it did belong to Dauid Phi. The annointing of a second king is it not the deposing of the former Theo. God often times annointed him that should succeede as when hee willed Elias to annoint Hazael king of Syria Benhadad his master yet liuing likewise to annoint Elizeus the Prophet in his own roome whereby neither Benhadad was deposed from his kingdom nor Elias depriued of his ministerie but â—uccessours appointed to them both Phi. You see in what sort also Ieroboam king of Israel had a special Prophet sent to him to denounce the intended iudgementes of God against him his Posterity for his schisme and separation of his people from the old ancient true worship of God in Ierusalem for erecting a new altar in Bethel in which al schisme and diuision from the Apostolike See is properly prefigured for creating of a wicked clergie out of AaroÌ„s order I meane new hungrie base inordered Priests the patern of heretical ministers thrust vp out of the aray orderly succession creation of Apostolike priesthood a crime so highly afterward both in him and his stock according to Gods former denunciation reuenged that none of his house was left to pisse against a wal Yet hee fondly sought to apprehend the man of God to kil him for bringing this newes which he accounted high treason against his Regalty Theo. You promised to proue that Princes might bee lawfully deposed by Priests now slipping cleane from the question you shew that God threatned destruction to wicked princes charged his Prophets to go to them tel them so much from him to their faces Who euer doubted of this or which way draw you this to make for your purpose If God may iustly reuenge the sinnes of all men euen of Princes themselues and oftentimes doth wil you thence inferre that Priests or Prophets may depriue Princes of their kingdoms Phi. A priest denounced Ieroboam to be a wicked schismatike Theo. He was a Prophet no Priest that cried out against the Altar of Bethel in Ieroboams presence spake not one worde of Ieroboams schisme or deposition but onely that king Iosiah should sacrifice the Idolatrous Priests burne their bones on that Altar which came to passe 300. yeares after Ieroboam was dead Such mighty reasons you bring to iustifie the deposing displacing of Princes by the Bishop of Rome that when all is saide your own glosing interlacing besides the text is the best ground of your argumeÌ„t That Ieroboams erecting a new Altar in Bethel properly prefigured our diuision froÌ„ the Apostolike See so you call Rome that his new hungrie base inordered priests are a paterne of our ministers these be the blasts of your spirit caÌ„kers of your mouth they touch not vs but in your deceiued exaspered fansie We haue forsaken the struÌ„pet that made drunk the inhabitants of the earth with the wine of her fornication are gone out of her lest we should be partakers in her sins receiue of her plagues otherwise we haue diuided ouer selues neither from God nor his church That the clergie of England is vpthrust hungrie base is but the vnloding of your disdainful stomakes in deed your boy-priests haue a brauer fashion to ruffle in their silks and colors think themselues no cast ware as if the sight of Rhemes or Rome did by by make them Iosephs betters in dignity AbrahaÌ„s equals in grauity for our part wee are that wee are by the grace of God wee hope in his mercy his grace in vs shal not be in vaine But what is this to the question whether the Pope may depose princes or no you began with a matter which you neuer came neere now you be clean besides For what doth Gods threatning or punishing of Ieroboam concern the Popes deposing degrading of princes God repaied the wickednes which Ieroboam committed with fearful plagues on him his whole house after him Ahias the prophet did not spare to tel Ieroboams wife that God would do it not leaue one of his line to wet a wal Euery preacher may do the like that is they may protest assure princes that Godwil not leaue their sins vnpunished both with temporall eternall plagues yet euery preacher may not depose princes Yea the preacher of God may do the like to the pope himselfe and yet you thinke it no reason that euery preacher should depose the Pope Much lesse wil it follow that your holy father may thrust princes from their seates because the Prophets of God in old time reproued princes for their Idolatries Ph. Ozias also or Vsia king of Iuda puffed vp with intolerable pride as the scripture saith not coÌ„tented with his kingly souerainty but presuming to execute spiritual priestly function was valiantly by Azarias 80. priests with him assailed thrust out of the temple by force At what time for that he threatned the priests of God resisted them with violeÌ„ce he was stroken with a filthy leprosie so not only thrust out of the teÌ„ple but by their authoritie seuered also from al companie of men a special figure of the priests power to excoÌ„municate for heresie as wel princes as others in the new law finally the regiment of his kingdom was committed to his sonne A cleare example that priests may vse armes represse impietie by forcible waies where it may serue to the preseruation of religion and honor of God Theo. Vzziah presuming to burn incense on the Altar of God which was the priests office was stroken with a leprosie liued as a leper in an house apart froÌ„ meÌ„ to the day of his death A faire warning for princes not to wax proud against God nor to vsurpe thinges interdicted them by the law of God But that Azarias the priest and 80. of his brethren valiantly assailed the kinges person and thrust him out by force or that the regiment of his kingdom passed from him as depriued of his right and descended to his sonne these be your additions and imaginations the text hath no such things Azarias his brethren withstood the king but in wordes rebuking him for the breach of Gods law which they might not manfully assailing the Magistrate nor laying violent hands on him to thrust him out of the temple as your martial termes do import If the scripture it selfe do not content you repeating the words wherewith Azarias resisted the king heare Chrysost. conclusion vpoÌ„ this place After the Priest had reproued the atteÌ„pt the king would not yeeld but offered armes shilds speares vsed his power then the priest turning himselfe to God I haue done saith he my duty to warn him I can go no farther Nam Sacerdotis est taÌ„tum arguere for it is the priests part only to reproue freely to admonish with words not to assaile
them all obedience with armed violence to take their swords from them but thereof more hereafter In the meane time your argument is very foolish Priestes must not deliuer the Sacramentes but on such conditions as God hath limited ergo Priests be superiour to Princes You might haue concluded ergo God is superiour to them both in that he prescribeth how the one shal deliuer the other take the Seales of his grace but for the Priest no such illation can be made For were you Porter in any Princes palace and commaunded that no man Noble nor other shoulde enter the Court with weapon woulde you thence conclude your selfe superiour to all the Nobles and counsellours of the Land because you might not suffer thē to come within the gates except they first lay their swords aside or would you rather excuse your selfe that the Princes precept being streit and you a seruaunt you could not choose but do your dutie and put them in minde of your Lord and masters pleasure Phi. Our case is not like The. You say truth You haue not so much reason to make Priestes superiour to Princes as this Officer hath to prefer himselfe before all other persons Princes haue soueraign power ouer the goods liues bodies of Priestes Nobles haue not ouer the meanest attendant in the Princes Court Princes must be obeyed or endured with meekenesse and reuerence offer they neuer so hard dealing to their Preachers and Pastours That submission no man oweth to any subiect be he neuer so Noble And therefore euerie seruant in the Princes house hath better cause to aduance himselfe before al the Nobles of the Realme than you haue to set the Priest aboue the Prince whom God himselfe hath pronounced superiour to the Priestes and to whom he will haue euerie soule bee they Monkes Priestes or Bishoppes to be subiect with al submission duetie Much lesse is this a warrant for you to depose Princes and to pursue them with armes against the preceptes of God against the generall and continuall obedience and order of Christs Church as you shal perceiue in place where for this present go on with your absurd lies I shoulde haue said absurdities Phi. It derogateth from Christes Priesthood which both in his owne person and in the Church is aboue his kingly dignitie Theo. Call you this a derogation from Christes Priesthood if the Pope may not tread Princes vnder his feet Your Seminaries must needes be famous that coine vs such conclusions Phi. Neuer mocke at our Seminaries you shall finde them too well furnished for your stoare Theo. So wee thinke your learning is so strange it passeth our intelligence Wee fooles conceiue not how these thinges hang togither For first what meane you by this The Priesthood of Christ in his owne person is aboue his kingly dignitie He is king of glorie in that he is the sonne of God can you name any thing in Christ that is aboue his diuine dignitie Your doctrine is verie curious if it be not dangerous The glorie of the sonne of God as hee is owner and ruler of all thinges in heauen and earth hath no title nor name aboue it As a Priest he purged our sinnes in humilitie as a king hee nowe doeth and euer shall raigne in the highest degree of celestiall and euerlasting glorie His Priesthood washed our vncleannesse in this life His kingdome placeth and preserueth men and Angels in perfect and eternall blisse If you speake this in respect of vs that the Priesthood of Christ which washeth our sinnes and saueth vs from the wrath to come is more comfortable and accceptable to our weake consciences by reason of our guiltinesse and daily transgressions than the power wherewith hee subdueth his enemies besides the straungenesse of your speach that his Priestood should bee aboue his kinglie dignitie in his owne person note the losenesse of your argument The Priesthood of Christ in fauour and mercie to vs ward is aboue his power ergo the Prince must be subiect to the Pope May not we much rather conclude Christ cōpelleth punisheth as a king not as a Priest ergo power to commaund punish belongeth to the kingdom not to the Priesthood that is to the Magistrate not to the minister Phi. It diuideth which is a matter of much importance the state of the Catholike Church and the holie communion or societie of all Christian men in the same into as manie partes not communicant one with an other nor holding one of an other as there be worldlie kingdoms differing by Customs Lawes manners ech from other which is of much pernicious sequele and against the verie natiue quality of the most perfect coniunction society vnitie and intercourse of the whole Church euery Prouince and Person thereof togither Theo. It is a most pernicious fansie to thinke the communion of Christes Church dependeth vpon the Popes person or regimēt and that diuerse nations and countries differing by customes lawes maners so they hold one the same rule of faith in the band of peace can not be parts of the Catholike Church communicant one with an other perfectly vnited in spirite and truth ech to other And fie on your follies that racke your Creede rob Christ of his honor and the Church of all her comfort and securitie whiles you make the vnitie and societie of Christes members to consist in obedience to the Bishop of Rome and not in coherence with the sonne of God The communion of Saintes and neere dependaunce of the Godly ech of other and all of their heade standeth not of externall rites customes and manners as you woulde fashion out a Church obseruing the Popes Canons and deseruing his pardones as his deuote and zealous children but in beleeuing the same trueth tasting of the same grace resting on the same hope calling on the same God reioycing in the same spirite whereby they bee sealed sanctified and preserued against the daie of redemption And why may not Christians in all kingdomes countries haue this communion and fellowshippe though they lacke your holy fathers beads blessinges and such like bables To what ende you alleadge S. Augustine in that place which you quote we cannot so much as coniecture you must speake plainly what you would haue we be not bounde to make search for your meaning As for the communion of the Catholike Church it is not broken by the varietie and diuersitie of rites customes Lawes and fashions which many places and Countries haue different ech from others except they be repugnant to faith or good manners as S. Augustine largely debateth in his epistle to Ianuarius and Irineus whē the bishop of Rome would haue cut the East Churches from the communion of the West for obseruing Easter after an other maner order than their brethrē did sharpely reproued him and shewed him that Polycarpus and Anicetus dissenting in the same case Communionem
seruice Againe the publike Seruice had but one language in this exercise they spake in many tongues In the the publike Seruice euery man had not his owne special tongue his special interpretation speciall Reuelation proper Psalmes but in this they had Againe the publike Seruice had in it the ministration of the holy Sacrament principally which was not done in this time of conference For into this exercise were admitted Catechumens and Infidels and whosoeuer would in this women before S. Pauls order did speake and prophesie so did they neuer in the ministration of the Sacrament With many other plaine differences that by no meanes the Apostles wordes can be rightly and truely applied to the Corinthians Seruice then or ours now Therefore it is either great ignorance of the Protestants or great guilefulnesse so vntruely and peruersly to apply them Theo. Before I reply let me aske you a question Phi. With a good will Theo. Are you not a Priest Phi. I am or I should be Theo. I will not oppose you after what order Aarons being abolished Melchizedecks not imparted to any mortal man But by vertue of your priesthood are you not bound to catechise as wel as to baptize that is to preach the word as wel as to minister the sacraments Phi. So we do as time and place require Theo. If I should vrge you that you your felowes neuer preach because euery holyday sunday you say Masse massing is apparently no preaching what would you answer Phi. I would answer that you made a very childish foolish argument For though the one be not the other yet we may do both at one time in one place successiuely before wee depart And if you doubt of this the meanest parish clarke in Christendome may be your master Theo. You pul not me but your self by the nose Philander and mark it not Your inuincible arguments wherby you would proue that S. Paul in this whole Chapter spake nothing of the Church seruice in Corinth are such ridiculous toyes of all the worlde as this which I brought for example to trie your patience with Phi. You shall not defeate the force of our reasons with such a iest Theo. Neither shall you delude the Apostles doctrine with such a shift The Church of Corinth had then as al other Churches nowe haue or should haue both praying preaching annexed and adioyned to the ministration of the Lords supper Both these yet are euer were the meanes which God ordained to prepare vs to be fit ghests for that Table Howe shal they saith the Apostle call on him in whom they haue not beleeued and how shall they beleeue in him of whom they haue not heard how shall they heare without a Preacher Hearing is the nurce of faith and faith is the fountaine of praier without praier wee may not approach to God nor to the Sacrament of thankesgiuing which by the very name it beareth putteth vs in mind what duty we must yeeld to God when we are partakers of it By this it is euident that teaching in the church of God doth not exclude praiing but is rather the mean that God hath appointed to direct incite the minds of the faithfull to make their praiers vnto him in such sort as they ought when they are gathered togither in Christs name to serue God the father in the spirit of his sonne And so the holy Ghost describeth the church that was at Ierusalem vpon the first spredding of the Gospel from whence we must take the forme of Apostolik churches They continued saith the Scripture in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and praiers noting doctrine prayers brotherly communion at the Lords table to be the publike exercises of christians in their assemblies where the Apostles themselues were present in their persons to guide gouerne those meetings Phi. You come not yet to the point Theo. I will not long be from it These praiers exhortations and instructions which the faithfull had in their assemblies were they not partes of the seruice which they yeelded to God Phi. Yees but not of the church seruice Theo. What seruice was there in the church besides this that I mention Phi. The ministration of the Sacrament Theo. If you meane the order and fashion of administring the Sacrament Saint Paul receiued that of the Lord and deliuered it to the church of Corinth in such manner and forme as we finde expressed not many leaues before in the 11. of this Epistle But there is no church seruice prescribed or named onely the elemēts and actions of the Lordes supper are particularly remembred and committed to the church as her chiefest iewell in her husbandes absence vntill hee come Phi. Thinke you they had no set Rites Collectes nor praiers deliuered them from the Apostles for that holy action Theo. You presume they had and vppon that false imagination you ground the most part of your headlesse argumentes that the Apostle speaketh not of the Church seruice Phi. Had they no speciall forme of prayer prescribed in their churches whiles the Apostles liued Theo. Had they say you Phi. Else they had nothing but confusion in their churches Theo. Blaspheme not so fast The power of the holy Ghost miraculously supplying all wantes and inspiring the Pastours and Elders in euery Church howe to pray was no confusion Phi. Do you thinke they changed their prayers in euery place and at euery meeting as pleased the minister Theo. You may well perceiue by the Apostles wordes that they had neither Sermons nor Seruice prefixed nor limited in his time but when the Church came togither the Elders and Ministers instructed the people and made their prayers by inspiration Phi. I knowe they did so but this was not the Church Seruice Theo. This was all the church Seruice they had to which they added the celebration of the Lordes supper but without any setled or prefined order of praier except it were he Lords praier which they obserued in all places as comming from the mouth of Christ himselfe their Soueraigne Lord and Master Phi. Mary Sir that were euen such seruice as you haue at this day where euery blind Minister bableth what he listeth Theo. Iest not at God except you wil be Iulian. Phi. I iest at your disorder which you would seeme to deriue frō the Primatiue Church of the Apostles Theo. In deede wee haue not so many turnes and touches bowtes and becks as you haue in your Masses other disorder in our Seruice I know none vnlesse it bee that wee doe not swinge the Censers rince the chalice tosse the Masse-booke plaie with the host and sleepe at Memento as you doe with a number of like toyes throughout your seruice Phi. Doe not you nowe iest at our Seruice Theo. At your stage-like gestures I may without offence but you iested at the miraculous gift of the holy Ghost guiding the
tēporall 249 The Prince charged to plant the faith and rule the church 250 The King of Englands charge 250 The Prince charged with Godlinesse 251 Their power is equall with their charge 252 The sword prohibited vnto Bishops 253 Only princes beare the sworde 254 The words of the oth 254 Supreme concluded out of saint Paul 255 The Apostles subiect vnto Princes 255 Suffering is a sign of subiection 256. The direction of the sword 257 Who shall direct the sword 257 No man Iudge of trueth 258 Discerners of trueth 259 The people are charged to discern the truth 260 The people must discerne teachers and try spirits 261 We be not bound to the Bishops pleasure 262 Wherein Bishops are superiour to Princes 263 The function not the person 264 The priests person subiect to the Prince 264 The right direction vnto trueth 265. The best direction for Princes 266. Who shall direct Princes 267. Successiō is no sure directiō 268 Bishops may erre 26◠Councels may erre 270 276 Number no warrant for trueth 270 Councels haue erred 272 Consent without staggering due only to the Scriptures 276 The Pope may erre 277.304.311 Christ praied for Peter 278 Peter failed in faith 279 Christ praied for all 280 No one set ouer the Church 281 The Romane Church may faile in faith 283 Cyprians place discussed 283 The misconstering of Non potest 284 Cyprians opinion of the Romanes 286 S. Pauls warning to them 286 S. Ierome misconstered 287 The Romanes may erre 288 Moses chaire might erre 289 The high Priests did erre 290 Christs promise to his Church 291 The godly may erre 292 S. Iohns words abused 293 The whole Church erreth not 294. The Iesuites condemned for flatterers by their owne fellowes 294 What Popes haue erred 296 Liberius an heretike 297 Honorius an heretike 299 Vigilius an heretike 301 Anastasius an heretike 302 Shiftes to saue the Popes from erring 303 Caiphas free from error 305 Caiphas as free from error as the Pope 305 The Popes tribunall hath erred 306 Vaine mockeries of the Iesuites to saue the Popes error 309 Their owne Church confesseth the Pope may erre 310 The iudge of faith must not erre 312 The contents of the third part The Pope hath no power to depriue the Prince 314 What God hath allowed to Princes the Pope cannot take from them 317 Princes not depriuable by the Pope 318 The Prophets deposed no Princes 319 Saul reiected by God not deposed by Samuell 320 Saul depriued of the succession not of the possession of the Crowne 321 Dauid annointed to succeed 325 Ieroboam plagued not deposed 325 Prophets may threaten 326 Vzziah stricken with the leprosie not assaulted with violence 327 Lepers seuered from mens cōpany but not disherited 328 Vzziahs pride 329 Athalia slaine 329. Achab reprooued not deposed 330. Elias induced the King and the people to kill Baals prophets 331 Elias no executioner 332 Fier frō heauen at Elias word 332. Iehu willed by God to take the sworde 333 Elizeus deposed no King 333 No Scripture confirmeth the deposition of princes 334 Kinges holde their dignities of God not of priests 335 The priest no Iudge of the princes crowne 336 The priest to direct the Iudge to decide 338 Princes not subiect to priestes 339. Princes depriued priests 340 Princes brake couenaunts with God and yet were not deposed 341 No prince deposed in the olde testament 341 Christ is King of Kinges but not the pope 342 Christ haue many prerogatiues which the pope may not haue 343 Binding of sinnes not of Scepters 344 Depriuing is not feeding 345 Temporall reuenge not lawfull for priests 445 Heretikes must not be saluted yet princes must be obeyed 346. Heretiks must haue their du 347 Society not duty prohibited 348 Wee must shunne the wicked but not disobeie the magistrate 348 Excommunication inferreth no deposition 350 The Iesuites claime temporall and externall power for the pope 350.351 God not Paul stroke Elima◠blinde 352 What is ment in S. Paul by deliuering vnto Sathan 353 The Apostles laid violēt hands on no man 354 The goods and bodies of men are Cesars right 355 Priests no Iudges of temporall thinges but makers of peace betweene brethren 357 The temporall and spiritual distinct regiments 358 The Ciuill state directed not punished by the spiritual 359 Princes committed to the preachers charge not subiected to the popes court 360 Princes may be put in mind of their duties 361 Nazianzene subiect to the prince 361 Howe the preacher correcteth 362 Howe manie degrees the pope will be aboue the prince 363 If he heare not the Church let him be to thee as an Ethnick 364 Ethnicks must not be deposed 364 The Church cannot depose the prince 365 The Church submitted herselfe to Princes 366 The Church hath no commissiō to depose Princes 367 The church with thē is the Pope 367 Neuer king obayed the Popes Censure 368 The Church neuer decreed that Popes should depose Princes 368 Impertinent examples 369 Excommunication is not deposition 370 The fact of Babylas 371 Babylas died vnder Decius 371 The Prince penitent for his sins 372 S. Ambrose and Theodosius 373 Anastasius excommunicatiō vncertaine 374 Michaels excommunication vnproued 374 Lotharius mistaken 375 Of seuen examples but one proued 375 S. Austens opinion of such excommunications 376 The end of excommunication ceaseth in Princes 376 The Church praied for tyrants 377 The Church praied for the welfare of hereticall Princes 378 The Church praied for Constantius 378 A lustie leape from the keyes to the sword 379 Rebellion against Princes defended to be iust and honourable warres 380 Graund theeues murtherers 381 The Popes warrant to rebels 381 The Pope cānot warrant Rebellion 382 Scriptures abused to serue Rebellion 383 Asa remoued his mother from her dignitie 383 The Iudiciall part of Moses Law is ceased 384 The execution of Moses Law cōmitted to none but to the magistrate 384 No reuenger but the Magistrate 384 Phinees fact had Moses warrant 385 Moses a magistrate and no priest after Aarons order 386 Moses a Leuite but no priest 387 Moses a Prophet no sacrificing Priest 388 And so was Samuel 389 Many offred that wer no priests 389 Sauls sin was infidelitie 389 The Priest did not appoint the wars 390 The warres of Abiah 391 Edome Libnah reuolting 391. Ten tribes might fight with two 392 The Church of Christ neuer alowed rebellion 392 S. Basil alowed not the people to rebel for his defence 393 S. Ambrose alowed no tumult at Millan in fauour of him 394. Athanasius did not stirre Constance against Constantius 396 Athanasius neuer spake euill of Constantius 396 Athanasius neuer disobaied Cōstantius 397 Athanasius would not haue the people rebel for his cause 398 The tumult at Alexandria for Peter against Lucius 399 Atticus harboured strangers but not armed subiects against their Princes 400 The Persian war was lawful 400 What Leo requested of the Emperour 401 The Christians were subiect to Iulian though he were an