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
suum sub manu Aaron patris eorum sicut praeceperat dominus deus Israel These are theyr courses after their ministeries to enter into the house of the Lorde and according to theyr manner be vnder the hande of Aaron their father as the Lorde God of Israel hath commaunded Which last wordes ye beginne withall and ioyne them to the first parte as thoughe the Lordes commaundement had béene of Dauids appoyntment where it was onely of the obedience of all the Tribe of Leuie to be vnder Aaron and his successors in the ministerie which in deede was Gods statte commaundement But the appoynting of the courses to those mencioned in that place was Dauids commaundement euen as your selfe doe say it was King Dauids appoyntment And the Chapter before of the lyke argument playnlye sayeth Iuxta pracepta quoquè Dauid 〈◊〉 c. And according to the last commaundements of Dauid the Leuites were numbered from twentie yeare and vpwarde to wayte vnder the hande of the sonnes of Aaron in the seruice of the house of the Lorde But admit that these wordes Sicut praeceperat c. as god had commaunded be to be ment as you pretend of a speciall coÌ„maundement to Dauid so to dispose those courses as ye expound it he did nothing without gods coÌ„maundement Is this again I pray you any argumeÌ„t to improue his supreme authority next vnder god bicause he did al things sicut praeceperat dominus as the lord had coÌ„maundéd then by this same rule yourpriest should not haue the supremacie neither for I am sure he had no further priuiledge to do against or beyond Gods coÌ„maundement no more than Dauid had It is your Pope that thus stretcheth his claime to do beyonde all Gods forvoade and contrarie to Gods commaundement but little or nothing sicut praeceperat dominus deuâ—… Israel as the Lord God of Israel hath coÌ„maunded As for the Quéenes Maiestie hath not done or doth any thing more than Dauid did which is sicut praeceperat c. as God hath commaunded hir to do And syth Gods commaundement vnto Dauid stretcheth to the placing appointing both aboue vnder in their orders of sacrifices eueÌ„ of all the leuiticall priesâ—…es it strengthneth hir cause the more that she hath not onely the bare example of King Dauid but also the warrant of Gods commaundement for the supreme gouernement of all hir clergie to place them in their seuerall functions Secondly ye say ye haue to note that king Dauid did make appoyntment vnto them of no straunge or new order to be taken in religion but that they should serue God in the temple iuxta ritum suum after their owne vsage custome or maner before time vsed Secondly we note to you againe M. St. that you interprete his sayings ambiguously and applie it maliciously Ambiguously bicause thoughe Dauid neyther made any straunge or newe order to be taken in Religion nor yet in their vsage custom or maner of their ceremonies commaunded of god and so vsed before his time but saw euery thing dutifully obserued both sicut praeceperat dominus iuxta ritum suum as the Lord had coÌ„manded after their owne order yet in their courses and in other circumstances diuers of his orders were new and strange vnto them and of his owne appoyntment And diuers ceremonies that were iuxta ritum suum according to their own order hauing been neglected by the priests and become straunge vnto them those he redressed iuxta ritum suum according to their own order and sicut praeceperat dominus as the Lorde had commaunded But what serueth this howe soeuer ye expounde it to infringe any supreme gouernement in king Dauid bicause the Prince is bounde not to alter the Priestes rites and ceremonies béeing appoynted of God Ergo he is not supreme gouernour in séeing them kéept accordingly might ye not rather argue contrarywise The prince is bound not to alter religion nor those orders that God hath ordeyned bringing in straunge and new Ergo he is bound to ouersée care and prouide that those orders be onely kept and none other brought in And if princes had alwayes looked to this their duetie more narrowly than they haue done then had not your Pope and popishe Prelates broughte in so many vayne traditions false doctrines and superstitious ceremonies as they haue neither iuxta ordinem suum according to their owne order nor sicut praceperat dominus as the Lord commaunded On the other part this your application is a malicious slaunder to the Q. highnesse For she hath not made or appointed to be receiued any strange or new order in religion but reuoked the olde primatiue order of religion ordeined of Christ and hath appoynted the ministers of God to do their dueties secundum ritum suum according to their owne order sicut praeceperat dominus as our sauiour Christ by him selfe and his Apostles hath prescribed to them It is your Pope and Papall Church that offreth strange fire to God that hath appoynted erected those strange and newe orders in religion and therfore hir maiestie hath worthily abolished all those false priests with their strange and new orders and all their false worship of God and in that hir highnesse thus doth she sheweth hir selfe to follow Dauids eâ—…sample like a godly supreme gouernour Thirdly and lastly say you king Dauids appoyntment was that they should serue in the house of God sub manu Aaron patris corum as vnder the spirituall gouernement of their father Aaron and his successors the high Priests Héere agayne to the shew of some aduauntage ye translate sub manu which is vnder the hande importing attendant at hande in their ministerie to the high Priest vnder the spirituall gouernement as thoughe they were exempted from the kings gouernement and so you make your conclusion saying The which words of the Scripture do so well and clearely expresse that king Dauid did not take vpon him any spirituall gouernment in the house of god c. This conclusion is captious and yet not to the purpose There is a difference betwéene spirituall gouernment and gouernment ouer spirituall â—…cclesiasticall matters This ye should conclude not that if ye will confute the bishop And this gouernment ouer spirituall matters tooke Dauid on him the other that is the spirituall gouernment he left entier vnto the Priests without any preiudice to their ecclesiasticall authoritie as ye graunted before And as Dauid therin did so doth the Quéenes Maiestie nowe But what maketh this agaynst king Dauids supreme gouernment that the inferior priests Leuites in their ministeries offices were by the kings appoyntment vnder the hande or spirituall gouernment of their spirituall father Aaron and his successors the high priests as you translate the text Is it not also the Q. Maiesties appoyntment that the inferiour Ministers should serue in their functions vnder the spiritual gouernment of their bishops and bicause it is hir
â–ª for the which he was cast out of the house of the lord Moreouer Ioatham his sonne gouerned the house of the king and iudged the people of the Lorde VVho seeth not the bodily casting foorthe of the king oute of the house of the Lorde clerely to expresse that ecclesiasticall power whereby kings taking vpon them the offices of Priests maye be caste out of the kingdome of heauen by the excommunication of the highest Bishop Moreouer if bicause the king was made a Leper the administration of the kings house and the gouernment of all the people was deuolued vnto the kinges sonne howe muche more the infection of heresie which as S. Augustine saythe is signified by the leprie ought to bring to passe that a Prince beeing driuen to the state of a priuate life maye be compelled to leaue his house voyde vnto hys successor This storie of king Ozias as it is already cited by M. Stapleton and was not before forgotten of M. Sanders so héere and in diuers other places it is recited Neither is there any one Popishe writer on this question of Supremacie but he alleageth this exaÌ„ple And as they thus often alleage it so is it often by vs answered and in déede it is casie to be answered for it is not to the purpose and but their malicious slaunder to burden the Protestant Princes with it who take not vpon them to do the offices belonging to the Bishops and Ministers of Gods word and Sacramentes as héere Ozias attempted to do If you can name any suche Prince and such things name them hardly M. Sand but proue it withal else you are but a slaunderer of those that be in authoritie But here M. sand applies this exaÌ„ple to this that the highest Bishop may excommunicate such a Prince and cast him out of heauen Whether your Pope be the highest Bishop or no is still another question But this is out of questioÌ„ M. sand that he is alwayes more ready to cast a Prince oâ—…t of heauen thaÌ„ to bring him into heauen and to caste him out of his kingdome too than to let him enioy it especially if he deale with him although he do not as Ozias did but do the dutie of a godly Christian king But who denieth this M. sand that a godly Bishop may vpon great vrgent occasion if it shall be necessarie to edifie Gods Church and there be no other remedie to flée to this last censure of excoÌ„municatioÌ„ against a wicked king although you can not inferre any suche necessarie conclusion vpon the allegorie of this example But what is this for the expelling him out of his kingdome â–ª and for deposing him from his estate Can you proue that Azarias and his Priests did handle Ozias thus For this is the present question but this you can not finde they dyd and therfore this example serueth not your purpose Well say you they vsed a bodily casting out of the king out of the house of the Lorde Trow you M. sand they tooke him by the héeles cast him out or by the head and the shoulders â–ª thrust him out I trow not that they layde any violent hands vpon him They withstoode him but it followeth how they saide vnto him It pertayneth not to thee to burne inceÌ„se vnto the Lord but to the priests the sons of Aaron that are coÌ„secrated to offer incense Go foorth of the SaÌ„ctuary for thou hast traÌ„sgressed thou shalt haue no honor of the Lord God. This was no resistaÌ„ce M. San. to blam him for his wickednesse wheÌ„ he regarded not their sayings but was wroth with theÌ„ was eueÌ„ ready to offer the incense God stroke him with the leprie So that it appeareth they laid no violeÌ„t hands on him but rebuked him yet in his fury he had done it had not God him self with his sodayn vengeance stopped him If they had béene so disposed béeing forty valiant men besides the highe Priest they might haue wroong the Censor out of his hande and might haue pulled off the Priestly garments from his backe for so Iosephus telleth how he came into the Temple howbeit they resisted him not in suche violent â—…rte But say you when they espied God had once striken him with the leprie then quickly they thrust him out But not with violence M. Sanders Non explicatur expulsio c. saythe your Cardinall of Caieta thrusting him out is not expressed but the Priests when they sawe the Leprie warned the leprous king to go foorth Neither néeded he then any great warning Sed ipse c. For the king himselfe beeing terrified made haste to get out bicause he felte foorth with the stroke of the Lorde so that he was not only moued of the priests but also moued of him selfe féeling the 〈◊〉 of God to go out of the Temple What great violence was here done of the Priests to the King except their rebuking or warning of him either before his presumptuous attempt or after Did they strike him No God stroke him M. Sanders and not the Priests for all they were so many tall fellowes and had mighte inough to haue striken him If your Pope therefore and his Prelates will take this Bishop and his Priests for their example they muste be as S. Paule sayth no strikers nor fighters chiefly not not agaynst their Princes they must be mightie but not in blowes but potentes sermone mightie in the word to reproue the wickednesse of Princes and so resist them as S. Paule sayth he resisted Peter to his face not that he buffeted or pâ—…meld him with his fiste aboute the face as Bishop Boner did his prisoners But he resisted him in spéeche reprehending him and with such resistance these Priests resisted the king â–ª and all Bishops may and ought to resist all wycked princes but this is farre from deposing them or sollicitâ—…ng other Princes to make warre vpon them or mouing their subiects to rebell agaynst them But master Sanders brgeth further what followed The king beeing a â—…eper dwelt in a house apart til the day of his death and his sonne gouerned the kings house and iudged the people of the lande What is this M. Sand to the Priests deposing of him that he dwelt aparte For beeing a Leper God in his lawe had so appoynted Leuit. 13. Neyther dyd the contagion of his disease suffer the administration of his office Howbeit neither for his offence nor for his punishmeÌ„t therof was he deposed froÌ„ his kingdom his sonne made king but the sonne as his fathers deputie â–ª administred the affaires of his fathers kingdome so for al this Ozias continued king euen til the day of his naturall deathe whiche was a longer time if your Glosse be true after this fact than he had beene king before this fact coÌ„mitted â–ª For saith your owne glosse Volunt Hebraei c. The Hebrues will haue it that this hapâ—…ed in the 25. yere