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
most herein ye would haue him either beleue first ground him self on your false principles or else would ye sâ—…e beshrew him for traueling one whit therin and fal as fast to besech him to let the matter alone except he wil before hand on your word beleue that this supreme gouernmeÌ„t belongeth to your pope And hauing so gotteÌ„ his grauÌ„t on this which is the coÌ„trouersie it selfe theÌ„ ye besech the gentle reader most diligently to labor trauell in this controuersie But the reader may sée with no great trauell for y matter that as ye â—…etract your duty froÌ„ your prince so ye ascribe a great deale to much to your pope For where to win the reader to your partie ye say that all controuersies in effect depend vpon this Ergo admit this admit al deny this deny al the antecedent in déed in your popish church is true Where they make al articles of religioÌ„ to depend vpoÌ„ him But in christs church it is true of none other but of christ alone Upon whoÌ„ being the corner sâ—…one rock al the building is fouÌ„ded ariseth in whoÌ„ being the only chiefe vniuersal hâ—…d all the members haue lyfe all controuersies in effect depeÌ„d Admit his supreme authoritie admit all his religion Denie his supreme authoritie denie all his religion But it is not so of any limited and secondarie head or supreme gouernour in any particuler Churche of Christians That all articles or any article of fayth dependes on the Princes gouernement but the Princes gouernemeÌ„t depends on them to ouersee them duetifully set foorth And when the Reader séeth this that the Prince claymeth not an absolute Supreme gouernement and that it is your Pope onely that taketh this absolute Supromacie on him and you that giue it him then I trust the reader will not be so wonne with your fayre words which make fooles fayne as he wil abhorre your slaunders on your Soueraigne and detest the open iniurie ye offer to Chryst the onely head to make all Articles depende on your Popes supreme authoritie Nowe whereas for this ambitiouse clayme of your Pope ye alleage here nothing to fortifie the same ye thinke ye shall winne it yet at the least this way if with dispitefull raylings ye may beforehande discredite vs to the Reader and so winne credite to your selfe thereby Ye argue thus The Protestantes whom odieusly and falsly ye deuide into many sects are at mutuall and mortall enemitie among them selues but al conspire agaynst the primacie of the Pope Ergo a good resolution once had in this poynt stayeth and setleth the conscience as vvith a sure and strong anker from the insurgies and tempests of all sects and schismes This argument might as well make for Mahomets religion or any other neuer so false as for the Popes to reason from the aduersaries diuision among them selues or agréement of them selues agaynst his religion to a truthe and perfection in his false religion And thoughe the argument faile alike bothe in the Pope and the Turke yet it holdeth in Christes primacie and onely in him agaynst Pope Turke Sectarie or any other deuided from him Chiefly agaynst the Popish church wherin are diuers infinite sects errours and al at mutuall and mortall enmitie amongst them selues and yet all conspire with the Pope agaynst Christ and his truth Ergo a good resolution once had in Christ his truth stayeth and setleth the conscience as with a sure and strong anker from the insurgies and tempests of all sects and schismes This argument thus framed had bene better and truer and not to make the Popes supremacie or the exalting of any creature in heauen or earth to be the anker holde and stay of our consciences besides Christ and his truthe Which sithence all Papistes do by this your confession they can haue no good resolution resoluing them selues amisse leaning to a broken Réede Where they say Pax pax peace peace non est pax impijs dicit dominus there is no peace of conscience at all nor any sure ankerholde to stay vnto Maledictus qui confidit in boinine poâ—…it carnem brachium suum And therefore if Protestants yea al Sectaries or Schismatikes though they can not agrée amongst them selues yet if they all hate thys moste Antichristian doctrine to grounde their faythe on man no meruayle though they hate it it is so wicked and detestable that euen good and badde and all abhorre it After he hath taken this pro confesso that the anker holde of conscience consisteth in setling him selfe on the Popes primacie he reasoneth on the contrarie effecte Contrary vvise they that be once circumuented and decea ued in this Article are carryed and tossed vvith the raging vvaues and flouds of euery errour and heresie vvithoute stay or setling euen in their ovvne errours True in déede Master Stapleton if ye had rightly shewed withall what it had bene to be circumuented and deceyued in this Article otherwyse ye doe but lyke an vnskilfull and harebrayned Pilote herein that to auoyde the rocke thinketh him selfe sure and safe when he hath caste hys anker on the quickesandes or rather euen in the goulfes mouthe and so I warrant him also as you saye he shall not néede long to feare to bée caryed and tosted wyth the insurgies and tempestes of the ragyng waues and flouddes but soone be swalowed vp and drowned in them But Master Stapleton not considering or not mynding to warne the reader of this to much trusting to a false Pilote but to terrify him further wyth feare of forsakyng this Popishe ankerholde and to confirme thys argument of the contrarie effecte reasoneth from the instancies of dyuers ensamples And first of the Gréeke Churche arguing thus The Grecians forsooke the vnitie of the romaine Church Ergo they fell after to be Arrians Macedonians Nestorians Eutichians c. and in conclusion fell into the Turkishe captiuitie This argument besides other faultes hath chiefly two hoamely and foule fallations that make it vâ—…cious The one à secundum quid ad simpliciter from the Churche of Rome limitted to that tyme that it was not stayned with those errours to the Churche of Rome simplie that since that time hath falne it selfe partlye into some of those errours partly into other as great and many worse The seconde fallacion is à non causa vt causa for theyr fall was into those heresies not bicause they acknowledged not the Bishop of Rome to be their supreme heade for therein they had played like the Flownder that lept out of the frying panne into the fire but bicause they forsooke and peruerted the worde of God as the Papists since haue done and their â—…ares itched and aâ—…iended to the inuentions doctrines errors of men to lying masters as the papists haue done also This was the proper cause of their fall into these errors and of the Papists fal into the like or greater And where M. St. ioyneth to his
they were most earnest fautors of the romish sea infected c. Whether they allowed it or not what was that to him in this parte of the practise he proued by their owne tales the thing to be practised not their allowance or disalowance thereof And yet might they yea ought also being Historians to write the facte whether they allowed it yea or no. As for making the Pope to be Antichrist diuerse of them haue not spared to call him so whether they tooke him to be so or no I referre to others But all this not withstanding you crie out these things be certenly and notoriously false these things be incredible M. Hornes tale incredible These thinges hang togither like Germaines lips But for short answere M. St. these incredible things if your owne light witte did not hang in the light of your owne liyng lippes ye might see them hang togither well inough Thus much to your counterblast on the B. Preface ⧠M. Feckenhams title of his Booke THe declaration of such scruples and stayes of conscience touching the Othe of supremacie as M. Iohn Feckenham by writyng did deliuer vnto the L. Bishop of VVinchester with his resolution made thereunto This title the Bishop noteth to conteine an vntrue reporte and ambiguous guile You pretend saith the B. and would haue your frendes to thinke that the first foure chiefe pointes set forth in your booke were deuised by you put in writing and so deliuered vnto me as the matter and ground Whervpon the conference to be had betwixt me you should stande and that I made therevnto none other but such resolutions as it pleased you vntruly to reporte In the first parte you conuaye an vntruth vnder a colourable and ambigious meaning in these wordes as M. Iohn Feckenham by writing did deliuer vnto the Lord B of VVinchester In the other parte you make vntrue report with out any colour at all Thus saith the B. to M. Feckenham for the false title of his Booke To this M. Stapl â–ª counterblast consisteth on foure points the first is that It is a by matter which whether it be true or false doth nothing either preiudicate or touche the principall question To the which I answere it is in déede but the very title but I feare me it is somwhat preiudiciall to the parties honestie also to his whole treatise to be entituled with a manifest lie Howbeit M St. doth wisely for himselfe to set the matter so light that it should not force whether this title be true or false so long as it doth not touche the principall question for by this rule M. Stapl. counterblast being almost litle els than by matters nor touching the principall questioÌ„ when soeuer as it will fall out very often he shal be sounde to make a lie the matter may quickly be salued with this his first rule it is a by matter which whether it be true or false doth nothing either preiudicate or touche the principall question And so this one answere may serue to defend not onely M. Feck but the best parte of M. Stapl. counterblast But if he had any great regard of his owne or M. Feck honestie or would winne credite to his booke cause he would haue more regarde then euen of the thing that is first of all chalenged for a manifest falshood to protest that he recketh not whether it be true or false It is a signe either of a very rechlesse defender that careth not for truth or of a very false client and cause that must be defended with falshood that euen in the very title front of the treatise But alas what should M. St. els do in so euident a case yet I may say to you he setteth a good face on the matter leauing out nothing that may séeme not only to make the matter lesse haighnous but also to proue that M. Feck vsed simple dealing herein And so secondly entring into the excuse of M. Feck VVhat incoÌ„uenience saith he is it I pray you though M. Feck wrote in the towre that which he deliuered to M. Horne at walthaÌ„ â–ª what inconuenience foloweth I pray you if he minded first to deliuer the same to his examiners in the Tower or els where as occasion should serue is this sufficient to disproue him to condemne him to slaunder him of surmised vntruth it is rather to be thought of such as are not malicious to be playne dealing â–ª not to dissemble with you but euen as he had penned the writing before so without any alteratioÌ„ to deliuer it â–ª who neuerthelesse afterwarde hauing occasion to exhibite and present the same writing to others did simply without guile or deceipt signifie it to be deliuered vnto you at walthaÌ„ â–ª and was it not so denie it if you caÌ„ Euery childe by this may see how fonde and foolish your cauill is But euery childe M. St. you thought should not see the couneyance of your Sophistrie in fetching the matter thus about the bush to clere M. Feck of the falshood of his title And yet many childreÌ„ know that captioÌ„ wel inough à pluribus interrogatâ—…s by asking many things togither confusedly to make vs grauÌ„t vnawares what ye please to conclude We graunt ye that M. Feck wrote that in the Tower that he deliuered to the Bâ—…at walthaÌ„ he did so and might do so without any inconuenience We graunt ye also he minded first to deliuer the same to his examiners in the tower or els where as occasioÌ„ should serue this might he also haue done conueniently You aske againe if this be sufficieÌ„t to disproue him to condemne him to slauÌ„der him of surmised vntruth We graunt ye also it is not M. St. nor the B. or any other goeth about so to do here in you do but slaunder the B. with surmised vntruth Ye procéede that it was plaine dealing and not to dissemble with the B. euen as he had penned the writing before so without any alteration to deliuer it We graunt it might be so also M. Stapl. if he meant good sothe but what is all this to the matter wherewith the B. chargeth him It followeth VVho neuertheles afterwarde hauing occasion to exhibite and present the same in writing to others did simply without guile or disceit signifie it to be deliuered to you at Waltham Yea forsooth M. St. now ye come to the purpose wherewith the B. chargeth him for the falshood of his title Proue now that this treatise thus made by M. Feck in the tower directed to the coÌ„missioners after that without any alteration deliuered to the B. at waltham had the same title which this his treatise set out hath then you cléere M. Feck But this you can not do and therefore you speake in â—…ious speaches saying VVho neuerthelesse afterwardes hauing occasion to exhibite and present this same writing to others did simplie without guile or deceit signifie it to be deliuered vnto you at