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
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
is a King hee serveth God in setting forth lawes to commaund that which is good and to remove the contrarie So that Kings as Kings serve God in doing that for his service which none but Kings can doe Yea that Kings may punish Idolatrie blasphemie sacriledge schisme heresie and all the offences against the first Table aswell as Thefts Rapes Murthers Adulteries and other offences against the second Table of his law Aug. cont 2. Gaudentis epist li. 2. c. 11 S. Augustine yet further directly sheweth against the Donatists saying Cry thus if you dare let murthers be punished let adulteries be punished let other degrees of lust and sinne be punished onely sacriledges that is wronging of Gods truth and his Church we will not have to be punished by Princes lawes Againe Aug. contr epist Parmen lib. cap. 7. Galat. 5.19.20.21 he speaketh thus Will the Donatists though they were convinced of a sacrilegous schisme say that it belongeth not to the Princes power to correct or punish these things Is it because such powers doe not extend to corrupt false religion The workes of the flesh S. Paul reckoneth to be these Adulterie fornication uncleannesse wantonnesse idolatrie witchbraft hatred debate emulation wrath contentious seditious Cont. Epistol â—armen libr. cap. 7. heresies envie murthers drunkennesse gluttonie and such like What thinke these men saith S. Augustine May the crime of idolatrie bee iustly revenged by the Magistrate or may witches be rightly punished by the rigor of Princes lawes and yet will they not acknowledge that heretikes and sâ—bismatickes may be repressed by the same when S. Paul rehearseth them al ogether with the other fruites of iniquitie Wâ—ll they reply that earthly powers are not to meddle with such matters â—o what end then doth he beare the sword Luke 14.23 which is called Gods minister serving to punish malefactors Christ saith in the Gospell Goe out into the high wayes and hedges and compell them to come in Aug. cont 2. Gaud. Epist. lib 2 cap. 17. Epistol So. â—ont 2. Gaud. epist lib. 2. cap 17. epistol 48. that mine house may be filled Wee take wayes saith S Augustine for heresies and hedges for schismes because wayes in this place signifie the diversenesse and hedges the perversenesse of opinions If then those that be found in the high wayes and hedges that is in heresies and schismes must be compelled to come in let them not mislike that they be forced For this commanding by Princely power occasioneth many to be saved who though they be violently brought to the feast of the great housholder and compelled to come in yet being there they finde cause to rejoyce that they did enter though at first against their wills But here you tel me though somewhat unseasonably that you cited in your Answere a Decree or Canon made in the first Councell of Nyce declaring evidently that the Bishop of Rome whom you unjustly and untruely call the supreame Pastor of the whole Militant Church had the Supreamacie in that time that unto this pregnant proofe produced by you I onely reply as Maskers doe with Mumme Why what needed any reply at all unto it For I had answered it before in my first Booke cap. 1. pag. 12. Where I affirmed and shewed it to bee a forged and counterfeyte Canon by diverse Councels as namely by the sixth Councell of Carthago cap. 3. by the Affrican Councell cap. 92. 101. 105. and by the Milevitane Councell cap. 22. Yea the verie fifth and sixth Canons which bee confessed to bee undoubtedly true Canons of the Councell of Nyce doe themselves sufficiently declare that other Canon which you and other Papists also alledge to bee false and forged And not onely those Councels but the Decrees of other Councels also decreeing against the supremacie of the Bishop of Rome as is shewed in the same my first booke c. 1. p. 16. 17. 18. do therby likewise consequently declare that Canon of the Councell of Nice which you speake of to be a new forged thing But if you desire yet further proofe thereof against the objections and allegations that Papists make in this case then reade that Booke of jurisdiction Regall Episcopall Papall made by that worthy learned and reverend Bishop Doctor Carleton cap. 5. pag. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. And reade also for the same purpose The Catholicke Appeale for the Protestants made by that reverend worthy and learned Bishop Doctor Morton lib. 4. cap. 8. pag. 467 468 469. 470. 471. 472. 473. 474. 475. 476. and there shall you see this Canon so fully maintayned to bee forged against the adversaries as that it is now a shame for you or any other Papist to cite or produce it for a witnesse of the Popes supremacie But upon such false and forged testimonies it is that the Popes supremacie is chiefely founded Howbeit I hope by this time you perceive that howsoever the Pope and Poperie have beene heretofore long maskers in the world and gone disguised yet at last they have beene discovered and made knowne to bee such as they bee indeede and that it had beene much better for you to have beene mute or mum then by this your provocation to have occasioned the shame and ignominie of the Pope and Popish Church in the point of forgerie to be thus displayed and layd open as also you may here see that I have no way wronged S. Augustine or wrested him to a wrong construction as you calumniate when I alledged him to prove the Kings authoritie aswell in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning Religion as in matters Civill and Temporall Which that you and everie man else may yet the better and the more fully perceive I have here thought it good to set downe his owne verie wordes in Latine Aug. contra Crescon lib. 3. cap 51. and they be these In hoc enim Reges sicut eis divinitus praecipitur Deo serviunt in quantum Reges sunt si in suo regno bona iubeant mala prohibeant non solum quae pertinent ad humanam societatem verumetiam quae ad divinam religionem For in this saith he doe Kings as is commaunded them from God serve as they be Kings if in their kingdomes they commaund good things and forbid euill things not onely those things which belong to humane societie but those things also which belong to Gods Religion Can any thing be more plainely or more directly spoken for proofe of this point 7. Here then you may withall perceive the truth of that distinction which I used in my Reply cap. 1. pag. 4. For whereas you in your Answer amplifying the Sacerdotall or spirituall power had said that how much the foule in perfection exceeds the bodie the eternall blisse the temporall felicitie the divine lawes the humane lawes By so much did the spirituall authoritie exceede the temporall Thereunto I replyed and sayed that whilest you thus spake you should have remembred
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
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