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
lawe of Christ is and what it commaundeth can no where better be knowne than oute of their mouth to whom the sauiour said Go teache you all nations and he that hereth you hereth me he that dispiseth you dispiseth me For there neuer want in the Churche those that eâ—…oy the legacie for Christ God exhorting as it were by them For euen as other men so well as earthly kings are reconciled to Christ by his ministers and by Christ to God so they ought not onely to be vnder God as they were before but also to Christ yea and now to his ministers too for in vaine doth doth he subiect himselfe to Christ that refuseth to obey Christs ministers This is true M. Saunders in the true ministers of Christ that the Prince ought to obey them in their ministerie euen as dispensers of the mysteries of Christ and as representers of Christ also And true it is they can or oughte best to tell what is the lawe of God. But yet are they not so to be heard or obeyed as they do not represent Christ or tell their owne â—…awe for the law of Christ. Wherein the Christian Prince â—…ath an ouersight euer them and is againe the chiefe miniâ—…ter and representer of Christ And as he obeyed them in the â—…ne so muste they obey him in the other or else they teache â—…ot the law of Christ aright Moreouer saith M. Saunders it is not inough for a Chriâ—…tian king to do those things that priuate men are wont to do â—…xcept also he doe those things that properly belong to the â—…ffice and digâ—…e of a Prince Euery man ought to serue the â—…ord and walke worthily in that vocation wherin he is called â—…rte thou called in the state of Matrimonie serue God not onely as a man but also as an husband Art thou called in the state of a king thou must serue as thou art a king and not onely as thou art a man But the offices of kings are other and the offices of priuate meÌ„ are other VVhervpoÌ„ saith Augustin elegaÌ„tly The king serueth otherwise bicause he is a maÌ„ otherwise bicause he is a king Bicause he is a man he serueth him in liuing faithfully But bicause he is a king he serueth with making by conuenient force lawes commauÌ„ding iust things forbidding the contrarie Euen as Ezechias serued destroying the Temples of Idols the high places that were builded contrarie to the coÌ„maundementes of god Euen as Iosias serued he also doing the like things Euen as the king of the Niniuites serued compelling all the citie to appease the Lorde Euen as Darius serued giuing the Idol to the power of Daniel to breake it and casting his enemies to the Lions Euen as Nabuchodonozor serued in forbidding by a terrible lawe all men placed in his kingdome from blaspheming god In this therfore kings do serue the Lord in so much as they be kings whe they do those things to serue him which none can do but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this we grauÌ„t you M. Saunders kings haue another more excellent peculiar seruice of God in that they be kings than haue other priuate men But as this maketh nothing against our assertioÌ„ or the kings estate but more commendeth it so it both ouerturneth your principall questioÌ„ for the kings authoritie in ecâ—…l matters coÌ„futeth that you haue said before in defacing the kings estate also cleane beateth you froÌ„ that which you driue your present drift vnto of deposing kings First you said before that kings in that they are kings gouerne all meÌ„ alike so well Iewes Mores Tartars as Christians haue as equall gouernment ouer the one as the other Here you confesse that kings in that they are kings haue 〈◊〉 especiall seruice of God and you specifie this their seruice 〈◊〉 such examples as declare a farre more excellent seruice 〈◊〉 is the gouernment of Turkes of Mores and Tartars Secondly this especiall seruice consisting in such thinges as these examples containe it argueth the Princes seruice not onely to intermeddle in eccl. matters but to haue the supreme gouernmeÌ„t of them and to haue authoritie to reforme eccl. abuses and to make Lawes to prohibite things contrarie to the Lawe of God and to commaunde thinges commaunded in Gods lawe whiche before you ascribed to Byshops and toke from kings Thirdly if none can do these things but kings howe dare you take them from kings and kings from them how dare you giue them to Priestes howe dare you giue Priestes authoritie to depose kings when rather hereby kings haue authoritie to depose priestes and none can do these thinges but kings by this your sentence cited out of Augustine These things say you thus ordered it shal novv be made plaine vvith hovve great equitie vve defende that Christian kings vvhiche gouerne Christian people ought to be vnder the ministers of Christ at the least in those things that appertain to faith and religion Yea vnder the paine of losing their kingdome if fyrst vve shall propounde this one thing Hytherto then by your plaine confession this is not plaine for it but rather plaine againste it that kings muste loose their kingdomes if they be not vnder the Priestes in thinges pertaining to faithe and religion that is to saye to make it â—…plaine excepte they beléeue and do as you will haue them you will plainely turne them out of their kingdomes Indaede this is a plaine waye if you can doe it as you haue attempted it But it is an vnnaturall and a traytorous waye and of all other farthest from such ways as those should vse that professe themselues to be Christes Uiâ—…ars and Gods Ministers Christe neuer vsed it nor Peter nor Paule nor any of the Apostles and yet were they vnder Princes that were not vnder them in things that pertaine to faith and religion But you will proue this with great equitie if first you shall propounde one thing Goe to propounde it M. Saunders and let vs sée the greatnesse of your equitie First say you both the lavve Diuine and naturall equitie teacheth manifestly that no other king ought of Christians of their ovvne accorde to be called to administer the right of a kingdome than he vvhich is himself a Christian. â—…or this is that vvhich the Lord saide by Moses to the Israelites VVhen thou shalt saye I vvill place a king ouer me as haue all other nations round about thou shalt ordeine him vvhom the lord thy God shall choose among the number of thy brethren neither mayste thou make a King of an other nation that is not thy brother But by brother vve vnderstande him that iâ—… a faithfull one and a Christian. And although Christians in times past vvere compelled to obey Ethnike Emperours yet vvoulde they neuer haue committed this to haue voluntarily called any such men to the administration of the Empire For vvho could suffer it that the members of
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
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
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
doo Will ye haue a woman weare a mans apparell it is flat forbidden by Gods worde Will ye haue a Quéene fight hir self in a battaile and breake a speare as a king may do In déed some mannish women as the Quéene of Amazons Thomyris Semiramis and other haue so doone but it is not sitting And by your owne reason the imbecillitie of theyr kynde doth cléere them And a number of such other things may be reckoned vp Shall we now saye the Quéene is not supreme gouernour ouer these persons and causes bicause hir selfe can not doe them Likewyse for a king that is a chylde you know he can not fight in battell himselfe neyther can he himselfe sit in iudgement and debate rights and wrongs in ciuil doubtes manie mo things can he himselfe not doe euen bicause as ye say he hath a defect in iudgemeÌ„t Hath he therfore in these ciuill and temporall thyngs no supreme gouernment Thus ye sée still your examples faile yea they make cleane agaynst you for as a supreme gouernor may wel be a supreme gouernor in those things that he himself can not do so a christeÌ„ princes supreme gouernmeÌ„t ouer al ecclesiastical persons in al ecclesiastical causes is nowhit hindred although the prince he or she yong or old can not do the functions ecclesiastical nor be an ecclesiast person The second argument is that he so often and al the Papists vse of the excellencie of the minister in his ministration aboue the Prince To this he citeth the saying of Saint Paule Let men â—…o esteeme vs as ministers of Christ and dispensers of his mysteries To whiche ministerie kings are not called And here is againe alledged the storie of â—…ziae that presumed to offer incense and was punished with â—…eaprie The effect of all the argument he knitteth vp thus Siergo minister c. If therfore the minister of the Church of Christ exercise a greater and more diuine ministerie than the king or any other prince howe is the king the Supreme heade of that churche wherein he seeth certaine ministers greater than himselfe I answere this is a fallation secundum quid ad simpliciter We graunt in the respect of his ministerie the minister is aboue all Princes But this pertayneth to the actions and function of the minister and not to the ouersight and direction that all those actions and functions be orderly done Nowe this béeing but a common argument Master Saunders vrgeth it further by comparison of eyther estate the Prince and the Priest from the olde Testament to the newe saying Ac nimirum illud c. And thys namely I seeme to take by my right the authoritie of any Christian king in his christian kingdom is not greater than was in tymes paste the authoritie of any Iewishe kyng among the people of the Iewes for if the Citie of God to whyche Chryste of his owne name hathe giuen a newe name maye verily bee the more woorthie but can not be inferiour to the Churche of the Iewes â–ª Surely then it followeth that a christian king ouer his christian kingdome can not obtaine more power than a kyng of the Hebrue nation did obteyne among the Hebrâ—…wes For howe muche the more any Common weale is subiecte too their earthly Kyng the authoritie of that common weaâ—…e is so muche the lesse But the authoritie of the Churche of Christe is not lesse than the authoritie of the Synagoge of the Iewes bycause in the churche of Christe those thinges were fulfilled to the verie image of the things whiche in the Synagoge of the Iewes were scarce figured by the naked shadowes As the truthe in deede in greater than the image so againe the image is greater than the shadowe but this is euident that the authoritie in times past of the only king is lesser than the authoritie of his christian kingdome or of hys Bishops But if it be so then the christian king which is both lesse than the church and the bishops of his kingdom cannot be immediatly vnder Christ the head of the churche This argument is intricate and full of many inuersed cringle crangles to shewe a face of déepe and subtill knowledge beyonde the simple mans capacitie whyche kynd of reasonyng is more suspicious than to edifying The effecte of the argument standeth all on this The greater authoritie is giuen to a christian king the lesser haue the Priestes and the churche But the priestes and the churche haue not lesse authoritie but aboue a christian king Ergo the king hath not supreme authoritie To the Maior that the greater authoritie is giuen to a christian king the lesser haue the priests and the churche he sayeth nothing And yet some what is to be sayde thereto it is not so cléere as he makes it For sith eyther of these thrée haue their authorities in dyuers considerations the Priests authoritie may be greater than the kings authoritie in one respecte that is of his diuine actions and ministerie and yet in an other of the gouernement and publike direction the kinges authoritie is greater than his And so althoughe the Churches authoritie in one respecte be greater than bothe the Kings and the Priestes as they are bothe but membres and children of the Churche yet in regarde that the one is a Pastour and the other a gouernour and both of them Fathers and guyders as it were vnto the church their authorities againe are greater than the Churches And this also sheweth the falshood of the Minor that the Priestes and the Churche haue not lesse authoritie but are aboue the prince Which is not true but in suche respectes as nothing hinder the supreme gouernement that we giue the prince But Maister Saunders to confirme this to bée simply true the prince to be inferior to the Priests and people will proue it by his comparison of the state of the olde and newe Testament And first he will haue the state of the olde Testament in the Churches gouernement to be a figure of the newe But in the estate of the old Testament the Prince was vnder the priest and the people Ergo it must be so in the new To the maior we graunte him the gouernment of the Church in the old testament to be a figure of the churches gouernment in the new testameÌ„t And remember this well that here M. Saunders buyldes vpon For if he himselfe shal be found to swarue from it afterwarde when he findeth it shall make agaynst hym then let him blame himselfe and let vs note bothe inconstancie and cantradiction in him who playeth the snayle puttyng in and out his hornes and will say and eate his worde as he thinketh best to his aduantage And this is the fashions of them all in the examples of the old testament as we haue séene the practise of M. Feckenham M. Stapleton which is a subtile false and vnstedfast kind of dealing But go to we denie the minor that in the state of the
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
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
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
base things of the worlde thatis by the pouertie of the Apostles and the tormentes of the Martyrs he ouercame the mightie things the same God within a while after did so ioin togither his heauenly kingdome with the earthly kingdome that there also he might shewe no lesse both power and mercie while some kings voluntarily made themselues subiect to the pore Ministers of Christ But other refusing at the first to be made subiects vnto theÌ„ yet by the spirituall power of theÌ„ were either afterwarde conuerted to repentance or else vvere hurled downe from the high degree of the Empire they possessed that euery waye it should be true that God reuealed to Daniel In the dayes of those kingdomes the God of heauen shall rayse vp a kingdome which shall neuer be destroyed his kingdome shall not be giuen to an other people but it shall frush and consume al kingdomes and it shall stande for euer This truely is the kingdome of heauen or the power of the Church of God. It is euen so M. Sand â–ª and therefore not suche a worldly kingdome as your Pope vsurpeth you proule for him to mainteine but the heauenly kingdome of Christe and the power of God which is his Gospell shall frush and consume your kingdome with the other Nay say you they did indéed once iarre but now they agrée the heauenly and the earthly kingdome are conioyned togither Agréement is a good hearing M. Sand â–ª but what meane you by this coniunctioÌ„â—… that the one is become the other and not still distinguished from it or that your Pope may be king and his Byshoppes Princes of bothe nay M. sand you finde not that agréement and coniunction For Christ hath put such a barre betwene them that his spiritual Ministers can not haue earthly kingdomes nor that earthly kings shoulde in the estate of their earthly kingdomes becoÌ„me subiecte in such wise to his spirituall Ministers otherwise than to yelde their obedience to their spirituall ministerie representing the power mercie of God vnto them But not to resigne their crownes vnto them not to be troden vnder their feete not to be deposed of them and driuen out of their earthly kingdomes The spirituall kingdome of Christ it selfe much lesse the spirituall ministers of that kingdome dealeth not with earthly kings in such a fashion which is not to agrée or ioyne wyth them but to conspice against them You tel vs of some kings that haue voluntarily yeelded theÌ„ selues subiectes some that were compelled and driuen out of their kingdomes but was this done as you saye by the pouertie of the Apostles and the tormentes of the Martyrs True it is that by these base things God ouercame the mightie things of the world But trow you that they by their pouertie deposed kings by their suffering tormeÌ„ts draue theÌ„ out of their realme that were a harde matter But name the Apostle name the martyr name the king name the kingdome you can No you can not â–ª But you shal finde the centrarie for if they were in pouertie then were they not rycher than kings if they suffered tormentes theÌ„ they put not meÌ„ to tormeÌ„ts they were tormeÌ„ted not tormeÌ„ters sufferers not doers of theÌ„ Neither suffered they as malefactors for coÌ„spiring against kings for going about to haue deposed kings froÌ„ their kingdomes Are you not ashamed your Popes being rycher thaÌ„ kings crueller than tirante to tel how God ouercame the mighte of the worlde and increased his spirituall kingdome this was Gods doing not mans and by cleane contrarie meanes to your doings and to cleane contrarie purposes not to storish in an earthly kingdome or to dispossesse kings as al your drifte doth tende But you haue examples hereof howe you broughte kings to this thraldome but for shame ye durst not name theÌ„ the stories were so tragical But now this being coÌ„trarie to Christes prohibition he propouÌ„neth an obiection himselfe in our behalfe answereth it Thou vvilt say do therefore By â–ª hoppes and Pastors of the shepe of Christ rule temporal kingdomes properly indeed and of it selfe in no vvise But thus do Byshops rule temporal kingdomes if so be such kingdomes do submit themselues to the Christian faith For euen in this that Christian kings and nations do desire the faith Sacraments of Christ they promise heerein that they vvill neither gouerne nor obey any earthly gouernment further than the Christian faith and religion may suffer If therefore either the gouernement of the king or the peoples obedience begin to svvarue othervvayes either they may be deposed from their gouernment or most iustly excluded from the povver of choosing a king by the force of the couert or expressed couenaÌ„t which at the beginning they made vvith the Church of Christe For vvhat soeuer is so much of the nature of the thing that is done that if by chaunce mention vvas made thereof at the beginning it can not othervvise agree than by that one vvaye vvhich although it were not expressed betvvene the bargain makers yet is it holden for expressed bicause it was necessarily contained in the nature of that that was done For ensample A man saith to a vvoman I take thee to my vvise she againe making answere I take thee to my husbande But that they shall liue togither euen till death although this expresly is not vttered in the couenant notwithstanding it is so contained in the nature of the thing that it is necessarily vnder stood After the same maner it is when either the king or any priuat man is made a member of the church by faith baptisme For euen in that that he renounceth the worlde the pomps thereof verily he promiseth that he will neuer abuse the power of his earthly kingdome againste the faithe and church of christ And if so be he shall do it he wil not refuse but that he may be depriued of the right of his kingdome For I aske if this namely should come in question Softe M. Sand â–ª we must interrupt you or els we caÌ„not so coÌ„ueniently answere you To your question anon now to your argument and your 〈◊〉 thereâ—…n The obrection you made was this whether Bishops and Pastors of the sheepe of Christ may rule temporall kingdomes You answere properly and of it selfe in no wise But as those kingdomes do subiect them selues to the Christian sayth This is a proper elusion M. Saunders thinke you to escape thus is it all one to subiecte their kingdomes toâ—…e Christian fayth and to subiect their kingdomes to the Bishops Good 〈◊〉 it is that the fayth should beare the â—…héefe rule But the obiection was whether the Bishops should or no and therfore this â—…inction serueth not For Christ simply without this or y respect debarâ—…eth al his spi ritual ministers froÌ„ ruling of teÌ„poral kingdomes Who knoweth not that properly and of their owne nature temporall kingdomes should not be ruled of spirituall pastors but
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
power is giuen at the least to the chiefe pastor in these wordes Howe shall we beleeue it Maister Saunders sith these wordes neither say nor import any such matter that Peter to whom they were spoken is the chief pastor of the Church neither at the least nor at the most least of all that in these wordes these things are contained Christ saith to Peter feede my shepe â–ª you expounde these wordes that he gaue him power to take away Kings from their kingdomes and to set the people at libertie from their sworne obedience This is a proper feeding M. Saunders to giue them pappe with an hatchet as they say to spoyle Kings and sâ—…t their kingdomes in the vprores of rebellion â–ª Christ 〈◊〉 not his shepe on thâ—… fashion nor we reade that euer Peter 〈◊〉 them so but with the worde of God and with exhortatioÌ„ of obedience vnto Princes Peter fead the shéepe of Christ on this wise Be ye subiect to euery humaine creature for the Lordes sake whether to the King as excelling or to his rulers as those that are sent of him to the punishment of malefactors and to the prayse of them that do well for so is the will of god For doyng well you stoppe the mouthes of foolishe and ignorant men As free and yet not hauing libertie for a cloake of malice but as seruantes of god Honor all men loue brotherhood feare God honor the king Let seruants be subiect to the Lord with feare not only if they be good and gentle but if they be froward c. And so he entreth into an exhortation of pacience vnder wicked gouernors This is the féeding that Peter fead the shéepe of Christ withall neither did hâ—…uer depose any Magistrate or set at libertie any subiects or vsurpe any kingly dominion but dissuadeth the clergie from it As for the other sentence of authorizing Peter to bynde and lose is so farre from giuing him authoritie to bynde Princes in bondage and captiuitie making theÌ„ to lose their kingdomes and losing their subiectes from their bondage of subiection setting them at libertie to rebell and chose another that if Maister Saunders were not too too shamelesse he would neuer thus apply it And yet he saith we must beleue it â–ª that in this sentence also Peter hath this power gyuen him which neither Christ nor Peter vsed at any time but both of them flat denie it But why shoulde we beleeue this M. Saunders For say you if whatsoeuer Peter or Peters successor loseth in earth is also losed in heauen then verily when he loseth orderly the faithfull subiects from the obedience of a wicked King in earth the subiects are in heauen losed from the obedience of that king Besides if whatsoeuer Peters successor bindeth in earth be bound also in heauen then when soeuer the successor of Peter rightly and well commaundeth anye King to go from his Magistracie which being thus affected he vniustly holdeth or coÌ„mauÌ„deth him by whatsoeuer meanes he can to hinder another King that hindreth the faithful people from eternal life that he should not perishe in doyng wickedly that King is bounde also in heauen that is to saye before God and his Angels to obey the decree of the chiefe Bishop except he will haue his owne sinnes before God to be retained and not remitted Here is your Sampsons poste M. SauÌ„ders that you and your Pope builde vpon for his supremacie that he hath the keyes of heauen and hell vnder his belte but howe grossely and shamefully this spirituall power of bynding and losing consisting in preaching the word of God and pertaining only to the soule of the faithfull beleuer or the vnfaithfull refuser is applied to the body goods of men to be taken from them is wrested to coÌ„maunding of Kings to get theÌ„ packing from their kingdomes to bydding of subiectes take armes against their Princes to bidding of one King by whatsoeuer meanes he can by defying fighting and making warre by shéeding ChristiaÌ„ blood by violating peace by breaking leagues by wasting one anothers couÌ„tries to molest and persecute one another that all Princes nations are bound before God and his Angels to obey his bidding yea althoughe he were such a chiefe B. or the successor of Peter as he craketh is not is so horrible shameful a wresting of Christs saying so euident a contradiction to all other sayings in the scripture so open a gappe to the dissolution of all estates to bring all tumult confusion into the world yea this binding and losing were such a binding vp of all godlynesse and the verie losing of the deuill himself that it is maruaile that euer any Papist professing learning would be so grosse in this age of greater learning thus to expounde it Which exposition was neuer heard of by any godly father till Pope Gregorie 7. set it a broach and Pope Boniface 8. following him set all Christendome by the eares about it And nowe that all the worlde séeth the follie and wickednesse of it M. Saunders so unpudently would renue it But he hathe a shifting restrainte in this exposition to salue the matter When the Pope sayth he duely and orderly loseth the people from their obedience and when he well and rightly biddeth the king giue ouer his authoritie theÌ„ either of them are bound to obey his bidding True Maister Saunders when he doth these things duly and orderly well and rightly theÌ„ it shall be graunted you But how can he do that well and rightly duely and orderly that is most euil and against all dutie right and order can a théefe steale well and rightly can such extreme wickednesse that passeth all priuate thefte and is the open breach of all due order be dulie and orderly done But belike M. SauÌ„ders thinketh if the Pope do it in his consistorie if he haue on his Cope and do it in his Pontificalibus if the belles be roong the candels put out then it is well and rightly duely and orderly done Such toyishe orders vseth the Pope to bleare the simple as though when it is done with booke bell candle it is done well and rightly duely and orderly but before God and his Angels in heauen and before all wise and godly learned meÌ„ in earth as these orders are mere ridiculous so these doyngs are most abhominable But nowe let vs heare his reason for this doyng For if whatsoeuer power any king hath he ought to conuert and applie that wholly to the honor of Christ then he that otherwise doth shall in the day of doome render an account of sin wheÌ„ euen that sword it selfe which in times paste he hath either draweÌ„ out against Christ or else he would not draw for Christ shall accuse him of disobedience If therfore we shall follow reasoÌ„ aright as the Minister of Christ ought not to coÌ„secrate him for Prince whom he seeth not to be a ChristiaÌ„ or a Catholike so neither ought
giue the aduersaries occasion of sclaundering him For if they yea eueÌ„ vvithout this perfecuted him as a seditious person how much more would they haue persecuted him if he had accepted the kingdome offered of the people Thus euen til this day fleeth he froÌ„ those that only seeke carnall things in him bycause no parte of his spiritual giftes loketh on theÌ„ he despiseth them that are occupied about vile bags â–ª to vvit being giuen to their belly filthinesse He only giueth himselfe to them that seeke spirituall things in him that can say our coÌ„uersation is in heauen Not without cause therfore Christ here fled being sought for vnto a kingdome vvho being sought for vnto deathe offered himselfe freely For first by this he condemned our pryde or coueteousnesse or ambition or deintinesse Secondly he taught to contemne the glorie of the vvorlde than the vvhiche nothing is more vaine and not to feare the aduersitie of the vvorlde than the vvhiche nothing is more shorte Thirdly he taught heerein that those things are but small that in the worlde seeme to be mostegreat They thought they had offered Christe a great thing but he despised it as a litle thing VVe are far of an other iudgement Whom he meaneth by this vve loke a litle before concerning theÌ„ that offered the kingdome to christ This fact saith he declareth what the flesh seeketh in Christ euen his ovvn Cosins that is to say fleshly humaine things Christe is set forth before vs that in him we should seeke the forgiuenesse of sinnes righteousnesse eternal life But the carnall man seeketh nothing in him but licence carnall libertie and the filling of the paunche For hee that is of the earth speaketh and thinketh of earthly thinges yea suche is the nature of the fleshe that it abuseth all the giftes of God and seeketh farre other things in them than God woulde So the fleshely man in the creatures that are giuen to our vse and to this that God might be knowne and feared seeketh no other thing than pleasure And when by theÌ„ he ought to be caried vnto the creator he sticketh in theÌ„ and worshippeth theÌ„ So in the lawe which was giuen of God for the knowledge of sinne the carnall Iewes sought righteoushesse euen as the Papistes doe and so nowe also all those carnall men that in the power of the sworde seeke not that that God wil but only ambition pryde c. yea and that in these thinges that appertaine to the spirituall gouernement those carnall Pastors seeke onely honor ryches idlenesse delightes when as Christ ordeined them to be teachers guides Apostles c. For no other cause than for the edifying of his bodie Thus saith Frier Ferus againste his owne fleshely spiritualtie séeking in Christes spirituall kingdome a worldly kingdome which for these causes abouesaide and not onely for the originall that Maister Saunders here onely mentioneth he refused to be made a King. The like shift Maister Saunders vseth to the other place Luc. 12. of Christs refusall to be a iudge betwene the brethreÌ„ for the diuision of their inheritance saying who made me a iudge or deuider ouer you as though he shoulde say neither the common weale hath made me a iudge neither the Emperor hath made me a iudge As thoughe Christ refused to be their iudge not for that he would not be such a iudge â—…ut for that he was not made such a iudge by humaine authoritie For of such a iudge saith he these brethren thought whether they thought him to be such a iudge or no iâ—… not apparant Maister Saunders and if we may go by coniectures probabilities it rather séemeth the contrarie For neicher could they sée any such tokens in him to haue bin authorised from those that were â—…hen the Magistrats his words going before do argue they could not conueniently so thinke of him both ratling vp the Phariseis that had the humaine authoritie bidding his Disciples not to mistrust what to answere when they shoulde come before the powers Magistrates which these brethren hearing might easily conceiue that Christ himselfe was no such earthly Magistrate But to the causes wherfore Christ refused it that as before euen of the Papists mouthes themselues Hofmeister one of your sloutest champions hath these words Truely those things that haue bin spokeÌ„ and heard from the beginning of this Gospel do ynough declare the kingdom of Christ not to be of this world neither that he would raigne temporally in the world sith he taketh not souldiors that caÌ„ oppugne others but fishermeÌ„ readier to suffer thaÌ„ to strike And so in this place with most manifest wordes Christ declareth that he came not for this purpose to take vpon him the office of a Magistrate but rather that he might raigne in our harts so that it might be our hap to come to the eternal goods whatsoeuer hapned of our tem porall goods Therfore when he was interrupted of a certaine Iewe that he would helpe him in recouering his inheritance he aunswered Man who hath made me a ludge or deuider ouer you As though he shoulde say hath not this worlde iudges that may decide so base controuersies it is not appointed vnto me that this or that man shoulde waxe rich by inheritance but that all men should come to the inheritance of life immortall But in these words Christ woulde betoken many things to wit that he which hath an Apostolicall office ought not to be wrapped with prophane and silthie affaires For so the Apostle saith otherwhere No maÌ„ going to warfare vnder God entangleth himselfe with worldly businesse And the Apostles say all at once it is not meete foÌ„r vs to leaue the word of God and attend on the tables Christ also by this reprouing woulde declare that his doctrine taketh not away the Magistrates offices but rather confirmeth theÌ„ VVhervpon he saith also else where render to Cesar that that is Cesars And wheÌ„ his Disciples striued for prehemineÌ„ce he said â–ª the kings of the nations gouerne them so forth VVhereby he declared that neither he himself nor his ought as they call theÌ„ to be secular iudges neither did he by this refusing abolishe the order of the Magistrate but much more as we haue said confirmed it Thus far your owne Doctor Hofmeister againste you that the entent of Christe refusing to be a iudge herein was chiefely against such vsurpation of worldly Magistracie as the Pope and his Prelates do exercise But say you Christ in that he was appoynted of God to be iudge by his incarnation concerning that parte he saide vnto them that they should beware of couetousnes for he saw that they draue not as yet their inheritance to a spirituall ende that they might beare the iudgement of Christ. As who should say if they had béen Christians he would then haue béen a temporall iudge ouer them that is to say if they had done their duetie
wife or any other mans wife daughter or mayde in things perteyning to their duties and offices can and ought to doe Especially sithe your selfe in prosecuting this argument vrge the example of a woman All the women in his kingdome are his subiects so well as the men He hath a supreme gouernment ouer all persons in all causes can he therfore do their duties and yet he can haue the supreme gouernment to maynteine all lawes of matrimonie and to punishe all whordomes and yet not like euery somoner or other executioner of their punishements If ye say a woman may be no inferiour gouernour That is false a wife hath inferiour gouernment in hir housholde and many women haue had inferiour gouernments vnder kings in common weales as the Lady regentes in Flaunders c. But what if she were not an vndergouernour yet if she be a subiect gouerned the words of your definition coÌ„prehend hir saying A chiefe gouernour hath of necessitie the power of doing all those thinges which may be wrought of the inferiours to the magistrates of that congregation by their office or by any charge belonging properly to the same congregation But you will say perhaps that women are of an other kinde so that the king can not do al their offices As likewise for the ecclesiastical gouernment the Apostles might not lawfully do all those things that the widdowes chosen to serue in the congregation mighte and ought to do nor the ciuill magistrate of those congregations might or ought to do them Then will M. Feckenham presse you that your definition is false a gouernour can not do all things that belongeth to a subiect If ye say a woman is not a subiecte that is false If ye say she is not a subiect in respect she is a woman that is false also for both men and women are subiectes to their gouernours If ye say she is not a subiecte in respect she is a wife although I graunt the worde wife hath an other relation than to the king to wife vnto hir husbande yet what auayleth this sithe many offices haue many other relations also the sonne to his father the seruant to his master the scholler to his scholemaster and yet all these be subiects to the Prince although the Prince can not deale in all their seuerall offices But you thinke to salue all the matter with this exception I say not that he which is endowed with chiefest power should straight wayes haue the knowledge of euery lesser office for this perteyneth to the fact and not to the right Neither say I it is alwayes comely that he should execute the inferiour offyce by him selfe but I say there is no lawe to let him no power wants whereby the chiefe magistrate shoulde not do those things which the inferiours in the same common weale are wonte to doe Go to go to M. Saunders ye will still be like the gentleman that would fayne haue eaten his worde if he durst for shame Ye come in pretily and beginne to make some exceptions already you admitte he may wante knowledge of many things perteyning not to his office yea and that it is vncomely he should do them And in déede M. Saunders if you be thinke ye of euery subiectes doings ye shall finde many vncomely and vnreuerent things for so highe an estate to do and many things that he knowes no more howe to do them him selfe than that Cooke that would put mustarde into his milke to season it What and may the Prince do those things him self that are so vile and wherof he hath no knowledge He may say you and he will what righte or lawe may let him If ye talke M. Saunders of a wilfull foole that will caste him selfe and his kingdome away if ye talke of a tyraunt whose will is lawe that sayth as the Pope doth Sic volo sic iubeo stet pro ratione voluntas that is another matter But if ye talke of a king and of a lawfull power then I say his will and power oughte to be restrayned by lawe to do nothing vnskilfully nor vncomely for his estate I graunt he may abase him selfe to some inferiour kinde of offices to do them but not to all no not by the right of his royall estate And yet by his gouernment all those thinges are done that are orderly done Although he him selfe may not do them though he would Do ye not remember S. Paules similitude so ofteÌ„ vsed by your selfe M. Saunders of a coÌ„mon weale resembled to our body The head ye say often gouerneth all the parts and meÌ„bers but the head it selfe doth not nor can not do al that al the parts members do We stande not we go not we sit not on our heads our head reacheth not nor caÌ„ reach euery thing that our hande can reache doth Nor the head doth or can do the office of the shouloers back or belly yet ye graunt the head hath supreme gouernment ouer al these parts deuiseth lawes orders diets prouisioÌ„s helpes for all the parts and actions in the parts of all the body Thus ye sée not only by similitudes examples in which I might be infinite agaynst your thâ—… exaÌ„ples but also by good reason your definition of a supreme gouernour faileth he may be a lawful supreme gouernour yet can not do al the offices of his inferiours Yea it were vnlawful for him to attempt many such things and yet his lawfull supreme gouernmeÌ„t euen ouer all those things that he him selfe can not do nor ought to do is no whit therby empayred And therfore this is a false principle to builde as ye do thereon Nowe this béeing thus playnly proued a false groundeworke let vs sée howe ye procéede to frame your argument on it VVhich things beeing thus foretouched I adde vnto them that the supreme head or gouernour of any Church is the supreme magistrate of that coÌ„mon weale which no man hauing his right minde will denie Therfore if the king may rightly and worthily be named the supreme head or gouernour of that Churche as nowe this good whyle is done in Englande the same king shall also necessarily haue the facultie of working all those things which of that magistrate of that Churche may be wrought otherwyse he is not the gouernour of that Church in respecte it is a Church But in euery christian kingdome there are and ought to be many that shoulde preache the worde of God to the faythfull that shoulde baptise in the name of the father and of the sonne of the holy ghost the nations coÌ„uerted that should remitte sinnes that shoulde make the sacrament of thanksgiuing distribute it therfore he that is the supreme gouernour of any Church ought to be endowed with such power that no law should let wherby he might the lesse fulfil do al these things But a secular king although he be a christian can not do these things by the
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