A SURREPLICATION TO THE REJOINDER OF A POPISH ADVERSARY.  
Wherein, THE SPIRITVALL SUPREMACY of Christ jesus in his Church; and the Civil or Temporal Supremacy of Emperors, Kings, and Princes within their own Dominions, over Persons Ecclesiastical, & in causes also Ecclesiastical (aswell as Civil and Temporal) be yet further declared defended and maintained against him.  
By CHRISTOPHER SIBTHORP, Knight, one of his Majesty's justices of his Court of Chiefe-place in IRELAND.  Give therefore unto Cesar the things that be Caesar's, and unto God the things that be Gods. Matth. 22.21. He that is not with me (saith Christ) is against me: And he that gathereth not with me scattereth. Luke. 11.23; 
Imprinted at DUBLIN by the Society of Stationers. Anno Domini M.DC.XXVII.   

To the Reader.  
I Did expect (Courteous Reader) that before I had written any word in these matters, both my first Book, and my second also (which is my Reply) should first have been answered, and that in such sort as in the Postscript annexed at the end of the same my Reply is declared: but therein I perceive mine expectation is deceived, and that my Adversary without any regard had to that which I desired, hath taken his own course, and put forth a rejoinder to that my Reply. In which his rejoinder I am sorry to see how much he, debating the point of Supremacy wrongeth not only Me, and his Reader, and the ancient Christian Emperors and ancient Fathers, but even CHRIST JESUS also himself, and all Kings and Princes generally in respect of their several rights to them belonging. Wherefore, I thought it not meet or seemly, for me in this case to be silent, or to desist, but, (being thus provoked) to proceed, and to make and publish a Surreplication to that rejoinder. And this I do the rather, that so a third book being added to my two former, they all three together might serve so much the more strongly to persuade him, and the rest of the pretended Catholics to the truth in this cause for vis unita fortior, & a threefold cord is not easily broken. If by all or any of my labours, I shall be a mean or help to work their conformity or reformation I shall be glad of it, for it is the main thing I seek after: but if they hate to be reform and will in contempt and scorn of all admonitions live & die in their errors (which were a case most fearful, desperate, and lamentable,) whom can they blame therein but themselves, and their Popish teachers, by whom they are so much misled and abused. My Adversary when he took upon him to answer the two Chapters in my first Book did not prefix those two Chapters of mine to his answer: neither when he answered my Reply did he prefix my Reply to his rejoinder: And therefore also, neither did I prefix his answer to my Reply, nor his rejoinder to this my Surreplication. Whereat, neither he, nor any other for him hath cause to be offended, or to take exception, in as much as I do therein but follow his own precedent and example, which himself first used, and wherein he began unto me. The substance, nevertheless, marrow, pith, and strength of all his Books, and of his reasons and arguments therein contained, I omit not but mention, and that usually, or rather evermore in his own words, and do also make answer thereunto. But I am loath any longer to detain you: and therefore, I here leave you to the reading of that which followeth: and that which followeth to your own judicious just, and equal censure: Beseeching God to guide us all unto his truth, & to keep & establish us therein continually, after that we once see and know it. Amen.   

A SURREPLICATION TO THE REJOINDER OF A POPISH ADVERSARY.  
To my Adversary.  
SIR: As you throughout your rejoinder addressed your speech to me, in particular: so do I in like sort here direct my speech unto you in this work of mine. For although I neither purposed nor promised it, nor others, (I suppose) expected it, yet that which you have of late published against my Reply hath provoked me once more to set pen to paper in defence of that cause which you so much strive against in vain In the beginning of that your rejoinder, you say, that although we be different in religion, yet you desire much, that we be united in affection. This speech of yours I dislike not because it savoureth (as I conceive it) of that humanity and charity which is to be entertained, and continued amongst us, notwithstanding these differences in points of religion: as also of some good affection, and inclination in you unto God's truth: wherein chiefly it is, that we are to be united. For, as touching any other kinds of unity, namely that which is in error and falsehood, I hope you desire it not because it is as S. Augustine rightly calleth it, Error is conspiratio, a conspiracy of error against the truth. The unity, which is joined with divine verity, is it which S. Paul calleth, The unity of the spirit, and which he would have all Christians to be evermore very careful to observe, saying, 
Ephes. 4.3  Endeavour to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace: and he saith again thus: 
Ephes. 4.15.  Let us follow the truth in love, and in all things grow up into him which is the head, that is, Chirist; This truth if we did all earnestly seek after and follow, and that in love, and in a charitable manner (as here we are required to do) all our controversies would the better, and the sooner be ended and determined which have now so long disquieted many men's minds, and do so much hinder that which is indeed most requisite, namely, the good and due practice of true religion in the world. For how can any practise religion aright, before they know which is the right religion, which they are to practise, and to walk in? Or how can they know which is the right religion they are to walk in, so long as they be doubtful of it, by reason of questions, and controversies, that do perplex and distract them? The first thing then, which men desirous to live good and godly lives are to seek after, is, in the midst of all these controversies to get & obtain within themselves a resolution of a right religion: which resolution they can never certainly have or attain unto, but by means of the sacred and Canonical Scriptures, which be the only infallible rule of all divine truth, as I have showed in my first Book: So that the purpose and intention of that my first Book, as likewise of the second, which is my Reply, and of this also, was not, nor is, to have men to dwell continually and everlastingly in controversies, but clean contrariwise to have them all ended and determined, and that as speedily as might be, in every man's conscience by diligent searching of those holy Scriptures, and finding out thereby what is the undoubted truth in them: that men being once thus satisfied and resolved of the truth and true religion, might afterward the better, and the more freely apply themselves to the good and due practice of it in their affections, words, works, lives and conversations, refusing all other religions of humane invention whatsoever, and the ways thereof. But now though the truth be never so manifest and apparent, yet some there be of that froward and perverse disposition, that they will not yield unto it, but as jannes' and jambres withstood Moses, 
2. Tim. 3.8.  so do these also resist the truth, being men of corrupt minds and reprobate concerning the faith, as S. Paul speaketh of which sort of men (if I could help it) I would not have you to be, though you be mine Adversary, yea though you were mine utter enemy. And therefore, as to the answer which you made to the two Chapters contained in the first part of my first Book, I replied: so to your rejoinder, I have here also thought it good to make a Surreplication; wherein I must not omit to tell you, that as touching the second Chapter of my Reply, you have in your rejoinder made no answer at all unto it, but it remaineth wholly and entirely unanswered, and consequently in his full force & strength against you. And as touching the first Chapter of my Reply, concerning the Supremacy (upon which point it seemeth that all your thoughts were wholly fixed, & employed) although you make some kind of answer in your rejoinder unto it, and such as perchance, you and your partakers may think to be somewhat strong, yet it is indeed of that great debility, as that upon the matter, it is as good as no answer, as will appear by the sequel: and yet have you moreover left a great part, even of that first Chapter also unanswered. Beside that you have again in your Rejoinder, sundry things which were before answered in my Reply, and much other idle, futile, and frivolous stuff, which I suppose you would never have inserted into your book but fro want of better matter in your cause.  
For, first, what an idle exception is this, that you take to my Reply in that I dedicated it to the Right Honourable the Lord deputy? Why might I not do so? Was it not lawful? Or was there any inconvenience, or indecorum in it? You say that his Lordship hath taken the Oath of Supremacy, which maketh him a direct Party, & being a Party, he may not also be a judge in the same cause. What? have you so soon forgotten what yourself did? For when you made your answer to the two Chapters of my first Book, you may remember that you dedicated it, To your dearest countrymen, the Lawyers of Ireland. You than thought it lawful and seemly enough for you so to dedicate it, notwithstanding that by their refusal and utter dislike to take the Oath of Supremacy, they manifestly shown themselves to be Parties. And was this lawful for you to do, and was not the other as lawful at least, or rather much more lawful, and seemly (all things considered) for me to do? Howbeit, you know also, that Books be not always dedicated to men to make them judges, but sometimes, and usually to the end, they should be the Patrons thereof, albeit therein also, they be not disallowed but well allowed to pass their judgement and censure upon the same. But indeed no reason had you to dislike of the dedication of that my Book unto his Lordship, in whom yourself do acknowledge that there is sufficiency to understand, wisdom to discern, and power to command. A like second exception you take for that I call the Papists of this kingdom Pretended Catholics, which title (say you) they do not acknowledge. But whether they acknowledge it or no, it must be granted, that whilst they call themselves Catholics, when re vera they be not so, (as I have showed and proved in my first Book) they can be no other but Pretended Catholics: As likewise he that calleth himself an honest man, when revera he is not so, is at the most, but a pretended honest man. Yet another exception you take in this, that you say, I call you Canis festinans and Luscus inter caecos: But you mistake, in both. For, (in that my epistle dedicatory, of my Reply) I did not say, that you were Cani● festinans, but that whilst in your Answer, you strove to make more haste, then good speed, you shown yourself to be, like Canis festinans, caecos edens catibos: which is a proverbial speech, tolerable enough in the judgement of such, as be not over captious, and often and ordinarily used in that sort and sense, & to that purpose that I used it. Neither did I say definitely, & expressly of you, that you were Luscus inter caecos, but my words be these: Regnat inter caecos Luscus, which may be aswell spoken of any other, as of you, unless you will needs be the man, and so take and apply it, (as you do,) to yourself, particularly.  
2. After these exceptions, you come next to the the three requests, I made to him, that would take up●n him to answer my first book: in the first whereof I desired, that he would answer it, not by parts, or peasemeals, but wholly and entirely, from the beginning of it unto the end: The second was, that he would do it, not superficialie, and sophistically, but substantially, sound, & 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 with all, to set his name unto it, as I had done to that book of mine. But hereunto, you take diverse exceptions, though now somewhat lately in your Rejoinder. First you say, that these being conditions, they should have been agreed upon by the mutual consent of parties: and that if any advantage be given, it should be in favour of the defendant, as in matter of challenge: for the defendant appoints the weapon, time, and place; But in this challenge of mine, contrary unto law and custom, I have (say you) assumed unto myself, being the challenger, the proposing of such conditions as do disadvantage the defendant. It is true, that in contracts, and bargains between man and man, the conditions must be agreed upon by mutual consent of parties, before it be, or can be a perfect contract, or a perfect bargain, howbeit conditions for all that, not only may be, but also must be, first propounded before they can be assented unto, or agreed upon. Again there is aswell a subsequent agreement, as a precedent: As if a man propound, or offer unto you a Lease for years of lands, upon certain conditions: you may choose, whether you will accept of it, or no, upon those conditions; but if, though not at the first, yet afterward, you having the election, do declare your consent, and acceptance of it, by entering upon the lands, manuring them, taking the profits, is it not reason you should perform the conditions thereunto annexed? You know how to make the application. And yet neither was I, when I made that my Book, contracting, or bargaining with you, or with any other man in particular: For, I then neither did, nor could possibly know before hand, who was to be the Answerer of it, with whom I might so contract, nor did I take upon me the person of a Challenger, as you affirm: For I knew of no duel, that was in the case. And as for my defending of protestancy against Popery, it no more proveth me to be a challenger, than your defending of Popery against protestancy, proveth you to be the challenger. Yea in the conclusion of that my first book Pag. 417. it appeareth, that I was so fare from taking upon me the person, or using the words of a challenger, that clean contrariwise, I used only the peaceable, and friendly words, of Desiring, and Requesting. For there I desire of him, whosoever he were, that would take upon him to answer that book of mine, that he would, in that his answer, be pleased to observe, and perform those three requests, or three conditions before mentioned, which I there propounded. All which were reasonable conditions, and such as (if you well consider them) were not (as you say) disadvantageable, but much advantageable rather to the cause of the answerer, if he had performed them. But here, by the way, you tell me, of a very compendious course, how that my whole first book is answered and confuted: For you say, that he which faileth in one point of faith, faileth in all, and that a refutation or disproof of any one particular in my book, is a refutation and disproof of all. And for proof hereof, you cite S. james cap. 2. 
jam. 2.10.  This you also cited, and alleged in your first book. This is a very speedy course, and brief manner of answering and confuting whole books, and volumes, if it might be allowed. Howbeit, touching that text of S. james, which you somuch abuse, and touching that your Paradox and strange opinion, you have been before sufficiently answered in my Reply Chap. 2. pag. 110. 111. 112. Whereunto you in your Rejoinder have said nothing. But, admit your Mayor proposition were true (which is indeed utterly untrue) yet how do you prove your Minor? that is to say, how do you prove any one point or position of mine, contained in that book to be false? Show, or name that one, which you have disproved, or confuted, if you can: but you are not able to do it. From henceforth therefore be not so prodigal of your words. But yet further to derogate from the credit of that my first book, you say, that it is only a collection out of Protestant authors: and that you can discover the Books, Chapters, and Pages, of Master Fulke, Master whitaker's, Master Downam, & of others, whence I have borrowed, verbatim, whatsoever is expressed in it. This is too overlavish a speech, and more than you will be ever able to prove. Indeed, as touching the substance of the matter, and doctrine, contained in that my first book, and in my second, and in this also, I think it no shame, but contrariwise I think it honour, and reputation, freely to confess, that I have learned it of those, and of such other learned, and reverend Protestant Divines: Yea I hold it a part of duty in me, not only ingenuously, but thankfully also to acknowledge those my teachers: especially considering, that what they have taught me herein, appeareth to be certainly, and irrefutably true. This therefore doth rather add credit to the matter and doctrine, contained in those my books, then derogate, or take any from them. But was there ever any reader of other men's works, that was not allowed to take collections out of them, & to make use of them as occasion requireth: yea, if that were an exception sufficient, I might also say, that as touching the matter, all that you have spoken either in your first answer, or in your Rejoinder, is likewise but a collection out of Popish authors and that the Books, Chapters, & Pages of Bellarmine, Stapleton, Suarez, and of others, might be showed, whence you have borrowed, and taken them all. But to what end, were this? For the question is not, what I have learned, or collected out of the one, or you out of the other: but whether of those doctrines, and religions, which we have severally learned of those our several teachers, be the truer, and which of them is approved of God, and by his word: namely, whether protestancy, or Popery. Hear then, as touching the substance of the matter delivered in all my books, you might have spared your labour: for you have therein told no news, nor any more, than myself had before, affirmed, confessed, and acknowledged. But you proceed, and say, that although you for your part, have answeted but only to two Chapters of that my first book (the force of which your answer, I have also overthrown in my Reply) that the whole book is nevertheless answered, and completely finished, and extant any time these two years and a half past, and yet not divulged, for want of means, and opportunity for the impression: And, for that cause, do you desire of me, that I would be a mean to procure it to be Printed, by the Protestant Press here in Dublin. A very bold, unbeseeming, and strange request, to be demanded, especially at my hands. But if it be (as you say it is) fully answered, and completely finished, so long since, why is not printed all this while? For whereas you pretend want of means, and opportunity for the impression: It is well known, that the Papists (as sundry other their works printed, sufficiently declare) do if they list, want neither means nor opportunity for the impression: And I have told you heretofore, that if your works, and books be so excellent, and so worthy the printing, as you make show for, you might got them to be Printed, either at Douai, or at Rheims, or at some other place beyond the Seas. And therefore it was altogether idle for you, to give me this election, either to receive it in a Manuscript, or to procure the printing of it: for it is needless to receive it in a Manuscript, when it may be Printed: And for the printing of it, not I, but yourself must procure it, if you will have it done. So that as touching that choice or offer, you make me, I hold myself free, and not necessarily tied or bound, to do either the one, or the other. Yea the very name of a Protestant Press (if there were no more) might have been sufficient to tell you, that it were utterly unmeete, for Popish works to come into it, especially those that be purposely, and directly made, and contrived, against such clear, high, and important points, as be also by law established. Now then to come to my second request: I trust, you likewise find nothing in it, unreasonable: for I therein desired no more of the answerer, but to answer, not superficially, or sophistically, but substantially, sound, and satisfactorily, if he could: so that if he could not make such an answer, he might have said so, and so have been excused. But you are loath to disable yourself, and therefore as touching the answer you made to the two Chapters of that my first book, you say, that I am not to judge, whether it be substantial, sound, and satisfactory, but that the equal, and indifferent Reader, is to judge of it: which I am well contented, he should do, by conferring my Reply, with that your ananswer. And therefore I proceed to my third request: which consisteth of two parts: (for I make not four requests, or four conditions, as you surmise:) The first part of that my third request, was this, that I would have him, whosoever was to be the answerer, to answer in love, and charity, and with an affection only to follow God's truth. Thus far I am sure, you cannot deny it to be a reasonable request. And as touching the other part of it, whereby I desired him that would answer, to put his name to his answer, as I had done to that book of mine: although this be it, you chief except against: yet even this part of it also, was not unreasonable: and therefore did I justly reprove you, for that in stead of your right name, you gave yourself the wrong, false, & counterfeit name of john at Stile. But yet, in your Rejoinder, you, herein, seek to excuse & defend yourself, by the example of Abram, who coming into Pharaoh● Court in Egypt, 
Gen. 12.11.12.13. etc.  called Sarai his wife, by the name of his Sister: and you add further, and say, that Matthew Sutcliffe, a Protestant writer, did put for his name unto his work. O.E.  
First concerning Abram, though he were an holy man, yet he had his faults and imperfections, amongst which this is reckoned for one, which you here allege: And can then that which was a fault in him, make yours to be no fault? But yet in all that, he neither changed his name, nor his wife's name, into a false, and counterfeit name, as you did. For he still called himself Abram, and his wife Sarai, without any alteration, or change of those their proper names. And as touching Doctor Sutcliffe, the reason why he put for his name those two letters O. E. was, because the man, whom he answered, had likewise for his name, subscribed certain letters: but, the case between you and me is not like. For I subscribed my name truly, and as it was, and therefore so should you also have done. Howbeit, at the first, you excused yourself herein, by reason of the Statute of 2. Eliz. which doth (say you, in your first answer) bind men's tongues, and pens within this kingdom, with the cord of a Praemunire, from oppugning the Supremacy, either by word or writing. Upon which answer of yours, it is true, I did, and who could otherwise suppose, but that you then thought (whatsoever you say now) that the penalty for that your first offence against that Statute, in oppugning the King's Supremacy, was a Praemunire: For to what end else do you so specially mention, that to be the penalty, if you had not thought so? I did not therefore wrong you (as you now allege in your Rejoinder) when I taxed you being a Lawyer, 
See the Statute itself, of 2. Eliz. cap. 1 made in Ireland.  with ignorance in your own profession, concerning that Statute. For that Statute doth not (as you then supposed) for any man's first offence, inflict the penalty of a Praemunire, but (as I then likewise told you) the loss of goods and chattels: after once conviction and attainder, it is indeed for the second offence a Praemunire: & after twice conviction, & attainder, it is for the third offence, high treason. Did you then account it, a wrong done unto you, that I supposed this to be your first offence, against that statute? Or would you have had me to think (which was more than I knew at that time & more than yet I know) that you had been once before convicted & attainted of that offence, & that this was your second offence in that kind? For, unless this were thus your second offence, you needed not to have feared, or mentioned a Praemunire, to have been your penalty in the case: you might aswell, & as wisely have named, & mentioned the penalty, to have been high treason, in as much as for the third offence, that Statute also maketh it to be high treason, aswell as it maketh it, for the second offence, to be a Praemunire. But I conceived (as I think any man else, not knowing any thing to the contrary, would have conceived) that it was not any your second offence, nor third offence, that you then, and there meant, or had any reason, or purpose to speak of, but your first offence, the penalty of which first offence, is, by that Statute, neither Praemunire nor high treason (as I said before) and consequently (if you would deal ingenuously) you must confess, that you then mistook, and were deceived in opinion, whilst you thought the penalty for that your first offence to be a Praemunire, by that Statute. But than you say, that you will not be so saucy, as to tax me with ignorance in my profession, concerning the same Statute, and yet you see not (say you) how the subscribing of your name unto the answer, could have been any legal plea, to have saved you from penalty, if you had been indicted upon that Statute: Neither do I see, how it could, although you would fain wrest my words from their true sense, unto that construction. For, whereas you have said, that my requiring of the Answerer, to put his name unto the Answer, was, in effect, as much, as to debar any man from answering unto it? I thereunto replied, 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 (that is, by such requiring of him to answer in that sort) permitted to answer (if he please) so as he put his name thereunto. I did not say (as you seem purposely to misconstrue and mistake) that by answering in that sort, viz. with his name subscribed to his answer, he was to be freed from all manner of penalty contained in that Statute of 2. Eliz. I was never so absurd, or senseless to say or think it. Yea you might have observed, that I there showed and expressly affirmed the clean contrary, namely, that the penalty even for the first offence against that Statute (whether with his name subscribed, or not subscribed, or howsoever,) was loss of goods, and chattels. And therefore whether this were ignorance of that point of the Statute in me, or gross, perverse, and malicious cavilling, and quarrelling in you, let the equal Reader judge. But yet in your Rejoinder, you further say: that you cannot imagine why I should so much covet the answerers right name, unless it be by advantage of the Statute in persecuting him, to confine him into the Castle, there to argue with him, as the Gaoler doth with his prisoner. I know no reason you have thus to charge me, with so much coveting of the Authors, or Answerers' name. For though it be lawful for me so to do, yet have I not been much inquisitive after it: much less reason have you to charge me, in your imaginations, with persecuting him, or seeking to confine him as a prisoner within the Castle, which I never did: though I confess he deserveth it, and a fare greater punishment than that: because, contrary to the laws, and statutes of the Kingdom, which himself professeth, being (as he saith he is) a Lawyer; and contrary to that duty, which as a Subject he oweth to our most noble, most gracious, religious, and most worthy Sovereign Lord King CHARLES, and contrary to that fealty also, or fidelity, which (professing himself to be a Christian) he likewise oweth unto CHRIST JESUS, the only spiritual King Monarch, & head of the whole Church Militant, aswell as of the triumphant, he doth, and dareth thus audaciously to offend. Neither is prosecuting, or punishing of such bold, and notorious offenders to be called (as you after the Romanisticall manner untruly call it) Persecuting. For though Prosecution doth well befit delinquents, and offenders, yet Persecution is a word properly, and usually applied to the Martyrs of Christ, and is not attributed to any professors of Antichrist, or Antichristian doctrine, unless it be Catacrestically, & abusively. Howbeit I deal not with you by authority, or as a judge, or justicer, but do only debate, dispute, and reason the matter with you, seeking, and endeavouring first by this means, (if I can,) to reduce, and reclaim you, and the like unto you, from those your grand errors, unto a most certain, and evident truth. But if yet still you urge the Statute of 2. Eliz. made in this kingdom, which maketh the penalty, even for the first offence, to be, although not a Praemunire, yet loss of goods and chattels, and that therefore in respect of this loss and damage it was not a thing reasonable for me, to demand an answer with the Answerers' name, thereunto subscribed: Thereunto I then further say: First, that I know no reason why you, or any man else, should make any answer, or any Books, or writings at all, against the King's Supremacy, which you ought in all good duty to uphold, and defend. Secondly, I demanded not any answer at all to be made either by you, or any other; but, if any did, or would answer, than I desired, that he would answer in that sort, viz. with his name subscribed: so that he might have chosen, whether he would have answered, yea, or no: and by not answering, he might have kept, and freed himself from penalty of the Statute: but if he would needs answer, than he was to do it, at his own peril, if any peril did ensue. And yet I might also further tell you, that such a one possibly might have been the Answerer, as needed not to fear that peril, or penalty. For be there not diverse Scholars, in Colleges, and Universities, and elsewhere, that live only upon other men's exhibition, and beneficence, and have no manner of goods, or chattels, lands or tenements, of their own? Might not such an one have answered, and put his name to his Answer, without any fear of that penalty. Again, might not some forrein-borne Papist, living out of the King's Dominions, and that were no Subject to the King, having well, and perfectly learned the English tongue, have been the Answerer, and put his name likewise to his Answer, without any fear of that danger. Or, (which was most likely,) might not some English m●n, or some Irish man, living & abiding perpetually at Rheims, Rome, Douai, or some other place beyond the Seas, have been the Answerer? And would you then have thought it a thing unreasonable for such a one to have been demanded to put, and subscribe his name to his Answer? For these men living continually beyond Sea out of the King's Dominions, fear not, (as we see by experience,) nor think, so long, as they be so fare distant, that they need to fear the penalty, or danger of any Law, or Statute amongst us, to be executed upon them. Yea, what if it were yourself, that were the Answerer of it, (as you took upon you to be the Answerer of two Chapters in it) had it been unreasonable to have demanded of you, to put your name to the Answer, in respect of any fear of penalty, or danger, upon that Statute, or of any other Statute, whatsoever? For what penalty or danger upon any Statute, should you fear, who in your first Answer, in the Epistle to your Countrymen, writ so confidently in this your supposed Catholic cause, as if you feared no manner of danger at all, but would willingly undergo all disasters in the world for attestation and defence of it? But I am now glad to see, that you have some fear in you: For, indeed, fear in every man, and not forwardness or boldness in any, best becometh yours so bad a cause. But yet further, what reason have you now, in your Rejoinder, to except against any of these three conditions, or three requests, or against any part of any of them, as unreasonable, which in your first Answer, you took no exception against? Yea which you then seemed well to approve and allow well of, saying, concerning the same my whole first Book, that, It should shortly be answered in my own strain of Divinity with the three conditions required by me. Yea, lastly if you would needs be, (as you were) the Answerer to a part of that my first Book, (namely, to two Chapters therein,) and thought it not fit to put your right and true name unto it: yet, should you not, in stead thereof, have given yourself, a wrong, false, and counterfeit name, (which is the thing, I reproved in you:) For, as I said formerly in my Reply, so I say again, that it had been much better for you, to have put no name at all to that your Answer, than a false, wrong, and counterfeit name, as you did.  
3. From thence, you go on, and renew a former taxation of yours, namely, for that being a Lawyer by profession. I nevertheless meddle with these matters of Divinity, & concerning religion: But, concerning this, I told you before, that I had made a sufficient Apology for these my doings, in that my first Book, whereto, as yet I see no Answer made: and I added further in my second Book, namely, my Reply that even you yourself did justify me therein, in as much, as you, being likewise a Lawyer, (as you then affirmed, and yet still affirm yourself to be,) did nevertheless meddle with these matters of Divinity, and concerning religion, aswell, as I. Neither is it any excuse, or defence for you to say, (as you do,) that I began to commit this fault, and that you do but follow me therein: For, if you saw it to be a fault in me, you should rather have eschewed it, than committed it, upon any man's example whatsoever. He that knoweth an Act to be a sin, and reproveth, and condemneth another man for it, and yet will himself commit it, is not his sin and fault, 
Rom. 2.1.  so much the greater? Therefore art thou inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art, (saith S. Paul,) that condemnest another: for in that thou condemnest another, thou condemnest thyself, for thou that condemnest, dost the same things. Yea, you say further, that in your Answer formerly made, you signified this to be a fault, aswell in yourself, as in me. But if you then thought so, in very deed, why did you commit it? Or why do you still commit, and continue it? For so your Rejoinder declareth: doth not this then more & more aggravate your offence? And doth it not declare you to be a man of little conscience, that dare thus wittingly and willingly, to sin against your own conscience, and to persist also in it? For, if our heart condemn us, 
1. joh. 3.20.  (saith S. john,) God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. It is high time therefore for you, to give over writing in these matters of Religion, if it be against your conscience, and that you verily think it to be unlawful for you, so to do. But, as for me, I am not of that mind, neither have you shown, nor can you show, any sufficient or good reason, to dissuade me. For, whereas you suppose it to be unlawful, or unmeete for Lawyers, or other lay-men, to meddle with the Scriptures; and matters concerning Religion, as being a thing out of their element, calling, and profession: First, to forbid or deny lay people, the meddling with the Scriptures and with Religion, is known to be an old Popish policy, and a most wicked, and damnable device: by means whereof, men's eyes, being in times passed thus blinded, and as it were put out, it came to pass, that both Pope, and popery, in those days so mightily prevailed, as they did, in the world, & yet still prevail, amongst too too many. For what is it else but ignorance of God's word, and will in the people that keepeth them so fast fettered and chained both to Pope and popery. Secondly the untruth of this irreligious, and Antichristian opinion, is formerly, and at large discovered, and manifested in my first Book, which I see not yet answered: And yet thirdly, you must further know, (if already you know it not) that a Lawyer, or any other layman, hath a double calling, or a double profession: one worldly, which concerneth the things of this life: the other is his Christian calling, which concerneth, & respecteth things belonging to a fare better life, namely to a life everlasting. This Christian calling, 
Ephes. 4.1.  S. Paul proveth, desiring men, to walk worthy of that calling, whereunto they are called. Again, he prayeth for some, that God would make them worthy of this calling S. Peter likewise speaketh thus: 
2. Thes. 1.11  Ye are a chosen generation, a royal Priesthood, an holy nation, a people set at liberty, that ye should show forth the virtues of him, 
1. Pet. 2.9.  that hath called you, out of darkness, into his marvelous light. And sundry other Texts of holy Scripture there be to prove, that there is aswell a Divine, and Christian calling and profession, as there is a worldly, and terrestrial. For what? Have not men souls to look to, aswell as bodies? Or, are men to be no more but natural, and mere men? 
1. Pet. 1.23.  Are they not also to become Christian men, and to be regenerated, aswell as generated? And doth not S. Peter tell us, that men are regenerated, or borne a new, not by corruptible, but by incorruptible seed, even by the word of God, who liveth, and endureth for ever. 
1. Pet. 2.2.  And doth he not further advise some, as new borne babes, to desire the sincere milk of the word, that they may grow thereby. 
1 Cor 3 1 2.  For, men, after that they be once begotten and borne a new, by God's word, 
Hebr. 5.12.13.14.  and the power of his spirit working therewithal, are first Babes in Christ, and afterward by degrees, they grow to be strong men, and able to digest strong meats, until they come, at last, to be a perfect man, as S. Paul speaketh. Yea, 
joh. 6.27.  doth not Christ himself bid men to Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto life everlasting? 
Luke 10.39 40.41.42.  And did he not also further tell Martha, that she was troubled about many things, but this was the unum necessarium, the one thing that was necessary, which Mary had chosen, namely the hearing of his word? Seeing then that God's word, (which is now long sithence committed to writing, and is in the sacred, and Canonical Scriptures to be found, and where all truth, concerning points of Divinity, and Religion is to be had,) is so necessary, as that it is the food, meat, and nourishment of Christians, to life everlasting: How can it be rightly, and truly said, that when they be thus within their aliment, they be out of their element? For is not the life of the soul, to be preserved, and maintained aswell, or rather much more heedfully, than the life of the body? Or will any say, that the fish is out of his element, when he swimmeth in the water, where he liveth, and most delighteth? Yea as the fish removed out of his proper element, dieth within a while after: and as the body that is destitute of corporal food to sustain it, must needs decay, and die. So the soul that hath not this spiritual food of God's word, to cherish, and maintain it in a spiritual life, must likewise needs consume, decay, and pine away, until it come in the end, to utter ruin. You see then, that a true Christian, 
john. 17.16  (Who though he be in the world, yet is not of the world, but hath his affection set upon things that are above, & not on things which are on earth,) 
Col. 3.1.2. Phil. 3.20  is so fare from being out of his element, as that, contrariwise, he is within his right, and true element, in respect of his soul, and the things belonging to a better world, and keepeth himself within the compass, & bounds of that his divine, & Christian calling, so long, as he humbly and reverently, heareth, readeth, searcheth the word of God, delighteth in it, museth and meditateth upon it, talketh of it, and thereout learneth truths and true religion, and propoundeth them also unto others, for their benefit and instruction, aswell as of himself. Yea, all duties of a Christian, a Lawyer, or other layman, may and aught to do, and perform, as he is able, and as occasion requireth: so that he do them discreetly, and with due respect to all manner of persons, and so long as withal, he intrudeth not into those duties, that be proper, and peculiar to the office, and function of the Ecclesiastical Ministers. As for that your other reason, whereby you would dissuade me, because these are points of great difficulty, & surpass a Lawyer's ability, (as you speak:) although I arrogate nothing to myself, yet why should you say, that it surpasseth a Lawyer's ability, to deal in these things, when as you yourself, being a Lawyer, do nevertheless intermeddle in them? Or why should it surpass or exceed a Lawyer's talon, or a Lawyer's ability, in me, more than in you? Indeed, if a man be nothing else, but a mere Lawyer, in respect of that his mere worldly calling, he is not fit to deal in matters concerning God, and his religion; But if he be a Christian Lawyer, exercised in the Book of God, and well grounded in the points of his faith and religion, (as all Lawyers, and other lay-men ought to be,) then in respect of that his divine and Christian calling, he may meddle with points of Divinity and Christianity, Eatenus, Quatenus, so fare forth as is before showed, and as is in my first Book more at large declared. And yet there is also a more special reason, why I should be permitted to intermeddle herein, because being not only a Lawyer, but a judge also in the Commonweal, it well becometh me, and is my duty, (as I conceive it,) for that reason, (so much as in me lieth,) to seek to have the Laws, and Statutes of the Realm, especially in these most high, and most important points, aswell as in other, that be inferior points unto them, to be observed of all his Majesty's Subjects within this kingdom. Neither are there any such great doubts, or difficulties, in these points, as you would persuade: yea, they be very clear, plain, open, and evident points, and such as any man, though but of mean understanding, may easily, and readily conceive, and apprehend. For, first, the very name of a Subject, (if there were no more) may serve to teach any man, that the King, whose Subject he is, hath of due right a Regal, and Temporal Supremacy, not only over him, but over all the rest of his Subjects within his own Dominions: and secondly the very name of a Christian, may serve to teach a man, to believe, and to profess, no other religion, but that which Christ himself taught, either by himself, or by his Apostles, as also, to acknowledge no other to be the spiritual King, head, and Monarch, of the whole Christian Church, but the same CHRIST JESUS only.  
4. Now then, you are come, at last, to the matter itself. Where first of all you affirm, and confess two Supremacies: the one spiritual, the other temporal. The spiritual Supremacy, or spiritual Monarchy, (which indeed, rightly, 
job. 18.36.57. 1 Cor. 15.25 Ephes. 1.20.21.22.23.  and properly belongeth unto CHRIST JESUS,) you attribute unto the Pope of Rome. But, by what right? Namely, as being his Deputy; Vicar, or Attorney, (as you call him.) But can you show any letter of Attorney, or any Letters Patents, Commission, or Warrant from him, or from his word, to prove the same? You have sought long, but could never yet find or show, any such warrant, although you have pretended diverse, which prove no such matter. If then it be high treason, in a subject, to take upon him, to be a Viceroy, or Lord-Deputie in a terrestrial kingdom, without a warrant, or Commission from his King: Is, it not likewise, as grand & as high a treason, in the Bishop of Rome to take upon him, to be Viceroy, or Deputy unto Christ, in his spiritual kingdom, without any warrant, or commission from him? But as in the point of the spiritual supremacy, he thus intolerably wrongeth Christ jesus himself, his Crown, and dignity: so doth he also intolerable wrong to Emperors, Kings, and Princes, and to their Crowns, and dignities, in respect of their Civil, and Temporal supremacy, & authority, rightly, & anciently belonging to them, over Persons Ecclesiastical, and in causes also Ecclesiastical, within their several Dominions. And this to men that be not extremely wilful, perverse, and froward, I have very sufficiently, and abundantly proved, in my first, and second Books; whereunto, you neither in your first Answer, nor yet in your second, (which is your rejoinder,) have alleged any thing that is of force, or weight sufficient to refel or confute any one Argument I brought, in that behalf. And herein I refuse not the judgement, of any equal, and judicious person whosoever. Howbeit, in that your Rejoinder, to prove the Pope's supremacy, you cite one Text of Scripture, namely, Deut. 17. The words whereof, because you do not fully set them down, I will here recite, that the Reader may the better perceive, how well, or ill, they fit your purpose: 
Deut. 17.8.9 10 11.12.13.  the words be these. If there arise a matter to hard for thee, in judgement, between blood, and blood between plea, and plea, and between stroke, and stroke, being matter of controversy within thy Gates, then shalt thou arise and get unto the place, which the Lord thy God shall choose. And thou shalt come unto the Priests, Levites, and unto the judge, that shall be in those days, and inquire, and they shall show thee the sentence of judgement, and thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place, (which the Lord shall choose) shall show thee: according to the sentence of the Law, which they shall teach thee, thou shalt do: Thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall show thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not bearken unto the Priest, that standeth to minister there, before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel, and the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously. Here, for the honour of the Priest, you say, that he is in this case to be obeyed, upon penalty of death: and why do you not say as much for the honour of the judge, that is, of the civil Magistrate? For the words of the Text do show, that disobedience aswell to the one, as to the other, was punishable with death. But you will say peradventure as the jesuites did, that the Latin translation, called S. jeromes', was, in times past, Ex decreto judicis morietur home ille, By the decree of the judge, shall that man die, that obeyeth not the Priest. 
In his Book against the jesuites, part. 3. pag. 33. 34 35.  To whom that reverend, and learned Bishop Doctor Bilson, answereth, that it was a corrupt translation, and that the very same translation, not long sithence, was not, Ex decreto judicis, but, & decreto judicis: he that obeyeth not the commandment of the Priest, and the decree of the judge, that man shall die. This was, (saith he,) the text of the Bible, which you call S. jeromes', 
Nich. de Ly●… in Deut. 17.  not much more than two hundred years since, when Nicholaus de Lyra, & your ordinary Gloss, did comment upon it: and so they read to this day, as also many written copies, which I have seen, (saith he.) And therefore it is no small blemish to the Papists, that, in former times, they had also thus corrupted, even that which they call S. jeromes' translation. He further showeth, that the original Hebrew, and the Greek translation of the Septuagints, be also directly against that their then corrupted translation, in this point. And so did S. Cyprian also repeat this Text. 
Lib. 1. epist. 3. 8.1●. libr. 3. epist. 4 epist. 9  Et homo quicunque fecerit in superbia, ut non exaudiat sacerdotem, aut judicem, quicunque fuerit in diebus illis, morietur homo ille: Et omnis populus, tum audierit timebit. And the man whosoever shall in pride, not hear the Priest, or the judge, which shall be in those days, that man shall die, and the people, when they shall hear of it, shall fear. First then, obedience, is by the words of this text, commanded, aswell toward the judge, that is to say, the civil Magistrate, as toward the Priest. For you see, the Priest, and the judge, therein, to be not all one, but directly distinguished, yea, by judges, as by the chief rulers, was Israel sometimes governed, and that for sundry years, until kings were appointed, as the Book of judges, itself declareth. And when Kings were appointed, both Priests, and judges were subject to the Kings, as the Books of Samuel, of the Kings, and of the Chronicles, do show: And for an evident proof hereof, you may take the example, of that godly, and religious King, jehoshaphat, amongst the rest. For he not only set judges in the land, throughout all the fenced Cities of judah, City by City, but he said likewise to those judges. Take heed what ye do, 
2. Chron. 19 v. 5, 6.7.8 9.10.11.  for ye judge not for man, but for the Lord, who is with you in the judgement: wherefore now let the fear of the Lord be upon you, take heed, and do it: For there is no iniquity with the Lord our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts. Moreover, in jerusalem, did jehoshaphat set of the Levites, and of the Priests, and of the chief of the Fathers of Israel, for the judgement of the Lord, and for controversies, when they returned to jerusalem: and he charged them, saying: Thus shall you do in the fear of the Lord, faithfully, and with a perfect heart. And what cause soever shall come unto you, of your brethren, that dwell in the Cities, between blood and blood, between Law and Commandment, Statutes and judgements, ye shall warn them, that they trespass not against the Lord, and so wrath come upon you, and upon your brethren: this do, and ye shall not trespass. And, behold, Amariah, the Priest, shallbe the chief over you, in all matters of the Lord: and Zebadiah, the son of Ishmael, a ruler of the house of judah, for all the King's matters: and the Levites shall be Officers before you. Deal courageously, and the Lord shall be with the good. Where you see, that in the time of the Kings, the judges, and the Priests also, were subject to the King, and at his ordering, and appointment: For all these, both judges, Priests, and Levites, did King jehosaphat thus constitute, and appoint. But now, secondly, observe, that both the Priest, and the judge, 
Deut. 17.11  mentioned in this Text of Deut. 17. were to judge, and give sentence, not as they listed themselves, but according to the Law; which God himself had given in those cases. So that the sentence, 
Mal 2.7.8.9 Isa. 6.10.11 12, jer. 23 11.12.13. Esai. 56.10.11. jer. 6.13.14 Ezec. 22.25.26. Micah. 3.5. 6 7. Exod. 32.1. & 23.4.5.6.7.8. etc. jere. 26.7.8. Act. 23.1.2 3. Act. 4.18. Act. 5.40.  not only of the inferior Priests, but even of the chief or high-Priest himself, was not always certainly true, and evermore infallible, (as you say it, was,) unless it were directed, and done, according to that law. For otherwise they might, and did err in their judgements. Yea many complaints were in the old Testament, against them, for their errors, and going astray from God's law: insomuch, that although they said, (as the Papists likewise do of their Priest of Rome,) Non peribit lex à Sacerdote, That the law shall not perish from the Priest, (jerem. 18.18.) yet God himself said otherwise, namely, that, Lex peribit à Sacerdote, The law shall perish from the priest, Ezech. 7.26. And for further proof hereof, remember that Aaron was the high Priest, and yet that he with the rest of the Priests, and people, erred when they made the golden Calf. Again, were they not the Priests, and Prophets, that gave sentence of death against jeremy, God's true Prophet? was that therefore a just sentence, which was so given against him? Was it not also in a Council, that Ananias the high Priest, commanded men that stood by, to smite S. Paul on the mouth? was it therefore well done, and justifiable? Was not, (moreover,) the high Priest present in that Council, which commanded the Apostles to teach no more in the name of JESUS? was that therefore a good commandment? or a good and allowable decree, that was thus made against them? Yea, was not the high Priest present in that Council, wherein CHRIST himself was condemned? 
Math. 26.59 62.63.65.66.  And did not he, in that Council, say expressly of Christ, that he had spoken blasphemy? It is then very apparent, that not only the inferior Priests, but even the high Priest also, though joined, & assembled with others in a Council, might nevertheless possibly err, and did err sometimes, in his sentence, and giving of judgement. And therefore, so also may the Pope of Rome err, not only as he is singly considered by himself, but even though he be joined with others in a Council, admitting, that he were the high Priest, 
Heb. 9.11. Hebr. 5.5. Heb. 4.14. Heb. 7.26. 1. Pet. 5.1.2 3.4. Hebr. 13.20.  in the Christian Church, which he is not, as I have showed in my Reply, pag. 10.11. whereto you have made no Answer in your Rejoinder. For the sacred Scriptures, acknowledge no other high Priest, in the Christian Church, but CHRIST JESUS only, nor any other to be the chief Shepherd, or Supreme Pastor, over all the several Pastors, of all the several flocks in the world, but only CHRIST JESUS. But yet here, thirdly, observe, that this Text of Deut. 17. (which you cite,) concerneth only the jewish policy, or Commonwealth of the jews, as being a part of the judicial law, proper to that nation, and which is now abrogated, and abolished. For to determine those harder, and difficulter questions, and litigious cases, concerning blood, and the other things there mentioned, the party grieved is required to resort to the levitical Priests, 
Deu 17.8.9  (of which sort there be none at this day amongst Christians:) and again, To the place, which the Lord their God should choose, which was in aftertimes, jerusalem, where the Temple was builded, and where jehosaphat also, (according to this law,) erected, and constituted a Synedrion, or Council, consisting of Levites, Priests, and of the chief of the Fathers of Israel, 2 Chron. 19.8.9. But none is bound at this day, to go to jerusalem, to have his litigious and doubtful cases, to be decided and determined, by any levitical Priest, or other judges there: Neither is Rome, that jerusalem: nor is the Pope of Rome, or his Priests, any of those Priests, descended of the Tribe of Levi. And therefore also, will not this text of Deut. 17. any way serve your turn, nor help to maintain your Popes so long vainly fancied Supremacy.  
5. But I proceed, prosecuting matters, not confusedly, as you do, but for the most part, in that sort, and order, as they be laid down in my Reply, that so the Reader also may the better and the more easily perceive, both what you have Answered in this your Rejoinder, and what, and how much you have left unanswered, 
Chrysost. hom 4. de verb. Esa vid. Dom.  as also how good, or bad your Answers be. In my Reply therefore, pag. 1. I said, that S. Chrysostome, (distinguishing those two offices, (viz.) the Regal, and Sacerdotal,) did say thus: Ille cogit, hic exhortatur: ille habet arma sensibilia, hic arma spiritualia: The King compelleth, the Priest exhorteth: the King hath sensible weapons, the Priest hath spiritual weapons. Hereunto you Answer, that S. Chrysostome meant only, that the King with his sensible weapons, (of imprisonment, banishment, pecuniary mulcts, temporal death, and other penalties,) should force, (when other means failed,) the rebellious children of the Church, to perform their duty unto their Prince, & Prelate & not, that the Prince hath any power over the Pastor, unto whom, (say you,) by the ordinance of God, he is subjected; and thus you make the King, to have power only over such, as you here call the children of the Church, but not over Bishops, Pastors, and other Ecclesiastical Ministers: and of this opinion you would draw S. Chrysostome to be, against his own good will, and liking. But although by his words precedent, and subsequent, (which you so much speak of.) it appeareth that Kings and Princes are to be subject, to Bishops and Pastors, in respect of the due administration of those their sacred offices, functions, and ministeries, committed to them from God: yet in respect of themselves, and of their own Persons, he held them very clearly, to be not superior, but subject, to Kings, and Princes. 
Rom. 13.1. Chrys. ho. 23. in epistol. ad Rom.  For whereas S. Paul speaketh thus: Let every soul be subject to the higher powers: The same S. Chrysostome saith, (which I marvel you have so soon forgotten,) that, omnibus ista praecipiuntur, Sacerdotibus quo que ac Monachis, & non solum secularibus. These things be commanded to all, even to Priests also, & to Monckes, and not to lay, or secular men only. Yea he saith further, in the same place, that though you be an Apostle, though an Evangelist, though a Prophet, or whatsoever you be, you must be subject to these higher powers. Remember again, 
Chrys. ad Populun. Antioch homil. 2.  that speaking of the Emperor, he saith, that Non habet parem ullum super terram, He hath no Peer, nor equal upon earth. Yea, he saith of him, that he was, Caput & summit as omnium super terras hominum, The head, and one that had the supremacy over all men upon earth. Yea, S. Chrysostome himself, did yet further, really, and actually declare this subjection, to these higher powers, even in his own person: For did not the Emperor exile and banish him? 
Socrat. lib. 6. cap. 15. graec, & cap. 14. Latin. Theodor. lib. 2 cap. 2.4.13 Theodor. lib. 2 cap. 2.4 13.  And did not he, though Archbishop of Constantinople, humbly submit himself thereunto, and yield obedience? Was not likewise Liberius, though a Bishop of Rome, exiled, and banished by the Emperor, and did not he also quietly submit himself unto it, as being done by the Emperor's commandment, and authority? And was not also Atbanasius, banished by the Emperor's authority, and did not he likewise patiently, and obediently undergo it? You see then, that not only lay people, and such as you call the children of the Church, but even those also that were Fathers in the same, as namely Bishops, and Pastors, Archbishops, and even Bishops of Rome themselves, were, in those former, and ancient times, 
Pelag. Epist. 16. Concil. edit. Bin. tom. 2. pag. 633.  subject to these higher powers, (viz.) to Emperors, Kings, and Princes: Quibus nos etiam subditos esse sanctae Scripturae praecipiunt: To whom, (saith also Pelagius another Bishop of Rome) the holy Scriptures command, even us that be Bishops and the Bishops of Rome to be subject. So that those Bishops, in those days, performed this subjection and obedience, unto them, as being moved thereunto, out of duty, and good conscience, and because God, in his holy Scriptures, had so commanded. But these two points, namely, that, Emperors, Kings, and Princes be subject to that authority, message, and ministry, which God hath committed to Bishops, and Pastors: And, that Bishops again, and Pastors, & all Ministers Ecclesiastical, be, nevertheless, subject to Emperors, Kings, and Princes, in respect of their own persons, is largely declared, both in my first Book, & in my Reply also aswell as here. As for those precedent, and subsequent words in S. Chrysostome, (which you so often speak of,) even you aswell as I, might very well have omitted them, as being needless to be mentioned, because the matter, and substance of them, was before granted, and confessed by me, in my former Books, as it is likewise here again in this, and yet you never the nearer of your purpose. And therefore you had no cause to complain of the omission of them by me, when the recital of them by you, will do you no more good, nor prove, or infer any more matter in your behalf, then that which was formerly by me confessed, and granted unto you: But least reason of all, had you to insinuate, as though by omission of those precedent, and subsequent words, I had a meaning to delude my Reader, by concealing the truth: For you see, that I had no such purpose, or meaning, to conceal that truth, which myself had formerly delivered, and granted, and which I still confess with S. Chrysostome, touching the subjection of Princes to God's authority, committed to his Ministers: But it is yourself in very deed, which abuse, & delude your Reader, in this case, by concealing truth. For although you tell some truth, you tell not the whole truth, as you ought, but conceal a part of it, or, (which is worse,) you deny a part of it, inasmuch as you affirm, the subjection of Emperors, Kings, and Princes to that authority, which God hath committed to his Bishops, and Pastors. But the other part of truth, concerning the subjection, which Bishops, Pastors, and all Ecclesiastical Ministers, (aswell as lay people,) own and are to perform to Emperors, Kings, and Princes, in respect of their own persons, this you conceal, and do not affirm: Yea, you do directly deny it, although S. Chrysostome, (as here is manifest) doth directly affirm it. Henceforth therefore wrong not S Chrysostome in this point as you do, nor delude your Reader any longer with these your false Comments and untrue surmises.  
6. But in my Reply pag. 2. I further cited the text of 1. Tim. 2.1.2. where S. Paul exhorteth Christians, to pray chief, & especial for Kings, and all that are in authority, that, under them, We may lead a quiet, and peaceable life, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (which you say, I English thus,) in all godliness, and honesty. But you are deceived: for, although I put these words so together in the English, yet I make them not all, to be the English of those Greek words. Every mean Grecian knoweth, that the English of those Greek words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is no more, but in all godliness: but I added the other words, (and honesty,) not as being signified by those former Greek words, but as being other words, annexed in the English Text, the Greek whereof, I did not then mention, which is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Now all being put together, both according to the Greek, and English, the Text is, (as I rightly recited it,) in all godliness, and honesty. And therefore in all this you do but Nodum in sirpo quaerere, which becometh you not. But why do you further say, that I cite this Text to no purpose: I shown you in my Reply, to what end and purpose, I cited it: namely, to declare, that Kings and Princes, are to respect aswell piety, godliness, and religion, as civil honesty, and correspondency of humane society. For, beside, that the words of the Text, do plainly import somuch, can any reasonable man suppose, that either S. Paul would exhort Christians, or that Christians themselves would pray for Kings, and Princes, for this respect, and to this end only that they should maintain external worldly peace, civil honesty, and humane society, without any respect or regard had at all, unto piety, godliness, and to that Christian religion, they held and professed, and which they more esteemed than their lives, and more than all earthly treasures and worldly happiness whatsoever? Yea, to this end, and purpose it was, that I there also mentioned some speeches of justinian, Valentinian, and Theodosius, Emperors, testifying, and declaring their chiefest care within their Empires and Dominions, to be, for, and concerning God's religion: whereunto you have not answered. But yet for further proof hereof, I alleged in the same my Reply pag. 3. 
Aug. contr● Crescon. lib ● cap 51.  that clear testimony also of S. Augustine, where he showeth, that It is enjoined Kings from God 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. You say, the words of S. Augustine, be these In this, Kings, as they be commanded from heaven, do serve God as they be Kings, if in their kingdoms, they command good, prohibit ill, not only what pertains to humane society, but also what pertains to divine religion. Let the words be as you relate them, all cometh to one effect, as touching that purpose for which I alleged him. For what? Is it not all one in sense, to say, that Kings are enjoined from God, and Kings are commanded from heaven? For when you say, that Kings are commanded from heaven; I make no doubt, but you mean thereby, the same thing that I do. when I say, it is enjoined Kings from God: & when you say again, that Kings do, (as they are commanded from heaven,) serve God as Kings, if in their Kingdoms, they command good, and prohibit ill, not only what pertains to humane society, but what also pertains to divine Religion: Do not these words of yours, as clearly, and as strongly prove, the King's authority, in matters Ecclesiastical, and concerning Religion, as my words do, when I say, that it is enjoined Kings from God, 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? Yea, even yourself, forced by the unresistable evidence of this testimony of S. Augustine, do at last yield, and grant, that Kings may command in things belonging to religion: But than what those things be, which the King may command, belonging to religion, you seem to say, that they be Theft Rape, and such like. And yet you cite the same S. Augustine, affirming, that utilissium, & saluberrimum est, etc. It is most profitable, and expedient, that the King make laws to restrain the free will of man, from transgressing in such things, as the law of God doth intimate unto us. Hereby, you may perceive, that you needed no better confuter than yourself. For be only, Theft, Rape, and such like civil offences, prohibited by the law of God? And be not Idolatry, false worship, blasphemy, and other offences against God and his religion, by the same law of God also prohibited? Yea, S. Augustine himself, (as you see,) here distinguisheth between things belonging to humane or civil society, and things belonging to divine religion: and therefore you must not confound those things, which he hath so directly distinguished. Now, Theft, Rape, and such like offences, concern civil, or humane society, and be offences against the second Table of God's Law: but there be also offences, that be done immediately against God, which be comprised in the first Table of his Law. And did you never read nor hear, that the King is, Custos utriusque Tabulae, The keeper of both the Tables? 
Deut. 17.18.19.  Why was the Book of God's law, at the first institution of Kings in the Commonweal of Israel, required to be delivered to the King? And why was he charged to read therein, all the days of his life, and to keep all the words, and ordinances contained in it, if he were not aswell to see the duties of the first Table of the Law, as of the second, to be observed within his kingdom? For, the Book of God's law, comprehendeth more than the duties of the second Table. And you must observe that this was enjoined to him, not in respect of his private conversation only, as he was a man, but in respect of his Regal and Princely office and function specially: For, when he was set upon the throne of his Kingdom, than it was, that, he was enjoined these things, as the very words of the Text itself, do expressly testify. Wherefore, well spoke S. Augustine, That a King serveth God one way, as he is a man, 
Aug epist. 50  and another way, as he is a King: as he is a man, he serveth God by living faithfully: As he is a King, he serveth God in 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. Yea, that Kings may punish Idolatry, blasphemy, sacrilege, schism, heresy, and all the offences against the first Table, aswell as Thefts, Rapes, Murders, Adulteries, and other offences against the second Table of his law, 
Aug. count. 2. Gaudentis epist li. 2. c. 11  S. Augustine yet further directly showeth against the Donatists, saying. Cry thus, if, you dare, let murders be punished, let adulteries be punished, let other degrees of lust, and sin, be punished: only sacrileges, (that is, wronging of God's truth, and his Church,) we will not have to be punished by Prince's laws. Again, 
Aug. contr. epist. Parmen. lib. cap. 7. Galat. 5.19.20.21.  he speaketh thus. Will the Donatists, though they were convinced of a sacrilegous' schism, say, that it belongeth not to the Prince's power to correct, or punish these things? Is it, because such powers, do not extend to corrupt & false religion? The works of the flesh, S. Paul reckoneth to be these: Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, wantonness idolatry, witchbraft, hatred, debate, emulation, wrath, contentious, seditious, 
Cont. Epistol. ●armen. libr. cap. 7.  heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, gluttony, and such like What think these men, saith S. Augustine? May the crime of idolatry be justly revenged by the Magistrate? or may witches be rightly punished by the rigour of Prince's laws? and yet will they not acknowledge, that heretics and s●bismatickes, may be repressed by the same, when S. Paul rehearseth them all together with the other fruits of iniquity? W●ll they reply that earthly powers are not to meddle with such matters? ●o what end then, doth he bear the sword, 
Luke 14.23  which is called Gods minister, serving to punish malefactors? Christ saith in the Gospel: Go out into the high ways, and hedges and compel them to come in, 
Aug. count. 2. Gaud. Epist. lib 2 cap. 17. Epistol, So. & ●ont. 2. Gaud. epist. lib. 2. cap 17. & epistol. 48.  that mine house may be filled. We take ways, (saith S Augustine,) for heresies: and hedges, for schisms: because, ways, in this place, signify the diversenesse; and, hedges, the perverseness of opinions. If then those that be found in the high ways, and hedges, that is in heresies, and schisms, must be compelled to come in, let them not mislike, that they be forced: For this commanding by Princely power, occasioneth many to be saved, who though they be violently brought to the feast of the great householder, and compelled to come in, yet being there, they find cause to rejoice, that they did enter, though at first against their wills. But here you tell me, (though somewhat unseasonably,) that you cited in your Answer, a Decree or Canon, made in the first Council of Nyce, declaring evidently, that the Bishop of Rome, (whom you unjustly, and untruly call, the supreme Pastor of the whole Militant Church,) had the supremacy in that time, & that unto this pregnant proof produced by you, I only reply, as Maskers do with Mumme. Why? what needed any reply at all unto it? For I had answered it before, in my first Book, cap. 1. pag. 12. Where I affirmed, and shown it to be a forged, and counterfeit Canon, by divers Counsels, as namely by the sixth Council of Carthago, cap. 3. by the African Council, cap. 92. & 101. & 105. and by the Milevitane Council, cap. 22. Yea the very fifth, and sixth Canons, (which be confessed to be undoubtedly true Canons,) of the Council of Nyce, do themselves sufficiently declare, that other Canon, (which you, and other Papists also allege,) to be false, and forged. And not only those Counsels, but the Decrees of other Counsels also, decreeing against the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, (as is showed in the same my first book, c. 1. p. 16. 17. 18.) do thereby likewise consequently declare, that Canon of the Council of Nice, which you speak of, to be a new forged thing. But if you desire yet further proof thereof, against the objections, and allegations that Papists make in this case, then read that Book of jurisdiction, Regal, Episcopal, Papal, made by that worthy, learned, and reverend Bishop Doctor Carleton, cap. 5. pag. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. And read also for the same purpose, The Catholic Appeal for the Protestants made by that reverend, worthy, and learned Bishop Doctor Morton, lib. 4. cap. 8. pag. 467 468 469. 470. 471. 472. 473. 474. 475. 476. and there shall you see this Canon, so fully maintained to be forged against the adversaries, as that it is now a shame for you, or any other Papist, to cite or produce it, for a witness of the Pope's supremacy. But upon such false, and forged testimonies, it is, that the Pope's supremacy, is chiefly founded. Howbeit I hope by this time, you perceive, that howsoever, the Pope, and Popery, have been heretofore long maskers in the world, and gone disguised, yet at last they have been discovered, and made known to be such, as they be indeed: and, that it had been much better for you, to have been mute, or mum, then by this your provocation, to have occasioned, the shame, and ignominy of the Pope, and Popish Church, in the point, of forgery to be thus displayed, and laid open, as also you may here see, that I have no way wronged S. Augustine, or wrested him to a wrong construction, (as you calumniate,) when I alleged him, to prove the King's authority aswell in matters Ecclesiastical, and concerning Religion, as in matters Civil, and Temporal. Which that you, and every man else, may yet the better, and the more fully perceive, I have here thought it good to set down, his own very words in Latin, 
Aug. contra Crescon. lib. 3. cap 51.  and they be these: In hoc enim Reges sicut eis divinitus praecipitur, Deo serviunt, in quantum Reges sunt, si, in suo regno, bona iubeant, mala, prohibeant, non solum quae pertinent ad humanam societatem, verumetiam, quae ad divinam religionem. For in this, (saith he,) do Kings, as is commanded them from God, serve as they be Kings, if in their kingdoms, they command good things, and forbidden evil things, not only those things, which belong to humane society, but those things also, which belong to God's Religion. Can any thing be more plainly, or more directly spoken for proof of this point?  
7. Here than you may withal perceive, the truth of that distinction, which I used in my Reply (cap. 1. pag. 4.) For whereas you, in your Answer, amplifying the Sacerdotal, or spiritual power, had said that how much the foul in perfection exceeds the body: the eternal bliss, the temporal felicity: the divine laws, the humane laws: By so much did the spiritual authority exceed the temporal: Thereunto I replied, and said, that whilst you thus spoke, you should have remembered, and observed, wherein, and in what respects it was, that this excellency of the one above the other, did 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, and temporal office, and authority, is to be preferred before the Episcopal, or Sacerdotal. This distinction, because it killeth, and striketh dead your cause, you cannot endure, and therefore do you, in your Rejoinder exclaim against it, and call it a distinction never heard of before, and that it was lately hatched in the University of Mollinmighan, (as you scoffingly speak,) in the College there, of your own divising and nomination, and whereof you are the father, and the founder. But (to let this pass, as an idle fiction of a fantastical brain,) why will you not acknowledge the truth of this distinction, which is so clear, plain, and evident in itself? The first part of it, you neither do, nor can deny, namely, that in respect of converting souls, 
Chrys. in Mat hom. 83. Ad popul antioch. homil. 60.  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 office and authority is to be preferred before the Regal, or Temporal. For this is, very apparent, even by S. Chrysostome himself, who speaketh to Ecclesiastical Ministers on this wise. No small vengeance, (saith he,) hangeth over your heads, if you do suffer any heinous offender, to be partaker of the Lords Table: his blood shall be required at your hands, whether he be a Captain, Lieutenant, or a crowned King, forbidden him: in these cases, thy power is greater than his. Again he saith. Si vis videre discrimen, quantum absit Rex à Sacerdote, expende modum potestatis, utrique traditae. 
Chrysost. de verb. Esa. vidi Dom. hom. 5.  If you will see the difference how great it is, between the King, and the Priest, weigh the measure of the power, or authority, granted unto them both. And there showing the power, and authority, which God hath committed to the Priest, he saith: Eoque Deus, ipsum regale caput sacerdotis manibus subiecit: and in that respect, (saith he,) hath God subjected the head of the King, to the hand of the Priest. So that it is only in respect of their Ministry, power, and authority, granted them from God, & not in all respects, nor to all intents, and purposes, that this their excellency and preeminency consisteth. Yea, he further showeth, that their power and offices, be distinct, and limited, and that the one may not intrude into the office, and bounds of the other. For, when King Vzziah, otherwise called Ozias, 
2. Chron. 26.16.17 18.  entered into the Temple to burn incense, which pertained to the Priest's office, and not to the King: S. Chrysostome, reproving and condemning this, saith thus unto the King: 
Chrysost. de verbis Esaiae vidi Dom. homil. 4.  Mane intra tuos terminos; alij sunt termini Regni, alij termini sacerdotis: Keep you within your own bounds: For, the limits or bounds of the Regal calling, be one: and the limits or bounds of the Sacerdotal calling be another, And again he saith, that, Res est mala, non manner intra fines, nobis à Deo praescriptos. It is an ill thing, not to abide within the limits or bounds prescribed unto us of God. He again thus distinguisheth their offices: Regi, corpora commissa sunt: sacerdoti, animae: Rex maculas corporum remittit, Sacerdos autem maculas peccatorum: Ille cogit, hic exhortatur: Ille necessitate, hic consilio: Ille habet arma sensibilia, hic arma spiritualia. Ille bellum gerit cum barbaris, mihi belium est adversus Daemons. To the King, (saith he, 
Homil. 5. Idem ibidem. hom. 4. ) are bodies committed; to the Priest, souls: the King remitteth the spots of the bodies, the Priest the spots of sins. The King compelleth, the Priest exhorteth, the one with necessity, or constraint, the other with advice, or counsel: The King hath sensible weapons, the Priest hath spiritual weapons: The King maketh war with the Barbarians, and the Priest hath wars against the Devils Again he saith: Regi, ea quae hic sunt, commissa sunt: mihi caelestia: mihi quum dico, sacerdotem intelligo. To the King are those things committed, that be here: To me, are things heavenly committed: And when I say to me, I mean (saith he) the Priest. So that, although he there affirmeth the Sacerdotal power, or office, to be more excellent or greater, than the Regal yet withal he showeth you wherein, and in what respects it is, namely, (as I said before,) in respect of those things, which properly belong to the office, ministry, and function of a Priest, or Bishop: of which sort, is preaching of God's word, administering of the Sacraments, and binding and losing of sinners, by Excommunication, or Absolution, as the case requireth: But he may not by virtue of that his Ecclesiastical and Priestly office, use any external, civil, coactive power or compulsion, which you see, even by the evident testimony of the same S. Chrysostome himself, rightly and properly belongeth to the King, and not to the Priest. Now then here you may perceive withal the other part of my distinction to be likewise undoubtedly true, namely, That in respect of the Temporal power of the sword, thereby externally to command, compel and to punish offenders, in causes both Ecclesiastical, and Civil, the Regal, and temporal office, and authority, is to be preferred before the Episcopal, or Sacerdotal. For it is clear that God hath committed this Civil and Temporal sword, only to Kings and Princes, and such like terrestrial Potentates, and not to Bishops or Priests: For so also doth S. Paul himself directly show. And who is there but he knoweth that it properly appertaineth to the power, & office of this civil and temporal sword, to command, compel, and to punish offenders, civilly and in a temporal manner? For the same Apostle saith of every of these higher powers, that bear this temporal Sword, that he beareth it not in vain. Yea he saith, that he is the Minister of God, a revenger unto wrath to him that doth evil. Here is no exception of any person, or of any cause, but he that offendeth, or doth evil, be he a layman, or a clergyman, or be he an offendor in a cause Civil, or cause Ecclesiastical, he appeareth to be subject to this sword, and authority of these higher powers. For, seeing the express words of the Text, be, 
Bernard. ad Senonen. Arobiepisc epist. 42. Chrysost. in Rom. hom. 23  Let every soul be subject to the higher powers: Who, (saith S. Bernard,) hath excepted you, (speaking to an Archbishop,) from this generality. He that bringeth in an exception, (saith he,) useth but a delusion. And you may remember, that even S. Chrysostome also himself, as he subjecteth Kings to Bishops, Priests, and Pastors, in respect of their power and commission granted them from God: So on the other side, in respect of the Regal sword, power, and authority, given and granted likewise from God, to Kings and Princes, he declareth very fully that Bishops, Priests, Pastors, and all Ecclesiastical Ministers whatsoever, aswell, as lay people, are to be subject to them. But this point concerning the subjection of all Bishops, Priests, and Pastors, and even of the Bishop of Rome himself, aswell, as of others, unto Emperors, Kings, and Princes, as also in causes even Ecclesiastical, aswell, as Civil, and temporal, is so clearly, plainly, and plentifully proved, both in my first, and second Books, and in this also, (all your answers, evasions, quirks, and quiddities, being therein, utterly frustrated, confuted, and confounded,) as that it is to me a matter of wonder, that you should not see, and so acknowledge the truth of it. But it seemeth you cannot see the wood for trees, which I am sorry for.  
8. Howbeit to make this point, yet the more evident, (viz,) the subjection of Priests, and Ecclesiastical Ministers, unto the King: and therewithal, the King's supremacy, or supreme command, over them, even in causes Ecclesiastical, I alleged in my Reply, cap. 1. pag. 5. the example of Moses, who commanded not only the Levites, 
Deut. 31.25.26.  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, 
Numb. 16.46.47.  saying thus unto him: Take the censer, and put fire therein of the Altar, and put therein incense, and go quickly unto the congregation, and make an atonement for them, for there is wrath gone out from the Lord, the plague is begun, than Aaron took, as Moses had commanded him, etc. Here you say, I abuse my Reader, by falsely citing this text: for the right words, (say you,) are these: Moses said to Aaron, take the Censer, and drawing fire from the Altar, put incense upon it, going quickly to the people, to pray for them. To pray, (say you,) and to make atonement, do differ, and be not all one: howbeit, indeed, not I, but, you are the man that abuse your Reader, by falsely citing the words of this Text: For you, therein follow the words, of your vulgar Latin translation, which is untrue, and unsound, and I follow our English translation, which is according to the Original, in Hebrew, and therefore true: which you also, if you were a good Hebrician, would know, and perceive, even in this very particular. But whether we take your translation, of Praying for the people, or our translation, of Attonementmaking, it cometh all to one pass, as touching that purpose for which I cited it, namely, to prove, that Moses commanded Aaron the high Priest, in a matter Ecclesiastical, & concerning his very office. For yourself do say, that, this praying for the people, was a religious act, to be wrought by Aaron, as being intermediate between the people, & God, to reconcile, or gain unto them the favours of heaven. And, on the other side we say, that to burn incense, to make atonement for the people, 
2. Chron. 26.18.  is likewise expressly, a thing properly pertaining to the Priest's office. So that as touching that purpose for which I cited that text, it maketh (as I said before) no difference. But than you go further, & seem to speak, as if Moses, had not there commanded Aaron. But when Moses spoke to Aaron in this sort: Accipe thuribulun, Take the censer. Be not these words of commanding, especially in this case, and at this time, being also spoken by a Superior, namely by him, that was as the Scripture calleth him, a king in the commonweal of Israel: 
Deut. 33.5. Deut. 31.25 26.27.  Yea be they not words, of as full, and clear command, as when he spoke in like sort, to the Levites, saying: Take the book of this law, and put ye it in the side of the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord our God, etc. The Text itself showeth that these were words of commanding, in Moses: And so witnesseth also your own translation, that herein, Moses praecepit Levitis, Moses commanded the Levites. Yea, that Moses, aswell as his successor joshuah, commanded not only the Levites, but the Priests also, and all the congregation, and people of Israel, appeareth by that answer, and acclamation, they gave to the same joshuah, saying thus unto him: 
Iosh. 1.16.17.18.  All that thou hast commanded us, we will do, and whethersoever thou sendest us, we will go. As we have obeyed Moses in all things, so will we obey thee: only the Lord thy God be with thee as be was with Moses: whosoever shall rebel against thy commandment, and will not obey thy words, in all that thou commandest him, let him be put to death. But then, when you cannot gainsay, but that Moses commanded Aaron, and that in matters Ecclesiastical and concerning his very office: you come to your last refuge, and do say, that Moses was the high Priest, and so, as an high Priest commanded Aaron. But first how do you prove this, that Moses was an high Priest? And yet if you could prove it, what would you, or could you gain from thence? for yourself do say, that Moses was as well a king, as a Priest: & therefore why might he not command him, as he was a king, rather than otherwise? for did he, in his time, command the Priests. Levites, & the whole People of Israel, otherwise, or in any other sort or sense, than joshuah, his successor did, who was no Priest? how be it, if Moses had been both a Priest and a King, would not the holy Scripture somewhere, have testified, and expressed, so much, aswell as it doth, in the like case, of Melchisedech. Gen. 14.18. Hebr. 7.1? For as touching those Texts of Scripture, which you bring to prove Moses to be a Priest, it shall by and by appear, that they prove it not. Again if Moses were the high Priest, what will you make Aaron to be? for it is evident and confessed of all sides, that Aaron was the high Priest: and if Moses, were also another high Priest, at the same time: 
Deut. 33.5.  then, beside that, there should be two high Priests together at one time, how could the one command the other, they being both of equal authority? Or can he be rightly, and truly called, Summus Sacerdos, that hath a Superior Priest over him, to command him? It is clear, that the Scripture doth expressly testify of Moses, that he was a King, and therefore of that there can be no doubt: but that he was also a Priest, or an high Priest, (as you suppose) it doth not affirm, no not in that Place, where the purpose of the holy Ghost was to show, what Offices he bore, during all his life time, and what manner of man he was amongst the Israelites, so long, as he had been amongst them, until that time, that he was to die, and to take his last farewell of them: 
Deut. 33.5. & Deut. 34.10.  for there it only appeareth, that he was a King and a Prophet, but not a Priest. Had he been also a Priest, no doubt, it would not have been there omitted, but specified likewise, aswell as his other two Offices. Yea read throughout the whole Bible, the history concerning Moses, & you will still find, that he was a supreme civil Magistrate, a supreme Commander, 
Exod. 18.13 14.15.16.17.18.19.20.21.22.23.24.25.26.  and supreme judge in Israel. For it is, said, that, When Moses sat to judge the people, the People stood about Moses, from morning unto even: And when jethro Moses Father in Law, saw all that he did to the People, he said, what is this, thou dost to the People? Why sittest thou thyself alone, and all the People stand about thee from morning unto even? And because this was too toilsome & troublesome a business for him alone to do, he advised him to appoint some others to help him, & to bear the Burden with him, in hearing & judging of causes. Whereupon Moses chose able men, out of all Israel, and made them heads over the People, Rulers over thousands, Rulers over hundreths, Rulers over fifties, and Rulers over ten. And these judged the people, at all seasons: the hard Causes, they brought to Moses, but every small matter, they judged themselves. When, again, Moses heard the murmuring, and saw the weeping of the People of Israel, throughout their families, he was much grieved, and speak thus to the Lord: 
Numb. 11.10.11.12.13.14.15. etc.  Wherefore hast thou afflicted thy servant, and why have not I found favour in thy sight, seeing thou hast put the charge of all this People upon me? etc. By all which, you see that Moses was, as a King, Prince, or supreme commander over all Israel, and consequently, as a King, commanded Aaron and the rest of the Priests, aswell, as he commanded the Levites, or any of the rest of the People. Moreover, if Moses had been the high Priest, 
Exod. 24.5.  he might have offered Sacrifice himself, and needed not to have sent others, (as he did) to sacrifice: neither needed he to have commanded, 
Numb. 16.46.47.  or required Aaron, to burn incense, (as he did) to make an Atonement, for the People, for himself might have done it. But whatsoever Bellarmine, or other Papists, hold in this case, you, for your part, do not hold them, to be both high Priests together, at one and the self same time, but in succession one after another: accounting Moses, to be the high Priest, first, and then Aaron, 
Heb●. 5 4.  afterwards. Howbeit, the Scripture saith, that No man taketh this honour to himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. If then Moses were called of God, to this honour of high Priesthood, let the like warrant be showed from God, for the Authorising of him thereunto, that is to be showed for Aaron. But this you cannot show. Besides, if Moses were the high Priest first, and Aaron afterward: why doth that Epistle to the Hebrews, mention, for the Pattern, or Precedent in that Case, not Moses, but Aaron? For if Moses had been the first high Priest, no doubt he would have said, That no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Moses: But he saith not so, but he speaketh in this sort. (viz) No man taketh this honour to himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron: As if Revera, not Moses at all, but Aaron only were the first high Priest. And so, indeed, S. Chrisostome directly affirmeth, 
Chrysost. de verbis Isaiae vidi Dominun homil. 5.  for speaking of Aaron he saith expressly, that Is primus fuit Pontifex, He was the first high Priest. Again if Moses were the high Priest, so constituted of God, how came he afterward, to lose that honour, or to be deprived of it, and another, namely Aaron, to be put in his Place, in his life time, he committing no fault nor any fault declared to be in him, for which he should be deprived of that his Priesthood? But, lastly, what cause, or need is there, to suppose Moses to be, (as you fancy him) an high Priest, extraordinarily elected, and appointed, when there was to be seen at the same time, an High Priest after the ordinary manner, in Esse, and allowed of God, namely the same Aaron? For in my Reply, pag. 22. 23. I have proved, that the Priesthood before the law given, did ordinarily belong to the first borne: and of these two Brothers, Moses and Aaron, I have also there proved, that not Moses, but Aaron, was the Elder, and consequently, that by right of Primogeniture, Aaron was the Priest, and not Moses. Yea I have there further proved, that the Priesthood thus being in Aaron, was so fare from being removed, or taken from him that contrariwise, it was continued in him, and afterward confirmed unto him, by God himself, and to his seed, after him. But yet you would prove Moses to be a Priest, 
Exod. 40.12 13.14.12.  because he did consecrate, and anoint Aaron, and his sons, to the Priesthood. But to this I have answered before in my Reply pag. 25. 26. showing, that this proveth not Moses to be a Priest, properly so called: for he did this by Gods own special commandment, which he might not disobey or refuse but stood bound to obey and perform, although he were a Civil Magistrate, King, Prince, Prophet, or what office & calling soever he had. You cite also Deut, 18.18. where God saith thus to Moses: I will raise them up a Prophet, amongst their brethren, like unto thee, etc. This prooveth, that Moses was a Prophet, and that Christ, (of whom, these words are a Prophecy,) was likewise a Prophet, 
Act. 3.21.  Act. 7.37. but they prove not Moses therefore to be a Priest, because he was a Prophet. But the chief text you rely upon, is that in Psal. 99 vers. 6. where it is said: Moses and Aaron amongst the Priests, & Samuel amongst them that call upon his name: these called upon the Lord, and he heard them. Howbeit, to this also I have answered before in my Reply, pag. 23.24. First, that the being of Moses, & Aaron, with, or among the Priests, is no proof, that therefore they were Priests: It is true, that Aaron was a Priest, but that is proved by other clear places of Scripture, and not necessarily deduced out of this: because a man may be among Priests, & yet be no Priest. Secondly, I shown, that the Hebrew word there used, is, Cohanim, which is a word of an ambiguous signification, signifying, aswell Princes, as Priests: 
2. Sam. 8.18  As for example, The sons of King David, are said to be, Cohanim, that is, Princes, or great Rulers: & so it is explained, 
2. Sam, 20.26.  and declared in 1, Chron. 18.17. And so it is likewise said, of Ira the jairite, that he was Cohen le David, that is, a Prince, or chief Ruler about David. For, to construe these, to be Priests, in the proper and usual signification of the word, they not being of the Tribe of Levi, were very absurd. And to these thus formerly alleged in my Reply, you have answered nothing in your rejoinder. Yea, S. Jerome himself, in his own observation, showeth, that the Hebrew word, though he translate it Sacerdotes, in the one case and Sacerdos in the other case, yet signifieth, as I before affirmed. For, saith he, Ira Iairites erat sacerdos David, 
Hier. tradit Hebr. in libros Regum to. 3  id est Magister, sicut alibi scriptum est: Filij autem David, erant sacerdotes, idest Magistri fratrum suorum. But because you also object S. Augustine, as the jesuites likewise did object both S. Jerome, and S. Augustine, in this case, (writing upon this Psalm. 99) to prove Moses to be a Priest: I had rather you should take your Answer thereunto, from the words of that reverend and learned Bishop Doctor Bilson, then from me: who, answereth the jesuites, and consequently you, in this sort. 
In his Book called, the difference between Christian subjection, & unchristian rebellion part. 3. pag. 102.103. Hier. in Psal. 98. Aug. in Psal. 98.  All that S. Jerome saith, is this, that Moses had the rule of the Law, and Aaron of the Priesthood: and that either of them did foreshow the coming of Christ with a Priestly kind of Proclamation: Moses, with the sound of the Law: and Aaron, with the Bells of his garments. Where, S. Hierome calleth the Prophetical function of Moses, to teach the people, the laws of God, a Priestly kind of Proclamation & foreshowing, that the Son of God, should come in the flesh, to teach us the will of his Father. S. Augustine useth the word, in the like sense, for that sacred service, which Moses yielded to God, in reporting his laws and precepts to the people. And therefore in the same place, he saith of Samuel also, that he was made high Priest, which is expressly against the Scriptures, if you take the Priest for him that was anointed to offer sacrifice unto God. For Samuel was but a Levite, and no Priest, much less an high Priest. The sons of Samuel, 
1. Chron. 6.  are reckoned in the Scripture itself, among the Levites, apart from the Priest's office, and lineage: And, the high Priesthood, was, long before, given to Phinees, and his house, 
Num. 25.13 1. Sam. 14. 1. Chron. 6.  by covenant from Gods own mouth, and in the days of Samuel, was held by Abiah, the son of Ahitub, who was directly of the descent of Phinees. S. Augustine elsewhere debating this question of Moses and Aaron, resolveth in doubtful manner: Moses and Aaron, were both high Priests, or rather Moses the chief, and Aaron under him: or else Aaron chief for the Pontifical attire, and Moses for a more excellent Ministry. And in that sense, Moses may be called a Priest, if you mean as S. Augustine doth, an interpreter of Gods will to Aaron, & others, which is the right vocation of all Prophets, that were no Priests, & common to them all, save that by a more excellent prerogative than any other Prophet of the Old Testament, 
Numb. 12. Exod. 33.  had God spoke to Moses mouth to mouth, and face to face. as a man speaketh to his friend. But this doth not hinder his civil power which was to be chief judge, and sovereign executor of justice amongst them, and by virtue thereof to put them to death, that were offenders against the Law of God. And in his stead, succeeded, not Eleazar, nor Phinees the sons of Aaron, but joshuah, and judah, the Captains, and leaders of Israel. So fare he. Thus than you see, in what sense it is, that both S. Jerome, and S. Augustine did, or might call Moses a Priest, and yet not be such a Priest strictly, and properly taken, as you fancy him: Yea, you see, that S. Augustine likewise affirmeth Samuel to be a Priest, who nevertheless revera, 
Bellarmin. de verb. Dei lib. 3. cap. 4.  and properly, was not a Priest, as before is showed: And Bellarmine also himself confesseth somuch of Samuel, saying expressly. Samulem non fuisse sacerdotem, sed judicem tantum: Non enim descendit ex familia Aaron, sed Core consobrini ejus 1. Paralip. 6. That Samuel was not a Priest, but only a judge: for he descended not of the family of Aaron, but of Core. And he saith further, that S. Hierome likewise, (libr. 1. in jovinianum,) ostendit Samuelem non fuisse Sacerdotem, shown that Samuel was not a Priest.  
As for those two Chapters of Exodus, 28. and 29. cited by Bellarmine, whereby he will prove Moses, to be truly, and properly, a Priest. If you read those Chapters, you shall find no such matter, but rather the contrary, namely, that not Moses, but Aaron and his sons, 
Exod. 28 1.2, 3.4.  were the Priests. For God saith there, to Moses: Take Aaron thy Brother and his Sons with him, from amongst the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the Priest's Office, even Aaron, Nadab, and Abibu, Eleazar, and Ithamar, Aaron's sons. It is true, that, there, you may read that Moses made holy Garments, 
Exod. 29.1.2.3.4. etc.  and offered certain Sacrifices. But observe withal, that all this was done by Gods own express and special commandment, and to no other end, but this, viz, for the conseruating of Aaron and his Sons, to the Priesthood. So that by those two Chapters, it further appeareth, that not Moses but Aaron only and his Sons, were the Priests: But as the jesuites, 
In his book before named part. 3. pag. 103. 104.  in time past, would have proved Samuel, to be a Priest, because it is said, that he Sacrificed: so you say the same of King Saul, that he also sacrificed, and thereby would likewise prove him to be a priest. Howbeit the former reverend, & learned Bishop, D. Bilson, doth again show both them and you, how much you deceive yourselves, by such phrases, and manner of speeches: and that when they are rightly understood, they infer no such conclusion, as you, and they would deduce out of them. My collection, (saith he,) is grounded upon the law of God. Samuel was none of the Sons of Aaron, Ergo, 
1. Sam. 7.  Samuel was no Priest. It is true, that the Scripture saith, He took a sucking lamb and offered it for a  offering unto the Lord. So jephta said: 
judg. 11.  That thing which first cometh out of the Doors of my house to me, I will offer it for a  offering: And yet jephtah was neither Priest nor Levite. So the Angel said to Manoah: 
judg. 13.  If thou wilt make a  offering, offer it unto the Lord, And yet Manoah was of the tribe of Dan. Of David, that was no Priest, the Scripture saith, Then David offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the Lord. And again, David built there an Altar unto the Lord, and offered burnt offerings, 
1. Sam. 10.  and peace-offerings and the Lord was appeased towards the Land. And likewise of Solomon: The King went to Gibeon to sacrifice there: 
1. King. 3.  a thousand  offerings did Solomon offer upon the Altar. Thrice a year did Solomon offer burnt offerings, and peace offerings, upon the Altar, 
1. King. 9  which he built to the Lord: and he burnt incense upon the Altar, that was before the Lord. Nothing is oftener in the Scriptures, than these kind of speeches: By the which, no more is meant, but that either, they brought these things, to be offered, or else they caused the Priests, to offer them: For in their own People, they could not sacrifice them, because they were no Priests. In that sense, the Scripture saith of Saul, That he offered burnt offerings at Gilgal before Samuel came: not that Saul offered it with his own hands, 
1. Sam. 13.  as you before did fond imagine and said, He was deposed for aspiring to the spiritual function: 
1. Sam. 14. v. 3.18.  But he commanded the Priest to do it, who was then present in the host, with the Ark of God, as the next chapter doth witness, in two special Places. And as for the reproof that Samuel gave to King Saul, it was (saith he,) for distrusting and disobeying God. For when God first advanced Saul to the Kingdom, he charged him by the Mouth of Samuel, to go to Gilgal, and there to stay seven Days, 
1. Sam. 10.  (before he ventured to do any Sacrifice,) till the Prophet were sent to show him what he should do: 
1 Sam 13.  But seeing his enemies gathered to fight against him, on the one side, and his people shrinking from him on the other side, because Samuel came not he began to suspect that Samuel had beguiled him, and therefore upon his own head, against the commandment of God, willed the Priest, to go forward with his Sacrifices, and to consult God, what he should do. This secret distrust, and presumption, against the charge which God had given him, was the thing, that God took in so evil part: And since he would not submit himself to be ruled by God, and expect his leisure, God rejected him, as unfit to govern the People. Neither did Samuel challenge him, for invading the Priest's Office, but for not staying the time, that God prefixed him, before the Prophet should come. So fare he, whom I thus recite the more at large, for your better satisfaction, in this Point. But yet moreover, that worthy, 
In his Book of jurisdiction Regal, Episcopal, Papal, pag. 31. 32. 33. etc.  learned, and reverend Bishop also, D. Carleton, amongst other arguments which he bringeth to prove Moses to be a Civil Magistrate, and a Prince, but not a Priest, allegeth that Text of Exodus, 4.16. where Moses is said to be, as a God to Aaron, and Aaron, as a Mouth to Moses. The word there used, is Elohim, and the same, that is also used in Psal. 82. and is never applied throughout the whole Scriptures, when it is given to men, but to such as were Kings, Princes, judges, and other Civil Magistrate: and at no time to Priests, unless they were themselves, the chief Magistrates, or received Authority from the Chief Magistrate. Give you an instance in the holy Scripture, to the Contrary, if you can, or else confess the truth of it. And here you may also observe one reason among the rest, which Christ himself giveth, why they be called Gods, in that Psalm. 82. 
Psal. 82.6.  For in that Psalm, it is, that these words are written, I have said, ye are Gods: which be the words, that Christ citeth, in the Gospel of S. john, 
joh. 10.34.35.  and saith thereupon thus: If he called them Gods, unto whom the word of God was given, etc. So that this appeareth to be one reason, why Kings, Princes, and Civil Magistrates, 
Deut. 17.18 19 Iosh. 1.8. 2 King. 11.12.  be called Gods, namely, because they have the word of God, given, or committed to them, although not to preach it, (as Bishops, Pastors, and Doctors do,) yet by way of special commission to keep it, to establish it by Authority, to command obedience to it, to punish the Violators of it, and to encourage countenance, protect, and defend the Professors, and Practisers of it. For it is certain, that all that Psalm, whence Christ took those words, is wholly, and entirely understood, of Kings, Princes, and such like Civil Magistrates, & not of Priests, Bishops, or other Ecclesiastical Ministers, as any man may perceive, that will read that Psalm. Seeing then, this word, Elohim, is given to Moses, and that comparatively, and in respect of Aaron the Priest, it must be granted, that Moses was a Civil Magistrate, and as a King, or Prince, in respect of him, and others, But neither Priest, nor high Priest, as you surmise. And as for that Text before mentioned of Psalm. 99 vers. 6. how much soever you and others, stand upon it, yet give me leave here once more to tell you, that being well considered, you may, in your own judgement, easily perceive, that you can enforce nothing thereout, to prove Moses to be a Priest, properly so called, although Aaron was: for, the purpose, and intention, of those words, is no more but this, to show, that not only Moses a Civil Magistrate, but Aaron also a Chief Priest, amongst the other Priests, and Samuel likewise a Prophet amongst others, that called upon the name of the Lord, were all heard of him, when they prayed. Now, because all those when they prayed & called upon the name of the Lord, were heard, and obtained their requests: is that any argument, that therefore they were all Priests properly so called? No man, I think, will be so absurd, as to make such an inference.  
9 I therefore now come to joshuah the Successor of Moses: he, (aswell, as Moses,) did as a Prince, or King, command the Priests, Levites and all Israel, and dealt in matters also Ecclesiastical aswell as Temporal, as I have showed in my Reply, pag. 6. hereunto you in your Rejoinder, answer nothing, that is of any weight, or moment. Your best answer is, That what josuah did in matters Ecclesiastical, he did it by the direction and advise of Eleasar the Priest: which if it be granted, maketh nothing to the Question. For the Question is not, by whose direction, or advise, but by whose Authority, those things were done. It is not denied, but that Priests might, (as was fit they should,) give their best direction and advise unto their Kings and Princes: But this derogateth nothing from that Authority, which Kings and Princes have and bear, within their own dominions. Yea, how impertinent, weak, and feeble this your answer is, you might have perceived before, by my Reply pag. 9 10. if you had so pleased. Touching King josuah, I said in my Reply, pag. 6. 7. That he commanded the high Priest, aswell as the other Priests, and dealt also in matters Ecclesiastical, and concerning God's service, and religion: And amongst other Text of Scripture, for proof thereof, I alleged that Text of 2, King 23.4. where it is accorded, that the King commanded Hilkiah, the high Priest, and the Priests of the second order, etc. Hereunto you answer, that there is no such matter in the Place by me cited: and that the force of this Argument, consisteth in these coined words of mine: The King commanded Hilkiah, (whom you call Helcias:) which words not being in Scripture (say you,) I am a wily Witness for strengthening my cause, to produce so shameful an untruth, and though I be a judge, yet you see no commission I have to use falsehood. These words be able to provoke a man's patience. But you must know, that bad words and a bold face, will do you no good. Let others therefore judge, whether you, or I, be the honester man in this Point. You say, there is no such matter in the Place by me cited. Wherefore I desire the Reader, but to turn to that place I cited, which is according to our English Bibles, 2. Kings 23.4 and according to your Latin Bibles, 4. Reg. 23.4. and there shall he see, whether there be any such matter, or no and, whether these words: The King commanded Hilkiah, (whom you call Helcias,) be words coined by me, (as you shame not to speak,) or whether they be in the Scripture itself, extant, and apparent. For, first, those words, be in the Hebrew: Secondly, they be in our English Translations: and thirdly, they be also even in your own vulgar Latin Translation. For even in that your own Translation, the words be these: Et praecepit Rex Helciae Pontifici, & Sacerdotibus secundi ordinis, etc. And the King commanded Helcias the high Priest, and the Priests of the second order, &c, Now then, is it not Impudence intolerable in you, to deny this. You shall therefore do well, yet at last, to confess, that this good, and godly King, josias, commanded Hilkiah, (otherwise called Helcias,) the high Priest, and the Priests of the second Order: and that he also dealt in matters Ecclesiastical, and concerning religion, as I there said, and have further declared, in the same place of my Reply, pag. 6.7. To that which I alleged concerning King Asa, and King Hezekiah, in my Reply, pag. 7. 8. who likewise had Authority, (as is there showed,) over Persons Ecclesiastical, and in causes also Ecclesiastical, you answer nothing in your Rejoinder that deserveth to be replied unto. And concerning King jehosaphat also, your answer is likewise very idle, and frivolous, and scarce worthy the mentioning. For whereas I alleged, amongst other things, 
2. Chron. 19 8.9.10.11  That this King jehosaphat, did constitute, or set in Jerusalem 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. (which words were sufficient, to prove my purpose there, namely, the King's Authority over Priests, and Levites, and in causes also Ecclesiastical,) you to show your great learning, and judgement, in this point, do tax me for omitting, or not rehearsing of some subsequent words, in the which verse of that Chapter, which when they be uttered, and rehearsed, do indeed make more against you, then for you: for, the words be these. And behold, (saith the King,) Amoriah the high Priest, shall be the Chief over you, in all matters of the Lord: and Zebadiah, the son of Ishmaell, a Ruler of the house of judah shall be for all the King's affairs. By which words, it appeareth, That King jehosaphat, did aswell constitute, and appoint Amariah the Priest, to be the Chief over that Assembly, Council, or Synedrion, which he set at Jerusalem, for all matters of the Lord, as he did constitute, and appoint Zebadiah, to be the Chief amongst them for all the King's affairs. For the words of the Text, put no difference, but that he might, and did constitute, the one to be the Chief in the one case, aswell, as he did constitute the other, to be the Chief in the other case. As for that reason you bring, for a difference, it is nothing worth: for, it is granted, that the King did not, nor could by his Regal Authority, (without a special commandment, or warrant from God,) consecrate, or make a Priest, neither is it there said, That King jehosaphat, did consecrate, or make Amariah, to be a Priest: But he being a Priest before, the King did there constitute and appoint him, (as lawfully he might,) to be the Precedent, or Chief in that Synedrion, or Assembly, in all matters of the Lord: aswell as he did, or might constitute Zebadiah, to be, therein, the Chief, or Precedent, for all the King's affairs.  
10. Now then to come to King Solomon, I proved him also in my Reply, pag. 7. to have had authority over the Priests, and Levites, and to have dealt likewise, in matters Ecclesiastical, and concerning Religion: But to that Text of 2. Chron. 8.14.15. by me alleged, for proof thereof, you answer not. Only to that Text of 1. King. 2.27.35. where Solomon deposed Abiathar, the high Priest, and put Sadocke in his place, you answer and grant it to be true, that he did so: But this, say you, he did, as being a Prophet, and not as a King. This answer of yours, I before confuted, and took a way in my Reply. pag. 20. 21. whether I again refer you: because that standeth still in full force against you, you having said nothing against it, in your Rejoinder. But now I add further unto it, that it doth moreover appear, even by the words of the Text itself. that Solomon did not do this, as a Prophet, but as a King; because he therein did no more, but execute that, which a Prophet, or man of God, had before spoken from God, concerning the house of Ely: For so the words of the Text do show, that, Solomon cast out Abiathar, from being Priest unto the Lord: that he might fulfil the words of the Lord, which he spoke against the house of Ely in Shilo, 1. King. 2.27. and 1. Sam. 2.27.28.29.30.31. etc. where, the Prophet, or man of God, (as he is called,) that uttered the Prophecy, and the King that executed the Prophecy must of necessity be distinguished. And therefore as he that received, and uttered the Prophecy is in the receiving, and uttering of it, to be called, and supposed a Prophet: So King Solomon, that was only the executer, and performer of that Prophecy, is in the execution, and performance of it, to be termed, and deemed a King, and not a Prophet. But whilst I thus prove, the authority of Kings, over the high Priest, because King Solomon deposed Abiathar, and put Sadock in his place: You would infer, that Elias, by the like reason, had the supremacy, because he, (as you say,) deposed King Benhadad, and put Hazael in his place. Howbeit, you are therein much deceived. For it is not read, in like sort, that Elias deposed the one King, and put the other in his place. 
Dan. 4.12.22.17.25. Luke 2.52. Dan. 2.37.  The power to depose Kings, belongeth only unto God, who giveth kingdoms, to whomsoever he pleaseth. But what the Prophet Elias did, concerning Hazael to be king over Syria, and concerning jehu also, to be King over Israel, he had a special, and direct commandment for it, from God himself. For the Lord said thus unto Elias. Go return on thy way, 
1. King. 19.15.  to the wilderness of Damascus, and when thou comest, anoint Hazael to be King over Syria: And jehu the son of Nimshi, shalt thou anoint, to be King over Israel. So that it was God, (and not Elias,) that put down the one King, and raised up the other. As for Elias, and Elisha, 
2. King. 9.1.2.3, etc.  and other Prophets, they were but the publishers and declarers of Gods will and pleasure, in all such cases, and not the deposers of any Kings. Touching that you say of Queen Athalia, there was good reason for her to be deposed: For she was a mere usurper, and joas was the true, and rightful heir. For, Behold, (saith the Text,) the King's son must reign, 
2. Chr. 23.3.  as the Lord hath said of the sons of David. Neither was it jehoida, the Priest alone, but the rest of the rulers, and people also, that according to their duties both to God and the King, by an unanimous consent, deposed that wicked usurper Athalia, and put joas in the kingdom, to whom the right of it appertained. For the words of the Text are. 
2. Chron. 23.11.  Then they brought out the King's son and put upon him the Crown, and gave him the testimony, and made him King: and jehoida, and his sons, anointed him, and said God save the King. And concerning King Vzziah, otherwise called Ozias, (whom you also mention,) it is true, that he went into the Temple of the Lord, to burn Incense, upon th' Altar of incense & that Azariah the Priest went in after him, & with him fourscore Priests of the Lord, which withstood Eziah, & said unto him: It pertaineth not to thee Vziah, 
2. Chron. 26.16.17.18.19.20.  to burn Incense unto the Lord, but to the Priests the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated, to offer incense. Go thou forth of the sanctuary, for thou hast transgressed, etc. And for this his presuming to burn incense he was stricken with a leprosy: which when Azariah the chief Priest, and the other Priests saw, and beheld, they caused him hastily to departed from thence, and he was even compelled to go out because the Lord had smitten him. So that he was not compelled to go out of the Temple, by reason of any force, weapon's, or violence, offered to his person, by Azariah, or any other, of the Priests: but because the Lord had smitten him, (viz.) with a leprosy. And therefore even your own translation, which you call S. Hieromes, hath it thus. Sed & ipse perterritus acceleravit egredi, eo qued sensisset illico plagam Domini. That he made hast himself to go out, as being terrified, with the present sense of the Lords blow upon him. It is true, that Azarias the Priest, and the other Priests with him, withstood the King. But how? by words only, as namely, by telling him of his sin, advising him to go out of the Temple, and using divine threats, and such other lawful, and allowable courses, as became Priests to use, but not by swords, and weapons, force of arms, or such like external power coactive. And thus doth S. Chrysostome, also himself testify, even in this very case, and therefore bringeth in the Priest, saying thus unto God. 
Chrysost. de verbis Esaiae, vidi Dominun homil. 4.  I have done, (saith he,) my duty, to warn, and reprove him: I can go no further: Nam sacerdotis est, tantùm arguere, etc. For it is the Priest's office, only to reprove, and freely to admonish, and not, (saith he,) to assail with arms, not to use targets, not to handle spears, not to bend bows, not to cast darts, but only to reprove, and freely to admonish, etc. But if it had been so, that Azariah, and the rest of the Priests with him, had forcibly, and by bodily and external violence, expelled, and thrust the King out of the Temple, (which nevertheless you see S. Chrysostome expressly denieth to have been done,) yet were this no proof, that therefore, they expelled, deposed, or deprived him of his kingdom. Yea this king, Vziah, otherwise called Ozias, notwithstanding whatsoever these Priests did against him, and notwithstanding his leprosy, wherewith he was stricken, was nevertheless, not deposed, nor deprived of his kingdom. For although he was a leper, unto the day of his death, and dwelled as a leper in an house, apart from others, according to the law: yet during the time, of that his leprosy, 
2. Chron. 26.21.23.  did he continue King of judah, and all that while was jotham his son over all the king's house, and judged the people of the land, as a regent, or curator like a Lord Protector, or Lieutenant to his father. Neither is it said, that jotham his son reigned in his stead, or governed as a king in his own right, until after the death of that his Father. 
joseph. antiq lib. 9 cap. 11 2. Chron. 26 1.3.  And this appeareth to be evidently true, by computation of time: for, Vzziah lived but sixty eight years in all, as josephus witnesseth: and he was sixteen years old when he began to reign: and he reigned fifty two years, as the Scripture itself testifieth: So that from the time he began to be a King, he continued a King unto his dying day. But what mean you by all this? For if hereby you would prove it lawful for the Bishop of Rome, to depose Kings, you see that the former precedents, and examples of those Prophets, and Priests, which you produce, do warrant no such matter; admitting that the Bishop of Rome were the chief or high Priest in the Christian Church, which he is not as I have now, and often said, and shown before. Yea they rather declare the clean contrary to that detestable, Romish and rebellious position. But if I will needs still urge, that Solomon, as a King did depose Abiathar the high Priest, and put Zadocke in his place: It may be answered, (say you,) that this act of solomon's was error facti, and consequently not warrantable de jure. It seemeth by this your manner of answering, that you care not much what you answer, so that you make any answer at all, be it never so gross, absurd, or unsound. For first, this your distinction, of, de facto, and de jure, in this, and the like cases, I have refelled, and confuted, before in my Reply, pag. 13. & pag. 86. & 87. But, secondly, when the Text itself, speaketh of this fact of King Solomon, by way of approbation of it, doth it become you, or any man else, to say, or suppose, that it was, error facti, in him? Or that it was an Act not lawful for him so to do? For hath not the Scripture itself, before expressly told us, That Solomon deposed, or cast out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord, 
1. King. 2.27.  that he might fulfil the words of the Lord, which he spoke against the house of Ely in Shiloh. Now then, can that be said to be erroneously or unlawfully done, which God himself well liked, and allowed, and would have to be done, for the performance, and fulfilling of his own words? Yea, consider yet further that the Kings of Israel, and judah, had power, and authority over the Priests, not only to depose them, but also, to put them to death. And this you may see in King Saul, who put to death diverse Priests, 
● Sa. 22.18. ●. Chron. 24. ●0 21.  and in King joash also, who put to death Zachariah, the son of jehoida the Priest: How justly, or unjustly, worthily or unworthily, these Priests were put to death, I here dispute not: but I mention these examples, to show the power & authority that the Kings had in those times, namely even to put Priests to death, aswell as lay-people, upon just cause, and if they did offend so fare, as to deserve it.  
11. But, now, though there were a supremacy over the high Priests, aswell, as over the other Priests, and Levites, in the Kings, under the Old Testament: and that they also dealt in matters Ecclesiastical: yet thereupon, it followeth not, (say you,) That Kings and Princes under the New Testament, have the like Supremacy, over Bishops, and other Clergy men, or the like Authority in causes Ecclesiastical, and concerning religion. Why so? because, (say you,) there is now a change and alteration of the Priesthood, and of the Law. Heb. 7.12. But doth not the same Epistle to the Hebrews, (which you cite,) tell you, wherein that Alteration and change consisteth, namely, that it is, in respect of the levitical Priesthood, under the old Law, or under the old Testament: which is now changed into the Priesthood of Christ, under the new Law, or under the new Testament? why then will you stretch, and extend it any further? yea, neither doth that Epistle, nor any other sacred, or canonical Scripture, testify an Alteration or change, in this Point, or as touching this Particular whereof, we now speak, but the clean contrary: videlicet: that aswell under the new Testament, as under the old, Kings, and Princes are to have a supremacy, over all Bishops, Pastors, and other Ecclesiastical Ministers, and an Authority also in causes Ecclesiastical, aswell, as civil and temporal, within their dominions. The first part of this Assertion, is manifest, by that Text in the new Testament, which I have so often recited, and where S. Paul saith expressly thus: 
Rom. 13.1. Chrysost. in Rom. hom, 23  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, saith S. Chrisostome But what shall I need to prove this so clear a Point, so many times, and so often? For both in my first Book, Cap. 1. pag. 1. 2. 3. etc. and in my Reply, chap. 1. pag. 39 40, 41. etc. and pag. 51. 52. 53. 54. etc. this point is fully, and abundantly proved. Yea the Bishops of Rome themselves, in former an ancient times, for the space of diverse hundreth years after Christ, did acknowledge this Subjection, to these higher powers, namely to their Emperors: as I have demonstratively showed by the examples of Milciades, Leo, and Gregory the great, mentioned in my first Book, pag. 23. 24. 25. 26. And by Anastasius the second, Pelagius the first, Agatho, Hadrian, and Leo the fourth, mentioned in my Reply, chap. 1 pag. 11. 12. 13. 19 To all which, though particularly alleged by me, you according to your wont wise manner, thought it best to answer nothing. Yea, both the parts of this Assertion, namely, that Emperors, Kings, and Princes under the new Testament, have Authority, not only over Persons Ecclesiastical, but in causes also Ecclesiastical, I have so sufficiently proved throughout the first Chapter of my first Book, and throughout the first Chapter of my second Book, which is my Reply, and in this book also, as that all the Power, and force you have brought or can bring against it, will never be able, so much, as to shake it, much less to subdue, or overthrow it.  
Yet for the more abundant proof of this Authority of Emperors and Kings in matters Ecclesiastical, and concerning religion: I alleged in my Reply, chap. 1. pag. 13 14. the precedent, and Example of that famous Christian Emperor Constantine the Great: whereunto, in your Rejoinder, you have, (as well became your great learning, and wisdom,) answered just nothing at all. I alleged also, in the same my Reply, pag. 15. the example of justinian, that Christian Emperor: where, you deny not, this Emperors making of Constitutions and Laws, in Ecclesiastical causes, and concerning Bishops, and other Ecclesiastical Persons. But you say, those Laws be not observed, by the Protestant Clergy, and you give an instance in one particular. What is this to the purpose? For, the question was not, nor is, whether our Protestant Clergy, observe those Laws, and Constitutions, yea, or no: But whether justinian, that Christian Emperor, made those, or any such laws, and Constitutions, concerning Ecclesiastical causes, and Ecclesiastical persons. Now than whilst you grant, that he made those Laws, and Constitutions concerning Ecclesiastical causes, and concerning Ecclesiastical persons, you grant so much as I contended for, that is to say, you grant the whole matter that was in question. And therefore why should I dispute any longer with you? Nevertheless, you yet further say, that I much disadvantage my cause by alleging justinian the Emperor, who accounted & called the Bishop of Rome the chief and head of all the holy Churches. But you should do well to observe in what sense and respects, the Emperor so called, and accounted him: namely not that he had in those days, a supremacy over justinian who was then the Emperor: 
●uthen. con 〈◊〉. 15. Novel ● 3.  For justinian himself testifieth the clean contrary to that conceit. We command, (saith he,) the most holy Archbishops, and Patriarches of Rome, of Constantinople, of Alexandria, of Antioch, and of jerusalem. 
●vag. lib. 4. c. 1. ●iceph: libr. ●7. cap. 27.  Yea the fifth general Council itself was also called by the commandment of this Emperor justinian. So that it clearly appeareth, that he had the supremacy, & commanding authority over them all. But in respect of the soundness of the faith, which the Bishop of Rome held in those times, against heresies, and errors, it was, that the Emperor preferred him before the other Bishops, accounting himself chief, or head amongst them, for that cause. In which regard also, it is, that he would have the Eastern Churches, to be imitators of him, and to follow him. Neither did this Emperor justinian, writ unto him, as to an universal or supreme Bishop, in those days over all, but only, as to a Bishop of a Province, or of a part of the Christian world, and namely, in this sort johanni, Sanctissimo Archiepiscopo almae urbis Romae, 
●de. libr. 1. ●. 4. & lib. 4 ●. 6.  & Patriarchae. To john the most holy Archbishop, and Patriarch, of the famous City of Rome. Again, in that Epistle, he desired this john the Bishop of Rome, to write his letters to him, and to the Bishop of that his royal City of Constantinople, whom he there calleth brother to the Bishop of Rome, (and not his servant, or subject:) Whereupon, the Gloss itself, maketh this observation, and saith thus: Hic eum parificat: Here the Emperor equalleth the B shop of Constantinople, to the Bishop of Rome. And, indeed, the first General Council of Constantinople, consisting of 150. Bishops, (Canon. 2. & 3.) and the General Council of Chalcedon also consisting of 630. Bishops. (Act. 16.) and the sixth General Council of Constantinople, (Can. 36) do all decree the Sea of Constantinople, to be equal to the Sea of Rome: except only, that, in the meeting and assembly of the Bishops, the Bishop of Rome was, for Order sake, to have the first Place, and the Bishop of Constantinople, the second Place: which, together with the reason thereof, you may see more fully declared in my first Book, chap. 1. pag. 17. 18.  
I alleged further, in my Reply, pag. 15. 16. 17. 18. many and sundry Chapters, & Laws, made by the Emperor, Charles the great, otherwise called Charlemagne, concerning men, and matters Ecclesiastical, the Particulars whereof, you may there see: which because you knew not how to answer, you pass them over with this saying, that they are not worth the answering: why so? in regard, (say you,) there is thereby no more discovered, then by those before mentioned of justinian. And is not that mough, if it were no more but so? and yet is there more discovered in the one, then in the other. Howbeit, 
Act. 2.36 & 5.31. john. 18.36.37. 1. Cor. 15.25 Heb. 1.8.13. Ephes. 1.20.21.22.23. Coloss. 2.10.8.19.  the Laws of those two Emperors, (vizt,) both of justinian & Charlemagne, I alleged not to any such end, as you still, & evermore, untruly suppose, (vizt,) thereby to prove the Spiritual Supremacy, to belong to Emperors, or Kings, (for the spiritual Monarchy and Supremacy, I attribute, (as I said before,) neither to Emperor, nor King, nor to Pope, nor Prelate, but to Christ jesus only, the sole Monarch, and head, of his whole Church,) but to this end, and purpose only, namely to prove, that Emperors, and Kings, had in those former, and ancient times, Authority over Persons Ecclesiastical & in causes also Ecclesiastical: which because you neither do, nor can deny, what do you else but grant them: & consequently, you here grant once again, the thing that is in question, as a matter clear, and undeniable: and therefore what need I to dispute or debate this matter (any longer) with you? But here, (if I do not mistake you,) you seem much to restrain the Power and Authority, of Emperors, and Kings, as though they might not make any new Laws, or Constitutions, but only strengthen, confirm, and put in execution, the old, and former Ecclesiastical laws: If this be your meaning, you see how this conceit is confuted & confounded, even by those former precedents and examples of justinian, and Charlemagne. For it is evident, that justinian, made many new laws, and new Constitutions, which were not before: and so did also Charles the Great, frame and make diverse and sundry new laws, Chapters, and Constitutions. And did not Constantine that first famous Christian Emperor also make many new Laws, and new Constitutions, concerning Ecclesiastical persons, and Ecclesiastical matters, which were not made before his days? You may also remember, 
Aug. Epist, 50.  that S. Augustine saith: Serviunt Reges Christo leges ferendo pro Christ: Kings serve Christ by making laws for Christ. And therefore they may, as occasion requireth, aswell make new laws for Christ, as command those, that were formerly made for him, to be put in execution. But if you mean, that you would have Emperors, and Kings, to make no laws, nor cause any to be put in execution, concerning the Church, but such as will well stand with the Laws of God, his truth, Religion, and Ordinances, you therein say the same thing that Protestants do. 
2. Cor. 13.8.  For they say with S. Paul, that they may do nothing against the truth, but for the truth. And, that the power, & authority of Emperors, Kings, and Princes, (if it be rightly used, and not abused,) is for God, and not against God, and for Christ, his Church, and Religion, and not for Antichrist, or any untruths, heresies, or errors whatsoever. Or if your meaning be, that you would have Emperors, Kings, and Princes, in their making of laws, concerning God, his Church, & Religion, to take the advice, direction, & counsel, of godly, learned, & Orthodox Bishops, and teachers, this is, also not denied, but granted unto you: But then must you grant on the other side, that if they be not Orthodox Bishops, and true teachers, but false teachers, or if they be such as deliver errors, in stead of truths: such men's erroneous counsels, directions, and advises, are not to be followed, but to be rejected, as I have showed more fully in my Reply, pag. 37. 38.  
12. But after these times of Charles the Great, mentioned in my Reply, pag. 18. you come next in your Rejoinder, to your accusation of Luther, & Calvine, mentioned in my Reply, p. 49. So that here you skip over no less than fifteen whole leaves together in that my Reply. Yet what have you now to say against Luther, and Calvine? In your first Answer, you took occasion, (for I gave you none,) to inveigh against them, as if they had been Adversaries to Kings, and Princes, and to the obedience due to them. In that my Reply, pag. 49. I said, that the works, and writings of them both did show, & openly proclaim the contrary to the world. And this is indeed, very apparent: 
Luth. tom. 1. in Gen. cap. 9 & tom. 3. annota. in Deut capit. 6. fol. 4. & fol. 552. Rom. 13.1.2 3.4.5.6. Luth. tom. 2. resp. ad Ambros. cather fo. 150. & 152  For, where as some objected, That the rule, or government of one man over another, might seem, a tyrannous usurpation, because all men are naturally of like condition: To this, (saith Luther,) must we that have the word of God oppose the commandment, and ordinance of God, who hath put a sword into the hand of the Magistrate, whom therefore the Apostle calleth, God's Minister. Again, he saith: I grieve, and blush, and groan to see, how scornfully, our Emperors, and Princes of Germany, are abused by the Pope: whom he leadeth, and handleth, like bruit beasts, both for spoil, and slaughter, at his own pleasure. This Popery, (saith he,) is lively described by S. Peter, 2. Pet. 2. where be saith, They despise Rulers, or Governors: by Rulers, signifying secular Princes. Now the Popish Clergy, have by their own authority, exempted themselves, from tributes, subjection, and all charges of the Commonweal, contrary to the doctrine of Peter, and Paul: Yea, so fare is the Pope, from acknowledging the sovereignty of Princes, over him, that he will scarce admit them to kiss his feet. Calvine, likewise, writeth thus. The word of God, 
Calvin. Instit. lib. 4. cap. 2. sect. 22.  (saith he,) teacheth us to obey all Princes, who are established in there thrones, be it by what means soever: Yea, though they do nothing less, than the office of Kings, yet must they be obeyed, and though the King be never so wicked, and indeed, unworthy the name of a King, yet must subjects acknowledge the image of Divine power, in his public authority, and, as touching obedience, they must reverence, and honour him, aswell as if he were the godlyest King in the world. Nabuchadnezzar was a mighty invader and subduer of other Nations: yet God saith by his Prophet, that he had given those lands, and countries unto him. Ezech. 29. & Dan. 2. Neither would he have any rebellion, or resistance to be offered, but contrariwise commanded obedience to be performed unto him. jere. 27. And therefore we must never suffer these seditious conceits, to possess our minds, as to think an evil King must be so dealt withal, as he deserveth, but we are directly charged to obey the King, though he be a savage Tyrant, and never so bad. 
Beza confess. cap. 5. sect. 45  Beza also speaketh in like sort. Private men, (amongst whom, I account inferior Magistrates, in respect of their King,) have no other remedy, (saith he,) against Tyrants, to whom they are subject, but amendment of their lives, prayers, and tears: which God in his good time, will not despise. And if it so fall out, that we cannot obey the commandment of the King, but that we must offend God, the King of kings, Then must we rather obey God, than man: Yet so, as that we remember, that it is one thing, not to obey: and, another thing, 
Ibidem.  to resist, and to betake ourselves to Arms, which we may not do. Again he saith: The impudency of our Adversaries, is herein most notorious, that they who contrary to the word of God, have openly subjected Kings, and kingdoms, to their authority, and be themselves the most rebellious sect under heaven yet dare netwithstanding to object the guilt of that crime unto us. These being the doctrines, and positions of Luther, Calvine, Beza, and other Protestants, concerning Kings, and kingdoms, let the equal Reader judge, what, and how great the wrong is, you do unto them, and whether also, that is, or can possibly be true, which you writ, both in your Answer, and, again, in your Rejoinder, namely, That Kings, and Princes may more confidently build the safety of their persons, 
Act. 17.7. joh. 18.36. Ephes. 1.21.22.23. Ephes. 4.15.16. Coloss. 1.17.18.  and estates upon the loyalty, of their Catholic subjects, then upon any Protestant subjects. Why, more confidently, I pray you? For, is this a good reason which you bring, (viz.) because, although Papists give the spiritual supremacy, headship, and Monarchy, over the whole Church upon earth, unto the Pope, (which indeed, they should not do, in as much as it is a Regal right, and Prerogative, properly belonging unto Christ jesus,) yet do they acknowledge in Kings, a supremacy in Temporal matters yea, this reason, (if you did well observe it,) maketh rather much against you: For, it showeth that Papists be revera, neither so good Christians nor yet so good subjects, 
Colos. 2.19.  as Protestants be. Not so good Christians: because, They bold not the head CHRIST JESUS, (as S. Paul speaketh,) but have, without any warrant, or commission from him errected to themselves, another head, Monarch, and Spiritual King, namely the Pope of Rome: Not so good subjects because they acknowledge not, to belong unto Kings, an authority over persons Ecclesiastical, and in causes also Ecclesiastical, aswell as Civil, and Temporal, as Protestants do. For, whereas you say that the Protestant Subjects, do take from the King, the Temporal supremacy, aswell as the Spiritual, it is too lewd, and loud a slander. Yea what is there, that the Protestants do more earnestly contend for, against the Pope, and against his partakers, than the Spiritual supremacy, or Spiritual kingdom, to be given to Christ jesus? And the Civil, or Temporal supremacy over persons Ecclesiastical, and in matters Ecclesiastical, aswell as Temporal, to be given unto Kings and Princes, within their Dominions? But because you yet further object against the Protestants, both rebellious doctrines, and rebellious practices, and affirm that many instances of this kind may be read in the Book of dangerous Positions: For a clear and full Answer to all that you have said, or rather Papists have, or can say, in that case, I refer you unto that Book, which is called An exact Discovery of Romish Doctrine in the Case of Conspiracy & Rebellion: and the Reply to him, that calleth himself, the Moderate Answerer thereof. In which Books so conjoined in one Volume, you may read, and see at large, a clear justification of Luther, Calvine, Beza, and other Protestants in this point, and contrariwise the Papists, to be notoriously guilty therein. And this you may also see further debated, and shown in that Book, which is called, The true difference between Christian subjection, and unchristian Rebellion: In the third part whereof, be refelled the jesuites reasons, and authorities, which they allege for the Pope's depriving of Princes, and the bearing of Arms by Subjects against their Sovereigns: and where the tyrannies, and injuries of Antichrist, seeking to exalt himself above Kings, and Princes, be further discovered and declared, etc. These things, I would not here thus fare have spoken of, had not you provoked me thereunto, not only by your first beginning, but by your continuance, & still stiffe-standing in these your needless comparisons, & calumniations But you proceed, & come next from p. 50. in my Reply, to p. 79. where, again you skip over fourteen leaves more together, in the same book. In that pag. 79. It is true, that I said. That not only those kings of England before mentioned, namely King William Rufus, king Henry the First, and King Henry the Second, and some others, thus contended, and opposed themselves against the Pope of Rome: But King William the Conqueror also, who was before all these, made the like Kingly opposition. For when Hildebrand, otherwise called Pope Gregory the Seventh, was bold to demand of this King, an Oath of fealty, to be made to him, as if the King were to hold the 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. I have here recited, the whole, & entire sentence, & not produced only a part of it, as you did, very lamely, and imperfectly. And now what have you to say against it? First concerning that of King William the Conqueror, you answer not a word. And touching those particulars, which I had before alleged, concerning the others Kings, namely concerning William Rufus, King Henry the First, and King Henry the Second, and other Kings of England, that contended, and opposed themselves against the Pope of Rome, his encreachments, and usurpations, your answer is very idle and impertinent. For you answer, as if I had affirmed, that those Kings had utterly renounced, abolished, or put down, the Pope's supremacy in their times, whereas I affirmed only, that they contended, and made opposition against him; which they might, and did do, although they then made not an utter extirpation, and abolition of him, out of that their kingdom. And that they made opposition to him, I have showed and proved in my Reply, pag. 75. 76. 78. 79. 80. And very ignorant are you in the histories of England, if you know not so much: and very perverse, if knowing so much you will not acknowledge it.  
13. From thence you come to pag. 81 of my Reply, where I writ thus: But now what meaneth my adversary to be so extremely audacious, as to deny the first four General Counsels, to have been called by the Emperors? Here you say, I was pleased to salute you with that language, which better fitted an inconsiderative jester, than a deliberate judge. Why? what is the language, or what are the words, which so much offend you? You afterward show, namely, because I there used that term of extremely audacious? But what is it else, but extreme audaciousness, to deny as you then did, and still do, so clear, evident, and plain a truth? For my part, the matter considered, I see not, but you might have thought, that I spoke moderately, and temperately enough, whilst I spoke in that sort, and gave you no worse language: For some others possibly would have said, that you had been, therein, extremely, and intolerably impudent. But you forget, as it seemeth, or care not to remember, what language or words, you here utter, concerning me, which I have more cause to take ill at your hands, than you have to be offended, at those other words of mine. But to come to those four General Counsels: I affirmed them, (which you denied,) to have been called by the Emperors. The first of them, is, The first General Council of Nyce: That this was called by the Emperor, I proved in that my Reply, pag. 81.82. by the testimony of Ruffinus, Eusebius, Socrates, Theodoret, Sozomon, Zonaras, Nicephorus, Platina, and by the Synodall Epistle of the Nycene Fathers themselves. And doth not he then deserve to be accounted, at least extremely audacious, that will dare to deny this so manifest, and palpable truth, testified so abundantly, and by so many witnesses? But whilst among other witnesses for proof of this point, I produced Ruffinus, affirming, that Constantine, apud urbem Nicaeam, Episcopale Concilium convocavit; 
Ruffian. lib. 1. cap. 1.  Called the Council of Bishops together, at the City of Nyce: You say, that I there used, a little wile, which amongst the vulgar sort will be called Craft or Cozenage: because, say you, I omitted those words, Ex sacerdotum sententia: which be in Ruffinus, and which words, if they had been mentioned, would have declared, that the Emperor Constantine summoned or called the Council of Nyce, by the advice, consent, or approbation of the Priests. Howbeit, first it is not of necessity, that the omission of those words, must infer it to be done, with a mind and purpose to defraud, deceive, and cousin, as you very odiously suggest. Yea, secondly, to show, that I did not craftily, or couseningly, conceal, or omit those words, for mine own advantage, as you allege, behold, you shall find, in the very next page, namely, pag. 82. that I do expressly mention them, and do directly affirm, 
Ruffin. lib. 1. cap. 1.  out of the same Ruffinus, that this Council of Nyce, was assembled, or called, Ex sacerdotum sententia, By the advice and consent of the Priests: and thereby I also proved, that it was not done by the advice & consent of the Bishop of Rome alone. Now than who is the wily, Crafty, and Cozening Companion, I hope the honest; and equal Reader will by this time easily discern, and judge. But thirdly, I did there further answer, (as I do likewise here again,) that it maketh nothing to the matter in question, at whose suit, or request, or by whose advice or consent, that Council was summoned: For the question, was not, nor is, by whose persuasion or suit, or by whose advice, or consent, but by whose commanding authority, it was called. Now it is very apparent, by those former testimonies, that it was called, and assembled, by the commandment, or commanding authority of the Emperor: which declareth infallibly, the supremacy, and authority, which the Emperor had in those days over all the Bishops, and even over the Bishop of Rome himself, aswell as over the rest, whilst he might and did thus command, aswell the one as the other, to appear in a General Council. I also cited Eusebius, Socrates, and Theodoret, and their words, to prove likewise that the Emperor Constantine, called, and assembled that General Council at Nyce: But you are pleased not to see, or not to acknowledge, where those words are to be found in their Authors: And yet might you have seen and found them, (if you had so pleased,) in their several Authors: as namely in Eusebius de vita Constantini, lib. 3 cap. 6. & lib 1. cap. 37 in Socrates, lib. 1. cap. 8. in the Greek, and cap. 5 in the Latin: and in Theodoret, lib. 1 cap 7. So that even that also which I cited out of Theodoret, is not a famous fiction (as you infamously and untruly report it,) but a very certain, & apparent truth, as there you may see. And all the rest of the Authors, which I there cited, do likewise testify, and prove the same thing for which I there alleged them. Yea, this point is so clear and evident, that whilst you thought to confute it, you have yourself further confirmed, and confessed it. 
Ruffin. lib. 1. cap. 1.  For when you purposing to allege Ruffinus against me, do cite his words, thus: Tumille, Then he, (meaning Constantine,) ex sacerdotum sententia, apud urbem Nycaeam, Episcopale concilium, convocavit: By the sentence, or consent of the Priests, did call the council of Bishops, at the city of Nyce: And when again, you likewise intending to allege Damasus against me, do affirm, that he saith: That Constantine, did not gather the council, but cum consensu Silvestri, 
Damasus lin Pont. concil. 6 act. 18.  with the consent of Sylvester: and that so much also, is expressed in the sixth council. Do you not, in all this, sufficiently confess, that the Emperor Constantine, did, by his commanding authority, call this council of Nyce, although he did it, by the consent, or approbation of Sylvester Bishop of Rome, and of other Priests? Now then to come to the second general Council, (which was the first Constantinopolitane,) I have likewise proved in my Reply, pag 83. by the testimonies of Theodoret, Socrates, Sozomen, Zonaras, and the very Council itself, speaking to the Emperor, Theodosius the elder, that it was called by the commandment, or commanding Authority of the same Emperor. To all which proofs, and testimonies, yond, (according to your wont learning & wisdom,) answer nothing in your Rejoinder. But in your first auswer, to prove this Council, not to be called by the commandment of the Emperor, but of Damasus Bishop of Rome, you cited Theodoret libr. 5. cap. 9 and in your Rejoinder you prosecute it, and say, That the Bishops meeting in this second general council, writing to Pope Damasus do testify, that they assembled at Constantinople, by reason of his letter sent the year before to Theodosius. But what mean you thus to abuse your Reader? For first there is no such thing in that place of Theodoret, 
Theodor lib. 5 cap. 9  that doth prove this second General Council, to have been any more called by Damasus, then by the other Bishops mentioned in the same Letter, or in the same Epistle. For, that Letter, or Epistle, was not written, or directed to one alone, as namely to Damasus, (as you would make men believe,) but to many and divers Bishops plurally. For thus is the direction, (viz.) To our most honourable Lords, our very Reverend brothers, and fellows in Office, Damasus, Ambrose, Britton, Valerian, Acholius, Anemius, Basil, and the rest of the holy Bishops assembled in the noble City of Rome. The holy Council of Orthodox Bishops, gathered together in the great City of Constantinople, send Greeting. So that, it was not Damasus alone, (as here you see,) but the rest of those reverend Bishops also, assembled at Rome, that sent those Letters, mentioned in that Epistle to the most holy Emperor Theodosius. And secondly, even those Letters of Damasus, and of the rest of the Bishops, sent to the Emperor, concerning that matter of calling the Council were only persuasive, and not commanding Letters: In as much as it is before, by my Reply, very evident, that this Council was assembled by the commandment, or commanding Letters of the Emperor. And consequently it was not Damasus alone, but other Bishops also joined with him, that sent those their Letters to the Emperor, whereby he was excited, moved, and persuaded, to call, and command that Council to be assembled at Constantinople. Now then, seeing that Theodoret whom you cite to prove, that Pope Damasus by his commanding Letters, called this Council, 
Theodor. l. b. 5 cap. 7.  proveth no such matter: Yea he expressly witnesseth the contrary, affirming it directly, to have been called by the commandment of the Emperor: Doth or can this any way help to excuse you? Or doth it not rather so much the more enlarge, and aggravate your fault herein?  
Concerning the third General Council, (which was the first Ephesine.) that, That was called by the commandment of the Emperor Theodosius the younger, I have also proved in in my Reply, pag. 83. by the testimonies of Evagrius, Liberatus, Socrates, Zonaras, Nicephorus, & by the Synodall Epistle itself. And yet you would make men believe, that it was called not by the commandment of the Emperor, but of Celestinus Bishop of Rome. And for proof hereof, you cite Prosper in Chronico, affirming it to have been held Caelestini authoritate. By the authority of Celestine. But you still much mistake, for this was no commandment, or commanding authority in Celestinus, but a persuasive only, which Bishops might, and did use to the Emperors, very often, for the obtaining of Counsels. So that by these words, is no more meant, or signified, but that Celestinus used such authority, that is, such power, credit, and estimation, as he had with the Emperor, to cause, and procure this Council to be assembled. And that this word, Authoritas, doth so signify, and is very often used in that sense, your Dictionaries, and Latin writers, will sufficiently teach you. Yea, yourself, in your rejoinder, do cite Paulus Diaconus, in his Historical collections, that he speaketh of the last of the first four General Counsels, (which was the Council of Chalcedon,) in this sort. Papae Leonis auctoritate, etc. 
Paul. Diac. lib. 15.  By the authority of Pope Leo, and command of Martian the Emperor, the Council of Culcedon was summoned. Here you see a plain distinction, made between this authority, & the command. The command, or commanding authority, being attributed to the Emperor Martian: and the other authority, namely the persuasive, being attributed to Leo, Bishop of Rome. And yet neither, was it only Celestinus Bishop of Rome, but other Patriarches, and Bishops, likewise, as namely Cyrill Bishop of Alexandria, john Bishop of Antioch, 
Zonar. in Theodos. juniore.  and juvenal Bishop of jerusalem that persuaded, and excited the Emperor, to call and command, this third General Council at Ephesus, as Zonaras testifieth.  
And as touching the fourth General Council, which was, as I said, that at Chalcedon: I have proved in my Reply, pag. 85. by the testimony of the very Council itself, and by sundry Epistles also, of Leo Bishop of Rome, that this Council of Chalcedon, was summoned by the commandment of the Emperor: whereunto may be also added, that your own testimony of Paulus Diaconus, before cited, who saith, (as even yourself alleged him,) that this fourth General Council of Chalcedon, was summoned or called by the commandment of Martian the Emperor, and not of Leo, although Leo did also interpose and use his authority, and credit with the Emperor, for the effecting of it. Now then, when beside the clearness of other proofs, you saw by this express testimony or Prulus Diaconus, (whom yourself alleged,) that this Council of Chalcedon, was summoned, or called by the commandment of the Emperor Martian, why should you, or any man else, say, or suppose the contrary thereunto? Yea even Leo himself, in diverse of his Epistles, showeth, (as I said before,) that neither he, nor any other Bishop of Rome did, in those days, summon or call, either this, or any other General Council, but that it belonged to the Emperors, so to do, as you may see more fully, by the words and actions, of the same Leo, formerly mentioned in my Reply, pag. 84.85. But I there also further alleged, a fifth General Council, called, Mandato justiniani, By the commandment of justinian the Emperor. And other Counsels I likewise there alleged, called by Emperors: to all which, you answer nothing. Nor do you answer to Cardinal Cusanus, there also produced by me, confessing, and affirming expressly, though it were against the Pope, that, The first eight General counsels, were called by the Emperors. Yea, this is so clear a case, and so evident a truth, that S. Hierome maketh it to be of the essence of a General Council: Dic quis Imperator jusserit hanc Synodun convocari: Tell us, 
Hieron. lib. 2. in Ruffian.  (saith he,) what Emperor commanded this council to be assembled: thereby declaring, that it was held for no General Council in those days, unless it were called, and assembled by the commandment of the Emperor. Now then, upon all these premises, I leave it to the equal Reader, to judge, whether he that denieth this so clear, plain, and palpable, a truth, be not justly worthy to be accounted, at least, Extremely audacious, if not extremely impudent.  
14. And yet you would seem to say further, that S. Peter by his authority and commandment, called the Council which was at jerusalem, in the Apostles times, (Act. 15.) and, that he was also the Precedent therein. But you prove it not, neither is there any such thing in the Text appearing, that he commanded or called that Council. Yea, he had no such commanding, or compulsive authority over the rest of the Apostles. The Greek Scholiast saith, That he did nothing imperiously, 
●r. Scholar in Act. 2.  or with commanding authority, but all things by common consent. And therefore, in those times of the Apostles, did that Council at jerusalem, (Act. 15.6.) come together, and was assembled by common consent, and agreement amongst themselves: But afterward, indeed, in the succeeding times, when the Emperors became Christians, The Ecclesiastical affairs, (saith Socrates,) did much depend upon them, so that the greatest Counsels were in time past, and still are, (saith he, 
Socrat. libr. 5. in Prooemio. ) at this day, called by their appointment. Neither was Peter, the first man, that spoke in that Council, (as you affirm, seeking thereby to prove him to be also the Precedent therein:) For the Text showeth, that there had been great disputation, before Peter rose up, and spoke, Act. 15.7. Yea, it seemeth, that james rather than Peter, was the Precedent in that Council: For james was he, that gave the definitive sentence, Act. 15.19.20. & to that sentence of his, did both Peter, and the rest of that Council, consent, and condescend, and accordingly, was the decree drawn and made up, in that Council, and sent unto the Churches, as appeareth, Act. 15.22.23 24.25.26.27.28.29. Neither is it true, that to Preside, or to be Precedent, in Counsels, is a right properly belonging to the Pope, whatsoever you say: Yea, it is very evidently, and abundantly disproved in Ecclesiastical history, by sundry Counsels, wherein others, 
A●han. ad solitar. vitan: agentes.  and not the Bishops of Rome, were the Precedents. And Athanasius himself saith expressly, of Hosius, that he was, in his time, Conciliorum Princeps, the chief, Prince, or Precedent of the Counsels.  
15. But in my Reply, pag. 30. I said further, that Athanasius did approve of the Authority of the Emperors, in Ecclesiastical causes: and this I proved by two instances, and not by one only, (as you say:) The first was this, that when Athanasius 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 his Prince? The other, was this. That 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, appealed to the Emperor. To the former you answer nothing at all, in your rejoinder. To the latter, you speak somewhat, and do say, that, That which I call the council of Tyrus, was no council at all. And this you would prove by the testimony of Athanasius himself, where he saith thus. Qua front, talem conventum, Synodum appellare audent, cui comes Praesedit, With what face dare they call such an assembly! a Synod, or Council, in which the Count did Preside? But do you think this, to be a reason sufficient, to prove it to be no council at all, or in any sort, because a Count being a Layman did Praeside in it, as Deputy, or Lieutenant to the Emperor, and in his stead? Doth not yourself say in your rejoinder, that the Emperor Theodosius the Younger, sent Count Candidianus, as his Lieustenant to the Council of Ephesus? will you therefore conclude, that this Council of Ephesus, was also therefore no Council at all, because this Count Candidianus, being a layman, was Precedent, or Lieutenant it it, in stead of the Emperor? For you may aswell conclude the one, as the other by that reason. Do not therefore misconstrue nor mistake, that holy man Athanasius, nor wrong, nor delude your Reader by a fallacy, à dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpliciter. For if you read him diligently, and observantly, you will find, that he denied it not to be a Council, simply and absolutely, but in some respects; as, namely, in respect it consisted of Arrian Bishops, and of that Arrian Precedent, and that, their plot, purpose, and endeavour was to advance Arrianisme, against God's truth, and the Orthodexe Bishops of that time, and against the decrees of the former famous Council of Nyce, in that point: and in respect also, that not justice, but violence, or tyranny was there intended, and such like. And this you might have perceived, if you had gone on, with the words of Athanasius, which are these, (viz.) Qua front, talem conventum, 
Athan. apolo. 2 pag. 567.  Synodum appellare audent, cui Comes praesidet? Et ubi speculator apparchat? Et Comentariensis sive Carcerarius, pro Diaconis Ecclesiae, adventantes introducebat? ubi Comes verba faciebat, caeteri praesentes in silentio erant, vel potius Comiti obsequium suum, accommodabant, etc. Again he there saith. Qua species ibi Synodi, 
Ibid. p. 566.  ubi vel caedes, vel exilium, si Caesari placuisset, constituebatur? And again he saith. Niceni Concilij Decreta irrita, sua autem, rata volunt: Et Synodi vocabulo uti audent, qui tantae Synodo non obtemperant: Nihil illis Synodi curae sunt, sed inanem speciem Synodi praetexunt, ut sublatis Orthodoxi viris, ea quae verae, & magnae Synod●, 
Ibid. p. 619.  de Arianis, statuta sunt, demoliantur. And therefore he saith further, thus Quaeres cumita agerentur, ab ijs tanquam è concilio injurioscrum, recessimus. Quod enim libuit, fecere. That whilst these things were thus done, we saith he, departed from them, as from a Council of injurious persons: For they did what they listed: You see then in what respects it is, that Athanasius disliked, and condemned this Council of Tyrus, as not worthy the name of a Council: Yet, for all that, he affirmed it not to be no Council at all simply and absolutely, and to all intents, and purposes, as you would persuade. For if it had been no Council at all, or in any sort, why was it convocated or assembled, as a Council? Or why was Athanasius commanded by the Emperor to appear there? Or why did the same Athanasius afterward appeal from thence to th' Emperor? yea even Athanasius himself, affirmeth it to be a council, such a one as it was, & giveth it expressly, the name of a Council, when he saith, as you heard before, that he, and the rest of the Orthodox Bishops departed from thence, tanquam è Concilio iniuriosorum, as from a Council of injurious Persons. So that, a Council himself here acknowledged it to be, though a bad Council, though a Council of injurious, and wicked Persons, and a Council not worthy to be called a Council, because it thus intended and endeavoured, the advancement of Arrianisme. But what? Will you say, that the many and sundry Counsels convocated, and assembled in times past, wherein Arrianisme was established, were therefore no Counsels at all, or in any sort? Yea this of Tyrus, (aswell as those,) was held to be a Council, (though a wicked, and impious one,) not only by Athanasius, but by Socrates also, and by Theodoret likewise, 
Socrat. libr. 1. c 20. c. 21 ca 22. Theodor. lib. 1. c. 28. c. 29 c. 30.31.  who in their several Ecclesiastical Histories, do often call it expressly by that name, of the Council of Tyrus. And even that Christian Emperor also, Constantine himself, wrote unto them, by the same name, calling them the Council of Tyrus. And it is yet further recorded, that, by the Emperor's commandment, this Council of Tyrus, (expressly again so called.) was removed from Tyrus, to jerusalem.  
But than you say, that the fact, whereof Athanasius was accused by the Arrians, in that Council of Tyrus, was a mere civil crime, belonging to the Temporal Tribunal: to wit the kill of Arsenius, and cutting of his hand. But you are full deceived: For it was not only the kill of A●senius, and the cutting of his hand, (as you allege,) but it was further, the using of that hand, 
Socrat libr. 1. ●ap. 20.  (so suggested to be cut of,) to Magic, and Sorcery, that was laid to his charge: Yea, sundry other things also were laid to his charge, as namely, that he had deflowered a virgin: 
Theodoret. lib 1. cap. 30.  and that one of his Clergy, had beaten down the Altar, overthrown the Lord's Table, broken the holy Cup, and burned the blessed Bible. For all which misdemeanours, his accusers sought to get him displaced, and deposed in that Council. So that it was not a mere Civil crime, that was laid to his charge, as you suppose, but they were mixed offences, partly Civil, and Temporal, and partly Episcopal, and Ecclesiastical. And therefore well might it be called in some respect, Negotium Imperatorium, 
Athan. apolog. 2. p. 568.  a matter Imperial, namely in respect of the accusation of killing of Arsenius. and the cutting of his hand, if you go no further but to consider these facts only, singly and apart from the rest: For so also did the Emperor, Constantine himself, as it seemeth, for a while, conceive of it, and therefore wrote to Dalmatius, the Censor, that he should call before him, such as were accused, hear the matter, and punish the offenders: 
Socra. libr. 1. cap. 20.  But afterward he altered his opinion, and stopped that course of hearing Athanasius matters before the Censor, and would have them to be heard, and determined before the Council of Bishops, which was assembled at Tyrus. (and which was afterward removed from thence to jerusalem, to consecrate a Temple or Church, which the Emperor had builded there.) The Emperor, (saith Secrates,) willed the Bishops assembled at Tyrus, to debate, together with other matters, the contentions raised about Athanasius, to the end, (all quarrels being removed,) they might afterward cheerfully solemnize the consecration of that Church, and dedicate the same unto God. So that, all the matters laid to Athanaesius his charge, being not singly and severally, but jointly together considered, and they all tending, to the slander, defamation, and deposing of so worthy, reverend, and renowned a Bishop, it appeareth by the event, that it was at last, in those times, held, and concluded, to be Negotium Synodale, & Episcopale, a matter meet for a Synod, or Council of Bishops, to consider of, and to determine. And so indeed was it done accordingly. Now then, when Athanasius went to the Emperor for refuge, appealing from this wicked, and injurious Council of Tyrus, unto the same Emperor, in this his Episcopal, & Ecclesiastical cause: Is it not thereby, very evident, that he approved of the authority of the Emperor in a cause Ecclesiastical? But if yet, you make any doubt hereof, you may see further in my Reply, pag. 68 that as the Apostle Paul appealed to Cesar, so Athanasius himself saith, that by that example of the Apostle, he would likewise appeal to the Emperor of his time: and he saith there further, that beyond the Emperor, there was in his days no appeal to be made to any, but to God only, and consequently not to the Pope.  
16. But you demand of me certain questions wherein you would be resolved: The first is, whether I hold, and conclude the spiritual supremacy to be in the King? I cannot but wonder at this question of yours. For I have often told you, in my Reply, that it is a Civil and Temporal supremacy, over persons Ecclesiastical, and in causes also Ecclesiastical, which I give unto Kings. What? have we been so long disputing about the point of Supremacy? And do you not yet know the state of the question betwixt us? S. Paul speaketh of some, that would be Doctors of the Law, 
1. Tim. 1.6.  and yet understand not what they speak, nor whereof they affirm: Of this sort, it seemeth, you are, by this question propounded. But I answer you once more, that it is not, (as you have often said, and often mistaken,) a spiritual, but a Civil and Temporal supremacy, that I attribute to Emperors, Kings, and Princes, in causes Ecclesiastical, and over Persons Ecclesiastical. And as for the Spiritual supremacy, it belongeth rightly and properly to Christ jesus, the only Spiritual King, Head, and Monarch, of his whole Church. For when he was demanded, touching his kingdom, he answered thus: My kingdom is not of this world: 
joh. 18 36.  thereby declaring, that he was not a worldly, or terrestrial King, but a spiritual King. And therefore also when they would have 〈◊〉 him. a terrestrial King, 
joh. 6.15.  he would none of it. 〈…〉 and departed from them. And so likewise testifieth 〈…〉 true, and faithful Apostle, (speaking of himself 〈◊〉 of the rest of the Ecclesiastical Ministers,) that the weapons of their warfare, 
●. Cor. 10.4.  are not carnal, but mighty through God: that is, they be divine, and spiritual, and not worldly or terrestrial. And in respect of this his spiritual kingdom, or spiritual supremacy, all Emperors, Kings, Princes, and Potentates, 
Psal. 72.11. Phil. 2.9.10.11. Math. 28.18 Ephes. 1.20.21.22.23.  aswell as all Bishops, and others, of what degree soever, must acknowledge their subjection unto him. For to him is given all power both in heaven and in earth. And he it is, whom God hath set at his right band fare above all principality, and power, & might, and dominion, and every name, that is named, not in this world only, but also in that which is to come. And he hath made all things subject, under his feet, and hath given him, over all things, to be the bead to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all. 
1. Cor. 15.25  And, He must reign until he hath put all his enemies under his feet. You see then, that this spiritual kingdom, or spiritual Monarchy and supremacy, belongeth only to Christ jesus, and not to any terrestrial Emperor, King, Prince, Pope, or Prelate whatsoever. And therefore when you attribute, (as you do,) the spiritual supremacy to the Pope of Rome, consider well, how great & intolerable the offence is. For is it not (as I said before) direct high treason in a subject, to intrude, and usurp upon the kingdom of his sovereign, and to exercise his supremacy, Royal rights, authorities, and Prerogatives therein, without any warrant, or commission from him? And is it then any less than high treason, for the Bishop of Rome to do the same, in the spiritual kingdom of CHRIST JESUS? If you say that the Bishop of Rome, is but only the Vicar, or Viceroy, or Deputy, unto Christ, in that his kingdom: I demand who constituted, or appointed him to bet so? For is not he still a traitor to his King, that entereth upon his kingdom, possesseth, and enjoyeth it, under colour, and pretence, that he is appointed by his sovereign, to be the Viceroy, or Lord deputy of the kingdom, when revera, (whatsoever he pretendeth, he neither hath nor can show any Letters-Patents, Warrant, or Commission from his King for the same? Such is the case of the Bishop of Rome. For neither the Pope, nor all his partakers, do, or be able to show any warrant or commission from Christ, in that behalf: They have been long seeking out such a warrant and commission, but they could never yet, nor ever will be able to find it. If then this be high treason against Christ, in the Pope: do yourself judge what offence it is in you, or others, that take part with him therein, and be his adherents, followers, and maintainers. The second question you demand of me, is, whether the whole Church being but one, there be any more heads of it then one? I answer, that the whole Church, 
1. Cor. 12.12 13.14. etc. Ephes. 1.22.23. Ephes. 4.15. Coloss. 1.8. Coloss. 2.10.  being (as S. Paul calleth it,) The body of Ghrist: This one body, can have no more than one head: and, that one head is CHRIST JESUS, as the same S. Paul, again expressly teacheth and affirmeth. And therefore, this head, is not the Pope of Rome, as you very strangely dream yourself incline to this, that there should be but one Head to this one Body. How then can you admit any more heads unto it, than this one, which is Christ jesus? For, if you make CHRIST JESUS to be one head, and the Pope to be another head, you make this one body to have two heads, and so make it a Monster. As for your distinction, of a Vital head, and a Ministerial head, it is before removed and taken away in my first Book, pag 94. 95. 96. 97. whereto you have not answered. And whereas you say, that the Church Militant, consisting both of jews, and Gentiles, is but Vnum ovile, One sheepefould, and that this one Sheepefould, 
joh. 10.16.  there is but unus Pastor, on pastor, or one shepherd, it is true: but this unus pastor, one shepherd, is not, 
joh. 10.11.14.  (as you still fond fancy,) the Bishop of Rome, but CHRIST JESUS only, as appeareth in the same Chapter. And in this respect, he is also called, Magnus' pastor ovium, The great shepherd of the Sheep. 
Heb. 13.20.  Yea, the chief, or supreme Pastor, over all the several Pastors of all the several flocks in the world. 
1. Pet. 5.2 3 4.  For thus S. Peter speaketh to them all: Feed the flock of God, which dependeth upon you, caring for it not by constraint, but willingly: not for filthy lucre, of a ready mind: not as though ye were Lords over God's heritage, but that ye may be examples to the flock: And when the chief Shepherd shall appear ye shall receive an incorruptible crown of glory. Here you see, that S. Peter showeth very plainly that not himself, (though he were an Apostle,) much less the Bishop of Rome, or any other Bishop, was to have this high and transcendent name of Chief or supreme Pastor, over all the rest of the several Pastors: For to CHRIST JESUS only he attributeth, and appropriateth this tittle, as being his peculiar and prerogative: in as much as it is Christ jesus only, and not the Bishop of Rome, nor any other man mortal whosoever that can give this incorruptible crown of glory he there speaketh of. Not the Pope then, nor any other, but CHRIST JESUS only, appeareth to be the chief or supreme Pastor, or (which cometh all to one reckoning,) the Universal Bishop, over all the several Bishops, and several Pastors, dispersed in the world. Your own translation in this Text of 1. Pet. 5.4. is, Princeps Pastorum, the Prince of Pastors: which likewise still showeth, that not the Pope, but CHRIST JESUS only, is the supreme Pastor, or the Prince of the several Pastors dispersed on the face of the Earth. And therefore was it also decreed in the Council of Carthage 3. ca 26. that Primae sedis Episcopus, non appelletur Princeps sacerdotum, vel summus sacerdos, aut aliquid huiusmodi, sed tantum primae sedis Episcopus: The Bishop of the first Sea, may not be called, the Prince of Priests, or the the chief Priest, or any such like, but only Bishop of the first Sea. And Gratian addeth further as touching the title of Universal Bishop, 
Distinct. 99 prim. sed.  Neither let the Bishop of Rome be so called. Now then to come to answer you, also touching Nero, and other Heathen, & persecuting Emperors, and Kings: It is true, that they have the same Civil sword, power, and authority committed to them from God, which the Christian Emperors, and the Christian Kings have, and to the same end; namely, 
1. Pet. 2.13.14. Rom. 13.3.4  for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well: But if they punish good, and godly men, and well-doers, (as Nero did, when he put S. Peter, and S. Paul, to death, and as the other Emperors, and Kings do, which persecute the true and Orthodox Christians) This is not the right using, but abusing of the sword and authority, committed to them. So that, the power, and authority is the same to both: but the difference is in the use, or abuse of that Authority. All the supremacy, power, and authority granted from God, to any Emperors, Kings, and Princes, within their Dominions, aught to be employed for God, and not against him, in any sort. And according hereunto, the true Christian Emperors, and Kings, use their Civil swords, and authorities for God, and for advancement of his service, truth, and religion. And although Heathen, and Infidel Emperors and Kings do commonly abuse that sword, and authority, (which God hath given them,) against God, and against his service, servants, and religion. 
Ezra 1.2.3. etc. Ezra, 6.1.2 3 etc. Ezra 7.12.13.14.15.16.17 18. etc. Dan. 3.28.29. Dan. 6.24.25.26.  Yet if any Heathen Emperor, or King do command any thing for God, or for his service, worship, or religion, (as they may do, and sometimes have done,) (as appeareth by the examples of King Cyrus, King Darius, King Artaxerxes, King Nabuchadnezzar, and others:) therein, they are no less to be obeyed, then if it had been commanded, by the godlyest, & best professed Christian King in the world. And this you may see further declared, in my first Book, Chap. 1. pag 7. and in my Reply, pag. 44. 45. Wherefore, it is evident, that even Pagan and Heathen Kings, have the same supremacy, power, and authority, within their Kingdoms and Dominions, to command for God, his service, & religion, which Christian Kings and Princes have: although, they do not, (as they should,) evermore use, extend, and employ, that their power, and authority, accordingly, for God, and his religion: and consequently, the defect, is not in respect, of any power, or authority, (which they want not,) but in respect of their understandings, wills, and affections, which being depraved, and corrupted, and not rectified or sanctified, nor converted to Christ, and Christianity, do carry them awry, and the wrong way.  
But you propound unto me, yet further, another question, which is this. What if the King of Slavonia, or any other king misled by frailty, ignorance, or malice, should employ their powers to force their subjects from the true Religion, and thereby subvert, and ruinated, not only their own souls, but the souls of their subjects also: Might not the King in this case, being, (as you call him,) a scabbed sheep, (all other means failing of his recovery,) be compelled by the Bishop of Rome, to embrace Gods true faith and religion, and to permit the same freedom unto his subjects? I answer, no. For, first, what right, or authority, from God, hath the Bishop of Rome in this case, to compel Kings, and Princes, more th●n other Bishops, have? Yea, neither the Bishop of Rome, nor any other Bishop, or Ecclesiastical Minister, hath any such power, or authority, included, or comprised, within those their Ecclesiastical callings and Ministeries, as by worldly power, and external force of Arms, to compel a King to the right religion. It is true, that the Ministers of Christ may exhort, & persuade the best they can, a King erring in his Religion, from his error, and may do, what their Ecclesiastical commission granted them from Christ, will warrant them to do, but no further may they go: for then do they, Fines alienos invadere, 
Rom 13.4.  Invade other men's bounds, (S. Bernard speaketh,) as kings have the temporal sword, to command, and to compel: Bishops, Pastors and Ministers Ecclesiastical, have not that but another sword to use, namely, a spiritual sword, or sword of the spirit, which is the word of God: 
Ephes. 6.17.  as S. Paul calleth & defineth it. And therefore these two swords must be distinguished, and not confounded. Yea, Christ jesus himself, whilst he was here upon earth, would not meddle with worldly, or temporal matters. For when one spoke unto him, desiring him, to bid his brother, to divide the inheritance with him, 
Luke. 12.13 14. Math, 16.19  he refused, and said: Man, who made me to be a judge, or a devider over you? If you object, that Christ said to Peter: Whatsoever thou bindest on earth, shallbe bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou losest on earth shallbe loosed in heaven. Remember, that he spoke also the same thing plurally to all the Apostles, giving to them all alike the same authority, 
Math. 18.18  saying thus Quicquid ligaveritis, etc. Whatsoever ye bind on earth, shallbe bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye lose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. You cannot therefore by virtue of those words, infer, that Peter, or his successors had any more authority, to depose Kings, or to compel them in any sort, to the right religion, or to any thing else, then either james, or john, or the rest of the Apostles, or any of their successors had, in the like case; For, the same authority, and in the same words, is, (as you see,) granted aswell to the one, as to the other. Neither again, must you forget or omit the former part of those words spoken by CHRIST unto Peter, which be these: I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. 
Mat. 16.19.  For the subsequent words, (spoken to him,) of binding, and losing, have reference thereunto and: are therefore to be expounded, not of things earthly, or concerning terrestrial matters, or worldly kingdoms, but of things concerning another world and kingdom, namely, concerning the kingdom of heaven. And so also doth S. Bernard directly declare, saying thus, to Eugenius Bishop of Rome: Ergo in criminibus, non in possessionibus, 
Bernard de considerate. ad Eugen. lib. 2.  potestas vestra: Quoniam propter illa, non propter has, accepistu claves regni coelorum. Your power, (saith he,) concerneth sins, and not matters of possession: because, for those, and not for these ye have received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Yea, that the keys of the kingdom of heaven were also granted equally and alike, to all the Apostles, I have further showed, very fully, and plainly, in my first Book, pag. 292. 293. 294. etc. And that no part of the power of those keys, no, not Excommunication itself, (were it never so justly, or lawfully awarded,) is of any force, by God's law and institution, to depose Kings, or to disanall the duty & allegiance of subjects, I have likewise showed in the same my first Book, pag. 299. 300. 301. By what right, or reason then, shall or can the Bishop of Rome, (who is also revera no Minister of Christ at all, but the very apparent grand Antichrist, (as I have proved at large, throughout the third part of my first Book,) claim to have any such external power coactive, or compulsive over Kings? But moreover this question here propounded by you was sufficently answered, and resolved before, by S Chrysostome, in the case of king Vzziah, otherwise called Ozias, where he putteth this difference between the King, and the Priest; that Ille cogit, 
Ch●ysosto. de verbis Esaiae, vidi Dominun homil. 4.  hic exhortatur: Ille habet arma sensibilia, hic arma spiritualia. The King compelleth, the Priest exhorteth: the King hath the sensible weapons: the Priest, the spiritual weapons. And when the Priest, or Ecclesiastical Minister, hath gone as far, as he can go in his Ecclesiastical Ministry, he must not go any further, to use any external power coactive or compulsive, as he there also teacheth, 
〈◊〉 21.1.  but must in every such case leave men unto God, who hath the hearts of all kings, aswell as of others, in his hands, and moveth, and turneth them, when, 
Chrys de Sacerlotis●h. 2.  and which way s●ever he pleaseth. Yea, S. Chryso●tome saith yet further expressly. That it is not lawful for a Bishop, to our men with so great authority, as a shepherd doth his sheep: for it is free for a shepherd forcibly to bind his sheep, to drive them from their feeding, to scare them, and to cut them: but in the other case, the facility of the cure, consisteth no in him that giveth, but only in him, that taketh the medicine. This, that admirable teacher perceiving, said to the Corinthians: Not that we have any Dominion over you: under the name of faith, but that we are helpers of your joy. For of all men, Christian Bishops must not correct the faults of offenders by force or violence. Externall judges, when they take any transgressing the laws, they show themselves to be endued with great authority, and power, and do compel them, whether they will or no, to change their manners: But here, (saith he,) non vim afferre, sed suadere tantum oportet, atque hac ratione meliorem efficere, quem emendandum susceperis: You may not use violence but persuasion only, and by this means, make him better, whom you have taken upon you to amend. Again he saith: If any sheep go out of the right way, 
Chrysost. de Sacerdotio lib. 2.  and leaving the plentiful pastures, graze on barren, and steep places: The shepherd somewhat exalteth his voice, to reduce the dispersed and straggling sheep, and to force them to the flock: But if any man wander from the right path of the Christian faith: The Pastor must use great great pains care, and patience: Neque enim vis illi inferenda, neque terrore ille cogendus, verum suedendu tantùm, ut de integro ad veritatem redeat: For he may nor be forced, or constrained with terror, but persuaded only, that so he may return again to the truth. If then your late Council of Lateran, under Pope Innocentius the third, decreed, (as you say,) this external power coactive, to be in the Bishop of Rome: You see, it is not to be regarded: Because such a decree, (if any such were,) is directly contrary to the testimony of all former approved antiquity. But yet you must also remember what Platina writeth concerning that Council. 
Plantina de vita Innocen. 3.  Venêre multa tum quidem in consultationem, nec decerni tamen quicquam apertè potuit: Many things, (saith he,) came into consultation, in that Council, but nothing could plainly be decided: by reason, the Pope departing, to compose some tumults, then suddenly risen, died by the way. So that, this your great Council of Lateran, consulting how to defeat Kings and Princes, of their Temporal kingdoms and Dominions, but not decreeing, or concluding any thing therein, as being prevented by the Pope's hastened and unexpected death, will also do you no pleasure, in this case. But now, why may not I, after so many questions of yours answered, propound you also one question? which is this. What if the Bishop of Rome, for maintenance of his worldly pomp, pride, pleasure, and ambition, carelessly neglect all right religion, and be so extremely wicked, both for life, & doctrine, as that he careth not to carry innumerable souls, together with his own, by heaps, to hell: who shall correct, restrain, repress, or punish him? For answer whereunto, you might say, that in former, and ancient times, The Emperors had the correction, and the punishment, aswell of the Bishops of Rome, as of other Bishops, that were offenders, within their Dominions: But now the case is altered, and the world turned topsy turvy, and the Bishop of Rome grown to that height and licentiousness, as that he will not allow himself to be censured, or judged by any men mortal, be they Emperus, Kings, Princes, Bishops, General Counsels, or whosoever they be. But whilst he is thus mounted, not only above other Kings, and Princes, but even above the Emperors also himself. What saith Optatus of such a one? 
Optat. libr. 3. pag. 85.  Cùm super Imperatorem non sit, nisi solus Deus, qui fecit Imperatorem: certè quise super Imperatorem extollit, iam quasi hominum excesserit metas, se ut Deum non hominem, aestimat: Forasmuch as, (saith he,) there is none above the Emperor, but God only, that made the Emperor: Certainly, be that exalteth himself above the Emperor, as one that hath gone beyond the bounds of men, esteemeth himself, not now any longer as a mac, but as God. And whilst withal, he thus exempteth himself, from the Laws, censure, and judgement of all men upon earth: what doth he else, by all this, but show himself to be, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, That lawless person, mentioned by S. Paul, in 2. Thess. 2.8. And which also sitteth in the Church, or temple of God, as God, 
2. Thess. 2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.  and is exalted above all those men upon earth, that be called Gods in the Scriptures, (of which sort be Kings, and Princes,) and even above the Emperor also himself, to whom belongeth that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sebasma, (mentioned in the same place of, 2. Thessal. 2.4.) in as much as he is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, sebastos, that is, Augustus, as the Scripture also itself expressly calleth him, Act. 25.21.25. But lastly, It is well known that by Gods own institutution, the power of the Civil and Temporal sword, rightly, & properly belongeth to Emperors, 
●om. 13.1.2 ●. 4.5.6.  Kings, and Princes, and not to Bishops, Pastors, or other Ecclesiastical Ministers: & therefore may Kings and Princes lawfully command, compel, and punish all Bishops, Pastors, and Ecclesiastical Ministers whatsoever, (if they offend,) aswell as lay-people, by authority of that their sword, committed to them from God: But Bishops on the other side may not by that their Ecclesiastical office and function use that temporal sword, nor any temporal external power coactive thereunto incident or belonging, against any King, or other Person, for any cause whatsoever: because that sword is not committed to them from God: Yea, this opinion concerning compelling of Kings, savoureth more of treason, then of reason, and therefore is utterly to be detested, and abhorred.  
17. But than you say further, that whatsoever I alleged to invest our King with the supremacy, the same might be alleged by any judge in Spain, or Hungary, or other kingdoms, to prove the supremacy, to be likewise in their kings. And why not? For it is a thing of right, belonging to all Kings, to have the supremacy within their several Dominions, and to use, and extend that their power and authority, for God, and for the advancement of his true service, and right religion, aswell as for the advancement of Civil justice, and external peace, amongst their subjects. And what hurt were it to any, if all the Kings in Christendom, yea if all the kings in the world did this? or rather how great, ample & unspeakable a benefit, would thereby accrue and come, not only to all Christendom, but to the whole world? If all the Kings in Christendom, or in the whole world, did extend their authority, 
2, Thess. 2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12. Rev. 17 1.2.3.4. etc. Revel. 18.4.  for the maintenance, and advancement of Popery, (which is indeed, the adulterate, corrupt, and false Religion,) it being, (as the holy Scripture itself hath notified and declared it to be,) the Religion of the grand Antichrist, and of the whore of Babylon, which all God's people be commanded to forsake,) even Papists themselves, out of the error of their judgement, would think it to be well done: How much more, in true, judgement, ought you, and they, to think it to be well done, if they did all employ their Civil sword, power, and authority, for the advancement of that, which is indeed, the most ancient, true, Christian, Catholic, and Apostolic Religion?  
But you have yet still a conceit, that it is requisite, & necessary, to have a Pope of Rome, as a supreme Pastor, or a supreme judge, to decide, and determine all heresies, errors, doubts, questions, and controversies concerning faith, and religion, that arise in the Church, and so to preserve peace and unity in it, by his infallible, and unerrable judgement. Howbeit, first, why should the Bishop of Rome, be this supreme Pastor, or supreme judge, more than the Bishop of Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, jerusalem, or any other Bishop? For where hath God constituted the one to be so, more than the other? Secondly, how do you prove the Bishop of Rome, to have an infallible & an unerrable judgement, more than other Bishops have? Yea even in the Preface of my first Book, pag. 14.15. 16. and again in the second part of that same my first Book, Chap. 1. pag. 54.55. I have proved, that the Bishop of Rome may err, even in matters of faith, aswell as any other Bishop: and the same doth also before appear in this Book likewise. Thirdly, if the supremacy, and Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome, have this virtue in it, to keep and maintain peace and unity in the Church, and to decide, and determine certainly, truly, and infallibly, all doubts, questions, and controversies in Religion: Why doth he not decide and determine all those questions & controversies, that so it might experimentally appear, to have that virtue in it? or what need is there then, of General Counsels, yea of any Counsels at all? For, the use, and end of Synods and Counsels, is to decide, and determine questions, and controversies, that do arise, and spread themselves, to the disquiet, and trouble of the Church: all which, be superfluous, if the certain truth in every question, may be had, immediately, from his mouth. But indeed this institution of Synods, or Counsels, is a divine institution, and therefore must stand: although, that humane invention of the Pope's supremacy, needelesly erected for the same use, and end, do utterly fall, and be disannulled. And what necessity is there of him. For even General Conncels, were summoned, and convocated in times passed by the Emperors: and may be still at this day convocated, by the unanimous consent, and authority, of the several Kings, and Princes, of the several Nations. Neither is the judgement of one man, (as namely of the Bishop of Rome, or of any other,) so strong, or powerful, to pull out errors, that be rooted in men's minds, 
Conc. Africa. cap. 138. epist ●ad Celestinus.  as is the judgement, and consent of many in a Synod or Council: Unless there be any, that thinketh, God inspireth one particular person with righteousness, & forsaketh a number of priests, assembled together in a Council: which, the Council of Africa, held to be very absurd, and repugnant to Christ his promise, so long as they meet together, in his name, and for advancement of his truth. And here you may observe a difference, between the wisdom of God, and the wisdom of Men: For, in the Apostles times, there arose at Antioch, a great question, which was, whether Circumcision were necessary to salvation: 
Act. 15 1.2 3.4 5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12 13. etc.  what do they in this case? Do they choose, and appoint some one man as chief, to whom they will refer the deciding, and determining of this question? No such matter. And yet if they would have had the controversy decided, and determined by One: who was fit to have been that one, than S. Paul, whom they had amongst them? But they take no such course, but send Paul, and Barnabas, and certain others to jerusalem. What to do? Was it to desire the judgement only of some one man there, as namely of S. Peter, or of any one other? No. But to have the matter decided, by a Synod or Council, of the Apostles, Elders, and others, therein to be assembled, for that purpose: and in which Synod, or Council, it was determined accordingly. If then, in those times of the Apostles, when there was so great abundance of the gifts of God, and when as controversies, might without danger of error, have been referred unto one only, The rule of One above all the rest, was not held meet, and convenient: Now when the gifts are less, and the danger of error more, Can is be thought a wisdom consonant to the wisdom of the holy Ghost, to erect, and constitute. (as the seduced world hath done,) One man, namely, the Bishop, or Pope of Rome, to be the judge, and that a very sure, and infallible one, (as they account him,) for the deciding and determining of all doubts, questions, and controversies, that arise, throughout the whole world, concerning Faith and Religion, and upon whom, as being, (in their opinions,) the Monarch, and head of the whole, and universal Church upon Earth, they do, (though overboldly, and dangerously,) rely, and depend? It is true, that the regiment or government of the Church is monarchial: but that is not in respect of the Pope, but in respect of CHRIST JESUS, who is, indeed, the right, true, and sole Monarch, and head of his whole Church: But in respect of the Bishops and Pastors, that be rulers, or governor's under Christ, it is, (as the Protestants have rightly taught, and defended against the Papists, not monarchial, but Aristocratical. Yea, Christ jesus himself, told his Apostles, (and, in them, all Bishops, their successors,) when they contended for a majority, or Monarchy among themselves: that Reges gentium dominanturijs: vos autem non sic: 
Luke 22.24 25.26. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Quis eorum Maior.  The kings of Nations bear dominion over them, but ye may not do so, one over another. For, of this was the question, or contention: and therefore of this must the answer be accordingly understood. These words than do clearly declare, that there should be no Ecclesiastical King, or Ecclesiastical Monarch amongst them, to rule, or reign over all the rest: although terrestrial Kings and Monarches did, and are well allowed to reign and rule over the people of those Nations, whereof they be Kings. But again, hath not S. Gregory himself told us long agone, not only how needless and superfluous, but how pernicious also and dangerous it was to the whole Church, to admit of one to be an universal Bishop, or an Ecclesiastical Monarch, to rule, 
Gregory.  and reign over all the rest? For then, (saith he,) if he which is the Ecclesiastical Monarch, or the universal Bishop, do fall, the whole and universal Church falleth with him. And what Gregory thus spoke, and as it were prophesied so long since, was afterward found true and came to pass accordingly, to the lamentable woe of the whole Church, in the succeeding times, by that means. Yea the same S. Gregory hath yet further certified us how pernicious, and dangerous this was, and would be, not only to the whole Church, but even to himself also, that would take upon him, to be the Ecclesiastical Monarch, or supreme and universal Bishop over all. 
Gregory.  For, (saith he,) what will't thou answer unto Christ, who is the true head of the universal Church, in that day of judgement, when by this name of universal Bishop, thou seekest to subjugated, all the members of his Body unto thyself? Whom dost thou imitate herein, save only him, who in contempt of those legions of Angels, which were his fellows, sought to mount aloft to the top of singularity, where he might be subject to none, and all others might be subject unto him. As for the having of Bishops of Dioceses, and Provinces, it no more proveth that therefore there may or must be one universal Bishop, or Ecclesiastical Monarch over all: then that, because there be diverse Kings in diverse and several Kingdoms, therefore there should be one universal King over all the Kings and kingdoms in the world. And beside, there were Bishops of Dioceses, and Provinces in the times both of Pelagius, and Gregory, Bishops of Rome, whom nevertheless they took no exception against, nor disallowed: But him that would take upon him to be an Ecclesiastical Monarch, or a supreme and universal Bishop over the whole Church, him they would not endure, but vehemently impugned and detested him, and that not without very apparent, just, and good cause, as here you see. But, moreover, did you never read john Gerson de Auferibilitate Papae. What he affirmed in some cases, may generally and absolutely be affirmed: namely, That the Pope may be utterly abolished, and taken clean away, & that without any less or hurt at all to Christendom, yea to the great, and ample good, not only of Christendom, but of all the world beside, if the matter be well weighed and rightly and throughly considered.  
18. But touching this point of supremacy, you seem at last, in words, to appeal to the judgement of the Primitive Church: I would you would do as you say, and stand to the judgement of it, in very deed. For I have proved, (which you have not disproved, nor ever will be able to disprove,) That for the space of eight hundred years, and more, after Christ, even the Bishops of Rome themselves, aswell as other Bishops were subject to the Emperors. And that the Christian Emperors, had also authority in matters Ecclesiastical, aswell as Civil and temporal, within their Dominions: and nothing do you, or can you allege against it, but what hath been many and sundry times sufficiently, & abundantly answered, & confuted by the Protestants. As for that Catalogue of Emperors, Kings, and Princes, which you affirm to have been exemplarily punished in this world by violent, and miserable deaths, for oppugning and striving against the Monarchy and supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, you only say, & suppose it, but do not prove it. And it is an overbold part in you, to enter into God's secret counsels, and to affirm that to be the cause which you know not, nor be able to prove. For there might be, and so no doubt there were other just causes of their punishments. As for the oppugning of the Pope's supremacy that could not be the cause of those or of any other punishments: in as much as the gross wrongs, and utter unlawfulness of it, hath before plentifully appeared: and that neither the Pope, nor all his partakers, be able to show, any commission or warrant from God for the approbation of it. Yea, how could the oppugning or contending against the Pope's Monarchy and supremacy, be any cause of punishment, when in the holy Scriptures themselves it appeareth, (as in my first Book I have showed at large,) that Papal Rome is the whore of Babylon, and that the Pope of Rome, the head, and ruler of that adulterate, and Popish Church, is the very grand Antichrist? Do not therefore deceive yourself, nor others any longer, by mistaking the cause, which is, you know, a fallacy, à causa non, ut causa.  
Yet you further say, that I am argued by the wisest, in this Enterprise to have discovered in consideratively, much arrogancy of wit, in not well weighing the main importance of this difficulty, fare surmounting the talon of a Lawyer. But first, there is no such difficulty in it, 
Reges Gentium domina●tur.  as you speak of: and this I have formerly declared. Secondly, why doth it surmount, or exceed a Lawyer's talon and ability, more in me, then in you? Wherefore, if I be, as you say I am,) censured, or argued, by the wisest, of much arrogancy, because being a Lawyer, I meddle in this matter: Must not those wisest, in all justice, and equity condemn you likewise, of much arrogancy, for the same cause? For you have hitherto in your writings, affirmed yourself to be a Lawyer: & if all this while you nevertheless be not a Lawyer, you have done yourself a great deal of discredit and dishonour in affirming it: Neither can any man than tell, how to believe you, in any thing you speak, or write: So that herein you gull not me, but yourself, and others. It would therefore best become you, to unmask yourself, and to discover yourself plainly: For you must think, howsoever you would conceal yourself, that you are sufficiently known, and go not invisible. But thirdly, who are those, whom you call and account, the wisest? For there be some that be wise in their own conceit: and some that be Antichristianly wise, and some that be worldly wise: 
1. Cor. 3.19.  whose wisdom is, as S. Paul affirmeth it, foolishness with God. For, hath not God, (saith he,) made the wisdom of this world, 
1. Cor. 1.20.  foolishness? The world accounteth the wisdom of God to be foolishness. But, he saith, that the foolishness of God, is wiser than men: and the weakness of God, 
1. Cor. 1.25.  stronger than men. The wisest men, then, doubtless be those, that humbly submit all their learning, and wisdom, to God's word, and wisdom, and that be divinely, and Christianly wise: as for the rest, they must, (as the same S. Paul teace them, 
1. Cor 3.18. ) become fools, that they may be wise. Whatsoever therefore you say: I believe, that which Christ jesus himself hath spoken, to be true, and that it will ever be found verified, 
Luke 7.35.  (videlicet,) That wisdom is justified of all her Children. But lastly, what arrogancy either of wit, or learning, do I show, or discover, when I neither brag nor boast of either: and when I further, frankly and freely confess in all my Books, that such matter, as is therein contained, I have learned of others, and so attribute nothing to myself? The wit, and learning I have, how small, slender, or mean soever you, or others, esteem it, I thank God for it: and do humbly pray him, to give me the Grace, to use, and employ it to his honour, and glory, and not to mine own. Yea, how weak or mean soever it be, in respect of itself, yet such is the strength of the cause which I defend, and the strength of the Almighty who hath enabled me in it, and to whom, I give all the thankes, and the glory, 
Psal. 4.13.  as that it now appeareth, I hope to every understanding, equal, and judicious Person, to be undoubtedly victorious, and triumphant. Hereafter therefore I shall not need to write any more in it, which is now made thus manifest, clear, apparent, and invincible. So that every man, that will speak truly, may s●● of it, that Magna est veritas & praevalet. God open our eyes, (if it be his will,) and enlighten all our understandings, that we may all see and know his truth, acknowledge, reverence, embrace, and profess it, and walk in the ways of it evermore. AMEN.  
FINIS.