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
is in our trouble to inuocate him Call vpon me in the day of trouble and I wil heare thee and thou shalt glorifie me sayth God. The schoolemen confesse that inuocation est virtus latriae is the vertue of diuine honour Inuocation is therefore to bée made to none but god And if you knew or weighed M. St. howe great a thing Inuocation were ye woulde neuer for feare of God or shame of your selfe ascribe it to anye creature I nuocas deum sayth S. Aug. quando in te vocas deum Hoc est enim inuocare illum in tâ—… vocare quodam modo eum in domum cordis tui inuitare Thou inuocatest god or callest vpon God when thou callest God vpon thee for this it is to inuocate to call him into thee as it were to inuite him into the house of thy heart but none ought to dwell in our hearts besides God none can search the heart reynes but only god our hearts ought to be onely Gods seat for we are the temple of none but of God inuocation therfore being the sacrifice of the heart Sacrificium deo spiritus tribulatus cor contritum c. A troubled spirit is a sacrifice to God neither will he dispise a bruised heart ought to be ascribed to none but to god that saith Praebe fili mi cor tuuÌ„ mihi my son yeld me thy heart Moreouer as Chrisostome sayth cum oramus deo colloquimur VVhen we pray we speake to God. And so S. Aug. Oratio tua locutio est ad dâ—…uÌ„ Thy prayer is a speaking with God. Isidorus likewise cum oramus ipsi cum deo lâ—…quimur VVhen we pray we our selues do speake with god And Cassiodorus Cum deo loquitur c. Prayer speaketh to God talketh with the iudge c. To conclude al the doctors yea the schoolemen theÌ„selues 〈◊〉 praier to be directed only to god oratio saith Hugo est piae meÌ„tis humilis ad deuÌ„ conuersio fide spe charitate subnixa Praier is the conuersion of a godly humble mind to god grounded on faith hope and charitie And in the name of theÌ„ all Summa Angelica sayth accipitur proprie oratio c. Praier taken properly is the ascending of our minde to god c. and so taken it is diuersly defined Vt patet per Ho. in summa ti de poenis lo. An. in cle vnica de relâ—… â–ª ve san VVhervpon after Aug. in lib. de verbis domini Praier is a certaine petition And in an other place prayer is a godly affection of the mind directed to god c. Or according to Damasus li. 23. prayer is the mounting vp of the mind to god c. Or according to Raymunde Praier is an heaping vp of words tending to God to obteyne somwhat c. By all which sayings appeareth the definition of praier that except it be made to God it is no true praier But inuocation is praier Ergo inuocation must be made to God which except it be it is no true praier InuocatioÌ„ therfore vnto saints angels or any creature besides God is neither true nor godly To the confirmation whereof Christ teaching his disciples to pray directeth them onely to God saying Our father which art in heauen c. which prayer ought to be the greuÌ„d and paterne of all prayer to pray to him whome we may call our father whiche art in heauen whiche terme is competent to none but god As Christe sayde ye haue but one father The aungels call themselues our fellowe seruants not our father The Saintes may be called our brethren not our father The blessed Uirgin our sister not our father Yea though ye should call hir our mother wherin ye should derogate from the Church of Christ or our Ladie as without any warrant of y scripture ye do salute hir and with diuerse other names inuocate hir yet syth by no meanes ye can call hir our father you ought not therefore to inuocate or pray vnto hir or to any angell saint or creature but only pray to god that only is our heauenly father Saint Augustine and all the doctorâ—… agrée that the fountaine of inuocation is faith according to the scripture Quomodo inuocabunâ—… in quem non crediderunt Howe can they make inuocation to any vpon whom they haue not beleued By which rule if ye admitte inuocation to saints we must then beleue on saints but we must beleue on none but god we must thereâ—…ore inuocate none but God. Neyther here can ye slippe the coller with your stely distinction of calling for helpe and calling for intercession alleaging that ye pray to Saints as but to intercessors mediators or spokesmen for you saying only to them 〈◊〉 pro nobis pray for vs inâ—…ercede pro nobu go betweene vs and God But to God ye say Miserere nostrs â—…a nobis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 protege nos liber a nos Haue mercie vpon vs giue vnto vs helpe vs defende vs deliuer vs c For howsoeuer ye make your praiers ye graunt ye inuocate which by the nature of prayer by the forme prescribed of Christ by the beliefe to be affied on him to whome soeuer ye pray sheweth still your prayers to be Idolatrous In deede this shift is a stale shift but as S. Ambrose calleth it it is a wretched shift Solent misera vti excusationâ—… c. They are woont sayth he to vse a wretched excuse saying that euen as we come to a King by his noble men so through righteous men we may haue accesse to god Go to is there any so madde and so forgetfull of his health that he will ascribe the honour of the King vnto the noble man when if any man shall bee founde to haue so much as medled herein they haue worthily bene condemned for traytours And yet these men thinke not them guiltie which giue to a creature the honour of Gods name and forsaking the Lorde worship their fellowe seruants as though the matter were the more bicause they serued god For we come to the king through his tribunes and noble men for this cause euen bicause the King is a man and he knoweth not to whom he ought to commit the rule of the common weale But to come vnto God from whome nothing is hid for he knoweth the merites of all men we haue no neede to fee any intreater to speake for vs but wee haue neede of a deuout minde For wheresoeuer any such intreater shall haue spoken for vs God will giue no aunswere at all What can be playner spoken than this master Stapleton against the inuocation of Saintes admitting them no further than euen as intercessours Wherein he not only confuteth your distinction as a wretched shift of helps and intercession taketh away your common similitude and sheweth that intercession of any man be he neuer so iust not onely dothe vs no good at all but also
haue thought they had done God good seruice too so that he would haue maintayned them And do not you euen so what els maketh ye crie vpon the Princes beyond the seas with all kinde of torments to destroy the Protestants If Princes would aduise them selues or euer they beléeued you so lightly and would not destroy their subiects till they had sit in iudgmâ—…t heard discussed both parties causes throughly ye would not be halfe so hastie Ye would then crie to the contrarie that you must only be iudges they must onely beleue you strike onely them whom you shall bidde them strike Contrarywise where the Princes espying your falshood forsake your errours and sette out euen very milde lawes against you then ye change your coppie and crie out euery thing is extreme crueltie ye are too too sore handled and oppressed then ye extoll beyonde the moone lenitie and sufferance and winche like a gald horse at the least thing that toucheth you And thus euery way do you still shew your selues to be the very Donatistes Now that ye haue as you conceyue with your selfe giuen vs so great a foyle ye enter into your thirde parte saying VVe may now proceede to the remnant of your booke sauing that this in no wise must be ouerhipped that euen by your owne wordes here ye purge M. Feckenham from this crime ye laide vnto him euen now for refusing the proufeâ—… taken out of the old Testament Now for God M. St. since hitherto ye haue cléered him so sclenderly that ye haue more bewrapped him and your selfe also in this crime let nothing in any case be forgotten or ouerhipped that any wayes may helpe the matter forwarde for hitherto it rather hath gone backward but now there is good hope M. Feckenham shall take a good purgation euen of the Bishops owne making that you M. Stap. will minister to him which wil so worke vpon him make him haue so good a stoole that he shal be clerely purged of this crime of Donatistes â—…o to then M. Stapl and let vs sée how apothecarylike you can minister the same For if as ye say say you the order gouernment that Christ left behind in the Gospell new Testament is the order rule gouernment in ecclesiastical causes practised by the Kings of the old Testament then will it follow that M. Feckenham yelding to the gouernment of the new doth not exclude but â—…ather comprehende the gouernment of the old Testament also both being especially as ye say all one Is this the purgation M. St. that ye will minister to M. Feckenham would to God ye could make him receyue anâ—… brooke this sentence if you would take it also I warrent ye it would so purge you of your old leuen sowre dough that ye should no more be Donatists nor Papistes neither if ye receyue and well digest this little sentence The order and gouernment that Christ left behinde in the new Testament is the order rule and gouernment in Ecclesiasticall causes practised by the kinges of the old Testament For then giue ye Princes that that ye haue all this while denied theÌ„ But do ye thinke M. Feckenham will wittingly and willingly receiue this sentence that which in déede followeth necessarily thereon The sentence is true but M. Feck for all that may be a lier and you another For I warrant you M. Feck granteth this no â—…urder than as the Donatists he may temper it to make it seeme to serue his turne Why say you if he grant the onâ—… he doth not exclude but rather comprehende the other Nay M. St. M. Feck coÌ„preheÌ„des it not but shoonnes it as agaynst him by your owne confession But the olde being comprehended by the newe Master Feckenham is contrarie wise by force of argument graunting the newe enforced by the olde Not that he comprehendeth it but is comprehended of it and driuen to yeelde thereto of his aduersarie by conclusion of reasoning the one including the other But rather than he will do this voluntarily he will rather exclude them both the olde and the newe testament also and as he hath done burne them both togither The. 20. Diuision THe Bishop in this diuision first gathereth his full conclusion of all these testimonies into this argument What gouernment order and dutifulnesse so euer belonging to any God hath prefigured and promised before hande by his Prophetes in the holy scriptures of the olde Testament to be performed by Christ those of his Kingdom that is the gouernment order and dutifulnesse set forth and required in the Gospell or new testament But that faythfull Emperours Kinges and Rulers ought of dutie as belonging to their office to claime and take vpon them the gouernment authoritie power care and seruice of God the Lorde in matters of Religion or causes Ecclesiasticall was an order and dutifulnesse for them prefigured and forepromised of God by his Prophetes in the Scriptures of the olde Testament as Saint Augustine hath sufficiently witnessed Ergo Christian Emperors Kings and Rulers owe of dutie as belonging to their office to clayme and take vpon them the gouernment authoritie power care and seruice of God their Lorde in matters of Religion or spirituall ecclesiasticall causes is the gouernment order and dutifulnesse setforth and required in the Gospell or new Testament The Bishop hauing thusfully concluded these Testimonies he yet confirmeth them further with more authorities of the Prophete Esay with Lyra his exposition therevpon and the example of Constantine for proufe of the same At this master Stapleton first carpeth by certaine marginall notes or euer he blowe vp the Chapter of his Counterblast thereto The minor of the Bishops conclusion for the Princes gouernment authoritie power care c. he grauÌ„teth but not such supreme gouernment sayth he as the othe prescribeth He graunteth also Saint Augustine to witnesse this the Princes gouernment but no such large and supreme gouernment as we attribute now to them Againe he graunteth this supreme gouernment is in causes ecclesiasticall â–ª but not in all causes ecclesiasticall And so graunting that the Bishop concludeth well in some such thing you conclude not sayth he in all things and causes and therefore you conclude nothing agaynst vs. Lastly he graunteth all the Bishops testimonies concerning Constantine but he denieth that it maketh any thing for vs. Nowe after these marginall notes prefixed he entreth into his Chapter pretending to open the weakenesse of the Bishops conclusion and of other his proues oute of holie Scripture And first his aunswere to this diuision he deuideth in thrée partes First he graunteth all that the Bishop hath sayde but denieth that it is sufficient Secondly he quarrelleth about this that the Bishop calleth the Emperour Constantine a Bishop as Eusebius nameth him Thirdly he chalengeth him for calling Idoll Image Now to the first parte to sée whether all these grauntes make sufficiently for vs and conclude against him yea
he was a good king in ouerséeing the Priestes do their dueties and not him selfe intruding into the doing of their duties But of this exaÌ„ple we haue heard somwhat already in answering master Stapleton and we shal haue more agayne in M. Saunders fourth Chapter and therfore I reserue my selfe to the larger answere of it To this he addeth an Item of Iosaphat saying Itemque c. And also Iosaphat the king of Iuda distinguishing both powers sayde to the Leuites and the Priests Amarias the Priest and your Bishop stil gouerne in those things that perteine to god Moreouer Zabadias the sonne of Ismaell who is the captayne in the house of Iuda shal be ouer those workes that perteyne to the office of the king Beholde other thinges perteyne to the office of the Bishop and other to the the kinges office This we haue beholden alreadie in Master Stapletons obiection of the same and there may you M. Saunders beholde the answere And thus muche agayne for the vse of both these powers Now thirdly for the end therof saith M. Saunders Of the ende of both powers not the last but the middle ende that the ciuill power toucheth nought but this lyfe Christ saith Feare not theÌ„ that kil the body but they can not kill the soule And agayne the Apostle willeth vs to pray for kings those that are in authoritie that we may hue a quiet and peaceable life A quiet life therefore is the last ende of the ciuill power dwelling without the Churche But of that which is in the Church it is not the last but yet the proper ende it is VVhyle in the meane time the eccl. power belongeth to the lyfe to come as Christ hath sayde whatsoeuer ye lose on earth shall be loosed in heauen To this distinction of the endes of these powers I answere it is false not only the laste ende as he graunteth but the meaner endes also of the ciuill power in the church of Christ stretche further than this lyfe I appeale to the Princes institution and office Deuter. 17. I appeale to all the doings of the godly Kings Iudges and ciuill magistrates described in the scripture I appeale to Constantine the great that thought religion to be the chiefe ende of hys gouernment Yea I appeale to the places that euen héere M. Sanders citeth for his purpose â–ª manifestly wresting â—… mayming that of S. Paule to Timothie For he sayth not onely Ut quietam tranquillam vitam agaâ—…us That we may leade a quiet and peaceable life and there endeth but he addeth further withall in omni pietate honestate in all godlynesse honestie In which two words chiefly al godlinesse what is included is at large declared against master Stapleton But before this place M. Sanders citeth the testimonie of Christ that the prince can do no more but kill the body I answere Christe makes not the proper ende of the Princes power to kill the body but rather as you said before out of S. Paule to saue it To kill it is an accidentall tude of his power yet Iwisse Christ spake not there onlye of ciuil Princes but as muche agaynst the tyrannie of the highe Priests or any other that woulde persecute the ministers of Christ to death as your Pope you his chaplaynes do But I pray you M. sand may not an ill Prince wrest his authoritie to destroy the soule also with maynteyning Idolatrie false religion In déede he can not kill the soule for properly it can not be killed But that kind of killing that the soule may suffer which is sinne and damnation the rewarde of sinne with the one striken of the deuil by malice and wounded of him selfe by errour with theother striken of God by Iustice and deserued of him selfe by sinne may not the ill Prince make his power be a meane therto and may not an ill priest on this wise kill the soule as wel and sooner than he I wot what your pope Pius 2. was wont to say Malâ—… medâ—…ci corpus imperiti sacerdotes animam oâ—…cîdunt Ill Phisitions kil the body but vnskilfull Priests kill the soule You say your power stretcheth to the life to come In déede M sand the true eccl. power stretcheth to the life to come I feare me yours doth stretch to life as ye say but not to come but onely to the present life of the body but to death of body and soule both nowe and to come for euer Besides al this I appeale euen to your owne selfe M. sand that affirme the ciuil power in the church of Christ to stretch to farre further more proper endes thaÌ„ this life for in your fourth chapter folowing ye haue this quotation Christianâ—…rum regna leâ—…ularia non sunt Christian kingdomes are not worldly Wheron ye haue these words Moreouer the kingdomes of the faythfâ—…ll Princes whose people feare â–ª God are not altogither earthly or worldly for in that parte that they haue beleeued in Chryst they haue as it were lefte to be of the worlde and haue begonne to be members of the eternall kingdome For although the outwarde face of thinges which is founde in kingdomes meere secular be in a Christian kingdome Yet sithe the spirite of man is farre the moste excellent parte of him and the whole spirite acknowledgeth Christ his king and onely Lorde I see nothing why Christian kingdomes ought not to be rather iudged spirituall according to their better parte than earthly And this is the cause why now so long since those which gouerned the people of God were wont to be anointed of his ministers no otherwise than were the Prophetes and Priests For euen the kings them selues also are after a sort â–ª partakers of the spiritual ministerie wheÌ„ they are anoynted Not that they shoulde do those thinges that are committed to the onely priestes hereto orderly consecrated but that those thinges whiche other kinges referre to a prophane and worldly ende these kinges shoulde nowe remember that they ought to directe to an holy ende For when they them selues are meere spirituall it is fitte that they shoulde wyll that all their thinges shoulde also be accounted as it were spirituall Loe M. Saunders in these wordes ye confesse farre other proper endes and farre other estates also in the ciuill power of Christian Princes than this lyfe of the body and the quiet tranquillitie therof And therfore what néede further witnesse when your selfe are not onely contrarie to your selfe but also beare witnesse agaynst your selfe Now wheÌ„ M. Sanders hath thus prosecuted these three differences of these two estates he collecteth his conclusion saying But if the ecclesiasticall power differ from the ciuill in the originall in the vse and in the ende and so well the beginning of the ecclesiasticall power as the vse and ende is farre the more worthy shall they not of wise men be iudged mad which either confounde these powers
life for me he can not be my Disciple much more then must he hate his kingdome and be readie to leaue his kingdome and all the good in the vvorlde for Christe or else hee is no Christian. You say true M. Sanders he must forsake and hate al for Christes sake But that he must do this for your Byshoppes sakes when they will say it is expedient he should so do that I finde not in the words of Christe and yet muste you beware howe you expounde that saying For he is bound also to loue and to kéepe to the vttermost all these thinges in their kindes not to renounce nor hate theÌ„ except they hinder him from Christ whom he must prefer before al things But this loue to Christe in principall maye stande togither with these loues wel inough Neither is he any more bounde to resigne his kingdome than to resigne his vvife into the Priestes hands Nor if he abuse his kingdome the Prieste can no more turne him out of it than he can if he abuse his goods and his vvife turne him not of his dores and take his goodes and his vvife from him and kéepe hir himself or giue hir vnto an other This can not the Byshop do although the Prince and euerie man be bounde to lose al for Christes cause Yea the Byshop is bounde hereto as well as any other And God knowes how some of them kepe this bonde and yet wil not they léese one halfpennie for Christes sake howsoeuer they breake it But the kingdome is a â—…oule moate in their eye and therefore the King poore soule must lose all and they must take it from him But now to Master Saunders other arguments Moreouer the kingdomes of faithfull Princes whose people feare God are not altogether earthly or worldlye For in that part that they haue beleued in Christ they haue as it were lefte to be of this worlde and haue begonne to be members of the eternall kingdome for although the outwarde face of things which is founde in kingdomes meere secular be in a Christian kingdome yet sith the spirite of man is farre the more excellent parte of hym and the whole spirite acknowledgeth Christ his King and onely Lorde I see nothing why Christian kingdomes ought not rather to be Iudged spirituall according to their better part than earthly And this is the cause why nowe long since those which gouerned the people of God were wont to be annoynted of his Ministers no otherwise than were the Prophetes and Priestes For euen the Kings them selues also are after a sort partakers of the spirituall Ministerie when they are annoynted not that they should do those things that are committed to the onely Priestes herevnto orderly consecrated but that those things which other Kings referre to a prophane and worldly ende these Kings should now remember that they oughte to directe to an holye ende For when they themselues are made spirituall it is fitte they should will that all their things should be counted as it were spirituall But nowe are spirituall things so vnder the Church of Christ that the Church may freely dispose and decree of them to the profite of the whole mysticall body Syth therefore the people of Israell woulde needes desire a King to be giuen them Samuel by the commaundement of God toke a cruse of oyle and powred it vpon the heade of Saule and kissed him and sayd beholde God annoynteth thee to be the Prince ouer his inheritaunce VVhich to me seemeth to signifie euen as though it had bene sayde except the Lord annoynted thee to be the Prince thou couldest not rightly and orderly be the Prince ouer hys people whiche hee hathe chosen and reserued out of all the worlde to be as it were peculiar to hymselfe For in that that is gods no man can take power to him selfe without Gods permission But God anoynted Saul to be the Prince not by himselfe but by Samuel his minister wherfore whosoeuer ruleth ouer the Christian people which is no lesse acceptable to God than was the people of the Iewes hee besides the right which he receyueth of God by the consent of the people ought also to acknowledge his power to be of Christe by his Ministers if so be that he be suche an one that worshippeth the Fayth of Christe VVherevpon to thys day all Christian kingdomes are annoynted of some Christian Bishop or some other Minister of God referring therein their principalitie not onely to the people and so vnto God but that moreouer by the Priests of Christ they referre it vnto Christ whose Ministers they are For Pope Leo wrote elegantly vnto Leo the Emperour Thou oughtest to marke stedfastly the Kingly power not onely to bee giuen to thee to the gouernement of the worlde but to be giuen thee chiefly for the succour of the Churche that in suppressing naughtie attemptes thou shouldest bothe defende those things that are well decreed and restore the true peace to those things that are troubled If Maister Saunders woulde goe plainely to woorke and make his argumentes shorte and formall and woulde rather shewe his Logike than his Rethorike the truth or falsehoode woulde appéere the sooner the reader perhappes mighte be the lesse delyghted but withoute perhappes hee shoulde be lesse beguyled and the aunswere mighte bée the clearer and the shorter â—…ll this long argument in effect is this All spirituall things are so vnder the Church of Christ that the Church may freely dispose and decree of them to the prosite of the whole mysticall body All Christian Kings and kingdomes are spirituall things Ergo all Christian Kings and Kingdomes are so vnder the Church of Christ that she maye freely dispose and decree of them to the prosite of the whole mysticall body And firste Maister Saunders trauels in the Minor. To proue Christian Kyngs and Kyngdomes spirituall that bycause the better parte of them is spirituall therefore hée seeth nothyng why they oughte not to bee rather iudged spirituall Yea Kings were woâ—…e to bee annoynted no otherwyse than Prophetes and Priestes not to doe theyr actions but to referre all theyr affayres to holy and spirituall dedes And can you sée this Maister Sanders Now how chance you coulde not seeit before when you made the Christian Princes ciuill power to be no better than the Turkes or Tartars to stretch no furder thaÌ„ to the body a quiet lyfe haue you now espied not onely the endes wherevnto they rule but the estate also itselfe by reason of the better parte to be spirituall what hath made you see so cléerely nowe forsooth now is now and then was then You were pleading then that the Christian Princes ciuill estate was so farre different and vnlike that Princes might not meddle in spirituall matters and therfore then was fitte oportunitie to denie that Christian Princes Ciuill power had any spirituall thing in it But nowe we are in another argument that Priestes maye order and dispose
that 〈◊〉 both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the literal sense you would â–ª thus â–ª must straked If the matter of Christes parable of the Cockle growing togither with the wheate I graunt that we ought to auoyde such cohabitation as may conueniently be auoyded But such cohabitatioÌ„ as cannot be auoyded without the incurring of another greater sinne must not be denyed As the husband to denie câ—…habitation with his wife though he be faithfull and she an Iâ—…fidell yet if she will tarie and dwell with him he can not put hir away for â—…ir infidelitâ—…e Nor likewise can the faithful â–ª woman forsake the man thoughe he be an Infidell neyther can the childe denie his naturall obedience to his parentes cohabitation with theÌ„ though he be faithfull and they be Infidels Neither can the faithfull seruaunt denie his ciuill obedience and cohabitation with his Maister although his maister be an Infidell as were the most in S. Paules time and yet he would haue none denie cohabitation with their maisters no thoughe they were rough and cruell besides their infidelitie And shal the subiect then denie his politike cohabitation â–ª and ciâ—…ill obedience to his liege Soueraigne and lawfull Prince for pretence of diuersitie in religion Eightly â–ª I answere if you will néedes apply this separation of the Leper to a morall or mysticall signification yet serueth it not to the deposing of the person from his Câ—…ill estate or to his exelâ—…sion from a common weale but to hys exclusion of morall vertue or to his expulsion â—…ute of the 〈◊〉 of grace from beeing a â—…ber of the mysticall comâ—… weale whiche letteth not but that he maye remayne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nâ—…thly I answere your conclusion that you make for kingâ—… so well â—…s oâ—…h 〈◊〉 men fayleth â—…n this example of king Ozâ—…s â—…or neither was he deposed by y Priest or by any other man but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 king â–ª so long as he is of king Ozias â—…thly I answeâ—…e that al this 〈◊〉 â—…ere admitted maketh nothing against protestant Princes but it maketh much agaiÌ„st popish priests For if vnto all that bring into the Church straunge doctrine straked as it were with the spots of Lepry cohabitation must be denied Then the Pope and all your popish Priests being founde to bring into the Church other doctrine than God hath taught in his holy Scripture are to lie thrust out of Gods Churche if worse should not happen vnto you by the figure if you will go to figures of Nadab Abiu that offred straunge fire before the Lorde and were consumed with fire from heauen but beware you of a fire in hell And thus much to your figure of the Leprie for deposing Princes which if we denie you say as is your common saying we haue not our common senses But had you had your priuate senses when you made this argument you woulde haue béen better aduised ere euer you had made it common and had Printed it but you did but as other had done before for the argument before was common But what doe I reason sayth Maister Saunders Athalia the Mother of Ochozias murdered all the Kyngly seede excepte Ioas whome Iosaba had hidde in the house of the lord Moreouer Athalia raigned ouer the lande seuen yeares But in the seuenth yeare Ioiada the Byshop taking to him Centurions Captaynes and souldiors made a couenant with them and swore them in the house of the Lorde and shewed vnto them the kings sonne and gaue theÌ„ in charge what they should doe and brought out the son of the King and set the Crowne vpon him and the testimonie and made him King anoynted hym But Athalia when she sawe the King standing vpon the Tribunall according to the maner she cryed out treason treason But Ioiada the high Priest commaunded the Centurions and saide carie hir out without the boundes of the Temple And whosoeuer followeth hiâ—… let him be striken with the sworde And Athalia was killed in the Kyngs house Ioiada therefore made a couenant betweene the Lorde and the King and betweene the people And Ioas dyd that which was right before the Lorde all the dayes wherein Ioiada the Priest dyd teache hym Doe we not here playnely see the whole knowledge of the Kyngs cause to haue bene belonging towardes one high priest He calleth the souldiors Iudgeth the Queene that had ruled seuen yeares to haue raignedvniustly and commaunded hir both to be deposed and killed and in hir place dyd substitute Ioas to be King and subiected hym vnder the Lorde and placed hym aboue the people All which things sithe they were well done is it not nowe true according to the sentence of the diuine Scripture that the Byshop oughte to knowe of the causes of Kings and Emperours whether they be iuste or vniust For what so euer the Byshop in thys kynde doth whether he define the King to be deposed or to be placed he is no other than the Angell of the Lord out of whose lyppes as well Kyngs as priuate men oughte to requyre the lawe of the Lorde The hygh Priest is as it were a sequester as betweene the Lorde and the Kyng so betweene the Kyng and the People So whyle one Iudge in the Churche is ordayned bothe betweene Kings themselues sturred vp wyth mutuall contentions and also betweene them and theyr People infinite occasions of warres and tumults are cutte off Maister Saunders here firste asketh what he doth reason If he can not tell what he doth reason surely I know not But this I knowe that it was but a very weake reason and therefore belyke he was wearie of it and wyll returne agayne to vrge vs wyth example And here to knit vp the olde Testament he alleageth the example of Ioiada the high Priest for the kylling of Athalia and the substitutyng of Ioas to bée king But this example whiche beareth yet a face to come farre nerer to the purpose than any thyng spoken hetherto notwythstandyng if it be well considered is as farre from the purpose and as muche wrested vnto it as the other I omit that he still kepeth his old practise in iumbling together diuerse pieces of the scripture and not to set downe the text as it lyeth and yet he maketh a distinction of letter as though it were all the text Which and it were not his common vâ—…age of the scripture were the better to be borne withall and might be imputed to the â—…ters negligence as it often falleth out but in so often handling thus of the scripture it is not tollerable But to the example First I answere this pertayneth nothing to the questioÌ„ in hand for the deposing of a King. Here is no King deposed Here is an vsurper that had no righ so the kingdome killed And to your owne expositor Lyra saith vsurpauit sibi regnum Iuda prius describitur â—…uiusonodi vsurpatio She vsurped to hir selfe the kingdome of Iurie and this kinde of
eyes to see eares to heare and handes to feele we can not choose but beholde it in the face 434. a. Ye had neede looke well to your selfe remember nowe among other things master Horne c. Take heede master Horne Thinke vpon this at your good laysure remember also howe ye stande c. VVherein I pray you resteth a great part of your newe clergie B. But in Butchers C. Cookes Catchpoles and Coblers D. Diers Daubers F. Fellons Fishermen G. Gunners H. Harpers I. Inkeepers M. Merchants and Mariners N. Netmakers P. Potters Poticaries and Porters of Belingsgate R. Ruffling Ruffians S. Sadlers Sheremen and Shepeheardes T. Tanners Tylers Tinkers Trumpetters VV. VVeauers VVherrymen 481. a. b. This and such other is his Rhetorik eyther flourishing with 〈◊〉 wordes running on a letter and nowe and then sifting the whole crosse rowe for them Or else doubling and trâ—…bling of 〈◊〉 phrases or multiplying of wordes with which euery sentence is in a maner farced For 〈◊〉 is not commonly content to expresse his minde with one worde be it 〈◊〉 so plaine except he vnderproppâ—… it with an other at the least as thus miserable and wretched peruerting and deprauing The full illustration and opening of whole and entyre matter Euidently and openly disciphered and disclosed espied and vnbuckled bewrayed and detected opened illustred and confirmed Which as it is most vaine babling so is it altogither vnworthy the noting except briefly to shew the reader what kinde of vanitie he hath puft vp this his Counterblast withall His sixt common place of impertinent discourses His ovvne obiection of the same LIke a wanton Spaniell hee runneth from his game at riot 243. Master Horne sayth he seeketh out bye matters leauing the principall as the Donatistes did 321. a. That thou mayest the better sée howe he obserueth this and kéepeth himselfe to his matter or no first beholde the issue and state of the question betwéene the Bishop and M. Fëckhenham which is this VVhether any Prince haue taken on them any such supreme gouernment as dothe the Q. Maiestie in ecclesiasticall causes Which issue to be resolued in Master Feckenham desireth the proufe by any of these foure wayes eyther by the Scriptures or by the Doctors or by the Councels or by the continuall practise in any one part of Christendome To the which issue by all these foure said wayes the Bishop directeth all his prooues and in this first booke he prooueth it by two of them the Scriptures and the Doctors Now whether Master Stapleton kéepe himself to this issue or to the proufes thereof or to the Bishops answere without playing the wanton Spaniell and the part of the Donâ—… iudge when thou hast read this his sixt common place And withall thou shalt sée what good plentie of bye matters he had in store when substantiall matter â—…ayled him In his first Preface taking on him to gather abriefe summe of such things as he thought specially he might deface the Bishop withall throughout all his Preface he neuer setteth 〈◊〉 the issue in controuersie but quarelleth about other things with the Bishops rashnesse follie Grammer Logike Rhetorike Arithmetike And where at the length he speaketh of king Henrie 1. his dealings in punishing Priestes whoredome to shewe â—…ow of purpose he séeketh out his quarelles he slinketh from the Princes dealing wherewith he is vrged and sayth this is not the thing we now seeke for but to know what kinde of whoredome it was that the Priestes shoulde be punished for Pag. 12. And Pag. 18. letting go the matter that he is in hande withall he discourseth agaynst the Bishop of Sarum about Sabellicus titles In the 2. Preface where he bindeth himselfe 〈◊〉 than in the. 1. to declare the whole pith of the question and course of the Bishops and his owne â—…ke he digresseth into a common quarell about diuersitie of fects and heresies which he ascribeth to the Protestants he câ—…eth into Greece Affrica Bohemia Hungarie Lifelande pag. 30 and so commeth home to Englande digressing from the question and issue to English bookes to forbidding of the Bible to be read to the iudgemeÌ„t of Lambert to burning to religious houses Pag. 31. to vowes to repealing lawes to setting forth a newe religion to mariage of Priestes to consecrating â–ª Bishops to the reall presence Pag. 32. Then runneth he to search out discorde in the Protestants and quarelling about wordes in the act and iniunction he maketh an exhortation to returne to the Romaine Church 33. 34. 35. In the aunswere to the Bishops Preface the first whole diuision fo 1. 2. a. b. A loâ—…g impertinent discourse to molliâ—…e master Feckenhams pretence for setting out his booke A number of bie matters falsely charging the Bishop with diuerse impertinent slaunders 2. b. 3. a. Pretending to direct the reader to the question here in trouersie for the nonce he setteth vp a number of newe markes that master Feckenham and the Bishop medleth not withall 3. b. Fol. 4. a. He quarelleth at the Bishop of Sarum for the 600. yeares and the Bishop of Winchester for alleaging testimonies of later yeares calling this vneuen dealing of the Protestants He quarelleth about precise wordes He maketh a new chalenge to the Bishop he chargeth the Bishop of a late bragge none of all these things belonging any whit to the matter 4. b. 5. a. In his first booke A long outrode whether the Bishop were well called by M. Feck the Lorde Bishop of VVinchester or no. 7. a. b. Whether he be Bishop or prelate of the Garter 7. b. succession of Bishops 8. a â–ª against the mariage of Bishops of flesh on Frydayes of a Pigge turned into a Pike That the Protestants be Heretikes euen by the Apologie of England 8. b. An inuectiue against the actes of Parliament of altering religion agaynst the will of the whole clergie that the Bishop can not defende himselfe to bee a Bishop by any lawe of the Realme About the reall presence transubstantiation and adoration 9. a. Deniall of free will the necessitie of baptising children vnlawfull mariage 9. b. A long inuectiue agaynst the disputation at VVestminster Anno. reginae 1. with a number of friuolous excuses whie they shranke from it 12. a. b. 13. a. A long digression almost of 13. leaues togither nothing to the question but discoursing into all countreys Boheme Germanie Denmarke Swethland Brabant Hollande Flaunders Lukelande Englande Fraunce Scotlande Saxonie Hessia VVestphalia besides many townes and Cities chiefly about the businesse in the lowe Countreys to deface the Gospell by the tumults there raysed as the worlde well séeth onely by the practises of the Papists Fol. 33. b. Hauing mentioned the plague he falleth into wicked ghessing that the procedings in that Parliament were the cause of the plague that reigned at London and once againe a â—…ing at the Bishops that they be no Church nor yet Parliament Bishops A long impertinent bibble babble about master Feckenhams ioly disputations begon at London and ended at
Peter and Saint Paule so earnestly taught at that time obedience to Princes But what obedience coulde they require in subiectes if they comprehended not with all authoritie in Princes fol. 75. b. Aunswere these contradictions with his owne wordes I am here in the beginning put to the knowledge by the varietie of your aunsweres that they cannot be both true but if the one be true the other must be false fol. 40. a. By your contradictions ye shewe the vnstablenesse of your owne Iudgement 1. Pres. pag. 19. His ninth common place of petit quarels at Grammer and other trifles to prolong his booke thereby His ovvne obiection of the same WHo seeth not nowe that all this was but a quarell picked without desert and you master Stapletonn to haue shewed yourselfe amost ridiculous wrangler But Gods name be blessed the dealing of Catholike wryters is so vpright that suche small occasions must bee piked and vppon suche trifles your Rhetorike must bee bestowed else agaynst their dealing ye haue nothing to say 1. Preface pag. 18. IN his first Preface where he giueth a briefe antedate of all those things that he is â—…ust offended withall he maketh this a verie heynous faulte that the Bishoppe called Conuenâ—…t It ought to bee for It is meete or conuenient to bee â–ª 1. Pref. Pag. 4. As who saye if a thing bée meete and conuenient it ought not to bee or if it ought to be it is not meete and conuenient to bee But if Oportet muste néedes alwayes signifie it ought to bee then ought your Bishops if they bée Bishops to bée maryed For Saint Paule sayth not Conuenit but Oportet Episcopuâ—… esse vniâ—… vxâ—…r is viruâ—… A Bishop ought to be the husbande of one wife In the same place he maketh a sorer matter aboute this worde recenâ—…endam to reherse which worde the Bishoppe went not aboute to interprete in that place as the letter sheweth but onelye to tell the sentence and intente of their doyng and wherefore did the Councell present their doynges to bée read or rehearsed before the Emperour but that he might examine and confyrme the same Besides that they them selues beséeche him to ratifie and confirme them which he could not well doe hauing not examined and perused them ibid. Likewise about irrogare priuilegia that eyther by escape of the Printer as many such escapes in any booke may hap or by the ouersight of the writer of the Printers copie was printed to take away for he gaue of which escape Lord what a wonderfull triumphant outcrie he maketh also in his Counterblast while the materiall purpose is all one agaynst him whether the Prince made priuileges or abrogated priuileges and tooke them from the Clergie For if his taking away were lawfull his authoritie remayned equall in both except ye will say â–ª Princes haue authoritie to make priuileges for the Clergie giue or make for them what and how much they will but they that haue learned holdefast the first point of hawking will not suffer them by the same authoritie to take any away agâ—…ine for that is against their profite But the lawe sayth contrary the same authoritie that may make the same authoritie may vndâ—…e and take away againe ibidem But lesse maruaile is it that he quarelleth about the former wordes that cauilleth about the Englishing of quauiâ—… causa any cause which must be sayth he euery cause calling this interpreting foule shiftes neuerthelesse of much importance to call quauis any yet himself euen in the next lease not of quauis qualibet or quacunque whereon he descanteth Grammarian like but euen of nothing can make Any a foule shift and yet not of any other importance at all than to shewe that any or all these causes of his brablings are in conclusion of no importance at all But admitting as he would haue it the Kings and the Councels decrée agaynst the carying of causes out of the Realme to be pleaded at the Court of Rome should signifie not any but eueâ—…y cause then coulde not the penaltie of the breach thereof extend to any that had tryed excéeding many causes at Rome and dayly did for all this decrée vnlesse it had â—…ene proued he had there tried euerie cause and so the decrée it selfe had bene of nonâ—… importance at all whereat so heynous a matter is made and yet the worde in that place admitteth so well none other interpretation ibid. The like quarell he piketh aboute supremuâ—… gâ—…bernator supreme gouernour in the Queeneâ—… Maiesties title to the othe administred at Oxenfordâ—… of the which othe he sayth A scholler might make an honest refusall were it nothing but for false Latine Which rule of his if it holde then many of their poâ—…ishe ceremonies their Latine seruice their Masse yea euen their consecration might honestly he refused were it but for false Latine when their ignoraunt Priestes did pronounce corpus 〈◊〉 c. in nomina patria filia spirita sancta c. 〈◊〉 for sumâ—…simus or such like wordes about the which your best scholemen make somewhat more 〈◊〉 standing vpon the intentioâ—…s and not so much vpon the sillables that euen for the false construction of sir Iohn lackâ—… Latine that patreth Latine like a Parat they might honestly refuse the same but to saue the honestie of theyr priests and their ignoraunt escapes they haue a contrarie glosse to your rule quia error sillabae non nocet the error of a sillable hurteth not althoughe they that vsed this phrase knewe as well howe to set the Substantiâ—…e and the Adiectiue togither as master Stapleton I dare say and were it so as he sayth might take the phrase vsually receyued not respecting the gender so much as the selfe thing and power As we vse in Englishâ—… to say without quarelling thereat the Quéenes Royall or regall estate though shee by hir seâ—…e be Queene and by Grammer shoulde say reginall estate likewise we call hir gouernour defender and your selfe call hir often Prince not Princesse all these and suche like wordes or phrases setting aside the exacting of Grammer rules in respect of hir kingly power the lawyers say they may vse this licence of speach to whome I remitte you and to other your Canonists scholemen and Historiographers that haue vsed the same or like with no reproche or quarell piked thereat And if now the Quéenes Maiesties supremacie must néedes be renouÌ„ced for this phrase bicause by the censure of our new Aristarchus it is not so Grammerlike then must your Pope himselfe léese his vsurped supremacie so oft as it often falleth out he is no Grammarian at all ibidem Likewise he maketh a quarell about these wordes supreme head in the title of King Henrie and King Edwarde and the wordes of the title vsed nowe supreme gouernour where all men knowe that the sense is all one but that this title more plainly expresseth the matter to preuent such ianglers Yea but sayth he there is a certaine addition of greatest
chiefly directed to dissuade hir subiects myndes to whome in hucker mucker ye sende these bookes ouer from the acknowledging of the sayde hiâ—… Maiesties supreme authoritie maye it not truly be sayde men maye iustly gather this as youre chiefe ende Is not euery wriâ—…ers chiefe ende to persuade his reader in his principall matter is not this here youre principall matter to improue the taking vpon hir of this authoritie If ye haue any chiefer ende or more principall purpose that is better than this cléere your self and shew it Uerâ—…ly our chiefest end in writing hereof is to persuade hir subiectes that by your deceiuings stand in any mammering to a godly liking of the sayd title as most dâ—…e and lawfull to hir highnesse estate And if yours be not the contrarie hereto let your doings be according and we shal like it the better But see here M. Stapleton how soone ye folter in your numbers and misse in your tale at the fyrste beginning of all ye haue scored vs vp in your marginall score two vntruthes when ye come to counting them twaine afterward in your answere ye recken vs vp thrée saying of the second in your score This is an vntrue and false surmise of Maister Horne as are the other two here also reckning vp that that ye counted for the first And thus wée knowe not whether we haue euen or odde 2. or 3. Wherby all your reckening is marde and false counted Is this your daunce M. Stap. in beginning to trip the round when one lye tumbles out so proprely in the necke of an other But hoysta God blesse them they fallout faire Howbeit as they say it is a good horse that neuer stumbled thoughe it be an euill signe to stumble yea to fall downe right at the first setting out I make proofe by the continuall practise of the Church in like gouernment as the Queenes Maiestie taketh vpon hir The thirde vntruth you neuer proue the like gouernment namely in all Ecclesiasticall thinges and causes The truthe or vntruthe of this being referred to the triall in the sayde practise will soone pull backe this thirde dauncer from hopping in your rounde And as for your self ye are a false piper M. Stapleton thus soone vnto your liâ—… to pipe a wrong rounde harping on an other issue than was required of the B. to proue Wherin as your greate falshood â—…hal appeare so your selfe do here halfe graunt this to be no vntruth daring not flatly say the Bishop neuer pro ued the like gouernment which the Bishop only here affirmeth but you denie it in a respect namely say you in al ecclesiasticall things and causes â–ª which the Bishop here affirmeth not nor it is his propre issue in question demaunded of Master Feck and yet he proueth euen that also I haue put into englishe the authors myndes and sentences The fourth vntruth for he wrongfully alleageth both the wordes and meanings of his authours He bringeth no instance at al wherby to proue this that he sayth which til he can do it must go for a lie of his owne making wherby he measureth other mens translations by his owne corrupting his authors wordes sentences mindes and all as is alreadie declared This title is so replenished with vntrue reportes The fyfth vntruth in wrongfully charging M Feckenham for the title of his treatise Whether Master FeckeÌ„hams treatise had a true title or no lette others déeme Maister Feckenham made a treatise entituled by the name of An ansvvere to the Queenes Maiesties Commissioners and the same by writing be deliuered to the Bishop of Winchester and afterwarde sent abroade the sayd Treatise entituled by name The declaration of suche scruples c. as Maister Iohn Feckenham by vvryting did deliuer vnto the Lorde Bishop c. when he neuer deliuered any suche entituled treaâ—…ise vnto him Is this then vntruly or wrongfully donâ—… to charge him of the title of his treatise His sixth and seuenth vntruth trifling denials You. c. not without the helpe of the reste as may be gathered deuised wrote and purposed to deliuer this booke to the Commissioners The eyght vntruth slaunderous Neither doth the Bishop flatly affirme it but only sayth as may be gathered whervpon M. Stapl. can not iustly gather a flat asseueration one way or other â–ª to conclude his vntruth Neither doth M St. improue it any way thoughe â—…e himselfe and that verie often without any coniecturing of the matter and yet can he gather no iust coniecture therof doth boldly charge the Bishop with the helpe of other Which so often as he doth he shoulde remember that this vntruth returneth on himselfe In al which points ye were so answered that ye had nothing to obiecte but seemed resolued and in a manerfully satisfyed The. 9. vntruth M. Feck was neuer so answered And in his couÌ„terblast he saith had not the B. put in these wordes In a maner otherwise it had passed al goodmaner honestie too so vntruly to make report the contrary being so wel known that he neuer yelded vnto you in any one poynt of religion neither in Courte nor yet in mannour nor else where Ye are a mannerly man I perceyue mayster Stapleton and as full of good manners or honestie it appeareth as an egge is full of oatemeale Belike ye haue bene brought vp neyther at courte nor mannour but at Hogges norton as they saye for otherwise what good manner or honestie is this to chalenge youre better of so heynous vntruth and proue nothyng at all agaynste hym but saye the contrarie is well knowne when your selfe knowe it not at al but speake without the booke For shame M. Stapl. learne better maners to referre it to them that were present at the hearing of both parties and then shal ye hazard your honestie and truth a great deale the lesse and shewe your nourture to be the more Wherevpon I made afterwarde relation of good meaning towardes you to certayn honourable persones of the good hope I had conceyued c. The. 10. vntruth incredible VVhat good meaning coulde he haue to him when he would haue him reuolt from the religion by him receiued and professed at Baptisme to reuolt from the faith of Christes catholike churche c. Why Master Stapleton is this incredible that the Bishop hoping of his conformitie in making relation thereof to the honourable might not haue therin a good meaning yea admitte the truth whiche he professeth were as false as you woulde haue it séeme to bée mighte he not for all that haue a good meaning Saule had a good meaning ye wot when he did full ill And how say ye to your Scholemen that speake so muche good of a good meaning yea euen in ill causes But as the Bishop meant wel to him so the cause was good also and your cause naught how well so euer ye meane in an
false Knowledge therfore is not alwayes taken so precisely to be onely of true things but graunting you this precisenesse that knowledge is only taken to be true thingâ—… yet you do yll herein bicause ye take after your ordinarie custome Pro concesso controuersum that to be graunted that is in question whether your or our part be true or false héerin Yea why maye not we saye and that wyth greater reason that you take the truthe for falsehoode and falsehoode for truthe And so you nor any of your syde notwithstanding all youre great bragges and thys your clearkly booke haue anye true knowledge VVell maye ye saye as ye doo moste falsly and to youre poore wretched soule as well in this as in other poyntes moste dangerously beleue the contrarie but know it yee can not vnlesse it were true for knowledge is only of true things and as the Philosopher sayth Scire est per causas cognoscere Do ye know whose words al these be and yet ye sée how they serue our turne far better than yours M. Sta. bycause our cause resteth on the truth which is the infallible worde of God Deus est verax God is true yours is grounded on the doctrines of men Omnis auteÌ„ homo mendax but euery man is a lier And therfore is it lesse maruel sith ignorance and falsehood knowledge truth are al one that ye account somuch of ignorance make it to be the mother of deuotion that ye kepe down the people in ignoraÌ„ce which conspireth with falshood cannot abide knowledge that is linked with truth as ye haue loÌ„g kept the truth vnder a bushel so yet you caÌ„not abide that it shuld come to the knowlege of the people perceiuing the sith knowledge hath begon to spring in the world our cause withal as the truth hath florished yours hath drouped as that falshod wherfore your freÌ„â—… haue cried out vpoÌ„ al good letters séeing that their cause hathe had no greater enimie than knowledge is no greater maynteyner than ignoraunce Qui male agit odit lucem nec venit ad lucem ne opera eius arguantur He that doth euill sayth Christ hateth the lighte nor commeth to the light lest his workes should be reproued Next vnto this you note a rabblement of vntruthes but ye neither number them in youre Calendar but onely marke them with a starre in the forbead nor in youre replie say any more vnto them than this I will not nor tyme will serue to discusse them but why woulde youre will and your time serue you to chalenge them for vntruths and not serue you to discharge your chalenge and your owne truth in prouing them so to be but go to I see there is no remedie wée must tarie your leysure vntil that youre will come on you and that your tyme will serue you Many horrible erroures and superstitions of Monkerie The. 29. vntruth reprochefull and slaunderous This was so vntrue that all the world rang of it and the Papists themselues cried out theron Although ye were in the Tower in king Edwardes tyme that was not for any doubte of the supremacie for that ye still agnised but for other poynts of religion touching the ministration of the sacraments The. 30. vntruth This was not the cause of his imprisonment as shall appeare Here in his beadroll thoughe ye sée he denyeth it â—…latly yet in his counterblast where he toucheth the same he dare not be so impudent But saith as I vnderstande so that if hée be chalenged of rash dealing to affirme that for an vntruth that he stammereth in no will he saye looke my beadroll and ye shall fynde that I denyed it flatly and boldly withoute any stammering at the matter If againe this bolde flatnesse be proued a â—…atte lie â—…ushe will he saiâ—… I referred it in saying it shoulde appeare to my counterblast where I declare no further than I vnderstode by my freendes let it light on them if it be a lie thus cunningly Maister Stapleton hath handled the matter But a manifeste lye it is that he maketh howsoeuer he auonch or mollifie the same For this was a special cause of his imprisonment as those can tell that be yet liuing who were sente to him and to others to persuade them therein And by whome soeuer hée vnderstoode it it is but M. Stapletons and his misseinformers lye And where he would excuse the matter bicause he was examined in the matter of Iustification doth it follow therfore he was not in also for the matter of the sacrament being principally then in controuersie The Bishop only said be was in for other pointes of religion and namely touching the Sacrament but sée howe pretily M. Stapl. would bleare the readers eyes with quarelling at this half point of the sentence least the reader shoulde marke wherin the Bishop principally charged M. Feckenham that hee had confessed this article of supremacie all King Edwardes dayes and so knewe and acknowledged it then contrarie to his pretence of ignorance nowe therin And this digresseth not from the matter in hand But from this M. Stapleton slippeth in great silence and sayeth not a word therto but dalieth about other matters to finde the readers play And so by his owne rule confesseth by not denying the verye poynt in hande that M. Feckenham all king Edwards time though he were in the Tower yet euer hee agnized this title then that he refuseth nowe Wherevnto also you agreed and promised to professe and preache the same in open auditorie wheresoeuer you should be appoynted Wherevpon a right worshipfull Gentleman procured your deliuerance The. 31. vntruth slanderous He was not deliuered vpon any promise of recantation but to bee disputed withall Here M. Stapl. maketh muche adoe to conuince the Bishop of an vntruth and to make it seeme more probable he citeth diuers honourable and worshipfull to witnesse and al nothing to the purpose in hand excusing M. Feckenham of that wherwith no bodie charged him and answering nothyng but by silence consessing that that he was charged withal The bishop made no mention of any conference or disputation had with M. Feckenham after his departure oute of the tower but of that conference whiche was with him maister Moreman and maister Crispine whyle they were in the Tower. When at their owne suite to the councell they desired to haue some learned men with whom to conferre especially about the sacrifice of the Masse the ministration vnder bothe kyndes and the ministration vpon a table and not an altare And at this their sute Master Storie the Bishop then of Chichester and Maister Roberte Horne then parson of All Hallows in Breadsteat now bishop of Winchester were appointed by the honourable counsel to deals with them which they did by the space of a moneth at sundry tymes till that Master Feckenham did â–ª consent with them in all these thrée poyntes and so by maister Hobbies
Gods name let it there appeare where it is also answered folzâ—… For his 48. and. 49. vntruthes he alleageth no reason nor cause onely he sayth the former is boldely auouched but no way proued and the other somewhat more impudent Since therefore he hath nothing wherein to conuince them I may wel returne his boldnesse and impudencie to him selfe and remitte the tryall of the truthe or vntruthe to the discussing of Iosias ensample Nowe haue you shewed your selfe playnely herein to be a Donatist also The. 50. vntruthe most slaunderous M. Horne and his fellowes are in many poyntes Donatistes as shall appeare The triall of this vntruthe is discoursed at large in the proper place where M. Stapleton citeth it to appeare there shall be heard inough for triall of this chalenge pro contra and as the Reader on the viewe of bothe shall there finde it so on Gods name let him estéeme of it The Donatistes sayde they were of the Catholike fayth of the Catholike Church-which shifte for their defence agaynst Gods truthe the Popishe sectaries do vse in this our time beeing no more of the one or of the other than were the Donatistes and suche like The. 51. vntruthe Answere the Fortresse M. Horne annexed to sainct Bede if ye dare to defende this most sensible and grosse lye Howe happie are you M. Stapleton that euer ye buylt suche a Fortresse that ye thus can crake of so lustily bidde vs come and assayle crying aunswere the Fortresse and come if yee dare and if he come not then he dare not come if he set not on your Fortresse then this must néedes be a lye Muste it nowe truely then youre Fortresse is but a weake Fortresse if the prouing this a lye doe aunswere and ouerturne your Fortresse We néede neuer goe thither for the matter to proue your Church noâ—… the catholike Church nor to haue the catholike fayth this wil be proued in this booke well inough I warrant ye or euer it be ended ye shal sée your self more than once or twice confesse it And diuers other haue at large proued it what néede we then runne to your Fortresse In the next diuision which is the. 19. M. St. gathereth an other vntruthe but before it he setteth downe two marginall notes The first where the Bishop sayd All the sectes of the Donatistes whether they be Gaudentians Petilians Rogatists Papistes or any other sect c. Upon this word Papistes master Stapleton maketh a starre saying You should haue sayd Protestantes who in so many points as hath bene shewed resembled the Donatistes It is well inough M. Sta. and ye can let it stand til time be ye haue vntrussed all those poyntes euen from your own sloppes then ye may go perhaps like Baily hosegodowne The. 2 â–ª note is this Where the Bishop hauing alleaged a long sentence of S. Augustine agaynst M. Feckenham Thus farre S. Augustine sayth he by whose iudgement of the catholike Church c. Note sayth M. Stap. that nowe S. Augustines iudgement is also the iudgement of the catholike Churche To the which note I also adde this note withall M. Stapleton that your Church is not then the Catholiks Church whose iudgement herein agréeth not with Sainct Augustines iudgement Loe M. Stapleton howe pretily yourself begin to aunswere your last vntruth if ye holde on thus we shall not greatly néed to scale your fortresse euen this your CouÌ„terblast will encounter and ouerblowe it After these two notes he setteth downe his vntruth Your errontous opinion The. 52 vntruth M. Feckenham holdeth no such opinion The opinion there mencioned and confuted by S. Augustine is this of the Donatists that the order rule and gouernment practised be the Kinges of the olde Testament in ecclesiasticall causes ar not figures and prophecies of the like gouernment to bee in the kings vnder the newe Testament nor the order that Christ lefte behinde him in his Gospell newe Testament This was the opinion of the Donatistes in Saint Augustines time and this is yours Master Fecknams and Master Dormans opinion nowe that they are not such figures and prophecies and therfore ye confesse your selfe fol. 62. that M. Feckenham omitted the proufes of the olde Testament bycause they made against him Nowe whether this be an erroniouse opinion or no I commit you and Saint Augustine togither to scamble about it The. 53 vntruth Whither S. Augustine haue witnessed no such large and supreame gouernment as we attribute now to Princes yea whither Master Stapleton haue graunted so much or no is proued at large in the. 19. 20. Diuisions Your wilfulnesse is such that you delight only in wrangling against the truth The. 54. vntruth â—…claunderous Then are your selfe this â—…claunderer M. Stapleton that confesse Folio 62. he omitted to shewe forthe the truths of purpose bicause it made agaynst him what is this but wiâ—…full wrangling agaynst the truthe Constantine made many holesome lawes and godly constitutions wherewith he restrayned the people with threates forbidding the sacrificing to Idols to seeke after the diuelishe and superstitious soothsaying to set vp Images The. 55. vntâ—…uthe They were Idols not Images that Constantine forbad his subiects to set vp And in his Counterblast fol. 68. he sayth to say that Constantine forbad to â—…et vp Images is an open and a shamelesse lye What shamelesse outfacing is this The very words euen in the same place and many other of the booke are playne agaynst Images and nameth bothe Idols and Images also as the Bishop dothe Which withal confuteth his subtile distinction betwéene Image and Idoll as though an Image might not be an Idoll also Neither can the distinction serue your turne For Constantine forbiddeth bothe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 your selfe confesse he forbad whether he forbad Images or no these are Eusebius owne wordes in Gréeke 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. 2. Euen so Christe our Sauiour confirmed this their authoritie commaunding all men to attribute and giue vnto Cesar that which belongeth vnto him The. 56. vntruthe This place of S. Mathew maketh nothing for the Princes supreme gouernement in ecclesiasticall things It maketh as the Bishop alleaged it to confirme al that authoritie by Christes Gospell that was due before in the time of the olde Testament Which your selfe graunt â–ª but that Princes had supreme authoritie in ecclesiastical things in the time of the olde Testament the Bishop proued before and your selfe also graunted it though ye denied such supreme gouernement as we attribute Therefore this place maketh some thing for Princes supreme gouernment in ecclesiasticall things so bewrayeth your owne vntruth and the truth of the Bishop This to be Christes order and meaning that the kings of the nations should be the supreme gouernours ouer their people not onely in temporall but also in spirituall or ecclesiasticall causes the blessed
to forsake this religion In the first parte he sheweth that Master Fekenham could not answere the B. him selfe but he sheweth no other reason thereof than this seing his state is such Secondly that the cause why he more than any other of his complices tooke vpon him to answere this least it should appeare to come of his owne ambitious busiositie was only at the request of some of his friends he will not tell of whom for so perhaps be might detect him selfe to be a disciple of BalaaÌ„s marke hyred for lucre to curse with his cursed and blackmouthed Rhetorike the Churche and truth of god And bicause hereby be would haue the reader couertly to vnderstande what kinne a great clerke he is of what terrour to his enemies and estimation among his friendes to entreate him more than any of all the rest to atchieue this enterprise he telleth vs he was not very willing therto bicause forsooth he purposed hauing so largely prouoked suche sharpe aduersaries especially M. Ievvell for a season to rest and stande to his owne defence if any would charge him Wherein he would not haue ye forget what a lustie prouoker of sharpe aduersaries he is And although for two causes he was lothe to medle therewith first for that many things in this booke pertaine to certaine priuate doinges betwixt M. Feckenham and M. Horne of the vvhich saith he I had no skill secondly for that a number of such priuate matters touching the state of the realme occurred as to them vvithout farder aduice I could not throughly shape any ansvvere yet notwithstaÌ„ding all these thinges that neyther touched M. Stapleton nor he had any skill of them nor could shape any ansvvere to them he must néedes intrude and busie him self to shape some mishapen ansvvere his fingers itched since none of al his sharpe aduersaries would once deigne to answere him to prouoke the B. in these things and where his skill should faile rather than his will should faile he would furnish out his answere with his foresaide common places in which he hath a very good skill and grace As for the residue of his wantes aftervvarde it so hapned saith he that by suche as I haue good cause to credite there came to my knovvledge such instructions as vvell for the one as for the other that I vvas better vvilling to employ some paines and studie in this behalfe How these instructions hapned to him we must not vnderstande all for feare it fall out as they say that asking his felow if he be a theeâ—… two false companions néede no broker As it will I feare me fall out Master Stapleton in the scanning of your false informations whereof your selfe were vnskilfull ye saye but ye haue good cause to credite them were the more vvilling to employ your paines and studie therein and good reason ye should credite them that make any thing for you For why they be credible men of your owne partie be it true or false they tell you recke not you let them beare the blame if they lie you did but tell it for them Why should ye not therefore employ your paines and studie to painte it out that the more willingly since they do paie well for it Now M Stapleton being wel instructed though he promise to take the vvillinger paines and studie in this behalf yet must ye not presuppose that he taketh this vpoÌ„ him for that saith he I thinke my selfe better able than other but for that I vvould not it should seeme there lacked any good vvill in me either to satisfie the honest desire of my friendes or to helpe and releue such as by suche kinde of bookes are already pitifully inuegled and deceaued or to stay other yet standing that this booke be not at any time for lacke of good aduertisement a stumbling stocke vnto them What soeuer here M. Sta. ye pretende of your forward good will who so coÌ„ferreth here with your CoÌ„mon place of boastings crakes may easily returne your own saying on your selfe that these are but vvordes of course to saue your poore honestie least men should sée detest your ambitious vaine glory herein Neyther doth your preposterous zeale couer it any whit except this be to helpe relieue a stuÌ„bler where scarce a straw laye in his waye before to tumble a stocke into his path to make him fall downe right Now that M. St. hath shewed the occasions that pricked him forward to set on the B. He secondly sheweth the manner of his answere Wherein first after his ordinarie crakings of his poore labour of his diligence of his vvhole and full replie he excuseth his long tediouse babling vvherein I rather feare saith he I haue saide to much than to litle which in déede he hath good cause to feare as his Common places do shal declare And yet would he haue euery word put in replied vnto him selfe in his owne coÌ„science hauing sayd to much alreadie But to excuse this faulte he hath a sufficient reason at hande that tediousnes is good to make al perfect and therefore he had rather be tediouse than shorte Thus hauing handsomly excused the matter he secondly sheweth the order of the Bishops booke M. Hornes ansvvere as he calleth it resteth in tvvo partes Why M. St. how call you it may it not thinke you be called an answere that answereth the demaunde or request of an other but as you wrangle péeuishly about the name so that curiouse fine pate of yours disdeyneth the playnâ—… and simple name of an answere or replie or any other vsuall worde as ye pretende to auoyde confusion but in déede to shew some singuler conceite and excelleÌ„cie of your booke which so finely ye Entitle A counterblaste to say the truth a blast not worth a counter to counterblowe and all to blast the Bishops answers with all The two partes that he deuides the Bishops booke into are these In the first saith he and chiefest he playeth the opponent laying forth out of the holy Scriptures both Olde and Nevve out of Councels both generall and nationall out of Histories Chronicles of all couÌ„tries running his race froÌ„ Constantine the great dovvne to Maximilian great grandfather to the Emperour that novv liueth taking by the vvay the Kings of France of Spaigne and of our owne countrie of England since the conquest all that euer he coulde finde by his ovvne studie and helpe of his friendes partly for profe of the like gouernmeÌ„t of Princes in Ecclesiasticall causes as the oth attributeth novv to the crovvne of Englande partely for the disproofe of the Popes supremacie vvhich the othe also principally extendeth to exclude In the secoÌ„d and later parte he playeth the defendaÌ„t taking vpon him to ansvvere and to satisfie certaine of M. Feck â–ª argumeÌ„ts and scruples of coÌ„scieÌ„ce vvherby he is moued not to take the othe Hovv vvell he hath played both his partes â–ª the perusall of this
replie vvill declare Hovv vvell so euer he hath played his partes full ilfauoredly you begin to plaie yours M. Stap. thus to wrangle about the partes of opponent and answerer The B. playeth not the opponent but you playe the Marchant The B. not in playe but in truth good earnest as M. Feckenham pretendeth to 〈◊〉 requireth to be satisfied answereth to his requestes by the foresayde proues that here ye confesse he bringeth forth The partie opponent as in the other scruples still is M. Feckenham But be he opponent or defendaÌ„t as either of theÌ„ in respects may be either if he bring those proues that ye graunt he doth ye haue litle occasioÌ„ to make a playe scoffe at the matter Neither doth this blemish the truth froÌ„ whom he had it wher with ye would séeme as it were with an awke blowe to foyle the B. learning that he founde out these prooues not all by his owne studie but by the helpe of his friends Which as you M. Stapleton for your owne parte were faine to confesse right now so is there no cause ye should measure the Bishops knowledge by your owne defecte But herein ye do but as the residue do this is the fashioÌ„ of all your coÌ„péeres Where truth faileth you â–ª at the least to winne a credite of learning to your selues like prowde Pharisies ye dispise al other besides your selues To which purpose as M. Stapl. would staine the Bishops godly and learned labour herein at the least that all might not séeme to be his owne but gathered by others to his hands so in the telling of his owne well ordered péece of worke he setteth out euery point to the vttermost to coÌ„mende the better vnto vs his great learning industrie and perspicuitie He telleth vs solemnly how to the first parte he replieth in three bookes how he hath deuided eche booke into seuerall chapters what he hath noted at the toppe of eche page But he telleth not what common places he hath set out in eche line He telleth how he hath exceedingly lightned the matter and what recapitulations he hath made thereof To the second parte he telleth vs it shall appeare but when he telleth vs not both what strong and inuincible arguments M. Feknam right learnedly proposed as most iuste causes of his said refusall And also vvhat â—…ely shiftes and miserable escapes M. Horne hath deuised to maynteine that obstinately vvhich he once conceaued erroneously And thus forsoothe nothing to the prayse and setting forth of him selfe M. Feckenham nor to the blemishing of his aduersarie hath M. Stapleton deuided the content of the Bishops answere and his counterblast thereto Now thinking with this preiudice of both their labours he hath sufficiently affectionate the Reader to his partie thirdly he entreth into a generall fore warning of him the effect whereof is to forsake this religion which he beginneth with this earnest adiuring of him Novv good Reader saith Master Stapleton as thou tendrest thine owne saluation â–ª and hopest to be a saued soule in the ioyful and euerlasting blisse of heauen so consider and vveigh vvith thy selfe the importaunce of this matter in hande What hope of saluation M. St. can the Popish doctrine bréede that alwayes doubteth as much of damnation as it hopeth of saluation haÌ„geth wauering betwene dispayre hope admitting no certentie of faith or trust to grouÌ„de vpoÌ„ The attenâ—…ion that ye desire in the Reader we as earnestly desire the same also neither that he come to reade attentiuely with any preiudicate opinion on either parte as you would haue his minde foresâ—…alled on your side but euen with indifferencie as he shall finde the matter in hande to leade him so to weigh and consider the importance thereof euen as he tendreth and verely hopeth his ovvne saluation And as the Reader shall do this for his parte so let vs sée how you do for yours and of what great importance your arguments are to sturre vp this earnest attention in the Reader The first argument that ye make is this First vvithout authoritie is no religion Then if this Religion vvhereby thou hopest to be saued haue no authoritie to grounde it selfe vppon vvhat hope of saluation remayning in this religion canst thou receyue Now as though the Maior were in controuersie and the pointe we sticke vpon he first solemnely strengthneth it with the authoritie of S. Augustine For no true religion saith S. Augustine can by any meanes be receaued vvithout some vvaightie force of authoritie As for the Minor which determineth nothing but hanging on a conditionall pinne maketh no directe conclusion too or fro We graunt him that iâ—… our religion haue no authoritie no hope of saluation can be grounded thereon But then he replieth If it haue any authoritie it hath the authoritie of the Prince by vvhose supreme gouerment it is enacted erected and forced vpon thee other authoritie hath it none Ergo For want of sufficient good authoritie it is no true Religion Ye desired right now M. St. euen as the Reader tendreth his ovvne saluation to consider and vveighe vvith him self the importance of this matter And is this all the importance of your first argument against our Religion that the Reader should weigh coÌ„sider so déepely What is here alleaged besides a bolde and manifest slaunder forced vpon the Reader by the authoritie onely of your bare woorde Which the more the Reader shall consider and especially thus your beginning for an handsell of good lucke to the residue he shall the better perceaue the falshood and impudencie of your whole cause dealing For to set one If against another If the reader better coÌ„sidering weighing with himself shal finde this religioÌ„ not to be of so late enacting erecting forcing but enacted erected and forced of God in his holy woorde shall not this coÌ„sideration detect you to be a malicious slauÌ„derer if the reader with al shall vveigh the peise of your argument that the Prince hath a supreme gouernment in all Ecclesiasticall causes Ergo the Religion that the Prince sets forth hath noâ—…e other authoritie but of him shal be not finde it like the father of it as light as a thing of nought But exhorting the Reader to vveigh and consider the matter not considering nor vveighing what ye say your selfe ye blunder on in your Ifs and say If then that supreme gouernment that hauing none other authoritie enacteth erecteth and forceth a Religion vpon thée be not due to the laie Prince but to the spirituall Magistrate and to one chiefe Magistrate among the vvhole spiritualtie thou â—…eest thy ReligioÌ„ is but a bare name of religion and no religion in deede Here whether he be ashamed to set it downe or thinketh it so cléere it néedeth not recital but is inferred of the Maior he leaueth out the Minor of his argumeÌ„t But that supreme gouernment is due to one chiefe spirituall magistrate only and to
Legates of the sea of Rome as the chiefe principall sea of Christendome Ergo We now in all our disputations of causes Ecclestastical especially concerning the supremacie should acknowledge the Pope by his Legates to be president thereof This argument followeth not M. Stapl. reasoning from that tune to this from their requiring to our submission from Aphrike to England from presence to presidence from certaine questions to all questions from matters of saithe to these in hande which your selfe say are nons From the chiefe and principall sea then to the vniuersall supremacie that the Pope claymeth now in all which pointes there is no sequele and therefore your argument is starke naught nor all your vayne excuses will hide their frowarde disobedience or strengthen the weaknesse of their naughtie cause in the saide disputation But let vs now saith M. St. returne to M. Horne for these matters were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 M. Stapleton looked quite besides his marke The third Diuision THe third Diuision sheweth the cause and occasion why M. Feck deliuered this his treatise to the Bishop not as he pretendeth to be resolued at the Bishops handes for he had sayd before that the matter it selfe was grounded here pointyng to his brest that shall neuer go out But beyng charged of the B. herefore that he had neither conscience nor constancie M. Feckenham shewed and deliuered this his treatise to the B. to shew what he had suffred for the same and how it was grounded and setled in him long before Which argueth first his falshood in pretending to haue offred the booke before to the B. as scruples by him to be resolued in And also his furder falshood in setting forth of his owne bald resolutions to his scruples vnder the B. name To the former parte M. Stapleton replieth it is an vnlikely tale and referreth it to his score of vntruthes Where it is answered vnto The later parte for the resolutions he leaueth it to a place more apropriate where the matter shal be more conueniently and more fully discused And this is all that he saith for the cléering of M. Feckenhams false title The fourth Diuision MAster Feckenham in the beginning of his treatise propounding one chiefe purpose and entente as he saithe of this Othe to be for a more sauegarde to be had of the Queenes royall person and her highnesse most quiet and prosperous raigne Offreth to sweare thus muche that her Highnesse is the onely supreme gouernour of this Realme and of all other her Highnesse dominions and Countries according as the expresse woordes are in the beginning of the sayde Othe And offreth yet furder to sweare That her Highnesse hath vnder God the souerainetie and rule ouer all manner of persons borne within these her Highnes realmes of what estate either Ecclesiasticall or Temporall soeuer they be To this the B. of Winchester answereth that this beyng one chiefe entent of the Othe as is graunted whosoeuer denieth the chiefe parte of the Othe what soeuer in wordes he pretende in his deedes denieth withall the chiefe entent therof But M. Feckenham doth thus Ergo How soeuer by woordes he would seeme to tender her Maiesties safetie his deedes declare his meanyng to be cleane contrarie The Minor that M. Feck denieth the principall parte of the Othe he proueth thus The principallest parte of the Othe is the Q. Highnes supremacie in causes Ecclesiasticall so well as Temporall but about this M. Feck dalieth with dominions and persons denieth the causes which is the matter it selfe wherein the gouernance doth consist Ergo He denieth the chiefest parte of the Othe The Maior that the gouernance in Ecclesiasticall causes is the chiefest thing that the Othe doth purporte is euident The Minor as it appereth by this nice daliance of M. Feck so the B. furder proueth it by this his treatise by his deepe sighes grones desiring a change and ascribing to the Pope this principall parte of the Othe M. St. to counterblast these the B. arguments bloweth apace with bothe his chéekes With the one breathing out dispitefully all riffe raffâ—… that he coulde gleane togither to deface as he thought the protestantes with disobedience With the other he laboreth to qualifie the disobedience of the Papists namely of M. Feckenham But before these two partes wherein the most of his replie consisteth he prefixeth yet one page declaring first that this parcell of the Othe is no parte of the Princes royall power and wherefore the Papists refuse the same First saith he There haue bene many kings in this realme before our time that haue raigned vertuously quietly prosperously most honorably and most victoriously which neuer dreamed of this kinde of supremacie and yet men of such knowledge that they could soone espie wherein their authoritie was empayred and were of such courage and stoutnesse that they would not suffer at the Popes handes or at any other any thing done derogatorie to their Royall power This argument standeth vpon the opinioÌ„ of Princes heretofore and is framed thus What soeuer the noble and prosperous Kinges to fore tooke to be so or tooke not to be so the same was and is so or was not and is not so But many noble and prosperous Kings heretofore tooke this kinde of supremacie to be no parte of their royall power Ergo It was not nor is any parte thereof The Maior which God wote is very fonde and weake he would furnishe and strengthen with their wisedome and stoutnesse if it had bâ—…ne iniuriouâ—… to their authoritie they were so wise they could soone espie it were so stoute they would not suffer it But who seeth not that they could not very soone espie it in that palpable darknesse of poperie and that worldly politike wisedome is no good proofe of soone espying the spirituall wisdome of God and his worde and of their dutie in setting forth thereof This knowledge was not so clerely espied then as thanks be to God now it is being pulled froÌ„ vnder the bushell wherewith it was couered and the Angel of darknesse being stripped out of that shape of the Angell of light that when he was cladde withall be bleared many wise Princes eyes And though many of them were coragious stoute yea espied to what belonged vnto them attempted also to get it yet who seeth not that the Popes tirannie ouermatched them And yet suche Princes were there many wise stoute and vertuouse that dreamed not as you say but well saw this their authoritie and tooke it on them and withstood the Popes vsurpation Which improueth your Maior that ye would séeme to cary away so cléere And withall ouerturneth your argument by the like Some Princes thought it was no parte of their royall power Ergo it was not Some Princes thought it was parte of their royall power Ergo it was Neyther of these argumentes ye sée doth holde for still the matter is where it was who thought so or who
spirituall Churche so on thys principle you gather a moste false assumption That the heads of this spiritual or mystical body the church of Christ are vicars parsons byshops archbyshops patriarkes and ouer them all the Pope In which assumption ye take for true grauÌ„ted sundry manyfest errors flatly of vs denied chiefly foure The first about the spirituall and mysticall body of christ Wherin ye shew great vnskill not knowing what is ment by the spiritual mystical body For in that respect as there are no ciuil princes emperours kings or quéenes so there ar no Bishops neither no not Greke nor Scythian Gentile nor Iew neither male nor female but all the elect that haue bene are or shall be either in heauen aboue or here dispersed in any parte of the earth without any respect of person are al members and Christ the only head And so M. St. your selfe also call it the kingdome of the faythfull so that if any bishop be vnfaithful he is so far from beeing a head in this misticall corporation that he is no member or any part therof And your selfe confessed before that now theÌ„ your Pope was no good maÌ„ neither therfore vnfaithful hauing not the true liuely effectual faith in Christ as they only haue that be meÌ„bers of this body wherby he is quite excluded froÌ„ it Your first error therfore is in not discerning betwéene the inuisible and visible estate of the Church Secondly taking it as after contrarie to your former sayings ye seeme to expounde it to be the visible estate of the church saying coÌ„moÌ„ly called Christes catholike church then erre ye in that ye say vicars parsons bishops archbyshops and popes be rulers and heades of it For excepting parsons taking them for pastors Bishops the scripture knoweth none of thâ—…se rulers The other titles haue come in since with deanes archâ—…eacoÌ„s abbots priors cardinals patriarches c. although I speake not against the names of theÌ„ no not of the name of Pope neither which béeing well vsed I reueriÌ„ce admit but against the Popish hierarchie proud abuse of them And therfore thirdly where ye say the Pope is ouer them all that he is so ouer all those degrées in your Churche I graunte ye but that he is so ouer those or any other degrées in the true visible Churche of Christ it is but your facing maner to take that for confessed that is chiefly denyed Fourthly that ye affirme the Pope and his Prelates gouernemente chiefly to serue for the furtheraunce and encrease of the Spirituall kyngdome of Chryst where it is euident to the contrarie what hauocke and decrease so muche as they can these Rulers make of the members of Christes Churche to maynteine infidelitie and exautorate the worde and kingdome of Christ thereby M. Stap. now presupposing that the christian Princes gouernement is only outward and for the body and coÌ„mon with the heathen and stretcheth no further and that on the other parte the Pope ouer al and his fleshly chaplens vnder him are the heades and meÌ„bers of the spiritual and mysticall body of Christ nowe he will proue and God before that this gouernement of the pope his chaplaines is far aboue the kings gouernement and that kings he subiect therto Now sayth he as the soule of man incomparably passeth the body so doth this kingdome the other and the rulers of these the rulers of the other And as the body is subiecte to the soule so is the ciuill kingdome to the spirituall His reason is thus The soule or spirite incomparably passeth the body The kings gouernement is onely for the body and the Priests gouernement onely is for the soule and spirite Ergo the Priestes gouernement incomparably passeth the Kinges As this argument is noughte so the conclusion béeing rightly vnderstoode dothe noughte infirme the Princes supreme gouernement ouer all ecclesi causes For thoughe the maior be true the minor is moste false that the kinges gouernement is onely for the body Yea though the spirituall gouernement be onely the Priestes yet the gouernement ouer spirituall matters and matters apperteyning to the soule may still for all that and dothe belong euen ouer the Priests to the Prince Neither dothe M. St. proue the coÌ„trarie or alledge ought for his minor than as we haue heard the foresaide principles of limiting the Princes gouernement to be all one with the Turkes But you might haue done well M. Stap. to haue eâ—…sed your paynes euen here and haue troubled your selfe no further to proue your matter if these your vaine presupposals be such true and vndoubted principles But as though we had alredy graunted them M. St. still goeth on To the which kingdome sayth he as well Princes as other are engrafted by baptisme and become subiects to the same by spirituall generation as we become subiectes to our princes by course and order of natiuitie which is a terrestrial generation The argument is thus As the childe that is borne by a terrestriall generation in the earthly Princes kingdome is subiect to the earthly Prince so euen the Prince being borne againe by spirituall generation is become subiect to the spirituall kingdome But the rulers of the spirituall kingdom are the pope c. Ergo the Prince is become subiect to them Thus fondly still ye reason on your principle in so much that we can say nothing agaynst you But nowe while ye thinke ye may say what ye will sodenly see how ye haue ouerturned these your mightie principles with a trippe of your owne contrarie sayings euen in the same place Furthermore say you as euery man is naturally bounde to defende mainteyne encrease adorne â–ª and amplifie his naturall countrey so is euery man bounde and much more to employ himselfe to his possibilitie towarde the mition and defence furtheranee and amplification of this spiritual kingdome and most of all the princes themselues As such which haue receyued of God more large helpe and facultie toward the same by reason of their great authoritie and temporall sworde to ioyne the same as case requireth with the spirituall sworde Thinke ye this to be true indéede M. St. may we trust you on your wordes then is religion an ende of the Princes gouernment which a little before ye not onely most vntruly denyed but buylded as ye thought iolye arguments therevpon All whiche come nowe downe of themselues with an heaue and hee your selfe pulling awaye the soundation wherevppon they were buylt And nowe ye make an other platforme contrarie to the former which is that Princes moste of all are bounde as those that haue receyued of God more large helpe and facultie towarde the same to employ them selues to their possibilities to these endes to defende mainteyne encrease adorne and amplifie not onely the ciuill peace and prosperitie but much more the spirituall kingdome And ioyne the temporall sworde with the spirituall sworde as the case requireth Upon this as a better platforme than the
them when both the ensamples that ye make your similitude from and the matter that ye apply them too are false For a man may be master of a shippe though he neuer was a maryner in the shippe and also â—…e made the Maior of the towne wherein he was neuer citizen before As many a noble or gentleman is made the captayne of a forte of a towne or an armie that neuer was prest before a souldier and yet a good captayne to hauing the knowledge howe to gouerne souldiers though he him selfe were none Yea to draw néerer than mariners Maiors captaines reade ye not that S. Ambrose was neuer so much as any of the clergie and that more is no not baptized yet he was a better byshop than the best bishop of the Romish making now or than the byshop of Rome him selfe yea your holy Pope Felix 5. was he before he was Pope any other than as ye call it a méere lay man neither Cardinall Byshop Priest nor had so much that we reade of as your benet collet and therfore your examples are not true of Maior Pilot that they must haue bene citizen mariner before And yet where herevpon ye would néedes haue christian Princes to be spirituall men if they should be supreme gouernours of spiritual matters it is graunted you and so they be And if you thinke godly christian Princes not to be spiritual but vtterly voyde of spiritualnesse then is this in you a lying and carnall spitefulnesse All godly Princes yâ—…a all godly persons are spiritual and that muche better than any shaued or oyled massing priest But if ye meane after the common distinction those that haue any spirituall office in the ministerie of the worde and sacraments as deacons elders byshopâ—… c. then your similitude as is before declared fayleth Such Offices are not necessarie to haue gone before in a Supreme gouernour ouer them although the knowledge is necessarie how to gouerne them Besides this the proportion of your similitude fayleth in that to proue a supreme gouernour should withall be a spiâ—…ituall man yoâ—… alledge ensamples of suche gouernours as be not but haue bene suche or suche persons before and so from the master which hath bene a maryner and nowe iâ—… â—… master you conclude the prince béeing a gouernour in spiritual matters should withal be a spiritual person Neither doth the proportion hold in the necessarie relation of the similitude from a Maâ—…or to his citizen from a master of a ship to a mariner seruing in the ship which hath relation froÌ„ the gouernours to the parties in their offices gouerned to any like relation betwéene a supreme gouernour ouer eccl. causes persons to a spirituall person â–ª but from a spirituall gouernour to a spirituall subiect this were the right relation Now the Prince néedeth neither to haue bene a spiritual subiect nor yet a spirituall person in your common sense of spiritualtie neither so claymeth he to be a spirituall gouernour And therefore neither the ensamples of your similitude nor the proportion holdeth But sée how still your owne tale ouerturneth your selfe For if his principall gouernement resteth in ciuil matters as immediatly ye say that in that respect he is supreme gouernour of al persons in his realme but not of their actions why is he not of their actions also syth they be ciuil or temporal matters in which respect he is their supreme gouernor is it not bicause though he be their supreme gouernor yet he professeth not all their seueral offices scieÌ„ces handy crafts mysteries or vocations and so is not a dealer in their actions which hindreth nothing his principal gouernemeÌ„t ouer them al that he is nor euer was a prentise of any of their sciences nor practiseth the actions of their callings being all ciuill matters And yet say you truely he hath the principall gouernement in ciuill matters But why then also notwithstanding the prince dealeth not with the actions of spirituall men may he not haue a principall gouernement in spirituall matters thoughe him selfe haue not the spirituall function or office of a spirituall man Doe ye not â—…ée by your owne wordes that to haue a principall gouernement or to be a supreme gouernor ouâ—…r all persons and matters â–ª is one thing and to do all the particuler actions of those persons or matters is another thing not requisite in the supreme gouernour and why then wilfully confounde ye them so often as though we made the Prince the doer of the actions bicause we acknowledge the Prince the gouernour of the matters And why sayde ye before in your last similies that he coulde not be a principall gouernour of any ciuill matters excepte he had bene a doer of the actions and as it were a prentise to the occupation before concluding the like for a gouernour of spiritual persons and causes that he must be a spirituall man and do the spirituall actions But if now béeing better aduised ye perceiue that a man may be a gouernour in ciuil matters and yet be not the doer of the ciuill actions I then conclude likewise for spirituall matters that the Prince may be a supreme gouernour in spirituall causes and yet the same not the doer of the spirituall actions The two vntruthes therfore M. Stap. that ye gather of the Byshop saying VVherefore we haue heere two vntruthes the one in an vntrue definition the other in saying the Prince is supreme gouernour in all causes spirituall are no vntruthes The Byshops definition is clearer and truer than yours Neither haue ye or hitherto coulde ye improue his conclusion with all your ensamples or your similitudes Yea euery similitude that ye haue made béeing throughly weyed hath proued the Byshops conclusion and confuted and contraried your selfe But beside al this we haue sayth M. St. a playne contradiction of M. Horne directly ouerthrowing his owne assertion heere The Bishoply rule and gouernement of Gods Church sayth M. Horne coÌ„sisteth in three poyntes to feede the Church with Gods word to minister Christes Sacraments and to bynde and lose to gouerne the Churche sayth he after this sorte belongeth to the onely office of Byshops and Church ministers and not to Kinges Queenes and Princes The like he hath afterwarde Now then these being by his owne confession the actions that properly belong to Ecclesiasticall persons and the Prince by his sayd confession hauing nothing to do therewith how is it then true that the Prince is the onely supreme head and gouernour in causes Ecclesiasticall Yea in those that do properly belong to persons Ecclesiasticall or by what colour may it be defended that this saying is not plaine contradictorie and repugnant to this later saying which we haue alleaged and whereof we shall speake more largely when we come to the saide place There is no doubt M. St. but ye will recken it vp there at large and here also and in many other places ye still sing Decies repetita placebunt
name of person ecclesiasticall hath no other respect but to the causes ecclesiasticall and being gouerned or subiect as M. Feckenham hath graunted in respecte of eyther parte of this diuision temporall or ecclesiasticall if fellowes that in all respectes what soeuer of causes or persons ecclesiasticall or temporall the Prince is supreme gouernour Nor all M. Stapl. crooked shiftes and crabbed respects to hinder the sequele of this argumeÌ„t are any more to be respected than â—…ere trifles and toyes to delude the Readers withall But M. St. will not giue ouer the matter thus but will bring his darke respects to the aspect and light of all mens eyes by a familiar though somwhat an homely simâ—… As if master Robert Horne were a lay man and a paynter sayth he the Queene properly hath not to do with him as a paynter vnlesse it were for some lavve or order concerning paynters but as Robert Horne hir highnesse subiect and borne vnder hir obeysance Sée how enuye hath blynded this man that whereas for very spite he likeneth the reuerent and godly learned father in Christ to a paynter this his paynted similitude maketh also flat agaynst him For as he confesseth the Prince hath to doe vvith a paynter not onely in that he is simply hir highnesse subiecte borne vnder hir obeysance but also in respect he is suche a subiecte in whiche regarde he saythe she maketh lavves and orders also concerning paynters thoughe she entermeddle not with the Paynters pencell in drawing lynes and laying colours and other their perticuler actions euen so hath hir highnesse to do with all ecclesiasticall persons not onely in that they be simply subiectes borne vnder hir obeysance but also euen in that they be suche manner of ecclesiasticall subiects in which respect she may also make lawes and orders concerning ecclesiastical persons though she entermeddle not with preaching ministring the sacramentes and other their particuler actions Thus as God would haue it doth your owne similitude M. Stap. which of pure enuye ye bring foorth to deface the byshop withall so liuely in euery poynt make agaynst you as any similitude can do At length ye discende from your similitude to your playne purpose saying So shoulde the Queene haue also to doe with you yea in case ye were the true Byshop of VVinchester but not properly as Byshop or for your byshoply function for the whiche ye are immediatly vnder your Archbyshop and the Pope but considering you as a subiecte othervvyse or as Byshop either touching your temporalties and no further For the which the true Byshops also to their Prince do their homage With muche adoe for it sticketh in your throte lyke a boane ye admitte at length this case that the Bishop were the true Byshop of VVinchester but without any stay at the matter ye could compare him to a paynter but now beeing a Bishop he is as you say vnder his Archbishop and the Pope and vnder the Queene onely for his temporalties Here is no argument M. Stapleton but your bare assertions as though the matter were cleare and all out of question I ye had still reasoned from the similitude of the paynter and paynted it out in his true meaning ye had concluded another maner of tale that as the Prince mighte meddle euen with lawes and orders for paynters so she hath to do with Byshops not onely concerning their temporalties but euen coÌ„cerning that they be Byshops And so agayn your similitude excludeth your Pope And where ye say in that he is byshop he is immediatly vnder his Archbyshop and the Pope what if his Archbishop be not vnder the Pope neither is he not then also béeing immediatly vnder him exempted likewise from your Pope and thus ye stammer euen in your owne false principles Now when ye haue thus without any reasoning determined the Byshop to be vnder the Pope and that he dothe homage to the Quéene onely for his temporalties and no farther ye conclude the matter saying But what should I further reason with this man vvhiche as I haue sayde hathe remoued the Prince from all superioritie concerning the meere Byshoply or Priestly function and so with a notable contradiction hathe full vvorshipfully concluded agaynst hym selfe and eased hys aduersarie of any other proofe and eased master Feckenham also for taking any othe that the Queene is supreme head in all causes temporall and spirituall This notable contradiction is so sore a matter that you muste néedes haue a fling at it once agayne the contradiction is this The Prince hath not the iurisdiction of the meere Priestly or Byshoply functions The Prince hath the superioritie ouer the priestly or Byshoply functions Is not héere a notable contradiction and worthy to make thys finall conclusion thereon The Prince hathe not the iurisdiction of the meere Priestly or Byshoply functions Ergo He is remoued from all superioritie ouer the same functions Full vvorshipfully concluded to vse your owne termes master Stapleton What should ye reason further with this man but in steade of reasoning fall to making principles or sit downe and ease you with master Feckenham without any further proofe But mighte it please you to starte vp agayne and looke better aboute ye ye shoulde sée that betwéene euen that superioritie which worde notwithstanding the Byshop sayde not but power or iurisdiction of the meere byshoply or priestly function that is to saye his office and the proper actions of his office preaching binding and losing the ministring of the Sacramentes and betwéene the superioritie that is the ouersight and supreme gouernement in caring for directing and prouiding that all those functions and actions be duetifully done on their partes to whome they properly belong there is a great difference as all your similitudes hitherto haue proued and concluded agaynst you And that betwéene the dooing of the one and the not dooing of the other is no contradiction or opposition at all And therefore ye be not so eased yet but that ye muste take a little more paynes or else where ye had thought to haue wonne the spurres ye may happe to lose the saddle The eight Diuision MAster Feckenham standeth on foure poyntes whereby he thinketh he should periure himselfe if he should sweare to this laste parte of the othe in eccl. causes The first point is that he muste testifie it on a booke othe But to testifie any thing on a booke othe and not to knovve the same is periurie Then for him selfe he pleadeth ignoraunce that he neither knovveth it nor knovves any meanes hovv to come to the knovvledge of it Whervpon he ioyneth an issue with the Byshoppe which issue is this If the Byshop make proofe to him that any Emperour or Empresse King or Queene may clay me or take vpon them any suche gouernement in spirituall or ecclesiasticall causes then he will yéelde and receiue the othe The meanes whereby he will haue this issue proued are these foure Either by suche order of gouernement
as our sauiour Christ hath lefte behinde him in his Gospell and nevve Testament Either by the vvritinges of suche learned doctors bothe olde and nevve vvhich haue from age to age vvitnessed the order of eeclesiasticall gouernement in Christes Church Either by the generall councels vvherin the right order of ecclesiasticall gouernement in Christes Churche hath bene moste faythfully declared and shevved from time to time Or else by the continuall practise of the like ecclesiasticall gouernement in some one Church or parte of all Christendome By these foure meanes this issue aforesaide as the state of the controuersie betwéene bothe parties must be tryed That by any of these foure meanes proofe be made to him That anie Emperour or Empresse King or Queene may claime or take vpō them anie such gouernment in spirituall or ecclesiasticall causes This requireth master Feckenham to be prored The satisfaction whereof to be proued by the Bishop is this That by some of these foure meanes proufe may be made to him that some Emperour Empresse King or Queene may clayme or take vppon them some such gouernment in spirituall or ecclesiasticall causes If the B. shall be founde to haue proued thus much to M. Feck he hath fully satisfyed his request and M. Feckenham according to his promise ought to sweare with humble thankes notwithstanding master Sapletons quarelling Counterblast The Bishop reducing M. Feckenhams first poynt to a forme of argument repeateth it No man may restifie any thing by a booke oth whereof he is ignorant and knoweth nothing without committing manifest periurie But you neyther knowe that the Queenes highnesse is the onely supreme gouernour of this Realme as well in all spirituall or ecclesiasticall things or causes as temporall neither yet know ye anye waye or meane whereby to haue anye knowledge thereof Ergo ye cannot testifie the same on a boke oth without manifest periurie To this the B. replieth that although he might flatly denie the minor that M. Feck is not without all knowledge and vtterly ignorant of the matter nor destitute of al meanes to attaine therto yet he sayth he wil answere by distinction of ignorance to shew how M. Feck is ignorāt how he is not He alleageth a thréefold deuision of ignorance out of Thomas of Aquine the chiefe of the Popish scholemen ▪ Ignorance of simplicitie Ignorāce of wilfulnes and ignorance of malice Prouing that he is not ignorant of the first sort hauing in king Henries and king Edwards reignes continually knowne acknowledged confessed it and therfore his ignorance is either of wilfulnesse or of malice or of both of them M. St. Counterblast standeth chiefly on thrée matters first his answere to Thom. distinction with an obiecting againe to the B. the opinion of Tho. in this cōtrouersie Secondly a quarrelling chalenging of the B. for vntruthes Thirdly an excuse of master Feckenham for setting forth this supremacie With a quarell ioyned thereto that the B. citing a sentence out of the booke of wisdome called it a sentence of the holy ghost concluding thereon a discorde of our doctrine But or euer he enter into his first part he noteth this for a generall warning before Now are maister Feckenham and master Horne come to couple and ioyne togither in the principall matter If this forewarning be true M. St. that this their coupling and ioyning togither on this issue to wete whether any princes haue takē any such gouernmēt on them be nowe by your confession the principall matter controuersed betweene the partyes standing in variaunce whiche as ye sayde before is conuenient and necessarie to haue before our eyes and then deligently to see howe the proufes are of eche partie applied for the confirming of their assertions Then all those sixe principles whiche ye sette vp before your Counterblast as markes to fixe the eye of the Reader vppon were but false markes and not the principall matter wherein the parties coupled them selues togither to proue or improue the same Then were almost all that hitherto M. Stap. hath sayde as the Reader marking this well shall sée and the most of that which he hath to say in this great Counterblast nothing else but a running about the Bushe and wresting of euerye thing from the principall matter in which they ioyned to some other matters wherein they coupled not Whiche is plaine to beguile and abuse not rightly to direct the eye of the Reader as the Reader fixing his eye on thys issue shall soone espie your falsehoode This issue then being the principall matter as ye say and the Bishop coupling and ioyning herein togither with master Feckenham as ye also say and the Bishop hauing proued that which he endeuoured himselfe to proue which ye likewise haue confessed what remayneth by your owne tale telling but that the Bishop hath fully proued the principall matter in question Neither will you as you say nor any other Catholikes greatly contend with him for that he hath proued and he hath proued that that he laboured in he laboured in that he coupled he coupled in this issue thys issue is the principall matter betwéene them whie then do ye so fiersely contende but that ye woulde shewe your selfe a vaine sophisticall and brabling quarrellour that haue no great cause to contende nor anye cause at all and yet will so greatly contende onely of wylfull malice confessing your selfe the thing to be proued that is the principall matter Master Stap. hauing giuen this forewarning commeth to his first part which he deuideth thréefold First he iesteth out the matter with scoffes which I referre to his common place thereon Secondly he denieth master Feckenham to haue any ignorance in this poynt except it were inuincible ignorance by no study or diligence able to be put away and therfore pardonable Since ye admit the distinction M. Stap. ye bring out of time your other inuincible ignorance How pardonable it is is another question But sée how ignorantly while ye would defende M. Fec you ouerthwart him he pleadeth ignorance for his defence and you say he is not ignorant and woulde put the B. to proue that he should be ignorant of wilfulnesse and malice which the B. hath done alreadie and so ye debarre M. Feckēham of his refuge and make him to haue knowledge of this poynt Which not only he himself denieth but which your selfe afterwards denie also yea that he could not haue knowledge of this poynt But you thinke to escape cleare with helping the matter by a newe pertition of ignorance adding a fourth part of inuincible ignorance Surely say you if there were any ignorance in this point it were such as S. Tho. and other call inuincible ignorance Except M. St. ye confound this fourth ignorance with one of the thrée before named ye quite exclude M. Fec from the whole distinction of Thomas and yet ye say the distinction may be true ye will not stick with him for that distinction So that eyther ye
as to receyue it what soeuer hath not his authoritie out of the Scriptures And what so-euer wee finde not in the Scriptures we may vse them euen as we list our selues Why may we not say as S. Augustine saide Quia Canonicum non â—…st non me astringit Bicause it is not the Canonicall Scripture it bindeth me not to beleue or receyue it but of this matter furder as ye giue furder occasion Thirdly your argument of proportion from a Parliament to London fayleth standing on your olde and vayue presupposals that we haue graunted or must graunt you that your Popish Church is the true Churche That Christian realmes haue the same respect to your Popish church that a Citie in any Realme hath to the whole estate of the same Realme and againe that your Popes violent Councels are as frée lawfull and generall and enact onely as Godly decrées and constitutions to the directing of the true Churche as the Parliaments of a realme be frée lawfull and generall and enact godly lawes and constitutions for their policies and estates All these things beyng nothing proportionable we must graunt you to be true and fitte or else this your argument and your former crake neyther barell better herring may go togither a Gods name The rest of your counter blast to this diuision as it is nothing materiall so it is eyther altogither wordes of course or else a petit quarell that ye lappe vp all the matter withall bicause the Bishop called this sentence a sentence of the Holy Ghost In maleâ—…lam animam non 〈◊〉 sapientia VVisedome shall not enter into a frowarde soule which bicause it is mere impertiuent and friuolous I haue reiected it to your common places Discorde on our doctrine can ye gather none thereon but you would faine sowe discorde where none is and yet ye boast of vnitie But if ye remembered setting all other discordes aside how well as is afore sayd your Sorbonists and your Louanists and you Thomas Stapleton agrée euen with your owne swéete S. Thomas of Aquine and how your tale agreeth with it selfe how it excuseth and accuseth M. Feckenham ye should then sée who they be that as ye say in place of vniforme tuning ruffle vs vp a blacke Sanctus who they be that chaunging their shapes like Proteus haue so often altred their religion and whether they touch M. Feckenham and you or any of your chiefe Masters yea or no. The ninth Diuision THe Bishop hauing by Thomas his distinction of ignorance answered M. Feckenhams argument descendeth to cope with M. Feckenham in his issue and to proue the same by all the sayd meanes that he requireth And first to the issue whiche was That any Emperour or Empresse King or Queene may claime or take vpoÌ„ them any suche gouernment in spirituall or Ecclesiasticall causes The Bishop answereth that they ought to take such gouernment Ergo they may lawfully do it For his antecedeÌ„t that they ought he referreth to the foure meanes of the issue that M. Feckenham would haue it tried by M. Stapl. picking by quarels of other pretended answers made by the Bishop before falsely surmising that he then denied or mollified the woordes of the othe and that now he answereth without any molliâ—…iyng or restiaint that the Queene ought to take vpon hir such kinde of regiment these answeres he calleth so â—…arring variable diuerse and so contrary the one to the other that if the one be true the other must be false and so concludes they be false and deceiueable both of them But M. St. this is a false and a deceiuable point of your owne deuising from the which I perceyue by the tenour of your whole counterblast ye will neuer iarre nor varie one iote except God sende you hereafter better grace and iudgement than thus still to ground your self and your writings on manifest lies and forgeries and then presuppose them in your nodâ—…le for manifest principles and truthes Thus do ye all your booke ouer so ye play here First ye ground your selfe on a forged answere that the Bishop should before haue made imagining it must néedes be true bicause you say ye certainly vnderstande that M. Feckenham hath so reported to some of his friendes that the Bishop made then another resolute answere This is all that ye all age for proofe of it ye haue it but by heare say at the hande of some partiall tale bearer some tolde you that M. Feckenham told some that the Bishop tolde him that this was his resolute answere and you beleue it for a certentie and write it solemnly in your booke to deface the Bishop as it were with doubble and contrary answering your selfe in the meane season answering nothing to the argument nor to the Bishops present and printed answere And therfore I neede returne no other answere to you than that one tolde me that another told him that he told you that ye were to light of credence to beleue euery flimme flamme tale and to rash of Iudgement to clap downe such tales in your booke of whiche ye had no better proufe than that all the worlde should see claw me claw thee two false marchants néede no broker they say The tenth Diuision THe Bishop entring into his proufes of the issue that Princes ought to take vpoÌ„ them such gouernment in Ecclesiasticall causes as the Queenes Maiestie doth chalenge and take vppon hit among other properties belonging to the Princely office to beginne with all auoucheth out of Deut. the 17. and the 13. with some expositoures vpon the same that the Prince is commaunded to haue by him the booke of the lawe to reade in it diligently to this ende that he himselfe may learne the feare of God and cause his subiects to become Israelites by his princely authoritie redressing the peruersnesse of such aâ—… swerue from the ordinances and ceremonies appointed of god The which beyng true the conclusion consequently followeth thereuppon M. St. answere to this argument resteth on foure faults that he findeth with the Antecedent which he calleth vntruthes so reckoneth them vp also in his score but bicause they are the principall materiall pointes whereon his answere dependes I thought it more fitte to note them here But first after his scoffing craking maner he saith to the Bishop Go on I saie in Gods name M. Horne and prosecute your plea stoutly God sende you good speede And so he doth eueÌ„ such as ye the honestie of your cause deserue c. But all these his fromps and vaunts I ouerpasse and referre them to his common places and will onely answere to that which he chargeth the Bishop withall which is no lesse than infidelitie and vnskilfulnesse And to beginne with the later bicause he saith it is the least matter and noteâ—…h it for the former vntruth Your vnskilfulnesse saith he whiche is the least matter standeth in that ye say the King is commaunded to haue by him
whiche commeth after also and yet your selfe so flatly belye the Scripture for malice to the byshop in saying suche wordes that the byshop lefte out do followe which neither followe at all and your selfe before confessed they went immediatly before Sée see howe enuie hath blinded this mans sighte Lesse maruell it is that ye sawe not the period for although those wordes whiche ye cite as lefte oute taking a copie of the Priest and the Leuiticall tribe â—…e wordes going before the bishops sentence and he shall haue by him c. yet is there a ful period betweene them which you saw not or would not sée so that those former words are no materiall part of the sentence following cited by the byshop but a material part of the senteÌ„ce going before which the byshop cited not But M. St. citeth falsly threapeth that the bishop did cite it and in citing it lefte out a materiall parte thereof charging the byshop in these wordes after suche order as your owne text appoynteth â–ª saying VVhen he is set vpon the seate of hys kingdome he shal write him out this second law in a booke taking a copie of the Priestes of the Leuiticall tribe VVhich latter wordes ye haue bicause they make directly agaynst you quite lefte out Why M. Stap. he left out bothe the latter middle first wordes and all of this sentence he mentioned it not at all ye doe but threapen kindnesse on him to fasten withall vpon him your chalenge of infidelitie Onely he alleaged the nexte sentence and that expounding it so fully that he leaueth oute neither former latter or any materiall poynte at all thereof .. And thus muche doth your selfe also witnesse agaynst your selfe saying that he lefte oâ—…t vvordes that immediatly goe before the vvordes vvhich he alleadged And what were those he shall haue by him c. This then was the texte that he alleaged by your owne confession And therfore when ye vrge him with the former texte that he alleaged not to proue infidelitie in him ye contrarie your selfe ye cleare him ye shewe your owne excéeding vnfaythfull dealing bothe to the scripture and to him also But wherefore should the Byshop haue left out as ye charge him any materiall parte of his texte bycause say you it maketh directly agaynst him In déede that were a shrewde cause and would iolily cloke M. St. infidelitie and cause men to suspect infidelitie in the bishop if he had concealed any thing in his text that directly made against him Which infidelitie who vseth and who approueth it for the poynt of a wise man to conceale that that maketh agaynst him shal after wel appeare But now although it be plainly proued that the byshop in his text left out no part therof Yet for further tryall of this also let vs take not onely the latter wordes of the next period going before which words he complayneth are lefte out but euery worde also of the same sentence concluding two or thrée periodes vnder one bicause we would haue nothing left out and ioyne them to the sentence following cited by the byshop and then behold what maner of conclusion either directly or indirectly they make agaynst him Wherin shall appeare that M. St. hath so besotted himselfe in diuinitie that he had quite forget the logike that so ofte he crakes vpon These textes are these VVhen he is set on the seate of his kingdome he shall write for him selfe out of this seconde law in a booke taking a copy of the Priests of the Leuiticall tribe And he shall haue it with him and he shall reade of it all the dayes of his life that he may learne to feare the Lorde his God and keepe all the wordes and ceremonies that are written in the lawe Upon these words M. St. frameth his argument The king shal write out this second law in a booke taking a copy of the Priestes of the Leuiticall tribe Ergo a king ought not to take vpon him suche gouernement in ecclesiasticall causes as the Quéenes maiestie doth chalenge and take vpon hir For this is the conclusion that directly maketh agaynst the bishop but as herein his logike is altogither vnskilfull so is his diuinitie yet more vnfaithfull For hauing chalenged the bishop for leauing out these words taking a copie of the priests of the Leuiticall trybe as directly against him and theÌ„ immediately foloweth sayth he how he shall busily reade the sayde booke and so foorth In which words he maketh another toto manifest lie falsifying the text yet once againe For these words Et habebit secâ—… he shal haue with him which word he leaueth quite out go betwéene therfore followe not as he sayth immediatly But sée héere whether it be of malice to the byshop or to the Scripture that all this while in quarelling with this little poore text habebit secum he shall haue with him he findeth fault with translating he accuseth the byshop of infidelitie and vnskilfulnesse he complaineth of leauing out wordes going immediatly before of curtalling the texte and leauing out latter wordes of leauing out a material part of words following immediatly he citeth and reciteth these and those wordes in Latin and Englishe he scanneth and descanteth on translations and all this while those onely three wordes habebit secum which the byshop alleaged wrinching and wresting he euer glaunceth by them he will not once name them but leaueth them quite out which was the materiall thing that the byshop alleaged And yet all the while he whineth of leauing oute and leaueth oute him selfe that he should chiefly answere What shall we thinke is the cause that he dothe thus surely there is some force in those wordes that he sawe were more directly against him or else he would neuer do so for very shame But I remember a tale that he hath patched vp into his counterblast of the Simoniacall Priest that béeing commaunded to say In nomine patris filij spiritus sanctâ—… could rehearse all well inough till he came to spiritus sancti as for that he could not pronounce it in any maner of wise But sée your chance M. Stap. that ye there fabled howe here your selfe haue playde the like part The byshop vrgeth you with thrée wordes habebit secum â–ª ye will not onely answere nothing thereto but ye will not in any wise whyle ye repeate the sentences so muche as name those wordes and yet ye goe rounde about them On the other side those wordes that the bishop cited not as no parte of his sentence alleaged Lorde what a doe ye make of curtalling of leauing out of infidelitie vnskilfulnesse peruersitie malice and I can not tell what Onely bicause ye thinke those wordes séeme to make for your massing Priests authoritie bicause they name Priests and yet God wot they make nothing for you nor agaynst the byshop directly or indirectly But you thinke this sentence maketh thus much for your priestes that if the
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
priests and Leuites in their offices and functions ecclesiasticall in appoynting howe the Arke shoulde be borne For sacrifising and blessing for ordeining Psalmes singers instruments officers and all other things for the setting foorthe of the diuine seruice and Gods true religion Whiche argueth that he was their supreme gouernour in all ecclesiasticall causes Master Stap. first for a briefe summarie answere to these doings of Dauid clappeth downe this marginal note Dauid in all these matters determined no doctrine nor altered any religion agaynst the Priestes willes of his owne supreme authoritie This note is bothe malicious and slaunderous as though we ascribed to the Quéenes Maiestie or she tooke vpon hir such authoritie and that of hir owne sway and wil against all hir Clergies minde and counsell to determine and alter what religion pleaseth or displeaseth hir This is the Popes clayme and tyrannie and not oure Princes or any other godly Princes dooing And yet this note is partly false for king Dauid agaynst the will of hys idle Priestes caused the misordering of the Arke to be reformed And did many other thinges about Religion to the which the Priests obeyed And determined doctrine also euen by master Stapl. owne confession in this Chapter The first argument that master Stapl. maketh is this Bothe M. Dorman and M. D. Harding affyrme that the proceedings of king Dauid are nothing preiudiciall to the ecclesiasticall authoritie in redressing of disorders before committed or doing suche thinges as are heere rehearsed Ergo They inferre no supreme gouernment ouer causes ecclesiasticall This argument standeth altogither vpon the authoritie of his good masters M. Dorman and M. D. Harding from whome he boroweth his stuffe For the moste of his owne surplusage is but his common places of descant on them And as they be so great in his bookes so he reasoneth as Pythagoras schollers had wont to reason of their master 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he sayde so Ergo it is so and thus argueth M. Stap. Bothe M. Dorman and M. D. Harding affirme it Ergo it is true But what do they affirme That the proceedings of king Dauid in redressing disorders before committed or doing suche things as heere are rehearsed are nothing preiudiciall to the ecclesiasticall authoritie Why M. Stap. who sayth against them or you herein king Dauids procéedings in deede were nothing preiudicial to the ecclesiasticall authoritie of persons ecclesiasticall they executed all their functions still belonging to their authoritie And bicause his procéedings in redressing suche disorders and all other things that he did declare moste plainly his supreme gouernement in setting foorthe and directing Gods true religion and yet were no preiudice to the Priests ecclesiasticall authoritie it followeth ther vpon that the supreme gouernment in setting foorth Gods true religion in correcting repressing ecclesiastical disorders in reducing and directing good orders and al other doings here rehearsed that ye confesse king Dauid did are no parte of the Priestes ecclesiasticall authoritie for then in doing them he should haue done things preiudicial therevnto and therfore they are no parts therof but of king Dauids royal authoritie And this while fondly ye woulde as it were ouerpresse vs with suche great mens authoritie as is M. Dorman M. D. Harding or euer ye be aware ye make them flatly giue verdite agaynst you with vs A Gods name bring their authoritie so agaynst vs as oft as ye wil neither M. Dorman nor M. D. Harding will giue ye great thanks therfore But for all this ye will bring vs more of D. Hardings stuffe As master D. Harding say you noteth king Dauids proceedings in redressing disorders before committed or doing suche things as are heere rehearsed do no more employ a supremacie in him then the reformation of religion made by Queene Mary But that ye wot well employeth in hir no suche supremacie Ergo No more do those procéedings in him This argument staÌ„deth wholly vpoÌ„ his M. D. Hardings authoritie alone bicause he hath noted that the one dyd no more than the other that their doings were alike héerein But the doings of the one inferre no supremacie Ergo the others neither But if we might be so bolde as to denie this your maior or rather your maxima or principle that ye build vpon of D. Hardings comparison in making king Dauids doings to be none other but such as were Quéene Maries Where were then your argument M. St ye talked righte now of Impar congressus Achilli Troilus the match betwene Troilus Achilles was vneueÌ„ but here is a gret deale more inferiour match betwéene K. Dauid Q. Mary Yea their doings were so little alike that they were cleane contrarie For although she were a princesse of famous memorie yet herein your popish Prelates made hir so beléeue them that she durst not redresse disorders in the Clergie at al but suffred the Pope and his prelates to reduce their false religion Nor she retayned the estate that belonged to hir of supreme gouernment but vtterly renounced it And therfore that reformation or rather deformation was not made at all by hir nor in hir name but by the Pope and his Popelings she only permitting it â–ª But if ye meane as ye speake that it was made by hiâ—… in dâ—…de as your Massers words are Queene Mary did it by the meanes of the Priest so that she was the doer and they were but the mâ—…anes she was the maker and they but hir instruments then your similitude goeth agaynst you and proueth a supremacie in hir as was in Dauid But ye speake colorably to make in suche a 〈◊〉 some proportion in speeche of a similitude For in very déede what soeuer ye say the matter went so that your popishe byshops and priestes were the doers of all And she good Lady was but your instrument and meane whereby ye killed Christ in his members as did the high priestes kill Christ in his body vnder Pontius Pilate I speake not to compare hir béeing hir selfe a noble Christian Prince to him béeing a heathen tyrant but to shewe how you abused hiâ—… authoritie as the Iewes did his But as for king Dauid as he did those things in redressing disorders and all other noted by the Bishop whiche your selfe can not denie so he was the principall in the dooing of them and he reformed euen the Priestes them selues And thoughe in some thinges he vsed the Priestes as meanes yet what dothe this infringe his supreme authoritie and not rather proue it And thus your other argument from D. Hardinges authoritie by D. Hardinges owne confession that they were but the meanes and king Dauid and Quéene Mary the doers of suche ecclesiasticall matters once agayne maketh quite agaynst you and your master D. Harding also and establisheth the Princes supreme gouernement ouer the priests and all I areade ye beware since ye stande so muche vpon your masters woordes héerein that if ye alleage hys authoritie any more
ye bryng hym foorthe to better purpose or else whyle yee thynke by clawyng hym thus to wynne hys good fauour yee gette hys heauy displeasure and that he answere ye flatly non hercule veniam tertio he will not come at your cal Howbeit ye will once agayne in hope of better lucke bring him foorth and alleage his authoritie better than ye haue done hitherto Besides that say you it is to be considered as M. D. Harding toucheth that he passed other Princes herein bicause he had the gifte of prophecie So that neither those thinges that the Apologie sheweth of Dauid or those that ye and master Nowell adde therevnto for the fortification of the sayde superioritie can by any meanes induce it This friuolous argument he was a Prophet also aswell as a Prince Ergo his superioritie in that he was a Prince can not be alleaged for other Princes to followe ye vsed before as your owne freshe stuffe to shifte off Moses ensample but as it nothing helped your cause then no more dothe it nowe Onely it detecteth héere your vayne crake there of vnspent stuffe where in déede it was olde rotten stuffe spent before by D. Harding on king Dauid as héere your selfe coÌ„fesse yet there ye brought it as a notable fresh surplusage beyonde all that had bene sayde But as you thus of D. Hardings olde scroppes héere would haue made vs there newe fresh stuffe of your owne wherby the alleaging of him agayne this third time openeth your shame so yet once agayne ye make your M. D. Harding and your selfe for companie confounde your owne tales and speake contrarie to your selues Right now ye sayde and alleaged your masters authoritie for it that king Dauids doings were no more than Queene Maries doings to employ a supremacie Nowe ye say agayne and like wise alleage your master for it that king Dauid passed other princes heerein bicause he had the gifte of prophecie If he passed other princes héerein then he passed Quéene Mary whome many other Princes haue also héerein passed and so his doings were more than were Quéene Maries doings héerein For who knowe not that she was no Prophete and thus the oftner ye alleage your master ye take your master tardie in one lie or another and make him still contrarie both himselfe and his cause also Againe it King Dauid were a Prophete as I graunt he was a Prophete ye wote might and did determine doctrine but your selfe sayde before Dauid in all his doings determined no doctrine and thus ye lie on your owne head and make your master witnesse thereto Well leaue at the length to cite your masters authorities for shame master Stapleton since ye can bring them out no handsomer or howe well so euer ye haue brought them out to your aduantage since they be no better proues than that He affirmeth he noteth he toucheth as though all were gospell that master Doctor Harding affirmeth noteth or toucheth Are ye so fond to thinke any man would yéelde so soone vnto them vnlesse he were as wise as your selfe But since none of all these reasons will serue we shall now haue other stuffe of your owne though not very fresh but such stale refuse as your masters haue refused but to you all is fishe that commes to nette ye do wisely to let go nothing that maye any waye be wrested to helpe so yll a cause And first ye reason from the authoritie of the scripture In déede this is a better way than to reason from D. Hardings authoritie The Scripture say you in the sayde place by you and master Nowell alleaged sayth that Dauid did worke iuxta omnia quae scripta sunt in lege dominâ—… according to all things written in the lawe of God. What conclusion can ye inferre hereon agaynst the Bishops allegation of Dauid Ergo he had not an especiall care and regard in ordring and setting forth Gods true religion if ye make the quite contrarie conclusion He did worke according to all things written in the lawe of God Ergo as the B. sayth he had an especiall care and regard in ordring directing Gods true religion then should ye make a most true conclusion where otherwise rightly applied it can no ways serue your turn Thus bring ye out that which once again ouerturnes your cause and proues K. Dauids supreme gouernmeÌ„t And euen so the Q. Maiestie by this ensample of K. Dauid is taught to do the like as praysed be to god for hir therfore she foloweth wel herein the steps of K. Dauid doing iuxta omnia quae scripta suÌ„t in lege domini according to all things written in gods law And where the papists in al their errors this amoÌ„g other of the supremacie do praeter coÌ„tra omnia quae scripta sunt in lege domini besides against all things writteÌ„ in gods law As Dauid redressed eccl. disorders crept in before his time so the Q. highnes now hath redressed such disorders as she fouÌ„d before hir time crept in Thus the more ye reason the more stil ye make against your selfe Ye had néed adde some better stuffe thaÌ„ this or els if ye thus hold on your friends wold wish M. Fec had hired ye to hold your peace when he first moued you to plead for him Master Stap. séeing it now more than high time to adde some notable thing to better his cause VVherevnto I adde sayth he a notable saying of the scripture in the sayd booke by you alleaged concerning Dauids doings by you brought foorth touching the Priestes and Leuits Vt ingrediantur domum dei iuxta ritum suum sub manu Aaron patris corum sicut prâ—…ceperat dominus deus Israel King Dauids appoyntment was that the Leuits and Priestes should enter into the house of God there to serue vnder the gouernment of whome I pray you not of King Dauid but vnder the spirituall gouernment of their spirituall father Aaron and his successours The gouernour of them was Eleazarus Upon this notable sentence for your purpose as ye thinke you gather thrée notes And bicause ye would go orderly ye begin first with the last note VVhere we haue to note first say you that Dauid appoynted hereto the Leuits nothing of himself But sicut praeceperat dominus deus Israel as the Lorde God of Israel had before appoynted VVe haue here againe to note first in you M. Stap. no plaine dealing that begin with the last part of the sentence first And wherefore I pray you but that that which is spoken here of this matter in especiall ye woulde make it séeme to serue for all Dauids doings in generall VVe haue to note againe your hacking and wresting of this sentence which sheweth a playne destination betweene theyr turnes of comming in and their ordinarie ministerie in theyr turnes in attending on the highe priest The text is thus â—…ae vices eorum secundum ministeria sua vt ingrediantur domum domini iuxta ritum
of all Nations Prouinces and Countreys of what so euer qualitie or condition they were and in all maner causes if the defendant require an ecclesiastiall iudgement it be not lawfull from the Bishops sentence to appeale any higher This lawe is here brought forth master Stapleton very vntimely and impertinently nothing to proue or unproue the ensample or doings of King Dauid vnlesse ye woulde proue it on this wiâ—…e â—…uo alleageth a lawe of Theodosius binding all his subiects of all Nations Prouinces and Countreys of whatsoeuer qualitie and condition they were and in all maner causes if the defendant require an ecclesiasticall iudgement it be not lawful from the Bishops sentence to appeale any higher Ergo king Dauid made the like lawe to this or this was like to king Dauids lawes Howe thys hangeth togither like your Germaines lippes that before yâ—… spake of let others iudge King Dauids lawes were not for priests to be such Iudges but for priests to be subiect to these orders that they should obserue and obey them porter singer Leuit Priest or Prophet high or low of what qualitie or condition soeuer they were These lawes of king Dauid were as ye say by Gods commaundement by the mouth of his Prophets and therefore coulde not be yll The law you cite of Iuâ—… from Theodosius though at that time it were good vpon some godly consideration yet it is not ius diuinum the law of god it is but mans law the princes law sheweth a chief authoritie in him to giue such liberties to the clergie which as they may be very wel vsed especially when princes do looke well to them that they vse their gifts offices and priuileges dutifully so haue they since by your pope and prelates bene very ill vsed euen to the treading down of the doners of theÌ„ Theodosius Iuo or any other And as the Iuy taking al his streÌ„gth growth from the Oke so coÌ„passeth ouergroweth it and that by his gréene pleasant embracings of it till the Iuy haue quite destroied the whole bole of the Oke so haue your clergie by such franchesies liberties of princes at the first by compassing them with counterfeit holines subtile deuises so growne vp aboue them in riches strength and possessions that at the length ye haue destroied brought to nothing all their supreme estate ouer you For whereto bring ye out this priuiledge of the Emperor Theodosius that none might appeale to any higher sentence than the B. but as ye haue brought it now in the end to cal coraÌ„ vobis as your vnderling eueÌ„ the prince himself from whoÌ„ ye coÌ„fesse this your priuilege came And thus ye alleage king Iuo his lawes as it were an Iuy bush to behold how your popish prelates do play the Iuies part But it is hie time with other sharper lawes that princes pull vp such Iuies by the rootes Now as ye haue thus shifted off the answere to king Dauids doings redressings ordrings lawes and chiefe gouernment in ecclesiasticall causes so to knit vp the knot euen like a fawning Iuy about princes your selfe And surely say you no Prince more recognized their obedience to the spirituall magistrate in spirituall causes than such as were most readie and carefull to ayde further and to their power direct all spirituall matters This therefore proueth well that godly princes do further and set foorth godly religion by meanes seemely to their vocations Why master Stap. who desireth or attributeth more to Princes than to set forth Gods religion by meanes semely to theyr vocation If this ensample of Dauid as you say proue thus much then to gouerne direct commaunde and appoynt the Priests yea your hiest Priestes as Dauid did is no vnseemely meanes to their vocation nor vnsitting euen for your Popes vocation to obey the Princes appoyntment and commaundement And if to direct all spirituall matters may be done of Princes yet the obedience to the spirituall Pastor in spirituall matters still recognized then doth not the Quéenes Maiestie any preiudice to them recognizing to them a dutifull obedience in the ministration of spirituall matters for all that she fetteth forth Gods true religion and directeth all spirituall matters as ye graunt she maye Which is as much as the Bishop or any of vs desire or hir Maiestie taketh on hir But say you here is no maner of inckling that Princes do or did euer beare the supreme gouernment in all ecclesiastical matters to decide and determine to alter and chaunge to set vp and plucke downe what religion liked them by their princely authoritie and mere soueraigntie Haue ye gone about to impugne this all this while M. Stapleton then I see well it was not for nothing that alwayes ye aunswered so wide Ye needed not haue sought so many shifting corners The Bishop proponed one thing and you aunswered another Doth the Bishop maintaine or euer sayde that Princes might decide determine alter chaunge set vp pluck downe what religion liked them by their Princely authoritie and mere soueraigntie Quote me the lease name me the place where once the Bishoppe so said Or doth the Q. Maiestie take any such thing vpon hir These be but your wicked I had almost sayde traytâ—…rous slaunders to desace hir highnesse to hir simple subiectes And no doubt so ye report to other Countreys of hir Maiestie as ye write here most opprobiously agaynst hir It is your Pope agaynst whom ye should make this conclusion for he taketh on him to decide and determine to alter and chaunge to set vp and pluck downe what religion liketh him The Quéenes Maiestie God be highly praysed for hir as a most godly supreme gouernour feloweth king Dauids ensample and neyther your wicked conclusion toucheth hir nor these your shifting counterblasts come nere the matter in hande The. 14. Diuision AFter King Dauid the Bishop alleageth the wise King Salomon his sonne citing a briefe summe of his actes that inferre his supreme authoritie For answere to this Master Stapleton chooseth out one act of Salomon as a full aunswere to all the rest besydes and sayth The weight of this obiection resteth in the deposition of Abiathar the high Priest. The weight of this aunswere resteth first vpon a manifest vntruth The Bishop alleaged besides Abiathars deposition the placing of Sadocke the placing of the arke in the temple of Salomon the dedication of the temple the offring sacrifices blessing the people directing the Priestes Leuites and other Church officers after his fathers orders and the Priestes obedience in euery thing to the kinges commaundement none of these obiections resting on Abiathers deposition Onely the néerest that commeth to it is the placing of Sadocke in Abiathars roome And yet sayth M. Stap. the weight of this obiection resteth in the deposition of Abiathar the high priest And so thinketh if he fully aunswere this he hath satisfied all the rest Nowe since M. Stapleton
of ciuill iustice neither for he is therein also a minister and executor of Gods sentence that by his Propheâ—…es commaundeth the Prince to minister and execute iustice And by this rule howe coulde 〈◊〉 prooue this superioritie to bée iâ—… youre Pope eyther would ye make him haue such a claime that he should not be Gods minister and executer of Gods sentences or would ye not rather reason contrary He is in all spirituall causes the minister and executer of Gods sentences published by his Prophets Ergo he is the supreme gouernour vnder God in all spirituall causes If ye had any sentence of God to proue this antecedent I warrant ye then ye would reason on this wise Yea you do reason on this wise though ye haue no sentence of God at all therefore As for vs we haue as by your owne testimonie the worde of God to warrant that the Prince in deposing the hiest Priest and figure of your Pope as ye say hath so good warrant of authoritie therefore that euen hee was Gods minister therein and executer of Gods sentence which plainly argueth his supreme authoritie next and immediately vnder god To be a minister and executer on that fashion next and immediately vnder God is no argument to abase the princes authoritie If ye had proued he had béene the priestes vnderling minister and executour herein this had béene somewhat to your purpose But this ye could not proue and ye sayd the contrary before that the priest was the princes minister and executour and that he deposed Abiathar not by himselfe but as he sacrificed by causing another to minister and execute for him Nowe when ye say the Prince is Gods minister and executer the priest is the princes minister and executer doe not your self I pray you acknowledge in the ministerie and the execution the priest to be vnder the prince and that the prince is not onely Gods minister and executer but as ye say further the causer commaunder and procurer also therof to the priestes Is this the ouerthrowing of the Bishop as your margin maketh boast or is it not rather the ouerthrowing of your selfe can ye speake any thing more plaine for the Bishop and agaynst your cause than this and yet ye crie eut that the Bishop omitted and dissembled â—…his guilefully craftily verily M. Stap â–ª there was no cause ye see why he should so do the craft and guile is but your owne the Bishop as he did in all the other doings onely touched them per transâ—…nnam not describing any one of the circumstances but in a worde or two shewed the fact and so passed ouer to other factes of Salomon But whatsoeuer the Bishop tolde or left vntolde it had béene better for you as ye haue vsed guylefully and craftily many other poyntes to haue omitted and dissembled this if ye haue no better shift than this that not onely maketh nothing agaynst the Bishoppes assertion in Salomons supreme gouernment but still more and more euen by the mouth of God by his Prophets doth confirme the same Nowe that none of all 〈◊〉 shifts will hitherto sâ—…rue against this one ensample of Salomon yet hath M. St onâ—… shift more behinde and that a trimme shift to Besides sayth he that the deposing of Abiathar doeth not employ that Salomon was the chiefe ruler in all causes ecclesiasticall whiche is the Butte that ye must shoote at and then must ye prouide another bowe for this will not shoote home This is one of your olde sâ—…ale shiftes M. Stap. I sée you are nowe euen at the last cast to let the arrowe alone and quarrell about the bow and the butte but and ye would as ye gaue good counsell to others haue followed it your selfe in firing still your eye on the issue betwéene the parties in controuersie neyther would yemake so many vagaryes as ye do nor here haue quarelled at the Bishopâ—… short shooting The wordes of the issue whiche is the butte that M. Feck requireth the Bishop to shoote vnto if ye be remembred are these to make proofe vnto me that any Emperour or Empresse King or Queene may claime or take vppon them any such gouernment in spirituall or ecclesiasticall causes meaning as doth the Quéene if the Bishop proue this then he hittes the Butte His artillerie the Bow and Arrowes that he must shoote withall at thys Butte are appoynted by him likewise the Scriptures the doctors the Counsels and the practise the testimonies allegations decrées and examples therein conteyned The Bishop hitherto hath with many arrowes out of the Scripture hit the Butte so full that as yet ye coulde not make this quarrell but sought other peltyng shiftes Nowe séeing that none of all those paltrie brablings will serue ye say hée shootes not home and must chaunge his Bowe His Bowe here is the Scripture his Arrowes here are the ensamples of Salomon of which the Bishop shotte a good many seuerall Arrowes and factes and euery one hitte the Butte He alleaged not onely the facte of Abiathars deposition but also of Sadockes placing of consecrating the Temple of sacrificing of placing the Arke therein of blessing the people of directing the Priests Leuites and other Churche officers and of their obedience to all his commaundements Of all these allegations you your selfe master Stapleton choose one to answere vnto whiche is the deposition of the highe Priest and say all the obiection dependes thereon And so guylefully omitting the residue stande onely a measuring thys shotte and in the ende after muche warbling crie out shorte shorte ye muste prouide another Bowe for thys wyll not shoote home The deposing of Abiathar doeth not employe that Salomon was the chiefe Ruler in all ecclesiasticall causes First what if it doth not M. Stapleton one fact of Salomon employes not all ecclesiasticall causes Go to doth it employ some ecclesiasticall causes to be in the chiefe rule of the Prince If ye graunt me this ye graunt the issue and this is the ende ye graunt But ye say it employes not all ecclesiasticall causes â–ª and therefore is short â–ª Did the Bishop againe shoote no more but that one how chaunce ye medled not in measuring of the other Did ye foresee that as this had hitte one cause another woulde hitte another and so at the least euery one one cause yea perchaunce euery one 〈◊〉 and so a number of your causes might be hitte and perchaunce all causes by some one shot not yet measured and therefore guylefully and crastily disâ—…embling and omiâ—…ting them you let all the rest alone Yet should ye not then for shame haue thus cryed out agaynst this one first shotte since if it were shorte though short shooting léese the game yet one shorte shotte leaseth it not And if one bee shorte manye other maye come home and wynne the game for all this especially matching with one that shooteth so faire and Gentlemanlyke as you doe Maister Stapleton that it were better to stande at
the marke many tymes than from it But séeing ye deale so vneuenly with the Bishops other shottes for all your bellowing short shorte it hittes not the Butte it commes not home ye giue all standers by suspition of falâ—…e ayme in this shotte and therefore let vs measure it once againe The deposing of Abiathar saye you doth not employ that Salomon was chiefe ruler in all ecclesiasticall causes I pray you who was then chiefe ruler in all ecclesiasticall causes Abiather say you And wherefore he bicause he was the highest Priest or Byshoppe therefore the chiefe rule of them was in him Doth it not then followe if he depose him in whome is all the rule that all this rule is yet restrayned vnder hys higher rule that deposeth him For the more manâ—…fest ensample of our time If I aske in whom the chiefe rule of all ecclesiastical causes is now in the Pope say you wherfore say I bâ—…cause say you he is the hiest Priest or Bishop and therefore he hath the â—…yest rule of all ecclesiasticall causes Well say I if the Emperouâ—… nowe woulde go aboute to cite the Pope to iudge him and tell him he is the childe of death for not acknowledging his olde obedience to him and so deposing hym bydde him departe and meddle no more with that Byshoprike the Emperour can not doe this say you for then the Pope in all ecclesiasticall causes shoulde be the Emperours inferiour if the Emperour might depose 〈◊〉 bicause when he is deposed by the Emperour from all his chiefe rule all his chiefe rule is translated from him and so were hée vnder the Emperour and all his chiefe rule at the Emperours disposition to giue to another But thys saye you were suche a fowle inconuenience as the lyke can not bée And therefore the Emperour can not depose the Pope but the Pope the Emperour This is your common reasoning Wherein doe ye not sée howe the graunting of the deposition of the chiefe Priest inferreth a hyer rule and authoritie in the deposer ouer the deposed in euerie prerogatiue that the partie deposed had before he was deposed But then will ye say the Prince that deposed the highest Priest may not he doe all those matters that the priest might haue done if hée bée the chiefe ruler of them It is one thing master Stapleton to be the chiefe ruler in and ouer all those ecclesiasticall causes that the partie deposed myghte haue done and to bée the chiefe doer or executioner of them For example the Prince maketh an Admirall or chiefe ruler ouer hys Seas a President or Deputie ouer hys Marches a chiefe Iustice or Chauncellour ouer hys lawes c. These Officers agayne the king deposeth the deposition of them is an argument that in all those thinges the King is the chiefe ruler And although the King can not doe anye of those thinges that belong to their Offices yet is that no impayring of hys chiefe rule ouer them and all thinges in theyr offices And therefore hée transferreth the doing to them that better can or wyll doe those offices And so likewyse in the chiefe office of priesthood admitting there were such an one now in all ecclesiasticall causes though the prince can not do all those ecclesiasticall actioÌ„s nor any one of them yet grant the prince that he may depose that chiefe priest to whome the doing of them appertaineth ye graunt with all that he is the chiefe ruler of all those ecclesiasticall things so farre forth as the rule of ouersight gouernance and directing stretcheth vnto which is aboue the ministeriall executing Nowe as youre selfe haue confessed the prince is the causer and the prieste the executor and doer which likewise his name importeth and therefore is called minister whiche name though the prince haue also yet he hath it as your selfe haue likewise confessed in a higher respecte bicause he is Gods especiall minister to ouersée directe dispose and depose all other ministers And thus graunting the ensample euen but of this one facte of Salomon for our princes to followe to depose in their realmes any one whatsoeuer highest or lowest priest it not only hitteth home the butte yea and the pricke to set vp by master FeckeÌ„ham but this one facte of Salomon and the like of christian princes now employeth a chiefe rule of ouer sight and direction though not of executing in al ecclesiasticall causes besides whatsoeuer appertayneth to the parties office that may be so deposed as Abiathar was by Salomon The vntruth that ye note in the end of this ensample is orderly aunswered in your beadrolle The. 15. Diuision TThe Bishop in this diuision alleadging the example of king Iosaphat chiefly of two visitatioÌ„s set forth by him 2. Paral. 17. and. 19. how he reformed religion through out all his dominions appointed preachers and setters foorth of Gods lawe and Iudges in all causes aswell ecclesiasticall as temporal coÌ„cludeth his supreme gouernment herevpon To this Master Stap. counterblasâ—…eth As M. Doctour Harding and M. Dorman haue written so say I that yee are they which frequent priuate hilles aulters and darke groues that the scripture speaketh of VVherein you haue set vp your Idols that is your abhominable heresies In that ye say master Stapleton As they say so say I ye shewe howe well ye haue learned your lessons thus one of another to say what soeuer your master sayd before you and take your bare so saying for proufe good inough But as ye fondly flatter your selues with your owne sayings so more fondly ye obtrude them as principles to your aduersaries that will by and by bid ye either proue them or else will they still estéeme them as they are for mere lying sayings of a knot of thrée false confederates the master his two schollers to outface delude the manifest truth withal And if these your masters sayings and yours hap to become wordes of course then beware you on whose side they are lykest to light that haue mainteyned so open Idolatrie and diuerse false worships of God that he did neuer institute After this master Stapleton drawing néerer to the matter admitâ—…eth this example of King Iosaphat VVee also confesse sayeth he that there is nothing written in the holye Scripture of Iosaphat touching his care and diligence about the directing of ecclesiasticall matters but that godly Princes may at this day do the same doing it in such sort as Iosaphat did Holde ye here master Stapleton and we aske no more of you Ye haue here frankly confessed two things First the care and diligence that Iosaphat had aboute the directing ecclesiasticall matters Which care and diligence was the Bishoppes first proposition nowe twise alreadie graunted by you what followed thereon ye haue heard before alreadie Secondly that godly Princes may at this day doe the same doyng it in such sort as Iosaphat did Herevpon I conclude this argument As Iosaphat did in directing ecclesiasticall matters so doth the Queenes maiestie
nowe But all godly Princes ought so to do as Iosaphat did in directing ecclesiasticall matters Ergo the Quéenes Maiestie doth now as all godly Princes ought to do To proue that she doth as did king Iosaphat your selfe confesse that he reformed religion and was carefull and diligent about directing ecclesiasticall matters But the Queenes Maiesties clayme is none other herein but this to reforme religion and to be carefull and diligent about directing ecclesiasticall matters Ergo King Iosaphats doings and hirs are not vnlike But this importeth in hir a supreme gouernment Ergo King Iosaphats example hitteth home the Butte and is a fitte patterne to hir and all godly Princes of supreme gouernment in ecclesiasticall causes Here séeing that for fashions sake where ye durst not denie the manifest truth ye haue graunted so much that in déede ye haue graunted all ye would now restraine your graunt and say it was conditionall that though all Princes may reforme religion and with care and diligence direct all ecclesiasticall matters yet they must do it in suche sort as Iosaphat did and therefore leauing your simple and generall termes of reformation and direction by godlye Princes yée will haue them perticulerly leueled by that sort that Iosaphat did them Whiche as we gladly graunt you in all thinges that Iosaphat did well and godly as were the moste of his doings and in al that which the Bishoppe rehearseth yet in some thinges Princes muste not doe in that sort but go beyonde him For althoughe for the moste part he did those thinges Quae placâ—…ta erant domino That were acceptable to the Lorde 〈◊〉 en excelsa non abstulit Notwithstanding he tooke not away the high places wherein godly princes muste do after a more zealous sort than Iosaphat did As for all those things that the Bishop citeth sée that ye stand to your graunt made vnto vs that Iosaphat reformed religion and vsed care and diligence about the directing of ecclesiasticall matters and then that godly princes may at this day do all the same And feare ye not but we will also graunt to you and not starte therefrom that they may reforme religion and directe ecclesiasticall matters in such sort as Iosaphat did And so excepte ye be disposed to quarell or will falsefie the sorte and manner of Iosaphats or the Quenes Highnesse doings I trust we shall anon agree herein They may do it say you in such sort as Iosaphat did that is to reforme religion by the priests First this is very subtilly spoken master Stapleton by the priests if ye meane by the aduise or godly counsell of the prestes true it is so might king Iosaphat well haue done If ye meane by the authoritie and commaundemente of the priestes then is it false nor you can euer proue that Iosaphat did it by theyr commaundement and authoritie but they contrarywise by his Nowe in suche sort as Iosaphat did hath the Quéenes Maiestie done and this proueth bothe their supremacies herein Not to enact say you a new religion which the priestes of force shall sweare vnto Indéede this did not Iosaphat no more hath the Quéenes Maiestie done it is but your surmised sclander Item to suffer the priests to iudge in controuersies of religion not to make the decision of suche things a parliamente matter This latter parte of your sentence is agayne but youre manifest sclander to suffer the priestes to iudge in controuersies of religion after the rule of Gods word and not after their owne pleasures in suche sorte Iosaphat not onely suffred but ordeyned them commanded and ouersaw them so to do and so doth the Quéenes maiestie And this sufferance commaundement and ouersight argueth their chiefe authorities Item not to prescribe a newe forme order in ecclesiasticall causes but to see that according to the lawes of the church before made the religion be set forthe as Iosaphat procuâ—…ed the obseruation of the old religion appointed in the lawe of Moyses And euen thus and none otherwise hath the Quéenes Maiestie procured the obseruation of the old religion of Iesus Christ whome Moyses prefigured and the orders of the apostles and most auncient fathers after them to be restored remouing as Iosaphat did all other newe formes and orders of ecclesiasticall abuses And this restoring and procuring of the aunciente religion and ceremonies the suppressing and abolishing of new is againe in both these princes a good argument of their supreme gouernement Briefly say you that he do all this as an aduocate defender and son of the Churche with the authoritie and aduice of the cleargie so Iosaphat furdered religion not otherwise Your word aduocate how it came vp is declared already but neither aduocate defender sonne or daughter herein are any thing contrary to supreme gouernour But where ye adde al these words aduocate defender and sonne to the prince and to the cleargy authoritie aduice this sheweth your subtile deuise to deceyue princes with youre paynted termes But princes begin to waxe wise and learned as Dauid exhorted them and perceaue howe ye haue foaded them with these names and stiles that were but nomen sine re a bare name without any matter for the authoritie and aduice ye reserued to your selues The princes to whome ye gaue these gay titles had neither authoritie nor might giue their aduice according as Hosius woulde not haue them so much as to talke of matters of religion much lesse to reforme religion to directe ecclesiasticall matters with care and diligence as before ye graunted And nowe to eate againe your worde ye woulde haue them be carefull and diligent without aduice reforme and direct without authoritie of their owne except onely the clergies aduice and authoritie Thinke ye Iosaphat did so not otherwise as ye sayâ—… ye may well tell vs so but the Scripture telleth vs otherwise howe he gaue aduice to the Clergie and by his authoritie directed them though I denie not he might vse their aduice and admitte their authoritie to yet the supreme authoritie apperteyned vnto him Not say you as a supreme absolute gouernour contrary to the vniforme consent of the whole clergie in full conuocation yea and of all the Bishops at once This worde absolute is but your absolute and malicious slaunder M. Stap. Such absolute supreme gouernment did your Pope vsurpe as sayth Franciscus de Ripa that the Popes power is absolute and that he may do what he will. As Baldus in the proheme of the decrées alleageth that his power is absolute from all bondes and from all rule of restraint And that we must beléeue him absolutely as Marcus Mantua and Pope Boniface himselfe affirmeth Thus doth not the Quéenes maiestie no more did king Iosaphat and therefore I inferre the conclusion that the Queenes Maiestie doth all these things in such sort as losaphat did them excepting these quarelous slaunders which are your owne put them vp in your purse agayne master Stapleton and
commaunded and prescribed vnto the chiefe priests what fourme and order they should obserue in ecclesiasticall causes and controuersies of religion Is not this then your own abhomination and contradiction â—…atly to say here is no fourme or order prescribed and that the Bishop belieth Gods holy woorde which in one that goeth for a student of Diuinitie to sclaunder one that goeth for a Bishop what can be done more malapertly But as ye thus sawfely misuse your better so full fondly and malitionsly do yâ—… gather that thereon then the which the Bishop minded nothing lesse nor can instly be gathered thereupon Yâ—… say the Bishop writeth thus to make folke weene that religion proceded then by way of commission from the Prince onely This is your owne spitefull sclander M. Stapl. not onely on the Bishop but on the Quéenes Maiestie your argument is this He prescribed them a fourme and order to obserue in coÌ„trouersies of Religion Ergo He attempted to make Religion proceede by way of commission from the Prince onely This is a false and maâ—…itions collection M. Stapl. from the fourme and order of athing to the thing it selfe It is your holy father the Pope to whom ye may obiect this conclusion he maâ—…eth religion to depende on him and to proceede from him onely â–ª by his Commissions and Legacies â—… latere We-acknowledge all true religion to procéede onely from God the father through Iesus Christ his sonne by the insâ—…ctioÌ„ of the holy ghost in the mouth of the Patriarches Prophets and Apostles And from the Prince to procéede onely such godly orders and formes of directing and setting foorth that true religion as he by the notable examples of these godly Kinges shall finde out paterns most expedient for him and his people to gouerne and order them of what â—…state soeuer they be in that true religion and all other ecclesiastical causes belonging thereto So did Iosaphat then so doth the Quéenes Maiestie now FroÌ„ whose authoritie next â—…nder â–ª God the order direction procéeded though the religioÌ„ procéeded not from them but altogither from God. Nay say you king â–ª Iosaphats dealings were rather with 〈◊〉 persoâ—… thâ—…n with matters ecclesiasticall This was M. FeckeÌ„hams former shifte and many proper ensamples and similitudes you also vsed thereon to dally about the 〈◊〉 of the ecclesiasticall person but not in ecclesiastical matters But those were but séely shifts and euer turned against your selfe in the ende And therefore ye darâ—… not abide by this shifte but within a litle while after yea euen in this Chapter ye recant and denie the obedience of the persons and all And what hath bene your practise any other than cleane to ridde your selues out of al obedience from the Princes authoritie ye knowe your Pope hath bene vnder the Emperour ere now but vnder what Princes obedience euen for his person will ye confesse your Pope at this day to be And do not all the packe of the popishe Priestes as his chickens clâ—…cke vnder his winges and exempt euen their persons also from the dutifull obedience they owe to their naturall soueraignes in so much that where the Popes primacie is admitted Princes can not by any of their laweâ—… â–ª fasten any condigne punishement vppon any ecclesiasticall persons â–ª what mischiefe soeuer they committe and all bicause the ecclesiasticall persons were priuileged and exempted from their Princes authoritie Wherein your generation dealt surely for themselues that hauing graunted them an inche got an elle For seing that if they should graunt againe the obedience of the person the cause and all would at last returne to his old master the Prince as it did before but you thinke your selfe sure inough if ye graunt that Iosaphat dealed with ecclesiasticall persons but not with their matters As ye shifted of the matter before that the Prince dealeth with a Bishop for his homage baronie and temporalties but not otherwise Thinke ye M. Stapl. and tell me on your fidelitie did Iosaphat meddle with the high Priestes and all other of the Clergie so well as his temporaltie onely in respecte of their persons or in respecte of their reuenues and linings vnder him or chiefly in any of these respectes did he thus commaunde them and deale with them or not rather and most of all in respect of refourming abuses in religion and setting in order all ecclesiasticall causes he appointed not onely the persons but the places where the persons shoulde execute their offices and what matters these and those persons shoulde entreate vppon and how they shoulde do them as your selfe haue confessed the manner And least we should thinke he â—…ubbered ouer the matter as ye say many good and godly princes among the Christians also haue charged their Bishops and clergie to see diligently vnto their flockes and charges Ye say true M. Stapleton many godly Princes haue thus done to your further confutation in this issue But you meane they haue onely giuen them a generall exhortation and yet neuerthelesse lefte the matter wholly in their Clergies hands not medling themselues therewith Least ye should thinke that Iosaphat did it thus sclenderly not that his chiefe charge of ouersight lay thereon not onely of them all generally but particulerly in euery kinde of matter the holy ghost hath penned out how precisely he went to worke that rather hauing his care about the matters then the persons For this was his principal marke care not so much that the person might sit in authoritie as that the matter might wisely and truly be iudged and discerned and therfore saith the text In Hierusalem quoque constituit Iosaphat Leuitas sacerdotes principes familiaruÌ„ ex Israel vt iudicium causam domini Iudicarent habitatoribus eius c. Praecepitque eis c. And Iosaphat appointed in Ierusalem Leuites and Priests and families of Israell that they might giue iudgement and iudge the cause of the Lorde to the inhabitants thereof c. And he coÌ„maunded them saying Thus shall ye do in the feare of the Lord faithfully and with a perfecte harte and in euery cause that shall come vnto you of your brethren that dwell in their Cities betweene bloud and bloud betweene lawe and precepte statutes and iudgements ye shall iudge them and admonish them c. Whervpon saith Lyra Hic ordinatur regimeâ—â— populi in arduis causis c. Here is ordeyned the gouernment of the people in difficult causes which could not well be cutte of without recourse had to Ierusalem according to that which is coÌ„maunded Deuter. 17. Where it is saide if thou shalt perceyue the iudgement before thee to be difficult and doubtfull arise and get thee vp to the place which the Lord shall choose c. And therefore Iosaphat appointed iudges there to determine such difficult matters Wherefore it followeth euery cause which commeth vnto you c. VVheresoeuer the question is if it be of the lawe so
farre forth as pertaineth to the ten commaÌ„dements of the tables If it be of the commaundement so farre forth as pertaineth to the other moral points if it be of the precepts of the ten commandements as it were certaine conclusions piked out if it be of the ceremonies so farre forth as pertayneth to ceremoniall matters of iustifications that is to say of iudiciall matters whereby iustice is to be conserued among men Thus is there no parte ecclesiasticall or temporall exempted from the ouersight care directioÌ„ appointment of the king No not the iudgement that ye haue so often alleaged and craked vppon out of the Deut. 17. vnder the which as a generall rule for all examples to be ruled by ye would subdue the Prince vpon paine of death to obey the absolute determination of the priest Euen this same office and all other with all causes to them belonging so farre as stretcheth to the ouersight and supreme gouernment do belong to the Prince to appoint and ordeyne fitte parties to displace and remoue vnfitte parties to sée al these offices so well as any other temporall obserued kept and executed dutifully Which is not so much for the persons as for the persons offices And therefore Iosaphat not only appointed them by his authoritie or regiment as Lyra saith their offices but also he told theÌ„ how they should do their offices Nay say you to each your matter yet with an other shift He doth it not with threates of his highe displeasure or by force of his owne iniunctions but onely saith so then doing you shall not sinne or offende The which very manner of speache christian Emperours and Kinges haue eftâ—…ones vsed in the like case as we shall hereafter in the thirde booke by examples declare Euen in the examples that ye shall there declare M. St. ye shall finde both threates of high displeasures and the iniâ—…nctions also of many godly princes And therefore seing that ye coÌ„pare their doings alike why say you these doings of Iehosophat haue no threates nor iniunctions what call ye this did he not threate them trowe you when he saide Ne veniat tra super vos super fratres vestros Least wrath come vppon you and vppon your bretheren Whiche woordes ye ouerhipped He denouÌ„ced vnto them the wrath of God which declared his great zeale and care of Gods matters as the Bishop saide And thinke you that the high displeasure of God conteyned not this godly Princes high displeasure also do ye suppose that they drad not the Princes high displeasure in the breache of their dueties bicause he threateth them with Gods moste high displeasure Or thinke ye it was not so forcible as any iniuÌ„ctioÌ„ of his vnto them in that as your selfe say he charged them and as the text saithe Praecepit eis he commaunded them which is most plaine and euident to signifie that he enioygned them by his supreme gouernment ouer them And to shew that besides his charge his commaundement his threate of Gods most high displeasure they should incurre his high displeasure also if they or any other disobeyed Lyra saithe on his former visitation Hic oftenditur qualiter c. Here is declared after what sorte he instructed his people to wite by the Priestes and Leuites whom he sent to this purpose and with them certaine of his Princes to bring the people to obedience and to punish the rebelles if they should finde any And of this visitation also saith Lyra He appointed Zabadias to be ouer those workes that belong to the Kinges office that if any rebelles were found they should by him be chastized with due punishmeÌ„t Doth not this import the Kinges highe displeasure in the breach of these his appointments charge coÌ„maundment when he adioyned those that should punish the disobedient Now whereas the Bishop briefly noted all this how King Iosaphat appointed the Priestes to decide and iudge controuersies you snatch thereat and clappe downe thereon a marginall note Yea the Priestes iudged not the king say you ouerskipping that the King appointed them thereto which argueth his supreme gouernment And yet the King iudged also by his deputie not the Priest alone And so saith plaine the texte In Hierusalem quoque constituit c. And Iosaphat appointed also Leuites and Priestes and the Princes of the families of Israel Here M. St. he appointed as well the lay Princes as the Priests And wherto vt Iudicium causam domini iudicarent that they should iudge the iudgement and cause of the Lorde Sée how plaine this is against you but what is there not that ye will spare to wrest to make it sée me to serue your turne For eueÌ„ of the last sentence ye thinke in the ende ye haue gotten so notable a proufe for your matter that greatly ye vrge it and wonderfully triumph therevppon Thus saith say you King Iosaphat Amarias the priest and your Bishop shall haue the gouernment of such things as appertaine to god And Zabadias shal be ouer such workes as appertaine to the kinges office Lo say you the kings office and diuine matters are of distinct functions Lo say I how sone ye would coÌ„clude a lie Your text saith not the kings office and diuine matters are of distinct functions Nor maketh any opposition or distinction betwene the kings office and diuine matters as though it appertained not to the kings office to haue any thing to do with diuine matters Contrary to the which your own coÌ„fession euen in this kings doings witnesseth against you that he reformed religion and had a care and diligence about the directing ecclesiasticall matters And trow you he did this beyond the bouÌ„des of his office How can then his example as ye say fitte well christian princes if it be not a parcell belonging to their office the text is plaine that the king appointeth as wel the Bishop Amarias his gouernmeÌ„t as Zabadias his gouernmeÌ„t to the one to haue the gouernmeÌ„t of such things as appertaine to God to the other to be ouer such workes as appertaine to the king Here in these two such things on the one partie and such workes on the other partie is the distinction made and not betwene the kings office and diuine matters as you falsely conclude And yet I pray you what argument can ye gather herevppon The kings office diuine matters are of distinct functioÌ„s Ergo the King hath no supreme gouernment ouer all ecclesiasticall causes By the like reason he hath no supreme gouernment ouer temporall causes neither For the kingeâ—… office his temporall subiects matters are not they also distinct functione Ergo the king hath no supreme gouernmeÌ„t ouer his temporall subiects matters Againe ye reason thus Thus saith the king the priest shall gouerne in those things that belong to God. Ergo to ouersee the Priests gouerne them rightly appertayneth not to the kinges gouernment Where in deede you should rather reason the quite
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
the kings office is a distinct function from the Priests neither impugneth the byshops assertion nor the princes supreme gouernement Conclude this M. Stap. agaynst them that confounde their offices The other parte of your conclusion that the kinges office medleth onely with the common weale by which ye meane onely the ciuill policie and hath nothing to do with any matters perteyning to God or euer ye shall directly proue it on this or any other place in the whole scripture it will finde ye somewhat more to do than ye suppose it will. As for the kinges intermedling with Gods matters your selfe before haue graunted a king may intermedle and be no breaker nor enimie to Gods order And that euen this king Iosaphat vsed a care and diligence about the directing of ecclesiasticall matters that he reformed religion and that godly christian Princes may at this day do the lyke This your selfe haue already graunted And is all this no intermedling dothe it not rather proue he intermedled that as supreme gouernour thereof yea euen ouer the Priestes them selues to whome that charge of doing those matters is committed and yet he neither breaketh the order appoynted by God nor is become an enimie to Gods holy ordinance Ye say it was Gods ordinance and appoyntment what followeth it was not therefore the Princes ordinance and appoyntment also as though these were contrary and coulde not stande togither the one vnder the other the ordinance of God and the ordinance of the king Put case the Priest had ordeined it might it not haue béene Gods ordinance too but the priest ordeined it not but the prince Ergo the Prince immediatly ordeyning it vnder God sheweth that he hath an immediate power vnder him euen aboue the Priests Of whome are these words so precisely spoken he appoynted he commaunded he sayde it shall be so thus shall ye do c was it the Prince or was it the Priest Did Amarias commaunde Iehosaphat or Iehosaphat commaunde Amarias and all the other Priestes and Leuites who is the supreme gouernour of the twaine the commaunder and appointer or he that is commaunded and appoynted Untill therefore that ye can proue that the high Priest Amarias commaunded and appoynted vnto King Iosaphat these things and that the king did not commaund nor appoynt these things to the Priest and Bishop euerie man that hath any vnderstanding will easily perceyue and iudge that the Prince was the Priestes supreme gouernour next vnder God both ouer his person and ouer the thing also wherein he appoynted and commaunded him But sée your constant dealing in this matter â–ª before you made the gouernance of the thing to be more than the gouernance of the person And here as though it were a greater matter to gouerne the person you say If he take vpon him the supreme gouernment thereof euen ouer the Priests themselues to whom the charge is committed Againe before you sayde that Iosaphats dealings were rather with persons than with matters ecclesiasticall But now ye exempt the persons to saying If he take vpon him the supreme gouernment euen ouer the Priests themselues c. he passeth the boundes of his office And thus although for a while ye would shift off the matter by séeming to graunt somwhat to bleare the reader withall yet in the ende contrary to your former graunt ye eaâ—…e your worde and debarre the Prince of all both for matter and persons to But thankes be to God this insample of Iosaphat is so plaine that all these fetches and shiftes that ye are dryuen vnto can so little any way improue his supreme gouernment that euery thing which ye bring agaynst it maketh more and more for it Such is the force of the truth and so doth falsehoode in his owne trippe still ouerturne it selfe The. 16. Diuision THe Bishop alleaging the example of king Ezechias fiâ—…st sheweth what great commendation for his godly gouernment in reforming religion the scripture attributeth vnto him Secondly how he called togither the clergie telleth them their faults declareth to them the wrath of God exhorteth commaundeth them to do their dueties in clensing themselues in making their sacrifices and appointeth their offices prouideth them conuenient portions to liue by and that in all things the clergie and the people obeyed the Kings commaundement which argueth his supreme gouernment ouer all ecclesiasticall persons and causes To this master Stapleton aunswereth first on the olde warrant of his good masters wordes by reiecting all this as insufficient Here is nothing brought in by you sayth he or before by the Apologie as M. Dorman and M. D. Harding do well aunswere that forceth the surmised soueraigntie in King Ezechias but that his power and authoritie was readie and seruiceable as it ought to be in all prynces for the execution of things spirituall before determined not by him as supreme head newly established How well or yll master Stap. your masters haue aunswered this obiection and are aunswered againe is apparant and easie to be iudged by viewing both their answeres Howbeit vnto their wel doings for feare they should not fal out so well as ye pretend you haue done well also to better their answeres with the surplusage of your new stuffe And if it were graunted you M. Stap. that those things which Ezechias did had not bene by him as supreme heade newly established would it folow therevpon that they were not by him as supreme head or gouernour newly reformed neyther hauing bene some of them of olde established before by the priests negligence hauing long time bene corrupted But what letteth why they may not also be sayde to haue bene by him newly established being quite decayed before And so sayth Lyra of the ioy at the great passeouer that long time had ceassed Propter quod quado Ezechias eam renouaeuit fuit maior exultatio quòd noua placent delectant For the which cause wheÌ„ Ezechias renued it there was greater reioising for bicause new things do please and delight So that to them it was a newe establishing But was the brasen serpent pulled downe and destroyed euer before as other Images and hill aulters had béene was the feast of the passeouer euer chaunged before was that order of collations euer ordeyned before was this the Leuites doings of the Priests partes euer done before So that at the least some of these doings were by him newly established and neuer done before but as the necessitie of the time was then so were they commaunded to be done by him and well allowed of God. Yet say you they were not newly established by him as supreme hed but his power authoritâ—…e was ready seruiceable for the execution of things spiritual before determined But if these things were not before determined I pray you master Stapleton whose executioner was he then neither the priests nor the prophets had before determined that he should do or commaund to be done these things
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
vse it throughout all your counterblast to make your continuall outrodes and vagaries quite from the matter No Flie is busier in buzzing on entrye dish than your Counterblast is blowing on euery flim â—…am tale If ye thinke ye maye be borne withall for the enlarging of your volume yet ye make your Readers loosely and altogither vnfruitfully to employ their labours carying them at roauers as ye say and at randon to â—…s ye had woont to do the people after all Hallowes from the very state of the question in controuersie For shame therefore vpbrayde not this to the Bishop of straying from the marke excepte you kéepe your selfe better to the marke or else shewe your Dispensation that yée may styll babble all besides the question of what impertinent tryfles yée please to descante vppon and will not suffer your aduersary once to wincke awrye nor to alleage anye thing thoughe it neuer so muche appertayne to the purpose if it doe not directly conclude the very state of the question This dealing master Stapleton is very vneuen If ye will deale vprightly call vpon the Bishop hardly so oft as ye will but then stande you for shame to your tackling to least an other come and call as fast on you to marke and regarde better the matter ye meddle withall But perhappes ye will say admitte that I ranne astray from the matter my selfe yet doth my faulte excuse the Byshoppes In déede it doth not Master Stapleton if hée bée faultie therein but it lesseneth hys and it maketh yours the greater and the more to your shame except yée be a verye impudent man for your fault herein is manifest and therefore deciphered oute vnto you in one of your common places If ye be belied there purge your selfe whiche tâ—…ll ye doe the more ye call vppon the Bishop to kéepe him to his marke he that shall marke your dealing shall wish you had either lesse impudencie or more remembrance of your selfe Neuerthelesse since ye so sharply chalenge the Bishop that all his examples draw nothing neare the mark but runne at randon and shoote all at Rouers I pray you sir call to your remembraunce what was the marke and issue in question betwene them was it not this that if the Bishop by any of the foure abouesayde meanes coulde make proofe to master Feckenham that any Emperor or Empresle King or Queene may clay me or take vpon them any such gouernment in spirituall or ecclesiasticall causes that then he would yéelde Was not this the state of their question accorded they not on this issue and ought not the Bishop to direct all his examples to proue this And if he proue this whether he shotte at Buttes or Rouers hath he not hytte the marke and what woulde ye haue more Nowe that he hath done this is plainely proued by euery of these examples and that not onely as the wordes of the issue inforce that they tooke vpon them some suche gouernement in spirituall or ecclesiasticall causes which being prooued is ynough to discharge the Bishop of straying from his matter but also that they daymed and tooke vppon them suche supreme gouernement in all spirituall or ecclesiasticall causes And you haue counterblasted nothing to the contrary that were able to remoue these prooues from this marke and issue sauing your facing and bracing of the matter and a number of blynde pelting and foreworne shiftes except ye haue any better behinde to come For all these shiftes hitherto notwithstanding the Bishoppes examples are both directly directed to the issue and directly and fully prooue the same And wher 's ye findâ—… faulte with straggling from it ye touch not him but wring your selfe by the nose For ensample whereof I remitte the Reader to your common place thereon or to spare his paynes and go no further than euen here to marke the markes that your selfe set vp and conferre them with the issue betwéene the Bishoppe and master Feckenham and the Reader shall soone discerne howe farre of purpose ye stray from it yea from those false markes also that your selfe set vp before And yet ye crie the Bishop strayes from the marke and will the Reader to fixe his eye thereon But herein ye play as the common people say the Lapwing or Pewet doeth who when they seeke hir Neast draweth them still further and further from it wyth hir noyse and flittering about them crying as the simple people imagine here is it here is it when it is nothing neare it And euen as they conceyue of the Pewet so do you with vs with great noyse and earnestnesse bidding vs regarde and set before our eyes the very state of the question and busily pretende to tell vs wherein lyeth all the chiefe question when vnder the cloake and credite of this your earnestnesse ye carie the reader quite away from the question and issue in controuersie to runne vp and downe after such newe and so many questions that the Reader dared as a man in a maze shoulde neyther perceyue the true question in déede nor finde out the weakenesse and falsehoode of your cause nor well knowe where himselfe is become But that he maye winde himselfe the better oute of this your Laberinthe let him as is sayde before directe his eye euer on the issue betweene the parties and then shall hée still see whereaboutes hée is and howe farre or neare not onely the Bishop is but you also are to or from the matter The issue as is before sayde is this That any Emperor or Empresle King or Queene claymed or tooke vpon them any such gouernment By this issue in all his examples hath the Byshoppe directed him selfe that Moses Iosue Dauid Salomon Iosaphat Ezechias and Iosias did take vpon them suche gouernment But all these were Kings and Princes of Gods people commended of God for their godly gouernance Therfore Emperours and Empresses Kings Quenes may and ought to take such gouernment vpon them This being alwayes the Bishops conclusion wherein strayed he from the issue But nowe come you ruffling in with Nine newe issues for aduauntage not one of them all béeing the verie issue and state of the question in controuersie and yet you crie the Bishop draweth nothing nigh the marke True in déede master Stapleton he draweth nothing neare the markes that you haue set vp for the nigher hee shoulde drawe to them he shoulde drawe the further from the question betwéene master Feckenham and him as you doe of purpose in all these your markes to deceyue and beguâ—…le the simple Reader that thinkes ye meane good truth when ye â—…rte so often on the question and runne so farre from the same For ensample was this I pray you good master Stapleton to vse your owne phâ—…ase the issue and question betwéene them whether these Kings acknowledged or not acknowledged the highe Priest â—…t is true and the Byshoppe demeth not that they did agnise the highe Priest euerie one of them
But followeth it thereon that they agnised him to bee their supreme heade or gouernour This woulde require to bée prooued with some better Logycke As for these examples argue all the contrary that though the Prinâ—…s agnised alway one to be the chiefe Priest and also agnised all other inferiour Priestes Leuites Porters Singers in theyr offices yet all those highe and lowe whatsoeuer acknowledged agayne the supreme gouernement of commaunding appoynting ordring directing and ouerseeing them to doe all their duties dutifully to appertayne not to themselues but to theyr soueraigne Princes And the Princes as theyr seuerall examples witnesse tooke it vppon them in commaunding appoynting placing and displacing all and euery one yea the highest Priest himselfe And therefore where ye say to the Bishop I pray you good M. Horne bring forth that king that did not agnise one supreme heade and chiefe iudge in all causes ecclesiasticall among the Iewes I meane the highe Priest wherein lyeth all our chiefe question Yee haue not yet done it nor neuer shall doe it And ye coulde shewe anie it were not worth the shewing For ye shoulde not shewe it in anie good King as beeing an open breache of Gods lawe giuen to him by Moses as this your doings are an open breache of Christ and his Churches lawe and giuen to vs in the newe Testament These be but your crakes and outfacings master Stapleton The Bishop hath done it euidently that ye require and the scripture is manifest in all these Kings ensamples Nor they were any wicked Kings nor breakers of Gods law giuen by Moses or any other But euen Moses and all the rest were mainteiners of Gods law giuen to them and therfore are worth the shewing Your conclusion that our doings are an open breache of Christ and his Churches lawe giuen to vs in the new Testament I maye well ouerpasse without aunswere dismissing it to your common place of slaunders not onely of vs but of Christ and his Churche and his newe Testament also till ye shewe in what place of the newe Testiment Christ and his Church whom ye ioyne togither in this law making did make and giue vs this law that either our godly Christian Princes should not haue this supreme gouernment ouer their dominions or that your Pope should haue it ouer all the vniuersall Churche And when ye haue proued this proue also this your first new marke to be the verie state and issue here in question betwene the Bishop and master Feckenham or else agnise with shame your selfe that ye runne at randon loosely and altogither vnfruitfully haue employed yours and your Readers labour for all so lyke a Faulconer ye crie marke marke neuer so muche Your first false marke béeing thus reared vppe yée sette vppe a seconde muche lesse lyke the issue betwéene them but much more lyke the malicious slaunders among you saying Againe what president haue ye shewed of any good King among the Iewes that with his laitie altered and abandoned the vsuall Religion a thousande yeares and vpwarde customably from age to age receyued and embraced and that the high Priest and the whole clergie gainsaying all such alterations If ye haue not shewed this ye haue strayed farre from the marke Whether this be the marke or no or whether maister Stapleton of purpose straggle from it the conference of the issue wyth this will soone declare there is no néede to fette the highe Priestes iudgement as in a doubtfull matter Euery childe maye sée not onely howe farre they differ but also what an heape of slaunders on a plumpe he burdeneth like an vngracious subiect his most gracious soueraigne withall As for the Quéenes Maiesties most godly doings are very well confirmed by these examples And in proufe thereof the Bishop euer kept him closely to hys marke that the supreme gouernment which hir Maiestie taketh on hir is none other but such as they before did take on them Hir highnesse hath abandoned olde inueterate errors crept in besides and contrary to the worde of God she saw the ensample in these godly Kings before hir whose doings therein she followed Hir highnesse hath by the aduice and instruction of hir godly learned Clergie reformed religion according to Gods word although the Popish clergie were negligent and gainesayde the same she sawe the ensample in these kings before hir how by their godly learned prophets aduice and instructions according to Gods word they reformed religion although the Priests Leuits were negligent or withstood the same And this hitteth home the marke Any such gouernment syth both their supreme gouernments be so like And therfore in that you charge hir maiestie otherwise is nothing â—…eare the marke but is your owne reprochfull and very trayterouâ—… slaunder The ioly number of a thousande yeares and vpwarde of your vsuall religion is but your common vaunte and what if I sayde your outfacing lie also to deceyue the simple with a countenance of antiquitie the noueltie and late hatching whereof is dayly the more ye striue the more discouered to be nothing so auncient as ye pretende of a thousande yeares and vpwarde Of which number the most part the originals béeing well boulted out may come backe againe halfe a thousande yeares and more downwarde with shame ynoughe But I sée master Stapleton ye haue hoysted vp your Religion so hie that it staggreth againe and higher for falling downeright ye can not get it It hath béene ye say the vsuall Religion a thousande yeares and vpwarde that is a fayre tyme master Stapleton God saue it But what meane ye by this indefinite terme vpwarde Meane you it hath continued a thousande yeares and a little more Alacke Master Stapleton I am sorie for it and for your paynes taking till your armes ake to lyft it vp so highe and yet it commes too too short to be any true Religion For if it be the true Religion of Iesus Christe whie say yee not boldely man it is the vsuall Religion of fifteene hundreth yeares and vpwarde But eyther your armes are too shorte or your heart fayles you to lifte it vpwarde so highe for then the worde of GOD woulde soone controll you and beate it downe agayne And therefore you are contente with a lower sayle to crake that your Religion is yet a thousande yeares olde and vpwarde But as that is a false crake so is it also a vayne crake and serues not the turne yea admitting it were so old as ye boast 1000 â–ª yeares and vpward yet ought it of all godly Princes to be remooued and pulled downe againe except it be the Religion of fiftene hundreth yeares and vpwarde Eâ—…amsi Angelus docuerit aliud Euangelium quà m quod accepistis anaâ—…hema sit Althoughe an Aungell from heauen should teache any other doctrine than you haue receyued let him be accursed The Religion that the Quéenes Maiestie hath set forth thankes be to God therefore is the religion of 1500. yeares and vpward
and therfore good reason that yours giue place to his senior the popish later base born religion of your Romish church to thâ—… first most auncient true religion of that Alpha Omega Iesus Christ himself Master Stap. hauing now set vp these two false markes like to one being out of his way that after he is once ouer his shooes in the myre careth not howe he benâ—…yre himselfe but running deeper through thicke and thinne cryeth this is the way to haue other to followe him so rusheth on master Stapleton still further from the issue and yet taketh euerye thing in his way to bée hys marke and directorie Setting vp the perticuler factes of those Princes that chalenge and take vppon them this supreme gouernement that the selfe same factes must be founde in the ensamples of the olde testament or else hée sayth the Bishop strayeth from the marke VVhat euidence haue ye brought forth sayth he to shew that in the olde lawe anye King exacted of the Clergie In verbo Sacerdotiâ—… that they shoulde make none Ecclesiasticall lawe without his consent as King Henrie did of the clergie of Englande Is this the marke master Stap. betwene the Bishop and master Feckenham to proue in their supreme gouerments euerye selfe same perticuler fact yea the circumstances about or concerning the fact to be all one in them that clayme this gouernment nowe and those that claymed it then since bothe the states the times yea all the ceremonies of religion of the Iewes then and ours nowe are nothing like and trow ye then the princes perticuler doings must be like and euen the same and euidence must be giuen out of the one for euery fact of the other or else their supreme authorities be not alike The issue betweene them is not so straight laced but requireth onely any such gouernment some such gouernment yea he it al suche gouernment to I meane not all suche actions in the gouernment but the supreme directing gouernance authoritie or powre are proued both alike in either princes estate so well ouer eccl. persons in all their functions then or now as ouer the temporall in theirs For by this rule wheras that most famous prince king Henry the eight did sweare also to his obedience all his temporall subiects in ciuill causes as other Princes likewise haue done and do it would be harde to alleâ—…ge an euidence thereof out of the old Testament and yet their supreme gouernments therin were not therefore vnlike As for the ministring of the othe is but a circumstance to confirme the matter and not the matter itselfe And if king Henry were by the obstinate and craftie malice of his popishe clergiâ—… then constrayned for his more assurance to take an othe or promise of them on the honestie of their priesthoode which God wâ—…t was but a small holde as it went then in the moste of them and that no king of those ancient yeres mentioned in the olde testament béeing not moued by the wickednesse or mistrust of his clergy tooke the like othe or promise of their priestes honestie or fayth of their priesthoodâ—… then what is this to or from the matter why their supreme authorities shoulde not be alike in bothe Do not you also say for your side that the highe Priest had suche supreme gouernment then as your Pope â—…othe chalenge now ouâ—…r all eccl. causes â—…nd dothe â—…ot your Pope nowe exacte of all his clergie in verbo â—…acerdotij by the worde of their priesthoode that they shall make no eccl. law without his consent May we not then returne your owne words on your selfe VVhat euidence can you bring foorth to shew that in the olde lawe any highe Priest exacted this of the clergie vnder him And if ye can not as ye can not dothe not then this your wyle reason and newe marke ouerturne the false clayme that your Pope claymeth of such supreme gouernment now as the high Priest had then But his clayme is false his gouernment nothing like For the high priest then tooke not vpon him to make eccl. lawes as doth now your Pope but only obserued such eccl. lawes as God had made to his hande till time of the Pharisies corruption who not content with Gods lawes had deuised besides many fond lawes of their own inuentions when there wanted amoÌ„g them this kingly authoritie To the which so long as it continued the high priest al other obeyed receyuing and obseruing such eccl. constitutions as their godly princes made vnto them So did Aaron first receiue the eccl. coÌ„stitutions of Moses So after him did alâ—…re residue admit the eccl. constitutions of Dauid the rest of the foresaid princes their priests made none of theÌ„ selues without the Princes consent But the princes ordâ—…ined diuers eccl. orders partly with the aduise and consent partly without yea agaynst the wil coÌ„sent of their clergy now then and yet those godly princes exacted of them euen as they were true priests as the stories of Iosaphat and Ezechias mention how they charged their priests euen in that they were the Lords priests which is all one with that you alleage in verbo sacerdotij that they should do suche things as they appoynted them to do And is not this good and authenticall euidence for king Henries doings but that the priests appoynted any suche ordinance without their princes consents will be harde for you to bring the like or any â—…uidence at all for your Popes exacting And if as ye conclude herevpon this exacting to make no eccl. law without his consent be to make the ciuil magistrate the supreme iudge for the final determinatioÌ„ of causes ecclesiasticall then your Pope hauing no such euidence for him by this your marke is no supreme iudge for suche finall determination but it â—…latly proueth agaynst you that the Princes should be the supreme iudges therein And if the exacting of consent importe suche supreme authoritie as héere ye confesse then whereas not onely these ancient kings but also the ancient christian Emperors in the confirming of your Pope exacted that none shoulde be a lawfull Pope to whome they gaue not their consent it argueth that those Emperours were the supreme Iudges for the finall determination of the Popes ecclesiasticall election Which afterwarde when ye come to the handling therof ye renie affirming that although his consent was necessarie to be required yet it argued no suche supreme iudgement in the matter And thus you care not may ye for the time shuffle out an answere howe falsly or how contrary ye counterblast your false The nexte marke is yet further wyde from the issue and more fonde than any of the other for abandoning his Pope and generall Councels VVhat can ye bring foorthe sayth he out of the olde Testament to aide and relieue your doings who haue abandoned not onely the Pope but generall Councels also and that by playne acte of Parliament And
immunities the priuileges of the heatheÌ„ priests they are so like vnto your popish priesthoode but I spare the reader Neuerthelesse what cause soeuer moueth you to write so fauorably for the Egiptian Priests none of these causes or any other maintenance of Idolaters moued Ioseph nor that any other suche lyke priesthoode to come shoulde take hereat any suche prerogatiue of béeing exempt from all fines to their princes The reason that moued Ioseph is apparant in the text He tooke the fift part of the peoples fruites bicause before they helde theÌ„ not of their king but the priests liuing was altogither of the kings gift finding And therfore they payed no portion to the king but the king allowed theÌ„ al the portioÌ„ they had But this that al that they had to liue vpoÌ„ was of the kings gift you quite forgat which argueth their subiectioÌ„ to him ye reasoÌ„ vpoÌ„ their priuiledge Where ye shâ—…ld note withal that al those other their priuiledges liuings came froÌ„ depeÌ„ded on the king And theÌ„ sée how fit a marke therby ye caÌ„ set vp against the Princes gouernmeÌ„t ouer priests Your Ninth and last marke is yet more fond and confused than all the rest besides wherin ye demaund of the Bishop saying Are ye able suppose ye to name any one king that wrote him selfe supreme head of the Iewishe Churche and that in all causes aswell spiritual as temporall and that caused an othe to the priestes and people the nobilitie onely exempted to be tendred that they in conscience did so beleeue and that in a woman prince to yea and that vnder payne of premunire and playne treason too Me thinkes ye play huddle now in the latter end M. St. sixe or seuen markes togither in one For the title of supreme head for receyuing the othe for the persons receyuing it the persons exempted the maner of receyuing it the Princes person and the penaltie of the refusall All these matters on a plumpe for haste come in one liuerie with the cognisance of your Ninth marke how neere the issue betwéene the Bishop and M. Feckenham I remit to the view of others To all these demaundes bicause ye are in hast and therfore thrust them out on an heape togither that the one might be a cloake to the other I will briefly answere them as they lye To your first demaunde for the Title thinke ye this a good argument No king of the Iewes wrote this title of supreme head or gouernour Ergo No king of the Iewes was so By the same argument no king of Englande before king Henrie wrote him selfe Defender of the faythe neither any king of the Iewes wrote that tytle Ergo None of them were defenders of the faythe And by the same argument your holy Father myghte léese a ioly Uicarige that he claymeth from Christ and Peter for neither of them wrote suche titles as he doth nor the highe Priest in the olde Testament wrote any suche stile as he dothe Ergo he claymeth his supremacie from them in vaine But this is a vaine argument if you can proue not the title so muche an the matter the thing and effecte of the title to come from them to him no man will stande with you in the stile but graunt your Pope his clayme This can you not do and therfore your Popeâ—…tytle is but vaine But this for the Princes supreme gouernment the Bishop hath named the Princes in the olde Testament and fully proued it that in matter thing and effect they tooke vppon them this supreme gouernance that the Quéenes Maiestie iustly claymeth now And this béeing proued as before till ye can improue this what babble ye of the title and yet since ye can bring no sufficient proofe of your Popes title neither why maketh this argument more agaynst the Prince than it doth agaynst the Pope Your second quarell is at the othe but the content therof as is proued béeing true why ought they not to sweare therto yea thoughe there were in the olde Testament no such ensample of an othe ministred by the Prince to hys subiects And yet we read how Iosias swore al his subiects to the lord But ye wil say this othe is not for the Prince to sweare them to Gods religion but to his estate If his estate be dutiful by gods religioÌ„ is he not therby also sworn thervnto And why then may not the Prince for his more assurance make an especiall othe thereof so well as a generall But was it lawfull for your Pope to sweare them to his vndue supremacie and is it not lawfull for the prince in a matter so due vnto him If you stil vrge a playne manyfest ensample to be shewed you where in expresse wordes suche an othe was then required I pray you and you will not deale partially M. Stap â–ª shewe you another example where the highe Priest of the Iewes required such an othe of the Clergie as your Pope dyd minister to those vnder him To that ye stande on the tendring the othe to the Priestes and the people and to aggrauate the matter as partiall say the Nobilitie be exempted partely is fonde and partely false For the Nobilitie or any other in certayne offices are not exempted But see the proude orgulous harte of this Priest howe he picketh quarels agaynst the Noibilitie bicause heerein they haue any prerogatiue ouer his priestly order But he maketh a matter in that the othe is that they in conscience did so beleeue as thoughe they coulde sweare therto and can not beleeue it in their consciences Belike master Stapleton your popishe Priestes make good otheâ—… and haue good consciences and beléefes that can sweare to a thing and haue no conscience or can haue conscience and not beléeue it so to be as ye sweare It is to be feared that some of your order haue so done Whether you haue done so or no I will not say for I knowe not your dealing nor am ouer curious to search out your olde reckonings But I thinke some of your good masters are not all in cleane life thereof Your outcrie at a womans Prince to haue thys Tytle yea and that say you in a woman Prince to sheweth your impudent spite agaynst your most gracious soueraigne and withall your impudent follie A woman Prince to say you If a Prince Master Stap. and why not a woman Prince to Will ye graunt hir to be a Prince and take from hir the duty that these ensamples shew doth belong vnto a prince Therefore eyther ye muste denie that a woman may be a prince or else graunt this authoritie yea to a woman prince to And doth not the Scripture commende yea a woman Prince to to suppresse Idolaters and tyraunts to gouerne and iudge Gods people And why may not now a woman Prince to deliuer vs as the Quéenes Maiestie hath done from the yoke of a greater tyrant and all his Idolaters to and
virgin Marie Quilibet tanque per portam in coelum ascendit Euery man euen as by a gate ascendeth to heauen By these immoderate prayses or rather outragious blasphemies Master Stapleton ye stirred the people quite neglecting Christ to inuocate the Uirgine Marie And ye exemplifie it by fables to confirme the people therein Ye tell vs how an Abbot and his holy Couent sayling in a tempest one called on Saint Nicholas an other on Saint Andrewe and euerie one vppon his peculier Patrone but none called vpoÌ„ God the Abbot chod them all and bad them call on the mother of mercie Which when they did forthwith the Seas were calme Ye tell vs of many other that being vexed with spirites haue sought manye remedies nowe holy water nowe one thing nowe another yea they haue called vpon Christ vpon the Trinitie and haue had so little helpe that they haue rather bene much worse onely when they were taught to lift vp their handes and crie Saint Marie helpe me then forthwith the spirite hath fled away all afrayde as he had beene smitten with a stone and sayde the cursed deuill enter into his mouth that hath taught thee that and so being vanquished neuer came againe Ye tell vs a noble Storie of a Spanish woman called Lucie to whome for saluting the virgin Marie the virgin at the deliuerance of hir childe came and was the midwife and at the Christning the Godmother and Christ the Godfather and the childe was named after the Godmother and called Marianus And how at hir Churching Christ himselfe sang Masse and how at the offertorie Lucie was preferred to go and offer and kisse the Priestes hande before the virgine Marie and what honour the Uirgin gaue hir aboue hir selfe saying This is your day of Churching now I was churched long ago And all for saying the Aue Marie Ye tell vs of a Strumpet that all hir life did no good work saue that she would say an Aue Marie and heare a Masse on Saterday which ye call our Ladies day as Sunday is called the Lordes day and on hir death bed this harlot sayde O Ladie Queene and mother though I did neuer any good yet I trust to thy mercie and to thee I commende my spirite And when the fiends would haue taken hir soule the mother of mercie tooke hir soule from them saying do ye not knowe that shee saluted me dayly and euery Saterday heard a Masse and at hir death commended hir soule to me And when they alleaged hir sinnes I tell you quoth shée that soule was neuer damned that serued mee and commended it selfe to me and so she draue them away and caryed the soule with hir Ye tell vs of a knight that neuer did other good but at morning and Euening say an Aue Marie and by the grace of the Virgin he was saued And hereon ye conclude a rule Quod orandum sit c. That at the poynt of death we must pray mother of grace mother of mercie defende thou vs from the enimie and keepe vs in the hower of death And then we are safe Yea as Anselme sayth Impossibile est vt pereat It is impossible hee should perish syth by the vertue of the Aue Marie the worlde was renued And that Redempturus deus genus humanuâ—… vniuersum precium contulit in Mariam sine ea nihil possumuâ—… sine ea miseri sumus sine ea factum est nihil God going about to redeeme mankinde conferred al the price therof vpon Mary VVithout hir we caÌ„ do nothing without hir we are wretches without hir nothing was made To conclude ye make hir to be all in all And as Albertus Magnus in his booke of hir prayses saith Est autem opus c. The booke of the beginning of the Lordes incarnation describing the mysterie of our redemption to the prayse honour and glorie of the most glorious and alonly truly honorable aboue euery Creature the virgin mother of god By the most speciall confidence of whole helpe we take this worke in hande And in the mercie of hir euen as in the most firme anchore of our hope we looke for the ende of the perfourmance and the rewarde of the labour VVho is the moouer of the wil the cause of the worke and the beholder of the intention Thus blasphemously ascribeth Albertus all these things to hir euen in the Preface of his booke But what excéeding more blasphemies he filleth his volume withall were infinite to recite Looke your selfe M. St. if with shame ye can sustaine to reade them Neither is all this the errours of priuate men but the dooing of all your whole Church For euen in the solemnities of your Masse haue ye not in the Sequences of our Ladies Masses as ye cal them Aue terrarum domina c. Haile ladie of the earth holy queene of heaueÌ„ let the heauens and all the company of saincts bring forth melodie to thee the laÌ„ds the floudes the woods and groaues resound c. By thee mother we craue that the childrens sinnes be abolished and we be all brought to the euerlasting ioyes of Paradise Againe Seda nobis bella Appease thou warres hayle starre of the seas thou mother giue to vs the true peace giue vs help changing the name of Eue. Driue away our euils drawing vs without bitternesse forgiue vs our crimes aske al good things let the Sonne and the Father be giuen by thee O mother c. that which Eue hath taken away thou only O mother giuest Through thee the people recouer their former lost strength thou art the gate of the high King by the which gate we enter into the court c. And againe The ladie of the world c. is the cause of our saluation the gate of life Againe Pray euery man to hir in euery houre and call thou vppon hir defence Sing sing Aue Maria with the force of thy harte â–ª with thy voice with thy vow c. And in the third reason that ye giue why ye dedicate the Saterday to hir as the Sonday to the Lord ye say in redde letters Tertia ratio est c. The third reason is bicause the Saterday is the gate and entraÌ„ce to the Sonday but the Sonday is the day of rest and betokeneth eternall life VVherevpon when we be in the grace of our Ladie we are as it were in the gate of Paradise Therefore bicause euen she is to vs the gate to the kingdome of heauen which is figured by the Sonday we keepe for the solemnitie of hir the Seuenth day which goeth before the Sonday Thus doth your whole Church yea and that in your holy Masse booke ascribe to hir euen as much as any of the other What say ye now to all this M. Stap. haue ye any shifte of descant to runne vnto any distinction behinde to alleage any figge leafe to couer your shame that all this kinde of inuocation may be thought
Augustine that is their accuser who saith they did refuse the proufes of the old Testament And you say ye haue not redde it had ye redde S. Augustine or so much as the wordes taken out of him that the Bishop citeth and you take vppon you to answere vnto for Master Feckenhams defence how could ye not haue redde it but ye would slippe off the matter vnder the colour of the Manicheans refusall bicause the Donatistes did not refuse it as they did therefore they did not refuse it at all whereas the Manichées did simplie and vtterly refuse the old Testament which the Donatistes did not but refused it like such wise men as the Papistes when they thinke it maketh against them â–ª and admit vrge it when they thinke it maketh for them thus did they and thus do you and therfore for this handling of the old Testament ye be like the Donatistes But for your handling of the newe Testament ye be like the Manichées of whome S. Augustine saith Ipsiâ—…sque nouâ—… Testaments c. And they so reade the sentences of the new Testament as though they had bene falsified that what they lust they take from thence and what they like not they reiect and as though they contained not all the truth they preferred many bookes that were Apocrypha And saide that in their Archemanichee the promise of the Lorde Iesus Christ was fulfilled wherevppon in his letters he called him selfe the Apostle of Iesus Christe bicause Iesus Christe promised to sende him and sente in him Iesus Christe Whiche how nere it toucheth your Popes practise looke you to it and cléere him of it M. Stapleton els ye will not onely proue Donatistes I am afrayde but also Manicheans Thus muche then for the former motiue that the B. had to charge M. Feckenham with the Donatistes And if this suffise as you say for this branche to purge M. Feckenham content is pleased and so am I let it suffise in Gods blessed name I commit it to the readers iudgement Now to the other motiue Concerning the other say you besides your falshood your great follie doth also shew it selfe too aswell as in the other to imagine him to be a Donatiste And to thinke or say as you say they did that Ciuill Magistrates haue not to do with Religion nor may not punishe the transgressours of the same Master Feckenham saith no such thing and I suppose he thinketh no such thing And furder I dare be bold to say that there is not so much as a light coniecture to be grounded thereof by any of M. Feckenhams words vnlesse M. Horne become suddenly so subtile that he thinketh no difference to say the Prince should not punishe an honest true man in steede of a theefe and to say he should not punishe a theefe or to say there is no difference betwixt all thinges and nothing For though M. Feckenham and all other Catholikes do denie the ciuill Princes supreme gouernment in all causes Ecclesiasticall yet doth not M. Feckenham nor any Catholike denie but that ciuill Princes may deale in some matters Ecclesiasticall as Aduocates and Defenders of the Churche namely in punishing of Heretikes by sharpe lawes Vnto the whiche lawes Heretikes are by the Church first giuen vp and deliuered by open excommunication and condemnation Here first as ye did in the other motiue so againe ye charge the Bishop with falshood and folly but take héede M. Stapleton the falshood and follie light not on your owne pate as it did in the other Whether it be follie in you or crafte let other déeme certainely falshood it is that when ye come to the setting downe of the Bishops wordes in a distincte letter ye dare not for both eares on your head set downe the full wordes of the Bishop nor of S. Augustine nor yet of the Donatistes whereby it might haue bene knowne what the Donatistes attributed or denied to Princes and how néere or how farre ye had come vnto or diffred from them Thus durst ye not do and thus should ye haue done which argueth your owne falsehood But ye turne the catte into the panne and say that the Donatistes saide Ciuill magistrates haue not to do with religion nor may not punishe the transgressours of the same but say you M. FeckeÌ„ham saith no such thing and you suppose he thinketh no such thing and furder ye dare be bolde to say there is not so much as a light coniecture to be grounded thereof by any of M. Feckenhams wordes and hereon you conclude him to be no Donatiste Now since ye will be thus bolde for M. Feckenham as to enter into his thought ye should not haue bene afrayde with the Byshop to haue set downe his playne written wordes or so muche as the full content therof Did ye feare they would bite ye in déede they woulde haue shewed you to haue bene a Donatist they would haue shewed howe ye haue altered the Donatistes refusall and S. Augustines complaynt on them to make it séeme you were none Ye saye M. Feckenham and you graunt Princes may deale with matters ecclesiasticall Why M. Stapl. so diâ—… the Donatistes too Haue not your selfe confessed that they ranne for succour to Iulianus the Apostata and highly commended him And ye knowe in Cecilians controuersie that they refused not the Emperours dealing till he delte still agaynst them and therfore as you say you do not no more did they simply denie that princes might deale in matters of religion Ye should therfore haue adioyned the wordes that the Byshop reciteth out of S. Augustine howe and after what manner they denied their dealing in matters of religion and punishment of heretikes Whether they denyed it as you dâ—… that they should not dealing as supreme gouernours as punishers by their owne authoritie yea or no for this you denie Now that Princes had and tâ—…ke vpon them and oughte to haue this kinde of dealing the Bishop proued out of S. Augâ—…stine that magistrates and rulers â—…ught to reforme theÌ„ to reduce them to the vnitie of the Church and to represse their heresies with their authoritie and godly lawes made for that purpose to whoÌ„ it belonged of duetie and whose speciall seruice to Christ is to see care and prouide that their subiectes be gouerned and maynteined in the true and sincere religion of Christ without all errors superstitions and heresies This was the maner of the Princes dealing then with religion and this you now denie to Princes to deale on this wise â–ª And on this fashion saide the Donatistes The seculer Princes haue not to deale in matters of religion or causes eccl. That God committeth not the teaching of his people to kings but to Prophets Christ sent not souldiors but fishers to bring in and further his religion Pretending the ordering and disposing of all eccl. causes to be in the Clergie and by the Clergie they ment them selues As you do likewise when ye say heretikes
Cesar then Emperour and stretch no furder If it determine nothing but money If it inferre no necessitie or dutie but only giue licence how then did these Fathers alleage vrge this sentence against these Princes and how do you alleage them against the Bishop do ye not sée how ye speake against your selfe but I forbeare you till ye come to your appointed place Although furder here I might admonish you since ye reherse here no wordes of those authours but referrâ—… yourselfe to another fitter occasion not to stande dalying in so often preuentions and rehersalls and all to no purpose but onely to encrease your volume Much lesse to triumphe therevppon till ye haue sette downe some proufe either of them or of other to confute the Bishop for els ye do but triumphe before the victorie and such commonly in the ende do lâ—…se the victorie For hitherto ye haue alleaged nothing against the Bishops allegation and yet say you This ill happe hath M. Horne euen with his first authoritie of the newe Testament extraordinarily and impertinently I can not tel how chopped in to cause the leaues and his booke and his lies to make the more muster and shewe This was an happie happe for you M. Sta. to ruffle in your Rhetorike that it happed the B. to haue so ill an hap by alleaging this sentence for hereby ye haue shewed first your truth honestie That where the Bishop citeth two plaine sentences out of the new Testament together to coÌ„firme his assertioÌ„ you say he alleageth here but one Where the Bishop citeth this of Cesar the later of the twaine you quite omitting the other say this is his first authoritie of the new Testament Good happe haue you M. St. to haue chopped in two lies so round togither to make the more muster of lies in your booke but happie man happy dole they say With the like happinesse haue ye founde out this grammar rule that Reddite is ye may giue But chiefly this happie new Diuinitie to refuse your Princes lawfull authoritie that necessarily by force of any wordes ye be not bounde to pay so much as any tribute to your Prince All these happes was it your hap first to finde out And therefore all your side haue good cause M. St. to count ye an happie man. But M. St. not content withall these happes stormeth yet against the Bishop for adioyning these wordes Admonishing not withstanding all Princes people that Cesars authoritie is not infinite or without limites for such authoritie belongeth only to the King of all Kinges but bounded and circumscribed within the boundes assigned in Gods worde This M. St. calleth a foolish and a friuolous admonition without any cause or ground grounded on M. Hornes fantasticall imagination and not vpon Christ as he surmiseth Is this M. Stapl. a foolish and a friuolous admonition a groundlesse fantasticall Imagination to say that the Princes authoritie is not infinite but circuÌ„scribed within the boundes assigned in Gods worde what would ye haue had the Bishop to say that it had bene infinite without any boundes such as onely belongeth to God but how would ye then haue triumphed at the matter and in déede ye had had good cause Where now ye haue none but that ye be disposed to quarel at euery thing be it neuer so well spoken Neyther was it without cause or grounde syth the wordes that immediately are ioyned so togither make an expresse limitation that the former part of the sentence is bounded with the later parte that the Prince ought to haue such due belonging to him as hindreth not the yéelding of that due that belongeth to god And therfore the Bishops admonition was not onely godly and true but grounded on Christes wordes yea and comprehendeth them also and was no lesse necessarie for the Bishop to haue vsed both for that it maketh a distinction of that supremacie that your Pope chalengeth intruding and incroching on those things that are only due to God and not suffring his authoritie to be limitted by Gods worde and woulde rule Gods worde and go beyonde the boundes thereof And also for that to the ignorant simple of your side ye slauÌ„der the B. and other setters forth of gods word yea the Quéenes maiestie her self to take on hir and we to yelde to hir such an absolute and indefinite authoritie as taketh from god from his word from his ministers that authoritie that belongeth vnto them Which syth it is your vsuall lying and malicious slaunder to sturre offence to the simple to bring the Prince and Preachers in obloquie and the authoritie in suspition and hatred it was not a friuolous fantasticall imagination as your fantasticall braine imagineth but a most necessarie cause for the B. to haue giuen that admonition to shew what authority we allow in the prince the Prince taketh on hir agréeable to that that Christ coÌ„mauÌ„ds to render Nay say you it is not grouÌ„ded vpoÌ„ christ VVho willeth that to be giuen to Caesar that is Caesars and to God that is Gods but determineth expresseth nothing that is to be giuen to Caesar but onely payment of money And yet if we consider as I haue sayde what was the question demaunded it doth not determine that neither thoughe the thing it selfe be most true Doth this M. St. determine nothing but money yea not so much as that neither whie what doth it determine then nothing say you if we consider as I haue sayde what was the question demaunded In déede M. Stap. if we considered as you haue sayde it would be a very meane determination of any thing And yet if you would better haue considered euen that you haue sayde ye shoulde haue found this your saying to haue bene sayde without your considering cappe For then ye tolde vs that thoughe it forced not that we ought to pay tribute yet it forced that we might pay it which inforceth yet somewhat more than bare nothing And euen héere present ye say that Christ determineth expresseth nothing that is to be giuen to Cesar but onely paymeÌ„t of money And by by ye say it doth not determine that neither And so ye tell vs it dothe determine nothing and yet it determines something and that something it doth determine and yet it dothe not determine it If we consider it as you haue sayde it howe would ye haue vs consider it master Stap. when your selfe so inconsiderately haue saide suche contradictions Besides this as repugnant as the rest before ye sayd his wordes imported onely that they might which is not to will a thing to be done but to permit or licence that a thing may be done or may not be done And héere ye playnly say he willeth that to be giuen to Cesar that is Cesars and to God that is Gods. But Christes willing a thing to be done is his commaundement that it be done and not a licence that may or may not
his Legates â–ª Forsoothe when he dothe it then it is a principall matter it argueth his supremacie and therefore none can do it but he But nowe when examples are founde and alleaged that Christian Princes had wonte to doe it Ergo They were supreme then belike therein Nay then it argueth no supremacie then it is no principal matter nor any eccl. matter at al. Thus you play mockhalliday with vs and boe péepe as though we were children it is and is not When the Pope dothe it then it argueth a supremacie when the Prince dothe it then it argueth none And why so for sooth then the case is altered Thus do you dally out the matter and when any substantiall proufe is brought agaynst you either ye giue it suche a mocke as this or leape cleane ouer it as though ye sawe it not or in stéede of answere to that that is propounded propounde your selfe an other allegation which is clauâ—…m clauo pellere to driue out one nayle by another For to the allegation out of the Emperours Theodosius and Ualentinianus Epistle ye answere nothing but set a péece of another letter of Ualentinian to Theodosius in the téethe of it VVe sayth Valentinian to the Emperour Theodosius say you ought to defende the fayth which we receyued of our auncestors with all competent deuotion and in this our tyme preserue vnblemished the worthy reuerence due to the blessed Apostle sainct Peter so that the moste blessed Bishop of the Citie of Rome to whome antiquitie hath giuen the principalitie of Priesthoode aboue all other may O moste blessed father and honorable Emperour haue place and libertie to giue iudgement in suche matters as concerne fayth and Priestes And for this cause the bishop of CoÌ„stantinople hathe according to solemne order of Councels by his Libel appealed vnto him And this is writteÌ„ M. Horne to Theodosius him selfe by a coÌ„mon letter of Valentinian And the Empresses Placidia Eudoxia which Placidia writeth also a particular letter to hir said sonne Theodosius and altogither in the same sense Héere ye clap vp a marginall note The Popes supremacie Proued by the Emperour Valentinian alleaged by M. Horne And héere agayne full triumphantly ye crie out HerkeÌ„ good M. Horne giue good aduertisemeÌ„t I walk not and wander as ye do here alleaging this Emperour in an obscure generalitie wherof cannot be enforced any particularitie of the principall question I go to worke with you playnly truely and particularly I shewe you by your owne Emperour by playne words the Popes supremacie the practise withall of appeales froÌ„ Constantinople to Rome Héere is a ioly face of this matter M. St. But yet héere is not one worde to answere the bishops allegation but to coÌ„mend your owne that ye set against it and so thinke ye answere it bicause it is of the same Emperour Ualentinian whom the bishop alleaged But such answere as it is sithe ye can make no other we muste take it or none at your handes Neuerthelesse since ye so crake that ye walke not and wander not in obscure generalities but go playnly and particulerly to worke if ye ment as ye say how chaunce ye open not any of the necessary particuler circumstances of the matter whervpon the Emperour wrote whiche might haue made this matter plaine would haue shewed what and wherin they coÌ„mended the B. of Rome and what authoritie belonged to the Emperour Yea if you had but set downe a little more largely the selfe same Epistles that ye cite the matter had beene a great deale more cleare Ye say also ye go truely to worke and yet you falsly translate euen those very words that ye cyte and so cutte them off ere ye come to the periode that that which shoulde haue shewed the matter to haue béene about a particular controuersie of the fayth then risâ—…n might séeme to be generally spoken of all controuersies And therfore ye leaue out these wordes For the controuersie of the faith that is sprong vp And where the wordes of your allegation are Locum habeat ac facultatâ—…m de fide sacerdotibus iudicare that he may haue place and leaue or facultie to iudge of the fayth and of the Priests you captiously and falsly translate it that he may haue place and libertie to giue iudgement in suche matters as concerne fayth and Priestes This subtile translation in generall ye vse to make it appeare that the Bishop of Rome hath a generall authoritie to be the chiefe Iudge to decide all doubtes in matters of fayth and to be the chiefe Iudge of all Priestes where your texte inferreth no suche thing Likewise where the Emperour sayth of the Bishop of the Citie of Rome to whome antiquitie hath yeelded the principalitie of Priesthoode aboue all others ye conclude that by playne wordes is shewed the Popes supremacie and so sette vp your Marginall note The Popes supremacie proued by the Emperour Valentinian Where in your letter are no suche playne wordes of supremacie nor any proufe thereof at all Do you thinke that the Emperour acknowledged that supremacie which your Pope nowe chalengeth and vsurpeth not onely ouer all Priestes but ouer all Kinges and Emperours also No master Stapleton it is euident by the dealing of these Emperours and that euen in this matter that the Pope â—…ad no suche supremacie but the Emperour dyd those thinges then that your Pope dothe clayme nowe as further shall appeare in the proper treatise therof Your Pope nowe woulde be lothe to be suche an humble Lâ—… and fall downe to the Egles féete as the Pope dyd then to the Emperour whiche nowe ye make the Emperour doe to the Popes féete For why ye may â—…ay â—…empora mutantur nos mutamur in illis the tymes are changed and we are changed in them All the playne wordes and proues ye crake of for this supremacie are these that the Emperour sayth antiquitie gaue hym the principalitie of Priesthoode But there is a greate difference betwéene the principalitie of Priesthoode and supreme head or chiefe gouernour of Priesthoode or that all Priesthoode is deriued out of the Popes Priesthoode as diuers of your wryters affirme that Christe made Peter onely a Priest and all the other Apostles had their Priesthoode from him and so all other from the Bishop of Rome whome they call hys Successoure But as they erre in the office of Priesthoode wherof God willing we shall speake hereafter so whatsoeuer the office of their Priesthood was their saying is manyfest â—…alse For if Peter were a man as he confessed hym selfe to be S. Paule sayth he had not hys authoritie of men but immediatly of God and Peter gaue him nothing neither yet Iames nor Iohn And here if I might spurre you a question bicause master Heskins setteth oute his Parliament so solemnelie before his boke in pictures for the nonce making s. Iames the first that sayde Masse wherin he followeth the coÌ„mon opinion
if ye meane by this visitation the outward execution of the Church lawes and decrees confirmed by the ciuill magistrate roborated with hisedicts and executed with his sword For in such sort many Emperors Princes haue fortified streÌ„gthned the decrees of Bishops made in Councels both general National as we shall in the processe see And this in christian Princes is not denied but coÌ„mended What the state of the question in hande is the reader hath often hearde How be it such is your importunitie that ye will neuer leaue your olde warbling But for the full satisfying of the Reader berein let him once againe resort to the issue that M. Feck requireth of the bishop to direct all hys foure meanes vnto wherin he would be satisfied And that is conteyned in these flat wordes VVhen your L. shall be able by any of these foure meanes to make proofe vnto me that any Emperour or Empresse King or Queene may claime or take vpon them any such gouernment in spirituall or ecclesiasticall causes I shall herein yeelde c. This then is the state of the question betwéen theÌ„ whether any Prince may take vpon him any such gouernment in spirituall or ecclesiasticall causes as the Queenes Maiestie doth Now wheresoeuer the B. proueth anything by the foure fore said meanes that any Prince hath taken vpon him any such gouernement as doth the Queenes Maiestie in causes ecclesiasticall there the bishop kéepeth himselfe to the state of the question in hande and satisfieth M. Fecknams issue What the bishop hath done in the two foresaide meanes is euident by that that is past let others iudge thereon Here the B. entring into the other two meanes prefixeth this issue againe before him to leuell his proues by The issue is now that by any of these two meanes remayning he shall proue that anye Prince may claime or take vpon him any such gouernment as the Queenes Maiestie in Ecclesiasticall matters doth And where the B. by any of these two meanes shall proue that any Princes haue taken â—…pon them any such gouernment in ecclesiasticall matters as the Q. Maiestie doth there the B. digresseth nothing from his question also satisfieth M. Feck â–ª demaunde This then being the state of the question betwéene them the proofe of any such gouernment in ecclesiasticall causes the B. first setteth here down the particulars that plainly declare what gouernment this is that the Q. Maiestie taketh on hir wherto he must direct his proues So that now that question in hande is this What is that gouernment in what particulars consisteth it that the Q. maiestie taketh on hir Which when here the B. doth specifie in the last Chapter M. Stapl. himselfe commended the bishop for his orderly going to worke therein and now crieth out here is a state framed farre square from the question in had whether it be so or no whether it be not plain dealing of the B. and plain warbling of M. St. let any man be indifferent iudge betwéene them But M. Stapl. sayth the question is not nowe betweene M. Feck and you whether the Prince may visite reforme and correct all maner of persons for all maner of schismes heresies and offences in Christian religion True in déede M. St. the question is not nowe whether the Prince may doe these things that you rehearse or no but the question that is nowe in hand being deducted out of the words of the issue any such gouernment demaundeth first what kinde of gouernment that is that the Q. maiestie doth claime and take vpon hir to the which question the B. aunswereth the gouernment that hir highnesse taketh on hir is such and such c. And so the state of the question is knowne what kinde of gouernment the B. must proue And looke where he proueth any such gouernment there M. Feckenhams request is aunswered And if he can not prooue any such then M. Feckenham may complaine that he is not satisfied And as he is bounde to performe his promise of thankfull yéelding so haue you no cause to warble at this the B. diligent enumeration of those particularities of the principal question least both ye should wander in an obscure generalitie also coÌ„trarie your late vaunt that ye go to worke plainly truly and particularly But sée your falshoode how chaunce ye set not downe the Bishops wordes as he spake them but abridge them 〈◊〉 of thrée parts of them and more crying Here is a state framed farre square from the question in hande Here is a false subtiltie of you M. St. farre square from any truth in hand or out of hande The Bishops wordes are these The gouernment that the Q. Maiestie moste iustly taketh vpon hir in eccles causes is the guiding caring prouiding ordering directing and ayding the ecclesiasticall state within hir dominions to the furtherance maintenance and setting forth of true religion vnitie and quietnesse of Christes Church ouerseeing visiting refourming restrayning amending and correcting all maner persons with all maner errours superstitions heresies schismes abuses offences contemptes and enormities in or about Christes religion whatsoeuer In place of all these wordes euery one béeing materiall to shewe the particular things wherein hir gouernment consisteth that she claymeth you onely for all these set downe these wordes The Prince may visite reforme and correcte all maner of persons for all maner of heresies schisines and offences in Christian religion As though the Bishops particular words specifying the poynts of hir gouernmeÌ„t conteined no more but this Neuerthelesse had the bishop specified no more but these words that ye thus contracte yet had he not swarued from the issue betweene them Any suche gouernment nor from the directâ—… answering to the question declaring any suche gouernment chiefly the chiefe poynts therof that the Quéenes maiestie claymeth and you refuse to yéelde vnto hir For euen these particularities that you set out ye will not graunte without an exception and that is in effecte vtterly to denie them althoughe in daliaunce of spéeche saying in some sense ye would onely séeme to mollifie them For what else meane these your words VVhich perchaunce in some sense might somewhat be borne withall if ye meane by this visitation and reformation the outwarde execution of the Churche lawes and decrees confirmed by the ciuill magistrate roborated with his edicts and executed with his sworde for in suche sorte many Emperours and Princes haue fortified and strengthened the decrees of Byshops made in Councels bothe generall and nationall as we shall in the processe see And this in Christian Princes is not denied but commended Christian Princes haue héere gotten afaire catche by this your graunt and commendation to become your seruants your souldiours your slaughtermen only executing with their swords that you with your authoritie decrée and appoint vnto them Now forsooth a fayre supreme authoritiâ—… But let vs sée how this doth hang togither Ye graunt theÌ„ to visite reforme
the church in euery cause wherof it is not otherwise disposed in the new testament is to be holden of the law of nations or of lawe ciuil To this I answer First this in part is true but in part so false that himself confutes himself making exceptioÌ„ of diuers things in the ciuill power that sproong immediatly froÌ„ God neither were those things as he falsly saithe Circa res terrenas about earthly matters but about ecclesiasticall matters in the law of Moyses And although their ceremonial causes and iudicials pertayning to ecclesiasticall matters in the ciuil power be taken away with the ceremoniall and indiciall lawe of the Iewes yet the ciuil power hath like authoritie in the like causes ecclesiastical of the new testameÌ„t as is shewed out of S. Aug. against M. St. the Donatistes Secondly where he sayeth all the ciuil power nowe of christian kings and Emperors is all of the law of nations or ciuil except in cases otherwise disposed in the new testament I answer this may well be graunted and yet the ciuil power hath authoritie ouer ecclesiasticall persons in causes ecclesiastical for so not only in the old testament but also in the newe Testament it is playnly disposed Thirdly to this diuision of the original of both these estates that the ecclesiastical is from God immediatly the ciuil by other meanes I answere this distinction faileth both by his own tale saying Ciuilis à deo plerunque est per media quaedam the ciuil power is oftentimes from God by certain meanes If it be oftentimes by certaine meanes then it is not alwayes and but accidentall not of the nature of the estate for so it is also immediatly from God. And the like accident falleth out likewise of the ecclesiastical estate that although the power be immediatly from God yet many causes in it called Ecclesiastical be also Per media quadam humani ingenij interposita by certain meanes of mans wit put betwene For this cause sayth M. sand the ciuil power among the heathen that know not god is found to be the same that is extant with faithful kings although Christ wold not haue such power in the ministers of his kingdom for he said the Princes of the nations rule ouer them and they that are iuniors exercise power ouer them so shall it not be among you I answere first Maister Saunders this is a like slander to M. Stapletons fo 29. a. b. The ciuil power is not found to be the same in heathen Princes that knowe not God and in Christian Princes that know God there is a very great difference betwene these so different estates wherin the one acknowledgeth all his power to be of God and hath it described and limited by Gods word the other takes it al for hu main naturall not so much as knowing God by your own confession from whome the originall of it springeth Secondly to that you saye suche power is debarred by Christe from his ministers If yée meane by suche power suche power as is among the Heathen suche is not onely debarred from them but from christian Princes too If ye meane suche power as Christian Princes haue is debarred from the ministers of Christ then say ye true But howe then dothe youre Pope chalenge and vsurpe bothe suche and the same also Yea your selfe afterwarde reason moste earnestly thoroughout all the fourth chapter following that the ministers of Christe may haue it Wherin ye speak cleane contrary both to Christ and to your self Thirdly I note this eyther youre grosse ignoraunce or your impudent falshood in altering the wordes of Christe He sayth not they that are iuniors or yongers the Texte is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they that are great whiche are cleane contrarie If M. Stapleton were your aduersarie he would rattle ye vp Master Saunders for so foule a scape Nowe to fortifie a difference betwéene the Ecclesiastical power and the Ciuill he vrgeth that the spiritual kingdom of Christ is in this worlde but not of this worlde as for the earthly kingdome is bothe in and of this world but the ecclesiasticall power is the spirituall kingdome of Christ therfore there is a difference but the spirituall kingdom of Christ excelleth all worldlyâ—… kingdomes therfore they are stark fooles that in any ecclesiasticall thing to be administred preferre the earthly kings before the pastors of the Churche I answere all these conclusions are impertinent If there be any follie it is to striue for that that is not in controuersie We graunt a difference betwixt both powers and kingdomes althoughe a question is to be moued what he meaneth here by ecclesiasticall power If he take it as the Papistes do we denie that ecclesiasticall power to be the spiritual kingdome of Christ. For their ecclesiasticall power is ouermuch not in the worlde but of the worlde also If he meane by ecclesiasticall power the spirituall kingdome of Christ as he in his word hath ordeyned the fame although there be a difference betwene the power in the kingdom and the kingdome in the which the power is yet we graunt this gladly that no wise man will preferre the earthly kings in any spiritual thing to be administred before the pastors of the churche But this is nothing againste the earthly kings preferment ouer the spirituall pastor to ouersée him rightly and spiritually to administer his spirituall things in the ministration whereof all earthly kings oughte to giue place vnto him which we did neuer denie And sith there is no comparison betwene Christ the sonne of God who is also God himself and a creature of the law natural or ciuill neither is there any comparison betwixt the power ecclesiastical which is wholly giue vnto vs by only Christ the mediator the power royall which either altogether or almost altogether is not ordeined of God but by the lawe of nations or ciuill for although God hath reuealed froÌ„ heauen that belongeth to the power royall if notwithstandyng that pertained not to eternall saluation which is hid in Christ but to contein peace among men that is to be reckned to be reuealed no otherwise than to be a certain declaration which he had grafted in vs by Nature or else euen necessitie ought to haue wroong out of vs or profite according to the seedes of nature ought to haue brought to light I answere first we graunt that the ecclesiastical power not as the Papists stretche it but as it is giuen vnto vs by only Christ the mediator is farre superior without all comparison than the royal power of Princes Howbeit this hindreth not but as the ministers are mediators thereof to vs the royall power of Princes hath againe an other superior gouernment to ouersée that there be no other ecclesiasticall power exercised by the mediation of the Minister than Christ the only mediator hath ordeyned And to remoue all popish â—…oysting in giuing vs quid pro quo whiche when
or else woulde haue the royall that is to say the ciuill power to be superiour to the ecclesiasticall Howe madly for so wise a man ye haue proued these differences let wise men iudge M. Saunders and howe badly if not madly ye make your conclusions agaynst vs let wise men also iudge For we neither confounde these powers nor giue bothe to the Prince nor make the Ciuill power simply superiour to the ecclesiastical power although we giue the prince a superiour power in respect of the ouerséeing that the eccl. power whiche in the administration therof is higher although not in the direction and maynteining therof be not abused by the ecclesiasticall person Nowe M. Saunders hauing sayde thus muche of these three differeÌ„ces setteth downe a long sentence out of Chrisostome wherein he extolleth the Priestly power aboue the Kinges power which notwithstanding is nothing agaynst this superioritie that we attribute to Princes although the office and administration of the ecclesiasticall power be graunted to be neuer so muche superiour and this is answered vnto sufficiently already in M. St. Yet bicause we haue hereafter to deale at large with M. Stapleton on the same sentence of Chrysostome I referre it to the proper and more fitter consideration of it And thus much hath M. Sanders for these thrée differences which he sayth he speaketh agaynst thrée errours The first errour is of them that say the royall power in a christian Prince is higher than any ecclesiasticall power which opinion the Englishe Protestantes defende The seconde errour is of them that extende the power royall to certayne causes ecclesiasticall to be knowne and iudged by the kings law To conclude the thirde is of them that thinke a christian Prince at the least in all ciuill businesse and in his owne realme alwayes and without all exception to be greater thaÌ„ any ecclesiastical Magistrate nor that for any sin that he shall commit in the Church of God he can be remoued from the administration of the kingdome I answere neither these conclusions are sufficiently proued on these foresayd proues hitherto nor some of them at all before mentioned As the deposing of the Prince which is another question and héere as madly thrust in as maliciously and trayterously ment Neither any of these conclusions touche the English Protestants for they defend none suche as you haue héere set downe Name the parties and their assertions Else in steade of M. Saunders ye deserue to be rather called M. Slaunders The seconde Chapter The argument vvherof is this No Christian king in his kingdome is the supreme gouernour in ecclesiasticall causes immediatly vnder Christ. IN this Chapter as commonly else where M. Saunders rhethorically dothe hide his methode howbeit for perspicuitie sake I will deuide this Chapter into three partes â–ª The first is his arguments why he thinketh the Prince can not be this gouernour The seconde is the reasons why he thinketh vs heerein deceyued The thirde is the meâ—…nes to dissuade vs from the acknowledging of it by the euent and euill successe that hath ensued thereon And first for the first parte his argumentes are of two sortes the one à definitione from the definition of a gouernour the other à dignitate from the greater dignitie of Priesthood bring the argument by comparing the dignitie of bothe these estates from the olde testament to the Newe His first argument beginneth thus He that may be called a supreme head or chief gouernour hath of necessitie the power of doing all those things which can be wrought by the inferiours to the magistrates of that congregatioÌ„ by their office or by any charge beloÌ„ging properly to the same coÌ„gregation This shal be made playner by putting of example He that iâ—… chieftayne in an armie hath not only the Imperial power ouer al Tribunes and Centurions but besides may lawfully chaleÌ„ge to himself to occupie the Tribunes place â–ª or to be captayne ouer an hundreth if at any tyme he shall thinke it meete for him selfe to do it He that can gouerne a whole common weale can if he will knowe of euery meane man and not onely sustayne the turne and fulfill the offices of the Prince of them all but also of his Maior or of the inferiour Iudges He that is a Bishoppe hathe power of baptising and of shutting the Churche dores and of distributing the Churches treasure although those thinges are wonte to be done of the inferiour ministers To this definition and these examples I answere the definition is false the examples are insufficient Fyrste for the definitioÌ„ it is not true of euery supreme gouernour that he can or oughte to worke and execute all those things and duties that euery one of his inferiours can or ought to worke and execute For the gouernment of thinges is one thing and the execution of thinges gouerned is another thing Yea these two are relatiua and can not be confounded the one with the other although they haue respecte the one to the other for so the gouernour shoulde become the person gouerned Secondly these thrée examples are insufficient For although we admitte these thrée yet we may obiecte a great many moe examples in which this difinition holdes not Set aside the doing of all dyle and vnséemely offices for a farre more meane estate than a Prince to doe of which he hath neither knowledge nor it were tollerable he should â—…o them I pray ye M. sand howe could a king ruling in his own realme be his own ligire Embassadour in another realme Wil ye say he might make a deputie at home and be Embassadour to his deputie abroade and so the deputie to the king shall be the king and the king the deputie to the king that is the kings deputie But perchaunce ye will admitte this absurditie bicause ye will not go from your worde and say well the king may be so and he wil. Here what if one should do with you as I heard once M. Feckenham tel the tale of a gentlemaÌ„ that defended mustard was good with all meate One sayd nay it was nought with this meate another with that but looke what any coulde recken vp he still affirmed his saying that mustard was good with euery meate were it neuer so vnsauery a sauce therto Nowe when euery man had reckoned what he liste at length quoth his owne man that wayted on him I pray you master and is a messe oâ—… mustard good with a messe of milke Ha quoth his master â–ª thou haste marde all thou shouldest haue heldae thy peace This was master Feckenhams tale Nowe if master Feckenham that tolde this tale shoulde deale thus with you M. Sanders that as lustily affirme the king may lawfully do any thing that any of his subiectes may lawfully dâ—… as the Gentleman sayd mustard was good with al meate â–ª If M. Feckenham would say sir and can the king do all that euen his owne
force of his royall power oâ—… else a woman also might bothe teache in the Churche and also remitte sinnes and baptise orderly and solemnly and minister the sacrament of thankesgiuing For sithe bothe by the lawe of nations it is receyued that a woman may be admitted to the gouernment of a kingdome and in Moses lawe it is written when a man shall dye without a sonne the enheritance shall passe to the daughter but a kingdome commeth among many nations in the name of enheritaÌ„ce And sithe Debora the Prophetesse iudged the people of Israell and also Athalia and Alexandra haue reigned in Iurie it appeareth playnly that the kingly right appertayneth no lesse to women than to men VVhich also is to be sayde of children bicause according to the Apostle the heire though he be a childe is Lorde of all And Ioas began to raygne when he was seuen yere olde and Iosias reigned at the eight yere of his age But a childe for the defecte of iudgement a woman for the imbecillitie of hir kinde is not admitted to the preaching of Gods worde or to the solemne administration of the Sacraments I permit not sayth the Apostle a woman to teache For it is a shame for a woman to speake in the Churche and the same Apostle sayth that the heire being a childe diffreth nothing from a seruant But it is not the ecclesiasticall custome that he which remayneth yet a seruaunt shoulde be a minister of the Churche Sith therefore in the right of a kingdome the cause is all one of a man of a woman and of a childe but of like causes there is like and all one iudgement but neither childe nor woman and therevpon neither man also that is nothing else but king can do those things in his kingdome which of other ministers of the churche of God are necessarily to be done therfore it commeth to passe that neither the same king can rightly be called the supreme gouernour and head of the Church wherin he liueth All this long argument standeth stil on the foresayd principle that a supreme head or gouernour must be such a person as may do all the actions of all the offices belonging to all the parties gouerned But this is a false principle as alredy is manifestly declared therfore al this long driuen argument is to no purpose The Prince for all this may stil be the supreme head or gouernour ouer all Ecclesiastical persons so well as temporall in all their ecclesiasticall causes so well as in temporall although he himselfe can not exercise all ecclesiasticall functions nor doe himselfe all the ecclesiasticall actions of all ecclesiastical persons For else he might also be debarred of all supremacie ouer all ciuill and temporall persons in all their ciuill and temporall causes bicause he can not himselfe exercise all the ciuil and temporall offices nor do himselfe all the ciuill and temporall actions of all the ciuill and temporall persons neyther And so shoulde â—…e cleane be debarred from supremacie in either power nor haue any supreme gouernment at all Nowe taking this your false principle pro confesso â–ª after your wonted maner ye would driue vs to an absurditie as ye suppose by bringing in more examples of a woman and a chyld reasoning thus A pari from the like A woman and a child may be as well a supreme gouernor as may a man and hath as good right thereto But a woman or a childe can not be a supreme gouernour in causes Ecclesiasticall Ergo A man can not be a supreme gouernour neither in causes Ecclesiasticall For to this conclusion the force of bothe the promisses naturally driueth the argument I know ye clap in a paire of parenthesis saying in your coÌ„clusion neither a man also that is nothing else but a king But sith these wâ—…r des ar neither in the maior nor the minor the coÌ„clusion is plain â–ª that a man can not be a Supreme gouernor in causes Ecclesiasticall And I pray ye then tell me who shall be the supreme gouernour in ecclesiasticall causes if neyther man woman nor chyld may be wherby are not only excluded ciuill Princes but youre Popes are debarred from it Pope Ioane and Pope Iohn also For if they vse that order in the election to haue a Cardinall féele that all be safe yf the Uersicle be sayde Testiculos habet howe can the quyre meryly syng in the responce Deo gratias If hée be founde to bée a man he can not be supreme gouernoure Maister Saunders therefore muste néedes mende thys argumente or else the Popes for whome he writes this boke wyl con him small thanks except that they be Eunuches But Master Saunders not marking the sequele of hys conclusion fortifieth the parts of his argument To confirme the maior A woman and a childe may be as wel a supreme gouernour as a man he citeth the lawe Num. 27. he citeth ensamples Debora Athalia and Alexandra for women For children he citeth the Apostle Gal. 4. and the ensamples of Ioas and Iosias But these proues are superfluous sith the controuersie is not on the maior but on the minor Which minor is the point in controuersie and denied of vs that a woman or a childe can not be a supreme gouernour in causes ecclesiastical To confirme this minor for a woman he alleageth that she can not be admitted to preache the woorde of God remit sinnes nor baptize orderly and solemnely nor administer the Lordes Supper bothe for the imbecillitie of hir kinde and for Saint Paules prohibition of teaching in the Church For a chyld he lykewise can not do the same things as well for defect of iudgement in his nonage as for Sainte Paules witnesse that he differs not from a seruant But the Churches vse is not for seruantes to doe these things and so not for children to do them Here for confirmation of his minor master Sanders rusâ—…s to his false former principle that if the woman the chyld be supreme gouernors in these things then muste they be able themselues to do these things But they cannot do these thinges themselues Ergo they can haue no supreme gouernmeÌ„t in them But this reason is alreadie taken away and therfore al this argumeÌ„t falles We graunt it is true that neither women nor children can do these things And therfore the Papistes are to blame that suffer women to bapatize and to saye or sing in theyr quyres theyr ordinarie seruice and reade the Lessons Wee graunte them also that no men neyther but suche as bée lawfully called therevnto maye themselues exercise and do these things but doth this fellow they may not therfore haue a gouernment ouer those that doo them in their orderly doing of them if this were true then take away all their gouernement ouer all lay persons and all ciuil causes too For neyther women can nor ought them selues to do all that men béeing their subiects can and ought to
olde testament the Prince was otherwise than in the foresayde respects inferiour to the Priest and people It remaineth sayth he that we proue the king of the Hebrue nation to haue ben lesse than his nation and his Bishop VVho shall bee a better iudge in this cause than euen God himselfe For he entreating of sacrifices for sinne committed by ignorance distinguisheth foure sortes of men For either the anoynted priest sinneth or the people or the Prince or the priuate person Of these foure sortes the anoynted Prieste helde the firste place the people of Israell the seconde place the Prince the third place the priuate man the last place If the Prieste that is anoynted shall haue sinned making the people to offende he shall offer for his sinne an vnspotted ' Bullocke without blemishe vnto the Lorde But if all the people of Israell shall haue doone of ignorance that whiche is contrarie to the commaundement of the Lorde and shall afterwarde vnderstande their sinne the people shall offer a Bullocke for their sinne If the Prince shall haue sinned and among many thinges shall doe ought by ignorance that is forbidden by the Lawe of the Lorde and shall afterwarde vnderstande his sinne he shall offer for an offering to the Lorde from among the she Goates an he Goate vnspotted But if any soule of the people of the lande shall haue sinned through ignorance hee shall offer a shee Goate vnspotted Loe foure sacrifices whereof the moste worthy is the Bullocke whiche is offered as well for the Prieste as for all the people The hee Goate is but of the nexte worthynesse the which the King offered Therefore euen as the Prince is prefered before the priuate man so al the people is preferred before the Prince but the anoynted Prieste is preferred before them both This argument is taken from the Sacrifices for sinnes in the olde Testament and is nothing pertayning to gouernment and therfore can infer no necessarie but wrested conclusion therevnto Nowe as this matter is nothing to the present purpose so his argumentes thereon argue the greater follie the more nicely he standeth on them He driueth thē to infer a superioritie by two reasons the one of the more worthy Sacrifice the other of the order placing the discription of these Sacrifices Of the Sacrifice he reasoneth on the more worthy beast as thus He that offered the more worthy beast was the more worthy in authoritie But the highe Prieste and the people offered a more worthe beaste than dyd the Prince Ergo the highe Priest and the people were more worthy in authoritie than the Prince The Maior he taketh for graunted after his manner ▪ The Minor he proueth thus A Bullocke is a more worthie beast than a Goate But the highe Priest and the people offered a Bullocke the Prince but a Goate Ergo they offered a more worthie beaste I aunswere to this worthy if not rather beastly argument made from a Bullocke as I remember once a Papiste sayde in Cambridge of a righte worthie Doctor of hys owne Popishe Church his name quoth he is Doctor Bullocke but per contractionem it maye be Doctor Blocke and so this is a Bullockishe argument but per contractionem it is a very blockishe argument and farre more fitte for Doctour Bullock thā for Doctor Sanders to haue made except that he be made Bullatus Doctor I graunt there was great differences to be obserued in the thinges offered howe beit the worthynesse of the Sacrifice laye not in the things offered but euery Sacrifice had this or that kynd of matter appointed to be offered as the wisdome of God thoughte fittest to expresse the nature of that sinne or propitiation whereof it was a Sacrifice A Lyon is counted a more worthy beast than a Bullocke and yet was it counted an vncleane beast In the second chapter going before this alledged God saith of flower and Corne offered which is not so worthy a thing as is a beast it is the most holy of the offerings of the Lorde made by fire In the thirde Chapter he saithe if he offer a Lambe for his oblation and afterwarde he sayth and if his offerings be a Goate A Goate is a more worthy beast than Lambe But what shall we conclude hereon for the more worthynesse of the Persons authoritie that offered all these and other more different things But nowe if a Bullocke be the moste worthy beast dyd not many Kings many times offer many Bullockes Did not also the high Priests offer other things for themselues besides bullockes in the. 8. chapter of Leuit. a bullocke and ◅ ram was offered for Aaron and his sonnes but here the bullocke is still placed before the ram as a more worthie beast by maister Saunders reason But in the ninth chapter he sayth And in the. 8. daye Moyses called Aaron and his sonnes and the elders of Israel and then he said to Aaron take thee a yong calfe for a sinne offering and a ram for a burnte offering both without blemishe and bring them before the Lorde and vnto the Children of Israel saying take ye an hee Goate for a sinne offering and a Calfe and a Lambe both of a yeare olde without blemishe for a burnt offering also a Bullocke and a ram for a peace offering here is a yong calfe preferred before a bullocke for the Priests sin offering and a ram before a Calfe yea a bullocke and a ram for the people and but a yong calfe and a ram for the high Priest and so the people by this reason shoulde be more worthie than the high Priest and equall at the least they are made euen in this place that M. Saunders so narrowly examineth for the Priest and the people offer a bullocke both of them Now if the dignitie of the beast sacrificed will not inferre the dignitie of the man offering the sacrifice yet wil master Saunders enforce his argument furder from the dignitie of the place in the order of naming eche persons sacrifyce as thus He that is former placed is former in dignitie and hee that is placed later is inferior in dignitie But the priest annointed held the first place the people of Israel the second place the Prince the thirde place the priuate man the last place Ergo the Prince is inferior in dignitie to the Priest and the people and onely superior to the priuate man. I answere this is as meane if not a worser argumente than the other from the former place in recitall to the former place in dignitie Maister Saunders owne order of his booke in this selfe same treatise confuteth himselfe In hys firste booke he examineth the peoples authoritie In his seconde booke the Princes authoritie in his thirde booke the Priests authoritie shall wee v◅gehim herevpon that he ment to giue the people superior authoritie to Princes and Princes superior authoritie vnto Priests he will saye be ment it not
Aaron the high Priest was gods minister But to inferre such a superioritie on the word ministerie as debarreth the Princes supremacie which you would doe I take that Philo was not halfe so cunning But what cunning soeuer Philo had we Christians ye saye ought not to be ignorant of it to wit that he was not only the peoples Minister but also gods Minister and moreouer the figure of christ For this also is signified when he is not onely called Priest but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the annoynted priest For Christ being named of annoynting would haue his ministers called annoynted VVherevpon is spoken that of Dauid touche not mine annoynted For if Moyses as the seruaunt in the house of God that is in the Iewishe people were faithfull in the witnesse of those things that were to bee spoken truely sith the other Priests descending from the stocke of Aaron kepte the lawe of Moyses euen they also were seruauntes in the house of God and of Christ to witnesse those things that were to be spoken But they were seruauntes not onely of the people but muche more of christ VVhereupon God sayth to Moyses the Leuites are mine I am the Lorde and vnto Ieremie I will multiplie the seede of Dauid my seruaunte and the Leuites my Ministers Ye runne at randon Maister Saunders Who denyeth that the Leuites and Priests were gods Ministers and his seruauntes and his annoynted wée are not ignoraunte thankes be to God of this althoughe many of them were ignoraunt of this their office and dutie and your selfe shewe no small ignoraunce to tell vs that he would haue his ministers called annoynted bycause his name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifyeth annoynted As though Christ were annoynted with suche externall oyntment as Aaron and the high Priests were or as though Christes Ministers shoulde be annoynted with such externall oyntment or as though the Popishe Priests greasie annoynting were deriued of Christes annoynting which was onely spirituall Oleo letitiae prae consortibus with the oyle of gladnesse aboue his fellowes or as thoughe the ministers of Christ were onely Christians and were onely annoynted with this spirituall oile of the comforter and not al true Christians that are members of Christ of whome they take this name or as though any of these things the faythfull seruice and the externall annoynting then of the Priests and the spirituall annointing now of all Christians hynder the Princes superioritie These are such things M Saunders that where ye say we ought not to be ignorant that the high priest was Christs Minister then you that professe to be much more his Ministers now ought to be ashamed that ye are so ignorant of them And sée againe how in this impertinent vaunting of your selues ye shew in your last sentence cited the follie of your former argument on the order of placing the name to infer the greater authoritie Is not here the sede of Dauid that is the royall stocke placed before the Leuites euen where he calleth them his ministers And thus Maister Saunders vnawares hath mard his former argument But still he procéedeth saying Euen as therfore the Bishops in that they vvere ministers of the Synagog ought to haue been lesse tha the people to whō they ministred so in that they vvere the ministers of Christ and of him placed ouer the Synagog they vvere also greater than the Synagog For sith Christ vvas the true Lord as well of the Synagog as of the Church it vvas lavvfull for him to do vvith his ovvne that vvhich seemed good to him and to make a faithfull seruaunt ouer his house Neither onely the Lord himselfe but also he vvhom the Lord placeth ouer his familie is greater then the same familie No man denieth you Maister Saunders that the function of his office is greater But as this hindreth not our matter so these texts furder not yours although ye wrest the sayings of the new testament to the olde to enforce then We graūt ye the Lord can do vvith his houshold as he vvill Put that he vvill doe as you vvill and as you saye he doth proue that and there an ende In the meane time note here againe your owne confession that the Bishops in that they be ministers to the people are lesse than the people which is more than Philo sayde with whome ye founde fault bicause hée made them equall which as it declareth in you another contradiction so it argueth lacke of due consideration euen in the high Prieste dignitie that ye would so faine extoll and yet bicause ye can not haue your owne minde ye pettithely dashe it downe For althoughe the Bishop minister to the people he is not therin their inferior but rather in dede their superior The Prince ministreth to them also and yet euen in his ministration he is superior to them and in that they both minister to the people they are gods ministers both of them Yea the Bishop ministreth to the king the worde and sacraments of God yet is he not therin lesser but superior to him The king againe ministreth to the Bishop the maintenance and direction of him in ouerseing the Byshoppe doe his duetie and yet he is not therein lesse than he but his superior VVherefore saith M. Saunders the annointed priest as the minister of Christ is placed in the first place before the people vvhile in the meane season the king standes belovv in the third place nor in the reason of sacrificing differs muche from the priuate man. You couet stil the higher place M. Saūders like a proude Pharisee and dispise the Prince as though he were a Publican But his cause shall be iustified and he exalted and you shall be brought downe with shame and goe home condemned Yea your owne mouth hath condemned you already placing the seede of Dauid before the Leuits and yet ye haue neuer dene with babling of your former placing Now when Philo will not serue to confirme this argumente better ye runne to Iosephus who was no more a Christian than was Philo and had muche lesse cunning in diuinitie than Philo althoughe a more notable historiographer But alacke it is a poore helpe ye haue of him but let vs sée it as it is VVherevpon Iosephus hathe lefte thus written vpon the same matters The Princes also when they Sacrificed for sinne doe offer the same things that the common people doe onely this is the difference that they bring for offering a bull and an hee Goate by words Iosephus signifies that priuate men brought a cowe and not a bull a she goate and nota he goate to offring What is this to the purpose Maister Saunders if the argument be good as you make it it will make still against your selfe he that brought to offring debilius animal minus dignum the weaker beast and leste worthie is him selfe the lesse worthie Were this true as it is false and foolishe let vs I pray ye
gouernement but rather commendeth the gouernement of a King as an estate so highe that God hadde reserued that vnto himselfe and woulde suffer them to haue but Iudges vntill that they importunately desired to haue a king béeing such a supreme kynd of gouernement as they before had onely giuen to God and nowe they wold needes haue some person among them visibly to haue the same as other nations had And for this cause saithe God to Samuell they haue not cast away thee but mee And as Samuell vpbrayded them ye sayde vnto me not so but a king shall raygne ouer vs when the Lorde your God raigned ouer you And so witnesseth Lyra that the estate of a king is the best estate But the reason of their sinne was this Quia deus c. Bycause God had chosen the people of Israel to be especial and peculiar to him before all other peoples according to that is sayde Deut. 7. The Lord thy God hath chosen thee to bee his peculier people therefore he would be the immediate king of that people VVherefore hee also gaue them a Lawe in Mounte Sinai by himselfe that is by an Angell speaking in his person and not by man as mediatour For whiche purpose hee woulde that the men whiche were the gouernours of that people shoulde bee ordeyned immediately from hymselfe as his Vicars and not as Kings or Lordes As it appeareth in Moses and Iosue and the Iudges following of whome is mentioned in the Booke of Iudges God raysed vp suche or suche a Iudge Therefore the Chyldren of Israell dyd contrarie to the ordinaunce of God desiring a mortall man to be king ouer them â—…ith the Lord had alwayes retayned this to himselfe and always gouerned and best protected them to the peoples profit so long as they were good subiects and stil had so done if the people had stoode in that good subiection to the Lorde By these sayings the firste argument appeareth that if the gouernement of a king bee the beste gouernemente it followes that the gouernemente is better to haue GOD to bee the King immediately howe muche God is better than man And therefore to aske againste this ordinaunce is not good but yll In these wordes of Lyra he doth not deminishe the state of a kings authoritie in comparison of the former estate of the Iudges authoritie aboue or better than it but extolles the kings authoritie so far aboue the Iudges authoritie that God reserued it only to himselfe so that this high estate of a king ouer Gods people is not as M. Saunders falsly sayde before from God by other meanes betwene â–ª but immediately from God and aboue all other representeth him and long it was ere God woulde suffer any to represent him in this estate it was so high that God kept it to himselfe and was offended that his people contented not themselues wyth their other inferior Magistrates as were the Iudges which M. Saunders extolles aboue the Kings estate The Iudges I graunt were as Lyra sayth immediatly from God also and his Uicars in his Church aboue al others in their times And here bycause one or two of them next before this alteration were ecclesiasticall persons the one a Prieste the other a Prophete M. Saunders triumpheth â–ª and commends their estate in representing God to be so high and excellent But either he was very rechlesse or wilful blind that would loke no further in this estate of the Iudges but to these two when as so many Iudges went before but he thoughte not beste to thinke on them bycause they were no priestes nor prophetes And yet as Lyra saythe they were the immediate Vicars of God and so aboue all the priestes and prophetes at their times being no ecclesiastical Magistrates This argument therefore is false and all that followes thereon in M. Saunders saying For neyther any hauing his right wit did euer doubte but that the prieste of God dothe more in gouernement expresse and represent his God whose prieste hee is called than the king whose name is rather referred vnto the people that hee ruleth than to the God vnder whome he is This is spokeÌ„ more like an heathen than like a Christian M. Sanders that the priest represeÌ„teth his God whose priest he is called howbeit I think you are not so out of your right wit but that ye think dij gâ—…ntium daemonia sunt the gods of the gentiles are but diuels And that ye thinke there is but one God and but one sort of those that are â—…is priests But how these priests that are of the Popishe stampe represent God maye be called in question if rather it be not out of question that both their life their doctrine and their order hath no resemblance of him but rather of Baal and Baceâ—…us rather of Antechrist and Sathan than of god As for their gouernment least of all dothe represent him The Turke raigneth not with suche cruell tyrannie as the Pope and his inquisitors doe Godly Ministers represent him I graunt and that better than kings but not in the visible and externall gouernmente but in the spirituall gouernement of administring Gods worde and sacraments God therefore had raigned if any priest or prophete raigned but the priest or the prophete being cast off yea euen the gouernement of God to whome that priest or prophet obeyed is vnderstood to be cast off Speaking thus indefinitely of any priest or prophete that God raigned when they raigned God was cast off when they were cast off ye bothe wreste the Scripture and stretch it to farre that was onely spoken to Samuell and also hereby woulde make the state of the Iewes to haue bene then beste when it was worste For when was the state of the Iewes worsse than in the times mentioned in the bookes of the Machabées when the euil high priests had gotteÌ„ the ciuil gouernement and represented God in the gouernemente whose priests they beare the name to be as much as Caiphas and Anna did that put Christe himselfe to deathe But ye say Moreouer the King would leade the people to Idolatrie but the high priests and prophetes sacrificed duely to the Lorde God in the only Temple of Salomon Ye shoulde descerne M. Saunders betwixt the state and office of the king and the faultes or personall vices of the king For al kings dyd not lead the people to Idolatrie some lead the people out of Idolatrie Neyther were al the high priests cleare of Idolatrie no not Aaron the first high priest of al â–ª Did not he lead al the people into foule Idolatrie and that of a small occasion But howe is this your saying true that they Sacrifised duely to God in the only Temple of Salomon what man ye forget your selfe howe coulde they Sacrifice only there duely or vnduely before the Temple it selfe was builte or Salomon was yet borne and yet there had passed thirtene high Priesâ—…s from Aaron to Abiathar or
estate being higher and so high that God reserued it to himselfe they distrusted the former estate as inferior and desired a visible king among them So that this which you wold draw to the dispraise maketh in deede more to the praise of a kings estate Neither do we denie Gregories sentence in respect of the spirituall prelacie but the question nowe is of the outwarde gouernment of Priests or Princes Which Gregorie not onely acknowledged with most humble obedience calling the Emperour and kings of Italy his Lords soueraignes and lowly bowed himselfe vnto them but also that more is so much detested the claime that the Pope makes now that he calleth the vser of it a fore runner of Antichrist And where ye haue this shift that he condemnes such titles of vniuersal Prelacie in the sea of other Bishoppes but not of his owne this is a false shifte he condemnes it in hys owne Bishopricke of Rome so well as in anye other For where Eulogius the Patriarke of Alexandria had saluted him with suche stiles he answereth Ecce in praefatione c. Beholde in the preface of the Epistle the which you directed vnto me who forbad it ye thought to set in the word of a proud calling naming me vniuersall Pope the which I beseeche you that your most curteous holinesse wil no more do so Bicause that which is giueÌ„ to another more thaÌ„ reaâ—…oÌ„ requireth is subtracted from your selues I seeke not to be aduaunced in titles but in maners Neither counte I that honour wherein I know my brethren leese their honour For my honour is the honour of the vniuersall Churche My honour is the sounde force of my brethren TheÌ„ am I honored wheÌ„ to euery particular person the honor that is due vnto him is not denyed For if your holynesse call me vniuersall Pope he denyeth himselfe to be in that he calleth me vniuersall but God forbid this Let those wordes goe that puffe vp truth and wounde charitie Thus sayth Gregorie and this is cited euen in your owne decrées not onely about the word Vniuersall Pope but vpon these titles Princeps SacerdotuÌ„ vel summus sacerdos the chief of the priests or the chiefe or high priest or any other such titles So farre was this Pope Gregorie then from the pride of the late Pope Gregories that haue bene since for he both acknowledged himselfe to be but equall to other Bishoppes and him selfe and all other Byshops to be vnder their naturall Princes The testimonie therefore of Pope Gregorie is but wrested to vrge suche superioritie of Byshoppes as shoulde deâ—… their Princes supreme gouernmente Now M. Saunders hauing thus as he thinketh fully confyrmed his proues for the superioritie of Priests in the olde Testamente abouâ—… Kings gathereth altogether and knites vp hys conclusion saying VVherefore sithe the institution of Priests proceeded from the good wyll of God and from his free mercie but God graunted not the dignitie of a king but in his anger at the peoples petition lesser consideration is worthily had of the king than of the people both bicause he is made king onely for the peoples cause and also onely at the peoples petition But the Priests although they be made for the peoples cause yet neither onely for the peoples cause but muche more for the honour of Christe Neither onelye at the petition of the people were they made but rather of the free mercie of God and that for that eternall predestination of God whiche was ordayned aboute oure saluation in the tyme appoynted to be brought to effect Ye make your comparison and your conclusion hang illâ—…oredly together Maister Saunders your comparison is of the Princes and the Priests estate and ye conclude that therefore lesse consideration is worthily to be had of the king than of the people How chaunce ye say not of the king than of the Priests but belike ye thoughte that that was oute of controuersie the Priests were so farre aboue the people that much lesse consideration is to be had of the people than of the priests But maister Saunders your beast sacrificed said not so nor your authors Philo and Iosephus but sayde he was made equall to the people But say you the king was made for the peoples cause I graunt ye maister Saunders and was not the priest so too yea doe not your selfe sayâ—… he was made for the peoples cause also if this then argue an inferiorship as in déede it doth in respecte of the ende doth it not argue the priest to be inferior too and lesser consideration to be had of him than of the people that is to say of the Church of God But saye you the King vvas made onely for the peoples cause and the priest was made for the honor of Christ also for the eternall predestination of God vvhich vvas ordained about saluation in time appoynted to be broughte to effect And I pray ye Maister Saunders was not this another cause of making the King also dyd not his estate make to the honour of Christe and represent Christ so well as the Priestes estate was not he called Christus Domini The Lordes annoynted so well as the Priest yea and better to then by your leaue For Christ was not onely figured in the kings estate so well as in the Priests but also toke his humanitie of the race of the kings and not of the Priests and so is called the sonne of Dauid not the sonne of Aaron the king of the Ievves not the priest of the Ievves And though in respect of his priesthoode he was the onely sacrifice of our redemption whereby our sinnes are taken away Christus mortuus est pro peccatis nostris Christ dyed for our sinnes yet notwithstanding resurrexit pro iustificatione nostra he rose for ouâ—…â—…ustification by his kingdome by his power by his victorie by his resurrection by his ascention by his sitting at the right hand of his father in al which his kingdome is contained so that it comprehendeth both our PredestinatioÌ„ and our saluation too And therefore we are taught by Christ to saye let thy kingdome come and not let thy priesthoode come And not onely all our estate in this life and the life to come but all the grace and mercie and iustice and power and glory of God is attributed not so muche to the priesthoode as to the kingdome of Christ. But ye saye God was angrie with the peoples request when he made the kings estate I graunt you Maister Saunders and tolde ye the reason before out of Lyra and the texte is plaine bicause God him selfe was king vnto them which doth not abase but so much the more aduaunce it But now when Maister Saunders hath thus extolled the Priests gouernmeÌ„t of the old TestameÌ„t he abaseth theÌ„ again by comparison of Bishops of the newe Testament saying Sith therefore the Bishops of the Churche of Christ are of no lesse dignitie than
vvere in times past the Leuitical priests yea rather sith the Apostle treating of the Ministers of the nevve Testament conferring them with the olde Leuites sayth that they ministred death and the letter that killed but these minister the spirit which quickneth and righteousnesse and therfore the ministers of the nevve Testament are more vvorthie than the olde Leuites vvhat maner of king shal vve thinke him to bee vvhiche contemning the ministers of the nevve Testamente calleth himselfe the supreme head of his Christian kingdome and that immediatly vnder Christ This comparison Maister Saunders of the ministers of the olde and nevve Testament rightly vnderstood wée acknowledge The nevve is more vvorthy than the olde but the vvorthinesse and glory of the nevv ministration that saint Paule speakes on is spirituall and not outvvard glory For although the ministers of the olde Testament had outwarde glory and some of them by especiall calling had the visible supreme and ciuill gouernement although seldome yet the ministers of the nue testament are by Christ as your owne selfe haue confessed flatly forbidden it Vos autem non sic but you shall not be so And therefore where ye woulde haue them of no lesse dignitie meaning of outvvard glory and gouernment or else your example holdes not they are of farre lesse dignitie therein notwithstanding in a spirituall and invvarde glory they are againe of a farre greater dignitie than the olde Which spirituall dignitie if any King shoulde contemne you might then well demaunde vvhat maner of king he were and we woulde answere you hée were a wicked King but as these are two distinct dignities the spirituall dignitie of the minister and the visible supremacie of the King so may they be and are with vs well and godly vsed both of them Where both the Prince hath the outward dignitie of supreme head or gouernour vnder Christ and yet the ministers spirituall dignitie is not onely no whit contemned but hath his honor yelded due vnto him And therefore we denie not that which followeth For if he acknowledge not the Ministers of Christe ouer him he can not be blessed of them VVherevpon neither can he be pertaker of the sanctifying spirite whose ministers they are We graunt Maister Saunders that the Prince humbly receiueth their blessing and is partaker of the holy spirite of God whose ministers they are in these actions Wherein the Prince acknowledgeth them to represent God and is vnder them But what hindreth this that in other respectes they againe are vnder him and he their supreme gouernour but Maister Saunders procéedeth saying Dauid cryeth and nowe ye kings vnderstande and be ye learned ye that iudge the earth apprehend discipline least the Lorde waxe wroth and ye perishe oute of the right waye But if kings must be learned then so farre forth they must be vnder For he that is learned is learned of some maister and is scholler to him of whome he is learned the disciple is not aboue his maister but in that thing that he learneth of his maister of necessitie he is inferior That kings ought to be learned we gladly confesse and are glad that you confesse it althoughe againste your wylls for ye would rather haue them altogither vnlearned whom ye haue so long detained in blindnesse But why woulde ye haue them nowe learned forsothe bicause you would onely be their maisters and so they shoulde be still your vnderlings not onely in learning suche ill lessons as you woulde teache them but vnder pretence of teachers to be their gouernours too True it is in that the teacher teacheth he is aboue and in that the learner learneth he is vnder â—…ut the teacher is not aboue nor the learner vnder in other things Thoughe Moyses learned of Iethro yet in gouernement Moyses was aboue him Thoughe Dauid learned of Nathan yet in gouernement he was aboue him Thoughe Ozias learned of Iudith yet in gouernement he was aboue hir And so all princes that are taughte of their schole maisters their scholemaister maye be the better in learning but he is the worser in authoritie And thoughe he be the maister in knowledge yet he makes euen his knowledge wherby he is maister to serue the Prince also Yea although the Prince be not his maister in learning yet in all causes of learning the Prince hath a generall supreme gouernement to sée by his lawes euery kinde of learning maintayned in his order to forbid naughtie artes to be learned to appoint such suche an order methode to be taught or learned as learned men enforme him is good and easie to the attaining of learning to appaynt scholes and learned scholemaisters for learning and to giue them lawes statutes and stipendes for the maintenance of learning all this may the Prince doe by his supreme authoritie ouer all learned persons and in all causes of learning althoughe he himselfe be altogether vnlearned and can not one letter on the booke Althoughe woulde to God all Princes were learned not as the Papistes woulde haue them but as Dauid was and exhorteth all Princes to bée And thus as thys sentence makes nothing in the worlde for him so hys example thereon makes verye muche againste him But for all thys argumente be thus simple he wyll loâ—…de vs with further proues saying Sithe therefore it is sayde to the Apostles Go teache ye all nations and sith vnder the names of nations the kings of them are comprehended and Byshops and Priests haue succeeded the Apostles in the office of teaching truely in the offyce of teachyng the Byshoppe is greater than his king so farre is it off that the king can be the Bishops hed in all things causes VVhich title notwithstanding is not onely of these men giuen to a king but also by publique decree of late in Englande giuâ—…n vnto a Queene To reason froÌ„ teaching to gouerning is no good teaching M. SauÌ„ders If ye teach this doctrine theÌ„ your Pope should haue little gouernment for God wot he teacheth little being often times vnlearned and alwayes to proud to teache If ye say he teacheth by others so caÌ„ a prince too And though he could himselfe teache and would also teach the truth and not suppresse it yet sith ye say he succedes the Apostles but in the office of teaching he is no furder superior than he teacheth by your owne reckoning Neither would this superioritie be denyed him of any that he ought to teache if he in dâ—…de succeded the Apostles But if the succession of the Apostles consist in teaching as here ye confesse then hath not the Pope to crake muche of succeeding Peter and Paule that teacheth not as Peter and Paule did as woulde to God he did and all priests or Bishops else Whiche if they did and taught truely this woulde augment and not diminishe the Princes supreme authoritie yea and the Quéenes too Maister Saunders for in gouernement before ye
had not deliuered vs from it and yet sée if these Papistes that can so narrowly spie and proll at euery note in king Henry and kings Edwards dayes can in Quéene Maries dayes espie anye one of these great beames that were such apparante tokens of gods wrath that all men sawe and felt what euents succeeded the refusall of this title and the yéelding it to the Pope nerehand the cleane subuersion of this Realme if we may iudge by sequels Now after Quéene Marie he comes to the Quéenes Maiestie that now God be praised most prosperously raigneth ouer vs. But vvhen very many giuen to heresies vvere offended at this notable modestie of the Queene neither vvould they yet vnderstande his Counsell in gouerning his Churche God brought to passe that Marie of happie memorie being dead the kingdome of England should deuolue to such a vvoman as novve vvriteth hir selfe The supreme gouernesse in all matters and causes asvvell ecclesiasticall as secular That yet so at the length by the successe it selfe men of hard harte and obstinate necke mighte marke hovv euill king Henry tooke this office vpon him the vvhiche of his heire and successour could not duely and orderly be fulfilled For to whom it is not permitted to teach vvhich is the most necessarie office of an ecclesiasticall Head hovv shal she performe those greater offices that are occupied in the chastisement and correction of them that ought to teache the people or shall she vvhich is vnvvorthie that she should hir selfe teache publiquely in the lovvest degree moderate and reprehend vvith lavvful authoritie other publique teachers in the highest degree or if she can not lavvfully reprehend them shall she yet be lavvfully supreme gouernesse of the Church I omit here the things that in these yeares vvhich are last passed haue bene I knovv not hovv vncomely done and preached in Englande vnder such supreme heads of the Church I spare the dignitie of theÌ„ that gouerne Another time if God vvill I vvill handle them particularly hovve greatly both from the lavve of God and from the sentence of the auncient Churche and from righte reason that state of a common vveale is farre in vvhiche any king arrogateth to himselfe the office and name of the supreme head of the Church Is your part so false and weake of proues Maister Saunders that it can win no credite but by discrediting of ours with sclaunders and yet we woulde pardon this in you ascribing it either to some passion of choler against your aduersaries or to blinde affection of your selues that ye call verie manie of vs giuen to heresies hard harted and obstinate necked which are termes fitter to muster in M. Stapletons coÌ„mon places than to stuffe vp M. doctor Saunders volumes howe they redownde vpon your selues let other iudge â–ª that will reade and view of both But if we forgiue you this for our parts shal we stil suffer you to raile vpoÌ„ sclander the Lordes annoynted saying she arrogateth to hir selfe the office and name of the supreme Head of the Church speaking at randon withoute limitation of the Churche as the Pope doth arrogate to himselfe and taketh on hir to be an ecclesiasticall head and publique teacher of other that should teach hir these are too too infamous sclauÌ„ders of hir Maiestie that claimeth no such title nor attempteth any such thing What supreme gouernement is ascribed to hir highnesse we haue tolde you a thousand times but I sée ye will not vnderstand it bicause ye would of set purpose sclander it But to knit vp your argument of the euent and sequele of the Quéenes Maiesties raigne ye say many things haue bin done and preached in England ye cannot tell hovv vnsemely â—… thinke euen the same M. Saunders ye can not tell howe â—…ndede But howe vnseemely a thing is this for one of your â—…rofession to chalenge ye cannot tell what nor howe ye set owne nothing but vnder a pretence of sparing vs to bréede â—…et a furder sclaunderous suspition ye threat vs that ye will â—…serue theÌ„ til a furder leisure that is to say ad Kalendas graecas til â—…e shall first know them and then be able to proue them in the meane seasoÌ„ ye take the wisest way to say such ther are but what they are ye cannot now tell ye wil learne theÌ„ out and tell vs another time but tell the worste ye canne ye shal neuer be able to tell of any fals doctrine preached and by the Prince approued to be preached nor of anye wicked facte allowed by publike authoritie to be done No Maister Saunders in all the Quéenes Maiesties raigne ye can neuer be able to proue any suche things but in the raigne of your Popes we can proue many such things as whordome committed and maintained murder done and maintained Idolatry vsed and maintained and infinite errors preached and maintained by publique authoritie among the Papists As for the Quéenes maiesties raigne that now is if the euent and sequele may make an argument God hath so blessed it maugre all your spites and practises that no Realme christian hath florished like nor Englande more at anye tyme The Lord be praised for it and for his mercie sake long continue it that hath giuen so goodly a token of his well liking hir Maiesties supreme gouernment The thirde Chapter The argument is that Princes can not iudge nor define in causes Ecclesiasticall OF those errors that are about the povver of kings and magistrats the secoÌ„d error is of theÌ„ that thinke kings are not in dede the chief heads of the Churches in vvhich they raigne but in certaine causes Ecclesiastiall to bee euen as vvorthie members as Bishops â–ª for although in one certaine thing as in the office of teaching they preferre Bishops before kings yet partly in another Ecclesiasticall matter as in deposing a Byshop from his seat or in moderating any synode they preferre kings before Bishops partly they vvill haue it free for kings that almoste in euery ecclesiasticall matter they may knowe and decerne as Iudges Of the confutation of whiche errour this is the reason that I should shewe in euery cause of the ecclesiastical lawe that is to be knowne and iudged Kinges to be so muche in the place of priuate men that this trial can not of the ecclesiasticall Iudges be committed vnto them Although I denie not but that of some facte that perteyneth to the eccl. lawe the knowledge may be committed to Kinges and Magistrates But before the eccl. cause be known the king may orderly intermeddle his authoritie to that ende that a quiet place may be graunted where the Bishops should iudge And also that the Bishops may be called at a certayne day to that place And that in the meane season whyle the ecclesiasticall cause is knowne the publique peace yea euen in the assembly of Priestes may be conserued To conclude after the cause knowne and iudged of the Pristes the king either by the sworde that he
and the power of the pastor is another althoughe it oughte to haue iudgement concurring with it Neither ascribe wée iudgement alike to the pastors and the sheepe although in this spirituall kinde of sheepe some of them haue more sounde and perfect iudgement than their pastors To the minor I answere it is not simply true neyther for in one sense not onely the pastors them selues are lyke wyse sheepe but also the Princes them selues are pastors In the former sense euery faythfull Christian is a sheepe vâ—…der Christe the onely shepehearde and must heare his voyce And so the Prieste is a shéepe also or else he shall neuer be in the folde of the Churche nor placed at the righte hande of Christe In the other sense not onely the Prince is suche a Pastor as Homer calleth Agaâ—…emnon and rules and féedes the body and so the Priestes are his sheepe as well as other subiectes but also in protection setting foorth of Gods worde throughout his Dominions he is their pastor too in appoynting the pastors to féede the sheepe onely in Gods pastures And in this sense we ascribe supreme Pastorship vnto him ouer the Priest also Althoughe in the ministerie of the worde and Sacramentes the Prieste agayne is his superiour pastor and the Prince is but his sheepe But master Saunders replies But if they be counted as Pastors I aske whence they proue it that Christe gaue them suche power for what haue they that they haue not receiued but Christ as he tooke not awaye or diminished the auncient power of kinges graunted by the lawe of Nations so neither annexed he vnto them a newe power of feeding his sheepe Moreouer the auncient power of kinges althoughe it be of God yet is it of him by the meane of the lawe of Nations and the Ciuill and not by any especiall and chiefe constitution of the Gospell as is before declared If therefore Kinges and polytike Magistrates haue any power in causes of faythe either they receiued it from the lawe naturall of Nations and of the Ciuill or of the lawe of God that is reuealed to the Churche But to beginne with the later member firste by the lawe of God that is reuealed to the Churche no suche thing is graunted to kinges For nothing else is reuealed in the newe Testament concerning Princes than that that is Cesars shoulde be giuen to Cesar that tributes shoulde be payde that kings should be prayed for that bothe the King and the gouernours sent from him should be obeyed and finally that al power proceedeth froÌ„ God that euery Magistrate beares not the sworde in vaine but in that matter is to be acknowledged to be Gods minister Moreouer none of these places do bid the king by name dispose of the Churche of Christ or in causes of fayth to arrogate ought to him self The argument in briefe is thus If princes be counted as pastors they haue suche power giuen them But they haue no suche power giuen them Ergo They are not counted as pastors I answere firste to the maior rightly vnderstoode it is true that if princes may be counted as pastors the authoritie is giuen them But it is truely to be vnder stoode by distinction of pastorall authoritie Secondly to the minor that Princes haue no pastorall authoritie giuen them it is false Neither doe his proues proue it If any were giuen them it was giuen them either by the lawe of Nations or by the Ciuill or by Christ in the new Testament But it is giuen them by neither of these three Ergo they haue none giuen them To the maior I aunswere it is false Bycause he leaueth oute the olde Testament whiche he confessed hym selfe before was a figure of the pastorship of the new Testament here he leaues out the old Testament quite Which had he named as he ought to haue done he should both haue séene Princes to haue bene ordeyned immediately of God as Moyses Iosue all the Iudges Saule Dauid and Salomon and not by the meane of the lawe of Nations nor the lawe Ciuill comming betweene And he should haue â—…ounde that the Prince of Gods people is appoynted namely to be a pastor or shepheard vnto them Num. 27. Moses spake to the Lorde saying Let the Lorde God of the spirite of all fleshe appoynt a man ouer the congregation who maye go oute and in before them and leade them out and in that the congregation of the Lorde be not as sheepe without a Pastor 2. Reg. 5. All the Tribes of Israell came to Dauid vnto Hebron and sayde thus Beholde we are thy bones and thy fleshe and in times past when Saule was our king thou leddest Israell in and out and the Lorde hath sayde vnto thee thou shalt feed my people Israel In which words Dauid was made their pastor or shepherd which was reseÌ„bled before in his kéeping of natural shéepe as he confesseth of him self He chose Dauid also his seruant and toke him away froÌ„ the sheepe foldes as he was following the Ewes great with yong ones he tooke him that he might leade Iacob his people Israel his inheritance So he fed theÌ„ with a faythfull and true heart and ruled theÌ„ prudently with al his power Which worde of féeding belonging to a pastor God ascribeth also to al the Iudges saying â–ª VVhen I commaunded the Iudges to feede my people And in 1. Chro. 11. And the Lorde sayde vnto thee thou shalt feede my people of Israell and be the prince c. And in the. 3. booke of the Kings wheÌ„ Micheas described in his vision the kings destruction he sayth I saw Israel dispersed on the mountaynes as sheepe without a pastor and the Lorde sayde these haue no master c. By these and many other places it appeareth that God appoynted the Prince to be a pastor in his office but his office as is proued at large before stretchetâ—… to the setting â—…oorthe the lawe of God and gouernement of the priests so well as the laytie therefore his pastorshippe stretcheth so farre also although not to the taking vpon him the office of the spirituall pastor Secondly I aunswere to the minor it is false For not only by the lawe of Nations and Ciuill a politike pastorshippe is committed to the Prince but also a Christian pastorshippe to a christian Prince euen in the newe Testament also Which as it is comprehended in these sentences that M. Saunders here sets down so are there more sentences that declare the Princes pastorship But sayth he none of these do bidde the king by name to dispose of the Church of Christ or in causes of fayth arrogate ought to him selfe This is a wrong conclusion M. Saunders from iudgement pastorship to inferre disposing arrogating As for arrogating neither the Prince nor the Priest ought to do it nor the Prince attemptes it althoughe the Priestes haue and do attempte it Likewyse for disposing if you meane
as ye sayde before disposing otherwyse than Christ hath done your Priestes do so but they ought not to do so The Prince can not do it nor he dothe it nor claymes to doe it nor it is ascribed vnto him Yea thoughe you meane by disposing no alteration yet is this an harde phrase to say that Princes or priestes either dispose of the Churche of Christe but rather dispose of matters in the Church of Christ. And this as the Priest may doe in his vocation so may the Prince in his estate Which though it be not expressed by name but comprehended in the newe Testament yet is it euen by name expressed in the olde Testament in diuers places of the disposing of Church matters by Moyses Iosue Dauid Salomon Iosaphat Ezechias c. And since your selfe confesse the one gouernment is a figure of the other And that the gouernment before Christ he neither brake it nor diminished it it followeth that theÌ„ he left it entire and confirmed it And therfore although the Princes disposing of Churche matters be not by name expressed yet is it by your reasoÌ„ necessarilie comprehended and so you answere your selfe Now after he hath thus as he supposeth debarred Princes from all warrant oute of the law of God and the newe Testament he examineth the other lawes saying Except therefore by the lawe of nature the law of nations or the lawe ciuill such power be permitted too the king it is cleare that he hath no power at all ouer these things But certaine it is that those lawes cannot giue to the king any power ouer things that are not subiect to those lawes For no law can establishe ought either of other things or persons or actions than those things that fall vnder the compasse of it But Ecclesiasticall matters do infinitly excede the power of the lawe of Nature of nations and the ciuill For of these three the law of nature is the first and greatest But neither that sith it begaÌ„ in the earth can decree ought vpon the mysteries of Christe which draw their originall from heauen onely For that I may speake nothing of the force of nature being yet entire truely after that the nature of all mankynd by the sinne of Adam was corrupted and death entring by one man passed into al it can not be that from that infected originall any good thing shoulde come forth For an ill tree can not bring forth good fruites neither doth the fleshely man such as we all be by nature perceiue those things that are of the spirite of God. All this labor is a néede not M. Saunders to run for confirmation of a Christian doctrine from the law of God to the lawe of nature and the lawe of man we vse not so to doe Neither desire we anye doctrine to be admitted that is not proued by the lawe of God reuealed in his worde vnto vs it is you the Papists that stand on such proues and grounds not we Howbeit you do iniurie to the law of nature to measure it altogether by the corruption of our nature For howsoeuer we be degenerate from it the law of nature remaineth in it selfe both good and perfect and is called likewise the law of God. Neither can I thinke that euery ecclesiasticall thing as ecclesiasticall things are commonly vnderstoode is infinitely aboue the power of the law of nature By which reason many petit matters would be farre aboue great principles Yea many great Ecclesiasticall matters doe fall within the compasse of the lawe of nature It is true that you say of the corruption of our nature that by the fall of Adam sin hath infected the Masse of all mankinde Death by one man hath entred into all men No goodnesse can come of such a corrupted originall An ill tree can not bring forth good fruite and that the fleshely man perceiueth not the things that are of the spirit of God. All this is true but is it not as much against a Priest as a Prince for the Priest in that he is a man is borne in sinne and dyeth by death the reward of sinne nor caÌ„ bring forth any good fruites nor perceiue the things of the spirit of God. And the prince in that he is a ChristiaÌ„ is washed from his sinne The sting of death hath no power ouer him but is a passage to eternall life He is regenerate by a newe originall from aboue He is a good tree and bringeth good fruits and is become a spirituall man perceiuing and working the things that are of the spirite of God and that perchaunce a great deale better than many a good Priest and without all doubt farre more spirituall than any Popishe priest And therefore that ye speake of the corruption of nature is nothing to the purpose excepte it be to confute your errors of pura naturalia fréewill preparatiue workes c. But Maister Saunders drist is this that onely the Priests are spirituall men and so may onely Iudge of spiritual things and Princes are but naturall fleshely and sinnefull men and so can giue no Iudgement of spirituall matters But howe vntrue this is how presumptuous on his partie and iniurions to all Christian Princes and how contrary to his owne selfe that faith else where Christian Princes are spirituall I thinke anye that haue but meane Iudgement may easily Iudge it But Maister Saunders procéedeth saying But to Iudge of Ecclesiasticall matters is no small good thyng but one of the chiefest that Christe hath gyuen vnto his Church bycause he hath gyuen the power of feeding of losyng and bynding to his Apostles that is to the chiefest Magistrates of hys Churche euen as the greatest gifte VVhich gifte they coulde neuer well exercise but wyth Iudgement eyther goyng before or goyng with it For he that shall binde nothing but that that shoulde be bounde and shall lose nothing but that that shoulde be losed must of necessitie before hande deliberate and decree that this is to bee bounde and that is to bee losed But to decree suche a thing to bee done or not to be done in Christian Religion this is euen that that we call to Iudge in matters of Faith. Syth therfore a power so heauenly and notable can not spring oute of the beginnings of our corrupte nature it followeth that it commeth onely of the free mercie of god But that mercie of God is made manifest vnder the time of the new Testament partlye by the lawe written partly not written but neyther waye anye povver is gyuen to Kyngs in Ecclesiasticall causes This argumeÌ„t M. SauÌ„ders is like the hopping of a reuÌ„d that from the law of the new Testament went about to infirme it by the lawe of nature and so fetching a circumquaque commeth in again with this conclusion that it is not by the law of the newe Testament So that where we thought we had procéeded â—…urder wée are nowe where wée were before But to let goe the
naughtinesse of the argument We graunt that to iudge aright of Ecclesiasticall matters is a great gift of God but that the iudgemeÌ„t of ecclesiasticall matters is onelie to be restrained to binding and losing as you here define what you meane by iudging in matters of faith this is a manifest falsehood True it is that binding and losing can not rightly be withoute iudgement nor withoute right iudgement and therefore your Pope and you doe erre so often herein both binding that that should be losed and losing that that should be bound errante claue as ye terme it your key erring and erring also not onely in things to be bounde or losed but in the power it selfe of binding losing too Yet notwithstanding binding and losing and the iudgement requisite in binding and losing are two distinct and seueral things and iudgement reacheth furder to other things also euen in the Priest himselfe besides the Princes iudgement And therefore as this definition of iudgement in matters of faith is preposterously brought in for ye oughte before to haue defined what ye ment by iudgemente so is it false for other matters of faithe require iudgement besides binding and losing Now where you say this power commeth not of the principles of our corrupt nature but of the free mercie of God you say truth But that ye adde the mercie of God is made manifest vnder the time of the newe testament partlye by the law written partly not written is spoken ambiguously For that Princes iudged in matters of faith was also made manifest in the olde Testament but that Princes haue power to binde and lose we graunt is neither manifest nor couert neither in the olde or newe As for the newe lawe to be deuided into written and not written is another error and impertinent to this question Your vnwritten lawe of the new Testament we stand not vpon But to affirme that by neither way written or vnwritten no power is giuen to kings in Ecclesiasticall matters that we denie and your self haue rather confuted it thaÌ„ hither to confirmed it But to confirme it ye bring out this reason Neither were thene at the beginning any Christian Kings to whom Christ shoulde haue committed any power nor the Apostles gaue any rule according where vnto the kings should iudge of Ecclesiasticall causes That there were no Christian kings then is not materiall For by this rule they should be no defenders of the faith neither bicause Princes were not theÌ„ defenders of it But that the Apostles gaue no rule whereby they should iudge is false For whosoeuer should iudge shuld iudge by gods word and this rule Christ and his Apostles gaue in generall But that Princes mighte iudge is both proued from the olde Testament and by the text that M. Saunders himselfe citeth out of the new yea by that he saith immediatly For if any man say kings are appointed iudges in a cause of the faith only bicause by Baptisme they are made spiritual meÌ„ who iudge all things and the spirites do trie those things that are of God this in dede I graunt to be true in the kynde and maner of the priuate but not of the publique iudgement For it is another thing when thou art a member of the Catholike Church nor preferrest thy selfe before thy pastours what is necessarie for thee priuately to Iudge and this the vnction teacheth and another thing to take vpon thee power to teache others and to prescribe to thy Pastors what they ought to do or teache when thou art not called to the publique ministerie of the Church as Aaron was We know there is a difference betwéen priuate and publique Iudgement But that this place of S. Paule The spirituall man Iudgeth all things is only to be vnderstoode of prinate Iudgement is but the priuate iudgement of M. Saunders But it is well that he graunteth priuate iudgement to euery Christian man Neither is it any reason then it shuld be debarred irom any Christian Princes neither is it anye reason that the Prince although in his priuate Iudgement â–ª rightly iudging a matter of faithe to be true shoulde not approue set forth the same publiquely by his princely authoritie And so his priuate Iudgement directs his publique Iudgement For a Prince is not only a priuate man but a publique man also not that he may doe all things of his owne priuate or publique Iudgement nor take vpon him the publique ministerie of the pastour in teaching being not called as Aaron was for this is not ascribed to the Prince bicause he giueth a publique Iudgement in respect he is a publique person but his Iudgement is a publique approbation and establishing of that that is alreadie by others Iudgement â–ª iudged to whome the discussing appertaineth In which discussing althoughe the godly learned clergie being called as Aaron was haue the greatest skill and charge of Iudgement yet the lay men suche as are also learned and godly haue a publique Iudgement too Or else why saith Panormitane we shoulde more beleue a lay man alleaging scripture than the whole councell besides but nowe the truth being once founde out by these learned Iudgements the Princes publique Iudgement as it called them together as it gaue them their charge so it prescribeth what the pastors ought to doe and teache therin without any preiudice to the spirituall pastors Iudgement in the function of his doing and teaching Now hauing thus set downe his owne assertions he will enter on the other part to confute our obiections And first he alleageth this reason of the protestantes In all the olde Testamente we sée gouernors and Kings both to haue prescribed to the priests what they ought to doe in ecclesiasticall matters and also to haue remoued them froÌ„ the ministerie that haue negligently done their dutie To this obiecton M. Saunders answere is this that this reason holdes not from the olde Testament to the new If this came so to passe in the olde Testament saith he yet no reason shuld compell that the same shuld be so in the new Testament sith the reason of the eccl. gouernment is changed And are you changed too M. Saunders that saide before after say make all your booke of it that the ecclesiastical kind of gouernment hath bene alwayes one and that is a viâ—…ble Monarchie euen from Adam to Pope Pius â–ª 5. and said that if the gouernement be changed the Churche must needes be changed tâ—…o and made the gouernement of the olde Testament to be a figure of the new But now that you are beaten with your owne arguments you say they hold not by reason the ecclesiasticall gouernment is changed But I see Maister SauÌ„ders you woulde deale with vs as the riche man dealt with his poore neighbor When the poore maÌ„ complained saying I beseeche your worship be good vnto me for my Cowe hath goared your Bull. What hath he quoth the riche maÌ„
earthly in this respect as M. Saunders him selfe confesseth neither bathe he the gouernement of the Churche which is dispersed in many kingdomes but is a gouernour of a parte therof or of some particular Churche Nowe when M. Saunders hath thus proued as he thinketh the imperfection of the olde lawe saying And thuâ—… should these thinges be if in the olde time the kinges of the Iewes had exercised any chiefe power in ecclesiasticall matters and ouer the Bishops He turneth him selfe on the other side to the flat deniall of this which in the answere to our first obiection he flatly graunted and fled then to thyâ—… shifte that the case was altered But nowe sayth he neither is it true that the Kinges of the Iewes were counted greater than the Priestes of the Leuiticall kinde in administring those thinges that pertayned to ecclesiasticall matters whiche by peece meale I will not be greeâ—…ed to shewe It will not greeue you to tell a lye M. Saunders but to tell the truthe it woulde be a greefe vnto you Where dyd we say that the Kings of the Iewes were counted greater than the Priests in administring those thinges that pertayned to ecclesiasticall matters But go too let vs sée what peecemeale proues you bring And firste saye you Moyses commaunded that after the King was sette in the seate of hys kingdome hee shoulde wryte oute for him selfe in a volume another copâ—…e of this lawe â–ª taking the copie of the Priestes of the â—…euiticall Tribe But if not onely other but the king also him selfe muste go to the Priests for writing out of the lawe how was the king the prince in interpreting the lawe the copie whereof he was compelled to craue of other was he not herein admonished that he should remember that the priests were his superiours in those things that pertayned to the law for as euery Magistrate crauing the sworde of the king receiuing it doth in so doing declare the king in the right of the sword to be greater than him selfe after the same sorte is it when the king receyueth of the Pristes the copie of the diuine law Is this the copie of your piece meale proues M. Sand he that should take a copie of your argumentes might per haps haue néede but God wot shoulde finde full slender stuffe in them This argument is copied out of Stapleton and your other collectors and is already answered Which if it were good bycause the Prince taketh the copie of the lawe from the Priest therefore in the gouernment of matters pertayning to the lawe the Priest is aboue the Prince then is the Register aboue the Chauncelor the Bishop then is the Clarke aboue the Stewarde and the Prince bicause he hath the kéeping of the recordes And this is a more like example than that you bring in of a Magistrate crauing and receyuing the sworde of the king for in this example the King hath not onely the kéeping of the sworde but al the authoritie of and lawfull exercise of the sworde vnder God dependeth on him and suche as he will giue it vnto Wherfore he acknowleageth rightly the King to be his greater But in the lawe of God where the kinges gouernement is appoynted to him and by that appoyntment of God he hath interest in matters of the lawe of God by his kingly office and therefore must haue the lawe of God about him to directe his giuerment and hath not this interest authorie giuen him of the Priest as the subiect hathe the authoritie and exercise of the sworde giuen him of the king doth this argue a like that the Priest is superiour bicause he muste haue the kéeping of the lawe and the king that he may be sure he hath a true copie of Gods lawe muste haue it of the Priest Dothe the keeping argue the greater authoritie â–ª The king must haue the crowne of the kéeper of the crowne and the seale of the keeper of the seale is the keeper therefore the greater Nay it rather argueth althoughe in looking too that those thinges be well kepte and truely declared they haue a more especiall charge in their offices yet are they rather inferiours in that they haue for the kings behoofe the kéeping and deliuery of them And so the priest hathe an especiall charge of keeping and deliuering to the Prince the lawe of God bicause of his especiall vocation in the studie profession and administration of it Whiche argueth more cunning and learning of duetie to be looked for at his handes than at the Princes And therefore we ascribe not as you saye greater principalitie to Princes in the interpreting of the lawe of God. Princes commit that to the interpreters But to the Prince is committed a superiour charge of gouerning all persons to ouersee that the lawe of God be rightly interpreted and administred And for this cause the Prince oughte to haue the copie of the lawe not him selfe to interprete it and whereto then to lye idly by him no to gouerne him selfe and all his subiectes by the prescription of it After this he alleageth the examples of Moyses Samuell Iosue Dauid Salomon Constantius and Theodosius In Moyses and Samuell he hathe nothing that is not common To Iosue Dauid and Salomon he vseth Stapletons answeres and there is answered The examples of Constantius and Theodosius are somewhat already answered and shall be further God willing when we come to the practise And likewise to the Councels that he citeth The argument of the fourth Chapter That Christian Princes may be deposed from their estates by the Bishops and their kingdomes giuen to other when their gouernment hurteth the truth of the faith and the soules health whereto they are ordayned IN this 4 Chapter M. SauÌ„ders kepeth no perfect method and therfore we must follow him as he procéedeth First he maketh two kinds of men the earthly man and the heauenly man and so likewise two kingdoms the one earthly the other heauenly The earthly kingdome choseth their king by humaine consent as Nimrod c. Of the heauenly kingdom that Christ hath in the earth Christ is the king Who although by the worthinesse of his nature he be king of all men yet is he called onely the king of the faithfull Who comming into the world as he hath not taken away the former nature of maÌ„ but renued it so hath he not destroyed the earthly kingdome but amended it Here vpon he concludeth that earthly kings may be made Citizens of gods Church and vse all their olde right and most free gouernement in all those causes that diâ—…ishe not the faith and Religion of christ They may make whome they will fit Ciuil magistrates They maye appoint at their pleasure lawfull punishments for malefactors and freely do al other thing that by the law Naturall Nationall Ciuil or Mâ—…nicipall shall be allowed To all this as we agree with M. Saunders and therfore I gather bâ—…t a briefe coÌ„tâ—…ct
backe and rode him Might the horse then when he was wéerie with chacing the hart compell the man to alight and take off the saddle and pull the bridle out of his mouthe and let him goe at libertie Nay softe as ye sayde right nowe the case is altered It muste be then as the man will and not as the horse wyll Well may the horse like a stubborne Iade beginne to fling and winche assaying to cast the man and recouer his libertie but the man with his spurres will tame him well inoughe and nowe and then an ill ryder spoyleth many a good horse What Esope ment héereby is casie to wit. Not that he allowed any Princes tyrannie but that he disalowed all subiectes rebellion And so in Samue is declaration he telleth of many iniuries that kinges shall doe vnto their subiectes as to take their wyues their daughters and their goodes from them and to giue them where it lykeeh them Not that kinges ought to do thus or that God or his Prophet alloweth their so doing But that they which were frée before and might haue chosen should then not be frée and could not choose but suffer euen iniuries at their hands Neither could they nor their Priestes depose their Princes although many of them became Apostataes and tyraÌ„ts Yet those Apostataes and tyrants continued stil their princes till God him selfe by some extraordinarie meanes remoued them But say you there groweth no lesse daunger to the subiects from him who after he is placed in the royall Throne falleth to heresie than from him that was an heretike before he was made king I graunt you this M. Saunders and the case maye be suche that there may growe farre more daunger too But daungers must be cut off as we may and not as we list If we can vndoe Gordias his knotte we may not play Alexanders parte and drawe out the sworde and strike it in â—…wayne The knotte of a subiectes obedience is an harder knotte but by this remedie it might be soone vntied And yet peraduenture tye our selues faster in greater bondage if the Princes vsed not Alexanders vntying and cutte off suche traytors heades from their shoulders that would cut off him béeing the head from gouerning them béeing but members of the body But howe proue you your consequence M. Saunders And truely say you if the Apostle tooke it in euill parte that the Christians shoulde go to lawe before â—…nsidell Magistrates that were ordeyned before hande by publike lawe howe muche more vnworthy would he haue taken it if they shoulde either of their voluntaire haue placed ouer them an Infidell or haue suffred an obstinate heretike to haue raigned ouer them for howe can they worshippe him as their king without haynous sinne to whom they ought not to say so much as God speede least they should be partakers of his euil workes or is it not a greater matter to obey an heretike than to salute him These two places are wrested M. Saunders and the Scripture abused to make them serue for subiects deposing princes and refusing of their obedience S. Paule rebuketh the Corinthians for that they beeing Christians contended in law for trifles and chose heathen Arbitrers and Iudges rather than Christians and this in déedé was blame worthy bicause not onely they had frée choyce but men also among themselues that could with more quietnesse and lesse reproche haue taken vp those matters But doth S. Paule bidde them in no matters appeale to heathen Iudges or beeing called of heathen Magistrates to their iudgementes to refuse them yea to refuse to come vnto them and to renounce them as incompetent Magistrates and Iudges bicause they were not Christians and to attempt to disobey them or to depose them At this you should proue M. Sanders if you will directly apply and not wrest this place to your purpose But this S. Paule neuer did nor taught The contrarie he both taught others and him selfe practised For he himselfe obeyed the authoritie of the heathen and wicked Magistrates He refused not to come before the iudgement seates of Felix Drusâ—…lla his wife of Festus of Agrippa Bernice his sister Yea he reioyced that he came before theÌ„ saying Aboue all things wherof I am accused of the Iewes I counte my selfe happie O king Agrippa that this â–ª day I shall pleade my cause before thee Likewise he appealed to the wicked Nero his iudgement and presence when Festus offred him to go to Jerusalem be iudged before him there He answered I stand at Cesars iudgemeÌ„t seate where it behoueth me to be iudged And as he appealed to him so he obediently was iudged of him neuer refused the Princes iudgement as inconuenient bicause he him selfe was a christian those princes were heathen but bicause they were princes he was a subiect â–ª he obeyed their iudgements euen to death And as he did him selfe â–ª so exhorted he all other to the like obedience that also for conscience sake althoughe those princes had little conscience were Infidels yet he acknowledged theÌ„ to haue their power froÌ„ God to be his ministers the resistance against theÌ„ to be against God him selfe So farre was S. Paul froÌ„ attempting or exhorting or thinking to depose theÌ„ Nay he rather praied for them wisheth other to pray The like we may say for al the Apostles of Christ whom Christ foretolde that they should come before kings princes but he forewarned theÌ„ not to refuse to come before them This place therfore is manifestly wrested of you M. San. And that you shuld not suspect my iudgemeÌ„t I appeale here in euen to the iudgement of your owne side Lyra writing on this place maketh this obiection Sed istud Apostoli dictum c. But this saying of the Apostle seemeth to be coÌ„trarie to that which is said â–ª 1. Pet. â—… Be ye subiect to euery creature of maÌ„ for God whether it be to the king as to the chiefe or to rulers as sent of him c. to the which is to be said that the Apostle forbiddeth not this that the faithfull being placed vnder vnfaithful princes shuld not apeare before them when they are called for this were coÌ„trarie to the subiectioÌ„ that is due to princes But he forbiddeth that voluÌ„tarily they make not recourse to vnfaythfull Iudges in those matters that may be determined by the faythfull Yea Catharinus that wresteth this place also to the Priestes prerogatiue yet durst he not goe thus farre as you M. Saunders but maketh playne exception agaynst you saying Insuper annotandum c. Moreouer wee muste note that the iudgementes of the vnfaythfull are not heere refused sithe they also haue their power from god Neither forbiddeth it that they should not obey their rulers when they call them into lawe or shoulde the leste be vnder their iurisdiction But onely it forbiddeth this that they shoulde not of their owne
M. sand And now as though he had brought an inuincible proofe he procéedeth saying But if he must needs be deposed at least for heresie hovv shall that controuersie be iudged without the knowledge of the doctors of the Church who only of their office haue the ordinarie lawful power to loke to the flocke in the whiche the holy Ghost hath placed theÌ„ to guide the Church of God. But the pastors doctors of the church could not be Iudges of any king except the king in that thing were lesse inferior to theÌ„ For neither the equal hath power ouer the equal neither the inferior ouer the superior VVorthily therfore we affirme that al christiaÌ„ kings in those things that appertaine to matters of faith are so vnder bishops priests â–ª that when offending obstinately against the christiaÌ„ religion â–ª they shall perseuer after one two rebukings bothe they maye and they ought for that cause to be by the Byshops sentence deposed from the gouernement that they holde ouer the Christians You conclude ful worthily M. San. your argument is this if the Prince must needes be deposed he must be deposed by the Bishops priestes This reason hangeth all on this presupposall that he hath so fully proued this that the Prince nowe in all post hast must nedes be deposed â–ª And yet we haue hitherto heard no such proues that should enforce any suche necessitie but rather necessarie for the bishops priests or any other subiects behalfe to let him remaine still vndeposed for them although he were an heretike So that we may rather reuerse the argument If nedes he must not be deposed the must not the bishops priests attempt to depose him Howbeit ther is no necessitie in the coÌ„sequence that if he must nedes be deposed that for heresie that the bishops priests must depose hi. Yes saith M. SaÌ„ for how shal that coÌ„trouersie be iudged without theÌ„ what thogh that coÌ„trouersie could not be iudged without theÌ„ M. sand must they therefore be deposers of him froÌ„ his estate bicause they iudge of the doctrine he professeth must they iudge of his Diademe bicause they iudge of his religioÌ„ but what if they theÌ„selues haue corrupt iudgements therein trow you priests bishops haue not had so ere now yes eueÌ„ this sentence of s. Paule that here you cite for the Bishops and Priestes authoritie giueth a plaine warning of it I knowe saithe he that after my departure shall come among you rauening VVolues not sparing the flocke there shall rise vp men from among your selues speaking peruerse thinges to dravve Disciples after them But say you saint Paule saith they must looke to the flocke so much the more in vvhiche the holy ghost hath placed them to guide the church of God. True in déed they must so do But what if they be blind theÌ„selues how loke they to it then And did Christ neuer talke of blind guides you post off that to the Phariseis Iewish Bishops But if you were not more blind thaÌ„ they you would sée a great difference betwéene loking to the flocke guiding the Church of God by teaching true doctrine taking heede vnto and discerning of false doctrines and teachers preching the worde of God with learned iudgement and betwéene the clayming of authoritie to depose Kings and Princes froÌ„ their royal estates Whie say you if they be Iudges they are aboue them and neither equall nor inferior They may be equal and aboue them too in learned Iudgement and also in the dispensation of their misteries yet in publike authoritie far inferior And therfore your conclusion A secuÌ„dum quid ad simpliciter faileth that bicause they are inferior in one thing to Bishops they be in al thinges or in this thing inferior Yea say you they are so vnder Bishops and Priestes that when offending obstinately againste the Christian religion they shall perfeuer after one or two rebukings the Bishoppes may and ought to depose them from their gouernment ouer Christians This is a great inferiorship M. sand to be so much vnder them For by this rule if a Prince as coÌ„monly Popishe Princes doe shoulde kepe a Paramour â–ª a Popishe Byshop may depose him But they wil not be ouer hastie to reproue the Prince for that which they vse themselues neither couÌ„t they it an offence against christiaÌ„ religion yet in the christiaÌ„ religion iâ—… is forbidden so is against it especially to defend it mainteing it as the Papistes do But if he do wrong to any of his subiectes wil not amende his wrong after a B. hath once or twise giueÌ„ him warning of it then by this rule the B. maye straighte depose him And in déede so they haue done would do if the wrong touch them if their lands and goods were diminished then by by it is against the ChristiaÌ„ religion it is plaine heresie except by the seconde admonition it be restored with a recumbentibus the king must be in al the hast deposed there is no remedie nor further respit for not only the Bishops may but plat plaine they ought to doe it Is not here a kingdome brought to a goodly state But he wil say he meaneth by offences against the Christian religion matters of faith But what helpeth this for as wheÌ„ the Lion proclaimed that al horned beasts shuld auoyd out of the wood although the Foxes pricked eares were no horns neyther néeded he haue gone ye he wisely foresaw that this was but a drifte to picke a quarel therefore he hied him out of the wood For since al lay in the Lions interpretatioÌ„ what if the Lion had said his prick eares had bin horns or as sharp as hornes surely then the Fox had dronke for it And if the Byshops may haue the like authoritie to bid the Prince be packing out of his realme if he offend the christian religion what will it boote the Prince if the Bishops be disposed to picke a quarel against him to saye he offendeth not againste the Christian religion but rather defendeth the true religion of Christ against the corruptions of it and in déede so he doth but what auayleth eyther his excuse or the truth of the matter if the Bishops shall say it is heresie and against the christian faith the Bishops that so say shal be the Iudges whether it be so or no were not the king as good get him out of his kingdome at the first or else they will depose him set him out with a heaue ho But that Bishops may thus hamper Princes as they list where find we authoritie or example in the scripture yes saith M. Saunders For God which at the firste so seuered the heauenly kingdome from the earthly kingdome that he suffered the kings of the earth to come togither against the Lorde and againste his anoynted and thereby notably declared his power while by the
intreaties rather thaÌ„ with terrors The condition pleaseth a publike calling forth of the people is made by the Kings coÌ„maundement to whom the King maketh an oratioÌ„ persuadeth the people to receiue the faith of Christ moueth them to submit their neckes to Christ the priest reioyceth that the King not yet baptized is becoÌ„e an Apostle of his owne natioÌ„ so the King is baptised What condition is here made by the Bishoppe vnto the King of giuing ouer his realme deposing himselfe which might haue done more hart thaÌ„ good In what couâ—…nant did the people here binde themselues to looâ—…e the libertiâ—… of chosing their King or promise to forsake their King if their King forsake the faith here was no such bondage â—…red â—…ther to the King by the Bishop and the King thought good to offer none such to the people but with gentle persuasions to allâ—…re them So that these presupposals of these Bishops speaches vnto these Princes are vtterly false and forged onely to driue in the readers heads a surmise of seme suche conditionall admission to the Christian faith in these elde Princes dayes whiche was nothing so nor so And yet by these colourable presupposals he enforceth his matter with a question aying Can the Bishop to this man thus affected minister the sacrament of Baptisme and giue the sacrament of thanksgiuing Why M. SauÌ„ders here was no such condition moued yet Remigius gaue Clodoneus the sacrament of Baptisme â–ª In deede the sacrament of that kâ—…giuing he gaue not then vnto hym neyther was it necessarie till he were instructed in the mysterie of it And therefore this is as fondly added in this case to the Sacrament of Baptisme as your case of Baptisme is craftily and malicioâ—…sly deuised to bring Princes in bondage vnto Bishoppes But this King thoughe he and his people submitted their neckes to Christe yet did he not thus submit himselfe and his people to the Bishoppe The long promiseth to 〈◊〉 one God but not to 〈◊〉 eyther the Bishop of Remes or the Bishop of Rome â–ª These knackes and conditions of bondage for Princes to promise and â—…weare obedience to the Pope and to his Bishops yea to sweare to depose themselues and become pâ—…uate men if they forscke this consâ—…rained obedience is of later times as the Popes power and tirannie hath growne and hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Christian Princes great huâ—…lie but lâ—…s in manye Christian kingdomes But yet it neuer went thus for as it now should do â–ª if M. Saunders might haue hie minde for it was neuer vrged in their Christâ—…dome before This pasieth the slauerie of the Spanish InquisitioÌ„ that no Prince nor people shuld be christened except they swere to these exceptioÌ„s In the olde time when the Prophetes anoynted kinges they tolde them of the blessings of God to come vpon them and their posteritie to sitte in their seate after them and that God woulde buylde them an house to continue if they serued him and walked faythfully in his wayes And if they should do the contrarie howe God woulde rende the kingdome from them and giue it to another Of suche promises and threates that the Prophetes tolde the kinges we reade and of the promises that the kinges made agayne to God we reade but that any Prophet compounded with the king before that he shoulde renounce his kingdome or that any king tooke either their circumcision or their kingdome on suche condition or that the king reuolting from his promise either voluntarily or by compulsion deposed him selfe or was deposed of the Bishop Priest or Prophet of God these thinges yâ—… can not shewe vs but these thinges ye shoulde shewe vs if ye will make good your sayings and directly proue your purpose You tell vs heere a tale of a tubbe in the name of these kinges Bishops that they neuer dyd nor I thinke dyd euer thinke of any such deuises But go too let vs nowe presuppose with M. Saunders euen as he imagineth A King would be baptised The Bishop sayth VVe are glad most deare sonne that thou desirest to be made a citizen of the kingdome of heauen but this thou oughtest to knowe for certayntie that the case is not like in the kingdome of heauen as it is in the worlde for in the Churche thou muste liue so that thou make captine thy vnderstanding to the obedience of fayth But thou how greater thou art in the worlde mayest so muche the more hurte the Churche of God if thou shalte abuse the righte of thy sworde to the defence of heretikes contrarie to the Catholike fayth No otherwise therefore thou mayest haue entrie into the Churche than if thou shalt promise that thou wilte persist in that fayth and defende that Churche with all thy force which beeing receiued from the Apostles is continued by the successioÌ„ of Bishops vntil this day dispersed through out all the world But if it shall chaunce thou doest otherwise thou shalt not refuse but shalte go from the right of thy kingdome and promise to leade a priuate life M. Saunders nowe presupposeth that the king hearing the Bishop thus beginne to indent with him will beginne his answere to the Bishop thus I am ready to acknowledge the Christian fayth Why M. sand is not this inough if the Bishop séeke something else besides the acknowledging of the Christian fayth Surely he neither séeketh the glory of God nor the Princes saluation nor the encrease of Christendome but his owne sucre authoritie Well the Bishop will haue him graunt to all the residue of his conditions or else he will not baptise him Heere agayne he presupposeth the king to say further But I neither promise that I will with my sworde defende the Catholike fayth neither will I for whatsoeuer I shall do giue ouer the right of my kingdome Ye tel the kings tale parcially M. San â–ª you should make it flatly to denie that whiche the Bishop exacted of him to do Which was to promise to defend not the faith but that faith that Church c. Which the king denieth to make promise vnto the Bishop on suche condition Yea saith M. sand saucely steppeth in for the B. can the B. to this man thus affected minister the sacrament of baptisme c. And why not M. San. if the bishop be not worse affected him selfe than this man is for you graunt your selfe that he is wel affected towards the christiaÌ„ faith would acknowledge it which is al one with defending it And if the bishop be not content with this promise hath not the king good cause to suspect him he telleth him of bondes conditions to be made to renounce the right of his kingdome if he perâ—…e not in that faith with al his force if he defeÌ„d not that church that was receiued from the Apostles continued by successioÌ„ of B. till this day and iâ—… dispersed throughout all the world May not here the king
all my force that fayth and Churche that I finde in déede receyued from the Apostles and will extirpate with all my force that faith and Churche that is degenerate from it What if the King saye thus master Saunders trowe you the Bishop hearing this whiche notwithstanding is but righte and reason and the King euen of the Bishop enforced thereto will he accepte the offer No master Saundess the Bishoppe will crie oute and so will you that the matter shall not goe thus and that the King may not doe this howsoeuer it stande him vpon But you will appeale from him vnto your selues as Iudges Whiche when the King shall heare will 〈◊〉 not iudge this a madde appeale and suspecte your cause the worsse and thinke that you playnely woulde abuse him And so to kéepe his promise made vnto you turne his force iustly agaynst you Haue you not heere made a rodde for your owne tayle if the Prince be but indifferent and not too muche either of simplicitie or dastardie abused by you And thus by the righteous iudgement of God your owne tyrannie is the cause of your owne plague and that by the seife 〈◊〉 meanes whereby you woulde vniustly haue hampered the Prince he hathe iustly hampered you I pray God all Christian Princes woulde once take these iuste occasions to examine well but euen those dueties and tyties that you put vnto them and woulde but minister iustice to you euen as you haâ—… forced them thereto And thus muche M. Saunders for your presupposed examples betwéene these Kings and Bishops â–ª Let vs nowe beholde howe you procéede vpon them How therfore said the Lord in Daniel kingdome and power and the mighte of kingdome that is vnder all the heauen shall be giuen to the people of the Saincts of the Hyest VVhose kingdome is an euerlasting kingdome and all Kings or powers shal serue and obey him Howe saide the Lorde as it is in Esay vnto his Churche The sonnes of straungers shall buylde thy walles and the Kinges of them shal minister vnto thee and their sonnes that haue broughte thee lowe shal come and bowe them selues to thee and all those that spake euill of thee shall worshippe the steppes of thy feete Howe shall the worde of Christe be true wherein hee sayde too â–ª his Disciples hee that despyseth you despyseth mee or that that hee sayde too Peter Thou arte Peter and vppon thys Rocke wyll I buylde â–ª my Churche and the gaâ—… of Hell shall not preuayle agaynst it You are a waster Master Saunders to make suche lauishe of youre prooues so impertinently or rather you are wrester too applye them so falsely For the Kyng that héere refuseth the Bishoppes conditions offereth hym selfe moste freely too all obedience that is héere mentioned in offering himselfe to acknowledge the Christian saythe As for the Lordes sentence in Daniel â–ª prophecying of the immortal glorie that after the iudgemeÌ„t of Christ shal be giuen to the Saintes of the most highest and of the obedieÌ„ce to Christes euerlasting kingdome these are other matters are so wrested of you to the state of this lyfe that it will breede you some suspition of being a Millenarie heretike except you say you ment it spiritually But then it toucheth not the kings polytike estate But howsoeuer you meane it you doe great iniurie to kings and shew no lesse arrogancie in your selues to applie that vnto you that is spoken of the Saincts of the highest This kingdom and power that he speaketh of is theirs yea kings so well as any other be partakers of it and you claime it allonly to your Priestly and Bishoply power whereas it is rather to be doubted that ye shall haue no parts at all therof But your portion in the kingdome of proude Lucifer that not onely apply this to your selues but also the glorie and kingdome due to Christe of the obedience to whiche Daniell playnely speaketh and you wrest it to the obedience of your Bishoppes As for this obedience to Christe the king did offer to yelde it in offering to acknowledge the Christian fayth But your Bishop was not content therewith And you to helpe your bishop and to dismay the king make the bishops demaunde suche a necessarie thing that you aske howe dyd the Lorde speake in Daniell except kinges should offer to renounce their kingdomes vnto priestes What master Saunders waxe you so sawcie with God to argue him of a lye but the saying of God is true and you are lyers and the king may still keepe his kingdome from your Clutches Your seconde texte is a couple of textes out of Esay but no lesse wrested than the other to make Princes stoupe to Prelates and kisse the grounde they goe vpon to giue Bishops Kings treâ—…ures and dominions and make kings to waite on Priestes In déeâ—…e on this wife your Pope did proudly wrest the Scripture when he troad on the Emperors necke when he turned downe hiâ—… Disdeme with his foote when he made him daunce attendance and blowe his nailes at his gate when he made him hold his â—…lurrop wheÌ„ he made him leade his horse when he made him kisse hys gowtie I should say his golden toa But this was more than Neroes pride is most farre from gods liking from Christs humilitie from the Apostles steppes and cleane from the Prophetes meaning The Prophet speaketh of much honor and riches to be giuen but to whom tibi o thee Who was this the Priest or Bishope haue you any moe shée Bishops or Pope Ioanes yet M. Saunders for the wordes of the Prophet begin thus Surge splendida esto I trow you will not saye this was a Bishop No M. Saunders it was euen the wife of Christ the Church of God whome he calleth Sion that the Prophet speaketh vnto These texts therfore being spoken to the Churche that is to all the faithfull people of whom kings themselues are part so well as any other it is malapartly dâ—…ne of you Maister Saunders to ascribe it only to your Bishops Howbeit this arrogating the name of the Church to your selues is not so saâ—…cis but your missunderstanding of this description in a literall sense being spoken of a mysticall estate is no lesse grosse than full of errors The whole chapter hath many suche proâ—…ises of shyning of glory of glittering of riches of waters of Camels of coltes of golde of frank insence of shepe of ramines of doâ—…es of ships of buildings of walles of gates of beeches of Pines of boxe of sucking of milke of brasse of stones of Iron of light of the Sunne of the Moone of plantes of trées such other worldly things whereby be discribeth the beautie and florishing estate of the Charche according to the manner of the Hebrewes phrases and the capacitie of the Iewes that were moued by suche worldly things Nowe commeth Maister Saunders and picketh me out two sentences and sets them togither being in the text a sunder That
of Christe to haue so mightie a Realme as Englande or Fraunce to become Christian by this offer why is not this offer taken for sooth the B. refuseth it Is not here a great iniurie offered to Christs Church by this B but whie doth the B. thus bycause the Prince will not promise obedience to the Prelates and to renounce his kingdome if he swarue from his obedience to them Is this a sufficient cause for want of obedience to the Prieste to defeate Chryste of his obedience Nay say you he made an exception that he vvoulde not submit his Diademe to Christ. By your leaue M. Saunders there you say not true Loke on your own presupposall once again yea on the words you made the Prince to speake whiche althoughe they were of your owne deuising for you neuer I suppose heard or read of Prince desirous to be baptized that spake on that fashion you do but tell the Princes tale to your aduantage yet finde you no such wordes in the wordes that you speake for him yea he speaketh the contrarie in offering to acknowledge the faith of Christ. But say you he would not submit his Diademe make his kingdome subiecte in the cause of faithe to the Ministers of Christ and that is all one vvyth denying to submit his Diademe to Christ. Yea Master Sanders were it admitted ye were ministers of Christ is Christ you al one the submissioÌ„ to Christ to his ministers al one Backare M. Saâ—… there is a great difference And yet Chryst requireth no submission of Diademes or subiection of kingdoms in such sort vnto him that he wold haue kings resigne them vp to him and he woulde take them no he neuer vsed that practise He might haue had such kingdomes if he had list but he refused them as your selfe before haue confessed Althoughe your Pope will haue kings resigne their kingdomes vnto him and he will take them and ruffle in greater pompe than any king vseth to doe Whiche argueth playnely that he is not Christes minister And therefore the king hardyly may refuse his vnlawfull demaunde that he woulde in the name of Christ extort as Christes officer which his master Christe both refused himselfe and forbad in his ministers And therefore the Prince dothe Chryste no iniurie bycause he will not bring his kingdome thrall to a false Prieste pretending to be Christes Minister béeing indéede the Minister of the tempter that offereth worldly kingdomes But say you hee muste make his kingdome subiecte to them in the cause of faith As though the cause of faith were hindered if the King made not his kingdome subiecte to the Priestes where as this were the reddiest way bothe to destroye the kingdome and the faith No Master Saunders the faithe of Chryste was neuer more sincere than when the Ministers of Chryst were obedient subiectes to their kings And the cause of faythe was neuer more weakened and corrupted than sithe Priestes haue wrong themselues out of their kings subiections and that the Popes haue made the Kings sweare obedience vnto them But Maister Saunders whines at this crying out vvhere is the obedience of faith that Christ sent his Apostles to procure in all the vvorlde You do well Master Saunders to aske vvhere it is for surely it is not with you nor in all your Popishe kingdome except here and there lurking and dare not shewe hir head for feare your Popishe Inquisitors woulde gette hir by the polle The obedience of fayth was frée when Priests were subiectes and since Priestes became Princes they haue taken hir captiue and exiled hir and done all that they coulde to haue killed hir But she is escaped your hands and requicouereth that libertie that the Apostles procured in all nations for hir And she doth so much the better bicause she rereth not worldly subiection of Princes but letteth Princes kéepe the estate of their kingdomes and requireth not onely obedience to hir in a more spirituall submission Whiche the more Princes yelde vnto hir they bring not their kindomes into more slauerie but into more libertie renowne and honour So that I truste shortely they will bring the Pope and his proude Prelates to their olde obedience againe Whie saye you this is to arme Princes agaynste the Church Nay Master Saunders it is rather to strengthen the Church to let Princes haue that armor that is due vnto them What say you to lette them doe vvhat they vvill and for nothing they shall doe to saye they vvill not leaue their Empire No bodie Master Saunders giueth Princes authoritie to do what they will. The authoritie that is giuen them is onely to doe good Their vvill must not be what they will but what Lawe vvill It is not with them as it is wyth your Pope Sic volo sic Iubeo stet pro ratione voluntas Thus I vvill and thus I commaunde my vvyll shall stande in steade of reason The Law is not wyth them in scrinio pectoris in the cofer of the brest as your Pope sayth it is in his I graunt there are Princes that doe thus but that is not their dutie Neither do Princes make a profession as you say that for nothing they will giue ouer their authoritie nor it is required of them nor presupposed But their duetie in their officâ—… is required and it is presupposed they will continue therein Which if they do not but breake promise shall the subiectes depose them or the Byshops depriue them by whiche rule they may quickly set vpon the Prince for any enormitie in ciuil matters too for he promised to minister iustice to al meÌ„ but he promised to none to giue vp his crowne if he did not Yea though he had made them some suche expresse promise also and brake it yet coulde no Byshop nor any other priuate person attempte to depose him for the breach thereof but commit the vengeance to god But this Prince that here is presupposed offereth inough vnto the Bishop which if he refuse not the Prince but the Byshop endamageth the Church of Christ. Nowe Master Saunders presupposing in this supposall that he hath clearely euicted the case where the Byshop by expresse wordes maketh this condition with the king he will pursue his victorie that he thinketh he hath gotten and proue that the king hath promised and is bounde euen as muche where the Byshoppe at his baptisme saithe no suche wordes vnto him But if so be saith he all men vvill confesse that no Byshop can giue baptisme vvithout great sinne to that king vvhom he seeth so proude then truely although the Byshop by negligence or forgetfulnesse shall say nothing hereof vnto the king notvvithstanding suche is the obedience that the king himselfe giueth vnto the Gospell of Christe vvhen he maketh himselfe a member of him and desireth of him to be saued that vvill hee nill hee this promise is contained in that facte that he shall minister vnto Christ and to the
Kingdomes and depose Kings as they shall thinke expedient and to proue this â–ª we must saye they be in the Churches power and to proue that wee must saye they are spirituall â–ª and so spirituall men may deale with spirituall thyngs And for this reason we can sée no cause nowe but that Christian Kingdomes are spirituall that we spirituall men which are the Church might haue the disposing of them Well then I see also Maister Saunders that for aduantage you can and you can not see And play seest me and seest me not But who seeth not that hath any indifferent eyes that this is but legerdemain and that you speake flat contraries in one thing although you turne your tale to other purposes But let go that you saw not before let vs loke what you see in Princes now Nowe you see that they are spirituall And why so not bicause they doe the spirituall actions of the Priests but bicause of their better part that is of the spirite of God and bicause of the end wherto they driue al their things to become as it were spirituall Why then M. Saunders your eyes mighte serue you if your hart could serue you to see this withall that although the Prince can not do the spirituall actions of spirituall persons yet this hindreth not that he may notwithstanding be a gouernor ouer ecclesiasticall persons in causes ecclesiasticall and maye ouersee them both And if you can see the one and not the other surely your sight is partiall But newe M. Saunders loking another way will haue Princes no furder spirituall than in that they are vnder the Church And here making the Maior the Minor the former the later by a figure called Hysteron proteron the carte before the horse he will proue that all spirituall things are so much vnder the Churche of Christ that the Church may freely dispose and decree of them to the profite of the whole mysticall body and so Kings and Kingdomes as is sayde before beyng spirituall things are so muche vnder the Churche of Christ that she may freely to the profit of the whole mysticall body dispose and decree of Kings and kingdomes But first Maister SauÌ„ders we denie your Maior For although in certaine things it be true to wit in such things as are left to the disposition of the Church that is to order and dispose such things as of their nature are indifferent to the profite of the whole mysticall body or any part thereof for these things are called spirituall things not properly in their owne nature but as in spirituall causes the spirituall persons vse them and yet all this is not so freely lefte to the Churches disposition that some principall persons in the Church as the Prince or the Pastors haue not the chiefest stroke in the disposition of them For if they were so free that euery member in the Churche shoulde haue his nay or yea in disposing of theÌ„ when would they be disposed And if at length they were it would peraduenture fall out in the end so little to the profite of the whole mysticall body that it woulde be rather the hinderaunce and disquieting of it But besides these spiritual thinges there are a great many other of whiche some in déede are méere spirituall as the worde of God the Sacramentes of Christ the Articles of fayth the Commaundementes of life and all suche thinges as God hathe either expressed in his worde or is necessarily conteyued in it These thinges béeing spiritual are not so vnder the churche of Christ that the churche may freely dispose and decree of them But they statly dispose and decree of the churche and the churche can not alter nor swarue one iote from them Whiche if she shoulde she shoulde not profite hir selfe for she is the whole mysticall body but destroy hir selfe and dissolue the whole body and euery part therof And such as these things are is the estate of a King and kingdome whiche althoughe it be not so méere a spirituall thing but so farre foorthe spirituall as your selfe confesse yet bicause it is the ordinaunce of God and God hath in his worde set foorthe the office of a King and declareth that the setting vp and pulling downe of Kinges and the alterations of kingdomes belongeth to him selfe and neuer gaue that authoritie to his Churche muche lesse to his Ministers to set vp and depose Kinges and alter kingdomes Kinges therefore and their kingdomes no more than other spirituall thinges are not so vnder the churche of Christe that she maye freely dispose and decree of them to the profite of the whole mysticall body Neither hathe the whole mysticall body any more thraldome or lesse fredome that Kings and kingdomes are not so vnder hir or that she maye not freely dispose and decree of them as she shall thinke moste profitable to the whole mysticall body than she hathe more thraldome or lesse freedome bicause she can not alter nor dispose the other spirituall things Yea in this case the Churche léeseth lesse libertie than in the other for the freedome of the Churche â–ª béeing a mysticall body is cleane another matter pertayning to the conscience and is a mysticall freedome from the tyrannie of Sathan from the cursse of the lawe from the bondage of sinne from ceremonies and humayne constitutions and not from obedience to kinges and to haue superioritie ouer them and libertie to depose them and to translate their kingdomes Whiche freedome and superioritie is not spirituall but carnall and worldly And if the Churche had it she woulde not onely bring kinges and kingdomes but euen hir selfe in bondage and therefore Christe hathe barred it Whiche freedome bicause the Popishe Churche aspireth vnto and claymeth and holdeth ouer â–ª kinges and kingdomes she is not the true Church of Christ that they boast of but rather a Iewishe Synagoge dreaming vpon an earthly Messias or rather a Persian or Turkishe Temple that measureth the freedome and dignitie of Gods Church by the pompe and mighte of the worlde to depose kings and dispose of their kingdomes at their pleasures But to proue that kings and kingdomes pertayne not to the free disposition of the Church but of God I will desire no better prooues nor example than euen M. Saunders heere brings foorthe Sithe therefore sayth he the â–ª people of Israell would needes desire a king to be giuen theÌ„ Samuel by the commaundement of God tooke a cruse of oyle and powred it vpon the head of Saule and kissed him â–ª and sayde beholde God anoyâ—…teth thee to be the Prince ouer his Inheritaunce which to me seemeth to signifie as though it had bene sayde except the Lorde anoynted thee to be the Prince thou couldest not rightly and orderly be the Prince ouer his people whiche he hathe chosen and reserued out of all the worlde to be as it were peculiar to him selfe For in that that is Gods no man can take power
that the Kyng should be obedient to the disposition of the humaine minister of Christ which is the question nowe in hande And yet whether it signifie this mysterie that you say it onely doth or no may be called into question For if it hath such a significatiō it is a very darke mysterie And me thinks it might more easilye signifie other things For oyle sometimes signifieth mercie sometimes plentie sometimes remedie against poyson sometimes it is referred to the Priesthoode sometimes to the kingdome of Christ somtimes to the mysticall members of Christ as they are Kings Priests with him so that the anoynting with oyle which espetially was vsed to Priests and Kings who therefore are called the sons of oyle is applyed to sundry significations and not onely to the incarnation and humaine nature of Christe And yet is there no suche necessitie of anoynting Christian Kings as was of the Iewishe Kings For they had commaundement so to doe and it was a ceremoniall figure of diuerse things in christ Which commaundement and ceremonies Christian Princes are not bound vnto It is cropen vp of a custome I cānot tel how to imitate the Iewes herein But as for the nature of a Kings estate he is neuer a whit the lesse King if he wante the anoynting with oyle and as the Papistes superstitiouslie doe vse it it were muche better away But the Papistes make a great matter of anoynting Kings with oyle yea sayth Maister Saunders they were wont to be annoynted no otherwise than were the Prophetes and Priestes as thoughe they shoulde be so anoynted still And true it is in one sense that they shoulde no other wise be so annoynted still that is to say neyther of them shoulde be anoynted No say you should not the Priestes be annoynted ▪ We are In deede you be Maister Saunders and all your order But the Apostles and Disciples of Christe were not and therefore your order is differing from theirs and all godly ministers should differ from yours be ye shorne or be ye anoynted But if it be true that you say kings should be no otherwise anoynted than you howe chaunce then ye are anoynted otherwise than kings as your glosse doth reason that vpon the King is powred oile but vpon the Bishop is powred Chrisme Kings are anoynted on the righte shoulder but Byshops and Priestes are annoynted vpon their heads but the heade is better than the shoulder and Chrisme is better than oyle Ergo Bishops and Priests are superior vnto Kings Were not they which anoynted their pamphlets with such greasie argumentes to perch vp their balde crownes aboue the imperiall crownes of their natural Soueraignes worthy by the Princes commaundemente to be well anoynted with vnguentum baculinum to make them acknowledge their due subiection if they rather deserue not sharper instice but let vs procéede vnto M. Saunders other arguments Let vs put the case that Christ himselfe is at this day conuersant in the earth as he was conuersant in times paste Can any man doubt but in that he is man al Christian kings ought to be vnder his gouernment both in all eccl. and in those secular causes that may promote the cause of the Chruche for he shall raigne in the house of Iacob for euer and there shal be no ende of his kingdomes If therefore earthly Kings are parte of the house of Iacob Christ shall raigne ouer them and shall subdue their Kingdomes to hys spirituall Kingdome But whatsoeuer power was necessarye vnto Christe to eternall saluation he transformed the externall and and visible ministerie thereof vnto the Apostles when he said as my father hath sent me so I send you The Apostles therefore and their successors doe no lesse rule in spiritual causes ouer Christian Kings so far as the visible Ministerie than Christ himselfe is in truth ouer them so farre as the holy power of his humaine nature VVherevpon sayth Epiphanius Christ hath giuen a kingdome to those that are placed vnder him that it should not be sayde he proceedeth from little things to greater The throne of Christ abideth and of his kingdome there is no ende and he sitteth vpon the throne of Dauid so that he hath translated the kingdome of Dauid together with the Bishoprike and hath giuen it vnto his seruaunts that is to the Bishops of the Catholike Church Beholde so well the priestly as the Kingly power is communicated to the pastors of the Churche of Christe that by that meanes Christ shoulde be declared to raigne for euer yea euen as a spirituall and heauenly man And this truelye dothe that annoynting testifie that the Kings receyue of Priests The argument is thus If Christ himselfe were conuersant in earth in his humaine nature as he hath bene he shoulde haue ouer all Christian kings all eccl. and secular power in those things that might promote the Church But Christ hath giuen to his ministers in the visible ministerie all the power necessarie to saluation ouer Christian kings that belongeth to himselfe in his humaine nature Ergo he hath giuen his Ministers in the visible ministerie all ecclesiasticall and secular power in those things that maye promote the Church First this argument standeth vpon another presupposal which as it is no lesse false than the other so is it more impossible being flat contrarie to the worte of God and to the will of christ He puttes a case that Christ woulde come againe and in his humaine nature be conuersant vpon the earth as he was from his natiuitie till his death Good Lord M. Saūders is your cause so bad and false that you are still driuen to these shiftes to put the cases of false and forged presupposals if your cause were good it woulde stand of it selfe you might go plainely to worke and neuer reason vpon suche deuised cases as you knowe and beleue shall neuer be true except you be a Millenarie indéede as you gaue before a shrewde suspition of that heresie to think Christ shall come againe and here for a thousand yeares in all worldly might and glorie raigne in the earth and then go dwell in heauen But perhaps you wil say what wil you let me to put what case I lyft when the sky falles they say we shal haue Larkes True M. Saunders we can not let you to put what case you lyst be it neuer so absurde and repugnant to the truth But is this the rediest way to boult out the truth to put the case of an euident vntruth and to imagine that to come that neuer shall be to inferre that vsurpation of your Priestes that is and ought not to be But sée howe sone your argument is ouerturned For if your case be not admitted then is all your labour loste and you haue wonne nothing for your Priestes But the Scripture is manifest that this shall neuer come to passe And that the heauens containe Christ til the day of Iudgement he is neither here
nor there in his humaine nature as Christe himselfe hath testified Which as it dasheth this your case yée put so it confuteth an other chiefe errour of yours that affirme yée haue the humaine nature of Christe closed vp in a boxe and that yée eate him vp or kéepe him vp till he waxe mouldie and then you burne him vp Is this the best honor you can affoorde to Christe being conuersant heere in earth in his humaine nature If it be true that you say he is present how chance yée serue him thus is it bycause he appeareth not in his likenesse but looketh rather like a wafer if it were Christe indéede howsoeuer he loked can you finde in your hearts thus to order him But you will saye that is an other matter answere to this presupposal We speake nowe of Christ appearing in his owne likenesse How say you if he were conuersant in earth as he was shoulde hee not ouer Christian Kings haue superioritie in temporall causes so vvell as in ecclesiasticall that might promote his Churche I answere if this were admitted to be true that Christ againe were conuersant on the earth Christian Kings ought no doubt to giue him all superioritie and be vnder him in all ecclesiasticall and temporall causes that might promote his Churche acknowledging all the power they haue to procéede from him But that Christ if he were againe on the earth woulde raigne ouer Kings and in his humaine nature rule Kings in their secular causes or that he woulde thinke this a way to promote the Church or that he would depose Princes and make their subiectes reuolt from their obedience or that he woulde cease their kingdomes into his handes and make Kings to kisse his féete to leade his Horsse to holde his sturrops or that he would weare thrée Crownes and Princely roabes of gold frette with perle and stone or that he would kepe suche a princely porte and pompe as passed all other Princes which things your Pope pretending to be his Uicar in the absence of his humaine nature doth this would be harde for you to proue M. Saunders although your case were graunted that Christ personally in his humaine nature vvere conuersant in earth againe For if he would haue had any of these thinges he might haue had them when he was here on earth as your selfe confessed in the Chapter going before saying This in this kinde I vvill speake as the chiefest argument that Christe vvhile he vvas here in earth and fulfilled all the lavve and all righteousnesse notwithstanding he would gouern eccl. matters only as a Priest and by no means as an earthly king For he openly refused to administer an earthly kingdome therfore fled when he saw the people go about to do this thing that they might make him a king he denied that he was appointed a deuider betwene the brethreÌ„ Are not these your own wordes M. Sand I knowe you wrest them to an other purpose whiche there is answered vnto But howe serue they not here against your selfe â–ª trow you Christe is now become of an other mynde than he was when he was here on earth if he be still of the same mind then would he not take vpon him if he were here againe on earth the estate of an earthly King nor gouerne in secular causes But trowe you your Pope pretending to be his Uicar would suffer this seese the temporalties he possesseth the kingdomes he hath gotten the honor that is giuen him or any thing else that in eccl. secular causes vnder pretence of the Churches promotion he vsurpeth ouer all kings Christian no he would rather handle Christ worsse if he could lay hands vpon him then euer did the Iewes he wold not onely crucifie Christe againe but burne him cleane to ashes for an hereâ—…ike rather then he would lose this honor or any iote thereof But and if Christe were here againe conuersant on earth in his humaine nature woulde he suffer the Popes intollerable pride and errours would he allowe him to abuse his name as thoughe he were his deputie and Uicar generall I trow not Not that I thinke he séeth it not or suffers it not or hath not by his prouident iustice ordeined that Sathan should set vp such an Antichrist to delude strongly the Children of vnbeleefe and to exercise vnder the Crosse of Christ his litle elected flocke But that if Christe should so come as he here supposeth surely I woulde thinke the cause of his coÌ„ming to be euen to destroy spiritu oris eius with the breath of his mouth this man of sin not to mainteine him in his pompe muche lesse himselfe to take the like vpon him Not that Christe is not a king ouer the house of Iacob not that his kingdome is not eternal as the Angel said to Marie not that he should not subdue al earthly kingdoms to his spiritual kingdome but that his kingdome is spiritual not earthly the subduing of earthly kingdomes is with a sword that conquereth the soule of man that is the word of God with a force from aboue subduing the will of man that is the spirite grace of God and not such a subduing of their kingdomes that it dissolueth their polycies estates or deposeth their kings maketh the people take Armes and exerciseth â–ª in secular causes an earthly Kings authoritie M. Saunders pretendeth this is to promote the Churche of Christ but suche promotion confoundes deuotion and hath poysoned the Church of God as they say a voyce was heard what time Constantine although falsly is supposed to haue endowed the Church with such royall honor Hodie venenum intrauit in ecclesâ—…n This day entered poyson into the Church But Christ hath flatly forbidden it and tolde his Disciples when they asked such promotion that they knewe not what they asked But afterwarde they knewe and founde the saying of Christ to be true that their promotion lay in their affliction and not in their kingly honor And thus we sée the falsehood of the maior forged vpon this fained presupposall whiche is not to be graunted and yet if it were graunted it would fall out to the vtter ruine of the Pope all his Prelates Such ill lucke hath M. Sand stil to light on such examples as he coÌ„ceineth to make for him but being a litle better examined make most of al against him Now to the minor that Christ hath giuen to his Ministers in the visible ministerie all the povver necessarie to saluation that he should haue himselfe in his humaine nature Where find you this M. Sand I thinke it will be ouer hard a matter for you to proue that all the povver necessarie to saluatioÌ„ that he shoulde haue himselfe in his humaine nature in the visible ministerie he hath giueÌ„ it al to his ministers Al power saith Christe is giuen to me in heauen and in earth this is spoken in respecte
publike mynisterie of Iesu christ For vvhatsoeuer is of Christe giuen in common to the Christian common vveale is giuen by them that exercise the Legacie for Christe and are Stevvards of his mysteries Your argument is this VVhatsoeuer is giuen in common of Christ to his Church he giues it by the Pastors But povver to make Magistrates and Iudges is giuen in coÌ„mon of Christ to his Church Ergo it is giuen by his Pastors But no man can passe more right to an other than hee hath himselfe The Pastors passe this right and povver of being Magistrates and Iudges in secular matters to another Ergo the Pastors haue right and power of being Magistrates and iudge themselues in secular matters Al these parts coÌ„clusions of these reasons I vtterly deny Master Saunders First the 〈◊〉 is fall 〈◊〉 â—…nsample Christe giues temporall peace in common to his Churche he giue â–ª plentie of fruites and seasonable weather in common to his Churche he giues health and strength of bodie in common to his Church he giues good Magistrates Kings and Princes in coÌ„mon to his Church he giues good lawes natural ciuill and municipall in common to his Churche all these are povvers giueÌ„ of Christ in coÌ„mon to the ChristiaÌ„ common vveale so well as to any other common vveale not Christian but they are not giuen by the ministerie of the spirituall Pastors The maior therefore is not true Secondly the minor is also false that Christ giueth power to his Church to make Magistrates and Iudges ouer secular matters To some Churches indéed he hath giuen this power and dothe giue it where they orderly doe choose their owne Magistrate But this can not be spoken of the Church indefinitely For the Church in most places thereof hath not the choice of Princes but God either by ordinarie succession or by extraordinarie means placeth them ouer the Church and those Princes place the Iudges Thirdly by the Church is not meÌ„t either the ecclesiastical power or the Pastors that haue that povver For the povver is but Gods gift for the Churches vse and benefite and the Pastors are but parts and members of the Church Fourthly this is false also that they can not passe a right to another that they themselues haue not For euen in the dispensation of their mysteries we maye receiue faythe and grace by their ministerie and yet they be gracelesse and haue no faith themselues And in the solemnization of Matrimonie although the Pastor haue no right to the bryde yet he transferreth the hauing of hir froÌ„ hir friends to the brydegrome so may they be Ministers in the intronizing a Prince passing a power froÌ„ God to him which yet theÌ„selues haue not except you will make them Kings And thus all your rules are false and holde not besides that they be all wrested and cleane from the sense of the sentence cited and therefore no good argument can be framed on them that that can rightly conclude the present purpose But nowe Master Saunders will applye this better and here in the margine he setteth downe in great letters Nota Note to sturre vp the Readers attention to note his application But novve saith he if that nevve Iudges must be made of the Churche rather than vve shoulde goe to lavve in secular causes before the Infidels are not nevve Kings also rather to be made of the Churche than that vve shoulde be compelled to pleade our causes before hereticall and scismatical Kings Nowe you beginne handsomely to frame your argument to your purpose for al this while you did but dallie But if the Reader note this matter as you require him to doe as he shal finde no consequence in your argument so shal he finde rancke treason in your conclusion If the argument were good then bycause the Church in Saint Paules time might choose among themselues arbiters to iudge and take vp their petite matters therefore they might haue chosen nevv Kings also to gouerne them But this coulde they not haue done without treason and rebellion therefore this argument is false Is there no difference Master Saunders betwéene the choosing of an vmpier or an arbiter chosen betwéene two parties of their owne voluntarie to iudge and descide their priuate controuersie and the choosing of a supreme publike Magistrate to gouerne their whole estate Who séeth not that this they might in no wise doe The other they might doe well inoughe And so may any of vs doe also to auoyd the charges and troubles of the lawe although we haue Christian Princes and faithfull Iudges too neither troubling those estates nor our selues and saue our money in our purses and better nourishe charitie in not going to lawe but taking vp the matter at home among our neyghbours quietly May we therefore subtracte our selues from the Iudgement Seate of the publike Magistrate when we are called or enforced by lawe thereto and whye mighte we not if we might choose a newe King when we mislyked the olde No Master Saunders this is further from Saint Paules meaning than was the other Saint Paule giues not the Corinths leaue nor power to erecte vp among them selues a publike Magistrate to flée vnto in their contentions vtterly to forsake the iudgement seates of the heathen Iudges and Princes that did gouerne them Saint Paule speakes of their owne voluntarie taking vp of matters by some indifferent man among them to be chosen as Iudge in this or that brawle betwéene them and woulde not haue them of their owne selfe will in matters that might be well taken vp among themselues to runne to Lawe before heathen Magistrates Wherein although he disalow the disorderly contention of the one yet he disaloweth not withall the orderly authoritie of the other which he confesseth to be giuen of God and he exhorteth all subiectes to obey and that for conscience sake euen the gouernement of the heathen Princes notwithstanding they were Christians that were subiectes Whereas if he had ment otherwise he hadde not onely contraryed himselfe but confirmed the sclaunder of the heathen people that the Christians were Rebelles to their estates And he might haue bene accused of sedition as styrring the people to make nevve Magistrates whiche for them being subiectes was aboue their power to doe And although this crime was layde to Saint Paules charge of sowing sedition yet could they neuer iustly proue it on him his doings and writings testifyed the contrarie with what care he labored to kepe the Christians in obedience Who otherwise might here vpon haue had great occasion of choosing nevve Princes pretending they were Christians and made frée by Christe and therefore ought not haue suffered themselues to liue in the heathen Princes bondage Which fréedome of Christian libertie least they should haue thus abused to carnall licenciousnesse and disturbed the order and quietnesse of their estate Saint Paule so often and so earnestly exhorteth them vnto obedience Neither they did so euer
vnderstande this present exhortation to haue the libertie or power to forsake the heathen Magistrates obedience and iudgements and to erecte a nevv Magistrate and Iudge to rule among them For this had bene the readie pathe to all Rebellion And to proue that this is the readiest way to Rebellion sée howe Master Saūders gathereth hereon that nevve Kings are to be made of the Churche rather than vve shoulde be compelled to pleade our causes before hereticall and scismaticall Kings So that if the Prieste shall say the King is an heretike or a scismatike not only the people must so account him but they muste account him no longer to be their King they muste not be compelled to appeare in his Courtes and Consistories they must pleade no cause at all before him or his Iustices but must forthwith choose a nevv King to be their gouernour Howe far this is differing from Saint Paules doctrine from this sentence from subiectes obedience and howe neare to set all the world in an vprore I dout not but if this Nota that M. sand sets it out withal be wel noted it wil not only bréede in the Readers mindes a note of suspicion of priuie conspiracies trayterous packing but openly shew a manifest proclamatiō of plain rebelliō Now to proue that the subiects should thus rebel he sheweth the dangers that should ensue if they should remaine in their obedience For certaine it is that there is more danger of heretical Kings thā is of vnfaithful Iudges For vnfaithful Iudges do not iudge but of matters of this world and that according to the law either of nature which is alwayes right or ciuil vvhiche is seldome vvrong Moreouer vvhat if I suffered vvrong at the tribunall of a Pagane Iudge the losse is small to suffer the spoyle of tēporal goods vvhich good men beare vvith ioye But heretical Kings compel their subiects casting away the catholike faith to embrace their heresie the whiche can not be done vvithout the detriment of eternall saluation It is altogither lavvfull to the Churche of Christe to remoue from his gouernement an heretical a scismatical a symoniacal King and to conclude to remoue him that vvill not amende himselfe and to place another among the Christians in his rome This argument is drawne from the danger of suffering the king is alreadie answered diuers times The lawiers woulde briefly say to this better suffer a mischiefe than an inconuenience but were this an inconuenience too we may not take away one inconuenience with an other greater inconuenience for ther are conuenient remedies of pacience constancie against these inconueniences and not rebellion althoughe the inconuenience were muche greater than M. Sād makes it And yet to aggrauate the same he makes cōparison of a King and a Iudge as though the Iudge represented not the king He compareth the daunger of the losse by the one and by the other as thoughe the heathen Iudges and Princes dealt not also in cases of Religion Who although they were deceiued herein yet they conuented people before them for Religion to driue them from the worship of God to the worship of their Idols and laboured by all persuasions and meanes they coulde to bring them to their Religiō And verie many they brought to their Idolatrie which was more thā the losse of temporal goods euē the detriment of eternal saluatiō Neither did they vse their iudgemēts always according to the lavv of nature or the ciuil neyther doth the one iudge alvvayes right considering the great corruption of nature chiefly in the heathen neyther did the other sildome wrong but often wrong among them neither medled the ciuill Lawe of the Pagans onely with matters of temporall goodes and of this vvorlde but also with matters of the worlde to come and therefore there was further daunger of the iudgementes of those heathen Princes and vnfaythefull Iudges than here Maister Saunders woulde séeme to acknowledge there was mitigating all that he can the daunger ensuing from them to aggrauate the greater daūgers from naughtie Christian Princes But he nede not run to these vntruthes to aggrauate his comparison For we denie not but that if the Prince were such a wicked Prince as he speaketh of it were in dede very daungerous to the faithfull subiects vnder him and so muche the more daungerous that he pretendeth to the faithfull to be a faithfull Prince and is not But what a daungerous doctrine is this that the people should therfore rebell and reuolt vnto another Might the Christiā people in the primitue Church for all the daūger of eternall life that they and all the faithfull were in when the heathen Princes would haue them worship Idols which is as ill as heresie when the heretical scismaticall Emperors being Arians Monothelites c. in the ancient time compelled their subiectes casting away the Catholike faith to embrace their heresies might they remoue thē from their gouernment and place another in his roome ouer the Christians and that that shoulde streight be heresie which the B ▪ of Rome should say were heresie he should be a scismatike that should not consent to him Yea he must be deposed for symonie too ▪ by symonie forsooth we must vnderstand that if the Prince do appoint and inuest a Bishop then streight he is a simoniake and must out of hande be depesed What a greater daūger is here not onely to Christiā Princes but to all the Church of Christ whose sauegarde is here pretended But if we reason of daūgers the greatest daūger of all is of the Pope himselfe his prelates the more daunger that Princes people be thus beguiled by them and yet the king may not meddle with them although his duetie neuer so much require he hath good warrant in the scripture 〈◊〉 remoue them so haue not they of him were they neuer 〈◊〉 good and were he a great deale worse than M. Saunders makes him But Maister Saunders will nowe proue that the Bishops haue warrant out of the scripture for them and once againe he alleageth the example of King Saul and Samuel For if the kingdome of Saul stoode not euen for this that he obserued not the precept of Samuel in wayting for him seuen dayes before he sacrificed Yea if the Lord cast off Saul that he shuld not be the king bicause he fulfilled not also another precept of the Lorde declared by the Ministerie of Samuel in killing Agag if for this disobedience of Saul while he yet raigned Samuel was bidden to anoynt Dauid to be the King of the Iewes and Samuel did it priuily in Bethleem Neither after the holy Ghost sent downe from heauen the spirituall power of the Church can now be lesse than in times past was in the Synagog we must now also confesse that that King which shall dispise to heare the Lord speaking by the mouth of the highest Bishop maye
iustice and so Samuel is read to haue killed Ameleck But vnderstanding the killing thus bicause these especialties are not to be drawne by any ordinary exaÌ„ple in the spiritual pastors let vs now admit the figure of the spirituall sworde that M. San. driueth this killing vnto Do you know what this spiritual sworde is M. Sand that you speake on Thinke you it is to coÌ„maund others to fight against kings and to murther their subiects If it be true whiche you affirme that none can escape it that it pierceth the soule they might escape this sworde by many meanes as you say So that it is not the exercise of such a sword nor the bidding of such a sworde to be exercised And howe chaunce then your popes do exercise it you contende héere for it and alleage all these examples yet pretend cleane coÌ„trarie herevnto the only spiritual sword Whereas in very déede ye ought to vse none other euen as your owne Glosse saith hereon â–ª Nocentes iustitia c. The diuine iustice causeth some offenders to be punished with the edge of the sword by kings other it stri keth through with the tongue by Prophets and Priests To punish therfore with the bodily sworde belongeth onely to Princes their officers and not to the Pope his Prelats Wherfore your Pope both lieth and vsurpeth in clayming both swords and your selfe confute him that say you haue the onely spiritual sword and also contrarie your selfe sithe the deposition of Princes from their royall estate belongeth to the secular not to the spiritual sword Which belongeth to the spirite is only of the soule is suche as none can escape And therfore your own self coÌ„fute your self applying the power of the spiritual pastors to the deposing of princes froÌ„ their kingdomes For they may well inoughe escape your popes tyrannie as they do God be praised for it better thaÌ„ héeretofore some Princes haue done And as for his curses which also he calleth his spiritual sword béeing not only nothing like the spiritual sword that God hath appointed but cleane contrarie thervnto Princes shal escape them well inough yea God himself doth belsse them as fast as the pope dothe curse them But master Sanders to proue that they can neuer escape thys sworde saythe Elizeus sworde is reckoned in the laste place and the laste he calleth héere the chiefest But howe agréeth this with that he sayde before of the firste place There he woulde proue the Priests authoritiâ—… chiefest bicause he is reckoned in the first place And héere he would proue the Priests sworde chiefest bicause it is reckoned in the laste place And if it were reckoned in the middle place then would be haue proued it also the chiefest bicause that In medio consistit virtus Vertue consisteth in the middle place And thus be the Priest or any thing belonging to the Priest reckoned in the first place in the middle place or in the last place that is still an argument with M. Sanders of the best and chiefest place But nowe to proue yet better the force of this sworde M. sand procéedeth saying Moreouer to this spiritual sword the other material sword obeieth whiche also taketh punishment of him that setteth him selfe agaynst the spirituall sworde For Elias by the sword of the spirite that is by his prayers commaunded the fire to descende from heauen and consume those captaines of fiftie that despising the spirituall power of the Prophet saide vnto him in the name of the earthly power thou man of God the king commaundeth thee to descende And agayne thus saith the king make haste and come downe For these Captaynes of fiftie trusted so well in their earthly power that is so well in the number of souldiors that were vnder them as in the authoritie of the King for whome they were sent on message and in respect of this power they despised that spiritual power that Elias was endued withall And therefore with mocking saluted him the man of god But when at the worde of Elias the fire came down from heauen and deuoured those two Captaynes and their twice fiftie men that were with them the thirde Captayne of fiftie beeing sent of Ochozias the king acknowledged the sworde of Elias and therefore commaunded not him as the other had done but besoughte him and sayde O man of God dispise not my life and the lyues of thy seruauntes that are with me But what is it that the Prophet regarded not to obey the kings commaundement but that he him selfe in that cause was greater than the king and that he taught euen by the thinges them selues the spirituall power of the Church to be greater than the earthly For neither yet beeing moste humbly desired of the thirde Captaine of fiftie he came downe to the king before the Angell of the Lorde bad him not feare but go downe For he sat in the toppe of a mountaine that is in the chiefest place of the Church VVhich place the earthly king â—…ughte rather to haue honored for Christ whose person Elias did beare thaÌ„ by authoritie to commaunde that the man of God leauing his chaire should come as a subiecte to the king For we reade also that Ambrose complayned that he being a Bishop stoode among them of the Consistorie And said vnto the Emperor if thou haddest acknowledged me thou wouldest not see me in this place Not that I denie the Prophets and Pastors of the Churche to be subiects to the king so farre as their goodes and bodies but I contende that their power is not onely equall but higher than the kings owne iurisdiction is so often as the soules saluation is in hande For neither must we be ignorant of that that Elias therefore would not obey Ochozias the king but rather killed his captaynes and his souldiors bicause the king beeing sicke asked counsell not of the Lords Prophet but of Beelzebub the God of Accaron If therefore any king fal obstinately into heresie or schisme the Bishop and Prophet shall not onely not obey him but also punishe him not only denying vnto him the spiritual goods â–ª but also in taking away his corporal goods after a due sort and order But it was vnworthy for the person of Elias for to kill with his owne handes a hundred and two souldiors of the kinges and therefore with his onely worde he spake and fire came downe from heauen that deuoured those two Captaines of fiftie with their souldiors Master Sanders hauing now referred this sworde of Elizeus to the figure of the spirituall sworde will proue both that it is aboue the kinges sâ—…cular power and also destroyeth them that resiste it But firste hys proues for the superioritie of thâ—…se swordes is neyther belonging to this present purpose nor we contende about it but willingly graunt the stroke of the worde of God to be the greater stroke Elias in that case to be greater than the king
also and the spirituall power to be greater than the earthly power and that the spirituall power may spiritually punish the resisters of it But that the ordinary spirituall power of the Priests or Prophets may depose the ordinary secular power of Kings Princes that the pastors spiritual sword may strike the secular sworde out of the Magistrates hande to whome it is of God committed that the spiritual power may of his own nature punish Princes with bodily punishment and take their state and kingdomes from them and cause their subiects to rebel agaynst them This we vtterly denie and this is the very question Now héerto is alleahed the facte of Elias sitting in the mount who prayed to God that fire might consume the wicked kings messangers that derided the Prophets and would by force haue setched him to the king To this I answere first for this king he resembleth no protestant Prince but rather the popish Princes who not onely beeing sicke as Ochozias was but also in healthe as thoughe there were no God in Israell séeke not to the onely liuing Lorde to Christ the onely sauiour and mediatour but to Idols as Ochozias did to Eeelzebub and woulde murther the Prophets of God that reproue them for it as Elias did Secondly for Elias he sat not on the toppe of the mountaine to signifie the chiefest place of the church which chiefest place he tooke not vpon him And do not your selfe ascribe the chiefest place of the Church to the highe Priest or Bishop Or was the Prophet theÌ„ aboue the chiefe Priest or intruded he into the high Priests place or were both in the chiefest place and so your Pope claymes the chiefest place of the church from both of them True it is that in his time Elias was the chiefest instrument that God vsed in the râ—…formation of the Church yet neither tooke he vpon him the chiefest place of the Churche nor exalted him selfe aboue the king nor deposed him or his father or any other prince howe wicked soeuer they were nor incited other to rebell agaynst them And this you should proue that Elias did or else ye stray from your question Thirdly for this facte of Elias I answere as before It is no ensample for vs to followe the like Neither did Elias vse it ordinarily in his defence but vpon especiall occasion God by his iustice defended thus his Prophet and reuenged the contumelie wherwith they scorned not onely him but God in destroying those wicked deriders after suche a terrible miraculous sorte Not for that they were the kings ministers but for that they assented to the kinges crueltie and besides béeing Idolaters they scorned the power of God in him in calling him in derision The man of God. For so sayth Lyra Cognouit autem c. Elias knewe by reuelation that in mockage he called him the man of God and was consenting to the king in the sinne of Idolatry and in the punishment of Elias and likewise they that were with him and that herevpon by the sentence of God they were to be punished for the which cause he pronounced the diuine sentence So that the striker héere was God Elias onely pronounced the sentence of Gods iustice Neither dyd he any thing héerein but by the especiall motion of god He woulde not come downe as master Saunders therein saythe true no not at the moste humble entreatie of the thirde Captayne tyll the Angell of GOD badde hym not feare but goe downe Wherevpon saythe Caietane Vide actiones Eliae c. See the actions of Elias are gouerned by the Angels direction in euery poynt that is to saye so well his outwarde as his inwarde motions Wherby we may sée that he did not this facte by any ordinarie iurisdiction of his Propheticall office but by the especiall direction of God whiche can not nor oughte to be drawne into example for other to do or wishe the like Fourthly this example to follow Elias héerein is of all other flatly forbidden to the Disciples of christ For when the Samaritanes would not receiue Christ into their Citie Iames and Ioâ—…n sayde Lorde wilâ—…e thou that we commaunde that fire come downe from heauen and consume them euen as Elias did But Iesus turned about aâ—…d rebuked them and sayde ye knowe not of what spirite you are For the sonne of man is not come to destroy mens liues but to saue them Nowe this example of the seuere iustice of God thus desired of them and they reproued by Christ for desiring the lyke M. Sanders resumeth for his Bishops authoritie Wherby it appeareth he knoweth not of what spirite Christian Bishops ought to be and that Popishe Bishops are of another spirite than Christ is of For Christ came not to kill Princes to fire their townes to burne their people and depose Kinges from their kingdomes to whiche drifte all this is spoken Lastly I denie this drift consequence of the example Elias prayed that fire might consume them from heauen Ergo Christian Bishops ought to take away the corporall goodes of Hereticall and Schismatical Princes If the conclusion had béene thus Ergo they mighte pray that God would take their corporal goods away it had béene a more likely and a more tollerable conclusion Howbeit this also is forbidden to pray to haue their corporal goodes taken away It were their dutie rather to pray the they might better vse them that God woulde either conuert them or otherwise at his good pleasure stoppe their tyrannie They ought not to pray for the taking away of any mans goodes much lesse their Soueraignes goods to whoÌ„ your selfâ—… confesse that they them selues are subiect â—…o farre as their goods and bodies And then be they not ouer the goodes and bodies of their Princes béeing their subiectes least of all ought they either by theÌ„selues or by any other to take their Princes goods and bodies from them For that is not a subiects but a traitors and a rebels part But saith M. Saunders they may take his bodily goods from their King so they doe it debito modo ordine after a due maner and order He told vs thus before but it is cleane beyond all good maâ—…er against al due order to take away any mannes goods chiefely the Princes yea and that the Bishops or priests to do it The example of S. Ambrose complaining that the Emperor misâ—…sed him is cleane against M. Saund that alleageth it for him For S. Ambrose tooke not the Emperors goods away nor deposed him nor caused other to rebell against him but for all the Emperors missusage of him he continued stil in his obedience to the Emperor Howbeit he told the Emperor of his dutie and so should al godly Bishops do and not attempte to depose their Princes nor to stirre vp other to depose them Let vs now put the case saith M. SauÌ„ders that some man which was a Prince was present with Elias
to do For the King immediatly repenting him of his wicked othe and hastie crueltie came himself as it séemeth by the text in all hast after the Messanger to stay his hande and to let the Prophet of God alone acknowledging his offence and that his punishment was euen the hande of god Nowe Elizeus by reuelation knowing of all this what did he in bidding them resiste the Messanger but euen obey the Kings will and therefore when he had them kéepe him out or offer him violence if ye will néedes so expounde it he sayth withall is not the sounde of his masters féete behinde him and this was the verie cause why he bad them do so Let him enter cuius causa subditur c. saith Lyra the cause vvhereof is annexed for beholde the sounde of his Masters feete is after him for after the departure of the Messanger Ioram repented and therefore he followed him to reuoke the precept And faith Caitane That they should boldly resist the Kings messanger he foretelleth theÌ„ that the King follovved his Messanger repenting that hee sent him And therefore the King follovved the Messanger bycause he repented that he had commaunded that Elizeus head shoulde be cut off for he came to himself againe and came personally to moue his complaint before Elizeus Nowe all this that should haue lightned the master M. Sand â–ª concealeth and cuts off this sentence of Elizeus in the middle taking no further thereof than he thought he might wreste to séeme to serue his purpose after such maner as the Deuill cited scripture against christ Whereas the whole sentence set down and the storye considered it maketh cleane against him Neuerthelesse had Elizeus on the especiall will and reuealing of God done otherwise it had made nothing for him The thirde example of Elizeus maketh least of all to the purpose Bycause Elizeus cursed the children that scorned him and they by Gods iust vengeaunce were destroyed by Beares that therfore he euer attempted to depose the King or sollicited his subiectes to rebel against him This conclusion is to farre fetched And yet that whiche Elizeus there did doing it in the name of the Lorde and by reuelation of the Lorde pronouncing the sentence of Gods iustice vpon them as Lyra saith can no more be leuelled to an ordinarie rule than the fire that came downe at the petition of Elias Neither dothe the Popishâ—… glosse or Lyra gather thereon that Byshops might cause their Princes subiectes to be destroyed that mocke them but they make this a figure of Christe Mystice exponendo c. In expounding this mystically Elizeus going vp to Bethell signifieth Iesus Christe ascending to his Crosse vvhome the levves mocked according to the texte of the Gospell For the vengeance vvhereof tvvo Beares came aftervvarde into Iurie to vvit Titus and Vespasian and killed the people fortie yeres after the passion of the Lorde for reuenge of the contuâ—…elie done vnto him This figure your owne commentaries make hereon But I haue not read that any maketh it serue for Byshops to depose Princes but for Princes to depose wicked Byshoppes that crucifie Christe in his members and deride the simplicitie of the Gospel Who rather than they should remaine vnpunished God will styrre vp heathen Princes to punishe theÌ„ as he did these Beares and flashe downe fyre from heauen to destroye al those Priestes that offer strange fyre to God and will styrre vp all his creatures to reuenge the iniuries done to his Saints Ministers vvhere good Princes want as you say that should reuenge the same But then freuible you ye cruel papists that haue done so many outrages to Gods Ministers and haue shed so much blood of his Saintes that ye shall neuer flée Gods héauie veÌ„geance howsoeuer good kings do vvant Though you abuse Kings to be executioners of your cruelties whose duetie by your owne confession were to punish such iniuries Whiche if they woulde better looke vnto and put in practise they should so litle feare your deposings of them that they would depose euery one of you And thus as all your examples make nothing for you so euery one of them maketh so muche againste you that it séeineth as these Syrians were so blinded that séeking to take Elizeus they were ledde they wist not whither euen into Samaria and were themselues taken of their enimies so you seeking to take the Ministers of God to take the Christian Princes power from him to bring all to your holy father Benadab are so blynded in framing your arguments that you blunder on such examples as still make cleane against you But novve after the acceptable time is come vvherein are many Christian Kings of vvhom some alvvays obey the Vicars of Christe there is novve no neede of myracles or of the ministerie of creatures vvanting reason sithe there vvante not faithfull Princes vvhich may performe and execute this For sith Zacharie the Prophete of God hath foretolde that so great a fountain of grace should be opened to al after the coÌ„ming of Christ that eueÌ„ ones father mother should thrust him through vvhom they should vnderstand to speake a lye hovv muche more at this day shal there not vvant those that shall not suffer him to liue vvhom they shall perceiue that he vvill not obey the high Priests coÌ„mandement For the power of the Ministers of Christ is so much higher than the povver of the Priests of the Leuitical kind by how much difference Iustice Spirit life that we minister excel daÌ„natioÌ„ the letter deth which things the leuitical priests by occasioÌ„ ministred If there wanted Christian Kings and faithful Princes theÌ„ and yet the Prophets then deposed not the wicked Princes nor set vp new Princes but rather coÌ„mitted the vengeance to God that punished Idolaters by the ministerie of creatures vvanting reason vvhere there vvanted faithfull Princes to do it with what face can you M. Sanders alledge these examples for the Pastors deposing of Kings whiche are so flat arguments against it that where Christian Kings and faithfull Princes vvant to punishe Idolaters and deriders of Gods Ministers there Christian Pastors should commit the vengeance to God rather thaÌ„ atteÌ„pt to depose those vnfaithfull Princes which no faithfull Prophete did But now say you are many ChristiaÌ„ Princes of vvhoÌ„ some alwayes obey the Vicar of Christe For so ye call your Pope Whether the Popâ—… be Christes or Sathans Uicar is an other questioÌ„ M. Sano Whether any Christian Kings obey him is somwhat nearer to the purpose although not directly to the question here in hande But if this be true that there are many Christian Kings of whome some alwayes obey the Pope then are there also many Christian King of whome some neuer obeye the Pope And if they maye be Christian Kings that neuer obey the Pope as were the Emperors of Greece the Christian Kings in Asia Affrica and the Northeast partes
vsurpation is first described And the text is plaine that she had no right The right Kyng was Ioas when his brethren were slâ—…ine Therefore here was no deposing of hir Neyther durst you say that Ioiada deposed hir but he comaunded hir both to be deposed and killed Although for commaundement of deposing hir you finde no suche thing for she was not their lawfull gouernour this therfore serueth not to the purpose of deposing a lawfull Prince and that for heresie which was not layde to hir charge neither was she killed for that cause but as a traytresse to the Crowne as a murderer of hir owne bloode and as a mere vsurper of the kingdome that belonged nothing to hir And therfore Ioiada did but as a good and faithfull subiect should do to his liege Lord and to his heyres after him and not as one that by his Priestly office had power ouer the royall estate Secondly I aunswere that the doyngs of Ioiada herein were vpon such especiall occasions necessities that it is euill drawne of you to an ordinarie example For none of the Priests either did the like or coulde claime to doe the like to their kings as Ioiada had done muche lesse to be drawne to an example for y ministers of Christ to follow First Io ada was the vncle by affinitie vnto Ioas for Ioiada the highe Priests wife was sister vnto King Dehozias whose childreÌ„ Athalia being their Grandmother did murther saue that Ioas being a new borne babe was priuily conueyed away by his Aunt Iosaba the highe Priestes wife where he was closely norished in the Temple till he was sixe or seauen yeares olde Good reason had Ioiada to kéepe the yong King his Cousin and more righte thereto than any other not by vertue of his Priestly office but being thus of God sent vnto him by his wines industrie for the childes close and safer preseruing in the Temple And yet this nourishing a childe and his nourse in the Temple coulde so litle be drawne to any ordinarie example that if necessitie had not enforced it it had not béene allowable As euen Lyra noteth out of Rabbi Solomon Quod puer nutrix sua c. That the Childe and his Nourse vvere kept in the loft of the Temple of the Lord vvhere nobodie durst approche but the Priestes and the Leuites that kept the holy vessels there layde vp to the entent they might there the better be hidden And althoughe it vvas othervvise vnlavvfull for a vvoman and a childe to be there yet in such a necessitie it vvas lavvfull As Dauid and his men did eate the Priestly breade being driuen in necessitie vvhich notvvithstanding othervvise had bene vnlavvfull for him Thus can not this déede of Ioiada for the nourishment of Ioas be drawne to any ordinarie example Neyther durst Ioiada be knowne of this déede that no doubt had cost him his life had it bene but suspected Whiche argueth he had no ordinarie authoritie to put downe the Princes no not this very vsurper being also a murtherer and an Idolater In al whiche cases if he had had any ordinarie power and right thereto be woulde no doubt haue openly professed and auouched his doing and not haue kept it so long close and priuilie watched his oportunitie But nowe the childe being thus by the highe Priest and his wife preserued and nourished which childe had the onely to the crowne lay it not him vpon was it not his dutie yea his obedience too bothe that he ought before to his brother in lawe deceassed and to this his yong nephewe extant that the childe should haue his right inheritance and to whome belonged the procurement hereof rather than to him that had the childe in custodie besides that he was his vncle sith no man of any countenance knewe hereof but he howe should the childe haue gotten his right but by him But did he make the child King by his priestly authoritie as though the Priestes had had the interest to appoint and make such Kings as they pleased No but it was the duetie of the one to procure it and the right of the other to haue it And yet that he did not this of himselfe the text saith plaine he toke and brought Centurions and Souldiors to him into the TeÌ„ple Here consequently saith Lyra is discribed the InstitutioÌ„ of the true heire by the carefulnesse of loiada the high priest seking to this the assent of the Princes nobles of the kingdome So that he sought their assent help or euer he would detect the Childe vnto them And for this present necessitie he brake the order also of the priests courses that King Dauid had appointed for the sonnes of Aaron Leui to minister wéekely then to giue place to other These he stayed for the more number strength to establish the yong King in his right so by these extraordinarie meanes he crowned him king caused the murtherer and vsurper to be killed This fact therfore of Ioiada can not be drawne to an ordinarie example except in these points that euery good subiect so much as in him lyeth shoulde preserue the lawfull Kings childreÌ„ and heires not suffer any other to whom the inheritance belongeth not to vsurp the crown but the right and lawful heire thereof to enioy it to expell al intruders vsurpers chiefly such ty ants as séeke their vsurpation by execrable murthering especially suche as against nature destroy their own bloud and al such as by any other trayterous meanes aspire to the kingdome and so far forth as they conueniently can to helpe to restore the lawfull heire therto as to whom only they owe their homage and are sworn This is al godly subiects and so all godly Bishops priests duties in euery Christian kingdome Thus may this doing of Ioiada be drawne to an ordinary example which we denie not But what is this for Bishops to giue kingdomes from the right heire to him that hath no clayme therto but by the Bishops gifte who giues a large thong of another mans leather as doth the Pope giue kingdomes froÌ„ one to another hauing no more right to giue them than the other to take them Which is not to expel an vsurper but for one vsurper to set vp an other vsurper whiche is no more lyke this example than an apple is like an â—…yster Thirdly I answerâ—… for Ioiadaes knowledge of the kings causes he had them not in respect he was the high Priest but in respecte he was the vncle the guardian the norisher and protector of the 〈◊〉 person béeing a childe and yet this is spoken by M. 〈◊〉 without the booke that after the coronation he had the knowledge of the kings causes Neither yet if he had the knowledge of theÌ„ the king béeing in such estate somuch beholding to his vncle a general rule could be made there or was made among the Iewes or
can be made among ChristiaÌ„s that either the bishops of any kingdom much lesse the B. of Rome for al kingdomes ought to know the causes of kings Emperors whether they be iust or vniust This generalitie can not iustly be inferred on such a specialtie For neither al kings estates 〈◊〉 like to this kings estate nor all Bishops estates like to this Bishops estate as by the causes aforesayd appeareth Fourthly I answer that as here is inferred no ordinary rule for Bishops to haue knowledge in kings Emperors cau ses froÌ„ the coÌ„trarie here is inferred an ordinary rule for kings Emperors to haue knowledge of B. causes For eueÌ„ at the kings 〈◊〉 althogh he wer an infaÌ„t had no more skil of religioÌ„ thaÌ„ of gouernmeÌ„t the text saith they put the crowneâ—… vpon him and gaue him the lawe in his hande And so saythe Lyra the testimonie that is the law wherein he was ordeined ought to studie and meditate and keepe it and cause it to be kept True it is that the high Prieste did teach him and the King did well so long as he was taught of so godly a father And therevpon maye well be inferred that Byshops maye teach Kings that vvhich is right before the Lorde But this teaching of the King inferreth no publike gouernement of the King which the Pope claimeth and M. Saunders pleadeth for The authoritie of teaching the King and the authoritie of gouerning the King are â—…arre different authorities That of teaching we graunt to Ioiada and to al Godly Byshops not to teach what they will but that vvhiche is right before the Lord. And to sée that they do this the Prince hath the lavve of God giuen into his handes so well as the crowne set on his head to shewe that although the Byshops mustâ—… teach true doctrine and Godly exhortatioÌ„ yet must the King haue knowledge to ouersée that it be taught â–ª as well much more than any other matters of his kingdoms What shall we say then to the popishe Byshops which will not giue the lavve of God into the Princes handes but wring it out of his handes that he should not knowe it but blindly followe such false doctrine and naughtie examples as they woulde teache him are these Byshops like to the Byshop Ioiada And if this king fel to Idolatrie when he wanted this good teacher how shall that King doe that neuer had suche a teacher and yet for all this teaching of Ioiada that was as it were a father to the King the King notwithstanding while he continued good bothe commaunded all the Priestes and taught them how they should deale in their oblations collections reparations and other thinges belonging to the Temple And Ioas saide to the Priestes all the siluer of thinges dedicated that be brought to the house of the Lorde c. Let the Priestes take it vnto them euery one of his acquaintance and they shall repayre the broken places of the house vvheresoeuer any decaye is founde And in the 23. yeare of King Ioas the Priestes had not amended that vvhich vvas decayed in the Temple Then King Ioas called for Ioiada the Priest and the other Priests and saide vnto them VVhy repaire ye not the ruines of the Temple Novv therefore receiue no more money of your acquaintance except ye deliuer it to repaire the ruines of the Temple Thus did the King not only knovv of the Priestes causes but called them before him yea euen his vncle Ioiada the high Priest also appointed an order vnto them how to bestow their offerings And when they were negligent therein he rebuked theÌ„ reuoked his former ordinance except on their amendement Neither did the Priests no nor his vncle Ioiada the highe Prieste grudge or grumble hereat nor sayde that the offerings were theirs not his to dispose nor told him they were his superiors but as his inferiors most humbly obeyed his ordinances Al vvhich things fithe they vvere vvell done is not novve true according to the sense of the diuine Scripture that we may make a better ordinarie rule herâ—…on for Kings and Emperors to knovve of Byshops causes than for Byshops to knovve of Kings and Emperors causes If you replye this was but a money matter I answere yet was this money oblations and offerings But will you graunt Princes thus much to make ordinances howe all your money offerings shall be vsed when ye shall gather them and when not of whom ye shal take them and howe ye shall bestowe them â—…ay 〈◊〉 will neuer doe this for money is the chiefest thing ye shoote at no penie no pater noster all your eâ—…cl causes depende so on money offerings that as good ye gaue the prince authoritie in al ecclesiastical matters as let him deale thus with your money offerings as Ioas did with theirs But doth your own glosse expound this no further than to money matters Ioas saithe your glosse both in this name and in this vvorke signifieth Christ for it is interpreted the strength of the Lorde He commaundeth the teachers that they should take all the money that is offered into the Lordes house of the passers by to vvit whatsoeuer spirituall knovvledge or good vvorke is brought into the Lords treasorie that by the offices of the preachers it may be bestovved on the repayring of the spirituall Temple that vvhatsoeuer he shall finde torne by errour or hurte by Vices they should repaire least the multitude of hearers should perishe by the doctors negligence â–ª Here this facte of the King is compared to the representation of Christe and to the ouersight of all eccl. matters So that if Kings will account the studie of the Lawe of God as well to belong vnto them as their crowne if they will looke vnto know and examine the causes of the Byshops and their reuenues and appoint them orders to repair the ruines of the Lords temple and sée that the preachers lay out their talents of spirituall knowledge good workes towards the building then should kings truely represent Christe and be indéede the strength of the Lorde bycause they haue the Lords power authoritie thervnto And thus this example better considered maketh more for the Kings authoritie ouer the Byshops than for the Byshops ouer the Kings authoritie Fiftly I answere that althoughe a Godly Byshop be a sequester betwéen God the Prince betwéene the Prince and the people in prayer in the Sacramentes and in preaching yet â–ª is he not a sequester betwéen God and the Prince or betwene the Prince the people in matters of the kingdome least of all he may sequester him from his kingdome And though he be the Angell of the Lord in his message if he be a Godly byshop for otherwise he is the Angell of SathaÌ„ yet is the King the Lordes anoynted or the Lordes Christe in authoritie but the Lords Christ in authoritie is aboue the lordes Angels in message therefore the King
a. Stap. fol. 13. b. Stap. fol. 13. b. Fol. 14. a. Cap. 3. fol. 14. b. Stap. fol. 14. b Matth. 5. 2. Cor. 11. 1. Reg. 2. ◅ Reg. 3. Psalm 112. Stapl. 14. b. Stapl. 14. b. Act. 5. A Papists cō◅cience Act. 5. Stap. 15. a. Num. 13. Iob. 8. Stap. 15. ◅ Stap. 15 16. Stap. 16. ◅ Fol. 16. 17. 18 19. 20. 21. Stap. 21. ◅ Stap. 21. ◅ Put to these the late treasons and rebellions of the Papists in ◅ng land their horrible murders and cruelties in Fraunce and Flaunders Stap. 21. ◅ Stap. 21. a. We abandon not the fayth we were baptised in bicause we abandon the Pope Stapl. 21. a. b. The booke of K. Henrie the eyght The title of Defender of the Faith. The title defender of the Faith inferreth supremacie The Papistes obiection of apparell St. fol. 21. b. Stap. 22. ◅ Magdeb. p◅ef cent 7. The Magde burgen◅es wrested Histo. Magde pref cent 7. The tyrannie of Heraclius The godly supreme gouernment of Constanti◅us Pogonotus St. Fol. 22. a Contra a◅tic Louani tom 2 Luther wrested Stap. fol. 22. a Andr Modre de Eccl. li. 1. ca. 10. St. fol. 22. b. Stap. 23. a. b. Stap. 24. a. The Popes goodnesse Stap. fol. 24. The Pope called god Extrau Ioh. 22 cum inter in glosia Cardinalis Zirabella Stap. 24. 2 The Popes patent The Vnitie that the Pope maketh Stapl. 24. ◅ Stapl. 24. a. Hallus in vita Edvv. 4. Apoc. 7. How the Pope can in deede make sainctes and martyrs Stap. 24. a. Stapl. 24. a. Stapl. 24. a. The Popes reigne in Englande Stap. 24. b. Stap. 24. b. Ecclesiasticall authoritie and authoritie ouer eccl. matters are not all one Stap. 24. b. St. 24. b. 25. a The commoditie that we haue of Papists Stap. 25. a. b. 26. a. b. How farre the Papists are frō mercy and cōsideration A difference betweene a Pap◅st and a Protestant A supreme gouernour Stapl. 2◅ b. Stapl. 28. b. Stapl. 23. b. Stapl. 28. b. Stapl. 28. b. 29. a. Fol. 29. a. b. The Papists make the gouernment of christian princes no better than the Turkes gouernment Deut. 13. 17. Rom. 13. 1. Tim. 3. Stap. 29. b. Gal. 3. Stap. 29. b. Stap. 22. b. Stap. 29. b. Heathen princes care and gouernment tended to religion Aristot. Polye 3. ca. 10. Cap. 11. Daniel 1. Daniel 6. The Papistes more iniurious to Christ an Princes than to Heathen Iohannes de Parisi◅s de po◅estate reg p◅ ca. 18. 1. Tim. 1. ◅useb lib. ◅ de vit Const. Concil Constantin 1. Aug. epist. 48. Concil Tola 3 Stap. 30. a. The papistes shift that princes are the clergies aduocates Dante 's Alegherius li. 3. Lupold de Babenb ca. 15. Stap 30. a. Though the Prince be not an eccl. person yet hath he supremacie in eccl. causes Stap. 30. b. Winchester fol. 96. 97. Stapl. 30. b. Fol. 30. b. Stap. fol. 30. b. Sta. fol. 30. b. Supra Diuis 4. fol. 65. Supra fol. 80. Fol. 31. ◅ Winchester Fol. 31. b. 32. a Cap. 5. fol. 32. a. b. Stapl. 32. Fol 32. b. Stapl. 32. b. Stap. 32. b. Stap. 32. b. Stap. 32. b. Fol. 34. ◅ The issue and state of the question betvveene the B. and M. Feck Fol. 34. b. Three kindes of ignorance ▪ Stap. 35. ◅ Supr ▪ ◅o 3. a. b Supra fol. 4. Stap. 36. a. Stap. 36. a. Stap. 36. a In erroribus Parisi◅ condemna◅s Ibidem Ibidem Tho. Aquin. super Tit. ca. 3 Sola fide Executiones manifestationes Stap. 36. a Fol. 36. a. Stap. 36. a. Contra errores Grecorum Apoc. 18. Stap. 37. b. Stap. 35. b. Stap 37. b. Stap. 38. a. Stap. 38. b. The Louanists bost they haue now foūd out the Popes title to be lure diuino Stapl. 38. b. Iohn 10. Gal. 1. Hieronimus super Mat. Ambrosius li. 1 de officijs Aug. contra Faustum li. 23 Sap. 1. Stapl. 39. ◅ Stapl. Cap. 7. fo 39. b. 40. a Stapl. ca. 8. Stapl. 40. b. Stap. 40. b. Deut. 17. Stapl. 40. b. Stapl. 40. b. Stap. 41. ◅ Deut. 17. Stap. 40. b. How subtilly the Papistes graunt princes to studie in Gods word Deut. 17. Vatablus in Deut. 17. Stapl. 41. a. In what sense the popishe Church may be graunted Catholicke Stapl. 41. a. Psalm 1. 2. Stap. 41. ◅ Stapl. 41. b. Math. 13. Stap. 41 b. Stap. 41. b. Deut. 17. Lyra in Deut. 17. 1. Reg. 4. The highe priest and the chiefe iudge mentioned Deut. 17. were two distinct persons Iohn 18. Stap. 41. b Stapl. 41. b. Deut. 17. Lyra in Deut. ◅7 Stap. 42. a. Fol. 42. a. Stap. 42. a. Stap. 42. b. Deut. 17. St. fol. 42. b Fol. 42. a Lyra in Deute 17. Sta. 42. b Supra 40. b ◅ol 42. b Chap. 9. Fol. 43. b Stap. 42. b 43. a Stap. 43. a. Stap. 43. a. Stap. 43. a. Stapl. 43. ◅ Stap. 43. a. 2. Pet. ◅ Stap. 43. a. 2. Pet. ◅ Stap. 43. a. Stap. 43. a. b Wherein master Stapleton excelleth al the Lou◅in write◅ ▪ Stap. 43. ◅ Stap. 43. b. The example of Moses and the Papistes shift◅ about it Stap. 43. b. Stap. 43. b. Stap. 43. b. Deut. 34. Sta. 44. a Deuter. 18. Act. 3. 7. Act. 7. 1. Reg. 19. Iudic. 4. A difference in excellēt Princ◅ betweene their extraord◅ giftes and ordinarie authoritie Moyses a figure of Christ ▪ not Christe a figure of Moses Deut. 17. Sta. 44. b. How the Papistes order the examples of the Scripture 1. Cor. 10. Stap. 44. b. Stap. 44. b. The rule Deu. 17. that the Papists would haue all the question ruled by and how farre it stretched Ioh. 19. Stap. 45. ◅ 45. ◅ The example of Iosue his supreme gouernment Cap. 10. Fol. 46. b. Stap. 46. b. Num. 27. Lyra in Num. 27. Stap. 46. b. Stap. 46. b. The Princes asking councel of the clergie embarres not his authoritie ouer them Stap 45. b. Deut. 17. Sta. 45. b. Stap. 46. a. Stap. 46. ◅ Stap. 46. ◅ Stap. 46. b. Lyra. Losue 8. Iosue 5. Iosue 3. Iosue 4. Cap. 8. Cap. 10. The example of King Dauids supreme gouernment in eccl. causes Cap. 11. Fol. 47. a. Stap. 47. a. The Princes supreme gouernment in ecel matters not preiudicial to the eccle authoritie Stap. 47. a. An vneuen cōparison betweene the doings of king Dauid and Q. Mary Howe the Popish priestes abused queene Mary Stap. 47. a. The Papistes shift agaynst the example of king Dauids supremacie bicause he was a Prophet Stap. 47. ◅ Stap. 47. a. 1. Par. 24. Stap. 47. a. 1. Par. 24. 1. Par. 23. It abaseth not the princes supreme gouernment to do all things accorto Gods commaundement Stap. 47. b. The keeping of the rites orders appoyn ted is not agaynst but cōfirmeth the princes supremacie The Queene appoynteth no new or st◅āge order in religion Stap. 47. b. Stap. 47. b It deba◅reth not the princes supremacie that the inferiour ministers be vnder their bishops Stap. 48.
a. Stap. 48. The papistes shiftes from Priestes to Peophets and from Prophets to Priests for the Popes primacie How highely Popâ—…sh priests esteeme of theÌ„ solues Deut. 13. 3. Reg. 22. 3. Reg. 18. Math. 7. 1. Pap. 25. 1. Par. 23. 1. Par. 24. 1. Par. 25. 1. Par. 26. Both the chiefe prophets and cheife priestes vnder the appoyntment of the king 2. Par. 29. Stap. 48. a. Carolus Magnus an vnlike match to Dauid Stap. 48 â–ª The lawe of King â—…uo Priuileges of Princes to the clergie well or yll vsed The Pope and his prelates like the Iuy Stap. 48. b. Stap. 49. a. The Queenes Ma estie by the Papists shamefully 〈◊〉 Win. Pag. 9. a. Cap. 12. Stap. 48. b. The example of the supreme gouernment of K. Salomon Salomons dedeposing the high priest Stap. 48. b Salomons example deposing Abâ—…athar applied by the papists to Queene Mâ—…rie deposing the archbishop Cran. Fol. 44. b 45 b. 47. a. 48. b The difference betwene Q. Maries and king SalomoÌ„s doings Stap. 49. â—… Stap. 49. â—… Stap. 49. a. Master Stap. question and dilemma Stap. 49. a. The difference of the phrase for the princes sacrificing and the princes de posing Abiathat The question and the dilemma returned on the papists Sup. fol. 217. a Stap. 4 9. â—… The highest priest a traytor A traytor The Bishop of Rome a traytor to the â—…mperor of Rome Stap. 4 9. a. 3. Reg. 2. Stap. 4 9 a. The ministerie and executing of Gods sentence debarreth not the princes supremacie Stap. 49. â—… The issue 〈◊〉 question Master Stap. graunteth the Pâ—…ince to be chiefe ruler in some ecclesiasticall causes What the authoâ—…tie of depâ—…sing the Pope implieth A difference betweene the chiefe â–ª ruler of ecclesiasticall causes and the chiefe doer of them The example of king Iosaphats supreme gouernment Cap 13. Sta. 50. a. Sta. 50. a. Wherein christian Princes must go beyondâ—… kâ—…ng 〈◊〉 hat 2. Par. 20. Sâ—…a 50 a. Iosaphat direc ted ecclâ—…siastical matters not by the commandement but by the aduise of the prests Sta. 50. a. Sta 50. a. Sta. 50. a. Sta. 50. a. Psalm 2. Sta. 50 a. In cle si Rom. N 22. de prebendis Supra 205. a. Stap. 50. a. b. Sta. 50. b. Stap. 50. b. How contemp tuously the papistes esteeme of the examples of the scriptures 2. Par. 17. Preachers sent of the prince Lyra in 2. patal 17. The princes progresse about religion Lyra in 2. paral 19. Vatablus Lyra. Iustices of the peace Lyra. Stap. 50. b. Sâ—…apl 51. â—… The princes forme and order in proceeding Stapl. 51. â—… Stap. 51. â—… Religion only proceedeth froÌ„ God the preaching proceedeth from the ministers the direction and ordering from the Prince Stapl. 50. b. The Papistes denie not only the Princes go uernment of ecclesiasticall matters but also of ecclesiastical persons Supra pa 47. â—… Stapl. 5â—…â—… King Iosaphat did not deale sclenderly in ecclesiasticall matters but as his chiefest charge 2. Paral. 19. Lyra in 2. Paral 19. Nothing ecclesiasticall or temporal exeÌ„pted from the chief ouersight of the Prince no not of the cases Deut. 17. that the Papists chiefly boast vppon Stap. 51. â—… The iniuÌ„ctioÌ„â—… of princes for the obseruatioÌ„ of ecclesiastical matters and threates of displeasure for the breache of them Lyra in 2. Paâ—…al 19. The king iudged ecclesiasticall causes in that his debiâ—â—e iudged them 2. Paral. 19. Stap 51. b. Diuine matters not excluded from the kings office The priest the princes commissioner 2. Paral. 17. Stap. 51. a. Lyra in 2. Paral. 19. Vatablus Sta. 50. a. The prince commandeth the Priest. Fol. 52. a. The example of king â—…zechias supreme gouernment in ecclesiastical causes 4. Reg. 18. 2. Pat. 29. Stapletoa Caput 14. Fol. 52. b. Lyra. Ecclesiasticall matters by K. Izechias newly established To be readie and seruiceable to fulfill Gods determination debarreth not the Princes supreme gouernment Ezechias executed Gods commaundement and the clergie the coÌ„maundement of Ezechias Lyra in 2. Par. 29. 2. Par. 29. Lyra in 2. Par. 29. Lyra. Iniunxiâ—… 〈◊〉 Praecepit renouationem diuini cultus Imagines Idololatriae multas The popishe fond destinction of â—…mage and Idoll 4. Reg. 18. The Princes predecessors disposing debarreth not his supreme gouernment The subiection to Gods commaundement embarreth not the Princes supreme gouernment The doing it by the handes of the prophets or any other embarreth not the Princes supreme gouernment Stap 53. â—… The asking counsell of others debarieth not the Princes supreme authoritie in the doing 2. paâ—…al 30. Lyra in 2. Par 30. Sâ—…ap 53. â—… Ezechias did many things neuer so done before â—… Paâ—… 30. Lyra in 2. Paral. 30. Lyra in â—… Paral. 3â—… 2. paral 31. The commendation and application of K. Ezechias Stap 59. a. A proper shifting answere muche vsed by M. St in these examples Supra 50. b. Stap. 53. a. Daniel 7. Apoc. 12. Gal. 1. The name of ministers 1. Cor. 4. 3. Reg. 18. Daniel 14. Stapl. 53. a. The popish priestes now not like the true prophetes The Papistes shifte from Priests to Prophetes Fol 53. a. The example of King Iosias his supreme gouernmeÌ„t in ecclesiasticall causes Sta. Caput 15. Stapl. 53. a. b. 4. Reg. 23. 2. Par. 34. 35. Lyrâ—… Iosias trauaile by his kingly authoritie Stap. 53. a. b. The trauailes of good catholike princes Whether we or the Papists let vp Idols Sta. 50 a. How the popish prelaâ—…s vsed christian Princes Howe the Q. Highnes follo with the ensample of Iosias 4. Reg. 23. Monkes and Nunnes celles pulled downe Sta. 53 b. Stap. 53. b. Master Stap. stragleth from the marke and calleth on the Bishop to kepe him to the marke The issue in question betvvene the Bishop and master Fecknam Sup. â—…ol 136. a M. Stap. settes vp ix â–ª nevve markes both differing from M. Feck and the Bâ—…shops issue and also from his ovvne former marks and yet cryes oâ—…t on the B. for straying from the question The Papistes play like the Lapvving The issue Stapl. 53. b. M. Stapletons first falâ—… marke The kings agnising the high Priest in the old testament inferreth not that they agnised him their â—…npreme gouernour St. fol. 53. b. St. fol. 53. b. M. St. second false marke The conferring of the Q Maiesties doing with these auncient and godly kings The Papistes vaunt of 1000 yeares antiquitie The Papistes dare not stretch their crake of antiquitie to Christe or to 1500. yeareâ—… and vpvvarde Galat. 1. Stap. 54. a. M. Stap. thirde false marke In the proofe of the supreme gouernment the proofe of euery particuler fact is not necessarie The issue betweene the B. and M. Feck The taking an othe The othe to the Pope The high priest in the olde law did not as the pope doth novv The kingâ—… in the olde lawe charged their clergy on their priesthood for eccl. matters Sta. 54 â—… Stap. 54. â—… M. St. fourth false marke The Prince abandoneth not godly bishops though he abaÌ„ don the Pope The abandoning of the
on a vvrong principle M. Saunders examples of a vvoman and a chylde M. Saund. argument not only excludeth a vvomen and a chylde but also a man from the supreme gouernement The Papistes are culpable of womens doing eccl. actions Diuers thinges that women cannot wel do themselues and yet can well ouersee them done by others 1. Corinth 4. Saunders 59. Saunders 59. Esaie 62. Hebr. 10. 1. Conn 10. How the kinges or the prestes or the Churches authorities are greater or lesser in sundrye respects M. Saunders graunteth the gouernmentes of the Church in the old testa ment to bee a figure of the Churches gouernment in the new testament Saunders 60. Leuit. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. M. Saunders argument of the more worthy beast offered in Sacrifice The difference in the things offred made the difference of worthinesse in the offerer Leuit. 2. Leuit. 3. Leuit 8. Leuit. 9. M. San. argument from the dignitie of the former recital M. Saunders confutes himselfe Sand pag. 60. Philo in lib â–ª de victimis The testimonie of Philo Iudeus Euseb. lib. 2. cap. 17. Origenes in Leuit 4. Allegories How Philo maketh the Prince inferior to the people The example of a body naturall conserred with a bodie politâ—…ke sand pag. 60 â–ª Wherfore God ordayned these diuersiâ—…ies of sacrifices Why the prists sinnes are first reckoned Leuit. 4. Lyra. Why the priest offered the Bullocke â–ª Lâ—…ra in Leui. 4 Why the peoples sinne is reckoned in the secoÌ„d place The Churches vniuersall igraunce Leuit. 4. Glosse interlineata Why the people offered the like thing that the priest offered Sand. 60. M. Saunders contrarieth himselfe Sand 60. Psal. 104. Hebre. â—… Num. â—… Ierem. 33. Annoynting Psal 44. Saunders 60. Iohn 13. Math. 24. M. Saunders graunteth the ministers to be lesse than the people Saunders 60. Saunders 60. Iosephus de Antiq. â—…udaic lib. 3. cap. 10. sand pag. 60. Theodoretus in Leuiticum quest 1. Procopius in Leuiticum Sand pag. 61. Hebre. 7. Leuit. 9. The Priests blessing Daniel 3. Saunders 61. 3. Reg. 8. Hebre. 7. The Papistes shifte for salomons blessing the people Lira in 3. â—…e 8. The people blesse the king 1. Reg â—…6 1. Reg 20. Iosue 14. 4. Reg. 10. Tob. 7. Iudith 13. sand pag. 61. 1. Reg. 8. M. Saunders woulde make the king gouernement to be contrarie to the priests and prophets blessings The Popes blessing and cursing Psalme 101. The question Among all the Iudges but one priest and one prophete gouerned the Churche of God. Rom. 9. Wherewith God was offended for the peoples demanding a king 1. Reg. 10. Lyra. 1. reg 10. The kings estate immediatly froÌ„ God and aboue al other representeth him Saunders 61. Psalm 95. The Popisâ—…e priesthoode hath no resem blance of God. The tyrannie of the Popishe Priestes gouernment Sand. 61. Sand 61. Difference betweene the kings vâ—…ces his office Priestes leade the people to Idolatrie The highe Priestes before the building of the temple The highe Priestes after the building of the Temple Nâ—…hem 13. Iosephus lib. 1â—… â–ª anti ca. 7. Nehem. 13. Iosephus lib. 12 ca. 4. 2. Mach. 4. 2. Mach. 4. Ioseph li. 13. ca 4. Whether the priests or the Princes gouernment among the Iewes were worse Sand. 61. Gregorius in 1. reg li. 4 ca. 4. Gregorie brought out of place Gregories sentence contraries it selfe Howe Gregories sentenceis graunted vâ—…to Gregorie acknowledged the princes supremacie ouer himselfe Gregorie reproueth them that called him vniuersal Pope The title cheif of the priests or chiefe priest improued in in the Popes owne decrees Saunderâ—… 61. The king and the priest made for the peoples cause The kingâ—…e state made for the honor of Christ and represented Christe as well and better than the priests estate Rom. 4. How farre the kingdome of christ surmouÌ„teth his priesthood Math. 6. Saunders 61. 2. Corinth 3. Comparison betwene the ministers of the olde and new testameÌ„t Math. 20. Mark. 10. Luke 22. In outward glory the ministers of the new testament are inferior in inward glory superior Sand pag. 61. Saâ—…d pag. 61. Psalm 2. Math. 10. Kings ought to be learned The Popishe priestes would be princes mai sters and gouernors vnder preâ—…ence of teachers How the teachers are aboue and vnder the princes whom they â—…eache Exodus 18. 2. Reg. 12. Iudith 8. The Simlitude of a scholemaister Howe the prince thoughe himselfe not learned directeth lawes for learning Sand pag â–ª 62. Math. 28. From teaching to gouerning is no good coÌ„sequence Succession of the Apostles consistes in teaching The Pope teaching not as Peter Paule did is not their successor Sand pag. 62. Esai 49. The similitude of a nource Sand. 62. See Chrysost. in C. 13. ad Rom. Hebr. 13. The respectes of a king of a Christian and of a man. Deut. 17. The Christian Prince regardeth further thaÌ„ the natural or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 M. Saunders would dissuade vs hoÌ„ the Prin ces supremacie by the successe thereof The Papistes rayling and sâ—…laundering of K. Henry 8. Sand. 63. Epistola Iudae K. Henry 8. â—…claundered to 〈◊〉 his subiects King Henry 8 selaundered with counterfeyting the coyâ—…e What coyne the Papistes counterfeited King H. selandered with his wiues Leuit. 18. 1. Paral. 15. King Henrie not the firste that toke vpon him this supre macâ—…e King Henrieâ—… prosperitie after hee had expelled the Pope sand pag. 63. The Papists de facings of K. Edwarde The Prince sclaundered to take an ecclesicall primacie If K Edwarde were as full a king as his father then he had all the right of his father Sand. 63. Christes age when he begaÌ„ to preach Distinction be twenâ—… the kigs nature and hâ—…s person and his office Saunders 6â—… Gal. 4. The doings of the kings gouernors in his nonage at the kings owne doings Sand. 63. M. Saunders preuention answere to our obiection A childe maye be a king euen by Gods lawe ImperfectioÌ„ of the person inferreth not im perfection of the lawe Saunders 6â—… The more the Papistes discoÌ„mende king Henrie the more it redouÌ„deth to his coÌ„mendation The Papistes argument of a childes successioÌ„ to blemishe the supremacy doth rather confirme it Saunders 63. 1. Tim. 2. The shortnesse of King Edwards raigne no argument against his authoritie Queenes Maries raigne shorter than king Edwards The supremacie of a woman 1. Tim. 2. The vnderstan ding of Saint Paules sentence for womans silâ—…ee and subiection pag. 59. Caietanus in 1 Tim. 2. Catharinus in 1. Tim. 2. 1. Cor. 14. Saunders 63. Queene Maries refusall of this title If the reasoÌ„ of the sequele be ought loke on the euents in Queene Maries raigne after hir refusall of the supremacie Saunders 63. How the Papists sclander the Queene The prosperous successe of the Queenes Maiesties raign since hir first taking on hir this supremacy â—… Sand pag. 64. M. Saunders graunteth to Princes to assigne the tyme and place to Councels M. Saunders speaketh contraries The Papistes make Princes but as priuate men in their Councels Sand.
vp another Robins hoods lawe How readie popishe priests are to stuâ—…e vp rebellion sand pag. 79. The Princes throne called the chaire of pestilence The Popishe Priests professe to remoue the Prince by whatsoeuer meanes they can A pestilent doctrine Sand. 78. Hebrs 13. What the Popishe Priestes watch for 2. Pet. 5. sand pag. 79. sand pag. 7â—… The danger of euil Princes commoditie of godly Princes to their people Iob. 34. Sand. 79. 3. Reg. 12 The example of Ieroboam that M. sand alledgeth maketh cleane against him 3. Reg. 13. 14 3. Reg. 12. He that will not become a traytor is not worthy with M sand the name of a maÌ„ sand pag. 79. Act. 20 Tit. 3. No good argument from the Priestes iudging of the Prin ces doctrine to his iudging of the Princes diademe Act 20. Priestes corrupt and blind iudgements Matth. 23. M. sand fallation a secunduÌ„ quid ad simpli citer Hovv far the Papistes make kings inferior to Byshops The fable of the Lyon and Fox sand pag 79 Psalm 2. 1. Cor. 2. Dani. 2. 7. The heauenly and earthly kingdome are not so ioyned that the Byshops may be earthly kings The Apostles and Martyrs deposed no kings Sand pag. 79. To this purpose saith PoÌ„ponius â—… â–ª Cum quid mutuum de reb creditis M. Saunders obiection and answere Whether a Bishop may take a kingdome vpon him pro perly or vnproperly The Princes promise The breach of the Popes and of his Prelates promises The Princes breach of promise authoriseâ—…h not Bishops to depose him The example of Saule and Dauid What bishops may do or not do to princes hauing broken their promises Howe Princâ—… haue bene deposed What rule may be gathered by suche deposingâ—… of Princes Deposing of Princes by the Prelates practises Heb. 10. What subiects may do when the Prince breakes his promise Rom. 1. The right meanes that the B may vse when the prince breaketh his promise The combate betwene the Cardinall of Columne and the Pope The princes promise in theâ—… baptisme The Bishops promise in Paptisme is the same that the princes is The papistes shift to kâ—…pe their liuings for all their promise broken The priestes partialitie The contracte made to christ in Baptisme The king promised not to renounce his kingdome when he was Baptised The subiect promised not to renounce his Prince at Baptisme D. Stories error in defending that subiects misliking their princes may forsake them What we all promised in Baptisme The example of a contracte in mariage Math. 14. Promise brech in mariage As the priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the man the woman so the B. caÌ„not separate the prince the subiect sand pag. 79. 80. 1. Cor 10. Math. 19. M. Sâ—…ers examples of King Lucius King Clodoueâ—…s The state of infants not like these Princes M. Saund presupposals of these two princes are false King Lucius his baptisme Aimonius li. 1 de gestis Francorum ca. 16. The order how King Clodoueâ—…s was baptiâ—…ed Here was no sech conditioÌ„s of deposing exacted of the Bishop in the Princes baptisme The sâ—…uerie that M. Saund. woulde bring Princes into pasieth the Spa nishe â—…quisition The promises and threates of God that the auncient prophets declared vnto kinges M. Saunders presuppose admitted The Popishe Bishops seeke more than the Christian fauh The kings examination of the Bishops condition M. Saunders presupposall admitted once agayne The kings diligent trauell to discharge his charge performe the condition The kingâ—…â—…ration Sand pag 80. Daniel 7. Esai 60. Luc. 10. Math. 16. Daniels prophecie wrested M sand to be suspected of beeing a Milenarie here â—…ke â—…say wrested The Prophete speaketh of the Church the Papists applie it to the priests The glory that the prophet vnderstandeth mystically the Papists vnderstand it literally The Papistes the Iewes sored in one error of dreaming after worldly glory â–ª Christs senteÌ„cs wrested Luc. 10. Iude. epist. Christes sentencâ—… wrested Math. 16. The gates of hell sand pag 80. Rom. 1. Domesticall forain enimies What a perillous enimie the Pope is Whether the king or the B. in M. sand presupposal be more enimie to the Church â—…pe can Christes â—…er â—…tth 4. he cause of â—…aith â—…edience of What thepâ—…inces will ought to be Sand. 80. 〈◊〉 14. Byshops translatioÌ„s of king domes this way or that way Whether the kings promise in baptisme stretch to suffering the Bishop to depose him The kings mi nistration to Christ and his Churche Hovv the king oughte to forsake his life or his kingdom 1. Cor. 3. Lucae 21. Luke 14. sand pag 80. Christian king domes are not mere seculer 1. Reg. 15. 2. Paral. 26. 1. Reg. 15. Leo in epist. 2â—… alias 75. Supra pag. M. Saunders contradiction and legerdemayâ—… M. Saunders seeth now that ChristiaÌ„ Princes are spirituall The Churches disposition of things indifferent To whome in the church the disposition of indifferent things belongeth Things meere spirituall and things spirituall in some respect Meere spiritual thinges may not be otherwise disposed What kinde of thing the state of a King or kingdome is The Churches freedome mysticall The Popishe Churche 1. Reg. 15. The example of Samuels anoynting of Saule M Saunders confutes him selfe The Churche coulde not depose Saule though he were a tyrante and an Apostata Prouerb 8. Dan. 2. Sand. 81. M. Saunders bious conclusion The Bishops ministerie in the making of the king Samuel Pope Leo his sentencâ—… sand pag. â—… Chrysost. Homil 4. in verba Esaiae The kingeâ—… anoynting In Extrauag de Maiorit obed Vnam sanctam The Bishops consecratioÌ„ of a king The diuerse significations of oyle in the scriptures No necessitie of anoynting Kings In Extanag de Maiorit c sand pag. 81. 〈◊〉 1. Ioh. 20. Epiphanius in Hares 29. 1. Cor. 15. M. sand case if Christ were here bodily conuersant in the earth M. Saunderâ—… case vnrtue Act. 3. Math. 24. Christes humaine nature not in the Sacrament If Christ vvere in hiâ—… humaâ—…n nature in the earth vvhat superioritie shoulde be giuen him What kingdoÌ„e Christ vvoulde take vpon him he vvere here in earth How the pope vvould order him 2. Thess. 2. 2. Thess. 2 The Churches promotion Math 20. What povver the ministers haue Math. 28. Iohn 20. Difference of povver Glossa in Lyra super Ioh. Epiphanius in Haeres 29. Sand. 81. 82. Math. 20. Gal. 5. Hebr. 10. Ephes. 4. Hebr. 13. Math. 28. 1. Cor. 4. 1. Cor. 5. 2. Cor. 2 7 Math. 16. Rom. 8. The difference and vnion of both povvers temporall and spirituall Supra pag. 791. Supra pag. Hovv the povver of all estates are vnder the pastors povver and hovv not Hovv they are all vnder the kings povver hovv not How â—…ere is no difference in these povvers Hovv there is a difference in these povvers The mixture of these povvers sand pag. 82. 1. Cor. 2. Rom. 10. Ciuil gouernors from the beginning as auncient as spirituall pastors M. sand malice against the name of
kings Supra 799. sand pag. 82. How M. sand esteemes of al other men that denie that which he affirmes M. sand contradictions Christion prin ces power is not onely an earthly power sand pag. 82. Not we but the Papistes confound both powers sand pag. 82. 2. Cor. 3. 1. Reg. 8. The due and true spiritual Power The Popishe spiritual power How the princes power is earthly howe heauenly Supra 791. The Princes power came from christ Prouerb 8. Christ a sauior as well in that he is a king as in that he is a Priest. How both the Princes the Bishops pouer pertayne to heauen and minister life sand pag. 82. Rom. 12. 1. Cor. 12. Ephes. 4. The Popishe Churches iurisdictions sand pag. 82. 83. M. Sand presupposall of the Princes doing iniurie to the Church or suffering it The Pastors admonition to Princes doing euil The Prince not the Priests onely gouerneth the churche of God. M. Saund. presupposall retorned on the Priestes doing iniurie to the Prince or suffering it The Popishe Priestes will only admonishe them selues How roughly the Popishe Priestes will admonishe them selues Difference betweene admonishing gouerning deposing The Priestes ouer hastie remedie to ameÌ„d the Prince â–ª sand pag. 83. Math. 18. sand pag. 8â—… 3. Reg. 1â—… Remedie agaynst offences and dangers The inconueniences of the Popish remedies The danger of the Popishe doctrine sand pag. 83. Psal. 86. Math. 16. 1. Cor. 5. Iohn 21. Math. 16. The Churche of God not left destitute of medicines for suche diseases Luc. 2â—… Collos. 1. Psalm 12â—… Psalm 56. Math. 5. M. Saund. corruption of the text against Princes Excommunication Who should be auoyded and how by Saint Paules meaning 1. Cor. 5. How a vitious king is to be shunned and iudged The testimony of S. Paule returned on the Popish Priests Rom. 13. Gene. 18. Peter not the chiefe pastor of the Church How M. sand ex o â—…deth these wordes fede my shepe How Peter fed the shepe of Christ. 1. Peter 2. How M. sand applies binding losing of Princes sand pag. 83. A shameful abusing of Christs saying M. Saunders shift sand pag. 8â—… Ieremie 1. The Princes charge for misusing his sworde Psalm 2. If the Prince abuse his sword the spirituall minister maye not take it froÌ„ him The Papistes wresting the senteÌ„ce of god to Ieremie How Ieremie pulled downe and set vp kinges and kingdomes Lyra in Ierem. 1. These thinges were done loÌ„g after Ieremies time Ieremie is said to doe them bicause he fortolde them The doer of them was only God such instruments as he vsed which were no Priestes not Prophets Ierem. 45. Ierem. 42. How the Pope shoulde set vp and pul down kings kingdomes if he will followe Ieremie The sentence spoken to Ieremie applyed to Christe Glossa in Lyra in Ierem. 1. How the Ministers of Christ oughte to pull downe let vp kingdomes Lyra. Ierem 1. Glossa in Lyra What maner of conquest of kingdomes this is sand pag. 83. Iohn 18. Math. 13. Iohn 15. Iohn 1. In ca. 18. Ioh. M. sand answere to this obiection My kingdome is not of thys worlde Iohn 18. The Popes kingdome worldly M. Sand 〈◊〉 by distinction of this wordr the worlde The naturall sense of world ly kingdome Glossa in Lyra Lyra. in Ioh. 18. Ferus in Iohn 18. Christes kingdom expelleth no temporall Princes from their Dominions The significations of the kingdome of Christ. The difference of these kingdomes The error of the Papists Ludolphus de vita Christi parte 2. cap. 61 The Pope and his Prelates kingdom confuted by the Papists them selues August in cap. 18. Ioan. S. Augustine thought not that the kingdome of Christ hindreth vvorldly kingdomes sand pag. â—…4 Christ a king as he is God man. The Papistes confound the veritie of his manhoode Ioan. 18. Ferus in â—…o 1â—… The manner of Christes kingdome Hovv Christ ruleth The feoftmeÌ„ts of Christes kingdome Supra 797. Sand. 84. Math. 28. Rom. 14. Psal. 8. In Ioan. li. 4. ca. 12. Psal. â—… 1. Cor. 15. Rom. 9. The gouernement of Christ 1. Cor. â—… Adams kingdome Sand. 84. Ioâ—… 21. Math. 16. Math. 28. Peter not tâ—… first Pastor Marci 16. Ioan. 10. Christe vseth not a vvorldly kingdome by the Administration of the spirituall misters Sand. 84. Ioâ—…n 6. Luke 1â—… M. sand shifting off the examples of Christes fleeing from being a vvorldly King and refusing to be a â—…vorldly Iudge The cause of Christes refusal vvas not on ly in the originall least it should seeme to come of theÌ„ Ferus in 10. 6. The causes vvhy Christe fled from a vvorldly king dome Christe vvould not giue any occasion of sedition The Popishe Prelates of an other iudgement than Christe The Papistes compared to the carnall Ievves Carnal pastors M. Saunders shift to Christs refusall to be a iudge Luc. 12. What the man thought of Christ â—…hat vvould haue him a iudge Hofmeister in Lucâ—… 12. Why Christ tooke not on him the 〈◊〉 of a Magistrate Christ abolished not the Magistrats office though he himselfe refused it All iudgement of all temporal matters not vtteâ—…ly debarred from the spiritual Ministers â–ª What kind of iudging is debarred sand pag. 84. Lucâ—… 12. Though all things all to be referred to gods kingdom yet the kingdoÌ„ câ—…nsists not in all things 1. Coâ—… 10. Rom. â—…4 How worldly things belong to the kingdome of God. How the spirituall ministers of Christ may haue a bâ—…ance of worldly things In what respect they belong to theÌ„ to al the faithfull in what respect they belong not vnto them How the Popishâ—…â—…relates would haue worldly thiÌ„gs The Papistes haue no measure in hauing the cormorants no measure in pulling away In what parte and respect the beleeuer in Christ hathe left off to be of the world S. Aug. wrested by master Sanders How faithfull kingdomes leaâ—…e off and how not to be of the world Aug â–ª in tractatu â—…n loa 11â—… Howe euery faythfull is a king in a mysticall sense but not in a literall sense sand pag. 84. M. sand styll vvrestes thys vvorde the vvorldâ—… The simple literall meaning of Christ in â—…aying â–ª Hys kingdome is not of thys vvorlde The opinion oâ—… the Ievves that offred him the kingdome His Disciples opinion in cra â—…ng preâ—…erment in hys kingdome Math. 20. Hovve Christe ruleth Christian Princes Hovv M. sand vvould haue al Christendome and a greate parte of Heathenesse subiecte to the Pope Iohn 18. sand pag. 84. Tit. 3. Whether it vvere a vvicked deede for Bishops to depose a vvicked king Thoughe the subiect be not bound to obey the vices yet he is bounde to obey the state Thoughe Bishops can not depose Princes yet Princes can depose Bishops The vices that he surmiseth on Princes are apparante in the Pope and his Prelates sand pag. 85. What the prea cher may do agaynst a vvic ked Prince No bodily punishment of the King belongeth to the Bishop What may be
Popes cru 〈◊〉 to his cap tiueâ—… vnlike the cuâ—…sie of Elizeus Elizeus caused the kings messanger to be kept out of the 〈◊〉 4. Reg. 6. Elizeus resisted not the King in keeping out his Mesâ—…anger Lyra in 4. Reg. 6. Caleâ—…anus in 4 Reg. 6. Elizeus cursed the children that mocked him and the Beares deuoured them 4. Reg. 2. Glossa cum 〈◊〉 â—…a in 4. Reg. â—… Sâ—…nd 87. Zacha. 13. Deut 17. 2. Cor. 3. Where faithful princes wanted 〈◊〉 Prophet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mâ—…nt to â—…od The obedience to the 〈◊〉 oâ—… nee 〈◊〉 to Christianitie by M sand ar gument No neede of myracles Zacha. 13. Zacha. 13. The prophecie for punishing of false Prophetes The punishment of false Prophetes belongeth to the Prince The popishe clergie be such false prophetes as Zacharie prophecied of The fountaine of grace Idolatrie Teaching of lyes Ignorance Hipocrisâ—… of rough garmâ—… The detection and punishmeÌ„t of popery prophecied by Zacharie The wresting of the comâ—…oÌ„ alleaged place Deut. 17. Zacharie 11. Zacharies prophecie of the Pope Lyra in Za. 11. The Pope an Idol Glossa cum Lyra. sand pag. 87. Deut. 17. 1. Cor. 3. The ministration of the popish ministerie sand pag. 87. 2. Paraâ—… 26. Aug. Quest. lib. 2. q. 40. The example of king Ozias attempting to offer incence The pope readier to casâ—…e Princes out of heauen than to bring the into heauen In what case a Bishop maye excommunicate a â—…icked Prince The Priestes withstoode the king but not with any bodily violence â–ª 2. Paâ—…al 26. Caietanus in 2 Paâ—…al 26. The Pope dealeth not with Princes as Azarias did 1. Tim. 3. Gal. 2. This king was neuer deposed for all this offence sand pag. 87. Leuit â–ª 13. 1. Cor. 10. 2. Paral. 26. The similitude of leprie compared to heresie Aug. â—… Quest. 2. Q. 40. A similitude of man is no manifest testimonie of the vvorde of God. This similitude is applied of the Papistes to other things The Priest did but discerne of the disease and not dispossesse men of their goods The excluding of the Leper from coÌ„panie belongeth not to the priest Num. 5. The texâ—… of scripture 〈◊〉 alleagâ—…d This law was Iudicial and so vve are not bounde to it nor it is any figure to vs. S. Paule vvrested Haymo in 1. Cor. 10. Rom. 15. Math. 13. 1. Cor. 7. The morall or mysticall signification of separating the leper separareth not the â—…king from his kingdome The example of king Ozâ—…s confuâ—…es M. sand figure This figure maketh agaiÌ„st popish priests not against protestant Princes sand pag. 87. 3. Reg. 11 â–ª 3. Reg. 12. Malach. 2. The example of Ioiada the high priest that caused Athalia to be killed Ioas to be made king M. sand confuse citing of the scripture No king is here deposed but an vsurper killed Lyra in 4. Reg. 11. The doings of Ioiada were vpon such occasioÌ„n that they can not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 example The close nou rishment of so as by the high priest his vncle in the Temple was extraordinarie Lyra in 3. Reg. 11. The close doing of Ioiada argueth he had no ordinarie authoritie In what respect this doing belonged chiefly to the high Priest. Lyra in 3. Reg. 11. That which Ioiada did he did it not by his owne authoritie but by consent of the prin ces nobilitie Wherein Ioiadaes facte may be drawne to an example In what respect ioiada had knowledge of the Kings causes The King might haue knowledge in the Byshops causes 2. Paral. 23. 4. Reg. 12 How the king delt with the priests for their â—…blations Glossâ—… in Lyra. Ioas gouernement ouer the priestes stretched fâ—…ther than to money matters Howe the B. is a sequester betweene God the Prince The B the Lords Angell or Messanger and the Prinâ—…es the Lordes Christe or annoynted The euent of 〈◊〉 off al wâ—…rres and â—…umults if the Pope might de pose and set vp all Princes The hurlie burlies that the Pope haâ—…h made The popes wiâ—… kâ—…d peace if it were admitted M. Sand arguments out of the new Testament Mar. 5. Iohn 2. 1. Cor. 5 â–ª 1. Tim 1. Act. 5. Faultes escaped in the prince Faultes Corrections good ministers good ministers 232. 〈◊〉 24. the summâ—… the 〈◊〉 316. 〈◊〉 23. the reasâ—… the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 377. 〈◊〉 8. secundâ—… secundâ—…m 386. lin 12. tamen 〈◊〉 tamen â–ª 391. lin 14. also â—…ll 〈◊〉 403. lin 21. renouned 〈◊〉 408. lin 16 â–ª that is that it is â–ª 408. lin 34. in the in 〈◊〉 410. in the 〈◊〉 treaâ—…ise 〈◊〉 432. lin 24. peccatum peccati 469. lin 10. together thether 512. lin 10. godly 〈◊〉 541. lin 32. let hiâ—… to let him 577. lin 12. dealing deale 581. lin 20. whom against whome 593. lin 14 â–ª yuo you 599. lin 2. et despetto de diâ—… in dispetto di dio 599. lin 9. yemay he may 605. lin 19. causes is causes as 617. lin 5. as who though B. as though the B. 625. lin 31. though follow though it follow 632. lin 28. giuing giuâ—… 636. lin 9. reddit reddite 641. lin 10. not not onely 636. in the margine but yet â—…r elsâ—… 649. lin 1. so long so farre 652. lin 22. Emperors the Emperors 674. lin 11. about about it 705. lâ—…n 12. as are 717. lin 2. that that that yet 721. lin 8. is simply â—…s simply 731. lin 19. grautned graunted 732. lin 19. or if the or if in the. 767. lin 30. prioris prioribus â–ª 788. lin 22. which was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was not 824. lin 5. you youâ—… 83â—… lin 16. â—…ereth 〈◊〉 955. lin 10. not onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lin 12. the breast their breast 〈◊〉 lin 34. can do more câ—… do no more 865. lin 22. qualle equally 866. 〈◊〉 15. thereof thâ—… of 881. lin 21. authoritie of 〈◊〉 authoritie and. 897. lin â—…4 is a Cathoâ—… 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 â—…08 lin 26. inconuenâ—…t incompetent 915. lin 14. ye the yet he 925. lin 16. that 〈◊〉 that it is 928. lin 25. and in deede and then in deede 959. lin 20. or couetousnesse our couetousnesse 1024. lin 2. or ambition our ambition ibidem lin 2. or dainteâ—…es our dainteynes ibidem lin â—… sprake speake 1042. lin 17. that that that 1045. lin 2. the that 1056. lin 1. there thereon 1107. lin 22. from so from ibidem lin 32. Manie other faultes are escaped in the printing by reason the author vvas not alvvayes present but they are such as thou maist gentle reader thy selfe correct them