A REPLY TO AN ANSWER MADE BY A POPISH ADVERSARY, TO the two Chapters in the first part of that Book, which is entitled a Friendly Advertisement to the pretended Catholics in Ireland.  
WHEREIN, Those two points; concerning his Majejesties' SUPREMACY, and the RELIGION, established by the Laws and Statutes of the Kingdom, be further justified and defended against the vain cavils and exceptions of that Adversary:  
By CHRISTOPHER SIBTHORP, Knight, one of His Majesty's justices of His Court of Chief Place within the same Realm.  PROVER. 24.21. 
Fear the Lord, & the King: & meddle not with them that are seditious.  
DUBLIN, Printed by the Society of STATIONER ●● Anno Domini. 1625.   

TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE, MY VERY GOOD LORD, HENRY, LORD VISCOUNT FAULKLAND, LORD DEPUTY of Ireland.  
AT the divulging of my former Book, (Right Honourable), there were many great and vaunting speeches uttered by the pretended Catholics, as if forthwith, or at least, very speedily, it should have been fully and sufficiently answered. And indeed within a while after, came forth an answer, not to the whole Book, but only to a part thereof; namely, to the first two Chapters contained in the first part of it, made by one that calleth himself john at Style: who knowing (as it seemeth), the weakness of his own answer, therein promised, a better and further answer, that should then shortly come forth to the whole Book: which should be so substantially done, as that it should be suitable and correspondent to the three Conditions required by me. This manner of answer, to the whole book, promised so long since, is the thing that I have all this while expected; & in expectation whereof, I have hitherto deferred to publish a Reply to any other answer. But having now thus long expected it in vain, & not knowing when it will appear, or whether ever, or never: I think it not amiss, in the interim, to reply to that answer, which marcheth and masketh under the name of john at Style, as having no other, nor better, as yet, to reply unto. Where, first of all, it were fit to learn, what this man's right and proper name is. But because he is so loath to declare it, I care not much to know it; for it is not somuch the man, as the matter he delivereth, that I regard. Howbeit, for his own credit, and the credit of his cause, (if any credit had belonged unto it), it had been much better for him to have put no name at all unto that his work, than a wrong, false, and counterfeit name, as he hath done. For, if in the very first entrance, he thus misdemeaneth himself, and feareth not to utter so great an untruth: What good dealing, or sincere truth, may we expect from him, in the residue of his discourse? Wherein also, whilst he strove to make more haste then good speed, he hath showed himself to be, like canis festinans, caecos edens catulos. For, howsoever he thrusteth himself forward, and will needs take upon him, to be johannes ad oppositum: yet he speaketh very little, or nothing ad propositum. Insomuch, that sundry, by reason of the futility and frivolousnes of that his answer, have thought it not worthy or meet to be replied unto. Nevertheless, because all be not of that understanding and judgement, as to be able to discern the frivolousnes and weakness of it: and that the pretended Catholics, do, for their parts, so highly esteem, approve, and applaud it, (for Regnat inter caecos Luscus): and for that I am also, therein, so particularly touched and taxed: but chief and especially, for that God's Religion, and his Majesty's Supremacy, (which two things ought ever to be most dear unto us all,) be there purposely and professedly encountered and oppugned: I could do no less, in good duty, and for all these respects, but make and publish this my Reply unto it: for the further confirmation of the Protestants in those two main and most weighty points: & for the further confutation also, & conviction of the Papists, & making them yet more and more inexcusable, if after so clear & abundant evidence of truth, (and consequently against all good Conscience,) they will still be wilful, stubborn, and unreformed herein: which yet I trust they will not be. For, they know, that durum est contra stimulos calcitrare: 
Act. 9.5. Act 5.29, Proverb. 21.30.  and that there is no hope, that ever they shall or can prevail, that be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, Fighters and Contenders against God, and his Religion, or any of his Sacred and Divine Ordinances. Yea, in such a case, what is fit, then duro nodo, durus cuneus? And so saith Tertullian, 
Tertul. lib. cont. Gnostic. cap 21. Aug. Epist. 48. & Epist. 204.  that duritia vincenda est, non suadenda; and this rule S. Augustine also giveth & teacheth, that, men in error, are first to be taught, admonished and instructed; but if after all this, they will notwithstanding (without any ground of sufficient reason), be and continue perverse and obstinate, then must terror, punishment, and coactive Laws, be put in execution, for the reclaiming of them. For, Qui Phreneticum ligat & Lethargicum excitat, ambobus molestus, ambos amat, saith the same S. Augustine. But of this point concerning the authority of the Regal & Civil sword, and power coactive, to be extended against refractory and contemptuous offenders, (aswell in matters Ecclesiastical, and touching Religion, as in matters temporal, and concerning the Commonwealth), more is spoken in my former Book, and in this also afterward, upon occasion given by mine Adversary: and therefore I shall not need, here to speak any further of it, especially to your Lordship, whose wisdom can, and doth easily perceive, not only how lawful, but how expedient, requisite, and necessary also it is, to be extended and used in his due time and place. These things, (Right Honourable), I am humbly bold to Dedicate unto your Lordship: Both, because unto you it is, that under his most Excellent Majesty, the chief care of matters concerning the good of this Kingdom, doth appertain: And because also, such is known to be your noble and pious disposition, as that a work of this sort, you are ever most ready and willing to accept and patronise. God (if it be his will) convert the Papists of this Kingdom from their errors, to his truth: and preserve your Lordship to his glory, the good of his Church, the benefit of this Commonweal, and to the increase of your own honour in this life, and to your everlasting happiness in the life to come, through JESUS CHRIST. Amen.  
Your Lordships humble at Commandment, Christopher Sibthorp.   

TO THE Reader.  
I Doubt not, (courteous Reader), but you well remember, that, in the conclusion of my former Book, I desired of him that would make Answer thereunto, these three things: First, that he would answer it, not by parts or peece-meales, but wholly and entirely, from the beginning of it, to the end. Secondly, that he would do it, not superficially and sophistically, but substantially, sound, and satisfactorily, if he could. Thirdly, I desired him to do it, as in love and Charity, so also with an affection, only to follow God's truth; and withal to set his name unto it, as I had done to that Book of mine. But none of these requests hath this Answerer been pleased to perform towards me. For, touching the first: he is so fare from answering the whole Book, from the beginning of it to the end, that he hath endeavoured to answer only two Chapters thereof, namely the two Chapters, contained in the first part of it, and no more: And whereas secondly I desired, a sound, sufficient, and satisfactory Answer to be made; he hath answered even to those two Chapters, (which himself selected to make answer unto,) very slightly, slenderly and superficially, and in no sort substantially, sound and satisfactory as shall afterward appear. And touching my third request, which consisteth of divers branches, let any man judge, that hath seen and read his Answer, whether it be made, (as I desired) in a good, loving and Charitable manner, which would best have beseemed him: or, in a scoffing and deriding fashion, in sundry places thereof, which doth no way become him: as also whether he hath done it, with this affection, only to follow God's truth, or with an affection rather, to follow and advance man's errors and Constitutions, against a manifest divine truth: and lastly, what reason he had, not only, not to set his own right and true name unto it, but in steed thereof, to set a false, fictitious and counterfeit name, calling himself, john at Stile. What? Is he ashamed of his own right name? Or do any use to get credit by putting a wrong name to their work? But this is indeed, Dignum patella operculum: a false and counterfeit name, being fittest, & most suitable to a false and counterfeit cause, which is the thing he maintaineth.  
Howbeit, as one desirous to excuse himself herein, he saith, that my requiring of the Answerer to put his name unto the Answer, is in effect as much, as to debar any man from answering unto it: because of the Statute of 2. Elizabeth, which doth, (saith he), bind men's tongues and pens within this Kingdom, with the cord of a Praemunire, from oppugning the Supremacy, either by word or writing. Whereunto I reply, that he that in answering is required to put his name to his answer, is so fare from being debarred from answering, that clean contrariwise, he is thereby permitted to answer, (if he please), so as he put his name thereunto. Neither doth that Statute of 2. Eliz. in this Kingdom, inflict the penalty of a Praemunire for the first offence, 
See the Statute of 2. Eliz. c. 1. in Ireland.  as he surmiseth, but only loss of goods and Chattels. It is indeed, after once conviction, for the second offence, a Praemunire: and for the third, High Treason. If then the penalty of a Praemunire, by that Statute, be the thing he feared, you see there was no cause for him to fear it, he being never before convicted or attainted of that offence. And is it not strange, that he being a Lawyer, (as he saith he is,) and one of those, (as he likewise affirmeth,) that were debarred from pleading, for not taking the Oath of Supremacy, should nevertheless be so ignorant in his own profession, concerning that Statute, (although himself also cite it,) as not to know what the penalty is, for the first offence therein? May not then his own words be here rightly returned to his own bosom, that seeing, in his own faculty he showeth no greater skill; Can it be imagined, that going out of his own element, into the great City of Divinity, he will do any more, than the fish on the shore, to gasp a little for air? But admit, that for the first offence upon that Statute, the penalty had been a Praemunire, as he conceived: Will he therefore be so faint-hearted, in that his supposed Catholic cause? How doth this agree with that, which he saith afterward, that an Angel or a Man, is bound by the instinct of Nature, to love God better than themselves? Yea, he observeth that in the Natural body of Man, the hand will be content to lose itself, for the preservation of the head, and of the rest of the members: And that in the Politic Body of the Commonweal, any good Subject will embrace death for the conservation of his King, and the Commonweal: and thereupon he concludes, that so also should any good Christian member of the Mystical body of Christ, willingly undergo all disasters in the world, in attestation of his love to Christ, and of his willingness to preserve the honour and common good of his Church. And this motive, (saith he, in that his Epistle Dedicatory,) made him, (though a Lawyer,) to interpose himself, for the defence of the Mystical Body of Christ, and to answer, as he hath done, in the behalf thereof. Now then doth it become him, who seemeth here to be so magnanimous and courageous in his cause, to show himself nevertheless so extremely timorous, as for fear of a Praemunire, not to dare to set his right and true name unto that his Answer?  
Yea, the premises being well considered, what reason hath he to tax me, (as sometimes he doth,) for that being a Lawyer by profession, I nevertheless meddle in these matters of Divinity, and concerning Religion? For, I gave before, as I think, a sufficient Apology for these my doings, in the Preface of my former Book which he answereth not, nor is able to answer. And here I now may and do further add, that even this Man, (mine Adversary) hath by his own example justified me; inasmuch as he being likewise a Lawyer, (as himself affirmeth), doth nevertheless, (as you see,) by his answering those two Chapters in my Book, meddle in these matters of Divinity, and concerning Religion, aswell as I. And not only his personal example, but the doctrine also, and reason he delivereth, (namely, that every good member of the Mystical body of Christ, aught to interpose himself, for the defence of the honour of Christ, & of his Church,) serveth very strongly to justify my doings herein, not only as lawful, but as requisite and necessary, and such as in duty ought not to be omitted. But moreover, why doth he Dedicate that his Answer, being a work of Divinity, to his dearest Countrymen, The Lawyers of Ireland, if Lawyers had nothing to do in these matters of Divinity, or if the knowledge of things of that kind, did not belong unto them? Yea, who knoweth not, that Lawyers, and men of all professions and estates, have souls to save; and that at the hour of their death, it is not their skill or knowledge in Law, Physic, or any other their worldly callings & professions, (which serve only but for this life,) that can do them that good, or yield them that comfort touching the next world & eternal happiness, that the knowledge of Divinity, and of God's true Religion, and the care and observance thereof, in their life time, will be able to afford.  
But being debarred from pleading, for not taking the oath of Supremacy, he saith, he was desirous to read, what  arguments I had made to invest the King with the supremacy: & finding them, (as Belshazzar, being weighed was found, in the Prophecy of Daniel,) minus habens, that is, too light, 
Dan. 5.27.  he saith he was encouraged to answer them. But first, how cometh he now to answer any part of my Book, who had said before in the same his Epistle Dedicatory, that he presented it to some of the most learned of his catholic Clergy, & that none of them after a mature deliberation, held it worthy of an answer? what? will he think it worthy of an answer, which those of the most learned of his Catholic clergy thought it not worthy of? Secondly, if he had weighed my arguments, not with false Romish weights, but with true & divine weights, that is, in such a balance, as God weighed Belshazzar, he would have found them weighty enough, though Belshazzar was found light. Thirdly, little reason hath he to call & account those argument's light, somewhereof be such, as he dares not touch nor meddle with them, but doth, as children use to do, who, what they cannot read, they skip over: So, what he can no way answer, he pretermitteth: & those which he dare be bold to touch, do nevertheless show themselves to be of that weight and strength, as that he is not able to stir, or move them, much less to remove them, or to lift them up from that ground, whereon they rest. Himself doth what he can, to answer them; yet distrusting his own Answer, as minus habens, (to use his own words against him,) that is, as being too light, weak, and insufficient, he promiseth a more satisfying Answer that should afterward come forth from those that have more Law and Divinity, then either he, or I. Yea, he saith again, That my Book shall be shortly answered, in my own strain of Divinity, with the three conditions required by me. So that, both by this his own answer, as also by that further future promised answer, it is very c●●dent, that howsoe●●● in words, he and his partakers would ●●●me to slight any ●●●ke, & the matter therein contained, ye● revera, and indeed, they think the force and strength of it to be such, against both Pope, and Popery, as that they can have ●o●●, nor quiet in their minds, until they have made, (which they whenever be able to do,) a good, sufficient, and satisfactory Answer thereunto. As for that he saith, that if in steed thereof, I had made a  Compendium of the Law, I had gained an applause: I would have him know, that neither in this kind of learning, nor in any other, do I seek o● hunt after ostentation, vainglory, popular applause, or praise of men, (which be the things, that Papists in their writings do too much affect,) but both in that my former work, & in this also, the things that I sought & still do seek after, is God's glory, & the advancement, & preferment of his truth & religion, & the due authority, & true honour belonging to our most gracious, & most godly & Christian Sovereign, which was then K. james, & is now K. Charles his most worthy successor, whom God ever bless, protect, & preserve: & therewithal the general & public benefit both of Church and Commonweal. I grant that my profession and place, would have allowed me, to have written of points of Law, and concerning Civil justice, and external Peace: But I have rendered the reason in the Epistle Dedicatory of my former Book, why I meddled not with those things, Namely, because the pretended Catholics of this Kingdom, in those points, shown no refractariness or opposition, but good conformity and obedience: And, that, their defect was only in the two other points, (viz.) Concerning the King's Supremacy, and the Religion: whereof therefore, there then was, & still is, greatest need, and most urgent occasion to treat. Wherefore, he that in such a Case, would rather have had a Compendium of the Law, than these two most necessary, and most important matters to be dealt in for the general good of the kingdom, seemeth in my understanding, to have made a great dispendium of his wit and judgement.  
Nevertheless he proceedeth, and saith, that because he cannot command the Press, he will employ his endeavours, to answer, in a Manuscript, my first Book; (he meaneth the first part of my Book, containing those two Chapters aforesaid:) But what necessity was there for him thus to publish his Answer in a Manuscript, which he might have put in Print, if he had so pleased? For, although he could not command the Protestants Press (neither was it fit, he should), yet the Press, which some say, the Papists have of their own, within this kingdom, he might have either commanded or entreated: or if they have no Press within this kingdom, he might have sent or carried his Answer unto Douai, or to Rheims, or to some other place beyond the Seas, where it might have been printed, if they had held it worthy the Printing. Seeing then that he might have printed it; Why did he rather choose to divulge it in a Manuscript? Did he think, that by that course used, he might the more freely speak and write what he listed, and that no man would answer or reply unto it, though he be never so much touched in it, or be the cause, therein handled, of never so great importance? But what reason is there for any man, to claim, expect, or to be allowed such a privilege? Yea, inasmuch as men's hearts may be poisoned, and seduced, aswell by Manuscripts, and written Books and Pamphlets, as by those that be Printed, especially after they be once scattered and dispersed abroad, (as this his Answer is), into divers men's hands, and are withal supposed by the pretended Catholics, (for whose sake all that labour is bestowed), to contain nothing but truth: I see not but I may be as bold to reply to his Manuscript, in Print, (the cause also so requiring), as he made bold to answer a part of my Printed Book, in a Manuscript. And therefore have I here replied unto it, partly in respect of myself, whom it concerneth to justify, and make good the matter contained in those two Chapters of my former Book, which he oppugneth: and partly in respect of himself, who seemeth to be ●●o● suffertus, & over highly conceited of himself, 
Prover. 26.5.  whom therefore Solomon in his Proverbs adviseth to answer: and partly & chiefly in respect of the pretended Catholics of this Nation, whom by that means he seeketh to seduce & abuse, in the p●ints both of his Majesty's Supremacy, & the Religion: Both which points, (they being so high and eminent), it behooveth all good Christians, and all good Subjects, evermore carefully & dutifully to defend and maintain. As for that godly, learned, Reverend, and worthy Bishop of Meath, whom my Adversary mentioneth in his Epistle Dedicatory: I shall need to say nothing of him, because himself will ever be best able to speak for himself, whensoever any shall show themselves in opposition against him.  
But to proceed with mine Adversary, if he be, (as he saith he is) debarred from pleading for not taking the Oath of Supremacy; Whom can he blame therein, but himself, for his so unjust refusing to take so just an Oath? Against which throughout all his answer, himself neither showeth, nor is able to show any good exception: which, no doubt, he would there have showed, where the Supremacy was purposely debated, if he had been able to have showed it. But to make him yet the more in excusable, (if he will still be obstinate, which I would have, neither him, nor any others to be), I have here further, and at large declared, the right of the King's Supremacy, over all manner of Persons, and in all kinds of causes, Ecclesiastical aswell as Civil, for his, & all other men's most ample and most full satisfaction in that point. And yet my Adversary saith, That he will Arm himself with little Divinity, and less Philosophy, to enter the lists against me: which though it be spoken, (after the Papistical manner), proudly, scornfully, and like another Goliath; yet therein he speaketh truer than he was ware of. For not to speak of his Philosophy, (which he showeth indeed to be very little), this my Reply to his Answer, will discover him to be as very a Puny in Divinity, (as touching any good skill, or found judgement, in it), as he is in Law. In somuch that upon reading of this Book, his answer will appear to be as good as no Answer, yea that it had been better for his cause, if he had been silent, and spoken nothing in it: Such is the advantage that truth ever getteth against falsehood, when falsehood dare be so bold, to stand in opposition against it. As for the multitude of his idle words, his many needless Sillogismes, his extravagant sentences, and impertinent discourses, I pass them over, for the most part, not vouchsafing an Answer to them: they being inserted, but to fill up paper, to misspend time, and vainly to delight and please himself, and his followers. But where he hath alleged any thing that 〈◊〉 material, and pertinent to the cause, and of weight, or moment, to that have I answered and replied, as was fit I should. In which my reply, I have considered him, not as he is john at Style, (for in that respect, john at Down, had been fittest to reply unto him) but as one that is an Adversary to that Cause I propounded in my former Book, whatsoever his name, or profesion be. And therefore do I not so much answer the Man, as the matter by him objected and alleged.  
Now then, although these be the Works of a Layman, yet if you find truth in them, esteem them never the worse, because of that: For, non quis dicat, sed quid dicatur, attend: saith Isocrates to Demonicus. And, 
Gerson de exam. doctr Panor. tit. de Elect. Ca●●gnificasti.  Saepè etiam est Holitor valde opportuna locutus. And you know also, who taught to this effect, that plus credendum est vel simplici Laico, Scripturam●● proferenti, quam, vel Papae, vel toti simul Concilio. For my part, I desire no further to be believed, then that shall be found true that I writ: neither ought any others in their writings, (he they professed Divines, or whosoever else,) any further to be believed, then so. And yet if that would any thing the more prevail with the pretended Catholics, I can assure them, that the Positions and Doctrine in both these Books of mine delivered, be the Positions, and Doctrine, not only of one, but of many (and those learned) professed Divines, as is to be seen at large in their sundry works and writings, extant against the Papists: which the Papists were never yet able, nor ever will be able substantially and sound to refel, and confute. And therefore, I have no cause to be ashamed of my Teachers, but do think it rather honour and reputation, freely, ingeniously, and thankfully, to acknowledge, as I do, where, & of whom, I have learned these things. But, having thus answered his Epistle Dedicatory, I now proceed to that which followeth.   


Of the first Chapter of the former Book, Concerning the Sapremacie.  
MY Adversary, before he cometh to answer to that Chapter in the first part of my former Book, concerning the Supremacy, busieth himself much to declare two Positions: The first is, that the Regal & Priestly powers or Offices, be distinct: and for proof of this, he citeth Gelasius, and some other testimonies. But why doth he thus trouble himself in vain? For this the Protestants do confess, namely, that the Prince-hood, and Priesthood; the Regal and Episcopal Powers or Offices, be things distinct: So that neither the King may administer, or execute that which is proper or peculiar to the Office of Bishops, Pastors, or Ministers Ecclesiastical; nor on the other side, may any Bishop, Pastor, or Minister, by virtue of that his Ecclesiastical office or calling, intrude, or take upon him, the use or exercise of the Civil, or Temporal sword which rightly and properly belongeth to Kings and Princes, 
Rom. 13.4.  and to such as have that authority derived from them. And therefore doth S. Chrysostome, (distinguishing their Offices) say: Ille cogit, hic exhortatur: 
Chrysost. hom. 4. de verb Esai. V●ai Dom.  Ille habet arma sensibilia, hic arma spiritualia: The King compelleth, the Priest exhorteth: The King hath sensible weapons, the Priest hath spiritual weapons. According whereunto, S. Paul also saith of himself, and of all Ecclesiastical Ministers, 
2. Cor. 10.4.  That the weapons of their warfare, are not carnal, but mighty through God. It is true (which my adversary saith), that the subject, on which the spiritual authority worketh, is the 〈◊〉 of man: and the subject on which the Regal or Temporal authority worketh, is the body of man: But this difference, maketh nothing for him, as touching the point in Question: For all men know it, and himself will confess it, (if he be not extremely perverse), that it is not the Souls of men, but their Bodies, that the King by his Regal authority worketh upon, and which he commandeth, and externally compelleth to duty, and good obedience (if otherwise they will not become obedient: (Neither doth he punish any offenders in Ecclesiastical causes, Ecclesiastically, and by Church Censures, (as Bishops, and Ecclesiastical Ministers, do), but Civilly, & in a Temporal manner, as, namely, by fining, imprisonment, banishment, and such like corporal & pecuniary punishments, as properly belong to the Regal & Temporal authority, to inflict. But, mine adversary saith further, that the end whereat the Regal authority aimeth, is correspondency of humane society: witness, (saith he). S. Paul: ut quietam & tranquillam vitam agamus: But why doth he leave out the other words, that follow, namely, In omni pietate, & c? Take all the words of S. Paul together, and they be these: I exhort, (saith he) that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, 
1. Tim. 2.1.2.  and giving of thankes, be made for all men; for Kings, and all that are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in all godliness and honesty. By which words so put together, it appeareth, That S. Paul would have Christians to pray thus specially for Kings, and Princes, not only to this end, which my Adversary supposeth, (viz.) for the mantainance and preservation of external peace, and correspondency of humane society; but to this end also, (and that chiefly), that Piety, Godliness, and Religion, may, by their means, be continued, countenanced, and protected amongst them. And this had the Christian Emperors learned, in ancient time For, justinian, that Christian Emperor, in his days, 
Novel. Const. 6.  spoke thus: The true Religion of God, and honest conversation of the Priests, is our chiefest care. 
Legum Theod. No●●el. tit. 3. de Inhaere & Samaritaine.  And in this sort likewise spoke Valentinian, and Theodosius, Emperors, saying: The search of true Religion, we find to be the chiefest care of the Imperial Majesty. And therefore also did S. Augustine say long agone, That it is enjoined Kings from God, 
Aug. contr. Crescun lib. 3 cap ●1  that in their kingdoms, they should command good things, and forbidden evil things, not only such things as belong to humane society, but such things also as belong to God's Religion. This clear and most evident testimony of S. Augustine, to declare the authority of Kings, aswell in matters Divine, and concerning Religion, as in matters Civil, & Temporal, I alleged in the first Chapter of my former Book, pag. 10. whereunto nevertheless, as to many other things in my book contained, My Adversary is pleased to answer nothing.  
The second Position he busieth himself in, is that the Regal Power or authority, is subordinate to the Sacerdotal or Spiritual. It is true, that Kings & Princes, notwithstanding their Regal power, be subordinate and subject to God, and his authority. But what of this? Indeed, if Ecclesiastical Ministers spoke to Kings and Princes, in their own names, and by their own authority, and uttered their own will and pleasure, there might be some reason in that which he would conclude: but seeing they are to speak unto them, not their own will, but the will and word of the Almighty, and in his Name, and as Ambassadors, Ministers, Messengers, and servants unto him, no such consequent can be inferred. 
2. Cor 5 20. 1 Cor. 4 1.2.  For if a King send an Esquire, or any other inferior servant of his, on a message, to a Duke, Earl, or other Nobleman of the Realm: This servant speaking in the King his Master's name, and delivering his message, is therein to be obeyed: Will any thereupon conclude, Ergo, That Esquire or servant, is greater, or superior, as in respect of himself, or of his own person, then either the Duke or the Earl, or the Nobleman? No man, I think, will be so absurd. And yet my Adversary goeth on, and amplifieth the Sacerdotal, and spiritual power, saying: That how much the Soul in perfection exceeds the Body: The eternal bliss, the temporal felicity: The Divine Laws, the humane laws: By somuch doth the Spiritual authority exceed the Temporal. But all this while, he should remember and observe, wherein, and in what respects, it is, that this excellency of the one, above the other, doth consist. For as it is true, that in respect of converting souls, and fitting them for God's kingdom, by preaching of God's Word, Administering of the Sacraments, and exercise of the Ecclesiastical Discipline; the Spiritual function, and authority is to be preferred, before the Regal or temporal: So no less true is it, that in respect of the temporal Power of the Sword, externally to command, compel, and to punish offenders, in causes both Ecclesiastical, and Civil, the Regal & Temporal, Office, and Authority, is to be preferred before the Episcopal, or Sacerdotal. When therefore he supposeth, that the King or Prince, in respect of the Priest, is but as the body is, in respect of the Soul; and that he hath no more power and authority, over Priests and Bishops, than the body hath over the Soul: How doth he prove this fond conceit? For it is not the credit or testimony of his S. Thomas, (as he calleth him,) who lived more than 1200. years after CHSIST, and was overwhelmed with the corruption of his time, and wedded to the Sea of Rome, that can be any sufficient proof of that idle fantazie: Yea, it is apparent that to some purposes, the Regal Power, & Office, hath in it, the nature, and resemblance of the soul, aswell as the Sacerdotal, or Episcopal hath, to some other purposes. For as the soul commandeth the body, so hath the King, power to command the Priest, and may by as good right, punish all manner of offenders, Civilly, and by temporal punishments, as Bishops and Clergy men may punish any Ecclesiastically, and by the Church censures. To make this the better to appear, beside that which is spoken in my former Book, observe, first, that Moses, who was as a King or a Prince in Israel, commanded, not only the Levites, 
Deut. 33.5. Deut. 31. 2●.26.  which bore the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, and that in a matter Ecclesiastical, and concerning their very Office: but he commanded also, even Aaron, the high Priest, in a matter likewise Ecclesiastical, and concerning his very Office, saying thus unto him: Take the Censer, 
Numb. 16. 46.4●  and put fire therein off the Altar, and put therein Incense: and go quickly unto the Congregation, & make an Atonement for them: For there is wrath gone out from the Lord, the plague is begun. Then Aaron took, as Moses commanded him, etc. He, 
Exod. 32.21 2●  moreover, called Aaron, the high Priest, to an account, for his bad doings, and removed him for the same: Whereupon Aaron answered humbly, and submissively unto him as to his Sovereign Lord, saying: Let not the wrath of my Lord wax fierce, etc. 
Numb. 12.11.  In like sort did Aaron speak unto Moses in another place, saying: My Lord, I beseech thee, etc. 
1. Sam. 22.12.15  So did also Abimelech the high Priest, answer to his king submissively and dutifully, saying thus unto him: Here am I, my Lord, etc. Let not the King impute any thing to his servant, nor to all the house of my Father, for thy servant knew nothing of all this, less or more. The Prophets likewise, as well as the Priests, and high Priests, did acknowledge this humble submission and subjection unto their kings: as is evident by the example of the Prophet Nathan; who when he came into the presence of the King, 
1. King. 1 23. etc.  he made obeisance to the king, upon his face to the ground, etc.  
joshua, the successor of Moses did likewise, as a King or Prince, command even the Priests and Levites, aswell as the rest of the people: as appeareth by the acclamation and answer they made unto him, 
Iosh. 1.17.18.  saying thus: As we obeyed Moses in all things, so will we obey thee, etc. Whosoever shall rebel against thy commandment, and will not obey thy words, in all that thou commandest him, let him be put to death. 
Iosh 6.6. Iosh 5 3.4. Iosh. 5.10. Iosh. 7.24.25. Iosh 8 30. Iosh. 8.34.35.  And it is further manifest that he also dealt in matters Ecclesiastical aswell as Temporal: for, he would have the children of Israel to be Circumcised, and the Passeover to be kept, and the Man that had offended in the excommunicate thing, to be punished. He also builded an Altar for their sacrifices & offerings: He read the whole Law unto them, the blessings and cursings: There was not a word of all that Moses had commanded, which joshua read not before all the Congregation of Israel, aswell before the Women, and the Children, as the stranger that was conversant among them. He renewed the Covenant between God and the people, and caused them to put away the strange Gods that were amongst them: 
Iosh. 24.23.24.25.31.  Insomuch that by his diligent care, and good government, Israel served the Lord, all the days of joshua.  
Likewise of that Godly King josiah, it is recorded, that he commanded the high Priest, aswell as the other Priests, and dealt in matters also Ecclesiastical, and concerning God's service and Religion For, thus it is written of him: That he commanded Hilkiah the high Priest, 
2 King. 23.4.  and the priests of the second Order, and the keepers of the Door, to bring out of the Temple of the Lord all the vessels that were made for Baal, and for the Grove, and for all the Host of heaven; and he burnt them without jerusalem, in the fields of Kedron, 
2 King. 23.5.  and carried the powder of them into Bethel. And he put down the Chemarims, whom the kings of juda had founded to burn incense in the high places, and in the Cities of juda, and about jerusalem: and also them that burned incense unto Baal, to the Sun, and to the Moon, and to the Planets, and to all the Host of heaven, etc. He commanded also the Passeover to be kept, etc. He purged juda and jerusalem, 
vers. 21.  from the high places, the Groves, and the carved and molten Images: Yea, 
2 Chro. 34. vers. 3.4.7.33.  he took away all the abominations out of all the countries that pertained to the Children of Israel, ● compelled all that were found in Israel, to serve the Lord their God. Had not also King Solomon authority over the Priests and Levites, and did not he likewise deal in matters Ecclesiastical, and concerning Religion, when he set the courses of the Priests to their offices, according to the order of David his Father, 
2. Chro. 8.14.15  & the Levites in their watches, to praise and minister before the Priests every day, and the Porters by their courses at every Gate: For so was the commandment of David, the man of God? And the Text saith, That they declined not from the commandment of the King, concerning the Priests, and the Levites, etc. He removed also Abiathar, from being priest unto the Lord, and set Sadoc in his room. 
1. King. 2.27.35 1 King 8.22.23 24.25.26.27.  He also builded an house and Temple unto God: and did dedicate the Temple in his own person.  
Did not also King Asa meddle with men, and matters Ecclesiastical, 
2 Chro. 14.3.4.5  when he took away the Altars of the strange Gods, and the high places, and broke down the Images, and cut down the groves, and commanded juda to seek the Lord God of their Fathers, and to do according to the Law & commandment, etc. Therefore the kingdom was quiet before him. And he took an oath of all juda, that, Whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel, should be slain, whether he were small, or great, Man or Woman: And they swore unto the Lord, with a loud voice, and with shouting, and with Trumpets, and with Cornets: And all juda rejoiced at the Oath: 
2 Chron 15.12 13 14.15.16. etc.  for they had sworn unto the Lord with all their heart, and sought him with an whole desire, and he was found of them: He also deposed Maachah his Mother, from her regency, because she had made an Idol in a Grove: and he broke down her Idol, and stamped it, and burned it, at the brook Kidron.  
King jehosaphat did the like, when he sought the Lord God of his Fathers, 
2. Chron. 17.3 4 5.6.7.8.9.  and walked in his commandments, and not after the doings of Israel. Therefore the Lord established the kingdom in his hand. And all juda brought to jehosaphat presents: and he had riches and honour in abundance. And he lift up his heart unto the ways of the Lord. Moreover, he took away the high Places, and Groves out of juda. He also sent his Princes, and with them, Priests, and Levites, to teach in the Cities of juda, & they taught in juda, & had the Book of the Law of the Lord with them, and went throughout all the Cities of juda, 
●. Chron. 19, 8.  and taught the people. Again, in jerusalem, jehosaphat set of the Levites, and of the Priests, and of the chief of the Families of Israel, for the judgement and cause of the Lord, etc.  
Did not also that good and Godly king Hezekiah, show his authority over Priests and Levites, 
2. Chron. 29 3 4.5.6.7.8.9.10 11 12.13.14.15.16  and in matters also Ecclesiastical, when he opened the doors of the house of the Lord, and brought in the Priests and the Levites, and said thus unto them? Hear me, ye Levites, sanctify now your selves, and sanctify the house of the Lord God of your fathers, and carry forth the filthiness out of the Sanctuary, etc. And they gathered their brethren, and sanctified themselves, and came according to the commandment of the King, and by the words of the Lord, to cleanse the house of the Lord: And the Priests went into the inner parts of the house of the Lord to cleanse it, and brought out all the uncleanness that they found in the Temple into the Court of the house of the Lord: And the Levites took it, to carry it out, to the brook Kidron. He also commanded the Priests, 
Vers. 21. 2●.  the Sons of Aaron, to offer sacrifices, on the Altar of the Lord: And he sent to all Israel, and juda, & wrote Letters to Ephraim, and Manasseh, that they should come to the house of the Lord at jerusalem, to keep the Passeover, unto the Lord God of Israel: He appointed the courses of the Priests and Levites, 
2. Chron. 30.1.  by their turns, every man according to his Office, 
2 Chron. 31.2.  both Priests and Levites, for the  offerings, to Minister and to give thankes, and to praise in the Gates of the Tents of the Lord: He also took away the high Places, 
2. King. 18.41  and broke the Images, and cut down the Groves, and broke in pieces the brazen Serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days, did the Children of Israel burn incense to it.  
Yea, read the history of all, & every one of the Godly kings of Israel, and juda, and you will find, that they all, as Supreme governors, within their own Dominions, commanded aswell the Priests, as the people, and dealt in matters Ecclesiastical and concerning Religion, aswell as in matters Civil and Temporal. Why then should not Christian Kings and Princes have the like Authority within their Kingdoms, which those good and Godly kings of Israel, and juda had within theirs? Will any say that those Kings of Israel, and juda, dealt in those matters Ecclesiastical, by the counsel and advise of the Prophets, and the Priests? What if they did, or what is this to the matter? For, the Question is not by whose Counsel, or advise, but by whose Authority those things were done. Kings, even in Civil and Temporal affairs, be also Counselled, and advised by learned, wise, and grave Men: Doth this therefore prove, that they have no Supreme Authority, in matters Civil and Temporal? For, (by such a reason), you may aswell conclude against the one, as against the other. The direction then, advise, and counsel, which Bishops or others give to Kings, and Princes in matters either Ecclesiastical or Civil, doth not impeach or oppugn their Supreme commands, or Supreme Authority, either in the one case or in the other. But some do then here object, that those Kings and Princes of Israel and juda, had an high Priest, or chief Priest among them, and therefore that there must be likewise, an high priest, or supreme Pastor in the Christian Church. Howbeit, first the high Priest in that judaical, and Israeliticall Church, was not Supreme, but subject to those Kings, and their command, as before appeareth. Secondly, it is granted, that there is also an high Priest in the Christian Church, but it is not, (as they fond suppose) the Pope of Rome, but CHRIST JESUS only, (as the Epistle to the Hebrews abundantly declareth:) who is therefore expressly called and affirmed to be our high Priest: 
Hebr. 9.11. Hebr 5.5. H b 4 14. Hebr 7 26.  For such an high Priest, (saith that Epistle), it became us to have, which is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens: of which sort, I am sure, the Pope of Rome is not. Again, S. Peter showeth, that not himself, much less the Pope of Rome, his pretended successor, nor any other mortal man whatsoever, 
1. Pet. 5.4.  but CHRIST JESUS only, is the Supreme Pastor, or chief Shepherd, over all Pastors and Shepherds of the several flocks of CHRIST, in the world; and in respect of that his high Prerogative, 
Heb●. 13.20.  he is also called the great Shepherd of the sheep. So that if any would know, whom God hath appointed to be the high Priest, & the Supreme Pastor, over the whole Christian Church Militant upon earth: They here see, that it is not the Pope, but CHRIST JESUS only. Yea, as touching the Pope of Rome, whom they so much dote upon, they were never yet able, nor ever will be able, to prove, that God hath any where in his Word, constituted and appointed him to be, the high Priest, or Supreme Pastor, over all the Pastors and Bishops in the world, much less, to bear the Supremacy over all Emperors, Kings, and Princes: Yea, for the space of diverse hundred years after CHRIST, did even the Bishops of Rome themselves, acknowledge, and perform, subjection to the Emperors: as appeareth, not only by those three examples of Meltiades, Leo, & Gregory the great, mentioned in my former Book, (whereunto my Adversary is still pleased to answer nothing,) but by other Bishops of Rome likewise: For also Anastasius the second, Bishop of Rome, spoke thus to the Emperor Anastasius: Pro fide Catholica, humilis pietati tuae precator occurro, etc. I come, (saith he), 
Epist ad Anast.  an humble suppliant to your piety, for the Catholic faith. And he saith further, That God would have, not himself, though he were the Bishop of Rome, but the Emperor, velut eius Vicarium praesidere in terris, as his vicar, or in his stead, 
Jbid. cap. 6  to be the cbiefe upon earth. Pelagius also the first, a Bishop of Rome, writing to Childebert King of France, being required to make a confession of his faith, that so he might show himself not to differ from those, that were of the Orthodox belief, 
Pelag Epist. 16. Concil. edi●. Been tom. 2. pag 633.  speaks likewise in this humble and dutiful manner unto him: Quanto nobis studio ac labore satagendum est, ut pro auferendo suspitionis scandalo, obsequium confessionis nostra Regibus ministremus: quibus nos etiam subditos esse, sanctae Scripturae praecipiunt: With how great care and labour, ought we to strive, and endeavour, for the taking away of the scandal of suspicion, to yield the obedience of our confession, unto Kings: to whom, the holy Scriptures also command us to be subject. From him, pass to the times of Agatho, another Bishop of Rome, in whose days, was assembled the sixth Council of Constantinople: In that Council, there is an Epistle of his, to the Emperor, who required him to send some to supply his place, 
Concil. Constant. 6. act 4 Council. edit. Bin. tom. 3. pag. 13.  in that Council: To whom Pope Agatho answereth, and writeth in that Epistle, That to those things which the Emperor commanded, he would promptam obedientiam exhibere, yield ready obedience. Again, he saith: Hoc Imperialis benignitas vestra clementer jubens, hortata est, & nostra pusillitas, quod jussum est, obsequenter implevit. This, your Imperial benignity, gently commanding, hath required: and our meanness, What was commanded hath obediently performed. Yea, he speaketh yet further, in this most submissive sort, to the Emperor: Obsecro itaque pi●ssime atque clementissime Auguste, atque una cum mea exiguitate, 
Sub finem.  omnis Anima Christiana, flexo genu, suppliciter deprecatur, etc. I therefore beseech you, most pious and clement Emperor, and together with my meanness, every Christian soul with bended knee, humbly intreateth, etc. Go on to the times of Pope Hadrian, in whose days it was, That the second Nicene Council was assembled: There also you may observe, in what humble sort, he likewise writeth to the Emperor: 
Concil. Nicen 2 ●pist. 1. Concil. edit. Bin. tom. 3. pag. 257.  Deprecantes cum magna cordis dilectione mansuetissimam vestram Clementiam, & tanquam praesentialiter humo stratus, & vestris vestigijs provolutus, quaeso, & coram Deo deposco: Praying with great affection of heart, your most mild Clemency, and as in your presence being cast upon the ground, and prostrate, (saith he,) before your feet, I beseech, and in the presence of God, do earnestly desire, etc. And in another Epistle again, he speaketh thus. Obsecrantes ex animi fervore, 
In Conc. Ni●em. 2. act 2. ibidem pag. 312.  vestram mansuetudinem obtestando, & veluti praesentes genibus advoluti & coram vestigia pedum volutando, ego cum fratribus coram Deo supplico, obtestor, etc. Beseeching you out of the fervour of our mind, by entreating your gentleness, and as if we were present, being cast upon our knees, and kneeling before your presence, I with my brethren in the presence of God, am an humble suppliant, and do earnestly beseech, etc. By all which you see, very clearly and infallibly, that for the space of many hundred years after CHRIST, even the Bishops, and Popes of Rome themselves, were, and so did declare themselves to be, not superiors, but inferiors, yea humble suppliants and subject to the Emperors: and consequently, that the Emperors in all those times, as well de jure, as de facto, had the Supremacy over them, aswell as other Bishpos. For, so it appeareth, 〈◊〉 that they had, and aught to have: in as much as Pope Pelagius himself, expressly affirmeth, (as you heard before, 
Quibus nos etiam subditos esse, sanctae Scripturae praecipiunt: inquit Pelagius. ) that the holy Scriptures aid so command.  
Secondly. It being a thing, very demonstratively evident, That the Christian Emperors, in those former and ancient times, had the Supremacy and command, even of the Bishops of Rome, aswell as of other Bishops: let us now proceed, and see, whether they did not also deal in matters Ecclesiastical, aswell as the good and Godly kings of Israel and juda did: And it is also very apparent, that they did. For proof whereof, Constantine, that Godly and Christian Emperor, spoke in this sort: 
Euseb. de vita Const lib. 2 c. 28 Socrat. lib 1. cap. 22. 'las.  By my Minister●, (saith he) mankind is brought to the keeping and observing of the most sacred Law: by the service which I perform to God, all things every where, are settled in order. Yea the barbarous Nations, which till this time, knew not the truth, now praise the name of God sincerely, whom they reverence for dread of us. He also called Counsels, when cause required. 
Euseb. de vita Const. lib. 1 c. 37 & lib. 3 cap. 63.  He decreed that Heretics should have no Temples and that in no place public or private, from that day forward, any of their assemblies should be permitted.  

Socrat lib. 1. cap. 20. lat.  When the Council of Tyrus was assembled, he commanded them first, to discuss the truth of such crimes, as were objected against Athanasius. Athanasius also was loath to come before that Council, save that he feared the threatening Letters of Constantine, written to this effect: If any, 
Euseb. de vita Const. lib. 4. c. 42.  (saith he) which I think not, in contempt of Our mandate, sail to come before you, We will send a warrant from our Royal Authority, that he shall be banished: To teach him, what it is for Bishops, and Clergy men, to withstand the commandment of the Chief Ruler, defending the truth. 
Athanas. apol. 2. C●m multas videre 〈◊〉. Socrat. li. 1 ca 21. lat.  Wherefore Athanasius and the Bishops of his part appeared: But finding that Council very partial, they appealed from them to the Emperor. And Athanasius himself fled to the Emperor, beseeching him to send for the Bishops of that Council, & to examine their Acts, which that Christian Emperor did accordingly, and thereupon wrote thus to the who e Council: Your Synod, (saith he), hath decreed, 
Socrat lib. 1, cap. 22. lat.  I know not what, in a tumult, and uproar, whilst you seek to pervert truth, by your pestilent disorder, for hatred against your fellow Bishops: But the divine providence, will, I doubt not, scatter the mischief of your contention, and make it plain in our sight, whether your Assembly hath had an● regard of truth or no. You are therefore, all of you, t resort hither, to show the reas n of your doings: for so it doth seem good and expedient unto me. For which end, I wi●ed this rescript to be sent unto you, That as many of you as were present at the Council of Tyrus, without delay repair to the place of our abode, there to give account, how sincerely and sound ye have judged, and that before me, whom yourselves shall not deny to be the sincere Minister of God, in these Cases. Observe yet further, 
Cod. lib 1. tit 4. 2 3. tit. ●. 7.9.11.  That justinian, that Christian Emperor, in his Code, ●citeth many and sundry Laws, made by former Emperors, concerning matters Ecclesiastical: As namely, touching the Christian Faith, Baptism, and Churches, 
Novel consy. 5 7. & 42. 1●.  and touching Heretics, Apostatas, jews, and Infidels. And in his Authentics, he maketh many new Constitutions. Concerning the Sacraments, in what places, by what persons, with what loudness of voice they should be ministered: 
Novel. con 123 1●1. Novel. con. 5. & 131 3 67 79. & 5 123. 133. & 6. & 12●.  Concerning Synods or Counsels, when they shall be kept, what things shall be reform in them, and what Canons of Counsels shall stand in the same strength, with his Laws. Concerning Priests, Deacons, and other Servitors in the Church, He limiteth their Age, Condition, Learning, and good report, before they be received to that Office, and their diligent, sober and chaste behaviour afterward: And concerning Bishops, how they shall be chosen, what manner of men they should be, both for life and doctrine, what causes they should meddle withal in their Consistor●s, what punishment they should undergo for wrongful excommunication, and other offences, etc. 
Novel. const. ●●3  And he saith further, That there is no kind of thing exempted from the Prince his inquisition, who hath received from God, a common Regiment and Sovereignty, over all men. And those things which concern God, must, saith he, be preserved from corruption, by the Sa●red Prelate's, and civil Magistrates: but most of all, by our Majesty, who use not to neglect any divine causes.  
But proceed, 
Leg●m 〈◊〉 libr. 1.  and go on further to the times of Charles the great, who was Emperor of the West parts, about eight hundred years after CHRIST, and therein consider the Directions, Chapters, or Laws made by him, which Ansegisus gathered together, within a few years after his death. For thereby shall you likewise clearly perceive, that Kings and Princes, even in those days, did meddle both with Persons, & causes Ecclesiastical. I will here recite some of them unto you for your better and most full satisfaction in this point. (viz.)  

Cap. 1.  That no man excommunicate in one place, should be taken into Communion in another place.  

Cap 2.  That when any Clerk is Ordered, his faith and l●fe be first exactly tried.  

Cap. 3.  That no strange Clerk be received or Ordered without Letters of Commendation, and licence from his own Bishop.  

Cap. 50. & 25.  That no man be made Priest under thirty years of age: neither then at random, but appointed and fastened to a certain Cure.  

Cap. 11.  That no Bishop meddle with giving orders in another man's Diocese.  

Cap. 2●. Cap. 42.  That only the Books Canonical be read in the Church.  
That the false name of Martyrs, and uncertain memories of Saints, be not observed.  

Cap. 15. Cap. 82.  That Sunday be kept, etc.  
That the Pastors and Ministers rightly preach and teach the people committed to their charge.  

Jbidem.  That they suffer not any man under them, to propose to the people opinions of their own devising, not agreeable to the holy Scriptures, but shall themselves teach profitable, and good doctrine, tending to life everlasting, and instruct others to do the like. 
Cap. 22.  And first of all, they shall teach all men generally to believe, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, to be one Omnipotent, and Eternal, and invisible God, Creator of Heaven and Earth, and of all things in them; And that there is but one Godhead, Substance and Majesty, in the three Persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.  
Item: They shall preach, 
E d●m cap. 82.  That the Son of God took flesh by the working of the Holy Ghost, of the Virgin Mary, (she remaining always a Virgin,) for the salvation and reparation of makinde. That he suffered, was buried, the third day rose again, and ascended into heaven, and that he shall come again in Majesty to judge all men, etc.  
Item: 
Ibidem.  They shall diligently preach the Resurrection of the dead.  
Item: They shall teach all men, with all diligence, 
Ibidem.  for what offences they shall be condemned with the Devil, to pains everlasting: The Apostle telling us, That the works of the flesh are manifest, which are, fornication, uncleanness, wantonness, idolatry, witchcraft, enmities, emulations, wrath, contentions, seditions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, gluttony, and such like: of which I tell you now, as I told you before, (saith the Apostle,) That they which commit such things, shall not inherit the kingdom of God. These things therefore, which the great Preacher of the Church of God, recko●eth by name, let them be with all care prohibited; remembering how terrible that saying is, That they which do such things, shall not come into God's kingdom.  
Moreover, Admonish them, (saith he, 
Ibidem. ) with all earnestness, concerning the love of God and of their neighbour, concerning Faith and Hope in God, Humility, Patience, Chastity, Continency, Liberality, Mercy, giving of Alms, acknowledging of their sins, And concerning forgiving of such as trespass against them, according to the Lords Prayer: assuring them, that they which do these things shall obtain the kingdom of God. This we charge and enjoin you, (saith he, speaking to the Bishops and Clergy men,) with so much the more diligence, because we know, that in the latter times, shall come false teachers, as the Lord in the Gospel foretold, and his Apostle Paul, to Timothy, testifieth.  

Caroli praefat. in Leges Franc.  And again he saith thus; therefore, (you Pastors of Christ's Church, and Guides of his flock, &c) have we directed Commissioners unto you, who together with you, are, in our Name and by our Authority, to redress those things which need reformation: And to this end, have we here annexed certain brief Chapters of Canonical or Ecclesiastical institution, such as we thought meetest. Let no man think or judge this our admonition to Godliness, to be presumptuous, whereby we seek to reform things amiss, to cut off things superfluous, and to bring men to that which is right, but let them rather receive it, with a charitable mind. For in the Book of Kings we read, what pains that Godly King josias took, to bring the kingdom given him of God, to the true worship of the same God, by visiting, correcting, and instructing them: not that we compare ourselves with his sanctity, but that we should always imitate such examples of the Godly. Here we see, the reason, why these Chapters or Laws were made, and Commissioners appointed, and sent from the King, to put them in execution: and that also the examples of josiah, and such other Godly Kings of Israel and juda, are to be made patterns and precedents, and to be imitated by all Kings and Princes in the Christian Church, as touching the good care, endeavour and pains, they are to take every way they can, for the advancement of God's Religion.  

Legum Franc. lib. 2. cap. 1.  After Charles the great, were Lodowicke and Lotharius, Emperors: which Emperors also spoke thus to the Bishops and Magistrates of their Dominions. You have all, no doubt, either seen or heard, that our Fathers and Progenitors, after they were chosen by God to this place, made this their principal study, how the honour of God's holy Church, and the state of their kingdom might be decently kept: 
Cap. 2.  And we for our parts, following their example, seeing it hath pleased God to appoint us, that we should have care of his Church, and of this kingdom, are very desirous, so long as we live, to labour earnestly for three special things, viz. to defend, exalt, & honour Gods holy Church, and his servants, in such sort, as is fit● to preserve Peace and to do justice to all the people. And though the chief of this service consist in our person, 
Cap 9  yet by Gods and Man's Ordinance, it is so divided, that every one of you, in his place and calling, hath a part of our charge: So that I should be your admonisher, and you all my coadjutors. Yea, not only did these Emperors extend their Authority to causes Ecclesiastical and concerning Religion, but had also the Supremacy over all Bishops, even over the Bishop of Rome himself, in their times: For so it appeareth by the submission, which Leo the fourth, Bishop of Rome, made to this Lodowicke the Western Emperor, in these words. If, (saith he), we have done otherwise then well, 
Caus. 2 quast. 7. Cap. Nos si.  and not dealt uprightly with those that are under us, we will amend all that is amiss, by the judgement of your highness: beseeching your highness, for the better trial of these surmises, to send such, as in the fear of God, may narrowly sift, not only the matters informed, but all our doings great and small, aswell as if your Majesty were present: So that by lawful examination all may be finished, and nothing left undiscussed, or undetermined. In all things, great and small, this Bishop of Rome, (as you see,) submitted himself to the Emperor, and to those Commissioners, which he would please to send, for the sifting and examination of those matters laid to his charge, promising to amend all that was amiss in him, according to the Emperors own judgement. Wherefore this was not a matter of modesty, or courtesy in the Pope, (as Gratian most ungratiously would persuade,) but a matter of bounden duty, 
Ibidem. Cap. Petrus.  and without all dissembling, and seriously meant and intended by him, in such manner and sort, as he by those his words plainly declareth. And consequently you now perceive very fully, (I hope,) that for the space of eight hundred years and more after CHRIST, the Bishops of Rome were subject to the Emperors, and that the Christian Emperors also had Authority in matters Ecclesiastical, aswell as Civil, within their Empyres.  
But here now do some Papists take exception and answer, as touching Solomon, his displacing of Abiathar the high Priest, and putting Sadoc in his place: that Solomon did this, as he was a Prophet, not as he was a King. But, first this is but a mere supposition and conceit, not found warranted in the Text. Yea, the untruth of it may appear if you please but to read the Chapter: For the offence which Abiathar, 
1. King. 2.22.23.24 25.26.27.28 29 etc.  the high Priest, had committed, was High Treason, in joining with Adoniah, against King Solomon, for the kingdom: joah also was in the same Treason and Conspiracy. The King therefore caused Adoniah to be put to death: he caused also joab to be put to death: & touching Abiathar the high Priest, he was also as worthy of death as the rest, although for some causes and respects, he was spared for that time. Thou art worthy of death, 
1. King 2 26.27.  (saith the King:) but I will not this day kill thee, because thou barest the Ark of the Lord God before David my Father, and because thou hast suffered in all, wherein my Father hath been afflicted. So Solomon cast out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord. And the King put Benaiah in the room of joab over the Host: and the King set Sadoc the priest, 
Vers. 35.  in the room of Abiathar. In which words you see, that Solomon doing these things, is not styled or called by the name of a Prophet, but expressly, by the name of a King: thereby signifying and declaring, that what Solomon did touching the removing of Abiathar, and putting Sadoc in his place, he did it as a King, aswell as when he put Benaiah, in the place of joab. Secondly, you see, that the offence which Abiathar had committed, was treason, and that therefore he deserved to die, aswell as Adoniah, or joab, or any other of the conspirators: But yet for the reasons and respects before mentioned, he would not, then, put him to death, though he had deserved it, but was content, in lieu thereof, for that time, to inflict this punishment upon him, to have him removed from his Priesthood. Now to deal in cases of Treason, and to be a judge of matters concerning life and death, and to award execution of death, or in mercy to mitigate, and alter the severity of that punishment, and in lieu thereof, to have a milder, or not so severe a punishment as death, to be inflicted, be things, not properly belonging to the office of a Prophet, but to the office of a King, they do rightly and properly enough belong. And therefore what Solomon did herein, it is evident that he did it as a King, & not as a Prophet. And consequently it still remaineth firm and sure, even by this example of King Solomon, as also by other examples mentioned in my former Book, (whereto my adversary is still pleased to answer nothing), that Kings, as Kings, have power to place Bishops, and again to displace them, when there is cause, and to put others in their room.  
And as touching Moses, some Papists do also answer, that he was a Priest, & the high Priest, 
Bellar. de verb. Dei lib 3. cap. 4●  (for so saith Bellarmine,) and therefore, that Aaron performed that reverence, obedience, and subjection to him that he did, as being high Priest. My Adversary likewise saith the same, that God Almighty made Moses an high Priest, and citeth for proof of it Num. 27. but there is no such thing written in that Chapter, nor in any other Chapter of the whole Bible beside. 
Deut. 33.5.  I read, that Moses was as a King or Prince in Israel: but I no where read, throughout the whole Book of God, that God constituted Moses to be the high Priest: yea it is well known, that in Moses time, Aaron was the high Priest: what necessity then was there for Moses also, to be an high Priest? But that Moses was no Priest properly so called, much less an high Priest, is thus made manifest. For if Moses were a Priest, it must be either before the consecration of Aaron, or after: But after the consecration of Aaron and his Sons to the Priesthood, it is clear, that not Moses, but Aaron, and his Sons were the Priests, as having the Priesthood appointed, and specially given unto them by Gods own direction. Thou (saith God to Moses, 
Numb. 3.10. ) shalt appoint Aaron, and his Sons, to execute their Priests offices: and the stranger that cometh here, shall be slain. So that none but Aaron, and those that were of his seed might execute the Priest's office. For which cause, Moses neither did, not durst execute the Priest's office, 
Num. 16.46.47  but commanded Aaron to burn Incense, and to make an atonement for the people. Wherefore it is very apparent, that after the consecration of Aaron, Moses was not a Priest. And, that Moses was also no Priest before the consecration of Aaron, is likewise very evident: because before that time, the priesthood was annexed to the birthright, and did belong to the first borne, in whose place the Levites afterward came, 
Numb. 3.12.41.45. Lyra in Num. 3.12. Ibidem.  and were appointed. So says Lyra, reporting the received judgements of the best interpreters, that, Ante legem datam, ad Primogenitos pertinebat offerre sacrificia: Before the Law given, it belonged to the firstborn to offer sacrifices. Again, he saith expressly, that Levitae successerunt loco eorum. The Levites succeeded in their place. And again he saith: 
Lyra. in Gen. 14.  Sacerdotium fuit annexum Primogeniturae, usque ad legem datam per Mosem: The Priesthood was annexed to the first borne, until the Law given by Moses. Now, of these two brothers, Moses & Aaron, (the Sons of Amram,) it is manifest, that, not Moses, but Aaron, was the eldest, and first borne. For we read in Num. 33. 
Num. 33.39.  That Aaron was one hunded twenty and three years old, when he died: But Moses, outliving Aaron, 
Deut. 34.7.  was but one hundred and twenty years old when he died. So that Aaron, appeareth, questionless and undoubtedly, to be the elder brother and the first borne: and consequently even by the right of Primogeniture, did the Priesthood belong to Aaron, and not to Moses. If any say, that the birthright was sometime taken from the eldest, by a special appointment of God, and given to the younger: it hath no place here. For no such especial appointment from God can be showed in this case: Yea Aaron was so fare from losing this privilege of his birthright, by any appointment from God, that clean contrariwise, he had the Priesthood famously confirmed to him, by God himself. Thou, (saith God speaking to Aaron,) and thy Sons with thee, 
Num. 18.7.  shall keep your Priest's office. In as much then as it is apparent, that Moses was no Priest, neither before the consecration of Aaron, nor after, it must therefore be concluded, that he was no Priest at all, but was, as the Scripture calleth him, as a King, or a Prince. A second reason is this, viz. 
Deut. 33.5.  That joshua was appointed by God himself to succeed Moses in his place, and office: But it is certain, that joshua, 
Deut. 31.14. &c Num. 27 17.18. Ios. 1.16.17.18.  his successor, was no Priest, but a civil Magistrate: even the chief ruler and commander under God, both of the Priests, & People of Israel in his times, as before appeareth: and therefore also must Moses be so supposed. But it is objected out of Psal. 99 That Moses and Aaron were among the Priests: 
Psal. 99.6.  doth this prove them therefore to be Priests, because they were among them? Howbeit, the Hebrew word, there used, is Cohanim, which signifieth aswell Princes, 
2. Sam. 8.18.  (as Priests,) or any that be in high, eminent, and honourable place: as in 2. Sam. 8. The Sons of David, are said to be Cohanim, 
1. Chron. 18.17.  that is, chief Rulers: For so it is also explained in 1. Chron. 18. Where it is said of the Sons of David, That they were chief or principal men, about the King. 
2. Sam. 20. ●●.  Again it is said in 2. Sam. 20. that Ira, the jairite was, Cohen le David, that is, a Prince, or chief Ruler about David: For it were absurd, and against the Law of God, that then was, to suppose Ira to be a Priest, who was a mere stranger, and not of the Tribe of Levi. Although then Aaron was a Priest, yet when it is said of Moses and Aaron together, that they were Cohanim; It may signify very well, that they were great Rulers, or men of high and eminent place in Israel, the one in respect of the civil Magistracy, and the other in respect of the Priesthood. But for any to say, and argue thus: Moses was a Cohen, or reckoned amongst the Cohanim: Ergo he was a Priest by his proper office and function, is a plain non sequitur, and no better, then if you should likewise argue and say: Ira the jairite was a Cohen, and the Sons of David, were also Cohanim: E●go these were Priests by their proper office and function.  
If you further object, that Moses was of the Tribe of Levi, and Aaron's brother: yet neither doth that prove him therefore to be a Priest: For every one that was of the Tribe of Levi, was not a Priest. Yea, even the Priests, and Levites, 
Numb. 3.6.7.8.9.10. 1 Chro 6 48 49 Numb. 18.3. &.  were distinguished: For, Aaron and his Sons, were appointed to the office: But of the Levites it is said, they shall not come near to the Altar, lest they die. So that although the Levites, were of the Tribe of Levi, yet we see they might not meddle with the Priest's office, lest they should die. And therefore also, Moses, though he were Aaron's brother, and of the Tribe of Levi, yet was he not therefore a Priest, or to execute the Priest's office. Neither did he execute the office of a Levite, as the Levites used to do, in waiting and tending upon the Priests, and as being in office inferior unto them and at their command. Yea, it is before showed and apparent, that Moses, although he were of the Tribe of Levi, yet was he so fare exalted and advanced, as that he was by place and office, as a King or Prince in Israel, and commanded both Priests and Levites, and not only the Tribe of Levi, but all the other Tribes of Israel also, as joshua his successor likewise did.  
Yet some to prove Moses to be a Priest, do allege, that he sacrificed, and for this, do cite Exod. 24.5. 
Exod. 24.5.  But the words of that Text, be not, that Moses did sacrifice, but That he sent young men to sacrifice: which were indeed the first borne of the children of Israel, to whom the Priesthood did then belong, it being a thing done, before the institution of the levitical priesthood. Other some again do allege, that Moses did consecrate and anoint Aaron and his Sons, to the Priesthood: And that therefore he was a Priest But this also followeth not, especially in the first erection of the levitical priesthood. For though Moses were a Prince & a civil Magistrate; yet when God gave him a direct and special commandment, to consecrate and anoint Aaron, and his Sons, he was bound to do it. And that he was expressly so commanded, is apparent by the Text itself, where God spoke thus to Moses: Thou shalt bring Aaron and his Sons, unto the door of the Tabernacle of the congregation, 
Exod. 40.12.13.14.15 16.  and wash them with water: And thou shalt put upon Aaron the holy garments, and shalt anoint him, & sanctify him, that he may minister unto me in the Priest's office: Thou shalt also bring his Sons, and clothe them with garments, and shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their Father, that they may minister unto me in the Priest's office: For this anointment shall be asigne, that the Priesthood shall be everlasting unto them, throughout their generations. So Moses did according to all that the Lord commanded him: So did he. This showeth then, that Moses was dutiful and obedient, in performing God's commandment in this case: But it is no proof, that therefore he was a Priest. For even a civil Magistrate, not only may, but aught to consecrate, and anoint men to the office of Priesthood, if he be so required, and commanded from God himself, as Moses was: wherefore it still remaineth firm, that what reverence, subjection, and obedience, Aaron the high Priest performed to Moses, he did it to him, not as being any Priest, or high Priest, but to him as being as a Prince or King in Israel, that had the supreme commandment, and rule both of the high Priest and of the rest of the Priests and of the Levites, and of all the people within that Commonweal. So that now I trust you very fully perceive, that Moses and joshua, and the good and Godly Kings of Israel and juda, had Authority, aswell over the high Priests, as all other Priests and Levites, & in causes also Ecclesiastical, aswell as civil and Temporal. And that the Christian Emperors for the space of many hundred years after CHRIST, had likewise the Supremacy over all persons, and in all causes aswell Ecclesiastical, as Civil, within their Empyres and Dominions.  
3. 〈◊〉 But my Adversary objecteth, that famous Hosius Cordubensis, 
Athan Epist. ad solitarium vitâ agen●es.  reproving the Arrian Emperor Constantius, wisheth him, (as Athanasius testifieth), not to meddle in Ecclesiastical matters. It is true, that Hosius Cordubensis, did, and had just cause to reprove Constantius, and to wish and advise him not to meddle in matters Ecclesiastical, in such sort, as he did: he using, or rather abusing, all his authority in matters Ecclesiastical, to the mantaynance of the Arrians and arrianisme, against the true Christian, and Orthodox Bishops, and against the truth of the Godhead of CHRIST. For, Athanasius in the same Epistle showeth, that Paulinus, and other Bishops, being called before the Emperor, the Emperor commanded them to subscribe against Athanasius, 
Ibidem.  and to communicate with the Arrians. They mervayled at this, and answering that the Ecclesiastical Canons would not suffer them to do so; He replied: But, what I will, let that be taken for a Canon: The Bishops of Syria endure this speech of mine. Either therefore do you, as I will you, or else go you also into banishment. And when the Bishops held up their hands to God, and proposed their reasons, showing him, That the kingdom was not his but Gods, of whom he received it, & that it was to be feared, lest he that gave it him, would speedily take it from him: Setting also before his eyes the day of judgement, and advising him, Not to subvert Ecclesiastical order, nor to bring the Arrian heresy into the Church of God: He, would neither hear them, nor permit them to speak, but grievously bending his brows for that they had spoken, and shaking his Sword at them, commanded them to be taken away. Yea, what cruelty, tyranny, and persesecution was used, and raised by Constantius, in the behalf of the Arrians, against the Orthodox and right believing Christians, is further declared by the same Athanasius: showing, 
Ibidem.  that even Pagans were set to invade the Churches of the right and true Christians, and to beat the people with slaves and stones. The Bishops, Priests, & Monks, were bound with chains, and scourged with r●ds. The 〈◊〉 were haled by the hair to the judgement seat, The virgins were toasted by the fire, and whipped with prickles, others were banished, strangled, and trampled under feet to death, and their limbs and joints rend and torn a sunder, after they were dead. In somuch that Athanasius crieth out, saying: Who was not amazed at these things? Who would yield them the name of heathen men, much less the name of Christian men? Who would think them to have conditions of men, and not rather of beasts? Yea, who perceived not the Arrians to be crueler than beasts? The strangers standing by, yea the very Ethnics, detested the Arrians, as Antichrists, and Butchers of men. Oh newfound heresy, (saith he,) which in villainies and impieties, hast put on the fullness of the Devil, how great soever it be. Again, (he saith,) Whom hath not Constantius banished, 
Ibidem.  that was accused by the Arrians? When did he not give them both audience, and allowance? Whom did he ever admit to say any thing against them? Or what did he not admit, which they spoke against others? He ever doth that which the Arrians would have, and they again say that which him liketh. And Athanasius saith yet further of him: That whensoever he called an Assembly, judgement, or Council of Bishops, it was but for a show: For he did nevertheless what himself listed. What liberty for persuasion, or what place of advise, (saith he,) is there, when he that contradicteth, shall for his labour, lose either his life, or his country? Why hath the Emperor gathered so great a number of Bishops, partly terrified with threats, partly enticed with promises, to condescend, that they will no longer communicate with Athanasius. This violent oppressing of Bishops in their Synods or Counsels, & working them to his own will, 
Hiler. lib. 1. contra Constant.  doth S. Hilary also witness, saying thus unto him. Thou gatherest Synods or Counsels, and when they be shut up together in one City, thou terrifiest them with threats, thou pinest them with hunger, thou lamest them with cold, thou depravest them with dissembling. Again, (he saith, 
Ibidem. ) Oh thou wicked one, what a mockery dost thou make of the Church? Only dogs return to their vomit: and thou compelest the Priests of CHRIST, to sup up those things which they have spit forth, and commandest them in their confessions, to allow that which before they condemned. What Bishops hand hast thou left innocent? What tongue hast not thou forced to falsehood? Whose heart hast not thou brought to the condemning of his former opinion? Thou hast subjected all to thy will, yea to thy violence. Good cause therefore had Hosius Cordubensis to say as he did unto that Emperor, Meddle not (Emperor) with Ecclesiastical matters, (namely, in this sort, as thou dost) for the maintenance of arrianisme, & making thy will to stand for a law, etc. For if you will have these words, Ne te misceas Ecclesiasticis, Meddle not with Ecclesiastical matters, to be taken absolutely and without restriction, to debar Kings and Princes from all intermeddling in Ecclesiastical causes, any kind of way, such an exposition were not only contrary to the Acts of Constantine, the Laws of justinian, the Chapters, and doings of Charles the Great, and the History of all the Christian Emperors, for the space of many hundred years after CHRIST, but it were also contrary to the opinion and practise even of Athanasius himself, who is the reporter of those words of Hosius: For, it is evident, that Athanasius himself was never of that mind, to exclude Christian Kings and Princes from all intermeddling in causes Ecclesiastical: Yea, he was a clear approver of that Authority in them: as appeareth by this, That when he was commanded to confer with one Arius, concerning matters of Faith: He answered, Who is so fare out of his wits, that he dare refuse the commandment of the Prince? 
Disput. Athan. cum A●●o Lao dicea hab●ta. Athanas a●●l 2. Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 21. 22. lat.  Yea the Emperor's commandment made him to appear before the Council of Tyrus, and finding that Council not to be indifferent, but partially affected, he and the rest of the Orthodox Bishops that to●ke part with him, appealed to the Emperor himself. He also in person fled to the Emperor, desiring him to send for the Bishops of the Council of Tyrus, and to examine their doings, which the Christian Emperor did accordingly. So that it is manifest, that Athanasius did approve of the Authority of the Emperors in Ecclesiastical causes, albeit he would not have them to use their authority cruelly or tyrannically, to serve their own violent wills and pleasures, nor thereby to do any thing whatsoever against CHRIST, and his Religion, as that Arrian Emperor Constantius did. But when all this is granted, it maketh nothing against those Christian Emperors, Kings and Princes, which in good sort use their authority, not against CHRIST, (as he did,) but for CHRIST, his truth, and Religion. It is true, that the same Hosius Bishop of Corduba, spoke further unto the Emperor in this sort: 
Athanas. ad so●tariam vitam agentes.  God, (saith he), hath committed the Empire to thee, to us the things of the Church. And as he that envieth thy Empire, contradicteth the ordinance of God: So take thou heed, least drawing unto thyself, the things of the Church, thou be guilty of great sin. It is written: give unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's: and unto God, that which is Gods. It is therefore neither lawful for us, (that be Bishops), to hold a kingdom on earth, neither host thou power (o Prince) over sacrifices, and sacred things. Howbeit, these words do only distinguish, and put a difference between the office and function of Priests, and the office and function of Kings and Princes: showing, that the one may not encroach, or intrude upon that, which rightly, and properly belongeth unto the other, but that every one should keep himself within the bounds of his own proper calling & office. And so teach the Protestants also: and therefore if any King or Prince usurp, or intrude upon that which is proper and peculiar unto the Priest's office, (as King Vzziah entered into the Temple, to burn Incense, 
2 Chron. 26.16.17.18.  which pertained to the Priest's office only,) they utterly dislike and condemn it. Now then let all this be granted, that Kings and Princes may not do any thing that is proper and peculiar to the Priest's office, nor may meddle in Ecclesiastical causes, after a cruel and tyrannical manner, nor use their authority in Ecclesiastical causes, for the maintenance of Arrianisme or of any other heresy or error, nor do any thing against God, or his truth and Religion: Yet what doth all this, or any of this, make against those Godly and Christian Kings, and Princes, that extend and use their authority in Ecclesiastical causes, in a good sort, and for God, and for the maintenance of his truth, Religion, and ordinances? It maketh, as you see, just nothing at all against them.  
But it is further objected, that S. Ambrose, when Valentinian the Emperor would have had a Church in Milan for the Arrian heretics, answereth thus. Neither is it lawful for me to yield unto it, 
Ambros. libr. 5. epist. 3●.  nor expedient for you o Emperor, to take it. The house of a private man, you cannot by right invade: Do you think then, you may take away the house of God? It is alleged, that the Emperor may do what he list: But I answer, burden not yourself, o Emperor, to think that you have any Imperial right over those things, that be Gods. Exalt not yourself so high, but if you will reign long, be subject unto God. For it is written: give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and to God, that which is Gods, Palaces belong to Emperors, Churches to Priests. 
Epist. ●●.  The Church is Gods, it ought not to be yielded by me to Caesar. The Temple of God cannot he Caesar's right. I cannot deliver that to Heretics, which I received to keep on God's behalf. I would to God, 
Epist. 32.  it were apparent to me, that my Church should not be delivered to the Arrians, I would willingly offer myself to the judgement of your highness. I would to God that it were decreed, 
Orat. on● Auxen●.  that no Arrian should trouble my Churches, and of my person pronounce, what sentence you will: With my consent, I will never forgo my right if I be compelled, I have no way to resist: I can sorrow, I can weep, I can sigh: Tears are my weapons: Priests have only these defences: By other means I neither aught, nor may resist. To fly and forsake my Church I use not, lest any should think it done, to avoid some sorer punishment. 
Ibidem Epist. 33.  If my goods be sought for, take them: If my body, I will be ready: Will you put me in Irons, or lead me to death? You shall do me a pleasure, I will not guard myself with multitudes of people, but I will gladly he sacrificed for the Altars of God. All this maketh against the favourers and maintainers of Arrianisme, but nothing against that authority in Ecclesiastical matters, which Kings and Princes have to command, for God, and for the good of his Church, and the advancement of his Religion against Arrianisme, and against all other heresies, and errors whatsoever. My Adversary therefore objecteth further, that S. Ambrose saith: 
Ambros Epist. Lib. 5 cont. Aux.  That a good Emperor is within the Church, and not above the Church. Indeed, seeing the Church is the mother of Christian Emperors, aswell as of other Christians, it becometh a Christian Emperor, as a good Child, and Son of such a mother, to account ●t his greatest honour, to submit himself, as he ought, to the word, rules, and ordinances, which God hath set in the same his Church, and not to exa●t himself above them, as Valentinian did, when he was so forward for the advancement of Arrianisme & Arrian assemblies, against the true Church of God, and the Orthodox Bishops therein. For, that, by the Church, here, S. Ambrose meaneth, the things of God in the Church, appeareth not only by that Text, which he citeth, of, Give unto Caesar, the things that be Caesars, and unto God, the things that be Gods, but by those other words of his likewise, where he saith plainly: 
Ambr. lib. 5. c. 33  Ea quae divina sant imperatoriae potestati non esse subjecta: The things that be divine, be not subject to the Emperor's power. And yet the same S. Ambrose affirmeth nevertheless, That the Emperor had power over the persons of all men within his Empire: 
Ambros de obien Theo●osij.  Here than you must learn of S. Ambrose, to distinguish between the things in the Church, and the persons in the Church: For over all the persons, he confesseth, That the Emperor had power: but, not over the Divine things therein. And this also do the Protestants hold, that a Christian King hath power over the persons of all Bishops, Pastors, and Ecclesiastical Ministers in the Church, within his own Dominions: But not over the Divine things therein, as namely, not over God's Word, his Religion, Sacraments, and other his Institutions and Ordinances in his Church.  
Yet again it is objected by some, that S. Ambrose reproved the Emperor Valentinian the younger, for that he would take upon him to be judge in a matter of Faith, & cause Ecclesiastical: but the reason of it must be known. For Valentinian a young Prince, not yet baptised, and a novice in the mysteries of Religion, would upon the persuasion and counsel of his Mother justina, an Arrian, needs have Ambrose to come, and dispute with Auxentius the Arrian, in his Palace or Consistory before him: 
Ambr ●. 5. Orat. co●r Auxent. & Epist. 53.  and he would be the judge, whether of their two Religions were truest. Whereunto Ambrose made answer, and gave it in writing to Valentinian, showing him, amongst other things, That he was young in years, a novice in Faith, not yet baptised, and that he was as yet rather to learn, then to judge of Bishops: That the Palace was no fit place for a Priest to dispute in, where the hearers should be jews, or Gentiles, and so scoff at CHRIST: and the Emperor himself partial, as appeared by the law published before that time, against the truth. 
Ibidem.  Auxentius, (saith Ambrose,) being driven to his shifts, hath recourse to the craft of his forefathers, seeking to procure us envy by the Emperor's name, saying: That he ought to be judge, though he be young, though he be not yet baptised, though he be ignorant of the holy Scriptures: and that in the Consistory. 
Jdem libr. 5. Epist 32.  And to the young Emperor himself, he spoke thus: Your Father, a man of riper years, said, it is not for me to judge between Bishops: Doth then your clemency at these years say, I ought to judge? He a man baptised in CHRIST, thought himself unable for the weight of so great a judgement. Doth then your Clemency that hath not yet attained to the Sacrament of Baptism, challenge to judge of matters of Faith, when as yet you know not the mysteries of Faith, & c? In these words you see the reason, why S. Ambrose reproved Valentinian, & disliked, that he should challenge, or take upon him to judge in a matter of Faith, namely not for that he had not authority to deal in matters of Faith, and causes Ecclesiastical, but in respect of other defects in him (viz.) For that he was so young, and as yet unbaptised, a Novice in the Faith, and ignorant in the Scriptures, etc. But than you will say, that even Valentinian the elder, the Father of this young Valentinian, did himself refuse, and dislike to judge in the same matter. But S. Ambrose likewise showeth you the reason of it, namely because 
Ambr. lib. 5. Epist. 32.  inhabilem se, etc. He then thought himself unable to judge in so weighty a cause, The great question being, whether CHRIST was of the same substance with the Father, yea, or no. Concerning which question, when Valentinian was afterward better instructed: then did he judge of the truth of it, and thereupon by his Imperial Authority, commanded it as a truth to be preached: as appeareth evidently by the Epistle, which he, and Valens, and Gratian, (being then the Emperors, 
Theodoret. lib. 4. cap. 7.8. ) wrote to the Bishops of Asia, Phrygia, Cyrophrygia, and Placatia: wherein the Emperors writ thus unto them: After great disputation had to and fro, in a full Council held at Illyria about our Saviour, those blessed Bishops have demonstratively proved, That there is a consubstantial Trinity, The Father, the Son, and the holy Ghost: from which they would not departed one jott, but gave due reverence unto the Religion of the Almighty God: And we also, (say they,) by our Authority, have commanded the same to be preached. So that although Valentinian, at the first, & for a while, until he were better instructed, would not. Yet afterward upon better instruction received, you see, that he did take upon him, to judge, that is, to discern, of the truth of that controversy, and by his Imperial authority, aswell as the other Emperors, commanded it as a truth to be preached. Theodosius also, that Christian Emperor, (whom S. Ambrose himself so much commendeth,) judged of the truth of the same controversy, between the Homousians, and the Arrians: determining and appointing by a solemn Edict, which of them should be accounted Catholics, 
Socrat. lib. 5. cap. 10.  and which Heretics. For seeing the divisions and dissensions that were then in the Church, he willed every sect to put their Faith in writing. There was a day prefixed: The Bishops being called, met at the Emperor's Palace. There came thither Nectarius, and Agelius for the Homousians, Demophilus for the Arrians, Eunomius himself for his followers; and Eleusius for the Macedonians. When they were come, the Prince admitted them to his presence: And taking the paper of each man's opinion, earnestly besought GOD, to help him in choosing the truth. Then reading their Confessions, he rejected all the rest, as deviding and severing the Sacred TRINITY, and tore them in pieces, and only approved and embraced the Homousian faith, and therewithal he made a law, 
Cod lib. 1. tit. 1 de summa Trinitate, & fide catholica S. cunctos  that such as followed the Faith of the Homousians, that is, of such as believed CHRIST, to be of the same substance with the Father, and that believed one Godhead of the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, of equal Majesty in the sacred Trinity, should be held and taken for Christian Catholics, and the rest to be held infamous Heretics. So likewise the Emperor Gratian, the Son of Valentinian, after that the Empire came entirely to his hands, judged and condemned the Arrian heresy, 
Theodor. li. 5. c. 2  and thereupon commanded the Preachers of that blasphemy, as wild and savage beasts, to be driven from their Churches, and the good Pastors to be restored to their Churches again: And the execution of this law he committed to Sapores, a famous Captain of that time. 
Evagrius libr. 1. cap. 12.  In like manner, did Theodosius the younger also, judge and decree against the Nestorian heresy, that they which followed the wicked faith of Nestorius, or cleaved to his unlawful doctrine, if they were Bishops, or Clergy men, they should be cast out of their Churches, and if they were Laymen, they should be excommunicate. 
Sozomen. libr. 4 cap. 16.  And doth not moreover Sozomen record in a certain case, That the Emperor commanded, That ten Bishops of the East, and ten Bishops of the West, chosen by the Council, should repair to the Court, and open unto him the Decrees of the Council, that he might further determine and conclude what were best to be done. Yea S. Augustine himself, 
Aug. count. epist. Pavin. lib 1 c. 7.  expostulating this matter with the Donatists, saith thus unto them: Is it not lawful for the Emperor to give sentence in a matter of religion? Why then went your messengers to the Emperor? Why made they him judge of their cause? By these premises than it is very apparent, That although none may be judge of Faith, and Religion, if you speak and mean, of an absolute, infallible, sovereign, and supreme judge, but God only: Yet if you take judging for discerning, (as often, and usually it is,) than not only Christian Kings, and Emperors, but even all Lay Christians also whatsoever, by the tenor of the Scriptures, may and aught, so fare forth as they shall be able, to judge, that is, to discern, of the doctrines of men, whether they be true or false: as is more at large declared in the Preface of my former Book. Shall any than be so absurd, or unreasonable, as to deny this right of judging, that is, of discerning of the truth in the doctrines of men, to Christian Emperors, Kings and Princes, which is allowed to fare inferior and meaner persons? Yea, these, chief and principally, in regard of their high places and callings are to be allowed this right.  
Whereas therefore my Adversary saith, that Bishops, and Clergy men, should be judges for determining of Dogmatic questions, and Controversies of Faith and Religion, and that Christian Emperors, Kings, and Princes, are to be guided, directed, taught, and instructed by them: all this is granted: Yet, withal, let Christian Kings and Princes have also, herein, their dues, and that right which to them belongeth: Which is, to search the Scriptures, thereby to try & examine, whether the doctrine of their Teachers, be true or false: For, 
Act 17.12. Basil. 〈◊〉. d●f. 77. pag. 432.  it behoveth the Hearers, (saith S. Basill,) that be instructed in the Scriptures, to try those things which are spoken by their Teachers, and receiving that which agreeth with the Scriptures, to reject the contrary; And so S. Augustine likewise, 
Aug in johan. tract 46.  Sua vero si velint docere, nolite audire, nolite facere, That if they will teach their own devises, you must neither hear them, nor do as they teach you. Although then, Bishops, Pastors, & Ministers Ecclesiastical, are first of all to be consulted with, & to ●udge of matters of Faith, & controversies in Religion, y●● are they not absolute and infallible judges, nor absolute and infallible Teachers, or directors, but are themselves limited, and to be directed, in all their judgements, Doctrines, and Decrees, by that only absolute and infallible rule of truth, the sacred and Canonical Scriptures. So that if they shall judge, direct, decree, or teach any thing not according to the Divine Scriptures, but contrary thereunto, (as the Arrian Bishops in time past did, and as the Popish Bishops and Teachers, in these days do,) all that is ●ustly worthy to be refused, by all Christian Emperors, Kings, and Princes, as is very evident, both by all good reason, and by that which is before delivered.  
Now than although, these two points be granted to my Adversary, (viz.) That the Regal and Priestly offices be things distinct: and that those that bear Regal Authority, be also subordinate and subject, to that Authority, message, and Ministry, which God hath committed to Bishops, Pastors, and Ministers Ecclesiastical: yet when there is further, a third point appearing, which he must acknowledge, namely, that Bishops, Pastors, and Ecclesiastical Ministers, be also subordinate and subject to the sword, and Authority of Christian Kings, and Princes, and that in matters Ecclesiastical, and concerning Religion, aswell as in matters Civil and Temporal, (as is before at large declared.) What benefit or advantage doth he get thereby: Yea, is not his cause thereby for ever overthrown?  
Thus fare then you see, that the plea which he hath put in for a demurrer, or stay of men's judgements, is altogether insufficient for that purpose: and therefore for any matter yet showed by him, or appearing to the contrary, all men's judgements, may and aught to proceed, and to be given against him and his cause, unless in that which followeth, he can show better matter, then as yet he hath showed. Let us therefore now see, whether he hath any better matter in that, than he hath found in those his two points before mentioned. For those his two former points appear not worth a point, nor of any value, or validity at all against the King's SUPREMACY.  
4 First, it is true, that I alleged that Text of 1. Pet. 2.13. To prove the KING'S SUPREMACY over all persons, aswell Ecclesiastical as Civil, within his own Dominions. And what can my Adversary say against it? Doth not S. Peter expressly require of all Christians that live within the Dominion of any King, 
1. Pet. 2.13.  That they should submit themselves unto him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, unto the Chief, or Supreme person over them? He cavilleth at my argument, because it is thus propounded interrogatively, and not affirmatively. A very childish exception, if it be not more than childish: For, is he so silly and ignorant, that he knoweth not, that an interrogative speech, doth sometime carry the force of the greater, & more Emphatical affirmation? And yet if he had but read, and remembered the very next words following that interrogative, he might have found a redditive, and a direct affirmative answer thereunto. For the words next and immediately following, be these: It is evident, (say I,) that he calleth the King Chief, or Supreme, not only in respect of Dukes, Earls, or other Temporal governors, (as the Rhemists would have it), but in respect of all the rest likewise, were they Bishops, Pastors, Clergy men, or whosoever. For he writeth that his Epistle, not to Heathens, but to Christians: and amongst them, not to the Lay people only, but to such also as were Presbyters, and did 〈…〉, 
1. Pet 112.34 5. 〈…〉 5 1.2.  do the office of Bishops amongst them, requiring even them, aswell as the rest, to yield their subjection & submission unto him. Now then seeing this direct affirmative in my Book, (pag. 1. of that Chapter,) and that the words of S. Peter, in the Text itself, be also direct affirmative, 
1. Pet. 2.13.  (for these be his words, Be ye therefore subject, etc.) What doth he, or can he answer thereunto? He sti●l cavilleth, at the words of the Text, playing with them ad libitum, and maketh the reason of it to be, because he is a Lawyer: as though it were lawful, or allowable for a man of that profession, to be a wrangling Lawyer: or as though, because he is a Lawyer, it were as free for him, to cavil, and sport himself, with Divine Texts and evidences, as with humane: or as though he had never heard, nor learned, That Non est bonum ludere cum Sanctis. Seeing I am a Lawyer, (saith he,) let me article and make my argument, or plea upon the Text: And then he goeth on, and saith, That these words in the Text, (Be subject,) do no more specify the Christians, than the Heathens, nor any more the Subjects, than the Princes. Be not these strange asseverations? For when S. Peter writeth that his Epistle, not to Heathens, 
1. Pet. 1.2 3.4. etc.  but to Christians, dispersed through Pontus, Galatia, Capadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, and saith thus unto them, Subjecti estote, Be ye subject: Can these words, thus directly, and purposely spoken to Christians, no more specify or intent Christians, than Heathens? Where were the man's wits, I marvel, when he wrote thus absurdly? Yea, himself afterward confuteth himself: For mentioning both this Text of S. Peter, and that also of S. Paul in Rom. 13.1. etc. He saith, that in these two cited places, both these Apostles Exhort to obedience: and the reason, (saith he,) why the King is mentioned, Is, because in those days, Christians were, by the malice of their Adversaries, accused of sedition, and rebellion against Princes. Doth he not by these words make it very evident, that S. Peter, in saying, Subjecti estote, Be ye subject, distinguisheth the Christians, to whom he writeth, from the rest that were their adversaries, and were heathens, and Infidels? But why doth he say again; that these words, Subjecti estote, Be ye subject, do no more specify Subjects, than Princes? For is it not a senseless thing, to say, or suppose, when men are by express words exhorted, to be subject to their Kings and Princes, that these words should require no more of Subjects, than they do of Kings and Princes? Yea, when he requireth Christians to be subject to every humane creature, whether it be to the king, as being the chief, or, unto governor's, as unto them that are sent of him, 
1. Pet. 2.13.14.  for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well: doth he not, by this his distribution of the humane creature, apparently show, that, he meaneth thereby the King, as Chief or Supreme, and the other Temporal Magistrates, Rulers, or Governors, that be appointed or allowed under him? Little reason therefore had my Adversary to say, That by every humane creature, in the Text, (thus distinguished by the Apostle himself, into the King, as Chief or Supreme, and into others, that be Rulers, or Governors, under him,) The King is no more compresed, than the Pope: For, you see, that the King is directly comprised and intended, yea expressly named, and so is not the Pope. And this is so evident, that even the Rhemists themselves, do likewise so teach and expound it, namely, That by every humane creature in this Text, S. Peter meaneth the Temporal Magistrates. 
Rhem. Annot. 5. in 1. Pet 2.13.  Howbeit, he calleth not Kings and Princes, and other inferior Magistrates under them, an humane creation, as though they were not also a Divine creation, and of God's institution, (For there is no power but of God. Rom. 13.1. 2. joh. 19.11.) But they are called an humane creation, in respect, that the external form and manner of their creation, is usually such, as that God hath been pleased to allow men to ordain and appoint it, for the use, behoof and benefit of men. For touching Kings and Princes, some are so by election; and some by birth and descent of inheritance: and concerning inferior Magistrates, under Kings & Princes, they be also created and made, some after one sort, and some after another. But what form of creation soever they receive from men, yet when they are once so appointed, 
1. Pet. 2.13.  they are then to be obeyed, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Propter Dominun, for the Lords sake, (as S. Peter here teacheth,) to show that they be also God's ordinance, and of his approbation. And therefore doth S Paul likewise teach; That Christians must be subject to them, 
Rom 13.1.2.3.4 5.  not only for fear, or for wrath, but also for conscience sake, as being also Gods own institution. But my Adversary at last confesseth, that this part of the Text, Whether it be to the King, as excelling, or to Rulers as sent by him, with a reference to the precedent words, doth establish in the King, the Regal and Temporal Supremacy. And this is enough if he would be constant, and stand to his words. For no other Supremacy, or Authority, in matters Ecclesiastical, doth the King claim, but that which is Regal and Temporal. In as much as he claimeth not to punish any offenders, in Ecclesiastical causes, otherwise then by finings, imprisonments, and such like Civil, and Temporal penalties, and punishments, which belong to that his Regal and Temporal Authority to inflict: and in as much as he also meddleth not with preaching the Word, Ministering the Sacraments, Excommunication, Absolution, or whatsoever else that is proper and peculiar to the Bishops or Ministers function. And seeing he is so equal and just, as to deny Clergy men, nothing that of right belongeth to them: Why should any Clergy men, or any men whosoever, be so unequal and unjust, as to deny unto him any thing that is his proper due, as namely a Regal and Temporal Power and Authority, to be extended, and used against offenders, in matters Ecclesiastical, aswell as in Civil? For what? Shall offenders in causes Ecclesiastical, that be and persist wilful, obstinate, and perpetual contemners of all Divine admonitions, Church censures and Christian courses, be held, not fit to be restrained, or punished Civilly, or by Temporal Authority? Would not such a liberty, and impunity, prove extremely and intolerably mischievous? And yet must such a mischief be endured, or at least hazarded, where Ecclesiastical Authority is contemned and set at naught, and that withal such contemners shall nevertheless not be permitted to be restrained by the Civil Sword, and Authority of Kings and Princes. This argument I alleged in the first Chapter of my former Book, (pag. 6.) but my Adversary is of such an excellent skill, as that he can tell how to pass it over, as he doth many things more, without making any answer thereunto. Wherefore that his evasion and distinction, (which is likewise the common evasion and distinction of all the Papists,) viz, that Kings and Princes, are to be obeyed, when they command for matters Civil and Temporal, but not when they command for God, and his Religion, or in matters Ecclesiastical, 〈◊〉 appeareth to be a most false & most idle distinction, being both in my former Book, and in this also, (much more largely,) reselled and confuted. Yea, it is so gross and absurd, as that at the very first hearing of it, in this sort produced, it showeth itself to be very senseless, and ridiculous. For, shall the King be obeyed, when he commandeth for men? and shall he not be obeyed, when he commandeth for God? Is not this to prefer Men before God, Earth before Heaven, the Body before the Soul, the Commonweal before the Church, and things worldly, terrestrial, and external, before things divine, celestial, and eternal? 
Rhem. Annot 6 in 1. Pet. 2.13.  As for that which the Rhemists say, That this Text giveth no more to any Prince, then may and aught to be done and granted to an heathen Magistrate: it maketh not for them, but against them. For if they will grant no more to Christian Kings and Princes, then is due to heathen Princes, ye●, even so much sufficeth, as touching this point, if it be well 〈◊〉: Because, it is very clear, that even heathen Kings and Princes, are and aught to be obeyed, 
Ezra. 1.1.2.3. etc.  when they command for God, his service & Religion: as is evident, by Cyrus, King of Persia, who though he were an heathen King, gave commandment to build the Temple in jerusalem, 
Ez a. 61.23. etc.  and was therein obeyed: Darius also, another heathen King, gave commandment for the continuing of the building of that Temple, and for the Sacrifices to be offered in it, 
Ezra. 7.12.13. etc.  and was therein obeyed: In like sort, did Artaxerxes, though an heathen King, give commandment for the reforming of the Church according to the law of God, 
Dan. 3.29.  by the Ministry of Ezra, that learned Scribe. Nabuchadnezzar also, though an heathen King, gave a commandment, and made a decree, that none should blaspheme the GOD of Shadrach, 
Dan 6 25 26.  Meshach, and Abednego. King Darius likewise gave commandment & made a decree, that in all the Dominions of his kingdom, men should tremble & fear before the Lord God of Daniel, whose God was the true God. Some heathen Emperors also gave commandment, that men should cease from persecuting the Christians, & that Christians should have the free exercise of their Religion, build Oratories, & places for their meetings and assemblies, 
Euseb li 7. cap. ●8 cap 12.  & quietly possess them, for the service of their God. Were not these & such like commandments, good, lawful, & commendable, 
Euseb. lib. 9 cap. 16. cap. 8. lat.  though given by heathen Emperors, and in causes Ecclesiastical, and concerning Religion? And were they not meet to be obeyed? If then heathen Kings, and Princes, may, (as is manifest,) lawfully and laudably command for God, his worship, service, and Religion, and are therein dutifully to be obeyed; By what right or reason, can it be denied to Christian Kings, and Princes, to have (at least) the like authority, to command in matters Ecclesiastical, for God, his service, and Religion? For, shall Christian Kings and Princes, be in worse case then heathen Kings? Or shall they far the worse, or have the less Regal power, and authority, because of their Religion of Christianity? God forbidden. This argument I likewise alleged in the first Chapter of my former Book (pag. 7.) whereto my Adversary again, like a wise man still knoweth, how to answer nothing. And yet he saith, he will propose my defused argument in a succinct form, the most for my advantage●●: But, I neither desire, nor look for any advantage at his hands: Let him make his own Arguments the best he can for his own advantage: As for mine, I would not have him to frame them, unless he would do it more truly. He would indeed, make my Argument defused, or rather confused, by his confused manner of answering; jumbling things together which I had Methodically, and expressly distinguished. For, first, my purpose was to prove his Majesty's SUPREMACY, over all persons, within his own Dominions: and then afterward in the second place, to show his Authority in respect of Causes Ecclesiastical, aswell as Civil. In the first Section of that Chapter, pag. 1.2.3.4. I handle the first point, concerning his Supremacy, in respect of persons: and in the second section pag. 5. and not before, it is, that I begin to handle his Authority in respect of causes. This Text then of S. Peter, being alleged, (as it is), in the first section, and pag. 1. was by me produced, to prove only his Majesty's Supremacy over all persons, aswell Ecclesiastical as Civil, within his own Dominions, and not for any such end, or purpose, as thereby to prove his Majesty's Authority in causes Ecclesiastical, aswell as Civil, as he misconceaveth. But sith he will needs have it so used, I am well content with it: because that Text, doth indeed serve very sufficiently, to prove both those purposes. For the first, the argument is very apparent, and may be framed thus. If all persons aswell Ecclesiastical, as Civil, are to be subject to their King, as to the Chief or Supreme within his own Dominions, then hath their King a clear Supremacy over them all: But all persons aswell Ecclesiastical, as Civil, are to be subject to their King, as to the Chief or Supreme, within his own Dominions, (for so S. Peter directly teacheth:) Ergo their King hath a clear Supremacy over them all. And for the second point, the argument is also very open, and evident: For the King is not called the Chief, or Supreme, in respect only of the excellency of his person above all his subjects, but in respect also of his Authority, Rule, and Government, he hath over them: yea in this respect specially, he is so called, as appeareth by this, That S. Peter distribu●es the humane creature, he there speaketh of, that is, the Temporal Magistrates, Rulers, or Governors, into the King, as being the Chief or Supreme Governor, and into other that be governors under him. So that here we find, the King's Title of Supreme Governor, very manifestly proved, and directly ratified, and confirmed. And that his government, and authority extendeth also to all manner of causes, (and consequently to causes Ecclesiastical aswell, as Civil,) it is thus also made very apparent, out of this Text. For S. Peter here showeth, 
1. Pet 2.13.14.  that the King as the Supreme Governor, and the other that be inferior governors under him, be all constituted to this end, (viz.) For the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well. Now be there not, or may there not be, evil doers, aswell in the Church, as in the Commonweal, and transgressors, and offenders, aswell in matters Ecclesiastical, as Civil and Temporal? Shall not then aswell the one sort of these offenders, as the other, be held punishable, by the King's Civil, and Temporal Sword, especially when they grow and continue obstinate, wilful, perverse, and unruly, and will not otherwise be reclaimed? The Text maketh no such difference, or distinction, (as the Papists fond do,) between offenders in causes Ecclesiastical, and offenders in causes Civil, and Temporal, but generally or indefinitely, it would have Evil doers, of what sort soever, without any distinction, exception, or restriction, to be punished by this Civil sword. And ubi lex non distinguit, ibi nec nos distinguere debemus. The Argument then for the King's Authority in matters Ecclesiastical, aswell as in Civil, out of this Text of S. Peter, is and may be framed thus. Whosoever hath authority from God, to punish Evil doers, by the Civil sword, without any distinction, restriction, or exception of causes; hath Authority in causes Ecclesiastical, aswell as Civil. But the King hath Authority from God, to punish ●●●-●oers by the Civil sword, without any distinction, restriction, or exception of causes: Ergo, The King hath Authority in causes Ecclesiastical, aswell as Civil. The Mato● is evident in itself. The Miror is proved, and apparent by the Text: and therefore the conclusion must be granted.  
My Adversary nevertheless still urgeth, that as touching spiritual and Ecclesiastical causes and matters, and concerning Religion, obedience must be performed to the Supreme Pastor, and head of the Church. And who denieth this? Yea, this is granted unto him, so he take it rightly: For not the Pope, (as he and other Papists strangely suppose) but CHRIST JESUS only, is the Chief Shepherd, or Supreme Pastor, and head of the Church, as hath been often declared, and as is apparent. As for that he saith, That the Militant Church, must have some visible head in Earth to rule and govern it: 
1. Pet. 5.4 Hebr. 13 20. Colos. 1.18. Ephes. 1. 2●.23.  He only saith it, but doth not prove it: and it is indeed, but an humane devise and conceit, and such as is before confuted in my former Book, pag. 95.96 97. whereunto he full maketh no answer. And yet it is there showed, that the Company, both Militant, and Triumphant, make but one body, and one Church, unto CHRIST JESUS, whereof he is the Head: and that though in his bodily presence and humanity, he be in heaven; yet by his Deity, and power of his Spirit, and word, he is in Earth with his Church, and can tell, how to rule, govern, comfort, confirm, guide, and direct it, and to give all gifts and graces requisite, and to do and perform all the offices of an Head unto it, much better than the Pope of Rome, or any man mortal whosoever: Yea, himself confuteth himself, when he saith, that in these words of CHRIST; Reddite quaesunt Caesaris, Caesari: & quaesunt Dei, Deo: By this word; Caesari, is understood, (saith he,) The Supreme Governor in Temporal affairs: and by the word Deo, the Supreme Governor in Spiritual affairs. For, thereupon it followeth, that then is not the Pope of Rome, the supreme governor in those spiritual and Ecclesiastical affairs, unless he will say, that the Pope is God. But whereas he maketh Caesar, or the Emperor, to be the supreme Governor in Temporal affairs only, as though he had no Authority in spiritual, or Ecclesiastical matters also, therein is still his error; because it is before most manifestly proved, that even the heathen Emperors, (and much more those that were Christian Emperors) lawfully might, & did command for God his service, & Religion; & dealt in matters Ecclesiastical, aswell as Civil & Temporal. Yea, Rex est persona mixta, as our law also calleth him, in respect of that his interest & Authority in causes both Ecclesiastical, & Civil. For which cause likewise, amongst Divines, he is said to be, Custos utriusque Tabulae.  
As for that his calumnious speech, against Luther and Calvine, which he here also inserteth, 
Luther tom. 1. in Genes. cap. 9 & tom 3. Ann●t. in Deut. 6. fol. 40. & tom 2. responed Ambr Catherinum fol 150. & 152. etc. Calvin Inst. l b. 4 cap 20. & in Rom 13. etc.  as though they wrote against the obedience due to Princes and their laws; it hath been often answered by sundry Protestants, and the untruth of it, is so notorious, as, that the works and writings of them both, do show, and openly proclaim the contrary to the world: if men would please to read them, and not to wrest their words, but to take them, every where, in a right sense. But what meaneth he by this, that he saith: Kings and Princes, may more confidently build the safety of their persons & estates, upon the loyalty of their Catholic subjects, then upon any Protestant subjects? what, are Papists (whom he calleth Catholics) more loyal to Protestant Kings, and Princes, than Protestants? Is there any likelihood of truth, in this? Or doth he think, that Protestant Kings and Princes, will or can be so persuaded? For is it possible, that they, who for love or affection to the Pope, and Popish Religion, deny and oppugn the King's SUPREMACY, and the true Christian RELIGION he professeth and defendeth, can be more loyal or better subjects unto him, than those that acknowledge his SUPREMACY, & RELIGION by his Authority established? Thankfully, and joyfully embracing them both, praying unto God for the continuance of them, and for all manner of happiness and prosperity upon him and his, which is the defender and maintainer of them both amongst us, and think themselves bound in duty and conscience so to do? Comparisons, they say, are odious, and therefore I could have wished that he had forborn them, neither needed he to have used them: For, if we all, both Protestants and Papists, be in all respects, and at all times, found, faithful, true, and good Subjects to his Majesty, as of right & duty we all aught, and as I hope, we all shall be; I doubt not but it will suffice, although we strive not thus to provoke one another, by Comparative, or Superlative terms. But what reason hath he further, to call Calvine, (as he doth,) the sensual Libertine of this age, who wrote against the libertines, and against all licentiousness, and all manner of ungodliness, and impiety whatsoever: For so his many learned, laborious, godly, and worthy works, do abundantly testify and declare to the world? Will Papists never cease their malicious, and untrue accusations against Luther, Calvine, Beza, and other Protestants?  
5 The second Text I alleged, to prove the King's Supremacy, over all persons, Ecclesiastical aswell as Civil, within his own Dominions, is taken out of S. Paul, in Rom. 13. where S. Paul saith thus. 
Rom. 13.1.2.3.4.5.6. etc.  Let every Soul be subject to the higher powers, for there is no power but of God: and the powers that be, be ordained of God: Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist, shall receive to themselves condemnation. For Magistrates are not to be feared for good works, but for evil. Wilt thou then be without fear of the power? Do well: so, shalt thou have praise for the same: For, he is the Minister of God unto thee, for thy good: but if you do evil, fear; For he beareth not the Sword in vain; For he is the Minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. Wherefore ye must be subject, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience sake: And for this cause, pay ye tribute also: For they are Gods Ministers, employing themselves, for that very purpose. By the higher powers, (in this Text), whereto subjection is required, & which bear the sword, for the punishment of the evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well, is meant, 
1. Pet. 2.13.14.  (as S. Peter also hath before showed), those that be Kings, Princes, and such like Civil and Temporal Magistrates. And this is so evident, as that though my Adversary doth not, yet the Rhemists do ingeniously confess, 
Rhem. Annot. in Rom. 13. vers. 4.  and teach it. For, That the Apostle meaneth here specially of Temporal powers, we may see, (say they,) by the sword, tribute and external compulsion, he here attributeth to them. Neither was there then, (as they say,) any doubt conceived by Christian men, whether they should obey their Spiritual powers, or Spiritual Governors, yea or no: which is another reason, they them give to show, that this Text is not to be expounded of Spiritual, 
Origen. in hunc locum.  but of Civil and temporal Rulers and Magistrates. Origen likewise declareth the same, affirming them to be, Non Antistites, & Principes Ecclesiarum; sed Mundi judices, & seculi potestates, Not Bishops, and Prelates of Churches, but worldly judges, and secular Powers. In like sort S. Ambrose affirmeth them to be Reges, 
Ambros. in hunc locum. Aug. de Catech. rudibus cap. 21.  & seculi rectores, Kings and secular Governors. S. Augustine also saith, that hereby is taught, Ecclesiam Christi in omnibus sanctis ejus, servituram esse, sub Regibus seculi: That the Church of Christ in all his Saints, 
Lib. 2. dist. 44.  must serve under the Kings of this world. The M. of the Sentences likewise saith: that the Apostle speaketh of Princes, and such like. Aquinas also doth interpret them, 
Aquinas in ●●lle locum.  to be, Potestates terrenas, & carnales Dominos, Terrestrial powers, and temporal Governors. 
Aug contr. epist Parmen. li. 1. c. 7  S. Augustine again, in another place, yet more fully declareth the same. What credit then is to be given to mine Adversary, when contrary to the testimony of all these, and contrary also to the testimony of the Rhemists, and contrary also to the clear evidence of the Text itself, he saith, That in these higher Powers, is no more included the Temporal, than the Spiritual Powers? Yea, S. Chrysostome also yet further showeth, that Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists and such like Ecclesiastical Ministers, are to be reckoned in the number of those Souls, that are to be subject to the higher powers; and therefore can none of them; (no, not the Bishop of Rome himself,) be comprised or intended under the name of the higher Powers, there mentioned. 
Chrysost. in Rom homi● 23.  S. Chrysostom's words be these: Let every Soul be subject to the higher Powers: Yea, though you be an Apostle, though an Evangelist, though a Prophet, Sive quisquis tandem fueris, etc. Or whosoever you be. My Adversary is so captious, as that because in my former Book, pag. 2. cap. 1. there is an, etc. after these words in Latin, Quisquis tandem fueris: he would make his Reader believe, that there is some abstruse meaning in that Enigmatical ●●●se, (as he calleth it,) which if I would unfold, would declare, how little it made for my purpose: But, why doth not himself unfold that aenigma? Is it, because Davus est, non Oedipus? For if himself had read the place in Chrysostome (as it seemeth he did not), he might easily have unfolded the aenigma, & discovered the fallacy or deceit, if any had lain enclosed, or hidden in it. But myself did indeed sufficiently unfold it, in the very same place (pag. 2.), where, after that (etc.) I added out of Chrysostome, that which I meant by that (etc.), namely, these words, Neque enim pietatem subvertit ista subjectio, For neither doth this subjection overthrow piety or godliness. The whole clause and sentence then, (that being also added which was intended by the &c.), is this: (viz.) Let every Soul be subject to the Higher powers: Yea, though you be an Apostle, though an Evangelist, though a Prophet, or whosoever you be: For neither doth this subjection overthrow piety or godliness. Now he hath it wholly & entirely unfolded: What can he make of it, either to advantage himself, or to disadvantage me? Yea, this unfolding & expressing of it, rather maketh for me; because it directly affirmeth, that this subjection (of Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, & all other Ministers Ecclesiastical,) To these Higher powers, standeth well with Christian Religion, and doth no way subvert, or overthrow any part of piety or godliness. Wherefore, S. Chrysostome saith there yet further that, Omnibus ista praecipiuntur, Sacerdotibus quoque a● Monachis, & non solum secularibus: These things be commanded to all, even to the Priests also, and to Monckes, and not to secular-men only. I likewise alleged, (in that first Chapter of my Book, (pag. 2. & 3.) Theodoret, 
Theodoret. Theophil. & Oecumenius in Rom 13. Be●●ar Epist. 42 Greg. Epist. li. 2 Epist. 62. & 65. Paris 1605.  Theophila●●, Oecumenius, Aeneas Silvius, Gregory, and Bernard: who all declare, (aswell as Chrysostome), that even Bishops, Priests and Cleargie-men, and not Secular or Laymen only, be in the number of those Souls, that are to be subject to these higher Powers: In somuch that Aeneas Silvius, 
Aene●● Silvius lib. 1 de Ge●●● Basil. Concil.  (who was himself, sometime a Pope of Rome,) affirmeth, that S. Paul saith: Omnis anima potestatibus subli mioribus subdita fit: nec excipit animam Papae. Let every Soul be subject to the higher Powers: Neither, (saith he,) doth S. Paul here except the soul of the Pope himself, but that he also ought to be subject. And for further proof hereof, 
Ortat. contr. Parmen. lib 3.  I alleged also the testimony of Optatus, who saith: that super Imperatorem non est nisi solus Deus, qui fecit Imperatorem: Above the Emperor, is not any, but God only that made the Emperor. I cited also the testimony of Tertullian, 
Tertul ad S●apul cap. 2.  writing thus: Colimus Imperatorem, ut hominem à Deo secundum, & solo Deo minorem. We Christians do honour the Emperor, as the man next unto God, & inferior only unto God. Agreeably whereunto he saith again of the Emperors, 
Ters. Apolog. cap. ●0.  that they be under the power of God only, à quo sunt secundi, post quem primi: from whom they be the second, after whom they be the first. And (pag. 30.) I alleged the testimony, 
Chrysost. ad popul Antioch. homil. 2.  once more, of S. Chrysostome, who saith of the Christian Emperor in his time: that Non habet parem super terram: He hath no peer or equal upon earth. Yea, he saith further of him, that he was, Summitas & caput omnium super terras hominum, The head, and one that had the supremacy over all men upon earth. To all which, my Adversary, according to his wont, wise, and learned manner of answering, thought it best to answer nothing. Thus fare then have I proved against him, that by the higher powers, in this Text of S. Paul, be meant Emperors, Kings, Princes, & such like temporal Magistrates: and that by every Soul in this Text, which is to be subject to the higher Powers, is meant, all manner of persons whatsoever, Ecclesiastical, aswell as Civil and Temporal; and consequently, that the Bishop of Rome, was then clearly subject to the Emperor of Rome, and so ought still to have continued. But my Adversary at last granteth, That Bishops, Priests, and Cleargie-men, be subject to the King, and to his Laws; but with this distinction, namely, according to the directive power of them, but not according to the coactive. And this distinction he learned, 
Bellar. de Clericis cap 28.  not only of Suarez, but of Bellarmine also: For thus likewise writeth Bellarmine. Non sunt amplius Reges, Clericorum superiores, & proinde non tenentur jure divino, nec humano, eye parere, nisi quantum ad leges directivas. King's are not any longer Sovereign's or superiors to Cleargie-men, and therefore are they not bound to obey them by God's Law, or Man's law, unless it be in respect of law's directive. What Bellarmine meaneth by law's directive, himself declareth when he saith, That Princes have no coactive power over the Cleargie-men, but only power directive. This distinction was not known in the Apostolic, Primitive, and ancient Church, nor so long as the Bishops of Rome were subject to the Emperors; but when the Bishops of Rome, contrary to all laws, both humane, and divine, had traitorously and wickedly subdued the Emperors; and that it could be said of Emperors and Kings as Bellarmine speaketh, that; Non sunt amplius Clericorum superiores, They are no longer Sovereign's or superiors to Cleargie-men: Then did this distinction arise or grow, that the Kings might have a directive power, but no coactive power over them, that is, might direct them to what was good, but might not compel them to it. And so faith also mine Adversary, that coactive power imposeth penalties. Now this distinction is easily answered and confuted, yea he might have perceaved it in my former Book (pag. 7.8.9.10.) to have been sufficiently answered and confuted. For besides other proofs, 
Aug lib. 1 in fine contr. Epist. Parmen.  it is there showed by divers testimonies out of S. Augustine himself against the Donatists; That Kings and Princes may not only direct or command, but may also by Laws, penalties and punishments, compel their Subjects, (and consequently Cleargie-men, aswell as others,) to obedience, in that which is good and godly. Yea, it is the proper and peculiar right of Kings and Princes, externally to use a power coactive, by reason of the sword committed to them from God: which, Ecclesiastical Ministers, by virtue of their Ecclesiastical calling and office, cannot do. And seeing Parents have a power coactive over their children, and Masters in a family over their servants: very strange it were, if Kings should not be allowed to have a power coactive over their subjects. But it is indeed very well known, that the Christian Emperors in ancient time, did use a power coactive, even over Cleargie-men, aswell as over others, inflicting penalties and punishments upon them. As for example: Constantine that Christian Emperor, exiled and banished Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, 
Theoderes. lib. 1. cap. 20.  and Theognius Bishop of Nice: and he saith further: That if any man (whether Bishop, or other) were offended, at that his banishing of them, and would grow malapert thereupon, Illius statim audacia, Ministri Dei, hoc est mea executione coercebitur: His boldness shall forthwith be repressed, by the execution of God's minister, that is, of myself. Another Constantine also, (by whose Imperial Authority, the sixth Council at Constantinople was held, in a Decree inserted in that Council), 
Synod. 6. Act. 18 Conc. edit. ●in to ●. pag. 92.  saith: Siquidem Episcopus est, vel Clericus, vel Monachico circundatus habitu, deportationis paenam exsolvet: If he be a Bishop, or a Clerk, or a Monk, let him be punished with deportation or banishment. Charlemagne also in a French Synod, 
Tom 2. Concil.  decreed imprisonment: Si ordinatus Presbiter fuerit, duos annos in carcere permaneat. 
Aug. lib. 1. in fine contr. epist. Par.  S. Augustine again declareth, that there was a Law Imperial against those that professed themselves Christians and true Catholics, and yet were not so, but kept private Conventicles, 〈◊〉 that he that ordained a Clerk for that purpose, or the Clerk so ordained, should lose ten pounds of gold: and the place also where such Conventicles were kept, should be forfeited to the Emperor. You see then (for the refelling and overthrow of that foolish and false distinction) that the Christian Emperors had power coactive, over Bishops, and Cleargie-men, punishing them sometime with deportation, exile, or banishment: sometime, with imprisonment: and sometime with penalties, and losses of sums of money, and other forfeitures. And upon some kind of offenders, you may read, that they inflicted the punishment of death. And indeed to what end, hath the King this Regal and Temporal Authority & jurisdiction, & the power coactive in his hands, by reason of the Sword committed to him from God, if he may not use it, and put it in execution? Yea my Adversary himself confesseth, and saith, that jurisdictio nullius videretur esse momenti, si coertionem aliquam non haberet: jurisdiction might seem to be of no regard, if it had not some coercion, or power coactive joined with it. Again, (he saith:) Cui jurisdictio data est, ea quoque concessa intelliguntur, sine quibus jurisdictio expleri non potest: To whom jurisdiction is given, all those things be also understood to be granted, without which that jurisdiction cannot be performed. Wherefore, even by those Maxims, which himself citeth and approveth, it is manifest; that seeing the King hath a power, jurisdiction, and Authority, to direct & command Cleargie-men, he hath also a power coercitive, or coactive over them, to compel, correct, and punish them, if otherwise they will not obey those his directions and commandments. So that my Adversary needed to have no better confuter of this his idle distinction than himself.  
But pag. 5. in that first Chapter of my former Book, I alleged that Text of Rom. 13. to prove also the King's Authority in matters Ecclesiastical, aswell as Civil or Temporal. And indeed this Text serveth also very sufficiently for that purpose. For as there is here no exception of any person, so is there also no exception of any cause or matter: but whosoever doth evil, be it in what kind of cause soever, he is here made subject to this sword and Temporal Authority of Emperors, Kings and Princes; For the Text saith, That they are the ordinance of God, and the Ministers of God, (attending, employed, and constituted to this very end and purpose,) for the praise, countenancing, and encouraging of the good and weldoers, and for discountenancing, 
Aug. Epist. 50.  discouraging, and punishing of the bad, and such as be evil-doers. And therefore doth S. Augustine say: that Quicunque legibus Imperatorum, quae pro Dei veritate f●runtur obtemperare non vult, grande acquirit supplicium: Whosoever will not obey the Laws of the Emperor, which are made for the truth of God, doth purchase to himself a great punishment. 
Aug. Epist. 166.  For, (saith he in another place,) Hoc jubent Imperatores, quod jubet & Christus: quia cum jubent bonum, per illos non jubet nisi Christus: The Emperor's command that which Christ also commandeth: because when they command that which is good, it is Christ himself that commandeth by them. 
Aug de Civit. Dei lib. 5. cap. 24  Yea S. Agustine was so fare from this point of Popery, to deny, or disallow the Authority of Emperors, Kings and Princes in matters Ecclesiastical and concerning Religion, as that he doth evermore teach, and defend it, whensoever there was occasion to speak of it, in somuch that he saith: Imperatores foelices dicimus, si suam potestatem ad Dei cultum maxime dilatandum, etc. We affirm the Emperors to be happy, if they extend their Authority the most they can, to do service unto God, in the spreading of his Religion. For, 
Aug. Epist. ●0.  (as the same S. Augustine again saith,) a King serveth God one way, as he is a man: and another way, as he is a King: As a Man he serveth God by living well and faithfully: But as he is a King, he serveth God by setting forth Laws, to command that which is good, and to remove the contrary. So that Kings, as Kings, serve God, in doing that for his service, which none but Kings can do. Wherefore my Argument to prove the Authority of Emperors, Kings, and Princes, in both those points together, out of this Text of Rom. 13. is this: whosoever hath Authority to punish evil-doers, without exception of any person, and without exception of any cause, hath Authority over all persons, and in all causes aswell Ecclesiastical as Civil: But the Emperor within his Empire, and the King within his Kingdoms, hath Authority to punish evil-doers without exception of any person, and without exception of any cause, (as is apparent by the Text itself, wherein no exception is to be found.) Ergo, the Emperor within his Empire, and the King within his kingdoms, hath authority over all persons, and in all causes, aswell Ecclesiastical as Civil.  
6 But now from this Text of Rom. 13. alleged in the 5. pag. of that first Chapter in my Book, concerning the SUPREMACY: My Adversary cometh next to the point of Appeals, mentioned in the same first Chapter, pag. 24. So, that he here skippeth over 9 whole leaves together at one leap: and I must follow him in his course. It is true, that (in the pag. 24.) I said, that when Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage, was accused by Donatus, & some other of that saction, Constantine the Emperor commanded Caecilianus to come to Rome, with a certain number of Bishops that accused him: and by his Commission, (extant in Eusebius,) authorised and appointed Miltiad●s, the then Bishop of Rome & some others with him, for the hearing and ending of that matter These Commissioners condemned Donatus, who appealed from their sentence, to the Emperor: which appeal also, the Emperor received. Where, beside that you see, that this Christian Emperor made Commissioners in this Episcopal and Ecclesiastical cause, observe withal, that Miltiades the then Bishop of Rome, was one of those Commissioners, and there withal you may also note, that the Bishops of Rome, were then very clearly subject and not superior to the Emperor. So that a Christian King, or Prince, not only may make Commissioners in Ecclesiastical causes, but may also have Appeals made unto him, as is here apparent. To this my Adversary maketh diverse answers. First, (he saith,) that this instance concerning Appeals, maketh more against me, then for me, because it was an Appeal made by Heretics, (viz.) the Donatists, unto the Emperor. But this reason of his, maketh more against him, than set him. For if it were lawful for Heretics, who thought themselves wronged by the inferior judges, to appeal to the Emperor: no less (if not much more lawful was it) for the Orthodox Bishops if they were wronged, to appeal to him. And if Constantine, that Orthodox, godly and Christian Emperor, thought it lawful for him, (as he did, for otherwise he would never have meddled with it,) to entertain, and receive an appeal made to him from Heretics: much more would he have thought it lawful and meet to receive Appeals from such as were Orthodox, right & true Christians, and men, for Faith & Religion, like himself. But that he may know, that not only heretics, but Orthodox Bishops also, 
Athan. Apolog. 2 cap. Quum multas.  did appeal to the Emperor: Let him take for an evident proof of it, the example of Athanasius, and of the other Bishops joined with him, who, (as is before showed,) appealed from the Council of Tyrus, 
Socrat lib. 1. cap. 33. & 34.  unto the same godly Emperor Constantine: which appeal the same Emperor likewise received. Neither would Athanasius, nor any other good and godly Bishops have appealed unto him, if they had not thought it lawful, both for them so to do, and for the Emperor also to receive such appeals. Neither did the Donatists appeal only from Miltiades the Bishop of Rome, and those that were joined with him by Commission from the Emperor: But, they appealed also from those other Bishops, that were afterward assembled at Arle in France, for the hearing, and ending of the same cause. And both these Appeals did the Emperor receive, and upon the last appeal, he sat himself in person, and gave judgement for Caecilianus, against the Donatists: whose proceed and judgements, upon those appeals, S. Augustine disliked not, but well liked and allowed: alleging them, as being substantial proofs for the Catholics, and lawful, good, and effectual judgements against the Donatists. I grant that Constantine was loath at the first, to be judge in this Episcopal cause, in his own person, 
Aug Epist. 166  and therefore S. Augustine saith: Eam discutiendam atque finiendam, Episcopis delegavit, He delegated, and appointed Bishops to discuss and determine it, namely, Miltiades and his Colleagues. 
Ibidem.  And when Miltiades and his Colleagues had pronounced Caecilianus innocent, and condemned Donatus, as Author of the schism raised at Carthage: Your side, (saith S. Augustine to the Donatists, 
Ibidem. ) came back to the Emperor, and complained of the judgement of the Bishops against them. The most patiented and mild Emperor, the second time gave them other judges, namely, the Bishops that met at Arle in France: And your men, (saith he, seaking still to the Donatists,) appealed from the Bishops of Arle also to the Emperors own person; and never left, till the Emperor himself in person took the hearing of the cause between them: which he did, and, upon hearing it, pronounced Caecilianus innocent, and those his accusers, 
Idem Epist. 162  to be malicious wranglers. Again, the same S. Angustine saith: that the Donatists appealed from Ecclesiastical judgement, to the end that Constantine might hear the cause: Whither, when they came, both parties standing before him, Caecilianus was adjudged to be innocent, and the Donatists overthrown. To prove this I will further bring you, (saith S. Augustine), the very words of Constantine, where he witnesseth, That upon judicial hearing of both sides, he found Caecilianus to be clear. Yea, S. Augustine showeth further, what followed upon this judgement; 
Aug. Epist. 166.  Then did Constantine, (saith he), make a sharp law, to punish the Donatists: his sons continued the same. Read, what Valentinian, read when you will, what Gratian, and Theodosius, Decreed, against you. Why wonder you then, at the Children of Theodosius, as if they had followed any other precedent in this cause, than the judgement of Constantine, which so many Christian Emperors have kept inviolate? Though Constantine be dead, yet the judgement of Constantine, given against you, liveth. For, when Emperors command that which is good, it is Christ and no man else, that commandeth by them. Thus you see how much this judgement of Constantine upon this Appeal, made to him, (though by Donatists), was not only justified and approved by S. Augustine, but embraced also by other Christian Emperors, as Virtuous, and confirmed as Religious, and honoured of the whole Orthodox Church, in that time. So little cause hath mine Adversary, or any other Papists, to mislike of Constantine his meddling therein, as if it were unlawful. But secondly, my Adversary answereth, that the then Emperor Constantine the Great, did remit Caecilianus and the Donatists, for the decision and determining of their difference, unto Miltiades Bishop of Rome, as to his proper and right judge. It is true, that he committed the hearing and determining of that cause unto Miltiades Bishop of Rome, but not to him alone, as if he were the sole and only proper, and rightful judge, in the case, but to him together with others: For, Marcus, Rheticius, Maternus, and Marinus, were interested with him in the same Commission. The Commission is yet extant in Eusebius, to be seen in these words. Constantine the Emperor, unto Miltiades Bishop of Rome, 
Euseb. li. 10. c. 5  and to Marcus, sendeth greeting: For as much as many such Epistles are brought unto me from Anilinus Lieutenant of Africa, wherein it is said, that Caecilianus Bishop of Carthage is reprehended in many things, by diverse of his Colleagues abiding in Africa: and this seemeth unto me very grievous, that there should be found in those Provinces, which the providence of God hath allotted peculiarly unto my government, a great multitude of people prone unto the worse, and disagreeing: And that amongst Bishops, there should be such variance. My pleasure therefore is, that Caecilianus with ten Bishops of his accusers, and ten other of his favourers, do come to Rome, there to be heard before you both, joining with you, Rheticius, Maternus, and Marinus, your Colleagues, whom purposely for that matter I have commanded with speed to repair thither unto you, etc. And S. Augustine likewise hath before told you, 
Aug Epist 166.  that the Emperor committed this cause, Non Episcopo sed Episcopis, Not to one Bishop in the Singular number, but to Bishops in the Plural number: eam discutiendam atque finiendam Episcopis delegavit. And again he saith: 
Colla●. 3 diei cum Donatist●● cap 5  Causam Caecilian injunxit eis audiendam, & elsewhere he also saith, Constantinum dedisse judices iterum, 
Idem Epist. 166  That Constantine gave them judges a second time. And he further proveth that those judges, both the first and second, might lawfully judge in that case, 
Idem Epist. 162.  Eo quod Imperator illos judices dedisset, Because the Emperor had given those judges. So that it appeareth very fully and clearly, that not Miltiades alone, as Bishop of Rome, and in his own right, but Miltiades associated and joined with others, namely, with Marcus, Rheticius, Maternus and Marinus, were the judges, in this case, and that by Commission and Authority granted from the Emperor. Yea, you see, there was afterward also an Appeal from their sentence, to the Emperor, whereupon the Emperor, a second time, gave other judges. From these also 〈◊〉 there a second Appeal, to the Emperor himself in person: who, at the last, in his own person heard and judged the cause, and without the Bishop of Rome, by his own authority, pronounced final sentence therein. The least of these facts proveth the Emperor's Supremacy in those times, aswell over the Bishop of Rome, as over other Bishops: What force then have they, when they be all united and joined together?  
Yet, thirdly, my Adversary answereth, that Constantine the Emperor did but pronounce and declare, the justness of the sentence, given formerly against the Donatists, by their competent judge, Pope Miltiades. But first, why doth he still say, That the sentence against the Donatists, was given by Miltiades; as though it had been given only by him? For it is manifest, that it was not only his sentence and judgement, but the sentence and judgement of the rest of his Colleagues and fellow Commissioners joined with him. Secondly, why doth he speak of Miltiades Bishop of Rome, as if he were the only competent judge, when he not only seethe others to be joined, and made judges with him, but an Appeal also to be made and allowed from his and their sentence, and from other judges also afterward given, to judge of the same cause. And thirdly, though Constantine the Emperor, did by this sentence, upon hearing of the cause, clear and acquit Caecilianus, and condemn the Donatists, and so approved the first sentence, and judgement given by Miltiades and his Colleagues, and the second sentence also that was given by the other Bishops assembled at Arle in France: Yet doth this approbation of his, or declaration of the Bishop of Rome's sentence in this case to be just and right, no more prove a supremacy in Miltiades the Bishop of Rome, than it doth in Marcus, Rheticius, Maternus, and Marinus, or then it doth in those other Bishops that were afterward assembled at Arle, whose sentence he likewise approved, and declared to be just. Neither doth it any way impair or detract from Constantine his judgement, but that he was also a judge, and held the place and office of judicature, all this notwithstanding. For else may you say, that those Bishops assembled at Arle, (whom S. Augustine expressly calleth judices, judges), were also no judges, because they likewise, aswell as Constantine, acquitted Caecilianus, and condemned the Donatists, and so approved the sentence of Miltiades, and his Colleagues declaring it to be just. If a Writ of Error be brought in the King's bench, of a judgement given in the Common-pleas, & upon hearing of the cause, the judges in the King's Bench approve and confirm the judgement formerly given in the Common pleas, and so declare it to be just and right: Doth this any way prove that therefore those in the King's bench be no judges, or doth it in any sort detract from their Authority? So upon the Appeal made to the Emperor, when he in his own person, sat, as judge therein, having power in himself, either to affirm or disaffirme the former sentences and judgements given by others, as he shall find the cause upon hearing to require: If he upon hearing it, finding the former sentences and judgements given for Caecilianus against the Donatists to be just and right, doth by his final sentence pronounce and declare them so to be: Doth this therefore prove him to be no judge, or doth it any way detract from his supremacy? Yea it doth rather very strongly, and most strongly prove the Emperor to be a judge, and the Chiefest and highest judge under God, and to have the Supremacy over the Bishop of Rome, aswell, as over other Bishops within the precincts of the Empire. For, as Carerius also confesseth and teacheth, Summum Imperium penes eum esse constat, 
●arer. de potest. Rom. Pont. lib. 1. cap. 10.  ad cujus Tribunal provocatur: It is manifest that to him belongeth the Supremacy, to whose Tribunal the appeal is made.  
But my Adversary faith yet further, that Appeals to Emperors and Kings, were always in Temporal matters, but therein he is also much deceived. For Appeals were made to them sometimes in matters Ecclesiastical: as even this very particular Appeal, here made to the Emperor in the cause between Caecilianus, and the Donatists, doth plainly declare. For Donatus and his partakers objected, that Cacilianus could not be Bishop of Carthage, for many crimes surmised against him, and especially, for that Felix which imposed hands on him, had, (as they said), betrayed or burnt the Scriptures. Whereupon they not only refused his Communion, but procured also his condemnation in a Provincial Synod by IXX. African Bishops, and in a tumult erected another Bishop. So that the great Question in this cause was, whether Caecilianus thus accused and ordained by the imposition of hands of Felix, and condemned by that Provincial Synod in Africa, were the right Bishop of Carthage, or he that was erected by the Donatists: Which, what is it else, but a matter Ecclesiastical? For, the parties accusing, and accused, were Ecclesiastical, namely, Bishops; the crimes and faults objected, were objected as just impediments to the Episcopal dignity; the things surmised, and to be tried, were the right election of Bishops, the lawful deposing of them, the needful Communion with them, the schismatical dissenting from them. What causes can be more Ecclesiastical than these? And yet even in this Episcopal and Ecclesiastical cause, was there (as before appeareth) an Appeal made to the Emperor, accepted by him, approved by sundry Emperors, and allowed also by S. Augustine, and the whole Orthodox Church in that time. That famous Appeal also from the Council of Tyrus, to the Emperor, by Athanasius, and other Orthodox Bishops joining with him, was it not likewise in a matter Ecclesiastical? For the crimes objected against them, were these, (viz.) Overthrowing the Lord's Table, dashing in pieces the Mystical Cup, 
Socrat lib. 1. cap. 27. after the Greek, etc. 20. in Latin. Act. 25.10.11.  burning the holy Bible, using a dead man's hand to sorcery, etc. The appeal also which S. Paul himself made from the high Priest and Council of the jews, unto Caesar, was it not also in a cause Ecclesiastical? For, were not the matters for which S. Paul was accused, matters Ecclesiastical? Festus himself witnesseth, that Paul's accusers brought no crime against him of such matters as he supposed, but had certain questions against him, of their own superstition, 
Act. 25.18.19.  and of one JESUS, that was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive. And this, even S. Paul also himself declareth in his answer, when he saith thus unto them: 
Act. 26, 8.  Why should it be thought a thing incredible unto you, that God should raise again the dead? And so also wrote Claudius Lysias unto Felix the governor, 
Act. 23.28.29.  that when Paul was brought before the Council of the jews, There I perceaved, (saith he), that Paul was accused of questions of their Law, but had no crime against him worthy of death, or bonds. Yea, S. Paul saith again expressly thus: Of the resurrection of the dead it is, that I am accused of you this day. It is therefore very apparent, 
Act. 24.20.21.  that S. Paul's appeal from them to the Emperor, was in and concerning a matter Ecclesiastical. And if (which is a thing evident), S. Paul in a cause Ecclesiastical and concerning Religion, thought it lawful and meet for him, to appeal to the Emperor when he was an heathen, much more would he have thought it lawful and meet to Appeal to the Emperor being a Christian. For though an heathen Emperor hath in him the power and authority to receive such an appeale● yet upon such an appeal in a cause Ecclesiastical and concerning Religion, is he not so well able to judge of the cause in respect of skill and knowledge, as he that is a Christian Emperor. And herein doth also that reverend and renowned Bishop, Athanasius, speak thus unto the Emperor of his time. 
Athan. ad Const. Apolog.  Si apud alios accusatus essem, ad tuam Majestatem provocarem: quemadmodum Apostolus dixit, Caesarem appello, & cessatum est ab insidijs, contra eum. jam quum apud te calumniam mihi ausi sunt intentare, ad quem, 〈◊〉 quaeso, appellare potero, nisi ad patrem ejus qui dixit, ego sum veritas? If I were accused before others, I would appeal to your Majesty, as the Apostle said, I appeal to Caesar, and then was there no longer lying in wait for him: but now that they are bold to calumniate me to your Majesty, to whom, I beseech you, may I appeal from you, unless it be to the Father of him that said, I am the truth? In which words, he showeth, that this fact, and example of the Apostle Paul, in the appealing to the Emperor, was to be imitated, and followed of Christians in after times, and that beyond the Emperor, there was also in those times of Athanasius, no appeal to be made but to God only.  
But here now my Adversary goeth about by alleging Appeals to have been made to the Bishop of Rome, to infer a supremacy to belong unto him: and for proof thereof, he citeth some examples, as namely: First, that of Martion, who being excommunicate, 
Epiph. haeros. 42.  went to Rome to be absolved by the Bishop there, (as he allegeth out of Epiphanius.): Howbeit, Epiphanius doth not say, that he desired this absolution of the Bishop of Rome, but of divers plurally, namely, a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Secondly, Epiphanius showeth, that these of the Church of Rome, in that time answered him, That they might not receive or absolve him, without the consent or permission of his Reverend Father, the Bishop, that had excommunicated him. And thirdly against this course of running to Rome, it was afterwards purposely decreed in the Council of Nice, 
Conc. Nic. 1. c. ●.  That they that were excommunicate by one Bishop, should not be absolved of another. Wherefore all this maketh much against the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, but nothing for him. His second example is of Fortunatus and Felix, who being wicked men & excommunicate in Africa, fled to Rome, to be absolved there by Cornelius the Bishop of Rome. And for proof hereof, he citeth S. Cyprian: But doth S. Cyprian allow of this their flying to Rome? No: 
Cyprian. lib. 1. Epist. 3.  but clean contrariwise he utterly misliketh, and condemneth it. For, writing to the same Cornelius, he saith, That certain persons condemned in Africa by the Bishops there, Romam cum mendaciorum svorum merce navigaverunt, Sailed to Rome with their fraite of lies: And against this he addeth further, That it is a thing equal and right, that every man's cause should be there heard, where the crime was committed. Again he saith, That every Pastor, hath a portion of the Lords flock assigned unto him, which he must govern and rule, as he that must give an account of his doings unto God, and therefore concludeth, that Oportet eos quibus praesumus, non circumcursare, etc. Those that be under our rule and government, ought not to run thus about (to Rome) but ought there to plead their cause, where they may find both accusers and witnesses: unless perhaps, (saith he), a few desperate and lose Companions, suppose the authority of a Bishop of Africa, to be less than the authority of the Bishop of Rome: which he speaks as accounting it absurd, for any man to suppose, the Authority of the one, to be greater than the Authority of the other.  
His third example is of Athanasius, who being deposed from his Bishopric, made his appeal, (saith he) to Pope julius, and was by him restored. It is true, that Athanasius, the Patriarch of Alexandria, being oppressed, and wrongfully thrust from his Bishopric, (as divers other Bishops likewise were in those days) fled to the Bishop of Rome, not to acknowledge any supremacy in him over all other Bishops, as now he claimeth but as to a friend, and Patron, at whose hands he expected and hoped, to find some help and defence in that his distress. 
Sozomen. libr. 3. cap. 6. lat.  The Bishops throughout the East, that favoured the Nicene Faith, were, (saith Sozomen) deposed, and the chiefest States invaded by the Arrians, as Alexandria, in Egypt; Antioch in Syria; the Royal City of Constantinople, 
Criminationem illi. obiectam in so ser●●uns.  in Hellespont. This the Bishop of Rome and the Priests of the West, took to be their reproach, & therefore very freely entertained Athanasius at his coming to them, and took upon them the defence of his cause. Where you see, that Athanasius had aid and defence, not only of the Bishop of Rome, but of the Priests of Rome also: wherefore, that his flying to Rome, and receiving help and defence from them, doth no more prove a supremacy in the Bishop of Rome, than it doth in the Priests of Rome. Yea, 
Athan. Apolog. contra Arrian.  the letters which Athanasius brought with him to Rome, from the Bishops of his communion in the East, (witnessing the wrongs which he suffered, and earnestly craving help therein), were not written to julius alone, but Omnibus ubique Ecclesiae Catholicae Episcopis, To all the Bishops of the Catholic Church wheresoever. And accordingly was this matter heard and examined by a Synod, or Council of Bishops: In which Synod (and not by julius' alone), it was, that Athanasius was received and restored, as Bishop of Alexandria, notwithstanding his former deposition. Neither did julius the Bishop of Rome, 

Sozom. lib. 3. c 11 lat.  
Socrat. lib. 2. cap. 20. in the greek & cap 16. in the latin.   call or summon this Council, but by the commandment of both the Emperors, (saith Socrates). (the one in the West, signifying the same by his letters, the other which ruled in the East, willingly condescending thereunto), there was proclaimed a general Council, that all should meet at Sardica a City of Illiricum, etc. Yea so fare was julius, the Bishop of Rome in that time, from having any supremacy over all the Bishops in Christendom, that when he wrote to the Bishops of the East more freely and sharply, and as if he took some authority upon him over them, (as they conceived), these Eastern Bishops assembled together in a Council at Antioch, form an Epistle by uniform consent of them all, 
Socrat. lib 2. cap. 15. in the greek & cap 11. in the latin. & Sozom. l●b. 3. cap. 7. lat.  wherein they inveigh bitterly against julius, and tell him plainly, That if any were banished the Church, and excommunicate by their decree and censure, it belonged not to him to intermeddle with it, nor to sit in judgement upon their Censure. So that howsoever the Bishops of the East, and of the West, might and did give mutual help, counsel, comfort, and assistance one to another, yet if the Bishop of Rome would at any time go beyond his bounds, and seem to take authority over them; We see, that these Bishops of the East, would by no means endure it, but gave it the repulse.  
The fourth and last example which he citeth, is that of S. john Chrysostome, who being deposed from his Bishopric, Appealed, (as he saith) to Pope Innocentius the first. Bellarmine hath also this example, aswell as all the rest: so that, my Adversary taketh indeed, all his weapons and artillery, out of his store-house. But both Bellarmine, and He, do but deceive their Readers. For Chrysostome, in his Epistle doth not pray aid and help only of Innocentius the Bishop of Rome, 
Chrysos. Epist. 1. ad Innocent. Tom. C n●. 1. edit Venet. 158● pag. 799.  (as they suggest,) but of other Bishops likewise in the West, aswell as of him, speaking not in the Singular, but in the Plural number, thus. Domini igitur maximè venerandi & pij, cum haec ita se habere didiceritis, studium vestrum, & magnam diligentiam adhibete, quo retundatur haec, quae in Ecclesias irrupit iniquitas. Therefore most religious and reverend Lords, since you see, how things be carried, extend your diligence, and endeavour, that this wickedness which is broken into the Churches, may be beaten back. Quip, si mos hic invaluerit, scitote, quod brevi transibunt omnia. Quapropter, ne confusio haec, omnem, quae subcoelo est, nationem invadat, obsecro ut scribatis, ut haec tam inique facta, robur non habeant: Nobis vero, literis vestris & charitate vestra frui concedite. For if this grow to be a custom, know ye, that all things will shortly come to nought, and therefore lest this confusion invade every nation under heaven, I beseech you write, that those things so unjustly done, may bear no sway: And grant, that we the wronged Bishops of the East, may e●●oy your letters and your favours. And so he goeth on, with Verbs of the Plural number, to the end: concluding his Epistle with these words and in this manner. Haec omnia, cum ita se habere intellexeritis, a Dominis meis prentissimis nostris Episcopis: obsecro, ut praestetis id quod petent officij. All these things when ye shall perceive to be true, by these my Lords and most godly brethren the Bishops, I beseech you to yield them, that assistance they shall desire. All which clauses in that Epistle, I thus the rather rehearse, to the end, you may the better judge, whether it be not more fitly, and more cohaerently to be read, Obsecro ut scribatis, in the Plural number, (as the Protestants say it ought to be read,) then Obsecro ut scribas in the Singular number, as Bellarmine, and other Papists following the faulty and vicious copies would have it. For when he speaketh to his most Reverend and Religious Lords, the Bishops in the West; were it not very absurd to say thus unto them, Obsecro ut scribas, but to say, Obsecro ut scribatis is very consonant, and most fit, and congruous. Again how can, Obsecro ut scribas, well stand with these words. Literis vestris frui concedite? or with didiceritis, adhibete, or, with Scitote, and intellexeritis, or with praestetis, or with all the rest of the Verbs that be of the Plural number. But let this be as it will; This is certain, and cannot be denied, that Chrysostome prayed aid aswell of the other Bishops of the West, as of Innocentius Bishop of Rome, & of them all alike. So that this example, and times of Chrysostome & Innocentius, make nothing for the Bishop of Rome his supremacy, but much against it: For when Chrysostome was deposed from his Bishopric, in a Council ●f Bishops at Chalcedon, he appealed from them, not to the Bishop of Rome, but to a general Council. This Socrates witnesseth saying: 
Socrat. lib. 6. cap. 15. in greek & cap. 14 in the lat  johannes, eos à quibus vocabatur, tanquam inimicos exceptione recusabat, & universalem Synodum appellabat: john Chrysostome refused those that called him to that Council, upon this exception, that they were his enemies, and appealed to a general Council. Secondly, those Bishops assembled in that Council, for the deposing of Chrysostome, were so assembled, not by the commandment of the Bishop of Rome, but by the Emperor's commandment: 
Ibidem.  for so also doth Socrates testify. Thirdly, when Innocentius saw, that the matter could not be ended but in a general Council, he sent Legates to Honorius and Arcadius Emperors, to beseech them to call a Council, and to appoint the time and place for it: where also, his suit and supplication, was so little regarded; That his Legates were sent away with reproach, 
Sozom. libr. 8. cap. 28.  as disturbers of the West Empire, as Sozomen witnesseth. Now, if Innocentius Bishop of Rome, had had the power and authority in those times to call general Counsels, Why did he not call them? Yea, why did he, by his Legates entreat and beseech the Emperors to do it, if it were a right belonging to himself, or if it were not a right belonging to the Emperors in those days? Or, if he were then the supreme commander of all the Christian world (as the Popes now claim to be) how cometh it to pass, that he was such an humble suitor to the Emperors for a Council, and yet could not obtain it? Do not all these things, strongly and invincibly declare, that in those times, not the Popes, but the Emperors, had clearly the supremacy?  
Then afterward, though much out of his due time and place, and very immethodically, (for the exception had been fit in the next Chapter then in this,) he taketh this exception, that in the first part of my Book, Cap. 2. and pag. 42. in the Margin, there is a misquotation in this sort (viz.) Bern. de cons. ad Eug. lib. 6. cap. 3. & 8. where it should have been, Bern. de cons. ad Eug. lib. 4 cap. 2. For, indeed in this place, it is that S. Bernard calleth the Pope's doctrines and pastures, Daemonum potius, quam ovium pascua, which be the words I cited S. Bernard for, and which are accordingly, there expressly, to be found. What a poor exception than is this, to carp at a Quotation in the margin, when, the very words, and matter, are there to be found, in the Author himself, whom I cited, namely, in S. Bernard? Is he not fare driven, that is, forced to this kind of exception? And yet if he had been pleased to have looked into the Errata of my Book, he might have found in the conclusion of them, that such like faults, as this, I desired the Reader to correct with his Pen, which he might very easily have done, if he had so pleased. But, as it seemeth, he is an hard man, that neither out of his own courtesy, nor yet upon the entreaty of others, will be moved to show so small a kindness. What? Is it, because better matter failed him, that he took this silly exception and standeth so much upon it? Or is it, because by this means, he loveth to declare himself to be as void of good humanity, as he is of true and sound divinity? For my part: I may say, that he giveth me herein cause to joy and rejoice, that he can justly take no exception to the matter contained in my Book, but only to a marginal Quotation, thus misprinted and mistaken.  
Howbeit, he seemeth yet further, very willing and forward, to carp at these words in my Book, Cap. 1 pag. 25. where I say, that in the time of King William Rufus, Anselmus the Archbishop of Canterbury, would have appealed to Rome, but not only the King, but the Bishops also of England, were therein against him: but the truth of this, is very clear and apparent. For Malmesbury, 
Malmesh. lib. 1. de ges●i, Pont. Angl.  (whom I there cite for prose hereof,) witnesseth, That both the King, disliked that his doing, and that therein also, Omnes Episcopi Angliae, Primati suo suffragiunnegarunt, All the Bishops in England, denied their voices unto their Primate. Yea Matthew Paris. further testifieth, 
Matth Paris. in Gulielm● 2 An. 1094.  that when Anselmus Archbishop of Canterbury, asked leave of King William Rufus to go to Rome: The King replied, That no Archbishop nor Bishop of his Realm, should be subject to the Pope, or Court of Rome: especially for that he had all those rights in his kingdom, which the Emperor had in his Empire: And for this cause, was Anselmus Convented by the King, as an offendor against the State. And to this accusation, did also the rest of the Bishops, 
Ibidem.  except the Bishop of Rochester, give their consents. And because he ventured to go over the Seas to Rome without leave: All his goods were seized to the King's use, 
Ansel. Epist. 46. a● Paschalem is. 3. Colon. 1612.  all his acts and proceed in the Church of England reversed, and himself constrained to live in banishment during the life of King William, whereof Anselmus himself complained in his Epistle to Pope Paschalis. Yea afterward also, 
Mat●●. Paris. in Hen. 1. An. 1104  in the time of King Henry the first, when the same Anselmus was returning home from Rome, the King's Attorney in his Master's name, forbade him to enter the Land, unless he would faithfully promise to keep all the customs, both of (William the Conqueror) his Father, and of William Rufus his brother: And when the King perceaved the Pope and the Archbishop, to continue their former purpose, against his Royal liberties, he seized the Bishopric into his hands, and arrested all Anselmus goods, that were to be found.  
To these and certain other liberties of the Crown, Did also King Henry the second, not long after, cause all his Bishops and Nobles to be sworn: For, in the year of our Lord God M.C.LXIIII. This King Henry the second, being at Claredon in the presence of the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, 
Matth. Paris. in He●rico secundo, Anno 1164.  Pryors, Earls, Barons, and great Men of the Realm, there was made a rehearsal of some part of the Customs and liberties of his Ancestors, as of King Henry his Grandfather, and others, which ought to be kept in this Realm, and observed of all, etc. Amongst which customs and liberties, being sixteen in Number, these were some; namely: That no Archbishop, Bishop, nor any other person of the Realm, may go out of the Land without the King's leave. And as touching appeals if any be made, they shall come from the Archdeacon to the Bishop, & from the Bishop to the Archbishop: And if the Archbishop fail in doing justice, it shall be lawful to come last of all to the King, that by his commandment the matter may be ended in the Archbishops Court. So that no man shall proceed to appeal any further without the King's consent. These customs & liberties of the Crown, the Archbishops, Bishops, Abbots, Pryors, and Clergy with the Earls, Barons, and all the Nobles swore, and by word of mouth faithfully promised should be kept, and observed to the King, and his heirs for ever, simply, without any fraud. Yea, Thomas Becket Archbishop of Canterbury himself, condescended to them, 
Matth Paris. ibidem.  & promised also with an Oath to keep them: although afterward he revolted, and broke his Oath, and fled to Rome. But (saith mine Adversary) The Pope of Rome, Alexander the third, would not confirm these laws or liberties, though the King requested it. What of this? The liberties, laws, and customs of the kingdom, were good enough without his confirmation. Yet the King perceaving his so just and reasonable a request, to be repelled by the Pope, was not a little offended thereat, and therefore wrote Letters to all his Shiriffeses & Lieutenants in England, on this wise: I command you that if any Clergyman, or Layman in your County, appeal to the Court of Rome you attach him, and hold him in fast-ward, till our pleasures be known. And to his judges also he wrote in this sort. If any shall be found to bring letters or a mandate from the Pope, or from Thomas the Archbishop, interdicting the Realm of England: Let him be taken and kept in Prison, till I signify what shall be done with him. They that wrote the life of the same Thomas Becket, do report it thus: Let him be forthwith apprehended for a Traitor, 
In quadrilog. de ●ita Thom. Cant  and execution done upon him: which agreeth with that which likewise, (pag. 25. cap. 1. of my Book,) I cited out of Hoveden, where he saith: that, Si quis inventus fuerit, literas vel mandatum ferens Domini Papae, 
●●veden. Henr. 2  etc. Capiatur, & de eo, sicut de Regis traditore, & regni, sine dilatione fiat justitia. If any shall be found, bringing letters or a mandate from the Pope, let him be apprehended, and let justice be done upon him, without delay, as upon a traitor to the King and the kingdom. Where it is also further said, that, Generaliter interdictum est, ne quis appellet ad Dominum Papam. It was generally prohibited, that none should appeal to the Pope. Wherefore, you see, that which I wrote, concerning Anselmus, and concerning Appeals, to be very true. Yea, how earnest and vehement, this valiant and worthy Prince, King Henry the second, was, against the Pope, for maintenance of his Regal rights, appeareth further by an Epistle of his, written to the Archbishop of Colen, 
Matth. Paris. in Hen. 2 An. 1168  in these words. I have long desired, (saith he), to find a just occasion to departed from Pope Alexander, and his perfidious Cardinals, which presume to maintain my Traitor, Thomas of Canterbury, against me. Whereupon, by the advice of my Barons, and Clergy, I mean to send the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of London, the Archdeacon of Poitiers, etc. to Rome: which shall publicly denounce, and plainly propose in my behalf, and in the behalf of all the Dominions I have, to Pope Alexander, and his Cardinals, that they maintain my Traitor no longer, but rid me of him, that I with the advice of my Clergy may set another in the Church of Canterbury. They shall also require them, to frustrate all that Becket hath done, and exact an Oath of the Pope, that he and his successors, as much as in them lieth, shall keep and observe inviolable to me and all mine for ever, the Royal customs of King Henry my Grandfather: If they refuse any of these my demands, neither I nor my Barons, nor my Clergy will yield them any kind of obedience any longer: Yea rather we will openly oppugn the Pope, and all his: and whosoever in my land shall be found hereafter, to adhere to the Pope, shall be banished my Realm. Here then by the way, let me demand, why any Papists do call this Thomas Becket a martyr, whom the King calleth a traitor? The manner of his death, being done by private violence, and not by public authority, nor in a legal sort, I utterly dislike: But is not also his stout standing in that quarrel against his King, and against his own oath also, and against the punishing of murderers, thiefs, and other malefactors by the King's Laws, (if they were Cleargie-men,) justly worthy to be condemned? Or can he that dieth in and for so bad a cause, deserve to be called a martyr? But such it seemeth, be the martyrs of the Popish Church.  
But not only these Kings of England before mentioned, namely, King William Rufus, King Henry the first, and King Henry the second, and some others, thus contended & opposed themselves against the Popes of Rome, 
Ex Lanfranc. Epistolis M. S. in Biblioth. Cotton. & Baron. Anno. 1079. §. 25.  for maintenance of their Regal rights, but King William the Conqueror also, who was before all these, 〈◊〉 the like Kingly opposition. For, when Hildebrand, otherwise called, Pope Gregory the seaventh, was bold to demand of the King, an oath of fealty to be made to him, as if the King were to hold his kingdom of him, as of his Sovereign Lord. This King would by no means yield 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 neither would do, nor will do fealty, because I neither promised it, nor do I find, that any of my predecessors have done it to any of your predecessors. This answer of the King, is extant in an Epistle of his, written to the same Pope, which you may see set down more at large by that excellent antiquary and learned & godly divine, Doctor Usher, late Lord Bishop of Meath, and the now most Reverend and worthy Lord Archbishop of Ardmagh, Primate and Metropolitan of all Ireland, in his Book, De Christianarum Ecclesiarum successione & statu, pag. 182. Neither need I to insist only upon these former Kings of England. For do but read further, the Statutes of Provision, and Praemunire made in that kingdom, 
See the Statutes of Provision and Praemunire in Rastall fol. 354. etc.  and thereby you may see at full, that many & sundry other Kings of England likewise, and the whole Realm also concurring and joining with them therein, have in several Parliaments, made Laws and Statutes against the Pope's incrochments and usurpations, in maintenance and defence of their Regal rights, freedoms, and liberties. And among many other good reasons they show for those their doings, this is not the least, that they say expressly in one of those Acts of Parliament, 
See this in the Statute of 16. Rub. 2 cap. 5.  That the Crown of England hath been so free at all times, that it hath been in subjection to no Realm, but immediately subject to God, and to none other, in all things touching the Regality of the same Crown. And therefore do they there utterly dislike in plain terms, That it should be submitted to the Bishop of Rome. Wherefore it is apparent, that even the ancient Kings of England, long before the days of K. Henry the VIII. of famous memory, have stood and contended, not only for the freedom of the Crown generally, (not allowing it to be in subjection to any, but to God only), but also in a particular sort, for diverse their particular Regal rights, & liberties. Amongst which, you may perceive, this to be one, namely, that Appeals even in Ecclesiastical causes, they would have to be determined within their own kingdoms, and not to be made, transferred, or carried without their consent, to the Pope or Sea of Rome.  
8 But now what meaneth mine Adversary to be so extremely audacious, as to deny the first four general Counsels to have been called by the Emperors? Let therefore the Ecclesiastical History show and decide it. Touching the first general Council at Nice: 
Ruffin. li. 10. c. 1.  Ruffinus saith expressly, that Constantinus apud urbem Nicenam Episcopale Concilium convocavit: The Emperor Constantine, called the Council of Bishops together at the City of Nice. 
Euseb de vita Const. l b. 3. c. 6 & lib. 1. cap. 37  Eusebius that wrote the life of Constantine, saith, of that Emperor, that Generalem Synodum congregavit, He assembled the general Council. Socrates saith likewise, that Constantine, 
Socrat. lib 1. c. 8 in the greek. & cap. 5. in the lat.  Synodum Oecumenicam congregavit, & omnes qui fuerunt undique Episcopos in Nicaeam confluere hortatus est, Assembled a general Council, and willed all the Bishops every where to meet at Nice. Theodoret saith, that the Emperor, 
Theodoret. libr. 1 cap. 17.  celebren illam coegit Nicea Synodum, etc. Assembled that famous Council of Nice, Sozomen saith, that Constantine, Indixit Concilium Niceae, scripsitque ad omnes Ecclesiarum praesides, 
Soz. lib. 1. ca 16. lat.  ut ad diem praestitutum adessent. Summoned the Council of Nice, and wrote to all the Prelates of the Churches, to be there, at the day prefixed, And the same Sozomen saith, That he sent his letters to the Apostolic Seas: To Macarius, Bishop of jerusalem, to Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch: To Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, and to julius' Bishop of Rome: Who being an old man, and not able to come himself, he sent in his stead, Vitus and Vincentius. The Nicene Fathers themselves, by their Synodall Epistle. 
Theodoret. lib. 1. cap 9  (extant in Theodoret), which they wrote to the Church of Alexandria, do testify: That they were assembled by the authority of the Emperor Constantine. And if the Bishop of Rome had had the power and authority, to call the Council, he would no doubt, being an old man, and not able to travel, have had it at Rome, or in some part of Italy, rather than at Nice in Bithynia, so fare remote from Rome. Nicephorus also saith, that Imperator Nicaenam Synodum promulgabat & literis locorum omnium Episcopos, 
Niceph. li. 8. c. 14  ad constitutum diem eo evocavit: The Emperor proclaimed the Council at Nice, and by his letters called thither, the Bishops of all places to be there, at the day appointed. 
Zonaras.  Zonaras saith: that Imperator, provinciarum Episcopos, Niceae, Bithini●● urbis, convenire jussit. The Emperor commanded the Bishops of the Provinces, to meet together at Nice, 
Platina in vita Silvestri.  a City in Bithynia. And Platina also writeth, that this general Council of Nice, was summoned or called Constantini mandato, by the commandment of Constantine the Emperor. It is therefore abundantly manifest, that this first general Council of Nice, was called, not by the authority of any Pope, but of the Emperor. How then, is it not an over great, if not a most intolerable impudency, in Papists, to deny so manifest, and palpable a truth? As touching that answer which Bellarmine and other Papists make, when they say, That this Council was called or summoned by the advice and consent of the Bishop of Rome. First, 
Ruffin. lib. 1. c. 1.  Ruffinus saith, that it was assembled, or called, Ex sacerdotum sententia, by the advice and consent of the Priests, and not of the Bishop of Rome alone. 
Epiphan. lib 2. Tom 2. haeres. 68  Yea, Epiphanius saith, That it was obtained of the Emperor, at the suit of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria. But secondly, it maketh no matter, at whose suit or request, or by whose advice or consent, the Council was summoned. For the question is not, by whose persuasion or suit, or by whose advice or consent, but by whose authority it was called. Now it is very apparent, that it was called and assembled, by the authority and commandment, not of any Bishop of Rome, but of the Emperor.  
The second general Council, (which was the first Constantinopolitane,) was also called, not by Damasus Bishop of Rome, but by the Emperor Theodosius the elder. This is also evident: First, by Theodoret, who saith: 
Theodor. li. 5. c. 7  Hujus rei gratia, Theodosius, Episcopas Constantinopoli congregari jussit: For this cause Theodosius commanded the Bishops to be assembled at Constantinople. 
Socrat. lib 5. ca 8 Soz li. 7. c. 6. lat. Zonar. in Theod. In dedicatoria ad I Theodosium.  Socrates and Sozomen likewise do both testify, that Theodosius summoned & assembled this Council. Zonara's saith, that this second general Council was summoned jussu Imperatoris, by the commandment of the Emperor: 150. godly fathers being there assembled. And the very Council itself speaking to Theodosius, do testify the same, and say thus. We being assembled at Constantinople by the Letters of your Piety.  
The third general Council, namely, the first Ephesine was also called, not by the authority & commandment of Celestinus Bishop of Rome, but by the Emperor Theodosius the younger. This is very manifest, 
Evagr lib. 1. c. 3.  for Evagrius saith directly, That by the appointment, or command of Theodosius the younger, the first Ephesine Council was assembled. 
Liberat. in hist. de Concil. Ephes.  Liberatus likewise writeth, That the Emperor wrote to all Bishops, that they should assemble at Ephesus, to judge of the Books of Nestorius and Cyrillus: 
Epist. Synod.  And in their Epistle to all the Bishops, thus writeth the Council itself: Cum essemus Ephesi, secundum pias Imperatoris literas congregati: When we were at Ephesus assembled, according to the pious letters of the Emperor. Socrates also saith, that Imperatoris mandato, Episcopi ex omnibus locis Ephesum conveniunt: 
Socrat. li. 7. c 33 in the lat. & ca 34. in the greek  The Bishops of all places, came together to Ephesus, by the commandment of the Emperor. Zonara's saith: These things being known, Caelestinus Bishop of Rome, Cyrillus Bishop of Alexandria, john Bishop of Antioch, and juvenal Bishop of jerusalem, relate the matter to Theodosius the Emperor, and to Pulcheria the Empress, desiring that he would summon a Council, 
Niceph. lib. 14. cap 34.  etc. Nicephorus also saith: Theodosius Imperialibus literis, in Metropoli Epheso, locorum omnium Episcopos, convenire jussit: That Theodosius by his Imperial letters, commanded the Bishops of all places, to meet together at Ephesus the Metropolitan City.  
The fourth general Council, was the Council of Chalcedon, and this also was summoned, not by authority and commandment of Leo, the first, Bishop of Rome, as my Adversary affirmeth, but the Emperor's Authority, and commandment. This may appear even by Leo himself Epist. 43.53. and sundry other of his Epistles. But we need not to cite other testimonies: For, the very Council of Chalcedon itself, 
Conc. Chalcedon. Actione prima  doth testify, that it was summoned by the Emperors, and that the Bishop of Rome was also called thither, who because he could not be there in person, sent others in his stead. Yea, that Leo Bishop of Rome, did not summon this Council, nor any other general Council in those days, but acknowledged it to be a right belonging to the Emperors, is further very manifest by the Epistle he writeth to the Emperor, wherein he saith thus unto him: Pietas vestra suggestioni, ac supplicationi nostrae dignetur annuere, 
Leo Epist: 9  ut intra Italiam jubeatis haberi Episcopale Concilium: Let your piety vouchsafe to yield to our suggestion and supplication, in this, that you command a Council of Bishops to be held within Italy. Again he saith thus. 
Leo Epist. 24. Lovan. 1575.  Omnes partium nostrarum Ecclesiae, omnes mansuetudini vestrae cum gemitibus, & lachrimus supplicant sacerdotes, ut generalem Synodum jubeatis infra Italiam celebrari: All the Churches that take part with us, and all the Priests, with sighs and tears do humbly beseech your mansuetude, that you will command a general Council to be celebrated within Italy. He also solicited the Princess Pulcheria, 
Leo Epist. 26. & 23.  and the Nobles, Clergy, and people of Constantinople, for a Council to be held in Italy: But neither in his first suit, nor in this last did he prevail, all this notwithstanding. For, as touching his former suit, which was in the time of the Emperor Theodosius the younger, that Emperor (as before appeareth) assembled the Council, not within Italy, (as Leo desired,) but at Ephesus. And as touching the latter, it is also apparent, that by the Emperor's appointment and commandment, the Council was assembled, not in Italy, (as the Pope would have had it,) but at Chalcedon.  
I might proceed further, and show, that, beside these first four general Counsels, other Counsels were likewise: summoned and assembled, by the Authority and commandment of the Emperors, and not of the Bishops of Rome. For there was also a fift general Council summoned, or called, Mandato justiniani, By the commandment of the Emperor justinian, as Evagrius witnesseth. And so likewise saith Nicephorus, that, Imperator justinianus, 
Evagr. lib 4 c. 11. N●●ph libr. 17. cap. 27.  sanctam quiatam Oecumenicam Synodum, Episcopis omnium Ecclesiarum convocatis coegit. The Emperor justinian, assembled the fift holy general Council, by calling the Bishops of all Churches together. The Council of Sardica also, 

Socrat. lib. 2 cap. 20 in the g●eek, & cap. ●6. in the ●a in.  
Theo●oret l●b. 2. cap. ●. S●crat. lib. 〈…〉 greek, & cap. ●9 in the 〈◊〉. Cusa●. de 〈◊〉, lib. 2. ●ap. 25.   was called by the Emperor's Authority and commandment, as Socrates, and Theodoret declare. And so were also those Counsels of Selencia, and A●imi●●●, called by the Emperor's Authority and commandment. Yea, what general Council was there called in those ancient times, but by the Emperors? In somuch, that Cardinal Cusanus himself ingenuously confesseth and affirmeth, that, The first eight general Counsels were called by the Emperors. Is there then any credit at all to be given to those Papists in these days, who do and dare deny this so clear, manifest, and evident a truth? Wherefore it being a thing most apparent, that in ancient times the Emperors by their Authority and commandment, called the general Counsels: it followeth necessarily thereupon, that the Emperors thereby commanded aswell the Bishop of Rome, as the other Bishops, and consequently had the Supremacy, aswell over the one, as over the other.  
9 But yet further to prove the Supremacy of the Emperors, I alleged, that the Emperors in ancient time, banished, imprisoned, and otherwise also punished, by their Authority, even some of the Bishops of Rome themselves, aswell as other Bishops. Whereunto mine Adversary answereth, that, These things they did, de facto, but not warrantable de jure. But why were they not warrantable de jure? I grant, that a banishment or imprisonment may possibly be sometimes wrongful and unjust, in respect of the man, and the matter, that deserveth it not: but this is no impeachment or argument therefore against the lawfulness of the authority. As if an Emperor, or King do banish, or commit a man to prison, for professing any point of true Religion, this banishment and imprisonment is wrongful and unjust, in respect of the cause, which deserveth no punishment at all. Yet it cannot be denied, but he hath power & Authority good and lawful enough, both to banish, and to commit to prison notwithstanding, when there is a just cause: For that which is but an abuse of Authority, doth not take away the lawful use of it. So that if any Bishop of Rome, or any Bishop whosoever within the Dominions of the Empire, did offend so fare, as to deserve banishment, imprisonment, or other Temporal and Civil punishment, it was a thing lawful and just for the Emperor, to inflict those punishments upon them, aswell as upon any other. For it is, indeed, to these Higher Powers, namely, to Emperors, 
Rom. 13.1.2.3.4  Kings and Princes, that God hath committed the Civil and Temporal sword, for the encouragement and praise of them that do well, & for the discouragement, terror, & punishment of those that do evil: And these be Ministri Dei, The Ministers of God, (as S. Paul also showeth,) instituted for that very end and purpose. Now none will deny, but banishment, and imprisonment, be punishments Civil and Temporal, and not Ecclesiastical, and do rightly and properly belong to the Authority of Emperors, Kings and Princes, and not to the function and office of Bishops, and Ecclesiastical Ministers. And therefore the banishment, and imprisonment, that any Emperors or Kings, used against any Bishops, or others upon just cause, and when they deserved it, must needs be granted to be things done by them, (both in respect of the authority, and in respect of the cause also,) aswell the jure, as de facto, that is, to be things lawful, warrantable, and justifieable, in all respects. For, as for those distinctions, that Emperors and Kings have Authority, over persons Temporal, but not Ecclesiastical: and a Power directive, but not Coactive, and in causes Civil and Temporal, but not in Ecclesiastical: The untruth, absurdity, folly, & impiety of all these distinctions, hath been before so sufficiently discovered, that I shall not need to speak any more of them: And by this time, I hope, that even the Papists themselves be ashamed of them: Sure I am, they have good cause so to be, if they did duly ponder, and consider them.  
Seeing then it is confessed, that the Emperors did in ancient time by their Authority, banish, imprison, and otherwise punish even Bishops of Rome, aswell as other Bishops, & that no reason can be showed against the doing hereof, when they be such offenders, as that they justly deserve such punishment, it is thereby undeniably apparent, that the Bishop of Rome in those days had not the supremacy over the Emperors, but that clean contrariwise, the Emperors had the Supremacy over him, aswell, as over any others within their Empire.  
Another Argument which I use, consisteth in this, that I say, even Kings of Rome, did also sometimes send the Bishops of Rome, as their Ambassadors. By this argument my Adversary saith, That he supposeth, that I meant, but to make men merry. Why? In serious matters, I love not to be (as he is many times,) ridiculous, but to be serious, and to deal seriously. First therefore, hereby I prove that the Bishop of Rome, was not in those days, superior or greater than the King, that sent him: For those words of Christ must ever be true, where he saith: The Servant is not greater than his Master, 
john. 13 16.  nor the messenger greater than he that sent him.  
And secondly, I say further, that this is a very good and strong argument, to prove the Supremacy to be, in those days, in the Kings of Rome, and not in the Bishops of Rome. For, the King that sendeth any, as his Ambassador, is in all common understanding, supposed, and to be supposed, superior unto him that is his Ambassador. As when Hiram King of Tyrus sent messengers to King David, 
2. Sam 5.11. 1. Chron. 14 1. 1. King ●●. 2. 1. Chron. 19.2.  or when Ben●●adad King of Aram or Syria, sent messengers to Ahab King of Israel; or when King David sent messengers unto the King of the Amm ●ites: In all these cases, and every such like, (for, Nec in caeteris est contrarium videre,) were those King's superior or greater than the messengers, or Ambassadors, whom they sent. And therefore when Theodorick sent john Bishop of Rome, as his Ambassador unto the Emperor justine: and when King Theodatus sent Agapetus Bishop of Rome, as his Ambassador to justinian the Emperor: It must be confessed; that these Kings were likewise superiors to the Bishops of Rome, and had the command of them, and not contrariwise that those Bishops of Rome, had the superiority, or command over those Kings. For amongst men, the Master is wont to send the Servant, and the King his Subject, and the superior his inferior. But where did you ever read, hear, or know, the Servant to send his Master, or the Subject to send his King and Sovereign, or the inferior to send his Superior on a message? I grant that an inferior, or equal may entreat a Superior to do a business for him, and that a King, a Master, or Superior, may go by his own consent, or of his own accord, somewhither, to do his Subject, Servant, or inferior, a good turn. But it cannot be rightly, and properly said, that any of these inferiors, have sent their Superiors upon their errand, service, message, or embassage. Yea, it would be held very absoneous and absurd so to speak. But my Adversary, I see, mistaketh the M●l●r proposition of my argument: For it reacheth not so high as heaven, much less to the most glorious, incomprehensible, and ineffable Trinity, blessed for ever, but only to men upon earth: and not to all men neither, but only to Kings and Bishops. Neither had my Adversary any ust cause or reason, to stretch or extend it any further. For the question was only concerning them, whether of them had the Superiority, or Supremacy, over the other, in that time, namely, whether the Kings that then reigned over Rome, or, those that were the Bishops thereof. I to prove the Superiority or Supremacy, to be in the Kings, and not in the Bishops, alleged this for my reason, that the Kings of Rome, did sometimes send the Bishops of Rome, as their Ambassadors, to other Princes: So that my Argument upon the whole matter, appeareth to be this. What Kings soever, (I speak of earthly Kings,) sent any at any time, as their Ambassadors, to other Princes, those Kings were Superior and greater, than those Ambassadors whom they sent: But the Kings of Rome, did send the Bishops of Rome, as their Ambassadors, to other Princes: Ergo the Kings of Rome, were Superior, and greater than the Bishops of Rome. The Mayor is apparent by induction of particulars, & by ordinary & common experience in the world. The Minor is manifest by Ecclesiastical history, which testifieth, That King Theodoricke, sent john Bishop of Rome, 
Lib Pontific. in johan. 1. Et Anact. in Agapeto Diaconus. Platina,  as his Ambassador to the Emperor justine: And that King Theodatus, sent likewise Agapetus Bishop of Rome, as his Ambassador, to the Emperor justinian: And therefore the conclusion must needs follow, and cannot be gainsaid. By this time then, mine Adversary seethe, (I hope,) that such is the evident strength of this Argument, as that he with all his wit and learning, will never be able to make any good answer thereunto.  
10 In my former Book, Cap. 1. pag. 13. 14. 15. I also showed, that against the title and appellation of Universal Bishop, or head of the universal Church, did two Bishops of Rome oppose themselves, namely, Pelagius and Gregory the great, when it was first affected by john the Patriarch, and Bishop of Constantinople: And that nevertheless afterward, a Bishop of Rome, namely, Boniface the third, got, & obtained it of Phocas, the Emperor. Hereunto mine Adversary answereth, (as Bellarmine likewise doth,) That this fact of Phocas was but a declaration of that, which was ever before belonging to the Bishops of Rome. What? Had the former Bishops of Rome, & all the predecessors to Gregory, this title of universal Bishop peculiarized, & appropriated unto them? Why then did Gregory himself say? 
Greg. lib. 4 Epist, 32.36 38.39.  None of my predecessors Bishops of Rome, ever consented to use this so ungodly a name or why did he say? That no Bishop of Rome ever took upon him, this name of singularity. Yea, he saith: We the Bishops of Rome, will not receive this honour being offered unto us. Wherefore, it is apparent, that neither before the times of Gregory, nor in the times of this Gregory, any of the Bishops of Rome, had this title. Yea, you see this title detested, and rejected, even by and in the Bishops of Rome themselves, aswell as in any other Bishops. So that they did not only condemn it in john, the Patriarch of Constantinople, but generally in all Bishops whatsoever, as being injurious not only to other Bishops, but especially to CRIST JESUS, the only right and true Universal Bishop, and the sole, and only Head of the Universal Church. Vniversa sibi tentat ascribere, (saith Gregory, 
Greg libr. 4. Epist 36. ) & omnia quae soli uni capiti coherent, videlicet, Christo, per elationem pompatici sermonis, ejusdem Christi sibi studet membra subjugare. He goeth about to ascribe all to himself, (saith he,) and endevoureth by the loftiness of his pompous title, to subjugate unto himself, all the members of Christ, which of right are to cleave to one only head, which is Christ.  
This title then of Universal Bishop, or head of the whole Church upon earth, appeareth to be as wicked and as unlawful in Boniface the third, Bishop of Rome, and his successors; as it was or would have been in john Bishop of Constantinople, and his successors, if it had rested in them. For, that which Boniface the third, obtained of Phocas the Emperor, is the very same thing, which john Bishop of Constantinople, sought to get and obtain. This (if any make a doubt of it), is apparent. For, first Paulus Diaconus, saith, Hic Phocas, rogante Papa Bonifacio, statuit, sedem Romanae Ecclesiae, ut caput esset omnium Ecclesiarum, 
Paul warnefrid, Phoca.  quia Ecclesia Constantinopolitana primam se omnium Ecclesiarum scribebat. This Emperor Phocas, at the suit of Pope Boniface ordained, that the Sea of Rome should be the head of all Churches, because the Church of Constantinople wrote herself the chief of all Churches. 
Vspergens Chronic.  In like sort speaketh Abbess Vspergensis: Post Sabintanun, Bonifacius eligitur ad Pontificatum: cujus rogata, Phocas constituit sedem Romanae, & Apostolicae Ecclesiae, caput esse ommium Ecclesiarum, nam antea, Constantinopolitana se scribebat primam omnium. After Sabinian, (saith he), was Boniface chosen to the Popedom, at whose request, Phocas ordained, that the Sea of the Roman, and Apostolic Church, should be the head of all Churches: for, formerly, the Church of Constantinople had written herself the chief of all. 
Platin Bonifac. 3  Plantina also saith, that Bonifacius, a Phoca Imperatore, obtinuit, magna tamen contentione: Boniface obtained this, of Phocas the Empe●●or, but with great contending for it: quem quidem loct●m, Ecclesia Constantinopolitana sibi vendicare conabatur: Which place, (saith he,) the Church of Constantinople endeavoured to challenge to herself. 
Blondus.  Blondus also saith. Ad hu●us Bonif●●● petitionem, Phocas Antistitem Romanum, principem Episcoporum omnium dixit: 
Nauclerus, vol 2 Generate. 21.  At the suit of this Boniface, did Phocas affirm the Bishop of Rome, to be the Prince of all Bishops. And Nauclerus likewise saith, that, Bonifacium insolentiam Patriarchae Constantinopolitaniss, 〈…〉 appellantis, compes●●t: Phocas cuim Pontificis suasione, publica, a● ad unt●ersum orbem dimissa sanctione, constituit, ut Romanae Ecclesiae, Romanoque Pontifici, omnes orbis Ecclesiae obedirent. Boniface repressed the insolency of the Patriarch of Constantinople, calling himself Ecumenical, or universal Bishop: For, Phocal, by the persuasion of the Pope, ordained by a public Decree, sent to the whole world, that all the Churches of the world, should be obedient to the Church of Rome. By all these testimonies then, you perceive, that what john the Bishop of Constantinople, did formerly desire, and seek after, that did Boniface the third, Bishop of Rome, obtain of Phocas the Emperor: and consequently, that title of universal Bishop, must needs be, as hateful and damnable in Boniface the third, Bishop of Rome, and his successors, as it was, or would have been, by the judgement of Pelagius and Gregory, in john the Bishop of Constantinople, and his successors. As also I trust you now sufficiently great, how fond and false an evasion, that is, which my Adversary, and Bellarmine also useth. For, if this granting of the title of the universal Bishop to Boniface the third, had been, (as they say,) nothing else, but a declaration of the thing, ever before acknowledged to belong to the Bishops of Rome: What cause, or need was there, for Boniface the third, Bishop of Rome, to have been such an earnest, and importunate surer for the obtaining of it, at this time? Or, why did those two patriarchs, the one of Constantinople, the other of Rome, strive and contend, at this time, so much for it? Or why was Phocas himself so hardly, and not without much a do, induced to yield it to Rome, rather than to Constantinople, which was then the seat of the Emperors? Or if it were a thing ever before acknowledged, to be due, to the Bishops of Rome, why did those two Bishops of Rome, so hotly and eagerly oppose themselves, against it, utterly detesting and condemning it, not only in john Bishop of Constantinople, but generally in all Bishops whosoever? as their speeches, arguments, and reasons do declare. Yea, how can it be true, that the Bishops of Rome had evermore this title, when Gregory the great, Bishop of Rome, himself testifieth the clean contrary: saying, (as you heard before), that none of his predecessors, Bishops of Rome, did at any time consent to use so ungodly a name: and that no Bishop of Rome at any time, took upon him, this name of singularity: and, that they the Bishops of Rome, could not take it, though it were offered to them. Is it not then a point of gross impudency in Papists still to deny such apparent and manifest truths?  
But afterward again in a scoffing manner, he saith, that I give notice that I am a Logician, by affirming in the 11. pag. of the first part of my Book, that the effect of the negative clause in the Oath of Supremacy, is included in the former affirmative clause of the same Oath. The affirmative clause, (saith he,) of the Oath, is that the King is the Supreme Governor in his own Dominions: The negative clause is, that no foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, etc. And so he goeth on, mispending his time, and confuting the imagination and devise of his own brain. For, the affirmative clause in the Oath, is not, as he imperfectly and lamely relateth it, but it is this: That the King, is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm, and of all other his Highness' Dominions and Countries, aswell in all Spiritual, or Ecclesiastical things or causes, as Temporal. The negative clause followeth, and is this; That no foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, State, or Potentate, hath or aught to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority Ecclesiastical, or Spiritual, within this Realm. This word, (Only,) in the affirmative clause, hath he left out: which if he had added together with all the rest of the words, that follow in that affirmative clause: he would very easily have found that to be true, which I wrote, namely, that the effect of the negative clause, is included in the former affirmative. For, he that affirmeth the King, to be the only Supreme Governor within his own Dominions, & that in all things, or causes Spiritual or Ecclesiastical, aswell as temporal: doth, in that speech, exclude every foreign Prince, person, Prelate, State, or Potentate, from having any supreme government, or any government at all, without his leave and licence, within his Dominions. Yea, it is very evident, that the former affirmative clause includeth the negative clause, and more. For the negative clause excludeth foreign Princes, persons, Prelates, States & Potentates, only from Ecclesiastical, or Spiritual Authority: but the former affirmative excludeth them from authority in all things or causes both temporal & spiritual. Again, you see that the negative clause extendeth only to foreign persons: but the affirmative clause extendeth to any persons whosoever, whether foreign, or domestical.  
Thirdly, the negative clause excludeth foreign persons, from having any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or Authority Ecclesiastical, or spiritual, within this Realm. But, the former affirmative clause, extendeth not only to this Realm, or that Realm, in particular, but generally to all his Majesty's Realms, Dominions, & Countries. So that the former affirmative clause, in the Oath, appeareth to be much more general, and of a fare larger extent, than the negative is. And therefore, I hope, I spoke truly, and within compass, when I said, (though in a parenthesis), that the effect of the negative clause, was included in the former affirmative. I did not say, (as mine Adversary supposeth me to hold;) that the Regal power includeth the Sacerdotal, or Episcopal. This is but his own dream & imagination: in the confutation whereof, he laboureth in vain. For, neither I, nor any of the Protestants, do hold that opinion, but contrariwise do hold them to be things distinct, as is before declared. But because he will needs carp at my Logic, when he hath no cause: let other men judge, what a great Logician he is, whilst he argueth thus. The Regal power includeth not the Sacerdotal: Ergo the affirmative clause in the Oath of SUPREMACY, includeth not the negative clause in the same Oath.  
Hitherto, than you see, that my Adversary, (notwithstanding all his storishes, brags, and bravadoes), hath showed himself to be, not only a puny Lawyer, (as he confesseth himself to be,) but a puny Logician also, & most of all, a puny Divine: and that he hath not been able, to make any good Answer, or to refel and confute any one Argument contained in this first Chapter of my former Book, concerning the Supremacy: and yet hath he also left a great part of that Chapter unanswered. Neither hath he made throughout his whole discourse, and pleading, so much as one good argument, to prove his Client's cause, that is, the Pope's supremacy: though he purposed, and laboured to do it. Where, is it not a marvel; that he being a Lawyer, and a Subject to our Sovereign Lord, the KING, will date nevertheless admit of such a Client, as the Pope is, and of his cause, which he knoweth before hand, to be condemned, by the Laws, and Statutes of the Realm, and which he now may see, (if he saw it not before,) to be also condemned by the Laws and Statutes of God himself, and by all the most ancient Ecclesiastical Records. But, if he be not ashamed of such a Client and his cause: his Client, (I suppose,) will be ashamed of him, and entertain him no longer, to plead for him, unless he could do it better. And yet indeed, when his Client's cause, is foul, & naught, (as here it appeareth to be,) what Lawyer, be he never so learned, or what Divine, be he never so profound, is able to justify it, or to make it good? Notwithstanding his demurrer therefore, and notwithstanding that by this his plea, his purpose was to arrest and stay men's judgements, I trust they will all, now, (no cause appearing to the contrary,) proceed without any further delay, to give their sentence against his Client, & for & in the behalf of these two most worthy & Peerless Princes, who be the complainants against him: namely, for Christ JESUS, in their acknowledging, and publishing him, only to be the only universal Bishop, supreme Pastor, and head of the whole Church Militant upon Earth, aswell as of the Triumphant in Heaven: and for the King, in declaring and publishing him, under God, to be the only Supreme Governor, over all manner of persons, and in all kind of causes, aswell Ecclesiastical as Civil, within his Dominions. Neither do I doubt, but all men's judgements, whensoever upon good and well advised deliberation they shall please to give them, will pass accordingly. In the mean time, let us go one to the second Chapter, & see if he have any better success in that, than he hath found in the former.   

Concerning the second Chapter.  
IN this second Chapter of my former Book, my Adversary supposeth, that my main scope and purpose, was, to prove our Church, that is, the Church of the Protestants, to have been, in the Apostles times: But never was there, (saith he,) poor Assertion so miserably mangled. And true it is indeed, that it is miserably mangled, and cut in pieces. But, by whom? namely, by himself. For, my Assertion is not so short, as he relateth it, nor is to end where he maketh it to end, but is of a longer, and larger extent: and being produced not by parts or pieces, but wholly and entirely, (as it ought,) it is this (viz.) That our Church was in the Apostles days, and in all times and ages since, howsoever, or, notwithstanding, that Popery did as an infection, or corruption grow unto it: the meaning & true sense whereof, is no more, but, that the growing of Popery, it being but as an infection or corruption to the Church, is no impediment, or argument to the contrary, but that our Church had a being in the Apostles days, and in all succeeding times and ages, that notwithstanding. This will the better appear, if you take the whole Proposition or assertion, and turn it into a Question. For, then the Question will not be, as mine Adversary maketh it: (viz.) whether our Church were in the Apostles days: for that compriseth not the whole Proposition, but is only a part, or piece of it. Neither can that be any more the Question, then whether it were in the succeeding and aftertimes, and ages. But the Question will be, as I have signified before, viz. Whether the growth and coming in of Popery, as an infection or corruption to the Church, did hinder, or was any such obstacle, or impediment as that, by reason thereof, our Church had no being at all, in the Apostles days, nor in the days, and times succeeding. It is true, that if I had said, that our Church was, in the Apostles times, and had gone no further: it had been an absolute and direct affirmation of our Church to have been in those days. But when I go further, and say, that our Church was in the Apostles days, notwithstanding that the seeds of Popery began then to be sown: in this speech, I do not absolutely, and simply affirm, that our Church was then, but that it was then, notwithstanding that the seeds of Popery began then to be sown: that is, the beginning and growth of Popery, was no obstacle, impediment, or argument against the being of our Church in those days. As likewise if I say, that the conveyance made to john at Stile is good, notwithstanding that there was no livery of seisin made upon it: this is no direct affirmation, that his conveyance is simply good, to all intents and purposes: but, that it is good, notwithstanding this exception, that there was no livery and seisin made: that is, the not making of livery of seisin, is no obstacle or impediment, to hinder the goodness of it. In like sort, if I say, that K. Solomon was a saved soul, notwithstanding that by the enticement of his wives, he became an Idolater: this is no absolute or direct affirmation, that he was a saved soul. But that he was a saved soul, notwithstanding that reason or allegation: that is to say, his committing of Idolatry, upon the enticement of his wives, is no such obstacle, or proof to the contrary, but that he might be a saved soul, that reason or objection notwithstanding. As again, if I say, that my Adversary is a good Grecian, or a good Hebritian, notwithstanding that he hath not showed it in his Answer: this is no direct affirmation, that he is either a good Grecian or a good Hebritian: but the sense and meaning of that speech is, that his not showing of skill in Greek or Hebrew in his Answer, is no obstacle, or argument to the contrary, but that he may be a good Grecian, or a good Hebritian, that notwithstanding. Wherefore if mine Adversary would have opposed himself, against that proposition or assertion of mine before mentioned, he should have showed & proved, (if he had been able,) that the coming in, and growth of Popery, was such an impediment or obstacle, as that by reason thereof our Church could have no being in the Apostles days, or in the times, or ages that succeeded: which because he hath not done, he hath spent his breath, and talked idly, and in vain, and to no purpose. And yet he seemeth to glory and insult over me, that my conclusion & assertion, being (as he saith), that our Church was in the Apostles times, I brought not so much as one argument, there to prove it: how much more cause now have I, (if I were so disposed), to glory and insult over him, who by his cutting, curtalling and mangling my assertion, and not taking it wholly and entirely, (as of right he should,) hath utterly mistaken the Question, & not answered one word to that which was the Question indeed. For the question to be deduced, out of this entire Proposition, not being (as he hath strangely mistaken), whether our Church was in the Apostles times: nor yet, whether it were in the succeeding, and aftertimes. But, whether Popery were such an obstacle, or impediment, as that it did cause that our Church could not, by reason thereof, have any being at all, either in the Apostles times, or in the times and ages that succeeded: To this it is that I answered and addressed my speech in that second Chapter: and to this Question also it is, that mine Adversary should have answered, and addressed his speech, if he would have spoken materially and to the purpose.  
And yet even this very assertion, that our Church (that is men believing and professing the same Faith and Religion, that we do), was in the Apostles times, and by them taught and approved, is a thing evidently declared, not in one Chapter alone of my former Book, (for one Chapter alone, would not suffice, for so many points, and positions, as did to such a matter belong) but in all the several Chap●ers and whole Contents of my Book put together. And the truth of it may summarily, & briefly thus appear, namely, by that excellent rule, and fundamental ground, 
Tertul. prescript ●avers. haeret.  which Tertullian giveth. For, he saith, that even those Churches, quae licet nullum ex Apostolis, vel Apostolicis authorem suum proferant, (ut multo posteriores, quae denique quotidie instituuntur,) tamen in eadem fide conspirantes, non minus Apostolicae d●putantur, pro consanguinitate doctrinae: which cannot bring any of the Apostles, or Apostolic men for their authors, (as those that be much later, & such as are begun every day,) yet agreeing with them in the same faith, are for this consanguinity, or agreement in doctrine, held to be no less Apostolic, than the rest. Again he saith: Ipsa doctrina eorum, 
Tertul. traescrip. advers. haeret. cap. 32,  cum Apostolica comparata, ex diversitate, & contrarietate sua, pronunciabit, neque Apostoli alicujus authoris esse, neque Apostolici. Their very doctrine itself being compared with the Apostolic, by the diversity and contrariety that is between them, will pronounce, that it had for the Author, neither any Apostle, nor any man that was Apostolical. From this rule, and fundamental ground, I deduce, and make two Arguments, (the one for our Church, the other against the Church of Rome.) For our Church my Argument is this. That Church which holdeth the same Faith, doctrine, & Religion, that the Apostles taught in their days, is Apostolical: But our Church, that is the Church of the Protestants, holdeth the same Faith, doctrine and Religion, that the Apostles taught in their: Ergo our Church, that is, the Church of the Protestants, is Apostolical. The Mayor is very evident of itself, and by the testimony also of Tertullian, neither can it be denied. The Minor is also evident by conferring, and comparing our Faith, doctrine, & Religion, with the Apostolical writings, & the rest of the Canonical Scriptures. And it is also manifest, by the whole Contents of my former Book, whether I refer you, for the proof of it, (if any make doubt of it:) And therefore the conclusion must be granted. On the other side, against the Church of Rome, from that ground also, I thus frame my argument. That Church which holdeth a Religion, Faith, and doctrine, differing or contrary to that which was taught by the Apostles in their times, is not Apostolical: But the Popish Church, holdeth a Religion, Faith, and doctrine, differing, or contrary to that, which was taught by the Apostles in their times, (as is apparent, if you compare them together, examining the several, and particular Positions, in these points of Controversy, by the writings of the Apostles, & the rest of the Canonical Scriptures, & as is also showed at large in my former book; whether I likewise refer you, for the proof of this Minor Proposition:) And therefore the Popish Church is not Apostolical. But mine Adversary taketh here exception to our Church, affirming it in three points to be heretical. First in the point of justification. For, he saith, it was the heresy of the Symonians and Eunomians, to hold justification in God's sight, by grace, and by faith only, as the Protestants do. And, that S. Augustine also affirmeth it to be an error, that sprung up even in the Apostles days. But touching the Symonians, they held, 
Ir●n libr. 1. c. 20  (as Irenaeus declareth,), That they were to be saved by the grace of Simon Magus, their sect Master, whom they make their God and Saviour. The Protestants hold no such abominable thing, but contrariwise hold, that they are to be saved by the grace of CHRIST. What? Is it all one with Papists, to be saved by Simons grace, and by the grace of CHRIST? As for the Eunomians, such was their doctrine of Faith, as that they rejected, or made no reckoning of good works at all. 
Aug. hares. 54.  Yea, they held, (as S. Augustine showeth,) Quod nihil homini obesset quorumlibet perpetratio peccatorum. That the committing of any sins whatsoever, did not hurt a man. The Protestants teach no such wicked, and damnable doctrine, but clean contrariwise, do teach, that the Faith that justifieth, and saveth a man, is not a dead but a lively Faith, that is, such as is accompanied with good works, and with a godly conversation: although, 
jerem. 23.6. jerem. 33.16. 2. Cor. 5.21. Rom. 10 4. Rom. 9.30.31 32 Rom. 3.14. joh 3.14 15 16. john. 1.12.  in the act of our justification in God's sight and censure, it is Faith alone, and not the works, that is, the hand or instrument, whereby we apprehend, or receive CHRIST JESUS, who is indeed our righteousness. As the eye, in respect of the rest of the members, wherewith it is accompanied, is not alone, yet in respect of the power and faculty of seeing, it is sole and alone. And, as, in fire likewise, there is both hear, and light, and the heat is not alone, but accompanied with the light: and yet it is the heat only, and not the light, that warmeth the body. So in a man justified, there is Faith, and good works accompanying it, and in respect of the good works wherewith it is accompanied, it is not sole, and alone, but yet, in the Act and point of justification in God's sight, as it apprehendeth Christ our righteousness, it is sole and alone, good works having no part with it, in that action. As for that which is alleged out of S. Augustine, I answered it in my former Book, and now I answer it once again, 
Aug. de fide, & oper. cap. 14.  or rather S. Augustine himself answereth it, whilst he showeth, That the error which sprung up in the Apostles days, was of such, as held Faith only, to be sufficient to salvation, although they did no good works at all, but lived wickedly, dissolutely, lewdly: which is indeed, an error, and a gross error, 
Galat. 5.6. jam. 2 14. 1. Pet● 29.11 12 2 Pet 1 10. 1. john 3.10.  and which the Protestants, with S. Augustine, with S. Paul, with S. james, with S. Peter, with S. john, & with all the rest of the sacred Scriptures, do likewise utterly condemn.  
The second point wherein he supposeth heresy in our Church, is concerning their Popish Purgatory. It is true, that we deny it. Neither are the Papists able to prove the denial of it to be either heresy or error: My Adversary saith, That Luther, Calvine, & others, did likewise deny it; & what of that? was it therefore heresy? Or, in what Church was it censured and condemned to be heresy. If by any, he must say, it was by his own, the Popish Church, which condemneth indeed, not only that, but all other doctrines and Positions of the Protestants, wherein they differ from them, be they never so true. But it is proved in my former Book, 
Col●s. 2.19  That Papal Rome, is the whore of Babylon, and that the Popish Church hath not Christ, but Antichrist to be the head, and to rule, and reign over it. Neither is it mine opinion alone, that the Pope of Rome, the head, and ruler thereof, is the grand Antichrist, (and consequently his Church, the false, & Antichristian Church,) but it is the opinion, and position of all sound Protestants likewise: as their many and sundry learned Works, written in defence of that Protestant Position against the Papists, do plentifully, and at large declare. Now then, is it any marvel, or any matter, that the false, adulterate, and Antichristian Church, condemneth the right believing, Orthodox, and true Christian Church, and her Positions? Yea, in this point, against their Purgatory, did the Apostolic, Primitive, and most ancient Church believe, as we do. For, S. Paul saith, 
2. Cor. 5.6 8. Thil. 1.23.  of all God's people, That whilst they are in the body, they are absent from the Lord: and that when they go out of the body, they are present with the Lord. And so holdeth S. Cyprian, 
Cyprian. de mortalitat. sect. 2. ●d●t. 159●.  That the servants of God, then have peace, and then enjoy free and quiet rest: And that being drawn out from the storms of this world, they arrive at the haven of their everlasting habitation and security. Again he saith, Ad refrigerium justi vocantur, ad supplicium rapiuntur injusti. The righteous are called to a refreshing: 
Ibidem. sect 11.  the unrighteous are haled to torment. 
Ibidem. sect. 14.  In somuch that he saith further, concerning godly persons, when they die, that Nec accipiendas esse hic atras vestes, quando 〈◊〉 ibi indumenta alba iam sumpseriut: For them, black mourning garments are not to be worn here, because they have there already put on white raiment. 
justin. respon ad Orthodox. quaest. 75.  justine Martyr likewise saith: That after the departure of the soul out of the body, there is, presently, made a difference betwixt the just, and the unjust. For, the souls of the just go to Paradise, where they have the commerce and sight of Angels, and Archangels, &c: The souls of the unjust, to the places in Hell. 
Hilar. in Psal 2.  S. Hilary also observeth, out of that which is mentioned in the Gospel, concerning the Richman & Lazarus, that as soon as this life is ended, every one, (without delay), goeth either to Abraham's bosom, or to the place of torment: and in this place, is reserved, till the day of judgement. S. Ambrose also teachech, That death is a certain haven to them, 
Ambros de bono mortis cap. 4.  who being tossed in the great sea of this world, desire the station of a safe rest. And therefore he saith further, That whereas fools do fear death as the chief of evils: Wise men do desire it, as a rest after labours, and an end of their evils. S Basil saith, 
Basil. procem. in regular fusius disputat.  This present world, is the time of repentance, the other of retribution, this of working, that of rewarding: this of patiented suffering, that of receiving comfort. Gregory Nazianzen also in his Funeral orations, hath many sayings to this purpose, 
Greg. N●z. Orat. 9 ad justanum, & orat 42 in Pasch. & orat 15 in ●lagam grandinis.  and was so fare from supposing any Purgatory, or purging prepared for men after their death, that he plainly denieth, That after the night of this present life, there is any purging to be expected. And therefore he giveth us all good counsel, telling us, That it is better to be corrected, and purged now, then to be sent unto torments there, where the time of punishing is, and not of purging. And concerning the third point, wherein he objecteth heresy: It is true, that Popish Priests cannot forgive sins, because they be not the Ministers of Christ, but of Antichrist: and therefore, for any to resort, or to go unto them for absolution, or forgiveness of sins, must needs rather increase their sins, then take away any. The authority nevertheless of Christ his Ministers, to bind and lose, and to remit, and retain sins, we deny not, but affirm and maintain against the Novatians, or whatsoever other heretics; and therefore most injurious is my Adversary, & other Papists, in charging us with the heresy of the Novatians, 
Micah. 7.18. Esai. 43. ●5. Mar. 2.7 Luk. 5.21. Revel. 3.7.  in that point. Howbeit, it is not an absolute, but a Ministerial & limited power, and authority, which the Ministers of Christ have herein received. For, to forgive sins properly and absolutely, is a privilege & prerogative proper unto God. And therefore did Gregory the great, 
Greg exposit. 2. Psalm. Poenit.  (Bishop of Rome,) say: Quis enim potest peccata dimittere, nisi solus Deus? For who can forgive sins, but God alone? The power of releasing sins, (saith also Radulphus Arden's, 
Radulph. Ard. homil Dominic. 1 post Pasch. ) belongeth to God alone: But the Ministry, (which is also improperly called a power,) he hath granted to his substitutes, who after their manner, do bind, and absolve, that is, do declare that men are bound or absolved. For God doth first inwardly absolve the sinner, by compunction: & then the Priest outwardly, by giving the sentence, doth declare, that he is absolved. Peter Lombard also, Master of the Sentences, 
Pet. Lombard. lib. 4. Sentent. distinct. 18. E.F.  saith, That God alone doth forgive and retain sins, and yet hath he given power of binding & losing unto his Church. But he bindeth and looseth one way, and the Church another. For, he only by himself forgiveth sins, who both cleanseth the soul, from inward blot, & looseth it from the debt of everlasting death, & this he hath not granted unto Priests: to whom notwithstanding, he hath given the power of binding and losing, that is to say, of declaring men to be bound or loosed. Est ergo in universis servientibus, non dominium, 
Optat. libr. 5.  sed ministerium. There is therefore, (saith Optatus,) in all the officers or servants, not a dominion, but a ministry. Behold, 
Ambr de Spir. Sanct. 〈◊〉. ●. c. 10  (saith S. Ambrose,) that, by the holy Ghost, sins are forgiven, & men, to the forgiveness of sins, bring but their Ministry: they exercise not any authority or power. The power of forgiving sins, (saith S. Basil,) is not given to Christ's Ministers absolutely: 
Basil. regul. Brevior. quast. 25.  but upon the obedience of the penitent, & his consent with him, that hath the care of his foul. Yea, (saith S. Ambrose,) neither Angel, nor Archangel, can, 
Ambros. Epist. 28 ad Theod. Imp.  nor the Lord himself, when we have sinned, doth release us, unless we bring repentance with us. Christ his Ministers therefore do not, nor aught to declare, or pronounce remission and forgiveness of sins to any, but to such, as Christ their Lord & Master, by the Tenor of his word, hath warranted remission of sins unto. For if they do otherwise, it is not ratified in heaven, which they do upon earth. But all these three points, have I handled in my former Book, where, aswell as here, they appear to be Apostolical, and Orthodox truths, and not heretical, or erroneous opinions. Now then let all equal men judge, how well and wisely, this Quidam homo, or quoddam animal Anomolon, & Pseudonymon, this Adversary of mine, dealeth with me, whilst he termeth me, as he pleaseth, and resembleth me to a Phripiers' Apprentice, whose office is, (saith he, speaking like a man of skill in that art, or occupation,) to go from one Corner unto another, searching old Rags to line new clothes. For I have borrowed, (saith he,) the shreds of my Religion from Simon Magus, the Novatians, and other heretics. How much this man is deceived, and mistaken, doth now, (I hope), more than sufficiently appear, by that which is before spoken. Neither indeed is it ours, but his, the Popish Religion, that is thus patched, and pieced of many and sundry errors and heresies, being therein like a beggar's cloak consisting of many rags and shreds sowed together: as divers Protestants, and amongst the rest, Doctor Willet in his Tetrastylon Papismi, and that learned, and Reverend Bishop, Doctor Morton, in his Catholic Appeal for the Protestants, being an Answer to Brerely the Priest, have declared at large, and in the many and sundry particulars thereof.  
Notwithstanding therefore whatsoever mine Adversary hath said, or can say to the contrary, it is apparent, by the consanguinity and agreement in Faith and doctrine, which our Church hath with the Apostolical writings, that it was in the Apostles times, and by them approved. And this being the undoubted true Church, and builded upon that invincible and unruinable Rock, Christ jesus, against which the gates of Hell shall never prevail: must it not needs be supposed to have also a continuance in all succeeding times and ages, even to the world's end, notwithstanding that Popery, or whatsoever other errors, or heresies did grow up with it, like Tares among the good Corn? Yea, that our Church, (that is, people believing and professing the Faith and Religion, that we do,) was in the times, and ages succeeding the Apostles, even until the days of the grand Antichrist, and during all the time also, even of the grand antichrist his reign, is likewise declared in my former book, not only, in this second Chapter of the first part, but chiefly and specially in the second Chapter of the second part of it: where I have set down this Position, and proved it, that the Church is not so visible, as to be always, & at all times openly seen & known to the wicked and persecuting world. And for proof hereof, 
Aug. in Psal. 1● De Baptis contr. Donatist. lib. 6. cap 4.  I alleged S. Augustine, who therefore compareth the Church to the M●one, which is often obscured, and hid: yea he confesseth and teacheth, That the Church may sometime be so hidden, as that the very members thereof shall not know one another. It is true, that the men whereof the Church consisteth, are always visible, and may be seen, as being men: but the Faith and Religion they believe and hold, is not so visible, as to be always, seen, discovered, & known to the wicked and malignant world, although sometime it be; which point you may see there further declared. And therefore they be not Chemical arguments, (as my Adversary, in his Chymericall and Alchymisticall Divinity surmiseth), but  and sound proofs, that I bring to declare, that the true Church is sometimes visible, and to be seen of this wicked world, and sometimes invisible, 
Revel. 9.13. Revel. 10.1.2.10.11.  and not to be seen of it, that is to say, it is sometimes a Patent, and sometimes a Latent Church: of which sort because the Papists, will not grant their Church to be, but will have it always visible, & evermore splendently appearing to the eyes of the world, it is a plain, & demonstrative argument against them, that therefore theirs cannot be the true Church. I further showed in this second Chapter, that the true Church, planted by the Apostles, was afterward by little, and little, and by degrees to grow corrupted, and to continue in those her errors, corruptions and deformities, for a long time, even till after the sixth Angel had begun to blow the Trumpet, according to the prediction & Prophecy thereof in the Revelation of S. john: which Prophecy because it is found to agree with our Church, and that it cannot be made to agree with theirs, which they will not grant to be, capable of any corruption, or error: It thereupon also followeth, that not theirs, but ours, must needs be the true Church, planted by the Apostles. These arguments I here the rather mention, that my adversary might see, That the blast of the sixth Angel's trumpet, did not blow away all the arguments, which I should have brought for my purpose, as he scoffingly speaketh, being not able otherwise, or in other than a scoffing sort, to answer them. For what better argument can there be to prove our Church, and to disprove & confute theirs, than this, that ours doth agree with the predictions & prophecies contained in the sacred and Canonical Scriptures, and theirs neither doth, nor can be made to agree with them,  
And here also falleth to the ground, that Paradox, and untrue opinion, which he holdeth, that one error in the Church, overthroweth the whole Church: making it to be no true Church, but only an imaginary Church. It is true, 
1 Cor. 5.6.  that S. Paul saith, That a little leaven, leaveneth the whole lump of dough. But he doth not say, that, it utterly overthroweth, nullifieth, and extinguisheth it yea even this Church of Corinth, wherein this leaven was, (by reason of that wicked incestuous man permitted to remain, unseperated, 
2. Cor. 1.2.  & unexcommunicated amongst them, to the endangering of others by his example,) was nevertheless the Church of God: and so doth S. Paul expressly call it, notwithstanding that error amongst them. Again in the same Church of Corinth there were also Contentions amongst them, 
1. Cor. 15 12. 1. Cor. 1.11. 1. Cor. 3.3. 1. Cor. 11 18.19. 1. Corinth. 1.2.  and envying, and strife, and divisions, yea, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, schismata, & haereses, schisms, & heresies: and yet was it a true Church of God, all these errors and faults notwithstanding, as S. Paul declareth. The Church of Ephesus, 
Rev. 1.2.2. ●4 5  was likewise a true Church of God, & for sundry things much commended: yet had God some thing against her, because she had left her first love, Remember therefore, (saith he,) from whence thou art fallen, and repent, 
Revel. ●2 12.13.14.15.  & do the first works, etc. The Church of Pergamus was also a true Church of God: Yet I have, (saith God,) a few things against thee, because thou hast there, them that maintain the doctrine of Balaam, etc. And them that maintain the doctrine of the Nicolaytans, which thing I hate. The Church of Thiatyra, 
Rev. 2.18.19.20  was likewise a true Church of God: and for many things also, much commended: Notwithstanding (saith God) I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest the woman jesabel, which calleth herself a Prophetess, to teach and deceive my servants, etc. By all which, you see, that one error, or one fault in a Church, doth not therefore prove it to be no Church, or no true Church. Yea, it appeareth that a Church, and a true Church may be, though diverse defaults, and errors, be in it, which be not fundamental. How much then doth mine Adversary abuse that Text of S. james: where he saith: Qui deficit in uno, factus est omnium reus: 
james. 2.10.11.  Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet fail in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, thou shalt not commit adultery, said also thou shalt not kill: now, though thou commit no adultery, yet if thou killest, thou art a transgressor of the law. For, what S. james meaneth by this, that he which faileth or offendeth in breaking though but one of God's Commandments, 
Galat. 3.10. Deut. 27.26.  is guilty of all: himself here showeth, when he saith, that he is thereby become a transgressor of the law: and consequently guilty of the curse inflicted, by the sentence of the Law, upon every one that continueth not in all things, that are written in the book of the Law to do them. So that he is guilty of all, not that he hath broken all the Commandments, by breaking only of one, nor that he which breaketh only one, shall be punished in hell, as much, and with as great a measure of torments, as he that carelessly breaketh them all, but that by this breaking, but of one Commandment, he hath offended the Majesty of the Lawgiver, incurred his displeasure, and made himself aswell liable to the curse of the law, that is, hath deserved to suffer eternal torments, (though not in so great, & high a degree, and measure), as if he had broken them all. He therefore much wrongeth this Text, when he applieth it to prove, that it cannot be a true Church, which hath any error in it, or that he that fails in one point of Religion, hath only an imaginary Religion, and no true Religion in him. What? was the Church wherein S. Cyprian lived, no true Church, 
Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 5. in t●e greek, and cap. 5. latin.  or was S. Cyprian no true Christian, or had he no true Religion in him, because he held the error of Rebaptisation? Or were none of those, true Churches, nor had any of them any true Religion in them, which held the Chiliasticke error, or error of the Millenaries? Or were S. Augustine, S. Jerome, or any of the rest of the ancient Fathers therefore no true Christians, or had they only an imaginary, and no true Religion in them, because of some error they held? Yea, he may aswell conclude out of this Text, (if he make no care, nor conscience, to abuse it,) that every one whosoever that erreth & faileth in any point, either of doctrine, 
1. john. 1.8.  or manners, or that sinneth in any sort, by breaking any one of God's Commandments, is only an imaginary and no true Christian at all: Whereupon would follow this gross absurdity, and untruth, that there were then no true Christians at all in the whole world, because there be none but have some sin, or other, in them. It is true, 
Ephes. 4.3.4.5. etc.  that there is but one true Faith, and right Religion, and that we should all endeavour to observe and keep it, as likewise we ought all to endeavour, so much as is possible, to keep all & every one of God's Commandments: but if by reason of the frailty, and imperfection, that is in all men, any Church do err in some one thing; or any man do err,, sin, or offend, in some one point, you see by the premises, that no such inference can be made, that therefore it is no true Church, or therefore he is no true Christian, or hath no good, nor true Religion in him, because of that one sin, or error committed. All which nevertheless I speak not, to justify, or defend any errors, in any Church, or any sin, transgression, or fault in any person, nor yet as though he could justly tax our true Christian Church with any error in Faith, or doctrine: but only to show him his own error, and the fault of his own idle, & brainsick opinion. Whereunto also may be adjoined another Paradox or strange opinion of his and not only his, for it is the opinion also of the Rhemists, and other Papists, where they hold, that the blasphemy, or sin against the holy Ghost, is remissible, & may be forgiven: which is directly, and clean contrarie to the express words of Christ jesus himself, declaring that the sin against the Father, and the Son, is remissible, 
Math. 12 31.32 Luk 12.10 Mark. 3.28 29.  and may be forgiven: But the sin against the holy Ghost (saith he) shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. And S. Mark relateth it thus, That he which committeth that sin, shall never have forgiveness, but is culpable of eternal damnation. Now then, let all men judge, whether of these, we should believe? namely, whether Christ, or the Papists, in this case? Lastly, he falleth into a consideration, what sin it is, that I committed, in making and setting forth my Book; & distinguishing sin into three sorts, (viz.) some of Frailty, some of Ignorance, & some of Malice: he freeth me of that of frailty, and of that of malice, and therefore concludeth, that it was a sin of ignorance. Thus out of his ignorance, (for I hope there is no malice in him,) he argueth ex non concessis. For how doth he prove it to be any sin at all, to pen such a Book, and to set it forth? Ipse dixit, is all his proof. What? Is it a sin to speak or write, in defence of God's truth & religion? Yea is it not (clean contrariwise) a sin, and a very great, & most fearful sin for my Adversary, to write (as he doth) against God, his truth, & religion, & against his Church, & people, & against the King also in the point of his Supremacy, & against the Laws, & Statutes of the Realm also, (which establish those two points, for which I writ and speak), and all for defence of the whore of Babylon, & of that man of sin, the grand Antichrist? Is not this a sin meet for him to repent of? This his great sin therefore, & all other wicked works, & ways of blind Popery, I would wish him to forsake in time, 
Ephes. 5 8.  & to become & walk As one of the children of light, which if he desire to do, (as I trust he doth,) he must then with the Psalmist, make not his own, 
Psalm. 119.105.  or other men's pleasures, but Gods will, & word to be the Lantern unto his feet, and the light unto his path, & thereby must he be directed, 
Esa. 8.20.  both for points of doctrine & for life & conversation also. For if any do not, or speak not according to this word, 
1. Io. 1.5.6.  it is because (as the Scriptures teach) they have not that light in them, which they should have. It is true, which he saith, That Christ, the supreme judge of Heaven, & Earth, will most certainly come to judgement, and will judge most justly. But it were good he would remember withal how, 
john. 12 48. Rom. 2.16.  & by what rule, he will judge? namely, that he will judge according to his own word, & Gospel. For, according to that his Word, & Gospel, it is, that he will judge us all, in the last day, as himself, & his true & faithful Apostle S. Paul, do both assure us.  
In the mean time then, can there be any better course taken, or any better wisdom showed, then for both him, & me, & for us all, humbly & willingly to submit our selves, our lives & conversations, & all our positions, & opinions, to be controlled, reform, overruled, & judged by that word & Gospel, according whereunto, we shall all be judged in that last day? This grace, & wisdom therefore God, of his mercy grant unto us all, (if it be his will,) to his honour and glory, and to our own everlasting comforts, through jesus Christ, our whole and only Mediator, Saviour, and Redeemer. Amen.  
FINIS.    

Post scriptum.  
LEt none hereafter expect any more from me, touching these matters, until my former Book, which by this my Adversary is promised to be answered, according to the three conditions required by me) be first, accordingly answered: and that this Reply be also therewithal Answered; and all this to be done in Print, and not in Manuscripts, & with the Answerers right and true name also thereunto subscribed.   

ERRATA, CORRECTA.  
IN the Epistle Dedicat. pag. 1. line 12 this word (first) blot out. In the Epist. to the Reader, pag. 1 l 2●. for satisfactory, satisfactorily p. 8. l 5. for suffertus, suffenus, p 9 lin 33 for scripturiam, scripturam, p. 10. l. 14. for ingeniosly, ingenuously. In the first Chapter of the Book, p 2 l. 5. for will, soul p. 13 23. this word secondly, blot out, & in stead thereof put this figure 2 to note it to be the second section of that Chapter, & so read on forward, thus: It being then a thing very demonstratively evident, &c p. 13. l. 32. for Ministers, Ministry, p. 15. l 6. for writeth, citeth, p. 17. l 6. for makinde, mankind p. 24. in the margin, for 2. Sam 20 17 put 2. Sam. 20 26. In p. 24 l. 31. & 32, read it thus: Aaron and his sons were appointed to the office of priesthood p. 26. l. 31 this word Thirdly, blot out, & in lieu thereof put the figure of 3. to note it to be the Third section of that Chap p 26. l. 33. for wisheth, wished. p. 34 l. 10. for young, young. p. 38. l 12. for divert direct p. 39 l. 19 read, as unto the chief p. 42. l 6. & 7. for john 9, 11, john 19, 11 p. 44 l. 17. for yea, yet. p. 44 l 18 for construed, considered, p 45. l. 26 for advantagement, advantage, p. 51 l. 23 for ingeniously, ingenuously, p 52. l 10 for Aquinus, Aquinas, p. 52. 32. for cause, clause, p. 13. l. 19 between, as, and other Bishops, put this word, over, pag 38. l 16. for worth, worthy, p 40 l. 5 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, p. 43. l. 33. this word (as) blot out, p 57, l. 3 this word (and) blot out, p. 66. l 2. for shall, should, p, 70, l 24, for States, seats, p. 79. l 24. for under, made, p, 82, l, 18, for how, now, p, 83, l, 7, for Episcopus, Episcopos, p, 84, l, 12, after, but, read by, pag, 15, against l, 24, in the margin, for Novel, con, 123, Novel, con, 133, p, 19, l, 22, for highness, highness, pag, 100, l, vlt, for proferant, vel Apo, pag, 88, l, 26, for Airam Hira●●, & in margin, for 1, Sam, 5, 1●, read 2, Sam, 5, 11 p, 88 l, 8, for use, used, p, 94, l, 3, for could, would, p, 96, l, 19, between nevertheless, & admit, put this word (to) p, 97, l, 16, for one, on, p, 97, lie, the first (only) blot out, pag, 93, l, 9, for grant, read, perceive, p. 102 l, 22, after their, read days, p, 102, l, 21, for make, made p. 82 l, 11, for Bithinijs, Bithiniae.  
And if any other faults have escaped in the Printing, I desire the Reader to correct them with his pen.