when he praied S. Iohn reporteth He lift vp his eyes to heauen and saide The outward honor therefore of eyes handes kneâ—s God requireth of vs as his due though chiefly and principally the heart which he will not suffer any man to haue besides himselfe howsoeuer he allow those that present his goodnesse and glorie in blessing and iudging as Parents and Magistrates to haue some part of his corporall but in no wise of his spirituall honour Phi. And so many images haue part of his external though not of his internal honour which is the higher of the twaine and meeter for the diuine maiesty Theo. It is not in your handes to make allowance of Gods honour to whome you list and againe God himselfe hath made a plaine prohibition in this case that images shall haue no part of his externall honour The wordes are as cleare as day light thou shalt not bow downe to them Phi. Not to the images of false Gods Theo. It is but lost labor to reason with such wranglars Haue not I mainly proued that this precept expressely forbiddeth the Image of the true God to be made or bowed vnto Why then take you vp those shifts againe which be false and refuted
more than Tradition for the baptizing of children If any man sayth he seâ—ke for diuine authoritie in this matter we may truely coniecture by circuÌ„cision what effect the Sacrament of baptisme hath in infants vsing a very forcible argumeÌ„t in this case that if children might receiue the seale of the former couenant vnder Moses why not of the later established in the blood of Christ Phi. He saith we may coniecture it but he doth not say we may proue it Theo. He repeateth the reason with Veraciter conijcere possumus We may very truly coniecture and a true coniecture is no vntrue persuasion but as I said it was not then in doubt and therefore no maruaile if that Learned father laboured not that question to the depth Had it beene denyed as in our dayes it is he woulde haue founde the same scriptures to confirme it that we doe And to say the trueth his euident illations out of the Scriptures that baptisme is needfull for Infants make sufficient demonstration that baptisme is lawfull for Infants els it would follow that no child might be saued which is an hainous and monsterous error directly fighting with the manifest scriptures For where without baptisme they cannot be saued by reason original sin is not remitted but in baptisme as S. Austen concludeth out of the wordes of our Sauiour Except a man be borne of water and of the spirite he cannot enter the kingdome of God If children be excluded from baptism they be consequently excluded from the kingdome of God which is flatly repugnant to the word of God Phi. It is no meaning of ours to exclude children from baptisme but to let you vnderstand that you cannot shew by the Scriptures that children were baptized Theo. I graunt we cannot and adde we neede not The Scriptures we say containe al matters of faith not of fact That children were baptized we proue by the practise of Christes Church and not by the scriptures That children may bee baptized we proue not only by the Tradition of the Apostles but also by the sequele of the Scriptures themselues Our Sauiour saith of Children It is not the will of your father which is in heauen that one of these litle ones should perishe Now choose you whether they shall be saued without baptisme or perishe for lacke of baptisme Againe the Lord saith Suffer the litle children and forbid them not to come vnto me for the kingdome of heauen belongeth vnto such They must enter the kingdome of God before they can possesse it and enter it they cannot vntill they be new borne of water and the holy Ghost Now say wil you exclude them from that which God hath prouided for them or will admitte them to be heires with Christ before they bee engraffed into Christ by Baptisme The Apostle saith to the great comforte of all Christian Parents The vnbeleeuing husband is sanctified by the wife that beleeueth and the vnbeleeuing wife is sanctified by the husband that beleeueth els were your children vncleane but nowe are they holy This is spoken not of the secret election of the faithfull which is neither common to all nor knowen to any but of their Christian profession whereby they be called to be Sainctes that is an holy peculiar people vnto God For al things be holy that be dedicated to his vse this kinde of holines S. Paul deriueth from the roote to the branches If the roote be holy so are the branches If then Infants be partakers of the same vocation holynes with their parents without baptisme which is the seale of Gods couenaÌ„t with vs in the blood of his sonne neither we nor our children can be holy surely the children of Sainctes if they be excluded from baptisme are as vnholy and vncleane as the children of Infidels which vtterly subuerteth sainct Pauls Doctrine If to auoide this place you suppose holinesse to bee meant of the inward satisfaction of Gods spirite besides that children drawe inward corruption not holinesse from their Christian Parents yet this way wee also conclude that Children must bee Baptized for where the spirite of God is precedent the seruice of man must bee consequent as sainct Peter teacheth Can any man forbid water that these shoulde not bee baptized which haue receiued the holy Ghost So that take which you will and say what you can our conclusion is vnmoueable And since children bee defiled by Adam if they may not bee washed by Christ the disobedience of man shal bee mightier vnto condemnation than the grace of God and obedience of Christ vnto iustification which the Scriptures reiect as a wicked absurditie Wherefore the church absolutely and flatly may not assure saluation to children vnbaptized lest they seeme naturally innocent or generally sanctified without baptisme albeit their Parents desiring and seeking it if they bee preuented by mortall necessitie wee must leaue them to the goodnes and secret election of God not without hope because in their Parents there wanted no wil but an extremitie disappointed them and in the children the let was weaknes of age not wickednes of heart and so the sacrameÌ„t omitted not for any contempt of religion but by strictnes of time in which cases S. Augustine confesseth the want of baptisme may be supplied if it so please God mary they may not chalenge it nor we promise it Much more might bee sayde but I content my selfe with the former reasons till you refute them And hauing the certaine practise of the Apostles in baptizing Infants witnessed by the Church of Châ—ist and deliuered vnto the Church for the confirmation of those thinges which we alleage wee count them irrefutable Philand Neither doe I mislike the thing but I muse why Saint Augustine claymed wholy by Tradition if so much Scripture might bee brought for the matter Theoph. Expresse precept to baptize infantes or plaine example where they were baptized the scripture hath none and therefore Saint Augustine did well to reuerence the Tradition which hee sawe was Apostolike and if any man vrge vs to prooue that children were baptized wee must flee to the same Tradition with him But if it bee impugned as a thing vnlawfull and dissonant from the Scriptures we must then lift the ground of that Tradition by the scriptures because it toucheth the saluation or condemnation of Christian Infants And so would S. Austen haue exactly and learnedly doone wee doubt not if that point had beene controuersed in his time Philand Hee woulde you say but hee did not wee knowe and that causeth vs to take it for an vnwritten Tradition Theoph. A tradition we grant but agreeable to the Scriptures And though Saint Austen doe not say so that is no reason for you to conclude it is not so silence is no proofe Nay if hee had called it an vnwritten Tradition as hee doeth not that were no let but it might be confirmed by the scriptures
failing or changing Phi. That we beleeue Theo. How theÌ„ can the manhood of Christ be in many places at one time Or how can it in any place or time be without shape quantitie circumscription and such like proprieties of mans nature Phi. In heauen it hath them Theo. If they can not be changed or altered the manhoode of Christ must haue them not in heauen only but in earth also in euery place where the substance of his bodie is Philand Saue in the Sacrament Theophi If that be the same bodie which was on the Crosse it must haue the same natural proprieties of a body which that had Phi. It hath as many as it may Theo. It must haue as many as it should Phi. Which be they Theo. Proportion of shape distinction of parts extension of quantitie circumscription of place and the very same substance of fleshe which hee tooke of his mother Marie Phi. You name these things which you see bee not in the Sacrament Theophi I name those which the manhood of Christ must haue wheresoeuer it be Phi. Must haue What necessitie is in that Theo. As much as the denying of your faith contradicting of his trueth For these proprieties the body had that hung on the Crosse and without these hee can be no true man Philan. In heauen we tell you he hath them Theophil And in the Sacrament wee tell you â—ee hath them not Ergo the manhoode of Christ is not in the Sacrament Phi. Cannot Christ be where he list without those consequents Theo. His bodie can not Phi. Doe not you nowe deny him to be omnipotent Theophi Doe not you now alleadge his power to frustrate both his will and your faith Philand You hold christ cannot if he would Theo. We say christ would not though he could And since his will is euident by his worde as our common faith auoucheth you doe wickedly to crosse his will with his power and make his might attendant on your follies Dei velle posse est non posse nolle The power of God which we must stand on is his wil and that which he will not that he cannot You must not therefore imagine what you list and then ground vpon the power and strength of GOD it is error and impietie whatsoeuer is repugnant to his trueth and to father your falsehoodes on his almightie power is irreuerent and insolent blasphemie Phi. You doe not so much as confesse that he can doe it and that causeth vs to suspect you doubt of Gods omnipotencie Theo. Because we suffer you not to vnload your absurdities and impieties on Gods power at your pleasures Philand First graunt hee can doe it and of that wee will commune afterward Theo. What shall I graunt Phi. That Christ according to his corporall presence may be in many places at one time if it please him Theo. What then shal become of S. Austen that said Christ could not concerning his corporall presence be at one time in the sunne in the moone and on the crosse And of S. Cyril affirming that Christ could not be conuersant with his Apostles after he once ascended If hee could not bee in three places at one time how could hee bee in moe If not in earth when he was in heauen how both in heauen and earth as you your selues conceiued and woulde haue vs confesse And yet the thing which we withstand is far more impossible than this For the manhoode of Christ by the tenour of the christian faith hath and must haue after his ascension humane shape partes length breadth both extended circumscribed and otherwise to thinke is the wicked and cursed opinion of Eutyches condemned long since by the church of God for a meere impietie You to auoide the burdeÌ„ of that sentence confes these properties are must be permaneÌ„t in the body which our sauiour tooke of the virgin wherein he now sitteth at the right hand of God his father marie the selfesame bodie you defend to bee in the sacrament without shape partes length or breadth either extended or circumscribed which is wee say simplie impossible For shaped not shaped extended not extended circumscribed not circumscribed be plaine contradictions those of one thing at one time are not possible Phi. Is any thing impossible to God Theo. Doth not the Apostle say Negare seipsum non potest God cannot deny himselfe Impossibile est Deum mentiri it is impossible that God should lie S. Austen well noteth Dicitur omnipotens faciendo quod vult non patiendo quod non vult vnde propterea quaedam non potest quia est omnipotens God is said to be omnipotent in doing that he will not in suffering that hee will not And therefore can he not doe some things because he is omnipotent And S. Ambrose likewise Quid ergo ei impossibile Non quod virtuti arduum sed quod naturae eius contrarium What then is impossible to God not that which passeth his power but that which is contrarie to his nature Impossibile istud non infirmitatis sed virtutis maiestatis quia veritas non recipit mendacium nec Dei virtus leuitatis errorem This impossibilitie proceedeth not of infirmitie but of might and maiestie because the trueth of God admitteth not a lie nor the power of God any note of inconstancie So that all changes against his nature or falshoods against his trueth bee vtterly impossible to GOD and that because hee is almighty Phi. That we know Theo. Then this also you must needs know that contradictions be impossible for of theÌ„ if one part be true the other is euer false and that God should be false it is not possible You must therfore either with Eutyches affirme the manhood of christ to be changed from his former shape partes quantitie and circumscription and consequently from his former substance or els against religion and learning reason and sense defend contradictions that is trueth and falshoode to bee possible both at one time which is nothing but to make God a liar in his workes as you be in your wordes for maintaining that error Phi. At diuers times and in 〈…〉 contradictions may bee true Theo. There can be but one part 〈…〉 other at the same instant is ineuitablie false and as for your 〈…〉 the proprieties of christes bodie which wee speake of bee absâ—lute and inherent necessities no relations nor comparisons you may keepe them for some better â—art in this assertion they will doe you no seruice Phi. What if we say the bodie of christ in the Sacrament hath the same proportion of shape extension of partes and circumscription of place which it hath in heauen how can you refell vs Theo. Neuer take the paiâ—es to incur new contradictions a shorter answer will serue you for all and that is say you beleeue you cannot tell what For otherwise men
inter se habuerunt were this notwithstanding ioyned in communion pacem in vniuersa Ecclesia tum seruantes tum non seruantes retinuerunt and both sides kept the band of peace in the Catholike Church For the discrepant obseruation of fasting before Easter he saith the like Alij vnum sibi diem ieiunandum esse putant alij duos alij plures alij quadraginta horas Nihilo minus tamen omnes illi pacem inter se retinuerunt retinemus etiamnuÌ„ dissonantia ieiunij fidei concordiam commendat Some fast one daie some two dayes some more some fourtie houres and yet all these continued in peace among themselues and to this day we continue the same and our difference in fasâ—â—â—g commendeth our concord in faith Socrates hath a whole chapter purposely made to shew what diuersitie there was in the Church of Christ about Lent the Lordes Supper marying baptizing praying fasting and such like Ecclesiasticall obseruances and yet all those places and countries parts of the Catholik Church and communicant one with an other in Christian peace and vnitie Operosum molestum fuerit imò impossibile omnes ecclesiarum quae per ciuitates regiones sunt ritus conscribere It were an hard and laborious thing saith he yea an impossible to write al the different customes and manners of the Churches in euerie citie and countrie Qui eiusdem sunt fidei de ritibus inter se dissentiunt They that are of the same faith differ in their rites So that this is no breach of the Christian and Catholike communion which all the faithfull ought to keepe among themselues with their head the author and finisher of their faith Phi. It openeth the gappe to all kinde of diuisions schismes sectes and disorders Theo. Why so Because your holy father can not marchandize the soules empt the purses of men as he was wont to do What Sectes Schismes disorders or heresies can there arise if we defend it lawfull for Princes to commaÌ„d for truth within their own Realmes Nay rather hath not the subiecting of Princes to the Popes pride wrought the vtter ruine and decaie of the West Church Where Rulers be many it is easie to finde some good and they wil resist that which is euill and reforme that which is amisse where one ruleth al if he fal as he quickly may he draweth the whole Church into the same danger and error with him Phi. But the successour of Peter can not erre and therefore the Church is safest when it is ruled by him for whose faith Christ praied that it might not faile Theo. Proue that the Pope can not erre and we will graunt not onely this but all your religion besides to be true Phi. What you wil not Theo. The word is spoken accept the condition when you list Till you do we prefer Cyprians iudgement before yours Therefore deare brother saith he writing to Stephanus Bishop of Rome is there a plentifull number of Priestes in the church ioyned togither with the knot of mutuall concorde and bande of peace that if any of our companie make a breach and rent and wast the the flocke of Christ the rest should helpe and as profitable and pitifull Pastours reduce the Lordes sheepe to the flocke againe The number of Rulers in his opinon is no cause of sectes and dissentions but rather a remedie prouided in the Church against disorder and heresie Phi. It maketh all Christian Bishops Priestes and whatsoeuer borne out of the Realme forrainers and vsurpers in all iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall towardes vs that there can be no iurisdiction ouer English-mens soules but proceeding and depending of her soueraigne right therein Theo. Your force is almost spent when you come to these frozen and woodden obiections Wee call those that were borne and liue out of the Realme forrainers What else should wee call them And such as pretend Peters keies to dispose crownes and remoue Princes from their seates ioyning rebellion with remission of sinnes we thinke them vsurpers and abusers of Ecclesiastical iurisdiction A maruelous ouersight in deed We might haue spared you some sharper and quicker termes but by these wee thought good to manifest to the world your iniurious and irreligious drift to be masters of earthly kingdomes by winding and turning Peters keies at your pleasure Phi. Your words exclude Christ his Apostles in as much as they were and be forrainers from hauing any iurisdiction ouer England Theo. It is pitie you can not cauil We striue for iudicial authoritie to depriue Princes you vrge vs with Apostolike power to preach the Gospell and remit sinnes Wee speake of that which is at this present you tell vs what was fifteene hundred yeares since We reason of States in earth you run to Saints in heauen We reiect the Bishop of Rome you wrangle with vs as though wee refused the sonne of God Doth not matter faile you when you flie for helpe to such vnsauory toies Phi. Your oth is so absurdly conceiued that though you ment not to exclude Christ and his Apostles yet in wordes you doe For if No forraine person Prelat State nor Potentate hath nor ought to haue any iurisdiction power superiority preeminence or authority ecclesiasticall or spiritual within this Realme of England surely neither Christ nor his Apostles because they were be forrainers haue or ought to haue any Theo. Not our speaking but your wresting and wrenching of our wordes is far fet most absurd For first where you auouch Christ himself to be a forrainer whoÌ„ we acknowledge to be the right inheritor owner of the whole worlde yea the mighty Lord king of heauen earth in gibing at vs you iest on his birth as if Christ were a forrainer to the Gentiles because he tooke flesh among the Iewes And though you might haue takâ—n some aduantage at his cradle yet you should haue remembred that the Creator is no forrainer to the worke of his handes as likewise the heade is not to the members nor God incarnate to the sonnes of men As for his Apostles in deede whiles they liued on earth they were forrainers but that their spirits now present with God raigning in blisse with Christ bee forrainers is a mad speech of yours no meaning of ours You must send vs word from Rhemes how soules can be French Spanish Scottish or English These with vs be distinctions of couÌ„tries not of souls after death til your new doctrine came wee tooke them to cease With a little helpe I thinke you will make vs some men soules and some women soules you be so skilfull in these conceites Againe might the soules in heauen be called or counted forrainers you must tell vs what ecclesiasticall power authoritie they now exercise on earth We do not affirme that forrainers neuer had any such power in England the Apostles had their commission from
Christ to teach and baptise all nations without exceptioÌ„ but we say none hath at this present nor ought to haue any such power within the Realme and vnlesse you will defende that soules in heauen doe nowe preach the Gospel and minister the Sacramentes we see not how the Apostles haue any actuall function or ecclesiasticall power on earth here or elsewhere These quarrels full of spite and voide of al trueth and common reason doe more than you thinke impaire the credit of your religion and learning but so great is your malice that it shutteth your senses kindleth your cholor whiles you would say somwhat to say you care not what be it neuer so vntrue or vntidy Phi. The Princes soueraignty is directly against the commandement commission giuen to Peter first then to all the Apostles of preaching baptising remitting retaining binding loosing ouer all the world without difference of temporall state or dependance of any mortall Prince therein Theo. That coÌ„mandement promise of our Sauior to his Apostles is no way preiudiciall to our doctrine nor beneficial to yours as also the charge which the preachers bishops of England haue ouer their flocks proceedeth neither from Prince nor Pope nor dependeth vpon the wil or word of any earthly creature therfore you do vs the more wrong so confidently to say what you list of vs as if your enuious reports were authentik oracles Phi. You make the Prince supreme gouernor in al spiritual ecclesiasticall thinges causes preaching baptising binding loosing such like be spiritual things causes ergo you make the Princes supreme gouernor euen in these things And here you may see that we iustly charge you with all the former absurdities though to shift theÌ„ vs off you say we do nothing but slander cauil Theo. And here you may see the truth of our speech vniustnes of your charge that as you began so you coÌ„tinue with spite full peâ—â—erting deprauing our words For by GOVERNORS we do not mean moderators perscribers directors inuentors or authors of these things as you misconster vs but rulers magistrates bearing the sworde to permit defende that which Christ himselfe first appointed ordained with lawfull force to disturbe the despisers of his wil testament Now what inconuenience is this if we say that Princes as publike Magistrates may giue freedom protection and assistance to the preaching of the word ministring of the Sacraments right vsing of the keies not fet licence from Rome Is that against Christs coÌ„mandement or commission giuen to Peter the rest or doth that proue all ecclesiasticall power cure of soules to proceed depend of the Princes right Phi. It keepeth the realme from obedience to general Councels which haue bin or shal be gathered in forraine countries It taketh away al conuenient meanes of gathering holding or executing any such Councels their Decrees as appeared by refusing to come to the late Councel of Trent notwithstanding the Popes messengers and letters of other great Princes which requested and inuited them to the same Theo. Princes ought to heare obey the truth proposed by priuate persons Preachers much more to reuerence the same declared by a number of faithful godly Bishops meeting in a general councel But the pleasures orders of other princes prelats be their assembly neuer so great the rulers of this realme are not bound to respect vnlesse their consents be first required and obtained Particular councels you may call without vs and as we are not acquainted with them so are we not obstricted to them Generall Councels you can not call without the liking and warning of all Christian Princes and common-wealthes and if you neglect or skippe any they may lawfully refuse and despise that which you shal then and there decree For that which pertaineth to all can not be good without the knowledge and consents of all Phi. To the Councel of Trent you were requested and inuited by messengers froÌ„ the Pope and letters of other great Princes Theo. To your Chapter at Trent we came not for many good and sufficient reasons The Pope tooke vppon him to call that Councell which he had no right to do None might haue voices in the Councel but such as were his creatures and sworne to bee true trustie to his triple crowne The conclusion and resolution of all thinges was euer reserued to him or his Legates This Realme and others were inuited to come but as suppliants to your Synod to stand at your curtesies and to suffer your selues to be iudges in your owne cause and yet you thinke much that wee refused to come Let a christian councell bee agreed on by all their consentes that haue to do with it let both sides haue like interest in the councell Let your Salua semper in omnibus Apostolicae sedis authoritate Forprising in all thinges the Popes power and pleasure be reiected and the Scriptures inspired from God be laid in the middest as the ballance and touchstone of truth which was the wont of former councels Let both partes bee sworne to respect nothing but in the feare of God to examine the faith seeke out the ancient canons of Christs church if we faile to meete you declaime against vs on Gods name as hinderers of peace despisers of general councels Otherwise no duety bindeth vs to resort much lesse to be subiect to your vnlawfull routes voide of al christian authority liberty truth indifferency Phi. Was the Councell of Trent vnlawfully called Theo. Proue it the Popes right to cal generall Councels that none must sit there but his feed sworne men lastly that he must rule raigne as he doth in all assemblies bee iudge against al law reason in his own cause though he be chiefe in resisting the truth oppressing the church then will we grant your conuenticle at TreÌ„t was orderly called But if these things be repugnant to christian equitie the sincere canons of Gods Church whereby the Catholike Councels of former ages were directed as apparently they be then had your Tridentine chapter neither the calling keeping concluding nor meaning of a generall Councel Phi. Who shoulde call Councels if not the Pope Theo. Shew what one generall Councell the Pope called for the space of twelue hundred yeares after Christ and then aske vs who should call them but he if you can not learn that vsurpation is no right and that generall Councels were called by Princes and not by Popes and therefore the Popes power to summon generall Councels if it bee any grewe very lately and is not yet olde enough to bee currant or Catholike Phi. To the Councell of Trent other Princes consented Theo. Certaine Friers were set there to wast day light wearie the wals with declaiming against the Gospell of Christ whiles your holy