SIR: As you throughout your Rejoyn­der addressed your speech to me, in par­ticular: so doe I in like sort here direct my speech unto you in this worke of mine. For although I neyther purposed nor promised it, nor others, (I suppose) expected it, yet that which you have of late published against my Reply hath provoked me once more to set penne to paper in defence of that cause which you so much strive against in vaine In the beginning of that your Rejoynder, you say, that although wee bee different in religion, yet you desire much, that wee be united in affection. This speech of yours I dislike not be­cause it savoureth (as I conceive it) of that humanitie and charitie which is to be entertayned, and continued amongst us, notwithstanding these differences in points of religion: as also of some good affection, and inclination in you unto Gods trueth: wherein chiefely it is, that wee are to be uni­ted. For, as touching any other kindes of unitie, namely that which is in error and falsehood, I hope you desire it not because it is as S. Augustine rightly calleth it, Error is conspira­tio, a conspiracie of error against the truth. The unitie, which is joyned with divine veritie, is it which S. Paul calleth, The unitie of the spirit, and which hee would have all Christians to be evermore verie carefull to observe, saying, Ephes. 4.3 Endevour to [Page 2] keepe the unitie of the spirit in the bond of peace: and hee saith againe thus: Ephes. 4.15. Let us follow the truth in love, and in all things grow up into him which is the head, that is, Chirist; This truth if we did all earnestly seeke after and follow, and that in love, and in a charitable manner (as here we are required to doe) all our controversies would the better, and the sooner be ended and determined which have now so long disquieted many mens mindes, and doe so much hinder that which is indeede most requisite, namely, the good and due practise of true religion in the world. For how can any practise religion aright, be­fore they know which is the right religion, which they are to practise, and to walke in? Or how can they know which is the right religion they are to walke in, so long as they be doubtfull of it, by reason of questions, and controversies, that doe perplexe and distract them? The first thing then, which men desirous to live good and godly lives are to seeke after, is, in the middest of all these controversies to get & obtain within themselves a resolution of a right religion: which resolution they can never certainely have or attaine unto, but by meanes of the sacred and Canonicall Scriptures, which be the onely infallible rule of all divine truth, as I have shewed in my first Booke: So that the purpose and in­tention of that my first Booke, as likewise of the second, which is my Reply, and of this also, was not, nor is, to have men to dwell continually and everlastingly in controver­sies, but cleane contrariwise to have them all ended and de­termined, and that as speedily as might bee, in every mans conscience by diligent searching of those holy Scriptures, and finding out thereby what is the undoubted trueth in them: that men being once thus satisfied and resolved of the truth and true religion, might afterward the better, and the more freely apply themselves to the good and due pra­ctise of it in their affections, words, workes, lives and con­versations, refusing all other religions of humane invention whatsoever, and the wayes thereof. But now though the truth be never so manifest and apparant, yet some there be [Page 3] of that froward and perverse disposition, that they will not yeelde unto it, but as Iannes and Iambres withstood Moses, 2. Tim. 3.8. so doe these also resist the truth, being men of corrupt mindes and reprobate concerning the faith, as S. Paul speaketh of which sort of men (if I could helpe it) I would not have you to be, though you be mine Adversarie, yea though you were mine utter enemie. And therefore, as to the answere which you made to the two Chapters contayned in the first part of my first Booke, I replyed: so to your Rejoynder, I have here also thought it good to make a Surreplication; wherein I must not omit to tell you, that as touching the second Chapter of my Reply, you have in your Rejoynder made no answere at all unto it, but it remaineth wholly and entirely unan­swered, and consequently in his full force & strength against you. And as touching the first Chapter of my Reply, con­cerning the Supremacie (upon which point it seemeth that all your thoughts were wholly fixed, & imployed) although you make some kinde of answere in your Rejoynder unto it, and such as perchance, you and your partakers may thinke to be somewhat strong, yet it is indeede of that great debi­litie, as that upon the matter, it is as good as no answere, as will appeare by the sequele: and yet have you moreover left a great part, even of that first Chapter also unanswered. Beside that you have againe in your Reioynder, sundry things which were before answered in my Reply, and much other idle, futile, and frivolous stuffe, which I suppose you would never have inserted into your booke but fro want of better matter in your cause.

For, first, what an idle exception is this, that you take to my Reply in that I dedicated it to the Right Honourable the Lord Deputie? Why might I not doe so? Was it not law­full? Or was there any inconvenience, or indecorum in it? You say that his Lordship hath taken the Oath of Supre­macie, which maketh him a direct Partie, & being a Partie, he may not also be a Iudge in the same cause. What? have you so soone forgotten what your selfe did? For when you [Page 4] made your answere to the two Chapters of my first Booke, you may remember that you dedicated it, To your dearest countreymen, the Lawyers of Ireland. You then thought it lawfull and seemely enough for you so to dedicate it, not­withstanding that by their refusall and utter dislike to take the Oath of Supremacie, they manifestly shewed themsel­ves to be Parties. And was this lawfull for you to doe, and was not the other as lawfull at least, or rather much more lawfull, and seemely (all things considered) for mee to doe? Howbeit, you know also, that Bookes be not alwayes de­dicated to men to make them Iudges, but sometimes, and usually to the end, they should be the Patrons thereof, al­beit therein also, they be not disallowed but well allowed to passe their judgement and censure upon the same. But in­deede no reason had you to dislike of the dedication of that my Booke unto his Lordship, in whom your selfe doe ac­knowledge that there is sufficiencie to understand, wise­dome to discerne, and power to commaund. A like second exception you take for that I call the Papists of this king­dome Pretended Catholickes, which title (say you) they doe not acknowledge. But whether they acknowledge it or no, it must bee graunted, that whilest they call themselves Catholickes, when re vera they bee not so, (as I have shewed and prooved in my first Booke) they can bee no other but Pretended Catholickes: As likewise hee that calleth himselfe an honest man, when revera he is not so, is at the most, but a pretended honest man. Yet another exception you take in this, that you say, I call you Canis festinans and Luscus inter caecos: But you mistake, in both. For, (in that my epistle dedicatorie, of my Reply) I did not say, that you were Cani [...] festinans, but that whilest in your Answere, you strived to make more hast, then good speede, you shewed your selfe to be, like Canis festinans, caecos edens catibos: which is a pro­verbiall speech, tolerable enough in the judgment of such, as be not over captious, and often and ordinarily vsed in that sort and sence, & to that purpose that I used it. Neither [Page 5] did I say definitely, & expressely of you, that you were Lus­cus inter caecos, but my words be these: Regnat inter caecos Lus­cus, which may be aswell spoken of any other, as of you, vn­lesse you will needs be the man, and so take and apply it, (as you doe,) to your selfe, particularly.

2. After these exceptions, you come next to the the three requests, I made to him, that would take up [...]n him to answer my first booke: in the first whereof I desired, that he would answere it, not by parts, or peasemeals, but wholly and en­tirely, from the beginning of it unto the end: The second was, that he would doe it, not superficialie, and sophisti­cally, but substantially, soundly, & satisfactorily, if he could: Thirdly, I desired him to doe it, as in love, and charity, so al­so with an affection, only to follow Gods truth, and with all, to set his name unto it, as I had done to that booke of mine. But hereunto, you take divers exceptions, though now somewhat lately in your Reioynder. First you say, that these being conditions, they should have beene agreed up­on by the mutuall consent of parties: and that if any ad­vantage be given, it should be in favour of the defendant, as in matter of challenge: for the defendant appoints the wea­pon, time, and place; But in this challenge of mine, contrary unto law and custome, I have (say you) assumed unto my selfe, being the challenger, the proposing of such condi­tions as doe disadvantage the defendant. It is true, that in contracts, and bargaines betweene man and man, the condi­tions must be agreed upon by mutuall consent of parties, before it be, or can be a perfect contract, or a perfect bar­gaine, howbeit conditions for all that, not onely may be, but also must be, first propounded before they can bee assented unto, or agreed upon. Againe there is aswell a subsequent agreement, as a precedent: As if a man propound, or offer unto you a Lease for yeares of lands, upon certaine condi­tions: you may choose, whether you will accept of it, or no, upon those conditions; but if, though not at the first, yet afterward, you having the election, doe declare your con­sent, [Page 6] and acceptance of it, by entring upon the lands, manu­ring them, taking the profits, is it not reason you should performe the conditions thereunto annexed? You know how to make the application. And yet neyther was I, when I made that my Booke, contracting, or bargaining with you, or with any other man in particular: For, I then ney­ther did, nor could possibly know before hand, who was to be the Answerer of it, with whom I might so contract, nor did I take upon me the person of a Challenger, as you af­firme: For I knew of no duell, that was in the case. And as for my defending of Protestancie against Poperie, it no more proveth me to be a challenger, then your defending of Poperie against Protestancie, proveth you to be the challen­ger. Yea in the conclusion of that my first booke Pag. 417. it appeareth, that I was so farre from taking upon me the person, or using the words of a challenger, that cleane con­trariwise, I used onely the peaceable, and friendly words, of Desiring, and Requesting. For there I desire of him, whoso­ever hee were, that would take upon him to answere that booke of mine, that hee would, in that his answere, be plea­sed to observe, and performe those three requests, or three conditions before mentioned, which I there propounded. All which were reasonable conditions, and such as (if you well consider them) were not (as you say) disadvantageable, but much advantageable rather to the cause of the answerer, if hee had performed them. But here, by the way, you tell me, of a verie compendious course, how that my whole first booke is answered and confuted: For you say, that he which fayleth in one point of faith, fayleth in all, and that a refu­tation or disproofe of any one particular in my booke, is a refutation and disproofe of all. And for proofe hereof, you cite S. Iames cap. 2. Iam. 2.10. This you also cited, and alledged in your first booke. This is a verie speedy course, and briefe manner of answering and confuting whole bookes, and volumes, if it might be allowed. Howbeit, touching that text of S. Ia­mes, which you somuch abuse, and touching that your Pa­radoxe [Page 7] and strange opinion, you have been before sufficient­ly answered in my Reply Chap. 2. pag. 110. 111. 112. Where­unto you in your Reioynder have said nothing. But, admit your Maior proposition were true (which is indeede utterly untrue) yet how doe you prove your Minor? that is to say, how doe you prove any one point or position of mine, con­tayned in that booke to be false? Shew, or name that one, which you have disproved, or confuted, if you can: but you are not able to doe it. From henceforth therefore bee not so prodigall of your words. But yet further to derogate from the credite of that my first booke, you say, that it is onely a collection out of Protestant authors: and that you can discover the Bookes, Chapters, and Pages, of Master Fulke, Master Whitakers, Master Downam, & of others, whence I have borrowed, verbatim, whatsoever is expressed in it. This is too overlavish a speech, and more then you will bee ever able to prove. Indeede, as touching the substance of the matter, and doctrine, contayned in that my first booke, and in my second, and in this also, I thinke it no shame, but contrarywise I thinke it honour, and reputation, freely to confesse, that I have learned it of those, and of such other learned, and reverend Protestant Divines: Yea I hold it a part of dutie in me, not onely ingenuously, but thankefully also to acknowledge those my teachers: especially conside­ring, that what they have taught mee herein, appeareth to bee certainely, and irrefutably true. This therefore doth ra­ther adde credite to the matter and doctrine, contayned in those my bookes, then derogate, or take any from them. But was there ever any reader of other mens workes, that was not allowed to take collections out of thē, & to make use of thē as occasion requireth: yea, if that were an exception suf­ficient, I might also say, that as touching the matter, all that you have spoken eyther in yovr first answer, or in your Re­ioy [...]der, is likewise but a collection out of Popish authors and that the Bookes, Chapters, & Pages of Bellarmine, Stapleton, Suarez, and of others, might be shewed, whence you have [Page 8] borrowed, and taken them all. But to what end, were this? For the question is not, what I have learned, or collected out of the one, or you out of the other: but whether of those doctrines, and religions, which wee have severally learned of those our severall teachers, bee the truer, and which of them is approved of God, and by his word: name­ly, whether Protestancie, or Poperie. Heere then, as touching the substance of the matter delivered in all my bookes, you might have spared your labour: for you have therein tould no newes, nor any more, then my selfe had before, affirmed, confessed, and acknowledged. But you proceede, and say, that although you for your part, have answeted but onely to two Chapters of that my first booke (the force of which your answer, I have also overthrowne in my Reply) that the whole booke is neverthelesse answe­red, and compleatly finished, and extant any time these two yeares and a halfe past, and yet not divulged, for want of meanes, and opportunitie for the impression: And, for that cause, doe you desire of mee, that I would bee a meane to procure it to bee Printed, by the Protestant Presse here in Dublin. A verie bold, unbeseeming, and strange request, to be demaunded, especially at my hands. But if it be (as you say it is) fully answered, and compleatly finished, so long since, why is not printed all this while? For whereas you pretend want of meanes, and opportunitie for the impres­sion: It is well knowne, that the Papists (as sundrie other their workes printed, sufficiently declare) doe if they list, want neyther meanes nor opportunitie for the impression: And I have tould you heretofore, that if your workes, and bookes bee so excellent, and so worthy the printing, as you make shew for, you might got them to bee Printed, eyther at Doway, or at Rhemes, or at some other place beyond the Seas. And therefore it was altogether idle for you, to give me this election, eyther to receive it in a Manuscript, or to procure the printing of it: for it is needlesse to receive it in a Manuscript, when it may be Printed: And for the printing [Page 9] of it, not I, but your selfe must procure it, if you will have it done. So that as touching that choyce or offer, you make mee, I hold my selfe free, and not necessarily tyed or bound, to doe eyther the one, or the other. Yea the very name of a Protestant Presse (if there were no more) might have beene sufficient to tell you, that it were utterly unmeete, for Po­pish workes to come into it, especially those that bee pur­posely, and directly made, and contrived, against such cleere, high, and important points, as bee also by law established. Now then to come to my second request: I trust, you like­wise finde nothing in it, unreasonable: for I therein desired no more of the answerer, but to answer, not superficially, or sophistically, but substantially, soundly, and satisfactorily, if he could: so that if he could not make such an answer, hee might have said so, and so have beene excused. But you are loth to disable your selfe, and therefore as touching the an­swer you made to the two Chapters of that my first booke, you say, that I am not to judge, whether it be substantiall, sound, and satisfactory, but that the equall, and indifferent Reader, is to judge of it: which I am well contented, hee should doe, by conferring my Reply, with that your an­answer. And therefore I proceede to my third request: which consisteth of two partes: (for I make not foure requests, or foure conditions, as you surmise:) The first part of that my third request, was this, that I would have him, whoso­ever was to be the answerer, to answer in love, and charitie, and with an affection onely to follow Gods truth. Thus far I am sure, you cannot denie it to bee a reasonable request. And as touching the other part of it, whereby I desired him that would answer, to put his name to his answer, as I had done to that booke of mine: although this be it, you chiefly except against: yet even this part of it also, was not un­reasonable: and therefore did I justly reprove you, for that in stead of your right name, you gave your selfe the wrong, false, & counterfeite name of Iohn at Stile. But yet, in your Reioy [...]der, you, herein, seeke to excuse & defend your selfe, [Page 10] by the example of Abram, who comming into Pharaoh [...] Court in Egipt, Gen. 12.11.12.13. &c. called Sarai his wife, by the name of his Si­ster: and you adde further, and say, that Matthew Sutcliffe, a Protestant writer, did put for his name unto his worke. O.E.

First concerning Abram, though hee were an holy man, yet hee had his faults and imperfections, amongst which this is reckoned for one, which you here alleage: And can then that which was a fault in him, make yours to bee no fault? But yet in all that, hee neyther changed his name, nor his wifes name, into a false, and counterfeite name, as you did. For hee still called himselfe Abram, and his wife Sarai, without any alteration, or change of those their pro­per names. And as touching Doctor Sutcliffe, the reason why hee put for his name those two letters O. E. was, because the man, whom hee answered, had likewise for his name, subscribed certaine letters: but, the case betweene you and mee is not like. For I subscribed my name truely, and as it was, and therefore so should you also have done. Howbeit, at the first, you excused your selfe herein, by reason of the Statute of 2. Eliz. which doth (say you, in your first answer) binde mens tongues, and pennes within this kingdome, with the cord of a Premunire, from oppugning the Supre­macie, eyther by word or writing. Vpon which answer of yours, it is true, I did, and who could otherwise suppose, but that you then thought (whatsoever you say now) that the penaltie for that your first offence against that Statute, in oppugning the Kings Supremacie, was a Premunire: For to what end else doe you so specially mention, that to bee the penaltie, if you had not thought so? I did not there­fore wrong you (as you now alleage in your Reioynder) when I taxed you being a Lawyer, See the Sta­tute it selfe, of 2. Eliz. cap. 1 made in Ire­land. with ignorance in your owne profession, concerning that Statute. For that Statute doth not (as you then supposed) for any mans first offence, in­flict the penaltie of a Premunire, but (as I then likewise tould you) the losse of goods and chattels: after once con­viction and attainder, it is indeede for the second offence [Page 11] a Premunire: & after twice conviction, & attainder, it is for the third offence, high treason. Did you then account it, a wrong done unto you, that I supposed this to be your first offence, a­gainst that statute? Or would you have had me to think (which was more then I knew at that time & more then yet I know) that you had bin once before convicted & attainted of that of­fence, & that this was your second offence in that kinde? For, unlesse this were thus your second offence, you needed not to have feared, or mentioned a Premunire, to have beene your pe­naltie in the case: you might aswell, & as wisely have named, & mentioned the penaltie, to have beene high treason, in asmuch as for the third offence, that Statute also maketh it to be high treason, aswell as it maketh it, for the second offence, to bee a Premunire. But I conceived (as I thinke any man else, not knowing any thing to the contrarie, would have conceived) that it was not any your second offence, nor third offence, that you then, and there meant, or had any reason, or purpose to speake of, but your first offence, the penaltie of which first offence, is, by that Statute, neyther Premunire nor high trea­son (as I said before) and consequently (if you would deale ingenuously) you must confesse, that you then mistooke, and were deceived in opinion, whilest you thought the penaltie for that your first offence to bee a Premunire, by that Statute. But then you say, that you will not bee so sawcie, as to taxe mee with ignorance in my profession, concerning the same Statute, and yet you see not (say you) how the subscribing of your name unto the answer, could have beene any legall plea, to have saved you from penaltie, if you had beene indicted upon that Statute: Neyther doe I see, how it could, although you would faine wrest my words from their true sence, unto that construction. For, whereas you have said, that my requi­ring of the Answerer, to put his name unto the Answer, was, in effect, asmuch, as to debarre any man from answering unto it? I thereunto replyed, that hee that in answering, is requi­red to put his name to his answere, is so farre from being de­barred from answering, that cleane contrarywise, hee is there­by (that is, by such requiring of him to answer in that sort) permitted to answer (if hee please) so as hee put his name [Page 12] thereunto. I did not say (as you seeme purposely to miscon­strue and mistake) that by answering in that sort, viz. with his name subscribed to his answer, he was to be freed from all man­ner of penaltie contayned in that Statute of 2. Eliz. I was ne­ver so absurd, or sencelesse to say or thinke it. Yea you might have observed, that I there shewed and expressely affirmed the cleane contrarie, namely, that the penaltie even for the first offence against that Statute (whether with his name subscri­bed, or not subscribed, or howsoever,) was losse of goods, and chattels. And therefore whether this were ignorance of that point of the Statute in me, or grosse, perverse, and malicious cavilling, and quarrelling in you, let the equall Reader judge. But yet in your Reioynder, you further say: that you cannot imagine why I should so much covet the answerers right name, unlesse it be by advantage of the Statute in persecuting him, to confine him into the Castle, there to argue with him, as the Gaoler doth with his prisoner. I know no reason you have thus to charge me, with so much coveting of the Authors, or Answerers name. For though it bee lawfull for mee so to doe, yet have I not beene much inquisitive after it: much lesse rea­son have you to charge mee, in your imaginations, with per­secuting him, or seeking to confine him as a prisoner within the Castle, which I never did: though I confesse hee deserveth it, and a farre greater punishment then that: because, contrary to the lawes, and statutes of the Kingdome, which himselfe professeth, being (as he saith hee is) a Lawyer; and contrary to that dutie, which as a Subject he oweth to our most noble, most gracious, religious, and most worthy Soveraigne Lord King CHARLES, and contrarie to that fealtie also, or fide­litie, which (professing himselfe to bee a Christian) hee like­wise oweth unto CHRIST IESVS, the onely spirituall King Monarch, & head of the whole Church Militant, aswell as of the triumphant, hee doth, and dareth thus audaciously to offend. Neyther is prosecuting, or punishing of such bold, and notorious offenders to bee called (as you after the Roma­nisticall manner untruly call it) Persecuting. For though Pro­secution doth well befit delinquents, and offenders, yet Persecu­tion is a word properly, and usually applyed to the Martyrs of [Page 13] Christ, and is not attributed to any professors of Antichrist, or Antichristian doctrine, unlesse it bee Catacrestically, & abu­sively. Howbeit I deale not with you by authoritie, or as a Iudge, or Iusticer, but doe onely debate, dispute, and reason the matter with you, seeking, and endeavouring first by this meanes, (if I can,) to reduce, and reclayme you, and the like unto you, from those your grand errours, unto a most certaine, and evident truth. But if yet still you urge the Statute of 2. Eliz. made in this kingdome, which maketh the penaltie, even for the first offence, to be, although not a Premunire, yet losse of goods and chattels, and that therefore in respect of this losse and damage it was not a thing reasonable for me, to de­maund an answer with the Answerers name, thereunto sub­scribed: Thereunto I then further say: First, that I know no reason why you, or any man else, should make any answer, or any Bookes, or writings at all, against the Kings Supremacie, which you ought in all good dutie to uphold, and defend. Se­condly, I demaunded not any answer at all to be made eyther by you, or any other; but, if any did, or would answer, then I desired, that hee would answer in that sort, viz. with his name subscribed: so that hee might have chosen, whether hee would have answered, yea, or no: and by not answering, hee might have kept, and freed himselfe from penaltie of the Sta­tute: but if hee would needes answer, then hee was to doe it, at his owne perill, if any perill did ensue. And yet I might also further tell you, that such a one possibly might have beene the Answerer, as needed not to feare that perill, or penaltie. For be there not divers Schollers, in Colledges, and Vniversi­ties, and elsewhere, that live onely upon other mens exhibi­tion, and beneficence, and have no manner of goods, or chattels, lands or tenements, of their owne? Might not such an one have answered, and put his name to his Answer, without any feare of that penaltie. Againe, might not some forrein-borne Papist, living out of the Kings Dominions, and that were no Subject to the King, having well, and perfectly learned the English tongue, have beene the Answerer, and put his name likewise to his Answer, without any feare of that danger. Or, (which was most likely,) might not some English m [...]n, or [Page 14] some Irish man, living & abiding perpetually at Rhemes, Rome, Doway, or some other place beyond the Seas, have beene the Answerer? And would you then have thought it a thing un­reasonable for such a one to have beene demaunded to put, and subscribe his name to his Answer? For these men living conti­nually beyond Sea out of the Kings Dominions, feare not, (as wee see by experience,) nor thinke, so long, as they be so farre distant, that they neede to feare the penaltie, or danger of any Law, or Statute amongst us, to bee executed upon them. Yea, what if it were your selfe, that were the Answerer of it, (as you tooke upon you to be the Answerer of two Chapters in it) had it beene unreasonable to have demaunded of you, to put your name to the Answer, in respect of any feare of pe­naltie, or danger, upon that Statute, or of any other Statute, whatsoever? For what penaltie or danger upon any Statute, should you feare, who in your first Answer, in the Epistle to your Countrey-men, write so confidently in this your suppo­sed Catholicke cause, as if you feared no manner of danger at all, but would willingly undergoe all disasters in the world for attestation and defence of it? But I am now glad to see, that you have some feare in you: For, indeede, feare in everie man, and not forwardnesse or boldnesse in any, best becommeth yours so bad a cause. But yet further, what reason have you now, in your Reioynder, to except against any of these three conditions, or three requests, or against any part of any of them, as unreasonable, which in your first Answer, you tooke no exception against? Yea which you then seemed well to ap­prove and allow well of, saying, concerning the same my whole first Booke, that, It should shortly be answered in my owne straine of Divinitie with the three conditions required by me. Yea, lastly if you would needs be, (as you were) the Answerer to a part of that my first Booke, (namely, to two Chapters there­in,) and thought it not fit to put your right and true name unto it: yet, should you not, in stead thereof, have given your selfe, a wrong, false, and counterfeyte name, (which is the thing, I reproved in you:) For, as I said formerly in my Reply, so I say againe, that it had beene much better for you, to have put no name at all to that your Answer, then a false, wrong, [Page 15] and counterfeyte name, as you did.

3. From thence, you goe on, and renevv a former taxation of yours, namely, for that being a Lawyer by profession. I neverthelesse meddle with these matters of Divinitie, & con­cerning religion: But, concerning this, I told you before, that I had made a sufficient Apologie for these my doings, in that my first Booke, whereto, as yet I see no Answer made: and I added further in my second Booke, namely, my Reply that even you your selfe did justifie mee therein, in asmuch, as you, being likewise a Lawyer, (as you then affirmed, and yet still affirme your selfe to bee,) did neverthelesse meddle with these matters of Divinitie, and concerning religion, aswell, as I. Neyther is it any excuse, or defence for you to say, (as you doe,) that I began to commit this fault, and that you doe but follow me therein: For, if you saw it to bee a fault in mee, you should rather have eschewed it, then committed it, upon any mans example whatsoever. He that knoweth an Act to be a sinne, and reproveth, and condemneth another man for it, and yet will himselfe commit it, is not his sinne and fault, Rom. 2.1. so much the greater? Therefore art thou inexcusable, O man, whoso­ever thou art, (saith S. Paul,) that condemnest another: for in that thou condemnest another, thou condemnest thy selfe, for thou that con­demnest, dost the same things. Yea, you say further, that in your Answer formerly made, you signified this to be a fault, aswell in your selfe, as in mee. But if you then thought so, in verie deede, why did you commit it? Or why doe you still com­mit, and continue it? For so your Reioynder declareth: doth not this then more & more aggravate your offence? And doth it not declare you to bee a man of little conscience, that dare thus wittingly and willingly, to sinne against your owne con­science, and to persist also in it? For, if our heart condemne us, 1. Ioh. 3.20. (saith S. Iohn,) God is greater then our heart, and knowes all things. It is high time therefore for you, to give over writing in these matters of Religion, if it be against your conscience, and that you verily thinke it to be unlawfull for you, so to doe. But, as for me, I am not of that minde, neyther have you shewed, nor can you shew, any sufficient or good reason, to disswade mee. For, whereas you suppose it to bee unlawfull, or unmeete for [Page 16] Lawyers, or other lay-men, to meddle with the Scriptures; and matters concerning Religion, as being a thing out of their element, calling, and profession: First, to forbid or denie lay people, the medling with the Scriptures and with Religion, is knowne to bee an old Popish policie, and a most wicked, and damnable device: by meanes whereof, mens eyes, being in times past thus blinded, and as it were put out, it came to passe, that both Pope, and poperie, in those dayes so mightily pre­vayled, as they did, in the world, & yet still prevayle, amongst too too many. For what is it else but ignorance of Gods word, and will in the people that keepeth them so fast fettered and chayned both to Pope and poperie. Secondly the untruth of this irreligious, and Antichristian opinion, is formerly, and at large discovered, and manifested in my first Booke, which I see not yet answered: And yet thirdly, you must further know, (if already you know it not) that a Lawyer, or any other lay-man, hath a double calling, or a double profession: one worldly, which concerneth the things of this life: the other is his Christian calling, which concerneth, & respecteth things belonging to a farre better life, namely to a life everlasting. This Christian calling, Ephes. 4.1. S. Paul proveth, desiring men, to walke worthy of that calling, whereunto they are called. Againe, hee prayeth for some, that God would make them worthy of this calling S. Peter likewise speaketh thus: 2. Thes. 1.11 Yee are a chosen genera­tion, a royall Priesthood, an holy nation, a people set at libertie, that yee should shew forth the vertues of him, 1. Pet. 2.9. that hath called you, out of darkenesse, into his mervailous light. And sundrie other Texts of holy Scripture there be to prove, that there is aswell a Divine, and Christian calling and profession, as there is a worldly, and terrestriall. For what? Have not men soules to looke to, as­well as bodies? Or, are men to bee no more but naturall, and meere men? 1. Pet. 1.23. Are they not also to become Christian men, and to bee regenerated, aswell as generated? And doth not S. Peter tell us, that men are regenerated, or borne a new, not by corrup­tible, but by incorruptible seede, even by the word of God, who liveth, and endureth for ever. 1. Pet. 2.2. And doth he not further advise some, as new borne babes, to desire the sincere milke of the word, that they may grow thereby. 1 Cor 3 1 2. For, men, after that they bee once begotten and [Page 17] borne a new, by Gods word, Hebr. 5.12.13.14. and the power of his spirit wor­king therewithall, are first Babes in Christ, and afterward by degrees, they grow to bee strong men, and able to digest strong meates, untill they come, at last, to bee a perfect man, as S. Paul speaketh. Yea, Ioh. 6.27. doth not Christ himselfe bid men to La­bour not for the meate which perisheth, but for that meate which en­dureth unto life everlasting? Luke 10.39 40.41.42. And did he not also further tell Mar­tha, that shee was troubled about many things, but this was the unum necessarium, the one thing that was necessarie, which Ma­ry had chosen, namely the hearing of his word? Seeing then that Gods word, (which is now long sithence committed to writing, and is in the sacred, and Canonicall Scriptures to bee found, and where all truth, concerning points of Divinitie, and Religion is to be had,) is so necessarie, as that it is the foode, meate, and nourishment of Christians, to life everlasting: How can it be rightly, and truely said, that when they be thus with­in their aliment, they bee out of their element? For is not the life of the soule, to bee preserved, and maintayned aswell, or rather much more heedefully, then the life of the body? Or will any say, that the fish is out of his element, when hee swimmeth in the water, where he liveth, and most delighteth? Yea as the fish removed out of his proper element, dieth with­in a while after: and as the bodie that is destitute of corporall foode to sustaine it, must needes decay, and die. So the soule that hath not this spirituall foode of Gods word, to cherish, and maintayne it in a spirituall life, must likewise needes con­sume, decay, and pine away, untill it come in the end, to utter ruine. You see then, that a true Christian, Iohn. 17.16 (Who though he bee in the world, yet is not of the world, but hath his affection set upon things that are above, & not on things which are on earth,) Col. 3.1.2. Phil. 3.20 is so farre from being out of his element, as that, contrarywise, hee is within his right, and true element, in respect of his soule, and the things belonging to a better world, and keepeth himselfe within the compasse, & bounds of that his divine, & Christian calling, so long, as hee humbly and reverently, heareth, rea­deth, searcheth the word of God, delighteth in it, museth and meditateth upon it, talketh of it, and thereout learneth truths and true religion, and propoundeth them also unto others, for [Page 18] their benefite and instruction, aswell as of himselfe. Yea, all duties of a Christian, a Lawyer, or other lay-man, may and ought to doe, and performe, as hee is able, and as occasion requireth: so that hee doe them discreetely, and with due re­spect to all manner of persons, and so long as withall, hee in­trudeth not into those duties, that bee proper, and peculiar to the office, and function of the Ecclesiasticall Ministers. As for that your other reason, whereby you would disswade me, because these are points of great difficultie, & surpasse a Law­yers abilitie, (as you speake:) although I arrogate nothing to my selfe, yet why should you say, that it surpasseth a Lawyers abilitie, to deale in these things, when as you your selfe, being a Lawyer, doe neverthelesse intermedle in them? Or why should it surpasse or exceede a Lawyers talent, or a Lawyers abilitie, in mee, more then in you? Indeede, if a man be no­thing else, but a meere Lawyer, in respect of that his meere worldly calling, he is not fitte to deale in matters concerning God, and his religion; But if hee bee a Christian Lawyer, ex­ercised in the Booke of God, and well grounded in the points of his faith and religion, (as all Lawyers, and other lay-men ought to be,) then in respect of that his divine and Christian calling, hee may meddle with points of Divinitie and Chri­stianitie, Eatenus, Quatenus, so farre forth as is before shewed, and as is in my first Booke more at large declared. And yet there is also a more speciall reason, why I should bee permit­ted to intermeddle herein, because being not onely a Lawyer, but a Iudge also in the Common-weale, it well becommeth mee, and is my dutie, (as I conceive it,) for that reason, (so much as in me lyeth,) to seeke to have the Lawes, and Statutes of the Realme, especially in these most high, and most impor­tant points, aswell as in other, that bee inferiour points unto them, to be observed of all his Majesties Subjectes within this kingdome. Neyther are there any such great doubts, or diffi­culties, in these points, as you would perswade: yea, they bee verie cleare, plaine, open, and evident points, and such as any man, though but of meane understanding, may easily, and readily conceive, and apprehend. For, first, the verie name of a Subject, (if there were no more) may serve to teach any man, [Page 19] that the King, whose Subject hee is, hath of due right a Regall, and Temporall Supremacie, not onely over him, but over all the rest of his Subjects within his owne Dominions: and se­condly the verie name of a Christian, may serve to teach a man, to beleeve, and to professe, no other religion, but that which Christ himselfe taught, eyther by himselfe, or by his Apostles, as also, to acknowledge no other to bee the spirituall King, head, and Monarch, of the whole Christian Church, but the same CHRIST IESVS onely.

4. Now then, you are come, at last, to the matter it selfe. Where first of all you affirme, and confesse two Supremacies: the one spirituall, the other temporall. The spirituall Supre­macie, or spirituall Monarchie, (which indeede, rightly, Iob. 18.36.57. 1 Cor. 15.25 Ephes. 1.20.21.22.23. and properly belongeth unto CHRIST IESVS,) you attri­bute unto the Pope of Rome. But, by what right? Namely, as being his Deputie; Vicar, or Attorney, (as you call him.) But can you shew any letter of Attorney, or any Letters Pa­tents, Commission, or Warrant from him, or from his word, to prove the same? You have sought long, but could never yet finde or shew, any such warrant, although you have preten­ded divers, which prove no such matter. If then it bee high treason, in a subject, to take upon him, to bee a Vice-roy, or Lord-Deputie in a terrestriall kingdome, without a warrant, or Commission from his King: Is, it not likewise, as grand & as high a treason, in the Bishop of Rome to take upon him, to bee Vice-roy, or Deputie unto Christ, in his spirituall kingdome, without any warrant, or commission from him? But as in the point of the spirituall supremacie, hee thus intolerably wron­geth Christ Iesus himselfe, his Crowne, and dignitie: so doth hee also intolerable wrong to Emperours, Kings, and Princes, and to their Crownes, and dignities, in respect of their Civill, and Temporall supremacie, & authoritie, rightly, & auncient­ly belonging to them, over Persons Ecclesiasticall, and in cau­ses also Ecclesiasticall, within their severall Dominions. And this to men that bee not extreamely wilfull, perverse, and fro­ward, I have very sufficiently, and abundantly proved, in my first, and second Bookes; whereunto, you neyther in your first Answer, nor yet in your second, (which is your Rejoyn­der,) [Page 20] have alledged any thing that is of force, or weight suf­ficient to refell or confute any one Argument I brought, in that behalfe. And herein I refuse not the judgement, of any equall, and judicious person whosoever. Howbeit, in that your Reioynder, to prove the Popes supremacie, you cite one Text of Scripture, namely, Deut. 17. The wordes whereof, because you doe not fully set them downe, I will here recite, that the Reader may the better perceive, how well, or ill, they fitte your purpose: Deut. 17.8.9 10 11.12.13. the wordes be these. If there arise a matter to hard for thee, in judgement, betweene bloud, and bloud betweene plea, and plea, and betweene stroke, and stroke, being matter of contro­versie within thy Gates, then shalt thou arise and get unto the place, which the Lord thy God shall choose. And thou shalt come unto the Priests, Levites, and unto the Iudge, that shall be in those dayes, and enquire, and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgement, and thou shalt doe according to the sentence, which they of that place, (which the Lord shall choose) shall shew thee: according to the sentence of the Law, which they shall teach thee, thou shalt doe: Thou shalt not de­cline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. And the man that will doe presumptuously, and will not bearken unto the Priest, that standeth to minister there, before the Lord thy God, or unto the Iudge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evill from Israel, and the people shall heare, and feare, and doe no more presumptuously. Here, for the honour of the Priest, you say, that hee is in this case to bee obeyed, upon penaltie of death: and why doe you not say asmuch for the honour of the Iudge, that is, of the civill Magistrate? For the wordes of the Text doe shew, that disobedience aswell to the one, as to the other, was punishable with death. But you will say peradventure as the Iesuites did, that the Latin translation, called S. Ieromes, was, in times past, Ex decreto Iudicis morietur home ille, By the decree of the Iudge, shall that man die, that obeyeth not the Priest. In his Booke against the Iesuites, part. 3. pag. 33. 34 35. To whom that reverend, and learned Bishop Doctor Bilson, answereth, that it was a corrupt translation, and that the verie same translation, not long sithence, was not, Ex decreto Iudicis, but, & decreto Iudicis: hee that obeyeth not the commaundement of the Priest, and the decree of the Iudge, that man shall die. This was, (saith he,) the text of the Bible, [Page 21] which you call S. Ieromes, Nich. de Ly [...] in Deut. 17. not much more then two hundred yeares since, when Nicholaus de Lyra, & your ordinarie Glosse, did comment upon it: and so they read to this day, as also ma­ny written coppies, which I have seene, (saith hee.) And there­fore it is no small blemish to the Papists, that, in former times, they had also thus corrupted, even that which they call S. Ie­romes translation. Hee further sheweth, that the originall He­brew, and the Greeke translation of the Septuagints, bee also di­rectly against that their then corrupted translation, in this point. And so did S. Cyprian also repeate this Text. Lib. 1. epist. 3.8.1 [...]. libr. 3. epist. 4 epist. 9 Et homo quicunque fecerit in superbia, ut non exaudiat sacerdotem, aut Iudi­cem, quicunque fuerit in diebus illis, morietur homo ille: Et omnis popu­lus, tum audierit timebit. And the man whosoever shall in pride, not heare the Priest, or the Iudge, which shall be in those dayes, that man shall die, and the people, when they shall heare of it, shall feare. First then, obedience, is by the wordes of this text, commaunded, aswell toward the Iudge, that is to say, the civill Magistrate, as toward the Priest. For you see, the Priest, and the Iudge, therein, to bee not all one, but directly distinguished, yea, by Iudges, as by the chiefe rulers, was Israel sometimes governed, and that for sundrie yeares, untill kings were appointed, as the Booke of Iudges, it selfe declareth. And when Kings were appointed, both Priests, and Iudges were subject to the Kings, as the Bookes of Samuel, of the Kings, and of the Chronicles, doe shew: And for an evident proofe hereof, you may take the example, of that godly, and religious King, Iehoshaphat, amongst the rest. For hee not onely set Iudges in the land, throughout all the fenced Cities of Iudah, Citie by Citie, but hee said likewise to those Iudges. Take heede what yee doe, 2. Chron. 19. v. 5, 6.7.8 9.10.11. for yee judge not for man, but for the Lord, who is with you in the judge­ment: wherefore now let the feare of the Lord bee upon you, take heede, and doe it: For there is no iniquitie with the Lord our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts. Moreover, in Ierusalem, did Iehoshaphat set of the Leuites, and of the Priests, and of the chiefe of the Fathers of Israel, for the iudgement of the Lord, and for contro­versies, when they returned to Ierusalem: and he charged them, sayng: Thus shall you doe in the feare of the Lord, faithfully, and with a perfect heart. And what cause soever shall come unto you, of your [Page 22] brethren, that dwell in the Cities, betweene bloud and bloud, betweene Law and Commaundement, Statutes and Iudgements, yee shall warne them, that they trespasse not against the Lord, and so wrath come upon you, and upon your brethren: this doe, and yee shall not trespasse. And, behold, Amariah, the Priest, shalbe the chiefe over you, in all matters of the Lord: and Zebadiah, the sonne of Ishmael, a ruler of the house of Iudah, for all the Kings matters: and the Levites shall be Officers before you. Deale couragiously, and the Lord shall be with the good. Where you see, that in the time of the Kings, the Iudges, and the Priests also, were subject to the King, and at his ordering, and appointment: For all these, both Iudges, Priests, and Levites, did King Iehosaphat thus constitute, and appoint. But now, secondly, observe, that both the Priest, and the Iudge, Deut. 17.11 mentioned in this Text of Deut. 17. were to Iudge, and give sentence, not as they listed themselves, but according to the Law; which God himselfe had given in those cases. So that the sentence, Mal 2.7.8.9 Isa. 6.10.11 12, Ier. 23 11.12.13. Esai. 56.10.11. Ier. 6.13.14 Ezec. 22.25.26. Micah. 3.5. 6 7. Exod. 32.1. & 23.4.5.6.7.8. &c. Iere. 26.7.8. Act. 23.1.2 3. Act. 4.18. Act. 5.40. not onely of the inferiour Priests, but even of the chiefe or high-Priest himselfe, was not alwayes certaine­ly true, and evermore infallible, (as you say it, was,) unlesse it were directed, and done, according to that law. For other­wise they might, and did erre in their judgements. Yea ma­ny complaints were in the old Testament, against them, for their errours, and going astray from Gods law: insomuch, that although they said, (as the Papists likewise doe of their Priest of Rome,) Non peribit lex à Sacerdote, That the law shall not perish from the Priest, (Ierem. 18.18.) yet God himselfe sayed otherwise, namely, that, Lex peribit à Sacerdote, The law shall perish from the priest, Ezech. 7.26. And for further proofe here­of, remember that Aaron was the high Priest, and yet that he with the rest of the Priests, and people, erred when they made the golden Calfe. Againe, were they not the Priests, and Prophets, that gave sentence of death against Ieremie, Gods true Prophet? was that therefore a just sentence, which was so given against him? Was it not also in a Councell, that Ana­nias the high Priest, commaunded men that stood by, to smite S. Paul on the mouth? was it therefore well done, and justifi­able? Was not, (moreover,) the high Priest present in that Councell, which commaunded the Apostles to teach no more [Page 23] in the name of IESVS? was that therefore a good com­maundement? or a good and allowable decree, that was thus made against them? Yea, was not the high Priest present in that Councell, wherein CHRIST himselfe was condemned? Math. 26.59 62.63.65.66. And did not hee, in that Councell, say expressely of Christ, that hee had spoken blasphemie? It is then verie apparant, that not onely the inferiour Priests, but even the high Priest also, though joyned, & assembled with others in a Councell, might neverthelesse possibly erre, and did erre sometimes, in his sen­tence, and giving of judgement. And therefore, so also may the Pope of Rome erre, not onely as hee is singly considered by himselfe, but even though hee be joyned with others in a Councell, admitting, that hee were the high Priest, Heb. 9.11. Hebr. 5.5. Heb. 4.14. Heb. 7.26. 1. Pet. 5.1.2 3.4. Hebr. 13.20. in the Christian Church, which hee is not, as I have shewed in my Reply, pag. 10.11. whereto you have made no Answer in your Reioynder. For the sacred Scriptures, acknowledge no other high Priest, in the Christian Church, but CHRIST IESVS onely, nor any other to be the chiefe Sheepheard, or Supreame Pastor, over all the severall Pastors, of all the severall flockes in the world, but onely CHRIST IESVS. But yet here, third­ly, observe, that this Text of Deut. 17. (which you cite,) con­cerneth onely the Iewish policie, or Common-wealth of the Iewes, as being a part of the Iudiciall law, proper to that na­tion, and which is now abrogated, and abolished. For to de­termine those harder, and difficulter questions, and litigious cases, concerning bloud, and the other things there mentioned, the partie grieved is required to resort to the Leviticall Priests, Deu 17.8.9 (of which sort there be none at this day amongst Christians:) and againe, To the place, which the Lord their God should choose, which was in aftertimes, Ierusalem, where the Temple was builded, and where Iehosaphat also, (according to this law,) erected, and constituted a Synedrion, or Councell, consisting of Levites, Priests, and of the chiefe of the Fathers of Israel, 2 Chron. 19.8.9. But none is bound at this day, to goe to Ieru­salem, to have his litigious and doubtfull cases, to bee decided and determined, by any Leviticall Priest, or other Iudges there: Neyther is Rome, that Ierusalem: nor is the Pope of Rome, or his Priests, any of those Priests, descended of the Tribe of Levi. [Page 24] And therefore also, will not this text of Deut. 17. any way serve your turne, nor helpe to maintayne your Popes so long vainely fancied Supremacie.

5. But I proceede, prosecuting matters, not confusedly, as you doe, but for the most part, in that sort, and order, as they be layed downe in my Reply, that so the Reader also may the better and the more easily perceive, both what you have An­swered in this your Reioynder, and what, and how much you have left unanswered, Chrysost. hom 4. de verb. Esa vid. Dom. as also how good, or bad your Answers bee. In my Reply therefore, pag. 1. I said, that S. Chrysostome, (distinguishing those two offices, (viz.) the Regall, and Sacer­dotall,) did say thus: Ille cogit, hic exhortatur: ille habet arma sensibilia, hic arma spiritualia: The King compelleth, the Priest ex­horteth: the King hath sensible weapons, the Priest hath spirituall weapons. Hereunto you Answer, that S. Chrysostome meant one­ly, that the King with his sensible weapons, (of imprison­ment, banishment, pecuniarie mulcts, temporall death, and other penalties,) should force, (when other meanes fayled,) the rebellious children of the Church, to performe their dutie unto their Prince, & Prelate & not, that the Prince hath any power over the Pastor, unto whom, (say you,) by the ordi­nance of God, hee is subjected; and thus you make the King, to have power onely over such, as you here call the children of the Church, but not over Bishops, Pastors, and other Ec­clesiasticall Ministers: and of this opinion you would drawe S. Chrysostome to bee, against his owne good will, and liking. But although by his words precedent, and subsequent, (which you so much speake of.) it appeareth that Kings and Princes are to bee subject, to Bishops and Pastors, in respect of the due administration of those their sacred offices, functions, and ministeries, committed to them from God: yet in respect of themselves, and of their owne Persons, hee held them verie clearely, to bee not superiour, but subject, to Kings, and Prin­ces. Rom. 13.1. Chrys. ho. 23. in epistol. ad Rom. For whereas S. Paul speaketh thus: Let everie soule be sub­ject to the higher powers: The same S. Chrysostome saith, (which I mervaile you have so soone forgotten,) that, omnibus ista prae­cipiuntur, Sacerdotibus quo que ac Monachis, & non solum secularibus. These things be cōmanded to all, even to Priests also, & to Monckes, [Page 25] and not to lay, or secular men onely. Yea hee saith further, in the same place, that though you bee an Apostle, though an Evan­gelist, though a Prophet, or whatsoever you bee, you must be subiect to these higher powers. Remember againe, Chrys. ad Po­pulū. Antioch homil. 2. that speaking of the Emperour, hee saith, that Non habet parem ullum super terram, He hath no Peere, nor equall upon earth. Yea, hee saith of him, that hee was, Caput & summit as omnium super terras hominum, The head, and one that had the supremacie over all men upon earth. Yea, S. Chrysostome himselfe, did yet further, really, and actually de­clare this subjection, to these higher powers, even in his owne person: For did not the Emperour exile and banish him? Socrat. lib. 6. cap. 15. graec, & cap. 14. Latine. Theodor. lib. 2 cap. 2.4.13 Theodor. lib. 2 cap. 2.4 13. And did not hee, though Archbishop of Constantinople, humbly sub­mit himselfe thereunto, and yeelde obedience? Was not like­wise Liberius, though a Bishop of Rome, exiled, and banished by the Emperour, and did not hee also quietly submit himselfe unto it, as being done by the Emperours commaundement, and authoritie? And was not also Atbanasius, banished by the Em­perours authoritie, and did not he likewise patiently, and obe­diently undergoe it? You see then, that not onely lay people, and such as you call the children of the Church, but even those also that were Fathers in the same, as namely Bishops, and Pa­stors, Archbishops, and even Bishops of Rome themselves, were, in those former, and auncient times, Pelag. Epist. 16. Concil. edit. Bin. tom. 2. pag. 633. subject to these higher powers, (viz.) to Emperours, Kings, and Princes: Quibus nos etiam subditos esse sanctae Scripturae praecipiunt: To whom, (saith also Pelagius another Bishop of Rome) the holy Scriptures com­maund, even us that be Bishops and the Bishops of Rome to be subiect. So that those Bishops, in those dayes, performed this subje­ction and obedience, unto them, as being moved thereunto, out of dutie, and good conscience, and because God, in his holy Scriptures, had so commaunded. But these two points, name­ly, that, Emperours, Kings, and Princes bee subject to that authoritie, message, and ministerie, which God hath com­mitted to Bishops, and Pastors: And, that Bishops againe, and Pastors, & all Ministers Ecclesiasticall, be, neverthelesse, subject to Emperours, Kings, and Princes, in respect of their owne per­sons, is largely declared, both in my first Booke, & in my Re­ply also aswell as here. As for those precedent, and subsequent [Page 26] wordes in S. Chrysostome, (which you so often speake of,) even you aswell as I, might verie well have omitted them, as being needlesse to be mentioned, because the matter, and substance of them, was before graunted, and confessed by me, in my for­mer Bookes, as it is likewise here againe in this, and yet you ne­ver the neerer of your purpose. And therefore you had no cause to complaine of the omission of thē by me, when the re­citall of them by you, will do you no more good, nor prove, or inferre any more matter in your behalfe, then that which was formerly by me confessed, and granted unto you: But least rea­son of all, had you to insinuate, as though by omission of those precedent, and subsequent wordes, I had a meaning to delude my Reader, by concealing the truth: For you see, that I had no such purpose, or meaning, to conceale that truth, which my selfe had formerly delivered, and graunted, and which I still confesse with S. Chrysostome, touching the subjection of Princes to Gods authoritie, committed to his Ministers: But it is your selfe in verie deede, which abuse, & delude your Rea­der, in this case, by concealing truth. For although you tell some truth, you tell not the whole truth, as you ought, but conceale a part of it, or, (which is worse,) you denie a part of it, inasmuch as you affirme, the subjection of Empe­rours, Kings, and Princes to that authoritie, which God hath committed to his Bishops, and Pastors. But the other part of truth, concerning the subjection, which Bishops, Pastors, and all Ecclesiasticall Ministers, (aswell as lay people,) owe and are to performe to Emperours, Kings, and Princes, in respect of their owne persons, this you conceale, and doe not affirme: Yea, you doe directly denie it, although S. Chrysostome, (as here is manifest) doth directly affirme it. Henceforth there­fore wrong not S Chrysostome in this point as you doe, nor de­lude your Reader any longer with these your false Comments and untrue surmises.

6. But in my Reply pag. 2. I further cited the text of 1. Tim. 2.1.2. where S. Paul exhorteth Christians, to pray chiefly, & especiall for Kings, and all that are in authoritie, that, under them, We may lead a quiet, and peaceable life, [...], (which you say, I English thus,) in all godlinesse, and hone­stie. [Page 27] But you are deceived: for, although I put these wordes so together in the English, yet I make them not all, to be the English of those Greeke wordes. Everie meane Grecian knoweth, that the English of those Greeke wordes, [...], is no more, but in all godlinesse: but I added the other wordes, (and honestie,) not as being signified by those for­mer Greeke wordes, but as being other wordes, annexed in the English Text, the Greeke whereof, I did not then mention, which is, [...]. Now all being put together, both ac­cording to the Greeke, and English, the Text is, (as I rightly recited it,) in all godlinesse, and honestie. And therefore in all this you doe but Nodum in sirpo quaerere, which becommeth you not. But why doe you further say, that I cite this Text to no purpose: I shewed you in my Reply, to what end and purpose, I cited it: namely, to declare, that Kings and Princes, are to respect aswell pietie, godlinesse, and religion, as civill hone­stie, and correspondencie of humane societie. For, beside, that the wordes of the Text, doe plainely import somuch, can any reasonable man suppose, that eyther S. Paul would ex­hort Christians, or that Christians themselves would pray for Kings, and Princes, for this respect, and to this end onely that they should maintayne externall worldly peace, civill hone­stie, and humane societie, without any respect or regard had at all, unto pietie, godlinesse, and to that Christian religion, they held and professed, and which they more esteemed then their lives, and more then all earthly treasures and worldly happi­nesse whatsoever? Yea, to this end, and purpose it was, that I there also mentioned some speeches of Iustinian, Valentinian, and Theodosius, Emperours, testifying, and declaring their chiefest care within their Empyres and Dominions, to be, for, and concerning Gods religion: whereunto you have not an­swered. But yet for further proofe hereof, I alledged in the same my Reply pag. 3. Aug. contr [...] Crescon. lib [...] cap 51. that cleere testimonie also of S. Augu­stine, where hee sheweth, that It is enioyned Kings from God that in their kingdomes, they should commaund good things, and forbid evill things, not onely such things, as belong to humane societie, but such things also, as belong to Gods religion. You say, the wordes of S. Augustine, be these In this, Kings, as they bee commaunded [Page 28] from heaven, doe serve God as they be Kings, if in their kingdomes, they commaund good, prohibite ill, not onely what pertaynes to hu­mane societie, but also what pertaynes to divine religion. Let the wordes bee as you relate them, all commeth to one effect, as touching that purpose for which I alledged him. For what? Is it not all one in sence, to say, that Kings are enjoyned from God, and Kings are commaunded from heaven? For when you say, that Kings are commaunded from heaven; I make no doubt, but you meane thereby, the same thing that I doe. when I say, it is enjoyned Kings from God: & when you say againe, that Kings doe, (as they are commaunded from heaven,) serve God as Kings, if in their Kingdomes, they commaund good, and prohibite ill, not onely what pertaynes to humane socie­tie, but what also pertaynes to divine Religion: Doe not these wordes of yours, as clearely, and as strongly prove, the Kings authoritie, in matters Ecclesiasticall, and concerning Religion, as my wordes doe, when I say, that it is enioyned Kings from God, that in their kingdomes, they should commaund good things, and for­bid evill things, not onely such things, as belong to humane societie, but such things also, as belong to Gods religion? Yea, even your selfe, forced by the unresistable evidence of this testimonie of S. Augustine, doe at last yeeld, and graunt, that Kings may commaund in things belonging to religion: But then what those things bee, which the King may commaund, belonging to religion, you seeme to say, that they be Theft Rape, and such like. And yet you cite the same S. Augustine, affirming, that utilissium, & saluberrimum est, &c. It is most profitable, and ex­pedient, that the King make lawes to restraine the free will of man, from transgressing in such things, as the law of God doth intimate unto us. Hereby, you may perceive, that you needed no better confuter then your selfe. For be onely, Theft, Rape, and such like civill offences, prohibited by the law of God? And be not Idolatrie, false worship, blasphemie, and other of­fences against God and his religion, by the same law of God also prohibited? Yea, S. Augustine himselfe, (as you see,) here distinguisheth betweene things belonging to humane or civill societie, and things belonging to divine religion: and there­fore you must not confound those things, which hee hath so [Page 29] directly distinguished. Now, Theft, Rape, and such like offen­ces, concerne civill, or humane societie, and bee offences against the second Table of Gods Law: but there be also offences, that bee done immediatly against God, which bee comprised in the first Table of his Law. And did you never reade nor heare, that the King is, Custos utriusque Tabulae, The keeper of both the Tables? Deut. 17.18.19. Why was the Booke of Gods law, at the first institution of Kings in the Common-weale of Israel, required to be delive­red to the King? And why was hee charged to reade therein, all the dayes of his life, and to keepe all the wordes, and ordi­nances contayned in it, if hee were not aswell to see the duties of the first Table of the Law, as of the second, to bee observed within his kingdome? For, the Booke of Gods law, comprehendeth more then the duties of the second Table. And you must observe that this was enjoyned to him, not in respect of his private conversation onely, as hee was a man, but in re­spect of his Regall and Princely office and function specially: For, when he was set upon the throne of his Kingdome, then it was, that, he was enjoyned these things, as the verie wordes of the Text it selfe, doe expressely testifie. Wherfore, well spake S. Augustine, That a King serveth God one way, as hee is a man, Aug epist. 50 and another way, as he is a King: as hee is a man, hee serveth God by li­ving faithfully: As hee is a King, hee serveth God in setting forth lawes to commaund, that which is good, and to remove the contrarie. So that Kings, as Kings, serve God, in doing that for his service, which none but Kings can doe. Yea, that Kings may punish Ido­latrie, blasphemie, sacriledge, schisme, heresie, and all the offen­ces against the first Table, aswell as Thefts, Rapes, Murthers, Adulteries, and other offences against the second Table of his law, Aug. cont. 2. Gaudentis e­pist li. 2. c. 11 S. Augustine yet further directly sheweth against the Do­natists, saying. Cry thus, if, you dare, let murthers be punished, let adulteries be punished, let other degrees of lust, and sinne, be punished: onely sacriledges, (that is, wronging of Gods truth, and his Church,) we will not have to be punished by Princes lawes. Againe, Aug. contr. epist. Parmen. lib. cap. 7. Galat. 5.19.20.21. he speaketh thus. Will the Donatists, though they were convinced of a sacrilegous schisme, say, that it belongeth not to the Princes power to correct, or punish these things? Is it, because such powers, doe not extend to corrupt & false religion? The workes of the flesh, S. Paul [Page 30] reckoneth to be these: Adulterie, fornication, uncleannesse, wanton­nesse idolatrie, witchbraft, hatred, debate, emulation, wrath, conten­tious, seditious, Cont. Epistol. [...]armen. libr. cap. 7. heresies, envie, murthers, drunkennesse, gluttonie, and such like What thinke these men, saith S. Augustine? May the crime of idolatrie bee iustly revenged by the Magistrate? or may wit­ches be rightly punished by the rigor of Princes lawes? and yet will they not acknowledge, that heretikes and s [...]bismatickes, may be re­pressed by the same, when S. Paul rehearseth them al ogether with the other fruites of iniquitie? W [...]ll they reply that earthly powers are not to meddle with such matters? [...]o what end then, doth he beare the sword, Luke 14.23 which is called Gods minister, serving to punish malefactors? Christ saith in the Gospell: Goe out into the high wayes, and hedges and compell them to come in, Aug. cont. 2. Gaud. Epist. lib 2 cap. 17. Epistol, So. & [...]ont. 2. Gaud. epist. lib. 2. cap 17. & epistol. 48. that mine house may be filled. Wee take wayes, (saith S Augustine,) for heresies: and hedges, for schismes: because, wayes, in this place, signifie the diversenesse; and, hedges, the perversenesse of opinions. If then those that be found in the high wayes, and hedges, that is in heresies, and schismes, must be compelled to come in, let them not mislike, that they be forced: For this comman­ding by Princely power, occasioneth many to be saved, who though they be violently brought to the feast of the great housholder, and compelled to come in, yet being there, they finde cause to rejoyce, that they did en­ter, though at first against their wills. But here you tel me, (though somewhat unseasonably,) that you cited in your Answere, a Decree or Canon, made in the first Councell of Nyce, decla­ring evidently, that the Bishop of Rome, (whom you unjustly, and untruely call, the supreame Pastor of the whole Militant Church,) had the Supreamacie in that time, & that unto this pregnant proofe produced by you, I onely reply, as Maskers doe with Mumme. Why? what needed any reply at all unto it? For I had answered it before, in my first Booke, cap. 1. pag. 12. Where I affirmed, and shewed it to bee a forged, and counter­feyte Canon, by diverse Councels, as namely by the sixth Councell of Carthago, cap. 3. by the Affrican Councell, cap. 92. & 101. & 105. and by the Milevitane Councell, cap. 22. Yea the verie fifth, and sixth Canons, (which bee confessed to bee undoubtedly true Canons,) of the Councell of Nyce, doe them­selves sufficiently declare, that other Canon, (which you, and other Papists also alledge,) to bee false, and forged. And not [Page 31] onely those Councels, but the Decrees of other Councels also, decreeing against the supremacie of the Bishop of Rome, (as is shewed in the same my first booke, c. 1. p. 16. 17. 18.) do therby likewise consequently declare, that Canon of the Councell of Nice, which you speake of, to be a new forged thing. But if you desire yet further proofe thereof, against the objections, and allegations that Papists make in this case, then reade that Booke of jurisdiction, Regall, Episcopall, Papall, made by that worthy, learned, and reverend Bishop Doctor Carleton, cap. 5. pag. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. And reade also for the same purpose, The Catholicke Appeale for the Protestants made by that reverend, worthy, and learned Bishop Doctor Morton, lib. 4. cap. 8. pag. 467 468 469. 470. 471. 472. 473. 474. 475. 476. and there shall you see this Canon, so fully maintayned to bee forged against the adversaries, as that it is now a shame for you, or any other Papist, to cite or produce it, for a witnesse of the Popes supremacie. But upon such false, and forged testimonies, it is, that the Popes supremacie, is chiefely founded. Howbeit I hope by this time, you perceive, that howsoever, the Pope, and Poperie, have beene heretofore long maskers in the world, and gone disguised, yet at last they have beene discovered, and made knowne to bee such, as they bee indeede: and, that it had beene much better for you, to have beene mute, or mum, then by this your provocation, to have occasioned, the shame, and ignominie of the Pope, and Popish Church, in the point, of forgerie to be thus displayed, and layd open, as also you may here see, that I have no way wronged S. Augustine, or wrested him to a wrong construction, (as you calumniate,) when I alledged him, to prove the Kings authoritie aswell in matters Ecclesiasticall, and concerning Religion, as in matters Civill, and Temporall. Which that you, and everie man else, may yet the better, and the more fully perceive, I have here thought it good to set downe, his owne verie wordes in Latine, Aug. contra Crescon. lib. 3. cap 51. and they be these: In hoc enim Reges sicut eis divinitus praecipi­tur, Deo serviunt, in quantum Reges sunt, si, in suo regno, bona iubeant, mala, prohibeant, non solum quae pertinent ad humanam societatem, verumetiam, quae ad divinam religionem. For in this, (saith he,) doe Kings, as is commaunded them from God, serve as they be Kings, if in [Page 32] their kingdomes, they commaund good things, and forbid euill things, not onely those things, which belong to humane societie, but those things also, which belong to Gods Religion. Can any thing be more plainely, or more directly spoken for proofe of this point?

7. Here then you may withall perceive, the truth of that distinction, which I used in my Reply (cap. 1. pag. 4.) For where­as you, in your Answer, amplifying the Sacerdotall, or spirituall power, had said that how much the foule in perfection exceeds the bodie: the eternall blisse, the temporall felicitie: the divine lawes, the humane lawes: By so much did the spirituall autho­ritie exceede the temporall: Thereunto I replyed, and sayed, that whilest you thus spake, you should have remembred, and observed, wherein, and in what respects it was, that this ex­cellencie of the one above the other, did consist. For as it is true, that in respect of converting soules, and fitting them for Gods kingdome, by preaching of Gods word, administring of the Sacraments, and exercise of the Ecclesiasticall discipline, the spirituall function, and authoritie is to bee preferred before the Regall, or Temporall: So no lesse true is it, that in respect of the temporall power of the sword, externally to commaund, compell, and to punish offenders, in causes both Ecclesiasticall, and Civill, the Regall, and temporall office, and authoritie, is to bee preferred before the Episcopall, or Sacerdotall. This di­stinction, because it killeth, and striketh dead your cause, you cannot endure, and therefore doe you, in your Reioynder ex­clayme against it, and call it a distinction never heard of before, and that it was lately hatched in the Vniversitie of Mollinmighan, (as you scoffingly speake,) in the Colledge there, of your owne divising and nomination, and whereof you are the father, and the founder. But (to let this passe, as an idle fiction of a fantasticall braine,) why will you not acknowledge the truth of this distinction, which is so cleare, plaine, and evident in it selfe? The first part of it, you neyther doe, nor can denie, namely, that in respect of converting soules, Chrys. in Mat hom. 83. Ad popul antioch. homil. 60. and fitting them for Gods kingdome, by preaching of Gods word, administring of the Sacraments, and exercise of the Ecclesiasticall discipline, the spirituall office and authoritie is to bee preferred before the Regall, or Temporall. For this is, verie apparant, even by S. Chrysostome himselfe, who [Page 33] speaketh to Ecclesiasticall Ministers on this wise. No small ven­geance, (saith hee,) hangeth over your heads, if you doe suffer any hainous offender, to be partaker of the Lords Table: his bloud shall be required at your hands, whether hee be a Captaine, Lieutenant, or a crowned King, forbid him: in these cases, thy power is greater then his. Againe hee saith. Si vis videre discrimen, quantum absit Rex à Sacerdote, expende modum potestatis, vtrique traditae. Chrysost. de verb. Esa. vidi Dom. hom. 5. If you will see the difference how great it is, betweene the King, and the Priest, weigh the measure of the power, or authoritie, graunted unto them both. And there shewing the power, and authoritie, which God hath committed to the Priest, he saith: Eo (que) Deus, ipsum regale caput sacerdotis manibus subiecit: and in that respect, (saith hee,) hath God subiected the head of the King, to the hand of the Priest. So that it is onely in respect of their Ministerie, power, and authoritie, graunted them from God, & not in all respects, nor to all intents, and purposes, that this their excellencie and preheminencie consisteth. Yea, he further sheweth, that their power and offices, bee distinct, and limitted, and that the one may not intrude into the office, and bounds of the other. For, when King Vzziah, otherwise called Ozias, 2. Chron. 26.16.17 18. entred into the Temple to burne incense, which pertayned to the Priests of­fice, and not to the King: S. Chrysostome, reproving and con­demning this, saith thus unto the King: Chrysost. de verbis Esaiae vidi Dom. ho­mil. 4. Mane intra tuos termi­nos; alij sunt termini Regni, alij termini sacerdotis: Keepe you with­in your owne bounds: For, the limits or bounds of the Regall calling, be one: and the limits or bounds of the Sacerdotall calling be another, And againe hee saith, that, Res est mala, non manere intra fines, nobis à Deo praescriptos. It is an ill thing, not to abide within the limits or bounds prescribed unto us of God. Hee againe thus distingui­sheth their offices: Regi, corpora commissa sunt: sacerdoti, animae: Rex maculas corporum remittit, Sacerdos autem maculas peccatorum: Ille cogit, hic exhortatur: Ille necessitate, hic consilio: Ille habet ar­ma sensibilia, hic arma spiritualia. Ille bellum gerit cum barbaris, mi­hi belium est adversus Daemones. To the King, (saith he, Homil. 5. Idem ibidem. hom. 4.) are bo­dies committed; to the Priest, soules: the King remitteth the spots of the bodies, the Priest the spots of sinnes. The King compelleth, the Priest exhorteth, the one with necessitie, or constraint, the other with advice, or counsaile: The King hath sensible weapons, the Priest [Page 34] hath spirituall weapons: The King maketh warre with the Barba­rians, and the Priest hath warres against the Divels Againe hee saith: Regi, ea quae hic sunt, commissa sunt: mihi caelestia: mihi quum dico, sacerdotem intelligo. To the King are those things committed, that bee here: To mee, are things heavenly committed: And when I say to mee, I meane (saith hee) the Priest. So that, although hee there affirmeth the Sacerdotall power, or office, to bee more ex­cellent or greater, then the Regall yet withall hee sheweth you wherein, and in what respects it is, namely, (as I said before,) in respect of those things, which properly belong to the of­fice, ministerie, and function of a Priest, or Bishop: of which sort, is preaching of Gods word, administring of the Sacra­ments, and binding and loosing of sinners, by Excommunica­tion, or Absolution, as the case requireth: But hee may not by vertue of that his Ecclesiasticall and Priestly office, use any externall, civill, coactive power or compulsion, which you see, even by the evident testimonie of the same S. Chrysostome him­selfe, rightly and properly belongeth to the King, and not to the Priest. Now then here you may perceive withall the other part of my distinction to be likewise undoubtedly true, name­ly, That in respect of the Temporall power of the sword, thereby ex­ternally to commaund, compell and to punish offendors, in causes both Ecclesiasticall, and Civill, the Regall, and temporall office, and autho­ritie, is to bee preferred before the Episcopall, or Sacerdotall. For it is cleare that God hath committed this Civill and Temporall sword, onely to Kings and Princes, and such like terrestriall Potentates, and not to Bishops or Priests: For so also doth S. Paul himselfe directly shew. And who is there but hee knoweth that it properly appertayneth to the power, & office of this civill and temporall sword, to commaund, compell, and to punish offendors, civilly and in a temporall manner? For the same Apostle saith of everie of these higher powers, that beare this temporall Sword, that hee beareth it not in vaine. Yea hee saith, that hee is the Minister of God, a revenger unto wrath to him that doth evill. Here is no exception of any per­son, or of any cause, but hee that offendeth, or doth evill, bee hee a lay-man, or a cleargie-man, or be he an offendor in a cause Civill, or cause Ecclesiasticall, hee appeareth to bee subject to [Page 35] this sword, and authoritie of these higher powers. For, seeing the expresse wordes of the Text, be, Bernard. ad Senonen. Ar­obiepisc epist. 42. Chrysost. in Rom. hom. 23 Let everie soule be subiect to the higher powers: Who, (saith S. Bernard,) hath excepted you, (speaking to an Archbishop,) from this generalitie. Hee that brin­geth in an exception, (saith hee,) useth but a delusion. And you may remember, that even S. Chrysostome also himselfe, as hee subjecteth Kings to Bishops, Priests, and Pastors, in respect of their power and commission graunted them from God: So on the other side, in respect of the Regall sword, power, and au­thoritie, given and graunted likewise from God, to Kings and Princes, he declareth verie fully that Bishops, Priests, Pa­stors, and all Ecclesiasticall Ministers whatsoever, aswell, as lay people, are to be subject to them. But this point concerning the subjection of all Bishops, Priests, and Pastors, and even of the Bishop of Rome himselfe, aswell, as of others, unto Empe­rours, Kings, and Princes, as also in causes even Ecclesiasticall, aswell, as Civill, and temporall, is so cleerely, plainely, and plentifully proved, both in my first, and second Bookes, and in this also, (all your answers, evasions, quirkes, and quiddi­ties, being therein, utterly frustrated, confuted, and confoun­ded,) as that it is to mee a matter of wounder, that you should not see, and so acknowledge the truth of it. But it seemeth you cannot see the wood for trees, which I am sorrie for.

8. Howbeit to make this point, yet the more evident, (viz,) the subjection of Priests, and Ecclesiasticall Ministers, unto the King: and therewithall, the Kings supremacie, or supreame commaund, over them, even in causes Ecclesiasticall, I alledged in my Reply, cap. 1. pag. 5. the example of Moses, who com­maunded not onely the Levites, Deut. 31.25.26. and that in a matter Eccle­siasticall, and concerning their verie office, but hee commaun­ded also even Aaron, the high Priest, in a matter likewise Ec­clesiasticall, and concerning his verie office, Numb. 16.46.47. saying thus unto him: Take the censer, and put fire therein of the Altar, and put therein incense, and goe quickely unto the congregation, and make an attonement for them, for there is wrath gone out from the Lorde, the plague is begun, then Aaron tooke, as Moses had commaunded him, &c. Here you say, I abuse my Reader, by falsely citing this text: for the right wordes, (say you,) are these: Moses said to Aaron, [Page 36] take the Censer, and drawing fire from the Altar, put incense upon it, going quickely to the people, to pray for them. To pray, (say you,) and to make attonement, doe differ, and be not all one: how­beit, indeede, not I, but, you are the man that abuse your Reader, by falsely citing the wordes of this Text: For you, therein follow the wordes, of your vulgar Latin translation, which is untrue, and unsound, and I follow our English tran­slation, which is according to the Originall, in Hebrew, and therefore true: which you also, if you were a good Hebrician, would know, and perceive, even in this verie particular. But whether wee take your translation, of Praying for the people, or our translation, of Attonement-making, it commeth all to one passe, as touching that purpose for which I cited it, name­ly, to prove, that Moses commaunded Aaron the high Priest, in a matter Ecclesiasticall, & cōcerning his verie office. For your selfe do say, that, this praying for the people, was a religious act, to bee wrought by Aaron, as being intermediate betweene the people, & God, to reconcile, or gaine unto them the favours of heaven. And, on the other side we say, that to burne incense, to mak attonement for the people, 2. Chron. 26.18. is likwise expressely, a thing properly pertayning to the Priests office. So that as touching that pur­pose for which I cited that text, it maketh (as I said before) no difference. But then you go further, & seem to speake, as if Mo­ses, had not there commanded Aaron. But when Moses spake to Aaron in this sort: Accipe thuribulū, Take the censer. Be not these wordes of commaunding, especially in this case, and at this time, being also spoken by a Superior, namely by him, that was as the Scripture calleth him, a king in the common-weale of Israel: Deut. 33.5. Deut. 31.25 26.27. Yea bee they not wordes, of as full, and cleere com­maund, as when hee spake in like sort, to the Levites, saying: Take the booke of this law, and put yee it in the side of the Arke of the Covenant of the Lord our God, &c. The Text it selfe sheweth that these were wordes of commaunding, in Moses: And so witnesseth also your owne translation, that herein, Moses prae­cepit Levitis, Moses commaunded the Levites. Yea, that Moses, aswell as his successor Ioshuah, commaunded not onely the Le­vites, but the Priests also, and all the congregation, and people of Israel, appeareth by that answer, and acclamation, they [Page 37] gave to the same Ioshuah, saying thus unto him: Iosh. 1.16.17.18. All that thou hast commaunded us, wee will doe, and whethersoever thou sendest us, wee will goe. As wee have obeyed Moses in all things, so will we obey thee: onely the Lord thy God be with thee as bee was with Mo­ses: whosoever shall rebell against thy commaundement, and will not obey thy wordes, in all that thou commaundest him, let him bee put to death. But then, when you cannot gainesay, but that Moses commaunded Aaron, and that in matters Ecclesiasticall and concerning his very office: you come to your last refuge, and doe say, that Moses was the high Priest, and so, as an high Priest commaunded Aaron. But first how doe you prove this, that Moses was an high Priest? And yet if you could prove it, what would you, or could you gaine from thence? for your selfe doe say, that Moses was as well a king, as a Priest: & therefore why might hee not commaund him, as hee was a king, rather then otherwise? for did he, in his time, commaund the Priests. Le­vites, & the whole People of Israel, otherwise, or in any other sort or sence, then Ioshuah, his successor did, who was no Priest? how be it, if Moses had been both a Priest and a King, would not the holy Scripture somewhere, haue testified, and expres­sed, so much, aswell as it doth, in the like case, of Melchisedech. Gen. 14.18. Hebr. 7.1? For as touching those Texts of Scrip­ture, which you bring to prove Moses to be a Priest, it shall by and by appeare, that they prove it not. Againe if Moses were the high Priest, what will you make Aaron to be? for it is evi­dent and confessed of all sides, that Aaron was the high Priest: and if Moses, were also another high Priest, at the same time: Deut. 33.5. then, beside that, there should be two high Priests together at one time, how could the one commaund the other, they being both of equall authority? Or can he be rightly, and truely cal­led, Summus Sacerdos, that hath a Superior Priest over him, to commaund him? It is cleere, that the Scripture doth expresse­ly testifie of Moses, that he was a King, and therefore of that there can be no doubt: but that he was also a Priest, or an high Priest, (as you suppose) it doth not affirme, no not in that Place, where the purpose of the holy Ghost was to shew, what Offices he bare, during all his life time, and what maner of man he was amongst the Israelites, so long, as he had been amongst [Page 38] them, vntill that time, that he was to die, and to take his last farewell of them: Deut. 33.5. & Deut. 34.10. for there it onely appeareth, that he was a King and a Prophet, but not a Priest. Had he bene also a Priest, no doubt, it would not haue bene there omitted, but specified likewise, aswell as his other two Offices. Yea reade through­out the whole Bible, the historie concerning Moses, & you will still finde, that he was a supreame civill Magistrate, a supreme Commaunder, Exod. 18.13 14.15.16.17.18.19.20.21.22.23.24.25.26. and supreame Iudge in Israell. For it is, saide, that, When Moses sate to iudge the people, the People stood about Moses, from morning vnto even: And when Iethro Moses Father in Law, saw all that he did to the People, he said, what is this, thou doest to the People? Why sittest thou thy selfe alone, and all the People stand about thee from morning vnto even? And because this was too toylsome & troublesome a businesse for him alone to doe, he advised him to appoint some others to help him, & to beare the Burthen with him, in hearing & judging of causes. Wher­upon Moses chose able men, out of all Israel, and made them heads over the People, Rulers over thousands, Rulers over hun­dreths, Rulers over fifties, and Rulers over tens. And these iudged the people, at all seasons: the hard Causes, they brought to Moses, but every small matter, they iudged themselves. When, againe, Moses heard the murmuring, and saw the weeping of the People of Israel, throughout their families, he was much grieved, and speake thus to the Lord: Numb. 11.10.11.12.13.14.15. &c. Wherefore hast thou afflicted thy servant, and why have not I found favor in thy sight, seeing thou hast put the charge of all this People vpon me? &c. By all which, you see that Moses was, as a King, Prince, or supreame commaunder over all Israel, and consequently, as a King, commaunded Aaron and the rest of the Priests, aswell, as he commaunded the Levites, or any of the rest of the People. Moreover, if Moses had bene the high Priest, Exod. 24.5. he might haue offered Sacrifice himselfe, and needed not to haue sent others, (as he did) to sacrifice: neither needed he to haue commaunded, Numb. 16.46.47. or required Aaron, to burne incense, (as he did) to make an Attonement, for the People, for himselfe might haue done it. But whatsoever Bellarmine, or other Papists, hould in this case, you, for your part, doe not hould them, to be both high Priests together, at one and the selfe same time, but in succession one after another: accoun­ting [Page 39] Moses, to be the high Priest, first, and then Aaron, Heb [...]. 5 4. after­wards. Howbeit, the Scripture saith, that No man taketh this ho­nor to himselfe, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. If then Moses were called of God, to this honor of high Priesthood, let the like warrant be shewed from God, for the Authorizing of him therevnto, that is to be shewed for Aaron. But this you cannot shew. Besides, if Moses were the high Priest first, and Aaron afterward: why doth that Epistle to the Hebrews, men­tion, for the Patterne, or President in that Case, not Moses, but Aaron? For if Moses had bene the first high Priest, no doubt he would haue said, That no man taketh this honor vnto himselfe, but he that is called of God, as was Moses: But he saith not so, but he speaketh in this sort. (viz) No man taketh this honor to himselfe, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron: As if Revera, not Moses at all, but Aaron onelie were the first high Priest. And so, in­deede, S. Chrisostome directly affirmeth, Chrysost. de verbis Isaiae vidi Dominū homil. 5. for speaking of Aaron he saith expressely, that Is primus fuit Pontifex, He was the first high Priest. Againe if Moses were the high Priest, so constituted of God, how came he afterward, to loose that honor, or to be deprived of it, and another, namely Aaron, to be put in his Place, in his life time, he committing no fault nor any fault de­clared to be in him, for which he should be deprived of that his Priesthood? But, lastly, what cause, or neede is there, to sup­pose Moses to be, (as you fancy him) an high Priest, extraordi­narily elected, and appointed, when there was to be seene at the same time, an High Priest after the ordinary maner, in Esse, and allowed of God, namely the same Aaron? For in my Reply, pag. 22. 23. I haue proved, that the Priesthood before the law given, did ordinarily belong to the first borne: and of these two Brothers, Moses and Aaron, I haue also there proved, that not Moses, but Aaron, was the Elder, and consequently, that by right of Primogeniture, Aaron was the Priest, and not Moses. Yea I haue there further proved, that the Priesthood thus being in Aaron, was so farre from being removed, or taken from him that contrariwise, it was continued in him, and afterward confirmed vnto him, by God himselfe, and to his seede, after him. But yet you would prove Moses to be a Priest, Exod. 40.12 13.14.12. because he did consecrate, and annoynte Aaron, and his sonnes, to the Priesthood. [Page 40] But to this I have answered before in my Reply pag. 25. 26. shewing, that this proveth not Moses to be a Priest, proper­ly so called: for he did this by Gods owne speciall comman­dement, which he might not disobey or refuse but stood bound to obey and performe, although he were a Civill Magistrate, King, Prince, Prophet, or what office & calling soever hee had. You cite also Deut, 18.18. where God saith thus to Moses: I will raise them up a Prophet, amongst their brethren, like unto thee, &c. This prooveth, that Moses was a Prophet, and that Christ, (of whom, these wordes are a Prophecie,) was likewise a Prophet, Act. 3.21. Act. 7.37. but they prove not Moses therefore to be a Priest, because he was a Prophet. But the chiefe text you rely upon, is that in Psal. 99. vers. 6. where it is said: Moses and Aaron amongst the Priests, & Samuel amongst them that call upon his name: these called upon the Lord, and he heard them. Howbeit, to this also I have answered before in my Reply, pag. 23.24. First, that the being of Moses, & Aaron, with, or among the Priests, is no proofe, that therefore they were Priests: It is true, that Aaron was a Priest, but that is proved by other cleere places of Scrip­ture, and not necessarily deduced out of this: because a man may be among Priests, & yet be no Priest. Secondly, I shewed, that the Hebrew word there used, is, Cohanim, which is a word of an ambiguous signification, signifying, aswell Princes, as Priests: 2. Sam. 8.18 As for example, The sonnes of King David, are said to bee, Cohanim, that is, Princes, or great Rulers: & so it is explay­ned, 2. Sam, 20.26. and declared in 1, Chron. 18.17. And so it is likewise said, of Ira the Iairite, that hee was Cohen le David, that is, a Prince, or chiefe Ruler about David. For, to conster these, to be Priests, in the proper and usuall signification of the word, they not being of the Tribe of Levi, were verie absurd. And to these thus formerly alledged in my Reply, you have answered no­thing in your Rejoynder. Yea, S. Ierome himselfe, in his owne observation, sheweth, that the Hebrew word, though he tran­slate it Sacerdotes, in the one case and Sacerdos in the other case, yet signifieth, as I before affirmed. For, saith he, Ira Iairites erat sacerdos David, Hier. tradit Hebr. in libros Regum to. 3 id est Magister, sicut alibi scriptum est: Filij autem David, erant sacerdotes, idest Magistri fratrum suorum. But because you also object S. Augustine, as the Iesuites likewise did object [Page 41] both S. Ierome, and S. Augustine, in this case, (writing upon this Psalm. 99.) to prove Moses to bee a Priest: I had rather you should take your Answer thereunto, from the wordes of that reverend and learned Bishop Doctor Bilson, then from me: who, answereth the Iesuites, and consequently you, in this sort. In his Booke called, the dif­ference be­tweene Chri­stian subiecti­on, & unchri­stian rebellion part. 3. pag. 102.103. Hier. in Psal. 98. Aug. in Psal. 98. All that S. Ierome saith, is this, that Moses had the rule of the Law, and Aaron of the Priesthood: and that eyther of them did foreshew the comming of Christ with a Priestly kinde of Proclamation: Moses, with the sound of the Law: and Aaron, with the Bels of his gar­ments. Where, S. Hierome calleth the Propheticall function of Moses, to teach the people, the lawes of God, a Priestly kinde of Proclamation & foreshewing, that the Son of God, should come in the flesh, to teach us the will of his Father. S. Augustine useth the word, in the like sence, for that sacred service, which Moses yeelded to God, in reporting his lawes and precepts to the people. And therefore in the same place, he saith of Samuel also, that hee was made high Priest, which is expressely against the Scriptures, if you take the Priest for him that was annoin­ted to offer sacrifice unto God. For Samuel was but a Levite, and no Priest, much lesse an high Priest. The sons of Samuel, 1. Chron. 6. are rec­koned in the Scripture it selfe, among the Levites, apart from the Priests office, and linage: And, the high Priesthood, was, long before, given to Phinees, and his house, Num. 25.13 1. Sam. 14. 1. Chron. 6. by covenant from Gods owne mouth, and in the dayes of Samuel, was held by Abiah, the sonne of Ahitub, who was directly of the discent of Phinees. S. Augustine elsewhere debating this question of Moses and Aaron, resolveth in doubtfull manner: Moses and Aaron, were both high Priests, or rather Moses the chiefe, and Aaron under him: or else Aaron chiefe for the Pontificall attire, and Moses for a more excellent Ministerie. And in that sence, Moses may be called a Priest, if you meane as S. Augustine doth, an interpreter of Gods will to Aaron, & others, which is the right vocation of all Prophets, that were no Priests, & common to them all, save that by a more excellent prerogative then any other Pro­phet of the Olde Testament, Numb. 12. Exod. 33. had God spake to Moses mouth to mouth, and face to face. as a man speaketh to his friend. But this doth not hinder his civill power which was to bee chiefe Iudge, and soveraigne executor of Iustice amongst them, and [Page 42] by vertue thereof to put them to death, that were offenders against the Law of God. And in his stead, succeeded, not Elea­zar, nor Phinees the sonnes of Aaron, but Ioshuah, and Iudah, the Captaines, and leaders of Israel. So farre hee. Thus then you see, in what sence it is, that both S. Ierome, and S. Augu­stine did, or might call Moses a Priest, and yet not bee such a Priest strictly, and properly taken, as you fancie him: Yea, you see, that S. Augustine likewise affirmeth Samuel to be a Priest, who neverthelesse revera, Bellarmin. de verb. Dei lib. 3. cap. 4. and properly, was not a Priest, as before is shewed: And Bellarmine also himselfe confesseth so­much of Samuel, saying expressely. Samulem non fuisse sacerdo­tem, sed Iudicem tantum: Non enim descendit ex familia Aaron, sed Core consobrini ejus 1. Paralip. 6. That Samuel was not a Priest, but onely a Iudge: for he descended not of the family of Aaron, but of Core. And he saith further, that S. Hierome likewise, ( libr. 1. in Iovinianum,) ostendit Samuelem non fuisse Sacerdotem, shewed that Samuel was not a Priest.

As for those two Chapters of Exodus, 28. and 29. cited by Bellarmine, whereby he will prove Moses, to be truely, and pro­perly, a Priest. If you reade those Chapters, you shall finde no such matter, but rather the contrary, namely, that not Moses, but Aaron and his sonnes, Exod. 28 1.2, 3.4. were the Priests. For God saith there, to Moses: Take Aaron thy Brother and his Sonnes with him, from amongst the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the Priests Office, even Aaron, Nadab, and Abibu, Eleazar, and Ithamar, Aarons sonnes. It is true, that, there, you may reade that Moses made holy Garments, Exod. 29.1.2.3.4. &c. and offered certaine Sacrifices. But observe withall, that all this was done by Gods owne expresse and speciall commaundement, and to no other end, but this, viz, for the conseruating of Aaron and his Sonnes, to the Priesthood. So that by those two Chapters, it further appeareth, that not Mo­ses but Aaron onely and his Sonnes, were the Priests: But as the Iesuites, In his booke before named part. 3. pag. 103. 104. in time past, would have proved Samuel, to be a Priest, because it is said, that he Sacrificed: so you say the same of King Saul, that he also sacrificed, and thereby would likewise prove him to be a priest. Howbeit the former reverēd, & learn­ed Bishop, D. Bilson, doth againe shew both them and you, how much you deceave your selves, by such phrazes, and maner of [Page 43] speeches: and that when they are rightly vnderstood, they in­ferre no such conclusion, as you, and they would deduce out of them. My collection, (saith he,) is grounded upon the law of God. Samuel was none of the Sonnes of Aaron, Ergo, 1. Sam. 7. Samuel was no Priest. It is true, that the Scripture saith, He tooke a suc­king lambe and offered it for a burnt offering unto the Lord. So Iephta said: Iudg. 11. That thing which first cometh out of the Dores of my house to me, I will offer it for a burnt offering: And yet Iephtah was nei­ther Priest nor Levite. So the Angell said to Manoah: Iudg. 13. If thou wilt make a burnt offering, offer it unto the 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 [...]h [...]inking from him on the other side, because Samuel came not he began [Page 44] 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 [Page 45] 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 [Page 46] this your answere is, you might have perceived before, by my Reply pag. 9. 10. if you had so pleased. Touching King Iosuah, I said in my Reply, pag. 6. 7. That he commaunded the high Priest, aswell as the other Priests, and dealt also in matters Ec­clesiasticall, and concerning Gods service, and religion: And amongst other Text of Scripture, for proofe thereof, I alled­ged that Text of 2, King 23.4. where it is accorded, that the King commaunded Hilkiah, the high Priest, and the Priests of the second order, &c. Hereunto you answere, that there is no such matter in the Place by me cited: and that the force of this Ar­gument, consisteth in these coyned words of mine: The King commaunded Hilkiah, (whom you call Helcias:) which words not being in Scripture (say you,) I am a wilie Wittnesse for strengthning my cause, to produce so shamefull an untruth, and though I be a Iudge, yet you see no commission I have to use falshood. These words be able to provoke a mans patience. But you must know, that bad words and a bould face, will doe you no good. Let others therefore iudge, whether you, or I, be the honester man in this Point. You say, there is no such matter in the Place by me cited. Wherefore I desire the Rea­der, but to turne to that place I cited, which is according to our English Bibles, 2. Kings 23.4 and according to your Latine Bibles, 4. Reg. 23.4. and there shall he see, whether there be any such matter, or no and, whether these words: The King commaunded Hilkiah, (whom you call Helcias,) be words coy­ned by me, (as you shame not to speake,) or whether they be in the Scripture it selfe, extant, and apparant. For, first, those words, be in the Hebrew: Secondly, they be in our English Translations: and thirdly, they be also even in your owne vul­gar Latine Translation. For even in that your owne Transla­tion, the words be these: Et praecepit Rex Helciae Pontifici, & Sacerdotibus secundi ordinis, &c. And the King commaunded Hel­cias the high Priest, and the Priests of the second order, &c, Now then, is it not Impudency intollerable in you, to deny this. You shall therefore doe well, yet at last, to confesse, that this good, and godly King, Iosias, commaunded Hilkiah, (otherwise called Helcias,) the high Priest, and the Priests of the second Order: and that he also dealt in matters Ecclesiasticall, and con­cerning [Page 47] religion, as I there sayed, and have further declared, in the same place of my Reply, pag. 6.7. To that which I alledged concerning King Asa, and King Hezekiah, in my Reply, pag. 7. 8. who likewise had Authority, (as is there shewed,) over Per­sons Ecclesiasticall, and in causes also Ecclesiasticall, you answer nothing in your Reioinder that deserveth to be replyed unto. And concerning King Iehosaphat also, your answere is likewise very idle, and friuolous, and scarce worthy the mentioning. For whereas I alledged, amongst other things, 2. Chron. 19 8.9.10.11 That this King Iehosaphat, did constitute, or set in Hierusalem of the Levites, and of the Priests, and of the Chiefe of the families of Israel, for the iudg­ment and cause of the Lord, &c. (which words were sufficient, to prove my purpose there, namely, the Kings Authority over Priests, and Levites, and in causes also Ecclesiasticall,) you to shew your great learning, and iudgment, in this point, doe taxe me for omitting, or not rehearsing of some subsequent words, in the which verse of that Chapter, which when they be vtte­red, and rehearsed, doe indeede make more against you, then for you: for, the words be these. And behould, (saith the King,) Amoriah the high Priest, shall be the Chiefe over you, in all matters of the Lord: and Zebadiah, the sonne of Ishmaell, a Ruler of the house of Iudah shall be for all the Kings affaires. By which words, it ap­peareth, That King Iehosaphat, did aswell constitute, and ap­pointe Amariah the Priest, to be the Chiefe over that Assem­bly, Councell, or Synedrion, which he set at Hierusalem, for all matters of the Lord, as he did constitute, and appoint Zebadiah, to be the Chiefe amongst them for all the Kings affaires. For the words of the Text, put no difference, but that he might, and did constitute, the one to be the Chiefe in the one case, as­well, as he did constitute the other, to be the Chiefe in the o­ther case. As for that reason you bring, for a difference, it is nothing worth: for, it is graunted, that the King did not, nor could by his Regall Authority, (without a speciall commaun­dement, or warrant from God,) consecrate, or make a Priest, neither is it there said, That King Iehosaphat, did consecrate, or make Amariah, to be a Priest: But he being a Priest before, the King did there constitute and appoint him, (as lawfully he might,) to be the President, or Chiefe in that Synedrion, or [Page 48] Assembly, in all matters of the Lord: aswell as he did, or might constitute Zebadiah, to be, therein, the Chiefe, or President, for all the Kings affaires.

10. Now then to come to King Solomon, I proved him also in my Reply, pag. 7. to have had authoritie over the Priests, and Levites, and to have dealt likewise, in matters Ecclesiasticall, and concerning Religion: But to that Text of 2. Chron. 8.14.15. by mee alledged, for proofe thereof, you answer not. One­ly to that Text of 1. King. 2.27.35. where Solomon deposed Abiathar, the high Priest, and put Sadocke in his place, you an­swer and graunt it to be true, that hee did so: But this, say you, hee did, as being a Prophet, and not as a King. This answer of yours, I before confuted, and tooke a way in my Reply. pag. 20. 21. whether I againe referre you: because that standeth still in full force against you, you having said nothing against it, in your Reioynder. But now I adde further unto it, that it doth moreover appeare, even by the wordes of the Text it selfe. that Solomon did not doe this, as a Prophet, but as a King; be­cause hee therein did no more, but execute that, which a Pro­phet, or man of God, had before spoken from God, concer­ning the house of Ely: For so the words of the Text doe shew, that, Solomon cast out Abiathar, from being Priest unto the Lord: that hee might fulfill the wordes of the Lord, which hee spake against the house of Ely in Shilo, 1. King. 2.27. and 1. Sam. 2.27.28.29.30.31. &c. where, the Prophet, or man of God, (as hee is cal­led,) that uttered the Prophesie, and the King that executed the Prophesie must of necessitie bee distinguished. And there­fore as hee that received, and uttered the Prophesie is in the receiving, and uttering of it, to bee called, and supposed a Pro­phet: So King Solomon, that was onely the executer, and per­former of that Prophesie, is in the execution, and performance of it, to be tearmed, and deemed a King, and not a Prophet. But whilst I thus prove, the authoritie of Kings, over the high Priest, because King Solomon deposed Abiathar, and put Sadock in his place: You would inferre, that Elias, by the like reason, 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 [Page 49] 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 [Page 50] 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 [Page 51] 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. & 87. But, secondly, when the Text it selfe, speaketh of this fact of King Solomon, by way of approbation of it, doth it become you, or any man else, to say, or suppose, that it was, error facti, in him? Or that it was an Act not lawfull for him so to doe? For hath not the Scripture it selfe, before expressely tould vs, That Solomon depo­sed, or cast out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord, 1. King. 2.27. that hee might fulfill the words of the Lord, which hee spake against the house of Ely in Shiloh. Now then, can that be said to bee erroniously or unlawfully done, which God himselfe well liked, and allo­wed, and would have to bee done, for the performance, and fulfilling of his owne wordes? Yea, consider yet further that the Kings of Israel, and Iudah, had power, and authoritie over the Priests, not onely to depose them, but also, to put them to [Page 52] death. And this you may see in King Saul, who put to death divers Priests, [...] Sa. 22.18. [...]. Chron. 24. [...]0 21. and in King Ioash also, who put to death Zacha­riah, the sonne of Iehoida the Priest: How justly, or unjustly, worthily or unworthily, these Priests were put to death, I here dispute not: but I mention these examples, to shew the power & authoritie that the Kings had in those times, name­ly even to put Priests to death, aswell as lay-persons, upon just cause, and if they did offend so farre, as to deserve it.

11. But, now, though there were a supremacy over the high Priests, aswell, as over the other Priests, and Levites, in the Kings, under the Old Testament: and that they also dealt in maters Ecclesiasticall: yet thereupon, it followeth not, (say you,) That Kings and Princes under the New Testament, have the like Supremacy, over Bishops, and other Clergy men, or the like Authority in causes Ecclesiasticall, and concerning reli­gion. Why so? because, (say you,) there is now a change and alteration of the Priesthood, and of the Law. Heb. 7.12. But doth not the same Epistle to the Hebrews, (which you cite,) tell you, wherein that Alteration and change consisteth, na­mely, that it is, in respect of the Leviticall Priesthood, under the ould Law, or under the ould Testament: which is now changed into the Priesthood of Christ, under the new Law, or under the new Testament? why then will you stretch, and extend it any further? yea, neither doth that Epistle, nor any other sacred, or canonicall Scripture, testifie an Alteration or change, in this Point, or as touching this Particular whereof, we now speake, but the cleane contrary: videlicet: that aswell under the new Testament, as under the ould, Kings, and Prin­ces are to have a supremacy, over all Bishops, Pastors, and other Ecclesiasticall Ministers, and an Authority also in causes Eccle­siasticall, aswell, as civill and temporall, within their domi­nions. The first part of this Assertion, is manifest, by that Text in the new Testament, which I have so often recited, and where S. Paul saith expressely thus: Rom. 13.1. Chrysost. in Rom. hom, 23 Let every soule be subiect to the higher Powers: yea, Though you be an Apostle, though an Evangelist, though a Prophet, or whosoever you be, saith S. Chrisostome But what shall I neede to prove this so cleere a Point, so many times, and so often? For both in my first Booke, Cap. 1. pag. 1. 2. 3. &c. and in [Page 53] my Reply, chap. 1. pag. 39. 40, 41. &c. and pag. 51. 52. 53. 54. &c. this pointe is fully, and abundantly proved. Yea the Bi­shops of Rome themselves, in former an ancient times, for the space of divers hundreth yeares after Christ, did acknowledge this Subiection, to these higher powers, namely to their Em­perors: as I have demonstratively shewed by the examples of Milciades, Leo, and Gregorie the great, mentioned in my first Booke, pag. 23. 24. 25. 26. And by Anastasius the second, Pela­gius the first, Agatho, Hadrian, and Leo the fourth, mentioned in my Reply, chap. 1 pag. 11. 12. 13. 19. To all which, though particularly alledged by me, you according to your wonted wise maner, thought it best to answere nothing. Yea, both the parts of this Assertion, namely, that Emperors, Kings, and Prin­ces under the new Testament, have Authority, not onely over Persons Ecclesiasticall, but in causes also Ecclesiasticall, I have so sufficiently proved throughout the first Chapter of my first Booke, and throughout the first Chapter of my second Booke, which is my Reply, and in this booke also, as that all the Power, and force you have brought or can bring against it, will never be able, so much, as to shake it, much lesse to subdue, or over­throw it.

Yet for the more abundant proofe of this Authority of Em­perors and Kings in maters Ecclesiasticall, and concerning re­ligion: I alledged in my Reply, chap. 1. pag. 13 14. the pre­sident, and Example of that famous Christian Emperor Con­stantine the Great: whereunto, in your Reioynder, you have, (as well became your great learning, and wisedome,) answered iust nothing at all. I alledged also, in the same my Reply, pag. 15. the example of Iustinian, that Christian Emperor: where, you deny not, this Emperors making of Constitutions and Lawes, in Ecclesiasticall causes, and concerning Bishops, and o­ther Ecclesiasticall Persons. But you say, those Lawes be not observed, by the Protestant Cleargie, and you give an instance in one particular. What is this to the purpose? For, the que­stion was not, nor is, whether our Protestant Cleargie, observe those Lawes, and Constitutions, yea, or no: But whether Iusti­nian, that Christian Emperour, made those, or any such lawes, and Constitutions, concerning Ecclesiasticall causes, and Eccle­siasticall [Page 54] persons. Now then whilst you graunt, that hee made those Lawes, and Constitutions concerning Ecclesiastic [...]ll cau­ses, and concerning Ecclesiasticall persons, you graunt so much as I contended for, that is to say, you graunt the whole matter that was in question. And therefore why should I dispute any longer with you? Neverthelesse, you yet further say, that I much disadvantage my cause by alleadging Iustinian the Em­perour, who accounted & called the Bishop of Rome the chiefe and head of all the holy Churches. But you should doe well to observe in what sence and respects, the Emperour so called, and accounted him: namely not that hee had in those dayes, a supremacie over Iustinian who was then the Emperour: [...]uthen. const [...]. 15. Novel [...] 3. For Iustinian himselfe testifieth the cleane contrarie to that conceit. Wee commaund, (saith hee,) the most holy Archbishops, and Patri­arkes of Rome, of Constantinople, of Alexandria, of Antioch, and of Ierusalem. [...]vag. lib. 4. c. 1. [...]iceph: libr. [...]7. cap. 27. Yea the fifth generall Councell it selfe was also called by the commandement of this Emperor Iustinian. So that it clearely appeareth, that hee had the supremacie, & comman­ding authoritie over them all. But in respect of the soundnesse of the faith, which the Bishop of Rome held in those times, against heresies, and errors, it was, that the Emperour prefer­red him before the other Bishops, accounting himselfe chiefe, or head amongst them, for that cause. In which regard also, it is, that hee would have the Easterne Churches, to be imitators of him, and to follow him. Neither did this Emperor Iustinian, write unto him, as to an universall or supreme Bishop, in those dayes over all, but onely, as to a Bishop of a Province, or of a parte of the Christian world, and namely, in this sort Iohanni, Sanctissimo Archiepiscopo almae urbis Romae, [...]de. libr. 1. [...].4. & lib. 4 [...].6. & Patriarchae. To Iohn the most holy Archbishop, and Patriarch, of the famous Citie of Rome. Againe, in that Epistle, he desired this Iohn the Bishop of Rome, to write his letters to him, and to the Bishop of that his royall Citie of Constantinople, whom hee there calleth brother to the Bishop of Rome, (and not his servant, or subject:) Where­upon, the Glosse it selfe, maketh this observation, and saith thus: Hic eum parificat: Here the Emperour equalleth the B shop of Constantinople, to the Bishop of Rome. And, indeede, the first Ge­nerall Councell of Constantinople, consisting of 150. Bishops, [Page 55] (Canon. 2. & 3.) and the Generall Councell of Chalcedon also consisting of 630. Bishops. (Act. 16.) and the sixt Generall Councell of Constantinople, (Can. 36) doe all decree the Sea of Constantinople, to be equall to the Sea of Rome: except one­ly, that, in the meeting and assembly of the Bishops, the Bishop of Rome was, for Order sake, to have the first Place, and the Bishop of Constantinople, the second Place: which, together with the reason thereof, you may see more fully declared in my first Booke, chap. 1. pag. 17. 18.

I alledged further, in my Reply, pag. 15. 16. 17. 18. many and sundry Chapters, & Lawes, made by the Emperour, Charles the great, otherwise called Charlemaine, concerning men, and matters Ecclesiasticall, the Particulars whereof, you may there see: which because you knew not how to answere, you passe them over with this saying, that they are not worth the an­swering: why so? in regard, (say you,) there is thereby no more discovered, then by those before mentioned of Iustinian. And is not that mough, if it were no more but so? and yet is there more discovered in the one, then in the other. Howbeit, Act. 2.36 & 5.31. Iohn. 18.36.37. 1. Cor. 15.25 Heb. 1.8.13. Ephes. 1.20.21.22.23. Coloss. 2.10.8.19. the Lawes of those two Emperors, (vizt,) both of Iustinian & Charlemaine, I alledged not to any such end, as you still, & ever­more, untruly suppose, (vizt,) thereby to prove the Spirituall Supremacy, to belong to Emperours, or Kings, (for the spiri­tuall Monarchy and Supremacy, I attribute, (as I said before,) neither to Emperor, nor King, nor to Pope, nor Prelate, but to Christ Iesus onely, the sole Monarch, and head, of his whole Church,) but to this end, and purpose onely, namely to prove, that Emperours, and Kings, had in those former, and auncient times, Authority over Persons Ecclesiasticall & in causes also Ecclesiasticall: which because you neither doe, nor can deny, what doe you else but graunt them: & consequently, you here graunt once againe, the thing that is in question, as a matter cleere, and vndenyable: and therefore what neede I to dispute or debate this matter (any longer) with you? But here, (if I doe not mistake you,) you seeme much to restraine the Power and Authority, of Emperors, and Kings, as though they might not make any new Lawes, or Constitutions, but onely streng­then, confirme, and put in execution, the olde, and former Ec­clesiasticall [Page 56] lawes: If this be your meaning, you see how this conceit is confuted & confounded, even by those former pre­cedents and examples of Iustinian, and Charlemaine. For it is evident, that Iustinian, made many new lawes, and new Con­stitutions, which were not before: and so did also Charles the Great, frame and make divers and sundrie new lawes, Chap­ters, and Constitutions. And did not Constantine that first fa­mous Christian Emperour also make many new Lawes, and new Constitutions, concerning Ecclesiasticall persons, and Ec­clesiasticall matters, which were not made before his dayes? You may also remember, Aug. Epist, 50. that S. Augustine saith: Serviunt Re­ges Christo leges ferendo pro Christe: Kings serve Christ by making lawes for Christ. And therefore they may, as occasion requi­reth, aswell make new lawes for Christ, as commaund those, that were formerly made for him, to bee put in execution. But if you meane, that you would have Emperours, and Kings, to make no lawes, nor cause any to bee put in execution, concer­ning the Church, but such as will well stand with the Lawes of God, his truth, Religion, and Ordinances, you therein say the same thing that Protestants doe. 2. Cor. 13.8. For they say with S. Paul, that they may doe nothing against the truth, but for the truth. And, that the power, & authoritie of Emperours, Kings, and Prin­ces, (if it be rightly used, and not abused,) is for God, and not against God, and for Christ, his Church, and Religion, and not for Antichrist, or any untruths, heresies, or errors whatso­ever. Or if your meaning bee, that you would have Empe­rours, Kings, and Princes, in their making of lawes, concer­ning God, his Church, & Religion, to take the advise, directi­on, & counsell, of godly, learned, & Orthodoxe Bishops, and teachers, this is, also not denied, but graunted unto you: But then must you graunt on the other side, that if they bee not Orthodoxe Bishops, and true teachers, but false teachers, or if they be such as deliver errors, in stead of truths: such mens erroneous counsailes, directions, and advises, are not to be fol­lowed, but to bee rejected, as I have shewed more fully in my Reply, pag. 37. 38.

12. But after these times of Charles the Great, mentioned in my Reply, pag. 18. you come next in your Reioynder, to your [Page 57] accusation of Luther, & Calvine, mentioned in my Reply, p. 49. So that here you skip over no lesse then fifteen whole leaves to­gether in that my Reply. Yet what have you now to say against Luther, and Calvine? In your first Answer, you tooke occasion, (for I gave you none,) to inveigh against them, as if they had beene Adversaries to Kings, and Princes, and to the obedience due to them. In that my Reply, pag. 49. I said, that the works, and writings of them both did shew, & openly proclayme the contrarie to the world. And this is indeede, verie apparant: Luth. tom. 1. in Gen. cap. 9. & tom. 3. an­nota. in Deut capit. 6. fol. 4. & fol. 552. Rom. 13.1.2 3.4.5.6. Luth. tom. 2. resp. ad Am­bros. cather fo. 150. & 152 For, where as some objected, That the rule, or governement of one man over another, might seeme, a tyrannous usurpation, because all men are naturally of like condition: To this, (saith Luther,) must wee that have the word of God oppose the commaundement, and ordinance of God, who hath put a sword into the hand of the Magistrate, whom therefore the Apostle calleth, Gods Minister. Againe, hee saith: I grieve, and blush, and groane to see, how scornefully, our Emperours, and Princes of Germanie, are abused by the Pope: whom hee leadeth, and handleth, like bruite beasts, both for spoile, and slaughter, at his owne pleasure. This Poperie, (saith hee,) is lively described by S. Pe­ter, 2. Pet. 2. where bee saith, They despise Rulers, or Governours: by Rulers, signifying secular Princes. Now the Popish Cleargie, have by their owne authoritie, exempted themselves, from tributes, subiection, and all charges of the Common-weale, contrarie to the doctrine of Pe­ter, and Paul: Yea, so farre is the Pope, from acknowledging the sove­raignetie of Princes, over him, that hee will scarce admitte them to kisse his feete. Calvine, likewise, writeth thus. The word of God, Calvin. Instit. lib. 4. cap. 2. sect. 22. (saith hee,) teacheth us to obey all Princes, who are established in there thrones, be it by what meanes soever: Yea, though they doe no­thing lesse, then the office of Kings, yet must they bee obeyed, and though the King be never so wicked, and indeede, unworthy the name of a King, yet must subiects acknowledge the image of Divine power, in his publike authoritie, and, as touching obedience, they must reve­rence, and honour him, aswell as if hee were the godlyest King in the world. Nebuchadnezzar was a mightie invader and subduer of other Nations: yet God saith by his Prophet, that he had given those lands, and countries unto him. Ezech. 29. & Dan. 2. Neyther would he have any rebellion, or resistance to be offered, but contrarywise commaunded obedience to be performed unto him. Iere. 27. And therefore we must [Page 58] never suffer these seditious conceites, to possesse our mindes, as to thinke an evill King must be so dealt withall, as hee deserveth, but we are di­rectly charged to obey the King, though he bee a savage Tyrant, and never so bad. Beza confess. cap. 5. sect. 45 Beza also speaketh in like sort. Private men, (amongst whom, I account inferiour Magistrates, in respect of their King,) have no other remedie, (saith hee,) against Tyrants, to whom they are subiect, but amendment of their lives, prayers, and teares: which God in his good time, will not despise. And if it so fall out, that wee cannot obey the commandement of the King, but that wee must offend God, the King of kings, Then must wee rather obey God, then man: Yet so, as that wee remember, that it is one thing, not to obey: and, an­other thing, Ibidem. to resist, and to betake ourselves to Armes, which wee may not doe. Againe hee saith: The impudencie of our Adversaries, is herein most notorious, that they who contrarie to the word of God, have openly subiected Kings, and kingdomes, to their authoritie, and be themselves the most rebellious sect under heaven yet dare netwith­standing to obiect the guilt of that crime unto us. These being the doctrines, and positions of Luther, Calvine, Beza, and other Protestants, concerning Kings, and kingdomes, let the equall Reader Iudge, what, and how great the wrong is, you doe unto them, and whether also, that is, or can possibly be true, which you write, both in your Answer, and, againe, in your Re­ioynder, namely, That Kings, and Princes may more confidently build the safetie of their persons, Act. 17.7. Ioh. 18.36. Ephes. 1.21.22.23. Ephes. 4.15.16. Coloss. 1.17.18. and estates upon the loyaltie, of their Catholicke subiects, then upon any Protestant subiects. Why, more confidently, I pray you? For, is this a good reason which you bring, (viz.) because, although Papists give the spirituall su­premacie, headship, and Monarchie, over the whole Church upon earth, unto the Pope, (which indeed, they should not do, in asmuch as it is a Regall right, and Prerogative, properly be­longing unto Christ Iesus,) yet doe they acknowledge in Kings, a supremacie in Temporall matters yea, this reason, (if you did well observe it,) maketh rather much against you: For, it sheweth that Papists bee revera, neyther so good Christians nor yet so good subiects, Colos. 2.19. as Protestants bee. Not so good Chri­stians: because, They bold not the head CHRIST IESVS, (as S. Paul speaketh,) but have, without any warrant, or commis­sion from him errected to themselves, another head, Monarch, [Page 59] and Spirituall King, namely the Pope of Rome: Not so good subjects because they acknowledge not, to belong unto Kings, an authoritie over persons Ecclesiasticall, and in causes also Ec­clesiasticall, aswell as Civill, and Temporall, as Protestants doe. For, whereas you say that the Protestant Subjects, doe take from the King, the Temporall supremacie, aswell as the Spiri­tuall, it is too lewd, and loud a slaunder. Yea what is there, that the Protestants doe more earnestly contend for, against the Pope, and against his partakers, then the Spirituall supre­macie, or Spirituall kingdome, to be given to Christ Iesus? And the Civill, or Temporall supremacie over persons Ecclesiasti­call, and in matters Ecclesiasticall, aswell as Temporall, to bee given unto Kings and Princes, within their Dominions? But because you yet further object against the Protestants, both re­bellious doctrines, and rebellious practises, and affirme that many instances of this kinde may bee reade in the Booke of dangerous Positions: For a cleere and full Answer to all that you have said, or rather Papists have, or can say, in that case, I referre you unto that Booke, which is called An exact Disco­verie of Romish Doctrine in the Case of Conspiracie & Rebellion: and the Reply to him, that calleth himselfe, the Moderate An­swerer thereof. In which Bookes so conjoyned in one Volume, you may reade, and see at large, a cleere justification of Luther, Calvine, Beza, and other Protestants in this point, and contra­rywise the Papists, to bee notoriously guiltie therein. And this you may also see further debated, and shewed in that Booke, which is called, The true difference betweene Christian subiection, and unchristian Rebellion: In the third part whereof, be refelled the Iesuites reasons, and authorities, which they alleadge for the Popes depriving of Princes, and the bearing of Armes by Subjects against their Soveraignes: and where the tyrannies, and injuries of Antichrist, seeking to exalt himselfe above Kings, and Princes, bee further discovered and declared, &c. These things, I would not here thus farre have spoken of, had not you provoked me thereunto, not only by your first begin­ning, but by your continuance, & still stiffe-standing in these your needlesse cōparisons, & calumniations But you proceed, & come next from p. 50. in my Reply, to p. 79. where, againe you [Page 60] skippe over fourteene leaves more together, in the same booke. In that pag. 79. It is true, that I said. That not onely those kings of England before mentioned, namely King William Rufus, king Henry the First, and King Henry the Second, and some others, thus contended, and opposed themselves against the Pope of Rome: But King William the Conqueror also, who was before all these, made the like Kingly opposition. For when Hildebrand, otherwise called Pope Gregory the Seventh, was bold to demand of this King, an Oath of fealtie, to bee made to him, as if the King were to hold the kingdome of him, as of his Sove­raigne Lord: This King would by no meanes yeeld thereunto, but sent him a full negative Answer, writing thus unto him. Fidelitatem facere nolui, nec volo, quia nec ego promisi, nec antecesso­res meos, antecessoribus tuis, id fecisse comperio. I neyther would doe, nor will doe fealtie, because I neyther promised it, nor doe I finde, that any of my Predecessors have done it to any of your predecessors. I have here recited, the whole, & entire sentence, & not produced onely a part of it, as you did, verie lamely, and imperfectly. And now what have you to say against it? First concerning that of King William the Conquerour, you answer not a word. And touching those particulars, which I had before alleadged, concerning the others Kings, namely concerning William Ru­fus, King Henry the First, and King Henry the Second, and other Kings of England, that contended, and opposed themselves against the Pope of Rome, his encreachments, and usurpations, your answer is verie idle and impertinent. For you answer, as if I had affirmed, that those Kings had utterly renounced, abo­lished, or put downe, the Popes supremacie in their times, whereas I affirmed onely, that they contended, and made op­position against him; which they might, and did doe, al­though they then made not an utter extirpation, and aboli­tion of him, out of that their kingdome. And that they made opposition to him, I have shewed and proved in my Reply, pag. 75. 76. 78. 79. 80. And verie ignorant are you in the hi­stories of England, if you know not so much: and verie per­verse, if knowing so much you will not acknowledge it.

13. From thence you come to pag. 81 of my Reply, where I write thus: But now what meaneth my adversarie to bee so ex­treamely [Page 61] audacious, as to denie the first foure Generall Councels, to have beene called by the Emperours? Here you say, I was pleased to salute you with that language, which better fitted an incon­siderative Iester, then a deliberate Iudge. Why? what is the lan­guage, or what are the words, which so much offend you? You afterward shew, namely, because I there used that terme of extreamely audacious? But what is it else, but extreme audacious­nesse, to denie as you then did, and still doe, so cleere, evident, and plaine a truth? For my part, the matter considered, I see not, but you might have thought, that I spake moderately, and temperately enough, whilst I spake in that sort, and gave you no worse language: For some others possibly would have said, that you had beene, therein, extreamely, and intolerably impudent. But you forget, as it seemeth, or care not to remem­ber, what language or words, you here utter, concerning me, which I have more cause to take ill at your hands, then you have to bee offended, at those other words of mine. But to come to those foure Generall Councels: I affirmed them, (which you denied,) to have beene called by the Emperours. The first of them, is, The first Generall Councell of Nyce: That this was called by the Emperour, I proved in that my Reply, pag. 81.82. by the testimonie of Ruffinus, Eusebius, Socrates, Theodoret, Sozomon, Zonaras, Nicephorus, Platina, and by the Synodall Epistle of the Nycene Fathers themselves. And doth not hee then deserve to bee accounted, at least extreamely auda­cious, that will dare to denie this so manifest, and palpable truth, testified so abundantly, and by so many witnesses? But whilst among other witnesses for proofe of this point, I pro­duced Ruffinus, affirming, that Constantine, apud urbem Nicaeam, Episcopale Concilium convocavit; R [...]ffin. lib. 1. cap. 1. Called the Councell of Bishops to­gether, at the Citie of Nyce: You say, that I there used, a little wile, which amongst the vulgar sort will bee called Craft or Cousenage: because, say you, I omitted those wordes, Ex sa­cerdotum sententia: which bee in Ruffinus, and which words, if they had beene mentioned, would have declared, that the Em­perour Constantine summoned or called the Councell of Nyce, by the advise, consent, or approbation of the Priests. Howbeit, first it is not of necessitie, that the omission of those wordes, must in­ferre [Page 62] it to bee done, with a minde and purpose to defraude, de­ceive, and cousen, as you verie odiously suggest. Yea, second­ly, to shew, that I did not craftily, or couseningly, conceale, or omitte those wordes, for mine owne advantage, as you al­leadge, behold, you shall finde, in the verie next page, namely, pag. 82. that I doe expressely mention them, and doe directly affirme, Ruffin. lib. 1. cap. 1. out of the same Ruffinus, that this Councell of Nyce, was assembled, or called, Ex sacerdotum sententia, By the advise and consent of the Priests: and thereby I also proved, that it was not done by the advise & consent of the Bishop of Rome alone. Now then who is the wily, Craftie, and Cousening Compa­nion, I hope the honest; and equall Reader will by this time easily discerne, and judge. But thirdly, I did there further an­swere, (as I doe likewise here againe,) that it maketh nothing to the matter in question, at whose suite, or request, or by whose advise or consent, that Councell was summoned: For the question, was not, nor is, by whose perswasion or suite, or by whose advise, or consent, but by whose commaunding authoritie, it was called. Now it is verie apparant, by those former testimonies, that it was called, and assembled, by the commandement, or commanding authoritie of the Emperour: which declareth infallibly, the supremacie, and authority, which the Emperour had in those dayes over all the Bishops, and even over the Bishop of Rome himselfe, aswell as over the rest, whilst hee might and did thus commaund, aswell the one as the other, to appeare in a Generall Councell. I also cited Eusebius, Socrates, and Theodoret, and their wordes, to prove likewise that the Emperour Constantine, called, and assembled that Generall Councell at Nyce: But you are pleased not to see, or not to acknowledge, where those wordes are to bee found in their Authors: And yet might you have seene and found them, (if you had so pleased,) in their severall Authors: as namely in Eusebius de vita Constantini, lib. 3 cap. 6. & lib 1. cap. 37 in Socrates, lib. 1. cap. 8. in the Greeke, and cap. 5 in the Latin: and in Theodoret, lib. 1 cap 7. So that even that also which I ci­ted out of Theodoret, is not a famous fiction (as you infamously and untruely report it,) but a verie certaine, & apparant truth, as there you may see. And all the rest of the Authors, which I [Page 63] there cited, doe likewise testifie, and prove the same thing for which I there alleadged them. Yea, this point is so cleere and evident, that whilst you thought to confute it, you have your selfe further confirmed, and confessed it. Ruffin. lib. 1. cap. 1. For when you purpo­sing to alledge Ruffinus against mee, doe cite his wordes, thus: Tumille, Then hee, (meaning Constantine,) ex sacerdotum sen­tentia, apud urbem Nycaeam, Episcopale concilium, convocavit: By the sentence, or consent of the Priests, did call the councell of Bishops, at the citie of Nyce: And when againe, you likewise intending to alledge Damasus against me, doe affirme, that he saith: That Constantine, did not gather the councell, but cum consensu Silvestri, Damasus lin Pont. concil. 6 act. 18. with the consent of Sylvester: and that so much also, is expressed in the sixt councell. Doe you not, in all this, sufficiently confesse, that the Emperour Constantine, did, by his commanding au­thoritie, call this councell of Nyce, although hee did it, by the consent, or approbation of Sylvester Bishop of Rome, and of other Priests? Now then to come to the second generall Coun­cell, (which was the first Constantinopolitane,) I have likewise proved in my Reply, pag 83. by the testimonies of Theodoret, Socrates, Sozomen, Zonaras, and the verie Councell it selfe, spea­king to the Emperour, Theodosius the elder, that it was called by the commaundment, or commaunding Authoritie of the same Emperour. To all which proofes, and testimonies, yon, (according to your wonted learning & wisdome,) answer no­thing in your Reioynder. But in your first auswer, to prove this Councell, not to bee called by the commaundement of the Emperour, but of Damasus Bishop of Rome, you cited Theo­doret libr. 5. cap. 9. and in your Reioynder you prosecute it, and say, That the Bishops meeting in this second generall councell, wri­ting to Pope Damasus doe testifie, that they assembled at Constanti­nople, by reason of his letter sent the yeare before to Theodosius. But what meane you thus to abuse your Reader? For first there is no such thing in that place of Theodoret, Theodor lib. 5 cap. 9. that doth prove this second Generall Councell, to have beene any more called by Damasus, then by the other Bishops mentioned in the same Letter, or in the same Epistle. For, that Letter, or Epistle, was not written, or directed to one alone, as namely to Damasus, (as you would make men beleeve,) but to many and diverse [Page 64] Bishops plurally. For thus is the direction, (viz.) To our most honourable Lords, our verie Reverend brothers, and fellowes in Of­fice, Damasus, Ambrosius, Britton, Valerian, Acholius, Anemius, Basil, and the rest of the holy Bishops assembled in the noble Citie of Rome. The holy Councell of Orthodoxe Bishops, gathered together in the great Citie of Constantinople, send Greeting. So that, it was not Damasus alone, (as here you see,) but the rest of those re­verend Bishops also, assembled at Rome, that sent those Letters, mentioned in that Epistle to the most holy Emperour Theo­dosius. And secondly, even those Letters of Damasus, and of the rest of the Bishops, sent to the Emperour, concerning that matter of calling the Councell were onely perswasive, and not commaunding Letters: In asmuch as it is before, by my Reply, verie evident, that this Councell was assembled by the com­maundement, or commaunding Letters of the Emperour. And consequently it was not Damasus alone, but other Bishops also joyned with him, that sent those their Letters to the Em­perour, whereby hee was excited, moved, and perswaded, to call, and commaund that Councell to bee assembled at Constan­tinople. Now then, seeing that Theodoret whom you cite to prove, that Pope Damasus by his commaunding Letters, cal­led this Councell, Theodor. l. b. 5 cap. 7. proveth no such matter: Yea hee expressely witnesseth the contrarie, affirming it directly, to have beene called by the commaundement of the Emperour: Doth or can this any way helpe to excuse you? Or doth it not rather so much the more inlarge, and aggravate your fault herein?

Concerning the third Generall Councell, (which was the first Ephesine.) that, That was called by the commaundement of the Emperour Theodosius the younger, I have also proved in in my Reply, pag. 83. by the testimonies of Evagrius, Liberatus, Socrates, Zonaras, Nicephorus, & by the Synodall Epistle it selfe. And yet you would make men beleeve, that it was called not by the commaundement of the Emperour, but of Celestinus Bishop of Rome. And for proofe hereof, you cite Prosper in Chro­nico, affirming it to have beene held Caelestini authoritate. By the authority of Celestine. But you still much mistake, for this was no commandement, or commaunding authoritie in Celestinus, but a perswasive onely, which Bishops might, and did use to the [Page 65] Emperours, verie often, for the obtayning of Councels. So that by these wordes, is no more meant, or signified, but that Celestinus used such authoritie, that is, such power, credite, and estimation, as hee had with the Emperour, to cause, and pro­cure this Councell to bee assembled. And that this word, Au­thoritas, doth so signifie, and is verie often used in that sence, your Dictionaries, and Latine writers, will sufficiently teach you. Yea, your selfe, in your Rejoynder, doe cite Paulus Dia­conus, in his Historicall collections, that hee speaketh of the last of the first foure Generall Councels, (which was the Coun­cell of Calcedon,) in this sort. Papae Leonis auctoritate, &c. Paul. Diac. lib. 15. By the authoritie of Pope Leo, and commaund of Martian the Emperour, the Councell of Culcedon was summoned. Here you see a plaine di­stinction, made betweene this authoritie, & the commaund. The commaund, or commanding authoritie, being attributed to the Emperour Martian: and the other authoritie, namely the per­swasive, being attributed to Leo, Bishop of Rome. And yet ney­ther, was it onely Celestinus Bishop of Rome, but other Patri­arkes, and Bishops, likewise, as namely Cyrill Bishop of Alex­andria, Iohn Bishop of Antioch, Zonar. in Theodos. Iu­niore. and Iuvenall Bishop of Ierusalem that perswaded, and excited the Emperour, to call and com­maund, this third Generall Councell at Ephesus, as Zonaras testifieth.

And as touching the fourth Generall Councell, which was, as I said, that at Calcedon: I have proved in my Reply, pag. 85. by the testimonie of the verie Councell it selfe, and by sundry Epistles also, of Leo Bishop of Rome, that this Councell of Calcedon, was summoned by the commaundement of the Em­perour: whereunto may be also added, that your owne testi­monie of Paulus Diaconus, before cited, who saith, (as even your selfe alledged him,) that this fourth Generall Councell of Calcedon, was summoned or called by the commaunde­ment of Martian the Emperour, and not of Leo, although Leo did also interpose and use his authoritie, and credite with the Emperour, for the effecting of it. Now then, when beside the cleerenesse of other proofes, you saw by this expresse testimo­nie or Prulus Diaconus, (whom your selfe alledged,) that this Councell of Calcedon, was summoned, or called by the com­maundement [Page 66] of the Emperor Martian, why should you, or any man else, say, or suppose the contrarie thereunto? Yea even Leo himselfe, in divers of his Epistles, sheweth, (as I said before,) that neyther hee, nor any other Bishop of Rome did, in those dayes, summon or call, eyther this, or any other Gene­rall Councell, but that it belonged to the Emperours, so to doe, as you may see more fully, by the wordes and actions, of the same Leo, formerly mentioned in my Reply, pag. 84.85. But I there also further alledged, a fifth Generall Councell, called, Mandato Iustiniani, By the commaundement of Iustinian the Em­perour. And other Councels I likewise there alledged, called by Emperours: to all which, you answer nothing. Nor doe you answer to Cardinall Cusanus, there also produced by me, confes­sing, and affirming expressely, though it were against the Pope, that, The first eight Generall councels, were called by the Emperours. Yea, this is so cleere a case, and so evident a truth, that S. Hierome maketh it to bee of the essence of a Generall Councell: Dic quis Imperator jusserit hanc Synodū convocari: Tell us, Hieron. lib. 2. in Ruffin. (saith hee,) what Emperour commaunded this councell to be as­sembled: thereby declaring, that it was held for no Generall Councell in those dayes, unlesse it were called, and assembled by the commaundement of the Emperour. Now then, upon all these premisses, I leave it to the equall Reader, to judge, whether hee that denieth this so cleere, plaine, and palpable, a truth, be not justly worthy to bee accounted, at least, Ex­treamely audacious, if not extreamely impudent.

14. And yet you would seeme to say further, that S. Peter by his authoritie and commaundement, called the Councell which was at Ierusalem, in the Apostles times, ( Act. 15.) and, that hee was also the President therein. But you prove it not, neyther is there any such thing in the Text appearing, that hee commaunded or called that Councell. Yea, hee had no such commaunding, or compulsive authoritie over the rest of the Apostles. The Greeke Scholiast saith, That hee did nothing imperiously, [...]r. Schol. in Act. 2. or with commaunding authoritie, but all things by com­mon consent. And therefore, in those times of the Apostles, did that Councell at Ierusalem, (Act. 15.6.) come together, and was assembled by common consent, and agreement amongst [Page 67] themselves: But afterward, indeede, in the succeeding times, when the Emperours became Christians, The Ecclesiasticall affaires, (saith Socrates,) did much depend upon them, so that the greatest Councels were in time past, and still are, (saith hee, Socrat. libr. 5. in Prooemio.) at this day, called by their appointment. Neyther was Peter, the first man, that spake in that Councell, (as you affirme, seeking thereby to prove him to bee also the President therein:) For the Text sheweth, that there had beene great disputation, before Peter rose up, and spake, Act. 15.7. Yea, it seemeth, that Iames rather then Pe­ter, was the President in that Councell: For Iames was he, that gave the definitive sentence, Act. 15.19.20. & to that sentence of his, did both Peter, and the rest of that Councell, consent, and condescend, and accordingly, was the decree drawne and made up, in that Councell, and sent unto the Churches, as ap­peareth, Act. 15.22.23 24.25.26.27.28.29. Neyther is it true, that to Preside, or to be President, in Councels, is a right properly belonging to the Pope, whatsoever you say: Yea, it is verie evidently, and abundantly disproved in Ecclesiasticall historie, by sundrie Councels, wherein others, A [...]han. ad so­litar. vitan: a­gentes. and not the Bi­shops of Rome, were the Presidents. And Athanasius himselfe saith expressely, of Hosius, that hee was, in his time, Concilio­rum Princeps, the chiefe, Prince, or President of the Councels.

15. But in my Reply, pag. 30. I said further, that Athana­sius did approve of the Authoritie of the Emperours, in Eccle­siasticall causes: and this I proved by two instances, and not by one onely, (as you say:) The first was this, that when Athanasius was commaunded to conferre, with one Arius, concerning matters of faith: hee answered: Who is so farre out of his wits, that hee dare refuse the commaundement of his Prince? The other, was this. That the Emperours commaundement made him to appeare before the Councell of Tyrus: and finding that coun­cell, not to be indifferent, but partially affected, Hee and the rest of the Orthodoxe Bishops, appealed to the Emperour. To the former you answer nothing at all, in your Rejoynder. To the latter, you speake somewhat, and doe say, that, That which I call the councell of Tyrus, was no councell at all. And this you would prove by the testimonie of Athanasius himselfe, where he saith thus. Qua fronte, talem conventum, Synodum appellare audent, cui [Page 68] comes Praesedit, With what face dare they call such an assembly! a Synod, or Councell, in which the Count did Preside? But doe you thinke this, to be a reason sufficient, to prove it to be no coun­cell at all, or in any sort, because a Count being a Lay-man did Praeside in it, as Deputie, or Lieuftenant to the Emperour, and in his stead? Doth not your selfe say in your Rejoynder, that the Emperour Theodosius the Younger, sent Count Candidianus, as his Lieustenant to the Councell of Ephesus? will you there­fore conclude, that this Councell of Ephesus, was also therefore no Councell at all, because this Count Candidianus, being a lay­man, was President, or Lieuftenant it it, in stead of the Empe­rour? For you may aswell conclude the one, as the other by that reason. Doe not therefore misconster nor mistake, that holy man Athanasius, nor wrong, nor delude your Reader by a fallacie, à dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter. For if you reade him diligently, and observantly, you will finde, that he denyed it not to bee a Councell, simply and absolutely, but in some respects; as, namely, in respect it consisted of Arrian Bishops, and of that Arrian President, and that, their plotte, purpose, and endeavour was to advance Arrianisme, against Gods truth, and the Orthodexe Bishops of that time, and against the decrees of the former famous Councell of Nyce, in that point: and in respect also, that not justice, but vio­lence, or tyranny was there intended, and such like. And this you might have perceived, if you had gone on, with the words of Athanasius, which are these, (viz.) Qua fronte, talem con­ventum, Athan. apolo. 2 pag. 567. Synodum appellare audent, cui Comes praesidet? Et ubi spe­culator apparchat? Et Comentariensis sive Carcerarius, pro Diaco­nis Ecclesiae, adventantes introducebat? ubi Comes verba faciebat, caeteri praesentes in silentio erant, vel potius Comiti obsequium suum, accommodabant, &c. Againe he there saith. Qua species ibi Syno­di, Ibid. p. 566. ubi vel caedes, vel exilium, si Caesari placuisset, constituebatur? And againe hee saith. Niceni Concilij Decreta irrita, sua autem, rata volunt: Et Synodi vocabulo uti audent, qui tantae Synodo non obtem­perant: Nihil illis Synodi curae sunt, sed inanem speciem Synodi prae­texunt, ut sublatis Orthodoxi viris, ea quae verae, & magnae Syno­d [...], Ibid. p. 619. de Arianis, statuta sunt, demoliantur. And therefore hee saith further, thus Quaeres cumita agerentur, ab ijs tanquam è concilio injurioscrum, recessimus. Quod enim libuit, fecere. That whilst these [Page 69] things were thus done, wee saith hee, departed from them, as from a Councell of injurious persons: For they did what they listed: You see then in what respects it is, that Athanasius disliked, and condemned this Councell of Tyrus, 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 thēce 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 A [...]senius, and the [Page 70] cutting of his hand, (as you alledge,) but it was further, the using of that hand, Socrat libr. 1. [...]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, [Page 71] 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 [Page 72] weapons of their warfare, [...]. Cor. 10.4. are not carnall, but 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 [Page 73] 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 [Page 74] the rest of the severall Pastors: For to CHRIST IESVS onely hee attributeth, and appropriateth this tittle, as being his peculiar and prerogative: in asmuch as it is Christ Iesus onely, and not the Bishop of Rome, nor any other man mor­tall whosoever that can give this incorruptible crowne of glorie he there speaketh of. Not the Pope then, nor any other, but CHRIST IESVS onely, appeareth to bee the chiefe or su­preme Pastor, or (which commeth all to one reckoning,) the Vniversall Bishop, over all the severall Bishops, and severall Pastors, dispersed in the world. Your owne translation in this Text of 1. Pet. 5.4. is, Princeps Pastorum, the Prince of Pa­stors: which likewise still sheweth, that not the Pope, but CHRIST IESVS onely, is the supreme Pastor, or the Prince of the severall Pastors dispersed on the face of the Earth. And therefore was it also decreed in the Councell of Carthage 3. ca. 26. that Primae sedis Episcopus, non appelletur Princeps sacerdotum, vel summus sacerdos, aut aliquid huiusmodi, sed tantum primae sedis Episcopus: The Bishop of the first Sea, may not bee called, the Prince of Priests, or the the chiefe Priest, or any such like, but onely Bishop of the first Sea. And Gratian addeth further as touching the title of Vniversall Bishop, Distinct. 99. prim. sed. Neyther let the Bishop of Rome be so called. Now then to come to answere you, also touching Nero, and other Heathen, & persecuting Emperours, and Kings: It is true, that they have the same Civill sword, power, and authoritie committed to them from God, which the Christian Emper­ours, and the Christian Kings have, and to the same end; name­ly, 1. Pet. 2.13.14. Rom. 13.3.4 for the punishment of evill doers, and for the prayse of them that doe well: But if they punish good, and godly men, and well-doers, (as Nero did, when hee put S. Peter, and S. Paul, to death, and as the other Emperours, and Kings doe, which persecute the true and Orthodoxe Christians) This is not the right using, but abusing of the sword and authoritie, commit­ted to them. So that, the power, and authoritie is the same to both: but the difference is in the use, or abuse of that Autho­ritie. All the supremacie, power, and authoritie graunted from God, to any Emperours, Kings, and Princes, within their Dominions, ought to be imployed for God, and not against him, in any sort. And according hereunto, the true Christian [Page 75] 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 th [...]n [Page 76] 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, shalbe bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou loosest on earth shalbe 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, shalbe 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, [Page 77] 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, Ch [...]ysosto. de verbis Esaiae, vidi Dominū 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 Sa­cerlotis [...]h. 2. and which way s [...]ever he plea­seth. Yea, S. Chryso [...]tome saith yet further expressely. That it is not lawfull for a Bishop, to oure men with so great authoritie, as a [Page 78] 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 [Page 79] 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, [Page 80] the power of the Civill and Temporall sword, rightly, & properly belongeth to Emperours, [...]om. 13.1.2 [...].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 [Page 81] 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 [Page 82] 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 [...]ad Celestinū. 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 [Page 83] 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 dominanturijs: vos autem non sic: Luke 22.24 25.26. [...]. Quis eorum Maior. The kings of Nations beare dominion over them, but yee may not doe so, one over another. For, of this was the question, or contention: and therefore of this must the answere bee accordingly understood. These words then doe cleerely declare, that there should bee no Ecclesiasti­call King, or Ecclesiasticall Monarch amongst them, to rule, or raigne over all the rest: although terrestriall Kings and Mo­narches did, and are well allowed to raigne and rule over the people of those Nations, whereof they be Kings. But againe, hath not S. Gregorie himselfe told us long agone, not onely how needelesse and superfluous, but how pernicious also and dan­gerous it was to the whole Church, to admitte of one to bee an universall Bishop, or an Ecclesiasticall Monarch, to rule, Gregorie. and raigne over all the rest? For then, (saith he,) if hee which is the Ecclesiasticall Monarch, or the universall Bishop, doe fall, the whole and universall Church falleth with him. And what Gregory thus spake, and as it were prophecied so long since, was afterward found true and came to passe accordingly, to the lamentable woe of the whole Church, in the succeeding times, by that meanes. Yea the same S. Gregory hath yet further certified us how pernicious, and dangerous this was, and would bee, not [Page 84] onely to the whole Church, but even to himselfe also, that would take upon him, to be the Ecclesiasticall Monarch, or supreme and universall Bishop over all. Gregory. For, (saith hee,) what wilt thou answer unto Christ, who is the true head of the universall Church, in that day of iudgement, when by this name of universall Bishop, thou seekest to subiugate, all the members of his Body unto thy selfe? Whom dost thou imitate herein, save onely him, who in con­tempt of those legions of Angels, which were his fellowes, sought to mount aloft to the top of singularitie, where hee might bee subiect to none, and all others might be subiect unto him. As for the having of Bishops of Dioceses, and Provinces, it no more proveth that therefore there may or must be one universall Bishop, or Ec­clesiasticall Monarch over all: then that, because there be di­vers Kings in divers and severall Kingdomes, therefore there should be one universall King over all the Kings and king­domes in the world. And besides, there were Bishops of Dio­ceses, and Provinces in the times both of Pelagius, and Grego­rie, Bishops of Rome, whom neverthelesse they tooke no ex­ception against, nor disallowed: But him that would take up­on him to be an Ecclesiasticall Monarch, or a supreme and uni­versall Bishop over the whole Church, him they would not endure, but vehemently impugned and detested him, and that not without verie apparant, just, and good cause, as here you see. But, moreover, did you never reade Iohn Gerson de Aufe­ribilitate Papae. What he affirmed in some cases, may generally and absolutely be affirmed: namely, That the Pope may bee utterly abolished, and taken cleane away, & that without any lesse or hurt at all to Christendome, yea to the great, and am­ple good, not onely of Christendome, but of all the world be­side, if the matter be well weighed and rightly and through­ly considered.

18. But touching this point of supremacie, you seeme at last, in words, to appeale to the judgement of the Primitive Church: I would you would doe as you say, and stand to the judgement of it, in verie deede. For I have proved, (which you have not disproved, nor ever will bee able to disprove,) That for the space of eight hundred yeares, and more, after Christ, even the Bishops of Rome themselves, aswell as other [Page 85] Bishops were subject to the Emperours. And that the Chri­stian Emperours, had also authoritie in matters Ecclesiasticall, aswell as Civill and temporall, within their Dominions: and nothing doe you, or can you alledge against it, but what hath beene many and sundrie times sufficiently, & abundantly an­swered, & confuted by the Protestants. As for that Catalogue of Emperours, Kings, and Princes, which you affirme to have beene exemplarily punished in this world by violent, and mi­serable deathes, for oppugning and striving against the Monar­chie and supremacie of the Bishop of Rome, you onely say, & suppose it, but doe not prove it. And it is an overbold part in you, to enter into Gods secret counsels, and to affirme that to be the cause which you know not, nor be able to prove. For there might be, and so no doubt there were other just causes of their punishments. As for the oppugning of the Popes supre­macie that could not be the cause of those or of any other pu­nishments: in asmuch as the grosse wrongs, and utter unlawful­nesse of it, hath before plentifully appeared: and that ney­ther the Pope, nor all his partakers, be able to shew, any com­mission or warrant from God for the approbation of it. Yea, how could the oppugning or contending against the Popes Monarchie and supremacie, be any cause of punishment, when in the holy Scriptures themselves it appeareth, (as in my first Booke I have shewed at large,) that Papall Rome is the whore of Babylon, and that the Pope of Rome, the head, and ruler of that adulterate, and Popish Church, is the verie grand Antichrist? Doe not therefore deceive your selfe, nor others any longer, by mistaking the cause, which is, you know, a fal­lacie, à causa non, ut causa.

Yet you further say, that I am argued by the wisest, in this Enterprize to have discovered in consideratively, much arrogancie of witt, in not well weighing the mayne importance of this difficultie, farre surmounting the ta­lent of a Lawyer. But first, there is no such difficultie in it, Reges Gen­tium domina [...] tur. as you speake of: and this I have formerly declared. Secondly, why doth it surmount, or exceede a Lawyers talent and abi­litie, more in mee, then in you? Wherefore, if I bee, as you say I am,) censured, or argued, by the wisest, of much arro­gancie, [Page 86] because being a Lawyer, I meddle in this matter: Must not those wisest, in all justice, and equitie condemne you like­wise, of much arrogancie, for the same cause? For you have hitherto in your writings, affirmed your selfe to be a Lawyer: & if all this while you neverthelesse be not a Lawyer, you have done your selfe a great deale of discredite and dishonour in affirming it: Neyther can any man then tell, how to beleeve you, in any thing you speake, or write: So that herein you gull not mee, but your selfe, and others. It would therefore best become you, to unmaske your selfe, and to discover your selfe plainely: For you must thinke, howsoever you would conceale your selfe, that you are sufficiently knowne, and goe not invisible. But thirdly, who are those, whom you call and account, the wisest? For there bee some that be wise in their owne conceite: and some that be Antichristianly wise, and some that bee worldly wise: 1. Cor. 3.19. whose wisedome is, as S. Paul af­firmeth it, foolishnesse with God. For, hath not God, (saith hee,) made the wisedome of this world, 1. Cor. 1.20. foolishnesse? The world accoun­teth the wisedome of God to bee foolishnesse. But, hee saith, that the foolishnesse of God, is wiser then men: and the weakenesse of God, 1. Cor. 1.25. stronger then men. The wisest men, then, doubtlesse bee those, that humbly submit all their learning, and wise­dome, to Gods word, and wisedome, and that bee divinely, and Christianly wise: as for the rest, they must, (as the same S. Paul teaceth them, 1. Cor 3.18.) become fooles, that they may bee wise. Whatsoever therefore you say: I beleeve, that which Christ Iesus himselfe hath spoken, to bee true, and that it will ever bee found verified, Luke 7.35. (videlicet,) That wisedome is iustified of all her Children. But lastly, what arrogancie eyther of wit, or learning, doe I shew, or discover, when I neyther brag nor boast of eyther: and when I further, franckly and freely confesse in all my Bookes, that such matter, as is therein con­tayned, I have learned of others, and so attribute nothing to my selfe? The wit, and learning I have, how small, slender, or meane soever you, or others, esteeme it, I thanke God for it: and doe humbly pray him, to give mee the Grace, to use, and imploy it to his honour, and glorie, and not to mine owne. Yea, how weake or meane soever it bee, in respect [Page 87] of it selfe, yet such is the strength of the cause which I defend, and the strength of the Almightie who hath enabled mee in it, and to whom, I give all the thankes, and the glorie, Psal. 4.13. as that it now appeareth, I hope to everie understanding, equall, and judicious Person, to bee undoubtedly victorious, and triumphant. Hereafter therefore I shall not neede to write any more in it, which is now made thus manifest, cleere, ap­parant, and invincible. So that everie man, that will speake truely, may s [...] of it, that Magna est veritas & praevalet. God open our eyes, (if it bee his will,) and inlighten all our understandings, that wee may all see and know his truth, acknowledge, reverence, embrace, and professe it, and walke in the wayes of it evermore. AMEN.