olde testament the Prince was otherwise than in the foresayde respects inferiour to the Priest and people It remaineth sayth he that we proue the king of the Hebrue nation to haue ben lesse than his nation and his Bishop VVho shall bee a better iudge in this cause than euen God himselfe For he entreating of sacrifices for sinne committed by ignorance distinguisheth foure sortes of men For either the anoynted priest sinneth or the people or the Prince or the priuate person Of these foure sortes the anoynted Prieste helde the firste place the people of Israell the seconde place the Prince the third place the priuate man the last place If the Prieste that is anoynted shall haue sinned making the people to offende he shall offer for his sinne an vnspotted ' Bullocke without blemishe vnto the Lorde But if all the people of Israell shall haue doone of ignorance that whiche is contrarie to the commaundement of the Lorde and shall afterwarde vnderstande their sinne the people shall offer a Bullocke for their sinne If the Prince shall haue sinned and among many thinges shall doe ought by ignorance that is forbidden by the Lawe of the Lorde and shall afterwarde vnderstande his sinne he shall offer for an offering to the Lorde from among the she Goates an he Goate vnspotted But if any soule of the people of the lande shall haue sinned through ignorance hee shall offer a shee Goate vnspotted Loe foure sacrifices whereof the moste worthy is the Bullocke whiche is offered as well for the Prieste as for all the people The hee Goate is but of the nexte worthynesse the which the King offered Therefore euen as the Prince is prefered before the priuate man so al the people is preferred before the Prince but the anoynted Prieste is preferred before them both This argument is taken from the Sacrifices for sinnes in the olde Testament and is nothing pertayning to gouernment and therfore can infer no necessarie but wrested conclusion therevnto Nowe as this matter is nothing to the present purpose so his argumentes thereon argue the greater follie the more nicely he standeth on them He driueth thē to infer a superioritie by two reasons the one of the more worthy Sacrifice the other of the order placing the discription of these Sacrifices Of the Sacrifice he reasoneth on the more worthy beast as thus He that offered the more worthy beast was the more worthy in authoritie But the highe Prieste and the people offered a more worthe beaste than dyd the Prince Ergo the highe Priest and the people were more worthy in authoritie than the Prince The Maior he taketh for graunted after his manner ▪ The Minor he proueth thus A Bullocke is a more worthie beast than a Goate But the highe Priest and the people offered a Bullocke the Prince but a Goate Ergo they offered a more worthie beaste I aunswere to this worthy if not rather beastly argument made from a Bullocke as I remember once a Papiste sayde in Cambridge of a righte worthie Doctor of hys owne Popishe Church his name quoth he is Doctor Bullocke but per contractionem it maye be Doctor Blocke and so this is a Bullockishe argument but per contractionem it is a very blockishe argument and farre more fitte for Doctour Bullock thā for Doctor Sanders to haue made except that he be made Bullatus Doctor I graunt there was great differences to be obserued in the thinges offered howe beit the worthynesse of the Sacrifice laye not in the things offered but euery Sacrifice had this or that kynd of matter appointed to be offered as the wisdome of God thoughte fittest to expresse the nature of that sinne or propitiation whereof it was a Sacrifice A Lyon is counted a more worthy beast than a Bullocke and yet was it counted an vncleane beast In the second chapter going before this alledged God saith of flower and Corne offered which is not so worthy a thing as is a beast it is the most holy of the offerings of the Lorde made by fire In the thirde Chapter he saithe if he offer a Lambe for his oblation and afterwarde he sayth and if his offerings be a Goate A Goate is a more worthy beast than Lambe But what shall we conclude hereon for the more worthynesse of the Persons authoritie that offered all these and other more different things But nowe if a Bullocke be the moste worthy beast dyd not many Kings many times offer many Bullockes Did not also the high Priests offer other things for themselues besides bullockes in the. 8. chapter of Leuit. a bullocke and ◅ ram was offered for Aaron and his sonnes but here the bullocke is still placed before the ram as a more worthie beast by maister Saunders reason But in the ninth chapter he sayth And in the. 8. daye Moyses called Aaron and his sonnes and the elders of Israel and then he said to Aaron take thee a yong calfe for a sinne offering and a ram for a burnte offering both without blemishe and bring them before the Lorde and vnto the Children of Israel saying take ye an hee Goate for a sinne offering and a Calfe and a Lambe both of a yeare olde without blemishe for a burnt offering also a Bullocke and a ram for a peace offering here is a yong calfe preferred before a bullocke for the Priests sin offering and a ram before a Calfe yea a bullocke and a ram for the people and but a yong calfe and a ram for the high Priest and so the people by this reason shoulde be more worthie than the high Priest and equall at the least they are made euen in this place that M. Saunders so narrowly examineth for the Priest and the people offer a bullocke both of them Now if the dignitie of the beast sacrificed will not inferre the dignitie of the man offering the sacrifice yet wil master Saunders enforce his argument furder from the dignitie of the place in the order of naming eche persons sacrifyce as thus He that is former placed is former in dignitie and hee that is placed later is inferior in dignitie But the priest annointed held the first place the people of Israel the second place the Prince the thirde place the priuate man the last place Ergo the Prince is inferior in dignitie to the Priest and the people and onely superior to the priuate man. I answere this is as meane if not a worser argumente than the other from the former place in recitall to the former place in dignitie Maister Saunders owne order of his booke in this selfe same treatise confuteth himselfe In hys firste booke he examineth the peoples authoritie In his seconde booke the Princes authoritie in his thirde booke the Priests authoritie shall wee v◅gehim herevpon that he ment to giue the people superior authoritie to Princes and Princes superior authoritie vnto Priests he will saye be ment it not
ye bryng hym foorthe to better purpose or else whyle yee thynke by clawyng hym thus to wynne hys good fauour yee gette hys heauy displeasure and that he answere ye flatly non hercule veniam tertio he will not come at your cal Howbeit ye will once agayne in hope of better lucke bring him foorth and alleage his authoritie better than ye haue done hitherto Besides that say you it is to be considered as M. D. Harding toucheth that he passed other Princes herein bicause he had the gifte of prophecie So that neither those thinges that the Apologie sheweth of Dauid or those that ye and master Nowell adde therevnto for the fortification of the sayde superioritie can by any meanes induce it This friuolous argument he was a Prophet also aswell as a Prince Ergo his superioritie in that he was a Prince can not be alleaged for other Princes to followe ye vsed before as your owne freshe stuffe to shifte off Moses ensample but as it nothing helped your cause then no more dothe it nowe Onely it detecteth héere your vayne crake there of vnspent stuffe where in déede it was olde rotten stuffe spent before by D. Harding on king Dauid as héere your selfe coÌ„fesse yet there ye brought it as a notable fresh surplusage beyonde all that had bene sayde But as you thus of D. Hardings olde scroppes héere would haue made vs there newe fresh stuffe of your owne wherby the alleaging of him agayne this third time openeth your shame so yet once agayne ye make your M. D. Harding and your selfe for companie confounde your owne tales and speake contrarie to your selues Right now ye sayde and alleaged your masters authoritie for it that king Dauids doings were no more than Queene Maries doings to employ a supremacie Nowe ye say agayne and like wise alleage your master for it that king Dauid passed other princes heerein bicause he had the gifte of prophecie If he passed other princes héerein then he passed Quéene Mary whome many other Princes haue also héerein passed and so his doings were more than were Quéene Maries doings héerein For who knowe not that she was no Prophete and thus the oftner ye alleage your master ye take your master tardie in one lie or another and make him still contrarie both himselfe and his cause also Againe it King Dauid were a Prophete as I graunt he was a Prophete ye wote might and did determine doctrine but your selfe sayde before Dauid in all his doings determined no doctrine and thus ye lie on your owne head and make your master witnesse thereto Well leaue at the length to cite your masters authorities for shame master Stapleton since ye can bring them out no handsomer or howe well so euer ye haue brought them out to your aduantage since they be no better proues than that He affirmeth he noteth he toucheth as though all were gospell that master Doctor Harding affirmeth noteth or toucheth Are ye so fond to thinke any man would yéelde so soone vnto them vnlesse he were as wise as your selfe But since none of all these reasons will serue we shall now haue other stuffe of your owne though not very fresh but such stale refuse as your masters haue refused but to you all is fishe that commes to nette ye do wisely to let go nothing that maye any waye be wrested to helpe so yll a cause And first ye reason from the authoritie of the scripture In déede this is a better way than to reason from D. Hardings authoritie The Scripture say you in the sayde place by you and master Nowell alleaged sayth that Dauid did worke iuxta omnia quae scripta sunt in lege dominâ—… according to all things written in the lawe of God. What conclusion can ye inferre hereon agaynst the Bishops allegation of Dauid Ergo he had not an especiall care and regard in ordring and setting forth Gods true religion if ye make the quite contrarie conclusion He did worke according to all things written in the lawe of God Ergo as the B. sayth he had an especiall care and regard in ordring directing Gods true religion then should ye make a most true conclusion where otherwise rightly applied it can no ways serue your turn Thus bring ye out that which once again ouerturnes your cause and proues K. Dauids supreme gouernmeÌ„t And euen so the Q. Maiestie by this ensample of K. Dauid is taught to do the like as praysed be to god for hir therfore she foloweth wel herein the steps of K. Dauid doing iuxta omnia quae scripta suÌ„t in lege domini according to all things written in gods law And where the papists in al their errors this amoÌ„g other of the supremacie do praeter coÌ„tra omnia quae scripta sunt in lege domini besides against all things writteÌ„ in gods law As Dauid redressed eccl. disorders crept in before his time so the Q. highnes now hath redressed such disorders as she fouÌ„d before hir time crept in Thus the more ye reason the more stil ye make against your selfe Ye had néed adde some better stuffe thaÌ„ this or els if ye thus hold on your friends wold wish M. Fec had hired ye to hold your peace when he first moued you to plead for him Master Stap. séeing it now more than high time to adde some notable thing to better his cause VVherevnto I adde sayth he a notable saying of the scripture in the sayd booke by you alleaged concerning Dauids doings by you brought foorth touching the Priestes and Leuits Vt ingrediantur domum dei iuxta ritum suum sub manu Aaron patris corum sicut prâ—…ceperat dominus deus Israel King Dauids appoyntment was that the Leuits and Priestes should enter into the house of God there to serue vnder the gouernment of whome I pray you not of King Dauid but vnder the spirituall gouernment of their spirituall father Aaron and his successours The gouernour of them was Eleazarus Upon this notable sentence for your purpose as ye thinke you gather thrée notes And bicause ye would go orderly ye begin first with the last note VVhere we haue to note first say you that Dauid appoynted hereto the Leuits nothing of himself But sicut praeceperat dominus deus Israel as the Lorde God of Israel had before appoynted VVe haue here againe to note first in you M. Stap. no plaine dealing that begin with the last part of the sentence first And wherefore I pray you but that that which is spoken here of this matter in especiall ye woulde make it séeme to serue for all Dauids doings in generall VVe haue to note againe your hacking and wresting of this sentence which sheweth a playne destination betweene theyr turnes of comming in and their ordinarie ministerie in theyr turnes in attending on the highe priest The text is thus â—…ae vices eorum secundum ministeria sua vt ingrediantur domum domini iuxta ritum
suum sub manu Aaron patris eorum sicut praeceperat dominus deus Israel These are theyr courses after their ministeries to enter into the house of the Lorde and according to theyr manner be vnder the hande of Aaron their father as the Lorde God of Israel hath commaunded Which last wordes ye beginne withall and ioyne them to the first parte as thoughe the Lordes commaundement had béene of Dauids appoyntment where it was onely of the obedience of all the Tribe of Leuie to be vnder Aaron and his successors in the ministerie which in deede was Gods statte commaundement But the appoynting of the courses to those mencioned in that place was Dauids commaundement euen as your selfe doe say it was King Dauids appoyntment And the Chapter before of the lyke argument playnlye sayeth Iuxta pracepta quoquè Dauid 〈◊〉 c. And according to the last commaundements of Dauid the Leuites were numbered from twentie yeare and vpwarde to wayte vnder the hande of the sonnes of Aaron in the seruice of the house of the Lorde But admit that these wordes Sicut praeceperat c. as god had commaunded be to be ment as you pretend of a speciall coÌ„maundement to Dauid so to dispose those courses as ye expound it he did nothing without gods coÌ„maundement Is this again I pray you any argumeÌ„t to improue his supreme authority next vnder god bicause he did al things sicut praeceperat dominus as the lord had coÌ„maundéd then by this same rule yourpriest should not haue the supremacie neither for I am sure he had no further priuiledge to do against or beyond Gods coÌ„maundement no more than Dauid had It is your Pope that thus stretcheth his claime to do beyonde all Gods forvoade and contrarie to Gods commaundement but little or nothing sicut praeceperat dominus deuâ—… Israel as the Lord God of Israel hath coÌ„maunded As for the Quéenes Maiestie hath not done or doth any thing more than Dauid did which is sicut praeceperat c. as God hath commaunded hir to do And syth Gods commaundement vnto Dauid stretcheth to the placing appointing both aboue vnder in their orders of sacrifices eueÌ„ of all the leuiticall priesâ—…es it strengthneth hir cause the more that she hath not onely the bare example of King Dauid but also the warrant of Gods commaundement for the supreme gouernement of all hir clergie to place them in their seuerall functions Secondly ye say ye haue to note that king Dauid did make appoyntment vnto them of no straunge or new order to be taken in religion but that they should serue God in the temple iuxta ritum suum after their owne vsage custome or maner before time vsed Secondly we note to you againe M. St. that you interprete his sayings ambiguously and applie it maliciously Ambiguously bicause thoughe Dauid neyther made any straunge or newe order to be taken in Religion nor yet in their vsage custom or maner of their ceremonies commaunded of god and so vsed before his time but saw euery thing dutifully obserued both sicut praeceperat dominus iuxta ritum suum as the Lord had coÌ„manded after their owne order yet in their courses and in other circumstances diuers of his orders were new and strange vnto them and of his owne appoyntment And diuers ceremonies that were iuxta ritum suum according to their own order hauing been neglected by the priests and become straunge vnto them those he redressed iuxta ritum suum according to their own order and sicut praeceperat dominus as the Lorde had commaunded But what serueth this howe soeuer ye expounde it to infringe any supreme gouernement in king Dauid bicause the Prince is bounde not to alter the Priestes rites and ceremonies béeing appoynted of God Ergo he is not supreme gouernour in séeing them kéept accordingly might ye not rather argue contrarywise The prince is bound not to alter religion nor those orders that God hath ordeyned bringing in straunge and new Ergo he is bound to ouersée care and prouide that those orders be onely kept and none other brought in And if princes had alwayes looked to this their duetie more narrowly than they haue done then had not your Pope and popishe Prelates broughte in so many vayne traditions false doctrines and superstitious ceremonies as they haue neither iuxta ordinem suum according to their owne order nor sicut praceperat dominus as the Lord commaunded On the other part this your application is a malicious slaunder to the Q. highnesse For she hath not made or appointed to be receiued any strange or new order in religion but reuoked the olde primatiue order of religion ordeined of Christ and hath appoynted the ministers of God to do their dueties secundum ritum suum according to their owne order sicut praeceperat dominus as our sauiour Christ by him selfe and his Apostles hath prescribed to them It is your Pope and Papall Church that offreth strange fire to God that hath appoynted erected those strange and newe orders in religion and therfore hir maiestie hath worthily abolished all those false priests with their strange and new orders and all their false worship of God and in that hir highnesse thus doth she sheweth hir selfe to follow Dauids eâ—…sample like a godly supreme gouernour Thirdly and lastly say you king Dauids appoyntment was that they should serue in the house of God sub manu Aaron patris corum as vnder the spirituall gouernement of their father Aaron and his successors the high Priests Héere agayne to the shew of some aduauntage ye translate sub manu which is vnder the hande importing attendant at hande in their ministerie to the high Priest vnder the spirituall gouernement as thoughe they were exempted from the kings gouernement and so you make your conclusion saying The which words of the Scripture do so well and clearely expresse that king Dauid did not take vpon him any spirituall gouernment in the house of god c. This conclusion is captious and yet not to the purpose There is a difference betwéene spirituall gouernment and gouernment ouer spirituall â—…cclesiasticall matters This ye should conclude not that if ye will confute the bishop And this gouernment ouer spirituall matters tooke Dauid on him the other that is the spirituall gouernment he left entier vnto the Priests without any preiudice to their ecclesiasticall authoritie as ye graunted before And as Dauid therin did so doth the Quéenes Maiestie nowe But what maketh this agaynst king Dauids supreme gouernment that the inferior priests Leuites in their ministeries offices were by the kings appoyntment vnder the hande or spirituall gouernment of their spirituall father Aaron and his successors the high priests as you translate the text Is it not also the Q. Maiesties appoyntment that the inferiour Ministers should serue in their functions vnder the spiritual gouernment of their bishops and bicause it is hir
commaunded and prescribed vnto the chiefe priests what fourme and order they should obserue in ecclesiasticall causes and controuersies of religion Is not this then your own abhomination and contradiction â—…atly to say here is no fourme or order prescribed and that the Bishop belieth Gods holy woorde which in one that goeth for a student of Diuinitie to sclaunder one that goeth for a Bishop what can be done more malapertly But as ye thus sawfely misuse your better so full fondly and malitionsly do yâ—… gather that thereon then the which the Bishop minded nothing lesse nor can instly be gathered thereupon Yâ—… say the Bishop writeth thus to make folke weene that religion proceded then by way of commission from the Prince onely This is your owne spitefull sclander M. Stapl. not onely on the Bishop but on the Quéenes Maiestie your argument is this He prescribed them a fourme and order to obserue in coÌ„trouersies of Religion Ergo He attempted to make Religion proceede by way of commission from the Prince onely This is a false and maâ—…itions collection M. Stapl. from the fourme and order of athing to the thing it selfe It is your holy father the Pope to whom ye may obiect this conclusion he maâ—…eth religion to depende on him and to proceede from him onely â–ª by his Commissions and Legacies â—… latere We-acknowledge all true religion to procéede onely from God the father through Iesus Christ his sonne by the insâ—…ctioÌ„ of the holy ghost in the mouth of the Patriarches Prophets and Apostles And from the Prince to procéede onely such godly orders and formes of directing and setting foorth that true religion as he by the notable examples of these godly Kinges shall finde out paterns most expedient for him and his people to gouerne and order them of what â—…state soeuer they be in that true religion and all other ecclesiastical causes belonging thereto So did Iosaphat then so doth the Quéenes Maiestie now FroÌ„ whose authoritie next â—…nder â–ª God the order direction procéeded though the religioÌ„ procéeded not from them but altogither from God. Nay say you king â–ª Iosaphats dealings were rather with 〈◊〉 persoâ—… thâ—…n with matters ecclesiasticall This was M. FeckeÌ„hams former shifte and many proper ensamples and similitudes you also vsed thereon to dally about the 〈◊〉 of the ecclesiasticall person but not in ecclesiastical matters But those were but séely shifts and euer turned against your selfe in the ende And therefore ye darâ—… not abide by this shifte but within a litle while after yea euen in this Chapter ye recant and denie the obedience of the persons and all And what hath bene your practise any other than cleane to ridde your selues out of al obedience from the Princes authoritie ye knowe your Pope hath bene vnder the Emperour ere now but vnder what Princes obedience euen for his person will ye confesse your Pope at this day to be And do not all the packe of the popishe Priestes as his chickens clâ—…cke vnder his winges and exempt euen their persons also from the dutifull obedience they owe to their naturall soueraignes in so much that where the Popes primacie is admitted Princes can not by any of their laweâ—… â–ª fasten any condigne punishement vppon any ecclesiasticall persons â–ª what mischiefe soeuer they committe and all bicause the ecclesiasticall persons were priuileged and exempted from their Princes authoritie Wherein your generation dealt surely for themselues that hauing graunted them an inche got an elle For seing that if they should graunt againe the obedience of the person the cause and all would at last returne to his old master the Prince as it did before but you thinke your selfe sure inough if ye graunt that Iosaphat dealed with ecclesiasticall persons but not with their matters As ye shifted of the matter before that the Prince dealeth with a Bishop for his homage baronie and temporalties but not otherwise Thinke ye M. Stapl. and tell me on your fidelitie did Iosaphat meddle with the high Priestes and all other of the Clergie so well as his temporaltie onely in respecte of their persons or in respecte of their reuenues and linings vnder him or chiefly in any of these respectes did he thus commaunde them and deale with them or not rather and most of all in respect of refourming abuses in religion and setting in order all ecclesiasticall causes he appointed not onely the persons but the places where the persons shoulde execute their offices and what matters these and those persons shoulde entreate vppon and how they shoulde do them as your selfe haue confessed the manner And least we should thinke he â—…ubbered ouer the matter as ye say many good and godly princes among the Christians also haue charged their Bishops and clergie to see diligently vnto their flockes and charges Ye say true M. Stapleton many godly Princes haue thus done to your further confutation in this issue But you meane they haue onely giuen them a generall exhortation and yet neuerthelesse lefte the matter wholly in their Clergies hands not medling themselues therewith Least ye should thinke that Iosaphat did it thus sclenderly not that his chiefe charge of ouersight lay thereon not onely of them all generally but particulerly in euery kinde of matter the holy ghost hath penned out how precisely he went to worke that rather hauing his care about the matters then the persons For this was his principal marke care not so much that the person might sit in authoritie as that the matter might wisely and truly be iudged and discerned and therfore saith the text In Hierusalem quoque constituit Iosaphat Leuitas sacerdotes principes familiaruÌ„ ex Israel vt iudicium causam domini Iudicarent habitatoribus eius c. Praecepitque eis c. And Iosaphat appointed in Ierusalem Leuites and Priests and families of Israell that they might giue iudgement and iudge the cause of the Lorde to the inhabitants thereof c. And he coÌ„maunded them saying Thus shall ye do in the feare of the Lord faithfully and with a perfecte harte and in euery cause that shall come vnto you of your brethren that dwell in their Cities betweene bloud and bloud betweene lawe and precepte statutes and iudgements ye shall iudge them and admonish them c. Whervpon saith Lyra Hic ordinatur regimeâ—â— populi in arduis causis c. Here is ordeyned the gouernment of the people in difficult causes which could not well be cutte of without recourse had to Ierusalem according to that which is coÌ„maunded Deuter. 17. Where it is saide if thou shalt perceyue the iudgement before thee to be difficult and doubtfull arise and get thee vp to the place which the Lord shall choose c. And therefore Iosaphat appointed iudges there to determine such difficult matters Wherefore it followeth euery cause which commeth vnto you c. VVheresoeuer the question is if it be of the lawe so
farre forth as pertaineth to the ten commaÌ„dements of the tables If it be of the commaundement so farre forth as pertaineth to the other moral points if it be of the precepts of the ten commandements as it were certaine conclusions piked out if it be of the ceremonies so farre forth as pertayneth to ceremoniall matters of iustifications that is to say of iudiciall matters whereby iustice is to be conserued among men Thus is there no parte ecclesiasticall or temporall exempted from the ouersight care directioÌ„ appointment of the king No not the iudgement that ye haue so often alleaged and craked vppon out of the Deut. 17. vnder the which as a generall rule for all examples to be ruled by ye would subdue the Prince vpon paine of death to obey the absolute determination of the priest Euen this same office and all other with all causes to them belonging so farre as stretcheth to the ouersight and supreme gouernment do belong to the Prince to appoint and ordeyne fitte parties to displace and remoue vnfitte parties to sée al these offices so well as any other temporall obserued kept and executed dutifully Which is not so much for the persons as for the persons offices And therefore Iosaphat not only appointed them by his authoritie or regiment as Lyra saith their offices but also he told theÌ„ how they should do their offices Nay say you to each your matter yet with an other shift He doth it not with threates of his highe displeasure or by force of his owne iniunctions but onely saith so then doing you shall not sinne or offende The which very manner of speache christian Emperours and Kinges haue eftâ—…ones vsed in the like case as we shall hereafter in the thirde booke by examples declare Euen in the examples that ye shall there declare M. St. ye shall finde both threates of high displeasures and the iniâ—…nctions also of many godly princes And therefore seing that ye coÌ„pare their doings alike why say you these doings of Iehosophat haue no threates nor iniunctions what call ye this did he not threate them trowe you when he saide Ne veniat tra super vos super fratres vestros Least wrath come vppon you and vppon your bretheren Whiche woordes ye ouerhipped He denouÌ„ced vnto them the wrath of God which declared his great zeale and care of Gods matters as the Bishop saide And thinke you that the high displeasure of God conteyned not this godly Princes high displeasure also do ye suppose that they drad not the Princes high displeasure in the breache of their dueties bicause he threateth them with Gods moste high displeasure Or thinke ye it was not so forcible as any iniuÌ„ctioÌ„ of his vnto them in that as your selfe say he charged them and as the text saithe Praecepit eis he commaunded them which is most plaine and euident to signifie that he enioygned them by his supreme gouernment ouer them And to shew that besides his charge his commaundement his threate of Gods most high displeasure they should incurre his high displeasure also if they or any other disobeyed Lyra saithe on his former visitation Hic oftenditur qualiter c. Here is declared after what sorte he instructed his people to wite by the Priestes and Leuites whom he sent to this purpose and with them certaine of his Princes to bring the people to obedience and to punish the rebelles if they should finde any And of this visitation also saith Lyra He appointed Zabadias to be ouer those workes that belong to the Kinges office that if any rebelles were found they should by him be chastized with due punishmeÌ„t Doth not this import the Kinges highe displeasure in the breach of these his appointments charge coÌ„maundment when he adioyned those that should punish the disobedient Now whereas the Bishop briefly noted all this how King Iosaphat appointed the Priestes to decide and iudge controuersies you snatch thereat and clappe downe thereon a marginall note Yea the Priestes iudged not the king say you ouerskipping that the King appointed them thereto which argueth his supreme gouernment And yet the King iudged also by his deputie not the Priest alone And so saith plaine the texte In Hierusalem quoque constituit c. And Iosaphat appointed also Leuites and Priestes and the Princes of the families of Israel Here M. St. he appointed as well the lay Princes as the Priests And wherto vt Iudicium causam domini iudicarent that they should iudge the iudgement and cause of the Lorde Sée how plaine this is against you but what is there not that ye will spare to wrest to make it sée me to serue your turne For eueÌ„ of the last sentence ye thinke in the ende ye haue gotten so notable a proufe for your matter that greatly ye vrge it and wonderfully triumph therevppon Thus saith say you King Iosaphat Amarias the priest and your Bishop shall haue the gouernment of such things as appertaine to god And Zabadias shal be ouer such workes as appertaine to the kinges office Lo say you the kings office and diuine matters are of distinct functions Lo say I how sone ye would coÌ„clude a lie Your text saith not the kings office and diuine matters are of distinct functions Nor maketh any opposition or distinction betwene the kings office and diuine matters as though it appertained not to the kings office to haue any thing to do with diuine matters Contrary to the which your own coÌ„fession euen in this kings doings witnesseth against you that he reformed religion and had a care and diligence about the directing ecclesiasticall matters And trow you he did this beyond the bouÌ„des of his office How can then his example as ye say fitte well christian princes if it be not a parcell belonging to their office the text is plaine that the king appointeth as wel the Bishop Amarias his gouernmeÌ„t as Zabadias his gouernmeÌ„t to the one to haue the gouernmeÌ„t of such things as appertaine to God to the other to be ouer such workes as appertaine to the king Here in these two such things on the one partie and such workes on the other partie is the distinction made and not betwene the kings office and diuine matters as you falsely conclude And yet I pray you what argument can ye gather herevppon The kings office diuine matters are of distinct functioÌ„s Ergo the King hath no supreme gouernment ouer all ecclesiasticall causes By the like reason he hath no supreme gouernment ouer temporall causes neither For the kingeâ—… office his temporall subiects matters are not they also distinct functione Ergo the king hath no supreme gouernmeÌ„t ouer his temporall subiects matters Againe ye reason thus Thus saith the king the priest shall gouerne in those things that belong to God. Ergo to ouersee the Priests gouerne them rightly appertayneth not to the kinges gouernment Where in deede you should rather reason the quite
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
argument of the authoritie of the offerer the better thing offered to argue the better authoritie in the offerer the worser thing the worser authoritie and why then not by the like reason the like thing to proue the like authoritie But ye wrests your author Philo. He saith not they are equall in re immolata in the thing offred for that the text saith plaine ynough but he saith the B. was made equall to them in the explation and obtaining forgiuenesse of sinnes Wherein he sheweth in déede the proper meaning of God in ordayning these things to be offered not to distiâ—…guishe thereby the difference of authorities in the persons offering but rather to shewe the difference of their sinnes and the obtaining pardon for theÌ„ Of which difference of sinnes and the difference of the offerings for them the. 1 â–ª 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. and the. 8. chapters of Leuiticus do entreate Now bicause the sinnes of the Priest although â—…one by ignoraÌ„ce which is a harder case in a Priest than any other bicause his title professeth skil and learning giue greater offence than the sinnes of other therefore the Priests sinnes are reckoned first as an original from whose offence other mens offences spring And so saith the texte if the annoynted Priest shall sinne making the people to offend for bycause sayth Lira your owne commentar the sinne of the Priest is occasion of sinning to the people Where to he alledgeth Gregorie when the pastor goeth by the brokeÌ„ châ—…es it fals oute that the flocke followeth to their hedâ—…ong downefall What is this firste place nowe Maister Saunders to argue the Priests authoritie and worthinesse or nâ—… rather his infirmitie and vnworthinesse Neither is the thing offred by the Priest appoynted to be a bullocke to declare anye authoritie in him but as Lyra saith a Bullocke or a Calfe in remembraunce of the molten calfe or bullock which Aaron erected Exod. 22. What is this againe for his authoritie but rather to lay his shame before him that as the beast was slaine so he deserued to be slaine for offending by the like beast And so referring the sacrifice of the beast to Christs sacrifice that as the innocent beaste was slaine so the innocent Messias should be slaine the Sacrifice wherof thus prefigured in the beast offered and beleued in the person offring should turne the deserued slaughter from him and be the propitiation for his sinnes And bicause all the peoples sinnes are great and the greater the greater multitude for the commonnesse of the error in an vniuersall ignorance as in the Popishe Church lesseneth not the error but makes it greater although they defende that the Churche can haue no vniuersall ignorance or common error contrarie to this manifest texte of scripture yet bicause it sprang of the Priests that coulde not pretend ignoraunce so well as the people mighte therefore the peoples sinne is placed nexte after the Priestes and is called a sinne of ignoraunce whiche was not sayde of the Priestes sinne Iâ—… all the people of the sonnes of Israell sayth the text shall be ignoraunt and for lacke of knowledge doe any thing that is contrarie to the coÌ„maundement of the Lord. On which words the glosse interlineth of ignorance not of knowledge as the Priestes wherevpon Peter saith I knowe ye did it by ignoraunce but the priestes sinned of knowledge seyng all things fore tolde in the scriptures and therefore sinned more heighnously But yet bicause the peoples offence was in the same thing that Aarons was therefore the people also offered a Calfe or Bullocke in remembrance sayth Lyra of the molten Calfe wherein the people sinned Exodus 22. and hereto he citeth Hesichius manifestum c. it is manifest that he meaneth the sinne of the people and the Priest to bee all one and therefore in bothe of them he ordayned the same sacrifice And here withall were to be noted if the order were note worthie that he placeth the people before the Priest euen where the text placeth the Priest before the people And therefore neither Lira Hesichius nor the Popishe Glosse were so precise in the order as Maister Saunders is But what makes it matter whether he name the Priest before the people or the people before the Priest what hath either Priest or people here to boast of dignitie but rather bée ashamed of their greater sinnes the more they are placed one before an other And these causes had Philo bene of necessitie so cunning in these matters as Maister Saunders sayth he was he woulde haue alledged Yea had hée béen no cunninger herein than euen the necessarie vnderstanding of the place enforceth he woulde not haue wrested it to superioritie Howbeit all Maister Saunders cunning can not make Philo to serue his purpose although he would neuer so faine wreste and wring him to it For althoughe Philo vncunningly wreste it vnto dignitie yet that dignitie that he maketh the Priest to haue is but equall to the peoples dignitie and yet not for his owne sake neyther but bicause he is the peoples minister Whiche Maister Saunders foreséeyng wée woulde obiecte hée preuenteth vs saying But thou wilt say that Philo addeth that that honour is yelded to the B. not for him selfe but bicause he is the Minister of the people I graunt it is so neither was Philo deceiued in that that he iudged the B. to be the peoples minister but that which was was not reuealed to Philo being a Iewe we Christians oughte not to be ignorant of it to wit that he was not onely the peoples minister but also gods minister and moreouer the figure of Christ. In graunting this M. Saunders ye graunt also contraries to your owne tale Before Philo was of necessitie most cunning in these matters while ye thought his cunning woulde make for the Priests aduancement Put now that his cunning makes against the Priests aduancement â–ª and maketh the B. but equall to the people nowe Philo is not cunning in these matters now Philo is a Iewe and no ChristiaÌ„ now it was not reuealed vnto him that the high Priest was gods minister or a figure of Christe Cunning is a faire thing I sée and surely you haue great cunning M. SauÌ„ders in these matters that can handle them so cunningly one priest for an other Priests preferment But will euery man maister Saunders count this cunning that is so broade before and so extreme on either parte that right nowe Philo was not onely cunning but most cunning in these matters and now on a sodaine he is so farre from cunning in them that he toke not the high Priest to be gods minister This was a verye grosse opinion for so learned a man and declareth that he is lepte from moste cunning to no cunning at all Thinke ye Philo knew not thus much Maister Saunders verely I thinke that he was a great deale cunninger theÌ„ so and that hée was fully persuaded
gouernement but rather commendeth the gouernement of a King as an estate so highe that God hadde reserued that vnto himselfe and woulde suffer them to haue but Iudges vntill that they importunately desired to haue a king béeing such a supreme kynd of gouernement as they before had onely giuen to God and nowe they wold needes haue some person among them visibly to haue the same as other nations had And for this cause saithe God to Samuell they haue not cast away thee but mee And as Samuell vpbrayded them ye sayde vnto me not so but a king shall raygne ouer vs when the Lorde your God raigned ouer you And so witnesseth Lyra that the estate of a king is the best estate But the reason of their sinne was this Quia deus c. Bycause God had chosen the people of Israel to be especial and peculiar to him before all other peoples according to that is sayde Deut. 7. The Lord thy God hath chosen thee to bee his peculier people therefore he would be the immediate king of that people VVherefore hee also gaue them a Lawe in Mounte Sinai by himselfe that is by an Angell speaking in his person and not by man as mediatour For whiche purpose hee woulde that the men whiche were the gouernours of that people shoulde bee ordeyned immediately from hymselfe as his Vicars and not as Kings or Lordes As it appeareth in Moses and Iosue and the Iudges following of whome is mentioned in the Booke of Iudges God raysed vp suche or suche a Iudge Therefore the Chyldren of Israell dyd contrarie to the ordinaunce of God desiring a mortall man to be king ouer them â—…ith the Lord had alwayes retayned this to himselfe and always gouerned and best protected them to the peoples profit so long as they were good subiects and stil had so done if the people had stoode in that good subiection to the Lorde By these sayings the firste argument appeareth that if the gouernement of a king bee the beste gouernemente it followes that the gouernemente is better to haue GOD to bee the King immediately howe muche God is better than man And therefore to aske againste this ordinaunce is not good but yll In these wordes of Lyra he doth not deminishe the state of a kings authoritie in comparison of the former estate of the Iudges authoritie aboue or better than it but extolles the kings authoritie so far aboue the Iudges authoritie that God reserued it only to himselfe so that this high estate of a king ouer Gods people is not as M. Saunders falsly sayde before from God by other meanes betwene â–ª but immediately from God and aboue all other representeth him and long it was ere God woulde suffer any to represent him in this estate it was so high that God kept it to himselfe and was offended that his people contented not themselues wyth their other inferior Magistrates as were the Iudges which M. Saunders extolles aboue the Kings estate The Iudges I graunt were as Lyra sayth immediatly from God also and his Uicars in his Church aboue al others in their times And here bycause one or two of them next before this alteration were ecclesiasticall persons the one a Prieste the other a Prophete M. Saunders triumpheth â–ª and commends their estate in representing God to be so high and excellent But either he was very rechlesse or wilful blind that would loke no further in this estate of the Iudges but to these two when as so many Iudges went before but he thoughte not beste to thinke on them bycause they were no priestes nor prophetes And yet as Lyra saythe they were the immediate Vicars of God and so aboue all the priestes and prophetes at their times being no ecclesiastical Magistrates This argument therefore is false and all that followes thereon in M. Saunders saying For neyther any hauing his right wit did euer doubte but that the prieste of God dothe more in gouernement expresse and represent his God whose prieste hee is called than the king whose name is rather referred vnto the people that hee ruleth than to the God vnder whome he is This is spokeÌ„ more like an heathen than like a Christian M. Sanders that the priest represeÌ„teth his God whose priest he is called howbeit I think you are not so out of your right wit but that ye think dij gâ—…ntium daemonia sunt the gods of the gentiles are but diuels And that ye thinke there is but one God and but one sort of those that are â—…is priests But how these priests that are of the Popishe stampe represent God maye be called in question if rather it be not out of question that both their life their doctrine and their order hath no resemblance of him but rather of Baal and Baceâ—…us rather of Antechrist and Sathan than of god As for their gouernment least of all dothe represent him The Turke raigneth not with suche cruell tyrannie as the Pope and his inquisitors doe Godly Ministers represent him I graunt and that better than kings but not in the visible and externall gouernmente but in the spirituall gouernement of administring Gods worde and sacraments God therefore had raigned if any priest or prophete raigned but the priest or the prophete being cast off yea euen the gouernement of God to whome that priest or prophet obeyed is vnderstood to be cast off Speaking thus indefinitely of any priest or prophete that God raigned when they raigned God was cast off when they were cast off ye bothe wreste the Scripture and stretch it to farre that was onely spoken to Samuell and also hereby woulde make the state of the Iewes to haue bene then beste when it was worste For when was the state of the Iewes worsse than in the times mentioned in the bookes of the Machabées when the euil high priests had gotteÌ„ the ciuil gouernement and represented God in the gouernemente whose priests they beare the name to be as much as Caiphas and Anna did that put Christe himselfe to deathe But ye say Moreouer the King would leade the people to Idolatrie but the high priests and prophetes sacrificed duely to the Lorde God in the only Temple of Salomon Ye shoulde descerne M. Saunders betwixt the state and office of the king and the faultes or personall vices of the king For al kings dyd not lead the people to Idolatrie some lead the people out of Idolatrie Neyther were al the high priests cleare of Idolatrie no not Aaron the first high priest of al â–ª Did not he lead al the people into foule Idolatrie and that of a small occasion But howe is this your saying true that they Sacrifised duely to God in the only Temple of Salomon what man ye forget your selfe howe coulde they Sacrifice only there duely or vnduely before the Temple it selfe was builte or Salomon was yet borne and yet there had passed thirtene high Priesâ—…s from Aaron to Abiathar or
and the power of the pastor is another althoughe it oughte to haue iudgement concurring with it Neither ascribe wée iudgement alike to the pastors and the sheepe although in this spirituall kinde of sheepe some of them haue more sounde and perfect iudgement than their pastors To the minor I answere it is not simply true neyther for in one sense not onely the pastors them selues are lyke wyse sheepe but also the Princes them selues are pastors In the former sense euery faythfull Christian is a sheepe vâ—…der Christe the onely shepehearde and must heare his voyce And so the Prieste is a shéepe also or else he shall neuer be in the folde of the Churche nor placed at the righte hande of Christe In the other sense not onely the Prince is suche a Pastor as Homer calleth Agaâ—…emnon and rules and féedes the body and so the Priestes are his sheepe as well as other subiectes but also in protection setting foorth of Gods worde throughout his Dominions he is their pastor too in appoynting the pastors to féede the sheepe onely in Gods pastures And in this sense we ascribe supreme Pastorship vnto him ouer the Priest also Althoughe in the ministerie of the worde and Sacramentes the Prieste agayne is his superiour pastor and the Prince is but his sheepe But master Saunders replies But if they be counted as Pastors I aske whence they proue it that Christe gaue them suche power for what haue they that they haue not receiued but Christ as he tooke not awaye or diminished the auncient power of kinges graunted by the lawe of Nations so neither annexed he vnto them a newe power of feeding his sheepe Moreouer the auncient power of kinges althoughe it be of God yet is it of him by the meane of the lawe of Nations and the Ciuill and not by any especiall and chiefe constitution of the Gospell as is before declared If therefore Kinges and polytike Magistrates haue any power in causes of faythe either they receiued it from the lawe naturall of Nations and of the Ciuill or of the lawe of God that is reuealed to the Churche But to beginne with the later member firste by the lawe of God that is reuealed to the Churche no suche thing is graunted to kinges For nothing else is reuealed in the newe Testament concerning Princes than that that is Cesars shoulde be giuen to Cesar that tributes shoulde be payde that kings should be prayed for that bothe the King and the gouernours sent from him should be obeyed and finally that al power proceedeth froÌ„ God that euery Magistrate beares not the sworde in vaine but in that matter is to be acknowledged to be Gods minister Moreouer none of these places do bid the king by name dispose of the Churche of Christ or in causes of fayth to arrogate ought to him self The argument in briefe is thus If princes be counted as pastors they haue suche power giuen them But they haue no suche power giuen them Ergo They are not counted as pastors I answere firste to the maior rightly vnderstoode it is true that if princes may be counted as pastors the authoritie is giuen them But it is truely to be vnder stoode by distinction of pastorall authoritie Secondly to the minor that Princes haue no pastorall authoritie giuen them it is false Neither doe his proues proue it If any were giuen them it was giuen them either by the lawe of Nations or by the Ciuill or by Christ in the new Testament But it is giuen them by neither of these three Ergo they haue none giuen them To the maior I aunswere it is false Bycause he leaueth oute the olde Testament whiche he confessed hym selfe before was a figure of the pastorship of the new Testament here he leaues out the old Testament quite Which had he named as he ought to haue done he should both haue séene Princes to haue bene ordeyned immediately of God as Moyses Iosue all the Iudges Saule Dauid and Salomon and not by the meane of the lawe of Nations nor the lawe Ciuill comming betweene And he should haue â—…ounde that the Prince of Gods people is appoynted namely to be a pastor or shepheard vnto them Num. 27. Moses spake to the Lorde saying Let the Lorde God of the spirite of all fleshe appoynt a man ouer the congregation who maye go oute and in before them and leade them out and in that the congregation of the Lorde be not as sheepe without a Pastor 2. Reg. 5. All the Tribes of Israell came to Dauid vnto Hebron and sayde thus Beholde we are thy bones and thy fleshe and in times past when Saule was our king thou leddest Israell in and out and the Lorde hath sayde vnto thee thou shalt feed my people Israel In which words Dauid was made their pastor or shepherd which was reseÌ„bled before in his kéeping of natural shéepe as he confesseth of him self He chose Dauid also his seruant and toke him away froÌ„ the sheepe foldes as he was following the Ewes great with yong ones he tooke him that he might leade Iacob his people Israel his inheritance So he fed theÌ„ with a faythfull and true heart and ruled theÌ„ prudently with al his power Which worde of féeding belonging to a pastor God ascribeth also to al the Iudges saying â–ª VVhen I commaunded the Iudges to feede my people And in 1. Chro. 11. And the Lorde sayde vnto thee thou shalt feede my people of Israell and be the prince c. And in the. 3. booke of the Kings wheÌ„ Micheas described in his vision the kings destruction he sayth I saw Israel dispersed on the mountaynes as sheepe without a pastor and the Lorde sayde these haue no master c. By these and many other places it appeareth that God appoynted the Prince to be a pastor in his office but his office as is proued at large before stretchetâ—… to the setting â—…oorthe the lawe of God and gouernement of the priests so well as the laytie therefore his pastorshippe stretcheth so farre also although not to the taking vpon him the office of the spirituall pastor Secondly I aunswere to the minor it is false For not only by the lawe of Nations and Ciuill a politike pastorshippe is committed to the Prince but also a Christian pastorshippe to a christian Prince euen in the newe Testament also Which as it is comprehended in these sentences that M. Saunders here sets down so are there more sentences that declare the Princes pastorship But sayth he none of these do bidde the king by name to dispose of the Church of Christ or in causes of fayth arrogate ought to him selfe This is a wrong conclusion M. Saunders from iudgement pastorship to inferre disposing arrogating As for arrogating neither the Prince nor the Priest ought to do it nor the Prince attemptes it althoughe the Priestes haue and do attempte it Likewyse for disposing if you meane
the sonnes of strangers shall build vp thy walles Kings shall serue thee And to this he addeth the other sentence in the same Chap. And the sonnes of them that afflicted thee shall come to thee humbly and shall bowe themselues euen to the plantes of thy feete eueÌ„ all they that dispised thee and call thee the citie of the Lorde Sion of the holy Israell Had you set the sentence downe thus farre you had marred al Maister Saunders â–ª For then you had bewrayed your wresting of this vnto the Bishops And had you set downe all the chapter you had shewed suche inconueniences in vnderstanding this glory of the Church and seruice of Princes in the literall sense and after a worldly fashion that you must néedes haue confessed all these things to haue other spirituall meanings Which the Iewes not marking in these and such like prophecies of the kingdome of the Messias and the glory of Sion but taking the same in the bare sense of the words as you doe were so sotted on a worldly glory kingdome that they quite dispised the pouertie of Christ and to this day dispise it looking for a Messias that as they sansie shall raigne in al worldly pompe and subdue all kingdomes and people to him and therefore they scrape vp money so fast to helpe him And so you Papists in these prophecies of the kingdom of Christ and the glory of his Church haue as grosse vnderstanding as the Iewes and dispising the simplicitie of the Gospell nor beholdyng the spirituall ornamentes of the spouse of Christ thinke the worship of God lyeth in suche outwarde glory And hearing of obedience seruice of Kings to Christ and to his Church thinke it consistes in this that Kings muste sweare to you to renounce their kingdomes and holde them of the Pope and be obedient to him and he his Prelats must florishe in all worldly pompe and ryches Is not this the Iewes error vp and downe howbeit in oppressing of Kings you are worse than the Iewes and in seâ—…ing 〈◊〉 honor here verie CerinthiaÌ„s and shall neuer haue it else where excepte you forsake your errors Your third sentence Luk. 10. he that dispiseth you dispiseth me as it maketh nothing for you being nothing suche as those were whoÌ„ Christ did sende so being vnderstood of those that are in deede sent of Christe is nothing to this purpose We graunt that no godly ministers ought to be dispised And if they be Christ their sender is dispised But as they ought not in their calling to be dispised of the Prince so no more ought the Prince to be dispised of them much lesse to be troden vnder their féete and their kingdomes to be taken from them as your Popes haue vsed them and you woulde haue theÌ„ here be spoiled Wherby it appéereth that you are not such as Christ doth sende but are of Sathans sending to bréede contempts seditioÌ„s treasons against Princes to maintain your pride and carnall pleasures of whome Saint Iude did prophecie that defiling your fleshe you despise authoritie râ—…yle on the Maiestie of your Soueraignes Your fourth sentence Mat. 16. of Christ saying to Peter Thou art Peter and vpon this rocke will I build my Churche and the gates of hell shall not preuaile againste it is altogether besides the matter It is your chiefe place wrested for your Popes vsurpatioÌ„ but I sée not how it is brought in here against the Princes authoritie except you will make a kings estate to be the gates of hell But as the Princes estate is the ordinaunce of God so I rather thinke the attempte to depose the Prince to be if not the gates of hell â–ª yet one of the readiest wayes to hell as we haue example of Core Dathan and Abiron that went not by the gate nor by the posterne but were swallowed vp and toombled in quicke to hell And although the rebellious Papists go not downe that wayes yet shall they be sure to come to hell and I thinke rebellion be one of the broadest gates that hell hath for Papists on a plompe to enter Nowe that M. Samders hath as he thinketh with thesâ—… texts confirmed the Bishops refusall of Baptising the king he will admitte the Bishop will Baptise him and see what inconuenience shall ensue For saith he if the Bishop will baptise him whom he heareth by name saying that he will not submit his Diademe to Christ or that is all one he not will make his kingdom subiect to the ministers of Christ euen in the cause of faith where is that obedience of faith which the Apostles were sent to procure in all nations is it meete that he which denounceth that he will not want his empire for no fault at all should notwithstanding be armed with the name of a Christian and with the sacramentes of Christ to lay the greater ambushments against his Church for who doubteth that there is greater daunger of the domesticall than of the foraigne enemie Surely M. Saunders I am of your opinioÌ„ in this last senteÌ„ce Out of doubt there is greater dauÌ„ger of the domesticall than of the foraigne enimie We sée the apparaÌ„t experience in your Pope that is so much the more perilous enimie to the ChristiaÌ„ faith as he preteÌ„deth to be the Uicar of Christ the seruant of the seruaÌ„ts of God a father of fathers in Christes Church for so his name Papa signifieth is in dede a robber of Christs glory a hider of Christs Gospell a setter vp of his owne decrees a spoyler of all kings and kingdomes a begniler of the people vnder a shew of holinesse an Angel of darknesse shyning like an Angell of light a rauening wolfe in a shéepes clothing a child of perdition himself and pretending to saue other from perdition the man of sin calling himself a god There is greater dauÌ„ger of such a puppet of the deuill thus disguised like a God than is of the heathen thaÌ„ is of the Iewes than is of Mahomet than is of the greate Turke than is of the Deuill hymselfe And the like greater daunger is of all dissemblyng Papistes in the Courtes and Realmes of protestant Princes than is of open Papists apparant enemies I beseech God they may be loked vnto remoued froÌ„ such places that there may be lesse danger of theÌ„ As for this Prince and Byshop that M. Saunders maketh his presupposals vpon there is farre greater daunger to the Church of God in this Byshop than in this Prince For first the Prince not of compulsion but of his owne voluntarie not of crafte or malice or any other sinister affection but of good hearte and méere deuotion for so king Lucius and Clodoueus did commeth to the Byshop to be baptized and humbly offereth to acknowledge the faithe of Christe What danger is here towarde the Church of Christ by this good Princes offer or not rather gret benefite to the Church
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
thoughe it were paste for the certeintie of the diuine prouidence So that yet no acte was â—…ast agaynst Saul or vnto Dauid but onely a declaration of Gods purpose to come Héere was therefore no deposing of the one nor placing of the other As for Samuels other sentence 1. Reg. 15. is more destnite when he saythe For that thou hast caste off the worde of the Lorde the Lorde hath caste off thee that thou shouldest not be king And yet he sayth not héere I depose thee â–ª or the Lorde deposeth thée from thine estate and froÌ„ hencefoorth thou shalte neither be king nor be reputed and taken of the Churche of God for king any longer Samuell sayth not thus nor ment thus nor Saule vnderstoode him thus but desired Samuel to returne with him and worship the Lorde And Samuell repeating his words sayd I wil not returne with thee bicause thou hast cast of the comandement of the Lord the Lorde hath cast off thee And Samuell turned to go away but he caught holde of the skirte of his cloake and it rent And Samuell sayde to him the Lorde hath rent the kingdome of Israell this day froÌ„ thee and hath giuen it to thy neighbour a better than thou And yet in all these so effectuall words Samuell sayth not héere In Dei nomine Amen c â–ª In the name of God Amen I do héere presenly depose thée and so foorth as the Pope vseth to do No all this was but a declaration of the time to come as Lyra saythe Dicunt autem Hebraei c. Some Hebrnes say that Samuel then gaue a signe vnto Saule that he shoulde raigne for him that shoulde cutte off the hemme of his garment VVhiche Dauid did as is conteyned 1. Reg. 24. VVherevpon Saule seeing the hemme of his garment in Dauids hande sayde nowe I knowe for certayne that thou shalte raygne And so the Glosse titeth Sainct Augustine Iste cui dixit c. This man to whome the Lorde sayde the Lorde despiseth thee that thou shouldest not be King of Israell and the Lorde hathe rent this day the kingdome out of thy hand ruled fortie yeres to wite euen as long as Dauid raigned And yet this thing he hearde the first time of his raigne Therefore wee vnderstande â–ª it to be spoken to this ende that none of the stocke of him shoulde raigne He rente it saythe the Glosse althoughe he reygned fortie yeres afterwarde But as then he desâ—…rued that the kingdome shoulde be rente from him and giuen to a better â–ª c. Thus these sayinges and doinges of Samuell were not the reall deposing of Saule from his Royall throne For bothe he tooke him selfe still as King and desired Samuel to honor him before the Elders of his people and before Israell But nowe sayth he honor me Sinon c. Although sayth 〈◊〉 not for my persons sake yet do this thing for the honor of my royall dignitie And so Samuell assented to him willing sayth Lyra to giue it vnto Saule so long as he was of God suffred in the kingdome Nowe as for Dauid Samuell in déede anoynted him and that as you saye priuilie Whiche argueth agaynst you that it was no publike acte of making him king but as it were a preparatiue vnto it and a priuie forewarning of Gods purpose to come Secondly it was a thing of Gods especiall appoynting or else Samuell would not nor coulde haue euer done it Thirdly saythe â—…yra Aduertendum est c â–ª VVe muste marke that Dauid was anoynted to be king not to this purpose that he shoulde streighte possesse the kingdome But when the acceptable wyll of God shoulde come But God did suffer Saule in the possession of the kingdome euen vntill his death And thus we sée vpon this acte of the Lorde by Samuell as well to Saule as to Dauid â–ª héere was yet no suche deposing of the one nor setting vp the other as Master Sanders claymeth héere reasoning from the example of Samuels dooing to Saule and Dauid for the Pope to 〈◊〉 Christian Princes offending and to set vp others in the â—…places The second thing that he gathereth héerevpon is this that the king by the Pope béeing deposed is now no longer true lawful king â–ª but a playne vsurper and a wrongful occupier of the kings seaâ—…e beeing armed with a bande of souldiers but the other that is annoynted or otherwise consecrated by the Bishop in his place shall truely from this day forward be the king and the people ought to go to him and not obey the other And for this he alleageth three reasons First the saying of God by the Prophet Osée Secondly the acknowledging of Ionathas Saules sonne Thirdly the gathering of diuers persons vnto Dauid First for the wordes of the Prophet whiche are these They haue raygned and not by me They were Princes I know them not I answere First these worâ—… are Gods complaynt agaynst the wickednesse of those kinges of Israel â–ª that directed not their gouernment by Gods law not that they were not kings but that they were wicked kings Not that they were by no meanes ordeyned of God for 〈◊〉 potestas est à Deo all power is of God and God sayth in generall per mâ—… reges regnant Kings rule by me so well heathen as faythfull kinges â–ª Pilates power was from aboue These kinges of Israell Ieroboam Achab Iehu c. were of Gods ordeyning Yeà Iehu whose house héere God complayned vpon and sayde he and his ofspring raigned not by him â–ª were yet notwithstanding made kinges and raygned by him In respecte of their ambition and priuate affections their raigne was not of him In respecte of Gods ordinaunce of his iustice of his prouidence it was not only permitted but also especially appoynted of him As bothe the â–ª texte is 〈◊〉 and your owne glosse confesseth for Hieroboam the elder that it was done by Gods will althoughe it were done also by the peoples sinne that regarded not the will of God but â—…llowed their owne selfewil And so in some respecte it was not the worke of God and yet in other respects it â—…as the worke of god And so héere 〈◊〉 himselfe and sayth I know them not Not that he was ignorant of them but he acknowledged not their doings Secondly neither the prophet Osee nor any other prophet tooke vpon them to depose any of those wicked kinges but to declare the wrath and vengeance of God to come vpon them After which declarations they did not subtract froÌ„ them their ciuill obedience count them from that day forward no longer to be their kings or exhorted the Church of God to forsake their polytike gouernment but hauing declared their message from God they let them alone till eyther God him selfe did strike theÌ„ or stirred vp by some especiall and extraordinarie meanes some forren or domestical persecuâ—… of them Thirdly this maketh nothing to proue that those kings
He toucheth two reasons The one in that he saith to my Lorde The other To the Lordes anoynted But bicause that was the chiefest reason for that Saule was anoynted of the most highe God that onely he nameth twyse Whereby we sée he accempted Saule still as his lawfull king and himselfe to be his dutifull and obedient subiect And so he acknowledged him selfe to Saule when he cried after him saying O my Lord the king â–ª and when Saule looked behind him Dauid enelined his face to the earth and bowed himselfe And Dauid sayd to Saul wherefore giuest thou eare to mennes words that say beholde Dauid seeketh euill against thee Beholde this day thine eyes haue seene that the Lorde hath deliuered thee this day into my hand in the caue and some badde me kill thee But I had compassion on thee and sayd I will not lay my hande on my Maister For he is the Lordes anoynted Moreouer my father behold I say the lappe of thy garment in my hande For when I cut off the lappe of thy garment I killed thee not Vnderstande and see that there is no euill nor wickednesse in me neither haue I sinned against thee According to the Hebrue saith Caietane neither is rebellion in me c. He excludeth all sinne by repeating his worke backwarde For last of all he excludeth sinne against Saul and before rebellion against the King and first of all euill vniuersally And vpon these words The Lord be iudge betwen thee and me And the Lord auenge me of thee and let not my hand be on thee This he said saith Lyra in the zeale of Iustice and not of reuengement For no body ought to take vengeance on his own iniurie by himself except it lye vpon him by his office and euen then it were better that he did it by another All these words saith Caietane are not of him that wisheth but foretelleth and expecteth For they are in the Hebrue texte of the future tence and the indicatiue mode He shall iudge and he shall auenge So farre is Dauid from wishing any euil vnto the king And he so humbleth himselfe vnto him that he calleth himselfe in comparisoÌ„ of the King a dead dogge and a flie Sith I am saith Lyra of no moment or nothing worth in regarde of thee Thus farre was Dauid froÌ„ euer attempting to depose King Saul after Samuel had anoynted him And that not onely where Ionathas but euen where Saul himselfe acknowledged that Dauid shoulde be Kâ—…ng after him saying and nowe I know of a certaintie that thou shalt raigne and the kingdome of Israel shall be established in thy hand But yet he saith not that he then presently raigned neither doth he resigne vnto him but make a couenant and take an othe of Dauid that when he should raigne he shoulde not destroy his séede after him nor take away his name from his fathers house this Dauid swore vnto him Wherin he acknowledgeth though a state to come yet no state in present The like occasion falling out againe 1. Reg. 26. Dauid behaued himselfe to Saul in semblable wise For when he might haue killed him and Abisai would haue killed him â—…he not onely woulde not doe it nor suffer it to be done But he sayth to Abisai destroye him not For who can laye his handes on the Lords anoynted and be giltlesse Dauid sayth Lyra wold gyue this to the person of him so long as he was suffered of God in the Kingdome Alwayes sayth Caietane Dauid had fixed in his harte and in his mouth the honour of the moste high God in so muche that he thoughte none innocent that stretched hys hande vpon the anoynted of god As the Lorde lyueth saith he either the Lord shall smite him or his day shall come to dye or he shall descende into battell and perishe The Lorde keepe me from laying my hand vpon the Lords anoynted By this saith Lira Dauid entended that by no meanes he would be the efficient cause of his death excepte perhaps in defending himselfe so that he could not otherwise escape And when Dauid called to Abner he challenged him to be worthy of death for keping the Kings person no better and when Saul knowing his voice said is this thy voyce my sonne Dauid and Dauid sayd it is my voyce my Lorde O king And he sayde wherefore doth my Lord thus persecute his seruant for what haue I done or what euil is in my hand Now therefore I beseeche thee let my Lorde the King heare the wordes of his seruaunt c. thus humbleth he himselfe in his purgation and sayth the King of Israell is come out to seeke a flie as one woulde hunte a Partridge in the mountaynes So lowly abasing himselfe in comparison of Saul whome he calleth the King of Israel Neyther dissembled he but spake Bona fide euen as he thought in his hart So farre was Dauid from not acknowledging Saul to be still hys soueraigne Lorde and lawfull King so farre from gathering anye vnlawfull assemblyes againste him so farre from any priuie conspiracie or open rebellion so farre from so much as thinking to depose him that when he had him in his daunger he woulde not onely not hurt him nor suffer other to doeit but gaue him so great honour as any subiecte can giue his Prince How then is not the storie of Saule and Dauid wrested for a Christian subiect that hath no such authoritie as Dauid had to depose or take armes against his Christian Prince or to go from the obedience of him as no longer lawfull Kyng after the Byshop shall saye he hathe deposed him and to obey any other that the Bishop shal appoint for King The third thing that Master Saunders inferreth is this that althoughe the Pope and his Bishops may doe thus to Princes yet Princes were very tyrants if they should doe oughte to them And hereto he alleageth that when the high Priest Achimelech asked counsell of the Lord for Dauid Saul hauing intelligence thereof commaunded his seruants to fall vpon the Priests of the Lord no man durst execute so cruell a commaundement besides onely Doeg the Idumean For Achimelechs asking counsell of the Lord for Dauid Whâ—… Dauid fled vnto him first the case Maister Saunders is not so cléere but that as Lyra confesseth a question is made theron for there appéereth no such thing in the. 21. Chapter Althoughe Doeg so accused him and Achimelech standeth not to the deniall thereof but vpon his innocencie Lyra sayth Dicunt aliqui c. Some saye that he lyed as tale bearers are wont to saye more than is in deede but the contrary seemeth rather to bee true So that this is not so cleare a case as you make it But what is all thys storye to the purpose or not rather againste you especially that that followeth of Saules puttyng the Priestes to death Wherein although he dyd a wycked and tyrannous acte yet it argueth
examples and suche other ought good pastors and reachers to teach their Princes and to set the wrathe of God before them howe he will roote vp their houses and destroye their kingdomes if they feare not hym Thus oughte good teachers by these examples to doe but not they themselues to depose theyr Princes or to sette vp other and stirre the people to rebellion But Maister Saunders hath yet more examples To the same purpose pertayneth that Elias anoynted Asael King ouer Syria and Iehu King ouer Israel and Elizeus to be Prophet for himself on that condition that if any escaped the handes of Asahel him should Iehu kill But if any escaped the hands of Iehu him should Elizeus kill If thys ensample pertayne to the same purpose that doe the other of Samuels anoynting Dauid and of Ahias foretellyng Ieroboam that he shoulde raygne then pertayneth it not to your purpose Maister Saunders for Byshoppes to depose Christian Princes and to make their subiectes rebell againste them For the other as we haue alreadye playnely séene are but manifestly and shamefully wrested therevnto But nowe let vs sée if thys example of Elias wyll serue your turne any better The argument is driuen to both these purposes the one for the anoynting of a new king the other for punishing of the former king For the anointing of a new king is alleaged that Elias anoynted Asael King ouer Syria and Iehu King ouer Israel and Elizeus to be the prophet for himselfe First I answere as before these are againe the expresse particular coÌ„maÌ„demeÌ„ts of the Lord vnto Elias giuing him a particular charge that he should anoyut all these three To stretch therfore the Lords particular charge to him vnto a generall rule without any expresse coÌ„mandement of y Lord thervnto is a daungerous presumptuous abusing of Gods coÌ„mandement For without this especiall charge of God Elias had no ordinarie authoritie by vertue of his prophetical office to haue done any thing herein as the popish Bishops without any particular commandement of God take vpon them to do by vertue of their Bishoply office Secondly I answere that this anointing of these Kyngs was not the real inuesting of them in their royall estate neither yet done by Elias him selfe as euen your owne glosse noteth theron Vnges Asahel c. Thou shalt anoynt Azahel no otherwise but that he foretold him that he shoulde be king in time to come He anoynted Elizeus no otherwise than by casting his cloake on him The two Kings neither he by him self neithor Elizeus his disciple anoynted them but one of the Prophets was sent to anoynt Iehu And this Prophet in déede powred oyle on Iehu his head and said Thus saith the Lorde God of Israel I haue anoynted thee King ouer the people of the Lord of Israel c. Which fact and saying as the Popish Bishops can not imitate hauing no suche commission so the other anoynting of Asael was but a forewarning like as the former facte of Ahias was to Ieroboam and therefore serueth not this purpose least of all the anoynting of Elizeus who was no King but a Prophete and therefore is alleaged cleane oute of place to inferre the present purpose of anoynting Kings But M. Sanders hathe a further fetche in naming Elizeus For thereby as in Elias he thinkes to proue the setting vp of kings so in Elizeus he would inferre their pulling downe For sayth he Elias annoynted Asael Iehu and Elizeus on that condition that if one escaped the handes of Asael him shoulde Iehu kill but if any escape the handes of Iehu him shoulde Elizeus kill You falsefie the Scripture M. Sanders the words are not that they shoulde be anoynted on that condition that they should do these things but the Lord statly foretelleth that they shall do these things Et erit quicunque fugerit c. And it shall be that whosoeuer escapeth from the sworde of Asael him shall Iehu kill and he that escapeth the sworde of Iehu him shall Elizeus kill Wherevpon sayth Lyra that Asaell and Iehu killed many Idolaters of Israell is inough expressed after in the fourth booke But that Elizeus killed any is not read but of two and fortie whome he cursed wherevpon the Beares did teare them But sayth Caietane notwithstanding nothing letteth but that these thinges were fulfilled euen as the letter foundeth althoughe the execution be not written So that if this slaughter of Elizeus be ment spiritually then it serueth not for bodily punishment whiche is nowe the question If it be ment bodily as was the slaughter made by the Leuites when they slewe aboue 20000. for Idolatrie and as Phinees stabbing with his dagger Zambri and Cozbi for their whoredome then either of these béeing particular charges and especiall commaundementes can not be stretched to the like example of bodily slaughter to be committed by the Clergie nowe Neyther the popishe Priestes althoughe they be the chéefest authors of it will prâ—…tende that they will medle therein but saye with the Priestes that put Christ to death It is not lawfull for vs to kill any man. And to this purpose of a figuratiue killing M. Sand driueth this example By which figure sayth he what else is signified than that many powers are set vp and erected in the Churche of God that that which is not done by one of them may be done by another Of whiche powers the laste and chiefest is that whiche belongeth to the Prophets that is towards them that are the Pastors and teachers of the Churche of god For as the sworde of Elizeus is reckoned in the laste place as whiche no man can escape althoughe he escape the sworde of Asaell or of Iehu so the censure of the spirituall power can by no meanes be auoyded althoughe any escape the sworde of the secular power For the spirituall power vseth not the bodily or visible sworde whiche by certayne meanes may be let but vseth the sworde of the spirite that passeth throughe all places and pierceth euen to the soule of him whome it reacheth First M. Sanders you do more than you can well iustifie to wring this facte to this figuratiue signification of this spirituall sworde For if Elizeus did strike or cause to be striken the remnaÌ„t of those Idolaters with a bodily sword as dyd Asael and Iehu hauing for warrant Gods especiall commaundement therevnto then is your figure dashed But whether he did this or no you sée the iudgement of Cardinall Caietane and we sée the examples of the Leuites of Phinees and the killing of Agag by Samuel And the like of Elias in killing the Priests of Baal euen in the Chapter going before He brought them to the brooke â—…ison and killed them there Elias sayth Lyra killed them by the people that to this purpose assisted him or perhaps he killed some of them with his owne hande by the zeale of Gods
also and the spirituall power to be greater than the earthly power and that the spirituall power may spiritually punish the resisters of it But that the ordinary spirituall power of the Priests or Prophets may depose the ordinary secular power of Kings Princes that the pastors spiritual sword may strike the secular sworde out of the Magistrates hande to whome it is of God committed that the spiritual power may of his own nature punish Princes with bodily punishment and take their state and kingdomes from them and cause their subiects to rebel agaynst them This we vtterly denie and this is the very question Now héerto is alleahed the facte of Elias sitting in the mount who prayed to God that fire might consume the wicked kings messangers that derided the Prophets and would by force haue setched him to the king To this I answere first for this king he resembleth no protestant Prince but rather the popish Princes who not onely beeing sicke as Ochozias was but also in healthe as thoughe there were no God in Israell séeke not to the onely liuing Lorde to Christ the onely sauiour and mediatour but to Idols as Ochozias did to Eeelzebub and woulde murther the Prophets of God that reproue them for it as Elias did Secondly for Elias he sat not on the toppe of the mountaine to signifie the chiefest place of the church which chiefest place he tooke not vpon him And do not your selfe ascribe the chiefest place of the Church to the highe Priest or Bishop Or was the Prophet theÌ„ aboue the chiefe Priest or intruded he into the high Priests place or were both in the chiefest place and so your Pope claymes the chiefest place of the church from both of them True it is that in his time Elias was the chiefest instrument that God vsed in the râ—…formation of the Church yet neither tooke he vpon him the chiefest place of the Churche nor exalted him selfe aboue the king nor deposed him or his father or any other prince howe wicked soeuer they were nor incited other to rebell agaynst them And this you should proue that Elias did or else ye stray from your question Thirdly for this facte of Elias I answere as before It is no ensample for vs to followe the like Neither did Elias vse it ordinarily in his defence but vpon especiall occasion God by his iustice defended thus his Prophet and reuenged the contumelie wherwith they scorned not onely him but God in destroying those wicked deriders after suche a terrible miraculous sorte Not for that they were the kings ministers but for that they assented to the kinges crueltie and besides béeing Idolaters they scorned the power of God in him in calling him in derision The man of God. For so sayth Lyra Cognouit autem c. Elias knewe by reuelation that in mockage he called him the man of God and was consenting to the king in the sinne of Idolatry and in the punishment of Elias and likewise they that were with him and that herevpon by the sentence of God they were to be punished for the which cause he pronounced the diuine sentence So that the striker héere was God Elias onely pronounced the sentence of Gods iustice Neither dyd he any thing héerein but by the especiall motion of god He woulde not come downe as master Saunders therein saythe true no not at the moste humble entreatie of the thirde Captayne tyll the Angell of GOD badde hym not feare but goe downe Wherevpon saythe Caietane Vide actiones Eliae c. See the actions of Elias are gouerned by the Angels direction in euery poynt that is to saye so well his outwarde as his inwarde motions Wherby we may sée that he did not this facte by any ordinarie iurisdiction of his Propheticall office but by the especiall direction of God whiche can not nor oughte to be drawne into example for other to do or wishe the like Fourthly this example to follow Elias héerein is of all other flatly forbidden to the Disciples of christ For when the Samaritanes would not receiue Christ into their Citie Iames and Ioâ—…n sayde Lorde wilâ—…e thou that we commaunde that fire come downe from heauen and consume them euen as Elias did But Iesus turned about aâ—…d rebuked them and sayde ye knowe not of what spirite you are For the sonne of man is not come to destroy mens liues but to saue them Nowe this example of the seuere iustice of God thus desired of them and they reproued by Christ for desiring the lyke M. Sanders resumeth for his Bishops authoritie Wherby it appeareth he knoweth not of what spirite Christian Bishops ought to be and that Popishe Bishops are of another spirite than Christ is of For Christ came not to kill Princes to fire their townes to burne their people and depose Kinges from their kingdomes to whiche drifte all this is spoken Lastly I denie this drift consequence of the example Elias prayed that fire might consume them from heauen Ergo Christian Bishops ought to take away the corporall goodes of Hereticall and Schismatical Princes If the conclusion had béene thus Ergo they mighte pray that God would take their corporal goods away it had béene a more likely and a more tollerable conclusion Howbeit this also is forbidden to pray to haue their corporal goodes taken away It were their dutie rather to pray the they might better vse them that God woulde either conuert them or otherwise at his good pleasure stoppe their tyrannie They ought not to pray for the taking away of any mans goodes much lesse their Soueraignes goods to whoÌ„ your selfâ—… confesse that they them selues are subiect â—…o farre as their goods and bodies And then be they not ouer the goodes and bodies of their Princes béeing their subiectes least of all ought they either by theÌ„selues or by any other to take their Princes goods and bodies from them For that is not a subiects but a traitors and a rebels part But saith M. Saunders they may take his bodily goods from their King so they doe it debito modo ordine after a due maner and order He told vs thus before but it is cleane beyond all good maâ—…er against al due order to take away any mannes goods chiefely the Princes yea and that the Bishops or priests to do it The example of S. Ambrose complaining that the Emperor misâ—…sed him is cleane against M. Saund that alleageth it for him For S. Ambrose tooke not the Emperors goods away nor deposed him nor caused other to rebell against him but for all the Emperors missusage of him he continued stil in his obedience to the Emperor Howbeit he told the Emperor of his dutie and so should al godly Bishops do and not attempte to depose their Princes nor to stirre vp other to depose them Let vs now put the case saith M. SauÌ„ders that some man which was a Prince was present with Elias
apply it saying How much more shall there not want at this day that will not suffer him to liue whom they shall perceiue will not obey the commaundement of the highest Priest. And as you put this in distinct letters so you quote for it Deut. 17. This place is often alleaged and answered alreadie vnto in M. Stapleton and is so shamefully wrested here by you that if there were no other argument euen the wresting of this propheâ—…ie would argue you to be one of these lying prophetes that should be runne through for abusing the worde of god As thoughe that lawe tooke yet place among vs that was appointed for that time to the Iewes or as though those matters betwéene blood and blood plea and plea plague and plague in causes of controuersie among the Iewes were matters of ReligioÌ„ then or are to be stretched to all matters of faith now or as though those matters were determined by the onely high priest then and not by the iudge and Ciuil Magistrate asking counsel of the Priests and giuing iudgement by his owne authoritie make not rather for the obedience to the Ciuill Magistrates than to the obedience of the Priests or as though Zacharie prophecying of the state after the comming of Christ did meane there should be one chief B. besides Christ whose commaundement all Princes all Bishops al people in Christendome should obey or else they should be thrust through and killed In déede M. Saunders Zacharie speaketh a little before of a pastor that shuld come which liuelie discribeth your Pope And the Lord saith Zacharie said vnto me take yet vnto thee the instrument of a foolishe shepherd For loe I will rayse vp a shepherd in the lande which shall not looke for the thing that is lost nor seke the teÌ„der laÌ„bes nor heale that that is hurt nor feed that that standeth But he shall eate the flesh of the fat and teare their clawes â–ª in pieces O Idoll shepherde that leaueth the flocke the sworde shall be vpon his arme and vpon his right eye his arme shal be cleane dried vp and his right eye shal be vtterly darkned Who exerciseth this tirannie ouer all the people and the Princes too eating them to the bones yea bones and all deposing them destroying them and pilling their kingdomes with insatiable extorsions but the Pope â–ª the Popishe glosses ascribe it to Antichrist but they describe the Popes practises A pastor in the land saith Lyra â–ª that is Antichrist to rule therein that shall not visite the forsaken that is he shall do no worke of Godlynesse but shal be of greatest crueltie towarde the iust and therefore he saith and shall eate the fleshe of the faâ—…e that is by spoyling of their goods and teare their clawes by afflicting and killing them Againe what Pastor may better be called in Idol than this Antichrist the Pope That is called an Idol saith Lyra that is worshipped for God and is not god And so shall it be of Antichrist that shall sitte in the Temple of God as though he were God. 2. Thes 2. O Pastor and Idol saith the Glosse thou arte so wicked that thou shalt not be called a worshipper of Idols but shalt be called an Idol while thou wilt be worshipped of men VVho leauest the flock to be denoured of beastes that the Lorde had alwayes kepte This pastor shall therfore arise in Israel bicause the true pastor had said I will not feede you This pastor by another name is called the abhominatioÌ„ of desolation that shall sit in the teÌ„ple of God as though he were god Therefore the sworde of the Lord shal be vpoÌ„ his right arme and vpoÌ„ his right eye that the force of him al the boasting of his might might be dried vp withered away the knowledge that vnder a false name he promised to himself shal be obsenred with eternall darkenesse Here it is apparant that Zacharie ment your high B. the Pope but he so little threatneth theÌ„ that obey him not that he curseth him all theÌ„ that obey him threatneth the vengeance of God vpon him to pull downe his tirannie and to blind him But I thinke M. sand that your right eye was blinded also that sawe not this or else you blinked at it and would not sée it For this would haue tolde you another maner of matter than that be should be killed that obeyed not the Popes commanding and would hauâ—… made you afrayd least this killing should light both vpon him and you But you go on and tell vs that the authoritie of the ministers of Christe is so muche greater than the Priestes of the Leuiticall kinde howe muche iustice peace and life that we do minister is better than damnation the letter and deathe that the Leuiticall Priests ministred by occasion That the authoritie of Christes ministers is greater we graunte in suche things as belonge to their ministerie that are Christes ministers But whether it be greater in outwarde glorie is another matter But be it great or lesse where you thrust your selfe in the number and say that we do minister you are but an intruder M. sand For neither you nor any popishe Priestes are any of Christes ministers as is already proued euen by your owne laste allegation out of Zacharie And if the ministration of iustice the spirite and life be the triall your contentioÌ„n is héere for sedition and rebellion contrarie to iustice for a worldly glory and earthly kingdome contrarie to the spirite for deposing killing and thrusting throughe of all those that wil not obey your Pope contrarie to life And so is your ministration worsse than the ministration of the Leuiticall Priestes who you say ministred these thinge not of purpose but by occasion but you séeke of purpose all occasion thut you can finde or snatche at and wrest to minister matter for the deposing of Princes for the rebellion of subiects â—… the murther of all estates onely to mayntayne the pride and tyrannie of your Pope aboue all Christian kings kingdomes Nowe that none of all these examples and testimonies will fadge no better we shall haue once agayne the example of Ozias And yet sayth M. sand in the Leuiticall Priesthood such heigth of the Ecclesiasticall power is figured that euen then also we may see that kings were compelled of Priests wherby they gaue vp their Magistracie For when Ozias was waxen strong his heart was lifte vp to his destruction and he neglected the Lorde his God and entring into the temple of the Lord he would burne incense vpon the altar of Incense TheÌ„ Azarias the Bishop and other Priests that were strong men entring after him resisted the king And when he notwithstanding holding the Censor in â–ª his hande threatned the Priests straightway a leprie sprang in his forehead whiche the Priests beholding they quickly expelled him VVhat followed therfore Ozias dwelte in a house aparte beeing full of leprie