surmile vppon my silence any suche distrust ▪ I will compendiously as the matter shall require abbridge their aunsweres and that master Horne shall thinke that our stuffe is not all spent ▪ I shall on the other syde for a surplussage adioyne some other things to our opponent accomodate An Almonde for Parate so finely our student begins to speake that a good plaine simple man can scarce vnderstande his 〈◊〉 termes But this is the effect of it we shall now haue new stuffe of some olde store good stuffe and God will for all their stuffe as he crakes is not yet spent but I perceyue it goeth harde with them in their store house and that this stuffe is some of the last cast God sende it be not such stale stuffe when it comes to the view as Cardinall Campeius moiles did bring into Englande and vttered in Cheape side But such as it is we must take it in good worth it is the best he hath to answere the Bishops ensample withall The first ensample is of Moses in whome the Byshop noteth thrée things First that he was the supreme gouernour of Gods people Secondly that hée ordred and set forth Gods true Religion wyth great regarde and care prescribing aswell to Aaron and the Leuites as to the people Thirdly that he was not the chiefe priest therfore could not do them in suche respect but as he was supreme gouernour The first and the seconde propositions that Moses was the supreme gouernour and that he did order and direct all things M. St. graunteth The thirde parte he denieth and affirmeth that Moses was the chiefe priest and in that respecte dyd all these foresayde thinges This assertion he sayth he will proue bothe by his masters olde and by his owne surplusage of newe stuffe also His argument of both these stuffes is this I say with M. D. Harding and S. Augustine that Moses was a Priest aswell as a Prince I say the same with M. Dorman ▪ with Philo Iudeus with S. Hierome and with S. Hieroms master Gregorie Nazianzene Ergo Moses was the chiefe Priest. By the like reason if M. St. be a priest he might proue him selfe to be the Pope of Rome He is a Romish priest Ergo he is the chiefe Romish priest which is the pope The one reason is as good as the other But here he will cry out and say I do him wrong to change his conclusion for he inferreth no such words but these And so consequently Moses ensample serueth not your turne but quite ouerturneth your assertion True it is in déed this is your cōclusion M. St. but what was the bishops assertion which this ye say quite ouerturnes was not this his assertion that Moses was not the chiefe priest and did not you denie this assertion affirme it to be an vntruth saying for Moses was the chiefe priest as shal be proued did ye not héere make promise to proue it did ye not say that to answere this example ye had other freshe stuffe not yet spent must not then this stuffe be directed to this ende conclusion to fulfill your promise ouerturne the bishops assertion which was that Moses was not the chiefe priest but Aaron and you should proue as ye haue freshly promised that Moses was the chiefe priest And therfore if this be not your conclusion ye subtilly falsly swerue frō the cōclusion that ye ought to haue cōcluded ye performe not your promise to proue Moses the chiefe priest nor your conclusion as ye crake ouerturnes the byshops assertion which was that Moyses was not the chief priest but Aaron And therfore either this is your argument Moses was a Priest Ergo he was chiefe Priest or else ye conclude not agaynst the bishops assertion If ye say ye conclude this al the world séeth what a fonde conclusion it is And if ye haue a poleshorne priests crowne of your owne as I doubt not but ye haue a faire one ye may aswell conclude to your self the Popes triple crowne And if ye cōclude it not ye conclude not agaynst the bishop nor fulfill your promise for all your proues stande on this profe that Moses was a priest Nowe the question was not whether Moses was a priest or no which is another question in controuersie But the question is whether he or Aaron were the chiefe priest Yet will ye peraduenture say though I haue herein as ye haue proued swarued from the directe conclusion in hande that Moses was not the chiefe priest nor kepte my promise yea and made a scape in saying that I ouerturned the bishops assertion when I did not or if I went about it yet mine argument proued but a fonde reason from priest to chiefe priest yet in the ende I haue proued Moses a priest and so consequently it serueth not your turne vnlesse ye will king Henry the eight and his sonne king Edwarde yea our gratious Queene to be a priest to but rather quite ouerturneth your assertion and think you M. Horne that the Queenes authoritie doth iumpe agree with the authoritie of Moses in causes ecclesiasticall then may she preache to the people as Moses did then may she offer sacrifices as Moses did then may she consecrate priests as Moses did consecrate Aaron and others then may it be sayde of the imposition of handes as was sayde of Moyses Iosua the sonne of Nun was full of the spirite of wisdome for Moses had put his hande vpon him It must needes therefore followe that Moses was a priest and that a high priest whiche ye heere full peeuishly denie Where ye aske M. Stap. of the Byshop And thinke ye M. Horne that the Queenes authoritie do the iumpe agree with th' authoritie of Moses might not the byshop demaund agayne the like of you and thinke you ▪ M. Stap. that euen your Popes authoritie admitting it were not the vsurped tyrannie which it is dothe iumpe agree with the authoritie of Moyses yea admitting also that question that he was a Priest and so consequently agayne it serueth not your turne nor master D. Hardings nor master Dormans neither I am sure as ye confesse he was a priest so ye will admit a difference betwéene your Pope and him and euen so since ye reason thus precisely of differences in the persons ye ought also to haue made a difference betwéene Moyses his diuerse offices and to haue giuen either office his proper actions and so to haue applied them and not to haue confounded them admitting that he one person were both a Prince and a Priest also which hangs in controuersie for all your cited authors But you reason confusedly à secundum quid ad simpliciter Moyses by an especiall priuiledge was a Prieste as well as a Prince and thereby did preache offer sacrifice consecrate Aaron lay imposition of handes and did other offices of Priests and many extraordinary things besides Ergo Moses in that he was a Prince not a Priest in
suche a counsellour as your selfe are M. Stap. But when ye sée this weakenesse of your argument by and by you start backe againe from all that you haue sayd And as before ye forsooke the ensamples from Moyses and referred them to your foresayde wrested rule so woulde ye nowe also deale with Iosue that if the Priestes counselling would not inferre his authoritie yet his iudgement should as ye thought enforce it Your argument is this The Priest and the Iudge must discusse all doubtes of bloud strife cleane and vncleane Ergo all the testimonies of the holy scripture brought forth by master Nowell and before him by master Horne can not induce supremacie in causes ecclesiasticall but the execution of the high Priestes or lawes commaundement This friuolous argument grounded on this impertinent and weake ankerholde which master Stapleton maketh his generall rule and succour whensoeuer he is driuen to a plunge then backe againe to this as a foxe to his earth is so fully aunswered and confuted that it were but superfluous to stande any longer about it And here sayth master Stapleton I will not quarrell with master Nowell c. Under pretence that he will not he beginnes to picke by quarrelles with him A pretie figure he will not but he doth The quarels are a couple of miâ—…quotings of figures for 33. 34. for 23. 24. For vsing such examples as the Bishop of Winchester doth For detecting M. Dormans sâ—…ealth the noting wherof he calleth childish and boyish rhetoâ—…ike for feare in deede that his owne childishe and boyish rhetorike stealing so many sentences arguments and in maner whole leaues from Doctor Harding and master Dorman as master Dorman stale from Hosius maâ—…ler Harding shoulde be also detected as master Dormans is and therefore he flourisheth it out with his common places but the stuffe is the olde stâ—…ffe still though newe furbished for rusting to seeme the fresher to the shewe After he hath done with M. Nowell he returneth to Iosue and least he should seeme to haue answered no particuler point he choseth out one of Iosue his doings in the place of all the rest alleged not so much to make any answere at all to the obiection thereof as thereby to picke yet another by quarrell and so to shake of the matter as though he had made a clerkly answere thereto The Bishop shewed how at the appoyntment of Iosue the priestes 〈◊〉 the arke of Couenant and placed the same so goeth on through many perticuler actions that declaâ—…e Iosues supreme gouernment ordring of ecclesi matters To this when M. St should directly answere whether this declare an authoritie of the Prince euer the priestes in ecclesiasticall matters yea or no in sâ—…eed of answere he sayth But for the doyng of Ioâ—…ue I will further note that then the Priestes tooke vp the arke of couenant and went before the people But I pray you master Horne how was this obserued of laâ—…e yeares when the lay men durst aduenture to take the guiding of the arke and go before the Priestes and not suffer the priests to go before them And durst alter the state of Christian religion agaynst the will and minde of â—…he B. the whole clergie then at their conuocation asâ—…embled And I pray you againe master Stapleton What doth this answere the Bishops proposition â—…t shewâ—…th your shifting it detecteth your malice that witâ—…ingly slaunder your most gracâ—…ous priâ—…ce natiue countrey Hir Maiestie hath onely done therein euen after the example of this moste Godly priâ—…ce Iosue In coÌ„maunding the arke that is is to say gods holye worde in the syncere setting forth of it by the godly ministers thereof to be caried before hir hir subiects And when your popish prâ—…lates priests which in deed are neyther preâ—…ates nor prieus refused â—…o to cary it otherwise thaÌ„ after your oâ—…n devises to cart it â—…ot after Gods 〈◊〉 or rather would not cary it about at al but bury it vnder a bushel â—… in 〈◊〉 therof cary about maâ—…mets toyes to mâ—…ke 〈◊〉 peoplâ—… commit most barbarous idolatrie hir high â—…sse as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath abolished iuch caryage and as did Salo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of office your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 aud 〈◊〉 clergie and placed other 〈◊〉 painful 〈◊〉 in their â—…ooues to cary this erke as goo hath appointed it before hir highnes all hir people Now when ye haue thus 〈◊〉 the prince the clergie the whole realme and yet answered not one worde to the obiection VVell say you â—…et tâ—…ts palâ—…e for this present I say no 〈◊〉 for Iosue his doing sauing that otherwise they are not to be drawne into an ordinarie rule for that the spirite of God was certainly in him and for that hee had part of Moses glorie and the people commaunded to heare him and those things that he did wherof M. Nowell M. Horne would inferre a soueraigntie in causes spiritual he did them by the expresse commaundement of god And from such princes to all princes indifferently to gather the like preheminence in all poynts were no sure and found gathering and collection Your argument is this those Princes in whom the spirit of God certainly is and haue part of Moses glorie and whom thâ—… â–ª people are coÌ„maunded to heare and whose doings are by Gods expresse coÌ„mandement are not ensamples for all godly Princes to follow in their gouernments But such another was Iosue Ergo it were no sound gathering collection to set Iosue for ensample for other Princes to follow For that which ye inferre of like preheminence in al points to Iosue both maketh your argument vicious hauing more in the conclusion than is in any of the propositions neyther doth the Bishop or any other contende for like prehemmence in all point as Iosue had but inferre of his ensample a like charge of their dueties a like care and regard of gouerning Gods people to be required of theÌ„ being princes rulers as Iosue was But where lerned you this wicked false principle wheron ye ground your argumnet that the doings of any are not to be set for examples for other Princes to follow that had certainly the spirite of God in them or that had a part of Moses glorie or the people were commaunded to heare them or bicause they did their doings by the expresse commaundement of God are they not a great deale the more to be set for ensamples to follow Would ye haue them follow such as certainly had the spirite of errour in them suche lying Papistes as your selues Woulde ye haue them follow your expresse commaundements and then they were to be followed but not if they followed the commaundements of God Are those Princes not to be followed whome God commaundeth the people to heare And are they to be followed whom you commaund the people to heare If they be godly Princes God commaundeth all people both to heare them and obey them chiefly where they
supreme charge ouersight and gouernment to sée that the Priest do not abuse this so excellent and spiritual ministerie but exercise rightly the same according to Gods worde Who so doing the Prince so well as any other Christian obeyeth his preaching ministerie submitteth his head as Chrysosâ—…ome saith vnder the ministers handes as to Gods messenger steward and dispenser of his heauenly mysteries But if the Priest be not such an one as Chrysostome describeth if he do not denounce Gods promises threaâ—…es nor his worde at all but as Christ saith of the naughtie seruant striketh his fellow seruants and subtracâ—…eth their spirituall foode of Gods worde from them would poyson theÌ„ with such erroniouse foode as he would giue them besides and contrarie to the worde of God if he will not be centent with his owne boundes but will vsurpe also the dignitie that is not due vnto him but belongeth to the Prince shall the Prince suffer this at his handes him selfe to be spoyled of his authoritie and royall estate and his subiectes pilled of their goods yea both he and al his subiects by such a false vsurper tirant Priest to be robbed and spoiled of their soules foode saluation Here hath the Prince authoritie to suppresse such wicked Balamites such counterfaites such Antichrists what soeuer they be and to place in their places true and godly ministers such as Chrysostome here speakes of FroÌ„ which kinde of ministerie your Pope M. St who is your great high Priest all the inferiour rable of Priests that depende on him are so farre different that Chrysostoms senteÌ„ce not only maketh nothing for you but is cleane against you For first take your owne words that you cite out of Chrysostome lay them to your Pope Prelates and sée how they agrée togither This king saith Chrysâ—…stome of the minister or Priest is not knowne by visible things neither hath his estimatioÌ„ for preciouse stones he glistereth with all or for his gay golden ghstering apparell Contrarywise your Pope and his prelates to get the more estimation thereby of the people are not onely knowen by visible things but set out them selues and all their ceremonies to the vttermost in gay golden glistering apparell with most gorgeous ouches of siluer of golde of pearles and precious stones Againe this Prieste saith to the King I haue not vsurped thy purple contrarywise the Pope hath vsurped Emperours purple the Emperours Diademe the Emperours throne the Emperours Empire and all Againe ye tell vs out of Chrysostome that the bodies are committed to the King the soules to the Priest the King pardoneth the faultes of the bodie the Priest pardoneth the faultes of the soule the King forceth the Priest exhorteth the one by necessitie the other by giuing counsell the one hath visible armour the other spirituall he warreth against the barbarous I warre against the Diuell Contrarywise the Pope warreth against Christ and with the Diuell as his generall vicar and Licuetenant and taketh not onely vppon him the Emperours parte by warring against the barbarous Turkes and Saracens but also the Diuels parte by warring against the Saincts truth of God and that with more horrible treasons murders and villanies than euer was practised among the barbarous And entermedleth with faultes of the bodie as whoredome and fornication not onely bodily to punish them but also beastly for filthie lucre to maintaine them and condemneth in Gods ministers godly and honorable wedlocke which besides the other is a manifest argument that he is a Priest of no such kinde as Chrysostome here coÌ„mendeth For had you M. St. looked better euen in the same Homelie but the leafe before ye should haue seene what a notable commendation he maketh of the mariage of Priestes vppon the prophetes wordes Vidi dominum c. I saw the Lorde sitting in an high I hrone c. Quis hac loquitur c. VVho saith he spake these thinges Esay that beholdet of the celestiall Scraphins which had to deale with mariage and yet extinguished not grace You haue harkened to the Prophet and you haue heard the Prophet this day Go thou out and lasuph thy sonne neyther must we ouerpasse these thinges Go thou out and thy sonne Yea had the Prophet a sonne if he had a sonne he had a wife also that thou mayst vnderstande that mariages are not euill but whooredome is euill But so often as we talke with any of the vulgare people saying why liuest thou not well wherefore expressest thou not perfect manners how can I say they except I should go from my wife except I should bid my children farewell except I should bidde my businesse adieu VVherfore canst thou not doth matrimonie hinder thee a wife is giuen thee for an helper not to lay a snare for thee Had not the Prophet a wife neither did wedlocke hinder the grace of the spirite and yet he kepte companie togither with his wife and was a Prophet neuerthelesse Had not Moses a wife and yet he brake the rocke he changed the ayre he talked with God he stayde the diuine wrathe Had not Abraham a wife and yet he was made a father of Nations and of the Churche for he got his sonne Isaac and he was to him a matter of notable affayres Did he not offer his Sonne the fruit of his mariage was he not a father and withall a louer of God might not he see him selfe a sacrificer to be made of his owne bowels a sacrificer I say and a father withall nature to be ouercome godlinesse to ouercome his bowels to be troden downe his godly deedes to surmount the father to be cast downe and the louer of God to be crowned hast thou not seene the whole maÌ„ both a louer of his son and of God was matrimonie here an hindraÌ„ce but what saist thou to the mother of the Machabees Was she not a wife added she not seuen sonnes to the felowship of the saincts did she not see them crowned with martyrdom â–ª did she not stand by as a looker vppon and not â—…aint in hir minde stoode she not by exhorting euery one of them and being the mother of the martyrs suffred hâ—… selfe seuen martirdoms for while they were tormented she receyued the stroke Neither yet without affections beheld she â—…he things that were done She was the mother and the violence done to nature declared hir proper vertue But she was not ouercome c. But what say we to Peter the maine piller of the Church that vehemeÌ„t louer of Christ he that in speach was vnlearned conquerour of RhethoritiaÌ„s he that was vnskilfull stopped the philosophers mouthes he that dissolued the Greeke wisdome no otherwise thaÌ„ the webbe of spiders he that trauailed through the world cast the net into the sea and fished the world but what saith the Gospell Iesus entred vnto Peters wiues mother being sicke of a feuer VVhere a wiues mother is there is a wife and