A REPLY TO AN ANSVVERE MADE BY A POPISH ADVERSARIE TO the two Chapters in the first part of that Booke which is intituled a Friendly Advertisement to the pretended Catholickes in Ireland WHEREIN Those two points concerning his Majejesties SUPREMACIE and the RELIGION established by the Lawes and Statutes of the Kingdome be further justified and defended against the vaine cavils and exceptions of that Adversarie By CHRISTOPHER SIBTHORP Knight one of His Majesties Iustices of His Court of Chiefe Place within the same Realme PROVER 24.21 Feare the Lord the King medle not with theÌ„ that are seditious DVBLIN Printed by the Societie of STATIONER â—â— Anno Domini 1625. TO THE RIGHT HONORABLE MY VERIE GOOD LORD HENRY LORD VISCOVNT FAVLKLAND LORD DEPVTIE of Ireland AT the divulging of my former Booke Right Honorable there were many great and vaunting speeches uttered by the pretended Catholickes as if forthwith or at least very speedily it should have beene fully and sufficiently answered And indeede within a while after came forth an answere not to the whole Booke but onely to a part thereof namely to the first two Chapters contayned in the first part of it made by one that calleth himselfe Iohn at Stile who knowing as it seemeth the weakenesse of his owne answere therein promised a better and further answere that should then shortly come forth to the whole Booke which should be so substantially done as that it should be suteable and correspondent to the three Conditions required by me This maner of answer to the whole booke promised so long since is the thing that I have all this while expected in expectation whereof I have hitherto deferred to publish a Reply to any other answere But having now thus long expected it in vaine not knowing when it wil appeare or whether ever or never I thinke it not amisse in the interim to reply to that answere which marcheth and masketh under the name of Iohn at Stile as having no other nor better as yet to reply unto Where first of all it were fit to learne what this mans right and proper name is But because hee is so loth to declare it I care not much to know it for it is not somuch the man as the matter he delivereth that I regarde Howbeit for his owne credite and the credite of his cause if any credite had belonged unto it it had beene much better for him to have put no name at all unto that his worke then a wrong false and counterfeit name as hee hath done For if in the verie first entrance hee thus misdemeaneth himselfe and feareth not to utter so great an untruth What good dealing or sincere truth may we expect from him in the residue of his discourse Wherein also whilst hee strived to make more hast then good speede hee hath shewed himselfe to bee like canis festinans caecos edens catulos For howsoever he thrusteth himselfe forward and will needs take upon him to be Iohannes ad oppositum yet he speaketh very little or nothing ad propositum Insomuch that sundry by reason of the futilitie and frivolousnes of that his answere have thought it not worthy or meete to bee replied unto Neverthelesse because all be not of that understanding and judgement as to bee able to discerne the frivolousnes and weakenesse of it and that the pretended Catholickes doe for their parts so highly esteeme approve and applaude it for Regnat inter caecos Luscus and for that I am also therein so particularly touched and taxed but chiefly and especially for that Gods Religion and his Majesties Supremacie which two things ought ever to be most deare unto us all be there purposely and professedly encountred and oppugned I could doe no lesse in good dutie and for all these respects but make and publish this my Reply unto it for the further confirmation of the Protestants in those two maine and most weightie points for the further confutation also conviction of the Papists making them yet more and more inexcusable if after so cleare abundant evidence of truth and consequently against all good Conscience they will still bee wilfull stubborne and unreformed herein which yet I trust they will not be For they know that durum est contra stimulos calcitrare Act. 9.5 Act 5.29 Proverb 21.30 and that there is no hope that ever they shall or can prevaile that be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Fighters and Contenders against God and his Religion or any of his Sacred and Divine Ordinances Yea in such a case what is fitter then duro nodo durus cuneus And so sayth Tertullian Tertul. lib. cont Gnostic cap 21. Aug. Epist. 48. Epist 204. that duritia vincenda est non suadenda and this rule S. Augustine also giveth teacheth that men in error are first to be taught admonished and instructed but if after all this they will notwithstanding without any ground of sufficient reason be and continue perverse and obstinate then must terror punishment and coactive Lawes be put in execution for the reclayming of them For Qui Phreneticum ligat LethargicuÌ„ excitat ambobus molestus ambos amat saith the same S. Augustine But of this point concerning the authoritie of the Regall Civill sword and power coactive to be extended against refractary and contemptuous offenders aswell in matters Ecclesiasticall and touching Religion as in matters temporall and concerning the Common-wealth more is spoken in my former Booke and in this also afterward upon occasion given by mine Adversarie and therefore I shall not neede heere to speake any further of it especially to your Lordshippe whose wisedome can and doth easily perceive not onely how lawfull but how expedient requisite and necessary also it is to be extended and used in his due time and place These things Right Honorable I am humbly bould to Dedicate unto your Lordshippe Both because unto you it is that under his most Excellent Majestie the chiefe care of matters concerning the good of this Kingdome doth appertayne And because also such is knowne to be your noble and pious disposition as that a worke of this sorte you are ever most readie and willing to accept and patronize God if it be his will convert the Papists of this Kingdome from their errors to his truth and preserve your Lordshippe to his glorie the good of his Church the benefit of this Common-weale and to the increase of your owne honor in this life and to your everlasting happinesse in the life to come through IESVS CHRIST Amen Your Lordshippes humble at Commandement Christopher Sibthorp TO THE Reader I Doubt not courteous Reader but you well remember that in the conclusion of my former Booke I desired of him that would make Answere thereunto these three things First that he would answere it not by parts or peece-meales but wholy and intirely from the beginning of it to the end Secondly that he would doe it not superficially
to insist onely upon these former Kings of England For doe but reade further the Statutes of Provision and Praemunire made in that kingdome See the Statutes of Proviâ—ion and Premunire in Rastall fol. 354. c. and thereby you may see at full that many sundrie other Kings of England likewise and the whole Realme also concurring and joyning with them therein have in severall Parliaments made Lawes and Statutes against the Popes incrochments and usurpations in maintenance and defence of their Regall rights freedomes and liberties And among many other good reasons they shew for those their doings this is not the least that they say expressely in one of those Acts of Parliament See this in the Statute of 16. Rub. 2 cap. 5. That the Crowne of England hath beene so free at all times that it hath beene in subjection to no Realme but immediately subject to God and to none other in all things touching the Regalitie of the same Crowne And therefore doe they there utterly dislike in plaine tearmes That it should be submitted to the Bishop of Rome Wherefore it is apparant that even the ancient Kings of England long before the dayes of K. Henry the VIII of famous memorie have stood and contended not onely for the freedome of the Crowne generally not allowing it to be in subjection to any but to God onely but also in a particular sort for divers their particular Regall rights liberties Amongst which you may perceave this to be one namely that Appeales even in Ecclesiasticall causes they would have to be determined within their owne kingdomes and not to be made transferred or carried without their consent to the Pope or Sea of Rome 8 But now what meaneth mine Adversarie to be so extreamely audacious as to denie the first foure generall Councells to have beene called by the Emperors Let therefore the Ecclesiasticall Historie shew and decide it Touching the first generall Councell at Nice Ruffin li. 10. c. 1. Ruffinus saith expressely that Constantinus apud urbem Nicenam Episcopale Concilium convocavit The Emperor Constantine called the Councell of Bishops together at the Citie of Nice Euseb de vita Const. l b. 3. c. 6 lib. 1. cap. 37 Eusebius that wrote the life of Constantine saith of that Emperor that Generalem Synodum congregavit He assembled the generall Councell Socrates saith likewise that Constantine Socrat. lib 1. c. 8 in the greeke cap. 5. in the lat Synodum Oecumenicam congregavit omnes qui fuerunt undique Episcopos in Nicaeam confluere hortatus est Assembled a generall Councell and willed all the Bishops every where to meete at Nice Theodoret saith that the Emperor Theodoret. libr. 1 cap. 17. celebreÌ„ illaÌ„ coegit Nicea Synodum c. Assembled that famous Councell of Nice Sozomen saith that Constantine Indixit Concilium Niceae scripsitque ad omnes Ecclesiarum praesides Soz. lib. 1. ca. 16. lat ut ad diem praestitutum adessent Summoned the Councell of Nice and wrote to all the Prelates of the Churches to be there at the day prefixed And the same Sozomen saith That hee sent his letters to the Apostolicke Seas To Macarius Bishop of Ierusalem to Eustathius Bishop of Antioch To Alexander Bishop of Alexandria and to Iulius Bishop of Rome Who being an old man and not able to come himselfe hee sent in his stead Vitus and Vincentius The Nicene Fathers themselves by their Synodall Epistle Theodoret. lib. 1. cap 9. extant in Theodoret which they wrote to the Church of Alexandria doe restifie That they were assembled by the authoritie of the Emperor Constantine And if the Bishop of Rome had had the power and authoritie to call the Councell he would no doubt being an old man and not able to travell have had it at Rome or in some part of Italy rather then at Nice in Bithinia so farre remote from Rome Nicephorus also saith that Imperator Nicaenam Synodum promulgabat literis locorum omnium Episcopos Niceph. li. 8. c. 14 ad constitutum diem eo evocavit The Emperor proclaymed the Councell at Nice and by his letters called thither the Bishops of all places to be there at the day appointed Zonaras Zonaras saith that Imperator provinciarum Episcopos Niceae Bithiniâ—â— urbis convenire jussit The Emperor commanded the Bishops of the Provinces to meete together at Nice Platina in vita Silvestri a Citie in Bithinia And Platina also writeth that this generall Councell of Nice was summoned or called Constantini mandato by the commandement of Constantine the Emperor It is therefore abundantly manifest that this first generall Councell of Nice was called not by the authoritie of any Pope but of the Emperor How then is it not an over great if not a most intollerable impudencie in Papists to denie so manifest and palpable a trueth As touching that answere which Bellarmine and other Papists make when they say That this Councell was called or summoned by the advise and consent of the Bishop of Rome First Ruffin lib. 1. c. 1. Ruffinus saith that it was assembled or called Ex sacerdotum sententia by the advise and consent of the Priests and not of the Bishop of Rome alone Epiphan lib 2. Tom 2. haeres 68 Yea Epiphanius saith That it was obtayned of the Emperor at the suite of Alexander Bishop of Alexandria But secondly it maketh no matter at whose suite or request or by whose advise or consent the Councell was summoned For the question is not by whose perswasion or suite or by whose advise or consent but by whose authoritie it was called Now it is verie apparant that it was called and assembled by the authoritie and commandement not of any Bishop of Rome but of the Emperor The second generall Councell which was the first Constantinopolitane was also called not by Damasus Bishop of Rome but by the Emperor Theodosius the elder This is also evident First by Theodoret who saith Theodor. li. 5. c. 7 Hujus rei gratia Theodosius Episcopas Constantinopoli congregari jussit For this cause Theodosius commanded the Bishops to be assembled at Constantinople Socrat. lib 5. ca. 8 Soz li. 7. c. 6. lat Zonar in Theod. In dedicatoria ad I Theodosium Socrates and Sozomen likewise doe both testifie that Theodosius summoned assembled this Councell Zonaras saith that this second generall Councell was summoned Iussu Imperatoris by the commandement of the Emperor 150. godly fathers being there assembled And the very Councell it selfe speaking to Theodosius doe testifie the same and say thus Wee being assembled at Constantinople by the Letters of your Pietie The third generall Councell namely the first Ephesine was also called not by the authoritie coÌ„mandement of Celestinus Bishop of Rome but by the Emperor Theodosius the younger This is verie manifest Evagr lib. 1. c. 3. for Evagrius saith directly That by the appointment or command of Theodosius
and confuting the imagination and devise of his owne braine For the affirmative clause in the Oath is not as he imperfectly and lamely relateth it but it is this That the King is the onely Supreme Governor of this Realme and of all other his Highnesse Dominions and Countries aswell in all Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall things or causes as Temporall The negative clause followeth and is this That no forraine Prince Person Prelate State or Potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction power superioritie preheminence or authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme This word Onely in the affirmative clause hath he left out which if he had added together with all the rest of the wordes that follow in that affirmative clause he would very easily have found that to be true which I wrote namely that the effect of the negative clause is included in the former affirmative For he that affirmeth the King to be the onely Supreme Governor within his owne Dominions that in all things or causes Spirituall or Ecclesiasticall aswell as temporall doth in that speech exclude every forraine Prince person Prelate State or Potentate from having any supreme governement or any government at all without his leave and licence within his Dominions Yea it is very evident that the former affirmative clause includeth the negative clause and more For the negative clause excludeth forrain Princes persons Prelates States Potētates only from Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall Authoritie but the former affirmative excludeth them from authoritie in all things or causes both temporall spirituall Againe you see that the negative clause extendeth onely to forraine persons but the affirmative clause extendeth to any persons whosoever whether forraine or domesticall Thirdly the negative clause excludeth forraine persons from having any jurisdiction power superioritie preheminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or spirituall within this Realme But the former affirmative clause extendeth not only to this Realme or that Realme in particular but generally to all his Majesties Realms Dominiōs Countries So that the former affirmative clause in the Oath appeareth to be much more generall and of a farre larger extent then the negative is And therefore I hope I spake truely and within compasse when I said though in a parenthesis that the effect of the negative clause was included in the former affirmative I did not say as mine Adversarie supposeth me to hold that the Regall power includeth the Sacerdotall or Episcopall This is but his owne dreame imagination in the confutation whereof he laboureth in vaine For neyther I nor any of the Protestants doe hold that opinion but contrariewise doe hold them to be things distinct as is before declared But because he will needes carpe at my Logicke when he hath no cause let other men judge what a great Logician he is whilst he argueth thus The Regall power includeth not the Sacerdotall Ergo the affirmative clause in the Oath of SUPREMACIE includeth not the negative clause in the same Oath Hitherto then you see that my Adversarie notwithstanding all his storishes braggs and bravadoes hath shewed himselfe to be not onely a punie Lawyer as he confesseth himselfe to be but a punie Logician also most of all a punie Divine and that he hath not beene able to make any good Answere or to refell and confute any one Argument contayned in this first Chapter of my former Booke concerning the Supremacie and yet hath he also left a great part of that Chapter unanswered Neyther hath he made throughout his whole discourse and pleading so much as one good argument to prove his Clients cause that is the Popes supremacie though he purposed and laboured to doe it Where is it not a mervaile that he being a Lawyer and a Subject to our Soveraigne Lord the KING will date neverthelesse admitte of such a Client as the Pope is and of his cause which he knoweth before hand to be condemned by the Lawes and Statutes of the Realme and which he now may see if hee saw it not before to be also condemned by the Lawes and Statutes of God himselfe and by all the most ancient Ecclesiasticall Records But if hee be not ashamed of such a Client and his cause his Client I suppose will be ashamed of him and entertaine him no longer to pleade for him unlesse he could doe it better And yet indeede when his Clients cause is foule naught as here it appeareth to be what Lawyer be he never so learned or what Divine be hee never so profound is able to justifie it or to make it good Notwithstanding his demurrer therefore and notwithstanding that by this his plea his purpose was to arrest and stay mens judgements I trust they will all now no cause appearing to the contrarie proceede without any further delay to give their sentence against his Client for in the behalfe of these two most worthy Peerles Princes who be the complaynants against him namely for Christ IESVS in their acknowledging and publishing him onely to be the onely universall Bishop supreme Pastor and head of the whole Church Militant upon Earth aswell as of the Triumphant in Heaven and for the King in declaring and publishing him under God to be the onely Supreme Governor over all manner of persons and in all kinde of causes aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill within his Dominions Neyther doe I doubt but all mens judgements whensoever upon good and well advised deliberation they shall please to give them will passe accordingly In the meane time let us goe one to the second Chapter see if he have any better successe in that then he hath found in the former Concerning the second Chapter IN this second Chapter of my former Booke my Adversarie supposeth that my maine scope and purpose was to prove our Church that is the Church of the Protestants to have beene in the Apostles times But never was there saith he poore Assertion so miserably mangled And true it is indeede that it is miserably mangled and cut in pieces But by whom namely by himselfe For my Assertion is not so short as he relateth it nor is to end where he maketh it to end but is of a longer and larger extent and being produced not by parts or pieces but wholy and intirely as it ought it is this viz. That our Church was in the Apostles dayes and in all times and ages since howsoever or notwitstanding that Poperie did as an infection or corruption grow unto it the meaning true sence whereof is no more but that the growing of Poperie it being but as an infection or corruption to the Church is no impediment or argument to the contrarie but that our Church had a being in the Apostles dayes and in all succeeding times and ages that notwithstanding This will the better appeare if you take the whole Proposition or assertion and turne it into a Question For then the Question will not be as mine Adversary maketh it viz.
S. Cyprian lived no true Church Euseb lib. 7. cap. 5. in tâ—e greeke and cap. 5. latin or was S. Cyprian no true Christian or had he no true Religion in him because he held the error of Rebaptization Or were none of those true Churches nor had any of them any true Religion in them which held the Chiliasticke error or error of the Millenaries Or were S. Augustine S. Ierome or any of the rest of the ancient Fathers therefore no true Christians or had they onely an imaginarie and no true Religion in them because of some error they held Yea he may aswell conclude out of this Text if he make no care nor conscience to abuse it that everie one whosoever that erreth fayleth in any point eyther of doctrine 1. Iohn 1.8 or manners or that sinneth in any sort by breaking any one of Gods Commandements is onely an imaginarie and no true Christian at all Whereupon would follow this grosse absurditie and untruth that there were then no true Christians at all in the whole world because there be none but have some sinne or other in them It is true Ephes 4.3.4.5 c. that there is but one true Faith and right Religion and that we should all endevour to observe and keepe it as likewise we ought all to endevour so much as is possible to keepe all everie one of Gods CoÌ„mandements but if by reason of the frayltie and imperfection that is in all men any Church doe erre in some one thing or any man doe erre sinne or offend in some one point you see by the premisses that no such inference can be made that therefore it is no true Church or therefore he is no true Christian or hath no good nor true Religion in him because of that one sinne or error committed All which neverthelesse I speake not to justifie or defend any errors in any Church or any sinne transgression or fault in any person nor yet as though he could justly taxe our true Christian Church with any error in Faith or doctrine but onely to shew him his owne error and the fault of his owne idle brainesicke opinion Whereunto also may be adjoyned another Paradoxe or strange opinion of his and not onely his for it is the opinion also of the Rhemists and other Papists where they hold that the blasphemie or sinne against the holy Ghost is remissible may be forgiven which is directly and cleane contratie to the expresse words of Christ Iesus himselfe declaring that the sinne against the Father and the Sonne is remissible Math. 12 31.32 Luk 12.10 Mark 3.28 29. and may be forgiven But the sinne against the holy Ghost saith he shall not be forgiven neyther in this world nor in the world to come And S. Marke relateth it thus That he which committeth that sinne shall never have forgivenesse but is culpable of eternall damnation Now then let all men judge whether of these we should beleeve namely whether Christ or the Papists in this case Lastly he falleth into a consideration what sinne it is that I committed in making and setting forth my Booke distinguishing sinne into three sorts viz. some of Frailtie some of Ignorance some of Malice he freeth me of that of frailty and of that of malice and therefore concludeth that it was a sinne of ignorance Thus out of his ignorance for I hope there is no malice in him he argueth ex non concessis For how doth hee prove it to be any sinne at all to penne such a Booke and to set it forth Ipse dixit is all his proofe What Is it a sinne to speake or write in defence of Gods truth religion Yea is it not cleane contrariewise a sinne and a very great most fearefull sin for my Adversary to write as he doth against God his truth religion against his Church people against the King also in the point of his Supremacie against the Lawes Statutes of the Realme also which establish those two points for which I write and speake and all for defence of the whore of Babylon of that man of sinne the grand Antichrist Is not this a sinne meete for him to repent of This his great sinne therefore all other wicked workes wayes of blind Poperie I would wish him to forsake in time Ephes 5 8. to become walke As one of the children of light which if he desire to doe as I trust he doth he must then with the Psalmist make not his owne Psalm 119.105 or other mens pleasures but Gods will word to be the Lanterne unto his feete and the light unto his path thereby must he be directed Esa 8.20 both for points of doctrine for life conversation also For if any doe not or speake not according to this word 1. Io. 1.5.6 it is because as the Scriptures teach they have not that light in theÌ„ which they should have It is true which he saith That Christ the supreme Iudge of Heaven Earth will most certainely come to judgement and will judge most justly But it were good he would remember withall how Iohn 12 48. Rom. 2.16 by what rule he will judge namely that he will judge according to his owne word Gospell For according to that his Word Gospell it is that hee will judge us all in the last day as himselfe his true faithfull Apostle S. Paul doe both assure us In the meane time then can there be any better course taken or any better wisedome shewed then for both him me for us al humbly willingly to submitte our selves our lives conversations all our positions opinions to be controlled reformed over-ruled judged by that word Gospell according whereunto we shall all be judged in that last day This grace wisedome therefore God of his mercie grant unto us all if it be his will to his honour and glorie and to our owne everlasting comforts through Iesus Christ our whole and onely Mediator Saviour and Redeemer Amen FINIS Post scriptum LEt none hereafter expect any more from mee touching these matters untill my former Booke which by this my Adversarie is promised to be answered according to the three conditions required by me be first accordingly answered and that this Reply be also therewithall Answered and all this to be done in Print and not in Manuscripts with the Answerers right and true name also thereunto subscribed ERRATA CORRECTA IN the Epistle Dedicat. pag. 1. line 12 this word first blotte out In the Epist to the Reader pag. 1 l 2â— for satisfactory satisfactorily p. 8. l 5. for suffertus suffenus p 9. lin 33 for scripturiam scripturam p. 10. l. 14. for ingeniosly ingenuously In the first Chapter of the Booke p 2 l. 5. for will soule p. 13 23. this word secondly blotte out in stead thereof put this figure 2 to note it to be the second section of that Chapter so reade on forward thus It being then a thing very demonstratively evident c p. 13. l. 32. for Ministers Ministery p. 15. l 6. for writeth citeth p. 17. l 6. for makinde mankinde p. 24. in the margent for 2. Sam 20 17 put 2. Sam. 20 26. In p. 24 l. 31. 32 reade it thus Aaron and his sonnes were appointed to the office of priesthood p. 26. l. 31 this word Thirdly blotte out in lieu thereof put the figure of 3. to note it to be the Third section of that Chap p 26. l. 33. for wisheth wished p. 34 l. 10. for youg young p. 38. l 12. for divert direct p. 39. l. 19. reade as unto the chiefe p. 42. l 6. 7. for Iohn 9 11 Iohn 19 11 p. 44 l. 17. for yea yet p. 44 l 18 for construed considered p 45. l. 26 for advantagement advantage p. 51 l. 23 for ingeniously ingenuously p 52. l 10 for Aquinus Aquinas p. 52. 32. for cause clause p. 13. l. 19. betweene as and other Bishops put this word over pag 38. l 16. for worth worthy p 40 l. 5 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reade 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 43. l. 33. this word as blotte out p 57 l. 3 this word and blotte out p. 66. l 2. for shall should p 70 l 24 for States seates p. 79. l 24. for under made p 82 l 18 for how now p 83 l 7 for Episcopus Episcopos p 84 l 12 after but reade by pag 15 against l 24 in the margent for Novel const 123 Novel const 133 p 19 l 22 for hignesse highnesse pag 100 l vlt for proferant vel Apo pag 88 l 26 for Airam Hiraâ—â— in margine for 1 Sam 5 1â— reade 2 Sam 5 11 p 88. l 8 for use used p 94 l 3 for could would p 96 l 19 betweene neverthelesse admit put this word to p 97 l 16 for one on p 97 ly the first onely blotte out pag 93 l 9 for grant reade perceave p. 102 l 22 after their reade dayes p 102 l 21 for make made p. 82 l 11 for Bithinijs Bithiniae And if any other faults have escaped in the Printing I desire the Reader to correct them with his pen.
Religion and the care and observance thereof in their life time will be able to afford But being debarred froÌ„ pleading for not taking the oath of Supremacie he saith he was desirous to reade what solide arguments I had made to invest the King with the supremacie finding them as Belshazzar being weighed was found in the Prophecie of Daniel minus habens that is too light Dan. 5.27 he saith he was encouraged to answere them But first how cometh he now to answere any part of my Booke who had said before in the same his Epistle Dedicatory that he presented it to some of the most learned of his catholicke Clergie that none of them after a mature deliberation held it worthy of an answer what will he thinke it worthy of an answere which those of the most learned of his Catholicke clergie thought it not worthy of Secondly if he had weighed my arguments not with false Romish weights but with true divine weights that is in such a ballance as God weighed Belshazzar he would have found them weighty enough though Belshazzar was found light Thirdly little reason hath he to call account those arguments light somewhereof be such as he dares not touch nor medle with theÌ„ but doth as childreÌ„ use to do who what they caÌ„not reade they skippe over So what he can no way answere he pretermitteth those which he dare be bold to touch doe neverthelesse shew themselves to be of that weight and strength as that he is not able to stirre or move them much lesse to remove them or to lift them up from that ground whereon they rest Himselfe doth what he can to answere them yet distrusting his ovvne Answere as minus habens to use his owne wordes against him that is as being too light weake and insufficient hee promiseth a more satisfying Answere that should afterward come forth from those that have more Lavv and Divinitie then eyther he or I. Yea he saith againe That my Booke shall be shortly answered in my owne straine of Divinitie with the three conditions required by me So that both by this his owne answere as also by that further future promised answere it is verie câ—â—dent that howsoeâ—â—â— in words hee and his partakers would â—â—â—me to slight any â—â—â—ke the matter therein contayned yeâ— revera and indeede they thinke the force and strength of it to be such against both Pope and Poperie as that they can have â—oâ—â— nor quiet in their mindes untill they have made which they wâ—â—never be able to doe a good sufficient and satisfactorie Answere thereunto As for that hee saith that if in steed thereof I had made a solide Compendium of the Law I had gained an applause I would have him know that neyther in this kind of learning nor in any other doe I seeke oâ— hunt after ostentation vaine-glory popular applause or prayse of men which be the things that Papists in their writings doe too much affect but both in that my former worke in this also the things that I sought still doe seeke after is Gods glory the advancement preferment of his truth religion the due authority true honour belonging to our most gracious most godly Christian Soveraigne which was then K. Iames is now K. Charles his most worthy successor whom God ever blesse protect preserve therewithall the generall publicke benefit both of Church and Common-weale I graunt that my profession and place would have allowed me to have written of points of Law and concerning Civill Iustice and externall Peace But I have rendered the reason in the Epistle Dedicatorie of my former Booke why I medled not with those things Namely because the pretended Catholickes of this Kingdome in those points shewed no refractarinesse or opposition but good conformitie and obedience And that their defect was onely in the two other points viz. Concerning the Kings Supremacie and the Religion whereof therefore there then was still is greatest neede and most urgent occasion to treate Wherefore hee that in such a Case would rather have had a Compendium of the Law then these two most necessarie and most important matters to bee dealt in for the generall good of the kingdome seemeth in my understanding to have made a great dispendium of his wit and judgement Neverthelesse hee proceedeth and saith that because hee cannot commaund the Presse he will imploy his endevours to answere in a Manuscript my first Booke he meaneth the first part of my Booke contayning those two Chapters aforesaid But what necessitie was there for him thus to publish his Answere in a Manuscript which he might have put in Print if he had so pleased For although he could not commaund the Protestants Presse neyther was it fit he should yet the Presse which some say the Papists have of their owne within this kingdome he might have eyther commaunded or intreated or if they have no Presse within this kingdome he might have sent or carried his Answere unto Doway or to Rhemes or to some other place beyond the Seas where it might have beene printed if they had held it worthy the Printing Seeing then that hee might have printed it Why did he rather choose to divulge it in a Manuscript Did he thinke that by that course used he might the more freely speake and write what he listed and that no man would answere or reply unto it though he be never so much touched in it or be the cause therein handled of never so great importance But what reason is there for any man to clayme expect or to be allowed such a priviledge Yea inasmuch as mens hearts may be poysoned and seduced aswell by Manuscripts and written Bookes and Pamphlets as by those that be Printed especially after they be once scattered and dispersed abroad as this his Answere is into diverse mens hands and are withall supposed by the pretended Catholickes for whose sake all that labour is bestowed to contayne nothing but truth I see not but I may bee as bold to reply to his Manuscript in Print the cause also so requiring as he made bold to answere a part of my Printed Booke in a Manuscript And therefore have I here replied unto it partly in respect of my selfe whom it concerneth to justifie and make good the matter contayned in those two Chapters of my former Booke which he oppugneth and partly in respect of himselfe vvho seemeth to be â—â—oâ— suffertus over highly conceited of himselfe Prover 26.5 whom therefore Salomon in his Proverbs adviseth to answere and partly chiefely in respect of the pretended Catholikes of this Nation whom by that meanes he seeketh to seduce abuse in the pâ—ints both of his Majesties Supremacie the Religion Both which points they being so high and eminent it behooveth all good Christians and all good Subjects evermore carefully dutifully to defend and mantaine As for that godly learned Reverend and worthy
God can be shewed in this case Yea Aaron was so farre from loosing this priviledge of his birthright by any appointment from God that cleane contrarywise he had the Priest-hood famously confirmed to him by God himselfe Thou saith God speaking to Aaron and thy Sonnes with thee Num. 18.7 shall keepe your Priests office In asmuch then as it is apparant that Moses was no Priest neyther before the consecration of Aaron nor after it must therefore be concluded that he was no Priest at all but was as the Scripture calleth him as a King or a Prince A second reason is this viz. Deut. 33.5 That Ioshua was appointed by God himselfe to succeede Moses in his place and office But it is certaine that Ioshua Deut. 31.14 c Num. 27 17.18 Ios 1.16.17.18 his successor was no Priest but a civill Magistrate even the chiefe ruler and commander under God both of the Priests People of Israell in his times as before appeareth and therefore also must Moses be so supposed But it is objected out of Psal 99. That Moses and Aaron were among the Priests Psal 99.6 doth this prove them therefore to be Priests because they were among them Howbeit the Hebrewe word there used is Cohanim which signifieth aswell Princes 2. Sam. 8.18 as Priests or any that be in high eminent and honourable place as in 2. Sam. 8. The Sonnes of David are said to be Cohanim 1. Chron. 18.17 that is chiefe Rulers For so it is also explained in 1. Chron. 18. Where it is said of the Sonnes of David That they were chiefe or principall men about the King 2. Sam. 20. â—â— Againe it is said in 2. Sam. 20. that Ira the Iairite was Cohen le David that is a Prince or chiefe Ruler about David For it were absurd and against the Law of God that then was to suppose Ira to bee a Priest who was a meere stranger and not of the Tribe of Levi. Although then Aaron was a Priest yet when it is said of Moses and Aaron together that they were Cohanim It may signifie verie well that they were great Rulers or men of high and eminent place in Israell the one in respect of the civill Magistracie and the other in respect of the Priest-hood But for any to say and argue thus Moses was a Cohen or reckoned amongst the Cohanim Ergo hee was a Priest by his proper office and function is a plaine non sequitur and no better then if you should likewise argue and say Ira the Iairite was a Cohen and the Sonnes of David were also Cohanim Eâ—go these were Priests by their proper office and function If you further object that Moses was of the Tribe of Levi and Aarons brother yet neyther doth that prove him therefore to be a Priest For everie one that was of the Tribe of Levi was not a Priest Yea even the Priests and Levites Numb 3.6.7.8.9.10 1 Chro 6 48 49 Numb 18.3 were distinguished For Aaron and his Sonnes were appointed to the office But of the Levites it is said they shall not come neere to the Altar least they die So that although the Levites were of the Tribe of Levi yet wee see they might not meddle with the Priests office least they should die And therefore also Moses though he were Aarons brother and of the Tribe of Levi yet was he not therefore a Priest or to execute the Priests office Neyther did he execute the office of a Levite as the Levites used to doe in wayting and tending upon the Priests and as being in office inferior unto them and at their command Yea it is before shewed and apparant that Moses although he were of the Tribe of Levi yet was hee so farre exalted and advanced as that he was by place and office as a King or Prince in Israell and commanded both Priests and Levites and not onely the Tribe of Levi but all the other Tribes of Israell also as Ioshua his successor likewise did Yet some to prove Moses to be a Priest doe alledge that he sacrificed and for this doe cite Exod. 24.5 Exod. 24.5 But the words of that Text be not that Moses did sacrifice but That he sent young men to sacrifice which were indeede the first borne of the children of Israell to whom the Priesthood did then belong it being a thing done before the institution of the Leviticall priest-hood Other some againe doe alledge that Moses did consecrate and annoynt Aaron and his Sonnes to the Priest-hood And that therefore he was a Priest But this also followeth not especially in the first erection of the Leviticall priest-hood For though Moses were a Prince a civill Magistrate yet wheÌ„ God gave him a direct and speciall commandement to consecrate and annoynt Aaron and his Sonnes he was bound to doe it And that he was expressely so commanded is apparant by the Text it selfe where God spake thus to Moses Thou shalt bring Aaron and his Sonnes unto the dore of the Tabernacle of the congregation Exod. 40.12.13.14.15 16. and wash them with water And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments and shalt annoynt him sanctifie him that he may minister unto me in the Priests office Thou shalt also bring his Sonnes and cloth them with garments and shalt annoynt them as thou didst annoynt their Father that they may minister unto me in the Priests office For this annoyntment shall be asigne that the Priest-hood shall be everlasting unto them throughout their generations So Moses did according to all that the Lord commanded him So did he This sheweth then that Moses was duetifull and obedient in performing Gods commandement in this case But it is no proofe that therefore he was a Priest For even a civill Magistrate not onely may but ought to consecrate and annoynt men to the office of Priest-hood if he be so required and commanded from God himselfe as Moses was wherefore it still remayneth firme that what reverence subjection and obedience Aaron the high Priest performed to Moses he did it to him not as being any Priest or high Priest but to him as being as a Prince or King in Israell that had the supreme commandement and rule both of the high Priest and of the rest of the Priests and of the Levites and of all the people within that Common-weale So that now I trust you verie fully perceave that Moses and Ioshua and the good and Godly Kings of Israell and Iuda had Authoritie aswell over the high Priests as all other Priests and Levites in causes also Ecclesiasticall aswell as civill and Temporall And that the Christian Emperors for the space of many hundred yeares after CHRIST had likewise the Supremacie over all persons and in all causes aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill within their Empyres and Dominions 3. 〈◊〉 But my Adversarie objecteth that famous Hosius Cordubensis Athan Epist ad solitarium vitâ agenâ—es reproving the Arrian
Emperor Constantius wisheth him as Athanasius testifieth not to meddle in Ecclesiasticall matters It is true that Hosius Cordubensis did and had just cause to reprove Constantius and to wish and advise him not to meddle in matters Ecclesiasticall in such sort as he did he using or rather abusing all his authoritie in matters Ecclesiasticall to the mantaynance of the Arrians and arrianisme against the true Christian and Orthodoxe Bishops and against the truth of the God-head of CHRIST For Athanasius in the same Epistle sheweth that Paulinus and other Bishops being called before the Emperor the Emperor commanded them to subscribe against Athanasius Ibidem and to communicate with the Arrians They mervayled at this and answering that the Ecclesiasticall Canons would not suffer them to doe so He replied But what I will let that be taken for a Canon The Bishops of Syria endure this speech of mine Eyther therefore doe you as I will you or else goe you also into banishment And when the Bishops held up their hands to God and proposed their reasons shewing him That the kingdome was not his but Gods of whom he received it that it was to be feared least he that gave it him would speedily take it from him Setting also before his eyes the day of judgement and advising him Not to subvert Ecclesiasticall order nor to bring the Arrian heresie into the Church of God He would neyther heare them nor permitt them to speake but grievously bending his browes for that they had spoken and shaking his Sword at them commanded them to be taken away Yea what crueltie tyrannie and persesecution was used and raysed by Constantius in the behalfe of the Arrians against the Orthodoxe and right beleeving Christians is further declared by the same Athanasius shewing Ibidem that even Pagans were set to invade the Churches of the right and true Christians and to beate the people with slaves and stones The Bishops Priests Monkes were bound with chaines and scourged with râ—ds The 〈◊〉 were haled by the haire to the judgement seate The virgins were tosted by the fire and whipt with prickles others were banished strangled and trampled under feete to death and their limmes and joyntes rent and torne a sunder after they were dead In somuch that Athanasius crieth out saying Who was not amazed at these things Who would yeeld them the name of heathen men much lesse the name of Christian men Who would thinke them to have conditions of men and not rather of beasts Yea who perceived not the Arrians to be crueller then beasts The strangers standing by yea the very Ethnickes detested the Arrians as Antichrists and Butchers of men Oh new-found heresie saith he which in villanies and impieties hast put on the fulnesse of the Divell how great soever it be Againe he saith Whom hath not Constantius banished Ibidem that was accused by the Arrians When did he not give them both audience and allowance Whom did he ever admitte to say any thing against them Or what did he not admitte which they spake against others He ever doth that which the Arrians would have and they againe say that which him liketh And Athanasius saith yet further of him That whensoever he called an Assembly Iudgement or Councell of Bishops it was but for a shew For he did neverthelesse what himselfe listed What libertie for persuasion or what place of advise saith he is there when he that contradicteth shall for his labour loose eyther his life or his countrey Why hath the Emperor gathered so great a number of Bishops partly terrified with threats partly inticed with promises to condescend that they will no longer communicate with Athanasius This violent oppressing of Bishops in their Synods or Councells working them to his owne will Hiler lib. 1. contra Constant. doth S. Hilary also witnesse saying thus unto him Thou gatherest Synods or Councells and when they be shut up together in one Citie thou terrifiest them with threats thou pinest them with hunger thou lamest them with cold thou depravest them with dissembling Againe hee saith Ibidem Oh thou wicked one what a mockery dost thou make of the Church Onely dogges returne to their vomite and thou compellest the Priests of CHRIST to suppe up those things which they have spet forth and commandest them in their confessions to allow that which before they condemned What Bishops hand hast thou left innocent What tongue hast not thou forced to falshood Whose heart hast not thou brought to the condemning of his former opinion Thou hast subjected all to thy will yea to thy violence Good cause therefore had Hosius Cordubensis to say as he did unto that Emperor Meddle not Emperor with Ecclesiasticall matters namely in this sort as thou dost for the maintaynance of arrianisme making thy will to stand for a law c. For if you will have these words Ne te misceas Ecclesiasticis Meddle not with Ecclesiasticall matters to be taken absolutely and without restriction to debarre Kings and Princes from all intermedling in Ecclesiasticall causes any kind of way such an exposition were not onely contrarie to the Acts of Constantine the Lawes of Iustinian the Chapters and doings of Charles the Great and the Historie of all the Christian Emperors for the space of many hundred yeares after CHRIST but it were also contrarie to the opinion and practise even of Athanasius himselfe who is the reporter of those words of Hosius For it is evident that Athanasius himselfe was never of that minde to exclude Christian Kings and Princes from all intermedling in causes Ecclesiasticall Yea he was a cleare approver of that Authoritie in them as appeareth by this That when he was commanded to conferre with one Arius concerning matters of Faith He answered Who is so farre out of his wits that he dare refuse the commandement of the Prince Disput Athan. cum Aâ—â—o Lao dicea habâ—ta Athanas aâ—â—l 2. Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 21. 22. lat Yea the Emperors commandement made him to appeare before the Councell of Tyrus and finding that Councell not to be indifferent but partially affected he and the rest of the Orthodoxe Bishops that toâ—ke part with him appealed to the Emperor himselfe He also in person fled to the Emperor desiring him to send for the Bishops of the Councell of Tyrus and to examine their doings which the Christian Emperor did accordingly So that it is manifest that Athanasius did approve of the Authoritie of the Emperors in Ecclesiasticall causes albeit hee would not have them to use their authoritie cruelly or tyrannically to serve their owne violent wills and pleasures nor thereby to doe any thing whatsoever against CHRIST and his Religion as that Arrian Emperor Constantius did But when all this is granted it maketh nothing against those Christian Emperors Kings and Princes which in good sort use their authoritie not against CHRIST as he did but for CHRIST his trueth and Religion
rectores Kings and secular Governors S. Augustine also saith that hereby is taught Ecclesiam Christi in omnibus sanctis ejus servituram esse sub Regibus seculi That the Church of Christ in all his Saints Lib. 2. dist 44. must serve under the Kings of this world The M. of the Sentences likewise saith that the Apostle speaketh of Princes and such like Aquinas also doth interprete them Aquinas in â—â—lle locum to be Potestates terrenas carnales Dominos Terrestriall powers and temporall Governors Aug contr epist Parmen li. 1. c. 7 S. Augustine againe in another place yet more fully declareth the same What credit then is to be given to mine Adversarie when contrarie to the testimonie of all these and contrarie also to the testimonie of the Rhemists and contrarie also to the cleare evidence of the Text it selfe he saith That in these higher Powers is no more included the Temporall then the Spirituall Powers Yea S. Chrysostome also yet further sheweth that Apostles Prophets Evangelists and such like Ecclesiasticall Ministers are to be reckoned in the number of those Soules that are to bee subject to the higher powers and therefore can none of them no not the Bishop of Rome himselfe be comprised or intended under the name of the higher Powers there mentioned Chrysost in Rom homiâ— 23. S. Chrysostomes wordes be these Let everie Soule be subject to the higher Powers Yea though you be an Apostle though an Evangelist though a Prophet Sive quisquis tandem fueris c. Or whosoever you be My Adversarie is so captious as that because in my former Booke pag. 2. cap. 1. there is an c. after these wordes in Latin Quisquis tandem fueris hee would make his Reader beleeve that there is some abstruse meaning in that Enigmaticall â—â—â—se as he calleth it which if I would unfold would declare how little it made for my purpose But why doth not himselfe unfold that aenigma Is it because Davus est non Oedipus For if himselfe had read the place in Chrysostome as it seemeth he did not he might easily have unfolded the aenigma discovered the fallacy or deceit if any had lyen inclosed or hidden in it But my selfe did indeed sufficiently unfold it in the verie same place pag. 2. where after that c. I added out of Chrysostome that which I meant by that c. namely these words Neque enim pietateÌ„ subvertit ista subjectio For neyther doth this subjection overthrow pietie or godlinesse The whole clause and sentence then that being also added which was intended by the c. is this viz. Let everie Soule be subject to the Higher powers Yea though you be an Apostle though an Evangelist though a Prophet or vvhosoever you be For neyther doth this subjection overthrow pietie or godlinesse Now he hath it wholy intirely unfolded What can he make of it eyther to advantage himselfe or to disadvantage mee Yea this unfolding expressing of it rather maketh for me because it directly affirmeth that this subjection of Apostles Prophets Evangelists all other Ministers Ecclesiasticall To these Higher powers standeth well with Christian Religion and doth no way subvert or overthrow any part of pietie or godlinesse Wherefore S. Chrysostome saith there yet further that Omnibus ista praecipiuntur Sacerdotibus quoque aâ— Monachis non solum secularibus These things be commanded to all even to the Priests also and to Monckes and not to secular-men onely I likewise alledged in that first Chapter of my Booke pag. 2. 3. Theodoret Theodoret. Theophil Oecumenius in Rom 13. Beâ—â—ar Epist 42 Greg. Epist. li. 2 Epist. 62. 65. Paris 1605. Theophilaâ—â— Oecumenius Aeneas Silvius Gregory and Bernard who all declare aswell as Chrysostome that even Bishops Priests and Cleargie-men and not Secular or Lay-men onely be in the number of those Soules that are to be subject to these higher Powers In somuch that Aeneas Silvius Aeneâ—â— Silvius lib. 1 de Geâ—â—â— Basil Concil who was himselfe sometime a Pope of Rome affirmeth that S. Paul saith Omnis anima potestatibus subli mioribus subdita fit nec excipit animam Papae Let everie Soule be subject to the higher Powers Neyther saith he doth S. Paul here except the soule of the Pope himselfe but that he also ought to be subject And for further proofe hereof Ortat contr Parmen lib 3. I alledged also the testimonie of Optatus who saith that super Imperatorem non est nisi solus Deus qui fecit Imperatorem Above the Emperor is not any but God onely that made the Emperor I cited also the testimonie of Tertullian Tertul ad Sâ—apul cap. 2. writing thus Colimus Imperatorem ut hominem à Deo secundum solo Deo minorem We Christians doe honour the Emperor as the man next unto God inferior onely unto God Agreeably whereunto he saith againe of the Emperors Ters Apolog. cap. â—0 that they be under the power of God onely à quo sunt secundi post quem primi from whom they be the second after whom they be the first And pag. 30. I alledged the testimonie Chrysost ad popul Antioch homil 2. once more of S. Chrysostome who saith of the Christian Emperor in his time that Non habet parem super terram He hath no peere or equall upon earth Yea he saith further of him that hee was Summitas caput omnium super terras hominum The head and one that had the supremacie over all men upon earth To all which my Adversarie according to his wonted wise and learned manner of answering thought it best to answere nothing Thus farre then have I proved against him that by the higher powers in this Text of S. Paul be meant Emperors Kings Princes such like temporall Magistrates and that by everie Soule in this Text which is to be subject to the higher Powers is meant all manner of persons whatsoever Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill and Temporall and consequently that the Bishop of Rome was then clearely subject to the Emperor of Rome and so ought still to have continued But my Adversary at last granteth That Bishops Priests and Cleargie-men be subject to the King and to his Lawes but with this distinction namely according to the directive power of them but not according to the coactive And this distinction he learned Bellar. de Clericis cap 28. not onely of Suarez but of Bellarmine also For thus likewise writeth Bellarmine Non sunt amplius Reges Clericorum superiores proinde non tenentur Iure divino nec humano eis parere nisi quantuÌ„ ad leges directivas Kings are not any longer Soveraignes or superiors to Cleargie-men and therefore are they not bound to obey them by Gods Law or Mans law unlesse it be in respect of lawes directive What Bellarmine meaneth by lawes directive himselfe declareth when he saith That Princes have no coactive
power over the Cleargie-men but onely power directive This distinction was not knowne in the Apostolicke Primitive and ancient Church nor so long as the Bishops of Rome were subject to the Emperors but when the Bishops of Rome contrarie to all lawes both humane and divine had trayterously and wickedly subdued the Emperors and that it could be said of Emperors and Kings as Bellarmine speaketh that Non sunt amplius ClericoruÌ„ superiores They are no longer Soveraignes or superiors to Cleargie-men Then did this distinction arise or grow that the Kings might have a directive power but no coactive power over theÌ„ that is might direct them to what was good but might not compell theÌ„ to it And so faith also mine Adversarie that coactive power imposeth penalties Now this distinction is easily answered and confuted yea he might have perceaved it in my former Booke pag. 7.8.9.10 to have beene sufficiently answered and confuted For besides other proofes Aug lib. 1 in fine contr Epist Parmen it is there shewed by diverse testimonies out of S. Augustine himselfe against the Donatists That Kings and Princes may not onely direct or command but may also by Lawes penalties and punishments compell their Subjects and consequently Cleargie-men asvvell as others to obedience in that vvhich is good and godly Yea it is the proper and peculiar right of Kings and Princes externally to use a power coactive by reason of the sword committed to them from God which Ecclesiasticall Ministers by vertue of their Ecclesiasticall calling and office cannot doe And seeing Parents have a power coactive over their children and Masters in a familie over their servants verie strange it were if Kings should not be allowed to have a power coactive over their subjects But it is indeede verie well knowne that the Christian Emperors in ancient time did use a power coactive even over Cleargie-men aswell as over others inflicting penalties and punishments upon them As for example Constantine that Christian Emperor exiled and banished Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia Theoderes lib. 1. cap. 20. and Theognius Bishop of Nice and hee saith further That if any man whether Bishop or other were offended at that his banishing of them and would grow malepart thereupon Illius statim audacia Ministri Dei hoc est mea executione coercebitur His boldnesse shall forthwith be repressed by the execution of Gods minister that is of my selfe Another Constantine also by whose Imperiall Authoritie the sixt Councell at Constantinople was held in a Decree inserted in that Councell Synod 6. Act. 18 Conc. edit â—in to â— pag. 92. saith Siquidem Episcopus est vel Clericus vel Monachico circundatus habitu deportationis paenam exsolvet If he be a Bishop or a Clearke or a Moncke let him be punished with deportation or banishment Charle-Mayne also in a French Synode Tom 2. Concil decreed imprisonment Si ordinatus Presbiter fuerit duos annos in carcere permaneat Aug. lib. 1. in fine contr epist. Par. S. Augustine againe declareth that there was a Law Imperiall against those that professed themselves Christians and true Catholickes and yet were not so but kept private Conventicles 〈◊〉 that he that ordayned a Clearke for that purpose or the Clearke so ordained should loose ten pounds of gold and the place also where such Conventicles were kept should be forfeyted to the Emperor You see then for the refelling and overthrowe of that foolish and false distinction that the Christian Emperors had power coactive over Bishops and Cleargie-men punishing them sometime with deportation exile or banishment sometime with imprisonment and sometime with penalties and losses of summes of money and other forfeytures And upon some kinde of offendors you may read that they inflicted the punishment of death And indeede to what end hath the King this Regall and Temporall Authoritie jurisdiction the power coactive in his hands by reason of the Sword committed to him from God if hee may not use it and put it in execution Yea my Adversarie himselfe confesseth and saith that Iurisdictio nullius videretur esse momenti si coertionem aliquam non haberet Iurisdiction might seeme to be of no regard if it had not some coertion or power coactive joyned with it Againe he saith Cui jurisdictio data est ea quoque concessa intelliguntur sine quibus jurisdictio expleri non potest To whom jurisdiction is given all those things be also understood to be granted without which that jurisdiction cannot be performed Wherefore even by those Maximes which himselfe citeth and approveth it is manifest that seeing the King hath a power jurisdiction and Authoritie to direct command Cleargie-men he hath also a power coercitive or coactive over them to compell correct and punish them if otherwise they will not obey those his directions and commandements So that my Adversarie needed to have no better confuter of this his idle distinction then himselfe But pag. 5. in that first Chapter of my former Booke I alledged that Text of Rom. 13. to prove also the Kings Authoritie in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill or Temporall And indeede this Text serveth also verie sufficiently for that purpose For as there is here no exception of any person so is there also no exception of anie cause or matter but whosoever doth evill be it in what kinde of cause soever he is here made subject to this sword and Temporall Authoritie of Emperors Kings and Princes For the Text saith That they are the ordinance of God and the Ministers of God attending employed and constituted to this verie end and purpose for the prayse countenancing and encouraging of the good and wel-doers and for discountenancing Aug. Epist 50. discouraging and punishing of the bad and such as be evill-doers And therefore doth S. Augustine say that Quicunque legibus Imperatorum quae pro Dei veritate fâ—runtur obtemperare non vult grande acquirit supplicium Whosoever will not obey the Lawes of the Emperor which are made for the trueth of God doth purchase to himselfe a great punishment Aug. Epist 166. For saith he in another place Hoc jubent Imperatores quod jubet Christus quia cum jubent bonum per illos non jubet nisi Christus The Emperors command that which Christ also commandeth because when they command that which is good it is Christ himselfe that commandeth by them Aug de Civit. Dei lib. 5. cap. 24 Yea S. Agustine was so farre from this point of Poperie to denie or disallow the Authoritie of Emperors Kings and Princes in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning Religion as that he doth evermore teach and defend it whensoever there was occasion to speake of it in somuch that he saith Imperatores foelices dicimus si suam potestatem ad Dei cultum maxime dilatandum c. We affirme the Emperors to be happie if they extend their Authoritie the most they can to doe service unto God in
the spreading of his Religion For Aug. Epist. â—0 as the same S. Augustine againe saith a King serveth God one way as he is a man and another way as he is a King As a Man he serveth God by living well and faithfully But as he is a King he serveth God by setting forth Lawes to command 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 Wherefore my Argument to prove the Authoritie of Emperors Kings and Princes in both those points together out of this Text of Rom. 13. is this whosoever hath Authoritie to punish evill-doers without exception of any person and without exception of any cause hath Authoritie over all persons and in all causes aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill But the Emperor within his Empyre and the King within his Kingdomes hath Authoritie to punish evill-doers without exception of any person and without exception of any cause as is apparant by the Text it selfe wherein no exception is to be found Ergo the Emperor within his Empyre and the King within his kingdomes hath authoritie over all persons and in all causes aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill 6 But now from this Text of Rom. 13. alledged in the 5. pag. of that first Chapter in my Booke concerning the SUPREMACIE My Adversarie commeth next to the point of Appeales mentioned in the same first Chapter pag. 24. So that he here skippeth over 9. whole leaves together at one leape and I must follow him in his course It is true that in the pag. 24. I said that when Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage was accused by Donatus some other of that saction Constantine the Emperor commanded Caecilianus to come to Rome with a certaine number of Bishops that accused him and by his Commission extant in Eusebius authorized and appointed Miltiadâ—s the then Bishop of Rome some others with him for the hearing and ending of that matter These Commissioners condemned Donatus who appealed from their sentence to the Emperor which appeale also the Emperor received Where beside that you see that this Christian Emperor made Commissioners in this Episcopall and Ecclesiastical cause observe withall that Miltiades the then Bishop of Rome was one of those Commissoners and there withall you may also note that the Bishops of Rome were then verie clearely subject and not superior to the Emperor So that a Christian King or Prince not onely may make Commissioners in Ecclesiasticall causes but may also have Appeales made unto him as is here apparant To this my Adversarie maketh divers answers First he saith that this instance concerning Appeales maketh more against me then for me because it was an Appeale made by Hereticks viz. the Donatists unto the Emperor But this reason of his maketh more against him then set him For if it were lawfull for Heretickes who thought themselves wronged by the inferior Iudges to appeale to the Emperor no lesse if not much more lawfull was it for the Orthodoxe Bishops if they were wronged to appeale to him And if Constantine that Orthodoxe godly and Christian Emperor thought it lawfull for him as hee did for otherwise hee would never have meddled with it to entertaine and receave an appeale made to him from Heretickes much more would hee have thought it lawfull and meete to receave Appeales from such as were Orthodoxe right true Christians and men for Faith Religion like himselfe But that he may know that not onely heretickes but Orthodoxe Bishops also Athan. Apolog. 2 cap. Quum multas did appeale to the Emperor Let him take for an evident proofe of it the example of Athanasius and of the other Bishops joyned with him who as is before shewed appealed from the Councell of Tyrus Socrat lib. 1. cap. 33. 34. unto the same godly Emperor Constantine which appeale the same Emperor likewise receaved Neyther would Athanasius nor any other good and godly Bishops have appealed unto him if they had not thought it lawful both for them so to doe and for the Emperor also to receive such appeales Neyther did the Donatists appeale onely from Miltiades the Bishop of Rome and those that were joyned with him by Commission from the Emperor But they appealed also from those other Bishops that were afterward assembled at Arle in France for the hearing and ending of the same cause And both these Appeales did the Emperor receive and upon the last appeale he sate himselfe in person and gave Iudgement for Caecilianus against the Donatists whose proceedings and Iudgments upon those appeales S. Augustine disliked not but well liked and allowed alledging them as being substantiall proofes for the Catholickes and lawfull good and effectuall judgements against the Donatists I grant that Constantine was loth at the first to be Iudge in this Episcopall cause in his owne person Aug Epist. 166 and therefore S. Augustine saith Eam discutiendam atque finiendam Episcopis delegavit He delegated and appointed Bishops to discusse and determine it namely Miltiades and his Colleagues Ibidem And when Miltiades and his Colleagues had pronounced Caecilianus innocent and condemned Donatus as Author of the schisme raysed at Carthage Your side saith S. Augustine to the Donatists Ibidem came backe to the Emperor and complayned of the judgement of the Bishops against them The most patient and milde Emperor the second time gave them other Iudges namely the Bishops that met at Arle in France And your men saith he seaking still to the Donatists appealed from the Bishops of Arle also to the Emperors owne person and never left till the Emperor himselfe in person tooke the hearing of the cause betweene them which he did and upon hearing it pronounced Caecilianus innocent and those his accusers Idem Epist. 162 to be malicious wranglers Againe the same S. Angustine saith that the Donatists appealed from Ecclesiasticall judgement to the end that Constantine might heare the cause Whither when they came both parties standing before him Caecilianus was adjudged to be innocent and the Donatists overthrowne To prove this I will further bring you saith S. Augustine the very wordes of Constantine where he witnesseth That upon judiciall hearing of both sides he found Caecilianus to be cleare Yea S. Augustine sheweth further what followed upon this judgement Aug. Epist 166. Then did Constantine saith he make a sharpe law to punish the Donatists his sonnes continued the same Reade vvhat Valentinian reade when you vvill vvhat Gratian and Theodosius Decreed against you Why vvonder you then at the Children of Theodosius as if they had follovved any other president in this cause then the judgement of Constantine vvhich so many Christian Emperors have kept inviolate Though Constantine bee dead yet the judgement of Constantine given against you liveth For vvhen Emperors command that vvhich is good it is Christ and no man else that commandeth by them Thus you see how much this
Bishops Abbots Matth. Paris in Heâ—rico secundo Anno 1164. Pryors Earles Barons and great Men of the Realme there was made a rehearsall of some part of the Customes and liberties of his Auncestors as of King Henry his Grand-father and others which ought to be kept in this Realme and observed of all c. Amongst which customes and liberties being sixteene in Number these were some namely That no Archbishop Bishop nor any other person of the Realme may goe out of the Land without the Kings leave And as touching appeales if any be made they shall come from the Archdeacon to the Bishop from the Bishop to the Archbishop And if the Archbishop fayle in doing justice it shall be lawfull to come last of all to the King that by his commandement the matter may be ended in the Archbishops Court So that no man shall proceede to appeale any further without the Kings consent These customes liberties of the Crowne the Archbishops Bishops Abbots Pryors and Cleargie with the Earles Barons and all the Nobles sware and by word of mouth faithfully promised should be kept and observed to the King and his heires for ever simply without any fraud Yea Thomas Becket Archbishop of Canterbury himselfe condescended to them Matth Paris ibidem promised also with an Oath to keepe them although afterward he revolted and brake his Oath and fled to Rome But saith mine Adversarie The Pope of Rome Alexander the third would not confirme these lawes or liberties though the King requested it What of this The liberties lawes and customes of the kingdome were good enough without his confirmation Yet the King perceaving his so just and reasonable a request to be repelled by the Pope was not a little offended thereat and therefore wrote Letters to all his Shiriffes Lieutenants in England on this wise I commande you that if any Cleargie-man or Lay-man in your Countie appeale to the Court of Rome you attach him and hold him in fast-ward till our pleasures be knowne And to his Iudges also he wrote in this sort If any shall be found to bring letters or a mandate from the Pope or from Thomas the Archbishop interdicting the Realme of England Let him be taken and kept in Prison till I signifie what shall be done with him They that wrote the life of the same Thomas Becket doe report it thus Let him be forthwith apprehended for a Traytor In quadrilog de â—ita Thom. Cant and execution done upon him which agreeth with that which likewise pag. 25. cap. 1. of my Booke I cited out of Hoveden where he saith that Si quis inventus fuerit literas vel mandatum ferens Domini Papae â—â—veden Henr. 2 c. Capiatur de eo sicut de Regis traditore regni sine dilatione fiat justitia If any shall be found bringing letters or a mandate from the Pope let him be apprehended and let justice be done upon him without delay as upon a traytor to the King and the kingdome Where it is also further said that Generaliter interdictum est ne quis appellet ad Dominum Papam It was generally prohibited that none should appeale to the Pope Wherefore you see that which I wrote concerning Anselmus and concerning Appeales to be verie true Yea how earnest and vehement this valiant and worthy Prince King Henry the second was against the Pope for maintenance of his Regall rights appeareth further by an Epistle of his written to the Archbishop of Colen Matth. Paris in Hen. 2 An. 1168 in these wordes I have long desired saith he to finde a just occasion to depart from Pope Alexander and his perfidious Cardinals which presume to maintaine my Traytor Thomas of Canterbury against me Whereupon by the advise of my Barons and Cleargie I meane to send the Archbishop of Yorke the Bishop of London the Archdeacon of Poictiers c. to Rome which shall publikely denounce and plainely propose in my behalfe and in the behalfe of all the Dominions I have to Pope Alexander and his Cardinals that they maintayne my Traytor no longer but rid me of him that I with the advise of my Cleargie may set another in the Church of Canterbury They shall also require them to frustrate all that Becket hath done and exact an Oath of the Pope that he and his successors as much as in them lyeth shall keepe and observe inviolable to me and all mine for ever the Royall customes of King Henry my Grand-father If they refuse any of these my demaunds neyther I nor my Barons nor my Cleargie will yeelde them any kinde of obedience any longer Yea rather we will openly oppugne the Pope and all his and whosoever in my land shall be found hereafter to adhere to the Pope shall be banished my Realme Here then by the way let me demaund why any Papists doe call this Thomas Becket a martyr whom the King calleth a traytor The manner of his death being done by private violence and not by publike authoritie nor in a legall sort I utterly dislike But is not also his stout standing in that quarrell against his King and against his owne oath also and against the punishing of murtherers theeves and other malefactors by the Kings Lawes if they were Cleargie-men justly worthy to be condemned Or can he that dieth in and for so bad a cause deserve to be called a martyr But such it seemeth be the martyrs of the Popish Church But not onely these Kings of England before mentioned namely King William Rufus King Henry the first and King Henry the second and some others thus contended opposed themselves against the Popes of Rome Ex Lanfranc Epistolis M. S. in Biblioth Cotton Baron Anno. 1079. §. 25. for maintenance of their Regall rights but King William the Conqueror also who was before all these 〈◊〉 the like Kingly opposition For when Hildebrand otherwise called Pope Gregory the seaventh was bold to demaund of the King an oath of fealtie to be made to him as if the King were to hold his kingdome of him as of his Soveraigne Lord. This King would by no meanes yeelde thereunto but sent him a full negative answere 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 This answere of the King is extant in an Epistle of his written to the same Pope which you may see set downe more at large by that excellent antiquarie and learned godly divine Doctor Vsher late Lord Bishop of Meath and the now most Reverend and worthy Lord Archbishop of Ardmagh Primate and Metropolitan of all Ireland in his Booke De Christianarum Ecclesiarum successione statu pag. 182. Neyther neede I
Peter in saying Subjecti estote Be yee subject distinguisheth the Christians to whom he writeth from the rest that were their adversaries and were heathens and Infidels But why doth he say againe that these words Subjecti estote Be yee subject doe no more specifie Subjects then Princes For is it not a senselesse thing to say or suppose when men are by expresse wordes exhorted to be subject to their Kings and Princes that these wordes should require no more of Subjects then they doe of Kings and Princes Yea when he requireth Christians to be subject to everie humane creature whether it be to the king as being the chiefe or unto governours as unto them that are sent of him 1. Pet. 2.13.14 for the punishment of evill doers and for the prayse of them that doe well doth he not by this his distribution of the humane creature apparantly shew that he meaneth thereby the King as Chiefe or Supreme and the other Temporall Magistrates Rulers or Governors that be appointed or allowed under him Little reason therefore had my Adversarie to say That by every humane creature in the Text thus distinguished by the Apostle himselfe into the King as Chiefe or Supreme and into others that be Rulers or Governors under him The King is no more compresed then the Pope For you see that the King is directly comprised and intended yea expressely named and so is not the Pope And this is so evident that even the Rhemists themselves doe likewise so teach and expound it namely That by everie humane creature in this Text S. Peter meaneth the Temporall Magistrates Rhem. Annot. 5. in 1. Pet 2.13 Howbeit hee calleth not Kings and Princes and other inferior Magistrates under them an humane creation as though they were not also a Divine creation and of Gods institution For there is no power but of God Rom. 13.1 2. Ioh. 19.11 But they are called an humane creation in respect that the externall forme and maner of their creation is usually such as that God hath beene pleased to allow men to ordayne and appoint it for the use behoofe and benefit of men For touching Kings and Princes some are so by election and some by birth and discent of inheritance and concerning inferior Magistrates under Kings Princes they be also created and made some after one sort and some after another But what forme of creation soever they receave from men yet when they are once so appointed 1. Pet. 2.13 they are then to be obeyed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Propter DominuÌ„ for the Lords sake as S. Peter here teacheth to shew that they be also Gods ordinance and of his approbation And therefore doth S Paul likewise teach That Christians must be subject to them Rom 13.1.2.3.4 5. not onely for feare or for wrath but also for conscience sake as being also Gods owne institution But my Adversarie at last confesseth that this part of the Text Whether it be to the King as excelling or to Rulers as sent by him with a reference to the precedent wordes doth establish in the King the Regall and Temporall Supremacie And this is enough if he would be constant and stand to his wordes For no other Supremacie or Authoritie in matters Ecclesiasticall doth the King clayme but that which is Regall and Temporall In asmuch as he claymeth not to punish any offendors in Ecclesiasticall causes otherwise then by finings imprisonments and such like Civill and Temporall penalties and punishments which belong to that his Regall and Temporall Authoritie to inflict and in asmuch as hee also meddleth not with preaching the Word Ministring the Sacraments Excommunication Absolution or whatsoever else that is proper and peculiar to the Bishops or Ministers function And seeing he is so equall and just as to denie Cleargie men nothing that of right belongeth to them Why should any Cleargie men or any men whosoever be so unequall and unjust as to denie unto him any thing that is his proper due as namely a Regall and Temporall Power and Authoritie to be extended and used against offendors in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as in Civill For what Shall offendors in causes Ecclesiasticall that be and persist wilfull obstinate and perpetuall contemners of al Divine admonitions Church censures and Christian courses be held not fit to be restrained or punished Civilly or by Temporall Authoritie Would not such a libertie and impunitie prove extremely and intollerably mischievous And yet must such a mischiefe be endured or at least hazarded where Ecclesiasticall Authoritie is contemned and set at naught and that withall such contemners shal neverthelesse not be permitted to be restrained by the Civill Sword and Authoritie of Kings and Princes This argument I alledged in the first Chapter of my former Booke pag. 6. but my Adversarie is of such an excellent skill as that he can tell how to passe it over as he doth many things more without making any answere thereunto Wherefore that his evasion and distinction which is likewise the common evasion and distinction of all the Papists viz that Kings and Princes are to be obeyed when they command for matters Civill and Temporall but not when they command for God and his Religion or in matters Ecclesiasticall 〈◊〉 appeareth to be a most false most idle distinction being both in my former Booke and in this also much more largely reselled and confuted Yea it is so grosse and absurd as that at the very first hearing of it in this sort produced it sheweth it selfe to be verie senselesse and ridiculous For shall the King be obeyed when he commandeth for men and shall he not be obeyed when he coÌ„mandeth for God Is not this to preferre Men before God Earth before Heaven the Bodie before the Soule the Common-weale before the Church and things worldly terrestriall and externall before things divine celestiall and eternall Rhem. Annot 6 in 1. Pet. 2.13 As for that which the Rhemisâ—s say That this Text giveth no more to any Prince then may and ought to be done and granted to an heathen Magistrate it maketh not for them but against them For if they will grant no more to Christian Kings and Princes then is due to heathen Princes yeâ— even so much sufficeth as touching this point if it be well 〈◊〉 Because it is verie cleare that even heathen Kings and Princes are and ought to bee obeyed Ezra 1.1.2.3 c. when they command for God his service Religion as is evident by Cyrus King of Persia who though he were an heathen King gave commandement to build the Temple in Ierusalem Ez a. 61.23 c. and was therein obeyed Darius also another heathen King gave commandement for the continuing of the building of that Temple and for the Sacrifices to be offered in it Ezra 7.12.13 c. and was therein obeyed In like sort did Artaxerxes though an heathen King give commandement for the reforming of the Church according to the
law of God Dan. 3.29 by the Ministerie of Ezra that learned Scribe Nebuchadnezzar also though an heathen King gave a commandement and made a decree that none should blaspheme the GOD of Shadrach Dan 6 25 26. Meshach and Abednego King Darius likewise gave commandement made a decree that in all the Dominions of his kingdom men should tremble feare before the Lord God of Daniel whose God was the true God Some heatheÌ„ Emperors also gave commandment that men should cease from persecuting the Christians that Christians should have the free exercise of their Religion build Oratories places for their meetings and assemblies Euseb li 7. cap. â—8 cap 12. quietly possesse them for the service of their God Were not these such like commandments good lawful coÌ„mendable Euseb lib. 9 cap. 16. cap. 8. lat though given by heathen Emperors and in causes Ecclesiasticall and concerning Religion And were they not meete to be obeyed If then heathen Kings and Princes may as is manifest lawfully and laudably command for God his worship service and Religion and are therein dutifully to be obeyed By what right or reason can it bee denied to Christian Kings and Princes to have at least the like authoritie to command in matters Ecclesiasticall for God his service and Religion For shall Christian Kings and Princes be in worse case then heathen Kings Or shall they fare the worse or have the lesse Regall power and authority because of their Religion of Christianitie God forbid This argument I likewise alledged in the first Chapter of my former Booke pag. 7. whereto my Adversarie againe like a wise man still knoweth how to answere nothing And yet he saith he will propose my defused argument in a succinct forme the most for my advantageâ—â— But I neyther desire nor looke for any advantage at his hands Let him make his owne Arguments the best hee can for his owne advantage As for mine I would not have him to frame them unlesse hee would doe it more truely Hee would indeede make my Argument defused or rather confused by his confused maner of answering jumbling things together which I had Methodically and expressely distinguished For first my purpose was to prove his Majesties SUPREMACIE over all persons within his owne Dominions and then afterward in the second place to shew his Authoritie in respect of Causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill In the first Section of that Chapter pag. 1.2.3.4 I handle the first point concerning his Supremacie in respect of persons and in the second section pag. 5. and not before it is that I begin to handle his Authoritie in respect of causes This Text then of S. Peter being alledged as it is in the first section and pag. 1. was by me produced to prove onely his Majesties Supremacie over all persons aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill within his owne Dominions and not for any such end or purpose as thereby to prove his Majesties Authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill as he misconceaveth But sith he will needes have it so used I am well content with it because that Text doth indeede serve verie sufficiently to prove both those purposes For the first the argument is verie apparant and may be framed thus If all persons aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill are to be subject to their King as to the Chiefe or Supreme within his owne Dominions then hath their King a cleare Supremacie over them all But all persons aswell Ecclesiasticall as Civill are to be subject to their King as to the Chiefe or Supreme within his owne Dominions for so S. Peter directly teacheth Ergo their King hath a cleare Supremacie over them all And for the second point the argument is also very open and evident For the King is not called the Chiefe or Supreme in respect onely of the excellencie of his person above all his subjects but in respect also of his Authoritie Rule and Governement he hath over them yea in this respect specially he is so called as appeareth by this That S. Peter distribuâ—es the humane creature he there speaketh of that is the Temporall Magistrates Rulers or Governors into the King as being the Chiefe or Supreme Governor and into other that be governors under him So that here we finde the Kings Title of Supreme Governor very manifestly proved and directly ratified and confirmed And that his governement and authoritie extendeth also to all manner of causes and consequently to causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill it is thus also made verie apparant out of this Text. For S. Peter here sheweth 1. Pet 2.13.14 that the King as the Supreme Governor and the other that bee inferior governors under him be all constituted to this end viz. For the punishment of evill doers and for the prayse of them that doe well Now be there not or may there not be evill doers aswell in the Church as in the Commonweale and transgressors and offendors aswell in matters Ecclesiasticall as Civill and Temporall Shall not then aswell the one sort of these offendors as the other be held punishable by the Kings Civill and Temporall Sword especially when they grow and continue obstinate wilfull perverse and unruly and will not otherwise be reclaymed The Text maketh no such difference or distinction as the Papists fondly doe betweene offendors in causes Ecclesiasticall and offendors in causes Civill and Temporall but generally or indefinitely it would have Evill doers of what sort soever without any distinction exception or restriction to bee punished by this Civill sword And ubi lex non distinguit ibi nec nos distinguere debemus The Argument then for the Kings Authoritie in matters Ecclesiasticall aswell as in Civill out of this Text of S. Peter is and may be framed thus Whosoever hath authoritie from God to punish Evill doers by the Civill sword without any distinction restriction or exception of causes hath Authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill But the King hath Authoritie from God to punish â—â—â—-â—oers by the Ciuill sword without any distinction restriction or exception of causes Ergo The King hath Authoritie in causes Ecclesiasticall aswell as Civill The Matoâ— is evident in it selfe The Miror is proved and apparant by the Text and therefore the conclusion must be granted My Adversarie neverthelesse still urgeth that as touching spirituall and Ecclesiasticall causes and matters and concerning Religion obedience must be performed to the Supreme Pastor and head of the Church And who denieth this Yea this is granted unto him so hee take it rightly For not the Pope as he and other Papists strangely suppose but CHRIST IESVS onely is the Chiefe Sheepheard or Supreme Pastor and head of the Church as hath beene often declared and as is apparant As for that he saith That the Militant Church must have some visible head in Earth to rule and governe it 1. Pet. 5.4 Hebr. 13 20. Colos 1.18 Ephes 1 2â—.23 He onely saith it but