that he exercised ordinary gouernment ouer priests and all ecclesiastical persons and causes as other Princes did after him â–ª is not to be broughte for example for our christian princes to follow This is the plaine full effect of your tale And what an ilfauorde argument is this I pray you but to hide this sequele after your fashion ye would inserre another yet more darke conclusion saying It must needes therfore follow that Moses was a priest that a high priest which ye heere full peenishly denie Doth this conclusion M. Stap. if it were admitted improue the Byshops assertion and yet this your conclusion standing on thrée partes as it is not to the purpose so is euery parte starke false and like the maker thereof For Moses by his prerogatiue hauing especiall coÌ„maundement of God therto might well do all those things and yet it followeth not of any necessitie that as you say he must néedes therfore haue bene a priest Or if he had bene a priest he must néedes therefore be a high priest or if he had bene a high priest that he must néedes be the highest priest Neither did the byshop denie peeuishly that he denied as you full peeuishly rashely and like your selfe do iudge nor yet denied or graunted or spoke vpon one way or other whether Moses were priest or a high priest yea or no. But denied and that truely that Moses was not the highest or chiefe priest Which words ye durst not alleage nor yet generally terme him the high priest but ye say a priest and that a high priest your selfe séeming euen by your spéeche to graunt that the high priest or highest priest he was not Nor ye can not cauill about your owne phrase vnlesse ye will say it is all one a Lorde and the Lorde a high priest and the high priest so say ye ment the chiefe priest when ye sayd a high priest for all the worlde séeth a great difference betwéene these termes and that your self did subtilly sée to make the reader beléeue ye had performed your promise in prouing him to be the chiefe priest And yet ye bring no profe but onely say a priest and that a high priest â—…go the highest priest So that if the reader more narroâ—…ly viewing your grosse sleight shoulde chalenge ye that you haue not proued him the highest priest simply no will ye say to saue your honestie I onely sayde a priest and a high Priest and no more But why do ye then belie the byshop saying he denied that that he medled not with and proue not your matter in hande nor kéepe touch with your reader in perfourming your promise that Moses was the chiefe Priest Haue ye learned so wel this subtill shift that Omne promissum est aut debitum aut dubium Euery promise is eyther due or doubtfull But howsoeuer ye will discharge your promise this your doutfull conclusion neither dischargeth your falshood nor impugneth the Bishoppes assertion muche lesse ouerturnes it that he was not the chiefe priest but the chiefe Prince or gouernoure and thereby did order and direct Gods true religion bothe to all the Priestes and people as the Bishop affirmed Nowe seeing he can by no meanes neyther olde stuffe nor newe stuffe bring it about as he wold haue it nor proue him to be the highest Priest he will leaue his promise and lyke to the Fore that would eate no Grapes when he could not come by them with all the leapes he coulde make so M. Sta. will nowe euen renounce his solemne marginall crake that he promised to proue Moyses the chiefe prieste and leaping at it but euer leaping shorte that he was a Priest and a little higher that he was a highe Priest but he can not leape so high to obtaine his purpose that he was the highest Priest he will now let him goe for béeing any Priest at all and since he can not get the grape he wil none of it but will hunt after an other praie I say now further with master Dorman sayth he that put the case Moses were no priest yet this exaÌ„ple frameth not so smoothly and closely to your purpose as ye weene for Moses was a prophet and that such a prophetas the like was not againe Giue me now M. Horne Princes prophetes giue mee Pâ—…nces and lawmakers by especiall order and appointement ordeined of God to whose wordes God certainly wold haue giuen as great authoritie as he would and commaunded to be giuen to Moses and then perchaunce I will saye that ye saye somewhat well to the purpose Againe Moyses was suche a speciall Prophete and so singularly chosen of God to bee hearde and obeyed in all thinges that he is in the holy Scripture euidently compared to Christe himselfe compared I saye in the office of teachyng and instructing Moyses in the Deuteronom foretelling the Iewes of a Messias to come sayeth The Lorde thy God will rayse thee vp a Prophete from among thyne owne nation and of thy brethren suche an one as my selfe him thou shalt heare And this so spoken of Moyses in the olde Lawe is in the nevve Testament auouched and repeated firste by S. Peter the chiefe apostle and nexte by Saint Stephan the firste martyr and applyed to Chryste If then Christe must be so heard and obeyed of vs as was Moyses of the Ievves no doubte as Christe is a king a Prince a Prophete a Prieste and a Bishoppe to vs so vvas Moyses to them a Prince a Prophete a Priest and a Bishoppe As Christe is of vs to bee hearde and obeyed as well in all matters Ecclesiasticall as temporall for no temporall lawe can haue force agaynste the lawe of Christe among Christian men so vvas Moyses to be hearde and obeyed of the Ievves in matters and causes as vvell temporall as spirituall For vvhy the Scripture is playne Tanquam meipsum audietis You shall heare that Prophete euen as my selfe Shevve vs Master Horne any prince in the nevve Testamente so conditioned and endevved and then make your argumente on Gods name Verely any prince that novve is namely in Ecclesiasticall gouernement compared vvyth Moyses is as the Poete sayth Impar congressus Achilli Troilus Yea forsoothe novve yee saye somethyng further Maister Stapleton as ye boaste howbeâ—…it nothyng further in substaunce than youre fellowes before but in flourish of Copia verborum yee saye novve further in déede And I maye saye to you it was high tyme to saye something furtherâ—… for hytherto all that ye haue sayde is nothyng Well saye you nowe Put the case Moyses were no Prieste I conclude then he was not hyghe Prieste and so putting this case yée put youre selfe in an yll case that before ye made a false lying crake and nowe with shame are fayne to giue it ouer But if ye put the case as ye say like Master Dorman then dare ye not abide by this case neither lyke Wylliam Sommer for so playde Master Dorman in putting this case
be moued from them And neuer so little a motion for M. Feckenham went not ouer farre I warrant you coulde not be made of mercy and consideration without great displeasure taken Ye haue well described the state of your Popes raigne M. Stap. so vnmercyfull an estate and inconsiderate that for description thereof ye doe best as dyd Timantes when he paynted the mourners at the sacrifice of Iphigenia setting out one wéeping another with this another with that heauie visage when he could not deuise a more dolâ—…rous couÌ„tenance he paynted Agamemnon hiding his face with a kerchiefe so you wheÌ„ ye can not sufficiently set foorth those dolefull tymes ye do wisely in that ye omit to expresse them and therein ye expresse them most of all And woulde ye haue lyke mercy and consideration sheshed nowe to the Papistes as the Papistes shewed then to the Protestantes Alas master Stap. if but halfe a quarter of suche extremitie were shewed nowe as was shewed then it woulde goe harder with master Feckenham and other his complices than it dothe No no M. Stap. their chambers their walkes their libertie their ease their fare is nothing like your doÌ„geoÌ„s your stockes your colehouses your famine your racks your gaggs your whipping there rostmeate at a stake that ye gaue the protestants I warrant ye M Fe. lookes not like a ghost nor like a poore scholler of Cambridge or Oxford perchaunce fares better than some studeÌ„ts of diuinitie in Louayne It is easy to discernâ—… M. St. what spirite either religion is of the protestants and the papists euen by this your own note of vnmercifulnesse and mercy and now saith M. St. let vs proceede on to the residue of your booke The fifth Diuision THe Bishop of Winchester after he hath shewed on M. Feckenhams wordes the entent of the Othe and the entent of M. Feckenh booke to be contrarie and therefore what soeuer he offreth in wordes he denieth the same in déedes and in the beginning for ensample dalieth with the Oth about dominions persons thinking therby he escapeth the principall ende of the Othe in this diuision sheweth first how doublie he dealeth in pretending as though the Bishop had forced him to sweare but there was no such Othe offred or required betwéene them â—…rgo A man might well marâ—…aile that he shamed not to pretende such a lie Secondly the Bishop sheweth how M. Feckenham is taken in his owne daliaâ—…ce The Bishops reason is this In that ye graunt to her Highnesse the onely supreme rule ouer the Laye and Ecclesiasticall persons you haue all ready proued withall the causes also euenby a supreme gouernors definition A supreme gouernour or ruler is one who hath to ouerseâ—… guide care prouide order and directe the thinges vnder his gouernment rule to that ende and in those actions which are appointed properly belong to the subiect or thing gouerned But the Queenes Highnesse is by your own coÌ„fession the only supreme gouernour ouer al manner persons Ecclesiasticall c. Ergo Hir highnes hath to ouersee guide care prouide order and direct to that ende and in those actions which are appointed do properly belong to persons Ecclesiasticall And thus concludeth that M. Feckenham grauÌ„ting thus much for fashion sake in generall speache is but a dissembler and in déede denieth the obedience of the person also or els he péeuishly standeth on the distinction of the cause which in full effect he hath graunted alreadie To the first parte M. Stapleton answereth Here is first a worshipfull reason and cause to meruaile at M. Feckenham that he should by writing presently offer him selfe to receyue an Othe bicause he neuer made mention of any suche othe before neither any suche was at any time of him required surely this is as great a cause to wonder as to see a goose go barefoote Ye plainly falsifie the Bishops woordes M. Stapl â–ª he said not that M. Feckenham neuer made mencion of any suche othe before but he saide that he neuer made any motion of such an offer to him So that this declareth both a double dealing of him also a wresting of you But this in eyther of you muste not be wondered at as a rare dealing that in lying and wresting ye be shamelesse bicause it is as common to you as to sée a goose go barefoote and as rare as to heare a barefoote Foxe preach to shod géese in Louaine Secondly to the Bishops argument he saithe But now will he play the worthy Logitian and M. Feckenham will he nill he shal be driuen by fine force of a Logicall definition to graunt the Queene to be supreme head in all causes Ecclesiasticall for that he graunteth hir to be supreme head of all persons both Ecclesiastical and Temporal Bicause saith he the supreme gouernour or ruler is he that ordereth and directeth all actioÌ„s belonging and appointed to the subiectes and thereby enferreth that the Queenes Maiestie is supreme and onely gouernour eueÌ„ in those actions that belong to Ecclesiasticall persons which are causes Ecclesiasticall But as good skill as this man hath in Logike which is correspondent to his diuinitie he hath brought vs forth a faultie and a vitiouse definition For a supreme gouernour is he that hath the chiefe gouernment of the thing gouerned not in those actions that may any way properly belong to the subiect or thing gouerned as M. Horne saithe but in those actions that belong to the ende whereunto the gouernour tendeth VVhich may well be although he haue not the chiefe gouernment in all the actions of the thing gouerned but in such actions as properly appertaine to him as a subiect to that gouernour Although M. Stapl. arguments hitherto haue shewed some tast of his owne great skill in Logike and what a worthie student of Diuinitie he is him selfe the want of which two he vpbraydeth to the Bishop after his prowde scornefull manner yet in this his couÌ„terblast to the Bishops only reason of a supreme gouernours definition he wil further shew what a passing subtile Logitian déepe Deuine he is But alas the mans ill lucke for while he clerkly laboreth striues to bring M. Feckâ—…ham out of the briers he not only wrappeth him the faster in them but so snarleth entangleth him selfe withall that as one all amased he speaketh he wottes not what And goyng about the Bushe wonderfully to worke when he hath all done he hath not onely left the matter where it was against M. Feckenham but hath made it more playne against him selfe also First he reprehendeth the Bishops definition of a gouernour as faultie but his guiltie conscience was so striken that he durst not or he well wist not how to report the definition as it laie but saith that the Bishop defined A supreme gouernour to be one that ordreth and directeth all actions belonging and appoynted to the subiecte Which the B. said not but M. St. who hath altered hacked and
contrarie Thus saith the king the priest and the Bishop shal haue the gouernment of such things as appertaine to God. Ergo the Prince that thus appointeth him thereto hath an other supreme gouernment of appointing and ouerseing euen the priests gouernment Doth not the King appoint the one to his office so well as he appointed the other are not both gouerned in their offices vnder him Yet say you ouer gods matters is the priest not as the kings commissioner but as the priests were after the example of Moses The Bishop refuseth not the example of Moses but alleaged euen the same and your selfe then refused that example saying he had such prerogatiues that he of all other could not be alleaged for exaÌ„ple bicause of his especial priuilege And now contrary to your former sayings you say the priests were not as the Kings coÌ„missioners but were alwaies after the example of Moses But go to be it so how doth this helpe your matter or not rather quite confute it In Moses time Aaron and after him Eleazar were the chiefe priestes ouer gods matters vnder whome were the other Priestes and Leuites But all of them yea Aaron and Eleazar so wel as the rest were vnder the supreme gouernement in ecclesiasticall causes so well as temporall of their Prince and ruler Moses Ergo If Moses be an example how the priestes should alwayes gouerne vnder Gods matters then muste their gouernment be alwayes vnder the princes supreme gouernment to ouersée order and direct them as Moses did And where ye say the Priest here was not the Princes commissioner in these matters the very text is most playn to the contrarie I stande not on the worde least I should minister to you occasion of wrangling with me as ye do with the byshop but goe to the matter What call ye him that the Prince sendeth foorth in a commission committing a charge vnto him call ye him not a commissioner and his commissioner that so sendeth him in commission did not Iosaphat so sende about his priestes and Leuites on this commission that they shoulde teache and set foorth euery where the worde of God Tertio annâ—… regni sui misit c. in the thirde yere of his raigne he sent out certayne of hys princes Benail and Obdias and Zacharias and Nathaniel and Micheas that they should teache in the cities of Iuda and with them the Leuites Semeiah Nethamah Zebediah and Asahel and Semiramoth and Ionathas and Adonias and Thobias and Tob Adoniah Leuites and with them Elizama and Ioram Priests And they taught the people in Iuda hauing with them the booke of the lawe of the Lord and they went about throughout all the cities of Iuda and taught the people Were they not héere sent in this commission thus to do froÌ„ the king Their doctrine was not the kings but Gods commission the Lords booke but this their maner of traueling in setting it foorth was the kings commission And they so wel the Priests and Leuites as the Princes were bothe of them the kings commissioners In lyke case the Quéenes maiesty sendeth out hir godly learned commissioners sendeth by them the worde of God Gods booke and truthe to be set foorth The truth thus set foorth hath not his authoritie from hir coÌ„mission nor the preachers to preach only by hir outward commission but they haue another inward coÌ„mission from God and are Gods commissioners by the calling ministerie of their office Howbeit in this outward maner of visitation setting it foorth in this sorte of traueling about hir highnesse townes and cities reforming abuses directing all eccl. causes they are therin euen aswell the Quéenes coÌ„missioners as those priests Leuites in al their reformatioÌ„ of religion were coÌ„missioners from king Iosaphat And thus euery thing in the ende is moste euident agaynst you But yet ye blunder still on in your owne conceite and thinke ye haue héere gotten a wonderfull strong argument And marke well M. Horne this poynt say you Zabadias is set ouer suche workes as belong to the kinges office But suche workes are no maner thing perteyning to the seruice of God for ouer them Amarias the Priest is President Ergo the kinges office consisteth not about thinges perteyning to God but is a distinct function concerning the common weale Ergo if the king intermeddle in Gods matters especially if he take vpon him the supreme gouernement thereof euen ouer the priests theÌ„ selues to whom the charge is committed he passeth the bouÌ„des of his office he breaketh the order appoynted by God and is become an open enemie to Gods holy ordinance Your crakes and reuilings that ye powder your argument with I remitte to their proper common places to the argument I aunswere If it be marked well as ye would haue it saying Marke well this poynte M. Horne First the marker shall finde it neither in any moode nor figure Secondly the marker shall finde an Equiuocation in these words workes kinges office pertayning to Gods seruice Which words béeing diuerfly vnderstoode in either proposition Thirdly make a paralogisme of foure termes Fourthly in these words ye make a Fallation a secundum quid ad simpliciter Lyra liuiteth theâ—…e words super ea operaerit quae ad regis officium pertinent He shall be ouer those workes that perteyne to the kings office onely to the ayding and strengthening the Priests and the Leuites by the temporall sworde to punishe the disobediente But is there no other works of the Kings office besides this Uatablus vnder standeth it that as the priest medled with the weightie causes at Ierusalem so also the Leuites shoulde be ouer the lesser causes Causae CiutuÌ„ cognoscebontur à Leuitis causaeauteÌ„ Regtae à Zabaudiâ—… The causes or controuersies perteyning to the citizens should be herd of the Leuites and the causes and controuersies perteyning to the King should be herd of Zabaudias Neither of these vnderstande these words so generally of al the doings belonging in any wise to the office of a king In lyke case for the priestes gouernment in suche thinges as belong to God Id est sayth Uatablus quod pertinet ad rem diuinam To wite so farre as perteyneth to the diuine seruice or the dyuine administration And you wrest it to be vnderstoode simply for all ecclesiasticall matters and all causes of religion Besides that Fifthly ye reason styll after youre wonted fashion from the distinction of the thynges and vvorkes of eithers perticuler functions to the taking away of the Princes supreme gouernement ouer those distincte workes and functions Howe dothe this argument followe The king appoyntes one ouer Gods workes and another distinct from him ouer his owne workes Ergo the king hath not a supreme gouernement ouer them both to ouersée theÌ„ to do those works Your conclusions therfore last of all are faultie neither directly following vpon your premisses and comprehending much more then they inferre This part of your conclusion that
euen the name of Ministers as euen your selfe do M. St. other where how soeuer here it came vppon you to pretende to bestow a reuerent speach thereon But the Apostles thought not scorne of the name but willed men so to estéeme them as the ministers of God and the dispensers of his mysteries but as your papall Bishops and Priestes be nothing like Gods ministers so least of all are they like the Prophets that were then except ye meane the prophets of Baal that maintayned idolatrie and pleasant leasings to maintayne them selues at Achabs table and fill their paunches with the chéere of Beel and the Dragon The Lords prophets they be not like neither in preaching propheciyng or ought els And yet saith M. Stapl. they be the onely ministers of God now in spirituall matters as prophets were then in the like Why M. Stapl. were the prophets then onely gods ministers in spirituall matters if ye say no how doth your tale hang togither why say ye they are onely Gods ministers now as Prophets were then in the like since the Prophetes were not onely Gods ministers then as ye pretende for your Bishops and Priestes to be onely now If they were not onely then no more be yours only now admitting they were in the like If ye say yea they were onely then Gods ministers as the Bishops and Priests be now what were the Bishops Priestes and Leuites then that were no prophetes were not they Gods ministers in spirituall matters also if yea then were not the Prophets in the like to your Bishops and Priestes that are as ye say only gods ministers now Make your tale for shame hang better togither and withall tell what you meane by this dubble shuffling Ye tolde vs before that your Bishops and Priestes now are like the Bishops and Priestes then and that not the Prophets but the Priestes had that prerogatiue which ye haue so often craked vpon your generall rule of iudgemeÌ„t whereby ye vrged then a supremacie not in the Prophets but in the Bishops Priests And now seing that ye caÌ„ not proue it in these examples where the Bishops Priests obey the Princes ordinance as his inferiours ye shift of the matter to the Prophetes say now your priests prelates succéede are like the Prophetes let go the former claime of priests But these are but your shifts for if the Prophets had this supreme gouernment then the priests had it not If it appertained to the hie priestes chayre so long as the priesthoode of Moses continued then it belonged not to the Prophetes and thus ye contrary your selfe But in very déede neither of theÌ„ both had it but the Prince vnder god They were both Gods ministers in their diuerse functioÌ„s and yet subiecte to their Princes as for the popish Bishops and priestes are like to neither of both The. 17. Diuision THe Bishop with the like example of Iosias concludeth his collection of the Princes in the Old Testament and herevppon maketh in effect this reason All these doinges of these kinges are commended as acceptable seruice and right in the sight of God But the clayming taking vppon them the supreme gouernment ouer the ecclesiasticall persons of all degrees the ruling gouerning and directing them in all their functions in al manner causes belonging to religion were the doings of all these kinges Ergo For Princes to clayme and take vppon them the like supreme gouernment is their right and acceptable seruice in the sight of God. The counterblast of master Stapleton to this diuision is thrée folde First to the example of Iosias Secondly to the argument Thirdly by setting vp newe issues and markes to improue all that the Bishop hath hitherto exemplified as vnsufficient to proue the issue To the first part sayth Master Stapleton King Iosias traueled full godly in suppressing Idolatrie by his kingly authoritie VVhat then so doe good catholike Princes also to plucke downe the Idolles that yee and your brethren haue of late set vp and yet none of them take them selues for supreme heades in all causes spirituall This is all that he aunswereth to the example of Iosias First where the Bishop sayd Iosias had the like care to the foresayde Princes for religion and vsed in the same sorte his Princely authoritie in reforming all abuses in al maner causes ecclesiastical To this aunswereth master Stapleton He traueled full godly in suppressing Idolatrie by his kingly authoritie As though this were a full aunswere denying or graunting the Bishops assertion or as thoughe besides the suppressing of Idolatrie he did nothing else Where as the scripture is plaine how hee also redde the lawe before all his subiects how he made the couenant with God that all hys subiectes shoulde walke after the Lorde and obserue all hys commaundements testimonies and ceremonies Howe hée sware them all to kéepe this couenant Howe he commaunded them to kéepe suche a solemne passeouer as was neuer kept by any of all the kings before him How the Priestes appoynted not themselues but he appoynted them in their offices Howe they exhorted not him but howe he exhorted them to prepare themselues sayth Lyra dutifully to celebrate with deuotion the solemnitie of the passeouer Howe he commaunded the arke to be set vp in the Sanctuarie and to beare it no more on their shoulders Howe he commaunded theÌ„ to minister to the Lord and to his people Israel How he commaunded theÌ„ to prepare them selues according to the houses of their auÌ„cesters in their orders aâ—… Dauid had appointed them How he coÌ„maunded them to minister in the sanctuary by their families and Leuiticall courses How he commaunded them to be sanctified and then to offer the passeouer How he commauÌ„ded them also to prepare or sanctifie the residue of their brethren And when al things were prepared how the Priestes kept their stations and the Leuites were in their orders according as the king had commaunded them And so saith the text after it hath reckened vp the manner of the Priests Leuites singers and porters ministeries all the seruice or worship was orderly accomplished in that day to keepe the passeouer and offer their burnt offrings vppon the aultare of the Lorde according to the commaundement of Iosias the King. All these things M. Stapl. were done by his authoritie and commaundement But all these thinges are matters and causes ecclesiasticall Ergo his authoritie and commaundement stretched furder than in suppressing Idolatrie yea â—…uen ouer the chiefest matters ecclesiasticall But all this had M. Stap. quite forgotten and therefore we must beare with him though he answere the Bishop only with this Iosias traueled full godly in suppressing Idolatrie by his kingly authoritie Wherein we sée also how doubtfully he speaketh for when he perceyued it could not be denied but that which he did he did by his kingly authoritie yet would he not say that he suppressed Idolatrie by
worshipped ye then and that with such high worship to your solemne Saint Thomas Becket that dyed for no matter of Religion at all But eyther for his obstinacie agaynste his liege Lorde and agaynst all the Barons Spirituall and Temporall of the Realme or if ye colour it neuer so fayre yet was it but in mainteyning his honour and the priuileges of the Clergie and that contrarie to the auncient custome of the Realme except yée will graunt that the Popishe Religion doeth consiste herein Whiche if ye bée ashamed to confesse vpbrayde not then for shame false Martyrs vnto vs nor yet the Canonising of wicked Sainctes We vse no such Canonization at all It redoundeth on your selfe on your Legende on your Popes and on your Pope holy Saincts Whome by this rule you make both Donatists Montanists Manicheans or what soeuer Heretikes ye can obiect besides As for all these Comparisons hitherto betwéene the Protestantes and the Donatists wherein ye thinke ye haue be stowed great cunning there is not 〈◊〉 poyâ—… that is not violently wrested to make it séeme to touch vs and not one poynt that being returned on your selues doeth not rightly and fully hitte you home againe And therefore I for my part am content as you concluding say you be To ende this talke with the whole conference leauing it to the indifferent Reader to consider whether the Popishe Catholikes or the Protestants drawe nearer to the Donatists To come newe at length to the sixt and last parte of this Chapter which consistes in remâ—…ing such motiues as the Bishop alleageth to burtheâ—… Master Feckenham with the practise of the Donatists First master Stapleton deuideth these motiues in twaine Let vs then sayth master Stapleton proceede foorth and consider vpon what good motiues ye charge master Feckenham to be a Donatist whiche are to say truth none other but falsehoode and follie But as ye surmise the one is bicause hee craftily and by a subtile shifte refuseth the prooues of the olde Testament as the Donatists did The other bicause hee with the sayde Donatists should auouch that secuâ—…er Princeâ—… haue not to meddle in matters of Religion or causes ecclesiasticall nor to punishe any man for such causes These two motiues ye say Master Stapleton are to say the truth none other but falsehoode and follie In déede they are the worsâ—… by comming through so false a marchantes handes as yours For shame either tell the wordes as they â—…e at least the true and full effect of them or neuer sette them out in a distinct letter syâ—… you so often but euer falsly vpbrayde the Bishop hereof Else all the follie and falsehoode will proue to be in your selfe and not in the Bishops motiues The Bishop spâ—…ke not of Princes medling or punishing for Ecclesiasticall 〈◊〉 as though the Donatists simpliâ—… denied that anâ—… yâ—… graunted Princes yet so much as to meddle or punishe for your Ecclesiasticall causes that is to say to be your executioners therin as though the Emperors other Christian Princes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more vpon them at that time But the Bishop tolde how the godly fathers craued aide assistance of the magistrats and rulers to reforme them to reduce them to the vâ—…itie of the church to represse their heresies with their au thoritie godly lawes made for that purpose to whome it belonged of duetie and whose especiall seruice of Christ is to see care and prouide that their subiects be gouerned defended and mainteyned in the true and syncere religion of Christ without all errours superstitions and heresies This is that the Bishop wrote and to proue this he alleageth Saint Augustine Thus did Christian Princes gouerne in Ecclesiasticall causes then This did the Donatists then denie vnto them and this do now the Papists denie and ye come sneaking in and tell vs the Bishoppes motiue was this In charging Master Feckenham to followe the Donatists by cause hee with the Donatistes shoulde auouche that seculer Princes haue not to meddle in matters of Religion or causes Ecclesiasticall nor to punishe anie man for suche causes As though the controuersie had bâ—…ne for anie kinde of medling or punishing whiche you sâ—…ming to graunt to Princes to bée your seruaunts and droyles in suche ecclesiasticall causes and so farre as you assigne them might therefore séeme not to play the Donatists when ye play their partes so liuely as can bée and so subtilly that the Donatistes were but Babes vnto you in séeming to giue them some medling or punishing in Ecclesiasticall causes but if they meddle with or punishe you or anie other otherwise than ye commaunde and restrayne them you so little then suffer them to meddle in Ecclesiasticall matters that with solemne curses ye debarre them from medling in anie temporall and ciuill matters too so farre ye passe the Donatists For shame master Stapleton tell your tale plainely that we may sée whether M. Feckenham played the Donatistes part or no or else your doubling wyll declare your selfe to be a Donatist also for companie But let vs sée how ye aunswere these motiues euen as your selfe propounde them The one is say you bicause he craftily and by a subtile shifte refuseth the proues of the old Testament as the Donatistes did Your Stale Iestes M. Stapleton of a fine blast of a horne â–ª of a â—…oule slawe of a blinde betell blunte shifte I ouer passe them When M. Feckenham ye say offereth to yelde if ye can proue this regiment either by the order that Christ left behinde him in the new Testament either by the Doctours either by Councels or els by the continuall practise of any one Churche thinke you M. Horne that this is not a large and an ample offer The largenesse of this offer is not here in questioÌ„ M. St. the offer is large and ample inough â–ª taken of the Bishop at his handes and proued vnto him at his owne demaunde It remaineth then that he stande to his promise and yelde to the truth or else he sheweth that he minded to offer more than he purposed to perfourme Onely now it is examined why here he specifieth the new Testament and quite leaueth out the old Testament â–ª This doing in this pointe saith the B. smelleth of a Donatist Nay say you There is not so much as any coÌ„iecture to gather this vppon yea the old Testament is not by this offer excluded but verely included For if the new Testament which rehearseth many things out of the old haue any thing out of the old Testament that make for this regiment if any Doctour old or new if any Councell haue any thing out of the old Testament that serue for this regiment then is Master Feckenham concluded yea by his owne graunt For so the Doctour or Councell hath it he is satisfied according to his demaunde VVhereby it followeth he doth not refuse but rather allowe and affirme the proufes of the old Testament It might
surmile vppon my silence any suche distrust ▪ I will compendiously as the matter shall require abbridge their aunsweres and that master Horne shall thinke that our stuffe is not all spent ▪ I shall on the other syde for a surplussage adioyne some other things to our opponent accomodate An Almonde for Parate so finely our student begins to speake that a good plaine simple man can scarce vnderstande his 〈◊〉 termes But this is the effect of it we shall now haue new stuffe of some olde store good stuffe and God will for all their stuffe as he crakes is not yet spent but I perceyue it goeth harde with them in their store house and that this stuffe is some of the last cast God sende it be not such stale stuffe when it comes to the view as Cardinall Campeius moiles did bring into Englande and vttered in Cheape side But such as it is we must take it in good worth it is the best he hath to answere the Bishops ensample withall The first ensample is of Moses in whome the Byshop noteth thrée things First that he was the supreme gouernour of Gods people Secondly that hée ordred and set forth Gods true Religion wyth great regarde and care prescribing aswell to Aaron and the Leuites as to the people Thirdly that he was not the chiefe priest therfore could not do them in suche respect but as he was supreme gouernour The first and the seconde propositions that Moses was the supreme gouernour and that he did order and direct all things M. St. graunteth The thirde parte he denieth and affirmeth that Moses was the chiefe priest and in that respecte dyd all these foresayde thinges This assertion he sayth he will proue bothe by his masters olde and by his owne surplusage of newe stuffe also His argument of both these stuffes is this I say with M. D. Harding and S. Augustine that Moses was a Priest aswell as a Prince I say the same with M. Dorman ▪ with Philo Iudeus with S. Hierome and with S. Hieroms master Gregorie Nazianzene Ergo Moses was the chiefe Priest. By the like reason if M. St. be a priest he might proue him selfe to be the Pope of Rome He is a Romish priest Ergo he is the chiefe Romish priest which is the pope The one reason is as good as the other But here he will cry out and say I do him wrong to change his conclusion for he inferreth no such words but these And so consequently Moses ensample serueth not your turne but quite ouerturneth your assertion True it is in déed this is your cōclusion M. St. but what was the bishops assertion which this ye say quite ouerturnes was not this his assertion that Moses was not the chiefe priest and did not you denie this assertion affirme it to be an vntruth saying for Moses was the chiefe priest as shal be proued did ye not héere make promise to proue it did ye not say that to answere this example ye had other freshe stuffe not yet spent must not then this stuffe be directed to this ende conclusion to fulfill your promise ouerturne the bishops assertion which was that Moses was not the chiefe priest but Aaron and you should proue as ye haue freshly promised that Moses was the chiefe priest And therfore if this be not your conclusion ye subtilly falsly swerue frō the cōclusion that ye ought to haue cōcluded ye performe not your promise to proue Moses the chiefe priest nor your conclusion as ye crake ouerturnes the byshops assertion which was that Moyses was not the chief priest but Aaron And therfore either this is your argument Moses was a Priest Ergo he was chiefe Priest or else ye conclude not agaynst the bishops assertion If ye say ye conclude this al the world séeth what a fonde conclusion it is And if ye haue a poleshorne priests crowne of your owne as I doubt not but ye haue a faire one ye may aswell conclude to your self the Popes triple crowne And if ye cōclude it not ye conclude not agaynst the bishop nor fulfill your promise for all your proues stande on this profe that Moses was a priest Nowe the question was not whether Moses was a priest or no which is another question in controuersie But the question is whether he or Aaron were the chiefe priest Yet will ye peraduenture say though I haue herein as ye haue proued swarued from the directe conclusion in hande that Moses was not the chiefe priest nor kepte my promise yea and made a scape in saying that I ouerturned the bishops assertion when I did not or if I went about it yet mine argument proued but a fonde reason from priest to chiefe priest yet in the ende I haue proued Moses a priest and so consequently it serueth not your turne vnlesse ye will king Henry the eight and his sonne king Edwarde yea our gratious Queene to be a priest to but rather quite ouerturneth your assertion and think you M. Horne that the Queenes authoritie doth iumpe agree with the authoritie of Moses in causes ecclesiasticall then may she preache to the people as Moses did then may she offer sacrifices as Moses did then may she consecrate priests as Moses did consecrate Aaron and others then may it be sayde of the imposition of handes as was sayde of Moyses Iosua the sonne of Nun was full of the spirite of wisdome for Moses had put his hande vpon him It must needes therefore followe that Moses was a priest and that a high priest whiche ye heere full peeuishly denie Where ye aske M. Stap. of the Byshop And thinke ye M. Horne that the Queenes authoritie do the iumpe agree with th' authoritie of Moses might not the byshop demaund agayne the like of you and thinke you ▪ M. Stap. that euen your Popes authoritie admitting it were not the vsurped tyrannie which it is dothe iumpe agree with the authoritie of Moyses yea admitting also that question that he was a Priest and so consequently agayne it serueth not your turne nor master D. Hardings nor master Dormans neither I am sure as ye confesse he was a priest so ye will admit a difference betwéene your Pope and him and euen so since ye reason thus precisely of differences in the persons ye ought also to haue made a difference betwéene Moyses his diuerse offices and to haue giuen either office his proper actions and so to haue applied them and not to haue confounded them admitting that he one person were both a Prince and a Priest also which hangs in controuersie for all your cited authors But you reason confusedly à secundum quid ad simpliciter Moyses by an especiall priuiledge was a Prieste as well as a Prince and thereby did preache offer sacrifice consecrate Aaron lay imposition of handes and did other offices of Priests and many extraordinary things besides Ergo Moses in that he was a Prince not a Priest in