and therfore good reason that yours giue place to his senior the popish later base born religion of your Romish church to thâ—… first most auncient true religion of that Alpha Omega Iesus Christ himself Master Stap. hauing now set vp these two false markes like to one being out of his way that after he is once ouer his shooes in the myre careth not howe he benâ—…yre himselfe but running deeper through thicke and thinne cryeth this is the way to haue other to followe him so rusheth on master Stapleton still further from the issue and yet taketh euerye thing in his way to bée hys marke and directorie Setting vp the perticuler factes of those Princes that chalenge and take vppon them this supreme gouernement that the selfe same factes must be founde in the ensamples of the olde testament or else hée sayth the Bishop strayeth from the marke VVhat euidence haue ye brought forth sayth he to shew that in the olde lawe anye King exacted of the Clergie In verbo Sacerdotiâ—… that they shoulde make none Ecclesiasticall lawe without his consent as King Henrie did of the clergie of Englande Is this the marke master Stap. betwene the Bishop and master Feckenham to proue in their supreme gouerments euerye selfe same perticuler fact yea the circumstances about or concerning the fact to be all one in them that clayme this gouernment nowe and those that claymed it then since bothe the states the times yea all the ceremonies of religion of the Iewes then and ours nowe are nothing like and trow ye then the princes perticuler doings must be like and euen the same and euidence must be giuen out of the one for euery fact of the other or else their supreme authorities be not alike The issue betweene them is not so straight laced but requireth onely any such gouernment some such gouernment yea he it al suche gouernment to I meane not all suche actions in the gouernment but the supreme directing gouernance authoritie or powre are proued both alike in either princes estate so well ouer eccl. persons in all their functions then or now as ouer the temporall in theirs For by this rule wheras that most famous prince king Henry the eight did sweare also to his obedience all his temporall subiects in ciuill causes as other Princes likewise haue done and do it would be harde to alleâ—…ge an euidence thereof out of the old Testament and yet their supreme gouernments therin were not therefore vnlike As for the ministring of the othe is but a circumstance to confirme the matter and not the matter itselfe And if king Henry were by the obstinate and craftie malice of his popishe clergiâ—… then constrayned for his more assurance to take an othe or promise of them on the honestie of their priesthoode which God wâ—…t was but a small holde as it went then in the moste of them and that no king of those ancient yeres mentioned in the olde testament béeing not moued by the wickednesse or mistrust of his clergy tooke the like othe or promise of their priestes honestie or fayth of their priesthoodâ—… then what is this to or from the matter why their supreme authorities shoulde not be alike in bothe Do not you also say for your side that the highe Priest had suche supreme gouernment then as your Pope â—…othe chalenge now ouâ—…r all eccl. causes â—…nd dothe â—…ot your Pope nowe exacte of all his clergie in verbo â—…acerdotij by the worde of their priesthoode that they shall make no eccl. law without his consent May we not then returne your owne words on your selfe VVhat euidence can you bring foorth to shew that in the olde lawe any highe Priest exacted this of the clergie vnder him And if ye can not as ye can not dothe not then this your wyle reason and newe marke ouerturne the false clayme that your Pope claymeth of such supreme gouernment now as the high Priest had then But his clayme is false his gouernment nothing like For the high priest then tooke not vpon him to make eccl. lawes as doth now your Pope but only obserued such eccl. lawes as God had made to his hande till time of the Pharisies corruption who not content with Gods lawes had deuised besides many fond lawes of their own inuentions when there wanted amoÌ„g them this kingly authoritie To the which so long as it continued the high priest al other obeyed receyuing and obseruing such eccl. constitutions as their godly princes made vnto them So did Aaron first receiue the eccl. coÌ„stitutions of Moses So after him did alâ—…re residue admit the eccl. constitutions of Dauid the rest of the foresaid princes their priests made none of theÌ„ selues without the Princes consent But the princes ordâ—…ined diuers eccl. orders partly with the aduise and consent partly without yea agaynst the wil coÌ„sent of their clergy now then and yet those godly princes exacted of them euen as they were true priests as the stories of Iosaphat and Ezechias mention how they charged their priests euen in that they were the Lords priests which is all one with that you alleage in verbo sacerdotij that they should do suche things as they appoynted them to do And is not this good and authenticall euidence for king Henries doings but that the priests appoynted any suche ordinance without their princes consents will be harde for you to bring the like or any â—…uidence at all for your Popes exacting And if as ye conclude herevpon this exacting to make no eccl. law without his consent be to make the ciuil magistrate the supreme iudge for the final determinatioÌ„ of causes ecclesiasticall then your Pope hauing no such euidence for him by this your marke is no supreme iudge for suche finall determination but it â—…latly proueth agaynst you that the Princes should be the supreme iudges therein And if the exacting of consent importe suche supreme authoritie as héere ye confesse then whereas not onely these ancient kings but also the ancient christian Emperors in the confirming of your Pope exacted that none shoulde be a lawfull Pope to whome they gaue not their consent it argueth that those Emperours were the supreme Iudges for the finall determination of the Popes ecclesiasticall election Which afterwarde when ye come to the handling therof ye renie affirming that although his consent was necessarie to be required yet it argued no suche supreme iudgement in the matter And thus you care not may ye for the time shuffle out an answere howe falsly or how contrary ye counterblast your false The nexte marke is yet further wyde from the issue and more fonde than any of the other for abandoning his Pope and generall Councels VVhat can ye bring foorthe sayth he out of the olde Testament to aide and relieue your doings who haue abandoned not onely the Pope but generall Councels also and that by playne acte of Parliament And
life for me he can not be my Disciple much more then must he hate his kingdome and be readie to leaue his kingdome and all the good in the vvorlde for Christe or else hee is no Christian. You say true M. Sanders he must forsake and hate al for Christes sake But that he must do this for your Byshoppes sakes when they will say it is expedient he should so do that I finde not in the words of Christe and yet muste you beware howe you expounde that saying For he is bound also to loue and to kéepe to the vttermost all these thinges in their kindes not to renounce nor hate theÌ„ except they hinder him from Christ whom he must prefer before al things But this loue to Christe in principall maye stande togither with these loues wel inough Neither is he any more bounde to resigne his kingdome than to resigne his vvife into the Priestes hands Nor if he abuse his kingdome the Prieste can no more turne him out of it than he can if he abuse his goods and his vvife turne him not of his dores and take his goodes and his vvife from him and kéepe hir himself or giue hir vnto an other This can not the Byshop do although the Prince and euerie man be bounde to lose al for Christes cause Yea the Byshop is bounde hereto as well as any other And God knowes how some of them kepe this bonde and yet wil not they léese one halfpennie for Christes sake howsoeuer they breake it But the kingdome is a â—…oule moate in their eye and therefore the King poore soule must lose all and they must take it from him But now to Master Saunders other arguments Moreouer the kingdomes of faithfull Princes whose people feare God are not altogether earthly or worldlye For in that part that they haue beleued in Christ they haue as it were lefte to be of this worlde and haue begonne to be members of the eternall kingdome for although the outwarde face of things which is founde in kingdomes meere secular be in a Christian kingdome yet sith the spirite of man is farre the more excellent parte of hym and the whole spirite acknowledgeth Christ his King and onely Lorde I see nothing why Christian kingdomes ought not rather to be Iudged spirituall according to their better part than earthly And this is the cause why nowe long since those which gouerned the people of God were wont to be annoynted of his Ministers no otherwise than were the Prophetes and Priestes For euen the Kings them selues also are after a sort partakers of the spirituall Ministerie when they are annoynted not that they should do those things that are committed to the onely Priestes herevnto orderly consecrated but that those things which other Kings referre to a prophane and worldly ende these Kings should now remember that they oughte to directe to an holye ende For when they themselues are made spirituall it is fitte they should will that all their things should be counted as it were spirituall But nowe are spirituall things so vnder the Church of Christ that the Church may freely dispose and decree of them to the profite of the whole mysticall body Syth therefore the people of Israell woulde needes desire a King to be giuen them Samuel by the commaundement of God toke a cruse of oyle and powred it vpon the heade of Saule and kissed him and sayd beholde God annoynteth thee to be the Prince ouer his inheritaunce VVhich to me seemeth to signifie euen as though it had bene sayde except the Lord annoynted thee to be the Prince thou couldest not rightly and orderly be the Prince ouer hys people whiche hee hathe chosen and reserued out of all the worlde to be as it were peculiar to hymselfe For in that that is gods no man can take power to him selfe without Gods permission But God anoynted Saul to be the Prince not by himselfe but by Samuel his minister wherfore whosoeuer ruleth ouer the Christian people which is no lesse acceptable to God than was the people of the Iewes hee besides the right which he receyueth of God by the consent of the people ought also to acknowledge his power to be of Christe by his Ministers if so be that he be suche an one that worshippeth the Fayth of Christe VVherevpon to thys day all Christian kingdomes are annoynted of some Christian Bishop or some other Minister of God referring therein their principalitie not onely to the people and so vnto God but that moreouer by the Priests of Christ they referre it vnto Christ whose Ministers they are For Pope Leo wrote elegantly vnto Leo the Emperour Thou oughtest to marke stedfastly the Kingly power not onely to bee giuen to thee to the gouernement of the worlde but to be giuen thee chiefly for the succour of the Churche that in suppressing naughtie attemptes thou shouldest bothe defende those things that are well decreed and restore the true peace to those things that are troubled If Maister Saunders woulde goe plainely to woorke and make his argumentes shorte and formall and woulde rather shewe his Logike than his Rethorike the truth or falsehoode woulde appéere the sooner the reader perhappes mighte be the lesse delyghted but withoute perhappes hee shoulde be lesse beguyled and the aunswere mighte bée the clearer and the shorter â—…ll this long argument in effect is this All spirituall things are so vnder the Church of Christ that the Church may freely dispose and decree of them to the prosite of the whole mysticall body All Christian Kings and kingdomes are spirituall things Ergo all Christian Kings and Kingdomes are so vnder the Church of Christ that she maye freely dispose and decree of them to the prosite of the whole mysticall body And firste Maister Saunders trauels in the Minor. To proue Christian Kyngs and Kyngdomes spirituall that bycause the better parte of them is spirituall therefore hée seeth nothyng why they oughte not to bee rather iudged spirituall Yea Kings were woâ—…e to bee annoynted no otherwyse than Prophetes and Priestes not to doe theyr actions but to referre all theyr affayres to holy and spirituall dedes And can you sée this Maister Sanders Now how chance you coulde not seeit before when you made the Christian Princes ciuill power to be no better than the Turkes or Tartars to stretch no furder thaÌ„ to the body a quiet lyfe haue you now espied not onely the endes wherevnto they rule but the estate also itselfe by reason of the better parte to be spirituall what hath made you see so cléerely nowe forsooth now is now and then was then You were pleading then that the Christian Princes ciuill estate was so farre different and vnlike that Princes might not meddle in spirituall matters and therfore then was fitte oportunitie to denie that Christian Princes Ciuill power had any spirituall thing in it But nowe we are in another argument that Priestes maye order and dispose
be the pastor So that this place as it maketh nothing for the power of the Priests ouer the goods and bodily things of the faithfull so it maketh much here in against them For if S. Paule in such matters of goods and bodily things rather than they should not haue a Christian iudge woulde haue them chose among themselues euen a contemptible person how much more now when the Church hath faithfull iudges and Christian Princes it ought in such controuersies to run to them for Iustice rather than to the Priests and Bishoppes that are of another calling Moreouer least any shoulde say that the Churche of Christ hath nothing to do with the businesse of this worlde he sayth expressely do ye not know that the saintes shall iudge of thys world and if the world shal be iudged by you are ye vnworthy to iudge of small things know ye not that we shall iudge the Angels how much more worldly things Behold the Apostle reasoneth from the spirituall power to the temporall on this wise To whom that which is more is lawfull to him is lawfull that which is lesse But we Christians shall iudge of the world and we shall iudge the renegate Angels and the Deuils themselues the which commeth by the spirituall power â–ª wherby we be made the sonnes of God and the coinheritors of Christ much more therefore may we exercise secular iudgements VVherby it appeareth that secular things are both inferior â—…o spirituall and are not estranged from the spirituall power but may light vnder it chiefely then when the matter is in hand of punishing or iudging those men that are the meÌ„bers of the Church of Christ. 〈◊〉 saye not Master Saunders that the Churche of Christ hath nothing to doe vvith the businesse of this world this is but your sclaunder We say that the spirituall Ministers of the Churche of Christe haue not so to do with such vvorldly businesse that they maye turquise all the vvorlde and alter the states of vvorldly kingdomes and occupie them selues about vvorldly affaires in such vvorldly dominion as you pretende they maye Whereto you abuse shamefully Saint Paules sayings He speaketh there of vvorldly matters and you applye it to all iudgementes yea to the iudging of a kingdome â–ª But you replle he saith the Saints shall iudge the worlde and the Angels vvhiche are greater thinges than kingdomes howe muche more then kingdomes that are lesser things Trowe you Master Saunders he speaketh there of such iudging the vvorlde that they should iudge like chiefe Iustiâ—… of realmes and kingdomes whether this or that Prince shall enioye them or shall be dispossessed of them No M. Saunders she speaketh of no suche thing The worlde shall be iudged in them as Chrysostome well noteth Iudicabunt non ipsi iudices c. They shal iudge â–ª not they themselues sitting in iudgemeÌ„t exacting an accouÌ„t God forbid but they shal coÌ„demne the vvorld the vvhich signifying he saith and if in you c. He saith not of you but in you As who should say the iust condemnation of these that are the vvorldlings shall shine in the saluation of you that are the Saints This therefore proueth 〈◊〉 such worldly iudgemeÌ„t as you pretend Secondly you abuse S. Paule as though in speaking of the Saints he spake onely of the spirituall Pastors wheras he speaketh in generall of the whole congregation Are Saintes and Christians only Priestes with you this is both manifest wresting of S. Paule and shamelesse arrogancie in your selues But you say the Churche hath it by the spirituall povver vvherby vve be made the sonnes of God and coinheritors of Christe We graunt you Master Saunders But doth this spirituall povver belong onely to Priestes you say it appeareth hereby vve maye exercise secular iudgementes whome meane you by this vve Master Saunders your selues that are the Priestes But S. Paule speaketh of Christian people and not of the Pastors only yea least of al of the Pastors Wherevpon saith Haimo out of Gregorie on these wordes choose him that is contemptible Secundum Gregorium c. According to Gregorie by contemptible persons vvee may vnderstande secular men hauing the knovvledge of humaine lavves and in their personages being honorable who in comparison of them that vnderstand the diuine lawes and pierce the mysteries of the holy Trinitie are contemptible and simple although they be faithful â–ª And according to this sense vvee muste reade it affirmatiuely bicause suche are to be appointed vvhiche of the Canons are called the Sonnes of the Church I sprake it to your shame bycause althoughe I commaunde it not you ought to haue done it And therefore he commaundeth such to be ordeyned bycause they that ought to serue on the altare and meditate Diuine Sermons and giue the vvorde of preaching to the people ought to estraunge themselues from secular businesse and iudgements Likewise saithe your Cardinall Hugo The glosse calleth them contemptible that are not apt to great offices in the Church as to preach and teach And this is an argument that my lord the Pope ought not to appoint Masters of Diuinitie to be Iudges of temporall things To your shame saith the glosse that those should examine earthly causes that haue gotten the vvisedome of outvvarde things But those that are enryched vvith spirituall giftes ought not to be entangled vvith earthly businesse that vvhile they be not driuen to inferior goods they may be able to attende on the higher goods Hovvebeit this must greatly be cared for that they that shine in spiritual goods forsake not vtterly the businesse of their vveake brethreÌ„ Thus your Papists theÌ„selues are of a contrarie iudgement to you M. Saunders besides all your Popes and Councels Canons that the spirituall Pastors should not be these Iudges in secular things that here Saint Paule speaks on To wrest therefore these wordes spoken of any faithfull Christian only to your Priestes to wring this sentence from the state of the Churche then being without any faithfull Magistrate to the time now when they haue many and those not choseÌ„ of theÌ„selues but ordeyned of the higher Magistrate to wrythe it from the iudgements and taking vp of their petit quarels to the deposing or setting vp of Kings or altering kingdomes is clean beyond the meaning of S. Paule an euident violence iniurie to Gods word Now vpoÌ„ this sentence thus wrested you procéed to your argumeÌ„t saying For their goodes are so muche subiecte to the ecclesiasticall povver that it is lavvfull for the Churche of priuate men to ordeine Magistrates that should iudge of secular causes and not only of ecclesiasticall But no man can passe more righte to an other than he hath himselfe Therefore the Churche vvhich hath povver to make them Iudges that vvere priuate men before hath much more it selfe ouer those secular causes receiued povver by the Ministers of God that as Aaron are called to the
vp another Robins hoods lawe How readie popishe priests are to stuâ—…e vp rebellion sand pag. 79. The Princes throne called the chaire of pestilence The Popishe Priests professe to remoue the Prince by whatsoeuer meanes they can A pestilent doctrine Sand. 78. Hebrs 13. What the Popishe Priestes watch for 2. Pet. 5. sand pag. 79. sand pag. 7â—… The danger of euil Princes commoditie of godly Princes to their people Iob. 34. Sand. 79. 3. Reg. 12 The example of Ieroboam that M. sand alledgeth maketh cleane against him 3. Reg. 13. 14 3. Reg. 12. He that will not become a traytor is not worthy with M sand the name of a maÌ„ sand pag. 79. Act. 20 Tit. 3. No good argument from the Priestes iudging of the Prin ces doctrine to his iudging of the Princes diademe Act 20. Priestes corrupt and blind iudgements Matth. 23. M. sand fallation a secunduÌ„ quid ad simpli citer Hovv far the Papistes make kings inferior to Byshops The fable of the Lyon and Fox sand pag 79 Psalm 2. 1. Cor. 2. Dani. 2. 7. The heauenly and earthly kingdome are not so ioyned that the Byshops may be earthly kings The Apostles and Martyrs deposed no kings Sand pag. 79. To this purpose saith PoÌ„ponius â—… â–ª Cum quid mutuum de reb creditis M. Saunders obiection and answere Whether a Bishop may take a kingdome vpon him pro perly or vnproperly The Princes promise The breach of the Popes and of his Prelates promises The Princes breach of promise authoriseâ—…h not Bishops to depose him The example of Saule and Dauid What bishops may do or not do to princes hauing broken their promises Howe Princâ—… haue bene deposed What rule may be gathered by suche deposingâ—… of Princes Deposing of Princes by the Prelates practises Heb. 10. What subiects may do when the Prince breakes his promise Rom. 1. The right meanes that the B may vse when the prince breaketh his promise The combate betwene the Cardinall of Columne and the Pope The princes promise in theâ—… baptisme The Bishops promise in Paptisme is the same that the princes is The papistes shift to kâ—…pe their liuings for all their promise broken The priestes partialitie The contracte made to christ in Baptisme The king promised not to renounce his kingdome when he was Baptised The subiect promised not to renounce his Prince at Baptisme D. Stories error in defending that subiects misliking their princes may forsake them What we all promised in Baptisme The example of a contracte in mariage Math. 14. Promise brech in mariage As the priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the man the woman so the B. caÌ„not separate the prince the subiect sand pag. 79. 80. 1. Cor 10. Math. 19. M. Sâ—…ers examples of King Lucius King Clodoueâ—…s The state of infants not like these Princes M. Saund presupposals of these two princes are false King Lucius his baptisme Aimonius li. 1 de gestis Francorum ca. 16. The order how King Clodoueâ—…s was baptiâ—…ed Here was no sech conditioÌ„s of deposing exacted of the Bishop in the Princes baptisme The sâ—…uerie that M. Saund. woulde bring Princes into pasieth the Spa nishe â—…quisition The promises and threates of God that the auncient prophets declared vnto kinges M. Saunders presuppose admitted The Popishe Bishops seeke more than the Christian fauh The kings examination of the Bishops condition M. Saunders presupposall admitted once agayne The kings diligent trauell to discharge his charge performe the condition The kingâ—…â—…ration Sand pag 80. Daniel 7. Esai 60. Luc. 10. Math. 16. Daniels prophecie wrested M sand to be suspected of beeing a Milenarie here â—…ke â—…say wrested The Prophete speaketh of the Church the Papists applie it to the priests The glory that the prophet vnderstandeth mystically the Papists vnderstand it literally The Papistes the Iewes sored in one error of dreaming after worldly glory â–ª Christs senteÌ„cs wrested Luc. 10. Iude. epist. Christes sentencâ—… wrested Math. 16. The gates of hell sand pag 80. Rom. 1. Domesticall forain enimies What a perillous enimie the Pope is Whether the king or the B. in M. sand presupposal be more enimie to the Church â—…pe can Christes â—…er â—…tth 4. he cause of â—…aith â—…edience of What thepâ—…inces will ought to be Sand. 80. 〈◊〉 14. Byshops translatioÌ„s of king domes this way or that way Whether the kings promise in baptisme stretch to suffering the Bishop to depose him The kings mi nistration to Christ and his Churche Hovv the king oughte to forsake his life or his kingdom 1. Cor. 3. Lucae 21. Luke 14. sand pag 80. Christian king domes are not mere seculer 1. Reg. 15. 2. Paral. 26. 1. Reg. 15. Leo in epist. 2â—… alias 75. Supra pag. M. Saunders contradiction and legerdemayâ—… M. Saunders seeth now that ChristiaÌ„ Princes are spirituall The Churches disposition of things indifferent To whome in the church the disposition of indifferent things belongeth Things meere spirituall and things spirituall in some respect Meere spiritual thinges may not be otherwise disposed What kinde of thing the state of a King or kingdome is The Churches freedome mysticall The Popishe Churche 1. Reg. 15. The example of Samuels anoynting of Saule M Saunders confutes him selfe The Churche coulde not depose Saule though he were a tyrante and an Apostata Prouerb 8. Dan. 2. Sand. 81. M. Saunders bious conclusion The Bishops ministerie in the making of the king Samuel Pope Leo his sentencâ—… sand pag. â—… Chrysost. Homil 4. in verba Esaiae The kingeâ—… anoynting In Extrauag de Maiorit obed Vnam sanctam The Bishops consecratioÌ„ of a king The diuerse significations of oyle in the scriptures No necessitie of anoynting Kings In Extanag de Maiorit c sand pag. 81. 〈◊〉 1. Ioh. 20. Epiphanius in Hares 29. 1. Cor. 15. M. sand case if Christ were here bodily conuersant in the earth M. Saunderâ—… case vnrtue Act. 3. Math. 24. Christes humaine nature not in the Sacrament If Christ vvere in hiâ—… humaâ—…n nature in the earth vvhat superioritie shoulde be giuen him What kingdoÌ„e Christ vvoulde take vpon him he vvere here in earth How the pope vvould order him 2. Thess. 2. 2. Thess. 2 The Churches promotion Math 20. What povver the ministers haue Math. 28. Iohn 20. Difference of povver Glossa in Lyra super Ioh. Epiphanius in Haeres 29. Sand. 81. 82. Math. 20. Gal. 5. Hebr. 10. Ephes. 4. Hebr. 13. Math. 28. 1. Cor. 4. 1. Cor. 5. 2. Cor. 2 7 Math. 16. Rom. 8. The difference and vnion of both povvers temporall and spirituall Supra pag. 791. Supra pag. Hovv the povver of all estates are vnder the pastors povver and hovv not Hovv they are all vnder the kings povver hovv not How â—…ere is no difference in these povvers Hovv there is a difference in these povvers The mixture of these povvers sand pag. 82. 1. Cor. 2. Rom. 10. Ciuil gouernors from the beginning as auncient as spirituall pastors M. sand malice against the name of
Apostles Peter and Paule doe playnely declare The. 57. vntruthe The Apostles neuer declared any such matter So saye you in déede â—… Stapleton but the Bishops proofes out of Chrisostome and sainct Augustine do playnly declare they did The. 58. vntruth Of misunderstanding sainct Augustine bicause besides this bederoll he also chargeth the Bishop therewith at large in the Counterblast it is answered seuerally in the answere of the. 18. chapter Not meaning only the transgressors of the seconde table in teÌ„porall matters but also agaynst the offendours of the first table in spirituall or ecclesiasticall causes or matters The. 59. vntruthe Sainct Augustine meaneth not to teach suche gouernement of Princes in ecclesiasticall matters as you teache but onely to punishe Heretikes and by the same to mayntayne the Catholike fayth decreed by the Clergie not by the ciuill Magistrate Belike ye can tell better what sainct Augustine meant than be could him selfe But S. Augustine is playne he néedeth no suche interpreter Remember your owne note maledicta glossa quae corrumpit textum Cursed be that glose that corrupteth the text S. Aug. interpreting the mynd of the Apostle to be that the authoritie power of Princes hath to deale in ecclesiastical causes so wel as in teÌ„poral The. 60. vntruth Saint Augustine neuer wrote so Ye shoulde haue tolde out the sentence of S. Augustine that the B. citeth which fully proueth it and then haue improued it as an vntruth if ye coulde whiche although ye do not yet in the margine of that sentence ye crye out lustily and say where is there in all this master Horne that the Princes haue to deale in ecclesiastical causes so well as in temporall For sooth master Stapleton euen here at your hand in this present sentence wherein S. Augustine proueth and your selfe also graunt so muche that the Princes authoritie punishethe so well abuses in eccl. causes and faultes againste religion as it doth ciuill or temporall causes but it punisheth all external faultes and abuses in al ciuil and temporal causes that by his supreme authoritie therein not as an others executioner Ergo it punisheth al external abuses and faults in all ecclesiasticall causes and religion and that by his supreme authoritie therein and not as the clergies executioner Eusebius c. vnderstanding the ministerie of the ciuill Magistrate to be about Gods religion and eccle causes so well as temporall The. 61. vntruth Eusebius neuer vnderstoode any such ministerie of the ciuill Magistrate In what things Eusebius vnderstoode the ciuil Magistrats ministerie to consist the B. set downe Eusebius his owne wordes to proue that he vnderstood it so you say he neuer vnderstoode it so but ye set downe neuer a worde neyther here nor in your Counterblaste to proue the contrarie which tyll ye shall be able to do the Byshoppes vnderstanding of Eusebius by his owne wordes is no vntruthe Eusebius saythe that in preaching by hys decrees true godlynesse in setting foorthe the religion of the moste holy lawe and the most blessed faythe the Princes ministerie consisteth in these things so wel as any other or before al other as his best ministerie But these things are not ciuill matters but spirituall and ecclesiasticall Ergo his ministerie by Eusebius vnderstanding consisteth so well in ecclesiasticall or spirituall matters as ciuill or temporall This moste Christian Emperoure did rightly consider as he hadde bene truely taughte of the moste Christian Byshoppes of that tyme that as the Princes haue in charge the mynisterie and gouernement in all manner causes eyther temporall or spirituall The. 62. vntruth impudent and shamelesse concluded but no whit proued And in his Counterblast I say it is a starke and most impudent lye that ye say without any profe Constantine was taught of the Byshoppes that Princes haue the gouernement in all manner causes eyther temporall or spirituall ye conclude after your manner facingly and desperately vvithout any proufe or halfe proufe in the worlde Here are wonderfull boysterous wordes Master Stapleton but greate boast and small roaste as they say For all this hyghe chalenge standeth on I saye and so in déede it appéereth to be your saying but hadde it not béene your saying Master Stapleton I woulde haue thought it hadde béene some cotqueanes cryaleyson and I woulde haue answered a wispe a wispe for setting aside your foule language what vntruthe is here concluded or what concluded that is not proued The Prince hath the setting foorthe of true religion of Gods moste holy lawe and the moste blessed faythe but these thinges are not ciuill but ecclesiasticall and spirituall the Prince hath to puâ—…te awaye and ouerthrowe all euilles that presse the vvoorlde but none presse the worlde more daungerously than superstition Idolatrie erroures heresies scismes sectes and false religion all whiche are no ciuill but ecclesiasticall and spirituall matters The Prince dothe these thinges not as an executioner of an others ministerie but all the dooing hereof is the ministery properly beloÌ„ging to his owne office yea it is his best ministerie Ergo he dothe all these thinges with as muche or more full and proper authoritie of his office â–ª as he dothe any other ciuill thing But his ministerie in ciuill things is by his supreme authoritie vnder God therin whose minister S. Paule calleth him This is the Bishops conclusion moste playne and true all your blackemouthed Rhethorike to the contrarie notwithstanding For this cause also Nicephorus c. compareth Emanuell Paleologus the Emperoure to Constantine For this cause the. 63. vntruthe as shall appeare There is no doubt some great cause that moued you M. Stapleton to put this in your bederoll of vntruthes that the Bishop sayd for this cause And if you were asked for what cause ye doe so it séemeth it would be harde for you to render any and therefore ye take a wise and a short way to tell vs it shall appeare But here ye shewe none nor any at all here appeareth And where it shoulde appeare there appeareth none also except this be sufficient reason onely to denie it and say it is no cause at all For these wordes onely appeare there VVhere ye say for this cause also c. this is no cause at all but is vntrue as of the other Emperour Constantine and muche more vntrue as ye shall good reader straight way vnderstande What cause I pray you is here alleaged and yet this is all that ye say vnto it sauing that as ye sayde before it shoulde appeare referring vs there hither here ye saye as the reader shall straightway vnderstande it And yet neyther straight way nor crooked way ye speake one worde more of the matter but goe about the bushe medling with other matters and not with the truthe or vntruthe hereof any more And so it appeareth nusquam and the reader shall vnderstande it nunquam Neyther is it any maruell if ye can not lette the reader to
there is wedlocke But what say we to Philip had he not foure daughters but where soure daughters were there was both a wife and matrimonie But what then doth Christ he was indeede borne of a virgin but he came to a mariage and brought his gift with him They haue saith she no wine and he turned water into wine with virginitie honoring mariage commending with his gift the thing that was done that thou shouldest not abhorre mariage â–ª but shouldest hate whooredome For at my perill I behoofe the saluation although thou shalt wed a wife Looke to thy selfe a woman if shee be good is an helper to thee c. All this more saith Chrysostome in the coÌ„mendation of the ministers mariage euen in the same Homelie cited by you M. St. which estate of mariage to be ioyned in sith the Pope his Priests can not abide and alleage such impediments as here Chrysostome confuteth it is an euident argument by the way that they 〈◊〉 nothing lesse than such Priests as Chrysostome ascribeth this spirituall kingdome of the ministerie of Gods worde and Sacraments vnto and where Chrysostome as your selfe haue cited him saith that the Princeforceth the Priest exhorteth the one by necessitie the other by giuing counsell the one hath visible armour the other spirituall Contrarywise your Pope not only exhorteth but extorteth and forceth too not only by counsell but by necessine extreme violence Not only pretending spirituall armour such as he calleth his curses with booke bell and candle but also with visible armour muironed about where he rideth or on mens backes is caried with a gard of Swarâ—…trutters Switchers with gunnes Harquebushes partesans glayues and weapons as if it were Iudas with his armed bande to take our Sauiour Christ. And he claymeth thriurisoiction of â—…oth the swords wresting thertâ—… the wordes of the Disciple Eâ—…ce 〈◊〉 gladiâ—… hic Beholde heere are two swordes to the temporall and visible armour so well as to the spiritual Wherevpon Eonifacius the eight did not onely hang seuen keyes at his girdle in token of his spirituall power but girte him selfe also with a sworde in token of his temporall power These Prelates the refore are not such kinde of Priests as Chrysostome speaketh of Neither notâ—… I this as a faultâ—… in this or that person but as errours defended and maynteined by them for the aduauncement of their naughtie Priesthoode What maketh then this sentence of the excellencie of the Priestes ministerie for the ministerie of the Popes Priesthoode that is all the quitâ—… contrarie Suche false Priestes therefore the Prince hath authoritie to remoue them and to place suchâ—… Priests as Chrysostome speaketh of and so to bowe his head vnder their hands that is to oâ—…ey their ministerie which is no derogation to the matter in hande of the Princes supreme gouernement Thus muche M. Stap. to your sentence alleaged out of Chrysostome vpon the which you and all your side do harpe so often and yet beeing well considered it not onely makes nothing for you but muche agaynst you Nowe to your argument that ye gather héere vpon saying Nowe then M. Horne I frame you suche an argument The Priest is the Princes superiour in some causes ecclesiasticall Ergo The Prince is not the Priestes superiour in all causes ecclesiasticall The antecedent is clearely proued out of the words of Chrysostome before alleaged Thus. The Priest is superiour to the Prince in remission of sinnes by Chrysostome â–ª but remission of sinnes is a cause ecclesiastical or spirituall Ergo The Priest is the Princes superiour in some causes ecclesiasticall or spirituall To this argument béeing thus framed vpon the which M. Stap greatly triumpheth I answere it hath thrée fallations in it for fayling The first in this worde superiour béeing vnderstoode two ways either in respect of the ministerie or function or in respect of the publique ouersight ordering and direction In the former sense the maior is true The Priest is superiour to the Prince in respect of his ministerie or function But this worde superiour béeing thus vnderstoode in the conclusion for superioritie onely in the ministerie or function concludeth nothing agaynst the Princes superioritie which is only the publike ouersight ordering and direction that this superiour ministerie and function be not abused Now if the word superiour be not thus vnderstoode but simply to be the superiour or in the later sense that is to say the Priest is superiour in the publike ouersight ordering and direction that the office be duely administred by the minister then is this maior false for the Priest is not thus the Princes superiour The second fallation is in the words remission of sinnes If he meane thereby the ouersighte to sée suche remission be duely made by the Priest then is the maior also false The Priest is not the Princes superiour therin If he means by remission of sinnes the action of remitting them or the function of the office in pronouncing them remitted then is the maior true but the minor false For so remission of sins is not a cause ecclesiasticall but an action or function ecclesiasticall Wheron ariseth the third fallation of these words ecclesiasticall cause Which the statute and the title mentioning that the Prince hath supremacie in all ecclesiasticall causes he wilfully wresteth as though all actions and functions eccl were yéelded to the Princes supremacie Where neither the Prince requireth nor the statute title yéeldeth any such supremacie in the actions but onely a supremacie in the causes not to do them but to sée them rightly done And thus by resolutioÌ„ of these words it appeareth how the Priest in one sense as Chrysostome sayth is superiour to the Prince not only in this one thing of remission of sinnes But in al other actions of his dutie and the Prince is farre inferiour to him and yet the Prince in the other sense of the general direction and publike ouersight is in this and all other causes eccl. superiour to the Priest and the Priest farre inferiour vnto him And so the superioritie of the Priest hindreth nothing the supremacie of the Prince Master St. hauing now as he thinketh by this mightie argument wonne the fielde and quite confounded the Byshop setteth out as a trophaâ—…m or monument of his historie this marginall note Euidently proued by S. Chrysostome the Prince not to be the supreme gouernour in causes ecclesiasticall And crieth out for ioy Which being most true what thing caÌ„ you coÌ„clude of al ye haue or shal say to win your purpose or that ye heere presently say And thus on the triumph of this argument M. St. reiecteth all that the B. hath said as insufficieÌ„t would returne vpon him the sentence of S. Augustine against the Donatists that the Byshop cited agaynst M. Feck Wherein he bringeth nothing a freshe that is not before declared and answered vnto besides vayne words of course worthy no other answere than to be returned
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
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
Pastors are placed in the Churche to this purpose that they shoulde vvatche for our soules teach baptise dispence the mysteries of Christe giue open sinners vnto Sathan and in the person of Christe to forgiue them that are sorie for their sinnes according to the Lorde To conclude that they by their keys should bring so vvel earthly kings as other meÌ„ into the kingdome of heauen Sithe therefore as Christe the Lorde of all worthily gouerneth so wel the spiritual as the earthly power and sith the spirituall power floweth not from Christe but as he is redeemer of mankinde and that power is properly ordeined and prouided for the getting of eternall life neither by any meanes can it be saide or thought of a vviseman that Christe vvoulde haue the earthly povver aboue the spirituall in his Church vvhich is all led by the spirite and ought to be lifted aboue all earthly things Truely it is necessarie that in the Churche of Christe vvhiche is one the onely spirituall povver shoulde rule and that the povver of the father the husbande the Lorde yea and of the King himselfe shoulde be altogither vnder the povver of the Pastors appointed of Christ vvhen the matters of the life to come are handled Except Master Saunders of vaine glorie did either delight to much to heare himself or of subtletie went about to tyre and wrappe his Readers he woulde neuer vse so many wordes to so litle purpose Muche of this is nothing but that he hath spoken before and is here in vaine repeated much of it is cleane besides the matter The summe is this that all estates as touching spirituall matters are altogyther vnder the spirituall Pastors The effecte of all this long drift standeth on these two reasons the one of the difference of the two powers to proue the spiritual to be the better the other of the vnion of bothe powers to proue the Priestes alone to rule them both What he hath tolde vs heretofore of the difference concerning the original the vse and the end of bothe we haue hearde alreadie and it is néedelesse to repeat And likewise that all ciuill and kingly povver is as well out of the Church of God as in the Church of God the spirituall power only in the Church is alredy answered vnto And in al these actioÌ„s that he reckoneth vp the King is likewise graunted the inferior Howbeit here is nothing that the King is inferior in things belonging to his kingdome But what is al this to the present purpose that the Priest may depole the King he reasoneth of the â—…mon of these powers that they are all one in Christ that Christ hath both in him and ruleth both so well the secular as the spirituall â–ª and this is likewise answered last vnto Put that here vpon the power of all estates is altogether vnder the pastors power that is not hetherto proued And yet we denie not but that the power of all these estates Father Husband Lorde and King is vnder the pastors power but not altogether vnder it And so we say that all these powers yea the pastors and all are vnder the Kings power but not altogether vnder it All estates are vnder the pastors power bycause hée teacheth all estates of men how to liue in their vocations All estates are vnder the Kings power bycause he ouerséeth in al estates the maintenance of the same So that as Master Saunders rightly saith there is no difference and there is a difference and there is a mixture of these powers There is no difference in respect that all are partakers of the vnitie in Christ in regarde wherof neither Priest nor Prince are better the one than the other or the people worse than both sith all are one in christ There is a difference in respecte of the order and gouernment of the Church which is so distinguished in difference of degrées and callings that as the wife maye not take vpon hir the husbandes office nor the sonne the fathers nor the seruant the maisters so neither the past or maye take vpon him the office of the King nor the King the office of the pastour And there is a mixture in respect that the pastor directeth by teaching of all estates and spareth not the Prince and that the Prince directeth by gouerning of all estates and spareth not the pastor But this mixte power of entermedling confoundeth not the one power with the other neither maye the Prince vsurpe the authoritie due to the pastor nor the pastor vsurpe the authoritie due to the Prince As the one therefore is not confounded and yet medled with the other so the one hath both inferiorship and superioritie ouer the other and yet is neither altogether inferior or altogether superior to the other as here M. Saunders on the vnion and mixture difference no difference of these two powers concludes to exalt the pastor to such an absolute superioritie ouer the Princes that at their liking misliking they mighto depose theÌ„ But now M. sand to confirme this that the pastor is altogether in spirituall matters aboue the Prince procéedeth saying For as the fleshely man perceiueth not the things that are of the spirit of God so neither the fleshly power gouerneth those things that are of the spirite of god For althoughe Kings gouerne the members of Christe yet notwithstanding they gouerne them not in respect that they are the ineÌ„bers of Christ but in that they are yet occupied in secular businesse For the members of Christ may want a King as in times past almost for three thousand yeares eueÌ„ froÌ„ the beginning of the world vntill the kingdome of Saul they wanted an earthly king But yet the members of Christ neuer wanted some pastor bicause faith is by hearing hearing by the word of god But those that preached the word of Christ they were the pastors of the flocke The argument is this That which hath no perceuerance of things that are of the spirit of God ought to haue no superioritie in things that are of the spirit of God. But the Princes power hath no perceuerance of things that are of the spirit of God How proue you this M. Saunders The fleshly power hath no perceuerance But the Princes power is but a fleshly power Proue this better M. Saunders Such as the man is such is the power But the Prince is but a fleshly man Proue this tâ—… M. Saunders He which hath only respect to secular busines is but a fleshly man But kings haue onely respect to secular businesse Proue me this also M. Saunders Although Kings gouerne the members of Christ yet they gouerne them not in respect that they are members of Christ Ergo they gouerne them onely in secular businesse Proue this too M. Saunders If Kings gouerne theÌ„ as meÌ„bers of Christ then would they neuer haue wanted the gouernement of kings but almost for 3000. yeares they waÌ„ted
But the pastors in the Church are as the minde is in the body of man as S. Gregorie Nissene hath noted I answere â–ª First this is but a similitude and therefore conâ—…inceth nothing howe ofte soeuer you alleage it We graunt that the Pastors are as it were the mynde of the Churche in the reasoning and discussing the fayth of Christ the word of God the sacraments and mysteries of Christes Church But againe in the maintenance and setting forth in the ouersight and publike direction in the punishement and correction of the trespasses the Prince is the minde the reason and the head also and a pastor in gods Church too And therefore this belongs not onely to the Bishops But be it the Prince be not the minde and reason whose place is in the head Were the King but as the hart or as the will whose place is in the harte yet as the minde dothe but eyther deuise by inuention or discerne by iudgement or remember by memorie and not assent or dissent like or mislike choose or refuse for that belongeth to the will so the spirituall pastor may deuise holsome remedies or remember the Prince of them or discerne in controuersies betwéen this and that which we denie not But the refusall or receiuing the liking or misliking the bidding or forbidding that lyes in the facultie of the Prince Not that the Prince hath facultie to will euery thing no more than the head may deuise euery thing for both ought to will and deuise onely good things â–ª but that the authoritie to put them in executioÌ„ and willing the members to do them as it procéedes principally next to God from y wil so the setting forth of godly ReligioÌ„ taught by the persuasioÌ„ of the pastor as the reason in the head procéedes principally next to God from the Prince as the will in the hart But nowe as M. Saunders hath for stalled the head for the Priest so if he will not relent the harte to the Prince yet I trust he will be thus good vnto him to compare him at the least to some principall member in the body as to the lightes the lunges the lyuer c. If nowe the lightes the lunges or the liuer be infected by whose infection diuerse others parts of the body would become also infected will the head therefore will the minde or reason byd cut them off and hurâ—…e theÌ„ out of the bodie least they infect the other members were it not an vnreasonable reason that would reason thus to haue those rotten meÌ„bers cut off froÌ„ the body of which remaining it may be feared least they should infect the other members when the cutting them awaye straight killeth all the members both head and hart and all and thus you sée M. Saunders if we shal reason by similitudes howe they make more for vs than for you But similitudes may delight or lighten a matter they are not of force to vrge it But M. Saunders will presse it with stronger arguments Besides this S. Paule by name doth teach that power is giuen to the Churche ouer the goods ouer the bodily things of the faithfull For he persuadeth the Corinthians that if they will nedes go to law they should go to lawe before Christians and not before Ethnikes And bicause it mought be said there were no publike Magistrates or iudges ordayned among the Christians he warneth the faithfull that they should appoynt iudges among themselues and if perhaps there were not wisemen in that kind which notwithstanding was not likely yet at the least they should rather appoint contemptible persons thaÌ„ to go to law before the infidels This place is alleaged before and there is aunswered The drift of it here consistes on this argument The Church hath power ouer the goods and bodyly things of the faithfull But the Pastors are the Church Ergo the pastors haue power ouer the goods and bodily things of the faithfull To the Maior I answere the Churche hath power but a limited power Such power as confoundeth not or taketh away the goods or bodily things of any of the faithfull which are members of the Church Such power as is competent to euery member of the Church to possesse to vse and dispose his owne goods and bodily things according to his priuate or publike calling To the Minor I denie it the pastors are not the Churche but members of the Church and haue power onely ouer such goods and bodily things as belong to theÌ„ And yet in that power that they haue of the proprietie of their own goods they may so little spoyle the Prince of his goods or bodily things that they holde them from the Prince and haue by him the peaceable possession of them For all that power vnder God is from the Prince to theÌ„ to al other Neither the Bishops nor any in the Church nor all the Church together hath power to take the Princes goods or his bodyly things froÌ„ him But M. SauÌ„ders to enforce his argument citeth the sayof S. Paule 1. Cor. 6. In that he would haue Christians go to law if they will nedes go to law before Christians and not before Ethnikes Why M. Saunders are Christian Princes and faithfull Magistrates no better with you than Ethnikes and are you Priestes onely Christians for else howe can you apply this to the present purpose that Priests should haue power ouer the goods of the faithfull that the faithfull should run for decision of their coÌ„trouersies to the Priests not to the Princes that the Bishops may iudge of the Princes goods aod kingdome and giue it away to another trow you this was the meaning of S Paule But you excuse the matter with this that they had then no Christian Magistrates As though therfore he had bidden such lawe matters to be determined by their pastors No M. Saund. this was neither the words nor the meaning of him For he knewe the pastors had another power and inough to do therin although they busied not theÌ„selues in the law matters that fel out among the ChristiaÌ„s Not that s. Paule thought they might haue no power of any bodily things nor proprietie of temporall goods or that he thought they mighte in no case be peacemakers in suche brabling matters but that Saint Paule woulde haue the pleadyng and decision of suche things to be rather belonging ordinaryly to some faithfull and honest manne chosen among them selues than to runne to heathen Iudges Which words among themselues do as it were declare that he ment such as was of their owne calling and not their â—…astor â–ª Which is more euident in that he saith is there no wise man among you what not one that can iudge betwene brother and brother so that he speaketh in generall and not onely of the pastor And where he saith chose a contemptible person Except ye will make the pastor contemptible â–ª it argueth he ment not this iudge should
publike mynisterie of Iesu christ For vvhatsoeuer is of Christe giuen in common to the Christian common vveale is giuen by them that exercise the Legacie for Christe and are Stevvards of his mysteries Your argument is this VVhatsoeuer is giuen in common of Christ to his Church he giues it by the Pastors But povver to make Magistrates and Iudges is giuen in coÌ„mon of Christ to his Church Ergo it is giuen by his Pastors But no man can passe more right to an other than hee hath himselfe The Pastors passe this right and povver of being Magistrates and Iudges in secular matters to another Ergo the Pastors haue right and power of being Magistrates and iudge themselues in secular matters Al these parts coÌ„clusions of these reasons I vtterly deny Master Saunders First the 〈◊〉 is fall 〈◊〉 â—…nsample Christe giues temporall peace in common to his Churche he giue â–ª plentie of fruites and seasonable weather in common to his Churche he giues health and strength of bodie in common to his Church he giues good Magistrates Kings and Princes in coÌ„mon to his Church he giues good lawes natural ciuill and municipall in common to his Churche all these are povvers giueÌ„ of Christ in coÌ„mon to the ChristiaÌ„ common vveale so well as to any other common vveale not Christian but they are not giuen by the ministerie of the spirituall Pastors The maior therefore is not true Secondly the minor is also false that Christ giueth power to his Church to make Magistrates and Iudges ouer secular matters To some Churches indéed he hath giuen this power and dothe giue it where they orderly doe choose their owne Magistrate But this can not be spoken of the Church indefinitely For the Church in most places thereof hath not the choice of Princes but God either by ordinarie succession or by extraordinarie means placeth them ouer the Church and those Princes place the Iudges Thirdly by the Church is not meÌ„t either the ecclesiastical power or the Pastors that haue that povver For the povver is but Gods gift for the Churches vse and benefite and the Pastors are but parts and members of the Church Fourthly this is false also that they can not passe a right to another that they themselues haue not For euen in the dispensation of their mysteries we maye receiue faythe and grace by their ministerie and yet they be gracelesse and haue no faith themselues And in the solemnization of Matrimonie although the Pastor haue no right to the bryde yet he transferreth the hauing of hir froÌ„ hir friends to the brydegrome so may they be Ministers in the intronizing a Prince passing a power froÌ„ God to him which yet theÌ„selues haue not except you will make them Kings And thus all your rules are false and holde not besides that they be all wrested and cleane from the sense of the sentence cited and therefore no good argument can be framed on them that that can rightly conclude the present purpose But nowe Master Saunders will applye this better and here in the margine he setteth downe in great letters Nota Note to sturre vp the Readers attention to note his application But novve saith he if that nevve Iudges must be made of the Churche rather than vve shoulde goe to lavve in secular causes before the Infidels are not nevve Kings also rather to be made of the Churche than that vve shoulde be compelled to pleade our causes before hereticall and scismatical Kings Nowe you beginne handsomely to frame your argument to your purpose for al this while you did but dallie But if the Reader note this matter as you require him to doe as he shal finde no consequence in your argument so shal he finde rancke treason in your conclusion If the argument were good then bycause the Church in Saint Paules time might choose among themselues arbiters to iudge and take vp their petite matters therefore they might haue chosen nevv Kings also to gouerne them But this coulde they not haue done without treason and rebellion therefore this argument is false Is there no difference Master Saunders betwéene the choosing of an vmpier or an arbiter chosen betwéene two parties of their owne voluntarie to iudge and descide their priuate controuersie and the choosing of a supreme publike Magistrate to gouerne their whole estate Who séeth not that this they might in no wise doe The other they might doe well inoughe And so may any of vs doe also to auoyd the charges and troubles of the lawe although we haue Christian Princes and faithfull Iudges too neither troubling those estates nor our selues and saue our money in our purses and better nourishe charitie in not going to lawe but taking vp the matter at home among our neyghbours quietly May we therefore subtracte our selues from the Iudgement Seate of the publike Magistrate when we are called or enforced by lawe thereto and whye mighte we not if we might choose a newe King when we mislyked the olde No Master Saunders this is further from Saint Paules meaning than was the other Saint Paule giues not the Corinths leaue nor power to erecte vp among them selues a publike Magistrate to flée vnto in their contentions vtterly to forsake the iudgement seates of the heathen Iudges and Princes that did gouerne them Saint Paule speakes of their owne voluntarie taking vp of matters by some indifferent man among them to be chosen as Iudge in this or that brawle betwéene them and woulde not haue them of their owne selfe will in matters that might be well taken vp among themselues to runne to Lawe before heathen Magistrates Wherein although he disalow the disorderly contention of the one yet he disaloweth not withall the orderly authoritie of the other which he confesseth to be giuen of God and he exhorteth all subiectes to obey and that for conscience sake euen the gouernement of the heathen Princes notwithstanding they were Christians that were subiectes Whereas if he had ment otherwise he hadde not onely contraryed himselfe but confirmed the sclaunder of the heathen people that the Christians were Rebelles to their estates And he might haue bene accused of sedition as styrring the people to make nevve Magistrates whiche for them being subiectes was aboue their power to doe And although this crime was layde to Saint Paules charge of sowing sedition yet could they neuer iustly proue it on him his doings and writings testifyed the contrarie with what care he labored to kepe the Christians in obedience Who otherwise might here vpon haue had great occasion of choosing nevve Princes pretending they were Christians and made frée by Christe and therefore ought not haue suffered themselues to liue in the heathen Princes bondage Which fréedome of Christian libertie least they should haue thus abused to carnall licenciousnesse and disturbed the order and quietnesse of their estate Saint Paule so often and so earnestly exhorteth them vnto obedience Neither they did so euer
so be depriued of the right of his kingdome that another may in the meane season be of the same Byshop anoynted for King and that from that day forwarde he truely shal be the King whome the Bishop orderly anoynted or other wise did consecrate and not he that being armed with a bande of souldiers occupieth the seate For of such the Prophet saith they haue reigned and not by me the which thing is so true that loâ—…athas the sonne of Saul acknowledged that the Kingdome shoulde fall vnto Dauid after the death of his Father And al that were in nede sled vnto Dauid and he became their Prince and there were with him as it were foure hundreth men and when Achimelech the Priest asked Counsell of the Lorde for Dauid and Saul hauing intelligence thereof commaunded his seruaunts to fall vpon the Priests of the Lorde no man durst execute so cruel a commaundement besides onely Doeg the Idumean The effecte of this reason is thréefolde Firste that the Pope maye depose a King and set vp another Secondly that the King so deposed by the Pope is no longer lawfull King nor to be obeyed but the subiectes ought to go to the other whomâ—… the Pope sets vp Thirdly that althoughe the Pope maye depofe a King yet no King maye depofe or touch the Pope or his Priests For the first point are alle aged these arguments The spirituall power is as greate nowe in the Church since the holy Ghost was sent from heauen as it was before in the Synagog But Kings were then deposed and other set vp by the spirituall power Ergo Kings may now likewise be deposed by the spirituall power and other set vp But the spirituall power belongeth to the highest Bishop The Bishop of Rome is the highest Bishop Ergo the Bishop of Rome maye depose Kings and set vp other The later argument which we vtterly denie and here he proueth not but taketh for confessed that there is in earth a highest Bishop ouer all other and that the Pope is he is belonging to another controuersie To the former argument we graunt the Maior The spirituall power is as great nowe after the holy Ghost was senâ—…e from heauen as it was before in the Synagog But we denie the Minor. That the deposing of Kings and sitting vp of other in their steede was not done then in the Synagog by the spirituall power that is by the spirituall authoritie of the spirituall pastor For proofe hereof M. Saunders inferreth an instance of Saul and Samuel Saul loste his Kingdome bycause he obserued not the precepte of Samuel And therefore Samuel ordayned another King. I aunswere First this facte was not a matter ordinarily belonging to the spirituall power of Samuel but an especialtie of gods singular appointing It was not a thing beloÌ„ging to the Byshops office to depose Kings and set other in their places it was but a particular acte done by gods especiall coÌ„maundement so that it could not nor was euer drawne into any ordinarie rule of their spirituall power then and much lesse is any thing belonging to the Bishops spirituall power nowe which is an ordinarie power and consisteth in setting forth the word of God in administring the sacraments of God and in bynding or losing the conscience of the obstinate or repentant sinner Which things sith none of them pertaine to the deposing of a Prince or any other man from his temporall possessions and worldly estate it is apparant that this extraordinarie doing of Samuel was neither theÌ„ nor now ordinarily pertaining to the spirituall power of pastors Secondly it is false that Saul lost his kingdome for not obseruing the precepte of Samuel For althoughe Samuel pronouÌ„ced it yet it was the Lords precept as like wise the other precepts of which M. Saunders confesseth that he fulfilled not the precept of the Lorde declared by the ministerie of Samuel So that Samuel was but the Minister of declaring it But say you then muste not the King dispise to heare the Lord speaking by the mouth of the highest Bishop We grauÌ„t you M. Sanders the King must not dispise to heare the Lorde speaking by the mouth of any Bishop As for any highest B. besides Iesus Christ we denie And the King ought to dispise to here him which claimeth that highest roome For it is an euident argument that the Lord speaketh not by such a blasphemous month as exalteth it selfe into Christes Bishopprike As for Samuel tooke not vpon him to be the highest Priest or Bishop nor was any B. or Priest at al nor spake any thing at all that he had not the especiall and expresse commandement of God therto Let your Pope and his Bishops shewe the expresse commaundement of God either especiall or ordinary that they be bidden to depose Kings and set vp other or else you wrest this example and doe no lesse abuse God than you would abuse Princes by it Thirdly this is false also that Samuell either deposed Saule or â—…et vp Dauid Concerning Saule he declared to him howe his kingdome should not continue but he deposed him not The wordes of Samuell are these Thou haste doâ—… foolishly that thou haste not obserued the commaundementes of the Lorde thy God that he commaunded thee If thou haddest not done this thing the Lorde had euen nowe established thy kingdome ouer Israell for euer But thy kingdome shall arise no further The Lorde hathe soughte him a man according to his heart and hathe commaunded him that he shoulde be captayne ouer his people bicause thou haste not kepte the thinges the Lorde commaunded thee First héere Samuell referreth all to the Lords commaundement Aâ—…d as Caietanus a Papist noteth thereon This commaundement of the Lorde violated by Saule was not a commaundement of the lawe but a particular commaundement declared to Saule by Samuel An especiall commaundement saith he for that turne Secondly he referreth the punishment not to his remouing of him but to the dooing of god Thirdly he dothe not neither in his owne name nor in Gods depose him at all from his estate but telleth him howe his kingdome shall not continue Vltrate saythe he It shall continue no further after thee Bicause his sonne Isboseth raygned not ouer all Israell neither yet ouer that peaceably and that for a small time And this purpose of God as Lyra nateth although it were then declared by reason of the present demerite of Saule yet was it the Lordes euerlasting purpose The purpose of God saith he is certain infallible It was before ordeined of God that the kingdome should be giuen to the tribe of Iuda as appeareth Gene. 49. The Scepter shal not be taken from Iuda But the Pope can not shew the like purpose of God that suche or such a Prince should nowe be deposed or placed therefore he dothe but wrest this example As for the placing of Dauid Although sayth Lyra this was yet to come he speaketh notwithstanding as
done in remouing an euill Prince in som estates sand pag. 85. Ezech. 34. Whether euery necessarie and profitable povver be giuen to the Pastor ouer his shepe Luke 22. The popishe Pastors farre from the dueties described in Ezech. 34. Glossa in Lyra in Ezech. 34. To expel Prin ces from theyr kingdomes is to rule vvyth bitternesse sand pag. 85. In Orat. de moderat in disputat seruanda The similitude of cutting of a rotten â—…eber Hovv the pastors are as it vvere the mind or reason in the head Hovve the Prince againe is as the minde oâ—… reason in the head The Prince compared to the vvill in the harâ—…e If the Prince vvere but com pared to the lungs lights or lyuer yet must â—…e not be cut off bicause he is infected sand pag. 85. 1. Cor. 6. Howe the Church hath power ouer the goods and bodily things of the faithfull The pastors are not the Church but members of the Church The pastors haue the power and proprietie of bodily goods froÌ„ the power of the Prince 1. Cor. 6. M. sand maketh priests only ChristiaÌ„s and Christian Princes Ethnikes S. Paule ment not that the Corinthiaus should go to law before the pastors for teÌ„porall matters sand pag. 85. 1. Cor. 6. Rom. 8. Howe the ministers haue haue not to do with worldly businesse S. Paule wrested by Maister Sand â–ª How the saints shall iudge the world Chrysost. in 1. Cor. 6. S. Paule speaking of Saints meaneth not only spirituall Pastors Haimo in 1. Cor. 6. Hugo in 1. Cor. 6. The Pope reproued Sand. 85. De regulis iuris Hebr. 5. 2. Cor. 5. Christe giues not al his gifts by his Pastor The Churche hath not alwayes power to make their Magistrates The Pastors passe a right to the Prince and haue not the right in theÌ„ selues Sand. 8â—… The Corinthians might not choose newe publike Magistrates bycause they might choose newe priuate arbiters S. Paule allow eth the authoritie of heathen Magistrates in his time Maister Saunders 〈◊〉 S. Paule to al rebellion sand pag. 85. Better suffer a mischiefe than an inconuenience One inconuenience not to be helped with an other inconuenience The heathen iudges delâ—… not only in tempo rall matters The daunger of M. Saund. doctrine The greatest daunger of all is of the Pope his prelates sand pag. 85. 1. Reg. 10. 1â—… 1. Reg. 15. 1. Reg. 16. Osee. 8. 1. Reg. 23. 1. Reg. 22. Deposing of Kings was neuer belonging to the spirituall power Samuel was but the minister of declariÌ„g gods precept No highest B. of the Church besides Christ. Samuel deposed not Saule 1. Reg. 13. Caietanus in 1. Reg. 13. The Lords coÌ„maundement by Samuell to Saule was especial and serued but for that turne â—…yra in 1. Reg. 13. Lyra in â—… Reg. 13. Samuels doing to Saule and Dauid was but a declaration of Gods purpose to come 1. Reg. 15. Lyra in 1. Reg. 15. The token to Saule who should succede him 1. Reg. 14. Glosla in Lyra. Soule raygned fortie yere after this sentâ—…ce of Samuel The cutting off of Saules kingdome was mente by his posteritie not by himselfe Lyra in 1. Reg. 15. Dauids priuy anoynting betokeneth it was no publike acte Saule was neuer deposed so long as he lyued M. sand reasons that he is to be obeyed whom the Pope settes vp and he to be forsaken that the Pope deposeth Osee. 8. How wicked kings are of God and not of God. Rom. 13. Pronetb 8. loaâ—… 19 â–ª The Prophets after they had declared Gods wrath to wicked kings dyd still obey their ciuill gouernment Ionathas acknowledged not Dauid to be king but that he should be king 1. Reg. 23. 1 â–ª Reg. 20. Caietanâ—… in 1. Reg. 20. Why the people flocked vnto Dauid Caietanus que stion whether Dauid did wel to receiue this people to the preiudice of their creditors Lyra his question whether he did well to become their captayne and receyued them to the preiudice of the publiâ—…e state Dauid neuer tooke him self nor was taken of any other to bâ—…â—…ng tyll Sâ—…ule was dâ—…d 1. Reg. 24. Lyra. Caietane Dauids remorce of conscieâ—…ce euen for cutting but a flap of Saules garment How this cutting was and was noâ—… iniurious to Saule 1. Reg. 24. Dauids reuerence and humilitie to Saule Dauid purgeth himselfe of all rebellion and sinne against Saul Dauid wisheth no reuengement to Saul Saul coÌ„fesseth Dauid shoulde raign not that he did raigne Saul resigned not to Dauid 1. Reg. 16. Dauid woulde â—…e no efficient cause of Saules death 1. Reg. 21. Whether Achimelech asked counsel of the Lord for Dauid or no when Dauid fled vnto him Lyra. Achimelech the high priest inferior to Saul â—… Reg. 22. The Popish not the protestant Princes imitate Saules crueltie or rather excede it sand pag. 86. 3. Reg. 11. Ephâ—… â—… The example of the prophet Ahias foretelling Ieroboam that he should raigne The specialtie of this fact not to be drawne to example How IeroboaÌ„ was a traytor how he was not The Prophete did but foretel this fact that by especiall coÌ„mandement An admonitioÌ„ for Christian Princes not to ioyne in mariage leagues with infidell Princes 3. Reg. 11. 3. Reg. 16. 3. Reg. 21. 2. Paral. 20. Sand. 86. 3. Reg. 1â—… The examples of Elias anointing Asahel Iehu â–ª and Elizeus Glossa in Lyrano in 3. Reg. 19. 4. Reg. 9. 4. Reg. 8. 3. Reg. 19. Lyra in 3. Reg. 19. Caietanus in 3. Reg. 19. Exod. 32. Num. 25. Iohn 18. Sand. 86. How the Prophets dyd kill these Idolaters 3. Reg. 18. It belongeth not to Pastors to punish with the bodily sworde M. sand confutes him self sand pag. 86. 4. Reg. 1. 4. Reg. 1. Ambro. lib. 5 Epist. 27. Rom. 13. 4. Reg. 1 â–ª The superioritie of the spiritual sworde is not the present question The present question is whether the spiritual power of pastors may depose he secular power of Princes 4 Reg. 1. King Ochozias representeth not the Protestant but the popish Princes Elias toke not vpon him the chiefest place in Gods Church Elias his facte not to be drawen to any example to followe Lyra in .. 4 Reg. 1. Caietaâ—…us in 4. Reg. 1. The imitation of thâ—… facte of Elias expressely forbidden to the Disciples of christ Luke 9. Popish Bishops of a contrary spâ—…rite to Christ. M. sand proueth his Byshops to be traytors The example of S Ambrose sand pag. 8â—… 87. Of like things it makes no matter what is done M. Sand â—…alles to putting of cases againe coÌ„trarie to the Scripture Gen 3. Difference of punishmentes Gen. 14. Gen. 19. 1. Reg 22. Leuit. 10. This punishement of fire was an especiall puâ—…shmeÌ„t proceding froÌ„ God not from Elias 3. Reg. 18. Lyra super Luc. 9. Sand. 87. 4. Reg. 6. Ibidem 4. Reg. 2. 4. Reg. 1. The example of Elizeus Elizeus defence of â—…rie charets against the armie of the king of Siria The Pope like to Benadab The ProtestaÌ„ts like 〈◊〉 Elizeus The