all their actions of their offices or vocations Ye conclude not a like M. Stapl. but subtilly and falsely ye alter the state of the conclusion if ye made your argument aright ye should make it thus as the Prince intermedleth not in the seuerall actions of his temporall subiects offices or vocations so he intermedleth not in the seuerall actions of his Ecclesiasticall subiectes offices or vocations This is the right illation of the sâ—…militude and thus it maketh nothing against vs Which you espying in the place of intermedling thrust in gouerning concluding â—…alsely bicause he is no intermedler in the one that therefore he is no gouernour of the other But the â—…urder ye wade in this similitude the more ye labour against the streame For as although the Prince intermedle not with the Fathers the Masters the Schoolemasters the Pilotes seuerall actions in their offices or vocations yet he ought to ouersée that euery one of these and all other his subiects do their owne proper actions belonging to their vocations and offices dutifully yea not onely to make lawes for them all as subiectes but also for their seuerall estates and degrées besides not for him selfe to exercise but for them to worke in their vocations so the Prince beyng likewise gouernour of Ecclesiasticall persons so well as of any other aforesaide although he intermedle not with the seuerall actions of their vocations yet ought he to ouersée them that euery Ecclesiasticall estate do their proper actions dutifully and also to make Lawes and Orders not for him selfe but for them in their degrées and vocations to exercise and obserue the same And thus your similitude euery way maketh quite against you M. Stapl. how be it you will proue it better ye say For the better vnderstanding whereof it is to be knowne that before the comming of Christe Kings were there many but Christian Kings none Many coÌ„mon wealths were there but no Christian common welth nor yet godly coÌ„mon welth properly to speake sauing among the Iewes but cluill and politike The ende and finall respect of the which ciuill common wealth was and is vnder the regiment of some one or moe persons to whome the multitude committed them selfe to be ordered and ruled by to preserue themselues from all inwarde and outwarde iniuries oppressions and enemies and furder to prouide not onely for their safetie and quietnes but for their wealth and abundance and prosperous maintenance also To this ende tendeth and reacheth and no furder the ciuill gouernment And to the preseruation tuition and furderance of this ende chiefly serueth the Prince as the principall and most honorable person of the whole estate whiche thing is common as well to the Heathenishe as to the Christian gouernment Is this all that ye will aforde christian Princes M. Stap. what a heathenish doctrine is this to make Christen princes and Heathen princes gouernment all one What if Christen princes as they haue right good cause beginne to startle at this that ye make their estate no better before God than is the great Turkes And what if one should answere that ye not onely sclaundered reprochfully all the estates of Christendome nowe liuing or that shal be or haue bene since Christes comming but also wickedly deface all the godly Kings and rulers before Christes comming Melchisedeck Dauid Salomon c. beléeuing in Christ to come as Christen Princes now beare the title of Christ already come And yet dare you saie that before the comming of Christ Kinges were there many but Christian kinges none Doâ—… ye dallie on the tytle and name of Christian or meane ye the tytle and effecte of christianitie if ye meane so as ye must néedes meane if ye meane any thing materiall to the purpose ye are very iniurious not onely to those Kings but to their subiects yea to their common weale also And yet ye say further their common wealth was but ciuill and politike and vvente no further than outwarde peace tranquillitie welthe and prosperous maynteinance which is the onely ende of their gouernement and that it reacheth not any iote further What if one should bidde you looke further in the scripture and so ye should finde it stretche somewhat further than to be common with the great Turkes gouernement What if a man should presse you with your owne wordes afterwarde that yet catche it more than one inche further for assisting of the Churche vvith the temporall svvorde which the great Turke the great Chan the Persian Sophie doth not but drawe their swordes agaynst it What if a man should referre this among your contradictions What if he should ioyne another withall that where yet ye confesse the Iewes common vvealth was godly before Christes comming and other common wealthes were not godly and yet the ciuill gouernement of Christian princes reacheth no further than the ciuill gouernement of heathen princes and one finall ende is common to bothe and so eyther the Heathens common vveales were godly also or else the Iewes were vngodly too yea what if the heathens coÌ„mon vveale and heathen Princes fell out to be in better estate of the twayne if only quietnesse vvealth abundance and prosperitie were the onely and finall ende of bothe if ye were well vrged in all these thinges thinke ye M. Stap. these your principles would be able to defende you yea lastly if one woulde denie these your Heathen and Turkishe maximies bring ye any thing to proue them than your owne bare saying that it is to be knovvne But no true Christian knovveth it M Stap. nor will euer acknowledge this which with suche bolde impudencie ye grounde vppon that christian Princes gouernement reacheth no further than ciuill and outvvarde safetie vvealth abundaunce and prosperitie and is common asvvell to heathen as to Christian princes Neuerthelesse M. Stap. taking it for a rolled case and out of question rolleth vp the matter as graunted And as he hath thus determined the boundes of Christian Princes gouernement so as it were by commission from his holy father he descrybeth the Popes kingdome But ouer and besides sayth he yea and aboue this is there an other gouernment instituted and ordeyned by Christ in a spirituall and a mysticall body of such as he graciously calleth to be of his kingdome â–ª which is the kingdome of the faythfull and so consequently of heauen wherevnto christian fayth dothe conduct vs In whiche spirituall body commonly called Christes catholike Church there are other heades and rulers than ciuill Princes as Vicars Parsons Byshops Archbyshops Patriarkes and ouer them al the Pope VVhose gouernement chiefly serueth for the furtherance and encrease of this spirituall kingdome as the ciuill Princes doe for the temporall That there is another mysticall body the kingdome of the faythful directed by an other spiritual gouernement this is a true principle M. Stap. and truer than you wéene or would haue it But as you are deceiued and would deceiue others with the title of that
vpon thē selues to whō they properly appertayne who in deede denie both Chryst the head and Christ the body that is his catholike Church And that as the Donatistes secte was condemned by Constantine Honorius and other Emperours the highe kings of Christendome So haue they withall condemned you master Stapl. that followe the Donatistes and so may and ought all christian Princes the Emperour nowe whose highe kingdomes besides a bare name in any matter of Christianitie ye make nothing to pull downe suche vsurpers of their highe kingdomes and set vp true and godly ministers in their places to whome they might and ought to submitte their heades vnder their spirituall ministerie To the whiche sorte as is shewed playnely out of Chrisostome your Popishe Priesthoode is cleane contrarie And therefore to returne your wordes vpon your selfe Ye are they that cutte in sunder the vnitie and peace of Christes Churche and rebell agaynst the promises of his Gospell Which Gospell ye can not abyde should come to light and therefore the highe kinges of Christendome should remoue and condemne you Whiche is a better argumente than yours M. Stap. and is sufficient to inferre the supremacie of these highe Kings and Princes The. 23. Diuision THe Bishop in his diuision prosecuting still the wordes of S. Paule Rom. 13. proueth further out of Chrysostome and Eusebius that as the Prince is Gods minister so this ministerie consisteth not onely in ciuill and temporall but also in the well ordering of the Church matters and their diligent rule and care therein The effecte of his argument is this The Prince as Chrysostome sayth prepareth the mindes of many to be made more appliable to the doctrine of the worde and is the great lighte and true preacher and setter foorth of true godlynesse as Eusebius sayth Ergo His ministerie consisteth as well in ecclesiasticall as ciuill causes The antecedent Eusebius proueth by the example of Constantine that his ministerie stretched to the setting foorth of godlynesse to al countreyes and that he preached God and not onely ciuil lawes by his Imperiall decrees and Proclamations And this he confirmeth by Constantines own confession that he taughte by his ministerie the religion and lawe of God that therby he caused the encrease of the true fayth And by the same put away and euerthrewe all the euils that pressed the worlde But the world in Constantines time was pressed with diuers schismes errours heresies false religions and many ecclesiasticall abuses and superstitions besides the heathen Idolatrie Ergo His ministerie stretched not onely ouer temporall causes but also ecclesiasticall Yea he counteth this his best ministerie Ergo. It belongeth to the Prince as well if not more than the other And so the Bishops argument followeth héerevpon that the Apostles sentence the Prince is Gods minister argueth the Princes charge and gouernement in all maner causes ecclesiasticall so well as temporall These proues of the Byshop béeing so euident M. Stap. answereth they are all insufficient saying I see ye not master Horne come as yet neere the matter I answere who is so blinde as he that seeth and will not see Were ye not of the number of those of whome Chryst sayth I came to iudgemēt into this worlde that those that see not shoulde see and those that see shoulde be made blind Ye might then both clearely see that he both cōmeth neere the matter and satisfieth it at large Excepte ye be as blinde of the matter also as ye pretende to be of these the Byshops proufes But if ye woulde haue followed your owne counsell euer to haue set before your eyes the state of the question in issue betwéene them ye shoulde well by this time haue seene that the Byshop digressed nothing frō it And that your selfe of self will or malice will not looke aright theron but cleane awrie stil starting aside and swaruing frō the marke for the nonce to picke occasions wheron to wrangle For wherfore I pray you do ye not see that the Bishop commeth not neere the matter I see not say you that Constantine changed religion plucked downe Altares deposed Byshops c. But that he was diligent in defending the olde and former faythe of the Christians Whatsoeuer you see or see not in Constantine master Stapl. all the world may see false dealing in you and how lyke an vnnaturall subiecte to your naturall Prince ye be As thoughe ye sawe that the Quéenes highnesse had changed religion excepte ye meane false religion and that ye might haue seene in Constantine also He changed the heathen religion of the Paynims and abolished it with all their Altares Byshops Priestes and temples and set foorth the true religion of Iesus Christe He chaunged likewise and abolished suche superstitions Idolatries schismes errours and heresies as troubled the Churche of Christe in his time Which you might easily haue seene in Constantines owne wordes by the Byshop cited That he put away and ouerthre we all the euils that pressed the worlde If you say ye can not yet see that he ment all spirituall and ecclesiasticall euils so well as temporall put on a payre of spectacles master Stapl that are not dymmed with affection and then shall ye see that of suche kinde as the good thinges were whiche he set foorth of suche kinde were the contrarie euils that he put away and ouerthrew but the good things that he set foorthe were true godlynesse decrees of God the religion of the moste holy law the most blessed fayth c. All whiche are matters moste spirituall and ecclesiasticall Ergo all the euils that he abolished were so well spirituall and ecclesiasticall as ciuill and temporall matters If ye say yet ye see nothing but that he was diligent in defending the olde and former fayth of the Christians True in deede neither can ye see any other thing in the Quéenes Maiestie nor any authoritie is giuen héereby to Princes than as Constantine was to bee diligente in defending the olde and former fayth of the Christians founded by Christ and taught by his Apostles And if any other since that time haue brought in any things besides that old and former fayth to remoue the same and reduce vs to the olde and former fayth of the Christians For as Tertullian sayth That is of the Lorde and that is truthe that was before deliuered but that which afterward was thrust in is bothe strange and false And so sayth Constantine I bothe called agayne mankind taught by my ministerie to the religion of the most holy lawe and also caused the moste blessed fayth should encrease grow vnder a better gouernor Nowe séeing that many poynts of the Popish fayth and doctrine haue cropen in since that time and manie of later yeres besides and contrarie to the olde and former fayth of the Cheistians taught by Christ and left vs written by the finger of the holy ghost sealed and confirmed by so many myracles to endure to the
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
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
they ought to pay tribute or no. And that this was a great questioÌ„ betwixt theÌ„ And that Iudas Oalileus a mouer of conspiracie a rebellious traytour M. St. an English renegate a like mouer of seditioÌ„ are of one opinioÌ„ y tribute ought not to be payde But Christ was of a coÌ„trarie opinioÌ„ all true subiects ought to follow Christes opinioÌ„ that tribute ought to be be paide And so doth Origen expouÌ„d Christes wordes When they shewed Christ a penie and Christ asked whose inscriptioÌ„ it was and they said it was Cesars He answered that they ought to render vnto Cesar the things that are Cesars and that they ought not to defraude him of those things that are his owne vnder the occasioÌ„ of godlines And likewise the same Origen saith Some thinke it simply spokeÌ„ of our Sauiour render to Cesar that is Cesars that is to say TributuÌ„ reddite quod debetis render the tribute that ye owe Quis enimâ—…ostruÌ„ de tributis reddendis Caesari coÌ„tradicit for who gainesaith it that tributes ought to be payd to Cesar Forsoth that doth M. Stapl. saying they might but they ought not Hilary likewise an auncient Father saith Igitur an violaret c. Therefore they trie him whether on the condition of the question propounded he would violate the worldly power An videlicet reddi tributum Caesari oportet whether tribute ought to be rendred to Cesar c. And when they sayd it was Cesars he said Caesari reddenda esse c. The things that are Cesars ought to be rendred to Cesar. And againe wheÌ„ he decreeth that the things that are Cesars ought to be rendred to him Likewise Basilius Magnus VVhen they had said Cesars he replied render c. wherein we be manifestly taught that those are bounde to the tribute of Cesar with whom the monie of Cesar is founde c. Likewise Chrysostome That the things that are Cesars ought to to be rendred to him Likewise S. Ambrose Et tu si vis c. And thou if thou wilt not be bounde or thrall to Caesar haue thou not those things that are of the world but if thou hast the riches of the world thou art bound to Caesar. If thou wilt owe nothing to the earthly King forsake all things and follow Christe And before decerne ye well what thinges ought to be rendred to Caesar. Likewise S. Augustine Sed quia Manichaei c. But bicause the Manichei vse openly to blaspheme Iohn let them heare euen the Lord Iesus Christ Hoc stipendium iubenteâ—… reddi Caesari Commaunding not permitting this stipende to be rendred to Caesar. And on these woordes of S. Paule to the Romaines Omnis anima Let euery soule be subiect to the higher powers Si quis ergo If therfore any body thinke that bicause he is a Christian he ought not to render taxe or tribute or that honour ought not to be giuen due to those powers that care for these things he falleth in a great errour But that meane ought to be kept which God him selfe prescribeth that we should giue vnto Caesar the things that are Caesars and to God the things that are of God. Likewise Theophilactus Arbitrati se c. Thinking they should smooth him with prayses they flatter him that being milked he should say Non deberi Caesari tributum Tribute ought not to be payde to Caesar and therevpon they might take him as a seditious man and mouing the people against Caesar and therefore they bring the Herodians with them that were the kings men to apprehende him as a sturrer of new things Thou regardest not say they the person of any man that speakest nothing to get the fauour of Herode and Pilate Tell vs therefore Debemus hominibus Ought we to be both tributarie to men and to giue them taxe as wel as to giue taxe to God or shall we giue to God onely or els to Caesar also this they spake as I sayde that he should say that tribute ought not to be giuen to Caesar c. Thus we sée againe their question whether they ought or no. But Iesus by this coyne that was figured in the Image of Cesar â–ª Persuadet illis debere Caesari Perswadeth theÌ„ that those things are owing to Cesar that are his that is those that haue his Image Both in corporal and in outward things we must obey the king but in inwarde things and spirituall onely God. Thus al these ancient Fathers are flat against ye M. St. and expound this saying not that they might but that they ought and that we ought to obey our Princes And thus do your owne popish writers although partiall to your Pope yet herein reproue you Reddit c. quia reddere debitum est bonuÌ„ iustum Render c. bicause to render that that is due is good and iust And all the popish Postilles that I haue séene Poligraâ—… Ferus Hofmeister Râ—…yard c. affirme on these wordes that tribute ought to begiuen to Cesar and obedience ought to be giuen to Princes And none of them that I can yet finde founde out this fine conceyte that they may but not that they ought to do it Now on their side ye stretch so far the other words giue that vnto God that belongeth to God that as though they were cleane contrary to the former ye say they take away a supreme regimeÌ„t but sée how while ye would séeme so knuckle déepe in Diuinitie ye quite take away your Popes chalenge all For if it take away a supreme regiment how doth your Pope chalenge a supremacie in déede ye spake truer than ye wist for such a supremacie as he claimeth is onely due to Christ God Man to no simple Creature Prince Prelate or any other Wherfore he ought not to vsurpe it but giue it vnto the owner The supremacie that is due to godly Princes is neither such as the Pope claimeth nor is derogatorie in any Iote from the dutie that is to be yéelded to god But is the ministerie appointed by God to gouerne and direct according to Gods worde the boundes of Gods Church that God hath limited to his rule and ouersight And therefore that which you alleage out of Hosius of Spaine S. Ambrose that vsed euen these wordes Et quae Dei Deo against the Arian Emperour Constantius and Ualentinian the yonger are quite besides the purpose Thâ—… Queenes maiestie taketh not on hir nor claymeth any such absolute supremacie and dealings as they twayne vsurped It is but your common sclaunder But sith ye onely touche it saying whose wordes we shall haue an occasion hereafter to reherse I will therfore with you referre the examining thereof to that your occasioÌ„ of rehersal only here I note this your folly contradictioÌ„ in citing these fathers allegations If this sentence be onely to be restrayned to the Iewes bare demaund if it meddle only with Tiberius
made a King Quéene alone Now to this he addeth out of Esai saying Esai foretolde that kings shoulde bee the nourishers of the Church of Christe and casting dovvne their countenance to the earth shall vvorship hir and streight he adioyneth thou shalt knovv that I am the Lord for this verely is the signe that the Lord raigneth in vs if vve yelde so much vnto his church that the Ministers of Christe are greater than any King or Queene As this sentence is placed both withoute all order and coherencie so the reason is very sclender and standes on this that the Priests are the Churche that Esai here speakes on which as it is apparaÌ„t false so it is not to this purpose For the supreme gouernment of a godly Prince giueth not onely an honour to the Churche but to the Priests also and yet his supremacie safe But sée how this sentence hits him as the rest For if kings and Quéenes be likened to Nourses and Nourses haue charge not onely of féeding but also of gouerning then do Kings Quéenes both féede the Church although not by teching yet by causing the truth to be taught and gouerne the Church also And if by the Church is chiefly ment the priestes then the same kind of Princes feeding and gouerning like to Nourses stretcheth to priestes also and so the similitude makes against him His other argument of dispensing Gods mysteries and Sacramentes to the king is diuers times alreadie aunswered vnto and therefore as superfluous I passe it ouer And thus farre for his argumentes of his Priestes superioritie Nowe secondly to the reasons he sheweth why he thinkes vs deceyued But thus in this case deceiueth many that they see the king is a Christian and gouerneth Christians For they knowe not or at least will not know what difference it is whether a man goueren a Christian bycause hee is a man or bycause hee is a Christian. The king indeed gouerneth Christian men but not bycause they are Christians but bycause they are men And bycause the Byshoppes also themselues are men the kings also in part are aboue Byshops The which hereby goeth cleare away if wee consâ—…ider Christian kings not onely to gouerne Christian men but euen alike oftentimes Iewes now and then Moores and Tartars for this onely that they are kings But Byshops gouerne Christians so as they can gouerne no other as they are Byshoppes Sith therefore the gouernement of the king pertaineth to all men alike but Byshops principalitie is reached to onely Christians and sith the state of our Christianitie excelleth the humaine nature that is in vs with what sence is he endued that preâ—…erreth the gouernoure of our bodily and fleshely nature before the prieste that watcheth for our soules and that either loseth our sinnes if wee make worthie fruites of repentance or bindeth them if we beare about an impenitent heart For the Ministers binding and loosing is an other question Let vs nowe kepe vs to this of the Princes supreme gouernment We are deceyued you say for lacke of considering this difference that the king gouerneth Christians not as Christians but as men and we thinke you arâ—… deceyued your selfe M. Saunders and would 〈◊〉 others for not considering this difference in the king him selfe in whoÌ„ we ought to consider not onely that he is a king but also a Christian king In that he is a king he geuerneth aâ—… his subjects as ye say a like so farre as the likenesse or 〈◊〉 of their sâ—…ates will permit whether they be Christian Iewes Turkes Mores â—…aitars Ethniks or whatsoeuer religioÌ„ they be of not in respecte of their religions nor in the they are 〈◊〉 neither but in respect they are his 〈◊〉 For ther are other men also that are none of his subjectes â—…ra euery man in that he is a man is no subiect to another man but frée Neither in that he is a christian to speake preperly of the abstracte he is vnder any other than Christe in whom there is no difference of countrey state degrée or person as your selfe afterwarde coÌ„fesse in the 4. chapter How â–ª beit as the king himselfe is of the Christianâ—… religion and a Christian king of a christian kingdome as al kings kingdomes ought to be although they be not so hath he an other charge and gouernement of his christian subiectes farre aboue that they be naturall men or this or that cruÌ„trey meÌ„ euen that they be christians committed to his gouernment And therefore this charge was giuen the king of Gods people in his institution Dâ—…ute 17. That he should haue Gods worde alwayes with him and make religion the chiefe end of his gouernement And this your selfe haue graunted alreadie pag. 80 excepte ye will contrary your selfe as ye often doe But this case is too apparant that a christian Prince regardeth further than the body or than the naturall or polytike man For being a christian Prince he regardeth them as christian subiectes and not alike to such subiectes as are Heathen Turkes and Tartars which is a shameful sclander For as the christian Prince hath a speciall regarde to his christian subiectes before his Infidell subiects so they being subiects of vnlike condition he gouerns them nothing a like The one being out of the houshold of fayth although in the housholde of his kingdome The other being of bothe the housholdes and therefore the faythfull Prince hath fuller authoritie ouer them as wel for the religion of their soules as for their goodes and bodies But saye you the Byshoppe bath respecte only to the soule I say still would to God your Byshops had so But doth this hinder the Princes superioriue that hath respect to soule and bodie too The argumentes of Constantine Theodosius and Constantius are somewhat touched alreadie and I reserue the further handling of theÌ„ to the practise and treatise of the stories The 3. part of this chapter is a dissuasioÌ„ from the Princes supreme gouernment by the successe thereof Wherin first he begins with the most famous Prince King Henrie the. 8 the Queenes Matesties father the noblest and moste fortunate king that euer bare crowne in England now when his soule is crouned in the kingdome of heauen with eternal glorie his body with honor interred in his Sepulcher his immortal fame yet fresh liuing in the memorie mouthes of al nations sée these spitefull Papistes will leaue off with more than villanous reproches moste traiterously to rayle vpoÌ„ him Saying that he first called himself the Chief head of the Church of England Ireland immediately vnder Christ Besides that he was neuer the happier but much more vnhappie Upbrayding his wiues vnto him The couÌ„terfeting of the money and the pilling of his subiects â—… wicked Papistes past all shame and grace Howe truely dyd the Apostle Iude prophecie of you that 〈◊〉 â—…ulers and blaspheme â—…hem that 〈◊〉 authoritie Was King Henrie the
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