rectores Kings and secular Governors S. Augustine also saith that hereby is taught Ecclesiam Christi in omnibus sanctis ejus servituram esse sub Regibus seculi That the Church of Christ in all his Saints Lib. 2. dist 44. must serve under the Kings of this world The M. of the Sentences likewise saith that the Apostle speaketh of Princes and such like Aquinas also doth interprete them Aquinas in â—â—lle locum to be Potestates terrenas carnales Dominos Terrestriall powers and temporall Governors Aug contr epist Parmen li. 1. c. 7 S. Augustine againe in another place yet more fully declareth the same What credit then is to be given to mine Adversarie when contrarie to the testimonie of all these and contrarie also to the testimonie of the Rhemists and contrarie also to the cleare evidence of the Text it selfe he saith That in these higher Powers is no more included the Temporall then the Spirituall Powers Yea S. Chrysostome also yet further sheweth that Apostles Prophets Evangelists and such like Ecclesiasticall Ministers are to be reckoned in the number of those Soules that are to bee subject to the higher powers and therefore can none of them no not the Bishop of Rome himselfe be comprised or intended under the name of the higher Powers there mentioned Chrysost in Rom homiâ— 23. S. Chrysostomes wordes be these Let everie Soule be subject to the higher Powers Yea though you be an Apostle though an Evangelist though a Prophet Sive quisquis tandem fueris c. Or whosoever you be My Adversarie is so captious as that because in my former Booke pag. 2. cap. 1. there is an c. after these wordes in Latin Quisquis tandem fueris hee would make his Reader beleeve that there is some abstruse meaning in that Enigmaticall â—â—â—se as he calleth it which if I would unfold would declare how little it made for my purpose But why doth not himselfe unfold that aenigma Is it because Davus est non Oedipus For if himselfe had read the place in Chrysostome as it seemeth he did not he might easily have unfolded the aenigma discovered the fallacy or deceit if any had lyen inclosed or hidden in it But my selfe did indeed sufficiently unfold it in the verie same place pag. 2. where after that c. I added out of Chrysostome that which I meant by that c. namely these words Neque enim pietateÌ„ subvertit ista subjectio For neyther doth this subjection overthrow pietie or godlinesse The whole clause and sentence then that being also added which was intended by the c. is this viz. Let everie Soule be subject to the Higher powers Yea though you be an Apostle though an Evangelist though a Prophet or vvhosoever you be For neyther doth this subjection overthrow pietie or godlinesse Now he hath it wholy intirely unfolded What can he make of it eyther to advantage himselfe or to disadvantage mee Yea this unfolding expressing of it rather maketh for me because it directly affirmeth that this subjection of Apostles Prophets Evangelists all other Ministers Ecclesiasticall To these Higher powers standeth well with Christian Religion and doth no way subvert or overthrow any part of pietie or godlinesse Wherefore S. Chrysostome saith there yet further that Omnibus ista praecipiuntur Sacerdotibus quoque aâ— Monachis non solum secularibus These things be commanded to all even to the Priests also and to Monckes and not to secular-men onely I likewise alledged in that first Chapter of my Booke pag. 2. 3. Theodoret Theodoret. Theophil Oecumenius in Rom 13. Beâ—â—ar Epist 42 Greg. Epist. li. 2 Epist. 62. 65. Paris 1605. Theophilaâ—â— Oecumenius Aeneas Silvius Gregory and Bernard who all declare aswell as Chrysostome that even Bishops Priests and Cleargie-men and not Secular or Lay-men onely be in the number of those Soules that are to be subject to these higher Powers In somuch that Aeneas Silvius Aeneâ—â— Silvius lib. 1 de Geâ—â—â— Basil Concil who was himselfe sometime a Pope of Rome affirmeth that S. Paul saith Omnis anima potestatibus subli mioribus subdita fit nec excipit animam Papae Let everie Soule be subject to the higher Powers Neyther saith he doth S. Paul here except the soule of the Pope himselfe but that he also ought to be subject And for further proofe hereof Ortat contr Parmen lib 3. I alledged also the testimonie of Optatus who saith that super Imperatorem non est nisi solus Deus qui fecit Imperatorem Above the Emperor is not any but God onely that made the Emperor I cited also the testimonie of Tertullian Tertul ad Sâ—apul cap. 2. writing thus Colimus Imperatorem ut hominem à Deo secundum solo Deo minorem We Christians doe honour the Emperor as the man next unto God inferior onely unto God Agreeably whereunto he saith againe of the Emperors Ters Apolog. cap. â—0 that they be under the power of God onely à quo sunt secundi post quem primi from whom they be the second after whom they be the first And pag. 30. I alledged the testimonie Chrysost ad popul Antioch homil 2. once more of S. Chrysostome who saith of the Christian Emperor in his time that Non habet parem super terram He hath no peere or equall upon earth Yea he saith further of him that hee was Summitas caput omnium super terras hominum The head and one that had the supremacie over all men upon earth To all which my Adversarie according to his wonted wise and learned manner of answering thought it best to answere nothing Thus farre then have I proved against him that by the higher powers in this Text of S. Paul be meant Emperors Kings Princes such like temporall Magistrates and that by everie Soule in this Text which is to be subject to the higher Powers is meant all manner of persons whatsoever Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill and Temporall and consequently that the Bishop of Rome was then clearely subject to the Emperor of Rome and so ought still to have continued But my Adversary at last granteth That Bishops Priests and Cleargie-men be subject to the King and to his Lawes but with this distinction namely according to the directive power of them but not according to the coactive And this distinction he learned Bellar. de Clericis cap 28. not onely of Suarez but of Bellarmine also For thus likewise writeth Bellarmine Non sunt amplius Reges Clericorum superiores proinde non tenentur Iure divino nec humano eis parere nisi quantuÌ„ ad leges directivas Kings are not any longer Soveraignes or superiors to Cleargie-men and therefore are they not bound to obey them by Gods Law or Mans law unlesse it be in respect of lawes directive What Bellarmine meaneth by lawes directive himselfe declareth when he saith That Princes have no coactive
other words that follow namely In omni pietate c Take all the words of S. Paul together and they be these I exhort saith he that first of all supplications prayers intercessions 1. Tim. 2.1.2 and giving of thankes be made for all men for Kings and all that are in authoritie that we may leade a quiet and peaceable life 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in all godlinesse and honestie By which words so put together it appeareth That S. Paul would have Christians to pray thus specially for Kings and Princes not onely to this end which my Adversary supposeth viz. for the mantainance and preservation of externall peace and correspondencie of humane societie but to this end also and that chiefely that Pietie Godlinesse and Religion may by their meanes be continued countenanced and protected amongst them And this had the Christian Emperors learned in ancient time For Iustinian that Christian Emperor in his dayes Novel Const. 6. spake thus The true Religion of God and honest conversation of the Priests is our chiefest care Legum Theod. Noâ—â—el tit 3. de Inâ—aeâ—â— Samaritaine And in this sort likewise spake Valentinian and Theodosius Emperors saying The search of true Religion we finde to be the chiefest care of the Imperiall Majestie And therefore also did S. Augustine say long agone That it is enjoyned Kings from God Aug. contr Crescun lib. 3 cap â—1 that in their kingdomes they should commaund good things and forbid evill things not onely such things as belong to humane societie but such things also as belong to Gods Religion This cleare and most evident testimonie of S. Augustine to declare the authoritie of Kings aswell in matters Divine and concerning Religion as in matters Civill Temporall I alledged in the first Chapter of my former Booke pag. 10. whereunto neverthelesse as to many other things in my booke contayned My Adversarie is pleased to answere nothing The second Position he busieth himselfe in is that the Regall Power or authoritie is subordinate to the Sâ—cerdotall or Spirituall It is true that Kings Princes notwithstanding their Regall power be subordinate and subject to God and his authoritie But what of this Indeede if Ecclesiasticall Ministers spake to Kings and Princes in their owne names and by their owne authoritie and uttered their owne will and pleasure there might be some reason in that which he would conclude but seeing they are to speake unto them not their owne will but the will and word of the Almightie and in his Name and as Embassadors Ministers Messengers and servants unto him no such consequent can be inferred 2. Cor 5 20. 1 Cor. 4 1.2 For if a King send an Esquier or any other inferior servant of his on a message to a Duke Earle or other Noble-man of the Realme This servant speaking in the King his Masters name and delivering his message is therein to be obeyed Will any thereupon conclude Ergo That Esquier or servant is greater or superior as in respect of himselfe or of his owne person then eyther the Duke or the Earle or the Noble-man No man I thinke will be so absurd And yet my Adversarie goeth on and amplifieth the Sacerdotall and spirituall power saying That how much the Soule in perfection exceedes the Bodie The eternall blisse the temporall felicitie The Divine Lawes the humane lawes By somuch doth the Spirituall authoritie exceede the Temporall But all this while he should remember and observe wherein and in what respects it is that this excellencie of the one above the other doth consist For as it is true that in respect of converting soules and fitting them for Gods kingdome by preaching of Gods Word Administring of the Sacraments and exercise of the Ecclesiasticall Discipline the Spirituall function and authoritie is to be preferred before the Regall or temporall So no lesse true is it that in respect of the temporall Power of the Sword externally to command compell and to punish offendors in causes both Ecclesiasticall and Civill the Regall Temporall Office and Authoritie is to be preferred before the Episcopall or Sacerdotall When therefore he supposeth that the King or Prince in respect of the Priest is but as the bodie is in respect of the Soule and that hee hath no more power and authoritie over Priests and Bishoppes then the bodie hath over the Soule How doth he prove this fond conceite For it is not the credite or testimonie of his S. Thomas as he calleth him who lived more then 1200. yeares after CHSIST and was overwhelmed with the corruption of his time and wedded to the Sea of Rome that can bee any sufficient proofe of that idle fantazie Yea it is apparant that to some purposes the Regall Power Office hath in it the nature and resemblance of the soule aswell as the Sacerdotall or Episcopall hath to some other purposes For as the soule commandeth the bodie so hath the King power to command the Priest and may by as good right punish all maner of offendors Civilly and by temporall punishments as Bishops and Clergie men may punish any Ecclesiastically and by the Church censures To make this the better to appeare beside that which is spoken in my former Booke observe first that Moses who was as a King or a Prince in Israell commanded not only the Levites Deut. 33.5 Deut. 31 2â—.26 which bare the Arke of the Covenant of the Lord and that in a matter Ecclesiasticall and concerning their very Office but he commanded also even Aaron the high Priest in a matter likewise Ecclesiasticall and concerning his verie Office saying thus unto him Take the Censer Numb 16 46.4â— and put fire therein off the Altar and put therein Incense and goe quickely unto the Congregation make an Attonement for them For there is wrath gone out from the Lord the plague is begun Then Aaron tooke as Moses commanded him c. He Exod. 32.21 2â— moreover called Aaron the high Priest to an account for his bad doings and removed him for the same Whereupon Aaron answered humbly and submissively unto him as to his Soveraigne Lord saying Let not the wrath of my Lord waxe fierce c. Numb 12.11 In like sort did Aaron speake unto Moses in another place saying My Lord I beseech thee c. 1. Sam. 22.12.15 So did also Abimelech the high Priest answere to his king submissively and dutifully saying thus unto him Here am I my Lord c. Let not the King impute any thing to his servant nor to all the house of my Father for thy servant knew nothing of all this lesse or more The Prophets likewise as well as the Priests and high Priests did acknowledge this humble submission and subjection unto their kings as is evident by the example of the Prophet Nathan who when he came into the presence of the King 1. King 1 23. c. he made obeysance to the king upon his face to the ground
doth not prove it and it is indeede but an humane devise and conceit and such as is before confuted in my former Booke pag. 95.96 97. whereunto he full maketh no answere And yet it is there shewed that the Companie both Militant and Triumphant make but one body and one Church unto CHRIST IESVS whereof he is the Head and that though in his bodily presence and humanitie hee be in heaven yet by his Deitie and power of his Spirit and word he is in Earth with his Church and can tell how to rule governe comfort confirme guide and direct it and to give all giftes and graces requisite and to doe and performe all the offices of an Head unto it much better then the Pope of Rome or any man mortall whosoever Yea himselfe confuteth himselfe when he saith that in these words of CHRIST Reddite quaesunt Caesaris Caesari quaesunt Dei Deo By this word Caesari is understood saith he The Supreme Governor in Temporall affaires and by the word Deo the Supreme Governor in Spirituall affaires For thereupon it followeth that then is not the Pope of Rome the supreme governor in those spirituall and Ecclesiasticall affaires unlesse he will say that the Pope is God But whereas he maketh Caesar or the Emperor to be the supreme Governour in Temporall affayres onely as though he had no Authoritie in spirituall or Ecclesiasticall matters also therein is still his error because it is before most manifestly proved that even the heathen Emperors and much more those that were Christian Emperors lawfully might did coÌ„mand for God his service Religion dealt in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill Temporall Yea Rex est persona mixta as our law also calleth him in respect of that his interest Authoritie in causes both Ecclesiasticall Civill For which cause likewise amongst Divines he is said to bee Custos utriusque Tabulae As for that his calumnious speech against Luther and Calvine which he here also inserteth Luther tom 1. in Genes cap. 9. tom 3. Annâ—t in Deut. 6. fol. 40. tom 2. responed Ambr Catherinum fol 150. 152. c. Calvin Inst. l b. 4 cap 20. in Rom 13. c. as though they wrote against the obedience due to Princes and their lawes it hath beene often answered by sundrie Protestants and the untruth of it is so notorious as that the workes and writings of them both doe shew and openly proclayme the contrarie to the world if men would please to read them and not to wrest their wordes but to take them everie where in a right sense But what meaneth he by this that he saith Kings and Princes may more confidently build the safetie of their persons estates upon the loyaltie of their Catholicke subjects then upon any Protestant subjects what are Papists whom he calleth Catholicks more loyall to Protestant Kings and Princes then Protestants Is there any likelihood of trueth in this Or doth he thinke that Protestant Kings and Princes will or can be so perswaded For is it possible that they who for love or affection to the Pope and Popish Religion denie and oppugne the Kings SUPREMACIE and the true Christian RELIGION he professeth and defendeth can be more loyall or better subjects unto him then those that acknowledge his SUPREMACIE RELIGION by his Authoritie established Thankefully and joyfully embracing them both praying unto God for the continuance of them and for all maner of happinesse and prosperitie upon him and his which is the defendor and maintayner of them both amongst us and thinke themselves bound in duetie and conscience so to doe Comparisons they say are odious and therefore I could have wished that he had forborne them neyther needed he to have used them For if wee all both Protestants and Papists bee in all respects and at all times found faithfull true and good Subjects to his Majestie as of right duetie we all ought and as I hope we all shall be I doubt not but it will suffice although we strive not thus to provoke one another by Comparative or Superlative termes But what reason hath he further to call Calvine as he doth the sensuall Libertine of this age who wrote against the libertines and against all licentiousnesse and all manner of ungodlinesse and impietie whatsoever For so his many learned laborious godly and worthy workes doe abundantly testifie and declare to the world Will Papists never cease their malitious and untrue accusations against Luther Calvine Beza and other Protestants 5 The second Text I alledged to prove the Kings Supremacie over all persons Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill within his owne Dominions is taken out of S. Paul in Rom. 13. where S. Paul saith thus Rom. 13.1.2.3.4.5.6 c. Let everie Soule be subject to the higher powers for there is no power but of God and the powers that be be ordained of God Whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God and they that resist shall receive to themselves condemnation For Magistrates are not to bee feared for good workes but for evill Wilt thou then be without feare of the power Doe well so shalt thou have prayse for the same For he is the Minister of God unto thee for thy good but if you doe evill feare For hee beareth not the Sword in vaine For he is the Minister of God a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evill Wherefore yee must be subject not onely because of wrath but also for conscience sake And for this cause pay yee tribute also For they are Gods Ministers imploying themselves for that very purpose By the higher powers in this Text whereto subjection is required which beare the sword for the punishment of the evill doers and for the prayse of them that doe well is meant 1. Pet. 2.13.14 as S. Peter also hath before shewed those that be Kings Princes and such like Civill and Temporall Magistrates And this is so evident as that though my Adversary doth not yet the Rhemists doe ingeniously confesse Rhem. Annot. in Rom. 13. vers 4. and teach it For That the Apostle meaneth here specially of Temporall powers we may see say they by the sword tribute and externall compulsion he here attributeth to them Neyther was there then as they say any doubt conceaved by Christian men whether they should obey their Spirituall powers or Spirituall Governors yea or no which is another reason they them give to shew that this Text is not to bee expounded of Spirituall Origen in hunc locum but of Civill and temporall Rulers and Magistrates Origen likewise declareth the same affirming them to be Non Antistites Principes Ecclesiarum sed Mundi judices seculi potestates Not Bishops and Prelates of Churches but worldly Iudges and secular Powers In like sort S. Ambrose affirmeth them to be Reges Ambros in hunc locum Aug. de Catech. rudibus cap. 21. seculi
A REPLY TO AN ANSVVERE MADE BY A POPISH ADVERSARIE TO the two Chapters in the first part of that Booke which is intituled a Friendly Advertisement to the pretended Catholickes in Ireland WHEREIN Those two points concerning his Majejesties SUPREMACIE and the RELIGION established by the Lawes and Statutes of the Kingdome be further justified and defended against the vaine cavils and exceptions of that Adversarie By CHRISTOPHER SIBTHORP Knight one of His Majesties Iustices of His Court of Chiefe Place within the same Realme PROVER 24.21 Feare the Lord the King medle not with theÌ„ that are seditious DVBLIN Printed by the Societie of STATIONER â—â— Anno Domini 1625. TO THE RIGHT HONORABLE MY VERIE GOOD LORD HENRY LORD VISCOVNT FAVLKLAND LORD DEPVTIE of Ireland AT the divulging of my former Booke Right Honorable there were many great and vaunting speeches uttered by the pretended Catholickes as if forthwith or at least very speedily it should have beene fully and sufficiently answered And indeede within a while after came forth an answere not to the whole Booke but onely to a part thereof namely to the first two Chapters contayned in the first part of it made by one that calleth himselfe Iohn at Stile who knowing as it seemeth the weakenesse of his owne answere therein promised a better and further answere that should then shortly come forth to the whole Booke which should be so substantially done as that it should be suteable and correspondent to the three Conditions required by me This maner of answer to the whole booke promised so long since is the thing that I have all this while expected in expectation whereof I have hitherto deferred to publish a Reply to any other answere But having now thus long expected it in vaine not knowing when it wil appeare or whether ever or never I thinke it not amisse in the interim to reply to that answere which marcheth and masketh under the name of Iohn at Stile as having no other nor better as yet to reply unto Where first of all it were fit to learne what this mans right and proper name is But because hee is so loth to declare it I care not much to know it for it is not somuch the man as the matter he delivereth that I regarde Howbeit for his owne credite and the credite of his cause if any credite had belonged unto it it had beene much better for him to have put no name at all unto that his worke then a wrong false and counterfeit name as hee hath done For if in the verie first entrance hee thus misdemeaneth himselfe and feareth not to utter so great an untruth What good dealing or sincere truth may we expect from him in the residue of his discourse Wherein also whilst hee strived to make more hast then good speede hee hath shewed himselfe to bee like canis festinans caecos edens catulos For howsoever he thrusteth himselfe forward and will needs take upon him to be Iohannes ad oppositum yet he speaketh very little or nothing ad propositum Insomuch that sundry by reason of the futilitie and frivolousnes of that his answere have thought it not worthy or meete to bee replied unto Neverthelesse because all be not of that understanding and judgement as to bee able to discerne the frivolousnes and weakenesse of it and that the pretended Catholickes doe for their parts so highly esteeme approve and applaude it for Regnat inter caecos Luscus and for that I am also therein so particularly touched and taxed but chiefly and especially for that Gods Religion and his Majesties Supremacie which two things ought ever to be most deare unto us all be there purposely and professedly encountred and oppugned I could doe no lesse in good dutie and for all these respects but make and publish this my Reply unto it for the further confirmation of the Protestants in those two maine and most weightie points for the further confutation also conviction of the Papists making them yet more and more inexcusable if after so cleare abundant evidence of truth and consequently against all good Conscience they will still bee wilfull stubborne and unreformed herein which yet I trust they will not be For they know that durum est contra stimulos calcitrare Act. 9.5 Act 5.29 Proverb 21.30 and that there is no hope that ever they shall or can prevaile that be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Fighters and Contenders against God and his Religion or any of his Sacred and Divine Ordinances Yea in such a case what is fitter then duro nodo durus cuneus And so sayth Tertullian Tertul. lib. cont Gnostic cap 21. Aug. Epist. 48. Epist 204. that duritia vincenda est non suadenda and this rule S. Augustine also giveth teacheth that men in error are first to be taught admonished and instructed but if after all this they will notwithstanding without any ground of sufficient reason be and continue perverse and obstinate then must terror punishment and coactive Lawes be put in execution for the reclayming of them For Qui Phreneticum ligat LethargicuÌ„ excitat ambobus molestus ambos amat saith the same S. Augustine But of this point concerning the authoritie of the Regall Civill sword and power coactive to be extended against refractary and contemptuous offenders aswell in matters Ecclesiasticall and touching Religion as in matters temporall and concerning the Common-wealth more is spoken in my former Booke and in this also afterward upon occasion given by mine Adversarie and therefore I shall not neede heere to speake any further of it especially to your Lordshippe whose wisedome can and doth easily perceive not onely how lawfull but how expedient requisite and necessary also it is to be extended and used in his due time and place These things Right Honorable I am humbly bould to Dedicate unto your Lordshippe Both because unto you it is that under his most Excellent Majestie the chiefe care of matters concerning the good of this Kingdome doth appertayne And because also such is knowne to be your noble and pious disposition as that a worke of this sorte you are ever most readie and willing to accept and patronize God if it be his will convert the Papists of this Kingdome from their errors to his truth and preserve your Lordshippe to his glorie the good of his Church the benefit of this Common-weale and to the increase of your owne honor in this life and to your everlasting happinesse in the life to come through IESVS CHRIST Amen Your Lordshippes humble at Commandement Christopher Sibthorp TO THE Reader I Doubt not courteous Reader but you well remember that in the conclusion of my former Booke I desired of him that would make Answere thereunto these three things First that he would answere it not by parts or peece-meales but wholy and intirely from the beginning of it to the end Secondly that he would doe it not superficially
the younger the first Ephesine Councell was assembled Liberat. in hist de Concil Ephes Liberatus likewise writeth That the Emperor wrote to all Bishops that they should assemble at Ephesus to judge of the Bookes of Nestorius and Cyrillus Epist Synod And in their Epistle to all the Bishops thus writeth the Councell it selfe Cum essemus Ephesi secundum pias Imperatoris literas congregati When we were at Ephesus assembled according to the pious letters of the Emperor Socrates also saith that Imperatoris mandato Episcopi ex omnibus locis Ephesum conveniunt Socrat. li. 7. c 33 in the lat ca. 34. in the greeke The Bishops of all places came together to Ephesus by the commandement of the Emperor Zonaras saith These things being knowne Caelestinus Bishop of Rome Cyrillus Bishop of Alexandria Iohn Bishop of Antioch and Iuvenall Bishop of Ierusalem relate the matter to Theodosius the Emperor and to Pulcheria the Empresse desiring that he would summon a Councell Niceph. lib. 14. cap 34. c. Nicephorus also saith Theodosius Imperialibus literis in Metropoli Epheso locorum omnium Episcopos convenire jussit That Theodosius by his Imperiall letters commanded the Bishops of all places to meete together at Ephesus the Metropolitan Citie The fourth generall Councell was the Councell of Chalcedon and this also was summoned not by authoritie and commandement of Leo the first Bishop of Rome as my Adversarie affirmeth but the Emperors Authority and commandement This may appeare even by Leo himselfe Epist. 43.53 and sundrie other of his Epistles But we neede not to cite other testimonies For the verie Councell of Chalcedon it selfe Conc. Chalcedon Actione prima doth testifie that it was summoned by the Emperors and that the Bishop of Rome was also called thither who because he could not be there in person sent others in his steade Yea that Leo Bishop of Rome did not summon this Councell nor any other generall Councell in those dayes but acknowledged it to be a right belonging to the Emperors is further verie manifest by the Epistle he writeth to the Emperor wherein he saith thus unto him Pietas vestra suggestioni ac supplicationi nostrae dignetur annuere Leo Epist 9 ut intra Italiam jubeatis haberi Episcopale Concilium Let your pietie vouchsafe to yeld to our suggestion and supplication in this that you command a Councell of Bishops to be held within Italy Againe hee saith thus Leo Epist. 24. Lovan 1575. Omnes partium nostrarum Ecclesiae omnes mansuetudini vestrae cum gemitibus lachrimus supplicant sacerdotes ut generalem Synodum jubeatis infra Italiam celebrari All the Churches that take part with us and all the Priests with sighes and teares doe humbly beseech your mansuetude that you will command a generall Councell to be celebrated within Italy He also sollicited the Princesse Pulcheria Leo Epist. 26. 23. and the Nobles Cleargie and people of Constantinople for a Councell to be held in Italie But neyther in his first suite nor in this last did he prevaile all this notwithstanding For as touching his former suite which was in the time of the Emperor Theodosius the younger that Emperor as before appeareth assembled the Councel not within Italie as Leo desired but at Ephesus And as touching the latter it is also apparant that by the Emperors appointment and commandement the Councell was assembled not in Italie as the Pope would have had it but at Chalcedon I might proceede further and shew that beside these first foure generall Councells other Councells were likewise summoned and assembled by the Authoritie and commandement of the Emperors and not of the Bishops of Rome For there was also a fift generall Councell summoned or called Mandato Iustiniani By the commandement of the Emperor Iustinian as Evagrius witnesseth And so likewise saith Nicephorus that Imperator Iustinianus Evagr. lib 4 c. 11. Nâ—â—ph libr. 17. cap. 27. sanctam quiatam Oecumenicam Synodum Episcopis omnium Ecclesiarum convocatis coegit The Emperor Iustinian assembled the fift holy generall Councell by calling the Bishops of all Churches together The Councell of Sardica also Socrat. lib. 2 cap. 20 in the gâ—eek cap. â—6 in the â—a in Theoâ—oret lâ—b 2. cap. â— Sâ—crat lib. 〈…〉 greeke cap. â—9 in the 〈◊〉 Cusaâ— de 〈◊〉 lib. 2 â—ap 25. was called by the Emperors Authoritie and commandement as Socrates and Theodoret declare And so were also those Councells of Selencia and Aâ—imiâ—â—â— called by the Emperors Authoritie and commandement Yea what generall Councell was there called in those ancient times but by the Emperors In somuch that Cardinall Cusanus himselfe ingenuously confesseth and affirmeth that The first eight generall Councells were called by the Emperors Is there then any credite at all to be given to those Papists in these dayes who doe and dare denie this so cleare manifest and evident a truth Wherefore it being a thing most apparant that in ancient times the Emperors by their Authoritie and commandement called the generall Councells it followeth necessarily thereupon that the Emperors thereby commanded aswell the Bishop of Rome as the other Bishops and consequently had the Supremacie aswell over the one as over the other 9 But yet further to prove the Supremacie of the Emperors I alledged that the Emperors in ancient time banished imprisoned and otherwise also punished by their Authoritie even some of the Bishops of Rome themselves aswell as other Bishops Whereunto mine Adversarie answereth that These things they did de facto but not warrantable de jure But why were they not warrantable de jure I grant that a banishment or imprisonment may possibly be sometimes wrongfull and unjust in respect of the man and the matter that deserveth it not but this is no impeachment or argument therefore against the lawfulnesse of the authoritie As if an Emperor or King doe banish or committe a man to prison for professing any point of true Religion this banishment and imprisonment is wrongfull and unjust in respect of the cause which deserveth no punishment at all Yet it cannot be denied but he hath power Authoritie good and lawfull enough both to banish and to committe to prison notwithstanding when there is a just cause For that which is but an abuse of Authoritie doth not take away the lawfull use of it So that if any Bishop of Rome or any Bishop whosoever within the Dominions of the Empyre did offend so farre as to deserve banishment imprisonment or other Temporall and Civill punishment it was a thing lawfull and just for the Emperor to inflict those punishments upon them aswell as upon any other For it is indeede to these Higher Powers namely to Emperors Rom. 13.1.2.3.4 Kings and Princes that God hath committed the Civill and Temporall sword for the encouragement and prayse of them that doe well for the discouragement terror punishment of those that doe evill And these
be Ministri Dei The Ministers of God as S. Paul also sheweth instituted for that verie end and purpose Now none will denie but banishment and imprisonment be punishments Civill and Temporall and not Ecclesiasticall and doe rightly and properly belong to the Authority of Emperors Kings and Princes and not to the function and office of Bishops and Ecclesiasticall Ministers And therefore the banishment and imprisonment that any Emperors or Kings used against any Bishops or others upon just cause and when they deserved it must needes be granted to be things done by them both in respect of the authoritie and in respect of the cause also aswell de jure as de facto that is to be things lawfull warrantable and justifieable in all respects For as for those distinctions that Emperors and Kings have Authoritie over persons Temporall but not Ecclesiasticall and a Power directive but not Coactive and in causes Civill and Temporall but not in Ecclesiasticall The untruth absurditie folly impietie of all these distinctions hath beene before so sufficiently discovered that I shall not neede to speake any more of them And by this time I hope that even the Papists themselves bee ashamed of them Sure I am they have good cause so to be if they did duely ponder and consider them Seeing then it is confessed that the Emperors did in ancient time by their Authoritie banish imprison and otherwise punish even Bishops of Rome aswell as other Bishops that no reason can be shewed against the doing hereof when they be such offenders as that they justly deserve such punishment it is thereby undeniably apparant that the Bishop of Rome in those dayes had not the supremacie over the Emperors but that cleane contrariewise the Emperors had the Supremacie over him aswell as over any others within their Empyâ—e Another Argument which I use consisteth in this that I say even Kings of Rome did also sometimes send the Bishops of Rome as their Embassadors By this argument my Adversarie saith That he supposeth that I meant but to make men merry Why In serious matters I love not to be as he is many times ridiculous but to be serious and to deale seriously First therefore hereby I prove that the Bishop of Rome was not in those dayes superior or greater then the King that sent him For those wordes of Christ must ever be true where he saith The Servant is not greater then his Master Iohn 13 16. nor the messenger greater then he that sent him And secondly I say further that this is a verie good and strong argument to prove the Supremacie to be in those dayes in the Kings of Rome and not in the Bishops of Rome For the King that sendeth any as his Embassador is in all common understanding supposed and to be supposed superior unto him that is his Embassador As when Hiram King of Tyrus sent messengers to King David 2. Sam 5.11 1. Chron. 14 1. 1. King â—â— 2 1. Chron. 19.2 or when Benâ—â—adad King of Aram or Siria sent messengers to Ahab King of Israell or when King David sent messengers unto the King of the Amm â—ites In all these cases and every such like for Nec in caeteris est contrarium videre were those Kings superior or greater then the messengers or Embassadors whom they sent And therefore when Theodorick sent Iohn Bishop of Rome as his Embassador unto the Emperor Iustine and when King Theodatus sent Agapetus Bishop of Rome as his Embassador to Iustinian the Emperor It must be confessed that these Kings were likewise superiors to the Bishops of Rome and had the command of them and not contrarywise that those Bishops of Rome had the superioritie or command over those Kings For amongst men the Master is wont to send the Servant and the King his Subject and the superior his inferior But where did you ever reade heare or know the Servant to send his Master or the Subject to send his King and Soveraigne or the inferior to send his Superior on a message I grant that an inferior or equall may intreate a Superior to doe a businesse for him and that a King a Master or Superior may goe by his owne consent or of his owne accord somewhither to doe his Subject Servant or inferior a good turne But it cannot be rightly and properly said that any of these inferiors have sent their Superiors upon their errand service message or embassage Yea it would be held verie absoneous and absurd so to speake But my Adversary I see mistaketh the Mâ—lâ—r proposition of my argument For it reacheth not so high as heaven much lesse to the most glorious incomprehensible and ineffable Trinitie blessed for ever but onely to men upon earth and not to all men neyther but onely to Kings and Bishops Neyther had my Adversary any ust cause or reason to streach or extend it any further For the question was onely concerning them whether of them had the Superioritie or Supremacie over the other in that time namely whether the Kings that then raigned over Rome or those that were the Bishops thereof I to prove the Superioritie or Supremacie to be in the Kings and not in the Bishops alledged this for my reason that the Kings of Rome did sometimes send the Bishops of Rome as their Embassadors to other Princes So that my Argument upon the whole matter appeareth to be this What Kings soever I speake of earthly Kings sent any at any time as their Embassadors to other Princes those Kings were Superior and greater then those Embassadors whom they sent But the Kings of Rome did send the Bishops of Rome as their Embassadors to other Princes Ergo the Kings of Rome were Superior and greater then the Bishops of Rome The Maior is apparant by induction of particulars by ordinarie common experience in the world The Minor is manifest by Ecclesiasticall historie which testifieth That King Theodoricke sent Iohn Bishop of Rome Lib Pontific in Iohan. 1. Et Anact in Agapeto Diaconus Platina as his Embassador to the Emperor Iustine And that King Theodatus sent likewise Agapetus Bishop of Rome as his Embassador to the Emperor Iustinian And therefore the conclusion must needes follow and cannot bee gainsaid By this time then mine Adversarie seeth I hope that such is the evident strength of this Argument as that he with all his wit and learning will never bee able to make any good answere thereunto 10 In my former Booke Cap. 1. pag. 13. 14. 15. I also shewed that against the title and appellation of Vniversall Bishop or head of the universall Church did two Bishops of Rome oppose themselves namely Pelagius and Gregory the great when it was first affected by Iohn the Patriarch and Bishop of Constantinople And that neverthelesse afterward a Bishop of Rome namely Boniface the third got obtayned it of Phocas the Emperor Hereunto mine Adversarie answereth as Bellarmine likewise doth That this fact of
and confuting the imagination and devise of his owne braine For the affirmative clause in the Oath is not as he imperfectly and lamely relateth it but it is this That the King is the onely Supreme Governor of this Realme and of all other his Highnesse Dominions and Countries aswell in all Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall things or causes as Temporall The negative clause followeth and is this That no forraine Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction power superioritie preheminence or authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme This word Onely in the affirmative clause hath he left out which if he had added together with all the rest of the wordes that follow in that affirmative clause he would very easily have found that to be true which I wrote namely that the effect of the negative clause is included in the former affirmative For he that affirmeth the King to be the onely Supreme Governor within his owne Dominions that in all things or causes Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall aswell as temporall doth in that speech exclude every forraine Prince person Prelate State or Potentate from having any supreme governement or any government at all without his leave and licence within his Dominions Yea it is very evident that the former affirmative clause includeth the negative clause and more For the negative clause excludeth forrain Princes persons Prelates States Potētates only from Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall Authoritie but the former affirmative excludeth them from authoritie in all things or causes both temporall spirituall Againe you see that the negative clause extendeth onely to forraine persons but the affirmative clause extendeth to any persons whosoever whether forraine or domesticall Thirdly the negative clause excludeth forraine persons from having any jurisdiction power superioritie preheminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or spirituall within this Realme But the former affirmative clause extendeth not only to this Realme or that Realme in particular but generally to all his Majesties Realms Dominiōs Countries So that the former affirmative clause in the Oath appeareth to be much more generall and of a farre larger extent then the negative is And therefore I hope I spake truely and within compasse when I said though in a parenthesis that the effect of the negative clause was included in the former affirmative I did not say as mine Adversarie supposeth me to hold that the Regall power includeth the Sacerdotall or Episcopall This is but his owne dreame imagination in the confutation whereof he laboureth in vaine For neyther I nor any of the Protestants doe hold that opinion but contrariewise doe hold them to be things distinct as is before declared But because he will needes carpe at my Logicke when he hath no cause let other men judge what a great Logician he is whilst he argueth thus The Regall power includeth not the Sacerdotall Ergo the affirmative clause in the Oath of SUPREMACIE includeth not the negative clause in the same Oath Hitherto then you see that my Adversarie notwithstanding all his storishes braggs and bravadoes hath shewed himselfe to be not onely a punie Lawyer as he confesseth himselfe to be but a punie Logician also most of all a punie Divine and that he hath not beene able to make any good Answere or to refell and confute any one Argument contayned in this first Chapter of my former Booke concerning the Supremacie and yet hath he also left a great part of that Chapter unanswered Neyther hath he made throughout his whole discourse and pleading so much as one good argument to prove his Clients cause that is the Popes supremacie though he purposed and laboured to doe it Where is it not a mervaile that he being a Lawyer and a Subject to our Soveraigne Lord the KING will date neverthelesse admitte of such a Client as the Pope is and of his cause which he knoweth before hand to be condemned by the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme and which he now may see if hee saw it not before to be also condemned by the Lawes and Statutes of God himselfe and by all the most ancient Ecclesiasticall Records But if hee be not ashamed of such a Client and his cause his Client I suppose will be ashamed of him and entertaine him no longer to pleade for him unlesse he could doe it better And yet indeede when his Clients cause is foule naught as here it appeareth to be what Lawyer be he never so learned or what Divine be hee never so profound is able to justifie it or to make it good Notwithstanding his demurrer therefore and notwithstanding that by this his plea his purpose was to arrest and stay mens judgements I trust they will all now no cause appearing to the contrarie proceede without any further delay to give their sentence against his Client for in the behalfe of these two most worthy Peerles Princes who be the complaynants against him namely for Christ IESVS in their acknowledging and publishing him onely to be the onely universall Bishop supreme Pastor and head of the whole Church Militant upon Earth aswell as of the Triumphant in Heaven and for the King in declaring and publishing him under God to be the onely Supreme Governor over all manner of persons and in all kinde of causes aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill within his Dominions Neyther doe I doubt but all mens judgements whensoever upon good and well advised deliberation they shall please to give them will passe accordingly In the meane time let us goe one to the second Chapter see if he have any better successe in that then he hath found in the former Concerning the second Chapter IN this second Chapter of my former Booke my Adversarie supposeth that my maine scope and purpose was to prove our Church that is the Church of the Protestants to have beene in the Apostles times But never was there saith he poore Assertion so miserably mangled And true it is indeede that it is miserably mangled and cut in pieces But by whom namely by himselfe For my Assertion is not so short as he relateth it nor is to end where he maketh it to end but is of a longer and larger extent and being produced not by parts or pieces but wholy and intirely as it ought it is this viz. That our Church was in the Apostles dayes and in all times and ages since howsoever or notwitstanding that Poperie did as an infection or corruption grow unto it the meaning true sence whereof is no more but that the growing of Poperie it being but as an infection or corruption to the Church is no impediment or argument to the contrarie but that our Church had a being in the Apostles dayes and in all succeeding times and ages that notwithstanding This will the better appeare if you take the whole Proposition or assertion and turne it into a Question For then the Question will not be as mine Adversary maketh it viz.