gouernment is such as therein they serue God and the Church in compelling by lawe and authoritie all persons to doe their duties as well in religion as in ciuill affayres Not an antichristian tyranny such as the Pope vsurpeth to be Lords ouer our faith and to make Articles of Religion at their pleasure but to prouide that all thinges may be doone according to the word of God But Bristow replyeth that it was not the Popish church vnto whome Constantine and the rest of the Christian Emperours yeelded vp the imperiall Cittie of Rome with all the countrie of Italie What an impudent lye this is may easely be knowen of all them which haue read the historyes which testifie that the Emperors of Constantinople receiued possession in Rome and Italy vntill the time of Charles the great which was made Emperour by the Pope In the demaunde Bristowe asketh if the first Christian Emperonrs Constantinus Theodosius were not in all pointes of the popishe Religion I answere that although they were infected with a few errors as prayer for the deade c yet in the substance of Christian Religion they beleeued the same that wee beleeue of Iustification by faith onely of the vertue of Christes sacrifice once offred for all of the authoritie of the holy Scriptures and were enemies to the Papistes in their chiefe Principle of the Popes supremacie the carnall presence transubstantiation priuate Masse Communion in one kinde Images Prayers in vnknowen language and many other As for the lycence that Bristowe woulde haue vs procure for them to appeare with vs before the Queenes highnesse to dispute whether the firste Christian Emperors were not altogither Papists is nothing else but a popishe bragge whiche if it were procured they would delude the whole purpose with such Cauillations as they did in the Conference offered vnto them at Westminster in the firste yeere of her Maiesties raigne where after they had hearde our side once reade their Booke they were so discouraged that they durst abide no more tryall but shamefully and obstiantely cleane gaue ouer the conference The 42. motiue is parte of the 47. demaund The Parliament Church and Religion Sainct Peter excluded out of Englande by Parliament Yea Christe Peter and Paule and other Apostles excluded out of Englande by Parliament The Apostles were of our Religion Howe Sainct Augustine should be vsed in England by the Parliament lawe if he were there liuing Of what Religion and authoritie the Fathers are Succession Protestants contrary to them salues Wee must consider sayth Bristowe what Church that is where Lawes be made to charge Peter if hee were liuing to giue vppe his commission receiued of Christ and to take another of the Kinge or Queene and to charge him and his fellowe Apostles to leaue the true seruice which they had receiued and to minister after an other sorte as the Paliament lawe prescribeth To this I aunswere we will bee tryed by the writinges of Peter and his fellow Apostles that the Parliament lawe for Religion and seruice of God concernig the substance thereof vrgeth not Peter to chaunge his commission nor to vse any other seruice then they them selues haue taught vs to vse If Augustine were aliue and in Englande hee was a man of such modestie and loue of the trueth that seeing the same plainly reuealed out of the holy Scriptures hee woulde retracte his errour of Prayer for the deade as when hee lyued hee retracted and sette foorth manye thinges wherein he founde that he hadde erred As for the fine of an hundred Markes he woulde not haue lefte nor beene depriued of his Byshoprike and imprysoned for saying of the popishe Masse for hee neuer sayde any in his life but was an vtter enemye to the chiefe poyntes thereof allowing nothing therof but prayer for the deade at the celebration of the Lords supper And for as our Sauiour Iesus Christ the King of all Kinges and Lorde of all Lordes and the onely ruler of Heauen and earth doe you thinke that hee wyll not complaine that hee onely by Parliament lawe is acknoweledged to bee the heade of his vniuersall Church and so continually present therewith by his holy spirit that he neede no viear generall of a mortall manne which canne occupye but one place although he were neuer so diligent and painfull to discharge his dutie in that behalfe For his diuine and spirituall authoritie is not excluded vnder the name of forraine power as Bristowe not more slaunderously then ridiculously affirmeth Yet hee pleaseth him selfe so much in so greate folly and madnesse that hee sayth Christe coulde not clayme to be heade of his Church excepte he should clayme to be the naturall Kinge of Englande and to haue sayde vnto Pylate My kingdome is of this world and thy maister Caesar doth me wronge As though the King of Englande by title of his royall power clayming to be the chiefe Seruaunte or deputie of Christe in gouerning his Churche according to his worde did exclude the soueraignitie of Christe which he hath ouer his Church and elect wheresoeuer they are vpon the face of the earth But the Protestantes sayth Bristowe are contrary to them selues while they say that our Prince is Kinge of France aswel as of England and Ireland yet say not that he is heâ—de of the Church of Fraunce but onely of the Church of England and Irelande And is Bristowe such a profound Logitian that he cannot distinguishe a Kinge in right onely from a King in actuall gouerment If our Prince had as good possession of the gonernmente of Fraunce as hee hath title of right to haue it hee shall be gouernour of the Church of Fraunce as well as of the Church of Englande and Ireland That hee sayth we haue beene from hence at the Apostles going so long a iorney without any footing in the way it is a foolish cauel for wee haue often shewed succession of doctune euen from the Apostles from whome it is receiued The 43. Motiue is parte of the 47. demaunde Communion of Saintes Christendom shut out of England by Parliament Councels Sainct Paule might not write ad Anglos for the Paâ—lâ—ament The Church of Englande is not so straythened or pinched within the lymites of one Kingdombut that she beleeueth and inioyeth the communion of all the Sainctes of God as a member of the vniuersal church of Christe And therefore I meruail what collour Bristowe hath for those slaunders that one Christian man in Englande in spirituall affayres is a straunger to another that generall Councels haue no authoritie in it that Sainct Paule or all the Apostles if they were lyuing might not write to the Englishmen aswell as to the Romaines Galathians Corinthians c. that Christe without the consente of the Kinge and the Parliament might not dispose his owne Church These vaine and impossible suppositions could not come but from a grosse and foolish inuention of one that lacketh argumentes to proue his cause The lawes
so obiect that the gouernment of the clergy as it differeth in matter which is spirituall so also it differeth in forme maner from the regiment temporall w c is with outward pompe of glory with the material sword this with all humility with the sword of the spirit Contrariwise M. Sander answereth this obiectioÌ„ so as he both strengtheneth the hands of the Anabaptistes sheweth him selfe litle to differ from their opinion First therefore he saith that Christ forbiddeth his Apostles and Bishops such a dominion as is vsed among the Princes of the earth not altogether such as ought to be amoÌ„g them But that he speaketh not of tyrannical dominion it appeareth by the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 benefactors which their subiectes did giue them for their bountifulnes towards them in preseruing them from enemies in peace and wealth Secondly he sayth that although the King be neuer so good yet it is not the Kingly but the Priestly power which God chose froÌ„ the beginning to rule his people withal And although Kings serue Gods eternal purpose they are commaunded to be obeyed yet the making of Kinges ouer Gods owne people at the first came not of God by way of his mercifull election but by way of his angrie permission What Anabaptist could speake more heretically or seditiously against the lawfull auctority of Kings Princes But let vs see his reason Nemrod he sayth was the first King we reade of which either by force vsurped or was aduanced by euell men I aunswere if Nemrod was the first that vsurped auctoritie as a tyrant yet was he not the first that exercised Kingly auctority lawfully nether was he ruler ouer Gods people But what wil hâ—ouy of Melchisedech King of Salem was not he elected of God at the first both to be a King a figure of the King of Kings who should not haue had that dignity if it had not bene of it selfe both lawfull and godly Secondly he sayth God was angrie with his people for asking a King when they had a Priest to rule them I aunswere he was not angrie for their asking of a King but for refusing of a Prince ordeyned by him which was Samuel a Leuite in deede of the familie of Cohath but no Priest of the familie of Aaron For in his dayes were high Priestes Eli Achitob Achimelech But after the dayes of Eli which was both high Priest and Iudge Samuel was ordeyned Prince or Iudge of the people hauing auctoritie aboue Achitob or Achimelech the high Priestes in his time which were sufficient to decide the controuersie of the supremacie if M. Sander would geue place to the Scriptures But who can discharge him of Anabaptistrie where he deny eth the making of a King to be Gods institution affirming it to be the fact and consent of men allowed in deede by God when the Apostle expresly sayeth it is Gods ordinaunce Rom. 13 And where he sayth that Abel Noe Abraham were directly from God chosen to be Priestes as Aaron he sayeth most vntruly for they had in their familie the principalitie of ciuill gouernment as directly as they had the Priesthoode But neither of both in suche sorte as Aaron had the Priesthoode in whom the one was distincted from the other And of AbrahaÌ„ it is testified that he was a Prince ordeyned of God Gen. 23. 6. He setteth foorth the excelleÌ„cy of Priests by their auctority in making Christs body with their holy mouth as Hierom speaketh But that proueth not the supremacy of one Priest aboue al men nor of one Priest aboue an other As for the ordeining of Peter to be generall shepherd and high Bishoppe of the whole flocke by commaunding him to feede his shepe when he can conclude it out of that Scripture in any lawfull forme of argument we will yeelde vnto it But this is intollerable impudencie that pretending to shew howe much the Pope is more excellent then any king he asketh to what Christian king did Christ euer saye As my father sent me I send thee as though Christ had euer sayde so to Peter in singular and not to all his Apostles in generall As my father sent me so I send you Ioan 20. Concerning the rocke that he woulde builde his Church vpon and the feeding of Christes sheepe and lambes we shall haue more proper place to examine afterward what supremacie they giue to the Pope or to Peter ether His farther rauing against the dignitie of kinges who list to see let him turne to the 57. page of his booke cap. 2. And yet I can not omit that he sayth that the pompe of a king is most contrary of all other degrees to the profession of Christian faith and maketh worldly pompe as vnmeete for a king as for a Bishop But the Scripture he sayth neuer calleth any king head of the Churche nether doe we call any Kinge heade of the Church but onely Christ but in euery particular Church the Scripture alloweth the king to be the chiefe Magistrate not onely in gouerning the common wealth but also in making godly lawes for the furtherance of religion hauing all sortes of men as well Ecclesiasticall as ciuill subiect vnto him to be gouerned by him and punished also not onely for ciuill offences but also for heresie and neglect of their duties in matters pertayning to the religion of God For although many ciuill Magistrats at the first were enemies of the Gospel yet was it prophecyed that kings should be nursing fathers and Queenes nursing mothers vnto the Church Es. 49. Againe it is an impudent and grosse lye when he sayth that God was angry because the gouernmeÌ„t of the high Priest was reiected a kingly gouernment called for For they reiected not y e gouernmeÌ„t of the high Priest but of Samuel y e Iudge who was no high Priest although he was a Prophet nether was there euer any high Priest Iudge but only Eli. But if all supremacie be forbiddâ—n ouer the whole Church militant sayth M. Sander it is forbidden likewise that there should be any superior in any one part of the Church And this he proueth by a iolly rule of Logicke For the partes according to their degree are of the same nature whereof the whole is O subtile reason by which I wil likewise coÌ„clude there may not be one scholemaister for all the children of the worlde therefore there may not be one schoolemaster for one towne in all the world There can not be one Phisicion for all the world therefore there may not be a Phisicion for euery citie yea there can not be one Priest for all the Churches in the world therefore there may not be a Priest in euery parishe Againe he reasoneth thus If a king be supreame head ouer his owne Christian Realme it must be by that power which he ether had before his christianitie or beside it For by his christianitie it is not possible that he should haue greater power then the
discouered Caic Aphric ad celest To these examples adde Pope Honorius coÌ„demned in the generall councell of Constantinople the sixt for a Monothelite Euen the popish councell of Constans deposed three Popes But now let vs see Bristowes wise examples The Pelagians which he saith but sheweth not how are aliue in Protestants were condemned by the Apostolike Sea as witnesseth Augustine Episto 106. And this iudgement of the Catholike Church the Emperour Honorius confirmed as testifieth Possidonius and Augustine What then Ergo Saint Augustine and the Emperours were of our Religion If the Pelagians had beene condemned by the authoritie of the Byshoppe of Rome without conuiction out of the holy Scriptures the Example had beene to some purpose But when their heresie was bothe by Preaching writing disputing and Councell declared to be contrarie to the worde of God then if the Byshoppe of Rome subscrybed to his condemnation as one of the true Patriarches of the Church within the Romaine Empire what doth this aduaunce the singularitie of his Sea For examples of Catholickes purging them selues Firste he nameth Chrysostome in his Epistle to Innocentius the sixt of Rome but setteth downe none of his woordes as in deede there is no such matter in that Epistle onely he sheweth howe iniuriously hee was handled by the barbarous Souldiers His next example is Theodoretus Byshoppe of Cyrus who beeing vniustly deposed appealed to Leo Byshoppe of Rome which considering of his case indifferently consented to his restitution in the councell of Chalcedon But that Theodoret would not haue accounted him selfe an Heretike or scismatike although he had beene condemned by Leo it is plaine by these words VestraÌ„ enim expecto sententiam c. For I expect your sentence and if you commaund me to stand vnto that which hath beene iudged against me I will stande vnto it neither will I trouble any man heereafter about it but will expect the iudgement of our God and Sauiour which cannot be altered These wordes declare that Theodoret although the Bishop of Rome also shoulde be deceyued to confirme his depriuation by his sentence yet he woulde not thinke him selfe to be an heretike but quietly waight for the iudgement of God which could not be deceyued as the iudgement of man was Wherfore Theodoret was farre from acknowledging those popish principles That the Pope can not erre that his iudgement is all one with the iudgement of God Although the mysterie of iniquitie in the Bishop of Romes prerogatiue had by that tyme wrought very highe The submission of Hierome to Pope Damasus you shall finde aunswered in my confutation of Saunders rocke cap. 15. where you shall see how the Church of Rome was called Catholike while it was so in deede and howe Antichristes side was against the Bishop of Rome namely so longe as the Bishop of Rome was on Christes side Whether Protestantes in England haue decayed and Papistes increased as Bristow braggeth for these 16. yeares let wise men iudge Although want of seuere discipline hath caused many to remaine obstinate and some perhaps that were of no religion to fall to Popery yet for the number it is altogether false that Bristow so confidently affirmeth The 13. motiue is the 27. demaund Councells The Apostles were of our religion Parliament religion The councell of Trent Councells S. Augustines motiue VVhosoeuer hath bene condemned by any councell sayth Bristow generall or prouinciall confirmed by the sea Apostolike They were heretikes nether can there against this be brought any exception I will bringe such exceptions as Bristow for both his eares dare not affirme the parties so condemned to be heretikes Liberius Bishop of Rome was first a good Catholike so farre that for refusing to satisfie the Emperour Constantius which required him to subscribe to the vniust depriuation of Athanasius he was caried into banishment and one Felix a good Catholike also yet by faction of the Arrians was chosen Bishop of Rome in his place But afterward Liberius sollicited and perswaded by one Fortunatianus as S. Hierome witnesseth in catal and through wearines of his banishment as Marianus Scotus testifieth subscribed to the heresie of Arrius and returned to Rome like a Conquerour For whose returne and depriuation of Felix Constantius gathered a councell which was confirmed by Liberius as testifieth Pope Damasus in his pontificall Constantius Augustus fecit concilium cum haereticis simul etiam cum Vrsacio Valente eiecit Felicem de Episcopaâ—â—s qui erat Catholicus reuocauit Liberium Constantius the Emperour held a councell with the heretikes and also with Vrsacius and Valens and did cast out Felix which was a Catholike out of his bishoprike and called backe Liberius And againe Ingressus Liberius in vrbem Romam 4. nonas Augusti câ—nsensit Constantio haeretico non tamen rebaptizatus est sed consensum praebuit Liberius after he entred into the citie of Rome the 4. of the nones of August he consented to Constantius the heretike but yet he was not rebaptized but he gaue his consent Let Bristow aduise him selfe which of the Popes he dare call heretike If he condemne Felix and iustifie Liberius then hath he S. Hierome against him and Pope Damasus which can not erre Another exception I will bringe of Pope Honorius the first condemned and accursed for an heretike by the generall councell of Constantinople the sixt confirmed by Pope Leo the 2. and that not generally but by speciall wordes pariterque anathematizamus noui erroris inuentores c. nec non Honorium qui hanc apostolicam Ecclesiam non aposiolicae traditionis doctrina lustrauit sed profana praedicatione immaculatam fidem subuertere conatus est And likewise we accurse the inuentors of the newe errour c and also Honorius which did not lighten this apostolike Church with doctrine of Apostolike tradition but by profane preaching went about to ouerthrowe the vndefiled faith The same Pope Honorius is condemned in the second councell of Nice confirmed also by the Pope Adrian Notwithstanding all this I would Bristow were so hardy on his head to graunt that Honorius was an heretike I might ioyne to these three Popes condemned by the councell of Constance confirmed by Pope Iohn 23. One of the three also the condemnation of Pope Eugenius by the councell of Basil confirmed by Pope Nicolas and Felix But the other are sufficient exceptions against Bristowes false principle Now whatsoeuer he prateth of auctority of councelles is to no purpose For we acknowledge how necessary synods are for the church of Christ with the Apostles whom the fond maÌ„ boasteth to be of theyr religion because they helde a councell Not considering howe they determined the controuersie only by auctority of the holy Scriptures as it is manifest Act. 15. And what councell soeuer followeth that rule we gladly embrace and that is the cause why the parliament ioyneth the foure first generall councells with the Scriptures in triall of heresie not that those councels are
of equall auctority with the worde of God but in that they agree with the same in condemning the heresies of Arrius Macedonius Nestorius and Eutiches That proude scoffe of Parliament religion bewraieth the stomake of a Vauntparler not the spirit of a diuine or good subiect Popery was also confirmed by Parliament in Queene Maryes time therefore it was Parliament Religion But where as he would compare the laste rablement of Trent in all pointes with those ancient holy Councels he doth euen as much as if he would goe about to proue an Ape to be a man But I may not omit that in shewing the necessitie of the Popes confirmation of Councels out of Annianus Marcellus Lib. 15. Hee helpeth the matter with falsifying the writer sor he deliuereth his wordes thus auctoritate qua potiâ—res aternâ—e â—â—â—â— Episcopi with the authoritie in which the Bishops of the eternall city are better whereas the word is poâ—iuntur by that authoritie which the Bishops of Rome haue or doe enioy But if we shall beleue Marcellinus an heathen writer Liberius Bishop of Rome was of the same mind in condemnation of Athanasius that the rest of the Bishops were which proceeded against him but that he thought it not reason to subscribe to his condemnation before he had seene and heard him For thus Ammon writeth Hunc per subsâ—riptionem abiicere sede sacerdâ—tali parâ—a sentiens câ—eteris iubente principe Liberius monitus perseucranter renitebatur nec visum hominem nec auditum damnare nefas vltimum sâ—epe exclamans apertè sâ—ilicet recalcitrans imperatoris arbitrio Id enim ille Athanasio scmper infesius liâ—et sâ—iret impletum tamen auctoritate qâ—â—a potiuntur aeternâ—e vrbis Episcopi firmari dâ—siderio nitebatâ—r ardente This man speaking of Athanasius condemned before by a Synode of Bishops Liberius being of the same opinion with the rest warned by the Princes commaundement did stiffly refuse by subscription to cast out of his priestly seate crying out often tymes that it was extreme wickednes to condemne a man being nether heard nor seene so openly kicking against the Emperours pleasure Who although he which being alwayes an enemy to Athanasius knew that it was already fulfilled yet he labored with earnest desire to haue it confirmed by the authoritie which the Bishops of the eternall citie haue There can nothing els be gathered of this but that Constantius knowing Athanasius to be depriued by a councell of Bishops of the East would haue Liberius Bishop of Rome to consent to his condemnation because Athanasius was one of the foure Patriarchs was not to be condeÌ„ned but by the rest of the Patriarches Not that it was then thought that all councels were insufficient except they had the Popes confirmation as Bristow doth dreame But Bristow sayth the Protestants regarde no councells because they suffer Lewys Euans in a naughtye booke to cal the councel of Chalcedon a blasphemous proude sacrilegious Antichristian Councell This Lewys Euans while he was a Papist and did write from Louayne in defence of Papistrye was accompted of you a learned man a sober man a godly man but now that God in great mercye hath opened his eyes to see and acknowledge the light of the Gospell you rayle on him and slaunder him at your pleasure For if you had bene able to iustifie your reproche you woulde haue noted in which of his bookes seeinge he hath written many and in what leafe and lyne he had written so vnreuerently of that Councell Howsoeuer it be he is able to aunswer you him selfe Although if he haue erred in the name or iudgement of that councell it were small reason to charge all the Protestantes in England with one priuate mans error The last is that Councells were S. Augustines motiue because he writeth that euen prouinciall Councells must giue place without all doubt to generall Councells De bapt cont Dâ—n lib. 2. cap. 3. but what writeth Augustine immediatly after Ipsáque plenaria saepe priora posterioribus emendari cum aliquo experimento rerum aperitur quod claâ—sum erat cognoscitur quod latebat sine vllo trpo sacrilegae superbiae sine inflata ceruice arrogantiae sâ—ne vlla contentione liutdae inuidiae cum sancta humilitate cum pace Catholica cum charitate Christiana Who knoweth not sayth Augustine That euen generall Councells are often tymes the former corrected by the later when by any tryall of thinges that is opened which before was shutte and that is knowen which before was hidde without any swellinge of sacrilegious pride without any swellinge stubbernes of arrogance without any contention of spightfull enuye with holye humilitie with Catholike peace with christian charitie What saye you Sainct Augustine haue generall Councells often erred that the former were corrected by the later If you mayntayne this saying you shall be no longer of Bristowes religion The 14. motiue is the 26 demaund The fathers Pelagians aliue in Protestants The fathers S. Augustines motiue Protestants be ashamed of their fathers Of what religion and authoritie the fathers were L. Humfries opinion of Iewells chalenge of the fathers and of the Sainctes in the Calender Bristow woulde haue it considered whether euer any Catholike man in matters of fayth did obstinately refuse to beleue the olde fathers consenting in one and agreeing together but onely such as were heretikes I aunswer Bristow playeth the captious and yet foolishe Sophister For in this first demaunde he seemeth to vnderstand all the olde fathers consenting together but in the rest of the chapter he playnely speaketh but of some of the olde writers nowe there is great difference betwene all and some For we denye nothing that all the olde fathers did consent vpon although we denye some thing that some of the olde fathers did allowe For example we denye prayers for the deade which some of the olde writers did allowe But if Bristow woulde breake his heade in peeces with studye he shall neuer be able to proue that all the olde writers did mayntayne prayer for the deade the like I saye of prayer vnto Sainctes and of some prerogatiue of the Bishop of Rome ouer other Bishops of some ceremonies c which being the dregges of a great quantitie of good liquor contayned in the vessells of diuerse of the olde writers and yet of the later sorte of them the Papistes haue onely sucked out letting all the good liquor to runne beside them And like impudent dogges yolpe barke against vs that the fathers are all of their side and contrarye to vs with as good reason as one that hath gotten the excrementes of a man shoulde boast boast that he hath the same man in possession I thinke the reader can not but laughe when he readeth it so often noted by Bristow Pelagians aliue in Protestantes When of all olde heresies we are further from none nor Papistes nearer to any then to the heresie of the Pelagians But why troe ye are Pelagians aliue
worlde and that he will shewe by six differences which he will consider in order First no man succeedeth in that chayer by right of inheritance The like I may say of the Germane Emperour therefore this is no difference Secondly it is not obtayned by right of battaile inuasion or otherwise but by election So is the Emperour at this daye onely by election And if Maister Sanders be not to impudent he wil not deny but there hath bene bickering and intruding by force into that chayre and that is worse entering by symony murder treason and deuilish sorcery The thirde nether childe nor woman nor Infidell nor Catechumeni can be chosen Bishop of Rome No more can any suche be chosen Emperour by the golden bull and lawe of the election And yet seeing boyes are made Cardinalls which be electours of the Pope and elegible there is none impossibilitie but a boye may be chosen Pope as well as a woman hathe beene Pope Ione I meane Iohn the 23. was condemned in the councell of Constans for an Infidell which denied the immortalitie of the soule The fourth the election of the Bishop of Rome as of all other Bishops pertayneth onely to Ecclesiasticall persons a king may be chosen by the people without the Clergie To this I saye that the Bishop of Rome was wont to be chosen as well by the people as by the Clergie And so is the Emperour chosen by as many Bishops as ciuill Princes except in case of equalitie of voyces Nether is the Clergye euer excluded in any lawfull election of any kinge where he is made by election The fift to omit the Bishop of Romes temporall dominion which he confesseth to be but accessory to his Bishoprike in his Ecclesiasticall gouernment he vseth not that force and power which worldly Princes do He compelleth none no not y e Iewes in Rome to baptisme No more doth the Emperour But what meanes vseth he to depose kinges absolue their subiects from their othe of obedieÌ„ce where he iudgeth them for heretikes how maketh he warres and setteth all the worlde in an vprore to defend his vsurped dignitie false doctrine Doth he not by force compell Christians to his filthy Idolatrye or els cruelly murdereth and tormenteth them The 6. the Bishop of Rome as Bishop neuer punisheth them with the materiall sword which forsake his Church No but as Antichrist and a tyrant he imprisoneth them hangeth them drowneth them burneth them not as a Bishop sayth M. Sander but as a temporall Prince and Lorde as Moses being one of the Priestes of our Lord was also maister of ciuill gouernment Behold this deuisor of differeÌ„ces at length maketh him a ciuill Prince and temporall Lorde from whom he had labored by so many differences to distingush before But now lest you should espye his impudent conclusion he draweth into a new controuersie whether Moses were a Priest And first he will proue that Moses was a Priest by the Scripture Psal. 98. Where it is sayd Moses Aaron in sacerdotibus eius If he will not allowe the Hebrue worde Cohanim to signifie Princes as it doth in diuerse other places yet sayth not the Psalme that Moses and Aaron were both Priestes but that amonge his Priestes they were suche as called vpon his name and were hearde and Samuel who followâ—th in the same verse confessed nowe by Maister Sander to be a Leuit forgetting that before he made him highe Priest But farther to proue that Moses was a Priest he citeth Augustine Ieronym Gregor Naz. Dionys. and Philo but all to small purpose for his cause It must needes be confessed that Moses as all the Patriarkes before him in their families was a Priest before the distinction of the two offices was made when Aaron and his posteritie onely were choosen â—to bee Priestes After which tyme he was no longer a Priest nether did he any thing as a Priest but as a Prophet and as a Prince But admit he were both a Prince and a Priest yet he commaunded Aaron as a Prince and not as a Priest For Aaron was highe Priest and therefore coulde haue no Priest aboue him By which it is inferred that the office of a Prince is to commaunde the highe Priest and so was it alwayes practised by all godly Princes But Maister Sander returning to his last and least difference affirmeth that the Bishop of Rome neuer condemneth any man for herefie or schisme to corporall death in his owne person nor teacheth that they may be condemned of other Ecclesiasticall persons But who vnderstandeth not this mockerie for as well it may be sayde the Kinge neuer hangeth any man in his owne person therefore none are executed by his authoritie as the Pope neuer condemneth any to death in his owne person therefore he perswadeth not his religion with fire and sworde But will the Pope and the Bishoppe that are so mylde and gentle suffer them whome they condemne for heresie to escape their hands before they haue deliuered them to death O cruell and shameles hypocrites Neuertheles Maister Sander sayth they haue power ouer mens soules by that which our Sauiour sayd to Peter To the I will giue the keyes of the kingdome of heauen c. which wordes are deryued to the Bishop of Rome by meanes of the chayre of S. Peter A straunge kinde of deriuation neuer touched in the Scripture to which words the sayde Bishop referreth all his power where as worldly Princes appeale to the lawe of the Gospell nether in getting nor gouerning nor establishing their dominion and power Marke well this English Anabaptist Is not this the lawe of the Gospell There is no power but of God and the powers that be are ordayned of God Rom. 13. 1. for getting of deminion and power And is not this the lawe of the Gospell for their gouerning that gouernours are sent of God for the punishment of euil doers and for the prayse of them that doe well 1. Pet. 2. vers 14. And for the establyshing of theyr dominion is not this the law of the Gospel giue vnto Caesar the thinges that belong to Caesar. Matthew 22. verse 21. And againe we muste be subiect of necessitie not onely for feare but euen for conscience Rom. 13. verse 5. As for the Popes pietie and lenitie wherewith hee ruleth when all the world seeth how proudely and tyrannicall yhe behaueth him selfe it were folly to spend many wordes about it As for his gentle tearmes of sonnes and brethren wherewith hee saluteth Princes and Byshops and the seruaunt of the seruants of God which he calleth him selfe be simple and shorte clokes to hide his horrible presumption and tyranny wherewith he not only most shaÌ„efully reuileth most Christian Princes as it appeareth in that trayterous Bul which came from him against our moste gracious soueraigne Lady but also taketh vpon him to depose them from their estate royall vsurping to him felfe the name of holynesse of heade of the