ye alleage that the king as soone as he is chosen shall bestowe his studie vppon the reading of the Deuteronomie VVhere Moses sayth that in doubtfull causes the people shoulde haue their recourse to the sayde Priestes and to the iudge for the time being meaning the highe Priest of whome they shoulde learne the truth and are commaunded to doe accordingly euen vnder paine of death All this ye say the Bishop wilily and sleightly slipt ouer and yet in the verie sayde Chapter it was euen the next to that he alleaged Alacke master Stapleton that euer yée should for shame haue thus ouerslipt your selfe Were ye not halfe a sléepe when ye made this slippe For I will not recharge you so harde wyth wylinesse and sleight but with palpable grosnesse and marueylous negligent ignoraunce in a student of diuinitie to beate so much vppon a text as you doe here charging your aduersarie wyth wylinesse sleight vnfaythfulnesse vnskilfulnesse leauing out curtalling and ouerslipping and your selfe shewe so little skil or regarde in citing your text that eyther ye know not or ye care not what commeth before what commeth after what commeth next what commeth not next nor nere it Ye saye that the sentence of the Priestes and the Iudges iudgements on doubtfull cases commeth euen the next to that the Bishop alleaged in the verie sayde Chapter Turne your booke to the Chapter once againe M. Stap. reade the wordes that come next yea all the wordes that follow in that Chapter Nor his heart shall be lifted vp in pride aboue his brethren neyther shall he turne to the right hande or to the left that both he and his childe may raigne long time ouer Israell Doth not this follow next and is not this the last sentence of the sayde Chapter Then if it be in that verie Chapter it commeth not as you say next vnto it but must néedes go before and so doth it Neyther yet the next before for there commeth betwene them fiue or six periods at the least And as they are two diuerse places so are they two sundrie matters Ye charge therefore the Bishop amisse with wilie and sleight ouerslipping where nothing is ouerslipped though the former sentence be not alleaged And ye falsely ioyne them togither saying The King shall bestow his studie vpon the reading of the Deuteronomie where Moyses sayth that in doubtfull causes c. When as Moses there sayth not so Ye falsely say it commeth next to it which it doth not but goeth before in another matter and diuerse sentences betwene What a foule ouerslippe was this of you that could prie so narrowly to séeke a slippe ouer a slipper in anothers footing where was not so muche as any tripping awrie and your selfe vnawares haue slipt into a foule lie ouer the sloppes and all But if we let slippe this as but a grosse ouerslippe yet maye we not so let slip M. Stapletons slipperie and false exposition for all he sayeth that their priestes can not expounde the scripture amisse For where the text sayth the people sholde haue their recourse to the priestes and to the iudge for the time beeing meaning sayth M. Stapleton the high priest In déede so doth his popishe glosse interline it and yet euen Lyra that woulde shift of the matter as much as he might for his Pope with his morall or rather marre all gloses hereon both noteth in his margin that these be twaine summâ—… sacerdos iudex the high Priest and the Iudge And sayth in his casibus c. In these and the like cases they must runne vnto the higher Iudges that is to say â–ª to the high Priest and to the chiefe Iudge of Israell And althoughe sometime it chaunced that one person had both these offices as appeareth by Hely who was both chiefe Iudge and chiefe Priest yet for the most part as they are distinct offices so were they commonly in distinct and seuerall persons And to proue this further by the penaltie which as you say was vnder the paine of death the which iudgement apperteyned to the Iudge but ordinarily it was not lawfull for the high priestes to iudge any man to death as euen the wicked priestes to cloke their murther when Pilate sayde vnto them Accipite eum vos c. Take you him and iudge him according to your law coulde replie like to the papisticall Priestes that post of the bodyes death to the temporall power Nobis non licet quemque interficere It is not lawfull for vs to kill any man but the Iudge that this place speaketh of should ordinarily condemne to death the refuser Ex indicis decreto moriatur homo ille Let that man die by the iudges decree Ergo he meaneth not that this ordinarie Iudge shoulde be the high priest Besides this the very text is plaine in making this distinction to the Priestes and to the Iudge not to the Iudge meaning the priest Againe The commandement of the high Priest and the decree of the Iudge Which fully importeth that he meaneth not the one by the other but expresseth two diuerse persons and two seuerall offices distinctly Wherfore master Stapleton apparantly wresteth the text thus flatly to say that he meaneth the high Priest by the name of Iudge to proue that his Pope hath no péere but all iudgement remayneth in him alone in euery difficult matter of religion And here againe appeareth another of his false and purposed ouerslippes Moses sayth he doth say that in doubtfull causes the people should haue their recourse to the priests Whie doe ye here master Stapleton forget your former marginall censure of leauing out anie materiall partes of the sentence telling vs of doubtful causes but not telling vs what those doubtfull causes were and speake as doubtfully as though they were matters of doctrine religion and ecclesiasticall ordinaunces which are the matters in question betwéene the partyes when this place speaketh onely of decyding a difficult or doubtfull matter betweene bloud and bloud plea and plea plague and plague in matters of stryfe But none of these specifications what maner of doutfull causes hée ment woulde you expresse for feare it woulde then bée to soone espyed that this sentence made nothing at all for the supreme iudgement of your Pope And yet after these two sleightes the one of remoouing the ciuill Prince or iudge from this iudgement with the Priestes and ascribing all to the Priestes alone to make it serue your purpose the better The other by slipping ouer all these doubtfull causes in the sentence expressed as thoughe it were simplie spoken wythout anye specification to make it serue for the Priestes absolute iudgemente in all ecclesiasticall ordinaunces When ye haue wyth thys dubble sleyght and wylinesse thus wrested the Text then come yée in ruffling lyke a lustye Rutterkin and swappe mée downe hereon this iolie marginall note An other sentence in the sayde Chapter by master Horne alleaged that ouerthroweth all his boast God saue al
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
ordinarie Glose sayth Nota quanâ—… assidâ—…itate legere debent Sacerdotes câ—… assidue legant reges Lectio ipsa est lux vitâ—… vnde verba qua ego loquor spiritus vita sunt Note with howe muche continuaunce the Priestes ought to reade the worde of God when Kings should reade it continually The reading is it selfe the lyghte and the life whereuppon sayth Christe the words which I speake are spirite and life Here M. Stapleton the lyfe lyes not as you sayde right nowe in the Priests exposition but in the word it selfe and the continuall reading thereof wherein not onely the Priest but the Prince is a kynde of Maister But are ye not right sure none of this is there neyther ye were best to say so for I perceyue ye haue an excellente grace to face downe a matter bée it neuer so playne and open Let vs nowe come to the fourthe and laste fault that he gathereth against the Bishop in this diuision whiche is also an vntruth as he saith in his margin the place of the Deuteronomie flady belied and adding this vnto the other before he saith This therfore may wel stand for an other vntruth as also that which immediatly you alleage out of Deu. 13. for in al that chapter or in any other of that booke there is no such worde to be founde as you talke of Uerily I beléeue our student M. St. had for studied himself in a lasie slumber and wrote this nodding half a sléepe for ful awake for pure shame he would neuer haue suffred such lewd lyes to scape his pen come in dropping thus one in an others necke as though he were at a poynte he cared not what he sayd neither against the playne truth nor against himselfe much lesse against the bishop Euery worde that the B. rehearseth in the last end of this diuision is fâ—…uÌ„d plainly exprest in the xiij and â–ª 17. of Deut. which chapters the Bishop quoted The wordes of punishing teachers of falâ—…e and superstitious religion and idolatrie in the former side of the leaf he grauÌ„teth himself to be in Deut. the. 13. Notwithstanding he forgetteth straight wayes what he sayd affirmeth on the other side of the leaf that there is no such word to be found But as he trippeth on the truth in the first side so on the other side of the same leaf he flatly falleth into a flat lye in both he tumbleth into a foule contradiction Moreouer in both sides he graunteth that by the. 13. of the Deut. The prince by his authoritie may punish teachers of falâ—…e religion superstition and idolatrie And may he do it withoute examining whether the doctrine wherewith the teacher is charged be true or false and being false whether he taught it or no Suche may be the order in the Popes consistorie but in Gods Courtes it is farre otherwise For God commaundeth Deut. 17. as the Bishop auouched the Prince when any is denounced vnto him to haue taught any false religion that he make diligent examination Quia noâ—… est procedendum ad sententiam sayth Lyra vpon these wordes fine diligeÌ„ti examinatione praeuia bicause he must not procede to giue sentence without diligent examination had before And this beeing found by the Princes diligent examination that he hath taughte false religion he shall be put to deathe The Bishoppes woordes comprehende all this The laste wordes also of the Bishops diuision to wete Et aufâ—…res malum de medio tui And thou shalt take away euil from among thee Are they not plainly set foorth in both those chapters So that a man might wonder that knewe not well Master Stapletons impudencie seeing that all the poyntes that the Bishoppe speaketh of in the later parte of this Diuision in the places of the Deuter â–ª aboue mencioned are so manifestly expressed with what face M. Stapleton can so boldly affirme that in al the â–ª 13. chapter or any other of that boke ther is no such word to be found as the bishop talketh of And thus with more than a full messe of notorious vntruthes to returne your owne conclusion M. Stapl. moste worthyly vpon your selfe ye haue furnished the firste seruice brought yet to the table concerning the principal matter howbeit perhappes though this be verie course yet you haue fine dishes and dayntie cates comming after Lette vs then proceede And as he sayth in the entrance of this diuision Go on I say in Gods name M. St. and prosecute your plea stoutely God send ye good speede and so he doth euen such as you and the honestie of your cause deserue and at the first entrie of your plea causeth you and your clerkly and honest dealing forthwith to your high commendation so to appeare that euen the firste authoritie that ye handle of all the holy Scripture playnly discouereth you and causeth you to be espied and openeth as well your fidelitie as the weakenes of youre whole cause the which euen with youre owne firste Counter blast is quite ouerblowen So fitly M. St. al these your owne words do serue against your selfe Diuision 11. IN this diuision the Byshop bringeth for his purpose two things first he alleageth generally that the beste and moste godly princes that euer gouerned Gods people did perceiue and rightly vnderstand that to be Gods will that they haue an especiall regarde and care for the ordering and setting foorth of Gods true Religion and therefore vsed great diligence with feruent zeale to performe and accomplishe the same Secondly for proofe héereof he entreth into his ensamples of the olde Testament beginning with Moyses that he was not the chiefe Priest or Byshop but the supreme gouernour or Prince and as chiefe gouernoure had the ordering of religion whiche he dutifully executed with great zeale and care To the former parte and generall assertion of the Bishop M. Stapleton only answereth by a marginall note saying Regarde and chiefe rule care and supreme gouernement are two diuers things â–ª Nowe forsoothe a solemne studied answere of a student in diuinitie he is a silly wise man that vnderstoode not thus muche before without this marginal note Too simple were he in déed that séeth they be not al one as he hath simply set them out But he that complained so late of curtalling and leauing out a materiall parte of the sentence whiche dooing he calleth vnfaithfulnesse sée howe vnfaithfully he hoffeth and curtalleth the Bishoppes sentence The Bishop spake not of simple care and reregarde but of an especiall care and regarde for the ordering setting foorth of Gods true religion With which assertion M. Stap. findeth no fault neither â—…y any worde goeth about to improue it and so sheweth himselfe to agrée therewith and by silence to confesse the truth thereof Now therefore let vs resolue the Bishops assertion and then consider thereon The Bishops assertion hath these thrée partes First that godly Princes ought to order and set forth Gods true
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
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