as not worthy the name of a Councell Yet for all that hee affirmed it not to be no Councell at all simply and absolutely and to all intents and purposes as you would perswade For if it had been no Councell at all or in any sort why was it convocated or assembled as a Councell Or why was Athanasius commaunded by the Emperour to appeare there Or why did the same Athanasius afterward appeale from theÌ„ce to th Emperor yea even Athanasius himselfe affirmeth it to be a councell such a one as it was giveth it expressely the name of a Councell when he saith as you heard before that he and the rest of the Orthodoxe Bishops departed from thence tanquam è Concilio iniuriosorum as from a Councell of iniurious Persons So that a Councell himselfe here acknowledged it to bee though a bad Councell though a Councell of injurious and wicked Persons and a Councell not worthy to bee called a Councell because it thus intended and endeavored the advancement of Arrianisme But what Will you say that the many and sundrie Councels convocated and assembled in times past wherein Arrianisme was established were therefore no Councels at all or in any sort Yea this of Tyrus aswell as those was held to be a Councell though a wicked and impious one not onely by Athanasius but by Socrates also and by Theodoret likewise Socrat. libr. 1. c 20. c. 21 ca. 22. Theodor. lib. 1. c. 28. c. 29 c. 30.31 who in their severall Ecclesiasticall Histories doe often call it expressely by that name of the Councell of Tyrus And even that Christian Emperour also Constantine himselfe wrote unto them by the same name calling them the Councell of Tyrus And it is yet further recorded that by the Emperours commaundement this Councell of Tyrus expressely againe so called was removed from Tyrus to Ierusalem But then you say that the fact whereof Athanasius was accused by the Arrians in that Councell of Tyrus was a meere civill crime belonging to the Temporall Tribunall to wit the killing of Arsenius and cutting of his hand But you are full deceived For it was not onely the killing of Aâ—senius and the cutting of his hand as you alledge but it was further the using of that hand Socrat libr. 1 â—ap 20. so suggested to bee cut of to Magicke and Sorcerie that was layd to his charge Yea sundrie other things also were layd to his charge as namely that hee had deflowred a virgin Theodoret. lib 1. cap. 30. and that one of his Cleargie had beaten downe the Altar overthrowne the Lords Table broken the holy Cuppe and burned the blessed Bible For all which misdemeanours his accusers sought to get him displaced and deposed in that Councell So that it was not a meere Civill crime that was layd to his charge as you suppose but they were mixt offences partly Civill and Temporall and partly Episcopall and Ecclesiasticall And therefore well might it bee called in some respect Negotium Imperatorium Athan. apolog 2. p. 568. a matter Imperiall namely in respect of the accusation of killing of Arsenius and the cutting of his hand if you goe no further but to consider these facts onely singly and apart from the rest For so also did the Emperour Constantine himselfe as it seemeth for a while conceive of it and therefore wrote to Dalmatius the Censor that hee should call before him such as were accused heare the matter and punish the offenders Socra libr. 1. cap. 20. But afterward hee altered his opinion and stopped that course of hearing Athanasius matters before the Censor and would have them to bee heard and determined before the Councell of Bishops which was assembled at Tyrus and which was afterward removed from thence to Ierusalem to consecrate a Temple or Church which the Emperour had builded there The Emperour saith Secrates willed the Bishops assembled at Tyrus to debate together with other matters the contentions raysed about Athanasius to the end all quarells being removed they might afterward cheerefully solemnize the consecration of that Church and dedicate the same unto God So that all the matters layd to Athanaesius his charge being not singly and severally but joyntly together considered and they all tending to the slaunder defamation and deposing of so worthy reverend and renowned a Bishop it appeareth by the event that it was at last in those times held and concluded to bee Negotium Synodale Episcopale a matter meete for a Synode or Councell of Bishops to consider of and to determine And so indeede was it done accordingly Now then when Athanasius went to the Emperour for refuge appealing from this wicked and injurious Councell of Tyrus unto the same Emperour in this his Episcopall Ecclesiasticall cause Is it not thereby verie evident that hee approved of the authoritie of the Emperour in a cause Ecclesiasticall But if yet you make any doubt hereof you may see further in my Reply pag. 68. that as the Apostle Paul appealed to Cesar so Athanasius himselfe saith that by that example of the Apostle hee would likewise appeale to the Emperour of his time and hee saith there further that beyond the Emperour there was in his dayes no appeale to be made to any but to God onely and consequently not to the Pope 16. But you demaund of me certaine questions wherein you would be resolved The first is whether I hold and conclude the spirituall supremacie to be in the King I cannot but wonder at this question of yours For I have often told you in my Reply that it is a Civill and Temporall supremacie over persons Ecclesiasticall and in causes also Ecclesiasticall which I give unto Kings What have wee beene so long disputing about the point of Supremacie And doe you not yet know the state of the question betwixt us S. Paul speaketh of some that would bee Doctors of the Law 1. Tim. 1.6 and yet understand not what they speake nor whereof they affirme Of this sort it seemeth you are by this question propounded But I answere you once more that it is not as you have often said and often mistaken a spirituall but a Civill and Temporall supremacie that I attribute to Emperours Kings and Princes in causes Ecclesiasticall and over Persons Ecclesiasticall And as for the Spirituall supremacie it belongeth rightly and properly to Christ Iesus the onely Spirituall King Head and Monarch of his whole Church For when hee was demaunded touching his kingdome hee answered thus My kingdome is not of this world Ioh. 18 36. thereby declaring that hee was not a worldly or terrestriall King but a spirituall King And therefore also when they would have 〈◊〉 him a terrestriall King Ioh. 6.15 hee would none of it 〈…〉 and departed from them And so likewise testifieth 〈…〉 true and faithfull Apostle speaking of himselfe 〈◊〉 of the rest of the Ecclesiasticall Ministers that the weapons of their warfare â— Cor. 10.4 are not carnall but
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
had the supremacie because hee as you say deposed King Benhadad and put Hazael in his place Howbeit you are therin much deceived For it is not reade in like sort that Elias deposed the one King and put the other in his place Dan. 4.12.22.17.25 Luke 2.52 Dan. 2.37 The power to depose Kings belongeth onely unto God who giveth kingdomes to whomsoever hee pleaseth But what the Prophet Elias did concerning Hazael to bee king over Syria and concerning Iehu also to bee King over Israel hee had a speciall and direct commaundement for it from God himselfe For the Lord said thus unto Elias Goe returne on thy way 1. King 19.15 to the wildernesse of Damascus and when thou commest annoynt Hazael to bee King over Syria And Iehu the sonne of Nimshi shalt thou annoynt to be King over Israel So that it was God and not Elias that put downe the one King and raysed up the other As for Elias and Elisha 2. King 9.1.2.3 c. and other Prophets they were but the publishers and declarers of Gods will and pleasure in all such cases and not the deposers of any Kings Touching that you say of Queene Athalia there was good reason for her to bee deposed For shee was a meere usurper and Ioas was the true and rightfull heyre For Behold saith the Text the Kings sonne must raigne 2. Chr. 23.3 as the Lord hath said of the sonnes of David Neyther was it Iehoida the Priest alone but the rest of the rulers and people also that according to their duties both to God and the King by an unanimous consent deposed that wicked usurper Athalia and put Ioas in the kingdome to whom the right of it appertayned For the words of the Text are 2. Chron. 23.11 Then they brought out the Kings sonne and put upon him the Crowne and gave him the testimonie and made him King and Iehoida and his sonnes annoynted him and said God save the King And concerning King Vzziah otherwise called Ozias whom you also mention it is true that he went into the Temple of the Lord to burne Incense upon th' Altar of incēse that Azariah the Priest went in after him with him fourescore Priests of the Lord which withstood Eziah said unto him It pertayneth not to thee Vziah 2. Chron. 26.16.17.18.19.20 to burne Incense unto the Lord but to the Priests the sons of Aaron that are consecrated to offer incense Goe thou forth of the sanctuarie for thou hast transgressed c. And for this his presuming to burne incense he was stricken with a leprosie which when Azariah the chiefe Priest and the other Priests saw and beheld they caused him hastily to depart from thence and hee was even compelled to goe out because the Lord had smitten him So that hee was not compelled to goe out of the Temple by reason of any force weapons or violence offered to his person by Azariah or any other of the Priests but because the Lord had smitten him viz. with a leaprosie And therefore even your owne translation which you call S. Hieromes hath it thus Sed ipse perterritus acceleravit egredi eo qued sensisset illico plagam Domini That hee made hast himselfe to goe out as being terrified with the present sence of the Lords blow upon him It is true that Azarias the Priest and the other Priests with him withstood the King But how by words onely as namely by telling him of his sinne advising him to goe out of the Temple and using divine threats and such other lawfull and allowable courses as became Priests to use but not by swords and weapons force of armes or such like externall power coactive And thus doth S. Chrysostome also himselfe testifie even in this verie case and therefore bringeth in the Priest saying thus unto God Chrysost de verbis Esaiae vidi Dominū homil 4. I have done saith hee my dutie to warne and reprove him I can goe no further Nam sacerdotis est tantùm arguere c. For it is the Priests office onely to reprove and freely to admonish and not saith he to assaile with armes not to use targets not to handle speares not to bend bowes not to cast darts but onely to reprove and freely to admonish c. But if it had beene so that Azariah and the rest of the Priests with him had forcibly and by bodily and externall violence expelled and thrust the King out of the Temple which neverthelesse you see S. Chrysostome expressely denieth to have beene done yet were this no proofe that therefore they expelled deposed or deprived him of his kingdome Yea this king Vziah otherwise called Ozias notwithstanding whatsoever these Priests did against him and notwithstanding his leaprosie wherewith hee was stricken was neverthelesse not deposed nor deprived of his kingdome For although he was a leaper unto the day of his death and dwelt as a leaper in an house apart from others according to the law yet during the time of that his leaprosie 2. Chron. 26.21.23 did hee continue King of Iudah and all that while was Iotham his son over all the kings house and iudged the people of the land as a regent or curator like a Lord Protector or Lieutenant to his father Neyther is it said that Iotham his sonne raigned in his stead or governed as a king in his owne right untill after the death of that his Father Ioseph antiq lib. 9. cap. 11 2. Chron. 26 1.3 And this appeareth to bee evidently true by computation of time for Vzziah lived but sixtie eight yeares in all as Iosephus witnesseth and hee was sixteene yeares olde when hee began to raigne and hee raigned fiftie two yeares as the Scripture it selfe testifieth So that from the time hee began to be a King hee continued a King unto his dying day But what meane you by all this For if hereby you would proove it lawfull for the Bishop of Rome to depose Kings you see that the former precedents and examples of those Prophets and Priests which you produce doe warrant no such matter admitting that the Bishop of Rome were the chiefe or high Priest in the Christian Church which hee is not as I have now and often said and shewed before Yea they rather declare the cleane contrarie to that detestable Romish and rebellious position But if I will needes still urge that Salomon as a King did depose Abiathar the high Priest and put Zadocke in his place It may bee answered say you that this act of Solomons was error facti and consequently not warrantable de Iure It seemeth by this your manner of answering that you care not much what you answer so that you make any answer at all bee it never so grosse absurde or unsound For first this your distinction of de facto and de Iure in this and the like cases I have refelled and confuted before in my Reply pag. 13. pag. 86.
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
betweene the King and the Priest that Ille cogit Châ—ysosto de verbis Esaiae vidi DominuÌ„ homil 4. hic exhortatur Ille habet arma sensibilia hic arma spiritualia The King compelleth the Priest exhorteth the King hath the sensible weapons the Priest the spirituall weapons And when the Priest or Ecclesiasticall Minister hath gone as far as he can go in his Ecclesiasticall Ministerie he must not go any further to use any externall power coactive or compulsive as he there also teacheth 〈◊〉 21.1 but must in every such case leave men unto God who hath the hearts of all kings aswell as of others in his hands and moveth and turneth them when Chrys de Sacerlotisâ—h 2. and which way sâ—ever he pleaseth Yea S. Chrysoâ—tome saith yet further expressely That it is not lawfull for a Bishop to oure men with so great authoritie as a sheepheard doth his sheepe for it is free for a sheepheard forcibly to binde his sheepe to drive them from their feeding to scare them and to cut them but in the other case the facilitie of the cure consisteth no in him that giveth but onely in him that taketh the medicine This that admirable teacher perceiving said to the Corinthians Not that wee have any Dominion over you under the name of faith but that wee are helpers of your ioy For of all men Christian Bishops must not correct the faults of offenders by force or violence Externall Iudges when they take any transgressing the lawes they shew themselves to be endued with great authoritie and power and doe compell them whether they will or no to change their manners But here saith hee non vim afferre sed suadere tantum oportet atque hac ratione meliorem efficere quem emendandum susceperis You may not use violence but perswasion onely and by this meanes make him better whom you have taken upon you to amend Againe hee saith If any sheepe goe out of the right way Chrysost de Sacerdotio lib. 2. and leaving the plentifull pastures graze on barren and steepe places The sheepheard somewhat exalteth his voyce to reduce the dispersed and stragling sheepe and to force them to the flocke But if any man wander from the right path of the Christian faith The Pastor must use great great paines care and patience Neque enim vis illi inferenda neque terrore ille cogendus verum suedendu tantùm ut de integro ad veritatem redeat For hee may nor be forced or constrained with terror but perswaded onely that so hee may returne againe to the truth If then your late Councell of Lateran under Pope Innocentius the third decreed as you say this externall power coactive to bee in the Bishop of Rome You see it is not to be regarded Because such a decree if any such were is directly contrarie to the testimonie of all former approved antiquitie But yet you must also remember what Platina writeth concerning that Councell Plantina de vita Innocen 3. Venêre multa tum quidem in consultationem nec decerni tamen quicquam apertè potuit Many things saith hee came into consultation in that Councell but nothing could plainely be decided by reason the Pope departing to compose some tumults then suddainely risen died by the way So that this your great Councell of Lateran consulting how to defeate Kings and Princes of their Temporall kingdomes and Dominions but not decreeing or concluding any thing therein as being prevented by the Popes hastened and unexpected death will also doe you no pleasure in this case But now why may not I after so many questions of yours answered propound you also one question which is this What if the Bishop of Rome for maintenance of his worldly pompe pride pleasure and ambition carelesly neglect all right religion and bee so extremely wicked both for life doctrine as that hee careth not to carrie innumerable soules together with his owne by heapes to hell who shall correct restraine represse or punish him For answer whereunto you might say that in former and auncient times The Emperours had the correction and the punishment aswell of the Bishops of Rome as of other Bishops that were offenders within their Dominions But now the case is altered and the world turned topsie turvie and the Bishop of Rome growne to that height and licenciousnesse as that hee will not allow himselfe to be censured or judged by any men mortall be they Emperus Kings Princes Bishops Generall Councels or whosoever they bee But whilst he is thus mounted not onely above other Kings and Princes but even above the Emperours also himselfe What saith Optatus of such a one Optat. libr. 3. pag. 85. Cùm super Imperatorem non sit nisi solus Deus qui fecit Imperatorem certè quise super Imperatorem extollit iam quasi hominum excesserit metas se ut Deum non hominem aestimat Forasmuch as saith he there is none above the Emperour but God onely that made the Emperour Certainely be that exalteth himselfe above the Emperour as one that hath gone beyond the bounds of men esteemeth himselfe not now any longer as a mac but as God And whilest withall hee thus exempteth himselfe from the Lawes censure and judgement of all men upon earth what doth hee else by all this but shew himselfe to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That lawlesse person mentioned by S. Paul in 2. Thess 2.8 And which also sitteth in the Church or temple of God as God 2. Thess 2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12 and is exalted above all those men upon earth that be called Gods in the Scriptures of which sort be Kings and Princes and even above the Emperour also himselfe to whom belongeth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sebasma mentioned in the same place of 2. Thessal 2.4 in asmuch as hee is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sebastos that is Augustus as the Scripture also it selfe expressely calleth him Act. 25.21.25 But lastly It is well knowne that by Gods owne institutution the power of the Civill and Temporall sword rightly properly belongeth to Emperours â—om 13.1.2 â— 4.5.6 Kings and Princes and not to Bishops Pastors or other Ecclesiasticall Ministers therefore may Kings and Princes lawfully commaund compell and punish all Bishops Pastors and Ecclesiasticall Ministers whatsoever if they offend aswell as lay-Persons by authoritie of that their sword committed to them from God But Bishops on the other side may not by that their Ecclesiasticall office and function use that temporall sword nor any temporall externall power coactive thereunto incident or belonging against any King or other Person for any cause whatsoever because that sword is not committed to them from God Yea this opinion concerning compelling of Kings savoureth more of treason then of reason and therefore is utterly to bee detested and abhorred 17. But then you say further that whatsoever I alledged to invest our King with the supremacie the same might be alledged by any
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
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