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
surmile vppon my silence any suche distrust ▪ I will compendiously as the matter shall require abbridge their aunsweres and that master Horne shall thinke that our stuffe is not all spent ▪ I shall on the other syde for a surplussage adioyne some other things to our opponent accomodate An Almonde for Parate so finely our student begins to speake that a good plaine simple man can scarce vnderstande his 〈◊〉 termes But this is the effect of it we shall now haue new stuffe of some olde store good stuffe and God will for all their stuffe as he crakes is not yet spent but I perceyue it goeth harde with them in their store house and that this stuffe is some of the last cast God sende it be not such stale stuffe when it comes to the view as Cardinall Campeius moiles did bring into Englande and vttered in Cheape side But such as it is we must take it in good worth it is the best he hath to answere the Bishops ensample withall The first ensample is of Moses in whome the Byshop noteth thrée things First that he was the supreme gouernour of Gods people Secondly that hée ordred and set forth Gods true Religion wyth great regarde and care prescribing aswell to Aaron and the Leuites as to the people Thirdly that he was not the chiefe priest therfore could not do them in suche respect but as he was supreme gouernour The first and the seconde propositions that Moses was the supreme gouernour and that he did order and direct all things M. St. graunteth The thirde parte he denieth and affirmeth that Moses was the chiefe priest and in that respecte dyd all these foresayde thinges This assertion he sayth he will proue bothe by his masters olde and by his owne surplusage of newe stuffe also His argument of both these stuffes is this I say with M. D. Harding and S. Augustine that Moses was a Priest aswell as a Prince I say the same with M. Dorman ▪ with Philo Iudeus with S. Hierome and with S. Hieroms master Gregorie Nazianzene Ergo Moses was the chiefe Priest. By the like reason if M. St. be a priest he might proue him selfe to be the Pope of Rome He is a Romish priest Ergo he is the chiefe Romish priest which is the pope The one reason is as good as the other But here he will cry out and say I do him wrong to change his conclusion for he inferreth no such words but these And so consequently Moses ensample serueth not your turne but quite ouerturneth your assertion True it is in déed this is your cōclusion M. St. but what was the bishops assertion which this ye say quite ouerturnes was not this his assertion that Moses was not the chiefe priest and did not you denie this assertion affirme it to be an vntruth saying for Moses was the chiefe priest as shal be proued did ye not héere make promise to proue it did ye not say that to answere this example ye had other freshe stuffe not yet spent must not then this stuffe be directed to this ende conclusion to fulfill your promise ouerturne the bishops assertion which was that Moses was not the chiefe priest but Aaron and you should proue as ye haue freshly promised that Moses was the chiefe priest And therfore if this be not your conclusion ye subtilly falsly swerue frō the cōclusion that ye ought to haue cōcluded ye performe not your promise to proue Moses the chiefe priest nor your conclusion as ye crake ouerturnes the byshops assertion which was that Moyses was not the chief priest but Aaron And therfore either this is your argument Moses was a Priest Ergo he was chiefe Priest or else ye conclude not agaynst the bishops assertion If ye say ye conclude this al the world séeth what a fonde conclusion it is And if ye haue a poleshorne priests crowne of your owne as I doubt not but ye haue a faire one ye may aswell conclude to your self the Popes triple crowne And if ye cōclude it not ye conclude not agaynst the bishop nor fulfill your promise for all your proues stande on this profe that Moses was a priest Nowe the question was not whether Moses was a priest or no which is another question in controuersie But the question is whether he or Aaron were the chiefe priest Yet will ye peraduenture say though I haue herein as ye haue proued swarued from the directe conclusion in hande that Moses was not the chiefe priest nor kepte my promise yea and made a scape in saying that I ouerturned the bishops assertion when I did not or if I went about it yet mine argument proued but a fonde reason from priest to chiefe priest yet in the ende I haue proued Moses a priest and so consequently it serueth not your turne vnlesse ye will king Henry the eight and his sonne king Edwarde yea our gratious Queene to be a priest to but rather quite ouerturneth your assertion and think you M. Horne that the Queenes authoritie doth iumpe agree with the authoritie of Moses in causes ecclesiasticall then may she preache to the people as Moses did then may she offer sacrifices as Moses did then may she consecrate priests as Moses did consecrate Aaron and others then may it be sayde of the imposition of handes as was sayde of Moyses Iosua the sonne of Nun was full of the spirite of wisdome for Moses had put his hande vpon him It must needes therefore followe that Moses was a priest and that a high priest whiche ye heere full peeuishly denie Where ye aske M. Stap. of the Byshop And thinke ye M. Horne that the Queenes authoritie do the iumpe agree with th' authoritie of Moses might not the byshop demaund agayne the like of you and thinke you ▪ M. Stap. that euen your Popes authoritie admitting it were not the vsurped tyrannie which it is dothe iumpe agree with the authoritie of Moyses yea admitting also that question that he was a Priest and so consequently agayne it serueth not your turne nor master D. Hardings nor master Dormans neither I am sure as ye confesse he was a priest so ye will admit a difference betwéene your Pope and him and euen so since ye reason thus precisely of differences in the persons ye ought also to haue made a difference betwéene Moyses his diuerse offices and to haue giuen either office his proper actions and so to haue applied them and not to haue confounded them admitting that he one person were both a Prince and a Priest also which hangs in controuersie for all your cited authors But you reason confusedly à secundum quid ad simpliciter Moyses by an especiall priuiledge was a Prieste as well as a Prince and thereby did preache offer sacrifice consecrate Aaron lay imposition of handes and did other offices of Priests and many extraordinary things besides Ergo Moses in that he was a Prince not a Priest in
appoyntment it is an argumeÌ„t not of hir subiectioÌ„ but of hir authoritie héerein ouer them as also is this of Dauid And therfore the exaÌ„ple was very well applied al your three notes on your notable senteÌ„ce that you haue added to your master not onely nothing seruing your turne for all ye haue so notably inuerted the text so wrested the sense so expouÌ„ded the words that your friends might very much muse and maruell at your falshoode but also in the whole euery part all your thrée notes haue made cleane agaynst you And yet ye knit vp your conclusion on them That ye can not but very much muse and maruell why he should alleage king Dauid for any example or proofe in this matter So desperate a face ye can set on the matter though all be quite agaynst you Now as M. Stap. dalied with Moses before if he coulde not proue him a priest yet at the least to proue him a prophet so héere after a florishe in one of his common places slaunderously comparing our clergie with Qza seeing that he can fasten no good argument against princes by the priests he will once agayne assay it by the Prophets And where the bishop alleaged that Dauid made Psalmes ordeined priests Leuites singers and porters c. he denieth not but that Dauid did al these things but sayth he Think you he did al this and the rest of his owne authoritie bicause he was king of the people so you woulde haue your reader to beleeue but the holy ghost telleth vs playnely that Dauid dyd all this bicause God had so commaunded by the handes of his Prophetes What argument call ye this M. Stap the king ordeined and set foorth ecclesiasticall lawes bicause God had so commaunded by the hands of his Prophets Ergo The king is not supreme gouernour to sée those thinges obserued but the Prophetes are the supreme gouernours of them Héere ye stande on two things on Gods commaundement and the Prophetes message As for your reason on Gods commaundement is answered already it 〈◊〉 not that godly Princes authoritie that submitteth him selfe to God as Dauid did and the Quéenes Maiestie doth but it is to be brought agaynst the ambitious proud vsurpation of your Pope that maketh him selfe as it were a God in earth and will controll Gods flat commaundement Agayne that ye vrge so much the ministerie of the Prophets to abase the kings authoritie and thereon make your conclusion saying Thus you see that by the declaratioÌ„ of the prophets Gods ministers then as priests are now the king did al those ecclesiasticall matters and not by his princely authoritie This answere is but a méere shifte and yet nothing for your priestes supremacie But suche is your enuie to princes that ye care not to whome ye ascribe this supreme gouernment so that princes haue it not When ye can not proue that it appertayned to the priests ye alleage the prophets Ye are not so ignorant I dare say but that ye know the prophets were no priests and many of them as ye terme vs lay men and some also of occupation Yea but say you they were Gods ministers then as priestes are nowe Ye should proue they were priestes then for were they but Gods ministers herein to declare the same to the prince doth this proue any supreme authoritie héerein ouer their prince Nay but say you they were suche good ministers as priestes are nowe In déede were they suche as your priestes crake now to be then the matter were out of question For your priests now say they be not onely aboue kings princes and all other men but aboue angels yea that they can make their maker also which Angels can not do as D. Bonner vaunted in his conuocation of priests The Prophets coulde do none of these things nor so exalted them selues They were then Gods ministers and faythfull preachers of his worde they were not sacrificers And if your priests nowe are like prophets then they must not be sacrificers but preachers of Gods worde and so shal they be like the Prophets Your priests chiefly your Pope can not erre in iudgement ye say do ye father this warrant on the Prophetes or on the Priests haue ye not alleaged the priests for it and nowe when ye sée the priests will not serue your turne ye say ye be like the prophets But ye should make a distinction like what prophets ye be â–ª are ye not like to lying prophets are ye not like the Prophet that God sayd he would tempt his people withall that shoulde say come let vs goe worship straunge Gods are ye not like the false flattring prophets that deceiued king Achaz like Baals prophets maynteined of Iesabell But Christ hiddeth vs take héede to suche false prophetes as you be that come in sheepes clothing and are rauening wolues within But let vs consider further this your shift by Prophets Ye say Dauid did all those ecclesiasticall matters but not by his princely authoritie but by the declaration of the prophets Gods ministers then as Priests are now and therfore the next authoritie vnder God was theirs not his bicause he was no prophet But what nowe if Dauid were a prophet also and is so coÌ„monly termed and your selfe the leafe before sayd he had the gift of prophesie and alleaged your master D. Harding for it will not this proue then by your ownâ—… shifte that either he béeing Gods prophet had therby so well as others this authoritie contrarie to the which ye say he had it not but the prophets had it or else the hauing of the gift of prophesie is no argument of any supreme authoritie as ye would so sayne inferre As in déede it is not neither in priest nor prophet which ye shoulde soone haue perceiued had ye but read the next chapter to that out of whiche you tooke as ye fancied your notable sentence for the Priestes gouernement For there are foure chapters going togither the. 23. of the Leuites howe Dauid put order amongst them The. 24. of his appoyntment among the priestes and sonnes of Aaron The. 25. of his ordering of the Prophetes and singers The Chapter beginneth thus And Dauid and the captaynes of the host appoynted out to do seruice the sonnes of Asaph of Heman and Iduthim which should prophecie with Harpes Psalteries and Cymbals And the multitude of the men were to do seruice in their offices The sonnes of Asaph c. to wayte on or to be at the hand of Asaph who prophecied by the king And againe These were the sonnes of Heman the Kings Seer of visions in the wordes of God to lift vp the horne that is the power meaning of Dauid And againe A saph Iduthim and Heman were at the Kings hande that is to say at the kings commaundement to executâ—… hys appoyntment The. 26. Chapter is of Dauids ordring the Porters diuisions ending on this wise VVhom king Dauid made rulers
ouer the Reubenites and the Gadites and the halfe of the tribe of Manasses for euery matter perteyning to God and for the kings businesse that is to say both in spirituall and temporall things And also a little aboue In all the businesse of the Lorde and for the seruice of the King. Howbeit I speake not this so much to proue King Dauids supremacie ouer the Porters in all and euery ecclesiasticall matter so well as temporall but chiefly to followe your shift of the Prophetes For here we sée howe expresly the Prophets also were appoynted their orders by the king and euen the principall fathers of them attendant vnto him as their children were to them And thoughe theyr children were vnder theyr gouernmentes as were the inferiour Priestes vnder the higher Priestes yet as Asaph Heman and Iduthim were vnder the gouernment of the King also who ordered directed appoynted and coÌ„maunded them so was Aaron and his successors the high priests vnder the appointment and order of the King for all that their sonnes and inferior priests were vnderneath their gouernment For the one gouernment doth not exclude the other as master Stapleton himselfe confesseth that in one man many rulers may and do dayly concurre which in some sense may euery one be called his supreme gouernour And thus was first God by the ministerie of his priestes and prophetes the absolute supreme gouernour vnto Dauid So was Dauid next vnder God by his ouersight ordering and commaunding those ecclesiasticall actions to be rightly done the supreme gouernour not onely to the Leuits and Porters but to the chiefe Priestes to the chiefe Prophets and all And so were the chiefe priestes and principall Prophets in their functions and ministeries of theyr offices the supreme gouernors ouer their inferior priests prophets and yet was not their gouernment embarring the kings nor the kings any whit preiudicial to theirs For the priestes and the prophets did the action but the coÌ„maundements the appointing ordring was the kings next to god who coÌ„maunded them to him â—…e to the priests prophets And this order should M. St. haue séene had he but read the next sentence before the text that he vrgeth Secundum dispositioneÌ„ Dauid regis Gad videÌ„tu regis c. According to the commaundement or disposition of Dauid the king of Gad the kings Seer of visions and Nathan the prophet c. Thus the prince euen in those thingâ—… that god coÌ„maundeth by the hand of the prophets is chéef for his authoritie vnder god Next to whom are adioyâ—…ed the Prophets or learned preachers or ministers of Gods worde as by whose mouth or hande God commaundeth it to be done and haue mosts skill thereof And yet that both priest prophet do their offices faithfully apperteyneth to the kings coÌ„mauÌ„dement appéereth further throughout this chap. as also in Ezechias ensample froÌ„ whence be takes this seÌ„tence as we shall sée wheÌ„ we come therto Onely thus much to detect the shifts that M. St. maketh stil leaping from priest to prophet froÌ„ prophet again to priest as it were a squirrel skipping froÌ„ one trée to another to saue hir froÌ„ the birdbolt but all wil not be nothing wil any thing serue his turne but euery thing maketh quite against him which wheÌ„ he séeth as it were to set an Oliuer agaynst a Rowlande he alleageth agaynst king Dauids eusample the ensample of Carolus Magnus Againe saith he the like might you haue alleaged of Carolus Magnus that he corrected most diligently the order of reading and singing in the church that he brought first into Frauâ—…ce caâ—…tum GregorianuÌ„ the order of singing lefte by S. Gregorie at Rome and appoynted singers therfore when they did not well placed other in their rowmes And many such other like matters of the church wherin that godly Emperour much busied him selfe and yet exercised no supreme gouernment ouer the clergie but was of all other Princes most far froÌ„ it as it may easily appeare to him that wil read in the decrees dist 19. in memoriam where he protesteth obedience to the Sea of Rome yea though an importable charge should be layde vpon him by that holy Sea. Ye haue picked out an vnlike vneuen match M. St. to compare herein the doings of king Dauid with K. Charlemaines Where is become your Impar congressus Achilli Troilus the vnequall matche betwene Troilus and Achilles Howe corrupte the tyme of king Charlemayne was and what practises and fetches your Pope vsed to get the crowne of Fraunce to Pepin his father from the right and lawful prince therof and the Empire of Rome to Charlemayne froÌ„ the Emperour of Constantinople to whoÌ„ it dyd belong euery hiltoriographer can tel may fitter be declared in his proper place than here to leape ouer the stile ere ye come at it by many an hundreth miles yet for hast ye breake your shinnes euen agaynst those things that as trifles ye recken vp vnto vs As the correcting most diligently the order of reading and singing in the Church the placing and displacing singers if he did these things as a godly Emperor as ye say then he tooke it that as Emperor he had a gouernment in them But ye say as a godly Emperor he much busied him selfe If he found him self busines like a busie body wherin he had no authoritie thus so place displace to institute order and correct how was he a godly Emperour therin or not rather as ye sayd before played Oza his part But ye say he was therein a godly Emperour therefore he did nothing of any buâ—…iositie but of his owne authoritie and supreme gouernment therein Well yet say you it was but in singing and ouer singers Was it no further M. Stapleton howe then do you say the like you might haue alleaged of Carolus Magnus to King Dauids doings Did King Dauid meddle onely with singing and singers Did he not meddle with Priestes and Prophetes also But to salue the matter ye say and many other suche like matters of the Church Whie tell ye not man what those many other matters were haue ye no lust to declare them for feare they would marre your market Well let them alone till we come to the proper examination of them Howbeit whatsoeuer they shall fall out to be here remember ye liken them to King Dauids doings But King Dauid commaunded and appoynted singers Priests Prophetes all the clergie high and lowe of what degrée so euer Ergo King Charlemaines authoritie stretched further than to singing men euen to all Priestes Prophetes and all the clergie besides And thus eyther your similitude is not like or else the one and the other maketh cleane against you But if these doings of Charlemaine be not like yet hath master Stapleton another proufe in store Also in the decrees 11. Q. 1. which Iuo also alleageth where he renueth out of the Code of Theodosius a lawe binding all his subiects