choose which was in aftertimes Ierusalem where the Temple was builded and where Iehosaphat also according to this law erected and constituted a Synedrion or Councell consisting of Levites Priests and of the chiefe of the Fathers of Israel 2 Chron. 19.8.9 But none is bound at this day to goe to Ierusalem to have his litigious and doubtfull cases to bee decided and determined by any Leviticall Priest or other Iudges there Neyther is Rome that Ierusalem nor is the Pope of Rome or his Priests any of those Priests descended of the Tribe of Levi. And therefore also will not this text of Deut. 17. any way serve your turne nor helpe to maintayne your Popes so long vainely fancied Supremacie 5. But I proceede prosecuting matters not confusedly as you doe but for the most part in that sort and order as they be layed downe in my Reply that so the Reader also may the better and the more easily perceive both what you have Answered in this your Reioynder and what and how much you have left unanswered Chrysost hom 4. de verb. Esa vid. Dom. as also how good or bad your Answers bee In my Reply therefore pag. 1. I said that S. Chrysostome distinguishing those two offices viz. the Regall and Sacerdotall did say thus Ille cogit hic exhortatur ille habet arma sensibilia hic arma spiritualia The King compelleth the Priest exhorteth the King hath sensible weapons the Priest hath spirituall weapons Hereunto you Answer that S. Chrysostome meant onely that the King with his sensible weapons of imprisonment banishment pecuniarie mulcts temporall death and other penalties should force when other meanes fayled the rebellious children of the Church to performe their dutie unto their Prince Prelate not that the Prince hath any power over the Pastor unto whom say you by the ordinance of God hee is subjected and thus you make the King to have power onely over such as you here call the children of the Church but not over Bishops Pastors and other Ecclesiasticall Ministers and of this opinion you would drawe S. Chrysostome to bee against his owne good will and liking But although by his words precedent and subsequent which you so much speake of it appeareth that Kings and Princes are to bee subject to Bishops and Pastors in respect of the due administration of those their sacred offices functions and ministeries committed to them from God yet in respect of themselves and of their owne Persons hee held them verie clearely to bee not superiour but subject to Kings and Princes Rom. 13.1 Chrys ho. 23. in epistol ad Rom. For whereas S. Paul speaketh thus Let everie soule be subject to the higher powers The same S. Chrysostome saith which I mervaile you have so soone forgotten that omnibus ista praecipiuntur Sacerdotibus quo que ac Monachis non solum secularibus These things be cōmanded to all even to Priests also to Monckes and not to lay or secular men onely Yea hee saith further in the same place that though you bee an Apostle though an Evangelist though a Prophet or whatsoever you bee you must be subiect to these higher powers Remember againe Chrys ad Populū Antioch homil 2. that speaking of the Emperour hee saith that Non habet parem ullum super terram He hath no Peere nor equall upon earth Yea hee saith of him that hee was Caput summit as omnium super terras hominum The head and one that had the supremacie over all men upon earth Yea S. Chrysostome himselfe did yet further really and actually declare this subjection to these higher powers even in his owne person For did not the Emperour exile and banish him Socrat. lib. 6. cap. 15. graec cap. 14. Latine Theodor. lib. 2 cap. 2.4.13 Theodor. lib. 2 cap. 2.4 13. And did not hee though Archbishop of Constantinople humbly submit himselfe thereunto and yeelde obedience Was not likewise Liberius though a Bishop of Rome exiled and banished by the Emperour and did not hee also quietly submit himselfe unto it as being done by the Emperours commaundement and authoritie And was not also Atbanasius banished by the Emperours authoritie and did not he likewise patiently and obediently undergoe it You see then that not onely lay people and such as you call the children of the Church but even those also that were Fathers in the same as namely Bishops and Pastors Archbishops and even Bishops of Rome themselves were in those former and auncient times Pelag. Epist. 16. Concil edit Bin. tom 2. pag. 633. subject to these higher powers viz. to Emperours Kings and Princes Quibus nos etiam subditos esse sanctae Scripturae praecipiunt To whom saith also Pelagius another Bishop of Rome the holy Scriptures commaund even us that be Bishops and the Bishops of Rome to be subiect So that those Bishops in those dayes performed this subjection and obedience unto them as being moved thereunto out of dutie and good conscience and because God in his holy Scriptures had so commaunded But these two points namely that Emperours Kings and Princes bee subject to that authoritie message and ministerie which God hath committed to Bishops and Pastors And that Bishops againe and Pastors all Ministers Ecclesiasticall be neverthelesse subject to Emperours Kings and Princes in respect of their owne persons is largely declared both in my first Booke in my Reply also aswell as here As for those precedent and subsequent wordes in S. Chrysostome which you so often speake of even you aswell as I might verie well have omitted them as being needlesse to be mentioned because the matter and substance of them was before graunted and confessed by me in my former Bookes as it is likewise here againe in this and yet you never the neerer of your purpose And therefore you had no cause to complaine of the omission of thē by me when the recitall of them by you will do you no more good nor prove or inferre any more matter in your behalfe then that which was formerly by me confessed and granted unto you But least reason of all had you to insinuate as though by omission of those precedent and subsequent wordes I had a meaning to delude my Reader by concealing the truth For you see that I had no such purpose or meaning to conceale that truth which my selfe had formerly delivered and graunted and which I still confesse with S. Chrysostome touching the subjection of Princes to Gods authoritie committed to his Ministers But it is your selfe in verie deede which abuse delude your Reader in this case by concealing truth For although you tell some truth you tell not the whole truth as you ought but conceale a part of it or which is worse you denie a part of it inasmuch as you affirme the subjection of Emperours Kings and Princes to that authoritie which God hath committed to his Bishops and Pastors But the other part of truth concerning
87. But secondly when the Text it selfe speaketh of this fact of King Solomon by way of approbation of it doth it become you or any man else to say or suppose that it was error facti in him Or that it was an Act not lawfull for him so to doe For hath not the Scripture it selfe before expressely tould vs That Solomon deposed or cast out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord 1. King 2.27 that hee might fulfill the words of the Lord which hee spake against the house of Ely in Shiloh Now then can that be said to bee erroniously or unlawfully done which God himselfe well liked and allowed and would have to bee done for the performance and fulfilling of his owne wordes Yea consider yet further that the Kings of Israel and Iudah had power and authoritie over the Priests not onely to depose them but also to put them to death And this you may see in King Saul who put to death divers Priests â— Sa. 22.18 â— Chron. 24. â—0 21. and in King Ioash also who put to death Zachariah the sonne of Iehoida the Priest How justly or unjustly worthily or unworthily these Priests were put to death I here dispute not but I mention these examples to shew the power authoritie that the Kings had in those times namely even to put Priests to death aswell as lay-persons upon just cause and if they did offend so farre as to deserve it 11. But now though there were a supremacy over the high Priests aswell as over the other Priests and Levites in the Kings under the Old Testament and that they also dealt in maters Ecclesiasticall yet thereupon it followeth not say you That Kings and Princes under the New Testament have the like Supremacy over Bishops and other Clergy men or the like Authority in causes Ecclesiasticall and concerning religion Why so because say you there is now a change and alteration of the Priesthood and of the Law Heb. 7.12 But doth not the same Epistle to the Hebrews which you cite tell you wherein that Alteration and change consisteth namely that it is in respect of the Leviticall Priesthood under the ould Law or under the ould Testament which is now changed into the Priesthood of Christ under the new Law or under the new Testament why then will you stretch and extend it any further yea neither doth that Epistle nor any other sacred or canonicall Scripture testifie an Alteration or change in this Point or as touching this Particular whereof we now speake but the cleane contrary videlicet that aswell under the new Testament as under the ould Kings and Princes are to have a supremacy over all Bishops Pastors and other Ecclesiasticall Ministers and an Authority also in causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as civill and temporall within their dominions The first part of this Assertion is manifest by that Text in the new Testament which I have so often recited and where S. Paul saith expressely thus Rom. 13.1 Chrysost in Rom. hom 23 Let every soule be subiect to the higher Powers yea Though you be an Apostle though an Evangelist though a Prophet or whosoever you be saith S. Chrisostome But what shall I neede to prove this so cleere a Point so many times and so often For both in my first Booke Cap. 1. pag. 1. 2. 3. c. and in my Reply chap. 1. pag. 39. 40 41. c. and pag. 51. 52. 53. 54. c. this pointe is fully and abundantly proved Yea the Bishops of Rome themselves in former an ancient times for the space of divers hundreth yeares after Christ did acknowledge this Subiection to these higher powers namely to their Emperors as I have demonstratively shewed by the examples of Milciades Leo and Gregorie the great mentioned in my first Booke pag. 23. 24. 25. 26. And by Anastasius the second Pelagius the first Agatho Hadrian and Leo the fourth mentioned in my Reply chap. 1 pag. 11. 12. 13. 19. To all which though particularly alledged by me you according to your wonted wise maner thought it best to answere nothing Yea both the parts of this Assertion namely that Emperors Kings and Princes under the new Testament have Authority not onely over Persons Ecclesiasticall but in causes also Ecclesiasticall I have so sufficiently proved throughout the first Chapter of my first Booke and throughout the first Chapter of my second Booke which is my Reply and in this booke also as that all the Power and force you have brought or can bring against it will never be able so much as to shake it much lesse to subdue or overthrow it Yet for the more abundant proofe of this Authority of Emperors and Kings in maters Ecclesiasticall and concerning religion I alledged in my Reply chap. 1. pag. 13 14. the president and Example of that famous Christian Emperor Constantine the Great whereunto in your Reioynder you have as well became your great learning and wisedome answered iust nothing at all I alledged also in the same my Reply pag. 15. the example of Iustinian that Christian Emperor where you deny not this Emperors making of Constitutions and Lawes in Ecclesiasticall causes and concerning Bishops and other Ecclesiasticall Persons But you say those Lawes be not observed by the Protestant Cleargie and you give an instance in one particular What is this to the purpose For the question was not nor is whether our Protestant Cleargie observe those Lawes and Constitutions yea or no But whether Iustinian that Christian Emperour made those or any such lawes and Constitutions concerning Ecclesiasticall causes and Ecclesiasticall persons Now then whilst you graunt that hee made those Lawes and Constitutions concerning Ecclesiasticâ—ll causes and concerning Ecclesiasticall persons you graunt so much as I contended for that is to say you graunt the whole matter that was in question And therefore why should I dispute any longer with you Neverthelesse you yet further say that I much disadvantage my cause by alleadging Iustinian the Emperour who accounted called the Bishop of Rome the chiefe and head of all the holy Churches But you should doe well to observe in what sence and respects the Emperour so called and accounted him namely not that hee had in those dayes a supremacie over Iustinian who was then the Emperour â—uthen const 〈◊〉 15. Novel â— 3. For Iustinian himselfe testifieth the cleane contrarie to that conceit Wee commaund saith hee the most holy Archbishops and Patriarkes of Rome of Constantinople of Alexandria of Antioch and of Ierusalem â—vag lib. 4. c. 1 â—iceph libr. â—7 cap. 27. Yea the fifth generall Councell it selfe was also called by the commandement of this Emperor Iustinian So that it clearely appeareth that hee had the supremacie commanding authoritie over them all But in respect of the soundnesse of the faith which the Bishop of Rome held in those times against heresies and errors it was that the Emperour preferred him before the other Bishops accounting himselfe chiefe or head
no meanes yeeld thereunto but sent him a full negative Answer writing thus unto him Fidelitatem facere nolui nec volo quia nec ego promisi nec antecessores meos antecessoribus tuis id fecisse comperio I neyther would doe nor will doe fealtie because I neyther promised it nor doe I finde that any of my Predecessors have done it to any of your predecessors I have here recited the whole entire sentence not produced onely a part of it as you did verie lamely and imperfectly And now what have you to say against it First concerning that of King William the Conquerour you answer not a word And touching those particulars which I had before alleadged concerning the others Kings namely concerning William Rufus King Henry the First and King Henry the Second and other Kings of England that contended and opposed themselves against the Pope of Rome his encreachments and usurpations your answer is verie idle and impertinent For you answer as if I had affirmed that those Kings had utterly renounced abolished or put downe the Popes supremacie in their times whereas I affirmed onely that they contended and made opposition against him which they might and did doe although they then made not an utter extirpation and abolition of him out of that their kingdome And that they made opposition to him I have shewed and proved in my Reply pag. 75. 76. 78. 79. 80. And verie ignorant are you in the histories of England if you know not so much and verie perverse if knowing so much you will not acknowledge it 13. From thence you come to pag. 81 of my Reply where I write thus But now what meaneth my adversarie to bee so extreamely audacious as to denie the first foure Generall Councels to have beene called by the Emperours Here you say I was pleased to salute you with that language which better fitted an inconsiderative Iester then a deliberate Iudge Why what is the language or what are the words which so much offend you You afterward shew namely because I there used that terme of extreamely audacious But what is it else but extreme audaciousnesse to denie as you then did and still doe so cleere evident and plaine a truth For my part the matter considered I see not but you might have thought that I spake moderately and temperately enough whilst I spake in that sort and gave you no worse language For some others possibly would have said that you had beene therein extreamely and intolerably impudent But you forget as it seemeth or care not to remember what language or words you here utter concerning me which I have more cause to take ill at your hands then you have to bee offended at those other words of mine But to come to those foure Generall Councels I affirmed them which you denied to have beene called by the Emperours The first of them is The first Generall Councell of Nyce That this was called by the Emperour I proved in that my Reply pag. 81.82 by the testimonie of Ruffinus Eusebius Socrates Theodoret Sozomon Zonaras Nicephorus Platina and by the Synodall Epistle of the Nycene Fathers themselves And doth not hee then deserve to bee accounted at least extreamely audacious that will dare to denie this so manifest and palpable truth testified so abundantly and by so many witnesses But whilst among other witnesses for proofe of this point I produced Ruffinus affirming that Constantine apud urbem Nicaeam Episcopale Concilium convocavit Râ—ffin lib. 1. cap. 1. Called the Councell of Bishops together at the Citie of Nyce You say that I there used a little wile which amongst the vulgar sort will bee called Craft or Cousenage because say you I omitted those wordes Ex sacerdotum sententia which bee in Ruffinus and which words if they had beene mentioned would have declared that the Emperour Constantine summoned or called the Councell of Nyce by the advise consent or approbation of the Priests Howbeit first it is not of necessitie that the omission of those wordes must inferre it to bee done with a minde and purpose to defraude deceive and cousen as you verie odiously suggest Yea secondly to shew that I did not craftily or couseningly conceale or omitte those wordes for mine owne advantage as you alleadge behold you shall finde in the verie next page namely pag. 82. that I doe expressely mention them and doe directly affirme Ruffin lib. 1. cap. 1. out of the same Ruffinus that this Councell of Nyce was assembled or called Ex sacerdotum sententia By the advise and consent of the Priests and thereby I also proved that it was not done by the advise consent of the Bishop of Rome alone Now then who is the wily Craftie and Cousening Companion I hope the honest and equall Reader will by this time easily discerne and judge But thirdly I did there further answere as I doe likewise here againe that it maketh nothing to the matter in question at whose suite or request or by whose advise or consent that Councell was summoned For the question was not nor is by whose perswasion or suite or by whose advise or consent but by whose commaunding authoritie it was called Now it is verie apparant by those former testimonies that it was called and assembled by the commandement or commanding authoritie of the Emperour which declareth infallibly the supremacie and authority which the Emperour had in those dayes over all the Bishops and even over the Bishop of Rome himselfe aswell as over the rest whilst hee might and did thus commaund aswell the one as the other to appeare in a Generall Councell I also cited Eusebius Socrates and Theodoret and their wordes to prove likewise that the Emperour Constantine called and assembled that Generall Councell at Nyce But you are pleased not to see or not to acknowledge where those wordes are to bee found in their Authors And yet might you have seene and found them if you had so pleased in their severall Authors as namely in Eusebius de vita Constantini lib. 3 cap. 6. lib 1. cap. 37 in Socrates lib. 1. cap. 8. in the Greeke and cap. 5 in the Latin and in Theodoret lib. 1 cap 7. So that even that also which I cited out of Theodoret is not a famous fiction as you infamously and untruely report it but a verie certaine apparant truth as there you may see And all the rest of the Authors which I there cited doe likewise testifie and prove the same thing for which I there alleadged them Yea this point is so cleere and evident that whilst you thought to confute it you have your selfe further confirmed and confessed it Ruffin lib. 1. cap. 1. For when you purposing to alledge Ruffinus against mee doe cite his wordes thus Tumille Then hee meaning Constantine ex sacerdotum sententia apud urbem Nycaeam Episcopale concilium convocavit By the sentence or consent of the Priests did call the councell of Bishops at the
citie of Nyce And when againe you likewise intending to alledge Damasus against me doe affirme that he saith That Constantine did not gather the councell but cum consensu Silvestri Damasus lin Pont. concil 6 act 18. with the consent of Sylvester and that so much also is expressed in the sixt councell Doe you not in all this sufficiently confesse that the Emperour Constantine did by his commanding authoritie call this councell of Nyce although hee did it by the consent or approbation of Sylvester Bishop of Rome and of other Priests Now then to come to the second generall Councell which was the first Constantinopolitane I have likewise proved in my Reply pag 83. by the testimonies of Theodoret Socrates Sozomen Zonaras and the verie Councell it selfe speaking to the Emperour Theodosius the elder that it was called by the commaundment or commaunding Authoritie of the same Emperour To all which proofes and testimonies yon according to your wonted learning wisdome answer nothing in your Reioynder But in your first auswer to prove this Councell not to bee called by the commaundement of the Emperour but of Damasus Bishop of Rome you cited Theodoret libr. 5. cap. 9. and in your Reioynder you prosecute it and say That the Bishops meeting in this second generall councell writing to Pope Damasus doe testifie that they assembled at Constantinople by reason of his letter sent the yeare before to Theodosius But what meane you thus to abuse your Reader For first there is no such thing in that place of Theodoret Theodor lib. 5 cap. 9. that doth prove this second Generall Councell to have beene any more called by Damasus then by the other Bishops mentioned in the same Letter or in the same Epistle For that Letter or Epistle was not written or directed to one alone as namely to Damasus as you would make men beleeve but to many and diverse Bishops plurally For thus is the direction viz. To our most honourable Lords our verie Reverend brothers and fellowes in Office Damasus Ambrosius Britton Valerian Acholius Anemius Basil and the rest of the holy Bishops assembled in the noble Citie of Rome The holy Councell of Orthodoxe Bishops gathered together in the great Citie of Constantinople send Greeting So that it was not Damasus alone as here you see but the rest of those reverend Bishops also assembled at Rome that sent those Letters mentioned in that Epistle to the most holy Emperour Theodosius And secondly even those Letters of Damasus and of the rest of the Bishops sent to the Emperour concerning that matter of calling the Councell were onely perswasive and not commaunding Letters In asmuch as it is before by my Reply verie evident that this Councell was assembled by the commaundement or commaunding Letters of the Emperour And consequently it was not Damasus alone but other Bishops also joyned with him that sent those their Letters to the Emperour whereby hee was excited moved and perswaded to call and commaund that Councell to bee assembled at Constantinople Now then seeing that Theodoret whom you cite to prove that Pope Damasus by his commaunding Letters called this Councell Theodor. l. b. 5 cap. 7. proveth no such matter Yea hee expressely witnesseth the contrarie affirming it directly to have beene called by the commaundement of the Emperour Doth or can this any way helpe to excuse you Or doth it not rather so much the more inlarge and aggravate your fault herein Concerning the third Generall Councell which was the first Ephesine that That was called by the commaundement of the Emperour Theodosius the younger I have also proved in in my Reply pag. 83. by the testimonies of Evagrius Liberatus Socrates Zonaras Nicephorus by the Synodall Epistle it selfe And yet you would make men beleeve that it was called not by the commaundement of the Emperour but of Celestinus Bishop of Rome And for proofe hereof you cite Prosper in Chronico affirming it to have beene held Caelestini authoritate By the authority of Celestine But you still much mistake for this was no commandement or commaunding authoritie in Celestinus but a perswasive onely which Bishops might and did use to the Emperours verie often for the obtayning of Councels So that by these wordes is no more meant or signified but that Celestinus used such authoritie that is such power credite and estimation as hee had with the Emperour to cause and procure this Councell to bee assembled And that this word Authoritas doth so signifie and is verie often used in that sence your Dictionaries and Latine writers will sufficiently teach you Yea your selfe in your Rejoynder doe cite Paulus Diaconus in his Historicall collections that hee speaketh of the last of the first foure Generall Councels which was the Councell of Calcedon in this sort Papae Leonis auctoritate c. Paul Diac. lib. 15. By the authoritie of Pope Leo and commaund of Martian the Emperour the Councell of Culcedon was summoned Here you see a plaine distinction made betweene this authoritie the commaund The commaund or commanding authoritie being attributed to the Emperour Martian and the other authoritie namely the perswasive being attributed to Leo Bishop of Rome And yet neyther was it onely Celestinus Bishop of Rome but other Patriarkes and Bishops likewise as namely Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria Iohn Bishop of Antioch Zonar in Theodos Iuniore and Iuvenall Bishop of Ierusalem that perswaded and excited the Emperour to call and commaund this third Generall Councell at Ephesus as Zonaras testifieth And as touching the fourth Generall Councell which was as I said that at Calcedon I have proved in my Reply pag. 85. by the testimonie of the verie Councell it selfe and by sundry Epistles also of Leo Bishop of Rome that this Councell of Calcedon was summoned by the commaundement of the Emperour whereunto may be also added that your owne testimonie of Paulus Diaconus before cited who saith as even your selfe alledged him that this fourth Generall Councell of Calcedon was summoned or called by the commaundement of Martian the Emperour and not of Leo although Leo did also interpose and use his authoritie and credite with the Emperour for the effecting of it Now then when beside the cleerenesse of other proofes you saw by this expresse testimonie or Prulus Diaconus whom your selfe alledged that this Councell of Calcedon was summoned or called by the commaundement of the Emperor Martian why should you or any man else say or suppose the contrarie thereunto Yea even Leo himselfe in divers of his Epistles sheweth as I said before that neyther hee nor any other Bishop of Rome did in those dayes summon or call eyther this or any other Generall Councell but that it belonged to the Emperours so to doe as you may see more fully by the wordes and actions of the same Leo formerly mentioned in my Reply pag. 84.85 But I there also further alledged a fifth Generall Councell called Mandato Iustiniani By the commaundement of
mightie through God that is they bee divine and spirituall and not worldly or terrestriall And in respect of this his spirituall kingdome or spirituall supremacie all Emperours Kings Princes and Potentates Psal 72.11 Phil. 2.9.10.11 Math. 28.18 Ephes 1.20.21.22.23 aswell as all Bishops and others of what degree soever must acknowledge their subjection unto him For to him is given all power both in heaven and in earth And hee it is whom God hath set at his right band farre above all principalitie and power might and dominion and everie name that is named not in this world onely but also in that which is to come And hee hath made all things subiect under his feete and hath given him over all things to bee the bead to the church which is his body the fulnesse of him that filleth all in all 1. Cor. 15.25 And Hee must raigne untill he hath put all his enemies under his feete You see then that this spirituall kingdome or spirituall Monarchy and supremacie belongeth onely to Christ Iesus and not to any terrestriall Emperour King Prince Pope or Prelate whatsoever And therefore when you attribute as you doe the spirituall supremacie to the Pope of Rome consider well how great intolerable the offence is For is it not as I said before direct high treason in a subject to intrude and usurpe upon the kingdome of his soveraigne and to exercise his supremacie Royall rights authorities and Prerogatives therein without any warrant or commission from him And is it then any lesse then high treason for the Bishop of Rome to doe the same in the spirituall kingdome of CHRIST IESVS If you say that the Bishop of Rome is but onely the Vicar or Vice-roy or Deputie unto Christ in that his kingdome I demaund who constituted or appointed him to bet so For is not he still a traytor to his King that entreth upon his kingdome possesseth and enjoyeth it under colour and pretence that hee is appointed by his soveraigne to bee the Vice-roy or Lord deputie of the kingdome when revera whatsoever he pretendeth hee neyther hath nor can shew any Letters-Patents Warrant or Commission from his King for the same Such is the case of the Bishop of Rome For neyther the Pope nor all his partakers doe or be able to shew any warrant or commission from Christ in that behalfe They have beene long seeking out such a warrant and commission but they could never yet nor ever will be able to finde it If then this be high treason against Christ in the Pope do your selfe judge what offence it is in you or others that take part with him therein and bee his adherents followers and maintayners The second question you demaund of mee is whether the whole Church being but one there be any moe heads of it then one I answer that the whole Church 1. Cor. 12.12 13.14 c. Ephes 1.22.23 Ephes 4.15 Coloss 1.8 Coloss 2.10 being as S. Paul calleth it The body of Ghrist This one body can have no moe then one head and that one head is CHRIST IESVS as the same S. Paul againe expressely teacheth and affirmeth And therefore this head is not the Pope of Rome as you verie strangely dreame your selfe incline to this that there should be but one Head to this one Body How then can you admit any moe heads unto it then this one which is Christ Iesus For if you make CHRIST IESVS to be one head and the Pope to be another head you make this one body to have two heads and so make it a Monster As for your distinction of a Vitall head and a Ministeriall head it is before removed and taken away in my first Booke pag 94. 95. 96. 97. whereto you have not answered And whereas you say that the Church Militant consisting both of Iewes and Gentiles is but Vnum ovile One sheepefould and that this one Sheepefould Ioh. 10.16 there is but unus Pastor on pastor or one sheepheard it is true but this unus pastor one sheepheard is not Ioh. 10.11.14 as you still fondly fancie the Bishop of Rome but CHRIST IESVS onely as appeareth in the same Chapter And in this respect he is also called Magnus pastor ovium The great sheepheard of the Sheepe Heb. 13.20 Yea the chiefe or supreme Pastor over all the severall Pastors of all the severall flockes in the world 1. Pet. 5.2 3 4. For thus S. Peter speaketh to them all Feede the flocke of God which dependeth upon you caring for it not by constraint but willingly not for filthy lucre of a readie minde not as though yee were Lords over Gods heritage but that yee may be examples to the flocke And when the chiefe Sheepheard shall appeare yee shall receive an incorruptible crowne of glory Here you see that S. Peter sheweth very plainely that not himselfe though hee were an Apostle much lesse the Bishop of Rome or any other Bishop was to have this high and transcendent name of Chiefe or supreme Pastor over all the rest of the severall Pastors For to CHRIST IESVS onely hee attributeth and appropriateth this tittle as being his peculiar and prerogative in asmuch as it is Christ Iesus onely and not the Bishop of Rome nor any other man mortall whosoever that can give this incorruptible crowne of glorie he there speaketh of Not the Pope then nor any other but CHRIST IESVS onely appeareth to bee the chiefe or supreme Pastor or which commeth all to one reckoning the Vniversall Bishop over all the severall Bishops and severall Pastors dispersed in the world Your owne translation in this Text of 1. Pet. 5.4 is Princeps Pastorum the Prince of Pastors which likewise still sheweth that not the Pope but CHRIST IESVS onely is the supreme Pastor or the Prince of the severall Pastors dispersed on the face of the Earth And therefore was it also decreed in the Councell of Carthage 3. ca. 26. that Primae sedis Episcopus non appelletur Princeps sacerdotum vel summus sacerdos aut aliquid huiusmodi sed tantum primae sedis Episcopus The Bishop of the first Sea may not bee called the Prince of Priests or the the chiefe Priest or any such like but onely Bishop of the first Sea And Gratian addeth further as touching the title of Vniversall Bishop Distinct. 99. prim sed Neyther let the Bishop of Rome be so called Now then to come to answere you also touching Nero and other Heathen persecuting Emperours and Kings It is true that they have the same Civill sword power and authoritie committed to them from God which the Christian Emperours and the Christian Kings have and to the same end namely 1. Pet. 2.13.14 Rom. 13.3.4 for the punishment of evill doers and for the prayse of them that doe well But if they punish good and godly men and well-doers as Nero did when hee put S. Peter and S. Paul to death and as the other
Emperours and Kings doe which persecute the true and Orthodoxe Christians This is not the right using but abusing of the sword and authoritie committed to them So that the power and authoritie is the same to both but the difference is in the use or abuse of that Authoritie All the supremacie power and authoritie graunted from God to any Emperours Kings and Princes within their Dominions ought to be imployed for God and not against him in any sort And according hereunto the true Christian Emperours and Kings use their Civill swords and authorities for God and for advancement of his service truth and religion And although Heathen and Infidell Emperours and Kings doe commonly abuse that sword and authoritie which God hath given them against God and against his service servants and religion Ezra 1.2.3 c. Ezra 6.1.2 3 c. Ezra 7.12.13.14.15.16.17 18. c. Dan. 3.28.29 Dan. 6.24.25.26 Yet if any Heathen Emperour or King doe commaund any thing for God or for his service worship or religion as they may doe and sometimes have done as appeareth by the examples of King Cyrus King Darius King Artaxerxes King Nabuchadnezzar and others therein they are no lesse to bee obeyed then if it had beene commaunded by the godlyest best professed Christian King in the world And this you may see further declared in my first Booke Chap. 1. pag 7. and in my Reply pag. 44. 45. Wherefore it is evident that even Pagan and Heathen Kings have the same supremacie power and authoritie within their Kingdomes and Dominions to commaund for God his service religion which Christian Kings and Princes have although they doe not as they should evermore use extend and imploy that their power and authoritie accordingly for God and his religion and consequently the defect is not in respect of any power or authoritie which they want not but in respect of their understandings wils and affections which being depraved and corrupted and not rectified or sanctified nor converted to Christ and Christianitie doe carrie them awry and the wrong way But you propound unto mee yet further another question which is this What if the King of Slavonia or any other king misled by frailtie ignorance or malice should imploy their powers to force their subjectes from the true Religion and thereby subvert and ruinate not onely their owne soules but the soules of their subjects also Might not the King in this case being as you call him a scabbed sheepe all other meanes fayling of his recoverie be compelled by the Bishop of Rome to imbrace Gods true faith and religion and to permitte the same freedome unto his subjects I answer no. For first what right or authoritie from God hath the Bishop of Rome in this case to compell Kings and Princes more thâ—n other Bishops have Yea neyther the Bishop of Rome nor any other Bishop or Ecclesiasticall Minister hath any such power or authoritie included or comprised within those their Ecclesiasticall callings and Ministeries as by worldly power and externall force of Armes to compell a King to the right religion It is true that the Ministers of Christ may exhort perswade the best they can a King erring in his Religion from his error and may doe what their Ecclesiasticall commission graunted them from Christ will warrant them to doe but no further may they goe for then doe they Fines alienos invadere Rom 13.4 Invade other mens bounds S. Bernard speaketh as kings have the temporall sword to commaund and to compell Bishops Pastors and Ministers Ecclesiasticall have not that but another sword to use namely a spirituall sword or sword of the spirit which is the word of God Ephes 6.17 as S. Paul calleth defineth it And therefore these two swords must bee distinguished and not confounded Yea Christ Iesus himselfe whilst hee was here upon earth would not meddle with worldly or temporall matters For when one spake unto him desiring him to bid his brother to devide the inheritance with him Luke 12.13 14. Math 16.19 hee refused and said Man who made mee to be a Iudge or a devider over you If you object that Christ said to Peter Whatsoever thou bindest on earth shal be bound in heaven and whatsoever thou loosest on earth shal be loosed in heaven Remember that hee spake also the same thing plurally to all the Apostles giving to them all alike the same authoritie Math. 18.18 saying thus Quicquid ligaveritis c. Whatsoever yee binde on earth shal be bound in heaven and whatsoever yee loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven You cannot therefore by vertue of those wordes inferre that Peter or his successors had any more authoritie to depose Kings or to compell them in any sort to the right religion or to any thing else then eyther Iames or Iohn or the rest of the Apostles or any of their successors had in the like case For the same authoritie and in the same wordes is as you see graunted aswell to the one as to the other Neyther againe must you forget or omit the former part of those wordes spoken by CHRIST unto Peter which bee these I will give unto thee the keyes of the kingdome of heaven Mat. 16.19 For the subsequent wordes spoken to him of binding and loosing have reference thereunto and are therefore to bee expounded not of things earthly or concerning terrestiall matters or worldly kingdomes but of things concerning another world and kingdome namely concerning the kingdome of heaven And so also doth S. Bernard directly declare saying thus to Eugenius Bishop of Rome Ergo in criminibus non in possessionibus Bernard de considerat ad Eugen. lib. 2. potestas vestra Quoniam propter illa non propter has accepistu claves regni coelorum Your power saith hee concerneth sinnes and not matters of possession because for those and not for these yee have received the keyes of the kingdome of heaven Yea that the keyes of the kingdome of heaven were also graunted equally and alike to all the Apostles I have further shewed very fully and plainely in my first Booke pag. 292. 293. 294. c. And that no part of the power of those keyes no not Excommunication it selfe were it never so justly or lawfully awarded is of any force by Gods law and institution to depose Kings or to disanall the duetie allegeance of subjects I have likewise shewed in the same my first Booke pag. 299. 300. 301. By what right or reason then shall or can the Bishop of Rome who is also revera no Minister of Christ at all but the very apparant grand Antichrist as I have proved at large throughout the third part of my first Booke clayme to have any such externall power coactive or compulsive over Kings But moreover this question here propounded by you was sufficently answered and resolved before by S Chrysostome in the case of king Vzziah otherwise called Ozias where hee putteth this difference
Statute in persecuting him to confine him into the Castle there to argue with him as the Gaoler doth with his prisoner I know no reason you have thus to charge me with so much coveting of the Authors or Answerers name For though it bee lawfull for mee so to doe yet have I not beene much inquisitive after it much lesse reason have you to charge mee in your imaginations with persecuting him or seeking to confine him as a prisoner within the Castle which I never did though I confesse hee deserveth it and a farre greater punishment then that because contrary to the lawes and statutes of the Kingdome which himselfe professeth being as he saith hee is a Lawyer and contrary to that dutie which as a Subject he oweth to our most noble most gracious religious and most worthy Soveraigne Lord King CHARLES and contrarie to that fealtie also or fidelitie which professing himselfe to bee a Christian hee likewise oweth unto CHRIST IESVS the onely spirituall King Monarch head of the whole Church Militant aswell as of the triumphant hee doth and dareth thus audaciously to offend Neyther is prosecuting or punishing of such bold and notorious offenders to bee called as you after the Romanisticall manner untruly call it Persecuting For though Prosecution doth well befit delinquents and offenders yet Persecution is a word properly and usually applyed to the Martyrs of Christ and is not attributed to any professors of Antichrist or Antichristian doctrine unlesse it bee Catacrestically abusively Howbeit I deale not with you by authoritie or as a Iudge or Iusticer but doe onely debate dispute and reason the matter with you seeking and endeavouring first by this meanes if I can to reduce and reclayme you and the like unto you from those your grand errours unto a most certaine and evident truth But if yet still you urge the Statute of 2. Eliz. made in this kingdome which maketh the penaltie even for the first offence to be although not a Premunire yet losse of goods and chattels and that therefore in respect of this losse and damage it was not a thing reasonable for me to demaund an answer with the Answerers name thereunto subscribed Thereunto I then further say First that I know no reason why you or any man else should make any answer or any Bookes or writings at all against the Kings Supremacie which you ought in all good dutie to uphold and defend Secondly I demaunded not any answer at all to be made eyther by you or any other but if any did or would answer then I desired that hee would answer in that sort viz. with his name subscribed so that hee might have chosen whether hee would have answered yea or no and by not answering hee might have kept and freed himselfe from penaltie of the Statute but if hee would needes answer then hee was to doe it at his owne perill if any perill did ensue And yet I might also further tell you that such a one possibly might have beene the Answerer as needed not to feare that perill or penaltie For be there not divers Schollers in Colledges and Vniversities and elsewhere that live onely upon other mens exhibition and beneficence and have no manner of goods or chattels lands or tenements of their owne Might not such an one have answered and put his name to his Answer without any feare of that penaltie Againe might not some forrein-borne Papist living out of the Kings Dominions and that were no Subject to the King having well and perfectly learned the English tongue have beene the Answerer and put his name likewise to his Answer without any feare of that danger Or which was most likely might not some English mâ—n or some Irish man living abiding perpetually at Rhemes Rome Doway or some other place beyond the Seas have beene the Answerer And would you then have thought it a thing unreasonable for such a one to have beene demaunded to put and subscribe his name to his Answer For these men living continually beyond Sea out of the Kings Dominions feare not as wee see by experience nor thinke so long as they be so farre distant that they neede to feare the penaltie or danger of any Law or Statute amongst us to bee executed upon them Yea what if it were your selfe that were the Answerer of it as you tooke upon you to be the Answerer of two Chapters in it had it beene unreasonable to have demaunded of you to put your name to the Answer in respect of any feare of penaltie or danger upon that Statute or of any other Statute whatsoever For what penaltie or danger upon any Statute should you feare who in your first Answer in the Epistle to your Countrey-men write so confidently in this your supposed Catholicke cause as if you feared no manner of danger at all but would willingly undergoe all disasters in the world for attestation and defence of it But I am now glad to see that you have some feare in you For indeede feare in everie man and not forwardnesse or boldnesse in any best becommeth yours so bad a cause But yet further what reason have you now in your Reioynder to except against any of these three conditions or three requests or against any part of any of them as unreasonable which in your first Answer you tooke no exception against Yea which you then seemed well to approve and allow well of saying concerning the same my whole first Booke that It should shortly be answered in my owne straine of Divinitie with the three conditions required by me Yea lastly if you would needs be as you were the Answerer to a part of that my first Booke namely to two Chapters therein and thought it not fit to put your right and true name unto it yet should you not in stead thereof have given your selfe a wrong false and counterfeyte name which is the thing I reproved in you For as I said formerly in my Reply so I say againe that it had beene much better for you to have put no name at all to that your Answer then a false wrong and counterfeyte name as you did 3. From thence you goe on and renevv a former taxation of yours namely for that being a Lawyer by profession I neverthelesse meddle with these matters of Divinitie concerning religion But concerning this I told you before that I had made a sufficient Apologie for these my doings in that my first Booke whereto as yet I see no Answer made and I added further in my second Booke namely my Reply that even you your selfe did justifie mee therein in asmuch as you being likewise a Lawyer as you then affirmed and yet still affirme your selfe to bee did neverthelesse meddle with these matters of Divinitie and concerning religion aswell as I. Neyther is it any excuse or defence for you to say as you doe that I began to commit this fault and that you doe but follow me therein For if you saw
powers Who saith S. Bernard hath excepted you speaking to an Archbishop from this generalitie Hee that bringeth in an exception saith hee useth but a delusion And you may remember that even S. Chrysostome also himselfe as hee subjecteth Kings to Bishops Priests and Pastors in respect of their power and commission graunted them from God So on the other side in respect of the Regall sword power and authoritie given and graunted likewise from God to Kings and Princes he declareth verie fully that Bishops Priests Pastors and all Ecclesiasticall Ministers whatsoever aswell as lay people are to be subject to them But this point concerning the subjection of all Bishops Priests and Pastors and even of the Bishop of Rome himselfe aswell as of others unto Emperours Kings and Princes as also in causes even Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill and temporall is so cleerely plainely and plentifully proved both in my first and second Bookes and in this also all your answers evasions quirkes and quiddities being therein utterly frustrated confuted and confounded as that it is to mee a matter of wounder that you should not see and so acknowledge the truth of it But it seemeth you cannot see the wood for trees which I am sorrie for 8. Howbeit to make this point yet the more evident viz the subjection of Priests and Ecclesiasticall Ministers unto the King and therewithall the Kings supremacie or supreame commaund over them even in causes Ecclesiasticall I alledged in my Reply cap. 1. pag. 5. the example of Moses who commaunded not onely the Levites Deut. 31.25.26 and that in a matter Ecclesiasticall and concerning their verie office but hee commaunded also even Aaron the high Priest in a matter likewise Ecclesiasticall and concerning his verie office Numb 16.46.47 saying thus unto him Take the censer and put fire therein of the Altar and put therein incense and goe quickely unto the congregation and make an attonement for them for there is wrath gone out from the Lorde the plague is begun then Aaron tooke as Moses had commaunded him c. Here you say I abuse my Reader by falsely citing this text for the right wordes say you are these Moses said to Aaron take the Censer and drawing fire from the Altar put incense upon it going quickely to the people to pray for them To pray say you and to make attonement doe differ and be not all one howbeit indeede not I but you are the man that abuse your Reader by falsely citing the wordes of this Text For you therein follow the wordes of your vulgar Latin translation which is untrue and unsound and I follow our English translation which is according to the Originall in Hebrew and therefore true which you also if you were a good Hebrician would know and perceive even in this verie particular But whether wee take your translation of Praying for the people or our translation of Attonement-making it commeth all to one passe as touching that purpose for which I cited it namely to prove that Moses commaunded Aaron the high Priest in a matter Ecclesiasticall cōcerning his verie office For your selfe do say that this praying for the people was a religious act to bee wrought by Aaron as being intermediate betweene the people God to reconcile or gaine unto them the favours of heaven And on the other side we say that to burne incense to mak attonement for the people 2. Chron. 26.18 is likwise expressely a thing properly pertayning to the Priests office So that as touching that purpose for which I cited that text it maketh as I said before no difference But then you go further seem to speake as if Moses had not there commanded Aaron But when Moses spake to Aaron in this sort Accipe thuribulū Take the censer Be not these wordes of commaunding especially in this case and at this time being also spoken by a Superior namely by him that was as the Scripture calleth him a king in the common-weale of Israel Deut. 33.5 Deut. 31.25 26.27 Yea bee they not wordes of as full and cleere commaund as when hee spake in like sort to the Levites saying Take the booke of this law and put yee it in the side of the Arke of the Covenant of the Lord our God c. The Text it selfe sheweth that these were wordes of commaunding in Moses And so witnesseth also your owne translation that herein Moses praecepit Levitis Moses commaunded the Levites Yea that Moses aswell as his successor Ioshuah commaunded not onely the Levites but the Priests also and all the congregation and people of Israel appeareth by that answer and acclamation they gave to the same Ioshuah saying thus unto him Iosh 1.16.17.18 All that thou hast commaunded us wee will doe and whethersoever thou sendest us wee will goe As wee have obeyed Moses in all things so will we obey thee onely the Lord thy God be with thee as bee was with Moses whosoever shall rebell against thy commaundement and will not obey thy wordes in all that thou commaundest him let him bee put to death But then when you cannot gainesay but that Moses commaunded Aaron and that in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning his very office you come to your last refuge and doe say that Moses was the high Priest and so as an high Priest commaunded Aaron But first how doe you prove this that Moses was an high Priest And yet if you could prove it what would you or could you gaine from thence for your selfe doe say that Moses was as well a king as a Priest therefore why might hee not commaund him as hee was a king rather then otherwise for did he in his time commaund the Priests Levites the whole People of Israel otherwise or in any other sort or sence then Ioshuah his successor did who was no Priest how be it if Moses had been both a Priest and a King would not the holy Scripture somewhere haue testified and expressed so much aswell as it doth in the like case of Melchisedech Gen. 14.18 Hebr. 7.1 For as touching those Texts of Scripture which you bring to prove Moses to be a Priest it shall by and by appeare that they prove it not Againe if Moses were the high Priest what will you make Aaron to be for it is evident and confessed of all sides that Aaron was the high Priest and if Moses were also another high Priest at the same time Deut. 33.5 then beside that there should be two high Priests together at one time how could the one commaund the other they being both of equall authority Or can he be rightly and truely called Summus Sacerdos that hath a Superior Priest over him to commaund him It is cleere that the Scripture doth expressely testifie of Moses that he was a King and therefore of that there can be no doubt but that he was also a Priest or an high Priest as you suppose it doth not affirme no not in that Place
Lord And yet Manoah was of the tribe of Dan. Of David that was no Priest the Scripture saith Then David offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the Lord. And againe David built there an Altar unto the Lord and offered burnt offerings 1. Sam. 10. and peace-offerings and the Lord was appeased towards the Land And likewise of Salomon The King went to Gibeon to sacrifice there 1. King 3. a thousand burnt offerings did Salomon offer upon the Altar Thrise a yeare did Salomon offer burnt offerings and peace offerings upon the Altar 1. King 9. which he built to the Lord and he burnt incense upon the Altar that was before the Lord. Nothing is oftner in the Scriptures then these kinde of speeches By the which no more is meant but that either they brought these things to be offered or else they caused the Priests to offer them For in their owne Persones they could not sacrifice them because they were no Priests In that sence the Scripture saith of Saul That he offered burnt offerings at Gilgal before Samuel came not that Saul offered it with his owne hands 1. Sam. 13. as you before did fondly imagine and said Hee was deposed for aspiring to the spirituall function 1. Sam. 14. v. 3.18 But he commaunded the Priest to doe it who was then present in the host with the Arke of God as the next chapter doth witnesse in two speciall Places And as for the reproofe that Samuel gave to King Saul it was saith he for distrusting and disobeying God For when God first advanced Saul to the Kingdome he charged him by the Mouth of Samuel to goe to Gilgal and there to stay seaven Dayes 1. Sam. 10. before he ventured to doe any Sacrifice till the Prophet were sent to shew him what he should doe 1 Sam 13. But seeing his enemies gathered to fight against him on the one side and his people â—hâ—inking from him on the other side because Samuel came not he began to suspect that Samuel had beguiled him and therefore upon his owne head against the commandement of God willed the Priest to goe foreward with his Sacrifices and to consult God what he should doe This secret distruct and presumption against the charge which God had given him was the thing that God tooke in so evill part And since he would not submitte himselfe to be ruled by God and expect his leasure God reiected him as unfitte to governe the People Neither did Samuel challenge him for invading the Priests Office but for not staying the time that God prefixed him before the Prophet should come So farre he whom I thus recite the more at large for your better satisfaction in this Point But yet moreover that worthy In his Booke of iurisdiction Regall Episcopall Papall pag. 31. 32. 33. c. learned and reverend Bishop also D. Carleton amongst other arguments which he bringeth to prove Moses to be a Ciuill Magistrate and a Prince but not a Priest alledgeth that Text of Exodus 4.16 where Moses is said to be as a God to Aaron and Aaron as a Mouth to Moses The word there used is Elohim and the same that is also used in Psal 82. and is never applyed throughout the whole Scriptures when it is given to men but to such as were Kings Princes Iudges and other Civil Magistrate and at no time to Priests vnles they were themselves the chiefe Magistrates or received Authority from the Chiefe Magistrate Give you an instance in the holy Scripture to the Contrary if you can or else confesse the truth of it And here you may also observe one reason among the rest which Christ himselfe giveth why they be called Gods in that Psalm 82. Psal 82.6 For in that Psalme it is that these words are written I have said ye are Gods which be the words that Christ citeth in the Gospell of S. Iohn Ioh. 10.34.35 and saith thereupon thus If hee called them Gods unto whom the word of God was given c. So that this appeareth to be one reason why Kings Princes and Civill Magistrates Deut. 17.18 19 Iosh 1.8 2 King 11.12 be called Gods namely because they have the word of God given or committed to them although not to preach it as Bishops Pastors and Doctors doe yet by way of speciall commission to keepe it to establish it by Authority to commaund obedience to it to punish the Violaters of it and to encourage countenance protect and defend the Professors and Practisers of it For it is certaine that all that Psalme whence Christ tooke those words is wholy and entirely understood of Kings Princes and such like Civill Magistrates not of Priests Bishops or other Ecclesiasticall Ministers as any man may perceave that will reade that Psalme Seeing then this word Elohim is given to Moses and that comparatively and in respect of Aaron the Priest it must be graunted that Moses was a Civil Magistrate and as a King or Prince in respect of him and others But neither Priest nor high Priest as you surmise And as for that Text before mentioned of Psalm 99. vers 6. how much soever you and others stand vpon it yet give me leave here once more to tell you that being well considered you may in your owne iudgment easily perceave that you can enforce nothing thereout to prove Moses to be a Priest properly so called although Aaron was for the purpose and intention of those words is no more but this to shew that not onely Moses a Civill Magistrate but Aaron also a Chiefe Priest amongst the other Priests and Samuel likewise a Prophet amongst others that called upon the name of the Lord were all heard of him when they prayed Now because all those when they prayed called vpon the name of the Lord were heard and obtained their requests is that any argument that therefore they were all Priests properly so called No man I thinke will be so absurd as to make such an inference 9. I therefore now come to Ioshuah the Successor of Moses he aswell as Moses did as a Prince or King commaund the Priests Levites and all Israell and dealt in matters also Ecclesiasticall aswell as Temporall as I have shewed in my Reply pag. 6. hereunto you in your Reioynder answere nothing that is of any weight or moment Your best answer is That what Iosuah did in matters Ecclesiasticall he did it by the direction and advise of Eleasar the Priest which if it be graunted maketh nothing to the Question For the Question is not by whose direction or advise but by whose Authority those things were done It is not denyed but that Priests might as was fitte they should give their best direction and advise vnto their Kings and Princes But this derogateth nothing from that Authority which Kings and Princes have and beare within their owne dominions Yea how impertinent weake and feeble this your answere is you might have perceived
before by my Reply pag. 9. 10. if you had so pleased Touching King Iosuah I said in my Reply pag. 6. 7. That he commaunded the high Priest aswell as the other Priests and dealt also in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning Gods service and religion And amongst other Text of Scripture for proofe thereof I alledged that Text of 2 King 23.4 where it is accorded that the King commaunded Hilkiah the high Priest and the Priests of the second order c. Hereunto you answere that there is no such matter in the Place by me cited and that the force of this Argument consisteth in these coyned words of mine The King commaunded Hilkiah whom you call Helcias which words not being in Scripture say you I am a wilie Wittnesse for strengthning my cause to produce so shamefull an untruth and though I be a Iudge yet you see no commission I have to use falshood These words be able to provoke a mans patience But you must know that bad words and a bould face will doe you no good Let others therefore iudge whether you or I be the honester man in this Point You say there is no such matter in the Place by me cited Wherefore I desire the Reader but to turne to that place I cited which is according to our English Bibles 2. Kings 23.4 and according to your Latine Bibles 4. Reg. 23.4 and there shall he see whether there be any such matter or no and whether these words The King commaunded Hilkiah whom you call Helcias be words coyned by me as you shame not to speake or whether they be in the Scripture it selfe extant and apparant For first those words be in the Hebrew Secondly they be in our English Translations and thirdly they be also even in your owne vulgar Latine Translation For even in that your owne Translation the words be these Et praecepit Rex Helciae Pontifici Sacerdotibus secundi ordinis c. And the King commaunded Helcias the high Priest and the Priests of the second order c Now then is it not Impudency intollerable in you to deny this You shall therefore doe well yet at last to confesse that this good and godly King Iosias commaunded Hilkiah otherwise called Helcias the high Priest and the Priests of the second Order and that he also dealt in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning religion as I there sayed and have further declared in the same place of my Reply pag. 6.7 To that which I alledged concerning King Asa and King Hezekiah in my Reply pag. 7. 8. who likewise had Authority as is there shewed over Persons Ecclesiasticall and in causes also Ecclesiasticall you answer nothing in your Reioinder that deserveth to be replyed unto And concerning King Iehosaphat also your answere is likewise very idle and friuolous and scarce worthy the mentioning For whereas I alledged amongst other things 2. Chron. 19 8.9.10.11 That this King Iehosaphat did constitute or set in Hierusalem of the Levites and of the Priests and of the Chiefe of the families of Israel for the iudgment and cause of the Lord c. which words were sufficient to prove my purpose there namely the Kings Authority over Priests and Levites and in causes also Ecclesiasticall you to shew your great learning and iudgment in this point doe taxe me for omitting or not rehearsing of some subsequent words in the which verse of that Chapter which when they be vttered and rehearsed doe indeede make more against you then for you for the words be these And behould saith the King Amoriah the high Priest shall be the Chiefe over you in all matters of the Lord and Zebadiah the sonne of Ishmaell a Ruler of the house of Iudah shall be for all the Kings affaires By which words it appeareth That King Iehosaphat did aswell constitute and appointe Amariah the Priest to be the Chiefe over that Assembly Councell or Synedrion which he set at Hierusalem for all matters of the Lord as he did constitute and appoint Zebadiah to be the Chiefe amongst them for all the Kings affaires For the words of the Text put no difference but that he might and did constitute the one to be the Chiefe in the one case aswell as he did constitute the other to be the Chiefe in the other case As for that reason you bring for a difference it is nothing worth for it is graunted that the King did not nor could by his Regall Authority without a speciall commaundement or warrant from God consecrate or make a Priest neither is it there said That King Iehosaphat did consecrate or make Amariah to be a Priest But he being a Priest before the King did there constitute and appoint him as lawfully he might to be the President or Chiefe in that Synedrion or Assembly in all matters of the Lord aswell as he did or might constitute Zebadiah to be therein the Chiefe or President for all the Kings affaires 10. Now then to come to King Solomon I proved him also in my Reply pag. 7. to have had authoritie over the Priests and Levites and to have dealt likewise in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning Religion But to that Text of 2. Chron. 8.14.15 by mee alledged for proofe thereof you answer not Onely to that Text of 1. King 2.27.35 where Solomon deposed Abiathar the high Priest and put Sadocke in his place you answer and graunt it to be true that hee did so But this say you hee did as being a Prophet and not as a King This answer of yours I before confuted and tooke a way in my Reply pag. 20. 21. whether I againe referre you because that standeth still in full force against you you having said nothing against it in your Reioynder But now I adde further unto it that it doth moreover appeare even by the wordes of the Text it selfe that Solomon did not doe this as a Prophet but as a King because hee therein did no more but execute that which a Prophet or man of God had before spoken from God concerning the house of Ely For so the words of the Text doe shew that Solomon cast out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord that hee might fulfill the wordes of the Lord which hee spake against the house of Ely in Shilo 1. King 2.27 and 1. Sam. 2.27.28.29.30.31 c. where the Prophet or man of God as hee is called that uttered the Prophesie and the King that executed the Prophesie must of necessitie bee distinguished And therefore as hee that received and uttered the Prophesie is in the receiving and uttering of it to bee called and supposed a Prophet So King Solomon that was onely the executer and performer of that Prophesie is in the execution and performance of it to be tearmed and deemed a King and not a Prophet But whilst I thus prove the authoritie of Kings over the high Priest because King Solomon deposed Abiathar and put Sadock in his place You would inferre that Elias by the like reason
of Germanie are abused by the Pope whom hee leadeth and handleth like bruite beasts both for spoile and slaughter at his owne pleasure This Poperie saith hee is lively described by S. Peter 2. Pet. 2. where bee saith They despise Rulers or Governours by Rulers signifying secular Princes Now the Popish Cleargie have by their owne authoritie exempted themselves from tributes subiection and all charges of the Common-weale contrarie to the doctrine of Peter and Paul Yea so farre is the Pope from acknowledging the soveraignetie of Princes over him that hee will scarce admitte them to kisse his feete Calvine likewise writeth thus The word of God Calvin Instit. lib. 4. cap. 2. sect 22. saith hee teacheth us to obey all Princes who are established in there thrones be it by what meanes soever Yea though they doe nothing lesse then the office of Kings yet must they bee obeyed and though the King be never so wicked and indeede unworthy the name of a King yet must subiects acknowledge the image of Divine power in his publike authoritie and as touching obedience they must reverence and honour him aswell as if hee were the godlyest King in the world Nebuchadnezzar was a mightie invader and subduer of other Nations yet God saith by his Prophet that he had given those lands and countries unto him Ezech. 29. Dan. 2. Neyther would he have any rebellion or resistance to be offered but contrarywise commaunded obedience to be performed unto him Iere. 27. And therefore we must never suffer these seditious conceites to possesse our mindes as to thinke an evill King must be so dealt withall as hee deserveth but we are directly charged to obey the King though he bee a savage Tyrant and never so bad Beza confess cap. 5. sect 45 Beza also speaketh in like sort Private men amongst whom I account inferiour Magistrates in respect of their King have no other remedie saith hee against Tyrants to whom they are subiect but amendment of their lives prayers and teares which God in his good time will not despise And if it so fall out that wee cannot obey the commandement of the King but that wee must offend God the King of kings Then must wee rather obey God then man Yet so as that wee remember that it is one thing not to obey and another thing Ibidem to resist and to betake ourselves to Armes which wee may not doe Againe hee saith The impudencie of our Adversaries is herein most notorious that they who contrarie to the word of God have openly subiected Kings and kingdomes to their authoritie and be themselves the most rebellious sect under heaven yet dare netwithstanding to obiect the guilt of that crime unto us These being the doctrines and positions of Luther Calvine Beza and other Protestants concerning Kings and kingdomes let the equall Reader Iudge what and how great the wrong is you doe unto them and whether also that is or can possibly be true which you write both in your Answer and againe in your Reioynder namely That Kings and Princes may more confidently build the safetie of their persons Act. 17.7 Ioh. 18.36 Ephes 1.21.22.23 Ephes 4.15.16 Coloss 1.17.18 and estates upon the loyaltie of their Catholicke subiects then upon any Protestant subiects Why more confidently I pray you For is this a good reason which you bring viz. because although Papists give the spirituall supremacie headship and Monarchie over the whole Church upon earth unto the Pope which indeed they should not do in asmuch as it is a Regall right and Prerogative properly belonging unto Christ Iesus yet doe they acknowledge in Kings a supremacie in Temporall matters yea this reason if you did well observe it maketh rather much against you For it sheweth that Papists bee revera neyther so good Christians nor yet so good subiects Colos 2.19 as Protestants bee Not so good Christians because They bold not the head CHRIST IESVS as S. Paul speaketh but have without any warrant or commission from him errected to themselves another head Monarch and Spirituall King namely the Pope of Rome Not so good subjects because they acknowledge not to belong unto Kings an authoritie over persons Ecclesiasticall and in causes also Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill and Temporall as Protestants doe For whereas you say that the Protestant Subjects doe take from the King the Temporall supremacie aswell as the Spirituall it is too lewd and loud a slaunder Yea what is there that the Protestants doe more earnestly contend for against the Pope and against his partakers then the Spirituall supremacie or Spirituall kingdome to be given to Christ Iesus And the Civill or Temporall supremacie over persons Ecclesiasticall and in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as Temporall to bee given unto Kings and Princes within their Dominions But because you yet further object against the Protestants both rebellious doctrines and rebellious practises and affirme that many instances of this kinde may bee reade in the Booke of dangerous Positions For a cleere and full Answer to all that you have said or rather Papists have or can say in that case I referre you unto that Booke which is called An exact Discoverie of Romish Doctrine in the Case of Conspiracie Rebellion and the Reply to him that calleth himselfe the Moderate Answerer thereof In which Bookes so conjoyned in one Volume you may reade and see at large a cleere justification of Luther Calvine Beza and other Protestants in this point and contrarywise the Papists to bee notoriously guiltie therein And this you may also see further debated and shewed in that Booke which is called The true difference betweene Christian subiection and unchristian Rebellion In the third part whereof be refelled the Iesuites reasons and authorities which they alleadge for the Popes depriving of Princes and the bearing of Armes by Subjects against their Soveraignes and where the tyrannies and injuries of Antichrist seeking to exalt himselfe above Kings and Princes bee further discovered and declared c. These things I would not here thus farre have spoken of had not you provoked me thereunto not only by your first beginning but by your continuance still stiffe-standing in these your needlesse cōparisons calumniations But you proceed come next from p. 50. in my Reply to p. 79. where againe you skippe over fourteene leaves more together in the same booke In that pag. 79. It is true that I said That not onely those kings of England before mentioned namely King William Rufus king Henry the First and King Henry the Second and some others thus contended and opposed themselves against the Pope of Rome But King William the Conqueror also who was before all these made the like Kingly opposition For when Hildebrand otherwise called Pope Gregory the Seventh was bold to demand of this King an Oath of fealtie to bee made to him as if the King were to hold the kingdome of him as of his Soveraigne Lord This King would by
Iustinian the Emperour And other Councels I likewise there alledged called by Emperours to all which you answer nothing Nor doe you answer to Cardinall Cusanus there also produced by me confessing and affirming expressely though it were against the Pope that The first eight Generall councels were called by the Emperours Yea this is so cleere a case and so evident a truth that S. Hierome maketh it to bee of the essence of a Generall Councell Dic quis Imperator jusserit hanc SynoduÌ„ convocari Tell us Hieron lib. 2. in Ruffin saith hee what Emperour commaunded this councell to be assembled thereby declaring that it was held for no Generall Councell in those dayes unlesse it were called and assembled by the commaundement of the Emperour Now then upon all these premisses I leave it to the equall Reader to judge whether hee that denieth this so cleere plaine and palpable a truth be not justly worthy to bee accounted at least Extreamely audacious if not extreamely impudent 14. And yet you would seeme to say further that S. Peter by his authoritie and commaundement called the Councell which was at Ierusalem in the Apostles times Act. 15. and that hee was also the President therein But you prove it not neyther is there any such thing in the Text appearing that hee commaunded or called that Councell Yea hee had no such commaunding or compulsive authoritie over the rest of the Apostles The Greeke Scholiast saith That hee did nothing imperiously â—r Schol. in Act. 2. or with commaunding authoritie but all things by common consent And therefore in those times of the Apostles did that Councell at Ierusalem Act. 15.6 come together and was assembled by common consent and agreement amongst themselves But afterward indeede in the succeeding times when the Emperours became Christians The Ecclesiasticall affaires saith Socrates did much depend upon them so that the greatest Councels were in time past and still are saith hee Socrat. libr. 5. in Prooemio at this day called by their appointment Neyther was Peter the first man that spake in that Councell as you affirme seeking thereby to prove him to bee also the President therein For the Text sheweth that there had beene great disputation before Peter rose up and spake Act. 15.7 Yea it seemeth that Iames rather then Peter was the President in that Councell For Iames was he that gave the definitive sentence Act. 15.19.20 to that sentence of his did both Peter and the rest of that Councell consent and condescend and accordingly was the decree drawne and made up in that Councell and sent unto the Churches as appeareth Act. 15.22.23 24.25.26.27.28.29 Neyther is it true that to Preside or to be President in Councels is a right properly belonging to the Pope whatsoever you say Yea it is verie evidently and abundantly disproved in Ecclesiasticall historie by sundrie Councels wherein others Aâ—han ad solitar vitan agentes and not the Bishops of Rome were the Presidents And Athanasius himselfe saith expressely of Hosius that hee was in his time Conciliorum Princeps the chiefe Prince or President of the Councels 15. But in my Reply pag. 30. I said further that Athanasius did approve of the Authoritie of the Emperours in Ecclesiasticall causes and this I proved by two instances and not by one onely as you say The first was this that when Athanasius was commaunded to conferre with one Arius concerning matters of faith hee answered Who is so farre out of his wits that hee dare refuse the commaundement of his Prince The other was this That the Emperours commaundement made him to appeare before the Councell of Tyrus and finding that councell not to be indifferent but partially affected Hee and the rest of the Orthodoxe Bishops appealed to the Emperour To the former you answer nothing at all in your Rejoynder To the latter you speake somewhat and doe say that That which I call the councell of Tyrus was no councell at all And this you would prove by the testimonie of Athanasius himselfe where he saith thus Qua fronte talem conventum Synodum appellare audent cui comes Praesedit With what face dare they call such an assembly a Synod or Councell in which the Count did Preside But doe you thinke this to be a reason sufficient to prove it to be no councell at all or in any sort because a Count being a Lay-man did Praeside in it as Deputie or Lieuftenant to the Emperour and in his stead Doth not your selfe say in your Rejoynder that the Emperour Theodosius the Younger sent Count Candidianus as his Lieustenant to the Councell of Ephesus will you therefore conclude that this Councell of Ephesus was also therefore no Councell at all because this Count Candidianus being a lay-man was President or Lieuftenant it it in stead of the Emperour For you may aswell conclude the one as the other by that reason Doe not therefore misconster nor mistake that holy man Athanasius nor wrong nor delude your Reader by a fallacie à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter For if you reade him diligently and observantly you will finde that he denyed it not to bee a Councell simply and absolutely but in some respects as namely in respect it consisted of Arrian Bishops and of that Arrian President and that their plotte purpose and endeavour was to advance Arrianisme against Gods truth and the Orthodexe Bishops of that time and against the decrees of the former famous Councell of Nyce in that point and in respect also that not justice but violence or tyranny was there intended and such like And this you might have perceived if you had gone on with the words of Athanasius which are these viz. Qua fronte talem conventum Athan. apolo 2 pag. 567. Synodum appellare audent cui Comes praesidet Et ubi speculator apparchat Et Comentariensis sive Carcerarius pro Diaconis Ecclesiae adventantes introducebat ubi Comes verba faciebat caeteri praesentes in silentio erant vel potius Comiti obsequium suum accommodabant c. Againe he there saith Qua species ibi Synodi Ibid. p. 566. ubi vel caedes vel exilium si Caesari placuisset constituebatur And againe hee saith Niceni Concilij Decreta irrita sua autem rata volunt Et Synodi vocabulo uti audent qui tantae Synodo non obtemperant Nihil illis Synodi curae sunt sed inanem speciem Synodi praetexunt ut sublatis Orthodoxi viris ea quae verae magnae Synodâ— Ibid. p. 619. de Arianis statuta sunt demoliantur And therefore hee saith further thus Quaeres cumita agerentur ab ijs tanquam è concilio injurioscrum recessimus Quod enim libuit fecere That whilst these things were thus done wee saith hee departed from them as from a Councell of injurious persons For they did what they listed You see then in what respects it is that Athanasius disliked and condemned this Councell of Tyrus
Iudge in Spaine or Hungarie or other kingdomes to prove the supremacie to bee likewise in their kings And why not For it is a thing of right belonging to all Kings to have the supremacie within their severall Dominions and to use and extend that their power and authoritie for God and for the advancement of his true service and right religion aswell as for the advancement of Civill Iustice and externall peace amongst their subjects And what hurt were it to any if all the Kings in Christendome yea if all the kings in the world did this or rather how great ample unspeakeable a benefite would thereby accrew and come not onely to all Christendome but to the whole world If all the Kings in Christendome or in the whole world did extend their authoritie 2 Thess 2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12 Rev. 17 1.2.3.4 c. Revel 18.4 for the maintenance and advancement of Popery which is indeede the adulterate corrupt and false Religion it being as the holy Scripture it selfe hath notified and declared it to be the Religion of the grand Antichrist and of the whore of Babylon which all Gods people be commaunded to forsake even Papists themselves out of the error of their judgement would thinke it to bee well done How much more in true judgement ought you and they to thinke it to be well done if they did all imploy their Civill sword power and authoritie for the advancement of that which is indeed the most auncient true Christian Catholicke and Apostolicke Religion But you have yet still a conceite that it is requisite necessarie to have a Pope of Rome as a supreme Pastor or a supreme Iudge to decide and determine all heresies errors doubts questions and controversies concerning faith and religion that arise in the Church and so to preserve peace and unitie in it by his infallible and unerrable judgement Howbeit first why should the Bishop of Rome be this supreme Pastor or supreme Iudge more then the Bishop of Antioch Constantinople Alexandria Ierusalem or any other Bishop For where hath God constituted the one to bee so more then the other Secondly how doe you prove the Bishop of Rome to have an infallible an unerrable judgement more then other Bishops have Yea even in the Preface of my first Booke pag. 14.15 16. and againe in the second part of that same my first Booke Chap. 1. pag. 54.55 I have proved that the Bishop of Rome may erre even in matters of faith aswell as any other Bishop and the same doth also before appeare in this Booke likewise Thirdly if the supremacie and Monarchie of the Bishop of Rome have this vertue in it to keepe and maintayne peace and unitie in the Church and to decide and determine certainely truely and infallibly all doubts questions and controversies in Religion Why doth hee not decide and determine all those questions controversies that so it might experimentally appeare to have that vertue in it or what neede is there then of Generall Councels yea of any Councels at all For the use and end of Synods and Councels is to decide and determine questions and controversies that doe arise and spread themselves to the disquiet and trouble of the Church all which bee superfluous if the certaine truth in everie question may be had immediately from his mouth But indeede this institution of Synods or Councels is a divine institution and therefore must stand although that humane invention of the Popes supremacie needelesly erected for the same use and end doe utterly fall and be disanulled And what necessitie is there of him For even Generall Conncels were summoned and convocated in times past by the Emperours and may be still at this day convocated by the unanimous consent and authoritie of the severall Kings and Princes of the severall Nations Neyther is the judgement of one man as namely of the Bishop of Rome or of any other so strong or powerfull to pull out errors that be rooted in mens mindes Conc. Affric cap. 138. epist â—ad CelestinuÌ„ as is the judgement and consent of many in a Synod or Councell Vnlesse there be any that thinketh God inspireth one particular person with righteousnesse forsaketh a number of priests assembled together in a Councell which the Councell of Affrica held to be verie absurd and repugnant to Christ his promise so long as they meete together in his name and for advancement of his truth And here you may observe a difference betweene the wisedome of God and the wisedome of Men For in the Apostles times there arose at Antioch a great question which was whether Circumcision were necessarie to salvation Act. 15 1.2 3.4 5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12 13. c. what doe they in this case Doe they choose and appoint some one man as chiefe to whom they will referre the deciding and determining of this question No such matter And yet if they would have had the controversie decided and determined by One who was fitter to have beene that one then S. Paul whom they had amongst them But they take no such course but send Paul and Barnabas and certaine others to Ierusalem What to doe Was it to desire the judgement only of some one man there as namely of S. Peter or of any one other No. But to have the matter decided by a Synod or Councell of the Apostles Elders and others therein to be assembled for that purpose and in which Synod or Councell it was determined accordingly If then in those times of the Apostles when there was so great abundance of the gifts of God and when as controversies might without danger of error have beene referred unto one onely The rule of One above all the rest was not held meete and convenient Now when the gifts are lesse and the danger of error more Can is be thought a wisedome consonant to the wisedome of the holy Ghost to erect and constitute as the seduced world hath done One man namely the Bishop or Pope of Rome to be the Iudge and that a verie sure and infallible one as they account him for the deciding and determining of all doubts questions and controversies that arise throughout the whole world concerning Faith and Religion and upon whom as being in their opinions the Monarch and head of the whole and universall Church upon Earth they doe though overboldly and dangerously relye and depend It is true that the regiment or governement of the Church is Monarchiall but that is not in respect of the Pope but in respect of CHRIST IESVS who is indeede the right true and sole Monarch and head of his whole Church But in respect of the Bishops and Pastors that be rulers or governours under Christ it is as the Protestants have rightly taught and defended against the Papists not Monarchiall but Aristocraticall Yea Christ Iesus himselfe told his Apostles and in them all Bishops their successors when they contended for a Majoritie or Monarchy among themselves that Reges gentium
amongst them for that cause In which regard also it is that hee would have the Easterne Churches to be imitators of him and to follow him Neither did this Emperor Iustinian write unto him as to an universall or supreme Bishop in those dayes over all but onely as to a Bishop of a Province or of a parte of the Christian world and namely in this sort Iohanni Sanctissimo Archiepiscopo almae urbis Romae â—de libr. 1. â— 4 lib. 4 â— 6 Patriarchae To Iohn the most holy Archbishop and Patriarch of the famous Citie of Rome Againe in that Epistle he desired this Iohn the Bishop of Rome to write his letters to him and to the Bishop of that his royall Citie of Constantinople whom hee there calleth brother to the Bishop of Rome and not his servant or subject Whereupon the Glosse it selfe maketh this observation and saith thus Hic eum parificat Here the Emperour equalleth the B shop of Constantinople to the Bishop of Rome And indeede the first Generall Councell of Constantinople consisting of 150. Bishops Canon 2. 3. and the Generall Councell of Chalcedon also consisting of 630. Bishops Act. 16. and the sixt Generall Councell of Constantinople Can. 36 doe all decree the Sea of Constantinople to be equall to the Sea of Rome except onely that in the meeting and assembly of the Bishops the Bishop of Rome was for Order sake to have the first Place and the Bishop of Constantinople the second Place which together with the reason thereof you may see more fully declared in my first Booke chap. 1. pag. 17. 18. I alledged further in my Reply pag. 15. 16. 17. 18. many and sundry Chapters Lawes made by the Emperour Charles the great otherwise called Charlemaine concerning men and matters Ecclesiasticall the Particulars whereof you may there see which because you knew not how to answere you passe them over with this saying that they are not worth the answering why so in regard say you there is thereby no more discovered then by those before mentioned of Iustinian And is not that mough if it were no more but so and yet is there more discovered in the one then in the other Howbeit Act. 2.36 5.31 Iohn 18.36.37 1. Cor. 15.25 Heb. 1.8.13 Ephes 1.20.21.22.23 Coloss 2.10.8.19 the Lawes of those two Emperors vizt both of Iustinian Charlemaine I alledged not to any such end as you still evermore untruly suppose vizt thereby to prove the Spirituall Supremacy to belong to Emperours or Kings for the spirituall Monarchy and Supremacy I attribute as I said before neither to Emperor nor King nor to Pope nor Prelate but to Christ Iesus onely the sole Monarch and head of his whole Church but to this end and purpose onely namely to prove that Emperours and Kings had in those former and auncient times Authority over Persons Ecclesiasticall in causes also Ecclesiasticall which because you neither doe nor can deny what doe you else but graunt them consequently you here graunt once againe the thing that is in question as a matter cleere and vndenyable and therefore what neede I to dispute or debate this matter any longer with you But here if I doe not mistake you you seeme much to restraine the Power and Authority of Emperors and Kings as though they might not make any new Lawes or Constitutions but onely strengthen confirme and put in execution the olde and former Ecclesiasticall lawes If this be your meaning you see how this conceit is confuted confounded even by those former precedents and examples of Iustinian and Charlemaine For it is evident that Iustinian made many new lawes and new Constitutions which were not before and so did also Charles the Great frame and make divers and sundrie new lawes Chapters and Constitutions And did not Constantine that first famous Christian Emperour also make many new Lawes and new Constitutions concerning Ecclesiasticall persons and Ecclesiasticall matters which were not made before his dayes You may also remember Aug. Epist 50. that S. Augustine saith Serviunt Reges Christo leges ferendo pro Christe Kings serve Christ by making lawes for Christ And therefore they may as occasion requireth aswell make new lawes for Christ as commaund those that were formerly made for him to bee put in execution But if you meane that you would have Emperours and Kings to make no lawes nor cause any to bee put in execution concerning the Church but such as will well stand with the Lawes of God his truth Religion and Ordinances you therein say the same thing that Protestants doe 2. Cor. 13.8 For they say with S. Paul that they may doe nothing against the truth but for the truth And that the power authoritie of Emperours Kings and Princes if it be rightly used and not abused is for God and not against God and for Christ his Church and Religion and not for Antichrist or any untruths heresies or errors whatsoever Or if your meaning bee that you would have Emperours Kings and Princes in their making of lawes concerning God his Church Religion to take the advise direction counsell of godly learned Orthodoxe Bishops and teachers this is also not denied but graunted unto you But then must you graunt on the other side that if they bee not Orthodoxe Bishops and true teachers but false teachers or if they be such as deliver errors in stead of truths such mens erroneous counsailes directions and advises are not to be followed but to bee rejected as I have shewed more fully in my Reply pag. 37. 38. 12. But after these times of Charles the Great mentioned in my Reply pag. 18. you come next in your Reioynder to your accusation of Luther Calvine mentioned in my Reply p. 49. So that here you skip over no lesse then fifteen whole leaves together in that my Reply Yet what have you now to say against Luther and Calvine In your first Answer you tooke occasion for I gave you none to inveigh against them as if they had beene Adversaries to Kings and Princes and to the obedience due to them In that my Reply pag. 49. I said that the works and writings of them both did shew openly proclayme the contrarie to the world And this is indeede verie apparant Luth. tom 1. in Gen. cap. 9. tom 3. annota in Deut capit 6. fol. 4. fol. 552. Rom. 13.1.2 3.4.5.6 Luth. tom 2. resp ad Ambros cather fo 150. 152 For where as some objected That the rule or governement of one man over another might seeme a tyrannous usurpation because all men are naturally of like condition To this saith Luther must wee that have the word of God oppose the commaundement and ordinance of God who hath put a sword into the hand of the Magistrate whom therefore the Apostle calleth Gods Minister Againe hee saith I grieve and blush and groane to see how scornefully our Emperours and Princes