¶ The Supremacy of Christian Princes, over all people throughout their dominions, in all causes so well Ecclesiastical as temporal, both against the Counterblast of Thomas Stapleton, replying on the Reverend father in Christ, Robert Bishop of Winchester: and also Against Nicolas Sanders his Visible Monarchy of the Roman Church, touching this controversy of the Prince's Supremacy. Answered by john Bridges. The Prince's charge in his institution to oversee the direction of God's law. deuter 17. After he shall be settled in the throne of his kingdom, he shall writ out for himself in a volume the copy of this Law, taking the same of the Priests of the Levitical tribe, and he shall have it with him, & read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, and keep the words and ceremonies of him, which are written in this Law. etc. ¶ PRINTED AT LONDON, by Henry Bynneman, for Humphrey toy. 1573. · HONI · SOIT · QVI · MAL · Y · PENSE · E. R royal blazon or coat of arms ¶ To the most high and most excellent Princess Elizabeth, by the grace of God, Queen of England, France, and Ireland, defender of the Faith of Christ, and in earth next under God, of the Church of England and Ireland, in all Ecclesiastical and temporal causes, the supreme Head & Governor. ALbeit (most Gracious Sovereign) I might be worthily noted of presumption, in dedicating these my travails to your Majesty, as well for the baseness of my skill & calling, as for the unreverent demeanour of the adversaries that here I answer, unworthy whom your Highness should deign to look upon: yet, both because the matter entreateth most of a Prince's estate, and that upon the chiefest point thereof, belonging in general to all Christian Princes, but in especial to your Majesty, against whom they chief direct their malice, and in maintenance whereof your Majesty direct your government, and herein have given a mirror to all christian Princes to follow, and be partakers in their common weals, of the like blessings, wherewith God hath beautified your Highness, and established your authority: I thought it therefore not unfit (setting myself and them aside, with all such by matters as incidently fall out in disputation, betwixt the Bishop and master Feckenham, of me & these my adversaries▪ to con●…ecrate this argument of Supremacy to your most excellent Majesty, as to whom chief in your dominions, next under Christ it doth pertain. Which your Highness so nobly maintains by practice of godly government, how ever we by the word and argument do defend it. There is no controversy at this day betwixt us and the enemies of the gospel more impughed, than this one of the Supremacy, nor more books compiled more libels scattered, more vaunts made of truth on their party, more slanders devised of our doctrine, and your majesties Title, more secret conspiracies and open treasons against your Royal person and state of the Realm: than our adversaries make, only for this Supremacy. Shall Satan then use all this double diligence, in promoting the pride & tyranny of his Antichrist, the man of sin, the foreign usurper of all Christian kingdoms: and shall the children of God. be negligent in defence of the kingdom of Christ, of the lords anointed, of the dutiful office and lawful authority of their natural Sovereign▪ Other means (I grant) may be had to suppress their furious dealing. And God be blessed therefore that hath furnished your Majesty with power, counsel, authority, la, wisdom learning, virtue, courage, and all other Princely abilities▪ suffi●…iet to maintain your highness Title, & protect that portion of Christ's Church, which he hath committed to your most Gracious government, in peace and truth prosperously, 〈◊〉 your enemies. Wherein as your Majesty hath ever most z●…lously sought and set forth the glory of god, ●…e hath so glorified you again, as he hath promised, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, glorificabo: that your highness may say as king David said▪ he hath delivered you out of your enemies hands, and defeated all their purposes, he hath established you a kingdom here on earth in peace and righteousness, and hath prepared in heaven a Kingdom for you in glory and eternity. Now although this be so clee●…e, that even the enemies themselves confess, God works with you, God fights for you, God hath taken your heart into his hands, that have taken his quarrel into yours: yet sith the 〈◊〉 do mutte●… & slander your Highness, to take such kind of Government on you, as were not competent, as the Pope had want to do, & your Highness is furthest from: if this your claim be not proved to be groundedon God's word, if those envious be not cō●…inced by evident arguments of the scripture, all the foresaid prosperity is counted but earthly blessings, and such as other worldly Princes have. All the due authority is 〈◊〉 but extorted violence: neither is the mouth of the adoersarie stopped, neither is the mind of the subject satisfied. And therefore when all is done▪ there is no better mean●… to may 〈◊〉 this Title, than even by learning & 〈◊〉 for to me it to the uttermost, and to fight wit●… the weapon of God's word for it, whiche●…s sharpe●… to wo●…nde the adversaries heart and conscience, than any two edged sword. But some will say, this is sufficiently done, by other●… learned labours, when both in the days of your majesties Father of most renowned memory, even the best learned of our adversaries did not only confess it, but written so effectually in defence thereof, that shamefully afterwards revolting, their guilty consciencebore witness against themselves, nor they could ever answer their own writings. And also after that, in the godly government of your highness blessed Brother, many other more excellent fathers, in writing did confirm it. And now lastly in this your majesties happy Reign, divers famous and learned men, to the further confirming of the godly, and confounding the enemy therein, have written upon this argument. Yet sith our adversaries have never done therewith, but set on a fresh, like to him that when in wrestling he was ever cast, of pride and vainglory would never acknowledge that he had any fall: I thought good to make evident to all your majesties subjects, & even to the enemies themselves, the places where they shamefully fell, and lie still in their error, rather than to wrestle with such warblers. And yet if they start up again, to try a further pluck with them, and by the strength of God's invincible truth, so to overthrow them: that as fast as they boast, cavil, and slander: the truth of our cause, and the goodness of your majesties quarrel, shall show itself the clearer, although the simplier handled. A number of other whom I know, could have done it far better, who may also at their discretions further travail in it. And in deed (where the most of this was done a good while sigh) it was laid aside thus long, expecting if any other would attempt it. But sith none hath adventured on it, I thought it my duty to yield to the godly and urgent requests of those personages, that understanding I had privately dealt therein, required the publishing of my labours, to the which I condescended a great deal the willinger, partly because it touched withal, the defence of that Reverend father's innocency and learning, the Bishop of Winchester, who had, although briefly, yet most orderly and exactly, handled this question before, and was oppugned by this adversary, neither was it for divers causes thought so convenient for the Bishop himself to answer, and I for my part was bound in so just a cause to defend him. But chief for that it spared not most opprobriously to slander your most excellent Majesty, your title, your state, your government, your most honourable and godly Counsel, your nobility, your Bishops, your clergy, your magistrates, your justices, your people, and all estates of your dominions, your doctrine, your faith, your religion, yea the truth and glory of God, which your Highness defends, to all which, I and all other are bound in principal. I thought not good therefore to stay it any longer, and suffer these uncircumcised Philistines blaspheming the truth of God, reproaching the Lords anointed, and railing on the host of Israel, to stand thus and vaunt unanswered: but let this answer that I had thus farforth made in private▪ come abroad to others. Promising (god willing) by your majesties favourable protection, to deal further with them, and to showeth continual practice hereof, how in all ages, since Christendom began to flourish under the Great Constantine, that christian Emperors, Kings and Princes, have dealt as doth your Majesty in the oversight of Ecclesiastical matters, till the Pope by little and little encroaching on them, not only spoiled them of this their chief authority, but of their temporal estates and worldly kingdoms, yea of their goods & lives also. In the mean season for this that is here already answered unto, I most humbly crave your highness acceptation, whose right is here defended by truth from slanders, that by justice defendeth our right from injuries. Most heartily beseeching almighty God, as he hitherto hath vouchsafed, so to bless, preserve, continued and prospero your Royal Majesty, to the long establishing of your highness Throne, to the utter vanquishing of all your spiritual and bodily, privy and open enemies, to the godly comfort and quiet government of all your faithful subjects, and to the prosperous advancement of God's everlasting glory, through jesus Christ. AMEN. Your majesties humble and obedient subject JOHN BRIDGES. The Preface to the Reader. IT is now a good while since (dear Christian Reader) that this master Stapletons' Counterblast was blown over the seas from Louvain, against the Reverend father in Christ, the Bishop of Winchester, or rather against the queens Majesty and her Supremacy, & was thus far answered unto, as here is now set forth. Which may easily be perceived by the reading, for there is little or nothing altered, except a sentence or two here & there added, as things have fallen out since. I speak this, that thou shouldst not here look for any great or exquisite penning, thinking that after so long a leisure some more notable and exacter answer should come forth. Our adversaries vaunt much of their wits herein, and chie●…y this my matefellow master Stapleton, to be very fresh & pregnant in readiness of answering, for he is his mother's son, and hath it on his finger's ends. Howbeit, I may say to these, as Apelles said to one, who when he had drawn a picture: Lo (quoth he) I did this apace. Some thinks (quoth Apelles) it is so runningly done. And thus it falls often out with our Lo●…anists writings, but Sat cito si sat been, It is soon enough if it be well enough, (say I) when all is done. The reas●… why this answer came forth no sooner, are these. First, I kept it private to myself, abiding if either the Bishop, against whom it was made, or any other would answer to it. Secondly, I herded at the length, that Master Nowell the Dean of Paul's travailed in it, whose learning and wisdom being such as all the adversaries could never withstand: I surceased to proceed any further. Thirdly, when I perceived he set not out his answer neither, I thought it best to lay mine aside also. Thinking that either he was stayed upon some weightier consideration, than I did know: or else that he did think the book not worth the answering at all (as in very deed, to the learned marker it is not) & M. Nowell had answered Dorman in much like matter before, which were the occasions why it slept so long. But since that time, as many have mused and talked much on the matter, so they have not a little marveled why nothing was said unto it. The argument was great and weighty, not so much whether now the Supremacy belonged to the Pope, as whether it pertained to the civil Magistrate, and whether the Queen's Majesty did claim and hold it by right or not, The parties in controversy were of note, as well master Feckenham among the Papists, as the Bishop of Winchester, whose estimation among us, is not more for his authority, than his name among other nations for his learning. Now when Master Stapleton stepped in like a lusty yoncker, and blewe up this Counterblast between these twain, so hotly hallowing for answer out of hand to be made by the Bishop thereto, & all this while had none: some did interpret it, that he was a very unfit match for so grave a Bishop, as (to say the truth) the match was nothing even. And therefore I wit not the Bishop, if he vouchsafed not to answer him, especially seeing home his book was so pestered with scolds and scorners Rhetoric. Neither will the horse of noble courage strike at every brawling cur that barks at his heels. But when others misseconstrued this to the worst, & said the Counterblast was so notably blown, that the Bishop dared not, nor was able, he nor any other to answer it: & when upon the head of all this M. Saunders Latin volume comes forth, although chief on the Pope's visible Monarchy, yet once again entering into this question of the Prince's Supremacy, with fresh matter (& as he boasteth) with such invincible arguments against it, that all are but unlearned, stark fools, and clean mad that do defend it: and not thus content, so depresseth the Prince's estate, that he will now prove the Pope hath interest to depose all Christian Princes, and release their s●…biects of their sworn obedience: which valiant champion vaunteth also, of his fellow Stapletons' noble piece of work, against the Prince's Supreme Government, saying in his praise: Quod argumentum▪ Thomas Stapletonus omnium copiosissimè tracta●…it in ●…o Libro quen●… 〈◊〉 & eloquentia & doctrina refertum, contra Hornum Ps●…udoepiscopum Wintoniens●… edidi●…, which argument Thomas Stapleton hath most copiously handled in that book, which being replenished with all eloquence and learning, he set forth against Horn the false Bishop of Winchester. So stornfully this railing papist speaketh of the Bishop, and so he braggeth of his fellows learning and eloquence. All which considered, I thought it necessary and more than high time, to answer these proud Phariseis, lest the goodness of the cause should become disinherited, the truth suspected, the Prince slandered, the Bishop defaced, the enemy encouraged, the godly offended, the simple abused, and the whole estate evil spoken of, by too much unfruitful silence, and overlong sufferance of such false and glorious prattlers. And although for these causes I was the willinger to set it forth, yet was I the more emboldened on the request of diverse, that hearing I had travailed in it, by their godly persuasions urged me the more thereto. The chief of the Argument consists on the Supreme government of Christian Princes in causes Ecclesiastical. The occasion sprung of a controversy between the Bishop of Winchester, and master Feckenham, about the Oath of the Supremacy. All which is extant abroad in a learned and pithy book of the Bishops, answering to master Feckenhams scruples. The issue they drove the matter unto, was this, that master Feckenham must be resolved for the Princes Supreme Government in Ecclesiastical causes, by any of these four means, the Scripture, the Doctors, the Counsels, or the Practice. The Bishop accepteth the offer, and maketh proof of the Princes Supreme government in Ecclesiastical causes, not only by any one, but by every one of all these foresaid points, as the Bishop's book is evident to testify. Master Feckenham that had made his promise to take the Oath uponany of these proves, and seeing them all (beyond his cunning and expectation) proved, but neither minding to keep touch, nor able to answer: suborneth a chapman from beyond the seas, to wit, this Lovanist master Stapleton, (if he may be called Master, for order of school degree, that is such a renegade from God, and runagate from his Prince) who to save master Feckenhams honesty, if he would adventure to relieve his cause: master Feckenham should to save his credit, vouchsafe to relieve his need. Master Stapleton having better furniture of sale eloquence, than store of grounded learning, and yet more learning than grace well to employ it, in acknowledging the manifest truth, taketh upon him to answer the Bishop, and divides all the matter into four Books, whereof this is the first, that here is answered. This done, he conceiveth such apride of this his exquisite piece of work, that we must needs have some fine new name for this fine new book, (singular heads you know, must have singular inventions) and because the Bishop's name is M. Horn, he entitleth his work forsooth a Counterblast. And yet somewhat truer than he himself witted, being in deed a blast, scarce worth a Counter, if the reader well examine it. And that you may the better perceive, this volume deserves so rare a name, for these two rare gifts, eloquence and learning, for which master Sanders so highly extolleth him (Mulus mulum scabit:) And sith these two champions bear now the bell for eloquence among the Papists, the one for English, the other for Latin: I have sorted master Stapletons' eloquence by itself, consisting on certain Common places following, that we may the easier judge of the substance of his learning, which otherwise we should not so well discern, it is so powdered with his eloquence. His eloquence (I confess) I have said but little unto, nor can say much, nor would say aught unto it, as one that never was trained up in the schools and art thereof. As for master Stapleton goeth beyond master Saunders, and without all comparison is an A pierce Doctor in it, and therefore I set it aside, the better to view the learning, to the which I had more especial regard, for when all is done, the Eloquence sets it out, but the Learning proves the matter. And though it be not replied upon with such learning as many other better could, that rather should have done it, yet have I endeavoured truly, simply and plainly to answer it, and (I hope) to the contentation of the modest Reader, that rather respecteth the boul●…ing out of the truth, the stay of his conscience, and the glory of God, than either the estimation of learning, or the show of eloquence. Now although the Supremacy be the principal matter, yet the importunity of master Stapleton hath once or twice carried me perforce away with him, to purge ourselves of certain ancient Herekes that he layeth to our charge, and crieth so fast upon us for answer, and sayeth we still slink from it, as though we heard it not, and therefore I have here at large made answer to it, which makes the volume arise the bigger. In so much that I thought, for all master Stapletons' exclamations, to have left it out, or put it in one of his Common places. But that Master Saunders cometh ruffling in with the like argument, and therefore I let it stand as it did. And I trust I have clearly disburdened us, and justly burdened them therewith, till they shall be able to discharge themselves thereof. I desire (good Reader) but even indifferency in thy judgement. Last of all, since Master Sanders hath compiled his great volume of the Pope's Visible Monarchy, in the second book whereof he entereth into this argument of the Prince's Supremacy: I have choose out of the second book. 4. chapters of the state of the Civil and Ecclesiastical power, in the Original, in the Use, and End of both: of the Interest and superiority of either state: chief of that he would not only defeat the Prince of all government in matters Ecclesiastical, but also clean dispossess her Majesty of her Crown. For, master Saunders, to maintain the treacherous fact of P●…us the fift, the last Pope, (if Cardinal Bon Companion, Pope Good fellow, as the talk went, be not dead) would prove, that Bishops may depose their Princes, and assoil their subjects from their allegiance. Which points as they draw nearest to the present argument, and in deed are for learning (such learning as it is) the principal points of all his volume, I thought good to ioy●… them unto Stapleton, and so in one answer, answer both, though both be answered severally, as they draw near or far, in resemblance or variety of Argument, example, or similitude about this matter. Wherein what is done, I commit unto thee (good Christian Reader) to judge as God shall move thy heart, and besecche thou him, to move it to the best, That the truth may appear, that the falsehood may be detected, that thou mayst be edified, that the Prince may be obeyed, that the Gospel may be prospered, and that God above all things may be glorified now and for ever. Amen. Master Stapletons' common places THat all master Stapletons' whole volume (as well therein himself termeth it, a Counterblast) is indeed but a very blast, blown out to encounter the grave and pithy 〈◊〉 of the right reverend father in Christ Robert Bishop of Winchester, to ●…he Libel of M. Feckenhams scruples, for refusal of the oath of the queens majesties Supremacy: & withal to blow out, (thereby to darken the clearness of the truth) these light clouds without moisture whereof Saint Jude prophesied: I have good Reader, or ever I enter into the ●…laying of the Counterblast, gathered together by themselves (as it were in a table of common places) all those blasts wherewith his Counterblast is puffed up, and have sorted them in several winds and blasts, whereby thou mayst know, as it were by a chart, into what coast he is always carried, and by what gale of wind he saileth: so shalt thou the better find, in what creek he setteth footing, whether on fast or on foggy ground. Which that it may the better appear, behold the most or principal of those winds, wherewith M. N-ab in this his first book, and so increasing more and more in the residue (as we shall likewise see when we come thereto) blu●…ring like an other Aeolus, bloweth forth his Counterblast. M. Stap▪ chief common places. 1 His spiteful railing. 2 His reproachful slanders. 3 His scoffs and scorns. 4 His immoderate bragging. 5 His flourishing Rhetoric. 6 His impertinent discourses. 7 His false translations. 8 His words of course. 9 His petit quarrels. 10 His contradictions to himself and his fellows. 11 To the which is added his beaderoll of untruths, with a plain and brief answer to every one of them. The most of these his common places being such as here thou féest, I think, good reader, thou will't look for no great answer unto them: it is answer good enough to make them stand forth, and show themselves like proper fellows mustering in their ranks and troops: howbeit if any particular things shall be thought worthy the answering: either in these common places they shall be satisfied, or else more at large in the answer to the Counterblast itself, nothing God willing, whereby master Stapleton, or any of his friends, may justly find themselves grieved, shall be omitted. The residue of these common places, that are either unworthy any answer, or so much as the naming, except to show with what spirit our student is moved: shall be answered in the fronts and ends of these common places, even with his own words in upbraiding the same to the Bishop. Why seest thou a mo●…e in thy brother's eye, but considerest Luc. 6. not the beam that is in thy one eye? Either how canst thou say to thy brother: Brother let me pull out the mo●…e that is in thy eye, when thou seest not the beam that is in thy own eye▪ Thou hypocrite, cast out the beam out of thy own eye first, and the●… shalt thou see perfectly, to pull out the moa●… that is in thy brother's eye. Master Stapletons own objections of railing. THat I may a little roll in your railing Rhetoric, wherein 80. 2. you unjustly roar out. etc. His first common place of spiteful railing. A Pestilent rank of most shameful untruths, an unsavoury In his. 1. Pref. and vain kind of reasoning. Pag. 4. Shameful and malicious. 4. Your bastard daughter. 5. A misshaped lump of lewd and lose arguments. ib. Most wretched and miserable handling. 8. Most lying reply. ibid. Dishonest and shameful shifts. ibid. Miserable perverting. ibid. Your perversity. 9 Your fond, foolish, and heretical paradox. 11. Your own whoredom. 12. You most shamefully dissemble. 12. A most captain and notable lie. 12. Most miserably & wretchedly, pinched, pared, & dismembered, most shamefully contaminated, depraved and deformed. 12. You bear such a spiteful and malicious heart. 13. Most falsely and lewdly. 13. The cankered and malicious heart you bear. 13. You are false and malicious. 13. A partial writer an evident falsary. 14. You writ so Turkishly. 14. Such Turkish treachery might better have been born, in the lavishing language of your ho●…e spurred ministers. 14. Blind bayard. 14. You do like furious Ajax. 14. Your turkish talk. 15. The Turkish spirit that lurketh in you. 15. Bluster and blow, fume and fret, rave and rail, as loudly as lewdly, as beastly as boldly▪ 15. You bluster not so boisterously. etc. as you lie most lewdly. 15. You well deserve to be sewed on an action of the case. 16. Villaynously you slander. 16. You and your fellows most rightly and truly are proved Donatists. 16. You are far from a true Catholic. 16. A most ridiculous wrangler. 18. Freighted and stuffed with falsehoods. 19 Your untruths do swa●…me and muster. 19 Master jewel joineth obstinacy to folly. 20 You are at a point to lie. 20. A false Prophet and a lying master. 20. Most ignorantly you defend the oath. 21. Poisoned and cankered reproach. 21. Your most slanderous accusation. 22. Your heighnous heresies. 23. His second Preface. Prefac. 2. WHat silly shifts and miserable escapes master Horn hath devised to maintain that obstinately which he once conceived erroneously. 26. Master Horn stoutly, but fond avoucheth. 27. Master Horns whole answer is but a vain blast. 29. Heresy, schism, great and abominable heresy. 31. The reply to the Bishop's Preface. AN untrue and false surmise. Fol. 2. b. Tedious and infinite talk and babbling. 4. a. Foolish wiliness or wily foolishness. 4. b. What an impudent face as hard as a horn or stone have you, besides your mere folly. 5. a. The first book. YOur fond and foolish cavil. 7. a. Miserable and wretched perverting. 7. a. You are but an usurper and intruder. 7. b. M. Poynet was but an usurper. 8. a. You are. etc. no doubt an heretic. 8. b. By this your incest wretchedly profaned and villained 8 b. M. Horn a stark schismatic and heretic. 11. a. Devilish and spritishe. 14. a. Blasphemous, horrible and villainous. ibid. M. Horn most maliciously ascribeth. etc. most wickedly surmiseth. 14. b. That poisoned root of Luther and his strumpet Kate. 15. b. The wicked tabernacle of their loitering heresies. 16. a. Runagate preachers. 16. b. The gaping ravens mouths, the heretical brood. 17. a. Schismatical sermons, rebellious protestants. 17. a. Protestanticall rebels. 19 b. This man so falsely and maliciously bloweth his horn. 21. a. You being a sacramentary. 22. a. The gehennicall Church. 26. a. Losely and lewdly without any regard. 33. a. Blind, fond, foolish and false, stark false, blindly and lewdly. 33. b. The strange proceeding of the Parliament against God's Church. 33. b. Your poor wretched soul. 36 a. As you without all knowledge. 37. b. The dirty dung of filthy schism and heresy. 38. b. You work unskilfully and ungodly. ibid. Your great offence, schism and heresy. ibid. Your hard stony heart. ibid. A loud lewd lie. 38. b. perversity and malice concurrant for your infidelity. 40. b. Variable, divers, deceivable and false. 40. a. Topical and pestiferous translation. 40. b. False, dangerous and damnable gloss. 41. a. These errors and heresies. 41. a. b. You and your fellows teach false and superstitious religion, many and detestable heresies, and so with all plain Idolatry. 42. a. You are no simple Idolater but one that maintaineth a number of heresies. 42. a. Obstinate defence of such filthy marriage. ibid. A fool, a dolt, an ass. 43. a. You deny full pievishly. 44. a. Craftily dissembled, lewdly swerved. 49. a. b. You have set up your Idols, that is your abominable heresies. 50. a. Wretchedly and shamefully handled. ibid. Lying beyond all shame. 50. b. His ridiculous dealing. 50. b. The indignity of his demeanour is to be detested. 50. b. Fond counterfeiting, flat lying, a lewd and a horrible lie. 50. b. What can be done more abominable. ibid. Your wretched doctrine. 51. b. Most wretched and traitorous translation. 51. b. An open and notorious lie. 53. b. This most sensible and most gross lie. 55. b. Most impudent and shameless lies. 56. a. His lewd book ibid. M. Horn and his fellows and his Masters Luther's and Caluins' heresies are no secret nor simple heresies, but so manifold and open that they have no way or shift to save their good name and honesty blotted and blemished for ever without repentance for the obstinate maintenance of the same. 56. b. Your Masters worse than the Pelagians. 57 b. Calvin and other sacramentaries. 57 b. You draw near to Simon Magus. 57 b. They are no petit nor secret heresies that you and your fellows maintain. 57 b. You and your fellows must needs remain stark heretics, & for such to be abhorred and abandoned of all good christians. 58. a. You and your companions open and notable heretics. ibid. M. Fox in his dunghill of stinking Martyrs. 59 a. M. Foxes stinking Martyrs 60. a. His devilish dirty dunghill of his foul heretical and traitorous Martyrs 60. a. Stinking, heretical and foolish martyrs. 61. a. Falsehood and folly. 61. b. Appollinarians and Eutichians. 63. b. Your falsehood, your great folly. 63. a. You are wicked depravers of religion. 65. b. You are as great blasphemers as ever Christ's Church had. ibid. Doltish devilish Donatists. 66. a. You the sacramentaries. 66. a. M. Fox. etc. his huge monstrous martyrologue. 66. b. An open damnable heretic and a Donatist. 66. b. Not only a traitor, but a detestable Donatist also. 66. b. His own huge martyrologue. 66. b. Like to Captain Kets tree of reformation. 66. b. Your froward quarrelings and customable elusions. 66 b. A blunt and a foul shameless shift. 68 b. An open and a shameless lie. 68 b. So outrageously and blasphemously villained by you. 68 b. M. Horns foolish figurative divinity. 69. a. A foolish and frivolous admonition. 70. a. M. Horns fantastical imagination. 70. a. M. Horn which talk so confusedly. 73. a. thousands have taken the oath to their damnation. 73. a. Your heresies condemned. 74. b. Impudent and shameless. 75. a. A stark and most impudent lie. 75. b. Facingly and desperately. 75. b Fond and foolish. 76. a. He walketh ignorantly, or maliciously, or both. 76. b. Most ignorantly and falsely. ibid. Notable lies. ibid. A most notorious lie. 77. a. Foolish blasphemous babbling. 77. a. Shameless lies. 77. a. As gross, as foul, and as loud a lying fetch. 77. a. Schismatical council and heretical synagogue. 77. b. Worthy to have been cast to the dogs and ravens upon a dirty dunghill. 77. b. The wicked working of wretched heretics. 77. b. Plain schismatical and heretical. 78. a. O more than childish folly. 78. a. That crafty cooper. 78. a. Your great ignorance or like malice. 79. b. You have one heresy more than any of your fellows. 80. a. Your great grandsires the Grecians. 80. a. You term with an unclean and impure mouth. 80. b. M. Horns dissembling falsehood. 83. a. Dissemblingly to uphold a falsehood. 84. b. For full and sufficient answer to all this and other his black Rhetoric, we may return his own words on himself. The Donatists when they could not justify their own doctrine, Fol. 59 b. nor disprove the Catholics doctrine, leaving the doctrine, fallen to railing. His own upbraiding of slanders. YOU bluster not so boisterously. etc. as you lie most lewdly upon etc. whose person ye impugn for lack of just matter with most slanderous reproaches. 1. Preface. Pag. 15. His second common place of reproachful slanders, neither sparing the Queen's Majesty, nor his native Country. THat this religion whereby thou hopest to be saved, hath no authority to ground itself upon. 2. Pref. pag. 27. That if it have any authority, it hath authority of the Prince, by whose supreme government it is enacted and forced upon thee, other authority hath it none. ibid. That of Protestants some be Lutherans, some be zwinglians, some Anabaptists, some Trinitaries, and some be of other sects. 29. a. That King Henry the eight, and the Parliament thought erroneously. 31. That King Edward in his minority set forth a new Religion. ibid. That the Bishops now, are but Parliament and no Church Bishops. 32. That the queens majesties title can not be applied with any convenient sense, to any civil Prince, especially to the person of a woman. 34. That a woman is expressly by nature, and by scripture excluded from being capable of spiritual government. ibid. That the Bishop of Winchester his meaning is, to engraft in the minds of the subjects, a misliking of the Queen's Majesty▪ as though she usurped. etc. Fol. 2. That he conspired to the making of a book, that spoileth the Queen's Majesty of all her authority. ibid. That he hath in open sermon at Winchester maintained, contrary to the Queen's ecclesiastical injunctions, such as would not refor●… their disordered apparel. ibid. That the 〈◊〉 hath & doth maintain many things▪ contrary to the laws & orders of the realm, to the pro●… whereof he citeth the defending of a minister of Du●…ley, as true as all . 3. That the temporal men without, yea against the consent of the whole clergy, altered the estate of religion. 4. b. That the Bishops are no true Bishops. 7. b. That Bishop Poynet was but an usurper, with diverse other slanders against Luther, calvin, Beza, Bishop Cra●…mer, etc. 8. a. b. A contumelious term of Brittle bulwark against the act of Parliament. 9 a. That our faith hangs on an act of Parliament. ibid. That civil and profane matters be converted into holy and ecclesiastical. ibid. That lay men are of the fold only, and are not shepherds at all. ibid. That they altar the whole religion, and confound heaven and earth together. ibid. That in King Edward's days, legerdemain was played, a leaf put in at the printing which was never proposed in the Parliament. Which is an open slander even of the king himself, and his Council. The rule in the boo●… of common prayer saith, the people shall receive kneeling. To show that this law meant not adoration: the King and his Council caused a declaration of the true meaning of the law, to be drawn in ten or twelve lines, and added them to this rule. ibid. He slandereth the honourable of the Council for uneven ordering the disputation at West. Anno regn●… Elizabeth 1 Which being so fresh in memory, all men can witness●… against him. 12. a. b. He likeneth it to the Anabaptists disputations. ibid. The fourth Chapter. of. 13. leaves, together besides that it is almost all impertinent talk, is full of shameful slanders, of many noble vertu●… and learned men: the Duke of Saxony, the La●…graue of Hesse, the Lo●…le Cobham, sir Roger Acton, Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, Beza, etc. to deface them and the professors of God's word with tales of ●…umultes, cruelties, disobedience and rebellions. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. That the civil government of Christian Princes stretcheth no further than the civil government of heathen princes. 29. b. That the O. majesties title is not competent for her highness and that the avouching of the oath is the e●…payring of her worldly estate. 27. a. That the oath bemyreth them which receive it. 30. That it is an unlawful oath, & like to wicked K. Herod's. 30. That the plague reigned at London to plague the strange proceed of the Parliament. 33. b. That the Bishop of Winchester because he required the oath of d●…ctour Bonner therefore sought his blood. ibid. That our Bishops are no Church Bishops. ibid. That the queens Majesty taketh on her a pretenced regiment. 42. That marriage in ministers is filthy. 42. ●…. That of late years, lay men dared adventure to take the guidi●…g of the ark, and go before the Priests, and not suffer the priests to go before them. And dared altar the state of Christian religion, against the will and mind of the Bishops, and the whole clergy. 46. a. That we attribute to the queens majesty to altar religion. 47. b. That lay men have not only put to their hands to sustain the Ark as Oza did, but have also of their own private authority, altered & changed the great and weighty points of Christ's Catholic Religion, and in a manner have quite transformed & overthrown the same, & so have as a man might say broken the very Ark itself all to fitters. 47. b. That wesay, that Princes do hea●… the supr●… government in all ecclesiastical matter●…, to decide and determine, ▪ what religion mere sovereignty. 48. b. That the Prince enacteth a new religion. 50. a. That the decision of matters of religion a●… made Parliament matters. ibid. That w●… labour to confound the spiritual and secular power. ibid. That the queens Maiestle enacteth a new religion by force of supreme authority, contrary to the commandment of God. 53. a. That her highness hath altered and abandoned the usual religion a thousand years and upward, customably from age to age received and embraced. 53. b. That she hath abandoned general Counsels. 54. a. That Princes now make Bishops by letters patents, for such and so long time as please them, for term of years, months, or days. ibid. b. That she inhibiteth them to visitte their flocks and to preach. ibid. For 4. or. 5. leaves together he doth nothing else but slander the Protestants with ●…mbers of Heresies that he ●…aisly layeth to their charge. But this is answered at large and those herestes with many other returned on the Papists. That a thousand in England have taken the oath to their great damnation. 73. 2. That the Prince and his successors are made absolute governors without any limitation or exception. 73▪ That the Bishop buildeth a new supremacy on the wicked working of wretched Heretics. 77. b. That the Bishop is of the opinion that the Grecians were of, denying the holy Ghost to proceed from the Father, and the son. Wherewith he ●…laundereth the Bishop only because he citeth▪ Emanuel Paleologus the Emperor of Gréece out of Nicephorus by the name of a Christian Emperor▪ where Nicephorus himself the Papists that set Nicephorus out, call this Emperor Christianiss●…, The most Christian Emperor. ibid. He compareth the reaimes of Boheme, France, Scotland, & Germany, to lerusalem destroyed by the heathen Romans, and to Constantinople, captive to the Turks. 82. b. That the Queen taketh upon her all manner of government and authority in all things and causes ecclesiastical. 82. b. That the Queen taketh upon her, by her own supreme authority, to enact matters of religion, to approve and disprove articles of the faith, to determine doctrine, to excommunicate and absolve. ibid. That the statute and the oath implieth and concludeth all these particulars. 83. a. That by the statute is flatly excluded all the authority of the whole body of the catholic Church without the realm. ibid. That the statute implieth, that if a Turk or any heretic whatsoever should come to the Crown of England, all manner superiority in visiting and correcting Ecclesiastical people in all manner matters should be united unto him. ibid. That the Queen taketh on hi●… to be a supreme governor ecclesiastical. ibid. That her supreme government giveth her power in all doubts and controversies to decide the truth, and to make an end of questioning: ibid. That by virtue of this statute, the Queen's Majesty hath judged, determined and enacted a new religion. That she taketh on her the preaching of the word, the administration of the sacraments, binding and losing. ibid. That the statute is thus generally conceived. 83. b. That the statute is generally conceived, and not generally meaned. ibid. To all these slanders we may answer in a 〈◊〉 with his own words. These besuch slanderous reproaches (〈◊〉. 〈◊〉) and the person 1. Pref. pag. 1●… son whom you burden them withal, so far from all suspicion of any such foul matter. etc. that if you were sued hereof upon an action of the case as you well deserve no less, or rather in deed you deserve far sharper punishment for reporting thus of your most gracious sovereign, and all the estates of the Reaime, whom thus vnsubiect●…ke you slander. His own objection for scoffs. I pray you call to remembrance what a scoffing and wondering he maketh. 407. His. 3. common place of scoffing and scorning. In the Prefaces. YOu work your matters so handsomely and so perswasively. pag. 6. What a new Cicero or Demosthenes are you. 7. A marvelous kind of new and false arithmetic. 8. Is not this, I pray you, an important and mighty argument. 11. Your own dear brother Bale the chief antiquary of English Protestants. 13. Your hot spurred ministers. 14. No news for a man of your coat. 14. Whose bold as blind baiard. 14. You tell your reader in great sadness. 16. You bluster exceedingly, and are in a vehement rage. 16. With the like felicity your brother jewel. etc. laid full stoutly and confidently. etc. with great bravery. 81. It pitieth me in your behalf. 19 Master jewel hath led us this dance. 19 Your fair piece of work. 23. Your poor honou●… should say honesty. 23. The chief masters of the religion. 28. Parliament Bishops. 32. In the answer to the Bishop's Preface. THe holy Brotherhood of Geneva. ●…. b. This noble blast so valiantly and skilfully blown. 3. a. Worthy for this great prowess to be, if all other things fail, a prelate of the garter. 2. a. The jolly policy of this man. 4. a. The wise trade this man keepeth. 4. a. What if now sir M. F. would revel with like rhetoric. 4. b. These things hung together like Germains lips. 5. a. In the first book. Master grindal and M. jewel your pewfellows. 7. b. This glorious glittering peacocks tail. 7. b. You are a Bishop of this sewte. 8. a. Your Apostles Luther and Calvin. 8. a. You are yoked, or as you pretend, married. 8. a. You live in pretenced matrimony with your Madge. 8. b. You keep your said Madge. 8. b. M. Cranmer his pretty conie, his nobbes. 8. b. Your brittle bulwark of acts of Parliament. 9 a. Luther your first Apostle. 9 a. I beseech you good sir. 11. b. This is your fine and singular invention. 12. a. We must pluck you by the horns. ibid. Yea forsooth, who seethe it not, and withal what an honourable Prelate you are. 12. a. This man bloweth his Home a wrong. 15. a. Their evangelical brood. 15. a. Zealous Gospelers. 17. a. A brother of your Gospel. 17. b. The holy brotherhood went to their drudgery (so he calleth the singing of the Psalms. 18. b. The zealous brotherhood. 19 a. The Gospellike zeal of this sacred brotherhood. 19 a. Under pretence for sooth of your Gospel's zeal. 91. a. Theodore Beza Caluines holy successor. 20. b. Your dear brethren the Calui●…ists. 21. ●…. Your poor honesty. 21. a. M. Horn his evangelical brethren. 21. b. Calvin your greatest apostle. 22. b. The patriarchs of the new evangelical brotherhood. 22. b. A new sect of Lay head makers. 22. b. The fervent brethren. 23. a. Your protestant fellow of the bestrace. 23. b. I promise' you a well blown blast and handsomely handled. 24. ●…. Your wisdom, your fineness, there was never a new brother. ib. Such a noddy. 24. a. Your holy brethren so fervent in the word of the Lord. 25. a. Master john Knox the new Apostle of Scotland. 25. a. A zealous brother of Caluins' school. 25. a. Your holy brethren of Geneva. 26. a. Lo good M. Horn. 26. a. The English brethren. 26. a. This noble and clerkly work. 26. a. The Gehennicall, I should say Genevicall Church. ibid. This good brotherhood, men no doubt, well worthy. etc. To whom the Queen's Majesty is (who doubteth) deeply bond, and they worthy to be so well cherished at her hands as they are. 26. a. These good brethren with their new broached divinity. 26. a. His own good brethren. 27. a. Here is a worshipful reason. 28. b. This is as great a cause to wonder at, as to see a goose go barefoot. 28. b. Now will he play the worthy Logician. 28. b. M. Horn walks like a bore footed man upon thorns. 30. b. His great cunning and skilfulness. 32. a. As if M. Horn were a lay man and a painter. 32. b. Full worshipfully concluded. 32. b. Blyndly and lewdly harping. 33. b. How prove you it good sir. 33. b. Not gramercy to you sir. 33. b. A pitiful case. 33. b. Hearken we to M. horns blast. 34. a. By the way I trow of some meritorious supererogation. 35. b. To bind M. Fecknam the deeper to him for his exceeding kindness. 35. b. O gentle and loving heart. 35. b. Now good M. Horn. 36. a. This your clerkly book. 35. b. Your poor wretched soul. 36. a. Your brethren of Geneva. 39 a. These fellows. etc. ruffle us up a black sanctus. 39 a. Go on I say in God's name M. Horn, prosecute your plea stoutly, God send you good speed. 40. b. Your clerkly and honest dealing to your high commendation. ibid. That you may keep your Madge. 42. a. It may perhaps be in some ordinary gloze of Geneva his notes. 42. b. A full mess of notorious untruths. ibid. You have fine dishes and dainty cates coming after. ibid. M. Horn a very good simple plain man in his dealings. 43. a. Any of the good brethren. 43. b. This is but a childish and boyish rhetoric. 46. a. M. Nowell the schoolmaster. 46. a. Let the Prince in a cope and surplus celebrated your holy communion. 46. b. You jumble and jar. 46. b. M. Nowell here besturreth himself. 49. a. His ridiculous dealing were worthy to be laughed at. 50. b. Your new Genevian Bibles. 50. b. You have shotten like a blind man. 55. a. I think his wits were not his own. 56. a. What an hotch potch he made. 56. a. The excellent pregnant wit and great skill of this man. 56. b. Such a special grace the man hath given him of his master the devil. 56. b. Good sir may it please you favourably to hear you and your masters honourable pedigree, and of their worthy fears and prows. 56. b. For your more honour and glory, I adjoin the Emperor julianus the Apostata. 57 a. b. The race of your worthy generation. 57 b. After long and honourable succession your patriarchs Luther and Calvin have learned. 57 b. Their goodly doctrine. 57 b. Your new Gospel. 57 b. Your noble progenitors. 57 b. Your Apostle Luther. 58. a. Your Apostles Luther and Calvin. 58. b. His own dear brother Sleydan. 58. b. Your Apostle Luther. 59 a. Your Hugonotes and the beggarly Guests. 59 b. germane Lutherans, French calvinists, and flemish Guetts. 59 b. Master Fox his holy canonisation. 60. a. Because we should keep their day a double feast. 60. a. A stout Confessor in this mad martyrologue. 60. a. Master Fox playeth the wily Fox, and sprinkleth with his false and wily tail his filthy stale. 60. b. Master Fox's authority very large and ample in this his canonisation. 60. b. By a cunning Metamorphosis. 61. a. Will ye see the crafty doubling of a Fox walking on the either of the hedge. 61. a. So fine and subtle a blast of an Horn a man shall not lightly find again among all the Horners in England I suppose. 61. b. But yet by your leave sir this horn hath a foul flaw. 61. b. A very blind beetle blunt shift of yours. 62. a As you blindly and bluntly guess. 62. a. You dream, it is spoken but in your dream. 62. a. Which surely is so forcible as will not beat down a very paper brickwall. 62. a. These your great Canno●…s. 62. a. Your rotten weak hold underpropped with your great sampson posts as mighty as Bulrushes. 62. b. Your good Logic, your law and like divinity. 62. b. But now good sir, etc. Lo then good. sir. 62 b. Unless master Horn become suddenly so subtle▪ 63. b. His dear brethren and master Foxes holy Martyrs. 6●…. b. Your Apostle Luther's opinion. 66. a. Your holy martyrs. 66. a. A blessed martyr in master Foxes holy Calendar. 66. a. A lie and more too by a syllable. 66. a. His huge monstrous martyrologue. 66. b. Good stuff I warrant you. 66. b. This worthy Calendar. 66. b. This huge martyrologue. 66. b. This worthy Champion. ibid. Of his noble work, and of his noble holy martyr. ibid. This worthy article. ibid. Like to captain Kets tree of reformation. ibid. You make your reckoning without your host. 68 a. Your reformation or rather deformation. 68 b. Master Horns foolish figurative divinity. 69. a. The great weight of so mighty a proof. 69. b. Master Horn of his great gentleness. 69. b. These men make a very Welshmans hose of God's word. 70. a So aptly and truly you allege you doctors. 73. b. This good Antiquary and Chronographer. 76. b. gaily and iolilie triumpheth. 77. a. Very good stuff, as good pardie as master Horns own book, and as clerkely and as faithfully handled. 77. a. O what a crafty Cooper & smooth joiner is M. Horn. 77. b. Your handsome holy dealing. 78. a. You are worthy exceeding thanks. 78. a. A'iolie marginal note. 78. a. O more than childish folly. 78. a. That crafty Cooper. ibid. As wise as by the Metaphor of a Cow to conclude a saddle, for as well doth a saddle fit a Cow. 78. b. Such beggarly shifts. ibid. You have demeaned yourself so clerkly and skilfully. ibid. Such a parsonage as you counterfeit. 80. a. This blessed Martyr. ibid. You are a very poor silly Clerk. ibid. M. Fox will not suffer you to walk post alone. ibid. That I may a little roll in your railing rhetoric. ibid. Your darlings the Grecians. 80. b. Seeing you deal so freely and so liberally. 81. a. You have juggled in one. 82. a. You have so craftily conveyed your galls. 82. a. Your dark sconce, a sconce of dim light. 82. a. The new pretended clergy, the pretended Bishops. 84. a. To all this, and all other his frumps and scoffs, he may be answered with his own words. Modestia vestra (M Horn) not a sit omnibus hominibus. Let your modesty (M. Stapleton) be known to all men. 435. b. His own objection of bragging. This is but an impudent facing and bragging. 4. a. His fourth common place of bragging. In his first Preface. NOt being able to allege any author that maketh not for us. pag. 7. Do what you can. etc. 15. You have in this reply, a just and a full defence. 22. I have replied throughout. 22. I have not omitted any one part or parcel. 22. I have answered the whole. 22. I wish that the most honourable. etc. would command you to prove it so to the world. 22. I have here replied to all and every part. 22. If truth be on your side you have no cause to stick hereat▪ etc. go through therefore as you have begun. etc. if you think your foundation good. etc. go through I say. etc. if you now draw back men will laugh you to scorn. 23. The dealing of the Catholic writers is so upright, that such small occasions must be piked. etc. else against their dealings have you nothing to say. 18. Your cause I assure you will come forth stark naked, feeble and miserable. 19 After all this struggling and wrestling against the truth by you and your fellows master jewel, and the rest, the truth is daily more and more opened, illustred and confirmed, and your contrary doctrine is or aught to be disgraced and brought in utter discredit. 8. In the second preface. I Was fully purposed, having so largely provoked such sharp adversaries, especially master jewel, for a season to rest me and to stand at mine own defence if any would charge me. 24. I have shaped to the whole book a whole and full Reply, wherein I rather fear I have said to much than to little. 25. Thy religion is but a bore name of religion, and no religion in deed. 27. These be such absurdities as every man of mean consideration seethe and abhorreth. 28. The primacy of the Bishop of Rome is evidently here proved. 28. Master Horns whole answer is but as it were a vain blast. 29. The sea apostolic is the fountain and wellspring of all unity in the Catholic faith. 33. Neither shall we ever find any cause of good and sufficient contentation till we return thither. 35. In the answer to the Bishop's Preface. AS I assuredly understand that the reverend father my Lord Abbate of Westminster. fol. 1. a. But this may I boldly say, and I doubt nothing to prove it, that in all his book, there is not as much as one word of Scripture, one Doctor, one Council, general or provincial, not the practice of any one country throughout the world counted Catholic, that maketh for such kind of regiment as master Horn avoucheth, nor any one manner of proof that hath any weight or pith in the world to persuade, I will not say master Feckenham, but any other of much less wit, learning and experience. 3. a. I say master Horn cometh not once nigh the principal matter in question. 3. a. I say further, in case we remove and sequester all other proofs on our side, that M. Horn shall by the very same fathers, Counsels, and other authorities by himself producted, so be overthrown in the chief and capital question, unto the which he cometh not nigh as a man might say by. 1000 miles, that his own company may have just cause to fear, etc. 3. a I say, and master Feckenham will also say, that even M. Horn himself retreateth so far back. etc. 3. b. The premises then being true, and of our side abundantly proved, and better to be proved, as occasion shall serve, as nothing can effectually be brought against them. 4. a. You have not, not nor you can not prove any such matters. 4. b. In the first book. I Must be so bold, by your leave, as plainly and bluntly to go to work with you, as I have done before with master grindal and master jewel. 7. b. The Queen cannot make you Lord Bishop of Winchester, as I have otherwhere sufficiently proved, in the Fortress of of our first faith annexed to venerable Bede. 8. a. Luther, and calvin, and other being therewith pressed, were so messhed and bewrapped therein, that they could not in this world wit, what to say thereto, answering this & that, they witted near what, nor at what point to hold them. 8. a. The Protestants wonderfully troubled about the question of the continual succession of Bishops. 8. a. What have you to justify your cause. 8. b. Master Horn can not defend and maintain his heresies nor himself to be a Bishop by any law of the realm. 9 a. The Catholics not suffered to reply, lest their adversaries weakness should (as it would have done in deed, and now daily doth God be praised) evidently and openly have been deciphered and disclosed. 13. a. I dare undertake that not only master Feckenham but many more that now refuse, shall most gladly take the said oath. 31. a. What should I reason further with this man. 32. b. Notwithstanding all your great brags, and this your clerkly book, you know not, nor never shall know, but that the Pope is the supreme head of the Church. 36. a. Master Hooper was so answered by M. Feckenham. etc. 37. a. After all this your long travail, wherein you have to the most uttered all your skill, you are so far from full answering his scruples and stays, that they seem plainly to be unanswerable, and yourself quite overborne and overthrown, and that by your own arguments and inductions, as we shall hereafter evidently declare. 38. b. I refer me to your scriptures, fathers, Counsels, practise of the Church, that you would seem to rest upon. Whereby nevertheless, you yourself shall take a shameful foil and fall. Wherefore go on a God's name, and bring forth your evidences, go on, I say, in God's name (master Horn) and prosecute your plea stoutly. 40. a. b. Now therefore go on master Horn, and being at your first encountering overblown and discomfited with your own blast, think well whether it is likely, that you shall hereafter bring against your adversary any thing etc. 42. a. We freely grant you that Princes may sharply punish teachers of false and superstitious religion. etc. for I say to you, that you and your fellows teach false and superstitious religion. 42. a. I trow it will be hard for you to bring forth any act of parliament, or any other convenient and sufficient plea. 42. b. The old ordinary Latin gloze, I am right sure M. Horn, it hath no such thing. 42. b. His scripture, etc. reacheth nothing home to his pretenced purpose, but rather infringeth and plain marreth the same, as I have said, and fully standeth on our side. So I doubt nothing it will far with his examples, as Moses, joshua, David, Solomon, josaphat, Ezechias, josias. And that they all come to short, and are to weak to justify his assertion. But here am I shrewdly encumbered, and in great doubt what to do, for I could make a short, but a true answer that these ensamples are fully answered already. 43 a. This one answer might well serve for all the kings doings now following, saving I will particularly descend to every one, and for every one say somewhat. Here I wish to encounter with master Nowell. 45. a. Master Nowell fretteth & fumeth with master Dorman, who shall cool him well enough I doubt not. 49. a. You have hitherto brought nothing effectual. etc. the contrary is by us avouched & sufficiently proved. etc. bring forth that king that did not agnize one supreme head. etc. you have not done it, nor never shall do it, and if you could show any, it were not worth the showing. etc. what precedent have you showed of any good king? 53. b. That the Popish religion, is the usual religion a thousand years and upward. 53. b. What evidence have you brought forth? etc. what can you bring forth out of the old testament to aid and relieve your doings? etc. what can you show? etc. what good induction can you bring? etc. what good motive can you gather? etc. what? think you that you can persuade us? etc. are you able suppose you, to name us any one king? etc. O M. Horn, your manifold untruths are deciphered and unbuckled, you are espied, you are espied, I say, well enough, that you come not by a thousand yeardes and more near the mark. Your bow is to weak, your arms to feeble, to shoot with any your commendation at the mark, yea if you were as good an archer as were that famous Robin hood, or little john. Well shifted your bow, or at lest wise your string. Let the old testament go, and proceed to your other proofs. Wherein we will now see if you can shoot any straighter, for hitherto you have shot all awry, and as a man may say, like a blind man, see now to yourself from henceforth that you open your eyes, and that you have a good eye, and a good aim to the mark we have set before you. If not, be you assured, we will make no courtesy eft 'zounds to put you in remembrance. For hitherto you have nothing proved that Princes aught which you promised to prove. etc. 55. a. Answer the fortress (Master Horn) annexed to Saint Bede if you dare. 55. b. Belike the world goeth very hard with you. 56. a. You shall anon hear of it. 56. a. Master Feckenhams heresy is so secret and privy, that Argus himself with all his eyes shall never espy it, not nor M. Horn himself, let him pry never so narrowly. 56. b. You have herded of (your ancestors) before perhaps, and that ●… by me. 56. b. I forbear at this time of the residue of your noble progenitors, having in other places, as I noted before, spoken largely of the same. 57 b. Come forth once and clear yourself of this only objection if you can being so often pressed therewith. 57 b. 58. a. Clear yourself if you be able, I assure you M. Horn you and all your fellows will never be able to avoid this one only objection. 58. a. As I have proved you & your companions open and notable heretics, so shall I straight way purge M. Feck. to be no Donatist, or any heretic otherwise for any thing yet by you laid to his charge. But now. M. Horn beware yourself, etc. beware I say, for I suppose I will lay more pregnant matter, in this behalf, to your & their charge, than you have or possible can do to M. Feck. or any other Catholic. Whereof I dare make any indifferent reader judge. If I should amplify this matter at large, it would rise to a pretty volume. 58. a. Answer then to my third demand in the fortress annexed to Saint Bede. 59 b. I shall trace him and smell him out well enough. 60. b. Your great Canons come not nigh his hold by. 1000 miles. They will not beat down a very paper brickwall. 62. a. Here might we even by your own rule, cry out upon you all, as Apollinarians and Eutichians. 63. a. And for my part (master Horn) that you may not think I have now been first so advised upon sight of your book: I have forced that argument, with many examples of godly Emperors and Princes, in my Dedicatory Epistle to the Queen's Majesty, before the translated History of the venerable Bede. 65. b. We say that you are wicked depravers of religion. 65. b. We say you are as great blasphemers as ever Christ's Church had, etc. we say further, that not only the general council of Trent, but the whole church hath condemned your opinions by general & national counsels many hundred years since. 65. I hear say master Fox is busy to set forth a fresh in print yet once again his huge monstrous martirloge, I will do so much for him as minister him plenty of good stuff, I warrant you, to set forth & adorn at his next edition. 66. b Well I will bring you as I think a substantial and an inevitable proof. 66. b. Though I grant you all that you have alleged, etc. and all things else that is here alleged, yet all will not reach home. 68 a. Which answer of his may satisfy any reasonable man, for all that you bring in here of Constantine, or all that you shall afterward bring in, etc. 68 b. Which I am assured all Catholics will grant. 68 b. Give to Caesar that belongeth to Caesar, and to God that belongeth to God▪ which later clause▪ I am assured, doth much more take away a supreme regiment in all causes ecclesiastical, than necessalily by force of any words, bind us to pay yea any tribute to our Prince. 69. b. We plainly say that this kind of supremacy is directly against God's holy word. 70. a. What can you conclude of all that you have or shall say to win your purpose. 74. a. I say that if Saint Augustine were alive, he would say unto you as he said unto Gaudentius. 74. b. Neither this that you here allege out of place, nor all the residue which you rehearse of this Constantine, etc. can import this superiority, as we shall there more at large specific. In the mean season I say it is a stark & most impudent lie. 75. b As I have at large in my return against master jewels fourth article declared. 77. b. What honour have you got, what honour have you I say won by this, or by the whole thing itself? 78. a. And shall we now (M. Horn) your antecedent being so nought, the consequent you will hereof infer? nay pardie. 79. a, b. Well I will leave this, at your leisure better to be debated upon, betwixt you and master Fox. 80. a. You are a very poor silly clerk, far from the knowledge of the late reverend father's Bishop White, and Bishop Gardiner. 80. a. That I may a little roll in your railing Rhetoric, hearken good master Horn, I walk not, and wander as you do here, etc. I go to work with you truly, plainly, and particularly, I show you by your own Emperor, and by plain words. 81. b. Hitherto you have not brought any one thing worth a good straw, to the substantial prouse of your purpose. 82. a. I am right well assured, you have not proved, nor never shall be able to prove, in the ancient Church while you live. 82. b. I walk not in confuse and general words as you do. 82. b. To all these face and cracks (though many of them be particularly answered as occasion requireth) these his own words may suffice for answer. All men know that your great vaunts are but words of course to save your poor honesty. 1. Pref. pag. 23. Because he quarelleth so much with the Bishop, as for other things so for his Rhetoric, as also Doctor Harding and his fellows upbraid likewise unto Bishop jewel his Rhetoric, and master Dorman to master Nowell: I have therefore set down (as one of his chiefest common places) a brief note or two by the way, to show wherein our master Stapletons' flourishing Rhetoric doth most consist. His objections of Rhetoric. AS for your Rhetoric, you work your matters so handsomely, and so perswasively, etc. what a new Cicero or Demosthenes are you. 1. Pref. pag. 6. 7. His chiefest flowers of Rhetoric partly nothing but copia verboru●…, an heap of needless words: partly nothing but rolling on a letter. With which Rhetoric thou shalt 〈◊〉 his whole book so powdered, that it should be superfluous to trouble thee with any exacter collection of them, being in effect nothing else but ●…rs bahlativa. Only I will give 〈◊〉 a light taste thereof, throughout his whole volume, and the rest thou 〈◊〉 continually find as thou readest his Counterblast. His fift common place of flourishing Rhetoric. IT is the Castle of your Profession, the Key of your Doctrine, the principal Fort of all your Religion, the pillar of your authority, the fountain of your jurisdiction, the anchorhold of all your proceed. 1. Pref. pag. 1. Your cause is betrayed, your doctrine dissolveth, your whole Religion goeth to wrack, the want of this right shaketh your authority, stoppeth your jurisdiction, and is the utter ship wrack of all your proceed. 2. Have I not grounded this work. etc. have I not posted it. etc. have I not furnished it. etc. have I not fenced it. etc. have I not removed all. etc. an outward show and countenance, a gay glorious glistering face, a face I say; all is but a face and a naked show. 3. Most miserably and wretchedly pinched, pared, and dismembered. Most shamefully contaminated, depraved, and deformed. 12. A misshaped lump of lewd and lose arguments. 5. With like good Logic you lay forth. 6. The truth is daily more and more opened, illustred, and confirmed. 8. T. Turkish treachery, L. Lavashing language. 14. B. Bluster and blow, F. Fume and fret, R. Rail and rave, as L. Lowdlyas lewdly, as B. Beastly as boldly, etc. you B. Bluster not so boisterously as you L. Lie most lewdly. 15. A H. Happy hap for master Horn that happened, etc. S. Such slender circumstances to M. Minister him matter of such T. Trifling talk. 6. b. A prerogative appropriate to the Prelate. 7. b. You will haply forsake and abandon Saint Augustine's authority with the old C. Canons and Counsels, and 〈◊〉 under the defence of your B. Brittle Bulwark. 8. b. A pretty legerdemain played, and a leaf put in at the printing which was never proposed in the parliament, etc. what Parliament have your preachers. 9 a. b. O poor and siely help, O miserable shift, etc. This is to trouble all things, this is as it were to confound together heaven and earth. 9 a. Why good sir make you such post haste? what? are you so soon at the end? I see your haste is great. What will you leap over the hedge ere you come at it? And I might be so bold, I would feign demand of you, the cause of your hasty posting. Perhaps there is some eye sore, or somewhat that your stomach cannot bear. Grieveth it you to hear? Doth it appall you to hear? etc. Doth it dazzle, and amaze you to hear? etc. Do ye take it to the heart Master Horn▪ Is it a corsie to you? Is there yet any other lurking sore privily pinching your stomach. I trow it nipped you at the very heart root. 212. b. 213. a. b. Why? master Horn can your ears patiently abide all this? can your stomach digest all this master Horn? can you suffer, can you suffer? How chance we have not at the lest for your comfort one pretty nip. 287. a. A rascal rabblement of monstrous heretical names. A rabblement of strange monstrous heretical names. This rascal rabblement of huge monstrous names. 317. It is so, it is so, master Horn, etc. You can not, you may not, you shall not, etc. You saw you saw master Horn, you master Horn. 430. Your horrible dissension glistreth so clear, crieth so loud, and blustreth so great, that so long as we have eyes to see, ears to hear, and hands to feel, we can not choose but behold it in the face. 434. a. You had need look well to yourself, remember now among other things master Horn. etc. Take heed master Horn. Think upon this at your good leisure, remember also how you stand. etc. Wherein I pray you rests a great part of your new clergy. B. But in Butchers, C. Cooks, Catchpoles, and Cobblers, D. Dyer's, Daubers, F. Felons, Fishermen, G. Gunners, H. Harpers, I innkeepers, M. Merchants and Mariners, N. Netmakers, P. Potters, Apothecaries, and Porters of Belingsgat, R. Ruffling Ruffians, S. Sadlers, Sheremen and shepherds. T. Tanners, Tilers, Tinkers, Trumpeters. W. Weavers, Wherrymen. 481. a. b. This and such other is his Rhetorik, either flourishing with 〈◊〉 words, running on a letter, and now and then sifting the whole cross row for them. Or else doubling and tr●…bling of 〈◊〉 phrases, or multiplying of words, with which every sentence is in a manner farced. For 〈◊〉 is not commonly content to express his mind with one word be it 〈◊〉 so plain, except he vnderpropp●… it with an other at the lest, as thus, miserable and wretched perverting and depraving. The full illustration and opening of whole and entire matter. Evidently and openly deciphered and disclosed, espied and unbuckled, bewrayed and detected, opened, illustred and confirmed. Which as it is most vain babbling, so is it altogether unworthy the noting, except briefly to show the reader what kind of vanity he hath puffed up this his Counterblast withal. His sixt common place of impertinent discourses. His own objection of the same. LIke a wanton Spaniel he runneth from his game at riot. 243. Master Horn (saith he) seeketh out buy matters, leaving the principal as the Donatists did 321. a. That thou mayest the better see how he observeth this and keepeth himself to his matter or no: first, behold the issue and state of the question between the Bishop and M. Fëckhenham, which is this. Whether any Prince have taken on them any such supreme government as doth the Q. Majesty in ecclesiastical causes. Which issue to be resolved in, Master Feckenham desireth the proof by any of these four ways, either by the Scriptures, or by the Doctors, or by the Counsels, or by the continual practice in any one part of Christendom. To the which issue by all these four said ways, the Bishop directeth all his proves, and in this first book he proveth it by two of them, the Scriptures, and the Doctors. Now whether Master Stapleton keep himself to this issue, or to the proofs thereof, or to the Bishop's answer, without playing the wanton Spaniel, and the part of the Don●…: judge, when thou hast read this his sixt common place. And withal thou shalt see, what good plenty of buy matters he had in store, when substantial matter ●…ayled him. In his first Preface taking on him to gather abriefe sum, of such things as he thought specially he might deface the Bishop withal, throughout all his Preface he never setteth 〈◊〉 the issue in controversy, but quarelleth about other things, with the Bishop's rashness, folly, Grammar, Logic, Rhetoric, Arithmetic. And where at the length he speaketh of king Henry. 1. his dealings, in punishing priests whoredom, to show ●…ow of purpose he seeketh out his quarrels, he slinketh from the Prince's dealing, wherewith he is urged, and saith this is not the thing we now seek for, but to know what kind of whoredom it was, that the Priests should be punished for. Pag. 12. And Pag. 18. letting go the matter that he is in hand withal, he discourseth against the Bishop of Sarum about Sabellicus titles. In the 2. Preface where he bindeth himself 〈◊〉 than in the. 1. to declare the whole pith of the question, and course of the Bishops and his own ●…ke: he digresseth into a common quarrel about diversity of fects and heresies, which he ascribeth to the Protestants, he c●…eth into Greece, Africa, Bohemia, Hungary, Lifelande, pag. 30 and so cometh home to England, digressing from the question and issue, to English books, to forbidding of the Bible to be read, to the judgement of Lambert, to burning, to religious houses, Pag. 31. to vows, to repealing laws, to setting forth a new religion, to marriage of Priests, to consecrating▪ Bishops, to the real presence, Pag. 32. Then runneth he to search out discord in the Protestants, and quarreling about words in the act and injunction, he maketh an exhortation to return to the Roman Church. 33. 34. 35. In the answer to the Bishop's Preface, the first whole division. fo. 1. 2. a. b. A lo●…g impertinent discourse to molli●…e master Feckenhams pretence for setting out his book. A number of buy matters falsely charging the Bishop with diverse impertinent slanders. 2. b. 3. a. Pretending to direct the reader to the question here in troversie, for the nonce he setteth up a number of new marks that master Feckenham and the Bishop meddleth not withal. 3. b. Fol. 4. a. He quarelleth at the Bishop of Sarum for the 600. years, and the Bishop of Winchester for alleging testimonies of later years, calling this uneven dealing of the Protestants. He quarelleth about precise words. He maketh a new challenge to the Bishop. he charges the Bishop of a late brag, none of all these things belonging any whit to the matter. 4. b. 5. a. In his first book. A long outrode whether the Bishop were well called by M. Feck. the Lord Bishop of Winchester or no. 7. a. b. Whether he be Bishop or prelate of the Garter. 7. b. succession of Bishops. 8. a▪ against the marriage of Bishops, of flesh on fridays, of a Pig turned into a Pike. That the Protestants be Heretics even by the Apology of England. 8. b. An invective against the acts of Parliament, of altering religion against the will of the whole clergy, that the Bishop can not defend himself to be a Bishop by any law of the Realm. About the real presence, transubstantiation, and adoration. 9 a. Denial of free will, the necessity of baptizing children, unlawful marriage. 9 b. A long invective against the disputation at Westminster Anno. reginae. 1. with a number of frivolous excuses why they shrank from it. 12. a. b. 13. a. A long digression almost of. 13. leaves together, nothing to the question, but discoursing into all countries, Boheme, Germany, Denmark, Swethland, Brabant, holland, Flaunders, Lukelande, England, France, Scotland, Saxony, Hessia, Westphalia, besides many towns and Cities, chief about the business in the low Countries, to deface the Gospel by the tumults there raised, as the world well seeth, only by the practices of the Papists. Fol. 33. b. Having mentioned the plague, he falls into wicked guessing that the proceedings in that Parliament were the cause of the plague that reigned at London, and once again a ●…ing at the Bishops that they be no Church nor yet Parliament Bishops. A long impertinent bibble babble, about master Feckenhams jolly disputations begon at London, and ended at Worcester. 36. b. 37. a An invective against heresy, & that it openeth the truth. 37. a A comparison of the ignorance of th●… greatest learned men among the Papists in king Henry's days, and the clear knowledge that the Lovanists have n●…we. 38 a. b. Master Feckenham his repentance for confessing the King's title of supremacy. 38. b. A bi●… quarrel at the Bishop for calling this sentence of the Book of Wisdom, In 〈◊〉 ammam non intro●…it sapientia, A sentence of the holy ghost. Whereupon he concludeth a discord in the Protestants writing. 39 a. Where he should reply. 39 b. 40. a To the Bishop's answer, he answereth not a word, but seeketh starting holes out of another answer, that he threapeth on the Bishop to have made before, to challenge him thereby with falsehood, as being variable in his answers, and so answering nothing, runneth quite from the matter. In stead of answer in the Bishop's argument out of Deut. 13. and. 17. he runneth to a peerless proof, that Heresy is a very Idol. And once again, that we have no warrant by act of Parliament for marriage of ministers, for our doctrine of the Sacrament, for our writings and preachings. 42. a. When he should answer in the ensample of joshua, he is in hand with M. D. Harding, and the Apology, with M. Dorman, and M. Nowell, quarreling for ciphers in misquoting, for 〈◊〉 ma●…er D●…rmans the●…tes, for say men's presumption to go before Priests, for altering religion at the convocation. 46. b. Challenging the Bishop for running at random from the mark, and willing the Reader to regard the mark, he setteth up of purpose. ix. false marks, nothing near the issue in question between the Bishop and M. Feck. and under pretence of those nine marks, runneth himself at random, into above. nineteeen. impertinent matters, of the jews acknowledging one high Priest, of altering religion, of the ancientness of Popery, 53. b. of the Priest's oath, on their Priesthood, of abandoning the Pope, and general counsels, of the authority of the Scriptures, of the determining heresies by them, of foreign authority, of bestowing ecclesiastical livings. Of Bishop's letters patents, of restraining their jurisdiction, of inhibiting from preaching, of payment of tenths and first fruits, of the privilege of the heathen priests of Egypt, of writing the Queen's title, of Priests receiving the oath, of exempting the nobility, of a woman Prince, and in the end of all this, of Robin Hood and little john, and because he shooteth at these marks, he saith, he hath shot awry like a blind man. 54. a. b. 55. a. Where he should directly answer to that wherewith master Feckenham is by the Bishop charged, for refusing all the proves of the old Testament to play the part of a Donatist, Master Stapleton snatcheth hereupon occasion to run out from his matter, and to gather together first a great rabble partly of heresies, partly of no heresies, to charge us withal, and then travaileth to heap up a number of points, labouring thereby to prove the Protestants, to be Donatists, meddling by this occasion with every matter, that he thought he might enlarge his book withal, with sects and divisions, with bragging of multitudes, with viciousness of life, of tying the Church to this or that place, of corrupting the fathers, of visions and miracles, of vaunting of Counsels, of a general Apostasy, of beginning and continuance, of doctrine and Bishops, of complaining of good Princes, and praising of ill, of defacing the Sacraments and incredible cruelty, of the emperors laws, and the holy Gospels, of murdering others and themselves, of false martyrs, all which (saving his long discourse of three or four pages against master Fox's book, which I remit to him to be answered) is answered for his importunity sake, though much of it be more fully answered by others, and also quite extravagant from the matter in hand. 57 58. 59 60. 61. 62. Fol. 65. He challengeth us to be blasphemers, he is in hand with contempt of the number of the sacraments, with provincial and general Counsels, with another fling at M. Fox's book of Martyrs, about the articles of Sir Thomas Hitton priest, 〈◊〉 Sir john Oldcastle Knight, the Lord of Cobham, for putting of heretics to death, for compelling to receive the faith for manslaughter. 66. a. b. Once again he is in hand with his old quarrel of Images, Idols, and the Crosse. 68 b. Where he should answer to the Bishop's allegations out of Nicephorus, he letteth them all alone, and meddleth with other matters nothing to the purpose, as with Michael Paleologus Emperor of Greece, with thalenging the Grecians for heresies, with the heresy of the holy ghost to proceed only from the father, and not from the son, with the Council at Lions, with the accordment between the Grecians and the Latin Church, with their revolt from the same, with the spite of the Greek Bishops. From thence he runneth to other matters, railing on the Author of the Homely against Idolatry, for calling Michael▪ Theodorus, about his depriving and funerals, that the question of Images was not moved at the Council of Lions, of the setting up and continuance of Images in the Greek Church. From hence he runneth to quarreling about the names of Valence and Valentinian, and of his and Theodosius his law against the picture of the Crosse. Against Bishop jewel for citing it out of Crinitus simply, as the same Crinitus doth. Hereon he entereth into a general invective, against the reading of the Homilies now ●…et forth, and falls in praising of the Homilies in the Popish Church. 76. b. 77. a. In stead of answering to the Bishop's argument out of Saint Paul, and Chrysostom's allegation thereon, he is in hand again with master Fox, for setting forth the doings of Doctor Wesalian, with the Bishop to be but a poor Clerk, with the advancing of Bishop White, and Bishop Gardiner, with challenging the Bishop to be of the Grecians opinion against the proceeding of the holy Ghost from the father and the son, with the decay of the Empire of Greece, with a comparison between the decay of Jerusalem besieged at Easter by the Romans, and the Captivity of Constantinople besieged at Whitsuntide by the Turks, with the pointing of God's ●…ynger, with the Realms of France, Scotland, Germany, with the vaunting of his own plain and true going to work, with Michael and Andronicus once again, and none of all these things either answering the Bishop, or pertaining to the question. Last of all, where he taketh on him to set down the state of the question, he setteth up many new questions, neither in hand between the Bishop and master Feckenham, nor any whit defended by us, but mere slanders of the Papists, of the Princes preaching the word of God, ministering the Sacraments, binding and losing, etc. Thus handsomely hath he kept himself close to the matter, and yet ever he crieth, have an eye to the mark, and willeth us still to call for the question, and yet himself hath thus digressed from it, for otherwise you must understand, his big Counterblast had been but a very short and little puff of wound. But to all this impertinent stuff (though the most of it for his importunity be answered at large) I answer it with his own words. fol. 4. Much labour vainly and ydly employed with tedious and infinite talk and babbling all from the purpose out of the matter which aught specially to have been justified. 4. His seventh common place, of false translations▪ THe reason why I place this among his other common places, is that (although he cite few allegations in this first book for the Pope's supremacy, and therefore could not be much noted here of this fault) yet in his other books following, he is full of false translations, or at the leastwise so captions translations, that he might seem any ways to further his purpose thereby. His own objection. MAster Horn doth not faithfully but most corruptly and Fol. 5 b. falsely allege the authors words, and useth his own in stead of there's, and to such as he truly rehearseth, he giveth an unmeet and unprofitable sense of his own making. Interpreting a sentence out of the story of Magdeburge, wrested as spoken against us, defending the supreme government of the queens Majesty, where it was spoken of a Popish supremacy: he translateth Non sint capita Ecclesiae. They may not be heads of the Church in no case. Which words, in no case, as though it denied all kind of supremacy, is his own addition, and not his Authors words. fol. 22. a. To pretend a jolly antiquity and authority for the Popish error of penance, and that it is a Sacrament, alleging S. A●…g. whose words are these, Nunquid enim perfect de Trinitate tractatum est anteque oblatrarent Ariant? numquid perfect de penitentia tracta●… est anteque obsisterent Novatiani? sic non, etc. Was the matter of the Trinity thoroughly discussed before that the Arrians barked against it? Concerning repentance, was it ever thoroughly handled before the novatians withstood it? etc. which master Stapleton translateth the Sacrament of penance was never thoroughly handled. etc. Where Saint Augustine nameth not penance but repetance, neither speaketh he of any Sacrament at all, but only saith de poeniten●…a, of repentance. 37. b. Where the Bishop alleged King David's acts to infer a supreme government: Master Stapleton answering by this sentence. 1. Par. 24. Ut ingrediantur domum dei juxta ritum suum sub manu Aaron patris eorum, That they should enter into the house of God according to their rite or manner under the hand of Aaron their father: to make the matter s●…me to serve his turn the better, he Englisheth these later words, Sub manu patris Aaron, Under the spiritual government of their spiritual father and his successors the high Priests, which words his text hath not. Translating the words that he hath picked out of an Epistle of Theodosius: that which is there spoken of a particular controversy of the ●…ayth, and the Priests then, about the Bishop of Constantinoples' deposition and appeal: he translateth, locum ac fa●…ultatem habeat de fide ac sacerdotibu●… judicare. That he may have place and liberty to give judgement in such matters as concern faith and priests. As though it were spoken simply of all such matters, where his allegation hath neither these general words such matters as concern, nor any such general meaning, only the Emperor Valentinian writeth to Theodosius being also Emperor, that the Bishop of Rome may have place and licence to judge of the faith and the Priests, meaning of that controversy of the faith, that was then sprung up, and the quarrel about Flavianus, for so the end of the sentence, in express words expoundeth itself. Which words master Stap. leaveth out, lest his false and captious translation should be espied. His own objections of contradictions. THese fellows jar always among themselves, and in all their doctrines fall into such points of discord, that in place of uniform tuning, they ruffle us up a black sanctus. Quo teneam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pr●…tea nod●…. His eight common place of contradictions to himself, and his fellows. THis controversy, saith he, of the supremacy, is the only matter the Papists stand in, which if it were so, than they admit all other thing●… and stand not in them, but strait he contrary●…th his own tale, saying: other matters in controversy are not so oppressed, Ergo, they be pressed, and the Papists stand in them▪ 1. Pref. pag. 2. The Princes investuring of Bishops, is but an impertinent matter. And yet anon he saith, The investiture of Bishops is a matter quite destroying the Prince's supremacy. He often complaineth that the title of King Henry the eight, and King Edward the ●…ixt, was so simple and large, that it was feign to be mollified with the Queen's title. And yet he saith in his. 2. Preface. Pag. 34. the Queen's title hath more added than there's, and that of greatest importance. He saith, Princes may meddle and deal with ecclesiastical causes, which neither master Feckenham nor any Catholic will greatly contend with him in. 4. a. Where not only the contrary is most apparent, but also Cardinal Hosi●… will not suffer Princes so much as Movere sermonem, To move any talk of ecclesiastical matters. Fol. 1●…. b. He saith the matters debated in the disputation at Westminster were but three, the service in English, the alteration of ceremonies, and the Sacrifice propitiatory. But in the next page, where he saith, there would have been more deliberation: he addeth a fourth, the controversy of the supremacy. 13 2. He saith those matters that were debated were nothing touching faith, and yet in the page before, he only said the first and the second be no matters of faith. He saith also they were no principal matters, but dependent and accessory. And yet in the first he saith of the supremacy, that it is of such and so great importance as no matter more now in controversy, and for the other points who seeth not what principal matters otherwhiles they will make these seem to be, especially the sacrifice of the Mass, for the which they burned so fast in the late reign of Queen Marie, when this was one of their first and chiefest questions. Again that the Papists be most obedient subjects to the Queen's Majesty, he craketh almost in every place. And yet about this disputation he confesseth, that even in a trifling matter, they disobeyed the Queen's commandment. 11. b. Fol. 29. a. b. Christian Princes civil government reacheth and tendeth to this end, to preserve their subjects from outward and inward injuries, oppressions and enemies, to provide for their safety & quietness, for their wealth, abundance, and prosperous maintenance, and no further. What is here more than in a Saracen Prince? But anon he saith. Christian Princes most of all, are much more bound to employ themselves to their possibility, toward the tuition and defence, furtherance and amplification of the spiritual Kingdom. fol. 29. b. 30. a. The service of the Prince is common as well to the heathen as Christian government. 29. b. Christian Princes are faithful advocates in aiding and assisting the spiritual power. 30. a. which the heathen are not fol. 30. b. He flatly confesseth that M. Feck. helped to spoil Queen Marie of a principal part of her royal power, right and dignity (in spoiling her of this supremacy) thought saith he, he so did, but not as an unfaithful subject. But so to spoil hi●…▪ and not therein to be an unfaithful subject, are flat contradictory. Again he saith, he did it as a repentant Catholic, but to spoil any body of their right, and to do it repentantly, are also flat contradictory. ibid. Again he saith afterward, it was no part at all of hi●… royal power, but to confess first that he spoiled her of a principal part of her royal power, and after to say it was no part of her royal power, are likewise contradictory. As also to say he spoiled her, and yet it was no part belonging to that, of which he spoiled 〈◊〉 What are all these but an heap of words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 contradictions? And all this he uttereth within less than forty words together. Fol. 40. b Then Bishop 〈◊〉 that the Prince shall have by him the law of God, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●…ly 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 that the 〈◊〉 s●…yth not so▪ 〈◊〉 yet within fire lines before, he confesseth that ●…he 〈◊〉 ●…yeth so, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of infidelity, for leaving out words, that went immediately before the Text that the Bishop alleged. And so while he striveth to challenge the Bishop, he cleareth the Bishop, and overth 〈◊〉 himself. Again in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. On the one side of the leaf, he granteth freely, that by the. 13. of Deuterenomie, Princes may punish teachers of false and superstitious religion and Idolatry. On 〈◊〉 ●…ther 〈◊〉 of the leaf, he eateth his free grant 〈◊〉, and saith that in all 〈◊〉 chapter, or in all that book▪ there is no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●…ounde. cares not what. Where the Bishop allengeth the 〈◊〉 of ●…osue, M. St. 〈◊〉 the ensample, because saith he, joshua did sacrifice, 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 himself. 46. b. that Princes cannot now do. And yet after. fol. 49. speaking of joshua, he confesseth that he did them not himself, but by appointing them to be done by the priests ministery. He challengeth the Bishop for not proving his matters by any testimonies of the new Testament, after he hath handled the old. And by and by he confesseth that he allegeth two testimonies of the new Testament to prove his matters by. 59 a. He confesseth that master Feckenham refused of sett●… purpose like ●… wise man, the testimonies of the old Testament. And yet all his long treatise of eight leans together in the▪ ●…6. Chapter, is chief to this purpose, to prove that he refuseth them not. 62. a. He confesseth that he omitted them, because they made against him, and yet he saith, he includeth them, and affirmeth them as all making with him. ibid. Fol. 65. a. b. He granteth by Saint Augustine's words, that Princes may make laws and constitutions for the furtherance of Christ's Religion. And in the next side, he denieth Saint Augustine's words to enforce any thing else, but laws to punish Heretics, which is no Ecclesiastical matter at all. Fol. 66. a. He saith, we deny that Princes may punish Heretics by death. And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ he saith we hold with Calvin, that saith Princes may▪ pot▪ Heretics unto death. When the Bishop presseth him with the ensamples of Moses, 〈◊〉, David, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denieth as doth master Dorman that the ensamples of the old are figures of the new Testament, and yet in the▪ 17. Chapter he granteth, that all the examples 〈◊〉▪ 〈◊〉 that the 〈◊〉 of the old Testament herein, be figures of the new. fol. 68 ●…. He confesseth there is some regiment that Princes may take upon them in causes ecclesiastical. And in the next side he 〈◊〉 the Prince's regiment to ●…e but an over ●…r in civil matters. But forthwith again contrary to this, he granteth the Prince may have the procurations and executions of Church matters. fol. 68 ●…. And thus in Dock, out Nettie, he so granteth and denieth that there is no hold of his word. 68 a. b. He granteth Christ destroyed not the rule of Princes in Church causes figured in the old law, and that Christ's sentence, give to Caesar that that is Caesar's, confirmeth the figure of Prince's rule in Church causes in the old law. And yet straightway he saith, it maketh nothing for it 69. a. He saith this sentence, give unto Cesar that belongeth unto Cesar, destroyeth not the figure: where the subjects in the old law were bound to give all duties to their Princes that belonged unto them. And yet anon after by this sentence saith he, men be not bound to pay any thing, yea not so much as tribute to their Princes. 70. a. And so this sentence confirmeth not, but lo●…eth and destroyeth the figure, by the which subjects were bound before to their Princes. He saith that this sentence of Christ determineth something. And by and by he saith it determineth nothing. Again he saith it determineth paying tribute only. And yet he said before it determined not that neither. He said also before, that this sentence only licenced, that we might pay tribute if we would, but we aught not. And yet after he saith, Christ willed that to be given to Caesar that is his, which is ●…oth a determination and commandment also. 70. a. He saith the Bishop's admonition hereon, is without any cause or ground. And anon he saith, it serveth him and his brethren for many and necessary purposes. fol. 70. a. He granteth that Princes have authority, both to further the observation, and to punish the breach aswell in the first table as in the second, that is, aswell in such actions as concern our duty to God himself, as in the duty of one man to another. 71. b. But in the next side he flatly denieth this again, saying, these are the works of the first table, the punishing, correcting or judging of these, appertain nothing to the authority of the Prince or to any his laws. 72. a. He saith we make the Prince's supreme governors without any limitation. And yet withal he allegeth Master Nowell to say, it is not without limitation, but that Godly ministers may judge of the sincerity of doctrine according to God's word. fol. 73. a. As also he showed in the division before how the Bishop limited the Prince's government, by the bounds of the word of God. He sayeth that Saint Paul. 1. Tim. 2. speaketh there of no authority at all in Princes. Where the words are evident, for all those that be put in authority. And yet himself by and by saith, he speaketh of their government. And anon after, will you know (saith he) why the Apostles both Saint Peter and Saint Paul so earnestly taught at that time obedience to Princes? But what obedience could they require in subjects, if they comprehended not with all authority in Princes. fol. 75. b. Answer these contradictions with his own words. I am here in the beginning put to the knowledge by the variety of your answers, that they cannot be both true, but if the one be true, the other must be false. fol. 40. a. By your contradictions, you show the unstableness of your own judgement. 1. Pres. pag. 19 His ninth common place of petit quarrels, at Grammar and other trifles, to prolong his book thereby. His own objection of the same. WHo seethe not now that all this was but a quarrel picked without desert and you (master Stapletonn) to have showed yourself amost ridiculous wrangler. But God's name be blessed, the dealing of Catholic writers is so upright, that such small occasions must be piked, and upon such trifles your Rhetoric must be bestowed, else against their dealing you have nothing to say. 1. Preface. pag. 18. IN his first Preface, where he giveth a brief antedate of all those things, that he is ●…ust offended withal: he maketh this a very heinous fault that the Bishop called Conuen●…t, It aught to be, for It is meet or convenient to be▪ 1. Pref. Pag. 4. As who say if a thing be meet and convenient, it aught not to be, or if it aught to be, it is not meet and convenient to be. But if Oportet must needs always signify it aught to be, than aught your Bishops (if they be Bishops) to be married. For Saint Paul saith not Conuenit, but Oportet Episcopu●… esse vni●… vx●…r is viru●…, A Bishop aught to be the husband of one wife. In the same place he maketh a sorer matter about this word recen●…endam, to rehearse, which word the Bishop went not about to interpret in that place, as the letter showeth, but only to tell the sentence and intent of their doing: and wherefore did the Council present their doings, to be read or rehearsed before the Emperor, but that he might examine and confirm the same? Besides that they themselves beseech him to ratify and confirm them, which he could not well do, having not examined and perused them. ibid. Likewise about irrogare privilegia, that either by escape of the Printer (as many such escapes in any book may hap) or by the oversight of the writer of the Printers copy, was printed to take away, for he gave, of which escape, Lord what a wonderful triumphant outcry he maketh also in his Counterblast, while the material purpose is all one against him, whether the Prince made privileges, or abrogated privileges and took them from the Clergy. For, if his taking away were lawful, his authority remained equal in both, except you will say▪ Princes have authority to make privileges for the Clergy, give or make for them what and how much they will, but they, that have learned holdefast, the first point of hawking, will not suffer them by the same authority, to take any away ag●…ine, for that is against their profit. But the law saith contrary, the same authority that may make, the same authority may vnd●…e and take away again. ibidem. But less marvel is it that he quarelleth about the former words, that cavilleth about the Englishing of quaui●… causa, any cause, which must be, saith he, every cause, calling this interpreting, foul shifts, nevertheless of much importance, to call quavis, any, & yet himself even in the next lease, not of quavis, qualibet, or quacunque, whereon he descanteth Grammarian like, but even of nothing, can make (Any) a foul shift, and yet not of any other importance at all, than to show that any, or all these causes of his brabblings, are in conclusion of no importance at all. But admitting as he would have it the Kings and the Counsels decree against the carrying of causes out of the Realm, to be pleaded at the Court of Rome, should signify not any, but eue●…y cause, than could not the penalty of the breach thereof extend to any, that had tried exceeding many causes at Rome, and daily did for all this decree, unless it had ●…ene proved he had there tried every cause, and so the decree itself had been of non●… importance at all, whereat so heinous a matter is made, and yet the word in that place admitteth so well none other interpretation. ibid. The like quarrel he piketh about supremu●… g●…bernator, supreme governor, in the Queene●… majesties title to the oath administered at Oxenford●…, of the which oath he saith, A scholar might make an honest refusal, were it nothing but for false Latin. Which rule of his if it hold: then many of their po●…ishe ceremonies, their Latin service, their Mass, yea even their consecration might honestly he refused, were it but for false Latin, when their ignorant Priests did pronounce corpus 〈◊〉, etc. in nomina patria filia spirita sancta etc. 〈◊〉, for sum●…simus. or such like words, about the which your best schoolmen make somewhat more 〈◊〉, standing upon the intentio●…s, and not so much upon the syllables, that even for the false construction of sir john lack●… Latin that patreth Latin like a Parrot, they might honestly refuse the same: but to save the honesty of their priests, and their ignorant escapes, they have a contrary F de ma. te ●…. qui habet ser●…um. etc. gloss to your rule, quia error sillabae non nocet, the error of a syllable hurteth not, although, they that used this phrase, knew as well how to set the Substanti●…e and the adjective together, as master Stapleton I dare say, and (were it so as he saith) might take the phrase usually received, not respecting the gender so much, as the self thing and power, As we use in English●… to say without quarreling thereat, the queens Royal or regal estate, though she by her se●…e, be Queen, and by Grammar should say reginall estate, likewise we call her governor, defender, and yourself call her often Prince, not Princess, all these and such like words or phrases, setting aside the exacting of Grammar rules, in respect of her kingly power, the lawyers say they may use this licence of speech, to whom I remit you, and to other your Canonists, schoolmen and Historiographers, that have used the same or like, with no reproach or quarrel piked thereat. And if now the queens majesties supremacy must needs be renounced for this phrase, because by the censure of our new Aristarchus, it is not so Grammerlike, then must your Pope himself lose his usurped supremacy, so often (as it often falls out) he is no Grammarian at all. ibidem. Likewise he maketh a quarrel about these words supreme head, in the title of King Henry and King Edward, and the words of the title used now, supreme governor, where all men know that the sense is all one, but that this title more plainly expresseth the matter to prevent such janglers. Yea but saith he there is a certain addition of greatest importance (which is) in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal. What is this but an importune seeking of a knot in a rush of no importance? 〈◊〉 there any thing in these words, added more, than was ●…ully compre●… hended in the other, or than King Henry, or King E●…warde claimed and took on them? 2. Pref. pag. 34. He maketh an other petit quarrel at the form of the printed letter. fol. 49. b. But it is answered in his bederoll of untruths, where he likewise maketh a slur about it. diverse other petit quarrels he doth about the distinction of the letter, and for citing the effect of certain texts, and not declaring them word for word, fol. 50. b. which is answered. Another quarrel he pyketh at the Bishop, for citing Emanuel Paleologus▪ the Emperor of Gree●…e. A●…other for that he calleth him Christian Emperor, 〈◊〉 these ar●… answered in their proper places. Another ●…or translating Suprema Anchora, Supreme Anchor, and not the last Anchor, but this is likewise answered. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 like petit quarrels he piketh many, which here for brevity I overpass. And although there is none unaunswered in their places, yet answer them all with his own words. A man would here suppose (master Stapleton) that you had some great and just occasion, thus grievously to charge such a man (as the Bishop is) and that in print where all the world may read and consider it. Pref. 17. What an offence I beseech you hath (the Bishop) committed herein so great as wo●…thie a dash with your pen. 〈◊〉▪ b. To these he adjoineth his tenth common place, which himself calleth words of course, saying, these are but words of course. 1. Pref. pag. 2. And therefore I used his own term. His words of course, that is, such as may be better returned on himself. FIrst his beginning of his first Preface, with the parable of the foolish builder. Luc. 14. Whom he compareth the Bishop unto, for attempting this controversy, which he calleth the Castle of our profession, and not able to go through therewith, is therefore laughed to scorn, saying, behold this man began to build but he hath not been able to make an end. That this may be truly recoursed on the Papists, all the world beginneth to see and to laugh them to scorn, at the overthrow that God hath made of their Nymrod's Babylonical Tower, and how the more they labour to repair the decay thereof, because they build not on jesus Christ the Rock, but on the sands of their Father's traditions, they can not therefore with all their force, inquisitions, devices and attempts, bring their building to any good pass, their groundwork i●… rotten, their stuff is nought, and therefore master Stapletons' Fortress, and all their Bulwarks are overthrown, spirituoris ●…ius, with the spirit of his mouth, that is, with the word of God. But you will say (saith he, of this parable) they be but words of course. Well prevented, master Stapleton, and in time, who can rightly say or judge any other of them, sith they be so indeed, as yourself confess, words both of ordinary course with you and all your side, and what is said in the whole discourse of them, but such course stuff God wot, as in recoursing them to you, may be more fitly and truly applied. For ensample, even in the similitude you allege of the Apples and Grapes of Sodom and Gomorre. Pref. 1. pag. 3. fair to the eye without, within nothing but stinking ashes. A most lively picture of the fruits of Popery, more glorious without in pomp, riches, wealth, and might of the world. Moore shining in outward holiness, counterfeits miracles, jewish ceremonies, and Pharisaical works, and in all other things more fair and delectable to the outward senses, than ever were the Apples of Sodom, or any thing else: but within, for sound doctrine, and the right worship of God, consisting in spirit & truth, neither the Apples of Sodom and Gomorre, nor Sodom and Gomorre itself, had ever the like stinch and infection. And all those gay things come but to touch them, with the touch stone the holy word of God, they sm●…lder forthwith into Ashes, or rather into nothing. Uevobis hypocritae (saith Christ) Woe be to you hypocrites, that make clean that is outward. etc. The like recourse is made of all your glorious pamphlets, and of this yours in hand, there need none other answer than to return your own words to your own self thereon. It beareth a countenance of truth, of reason, of learning, but come to the trial and examination of it, I find a pestilent rank of most shameful untruths, an unsavoury and vain kind of reasoning, and last of all, the whole to resolve into gross ignorance. Pag. 4. Likewise where he saith. Pag. 8. After all this struggling and wrestling against the truth by you and your fellows, the truth is daily more and more opened, illustred, and confirmed, and your contrary doctrine is or aught to be disgraced, and brought in utter discredit. The answer to this, is the same that 〈◊〉 made to the quarreling sophister, If I say it, the argument is true, if thou sayest it, it is false. That which you forge of a nameless Protestant, from one of your lying fellows 〈◊〉 that A protestant of late days being pressed of a Catholic for extreme lying, and not being able to clear himself, said plainly and bluntly, Quamdiu poter●… clades adferam, latebunt quamdiu poterant, valebunt apud vulg●… ista mendacia, I will deface them, and do some mischief to them as long as I am able, my lies shall lie hid as long as may be, and at the lest the common people shall fall in a liking with them. pag. 20. A●… this is most likely to be your own and your authors lie on the Protestants, that at the lest the common people might fall in a misliking with us: so is it evidently true if it ●…e recoursed on your own side, all the world can witness, it hath been your sayings and doings in very deed: and no●…e for fear y●… should have been prevented, object it in your Preface to us. It is you that with your cruelty, and slanders have and do say, Quamdin potero clades adferam, I will do mischief to them 〈◊〉 long as I can. It is you that this long while have slandered and devised horrible lies▪ by those that have professed the truth, altering and chopping their articles, saying, they maintain such and such he resies as they never thought, and have said, Latebunt quamdi●… poterunt, valebunt apud vulg●… ista mendacia, These lies shall lie hidden with the vulgar people so long as may be. And so have ye made the people (in executing your cruelty) believe that they did God good service. So did the Pharisees and high priests, abuse the 〈◊〉 and ignorance of the jewish people, with such untrue slanders on jesus Christ himself. And to the better compassing hereof, you have set forth lies for truth, and kept the people ignorant, lest they should discern them. And you have said of your hypocritiall errors, of your ●…ayned miracles, and legends of lies, latebunt quam diu p●…rerunt, v●…lebunt apud▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mendaci●…, The ignorant people will ostéeme such lying to ●…es. And therefore we may well return your conclusion on yourself, that you be those false Prophets and lying masters, such as Saint Peter spoke of, bringing in wicked and damnable sects. God give them grace which are deceived by you, so well to know you, as we that do examine your writings, have good cause to know you. And thus your words of course, fathered (as you call it) in a lusty lane of some individuum vagum, (a certain Protestant of late days) and for witness hereof ask your fellow if it be not so: how well in every point they appear (that as they say the fox was the first finder) to be your own too-too open sayings and doings, to charge us withal, a God's name hardily, let all the world be judge. His objecting of straggling from the matter. fo. 4. a. Of false alleging his Authors words. fol. 5. b. Of omitting and concealing circumstances. fol. 7. a. Of deep silence to answer the pith of the matter. fol. 8. a. Of objecting fleshly pleasures. fol. 8. b. Of quarreling that our Bishops be no Bishop's fol. 9 a. b. Of passing good manners for misrepor●…ing. n. a. Of objecting conspiracies and sedition. fol. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Remove them with a writ of return to the Papists themselves, and then they are fully answered. This lo at the lest (saith M. St.) fol. 37. b. heresy worketh in the Church that it maketh the truth to be more certainly known and more firmly and steadfastly afterward kept, so saith S. Augustine the matter of the Trinity was never well discussed till the Arrians barked against it. etc. This is truer M. St. than either you ween, or would. The experience whereof is daily to be seen in the Papists, defending their errors and impugning the truth, in their subtle practices, in their tyrannical inquisitions, and cruel torments, yea even in this yours and your fellows volumes, striving to obscure and deface the truth: but all these steps notwithstanding, the truth is and shall be more and more set forth, the Popish errors ●…sse and less begutle us, and the kingdom of Antichrist detected and forsaken. Fol. 40. a. M. St. telleth us that S. Greg. Nazianzen says, Verum est qd unum est, mendacium autem est multiplex. The thing which is true is always one & like unto itself, whereas the lie, the cloaked and counterfeit thing is in itself variable and diverse. By the which rule here given, of so learned and grave a father, I am here put to knowledge, that the Papists not being content with the only word of God, always one and like itself, but joining thereto men's variable and diverse unwritten verities: That the Papists being not content with the true spiritual worship of one God, always one & like himself, not with one mediator jesus Christ, but yielding spiritual worship to Saints and Saints pictures besides God, and making other variable and diverse mediators to God besides Christ: that the Papists being not content with the only merits & satisfaction of Christ's death always one and like itself▪ but devising variable and diverse Masses, Diriges, Pilgrimages and satisfactions besides: being not content with the flat scripture always one and like itself, that testifieth only faith in christ, to be the means of apprehending our justification, but adding variable & diverse infinite work●… of their own, to deserve their justification by: being not content with the only title & profession of Christianity, always one 〈◊〉 like 〈◊〉 but s●…tting up variable & diverse feas, professions, religions, & names besides: be but cloaked & counterleyy liars▪ as Greg Naz●…n. hath most truly said. And thus you see M. St. how you citing falsely this sentence to prove the ●…variable 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 yourself on▪ the thumbs. Fol. 40. b. Let the King (saith master Stapleton) reode on God's name, not only that book, but all the Bible beside, it is a worthy study for him, but let him beware lest this sweet honey be not turned into poison to him, etc. What words are here that we say not also? yea, his permission of Princes to read and study the Bible▪ is our most earnest prayer and exhortation. And they, whatsoever they would seem now to pretend, because they can no longer keep it under their bushel: it is full sore against their heart that Princes should read or study it. Otherwise, why suffered they not Princes, to give themselves to so worthy and commendable a study heretofore? And now that they can keep it in no longer, who it is that turneth this sweet honey of God's word into poison, is easy to judge. Whether he that giveth bread to the hungry, bringing forth the whole loaf of the only pure wheat, and willeth them that are to be fed therewith, to see, to view, to féel●… the whole, and in seasonable time breaketh it to his fellow servants, before their faces, that they may fully refresh their hungry souls: or he that beateth his fellow servants, hideth the loaf from them, and if he must needs give them some, mingleth the pure wheat with his own bran, and that worse is, with darnel, and more of that by three halves than of the wheat, and will needs have the receiver blindfolded, nor will suffer him to take it in his own hands, but by gobbet meal thrust it into his mouth, nor will let the party see, what (in this sort) he crammes him with, as though he were worse than the Capon in a coupe, and yet for all this, will bear him in hand it is the true bread. Whether of these twain be the likelier to give this poisoned bread: no man that hath any wit, but will give a shrewd aim. As for false translations, false dangerous, and damnable gloss, wherewith (master St. saith) we have corrupted and watered the same, and made it as it were of pleasant wine most sour vinegar: it is so evident on his own part, that the Papists have so used the Scripture, and that so shamefully, that it seemeth he is past shame, that he dare once mention it, and yet he objecteth it to us, that admit the express scripture, without any gloss at all. Take heed to yourself Master Horn, for I say to you, that you and your fellows teach false and superstitious religion, many and detestable heresies, and so withal plain idolatry. Blot out these words Master Horn, and put in Master Stapleton, and then it is truly said: Although we not only say it, but prove it also. And therefore you and your fellows M. Stapleton had need to take heed thereto. fol 42. a. We say you are wicked depravers of religion. etc. We say you are as great enemies as ever the Church of Christ had. etc. We say you be they that have contemned Christ's sacraments: we say further that not only the general Council of Trent, but that the whole Church hath condemned your opinions. These words of course are answered in their places. fol. 56 a He telleth us, we would master and rule our Princes, because we limit their rule to God's word, and that we refer the interpretation of God's word to ourselves that we make thereof a welsh man's hose. Which words of course are answered in their places, and are so manifest the doings of the Papists, and so far from touching us, that it is marvel with what face he could rehearse such things. But such is the property of impudency, to object that to other, wherein he is most culpable himself. fol. 70. We plainly say this kind of supremacy is directly against God's word, so he said before, and so let him say s●…il, so long as he doth but say so, and can never prove it. These and such like his sayings, good reader, as thou seest them but mere words of course, so thou shalt find them swarm thorough ●…ut all his book, and if any of them be not answered (for thou seest I cut them off for brevity sake) answer then them as thou thinkest good, easy answer God wot may serve them, and his own words serve for all, returned on himself, 〈◊〉 nomine, de 〈◊〉 fubula narratur, change but the name, and the tale is told of thee. Fol. 31. b. In the mean season for these and all his other words of course, I will say to him again as he saith to the Bishop, Neither will I thank you for bringing to our hands so good stuff to prove our principal purpose by, but say herein to you as S. Aug. said in the like case to the Donatists, alleging the works of Optatus, by which they were even confounded, and the catholics cause marvelously furthered, Ne●…mmen ipsis▪ etc. Neither do we yet thank them for their so doing, but rather God, for that they should bring forth and utter, either by talk or by alleging, all those things for our matter, the truth forced them, not any charity invited them. And so truly (M. Stapleton) that you have alleged all this and other like words of course, when they are 〈◊〉 compensed to you, you are even so confounded by them, that it had been better for your cause you had not so much used them, but that you brought such good stuff to our hands, the truth of our cause forceth you, not any good will to our cause, or to us, moved you. Master Stapletons own words returned to himself for all these his Common places. MOderate your pen better, report your authors more 1. Prefa. pa. 19. sincerely, translate your allegations more truly, lay down the whole sentence without concealing of such matter as overthroweth your purpose, say no more than you find in stories, slander not your betters, deal more advisedly and uprightly, (seek not out so often bymatters & starting holes, quarrel not somuch about trifles of letters, syllables, & escapes in printing, rail not so bitterly, scoff not so Lucianlike, boast & vaunt not with such defacing of people, and outfacing of the matter, leave your vain rhetorik of Copia verborum, and rolling on a letter, use not (as you call them) so many words of course, let your tale hung better together without so many contradictions) so shall your untruths be fewer an other time, but so will your cause I assure you (M. Sta) come stark naked feeble and miserable, And all your great volume as bore & ●…ield as Esop's pulled crow, as partly may appear by this pretty far●…el of some such your sentences and ordinary phrases, in a part of the foresaid points, and may further be considered what a full and sufficient book they might make up of themselves, if all the residue throughout all the four books were gathered together, and sorted in their troops and orders of these your common places. But these only shall suffice for this your first book, for a view of the rest, to show what good divinity of Louvain your volume is most ●…arced withal, and what, as you say, they shall look for at your hands. Master Stapletons' Bead-roll and collection of untruths, with a plain and brief answer to every one of them, so many as are noted in his first Book. His own challenge of the Bishop for untruths. YOur answer is so freighted and stuffed with falshodes, your untruths do so swarm and muster all along your book, that for the quantity of your treatise, you are comparable to Master jewel, your untruths amount to the number of six hundred fourscore and odd, they be so notorious and so many, that it pitieth me in your behalf (Crocodili lachrym●…) to remember them, but the places be evident, and cry corruption, and may by no shift be denied. If my curiosity in noting them displease you, let the uttering of them first displease yourself, than you will the less be displeased with me. You know master jewel hath led us this dance, be not angry, Master Horn, if we follow the round. 1. Preface. pag. 19 The answer to the collection of untruths. Winchester. If I had not seen a further meaning in his setting forth and publishing the book, than he dared plainly utter. Stapleton. The first untruth slanderous concerning master I Feckenhams meaning. Fol. 1. a. Prefa. diui. 1. Master Feckéha●…s further meaning than he dared utter. Bridges. Lo, even at the first striking up of the round, what a passing notorious untruth is here, to be the captain ringleader to all this band: you may well, M. Stapl. not pity it, but pity yourself, and be ashamed also, to have so cried out of such notorious vntru●…hes, and here to begin your dance with this, to have us look for the like to follow the round. How untrue this is, let each man hardly conjecture, and yourself show, that M. Feckenham dared not say all that he meant, oftentimes in excusing him, and even your next untruth will somewhat declare this further. 2 But seeing his chief end and principal purpose Winchest. intended as may be justly gathered in publishing the book, was to engraft in the minds of the subjects, a misliking of the Queen's Majesty, as though she usurped a power & authority in ecclesiastical matters whereto she hath no right. 2 His chief end was far otherwise as shall appear. Stapleton. You so challenge this to be an other untruth, that denying Fol. 1. a. Pref. sect 1. 2. Bridges. it to be his chief end, you durst not say, but covertly confess, that an end and purpose of him it was, though not the chief end. Wherein you prove that, that you challenged before for an untruth, to be a truth, that he meant more than he dared plainly utter. And yet howsoever you would cover his and your meaning here, both he in his book, and you in yours also, dared plainly utter, that you mislike hi●… majesties claim of this supreme authority, and plainly lay to her charge usurpation. How subiectlike, let all true subjects judge. And sit●… this, his, and your books are chief directed to dissuade her subjects minds (to whom in hucker mucker you send these books over) from the acknowledging of the said hi●… majesties supreme authority, may it not truly be said, men may justly gather this as your Our chief end in this co●…nouersia. chief end? Is not every wri●…ers chief end, to persuade his reader in his principal matter? is not this here your principal matter, to improve the taking upon her of this authority? If you have any chiefer end, or more principal purpose, that is better than this: clear yourself and show it. Uer●…ly our chiefest end in writing hereof, is to persuade The Papists chief end in this controversy. her subjects, (that by your deceivings stand in any mammering) to a godly liking of the said title, as most d●…e and lawful to her highness estate. And if yours be not the contrary hereto? let your doings be according, and we shall like it the better. But see here, M. Stapleton, how soon you folter in your M. Stapleton misreck●…neth in his numbers. numbers, and miss in your tale at the first beginning of all, you have scored us up in your marginal score, two untruths, when you come to counting them twain, afterward in your answer you reckon us up three, saying of the second in your score, This is an untrue and false surmise of Master Horn, as are the other two here also, reckoning up that, that you counted for the first. And thus we know not whether we have even or odd, 2. or. 3. Whereby all your reckoning is marred and false counted. Is this your dance (M. Stap.) in beginning to trip the round, when one lie tumbles out so properly in the neck of an other? But hoysta God bless them, they fallout fair. Howbeit, as they say, it is a good horse that never stumbled: though it be an evil sign to stumble, yea to fall down right at the first setting out. I make proof by the continual practice of 3. Winchest. the Church in like government as the Queen's Majesty taketh upon her. The third untruth you never prove the like government Stapleton. namely in all Ecclesiastical things and causes. Pref. ●…. sect. 2. Foe 2. b. The truth or untruth of this, being referred to the trial in the said practice, will soon pull back this third dancer from hopping in your round. And as for yourself M. Stap. pipeth aw●…ōg round you are a false piper M. Stapleton, thus soon unto your li●… to pipe a wrong round, harping on an other issue, than was required of the B. to prove. Wherein as your great falsehood ●…hal appear: so yourself do here half grant this to be no untruth, daring not flatly say, the Bishop never proved the like government, which the Bishop only here affirmeth, but you deny it in a respect, namely (say you) in all ecclesiastical things and causes▪ which the Bishop here affirmeth not, nor it is his proper issue in question, demanded of Master Feck. and yet he proveth even that also. I have put into english the authors minds 4. and sentences. The fourth untruth, for he wrongfully allegeth both the Fol. 5. a. P●…efa. diuis. 3. words and meanings of his authors. He bringeth no instance at all, whereby to prove this that he saith, which till he can do, it must go for a lie of his own making, whereby he measureth other men's translations by False translations. his own, corrupting his author's words, sentences, minds and all, as is already declared. This title is so replenished with untrue reports. 5. The fifth untruth, in wrongfully charging M Feckenham fo. 6. c. 1. di. 1. for the title of his treatise. Whether Master Feckenhams treatise had a true title or not, let others deem. Master Feckenham made a treatise, The false title of M Feckeohams' treatise. entitled by the name of An answer to the Queen's majesties Commissioners, and the same by writing be delivered to the Bishop of Winchester, and afterward sent abroad the said Treatise, entitled by name: The declaration of such scruples. etc. as Master john Feckenham by writing did deliver unto the Lord Bishop etc. when he never delivered any such entitled trea●…ise unto him. Is this then untruly or wrongfully don●…, to charge him of the title of his treatise? 6. 7. fo. 6. c. 1. di. 1. 8. His sixth and seventh untruth trifling denials. You. etc. not without the help of the rest, as may be gathered, devised, written and purposed to deliver this book to the Commissioners. The eight untruth slanderous. f. 9 b. c. 1. di. 2. Neither doth the Bishop flatly affirm it, but only saith, as may be gathered, whereupon M. Stapl. can not justly gather a flat asseveration one way or other▪ to conclude his The comlecture of others help. untruth. Neither doth M St. improve it any way, though ●…e himself and that very often, without any conjecturing of the matter (and yet can he gather no just conjecture thereof) doth boldly charge the Bishop with the help of other. Which so often as he doth, he should remember that this untruth returns on himself. In all which points you were so answered, that 9 you had nothing to object, but seemed resolved, and in a manerfully satisfied. The. 9 untruth. M. Feck. was never so answered. And in his Fol. 10. diui. counterblast he says, had not the B. put in these words, In a manner, otherwise it had passed all goodmaner & honesty too, so untruly to make report, the contrary being so well known, that he never yielded unto you in any one point of religion, neither in Court, nor yet in manor, nor else where. You are a mannerly man I perceive master Stapleton, and as full of good manners or honesty, it appeareth, as an egg is full of oatmeal. Belike you have been brought up neither at court nor manor, but at Hogs norton as they say, for otherwise what good manner or honesty Passing good manners. is this, to challenge your better of so heinous untruth, and prove nothing at all against him, but say, the contrary is well known, when yourself know it not at all, but speak without the book. For shame (M. Stapl.) learn better manners, to refer it to them that were present at the hearing of both parties, and then shall you hazard your honesty and truth a great deal the less, and show your nurture to be the more. Whereupon I made afterward relation (of 10. Winchest. good meaning towards you) to certain honourable persons, of the good hope I had conceived. etc. The. 10. untruth incredible. What good meaning could Stapleton. Fol. 10. diui. 2 he have to him when he would have him revolt from the religion by him received and professed at Baptism, to revolt from the faith of Christ's catholic church. etc. Why Master Stapleton is this incredible, that the Bishop Bridges. hoping of his conformity in making relation thereof to the honourable, might not have therein a good meaning? A good meaning. yea, admit the truth which he professeth, were as false as you would have it seem to be: might he not for all that have a good meaning? Saul had a good meaning, you wots, when he did full ill. And how say you to your Schoolmen, that speak so much good of a good meaning, yea even in ill causes. But as the Bishop meant well to him, so the cause M. Stapletons well meaning in an ill matter was good also, and your cause nought, how well so ever you mean in an ill matter. You mean well (I dare say for you, good man) when you talk of revolting from the religion by him received at baptism, and the faith of Christ's catholic church, meaning your popish religion and church, and many times you wish the Bishop to acknowledge it, but he and all godly wise men do see how you are deceived in your well meaning, by evil and false assumptions, taking that for Christ's catholic church, which is not, nor the popish faith is that faith which we professed at baptism, but a degenerate faith. Nor Master Feckenham was baptised, if M 〈◊〉 baptism. he were rightly baptised, in the name of the Pope, or the Pope's religion. Which if you do mean, yourself mean not so well to him as you pretend. Now for the untruth of the Bishops well meaning to M. Feckenham (be the cause as it be may, this way or that) how dare you so boldly anouch, that it is incredible the B. should mean him well? Beware M. St. you presume not to sit in God's seat, the heart of man, which for meaning is only known to God and the meaner. Qui●… enim hominum scit quae sunt hominis, nisi spiritu●… 1. Cor. 2. hominis qui in eo est? For what man knoweth the things that are of man, but the spirit of man that is within him? A certain friend of yours standing by and hearing 11. what I had declared then to the honourable in your commendation, did shortly after report the same unto you. The. 11. untruth. There was no such report made. Fol. 10. diui. ●… Any a●…nswere were needless, but that the facing of this man is shameless, that denieth so boldly he knoweth not what. The right honorables (God be praised) be yet alive, to whom the Bishop reported it: the slander by at the same time, as those right honorables can tell, was a Gentleman named M. White, of Southwicke, whom since God hath called away, which openly to M. Feckenham, in the hearing of the Bishop and all other present, declared that he heard the Bishop speak to the honourable in his commendation. All this notwithstanding, 〈◊〉 in M. Stapleton like another suborned Stilpho, that neither was there, nor, as he confesseth in his Pr●…face Pag. 24. had any skill of the private doing●… betwéen●… them, and yet he steppeth in as boldly as though he had ben●… the chief 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 denieth, that there wa●… any such report at all. But to use his own terms, what is impudency if this be not? Doubting that you●… confederates should understand 12. of your re●…olte, 12. which they ever feared having experience of your shrinking from them at 13. Westminster in the conference there. The. 12. untruth slanderous. Fol. 10. c●…p. 1. diuis. 2. The. 13. untruth notoriously slanderous. Here in your score are notched up two several untruths, The fear of M. Feckena●…s shrinking from his confederates. in your answer, both these two by contraction are but one untruth▪ and thus you can not keep your tale. Yea, But this (say you) incomparably passeth and far excels all your foresaid untruths, and so belike it may go well for two itself. But wherefore is this so passing an untruth? The bishop said his confederates feared his novelty, having experience of his shrinking from them. To this you reply and say: In what one point of religion did he shrink from his company? and in the end you come in ask further: What shrinking in religion call you this? as though the Bishop Fol. 11. b. had charged him with shrinking from them in religion. Which if M. Feck. had done. then would they no longer have feared it, being already done: but they were afterward afraid of his shrinking in religion, seeing his shrinking from them, in that so peevishly they stack to their obstinate refusal, wherein yourself confess, they refused to obey the Queen's highness commandment. And the less matter you would make it, the less aught they to have showed such disobedience, had they been good subjects (as they pretend) or had they in deed stuck to their cause. But they shrunk from their cause, which of likelihood they suspected. Howbeit M. Feck. seeing not so much in it as they, he (as you say) for his part thought it not good to disobey the Queen's highness commandment, and so therein shrank from them. This (Master Staple.) yourself confess, and so or ever you witted, you clear the Bishop of this incomparable untruth. You seemed in our conference before had resolved. 14. The. 14. untruth, that M. Feck. should give up his treatise in Fol●…. 13. a. devil. 3. writing, after he was resolved by M Horn. And in his counterblast, How unlikely a tale is this? that Master Feckenham should either be resolved by Master Horn, or being resolved, should then give up his matter in writing, for none other cause, than M. Horn reporteth. I dared make any indifferent man judge, yea a number of M. Horns own sect, there is no appearance there is no colour of this matter, and therefore I will be so bold as to add this to his other vntruth●…. This untruth springeth of two causes: the one, the unlikelyhod The giving up of M 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. of the matter, the other, M. Stapletons' boldness, for he will be so bold as to score it up. But I pray you M. Sta. is every unlikelihood an untruth with you? you are over bold that dare so affirm. Were you present there? Did you see the dealing? can you tell the contrary? No▪ How dare you then say it▪ write & print it to all the world, that it is an untruth. Is this suf●… proof to say, it is unlikely to be, Ergo it is not? & to press this unlikelihood the sorer, there is no appearance say you, there is no colour in this matter. In deed here you say truer than you are ware, there is no colour nor appearance▪ but the very truth itself, in that the B. said, neither yet an unlikely tru●…h therein. Nay, say you, I dare make any indifferent man judge, yea a number of M. Horns own sect, that it is not likely that M. Feck. should be resolved, or should give up his treatise in writing▪ after he was resolved by M. Horn. What? man, if you remember you but of your own, of your master D. Hardings inconstancy, and other a number even of your own sect ere this, you may found likelihood enough of M. Feckenhans' resolution, yea even in himself in K. Henry's days, and therefore bewar●… whom you make judge in the matter of this unlikelihood. But setting like or unlike apart, may a man be so bold as to say, that yourself (so boldly charging the B. with an unlikely untruth) make a manifest untruth: for the B. said not (a●… you tell the tale) that M. Feck. was resolved, or that he written his treatise after he was resolved, but that he seemed resolved, these were the bishop's words. And so he likewise said before, that he seemed resolved, & in a manner f●…lly satisfied, & that he seemed openly to have little matter to stand in, but that he was resolved that is to say fully persuaded, the B. might have some cause (for all his hope) to doubt, knowing that, wisdom will not enter into a froward mind. And the Bishop here telleth, how afterward he perceived the contrary to his former opinion of M. Feckenham, declaring how he pointed to his breast, saying: that was there (meaning Popery) that should never go out. Thus you untruly say, the B. said, that the B. said not, and then (being your own untruth) you score it up as his. How soever by words you would seem to tender her majesties safety, quietness, and prosperous reign: your deeds declare your meaning to be quite contrary. The. 15. untruth villainous and slanderous. M. Feck. by all his 15. deeds, hath always showed himself a most obedient subject. Foli. 14. a diuis. 4. His disobedience to her highness authority herein, and the privy dispersing of his book, to breed a misseliking as is before showed, is proof enough hereof. howbeit this M. Feckohams and the Papists disobedience. must needs be a villainous untruth, for no milder term will serve this gentleman. And yet himself is far worse than M. Feckenham in the same fault, as his Common place of slanders, to whom this term villainous, might better agree, doth declare: where he neither spareth her highness or country, nor any estate, or laws thereof, how soever here he speak of obedience and subjection, as though he were as innocent as a lamb. How much prosperity you wish to her Majesty appeareth, when with 16. deep sighs and groans you look daily for a change thereof, and that 17. arch eheretike of Rome, 18. your God, in 17. 18. 19 earth, 19 to reign in her place. The. 17. 18. &. 19 untruths, devilish and spritishe, blasphemous, horrible, and villainous, for neither is the Pope any heretic, neither do catholics make him their God, neither wish they him to reign in the Queen's place, that is to say, have temporal jurisdiction as the Queen's Majesty hath. Here is an heap of sore untruths, piked out of one poor sentence, and yet are all so apparent truths, as all the world The Papists sighs and groans for a change may see them. Your groans and sighs for a change, not only of the Religion her Majesty setteth out, but also of the authority that her highness taketh on her, not only the prime whisperings, letters, tokens, and comforting of the Papists, in hope of a day, that long ere now you looked for, do declare: but these your books that you privily scatter about, and yourself even here in this present Chapter, do show your good heart, saying, and for my part I pray God heartily the trial once would come. What call you this earnest wish, but a sigh and a groan? which is in deed as you term it, both devilish and spritish, but 〈◊〉 hypocritae peribit, the hypocrites hope shall perish. That the Pope is no heretic you stoutly affirm, but you clear him not. You say, that the Catholics make him not their God. The Bishop said not the catholics did so, but the Papists, howbeit you will have us presuppose, you be catholics. But catholics or papists, who are they that writ Dominus Deus noster Papa, our Lord God the Pope, and give him that honour that is only due to Christ? You wish him not The Pope takes upon him to be God. to reign in the Queen's place you say, that is, to have temporal jurisdiction, as the Queen's majesty hath. Who made you M. Cotroller to take so upon you to assign the queens majesty her place, which you make very strait for her highness to sit in? The better half of her throne yourself here yield to your Pope, that is, all her government over spiritual matters, and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, leaving her Majesty no more room in her own seat, The Pope claimeth the Queen's majesties place. than you would do any heathen Prince or Turk: to have only temporal jurisdiction in their Realms. But think you your Pope will be yet content with this, having got the half of the place, will he not strive for the whole, and thrust the Princes clean out? How served he the Emperors of Gréece? how served he divers german Emperors? how learned he King Childerike of France? how served he King john of England? sat he not alone in the whole place? made he not this realm tributary to him, somuch as in him lay? Did he never claim the kingdom of Cicile, nor the kingdom of Ireland? yea doth he not say, that all Princes temporal jurisdiction floweth from him, and he may depose them? Did the Pope never put off and set on with his foot an emperors diadem? Did he never himself wear the sceptre, sword, and robes of an Emperor? Did he never give the temporal jurisdiction of this realm to the French, and after revoked the French again? And what doth he now? Hath he not given the temporal jurisdiction, and the estate of the crown and realm to any that can waste, spoil or conquer it, saying as though he were Christ, Qui potest capere, capiat, he that can take it, take it, so that he will become the Pope's man for it? What is this but to take upon him to sit in her highness and in all other Princes places? The. 20. 21. 22. untruths, are none of them so proved, as is evidently showed in the answer to the 4. chap. for that he Foli. 28. hath not improved the Bishop's definition of a supreme governor, but rather in matter agreeth therewith, and all his examples show the truth thereof. Like an unfaithful subject contrary to that oath etc. you helped to spoil Queen Mary of a principal part of her royal power right and dignity. The. 23. untruth slanderous, for M. Feck. so did, not as an unfaithful Fol. 30. b. diui. 6. subject, but as a repentant catholic. You have well excused him M. Stapleton, and he is much beholding to you therefore. Where the B. laid to his charge that contrary to his oath made to King Henry, he helped to spoil Queen Mary of her royal power, right and dignity: you confess the fact, and say, he did so, but what then, he did it (say you) not as an unfaithful subject, but as a repentant catholic. Year as good a Proctor for your client, I see, M. Stapleton, as the Proctor that taught his simple client to say, I did so, but what then, who is his witness? where no witness needed when the party had confessed the fact. So you Master Stapleton confess, that M. Feckenham M. Sta. confesseth that Mast. Feck. spoiled Queen Mary of her royal power. perjured himself to his Prince, and that he spoiled his sovereign Queen Mary of her royal power, right and dignity. But you stand in the manner of the doing it, which is not so much material how he did it, as whether he did it or no. And since you confess so freely for him (as his proctor) that he did so, I may tell you again, howsoever he so did, it could not be so done, but like an unfaithful subject, (I had almost said worse) for any subject living, under any pre●…ence to spoil his Prince, of his or her principal, or any part of their royal power, right or dignity. Call you that Catholic What is catholic 〈◊〉 repentance? that is catholic repentance with all my heart. But such catholics, such repentance. And if you do not repent and recant your note of this untruth, M. Feckenham may repent that ever he hired you, that have not as you say, slandered him, but spoiled him of all his faith and honesty. Now where the Bishop said he spoiled her: Of a principal part of her Royal power, right, and dignity, ye add your. 24 untruth, saying: The. 24. untruth, this is no part at all of the Princes royal Fol. 30. cap 4. diui. 6. power. Yedenye this too late Master Stapleton: For where before the Bishop charged him, that he spoiled her of a principal part, and you say for him he did so, yourself both directly, grant it a principal part, and indire ●…ely, because he spoiled her, whereof I pray you, but of that béelonged unto her? For otherwise he spoiled her not, if it were not her right. And then should you have said, he did not so, which you do not, but flatly confess, he did so, and therefore it was a part thereof. You play now after your return into your 25. hold, as you did after the Parliament before you came out of the Tower to me. Fol. 32. diui. 7. The. 25. untruth. The Tower is not M. Feckenhams hold, for it holdeth him, not he it. This untruth, in the irksome number of his ragman roll, is chief noted to recreate the spirits of the reckoner, The tour M. Feckenhams hold. with some pleasant devise, as M. Stapleton in his merry conceit, thought good to sport at the name of hold, saying, the Tower is not his hold, for it holdeth him, but not he it. He learned belike that jest of the felon in Newgate, to whom when one said he was in for a bird, that is untrue, quoth he, I am in for an horse: so dalieth M. Stapleton about the ambiguousnesse of this word hold. And when all his hold is done, it is no untruth, of any matter, nor speech neither, so long as men use it both ways commonly: but I dare say M. Stapleton would be loath, to have the Tower no less his hold, than it is M. Feckenhams. His two last untruths proved that M. Feckenham deserved that hold. As for M. Stapleton who thinketh himself safe in his hold at Louvain: what hold he well deserveth elsewhere, his reverent speeches on the queens majesty, her Parliament, and Realm, in this his book declare, besides his open and stubborn disobedience. Whereby (your friends) might be the rather 26. induced to continued their good opinion conceived of you, and also pay your charges weekly in the Tower, sent unto you 26. every saturday by your servant, who written and delivered the Copies abroad as you told me yourself. The. 26. untruth. The Queen's highness words in the Tower can testify the contrary. Did the queens highness in the Tower say, that M. Feckenhams friends did not sand unto him wéekly to pay his charges? did her highness say so M. Stapleton? you M. Fecknhams charges in the tower defrayed by his friends. affirm it boldly, and nick it on your score. But till ye prove it, you shall give me leave to think, that your wits were occupied about some other matter, or else you would have set this note in some other place. For in your counterblast speaking of this matter purposely, you have nothing to say there to it, but that it is (as far as I can understand) stark false. And so calling it the Bishop's guest and su●…mize, you would put him to his proof by some circumstance: so that there it seemeth you can not flatly improve it, but requiring further proof, deeming it a guess, daring not say it is stark false, but as far as you understand and yet in your score so flatly to avouch it for a certain untruth and so readily and precisely to affirm, that the Queen's Majesty said the contrary thereto, judge yourself how these things hung together. Now that you are returned again to the tower, 27. and perceiving that your friends (as you gave them just cause) have some mistrust of your revolt, and wavering inconstancy, whereby your estimation and fame, with your service to your God the belly, is decayed. Folio. 32. diui. 7. 27 A heap of slanderous and railing untruths. You still confound your talie, M. Stapleton, in nicking M. Stapletons' unorderly reckoning his untruths. on so fast without advisement, making one an whole heap, and an whole heap of untruths, but one untruth. Belike ye do it by the figures of Arithmetic, diminution, and multiplication, that you upbraid to the Bishop in your preface, whereby many are but this one, and yet this one is many, yea many slanderous and railing untruths. Although you prove neither one slander, or railing, or any one untruth at all: but let it quite alone, for fear of opening further matter. A sore head you witted is soon broken, and if they should fall out in the ripping of them to be true, M. Feckenham might rather beshrew your heart, than con you any thank for noting such untruths. Other untruths he chief standeth upon in his counterblast, but they are none of the reckoning. As the Bishops noting of M. Feckenhams impudency, saying: Whereunto presently I am required to swear, when no oath by the Bishop was required at all of him. These and other falsehoods that the B. layeth to M. Feck. charge, M Stap. though he say in his counterblast, that the B. accumulate an huge heap of untruths, yet for shame dared he not put them in his score, neither one by one nor alone a plump, for fear his reckoning should be called to an account, but thrust them up together in the thick of his book. And yet seeing in the end he could not excuse Master Feckenham of those things wherewith the Bishop charged him: How soever it be (sayeth he) this matter is nothing appertaining to the state of the principal question, and of small importance. Where in deed it much appertaineth to the purpose of the controversy between the parties, and is of great importance, to show the entry into the whole controversy. But if it had been as light as he would have it seem, is it therefore lawful for M. Feck. to lie so impudently therein, or for M. Stapl. so to excuse his lying? You did know, acknowledge and confess this 28. supreme authority in causes ecclesiastical to be in king Henry the eight and his heirs. The. 28. untruth. For no man can know that which is not Fol. 35 a. diui. 8. true. As you were before disposed to be somewhat pleasant in your note of the hold, so here you utter an other knack of your budget, to show how deep a Philosopher you were in subtle knowledge, and therefore where the Bishop according as each man useth to speak, did say, that M. Feckenham did know and acknowledge it then, in confessing this supreme authority of the Prince, you contend on the word Whether falsehood may be known or no. Genes. 3 know, that he did not know it, because it is not true, and cite Aristotle to witness. Why sir, doth not the Scripture even in the beginning, mention Arborem scientiae boni & mali, The tree of the knowledge of good and evil? And yet do all the Philosophers say, that Verum & bonum, malum & falsum convertuntur, look what is true that is good, and look what is evil, that is false. Knowledge therefore is not always taken so precisely to be only of true things, but granting you this preciseness that knowledge is only taken to be true thing●… yet you do ill herein, because you take after your ordinary custom Pro concesso controversum, that to be granted that is in question, whether your or our part be true or false herein. Yea, why may not we say, and that with greater reason, that you take the truth for falsehood, and falsehood for truth. And so you, nor any of your side, notwithstanding all your great brags, and this your clearkly book, have any true knowledge. Well may you say (as you do most falsely,) and to your poor wretched soul, as well in this as in other points, most dangerously believe the contrary, but know it ye can not unless it were true, for knowledge is only of true things and as the Philosopher saith, Scire est per causas cognoscere. Do you know whose words all these be? and yet you see how they serve our turn far better than yours M. Sta. because our cause rests on the truth, which is the infallible word of God, Deus est verax, God is true & yours is grounded on the doctrines of men, Omnis autem homo mendax, but every man is a liar. And therefore is it less marvel, sith ignorance and falsehood, knowledge & truth are all one, that you accounted somuch of ignorance, & make it to be the mother of devotion, that you keep down the people in ignorance, which conspireth with falsehood, & cannot abide knowledge that is linked with truth: & as you have long kept the truth under a bushel, so yet you cannot abide that it should come to the knowledge of the people, perceiving the sith knowledge hath begun to spring in the world, our cause withal, as the truth hath flourished, & yours hath drouped as that falsehood: wherefore your frē●… have cried out upon all good letters, seeing that their cause hath had no greater enemy than knowledge is, no greater maintainer than ignorance, Qui male agit odit lucem, nec venit ad lucem, ne opera eius arguantur. john. 3. He that doth evil (saith Christ) hateth the light, nor cometh to the light, jest his works should be reproved. Next unto this, you note a rabblement of untruths but you neither number them in your Calendar (but only mark them with a star in the forbead) nor in your reply say any more unto them than this: I will not, nor time will serve to discuss them, but why would your will and your time serve you to challenge them for untruths, and not serve you to discharge your challenge, and your own truth, in proving them so to be? but go to, I see there is no remedy we must tarry your leisure, until that your will come on you, and that your time will serve you. Many horrible errors and superstitions of 29. Monkery. The. 29. untruth reproachful and slanderous. Foli. 35. a. diuis. 8. This was so untrue that all the world rang of it, and the Papists themselves cried out thereon. Although you were in the Tower in king Edward's time, that was not for any doubt of the supremacy, for that you still agnized, but for other points of religion, touching the ministration of the sacraments. The. 30. untruth. This was not the cause of his imprisonment, Fo. 35. diui. 8. as shall appear. Here in his beadroll though you see he denieth it ●…latly, yet in his counterblast, where he toucheth the same, he dare not be so impudent. But says as I understand, so that if he M. Stapletons' cunning handling the matter. be challenged of rash dealing, to affirm that for an untruth, that he stammereth in: no will he say, look my beadroll, and you shall find that I denied it flatly and boldly without any stammering at the matter. If again this bold flatness be proved a ●…atte lie, ●…ushe will he sai●…, I referred it (in saying it should appear) to my counterblast, where I declare no further, than I understood by my friends, let it light on them if it be a lie: thus cunningly Master Stapleton hath handled the matter. But a manifest lie it is, that he maketh, howsoever he avonch or mollify the same. For this was a special cause of his imprisonment, as those can tell that be yet living, who were sent to him, and to others to persuade them therein. And by whom soever he understood it, it is but M. Stapletons', and his misseinformers lie. And where he would excuse the matter, because he was examined in the matter of justification, doth it follow therefore he was not in, also, for the matter of the sacrament, being principally then in controversy? The Bishop only said be was in, for other points of religion (and namely) touching the Sacrament, but see how prettily M. Stapl. would blear the reader's eyes with quarreling at this half point of the sentence, lest the reader should mark wherein the Bishop principally charged M. Feckenham, that he had confessed this article of supremacy, all King Edward's M. Fecknhams yielding to the supremacy in K. Edward's reign. days, and so knew and acknowledged it then, contrary to his pretence of ignorance now therein. And this digresseth not from the matter in hand. But from this M. Stapleton slippeth in great silence, and sayeth not a word thereto: but dalieth about other matters to find the reader's play. And so (by his own rule) confesseth, by not denying the very point in hand: that M. Feckenham all king Edward's time, though he were in the Tower, yet ever he agnized this title then, that he refuseth now. Whereunto also you agreed and promised to 31. profess and preach the same in open auditory wheresoever you should be appointed. Whereupon a right worshipful Gentleman procured your deliverance. The. 31. untruth slanderous. He was not delivered upon any Fo. 35. diui. 8. promise of recantation, but to be disputed withal. Here M. Stapl. maketh much ado to convince the Bishop The conference had with master ●…eckēham ●…n king ●…dwards reign. of an untruth, and to make it seem more probable, he citeth divers honourable and worshipful to witness, and all nothing to the purpose in hand, excusing M. Feckenham of that, wherewith no body charged him, and answering nothing, but by silence confessing that, that he was charged withal. The bishop made no mention of any conference or disputation had with M. Feckenham, after his departure out of the tower, but of that conference which was with him, master Moreman, and master Crispin, while they were in the Tower. When at their own suit to the council, they desired to have some learned men, with whom to confer, especially about the sacrifice of the Mass, the ministration under both kinds, and the ministration upon a table, and not an altar. And at this their suit, Master Story the Bishop then of Chichester, and Master Roberte Horn then parson of All Hallows in Breadsteat, now bishop of Winchester, were appointed by the honourable counsel to deals with them, which they did, by the space of a month at sundry times, till that Master Feckenham did▪ consent with them in all these three points, and so by master Hobbies means was delivered, as also M. Crispin should have been, but that death prevented him, only M. Moreman stubbornly persisting in his errors, remained still in the Tower. In this conference M. Feckenham promised to preach, as the Bishop truly charged him. Of which conference and promise, there be yet many on live, both worshipful and honest men, to witness the same, and prove you a liar M. Stapleton, so impudently to deny it. You had nothing to say to the contrary. 32. The. 32. untruth more slanderous, as may well appear by Foli. 35. a. b diuis. 8. this your book. It appeareth thereby right well in deed, and shall further appear, that you also had not any great thing else to to say to the contrary neither: excepting these and such like your brabbling common places. For answer I say, they aught to take upon 33. them such government (as doth the queens majesty.) The. 23. untruth employing a contradiction to your former Folio. 39 a. diuis. 9 answer made to Master Feckenham, as shall appear. The answer is here cited for an untruth, but for trial it is referred to appear in an other place, on the other side of the leaf in the counterblast, and there being cited also, because nothing is proved but by M. Stapletons' hearsay, of an other contrary answer, the matter is there again further deferred to be heard an other day, when Master Stapleton shall be occasioned to entreat more at large hereafter upon the matter, where (at the Calends of Gréece) it shall be proved both an untruth, and to imply a contradiction. The contradiction that he would enforce, is between a suborned answer, forged to be made in the bishop's name which he never made, and this present answer which the B. maketh: so that in deed there is no contradiction at all in his answer, because the one of them is of their own making, not of his. As for the untruth of the Bishop's answer, standeth only on M. Stapletons' bore saying, that it is false and deceivable. And you must well we●…e, that M. Stapl is of such indifferency and credence, that he would not say it on his word, if it were not so, and therefore in any case you must believe him, or else you mar his reckoning. Fol. 40. 2. diuis. 10. 34. 35. 36. 37. The. 34. 35. 36. 37. untruths, because they are the whole matter throughout the eight chapter wherewith he charges the Bishop, in the answer to the chapter they are at▪ large answered. Besides a number of Master Stapletons' untruths detected. Moses' was not the chief priest or bishop. 38. The. 38. untruth, for Moses was the chief Priest, as shall Fo. 42. diu. 11 be proved. How this promise shall be proved, or the Bishops saying Moses. improved, to avoid anticipations & repetitons, thou must resort to M. Stapletons' proves, and the answer thereunto. The charge of chief government over God's 39 people both in causes temporal and ecclesiastical was committed to joshua. The, 39 untruth. joshua had not the supreme government Fol. 45. a. diuis. 12. in Ecclesiastical causes, but Eleazarus had it. Whether he had it, that commanded Eleazarus in ecclesiastical joshua. matters, or Eleazarus that obeyed his commandment, is easy to judge. And notwithstanding any thing that M. Stapleton bringeth beside his bore allegation, joshua had the supreme government therein. To Eleazar only belonged the administration 40. of things belonging to the Priest's office. The. 40. untruth. For beside, in all things to be done of Foli. 45. a. division. 12. joshua, Eleazar should instruct him. If this were beside the administration of things belonging Eleazar. to the priests office: then to administer instruction, in any thing unto the Prince, was not the Priest's office. For if it were belonging to his office: why say you it was beside, being contained in it? But see your fond reason, the Bishop says, he had not the supreme government, but the administration of things belonging to his office, yes say you he should instruct the Prince, Ergo, he had the supreme government of him. Neither had he, say you, that supreme government as his office, or belonging to him, but besides, and not belonging thereunto, while the question is, whether this supreme government belong to the Priest's office, or to thee▪ Princess office, but yourself withal exclude it from the priests office. And thus to neck up on the score apace, you speak it seemeth) you can not well tell what. David. etc. the supreme governor over all estates, 41. both of the laity and of the clergy in all mane●… of causes. The. 41. untruth. David was not suprme governor in all Fol. 46. b. diuis. 13. manner causes, but suffered the Levites in Church matters, to live under the rule of their high Priest. As though these two might not both agree very well together, David. except it were in such an usurper as is your Pope. As for the queens Majesty, her highness claimeth no such Papali●…ie, but suffereth the inferior ministers to live under the rules of their superior Bishops: & yet her supreme government, to oversee, that all of them observe their rules in their vocations, is no whit impaired. Solomon deposed Abiathar. 42. The 42. untruth, for Solomon of his own authority (as Folio. 48. b. diuis. 14. your argument runneth) deposed not Abiathar, but executed only the sentence pronounced before by Samuel God's minister. Yourself confess the Bishop's words M. Stapleton, Solomon. nor you can for shame deny them, the Scripture is plain for them, and therefore you run from them to the Bishop's sense, and say, not his words, but his meaning and argument is untrue therein for he did it, but not by his own authority, but executed God's sentence, as though these The execution of God's sentence empayteth not the Princes suprem authority. were contradictory, to execute God's sentence in doing it, and to do it by his own authority, when all authority of any Prince, cometh likewise from God, and he is God's minister, and executer thereof, and yet withal it is his own authority, because the authority is given him of God thereto. Although herein, challenging the B. of one untruth, you utter two untruth & yourself together on a clap. First you say, he executed only the sentence pronounced before by Samuel God's minister. Where the text that afterward you cite, faith not so, but, to fulfil the words of the 3. Reg. 2. Lord, which he spoke over the house of Hely in Silo, which words of the Lord, we find out in th●…. 2. and. 3. chapters of the first book of the Kings, where the whole story is at large set out, and dete●…s your falsehood. The words that do threaten Hely and his posterity, in the. 2. chapter, were pronounced by a Prophet in deed, but he is not named, 1. Reg. 2. the text only saith, Venit autem vir dei ad Hely, & ait ad eum, haec dicit Dominus, And there came a man of God to Hely and said unto him, thus saith the Lord, etc. This Prophet pronounced (and was Gods minister therein) among other things, even this deposition of Abiathar. But this man of God was not Samuel, who was at that time as yet but a child. The second time was in the next chapter, by God 1. Reg. 3. himself, that called Samuel three times, and the fourth time, dixit Dominus and Samuelem, the Lord said, or as you call it, pronounced unto Samuel, etc. confirming all that he had pronounced before, by the former Prophet. As for Samuel being straightly charged by Hely the high Priest (not by the way of prophecy pronounced those words of the Lords to him, or to any other) but only showed him all that God had said, Indicavit ei universos sermons, & non abscondit ab eo, And Samuel told him every whit of the ●…ayings, and hid it not from him. And therefore where you say, he only executed the sentence, pronounced before by Samuel God's minister, as though God had prophesied it, by the mouth of Samuel, as he did in the chapter before, by an other: and as you say in your Counterblast, published before by Samuel the Levite: the text mentioning neither the pronouncing nor publishing of this sentence by Samuel at all, but only the fore said manner of private telling to Hely what he herded God pronounce: it is but an untruth in yourself, M. Stap. falsely wresteth the text to his advantage. to tell your tale so to your advantage, that it might seem that Solomon was but the executor of some solemn sentence published and pronounced before by Samuel, commanding or moving king Solomon, to obey that sentence, and so to depose Abiathar, And here appears also your other untruth, that Solomon should do it to this end and intent, to fulfil this How Solomon fu●…filled the prophecy. prophecy. Which in deed he fulfilled in the doing, but it was not fulfilled by him alone, king Saul had fulfilled a great part of it before, in causing to be killed wickedly, the whole family of Hely, except only this Abiathar, How Soul also fulfilled the prophecy. that escaped by flight. Which cruel fact of Saul, proceeding only of mere malice against David, and further against them as David's abettors & fautors: was the only cause of this tyranny, and not to fulfil God's prophecy. Neither could he pretend it, and yet he fulfilled the same, when he fulfilled his wicked lust. But Solomon that deposed Abiathar, the only remainder of Helies' stock, and his sons after him, had good and right cause to deprive him, and all his posterity, of this dignity, because he was, as yourself confess, a traitor to him. For which cause Solomon deposed him, and laid this cause to his charge only, not that he must execute God's sentence, of punishing his father's offence, and yet in doing the one, he performed the other also. Both of these Princes were executors of God's sentence, that wrought by his secret justice, what soever he purposed, yea as well by the evil deed of Saul, as by the righteous deed of Solomon. And things foretold in the scripture, came not to pass God's foretelling of things. because they were foretold, but because they should come to pass therefore they were foretold. God did foretell what he would do to that house, & yet he named not by whom, so that none could pretend to do it, because God had foretold it, but when God had done it (by such instruments as he purposed, good or bad) then the writers of the scripture, by the instruction of the holy ghost, because of the certainty of God's prophecy, do say it was done, to fulfil such or such a thing. So when Herod had killed the innocents, saith S. Matthew tunc adimpletum est, them was fulfilled that which was spoken by the Prophet jeremy, of which kind of speech, as well in facts of the godly as the ungodly, we have many ensamples. Though therefore the words of the Scripture be, Eiccit ergo Solomon Abiathar, ut non esset sacerdos domini, ut impleretur se●…mo Domini quem locutus est super domum Heli in Silo: And so Solomon cast out Abiathar, from being the priest of the Lord, that the lords words might be fulfilled which he spoke upon the house of Hely in Silo: yet do not these words import, that Solomon did it of this purpose, to fulfil that prophecy, as you would make the reader to understand, by your guileful translation, saying, And so Solomon put out Abiathar. etc. to fulfil the words of the Lord as though the cause why he did it, was that, when the cause was Abiathars' treason, and therefore he told him before, he was ●…ilius mortis, the child of death, id est, (saith Lyra) morte dignus pro conspiration contrame, & ●…rdinationem Dei & patris mei, that is to say, Thou art worthy to suffer death for thy conspir●…cie against me, and the ordinance of God, and of my father. Here is the very cause why Solomon deposed him although also he fulfilled therein God's secret justice, which the holy writer considering, written ut adimpleretur, that the lords words might be fulfilled. etc. And thus while ye would charge the Bishop with one lie, even yourself discharge him, and you commit a couple for failing, to men●… the matter withal. Neither the Priests nor the Levites swerved 43. in any thing (pertaining to their office) from that the king commanded them. The 43. untruhe, those words are not in the Scripture alleged. Fol. 48 b. diuis. 14. These words make a heinous quarrel, at which words also in his Counterblast, he stormeth, saying, He hath swerved lewdly from the text, added words more than is expressed, and that with such homely shifts an ill cause must be furthered. And when all is done, it is but a little parenthesis placed in the middle of the text by the way of explication, t●… declare, wherein the king comm●…ded them and they obeyed, in their offices next before set out, how the king ordained according to the disposition of David his father 2. Paral. ●…. the offices of the Priests in their ministries, and the Levites in their orders, to praise God, and minister before the Priests according to the custom of every day, and the porters in their divisions port by port, for so had David, a man of God, commanded, and neither the Priests nor the Levites swerved from any thing that the king commanded. Thus lieth the text word for word. Wherein the Bishop placing this parenthesis▪ what did he that any most exact interpreter might not do? M Stap. here escrieth it for so horrible a crime, yea and an untruth of his bedroll withal, whera●… first there is no untruth at all in the parenthesis, and himself in the same chapter, confesseth for Princes a great deal more: that they may not only command the Priests, to do those things that appertain to their office, but 'cause them to do them, which is a manifest proof of the Princes supreme authority 〈◊〉 them, so that untruth in this parenthesis was there none. Nor any other fault at all, saving that M. Stapleton was frowardly M. Stap. quarrel at the print of the letter, not at the matter. disposed to pick a quarrel at the form and print of the letter, not at the matter, as though those words were pretended to be the words of the text, wherein he himself, though there were some negligence in the printing, doth yet excuse the Bishop of this fault, of any such addition of words. For twice in his Counterblast mentioning those words, he circumscri●…eth them with a parenthesis, and severeth it in the pointing as the bishop did, from the text, which is argument enough to any, but to contentious quarrelers, who will ever busy themselves to seek, as they say, a knot in a rush, that it was not put in, as the express words of the text, but as the opening of the sentence. To return therefore his own words to himself, with such homely shifts an ill cause must be furthered, and with such patit quarrels, a good cause must be baited at, and challenged for lewd swerving, and homely shifts. And yet his manifest swerving from text, letter, sense, and all without either difference of letter or of pointing, must be neither lewd nor homely shift at all, but good and Cathelike translating with him. josaphat used his Princely authority in the 44. reformation of religion. The. 44. untruth. The scripture termeth not any such Fol. 49. diuis. 14. princely authority. Here M. Stapleton standeth altogether on the term of the Scripture▪ would to God always the Papists would M. S. standeth on the terms of the scripture and let's go the matter of the scripture. thus, not in terms so much, as in the truth of matter, be leveled by the scripture. But here he doth it even as the devil objected scripture unto Christ, not to show any regard, only above all other, to the authority of the scripture: but to pick a quarrel with the Bishop, although untruth he can find ●…one. The Bishop a●…ouched not, that this very term is here in the scripture, nor he stood upon terms, and therefore though the scripture termeth it not, yet hath the Bishop committed no untruth. He only said, that losaphat hath▪ no small commendation in the scriptures, for that he used his Princely authority in the reformation of religion. If you can improve the sentence and effect of this, than hardly challenge the Bishop for an untruth. But this can you not do, and therefore you flee to terms, and let the matter alone, which is the principal, and is manifest in the Scripture, that he used his princely authority in those things that he did, yea and yourself confess that he used care and diligence about the directing of ecclesiastical matters, that he reform religion, that he commanded and appointed the ecclesiastical people, the high Priest and all other, so well as temporal, in their ecclesiastical functions. This yourself have granted and confessed, both in sentence and in terms also: and the text is s●… plain you could not deny it. But did he direct, reform, command, and appoint▪ and all without authority so to do? and what authority had he besides his princely authority? Ergo, even by your own confession, he reformed religion by his princely authority▪ as the Bishop said. And therefore even yourself that accuse him, acquit him also of this untruth. He did command and prescribe unto the 45. thief Priests, etc. The. 45. untruth. There appeareth not in the scripture any Fol. 49 b▪ Diuis. 15. such prescription made untò the chief Priests. That it appeareth in the scripture▪ it is most evident, and yourself have confessed it in your Counterblast. cap. 13. fol. 50. to the which place where it is answered, I remit the Reader. At the commandment of the king concerning 46. things of the Lord. The 46. untruth. Those words concerning things of the lord, Fol. 52 a. diuis. 16. are no words of the text, but falsely added to holy scripture. You are very hasty in nicking on your score, M. Sta. and so hasty, that you have no leisure, or will take none to examine your text. The old translation hath in deed juxta mandatum regis & imperium domini, according to the commandment of the king, and the commandment of the Lord But the Hebrew text hath, as those that are skilful in that tongue can tell, ●…edibrei▪ Ie●…oua: which ●…atablus noteth to signify, In vel de rebus Domini, In or concerning the things of the Lord, even as the B. said, so that he is clearly acquitted by such learned interpreters, as your skill M. Stapleton▪ will not easily confute. And when you have confuted them, then score up this for an untruth. Although even then, you could not well charge the B. therewith, but the Hebrew text itself, and Uatablus that so expoundeth it. And yet you note it so bitterly, for falsely added to holy scripture, not marking the common practice of your own side, ordinarily to add, and to subtract what you please from the holy scriptures, and when you please make them not over holy neither, howsoever here to aggra●…ate a quarrel against the Bishop, you thought good to term them holy scriptures. But now to admit, that those were not the words of the scripture, but only the exposition of the words, yea and that there was a negligence in the printing or copying out thereof, whereby the words were printed in several letters like the text, were this, M. Stapl. so heynons a fault, where in effe●… the matter is most true, and all one with the text? Did not the king command them to sanctify the lords house? Did they not obey and come when they had so done, and make an account to the king of all that they had done, saying to him: We have sanctified all the house of the Lord, and the showbread table with all the vessels thereof, and all the furniture of the temple, etc. and see they are before the altar of the Lord? Now that all these things, were things of the Lord, or that they obeyed the king's commandment, and made relation of all their doings to the king, concerning these things of the Lord: This M. Stapleton meddleth not withal, nor dare deny it, which is the matter in question, and fully proveth the Bishop's assertion against M. Feckenham, that they obeyed the king's commandment concerning things of the Lord. So that in the matter of the Bishops saying, there is no untruth▪ as even M. Stapleton himself can not deny the scripture is so plain. And being true, it argueth most expressly the untruth to remain in M. Feckenham and M. Stapleton, with their confederates, that deny the Clergies obedience to their Princes, and the Prince's authority of commanding them, concerning things of the Lord, which the scripture here alloweth. Now what doth M. Stapleton to save his poor honesty, as h●… termeth it, but casting a cloud before the reader's eyes jest he should consider this, he quarelleth after his manner at the print, and not so content, crieth out of words falsely added to holy scripture, where if the words had been misprinted only, in a wrong form of letter, ye●… the sense is all one, the matter is most true, and the words themselves of the learned Hebritians, are even so expounded, so far are they from all false addition to holy scripture, as M. Stapleton most falsely doth exclaim. According as David had disposed the order by 47. the counsel of the Prophets. The. 47. untruth. Holy Scripture falsified and maimed, Fol. 52. a. Diuis. 16. as it shall appear. Because he appealeth in this untruth to his Counterblast, where he saith, it shall appear, in God's name let it there appear, where it is also answered folz●… For his. 48. and. 49. untruths he allegeth no reason, nor cause, only he saith, the former is boldly avouched, but no way proved, and the other, somewhat more impudent. Since therefore he hath nothing wherein to convince them, I may well return his boldness and impudency to himself, and remit the trial of the truth or untruth, to the discussing of josias ensample. Now have you showed yourself plainly 50. herein to be a Donatist also. The. 50. untruth most slanderous. M. Horn and his fellows Fol. 58. Diuis. 18. are in many points Donatists, as shall appear. The trial of this untruth, is discoursed at large, in the proper place where M. Stapleton citeth it to appear, there shall be herded enough, for trial of this challenge pro & contra, and as the Reader on the view of both shall there find it, so on God's name let him esteem of it. The Donatists said they were of the Catholic faith, & of the Catholic Church-which shift for their defence against God's truth, the Popish sectaries do use in this our time, being no more of the one or of the other, than were the Donatists and such like. The. 51. untruth. Answer the Fortress, M. Horn, annexed Folly▪ 58. Diuis. 16. to saint Bede, if you dare to defend this most sensible and gross lie. How happy are you, M. Stapleton, that ever you built M Stapletons fortress. such a Fortress, that you thus can crack of, so lustily bid us come and assail, crying, answer the Fortress, and come if ye dare, and if he come not, than he dare not come, if he set not on your Fortress, than this must needs be a lie. Must it? now truly then your Fortress is but a weak Fortress, if the proving this a lie do answer and overturn your Fortress. We need never go thither for the matter, to prove your Church no●… the catholic Church, nor to have the catholic faith, this will be proved in this book well enough I warrant you, or ever it be ended, you shall see yourself more than once or twice confess it. And divers other have at large proved it, what need we then run to your Fortress. In the next division, which is the. 19 M. St. gathereth an other untruth, but before it he setteth down two marginal notes. The first where the Bishop said: All the sects of the Donatists, whether they be Gaudentians, Petilians, Rogatists, Papists, or any other sect. etc. Upon this word Papists, master Stapleton maketh a star, saying: You should have said Protestants who in so many points as hath been showed, resembled the Donatists. It is well enough M. Sta. and you can let it stand, till time be you have untrussed all those points, even from your own slops, & then you may go perhaps like Baily hosegodowne. The. 2▪ note is this. Where the Bishop having alleged a long sentence of S. Augustine against M. Feckenham. Thus far S. Augustine (saith he) by whose judgement of the catholic Church, etc. Note (saith M. Stap.) that now S. Augustine's judgement is S. Aug. judgement of the catholic Church. also the judgement of the catholic Church. To the which note I also add this note withal (M. Stapleton) that your Church is not then the Catholics Church, whose judgement herein agreeth not with Saint Augustine's judgement. Lo M. Stapleton how prettily yourself begin to answer your last untruth, if you hold on thus, we shall not greatly need to scale your fortress, even this your Counterblast will encounter and overblow it. After these two notes he setteth down his untruth. Your errontous opinion. The. 52 untruth. M. Feckenham holdeth no such opinion. 52. Fol. 65 a. Diuis. 19 The opinion there mentioned, and confuted by S. Augustine, is this of the Donatists, that the order, rule, and government, practised be the Kings of the old Testament in ecclesiastical causes, are not figures and prophecies of the like government to be in the kings under the new Testament, nor the order that Christ left behind him in his Gospel & new Testament. This was the opinion of the Donatists in Saint Augustine's time, and this is yours, Master Fecknams, and Master Dormans' opinion now, that they are not such figures and prophecies, and therefore you confess yourself fol. 62. that M. Feckenham omitted the proofs of the old Testament, because they made against him. Now whether this be an erroneous opinion or not, I commit you and Saint Augustine together to scamble about it. The. 53 untruth. Wither S. Augustine have witnessed 53. Folly 67 a. Diuis. 20. no such large and supreme government as we attribute now to Princes, yea whither Master Stapleton have granted so much or not, is proved at large in the. 19 &. 20. Divisions. Your wilfulness is such, that you delight only 54. Fol. 67 a. diuis. 20. in wrangling against the truth. The. 54. untruth, ●…claunderous. Then are yourself this ●…claunderer M. Stapleton that confess, Folio. 62. he omitted to show forth the truths, of purpose because it made against him, what is this but wi●…full wrangling against the truth? Constantine made many wholesome laws and 55. godly constitutions wherewith he restrained the people with threats, forbidding the sacrificing Images and Idols. to Idols, to seek after the devilish and superstitious soothsaying to set up Images. The. 55. vnt●…uthe. They were Idols, not Images that Constantine Fol. 67. b. Divis. 20. forbade his subjects to set up. And in his Counterblast, fol. 68 he saith: to say that Constantine forbade to ●…et up Images, is an open and a shameless lie. What shameless outfacing is this. The very words even in the same place, and many other of the book, are plain against Images, and nameth both Idols and Images also, as the Bishop doth. Which withal confuteth his subtle distinction, between Image and Idol, as though an Image might not be an Idol also. Neither can the distinction serve your turn. For Constantine forbiddeth both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. As for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yourself confess he forbade, whether he forbade Images or not, these are Eusebius own words in Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Lib. 2. Even so Christ our Saviour confirmed this 59 their authority, commanding all men to attribute and give unto Cesar that which belongeth unto him. The. 56. untruth. This place of S. Matthew maketh nothing Fol. 69. Diuis. 21. for the Princes supreme government in ecclesiastical things. It maketh, as the Bishop alleged it, to confirm all that authority by Christ's Gospel, that was due before in the time of the old Testament, Which yourself grant▪ but that Princes had supreme authority in ecclesiastical things, in the time of the old Testament, the Bishop proved before, and yourself also granted it, though you denied such supreme government as we attribute. Therefore this place maketh some thing for Princes supreme government in ecclesiastical things, & so bewrayeth your own untruth and the truth of the Bishop. This to be Christ's order and meaning that 57 the kings of the nations should be the supreme governors over their people, not only in temporal, but also in spiritual or ecclesiastical causes, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, do plainly declare. The. 57 untruth. The Apostles never declared any such Fol. 70 b. Diuis. 22. matter. So say you in deed, ●… Stapleton, but the Bishop's proofs out of Chrisostome and saint Augustine, do plainly declare they did. The. 58. untruth. Of misunderstanding saint Augustine, because, besides this bederoll, he also charges the Bishop therewith at large in the Counterblast, it is answered severally in the answer of the. 18. chapter. Not meaning only the transgressors of the second 59 table in temporal matters, but also against the offenders of the first table in spiritual or ecclesiastical causes or matters. The. 59 untruth. Saint Augustine means not to teach Fol. 71. a. diuis. 22. such government of Princes in ecclesiastical matters, as you teach, but only to punish Heretics, and by the same to maintain the Catholic faith decreed by the Clergy, not by the civil Magistrate. Belike you can tell better what saint Augustine meant, than be could himself. But S. Augustine is plain, he needeth no such interpreter. Remember your own note, maledicta glossa quae corrumpit textum, Cursed be that gloze that corrupteth the text. S. Aug. interpreting the mind of the Apostle to be, 60. that the authority & power of Princes hath to deal in ecclesiastical causes so well as in temporal. The. 60. untruth. Saint Augustine never written so. You should have told out the sentence of S. Augustine, Fol. 71. ●… Diuis. 22. that the B. citeth, which fully proveth it, and then have improved it as an untruth if you could, which although you do not, yet in the margin of that sentence, you cry out lustily and say, where is there in all this master Horn that the Princes have to deal in ecclesiastical causes, so well as in temporal? For soothe master Stapleton even here at your hand, in this present sentence, wherein S. Augustine proveth, and yourself also grant so much, that the Prince's authority, punishethe so well abuses in eccl. causes, and faults against religion, as it doth civil or temporal causes, but it punisheth all external faults and abuses in all civil and temporal causes, M. Sta. grant out of saint August. & that by his supreme authority therein, & not as an others executioner. Ergo, it punisheth all external abuses and faults in all ecclesiastical causes and religion, and that by his supreme authority therein, and not as the clergies executioner. Eusebius. etc. understanding the ministery of 61. the civil Magistrate to be about God's religion and eccle. causes so well as temporal. The. 61. untruth. Eusebius never understood any such ministery Fol. 75. Divis 23. of the civil Magistrate. In what things Eusebius understood the civil Magistrates ministery to consist, the B. set down Eusebius his own words, to prove that he understood it so: you say he never understood it so, but you set down never a word, neither here, nor in your Counterblaste to prove the contrary, which till you shall be able to do, the bishop's understanding of Eusebius by his own words is no untruth. The understan ding of Eusebius. Eusebius saith, that in preaching by his decrees true godliness, in setting forth the religion of the most holy law, and the most blessed faith, the Prince's ministery consists in these things, so well as any other, or before all other, as his best ministery But these things are not civil matters but spiritual and ecclesiastical: Ergo, his ministery by Eusebius understanding consists so well in ecclesiastical or spiritual matters as civil or temporal. This most Christian Emperor did rightly consider as he had been truly taught, of the most Christian bishops of that time, that as the Princes have in charge the ministry and government in all manner causes either temporal or spiritual. The. 62. untruth impudent and shameless concluded but Fol. 75. divis. 23. no whit proved. And in his Counterblast: I say it is a stark and most impudent lie that you say without any proof. Constantine was taught of the bishops, that Princes have the government in all manner causes, either temporal or spiritual, you conclude after your manner, facingly and desperately, without any proof or half proof in the world. Here are wonderful boisterous words Master Stapleton, but great boast and small roost, as they say. For all this high challenge standeth on (I say) and so in deed it appeareth to be your saying, but had it not been your saying Master Stapleton, I would have thought it had been some cotqueans cryaleyson, and I would have answered, a wisp, a wisp, for setting aside your foul language, what untruth is here concluded, or what concluded that is not proved? The Prince hath the setting forth of true religion of Gods most holy law, and the most blessed faith, but these things are not civil but ecclesiastical and spiritual: the Prince hath to pu●…te away and overthrow all evils that press the world, but none press the world more dangerously than superstition, Idolatry, errors, heresies, schisms, sects, and false religion, all which are no civil but ecclesiastical and spiritual matters: The Prince doth these things not as an executioner of an others ministery, but all the doing hereof is the ministry properly belonging to his own office, yea it is his best ministery. Ergo, he doth all these things with as much or more full and proper authority of his office▪ as he doth any other civil thing, But his ministery in civil things is by his supreme authority under God therein, whose minister S. Paul calleth him. This is the Bishop's conclusion most plain and true, all your blackemouthed rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding. For this cause also Nicephorus, etc. compareth 63. Emanuel Paleologus the Emperor to Constantine. (For this cause) the. 63. untruth, as shall appear. Fol. 75. b. diuis. 24. There is no doubt some great cause that moved you M. Stapleton, to put this in your bederoll of untruths, that the Bishop said, for this cause. And if you were asked for what cause you do so, it seemeth it would be hard for you to tender any, and therefore you take a wise and a short way to tell us it shall appear. But here you show none, nor any at all here appeareth. And where it should appear, there appeareth none also, except this be sufficient reason only to deny it, and say, it is no cause at all. For these words only appear there: Where you say, for this cause also, etc. Fol. 76. this is no cause at all, but is untrue, as of the other Emperor Constantine, and much more untrue, as you shall good reader strait way understand. What cause I pray you is here alleged? and yet this is all that you say unto it, saving that as you said before, it should appear, referring us there, hither: here you say, as the reader shall straightway understand it. And yet neither strait way nor crooked way, you speak one word more of the matter, but go about the bush, meddling with other matters, and not with the truth, or untruth hereof any more. And so it appeareth nusquam, and the reader shall understand it nunquam. Neither is it any marvel, if you can not let the reader to understand it, for I think you understood not the bishops words yourself, which if you had done, you would never have quoted it for an vn●…th for shame. You know the Bishop before having, for the understanding of saint Paul's words for the Prince's ministery, alleged the ensample of Constantine, to show that his best ministery consists in his careful zeal, direction of God's glory and truth, and other matters of religion, wherein Eusebius commends him, being a famous ecclestastical writer, and allowed amongst you: sith also Nycephorus another your late famous ecclesiastical writer, cōpar●…th most expressly herein the Emperor of his time, to Constantine the great: what untruth hath the Bishop committed to say, For this cause Nycephorus compareth the one to the other, for that he did so nearly imitate his dutifulness, in ruling, procuring, and reforming religion to the pureness thereof. If Nycephorus have not thus in these points compared them, than a God's name blame the Bishop, that said for this cause al●…o Nicephorus. etc. but if Nicephorus have so done, then is the Bishop cle●…red of this vntru●…, that said ●…e did so. And if you have any quarrel to pick, go pick it against Nicephorus, that so did, and not against the Bishop, that only said he did so. Now whither Nicephorus have done as the Bishop said 〈◊〉 did or not, let the reader be v●…per. The words of Nicephorus are long, notwithstanding I will set down some of them, writing to the Emperor he saith thus. Verily one shall suffice me as I might ●…aye for all, with whom also perchance, for that kindred and likelihood which is between you and him, you will gladly suffer yourself to be compared, and is this any other than that Constantine, the great valour and name among all men? Constantine whose memory aught to be as it were a certain spirit in all men. Who helped ●…s in our most necessity and Nicephorus compareth Emanuel or Andronicus to Constantine the great. so mightily. Constantine the great in such arts as belong to an Emperor, in prudence incomparable, but in fervency towards God, and in great acts achieved, and contentions sustained for the true godliness he is above all, even as the Sun is shining above the stars. And art not thou O most excellent Prince the very certain image of him (& here 〈◊〉 noteth in the margin comparatur. etc. The Emperor is compared to Constantin the great, and is conferred with him) verily even so doth the glass tender the right shape of the Image, as thou expressest the divine show of his mind, and glisterest again being very like unto him, none otherwise than even the natural son doth represent his father: and although I know well thou will't disallow my boldness which art chief wont to avoid and beware of such praises, notwithstanding I will not doubt to say this thing (which I beseech thee ●…o suffer me and consider my reason, sith I chief know that thou art the son of God by grace and the Lords anointed above the rest) that thou art the Image of him in all points alike, which manifestly hast obtained the very godly form of him, and the force and impression either of his living or imperial substance. etc. And so he runneth into particular points, wherein he compareth them tog●…ther. Is not all this enough master Sta. to prove the Bishops saying true, for this cau●…e al●…o Nicephorus▪ etc. compareth these two Emperors together: but you 〈◊〉 this, and showing no cause in the world why you challenge the Bishop therefore, run to an other quarrel about the emperors name, because the B. said as followeth. For this cause also Nicephorus in his Preface 64. before his ecclesiastical history, doth compare Emanuel Paleologus the Emperor to Constantine. The. 64. untruth. In putting Emanuel for Andronicus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. You are answered to this at large in the reply to your Whether this Emperor were Emanuel or Andronicus. Counterblasting thereon What soever his name were, as it is called in question, so the Bishop is cleared thereof, following your own principal au●…ors & doctors, that transl●…ting and setting out this story, named him even as the 〈◊〉 ●…oth Emanuel Paleologus, & not once n●…r twice neither, ●…s the blind man casts his ●…affe, but as they say themselves, on good considerations among them therevn●…o. And so rehearset●… his noble virtues. 65. Fol. 76▪ a. Devil. 24. The. 65. untruth. For this Emperor w●… a stark heretic. So say you M. Stapleton, and so you revile him in your Counterblaste, for a wretched heretic also, and a wicked doer. But your ecclesiastical writer Nicephorus says not so of him, he reciteth 〈◊〉 many virtue▪ and also 〈◊〉 and excellent virtues of this Emperor. If he were not such a one, or had not such v●…rtues as Nicephorus rehear●…eth him to have, what is that to the Bishop who only saith? Nicephorus reciteth his noble virtues. Fusebius his p●…ayse of the Emperor. And to prove this true, the whole preface of Nicephorus is manifest, being for the most part nothing but the Prince's commendation of such noble virtues as Nicephorus showeth he was endued withal. He calleth him princip●…n omnium Christi a●…antissimo atque humanissimo, qui prorsus omnes virtutes complexus, nihil rerum pulc●…errimarum & excellentissima●…um pretermisisti. The Emperor most loving of Christ, and most ●…teous, who having thoroughly a●…tained all virtues, haste let slip nothing that is mo●…e fair and excellent. It were tedious to r●…cite all or the quarter of that he citeth in the praise of this emperors virtues. The preface throughout is manifest, the bishops allegations that you can not deny, the comparison aforesaid between him and Constantine do declare, yea yourself confess, that Nicephorus doth highly advance and ex●… this Emperor. But as Nicephorus says, if we may believe him on his credit, being called of all your side scriptor per onmia verè catholicus, a very catholic writer in all points, he flattereth him not, nor forgeth, but speaketh the truth, in praising of him, all which doth sufficiently acquit the bishop for saying that Nicephorus rehear●…eth his noble virtues. The Prince's supremacy in repairing religion 66. decayed. The. 66. untruth. Fond and foolish as shall appear. Fol. 76 a. Diuis. 24. This is only a marginal note that the Bishop pr●…fireth to all the allegations that he citeth out of Nicephorus, to any one sentence of which allegations M. Stapleton answereth nothing. But thus iustleth at the marginal note, and sendeth us to his Counterblaste thereon, where it shall appear how untrue, how fond and foolish it is. Which the reader shall judge when he hath read his Counterblaste, & the answer thereto. That by their rule, ministery and service, not 67. only peace and tranquillity, but also godliness and religion should be furdered and continued amongst men. The. 67. untruth. No such words in S. Paul. Folly 79 a. Diuis. 25. You do the bishop manifest injury M. Stapleton, neither have you any vantage to pretend any of your former quarrels at the print of the letters, it is evident the Bishop setteth not down those words, as the bore words of the t●…rt of S. Paul, which he cited the line before adverbum, and with diffinct letter, which he doth not here, but Paraphrastically expoundeth the text. Wherein if he do wrest the meaning of saint Paul you should hardly note that, for an untruth▪ S. Paul there nameth not religion, that is true, The word godliness in S. Paul compr●…hendeth religion. but that this word godliness which saint Paul nameth comprehendeth not religion, as the Bishop saith, that is your own untruth. But this matter is debated more at large, in the answer to your Counterblast chap. 18. divis▪ 22. where is showed both by the Fathers and by your own chief writers, that saint Paul by this word godliness meant true religion. Here you set another blazing star upon these words that the Bishop saith. This would be noted with good advisement that saint Paul himself showeth plainly prosperity amongst God's people and true religion, to be the benefits and fruits in general, that by God's ordinance springeth from the rule and government of Kings and Magistrates unto the weal of the people. This would be noted (say you) how you rack saint Paul: Fol. 79. ●… diuis. 25. he nameth not religion at all, he doth not attribute religion to the rule and government of the civil Magistrate, but peace and tranquillity only in godliness. You dared not note this for an untruth M. Stapleton, but for a racking or wresting, although this is but your peevish Racking a sentence. difference. If he rack saint Paul's meaning, he telleth an untruth of saint Paul, although this doth clear the B. of racking also, that you durst not plainly note and score it up for an untruth: yet as the B. saying is most true, so it nothing swerveth from the meaning of saint Paul. For a●… the B. proveth by chrysostom, that by this word godliness is meant religion, and the inward peace of the mind and conscience, and not only the outward peace of the body. So Saint Paul maketh these to be the benefits, fruits and ends, that by God's ordinance we receive from the rule and government of kings and magistrates, in which saying S. Paul is not racked, but it is you M. Stapleton, that rack Saint Paul▪ for he saith not tranquillity and peace only in godliness, y●… may put your only in your purse, Saint Paul saith in godliness and pureness. The which knot and fastening together of religion and prosperity incommon weals, the most 68 Christian and godly Emperors Theodosius & Ualentinianus did wisely foresee. The. 68 untruth. They saw no such confounding of the two functions spiritual and temporal as you imagine. This untruth is directed against the bishops imagination, you go very near the B. M. Stapleton, that where he saith no such words as you challenge, you will creep into his heart and fetch i●… from thence, you have a goodeye sight that can see what the B. imagineth. But wisdom will think this to be a fond toy of your own idle imagination, for the bishops words import no such confusion as you talk of, he telleth how godliness and prosperi●…e are linked together in common weals, so that the one cannot be well without the other, & that the Prince is the knitting together of both these, and this he saith the Emperors saw, and that they saw●… it, he bringeth good proof, their own manifest words set down at large: either prove this an untruth M. Sta. or else the B. hath made nene, it is but your untrue slander & fond imagination. I have proved etc. That such like government 69. in Church causes, as the Queen's Majesty taketh upon her, doth of duty belong unto civil magistrates. The. 69. untruth. Such like government you have not nor Folly 81 b. Diuis. 26. ever shall be able to prove. The B. says that in this first book he hath hitherto proved it by the scriptures, the Doctors and some Emperors. This you deny that he hath done, and set him a long day to prove it. Now the truth or untruth of this the reader must hung in suspense till be have read the pr●…s over, what they be, and then in the name of God let himiudge, whether the untruth light on the bishop or on Master Stapleton. In the mean season ●…ytherto the Reader may have a taste, what shame is in this impudent man's ●…ace, what truth in his cause, and what folly in h●…s head, thus to the wide world to score and set out such things for untruths, as being never so little ripped up, are most apparent truths, and to make such a triumphant gambolde, and piping up of a round as he doth thereon. But le●…te him dance his ●…yll, and nick up still on the score, in the end he will run so far in the lash, that no man will credit a word of his mouth. Mendaci non cr●…ditur ne iurato quidem. A liar is not believed, not though he swear. ❧ To Master Stapletons' first Preface. OR ever Master Stap▪ enter into his counterblast, he prefixeth two Prefaces, the first to the B. the second to the Reader. The first, because it is only a packet, trussed up, of all such accusations, as he layeth to the Bishop's charge, through out his whole counterblast, and so is to be answered in their proper places, I mind not therefore to follow Master Stapletons' vain, that says, Decies repe●…ta placebunt, to spend the time and trouble the Reader more than needs in answering to them here, that are to be answered in their places severally, and are already many of them noted before, in his Common places. The effect and conclusion of this preface, in the end is this. That the Bishop must needs make a full rejoinder, A full rejoinder I Stapl. Pag. 22. & 23. Prefa. 1. say (says he) and perfect to all and every part of this reply, and put in Master Stapleton●… whole answer, not omitting any one line or sentence either of the text or of the margin: or else the truth is not on the Bishop's side, or else he wanteth learning: or else he buildeth on no good foundation, nor the cause he groundeth on is sure, or else all men will laugh him to scorn, for his fair piece of work so shamefully broken of, or else M. Feckenhams scruples are most learned and invincible reasons, or else the oath can not be taken with out manifest perjury, or else Master Horn must retract his most haighnouse heresies, or else (which I should have set before) all that the B. hath said, is but words of course to save his poor honesty, and but waltham talk, or else (as he objecteth foolishness to the B.) so M. Stapleton may prove as wise as walthams' calf, and thus as he says to the B. for this time I take my leave of you, Vale & resipisce, so may I for this your first Preface, take my leave of you Master Stapleton, Uale & sape. ❧ To Master Stapletons' second Preface. THe second Preface is directed to the Reader, and is contrived in three parts. The first showeth the reasons why he took upon him to answer the Bishop. The second how & by what order he proceedeth in his answer. The third is an earnest admonition to forsake this religion. In the first part he showeth that Master Fekenham could not answer the B. himself, but he showeth no other reason thereof, than this, seeing his state is such. Secondly, that the cause why he more than any other of his complices took upon him to answer this, lest it should appear to come of his own ambitious busiositie, was only at the request of some of his friends, he will not tell of whom, for so perhaps be might detect himself, to be a disciple of Balaans' mark, hired for lucre to curse with his cursed and blackmouthed Rhetoric, the Church and truth of God. And because hereby, be would have the reader covertly to understand, what kin a great clerk he is, of what terror to his enemies, and estimation among his friends, to entreat him more than any of all the rest, to achieve this enterprise: he telleth us he was not very willing thereto, because forsooth, he purposed having so largely provoked such sharp adversaries, Staplet. Pag. 24. Prefat. 2. especially M. jewel, for a season to rest and stand to his own defence, if any would charge him. Wherein he would not have you forget, what a lusty provoker of sharp adversaries he is. And although for two causes he was loath to meddle therewith, first for that many things in this book Stap. Pag. 24. pertain to certain private doings betwixt M. Feckenham, and M. Horn, of the which (says he) I had no skill: secondly for that a number of such private matters, touching the state of the realm occurred, as to them (without farther advice) I could not thoroughly shape any answer: yet notwithstanding all these things that neither touched M. Stapleton, nor he had any skill of them, nor could shape any answer to them, he must needs intrude and busy himself, to shape some misshaped answer, his fingers itched (since none of all his sharp adversaries would once deign to answer him) to provoke the B. in these things, and where his skill should fail, rather than his will should fail, he would furnish out his answer with his foresaid common places, in which he hath a very good skill and grace. As for the residue of his wants, afterward it so happened (says he) that by such as S●…p. Pag. 24. I have good cause to credit, there came to my knowledge such instructions, as well for the one as for the other, that I was better willing to employ some pains and study in this behalf. How these instructions happened to him, we must not understand all, for fear it fall out (as they say) that ask his fellow if he be a thee●…, two false companions need no broker. As it will I fear me fall out Master Stapleton in the scanning of your false informations, whereof yourself were unskilful you say, but you have good cause to credit them, & were the more willing to employ your pains and study therein, and good reason you should credit them, that make any thing for you. For why, they be credible men of your own party: be it true or false they tell you, reck not you, let them bear the blame, if they lie, you did but tell it for them. Why should you not therefore employ your pains, and study, to paint it out, & that the more willingly, since they do pay well for it. Now M Stapleton being well instructed, though he promise' to take the willinger pains and study, in this behalf, yet must you not presuppose, that he taketh this upon him, for that (says he) I think myself better able than other, but Stap. Pag. 24. for that I would not it should seem, there lacked any good will in me either to satisfy the honest desire of my friends, or to help and relieve such, as by such kind of books are already pitifully inveigled and deceived, or to stay other yet standing, that this book be not at any time, for lack of good advertisement a stumbling stock unto them. What soever here M. Sta. you pretend of your forward good will, who so conferreth here with your Common place of boasting & cracks, may easily return your own saying on yourself, that these are but words of course to save your poor honesty, lest men should see & detest your ambitious vain glory herein. Neither doth your preposterous zeal cover it any whit, except this be to help & relieve a stumbler, where scarce a straw lay in his way before, to tumble a stock into his path, to make him fall down right. Now that M. St. hath showed the occasions that pricked him forward to set on the B. He secondly showeth the manner of his answer. Wherein first after his ordinary craking of his poor labour, of his diligence, of his whole and Stap. Pag. 25. full reply he excuseth his long & tedious babbling: wherein I rather fear (says he) I have said to much than to little, which in deed he hath good cause to fear, as his Common places do & shall declare. And yet would he have every word put in & replied unto, himself in his own conscience having said to much already. But to excuse this fault he hath a sufficient reason at hand, that tediousness is good to make all perfect, and therefore he had rather be tedious than short. Thus having handsomely excused the matter, he secondly showeth the order of the Bishop's book. M. Horns answer as he calleth it rests in two parts. Stap. Pag. 25. Why M. St. & how call you it? may it not think you be called an answer, that answereth the demand or request of an other? but as you wrangle peevishly about the name, so that curious fine pate of yours, disdeyneth the playn●… and simple name of an answer, or reply, or any other usual word, as you pretend, to avoid confusion, but in deed, to show some singular conceit and excellency of your book, which so finely you Entitle A counterblaste, to say the truth a blast not worth a counter, to counterblowe and all to blast the Bishop's answers with all. The two parts that he divides the Bishop's book into are these: In the first (says he) and chiefest he playeth the opponent, laying forth out of the holy Scriptures both Old Stap. Pag. 25. Prefat. 2. and New, out of Counsels both general and national, out of Histories & Chronicles of all countries, running his race from Constantine the great, down to Maximilian, great grandfather to the Emperor that now liveth: taking by the way, the Kings of France, of spain, and of our own country of England, since the conquest, all that ever he could find, by his own study and help of his friends, partly for proof of the like government of Princes in Ecclesiastical causes, as the oath attributeth now to the crown of England, partly for the disproof of the Pope's supremacy, which the oath also principally extendeth to exclude. In the second and later part, he playeth the defendant taking upon him to answer, and to satisfy certain of M. Feck▪ arguments, and scruples of conscience, whereby he is moved not to take the oath. How well he hath played both his parts▪ the perusal of this reply will declare. How well so ever he hath played his parts, full ill-favouredly, you begin to play yours M. Stap. thus to wrangle about the parts of opponent and answerer. The B. playeth not the opponent, but you play the Merchant. The B. not in play but in truth & good earnest, (as M. Feckenham pretendeth to 〈◊〉, & requireth to be satisfied) answereth to his requests, by the foresaid proves that here you confess he bringeth forth. The party opponent (as in the other scruples) still is M. Feckenham. But be he opponent or defendant (as either of them in respects, may be either) if he bring those proves that you grant he doth, you have little occasion to make a play & scoff at the matter. Neither doth this blemish the truth, from whom he had it: where with you would seem as it were with an awke blow, to foil the B. learning, that he found out these proves not all by his own study, but by the help of his friends. Which as you M. Stapleton for your own part were feign to confess right now, so is there no cause, you should measure the Bishop's knowledge by your own defect. But herein you do but as the residue do, this is the fashion of all your compéeres. Where truth faileth you▪ at the lest, to win a credit of learning to yourselves, (like proud Pharisies) you despise all other besides yourselves. To which purpose, as M. Stapl. would stain the Bishop's godly and learned labour herein, at the lest, that all might not seem to be his own, but gathered by others to his hands: so in the telling of his own well ordered piece of work, he setteth out every point to the uttermost, to commend the better unto us, his great learning, industry, and perspicuity. He telleth us solemnly, how to the first part, he replieth in three books, how he hath divided Stap. pag. 26. each book into several chapters, what he hath noted at the top of each page. But he telleth not what common places he hath set out in each line. He telleth how he hath exceedingly lightened the matter, and what recapitulations he hath made thereof. To the second part, he telleth us it shall appear (but when he telleth us not) both what strong and invincible arguments M. Feknam right learnedly proposed, as most just causes of his said refusal. And also what ●…ely shifts, and miserable escapes, M. Horn hath devised, to maintain that obstinately, which he once conceived erroneously. And thus forsooth, nothing to the praise and setting forth of himself & M. Feckenham, nor to the blemishing of his adversary, hath M. Stapleton divided the content of the Bishop's answer, and his counterblast thereto. Now thinking with this prejudice of both their labours he hath sufficiently affectionate the Reader to his party, thirdly he entereth into a general fore warning of him, the effect whereof is to forsake this religion, which he beginneth with this earnest adjuring of him. Now good Reader (says Master Stapleton) as thou tenderest thy own salvation▪ Stap. Pag. 27. Prefat. 2. and hopest to be a saved soul, in the joyful and everlasting bliss of heaven, so consider and weigh with thyself the importance of this matter in hand. What hope of salvation (M. St.) can the Popish doctrine breed, that always doubteth as much of damnation, as it hopeth of salvation, & hangeth wavering between despair & hope, admitting no certainty of faith or trust to ground upon? The atten●…ion that you desire in the Reader, we as earnestly desire the same also, neither that he come to read attentively, with any prejudicate opinion on either part, as you would have his mind fores●…alled on your side, but even with indifferency, as he shall find the matter in hand to lead him, so to weigh and consider the importance thereof, even as he tendereth and verily hopeth his own salvation. And as the Reader shall do this for his part, so let us see how you do for yours, and of what great importance your arguments are, to stir up this earnest attention in the Reader. The first argument that you make is this. First without authority is no religion. Stap. Pag. 27. Pref. 2. Then if this Religion whereby thou hopest to be saved, have no authority to ground itself upon, what hope of salvation remaining in this religion canst thou receive? Now as though the Mayor were in controversy, and the point we stick upon: he first solemnly strengtheneth it with the authority of S. Augustine. For no true religion Aug. de v●…ilitate credendi▪ Cap. 9 says S. Augustine, can by any means be received, without some weighty force of authority. As for the Minor which determineth nothing, but hanging on a conditional pin: maketh no direct conclusion too or fro. We grant him that i●… our religion have no authority, no hope of salvation can be grounded thereon. But then he replieth: If it have any authority, it hath Stap. Pag. 27. the authority of the Prince, by whose supreme government it is enacted, erected and forced upon thee, other authority hath it none: Ergo, For want of sufficient & good authority, it is no true Religion. You desired right now M. St. even as the Reader tendereth his own salvation, to consider and weigh with himself the importance of this matter. And is this all the importance of your first argument against our Religion, that the Reader should weigh & consider so deeply? What is here alleged besides a bold and manifest slander, forced upon the Reader, by the authority only of your bore word? Which the more the Reader shall consider, and especially thus your beginning, for an handsel of good luck to the residue, he shall the better perceive the falsehood and impudency of your whole cause & dealing. For, to set one If, against another, If the reader better considering & weighing with himself, shall find this religion, not to be of so late enacting, erecting, & forcing, but enacted, erected and forced of God in his holy word, shall not this consideration detect you to be a malicious slanderer? if the reader with all shall weigh the poise of your argument, that the Prince hath a supreme government in all Ecclesiastical causes: Ergo, the Religion that the Prince sets forth hath no●…e other authority but of him, shall be not find it like the father of it, as light as a thing of naught? But, exhorting the Reader to weigh and consider the matter, & not considering nor weighing what you say yourself, you blunder on in your Ifs, and say: If then that supreme government (that having Stap. Pag. 27. Pref. ●…. none other authority, enacteth, erecteth and forceth a Religion upon thee) be not due to the lay Prince, but to the spiritual Magistrate, and to one chief Magistrate among the whole spirituality, thou ●…eest thy Religion is but a bore name of religion, and no religion in deed. Here whether he be ashamed to set it down, or thinketh it so clear it needeth not recital, but is inferred of the Mayor he leaveth out the Minor of his argument. But, that supreme government is due to one chief spiritual magistrate only, and to no lay Prince. Ergo: Thy religion, is no religion in deed, but a bore name thereof. The reader, thanks be to God, were he but a simple clerk, need not greatly beat his brains in considering the weight of this argument. The mayor is hanged up for holidays, on your conditional pin. The minor is your manifest falsehood. The whole in effect standeth on these two false ●…urmised principles, presupposing the prince to take such supreme government on him, as the Pope challengeth, and that such as the Pope challengeth is due to the Pope, to make, infringe or altar religion, without any other authority, which indeed is neither due to Prince or prelate, but to God alone, nor the prince but the popeclaymeth it, and therefore his argument maketh only against the pope's religion, as thus: To enact, erect, or force religion upon thee, ●…yther of spiritual or lay magistrate whosoever, by their, or his supreme 〈◊〉, and other authority for it, hath none, is to make in deed no religion at all, but a bore name of religion only: But that thus doth the Pope, as (besides that it is manifest) even here M. Stap. plamely confesseth, saying that supreme government (making relation to the words immediately precéeding, which supreme government enacteth, erecteth, and forceth religion upon thee having no other authority) is due to the spiritual magistrate, and to one chief magistrate, among the whole spirituality, meaning his holy father the pope: Ergo: The pope's religion is a bore name of religion only and no religion in deed. And thus his own argument better considered, returns on himself. But he being blinded with the affection of his false principles, and reasoning à petitione princip●…▪ runneth on with his 〈◊〉, from the religion to the oath, to infer peri●…rie. Again (saith he) if this supreme government be not Stap. pa. 27. Pref. 2. rightly attributed to the lay magistrate, in what state are they, which by book oath do swear that it aught so to be, yea and that in their consciences they are so persuaded. Is not perjury, and specially a wilful continuance in the same, a most horrible & damnable crime, in the sight of god? and doth not gods vengeance watch over them which sleep i●… perjury▪ I will be a quick witness to perjured people saith God by the Prophet Malachi. He that herded you preach thus against perjury M. St. & knew you not, might think you were not guilty. But if he better considered your perjured case, & obstinate disobedience against your Prince, & how wilfully you continued and sleep therein, and maliciously slander your prince & countrymen, and wrist the oth●… of set purpose. he would surely marvel of your impuden●… If this supreme government (say you) be not rightly attributed to the lay magistrate, in what state are they, which by book o'th' do swear that it aught so to be? What is this supreme government M. St. that you speak of? If you say, that which I speci●…ed before, to were, that which erecteth, enacteth, and forceth religion upon thee, without any other authority thereof what is this but one of your impudent slanders? For though your pope taketh this supreme government, & you give it him, yet neither we attribute this to the prince, nor the prince taketh any such upon 〈◊〉, neither do the people swear it aught so to be, nor any such oath is tendered them, & therefore be in no such state of perjury. The oath that the prince offereth & the people take, nameth nor containeth any such supreme government, but such as they may lawfully & aught to take, & thanks be to god, incur no such danger, but perform therein their dutiful & true obedience. But in what state are you (to set another if to yours, ●…f the supreme government, that the lay magistrate (as you saucily call the queens majesty) requireth by oath be rightly attributed unto her highness, in what state them are all those papists that obstinately disobey, maliciously slander, & by all means impugue the same? are you not in the state of perjury, or far worse? in what state be all you papists, that where the oath to this supreme government which you speak of, implieth (as you conclude) manifest perjury, and you plainly ascribe it to the Pope, & the Pope sweareth you & other his vassals to it, is not this perjury (especially a wilful continuance in the same) a most horrible & damnable crime in the sight of God, and doth not God's vengeance watch over them which sleep in perjury? I will be a quick witness to perjured people saith God by his prophet Malachi. And therefore look yourself to this your challenge better about you M. St. For if the reader should weigh it further, as you pretend, I fear me, further matter will fall out agay●…st you. But for all this M. St. will not stay, but on he goeth still with his iffs, and reverseth his arguments on the contrary, reasoning on this his condition 〈◊〉 absurdo. If that supreme government may duly & rightly appertain Stap pa. 27. & 28. to our liege sovereign, or be any principal part of a princes royal power, as master Horn stoutly but fond avoucheth, or of his 〈◊〉 ●…eruice to God, which never prince in the realm of England before the days of K. Henry the 8. used or claimed, which never Emperor, king, or prince without the realm of England yet to this present hour had or attempted to have▪ which the chief masters of the religion now authorized in England do mislike, reprove & condemn, namely Martin Luther john 〈◊〉, Philip Melanction and the Magdeburgen●…s, as in place convenient I have showed, which also in no time or age since princes were first christened, in no land or country, in no council general or national, was ever witnessed, practised, or allowed: last of all, which directly fighteth with christs commission given to the apostles & their successors in the gospel, & standeth direct contrary to an article of our creed: if such supreme government (I say) may be lawful & good, them is the oath lawful, and may with good conscience be taken. But if these be such absurdities as every man of any consideration seethe and abhorreth, then may not the oath of any man that hath a conscience be taken. Neither can this supreme government be possibly defended for good and lawful. Upon iffs and affs you may conclude M: Stap. what you please. This one pin, ●…f, will bear all this light stuff that that you hung upon it well enough. What man, and if, the sky fall we shall have Larks they say. You reckon up many particulars, if, this be thus, and if, that be so, and if the other thing be that: and i●… such be good, and if these he such: but if this be not thus, if that be not so, if such be not these, if these be not such: then I say then, that that is not this, and this is not that, and so you conclude it makes no matter what. For of all your solemn arguing to and fro, you lay down in deed many particulars, but neither to nor fro you prove any one, so that he that would rebate them again particularly, might as easily improve them all, if with a contrary if, he deny them every one. And if it be so say you, then. ●…c. and if it be not so may be say, so then and so, ver●…a vice. And what is this but mockholiday with the reader, whom you desire to mark you so attentively, and here is no proof at all to mark. Besides that, all these iffs stand on your former wrong principle, (that supreme government) and may be all answered with one if, if not the prince in deed, but your pope, claimeth that supreme government, than the oath from the prince, as claiming another ma●…er of supreme gou●…rnement, is free from all these absurdities, and they only light on your pope's pate, that exacteth the same. And so must they stand by your own confession, till you prove that supreme government, and these absurdities to make against the prince. Yes say you that I do for it followeth immediately, That all these Stap. pag. 28. absurdities and many yet more, which to avoid prolixity I here omit, do hereof depend: this reply gentle reader, abundantly proveth. Why? is this proof enough M. St. having made so solemn and full a conclusion against our religion, the princes supreme government, and the oath, and will, your reader as he hopeth his salvation, to mark how you prove the importance of your matter: And having alleged many bitter things, when you should come to the proof of any one thing, to prove nothing, but only tell him y●… prove it in your reply? and clawing him with the smooth title of (gentle reader) do you think he can be so satisfied? Now s●…rely then he might be a gentle reader, but he should not be a very wise reader, that would think this were enough, to answer the hope of his salvation. But you say you omit the declaration of the proves here to avoid prolixity. Why avoid you not then here, such prolixity also, in making your solemn conclusions, and reserve them (as were more covement) to their convenient places, where you say you have showed them? What need you néedeles●…y babble of them here? or why may not I reject the answer of them to the place of answer which you refer us unto? and there a go●…s name let the reader weigh them. In the mean season I answer, if, with if, if nothing hereof be hitherto proved ●…ut is to be proved hereafter in your reply, then for any absurdity here concluded, the oath is to be taken, the princes supreme government is good and lawful, and your own arguments & fond kind of reasoning, to conclude simply on conditionals, to avoid prolixity by long vain babbling, to crave the readers diligent weighing, and to bring no proof the weight of a straw, these are the most absurdities that the reader as yet can find. The like are your vain cracks, that you bear ●…he reader in hand withal, how you have evidently proved the prima●…ie of the B. of Rome, not only in England Stap pa. 28. Pref. 2. before and since the conquest, but throughout all Christendom, as well the east as the west Church, even by the authors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●…. 〈◊〉 to the contrary, and how you have proved the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first general counsels, & many national besides, in Spain, France, and Germany And nothing is pronounce●…●…y them 〈◊〉 the princes supreme government in matters ecclesiastical. And here breathing yourself, as though you 〈◊〉 all 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉, as you beast, it is nov●… Stap. pa. 29. Pref. 2. thy part 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (〈◊〉 you) not to shut thy eyes against the truth so clearly shining before thy face. What soft M. St. the Sun shines not in your Hemisphere as yet: You are early up & never the nearer. You have told the reader his duty already, to weigh & consider with himself the importance of the matter in hand as he hopeth to be a saved soul, & tendereth his own salvation. This is a sore conjuration, and requires that he be not moved lightly, with any prejudice or affection, nor carried about with every wound, on credit of your word. Soft a while, till he shall see these things you boast of, they are not yet in hand, when they shall come to hand, then give him leave to try & view them, & o●… what side he shall found the truth to shine clearly before his face, to that part he should open his ●…ies, his ears, and heart also, and shut them to that party that he shall found love darkness, & can not abide the clear shining beams of the truth to lighten & direct him. But as though you had won the reader already, and had determined before hand which is the truth: Against the which Stap. pa 28. Pref. 2. truth (say you) because master Horns answer, is but as it were a vain blast, the confutation of that answer to avoid confusion of replies (whereof so many and divers have of late come forth) I have termed for distinction sake a Counterblast. Whatsoever the B. answer is, the reader's attention hitherto seeth nothing in you, but vain words, and a vain title of a vain book to come, as he may hitherto judge, proceeding of a vain head, to show a finer vain than your fellows have. Your fetch is in this your vainglorious title, to gird at the B. name, whereat diverse times you likewise scoff, as though an other ●…oulde not descant a like on yours. But this vain dealing, as it may perhaps delight & ●…oad on, such as yourself (and yet ●…erchaunce, the indignity of your behaviour, against, though your adversary, yet far your better, and your m●…lapert arrogancy, in advancing of yourself, may loose you some credit with other your friends) nothing 〈◊〉 the Bishopp●…, nor impeac●…eth the cause that the B. defondeth: so the i●…different reader between both, reading both, will no doubt regard more the force or weakness of your arguments, than esteem the jollity of your fresh title, or fear the boisterousness of your Counterblast, & so conferring the one with the other, will judge as he finds cause. Neither will the advised reader be moved with your flattery, saying. And now gentle reader most Stap. pa. 29. Pref. 2. earnestly I beseech thee of all other articles that be this day over all christendom controversious, through the great temerity of self willed heretics raised up, most diligently to labour and travail in this of the supremacy, as being such, that to say the truth▪ in effect all other depend upon. You beseech the reader so 〈◊〉 M. St. that he should do but well to graū●… your vown. How be it there are many other articles of n●… less controversy between us, his day, & far more subtle & dangerous. Nevertheless, it shallbe necessary for the reader, most diligently to labour & travail in this of the supremacy, as a mother in deed to the most of your popish errors, & so the reader shall espy, yourself to be one of those self willed heretics. And that for all your earnest beseeching him to travel most herein, you would have him either believe first, & ground himself, on your false principles: or else would you s●…e beshrew him, for traveling one whit therein, and fall as fast to beseech him, to let the matter alone, except he will before hand on your word, believe that this supreme government belongeth to your pope. And having so gotten his grant on this, which is the controversy itself, them you beseech the gentle reader most diligently to labour & travel in this controversy. But the reader may see, with no great travel for the matter, that as you ●…etract your duty from your prince, so you ascribe a great deal to much to your pope. For, where to win the reader to your party, you say that all controversies in effect depend upon this: Ergo admit this, admit all: deny this, deny all: the antecedent in deed in your popish church is true, Where they make all articles of religion to depend upon him. But in christs church it is true of none other but of christ alone. Upon whom being the corner s●…one & rock, all the building is Ephes. 2. founded, & ariseth, & in whom being the only chief universal h●…d, all the members have life, all controversies in effect depend. Admit his supreme authority, admit all his religion. Deny his supreme authority, deny all his religion. But it is not so of any limited and secondary head, or supreme governor in any particular Church of Christians. That all articles, or any article of faith depends on the Prince's government, but the Prince's government depends on them, to oversee them dutifully set forth. And when the Reader seeth this, that the Prince claimeth not an absolute Supreme government, and that it is your Pope only, that taketh this absolute Supromacie on him, and you that give it him: then I trust the reader will not be so won with your fair words, which make fools fain, as he will abhor your slanders on your Sovereign, and detest the open injury you offer to christ the only head, to make all Articles depend on your Pope's supreme authority. Now whereas for this ambitious claim of your Pope, you allege here nothing to fortify the same: you think you shall win it, yet at the lest this way, if with despiteful railings, you may beforehand discredit us to the Reader, and so win credit to yourself thereby. You argue thus: The Protestants (whom odieusly and falsely you divide into Stap. pag. 29. Pref. 2. many sects) are at mutual and mortal enmity among themselves, but all conspire against the primacy of the Pope, Ergo a good resolution once had in this point stayeth and settleth the conscience, as with a sure and strong anchor from the insurgies and tempests of all sects and schisms. This argument might as well make for Mahomet's religion, or any other never so false, as for the Popes: to reason from the adversaries division among themselves, or agreement of themselves against his religion: to a truth and perfection in his false religion. And though the argument fail alike both in the Pope and the Turk, yet it holdeth in Christ's primacy. and only in him, against Pope, Turk, Sectary, or any other divided from him. Chief against the Popish church, wherein are divers & infinite sects & errors, and all at mutual and mortal enmity amongst themselves, and yet all conspire with the Pope against Christ and his truth: Ergo, a good resolution once had in Christ & his truth, stayeth and settleth the conscience, as with a sure and strong anchor from the insurgies and tempests of all sects and schisms. This argument thus framed, had been better and truer, and not to make the Pope's supremacy, or the exalting of any creature in heaven or earth, to be the anchor hold and stay of our consciences, besides Christ and his truth. Which since all Papists do, by this your confession, they can have no good resolution, resolving themselves amiss, leaning to a broken Reed. Where they say, Pax, pax, peace peace, non est pax impijs dicit Esay. 48. dominus, there is no peace of conscience at all, nor any sure ankerholde to stay unto. Maledictus qui confidit in boinine, jerem. 17. & po●…it carnem brachium suum. And therefore if Protestants, yea all Sectaries or Schismatics, though they can not agree amongst themselves, yet if they all hate this most Antichristian doctrine, to ground their faith on man: no marvel though they hate it, it is so wicked and detestable, that even good and bad, and all abhor it. After he hath taken this pro confesso, that the anchor hold of conscience, consists in settling himself on the Pope's primacy, he reasoneth on the contrary effect. Contrary wise, they that be once circumvented and Stap. pag. 29. Pref. 2. deceived in this Article, are carried and tossed with the raging waves and floods of every error and heresy, without stay or settling, even in their own errors. True in deed, Master Stapleton if you had rightly showed withal, what it had been to be circumvented and deceived in this Article, otherwise you do but like an unskilful and harebrayned Pilot herein, that to avoid the rock, thinketh himself sure and safe, when he hath cast his anchor on the quickesandes, or rather even in the goulfes mouth, and so I warrant him also (as you say) he shall not need long to fear to be carried and toasted with the insurgies and tempests of the raging waves and flouddes, but soon be swallowed up and drowned in them. But Master Stapleton not considering, or not minding to warn the reader of this to much trusting to a false Pilot, but to terrify him further with fear of forsaking this Popish anchorhold, and to confirm this argument of the contrary effect, reasoneth from the instancies of divers ensamples. And first of the Greek Church arguing thus. The Grecians forsook the unity of the roman Church: St. pa. 29. & 30 Pref. 2. Ergo they fallen after to be Arrians, Macedonians, Nestorians, Eutichians, etc. and in conclusion fallen into the Turkish captivity. This argument besides other faults, hath chief two hoamely and foul fallations, that make it v●…cious. The one à secundum quid ad simpliciter, from the Church of Rome, limited to that time that it was not stained with those errors, to the Church of Rome simply, that since that time hath fallen itself, partly into some of those errors, partly into other as great, and many worse. The second fallation is à non causa ut causa: for their fall was into those heresies, not because they acknowledged not the Bishop of Rome, to be their supreme head, for therein they had played like the Flounder, that leapt out of the frying pan into the fire: but because they forsook and perverted the word of God, as the Papists since have done, and their ●…ares itched and a●…iended to the inventions, doctrines, & errors of men, to lying masters, as the papists have done also. This was the proper cause of their fall into these errors, and of the Papists fall, into the like or greater. And where M. St. joineth to his conclusion, to make the sequel more dreadful, that after diverse reconciliations with the Roman Sea, they fallen into the Turkish captivity: Why may it not as well be noted thereon, that they never came into this extreme flanery of the Turk, but their Empire continued above 1000 years, till after those their reconciliatio●… made with the Pope? & then within 14. years they fallen in the Turks captivity. But of this, more hereafter. From the Greek and ●…ast Church he proceedeth to the Africans, making the like argument on them. But to answer him briefly: To reason thus, from the unity of the Roman Sea, in faith then, to the obedience of the Roman Sea, in the supremacy now, every scholar will some say, is a very good non seq●…tur. The like common fallace à non caus●… ut caus●…, he maketh of Hungary and Lifelande, fallen into the hands of the Stap. pa 30. Pref. 2. Turks and Moscovites. Because (saith he) they forsook the Pope, and fallen to Luther. But if this argument be good, demand of him, how 〈◊〉 the ●…hodes, Belgradum, Buda, and other cities and parts in Austria which likewise the Turk hath got, be clean forgotten here of him, and not reckoned up in this number? was it because they acknowledged, none more than the Rhodians, the Pope's supremacy? and yet fallen into the Turkish captivity so well as the other? At the length he 〈◊〉 home to England, and when he should here make the full conclusion of all these lamentable sequels, of re●…olt from the Roman Sea, in other Countries, that the like should light on us: seeing that his argument, contrary to his long and wicked hope, doth fail in the conclusion: lest either he should show the folly of his impertinent arguments, or utter the unnatural malice, that for his Pope and popish religion, he hath fostered long in his cankered breast against his natural prince and Country: he turneth the Cat into the Pan, not by concluding his argument on the like issue to England, but rawly and generally knitteth up the matter thus: But what was the issue all the world knoweth, and England, Stap pa. 31. Pref. 2. the more pity, grievously feeleth. To this M. Stap I answer: Thanks be given to God, no such is●…ue, as you would conclude of other Countries, from errors and the Turk to us. It is you that abhorring the Gospel more than Turkerie, feel this grief you speak of, for that your sequel holdeth no better in England. England neither fears the Turks, nor these your byous threats, and would to God no part of Christendom, even of those that you account most Popish catholic, were no more subject to the invasion and danger of the Turkish, barbarous, and Sara●…ins eruptions and tyranny, than England: is and yet if God should punish any part of Christendom by them, though he use by his secret justice, their fury, as a rod to scourge their offences, yet will not we, nor may justly, make such tragical sequels, reasons to argue pro or contra on Religion, as here you do by these people's, to conclude against us. But, praises be to God, you can conclude nothing. England ever since that, through the queens most excellent majesty, it hath enjoyed the liberty of Gods most holy word, hath ma●…ger all your spites, rejoiced withal, both tranquillity, wealth, peace, freedom, and above all things, the favour of God in Christ, even for that it hath escaped the spiritual bondage of your Pope, far worse than the bodily captivity of the Turk, God continued his mercy to us, and make us thankful for it. Now since you can not fasten any such sequel as you wish on England, you gather petite quarrels, and like a po●…her, seek corners to find out some inconveniences, not worthy answer. And yet because you resume them often times after, and make much ado about them, as reading the Bible and other book●…s, suppressing Abbeys, marriage of Priests, oirginitie, vows, no Church Bishops, but S●…. pa. 31. & 32 Pref. 2. Parliament bishops, the sacrament of the altar. etc. they are answered, where you handle them at large, and not here whereye snatch at them. Only this your gross lie, I will note here, about king Henry's laws. Because you cite it not that I remember, any more. You say, that after his death and Stap. pa. 32. Pref. 2. in the minority of his son king Edward, all the laws that he had made touching matters of religion (saving against the supremacy) were repelled and abolished: What a manifest and impudent lie is this? King Henry besides the supremacy, made laws for the abolishing of shrines and pilgrimages, of pulling down Images, of depressing popish sectaries, Monks, Friars, Numies, Heremits, Anachores. etc. Were these laws repelled and abolished after his death in the minority of king Edward? Show it, or else wipe your lips, for a foul lie hath beslabbered them Master Stap. All these former arguments and these extravagant discourses consist on a wrong principle. All this have I spoken Stap. pa. 33. Pref. 2. (sayeth he) to show it is most true, that I have said, that there will never be redress of error and heresy, or any stay, where men are once go from the unity of the Sea apostolic, which is the well spring and fountain of all unity in the Catholic faith. This false principle if we deny it him, than all his arguments of absurdities, and events thereon, are not worth a rush. But had he put in but one letter more, and for unity had said vanity, it had been a most true principle, nor we would or could have ever denied the same. The last reason of his Preface to leave a prick of discredit against the Protestants in the reader's mind, is of our discord and inconstancy in this question, the assumption whereof being in deed nothing but slanders, of the prince, the Realm, and diverse Godly learned men, is partly set out in his common place of slanders, and partly shall be further particularly answered, as they come to hand in the book where he discourseth on them. Thus much for the pith of all his arguments, contained in his Preface to the Reader, to win his mind to his cause before hand, and alienate it from ours: but the wise Reader will first read, or ever he give his judgement. The answer to M. St. Counterblast on the Bishop's Preface. The first Division. IN his answer to the B. Preface, whereas the Bishop in the first Division (for so. M. Stapleton termeth every several portion that he answereth unto) showeth the necessary reasons that moved him to answer Master Feckenhams book, and the covert meaning of master Feckenham, in secretly scatering his book abroad: that therein he showed a further meaning than he dared plainly utter, and that the intent of the book as might justly be gathered, was to engraft in the minds of the subjects a misliking of the Q. majesty as though she usurped a power and authority in ecclesiastical matters, whereto she had no right: to slander the whole realm as though it were estranged and directly against the Catholic Church, tenouncing and refusing to have communion therewith, and under the B. name to deface the ministers of the Church, & that therefore he could not but of duty shape M. Fec. an answer. To this M. St. omitting the B. motives, laboureth like a clearkly proctor for his client, to purge M. Feck. for the setting forth of his book, and accuseth the B. of false surmising, laying to the B. charge his first two untruths which are answered in their proper Calendar. The clearing of Master Feckenham he divideth into three parts. First why M. Feckenham made this book, or as he calleth it a Schedule, or little treatise. Secondly, why Stap. li. 1. ca 1. Fol. 1. he delivered the same to the Bishop. thirdly, why he afterwards caused the same to be published and delivered to some of the council. But first whatsoever he will set down for master Feckenham, whom he calleth the reverent father my lord Abbot of Westminster, because himself hath no knowledge hereof, but by hearsay, all that he declareth he buildeth on this ground, as I assuredly understand. Stap. fol. 1. Now who gave him thus assuredly to understand, a man may easily divine, even forsooth this reverent father, who as we must understand with all, would tell M. Stap▪ nothing that should be partial to himself in his own case. We must therefore believe that all is true that Master St. telleth of Master Feckenham, for assuredly master Feck. his own self, & no worse man hath let him so to understand. The drift of all this first division is to challenge the B. of untruths, which is answered into, the boderoll, as before and therefore is but superfluous to repeat it. The second division draweth nearer to the matter. The second Division. THe B. in the second division of his Preface declareth Winchester. by what manner of proofs in this answer, he satisfieth master▪ Feckenhams demand, by the scriptures, by the Doctors, by the counsels, and by the Church's practice. And that even by some such authors as themselves are, papists, and in this matter partial to the Pope. To this M. St. replieth in three parts. The first part is Fol. 2. b. & 3. a nothing else but an heap only of slanders, and brags. The second is a setting up of marks before his counterblast, for the reader to direct himself unto, whereby to see who swerveth from, who keepeth him niest, to the question in controversy. The third is a quarreling with the B. for saying that he brought forth proofs even of the papists themselves. The first part is set out in his common places thereon, whereto, howbeit his slanders and brags be very lavish, there need no further answer. In the second, remembering at the length himself, that he hath hitherto spoken nothing material to the question, after his facinges, he says: Wherefore as it is mee●…e in all Stapl. fol. 3. a. matters, so is it here also convenient and necessary, to have before thy eyes good Reader, the state and principal question controversed between the parties standing in variance, and then diligently to see how the proofs are of each party applied, for the confirming of their assertions. This is very good and necessary council that here you give the Reader M. Stap. and it had been to be wished, yourself had either in time remembered it, or not forgot it so soon again. But you would not remember it of purpose, for had you set this rule always before your eyes, and (as you should) have followed your own precept, you well foresaw, what a lean carrion Pamphlet, your puffed up Counterblast should have been, looking with a thinner pair of cheeks by three deals and more, than it doth. Nevertheless I wish, as you do, the Reader still to mark this rule, and he shall see it is no good fat nor sound flesh, but foggy wind, that this whole Counterblast is bolne and swollen up with all. Now having this warning of his own mouth, to have still before our eyes the state and principal question of the book, and thereby to see howeche parties proves are applied, let us see how here he sets it down before his own eyes, and applies his proves thereto. What the state and principal question is between the The state of the controversy and principal question. parties (M. Feckenham, and the B. of Winchester) standing in variance, Look M. Feckenhams own words, desiring therein to be resolved. Whether any such government M. Feckenham, Division. 8. Pag. 6. b. in Spiritual or Ecclesiastical causes as the Queen's Majesty claimeth, may be proved by any of these four means, the Scripture, the Doctors, the Counsels, or the continual practice of any one Church of Christendom. On this state being demanded to be proved or improved, standeth the principal point in variance between these twain. This M. Feckenham earnestly calleth upon, and offereth readily to swear, if this by any of these four parts can be proved. This, the B. of Winchester laboureth directly to prove, and fully hath proved even by all four parts, unless you can disprove his proves. And this now is your principal part M. St. always while you labour to confute him, to have set and fixed your eyes on this point, being the issue, the state and principal question between these twain in variance. And to show wherein the Bishop swerves from this, or makes any defect herein. And not to look upon other so many impertinent matters (as your Common place thereon declares your vagaries) nor to stand so long on them, nor to pry and poare out new starting holes, nor direct the eye of your reader to a wrong mark, & point out a new butt, to the which when your adversary directly shooteth not, but to the issue covenanted between them twain, desired of the one to be shot unto, shot unto & fully hit of the other, and then you like a booty aim giver, to cry out as you do, that he shooteth wide and short, St. fol. 3. a. & cometh not near the mark by a 1000 miles: You are a false aim giver M. Stap. all the world may see, & withal, how, when you see the mark is hit at the full every time, you have no other shift but this, to deny that to be the mark set up. But now let us see how properly yourself shoot at the mark, and set before your eyes the state of the question in variance between them twain. If you start away therefrom having now said thus much, you quite shame yourself and your cause. Look to it therefore, play the good archer & shoot you nearer, hit the mark, to win the B. shot & you can. But ●…o how you begin to wrangle even at the first entry, and serve from your own principle, to set before your eyes the principal state in variance between them, which (say you) is convenient and necessary. If it be so M. Sta. requireth six considerations to be granted or ever he enter into the question. M. St. then followed. Nay, say you, you shall first grant me six things, and when you have granted them, then will I enter into this match with you, and show how you ever shot amiss, and so beat you out of the f●…elde. Is this even dealing M. St. to demand six things at once to be granted? What? will not one, two, or three serve your turn? you are to greedy, man, remember that qui cupit totum perdit totum. But let us see your six demands, whether they be reasonable, and to be granted yea or no. There are therefore say you many things to be considered, Stapl. 3. b. The first consideration. first that Christ left one to rule his whole Church in his stead from time to time unto the end of the world. Is this your first request to be considered and granted M. Stapleton? now surely a reasonable demand to be considered upon: And worthy to have that Solomon granted to Adonias, for ask of Abisa●…g to wife. Wise king 3. Reg. 2. Solomon see he might aswell have asked the crown from his head, yea his head from his shoulders: and who so unwise that seethe not, you might aswell ask the whole controversy to be granted you, and grant you this, what need you propound your other principles following. How be it let us see what they be also. Secondly we must consider (you say) that this one was The second consideration. St. fol. 3. b. S. Peter the Apostle, and now are the Bishops of Rome his successors. Out of doubt you had on some great considering c●…ppe M. Stapleton, when you considered that the Bishop should have considered this. He was much to blame he considered it not, but M. Stapl. and you were as wise as God might have made you, you would have better considered with yourself, than to think others have so little consideration, as to grant you this your false and foolish principle. Thirdly (say you) that albeit the Bishop of Rome had no The third consideration. Stap. fol. 3. b. such universal government over the whole, yet that he is and ever was the patriarch of England and of the whole West Church, and so hath as much to do here as any other patriarch in his Patriarchshippe. It is a sign (M. Stap▪) you shrewdly doubt the former twains would never be granted, that so soon would be content to become a patriarch of a piece, from a Pope of the whole: which though it showeth less haughtiness in you, that would play small game, rather than sit out, yet perchance your Pope is of Alexander's spirit, to whom Darius having offered half his dominions, if I were Alexander (qd Parmenio) I would take it, so would I (qd Alexander) if I were Parmenio: And so perchance your Pope will say to you, if I were Master Stapleton, I would be content at lest to be a patriarch, and perchance a worse room would serve. But being the Bishop of Rome he will say, Aut Papa aut nihil. And therefore lest you get his curse, before you ask our consent, the surest way were to know how he will like of this your limitation, and when he shallbe content, then propose it to us to consider thereon. But I see you like not greatly to stand hereon, for fourthly The 4. consideration. Stap. fol. ●…. b. say you. Then all were it, that he had nothing to intermeddle with us, nor as Pope, nor as patriarch, yet can not this supremacy of a civil Prince be justified. Whereof he is not capable, especially a woman, but it must remain in some spiritual man. Your must is very musty M. Stapl. and smelleth of the pump of Rome's ship. Your Sequence is as bad: the B. of Rome neither as Pope nor as patriarch is supreme governor in Ecclesiastical causes in England: Ergo, No civil Prince man or woman is capable of it. Again: There must be one spiritual man that must have an universal government over the whole Church: Ergo▪ A civil Prince may have no particular government in his particular Church. The antecedents in deed are true of both. For neither hath the Pope, as Pope or patriarch, or any otherwise, any supreme government over England, as you presuppose he had none, and yet the Prince both may have, and hath some supreme government over us. For in deed all supreme government, such as the Pope usurped, she neither hath, nor may have, nor requireth, nor belongs to any creature, but is due to Christ alone. He is that spiritual man, that your other antecedent speaketh of, if you mean him, it is true: if you mean any other, it is but your false presupposal, though the consequentes whereon we stand, followeth neither way, neither do you labour once to prove them. But is here all things we must consider? no say you, The. 5. consideration. Stap. fol. 3. b. for fiftly, Besides this, the Catholics say, that as there was never any such precedent heretofore in the catholic Church, so at this present there is no such, except in England, neither among the Lutherans, the Suinglians, the Suenkfeldians, or Anabaptists, or any other sect that at this day reigneth, or rageth in the world. None of these, I say, agnyse their civil Prince, as supreme governor in all causes spiritual and temporal. Let go these raging terms of sects, M. Sta. to their common places, and I pray you tell us once again, who saith thus? Who? even the Catholics say so. But whom mean you by the Catholics? The Papists. Then gentle M. Stap. have me commended to those your Papistical Catholics, that you say, say so, and ask them again if all be Gospel that they do say, or no. Tush man, (will M Stap. reply) will you not believe the Catholics? Why then sixtly and last of all I say, and M. Feck. The 6. consideration. Stap. fol. 3. b. will also say, that even M. Horn himself in this his answer, retreateth so far back from his assertion of supreme government in all causes spiritual and temporal, which is the state and key of the whole question, that he plucketh from the Prince the chief and principal matters and causes ecclesiastical, as we shall hereafter plainly show by his own words. This gear goeth hard indeed. The B. is now driven to afore strait. But sir, might a man be so bold to ask your mastership, what are you and M. Feck are you not Catholics? that when you have said the catholics say so, you come rushing in & say, Last of all I say, and M. Feck. will also say, you make us doubt lest you be no Catholics, and withal to suspect (when you call yourself and your client M. Feck. to witness,) some partiality in your sayings, lest the sole will hold with the shoe: and that as two false witnesses came in against our saviour Christ, with I say so, and he will say so also, so would you compact together to slander the B. herein, with, I say so, and M. Feck. will say so also. But by both your leaves, may I be so bold as to set your, I say so, and his, I say so also, aside, and desire you to prove your so saying. Why say you, doubt you of that? we shall here after plainly show it by his own words. These are but words M. Stap. and jolly promises, if you can show it so plainly, why show you it not plainly here, where you say it so plainly? or else have showed at the lest, where the B. doth thus? which till you shall plainly show, this your▪ bold and plain saying, may be suspected for a plain lie. But M. Stap. shaking of the further examining of this matter, hasteneth to the full determination, and solemnly sitteth down like a Pope himself or Patriarth, & pronounceth the definitive sentence of this matter, saying: The premises being true, and of our side abundantly Stap. fol. 4. a. proved, and better to be proved, as occasion shall serve, as nothing can effectually be brought against them, so master Horn, as you shall evidently perceive in the process, straggleth quite from all these points. Ha' sir, how Popelike you have handled all this matter. But were it lawful to appeal from your sentence or call it in question, might●… it not be asked whether the promises were all true? Yea might it not be doubted whether they were not all most false? might it not be thought that it were scarce abundantly proved of your side, to say, the Catholics say so, and I say so, and mas●…er Fecken. will say so? Might it not be suspected that you still say you have proved it, you will prove it better▪ you shall hereafter show it plainly▪ we shall evidently perceive in the process, and presently, that we can perceive, you prove, nor show any thing at all, and so sit down to sentence, as though the matter were out of all doubt and controversy, determining solemnly that all these premises be true, and M Horn erreth in defending the contrary. This is an hard law M. Stap. presently to condemn and behead the man, and then after to examine the fact. But it is the daily practice of your holy father, and so like a good son you follow his ensample. But now sir, whereto were all these six so undoubted principles brought fo●…rthe? They are (say you) the principal questions in variance between the parties controversed, to fix their eye upon. What? are these but questions, that were such true and infallible principles right now? If they be but questions, I see they be still disputable, for all master Stapletons' definite sentence. A man may still doubt of them, yea dispute of them. And they may chance prove as false in the end, after diligent discussing them, as master Stapleton, without further doubt would have them presupposed to be true. But to save all upright he saith, they are the principal Sta. fol. 3. a. b. questions controversed between them, and yet master Horn, doth not once touch them, he cometh not nigh them. What doth he not man? not once touch them nor come nigh them? and yet M. Feck. and he be most at variance about them? What a variance is that, belike he alloweth them, go to, go to, M. Stap. leave this fond lying for shame. Yourself knoweth, & each man may see, that he toucheth and toucheth home (as occasion served him) all those of them, that were incident to his matter. Some of them in deed he little meddleth withal, as questions principally sucked out of your own fingers, and devised now by you to defeat all that he touched, as though he touched other things, and not the matter in question, from the which you say he straggleth quite. But this is your doing M. Stap. you bring in new controversies that were not the issue between them, on which you should have fixed your eyes. But the B. so touched the matter he had in variance, and so touched you also, that thus malapertly would vary with him and hit you so full, that your eyes stared belike in your head, that you could not, or would not, see the question, but quite straggled from it, to other questions, and those also, which we must grant you for principles, and thei●… no doubt but you will conquer all alone. These new premises being thus craftily devised, and set up by you, as the principal questions in variance between them, that strived clean about another matter: as though neither the B. nor M. Feck. saw where abouts they strived, no●… fixed their eyes any thing near their matter. But fought more Andabatarum, beating the air, and themselves, they wist not about what: and being now revoked to their matter by you, that never cast your eye so much as one glimpse aside therefrom: these being also such principal matters, as must withal of our liberality be granted you, for most assured principles: thinking now all is proved on your side: M. Horn (say you) straggleth quite from all these points, Stap. fol. 4. ●…. besetting himself, all his study and endeavour, to prove that, which neither greatly hindereth our cause, nor much bettreth his and for the which neither M. Fek nor any other Catholic, will greatly contend with him, which is, when all is done, that Princes may meddle and deal in causes ecclesiastical. You do now like a liberal gentleman (M. Stap. grant us more than some of your highest estates ever would allow. Cardinal Hosi●…s dared not be so free to Princes, as to grant them thus much, as movere sermonem, to move any talk of ecclesiastical matters: and dare you that are nothing like to come to so ●…ye promotion, grant that Princes may meddle and deal with causes ecclesiastical? What moved you hereto? belike you still dreamt of your former Papal sentence, and that we had granted, or we must needs grant, because you have said so, that these are the principal questions, and these are also most true principles▪ and that nothing can effectually be brought against them: which when you presupposed we must needs grant, you were content to grant again to the B. that straggling as you say from these points, that which he proveth may●… well be granted him, that Princes may meddle and deal with causes ecclesiastical. But now sir, put the case that this were but your own fond dream, that he granteth you those to be his questions, or those questions to be such principles, & that each man utterly denieth that, which you fancy each man graunt●…th: yea & that M. Feck. will tell you, that not one of these your six questions were any of his questions, and that he dreamt not like you, but see well enough what be did, when he stood wholly on his said issue, of the dealing of Princes in ecclesiastical matters: yea and all your fellows are ashamed that all the world should see, 〈◊〉 you set up wrong marks, and fond took for granted, that almost each man denies, or doubteth of: When yourself, being come to yourself, shall see all this: will you not repent you of your hasty liberality? and say yourself saw not so much? for if you had you would not have granted it so 〈◊〉. Which being in deed the thing in question, and the thing wherein you grant the B. hath beset himself, all his study and endeavour to prove: it not only, as you grant against yourself, some what hindereth your cause, somewhat bettreth his, saying it neither greatly hindereth our cause, nor much bettreth his, but also it fully proveth the question in variance, on his part, and clean overthroweth M. Feck. assertion therein. And thus of your too much prodigality (as M. Feck. may call it) labouring to defend him, you have quite foiled him: and while you would set up new marks, and have all men's eyes fixed thereon, yourself not fixing your own eyes on the very mark set up between them, grant that the B. hit at the full, that which he shot unto. Which granted, the arrow so reboundeth on you, & your cause, that it quite overturneth both. But M. St. having now espied, that he hath granted that, which he saw a●…nswereth sufficiently M. Feck. issue, and also confoundeth these new and false principles, and yet he could not for shame plainly recant, nor revoke his grant: he first begiuneth▪ to pinch & nip it, saying, it is true, princes may have dealing in eccl. matters, but in some meaning, by which some meaning what he means, Stap. fol. 4. a. as he dare not here for shame utter, so he quickly slippeth from it, telling us it reacheth not home, and that the B. doth but face and brag, thinking every man borroweth of his common places. And so (to knit up with his own words) Stap. fol. 4. a. is much labour vainly and idly employed, with ●…edious and infinite talk and babbling, all from the purpose and out of the matter, which aught specially to have been justified, & not in stead thereof, to detain and delude the reader with these new six marks and false presupposed principles. The third part of this division, is his quarreling with the B. for saying he made proof, even by many Papists themselves. Which part he distributeth into three members: the first, he calleth in the margin, the uneven dealing of the Protestants, the second, a challenge to M. Horn, and the third, Stap. fol. 4. a. M. horns tale incredible. First, for the uneven dealing of the Protestants Now is it worthy (says M. St.) to see the jolly policy of this man, and how even and corr●…spondent it is to his fellow Protestants. M. jewel restraineth the Catholics to six hundredth years, as it were by an extraordinary and new found prescription of his own, embarring all latter profess, yet he himself in the mean time runneth at large, almost one thousand years later, shrynking hither and thither, taking tag and rag, Here●…ike and Catholic, for the fortifying of his false assertions. When you have proved the B. of Sarun his assertions false, then call them so, for before, while you complain of the Protestants uneven dealing, you shall show most uneven dealing in such a Papist as yourself. As with all you show your jolly Logic that you crack so much upon, how even & correspondent it is to reason. M. ●…uel restraineth the Papists to 600. years to prove their articles by, Ergo, he can not confute their articles with their own confessions that are of later years. As for the tag and rag, and mag too that he hath improved them withal, be even themselves, their own ragged rabbins, and tagged schoolmen, be they heretics or be they catholics. But be they as you please to call them, doth the limitation of your proves restrain his improves? What if he improved your articles even by your own mouths who are now oxtant? might it be lawful for you to c●…yne yet more new articles? and to allege proves for them of your own time, because he confuteth them by proves of your own time? this belike were even dealing with you, to let you have so large scope to prove articles, as the improver may have to confute them. But as it is good reason you should for the proof of your articles, be content for shame with so large a scope of. 600. years next after Chris●…e, so have you accepted this limitation already, and M. Harding your standard bearer, & yourself with many of your partners, have undertaken to bring forth your proves according to that restraint of 600. years. How you have done it, Scripture (as they say) maketh mention, let the reader's judge. Belike yourselves doubt of those proves. and therefore groin now at length, to be so restrained for your proves, and fain would have a larger scope, saying, this is an extraordinary and new found prescription of his own, embarring all later proves, it goeth hard with you he like, that you whine now so fast at that which you received so lustily (to soeme to) and craked upon before: and now that you can not prove any one of your articles, in all that term of 600. years▪ you complain of uneven dealing. But what if you had been restrained to the time of the primitive church? you would then have made an outcry, and yet it had been requisite, that for articles of faith & religion, you should not refuse to be restrained even to christ & his Apostles. And lest you should think we deals unevenly with you, whereas you for to prove those articles of your religion, have the scope of. 600. years next after christ: limit you us for any one articls of our faith or religion, even to the time of Christ and his Apostles abode on earth. So far within. 600. that we will prove it, even within six score, yea within six years, if you wil So little have you, any just cause to complain of uneven dealing▪ But let go this your fond quarrel against the B. of Sarum, and preserute your argument from him to the B. of Winchester your adversary. This wise trade (say you) this man keepeth also, Stap. fol. 4. b. and to resolve M. Feck, and settle his conscience, he specially stayeth himself upon Platina, Nauclerus, V●…spergensis, Sabellicus, Aeneas pius, Volateranus, Fabian, Polychronicon, Petrus Bertradus, Benno the cardinal▪ Durandus▪ Paulus Emilius, Martinus Penitentiarius, Polid. Ver. and such like as he himself declareth other where, and in this place also confesseth. Now albeit the catholics' refuse no catholic writer, nor in this matter have cause so to do yet in a matter of such importance which besides the loss of all temporal relief, and besides bodily death, importeth also everlasting damnation, to the catholics (if the case so stand as M. Horn and his fellows bear us in hand) reason would he should have fetched the substance of his profess much hire, yea, within the. 600. years, whereunto they strain and bind us The effect of all this, is, that as the B. of Sa. hath done, the B. of Wint▪ must do the like, or else they disagree: and is contrived in this argument. If the B. of Sa●… would have the papists to prove those their articles within the bounds of 600. years, than should the B. of Winchester in this so 〈◊〉 an Article, fetch the substance of his proofs within those bounds. But the B. of Winchester doth not this, but to resolve M. Fecken●…am and settle his conscience, stayeth him felt upon Platina, Nauclerus, Abbas Ursperg. Sabellic●… etc. all popish and late writers: Ergo, Their doings are not even and correspondent. To this I answer: no part of this argument is true, neither Ma●…or, Minor, nor Conclusion. The sequence of the Ma●…or followeth not, because the B▪ of Sarum and the B. of Winchester's cause and occasion were nothing a like. The Minor being of two parts, both are false. For first, he fetcheth the substance of his 〈◊〉, from within 600. years, yea and before that also, from above 1000 years. Secondly he stayeth not himself and his cause upon any of those late writers mentioned by you, but only confuteth a Papist by a Papists own witness, nor he did this but only to satisfy a Papists demand For so M. Feckenham in his fourth part expressly desired to be resolved, not by the restraint of 600. years, but by the continual practice. Although in a matter of such importance (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 say) reason would that M. Feckenham should not have disdained to be resolved with the proofs of 600. years. But now that he requireth the continual practice, what hath the B. committed, in labouring to resolve M. Feckenham, and settle his conscience, even after his own assignment? If he had not thus done, then ●…ight you have wrangled more probably. But to request him to do it, and when he hath done it, to say he should not have done it, what is this but very paltry wrangling? I think, y●… would that b●… had not done it, but you should be angry with M. Feck. that desired him thereto. Thirdly, the conclusion is like the premises, for neither upon these their proves, or improufes you can infer any discord or folly, in the manner of their writings, nor any matter of disson●…hre between them Only in this your reprehension you jar with yourself, for where your drift is to prove the B. of Win doings, not even and correspondent to the B. of Sarisburies': when you have alleged the doings of the one, & should infer the unlike doings of the other, this wise trade (say you) this man keepeth also How wise the trade is let others that be wise judge: but how wise a trade keep you, to infer your complaint of unlike dealing? for if he keep also the same trade, be it wise or unwise, that the B. of Saris hurie did, them are their doings of one trade▪ even and correspondent to the other. If they be not correspondent, Why then say you, this wise trade this man keepeth also? But this wise trade keep you, all ever your book, to overtake yourself in your own tale telling▪ Yet, although there be no evenneste in your tale, you are still correspondent to yourself, ever wrangling about bymatters, & let the principal slip. For what is here concluded, of that which you sai●…e right now, our 〈◊〉 should be always fixed, on the state of the question in variance between them twain: and to see how each party applies his proofs thereto? which if we here should do, we should see this your brible brabble, to be nothing even or correspondent to the matter, nor to your own advertisement. Now M. St. having proved (as he imagineth) such a foul jar of uneven dealing between the protestants this argument so pleaseth him, that hereupon, he entereth into a challenge with the Bishop, to have precisely the whole & every word of the Stap. fol. 4. b. queens▪ majesties title, & that in express words to be proved within the said 600. years. But herein the wily foolishness or foolish wiliness, for precise terms, that he would object to the B. of Sarum, as all the world may see the said B. standeth not therein: so M. St. himself standing precisely on the same, incurreth worthily his own rude terms, be it of 〈◊〉 foolishness or foolish wiliness, & the more to bewray them both, he challengeth the B. further, to have these precise words proved in the said 600. years. That the temporal men, without, Stap. fol. 4. b. yea and against the consent of the whole Clergy, altered thee state of Religion, called & used for Catholic through out the whole corpse of Christendom one thousand years before. This he challengeth to have precisely verba●… found out with in 600. years, & every point of this challenge he would▪ have so proved by expres●…e words, that within 600. years after Christ, the state of the Religion that continued 1000 years▪ after Christ, should have be●… thus altered: & thus would he▪ contain & limit (like a good Arithmetrician) the number of 1000 within the number of 600. Whether this be fool●… wiliness or wily foolishness, even let Sim subtle M. St. the challenger▪ he judge himself thereof. As for the matter itself of his challenge▪ is referred to his 〈◊〉 ●… place of ●…ders, so much a●… toucheth those, whom he calleth 〈◊〉 men. The other part thereof, may thrust in an elbow, among his lying cracks. That the Popish religion, which after his ordinary fashion he calleth Catholic, was called so, or so used, 1000 years agone. Your precise terms called and used for Catholic, if you mean of the present or late time, may well be born with all, it hath so (I grant) ●…ene called and used for Catholic, though in deed it were never so. But to say it was called or used so, for a 1000 years ago, when it had neither name, nor use, nor was any thing at all, therein you reckon without your host: but true reckeners do say misreckening is no payment. Hitherto you run at random. But now at the ●…gth you come nearer to the B. preface. The B. said, he made proof etc. Winchester, Second division. And that by such authors for a great sort of them, as are the more to be credited in this matter for that they were most earnest fautors of the Romish sea, etc. Here you come in hu●…ing, What an impudent Stapl fol. 5. a. face as hard as any horn or stone have you, besides, your mere folly, to make the world believe that the authors aforesaid allowed such kind of regiment, of civil Princes, as the Catholics now deny? Which assertion▪ is so certainly and notoriously false, that Master Horn himself can not nor doth not deny, but that his own authors were most earnest fautors of the sea of Rome. And how then may it once be thought by any wise man, that they should allow the doings of such, that forsake and abandonal manner of authority of that sea, further than is the common authority of all other Bishops, yea and make the Bishop of that sea to whom the said authors attribute so large and ample authority and prerogative as may be, and whom they agnize as supreme judge in matters of faith, a very Antichrist. These things be incredible, these things (as the Proverb is) hung together like Germans lips, and so shall you good Readers see the matter most evidently fall out. Let the matter fall out as it shall M. Stap. I answer as now to this present, which well showeth who ●…eareth that impudent face you speak of, for what is all this but partly your impudent facing, that all these authors are so clear on your side as you pretend. Partly it is yet a more impudent facing, thus before the face of the world to outface the B. with a manifest untruth, saying, that he said, all those Popish writers allowed it. Where he only said a great sort of them not all. Neither talked he of their allowing this thing, but said they were most earnest fautors of the romish sea, infected etc. Whether they allowed it or not, what was that to him? in this part of the practice, he proved by their own tales, the thing to be practised, not their allowance or disalowance thereof. And yet might they, yea & aught also, (being Historians) to writ the fact, whether they allowed it yea or no. As for making the Pope to be Antichrist, diverse of them have not spared to call him so, whether they took him to be so or no I refer to others. But all this not withstanding, you cry out, these things be certainly and notoriously false, these things be incredible, M. horns tale incredible. These things hung together like Germans lips. But for short answer M. St. these incredible things if your own light wit, did not hung in the light of your own lying lips, you might see them hung together well enough. Thus much to your counterblast on the B. Preface. ❧ M. Feckenhams title of his Book. THe declaration of such scruples and stays of conscience Fol. 6. a. b. Feckenham. touching the Oath of supremacy, as M. john Feckenham by writing did deliver unto the L. Bishop of Winchester, with his resolution made thereunto. This title the Bishop noteth to contain an untrue report and ambiguous guile. You pretend (says the B.) Winchester Fol. Division. 1. and would have your friends to think, that the first four chief points set forth in your book, were devised by you, put in writing, and so delivered unto me, as the matter and ground. Whereupon the conference to be had betwixt me & you should stand, and that I made thereunto none other but such resolutions, as it pleased you untruly to report. In the first part you convey an untruth under a colourable and ambigious meaning, in these words, as M. john Feckenham by writing did deliver unto the Lord B of Winchester. In the other part you make untrue report with out any colour at all. Thus says the B. to M. Feckenham, for the false title of his Book. To this M. Stapl▪ counterblast consists on four points, the first is, that It is a by matter, which whether St. fol. 6. b. it be true or false, doth nothing either prejudicate or touch the principal question. To the which I answer, it is in deed but the very title, but I fear me, it is somewhat prejudicial to the party's honesty, & also to his whole treatise, to be entitled with a manifest lie. Howbeit M St. doth wisely for himself to set the matter so light, that it should not force whether this title be true or false so long as it doth not touch the principal question, for by this rule M. Stapl. counterblast, being almost little else, than by matters nor touching the principal question, when soever (as it will fall out very often) he shallbe sound to make a lie, the matter may quickly be salved, with this his first rule, it is a by matter which whether it be true or false, doth nothing either prejudicate or touch the principal question. And so this one answer may serve to defend not only M. Feck but the best part of M. Stapl. counterblast. But if he had any great regard of his own, or M. Feck. honesty, or would win credit to his book & cause, he would have more regard, then, even of the thing that is first of all challenged, for a manifest falsehood, to protest that he recketh not whether it be true or false. It is a sign either of a very reckless defender that careth not for truth: or of a very false client and cause that must be defended with falsehood. & that, even in the very title & front of the treatise. But alas, what should M. St. else do, in so evident a case, & yet I may say to you, he setteth a good face on the matter, leaving out nothing that may seem not only to make the matter less haighnous, but also to prove that M. Feck. used simple dealing herein. And so secondly entering into the excuse of M. Feck. What inconvenience (says he) is it I pray you, though M. Feck written St. fol. 7. a. in the tower, that which he delivered to M. Horn at walthan▪ what inconvenience followeth I pray you, if he minded first to deliver the same to his examiners in the Tower, or else where as occasion should serve? is this sufficient to disprove him, to condemn him, to slander him of surmised untruth? it is rather to be thought of such as are not malicious, to be plain dealing▪ not to dissemble with you, but even as he had penned the writing before, so without any alteration to deliver it▪ who nevertheless afterward having occasion to exhibit and present the same writing to others, did simply without guile or deceit signify it to be delivered unto you at walthan▪ and was it not so? deny it if you can. Every child by this may see, how fond and foolish your cavil is. But every child M. St. (you thought) should not see the couneyance of your Sophistry, in fetching the matter thus about the bush to clear M. Feck. of the falsehood of his title. And yet many children know that caption well enough à pluribus interrogat●…s, by ask many things together confusedly, to make us grant unawares what you please to conclude. We grant you, that M. Feck. written that in the Tower, that he delivered to the B●…at walthan, he did so, and might do so without any inconvenience. We grant you also, he minded first to deliver the same to his examiners, in the tower or else where, as occasion should serve, this might he also have done conveniently. You ask again, if this be sufficient to disprove him, to condemn him, to slander him of surmised untruth? We grant you also it is not M. St. nor the B. or any other goeth about so to do, here in you do but slander the B. with surmised untruth. You proceed, that it was plain dealing, and not to dissemble with the B. even as he had penned the writing before, so without any alteration to deliver it. We grant it might be so also M. Stapl. if he meant good sooth, but what is all this to the matter, wherewith the B. charges him? It followeth, Who nevertheless afterward, having occasion to exhibit and present the same in writing to others, did simply without guile or deceit, signify it to be delivered to you at Waltham. Yea forsooth M. St. now you come to the purpose, wherewith the B. charges him, for the falsehood of his title Prove now that this treatise, thus made by M. Feck. in the tower, directed to the commissioners, & after that, without any alteration delivered to the B. at waltham: had the same title which this his treatise set out, hath, & then you clear M. Feck. But this you can not do, and therefore you speak in ●…ious speeches, saying, Who nevertheless afterwards having occasion to exhibit and present this same writing, to others did simply without guile or deceit, signify it to be delivered unto you at waltham. The writing you say, is the same writing, how chance than it hath not the same title? why say you, nevertheless? mean you not thereby he altered either something therein, or at lest the title thereof? why dare you not speak it in plain english? But say he did signify it to be delivered to the B●…at waltham? If he had let the treatise keep his true title, and then have made such signification, then might you have said he did it simply without guile or deceit, then might you have concluded plain dealing. But since M. Feckenham first en●…ituled his book, an Answer etc. to the Queen's highness commissioners etc. and after scrapeth out that title, & in place thereof entitleth it, Scruples etc. to the Lord B. of Winchester: if you had concluded that M. Feck used plain doubling, this had been a plain conclusion. And the more you travail to excuse his doubling, you show your own guile and deceit, with your captious argument & ambiguous speeches, and to cover his falsehood bewray your own untruth. Which M. Stap. wisely fearing, letteth go the further excusing of M. Feckenham and returning to his former rule. Be it false or be it true what is all this (says he) to the matter St. fol. 7. a. and thing now in hand? it is (as yourself confess) but a circumstance. And here thirdly after his defence of M. Feck▪ he falls to accuse the B. for not observing of due circumstances. But I reserve the answer, to some instance hereof, & also his marginal note that M. Horn keepeth not his own rule. But sith this hath neither counterblastical, nor marginal, nor any 〈◊〉 of proof at all: till it shal●…e proved, let it go as words of course among his common places. M St. having thus laboured to excuse the title of M. Feck, book, and that now it is so clear of all fault, that he might proceed to his next division without further daliā●…e, as one that all this while, was not well advised, nor remembered his matter, nor himself, but written this excuse of M. Feck. half a sleep, suddenly calleth to mind one great point, wherein the title of M. Feckenhams treatise may be counted faulty. And here fourthly, he entereth into a great and solemn counterblast, almost full true sides of his book, the sum whereof is very much forsooth appertaining to the question, and therefore in no case mus●…e so lightly be forgotten. But now (saith he) that I remember and advise myself Stap. 7. a. a little better, I suppose I can not altogether excuse M. Feck. for this title, but must raze out thereof four words, and in stead of L. B. of Winchester, set in M. Robert Horn. This is a sore fault in deed M. Stap. and M. Feckenham worthy great blame for it, and you worthy much commendation, for calling to your remembrance so seen, a matter that so much toucheth the state of the question between them, whether the B. of Winchester were well called L. Bishop, or M. Horn, yea or not, a very high point, and worthy so clerkly a declamation, as you have made there●…. But since, as you confess, he is so in the estimation of many, and so called after the usual sort, let us see after what usual or unusual sort, you esteem and gather to the contrary, against M. Feck. and the B. herein. But first, remembering also in time, that this is not the way to defend M. Feck. to find fault with him, and that he hath already found a fault in this title of his treatise, and can not eat again his word: though he defend him not, yet will he not be over hard an adversary to him, but mitigate at the lest the cause of his default, saying: M. Feckenham dissembling Stap. 7. b. and winking at the common error. etc. of his great modesty and civility, willing the less to exasperated you & others, though he well knew you were no right B. yet after the usual fort, calleth and termeth you L. B. of W. But I must be so bold by your leave, as plainly and bluntly to go to work with you, as I have done before with M. grindal, and M. jewel, your pewfellows, and to remove from you this glorious glittering peacocks tail, and to call a fig a fig, and a horn a horn, and to say that most truly, you are no L. B. of Winchester, or else where, but only M. Robert Horn. And is there no remedy M. Stap. but you must be so bold and blunt, as to change M. Feck. title only, for saying L. B. of. Winchester? But since you must needs, who can let you, you do but after your blunt kind, you are a plain man, brought up at home, & who so bold as blind bayard. Yet is your b●…unt boldness herein that more to be born withal, that while you would show your bold spite against the B. your adversary, you excuse M. F. your client with very blunt terms also: whom you entitled before with smooth flattering claws, The right reverent father my L. Abbot of Westm. Now he is distembling M. Feck. and winking M. Feck. at the common error. But the B. and M. Feck. must needs bear with you at this time, because you must needs be so bold as to go plainly and bluntly to work. But howsoever they must bear with you for your blunt speeches, must we also bear with you, that would make dissembling at errors, to proceed of great modesty, and virtue to be the mother of vice? except dissembling be also a virtue in you, as it is much used amongst a number of dissembling Papists at this day with us, & was wont to be proper to friars & monks above all other, to dissemble, & that with most feigned modesty and humility to. But all was but hypocrisy, & an hypocrites end it hath come unto. Therefore howsoever we must bear with your bluntness, as you call a fig a fig, & a horn a horn, so I pray you call dissembling dissembling & falsehood falsehood, you can never call it modesty, great or little, how boldly, bluntly and immodestly so ever you out face the matter. And thus once again, while you would excuse M. Feck. title, to contain no ralshod you not only accuse it, but also accuse M. Feck. to be a false dissembler, and a winkapipes, so properly you defend him. But still you must be born withal, for because you go bluntly to work. And were it not that for this phyne bluntness, you must be born withal, some blunt plain fellow would peradventure call for some reason. Let us hear therefore how bluntly you proceed to prove, that you have so bluntly spoken. For (say you) albert the Prince may make a Lord at her Stap. 7. b. gracious pleasure, whom she liketh, yet can she not make you L. B. of Winchester, considering you are not L. but in respect of some baronages and temporalties belonging and annexed to the See of W. But you usurping the See, as you are no B. so for the consideration aforesaid you are no L. nor Prelate of the Garter. For you can be no Prelate of the Garter, being no Prelate at all, that being a prerogative appropriate to the Prelate and B. of Winchester. Soft M. St. if you be so plain & blunt a man as you pretrnd, The title of L. Bishop. ne suitor ultra crep●…da, hue not t●… high, lest chips fall in your eye: blunder not so rudely with princes. must the Q. Majesty bear with you to, because you must needs go bluntly to work? you presume to determine what the Q. highness may do. She can make him ●…. but she can not make him L. B. of W. And why so M. St? considering he is not Lord, but in respect of some baronage and temporalties belonging and annexed to the See of Winchester. Erg●…, than you grant him to be Lord B. by your own words, to whom the Q. highness (as you grant she may, in respect of the temporalties and baronies belonging thereto) hath granted and given him them. Whereby she hath made him Lord, except you will deny, that her highness authority, which even all your popish bishops, did receive before at her grace's progenitors hands, neither the baronies and temporalties only (whe●…by they were named Lords, but their investiture also, whereby they were Bishops,) at the Prince's hands. But see still how bluntly you go to work against yourself, & for haste to remove this title of Lord from the B. of W. you overturn the glory of your own prelates. For if this your rule be true, that he is not called Lord, but in respect of some baronies & temporalties belonging and annexed to the See how many Cardinals, Bishops, Suffragans, Abbots, & Priors, even in Italy (that have neither baronies nor much temporalties) should lose their title of Lord & honour? think you all these will be pleased with this your rule? We must bear with you there is no remedy, and well may M. Feck. of friendship, & the B. of pity bear with you also, & the queens majesty of her gracious clemency beareth with your saucy bluntness. But assure yourself, and you were as blunt & plain as ever were your Marcolphus, those Italian prelate's, if you stain their honour, will never bear with you one jot. And I read you beware this bluntness for they can do much with your holy father the Pope, except you be so blunt you care not for him neither. But deal with them as you may, you are blunt enough in your own conceit, for the finest of them all. Let us see what reasons moveth you to be so blunt with the B. He is not L. Bishop of Win. nor Prelate of the Garter. Sta. fol. 7. b. Why so? because he is no B. or Prelate at all. How prove you that? he is an usurper, he is an intruder, he is called thereto by no lawful vocation nor canonical consecration etc. he is no true B. etc. his vocation is direct contrary to the canons and constitutions of the Church, and to the universal custom and manner heretofore, used and practised not only in England, but also in all other Catholic countries and Churches, delivered to us from hand to hand, from age to age, even from the first gra●…fing and planting of the faith, especially in England. Here are many blunt & plain words in deed M. St. and many great cracks, but here is no proof of any: do not think you must still be thus born withal: your to much presuming of each man's patience, to bear with your rudeness, will hazard your credit to far, except you allege some reason of your sayings. Let us hear therefore what proves you bring. For the which I refer me (say you) to all authentic and Stap. S. ●…. ancient▪ records, as well of England as of other Nations concerning the ordinary succession of Bishops, namely in the foresaid Sea of Winchester, for there was not, not not one, in that Sea, that did not acknowledge the supremacy of the Sea of Rome, and that was not confirmed by the same, until the late time of M. Poynet, who otherwise also was an usurper, the true B. then living, and by no lawful or ecclesiastical order removed or deprived. You are therefore the first B. of this sewt and race, and so consequently no B. at al. As not able to show to whom you did ordinarily succeed, and any good or customable either vocation or consecration. Which point being necessarily required in a B. and in your Apostles Luther, and Calvin & other lacking, (as I have otherwhere sufficiently proved, though you by depesilence think it more wisdom, utterly to des●…emble, than once to answer) they being therewith pressed, were so messhed and bewrapped therein, that they could not in this world wit what to say thereto, answering this and that, they wist near what, nor at what point to hold them, yea Beza was fain at the last assembly at Poysie, with silence to confess the invincible truth. Setting aside these vain cracks, & manifest lying slanders which I refer to your common places M. St. I will answer only to your invincible argument. Which standeth upon your common brag of succession. Your argument is this, you succeed no Bishop of Winchester: The papists argument of B. succession. Ergo, you are no Bishop of Wincester. I answer: First, if he mean succession of the person in the room, your antecedent is evident false. He succeeded the people of Popish Bishops in the same room. And the consequent followeth not. For then, the first Bishop of that Sea, was no B. because he succeeded none, but was the first ther●…f. And if the first was none, than the second was none, and so there was never any at all. If you mean succession of the doctrine, and the Apostles rules: then neither Bishop Gardiner whom you call the true B. nor any popish Bishops, have succession, but digression and defection from them. And our Bishops have the true succession, that is to say follow the doctrine and orders of the Apostles, prescribed in the word of god, for a Bishop's office. But how do you prove your antecedent? Of all the Bishops not only in England, but in other nations, namely, in the Sea of Winchester. From hand to hand, from age to age, even from the first grafting and planting of the faith in England, not one of them all, not not one, that did not acknowledge the supremacy of the sea of Rome, and that was not confirmed by the same. But you do not acknowledge the supremacy of the Sea of Rome, nor are confirmed by the same. Ergo, you are the first Bishop of this sewt and race, and so consequently no bishop at all, as not able to show to whom you did ordinarily succeed, or any good and customable either vocation or consecration. This argument (M. Stapleton) is of a new sewt and race, it succeedeth neither good nor customable mood or figure, and therefore can make no good success. Howbeit l●…t us see the parts of it. The minor we grant, as evident on the Bishop's part. For the mayor we must put you to your proof. We affirm it to contain many evident falsehoods. For proof hereof, you say, for the which I refer me to all authentic and ancient records as well of England, as of other nations. You say well herein master Stapleton, and we take your offer. And fi●…st let us see for other Nations. Did james even the first Bishop of Jerusalem, acknowledge the supremacy of the Sea of Rome? Was he confirmed by the same Sea? when as yet the same Sea was not to be acknowledged or be confirmed by? If (as you say) the B. can be no prelate of the Ga●…ter, being no prelate at all: how could that Sea be acknowledged, that was not at all? Moreover do you think that Timothy Bishop of Ephesus, or Titus of Cr●…ta, and all other Bishops of Asia or Grece, that Saint Paul made, acknowledged the supremacy of the Sea of Rome, or were confirmed by the same, when Saint Galat. 2. Paul that ordained them sayeth, he received his authority of no man? And when he came to Rome, he neither came to have his Bishops confirmed of the Sea of Rome, nor he found any Sea there, nor sought Peter for the said purpose else where, nor thought himself any whit inferior to him: much less thought he of any such supremacy, either of his Sea or him. Now, if the first and original of all those bishoprics Eastward, neither acknowledged any supremacy of that Sea, nor were confirmed by the same: What plea can you make of their succession? If they swerved from their predecessors and first founders, yourself confess it is no good succession, but a new sewte and race. And if it be good and lawful succession, that the Bishops of the East Churches succeeded by, then, neither acknowledged they any supremacy of the Sea of Rome, nor were confirmed by the same, even which not only the true authentic and ancient records do testify, how they agreed, although in saith, yet nothing like in disciplines, rites and orders, to which the Roman Sea doth swear all those Bishops, that are confirmed by it, and acknowledge obedience thereunto: But also even to this day (though one or two Bishops, now and then of late time, for very necessity and hope of relief) have run to the Sea of Rome, yet by their ordinary and customable succession, even from the Apostles times, so long as they continued Christian, never acknowledged they the supremacy of the Sea of Rome, nor were confirmed by the same. The like records for the Churches southward, remain, not only of their beginnings from the other Apostles, & not from the Sea of Rome, but also of their continuance, how they would not admit any supremacy of the same Sea, over them, and what contention they had thereabouts. As for their confirmations, that they had them not from the sea of Rome, but even from the Emperor, yea the Bishop of Rome himself, and other, from their princes: the practice when we come thereto shall show. And as east ward and southward, so may we like wise reason of the Church westward, where S. Paul (after he had been two year at Rome) by the space of ten years traveled in Italy, Spain, and France, as witness Eusebius, Epiphanius, Jerome, Euthalius Diaconus, Nicephorus, Beda, Platina, yea Friar Perionius, that written the other day de vit●…s Apostolorum: that in Langue do●… he made a Bishop at Narbona, who traveled after with him in Spain. And if in all that space (as it is most likely) he made other Bishops, shall we suppose they were not full Bishops, till they had their Bulls from the Sea of Rome? And if the first B. did not so, your reason of succession faileth. So that your mayor is false concerning other Nations. Now let us briefly see how it likewise fails for England. And as you say. Namely in the foresaid Sea of Winchester, that from the first grafting and planting of the faith in England, there was not, not not one in that Sea, that did not acknowledge the supremacy of the Sea of Rome, and was not confirmed by the same, until the late time of master Poynet: who otherwise also was but an usurper, the true Bishop then living, & by no lawful or ecclesiastical order removed or deprived. The lawful order and sufficient causes of B. Gardeners deprivation is extant, and set out in the book of Monuments. How true a Bishop (as you call him) he was, if the acknowledging of obedience to the Sea of Rome, be an argument of a true Bishop, his book de vera obedientia, of true obedience, doth declare, and almost all the time of his bishopric, he never acknowledged the supremacy, to appertain to the Sea of Rome, but to the prince, as the Bishop now doth, there need no records for the matter. And as for old records, since the first grafting and planting of the faith in England, which is far longer, than either from your Apostle, monk Augustine, or from Birinus Bishop of Winchester: the records do testify, how the Christians, whom your Augustine and his mates found in this Realm, neither kept the ceremonies and rites of the Roman Church, nor admitted the Legantine authority, of your said Apostle, which argueth that their Bishops acknowledged not (as you say) the supremacy of the Sea of Rome, nor were confirmed by the same, even from Lucius till almost King Arthures tyme. when the Heathen Sarons so prevailed, in the west parts, that even in Winchester, in King Arthures reign, Cerdicius erected a Temple of Heathen Idols falsely called yet to this day the Temple of Dagon, as the old records do mention. And therefore your mayor is false for England also. Now M. St. seeing the falseness of this argument of succession to be such, that he dare not abide the trial of his records, he flieth from it, and granteth at the length, the B. vocation to be good and sound. Yet hath he a stronger reason to disable him, which is this: Not heretic aught to be admitted to a bishops room, Stap. fol. 8. ●… or if he be, he forthwith aught to be removed. But for that ye are yoked, or as you pretend married, you are no doubt an Heretic, Ergo were your vocation good and sound, yet have you disabled yourself to occupy that room, and either aught not to be admitted, or forthwith aught you to be removed. I answer the mayor i●… true, and if it were as truly executed, none should better feel it, than the popish prelate's, who confess themselves not only for other Seas, but even for their head and mother sea of Rome, that divers here●…ikes have been B. thereof. Who being so admitted, I demand with Piers Ploughman of you M. St. by this your mayor, who shall hung the Bell about the rattons neck? who shall remove an heretic Bishop of Rome? I think it will belong or ever he remove himself. The minor of this argument is of the devils sophis●…rie, so S. Paul calleth it doctrinam daemoniorum, and saith, let a 1. Tim. 4. 1. Tim. 3. B. be the husband of one wife, and so was Saint Peter (who you say was your first Bishop of Rome.) And yet neither was Saint Peter therefore an here●…ike, nor saint Paul would have B. to be here●…ikes. But herein your own Canon's answer and confute you. And yet here to prove us heretics, for defence of marriage, he says he will refer us to the old Canons of the fathers. What fathers mean you, the Apostles, Master Stapleton, that said marriage was honourable among all men? Hebr. 13. Mean you the Canons that bear those father's titles, and say, Episcopu●… aut Presbyter uxorem propriam nequaquam sub Canon. 6. obtentu religionis abijciat, si vero reiecerit excommunicetur, sed si perseveraverit deijciatur? Let not a Bishop or a Priest put away his own wife under the pretence of Religion, and if he put her away, let him be excomunicate, and if he continued (in his fault) let him be put out of his office. If you mean these fathers, yourselves hear their verdict against you. Doctor mean you the fathers of Nicene council, that agreed to the reverent father Paphnutius? but, for some of the fathers, you name whom you mean, specially S. Augustine and Epiphanius, whom you call poor Catholics, in deed master Stapleton they are very poor helps, that you can wring from them, to maintain Popery withal: but thinking we will reject them, M. St. will wrap us even in our own confessions. Your own famous Apologi●… (saith he) saith that Epiphanius Stap. fol. 8. b numbereth. 80. heresies, of the which it is one, for a man after the order of Priesthood to marry. But I trust you will not be against your own Apology. Ergo you are heretics by your own confession that marry after Priesthood. The consequence of this argument goeth hard M. St. to reason from the Apollogies reciting of Epiphanius, to the Apollogies allowing of all things that either he hath, or they recite out of him. But letting go your logic, I answer to the mayor. The Apology saith truly that Epiphanius numbereth 80. heresies, and the Apology vs●…th this term Heresies, in the same sense that Epiphanius did, as appeareth plainly by the example, of heresies that are therein rehearsed. Epiphanius entituling his book contra. 80 heresies, means not 80. particular and several false opinions, for so he should have doub●…ed at the lest that number, but he means by 80. heresies, so many head or chief ●…ectaries or sects, whereof every one maintaineth many several particular opinions heretical, this is the plain meaning of Epiphanius, as appeareth most manifestly through out his book, which argueth that M. St. seeking this poor shift, full like a poor Catholic and poor clerk also, never read Epiphanius himself, but hearing tell that Epiphanius written against 80 heresies 〈◊〉 at 80▪ particular opinions heretical. Of the which heresies taken after Epiphanius his usage, sect or sectary, either for a particular opinion heretical, he reckoneth this for none, (that I can find) for a man after the order of priesthood to marry. If he had reckoned this for any, be sure M. Stap. would have reckoned up his words and quoted the place. Master Sta●…leton now imagining with himself that he hath quite foiled us, and that we must run from the fathers, yea and ea●…e our own words, crieth out, what then have you to justify your cause? But again to help us in this distress, he conceiveth that there is yet one poor and s●…elye help behind, and that is to fly under the defence (as he contumeliously termeth it) of our brickle Bulwark of acts of Parliament. And here for raging after many impertinent things he concludeth thus. Such and such articles are commanded to be set forth by the authority of Parliament. Ergo our faith hangs only on the authority of Parliament. Item, such and such articles of religion are not namely expressed in the acts of Parliament, Ergo they are heretical, and unlawful. The folly of these arguments need none other answer but to show them. But all this while where were your eyes fixed, that they once looked not to the question in controversy do you observe your own rule, so well M. Stapleton? howbeit, sith you do it of bluntness, against these words of M. Feckenhams title, the Lord Bishop of Winchester, You must be born withal. The second Division. Fol. 1. b THe B. to prove this challenge of M. Feckenhams title to contain manifest guile and falsehood, showeth the whole process, first of Master Feckenhams treatise composed in the Tower, and directed to the Queen's highness Commissioners: and afterwards how he scrapeth out those phrases, and pretendeth as though the treatise had been composed at Waltham, and directed to the Bishop. Secondly, for his pretence of scruples as delivered to the B. by writing, to be resolved in them, and of the B. resolutions there unto, the B. showeth the whole dealing of the conference between them. First that by mouth, not by writing, they reasoned on these points, and that M. Feckenham seemed resolved in them, and upon what occasion afterward he fallen to wrangling again from them, & what a do the Bishop had, to have master Feckenham writ some positions or assertions in for me of propositions, to the end they might certainly go forward, which the Bishop could not bring him unto, till at the length, at his own request the Bishop put in writing the words of the oath, with the sense or interpretation added thereunto, that master Feckenham considering thereupon, might devise the form of his propositions, whereupon they might afterward debate. Whereby appeareth both how untrue it is, that he had delivered unto the bishop any such scruples of his in writing, for then the Bishop needed not have sought any propositions of his assertions: and also how●… untrue that is, that the interpretation of the oath, which the Bishop written at his request, before he ever saw any writing of master Feckenham, was to answer his scruples and stays delivered to the Bishop in writing. To these the bishop's challenges of master Feckenhams Stap. 10. b. false title, master St●…pletons answer is threefold. First (saith he) here is no matter effectual, but that may seem already by our former answer sufficiently discharged. How this matter is before of you discharged, is yet fresh in the Readers memory. I think he will not give you your quietus est, so lightly, except you bring better proves, and agree better to your own tale. For here, where you say, you have answered sufficiently before, to all that is effectual, this argueth that he was charged with somewhat that was effectual, else have you answered to no effectual thing. And yet your answer before was, that the matter wherewith the B. charged M. F. for his false title, was but a buy matter, which, whether it were true or false doth nothing prejudicate or touch the principal question: and so the whole charge is a matter nothing effectual. But let go this to your contradictions, and let the reader judge how sufficiently you have discharged M. Feck. or not rather charged him, with as much, or more than the B. did. The second part of M. St. answer, is a gathering together of such matters, as he noteth in the B. for untruths, which I refer to his common place thereon. Thirdly, where the B. speaking of the occasion of M. Fe. The disputation at West. An. 1. Eliz. wrangling in his conference with the B: mentioned his shrinking from his confederates in the conference at W. in the. 1. year of the Q. majesty: Hereupon, though he confesseth, saying, I might now pass forth to the residue of M. horns Stap. 12. a. book, yet must he not in any wise let slip this occasion of digression, for otherwise, he should want matter to s●…uffe up his connterblast. And so at large entereth to prove, that they were unevenly dealt withal, for proof whereof, he allegeth divers reasons. First, they were disadvantaged to be put Stap. 12. a. to the proof of that, whereof they were in possession. I answer, they were in possession of possessions in ●…éede, not of the truth, unless they had it in their possession of imprisonment. Secondly, they gave over the disputation, not because they had not, or did not show sufficient evidence, but because they were very much strayted for shortness of time: and so belike could not find it out. Thirdly, it was a fruitless and superfluous enterprise, to Stap. 12. a. b dispute of those three matters only, whether the service may be in the mother tongue. Whether any one realm may altar and change the rites and ceremonies in the Church, & make new. Whether the mass▪ be a sacrifice propitiatory, seeing that the. 1. and. 2. question, be no questions of faith And the 3. dependeth upon the questions of transubstantiation, & the real presence, which aught first to have been discussed and then this as accessory thereunto. What a number of starting holes the papists had to avoid the disputation? they were far better armed to found excuses to give it over, than provided to go throughstitche therewith. But had they had such evidence ready as you pretend M. St. what need they find fault with the time? although they had as much time, as their adverfaries had, to prepare themselves. And if they were strayghted for shortness of time, to dispute only of three matters, and those as you say not the weightiest neither: why complain you of their questions to have been but three only, in so many and weighty matters, as now stand in controversy? Can they dispatch so many great matters, in so strait a time, and would they whine to be straited, for only three less matters? Ha' M. St. this is to broad before. But you writhe the excuse an other way, not so much for the number, as the lightness of the matters, to be dependent and accessary to other questions, a●…d to be no matters of faith. How light so ever you would seem to make them now, you have made them as weighty an other time before. But let than be as light as you would have them, & less to, did you not agree on them, yea did you not yourselves devise them, unwitting to the other parties? Did you not prepare for them? & might you not the easilier have answered unto them? these are but childish excuses, let us hear what more you have. Fourthly, it was made before lay men as judges. Yea Stap. 12. b. there M. St. you hit the nail on the head. You would be disputers and judges too yourselves. His example of the Anabaptists disputation at Monster, which he likeneth to this at Westminster, I pass over to his railings and slanderous common places. Fifthly, they should have been suffered to have replied to Stap. 13. a. their adversaries, which they could not be suffered to do. If you had put in disorderly, you had said true. But would they have kept the order by themselves devised and agreed upon, they might have replied at the full: the doing was not in hucker mucker, enough herded it that can tell. And your own other excuses do plainly argue, not that you could not be suffered, but that you could not for the time, or would not for the matter, and needed not pleading possession, and thought not good, for because of the judges, with such other excuses, that as yourself confess, moved you to give over the disputation. Which how it agreeth with this fifth excuse, that you could not be suffered to reply: is easy to discern, and to take a liar tardy in his own tale. Sixtly & last say you, surely among all other, concerning the Stap. 13. a. supremacy of the Prince in causes eccle. etc. there should have been much more mature deliberation. Deliberation is good in all things, M. St. but wilful prolonging & foding on the time, is neither good nor godly, chief in God's matters, wherein we are bidden, hody si vocem 〈◊〉 andieritis, nolite obdurare Psal. 95. corda vestra. But when would your deliberation be ripe M. St? it appeareth by these your excuses, that yourself would be rotten, or ever it would be ripe. You would go to it with ripe deliberation, that is to say, as a bear goeth to the stake: you would advise yourself long or ever you would willingly come to try your doctrine & religion by disputation, if you could otherwise choose. Howbeit by your own tale, these matters need no such long protracting the time, being so few, & so light, as here in your excuses you pretend they be. Yea but surely (say you) among all other things concerning Stap. 13. a. the supremacy of the Prince in causes ecclesiastical. etc there would have been much more mature deliberation. Why M. St. here was neither all causes, nor the cause of supremacy debated. But only (as yourself say) three accessary matters, and matters nothing touching faith. And therefore you overshoot yourself once again, to put in this excuse. But what is your small drift of all these excuses? forsooth this: The Pope's legate should have been precedent at the disputation of these matters, and then it had been a formal disputation. Then the Catholics had been indifferently dealt withal. Then would you have refused no controversy. Then would you not have complained of the straightness of time. Nor desired further delay. Nor refused either to have answered or replied, if the Pope's legate had been precedent at it. But who seethe not that this is no indifferency? but what argument bring you to prove that the Pope's legate should be precedent thereof? Especially considering (say you) that above ten hundredth Stap. fol. 13. a. years past, in disputations of matters of faith, whereto the Catholics were provoked in Aphrica, the said Catholics required, that at the said disputations should be present the Legates of the sea of Rome, as the chief and principal sea of Christendom. You forget M. St. that in Aphrica likewise, the Catholics refused the B. of Rome his authority, and detected his falsehood in forging of Canons therefore. Well, let that now go as forgotten. And let us see your argument, which in effect is this: Above ten hundredth years past, when the sea of Rome flourished in more perfect religion and faith, the Catholics of Aphrica, in their disputations of faith, required that at the said disputations, should be present the Legates of the sea of Rome, as the chief & principal sea of Christendom. Ergo: We now, in all our disputations of causes Ecclestastical, especially concerning the supremacy, should acknowledge the Pope by his Legates, to be precedent thereof. This argument followeth not M. Stapl. reasoning, from that tune to this, from their requiring to our submission, from afric to England, from presence to presidence, from certain questions to all questions, from matters of saith to these in hand, which yourself say are none. From the chief and principal sea then, to the universal supremacy that the Pope claimeth now, in all which points there is no sequel, and therefore your argument is stark nought, nor all your vain excuses, will hide their froward disobedience, or strengthen the weakness of their naughty cause in the said disputation. But let us now (says M. St.) return to M. Horn, for these matters were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, M. Stapleton looked quite besides his mark. The third Division. THe third Division showeth the cause and occasion, Fol. 13. a. why M. Feck. delivered this his treatise to the Bishop, not as he pretendeth to be resolved at the Bishop's hands, for he had said before that the matter itself was grounded here (pointing to his breast) that shall never go out. But, being charged of the B. herefore, that he had neither conscience nor constancy, M. Feckenham showed and delivered this his treatise to the B. to show what he had suffered for the same, and how it was grounded and settled in him long before. Which argueth first his falsehood in pretending to have offered the book before to the B. as scruples by him to be resolved in: And also his further falsehood, in setting forth of his own bald resolutions to his scruples, under the B. name. To the former part M. Stapleton replieth it is an unlikely Stap. fol. 13. b. tale, and referreth it to his score of untruths. Where it is answered unto. The later part for the resolutions, he leaveth it to a place more apropriate, where the matter shallbe Stap. fol. 13. b. more conveniently and more fully discused. And this is all that he says for the clearing of M. Feckenhams false title. The fourth Division. MAster Feckenham in the beginning of his treatise, Fol. 14. a. propounding one chief purpose and intent (as he saith) of this Oath, to be for a more safeguard to be had of the Queen's royal person, and her highness most quiet and prosperous reign: Offereth to swear thus much, that her Highness is the only supreme governor of this Realm, and of all other her highness dominions and Countries, according as the express words are in the beginning of the said Oath. And offereth yet further to swear: That her Highness hath under God the sovereignty and rule, over all manner of people, born within these her highness realms, of what estate either Ecclesiastical or Temporal soever they be. To this the B. of Winchester answereth, that this being one chief intent of the Oath, as is granted: whosoever denieth the chief part of the Oath, what soever in words he pretend, in his deeds denieth withal the chief intent thereof. But M. Feckenham doth thus, Ergo: How soever by words he would seem to tender her majesties safety, his deeds declare his meaning to be clean contrary. The Minor that M. Feck. denieth the principal part of the Oath, he proveth thus: The principalest part of the Oath, is the Q. highness supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical so well as Temporal, but about this M. Feck. dalieth with dominions and people, & denieth the causes, which is the matter itself, wherein the governance doth consist: Ergo, He denieth the chiefest part of the Oath. The Mayor, that the governance in Ecclesiastical causes is the chiefest thing that the Oath doth purport, is evident. The Minor, as it appeareth by this nice dalliance of M. Feck. so the B. further proveth it, by this his treatise, by his deep sighs & groans, desiring a change, and ascribing to the Pope this principal part of the Oath. M. St. to counterblast these the B. arguments, bloweth Cap. 3. fol. 14. b. apace with both his cheeks. With the one breathing out despitefully all riff-raff, that he could glean together, to deface, as he thought, the protestants with disobedience. With the other he laboureth to qualify the disobedience of the Papists, namely of M. Feckenham. But before these two parts, wherein the most of his reply consists, he prefixeth yet one page, declaring first that this parcel of the Oath, is no part of the Princes royal power, and wherefore the Papists refuse the same. First says he, There have been many kings in this realm Stap. fol. 14. b before our time, that have reigned virtuously, quietly, prosperously, most honourably, and most victoriously, which never dreamt of this kind of supremacy, and yet men of such knowledge, that they could soon espy, wherein their authority was impaired, and were of such courage and stoutness, that they would not suffer at the Pope's hands, or at any other, any thing done derogatory to their Royal power. This argument standeth upon the opinion of Princes heretofore, and is framed thus. What soever the noble and prosperous Kings to fore, took to be so, or took not to be so, the same was and is so, or was not and is not so. But many noble and prosperous Kings heretofore, took this kind of supremacy to be no part of their royal power: Ergo, It was not, nor is any part thereof. The Mayor, which God wot is very fond and weak, he would furnish and strengthen with their wisdom and stoutness, if it had b●…ne iniuriou●… to their authority, they were so wise they could soon espy it, & were so stout they would not suffer it. But who seethe not, that they could not very soon espy it, in that palpable darkness of popery: and that worldly politic wisdom, is no good proof of soon espying the spiritual wisdom of God and his word, and of their duty in setting forth thereof? This knowledge was not so clearly espied then, as thanks be to God now it is, being pulled from under the bushel, wherewith it was covered, Matth. 5. 2. Cor. 11. and the Angel of darkness, being stripped out of that shape of the Angel of light, that when he was clad withal, be bleared many wise Prince's eyes. And though many of them were courageous & stout, yea & espied to, what belonged unto them, & attempted also to get it, yet who seethe not, that the Pope's tyranny overmatched them? And yet such Princes were there many, wise, stout, and virtuous, that dreamt not as you say, but well see this their authority, and took it on them, and withstood the Pope's usurpation. Which improveth your Mayor, that you would seem to carry away so clear. And withal overturneth your argument, by the like: Some Princes thought it was no part of their royal power: Ergo, it was not. Some Princes thought it was part of their royal power: Ergo, it was. Neither of these arguments (you see) doth hold, for still the matter is where it was, who thought so, or who thought not so, and yet both of them politic, stout, and prosperous Princes. But whereto doth M. St. thus colourably, so highly extol the virtuous, quiet, prosperous, most honourable, and most victorious estate, of those noble, wise, stout, and courageous princes, that (he says) never heretofore dreamt of this kind of supremacy? can he dream out this so drylie, against his most gracious sovereign, the Q. Majesty now, that not only of right claimeth, but most godly directeth this supremacy, to blemish her highness with her noble ancestors, and thinketh he this his byiouse nip, could not easily be espied? Yes M. Stapleton, it is easy to see your good heart, and what opinion you have of her highness. But albeit comparisons be odious, chief of the living with the dead, De quibus nil nisi bonum, whom we aught to speak reverently upon: yet notwithstanding, thus much may I say, without derogating from them, or ●…lattrie of her, (for he flattereth not that says that which each true man finds true) her highness in no point that you reckon, is inferior to any her royal progenitors, & in many far greater points, that you reckon not, doth far surmount them all. Which I speak not to boast of, but that God, whose gifts they are, make her thankful for them, & us thankful for her. And therefore, go the matter by wisdom, fortitude, quietness, virtue, honourable, prosperous and victorious reign, her Majesty that claimeth this title, her Brother, and Father before her also, have as good plea for them, as any other princes of England can have, that never claimed the same. And therefore leave this crack M. St. of upbraiding to her highness, the good gifts of her predecessors, for thanks be to God (that hath given her all the same or more) her grace hath had hitherto a most quiet, prosperous and victorious reign, and yet hath claimed and enjoyed this supreme government withal, yea, the one hath strengthened the other: And God for his mercy continued & prospero her majesty long therein. And in deed this is that you whine at, that God still so prospereth the success of his Gospel by her: 〈◊〉 so God hath promised, Q ●…cunque honori ficaverit me▪ glorificabo eum, & 1. Reg. 2. ●…. Reg. 3. thus he glorified Solomon, when he sought the wisdom & truth of God, before the riches & might of worldly Princes, & so hath God blessed her Highness above many Christian princes, for that she directeth all her government, to the setting forth of his glory. Peccator videbit & irascetur, all you Psalm. 112. Popish enemies beholding and gnashing your teeth thereat. But who would think M. Stapl. were one, or the Papists any, they have of him so sweet and fine a proctor, with so fair words to cover so foul disobedience. And albeit (says he) the Catholics wish to the Q. Majesty, Stapl. 14. b. as quiet, as prosperous, as long▪ & as honourable an Empire, to the glory of God, as ever had Prince in the world, & are as well affected to her highness, as ever were good subjects to their noble Princes aforesaid: You reckon not up so many times as as as, as as as as, as he were a very ass, that would believe you for all your goodly wishes and painted affections, such fair words may make fools feign, and believe that all is gold that glistreth. But what in heart you wish, and in deed you attempt, her grace hath tried thoroughly, & all men well perceive. But God sendeth a cursed cow short horns: & God send her Majesty long safety, from the feigned tears of such well wishing Crocodiles. And then with the grace of God, she shall do well enough, maugre all hollow hearted Papists. But go to now, tell on M. Stap. if you wish her highness thus well as you would seem, why refuse you your dutiful obedience? Albeit (say you) the catholics wish thus, yet can they not Stapl. 14. b. find in their hearts to take the Oath, not for any sinister affection etc. but only for conscience sake, grounded upon the Canons and laws of the holy church, and the continual practice of all christian and Catholic realms, finally upon holy Scripture; namely that saying of S. Peter, O portet obedire Deo magis Act. 5. quàm hominibus, God must be obeyed more than men. Is not here a fair cloak to cover the Papists disobedience to their Prince withal? all whose open stubbornesie, and privy practices against their Prince & country, are not forsooth of any sinister affection, but even for conscience sake. A Papists con●…cience. But what manner a conscience is this that you do it for M. Stapl.? is it not such an other conscience, as Sir Thomas More telleth the Wolf had? to whom when the Fox his ghostly father enjoined him penance for his ravening, that he should never after, devour any thing that he thought in his conscience was above the value of six pennies, the penitent Wolf afterward, seeing a fat cow with her calf feeding in a meadow, being hungry and greedy of his prey, yet dared he not break his ghostly father's rule, till he had examined in his conscience the price of them: On my conscience (qd the Wolf) this cow is but worth a groat, and then of conscience can her Calie be hardly worth half as much. Now if you M. Stapl. and your fellows have this wolvish conscience, to devour the sheep of Christ, the cow and calf and all, to burn the people of God, to persecute his truth, to betray your country to strangers, to disobey your natural Prince, and so can set your conscience, that all is done for conscience: then, as, many have to little consciences, so you have a great deal to much. And such large consciences God defend us from. But to show that your conscience is no better, I pray you whereon is it grounded? Grounded upon the Canons & laws of the holy Church, and the continual practice of all Christian and catholic realms. Do you ground your consciences upon the Canons & laws of the church, that is, upon the practice of man? this is but a sandy ground, (M. St.) for a christian conscience (in a matter of religion, that you say, is the weightiest of all points in controversy, & the fountain of all other) to be builded & founded upon. And yet the one of these grounds, is a manifest lying crack, of the continual practice of all Christian realms, which you have not yet proved, crack of it, and ground your conscience on it, when you have proved it, for before, you do but set your conscience on the tenterhookss, to presume of that you have not proved. The other is even the wolves conscience up and down, that grounded his conscience of his own greedy desire, so you ground your conscience on the canons and laws of the holy Church. And what is the holy Church with you, on your conscience? Forsooth on our conscience holy Church, is ourselves, that be the Bishops, Monks, Friars, and priests. We (say you) are the holy Church, and our own laws and canons, are the laws and canons of holy Church, and all that is given to us, is given to holy Church. And so you ground your consciences after your own laws and Cannons, as the wolf did after his. Are not these good wolvish consciences? But have you no better ground of your conscience than these two? yes, say you, finally we ground our consciences upon holy Scripture, namely that saying of S. Peter, oporte●… obedire deo magis quam hominibus, God must be Act. 5. obeyed more than men. In deed M. St. if you can make this a ground, it is a much surer ground than the other twain, the sacred word of God, and the obedience that you own to God. Howbeit sith every pretence of obedience to God, and every wresting of God's word, is no good ground of conscience: neither the word of God, nor the obedience to God, taketh away the obedience that is due to the Prince: How do you frame your argument, from S. Peter's saying? God must be obeyed more than man. Ergo, the Q. Majesty can not be obeyed for supreme governor under God, in all ecclesiastical causes within her dominions. This argument is so fond, it might serve any traitor, or any other to disobey his Prince, under pretence of conscience: and therefore can not clear you from the sighs and groans, that you make for your foresaid change, where with the Bishop rightly challengeth M. Feckenham. These arguments now pretending conscience, being not sufficient to discharge the Papists of disobedience, M. St. addeth to them two more, the one, by objecting the like to us: that we sigh and groan for the change of other princes, nor affected in religion as we be. And so he thinketh to put away this reason from themselves, that the B. maketh against them: The Papists do not obey but impugn the Q. majesties authority, Ergo, they wish and look with deep sighs and groans, for a change thereof. The other argument that M. St. maketh against this, he frameth thus: divers papists have lost their goods, and are ready to lose their life, Ergo, they wish not for this change. This argument as it serveth no more their cause, than any other heretics: so it followeth not, but rather the contrary, that the more they lose, the more they wish the change. And to show this, as one that had forgotten himself, while he craketh what wit, body, and life, he would employ for his prince and country, adding withal this exception, if the case so require: he bursteth out into a deep sigh and groan for a change, saying: And for my part I pray God heartily the trial once would Stap. 15. a. come. What case is this you speak off so doubtfully master. St. if it be not a change? that leaving your argument, you fall thus devoutly to your beads, & pray so heartily, promising to employ your pregnant wit, your proper body, yea venture your life and all, that once it might come, if it be not a change? if you mean well, why be you not at home, and in your native country employ your wit & body, like a good subject as you aught to do, but subtract your body, and bend your wit, your body, and all your endeavour, by all malicious practices, against her Malesties' authority herein▪ abusing daily, not only by such your invective Pamphlets dispersed abroad in hucker mucker, her majesties subjects here quiet at home, to make them mislike her highness regiment: but also to slander her abroad to other Nations, besides your continual whisperers, whom you send about, instilling into the people's heads, a hope or fear of a change to come: bearing the people in hand, even from her majesties first reign, that the next Easter, the next Midsummer, the next Michaelmas, the next Christmas, the next quarter, the next half year, the next year, we shall have a change. And thus from year to year you food them on, with vain hope, nourishing privy rebellion in their hearts, or at lest, to make the people to faint and murmur, as the searchers of the land of promise, Num. 13. did to the children of Israel. But God be blessed, that hitherto hath defeated all your blind prophecies. He will job. 8. confound the hypocrites hope, and establish his truth for ever. Now to put away this crime from the Papists, and to Stap. 15. ●…. charge us therewith, he allegeth first, the practice of the Paynims and jews, and Heretics. The effect of his argument is this: divers Heretics used great cruelties and seditions, for that they misliked the contrary religion to there's: Ergo; the Papists misliking the queens majesties authority, and wishing a change thereof, make not in so doing, a preparation to sedition, but we that acknowledge the same, do make it. I answer, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est. A false Papist is a perilous beast. And if hot burning, cruel handling, traitorous poisoning, pitiful murdering, horrible tragedies, tragical enormities, privy and great conspiracies, (all which he objecteth to us in the sustian fumes of his boisterous Rhetoric) be arguments of Paynims jews, or Heretics: then ●…one better than the Papists have deserved those titles. And here, as he thinketh, being got into a plentiful Stap. 15 16. ●…ayne, he runneth into Germany, Denmark, Swethlande, England, France, and Scotland, from these to the low countries of Brabant, holland, Flaunders, and Lukelande, from thence to Monster, then to the Duke of Saxony, and the Landgrave of Hesse, again to Denmark and Swethlande, and for his witness, he bringeth in one as good as himself, Fredrick Staphilus. From thence suddenly to Charing cross and to Tower hill, then have over the water again to France, Piedmont, Geneva, Gascoigne, Rhone, Orleans, Lions, skipping in and out, and it were a jack of Bedlam, raking every corner to pick quarrels, and devise lies by the Protestants. And what proof of all this allegeth he? forsooth, I refer you M. Horn, to an oration made of this matter Stap. 16. ●…. expressly, and pronounced here in Lovayne, and translated eloquently, and printed in our English tongue. Nay, than it must needs be true M. St. who dare gainsay it, if such a man of credence as you, will refer all these discourses unto that oration, yea and that it was pronounced among you in Lovayne, where, God wots, never lie is pronounced, yea, and besides all this, it is translated eloquently in our English tongue, and printed too: these are sore arguments I promise' you, as ever I herded so wise a man make, to prove the truth of all th●…se accusations, that you lay to the protestants charge. But M. Stap. and you would follow my council, you should let all these by quarrels go, and refer yourself to your matter. But you will first make an other vagary, and see the countries Fol. 16. 17. 18 19 20. 21. once again, so may you writ us over lies ●…owe by authority, as you do full handsomely, for after you have been at Scotland, and are returned to your low countries of Flaunders, we have five leaves together entitled the rebellion of Flaunders, with a swarm of reproachful slanders, to deface the Gospel with sedition, hurli●… b●…rlies, and disobedience: when all the world seeth, the authors of all those tumults, to be the Papists themselves. At length remembering himself that all these lies, are no good purgation for the Papists, for the full proof of their obedience. Now for the purgation of the Catholics (saith Stap. 21. ●…. he) against whom this man so falsely and maliciously bloweth his horn, it may seem a good and convenient proof of their quietness and obedience, that all this eight years & more, there hath not been in this realm, not not one that I can hear of, that hath been convicted of any disloyalty, for word or deed, concerning the Prince's civil regiment: which they all wish were as large and ample, as ever was our noble countrymen the great Constantine's. You blow your pipe like a subtle flatterer, howsoever he bloweth his horn, M. St. The jolly civil regiment, that you wish her highness, is in the end no better, as yourself afterward show, when you come to the definition thereof, than you can afford to the very Turk, and therefore her Majesty is much beholding to you, and hath very loyal subjects of you. Yea you are (as you commend yourself, if we may believe you on your own report) such obedient subjects, that all this eight year and more there hath not been, not not one convicted of any disloyalty, for word or deed, that you can hear of. You do wisely, M. Stap. to mitigate the matter by your own hearing: you could hear all things that sounded against the Protestants, wherein you were as quick of telling as of hearing. But for any thing, that should sound against the Papists, although it rang in the ears of all men, you have on your harvest ears. But and if you could have herded on that side the ear, that showeth out the Papists practices, you should have heard of many their conspiracies, and other their wicked attempts, bysides their muttring that they dare not utter, which if they dared, no doubt you should hear thereof. Did you never hear of one that written, Quod non est tutum scribere Stap. 21. ●… . contra eos qui possun●… prescribere? Well, it was written and printed at Lovayne also, no doubt of an obedient subject, but he Englished it not, for fear all englishmen should have seen his devils Paternoster, and have espied his traitorous heart, that no will wanted in him, to direct his pen, so far as he dared, against his most gracious sovereign: and shall we think, if he could with safety attempt further against his prince, that he would spare his uttermost? Well, you know him, I dare say, at lest you have herded of him, for he taketh himself a near friend of yours, and spoke it, besides many more treacherous words against his Prince, even within this your limitation of eight years, and less: but I will not bewray him, although your partial dealing be not to be born withal. To diffame the Protestants, you have run at random, and raked together, all that you could devise, from Paynims, Jews, and heretics, and all other, true or false, for this. 1000▪ years, and chief for this. 40. or. 50. years, in every country, all that you could hear of, or invent any thing to slander the Gospel by. On the contrary, for your own party, you could rem●…ber yourself, but of eight years only in England. Where even in your said eight years, had you but opened your other ear, to understand but those French and Flemmishe matters, that were done hard by you, you might have herded of such fetches, practices, murders, conspiracies, and other such horrible enterprises of the Papists: that your ears would have glowed on your head, to have herded but a quarter of them reported truly. But letting go these eight years, may it please you to rem●…ber, if not of old times, the continual broils, seditions, conspiracies, and rebellions, that your Pope & Popelings, have exercised christian princes and their realms withal: as in Germany, Henry the. 4. Henry the. 5. jews the. 4. Fredrick the. 2. In France, king Childeprik, Philip le Beaw, Philip de Ualois. In Apulia and Cicill, Conradus, manfred. etc. In Naples, Charles, Alphonsus. etc. In Italy, the factions of the Guelphs, & Gibellines, the Albi & Nigri. In Rome, the hurly-burlies with the Consul & people for their ancient liberty. In England, the troubles of king john, and king Henry the. 8. If not all these & many more: yet I pray you remember the late rebellions of the North, of Lincoln shire, of Devonshire, & the attempts of Put to these the late treasons and rebellions of the Papists in ●…ng land, their horrible murders and cruelties in France and Flaunders. cardinal Poole, in the time of king Henry the eight, of Kettes rebellion, of the Western men's uproars in king Gowardes' time. All moved by the Papists, good patterns of Popish obedience and loyalty to their Princes I warrant you. But all this M. S. could never hear of, nor any other thing else that sounded against them. And here, as though they were so clear and innocent from all disobedience, returning again to his former pretence of conscience and religion, as though he were the proctor of the Papists: We poor Catholics (saith he) most humbly upon our Stap. 21. ●…. knees, desire her highness, that we may with most lowly submission, crave and require to be born withal. And were you down on your marrowbones in deed, M. St. when you written this? but why should we not think so? since that (to have her highness the better behold you, how humbly you kneel) you are run to Louayne, belike that she might see you kneeling over the seas, because she could not see you so near as here at home. What a mockery is this, most stubbornly to disobey her government, to forsake her majesties dominions, and your native country, and live in other Prince's territories, as subject to them, not to your natural Sovereign, to solicit, not only by privy whisperers, her highness subjects to a misliking of her government, but by open writing to deface, to slander, and inveigh against the same: and all the while most humbly kneeling, with most lowly submission, desiring, craving, & requiring. If this be your most humility, and most lowly submission if this be your manner of desiring, craving, requiring, how intolerable and tyrannical, was your violent and proud authority? when Emperors were fain to go barefoot, kneel unto, and kiss the feet of your Pope, and with much ado and great labour, obtain thus much favour at his holiness, to lie prostrate and be trodden under his feet, when all Princes and people créeped, crouched, and stood in dread, of almost every pelting Priest. The N. highness requireth only of you & your complices. M. St. to come home, and do your duty, as good subjects aught to do. Show that lowly submission, that is necessary, and then crave that is requisite, and so may you easily find her highness merciful and gracious to you. But what is it, that after this mocking sort you pretend to crave so earnestly? To be born withal, if we can not upon the sudden, and Stap. 21. a. We abandon not the faith we were baptized in because we abandon the Pope. without sure and substantial grounds, abandon that faith that we were baptized in. See what a wicked slander to cover your disobedience, you charge your most gracious prince withal: as though she went about to make you renie that faith you were baptized in. And this you do even where you pretend to kneel on your knees, with most humble and lowly submission. See what cankered hearts you bear, for all your counterfeit crouching. If you know, M. Stap. the faith you were baptized in, at lest, if you were rightly baptised, and be a true Christian man, it is not in the name, faith, or obedience of the Pope, but in the name, faith, and obedience of the father, the son, and the holy ghost, and this faith, the Q. majesty goeth so little about, to have you abandon, that her Graces supreme government is chief directed to this end, to have you without any superstition, error, idolatry, or any other pollution thereof, keep & maintain it inviolate, as in baptism you promised to do, and therefore this is not subject like, though you be on your knees never so much, to accuse her highness, as to 'cause you to abandon the faith you were baptized in. She requireth you to keep it, not abandon it, neither on the sudden, nor at leisure. And if this were all the cause of your refusal of obedience, as her Grace never denied you it, you do but slander her: so needed you not have run away, nor show yet such disobedience to her authority, since she ever granted and maintained the thing you seem to crave. Howbeit your counterfeit humility detecteth itself, to be very stubborn disobedience. And that while you pretend to crave one thing, you intend another thing. And that is, you would be born with, still to refuse her graces supreme authority over you in Ecclesiastical causes, this is the thing in deed you mean: and you would the rather be born withal, because it is a matter that cometh upon the sudden, & therefore you can not upon the sudden grant it. In deed M. St. you pretend reason. Weighty matters require not to be done on a sudden passion, but with deliberation▪ But is this so sudden a matter yet unto you? did you never hear of this question before? have you not had leisure to deliberate thereon? but who seethe not, that and you had never so much leisure, this matter would still come upon the sudden to you? and of reason you must have time to take advisement upon it, which you will take all at your leisure, and so for fear you should become an obedient subject upon the sudden, you crave to remain still upon deliberation an obstinate enemy. But M. St. pretending this refusal to be for the abandoning of the faith that we were Christened in, proceedeth: And as we are assured all our ancestors, and her Majesties Stapl. 21. a. b. own most noble progenitors, yea her own most noble father King Henry the eight, yea that faith, which he in a clerkly book hath most pithily defended, and thereby achieved to him and his, and transported as by hereditary succession, the worthy title and stile yet remaining in her Highness, of the defender of the Faith. As you slander most wickedly the queens Majesty, to 'cause you to abandon the faith of your baptism▪ so you slander not only all our ancestors but that most famous Prince her highness Father K. Henry the 8. as christened in the faith of the Pope's obedience: & hereof you say, you are assured, when it is most assured & most evident false. For although our fathers, & the Q. majesties father also, yea many of us ourselves, & the Q. Majesty also herself, were born and baptised, when all the errors of popery, or many of them did chief abound: yet can no more any one of these, be said now, to be baptised in those errors, that they held which baptised them, (if they kept the right & formal words of baptism, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, of the son, & of the holy Ghost:) than in the old time any of their children, or they themselves, could be said to be baptised in such errors, as they held that were Novatians, Donatists, Rogatists, Pelagians, or any other Heretics, that notwithstanding kept the right element & formal words of baptism. Neither can any Papist say now to any, that dissuadeth him from his popish errors, that he goeth about to will him, to abandon the faith wherein he was baptised: any more than a Pelagian, or any such Heretic, being moved to forsake his heresy, could pretend he were moved to forsake the faith, he was baptised in, because they that baptised him, yea & his ancestors before him, were Pelagians, etc. You should therefore M. St. make your distinction, between the faith of your baptism, and the faith that your popish Church putteth in divers erroneous points of doctrine. As for the faith that K. Henry the 8▪ the Q. Majesties most The book of K. Henry the eight. noble Father, set out in the Book that you mention, & thereby labour to stain the Q. Majesty, as setting out a contrary faith to her father: as you for your part M. St. show your extreme malice, nothing subiectlike, to blemish her highness with the famous renown of her father, which notwithstanding you can not do: so for the King her father, I answer you, howbeit his book were clerkly, yet clerklines is one thing, & truth is an other. & what marvel if he than written, in defence of your doctrines, when your popish prelate's hid the very truth from him, & bore him in hand, that your falsehoods were truth? till it pleased God, not to suffer so noble a Prince, to be any longer deluded by such false prelate's, but first in this question, & after in other, according to the measure of his merciful riches, revealed the truth unto him: how chance, you speak not of his faith then, & what clerkly & sincere doctrine he set out them, against your Pope? And as for the Q. Majesty herein, (which is the proper question now in hand) followeth most zealously the steps of her highness father, not wherein he was abused, as many other princes were, by false teachers, but in that he forsook those errors, he abolished those false teachers, & their captains usurped authority, in that he obeyed the truth revealed to him, before all his own clerkly books, before all worldly glory & security, & adventured himself & his kingdom, against all his enemies, in setting forth the truth, & governing his subjects after the word of God. Which though it were not so plentifully set forth then, nor all weeds so thoroughly rooted up, by reason of some false Gardiners, whom he trusted over much (howbeit at length thanks be to God he espied them also, & had proceeded further if God had lent him further life) yet is he rather to be commended for that he did, than to be evil spoken or evil thought of, for that he could not thoroughly bring to pass in his time, but left his most virtuous Son King Edward, to bring to more perfection. And herein hath the queens highness followed, as you say, both her Fathers and Brother's faith also. But you wring all to that faith, wherein he was before beguiled, as though she should follow him in that he was deceived, & not wherein he found out & forsook the deceivers, that you with your painted words might likewise deceive her Highness now, as they dece●…ued her Mayest father then. But see how God turned their deceit against themselves. That where your Pope, to flatter K. Henry withal, ascribed The title of Defender of the Faith. to him this title (as it were the prophecy of another Caiphas) Defender of the faith, the King espying the falsehood of the Pope, become the very defender of the true faith in deed, abolishing the Pope the very impugner & peruer●…er thereof, and so (as you say truer than you witted, M. Stap.) achieved to him and his, and transported as by hereditary succession, the worthy title and stile yet remaining in her Highness, of the defender of the faith. Neither as you faintly say, this title only remaineth in her Highness, but the thing that the title doth intend, her highness is in very deed, not in a ●…aked name, the defender thereof: And hath defended her subjects, not from foreign power of strangers only, brought in by the Papists, and from all bodily injury and oppression of Popish firebrands, or any other tyranny: but defendeth even our faith from all errors, heresies, superstitions, and Idolatries. And this it is for a Prince to be a defender of The title, defender of the Faith, infereth supremacy. the faith in deed: which argueth a plain supremacy. Now after M. Stapl. hath thus flattered, and on his knees humbled himself, to obtain a placard of their disobedience: up he starteth once again, and giveth another fling at us, to reverse this crime of disobedience on us, thinking so to excuse this disobedience of the Papists thereby. And first he setteth on those, whom he calleth round cap The Papists objection of apparel. Ministers, howbeit if he remembered, that within this hundredth years and upward, the popish priests themselves did wear round caps, he would not be so hasty to give that nick name. He asketh who are those that have preached with a chain of gold about their necks, in stead of a tippet? St. fol. 21. b. Assoil your question yourself M. Stapl. I know no such protestant. What slanderous report you have herded of any singular person I know not, not such order is allowed. Although it be common among your popish Cardinals, Bishops, abbots, Deans, Canons, and other beyond the Seas, so to ruffle as you speak, not only with a chain of gold, but with hat and feather, cap and agglets, rapier and cloak, hawk and hounds, ruffians & fools waiting on them, and oftentimes in complete harneys on a great courser, or on a palfrey with a courtisane behind them, thus go the chiefest of your fleshly spirituality: belike they learned it of that roister Pope john. 13. howbeit no Pope doth amend this disorder. Upbrayd not therefore such petit and particular things to us, which is so great and so common a fault with you. But Master Stapleton will go more certainly to work, and charge the Protestants ex scripto with their own writings. Who are those I pray you (saith he) that writ, sint sanè Stap. 22. ●…. Magdeb. p●…ef. cent. 7. & ipsi Magictratu●… membra, & paries, & cives ecclesi●…dei, imo ut ex toto cord sint, omnes precari decet. Flagrent quoque ipsi zelo pietatis, sed non sint capita Ecclesi●…, quia ipsis non competit iste 〈◊〉. Let the Magistrates also be members, and parts, and citizens, of the Church of God, yea and that they may be so it behoveth us all with all our heart to pray. Let them be fervent in the godly zeal of Religion, but they may not be heads of the Church, in no case, for this supremacy doth not appertain to them. These are no Papists I trow M. Horn, but your own dear brethren of Magdeburge, in their new story ecclesiastical, by the which they would have all the world directed. Yea in that story whereof one parcel, Illiricus and his fellows have dedicated to the Queen's majesty, that bear the world in hand they are the true and zealous scholars of Luther. Thus triumpheth M. Stapleton against the writers of the story of Magdeburge. The effect of his argument is this. These writers do say that Princes may not be heads of the Church, Erg●… no prince over all Ecclesiastical people & causes in his own dominions, may be supreme governor. How evil this argument followeth is easy to perceive, and the better, in beh●…lding how impudently master Stapleton wresteth these writers. But he forceth The Magde. burgen●…es wrested. not thereof, because they be his adversaries. For that which they writ, not simply against the supremacy of princes in Ecclesiastical causes, but against such supremacy of princes, as the Pope usurped: that wresteth he as spoken against such supreme government, as the queens majesty claimeth and useth. The writers hereof, having set forth two ●…nsamples of that age, the one of a godly princes governmet, by Constantinus Pogonotus: the other of a wicked tyrant, by ●…eraclius: to declare what kind of supremacy they disallow. Th●…y she we that this is the scope of the matter, iste est scopu●…res, qd magistratibu●… politicis, non sit licitum cudere forma●… religionum, Histo. Magde. pref. cent. 7. in perniciem veritatis, ita vel concilietur verita●…, & mēda●…ium, vel utraque simul sopiant, id quod tandem ●…um habet exitum, ut regnent errores, veritas crucifigatur, & sepeliatur. This is the ●…cope of the matter, that it is not lawful for politic magistrates to coin forms of religion, to the destruction of the truth, so that thereby truth and falsehood should be reconciled together, or both of them together quailed: Which at the length cometh to this end, that errors reign, the truth is crucified & buried. And so followeth the sentence that M. St. citeth, let the magistrates also be mebers. etc. but let them not be heads of the Church. Whereby appeareth plainly what manner of heads they mean. And this they do not once nor twice, setting forth the doings of the wicked ●…yrant Heraclius for ensample, that was The tyranny of Heraclius. altogether led by affection, and not indifferent to hear ●…ither party, nor called in counsel learned and faithful men, nor called any synod to try the matter, nor searched the truth diligently, but being puffed up with pride, and devising o●…ely with a flattering Monk (that after set up the false faith of Mahomet) determineth in a corner of a most weighty controversy, and afterwards will have the matter never called into question. This Emperor they call Architectum religionis, and demand what man well in his wits, would allow such attempts, process and executions? concluding it is not lawful form as religionum conflare. etc. To make new forms of religions, and obtrude them to the Church without all kind of godly, honest, modest and comely gainsaying & refuting thereof. All this and much more, say they, of that kind of supreme government in Princes that they mislike, and is in deed to be utterly misliked of all Christians. But as this is a plain description of your Pope's supremacy, that playeth in all these points Heraclius part, so it nothing toucheth that supremacy that the queens majesty claimeth. It is but your wicked malice to slander her, with such tyrannical usurpation of Heraclius as they condemn. Why do you not rather take their other comparison, The godly supreme government of Constanti●…us Pogonotus. from Constantinus Pogonotus, to all other godly Princes, and refer that to her regiment? With what care, and singular diligence, travail, and godliness, when the Churches were horibly deformed, and torn, by the sect of the Monothelites, He summoned the sixt general Council, he overwhelmed not the debating of the controversy of doctrine by might or prejudice. He willed the Ministers of the Church, and preachers of the word of God, to search out which opinion was, and which was not agreeable to holy writ. He regarded not the ensamples of his ancestors, who by public Edicts had approved the doctrine of the Monothelites, which was hard for him to abolish. Neither did the authority of the patriarchs and Bishops, in Constantinople and all over the East (that stiffly held that opinion) any thing move him. Nor he suffered himself to be made afraid, although he herded that the pride of the Bishop of Rome was incredible, as one that wickedly challenged a dignity and authority above other Bishops and teachers. But sent his letters to him, exhorting him to come or send some other in his place. Neither gave he him any prerogative, nor craveth licence of him to call the Council, but of his own duty, he defineth himself for the appointing of the Council. He lovingly biddeth the Roman and other Bishops, not to be absent at so necessary matters, and concerning the Churches public weal. The Emperor himself is present at the Synod, not as a dumb or deaf person (like a cifer in algorithm) or receiving the decrees without judging of them, or placing the B. of Rome's Legates in the chiefest place, and receiving them without all contradiction (as oracles from them, as it were from Apollo's trivet) but modestly, reverently, and godly, as much as become his calling, he governed the Synod, propounding to them the state or scope of the cause, and inquiring on a row, gathered their sentences together, lest aught should be done rashly or confusedly. He commanded not the one party, but the contrary party also, plainly and without subtleties to declare their opinions, and what grounds they had of their sentences, out of the holy scriptures, and what authentical witness of the approved fathers. And so forth, they declare, how indifferently he dealt with either party, knowing, that he must not condemn any before he knew the full matter. And when it was evidently found out, that the Monothelites could not defend their opinion, by the clear testimonies of the scripture, nor any sentences of the doctors allowed, yea when it was found out, they hacked of purpose certain of the Doctors sayings, and in place of them cited certain sayings falsely fathered in the Doctor's names, them the Emperor subscribed to the judgement of all those that thought aright, and earnestly and stoutly executed the condemnation made in the name of them all. Here these writers commend this Emperor, & the more for that he had about him, no doubt say they, such parasites, as would tickle in his ear, that these things were unfitting fo●… his majesty to intermeddle himself, with the brawls of the Church's pelting Doctors. It were a blemish to him, to condemn his ancestors, & to call into doubt or retract things already decreed. This were not the safest way. Let the bishops alone with the matter, for even they are able to make laws against the Emperor's estate, and abase it. The Emperor by his authority may do no more than command silence, send into exile, or punish with other violence, those that make clamours, or disobey the counsels decree. But the Emperor not regarding these fancies, thought it honourable to him to be present, in the midst of the teachers of gods word, assisting not a little the trial and judgement of the controversy. This ensample these writers thus set out, for a prince's government, dealing, & oversight in the chiefest ecclesiastical causes. And thus before they determined in general, that God or deined not Princes to spoil their subjects, and make themselves ●…at. Neither only to attend to outward discipline, and that men may live in honest tranquillity, for (say they) seeing that magistrates are in the scriptures called Gods, this aught to be their first and chiefest care, that their subjects serve God after such a sort, that his kingdom in their dominions may be known, increased, and conserved, that is to were, sincere doctrine. etc. may be delivered, remain, & pass from them to their posterity. To this end tendeth all politic administration, all defence of peace and neighbourhood, & that laboursome care of getting the living & gathering goods: that these spiritual & everlasting goods both of the body & of the mind, should be got. Thus do they stretch out, further than doth M. St. the bounds of a prince's government to all ecclesiastical causes. And all that they writ on the other part, is against such a popish supremacy, as establisheth & maketh a new religion quicquid imperita●…erit re●…. And yet see how spitefully and falsely M. St. wresteth it, as written against the Q. majesty. When as he confesseth himself, they commend her, & even by the ensample of Constantine, they allow that supreme government that she doth take upon her. Now M. St. after his manner presupposing, we will reject these writers, as though they spoke against the supreme government of the Queen: In case you think (saith he) their testimony not to have St. Fol. 22. a weight enough, then hearken to your & their Apostle Luther, Contra a●…tic. Lovani. tom. 2 who writeth that it is not the office of kings & princes, to confirm no not the true doctrine, but to be subject and serve the same. The effect of this argument is this, princes must not take on them, so to confirm the true doctrine, that they be not subject thereunto, nor serve, but rule the same: Ergo Princess may not set forth the true doctrine, nor be supreme governors in their dominions, over all ecclesiastical people and causes. This argument is like to his fellow above. Luther wrested. And as you wrested the former writers, so wrist you Luther's saying also, whose sentence as it is nothing against the godly government of our most noble sovereign, subject to the principal authority of God's word, & that it might be of chiefest authority, subduing thereto the authority of all other writers, & removing those superstitions, that exalted them selves in authority equal, or above God's word: so this sentence is eftsoons, as the other, against such usurpation, as is evident that your Pope taketh upon him. But M. Stapleton dreaming that he hath so sore pressed Stap. fol. 22. a us, and this is so hard and strange a case, that now Luther can take no place amongst us: he objecteth another unto Andr Modre. de Eccl. li. 1. ca 10. us, one Andreas Modrenius. And yet his saying also, maketh (God wot) full little for the Papists herein. Who says there aught to be some one to be taken for the chief and supreme head in the whole Church in all causes ecclesiastical. What conclude you M. St. hereupon? Ergo it must be your Pope? or no christian prince? And here as though all these were not yet sufficient testimonies, you bring in Calvin. But since you do it but to fill up your book, with that common allegation of your side, which being also not omitted of M. Feckenham, is to be referred, to be propounded and answered unto in his proper place: I therefore remit you thither. Only to that you say, he so spitefully handled King Henry St. fol. 22. b. the eight, as he never handled the Pope more spitefully, I answer: this is but your spiteful lie, to deface the Protestants. Else why do you not prove the same? And as for your Pope it is evident also, he never handled him spitefully, but only reproved his vices and errors by the word of God. But how spitefully your Pope and popish Prelates, so far as they could, handled him, and how spitefully they handle all Protestants, that they may once set their spiteful spiritual fingers upon, all the world doth see. And yet the silly Protestants must bear all the blame, it is not enough for them to bear the injuries. This lesson you learned of the Devil of Dowgate, to bite and whine also, or rather you do as Esop's Wolf did, challenge the poor Lamb for troubling his water, and to misuse him spitefully, but this merciful Wolf, devoured this spiteful Lamb. He urgeth us farther in great outcries, with a sentence of one Anthony Gilbie, our own Countryman. The sum Stap. 23. a. b. of his argument is this. Anthony Gilbie an English man, speaketh very unreverently, and unreligiously, of King Henry the eight: Ergo the Protestants now in England, whatsoever they pretend and dissemble in words, in heart mislike the queens majesties government. How doth this follow M. St? and yet you wrist Anthony Gilbies' sentence also. He speaketh not of this supremacy neither, but in plain words, of such a supremacy in England, as the Pope challengeth all over Christendom. Though therefore he be greatly to be blamed, for his unreverent speech, and for his unadvised mistaking of his Princes lawful authority: yet is he not to be belied, as though he spoken of all kind of supremacy in all princes simply. It is a shame (as they say M. St.) even to bely the Devil. But see how the matter falls out. You have brought Anthony Gilbyes' sentence, against us and the queens majesties authority. Have you not well holpen yourself, if this sentence also make flat against your pope? For if (as he saith, & therein truly) Christ aught only to be the head of the church, & the placing of any other displaceth him: then is not the pope the head also, but the placing of him displaceth Christ. But the Pope challengeth to be the head of the Church also, which our prince doth not: Ergo not our prince, but your Pope displaceth Christ. And thus thinking to beat us, you still make a rod for your own Pope's tale. And here suddenly calling to mind, how far he hath strayed in foraging out these sentences, he returns a little to the Bishop, setting on him for calling the Pope the Papists god Stap. 24. a. in earth, the arch-heretic of Rome and that M. Fec. would have him reign in the Queen's place. Besturring himself with a heap of arguments, to defend his Pope. Besides his scoffs, railings, and other rhetorical flowers quoted in his common places. But first for his Pope saith he, We The Pope's goodness. Stap. fol. 24. make no God of the Pope, and sometimes perhaps no good man neither. In deed M. Stap. you should have more than both your hands full, to make your Pope sometimes a good man▪ you need not put perhaps to the matter. It would pose himself, and all the Devils in hell, and that oftentimes, to work such a miracle on him, as, that man of sin, that child of perdition, and adversary of God, to become a good man. But yet I say beware, how you speak such buggishe words of him, as not to be a good man. Whose will is law, whose law is all power, in heaven, in earth, in hell. Now can this be an ill man. Beware lest this come to his ears The Pope called God. Extrau. joh. 22 cum inter in glosia. Cardinalis Zirabella. M. Stap. and withal, that you make him not a God in earth. Are not you of their religion, that believe and confess this principle, 〈◊〉 deus noster Papa: Our Lord God the Pope? Yea and as some say, he is Plusque deu●…. If you be: beware his thunderbolt. If you be not: why defend you him, and his errors, against the truth of God? why forsake you your most virtuous Prince, to follow a stranger, and that an ill man? but you answer: And yet we reverence him, for his office, and authority, Stap. 24. 2 that Christ so amply and honourably gave him, for preservation of unity and quietness in his Church. That you reverence him in deed, and that is more, adore The Pope's patent. him to, is manifest. But the patent of that his office and authority, that you crack Christ so amply and so honourably gave your Pope, you show none, nor where, nor how, nor when he gave it: Only you tell us of the ends, wherefore he gave it. For the preservation of unity and quietness in his The Unity that the Pope maketh. Church. But if these were the ends M. St. he hath forfeited his patent long ago. That not only disagreeth from the express words and commandment of Christ, but swerveth, one Pope from another. And how chance he setteth his own schoolmen, & his Canonists at no better unity? his Thomists and his Scotistes, his sects of Religions, at no better quietness, than a t●…ade & a snake together? how chance he agreeth no better with his Bishops, & his own college of cardinals? How chance he falls out so often with Emperors and kings, & setteth Princes & their subjects by the ears together? why fighteth he so fast with both his sword, like king Arthures double sworded knight? why had he rather at this day, that all christendom were in a broil, & so much bl●…ud were cruelly shed, than he would relent one inch of his honour, one penny of his filthy gain, one i●…te of his errors, Idolatries, & false dectrines, that even are confessed of his own sect, & give place to the word of God? is this his preserving of unity and quietness, in the Church of Christ? or had he any such patent given him, hath he not lost and lost it again? and will you still reverence and adore him, for it? Secondly, where the Bishop calleth your Pope, the arch-heretic Stapl. 24. ●…. of Rome. Your wisdom (say you) with like truth also appeareth, in that you call the Pope the arch-heretic of Rome, naming no man, and so your words so liberally & wanton cast out, do as well comprehend S. Peter, S. Clement, and other holy Martyrs, and Bishops there, as any other. The sum of this argum●…t is this, The Pope now alive, or to come, (for the B. speaketh of one, that they would have reign in the Queen's place) is called an arch-heretic: Ergo, S. Peter, S. Clement, and other holy Martyrs, are called archheretickes. His answer to this is thus, I promise' you a well blown blast and handsomely handled, I answer you again M. Stapl. I promise' you this is a well Stapl. 24. a. made argument, and handsomely answered. You brag much for your Pope of S. Peter, and S. Clement, and other holy martyrs. Your Pope doth well M. Stapl to brag of them, for that is all the nearness that he cometh to them. S. Peter and those Martyrs were as like your Pope, and he as like them, as Caiphas was like to Christ. If they see his deings and his craking of them, they would never crack again of him, but call him arch-heretic to. But he may crack of these holy martyrs, as the Earl of Warwick craked in king Edward the fourth's days, that it was a iolier halus in vita Edw. 4. thing to make Kings, than to be himself a King: and so may your Pope brag, that it is a iolier matter to make martyrs, than to be a martyr himself. He can make saints he says, & I believe it, & the poor saints feel it daily, whose Apoc. 7. How the Pope can in deed make saints and martyrs. stoles he dippeth in their blood. So like is he to s. Peter, S. Clement & other holy Martyrs, that where he is none himself as were they, yet in that defect, he will re●…ōpence God, with store of martyrs of his own making. And for this resemblance, if the Pope be now touched, S Peter by & by is touched, and he that speaketh generally of the Popes now a days, if he name not one certain Pope, casts out his words wanton, at S. Peter, S. Clement and other holy Martyrs of the old time. But and you had not been wanton disposed M. St. yourself, you might well have perceived whom the B. meant, nothing the old Bishops of Rome (of whom whether S. Peter were ever any or not, is an other question, and you are well stripped out of that Lion's skin.) But he spoke plainly, of such Bishops as now usurping the sea of Rome, you would have to reign in the Queen's place. But let not the matter go so M. Stapleton. With like fineness (say you) you call him archehereticke Stap. 24. a. that is supreme judge of all heretics and heresies to. I answer with the like fineness you take that for granted, that is chief denied. By this fine Sophistical figure Petitio principij, your fineness M. St. will hurt you, every boy in the schools would hiss out such fine reasoning. You call him arch-heretic, (say you) that hath already Stapl. 24. a. judged you and your patriarchs, for archeheretikes. I wist as well might the felon at the bar in Westminster hall, to save his life if it might be, call the judge, the strongest these of all. And doubtless had he a Prince on his side, his plea were as good as yours is. Let go the Prince M. Stapleton, that is to much treachery, and more than felony, though you liken us to the felon, to resemble the queens most excellent Majesty to an abbettour of thieves and felons: & then I will answer your I wist, with an other I wist. I wist as well the strongest thief of all, might cry stop thief, by any true man, to save the pursuit from himself, and his cry were as good as the Pope's cry, that we, not he, are the archheretikes: and doubtless, having such confederates on his side as you, to help to cry so with him, the thieves cry might seem more true, than the true man's. Especially if as you would have the matter go, that the thief should be made judge in his own case to, when would this thief condemn himself trow you? do you not perceive M. Stapleton, that your comparison faileth of the judge in Westminster hall against a felon? when see you there a judge sit, and give sentence in his own cause, himself being on the one side the principal party? what justice or law call you that? you should therefore let Westminster hall alone, and say, at Rot●… in Rome, or in the Pope's consistory, and where he will si●…te as judge on himself and us. There in deed, he hath judged us to be the archeheretikes, but even this unjust doing, showeth himself to be the very arch-heretic. Otherwise if his cause were good, he dared come down from the bench, and plead with his adversaries, the truth or falsehood thereof: Which till he do, he playeth the part of an archetyrant also. Now (say you) where you say we would have the Pope, to Stapl. 24. a. reign here in the Queen's place, proceedeth from your like truth and wisdom. For albeit the Pope's authority was ever chief for matters Ecclesiastical, yet was there never any so much a noddy, to say and believe the Pope reigned here, the Pope and the King, being ever two distinct people, far different the one from the other, in several functions and administrations, and yet well concurrant and coincident together, without any imminution of the one or the others authority. I answer, with the like truth and wisdom, as you reasoned before, so you frame also this reason. You say (say you) we would have the Pope to reign in her place: Ergo, you say we would have the Pope to be King. Hereupon you make your distinction of reigning, and having supreme authority, and so you conclude there was never any so much a noddy, to say and believe the Pope reigned here. First your argument is faulty, for, putting the case, you The Pope's reign in England. will not for shame say, that you would have him King here, yet if he took from her a principal part of her royal power, did he not then reign in her place, though he claimed not to be King? and since you vaunt of wisdom, what a wise distinction is this, of reigning and having supreme authority, to blear the simples eyes with words? for so far forth, as he claimeth the supreme authority, which he doth in all supreme matters, as are Ecclesiastical, and that over her, so well as any other: so far forth he claimeth, to reign over her. Now this being a part of her royal power, death he not claim to reign even over the principal part, and so is King thereof? But say you who was ever so much a noddy as to say he reigned here? Sir this noddy is even your Pope, that maketh this claim, & you yourself for him. Do you not here say, (although you greatly lie therein) that he was ever chief for matters Ecclesiastical, and do not all your complices say, that he reigneth for spiritual matters, both here & all over Christendom? Yea, I will go further, for the temporalties to. I pray you (saving the reverence of your noddy) who reigned here, when for certain days the Pope's legate, kept the crown of England from king john, and gave it him again, making the king become vassal & feodatarie to the Pope, and to hold the crown and realm of him in fee farm, and pay. 700. marks a year for England, and. 300. for Ireland? And hath not the Pope challenged other kingdoms also: yea doth he not claim to be the chief Lord and Prince of all kingdoms? and to set up, and depose, what king or prince he pleased? And he that believed not this, was not counted a noddy, but an heretic. And yet saith M. St. was there ever any so much a noddy, to say and believe the Pope reigned here? but all Papists must be noddies with him, yea his own Pope in stead of a triple crown, must wear a cocks comb, and himself for company will bear the bell. But here he leapeth back again to M. Gilbie, not for the matter of supremacy, but for his misliking of certain orders of religion in king Edward's days, and here upon pleadeth, Stap. 24. b. that the Papists are now more to be born withal, if they can not bear the service, and the title set forth. I answer, first (M. St.) another man's faults excuse not yours. Neither Anthony Gilbies and yours are alike. For were his greater, or any of those Protestants, that you upbraid unto us afterwards, yet are they less, in that they obstinately maintained not the same, nor persisted therein, nor attempted any conspiracies, nor would have a foreign supreme, nor such an other as your Pope, the father of errors, and so on their submission or repentance, their fault is pardoned or made less. But you obstinately maintain a plain refusal of obedience, would have a foreign usurper be your supreme, and not only subdue the realm and our bodies to his tyranny, but our souls to his errors: neither do you repent thereof, but persever in it, and by wicked Libels, privy conspiracies, and all other means that you can, deface God's word, your natural prince, & native country: your fault therefore, is much greater than his, or there's. And therefore your wilful obstinacy is not to be born withal, especially since after so long and gentle tolerance of the queens most gracious lenity towards you, you increase your malice, and harden your hearts with Pharaoh, abusing her highness lenity. Now, where the Bishop said, these dealings were a preparation to rebellion against the Queen's person, M. Stap. Stap. 24. b. saith, that it nothing toucheth her person, nor her crown. And that without the ecclesiastical authority, the crown hath continued and flourished most honourably many hundredth years▪ and shall by God's grace continued full well, and full long again, when it shall please God. Why M. Stap. what mean you by this? doth not the crown flourish and continued, even now also, God be praised for it? why say you then, it hath flourished, and shall again, when it shall please God, as though it did not now. And the state of the Crown were now no estate, or a very ill estate, in the reign of the queens majesty. If this be not a preparation to rebellion, to make the Subjects mislike the estate of the Crown, is it not then, even a rebellious Proclamation itself? but let us see your argument, that you make hereon, to excuse yourselves. divers Princes have continued and flourished honourably of long time without the ecclesiastical authority. Ergo, it is now no preparation to rebellion, against the queens person, to refuse her authority over all causes ecclesiastical, and to defend that it appertaineth not to her Ecclesiastical authority, and authority over eccl. matters are not all one. person or Crown. I answer. First the word ecclesiastical authority, is very subtly and doubtfully spoken, as though her highness went about to play the minister. If you mean so, the antecedent is then true. The ecclesiastical authority nothing toucheth her person or crown▪ without the which it hath most honourably continued and flourished many hundredth years, and shall by God's grace continued, full well, and full long again, when it shall please God. But than is this your most spiteful slander, to say, that the Queen now taketh upon her eccl. authority, and that it is now united to her person or crown, which is most evident false. And therefore the crown flourisheth, (for any such matter) so well as ever it did. And God grant it never to flourish worse, than it doth under her Majesty now. But the antecedent being so far forth true, as is declared, than the consequent followeth not, that it is now no preparation to rebellion to refuse her authority over all eccl. causes, and to defend that it pertaineth not to her person or crown. But if in the antecedent by ecclesi. authority you mean authority over ecclesiastical matters, than the antecedent is false, and so to be proved, by the issue of the practice in this Realm: Neither is it any good argument. Because many took it not on them: Ergo, none may? Because they did not use it: Ergo, they aught not? Because they had worldly prosperity without it: Ergo, it was not necessary to them? Because the denial was no preparation to rebellion then: Ergo, it is none now? None of these causes are sufficient, M. St. and therefore your subtle and false reason faileth. Now when you see nothing will fadge this way, either to defend you, or to accuse us, you will set upon us for other matters, that we are those that make this preparation to rebellion. Let this title and eccl. jurisdiction go (say you) which all Stap. 24. b. good princes have ever foregone, as nothing to them appertaining: let us come to the very temporal authority, and let us consider who make any preparation of rebellion, the Catholics, or the Protestants. In letting that go, M. Stap. that appertaineth to this title and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, you let go your matter, and after your manner, make so many impertinent discourses, contrary to that you called upon before, never to swerver from the question in hand, and now yourself swerver of purpose from it. howbeit, shall we let you go so round away, with such a heap of notorious lies, that all good Princes have ever foregone this title and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as nothing to them appertaining? that not some or many, but all good Princes, have foregone, and ever foregone, both this title, and also ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and so ever foregone it, as nothing pertaining to them? If you could have showed this, you should have well spent your time, and kept you nearer your matter, you needed not have fisked about so many by quarrels. But this could you not prove, and therefore it was necessary, you should run to them, picking quarrels at us, not marking your own wicked defacing of your Prince, whom otherwhiles so fauningly you flatter. For whereto else tendeth this saying, all good princes have ever foregone this title and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as nothing pertaining to them, but to infer, that all those princes that take on them, or will at any time not forego this title & eccl. jurisdiction, as appertaining to them, are ill and wicked Princes? What else can be made of your saying? And so not only you plainly revile the lords anointed, the queens most excellent majesty, but also her highness brother and father, whom so much you praised before. For neither of them did forego it, not not Queen Mary herself, that did forego it, did ever forego it, & so you rail at her also. Besides many other godly princes, of this & other realms, for the eccl. jurisdiction, as you call it, which some of them did never, some of them did not ever forego. And therefore you both revile them, and belie them, but chief the queens highness, and is not this neither a preparation to rebellion? But M. Stap. must needs be let go, whether he list to range: and therefore let him go. First, he asketh, who were they that set forth devices of their own, for the succession St. 24. b. 25. a of the crown, without the Prince's knowledge? Surely (saith he) no Catholics, but the very Protestants themselves. You doill, M. Stap. to make a general conclusion, of the Protestants simply, from the private doings of some. Should a man say that the pedigrée, that M. Christoferson set from john of Gaunt, for king Philip's title to the Crown of England, proving him to be, even nearer than Queen Mary herself, was the doing of all the Papists? Not, the Papists mystiked and corrected it. howbeit, when it was best corrected, it tended to a far worse end, (which end was all their doings and fetch, to bring this Realm to perpetual slavery and bondage of Aliens) than did these men's fact, in devising for the succession: which though it were not lawful to be done, without the Prince's knowledge, as you say: yet was their intent far otherwise than to make a preparation to rebellion, yea rather to stop all gaps (as they thought) the better from Popish rebellion, although they meddled further than become them to do. But what excuseth this the Papists disobedience? think you these faults of the Protestants be coverings large enough to hide the Papists wickedness? but to stretch them further, he discourseth on the writings of master Knox, and master Goodman. For we shall have all laid in our dish, nought shall be The commodity that we have of Papists. left behind concealed, that any Protestants unadvisedly ever did or spoke. And it is good to see our own fa●…ts and follies, this profit of foes plutarch teacheth us, to be one of the greatest commodities, for that that our friends would not tell us, our enemies will not lain, but sp●…e out all that they know, to our shame, good and bad, false and true together. And therefore we had need beware, that profess the word of God, how circumspectly we lead our lives, lest we give occasion to the adversary, and his ministers, to slander the Gospel, and that the uncircumcised Philistians rail not of the God of Israel, by reason of our defaults, as here this enemy doth. Howbeit his argument is all insufficient, either to prove any disobedience in us, or to excuse the Papists disobedience: the argument is this. M. Knox, and M. Goodman written against the reign of Stap. 25. a. b. 26. a. b. women: Ergo, the Protestants acknowledge not the queens supremacy in all causes ecclesiastical. Such slender arguments he gleaneth together against us, seeking buy matters. But what should he do? else should he have naught to furnish his counterblast withal. At last, giving over the pursuit of the Protestants, he returns to the defence of his client, that this can be laid of all men lest to M. Feck. And here like a well instructed proctor, he reckoneth what good deeds he did in Q. Mary's days, and appealeth to certain Right honorables, as the Lord Earl of Leicester, the lord Earl of bedford, the lord Earl of Warwick, Sir William Cecil secretary. Yea the Queen's majesty herself, to defend and purge him. The good deeds that he reckoneth up are these two. First, that sir john Cheeks life, lands and goods, by his travail and humble suit were saved. The other: His hope is, that the Queen's highness, his sovereign good Lady, will thus much report of him, how in the beginning of her highness trouble, her highness then being imprisoned in the Court at Westm. and before her committie to the Tower, his good hap was to preach a sermon before Queen Mary, and her honourable council in the Court, where he moved her highness and them also to mercy, and to have consideration of the Queen's highness that now is, then in trouble, and newly entered in prison. What displeasure he sustained therefore, I do here (says M. St.) omit to express, but this I certainly know that he hath reported, and hath most humbly thanked almighty God, and her highness, that her highness had the same in remembrance, at the first & last talk that ever he had with her in her palace at Westin. before her highness coronation. I trust these are sufficient personages for M. Feck, purgation and discharge, against your false 〈◊〉. And so he concludeth with a prayer, that M. Feck. may be made partaker of the like doings, as he then showed to other men. That down, M. St. God hath granted him long time, & M. Fec. hath felt it: nor (if he be not too unthankful) can deny it: yea, yourself grant that he confesseth the Q. highness to be his sovereign good lady, & reported, that her highness forgot not the same, & I warrant you, forslacked not the large recompense of his sermon, not only if he would have revoked his errars & super●…titions, but also, even as he wilfully refused her highness favourable inclination towards him, & I have herd him often times myself, publicly & privately acknowledge, what the Q. majesty most liberally gave him, at the reducing of the Minster to the former estate. But what doth this pharisaical repetition of his former good deeds then, excuse his obstinate disobedience now? or prove that his book set forth against the Queen's majesties authority, & dispersed among her subjects, is notnowe a very preparation to rebellion? if he did any thing then, to deserve favour now, let him now so behave himself, that he may find it, the queens majesty is most merciful and beneficial. What hindereth him then, but his own rebellion's obstinacy? and yet he hath found since (what little favour so ever he got for other then) tenfold much more doubled to him again. Little favour (God knoweth, and her highness felt) found she in that her trouble, and straight imprisonment, after M. Feck. sermon. But you will not express, what displeasure M. Fec. sustained for moving Queen Mary and her Council to mercy, and to have but consideration of the Queen's highness that now is. What? How far the Papists are from mercy and consideration. got he so great displeasure for thus much, M. St? was it so sore a matter, to move them to mercy and consideration of their doings? I had thought they had done all things with mercy and great consideration. But why will you not express it? forsooth, you should then express, what exceeding cruelty, (which can hardly be expressed) what inconsiderate doings, the Papists used then, neither could they be moved from them. And never so little a motion (for M. Feckenham went not over far I warrant you) could not be made of mercy and consideration, without great displeasure taken. You have well described the state of your Pope's reign (M. Stap.) so unmerciful an estate and inconsiderate, that for description thereof you do best, as did Timantes, when he painted the mourners at the sacrifice of Iphigenia, setting out one weeping, another with this, another with that heavy visage, when he could not devise a more dol●…rous countenance, he painted Agamemnon hiding his face with a kerchief: so you, when you can not sufficiently set forth those doleful times, you do wisely, in that you omit to express them, and therein you express them most of all. And would you have like mercy and consideration sheshed now to the Papists, as the Papists showed then to the Protestants? Alas, master Stap. if but half a quarter of such extremity were showed now, as was showed then, it would go harder with master Feckenham, and other his complices, than it doth. Not, not, M. Stap. their A difference between a Pap●…st and a Protestant. chambers, their walks, their liberty, their ease, their fare, is nothing like your dungeons, your stocks, your colehouses, your famine, your racks, your gaggs, your whipping there, & rostmeate at a stake, that you gave the protestants. I warrant you M Fe. looks not like a ghost, nor like a poor scholar of Cambridge or Oxford, & perchance fares better than some students of divinity in Lovayne. It is easy to discern●… M. St. what spirit either religion is of, the protestants and the papists, even by this your own note of unmercifulness and mercy: and now (says M. St.) let us proceed on to the residue of your book. The fifth Division. THe Bishop of Winchester, after he hath showed (on M. Feckenhams words) the intent of the Oath, and the intent of M. Feckenh. book to be contrary: and therefore, what soever he offereth in words, he denieth the same in deeds: and in the beginning for ensample, dalieth with the Oath about dominions & people, thinking thereby, he escapeth the principal end of the Oath: in this division showeth first, how doublie he dealeth, in pretending as though the Bishop had forced him to swear: but there was no such Oath offered or required between them: ●…rgo, A man might well mar●…aile, that he shamed not to pretend such a lie. Secondly the Bishop showeth, how M. Feckenham is taken in his own dalia●…ce. The Bishop's reason is this. In that you grant to her Highness the only supreme rule over the Say and Ecclesiastical people, you have all ready proved withal the causes also, evenby a supreme governors definition. A supreme governor or ruler, is one who hath A supreme governor. to ouerse●…, guide, care, provide, order, and direct the things under his government & rule, to that end and in those actions, which are appointed, & properly belong, to the subject or thing governed: But the Queen's Highness is, by your own confession, the only supreme governor over all manner people Ecclesiastical, etc. Ergo, Her highness hath to oversee, guide, care, provide, order and direct, to that end, and in those actions, which are appointed, & do properly belong to people Ecclesiastical. And thus concludeth, that M. Feckenham granting thus much for fashion sake in general speech, is but a dissembler, and in deed denieth the obedience of the person also: or else he peevishly standeth on the distinction of the cause, which in full effect he hath granted already. To the first part M. Stapleton answereth. Here is first a worshipful reason, and cause to marvel at M. Feckenham. Stapl. 2●…. b. that he should by writing presently offer himself to receive an Oath, because he never made mention of any such oath before, neither any such was at any time of him required, surely this is as great a cause to wonder, as to see a goose go barefoot. You plainly falsify the Bishop's words M. Stapl▪ he said not, that M. Feckenham never made mention of any such oath before, but he said, that he never made any motion of such an offer to him. So that this declareth both a double dealing of him, & also a wresting of you. But this in either of you, must not be wondered at, as a rare dealing, that in lying and wresting you be shameless, because it is as common to you, as to see a goose go barefoot, and as rare, as to hear a barefoot Fox, preach to shod geese in Louvain. Secondly to the Bishop's argument he saith: But now will he play the worthy Logician, and M. Feckenham Stapl. 28. b. will he, nill he, shallbe driven by fine force of a Logical definition, to grant the Queen to be supreme head in all causes Ecclesiastical, for that he granteth her to be supreme head of all people both Ecclesiastical and Temporal. Because (says he) the supreme governor or ruler is he, that ordereth and directeth all actions, belonging and appointed to the subjects, and thereby enferreth that the Queen's Majesty is supreme and only governor, even in those actions that belong to Ecclesiastical people, which are causes Ecclesiastical. But as good skill as this man hath in Logic (which is correspondent to his divinity) he hath brought us forth a faulty and a vicious definition. For a supreme governor is he, that hath the chief government of the thing governed, not in those actions that may any way, properly belong to the subject or thing governed, (as M. Horn saith) but in those actions that belong to the end, whereunto the governor tendeth. Which may well be, although he have not the chief government in all the actions of the thing governed, but in such actions as properly appertain to him, as a subject to that governor. Although M. Stapl. arguments hitherto have showed some taste of his own great skill in Logic, and what a worthy student of Divinity he is himself (the want of which two he upbraideth to the Bishop after his proud & scornful manner) yet in this his counterblast to the Bishop's only reason of a supreme governors definition, he will further show what a passing subtle Logician, & deep Divine he is. But alas the man's ill luck, for while he clerkly laboureth & strives to bring M. Feck●…ham out of the briars, he not only wrappeth him the faster in them: but so snarleth & entangleth himself withal, that as one all amazed, he speaketh he wottes not what. And going about the Bush wonderfully to work, when he hath all done, he hath not only left the matter where it was, against M. Feckenham, but hath made it more plain against himself also. First, he reprehendeth the Bishop's definition of a governor as faulty, but his guilty conscience was so stricken, that he dared not, or he well witted not, how to report the definition as it lay, but says that the Bishop defined, A supreme governor, to be one, that ordereth and directeth all actions, belonging and appointed to the subject: Which the B. said not, but M. St. who hath altered, hacked, and cut half away of the Bishop's definition, which within eight lines after (though nipping and wresting the words, yet some what more truly than before) he expresseth, saying: in those actions that may any way properly belong to the subject or thing governed. Wherein he seemeth unskilfully, or as one astonied, to make no difference betwixt the subject which is the person, and the object, which is the matter and action, or not to understand that properly the governor, is not said to order and direct the object, but the subject, in or about the object. In which point as the Bishop's definition is distinct and clear: so M. Stap. finding fault therewith, but not able to say here lieth the fault, nor to amend it, and yet going about to amend it: either in conclusion, maketh one, nothing differing in matter, or far worse so much as it differeth from it. A supreme governor (says M. Stapl.) is he, that hath the Stapl. 23. b. chief government of the thing governed, not in those actions that may in any wise belong to the subject, or thing governed (as M. Horn says) but in those actions, that belong to the end whereunto the governor tendeth. This is your perfect definition M. St. which either is Idem per Idem, a governor is he that governeth in those actions, wherein he is a governor: and so your faultless definition is very faulty itself: or else it is in effect and matter all one, with the Bishop's definition, that you reprehend, though you would in words seem to make some difference: & so again it is the more vicious, the more obscure it is. But this may well be (say you, to confirm your definition) Stapl. 28. b. although he have not the chief government in all the actions of the thing governed, but in such actions as properly appertain to him as a subject to that governor. M. St. we stand not now in question what may well be, but what is of necessary consequence. But you seek out corners and dark speeches to wrap the truth in such obscurity, after the Popish manner, that your readers might rather marvel at you than understand you. Which if they did, they should see your folly and contradictions, and that yourself scarce understand your own words (if they were your own) for if you understood yourself, when you say, he hath chief government, in such actions as properly pertain to him, as a subject to that governor: then would you also see, how it followeth that being a subject to him (as M. Feckenham hath confessed) as well in that he is an Ecclesiastical person, as Temporal: he is also a subject to him in such actions, as are so well Ecclesiastical as Temporal. The argument is evident. He that is subject to the Princes supreme government, is under him in all such actions as appertain to him, as a subject to that governor. But every manner person so well Ecclesiastical as Temporal, born in the Prince's dominions, is subject to the Princes supreme government: Ergo, The Prince hath the supreme government over every manner person born in his dominions, in all such actions as are Ecclesiastical so well as Temporal. And thus his own dark speeches being brought to light, make flat against himself. But to make the Reader understand his meaning better, and to unwrap himself out of this obscurity, in the which he hath rather hindered than bettered his cause: he setteth out the same with sundry ensamples, of a Master and his Servant, a Father and his Son, a Mayor and a Citizen, the Prince and his subject, a Schoolmaster and his scholars, the Shipmaster and the Mariners. For in one man (says he) many rulers may and do daily Stapl. 28. b. & 29. a. concur, which in some sense may every one be called his supreme governor. As if he be a servant, the Master: and if he be a son, in that respect the father, and if his father and Master devil in a city, the Mayor also, is the fathers & masters, & so his chief governor to, for things concerning the chief government of the city, and of all these the Prince, chief and supreme governor, as they be subjects. Otherwise the Prince doth not intermeddle with the father's office, in dutifulness dew to him by his son: nor the Master for that government he hath upon his servant, no more than with the schoolmaster, for the government of his scholars, and their actions, or the master of the ship, for the actions & doings of the mariners, otherwise than any of these offend the positive laws of the realm, and so hath the Prince to do with him as his subject, or when he shall have need to use them for the common wealth, wherein as subjects and members of the said common wealth, they must to him obey. Much like is it with the spiritual men, which be also members of the said common wealth, and therefore in that respect, subject to the Prince and his laws: and so is it true, that the Prince is supreme governor of all people as well spiritual as temporal. But that therefore he should also be supreme governor in all their actions, will no more follow than of the actions of them before rehearsed, yea much less. M. St. thinketh he hath now cleared the coast, & that by all these ensamples, the matter goeth clear with him. showing first how every one of these rulers, master, father, mayor, and Prince, may in some sense be called supreme governors. But yet, either he doth not or will not see withal, how in the sense now in controversy, all these ensamples are also flat against him. For as the father, in all causes that have respect from the father as father, to the son as son▪ is the sons supreme governor, as he says: and as the master in all causes that have respect from the master as master, to the servant as servant, is likewise the servants supreme governor: and as the mayor in all causes that have respect from the mayor in that he is mayor, to the citizen in that he is a citizen, is also the citizens supreme governor: so the supreme governor of ecclesiastical people, in all causes that have respect from him, in that he is a supreme governor, to ecclesiastical people in that they be ecclesiastical people, is in all those causes their supreme governor: but the causes in respect whereof they be called ecclesiastical people, being no other than ecclesiastical causes, it followeth that he is not only supreme governor of the people, but also in the causes belonging to the people, as the father or master is not only supreme governor of the sons or servants people, but also in those causes in respect whereof he is the son or servant. Yea, but says M. St. though the Prince be supreme governor to these and all other people in the realm, yet as he intermeddleth not with father, schoolmaster, shipmaster, etc. in their several actions of their offices or vocations: so though the Prince be supreme governor of all people ecclesiastical, yet is he not supreme governor in all their actions of their offices or vocations. You conclude not a like M. Stapl. but subtly and falsely you altar the state of the conclusion: if you made your argument aright, you should make it thus: as the Prince intermeddleth not in the several actions of his temporal subjects offices or vocations, so he intermeddleth not in the several actions of his Ecclesiastical subjects offices or vocations. This is the right illation of the s●…militude, and thus it maketh nothing against us. Which you espying, in the place of intermeddling, thrust in, governing, concluding ●…alsely, because he is no intermeddler in the one, that therefore he is no governor of the other. But the ●…urder you wade in this similitude, the more you labour against the stream. For as, although the Prince intermeddle not with the Fathers, the Masters, the Schoolmasters, the Pilots several actions, in their offices or vocations: yet he aught to oversee, that every one of these, and all other his subjects, do their own proper actions, belonging to their vocations, and offices dutifully: yea not only to make laws for them all, as subjects, but also for their several estates and degrees besides, not for himself to exercise, but for them to work in their vocations: so the Prince being likewise governor of Ecclesiastical people, so well as of any other aforesaid, although he intermeddle not with the several actions of their vocations, yet aught he to oversee them, that every Ecclesiastical estate do their proper actions dutifully, and also to make Laws and Orders, not for himself, but for them in their degrees and vocations to exercise and observe the same. And thus your similitude every way maketh quite against you M. Stapl. how be it you will prove it better you say. For the better understanding whereof it is to be known, Fol. 29. a. b. that before the coming of Christ, Kings were there many, but Christian Kings none. Many common wealths were there, but no Christian common wealth, nor yet godly common wealth, properly to speak, saving among the jews, but cluill and politic. The end and final respect of the which civil common wealth, was and is under the regiment of some one or more people, to whom the multitude committed themself to be ordered and ruled by, to preserve themselves, from all inward and outward injuries, oppressions and enemies, and further, to provide not only for their safety and quietness, but for their wealth and abundance, and prosperous maintenance also. To this end tendeth and reacheth, and no further, the civil government: And to the preservation, tuition, and furtherance of this end, chief serveth the Prince, as the principal and most honourable person of the whole estate, which thing is common as well to the Heathenish, as to the Christian government. Is this all that you will afford christian Prince's M. Stap. The Papists make the government of christian princes, no better than the Turks government. what a heathenish doctrine is this, to make Christian princes and Heathen prince's government all one? What if Christian princes (as they have right good cause) begin to startle at this, that you make their estate no better before God than is the great Turks? And what if one should answer, that you not only slandered reproachfully, all the estates of Christendom now living, or that shallbe, or have been since Christ's coming: but also wickedly deface all the godly Kings and rulers before Christ's coming, Melchisedeck, David, Solomon, etc. believing in Christ to come, as Christian Princes now bear the title of Christ already come. And yet dare you say, that before the coming of Christ, Kings were there many, but Christian kings none. Do●… you dally on the title and name of Christian, or mean you the title and effect of christianity? if you mean so (as you must needs mean, if you mean any thing material to the purpose) you are very injurious, not only to those Kings, but to their subjects, yea, to their common weal also. And yet you say further, their common wealth was but civil and politic, and went no further, than outward peace, tranquillity, wealth, and prosperous maynteinance, which is the only end of their government, and that it reacheth not any jot further. What if one should bid you look further in the scripture, Deut. 13. 17. Rom. 13. 1. Tim. 3. and so you should find it stretch somewhat further, than to be common with the great Turk's government? What if a man should press you with your own words afterward, that yet catch it more than one inch further, for assisting of the Church with the temporal sword, which the great Turk, the great Chan, the Persian Sophy, doth not, but draw their sword against it? What if a man should refer this among your contradictions? What if he should join another withal, that where yet you confess, the jews common wealth was godly before Christ's coming, and other common wealths were not godly and yet the civil government of Christian princes, reacheth no further, than the civil government of heathen princes, and one final end is common to both, and so either the Heathens common weals were godly also, or else the jews were ungodly too? yea, what if the heathens common weal, and heathen Princes fallen out to be in better estate of the twain, if only quietness, wealth, abundance, and prosperity, were the only and final end of both? if you were well urged in all these things, think you, M. Stap. these your principles would be able to defend you? yea lastly, if one would deny these your Heathen and Turkish maximies, bring you any thing to prove them, than your own bore saying, that it is to be known? But no true Christian knoweth it, M Stap. nor will ever acknowledge this, which with such bold impudency, you ground upon, that christian Princes government reacheth no further, than civil and outward safety, wealth, abundance, and prosperity, and is common aswell to heathen, as to Christian princes. Nevertheless, M. Stap. taking it for a rolled case, and out of question, rolleth up the matter as granted. And as he hath thus determined the bounds of Christian Princes government, so (as it were by commission from his holy father) he describeth the Pope's kingdom. But over and besides (saith he) yea, and above this, is Stap. 29. b. there an other government instituted and ordained by Christ, in a spiritual and a mystical body, of such as he graciously calleth to be of his kingdom▪ which is the kingdom of the faithful, and so consequently of heaven, whereunto christian faith doth conduct us. In which spiritual body, commonly called Christ's catholic Church, there are other heads and rulers than civil Princes, as Vicars, Parsons, Bishops, archbishops, patriarchs, and over them all the Pope. Whose government chief serveth, for the furtherance and increase of this spiritual kingdom, as the civil Princes do for the temporal. That there is another mystical body, the kingdom of the faithful directed by an other spiritual government, this is a true principle, M. Stap. and truer than you ween or would have it. But as you are deceived, and would deceive others, with the title of that spiritual Church, so on this principle, you gather a most false assumption. That the heads of this spiritual or mystical body, the church of Christ, are vicar's, parsons, bishops, archbishops, patriarchs, and over them all the Pope. In which assumption, you take for true & granted, sundry manifest errors, flatly of us denied, chief four. The first about the spiritual and mystical body of Christ. Wherein you show great unskill, not knowing what is meant by the spiritual & mystical body. For in that respect, as there are no civil princes, emperors, kings, or queens, Gal. 3. so there are no Bishops neither, not not Greek nor Scythian, Gentile nor jew, neither male nor female, but all the elect that have been, are, or shall be, either in heaven above, or here dispersed in any part of the earth, without any respect of person, are all members, and Christ the only head. And so M. St. yourself also call it, the kingdom of the faithful, so that if any bishop be unfaithful, he is so far from being a head in this mystical corporation, that he is no member or any part thereof. And yourself confessed before, that now & then your Pope was no good man neither, & therefore unfaithful, having not the true, lively, & effectual faith in Christ, as they only have that be members of this body, whereby he is quite excluded from it. Your first error therefore is, in not discerning between the invisible and visible estate of the Church. Secondly, taking it (as after, contrary to your former sayings, you seem to expound it) to be the visible estate of the church, saying, commonly called Christ's catholic church: then err you, in that you say, vicar's, parsons, bishops, archbishops, and pope's, be rulers and heads of it. For excepting parsons (taking them for pastors) & Bishops, the scripture knoweth none of th●…se rulers. The other titles have come in since, with deans, arch●…eacōs, abbots, prior's, cardinals, patriarchs. etc. although I speak not against the names of them, not not of the name of Pope neither, which being well used, I reverince & admit, but against the Popish hierarchy, & proud abuse of them. And therefore thirdly, where you say, the Pope is over them all, that he is so over all those degrees in your Church, I grant you, but that he is so over those, or any other degrees, in the true visible Church of Christ, it is but your facing manner, to take that for confessed that is chief denied. Fourthly, that you affirm the Pope, and his Prelate's government chief to serve for the furtherance and increase of the Spiritual kingdom of christ: where it is evident to the contrary, what havoc and decrease, so much as they can, these Rulers make of the members of Christ's Church, to maintain infidelity, and exautorate the word and kingdom of Christ thereby. M. Stap. now presupposing, that the christian Princes government is only outward and for the body, and common with the heathen and stretcheth no further: and that on the other part, the Pope over all, and his fleshly chaplains under him, are the heads and members of the spiritual and mystical body of Christ: now he will prove (and God before) that this government of the pope, & his chaplains, is far above the king's government, and that kings he subject thereto. Now (saith he) as the soul of man incomparably passeth Stap. 29. b. the body, so doth this kingdom the other, and the rulers of these the rulers of the other. And as the body is subject to the soul, so is the civil kingdom to the spiritual. His reason is thus: The soul or spirit incomparably passeth the body: The king's government is only for the body, and the Priest's government only is for the soul and spirit: Ergo, the priests government incomparably passeth the Kings. As this argument is nought, so the conclusion being rightly understood, doth nought infirm the Prince's supreme government over all ecclesi. causes. For though the mayor be true, the minor is most false, that the kings government is only for the body. Yea though the spiritual government be only the Priests, yet the government over spiritual matters, and matters appertaining to the soul, may still for all that, and doth belong, even over the Priests to the Prince. Neither doth M. St. prove the contrary, or allege aught for his minor, than as we have herded, the foresaid principles, of limiting the Prince's government, to be all one with the Turks. But you might have done well M. Stap. to have e●…sed your pains even here, and have troubled yourself no further to prove your matter, if these your vain presupposals, be such true and undoubted principles. But as though we had already granted them, M. St. still goeth on. Stap. 22. b. To the which kingdom (saith he) as well Princes as other, are engrafted by baptism, and become subjects to the same by spiritual generation, as we become subjects to our princes, by course and order of nativity, which is a terrestrial generation. The argument is thus. As the child that is born by a terrestrial generation, in the earthly Prince's kingdom, is subject to the earthly Prince: so, even the Prince being born again by spiritual generation, is become subject to the spiritual kingdom. But the rulers of the spiritual kingdom are the pope. etc. Ergo the Prince is become subject to them. Thus fond still you reason on your principle, in so much that we can say nothing against you. But now, while you think you may say what you will, suddenly see how you have overturned these your mighty principles, with a trip of your own contrary sayings, even in the same place. Furthermore (say you) as every man is naturally bound, Stap. 29. b. to defend, maintain, increase, adorn▪ and amplify, his natural country, so is every man bound, and much more, to employ himself, to his possibility, toward the mition and defence, furtheranee and amplification, of this spiritual kingdom, and most of all the princes themselves. As such which have received of God, more large help and faculty, toward the same, by reason of their great authority, and temporal sword, to join the same as case requireth, with the spiritual sword. Think you this to be true indeed M. St. may we trust you on your words? then is religion an end of the Prince's government, which a little before you not only most untruly denied, but builded as you thought jolly arguments thereupon. All which come now down of themselves with an heave and he, yourself pulling away the soundation, whereupon they were built. And now you make an other platform, contrary to the former, which is, that Princes most of all are bound (as those that have received of God more large help, and faculty toward the same) to employ themselves to their possibilities, to these ends, to defend, maintain, increase, adorn, and amplify, not only the civil peace and prosperity, but much more the spiritual kingdom. And join the temporal sword with the spiritual sword, as the case requireth. Upon this, as a better platform than the other, I build this argument even according to your own definition of a supreme governor, and master Feckenhams offer. A supreme governor is he (say you) that hath the chief government of the thing governed, in those actions that belong to the end, whereunto the governor tendeth: But the actions of Ecclesiastical people (over whom the Prince is supreme governor, as master Feckenham hath granted) do belong properly to the end, whereunto the Prince tendeth: to weet, not only to maintain the common peace and tranquillity, but also to see that God's religion and service be purely and sincerely had and kept amongst the subjects: Ergo In these actions the prince is supreme governor, and so by consequence in all causes and actions ecclesiastical. To prove the minor: first, that all the travail of all godly Preachers in the world, is to this end, is plain and manifest. That this is also the chief end of the Prince's government, both yourself master Stapleten at length have confessed, contrary to your former heathen limitation, and also the very heathen and profane writers themselves: so well as Christian, have acknowledged. Wherein master Stapleton both showeth his great folly, in reasoning that heathen Princes did not regard religion, Ergo they aught not especially to have regarded it: and also bewrayed his ignorance in the antecedent of this his vain reason: for the heathen though they erred in mistaking religion, yet they knew and taught that it was an especial care, and end of the Prince's government. I speak not how Plato in his books de rep. & legib. reckoneth Heathen prince's care and government tended to religion. the care of Religion, to be a chief end of their authority: And yet will I note two sentences out of Aristotle, whom to deny your Sorbonistes make more than petit heresy. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) saith he) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aristot. Polye. 3. ca 10. Cap. 11. in the other Cities the sacrifices are left only to the Kings. And again, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For the captain was ●…oth King and judge and Lord of the divine matters. And to prove this by the stories of heathen Princes. Numa Pompilius hath his chiefest commendation not so much for making civil laws and policies to the Romans, as for his laws about their religion, their Priests, their Nuns, their Sacrifices. The Magistrates of Athens, did sit in judgement and condemned Socrates when Anitus and Melitus accused him for false religion. The Roman Princes themselves would labour principally for the office of the chief Bishop, which term Pontifex. Maxim●… the Bishop of Rome now challengeth. Tiberius' promoted to the Senate of Rome, (as to those that had the care and government of their religion) that Christ might be accounted among their Gods. Yea, in the Scripture is declared that Nabucha●…nezar Daniel. 1. the King of Babylon, an Heathen Prince, and utterly destitute of the truth, before God gave him some spar●…kes thereof, yet made he a law of worshipping his own Image. And King Darius of Persia made a Daniel. 6. decree that none should worship God in certain days. In all which matters although these heathen Princes crred from the truth: yet they thought, that religion (which they mistook for truth) to be a principal part belonging to their government. Although therefore master Stapleton you do great injury to Christian Princes to make their state common with the Pagans: yet do you more injury herein to them, than The Papists more injurious to Christ an Princes than to Heathen. the heathen did to their heathen princes. Was it lawful for them in their heathen government to have so especial a care about their heathen and false religion, and is it not lawful for godly Christian Princes, to have the like or more about Chrystes true Religion? Is the end of their government common to both alike, as you say, and yet the Heathens stretched further than doth the Christian Princes? johannes de Parisus affirmeth, that this is a false supposition johannes de Parisi●…s de po●…estate reg. & p●…. ca 18. of yours Master Stapleton. Quod potest as regal●…. etc. That the kingly power is corporal and not spiritual. That the Kingly power hath the cure of the body and and not of the souls. Scythe it was ordained to the common profit of the Citizens, not every profit, but that profit which is to live according to virtue. Hereupon saith the Philosopher in the Ethikes, that the intention of the lawmaker, is to make men good, and to induce them to virtue. And also in the Politykes he saith, that as the soul is better than the body, so a lawmaker is better than a Physician, because the lawmaker hath care for the souls, and a Physician for the body. Now as the Philosophers ascribed this end (in the Heathens false religion, in virtues of life, and care of the soul) to the government of Heathen Princes: Doth not Saint Paul show as much and more trow you, for the end of Christian Princes government in these things? Ut 〈◊〉 & tranquillam vitam degamus in omni pietate & honestate. That we may lead (saith he) 1. Tim. 1. a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. Was this no further master Stapleton than safety, quietness, worldly wealth, abundance and prosperous maintenance? Did the great Constantine stretch the end of his government no further when he said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 debere ante ●…useb. lib. ●…. de vit. Const. omnta scopum esse ●…udicaus, etc. I judged that this ought before all other things to be my scope, that among the most holy multitudes of the Catholic Church, one faith and sincere charity and godliness agreeing together towards almighty God, might be conserved? Did the whole assembly of bishops, in the first Council Constantin. 1. general Council at Constantinople, limit no further the ends of Theodosius government, when they confessed that God instituit imperiu●… Theodos●… ad communempacem ecclesiarum, & sanae fid●… confirmationem? God did orday ne the government of Theodosius for the common peace of the Churches, and the confirmation of the sound faith? Did Saint Augustine believe that Prince's government Aug. epist. 48. reached no further, when he said, Reges in terris serviunt Christo faciendo lege●… pro Christo? Kings in the earth do serve Christ in making laws for Christ? Did justinian suppose, his authority tended no further, when he written, Legum Authoritas & divinas & humanas res bene disposuit? The authority of the laws hath well disposed both the divine and humane matters? Did the m●…ste Christian King of Spain Richaredus, think that the end of his government stretched no further, when he said openly in the third Council at Tolet, before Concil. Tola. 3 all the Bishops there assembled, Quanto subditorum gloria Regali extolli●…r, tanto providi esse debemus in his quae ad Deum sunt, & c? How much more we be exalted in royal glory over our subie●…es, so much more aught we to be careful, in those matters that appertain to God, either to augment our own hope, or else to look to the profit of the people committed to us of GOD. And as you see me in very deed inflamed with the fervency of faith, God hath stirred me up to this end, that the obstinacy of infidelity being expelled, and the fury of discord removed, I should revoke the people to the knowledge of faith, and to the ●…eloweshippe of the catholic Church, who served error under the name of Religion. Lo master Stapleton, here you see far other ends, of the civil government of Christian Princes, than (as you most falsely and injuriously allege to preserve them from all outward injuries, oppressions and enemies, and further to preserve them for their safety and quietness, for their wealth, abundance, and prosperous maintenance, and that it tendeth and reacheth no further. And that this is common as well to the heathenish as the Christian government. Fie for shame master Stapleton that ever such heathenish words should proceed out of your catholic lips. But you are half ashamed I see, and would mollify the matter so much as you can with a proper qualification: that those things which these godly Princes did, although they did them: yet therein were they no more but Advocates: and so say you, All good Princes do and have Stap. 30. a. done, aiding and assisting the Church decrees made for the repression of vice and errors, & for the maintenance of virtue & true religion: Not as supreme governors themselves in all The papists shifted that princes are the clergies advocates. causes spiritual and temporal: but as faithful Advocates in aiding and assisting the spiritual power, that it may the sooner, and more effectually take place. As you bring this shifting distinction of Advocate to late, M. Stap. having before quite debarred the Prince's Civil government, of going any jot further than you there did bound it, to meddle no further with aiding and assisting the spiritual power, than a Saracene doth aid and assist it: giving Princes no more leave to be Advocates thereof than you make the Turk or soldan, saying this their so limited government is common as well to both Heathen as Christian: even so this your office of Aduocateshippe came to late into the Church by many years, to debar any of these forenamed Princes, in their own supreme government about 〈◊〉 matters, to make it sound, as though they only had been the aiders, assisters, or Advocates unto others, and not themselves the doers. Whereas on the contrary, they were the very doers, though not of those actions that appert●…yned to the Ministers offices, yet of the governing and directing both the Ministers and their actions, yea and the principal overseers and supreme rulers of them, as even their deeds and words before rehearsed plainly declare. As for this shift of Advocation, was long sithence, after their times devised. Which office of Aduocateshippe, seemeth to be de●…yued, from this fond error of the Papists, that the secular power is immediately and primarelye (as they term it) in the Pope, but he hath not also immediately the exercise or execution of it, but giveth that to the Prince, and so the Prince becometh the Pope's Advocate, or rather his executioner. And thus was first (say they) Carolus Magnus Pope Adrian'S Advocate, executing the bishop of Rome's will, against Desiderius King of Lombardy. Whereupon Charles was made Emperor by the Pope, notwithstanding Michael the Emperor was then living at Constantinople. Propter hoc dicunt (sayeth Dantes Dante's Alegherius. li. 3. Aligherius) quòd omnes qui fuerunt Romanorum imperatores, post ipsum & ipse, Aduocat●… Ecclesiae sunt, & debent ab Ecclesia advocari. For this thing, all that were Emperors of Rome after him, and he himself, are Advocates of the Church, and ought of the Church to be called upon. Lupolous de Babenberge also telleth, that Pope Zacharie Lupold. de Babenb. ca 15. declaravit. etc. declared or pronounced, that Childericus Pippins master, should be deposed, and Pepine be made the King of France, whom when Pope Steven the second anointed, with his sons Carolus and Carolomanus, French Kings: Ipsos specialiter elegit (saith Lupoldus) ad sedem Apostolicam defendendam. Ex hac electione putoque reges & imperatores Romanorum, sint usque in hodiernum diem ecclesia Romanae advocati, de qua Aduocatia loquuntur iura canonica. He chose them especially to defend the Apostolical Sea. Of this election I think it cometh, that Kings and Emperors of the Romans are even to this day the Advocates of the Roman Church, of which Aduocacie, speak the Canonical laws. Thus you see the original of your devised Aduocateship, cometh nothing near the examples of the said godly Princes, being themselves supreme governors in Ecclesiastical matters before your Aduocateshippe was first hatched. No reason therefore the Puny should debar the senior. And yet it is but a silly shift of your canonists descant, rather detecting the unlawful encroaching of the Pope, than defeating any part of the Prince's authority, in this his supreme government. As for those Princes Carolus Magnus, his sons and other Emperors since their times, were nothing such Advocates as your Pope and you would now pretend, that is to say, to be your only executioners: But as these stories testify, even these Advocates also, were the chief directors and supreme governors, of all those things they did. Yea the Pope himself so well as any other bishop in their territories was subject to them. They aided and assisted the bishop of Rome I grant, when he humbly advocated, than he called upon them for aid and assistance, against the wronger's of him. But the Pope by commandment called them not, and they obeyed his calling, and so become his advocates, which is clean contrary to an advocates office. And therefore once again your argument is naught. They were aiders and advocates, Ergo, not supreme governors. But M. St. will further prove, by his former ensamples, why this supreme government can not appertain to the Prince. For this supreme government (saith he) can he not have, Stap 30. a. unless he were himself a spiritual man, no more than can a man be master of a ship, that never was a mariner: A mayor, that never was a citizen. His principal government resting in civil matters, and in that respect as I have said, he is supreme governor of all people in his Realm, but not of all their actions, but in such sense as I have specified, and lest of all the actions of spiritual men, especially of those which are most appropriate to them, which can not be unless he were himself a spiritual man. You frame your similitude very unproportionably, M. Though the Prince be not an eccl. person, yet hath he supremacy in eccl. causes. Stap▪ from the master of a ship, or the mayor of a city, to a Prince or supreme governor. Either of these being particular offices under a supreme governor, that maketh laws, even both for majors in cities, and masters of ships also▪ And albeit no argument builded on similitudes, is firm to prove or improve any controversy, though rightly applied, they may lighten the matter, to him that assenteth, but not enforce it to him that denieth (notwithstanding your similitudes, as they prove nothing, so they nothing lighten, but more obscure the matter) yet if these your similitudes were admitted, from mayor and pilot, to supreme governor, what true conclusion can you infer upon them? when both the ensamples that you make your similitude from, and the matter that you apply them too, are false. For a man may be master of a ship, though he never was a mariner in the ship: and also ●…e made the Mayor of the town, wherein he was never citizen before. As many a noble or gentleman, is made the captain of a fort, of a town, or an army, that never was priest before a soldier, and yet a good captain to, having the knowledge how to govern soldiers, though he himself were none. Yea, to draw nearer than mariners, Majors & captains, read you not, that S. Ambrose was never so much as any of the clergy, and that more is, not not baptised, & yet he was a better bishop, than the best bishop of the Romish making now, or than the bishop of Rome himself? yea your holy Pope Felix. 5. was he before he was Pope any other than (as you call it) a mere lay man, neither Cardinal, Bishop, Priest, nor had so much (that we read of) as your benet & collet? and therefore your examples are not true of Mayor & Pilot, that they must have been citizen & mariner before. And yet, where hereupon, you would needs have christian Princes to be spiritual men, if they should be supreme governors of spiritual matters: it is granted you, and so they be. And if you think godly christian Princes not to be spiritual, but utterly void of spiritualness: then is this in you a lying and carnal spitefulness. All godly Princes, y●…a all godly people are spiritual, and that much better than any shaved or oiled massing Priest. But if you mean, after the common distinction, those that have any spiritual office in the ministery of the word and sacraments, as deacons, elders, byshop●…: etc. then your similitude, as is before declared, faileth. Such Offices are not necessary to have go before in a Supreme governor over them, although the knowledge is necessary how to govern them. Besides this, the proportion of your similitude faileth, in that to prove a supreme governor should withal be a spi●…ituall man, yo●… allege ensamples of such governors, as be not, but have been, such or such people before: and so from the master, which hath been a mariner, and now i●… ●… master, you conclude, the prince being a governor in spiritual matters, should withal be a spiritual person. Neither doth the proportion hold, in the necessary relation of the similitude, from a Ma●…or to his citizen, from a master of a ship to a mariner serving in the ship (which hath relation from the governors, to the parties in their offices governed) to any like relation between a supreme governor, over eccl. causes & people, to a spiritual person▪ but from a spiritual governor, to a spiritual subject, this were the right relation. Now the Prince needeth neither to have been a spiritual subject, nor yet a spiritual person, in your common sense of spirituality: neither so claimeth he to be a spiritual governor. And therefore, neither the ensamples of your similitude, nor the proportion holdeth. But see how still your own tale overturneth yourself. For if his principal government rests in civil matters (as immediately you say) & that, in that respect he is supreme governor, of all people in his realm, but not of their actions: why is he not of their actions also, sith they be civil or temporal matters in which respect he is their supreme governor? is it not because, though he be their supreme governor, yet he professeth not all their several offices, sciences, handy crafts, mysteries, or vocations, and so is not a dealer in their actions? which hindereth nothing his principal government over them all, that he is, nor ever was, a prentice of any of their sciences, nor practiseth the actions of their callings, being all civil matters. And yet say you truly, he hath the principal government in civil matters. But why then also, notwithstanding the prince dealeth not with the actions of spiritual men, may he not have a principal government in spiritual matters, though himself have not the spiritual function, or office of a spiritual man? Do you not ●…ée, by your own words, that to have a principal government, or to be a supreme governor ou●…r all people and matters▪ is one thing: and to do all the particular actions, of those people or matters, is another thing, not requisite in the supreme governor? and why then wilfully confound you them so often, as though we made the Prince the doer of the actions, because we acknowledge the Prince the governor of the matters. And why said you before in your last similes, that he could not be a principal governor of any civil matters except he had been a doer of the actions, and as it were, a prentice to the occupation before? concluding the like for a governor of spiritual people and causes, that he must be a spiritual man, and do the spiritual actions. But if now, being better advised, you perceive that a man may be a governor in civil matters and yet be not the doer of the civil actions, I then conclude likewise for spiritual matters, that the Prince may be a supreme governor in spiritual causes, and yet the same not the doer of the spiritual actions. The two untruths therefore M. Stap. that you gather of the Bishop, saying: Wherefore we have here two untruths, the one, in an untrue definition, the other in saying the Prince is supreme governor in all causes spiritual, are no untruths. The bishops definition is clearer and truer than yours. Neither have you, or hitherto could you, improve his conclusion, with all your ensamples, or your similitudes, Yea, every similitude that you have made, being thoroughly weighed, hath proved the bishops conclusion, and confuted and contraried yourself. But beside all this, we have, saith M. St. a plain contradiction Stap. 30. b. of M. Horn, directly overthrowing his own assertion here. The Bishoply rule and government Winchester. fol. 96. 97. of God's Church (saith M. Horn) consists in three points: to feed the Church with God's word, to minister Christ's Sacraments, and to bind and loose. to govern the Church (saith he) after this sort, belongeth to the only office of Bishops and Church ministers, and not to Kings, Queens, and Princes. The like he hath afterward. Now then, these being, by his own confession, the actions that properly belong to Ecclesiastical people, and the Prince by his said confession, having nothing to do therewith: how is it then true, that the Prince is the only supreme head and governor in causes Ecclesiastical. Yea in those, that do properly belong to people Ecclesiastical? or by what colour may it be defended, that this saying, is not plain contradictory and repugnant, to this later saying, which we have alleged, and whereof we shall speak more largely, when we come to the said place? There is no doubt M. St. but you will reckon it up there at large, and here also, and in many other places, you still sing Decies repetita placebunt, for so your book will grow to a well-favoured volume. The outcry is here, for a contradiction. But you should first clear yourself, of your own foul contradictions before committed, and then object contradiction to the Bishop. But let us see what a sore contradiction it is: Princes can not do certain Ecclesiastical actions. Princes are supreme governors in Ecclesiastical causes. Here M. St. you labour to show where the Bishop says so, but you should labour to prove them contradiction●…, but that you take for manifest, being manifest false. Neither need there any colour to defend these sayings from contradiction, for it was even the last thing that yourself defended, in putting a difference between a principal government of matters and that government that is exercised in doing the actions of those matters. And thus easily yourself reconcile this great contradiction, and a●…were your own argument, that you make of the Bishop sayings, reasoning thus: He confesseth, that those actions do not belong to the people of Princes, Ergo, he confesseth, that Princes are not supreme governors to direct and oversee them. This argument your own distinction answereth. And therefore where you lap up the matter, saying, Thus you see M. Horn walketh like a bore Stapl. 30. b. footed man upon thorns, not knowing where to tread, you should remember yourself M. Stap. that you have walked all this while like your barefooted goose that you spoken of before, not knowing what last you creaked. The sixth Division. MAster Feckenham offereth to swear to observe and Fol. 30. b. perform that obedience to the Queen's highness now, that he did before unto Queen Mary. The Bishop showeth how therein he was forsworn, & as he had helped to spoil Q. Marry, of a principal part of her royal power, so would he with no less disloyalty spoil the Queen's Majesty now. M. Stapl. taking after his fashion, Non concedenda pro Stap. fol. 30. b. concessis, says the oath is unlawful: likeneth it to wicked King Herodes oath, denieth this government to be any part at all of the Queen's royal power, and avoucheth that if the Bishop can once by any means, prove this government to be a principal part or any part at all of the Queen's royal power, he dare undertake that not only M. Fek. but many more, that now refuse, shall most gladly take the said oath, he were surely no good subject that would wish her highness any wrong. To wish wrong to any body, is nought in deed M. St. & worse to do it, but worst of all to wish and do it against your liege and soneraigne. What wrong you wish and do by all treacherous practices, unto the Q. Majesty, is apparent, and therefore your own judgement be on your own head. You liken her highness to wicked King Herode, even here present, & yet you say you wish her no wrong. But what reasons should move you M. St. to think this open wrong no wrong? Neither can (say you) the maintenance of the Catholic Sta. fol. 30. b. faith, whereof she beareth a title of a defender, be counted any injury to her highness, neither is it to be thought but if there had been any wrong or injury herein done to the Crown, some Christian Prince or other in the world have ere this, once in this 1000 years & more espied it, and reform it to. This later argument of former Princes, is answered a●… Supra Diuis. 4. fol. 65. large already. The other argument, standeth on M. Stap. former presupposal, that the Pope's supreinacie is the Catholic faith. His reason is this. The maintenance of the Catholic faith, is no injury to the Queen's Highness. But our refusal of the oath is the maintenance of the Catholic faith: Ergo, our refusal of the oath is no injury to the Q. Highness. Here where M. St. should prove the Minor being manifest false, he letteth that go, presupposing it is most true, and confirmeth the Mayor which none denieth. She beareth a Title of defender of the Catholic faith: Ergo, The maintenance of the Catholic faith is no injury to ●…ir highness. Of this Title we spoke also before, only now I note his Supra fol. 80. argument that here covertly he seemeth to make thereon. The Qu. highness Title calleth her defender of the faith: Ergo, If she should also have the Title of supreme governor in all causes Ecclesiastical, then were the former Title injury to her highness. But the former Title of defender of the faith can not be counted any injury to her highness. Ergo, She can not have the other Title also. This bald reason standeth upon a presupposal in M. St. head, that this is a principal article of the Faith. The Pope is only head of the Catholic church: But grant not M. St. this his faithless principle, and he will prove but a silly Defender of this. His simple reason. The seventh Division. MAster Feck. pretending that he was by the Bishop required Fol. 31. ●…. & provoked to swear, refuseth that part of the Oath that toucheth the queens supremacy in the causes Ecclesiastical, unless the Bishop show him the means how he may swear without perjury. The Bishop's answer stands on two points: the one, to Winchester, Fol. 31. b. 32. a detect his false dealing to pretend that the Bishop required the oath. The other, that this his refusal of the later part of the Oath, is but his nice dalliance in words, having granted already the matter in effect. The B. reasoneth thus: Every Ecclesiastical person is called Ecclesiastical only in respect of ecclesiastical functions, things and causes belonging to ecclesiastical people. But you have granted that the Queen's highness is supreme governor over all people in her realms so well ecclesiastical as temporal: Ergo: you have granted that she is the supreme governor over them in those their ecclesiastical functions, things and causes also. M. Stapletons' counterblast is threefold: the first against Cap. 5. fol. 32. a. b. the Bishop's argument. The second as he calleth it, is an heap of untruths wherewith M. Feckenham is falsely charged. The third his shameful slanders, that the plague, was sent of God to punish the doings of the Parliament: that because the Bishop required the Oath of D. Bonner, he therefore sought his blood. That our Bishops were no Church Bishops, nor parliament Bishops neither. But these too frivolous parts I omit, it sufficeth to have quoted the slannders in their common place. As for the untruths, are answered in their proper bedroll. I will answer only now, that which is material, and that counterblasteth the argument. Yet once again (says M. St.) M. Horn taketh in hand Stapl. 32. M. Feckenhams grant, which may well be granted, and by▪ his great cunning and skilfulness will thereof infer as before, that may not be granted. But now he spitteth in his hand, and taketh faster hold as he thinketh, and seeing the lightness of his former reason, would now give greater weight to it with a new fetch, but yet as light and as weak as the other, and employing manifest contradiction as before, and to be answered as before. For albeit, a man is not called an Ecclesiastical person but in respect of some church cause and function, which we freely grant to M. Horn, yet Folly 32. b. is he never a whit the nearer of his purpose, unless he can prove that there were also no other respect, why he should be under the Prince, but for causes Ecclesiastical. For as we have said, he is a subject also as other Say men are, and a member beside of the civil common wealth, in consideration whereof the Prince hath to do with him, and not properly as he is a spiritual man, though both respects be concurrant in one person, and he be named of the worthier. As the Bishop's argument is plain and formal against M. Feckenham, so here M. Stapleton stepping out to help him, as it were clapping him on the back, recomforts him, saying, his grant of the Minor, That the Queen's highness is s●…preme governor of all people in her realms so well Ecclesiastical as temporal, may be well granted. And he will also freely grant to the Bishop the Mayor, A man is not called an Ecclesiastical person but in respect of some church cause, and function, which is all one with the Bishop's affirmative: Every ecclesiastical person is called Ecclesiastical only in respect of Ecclesiastical functions things or causes belonging to Ecclesiastical people: what now can rightly follow hereof, but the Bishop's flat conclusion, that the Queen's highness is supreme governor of them, in those their functions, things and causes also? Nay saith M. St. I will grant him all this freely, and yet is he never a whit the nearer of his purpose, unless he can prove that there were also no other respect, why he should be under his Prince, but for causes ecclesiastical: for he is a subject also as other lay men are. Ha' M. St. I see you would feign slip the collar, devising a new diversity of respects between ecclesiastical person and subject, when the question is, and M. Feckenham hath confessed, that he is a subject every way, whether he be lay subject or ecclesiastical subject▪ Otherwise, when M. Feckenham said, over all people either ecclesiastical or temporal of what estate so ever they be: if he had meant as you say over ecclesiastical people in deed, but not in that respect that they be ecclesiastical but temporal and lay people, than had he plainly dalied in coloured speech & foolish meaning, as thus: over all people ecclesiastical and temporal, that is to say over all people temporal and temporal▪ if he meant ecclesiastical people, not in that respect they be so called, but in that respect they be temporal and lay as other subjects be. But this is your own wily device which in effect is nothing but wily beguiled himself. M. Feckenham meant plain & therefore twice together says, either ecclesiastical (on the one party) or temporal people (on the other party) and to make the matter plainer, of what estate (says he, that is to say of what condition kind or degree of subjects) soever they be. And did not yourself say before and freely grant it, that an ecclesiastical person hath not his name of ecclesiastical person for any other respect but for ecclesiastical causes and functions? why say you now contrary to yourself, he is named here ecclesiastical person▪ not in any respect of any ecclesiastical causes or functions, but in respect he is a lay and temporal subject? how hangs this together M. Stapleten? will you deny so soon that so late you freely granted? then I perceive (as you here say the Bishop doth) I must be fain also to spit on my hands and take faster hold on yours and M. Feckenhams grant. M. Feckenham hath granted and you also, thus much: that the Queen's Highness is supreme governor over all people born within her realms, either ecclesiastical or temporal, of what estate soever they be. That is to say, they are all subject to her, all people governed, or under her supreme government, but the usual word is subject. Subject here is the General word or Genus, comprehending two members dividing themselves under it, that is, ecclesiastical person and temporal person. Either of these is comprehended a like in the general word subject, for it is neither nearer the one nor the other, nor may be more properly spoken of the one than of the other. The temporal person is as much subject and no more, than the ecclesiastical person, the ecclesiastical as much and no more than the temporal, nor these two can be confounded together, nor the one taken for the other, Membra dividentia non confunduntur, but as the one is temporal in respect only of the temporal functions, so the other (as you say well therein) is ecclesiastical, only in respect of functions ecclesiastical, & both are comprehended under their general word subject: & thus doth M. Feckenham plainly set them forth as it were in a table. Now cometh our student M. St. & seeing all this so manifest plain, that himself is even forced to grant it: he hath studied out this shift, first to jumble them altogether iugglerlike, & then divides or rather breaks them, making ecclesiastical and subject to be Membra dividentia, the one to overthwart the other, which they do not, but the one comprehendes the other. And maketh this word person, to be general to them both, which here is all one with subject. And thus when he hath played Cole under the candlestick, chopping & changing the words, now says he, you shall see the Bishop is never the nearer of his purpose, Stapl. 32. b. unless he can prove that there were also no other respect, why he should be under the Prince, but for causes Ecclesiastical, for as we have said he is a subject also. As who should say in that respect he is a subject, he is not Ecclesiastical, in that respect he is ecclesiastical, he is no subject because he supposeth these two are contrary respects, ecclesiastical & subject. But this he doth by presupposal, that you will grant him all that he says, or else he would never so freely have granted the Bishop, that which after made against himself. For who seethe not that ecclesiastical and subject may well agree together, which M. Feck. see well enough, when he granted as well the ecclesiastical person as the temporal to be the prince's subject? And again, who seethe not that this is but a fond shift of M. Stapl. to say that the Bishop is never the nearer of his purpose, unless he can prove there were also no other respect, why he would be under the prince but for causes ecclesiastical. For, granting him again, there are other respects wherefore he is also under his prince. What is M. St. the nearer of his purpose? doth it follow because he is subject also in other respects, that therefore he is not subject in this respect? he should have proved this, but this he lets alone, and thinks all is safe if he be subject in other respects. But what other respects so ever there be, himself having freely granted▪ that this name of person ecclesiastical hath no other respect, but to the causes ecclesiastical: and being governed or subject, as M. Feckenham hath granted, in respect of either part of this division, temporal or ecclesiastical: if fellows that in all respects what soever, of causes or people ecclesiastical or temporal, the Prince is supreme governor. Nor all M. Stapl. crooked shifts, and crabbed respects, to hinder the sequel of this argument, are any more to be respected, than ●…ere trifles, and toys to delude the Readers withal. But M. St. will not give over the matter thus, but will bring his dark respects, to the aspect and light of all men's eyes, by a familiar though somewhat an homely sim●… As if master Robert Horn were a lay man and a painter, Stap. 32. b. (saith he) the Queen properly hath not to do with him as a painter (unless it were for some law or order concerning painters) but as Robert Horn her highness subject, and born under her obeisance. See how envy hath blinded this man, that whereas for very spite he likeneth the reverent and godly learned father in Christ, to a painter, this his painted similitude maketh also flat against him. For, as he confesseth, the Prince hath to do with a painter, not only in that he is simply her highness subject, born under her obeisance, but also in respect he is such a subject, in which regard (he saith) she maketh laws and orders also concerning painters, though she intermeddle not with the Painters pencil, in drawing lines, and laying colours, and other their particular actions: even so hath her highness to do with all ecclesiastical people, not only in that they be simply, subjects born under her obeisance, but also even in that they be such manner of ecclesiastical subjects, in which respect she may also make laws and orders concerning ecclesiastical people, though she intermeddle not with preaching, ministering the sacraments, and other their particular actions. Thus as God would have it, doth your own similitude (M. Stap.) which of pure envy you bring forth to deface the bishop withal: so lively in every point make against you, as any similitude can do. At length you descend from your similitude, to your plain purpose, saying. So should the Queen have also to do with you, yea in Stap. 32. b. case you were the true Bishop of Winchester, but not properly as Bishop, or for your bishoply function, for the which you are immediately under your Archbishop and the Pope, but considering you as a subject otherwise, or as Bishop either, touching your temporalties, and no further. For the which the true Bishops also to their Prince do their homage. With much ado (for it sticketh in your throat like a bone) you admit at length this case, that the Bishop were the true Bishop of Winchester, but without any stay at the matter you could compare him to a painter) but now being a Bishop, he is (as you say) under his Archbishop and the Pope, and under the Queen only for his temporalties. Here is no argument, M. Stapleton, but your bore assertions, as though the matter were clear and all out of question. I you had still reasoned from the similitude of the painter and painted it out in his true meaning, you had concluded another manner of tale, that as the Prince might meddle even with laws and orders for painters, so she hath to do with Bishops, not only concerning their temporalties, but even concerning that they be Bishops. And so again your similitude excludeth your Pope. And where you say, in that he is bishop, he is immediately under his Archbishop and the Pope, what if his Archbishop be not under the Pope neither, is he not then also being immediately under him, exempted likewise from your Pope? and thus you stammer even in your own false principles. Now when you have thus without any reasoning determined the Bishop to be under the Pope, and that he doth homage to the Queen only for his temporalties and no farther, you conclude the matter, saying: But what should I further reason with this man, which Stap. 32. b. (as I have said) hath removed the Prince from all superiority, concerning the mere bishoply or Priestly function, and so with a notable contradiction hath full worshipfully concluded against himself, and eased his adversary of any other proof, and eased master Feckenham also, for taking any oath, that the Queen is supreme head in all causes temporal and spiritual. This notable contradiction is so sore a matter, that you must needs have a fling at it once again, the contradiction is this: The Prince hath not the jurisdiction of the mere Priestly or bishoply functions: The Prince hath the superiority over the priestly or bishoply functions: Is not here a notable contradiction, and worthy to make this final conclusion thereon? The Prince hath not the jurisdiction of the mere Priestly or bishoply functions: Ergo, He is removed from all superiority over the same functions? Full worshipfully concluded, to use your own terms master Stapleton. What should you reason further with this man? but in stead of reasoning, fall to making principles, or sit down and ease you with master Feckenham without any further proof. But, might it please you to start up again, and look better about you: you should see, that between even that superiority (which word notwithstanding the Bishop said not, but power or jurisdiction) of the mere bishoply or priestly function, that is to say, his office, and the proper actions of his office, preaching, binding and losing, the ministering of the Sacraments: and between the superiority, that is, the oversight and supreme government, in caring for, directing, and providing, that all those functions and actions be dutifully done on their parts, to whom they properly belong: there is a great difference, as all your similitudes hitherto have proved and concluded against you. And that between the doing of the one, and the not doing of the other, is no contradiction or opposition at all. And therefore you be not so eased yet, but that you must take a little more pains, or else where you had thought to have won the spurs, you may hap to loose the saddle. The eight Division. MAster Feckenham standeth on four points, whereby Fol. 34. ●…. he thinketh he should perjure himself, if he should swear to this last part of the oath, in eccl. causes. The first point is, that he must testify it on a book oath. But to testify any thing on a book oath, and not to know the same, is perjury. Then for himself he pleadeth ignorance, that he neither knoweth it, nor knows any means how to come to the knowledge of it. Whereupon he joineth an issue with the bishop, which issue is this: If the Bishop make proof to him, that any Emperor or Empress, King or Queen, may clay me or take upon them any such government in spiritual or ecclesiastical causes, than he will yield and receive the oath. The means whereby he will have this issue proved, are these four. Either by such order of government, as our saviour Christ hath left behind him in his Gospel and new Testament: Either by the writings of such learned doctors both old and new, which have from age to age witnessed the order of eeclesiastical government in Christ's Church: Either by the general counsels, wherein the right order of ecclesiastical government in Christ's Church hath been most faithfully declared, and showed from time to time: Or else by the continual practice of the like ecclesiastical government, in some one Church or part of all Christendom. The issue and state of the question between the B. and M. Feck. By these four means, this issue aforesaid (as the state of the controversy between both parties) must be tried. That, by any of these four means, proof be made to him, That any Emperor or Empress, King or Queen, may claim or take upon them, any such government in spiritual or ecclesiastical causes. This requireth master Feckenham to be prored. The satisfaction whereof to be proved by the Bishop is this: That by some of these four means, proof may be made to him, that some Emperor, Empress, King, or Queen, may claim or take upon them, some such government in spiritual or ecclesiastical causes. If the B. shall be found to have proved thus much to M. Feck. he hath fully satisfied his request, and M. Feckenham according to his promise, aught to swear with humble thanks, notwithstanding master Sapletons' quarreling Counterblast. The Bishop reducing M. Feckenhams first point, to a Fol. 34. b. form of argument, repeateth it: Not man may testify any thing by a book oath, whereof he is ignorant and knoweth nothing, without committing manifest perjury: But you neither know that the Queen's highness is the only supreme governor of this Realm, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal: neither yet know you any way or mean, whereby to have any knowledge thereof. Ergo you cannot testify the same on a book oath, without manifest perjury. To this the B. replieth, that although he might flatly deny the minor, that M. Feck. is not without all knowledge, and utterly ignorant of the matter, nor destitute of all means to attain thereto: yet he saith he will answer by distinction of ignorance, to show how M. Feck. is ignorant, how he is not. He allegeth a threefold division of ignorance out of Thomas of Aquine the chief of the Popish schoolmen▪ Three kinds of ignorance. Ignorance of simplicity, Ignorance of wilfulness, and ignorance of malice. Proving that he is not ignorant of the first sort, having in king Henry's and king Edward's reigns, continually known, acknowledged & confessed it, and therefore his ignorance is either of wilfulness, or of malice, or of both of them. M. St. Counterblast standeth chief on three matters, first his answer to Thom. distinction, with an objecting again to the B. the opinion of Tho. in this controversy. Secondly a quarreling & challenging of the B. for untruths. Thirdly, an excuse of master Feckenham for setting forth this supremacy. With a quarrel joined thereto that the B. citing a sentence out of the book of wisdom, called it a sentence of the holy ghost, concluding thereon a discord of our doctrine. But or ever he enter into his first part, he noteth this for a general warning before. Now are master Feckenham, and master Horn come to Stap. 35. ●…. couple and join together in the principal matter. If this forewarning be true M. St. that this their coupling and joining together on this issue (to weet, whether any princes have taken any such government on them) be now by your confession the principal matter controversed, between the parties standing in variance, which (as you said before) is convenient and necessary to have before Supr▪ ●…o. 3. a. b (our) eyes, and then diligently to see how the proofs are of each party applied, for the confirming of their assertions: Then all those six principles, which you set up before your Counterblast as marks to fix the eye of the Reader upon, were but false marks and not the principal matter, wherein the parties coupled themselves together to prove or improve the same. Then were almost all that hitherto M. Stap. hath said (as the Reader marking this well shall see) and the most of that which he hath to say in this great Counterblast, nothing else but a running about the Bush, and wresting of every thing, from the principal matter in which they joined, to some other matters wherein they coupled not. Which is plain to beguile and abuse, not rightly to direct the eye of the Reader, as the Reader fixing his eye on this issue, shall soon espy your falsehood. This issue then, being the principal matter (as you say) and the Bishop coupling and joining herein together with Supra. fol. 4. master Feckenham (as you also say) and the Bishop having proved that which he endeavoured himself to prove (which you likewise have confessed) what remaineth by your own tale telling, but that the Bishop hath fully proved the principal matter in question? Neither will you (as you say) nor any other Catholics greatly contend with him for that he hath proved: and he hath proved that that he laboured in: he laboured in that he coupled: he coupled in this issue: this issue is the principal matter between them: why then do you so fiersely contend? but that you would show yourself a vain sophistical and brabbling quarrellour, that have no great cause to contend, nor any cause at all, and yet will so greatly contend, only of wilful malice, confessing yourself the thing to be proved, that is the principal matter. Master Stap. having given this forewarning, cometh to his first part, which he divideth threefold. First he jesteth out the matter with scoffs, which I refer to his common place thereon. Secondly, he denieth master Feckenham to have any ignorance in this point except it were invincible ignorance, by no study or diligence able Stap. 36. a. to be put away, and therefore pardonable. Since you admit the distinction M. Stap. you bring out of time your other invincible ignorance. How pardonable it is, is another question. But see how ignorantly, while you would defend M. Fec. you overthwart him, he pleadeth ignorance for his defence, and you say he is not ignorant and would put the B. to prove that he should be ignorant of wilfulness and malice, which the B. hath done already, and so you debar M. Feckenham of his refuge, and make him to have knowledge of this point. Which not only he himself denieth, but which yourself afterwards deny also, yea that he could not have knowledge of this point. But you think to escape clear, with helping the matter by a new pertition of ignorance, adding a fourth part of invincible ignorance. Surely (say you) if there were any ignorance in this point it were such as S. Tho. and other call invincible ignorance. Except (M. St.) you confounded this fourth ignorance with one of the three before named, you quite exclude M. Fec. from the whole distinction of Thomas, and yet you say the distinction may be true, & you will not stick with him for that distinction. So that either you stick at that you will not stick, and make that false that you grant true, or else you prove master Feck. not to be ignorant, contrary to his defence, and all the rest of your own défence of him, as we shall see your words afterward. In the mean time let us see how prettily you shifted off the matter, only because the Bishop names Tho. of Aquine a school Papist, for the division of Ignorance, thinking you have got a wonderful advantage thereby, for the Pope's supremacy. But now (saith M. Stap.) the very author brought Stap. 36. a. forth by master Horn, so fully and effectually dischargeth M. Feck. of all three, and charges M. Horn, with the worst of them three, that is wilfulness and malice, as he shall win small worship by alleging of S. Thomas. For S. Tho. sayeth plainly, that we are obliged and bound upon pain of everlasting damnation to believe that the Pope is the only supreme head of the whole Church. Now fearing (as not without good cause) that the B. would in this matter reject the authority of this Thomas, whom our Thomas calleth a late latin writer, and to much affectionate to the Pope: as it were by prevention, He can not well reject his authority (sayeth he) using it himself. Stap. 36. a And why so Sir I pray you? must every one that citeth him in any one point, receive and admit his authority to in every point? Is it lawful for the Sorbonistes, the Schoolmen, and the whole rabble of the Papists, yea for Thomas Stapleton himself, to accept Thomas of Aquines' authority in some points, and to reject his authority in other some points: and is it not lawful for the Bishop or any other to use the same liberty? The Sorbonistes affirm of this Thomas, Illa doctrina non potest esse in omnibus In erroribus Parisi●… condemna●…s. sic approbata, etc. That doctrine can not in all things be so approved, that containeth many things erroneous in faith: but as they say the foresaid doctrine of Saint Thomas, not only in the matter of the absolute necessity of a creature, etc. but also in many other things containeth many matters erroneous in faith. And again, Non oportet Ibidem. credere. etc. We must not believe that the doctrine itself is in no part thereof erroneous or heretical, wherein are contained many contrarieties and repugnancies, yea even in the matter pertaining to the saith▪ but many such contrarieties and repugnancies are contained in the doctrine of Saint Thomas: Again. 〈◊〉 dicunt Ibidem. aliqui. etc. And some say for this, that many may deny the glosses of the decrees and Decre●…, when the gloss doth openly deny the text, and likewise some say of the ordinary glosses of the Bible, that notwithstanding seem to be of greater authority (when they are alleged for authority) than is the Doctrine of Saint Thomas. The sixte example may be given of certain Doctors which are not canonised Saints, as the venerable Anselme bishop of Cant. Hugh of Saint Victor, and certain other, whose sayings or writings are in certain points found erroneous, and yet their doctrine seemeth to be no less authentical, than the doctrine of Saint Thomas, sith they are of the skilful in their scholastical acts alleged for authority, nor are wont to be denied, but their sayings reverently to be glossed and expounded, which notwithstanding the Schoolmen are not wont to do on the sayings of Saint Thomas, and therefore it seemeth presumptuous so to extol his Doctrine over them and other Doctors, that we may not believe and affirm that he erred in faith, even as other also have erred. And after this as likewise before, reckoning up diverse errors, these speeches are common: Ista locutio est de virtute sermonis falsa & multum impropria. etc. This speech in the force of the words is false and very improper. Ista doctrina multos errores continet. etc. This Doctrine containeth many errors. Uidetur multipliciter erroneum. etc. It seemeth diverse ways erroneous. Deficit in multis. etc. If fails in many points. Non est verum. etc. It is not true. Et breviter haec & alia multa erronea falsa & impropriè dicta, videntur multis in praedicta doctrina contineri quae, tamen ex taedi●… pertransimus. And briefly these and many other erroneous, false, & improper sayings, seem to many to be contained in the foresaid doctrine, the which notwithstanding we overpass for tediousness. And from hence they descend to manifest errors in divinity. And in conclusion writ thus of him. They say also that in very many places of his doctrine he erred by reason of this, that he applied to much the principles of philosophy or rather certain words of Philosophers to the conclusions of Divinity. Thus say the great Censors of the Popish doctrine against Thomas of Aquine, so well they agree together in unity of doctrine, objecting discord unto us. Yea the whole swarm of Papists, not excepting our Thom. St. here himself (unless he be returned to the truth since he written his book) rejecteth and condemneth Thom▪ of Aquines judgement and authority, in one of the most necessary matters of Christian religion, namely the doctrine of justification. For expounding this sentence of S. Paul: Arbitramur hem●…nē Tho. Aquin. super Tit. ca 3 justificari absque operibus legis: Arbitramur enim nos, etc. For we being taught of Christ, think (saith Thomas) according to the truth of the Apostle, that every man, whether he be jew or Gentile is justified by faith. Acts. 15. By faith purifying their hearts, & that without the works of the law, and that not only without the ceremonial works, which did not give grace: but also without the works of the moral commandments, according to that saying to Titus. 3. Not of the works of the righteousness that we have wrought. The reason is presumed, that we are saved for our merits, the which he excludeth when he saith, not of the works of the righteousness which we have done: But the true reason is the only mercy of God. There is not therefore in them the hope of justification, said in sola fide, but in faith alone. Works are not the Sola fide. cause that any body is just before God, but they are rather executions and the manifesting of righteousness. Executiones & manifestationes. Where Tho. of Aquine thus according to God's word speaketh the truth, as in this point here of justification: the Bishop and all other faithful, receive his judgement and admit the same, with better reason than the Papists reject it. But where as, in many other points he swerveth from the truth: though the Papists saint him never so much, yet there all true saints, with good reason refuse him. As in this that master Stapleton citeth out of him, who confesseth himself that Thomas being a late latin writer, written partially in this point, because he was to much affectioned to the Pope, and shall we believe such an affectionate Stap. 36. a writer in his partial affection? Or shall we believe master Stapleton no less affectioned than Thomas, telling us that Thomas sayeth plainly, that we are obliged and Fol. 36. a. bound upon pain of everlasting damnation, to believe that the Pope is the only supreme head of the whole Church. And yet when he hath all done, Thom. plainly saith not so, it is but our Thomas his plain lie. And though Thomas himself in that he said, made also a plain lie, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 affectioned to the Pope, yet should you have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 words more truly master Stapleton, if you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pressed the Bishop with his authority. But for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thomas his partiality would soon be 〈◊〉, ●…o 〈◊〉 more weight thereto, you say: Saint Thomas proveth his assertion by cyril and M●…ximus, two notable and ancient writers among the G●…ans. Wherefore it followeth that neither master Feckenham, Stap. 36. a. nor master Horn, nor any other Christian man, can know the contrary, being such an evident and dangerous falsehood as importeth eternal damnation. See how one Thomas here (were it but for namesake) would still help another Thomas, he careth not by what means, hook or crook, both belying Thomas and these notable fathers also. Where said Thomas your words above alleged? Where had he them out of cyril and Maximus? where have cyril and Maximus that assertion? Show it and then you clear yourself. In deed Thomas Contra errores Grecorum. being a late & affectioned writer herein, allegeth proofs out of both cyril & Max. but they prove no such assertion. cyril hath no such words in his book of Thesaurus, and that epistle of Maximus is not extant for aught that I can learn, and yet Thomas doth but wrist both their sayings to prove his title, that it is of necessity of salvation to be under the B. of Rome. The sentence that he fathereth out of Cyril to prove his saying, and yet notwithstanding proveth it not, is this: Itaque fratres, etc. Therefore brethren, if we follow Christ, let us as his sheep, hear his voice, abiding in the Church of Peter, and let us not be puffed up with the wind of pride, lest peradventure the winding serpent cast us out for contention, as long since it cast Eve out of paradise. Can you, or Thomas, or any other, conclude your assertion, or anything for your Pope on this saying? you will urge these words the Church of Peter Think you he meant the church to be S. Peter's patrimony, as you term it? or the Church of S. Peter's dominion? if you so think, S. Peter himself gaynsayth it, saying that he is himself but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consenior, a fellow Elder, or Priest, and witness of Christ's passions, and not the Lord, but Christ the Lord of his Church, and himself with other not to be rulers and princes among the clergy, but they be only pastors & forms of the flock, Christ alone being the Prince of the Pastors. So that if you mean hereby S. Peter to be the owner and Lord of the Church (as your Pope at this day taketh on him to be) this sentence maketh nothing for him, but quite against him. For neither doth the Pope follow the humility of Christ, nor hear his voice, as ciril willeth, neither followeth he Peter, of whom he craketh, but is puffed up with the wind of pride. Which ciril forbiddeth, and therefore is cast out with the winding serpent. But what ciril means by the church of Peter, even the other sentence following may declare of Maximus: Coadunatam & fundatam super Petram confessionis Petri dicimus universalem ecclesia●…, sicundum definitionem salvatoris, in qua necessario salutis animarum nostrarum est remanere, & ei obedire, suam servants fidem & confessionem. We call that the universal Church, according to the definition of our Saviour, the which is united together, and founded upon the Rock of Peter's confession, in the which it is necessary to remain, for the salvation of our souls, and to obey it, keeping the faith and confession thereof. This sentence well expoundeth the other. The Church of S. Peter, that is to say, the Church united and founded upon the rock of Peter's confession, not of Peter's rule and patrimony, but of his confession, which Rock is only Christ the corner stone, on whom only the Church is founded, and in whom as lively stories of the building we are united. To this Church in deed must we be obedient, and remain in it, keeping the faith and confession thereof. But what doth this prove for the obedience to the Pope & his Church? doth it not rather detect his church, not to be the universal Church, whereof Maximus speaketh, that Christ hath defined (howsoever the Papists crack of the universal church) sith it is not united together on the rock, but on the sands of men's traditions, and founded as you say, upon Peter, & not as Christ said, upon the Rock▪ Since it keepeth not this faith & confession, nor remains in it, nor obeyeth it, it is not Christ's true universal Church, neither aught we to remain in it, or obey it. But as the Angel calleth us, exite de illa populus Apoc. 18. mens. etc. Come out of her my people, and be not partakers of her offences, lest you taste also of her plagues. And thus by Maximus saying (howsoever Thomas as an affectionate late writer doth wrist the same to the obedience of the Pope and his Church) when we examine Christ's true definition, and Peter's confession, we find that we are obliged and bound, to renounce the Pope and his Church, and that upon pain of everlasting damnation. But now M. Stapl. let us also see your own proper arguments out of Thomas. Thomas saith, the Pope is the only supreme head of the whole Church (wherein he quite excludeth Christ:) Ergo, we are obliged and bond to believe the same upon pain of everlasting damnation. Thomas saith, we are obliged and bound to believe the Pope's supremacy upon pain of damnation: Ergo, the B. is to be charged with malicious and wilful ignorance. Thomas saith, we are obliged and bound to believe the Pope's supremacy, upon pain of damnation: Ergo, M. Feckenham is fully and effectually discharged of malicious and wilful ignorance. Thomas his distinction of ignorance is alleged of the Bishop: Ergo, the Bishop is bound to allow his authority simply in all matters, or in this of the Bishop of Rome's supremacy. Thomas citeth ciril and Maximus to prove his assertion: Ergo▪ the matter is so plain that the Bishop nor any other can know the contrary. These writers say so (or rather as is showed are wrested to say that they say not:) Ergo, it is such an evident and dangerous falsehood, as importeth eternal damnation. These are the wise and worshipful conclusions (to repeat your own terms) that you gather on the authority of Thomas, because the bishop cited him in the said division of ignorance: wherefore you say, he shall win small worship by alleging of S. Thomas. Howbeit you to win much worship and great honour by alleging him, have adventured to lay all your honesty to pledge. M. Stapletons' second part about untruths is answered sufficiently in his bedroll. In the third part be confesseth that, wherewith the bishop charges M. Feck. that in king Henry's days he set forth this supremacy in his open sermons. But withal to excuse him, he says, it was not upon knowledge but upon very ignorance Stap. 37. b. and lack of true knowledge, and due consideration of the matter▪ What ignorance call you this M. St? if it be not malicious, it is of simplicity, yea and wilful carelessness withal▪ & yet before you said he was discharged of all three, and here contrarying your own self, you charge him again with two of them at the lest, besides that you there said: Surely if there were any ignorance in this point, it were invincible Stap. 35. b. ignorance, by no study or diligence able to be put away, and therefore pardonable. But is this such ignorance, when here you confess that he studied not for it, but did it without due consideration of the matter? & therefore it was not pardonable even by your own saying. Thus, while you would excuse him of ignorance, do not only accuse him of ignorance, but also declare such great ignorance in yourself, that it seemeth you neither well wots, nor much care what you say, so that you may contend. Neither shame you in this point, while you would mitigate M. Feckenhams fault, to accuse with him of ignorance, no fewer than all, yea the best learned of the realm then, to whom it was not so well known (you say) Stap 37. b. as it is now to every man, being but of mean learning. To the proof whereof, you cite sir Thomas Moore, that till his latter time, did never of many years believe the Pope's supremacy to be provided by God, and therefore M. Feck. with many other good and well learned men otherwise, was Stap. 38. a. carried away among them, with the violence of this common storm and tempest, for lack of mature and deep consideration. Where as now all Papistee, such as have traveled Stap. 38. b. in these latter controversies do believe, that the Pope's primacy was immediately instituted of God, and that it is jure divino, by God's law, and not the Princes supreme government, which is now known clearly to stand against it. Here is no argument all this while for it, but only defacing of their predecessors learning and knowledge, to advance their own, which notwithstanding it be nothing comparable in all wise men's judgements, yet is it worthy to behold the gross presumptuous impudency of these Louanists, that as though they came from the new Indies, that say, other men are blind or have but one eye, and they only have two: so these writers pretend they have such knowledge now, yea, the mean learned among them, as the very best learned before them, had not the like, who were not resolved herein, nor saw so much as they The Lovanists boast they have now found out the Pope's title to be lure divino. now do, in the Pope's authority. For they have espied now at the length with their Lynx's eyes, that the Pope his primary is the lure divino of the law of God, which thing even Sir Thomas Moore did not see, who a great while was so blind herein, that he thought it but the Church's institution: at length, full dimly God wots, he thought that he see, it was provided of God. But now every mean learned Lovanist, hath espied through a millstone (to use M. Stapletons' own phrase) and clearly seethe and knoweth, it is ex lure divino, instituted by God immediately. Who would have thought they had been then so blind, unless M. Stapl. had told us they were so? or that our Louanists had been waxed so cunning, to have found out of late, that they could never see before? no doubt they had turned over and over, both the Old and the New Testament many a time, and I warrant you, all to have found out this immediate institution of God, and yet was it never their hap (unfortunate blind buzzardes that they were) to light on the place of this Institution. But now the Bible and Testament hath been so turned and tossed once again at Louvain, and that with such clear eye sights, that it is plainly found out, yea and so clear, that every man of mean learning knoweth it, that the Pope is supreme head over all the whole Church, instituted by God immediately, to be obeyed under the pain of eternal condemnation. O happy man for the Pope (whose estimation and wealth began so fast to decay) that yet at the last hath found out this institution. I warrant you like to wear a Cardinal's hat M. Stap if you have had so good luck, to find this out. But I pray you (since it is so plain a place, that all your side now clearly seeth it) show where abouts in the Bible or Testament it is. I have of purpose turned them over ere now also, yet could I never have the hap to see this. But I hope your sight be better than mine, I pray you tell us where it is, do but quote the place, is it not peradventure on the back side of your book? for in your book it is to be doubted you shall find no more, than could those learned men before you, find out. That it was ordained but jure humano, by the law of man. And where you crack so much, that you have now found it instituted lure divino, by the law of God, I am afraid it will in the end be found out, to have been forged 〈◊〉 & fraud Diabol●…ca, by the injury and craft of Satan. That it is not jure divino, by God's law, yourself alleging no place or proof besides your only vaunt, fearing you should be put to the proof of your crack, you start from it again by admitting that if you could not (as you can not) prove so much as you have made boast of, though the Pope's primacy Stapl. 38. b. (say you) were not ordained of God, yet could it not be rejected by any one realm. And although the Pope's primacy were not grounded directly upon God's word, but ordained of the Church, yet could it not be abrogated by the private consent of any one or few realms, no more than the City of London can justly abrogate an act of Parliament. The sequcle of this argument M. Stapleton is naught by three ways. First by presupposing an impossible absurdity that the true Church of Christ should ordain any other necessary doctrine to salvation, than God hath ordained or is grounded on his word. The spouse of Christ heareth her husband, my sheep (says Christ) hear my voice, john. 10. and not the voice of a stranger. Secondly if this absurdity were admitted, that the church of Christ should or could (as it can not) ordain other things, yet should not we be bound to follow it, not though an Angel came from Heaven, to teach us any thing that is not Gal. 1. only contrary, but even praeter besides the word of God. And thus the Fathers of the Church themselves have taught us, to reject it as easily as to receive it, what soever hath not Hieronimus super Mat. Ambrose li. 1 de officijs. Aug. contra Faustum li. 23 his authority out of the Scriptures. And what soever we find not in the Scriptures, we may use them even as we list ourselves. Why may we not say as S. Augustine said, Quia Canonicum non ●…st, non me astringit. Because it is not the Canonical Scripture it bindeth me not to believe or receive it? but of this matter further as you give further occasion. Thirdly your argument of proportion from a Parliament to London faileth, standing on your old and vain presupposals, that we have granted or must grant you, that your Popish Church is the true Church. That Christian realms have the same respect to your Popish church, that a City in any Realm hath to the whole estate of the same Realm, and again that your Pope's violent Counsels, are as free, lawful, and general, and enact only as Godly decrees and constitutions, to the directing of the true Church, as the Parliaments of a realm be free, lawful and general, and enact godly laws and constitutions, for their policies and estates. All these things being nothing proportionable, we must grant you to be true and fit, or else this your argument, and your former crack, neither barrel better herring, may go together a God's name. The rest of your counter blast to this division, as it is nothing material, so it is either altogether words of course, or else a petit quarrel that you lap up all the matter withal, because the Bishop called this sentence, a sentence of the Holy Ghost, In male●…lam animam non 〈◊〉 sapientia: Sap. 1. Wisdom shall not enter into a froward soul: which because it is mere impertivent and frivolous, I have rejected it to your common places. Discord on our doctrine can you gather none thereon, but you would feign sow discord where none is, and yet you boast of unity. But if you remembered, (setting all other discords aside) how well as is afore said, your Sorbonists, and your Lovanists, and you Thomas Stapleton agree even with your own sweet S. Thomas of Aquine, and how your tale agreeth with itself, how it excuseth and accuseth M. Feckenham, you should then see who they be, that as you say, in place of uniform tuning Stapl. 39 ●…. ruffle us up a black Sanctus, who they be that changing their shapes like Proteus, have so often altered their religion, and whether they touch M. Feckenham and you, or any of your chief Masters yea or no. The ninth Division. THe Bishop having by Thomas his distinction of ignorance answered M. Feckenhams argument: descendeth to cope with M. Feckenham in his issue, and to prove the same by all the said means that he requireth. And first to the issue, which was: That any Emperor or Empress, King or Queen, may claim or take upon them any such government in spiritual or Ecclesiastical causes: The Bishop answereth that they aught to take such government, Ergo: they may lawfully do it. For his antecedent that they aught, he referreth to the four means of the issue, that M. Feckenham would have it tried by. M. Stapl. picking by quarrels, of other pretended answers, Stapl. Cap. 7. fo. 39 b. 40. a made by the Bishop before, & falsely surmising that he then denied, or mollified the words of the oath, and that now he answereth, without any molli●…iyng or restiaint, that the Queen aught to take upon her such kind of regiment: these answers he calleth so ●…arring, variable, diverse, and so contrary the one to the other, that if the one be true, the other must be false, and so concludes they be false and deceivable both of them. But M. St. this is a false and a deceivable point of your own devising, from the which I perceive by the tenor of your whole counterblast, you will never jar nor vary one jot, except God send you hereafter better grace and judgement, than thus still to ground yourself and your writings, on manifest lies and forgeries, and then presuppose them in your nod●…le, for manifest principles and truths. Thus do you all your book over, & so you play here. First you ground yourself on a forged answer, that the Bishop should before have made: imagining it must needs be true, because you say you certainly understand, that M. Feckenham hath so reported to some of his friends, that the Bishop made then another resolute answer. This is all that you all age for proof of it, you have it but by hear say, at the hand of some partial tale bearer, some told you, that M. Feckenham told some, that the Bishop told him, that this was his resolute answer, and you believe it for a certainty, and writ it solemnly in your book, to deface the Bishop as it were with double and contrary answering, yourself in the mean season answering nothing to the argument, nor to the Bishops present and printed answer. And therefore I need return no other answer to you, than, that one told me, that another told him, that he told you, that you were to light of credence, to believe every flimme flame tale, and to rash of judgement, to clap down such tales in your book, of which you had no better proof, than that all the world should see, claw me claw thee, two false merchants need no broker they say. The tenth Division. THe Bishop entering into his proofs of the issue, that Princes aught to take upon them such government in Ecclesiastical causes, as the Queen's Majesty doth challenge and take upon hit, among other properties belonging to the Princely office, to begin with all, avoucheth out of Deut. the 17. and the 13. with some expositoures upon the same, that the Prince is commanded to have by him the book of the law, to read in it diligently, to this end that he himself may learn the fear of God, and 'cause his subjects to become Israelites by his princely authority, redressing the perverseness of such a●… swerver from the ordinances and ceremonies appointed of God. The which being true, the conclusion consequently followeth thereupon. M. St. answer to this argument, rests on four faults Stapl. ca 8. that he finds with the Antecedent, which he calleth untruths, & so reckoneth them up also in his score, but because they are the principal material points whereon his answer depends, I thought it more fit to note them here. But first after his scoffing, & craking manner he says to the Stapl. 40. b. Bishop: Go on I say in God's name, M. Horn, and prosecute your plea stoutly: God send you good speed. And so he doth, even such as you, & the honesty of your cause deserve. etc. But all these his fromps and vaunts I overpass and refer them to his common places, and will only answer to that which he charges the Bishop withal, which is no less than infidelity and unskilfulness. And to begin with the later, because he says it is the lest matter and note●…h it for the former untruth. Your unskilfulness (says he) which is the lest matter, Stap. 40. b. standeth in that you say the King is commanded to have by him the book of the law, your text saith not so ●…ir, but Describet sibi Denteronomium legis huius in volumine: he shall Deut. 17. writ out this second law in a book; as Edmund Beck, a man of your sect truly hath translated. This is the lest matter, says M. Stapl. and yet this is so great a matter, that as a notable reproach, he fasteneth it also in the margin as it were with a ten penny nail (to use his own phrase) M. Horns unskilfulness▪ But if M. St. did not play the unskilful hypocrite himself, but had pulled the beam of unskilfulness out of his own eye, he should then have clearly seen, that the Bishop used good skill in citing his text faithfully, and he in thus repr●…hēding the Bishop hath showed so little skill, and so much infidelity, that though he himself be passed shame, yet M. Feckenham, and all his friends may well ●…e ashamed of him. You say (says M. Stapleton) the King is commanded, to have by him the book of the law, your text says not so sir. Forsooth sir the text says so by your leave, the text hath both, and therefore it is not the Bishop but you that lie, both unskilfully and also unfaithfully therein. Put on your spectacles, read your text again, and I dare say, except your lips hung in your light, you shall within six words following, find these words, Et habebit secum, and he shall have it with or by him, or as Munsterus translateth it, Eritque illud pen●…s e●…m, and it shallbe about him, or appertaining unto him. So that here appeareth plainly your skilful fidelity, (if it be not done rather of perversity and malice, to use your own words) in denying the Scripture to say that, which in plain words it saith, and in calling that an untruth in translation, which evidently is a very true translation. This untruth therefore must be cut of from your talie, and nicked upon your score. The second fault found with the Bishop in his antecebent, is an untruth (as M. Stapleton hath scored it up) in leaving out a part of the sentence material. Wherein he Stapl. 40. b. noteth the Bishop of infidelity. Your infidelity (says he) appeareth in the curtalling of your text, and leaving out the words that immediately go before those that you allege. What were these words that the Bishop did allege? That he have by him the Book of the law. Say you me so M. Stapleton? then, if the Bishop have left out the words of Moses, that immediately go before those that he alleged, even by your own confession these words alleged, do come immediately after those that you say the Bishop left out. D●…ye not see what a manifest liar your own testimony proveth you. Within six lines following, you affirm that the text hath not these words, and here you say they follow immediately. You are full of gathering contradictions, what call you this, it followeth in the text immediately, and, it is not in the text at all. Where is your Logic that you boast of? are not these contradictories? so that unless you cā●…ake two contradictions true, you have made yourself in the one an open liar. Alack M. Stapleton where was your remembrance? Mendacem memorem esse oportet a liar should have a good memory lest he falter. Well will you say, here you took me tardy. But how say you to this, the Bishop hath left out a part of the sentence material, he hath Stapl. 40. b. curtalled his▪ text. The later word he hath (because they make directly against him) quite lest out. Hath he so M. St.? verily that were a foul fault, and infidelity in deed. But what again if he have not done so, if he have left out no part of the sentence which he cited, & what if those words which M. Stapleton would add out of another sentence, would not make any thing against the Bishop, were he not then cleared of this fault, and might it not redound to the faultfinder? And by your leave M. Stapl. though I will not herein charge you with infidelity, unless you witted it, but impute it rather to want of knowledge, yet at the lest, it is one of your unskilful lies, for the sentence, Et habebit se●…um, etc. and he shall have it by him, and shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord, his God, and keep his words and ceremonies, which are commanded in the Law, is an whole and perfect sentence, and as the Hebrues call it a Pasuk. which, if not so much as perusing the Hebrew or Chaldee text, yet if, meaning a truth, you would have looked upon the translation of Sanstes Pagninu or Munsterus, you should have seen it to be a full period and sentence of itself. So that the Bishop is sufficiently discharged of all unfaithfulness, nor hath curtalled any sentence that he alleged, nor left out any later, former, or middle part, material, or not material thereof. But now M. Stapleton, look you to it, lest you be found herein a passing unfaithful liar, not only on the Bishop, but on the holy Scripture also. You say he hath curtalled his text. What was his text? he shall have by him the book of the law. What words follow immediately after? and he shall read it all the days of his life, to the end that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, and keep all his words and ceremonies that are commanded in the law. All this the Bishop cited and expounded also: hath he then curtalled his text, M. Stap. that so thoroughly and so largely hath set out the same? Tush, say you, he left out the words that immediately go before those that he alleged. Why, M. Stay. call you that curtalling? curtalling is to cut off those words that come behind. To cut off those words that immediately go before, was rather to behead his text, than to curtal it. And do you not see withal how contrary you speak to yourself, they be the latter words and they be the words that immediately go before? If they be the words that go before, they be not the latter words, if they be the latter, they be not those that went before, unless they come twice both before and after, and so the head and the tail of the sentence is all one, and the bishop cutteth off both head and tail away, according to your popish usage of the Scripture. But then where you say, he leaveth out a material part of the sentence, you should have said he took away, all that is material, and not one material part thereof. But the bishop citeth the full sentence. And those words which you say come after, and that the bishop leaveth them out, because (you say) they make directly against him, they come not after at all, but plainly are set before. And I much marvel with what impudent face you dared challenge the bishop for curtailing his text, when he telleth all the words that follow, both of the sentence he cited, and of that which cometh after also: and yet yourself so flatly belie the Scripture, for malice to the bishop, in saying, such words that the bishop left out do follow which neither follow at all: and yourself before confessed, they went immediately before. See, see, how envy hath blinded this man's sight. Less marvel it is that you saw not the period, for although those words which you cite, as left out, taking a copy of the Priest, and the levitical tribe, ●…e words going before the bishop's sentence, and he shall have by him. etc. yet is there a full period between them, which you see not, or would not see, so that those former words are no material part of the sentence following cited by the bishop, but a material part of the sentence going before, which the bishop cited not. But M. St. citeth & falsely threapeth that the bishop did cite it, and in citing it, left out a material part thereof, charging the bishop in these words, after such order as your own text Stap. 41. ●…. appointeth▪ saying: When he is set upon the seat of his kingdom, he shall writ him out this second law in a book, taking a copy of the Priests of the levitical tribe. Which latter words you have, because they make directly against you, quite left out. Why, M. Stap. he left out both the latter, middle, first words, and all of this sentence, he mentioned it not at all, you do but threapen kindness on him, to fasten withal upon him your challenge of infidelity. Only he alleged the next sentence, and that expounding it so fully, that he leaveth out neither former, latter, or any material point at all thereof .. And thus much doth yourself also witness against yourself, saying, that he left o●…t words that immediately go before the words which he alleged. And what were those? he shall have by him. etc. This than was the text that he alleged by your own confession. And therefore when you urge him with the former text that he alleged not, to prove infidelity in him: you contrary yourself, you clear him, you show your own exceeding unfaithful dealing, both to the scripture, and to him also. But wherefore should the Bishop have left out (as you charge him) any material part of his text? because (say you) it maketh directly against him. In deed that were a shrewd cause, and would iolily cloak M. St. infidelity, and cause men to suspect infidelity in the bishop, if he had concealed any thing in his text, that directly made against him. Which infidelity who useth, and who approveth it, for the point of a wise man, to conceal that, that maketh against him, shall after well appear. But now, although it be plainly proved, that the bishop in his text left out no part thereof: Yet for further trial of this also, let us take not only the latter words of the next period going before, which words he complaineth are left out, but every word also of the same sentence, concluding two or three periods under one, because we would have nothing left out, and join them to the sentence following cited by the bishop, and then behold what manner of conclusion either directly, or indirectly they make against him. Wherein shall appear, that M. St. hath so besotted himself in divinity, that he had quite forget the logic that so oft he cracks upon. These texts are these: When he is set on the seat of his kingdom, he shall writ Deut. 17. for himself out of this second law in a book, taking a copy of the Priests of the levitical tribe. And he shall have it with him, and he shall read of it all the days of his life that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, and keep all the words and ceremonies that are written in the law. Upon these words, M. St. frameth his argument. The king shall writ out this second law in a book, taking a copy of the Priests of the levitical tribe: Ergo, a king aught not to take upon him such government in ecclesiastical causes, as the queens majesty doth challenge and take upon her. For this is the conclusion that directly maketh against the bishop: but as herein his logic is altogether unskilful, so is his divinity yet more unfaithful. For, having challenged the bishop for leaving out these words, taking a copy of the priests of the levitical tribe, as directly against him: and then immediately followeth (saith he) how he shall busily read the said book, and so forth. In which words he maketh another toto manifest lie, falsifying the text yet once again. For these words, Et habebit sec●…, he shall have with him, which word he leaveth quite out, go between, & therefore follow not (as he saith) immediately. But see here (whether it be of malice to the bishop, or to the Scripture) that all this while in quarreling with this little poor text, & habebit secum, he shall have with him, he finds fault with translating, he accuseth the bishop of infidelity and unskilfulness, he complaineth of leaving out words going immediately before, of curtailing the text, and leaving out latter words, of leaving out a material part, of words following immediately: he citeth and reciteth these and those words in Latin and English, he scanneth and descanteth on translations, and all this while those only three words, & habebit secum, which the bishop alleged, wrinching and wresting, he ever glanceth by them, he will not once name them, but leaveth them quite out, which was the material thing that the bishop alleged. And yet all the while he whineth of leaving out, and leaveth out himself that he should chief answer. What shall we think is the cause that he doth thus? surely there is some force in those words, that he saw were more directly against him, or else he would never do so for very shame. But I remember a tale that he hath patched up into his counterblast, of the Simoniacal Priest, that being commanded to say In nomine patris, & filij, & spiritus sanct●…, could rehearse all well enough, till he came to spiritus sancti: as for that, he could not pronounce it in any manner of wise. But see your chance M. Stap. that you there fabled, how here yourself have played the like part. The bishop urgeth you with three words, & habebit secum▪ you will not only answer nothing thereto, but you will not in any wise, while you repeat the sentences, so much as name those words, and yet you go round about them. On the other side, those words that the bishop cited not, as no part of his sentence alleged, Lord what a do you make of curtailing, of leaving out, of infidelity, unskilfulness, perversity, malice, and I can not tell what. Only because you think those words seem to make for your massing Priests authority, because they name Priests: and yet God wots they make nothing for you, nor against the bishop directly or indirectly. But you think this sentence maketh thus much for your priests, that if the Prince hereon will claim by the one sentence, to have the knowledge of the law and word of God: you will enforce of the other, that he shall have no more thereof, nor no otherwise, than it pleaseth you to licence him. And so far you dare adventure to say: Well let the king Stap. 40. b. read in God's name, not only that book, but all the whole Bible beside, it is a worthy and commendable study for him. But let him beware that this sweet honey be not turned into poison to him, and lest under this pleasant bait of God's word, he be suddenly choked with the topical and pestiferous translation, wherewith you have rather perverted than translated the Bible printed at Geneva, and in many other places, with your false dangerous damnable gloss, wherewith you have corrupted and watered the same, and made it as it were of pleasant wine, most sour vinegar. The only remedy and help to eschew and avoid this danger, is to take this book, and other holy writings faithfully translated at the priests hands, as they from time to time have received them. How fitly you apply your metaphors in making one thing in the same respect to be sweet honey, & yet sour vinegar, let others descant, How properly you rap your friars & monks on the bald, in upbraiding gloss wherewith the word of God hath been watered and corrupted, let even the Papists be judge themselves, whether it toucheth you or us more near. How notably you have confuted the translation of the Geneva Bible, shall be declared, when you shall set down some one or other false word or sentence translated in it. How well you like that kings should read the Bible, as a worthy and commendable study for them, appea●…h, in that you can away with no translation, nor yet your ●…e will set out any for them. But how well soever you like it, or at lest dissemble for to like it, the most of your complyces like it never a deal: Full sore against whose wills it was translated in the mother tongue of any prince or people. But if it were so worthy and commendable a study for Princes, why were not Christian Princes permitted to study in it? why kept you them in ignorance? why limit you them within the study of ●…ill affairs, of martial policies, of hunting and hawking pastimes: But as for the word of God not one word, not not to move any talk thereof, saith Cardinal Hosius. And think you they might then make the same their study? but how soever you ordered Princes as other people then: now that you see there is no remedy, Princes will be no longer deluded, but make it their study in deed: with a false heart God knoweth, you say, well let the king read in God's name, not only that book, but all the whole Bible beside. It is a worthy and commendable study for him. If you be thus liberal (master Stapl.) to Princes from your heart now, why did you quarrel with the bishop so much before, for saying, he should have by him the book of the law, should he read and study the same, and yet not have it by him? But I perceive you are half weary of your own wrangling, and therefore in the end, you not only grant that he shall have it by him, but also shall make the same his study. Now here if your fellows ask you, what you mean to be thus liberal to princes, in permitting them to study in the word of God, in such tongues as How subtly the Papists grant princes to study in God's word. they understand, which thing many of your fellows would stiffly gainsay: be content my masters may you say, it is not now time to strive to much with princes, since they will needs have thus much, let them have it a God's name, yea let us seem to give it them frank and free, but ever presupposed they must have it of our giving, and then go●…d enough, they were as good and perchance better without it▪ For here, after you have seriously warned princes to beware of our false gloss and translations: The only remedy and help (say you) to eschew and avoid this danger, is to take this book and other holy writings faithfully translated, at the Priest's hands, as they from time to time have received them. Some simple man, that herded you, M. Stapleton, thus demurely preach of translations and glossings, would perhaps think you could not gloze and translate so falsely & so impudently as you do, even here, where you reprehend the same in others. Doth your text that you beat so much upon, mention these words, receiving of it translated at the Priest's hands, as they from time to time have received it? or is there any such meaning? First, there is no mention of any translating at all, but the text saith, accipiens exemplar Deut. 17. à sacerdotibus Leuitic●… tribus: taking a copy of the priests of the levitical tribe: Or as other have it, describet sibi exemplar huius legis, in librocoram sacerdotibus Lenitici generis. He shall writ out for himself a copy of this law in a book before the Priests of the levitical tribe. He speaketh not here of any translation, for why, the law was written in their own mother tongue. Now because to other Princes it is given translated, can you infer hereon, the Priests only should have the translating of it? or being translated, it should be received only at the Priest's hands, as they from time to time have received it? whereby it should follow, that had the translation passed any continuance from time to time, it should be forced on us for a faithful translation, were it never so false: which is apparent in the old translation that hath long time from time to time continued falsely under S. hierom's name, as both appeareth by S. hierom's works, & also S. Hierom confuteth this fond reason. Neither was he moved with the outcries of those in his time, yea even of S. Austin, that cried on him as you do now on the learned translators in our time. Neither might the word of god hereby be translated into any other tongue, than it hath been translated into of long continuance from time to time, & thus should princes be debarred of the word of God, in which you would have them study except you popish priests would translate it, & per adventure, to keep them from it, you would say you should not deliver any other translation, than hath been used from time to time. And yet to what prescription of time, you would drive us off, it is uncertain. This is false therefore, and full of absurdities, that you prattle of receiving it translated at the priests hands, as they from time to time have received it. Not (M. St. to borrow your own terms) your text saith not so sir, nor means so. But only that the prince should receive it of the levitical priests, as they had faithfully kept the word of God, from the first original setting out thereof. So noteth Uatablus the great learned Hebritian. Curabit sibi describ●… exemplar legis Vatablus in Deut. 17. huius. vulgo transumptum. Ung double de ceste loy▪ ad exemplum libri sacerdotum Levitarun. Quasi dicat ad exemplum castigatiss●…ū, ad exemplum eorum qui sunt periti in ea lege, quales sunt Levitae. He shall provide for himself, that of this law there be drawn out a copy, commonly called a transumpt. One couple of this law. According to the examples of the priests being Levites (as who should say) after the best corrected copy, after their copy that are skilful in the law, such one's as the Levites are. But to receive it after such a simple sort, as in process of time the Rabines and the Priests too, from time to time had watered it with their false gloss: & as since that time, the popish Rabines of the school friars, monks, and priests, from time to time with their false dangerous damnable gloss, have corrupted and watered the same, and made it as it were, of pleasant wine most sour vinegar: you had need to rise betimes, M. Stap. or ever you shall prove this untimely consequence, by the text that you urge so sore, or yet by any other. Your argument is this: The king in the old law, should receive the copy of the book of the law, at the hands of the Priests of the levitical tribe: Ergo▪ If Princes now will have the Bible, they must receive it of such, and after such manner, as the popish priests will from time to time deliver it to them. Now, not seeing the extreme folly of your sequel, you run on headlong as though all were yours, and say: if this order Stapl. 41. a. had of late years been kept, and that Princes and other had taken the Bible as it is and ever hath been of the Priests of the Catholic church (orderly and lawfully succeeding one the other as the Levites did) read, taught, and expounded, as well in Greek and Hebrew as in Latin, these errors and heresies should never have taken so deep a root as they have now caught. Here is bibble babble enough but no argument, and all runs upon his wont presupposals, that our doctrine is heresies and errors, that they be the Priests of the Catholic church. That they orderly and lawfully succeed one the other, as did the●…e Levites. That they have ever red taught and expounded the Scripture, in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin. That their translation is only true and faithful. And that this their order from time to time, hath ever been, till of late. Let all these things be granted to M. Stapl. for undoubted principles, and then let him alone. But if a man denied all these things (being every one so apparent false) & proved that our doctrine were not those dangerous gloss, errors, or heresies, but the express infallible word of God: if he denied that their Church were the Catholic Church, otherwise than in that sense that the scholar of In what sense the popish Church may be granted Catholic. Oxford, by a certain woman whom other praised, did merrily say, she was a Catholic woman, meaning a common quean, so the Popish church in like sense is a Catholic church, that is to say, a common strumpet prostitute to all Idolatry, and not the chaste espouse of jesus Christ: if he denied not only such orderly succession in your Pope, his Bishops, and Priests now, as was of the Levites then, they being expressly ordained of God, you being not ordained of God at all: but also prove that such succession as it is, (which in deed may better be called degeneration) is altogether unorderly and unlawful: If he denied that they did always read, teach and expound the scripture in Hebrew, Greek and Latin, when even among the most of their great School doctors, in that blind time, they had uneath any mean skill in Latin, much less, or nene at all in Greek or Hebrew: As for the most of their morrow Mass Priests like blind guides, were so far from reading, teaching, and expounding the Scriptures to the people, out of any other tongues, that even in their mother tongue they scarce knew one word thereof themselves: If he denied that they would have the Scripture red, taught and expounded at all, but on the contrary would have no translation, other than their common latin translation, which how corrupt it is, is manifest: as Besides the Protestants, Caietanus, Erasmus, Pagninus, Catharinus, and others of themselves are enforced to confess it: If he denied that the Popish handling of God's word, hath been the order that hath ever been, but is quite contrary to the original Institution, to the ancient order, and is of much later times, as corruption from time to time hath taken deeper root. If a man thus denied all these his Principles, till time be that M. Stapleton shall prove them better, than only by dreaming that we grant them for true, which are called into great question, and denied of us for manifest false: Then is all the fat in the fire, and this Mast. Stapletons' solemn process answered and confuted. Nevertheless, M. Stapleton still proceeding on, as though all these things were out of question: Neither Stapl. 41. a. is this place only ment (sayeth he) that the King should take the bore letter, but rather the exposition withal, of the said Priests. For what were the king the better, or any man else for the bore letter, if he had not also as ordinary a way for his direction in his understanding, as he had provided him for to receive a true and an incorrupted copy? Whereof we may see the practice in all ages in the catholic Church, whereof this place is the very shadow and figure. And herewithal he setteth up in his margin this note: both the books of the Scripture, and the exposition must be taken at the priests hands. The argument is this: The king in the old law must receive not only the bore letter of the priests hands, but the exposition withal: Ergo, Christian Princes must receive that sense of the Scripture, that the Popish priests do please to expound unto them. As there is none I trust so simple, that seeth not the fondness of this argument, so again each man may perceive, that the more M. Stapleton travaileth on these words (which he saith be unfaithfully left out,) he shall not only show the more his own unfaithfulness: but detect also the unfaithful dealing of all his romish priests and Church. For where as this place sayeth, that the levitical Priests shall deliver to the King a perfect and true Copy of the Law of God, which he shall write out and have it by him. And that the Priests should not deliver only the bore letter, but withal the exposition thereof, not expounded after their fantasies, as did the Scribes and Phariseis, in one place by the bore letter, which Christ confuteth Math. 5. 6. 7. In an other place, by their own inventions and traditions, but one place truly expounded by an other, and so deliver it faithfully to their Prince: And that this order than was the very shadow and figure of the true Church now: But than is it most evident that the Popish Church is not the true Church, nor was figured hereby at all. For first the popish priests delivered not a copy of the law of God, to weet, of the Old and New testament up into their Kings, Queens and Princes hands, to writ it out and have it always by them to study upon: but rather do the contrary as did the Pharisies, keeping the key of knowledge away from them of purpose, telling them it appertaineth not to their estates: but that they may go play them, or employ themselves in other foreign matters, only the word of God they must in no case meddle withal, which belongeth alonely to the Priests. Nor they will be bound to deliver up to their Princes any copy thereof at all. But thus much yet they will do for their Princes, to give them a piece here and there, and that either must be the bore letter as M. Stapleton calleth it, or else such expositions, as it shall please them to leaven the dough withal. And is this now the perfect body of that shadow, the verity of that figure set forth in Moses order? or not rather the full accomplishing of the Scribes and Pharisies doings? whom they have so followed in not giving up a copy to their Princes, in wresting, defacing and taking away God's word, that there's may better be said to be a very shadow and figure of the Popish priests dealings herein. And that we rather express the verity of that figure and shadow of Moses order, rendering up to our Princes a full, perfect, and sincere copy of God's law, that they may writ it out, set it forth, have it by them and meditate therein day and night (as King David counseleth) Psalm. 1. 2. to learn thereby to be wise and fear the Lord their God: and by them all their subjects. And thus his importune urging of this place hath so properly helped his matter forward, that where he says, the Bishop left it quite out as making directry against him, what soever the Bishop did, it had been better for M. Stapl. to have left it quite out, also: or not to have triumphed so much on that, which at the better view thereof, so directly maketh against all his popish Priests. But for all this, M. Stapleton will prove, that the popish priests must not only have the handling of God's word: but also that they can not be deceived, nor err in the sense thereof. And this will he prove even by the Protestants themselves. For (saith he) as the Protestants themselves are forced Stap. 41. ●… by plain words to confess, that they know not the true word or book of God, but by the Church: which from time to time delivered these books, even so by all reason and learning they should also confess that the Church can no more be deceived, in delivering the sense of the said word, than in delivering the word itself. Which seeing they will not confess, (for then we were forthwith at a point and end with all their errors and heresies) they must needs continued in the same. The argument is this. The Protestants confess that they know not the word of God but by the Church (of Christ) that keepeth, witnesseth and agnizeth the same from time to time. Ergo the Protestants must needs confess, that the Church (he means the Popish priests) in delivering of the word can not be deceived in the sense thereof. In steed of answer hereto, master Stapleton himself maketh a preoccupation, for perceiving the falseness and folly thereof would soon be rejected: Which seeing (saith he) they will not confess (for then we were at a point with all their errors and heresies) they must needs continued in the same. Do we not confess, master Stapleton that you would have us confess? why then have you reasoned all this while thus fond, taking that for confessed which yourself now are forced by plain words to confess, that we confess not, but utterly deny, that you be the Catholic Church, that you have delivered these books from time to time, (which you have rather hide away) that you can not err in the sense ●…f the scripture, and such like wrong principles. Which in deed if we should falsely confess with you, than all the matter were at a point and end, as you say. But since we deny it, and reject your fond reasoning, à petitione principij, it is time that you seek out other arguments more substantial, or else as your cause is at a point, or not worth a point: so in conclusion you stand on this point, to slander us, as following every man his own head, and that Stapl. 41. b. we shall never have done, and errors will never cease more and more to increase and multiply, unless we take forth (say you) the lesson I have showed you. And what lesson is that? Forsooth that we must grant and confess to be most true, all these your false principles. And then we shall be your white sons, and good scholars I dare say, if once we would con that lesson. You would give us a fat remedy, and leave to play the fools & truands all day long, if we would learn that lesson of yours. But such schoolmasters as y●… are, such scholars you desire to have, and such lessons you take them forth. Caecus autem si caeco ducatum prestet, ambo in foveam cadunt. Math. 13. If the blind lead the blind, both of them fall into the ditch. Thus you deceived the princes and people in times past. But God be praised both Princes and people have now taken forth that lesson, out of God's holy word, that you could not, or never would teach, read or expound unto them. Now when you have red this lesson unto us, with so false a gloss and commentary upon the text, (as you complain) left out: you determine that the best remedy were the Stap. 41 b. exact observation of this place that you have (say you) so wilyly and slightly slipped over. This is but a point of your apparent impudency master Stapleton, to set a be●…de face on the matter, for God knoweth you would nothing less, than that the diligent reader should exactly observe this place. Which if he did, this place alone, (were there no more) would sufficiently show how you have haled and racked it, and all the law of God besides. That this place therefore (if the exact observation thereof be the best remedy to your cause, as you say) might remedy your cause the better, I have somewhat the more exactly observed it, and if your cause have found any remedy thereby, much good do it you, you shall have more of it. So that I trust ye shall not need to complain of overslipping any thing material. Which lest you should do, the Chapter shall be yet more exactly observed than perchance you would have it to be. And to begin with that you quarrel at next, as wilily and slightly slipped over. But most of all (say you) another sentence in the very said Stap. 41. b. Chapter. And even the next to this you allege that the king as soon as he is choose shall bestow his study upon the reading of the Deuteronomie. Where Moses saith that in doubtful causes, the people should have their recourse to the said Priests, and to the judge for the time being meaning the high Priest, of whom they should learn the truth: and are commanded to do accordingly, even under pain of death. All this you say the Bishop wilily and slightly slipped over, and yet in the very said Chapter it was even the next to that he alleged. Alack master Stapleton that ever ye should for shame have thus overslipped yourself. Were you not half a sleep, when you made this slip? For I will not recharge you so hard with wiliness and sleight, but with palpable grossness, and marvelous negligent ignorance, in a student of divinity, to beat so much upon a text as you do here, charging your adversary with wiliness, sleight, unfaithfulness, unskilfulness, leaving out, curtailing, and overslipping, and yourself show so little skill, or regard, in citing your text, that either you know not, or you care not what cometh before, what cometh after, what cometh next, what cometh not next, nor near it. You say that the sentence of the Priests and the judges judgements on doubtful cases, cometh even the next, to that the Bishop alleged in the very said Chapter. Turn your book to the Chapter once again M. Stap. read the words that come next, yea all the words that follow in that Chapter. Nor his heart shall be lifted up in pride above his brethren, neither shall he turn to the right Deut. 17. hand or to the left, that both he and his child may reign long time over Israel. Doth not this follow next and is not this the last sentence of the said Chapter? Then if it be in that very Chapter, it cometh not as you say next unto it, but must needs go before, and so doth it. Neither yet the next before, for there cometh between them five or six periods at the lest. And as they are two diverse places, so are they two sundry matters. You charge therefore the Bishop amiss, with wily and slight overslipping, where nothing is overslipped, though the former sentence be not alleged. And you falsely join them together saying. The King shall bestow his study upon the reading of the Deuteronomie, where Moses saith that in doubtful causes. etc. When as Moses there, saith not so. You falsely say it cometh next to it, which it doth not, but goeth before, in another matter, and diverse sentences between. What a foul overslip was this of you, that could pry so narrowly to seek a slip over a slipper in another's footing, where was not so much as any tripping awry, and yourself unawares have slipped into a foul lie over the slops and all. But if we let slip this, as but a gross overslip, yet may we not so let slip M. Stapletons' slippery and false exposition, for all he sayeth, that their priests can not expound the scripture amiss. For where the text saith, the people should have their recourse to the priests, and to the judge for the time being: meaning (saith M. Stapleton) the high priest: In deed so doth his popish gloss interline it, and yet even Lyra that would shifted of the matter, as much as he might, for his Pope, with his moral or rather mar all gloss hereon: both noteth in his margin that these be twain, summ●… sacerdos, & judex, the high Priest and the judge. And saith, in his casibus, etc. In these and the Lyra in Deut. 17. like cases, they must run unto the higher judges, that is to say▪ to the high Priest, and to the chief judge of Israel. And although sometime it chanced, that one person had both these offices as appeareth by Hely, who was both chief 1. Reg. 4. judge, and chief Priest, yet for the most part, as they are distinct offices, so were they commonly in distinct and several The high priest and the chief judge mentioned Deut. 17. were two distinct people. people. And to prove this further by the penalty, which as you say was under the pain of death, the which judgement appertained to the judge, but ordinarily it was not lawful for the high priests, to judge any man to death, as even the wicked priests, to cloak their murder, when Pilate said unto them, Accipite eum vos. etc. Take you him and judge john 18. him according to your law, could reply (like to the papistical Priests, that post of the bodies death to the temporal power) Nobis non licet quemque interficere, It is not lawful for us to kill any man: but the judge that this place speaketh of, should ordinarily condemn to death the refuser, Ex indicis decreto moriatur homo ille, Let that man die by the judges decree. Ergo he means not that this ordinary judge should be the high priest. Besides this the very text is plain, in making this distinction, to the Priests, and to the judge, not to the judge meaning the Priest. Again, The commandment of the high Priest, and the decree of the judge. Which fully importeth that he means not the one by the other, but expresseth two diverse people, and two several offices distinctly. Wherefore master Stapleton apparently wresteth the text, thus flatly to say, that he means the high Priest by the name of judge, to prove that his Pope hath no peer, but all judgement remaineth in him alone, in every difficult matter of religion. And here again appeareth another of his false and purposed overslippes. Moses (saith he) doth say that in doubtful causes the people should have their recourse to the priests. Why do you here master Stapleton forget your former marginal censure, of leaving out any material parts of the sentence? telling us of doubtful causes, but not telling us what those doubtful causes were, and speak as doubtfully as though they were matters of doctrine, religion, and ecclesiastical ordinances, (which are the matters in question between the parties) when this place speaketh only, of decyding a difficult or doubtful matter, between blood and blood, plea and plea, plague and plague, in matters of strife: But none of these specifications, what manner of doubtful causes he meant, would you express, for fear it would then be to soon espied, that this sentence made nothing at all for the supreme judgement of your Pope. And yet after these two sleights, the one of removing the civil Prince or judge from this judgement with the Priests, and ascribing all to the Priests alone, to make it serve your purpose the better: The other by slipping over all these doubtful causes, in the sentence expressed, as though it were simply spoken without any specification, to make it serve for the priests absolute judgement in all ecclesiastical ordinances: When you have with this double sleight and wiliness thus wrested the Text, then come ye in ruffling like a lusty Rutterkin, and swap me down hereon this jolly marginal note. another sentence in the said Chapter by master Horn Stap. 41. b alleged that overthroweth all his boast. God save all master Stapleton, here is no small boast I trow. We had now need to beware betimes, for fear the Bishop be here quite overthrown, since that master Stapleton maketh so proud a challenge. Let us therefore take heed to his argument on this place. Which place (sayeth he) well weighed and considered, serveth to declare that I have said, that the King and others, should receive not only Stapl. 41. b. the letter, which as Saint Paul sayeth doth kill, but the true and sincere meaning withal, wherein standeth the life of the letter, as the life of man within his body, yea the eternal life (whereof by following lewd lying expositions of holy w●…itte, we are spoiled) at the priests hands. Is this the conclusion of all this great crack M. St. that the B. should be quite overthrown by this sentence? what one word is here, not only of this sentence, but even of your own well weighed and considered conclusion thereon, which hath come near unto, much less overthrown the Bishop's assertion? Which if you would have overthrown, you should have concluded against it, and thus have reasoned. Moses said to the people of Israel, if any hard or doubtful Deut. 17. thing in judgement rise up with thee, betwixt blood and blood, plea and plea, plague and plague, in matters of strife within the City. etc. Go to the Priests and unto the judge that shall be in those days. etc. Ergo a Christian king aught not to challenge or take upon him any such supreme government in ecclesiastical matters as doth the Queen's majesty. This conclusion in deed, quite overthroweth the Bishop's assertion. But who seeth not that this sentence is to far fetched to infer any such conclusion? And therefore master Stapleton though this was his butt●… on which his ey●… should have been fixed, and brought his proves to have improved this: yet dared he not once touch or come nigh it for very shame, for if he had, he saw that every boy in the schools would have hissed out his argument. And therefore wilyly weighing and considering how he might make it seem to serve to some purpose, that he had craked on so much. This place (saith he) well weighed and considered serveth to declare that I have said, that Kings and others should receive not only the bore letter, but the true and sincere meaning withal. etc. at the priests hands. And is this all that this place serveth to, M. Stapleton? for I dare say you have well weighed and considered the matter, that from so great a boast, are so suddenly fallen into so deep a consideration, of the bore letter kill, and the true quickening sense thereof. Whereas that text if you would but meanly weigh and consider it once again, neither talketh of any killing letter, or living sense at all: but of certain doubtful cases of strife, nor can serve to confirm those sayings of Christ and Saint Paul, without manifest wresting of it. But to what purpose do you so well weigh and consider that, which is nothing in question, and that which is in question, & denied, and you should prove: without any weighing or considering you take it for confessed? Who doubteth of this that Princes should not only receive the bore letter, but the true sense and meaning withal at the priests hands? This Princes in deed should do, which if they had always done, they should not have received so many of their lewd lying expositions, as they have done here to fore, at the priests hands, who herein deceived princes, and gave them not the true meaning and sense together with the copy of God's word: but debarred Princes of copy thereof, of letter, sense, and all: feeding them with the vain fables, and lewd lying expositions, of their own devisings. Wherefore Lyra noteth here upon the Hebrew gloss, Lyra in Deut. ●…7. Hic dicit glossa Hebraica. etc. Here saith the Hebrew gloss, if the priest shall say unto thee that thy right hand, is thy left hand, or thy left hand, is thy right hand, this saying must be upholden, which thing is manifest false. For the sentence of no manner of man, of what authority so ever he be, is to be upholden, if it contain a manifest falsehood or error. And this appeareth by this, which is set before in the text. They shall judge unto thee the truth of judgement: and afterward is set under: And they shall teach thee according to his law: whereby it appeareth that if the Priests speak that which is false, or serve from the law of God, they are not to be herded. Thus saith Lyra in (confuting the Hebrew glosars) of their high Priests, that said they could not err, and therefore what soever they taught must be believed. And do not your Papists say the same of the Pope, and yourself hold the same of your priests expositions, that there's always must be taken for the true sense? else whereto bring you out this conclusion? In doubtful cases of blood, and civil actions of strife, the high Priest, and the chief judge must determine a final sentence: Ergo, Princes must receive, not the letter of the scripture, but such sense as the Popish priests and the Pope, shall determine for the true sense in all controversies of religion. For this is the full drift of your reason, though you dare not for shame speak so plain. But this argument, the more it is weighed, weigheth like a feather in the wind: and therefore you turn the conclusion into general words and say: Ergo, Princes and others must receive at the priests hands not only the bore letter that killeth, but the true and sincere meaning thereof withal. Which conclusion is not in controversy, but on both parts granted they oughtso to do, the Priests to deliver to their Princes and others, the word of God, and the true sense thereof: and the Prince and others ought so to receive of them the same word of God, and the true sense thereof, and not the priests own devices and expositions. But since that none have ever done more contrary to this rule, sith it was first given by Moses, then have the Popish priests: had not Christian princes great need to beware of Popish Priest's gloss, and follow the council of Lyra in rejecting them, & as other good Princes have done, to displace those false glozing priests, and place faithful disyensers of God's mysteries in their rooms, and oversee that their people be not deceived in receiving at the priests hands, quid pro quo? And for this cause the priest should deliver to his prince a perfect copy of the law, which M. St. wickedly termeth the bore letter that killeth, and thereto wresteth S. Paul, & wresteth this sentence of the judicial law, among the jews for their time, in the foresaid civil controversies: to be a simple rule for all christian common weals, in all ecclesiastical causes, excluding quite all judgement from the prince, & including it in his Pope & Priests alone, jumbling the Prince and the people together under the priests absolute determination. Where this place joineth together as colleages, the prince with the priest, or rather ascribeth the skill in such doubts to be defined by the learned and faithful priest, and the full authority to give judgement, and to ratify the priests sentence, in condemning the refusers to death, and in approving the receivers, to consist, not in the high Priest, but in the judge or Prince. And thus this place, that he would so fain wrist every way against Christian Princes, and for his Pope and popelings, being well weighed and considered according to his own request: maketh nothing for his matter, nor for his shavelings, but clean against them. And being better weighed and considered, maketh nothing against the Bishop's cause, nor against christian Princes supreme government, in overseeing & correcting such false priests: but very much for their duty and chief authority therein. M. St. having thus shamefully counterblasted the bishops allegation, to set a good face on an evilfavorde matter: bids the bishop go on, and crieth out that he hath go●…ten the victory, & that the bishop is at his first encountering overblown Stap. 42. a. and discomfited even with his own blast. And that it is not likely hereafter, that he shall bring any thing to resolve his adversary. But as God would have it, all these words are no blows, nor arguments, but vain triumphs before he have got the victory: of the which he reckoneth himself so sure, that he granteth the Bishops other allegation. Deut. 13. For as for the next place (saith he) it enforceth no supremacy, Fol. 42. a. we freely grant you, that princes may sharply punish teachers of false and superstitious religion and Idolatry (being thereof by the Priests instructed) which is the matter of your text. This parenthesis, M. St. (being thereof by the priests instructed) is the lewd lying gloze of your own forge. The text hath no such matter of the priests instruction but what think you, doth instruction more enforce an authority in the priest, than power to punish & correct doth enforce an authority in the prince? or doth this follow, that because the prince by the priest's instruction doth punish false teachers: Ergo he punisheth them by the priest's authority? but as you freely grant that the prince may punish noughty, false, and idolatrous priests, so that the priests instruction is any matter of the bishops text, or that his instruction should more enforce authority over the prince, than the prince's punishment doth over false teachers: is both evident false, & this we as flatly deny, as you do freely grant the other. Howbeit, presupposing that we would also grant him this, that all things must still be done by the priest's instruction: But then (saith master Stap.) take heed to yourself master Stap. 42. a. Horn) and as though he himself were this instructor, for I say to you (saith he) that you and your fellows teach false and superstitious religion, many and detestable heresies, and so withal plain idolatry. In deed sir, so you say, & that full stoutly, braying out with I say to you, but thanks be to God, you do but say it to us, you do not prove it to us, but and it were put to a double post, might it not prove a word of course? and than take heed to yourself master Stapl. for we not only say to you, but by the word of God prove it to you, that you and your fellows teach false and superstitious religion, many and detestable heresies, & so withal plain idolatry. etc. and so have you given sentence against yourself, & have told the magistrate his office to punish you as false teachers, that care not how you falsify & wrist the scriptures to deface your adversary, the unskilfulness and unfaithfulness wherewith you falsely charge him, ever double or triple, redounding upon yourself. The residue of your process on these two challenges of unskilfulness & unfaithfulness, I refer to your common places of railing, scoffs, and slanders, and will answer to the third great fault that you find in this division. Now that you bring out of Glossa ordinaria, (say you) that Stap. 42. b. the Prince is commanded by his princely authority to 'cause his subjects to become Israelites, it may perhaps be in some ordinary gloze of Geneva his notes, Bales, or some such like, but as for the old ordinary Latin gloze, I am right sure (M. Horn) it hath no such thing. Are you right sure thereof, M. Stap? and hath it no such thing in deed? will you venture your poor honesty thereon? I dare say you would have us think, that you have looked on the ordinary gloze, whether any such thing were there or not, else would you never for shame so boldly affirm it. But what speak I of shame in so shameless a face, that boldly dare avouch he is right sure there is no such thing, when if he had looked in the ordinary gloze, except he would of purpose look from it, he could scantly miss it, even at the first view. The words of the gloze upon super Israel, are these: Benedictio est regnare super Israel. 1. regnando facere Israel. s. deum videntes. It is a blessing to reign over Israel, that is to say, by reigning (which the Bishop Englished, by his Princely authority) to make or cause to become Israelites, that is to weet, folks seeing God. The Bishop Englished the sentence plainly, by his Princely authority to 'cause his subjects to become Israelites. And what is here that is not only in sum of sentence, but in the very emphasis or force of the bore words, all one with the gloze? and yet this most impudent, what should I call him, unskilful or unfaithful liar, or both, challengeth the Bishop of untruth, and saith he is right sure there is no such thing. In what thing will this man stick, to outface the simple & unlearned, that dare thus deal with such a learned father? and commit it to print to be examined of any learned reader, and crack of such assurance, as though he had poared over all the book for it, & even at the first chop, he is found an open liar. But I doubt whether ever he looked on the book at all, but trusted some reckless supervisor. For if he had looked but over the head of the very text, Ut longo tempore Deut. 17. regnet, That he might long time reign, he should have found noted on this word Regnet, corporaliter & spiritualiter, That he should reign or exercise his Princely authority a long time, Bodily and spiritually, not only to have a regiment in lay, temporal and civil matters, as M. St. affirmeth, but even in spiritual matters also. And had he but looked a little higher on these words, Legetque illud omnibus diebus vitae su●…. He should read it all the days of his life, He should have found, Vsus reddit magistrum, the use (of reading the word of God) makes the king a master (in God's word) that is to say, a setter forth or teacher thereof as it were. Upon which the ordinary Gloze saith, Nota quan●… assid●…itate legere debent Sacerdotes, c●… assidue legant reges. Lectio ipsa est lux & vit●…: unde verba qua ego loquor spiritus & vita sunt. Note with how much continuance the Priests aught to read the word of God, when Kings should read it continually: The reading is itself the light and the life, whereupon saith Christ, the words which I speak are spirit and life. Here M. Stapleton, the life lies not (as you said right now) in the Priest's exposition, but in the word itself, and the continual reading thereof: wherein not only the Priest, but the Prince, is a kind of Master: But are you not right sure, none of this is there neither? you were best to say so, for I perceive you have an excellent grace to face down a matter, be it never so plain and open. Let us now come to the fourth and last fault, that he gathereth against the Bishop in this division which is also an untruth (as he says in his margin) the place of the Deuteronomie flady belied and adding this unto the other before, he says, This therefore may well stand for an other untruth, as also that which immediately you allege out of Deu. 13. for in St. fol. 42. b all that chapter or in any other of that book, there is no such word to be found as you talk of. verily I believe our student M. St. had for studied himself in a lazy slumber, and written this nodding half a sleep, for full awake for pure shame, he would never have suffered such lewd lies to scape his pen, & come in dropping thus one in an others neck, as though he were at a point, he cared not what he said, neither against the plain truth, nor against himself, much less against the bishop: Every word that the B. rehearseth in the last end of this division, is f●…und plainly expressed in the. xiij. and▪ 17. of Deut. which chapters the Bishop quoted: The words of punishing teachers of fal●…e and superstitious religion and idolatry, in the former side of Fol. 42. a the leaf, he granteth himself to be in Deut. the. 13. Notwithstanding he forgetteth strait ways what he said, & affirmeth on the other side of the leaf, that there is no such word to be found. But as he trippeth on the truth in the first side, so on the other side of the same leaf, he flatly falls into a flat lie, & in both he tumbleth into a foul contradiction. Moreover in both sides he granteth, that by the. 13. of the Deut. The prince by his authority may punish teachers of fal●…e religion, superstition and idolatry. And may he do it without examining, whether the doctrine wherewith the teacher is charged be true or false, and being false whether he taught it or no? Such may be the order in the Pope's consistory, but in God's Courts it is far otherwise. For God commandeth Deut. 17. (as the Bishop avouched) the Prince, when any is denounced unto him, to have taught any false religion, that he make diligent examination, Quia no●… est Lyra in Deute. 17. procedendum ad sententiam (saith Lyra upon these words) fine diligenti examinatione praevia, because he must not proceed to give sentence without diligent examination had before. And this being found by the Prince's diligent examination that he hath taught false religion: he shall be put to death. The bishops words comprehend all this. The last words also of the Bishop's division, to weet, Et auf●…res malum de medio tui, And thou shalt take away evil from among thee: Are they not plainly set forth in both those chapters? So that a man might wonder that knew not well Master Stapletons' impudency (seeing that all the points that the Bishop speaketh of in the later part of this Division, in the places of the Deuter▪ above mentioned, are so manifestly expressed) with what face M. Stapleton can so boldly affirm, that in all the▪ 13. chapter, or any other of that book, there is no such word to be found as the bishop talketh of. And thus with more than a full mess of notorious untruths Sta. 42. b (to return your own conclusion M. Stapl. most worthily upon yourself, you have furnished the first service, brought yet to the table, concerning the principal matter: howbeit perhaps though this be very course, yet you have fine dishes and dainty cates coming after. Let us then proceed. And as he saith in the entrance of this division, Go on I say in God's name (M. St.) and prosecute your Supra. 40. b plea stoutly, God sand you good speed, and so he doth even such as you and the honesty of your cause deserve, and at the first entry of your plea, causeth you and your clerkly and honest dealing, forthwith to your high commendation so to appear, that even the first authority that you handle of all the holy Scripture, plainly discovereth you and causeth you to be espied, and openeth as well your fidelity, as the weakness of your whole cause, the which even with your own first Counter blast is quite overblown. So fitly (M. St. all these your own words do serve against yourself. Division. 11. IN this division the Bishop bringeth for his purpose two ●…ol. 42. b things, first he allegeth generally that the best and most godly princes that ever governed God's people, did perceive and rightly understand, that to be Gods will, that they have an especial regard and care, for the ordering and setting forth of God's true Religion, and therefore used great diligence, with fervent zeal, to perform and accomplish the same. Secondly, for proof hereof, he entereth into his ensamples of the old Testament, beginning with Moses, that he was not the chief Priest or Bishop, but the supreme governor or Prince, and as chief governor had the ordering of religion, which he dutifully executed with great zeal and care. To the former part and general assertion of the Bishop, Chap. 9 M. Stapleton only answereth by a marginal note, saying: Regard, and chief rule, care and supreme government, Fol. 43. b are two divers things▪ Now forsooth a solemn studied answer of a student in divinity, he is a silly wise man that understood not thus much before without this marginal note. Too simple were he in deed that seeth they be not all one, as he hath simply set them out. But he that complained so late of curtailing and leaving out a material part of the sentence, which doing he calleth unfaithfulness, see how unfaithfully he hoffeth and curtalleth the bishops sentence. The Bishop spoke not of simple care and reregarde, but of an especial care and regard for the ordering & setting forth of God's true religion. With which assertion M. Stap. finds no fault, neither ●…y any word goeth about to improve it, and so showeth himself to agree therewith, and by silence to confess the truth thereof. Now therefore let us resolve the Bishop's assertion, and then consider thereon. The Bishop's assertion hath these three parts. First that godly Princes aught to order and set forth God's true religion. Secondly, that they aught to do this with an especial regards and care. thirdly, they perceive and rightly understand, that it is Gods will they should so do. Now since that this by master Stapletons' deep silence, is agreed upon betwixt the Bishop and him: I make hereon this argument. To order and set forth God's true religion with especial regard and care is the Prince's duty. But the only sort of government that the queens Majesty doth challenge and take upon hi●… in ecclesiastical causes, is to order and set forth God's true Religion with an especial regard and care. Ergo Prin●… aught to take upon them such government, as the queens Majesty doth claim and take upon her in ecclesiastical causes. And thus is the Bishop's antecedent directly proved, and so consequently the principal matter of M. Feck. issue. Now as the former part being the general assertion to all the ensamples following, is no whit impeached by any answer of master Stap. to it, but by silence (which with him is an argument of confession) granted: so like a very Counterblaster in deed, he blus●…reth and puffeth at the second part, as though he would all to blast it. Moses (saith the Bishop) was supreme governor over God's people, and was not chief priest or Bishop, for that was Aaron. Here master Stapleton denieth not Moses to be the supreme governor, but that he was not chief priest or Bishop he utterly gainsayeth it. It is an untruth (saith he in his score) for Moses was the chief priest as shall be proved. Stap. 42. b & 43. a Here is a flat promise of proof, but I fear me it will never be performed, neither doth master Stapleton here go about the performance of it. And therefore the Bishop's denial of Moses to be the chief Priest, must stand for a truth, till by proving Moses to be the chief Priest, he have proved it to be an untruth. And in the mean time, his promise must stand but for a crack, as also his proud entra●…nte into his Chapter. That the Scripture by the Bishop alleged reacheth nothing home, but rather infringeth Stap. 43. a. and plainly marreth the bishops purpose, and fully standeth on our side, sayeth this student, so greatly hath arrogancy sotted him. He fareth as did the Soldier, who when his adversary had many times in wrestling hurled him down in the sight of every slander by, yet would he never confess that he had any fall, yea, most arrogantly▪ he still affirmed that he had ●…ast the other. And even so playeth this student (for this of wrestling is one of his common similitudes) he contendeth to wrestle with the Bishop, which is in verys deed as he sayeth in this Chapter, Impar congressus Ach●…lls Troilus. An uneven match between Troilus and Achilles. What a number of ●…oule falls he hath had, yea, how he hath been overturned in his ●…wne trips, is apparent to every Readers eyes, and go no further but even to his last Chapter. And yet see how he craketh, that all the bishop's allegations, mar his own cause, and fully stand on his side. Where contrariwise they have dry beaten him back, belly, side and all. And as he thus fondly maketh vaunt of his former Stap. 43. a. victory: ●…o I doubt nothing (saith he) it will far with his examples. Well said of a student, like an other Gavin, he doubteth nothing. But see a sudden qualm of his inconstancy, for even straight ways, after he hath cried out, all comes to shor●…: he saith, but here am I shrewedly ●…ncombred, and in a great doubt what to do. Why master Stap. 43. a. Stapleton, are you now so soon in a great doubt, and right now as doth bold baiard doubted nothing, and have before already without any stammering thereat, clapped down your marginal note for a full resolute answer, that Moses was the chief Priest, and now doubt you what to answer? But master Stapleton hath so many weapons that he is shrewdly encumbered with them, as it were another armed Golias, and yet one small poebble stone, will soon ease him of this encumbrance. He tells us he hath so many answers, that he doubteth with which he should begin, for I could (saith he) make a short but a true answer that these ensamples are fully answered already by master D. Harding and master Dorman. In deed master Stapleton this were a short answers, but I see yourself fear (as you said before) it would come to short, and not reach home to the matter. Yet, say you, if you should refer the Reader thither, Stapl. 43. ●… to his and your great ease, it should be to the sparing, not only of pen, ink, and paper, but of the time also, which of all things is most precious. It seemeth master Stapleton you are a man of deep casting, these are good considerations of pen, ink, paper and tyme. But why follow you not your own council, which if you had observed, and left out so many impertinent vagaries, and other your trifling common places, you had saved more paper, pen, ink, and time, by three halves than you have done. And here as seeming full resolved to follow this advise, you clap down another marginal note. All master horns examples out of the old Testament answered already, by master Doctor Harding, and master Dorman. Here, saith he, is a short but a true answer. To this short answer, I answer again. All M. Doctor Hardings and M. Dormans' answers, confuted already by the B of Sarum, and M. Nowell. Here is another as short an answer as yours M. Stap. and a great deal truer, which I remit to the indifferent viewers of both their answers. Now might we both rest, and breathe us, from further answering of these ensamples, and spare penue, ink paper, and time also, that he seemeth to account most precious. But another thing was more precious unto him, and that was master Feckenhams hire, and his friends largesse, for so much Paper pen ink and time spent about his book, and the gain of the printed copies, which the bigger volume it came unto (for he would not seem a thréehalfepennie student) the fatter exhibition it should yield, and he seem the greater clerk, yea to go beyond his masters. And therefore there is no remedy, he will spare neither pen ink paper time. nor pains also, but that his Counterblast shall be blown up to so large and full a volume, that it may encounter even the best of there's. To whose answers if he should refer himself, and say no more thereto: Then I fear me (saith he) would Stap. 43. a. step forth if not master Horn (a good simple plain man in his dealings) yet some other jolly fine fresh pregnant witty fellow, yea and bring me to the straits which way so ever I did tread. You are loathe I perceive master Stapleton to be brought into the straight way to tread aright therein, for then your wry treading would soon be espied. But you seek crooks and shifting answers for the nonce. And like the vain talkative Arrian Philosopher, you despise the right reverend and learned father, calling him in contempt a good simple plain man in his dealings. Whose wisdom, judgement, learning and estimation, not only all godly learned that know him both on this side and beyond the seas, acknowledge with reverence: but even the chief syre●… on your side, and your good master's master Stapleton do confess, though they groin thereat, and be of contrary opinion unto him, and agree therein with you, yet are they ashamed of this your light demeanour. And which of them seeth not that yet it is much better, to be a good simple plain man in his dealings, then to be a vainglorious, wicked, crafty, dissembling man, in his dealings, as you have showed yourself throughout all your Counterblast to be? And if he be a good simple plain dealing man, are not you again (that dared counterblast his dealings) a naughty, false, and double dealing man? If he be a good simple plain man in his dealings, than he hath dealt well simply and plainly with master Feckenham, who aught to receive the oath by his promise, if he meant also good truth▪ simple and plain faith in his dealings. And then what meant you master Stapleton, thus to bend your study, to spend your paper, pen, ink, pains and time, against a good simple and plain dealer? Though you have Balaams mark▪ man, and tread the way of Balaam. (Qui mercedem 2. Pet. ●…. iniquitat is am●…it, That loved the reward of iniquity.) Being hired for lu●…re to write against him: did you think that d●…bling false●… would prevail against honest, plain and simple dealing? Or that the truth is to be despised because it is plain and simple? And that your false craft would not be espy●…, except some jolly, fine, fresh, Stap. 43. a. pregnant, witty fellow, would step forth and bring ye to the straits? You are much deceived master Stapleton, in your own concept, and think yourself a iolyer fellows than any man else takes you, that you must needs be matched ●…th some such ●…ie pregnant witty fellow, or else you can not be dryu●…n to the straits. But were your memory as good as 〈◊〉 take your wit to be, you would●… not forget, that even that balaam's Ass, whereon your Balaams mind do●…th ride, hath brought yourself to the streyght●… many times before this. And as Saint Peter sayeth of him, Correptionem vero habuit 2. Pet. ●…. s●… vesani●…. etc. He was rebuked for his iniquity, for the dumb Ass speaking with man's voice forbade the foolishness of the Prophet: so your own tongue hath diverse times so confounded you, that there is less need than you ween of some such jolly fellow. I wisse a good simple plain dealing man, will bring you to the Storm soon enough, how witty, pregnant, fresh, fine, and jolly, so ever you esteem yourself. Now say you: If I should (as I said) send the Reader to them, than Stap. 43. a. should I hear a fool, a dolt, an Ass, that can say nothing of his own. As though you had not already sent the Reader to them, when you say it is a true and a short answer, and set it forth with a solemn note in the margin, as it were a mark for the nonce set up, for the Reader to resort unto them. Doth your conscience give you therefore, that you deserve such homely terms as you conceive you should hear, if you did so? Why did you not then avoid the doing so, that you might there by a●…oyde those terms? But you may well hear in deed, (if not such terms as your guilty conscience fancieth you deserve) yet this, that ye can say nothing of your own, but their answers in effect, turquesed in your flaunting livery words. Then should the cause be slandered also (say you) Stap. 43. a. b as so poor and weak, that it could bear no large and ample Treatise, and that their answers were such as I was ashamed of them, and therefore wylilye and wisely forbeared them, with many such other triumphant trifling toys. Would you in good sadness master Stapleton avoid all triumphant trifling toys? Why then stand you trifling in these excuses? If master Harding and master Dorman have answered these ensamples already, lease you any estimation (upon the which you stand so much) being yet but a young student in divinity to them, to refer the matter to their answers? If they have answered ho●…▪ your surplus●…age is but trifling toys. If it be any other, than their answers reached not home. And so your answer makes yourself a liar, that say they have answered the Bishop already. Again, is your cause slandered as poor and weak, if it have answered already by such famous Rabines? Or is it the richer and stronger for the addition of your peerless toys? Lastly, doth the honesty of your cause lie, in bearing a large and ample Treatise? Now truly then it is a false cause, that dare not abide short plain and simple dealing, but must be flourished 〈◊〉 embossed out with a large and ample▪ Treatise. ●…. And herein you have done in deed your part, neither will I speak it to flatter you (though I would not Wherein master Stapleton excels all the Lou●…in write●…. have you wax to proud thereof) your answers are far beyond all your fellows, or masters, or any of your side, for railing, scoffing, lying, slandering, quarreling digressions, and other your common places, you may ●…eare the prick and prize. Yea the best of them all herein, are but benchewhi●…lers to you, that of so poor and weak, of so false and naughty a cause, could make it bear so large and ample a Treatise. But when all is done, a good plain simple man in his dealing, would tell ye in plain English, that all these flourishe●… are nothing else, but triumphant trys●…ing toys. Again, (say you) if I should repeat or inculcate their Stap. 43. ●…. answers, than would master Nowell or some other rush in upon me, with his ruffling rhetoric that he useth against master Dorman, and master Doctor Harding, with a precise account and calculation what either master Dorman o●… master doctor Harding borrowed of Hosius, or either of them two of the other, and what I have no we borrowed of them both, or of either of them. It were marvel, had master Stapleton any shame, that he would for shame mention those broad borowing. Howbeit that this is but a crafty preoccupation, borrowing likewise from them, the most of his stuff, and would not be upbraided therefore, nor called to accounted: a good simple plain dealing man may soon espy this prevention. Now that he hath cast all his doubts that encumbered him, like a circumspect man, because he would have his answer large and ample: and hath made his preoccupation, under the name of borrowing, to steal hereafter what he will from his fellows, knowing he might be bold with them, who had by like borrowing 〈◊〉 the s●…ne from others: leaving the short answer that he chose before, he chooseth two for more surety, that if the one fail him, the other may help at a pi●…che. But on the one side (sayeth he) lest any of the good Stap. 43. b. brethren, should surmile upon my silence any such distrust▪ I will compendiously as the matter shall require abridge their answers, and that master Horn shall think that our stuff is not all spent▪ I shall on the other side for a surplusage, adjoin some other things to our opponent accommodate. An Almond for Parate, so finely our student gins to speak, that a good plain simple man can scarce understand his 〈◊〉 terms. But this is the effect of it, we shall now have new stuff of some old store, (good stuff and God will) for all their stuff as he cracks, is not yet spent, but I perceive it goeth hard with them in their store house, and that this stuff is some of the last cast, God send it be not such stolen stuff, when it comes to the view, as Cardinal Campeius moils did bring into England, and uttered in Cheap side. But such as it is we must take it in good worth, it is the best he hath to answer the Bishop's ensample withal. The first ensample is of Moses, in whom the Bishop The example of Moses and the Papists shift●… about it. noteth three things. First that he was the supreme governor of God's people. Secondly, that he ordered and set forth God's true Religion, with great regard and care, prescribing aswell to Aaron and the Levites, as to the people. Thirdly, that he was not the chief priest, & therefore could not do them in such respect, but as he was supreme governor. The first and the second propositions that Moses was the supreme governor, and that he did order and direct all things, M. St. granteth. The third part he denieth, and affirmeth that Moses was the chief priest, and in that respect did all these foresaid things. This assertion he saith he will prove, both by his masters old, and by his own surplusage of new stuff also. His argument of both these stuffs is this. I say with M. D. Harding, and S. Augustine, that Moses Stap. 43. b. was a Priest aswell as a Prince, I say the same with M. Dorman▪ with Philo judeus, with S. Jerome, and with S. hierom's master, Gregory Nazianzene: Ergo, Moses was the chief Priest. By the like reason, if M. St. be a priest, he might prove himself to be the Pope of Rome. He is a Romish priest: Ergo, he is the chief 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 infereth no such words, but these: And so consequently Moses ensample serveth not your Stap. 43. b. turn, but quite overturneth your assertion. True it is in deed, this is your conclusion, M. St. but what was the bishop's assertion, which this you say, quite overturneth was not this his assertion, that Moses was not the chief priest, and did not you deny this assertion, & affirm it to be an untruth, saying, for Moses was the chief priest, as shall be proved? did you not here make promise to prove it? did you not say, that to answer this example, you had other fresh stuff, not yet spent? must not then this stuff be directed to this end & conclusion, to fulfil your promise, & overturn the bishop's assertion, which was, that Moses was not the chief priest, but Aaron? and you should prove as you have freshly promised, that Moses was the chief Priest. And therefore if this be not your conclusion, you subtly & falsely swerver from the conclusion that you aught to have concluded: you perform not your promise to prove Moses the chief priest: nor your conclusion, as you crack, ouerturnes the bishops assertion: which was that Moses was not the chief priest, but Aaron. And therefore either this is your argument, Moses was a Priest, Ergo, he was chief Priest, or else you conclude not against the bishop's assertion. If you say you conclude this, all the world seeth what a fond conclusion it is. And if you have a poleshorne priests crown of your own (as I doubt not but you have a fair one) you may aswell conclude to yourself the Pope's triple crown. And if you conclude it not, you conclude not against the bishop, nor fulfil your promise, for all your proves stand on this proof, that Moses was a priest. Now the question was not whether Moses was a priest, or not, which is another question in controversy. But the question is, whether he or Aaron were the chief priest. Yet will you peradventure say, though I have herein (as you have proved) swerved from the direct conclusion in hand, that Moses was not the chief priest, nor kept my promise, yea and made a escape in saying, that I overturned the bishop's assertion, when I did not, or if I went about it, yet mine argument proved but a fond reason, from priest to chief priest: yet in the end I have proved Moses a priest, and so consequently it serveth not your turn (unless Stap. 43. b. you will king Henry the eight, and his son king Edward, yea & our gracious Queen to be a priest to) but rather quite overturneth your assertion: and think you M. Horn, that the Queen's authority doth jump agreed with the authority of Moses in causes ecclesiastical? then may she preach to the people as Moses did: then may she offer sacrifices as Moses did: then may she consecrated priests, as Moses did consecrated Aaron and others: then may it be said of the imposition of hands, as was said of Moses, josua the son of Nun was Deut. 34. full of the spirit of wisdom, for Moses had put his hand upon him. It must needs therefore follow that Moses was a priest, and that a high priest, which you here full peevishly deny. Where you ask, M. Stap. of the Bishop. And think you M. Horn, that the Queen's authority do the jump agreed with th'authority of Moses? might not the bishop demand again the like of you, and think you▪ M. Stap. that even your Pope's authority, (admitting it were not the usurped tyranny which it is) doth jump agreed with the authority of Moses? yea admitting also that question, that he was a Priest, and so consequently again it serveth not your turn, nor master D. Hardings, nor master Dormans neither. I am sure, as you confess he was a priest, so you will admit a difference between your Pope and him, and even so (since you reason thus precisely of differences in the people) you aught also to have made a difference between Moses his diverse offices, and to have given either office his proper actions, and so to have applied them, and not to have confounded them, admitting that he, one person, were both a Prince, and a Priest also, which hangs in controversy for all your cited authors. But you reason confusedly à secundum quid ad simpliciter. Moses (by an especial privilege) was a Priest as well as a Prince, and thereby did preach, offer sacrifice, consecrated Aaron, lay imposition of hands, and did other offices of Priests, and many extraordinary things besides: Ergo, Moses in that he was a Prince, not a Priest, in that he exercised ordinary government over priests and all ecclesiastical people and causes, as other Princes did after him▪ is not to be brought for example for our christian princes to follow. This is the plain & full effect of your tale. And what an ilfavorde argument is this I pray you? but to hide this sequel after your fashion, you would inserre another yet more dark conclusion, saying: It must needs therefore follow, that Moses was a priest, & that a high priest, which you here full peenishly deny. Doth this conclusion, M. Stap. if it were admitted, improve the bishops assertion? and yet this your conclusion standing on three parts, as it is not to the purpose, so is every part stark false, and like the maker thereof. For Moses by his prerogative, having especial commandment of God thereto, might well do all those things, and yet it followeth not of any necessity, that, as you say, he must needs therefore have been a priest. Or if he had been a priest, he must needs therefore be a high priest: or if he had been a high priest, that he must needs be the highest priest. Neither did the bishop deny peevishly, that he denied (as you full peevishly, rashly, and like yourself do judge,) nor yet denied, or granted, or spoken upon, one way or other, whether Moses were priest, or a high priest, yea or no. But denied, and that truly, that Moses was not the highest or chief Priest. Which words you dared not allege, nor yet generally term him the high priest, but you say, a priest, and that a high priest, yourself seeming even by your speech, to grant that the high priest or highest priest he was not. Nor you can not cavil about your own phrase, unless you will say it is all one, a Lord, and the Lord, a high priest, and the high priest, & so say you meant the chief priest, when you said, a high priest: for all the world seeth a great difference between these terms, and that yourself did subtly see, to make the reader believe you had performed your promise in proving him to be the chief priest. And yet you bring no proof, but only say, a priest, and that a high priest, ●…go, the highest priest So that if the reader more narro●…ly viewing your gross sleight, should challenge you, that you have not proved him the highest priest simply, not (will you say to save your honesty) I only said, a priest, and a high Priest, and no more. But why do you then bely the bishop, saying he denied that, that he meddled not with, and prove not your matter in hand, nor keep touch with your reader in performing your promise, that Moses was the chief Priest? Have you learned so well this subtle shift, that Omne promissum est aut debitum aut dubium, Every promise is either due or doubtful? But howsoever you will discharge your promise, this your doubtful conclusion neither dischargeth your falsehood, nor impugneth the bishops assertion, much less ouerturnes it, that he was not the chief priest, but the chief Prince or governor, and thereby did order and direct Gods true religion, both to all the Priests and people, as the Bishop affirmed. Now seeing he can by no means, neither old stuff, nor new stuff, bring it about as he would have it, nor prove him to be the highest Priest, he will leave his promise, and like to the Fore that would eat no Grapes, when he could not come by them, with all the leaps he could make, so M. Sta. will now, even renounce his solemn marginal crack, that he promised to prove Moses the chief priest, and leaping at it, but ever leaping short, that he was a Priest, and a little higher, that he was a high Priest, but he can not leap so high, to obtain his purpose, that he was the highest Priest, he will now let him go for being any Priest at all, and since he can not get the grape he will none of it, but will hunt after an other pray. I say now further with master Dorman (saith he) that put Sta. 44. a the case Moses were no priest, yet this example frameth not so smoothly and closely to your purpose as you ween, for Moses was a prophet, and that such a prophetas the like was not again. Give me now M. Horn Princes, prophets, give me P●…nces and lawmakers by especial order and appointment ordained of God, to whose words God certainly would have given as great authority, as he would and commanded to be given to Moses, and then perchance I will say that you say somewhat well to the purpose. Again Moses was such a special Prophet, and so singularly choose of God to be heard and obeyed in all things, that he is in the holy Scripture evidently compared to Christ himself: compared, I say, in the office of teaching and instructing. Moses' in the Deuteronom, foretelling the jews of a Messiah to come, Deuter. 18. sayeth: The Lord thy God will raise thee up a Prophet from among thine own nation, and of thy brethren, such an one as myself, him thou shalt hear. And this so spoken of Moses in the old Law, is in the new Testament avouched and repeated, first by S. Peter the chief apostle, and next by Saint Stephan the first martyr, and applied to christ. If then Christ must be so herded and obeyed of us, Act. 3. &. 7. as was Moses of the jews, no doubt as Christ is a king, a Prince, a Prophet, a Priest, and a Bishop to us: so was Moses to them a Prince, a Prophet, a Priest, and a Bishop. As Christ is of us to be heard and obeyed as well in all matters Ecclesiastical as temporal (for no temporal law can have force against the law of Christ among Christian men) so was Moses to be heard and obeyed of the jews in matters and causes as well temporal as spiritual. For why? the Scripture is plain. Tanquam meipsum audietis, You shall hear that Prophet even Act. 7. as myself. Show us Master Horn any prince in the new Testament so conditioned and endued, and then make your argument on God's name. Verily any prince that now is (namely in Ecclesiastical government) compared with Moses, is as the Poet saith: Impar congressus Achilli Troilus. Yea forsooth now ye say something further, Master Stapleton, as you boast: howbe●…it nothing further in substance than your fellows before, but in flourish of Copia verborum, ye say now further in deed, And I may say to you, it was high time to say something further●…: for hitherto all that you have said is nothing. Well say you, now Put the case Moses were no Priest: I conclude than he was not high Priest, and so putting this case, ye put yourself in an ill case, that before you made a false lying crack, and now with shame are fain to give it over. But if you put the case (as you say) like Master Dorman, then dare you not abide, by this case neither like William Summer, for so played Master Dorman in putting this case, and so I fear in the end you must be fain to do. Nay say you it frameth not so smoothly and closely to your purpose as you ween. Well Master Stapleton, it hath hitherto so framed, that you are fain to give over your tackeling, and forsake the performance of your promise, and to seek out other shifts of descant so that, although you would bear us in hand, it frameth not so smoothelie, and closely for the Bishop, as he thinks, yet you grant thereby, that it frameth to his purpose. But as for your purpose, for all your old or new stuff, it neither frameth wide nor close, smooth nor rough, but brings it out of frame. For what an argument call you this? Though Moses was no priest, yet Moses was a prophet so well as a Prince. Ergo, Princes in that respect Moses was a Prince, may not follow his princely steps. Was not Saul also for the while a Prophet: Num & 1. Reg. 19 judic. 4. Saul inter prophetas? Was not Deborah a Prophetess, and yet a Princess too or judge over Israel? Was not David a Prophet, and is commonly called Regius propheta, the Kingly Prophet? Nevertheless all Christian Princes may and ought to follow his princely supreme government. And yet you cry, Give me now M. Horn princes, prophets, give me princes and lawemakers by especial order and appointment ordained of GOD. Do you not see how fond you reason, and how you confute yourself▪ A difference in excellent Princ●… between their extraord●… gifts and ordinary authority. ye reason as though there were no difference to be put between those especial gifts and appointmentes: and the ordinary gift of their Princely authority, because one Prince had both, and that after an extraordinary and especial sort, but if those commandments, laws, and gifts of prophecies, were such specialties, (as you say) ordained of God, then do yourself sever them from the prince lie authority. And why do you then demand such prerogatives in every Prince, which they had not in resp●…▪ they were Princes, but in other especial respects? But by this your fond rule, if because they had such especial privileges, commandments, or gifts, therefore they are not to be brought in for an example of the authority: than you must not allege them, for the Priests or bishop's authority in Ecclesiast. causes neither, except your Priests & Bishops have the like prerogatives, and that God would have as great authority given to them, as he would and commanded to be given to Moses. And thus your argument maketh directly against yourself. Yea, you may hereby exclude all Princes from all civil government too, which if we proved they might have, because Moses ordered and directed all the judicial laws of God's people: may you not reply on this fashion, and say, Give me Princes and lawmakers by special order & appointment ordained of God? For you know we can give you none in these laws neither, that are equal to Moses. May not therefore Moses' ensample herein, be alleged for the Prince's authority in making civil laws, because the Prince maketh them not, with such special order and appointment ordained of God as Moses did? Yes M. Stap. Moses' authority may well be alleged for all Prince's authority, although they have not the like gifts that Moses, joshua, or David had. Yea those singular ornaments of God in them, joined to their princely authority, make so 〈◊〉 an argument to fear Princes from doing the like things, because they have not the like excellent gifts: that they be rather encouragements, to set such singular Prince's government (as patterns to follow) evermore before their eyes, and the better those Princes were, the better their ensamples be. Where as you reason contrariwise, such a Prince was more excellent than princes be now, Ergo, our Princes now may not take example of him: but you should conclude, that they ought to take example of him the rather. And even for these causes, such Princes are examples to all other, because they so excel all other. So men set their children in writing, to the best and most cunning penman, at the lest to have them come the nearer to him, so much as they can though they cannot fully attain to his perfection, & not to say, tush he writes too fine for them, and therefore they must not take ensamples of him. Yea, if a learned Schoolmaster were also an excellent divine, might not the same man be reckoned for a schoolmaster, yea rather for a pattern and ensample for other schoolmasters to follow, because of his singular gift to train the children up in the fear & knowledge of God, so well as in the rudiments of Grammar? And will you then debar Moses from being an example to other Princes, because he was not only a Prince, but a Prophet also, because he had more excellent gifts and prerogatives than other Princes have? But here, thinking thereby the more to abase and dash Christian Princes out of countenance, from taking example of this excellent Prince Moses, you mount so high into the praise of him, that like to the Friar which in the praise of saint Francis, extolling him above all the Saints, above Seraphin and cherubin, yea above Christ, could find no place in Heaven to set him in: so where in the praise of Moses, you should refer him unto Christ, you overshoot yourself, and refer Christ unto him, making Christ to be terminum à quo, and Moses terminum ad quem▪ Moses sayeth (say you) The Lord thy God will raise thee up a prophet, from among thine own nation, and of thy brethren, such a one as myself, him shalt thou hear. Ergo, Ch●…ist is so to be heard of us, as Moses was of the ●…wes. hereupon preposterously you invert the reason backward, not from Moses to Christ (of whom Moses knowledged himself but a figure) but from Christ again to Moses, as though Christ also were a figure of him, saying: As Christ is a king a Prophet, a Priest, and a Bishop to us, so was Moses to them a Prince▪ a Prophet, a Priest and a Bishop. As Christ is of us to be heard and obeyed ●…s well in all matters Ecclesiastical as temporal, so was Moses to be heard and obeyed of the jews, in matters and causes, as well temporal as spiritual. What a manifest writhing of Scripture is this? Who playeth Cacus part here, that drew Hercules ●…en by the tails backward, and so stolen them into his theeuish●… den? Do not you so hale this testimony of Scripture backward, like the witch that said her Pater noster backward, to make her pail go forward, saying, As Christ is King, Prophet, Priest, and Bishop, so was Moses: As Christ is to be heard and obeyed, so was Moses. Where by the testimony alleged, you should Moses' a figure of Christ▪ not christ a figure of Moses rather have reasoned forward, thus: As Moses was Prince, Prophet, priest & bishop to them, so should Christ be to us: As Moses was heard and obeyed of them, so should Christ be of us. This had been the right and orderly reason, but you saw, that then your wresting the Text would soon be espied: And that in swerving from the hearing and obeying of the old law of Moses, and the Gospel of Christ, to all proportions of these pe●…ons offices, would be but an homely sequel to serve your ●…urpose, and rather abase Christ, than serve any thing for Moses, to make him a Priest and a Bishop. And where you make christ a figure of Moses, to make Moses also a Priest and a Bishop, because christ is so: the text maketh a similitude from Moses to christ, only in either being a Prophet, and that the one Prophet and the other should be herded and obeyed: But you turn it topsy-turvy, and making Christ's person represent Moses' person, conclude thereon not only Prophet but Priest and Bishop also, which the text citeth not, nor any other mentioneth in the scripture, that Moses was priest and Bishop. Nor the Priesthood of Christ was prefigured by Moses' priesthood, (for that is a question whether Moses were Priest at all or not,) but the Scripture expressly for Christ's priesthood, testifieth, that Aaron's Priesthood in some respects, but chief Melchis●…decks, were the only figures thereof, and not any Priesthood of Moses, and therefore yourself durst not flatly conclude before that he was the chief Priest, but a high Priest: But dare you say the like of Christ, he was a high Priest, but not the chief or highest Priest of all? But when you saw a glimpse, that this inversed argument could not prove Moses to be a like Priest to Christ nor bishop at all, nor that his being a Prophet, took away the ensample of his Princely authority: as you did the residue, so you subtly invert and fold up the conclusion. For, where it should have fallen out thus: As Christ is of us to he heard and obeyed, as well in all matters Ecclesiastical as temporal: so was Moses to be heard and obeyed of the jews, in all matters and causes as well spiritual as temporal, which were the plain conclusion: ye come indreaming and say, in matters and causes as well temporal as spiritual, as though the ●…uestion were moved of temporal, not of spiritual matters▪ neither dare you say all, as you did in the former part. But if you reply that you meant all, and so the proportion of your argument runneth, and that I do you wrong to charge you, with so light a matter, since the indefinite, is taken for the universal: may not I reply again, that you do the Bishop much more triple wrong? that so often call and make such outcries for this syllable, all, when soever he concludes, In matters so well ecclesiastical as temporal, Lo say you, he leaveth out, in all matters Ecclesiast. and temporal. Which although it were no part of his issue with M. Feckenham, and yet he sets it down oftener than you would have it, though he be not in every particular proof bound thereto: yet see how this hitteth yourself, that if you leave out this word (All) you can make no good conclusion from Christ to Moses at all. Now when you have thus Master Stapleton, preferred Moses before Christ, you cry out unto the Bishop, Show us Master Horn any Prince in the new Testament so conditioned and endued, and then make your argument on God's name. Have you made your argument on God's name M. Stapleton? or not rather in his name that exalteth himself above all that is called God, when you have made the master serve as a figure to the servant, to serve your purpose? But let Moses have his due estimation under Christ, and his especial prefiguring of christ also, and all prerogatives of doing any thing for the time then, by God's especial appointment, that Princes now can not do: Yet on God's name, may any man argue as the Bishop did, that Moses' care and regard (being the Prince of the Israelites) in setting forth and ryghtely ordering Gods true religion then: may, and is, and ought to be a pattern to all Christian Princes, to care and regard in setting forth and rightly ordering Gods true religion now. And what though in this comparison (although in deed i●… be no comparison, as you call it, but an example) any christian Prince that now is, compared with Moses, be Impar congressus Achilli Troilus, as uneven a match as Troilus to contend with Achilles, may not therefore a christian Prince follow Moses examples? Why bring you that Poet's sentence, M. St? what Prince goeth about to compare & contend with Moses, and not rather submit themselves to his example herein? You slander christian Princes, you deface Christ's glory, you belie Moses, you skip from Priest to Prophet, from Prophet to Priest again, to delude the bishop's ensample, and yet all this will not frame, neither smoothly nor roughly to your purpose. Which when you perceive, leaving all these shifts of descant, to infringe the authority of this first example, that urgeth you so sore, that you can not tell what to say unto it, but are driven to the hard brickwall, and that all store, old stuff, and new stuff is clean spent: then as a desperate man you quite deny all examples, either of Moses, or of any that hereafter shall be alleged, and ●…ée for sanctuary once again, to the place of the Deuteronomie, mentioned in the former division, of the doubts arising between blood and blood, plea and plea, Deut. 17. lepry and lepry, to be determined by the priests & judge. And here claiming sanctuary, and removing all examples: And the lawyer saith (say you) legibus non exemplis judicatur, Sta. 44. b. We must judge according to the precise rule of the law, and not by examples: extraordinary doings enforce no ordinary prescription or rule. The ordinary rule of priests judgements without why's and what's, and such other trifling importune instances, as you are wont to make against it, by the law of Moses, and by your own chapter before alleged in doubtful cases, must absolutely upon pain of death be obeyed. By this rule of the law you must measure all the examples following, of kings and princes under this la●…e. You must square your examples to the rule, and not the rule to the examples, unless you will make of the law of God Lesbiam regulam, and both unskilfully and unorderly work therewith. And hereon as a ruled case you set down your marginal judgement. Men must judge by law, and not by examples. If you will not, M. St. be judged by examples, wherefore do you take upon you to defend M. Feckenham, and impugn the bishop? For one of the four means whereby he desireth to have his issue proved, and will be judged by, is practise: which altogether you wots, standeth of examples, and therefore the bishop proveth it by examples. And if you will now flee from the authority of examples, you should at the beginning have stricken off, one of those four means to have the issue proved by, and not first to admit them, and ●…id the bishop go on, and say you will yield also if, he prove aught by any of those four means, and when he hath so proved the same, by such examples as first with all shifts you labour to answer, and when you can not answer to any purpose, will you now at length come in crying, with an humane lawyers shift, against the examples of Gods eternal word, & say, legibus, non exemplis, judicatur, men must judge by law, and not by examples? is this your indifferent dealing, M. St? But of what opinion I pray you, be you, that How the Papists order the examples of the Scripture. dare reject the ensamples contained in the holy scripture? & make a difference between them and rules? do you liken them to other worldly examples? are they not also rules, if they be examples of godly men, for us to follow: if they be examples of wicked men, for us to flee? Doth not S. Paul so teach us, after he had cited many examples of the old Testament, saying: H●…c autem omma in figura illis contigebant. 1. Cor. 10. etc. All these things happened to them for ensamples, and are written to admonish us, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Thus maketh he rules of these examples to be ware the like. And yourself that here refuse them, if this or any other ensamples should never so little see me ●…o serve your turn, or may with any countenance of probability be wrested to it: there by and by you will be judged by ensamples, and marvelous eloquently dilate them, omitting nothing that might each forward your cause, yea though in stead of an example of the scripture, it be but a tale of your golden lying legend. This is afterward in all your Popish historiographers, your common fashion, as the Reader shall perceive. And here you will not in any wise the matter to be judged by examples of the Scripture. For than it were to evident by many and manifest examples, the judgement would go against you. The examples of God's word would soon overthrow you, and therefore you plainly refuse now at the length to be judged by them. But to blear the simples eyes, you allege that extraordinary doings enforce no ordinary prescription or rule. Stap. 44. b. As who say the bishop alleged such doings of Mases as were extraordinary, and not rather such his doings, as other godly princes did besides him the like, it is yourself, M. St. that reckon up his prophecies, his making special laws appointed of God, and other his extraordinary gifts & doings: and not the bishop. And therefore this is but one of your ordinary shifts, under the pretence of extraordinary doings, to deny flatly in the end all examples brought against you, and say, men must not judge by examples. But whereby will you be judged then? by the rule, say you, of the chapter going before, that the Priests & the judges judgement, in Stap. 44. b. doubtful cases, without whies and what's, must absolutely be obeyed upon pain of death. By this rule of the law, you must measure all the examples following, of Kings and Princes under this law. If this be your rule, M. Stap. this is ruled over already. Which besides that it hath showed many of your impudent falsehoods, in belying and wresting the place, so it be wrayeth also your extreme folly, ignorance, maliciousness, and arrogancy, besides the weakness, yea and desperation of your whole cause, to flee from examples, and depend on The rule Deu. 17. that the Papists would have all the question ruled by, and how far it stretched. this sentence. First, this rule was but the judicial law of the jews, and so it toucheth not us. Secondly, the cases mentioned in this rule, were not matters of religion, but civil cases of strife between neighbour and neighbour, and therefore the rule of that law was no absolute rule in all cases to them, or is any rule at all in any case to us, and is both to them and us, manifestly wrested of you, to all cases of religion: and therefore in this controversy, of all spiritual or ecclesiastical matters, is alleged out of place and season. Thirdly, the doing herein appertained not to the Priests alone, but the sitting and determination of the truth of the doubt to them, and the ratifying decree to the judge or Prince. Fourthly, it was not absolutely done, without whies and what's, as you pretend, but that, even by your own popish doctors minds, men might not only have asked why and what, but utterly have refused it, had it been, not according to the law. But to bear men in hand, as the Papists would, that the Crow is white, and we must not say the contrary, because (as the Pharisies said, we have a law, and by that law he aught to dye) so joh. 19 saith M. Stap. we have a rule, and by this rule you must obey the priests sentence in all doubts whatsoever he saith without any whies and what's thereto. And whatsoever examples you have to allege, they must all be measured and squared by our rule, otherwise you work unskilfully and unorderly, making of the law of God Lesbiam regulam, a rule to bow every way that you would have it. But who are those that make of the law of God Lesbiam regulam, to run on four wheels to every tropological, anagogical, mystical, and moral sense, that you list to apply it: who it is that by this rule, would make the manifest words of Moses Lesbiam regulam, applying them backward and forward as he list, and wresteth Christ to Moses, and would rule Christ under Moses' ruler: who it is that would bring all examples to one rule, and so make his own rule Lesbiam regulam also: who they be that call the scripture not only Lesbiam regulam, but besides give it other foul and shameful terms: I trust master Stapleton you are not ignorant. But ever you were best to object that to us, wherein you are culpable most yourself, for thus it becometh an impudent man in a desperate cause to do. And so yelustily knit up the matter, that This one answer might well serve for all the kings doings now following, saving that I will (say you) particularly descend to every one, and so for every one say somewhat. What somewhat you will say to other ensamples, we shall then see somewhat as you descend unto them, and somewhat may we see already by this, whereby you count you have answered all to come. The somewhat and sum of this great answer is this: A canceled rule, pertaining nothing to Christian men to follow, nor being ever of any spiritual matters, but indiciall and civil cases, for the time being, wherein the Prince had as much to do, or more than the Priests, is a fit rule and absolute, in all ecclesiastical and religion cases, to rule over all Christian Kings, Queens, and Princes, upon pain of death to be ruled by popish priests: but an express ensample of a most godly Prince, to set forth, order and direct Gods true religion, with great regard and care, is no fit ensample for Christian Princes to follow. And the reason is, because, that Prince had, besides that he was a Prince, some especial prerogatives, and other excellent gifts of God. Here is the full effect of your whole answer, which how effectual it is to infringe the Bishop's assertion, let all the world be indge. And yet you so triumph hereon, that as it were some instie fresh Champion, having beaten all down before him, you cry out for another adversary. Here I wish (say you) to encounter with master Nowell. Stap. 45. ●…. You are all heart to the hard heels I see M. St. and were it not herein that you resemble the wise captain, that in the beginning you mentioned out of Luke. 14: I would have said this challenge had proceeded of a noble and haught ●…orage, but because it wanteth that natural wisdo●…e and foresight, so rashly to run upon one adversary, & having more than both your handfuls with him, yet more fond to challenge another on your top, your ca●…se beein●… so bad, and yourself so weak and unskilful a soldier withal: all wise men will judge it in you neither policy nor manhood, but that in your fool hardy presumption you play but the desperate Dick, if not a Thom of L●…dlem. The. 12. Division. NExt to Moses the Bishop adjoineth the ensample of 45. ●…. The example of joshua his supreme government. joshua, proving by divers testimonies and doings of joshua, that the supreme government in all ecclesias●…i also well as temporal causes, was committed to him, ●…ot to Eleazar the high priest, who only had the ministration of things belonging to the priestly office. M. Stap. in all the residue of the examples, ●…auing before Cap. 10. Fol. 46. b. promised to be as brief as he may: yet to amplify his answer, lest it should be too brief, or his counterb●…ast too small, in the beginning, and so throughout his answers, picketh buy quarrels at the Apology, at master Nowell, at the Convocation, and other things not to the present purpose, but for any material or direct answer to any of josua's doings, he useth nothing but mere shifts, or very childish arguments. First to joshua his example generally. M. D. Harding Stap. 46. b. (saith he) showeth that allegation to import no chief rule in spiritual matters as in deed it doth not. As though the whole matter (M Stap.) must be determined by ●…hat so ever your M. D. Harding hath said, and you with it is learned proof, in deed it doth not have confirmed your masters saying. Now as though this were, between his allegation and your confirmation, a sufficient and full proo●…e, you set down thereon your marginal note, as a clear case, joshua no supreme governor in all ecclesiastical causes. What kind of arguing call you this, M. Stapl? but see how soon at the first you confound yourself, and 〈◊〉 that joshua had the government in ecclevasticall matters. For where you pick by quarrels, already answered, against the Apology and master Nowell, about this phrase to go Num. 27. forth and come in, and will not have it understood only of going and coming to and fro the wars, as M. Nowell hath fully proved it doth, as also Ruvi 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 Aben ●…zra, do expound it, and Lyra expresseth the meaning of the phrase, do a quod no●… si●… 〈◊〉 ad labores sed pri●…us, Lyra in Num. 27. so that he be not the last but the first to labour. But say yau, Immediately before it is generally written, Stap. 46. b. prohoc si quid agendum erit, Eleazar sacerdos consulet dominum. For him (meaning joshua) Eleazar 〈◊〉 ask counsel of God when any thing is to be done. In which words we see euident●…y, that joshua whatsoever he did touching the governing of the people in ecclesiastical matters, he did nothing of himself, but was in all such matters instructed of Eleazarus the high Priest. Do you not see withal evidently, master Stapleton, that admitting this to be understood so generally as you pretend, how yourself do piaynly grant, that the government in ecclesiastical matters appertained to joshua, in saying: What soever he did touching the governing of the people in ecclesiastical matters: and what now will you make joshua? a Priest? no say you, but in all such things Stap. 46. b. he was instructed of Eleazarus the high Priest. Whose part therefore it was always to ask counsel of God, when Iosu●… had anything to do. Why, what then M. Stap. the question is not asked here of ask counsel, who asked it of God, or whether joshua asked it of Eleazar, but by whose government it was done. We grant the Princes should ask counsel in all ecclesiastical matters of their godly learned clergy, and they should ask it of God, that is to say, of his holy word, wherein he hath revealed his will. But what letteth this ask counsel, the ordering, doing, The Princes ask council of the clergy embarres not his authority over them. setting forth, and governing of those ecclesiastical matters, to be in the Prince? What hindereth this, that the Prince aught to ask counsel also in every weighty civil affair, the chief government thereof to be in the Prince? Though he follow in all points, the advice of his counsellors, yet have not they the chief authority? This exception therefore of ask counsel, taketh not away your grant, that joshua had the doing of those things that touched the governing of the people in ecclesiastical matters. And so is this a fit ensample, even by your own flatconfession. And with all you have granted the full issue, that godly Princes have and may take upon them such government in ecclesiastical causes, as the Q. majesty now doth. Here if you would flee touch, and say you grant joshua had the government in causes ecclesiastical, but not the supreme government: although this be but a shifting toy, so long as he did not those things by any others governance, (and yet is it much more than your fellows, or yourself otherwhiles will confess, that he was any governor at all in ecclesiastical matters: so contrary you are to your fellows and yourself) yet what can you show, why, as you grant joshua to be governor: so he should not be supreme governor also, but be subject to another? If you stand on this argument: joshua must in all things ask counsel of the Priest: Ergo, joshua in all things is subject to the priests judgement: By this argument you will make the kings counsel to be the king's supreme governors to. But they for all their good counsel given to the king, be he never so much b●…und to take it, are but his subjects still therein, and he their sovereign Lord, for by him when all their counsel is done, the thing must be set forth, & established through his authority. As therefore you have granted, joshua had the governing of the people in ecclesiastical matters: so this exception doth nothing embarre his supreme government therein, but rather establish it, that in all his doings were they never so general, the priest was but the counsellor, first learning of God, and then instructing his Prince: but the governing and setting forth thereof belonged unto joshua. And to reason on the contrary, from ask or giving counsel and instruction, to a chief authority: or from following good counsel, to obedience and subjection: is but an homely argument, and fit for such a counsellor as yourself are M. Stap. Stap 45. b. But when you see this weakness of your argument, by and by you start back again from all that you have said. And as before you forsook the ensamples from Moses, and referred them to your foresaid wrested rule, so would you now also deal with joshua, that if the Priests counseling would not infer his authority, yet his judgement should as you thought enforce it. Your argument is this. The Priest and the judge must discuss all doubts of Deut. 17. blood, strife, clean, and unclean. Ergo all the testimonies of the holy scripture brought Sta. 45. b. forth by master Nowell, and before him by master Horn, can not induce supremacy in causes ecclesiastical, but the execution of the high Priests or laws commandment. This frivolous argument, grounded on this impertinent and weak anchorhold, which master Stapleton maketh his general rule and succour, whensoever he is driven to a plunge, than back again to this, as a fox to his earth: is so fully answered and confuted, that it were but superfluous to stand any longer about it. And here (saith master Stapleton) I will not quarrel Stap. 46. a. with master Nowell. etc. Under pretence that he will not, he begins to pick by quarrels with him. A pretty figure he will not, but he doth. The quarrels are, a couple of mi●…quotings of figures for 33. 34. for 23. 24. For using such examples as the Bishop of Winchester doth. For detecting M. Dormans s●…ealth, the noting whereof, he calleth childish and boyish rheto●…ike, for fear in deed that his own childish and boyish rhetoric (stealing so many sentences, arguments, and in manner whole leaves, from Doctor Harding and master Dorman, as master Dorman stolen from Hosius & ma●…ler Harding) should be also detected as master Dormans is, and therefore he flourisheth it out with his common places, but the stuff is the old st●…ffe still, though new furbished for rusting to seem the fresher to the show. After he hath done with M. Nowell he returns to joshua, and lest he should seem to have answered no particular point, he chooseth out one of joshua his doings in the place of all the rest alleged, not so much to make any answer at all to the objection thereof, as thereby to pick yet another by quarrel, and so to shake of the matter, as though he had made a clerkly answer thereto. The Bishop showed how at the appointment of joshua, the priests 〈◊〉 the ark of Covenant, and placed the same: & so goeth on through many particular actions, that decla●…e josues supreme government & ordering of ecclesi matters. To this when M. Saint should directly answer, whether this declare an authority of the Prince, ever the priests in ecclesiastical matters yea or not, in s●…eed of answer he saith. But for the doing of Io●…ue, I will further note, that then Stap. 46. ●…. the Priests took up the ark of covenant, and went before the people. But I pray you master Horn, how was this observed of la●…e years, when the lay men dared adventure to take the guiding of the ark, and go before the Priests, and not suffer the priests to go before them? And dared altar the state of Christian religion, against the will and mind of ●…he B. & the whole clergy then at their convocation as●…embled? And I pray you again master Stapleton. What doth this answer the Bishop's proposition? ●…t shew●…th your shifting, it detecteth your malice, that wit●…ingly slander your most grac●…ous pri●…ce, & native country. Her Majesty hath only done therein, even after the example of this most Godly pri●…ce joshua. In commanding the ark, that is is to say gods holy word, in the sincere setting forth of it, by the godly ministers thereof, to be carried before her, & her subjects. And when your popish pr●…lates & priests (which in deed are neither pre●…ates nor prieus) refused ●…o to carry it, otherwise than after your o●…n devises to cart it, ●…ot after God's 〈◊〉, or rather would not carry it about at all, but bury it under a bushel, ●… in 〈◊〉 thereof carry about ma●…mets & toys, to m●…ke 〈◊〉 peopl●… commit most barbarous idolatry: her high ●…sse as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, hath abolished iuch carriage: and as did Salo 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of office your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 clergy, and placed other 〈◊〉, & painful 〈◊〉 in their ●…ooues, to carry this irk as go hath appointed it, before her highness & all her people. Now when you have thus 〈◊〉 the prince, the clergy, the whole realm, and yet answered not one word to the objection: Well (say you) ●…et t●…ts pal●…e for this present, I say Stap. 46. ●…. no 〈◊〉 for joshua his doing, saving that otherwise they are not to be drawn into an ordinary rule for that the spirit of God was certainly in him, and for that he had part of Moses glory, and the people commanded to hear him, and those things that he did (whereof M. Nowell & M. Horn would infer a sovereignty in causes spiritual) he did them by the express commandment of God. And from such princes to all princes indifferently, to gather the like pre-eminence in all points were no sure and found gathering and collection. Your argument is this: those Princes in whom the spirit of God certainly is, and have part of Moses glory, and whom th●…▪ people are commanded to hear, and whose doings are by God's express commandment, are not ensamples for all godly Princes to follow in their governments. But such another was joshua: Ergo it were no sound gathering & collection, to set joshua for ensample, for other Princes to follow. For that which you infer (of like pre-eminence in all points to joshua) both maketh your argument vicious, having more in the conclusion than is in any of the propositions: neither doth the Bishop or any other contend for like prehemmence in all point, as joshua had, but infer of his ensample a like charge of their duties, & a like care and regard of governing God's people, to be required of them, being princes & rulers as joshua was. But where learned you this wicked & false principle, whereon you ground your argumnet? that the doings of any, are not to be set for examples for other Princes to follow, that had certainly the spirit of God in them, or that had a part of Moses glory, or the people were commanded to hear them, or because they did their doings by the express commandment of God, are they not a great deal the more to be set for ensamples to follow? Would you have them follow such as certainly had the spirit of error in them, such lying Papists as yourselves? Would you have them follow your express commandments, and then they were to be followed, but not if they followed the commandments of God? Are those Princes not to be followed whom God commandeth the people to hear: And are they to be followed whom you command the people to hear? If they be godly Princes, God commandeth all people both to hear them, and obey them, chief where they have for warrant the express commandment of God. So that by your wicked principle no good nor godly princes aught to be drawn into example, for any other Princes to follow, but naughty and wicked Princes, such as had so little any part or spark of Moses glory, that they had not the spirit of God in them, or at the lest it is uncertain whose spirit they had, such as the people were not commanded to hear them, such as had not Gods express commandment for their doings, these are fit examples with you for Princes to follow. Thus do you show how you have heretofore, & yet still would abuse Princes, making them so drunken with that cup of abominations of the whore of Babylon, that they might take ensample of no good nor godly Prince. But let us see how substantially you prove your mayor. You reason by admitting the contrary thereto, ab absurdo, from a foul inconvenience that we should fall into, by taking such Princes for example: or else fall into a ●…oule contradiction against ourselves. Else if you will have your examples (say you) to prove and Stap. 46. b. confirm, then as joshua circumcided, so let the Prince baptize, and as joshua sacrificed upon an altar, so let the Prince in Cope & Surplice celebrated your holy communion: But these two things as peculiar offices of Bishops and Priests. M Nowell excludeth flatly all Princes from, yea and saith they aught to be untouched of Prince or other person. Ergo, thus again, either you jumble and jar one from another, or else your argument (to bring joshua for example to prove and confirm) falls down right, choose which of both you will. Here is, as M. Stap. thinketh, a marvelous Dilemma, and yet the absurdity thereof most easily anoyded, and the contradiction as plainly turned upon himself. To the mayor I answer, that as the one did these things, so doth the other, and therefore the one is a fit example of the other. As joshua then did circumcise, so the Prince now baptizeth. As joshua did then sacrifice on an altar, so the Prince doth now celebrated, not ours (as he scornfully terms it) but the Lords holy communion. Neither of them, by executing themselves the fact, but by commanding, appointing, and overseeing the fact to be rightly executed by the ministers, to whom the doing appertaineth. And that this was joshua his doing, and not otherwise: Lyra upon these words, Et primum quidem benedixit populo, Lyra. doth witness, And first of all he blessed the people, etc. Non est intelligendum quòd joshua proprie loquendo benedixit populum, quòd hoc pertinet ad sacerdotum officium, sed imprecatus est bona populo, tanquàm princeps populi, post immolationem, praedictam quam similiter fecit non per se, sed per sacerdotes. We must not understand (these words he blessed the people) that Losue. 8. joshua in speaking himself did bless them, for this appertained to the priests office. But joshua as the Prince of the people wished well unto them, after the offering afore said, which likewise he did not by himself, but by the Priests. And again, Posthac legit omnia verba, etc. Then afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessings and cursings according to all that is written in the book of the law, there was not a word that Moses had commanded, which joshua read not, before all the congregation of Israel, as well before the women and the children, as the stranger. etc. Non per se sed per sacerdotes ut praedictum est, coram omni multitudinem Israel. etc. Not by himself, but by the priests, as is before said, afore all the multitude of Israel. And even as he thus read and blessed by his commandment, joshua. 5. and their ministery: so says Lyra, fecit immolationem similiter, he did offer sacrifice in like sort, not by himself, but by commanding the minister to do it. And do you think that he circumcised all the whole people of Israel with his own hands, because the words are, circuncidit filios Israel? Do you think because the bore words are, Igitur joshua. 3. joshua de nocte consurgens movit castra, that he removed joshua. 4. all their tents with his own hands? and of the stones in jordan, alios quoque duodcim lapides posuit in medio jordanis alueo, that he set them in the river with his own fingers Do you think of the City and the King of Hai, succendit urbem Cap. 8. & fecit eam tumulum sempiternum, regem quoque eius suspendit in patibulo, he burned the City, and he made it an heap Cap. 10. for ever, and the King thereof he hanged on a gallows, and of the other Kings joshua smote them, and slew them, and hanged them on five trees: all these things and a number of such other, as well servile as other deeds, as well temporal as ecclesiastical, think you, because still all runneth under his name and his doing, that he did them himself? Or rather gather thereon, that sith he did not these things himself, and yet so well in ecclesiastical as other matters, all beareth the name alone of him, it importeth his supreme government and direction of them. So little is there any absurdity, in the comparison of these doings, but your own absurd mistaking and reasoning so absurdly on them, not distinguishing between the doing of these things and the manner of doing them. To the minor likewise I answer, there is no contradiction, jumbling, or jarring, between the Bishop and master Nowell therein. For of the same mind that the one is, is the other also, as the Bishop hath declared many times in his answer, ever observing this distinction between the doing of the fact, and the oversight in appointing the fact to be done. But this, of a peevish self will, you will not understand. And so here because the words are simply spoken that joshua did such things, you understand it that personally he executed the doing of them. But what now if you do contrary your own self, and talking after of this same party, confess that the doing of these and such like things▪ must be understood by this said manner of another's ministery? May you not than most worthily here your own words returned on yourself, that your argument falls down right (if ever it stood upright) yourself, in plain speech hurling it down? and that either here or there ye speak against your own conscience, your own sayings jumbling and jarring one from another, and so you encurre either the absurdity or the contradiction, choose which of both you will. The. 13. Division. The next ensample of the Bishop is of David, how God The example of King David's supreme government in eccl. causes. appointed him king, not only for the people to live in ciul●… peace and hones●…ie, but chief that by David's government, care and zeal therein, they might be fos●… read up in Gods true religion, decayed among them by the negligent reign of king Saul. This the Eyshop proved by king David's Acts, in ordering, disposing, reforming the priests and Levites in their offices and functions ecclesiastical, in appointing how the Ark should be born. For sacrificing, and blessing, for ordaining Psalms, singers, instruments, officers, and all other things, for the setting forth of the divine service, and Gods true religion. Which argueth that he was their supreme governor in all ecclesiastical causes. Master Stap. first for a brief summary answer to Cap. 11. Fol. 47. a. these doings of David, clappeth down this marginal note: David in all these matters determined no doctrine, nor altered any religion against the priests wills of his own supreme authority. This note is both malicious and slanderous, as though we ascribed to the queens Majesty, or she took upon her such authority, and that of her own sway and will, against all her Clergies mind and counsel, to determine and altar what religion pleaseth or displeaseth her. This is the Pope's claim and tyranny, and not our Princes, or any other godly Princes doing. And yet this note is partly false, for king David against the will of his idle Priests, caused the misordering of the Ark to be reform. And did many other things about Religion, to the which the Priests obeyed. And determined doctrine also, even by master Stapl. own confession in this Chapter. The first argument that master Stapl. maketh is this: Both M. Dorman, and M. D. Harding affirm that the Stap. 47. a. proceed of king David are nothing prejudicial to the ecclesiastical authority in redressing of disorders before committed, or doing such things as are here rehearsed: Ergo, They infer no supreme government over causes ecclesiastical. This argument standeth altogether upon the authority of his good masters. M. Dorman, and M. D. Harding, from whom he borroweth his stuff. For, the most of his own surplusage, is but his common places of descant on them. And as they be so great in his books, so he reasoneth as Pythagoras' scholars had wont to reason of their master, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he said so: Ergo, it is so: and thus argueth M. Stap. Both M. Dorman, and M. D. Harding affirm it: Ergo, it is true. But what do they affirm? That the proceed of king David in redressing disorders before committed, or doing such things as here are rehearsed, are nothing prejudicial to the ecclesiastical authority. Why M. Stap. who saith against them, or you herein? king David's proceedings in deed, were nothing prejudicial to the ecclesiastical authority of people ecclesiastical, they executed all their functions still belonging to their authority. And because his proceedings in redressing such disorders, and all other things that he did, declare most plainly his supreme government, in setting forth and directing Gods true religion, and yet were no prejudice to the Priests ecclesiastical authority: it followeth there upon The Princes supreme government in ecel matters not prejudicial to the eccle. authority. that the supreme government, in setting forth God's true religion, in correcting, & repressing ecclesiastical disorders, in reducing and directing good orders, and all other doings here rehearsed, that you confess king David did, are no part of the priests ecclesiastical authority, for then in doing them, he should have done things prejudicial thereunto, and therefore they are no parts thereof, but of king David's royal authority. And this while fond you would as it were, overpress us, with such great men's authority as is M. Dorman, & M. D. Harding: or ever you be ware you make them flatly give verdict against you, & with us. A God's name bring their authority so against us as often as you will, neither M. Dorman nor M. D. Harding will give you great thanks therefore. But for all this you will bring us more of D. Hardings stuff. As master D. Harding (say you) noteth, king David's Stap. 47. a. proceed in redressing disorders before committed or doing such things as are here rehearsed, do no more employ a supremacy in him, than the reformation of religion made by Queen Mary. But that, you wots well, employeth in her no such supremacy. Ergo, No more do those proceedings in him. This argument standeth wholly upon his M. D. Hardings authority alone, because he hath noted that the one did no more than the other, & that their doings were alike herein: But the doings of the one infer no supremacy, Ergo, the others neither. But if we might be so bold as to deny this your mayor, or rather your maxima or principle that you build upon of D. Hardings comparison, in making king David's doings to be none other, but such as were Queen Maries: Where were then your argument, M. St? you talked right now of Impar congressus Achilli Troilus, the match between An uneven comparison between the doings of king David, and Q. Mary. Troilus & Achilles was uneven, but here is a great deal more inferior match between K. David & Q. Mary. Yea their doings were so little alike, that they were clean contrary. For, although she were a princess of famous memory, yet herein your popish Prelates made her so believe them, that she dared not redress disorders in the Clergy at all, but suffered the Pope and his prelate's to reduce their false religion. Nor she retained the estate that belonged to her of supreme government, but utterly renounced it. And therefore that reformation, or rather deformation, was not made at all by her, nor in her name, but by the Pope and his Popelings, she only permitting it▪ But if you mean as you speak, that it was made by hi●… in d●…de, & as your Massers words are, Queen Mary did it, by the means of the Priest so that she was the doer, and they were but the m●…anes, she was the maker, and they but her instruments: then your similitude goeth against you, and proveth a supremacy in her, as was in David. But you speak colourably to make in such a 〈◊〉, some proportion in speech of a similitude. For in very deed, what soever you say, the matter went so, that your popish bishops and priests were the doers of all. And she good Lady, was but your instrument and mean, whereby you killed Christ in his members as did the high priests kill Christ in his body, under Pontius Pilate. I speak not to compare her, being herself a noble How the Popish priests abused queen Mary. Christian Prince, to him, being a heathen tyrant: but to show how you abused hi●… authority, as the jews did his. But as for king David, as he did those things, in redressing disorders, and all other noted by the Bishop (which yourself can not deny) so he was the principal in the doing of them, and he reform even the Priests themselves. And though in some things he used the Priests as means, yet what doth this infringe his supreme authority, and not rather prove it? And thus your other argument from D. Hardinges authority, by D. Hardinges own confession, that they were but the means, and king David, and Queen Mary the doers of such ecclesiastical matters, once again maketh quite against you, and your master D. Harding also, and establisheth the Prince's supreme government over the priests and all. I areade you beware, since you stand so much upon your master's words herein, that if you allege his authority any more, you bring him forth to better, purpose, or else while ye think by clawing him thus, to win his good favour, ye get his heavy displeasure, and that he answer you flatly, non hercule veniam tertio, he will not come at your call. Howbeit you will once again in hope of better luck bring him forth, and allege his authority better than you have done hitherto. Besides that (say you) it is to be considered, as M. D. Harding Stap. 47. a. The Papists shifted against the example of king David's supremacy, because he was a Prophet. toucheth, that he passed other Princes herein, because he had the gift of prophecy. So that neither those things that the Apology showeth of David, or those that you and master Nowell add thereunto for the fortification of the said superiority, can by any means induce it. This frivolous argument, he was a Prophet also aswell as a Prince, Ergo, his superiority in that he was a Prince, can not be alleged for other Princes to follow: you used before, as your own fresh stuff, to shift off Moses ensample: but as it nothing helped your cause then, no more doth it now. Only it detecteth here, your vain crack there, of unspent stuff, where in deed it was old rotten stuff, spent before by D. Harding on king David, as here yourself confess: yet there you brought it as a notable fresh surplusage, beyond all that had been said. But as you thus of D. Hardings old scroppes here, would have made us there new fresh stuff of your own, whereby the alleging of him again this third time openeth your shame: so yet once again you make your M. D. Harding, and yourself for company, confound your own tales, and speak contrary to yourselves. Right now you said, and alleged your master's authority for it, that king David's doings were no more than Queen Mary's doings, to employ a supremacy. Now you say again, and like wise allege your master for it, that king David passed other princes herein, because he had the gift of prophecy. If he passed other princes herein, than he passed Queen Mary, whom many other Princes have also herein passed: and so his doings were more than were Queen Mary's doings herein. For who know not that she was no Prophet? and thus the oftener you allege your master, you take your master tardy in one lie or another and make him still contrary both himself and his cause also. Again, it King David were a Prophet, as I grant he was: a Prophet, you wot, might and did determine doctrine, but yourself said before, David in all his doings determined no doctrine, and thus you lie on your own head, and make your master witness thereto. Well, leave at the length to cite your master's authorities for shame master Stapleton, since you can bring them out no handsomer, or how well so ever you have brought them out to your advantage, since they be no better proves than that: He affirmeth, he noteth, he toucheth: as though all were gospel that master Doctor Harding affirmeth, noteth or toucheth. Are you so fond to think any man would yield so soon unto them, unless he were as wise as yourself? But since none of all these reasons will serve, we shall now have other stuff of your own, though not very fresh, but such stolen refuse, as your masters have refused, but to you all is fish that comes to net, you do wisely to let go nothing, that may any way be wrested to help so ill a cause. And first you reason from the authority of the scripture. In deed this is a better way than to reason from D. Hardings authority. The Scripture (say you) in the said place by you and Stap. 47. ●…. master Nowell alleged, saith that David did work juxta omnia quae scripta sunt in lege domin●…, according to all things written in the law of God. What conclusion can you infer hereon against the Bishop's allegation of David? Ergo he had not an especial care and regard in ordering and setting forth God's true religion? if you make the quite contrary conclusion: He did work according to all things written in the law of God: Ergo, as the B. saith he had an especial care and regard in ordering & directing Gods true religion: then should you make a most true conclusion, where otherwise rightly applied it can no ways serve your turn. Thus bring you out that, which once again ouerturnes your cause, and proves K. David's supreme government. And even so the Q. Majesty by this ensample of K. David, is taught to do the like, as praised be to god for her therefore, she followeth well herein the steps of K. David: doing, juxta omnia quae scripta sunt in lege domini, according to all things written in god's law. And where the papists in all their errors, & this among other of the supremacy, do praeter & contra omnia quae scripta sunt in lege domini, besides & against all things written in god's law: As David redressed eccl. disorders crept in before his time, so the Q. highness now hath redressed such disorders, as she found before her time crept in. Thus the more you reason, the more still you make against yourself. You had need add some better stuff than this, or else if you thus hold on, your friends would wish M. Fec. had hired you to hold your peace, when he first moved you to pled for him. Master. Stap. seeing it now more than high time to add Stap. 47. a. some notable thing to better his cause: Whereunto I add (saith he) a notable saying of the scripture in the said book by you alleged concerning David's doings by you brought forth touching the Priests and levites. Vt ingrediantur domum 1. Par. 24. dei juxta ritum suum sub manu Aaron patris corum sicut pr●…ceperat dominus deus Israel. King David's appointment was, that the levites, and Priests should enter into the house of God, there to serve under the government: of whom, I pray you? not of King David, but under the spiritual government of their spiritual father Aaron and his successors. The governor of them was Eleazarus. Upon this notable sentence for your purpose, as you think, you gather three notes. And because you would go orderly, you begin first with the last note. Where we have to note first (say you) that David appointed Stap. 47. a. hereto the levites nothing of himself: But sicut praeceperat dominus deus Israel: as the Lord God of Israel had before appointed. We have here again to note first in you M. Stap. no plain 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 especial, you would make it seem to serve for all David's doings in general. We have to note again, your hacking and wresting of this sentence, which showeth a plain destination between their turns of coming in, and their ordinary ministery in their turns, in attending on the high Priest. The text is thus: ●…ae vices eorum secundum ministeria sua ut ingrediantur 1. Par. 24. domum domini, & juxta ritum suum sub manu Aaron patris eorum, sicut praeceperat dominus deus Israel. These are their courses after their ministries to enter into the house of the Lord, and according to their manner be under the hand of Aaron their father, as the Lord God of Israel hath commanded. Which last words you begin withal, and join them to the first part, as though the lords commandment had been of David's appointment where it was only of the obedience of all the Tribe of Levy, to be under Aaron and his successors in the ministery, which in deed was Gods statte commandment. But the appointing of the courses to those mentioned in that place, was David's commandment, even as yourself do say it was King David's appointment. And the Chapter before of the like argument plainly sayeth. juxta pracepta 1. Par. 23. quoquè David 〈◊〉. etc. And according to the last commandments of David, the Levites were numbered from twenty year and upward, to wait under the hand of the sons of Aaron in the service of the house of the Lord. But admit that these words Sicut praeceperat, etc. as god had commanded, be to be meant as you pretend of a special commandment to David, so to dispose those courses: & as you It abaseth not the princes supreme government, to do all things accorto Gods commandment. expound it, he did nothing without god's commandment. Is this again I pray you? any argument to improve his supreme authority next under god, because he did all things sicut praeceperat dominus, as the lord had commaundéd? then by this same rule yourpriest should not have the supremacy neither, for I am sure he had no further privilege, to do against, or beyond God's commandment, no more than David had. It is your Pope that thus stretcheth his claim to do beyond all God's forvoade, and contrary to God's commandment, but little or nothing sicut praeceperat dominus deu●… Israel, as the Lord God of Israel hath commanded. As for the queens Majesty hath not done, or doth any thing, more than David did, which is, sicut praeceperat. etc. as God hath commanded her to do. And sith God's commandment unto David stretcheth to the placing & appointing both above & under, in their orders of sacrifices, even of all the levitical pries●…es: it strengtheneth her cause the more that she hath not only the bore example of King David, but also the warrant of God's commandment for the supreme government of all her clergy to place them in their several functions. Secondly, (you say you have to note) that king David did Stap. 47. b. make appointment unto them, of no strange or new order to be taken in religion, but that they should serve God in the temple, juxta ritum suum: after their own usage, custom or manner before time used. Secondly, we note to you again M. St. that you interpret his sayings ambiguously, and apply it maliciously. Ambiguously, because though David neither made any strange or new order to be taken in Religion, nor yet in their usage custom or manner of their ceremonies commanded of god, and so used before his time, but see every thing dutifully observed both sicut praeceperat dominus, & juxta ritum suum: as the Lord had commanded, & after their own order: yet in their courses and in other circumstances, divers of his orders were new and strange unto them, and of his own appointment. And divers ceremonies that were juxta ritum suum, according to their own order, having been neglected by the priests, and become strange unto them: those he redressed juxta ritum suum, according to their own order, and sicut praeceperat dominus, as the Lord had commanded. But what serveth this how soever you expound it, to infringe The keeping of the rites & orders appointed, is not against, but confirmeth the prince's supremacy. any supreme government in king David? because the Prince is bound not to altar the priests rites and ceremonies being appointed of God, Ergo, he is not supreme governor in seeing them kept accordingly? might you not rather argue contrariwise. The prince is bond not to altar religion, nor those orders that God hath ordained, bringing in strange and new: Ergo, he is bond to oversee, care, and provide, that those orders be only kept and none other brought in. And if princes had always looked to this their duty more narrowly than they have done, than had not your Pope and popish Prelates brought in so many vain traditions, false doctrines, and superstitious ceremonies as they have, neither juxta ordinem suum, according to their own order, nor sicut praceperat dominus, as the Lord commanded. On the other part this your application is a malicious The Queen appointeth no new or st●…ange order in religion. slander to the Q. highness. For she hath not made or appointed to be received, any strange or new order in religion, but revoked the old & primative order of religion ordained of Christ, and hath appointed the ministers of God to do their duties, secundum ritum suum, according to their own order, & sicut praeceperat dominus, as our saviour Christ by himself, and his Apostles hath prescribed to them. It is your Pope and Papal Church that offereth strange fire to God, that hath appointed & erected those strange and new orders in religion, and therefore her majesty hath worthily abolished all those false priests with their strange and new orders, and all their false worship of God, and in that her highness thus doth, she showeth herself to follow David's e●…sample, like a godly supreme governor. Thirdly and lastly (say you) king David's appointment Stap. 47. b. was that they should serve in the house of God, sub manu Aaron patris corum, as under the spiritual government of their father Aaron, and his successors the high Priests. Here again to the show of some advantage, you translate sub manu, which is under the hand, importing, attendant at hand in their ministery to the high Priest: under the spiritual government, as though they were exempted from the king's government, and so you make your conclusion, saying: The which words of the Scripture do so well and clearly Stap. 47. b express, that king David did not take upon him any spiritual government in the house of God. etc. This conclusion is captious, and yet not to the purpose. There is a difference between spiritual government, and government over spiritual & ●…cclesiasticall matters. This you should conclude, not that: if you will confute the bishop. And this government over spiritual matters took David on him, the other, that is, the spiritual government he left entire unto the Priests, without any prejudice to their ecclesiastical authority, as you granted before. And as David therein did, so doth the queens Majesty now. But what maketh this against king David's supreme government, that the inferior priests & Levites in their ministries & offices were by the king's appointment, under the hand or spiritual government of their spiritual father It deba●…reth not the prince's supremacy, that the inferior ministers be under their bishops. Aaron, and his successors the high priests, as you translate the text? Is it not also the Q. majesties appointment, that the inferior Ministers should serve in their functions, under the spiritual government of their bishops? and because it is her appointment, it is an argument not of her subjection, but of her authority herein over them, as also is this of David. And therefore the example was very well applied, & all your three notes on your notable sentence, that you have added to your master, not only nothing serving your turn (for all you have so notably inverted the text, so wrested the sense, so expounded the words, that your friends might very much muse and marvel at your falsehood) but also in the whole & every part, all your three notes, have made clean against you. And yet you knit up your conclusion on them, That you can not but very much muse and marvel why he should allege king David for any example or proof in this matter. So desperate a face you can set on the matter, though all be quite against you. Now, as M. Stap. dalied with Moses before, if he could not prove him a priest, yet at the lest to prove him a prophet: so here (after a flourish in one of his common places, slanderously comparing our clergy with Qza) seeing that he can fasten no good argument against princes by the priests, he will once again assay it by the Prophets. And where the bishop alleged that David made Psalms, ordained priests, Levites, singers, and porters, etc. he denieth not, but that David did all these things, but, saith he, Think you Stap. 48. a. he did all this and the rest of his own authority, because he was king of the people? so you would have your reader to believe, but the holy ghost telleth us plainly, that David did all this, because God had so commanded by the hands of his Prophets. What argument call you this, M. Stap? the king ordained and set forth ecclesiastical laws, because God had so commanded by the hands of his Prophets. Ergo, The king is not supreme governor to see those things observed, but the Prophets are the supreme governors of them: Here you stand on two things, on God's commandment, and the Prophets' message. As for your reason on God's commandment, is answered already, it 〈◊〉 not that godly Prince's authority that submitteth himself to God, as David did, and the queens Majesty doth: but it is to be brought against the ambitious proud usurpation of your Pope, that maketh himself as it were a God in earth, and will control Gods flat commandment. Again, that you urge so much the ministery of the Prophets, to abase the king's authority, and thereon make your conclusion, saying: Thus you see, that by the declaration of the prophet's God's Stap. 48. ministers then, as priests are now, the king did all those ecclesiastical matters, and not by his princely authority. This answer is but a mere shift, and yet nothing for your priests supremacy. But such is your envy to princes, that you care not to whom you ascribe this supreme government, so that princes have it not. When you can not The papists shifts from Priests to Peophets, and from Prophets to Priests, for the Pope's primacy. prove that it appertained to the priests, you allege the prophets. You are not so ignorant, I dare say, but that you know the prophets were no priests, and many of them (as you term us lay men) and some also of occupation. Yea but say you, they were God's ministers then, as priests are now. You should prove they were priests then, for, were they but God's ministers herein to declare the same to the prince, doth this prove any supreme authority herein over their prince? Nay but (say you) they were such good ministers as priests are now. In deed were they such as your priests crack now to be, than the matter were out of question. For your priests How highly Pop●…sh priests esteem of them solves. now say they, be not only above kings, princes, and all other men, but above angels, yea that they can make their maker also which Angels can not do, as D. Bonner vaunted in his convocation of priests. The Prophets could do none of these things, nor so exalted themselves. They were then God's ministers and faithful preachers of his word, they were not sacrificers. And if your priests now are like prophets then, they must not be sacrificers, but preachers of God's word, and so shall they be like the Prophets. Your priests, & chief your Pope can not err in judgement you say, do you father this warrant on the Prophets, or on the Priests? have you not alleged the priests for it? and now when you see the priests will not serve your turn, you say you be like the prophets. But you should make a distinction like what prophets you be▪ are you not like to lying prophets? are you not like the Prophet that God said he would tempt his Deut. 13. people withal, that should say, come let us go worship strange Gods? are you not like the false flattering prophets that deceived king Achaz, like Baal's prophets maintained 3. Reg. 22. 3. Reg. 18. Math. 7. of jesabel? But Christ hiddeth us take heed to such false prophets as you be, that come in sheeps clothing, and are ravening wolves within. But let us consider further this your shift by Prophets. You say, David did all those ecclesiastical matters, but not by his princely authority, but by the declaration of the prophets, Gods ministers then as Priests are now: and therefore the next authority under God was there's, not his, because he was no prophet. But what now if David were a prophet also, and is so commonly termed, and yourself the leaf before said, he had the gift of prophesy, and alleged your master D. Harding for it? will not this prove then by your own●… shift, that either he being God's prophet, had thereby so well as others this authority, contrary to the which you say he had it not, but the prophets had it: or else the having of the gift of prophesy, is no argument of any supreme authority, as you would so say infer. As in deed it is not neither in priest nor prophet: which you should soon have perceived, had you but read the next chapter to that, out of 1. Pap. 25. which you took (as you fancied) your notable sentence for the priests government. For there are four chapters going together, the. 23. of the Levites, how David put order amongst them. The. 24. of his appointment among the 1. Par. 23. priests and sons of Aaron. The. 25. of his ordering of 1. Par. 24. the Prophets and singers. 1. Par. 25. The Chapter beginneth thus: And David and the captains of the host appointed out to do service, the sons of Asaph, of Heman and Iduthim, which should prophecy with haps, Psalteries, and Cymbals. And the multitude of the men were to do service in their offices. The sons of Asaph etc. to wait on, or to be at the hand of Asaph, who prophesied by the king. And again, These were the sons of Heman the King's Seer of visions in the words of God to lift up the horn that is the power, meaning of David. And again, A saph, Iduthim, and Heman were at the King's hand, that is to say, at the king's commandment to execut●… his appointment. The. 26. Chapter is of David's ordering the 1. Par. 26. Porter's divisions, ending on this wise: Whom king David made rulers over the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and the half of the tribe of Manasses, for every matter pertaining to God, and for the king's business, that is to say, both in spiritual and temporal things. And also a little above, In all the business of the Lord, and for the service of the King. Howbeit, I speak not this so much to prove King David's supremacy over the Porters, in all and every ecclesiastical matter, so well as temporal, but chief to follow your shift of the Prophets. For here we see how expressly the Prophets also, were appointed their orders by the king, and even the principal fathers of them attendant unto him, as their children were to them. And though their children were under their governments as were the inferior Priests under the higher Priests, yet as Asaph, Both the chief prophets and chief priests under the appointment of the king. Heman, and Iduthim, were under the government of the King also, who ordered, directed, appointed and commanded them, so was Aaron and his successors the high priests under the appointment and order of the King, for all that their sons and inferior priests were underneath their government. For the one government doth not exclude the other, as master Stapleton himself confesseth, that in one man many rulers may and do daily concur which in some sense may every one be called his supreme governor. And thus was first God by the ministery of his priests and prophets, the absolute supreme governor unto David. So was David next under God, by his oversight, ordering, and commanding those ecclesiastical actions to be rightly done, the supreme governor, not only to the levites and Porters: but to the chief Priests, to the chief Prophets and all. And so were the chief priests and principal Prophets in their functions and ministries of their offices, the supreme governors over their inferior priests & prophets: and yet was not their government embarring the kings, nor the kings any whit prejudicial to there's. For the priests and the prophets did the action: but the commandments, the appointing & ordering, was the kings next to god, who commanded them to him, & ●…e to the priests & prophets. And this order should M. St. have seen had he but read the next sentence before the text that he urgeth. Secundum dispositionem David regis & Gad videntu regis. etc. According to the commandment or disposition of David the king, & of Gad the king's Seer of visions, and Nathan the prophet. etc. Thus the prince, even in those thing●… that god commandeth by the hand of the prophets, is chief for his authority under God. Next to whom are adioy●…ed the Prophets, or learned preachers, or ministers of God's word, as by whose mouth or hand God commandeth it to be done, and have mosts skill thereof. And yet that both priest & prophet do their offices faithfully, appertaineth to the king's commandment: appeareth further throughout this chap. as also in Ezechias ensample 2. Par. 29. from whence be takes this sentence as we shall see when we come thereto. Only thus much to detect the shifts that M. St. maketh, still leaping from priest to prophet, from prophet again to priest, as it were a squirrel skipping from one tree to another, to save her from the bird-bolt, but all will not be, nothing will any thing serve his turn, but every thing maketh quite against him: which when he seeth (as it were to set an Oliver against a rowland, he allegeth against king David's eusample, the ensample of Carolus Magnus. Again (says he) the like might you have alleged of Carolus Stap. 48. a. Magnus, that he corrected most diligently the order of reading and singing in the church, that he brought first into Frau●…ce ca●…tum Gregorianum, the order of singing left by S. Gregory at Rome, and appointed singers therefore, & when they did not well, placed other in their rooms. And many such other like matters of the church, wherein that godly Emperor much busied himself, and yet exercised no supreme government over the clergy, but was of all other Princes, most far from it: as it may easily appear to him that will read in the decrees dist. 19 in memoriam, where he protesteth obedience to the Sea of Rome, yea though an importable charge should be laid upon him by that holy Sea. You have picked out an unlike & uneven match, M. St. to Carolus Magnus, an unlike match to David. compare herein the doings of king David with K. Charlemaine's. Where is become your Impar congressus Achilli Troilus, the unequal match between Troilus and Achilles? How corrupt the time of king Charlemagne was, and what practices and fetches your Pope used, to get the crown of France to Pepin his father, from the right and lawful prince thereof, and the Empire of Rome to Charlemagne, from the Emperor of Constantinople, to whom it did belong: every hiltoriographer can tell, & may fitter be declared in his proper place, than here to leap over the stile, ere you come at it by many an hundredth miles: & yet for hast you break your shins even against those things that as trifles you reckon up unto us. 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 you say, than he took it, that as Emperor he had a government in them. But you say as a godly Emperor he much busied himself. If he found himself business like a busy body, wherein he had no authority thus so place & displace, to institute, order, and correct, how was he a godly Emperor therein, or not rather as you said before, played Oza his part? But you say he was therein a godly Emperor, therefore he did nothing of any bu●…iositie, but of his own authority and supreme government therein. Well yet say you it was but in singing and over singers. Was it no further M. Stapleton: how then do you say, the like you might have alleged of Carolus Magnus, to King David's doings? Did King David meddle only with singing and singers? Did he not meddle with Priests and Prophets also? But to salve the matter you say, and many other such like matters of the Church. Why tell you not man what those many other matters were? have you no lust to declare them, for fear they would mar your market? Well, let them alone till we come to the proper examination of them. Howbeit whatsoever they shall fall out to be, here remember you liken them to King David's doings. But King David commanded and appointed singers, Priests, Prophets, all the clergy, high, and low, of what degree so ever: Ergo, King Charlemaine's authority stretched further than to singing men, even to all Priests, Prophets and all the clergy besides. And thus either your similitude is not like, or else the one and the other maketh clean against you. But if these doings of Charlemagne be not like, yet hath master Stapleton another proof in store. Also in the decrees. 11. Q. 1. which Ivo also allegeth, where Stap. 48. he renueth out of the Code of Theodosius a law binding all his subjects of all Nations, Provinces and Countries, of what so ever quality or condition they were, and in all manner causes, if the defendant require an ecclesiastial judgement, it be not lawful from the Bishop's sentence to appeal any higher. This law is here brought forth master Stapleton very The law of King ●…uo. untimely and impertinently, nothing to prove or unprove the ensample or doings of King David, unless you would prove it on this wi●…e. ●…uo allegeth a law of Theodosius, binding all his subjects of all Nations, Provinces and Countries, of whatsoever quality and condition they were, and in all manner causes, if the defendant require an ecclesiastical judgement, it be not lawful from the Bishop's sentence to appeal any higher: Ergo king David made the like law to this, or this was like to king David's laws. How this hangs together like your Germans lips that before y●… spoke of, let others judge. King David's laws were not for priests to be such judges, but for priests to be subject to these orders, & that they should observe and obey them, porter, singer, Levit, Priest, or Prophet, high or low, of what quality or condition soever they were. These laws of king David were (as you say) by God's commandment, by the mouth of his Prophets, and therefore could not be ill. The law you cite of Iu●… from Privileges of Princes, to the clergy well or ill used. Theodosius, though at that time it were good, & upon some godly consideration, yet it is not ius divinum, the law of god, it is but man's law, & the prince's law, & showeth a chief authority in him to give such liberties to the clergy, which as they may be very well used, especially when princes do look well to them, that they use their gifts, offices and privileges dutifully: so have they since by your pope and prelate's been very ill used, even to the treading down of the doners of them, Theodosius, Ivo, or any other. And as the ivy taking all his The Pope and his prelate's like the ivy. strength & growth from the Oak, so compasseth & overgroweth it, and that by his green & pleasant embracings of it, till the ivy have quite destroyed the whole bull of the Oak: so have your clergy by such franchesies & liberties of princes, at the first by compassing them with sergeant holiness & subtle devices, so grown up & above them in riches, strength and possessions, that at the length you have destroyed & brought to nothing, all their supreme estate over you. For whereto bring you out this privilege of the Emperor Theodosius, that none might appeal to any higher sentence than the B. but as you have brought it now in the end, to call coram vobis, as your underling, even the prince himself, from whom you confess this your privilege came? And thus you allege king Ivo his laws as it were an ivy bush to behold how your popish prelate's do play the Iuies part. But it is high time with other sharper laws that princes pull up such Iuies by the roots. Now as you have thus shifted off the answer to king David's doings, redressing, ordring, laws, and chief government in ecclesiastical causes, so to knit up the knot, even like a fawning ivy about princes yourself: And surely (say you) no Prince more recognised their obedience Stap. 48. b. to the spiritual magistrate in spiritual causes, than such as were most ready and careful to aid, further, and to their power direct, all spiritual matters. This therefore proveth well that godly princes do further and set forth godly religion, by means seemly to their vocations. Why master Stap. who desireth or attributeth more to Princes than to set forth God's religion by means seemly to their vocation? If this ensample of David, as you say, prove thus much: then to govern, direct, command, and appoint the Priests, yea your highest Priests, as David did, is no unseemly means to their vocation, nor unfitting even for your Pope's vocation, to obey the Prince's appointment and commandment. And if to direct all spiritual matters may be done of Princes, & yet the obedience to the spiritual Pastor in spiritual matters, still recognised: then doth not the queens Majesty any prejudice to them, recognizing to them a dutiful obedience in the ministration of spiritual matters: for all that she setteth forth God's true religion and directeth all spiritual matters, as you grant she may. Which is as much as the Bishop or any of us desire, or her Majesty taketh on her. But (say you) here is no manner of inkling, that Princes Stap. 49. a. do or did ever bear the supreme government in all ecclesiastical matters, to decide and determine, to altar and change, to set up and pluck down, what religion liked them by their princely authority, and mere sovereignty. Have you go about to impugn this all this while M. The Queen's Maestie by the Papists shamefully 〈◊〉. Stapleton, than I see well it was not for nothing that always you answered so wide. You needed not have sought so many shifting corners. The Bishop proponed one thing, and you answered another. Doth the Bishop maintain or ever said that Princes might decide, determine, altar, change, set up, & pluck down, what religion liked them, by their Princely authority, and mere sovereignty? Quote me the lease, name me the place, where once the Bishop so said. Or doth the Q. Majesty take any such thing upon her. These be but your wicked, I had almost said trayt●…rous slanders, to desace her highness to her simple subjects. And no doubt so you report to other Countries of her Majesty, as you writ here most opprobiously against her. It is your Pope against whom you should make this conclusion, for he taketh on him to decide and determine, to altar and change, to set up and pluck down what religion liketh him. The queens Majesty, God be highly praised for her, as a most godly supreme governor feloweth king David's ensample, and neither your wicked conclusion toucheth her, nor these your shifting counterblasts come near the matter in hand. The. 14. Division. AFter King David, the Bishop allegeth the wise King Win. Pag. 9 a. Solomon his son, citing a brief sum of his acts that infer his supreme authority. For answer to this, Master Stapleton chooseth out one Cap. 12. act of Solomon, as a full answer to all the rest besides, and saith: The weight of this objection rests in the deposition of Stap. 48. b. The example of the supreme government of K. Solomon. Abiathar the high Priest. The weight of this answer rests first upon a manifest untruth. The Bishop alleged besides Abiathars' deposition, the placing of Sadocke, the placing of the ark in the temple of Solomon, the dedication of the temple, the offering sacrifices, blessing the people, directing the Priests, Levites and other Church officers after his father's orders, and the priests obedience in every thing to the kings commandment: none of these objections resting on Abiathers' deposition. Only the nearest that cometh to it, is the placing of Sadocke in Abiathars' room. And yet saith M. Stap. the weight of this objection rests in the deposition of Abiathar the high priest. And so thinketh if he fully answer this, he hath satisfied all the rest. Now since M. Stapleton will needs have it so, and hath prepared himself only to answer the deposition of the high Priest, as the Salomon's dedeposing the high priest. highest and principalest matter, be it so, let us go forward with him, and see his answer thereto. Although hereafter he must remember, that if the placing and displacing of prelate's, be a matter of such importance (as in deed it is to this present purpose) that the answering of it includeth diverse other weighty points also: then the investiture of Bishops is not so impertinent a matter, as now and then he will see me to make it being urged therewith. He must remember also, that making all other objections to rest on this as chief, if he answer not this, than both all the other be unaunswered: and this being a chief matter doth quite overthrow all his counterblast besides, and brings his pope to his old obedience, yea in case also of like deposition to Abiathars. Wherefore, it stands him now in hand, to answer well and surely unto this objection. To go therefore (like a profound clerk deeply seen in the doctors) the more authentically to work, he first presseth us with the authorities of his good masters: This thing (saith he) Master Dorman, and Master doctor Stap. 48. b Harding say employeth no more superiority, than if a man should say Queen Mary deposed Master Cranmer. But Queen Marie was not the chief, but an accessory instrument for the furtherance of the execution. Ergo, Solomon in deposing Abiathar was not the chief, but an accessory instrument for the furtherance of the execucution. You are much in Master D. Hardings debt already master Salomon's example deposing Ab●…athar applied by the papists to Queen M●…rie deposing the archbishop Cran. Sapleton, for much good stuff that you have borrowed of him, especially this example of Queen Mary and Bishop Cranmer, which I perceive you like full well, & therefore you will borrow it once again: and because master Dorman borrows it out of him also, you will borrow it of both: nevertheless so, that they have the praise thereof that used it before you. And therefore to gratify your masters again (mulus mulum scabit, for one mule as the latin proverb says rubs another mule) you ever refer us to their high authority, saying: I say with master D. Harding: I say with master Dorman: D. Fol. 44. b 45 b. 47. a. 48. b Har. showeth: master Dor. and master D. Harding affirm: M. D. Harding noteth. M. D. Harding toucheth: and here, master Dor. and master D. Harding say it employeth no more. Thus you think to save your credit with them, to object their credence and authority to us. But in thus doing, either you show a great arrogancy in them, or an extreme flattery in yourself, with no less folly, to frame your argument on their bore sayings, and object it to us for good authority, they being party's adversary, besides, God wot, their little estimation even among yourselves. Although herein taking witness thus one of another, what is it else than to ask your own fellows if you say true or no? Let go therefore your master's authority, and if you will needs allege them, allege their reasons if they have any, and tell us not they say i●… employs no more, but prove you, or allege their proves, that it employs no more. You urge the doings of Queen Marie how little they employed, but you take pro concesso and not to be denied to your Master, that their doings were alike▪ whereas they were most unlike, and quite contrary. Queen Mary you say was The difference between Q. Maries and king Salomon'S doings. but the accessory instrument therein to the high priest which is you say the Pope: but Solomon deposing the high priest, that as you likewise say was the figure of your Pope, how could he be an accessory instrument to the high priest, when he sat upon him, gave judgement against him, and deposed him? was the high priest the principal doer of it against himself, and Solomon but his accessory instrument? indeed your high priests bear princes so in hand, that no body can sit in judgement on them, or depose them, but they must do it themselves, or else it can not be done. Abiathar never learned that knack, but was judged and deposed of his prince. for all he was the highest priest. nor the prince was his instrument thereof, for than had he not been deposed at all, he would not have made an instrument to Solomon to depose himself. But Solomon did it against the will of Abiathar being a traitor to him: nor he did it as the other priests accessory instrument, for a●… the other priests were inferior to their high priest: and the inferior (your law says, and good reason to) can not depose the superior, Ergo, he was accessary instrument to no living creature herein, but did it by his own royal authority, and therefore by this royal authority he was supreme governor over the priests, yea, the highest priest and all. Now contrariwise, Queen Mary did not depose the highest priest, which you say is your pope of Rome, and not the Archbishop of Caunterbury, except you will translate your primacy from Rome to Canterbury. She wrongfully deposed the archbishop of Cant. or rather as you say, was but an accessory instrument to the furtherance of the execution. For so in very deed you used her, while your Romish Pope his legates and prelates were the doers thereof: she sat not on him in judgement, nor gave sentence against him, as did Solomon against Abiathar, and had she done so, as you would not have allowed her doing, so would you not allow him to be the highest priest. And if you will needs have it, that their doings were alike, then as King Solomon deposed by his princely authority the chief Bishop, so, after your account that the Bishop of Rome is the chief Bishop, she should have deposed the Bishop of Rome, which she did not, but set him up in her realm even above herself, where he was before put down: so that these doings being in every point contrary, how are King Salomons doings with the high priest Abiathar, like to the doings of Queen marry to Bishop Cranmer? and therefore this is but a shifting answer of your Masters old stuff: and you are but their accessory instrument, to burnish it a fresh: which you doso ill favouredly, that your master or you can take little honesty by it. You alleged this comparison of Q. Marry out of your Master once before, that Queen Mary redressed religion, but by the means of the Priests. What is the mean whereby one doth any thing, but the accessory instrument whereby he doth it? And what is the accessory instrument but the mean? But the Priests you say are the mean, for the Prince to do it by. Ergo the Priests were but the accessory instruments to the Queen. Which if it were any abasing of the Prince's superiority, why is it not an abasing of your Priests? And as you make these shifts thus in the end fall out against your cause: so can you not agree in your own tales to yourself. In the ensample of David the Queen was the represser, and the Priests were the means or instrument: in this cause of Solomon, where your Pope by his figure (as you say) the high priest, is so near touched with an example of deprivation: There contrary to that you told us before, the high Priest himself must be the represser, and the Prince but the mean or instrument. And thus it seemeth you care not what you say, for you, or against you, so you may shifted of the matter in one place, though in another you speak quite contrary. And thinking to bear yourself out with your master's authority, ye make your master partaker of your shame, besides the shame that they have for their shameful shifts received already at the Bishop of Sar. and master Nowel's hands. But here thinking to be even with master Nowell for confuting this unlike similitude, used also as new fresh stuff by master Dorman. But Lord (saith he) how master Nowell here besturreth Stap. 49. ●…. himself? Now when the Reader should look how here master Stapleton would bestir himself, to bring aught against master Nowell: he dare allege nothing, it was but a copy of his countenance. He fumeth and he fretteth with master Dorman (saith he) Stap. 49. ●…. who shall cool him well enough I doubt not. In the mean while, I will ask master Horn and master Nowell to, one question. Yea forsooth master Stapleton, I like your wit now better than before, demand what you will, but challenge not the combat so fast as you did ere while, cumber not yourself with more adversaries than you need, you shall find more ease in the end. Go to therefore and propound your question. Master Horn saith (say you) a little before that joshua sacrificed Stap. 49. a. burned sacrifices, and burned offerings, that king David sacrificed burned and peace offerings, that Solomon offered sacrifices. Were trow you joshua, David, and Solomon priests? Master Stap. question and dilemma. If so, then how bring you their ensamples to prove any thing for Kings and Queens that are no Priests? If not, than this phrase is verified in that they caused the Priests (to whom the matter pertained) to offer sacrifices. And so whereas M. Horn saith of joshua, that he sacrificed burned sacrifices which is agreeable to the latin obtulit holocausta, master Nowell saith he commanded sacrifice to be offered. Thus far your question to the Bishop, and your dilemma thereon. To the question I answer, that neither joshua, David, nor Solomon were priests, if not, say you, then by your own words and master Nowels, this phrase is verified, that they caused the priests to offer sacrifices. I grant you master Stapleton, and it was granted to you many times before by the Bishop: what infer you hereupon? And why then I pray you M. Nowell (say you, turning Stap. 49. a. your speech to him) may not this phrase also be taken after the said sort that Solomon deposed Abiathar in procuring him by some ordinary way to be deposed for his treason? as master Cranmer might have been, though he were deposed and burned for his heresy. Here is a matter far fet or ever the inconvenience break out. In the end thanks be to God, this is the worst conclusion: and why may not this phrase also (of deposing) be taken after the said sort of sacrificing? I answer, that to reason from may to must, either must or may be but a musty reason. I had thought this deep question, and this lusty dilemma upon it, would have concluded with a necessity, this phrase of deposition must be so resolved as the other of sacrifice: and cometh it now in like a poor hedge-creeper, with a perchance that it may be so resolved? parturiunt montes nascitur ridiculus mus: the mountains travail, out there peeps a mouse. But now since you conclude no further, but that it may be so, what if one would doubt of your may bird, and like a good simple plain dealing man, would bluntly say to your may, Perawnter yea sir: perawnter nay sir, and bid you reason more substantially than to stand on a peradventure that it may be so. But since you will needs know why the one phrase may not be understood like the other, I will not only show you why they may not, but also why they must not. The phrases The difference of the phrase for the princes sacrificing and the princes de posing Abiathat. on the one part of josua's, David's and Salomons sacrifices, might not be done personally by them, because they were no priests, but it must have been done by the priests, because it was the priests especial office appointed of God But in this other case of deposition. Solomon not only might either command or execute personally, or by his deputy: but of duty aught to have deposed that naughty high priest, because on the one part it was no especial or any part at all of the priests office appointed by God to depose their high priest, nor the inferiors could depose their primate: on the other part, only the king could do it, did it, and aught to do it, because it appertay●…ed to his royal estate, and was appointed by God thereto. And thus you see the phrases are not alike, neither may nor must be resolved the one by the other, as you say in your conclusion, Solomon deposed Abiathar in procuring him by some ordinary way to be deposed for his treason. What some ordinary way should this be, that you tell us thus generally, he might procure? If it were for the lower to depose the higher, it was no ordinary way. If it were by the other priests, it was by the lower. If it were by some Prophet, it was extraordinary, and yet you pull down the Prophets and all under the priests, especially under the high priest. If it were by the prince's procurement, you say the prince is also inferior, dared any inferior at an other inferiors commandment, or procuring, attempt to depose their superior, yea their supreme? your Pope would give you little thanks, and he heard you harp on that string master Stapleton. By what ordinary way than should it be done, who should have done it, who should have procured it? Can you devise any except the ordinary power that God gave the Prince, had been the procurer doer and all thereof? Now that you have put forth your question, made your dilemma, lapte up your conclusion, and nothing still serveth your turn, but more against you: shall I be so ●…old as to demand of you again, even your own question, and add another dilemma of your own words thereto? The question and the dilemma returned on the papists. Were trow you joshua, David, and Solomon priests? If so, then how say you here, this phrase (they sacrificed) is verified in that they caused the priests to whom the matter pertained to offer sacrifices? And why use you all the shifts you can to abase their doings? If no: Why said you then three Sup. fol. 217. a leaves before of joshua, If ye will have your examples to prove & confirm, then as joshua circumcided, so let the prince baptize, and as joshua sacrificed upon an altar, so let the prince in cope and surplice celebrated your holy communion? Did joshua circumcise and sacrifice personally himself, and was no priest? I speak this only to show your shifting off of your aduersar●…e on the one part, and your contradiction to yourself on the other, even in your own question. Although herein if you say they were no priests (which this your later exposition, contrary to the first infereth) you say the truer, and therefore do well to recant your former saying. But see how you contrary yourself once again, you liken the phrase of deposition and sacrificing together. Solomon deposed Abiathar in procuring by some ordinary way to have him deposed: And joshua, David, and Solomon did sacrifice, in that they caused the Priests to offer sacrifice. Here the Prince when he will have sacrifice done, causeth the priest to minister and execute the sacrifice, and so the Prince doth it by the priests hands. Who is here the instrument for the furtherance of the execution? the priest. For the Prince can not, except you will make him a Priest. Who is the causer (as you call him) and such a causer, as hath the name of the doer, though he do it not, but have an accessory instrument for him? the Prince. Do you not see what an overthrow you give yourself? and withal speak clean contraries not a dozen lines asunder? The Prince is not the chief, but an accessory instrument to the furtherance of the execution: the Prince is the causer and doer, but he doth it by an others execution. Is not this plain contradiction? and yet to help the matter, you let another on the neck of it. As joshua and David did sacrifice, so did Solomon depose Abiathar. Solomon was the minister and executer: Stap. 4 9 ●…. joshua and David were not the ministers and executors: If these things be a like, this is another manifest contradiction. If they be not a like, why bring you them one for proof of another? Why affirm you them to be alike, when the doing of the one by your own report, is contrary to the other? Either you lie in saying they be alike, or you speak huddle and overthwart yourself. And yet while you would seem nicely to stand descanting on the phrases, (be it unwares or wittingly) you grant the full point of the matter, that in the sacrifices, and the deposition, whosoever were the executor, the Prince was the procurer, the causer, and the commander thereof, which is enough to argue his supreme authority therein. Your conclusion is, he was deposed by the Prince's procurement, The highest priest a traitor for his treason. And who was this that thus was dealt withal? for soothe the highest priest. Why, the highest priest is (you say) the figure of your Pope, was the figure of your Pope then a traitor? I trust you will tell a good tale for your Pope anon. Nay will you say, the Pope can not be a traitor, nor be deposed, because he is the highest Priest. And what say you to Abiathar the successor of Aaron, was not he the highest Priest also? If he were not, name an higher. And yet see, his seat saved him not from being a traitor, nor his highness from being under the prince that deposed him. And had he not been under his Prince, he could not have been a traitor to him. A traitor is he that revolting from his dutiful obedience A traitor. to his Prince, rebelleth or conspireth against him. But you say Abiathar was a traitor: Ergo, he aught a dutiful obedience to his Prince, from the which he swerved. Now if that highest Priesthood (which as you say was a figure of the Pope's highest Priesthood) was nevertheless obedient to the Princes royal authority, and the highest priest might be a traitor, in swerving from his obedience: then the Bishop of Rome having now likewise the highest Priesthood (as you pretend) aught nevertheless to be the Emperor of Rome's obedientiarie: and if he serve from his obedience: as was Abiathar, he is a traitor and aught to be deposed as Abiathar was. But how well he The Bishop of Rome a traitor to the ●…mperor of Rome hath set the pattern of Ab●…athars tr●…ason before his eyes, and far passed it, in conspiring & rebelling against the Emperor of Rome, and in the end hath exempted himself from all obedience of the imperial estate, denying that he can be a traitor thereto, but contrary, that the emperor oweth obedience unto him: it is so manifest that yourselves can not deny it. Only therefore it now remaineth that all other princes in their signiories, as the queens Majesty hath done in hers, take ensample of wise king Salomons supreme government, in deposing this traitorous Abiathar. And thus thinking to deface the memory of the blissed martyr Bishop Cranmer, that never conspired against his prince, that never claimed supremacy over his prince, that never took himself to be the highest Priest, that in his life lived like a most godly father, and in his death behaved himself as mild as a Lamb: you have no whit Master Stapleton blemished his renown, yea your dispraise redoundeth to his greater praise. Neither doth your masters nor your similitude of him to Abiathar, agreed in any point, only with your Pope it agreeth, and that as you see in every point so jump: that, as he claimeth Abiathars' chiefest place, as he hath practised more than Abiathars' treason, so Chris●…yan Princes following King Salomons steps, should give him also Abiathars' reward. And were that or this Abiathar never so much the highest Priest, Christian Princes have the same authority now to depose lowest and highest also, that Solomon had before: except Master Stapleton have yet some further shift to delude this fact of Solomon. But now master Horn, (says he) that Solomon was but Stap. 4 9 a. a minister and an executer herein, the very words immediately following (the which because they serve plainly against your purpose, you craftily dissembled) do testify. And here he fasteneth a triumphant note in the margin. Master Horn overthrown concerning the deposition of Abiathar, by the very next line of his own text guilefully by him omitted. Here is of a sudden a sore a do in deed. Solomon shall be proved but a minister and an executer herein, by the plain words of the scripture. The Bishop shall be proved a crafty dissembler, and a guileful omitter of those words. And by those words he shallbe quite overthrown. May the matter go by M. Stap. words, these words give a very boisterous Counterblast. But since he will prove it by the scripture, let us hear not his, but the scriptures words, and his conclusion thereon. The words are these: And so Solomon put away Abiathar from being Priest 3. Reg. 2. unto the Lord, to fulfil the words of the Lord, which he spoke over the house of Hely in Silo. Ergo Solomon was but the minister and executor of God's Stap. 4 9 a. sentence published before by Samuel the Levite. What doth this infringe the Bishop's purpose, or overthrow The ministery and executing of God's sentence debarreth not the prince's supremacy. his assertion master Stap? can you conclude hereon he, was not the supreme governor next under God in doing of the fact, because he was the minister and executor of god's sentence? By this rule the Prince were not supreme governor under God, in any point of civil justice neither: for he is therein also a minister and executor of God's sentence, that by his Prophe●…es commandeth the Prince to minister and execute justice. And by this rule, how could 〈◊〉 prove this superiority to be i●… your Pope either? would you make him have such a claim, that he should not be God's minister and executer of God's sentences? or would you not rather reason contrary? He is in all spiritual causes the minister and executer of God's sentences published by his Prophets. Ergo he is the supreme governor under God in all spiritual causes. If you had any sentence of God to prove this antecedent, I warrant you than you would reason on this wise. Yea, you do reason on this wise, though you have no sentence of God at all therefore. As for us, we have (as by your own testimony) the word of God to warrant, that the Prince in deposing the highest Priest, and figure of your Pope as you say, hath so good warrant of authority therefore: that even he was Gods minister therein, and executer of God's sentence. which plainly argueth his supreme authority next and immediately under God. To be a minister and executer on that fashion next and immediately under God, is no argument to abase the prince's authority. If you had proved he had been the priests underling minister, and executor herein, this had been somewhat to your purpose. But this you could not prove, and you said the contrary before, that the priest was the prince's minister and executor, and that he deposed Abiathar not by himself, but as he sacrificed, by causing another to minister and execute for him. Now when you say the Prince is God's minister and executer, the priest is the princes minister and executer, do not yourself I pray you acknowledge in the ministery and the execution the priest to be under the prince? and that the prince is not only Gods minister and executer, but as you say further the causer, commander, and procurer also thereof to the priests? Is this the overthrowing of the Bishop as your margin maketh boast: or is it not rather the overthrowing of yourself? can you speak any thing more plain for the Bishop, and against your cause than this? and yet you cry eut that the Bishop omitted and dissembled ●…his guilefully & craftily, verily M. Stap▪ there was no cause you see why he should so do, the craft and guile is but your own, the Bishop as he did in all the other doings, only touched them per trans●…nnam, not describing any one of the circumstances, but in a word or two showed the fact, and so passed over to other facts of Solomon. But whatsoever the Bishop told or left untold, it had been better for you, as you have used guylefully and craftily many other points, to have omitted and dissembled this, if you have no better shift than this, that not only maketh nothing against the bishops assertion in Salomons supreme government, but still more and more, even by the mouth of God by his Prophets doth confirm the same. Now that none of all 〈◊〉 shifts will hitherto s●…rue against this one ensample of Solomon, yet hath M. St on●… shifted more behind, and that a trim shift to. Besides (saith he) that the deposing of Abiathar doth Stap. 49. ●…. not employ that Solomon was the chief ruler in all causes ecclesiastical, which is the Butt that you must shoot at, and then must you provide another bow, for this will not shoot home. This is one of your old s●…ale shifts M. Stap. I see you are now even at the last cast, to let the arrow alone, and quarrel about the bow, and the butt, but and you would (as you gave good counsel to others) have followed it yourself, in firing still your eye on the issue between the parties in controversy: neither would yemake so many vagaries as you do, nor here have quarreled at the Bishop●… short shooting. The words of the issue which is the butt that M. Feck. requireth the Bishop to shoot unto (if you be remembered) are these: to make proof unto me that any Emperor The issue 〈◊〉 question. or Empress, King or Queen, may claim or take upon them any such government in spiritual or ecclesiastical causes (meaning as doth the Queen) if the Bishop prove this: then he hittes the Butt. His artillery the Bow and Arrows that he must shoot withal at this Butt, are appointed by him likewise: the Scriptures, the doctors, the Counsels, and the practice: the testimonies, allegations, decrees, and examples therein contained. The Bishop hitherto hath with many arrows out of the Scripture hit the Butt so full: that as yet you could not make this quarrel, but sought other pelting shifts. Now, seeing that none of all those paltry brabblings will serve, you say he shoots not home, and must change his Bow. His Bow here is the Scripture, his Arrows here are the ensamples of Solomon, of which the Bishop shot a good many several Arrows and facts, and every one hit the Butt. He alleged not only the fact of Abiathars' deposition, but also of Sadockes placing, of consecrating the Temple, of sacrificing, of placing the Ark therein, of blessing the people, of directing the Priests, Levites, and other Church officers, and of their obedience to all his commandments. Of all these allegations, you yourself master Stapleton, choose one to answer unto, which is the deposition of the high Priest, and say all the objection depends thereon. And so guylefully omitting the residue, stand only a measuring this shot, and in the end after much warbling cry out, short, short, you must provide another Bow, for this will not shoot home. The deposing of Abiathar doth not employ that Solomon was the chief Ruler in all ecclesiastical causes. First, what if it doth not, M. Stapleton? one fact of Solomon Master Stap. granteth the P●…ince to be chief ruler in some ecclesiastical causes. employs not all ecclesiastical causes. Go to, doth it employ some ecclesiastical causes to be in the chief rule of the Prince? If you grant me this, you grant the issue, and this is the end you grant. But you say it employs not all ecclesiastical causes▪ and therefore is short▪ Did the Bishop again shoot no more but that one? how chance you meddled not in measuring of the other? Did you foresee, that as this had hit one cause, another would hit another, and so at the lest every one one cause, yea perchance every one 〈◊〉, and so a number of your causes might be hit, and perchance all causes, by some one shot, not yet measured, and therefore guylefully and craftily dis●…embling and omi●…ting them, you let all the rest alone. Yet should you not then for shame have thus cried out against this one first shot, since if it were short though short shooting lose the game, yet one short shot leaseth it not. And if one be short, many other may come home, and win the game for all this, especially matching with one that shooteth so fair and Gentlemanlyke as you do Master Stapleton, that it were better to stand at the mark many times, than from it. But seeing you deal so unevenly with the Bishops other shots, (for all your bellowing short, short, it hittes not the Butt, it comes not home) you give all standers by, suspicion of fal●…e aim in this shot, and therefore let us measure it once again. The deposing of Abiathar (say you) doth not employ that Solomon was chief ruler in all ecclesiastical causes. I pray you who was then chief ruler in all ecclesiastical causes? Abiathar say you. And wherefore he? because he was the highest Priest or bishop, therefore the chief rule of them was in him. Doth it not then follow, if he depose him, in whom is all the rule, that all this rule is yet restrained under his higher rule, that deposeth him? For the more man●…fest ensample of our time: If I ask in whom the chief rule of all ecclesiastical causes is now, in the Pope, say you: wherefore? say I: b●…cause, say you, he is the highest Priest or Bishop, and therefore he hath the ●…yest rule of all ecclesiastical causes Well say I, if the Emperou●… now would go about to cite the Pope, to judge him, and tell him he is the child of death, for not acknowledging his old obedience to him, and so deposing him bid him depart and meddle no more with What the autho●…tie of dep●…sing the Pope implieth. that bishopric: the Emperor can not do this (say you) for then the Pope in all ecclesiastical causes should be the emperors inferior, if the Emperor might depose 〈◊〉, because when he is deposed by the Emperor from all his chief rule, all his chief rule is translated from him, and so were he under the Emperor, and all his chief rule at the emperors disposition to give to another. But this say you were such a fowl inconvenience as the like can not be. And therefore the Emperor can not depose the Pope, but the Pope the Emperor. This is your common reasoning. Wherein do you not see, how the granting of the deposition of the chief Priest, infereth a higher rule and authority in the deposer over the deposed, in every prerogative that the party deposed had before he was deposed? But then (will you say) the Prince that deposed the highest Priest, may not he do all those matters that the priest might have done, if he be the chief ruler of them? It is A difference between the chief▪ ruler of ecclesiastical causes and the chief doer of them. one thing master Stapleton, to be the chief ruler in and over all those ecclesiastical causes, that the party deposed might have done, and to be the chief doer or executioner of them. For example, the Prince maketh an Admiral or chief ruler over his Seas, a Precedent or Deputy over his Marches, a chief justice or Chancellor over his laws. etc. These Officers again, the king deposeth: the deposition of them is an argument, that in all those things the King is the chief ruler. And although the King can not do any of those things that belong to their Offices, yet is that no impairing of his chief rule over them and all things in their offices: And therefore he transferreth the doing, to them that better can or will do those offices. And so likewise in the chief office of priesthood (admitting there were such an one now in all ecclesiastical causes) though the prince can not do all those ecclesiastical actions nor any one of them: yet grant the prince that he may depose that chief priest, to whom the doing of them appertaineth: you grant with all that he is the chief ruler of all those ecclesiastical things, so far forth as the rule of oversight, governance and directing stretcheth unto, which is above the ministerial executing. Now (as yourself have confessed) the prince is the causer, and the priest the executor, and doer, which likewise his name importeth, and therefore is called minister: which name though the prince have also, yet he hath it (as yourself have likewise confessed) in a higher respect, because he is God's especial minister, to oversee, direct, dispose, and depose all other ministers. And thus granting the ensample even but of this one fact of Solomon for our princes to follow, to depose in their realms any one whatsoever highest or lowest priest, it not only hitteth home the butt, yea and the prick to, set up by master Feckenham: but this one fact of Solomon, and the like of christian princes now, employeth a chief rule of over sight and direction (though not of executing in all ecclesiastical causes) besides whatsoever appertaineth to the party's office that may be so deposed, as Abiathar was by Solomon. The untruth that you note in the end of this ensample, is orderly answered in your beadroll. The. 15. Division. TThe Bishop in this division alleging the example of The example of king josaphats supreme government. king josaphat, chief of two visitations set forth by him, 2. Paral. 17. and. 19 how he reform religion through out all his dominions, appointed preachers and setters forth of God's law, and judges in all causes aswell ecclesiastical as temporal: concludeth his supreme government hereupon. To this Master Stap. counterblas●…eth: As M. Doctor Cap 13. Sta. 50. a. Harding and M. Dorman have written so say I that ye are they which frequent private hills, altars and dark groves that the scripture speaketh of. Wherein you have set up your Idols that is your abominable heresies. In that you say, master Stapleton, As they say, so say I, you show how well you have learned your lessons thus one of another, to say what soever your master said before you, and take your bore so saying for proof good enough. But as you fond flatter yourselves with your own sayings, so more fond you obtrude them as principles to your adversaries, that will by and by bid you either prove them, or else will they still esteem them as they are, for mere lying sayings of a knot of three false confederates, the master & his two scholars to outface & delude the manifest truth withal. And if these your master's sayings and yours hap to become words of course, then beware you on whose side they are likest to light, that have maintained so open Idolatry, and diverse false worships of God that he did never institute. After this master Stapleton drawing nearer to the matter, admit●…eth this example of King josaphat: We also confess (sayeth he) that there is nothing written in the Sta. 50. a. holy Scripture of josaphat, touching his care and diligence about the directing of ecclesiastical matters, but that godly Princes may at this day do the same, doing it in such sort as josaphat did. Hold you here master Stapleton, and we ask no more of you. You have here frankly confessed two things. First the care and diligence, that josaphat had about the directing ecclesiastical matters. Which care and diligence was the bishops first proposition, now twice already granted by you, what followed thereon you have herded before already. Secondly, that godly Princes may at this day do the same, doing it in such sort as josaphat did. Hereupon I conclude this argument: As josaphat did in directing ecclesiastical matters, so doth the Queen's majesty now: But all godly Princes aught so to do, as josaphat did in directing ecclesiastical matters: Ergo, the queens Majesty doth now, as all godly Princes aught to do. To prove that she doth as did king josaphat: yourself confess, that he reform religion and was careful and diligent about directing ecclesiastical matters. But the Queen's majesties claim is none other herein but this, to reform religion and to be careful and diligent about directing ecclesiastical matters: Ergo, King josaphats' doings and hers are not unlike. But this importeth in her a supreme government. Ergo, King josaphats' example hitteth home the Butt, and is a fit pattern to her and all godly Princes of supreme government in ecclesiastical causes. Here seeing that for fashion's sake, where you dared not deny the manifest truth, you have granted so much that in deed you have granted all: you would now restrain your grant, and say it was conditional, that though all Princes may reform religion, and with care and diligence direct all ecclesiastical matters, yet they must do it in such sort as josaphat did: and therefore leaving your simple and general terms of reformation and direction by godly Princes, ye will have them particularly leveled by that sort that josaphat did them. Which as we gladly, grant you in all things that josaphat did well and godly, Wherein christian Princes must go beyond●… k●…ng 〈◊〉 hat. as were the most of his doings, and in all that which the Bishop rehearseth: yet in some things Princes must not do in that sort, but go beyond him. For, although for the most part he did those things, Quae plac●…ta erant domino, That were acceptable to the Lord: 〈◊〉 en 2. Par. 20. excelsa non abstulit, Notwithstanding he took not away the high places: wherein godly princes must do after a more zealous sort than josaphat did. As for all those things that the Bishop citeth, see that you stand to your grant made unto us, that josaphat reform religion, and used care and diligence about the directing of ecclesiastical matters, and then that godly princes may at this day do all the same: And fear you not but we will also grant to you, and not start therefrom, that they may reform religion and direct ecclesiastical matters in such sort as josaphat did. And so, except you be disposed to quarrel, or will falsify the sort and manner of josaphats or the queens highness doings, I trust we shall anon agreed herein. They may do it (say you) in such sort as josaphat did, that S●…a. 50 a. josaphat directed eccl●…siastical matters not by the commandment but by the advise of the priests. is, to reform religion by the priests. First this is very subtly spoken master Stapleton (by the priests) if you mean by the advise or godly counsel of the priests, true it is, so might king josaphat well have done. If you mean by the authority and commandment of the priests, then is it false, nor you can ever prove that josaphat did it by their commandment and authority, but they contrariwise by his. Now in such sort as josaphat did, hath the queens Majesty done, and this proveth both their supremacies Sta. 50. a. herein. Not to enact (say you) a new religion, which the priests of force shall swear unto. Indeed this did not josaphat, no more hath the queens Majesty done, it is but your surmised slander. Item to suffer the priests to judge in controversies of religion, Sta 50. a. not to make the decision of such things a parliament matter. This latter part of your sentence, is again but your manifest slander, to suffer the priests to judge in controversies of religion after the rule of God's word, and not after their own pleasures, in such sort josaphat not only suffered, but ordained them, commanded and oversaw them so to do: and so doth the queens majesty. And this sufferance, commandment and oversight, argueth their chief authorities. Item not to prescribe a new form & order in ecclesiastical Sta. 50. a. causes, but to see that according to the laws of the church before made, the religion be set forth, as josaphat procu●…ed the observation of the old religion appointed in the law of Moses. And even thus and none otherwise hath the queens Majesty procured the observation of the old religion of jesus Christ whom Moses prefigured, and the orders of the apostles, and most ancient fathers after them, to be restored: removing, as josaphat did, all other new forms and orders of ecclesiastical abuses. And this restoring and procuring of the ancient religion and ceremonies, the suppressing and abolishing of new: is again in both these princes a good argument of their supreme government. Briefly (say you) that he do all this as an advocate, defender Sta. 50. a. and son of the Church, with the authority and advice of the clergy, so josaphat furdered religion, not otherwise. Your word advocate how it came up, is declared already, but neither advocate, defender, son or daughter herein, are any thing contrary to supreme governor. But where you add all these words, advocate, defender, and son, to the prince: and to the clergy authority & advice: this showeth your subtle devise, to deceive princes with your painted terms. But princes begin to wax wise and learned, as David exhorted them, and perceive how you have foaded Psalm 2. them with these names and styles, that were but nomen sine re, a bore name without any matter: for, the authority and advice you reserved to yourselves. The princes to whom you gave these gay titles, had neither authority, nor might give their advice, according as Hosius would not have them so much as to talk of matters of religion, much less to reform religion, to direct ecclesiastical matters with care and diligence as before you granted. And now to eat again your word, you would have them be careful and diligent without advice, reform and direct without authority, of their own, except only the clergies advice and authority. Think you josaphat did so, not otherwise as you say●… you may well tell us so but the Scripture telleth us otherwise: how he gave advice to the Clergy, and by his authority directed them, though I deny not he might use their advice, and admit their authority to, yet the supreme authority appertained unto him. Not (say you) as a supreme absolute governor, contrary Sta. 50 a. to the uniform consent of the whole clergy in full convocation, yea and of all the Bishops at once. This word absolute, is but your absolute and malicious slander M. Stap. Such absolute supreme government did your Pope usurp, as saith Franciscus de Ripa, that the Pope's power is absolute and that he may do what he will. As Baldus in the proheme of the decrees allegeth, that his power is absolute from all bonds, and from all rule of restraint. And that we must believe him absolutely as Marcus Mantua and Pope Boniface himself affirmeth. In cle. si Rom. N 22. de prebendis. Thus doth not the queens majesty, no more did king josaphat, and therefore I infer the conclusion that the Queen's Majesty doth all these things, in such sort as losaphat did them, excepting these quarelous slanders which are your own, put them up in your purse again master Stapleton, and then shall you find the sort and manner of the doings, of the one Prince and the other alike: and so I conclude with your own conclusion. Thus the example of josaphat fitteth well Christian Princes. he using the same supreme government then, that the queens Majesty now doth: nor you can allege any thing to the contrary but certain manifest slanders. Whereupon it followeth that the Q. taketh none other authority upon her than josaphat did, and all godly Christian Princes aught to do the like, the one ensample fitting the other even as yourself confess. Now that M. St. by this most clear confession & grant, hath yielded so far in this example that he hath contraried not only M. Dor that denied it to be a fit example, from Kings in the old law to kings in the new: but contrary also to himself that denied before any example at all to be fit, telling us that legibu●… non exemplis iud●… atur, Men must judge by laws Supra. 205. a. and not by examples. And here he saith that this example fits well christian princes, & thereon hath concluded already the full matter in question: neither ●…e can found any thing in the Q. majesties doings swerving from josaphats, but certain of his own mere slanders: he startleth, and besturreth himself with every tristing quarrel, picking fault at translations, at the print of the letter, & such like things to occupy the reader's head withal, lest he should perceive & mark, how the weight & pith of the matter is already granted and concluded, by his own mouth & confession. And here he challengeth the B. with wretched & shameful bandling of the holy scriptures. This is a sore fault indeed if it were true, but how proveth he this? First promising very sadly in his preface (saith he) to Stap. 50. a. b. 'cause his author's sentences for the part to be printed in latin letters, here coursing over three several chapters of the 2. of Paralip. he setteth not down any one part or word of the whole text in any latin or distinct letter, but handleth the scriptures as pleaseth himself, translating, mangling and belying them beyond all shame. For the translation we shall see afterward M St. what you challenge therein, in the mean season, we may well see how hard it goeth with you in that you are feign to seek such brabbling matters as this, which is but a petit quarrel, and that false also. The Bishop even as yourself confess, did but course over, that is, did but touch the sum & effect of those matters, & not set out word by word the text, as he hath not changed the letter hitherto in the like doing, & you found no fault there with. Neither did the B. bind himself in translating, to every word, but so to set out their minds & sentences, which word minds, you have left out, & also for these words (for the most part) you have put in, for the part. Thus do you order the Bishop's sentence in setting it forth in a distinct letter, as though he had so said, which in deed is the part of wretched and shameful handling and belying beyond all shame, especially to upbraid it to another, to show the more impudency of yourself therein. As for the Bishop only showing the effect of the matter, and not the words, nor going about there to translate at all, it was lawful for him to use his common print, his promise still observed when he translated any thing. You yourself use this commonly in translating, not only to keep your ordinary form of letter, but thereby, to handle the scripture as it pleaseth you. But now in this the Bishops summary draft out of all those three aforesaid chapters, let us see what it is that you challenge him for so sore. He telleth us (say you) of the king's visitors, of a progress Sta. 50. b. made in his own person, through out all his country, and of justices of the peace, whereas the texts alleged have no such words at all. It is easy to see how envy or proud folly blindeth this man, that reprehendeth the Bishop as missetelling the effect of a sentence, and himself in distinct letter, going about to set out the Bishop's words, as he did before, cannot or will not repeat the same aright, were these the bishops words, kings visitors & justices of the peace▪ the bishops words were these, He sent forth through his kingdom visitors, & again, he appointed in every town through out his kingdom as it were justices of the peace. Why, will you say, this is all one. it is so in effect master Stapl. and so they were the king's visitors. But yet should you here tell the bore words that the Bishop alleged, and if you may be blameless in saying you tell the effect & sum of the sentence, may not then the same saying bishop also? and a great deal more, because (as you say) he did but course over three chapters briefly, and therefore could not easily express the bore texts. But you might easily (noting but two or three little sentences) have set them down plain. I speak this the rather for that that followeth. You say the bishop telleth of justices of the peace. The bishop only said, as it were justices of the peace, as who should say, such officers then, as a man might liken to our petit judges, or justices of the peace now. But thus you ever love to wrist the bishops words, that you may make the feater entrance into one of your common places, saying: Verily such a tale he telleth us, that his ridiculous dealing Stap. 50. b. herein were it not in God's cause (where the indignity of his demeanour is to be detested) were worthily to be laughed at. Are the stories of the Scripture become tales to this Lovanist? How contempt tuously the papists esteem of the examples of the scriptures. are the visitations and progress of this godly king, that right now was with him a fit ensample for christian princes, become now ridiculous dealing, and worthily to be laughed at, or indignities to be detested? such were in deed the Popish visitations. As for that the bishop citeth is manifest in the scripture. The king sent out his 2. Par. 17. Preachers sent of the prince Princes and preachers, as the sum of the chapter in your old translation saith, mittit praedicatores per universam judeam, he sendeth on't preachers throughout all jewry: Whereupon Lyra noteth, hic ostenditur qualiter populum suum Lyra in 2. patal. 17. instruxit, scilicet per sacerdotes & Levitas quos ad hoc misit & cum eye aliquot de principibus suis, ut populum inducerent ad obedientiam & punirent rebels si quos invenirent. here is declared how he instructed his people, to wit, by the Priests and Levites, whom he sent to this purpose, and with them certain of his Princes to move the people to obedience, and to punish the rebellious, if they should find any. Is it ridiculous or detestable dealing herein, to name these parties visitors sent from the king? were they not sent to him to visit the people & reform them in religion? Again the bishop said, he made a progress in his own person, throughout all The prince's progress about religion. his country. What fault found you herewith, that he called it a progress? call you it an egress, or by what you can find a more usual or ●…itter name, where the prince himself doth travel. The text is, 〈◊〉 egressus est ad populum, and again he went forth unto the people. Stand you on that he said it was in his own person? In deed Lyra says, per sacerdotes Lyra in 2. paral. 19 & Levit as sicu●… ante ficara●…, He went forth by the Priests & Levites, as he had done before. But the text seemeth contrary, that he traveled himself. Whereon Uatablus noteth, ut Vatablus. ambularet per populum fortasse quem offenderat ●…alo exēpl●…, vel per populum cut prae●…rat, quasi dicat pe●…agrauit regionem sibi subditam. That he might travel by the people whom perhaps he had offended by his evil example (for personally he went out with them to Achab's wars) or by the people whom he ruled, as though he should say, he traveled all over the realm that was subject to him. Are you offended that he saith throughout all his country. The text is plain De Bersabe usque ad montem Ephraim, from Beersabee, even to the mount Ephraim. Id est (saith Lyra) Lyra. à principio regni sui usque ad finem, that is, from the beginning of his kingdom, even to the end thereof. Of which progress in the note before, saith Lyra, Hie consequenter ponitur ipsius josaphat emendatio in se & populo, & primo in cultu divino. Here consequently is set forth the amendment of josaphat in himself, and in the people, and first in the worship of God. In none of these words hitherto there is any indignity, nothing to be detested or any ridiculous tale to be laughed at, but every word is agreeable to the most grave, holy and infallible word of God. If there were therefore any such levity & detestableness in the bishops terms, it is only in this, that he likened those parties to justices of the peace. But this name I am sure is neither to be detested nor laughed at, except you be some odd justices of the peace. wicked Lucian or Timon ●…all godly christians can allow this name with reverence. Is the ridiculcusnesse & detestableness, in saying the one might resemble the other? read the text. Constituitque judices terrae in cunctis civitatibus juda munitis per singula loca, and he appointed judges of the land in all the walled cities of juda through all places. Now could a man express this by a livelier example, than to say those petit judges were, as it were justices of the peace, if you can show a more apt estate to express them by, do it on God's name. I dare say for the Bishop, he will give you good leave, & though you somewhat miss the quishion, make no such heinous matter thereat. Lyra saith, Hic secundo describitur ipsius josaphat & populi Lyra. melioratio in regimine populi, primo in communibus causis, secundo in arduis, in quibus erat recursus in Jerusalem. Circa primum dicitur, constituitque judices, ut non oporteat populum discurrere à loca ad locum, ad habendum in causis communibus. here secondly is described the bettering of josaphat himself, and his people, in the governance of the people, first in common causes, secondly in difficult causes, wherein the recourse was unto Jerusalem. Concerning the first it is said, and he appointed judges to be had in the common matters that the people should not run up and down from place to place. And is not this exposition of Lyra so agreeable to the Bishops, that it containeth even the same? what cause then had you here, Master Stapl. to make this heinous exclamation? Were not this your dealing rather ridiculous, and to be laughed at, saving that the indignity of your envious demeanour is more to be detested? But now in the matter, of all this what is here, that directly infereth not josaphats' supreme government, not only over the nobles and the people, but over the Priests, Levites, preachers, & all the clergy, in directing and setting forth the word & worship of God, & that not only in common matters, but even for those matters also of the priests sentence at jerusalem, for the which hitherto you have made so much ado? but all this, M. Stap. though he see it plain enough, yet he thought best not to meddle therewith. But rather (lest the reader should mark it also) to find him play about the printing of words and phrases, and here at to hollow and make such outcries, as though all the matter lay therein. Yea he bursteth out into such a vehemency of his spirit, that not content with his former heinous quarrels, he layeth yet greater to the bishops charge, saying: But from fond counterfeiting he proceedeth to flat lying, Stap. 50. b. for where he saith that josaphat commanded and prescribed unto the chief Priests what form and order they should observe in the ecclesiastical causes and controversies of religion. etc. This is a lewd and a horrible lie, flatly belying Gods holy word, the which in one that goeth for a Bishop, what can be done more abominable? In deed, M. Stapl. it were an abominable thing to belie Gods holy word, were it in any man, chief in a Bishop: but this abomination, besides many worse, not only lewdly, flatly, & horribly to bely, but to deface & blaspheme, yea to take away and burn Gods holy word, are the right properties of your Popish Bishops, not of ours. But what hath the Bishop now here said that belieth and accordeth not with the holy scripture? for, the words which you yourself set forth, do they not plainly comprehend a form and order which they should observe in ecclesiastical matters and controversies of religion? Sic agetis S●…apl 51. ●…. etc. Thus shall you do in the fear of the Lord, faithfully and with a perfect heart. And as yourself expound it. They should do their duty faithfully and perfectly, as they had done before in the days of Asa and Abias'. Lo, do not your The prince's form and order in proceeding. own self here confess a manner and form of order, which be prescribed them to do those things by? Again are not these your own words, how josaphat appointed the Levites and priests to these ecclesiastical functions, it shall appear in the next Chapter by the example of Ezechias? Where you say, how he did it: had that how, no manner or form of order in it? Yes, but you say, that manner of form shall appear in the example of Ezechias. A God's name so let it do in the mean season, you grant he did it after the form of order that Ezechias did it. And there you say that Ezechias did it as David did it. But you wot well the Scripture showeth at large the forms and orders of David's appointments: if therefore Ezechias did it like to David, and josaphat like to Ezechias, then is the bishops saying proved true, by all these your confessions, that he commanded and prescribed unto the chief priests what form and order they should observe in ecclesiastical causes and controversies of religion. Is not this then your own abomination and contradiction, ●…atly to say, here is no form or order prescribed? and that the Bishop belieth Stapl. 51. ●…. Gods holy word which in one that goeth for a student of Divinity, to slander one that goeth for a Bishop, what can be done more malapertly? But as you thus sawfely misuse your better, so full fond and malitionsly, do y●… gather that thereon, than the which the Bishop minded nothing less, nor can instly be gathered thereupon. Y●… say the Bishop writeth thus to make folk ween that religion proceeded then by way of commission Stap. 51. ●…. from the Prince only. This is your own spiteful slander M. Stapl. not only on the Bishop but on the queens Majesty, your argument is this. He prescribed them a form and order to observe in controversies of Religion. Ergo, He attempted to make Religion proceed by way of commission from the Prince only. This is a false and ma●…itions collection M. Stapl. from the form and order of athing, to the thing itself. It is your holy father the Pope to whom you may object this conclusion, he ma●…eth religion to depend on him and to proceed from him only▪ by his Commissions and Legacies ●… later. We-acknowledge all true religion to proceed only from God the father, through jesus Christ his son, by the Religion only proceedeth from God, the preaching proceedeth from the ministers, the direction and ordering from the Prince. ins●…ctiō of the holy ghost in the mouth of the patriarchs, Prophets, and Apostles. And from the Prince to proceed, only such godly orders, and forms of directing, and setting forth that true religion, as he by the notable examples of these godly Kings, shall find out patterns most expedient for him and his people, to govern and order them of what ●…state soever they be, in that true religion, and all other ecclesiastical causes belonging thereto. So did josaphat then, so doth the queens Majesty now. From whose authority, next ●…nder▪ God, the order & direction proceeded, though the religion proceeded not from them, but altogether from God. Nay (say you) king▪ josaphats dealings were rather with Stapl. 50. b. 〈◊〉 perso●… th●…n with matters ecclesiastical. This was M. Feckenhams former shift, and many proper ensamples and similitudes you also used thereon, to dally about the 〈◊〉 of the ecclesiastical person, but not in ecclesiastical matters. But those were but seely shifts, and ever turned against yourself in the end. And therefore you dar●… not abide by this shift, but within a little while after, yea even in this Chapter, you recant and deny the obedience of the people and all. And what hath been your The Papists deny not only the Princes go vernment of ecclesiastical matters, but also of ecclesiastical people. practice, any other than clean to rid yourselves out of all obedience from the Prince's authority? you know your Pope hath been under the Emperor ere now, but under what Princes obedience even for his person will you confess your Pope at this day to be? And do not all the pack of the popish Priests, as his chickens cl●…cke under his wings, and exempt even their people also from the dutiful obedience they own to their natural sovereigns, in so much that where the Pope's primacy is admitted, Princes can not by any of their lawe●…▪ fasten any condign punishment, upon any ecclesiastical people▪ what mischief soever they commit? and all because the ecclesiastical people were privileged and exempted from their Prince's authority. Wherein your generation dealt surely for themselves, that having granted them an inch got an elle. For, seeing, that if they should grant again the obedience of the person, the cause and all would at last return to his old master the Prince, as it did before, but you think yourself sure enough, if you grant that josaphat dealt with ecclesiastical people, but not with their matters. As you shifted of the matter before, that the Prince dealeth with a Bishop for his homage, barony and temporalties, Supra pa 47. ●… but not otherwise. Think you M. Stapl. and tell me on your fidelity, did josaphat meddle with the high Priests, and all other of the Clergy so well as his temporalty, only in respect of their people, or in respect of their revenues and linings under him, or chief in any of these respects did he thus command them and deal with them: or not rather and most of all in respect of refourming abuses in religion, and setting in order all ecclesiastical causes? he appointed not only the people but the places where the people should execute their offices, and what matters these and those people should entreat upon, and how they should do them, as yourself have confessed the manner. And lest we should think he ●…ubbered over the matter, as you say, many good and godly princes among the Stapl. 5●…●…. Christians also have charged their Bishops and clergy to see diligently unto their flocks and charges. You say true M. Stapleton, many godly Princes have thus done to your further confutation in this issue. But you mean they have only given them a general exhortation, and yet nevertheless left the matter wholly in their Clergies hands, not meddling themselves therewith: Lest King josaphat did not deal sclenderly in ecclesiastical matters but as his chiefest charge. you should think that josaphat did it thus sclenderly, & not that his chief charge of oversight lay thereon, not only of them all generally, but particularly in every kind of matter: the holy ghost hath penned out, how precisely he went to work, & that rather having his care about the matters, than the people. For this was his principal mark & care, not so much that the person might sit in authority, as that the matter might wisely and truly be judged and discerned, and therefore says the text. In Jerusalem quoque constituit 2. Paral. 19 josaphat Levitas, & sacerdotes, & principes familiarum ex Israel, ut judicium & causam domini judicarent habitatoribus eius, etc. Praecepitque eye, etc. And josaphat appointed in jerusalem Levites and Priests and families of Israel, that they might give judgement and judge the cause of the Lord to the inhabitants thereof, etc. And he commanded them saying: Thus shall you do in the fear of the Lord faithfully, and with a perfect heart, and in every cause that shall come unto you of your brethren that devil in their Cities, between blood and blood, between law and precept, statutes and judgements, you shall judge them and admonish them. etc. Whereupon says Lyra: Hic ordinatur regiment populi in arduis causis, Lyra in 2. Paral. 19 etc. Here is ordained the government of the people in difficult causes, which could not well be cut of, without recourse had to jerusalem, according to that which is commanded, Deuter. 17. Where it is said, if thou shalt perceive the Nothing ecclesiastical or temporal, exempted from the chief oversight of the Prince no not of the cases, Deut. 17. that the Papists chief boast upon. judgement before thee to be difficult and doubtful, arise and get thee up to the place which the Lord shall choose. etc. And therefore josaphat appointed judges there, to determine such difficult matters. Wherefore it followeth, every cause which cometh unto you, etc. Wheresoever the question is: if it be of the law, so far forth as pertaineth to the ten commandments of the tables. If it be of the commandment, so far forth as pertaineth to the other moral points: if it be of the precepts of the ten commandments, as it were certain conclusions piked out: if it be of the ceremonies, so far forth as pertaineth to ceremonial matters: of justifications, that is to say of judicial matters whereby justice is to be conserved among men. Thus is there no part ecclesiastical or temporal, exempted from the oversight, care, direction & appointment of the king. Not not the judgement that you have so often alleged and craked upon out of the Deut. 17. under the which (as a general rule for all examples to be ruled by) you would subdue the Prince upon pain of death, to obey the absolute determination of the Priest. Even this same office and all other, with all causes to them belonging, (so far as stretcheth to the oversight and supreme government) do belong, to the Prince, to appoint and ordain fit parties, to displace and remove unfit parties, & to see all these offices, so well as any other temporal, observed kept and executed dutifully. Which is not so much for the people, as for the people offices. And therefore josaphat not only appointed them by his authority or regiment as Lyra says, their offices: but also he told them how they should do their offices. Nay say you, to each your matter yet with an other shift, He doth it not with threats of his high displeasure, or by Stap. 51. ●…. force of his own injunctions, but only says: so then doing you shall not sin or offend. The which very manner of speech, christian Emperors and Kings have eft●…ones used in the like case, as we shall hereafter in the third book by examples declare. Even in the examples that you shall there declare M. St. The iniunction●… of princes for the observation of ecclesiastical matters and threats of displeasure for the breach of them. you shall find both threats of high displeasures and the ini●…nctions also of many godly princes. And therefore seeing that you compare their doings alike, why say you these doings of jehosophat have no threats nor injunctions? what call you this, did he not threat them trow you, when he said, Ne veniat troth super vos & super fratres vestros, Lest wrath come upon you and upon your brethren. Which words you overhipped. He denounced unto them the wrath of God, which declared his great zeal and care of God's matters as the Bishop said. And think you that the high displeasure of God, contained not this godly Princes high displeasure also? do you suppose that they dread not the Princes high displeasure in the breach of their duties, because he threateth them with Gods most high displeasure? Or think you it was not so forcible as any injunction of his unto them, in that (as yourself say) he charged them, and (as the text saith) Praecepit eyes, he commanded them? which is most plain and evident to signify, that he enjoygned them by his supreme government over them? And to show that besides his charge, his commandment, his threat of Gods most high displeasure, they should incur his high displeasure also, if they or any other disobeyed: Lyra saith on his former visitation, Hic oftenditur Lyra in 2. Pa●…al. 19 qualiter etc. Here is declared after what sort he instructed his people, to wit, by the Priests and Levites, whom he sent to this purpose, and with them certain of his Princes, to bring the people to obedience, and to punish the rebels, if they should find any. And of this visitation also says Lyra: He appointed Zabadias' to be over those works that belong to the kings office, that if any rebels were found they should by him be chastized with due punishment. Doth not this import the kings high displeasure, in the breach of these his appointments, charge & commandment, when he adjoined those that should punish the disobedient? Now whereas the Bishop briefly noted all this, how King josaphat appointed the Priests to decide and judge controversies: you snatch thereat, and clap down thereon a marginal note. Yea the Priests judged, not the king, say you, overskipping that the King appointed them thereto, which argueth his supreme government. And yet the King judged also by his deputy, not the Priest alone. And so says plain the text: In Jerusalem quoque constituit etc. And josaphat appointed also Levites and Priests, and the The king judged ecclesiastical causes, in that his debiase judged them. Princes of the families of Israel: Here M. St. he appointed as well the lay Princes, as the Priests. And whereto? ut judicium & causam domini iudicarent, that they should judge the judgement and cause of the Lord. See how plain this is against you: but what is there not, that you will spare to 2. Paral. 19 wrist, to make it see me to serve your turn? For even of the last sentence, you think in the end you have got so notable a proof for your matter: that greatly you urge it and wonderfully triumph thereupon. Thus says (say you) King josaphat. Amarias' the priest and Stap 51. b. your Bishop, shall have the government of such things as appertain to God. And Zabadias' shallbe over such works as appertain to the kings office. Lo (say you) the king's office and divine matters are of distinct functions. Lo say I, how soon you would conclude a lie. Your text says not, the king's office and divine matters are of distinct functions. Nor maketh any opposition or distinction between the king's office and divine matters, as though it appertained not to the king's office, to have any thing to do with divine Divine matters not excluded from the king's office . matters. Contrary to the which, your own confession even in this king's doings, witnesseth against you, that he reform religion, and had a care and diligence about the directing ecclesiastical matters. And trow you he did this beyond the bounds of his office? How can then his example, as you say, fit well christian princes, if it be not a parcel belonging to their office? the text is plain that the king appointeth as well the Bishop Amarias his government, as Zabadias' his government: to the one, to have the government of such things as appertain to God: to the other, to be over such works as appertain to the king. Here in these two, (such things) on the one party, and (such works) on the other party, is the distinction made: and not between the king's office, and divine matters, as you falsely conclude. And yet I pray you what argument can you gather hereupon? The king's office & divine matters are of distinct functions: Ergo the King hath no supreme government over all ecclesiastical causes. By the like reason he hath no supreme government over temporal causes neither. For, the kinge●… office & his temporal subjects matters, are not they also distinct functione? Ergo, the king hath no supreme government over his temporal subjects matters. Again you reason thus: Thus says the king, the priest shall govern in those things that belong to God. Ergo, to oversee the Priests, & govern them rightly, appertaineth not to the kings government. Where in deed you should rather reason the quite contrary. Thus says the king, the priest and the Bishop shall have the government of such things as appertain to God. Ergo, the Prince that thus appointeth him thereto, hath an other supreme government of appointing and overseeing even the priests government. Doth not the King appoint the one to his office, so well as he appointed the other, & are not both governed in their offices under him? Yet say you, over gods matters is the priest, not as the king's commissioner, but as the priests were after the example of Moses. The Bishop refuseth not the example of Moses, but alleged even the same, and yourself then refused that example: saying, he had such prerogatives, that he of all other could not be alleged for example, because of his especial privilege. And now contrary to your former sayings, you say, the priests were not as the King's commissioners, but were always after the example of Moses. But go to, be it so, how doth this help your matter, or not rather quite confute it? In Moses time Aaron, and after him Eleazar were the chief priests over gods matters, under whom were the other Priests and Levites. But all of them, yea Aaron and Eleazar, so well as the rest, were under the supreme government, in ecclesiastical causes so well as temporal, of their Prince and ruler Moses. Ergo, If Moses be an example how the priests should always govern under God's matters, then must their government be always under the princes supreme government, to oversee, order and direct them as Moses did. And where you say, the Priest here, was not the Prince's The priest the prince's commissioner. commissioner in these matters, the very text is most plain to the contrary. I stand not on the word, lest I should minister to you occasion of wrangling with me, as you do with the bishop: but go to the matter. What call you him that the Prince sendeth forth in a commission, committing a charge unto him, call you him not a commissioner? and his commissioner that so sendeth him in commission? did not josaphat so send about his priests and Levites on this commission, that they should teach and set forth every where the word of God? Tertio ann●… regni sui misit, etc. 2. Paral. 17. in the third year of his reign, he sent out certain of his princes, Benail, and Obdias, and Zacharias, and Nathaniel, and Micheas, that they should teach in the cities of juda: and with them the Levites, Semeiah, Nethamah, Zebediah, and Asahel, and Semiramoth, and jonathas, and Adonias, and Thobias, and Tob Adoniah Levites: and with them Elizama and joram Priests. And they taught the people in juda, having with them the book of the law of the Lord: and they went about throughout all the cities of juda, and taught the people. Were they not here sent in this commission thus to do, from the king? Their doctrine was not the kings, but God's commission, the Lords book: but this their manner of traveling in setting it forth, was the king's commission. And they, so well the Priests and Levites, as the Princes, were both of them the king's commissioners. In like case, the queens majesty sendeth out her godly learned commissioners, & sendeth by them the word of God, God's book and truth to be set forth. The truth thus set forth, hath not his authority from her commission, nor the preachers to preach, only by her outward commission? but they have another inward commission from God, and are Gods commissioners by the calling & ministery of their office. Howbeit, in this outward manner of visitation & setting it forth, in this sort of traveling about her highness towns and cities, reforming abuses, & directing all eccl. causes: they are therein even aswell the queens commissioners, as those priests & Levites in all their reformation of religion, were commissioners from king josaphat. And thus every thing in the end is most evident against you. But yet you blunder still on in your own conceit, and think you have here got a wonderful strong argument. And mark well M. Horn, this point (say you) Zabadias' Stap. 51. a. is set over such works as belong to the kings office. But such works are no manner thing pertaining to the service of God (for over them Amarias the Priest is Precedent) Ergo, the kings office consists not about things pertaining to God, but is a distinct function concerning the common weal. Ergo, if the king intermeddle in God's matters, especially if he take upon him the supreme government thereof, even over the priests themselves, to whom the charge is committed, he passeth the bounds of his office: he breaketh the order appointed by God, and is become an open enemy to God's holy ordinance. Your cracks and revilings that you powder your argument with, I remit to their proper common places, to the argument I answer. If it be marked well, as you would have it, saying, Mark well this point M. Horn: First, the marker shall find it neither in any mood nor figure. Secondly, the marker shall find an Equivocation in these words, works, kings office, pertaining to God's service. Which words being diverfly understood in either proposition: Thirdly, make a paralogism of four terms. Fourthly, in these words you make a Fallation a secundum quid ad simpliciter. Lyra liviteth the●…e words, super ea operaerit Lyra in 2. Paral. 19 quae ad regis officium pertinent. He shall be over those works that pertain to the king's office: only to the aiding and strengthening the Priests and the Levites, by the temporal sword, to punish the disobedient. But is there no other works of the King's office besides this? Uatablus Vatablus. under standeth it, that as the priest meddled with the weighty causes at jerusalem: so also the Levites should be over the lesser causes, Causae Ciutum cognoscebontur à Levitis, causaeauten Regtae à Zabaudi●…. The causes or controversies pertaining to the citizens, should be herd of the Levites, and the causes and controversies pertaining to the King, should be herd of Zabaudias. Neither of these understand these words so generally, of all the doings belonging in any wise to the office of a king. In like case, for the priests government, in such things as belong to God, Id est (saith Uatablus) quod pertinet ad rem divinam: To wit, so far as pertaineth to the divine service, or the divine administration. And you wrist it to be understood simply for all ecclesiastical matters, and all causes of religion. Besides that Fifthly, you reason still after your wont fashion, from the distinction of the things and works of either's particular functions, to the taking away of the Princes supreme government over those distinct works and functions. How doth this argument follow? The king appoints one over God's works, and another distinct from him over his own works: Ergo, the king hath not a supreme government over them both, to oversee them to do those works. Your conclusions therefore last of all are faulty, neither directly following upon your premises, and comprehending much more than they infer. This part of your conclusion, that the king's office is a distinct function from the Priests, neither impugneth the bishops assertion, nor the princes supreme government. Conclude this M. Stap. against them that confound their offices. The other part of your conclusion, that the kings office meddleth only with the common weal, by which you mean, only the civil policy, and hath nothing to do with any matters pertaining to God: or ever you shall directly prove it, on this, or any other place in the whole scripture, it will find you somewhat more to do than you suppose it will. As for the kings intermeddling with God's matters: yourself before have granted a king Sta. 50. a. may intermeddle and be no breaker, nor enemy to God's order. And that even this king josaphat used a care and diligence about the directing of ecclesiastical matters, that he reform religion, and that godly christian Princes may at this day do the like. This yourself have already granted. And is all this no intermeddling? doth it not rather prove he intermeddled, & that as supreme governor thereof, yea even over the Priests themselves, to whom that charge (of doing those matters) is committed? and yet he neither breaketh the order appointed by God, nor is become an enemy to God's holy ordinance. You say, it was God's ordinance and appointment, what followeth? it was not therefore the Prince's ordinance and appointment also? as though these were contrary, and could not stand together the one under the other, the ordinance of God, and the ordinance of the king. Put case the Priest had ordained it, might it not have been God's ordinance too? but the priest ordained it not, but the prince: Ergo, the Prince immediately ordaining it under God, showeth that he hath an immediate power under him, even above the Priests. Of whom are these words so precisely The prince commands the Priest. spoken, he appointed, he commanded, he said it shall be so, thus shall you do, & c? was it the Prince, or was it the Priest? Did Amarias' command jehosaphat, or jehosaphat command Amarias, and all the other Priests and Levites? who is the supreme governor of the twain, the commander and appointer, or he that is commanded and appointed? Until therefore that you can prove, that the high Priest Amarias, commanded and appointed unto King josaphat these things, and that the king did not command, nor appoint these things to the Priest and Bishop: every man that hath any understanding, will easily perceive and judge, that the Prince was the priests supreme governor next under God, both over his person, and over the thing also wherein he appointed and commanded him. But, see your constant dealing in this matter▪ before, you made the governance of the thing to be more than the governance of the person. And here as though it were a greater matter to govern the person, you say: If he take upon him the supreme government thereof even over the Priests themselves, to whom the charge is committed: Again, before you said, that josaphats' dealings were rather with people than with matters ecclesiastical: But now you exempt the people to, saying: If he take upon him the supreme government even over the Priests themselves, etc. he passeth the bounds of his office. And thus, although for a while you would shifted off the matter by seeming to grant somewhat, to blear the reader withal: yet in the end contrary to your former grant, you ea●…e your word, and debar the Prince of all, both for matter and people to. But (thanks be to God) this ensample of josaphat is so plain, that all these fetches and shifts that you are driven unto, can so little any way improve his supreme government: that every thing which you bring against it, maketh more and more for it. Such is the force of the truth, and so doth falsehood in his own trip still overturn itself. The. 16. Division. THe Bishop alleging the example of king Ezechias, fi●…st Fol. 52. a. The example of king ●…zechias supreme government in ecclesiastical causes. 4. Reg. 18. 2. Pat. 29. showeth what great commendation, for his godly government in reforming religion, the scripture attributeth unto him. Secondly, how he called together the clergy, telleth them their faults, declareth to them the wrath of God, exhorteth & commandeth them to do their duties in cleansing themselves, in making their sacrifices, and appointeth their offices, & provideth them convenient portions to live by, and that in all things the clergy and the people obeyed the King's commandment, which argueth his supreme government over all ecclesiastical people and causes. To this master Stapleton answereth, first on the old warrant of his good master's words, by rejecting all this as insufficient. Here is nothing brought in by you (saith he) or before Stapletoa Caput. 14. Fol. 52. b. by the Apology (as M. Dorman and M. D. Harding do well answer) that forceth the surmised sovereignty in King Ezechias, but that his power and authority was ready and serviceable (as it aught to be in all princes) for the execution of things spiritual before determined, & not by him as supreme head newly established. How well or ill master Stap. your masters have answered this objection, and are answered again, is apparent and easy to be judged by viewing both their answers. Howbeit, unto their well doings, for fear they should not fall out so well as you pretend: you have done well also to better their answers, with the surplusage of your new stuff. And if it were granted you M. Stap. that those things which Ezechias did, had not been, by him as supreme head, newly established, would it follow thereupon, that they were not by him, as supreme head or governor, newly reform neither: having been some of them of old established before, & by the priest's negligence, having long time been corrupted? But what letteth why they may not also be said, to have been by him newly established, being quite decayed before? And so saith Lyra of the joy at the great passover that long time had ceased, Propter quod, quado Ezechias eam Lyra. renovaevit, fuit maior exultatio, quòd nova placent & delectant. For the which cause, when Ezechias renewed it, there was greater rejoicing, for because new things do please and delight. So that to them it was a new establishing. But was the brazen serpent pulled down and destroyed ever before, as other Images and hill altars had been? was the feast of the passover ever changed before? was that order of collations Ecclesiastical matters by K. Izechias newly established. ever ordained before? was this the Levites doings of the Priests parts, ever done before? So that at the lest some of these doings were by him newly established and never done before: but as the necessity of the time was then, so were they commanded to be done by him and well allowed of God. Yet, say you, they were not newly established by him as supreme head, but his power & authorit●…e was ready & serviceable for the execution of things spiritual before determined. But if these things were not before determined, I pray you master Stapleton, whose executioner was he then? neither the priests nor the prophets had before determined that he should do, or command to be done these things, therefore he was neither the Priests nor the Prophet's executioner in them. If you say, God had determined that they should so be done: you say true, and we deny not, but that the Prince's To be ready and serviceable to fulfil God's determination, debarreth not the Princes supreme government. power and authority did execute God's determination, yea it was ready and serviceable, as you say, thereto. And so it aught to be in all princes. But what conclude you hereupon? Because the prince's power and authority is ready and serviceable to execute Gods determinate purpose, yea or his open commandment either, and that by the mouth of any Priest or Prophet: Ergo, he is not supreme governor under God therein? In deed you might well conclude he is not an absolute supreme governor over God, whose determination he doth execute so seruiceably, but this you might conclude against your Pope, that exalteth himself above all that is called God, and despiseth to execute seruiceably Gods open determination, and maketh all Princes to be serviceable executioners of his own determinations. Thus doth not the queens Majesty nor any Godly Prince, but obeyeth and executeth God's determination, with all her power and authority most ready and serviceable thereunto, and yet is neither her supreme power nor authority under God, any whit impaired thereby. And if this be an argument to abase the Prince's supreme power and authority, how shall it not also abase the Priests? aught they to do any other things then execute God's determinations? aught not their power & authority be ready and serviceable hereunto? Ergo▪ they can be no supreme governors neither. But you will say the Prince is yet inferior to them, because they executed God's commandment immediately, Ezechias executed God's commandment, and the clergy the commandment of Ezechias and the Prince there's. What now, if it fall out quite contrary, that Ezechias executed seruiceably God's commandment, & they again executed (although their service was not over ready, such was their corruption, yet tandem, at the length, they executed) the Prince's commandment, doth it not then follow that they were therein inferior to the Prince? But, that he commanded and appointed them, and that they executed in these spiritual things his commandment and appointment, the scripture is most apparent. He brought in the Priests and gathered them together in atrium Lyra in 2. Par. 29. sacerdotum, saith Lyra, into the porch of the priests. The Priests called not him and his nobility together. And therefore saith Lyra, under him was made Primo, expiatio legalis. etc. First, the cleansing of the laws sacrifice. Secondly, the celebration of the benefit of the passover. Thirdly, the repairing of the Priestly ministery. He, as a commander, said unto the priests seeing them s●…owly de●…ed, Audite 2. Par. 29. me Levitae & sanctificamint. etc. Hear me O you Levites, and be you sanctified, cleanse the house of the God of your fathers, and take away all unciennesse from the sanctuary. Which are not words of entreaty, but flat commandments, as Lyra saith: Ezechias cupiens renovare foed●… cum Lyra in 2. Par. 29. domino, primo pracepit. etc. Ezechias desirous to renew the covenant with the Lord. First did command the Levites to be sanctified. Secondly, by them being sanctified, the temple to be cleansed. Thirdly, by those which were cleansed, sacrifice to be made for the offence of the people. Fourthly, by sacrificing, God to be praised. Fiftly, by cleansing, the holy burnt-offrings to be offered up. Thus were all these things done by his commandment, by his constitution, and at his pleasure. Nunc igitur placet mihi ut 〈◊〉 foedus cum domino, It is now therefore my pleasure (saith he) that we enter into a covenant with the Lord. And in this doing, even in the place where he putteth them in mind of their high office, he calleth them not his fathers (which word hereafter you stand much upon) but calleth them, being the Priests & Levites, his sons: Filij me●… (saith he) nolite negligere. O my sons be not negligent, being himself in years but a child in respect of them, of the age of xx. years: saving that in respect of his royal power and estate, he considered he was the father of all God's people, so well the clergy as the laity: and so the clergy took him, and obeyed him. Et ingressi sunt juxta mandatum regis & imperi●… domini, And they entered in according to the King's commandment, and the commandment of the Lord. juxta mandatum regis (saith Lyra) ad purgandum templum domini, To cleanse the temple of the Lyra. Lord, according to the King's commandment. And Lyra praising all these doings saith, Et sic Ezechias in d●… coronationis. etc. And so Ezechias in the day of his coronation, opened the doors of the temple of the Lord, and even there gathering the Priests and the Levites together, he enjoined Iniunxi●… 〈◊〉. unto them the said purging. (Lo here is again the kings own injunction, whereat you quarrelled in the former Chapter.) And on the morrow after, they began it: and in this appeareth the great praise of Ezechias, that even forthwith from the first day of his coronation, he commanded the renewing Praecepit renovationem divini cultus. of the divine worship that was destroyed by his father. Lyra showing further of the pollution of the temple, telleth out of the Hebrew gloss, that there were many Images of Idolatry, fastened in the walls of the Temple, with such Imagines Idololatriae multas. strong and great nails that they were hardly pulled away. A lively pattern of your popish Temple's Master Stapleton, The popish fond distinction of ●…mage and Idol. decked up even so, with Images in the walls: and withal it confuteth your fond distinction of Image and Idol, since as well you may have Idolatry of Images as of Idols. If you think to escape by distinguishing of the Images of holy Saints, and the Images of the wicked heathen, that they only be Idols, not the other, I pray you what was the brazen serpent, was it the Image of any profane thing? or not rather a representer of Christ, and yet 4. Reg. 18. it become an Idol, and this godly King, not the Priests destroyed it, and called it in contempt, a piece of brass, as a man might call your Images or Idols (whether you will) a stock or stone. Thus did this notable Prince, which I tell by the way, not only to show his supreme authority in the doing: but besides, to answer your ordinary cavillation in defence of your manifest Idolatry. The Temple being cleansed from these Images, the Priests offered, first for the King, Pro Regno, for the Kingdom, that is, saith Lyra, pro Rege & Principibus, for the King and the Princes: and after for themselves & the people. The King ●…ad them offer on the altar of the Lord: and they obeyed, & offered (saith Lyra) pro peccatis Regis, & Principum, & Sacerdotum, & Levitarum, & communis populi. For the sins of the King, & of the Princes, and of the Priests, and of the Levites, and of the common people. Thus in their degree reckoning every sort. He appointed also the singers. Again, he commanded the Priests to offer the burned offerings, and he and his Princes commanded them to sing Psalms. When they had sung and worshipped the Lord: he told the Levites they were sanctified, and commanded them to do their ecclesiastical functions: saying, Accedite & offer●…e victimas & laudes in domo domini, Come near and offer burned offerings and praises in the house of the Lord. Thus are all these ecclesiastical matters hitherto noted, done of the Priests and levites by the direction & commanding of Ezechias. Nor this your common shift can any thing avail you to abase Ezechias doings, because he appointed diverse of those things The Prince's predecessors disposing, debarreth not his supreme government. According as David had disposed: he appointed also divers other things, which David never had disposed, and yet he had the like authority and commendation in appointing both. Which argueth his supreme authority in appointing ecclesiastical matters, whosoever had appointed them before. And what was Davit? was he not a king also? So that this paltry shift still maketh against you, that although godly Princes succeeding, establish, renew, appoint, & command such matters as their predecessors have done before: yet have they no less authority therein, than had even the first appoynters of all. And also the queens majesty taketh none other authority now on her, in appointing & commanding, than David, Ezechias, & other ancient godly Princes did: than Constantinus, and other her predecessors, have done The subjection to God's commandment, embarreth not the Princes supreme government. before. And her authority, in renewing such orders as long have been decayed or abolished▪ is n●… less than was there's, in the first ordering and commanding of them. But you say king David did not order those things by himself, but it was God's commandment. As though any said (except it ●…eyour Pope) that this supreme authority is not subject to God's commandment, and under his absolute authority, or as though this subjection under God, abaseth the Prince's authority, and not rather confirmeth it to be immediate next under him. But you add further, God did it, by the hands of his Prophets. If to do a thing by the hands of another, do always signify a supreme authority in the party by whose hands The doing it by the hands of the prophets or any other, embarreth not the Princes supreme government. it is done, than were the Princes Pursuivant or letter bearer, above the Lieutenant, judge, or Deputy, to whom the letter is sent. But the bearer although the Prince send it by his hand or ministery, is not only under the sender, but also under the party to whom it is sent, and he, not the ●…earer, is next and immediate under the Prince, in the performing of his letter, and signifieth again to the Prince by the bearers hand, his dutiful obedience in fulfilling the content thereof. Either parties here, you see, use the bearers hand or ministery: doth it follow thereupon, he is superior to either of them, or not rather under both? What good argument can you frame hereupon? God commanded David by the hands of his Prophets: Ergo, the Prophets were above David in ordering and directing Gods will and commandment? And again, where you say, joshua, David and other Princes sacrificed by the hands of the Priests. Ergo, the Priests and levites were above joshua, David, and those other Princes? Your argument therefore, God commanded by the hands of his prophet, that the king should make such orders: Ergo, the Prophet is the King's supreme governor: is a very slender argument. But if you had reasoned thus, The party that commandeth is supreme governor to him by whose hands he doth it: The Prince commandeth these ecclesiastical matters to be done by the hands of the Priests and Levites: Ergo, the Prince therein is the supreme governor to the Priests and Levites. This had been the fit and truer argument of the twain. But this had quite overturned your shift. Nevertheless M. Stapl. you have shift upon shift, and more ways I perceive to the wood than one. For, seeing that this argument, God commanded by the hands of the clergy, that the Prince should make ecclesiastical orders, could not infer he did it by their authority, but rather it argueth the Prince's authority over the clergy: you fall then in quarreling, that the Bishop saith, the king did it by the counsel of the Prophets. As though (say you) David had first done it by the advise Stap 53. ●…. or counsel only of the Prophets, & by his own authority. Doth the doing and disposing then of any thing. M. St. by the counsel & advise of other, infer his own authority, in the disposing, that is the asker of counsel? Thus you say here, and remember you say it. For hereafter you make this a common reason: He did it by their counsel, Ergo, he did it not by his owns authority. But be it Master Stapleton, he did it not of his own devise and simple commandment or authority, but by God's commandment and authority over him. Doth it follow therefore he did it not by his own authority, since all his authority was of God? but what improveth The ask counsel of others, debarieth not the Princes supreme authority in the doing. this his authority over the priests or prophets? can you show he did it by their authority? be it their counsel, or be it their declaration, their authority it was not, but Gods: and under God, the kings authority, in disposing such orders. And therefore your caui●… against the word counsel, showeth you wanted counsel to have disposed your answer better. For even in this present example, do you not see how king Ezechias did order divers eccl. matters by the counsel of his princes, clergy, & people, and yet the whole doing was by his own authority? Initoque consil●…o Regis & principum 2. pa●…al. 30. & universi coetus jerusalem, decreuer●…nt ●…t f●…cerent phase mense secundo. And a council being held of the king and his princes, and all the assembly of jerusalem, they decreed to keep the Passover the. 2. month Whereon saith Lyra, Circa 〈◊〉 Lyra in. 2. Par 30. celebrationem Ezech●…s de consilio sacerdotum diem instituit. Secundo ad hoc populum invitavit, ter●…o sole●…niter celebrau●…. About this celebration, Ezechias by the counsel of the priests instituted the day: Secondly he bade the people thereunto: Thirdly he celebrated it solemnly▪ So that the whole doing in this council was by his own authority in a matter never used before, for the present necessity to change the day of the Passeover. Moses, David, or any other Prince, had never by the commandment of God, or by the hands of his Prophets ordained it before. And therefore withal where you say: In all things that Ezechias or josaphat before did, they did but as David had S●…ap 53. ●…. done before. I answer, that whatsoever they did, you here do none other, than your masters and you have done before. You care not what reckless lies you boldly avouch, to bolster up your false cause, and furnish your volumes withal. Were all these things hitherto recited, done before by David? had he taken down and destroyed the Brazen serpent? had Ezechias did many things never so done before. he caused the Levites to play the priests parts? had he altered the Passover day? had he appointed before to the Clergy those portions of liuel●…de that are mentioned? Besides divers others things that argue his authority. For after his summons to come to the Passeover, whereto the jews obeyed, Ut facerent, secundum pr●…ceptum Regis & ●…. Pa●…. 30. principum, verbum Domini: To do the word of the Lord after the commandment of the king, and of the Princes: because there were not Priests cleansed enough, the Levites did that, which by the law belonged only to the priests offices. But by whose authority did they it, had God commanded it by the hands of his Prophets? had Moses, David, or any other so disposed it before? or did they it here of their own brain? Not, saith Lyra, it was done de mandato Regi●…, by the kings commandment. Lyra in. 2. Paral. 30. They also that were unclean did eat of the Passeover, which according to the law, aught to have been eaten only of the clean. But they were, saith he, dispensed with for the necessity. And how? the king himself, that was the commander and doer of these things, contrary to the law for necessity sake, made a prayer for them to the Lord, and he herded him, and was pleased therewith. Thus did God accept these dealings of the king in ecclesiastical matters, and allow his authority in commanding & disposing them. And as he was the chief orderer and director of all these things, so it followeth in the. 31. chapter, how●… he directed all other things about the Priests. And therefore saith Lyra in. ●…. Paral. 3●…. Lyra thereon: Cumque haec fuissent ●…ite celebrata, etc. Hic consequenter sub Ezechia discribitur reparatio sacerdotalis ministerij, etc. When these things were orderly celebrated. etc. Here consequently is described under Ezechias, the repairing of the priestly ministery, about which is first described the destroying of Idolatry, where the text saith: And they broke the Images, etc. And this by good reason, because that first the impediments of the Priestly ministery aught to be removed, etc. Secondly, the repairing of the priestly ministry is described, etc. where Ezechias, first, restored the priests and Levites in their offices. Secondly, he provided them of victuals. Thirdly, he ordained in these things procurators for them. etc. And thus all the doing, not only over the temporalty, but over all the clergy, so far as appertaineth to the chief government under God, in ordering, appointing, commanding, directing, & providing, belonged to K. Ezechias. And in the end 2. paral. 31. hereof, the scripture giveth him this commendation, fecit ergo Ezechias universa, etc Ezechias therefore did all the things that we have spoken of, through all juda, and he wrought that which was good, and right, & true before the Lord his god in all the works that he begun, for the service of the house of God both in the law, and in the commandments he The commendation and application of K. Ezechias. sought his God, and did the same with all his heart, and it succeeded prosperously. In like case, God be praised (maugre your mighty Zenacheribs head & triple crown, with all your blasphemous railings, that play the part of Rabsaces, to rob the people's hearts from the Lord their God, & from their dutiful obedience to their princes supreme authority) the Lord hath prospered & blessed the Q. Majesty, in following this godly Prince's steps, in reforming, or newly establishing Gods true religion decayed, as this good king Ezechias did. And therefore as are all the residue of these your seely shifts in this example, so is your conclusion no whit against her highness doings, and but slanderous lies on her Majesty, and craking lies on yourselves, saying: This is far from enacting a new religion, by force of supreme Stap 59 a. authority, contrary to the commandment of God, declared by the bishops & priests, the only ministers of God now in spiritual matters, as Prophets were then in the like. And this you clap up for full conclusion, to all the doings of king Ezechias. To which conclusion before I answer, I A proper shifting answer, much used by M. Saint in these examples. have to detect one pretty shift of yours, much practised in your volume. When you should have answered to the doings of king David, you than sent us hither to the doings of king Ezechias: now when you come to the answer of king Ezechias, you send us back again to the doings of king David. Likewise, when you should fully answer the doings of king josaphat, you tell us: How josaphat appointed the Levites Supra. 50. b. and priests to these eccl. functions it shall appear in the next chapter by the example of Ezechias. When we come to the example of Ezechias, to find it set out here, as you promised, you send us back again to josaphat, and to David, saying: In all that Ezechias, or before josaphat Stap. 53. a. did, they did but as David had done before. That is, they executed God's commandment declared by the prophets. And thus you shift and post us of, from one place to another, making us believe here, that you answered fully there: making us believe there, you answer fully here, and when both places be conferred, you have answered no more in the one than you have in the other, and that is in effect▪ to resolve the arguments, naught at all in both. And if you make an account of this place to be a resolute answer, why send you us back again to David and josaphat? & yet how can those answer this, or this answer those examples? Since many things you see here were done by Ezechias, that were not the executing of any commandment of God by any of his Prophets before: But of his own authority Ezechias dispensed for them, and was allowed of God therein, when he had commanded them to be done. Now for your conclusion of the queens Majesty is mere slanderous and like to your premises. Her highness doth not by force of hi●… supreme authority enact a new religion contrary to God's commandment, but by the force of God's word in these ensamples, giving her a supreme authority: she enacteth the most old religion to be renewed and restored, and rejecteth all other as new, crept since into the Church, not proceeding ab Antiquo dierum, from the ancient Daniel. 7. Apoc. 12. of days, but ab antiquo serpent, from the ancient serpent, such as chief is the doctrine of papistry. And therefore your conclusion is not to the matter in hand, otherwise than against your Pope. For he by the force of Supreme government, or rather supreme usurpation, enacteth a new religion contrary to God's commandment, declared by Christ & his Apostles, & therefore by the Apostle is accursed. Si quis predicaverit evangelium praterquam quod accepistis anathema Gal. 1. sit. If any shall preach any other gospel than that you have received: let him be accursed. As for that you say, the commandment of God declared by the Bishops and Priests: is but a craking lie. For they hid God's commandment (if you mean your popish Bishops and priests) and declared their own commandment, in stead thereof, as did the Pharisees make frustrate God's commandment for their own traditions sake. And so far are they from being the ministers of God now in spiritual matters: that, as they despise to administer God's word & Sacraments, so they disdayns & scorn at, even the name of Ministers, as even yourself do The name of ministers. M. St. other where, how soever here it came upon you, to pretend to bestow a reverent speech thereon. But the Apostles thought not scorn of the name, but willed men so to esteem them, as the ministers of God and the dispensers of 1. Cor. 4. his mysteries, but as your papal Bishops and Priests be nothing like God's ministers, so lest of all are they like the Prophets that were then, except you mean the prophets of Baal, that maintained idolatry and pleasant leasings, 3. Reg. 18. to maintain themselves at Achab's table, and fill their paunches with the cheer of Beel and the Dragon. The Daniel. 14. Lords prophets they be not like neither in preaching, prophesying or aught else. And yet says M. Stapl. they be the Stapl. 53. a. only ministers of God now in spiritual matters, as prophets were then in the like. Why M. Stapl. were the prophets then only gods ministers The popish priests now not like the true prophets in spiritual matters? if you say, no: how doth your tale hung together? why say you, they are only God's ministers now, as Prophets were then in the like? since the Prophets were not only God's ministers then, as you pretend for your Bishops and Priests to be only now. If they were not only then, no more be yours only now, admitting they were in the like. If you say, yea: they were only then God's ministers, as the Bishops and Priests be now: what were the Bishops, Priests and Levites then, that were no prophets, were not they God's ministers in spiritual matters also? if yea, then were not the Prophets in the like to your Bishops and Priests, that are (as you say) only gods ministers now. Make your tale for shame hung better together, and withal tell what you mean by this double shuffling. You told us before that your Bishops and Priests now, The Papists shift from Priests to Prophets. are like the Bishops and Priests then: and that not the Prophets, but the Priests, had that prerogative which you have so often craked upon, your general rule of judgement, whereby you urged then, a supremacy, not in the Prophets, but in the Bishops & Priests. And now seeing that you can not prove it in these examples, where the Bishops & Priests obey the Prince's ordinance as his inferiors: you shifted of the matter to the Prophets, & say now your priests & prelate's succeed & are like the Prophets & let go the former claim of priests. But these are but your shifts, for if the Prophets had this supreme government, than the priests had it not. If it appertained to the high priests chair, so long as the priesthood of Moses continued, than it belonged not to the Prophets, and thus you contrary yourself. But in very deed neither of them both had it, but the Prince under God. They were both God's ministers in their diverse functions, and yet subject to their Princes as for the popish Bishops and priests, are like to neither of both. The. 17. Division. THe Bishop with the like example of josias concludeth Folly 53. a. The example of King josias his supreme government in ecclesiastical causes. his collection of the Princes in the Old Testament, and hereupon maketh in effect this reason: All these doings of these kings are commended as acceptable service and right in the sight of God: But the claiming & taking upon them the supreme government over the ecclesiastical people of all degrees, the ruling, governing and directing them in all their functions, & in all manner causes belonging to religion, were the doings of all these kings: Ergo, For Princes to claim and take upon them the like supreme government, is their right and acceptable service in the sight of God. The counterblast of master Stapleton to this division Sta. Caput. 15. is three fold. First to the example of josias. Secondly to the argument. Thirdly by setting up new issues and marks, to improve all that the Bishop hath hitherto exemplified, as unsufficient to prove the issue. To the first part saith Master Stapleton. King josias traveled full godly in suppressing Idolatry by Stapl. 53. a. b. his kingly authority. What then? so do good catholic Princes also, to pluck down the Idols that ye and your brethren have of late set up, and yet none of them take themselves for supreme heads in all causes spiritual. This is all that he answereth to the example of josias. First where the Bishop said: josias had the like care (to the foresaid Princes) for religion, and used in the same sort his Princely authority in reforming all abuses in all manner causes ecclesiastical. To this answereth master Stapleton. He traveled full godly in suppressing Idolatry by his kingly authority. As though this were a full answer denying or granting the Bishop's assertion, or as though besides the suppressing of Idolatry, he did nothing else. Where as the scripture is plain, how he also red the law before all his subjects, how he made the covenant with God that all his subjects should walk after the Lord, and observe all his 4. Reg. 23. 2. Par. 34. & 35. commandments, testimonies and ceremonies. How he swore them all to keep this covenant. How he commanded them to keep such a solemn passover, as was never kept by any of all the kings before him. How the Priests appointed not themselves, but he appointed them in their offices. How they exhorted not him, but how he exhorted Lyr●…. them, to prepare themselves (saith Lyra) dutifully to celebrated with devotion the solemnity of the passover. How he commanded the ark to be set up in the Sanctuary, and to bear it no more on their shoulders. How he commanded them to minister to the Lord and to his people Israel. How he commanded them to prepare themselves according to the houses of their ancestors in their order's a●… David had appointed them. How he commanded them to minister in the sanctuary by their families and levitical courses. How he commanded them to be sanctified, and then to offer the passover. How he commanded them also to prepare or sanctify the residue of their brethren. And when all things were prepared, how the Priests kept their stations and the Levites were in their orders according as the king had commanded them. And so (says the text,) after it hath reckoned up the manner of the Priests, Levites, singers and porters ministries) all the service or worship was orderly accomplished in that day to keep the passover and offer their burned offerings upon the aultare of the Lord according to the commandment of josias the King. All these things (M. Stapl.) were done by his authority and commandment: But all these things are matters and causes ecclesiastical: Ergo, his authority and commandment stretched further than in suppressing Idolatry, yea ●…uen over the chiefest matters ecclesiastical. But all this had M. Stap. quite forgotten, and therefore we must bear with him, though he answer the Bishop only with this: josias traveled full godly in suppressing Idolatry by his kingly authority. Wherein we see also how doubtfully he speaketh, for when he perceived it could not be denied, but that which he did, he did by his kingly authority, yet would he not say josias travail by his kingly authority. that he suppressed Idolatry by his kingly authority, but he traveled full godly in suppressing Idolatry by his kingly authority. as though his kingly authority stretched no further, than to travel in the execution of serving the priestly authority. But the Scripture is most evident, that his kingly authority and godly travel, was not in executing the priests commandment, but the priestly authority traveled in the service and executing of the Prince's commandment. For, as he destroyed all their Idols and places of Idolatry, and abolished or deprived (as Uatablus expoundeth it) the false priests of their priestly dignity: so he commanded by this his kingly authority, all the true priests, both the high priest Helchias, and under him the inferior priests and porters, to travel likewise in bringing out to him all the Idolatrous vessels, and he summoned or gathered together all the Priests. And all that there is done, is named to be done by him, that is to say either by himself, or by his appointment and commandment, through his kingly authority, both in abolishing the false worship, and in establishing and directing the true worship of God, not only in general, but also in particular, yea in the chiefest spiritual matters, over all the Clergy and the high Priest, so well as all his other subjects: and all this was done of him by his kingly authority. But what then says M. Stapleton, to all this: as it were with a philip to overturn all the matter, with his Masters what then. Forsooth M. St. then, it was not his godly travel in a serviceable execution of the priests commandments: but his godly travel in commanding them, & their godly travel in a serviceable execution of the kings commandments. And then, it was not only in suppressing Idolatry as you limit it, but in refourming, establishing, directing & appointing the whole true worship of God besides. And then was this his kingly authority, by the which he did all these things, though many of them were Moses, David's, yea the Prophets' former ordinances, and God's commandment long before: yet were they done here by the kings own authority, which in the last example of Ezechias concerning David you would not admit, because it was God's appointment by the hand of his Prophets. Such as were many of these things like wise, and yet now you grant, they were done also even by josias his kingly authority. And then, I pray you, what so great a difference find you between these twain, the King doth it by his kingly authority, that here you confess: and the King doth it by his own authority, that there you denied? is not the kings kingly authority, the Kings own authority? and yet is all his authority from God. It followeth then, to your what then, by your own confession, and the manifest Scripture, that this his own kingly authority of josias, was next under God the chief and supreme over all the Priests, Levites, Singers, Porters, or any other, so well as the people, in all abolishing of false religion, and in all commanding and directing the true worship and religion of God, which are the principal causes ecclesiastical. And what then say you to this M. Stapleton? doth it not clearly prove the Bishop's assertion against M. Feckenham, for all your counterblasting it with your big what then? Think you it proves he did no more then, than you will suffer Princes to do now, abusing them with the title of good catholic Princes, and bereaving them of their good catholic and princely authority, that by the examples of these good catholic princes they aught to take upon them, and your Pope usurps it from them? And yet you say (to abase the doings of josias) so do good catholic Princes also, to pluck down the Idols that Stap. 53. a. b. you and your brethren have of late set up, and yet none of them took themselves for supreme heads in all causes spiritual. The question is not now Master Stapleton, what those your good catholic Princes (as you call them) take themselves to be: whom you have spoiled, and make believe, what it pleaseth you to tell them, that their kingly authority reacheth no further but to be serviceable travelers and executioners of your commandments. But the question is here, what these Princes (mentioned in the holy Scriptures) took themselves to be, which appeareth by The travails of good catholic princes. their appointinges and commaundinge of their Clergy in their functions, that they took themselves for their Clergies supreme governors in these matters. And so aught all good catholic princes by their examples to esteem of themselves, and of their high calling and charge in ecclesiastical causes, and travail by their godly supreme government to discharge the same. Where you say therefore, so do good catholic princes, meaning those that submit themselves, with all the government of religion, and all ecclesiastical matters, to your Pope and his prelate's, not meddling themselves therewith, as did josias and these other godly Kings, whom we see to have meddled with the government and direction thereof: it is apparent false, and their doings herein are no more alike, than black is like to white: than to command, direct and appoint others, is like, to be of the same parties, in the same matters, commanded, directed and appointed themselves: than governing is like serving: than one contrary is like to another. And yet you say (for you care not what you say) as did king josias, so do your good catholic princes now. But what is that they do? pluck down the Idols (say you) that you and your brethren have set up. Whether we & our brethren, or you and your brethren have set up Idols, let it fall out between us as it shall, hereafter we shall come to the reckoning: only stand you to this M. Stapleton, that the plucking down of Idols belongeth to Princes, by their kingly authority, and that so they aught to accounted of themselves & their authority: which if they had done, and diligently executed this their kingly authority, your shift of Images and Idols had not availed you, for even to your most famous Images, shrines, and pilgrimages, hath foul idolatry been committed, as the chief of your brethren themselves are fain to confess, and cry out upon, and yet dared your princes never pull them down, nor you would ever have suffered th●… so to do, Whether we or the Papists let up Idols. (for your lucre lay much therein) but caused the Princes to maintain and enrich such Images as you daily did set up. As for the Idols that we should have set up, who seeth not we have so little set up any, that we reject for Idols those which you call your Images, and profess that neither they, nor any other thing besides God, nor God in them, or by them, is to be worshipped: but God alone, and that in spirit and truth, and so receive his plain & simple word and sacraments. But if, as you said before, those Princes pull down our Sta. 50 a. heresies, and those are the Idols that we set up: except this presupposal should be granted you, that those be heresies which we maintain, your argument need not be plucked down with idols, for it would fall downright of itself: what a kind of reasoning call you this, to take that for granted, and out of all doubt true, that is chief denied, and is most stark false? But what soever our doctrine is, do those your Princes pluck it down by their kingly authority, or by your false suggestions and commandments? or suffer you their kingly authority to pull down, set up, or meddle any thing at all with one jot of doctrine, true or false, more or less, otherwise than you by your priestly authority, will command, appoint & direct them? What babble you then of their kingly authority, in pulling down such idols of ours (as you say) where both there How the popish prela●…s used christian Princes. is neither any Idols at all, and you give them, be there or be there not, no authority, kingly nor unkingly at all, but only make them your servitors, I might say for your unworthy usage of them, your Butchers & slaughtermen, at your commandment to kill and make havoc in the congregation of Christ, destroying his lively Images and members, for the maintenance of your dead Images & most gross Idolatry. And yet you object Idolatry to us, which is, not to espy a mote, but to quarrel at a mote, in your brother's eye, where none is: and not to see the great beam, or rather a number of beams, posts, stones, stocks & infinite Idols in your own eyes, and in the sight of all the world. Can your Princes see to pluck out so small a mote in our eyes, yea, so small to your eyes, that you are fame to call it invisible or spiritual Idolatry (and yet falsely charge us therein also) & can not see to pull out of their own eyes, those open & manifest Idolatries that the Popish Church hath set up? would you have us think those princes to be thus blind? Surely if some of them be, yet many of them have seen and do see such inkling, that you had need to beware betimes what kingly authority you give them in plucking down of Idols. For shortly they will not only pull down all your Idols, but pull you down also for wicked Idolaters, ask josias pulled down & suppressed all Idolatry by his kingly authority. And so by his example many good catholic princes indeed, as you say, (thanks be to God) have done, do, and God willing shall daily more & more suppress & pull down the Idols, that you and your brethren M. St. have of long time set up. And in steed thereof by their kingly authority, set up the true word and worship of God. And thus, as did josias, hath the queens majesties most noble Father & Brother of famous memories done, & hi●… Highness after them (whom God continued & prospero) doth. And as josias not only pulled down the Idols, but also How the Q. highness follow with the ensample of josias. the houses and open maintenance of filthy fornication, in the false Idolatrous priests, in their geided chaplains, as Lyra saith, & as he telleth how the Hebrues called them ●…diculas M●…nachorum, the cells of Monks, how he destroyed their Sodomitical priests, and their cōc●…tines, that weaved their 4. Reg. 23. Monks and Nuns celles pulled down. hangings for their groves: So do & aught to do good catholic princes. And so hath the Q Majesty both suppressed the popish Idols, & abolished a●… maintenance & dispensations of whores, concubines, & other such vowed Stallions & Sodomites, pulled down the Monkish cells, with their Nunnish weavers, & hath (as did josias) established the only worship of the living God. the only verity of gods most blessed word, the holy ordinance of honourable & chaste matrimony. And this hath she done by God's commandment, by the hand of his prophets & under God by her royal or kingly authority (for so may I call it, for all your petit quarrels) and therefore since she can & aught to do these things (as did josias) by her kingly authority: it followeth, her kingly authority is a supreme authority, over all her subjects, bishops, and priests, or any other, so well Clerk as Lay, in suppressing all false religion, & plucking it down, in setting up & establishing Gods true religion, and all things ecclesiastical belonging there unto. Now saith M. St. to the bishop's argument, collecting his Sta. 53 b. conclusions on the manifest doings of all these Princes: And you have hitherto brought nothing effectual to prove that the kings of Israel did so, wherefore your conclusion, that they did rule, govern, and direct the eccl. people in all their functions, & in all manner causes of religion, is an open & notorious lie: and the contrary is by us avouched, & sufficiently proved by the authority of the old Testament, whereupon you have hitherto rested and settled yourself. Whether this bore saying, on M. Stap. priestly authority, without any further proof or improfe, be any thing effectual, to prove that the kings of Israel did not so: and whether the bishops conclusion, of these t●…r open and notorious doings, or M. Stap. denial, be an open and notorious lie: let the indifferent reader & marker of these king's doings, hardly be the ●…pere. But M. St. as though he had decided the matter already to the reader's hand: The contrary (says he) is by us avouched and sufficiently proved by the authority of the old Testament. That it is avouched, M. St. and that full stoutly avouched the reader may soon perceive. But that this your avouching is sufficiently proved by the authority of the old Testament, would require a more sufficient proof and authority, than your so saying (M. Stap.) in the judgement of any sufficient examiner and conferrer, what you on the one part out of the old Testament, hitherto have alleged for your priests supreme government, and what the bishop hath alleged for the Princes supreme gwernement: both allegations and proves in their places are evident. Commit them to the reader, suspend your hasty and partial judgement, lest your sufficient proves be esteemed more unsufficient. The third part of M. Stap. answer is prefixed with a marginal note, saying: It is here declared, that master Horn cometh nothing nigh the principal question. This declaration hath three parts. First, an exhortation to regard the principal scope and issue of the matter. Secondly, a setting up of eight or nine new marks, as the issue and principal matter in question. Thirdly, a number of outcries and exclamations, that the bishop shooteth wide, and cometh not near the mark. The first (as you say M. Sta.) is a good admonition. Necessary Stap. 53. b. it is that the Bishop have before his eye the very state of the question, which must be especially ever regarded of such as mind not too loosely, and altogether unfruitfully employ their own labour, and lose both their own, and the reader's labour. This is good counsel, and you often put the Bishop in mind of it, but I pray you doth it not comprehend yourself? or have you a Bull from the Pope to call upon other, and dispense with yourself? it may well be you have some especial placard, for you use it throughout all your counterblast, to make your continual outrodes and vagaries quite from the matter. No Fly is busier in buzzing on entry dish, than your Counterblast is blowing on every flim ●…am tale. If you think you may be born withal for the enlarging of your volume, yet you make your Readers loosely and altogether unfruitfully to employ their labours carrying them at rovers (as you say) and at random to, (●…s you had wont Master Stap. stragleth from the mark, and calleth on the Bishop to keep him to the mark. to do the people after All-Hallows) from the very state of the question in controversy. For shame therefore upbraid not this to the Bishop, of straying from the mark, except you keep yourself better to the mark, or else show your Dispensation that ye may still babble all besides the question, of what impertinent trifles ye please to descant upon, and will not suffer your adversary once to wink awry, nor to allege any thing, though it never so much appertain to the purpose, if it do not directly conclude the very state of the question. This dealing master Stapleton is very uneven. If you will deal uprightly, call upon the Bishop hardly, so often as you will: but then stand you for shame to your tackling to, lest an other come and call as fast on you, to mark and regard better the matter you meddle withal. But perhaps you will say, admit that I ran astray from the matter myself, yet, doth my fault excuse the bishops? In deed it doth not Master Stapleton, if he be faulty therein, but it lesseneth his, and it maketh yours the greater, and the more to your shame, except ye be a very impudent man, for your fault herein is manifest, and therefore deciphered out unto you, in one of your common places? If you be belied, there purge yourself, which t●…ll you do, the more you call upon the Bishop, to keep him to his mark: he that shall mark your dealing, shall wish you had either less impudency, or more remembrance of yourself. Nevertheless, since you so sharply challenge the Bishop, that all his examples draw nothing near the mark, but run at random, and shoot all at Rovers: I pray you sir call to your remembrance what was the mark and issue in question between them? was it not this, that if the Bishop by any of the four abovesaid means could make proof The issue in question between the Bishop and master Fecknam. Sup. ●…ol. 136. a to master Feckenham that any Emperor, or Empresle, King or Queen, may clay me or take upon them any such government in spiritual or ecclesiastical causes, that then he would yield? Was not this the state of their question? accorded they not on this issue? and aught not the Bishop to direct all his examples to prove this? And if he prove this, whether he shot at Butts or Rovers, hath he not hit the mark? and what would you have more? Now that he hath done this, is plainly proved by every of these examples, and that not only as the words of the issue enforce, that they took upon them some such government in spiritual or ecclesiastical causes, which being proved is enough to discharge the Bishop of straying from his matter: but also, that they daymed and took upon them such supreme government in all spiritual or ecclesiastical causes. And you have counterblasted nothing to the contrary, that were able to remove these proves from this mark and issue, saving your facing and bracing of the matter, and a number of blind pelting and foreworne shifts, except you have any better behind to come. For all these shifts hitherto notwithstanding, the bishops examples are both directly directed to the issue, and directly and fully prove the same. And whers you find●… fault with straggling from it, you touch not him, but wring yourself by the nose. For ensample whereof, I remit the Reader to your common place thereon, or to spare his pains, and go no further, than even here to mark the marks that yourself set up, and confer them with the issue between the Bishop and master Feckenham, and the Reader shall soon discern M. Stap. sets up. ix▪ new marks both differing from M. Feck. and the B●…shops issue, and also from his own former marks, and yet cries o●…t on the B. for straying from the question. how far of purpose you stray from it, yea from those false marks also that yourself set up before And yet you cry the Bishop strays from the mark, and will the Reader to fix his eye thereon. But herein you play as the common people say the Lapwing or Pewet doth, who when they seek her Nest, draweth them still further and further from it, with her noise and flittering about them, crying as the simple people imagine, here is it, here is it, when it is nothing near it. And even as they conceive of the Pewet, so do you with us, with great noise and earnestness, bidding us regard and set before our eyes the very state of the question, and The Papists play like the Lapwing. busily pretend to tell us wherein lieth all the chief question, when under the cloak and credit of this your earnestness, you carry the reader quite away from the question and issue in controversy, to run up and down after such new and so many questions, that the Reader dared as a man in a maze, should neither perceive the true question in deed, nor find out the weakness and falsehood of your cause, nor well know where himself is become. But, that he may wind himself the better out of this your labyrinth, let him (as is said before) direct his eye ever on the issue between the parties, and then shall he still see whereaboutes he is, and how far or near, not only the Bishop is, but you also are, to or from the matter. The issue, as is before said, is this, That any Emperor The issue. or Empresle, King or Queen, claimed or took upon them any such government. By this issue in all his examples, hath the bishop directed himself, that Moses, joshua, David, Solomon, josaphat, Ezechias, and josias, did take upon them such government. But all these were Kings and Princes of God's people, commended of God for their godly governance: Therefore Emperors and Empresses Kings & Queens, may and aught to take such government upon them. This being always the Bishop's conclusion, wherein strayed he from the issue? But now come you ruffling in with Nine new issues for advantage, not one of them all being the very issue and state of the question in controversy, and yet you cry the Bishop draweth nothing nigh the mark. True in deed master Stapleton, he draweth nothing Stapl. 53. b. M. Stapletons' first fal●… mark. near the marks that you have set up, for the nigher he should draw to them, he should draw the further from the question between master Feckenham and him, as you do of purpose in all these your marks, to deceive, and begu●…le the simple Reader, that thinks you mean good truth, when you ●…rte so often on the question, and run so far from the same. For ensample, was this I pray you good master Stapleton, (to use your own ph●…ase) the issue and question between them, whether these Kings acknowledged, or not acknowledged the high Priest? ●…t is true, and the bishop deemeth not, that they did agnize the high Priest, The kings agnizing the high Priest in the old testament, infereth not that they agnized him their ●…npreme governor. every one of them. But followeth it thereon, that they agnized him to be their supreme head or governor? This would require to be proved with some better Logycke. As for these examples, argue all the contrary, that though the Prin●…s agnized always one to be the chief Priest, and also agnized all other inferior Priests, Levites, Porters, Singers, in their offices: yet all those, high and low, whatsoever, acknowledged again the supreme government of commanding, appointing, ordering, directing, and overseeing them, to do all their duties dutifully: to appertain not to themselves, but to their sovereign Princes. And the Princes (as their several examples witness) took it upon them, in commanding, appointing, placing, and displacing, all and every one, yea the highest Priest himself. And therefore where you say to the Bishop: I pray you good M. Horn bring forth that king, that did St. fol. 53. b. not agnize one supreme head and chief judge in all causes ecclesiastical among the jews, I mean the high Priest, wherein lieth all our chief question. Ye have not yet done it, nor never shall do it. And you could show any, it were not worth the showing. For you should not show it in any good King, as being an open breach of God's law given to him by Moses, as this your doings are an open breach of Christ and his Church's law, and given to us in the new Testament. These be but your cracks and outfacing master Stapleton. The Bishop hath done it evidently that you require, and the scripture is manifest in all these King's ensamples. Nor they were any wicked Kings, nor breakers of God's law given by Moses, or any other. But even Moses and all the rest, were maintainers of God's law given to them, and therefore are worth the showing. Your conclusion that our doings are an open breach of Christ and his Church's law, given to us in the new Testament, I may well overpass without answer, dismissing it to your common place of slanders, not only of us, but of Christ and his Church, and his new Testament also: till you show in what place of the new Testiment, Christ and his Church (whom you join together in this law making) did make and give us this law, that either our godly Christian Princes should not have this supreme government over their dominions, or that your Pope should have it over all the universal Church. And when you have proved this, prove also this your first new mark, to be the very state and issue here in question between the Bishop and master Feckenham, or else agnize with shame yourself, that you run at random, & loosely and altogether unfruitfully, have employed yours and your Readers labour, for all (so like a Falconer) you cry mark, mark, never so much. Your first false mark being thus reared up, ye set up a second, much less like the issue between them, but much more like the malicious slanders among you, saying: Again, what precedent have you showed of any good King St. fol. 53. b. M. St. second false mark. among the jews, that with his laity, altered and abandoned the usual Religion a thousand years and upward customably from age to age received and embraced: and that the high Priest, and the whole clergy gainsaying all such alterations? If you have not showed this, you have strayed far from the mark. Whether this be the mark or not, or whether master Stapleton of purpose straggle from it, the conference of the issue with this, will soon declare, there is no need to fet the high priests judgement as in a doubtful matter. Every child may see not only how far they differ, but also what an heap of slanders on a plump, he burdeneth like an ungracious subject, his most gracious sovereign withal. As for the queens Majesties most godly The conferring of the Q majesties doing, with these ancient and godly kings. doings, are very well confirmed by these examples. And in proof thereof, the Bishop ever kept him closely to his mark, that the supreme government which her Majesty taketh on her, is none other, but such as they before did take on them. Her highness hath abandoned old inveterate errors, crept in besides, and contrary to the word of God: she see the ensample in these godly Kings before her, whose doings therein she followed. Her highness hath by the advice and instruction of her godly learned Clergy, reform religion according to God's word, although the Popish clergy were negligent and gainsaid the same: she saw the ensample in these kings before her, how by their godly learned prophet's advice, and instructions, according to God's word, they reform religion, although the Priests & levites were negligent or withstood the same. And this hitteth home the mark, Any such government, sith both their supreme governments be so like. And therefore in that you charge her majesty otherwise, is nothing ●…eare the mark, but is your own reproachful and very trayterou●… slander. The jolly number of a thousand years and upward, of The Papists vaunt of 1000 years antiquity. your usual religion, is but your common vaunt, and what if I said your outfacing lie also, to deceive the simple with a countenance of antiquity, the novelty and late hatching whereof, is daily the more you strive, the more discovered, to be nothing so ancient as you pretend, of a thousand years and upward. Of which number the most part (the originals being well bolted out) may come back again half a thousand years and more downward with shame enough. But I see master Stapleton, you have hoisted up your Religion so high, that it staggreth again, and higher for falling downright you can not get it. It hath been you say the usual Religion a thousand years and upward, that is a fair time master Stapleton, God save it. But what mean you by this indefinite term upward? Mean you it hath continued a thousand years and a little more? Alack Master Stapleton I am sorry for it, and for your pains taking till your arms ache to life it up so high, and yet it comes too too short to be any true Religion. For The Papists dare not stretch their crack of antiquity to Christ, or to 1500. yeare●… and upward. if it be the true Religion of jesus Christ, why say ye not boldly man, it is the usual Religion of fifteen hundredth years and upward? But either your arms are too short, or your heart fails you, to lift it upward so high, for then the word of GOD would soon control you, and beat it down again. And therefore you are content with a lower sail, to crack that your Religion is yet a thousand years old and upward. But as that is a false crack, so is it also, a vain crack and serves not the turn, yea admitting it were so old as you boast, 1000▪ years and upward, yet aught it of all godly Princes to be removed and pulled down again, except it be the Religion of fifteen hundredth years and upward. E●…amsi Angelus docuerit aliud evangelium quàm quod accepistis Galat. 1 ana●…hema sit. Although an Angel from heaven should teach any other doctrine than you have received, let him be accursed. The Religion that the queens Majesty hath set forth (thanks be to God therefore) is the religion of 1500. years and upward, and therefore good reason that yours give place to his senior, the popish & later base born religion of your Romish church, to th●… first & most ancient true religion, of that Alpha & Omega jesus Christ himself. Master Stap. having now set up these two false marks, like to one being out of his way, that after he is once over his shoes in the mire, careth not how he ben●…yre himself, but running deeper through thick and thin, crieth this is the way, to have other to follow him: so rusheth on master Stapleton still further from the issue, and yet taketh every thing in his way, to be his mark and directory. Setting up the particular facts of those Princes, that challenge and take upon them this supreme government: that the self same facts must be found in the ensamples of the old testament, or else he saith, the Bishop strayeth from the mark. What evidence have you brought forth (saith he) to show Stap. 54. a. M. Stap. third false mark. that in the old law, any King exacted of the Clergy In verbo Sacerdoti●…, that they should make none Ecclesiastical law without his consent, as King Henry did of the clergy of England. In the proof of the supreme government, the proof of every particular fact is not necessary. Is this the mark master Stap. between the Bishop and master Feckenham, to prove in their supreme governments every self same particular fact, yea the circumstances about or concerning the fact to be all one, in them that claim this government now, and those that claimed it then: since both the states, the times, yea all the ceremonies of religion of the jews then, and ours now, are nothing like? and trow you then the princes particular doings, must be like, and even the same, and evidence must be given out of the one for every fact of the other, or else their supreme authorities be not alike? The issue between them, is not so strait laced, but requireth only any such government, The issue between the B. and M. Feck. some such government, yea & he it, all such government to, I mean not all such actions in the government, but the supreme directing, governance, authority, or power, are proved both alike in either prince's estate, so well over eccl. people in all their functions then, or now, as over the temporal in there's. For by this rule, whereas that most famous prince king Henry the eight, did swear also to his obedience, all his temporal, subjects in civil causes, as other Princes likewise have done and do: it would be hard to alle●…ge an evidence thereof out of the old Testament, and yet their supreme governments therein, were not therefore unlike. As for the ministering of the oath, is but a circumstance to confirm the matter, and not the matter itself. And if The taking an oath. king Henry were (by the obstinate and crafty malice of his popish clergi●… then,) constrained for his more assurance, to take an oath or promise of them on the honesty of their priesthood (which God w●…t, was but a small hold, as it went then in the most of them) and that no king of those ancient years, mentioned in the old testament, being not moved by the wickedness or mistrust of his clergy, took the like oath or promise of their priests honesty, or faith of their priesthood●… then: what is this to or from the matter, why their supreme authorities should not be alike in both? Do not you also say for your side, that the high Priest had such supreme government then, as your Pope ●…othe challenge now ou●…r all eccl. causes? ●…nd doth ●…ot your Pope now exact of all his clergy, in verbo ●…acerdotij, by the word of their priesthood, that they shall make The oath to the Pope. no eccl. law without his consent? May we not then return your own words on yourself? What evidence can you bring forth, to show that in the old law any high Priest exacted this of the clergy under him? And if you can not (as you can not) doth not then this your wile reason and new mark, overturn the false claim that your Pope claimeth, of such supreme government now, as the high Priest had then? But his claim is false, & his government nothing like. The high priest in the old law did not as the pope doth now. For the high priest then, took not upon him to make eccl. laws, as doth now your Pope: but only observed such eccl. laws, as God had made to his hand, till time of the Pharisies corruption, who not content with God's laws, had devised besides, many fond laws of their own inventions, when there wanted among them this kingly authority. To the which, so long as it continued, the high priest & all other obeyed, receiving and observing such eccl. constitutions, as their godly princes made unto them. So did Aaron first receive the eccl. constitutions of Moses. So after him did al●…re residue admit the eccl. constitutions of David, & the rest of the foresaid princes: their priests made none of themselves without the Prince's consent. But the princes ord●…ined divers eccl. orders, partly with the advise and consent, partly without, yea against the will & consent of their clergy now & then: and yet those godly princes exacted of them, even as The king●… in the old law charged their clergy on their priesthood for eccl. matters. they were true priests (as the stories of josaphat and Ezechias mention, how they charged their priests, even in that they were the Lords priests, which is all one with that you allege in verbo sacerdotij) that they should do such things as they appointed them to do. And is not this good and authentical evidence for king Henry's doings? but that the priests appointed any such ordinance without their prince's consents, will be hard for you to bring the like, or any ●…uidence at all for your Pope's exacting. And if, as you conclude hereupon, this exacting to make no Sta. 54 ●…. eccl. law without his consent, be to make the civil magistrate the supreme judge for the final determination of causes ecclesiastical: then your Pope having no such evidence for him, by this your mark, is no supreme judge for such final determination: but it ●…latly proveth against you, that the Princes should be the supreme judges therein. And if the exacting of consent, import such supreme authority as here you confess: then, whereas not only these ancient kings, but also the ancient christian Emperors, in the confirming of your Pope, exacted, that none should be a lawful Pope, to whom they gave not their consent: it argueth that those Emperors were the supreme judges, for the final determination of the Pope's ecclesiastical election. Which afterward, when you come to the handling thereof, you renie: affirming that although his consent was necessary to be required, yet it argued no such supreme judgement in the matter. And thus you care not, may you for the time shuffle out an answer, how falsely or how contrary you counterblast your false. The next mark is yet further wide from the issue, and more fond than any of the other, for abandoning his Pope, and general Counsels. What can you bring forth (saith he) out of the old Stap. 54. ●…. M. St. fourth false mark. Testament to aid and relieve your doings, who have abandoned, not only the Pope but general Counsels also, and that by plain act of Parliament. And what can you bring forth, M. Sta. (to return your wise demand on yourself) for your pope & his counsels, out of the old Testament? can you find your pope and his cardinals in council there assembled? verily, then might you have been much bolder than you were right now, in your sacond mark, to limit your crack within a thousand years and upward. But thereby might you soon have marred the pope's claim from Peter: & so, that you won in the hundrethes, lose again in the shire, and put your winning in your eye well enough, and yet see never the worse. But you will reply, that you can bring proof out of the old Testament, how they acknowledged their high Priest. But what is this to the purpose, except you prove their high priest, to have had the same authority that your Pope doth claim? For otherwise, so say we, our godly Princes do acknowledge The Prince abandoneth not godly bishops, though he aban done the Pope. their godly bishops, nor do abandon, but reverence them. Nevertheless, if those their bishops be wicked, they may remove, deprive, or as you call it, abandon them, or otherwise punish them accordingly. Thus did king Solomon deprive or abandon Abiathar the high Priest. And so if you liken your Pope to the jews high Priest, then hath the bishop brought forth proof out of the old Testament, to confirm our Princes abandoning of your Pope: but much more (if we consider these godly king's examples) the foresaid idolatrous priests, such as in deed all the Popish priests be. And also in rejecting such counsels The abandoning of the Pope's counsels. as the Prophet, against the naughty priests in his time, speaketh of, Inite consilium, dissipabitur: Enter into counsel, and it shall be defeated. But you will say they are not like to your counsels. Yet were they alike, then is proof Esay. 8. brought forth even by the old Testament, against your counsels. And wherein are they not alike, being both adversus Dominum, & Christum eius, against the Lord, and against Psal. 2. his anointed? Saving that herein they are not like in deed: those old counsels of the wicked priests, yea the counsels of Caiphas, Annas, the high Priests, the Scribes, and Phariseis, that assembled so often against Christ and his Apostles, were not half so crafty, malicious, and violent, as your Pope's general counsels are. Where, saving the bore title of generality, is nothing but partiality, violence, How general the Pope's coum cells are. and bondage, and are nothing less than general, as shall be further noted, where you give occasion further to speak thereon. Now to that you say the Queen hath abandoned general counsels and that by act of Parliament, it is but your general lie. And yourself very fond without further council in your next words confute your own tale. For, going about to allege such motines, as 'cause you to say that the Queen hath abandoned general counsels, and that by plain act of parliament: I say this (say you) partly for a certain Stapl. 54. a. clawse of the act of parliament, that for the determination of any thing to be adjudged to be heresy, rests only in the authority of the canonical Scriptures, and in the first four general counsels, & other counsels general, wherein any thing is declared heresy by express words of Scripture. Is this the clause that moveth you M. Stapl. to say the act of parliament abandoneth general counsels? this clause The act of parliament admitteth the g●…rall counncels. doth quite the contrary, most plainly admitting & acknowledging the authority, not only of the first four general counsels, but also of all such other, as ground themselves on the authority of the canonical Scriptures. Now what a reason call you this: The act of Parliament admitteth the determinations of the four general counsels, and other counsels general: Ergo, general counsels be abandoned by act of parliament? it admitteth them. Ergo, it abandoneth them? Had not your brains admitted somewhat overmuch, which abandoned all counsel and reason 〈◊〉, when you framed this reason M. Stapleton? for by the like reason yourself do abandon your Pope and general counsels also, because you do admit them. Do you not see therefore how fond you reason, and how falsely you say, that the act of parliament abandoneth general counsels, when it admitteth and receiveth general counsels, and rejecteth so little any one true general council, that it admitteth also the determination of anything to be adjudged heresy by any general council, that the said council can so prove to be heresy, by the word of God? If the act of Parliament attributeth thus much to all general counsels, doth it abandon them? and will you require it should acknowledge them further, than even the godly general counsels themselves, in determinations of Heresies would be admitted? They always laid before them, as their level and ruler the holy Scriptures. And think you they laid them forth for a cipher in algorithm, The word of god, the rule of all true general Counsels. as the Pope useth them in his counsels? Or rather as Constantine the great in the Nicene counsel said: In disputationibus rerum divinarum a●… fidei, in quibus tamen habent sanctissimi Tripartit. hist. lib. 2. cap. 5. Theodoret. spiritus doctrinam praescriptam, Euangelici enim & Apostolics libri, nec non & antiquissimorum prophetarum oracula planè instruunt nos quid de voluntate dei sentiendum nobis sit. Nothing is more unworthy than. etc. in disputations of divine matters, and matters of faith, wherein they have yet prescribed to them the doctrine of the holy ghost, for the Evangelists and Apostles Books, and also the Oracles of the most ancient Prophets do plainly instruct us, what we aught to think concerning the will of God. Athanasius one of the same counsel, saith: Quae in Synodo Ni●…na à Athanasius in epistola ad Epictetum Corynthi episcopum. patribus secundum divinas Scripturas exposi●… sit fides suffuiens est, ad omnem omnis impietatis destructionem, & ad confirmationem piae in Christo fidei. That faith is sufficient to all destruction of all wickedness, and to the confirmation of a Godly faith in Christ, which faith was expounded of the fathers in the Nicene council according to the divine Scriptures. And of this general counsels authority, saith saint Augustine, Nec ego Nicenum, nec tu debes Ariminense tanque Contra maximinum Arianum li. 3. ca 13. praeiudicaturus proffer concilium, neque ego huius authoritate, neque tu illius detineberis, scripturarum authoritatibus. etc. Neither aught I to allege the Nicene counsel as giving any forestalled judgement, nor thou oughtest to allege the counsel at Ariminum, neither should I be detained by the authority of this, nor thou of that, let the matter be tried by the authorities of the scriptures, etc. And in this point S. Aug. is so earnest, that he would admit no doctrine not proved by the Scriptures, but calleth it plain fabling. Ecce singere extra evangelium In psalm. 92. est fabulari, For behold it is but fabling to feign aught besides the Gospel. Neither herein doth S. Augustine think he injured any council, Neque enim (says he) quorūl●…bet disputatione●…, etc. Neither Epistola. 3. ad Fortunatianun. aught we so to count the disputations of any men what soever, how catholic or laudable soever they be, as we aught to count the Canonical scriptures, in so much that I might not (their honour which is due to those men, saved) improve or refuse any thing in their writings▪ etc. And writing to Paulina of the credit to be given to the Scripture: Alijs Epistola. 112. ad Paulinam de videndo Deo. vero testibus, etc. As for any other witnesses (says he) or testimonies, whereby thou art moved to believe aught to be: it is lawful for thee to believe it or not to believe it. And so says S. Herome, Quod scripturae sacr●… authoritatem non habet, eadem facilitate contemnitur qua recipitur: That that hath not authority of the holy Scripture, is as easily despised as received. So says chrysostom, Nullis omnino credendum In mat. ca 24. Homil. 49. nisi dicant vel faciant quae convenientia sunt. scriptures sanctis. Thou must believe none, without they say or do those things, that are agreeable to the Scriptures. And again: Si quid absque scriptura dicitur, etc. If any thing be spoken without the Scripture, the knowledge of the hearers halteth, now granting, now staggering, now and then detesting the talk as vain, now and then as probable receiving it. But whereas the scripture is, there the testimony of God's voice cometh forth, both confirming the talk of the speaker, and confirming the mind of the hearer. So S. Cyprian, Legat hic unum verbum, etc. Let him In Sermon de baptismo Christi. read the only word, and on this commandment let the christian religion meditate, and out of this scripture he shall find the rules of all doctrine, to flow, and to spring from hence, and hither to return what soever the Church's discipline doth contain. So says cyril, Necessarium nobis est divinas sequi litter as, Ad reginas de recta fide. & in nullo ab earum prascripto discodere. It is necess●…rie for us to follow the divine writings and to swerver in nothing from their prescript rule. And 〈◊〉 these Fathers, so all the Doctors be plain, not to allow, much less to determine any doctrine, not only contrary but also besides the word of God. Nor the Ancient doctors only, but also diverse of the popish writers affirm, that neither the Church, the Bishops, the Pope, nor any provincial or general council, hath power to determine any doctrine to be true or false, otherwise than only by the authority of the Scriptures, to declare them so to be. So says Thomas of Aquine, In doctrina Thom. Aquinas in secunda secundae Questione 1. Arti●…. 10. Christ's & Apostolorum, etc. In the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, all truth of faith is sufficiently laid forth. Howbeit, to beaten down the errors of heretics and of perverse men, certain opinions of faith aught many times to be declared. And of the same mind also is your great captain friar Alphonsus de Castro, who attributing far more to the popish Church and the Pope, than he aught to do, yet in this point after long disputation and arguments on the matter, he concludeth: Nullo ergo modo, etc. It can by no Alphons. de Castro, adversus heres. li. 1. cap. 8. means therefore be, that the church may make any new article of faith, but that, the which before was the true faith and yet was hid from us, the church by her censure maketh, that it may be known unto us. Whereupon appeareth, that my Lord Abbate did miserably err, who expounding the chapter that beginneth C●…m Christus, which is had in the book of the Decretal epistles in the title de Hereticis, says that the Pope can make a new article of the faith. But he must be born withal, being ignorant, nor well weighing of what thing he spoke, this only I see must be laid in his dish, that he judged beyond the slipper: for it is not the office of canonists to judge of heresy or of faith, but the office of Divines to whom God's law is committed. The canonists parts are to descant of the Pope's law. Look they to it therefore, lest while they covet to sit on both stools, the tail come to ground, as is the Proverb. Thus sharply concludeth Alphonsus against my Lord Abbate, and all popish canonists that would intermeddle with writing in Divinity (I know not whether you Master Stapleton, were any such or n●…, but many of your site are even such as he speaketh of) that would study both the Pope's laws, and Gods laws together, and so lay them both 2. Cor. 6. in the dust. For, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christi & Behal? What fellowship is there between Christ and Belial? Thus writeth he, that neither the Pope, nor his 〈◊〉, nor the Church, can determine faith or here●…ie without the word of God. And so says Ferus, Cum cont●…leris falsa●… doctrin●…m etc. Ferus in Matth. 13. When you shall confer the false doctrine, you shall find out the error. For the only holy Scripture is the rule of the truth, from the which whatsoever differeth, or doth contrary, it is darnel and error, in what countenance soever outward it come forth. For he that is not with me, is against me says Christ. hereupon the Apostles and Disciples in the primitive Church, did daily search the Scriptures whether they were so or no. For often time it cometh to pass, that that is judged error, which is not error, and contrary wise. Here therefore the Scripture judgeth. So Christ was judged a transgressor of the law, but if you confer him with the Scripture, you shall see he agreeth best therewith. On the contrary, the traditions of the Pharisees seemed good, which not withstanding Christ conferring with the Scripture, plainly showeth they are contrary to the Scripture. And therefore David in all that octonary desireth nothing else, but to be directed by the word of God. And the same Ferus in the eleventh chap. of Matthew. Ferus in Matth. 11. Baculus arund●…neus est quicquid extra verbum des traditur, etc. What soever is given without the word of God is a rod of a reed. For it is all only the word of God, which we may safely lean upon, in so much that from hence thou mayst see what froward deceivers they be, that for the word of God would only set forth unto us their dreams, that is a rod of a reed, hereupon the true Apostles gloried most of all on this, that they delivered nothing but the ●…. Pet. ●…. word of God, so says Peter: Not following unlearned ●…bles, we make known to you the power and presence of our Lord jesus Christ, so Paul doth glory that he received not the Gospel of men, but by the revelation of jesus Christ. Whereon he infereth, if therefore any preach any other thing, let him be accursed. As though he should say▪ we have preached the word of God, whereto you may safely lean▪ accursed therefore be he, that for the certain word of God, bringeth a rod of a reed, that is to say, mannes feigninges. Thus hitherto agree even these Papists with the ancient Fathers, that nothing may be decided to be true or false, neither by Church, Council, Pope, or any Man, nor any Angel, with out the authority of God's word, so to judge and confirm the same. But (say you) by this rule it will be hard to convince many Stapl. 54. a. froward and obstinate Heretics to be Heretics, yea of such as by the foresaid four first and many other Counsels general, are condemned for Heretics. As David said of the wicked, I●…llic trepidaverunt timore Psalm. 25. ubi non erat timor, They trembled there for fear, where no fear was: And as Esay says, Possedit timor hypocritas. Esayas'. 33. Fear hath taken hold on the hypocrites: So are you M. Stapl afraid of your own shadows. For, except those froward and obstinate he●…etikes be yourselves, that fear the judgement of that cutting two edged sword, to beat down your traditions: not godly Christian need to fear, or flee from the determination of the Scripture, or think it insufficient to detect and d●…termine all Here●…ies. Yet (say you) it willbe hard to convince there with many froward & obstinate heretics▪ As who should say, it would be Heretics are to be convinced by the Scripture. easi●…r to convince them, being so froward and obstinate with out the Scripture, and not rather a great deal harder. Is it likelier that their froward obstinacy, will yield to the authority of man's word, that will not yield to the authority of God's word? but be it hard or ●…ofte, what is that to the matter, if it will convince their Heresies, be the Heretics never so obstinate? This is enough to the purpose, that there is no here●…ie defended never so frowardly, of any obstinate heretic but the word is able to convince it to be an here●…ie. Yea as chrysostom says, Nullo modo agnoscitur Chryso. in opere imperf. hom. 49. & c. ●…o them that are willing, to know which is the true church of Christ (from heretics Churches) it is known by no means. 〈◊〉 modo per scripturas: but all only by the scriptures. And where you make exception of such as were condemned for heretics by the first f●…wre general Counsels: it is most evident, that as in all those Counsels, the word of God (as their line and squire) was laid forth amongst them: so they convinced all tho●…e heretics by the same. Your common objection hereto is of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which you say in the express scriptures can not be found, but what says S. Augustine to this: Quidest enim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nisi Contra maximum 〈◊〉. lib. 13. ca 14. 〈◊〉 e●…usdemque substantiae●… quid est inquam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nisi ego & pater unum sumus? sed nunc nec ego Nicenum etc. What is this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but of one & the same substance, what is I say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but I and my father are one? but now neither aught I to allege the Council of Nice, neither oughtest thou to allege (as to give fore judgement) the council of A●…iminum, neither should I be withheld by the authority of this, nor thou of that, but by the authority of the Scriptures, etc. Thus doth S. Augustine both reply to you, that even those Heretics were confuted only by the express Scripture: and also that for the judgement of Heresies, the authority of the Scripture is to be preferred, not only before the provincial Council at Ariminum, but even before the first general council at Nice. Neither did S. Augustine declare their doctrine to be an heresy, because it was so determined by the general council, but because it was determined by the authority of the Scriptures. And following this rule we are sure we can not err. For this is (as David says) Lucerna 〈◊〉 me●…s verbum Psal. 118. tuum domine & lumen semitis me is, Thy word O Lord is a candle to my feet and a light to my paths. On the contrary The errors of counsels when they swerved from the Scripture. with out this light not only the private fathers, but even the counsels, yea the general counsels, where they determined aught not grounded on the Scriptures, so little could espy the heresies of others, that they erred foul themselves. I omit the council of Carthage wherein S. Cyprian Carthaginense. 1. was, how it erred in determining heretics to be rebaptized. The council of Laodicea (which though otherwise Concil. Laodice●…um. was a godly council) yet erred it far, in disallowing and enjoining penance, for those that married the second time. And so forth diverse other provincial counsels. And to speak only of general counsels, even the first Nicene council, Concil. Nicenu●…. 1. how greatly was it like to have erred in forbidding priests marriages, and the matter was already passed by all the Bishop's voices, had not one father Paphnutius bene, that made them retract their error. Which they did, not for any Zozom lib. 3. cap. 11. authority in him, being but one Bishop against so many Bishops, but moved by the authority of God's word that be alleged, and from which they swerved. And as they ha●… like to have erred herein, so erred they in deed, in condemning those soldiers, who having once professed the faith of Christ, are priest for soldiers afterwards. Which is contrary to the rule of S. john the baptist, that allowed the A soldiers life alow●…ble among Christians. life of soldiers as a lawful calling. Neither doth Christ in the Centuri●…, nor S. Paul in Cornelius, in Publius, or any other captains or soldiers, with whom he had to do, and by whose industry he was often saved from danger, and whom he likewise helped, did ever condemn the vocation of a soldier under his Prince, as a calling not agreeable to christianity. Likewise the council of Calcedon, did Concil. Calc●…don. well in condemning Eutiches, but in forbidding marriage to Monks, they erred from the express word of God, that saith: Marriage is honourable among all men, and that every Hebr. 13. 1. Cor. 7. man might take a wife to avoid fornication, and such wickedness not to be named, as monks since that restraint have fallen into. And to bring even a Monks, or an Abbot's testimony of your own side, Panormitane saith: Concilium errare Panormitanu●… de electione cap. significasti. potest, sicut alias erravit super ca●…sa matrimon●… contrahendi inter raptam & raptorem, quando dictum Hi●…ronimi fuit postea toti concilio praelatum: A council may err, as otherwise it erred concerning a cause of matrimony between the party ravished, & the ra●…sher, when as the saying of Jerome was afterward preferred before an whole council. And if you refer this to a Provincial council, the general rule taken from S. Augustine will convince you, that not only Provincial counsels are corrected by general, but also ●…psa plaenaria saepe pr●…ora posteri●…ribus emendantur: oftentimes Aug. contr. Do natist. li. 3. cap. 4. even the former general counsels are amended of the latter counsels. But how soever this rule was true in S. Augustine's days, since that time the latter general counsels have been worse than the former, and so from worse to worse, are not only become stark naught, but nothing general at al. And therefore it is not only lawful to abandon them, but we are bound so to do: as our Saviour Christ warneth Math. 10. us: Cavete vobis ab hominibus quontam tradent vos in concihabulis suis: Take heed to yourselves of men, because they will betray you in their counsels. Such counsels did S. Paul abandon, when Fes●…us offered Act. 25. him to go up to jerusalem, and there to be tried in the assembly of the high Priests. So Athanasius abandoned Examples of 〈◊〉 nough●…e counc●…ls. the counsels at Lyre, Smirna, and Ephesus▪ So Maximus abandoned the Council at Antioch. So Paviinus abandoned the Council at milan. So Chrisostome abandoned the Council at Constantinople. And so we abandoned the Pope's violent counsels at Rome and Trident, that we might say with David, Non consed●… i●… consilio 〈◊〉, Psal. 25. cum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non intro●…bo, odi ecclesi●…m malig●…atium, & cum impijs non ●…edebo: I have not sitten in the counsel of vanity, I will not enter in with wicked doers, I have hated the Church of the malignant, and I will not sit with the wicked. These Counsels we have abandoned, M. Stay. but no general Counsels, wherein all things are tried to be truth or heresies, by the touch of the word of God, and not by the Popes, the counsels or any creatures d●…cree besides. Omnis homo mendax, every man is a liar, and the Psal 115. word of God is only the truth of doctrine. Rom. 3. And therefore in all Counsels we must cry with the Prophet, Adl●…gem, & ad testimonium Let them r●…nne to the Esay. 8. law (of God) to the testimony (of his word) quod si ●…on d●…xerint i●…xta verbum hoc, non er●…t eyes ●…x 〈◊〉. If the Council declare any thing to be heresy, not according to the word of God: the morning light, the 〈◊〉 of righteousness shall not shine on them, but they shall err in the shadow of death. But saith Ambrose, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 us Ambrose. e●…rare non possis, follow the ●…pture, that thou mayest not err. And if the Council do not follow them, we are made free from following, yea, licen●…ed to abandon and accurse those Counsels by your own Canons. S●… quis proh●…t vob●… De●…r. Gratiani Can S●…●…s q●… p●…aest. 11 cue ●… quod a Domino 〈◊〉 est, & rurs●…s imper●…t fieri quod Dominus prohibet, exe●…rabilis sit ab omnibus qui dil●…nt Deum: If any body forbidden you that that is commanded of the Lord, and again, command that thing to be done, that the Lord hath forbidden, l●…t him be accursed of all that love the Lord. And your abbot Panormitane willeth us so to esteem of Pano●…. your Counsels without the scripture, that plus credendum A lay m●…n alleging 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before a gene●…all council. vel simpli●… l●…co 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 q●… toti simul con●…: we must more believe, even a simple lay man alleging the scripture, than all the whole Council together. And your famous doctor john Gerso●… chancellor of the university of Paris, saith, Prima verit●…s 〈◊〉 stat, etc. this john Gerson. truth standeth first, to weet, that any simple man being not authorised, may be so excellently learned in holy writ, that we must more believe his assertion in a case of doctrine, than the Pope's declaration: because it is evident, that we must more believe the Gospel, than the Pope. Neither saith he thus for the Pope alone, but even for your Counsels, yea for general Counsels, in sacris. etc. We must more believe an excellent learned man in the scriptures and alleging the catholic authority, than we must believe even a general Council. Thus by your own doctors, yea by the Pope himself, that saith, no proof ought to Innocentius 3. C. Cum vene. de except. be admitted against the Scripture, we may and must abandon your Counsels, wherein many things besides, and many things expressly against the Scripture, are determined for truth, and the express truth of the scripture is condemned for heresy. And therefore where you say, we renounce them only for this cause, because they ground not themselves on the authority of the Scriptures: you show a good cause to clear us of all heresies and errors, and show sufficient cause withal, why we admit not your Counsels now: your obstinate froward heresies to be such, that you can not a●…ouche for them, nor defend them, by the holy Scriptures. The authority whereof, if those your Counsels do ad●…itte, as did the old general Counsels, than the clause in the Act of Parliament doth no more abandon your Counsels, than it rejecteth those four first, or any other, that ground their proves thereon. But you have some better reason belike, why you set up this fourth mark●… of abandoning the Pope and his counsels, to be exemplified in the old Testament. Partly, and most of all (say you) I say it for an other clause Sta. 54 a. in the Act of Parliament, enacting that no foreign prince spiritual or temporal, shall have any authority or superiority in this realm, in any spiritual cause. Either your fingers itch (master Stapl.) at this clause wherewith you be piddling so often, before you come to the proper place where this is handled more at large. Or else you do use the figure of anticipation so much, and so impertinently, to puff up your counterblast withal. But were it the chiefest cause why you set up this mark, because we reject all foreign authority: then hath the Bishop hit this The godly kings in the old testament admitted no foreign Prelate's authority. mark also at the full, even in all these examples. Except you can on the other side prove, that these godly Princes admitted in their dominions, the authority of any foreign Prelate over them. Of which, till you shall be able to bring proof, the commanding and directing of their own priests (as is said before) yea even of the highest Priest of all: is argument sufficient to infer, that they admitted not any other strange Priest over them (all strange Priests then being heathen Idolaters) and therefore this clause of foreign prelate's, is also by the Bishop, out of the old Testament fully proved. But say you, The Pope's authority ecclesiastical is no Sta. 54. a. more foreign to this Realm, than the Catholic faith is foraygne. You say so, M. Stapl. I will bear you witness, but you The Pope's power foraygne. should prove it, and not say so only. Nevertheless, be it not foreign, then is he not excluded by that clause, nor you need so storm thereat, that it should be the cause most of all, why you have said all this, and now you like it well enough, saying: And yet might the Pope reform us well enough for any Sta. 54 a. thing before rehearsed. Why rehearsed you this clause then, and found most fault therewith, since those words hinder nothing his claim? Saving that (say you) he is by express words of the statute Stap. 54 a. otherwise excluded. How chance your quarrel then, M. Stap. is not at that exclusion? But wilily you saw well enough, that he is exempted, even in that he is a foreign power. And had his name not been exempted, yet the clause that before t●…kled you so much (though now you would make so light thereat) did fully exclude your Pope, because he is a foraygne power. Or elsefull fond you quarrel most at that, whereat you had no cause. Yes, say you, there is a cause why I mislike this clause Stap. 54 a. against foreign authority. For than I pray you if any general Council be made to reform our misbelief, if we will not receive it, who shall force us? And so you see we be at liberty to receive or not receive any general Council. And yet might the Pope reform us well enough for any thing before rehearsed. Now surely M. St. and for any thing here rehearsed by you, the matter is well holp up, and full clerkly have you answered your own objection▪ For first, where you say: If any general Council be made to reform our misbelief: Your objection hangs altogether on your accustomed presupposal, threaping this kindness on us, that having re●…ected your Pope, we must needs be in misbelief: and so reason forward, à petitione princ●… that we must be reform therein. Where otherwise, denying first this your presupposal, & urging the contrary, that the misbelief were on your party, in admitting the pope's claim, & all other his errors: then must you begin a little higher to prove us in misbelief, or else you can go no further, the fat is in the fire, & all your trim devised inconvenience against this clause of the act, is dashed. But because it were great pity, that so good an heads invention, in forecasting so great a peril, should not be herd throughout, let us wink at your misbelief, in deeming misbelief in us, and suffer you to tell on your tale, misbelieving now with you that we are in misbelief, what followeth? We must be reform, say you. And good reason, say I But tell on. If any general Council be made to reform our misbelief, if we will not receive it, who shall force us? And so you see we be at liberty, to receive or not receive any general Council. Your argument, M. St. after your wont manner, standeth all on ifs: If we be in misbelief, we must be reform: if a general Council be made to reform us, we aught to receive it: if we will not receive it, who shall force us? if we will not be forced, we be at liberty: if we be at liberty, we may reject it: if we reject it, we continued in misbelief: if we continued in misbelief, we shall be condemned. One if, as is aforesaid, for an Oliver to his Roland, set against his first if, ●…f we be not in misbelief, had turned off all the other ifs. But having admitted, we were in misbelief: is there none other remedy, M. St. but needs a general Council must be called for us? are we so obstinate, or is there none other means? yes, thanks be to God, where we have been in deed in misbelief, we have been reform by our godly Princes, and that without a general Council. Which I speak not to the dispraise or despising of general Counsels (although when they were better kept than they be now, seldom they have had good sequel, as the ancient fathers complain on them) but I speak against Greg. Nazian. the Popish Counsels, nothing less than general now, and nothing less than reforming any errors, but violently so maynteining them, that true general Counsels The Pope's Counsels not general. (such as in the old time reform errors) can not now be summoned. And the Pope fears, hindereth, and stoppeth by all his practices nothing more, than a very free and general Council, such as the four first general Counsels were. Of which sort admitting there were any called now, admitting also we were in arror, since that Council would by the only word of God (for so did the ancient general Counsels) convince our error, we might well be reform thereby, even by these clauses that you allege. For such a Council, where our Prelates True general Counsels, are not foreign power to this or any Christian realm, nor excluded by the Act of Parliament. themselves▪ aswell as any other of Christendom, might freely debate the matter, were no foreign power to us, or to any other Realm in Christendom: since every Christian Realm should have his free power and liberty therein alike, to prove or improve by the word of God. And the clause of the statute abandoneth not, but admitteth and receiveth all such Counsels either past or to come, that shall with such freedom, by God's word, convince us of any heresy or error that we misbeléeve upon. To say therefore, that by these clauses of the Act, we set ourselves at liberty, to reject simply all general Counsels, it is but the liberty of your slanderous tongue, disposed to bestow a liberal lie upon us. No, M. Stap. we exempt not ourselves from the authority and determination of any such general Counsels▪ But as we are ready to admit them with all Christian reverence: so we heartily pray to God, once to send such an one, as by the infallible word of God, might frankly and truly determine, whether our Princes & we, or your Pope and you, maintain these heresies, errors, and misbelief, that you say we do. The drift of your argument is this: there must be one to force us: whereby you mean your Pope. Wherein you rightly conclude in deed for his part, that he is a forcer, that is (to speak plain English) a violent Tyrant, perforce to extort of men, to yield to his partial Counsels. But even for this cause also we worthily reject him and his force, with his enforced conventicles, as no general or free Counsels, nor orderly called, wherewith he hath by the form of old Counsels no more to do, than other Bishops have. But now where you say, yet might the Pope reform us well enough, for any thing before rehearsed. Whether the Pope might reform us or not or how he might do it, by any his own authority over us, or otherwise, is not yet M. Stapl. seen. But what the Pope hath done, is manifest: How he hath not reform, but deformed, not only us heretofore, and other places, but even his own Court, and himself also. Let him first reform himself, his Cardinals, his whores, his Stews, his simony, his ambition, his pride, his tyranny, with other his innumerable abominations, in life and doctrine (who by his claim from Christ and Peter, should be an ensample and pattern of all godly reformation) and then let him move the question, how we may be reform. This were a more formal way for him, and for you also, M. Stap. (sith you will needs be writing) to writ to him hereof, meant you to have your country reform in deed, & not deformed by him. And when he hath reform himself in all these things then writ you over to your countrymen unreformed, that the Pope might reform us well enough: for otherwise we can not but think he would reform us ill enough, that can not, or will not once reform himself. But I think I set you to long a day, to writ over to us of his reformation. You might tarry M. Sta. till the Kalends of Gréece, or ever you see the Kalotes of Rome reform by him, or any vice or error besides. Well, say you, and yet he might reform us well enough, for any thing before rehearsed. D●… you not see M. Stap. how fond you have answered all your fo●…de warbling? for if he might still reform us, for all those clauses rehearsed: why rehearsed you them, since they were not against him? why have you made such a do against them? that by them we abandon him & his counsels since he and they be in statu quo, in the state we were before for all them? Why do you frame your argument on your iff●…s, of the inconvenience of our liberty thereon, if for all that we be no more at liberty from him, than we were before? how were they overshot that put those words in the act that were to so small a purpose? or else how hath M. St. over shot himself that hath traveled thus earnestly to reason against those clauses as most of all against the Pope, and when all is rehe●…sed in them, are neither to or fro against him? The fift false mark that you set up is this. St. 54. b. Master Stap. fift false mark Now what can you show that mere lay men should enjoy ecclesiastical livings as usually they do among you. This is partly one of the usual lies and slanders among you, to term our Clergy mere lay because we be not of your Romish stamp, oiled, clipped, nor shaved. But what is this to the question or issue of the state of supreme government, Moore lay men among the Papists than among us enjoy ecclesiastical livings. if any such mere lay men have crept into any ecclesiastical livings? I pray you were not such both men and boys under your Pope also that enjoyed ecclesiastical livings, and that with dispensation, and were no ecclesiastical people, otherwise than as you call them students or clerks, and yet many of them no great clerks neither, but great ruffians not a few, yea some having abbeys, cardinalships, and bishoprics to the ricks as you termed it before, they had, & yet they were not over spiritual pastors. But you will say, they were not mere lay men▪ for at the lest they had received, if not Benet & Collet, yet Primam tonsu●…um. As though the giving them a notche in the head with a pair of 〈◊〉, made them the more spiritual or ecclesiastical. But doth not Florobellus confess, that the Pope committit 〈◊〉 etiam mero laico, commit●…eth spiritual things unto mere lay men? But what manner of spiritual people the Pope bestowed his ecclesiastical livings upon, Bernard writing even to the Pope himself, doth partly declare. Ex toto orb Romam confluunt ambitiosi, etc. Out of all the world there Ad Eugenium 〈◊〉. flock unto Rome ambitious men, covetous, Simoniakes, Church robbers, keepers of concubines, committers of incest, and monsters like men, and that by the Apostolical authority to obtain or retain ecclesiastical promotions. Thus written Barnarde of the holy spiritual company of those in his time that received and enjoyed ecclesiastical livings, even of the Pope's holy hands, four hundredth years ago. And trow you then, they have not been bestowed far worse since that time? He said of them in his time: Ipsa quoque ecclesiastica dignitatis officia▪ etc. The ecclesiastical In sermon●… 6. add Psalm. 91. offices also of dignity are go into a filthy lucre, and into an occupation of darkness, neither is there sought in them any health of souls, but riot of riches, for this they are clipped, for this they haunt Churches, they celebrated Masses, they sing Psalms, for bishoprics, Archdeaconries, Abbeys and other dignities they strive at this day impudently, to waste the revenues of the Churches, in uses of superfluity and vanity. It remaineth that the man of sin be revealed, the child of perdition, not only the day Devil, but also the noonday Devil, who is not only transformed into an Angel of light, but is extolled above all that is called God, etc. Thus writeth he of your Pope, for bestowing his livings so well. But alack Bernardus non vidit omnia, Bernard never saw the horrible abuses that have been since, such livings bestowed on Catami●…es to the maintenance of Sodomitry. But to let such buggishe abuses pass, except you give further occasion: & to speak of that that Kawline complaineth upon, taking occasion of the tempter, taking up Christ and setting him on the pinnacle of the Temple: In qua ostendit, etc. Wherein (says he) he showed that pride should destroy Raulinus in quadragesimali. Sermon. 22. the Church of God, and the desire of honour, even as now we see many, to fly upon the pinnacle of the Church, without the wings of science and life, and therefore the Devil carried them. And a little after he faith: Then the learned did sly, now the ignorant and children fly, like to chickens that will immediately have a comb so soon as they are out of the shell, these are noble men that will be mytred and made Bishops being children and unlearned. For the Devil doth many things that God would not do. It is told, how that a certain german having a very ugly visage, would have obtained of the Pope a certain benefice being The tale of him that got a benefice of the Pope in the devils name. vacant, but fearing he should not have access to the Pope, neither would he reveal it to any body else, lest he should be defeated of the benefice: came unto the gates of the Pope's palace, and strongly rapping thereat, when the porter cha●…ing with him, demanded who it was that beat on the gates so mightily: the ugly Priest answered, I am the Devil, go tell the Pope that I will speak with him, or else I will enter perforce. The porter trembling and astonnied, ran and declared all to the Pope. The Pope all trembling, open (quoth he) the door, or else he will enter, all we can not shut him out. When he was let in, he came to the Pope's presence, that trembled for fear: and fallen down at his feet, saying, most holy Father I am not the Devil, but because to get my benefice, I should not have entered in the name of God, I come unto you in the name of the Devil, the Pope hearing this, quickly gave him what soever he demanded. Whereby it appeareth that many are carried upon the pinnacle of the Temple, more in the devils name than in the name of God. Thus says 〈◊〉 a famous Monk and Preacher of your side, for the good enjoying of ecclesiastical livings usually among you. This is a spirituality in the devils name, yet much better wereit, to 8. Q. 1. C. Ve●…cor. 2. Q. 7. C. Secuti. 2. Q. 7. August. 2. Q. 7. No●… omnis. be in the name of God a mee●…e lay man: according as your own Canons confess: that oftentimes lay men are better than Bishops, yea your Bishops are no better than Dogs, Ravens, Wolves and Asses. But you will reply that these were abuses, true in deed, so they were. Howbeit they were never better used, but ever worse and worse. Come now to those that were counted no a●…uses among you, but allowed: what say you by Monks in times past were but ●…ay. your ●…ay brethren, among your holy one's of religion? Yea all the Monks that were in the old time, were counted ●…ay▪ What say you by the Templars, and after them the Knights of the Roads, and Prussia? but to let go them, and other 〈◊〉 brethren. If it were demanded, whether your Priests, bishops, Caroinals, yea your Pope himself, with all his ecclesiastical The popish priests and Bishops were ●…ay. livings, were any thing else than mere lay, and clean without all spiritualness, concerning God's spirit, I think it would come to a Qu●… potest, and be a question disputable, whether his Holiness, for all his triple crown, and other ecclesiastical livings & titles, were any Bishop, or any member of Christ's Church or not, even by your ecclesiastical Canons, of which one beginneth: Non omne●… episcopi sunt episcopi, all Bishops are not Bishops. etc. 2. Q 7. Likewise Bernard the Canonist says Spiritualis gladius ex levi Bernardus Glossator in ca Saint clericus. causa non tantum per alios. etc. the spiritual Sword, moving and nourishing wars of a light cause, not only by other but also by itself, contrary to right, is become a soldiers Sword. Erasmus says, the Popes themselves are rather the successors Erasm. Ch●…ad. of such as julius Caesar, of Alexander, Xerxes, Croesus, and of mighty thieves, than the Apostles successors. And that there are none so pernicious enemies to the Church as the Encom. moriae. wicked Popes, that suffer in silence Christ to grow out of knowledge, and tie him to gainful laws, and deflower him with wrested interpretations, and murder him with their pestilent life. Call you these spiritual bishops, or rather as Christ said, thieves and robbers, painted sepulchres, ravening wolves, or as he called judas the Devil himself? For why, being thus degenerate from the office of a Bishop, should they have the name of bishops? as their own law says. Si repriveris nec nomen habere mereris, It thou want the thing▪ thou deservest not the name. And as Christ himself doth say, If the salt have lost his saltness what shallbe seasoned therewith, Math. 5. it is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out & to be trodden down of men: These are the spiritual Pastors of the popish Church, yeathe Popes themselves being worse than lay men, and yet will be Lords of all ecclesiastical livings, & lay men's livings too. But I will reserve this matter till you be disposed to common further thereon, for they touch nearer the overthrows of your Pope's claim, & more decipher the haviour of his Clergy, than they come near the issue of the Prince's government. The sixte mark that you set up is this: What good induction Stapl. 54. b. The sixt false mark of M. Stapl. can you bring from the doings of the Kings of the old law, to justify that Princes now may make Bishops by letters Patents, and that for such and so long time as should please them, as either for term of years, months, weeks or days. What an impudent and too too shameful a slanderer you may be marked to be, appeareth by this mark M. St. If Bishops have their letters patents from the Prince, for their Bishopric, had they them not also from Princes, even in the most popish time? but that they are made for such terms as you writ, you wilfully bely your Sovereign. The Prince in deed at all times, if they do not their duty (and so shallbe thought unworthy) may orderly remove, inhibit, or punish them. And of this the Bishop hath alleged good proof in the old Testament. And yet if there were no proof of it there, what matter can you make thereon, that your Popes did not practise? who licensed, deposed, restrained, limited, and that for such and so long time, as should please them. As Florobellus saith of the Florobellus de principal▪ rom. eccl. ex bald. 6. q. 1. c. pastoralis. Pope, Item facere potest Praelatum ad tempus, He can also make a Prelate for a time. And can you find such bulls of lead from the doings of the high Priest of the old law? If you can not, this mark ouerturnes your Pope's supremacy, more than it cometh any thing near the Queens. The Seventh mark. What good motive can you gather Stapl. 54. b. M. Staplet. 7. false mark. by their regiment, that they did visit Bishops and Priests, and by their laws restrained them to excercise any jurisdiction over their flocks, to visit their slockes, to reform them, to order or correct them without their especial authority and commission thereunto, yea to restrain them by an inhibition from preaching, which ye confes●…e to be the peculiar function of the Clergy, exempted from all superiority of the Prince. This mark hath two parts. For the former (so far as you say true) the Bishop hath gathered good motives by their regiment, that they did visit Bishops and Priests, A Bishop's jurisdiction. and by their laws restrained them, to exercise any jurisdiction over their flocks, to visit their flocks, to reform to order and correct them, without their especial commission thereunto, for what else was their ordaining and allowing them, their commanding, ordering, appointing and directing them? Except you mean hereby (for you sp●…ake it very subtly) that the Bishops could do none of those functions, that belonged to their office, after they were appointed thereto by the Prince, but that for every thing they must have a special commission: and than it is a captious slander, the Prince doth not so. But what belongeth to the Prince herein, and what to the Bishop, in either of their jurisdictions: is to be considered in the fourth book. Saving that still you will augment your counterblast, by the way of prevention. Your other part of this mark, is a manifest slander. The Prince restraineth no Bishop nor preacher with any simple inhibition from his office of preaching, but Secundum Preaching not simply forbidden to preachers . quid, inhibiting your popish seducers, from preaching their traditions and erroneous doctrines, such false Prophets as Christ biddeth us beware of. If you would preach the only truth, you might have good leave to preach it. Now, to stop the mouths of false idolatrous Priests, the Bishop in these examples hath brought good proof hereof: no preaching is simply forbidden, but Papists, sectaries, and other of noughty or suspected life or doctrine, and therefore where in the margin you bidd●… your reader Note, here is nothing for him to note, but your notorie●…se lie, and your notable argument that you make thereon: Preaching is the peculiar function of the Clergy exempted from the Prince: Ergo, The Prince hath not authority to restrain a noughty preacher, nor to inhibit him from preaching false doctrine. Prove your argument a little better M. Stapleton, and then bid us note it, else is there little to note in it, but much to note in you. For your Eight mark say you: What? think you Staplet. 8. fal●…e mark. Stapl 54 b. that you can persuade us also that Bishops and Priests paid their first fruits and tenths to their Princes, yea and that both in one year, as they did for a while in King Henry's days? Verily joseph would not suffer the very heathen Priests (which only had the bore names of Priests) to pay either tithes or fines to Pharaoh their Prince, yea rather he found them in time of famine upon the common store. This mark Master Stapleten, of paying first fruits tenths and First fruits to the Prince. and tenths to the Prince, is both wide from the Bishop's mark, and mere frinolouse. For supposing they paid none, yet this supreme government still remained entire and whole to the Prince: nor the paying it to the Prince, maketh him supreme governor any whit the more. It was an order taken, you know, in the time of your Pope's superstition, and that not long since neither, under pretence of helping the Church in her wars against the Saracens, but in very deed to enrich the Pope's coafers, although he claimed it, not by any title of Supremacy, but as the keeper of the Church's hutch. And since by continuance grew to an ordinary custom, as a fee unto him. And afterward (his usurpation here being removed) this Tenths & First fruits far better bestowed on the Prince than on the Pope. was also thought good, to be better and more profitably bestowed on our own natural liege, and true supreme governor within our own realm, than on a foreign usurper, to maintain his whores and pomp, and to impoverish the realm, and beaten us with our own goods. And had it been otherwise disposed, or remitted, the Prince not withstanding had been full supreme governor. But is it so heinous a matter now for a Prince to receive tenths or first fruits? did not I pray you, even by your Pope's dispensations and bulls, Princes receive them diverse times before? and if they may receive them with his bulls, why may they not receive them (being given by order of the owners) even without his bulls also? Now, sith you can make no good argument on the ordinary paying of tenths or first fruits, to prove your Popes, nor to improve the Prince's supremacy, think you it a good reason to argue, from an extraordinary fact on some occasion or consideration, to subvert an ordinary authority? You say they paid both in one year to King Henry. Were you not disposed to wrangle and misconstrue every fact odiously, you would not urge your reason thus M. Stapleton. For admit aught were amiss therein by oversight or ever the inconvenience were espied and amended, as after you grant it was; which was even the next year following: what is this to the impairing of his supreme authority? if their receiving of the tenths and first fruits be allowable as even your Popes have allowed the same. What canye make of the double receipt? saving that he received more than he should that year of duty have received, if you make the worst of it. And yet thereby it followeth, that he might have received them, as he afterward did, and as the Prince now receiveth them. But have you never red of the Pope's doubling, trebling, quadrupling, and extreme excessive increasing of payments upon payments, not one year but every year, with continual and unsatiable polling of the clergy in times past? But this could you not remember. Your remembrance serves you like the horns of a snail, you can stretch it out, and pull it in as it pleaseth you. But the Chronicles that you pretend to have read, and quote so fast, cry out of the Pope's unsatiable dropsy, and infinite practices to get gold and silver. And where finds he such priestly supremacy in all the old Testament? The argument wherewith you confirm your mark against the Princes receiving thereof, is yet more fond and faulty. joseph would not suffer the heathen Priests to pay either The Papists are gument of ●…osephes immunity to the Egyptian priest●…. Gen. 47. tithes or fines. Ergo, The Christian Clergy must not suffer themselves to pay tenths or first fruits to their Christian Princes. This argument is more Heathenish than christian-like (M. Stapl.) or student like either, but good enough for the popish Clergy to ground themselves upon. Think you the doings of joseph in dealing with those heathen Idolaters, to be a fit rule to le●…el Christian Princes duties, towards their Priests and people? or do you think that joseph did give this immunity to the Priests, more than to the people, to maintain those Priests the better, because they were Priests, having only the bore name of Priests (as you say well therein) and so being false Priests, and setters out of Idolatry, that they should have more immunities, liberties and wealth than others had? you will make joseph belike a very holy Patriarch. But perchance you have espied a greater affinity between The affinity between the Popish priests, and the Egyptian priests. those Egyptian Priests, and your romish Priests than every body was ware of. And therefore you reason substantially from their prerogatives unto yours. Is it because you fetch your shaven crowns from them, or at lest that they had shorn heads as you have? as witnesseth Alexander ab Alexandro, Apud Aegiptios qui sacra ministrant sacerdotes G●…ialium Dierum. li. 2. cap 8. capite rasi sunt. The priests among the Egyptians that minister the holy sacrifices are shaven on the head. Or is it because the most of your masking trinkets came from thence? or is it because of your Egiptiacall darkness and ignorance that you kept all people in? or is it because all your religion lay in mystical figures, and as they despising ordinary letters, had their hierogliphical mysteries and signs, whereby they set forth their meanings: so you despising God's word, and all good letters, your whole religion consists in mysteries, signs and gestures? or is it because the Egyptian priests Idolatry, and the Popish priests Idolatry, is the grossest of all others, and the most bestial? or is it because, as Ravistus Textor telleth, of the likeness between your religious hermits, Anachor●…, & Friars: and their priests called Sarabaytae? of whom he saith, Habitabant In Epithetis textorn. in foraminibus petrarum, induti porcor●…m & boum pellibus, cincti funsbus, discalciati, & sanguine cruentati, cauerni●… demum exeuntes pa●…pertatem & abstmentiam predicabant, & barbam spectant populo sibi per●…ellebant, nummisque tali astu & comme●…to adeptis, remeabant in suas speluncas, & in summa laetitia furtim dapibus epulabantur. They dwelled in the holes of rocks (like your anchors and recluses) clad with hogs skins and ox hides (like your hermits) girt with cords and barefoot (like your friars) besprent with blood (like your Spanish whippers) coming abroad out of their dens they preached poverty, and abstinence (like your limitors) they pulled away their beards in the sight of the people (like your popish shavelings) and by this craft and devise getting money, they returned to their dens and in great mirth they privily made good cheer. So like, the one almost in every jot, is to the other. Or is it because your Lady's chaplains & maiden priests, were so like the single priests of Isis? Or is it because your Nuns were so like their women priests? or is it for that your priests have claimed such authority above their princes, to take from them their estates, and realms, yea and their lives at their pleasures, as did the Ethiopian priests at Mer●…e: of whom saith Diodorus Diodorus Siculus de rebus antiquis. li. 4. cap. 1. Siculus, Adeò superstitione impleverunt hominum animos, ut nonnunquam misso nuncio, necem reg●… Aethiops●… demandarent, nullo detracta●…te, a●…t mandatum i●…ssionemue abnegan●…e. Superstition did so much fill the minds of men, that the priests sending a messenger, would oftentimes command the king of Ethiopia to be killed, and nobody forslacked his commandment, nor refused his bidding Even a right popish supremacy, M. St. And thus they handled at their commandment christian Princes, and the superstitions people were so bewitched, that none dared fores●…acke or refuse (even against their natural Princes) to satisfy the tyranny and commandment of the Pope. A great many causes more might be suspected, why you pretend so much for your immunities, the privileges of the heathen priests, they are so like unto your popish priesthood, but I spare the reader. Nevertheless, what cause soever moveth you to writ so favourably for the Egyptian Priests, none of these causes, or any other maintenance of Idolaters moved joseph: nor that any other such like priesthood to come, should take hereat any such prerogative, of being exempt from all fines to their princes. The reason that moved joseph is apparent in the text. He took the fift part of the people's fruits, because before, they held them not of their king: but the priests living was altogether of the king's gift & finding. And therefore they paid no portion to the king, but the king allowed them all the portion they had. But this, that all that they had to live upon was of the kings gift, you quite forgot (which argueth their subjection to him) & you reason upon their privilege. Where you sh●…ld note withal, that all those & other their privileges & livings, came from & depended on the king. And then see how fit a mark thereby you can set up, against the Prince's government over priests. Your Ninth and last mark is yet more fond and confused M. S●…a. Ninth false mark. than all the rest besides, wherein you demand of the Bishop, saying: Are you able (suppose you) to name any one king that written St●…p. 54. b. himself supreme head of the jewish Church, and that in all causes aswell spiritual as temporal, and that caused an oath to the priests and people (the nobility only exempted) to be tendered, that they in conscience did so believe, and that in a woman prince to, yea and that under pain of praemunire and plain treason too? Me thinks you play huddle now in the latter end, M. St. six or seven marks together in one: For the title of supreme head, for receiving the oath, for the people receiving it, the people exempted, the manner of receiving it, the Prince's person, and the penalty of the refusal. All these matters on a plump for haste, come in one livery, with the cognisance of your Ninth mark: how near the issue between the Bishop and M. Feckenham, I remit to the view of others. To all these demands, because you are in haste, and therefore thrust them out on an heap together, that the one might be a cloak to the other, I will briefly answer them as they lie. To your first demand, for the Title, think you this a good argument: No king of the jews written this title of supreme head The title of supreme head. or governor: Ergo, No king of the jews was so? By the same argument, no king of England before king Henry written himself, Defender of the faith, neither any king of the jews written that title: Ergo, None of them were defenders of the faith. And by the same argument, your holy Father might lose a jolly Uicarige, that he claimeth from Christ and Peter, for neither of them written such titles as he doth: nor the high Priest in the old Testament written any such stile as he doth. Ergo, he claimeth his supremacy from them in vain. But this is a vain argument, if you can prove, not the title, so much an the matter, the thing and effect of the title to come from them to him: no man will stand with you in the stile, but grant your Pope his claim. This can you not do, and therefore your Pope●…tytle is but vain. But this, for the Princes supreme government, the Bishop hath named the Princes in the old Testament, and fully proved it: that in matter, thing and effect, they took upon them this supreme governance, that the queens Majesty justly claimeth now. And this being proved, as before: till you can improve this, what babble you of the title? and yet since you can bring no sufficient proof of your Pope's title neither, why maketh this argument more against the Prince, than it doth against the Pope? Your second quarrel is at the oath, but the content thereof The oath of the Supremaci●…. (as is proved) being true, why aught they not to swear thereto: yea though there were in the old Testament no such ensample of an oath ministered by the Prince to his subjects? And yet we read how josias sworn all his subjects to the Lord But you will say, this oath is not for the Prince to swear them to God's religion, but to his estate. If his estate be dutiful by gods religion, is he not thereby also sworn thereunto? And why then, may not the Prince for his more assurance, make an especial oath thereof, so well as a general? But was it lawful for your Pope to swear them to his undue supremacy, and is it not lawful for the prince in a matter so due unto him? If you still urge, a plain manifest ensample to be showed you, where in express words such an oath was then required: I pray you (and you will not deal partially M. Stap▪) show you another example, where the high Priest of the jews, required such an oath of the Clergy, as your Pope did minister to those under him. To that you stand on the tendering the oath to the Priests Tendering the oath. and the people, and to aggravate the matter, as partial, say, the Nobility be exempted: partly is fond, and partly false. For, the Nobility, or any other, in certain offices are not exempted. But see the proud orgulous heart of this Priest, how he picketh quarrels against the Noibilitie, because herein they have any prerogative over his priestly order. But he maketh a matter in that the oath is, that they in Charging the 〈◊〉 with the oath. conscience did so believe, as though they could swear thereto, and can not believe it in their consciences. Belike master Stapleton your popish Priests make good othe●…, and have good consciences and beliefs, that can swear to a thing, and have no conscience: or can have conscience, and not believe it so to be as you swear. It is to be feared that some of your order have so done. Whether you have done so or not, I will not say, for I know not your dealing, nor am over curious to search out your old reckonings. But I think some of your good masters are not all in clean life thereof. Your outcry at a woman's Prince to have this Title, A woman Prince. yea and that (say you) in a woman Prince to: showeth your impudent spite against your most gracious sovereign, and withal, your impudent folly. A woman Prince to? say you. If a Prince, Master Stap. and why not a woman Prince to? Will you grant her to be a Prince, and take from her the duty, that these ensamples show, doth belong unto a prince? Therefore, either you must deny that a woman may be a prince, or else grant this authority, yea to a woman prince to. And doth not the Scripture commend, yea a woman Prince to, to suppress Idolaters and tyrants, to govern and judge God's people? And why may not now a woman Prince to, deliver us (as the queens Majesty hath done) from the yoke of a greater tyrant, and all his Idolaters to? and punish to such obstinate and traitorous resisters of her godly power, as you and your sect are to? yea and that under pain of praemunire and plain ●…reason to? These are the Nine marks which master Stapleton setteth new up. Of which how wise soon be, how slanderous other some, and how wide all be from the ●…ue in question: I remit to the indifferent Readers judgement. For mine own part, as I saw the shameless dealing of this student, studying with all his endeavour ●…oelude the Bishop's ensamples, and to deceive the Reader with these trifles: so was I half ashamed to have answered them any thing, being altogether unworthy of any answer, knowing that to the wise, folly detectes itself. But lest any one should be deceyue●… by this false aim giver, I have somewhat more largely showed his dealing in these marks, than otherwise I would. And yet as the impudency of this man may further move occasion, hereafter he may perhaps hear more than he or his fellows would that all the world should see. Only now it sufficeth to have showed the insufficiency of his arguments, and to have cleared from his cavillations, these ensamples of the Bishops, recorded in the old testament. Whereof the Bishop Master Feck. demand satisfied in every one of the foresaid examples. mentioned not one, that proved not Master Feckenhams demand and issue: Any such supreme government, as hath the Queen's majesty. And therefore M. Stapletons conclusion, is like the residue of his Nine marks, if it be not rather most fond of all. And saving his rhetoric, railing, scoffs, and his vain triumphing before the victory, is nothing else but words of course. O Master Horn (saith he) your manifold untruths are St. fol. 55. a. deciphered and unbuckeled, you are espied, you are espied, I say, well enough, that you come not by a thousand yards and more nigh the mark. Your Bow is to weak, your arms to feeble, to shoot with any your commendation at this mark: yea if you were as good an Archer, as were that famous Robin Hood, or little john. Well, shifted your Bow, or at the lest wise your String. Let the old Testament go, and proceed to your other proofs, wherein we will now see if you can shoot any straighter. For hitherto you have shot all awry, and as a man may say, like a blind man. See now to yourself from henceforth that ye open your eyes, and that ye have a good eye, and a good aim to the mark we have set before you. If not, be you assured we will make no courtesy eftsoons to put you in remembrance. For hitherto ye have nothing proved that Princes aught, which you promised to prove, or that they may take upon them such government, as I have laid before you, and such as you must in every part justify, if either you will M. Feckenham shall take the oath, or that you intend to prove yourself a true man of your word. This were a hard matter for you to prove yourself to be Master Stapleton, a true man of your word, having now been taken tardy in your words with so many open lies. And even here with no less impudency, you would have the Bishop in every part to justify, not such issue as he joined in with master Feckenham, but such as you in every part do falsify. Did the Bishop promise' to master Feckenham, to prove that Princes aught or may take upon them such government as you have laid before him? Or did master Feckenham request any such proof? or not rather, Any such government as the Queen's majesty doth clay me and take upon her. This is the right mark that they have set before them, and not these marks that (say you) we have set before you. You assure us that you will make The Papists courtesy. no courtesy. But you need not assure us hereof master Stapleton, we will believe you without assurance, that you know little courtesy, and can make less, nor you will make any if you could. Little courtesy (except butcherly courtesy) have we felt of your stiff-necked and froward generation, and less we look for, and none we crave at your uncourteous & unmerciful hands, although more mercy and courtesy be showed to you. Yet though you assure us of no courtesy, ye might and should assure us of truth and honesty: of which if we can have no assurance of you, be you assured again, master Stapleton you shall get as little credit, as we shall get little courtesy. But to win you better credit: in your vain triumphant Robin Hood & Little john. conclusion, you knit up all your Nine marks with Robin Hood and little john, lacking but one of your Pope's Courtisanes, and some Louvain Franciscan, to have played Friar Lucke, and maid Marian, and so to have made up the full mess. Might not a man say for (O M. Horn) O Master Stap. these toys are full unfitting and naught to the purpose to or fro. And for all you cry he shoots awry like a blind man, though a blind man can not see to shoot, yet could a béetle blindman both hear, and think small wisdom, in such great boast, and well perceive, that the only turning of O master Stapleton, for O master Horn, would hit you so little a wry, even with your own words, that there needs no further answer. The. 18. Division. Now where the Bishop alleged out of the old testament Fol. 55. a. b. all these foresaid ensamples: and master Feck. under the pretence of Christ's gospel, restraining himself to the new Testament, goeth about thereby, to elude and shake of all the Bishop's ensamples of the old Testament: The Bishop proveth this to be the very shift and practise of the Donatists, denying that Princes aught to intermeddle in ecclesiastical matters, as now the Papists deny the same. Who when they were urged by the learned father's Saint Augustine and other, with such like ensamples as the Bishop hath alleged out of the old testament, they rejected them, and would have all examples restrained to the new testament, as here doth master Feckenham, which the Bishop showeth to have been (as Saint Augustine calleth it) An odious and wicked guile of the Donatists: and thereon concludeth, that either he must shun such heretical shifts, or else, that following the very error, defence, shift and pattern of the Donatists, he bewrayeth himself therein to be a covert Donatist. The effect of master Stapletons' Counterblast to this, Stapleton. The. 16. chap. is divided into six parts. The first, is an invective against the order of the Bishop's writing. The second, is a clearing of master Feckenham to be no heretic. The third, is a returning of his charge of heresies to us. The fourth, an enumeration and conference of diverse heresies with our doctrine. The fift, a reversing to us of the crime wherewith master Feckenham is charged to follow the Donatists, in diverse points resembling us to them, and them to us. The sixt and last, a removing of those motives, whereby the Bishop charged M. Feckenham to play the Donatists' part. In the first part, or ever he enter into the matter, he maketh as it were a Preface against the Bishop's dealing, which is twofold: the former, for proceeding in his matters out of order. Hither good Reader (saith Master Stapleton) Master Stap. 56. a. Horn although untruly, yet hath he somewhat orderly proceeded. But in that which followeth until we come to the. 20. leaf, beside most impudent and shameful lies, wherewith he would deface master Feckenham, he prosecuteth his matter so confusedly and unorderly, leaping in and out I cannot tell how, nor whether: that I verily think that his wits were not his own, being perchance encumbered with some his domestical affairs at home, that he could not gather them together, or that he the less passed, what an hodge potch he made of his doings, thinking which is like, that his fellows Protestants would take all things in good gree, knowing that poor master Feckenham was shutre up close enough from all answering. And thinking that no Catholic else would take upon him to answer to his lewd book. To that you begin with, master Stapleton, to challenge the Bishop for untruth, yea, most impudent and shameless lies: till you name them, and so prove them, the best answer thereto, is to give it a wisp, and place it in your common places of scolds black rhetoric, and so let it alone. As for the Bishops unorderly proceeding, (howbeit you confess that hitherto he hath somewhat orderlike proceeded) in that which followeth, you say he prosecuteth his matters so confusedly. etc. that you think his wits were not his own. Were not your wits overmuch your own, M. Stap. you would never wittingly have let your wit cast forth such unwitty and unorderly speeches to your better. But I will say somewhat yet more gentlier of you: that I verily Master Stap. objection of wit. think herein your w●…ts were altogether your own, and therefore you are the more to be born withal. Otherwise, if your wits had taken the advice of some other of your confederates wits, they would perchance have counseled you more wittily, not to accuse any of such fowl confusion, disorder, leaping in and out, and making an hodge potch: and not tell at all wherein he confoundeth or disordreth his matter. And they would peradventure withal have advised you, to mark this rule yourself, and to beware that you allege every thing in his proper place, not to wrap up in a clutter so many things under one, nor to make one thing to seem so many. Not to prevent your matter so often before it come, nor to repeat it so often being ●…ast, all to increase your volume. Many other things about your common places they would perhaps have told you, if you had taken some of their wits to counsel and not to much have trusted on your own, they would at the lest have charged you, not to challenge another for wit, (your self therein being nothing comparable in all wise men's judgements, even of your own side that know both him and you) lest while you stand so much on wit, you show yourself not so wise as witty, not yet so witty as yourself ween you be, or your friends and I for my part would wish you were, so that you employed it better than you do. The conjectures that you gather of his disorder, that he was encumbered with some his domestical affairs at home, that he thought his fellows protestants would take all things in good gree. That M. Feckenham was shut up close enough from answering. That he thought no Catholic else would take upon him to answer his lewd book: All these are nothing else but the lewd imaginations which that witty pate of yours hath maliciously conceived M. Stay. The third quarrel is: That the Bishop proceedeth Stap. 56. a. not now to the new Testament. I had thought, Master Horn (say you) that from the old Testament, ye would have go to the new Testament: and would have laboured to have established your matters thereby: belike the world goeth very hard with you in that behalf, that ye do not so: saving that here and there ye jumble in a testimony or two, I can not tell how, but how unhandesomelye and from the purpose, yea against your own self, that I wo●…e well, and you shall anon hear of it also. Yea, well said Master Stapleton, and tell him so to, let him hear of it thoroughly, both here and there to, for so you shall the better increase your Counterblast. But will you tell it him anon in very deed? Then I pray you, where, and how, master Stapleton, will you tell it him? Where? even here and there, where he iumbleth in a testimony or two, I can not tell how. Can you not tell how master Stapleton he allegeth them? then I think you will answer them you can not tell how, full unhandsomly and from the purpose, can you tell what? Well, I had thought master Stapleton, your wits being your own, they had been more circumspect than I perceive they be. And that your memory could have made one lie, to have hanged better to another. For how hangs this together: you will answer him, where here and there he iumbleth in a testimony or two, out of the new Testament: and that you say: I had thought master Horn, from the old Testament, you would have go to the new Testament, and would have laboured to have established your matters thereby, belike the world goeth very hard with you in that behalf, that you do not so? When M. St. quarrels at the Bishop's testimonies out of the new testament. yourself even in the next words confess, that he doth so out of the new Testament also. here and there (say you) he iumbleth in a testimony or two. Wherefore doth he this, but to labour to establish his matters thereby? Tush say you, he doth it but here and there a testimony or two. Had it been but one testimony, M. Stap. it had been enough to prove you a liar: nor the truth, nor force of the truth, consists in numbers of testimonies, one true testimony were enough, had he no more. But you confess, he had a testimony or two, yea and that here and there a testimony or two, and I think, when you cast your account, there will be found more than three or four, & so again prove yourself a liar. But say you, he doth b●…t jumble them in. Howsoever he jumble them in, M. St. beware you they tumble not out your cause, for the jumbling in of them, hath proved you already to have mumbled up a lie, & a contr●…tion to your own tals. But you say, he did it, you can not tell how. I think the same M. St. And therefore as I said before, you could not tell how you answered, nor how you contraried yourself. For howsoever he did it, he did therein go from the old testament to the new testament, which you both deny & grant, you can neither tell how, nor where, nor what. And therefore to conclude with your own words, belike the world goeth very hard with you in that behalf. For shame, M. Sta. upbraid not their wits unto others, & so much ouerth●…te your own. The second part is the clearing of M. Feckenham to be no heretic, consisting on two parcels, the one altogether on railing and scorns. In the mean while (say you) it is worth the labour, well Sta. 56. b. to consider the excellent pregnant wit, and great skill of this man, who hath in the former treatise of master Feckenham, espied out (which surely the wisest and best learned of all the world, I trow, besides master Horn, would never have espied, such a special grace the man hath given him of his master the Devil, of mere malice, joined with like folly) that M. Feckenham is an heretic and a Donatist. Whosoever be the Donatist, every reader may see, how M. St. showeth himself a plain scoffing Lucianist, vaunting his wit, and despising all others, like a part Pharisée, in the mean season, answering nothing to the matter. And therefore let this go to his proper common place. The other parcel is to clear M. Fe. by occasion of that the bishop said, he bewrayed his secret heresies. M. St. catcheth hold of this word secret. But yet (saith he) M. Feck. is somewhat beholding to him, Stap. 56. b. that he saith M. Fe. hath bewrayed his secret heresies: wherein he saith for the most part truly, for if there be any heresy at all in this matter, surmised upon him, as certainly there is none, it is so secret and privy, that Argus himself with all his eyes shall never espy it, not nor M. Horn himself, let him pry never so narrowly. Were it even so secret as you devise master Stapl. yet M. Feck. secret heresies. being secret, than it is: contrary to that you affirm (as certainly there is none) whereas certainly there is one, and must needs be, if it be secret. Yea and be it a great deal more secret than you ween, though Argus with all his eyes could not espy it, yet there is an espier, even he that see the Pharisies thoughts, and searcheth the reins, Math. 9 jerem. 17. and from whom no secrets are hide: he that seeth all your secret practices & conspiracies, even he seeth all your secret heresies. Tush say you with the wicked, the Lord seeth not. But, he that made the eye, shall he not sé●…? Yes, M. Sta. he Psal. 93. seeth them, and hath so detected them, that there need no Argus eyes. The bishop seeth them, and sets them out, that all the world may see & stare upon them: Yea thanks be given to the opener of all secrets, this donatistical dealing in rejecting the prince's authority in eccl. matters, and M. Feck. refusal of the examples of the old testament: if there were no body else to reveal the same, not only M. Feck himself hath openly bewrayed, but M. Dorman also, and other your complices. Although therefore you think you be not espied, because you dance in a net, and play boopéepe, seest me, seest me not: yet this your dealing both bewrays itself, and is daily more and more made apparent by others, to the view of all men's eyes. The third part of this answer is a retorting of this crime of heresies unto us. Wherefore on the other side (says he) M. Horn and his Stap. 56. b. fellows, and his masters Luther's and calvin's heresies, are no secret nor simple heresies, but so manifold and so open, that they have no way or shifted to save their good name and honesty, blotted and blemished for ever (without repentance) for the obstinate maintenance of the same. Whereof many were many hundredth years since condemned, partly by the holy fathers, partly by general Counsels. Nothing of this being hitherto proved, but barely avouched, it may stand (M. Stap.) for words of course, till you bring some proof thereof. As for that you add in distinct letters, how the Bishop saith: The Donatists are the Catholics ancestors: you deprave the bishop's words to aggravate the matter: he spoke the quite contrary, that the Donatists were rather the Catholics enemies, who rising against them, yet clothed themselves with the name of catholics, as do you like unto them, neither of you both, papists nor Donatists, being catholic, otherwise than as I told you before, of your catholic hostess at Oxeforde: a catholic woman, that is to say, a common quean. The bishop said, that herein M. Feck. was a Donatist, and so he proveth him, till you shall improve it. In which challenge he strayeth not from the butt, of the princes supreme government. And having occasion therein, to note his like subtle dealing, to elude all the examples of the old Testament, he charges him therewith, & goeth no further, as you do, shooting so wide from the mark without any eye or aim thereto, which right now in your ruff you called upon so hastily, and now so soon yourself have so far forgotten, that where you should couch you only to this matter, wherein M. Feck. not impertinently is burdened, and you are hired to clear him: you let go the clearing of him, & snatch occasion thereat, to charge us again with a number of other heresies. Good sir (say you) may it please you favourably to hear, Sta. 56. b. you and your masters honourable pedigree, and of their worthy feats and prowess. You have herded of them before perhaps, and that by me. But such things as may edify the Catholic, and can never be answered by the Heretic, Decies repet●…ta placebunt. How should your book, M. St. arise to so fair a volume, but by such vain extravagant tenfold repetitions. But you say, you will repeat them so often, because they may edify the catholic, and can never be answered by the heretic. Whosoever be the catholic, it is to be feared some of them will detect yourself, to be the heretic that you mean we be. To that you say, we can not answer them, though we have herded of them before, and that by me, say you: this is but your fond vaunting of yourself, and of your paltry works, M. Stap. All which is besides the matter here in question, and therefore deserveth not the answering. Howbeit, for the most part, as it is objected often and full peevishly, by other likewise of your side: so is it answered again on our part, & as yet remains unanswered unto of you. Nevertheless, because either the importunity of your extreme craking, might seem to enforce a further answer: or else your gentle mockery, and buxom entreaty, might not seem worthy to be rejected, saying so courteously, good sir may it please you favourably to hear you and your masters honourable pedigree. Go to therefore M. St. though it be altogether impertinent, let us hear a God's name what you have to charge us with, and we will see, how we can answer thereto: and shall we say as you said before? see you lie not, for it you do, be you assured we will make no courtesy Supra. 55 a. eftsoons to put you in remembrance. Though you spoke those words to him, of straying from the mark, and here yourself stray so far therefrom. To come therefore to the fourth part, which is a rerecharge to us, of a number of ancient heresies. How say you then (says M. Stapl.) to the great heretic The Heresies that the papists falsely charge us withal. August & Epiph. de haeres. Hier. contra joviniam. Ambr. Li. 10. Epi. 18. Ambros. serm. 91. Aerius the Arian, that said there was no difference between Priest and Bishop, between him that fasted and that did not fast, and that the sacrifice for the dead was fruitless? How say you to jovinian that denied virginity to have any excellency above Matrimony or any special reward at God's hands? to the Arians that denied the miracles done at Saints tombs to be true Miracles, and that the Martyrs can not cast out the Devils, and relieve them that be possessed? To the Bogomiles that said the Devils sat at the Saints tombs and did wonders there, to illude and deceive the people, to 'cause the people to worship them? To Berengarius condemned Euth in Panopl. tit. 33. in diverse Counsels, first for denying of the Real presence in the Sacrament of the Altar, and then for denying the Transubstantiation? To the Paulicians, that said these Euth. Zigab. in Paul. tit. 21. words of Christ, take, eat, this is my body, are not to be understanded of his body, or the bread and wine used at the celebration of our lords maundy, but of the holy Scriptures▪ Hieron. contra Vig. jonas Episcopus Au●…elian contra Claud. which the priests should take at Christ's hand, and deliver and distribute to the people? To Claudius and Vigilantius, that denied the invocation of Saintes, and enueighed against the blessed relics, and the use of lights and other Futh in Panopl. Tit. 22. August. lib. 1. cont. 2. Epist. Pela. ad Bon if. cap. 13. Cyril. lib. 6. cont. julian. ceremonies of the Church? To the Massilians and other heretics, saying that concupiscence as a sin remains in us after holy baptisine? And because you shall not say, I suppress, conceal, or obscure, the chief and most notable people of your ancestry: how say you to the emperors Philippicus, Leo, Constantinus, condemned with their adherentes by the seventh general Council at Nice, that villayned by defacing, breaking and burning, the images of all the holy hallows of Christ, and Christ's too? to whom for your more honour and glory I adjoin the Emperor julianus the Apostata. Who, as you do in your books and pulpits, cried out upon the Christians. O you wretched men, that worship the wood of the Cross, setting up the sign of it upon your foreheads and doors: you therefore that are of the wisest sort, are worthy to be hated, and the residue to be pitied, that treading after your steps come to such a kind of wretchedness? To the Pelagians August. count. 2. Epist P●…l. ca 4 affirming that children not baptized shallbe saved? and yet are your Masters in this point worse than the Pelagians, aswell for that some of them have said, that some infants though unbaptized shallbe damned, and some other though calvin in his Institutions ca 18. In fine Argentorati impress. Anno. 1545. unbaptized shallbe saved. And some of them especially calvin and other Sacramentaries say, that they shall come without Baptism to the kingdom of heaven: which the Pelagians dared not say, but that they should have the life everlasting, putting a difference, but peevishly, betwixt these two. And if you think the race of your worthy generation is not fetched high enough, we will mount higher, and as high as may be, even to Simon Magus himself. Of whom Martion Epiph. & Philast. de Haeres▪ Clemens li. 3. recog. Irenaeus Li. 1. cap. 20. and Manicheus, and after long and honourable succession your patriarchs, Luther and calvin, have learned their goodly doctrine against free will. Yea to touch the very foundation and wellspring of this your new Gospel, which altogether is grounded upon justification without good works, in that also you draw very nigh to the said Simon Magus. In all this, here is nothing else, but the heaping up, of an impertinent, s●…launderous, and malicious rabble, partly of Heretics, partly of no Heretics, some of them falsely belied, most of them falsely applied, either they defending no such things, or some of these us Heresies, nor any of their Heresies maintained of us. First for the Arianism of Aerius with whom M. Stapleton The Papists deface the glory of Christ as ill as Arius or Aerius. beginneth, would God the Papists had not as much, defaced the glory of Christ, as did the Ariaus, but he finds no fault with them therefore. He upbraideth to us, three other points. First that Aerius said, there was no difference between Priest and Bishop, and you a●…e (M. Stapleton) how say we to him? What soever we say to him, we have first to say to you, Difference between Priest and Bishop. that saving the reverence of your Priesthood, there is no difference between you and a liar, to object Aerius herein to us: Whereas (you know well enough) our Church doth acknowledge in the ministery, a difference of Deacon and Elder, from a Bishop, although not according to your Popish orders. For as neither Epiphanius, nor yet Augugustine (quoted by you) speaketh there of any sacrificing Priest, so he never knew any such Pontifical prelate's as your Popish Church breedeth. And yet of those that were even then in Epiphanius time, and of their difference from the Elders or Priests, if you know not how it came: Jerome that lived in the same age will tell you, or if you have not red him, your own Canons will tell you what he saith. I dem est ergo Presbyter qui Episcopus & antequam Hieronimus ad Titum. Dist. 93. can. Olim idem: Diabols studia, etc. An Elder or Priest therefore is the same that a Bishop, and before that the studies of the Devil were made in Religion, and that the people said I hold of Paul, I of Apollo, I of Cephas, the Churches were governed by the common Counsel of the Elders, but after that every one did account those to be his, and not to be Christ's, whom he had baptized, in all the world, it was decreed, that one of the Elders being choose, should be placed above the rest: to whom all the care or charge of the Church should belong, and the seed of schisms be taken away. And a little after. Sicut ergo Presbyteri, as therefore the Elders know that they by the custom of the church, are subject to him, that is set over them: so let the Bishops know, that they, more by custom, than by the truth of the lords dispensation, are greater than the Elders. This was the judgement of the ancient Fathers, & yet were they no Arians, nor Aerians therefore. Yea Peter Lombarde the master of the sentences, citing also Isidorus to witness, says: Apud Lib. 4. Dist. 24. 1. vetere●… idem Episcopi & Presbyter●… fuerunt. Among the ancient Fathers, Bishops and Elders were all one. And again alleging the Apostle S. Paul, he says, Qualis autem▪ etc. 1. Tim. 3. But what manner an Elder aught to be choose, the Apostle writing to Timothy declareth, where by the name of Bishop he signifieth an Elder. And anon after: Cumque omnes, and when all of them (he means his false seven orders) are spiritual and holy, yet the Canons accounted only two orders to be excelling holy, that is to say, Deaconship and Eldership. Because the primitive Church is red to have these alone, and we have the Apostles commandment of these alone, for the Apostles in every City ordained Bishops and Elders. Neither the Master only writeth thus, but almost all your schoolmen, yea though they be themselves of the contrary opinion, yet they writ this was the ancient opinion. And so Durandus, though he make a difference between the power of jurisdiction, & the power of order, yet he showeth Durandus de sancto Porti●…no in lib. 4. Sent. Dist. 24. Q. 6. that both the Scripture, & S. Jerome maketh no difference, but only the custom & institution of the Church. The Apostle (says he) writing to the Philippenses cap. 1. says: With the Bishops and the Deacons, by them understanding the Elders, sith in one city as in Philippos, many Bishops aught not to be. Again Act. 2. he says, Look to yourselves and to all the flock in which the holy ghost hath placed you to be Bishops. And he spoken unto them of the only city of Ephesus. But this appeareth more expressly to Titus the. 1. Where he says for this cause I have left thee at Crete, that thou shouldst correct those things that want, & ordain Elders through out the cities, even as I have appointed to thee, if any be blameless the husband of one wife. And straight he setteth under it, a B. must be blameless. And whom before he named an Elder, he calleth now a Bishop. And in the. 4. of the. 1. to Timothy, Despise not (says he) the grace of God which is given to thee through the imposition of the hands of an Elder, that is to say of a Bishop. S. Paul called himself an Elder, when he was the Bishop that ordained him. Thus far & more at large Durandus, concluding at length, Sic ergo. Thus therefore says S. Jerome, that a Bishop and an Elder. Olim fuerunt nomin●… synonym●…, etc. were in the old time diverse names betokening one thing indifferently, and also of one administration▪ because the Churches were ruled by the common Counsel of the Priests. But for the remedy of a schism, lest each one drawing the Church after him, should break her: it was ordained that one should be above the rest, et qu●…ad nomen, etc. And so far forth as stretcheth to the name, that he only should be called Bishop, and that so far as stretcheth to the administration of some Sacraments and Sacramentals, they should be reserved to him by the custom & constitution of the Church. And this would Jerome expressly, 93. Dist. cap. legimu●… in Esa. & super epistolam ad Tit. & recitatur Dist. 93. cap. Olim presbyter●… etc. Consuetudo aut institutio Ecclesiae potest dare Iurisdicti●…nem sed non potestatem ordinis aut consecrationis, quare. etc. He therefore that counteth this erroneous or perilous, let him impute this to Jerome, out of whose saying in the fore alleged chapter, Legimus in Esa. the foresaid authorities are taken. Where also he putteth an example, That it is of a Bishop in respect of priests, as of an Archdeacon in respect of Deacons: unless the Deacons choose one among themselves whom they call Archdeacon etc. In the end Durandus reconciling Jerome says: and the authorities alleged by Jerome withstand it not, because according the name and the truth of the thing, every Bishop is an Elder: and on the other part, so far as stretcheth to the name, every Elder having cure, may be called a Bishop, as superattendent on other, although the consecration of a Bishop, or of the chief Priest, be larger than of a simple Priest or Elder: but peradventure in the p●…imitiue Church they made not such force in the difference of names as they do now. And therefore they called a Bishop every one that had a cure. Thus writeth Durandus of the ancient Father's opinions. And will you count him or them Aerians too? And this also doth your institution in Co●…aine Council confess, N on est tamen putandum. We must not for all this Institu●…o doct. Christi de ●…acr. or dinis fol. 196. think, that he ordained Bishops another order from Priests, for in the Primitive church Bishops and Priests were all one. The which the Epistles of Peter and Paul the Apostles, S. Jerome al●…o and almost all the ancient ecclesiastical writers do witness. And chief that place of the first Epistle of S. Peter the ●…ist chapter, is evident to declare this. For when Peter had said, The Elders that are among you, I also an Elder with you beseech, which am also a witness of the passions of Christ, and pa●…taker of the glory to come that shallbe revealed: He joined under it, Feed or guide the flock of Christ that is among you, and oversee it, not by compulsion, but willingly, according to God. Wherein it is spoken more expressly in the Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is to say, Superattendent, from whence also the name of Bishop is drawn. Wherefore Priesthood is esteemed the highest order in the Church. In the mean time, no body is ignorant, that this order is distinguished again, by a certain order of offices and dignities. Thus do your Schoolmen and Divines witness: First, that in the Substance, Order, or Character as they term it, there is no difference between a Priest and a Bishop. Secondly, that the difference is but of Accidents and circumstances, as degrees of dignity, jurisdiction, Honour, etc. Thirdly, that in the Primitive Church, this difference was not known, but they were merely all one and the same. Fourthly, that this difference was taken up by custom, consent, and ordinance of the Universal Church when it once began to be dispersed in all the world. Fiftly, that it was done for the avayding of factions and sects that grew in the time of the ministers equality even anon after the Primitive Church, and some of them in the Apostles time. But quite contrary to this judgement of your Divines, are all your canonists, your Divines make seven orders. Et in hoc says Angelus de clavisio, concordant communiter theologs. Summa angelica L. ordo. On this the divines agreed commonly, but the Canonists hold, that there are nine orders according to nine Hierarchies, that is to wit, the first notch or psalmist, and the order of a Bishop, and that the first notch is an order, the text is in C. cum contingit & ibi do. Anto. & canonist●… de 〈◊〉. & quali. or. similiter quod Episcopatus est ordo & quod imprimatur Character indi●…io meo facit inconuincibiliter, tex. in C. 1. de ordinatis ab Episcopo etc. & sic secundum Canonist as erunt novem The Papists controversy about their holy orders. ordines. And so according to the canonists there shallbe nine orders. Great ado your Scoolemen and canonists make about this, in so much that Aerius heresy will draw very near to one of you, light on which side it shall. But yourself may hold on both sides M. Stapleton, being both a Bachelor in the one, and a student in the other. As for us, you do falsely burden us. Our doing is apparent therein, acknowledging all due obedience and reverence to our Bishops. But as for your Popish Clergy, there is in deed little difference in this point or none, which barrel is better herring, B. or Priest, both stark naught, or rather neither of them either true Priest or B. by S. Paul's description. Secondly, you object that Aerius said there was no difference Difference between fasting & not fasting. between him that fasted and him that did not fast: wherein also as in the other, your conscience (have you any) knoweth, that you wittingly slander us, and babbling of fast, do lie as fast as a dog doth trot. For we allow Bbb. ij. and commend fasting as godly, & exhort all men thereto as needful. Only we inveigh against the superstitions of the Popish fasts, that bind fasting to necessary and superstitious laws, to difference of days and meats, wherein the kingdom of God consists not, that ascribe a merit to their fast, and make it a matter of conscience and religion. Such errors we disallow, and if this be heresy, the Apostles, and the chiefest of all the ancient fathers, were heretics also, who made concerning conscience, no difference of meats, or of days for their mmates, in their fasting. Montanus the heretic, saith Apollonius, was the first qui docuit nup●…ias solus & qui ●…orum leges primus imposuit. Fuseb eccl. hist. li. 5. ca 18 That taught the dissolution of marriages, and first of all appointed laws of fasting. For before it was free to fast as they would. As Ireneus (blaming Pope Victor for his pertinacy, in being the author of such a schism, for diversity of using the feast of Easter) doth witness Non solum. Eccl. histor. lib. 5. cap. 24. etc. Not only (saith he) the controversy is moved of Easter day, but also of the very form of fastings. For certain do think that fast should be kept but only one day, other two days, other more. Yea many fast forty days, but so that they reckon the day accounting the hours of the day & the night together. The which variety of keeping their fast, began not first now, nor in our times, but long before us, of them (as I deem) who not retaining simply, that which was delivered from the beginning, have afterward fallen into another custom, either by negligence or by folly. Socrates' writing further of this diversitic not only of fasting times, but of the meats also, says on this wise. Sed Tripartit. hist. lib. 9 cap. 38. etiam ciborum. etc. but of the meats also they have not the like abstinence, for some altogether abstain from living creatures. Other of living creatures eat only fish▪ some with fish do eat fowls also, saying that these (after Moses) have their substance of the water. Other are known to abstain from innards and eggs. Some will eat only dry bread, some not so much as that, some fasting until nine a clock, are refreshed without any difference of meats. And innumerable customs are fond among divers men. And because there is no ancient record found therein, I think the Apostles left this to the mind of every man, that every man might do that that is good neither by fear, nor by necessity. In which testimonies are to be noted: first the free liberty Fonre things to be noted in the fastings of the ancient Church. for every Church to fast as they thought good, without any fear of conscience, or any necessity enforcing them thereto. Secondly, that this liberty, was both in the time of fasting, and in the meat, without any difference of fish or flesh. Thirdly, that this was the order of the Apostles, and the primitive church. Fourthly, that they which began to altar this custom, and to bind themselves to days or meats, swerved from the beginning by negligence or folly. This was the former estate for fasting. But after Montanus the heretic began first to prescribe laws to fasting, many superstitions ensued: Some began to have scruple in eating flesh, as Bishop Spiridions weary guest, before whom when he set a piece of pork on a fasting day, his guest refused Trip. Hist. li. 1 ca 10. to eat thereof, Christianum se profitente, because he was a Christian. To whom, quoth Spiridion, propterea magis refutare non debes: Even because thou art a Christian, thou oughtest the more not to refuse it. For all things are clean to them that be clean, as the word of God hath taught. But for all this, after Montanus laws, superstition began to grow so fast, that even Jerome, a great commender of fasting, was fain to exhort them to moderation, yea, to cry out thereon: Tantum tibi. etc. Appoint unto thyself such a measure of Hieron. ad Nepotianum. thy fasting, as thou canst bear. Let thy fastings be pure, chaste, simple moderate, & not superstitious. What availeth not to taste of oil, and to seek for dainty meats, and hard to come by, puddings, pepper nuts, the fruits of palms, meal, honey, craknels, all the trimming of the gardens is tossed, that we should not feed on common bread. And thus, while we seek delicates, we are drawn quite from the kingdom of God. Yea, besides this, I hear say of some, that contrary to the rule and nature of men, will drink no water, nor eat bread, but delicates, suppings, and chopped pot herbs, and the juice of Beets, nor will not sup it in a cup, but in a shell. Phie for shame, Blush we not at these toys? do not these superstitions irk us? If Jerome cried out thus in his days of such superstitions fastings, and yet be no heretic, are we heretics that cry out of the popish superstitions, a thousand parts more toyish than in Hieromes time, and a thousand times more delicate knacks found out to fast forsooth withal? But as the saying is, show me not the meat, but show me the man. Look upon your chief fasters, your popish chaplains, your religious monks and The Popish chief fastest. Abbots, what gorbelly paunches, what fat cheeks, what rich noses and high faces, your stalfed fasters had? they showed well what porridge they loved, in so much that Aerius made not so little difference between a Priest and a Bishop, as every man made less difference between a Monk and a burstenbelly churl. Even Chawcer that describeth a Monk, doth give him this praise, He looked not like a forepyned ghost, Chawcer in the Monks Prologue. A fat swan he loved best of any roast. Such were those that even by profession pretended to be chiefest fasters, when they had filled themselves till they sweat again, with all dainty viands, than they cried hold belly hold, O quantum patimur pro amore Christi, what pains we suffer for Christ's sake. And yet because they eat no flesh, not not an egg on a fasting day, except it were in Aduent, the innards, tripes, and trullibubbes, for that was no flesh, we must understand: O they were holy catholic fasters. And because we reject these foolish toys, and superstitious fasts of these bellygod Epicures, they cry out upon us, we are Heretics, we are Aerians, we make no difference between him that fasteth, and that fasteth not. But as herein you slander us, so you béelie Aerius also, and that even by the judgement of your great champion Alfonsus de Castro, who alleging S. Augustine to witness, saith: Non dicit. etc. He saith not that he quite contemned Lib. 7 de 〈◊〉. 2. h●…r. fasting, but he ascribeth this unto him, only that he should say, certain appointed fastings are not to be observed but each one should fast when he would, lest he should seem to be under the law. Aerius therefore speaketh not against fasting, but only against the laws of fasting, by no manner means admitting, that the Church can bind us to fast, because, although fasting be healthful and profitable to the soul, yet will he not that any should be constrained. Thus saith Alfonsus of Aerius opinion for fasting, M. St. belieth Aerius. and not as you say, master Stapleton, that he made no difference between him that fasted, and that fasted not. Whereas Aerius made a great difference, and Alfonsus cleareth him of that you accuse him. But howsoever Alfonsus in the other point (wherein you let him go free) accuseth Aerius by S. Augustine's testimony: if he altogether contemned all manner of fasting ordained by the Church, then are we cleared from being charged with him, for we refuse only the superstitious necessitis of the Popish The Church of England alloweth fasting. Church's laws. As for the true Church of Christ, if upon any occasion, some laws of fasting should be made by her, toll us where we have said, we would contemn them. Yea, it is apparent we yield obediently to those laws of fasting ordained by the queens Majesty, and her realm, the Church of England: which be not superstitious fasts, nor binding the mind of the faster with any necessity of conscience, but made for the necessity and policy of the Realm, and state of our country. And if the whole Church of Christ, ordain like laws for fasting, we show hereby how little we would with Aerius despise the same: but we with the word of God, and with the true Church of Christ in the Apostles times, in the primative age, and in the ancient father's days: reject all such superstitions in fasts, as the Popish laws and customs ●…o burden the Church withal. And thus doth even S. Augustine (that noteth Aerius) writing to Casulanus against one Urbicus in Rome, who would have it observed for a law, and made a foolish book thereon, that men should fast on Saturday and other days, saying that Peter did so, (whom he calleth) as the papists Saturday fast. do, the head of the Apostles, the porter of heaven, and the foundation of the Church) when he convicted Simon Magus. S Augustine improveth this tale, by Peter's concord with all his fellow Disciples, that used no such fast. And after long proving and improving, he concludeth thus: Si autem quontam huic quantum potus, etc. But (because I think Aug. Epi. 83. I have answered this as sufficiently as I could) if you ask my sentence hereon: I revolving it in my mind, do see that in the evangelical and Apostolical writings, and in the whole instrument that is called the new Testament, fasting is commanded. But on what days we should not fast, and on what days we should fast, I find it not defined by the commandment of the Lord, or of the Apostles. And by this, I deem that fasting agreeth fit, not in deed to obtain righteousness, which faith obtaineth, wherein is the beauty inward of the king's daughter. etc. Howbeit in this fast or dinner on the Saturday, nothing seemeth to me herein to be kept more safely and quietly, than that he which eateth, despise not him that eateth not, nor he which eateth not, despise not him which eateth. For neither if we eat, we shall Rom. 14. abound, neither shall we want if we do not eat. That is to say, while we keep company with those among whom we live (and with whom we live to God) without offence taking in these things: For as for that the Apostle saith is true, it is ill for the man that eateth through offence, so is it ill for the man, that by offence doth fast. etc. Thus far saint Augustine against the precise appointing of fast on the Saturday, in whose time it was free for every Church to use her own custom. Yea, as he concludeth with answer of Ambrose hereon: When I am at Milan I fast not on the Saturday, when I am at Rome, I fast on the Saturday. And to what Church you come keep the order thereof if you will neither give, nor take offence. Thus we see, first how the fasts of the Church of Rome, The Church of Rome appointed not laws for fasting to other Churches were no such law to all other Churches, to receive from her their order or days of fasting, or else they had been Aerians: for than had both S. Augustine & Ambrose to, been Aerians by master Stapletons' rule, and by the Pope's obtrusion of his Church's fasts, to all other Churches now. But the Church of milan even under his nose, besides those of Africa, were at that time of contrary orders. Secondly, as it was of Saturdays fast, so was it also Fridays and Saturdays fasts no more than other days by the scripture. for Friday's fast, or any other days or day, as appeareth by Saint Augustine's general rule, in appealing to the Scripture, and there finding no day at all appointed. As he saith afterward again, Sed quoniam non in●…enimus etc. But because we find not (as I have rehearsed above) in the evangelical and Apostolical writings, which properly pertain to the revealing of the new Testament, that on any certain days it is evidently commanded we should keep fasts. etc. Thirdly, that what days soever they did keep fast, they No difference of merit in fasting or not fasting. did it not as any meritorious act, to obtain righteousness thereby. For this was the difference that the Papists put, between him that fasted and that fasted not, which is a thousand parts worse heresy than was that of Aerius. I ask none other witness herein, than even one of your own side, Friar Ferus, who inveighing against the Pharisees for ascribing righteousness to their sacrifices and ceremonies: Ferus in Math. Cap. 9 But we (saith he) do all things preposterously, placing righteousness in these things, which of themselves are neither good nor bad: neglecting those things wherein true righteousness consists. But one error draweth on another. For from hence followeth, first, that we make to our The Papists confess they make greater conscience on man's decrees than g●…ds word selves a greater conscience of the transgression of the Churches or monkish decrees, than of the transgression of the divine precepts. Secondly, hereon it cometh, that we easily judge other that observe not the same, as here did the disciples of john. When Paul notwithstanding teacheth: let no man judge you in meat or in drink, or by reason of a feast judging of the faster, or not faster. day. etc. Item, he that eateth not, let him not judge him that eateth. etc. To conclude, it is far an other thing to do the work, than to put a trust in the work. It is good to fast and to keep the Church's decrees, but to put a trust in them, is The work, and the trust in the work. not only not good, but wicked. For this cause therefore Christ required not fasting, & other bodily observations, he exacted not of those that are his, or prescribed aught at all of these Why Christ prescribed not orders in these things. things, not that he judged such things of themselves to be evil or unlawful, but that they should not ●…all thither again, that is to were, to a trust of works, from which he would have them most far. The which surely had chanced, if he had exacted any such thing of those that are his, as now we perceyne is committed in the Church's constitutions. For even as soon as ever these constitutions began to be given, men began also therewith to trust in them. And so by little & little we The Papists confess themselves to be Pharisees. have degenerate from true godliness, into a kind of Pharisaical righteousness, or rather into a show of righteousness, the which is more clear than that it can be denied. And afterward complaining further of the Popish fasts and other abuses, he saith: His similes sunt plerique nostrum. etc. Ferus in ca 12. Math. The most of our men are like unto these (he means the Phareseys) that judge they keep the laws then, when they follow externally the letter of the law, when they do nothing less, as appeareth by them that are idle on the feast days, and give themselves to riot, neglecting those things that are pertaining to the Sabaoth. Of those also that think Misjudging in fasting. they fast, when they eat but once a day, but so daintily, and they so glut themselves, that they feel no hunger all day long. On the contrary, they judge not him to fast, but to transgress the commandment, that compelled by poverty, necessity, or labour, doth eat but sparingly often times a day. And a little after: These things do flatly fight with the doctrine of Christ. For first it impugneth the faith, secondly charity, which two Christ did chief touch. For this cause therefore he doth so often blame them. But if we mark ourselves, we shall see ourselves to be even the most culpable in the same things. For commonly our righteousness The Popish righteousness worse than the Pharisees. Outward things. Two things commanded in keeping the Sabaoth. Two things in every precept the heart & the outward work Ecclesiastical constitutions. Apparel. is set most in outward things. I damn not outward things, for who having his right wits would or could so do? But I say they suffice not to salvation. And as I said a little before, of the precept of keeping the Sabaoth, two things are commanded. First, the body's rest, secondly and principally, the rest of the old man from his works: so say I now, every precept requireth two things, that is to weet, the outward work, & the heart, & that principally, which Christ declared enough. Math. 5. But we neglecting that which is principally exacted, do stick only in the external things. The same may I say of the ecclesiastical constitutions, they give not holiness but show it & further it, as for ensample, true religion consists not in this, that thou shouldst wear, this or that habit, but in this, that if thou be dead to the world, thou live to god: & to this point, outward things do also not a little further thee: so the true worship of god is, if that in spirit and truth thou worship the father. But hereto the external worship doth stir thee up. The same also is to be said of fasting, confession, prayer. etc. which chief consist in the heart. But we neglecting The Papists abuse in all these things. these things which are most necessary, do please ourselves about the outward things only. Thus saith Ferus of your Popish fast, containing far worse errors than Aerius not putting of difference, but belike he shallbe an Aerian to. The third thing M. St. objecteth to us out of Aerius, is Sacrifice for the dead. that he said the sacrifice for the dead was fruitless. If you were not also dead and fruitless, for any troth Aerius again belied. in you Master Stapleton, you would never make such a lying sacrifice of your priests lips for shame. As though Aerius were counted an Heretic, for denying the propitiatory sacrifice (as you call it) of the Mass, which you say is available and meritorious, not only for the living, but also for the dead, to deliver them from the feigned pains of purgatory. Whereas if he had affirmed at that time any such thing, he should himself have been counted a strange and new monstrous Heretic. For as then, nor long after, neither your pardons and indulgences, nor your trentals and Diriges, neither your satissactions nor your oblations, neither your Mass of Requiem, nor your soul Priests to sing or say it, were extant or devised. Errors in deed there were about the dead, both then and long before, and such as after gave occasion to these your gainful devices. And if Aerius had denied such errors, or such errors had then been practised, he had been no Heretic for denying them, but rather such Heretics as had maintained them. Which the godly fathers did not, but acknowledged and known of no other place, either of joy or torment after this life but only of heaven and hell. A third place (saith Saint Augustine, that writeth of this Hypognost. lib. 5. Aerius) Penitus ignoramus, We are utterly ignorant of, nor we can find any such in the scriptures. And yet must Saint Augustine needs have known and acknowledged such a third place of deliverance of the dead, if he had meant of prayer and oblation for their deliverance as you do mean. But he flatly denieth the knowing of any such place: it followeth Saint August. knew not of any purging place for the dead. then, that writing thus of Aerius, either he was in the same Heresy, denying any place for the dead to be helped out of, (and whereto then should such prayer serve, or oblation for delivering them out of a place of torment, since there were no such place of torment) & so he confirmed Aerius his saying: or else he must run yet into a greater error and absurdity, that the dead being in one of these two places heaven or hell, they were there helped by such prayers and oblations. But for those that are in hell, the scripture is flat, their Mark. 9 worm shall never die, their fire is unquenchable and everlasting, the rich Glutton could not get from thence, nor Luke. 16. find any never so little ease from his torments. Ab inferno nulla est redemptio. From hell there is no redemption. And this knew saint Augustine well enough, that saith: Duae De verbis Apostoli Serm. 18. quip habitationes, una in igne aeterno, altera in regno aeterno. There are two dwellings the one in fire eternal, the other in the Kingdom eternal. And again: Scitote vos. etc. Know De vanitate s●…culi. you, that when the soul is parted from the body, straightways either it is for his good deeds placed in paradise, or else certainly for his sins, cast headlong into hell fire, choose now that you like, either to rejoice everlastingly with the Saints, o●… without end to be tormented with the wicked. This was the foul and great error of Origene, Saint Origens error of the damned. Augustine was not infected therewith, nor any godly father of his time, much less Epiphanius, that was an earnest condemner of Origene. Although the Papists be not clear of this error, that say they have delivered, and can deliver souls even out of hell, as they tell how Pope Oregorie The Pope delivereth out of hell. delivered Traian an infidel Prince: and how his mother (condemned and tormented in hell fire for her whoredom) was delivered from thence by him through a trental of Masses. Now as for the souls that on the other side be in heaven, The souls in heaven need no prayer for delivery. the other place: I think Saint Augustine was never so far overshot, to say or think that such prayers could ease or deliver them from pains, that were in the joys of heaven. What then remaineth to think of saint August. noting Aerius of Heresy herein. The Grecians and Egyptians errors about the dead. We shall the better perceive this, if we mark the errors that many of the Grecians and Egyptians, had at that time about the dead, yea even those saith Epiphanius, Qui Epiph. in lib. Anachoratus. primas sib●… far videntur. etc. That among certain exercisers of godliness in Egypt, seemed to bear the chiefest sway, and also of those in Thebaida and other Regions, that denied the resurrection of the body, Et Graeci quidam. etc. And certain Grecians there were that utterly denied the resurrection. On the other part there were some that granted it, but with very fond and strange opinions, that partly they had received of the heathen Philosophers, partly they had devised of themselves. For this hath been always one of the devils chief practices, to abuse and deceive the living by the dead. And from hence, as S. Ambrose and S. August. affirm, Ambro. in Rom. 1. August. de ciu. dei. jud. Epist. August. de mirabilibus sacrae script. lib. 1. Cap ult. 1. Cor. 15. by worshipping the pictures of the dead, sprung all Idolatry, and therefore the Devil strived so much for the body of Moses, as diverse learned father's note thereon. And of all errors, the most ancient are those that have sprung about the dead. As with the Saducees among the jews before Christ's coming, by other among the Corinthians in S. Paul's time baptizing over the dead, and these above said Heresies in the east Church. As likewise in the west, by thrusting the communion bread into the mouths of the dead, by conceiving opinions of their estate such as they had learned out of Plato and Virgil, of their pains August. Enchi. ad Laurent. and torments, of their ease & deliverance whom they loved and wished well unto, of whom saith Saint August. Humana quadam benevolentia mihi falli videntur, and as even Epiphanius saith, Quum vero tales à via vera discesserint, & Theophil. in ●…or. veritatem dei ad fabulas converterint: When such men swerved from the true way, and converted the truth of God into fables, Such as Origens conceits and allegories were, such as the morals of Oregorie are full of, such as the Heretics fathered of the Apostles names, Saint Peter's Gospel, Saint Thomas Gospel, Nichodemus Gospel. etc. Then no marvel, if not only the Heretics had ill opinions of thedeade, but also some of the godly and learned fathers in this behalf, were either somewhat deceived, The godly father's errors about the dead. overcuriously searching and affirming, that they knew not, or carried to much away with the sway of the people's abuses. Yea and by his leave, though he were an excellent and Epiphanius defects. godly writer, yet in this point Epiphanius somewhat overshot himself. Although I speak it not to accuse him, nor to excuse Aerius, for no doubt as Aerius was The drift of Aerius. an open Artian, that denied the divinity of our Saviour Christ: so conertly he shot herein against the resurrection with the foresaid Heretics, as appeareth by Epiphanius his confutation of him. Who not only confuteth him, but also showeth why at that time they used such an order for the dead, which in the latter end of the Book, showing the diverse rites of the Christians in his Country then, he expoundeth what it was: In his The ancient father's memories for the dead were but thanks giving and praises. autem qui vita defuncti sunt, ex nomine memorias faciunt, orationes ad deum perficientes ac cultus divinos & mysteriorum dispensationes. But as concerning those which are dead, they make memorials by name, while they make their prayers to God and divine worship and dispensing of the mysteries. That is, in their public prayers of the divine service, and receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper, they made a thankful memorial of such as were departed in the Why they praised God for the dead. faith of Christ, giving God praise and thanks for them, to confirm the faith of the living in the hope of the deades resurrection. Now, that they meant not by these doings, any such deliverance out of pains of Purgatory, or any such other thing as the Papists dream of, and would deceive the people withal: Epiphanius himself doth plainly declare, not to much regarding what the heretic did pretend, as what he ment to destroy the hope Epiph cont. Haer. lib. 3. to 1. Haer. 75. of the Resurrection, and being an Artian to abase the prefection of Christ: Postea verò (sayeth he) de co quòd proferantur nomina defunctorum. etc. But afterward, concerning that the names of those that are departed this life, a●…e brought forth, what can be more profitable than this, what more commodious than this, and what more worthy admiration? that these that are present, believe that they which are departed do live, and are not none, but they are, and are living with the Lord. Whereby it appeareth that those prayers, were principally to confirm the hope of the immortality of the soul, and the body's resurrection: and rather confute the Heresy of Pope john. 22. than confirm any Popish Mass or Dirige for the dead. Notwithstanding, for that that followeth, Epiphanius is not altogether excusable, though to be born withal, more than you bear with him for rending the picture of Christ, In Epist▪ and 10. Hierosol. epist. and not suffering so much as an Image on painted clot, not not of Christ himself, to stand in the Church, although it served but for the use of a veil. What would he have done trow you, if he had come into one of your Churches, all to be dashed with Images, not only painted on clothes, but carved in wood and stone? no doubt he would have broken them all to fitters, and have cried out on your open Idolatry. And so, had he seen what horrible errors and superstitions, your Church maintaineth about the dead, and that his words should after have given occasion, to pretend in his name a defence of such superstition: undoubtedly he would have told you to your faces, that you wrested his words, and abused him, and were far worse yourselves than ever Aerius was: and would (as did Saint August.) have revoked such words, as whereby you should have picked any such occasion. But he foresaw not this, as he see the other. But rather (as you say afterward of Nicephorus) was carried away in the sway of the common error, and so Stapl. 77. b. defended that which you now pretend to bolster your errors by. As for any authority for this usage, such as it was, Epiphanius allegeth none at all, out of the word of God: yea, Prayers needless for the saints in heaven. and that was more fond in the doing, he saith, they prayed for the patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists. Wherein you will grant, I am sure, M. St. both yourself and your Church doth serve from him. And your own Pope's Decree saith, Iniuriam facit martyri, qui orat pro Ca Cum Marthae decele. Missae. martyr he doth injury to a martyr, that prayeth for a martyr. The reason, he is in bliss already. But wherefore (says he) made they this prayer for the saints already in heaven? for sooth to separate Christ from the order of men, by the honour they gave him, that he excelled all creatures, were they never so holy. Which though it be most true, and withal confuteth your adoration of Saints departed, yet their reason herein was very fond, that therefore they should pray for them that were already in perfect bliss and glory. And as fond was it to pray for those that died in their Prayer ●…lesse for them that died in their sins. sins, against whom the scripture is plain and plat: and hereto accordeth the best of the learned fathers, as I have declared before of S. Aug. whom you quote with Epiphanius. If therefore Epiphanius meant more than thanks giving to God, for his mercies to the saints, in saving them, & praising God for his justice to the wicked in condemning them, and withal to confirm in the living the hope of the resurrection of the dead: then is Epiphanius not only contrary to the Scripture, and S. Aug. but also to himself, and to the best of all the fathers besides, whose traditions is the only argument that Epiphanius pretendeth. Cyprian (who also admitteth the memorials & oblations Ad Demetrianum Tom. 1. of thanks giving for the faithful martyrs departed) yet in this point of doctrine to pray for any departed, as to help them by their prayers, or that they be in case to need & found such help, he utterly denieth. Quando istin●… excessum fuerit, etc. when we are departed out of this life, there is now no place for repentance, no desire of satisfaction, life is either lost here, or got here by the worship of God, and the fruit of faith, eternal salvation is provided for: neither is any body hindered, either by his sins or his years, that thereby he might the less come to the obtaining of salvation. To him that is abiding in this world repentance is never to late. etc. Athanasius likewise, Animae à nobis profectae ubi & quomodo Lib. de varijs quest. Q 19 sint. etc. Where the souls departed from us, are, and how they be, is a strange and horrible question, and hide from men: for God hath not suffered any to return from thence, which should declare it. Notwithstanding out of the scripture we learn, that the souls of sinners be in hell, and the souls of the just be in Paradise. (Without any mention at all of Purgatory.) The judgement of S. Jerome is very plain, and inserted among your Popish decrees; In praesenti siculo. etc. 13. Quest. 2. c●…. in present. While we are in this present world, either by prayers or by counsels, we may one be helped of another: but when we shall come before the judgement seat of Christ, neither job, nor Daniel, nor No can do aught for any body, but every one shall bear his own burden. And again, In isaiah. ca 65. he that while he liveth in this body, shall not have obtained the forgiveness of sins, and so shall departed out of his life, perisheth unto God, and endeth his being, although to himself he be in pains. He that hath n●…t washed away his sins (saith Chrisostome) Chry. ad Heb. ca 2. hom. 4. in this present life, shall not afterward find any consolation. For in hell, saith he, who shall praise thee? and worthily said, for this is the time of cares and conflicts, and wrastlinges, as for that is the time of crowninges, of retributions, and rewardinges. And again, De Lazaro concione. 2. If thou art made any man's enemy, be reconciled before thou come to judgement. Dispatch all things here, that without grief thou mayest behold the judgement seat. While we are here, we have notable hopes, but so soon as ever we shall be departed from hence, it lieth not in us afterward to repent, nor to wash away the faults we have committed. Yea, he saith more. After the end of Mat. 11. hom. 37. this life, there are no occasions of good works, as wrestlers have then no occasion of getting the garland when the wrestlings are finished. And as Theophilacte saith: after Theophil. in Mat. ca 25. this ly●…e there is no time, either of repenting, or of wishing. All which sayings, if they be true, it followeth there is no place of purging and helping them, that are already dead in their sins: since the s●…ules so departed can not repent, but there is no forgiveness without repentance: since at occasions of their delivery are past, yea, they be passed wishing any goodness to themselves, that is to say, they utterly despair of all mercy, knowing, that wishing booteth not, much less the wishing of others for them: as Theophilact a little before said of the foolish Virgins: The virtues of my neighbour Ibidem. will hardly suffice for his own defence, so far off is it from helping me. Thus are all these Doctors contrary to Epiphanius herein, if Epiphanius were to be expeunded as you would have him. And will you make all these Aerians too? But to all these your usage is, to clap down as many or The Papists usage of the allegation of the doctors. more Doctors of the contrary opinion, yea to bring even these that I have r●…cited, to witness the quite contrary. In which doing, thinking to discredit us, you not only lose credit●… yourself, by wresting them, but also you diminish their credit (have they any with you) that make them speak contrary to themselves. True it is, that every one of these fathers, as they had their faults and errors, so they bore much also, in these matters of dead men, with the common sway, although S. Augustine and Chrisostome, more than the rest, do often times chide the people, for using about the dead, such fond abuses, as at that time they did. Chrisostome telleth how they would strip their arms, make them bloody, tear their hear, scratch their faces, and wear black apparel, and hire mourners. All which he greatly blameth: and although Chriso. in cpi. ad Heb. cap. 2. hom. 4. Naughty custom. they pretended custom for them, saying: Consuetudinem quero, etc. consuetudinem requiro, etc. I seek to keep the old custom, I require custom. Yet doth not Chrisostome allow their sayings, but calleth it, pessimam consuetudinem, a most wicked custom, ineptias, toys, such as he was ashamed of, hypocrisy and such as long ago aught to have been driven clean away. Thus earnestly writeth Chrisostome against the abuses about the dead. And also for that opinion, that even then in his days was a common and constant opinion among The souls of the dead walk not. the people, even as it is yet among all papists, that the souls of divers do walk after their death, and moon themselves to us alive, to be helped by our prayers. Which, how false an opinion it is, appeareth by Chrisostome. Shall I be persuaded (saith he) because thou hast herded the In Mat. cap. 8. Hom. 29. devils often times cry, I am the soul of such an one? but this saying comes also of the devils fraud and deceit, for it is not the soul of the departed, which saith these things, but the devil that feygneth these things to deceive the hearers. etc. These things are to be counted but old wives, or rather dotards tales, and toys for children: for the soul being separate from the body, can not wander in these regions. As for the souls of the just, they are in the hands of God. The souls likewise of the Infants, for they have not Sapritius 3 He means the Infants of the faithful being regenerate. Luke. 16. Act. 7. Phil. 1. Luke. 12. sinned. But the souls of sinners are carried away even staight after their departure, the which is made plain by Lazarus and Dives. etc. And by many places of the scripture it may be proved, that the souls of just men after their death, do not wander here For both Steven said, Receive my spirit, and Paul desired to be loosed and to be with Christ. And also in another place the Lord saith, this day shall they take thysoule from thee. The soul therefore when it is once go from the body, can not wander here amongst us. And the Scripture says also of the Pattiarche, he was put to Gen. 25. his father and died in a good age. But that also neither the souls of the sinners can abide here, thou mayst hearken what the rich man says, and mark what he craveth and can not get it, if the souls of men might be conversant here, he would have come himself as he desired, and have warned his kinsmen of Hell torments. Out of which place it appeareth also plainly, that the souls after their departure from the body, are carried away to a certain place, from whence at their will they can not get, but do there abide, expecting that terrible day of judgement. These words of chrysostom well weighed, infer Four notes of chrysostom for the state of souls departed. four things: First, that there be no more estates of the dead than two, the just and the wicked, and so there are none to be purged after-death. Secondly, that there be be but two places also, Heaven and Hell, & so the purging place called purgatory is excluded. Thirdly, that the souls once departed from their bodies, come forthwith to one of these two places, and there tarry continually till the day of doom, without wandering here on the earth: and so purgatory is again excluded. Fourthly, that all appearings of any, that say they are the s●…ules of such and such, etc. are the devils frauds, old wines fables, fools tales, & children's toys, and so again, not only the opinion of purgatory is improved, but also all the Popish revelations thereof, proved to have been the devils illusions. But of this, more hereafter. I note it now only to show, that this error (though nothing like to that it hath since) was so cropen into the Church then, that chrysostom was feign thus sharply to confute it. S. Augustine also rebuketh other errors cropen in by De moribus Eccl. lib. 1. ca 34. Abuses about the dead in S. Augustine's time. custom about the dead. Nou●…●…ultos esse, etc. I know (says he) that there are many worshippers of sepulchres, and of pictures. I know there are many which most riottously drink over the dead, and making banquets to the corpses, bury themselves upon the buried, and these their gluttonnies and drunkenness, they account for Religion. These and such like wicked customs and errors about the dead, grieved S. Augustine, wherefore he devised with the godly Bishop. Aurelius, how he might remove them. Though therefore Epiphanius allowed the praying for the dead and other ceremonies there abouts, that even the popish Church doth not use, and pretend custom for him never so much: yet none of these fathers are of his judgement herein. Nor his argument, from custom beyond the word of God, bindeth us: but that rather we may follow S. Augustins' rule, Magis veritatem quàm consuetudinem sequi debemus. We aught De Baptis. paruulo●…um. rather to follow the truth than the custom. Yea, although all these Doctors had been contrary hereto, the Scripture being so plain therein. Epiphanius argument therefore, is very mean to force any Heresy of denying this erroneous custom. And yet is not Aerius excused, because he withal covertly (as appeareth by Epiphanius proves) denied the Resurrection, else, had their been no further meaning in those words, than that Prayer or Sacrifice was fruitless for the dead, it had been so little any Heresy, that Epiphanius was rather in an error thereof, by yielding to corrupted custom, as I have proved by the Fathers to whose tradition he appealeth: and by S. Augustine, that also noteth this thing in Aerius. Howbeit I speak it not, to deface the worthy commendation of Epiphanius, but I do as you do, when you talk with him for Images. Although I might note in him further, not only his too bitter contention with chrysostom, but also that he is not all sound for doctrine, not not in every point of the Trinity: not that I lay it to him as any Heresy, but as an error: no marvel then though he were deceived herein, and you also M. Stapleton that ground on him, to slander us with Aerius heresy, which was against the resurrection, and that the dead Sunt nulli, are none, and are resolved to nothing. I have been the longer in answering you to Aerius, because you urge it so much, and triumph in so vain and false a matter. Your next objection is about virginity. How say you to lovinian that denied virginity to have Stap. 57 a. Virginity and Matrimony. any excellency above Matrimony or any special reward at God's hands? Or ever I say any thing to jovinian, I answer to you M. Stapleton. If you should receive such reward at God's hands, as your slanderous and lying tongue deserveth, I think your virginity (presupposing that you were so good a virgin Priest as you pretend, although I will not swear for you) would at that great day of reward stand you in little steed. Yourself know well enough, that although we attribute to the honourable state of Marriage, that reverence and liberty among all men, that Christ and his Apostle S. Paul biddeth: yet, do we not deface or despise, but esteem honourable also, the excellent gift of continency. Yea & confess with the Apostle that in him that hath the gift thereof, it is, in those respects that the Apostle mentioneth, more excellent than Matrimony. Because such are more free to tranaile, in the preaching and ministery of Wherein virginity is to be preferred before marriage, and wherein it is not. God's word, with less trouble, care and charge, chief in time of persecution. But not for any excellency of virginity itself, as an holier virtue, deserving heaven, which you call a special reward at God's hands, meaning thereby a merit or desert of a greater glory in heaven than Matrimony. This fond presumption of merits we disallow, and would have you say with Gregory your Pope: Let them Gregorius Papa in pastorali part. 3. ca 29. know that virginity so excels marriage, that the unmarried extol not themselves above those that be married. You & your popish Priests do not thus, but in that you be unmarried you prefer yourselves above the married, craking of excellenc●…e and special reward above others, as did the boasting Pharisée. Luc. 18. And God wot are so far from that virginity which you crack of, that not only you burn within with most filthy lusts How far the popish votari●…s are from true virginity. 1. Tim. 4. of your pampered bodies and unmortified flesh, and so by reason of the scruple of your vow, have your consciences marked with an hot Iron, and yet virginity, as yourselves (to your own greater condemnation without your greater repentance) testify, is quite lost, being polluted in the assent of the mind. But what speak I of the mind? which I would commit to God, to judge upon, saving that all the world crieth out of your fornications, adulteries, incestes, sodomitry, the cry whereof is ascended unto heaven. Your own books swarm in exclaiming it, and almost every Chronicler noteth it. But what need notes of Chronicles, when your licences and dispensations for your priests concubines, your open maintaining of courtezanes, stews and harlotry, are so apparent, that you can not deny it? Would God yet you could blush, and be at the lest ashamed of it. But why wish I shame, in so shameless maiden Priests, if you can be maidens, that neither have maidenhed nor shamefastness in you? are you not those Locusts that S. john says, should come out of the bottomless pit, having on their heads as it were crowns like unto Apoe. 9 A figure of the popish votaries. gold, and their faces were as it had been the faces of men, and they had hear as the hears of women, that is to say, a show and countenance of maidenly virginity, having notwithstanding tails like Scorpions. Surely Aeneas Silvius your Pope called Pius. 2. did not The judgement of Pope Pius 2. for priests marriage. for naught so commonly use this sentence: that where the Fathers, not without great consideration at the first, forbade Priests to marry, and to keep themselves single: they should now not without a greater cause, suffer them to marry. In the which words, he not only noteth the popish priests abominations, but also that this forbidding of marriage is not of any commandment of Christ, but merely of men's prohibition: but such prohibition, as were much better revoked, even by the best learned Pope's opinion (as the writers of his life do note) that ever sat in that s●…ate. Of the same judgement was Erasmus, who seeing the Erasmus opinion of prests' marriage. Declarationes Erasmi ad censuras ●…uteuae▪ Tit. 20. abominable life of the popish Priests, abosing the simple under the n●…e of virginity▪ Mu●… 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ etc. Many causes (faith he) ●…o persuade a change of the law of single life in ecclesiastical people. And when your Sorbonistes of Paris stamped hereat and written against him, boasting as you the of the excellency of virginity shining in holiness: Erasmus answered them: Qui tract●…nt, etc. They that lay those that meddle with the divine mysteries and the administration of the heavenly word, chastity doth most become them, they say true and godly, and I allow their judgement very well: but they do consider, what the thing itself requireth: I consider▪ what the imbe●…ilitie of men requireth. Many discommodities (I grant) might follow, if wives were permitted unto Priests, but such discommodities as either the Church, or the carefulness of Princes, might easily with certain constitutions remedy. But now in so corrupt manners of men, their most filthy single life hath far more grievous discommodities. Would to God so many as are priests would turn their mind to cleanness. Thus said Erasmus of your birginly Priesthood not only with wh●…, but even with S. Paul, we say: it is 1. Cor. 7. better marry than to li●…e in such wicked burnings and vicious living. Yea although the party had never so much vowed virginity before, yet if he could not keep his vow but burn in lust, it were far better for him to marry, and his marriage (as S. Angustine says) is perfect matrimony. De bono con●…. Marriage after the vow of single life is lawful. ●…erem. 5. And not whoredom as you & your Papists slanderously do terine it▪ But no marvel if you slander our Matrimony, that not only live yourselves in such wicked demeanour, & he such stallions as the Prophet cried out of, that neighed after their neighbour's wines, rather than with the honest care of Matrimony, you would have any of your own: since, as you defiled others ●…eddes, so you account and writ of all matrimony as a polluted state. For so says Durandus, and so you say all: Matrimonium tollis puritatem, & maculat Durandus in li: 4. Dist. 37. Q 1. Heb. 13. corpus, Matrimony taketh away cleanness, and de●…ileth the body. Whereas the Scripture calleth it, Cubile impollutum, An undefiled bed, and an honourable estate. And yet for simple fornication it is a common question moved among you, whether it be a mortal sin or no. So favourable you are to wickedness, and so hard to Matrimony. To live in Matrimony, is with Papists to In decretis Siritij Pp. dec. 7 Rome 8. live after the ●…eash. Which what is it else with S. Paul but to live in sin, to offend God, to deserve death? S●… secundam carnem vixerit●… moriemini, If you live after the flesh you shall die. Qui in carne sunt Deo placere non pofsunt. They that are in the flesh can not please God. And therefore they reason that Priests may not live in Matrimony. But to sorsweare Matrimony, to live a single life, how soever he live it, Si non caste 〈◊〉 cau●…e, If not chastely yet closely. This with Papists is virginity, this is an excellent life, this at God's hands deserves a special reward. This hypocrisy, of feigned virginity, this defacing and The causes why M. Stapl. calleth the protestants lovinians. destling of honourable matrimony, because we cry out upon, we are 〈◊〉. Because we reprehends your forced single life, that compelleth priests not to marry, whether they will or not, o●… whether they have or not, the gift of virginity, which is not of themselves, but a gift, and that of God, and that a rare gift, as Christ says, and as experience Matth. 19 hath proved, a most rare gift among your votaries: we are therefore jovinians. Because we prefer marriage before such unclean virginity, as the honourable, necessary and undefiled means to avoid fornication: Because we say virginity (I mean not Popish virginity, but true virginity) is in itself no such virtue, as you make it, of especial reward, but in respect of avoiding some hindrances: as also Matrimony, in respects of avoiding greater evils, therefore we are jovinians, and make them both alike. But what say we herein, that even your Schoolmen Durandus opinion of virginity and Matrimony. Durandus in magist. sent. li. 4. Dist. 39 Q. 4. say not▪ Durandus aforesatde, upon this self same question whether virginity be to be preferred before matrimony. Aliquod est 〈◊〉, etc. Something is good in itself, something accidentally or in respect of another thing, that is, because it removeth an evil or inconvenient thing. After the first sort, meat is good to the body. After the second for●…e, medicine is good. We must say therefore that virginity is not good after the first sort, but after the Virginity not good itself but in respect. second: which appeareth three ways. First, thus: to abstain from that that is convenient in itself and good, can not of itself be good. But by virginity we abstain from Matrimony, which of itself is good: therefore virginity of itself is not good. I●… which words (omitting his contradiction to his own tale) he maketh in itself Matrimony to be better than virginity. But what stand I on Durandus, when all your Priests (incurring therein worse contradiction) make Matrimony a Sacrament, but virginity they make none? If therefore we be lovinians, be not you lovinians to? y●… rather, per syncopen, be you not lovinians as good virgin maidens as ever jupiter was? But to supply that wants in you, you press us with The papist●… objection of S. Jerome for virginive. S. hierom's authority. To whom though ●… might fully answer you, with the learned censure●… of Eramus on that S. Hieromes 〈◊〉 against 〈◊〉, yet for your further satisfying your de●…●… will refer you to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 excellent learned father, and even fellow student with S. Jerome, & one also that had written against 〈◊〉. Whereby you may see how far S. Jerome overshot himself 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, &. H●… 〈◊〉, (says Ruffinus in Hieron. Ruffinus to Hisrom speaking of jovinian) did first set upon this work, and peradventure being compelled. And no marvel if he wavered at the first yet should not occasion there at be snatched, of derogating from the Christians, but rather the profit of amendment be sought for. If you had written S. hierom's foul overshooting himself in de●…ending virginity against 〈◊〉. those things unto him, should you not have given both greater grace and edifying, either unto him▪ having his beginnings in the fear of God, or else unto others being readers thereof: than now the same your invectives do give more grief and confusion to all that fear? which both in you do show a most foul lust of back biting and in me a 〈◊〉 of answering. For, as I have said, in your books wrttten against 〈◊〉, you be found now to affirm the self ●…ame things, with which you reproved him▪ Howbeit now you are fallen so far, that you affirm, the filth of marriage ca not be washed away, not not with the blond of martyrdom. etc. And after this again says Ruffinus on S. Jerome, besides this we have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 showed; that it is this man's fashion to derogate 〈◊〉 all good men and 〈◊〉 this point he taketh 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be somewhat, if he may repre●…ende a●… wi●…e men and those that have any name in ●…earning▪ I have showed also how vnworth●…ly he hath railed on the Ministers and Priests of Christ. Not he hath not spared the Mokes, not nor the virgins whom he hath praised, nor the continent▪ yea 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 infamed with his fou●…e ●…ibels the estate and degree of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. etc. And so Russinus telleth, how unworthily he defaced S. Ambrose & 〈◊〉, whom before he placed among the Prophets & ●…postles, and afterward placeth them among those that teach stra●…ge things, 〈◊〉 neither did nor new writers, Martyr nor other. All this I 〈◊〉 M. St. ou●… of 〈◊〉, not to detect the Father's 〈◊〉, but only to show how weak your argument is, in 〈◊〉 us, and that with 〈◊〉, for this article of ●…ourman (for, his other matters ●… set 〈◊〉) 〈◊〉 S. Jerome calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉 him up therefore, declaring rather his own impotency (though otherwise; being a very godly Saim, and a notable learned Father) than herein confuteth his adversary. Your third demand, is to 〈◊〉 what we say to the A Sta. 57 a. The Papists ob●…ection that we be 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉▪ for deoying ●…cles at San●…cts tombs. rians, that denied the miracles done at the saints tombs to be true miracles, and that the 〈◊〉 cannot cast out the devils, and relieve them that be possessed. And to the Bogomiles, that said the devils sat at the saints tombe●…, and did wonders there, to illude and 〈◊〉 the people, to 'cause the people to worship them. We deny not, M. Sta. with the Arians or 〈◊〉, the power of Christ 〈◊〉 his wondrous works, at the 〈◊〉 Difference between the ancient mi●…acles, and the Popish illusions. of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the●…: because we deny the feigned 〈◊〉 of your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ and images now, Between which 〈◊〉 & their 〈◊〉 then, was as much difference 〈◊〉 it between 〈◊〉 miracles and false illusions, between the sincere worship of God, & open Idolatry. So that this, as the other, is your false slander also. And if you make all 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉, who, though they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 at that time 〈◊〉 wrought 〈◊〉 his 〈◊〉, to confirm the faith among the 〈◊〉, yet would they not make any ordinary prescript 〈◊〉 of miracles, nor by miracles measure true or false doctrine, nor ascribe any holiness to the 〈◊〉 or places, nor such miracles to be of the martyrs doings, nor to be done for their dese●…uings, nor the 〈◊〉 or the martyrs themselves, to ●…e honoured with spiritual worship: Then will ●…s make S. 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉, Cyril, and other godly fathers to be Arians and 〈◊〉 also. , (saith S. De vera rel. cap. v●…t. Aug.) Let not the worship of dead men, be religion to us. For if they have lived well▪ they are not so to be accounted, 〈◊〉 they would seek such 〈◊〉 but they would have 〈◊〉 to be 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 who 〈◊〉 us▪ they rejoice that we are made) 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉. They are How sainct●…s are to be hono●…ed, how not. therefore to be honoured for imitation, they are not to be worshipped for religion. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, you 〈◊〉 worship them for religion, dedicated temple●… to them, offer 〈◊〉, kneel, pray unto them, and make these great points of How the Papists honoured saints. Apoc. 21. Act. 14. religion. The angel of God in no case would suffer any such kind of worship to be done unto him, but for●…ad S. john to do it. Peter would not suffer Cornelius, nor Paul and Barna●…as the Lyaconi●…s this to worship them. Which if they refused being alme, think you they desire you to worship them being dead? in deed so do your popish saints. Francis the author of the begging Friars, as your legend Legendum san cto●…um in vita Francise●…. telleth, releysed on a 〈◊〉, and laug●…ed greatly, and being demanded the cause of his laugh●…er, he answered, it was, because ●…e should after his death be worshipped for a saint. And in many your other saints, you tell ●…s, how they appeared to such or such a Priest, F●…ier, Monk, or 〈◊〉: commanding this or that ceremony, church, prayer, feast, or holiday, to be made in their honour. This did not the true saints and good angels of God require, nor the Church of God yield unto them: as saith S. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Augu. de vera relic▪ ca ult. do we build Churches to them, for they would not so be honoured of us. But as cyril saith, Sanctos martyr●…s 〈◊〉 cyril. contra ●…ulian. li. 6. 〈◊〉. We neither call the holy martyrs, Gods, no●… yet use we to worship them. 〈◊〉 rather we praise them with high●… honours, that they have stoutly fought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 the sincerity of the ●…aythe, in so muched at they 〈◊〉 their own life, and 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 of death 〈◊〉, they prevailed in great dangers, and were of such strength, that they would raise up, as it were, 〈◊〉 of their life. And therefore it is not unworthy, yea rather it is also nec●…ssarie, to honour them with perpetual praises, which are glorious by so noble dee●…es. As for other kind than this, of prays●…ng them for their virtues, Cyril 〈◊〉 none to the Christians, 〈◊〉 saith▪ Cyril contra lulian. li. 6. To worship dead 〈◊〉 otherwise▪ is the property of heathen 〈◊〉. Now where you measure 〈◊〉 and saints by miracles, S. 〈◊〉 saith, fieri Christianum, non 〈◊〉 sanctum. etc. It is possible Aug. de eccl. dog. cap. 84. &. 85. Saints not to be measured by miracles. S Thomas of Cantorbury, & S. Aug. of ●…ng land no saints by S. Aug. of Afrikes rule. that a Christian by signs and wonders may be made famous, but he can not be made a Saint by them, if he use intemperate and rough 〈◊〉▪ (Such an one as your Chronicles writ that Augustine the Italian was, which came hither from 〈◊〉, nothing like this S. Augustine of Africa: such an other proud and sharp saint, as was you●… S. Thomas 〈◊〉, of wh●…se shrine and miracles your legends babble much.) Temperatis 〈◊〉▪ etc. say the S. Augustine, but by temperate and soft demeanour▪ we believe that a man may well be made both a saint, and perfect, and a man of God, yea 〈◊〉 without the efficacy of miracles. And so saith cyril on S. john the Baptist, Cyril. 〈◊〉. joh. lib. 7. cap. 13. in that he wrought no miracles: 〈◊〉 in aliquo derogat sanctitate 〈◊〉. etc. Neither doth this in any point derogate The best saints wrought lest miracles. from his holiness▪ than 〈◊〉 there 〈◊〉 not a greater, as our Saviour doth 〈◊〉. For to 〈◊〉 miracles addeth no holiness or 〈◊〉 to a man, si●…he it serveth aswell for the ill and reprobate, as the Lord wit nesseth: have not we (said the Hypocrites) O Lord, cast Mat. 7. out devils in thy name? And therefore saith Chrisostome Chrysost. in john. cap. 2. Hom 21. No need of miracles to the faithful and them that love God. to such as in his 〈◊〉 required miracles, and asked why they had not miracles, so well 〈◊〉 the old time, Si fidelis e●…. 〈◊〉. If 〈◊〉 art faithful, as thou oughtest to be, if thou lovest christ▪ as he ought to be loved, thou needest no miracles, for miracles are given to those that are unbelievers. It is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. M. Stap. that your Church is an vnbelée●…ing Church, since it so vaunteth of miracles, and that of such miracles, as either are plain The popish Church an unbelieving Church. illusions of wicked spirit●…s, working, strongly in the children of vnbelee●…e, to de●…ayne them still in error: or else are nothing but ma●…yfest forge●…ies, and jugglings, such in very deed as the 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the christians then withal. But that your 〈◊〉 are not s●…aundered there with now, I report me to those your Images that could sweat, Miraculous ●…mages. roll their eyes▪ move their hands, turn round about, sense the Church, walk up and down the aultare, speak, weep, laugh, frown, and do) many other pretty miraculous knacks. Of which 〈◊〉, all the world now seethe the marueytous legerdemain, the best of your s●…rt, are either forced with shame, to confess the abuses, or else to ●…est out the matter with scoffs, as sir Thomas Moo●…in in his book of pilgrimages and miracles doth. But none dared crack of them so impudently as do you, comparing your false miracles, to the ancient true miracles, calling us Arians and 〈◊〉 a●… though we denied those, when we only deny yours, at the which if not the Devil himself, yet his ministers sat, if not at saintestombes, yet at your Zoolatrous shrines, to illude, yea to rob and spoil the simple people, to dark your gorgeous shrines and Images, but chief to enrich your ●…es. But as Christ come saith, Martyrs non gaudent. etc. The spoil of the 〈◊〉 to honour the dead. The Martyrs rejoice not when they are honoured with that money▪ for which the poor do weep. What virtue of justice is that to reward the dead and spoil the living? etc. what manner of men than be they, that spoil men, and make buildings of 〈◊〉? What would chrysostom have said, had he seen with what rapine●… your Popish shrines were decked nothing like the reverent tombs of those holy Martyrs, which yet they worshipped not, nor the Martyrs in them, what true miracles 〈◊〉 were wrought at them▪ ●…nd therefore chrysostom wa●…th, Ne a●…endas cin●…res De 7. Mach. Hom. 7. of the ●…es bodies, nor the imbe●… of the fl●… relics, and all their bones, which in time 〈◊〉 consumed, but open the eyes of thy saith, and see the 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 power. And in such sort saith saint Augustine▪ Honoramus sanè De Civit. Dei. lib. 8. ca vit. memorias martyrum tanque sanctorum ho●… Des. We honour in d●…ede the memory of the martyrs▪ as the holy men of God: Not (as he saith afterward) as the heathen do, Lib. 22. ca 10. that to their Gods buy●…de Churches, and erect altars, ordain Priests, and make sacrifices. Nos autem. etc. But we (saith he) do not buy●…de Churches to our Martyrs, as though they were Gods, but make memories of them, as dead men whose souls do live with God, neither do we erect altars there, whereon we might sacrifice to Martyrs, but we offer Sacrifice to the one God, both of the Martyrs, and of us. At the which Sacrifice the men of god which in the acknowledging of him, have overcome the world, are in their place and order named, but not of the Priest that sacrificeth, although he sacrifice in the memory of them, because he is God's Priest, not there's. But the sacrifice is the body of Christ, which is not offered to them, because they are this same body. Which saying of Saint Augustine, as it confoundeth your gross opinion of this spiritual sacrifice that next you lay to our charge: (for he saith the sacrifice is that body of Christ, the which they themselves be also, that is, the mystical body, and not his natural body) so it showeth what a difference between those old tombs of true Martyrs, and your Saints shrines there is. You builded and dedicated Churches to them, so did not How the fathers used the memories of the martyrs. How the Papists use them. they. Your schooemen say they have numina, and therefore aught to be worshipped, so did not they. You erected altars to them, so did not they. You sacrificed to them, so did not they. You ordained Priests unto them, and besides Priests, you instituted Monks, Nuns, Friars and Canons to them, so did not they. You worshipped them with divine honour, so did not they: and yet you call us by the name of those Heretics, that rejected their Martyr's miracles and memories, because we reject your illusions and Idolatries. Now as you thus marvelously slander us, so are ye Sermons falsely fathered on ●…. Ambrose. either deceived yourself, or would deceive others under Saint Ambrose name, where as the book you cite (which also Alfonsus standeth much upon) is none of Ambrose his works, but some feigned forgers in his name, as Erasmus very well doth prove. If you will know the very mind of S. Amb. turn to his commentary on the first to the Rom. where he says: quanta agritudo, etc. What a great grief, what a great folly is it, for those to call themselves wise men, to their own damnation, among whom the dead can do more than the living, and the dead are of better power than those that are alive, These are Ambrose his own words making flatly against you. But whosoever those Sermons be that you quote, they touch not us, as is declared. We yield to the old Martyrs, so much as these fathers require. We only deny to yours, that you require, and would extort, to enrich yourselves, and delude the people, neither sparing to bely us, nor the fathers, and face us out with false cards in their names. But letting go your forgeries of the fathers, what say you once again to friar Ferus herein? Uulgus hominum. etc. The common people (saith he) esteemeth Saints by miracles and counteth him the greater, that hath done more miracles, but they err manifestly that so judge: miracles are in deed (to use Saint Paul's words) the operation of great works, the gift of the holy ghost. But hereon they are not only esteemed Saints, else the blessed virgin & john Baptist were of all saints the lest, that are read to have wrought no miracle. We may not therefore esteem Saints hereupon. Math. 9 Moreover, oftentimes miracles are given to the evil, for many shall say in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not cast out devils in thy name, and I shall say to them, I have not known you, etc. And thus will Christ say of your miracles, master Stapleton, and therefore let him be a Bogomile with you also. Concerning Berengarius, because your slander both of him The cont●…ouersie of the lords supper. and us, in the controversy of the sacrament, is confuted by the learned travails of those, that fully have answered all your cavillations therein: I will now pass it over, as un worthy further answer. Only I bid you look to it yourselves, that charge him with heresy: lest that re●…nfation that your De consecr. distinct. 2. Ego Berengarius in glos●… 2. Pope compelled him to make, saver not (as even your gloss thereon doth warn) of a greater heresy than you lay to him. Where you ask us what we say to the Paulicians, that The Paulicians. said, these words of Christ, Take ea●…e this is my body, are not to be understanded of his body, or the bread & wine used at the celebration of our Lord's maundy, but of the holy scriptures, which the Priest should take at Christ's hands, and deliver and distribute to the people. I answer, let the truth of this objection to us, be a measure, on God's name, to all the rest: and as men find you true or false herein, so esteem you in the other. For my part, I scarce can tell what words I should use unto you, unless you will give me leave to use your own, that except you had a face harder than any horn, M. St. yea harder than any iron staple, except the devil at your back prompted lies unto you (for these be your own terms) you would never for very shame charge us herewith. Yourself know (save that you are hired as Balaam was, to speak cursed slanders contrary to your conscience) that we hold no such opinion: but affirm even the ●…at contrary. That those words of Christ, take eat this is my body, are to be understanded both of his body, and of the bread and wine also. Both which you say the Paulicians deny, and we confess and believe both. Only, The question between the Papists and us, in the manner of the presence of Christ's body. the question on the former part between you and us, is of the manner of the body's presence, which we with the fathers, say is sacramitall & spiritual: & you say, with the Capernaits, is natural & carnal. As for the other part, of the bread & wine, you come a great deal nearer the Paulicians than we. The Paulicians (say you) did say, these words of Christ, take, eat, this is The Papists objecting the Paulicians to us, are proved to be Paulicians the selves. my body, are not to be understanded of bread & wine, And you say also these words are not to be understanded of bread and wine, for there is no bread & wine there to understand then upon. Thus herein you & the Paulicians agree together. But we say the contrary to you both, they are understanded both of bread and wine. And so Christ plainly speaketh, calling further the wine, Luke. 22. (to be understood the better, contrary to you and the Paulicians) the fruit of the Grape, and the bread which we break, 1. Cor. 10. 〈◊〉 He●…olt. in propped. exempl. saith Saint Paul, not the flesh which we do ●…asticare, as you say, champ and chaw it, gnashing the bones, and the blood running about the teeth, as you caused Berengarius to confess. This is a grosser Heresy than that of the Paulicians, and yet are you nearer the Paulicians to than we. The Papists e●…uie that we read the scriptures at the sacrament of the lords supper. But what should make you object this heresy to us? there is no cause, that I can see, except you envy at this, that at the ministration of the Sacrament, the holy scriptures are read, that the people may understand the true institution of it, and celebrated the lords death till he come. And that in your sacrament of the altar (as you call it) there is no holy scriptures read, that the people may understand, but only How the Papists celebrated the sacrament. the words are mumbled up to yourselves, that the people neither hear nor know them. And if you say yet, be you not like the Paulicians herein: it may well be, for you be rather like Magicians, murmuring up a charm, than like Paulicians, or any body else I know. Where next you demand what we say to Claudius and Claudius and Vigilan●…ius. Vigilantius, that denied the invocation of Saints, the blessed Relics, and the use of lights, and other ceremonies in the Church. First, to Claudius I answer, that I can say no more Alphon de castr. contra Haer. than Alphonsus doth. For he reckoneth up one Claudius, and nameth another Ivo Carnotensis, cited out of Thomas Walden, which Ivo he confesseth he had not seen. You father it on an other called jonas, whom also I confess, I have not seen, nor am greatly curious to search him out. For, if he denied those things, or any of them, not otherwise than we do, it will be hard for you to prove him therefore an Heretic. As for Uigilantius opinions on these things, are manifest in Saint hierom's invectives, and contain no Heresy that I can perceive. He misliked greatly and spoken against diverse abuses, between whom and saint Jerome thereabouts, fallen out foul language. Insomuch that diverse misliked Saint Hi●…romes lack of modesty. But letting him chide with his adversary, let us go to the matter. And first for invocation. The scripture acknowledgeth no kind of invocation but Invocation of Saints. 2 Reg 22. Psal. 17▪ Invocation only due to God by the sc●…ipture. Hierem. 29. 〈◊〉 2. & Rom. 10. only of God: Laudabilem invocabo dominum. etc. I will make (saith David) invocation on the Lord that is to be pray●…ed, and I shall be safe from mine enemies, In tribulatione mea inu●…cabo dominum, & ad deum meum cla●…abo. etc. In my trouble I will make invocation upon the Lord, and I will cry unto my God. Inuocabit is me & ●…iuetis, says god, Call upon me and you shall live, The Lord is rich to all that call upon him, saith S. Paul. Who so ever calleth on the name of the Lord shall be saved. Thus saith the scripture all over, for the invocation of God. As for any other invocation, the Scripture admitteth Esay. 63. none, not not of the holy patriarchs. Tu enim pater noster, & Abrah●…m 〈◊〉 nos. etc. For thou art our father If Abraham be not to be invocated, no saint is to be invocated. Rom. 4. (saith the Prophet Esay) as for Abraham knew not us, and Israel is ignorant of us, thou God art our father and redeemer. No doubt Abraham was, and is a●… good a Saint, and much better, than many in your Pope's Calendar (of whom some are doubted to be Deuil●… in hell, that are invocated for Saints in heaven) yea Abraham is called Pater omnium cr●…dentium, The father of all the faithful, and yet in this point of invocation, Abraham is no father at all, Tu deus pater noster, Esay 63. only God is our father, Abraham is not invocated, yea, he is by name excepted, and that as ignorant of us▪ If Abraham then the father of the Saints, have no privilege, yea lose his privilege of fatherhood in this behalf of invocation: what shall we think of all the children of Abraham, the Arguments whi●… invocation is only due to God. Exod. 20. Esay. 42. 48. Saints of God that have succéeded him, that they are to be invocated? or not rather conclude thereon, if invocation be not to be made to Abraham, than invocation is to be made to no Saint, but all and only unto God. And the reason is this: God is a jealous God of his glory, and will not communicate any part thereof with any other. But the greatest glory that we can give to God, is in our trouble to invocate him. Call upon me in the day of trouble, and I will hear thee, Psal. 49. and thou shalt glorify me, saith God. The schoolmen confess that invocation est virtus latriae, Summa Angelica de invocatione. is the virtue of divine honour. Invocation is therefore to be made to none but God. And if you known or weighed M. St. how great a thing Invocation were, you would never for What it is to invocate. fear of God, or shame of yourself, ascribe it to any creature. I nuocas deum (saith S. Aug.) quando in te vocas deum. Hoc est enim invocare, illum in t●… vocare, quodam modo eum in Aug. in. psa. 30 part. 3. domum cordis tui invitare. Thou invocatest god, or callest upon God, when thou callest God upon thee, for this it is to invocate, to call him into thee, as it were to invite him into the 2. Cor. 6. Psal. 7. jerem. 17. 1. Cor. 3. 2. Cor. 6. house of thy heart: but none aught to devil in our hearts besides God, none can search the heart & reins but only god, our hearts aught to be only God's seat, for we are the temple of none but of God: invocation therefore (being the sacrifice of the heart, Sacrificium deo spiritus tribulatus & cor contritum. Psal. 51. etc. A troubled spirit is a sacrifice to God, neither will he despise a bruised heart) aught to be ascribed to none but to god, that says, Praebe fili mi cor tuum mihi, my son yield me thy heart. Proverb. 23. Moreover as Chrisostome saith, cum oramus deo colloquimur, What prayer is. When we pray, we speak to God. And so S. Aug. Oratio tua locutio est ad d●…um, Thy prayer is a speaking with God. Sup. Psal. 85. Super Psal. Miser●…re mei. Isidorus likewise, cum oramus, ipsi cum deo l●…quimur. When we pray, we ourselves do speak with god. And Cassiodorus. Cum deo loquitur, etc. Prayer speaketh to God, talketh with the judge. etc. To conclude, all the doctors, yea the schoolmen themselves, 〈◊〉 prayer to be directed only to god. oratio (says Hugo de sanct. Victore. Hugo) est piae mentis & humilis ad deum conversio, fide. spe, & charitate subnixa. Prayer is the conversion of a godly & humble mind to god, grounded on faith, hope and charity. And in the name of Angelus de Clavisio, ●…it. de orat. them all, Summa Angelica saith, accipitur proprie oratio. etc. Prayer taken properly is the ascending of our mind to god. etc. and so taken, it is diversly defined. Vt patet per Ho. in summa ti. de poenis. & lo. An. in cle. unica de rel●…▪ & ve. san. Whereupon after Aug. in lib. de verbis domini: Prayer is a certain petition: And in an other place, prayer is a godly affection of the mind directed to god. etc. Or according to Damasus, li. 23. prayer is the mounting up of the mind to god. etc. Or according to Raymunde, Prayer is an heaping up of words, tending to God, to obtain somewhat. etc. By all which sayings, appeareth the definition of prayer, that except it be made to God, it is no true prayer. But invocation is prayer. Ergo, invocation must be made to God, which except it be, it is no true prayer. Invocation therefore unto saints, angels, or any creature besides God, is neither true nor godly. To the confirmation whereof, Christ teaching his disciples Christ directeth prayer only to God. Math. 6. Luke. 11. None can be prayed unto, but whom we may call father. Math. 23. Apoc. 19 to pray directeth them only to God, saying. Our father which art in heaven. etc. which prayer aught to be the greund and pattern of all prayer, to pray to him whom we may call our father which art in heaven, which term is competent to none but God. As Christ said, you have but one father. The angels call themselves our fellow servants, not our father. The Saints may be called our brethren, not our father. The blessed Virgin, our sister, not our father, Yea though you should call her our mother (wherein you should derogate from the Church of Christ) or our Lady (as without any warrant of the scripture you do salute her, and with diverse other names invocate her) yet sith by no means you can call her our father, you aught not therefore to invocate or pray unto her, or to any angel, saint or creature, but only pray to god, that only is our heavenly father. In verb. domini secundum Luc. ●…erm. 36. Rom. 10. Invocation can not be without faith, and ●…herfore not to be made to saints. Saint Augustine and all the doctor●… agree, that the fountain of invocation is faith, according to the scripture, Quomodo inuocabun●… in quem non crediderunt? How can they make invocation to any upon whom they have not believed? By which rule, if you admit invocation to saints, we must then believe on saints: but we must believe on none but god, we must there●…ore invocate none but God. Neither here can you slip the collar with your stely distinction, The Papists distinction of help and in●…ercession. of calling for help, and calling for intercession, alleging that you pray to Saints, as but to intercessors, mediators, or spokesmen for you, saying only to them, 〈◊〉 pro nobis, pray for us, in●…ercede pro nobu, go between us and God: But to God you say, Miserere nostrs, ●…a nobis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 besiege nos, liber a nos. Have mercy upon us, give unto us, help us, defend us, deliver us, etc: For howsoever you make your prayers, you grant you invocate, which by the nature of prayer, by the form prescribed of Christ, by the belief to be affied on him to whom soever you pray, showeth still your prayers to be Idolatrous. In deed this shift is a stolen shift, but as S. Ambrose calleth it, it is a wretched shift. Solent misera uti excusation●… etc. They are wont (saith he) to use a wretched excuse: saying, that Amb. in. R●…. 5. even as we come to a King by his noble men, so through righteous men we may have access to God. Go to, is there any so mad, and so forgetful of his health, that he will ascribe the honour of the King unto the noble man? when if any man shall be found to have so much as meddled herein, they have worthily been condemned The Popish similitude for imercession plainly confu●…ed by S. Amb. for traitors. And yet these men think not them guilty, which give to a creature the honour of God's name, and forsaking the Lord, worship their fellow servants: as though the matter were the more, because they served God. For we come to the king through his tribunes and noble men, for this cause, even because the King is a man, and he knoweth not to whom he aught to commit the rule of the common weal. But to come unto God, from whom nothing is hide, (for he knoweth the merits of all men) we have no need to fee any entreater to speak for us, but we have need of a devout mind. For wheresoever any such entreater shall have spoken for us, God will give no answer at all. What can be plainer spoken than this master Stapleton, against the invocation of Saintes, admitting them no further, than even as intercessors? Wherein he not only confuteth your distinction as a wretched shift of helps, and intercession, taketh away your common similitude, and showeth that intercession of any man, be he never so just, not only doth us no good at all, but also hindereth the matter, offendeth and abaseth God, and maketh all those plain traitors to God, that use it. But to be even with him, M. St. for calling you traitors, call you him again heretic, call him a Vigilant an for it. But then must you make Chrisostome a Uigilantian with him, that is even as earnest against this shift of intercession Chry▪ de mu▪ Can. 〈◊〉. 16. as he For writing upon the woman of Canaan, calling upon Christ for her daughter's health, he ●…arth: 〈◊〉 me●…. etc. Have mercy upon me: Behold the phisosophical mind of the woman, saying, have mercy upon me. I have not (saith she) The Popish shift of intercession to said ctes most notably confu●…ed by Chrylost. a conscience of good works, nor a trust to godly life, to mercy I flee, to the calm haven of those that sin, to mercy I flee, where judgement ceaseth, where unspeakable salvation is. Tell me, O thou woman: how art thou so bold, sith thou art a sinner and wicked, to come unto God? I know, saith she, what I will do. Behold the woman's wisdom, she requireth not james, she besecheth not john, she goeth not to Peter, nor regardeth the company of the Apostles. She sought not a mediator, but in place of all them, she took repentance to be her companion, which repentance filled the room of an Advocate, and so she went unto the chief fountain. For this cause (saith she) he came down from heaven, for this cause he was incarnate, and made man, and I dare speak unto him. Above in the heavens, the Cherubins dread him, the Seraphins fear him, and here beneath, even a common woman saith unto him, have mercy upon me. A very bore saying, but containing even the mightiness of salvation, have mercy upon me. For this (saith she) thou camest, for this cause thou too est flesh, for this cause thou wast made even that which I am. O wonderful matter, above is trembling, beneath is confidence, have mercy upon me. I have no need of a mediator, have mercy upon me. What hast thou need of? mercy I seek, saith she, etc. have mercy upon me. If my daughter were dead, she should not suffer such things, for than would I have delivered her body into the bosom of the earth, and in process of time, I should have forgotten these evils, and my grief would have paused▪ etc. Mark the philosophy of the woman, behold her noble courage, she went not to soothsayers, she called not wise men, she sought not charms to tie about her, she fetched not those ●…orceresse women, that use to provoke Devils, and augment the ●…ore with their enchantments. She let go all such falsehoods of the Devil: she contemned all purgings, and she came unto the healthful port of our souls. etc. The judge cometh to thee, flee thou to God, the judge doth call for thee, do thou invocate God, which is on thy side. Is he far from thee, that thou shouldst go to any place for him? God is not included in place, but he is always even present at hand: & even he that is not shut up in place, is held yet by faith. For if thou will't inquire a man, and demand what he doth, thou shalt hear, he sleepeth, or he is not at leisure▪ or in deed even his servant will disdain to answer thee. But unto God there is no need of any of these things. But wheresoever thou shalt be, or wheresoever thou shalt invocate him, he heareth thee: there needs no porter, there needs no mediator, there needs no servant: but say thou, Have mercy upon me, and by and by God will be present, yea while thou yet speakest he sayeth, here I am. etc. Let us follow then this woman of Canan●…e. And like wise on the same story in an other place, Mawlt Homil. 53. 〈◊〉 nostram. etc. God had leaver have our own prayer which are guilty, than the prayer of other for us. And again, Non est opu●… pa●…ronis apud dei●…. etc. There is no need of patrons De profectu evang. hom. 6. before God, nor need of gadding up and down to flatter other. But although thou art alone, and haste no patron, and prayest by thyself, yet shalt thou certainly obtain thy request: for God doth not so easily grant, when other pray for us, as when ourselves do pray, yea though we be replenished De poe●…iten. Homil 4. with many evils. And to conclude he says, Haecigitur scientes. etc. Knowing therefore these things, let us evermore flee to God, who is both willing and able to deliver us of our grieves. But as for men, if at any time we should entreat them, it behoveth first to meet with the porters, to move their parasites and jesters, and oftentimes to go along way about: but in God there is no such matter, he is entreated without mediator, without money, without cost he granteth our prayers. Now although we see by the Scripture, and by these fathers, being yet therefore no Heretics) that we need not, nor ought to seek so much as any intercessoures (by The Papists ascribed more than intercession to saints, making them helpers and saviours. which term you would shift off all the matter, saying you make them no helpers, but intercessors only:) yet herein your shift is not so miserable, as your lie is manifest. You invocated Saints as healpers, yea and Savioures also. Your Primers can witness against you, your Antiphonaes, your Grails, your Massebookes, Hyu●…als, Legends, Portasses. etc. Have you forgotten this hymn to the blessed virgin Marie? What the Papists ascribed to Saints in their hymnall. Virgo singularis inter omnes mitis, nos culpa solutos 〈◊〉 sac et castos, vitam pr●…fta puram, iter para tutum, ut videntes jesum, semper collaetemur. O thou virgin singular among also meek: make us lose from sin, make us meek and chaste: give us a pure life and make our journey safe: that beholding jesus, we may always joy. Do you not pray in your primer to S. john and the virgin What they ascribed to saints in their Primers. Mary. Te etiam invoco. etc. I invocate thee also with Marie the mother of the same our saviour, that thou wouldst vouchsafto give me thy help with her, O you two precious stones, O heavenly mary, O john, O you two lights from God, shining before God, with your rays, drive away the clouds of my sins? Do you not there pray to S. Christofer? O thou martyr Christofer with the godly honour of our Saviour, make thou us in mind to deserve the love of God, Christ hath promised, that what thou askest thou haste obtained, give unto the sorry people those things, that at thy death thou askedst, give thou comfort to us, and take away the grief of our mind, make thou the account of the judge to be mild to all men? Pray you not to S. George on horseback: O George the noble martyr, praise and glory becometh thee, etc. we beseech thee with the bottom of our heart, that our sins being washed away, we may be joined with all the faithful citizens of heaven? Pray you not to the. 11000. virgins: O you eleven thousand maidens, Lilies of glorious virginity, and Roses of martyrdom, defend you me in my life, giving to me your help, and in my death show yourselves unto me, in bringing everlasting comfort? Do you not pray to the virgin Mary: Exaudi me, salva me, custodi me, Hear me, save me, keep me? Do not you pray to the Apostles, O blessed Apostles of God, lose me from my sins, defend me from the pains of hell, and deliver me from the power of darkness, and bring me to the everlasting kingdom Do you not pray to all the virgins, I beseech you all holy virgins help me, that I may have of heart good will, of body health, humility, chastity, and after the course of this life, the fellowship of everlasting bliss. Do you not pray to all the he saints and she saints, even where you mention their intercession: O all you he and she saints of God, I beseech you, and make supplication to you, secure me, have mercy upon me mercifully, and pray for me instantly, that by your intercession, a pure conscience, a compunction of heart, and a laudable consummation of everlasting life, may be given me of God, that through your merits I may come to the country of everlasting bliss? Did you never say this prayer in your Primer: O most noble, most excellent, and ever glorious Virgin, etc. O Lady my Queen, and Lady of all creatures, which forsakest none, dyspysest none, nor leavest any desolate, that with a good and pure heart, humbly and devoutly runneth to thee: despise me not for my most grievous sins, forsake me not for mine innumerable iniquities, nor for the hardness and uncleanness of my Firm confidence put in the blessed vir give Mary. heart cast me not away, from the face of thy grace and love, but for thy most great mercy, and most sweet pity hear me, putting firm confidence in thy mercy, and secure me most holy and most glorious virgin Marie in all my tribulations, griefs and necessities, and also give me council and help in all my works, and deliver me from all mine enemies, visible and invisible, give me virtue & strength against the temptations and devices of the world, the flesh, and the devil. etc. And in my last days be unto me my helper, and comforter, and deliver my soul, and the soul of my Father The blessed virgin made the principal, and Christ but an helper unto her. and of my mother, of my brothers and my sisters, of my parents, my friends, and my ben●…factours, and of all faithful both living and dead, from the mist of eternal death, he helping thee whom thou hast born, jesus Christ thy son. Prayed you not to S. Erasmus, receive me S. Erasmus, into thy holy faith and grace, and conserve me from all evil by these eight days, and give unto me, that I may pass them over with a right faith, and with all prosperity unto the end of my life, and that aught of mine enemies will, prevail not against me, to thee, to thy praise and honour, to me, to my consolation and grace, to thee S. Erasmus I do commend Soul and body commended to S. Erasmus. my body and my soul, & all that are joined unto ●…in confession, and prayer, or consanguinity, and all my doi●… that I may live with all prosperity, peace and joy now and for ever. You have in the Primer, a notable prayer to the blessed virgin, ave domina sancta Maria etc. Hail Lady S. Marry, mother of God, Queen of heaven, port of Paradise, Lady of the world, eternal light, Empress of hell. etc. Over the head of this prayer, is set in read letters: Quicunque orationem sequentem A Pardon of 40000. years for saying a prayer to the blessed virgin. devotè dixerit, promeretur quadraginta millia annorum indulgentiarum, & per tot dies videbit beatam virginem ante diem exitus sui, per quot annos continuaverit: Whosoever saith this prayer following devoutly, shall have forty thousand years of pardon, and for so many days as he hath continued years, he shall see the blessed virgin before the day of his departure. Likewise over the head of the prayer to the virgin Marie, called ave rosa sine spi●…is. etc. Hail rose without thorns. etc. is printed in read letters in English: This prayer showed our Lady to a devout person, saying, that this golden prayer is The Papists say the blessed virgin delights to be prayed unto. the most sweetest and acceptablest to me. And in her appearing she had this salutation and prayer written with letters of gold in her breast. How say you to these prayers & invacations M. St. is here nothing but Ora pro nobis? do they make saints only intercessors as you now would bear the simple in hand, the prayers to them were nothing else but to desire them to be our intercessors? is this the coming between us & God, & not rather the placing them in God's seat? what left they out that they fully ascribed not unto them▪ could they do any greater blasphemy to God and defacing to his Saints than this? but perhaps you will say, this was done in the time of too gross ignorance and idolatry. Now things are more opened, & the people pray not after so gross a manner. Who were they M. St. that taught them thus to pray, was it we or you? whose plackardes & pardons of sins are prefixed to entice & tickle the people to say these prayers, ours or yours? Ha' M. St. for shame yet at the length blush at the reading of them. All godly will tremble with horror, to hear and see how they blasphemed God unwittingly, being deceived by such blind leaders of the blind, the thick rymine of whose ignorance is not yet taken away from the eyes of a great many. I promise' you M. St. this Primer (since I took in hand to answer you) I sound devoutly occupied in the Church, of a privy friend of yours, & I dare say, had you seen it in his hands, you would not have taken it from him, but have commended his Idolatry. And shall we think that in your late time of Queen Mary's reign yourself used any better Primer? Have you not in your English & Latin primer, printed The abominable prayers in the Primers printed in the Reign of Q. Marie. An. Dom. 1557. by the assigns of john Waylande, (all other primers forbidden to be printed) in your Matins to the virgin Marie: Thou art the door of the heavenly king. And the gate of life replenishing. Since a virgin life doth bring, you redeemed people rejoice and sing? And again, O glorious mother etc. we beseech thee of thy pity, to have us in remembrance, and to make means for us unto Christ, that we being supported by thy help, may deserve to obtain the kingdom of heaven. Here●…e pretend her to be but a mean maker, & yet you ascribe supporting and help of salvation to her, and to yourselves most arrogantly desert of heaven. Do you not pray to S. Michael. O Archangel Michael come for to secure the people of God, and I shall give thee praise in the presence of Angels: Versicle: In thy holy temple I shall to thee pray: Answer: And thy blessed name confess always: and yet who knoweth not, that David ascribeth those words only to God? Do you not say in the prime: We do praise thee, and do pray thee, mother of God most merciful: that thou intend, us to defend, from death that is most sorrowful. In the third hour. The dolorous passion of God's sweet mother, bring Salvation ascribed to the passion not of Christ, but of the blessed virgin. us to the bliss of almighty God the father. What doctrine call you this M. St. that omitting the passion of Christ we be saved by the passion of the virgin Marie? In the 6. hour. O virgin Marry most gracious, O mother of mercy incomparable, from our enemy defend thou us, and in the hour of death be favourable. And in the ninth hour, even in a prayer to Christ: That he would give all those that remember her compassion, prosperous life and everlasting glory, for her sake, which words, for her sake, in the middle of the Salvation given for the blessed virgin's sake. prayer are (as the principal words thereof) only set out in red letters, and all the rest in black. In the evensong: Hail star of the sea most radiant, O mother of God most glorious, a pure virgin always perseverant, O gate of heaven most gorgeous, thou wast saluted with great humility, when Gabriel said ave Maria, establish us in peace and tranquillity, and change the name of sinful Eua. Loose the prisoners from captivity, unto the blind give sight again, deliver us from our malignity, to the end we may some grace attain. Show thyself to be a mother, so that he accept our petition, which for our sake before all other, was content to be thy Son. O blessed Lady, O singular virgin, in perfect meekness all other exceeding, deliver us from bondage of sin, and make us meek and chaste in living, make us ever pure life to ensue, guide us ever upon our journey, that we beholding the face of jesus, may joy with him in heaven always. Item, Holy mother secure the miserable, comfort the weak spirited, give courage to the desperate. In the complene, O Mother of God we do glorify thee, for thou ar●…e she that bore Christ, preserve all that glorify thee. Item, O thou meek mother have mercy therefore, on wretches for whom thou hadst this pain, seeing thy Son that vine cluster pressed sore. And from the pestilence of death eternal, keep us, by voiding the fiend infernal, and join us with them that renowned shall be, with eternal life seeing the deity. Item, Hail queen of mercy, our life, our sweetness, The blessed virgin to be our life, our hope. our hope, all hail unto thee do we cry, which are banished children of Eva, unto thee do we sigh, weeping and wailing in this vale of lamentation, come of therefore our patroness, cast upon us those pitiful e●…es of thy, and after this our banishment, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb jesus. Item, In the heavenly habitation, where the fruit of Salvation gotten by the blessed virgins deserving. The blessed virgin the cause that the world flo●…isheth in quietness. thy womb everlasting we may behold through thy deserving in joy without limitation. And in the prayers following: Rejoice spouse of God most dear, for as the light of the day ●…o clear, cometh from the Sun most radiant, even so dost thou 'cause questionless, the world to flourish in quietness through thy grace abundant. These were the prayers that you said yourselves, and taught the people to pray, in the days of your late tyranny M. St. and what point of invocation is here omitted, that you can devise to give to God, that you have not yielded to the Saints, correcting so little the old Primer that is a great deal worse, if worse can be? And dare that impudent face of yours (to return your 〈◊〉 terms on yourself) still bear us in hand you made them but only intercessors, and all is but Ora pro nobis? I have only hitherto master St. set you t●… learn●… your Primer, or rather to unlearn it. You have a 〈◊〉 for the nonce of this matter, called the Salvation for saying a prayer to the blessed Virgin. prayers and salutations of the blessed virgin: before which are 〈◊〉 these verse●…. Vnaquaque die, devota ment Mariae, hac decant●…tur, & vita 〈◊〉 sequ●…tur. Every day let this prayer be song unto S. Marie, and you shall be saved. The first prayer is this: Exa●…ds. etc. O blessed queen of Heaven hear us, & receive our praises that singing we offer to thee, in tend to our prayer, & succour us celebrating thy praise, reach thy hand of consolation to us that invocate thee, and vouchsafe The presence of the blessed virgin. to be present here with them that desire thee▪ etc. we consider the greatness of thy godliness, and to thee with sure confidence do we flee, to thee we cry lifting up our hands from the depth of iniquity, hear thou our prayer, and deliver thou us from the snares of sins, make thou us being cleansed from Purification of the heart ascribed to her. all our sins, in thy praises to be found worthy, purify thou our hearts, wherein we may worthily heap up the remembrance of thee: water thou our hearts with the dew of thy sweetness, that the drink of bitterness which 〈◊〉 soup in may vanish away. Let our minds defiled with the gall of sins, be moistened with the stream of thy goodness. etc. Let thy love root in us, and expel from us, the custom of vices and offences. Let it lighten our souls, and pull away the heavy multitude of evils, let it mollify our hardened hearts, & let it vouchsafe in them to make for it a worthy habitation: that thou O Lady of heaven mayst possess the cloisters of our breast, and with thy holy * goddeshed* mayst encompass them, give Tuo sacro ●…u mine. Goddesshed ascribed to the blessed virgin. unto our minds continually to think on those things that are pleasing to thee, & to our lips to speak those things that please thee, so that our senses and our tongue in doing thee service, may please thee: that the flesh and spirit remain always under thy protection, to thee holy Mother of God be praise and glory and thanksgiving, let the congregation of ●…aintes glory in thee. Amen. What a blasphemous prayer is this M. St. and yet the second and third passeth it. Venice etc. Come you that desire the heavenly glory, and let us praise the Empress of heaven. Let us magnify the most blessed Marie virgin, and give glory unto her. Let us embrace her steps in humility, and pour out our humble prayers unto her. Let us lift up to her the eyes of our mind, and put firm hope in her, for she is the Et firman spem ponamus in ●…am. The bl. virgin salvation to them that put their trust in her. salvation and medicine, the sweet renown and healthful refuge to them that put their trust in her, she is the mother of mercy and godlines●…e, the merciful and most godly comforter of the miserable, for she defendeth all those that serve her, from all adversities, and enricheth them with the crown of glory. etc. In the third prayer: Thou our most merciful mother, cleanse us from our daily sins, etc. thou a●…te our true Tu vera spes & consol. nostra. Quale tibi sacrificium immolabio●…us. hope and consolation, thou art the sweet refection of our mind, thou art our salvation and medicine, hear us thy servants that trust in thee. What sacrifice shall we offer to thee O Lady? with what praises can we worship thee? what thanks can we, can our baseness, give thee? or what honour can we do to thee, with what devotion shall we serve thee? which by thy only chastity hast found the entrance of health, etc. despi●…e Sola castitate. Confidentes in the speramus. not us that put our trust in thee. We trust in thee, and thee our aid we invocate, etc. In the 4. prayer. Thou with Christ possessest the imperial honour, etc. Cast thy godly eyes on us, and search the inward parts of our hearts, etc. In the How agreeth this with: Ego Deus scrutans corda, etc. ●…erem. 17. Psalm. 7. Rom. 8. Horrible blasphemi●…. fifth prayer. Without thee every soul is as an unfruitful tree worthy to be rooted up, and to be cast into the wasting fire. Our soul lusteth after thee thou noble mother of God when will't thou visit it? come lady and sometimes visit thy servants lest our virtue ●…aint, etc. Our soul is wi●…hered and made barren because we have not deserved to have thy grace. Come O mother come, and moisten it, that it may sometimes bring forth fruit, that it may be fruitful being bedewed with thy grace and bring forth pleasant fruit to thee. In the. 6. prayer: Whom God and thou the invincible mother of God will't vouchsafe Deus & tu. to help, they shall endure. O Lady hear the sighs of thy servants, and hasten to help them that trust in thee. In the 7. prayer. Sperantes in ●…e. Regnas cum filio tuo. Look down from thy high throne of heaven, where thou reignest with thy son, etc. Of all wretches he is most wretch, that neglecteth to get thy grace, etc. he is just indeed and worthy the fellowship of the just, that deserveth in his service to please thee, he shall not be confounded in the last judgement, when he shall see his Lady the judges mother, and shall see thee with him judging him. He shall Cum ipso iudicantem eum. cast his eyes on thee, and he shall not tremble, for thou will't not forget him, etc. In all our grieves let us run to the love of thee, etc. In the 8. prayer. Hail praise of the continent, virtue and strength of the married, mother of the fatherless, succour of widows, hail firm and unmovable hope of all the faithful, hail mirth and joy of Christians, etc. behold we commend body and soul to thee, yea all Ecce corpus & animam tibi commendamus. the governance of our whole life, we commend into thy holy hands, we offer ourselves to serve thee, despise not our oblations, etc. In the. 10. prayer. Be present with us O lady, as we trust in thee, that art the remedy of all evil, etc. that thou being our guide we may come straight to heaven. Now M. St. is all this neither, nothing else but Ora pro nobis? well, I could yet bring more, & more horrible stuff than this. Yea it were infinite & to tedious, to rake out those most blasph●…mous prayers, that all your other books have. Yourself could never abide the reading for shame, nor the godly sustain the hearing for horror, to see God so blasphemed, & spoilt of all his honour, of that which he is a jealous God & will communicate no part thereof to other. Only (to sweeten your lips withal) you shall hear a few stories out of your legend, The popish stories of praying to the blessed virgin. & other your holy books, what you ascribe to saints. And first to begin even at the intercession that you say the Saints make for us, chief the virgin Marie, whom you make far more merciful than Christ. To prove this, you Discipulu●… serm. 162. tell us: That a certain wicked sinner going about his sin, by the way (as his manner was to salute her Image with an Quick Images. ave) beholding the Image of the virgin, and her son in her arms, he see that the blood distilled from the child, as it did from his wounds on the Crosse. Which when he see, being astonished thereat he said: O lady who hath done this? This was done when stocks spoken then, as stones speak now. to whom the virgin answered. Thou and such sinners do Crucify my Son again. And she would have wiped and staunched the blood, but she could not. To whom (qd the sinner) O mother of mercy make intercession for me. She answered to him, You sinners call me the mother of mercy, & you make me the mother of misery and sorrow. And he said, not so most godly lady▪ but remember that thou art the advocate How agreeth this with S. john's doctrine, Si quis peccaverit advocatum habemus jesum Christum? Christ belike beareth a grudge to his father that he was not herded at the first. of sinners, and make intercession for me. And the mother said: O most godly son, for the love of me be merciful to this sinner. And her son said to her: Not mother, nor thou oughtest to be grieved in that I hear thee not. For I prayed once my father, if it were possible to save mankind some other way, and take from me the cup of my passion, and he would not hear me. And she said, O my son, remember that I cherished thee with motherly love, and fed thee with my paps, forgive then this sinner. O mother (qd the son) I will show that by good right I am not bond to hear thee. We pled not right (qd the mother) but fly to mercy, and therefore for thy mercy's sake, be merciful to this sinner. To whom her son said, I prayed my father twice, that if it were possible the cup should part from me, and he herded me not. To whom his mother answered: O my son, remember my travails and pains, that I have sustained with thee, and give me this sinner. O Mother quoth the Son be not vexed, The blessed virgin vexed. because I will not hear thee, but remember that I prayed thrice, and was not heard. With that the mother set down her Son, and would have fallen down to his feet. Which her Son seeing, said unto her: what is that you will do Mother? I will (quoth she) lie before thy feet with this sinner so long, till thou grant him pardon. God forbidden this mother (quoth the son) for it is ordained in the divine Christ still bond to the la. Honora pat & mat. How agreeth this with. Propter me. propter no●…e 〈◊〉▪ An excellent surgeon to heal Christ, and that with a kil●…. law, that the son aught to honour his mother, and justice concludeth, that the lawgiver fulfil himself the law. Then sith I am thy son, and thou my mother, I will honour thee in this sinner, and for thy sake forgive him all his sins, and in token of peace between him and me, let him come and kiss my wounds, and so the sinner healed all the wounds of christ with his kiss. How say you M. Stapleton, was not this proper stuff to be printed, even for information to Preachers to instruct the people, with almost so many blasphemies as there be lines, besides the ridiculousness of the whole tale? But I tell it for your conceits of her intercession, making her a great deal more merciful than Chryst. As did Pope Silvester. 2. The like tale within a Sermon or two after, or rather a more fond tale he telleth of an unthrift that having wasted his goods, gave himself to the devil for riches. Of whom the devil The mother of Christ to do more against the Devil than Christ. The mercy & pardon of the mother above Christ's justice. A greater matter to forsake the blessed virgin than to forsake Christ. required, that he should renie the highest, and so he did. To whom the devil answered that his work was yet unperfect, except he renounced the mother of the highest: for it is she that doth us most harm. For look whom the son by justice destroyeth, the mother by mercy and pardon doth save. Which the young man hearing, he was sore adread and troubled above measure, and answered he would never do it. To whom the conjuror said: you have denied the Creator, stick not man to deny the Creature: no (quoth he) that will I never do, I had rather always beg my bread. And so the matter was dashed. The young man returning, came by a chapel, where was the picture of the blessed Virgin, holding her child in her arms: and he began to invocate her with all his heart, and by Not on Christ. This was done when Images could speak. A sullen boy, it was not he that said, Venite ad me etc. the merits of her, repented earnestly, calling instantly upon the Virgin Marie, for he dared not call upon the highest, whom he had denied. With that, he heard the mother speak to her son in her arms, saying: my most sweet Son be merciful to this man. To whom her Son would not speak one word, but writhed his face from her. And when again she besought her Son for him, he turned his back to his mother, and said he hath renied me, what shall I do to him? when she see this, she set down In quacunque hora. etc Conuer●…mini ad me etc. the child on the altar, and fallen at his feet, saying: I beseech thee son, that for me thou will't forgive him: and straight the infant lift up his mother, and said: O mother, I could never deny thee any thing, behold for thy sake, I forgive him all. Thus you made the mother far more merciful and loving than Christ, and that forgiveness of sins is in her name, and for her sake. And made the people by these tales believe, that it was a more heinous offence to deny the blessed Virgin, than it was to renounce our saviour Christ. The same author telleth yet a more fond and wicked In Prompt. di●…. de 〈◊〉. B. Maria: tit. Ma ria virg. sustentavit mundum: & in Legenda in vita S. Domi nici, Anglice. tale. How S. Dominike on a night see Christ standing in the air, shaking in his hand three spears against the world, and his mother ran hastily against him, and demanded him what he would do, and he said to her: All the world is full of vices, of pride, of luxury, and of avarice, and therefore I will destroy them with these three spears, than the blessed virgin fallen down at his feet▪ and said: Dear son, have pity. and tarry thy justice by thy mercy. And jesus Christ said to her: Seest thou not how many wrongs and injuries they have done to me? And she answered, Son attemper The day of doom dese●…ed for the blessed virgin's sake. thy wrath, and tarry a little, I have a true servant, and a noble fighter against the vices, he shall run over all, and vanquish the world, and subdue them under thy signory, and I shall give him an other servant into his help, that shall fight as he doth. And our Lord her son said, I am appeased, and receive thy prayer. But I would Christ's ignorance. see whom thou wilt send in so great offence. And so the tale telleth, how she fet and presented unto him Saint Dominicke and S. Francis, and how Christ praised them. And thus once the world was saved by her, and her two champions. On the other side of the leaf, as a confirmation to this, Discip. ibidem exempl. 9 is declared how an other time, a devout Lady's chaplain, called sir William, did see Christ sit in his throne, and on his right hand an angel standing with a trumpet, whom Christ with a clear voice, in the hearing of all the army of heaven, bad blow. And when he had blown, the blast was so mighty, that all the world shook, as it had been a leaf on a tree, to whom Christ said the second time, Who heard this might ●… blast besides sir William? Blow, and he blue as before. But the Virgin Mary mother of mercy, knowing that if he blue again, all the world were ended, (the other Saints being all hushed) she start up, and fallen at her sons feet, and besought him with much ado to defer his sentence, and spare the world. To whom Christ answered, Mother, all the world is set on wickedness, and do so provoke me with their sins, that neither I aught to suspend my sentence, The utter corruption of the clergy & mon kerie by Christ's own▪ mouth. nor spare man. Sith not only the laity, but the clergy also, yea the Monks have utterly corrupted their ways, and offend me from day to day. And then said his mother, My dear son spare them, though not for those wicked one's, yet at the lest for my friends sakes: and so Christ was pleased once again. another time the matter went so hard, that the Virgin Maries image fallen a sweeting so fast Ibid 'em. So contemptuously they term Christ. Christ's a●… me stayed by his mother. The Papists teach that said taes pray for pro●…ōging the day of doom, and Christ teacheth us to prai for the hastening of it. Matth. 6. in the Church, that all the people marveled. And the cause was this, The son of Marie had even stretched out his arm, to strike the world, and if his mother had not run the quicklier, and stayed his arm, the world had been destroyed ere now. This is the intercession that your Church ascribeth to her M. Stapleton, making her a great deal more prove to mercy, than Christ the fountain of mercy, and mercy itself, by these your wicked and blasphemous fables. But what said I▪ I should have said by these your holy histories and devout sermons. But see withal what true doctrine you teach, that the saints do pray for the deferring of the kingdom of God, where Christ teacheth us to pray, that he would vouchsafe to hasten his kingdom, saying, Let thy kingdom come: And willeth the godly to lift up their heads when they shall hear of the signs thereof: and saith, that Luke. 24. Mark. 13. Apocal. 6. unless God should shorten those days, no flesh should be saved: and he will cut them off, for the elect's sake. And the Martyrs slain for the word of God, do long still for his coming, and cry: How long O Lord, which art holy and true, Apoca. 22. will't thou not judge the world, and revenge our blood, of those that devil in the earth. And there were given to them white garments, and they were bid rest a while, till the number of their fellow servants and brethren were fulfilled, that should be slain likewise. And the spirit and the spouse saith come, and he that heareth, let him say, Come. etc. And Christ sayeth, Yea I come quickly. Amen. Yea Lord jesus come quickly, (saith S. john.) And your Church says (As an harlot that is afraid of the husbands coming) come not. And you tell us that the blessed Virgin hath now three times stayed back his arm, and will not let him come. You have hitherto ascribed very much, and much more than aught to be ascribed to a creature, but do you go no further? you pretend that the death of Christ is available: but no further than the blessed virgin doth obtain it at his hand by her mercy. What a tale is that you tell us, even where as you mention the blood of Christ? how a certains noughty religious man, using notwithstanding to say an hundredth ave Maries every day, the devils brought him being dead in his sins before Christ to be judged. Christ pronounced Discip. de miraculis beatae Mariae. him to be eternally condemned. With that came the blessed virgin and offered the papers, wherein the ave Maries were written, desiring Christ to go to judgement once again. The devils seeing that, brought all the books of his sins, Christ's judgement revoked. Alan▪ de rupe in psalterio beatae virgins. and when the balance was poised, his sins did overwey the Auies, which seeing, the virgin besought Christ, saying: Thou art my son, the blood that thou hast, thou hast of me, I pray thee give me one drop thereof. To whom (quoth Christ) O mother I am not able to deny it thee, than Marie put in the balance the drop of blood together with her merits, Moore ascribed to the blessed virgin than to Christ. and then that part weighed down to the ground: so that the devils went crying away. Our Lady is too merciful to Christians, we ever fail where she meddleth with us. O Lady it is not good contending with thee. What a derogation is this to Chest? And where you grant most to the blood of Christ, where you would salve the matter with intercession, even there you say, not that he will vouchsafe to grant her petition, but that he is not able to gainsay it, yea that it is not lawful for him to deny it, For (saith Cardinal Uigerius) Dixit Vigerius Saonensis Cardiralis decacord: 4. can. 12. Christ bound to deny no petition to his mother. Solomon. etc. Solomon said to his mother, ask mother what you will, for it is not lawful for me, to turn away my face from her that bore me. What shall we think other than this, the Lord jesus Christ to say to his mother, who is far wiser and juster than Solomon? And his reason is this, Salomon's mother had midwives, nurses, bearers of the child and instructors: but Marie was all this herself, and so Christ is more bound to his mother, than Solomon to Bethsabée. And therefore if we will worship Christ, we jacob. de Vorag. serm. 1. in die pascae. must first go to his mother. For as saith jacobus de Voragine: as Eve was in the midst between the serpent and the man, so Marie making our reconciliation, is in the midst between God and man. What a double blasphemy is this? First that our reconciliation The blessed virgin made the reconciler, and mediator between God and man. Rom. 5. is made by any other than Christ, of whom the Apostle saith: If when we were yet enemies, we were reconciled to God, by the death of his son: much more, seeing we are reconciled, we shall be preserved by his life, nor yet only so, but also glorying in God, through our Lord jesus Christ, by whom we have now obtained reconciliation. Secondly, that we have any other mediator than Christ, where as the apostle saith: Unus devi. etc. There is one God 1. Tim. 1. and one mediator of God and man, the man Christ jesus, neither will your shift serve you to cloak your blasphemy, that you make her a mediator of intercession: for lo here, he maketh her a mediator, of making the atonement and reconciliation between mankind and God, which as it is our very redemption, so is it the proper office of Christ alone. ●…pse est pax nostra. etc. He is ou●… peace, which hath Eph. 2. made one of both, & hath broken down the brickwall that was a stop between us, and also hath done away through his flesh the cause of hatred, that is to say, the law of commandments, contained in the law written, for to make of twain one new man in himself, so making peace: and to reconcile both unto God, in one body through his Cross, and slew hatred thereby. For through him we both have an open way, in one spirit unto the father. Whereupon saith S. August. Enchirid. ad Laur. ca 32. Nes per mediatorem Christum reconciliamur deo. We are reconciled to God by Christ being the mediator. What blasphemy then is this in you, to spoil Christ hereof, and give it to the virgin Marie, and make her as much the instrument and mean of our reconciliation, as Eve was the instrument and mean of our perdition. But in this entrance of our perdition, though both Adam & Eve were culpable, and both (being one flesh) are comprehended under the name of one, and that of Adam the husband, as the Apostle saith, Death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over Rom. 5. them also that sinned not with like transgression as did Adam, which is the similitude of him that is to come: Yet afterward S. Paul noting the mean, by whom properly the sin 2. Tim. 2 entered first, affirmeth that Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived, and was in transgression. If then you make the like proportion of our reconciliation from Adam to Christ, from Eve to the virgin: then as Eve properly was the very original and cause of the transgression, though Adam (being the assenter) bore the name thereof: then properly the virgin is the very original, & cause of our reconciliation, and Christ is but an assenter, & so bears but the name thereof. What a wicked doctrine is this M. S.▪ and is this now nothing else but ora pro nobis? Might not Christ rather say ora pro nobis to her, sith you give her all, & him a bore name only? Now to the confirming of this blasphemous doctrine, cometh in another of her Chaplayves, crying, O foemina Robertus de Licio sermon. de sanctis ser. 24. de concept. beatae Mariae ca 1. super omma. etc. O woman that art above all things, and blessed of all things, the fore elect and most worthy vessel, framed of the first artificer, the treasury of the divine gifts, god hath choose & forechosen thee, that God and man might devil nine Months in thy tabernacle. I dare boldly say, that even for the Virgin conceived in God's mind, many thousand years before she was born, mankind was preserved in his being. For it is evident that for their first transgression, Adam and Eve deserved not only death, but even the utter rooting them out to nothing. And the divine vengeance which knoweth not the accepting of people, as it left not unpunished the angels offence, so would it not have left unpunished mankind's offence: but our first parents were preserved, that they were not consumed to nothing, for the chiefest reverence that he had to the virgin, for he loved her above all creatures that should be created, and not united unto God. The reason is, that this Maiden was in the loins of Adam, as concerning the seed. And the power of bringing forth the maiden, was imprinted in the first father, till she were in deed brought forth. But of her jesus aught to be born, who was in Adam only, after his bodily substance, to be brought forth of the virgin, and of none other: God therefore did spare our first parents, nor consumed them to nothing, because that so she had not been born, and by consequence jesus neither, nor God had put on flesh. Therefore by this noble creature, God did save our first parents from the transgression: and No from the flood: and Abraham from the slaughter of the Kings: Isaac from Ishmael: jacob from Esau: the jewish people from Egypt, from pharao's hand, from the red Sea, from the force of diverse Kings and tyrants, from Nabuchodonozor, and from the captivity of Babylon: David from the Lion, from Goliath and from Saul. And to conclude, all the favouring, and deliverances made in the old testament, I doubt Nisi pro Amore huius puellae & reverentia. not but God did them, for the love of this maiden, and for the worship of her, whom God had from without beginning foreordeyned to be set above all his works. O outrageous blasphemy where is Christ? How agreeth this with S. Paul's doctrine, that Christ is the image of the Col. 1. invisible god, the first begotten of all creatures, for by him were all things created, things that are in heaven, & things that are in earth, things visible, & things invisible, whether they be Majesty or Lordship, either rule or power, all things are created by him and in him, & be is before all things, and in him all things have their being, and he is the head of the body, that is to wit, of the congregation, he is the beginning and first begotten, that in all things he might have the pre-eminence, for it pleased the father that in him all fullness should devil, and by him to reconcile all things to himself, and to set at peace by him, through the blood of his Cross, both things in heaven, and things in earth. Here is no mention at all of her, but all of him (master Stapleton) for whom all things were made. But even these properties of Christ, this blasphemous doctor applieth to her, and saith: your Church doth so. For a little before he saith: Sed hoc loco. etc. But in this place is to be asked whether the blessed virgin were brought forth before all creatures? For of her saith the Church that saying. Eccle. 24. Ab initio & ante secula creata sum. From the beginning and before the world was I made, and again in the Epistle of this solemnity, the Virgin is brought in saying that sentence. Prou. 8. The Lord hath possessed me from the beginning of his ways before he made any thing, even from the beginning, from everlasting I was ordained, and from of old before the earth was made, as yet the depths were not, and I was already begotten, as yet the fountains flowed not with water, nor as yet the mountains in their great compass were settled, before all the hills was I begotten. Which words do seem so to sound, that she was brought forth, before the bringing forth of any other thing. Who is he that knoweth not that these words are spoken of the eternal son of God begotten before all ages, and is even one with that S. john john. 1. saith, In the beginning was the word? and yet because it is spoken in the feminine gender, under the name of the eternal wisdom of God, he most ignoran●…ly and Idolatrously transferreth it to the virgin Marie. Neither he alone, but he saith your Church doth so, so that all your whole Church Blasphemy in all the whole popish church. is a blasphentous Church. And thus you ascribe the promise of the blessed seed, to the blessed virgin saying, not it, but she shall tread down the serpent's head So where David Gen. ●…. in Prologue. eiusdem ad serm concep. jacobus de Vorag. serm. quarag. 50. saith, Non est qui se abscondat à ●…alore 〈◊〉, None can hide him from his heat: you say none can hide him from her heat. Likewise where the wisdom of God saith: In the well-beloved City gave he me rest, & in Jerusalem was my power. jacobus de Udragine, applieth it to her, saying, Primo pater. etc. First, the father hath made her mighty to help. Eccle. 24. in Jerusalem was my power: for she is made so mighty, that she can help Ibidem. us in life, in death, and after death. etc. Again where Christ saith, I am exalted like a Palm tree about the banks, and as a rose Palm in Hierico, as a fair Olive tree in a pleasant field, that ascribeth he to her, saying: Sunt enim quidam. etc. There are some Saints, who when they are prayed unto, follow the information of their conscience, and therefore often times they will not pray to God for us, because they have a conscience, that they are not worthy to be herded. Other Saints there are, that when they are prayed unto, they follow the straightness of God's righteousness. And therefore if they be desired, and know that this is not fit for God's justice, they dare not ask: but the blessed Virgin, neither looketh to conscience, nor to justice, but to mercy. As who should say, let them keep their consciences to themselves that lust, and let them that will, look to God's justice: I will always hold me to mercy, and for this so excellent Modesty she saith of herself. Eccle. 24. I am as a fair Olive in the fields. Yea you say she hath such exceeding and excelling mercy, that not only it passeth all the Saints, but that, illud quod dicitur. Eccl. 18. de Ibidem. Domino, potest dici etiam de Domina etc. That the which is spoken Eccle. 18. of the Lord, may be spoken of the Lady. The mercy of a man is toward his neighbour, but the mercy of the Lord is over all flesh. Thus you rob God of his glory to adorn her, attributing all to her. And say that the father hath written in her his power, where Christ saith contrary, Ibidem. all power is given me of my father in heaven and earth. etc. that the son hath written in her his wisdom: that the holy ghost hath written in her his goodness and mercy. Again, the father hath made her his Treasurer, Idem in quad●…. ●… 8. & in assum. serm. 8. whereby she hath conquered the Devil, and poureth into cur minds divine knowledge. The son hath made her his Chamberlain. The holy ghost hath made her his celerer. The whole Trinity hath made her Almosiner of heaven. She is Chancellor to the holy ghost, she is Porter S. Peter is turned out of office belike. But Christ said ego sum ostium. of Paradise. Ipsa nanque est ostium. etc. For she is the door, by the which we enter into Paradise, which by Eve was shut, and by her is opened. Ipsa enim est quae nos suis meritis in atrium principis introducit. For it is she that by her merits bringeth us into the porch of the Prince. Whereupon. joh. 18 it is said. A Damsel, that was the door keeper (the blessed A proper reason & well applied. virgin calleth herself an handmaid or Damsel) let in Peter into the Prince's porch, Ipsa nanque virgo. For even the virgin is the window whereby God beholdeth us with the eye of mercy. Uirgo autem Maria. The Virgin Marie is the In assump. serm. 7. throne of mercy, grace and glory: she is the Sun to the just, the Moon to the Saints, the faithful witness to sinners, the advocate of mankind, the drop that softeneth all hardness. God unmerciful. Christ clean forgotten. There were three things that once were hard: God, that received none to mercy: Death that swallowed up all to hell: the Devil that enraged with enmity. But the Virgin Marie so mollified God, that he received all men to mercy. She so trod death under foot, that now he can not take away the Saints. She overcame the Devil that he can now▪ deceive none, but him that lust to be deceived: that now she may say I forsake you not, but as a drop I abide with you, because my odour abideth with you, wherewith I have mollified God, I have trodden down death, I have overcome the Devil. This is one drop of her grace, master Stap. but what can you ascribe more to all the drops of the blood of Christ. To conclude you make her all in all, She ●…lenseth us from Serm. 5. our sins▪ she lighteneth us from ignorance, she strengtheneth us from our infirmities. Et per ipsam virg. etc. and by the blessed virgin Marie. Quilibet tanque per portam in coelum ascendit. Every man even as by a gate, ascendeth to heaven. By these immoderate praises, or rather outrageous blasphemies, Master Stapleton, you stirred the people (quite neglecting Christ) to invocate the virgin Marie. And you exemplify it by fables to confirm the people therein. You The Papists blasphemous examples of invocating the bless. Virgin Discip. exemp. 40. In Legenda fest. assumpt. tell us how an Abbot and his holy Covent sailing in a tempest: one called on Saint Nicholas, an other on Saint Andrew, and every one upon his peculiar Patron (but none called upon God) the Abbot chod them all, and bade them call on the mother of mercy. Which when they did forthwith the Seas were calm. You tell us of many other, that being vexed with spirits, have sought many remedies, now holy water, now one thing, now another, yea they have called upon Christ, upon the Trinity, and have had so little help, that they have rather been much worse: only, when they were taught to lift up their hands, and cry, Saint Marie help me: then forthwith the spirit hath fled away all afraid, as he had been smitten with a stone, and said the cursed devil enter into his mouth, that hath taught thee that: and so being vanquished, never came again. johannes de monte in suo Mariali. You tell us a noble Story of a Spanish woman called Lucy, to whom for saluting the virgin Marie, the virgin, at the deliverance of her child, came and was the midwife, and at the Christening the Godmother and Christ the Godfather, and the child was named after the Godmother, and called Marianus. And how at her Churching, Christ himself sang Mass, and how at the offertory, Lucy was preferred to go and offer and kiss the priests hand before the virgin Marie, and what honour the Virgin gave her above herself, saying, This is your day of Churching now, I was churched long ago. And all for saying the ave Marie. You tell us of a Strumpet, that all her life did no good Discipulus. work, save that she would say an ave Marie, and hear a Mass on Saturday (which you call our Lady's day, as Sunday is called the lords day) and on her death bed this harlot said, O Lady Queen and mother, though I did never any good, yet I trust to thy mercy, and to thee I commend my spirit. And when the fiends would have taken her soul, the mother of mercy took her soul from them, saying, do you not know that she saluted me daily, and every Saturday herded a Mass, and at her death commended her soul to me? And when they alleged her sins, I tell you (quoth she) that soul was never damned that served me, and commended itself to me, and so she drove them away and carried the soul with her. You tell us of a knight that never did other good, but at Disc. exem. 57 morning and Evening say an ave Marie, and by the grace of the Virgin he was saved. And hereon you conclude a rule, Quod orandum sit, etc. That at the point of death we must pray, mother of grace, mother of mercy, defend thou us from the enemy, and keep us in the hour of death. And then we are safe. Yea as Anselme saith. Impossibile est ut pereat. It is impossible he should perish, sith by the virtue of the ave Marie, the world was renewed. And that Redempturus deus genus humanu●… universum Alanus de rupe precium contulit in Mariam: sine ea nihil possumu●…, sine ea miseri sumus, sine ea factum est nihil. God going about to redeem mankind, conferred all the price thereof upon Mary. Without her we can do nothing, without her we are wretches, without her nothing was made. To conclude, you make her to be all in all. And as Albertus Magnus in his book of her praises, says: Est autem opus, Albertus' Magnus episcopus de ●…anlingen. 〈◊〉. etc. The book of the beginning of the lords incarnation, describing the mystery of our redemption, to the praise, honour and glory of the most glorious, and alonely, truly, honourable above every Creature, the virgin mother of God. By the most special confidence of whole help, we take this work in hand. And in the mercy of her, even as in the most firm anchor of our hope, we look for the end of the performance, and the reward of the labour. Who is the mover of the will, the cause of the work, and the beholder of the intention. Thus blasphemously ascribeth Albertus, all these things to her, even in the Preface of his book. But what exceeding more blasphemies he filleth his volume withal, were infinite to recite. Look yourself M. St. if with shame you can sustain to read them. Neither is all this, the errors of private men, but the The papist●…s shut that these were but private men's errors. Missale in officio Beatae Mariae. doing of all your whole Church. For, even in the solemnities of your Mass, have you not in the Sequences of our Lady's Masses (as you call them) ave terrarum domina, etc. Hail lady of the earth, holy queen of heaven, let the heavens and all the company of saints bring forth melody to thee, the lands, the floods, the woods, and groves resound, etc. By thee mother, we crave that the children's sins be abolished, and we be all brought to the everlasting joys of Paradise. Again, Seda nobis bella, Appease thou wars, hail, star of the seas, thou mother give to us the true peace, give us help, changing the name of Eue. drive away our evils, drawing us without bitterness, forgive us our crimes, ask all good things, let the Son and the Father be given by thee O mother, The Father & the Soon given by the blessed virgi●…. etc. that which Eve hath taken away, thou only, O mother, givest. Through thee, the people recover their former lost strength, thou art the gate of the high King, by the which gate we enter into the court. etc. And again: The lady of the world etc. is the cause of our salvation, the gate of life. Salutis causa vitae porta. Again: Pray every man to her in every hour, and call thou upon her defence. Sing, sing, ave Maria, with the force of thy heart▪ with thy voice, with thy vow, etc. And in the third reason that you give, why you dedicated the Saturday to her, as the Sunday to the Lord: you say in red letters, Tertia ratio est, etc. The third reason is, because the Saturday is the gate and entrance to the Sunday, but the Sunday is the day of rest, and betokeneth eternal life. Whereupon when we be in the grace of our Lady, we are as it were Cum in gra●…ia sumus Dominae nostrae. in the gate of Paradise. Therefore, because even she is to us the gate to the kingdom of heaven, which is figured by the Sunday, we keep for the solemnity of her, the Seventh day, which goeth before the Sunday. Thus doth your whole Church (yea and that in your holy Mass book) ascribe to her even as much as any of the other. What say you now to all this M. Stap. have you any shift of descant to run unto, any distinction behind to allege, any fig leaf to cover your shame, that all this kind of invocation may be thought no Idolatry to a creature, nor blasphemy to God? well, if all this will not serve, give me I pray you occasion hereafter, to show yet further many mother & far worse abominations than all these. But I think you be ashamed already, and will confess, that there are at the lest some abuses. But what soever you will grant, I dare say some of your side (that would never have believed such wickedness to have been wrought, such doctrine to have been taught and printed) will hereafter have more regard of their own soul's health, than to believe such false Prophets as you. For, how will you spare to deceive them, that spared not to blasphenie God? If you say it was not general, I have showed you in many of your own confessions, yea even in the Mass book, that it was the public service of your Church. If you say All the Papists shifts about invocation confuted. it was reform in the later times: I have showed you, even your last Primers and Mass books, set forth and authorised in Queen Mary's reign, to contain as idolatrous and blasphemous prayers as did the other. If you say it was but Intercession and meditation: I have showed you, that it was not only help, mercy, grace and everlasting life, but even as much that you ascribed to the mother of Christ, as for your lives you can devise to give to Christ, yea and that many times you give much more to her than to him. If you say now, that one breaks no square, all this is but to one, and that to the Mother of God: Although this were to vile an excuse, for any Christian ears to hear, and the question is, whether any besides God is to be invocated: yet not withstanding, it is even as false, as all your other excuses. For you have not so stinted, you have not only invocated other besides, and that not only as intercessors, with Orate pronobis: but ascribed help to them also. Yea there is not almost one Saint mentioned in the whole legend, to whom you attribute not some or other proper virtue, wherein you invocate him or her, not only to be an Intercessor and Advocate, but to be an helper, patron, defender, deliverer, and the giver of it. Yea as it is declared in the life of S. Peter, even as the Heathen did make men their Gods, you make likewise the Saints your Gods. Do you not tell us, how in the time of S. Cornelius the Pope: Greeks stolen away the Legenda in vita S. Petri. bodies of the Apostles Peter and Paul, but the Devils that were in the Idols, were constrained by the divine virtue of God. And cried, and said, you men of Rome secure hastily your Gods, which be stolen from you. This you say, they cried being constrained thereto by the divine power. And thus as you make them Gods to go before you, & help you in every thing, so you invocate them, and give them godheads. If now Vigilantius were living, & should cry out of your blasphemous invocation, should he be an heretic therefore? yea surely should he with you M. Stapl. and all that speak against you. But I pray you, let S. Augustine be his companion in this heresy. Non ad creaturam (says he) debemu●… De 〈◊〉. arb. lib. 3. tendere, sed ad ipsum creatorem, de quo si aliud quàm oportet, ac seize res habeat, nobis persuadetur, perniciosissimo errore decipimur. We aught not to go to a creature, but even to the very creator, of whom, if we persuade ourselves any other thing, than the truth is, we are deceived with a most pernicious error. This is his judgement of all these your wicked fables. As for the assertion that we hold against you, that we have to God no other advocate to call upon, but our Saviour jesus Christ, would he have called us Heretics, or Schismatics, think you, or Uigilantians therefore? no says he, jesum Christum justum ipsum etc. In epist. joh. Tract. 1. We have even jesus Christ himself the advocate to the Father, he is the propitiation of our sins, he that hath held this hath made no heresy, he that hath held this hath made S. Aug against the papists shifted of intercession. no Schism. So that we are here cleared of heresy, and the Schism and Heresy lighteth on yourself Master Stapleton. As for your fond distinction, S. Augustine rejecteth, of intercession between God and us, as false, and no true Religion. Religat nos religio (saith he) uni omnipotenti De vera Rel. Cap. 55. ▪ Deo, quia inter●…mentem nostram, etc. Religion is that, that bindeth us to the only almighty God. Because, between our mind, with the which we understand the Father, and the truth, that is the light by the which we understand him, there is no creature put between. And as S. August. thus confuteth your distinction of intercession, so would he have S. August. judgeth the Saints dishonoured by invocating them. your foolish dotage on Saints corrected, in thinking you did them honour in serving them, when they rejoice if we serve only God, and are offended, that you should ascribe such honour and service as you did unto them. Non libenter 〈◊〉, They take it not (saith he) in good The Popish saints that desired to be worshipped, we●…e but either illusions of devils, or Papists forgeries . part, yea they know it is not lawful to give it to any but to God, Cui uni fas esse noverunt, To whom only they know it is lawful. And therefore those Saints that you writ, appeared to such and such hermits, Monks, or Nu●…nes, and would thus and thus be honoured, fasted for, prayed unto, served and called upon, were but either the devils illusions in their names, or your own inventions: and he would have coun●…elled you in this manner: Non ergo creaturae pu●…ius ●… creator●… serutamus, ●…e euan●…scamus in cogitationibus nostris, Let us not rather serve a creature than the Creator, jest we vanish away in our own imaginations, as in these fables you have given to a creature, more than to the Creator. Neither the excellency of the creature can excuse you, The P●…pistes exception of the blessed Virgin from other creatures. Decivit. dei. Li. 10. ca 19 that because she is so excellent a creature, you may make supplications to her, although you might so do to none besides: No saith S. Aug. Uni deo, & semper, & in omnibus, nulli autem quantum ut●… excellenti creaturae supplicandum. We must make supplication to God only, and that always, and in all things, but to no creature never so much excellent. Thus will S. August. make all you Papists heretics. But since you would before have proved us heretics by Epiphanius: let us see if now you will stand to Epiphanius judgement, in the invocation even of the virgin Marie. For even then began this error, by the seducing of false and ignorant priests, and the superstitious people, to take root, so that in deed you may vaunt of antiquity of this The antiquity of the error of invocating saints. error, but other than a wicked error, be it never so old, neither you can make it now, nor Epiphanius took it then other wise. He calleth it folly, superstition, blasphemy, fury, madness, the worship that certain women gave her in his time: and yet was it not the hundredth part so much, as Contr. haer. l. 3 cont. collyrid. Mar. & Antidicomarit. the Papists in our time have given to her. Revera sanctum: etc. In deed (saith he) the body of Marie was holy, but God it was not. The Virgin was a Virgin in deed and honourable, but she was not given to us to be worshipped, but herself worshipped him that was born of her, who came to her from heaven out of his father's bosom. And for this cause doth the Gospel arm us, telling that which the Lord spoke, woman, what have I to do with thee, mine hour is not yet come, lest any should think, the holy virgin to be more excellent, he calleth her woman, as it were, prophesying such things, as by reason of sects should come to pass on the earth. Lest that any body marveling too much at the holy Virgin, slip into this heresy, and these dotages. For, all the handling of this heresy, is but a mockery, and as a man may say, an old wives tale. For what Scripture hath ever declared, which of the Prophets commanded man to be worshipped? much less a woman, she is in deed an excellent vessel, but a woman: and nothing changed from her nature. She is honourable in honour, both in understanding and sense, even as are the bodies of the Saints. And if to her glorifying I should have said somewhat more, even as Helias a virgin from his mother, and so still remaining, was translated, and saw not death: even as john that leaned on the lords breast, whom jesus loved: even as saint Thecla. Yea Marry is yet more honourable, for the dispensation of the mystery: wherewith she was made worthy: But neither Helias is to be worshipped, although he be yet alive: neither is john to be worshipped, although by his prayers he obtained his wonderful sleep, or rather he obtained grace of God: Nor yet Thecla, neither any saint is worshipped. For the ancient error shall not master us, that leaving the living God, we should worship those things that are made of him. For they worshipped and honoured the Creature more than the Creator, and become fools. If he will not have Angels to be adored, how much more will he not have her, which was engendered of Anne, which was given to Anne of joachim, which by their prayers, and all their diligence, according to the promise to her father and mother was given, yet was she not engendered beyond the nature of men, but as all are of the seed of a man, and the womb of a woman. etc. For it is unpossible for any to be engendered on earth, beyond the nature of man. Only it was sitting for him: nature gave place to him alone: he, as the work master, and having power of the matter, formed himself of the Virgin, as it were of the earth. Who being God the word, descended from heaven▪ and put on flesh of the Virgin Mary, but not that the Virgin should be worshipped, not that he would make her a God, nor that we should offer in the name of her, etc. he suffered her not to give baptism, nor to bless the disciples, he bade her not rule in the earth, but only that she should have her sanctification, and be made worthy of his kingdom. From whence then cometh again to us the round Dragon, that wrappeth himself on a heap? fro whence are these Counsels renewed for any cause? Let Mary be had in honour: let be worshipped the father, the son, and the holy ghost let no man worship Mary. I say not a woman, not not a man. This mystery is due to God, the Angels receive not such glorifying. Let the things evil written, he razed clean out of the heart of those that are deceived, let the lust of the tree be taken out of their eyes, let it turn to the Lord that framed it, let Eve with Adam fear God, that she may worship him only, lest she be led by the Serpent's voice. But let her abide steadfast in God's commandment, eat not of the tree. Let no body eat of the error that is for saint Mary. For though the tree be fair, yet it is not to be eaten: although Mary be most fair, and holy, and honourable, yet is she not to be adored. But these Arabic women worshipping Mary, do renew again the mixture to Fortune, and prepare a table to the Devil, not to God, as it is written, they are fed with the meat of wickedness. And again, And their women do bolt flower, and their children gather sticks to make cakes kneaded with oil to the Q. of heaven. Let such women be put to silence by Hieremie, and let them not trouble the world, let them not say, we honour the queen of heaven. etc. Thus saith Epiphanius, and much more, neither for her only, though chief for her, but in general for all the Saints. Non convenit colere sanctos. etc. It is not meet to worship the Saints beyond comeliness, but it is meet to honour the Lord of them, let the error therefore cease of those that be seduced. Now if you say unto me, all this is spoken against the The Papists shifted that they offer not sacrifice to saints. worship of offering to her, and sacrificing to her, not for invocation of her: first this shift is false M. Sta. for Invocation in deed is the chiefest worship that we can give, not of the lips so much as of the heart, far above any outward sacrifice of the body, and therefore to be much more given to God alone, as S. Aug. reasoneth. Sicut orantes. etc. Even De civit. Dei. li. 10. ca 10. as, when we pray and praise, we direct signifying vows unto God, when we offer the very things in our heart, the which we signify: so sacrificing, we know that no visible sacrifice aught to be offered to any other than to him, to whom we ourselves aught to be an invisible sacrifice. As therefore no bodily sacrifice may be directed to any but to God, so known Epiphanius, that all spiritual sacrifice is only due to God. And therefore he so little ascribeth it to her, or any other, that both in the beginning of his treaiise, and in the end, he maketh his invocations only to God. Saying in the beginning: Nunc autem clarè. etc. But let us now clearly speak of the heresy itself, and invocating God, as we will adjoin confutation against it. etc. And in the end thereof: Ad unam illam. etc. Let us proceed to that only heresy, which is yet untouched, invocating God that he would help us. etc. Thus you see to whom he ascribeth invocation, not to her of whom he writeth, or to any other saint, but alonely to God. This shift faileth therefore, in saying he writeth only against offering and sacrificing to her. But setting all this aside, have not you, I beseech you, offered and sacrificed to her? I pray you turn back again The Papists offered sacrifice to saints. to those your prayers, which I have cited, that plainly confess the facts, and glory therein. Neither could they tell, by what means they should worship her enough. But if it irk you to turn to that, which was so irksome to read before: I will sh●…we you, yet once more, so plain a testimony, that all the shifts of Proteus can not turn it away. jacobus de Uoragine saith: Secundo est regina coeli. etc. De assumpt. Mar. serm 5. Secondly, she is the Queen of heaven. jerem. 44. Let us sacrifice to the queen of heaven, and let us power out drink offerings to her, and let us make cakes, as we and our fathers have done, and The Papists confirm their invocation by the jews I idolatry. were filled with bread, and it was well with us, and we saw no evil: but since that time that we have ceased to sacrifice to her, we want all things, we are consumed with famine and sword. But as it is said in the ecclesiastical stories, there was a threefold distinction of the things that were offered to God, for either they were an offering of beasts, and that was called sacrifice: or it was of a dry thing, as of flower, bread, or such like, and that was called oblation: or else it was of moist things, that is to wit, of wine, or oil, and that was called drink offerings. But this threefold distinction is touched here. First, the sacrifice, when it is said, let us sacrifice: the drink offering, when it is said, let us pour out drink offerings: the oblation, when it followeth, let us make cakes. But to the queen of heaven we aught to sacrifice our bodies, by the mortifying of vices: to pour out our moist hearts, by the compassion of tears: and to exhibit cakes, that is, quiet consciences, by our inward purification. What greater sacrifice can be given than this, M. Stap. even to God? can we do any more to him, than as the Apostle Rom. 12. exhorteth us. Obsecro vos. etc. I beseech you brethren by the mercies of God, that you give up your bodies a living sacrifice: holy and acceptable to God, which is your reasonable worship of him? And have not you unreasonably here given all this worship to her? This passeth, M. Stapl. the saying of a Mass, and yet you have divers Masses of her also, even as well as you had of the Trinity, or of the Holy Ghost, whereof you have herded some of the Sequences. But to see this testimony, (I omit here how jump you play those Idolaters parts, measuring religion by the belly, and tell us what trouble and scarcity hath been since massing was left, and what a plentiful world it was, when the Mass was up) I note it chief, to show, both how wickedly and how fondly you allege their sacrificing for the proof of yours, which is both condemned flatly of God by the Prophet Hieremie, for he allegeth it not, that we should follow it, or confirm aught upon it, but abhor it: and also Epiphanius crieth out upon it, and upon them that made an argument therefrom, to defend their doings, and calleth them wicked, and yet do you (as did they) fet arguments from thence, to confirm your worship of her, and both of you, making her Queen of heaven. But besides this worship of sacrifice, as Epiphanius saith also, she is not Queen of heaven, so he saith, God would not have her rule in the earth neither. And you quite contrary, call her ruler, lady, Queen, & Empress thereof. And so it followeth even in the next words of the author cited, Tertiò, est Domina jacobus de Vor. serm. 5. Assump. mundi. etc. Thirdly, she is the Queen of the world, and therefore all other mediators set aside, it shall be lawful to appeal to her, as to the Lady and Empress, if any man be grieved of the devil, or of a tyrant, or of the flesh, or of the justice of God. And thus you are flat against Epiphanius, his saying being as directly against you, as against those in his time. Which proveth you (all your shifts notwithstanding) to be stark heretics yourselves in invocation, that object heresy in invocation to us. Yea, whether you be more blasphemous heretics, than ever they were, or not, let the reader judge. But from what judgement will not you appeal, that will appeal, even from the just judgement of God himself, to the virgin Mary? I can not read, that th●…se heretics in Epiphanius time, dared ever attribute half so much unto her. Clere yourselves, M. S. of these heretical & blasphemous invocations, & then prove us heretics for denying the same. Relics. Now if your invocation were gross, much more were your abuses in Relics, lights, and ceremonies. In which the chiefest part of your religion did consist, as you made the simple people believe. First, to your blessed relics I answer, that christian religion, nor the worship of god, nor our belief, nor our salvation, nor remission of our sins, nor any such virtue lieth in clou●…es, in sticks, in bones or stones. Which if it did, as your Legends tell how miraculously they wrought outward, & how virtuously inward, to those that honoured them with crouching, kneeling, kissing▪ or bearing them about, and hurt them that contained them, than would they do much harm now to those that set not by them. We see yet many of your blessed relics extant, & they neither do us good nor harm. They can neither bless nor curse, nor they work any miracles now. If you say we want faith, all consisted in the believer, you make a plain witchery of them, & blasphemy to God. But you Belief in Relics. show how you abused those that believed you, making them believe the Moon was made of a green cheese, as they say: but were those blessed relics so good as the cheese paring? Were they not such as even Erasmus said: Yea, doth this Declar. 61. fol. 384. The doubtfulness of Relics whose they were. Declar. 3 ex collo. fol. 334 Jerusalem & Rome doubted whether they stand there where they stood in the old time. also pertain to faith, to kiss a rotten piece of leather, and filthy linen rags, etc. Especially since it may be, that the shoe which they force us to kiss, may not be S. Thomases, but some butchers, or some bawds shoe. Or (as Chaucer's pardoner bewrayed them, even at that time that they were in greatest price) the old rotten bones of some jews sh●…pe. Frequenter audiviè doctis, saith Erasmus, I have often times herd say, of learned men, that went to Jerusalem, and probable it is, that the certainty at this day is not known, where Jerusalem in the old time did stand. For even I see it doubted of the learned, whether Rome should have been there, or not, where it is now showed to be. Saint Jerome that lived in that country, reckoning up certain things, which at this day are showed there to strangers, saith it is reported, and they say so. What shall we think now, after so many incursions, so many mutations of humane matters, that in a thousand years and more are wont to chance, of which sort, Veronica, the pillar of Solomon, the chair of Peter, and his sepulchre, which are showed at Rome, are said to be? Shall we now believe your Legend, better than Erasmus: but that also is so uncertain, that you can not tell whether you have many of the saints right bodies, or no: & so by your own false doctrine, you can not tell whether you commit Idolatry, or no. One of your Churches saith: We have such a saints body scalp, arm, leg, or hucklebone. That is not so, says an other church, we have it. Nay, saith the third, neither of you both have it, but we. Here the one party or the other say not true, & yet all work miracles after their miraculous manner. But will you know the truth, they were false harlots all, & deceived the seely souls, that now (God be praised) understand the knacks of S. Wenefrids' needle, the renewing of the blood of Nails, the filth of S. Francis breeches, etc. These were your blessed Relics. They were so blessed, that as your great champion, friar Alfonsus saith, where he defendeth them: your blessed council of Lateran under your blessep Pope Innocent the third, was fain to make this proviso for them, that is put in your decrees. Cum ex eo. etc. Seeing that the Christian religion is defaced, and Alphons adverse. haer li. 13 The Pope's religion consists in Relics. If it were good the showing of it would not deface it. may be defaced in time to come, upon this, that certain do set out to sale the Saints Relics, and every where show them forth: we have ordained by this present decree, that from hence forth the old Relics shall in no case be showed without a cause (that is to say, without a piece of money to see them) nor shall be set forth to sale, and that such as shall be found out of new, no man presume to worship them, till they shall be allowed by the authority of the Bishop of Rome that is to say, till they have paid their fees to him, for before, they be so little blessed, that they be not worshipful) and as for Prelates, they shall not suffer those The Pope's own confession that in most places the people were abused with relics. that come, for to worship at their Churches, to be deceived by sundry feigned forgeries and false teachings, as for lucre sake it is accustomed to be done in most places. This decreed your Pope and your Council M. Stapl. against your blessed relics. Were not here your Pope and his whole Council heretics also? you were best to say so. For this saying proveth your Prelates, Priests, & Pardoners, to have been false teachers, and deceivers of the people for Lucre: and the people having been deceived by them, to have committed Idolatry: and the Relics, that we were born in hand were blessed things, as you call them, to have been feigned forgeries and false teachings: & not in one place, or in some places, but in most places, that is, all over your Church: and that not once or twice, by a escape: but of custom, which how long time it prescribeth, search you. This was the general state of your universal Church (for universal comprehendeth the most part) concerning your blessed relics, even by the Pope's own definitive sentence, and all his council, which, often times you boast, can not err. But though the Pope confess thus much, as ●…e could not for shame deny so manifest a matter: yet he known what he did well enough, when he made this statute. For what losses so ever other poor Priests and Pardoners should feel, he made sure for himself to get thereby, not so much by retaining the old relics in estimation, that then, as stolen and common, began to decay: as to relieve the Church's hutch (whereof he says he is the coaferer) by authorizing new blessed relics. But though he gained much by this device, yet much water goeth by the mill, that the miller knoweth not of. And many miriades of blessed relics more & more increased, and never fet the Pope's blessing from Rome, for their warrant, so blessedly they multiplied, but had this Popes decry been plainly meant, or truly kept: both old and new, and all your blessed relics, had been banished from all blessedness and worship, long ago: as nothing but lies and forgeries, invented to enrich yourselves, with the spoil of the people's Idolatry. I grant, you have some antiquity to pretend for Relics, Antiquity for Relics. not only of S. Hieromes time, but somewhat before also: that with great reverence conserved the bodies of the glorious Martyrs. But trow you, they worshipped, knéeled, crept, and offered to them? and yet some might, yea some did overshoot themselves herein even then. But did the learned Fathers allow it? Doth not even S. Hierom (of whom Alphonsus saith, Qui duriu●… & 〈◊〉 pugnare solet, that was wont to fight more hard and bitterly) say to Uigilantius, Quis enim O insanum caput aliquando Hieron. contra Vigila●…t. martyrs adoravit: For who, O thou frantic head, hath at any time worshipped the Martyrs? He telleth how they translated them honourably, as noble martyrs, but they worshipped them not. And where other began to attribute an opinion of virtue to their vestments, Chrysestome (if the work be his) greatly blameth them. Alij autem qui sanctiores, In Mat. 23. hom. 43. etc. Other there be (says he) that would show themselves to men, to be more holy: and tie and hung about them a part of their hem or hears. O wickedness, they would show a greater holiness in their garments, than in the body of Christ. He which is not healed feeding on his body, would be saved by the holiness of his garment. In so much that he trusteth in the vestiment of man, which despayreth in God's mercy. Yea? what did Paul? did not he give his napkins, that the sick might be helped? yes, before those men had the knowledge of God: and the reason was, that by those men's health, the power of God, might be known. But now it were madness. For, after we have known the power of God, whereto is it necessary that we should know the power of man? Not (says he) as I showed before: Neattenda●… cinerem, De. 7. Math. hom. 7. etc. Regard not the ashes of the saints bodies, nor the embers of the Relics of the flesh, and all their bones that in time are consumed. Yea your own feigned Epistle in the name of Clement Clemens ad lac. says, Nothing is more wicked and unthankful, than to receive a benefit of God, and to give thanks to stocks and stones. S. Augustine telleth of Hypocrites in his days, Augustinus de ope●…e Monac. that carried about with them Relics for sale. Alij membra & ossa martyrum, etc. Other fallen the members and bones of Martyrs, if yet they be Martyrs: other extol their hems and guards, etc. Thus there is some antiquity to be pretended for Relics, and that they were worshipped also, but not of the godly and learned Fathers: but of wicked and superstitious hypocrites. Against whom, they cried out, but what would they have said, had they seen the plain Idolatry to your forged Relics. Of the which even the defenders of them have cried out, and confessed their abominations. For, besides your Pope, your Council of Concil. Colon in explic. Decalogi. Coleyn even in defending them, says: Hi●… tamen, etc. Notwithstanding here (which we can not deny) the governors of the Church did after a marvelous fashion sleep out the matter. And anon after: Sed nostro saculo, etc. But in our age (and that through the sloth of the parish Priests, we can not deny it but that we erred. And again, Expositae sunt passim, etc. Relics are every where set forth for gain, and those uncertain Relics, and perhaps hereupon occasion was given, not to a few being yet but ●…elie Christians, of putting confidence rather in Saints bones, than in Moore confidence in Relics than in God. the living God, which aught not to have been done. And thus do your own Pope, Counsels and writers condemn yourselves, for the horrible abuses of these your blessed Relics, and therefore we may worthily reject them. To your Lights I answer, true it is the Church in Lights. The first occasion of lights in the primative Church. the time of S. Jerome, & long before, used Lights. But as he witnesseth himself, they used them for their necessity in their Morning and Evening prayers: which first sprung of this, that the Church in time of persecution, assembled as they might closely in caves, in cellars, and other privy places, coming together very early in the morning, and very late in the evening, yea in the dead of the night, to invocate God, to hear his word, and participate the Lords supper, so that lights were necessary for them. After the time of persecution, keeping still those hours of prayer, they likewise served for their use, till by little & little, as other things, they also began even about S. Hieromes time, to be abused. The abuse of lights. And not long after about Gregory's time, to be kept light even in the broad day, and to be set in golden candlesticks, which the former fathers counted and called heathen customs. For the Heathen used lamps burning day & night, The heathens use of lights. and tapers before their Idols on their altars, besides their torch lights even as the Papists used. But you will say, not they only used lights, but God also The Papists objection of lights taken from the old Testament. ordained lights to be used in the Temple. Indeed if you could prove us to be bound to the ceremonies of the old law, or that Christ had renewed them, and not rather abrogated them, nor ordained any other like them in their places: then should you say something to the matter. But what need you labour to reduce the law, since you are not From whence the popish lights did spring. Polygr. postil. Pars. 3 in die purifis. ashamed to confess it came from the Heathen usage. Polygrane confesseth and braggeth of it, that all your candles on Candlemas day came from the wicked and old superstition of the ethnics. Tradunt enim hystoriographi, etc. For the historiographers tell, that the heathen Romans had a custom, that always at the fift year in the month of February, they kept the feast of going about the cleansing, with torches and lights in the honour of Februa the mother of Mars, whom they took for the God of battle. And also in the same month, the Roman women with the like worship of candles, kept the memory of Proserpina: whom (being ravished of Pluto the God of hell) they feign that her mother Ceres sought her even to mount Aetna. Which superstition was first of the Grecians, because of a most grievous pestilence in the year of health. 551. turned into the foresaid worship of solemnity. But afterward of Sergius Bishop of Rome (who first changed his name, for the deformity thereof, being called Os Porci, Swine's face, or Hogs snout) it was turned into a common religion, as also the feast of all the Gods, was dedicated to all Saints. Which was about the year of the Lord. 694▪ that the Christian people should make memorials, not so much of Februa, and Proserpina, as of Christ and Marie. jacobus de Uoragine agreeth somewhat herewith, though herein he agree little to himself, and lest of all to the truth, besides his impudent Idolatry to the virgin Marie, quite forgetting Christ, and ascribing all the honour of your candles unto her. First he saith it came up hereupon. Quod In die purifis. serm. Simeon lumen Christum vocavit, ideo consuetudo inolevit in Ecclesia, ut hody lumina deferamus. Because Simeon called Christ a light, therefore grew the custom of the Church, that on this day we carry lights. For even as this day Marie, joseph, Simeon and Anna did after the order of Procession, carry a light in the Church: so do we after the order of Procession, carry Candles light unto the Church. As this is a most evident and gross lie, for neither then, nor long after, they knew what Procession m●…nt: nor carried any light in the Temple, which had been quite beyond God's commandment: nor any such doing is in the scripture, but only that this blind author followed to much the pictures in the Primer, or the Mass book, that paint out the midwife, or joseph holding a Taper: so it neither agreeth with the other common opinion, nor yet with himself. For even immediately after. But we must note (says The Papists triple reason for lights. he) that there is a triple reason of this observance and custom, the one a literal, the other a spiritual, & the third a moral. The literal reason i●… this, for because the Romans in the old time did celebrated three feasts with lights, the First in the honour of Proserpina, the second in the honour of Februa, the Third in the honour of all the Court of hell▪ etc. to appease them and induce them to mercy, that they would more mildly punish the souls of their friends departed. But because it is a hard matter to forsake things accustomed, the Romans after they received the saith of Christ, did yet also keep these feasts of lights in February. Pope Gregory This is quite contrary to Poligrans former saying. Pater luminum is forgotten. therefore did change this feast into the honour of the mother of light. That in her honour we should bear lights, that bore unto us the true light. Nor that now it should be made to Februa the mother of the God of battle: but to the honour of the mother of the GOD of peace. That it should not now be to the honour of the court of Devils, but to the honour of the Queen of all Angels, and worthily was this translation made. The Romans did therefore honour Proserpina, that so she might obtain grace of her husband. They honoured Februa to obtain victory of her son. They honoured the Devils that punished the souls, to incline them to mercy. But these three things we receive of the mother of God, that is to wit, grace, mercy, and victory. And therefore the Church singeth, Marry mother of grace, mother of mercy. For she giveth grace to the living, and therefore is called the mother of grace. And to the dead obtaineth mercy, and therefore it followeth, mother of mercy. And to the universal Church she obtaineth victory of their enemies, and therefore it followeth, defend thou us from the enemy. etc. Thus sayeth jacobus de Uoragine of the original of your feast of lights. That it was but a changeling of the Infidels, hatched of your Pope, on this ground, that it was hard to forsake an old Heathen custom. But thinking to change these lights to the better, have ye not blasphemed God, even by his Saints, as ill or worse, than they did by their Idols. Your legend disagréeth from this latter devise of Proserpina. etc. And sayeth, This feast is called Candlemas, Legenda Anglice in die Purif. and is made in remembrance of the offering that our Lady offered in the Temple as said is. And everyeche beareth this day a Candle of Wax, which representeth our Lord jesus Christ. This is yet somewhat better than the other. And yet in effect no better, for as this mystery was not understood, so was it not regarded. All the honour was to her. And therefore your Legend telleth us a full worthy story, that even in her honour of her lights, Christ himself sang Mass to his mother. We read an ensample (saith your legend) of a noble Lady, which had a great devotion in the blessed Virgin A noble ●…ale of a Mass that Christ ●…ong on Candlemas day. Marie, and she had a Chapel in the which, she did do say Mass of our Lady daily by her Chaplain. It happened that the day of the Purification of our Lady, her Chaplain was out, so that the Lady might that day have no Mass, and she dared not go to another Church, because she had given her mantel to a poor man for the love of our Lady. She was much sorrowful because she might not hear Mass. And for to make her devotion, she went into the Chapel, and tofore the altar she kneeled down for to make her prayers to our Lady, and anon she fell a sleep. In which, she had a vision, and her seemed that she was in a Church, and saw come into the Church a great company of Virgins, tofore whom she fawe come a right noble Virgin crowned right preciously, and when they were all set each in order, came a company of young men, which sat down each after other in order like the other: after entered one that bore a burden of Candles, and departed them to them above first, and so to each of them by order he gave one, and at last came this man to this Lady aforesaid, and gave to her also a Candle of wax. The which Lady saw also come a Priest, a Deacon and a Subdeacon, all revested going to the altar, as for to say Mass. And her seemed that S. Laurence, and S. Vincent were Deacon and Subdeacon & jesus Christ the Priest, and two angels bearing tofore them Candles: and two young Young Angels. angels began the introit o●… the Mass: and all the company of the virgin's song the Mass. And when the Mass was song unto the offering, her seemed that thick virgin so crowned, went tofore, and after, all the other followed, and offered to the Priest (kneeling much devoutly) their Candles. And when the Priest tarried for this Lady, that she should also have comen to the offering: the glorious Queen of Virgins sent to her, to say that she was not courteous to make the Priest so long to ●…arie for her. And the Lady answered, that the Priest should proceed in his Mass forth, for she would keep her Candle and not offer it. And the glorious Virgin sent yet once to her. And she said she would not offer her Candle. The third time, the Queen said to the Messenger, go and pray her that she come and offer her Candle, or else take it from her by force. The Messenger came to this Lady, and because in no wise she would not come and offer up her Candle, he set hand on the Candle that the Lady held, & drawn fast. And so long he drew and haled, that the Candle broke in two pieces, and the one half abode still in the hand of the Hard hold between a Lady and an Angel for a Candle. Lady aforesaid, which anon awoke and came to herself, and found the piece of the Candle in her hand, whereof she much marveled, and thanked our Lord and the glorious Virgin Marry devoutly, which had suffered her that day not to be without Mass. And all the days of her life after, she kept that piece of that Candle much preciously like an holy relic. And all they that were touched therewith, were guarished and healed of their maladies and sickness. Thus word for word, saith your golden legend, in the honour of your Candles. And is not here a golden▪ piece of work, for a waxed piece of Candle? Here is, lo, one of your blessed Relics that before you spoke of, but it was got with hard hold, hale and pull, not all they could get it out of her fingers, neither the angel could pull it away, nor our Lady was obeyed any whit, yea Christ the poor Mass Priest was caused to tarry, and could not go forth with his Mass. If this than be true, as it must needs be, being written in so holy a golden legend, (where fors●…th is no lie) neither was it a dream, for the Candle's end was in her hand, to make mention of her hold fast: Is not this a foil to Christ, to his mother, and all the Saints in heaven, that a Candle's end was thus wrong from them all? Well howsoever that was, will you say, this showeth a further original of Candles: even Christ, his Angels, and Saints in heaven, do use them at their Masses. I think well master Stapleton, at their Masses. But if they have no Masses in heaven, and if they have no Candles in heaven, then leaving these childish and impudent lies for very shame, of Candles original: you were best to stand to the former devising of them, from the heathen custom, and return to your Pope's change at Rome. Now after these romish Pagan customs aforesaid, Hallowing of lights. were taken up in Christendom, they began in Spain, and after in other countries, to fall after a conjuring manner to hollow Paschal light●… with exorcisms. But upon what simple reasons, Alphonsus declareth in the defence thereof. Contr. haerese●… li. 6. de exorcis. Conc. Tol. 4. ca 8. Concerning the hallowing of lights▪ I will only birng (says he) the decree of the fourth Toletane Council. Ca 18. At certain Churches a Candle and a Taper, are not hallowed at their Vigils, and they inquire of us why we hollow them? We hollow them solemnly that we may receive the glorious mystery (that came at the time of this avowed night) by the blessing of the hallowed Candle. And because this observation is commended in many Countries, and Kingdoms of Spain, it is fit that for the unity of peace, it should also be kept in the French Churches. Neither shall any escape unpunished, but be under the father's rules, that contemneth this. Thus we see the original and creeping up of your lights to depend on men. Whereupon, though Alphonsus cry out most bitterly, calling us conjurers and enchaun●…ers of the people from the truth of the faith, because we set not by them, but call such superstitious manner of hallowing lights, to be the very conjuring in deed, as even their names of exorcisms doth import: yet is he feign to confess, that Talis ceres benedictionem omi●…ere, non sit contra fidem: The omitting Not against the faith to om●… holy candles. the hallowing of such a Taper is not against the faith. And if it be not against the faith to omit them, then are not we Heretics for omitting them, especially in so just considerations, of so great supersition and horrible abuses, as of late time more and more they have grown unto, being at their best, but constitutions of men, and grown at the length to a very plain conjuring, that Conjuring by candles. an holy Candle could drive away lightning, and tempests, yea the Devil and all it could: that such mysteries, such virtue, such confidence, such service of God, such forgiveness Virtues in lights. of sins, consisted in burning a Candle, in setting up a Lamp, in offering a Taper, in maintaining a light before an Image, or bearing it in Procession. Do you not say in your hallowing of them at Mass? Benedic Missale & Pro ces●…onale in die Purif. Domine jesu Christ hanc creaturam. etc. Bless Lord jesus Christ this creature of wax Candle, at our supplication, and power into it an heavenly blessing, by the virtue of the holy Cross, that thou which hast given it to man's use to repel darkness, it may receive by the sign of thy holy Cross, such strength and blessing, that in whatsoever places being lighted it be put, the Devil may departed thence, and tremble and fly away pale, with all his ministers, out of those houses, nor presume to disquiet them any more. Again in the next prayer. Ut has Candela●…. etc. That these Candles prepared to the use of men, and to the health of their bodies & their souls, either on land or water, by the invocation of thy holy name, & by intercession of S. Marry always virgin whose feasts are this day devoutly celebrated etc. And in the third prayer, that thou vouchsafe to bless, hollow and kindle them▪ with the light of the heavenly blessing: that we by offering them to our God, may deserve to be kindled with the holy fire of thy most sweet brightness, and to be presented in the holy temple of thy glory. All these virtues and many more you ascribe to your Candles. Neither do you (as here you pretend) offer them up only to God, but to the Saints also, chief to the Virgin Marie, Serm. discipul. which as it was so common, that it cannot be denied: so to confirm the same, your Legend telleth us a tale of one, that never did good deed in his life, but that he offered a Taper to A tale of a da●… ned soul that beaten the devils with a candle. the virgin Mary. And when he died he was of Christ condemned, & the devils had already gotten his soul. Then came the virgin Mary, & put the Taper in his hand, & had him shifted with the devils so well as he could, the soul having got the Taper, stood therewith at his defence, & ever when the devils came near him, he ●…oyned one in the face, & hit another here, another there, & so lustily he laid about him, that he drove with the Taper all the devils away. So notable a force you ascribed to a Candle offered to the blessed virgin, and made the simple people believe what you would, by these outward Candles, in the dark night & mist of error: having put out, and Psal. 118. hidden under a bushel, the true holy Candle, the light of our feet, & lantern to our steps, the blessed word of God, that joh. 1. Luc. 1. should have showed Christ unto us, the very light of the world, that came to give light to those that sit in darkness & in the shadow of death. Which spiritual light of Christ, and the glorious beams of his Gospel, the dim eyes of your soul cannot abide to look upon. Qui male agit odit lucem. etc. joh. 3. The Papists fly the 〈◊〉 light ●…nd set up external lights. ●…phe. 5. He that doth ill (says Christ, our true light) hateth the light, & cometh not to the light, lest his works should be reproved. Sith therefore, even as the Owl flieth the light, you sly the word of god: all these other lights are but mere & unfruitful works of darkness, lulling the people a sleep with these your dreaming fables. Yet these fables were let forth in the mother tongue, that every man might understand them, but in no case, the true candle might shine unto them. In steed whereof you set up a Candle before the devil. For the godly christians are not taught by Christ, his Apostles, nor the learned ancient fathers, to set up any such Candles before Christ, which Lactantius calleth plain madness. Candles in the ●…ib. 6. ca 2. Church so well as in other places we allow and use, as did Saint Jerome. And therefore, where you object Uigilantius to us, we return even Hieromes words to you. Cereos Hierom adversus Vigil. autem in clara a luce. etc. But we light not wax Candles at broad day light, as thou slaunderest us in vain: but with this comfort, to mitigate the nights darkness, to keep us awake at the light, lest we should sleep in darkness, being blind with thee. And thus Saint Jerome maketh even you master Stapleton, and your Church, that have them in the clear day light, and that to such blind and Idolatrous ends: both Uigilantians and Dormantians to. Now to Ceremonies: I answer, that such as be decent, Ceremonies. laudable, and to edifying, and may set forth God's glory, we refuse them not. We reject (I grant) and that in good considerations, the rabble of such heathen and jewish ceremonies, that you laded the spouse of Christ withal. We are free from the yoke of the law, much less need we tie us to the bondage of Paganism. And from one of these, the most of your ceremonies were derived. Saint Augustine complained in his time (and he lived even in the time of Uigilantius) The Church overburdened with Ceremonies in S. Aug. time. August. epist. 119. That they oppressed the Church, which God had set free, with such slavish burdens, that the state of the jews was more tolerable, who though they knew not the time of their liberty; yet were they but under the burdens of the law, and not under the presumptions of men. Thus speaketh Saint Augustine of Ceremonies, even where he mitigateth the matter, and beareth with them so much as he could. But what would he have thought and said, had he seen such an infinite number, as have crept in since his tune, obtruded with such severity urged with such necessity, esteemed with such opinion of holiness, as nothing more: yea preferred before the knowledge and express commandments of God, being nothing but the traditions and inventions of men? If you object Uigilantius to us as an Heretic, for improving such ceremonies, and the abuses of them: why call you not Christ M. St. a stark Heretic also? for he objected even the same matter to the Scribes, Pharisies & High Priects, that they worshipped God with the traditions of men, and therefore says, ●…n vanum ●…olunt me. They worship Marc. 7. me in vain: he charged them that they over burdened the people with such load of Ceremonies, whereas his yoke Matth. 11. was light and easy, and reproved them, that for those their ceremonies, they neglected and transgressed the commandments Matth. 15. of God. I warrant you, they said, as you say by us, that he was a rank Heretic, and accursed, and excommunicated joh. 9 him, and all that held with him. And do you speak any better (of his Ministers I mean not) but even of his word itself, in respect of your ceremonies than did they? I omit as now to tell how you have defaced his word, how many things you prefer above it, only I will note this, how sawcely in the defence of your ceremonies and your other errors, contrary to the Scripture, you exalt yourselves above God's word. Pigghius (who might for his writing be called Hogghius How the Papists exalt thou selves above God's word. Pigghius de invocat. sanctorum controvers. 13. well enough) one of your chiefest porkelings, in his defence of the invocation of Saints, against the word of God: He groyneth out this saying: Ego certè maiore ratione, etc. Truly I will with greater reason deny thee, the authority of all the Scriptures than that thou shalt call me into doubt, the belief and authority of the catholic Church, since that unto me the Scriptures have no authority, but all only of the Church. What a wicked and swinish saying is this, of a proud Popish borepigge, against the everlasting word of God, that it hath no authority at all from God the author of it, but all from man, all from the Church of Rome, for that is the Catholic Church that he means, the Pope, his College of Cardinals, and his assemblies of Priests, for this they call the ecumenical and representative Church. What the Papists mean by the name of the Church. All the authority that the word of God hath, it hath it from them alone. Which if it were true, then indeed, as he saith, by better reason he may deny all the Scriptures, than so much as call into doubt the belief and authority of the popish Bishops and Priests. Why may they not then add too, and take from, and make what and as many Ceremonies as they please, and good reason to? But since it is no reason that the word of God should be thus trod under the foot of man: that God's word should give place to man's word: that God's word should have all his authority of the word of Priests, and none at all of God: that the wives word should control, check mate, What manner of housewife the popish Church ●…s. and ch●…ks up her husbands word: that the wife may speak and appoint as much as she thinks good, and the husband which hath but a few words to say, can not be herded: that the wives word should bear the streak, and give authority to the husbands word, according to the common saying, As the good man says so say we, but as the goodwife says so it must be: if this be no good reason, nor any reason, but clean against all reason: then may we reply to Pigghius and you M. St. that with better reason▪ all your Church's authority and belief, aught net only to be called in doubt▪ whether it agree to God's word or not, but also aught to depend wholly and only on the authority of God's word. And rather than the authority of the word of God should be called into doubt, much less denied, as wickedly he presumeth to speak, it were much better reason Matth. 11. that he were cast into the sea, as Christ says, and in sléede of a millstone, that all his ceremonies were hanged about his neck, & all such blasphemous swine, as this Pigghius, were carried headlong into the sea with him Yea says Christ, Heaven and earth shall pass, but my word shall not pass. Matth. 24. If your Catholic Church M. St. were the true wife and spouse of the Son of God, she would with all lowliness, humility & reverence, here regard & obey Christ her husbands word. And be content to be commanded by it, not to countermand it, not to think it were not of force, unless she gave authority thereunto, not to add or diminish to or from it, not to command one thing when he commands another, not to compel the children and household of the faith to observe her word more than her husbands, not to have twenty commandments for her husbands ten, not to use other fashions and customs than her husband bids her, yea such as he forbids her, not to have all the words and her husband not one word, yea to shut up his mouth and not to hear his word: these are impudent whores and bold strumpet's fashions, a godly Christian matron, a virtuous and faithful spouse, would never do thus. But since your Church doth thus, call her catholic so fast as you lust, she is nothing else but a common catholic quean, and not the humble and faithful spouse of Christ. And yourselves that defend her, have good reason indeed The children of the mother Church of Rome. to defend your Mother: but such Mother such children, that to hold with their mother despise their Father, and make her word to give authority to his, and say that with better reason they may deny the authority of their Father's word, than so much as make a doubt of the belief and authority of their mother. Yea that is a good lad I warrant him and a well taught child, that will help the Mother to beat the Father, is he not worthy his Mother's blessing for his labour? but such bastard rebels shallbe sure of the Father's curse. For indeed they are not his Children: Ues ex patre vestro Diabolo estis. You joh. 8. are of your Father the Devil. Qui ex Deo est verba Dei audit, propterea vos non auditis quia ex Deo non estis. He that is of God heareth the word of God, therefore you hear it not, because year not of God. The true children of God above all, other things, yea more than Father, mother, wife, children, friends, yea than their own life, love God, and the hearing of his word. Otherwise they were not Matth. 10. joh. 10. worthy of God. Thus do all the sheep of Christ, 〈◊〉 meae v●…cem meam audiunt. My sheep hear my voice: As the Father hath bidden them, Hunc audite, etc. This is my well-beloved Matth. 3. Son, in whom I am delighted, hear him, that is to say, Level all your faith and life by the only authority of his word: Who only knoweth the Father's will, and Matth. 11. Coll. 2. 1. Cor. 1. job. 14. joh. 1. Rom. 10. in whom all the treasures of his father's glory are couched: Who is the wisdom of God, the truth, the way, the life, and the word itself. The Son which is in the father's bosom, he hath declared it. Hear him. Auditus autem per verbum Dei, But hearing cometh (not by the Mother's authority) but by the word of God. Thus did the godly children unto God, whom we call Fathers unto us, both before, & in Uigilantius' time. Nullum imitemur, etc. Let us follow none, (says Origen) and if In Ezech. homil. 7. we will follow any, jesus Christ is set forth unto us to follow, the Acts of the Apostles are described, and we acknowledge the doings of the Prophets out of the holy volumes, that is the firm example, that is the ●…ounde purpose, which who so desireth to follow, goeth safe. Thus also says Cyprian, both for God's word, & for your Mother's ceremonies: The Ad Pompei●… contra Stephanum. Heretic says let nothing be devised of new, besides that which is by tradition delivered. From whence came this tradition? came it from the authority of the Lord, and of his Gospel, or came it from the commandments of the Apostles, and their Epistles? for indeed that those things which are written aught to be done, God witnesseth, and setteth forth to jesus of Navee, saying, let not the book of this law depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou observe all things that are written. Likewise the Lord sending his Apostles, commands that the nations be baptised, and taught to observe all those things that he commanded. If therefore it be commanded in the Gospel, or in the Apostles Epistles, or be contained in the Acts. etc. Then let also this holy tradition be kept. And anon after he saith: Quae ista obstinatio. What an obstinacy is this, or what a presumption, to prefer an human tradition before God's ordinance. Nor to consider, that God taketh indignation and wrath, so often as an humane tradition loseth, & goeth beyond the commandments of God, as he crieth by his Prophet Esay, and saith, this people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is separate from me: they worship me in vain, while they teach the commandments and doctrines of men. The Lord also in the Gospel, blaming likewise, and reproving, putteth forth and saith, you have rejected God's commandment, to establish your tradition. Of which commandment S. Paul being mindful, doth likewise warn and instruct, ●…aying: if any teach otherwise, and contenteth not himself with the words of our Lord jesus Christ, and his doctrine▪ he is puffed up with blockishness, having skill of nothing. From such an one we aught for to depart. etc. And in the same Epistle he saith further: But if so be, O most dear brother, the fear of God be before us, if the tenor of faith prevail, if we keep Christ's commandments, if we maintain the holiness of his espouse incorrupt and inviolate: if these words of the Lord stick fast in our understanding, Luc. 18. and in our hearts which he said: think you that when the son of man shall come, he shall find faith in the earth? Because then, we be the faithful soldiers of God, because we wage under him, with faith and sincere religion, let us with a faithful manhood keep his camp committed to us of God. Nor the custom that crept in among some, ought to hinder us, that the truth might the less prevail and vanquish. For custom without truth, is the antiquity of error. Wherefore, forsaking error, let us follow the truth. Knowing that the truth saith, as it is written in Esdras: The truth flourisheth 3. Esdr. 3 and prevaileth for ever. etc. If we return to the head and original of God's tradition, man's error ceaseth. And behold the reason of the heavenly sacraments, what obscurity soever lurked under the mist and cloud of darkness, it is opened with the light of the truth. If a conduit of water, which before did slow plentifully and largely, do suddenly fail: do we not go to the A notable similitude of Cyprian. spring, there to know the reason why it faileth? whether by the increasing of the veins it be dried in the head: or else flowing from thence whole and full, it stop in the middle course. And if it come to pass, by reason the pipe is broken: or if it soak up the water, whereby the stream can not still keep on his course continually: the pipe being repaired and amended, the water is fet again as plentifully, and as holesomely, as it springeth from the fountain. Which thing now also the Priests of God aught to do, keeping the commandments of God. That if so be the truth stagger, and waver in any point, let us then return back to the Lords, and his Gospel's original, and the Apostles tradition. And from whence both the order and original arose, from thence let the reason of our doing arise. Mark this general rule of S. Cyprian, M. Sta. and I pray you set all your ceremonies unto it, and you shall tell me another tale, and say with Hilary, they are well taken away. Omnem plantationem, etc. Every plant which is not Hilarius in Matth. can. 14 of my father's setting, is to be pulled up, that is to say, the tradition of man is to be rooted out, by the love whereof, they transgressed the commandments of the Law. And therefore are they blind leaders of the blind, promising the way of eternal life, which themselves can not see, and so being blind themselves, and guides of the blind, they tumble into the ditch together. Such Pharisies are you, M. St. with your blind ceremonies, and such Chrisostome (if the work be his) calleth you and all other, that s●…ande so much on ceremonies. Per obseruationes. etc. They enlarge their own sayings Chrisostomus in Matth. cap. 23. by the observations of days, as though it were even the Phariseis broad guards, and in their preaching they show them continually to the people, as though they were the full keeping of the Law, and the getting of their salvation. Such were they of whom Christ said, they worship me in vain, teaching the doctrines and commandments of men. The large hems of their garments, he calleth the magnifical extolling of their commandments. For when they praise those trif●…ing and superstitious observations of their own righteousness, as though they were excellent, and very much pleasing God: then do they set out the hems of their garments. If y●… say, it is to be doubted, whether this be Chrisostomes' own opinion of ceremonies, or not, in likening them to the Pharifeis' hems: you shall hear even his own opinion. Unde patet multa. etc. It appeareth hereupon, In Matth. 15. homil. 32. that many things were of new brought in by the priests, and although Moses with a great terror had threatened them, that they should neither add too, nor take away anything, you shall not, saith he, add any thing to the word that I speak to you this day, nor take therefrom: yet for all this had they brought in very many new things, such as were those, not to eat meat with unwashed hands, to rinse their cups and brazen vessel, and to wash themselves. And whereas they ought in process of time to have contemned such observations, they tied themselves to more and greater. Which thing came to so great wickedness, that their precepts were more kept, than were the commandments of God. In so much that now they seemed worthily to be reprehended, that did neglect their observations. In which doings, they committed a double fault, for both the bringing in itself of the new things, was no small crime: and in that they sharply punished the contemner of their observations, having no regard of the commandments of God, they become thrall to grievous offences. So right in every point thief doings of the Phariseis, hit on the thumbs, and lively portray out your popish priests doings. M. St. that oppressed the church of Christ with the like, and m●… superstitious ceremonies than ever the Phariseis did. Now where they pretended, as you do, that they received Pretence of Ancestors & forefathers. these ceremonies of their ancestors: Although (saith Chrisostome) he make no mention of their Elders, yet in accusing these, he so dasheth down those, that he showeth even that to be a double fault, first in that they obeyed not God, then that they did them for because of men, as though he should say, I tell you even this destroyeth you, because in every thing you will obey your elders: which is one of your greatest reasons (M. St.) for your ceremonies Here if you say for all this proportion between your doings and there's, yet are not we so straightly bound from The Papists shifted that their traditions are not like the Pharisies traditions. Ibidem. the father's traditions as they, because the jews otherwise had enough commanded them, and very few in the new Testament are left to us Christians: Chriso stome telleth you, that Christ's Disciples aught to keep the doctrine of God, not of men. For otherwise, Christ blaming the Pharisers for keeping the doctrine of men, if he had suffered his Disciples to keep any doctrine of men, they Doctrines of men. would have replied that wherein he reprehended them, he himself was culpable. If now the Disciples be bound to this rule, are not your Priests also? Yea are not all Christians bond thereto, not to worship God with doctrines of men? As for the doctrine of Christ, to be even as full, yea and The sufficiency of the Gospel. In epist. ad tit. hom. 1. The similitude of a crier and a preacher. much fuller than was there's, for all it hath not your ceremonies. Chrisostome saith: Omnia enim evangelium continet. etc. For the Gospel containeth all things both present and to come, the honour of God, godliness, faith, yea all things are shut up together in the word of Preaching. etc. For even as the crier proclaimeth to all that be at the assembly, even so (sayeth he) do we publicly preach. After this sort, that we add nothing, but preach only those things, which we have heard, for that is the virtue of the crier, to prosecute all things truly that he is trusted with, not to put to, nor altar, nor take away any thing. Which is so heinous a fault, that from hence as Saint Ambrose sayeth, the Devil got the first hold, when our first mother Eve did but a little altar in telling the words of God to the serpent. Whereupon, we learn (saith he) that Li. de paradiso ca 12. we aught to join nothing to the commandment no not to make us the more wary. For if thou puttest too, or drawest away any thing, it appeareth to be a kind of transgression of the commandment. And that the pure and simple form of the commandment is to be kept: we must follow the fashion of witness bearing. Commonly The similitude of a witness bearer. a witness, while he putteth too some thing of his own devising, to the manner of the deeds doing: he staineth with a piece of a lie, the whole credit of the witness. For here at the first show what offence hath it, that the woman added, Nor you shall touch any whit of it? for God had not said, you shall not touch, but you shall not eat. But for all that, hereon came the beginning of the fall. For the words that she added, either she added them as superfluous, or adding them of her own, she thought that the commandment of God was but half perfect, (as you speak of God's word, and the infancy of Christ's Church, in the primitive state thereof, while it was yet without your additions.) The treatise therefore of this present lecture teacheth us, that we aught not to withdraw any thing from the commandments of God, nor add thereto. For if john gave judgement on this writing, If any, saith he, shall add to these things, God shall add to him the plagues that are written in this book, and if any man shall minish of the words of this book of this prophesy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life: how much more must no man withdraw from God's commandments. This saith S. Ambrose to all your unwritten verities, and loads of ceremonies, all beyond, and many against the word and commandment of God. Therefore I may safely, for all doctrine, say with S. Aug. (if it be his sentence) Se●…m. 6. Whatsoever you here alleged out of the scriptures, let that savour well unto you, whatsoever is besides the scripture, fly it, lest you wander in a cloud. L●…t us not make (saith he) religion of our own fantasies, for what truth soever it be, De vera rel. ca ult. it is better than all that we can devise after our will, who soever be the deviser, how wise, how holy, how great soever he were. We must despise him, as S. Augustine saith on this versicle. Effusus est contemptus super principes. etc. why were they contemned? because they declared an other In Psal. 160. thing: who are contemned? those that are accursed. For whosoever shall declare any other thing than that you have received, let him be accursed. etc. Are they Princes? are they learned? are they great? are they precious stones? What wilt thou call them more? are they Angels? and yet if it were an Angel from heaven, that should declare aught unto you besides that you have received, let him be accursed. And are your Priests or Pope more privileged herein than are the heavenly Angels? if he be a Prince, as he pretendeth by his crowns: if he be learned, as he saith his breast is the closet of all learning (though indeed many Popes have been as simple Clerks, as even the simplest minister in all England, whose lack of learning so often you rail upon:) if he were never so great, as he calleth himself, Pontificem maximum, the greatest Bishop: were he a precious stone himself, as in his Pontificalib●…s he is all to be dashed with precious stones. Yea, were he an angel that came from heaven, as he is but a man that came from earth: yet for all this, if your Pope make ceremonies, and establish them for necessary doctrine of religion, besides the word of God: then is even he, & all you that so maintain them, before God accursed, and so to be counted as accursed, how fast soever with Book, Bell, and Candle, he curse other, that forsake him and his accursed ceremonies. And have not we then good cause to refuse them, seem they vever so plausible? But as S. Augustine saith of man's doctrine: The saying of man seemeth to have reason for it (as the Papists allege In Esa ca 2. many goodly reasons for them) till it be laid to the divine knowledge: but when the lie (that is, man's doctrine, omnis hom●… mendax: every man is alyer) shall approach to the truth, it is devoured, and perisheth even as tow laid to the fire. And all the opinions of falsehood, which now are called Idols, because they be feigned and forged, shall be utterly wasted away. And this is their very destruction, that as gamaliel said Act 5. they be not of God Demand of them this question, for their doctrines: An ex Deo sint, an ex hominibus, whether Luc. 20. they be of God, or of men. and you shall pose them, as christ posed the Phariseis. For even as Ice melteth at the rays of the clear sun, so these ceremonies waste away, and lose their estimation, wheresoever the word of God beginneth to take place: and are maintained, only where the word of God is kept in hucker mucker, and the people in ignorance, believing these ceremonies to be of as much, yea of much more force, than the word of God. And therefore as Eckius, Piggi●…s, C●…ingius, Peres●…us, Canus, Fisher, Petru●… a S●…, Cocleu●…, Catharinus, Hosius, Alphonsus, etc. before you: so all you stand now with us stifely at this bay, that they are even as necessary to salvation as the word of God. And if you let go this tackling, all come down on anheape. Which Alfonsus fore●…éeing, or ever he would make his book, as he terms it, against heresies. jaciendum est jib. 1. ●…a. 5. humane traditions the chiefest Bulwark and foundations of the Popish doctrine. solidissimum fundamentum. etc. We must say (saith he) a most sound foundation, wherewith we must hereafter most often defend ourselves against heretics, as with a most sure bulwarck, that the traditions and difinitions of the universal church in those things that pertain to faith, although the evident scripture fail for the proof of them, are of no less authority than the holy Scripture itself. And again, Mihi horum per tot seecula. etc. The authority of these most approved men by so Ibidem. many ages, should suffice to me, although I had by no former reason convicted it. Let us therefore say, that the Church must be obeyed in all things, that are to be believed, or to be done, although the authority of scripture want. Thus do you esteem and stoutly stand to the defence of your ceremonies, quite contrary to all the foresaid ancient fathers, that give, as we do, all especial prerogative to the only scriptures. You were best therefore, to call them heretics How the Sorbonists dealt with Eras●…. for speaking against popish ceremonies. & Uigilantians with us, for so your Sorbonists played with Erasmus. Though he allowed many of your popish ceremonies, and dared not speak open mouthed against any of them, for it had been to hot for him, since he did but touch them full softly, and yet they cried out upon him, a Uigilantian, an Aerian, an heretic, as here you do. A sore ●…adde you know, is soon broken: and they are tender ware, and dainty to be dealt withal, the lest word in the world against them, will make a marvelous heretic. Erasmus had but said: Quo magis haeremus. etc. How Declarat. ad Cesuras Facultatis. tit. 11. propos. 58. much more we cleave to bodily ceremonies, so much the more we incline to judaisme. And did but wish on this wise: Opto omnes esse tales. etc. I wish that all men were such, that they might not much need bodily ceremonies, or not give so much unto them. And that Christ said: Discipulis nihil istarum rerum prascribo. I prescribe to my Disciples, naught of these things: eat this meat, abstain from that, now rest, now labour, be clad thus, touch not this, handle not that: if I were their master, they should not once learn to trust in these bodily things, lest they should remain weak always. He said but thus, and less he could not well say, and say any thing: but Lord what stir the Sorbonistes made at the matter, and how they all to be heretiked him, Aerian, Aetian, jovinian, Uigilantian. etc. So that he was fain for fear so much as he might, to set a good colour on these Frasmus excuse. your ceremonies, and when he had salved the matter as well as he could: what said he then in this retractation for them? judaismun appello ●…on judaicam impietatem: Ibidem. I call them judaisme not judaical impiety. And yet for all his excuses and commendations he was fain to say: Quanquam si Ecclesia tribuitur, etc. Although, if that be attributed Ibidem. to the Church, what so ever is prescribed of the Bishops, or is done in the churches: there are many constitutions of Bishops, of the which, not with out cause, all men make a public complaint. There are many ceremonies in certain Churches, the which you may call either to no purpose, or else foolish, or else superstitious, for commonly either some idle Dean, or else some other mean man like him, hath devised them. Often times some old wife (giving money therefore) obtaineth that this or that be done, now & than certain creep in, or if not so, they break in, even by the violence of the common people's custom. He should therefore not speak wickedly, that should say, the liberty of the Christian people is burdened with such constitutions and ceremonies, especially when among them there are not a few, that do no good at all to godliness, but either to lucre or ambition. Thus was Erasmus (even where he defendeth your ceremonies) Ibidem. constrained to confess. Yea where he speaketh even the best of them. In his obseruandis, etc. In observing these (says he) although they were ordained to godliness, the mind of many Christians is Jewish, either while they rest there, neglecting those things that are of the spirit, or else, while with a preposterous judgement they attribute more to those outward things, then to true godliness, which is settled in the affections. But even as the hardness of the jews was to be kept in, with so many prescriptions, as it were with bounds: so charity waxing cold in Christians, caused that the Bishops prescribed many things, not unlike the jewish prescriptions, although to be kept with an unlike mind. For they are as it were certain wagons, wherein the infancy of Ceremonies likened to Wagons. little children is brought unto the spirit. As he showeth after an example, Exemplicausa, etc. For ensample, the people is bid to bow their knees, or their heads to God. By this ceremony, the people is warned to submit their soul to God: this help, he that is perfect, need not, who submitteth his mind to God in what state soever his body be. And although that such as this the bodies comely gesture Kneeling. of kneeling (which is not a ceremony invented of your Bishops, but taught us in God's word, by Christ and his How we use well, even some of the Popish Ceremonies, but nothing like to their using of them. Apostles manner of prayer) we not only use, but also diverse of your Churches, Ceremonies be not refused of us, but kept: yet are they used far otherwise than your prelate's urged them, or your people kept them, reposing in them as Erasmus says: Proram & puppim Sanctimoniae, The whole stay of Religion. Tali hominum genere quoniam, etc. Because (says he) I see the world full of such kind of men I now and then call them back to the studies of true godliness, Trust in Ceremonies. from the admiration of ceremonies. But to admonish to trust to ceremonies, I neither thought it necessary nor safe. Of the word of trusting let other look to it, unto me, to whom this word to trust soundeth to lean principally unto, it soundeth hardly to trust to the works of men, and to trust to Ceremonies. Neither find I these voices either in the divine writings, or in the writings of godly men. Thus hardly was Erasmus driven to his defence about your Ceremonies, by the Faculty of the Divines of Paris, that urged the necessity, virtue, and confidence in them. In the end of all which conflicts, as he says to them, so Decl. 70. ex collo. 1. Erasmus propositions of the Popish Ceremonies. say I to you M. Stap. Quid autem his tot, etc. Of all these so many propositions, what is done that shoareth up Christian Religion? that the people should believe, a Monks cowl was available to heal diseases? that passing over Christ, we should with petitions solicit the Saints? That very many should run to Jerusalem, leaving their wives and children, and think that a marvelous kind of godliness is therein? that we should think all the constitutions of men to bind us on pain of hell fire? That we should put the chiefest part of Religion in the choice of meats? that in the Churches no decking should seem to much, but even excess also should pertain to the honour of God? that to what Ceremonies you lust, very much should be attributed? that boys and wenches for trifling causes, so soon as ever they repent them of their estate, despising their parents, should run to Monks or nuns? that no man but a Divine should talk of Christ or of the holy Scriptures? that in Saints we should put very much confidence? that we should know evil men not to be indeed in the Church, but to be of the Church? that we should believe the Church to be marvelously trimmed, with an exceeding and wonderful strange variety of services and vestments? that lawyers should be comely apparelled? that we He means canonists. should kiss the shoe soles, and the shoes of saints? that nothing at all of the Pope's institutions should be released, although great profit should move it? that they that are dying should lay-out obites? that man's mortuaries may be made, & that in them we should repose very much trust, & other matters of this sort? But Christian godliness is placed herein, that we should love God with all our heart, and our neighbour as ourselves. That in Christ we should put the sum of our hope: that we should frame our manners & our life, after the doctrine and example of him, & after the rule of the Scriptures. From the which whosoever calleth us away, by any manner of means, they do rather lead us into the danger of Paganism. Thus much Erasmus (so far as he dared, & so truly, that you nor all the world can deny them) escried the wickedness of your popish Ceremonies: which because we refuse on these so good considerations, you call us Heretics. But whether we in not admitting them, or you in urging & maintaining them, be rather Heretics, let the Reader discern & judge. You ask us next, what we say to the Messalians and other Concupiscence sin after Baptism. Heretics, saying concupiscence as a sin remaineth in us after holy Baptism. To your other nameless Heretics, when you name the child, we shall tell you what we say unto them. To the Messalians, saying sin remains in us after The Messalians holy Baptism: I answer, that even yourself do show by your continual lust of lying, that concupiscence after holy Baptism, is yet a fowl sin in you. Otherwise you would not still so lust to lie both on us, the Fathers, and the Heretics also. You cite S. Augustine to declare the Messalians error, and so he truly doth, telling how they say, that Li. 1. contr. 2. epist Pelag. ad Bonif. in Baptism our sins are taken away, as a ra●…er taketh hear away, leaving the stumps untaken away. If you object this unto us, yourself beareth witness against you, that you s●…ander us. For we freely coufesse, that by Baptism, the Our confession. forgiveness of all our sins, stoomps & all, past or to come, is sealed up unto us. So that they are all washed away, but as S. Augustine says of Original sin himself. Non ut How original sin is taken away. non sit, sed ut non imputetur. Not that it is not, but that is nor imputed. So that hereby you will make S. Augustine himself a Messalian, that writeth against the Messalians. And I may say to you, your jolly porkling Pigghius, maketh Pigghius de peccato orig. Contiovers. 1. of S. Augustine little better account. Deinde hoc mihi videtur e●…identer falsum, etc. Furthermore (says he) this seemeth to me evidently false, in that he says, carnal concupiscence, the which is in our flesh, sighting against the law of our mind, to be properly and truly sin in those which are not baptized. The which should be forgiven in Baptism, that it should be sin no more: and yet not withstanding should remain, the gilt of it being taken away. For the which cause he is so offended with. S. Augustine, that very groynishly he says, Ut autem haec ipsa vis concupiscibilis, etc. Ibidem. But that this very force of concupiscence should properly be sin, a fault, iniquity, odious of itself to God and execrable, and placing in his wrath, indignation or displeasure: it seemeth to me to be spoken most absurdely▪ nor no less absurdly, that the self same should remain, and not be also abominable to God, if at any time it were so. Pigghius' offended with S. Aug. for saying coacupiscence is fin. Thus hoggishly someth Pigghius against S. Augustine, for making Concupiscence and Original sin, to be verily sin, even before Baptism: & misconstruing S. Augustine in saying it is not sin after baptism. Where S. August. expoundeth himself, that it is not sin then, in that respect that it is not imputed, but forgiven: where before it was sin in itself and in imputation also, being not yet forgiven. Now where he saith this is most absurd, to say that it was sin before, and it still remaineth after baptism, the same that it was before baptism, and that it is not abominable, & sin after baptism, if it were so before, putting the case it were so before: It followeth then, that either The inconveniences that master St. incurreth. you confess master Stap. with Saint August. that it is still in itself sin after baptism, though not sin by imputation: or else that you say with Pi●…hius that it is neither sin in itself, nor by imputation, neither after, nor before. If you say with Saint Augustine: you incur that, which Pigghius calleth the most absurdity, and yet incur you a greater, making Saint Augustine a Messalian to, that purposely written against them, yea and yourself a Messalian with us also, agreeing with us therein, and yet therein writing against us. If you say with Pigghius, thinking to escape absurdity in being against Saint Augustine, (which notwithstanding is absurdity enough, to be against him whom you pretend to follow) you incur manifest falsehood in being against the truth: yea and more absurdity to, than any yet rehearsed. For, whether is it more absurd, to impute sin to him Moore absurdity to say God imputes 〈◊〉 where is none, than to say where sin is God imputes none. that hath none: or to forgive him his sin, that yet in deed hath sin, and of mercy not to impute it to him, as though he had not that he hath, which is no absurdity at all▪ For although where sin is, it may be not imputed, yea as David saith this is blessedness: Beatu●… vir, cu●… dominus non imputavit peccatum. Blessed is the man whose sins the Lord hath not imputed to him. Yet can there not be imputation of sin, where there is in deed no sin at all: as Pigghius most absurdly saith. Groin you now with Pigghius, that it is neither sin after nor before, and we will take Saint Augustine's great absurdity on us, to defend that it is in itself very sin and damnable sin before baptism, and remaineth still in his nature very sin, but not damnable, because it is not imputed after baptism. And now let us see, whether you with Pigghius, or we with S. Aug. shall come nearer to the Messalians Heresy. Your captain Pigghius says, that original sin is in The objection of the Messalians heresy to us, returned on the Papists. deed no sin at all in infants before nor after baptism. But baptism taketh away from them, only original sin. Ergo, Baptism taketh no sin from them. Again you▪ say, the child that is not baptized shall be condemned: But his sins, which are the cause of his condemnation, are not taken away by baptism, for how can it take away that that is not? Ergo, you make the infant to be never the better for baptism. Now what was the saying of the old Heretic Adelphius Histo. Tripart. lib. 7. ca 11. unto the godly Bishop Flavianus? Os venenum qd celavit evomuit, atque dixit nullam quidem utilitatem ex sancto baptismate baptisatis accedere. His mouth cast out all the venom which it hide, and said, there cometh no profit at all by holy baptism, to those that are baptized. And hath Pigghius parbreaked up again this old poison of the Messalians, and you have lapped up this pigs most filthy vomit? But would to God this went no further, and that you The Papists worse than the Messalians. were not herein worse poisoned than ever the Messalians were, and that it were not directly against God himself, and quite disannulling the death and blo●…dshed of jesus The Papists say▪ God con●…th where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Christ. For, whereas the infant (saith Pigghius) hath no sin in him, and yet God cendemneth him if he be not baptised: then doth GOD condemn him that i●… a●… innocent from sin, God condemneth where no offence nor transgression is. Now doth this agree with the justice of God, to condemn an infant for no sin, or for a bore name of sin, or for another man's sin, itself being nothing culpable thereof: for, all this Pigghius saith. But God is ●…ust and righteous in all his doings: then is the infant born in very sin, and hath but the reward of sin if he be Rom. 6. condemned. The reward of sin is death. And by sin, and very sin, not a name of sin, came death into the Rom. 5. world, and so hath overrun all men, for as much as all have sinned. Again you say, that the death of Christ taketh away only the original sin of Infants baptised, as for other sins after baptism, ourselves must make satisfaction for them. But original sin saith Pigghius, is in deed no sin, for The Papists make original sin to be ●…o sin. all it is called sin, as my writing is called my hand, because my hand written it, but it is not in deed my hand: The death of Christ therefore taketh away the only bore name of a thing. And so our satisfactions do not only more Our own satisfactions do more than the death of Christ by the Papists doctrine. than the death of Christ, but in very deed our satisfactions do all, and the death of Christ doth nothing. And thus as you ascribe to the virtue of his death a bore name, so make you him a redeemer in bore name, and make an Idol of the bore name of jesus, and take away the purport and effect thereof: giving him baptism, that you call Primam gratiam to take away a bore name of sin, but not to take away that which you call sin in deed. This is the doctrine master Stapleton of your doctors, and if you agree with them, of yours. Who are now the Messalians? who deface baptism? who blaspheme God? who disannul and make of none effect the death of Christ, and all the benefit of washing us from our sins, so fully in baptism represented and exhibited unto us, Pigghius or S. Augustine, you or we? For shame M. Stap. leave your lying: nay rather, for shame learn to know, should I say the righteousness of God, and the benefit he hath wrought The gross ignorance of the learned Papists in the ●…udiments of christianity by Christ? But how should you know this, when ye know not yourselves? you feel not your own corruption, you acknowledge not your sins, but make them no sins, you understand not yet your principles and rudiments of Christianity, and perceive not what Baptism is, which you receyue●… being infants, and now taking on you to be writers, Doctors, and teachers of other: you had more need go to a young scholar again, and learn your catechism better, to know what you were delivered from, and what remaineth in you. Is it any marvel though you have such a number of other errors, that have as it were thus sucked error from your infancies? he can never be good reader that can not spell, nor good Grammarian that never learned his rules, but often break Priscian's head, and so do you break Christ's, so much as lieth in you. If your unskill be not of malice, learn to know your What we are before baptism. joh. 3. selves, that before baptism you were children of wrath, old Adam, a lump and Mass of very sin in deed, that that is born of the flesh is flesh. And that all even the thoughts and affections of the flesh, are very enemities against God. Rom. 8. 1. Cor. 5. And that this leaven of sin, hath soured the whole dough. That we are not sick, but Mortui in delictis: Stark dead in wickedness and sins, & that all are thus, The Scripture Col. 2. Gal. 3. Rom. 3. job. 14. Psal. 51. (saith S. Paul) hath shut up all under sin. There is not one hath done good no not one. All are born and begotten of unclean seed. Yea David himself confesseth his mother conceived him in sin. Where he accuseth not his mother for an harlot, or himself of bastardy, or the act of matrimony to be sinful. But that even the mass & substance of himself conceived, was corrupt with sin, because they were sinners of whose seed he came. For such as is the tree, such fruit it bringeth forth, we cannot (says Christ) have grapes of thorns, nor figs of briars. By one man sin entered into the world, Matth. 7. Luc. 6. Rom. 5. & by sin death, & so death passed through all, because all have sinned. Thus plainly as you may see that original sin and concupiscence What concupiscence is in us after baptism. Rom. 7. is very sin before baptism: so learn of the Apostle to know what s●…ill remains in you after baptism. For you are not better than he that said, I know that in me, that is, in my flesh there dwelleth no good thing: he knew no pure natural qualities remaining in his flesh as your schoolmen say they know in there's. And think you he mitigated the matter, or was ashamed to confess that it was even sin in him after Baptism? Nay, he not only calleth it peccatum, sin, But inhabitans peccatum, sin inhabiting, Rom. 7. corpus peccatum, the body of sin, legem peccati, the law of sin, legem rebellantem, a rebelling law. (and is rebellion no sin with you?) fight against the spirit of God in him, yea leading him captive, insomuch that, thereby he saith he was sold under sin? yea it is the very body of death, upon which he still cried out, Miserum me quis ●…e liber abit a corpore mortis huiu●…. Wretch that I am who shall deliver me from the body of this death. Dare you M. St. (because Pigghius and other popish flatterers tell you it is no sin) so exalt yourself above the holy Apostle S. Paul, to think it is no sin at all in you, that he confessed to be so great and grievous a sin in him? Now, and there were no other place in the scripture to prove it sin, but even this, were not this plain enough, Rom. 7. The Apostle not only calleth concupiscence sin, but proves it to be sin in deed. that the Apostle saith, Nescteban concupiscentiam esse peccati●…, nisi lex dixisset non concupisces. I had not known concupiscence to be sin, but that the law said thou shalt not lust. Wherein he nameth it not only sin, (for that you count no sufficient argument, but say it is so named, for that it comes of sin and disposeth and inclines to sin, & therefore is called improperly by the name of sin) but the Apostle addeth a strong reason to prove it sin in very deed, because by the flat commandment of God it is forbidden, therefore it is a transg●…ession of God's commandment and displeasing God, for otherwise, God would not by his law forbidden it. Which express law against concupiscence, when S. Paul regarded better, than it appeareth you doth then confessed it to be sin, which before he known not by ignorance of the law. Although your ignorance be of wilful malice that will neither know God's law, nor your own transgression of it, nor all these evident confessions of the Apostle, & object S. Aug. against the Messalians to us, and yet are you both agreeing with the Messalians, and flat against S. August yourselves. For what could Saint August. writ more plain than this, Sicut coecitas cordis, etc. Even as the blindness of t●…e heart Contra julianum. lib. 5. is both sin, wherewith we believe not in God, and the punishment of sin, wherewith a proud hea●…t is punished with worthy correction, & the cause of sin, when aught is committed by the error of a blind heart: so concupiscence of the flesh, against the which the good spirit doth lust, is both sin, because there is in it a disobedience, against the rule of the mind, and the punishment of sin, because it is given for the deservings of the disobeyer, and the cause of sin, by the defection of the consenter, or the contagion of him that is born. In which words as he plainly speaketh both of the state of the birth before baptism, and of the consent, defection, and deservings after baptism: so he maketh concupiscence not to be sin itself only, but also the punishment and the cause of sin. Neither is S. August. alone herein for. S. Hierom doth Jerome's opinion of concupiscence. not only call it sin, but lest you should dally about the name, he saith: Habitans in sua carne peccatum, hoc est vitia corporis & desideria voluptatis. etc. But if my outward man do that he would not, and work that which he hateth: he showeth the commandment to be good, and that he worketh not that which is evil, but sin inhabiting in his flesh, that is the vices of the body, and desires of pleasure, the which for the posterity and offspring, is even grafted in men's bodies. Thus maketh he concupiscence not sin inhabiting only, but even very vice itself engrafted in us, speaking not only on himself, but even on Saint Paul also. And are you better ●…ord●… all these? What proceedeth The arrogancy of the Papists. this upon, but plain arrogancy, joined with obstinacy, to conceal your shame and flatter yourselves, in your sinful burning lusts? which rather than you would with humility acknowledge and confess, you spare not so to exalt yourselves, that you deface the glory of God: so to vaunt your p●…ra naturalia, your free will and merits, that you quite take away even the death of jesus Christ, and to establish Rom. 10. your own righteousness, you disdain to be subject to the righteousness of God: and making us believe we had no sin at all while we were infants newly regenerate, to deceive 1. john. 1. ourselves, and to have no more truth in us than is in you. Go now Master Stapleton and boast that we be Messalians, or rather clear yourselves of their Heresies, besides that, you be not only Messalians, but Missalians, or Massalians, which is a great deal worse Heresy. Your next objection is of Images. And because (say you) you shall not say I suppress, conceal, Images. Stapl. 57 ●… or obscure the chief and most notable people of your ancestry: how say you to the Emperors, Philippicus, Leo, Constantinus, condemned with their adherents by the 7. general Council at Nice, that villained by defacing breaking and burning, the Images of all the holy hallows of Christ & Christ's too. If your guilty conscience M. Stap. do misgive you, that you have hitherto charged us falsely, and have suppressed, concealed and obscured our true ancestors, and in stead thereof have objected Heretics: it were some token of grace and repentance in you, that you say yet now at the length, you will not suppress, conceal, or obscure the chief and notable people of our ancestry. Where you ask us what we say to these three Emperors, Philippicus, Leo & Constantinus that you say villained Images: whatsoever we say to them Master Stapelton, some good fellow perhaps will say this to you, that if they be such most notable people, you might have spared such villainous language, except it be natural to you to use villain's Rhetoric on chief Princes and most notable personages. But I will not meddle with your well nurtured terms, only I desire you, as you pretend, not ●…o suppresie, conceal, nor obscure indeed, the chief and most notable people of our ancestry, whereby you mean the ancient Emperors. If you will not in very deed, how chance you name but these three for taking away of Images? why suppress you the names of the Emperors Ualens & Theodosius, that made a plain Images defaced by divers godly Princes. decree against all manner of Imag●…rie, of all the holy hallows of Christ, as you call them, & Christ's too? and yet your seventh general Council condemned them not, yea yourself (as after shall appear) do highly commend them. What meant you to suppress the name of Carolus Magnus, commended In Concil. Frankf. likewise highly even by yourself? and yet he abolished all Images also? Why name you Philippicus, Leo & Constantinus only? and tell not of all the other Emperors before these, & after these, even till the time of Theodorus Lascaris that yielded to your Pope herein at Lion's Council, & therefore the Greeks deprived and expelled him for his labour. Sith then so many chief and most notable people of the ancient Emperors (of which yourself grant some to be as godly as notable, & being before that Council were not condemned by it, being as you say, our ancestors herein) are altogether quite suppressed concealed & obscured: is not this very partial and unfaithful dealing in rejecting our honourable pedigree, M. St? But I see you will never leave your lying. Now where you say these three Emperors were condemned The second Nicene Council. by the seventh general Council at Nice. True in deed they were so, even as you condemned all Godly Princes at your last Trident Council, that abolish your Idolatry. What manner a Council it was, and what manner of reasons they have in it, for the setting up of Images, I think yourself was half ashamed to show, but much more afraid to note, by who●…e authority this Council was called and ordered, which had been pertaining to the issue between the Bishop & Master Feck. But we shall see more thereof when we come thereto. You are very strait laced For defacing and burning the The Papists defaced the lively Images of Christ, and honoured dead Images. Images of All-Hallows, of Christ, and of Christ's Images, and this you call villainy, But you make no bones to deface and burn as villains and herelikes the very All-Hallows in deed of Christ, his true and lively Images and members, this is no villainy with you at all. But even your own books, yea your own Pope (if Clement were a Pope, and if the work were his) condemneth you. For what do you herein otherwise th●… did the Heathen▪ If whom he writeth thus: That Serpent also is wont to allege such words as Clem. li. 5. ad jacob. this, we worship visible Images to the honour of the invisible God, but this is most certainly false: for if in deed ye will worship the Image of God, ye should in doing of good deeds unto man, worship the very Image of God, for in every man is the Image of God. His similitude is in no other things but there, where is a benign and pure mind. If you The true worship of God's Image. will therefore honour truly the Image of God, we open to you that which is the truth, that ye do well to man which is the Image of God, give honour and reverence to him, give meat to the hungry, and to the thirsty drink, to the naked clothing, succour to the sick, harbour to the stranger, minister to him that is in prison such things as he needeth. And this is that which in deed shall be counted given to God. These things do so much redound to the honour of God's Image, that he which doth them not, is thought to do villainy to God's Image. Whatkin worship then of God is this, to gad up and down after stony and wooden shapes, The false wor ship of God's Image. & to worship them as though they were godheads, being vain figures and without life, and despise man in whom is the very Image of God. But know you for certainty, that he that committeth murder, or whoredom, yea whatsoever he doth to hurt or injury men, in all these things is the Image of God violated, etc. understand you therefore that this is the Worship of ●…ages the devils suggestion. devils suggestion lurking in you, which persuadeth you you may seem godly while you worship unsensible things, and not to seem ungodly, while you hurt both sensible and reasonable creatures. Thus says your Pope not only to the Heathen then, but also to you, using the same Heathen fashions now, standing so much on the defacing burning and villaning Gods Images as you call them of wood & stone: And yourselves burn, de●…ace and villain, the very Images of God, either not knowing the true Images of God, but taking dead pictures for his Image, or wittingly reject your Pope's advertisement, and do contrary to your consciences. But as you thus deface Gods very Image, so deface you God himself. You stand much upon his pretended Image, and yet you regard not him, his word nor his commandment. You honour you say his Image, and dishonour himself. I omit the foresaid dishonoringes of him in your invocation, in justifying your wicked concupiscence from being sin, etc. you dishonour him even in the Images that you made of him, to honour him by. Was not this a dishonour How the Papists dishonoured God in picturing him. of God, to picture him out like a Creature, like a sinner, like a corruptible man, like an old greybearded Father, yea like a monster with three faces in one head, as the ●…eathen pictured janus with two faces, or Geryon with three bodies, or Cerberus with three heads? what was dishonour to God if this were not? to set out any pictures of God, yea after the portraiture of man, whose body though it is, Formae praestamissim●…, Of a most comely shape, is yet so unfitting for God, that S. Augustine calleth it Sacrilege. Yea De fide & fi●…bolo cap. 7. ●… The picturing of god maketh the Papists Anthropomor phites. God send it ●…all not out, that you maintain a foul Heresy of the Trinity therein. But how cunningly soever you shall clear your: self thereof, a great dishonouring of God it was. A lie can not be an honour to him that is truth and a spirit, and will be worshipped in spirit and truth, not in a bodily Figure, and that a false figure too? if the picture of The picture of God must needs be a lying and dishonourable picture. Deut. 4. God be not a lie, when saw you God at any time? if you never saw him, you go by blind ghess●…. Yea, if he himself, even for this purpose, when he would most show himself, would yet show no bodily figure, lest any should Worship him by any bodily Fiigure: will you presume to make after your fanta●…ies, a bod●…ly form or rather deformity of him? how can this be but a lie, a dishonour, an Idolatry, and presu●…npteouse rebellion against God's purpose and express commandment? Even as job says: Currit impuis job 15. contra Deum extent●… collo, The wicked runneth against God even with a stretched out neck. Thus as you deface God, pretending his honour: so deface The pictures of Saint●…s not to be honoured. you those Saints that you call all ●…hallowes, even under the pretence of honouring them, and their Images For if it be not honour to God, to honour him by a picture: think you it is than an honour to his Saints, to be honoured by pictures? and if his Saints themselves refused honour, will they have their pictures honoured? Your shift that you make of unlearned and lay men's The Papists shift of say men's books. books, neither will any thing avail you, nor yourselves use it otherwise than for a shift. For you used them not as remembrancers, but you honoured them as helpers. Now, if a learned man may not kneel, creep, crouch, offer, and pray to his book, though the book were of the Saints lives never so much, yea though it were God's book, (Moses honoured not the very Tables written with the finger of God) by what privilege then may the Lay and unlearned person, honour, kneel, offer and pray unto their books: yea admitting the case, that Images were the idiots books, as you call them. But God wot they are very Idiots, that have no other, but such books. And more Idiots, that thus honour their books. And you most idiots of all (I am afraid) that make such idiots reasons. The Idolatry that you made the people to commit was to The Popish tales of images manifest. The practices you used were to broad. The tales that your Legends tell of the works of Images, are too-too shameful M. Stapleton. You tell us, how the picture of the Virgin Marie was Discipulus. Exemplo. 27. Bawd to Beatrice a Nun the space of the xv. year, while she played the common strumpet. You tell us that at Spire, (Ubi adoratur Imago Sancta dei genetricis quae ad sanctum Bernardum Exempl. 17. tribus vicibus locuta est, etc. Where the Image of the holy mother of God is adored, which spoke three times to S. bernard,) A boy gave her child a piece of bread crying Pu Pu, and the Image of Christ embraced the boy, and said Pu pu pe, noli flere, post tridu●…m mecum papabis. Whine not, and three days hence, thou shalt eat pap with me. Another time, how the Image of Christ came down out his mother's Exempl. 81. arms & played with an abbots child. Another time when the arm of his Image of stone was broken, how blood Ex Vincentio in sper. hist. li. 8. ca 110. gushed out, and the stone Image of his Mother seeing the blood, rend her garments and ornaments of stone about her, rent the jewels about her neck, and made naked her breast unto the paps, for the reproach and injury that was done to her baby. Another time, Exempl. 82. when Avignon was besieged, they got her Image upon the gate, putting their confidence in her, and when one standing behind her was shot at, Imago genu erexit, etc. The Image lift up her knee, and received the stroke of the arrow, etc. and it sticketh yet in her thigh. You tell us how on a time, Quidam pictor Diabolum cum Exempl. 83. cornibus, etc. A certain painter painted the devil with horns and other members, so ugly as he could, but the Image of the Virgin Marie he painted so fair as he could, whereat the Devil being angry, broke the scaffold while he was painting her Image. Mox Imago pussimae virgins, pictori manuum porrexit, & eum ne caderet firmiter retinuit, sicque eum à daemone custodivit. With that the Image of the most godly Virgin caught the painter by the hand, and held him fast from falling, and so it saved him from the Devil. You tell us of a Church set on fire by lightning, but when it came near to the Image: Quasi expavescens, omnino intactam reliquit. etc. The fire as afraid of it, left it untouched: yea a bunch of Peacocks feathers, leaning to the Image of wood, escaped unburnt also. And this miracle (saith he) was done to show, quòd sibi seru●…entes, ab igne aeterno liberare faciliter possit: That she can easily deliver from hell fire those that serve her howbeit, The Picture of our Lady of Wilsdeane with the burned tail. at Wilsdean her picture escaped not the fire so scotte free, but that the one half was burned, even with the negligence of the candles that were set about her. But to salve this blemish, the remnant of the block wrought as great miracles, as any of the other. For when the Priest had sent to London the residue of the Image that was saved from the fire, to be peeced out by the Carver: after he could not make the old and the new to frame well together, he cast the old picture behind the stall, and made another like it. The Priest, when he came to see the picture, where is my wife, quoth he: to whom the Painter showed the picture that he had new made like the other. Not, quoth the Priest, thou liest, this is an other, this is not my wife. That it is, quoth the Painter. Not, no husband, quoth the old Image, that is not I: I am here hidden and cast behind the stall. This was a famous miracle, and his wife deserved to be carried home again with solemn procession. It were infinite to tell the tales of your roods that spoke, that nodded, that sweat, that bled, that embraced and kissed those that came to them: with a number of such like forgeries, to make the people believe, not only the Saints, but even the very pictures of them had a force and influence of grace and help in them. And so the Rood of grace, our Lady of grace, our Lady of pity. etc. had their names. I omit your other Saint's pictures, yea some of those whom you worshipped, that God knows were seely Saints, and yourselves doubt whether ever they were honest men and women, or no. Yea of those that Pictures of Angels. were neither men nor women, I mean not Angels, whom you honoured in pictures of winged and feathered men, but of S. Sunday, of S. Saviour, of S. Crosses, etc. Neither S. Sundays Picture. God, nor Angel, nor man, nor woman, of whom you might say, as the Priest said, when he bid his beads on Sunday: Good friends, you shall have this week the feast of S. epiphany, but whether it be he Saint or she saint. I can not tell. Of these Saints you had pictures, you had Churches, you had Pilgrimages, you had offerings, and yet were there no such people at all, but as the heathen had the pictures of justice & other virtues, worshipping them also, as Lactantius upbraideth to them: Quid nobis ina●…em justitiam depingi●…, Why paint you out unto us bore justice? Li. 5. de just. cap. 8. can you excuse this also of manifest Idolatry? Think you that your second Nicen council would not likewise have condemned you even for very shame, as too-too gross Idolaters? What saith Alfonsus your own champion, writing of purpose in the defence of Images, in handling the fact of king Ezechias, for destroying the Brazen Serpent? ●…f the Alfons. contra He●…es. li. 8. Christian people (saith he) were now as prove to Idolatry, as the people of Israel were then, nor could be called otherwise from their error: Then, if Images were broken in pieces, I would believe, that they aught woe thily to be broken. This is the judgement of Alfonsus upon all your All-hallows Images, and Christ's too. But hereto adjoining this false assumption: But the Christian people are Christian Prin ces have no less cause to break the popish Images than Ezechias had to break the brazen Serpent. not now so prove to Idolatry as were the jews, he concludeth: there is no such urgent cause why Images ought to be broken, as there was then. But if he had acknowledged the manifest truth, and had looked no further, than in his own country, of S. james picture of Compostella, that (as they say) can move and stir his head by frowning, or looking cheerfully, and other proper knacks: and had he seen the great Idolatry committed thereto, and how the people flocked from all parts thither: he should then have seen as great, if not a great deal greater idolatry, among those that profess the name of christianity, than ever was to the Brazen Serpent among the jews, and that (as he would excuse the Popish idolatry) it was not one or two deceived by a certain simplicity, but that it was more than an hundredth, yea than an hundredth thousand, that were so deceived by a certain fraud of your priests, that no preaching or teaching could serve to remove their Idolatry, so long as you let the Images stand. Which not only you did, but teached and preached such fables, as more increased your gains, and the simple people's Idolatry. And therefore, even by Alphonsus' reason, your All-hallows Images are worthy to be defaced & broken in fitters by Christian Princes, as by Ezechias the Brazen Serpent was. Now to the further improofe of Alphonsus his false assumption, that Christians are not so prove to Idolatry as the jews: I will not press you with Erasmus testimonies, nor yet with Sir Thomas Moore, but even as I did before with your own council of Colleyns' complaints, of the wickedness used about your Images. Verum cum multus Concil. Colo. in decal. etiam abusus. But, sith much abuse hath also by little and little crept in, about the worship of Images, that the Images also of those things have been brought into the Church, which have no testiminie of the Scripture, or of approved authors: That many carved Images beyond measure, with great sumptuousness and cost, were set up so fast in Churches, as though herein See how the Papists confesie their own Idolatry. a great part of godliness consisted, the poor people of Christ being in the mean while neglected, which are the lively Images of Christ. Furthermore, that we behold the Images so painted, and expressed, that they seemed to be forged, not after the form of Christian honesty, but after the enticements of the vanity of the world. To conclude, that the rude people was suffered to worship the Images, with a certain trust reposed in them, the which is not altogether free from Idolatry, so that they can not be excused of Idolatry, that have choose to themselves any Image to be worshipped, and that either for the fairness thereof, or the foulness, or the newness, or the oldness, believing that Image to have some virtue, yea or some godhead or divinity more than the rest. Which error is to be plainly damned. Thus do your own mouths condemn yourselves, & that not of trifling points, nor of any extraordinary chance, but of open and ordinary Idolatry. I omit such casualties of Idolatry, as are objected in Biga Salutis. dominic●…. 1. quadrag. serm. 29. The worship of the Devil in an other things likeness. The reason why the worship of the consecrated cake is flat Idolatry. Biga salutis, if the people should worship the devil for God in any form, in any revelation, or in the consecrated host, which you made the people worship (since the devil can transform himself to any such shape, yea of an angel of light) whether the people's worship be Idolatry or no. I will rather detect your more gross idolatry, although that, of your honouring the cake were gross enough. Neither can it be but manifest idolatry, sith there is no proportion between the body of Christ, and such a likeness, whereas in every Image a right and true portraiture is to be required. But into that Idolatry I will not now enter: only I will come to your next objection of the cross. To the which you The worship of the Crosse. committed most open idolatry, not only worshipping with cap & knee, with crouching, kneeling, knocking, blessing, kissing greeting, and praying unto, but ascribing the merit of salvation to such your worship of the cross. You tell us how a thief, that continuing an arrant thief Exempl. dise. all the days of his life. Oravit unum Pater noster, ante crucifixum, & sic saluatus est. He said one Pater noster before the crucifix, and so he was saved. And therefore says Discipulus: Christo valdè placet cum quis orat pr●…tereundo Crucifixum in publica strata, unum Pater noster, & unum ave Maria. When one passing by in the open street, saith one Pater noster, and one ave Mary, Christ is highly pleased. But not content with this Idolatry, you make humble prayers unto it, as though it had life and soul, as though it were God itself. O Crux 〈◊〉 cunctis astris. etc. O Prayers in the Primar to the Cros●…e. Cross more clear than all the stars, famous to the world, very loving unto men, which only wast worthy to bear the price of the world, save this present company, gathered together this day in thy praises. Thus prayed you to the cross in your old primer. Have you never said this prayer to the cross? O Crux benedicta. etc. O blessed Cross, because the Saviour of the world did hung on thee, and the king of Angels triumphed on thee, I adore thee, I praise thee, I bless thee, with all my senses, be thou our consolation in our trouble. etc. Again, Oro te sancta Crux. etc. I pray thee holy cross, by the omnipotent God, that thou will't deliver, and pull me, out of all my necessities and grieves, and defend me from the wrath of God, and from the vengeance of all my enemies, and from sudden death, and from all shame, peril, and blasphemy, and from all sins, wherewith man's frailty may sin against God. I beseech thee holy cross, by the love of jesus Christ our Lord, who hath exalted thee marvelously, above all things earthly, that thou wilt protect and defend me from the Devil, and from all dangers and evils of mind and body. Again, Salue gloriosa splendidissima Crux. ave invincibilis & insuperabilis dilectissima Crux. Salue preciosissima vere & dign in aeternum beatissima Crux. ave sanctissima & sine fine dign veneranda praeclarissima Crux. Salue preciocissi●…a & vere devote adoranda sacratissima crux. Lo, master Stap. what gallant rhetoric is h●…re to the Crosse. The worship to the Picture of Christ's face And as with these idolatrous prayers you worshipped the picture of the Cross, so with the like or worse, you worshipped the picture of the face of Christ, which yet by the ancient describers thereof, was nothing like his face. Neither can you say, you prayed not to it, but unto Christ, whom the face in the cloth represented: for even unto the painted face itself you prayed, in this Rhyme doggerel: Salue sancta facies nostri Redemptoris, in qua nitet species divini splendoris, impressa panniculo nivei candoris, dataque Ueronicae signum ob amoris, salve decus saculi speculum sanctorum, quòd videre cupiunt spiritus Coelorum, nos ab omni macula purga vitiorum, atque nos consortio iung●… beatorum. Salue nostra gloria in hac vita dura, labili & fragili cito transitura, nos perduc ad patriam O foelix figura, ad videndum faciem quae est Christi pura▪ etc. You can not say here, you spoke this to Christ himself, or to the very face of Christ, but your prayer is even to the very figure or pattern of the face in the linen clot, and you desire that painted face, to exalt us to the very face itself. The like Idolatrous prayer and adoration you make to Prayer and adoration to the five wounds. the five wounds, Salue vulnus dextrae manus, etc. God speed, wound of the right hand, etc I adore thee, I honour thee, I require thee, I beseech thee, that I a wretch now dying. etc. may never fail. Hail thou right hand wound of Christ, thou which waste pierced with a most hard nail. etc. We adore thee, O wound, to thee we incline our head, as to a most sweet fountain, by thee let it be given, that we may overcome our enemies, and rejoice in the last day. God speed wound of the right foot, etc. God speed wound of the left foot. O sweet side wound. etc. ave, salve, g●…ude, vale. Hail, God speed thee, rejoice, farewell. What foolish prayers, and beastly Idolatry was this, master Stapleton, and yet were these prayers counted such notable stuff, that they are enfraunchised with great privileges and pardons. Set in golden letters for more estimation and credit. You have a goodly rubric that saith: Fuit quaedam foemina solitaria & reclusa, etc. There was a certain woman that was solitary, and a recluse, which desiring to know the number of the wounds of christ, prayed God to reveal it to her. At the length, being herded, God said unto her▪ The The number of all the wounds of Christ. wounds of my body were so many, as if thou wouldst honour them with worship, thou must say every day throughout the year, xv. Pater nosters, &. xv. ave Maries, and so thou shalt salute worshipfully every one of my wounds. And he Pardon for saying this prayer. that shall say this prayer one year, shall deliver. xv. souls of his kin out of Purgatory, and. xv. living shall be confirmed just and in goodstate, and he himself shall obtain grace and knowledge of perfection. etc. And he shall see my most holy body. xv. days before his death, etc. And I with my well-beloved mother Marie, will come to him before his death. etc. Another Rubric. To all that say this prayer, between the Elevation, and the third Agnus dei, are given by Pope Boniface two thousand years of pardon, at the entreaty of Philip the French king. An infinite number of lesser pardons prefixed to your Petit pardons. prayers I omit, how Pope john. 22. gives a hundredth days of Pardon, to him that saith, Salue plaga lateris. etc. And how Pope Leo added forty more. How Pope john the. 23 gave to another, a year and forty days, and. 22. Cardinals added every one forty days more a piece, and how by Bull they were confirmed. These were but paltry pardons in respect of those in your Primer, wherein among other is this more frankly given. Whosoever being in the A liberal pardon. state of grace, shall say these seven prayers following devoutly, with seven Pater nosters, and seven ave Maries, before the Image of pity: He shall deserve seven and fifty thousand years of pardon. The which were granted of three Popes, that is to we●…e of Saint Gregory, fourteen thousand years: Secondly of Pope Nicholas the fift, fourteen thousand years, in the year of the Lord. 1459: Thirdly of Pope Sixtus the fourth, who composed the fourth and the fift little prayers of these Suffrages following, 1400. years, and hath dubled these pardons, in the year of our Lord. 1478. Whether was this more wicked Idolatry, or foolish lies The pardon of these Popes prove them plain heretics. M. Stap? what say you here even to your own Popes, doth not your Primar make them very Heretics teaching a doctrine of so many thousand years pardon after the day of Dome? How much differeth this from the fowl error of Origen? Or did they think the world should continued so long, or ever the day of Dome shall come, which Christ and his Apostles then said, was so near at hand, and your Popes since that time have stretched it out so many thousand years to come? or to what torment should the soul go, when his pardon should be expired? For, be the day never so long, at the length (you say) cometh Evensong. Should the soul at the end of those seven and fifty thousand years of pardon, go from heaven to hell? For Purgatory lasteth, you say, but till Domes day. Or used your Primer, Numero fin●…to pro infin●…o, a determinate number for an undeterminate number▪ But why then did your Pope's one after an other, increase the number, and so straightly limit it? and yet by your leave your Primer miss one thousand years in the account. For promising seven and fifty thousand, it reckoneth up but stre and fifty thousand. And though one in a thousand break no square, as they say: yet a thousand years is somewhat, master Stapleton, it is little more, you wot, than one thousand and a half, since christ was born. But go to man, since your Popes are so liberal to pardon for so many thousands, you shall not say, we will stick to pardon them for one thousand back again. I would count this but one of your Arithmetical 'scapes (as you object to the bishop) but that your Primer is full, if not of such misreckoninges, yet of such lavish sums. I mentioned one before of forty thousand years. Pope john the twelve the (say the one of your Rubrikes) hath granted to all that say this prayer So many years of pardon, as bodies have been buried in any Churchyard. for the dead: Auete omnes 〈◊〉 fideles. etc: passing through the Church yard, so many years of Pardon, as bodies be buried therein since is was a Churchyard. By which rule in Paul's Churchyard, a man might easily get a nem●…scu▪ of years of pardon. Phie M. St. this is too gross and shameful deceiving of the people. Whether it he your Pope's fault (as they can not be excused, sith it is decreed, sealed & confirmed by them, and their full Chapters of Cardinals, which you say in such authentical doings can not err) or whose faults so ever they were, in your Primers and prayer books, they are solemnly set out in red letters, to egg the people to pray unto your Images. But you will say I serve from my purpose, some of these prayers were not unto Images. Well, what was this M. Stapl. Subsequens scriptum, est scriptum Rom●…, etc. This writing that followeth was written at Rome, in the Chapel of S. Marry at Jerusalem in the Temple. Whilom S. Gregory the Pope did celebrated Mass in the city of Rome, and when he came to the consecration, the Lord appeared to him in this Figure that is here painted. Whereupon he being moved of compassion, granted to all that did behold such a picture, and with making courtesy, and devoutly saying five Pater Nosters, and five ave Maries: fouretene thousand years of pardon. And besides this xij. Popes his successors have granted every one of them five hundred years of pardon, the sum of the whole pardon is twenty thousand years. A Prayer made to the Crown, the Nails, the Spear, the Vinegar and Gall, the Reed, the Hospital, the dise the Coat, the Cock the Pillar, the Wh●…ps, the Sword, the Fists, the Buff●…ts, the Ladder the Maller. etc about the Passion of Christ. And this is registered in Rome. And as you gave these liberal pardons for the beholding of the picture of Christ, so for looking on the Cross, yea the Nails, whips, rods, ropes, and other instraments, where with he was put to death, and for the saluting & worshipping of them you offer no small pardons also, of the which in one book I have two Rubrikes. The one to this noble prayer, Crucem coronam sp●…neam, cla●…osque diramque lanceam, devote veneremur: Acetum fel 〈◊〉, virgamque spum spongiam, i●…giter veneremur: Uele●… laternam nobilens, pellicanum & cal●…cem, Arundines pungente●… tunicam inconsu●…ilem, sorts columnan stabilem, & f●…nes vigentes, flagella fustes innumerabiles, enses latronum horribles, denarios ter denos, manus c●…dentes dissimiles, cultellos duros & forcipes, vr●…eos ●…menos serpents, scalam & malleum, sepulchrum lumen candelabrum, cord recolamus. To stir us up to say this foolish and wicked prayer to worship all these things, is prefixed this rubric. Quicunque hac arm●…, etc. Who soever shall behold these arms of our Lord jesus Christ, and say devoutly this prayer: six thousand years of pardon are granted him of S. Peter the Apostle, and of thirty Popes after him, if he be with out deadly sin and in charity. The second rubric in the same book on these verses: Lance●… Crux claus, tua pertuls cord 〈◊〉, etc: is this: Quicunque arma Domini, etc. Who soever shall look devoutly upon the weapons of our Lord jesus Christ, and shall devoutly say this prayer, he shall have of his sins being truly confessed and repenting of them, six thousand, seven hundred, and five years of pardons of S. Peter the Apostle granted him, and granted of. 30. Popes after him. How agreeth this with the former M. Stapleton, or did The Papists jar in their pardons. S. Peter give this pardon twis●…, and augment the sum because of the excellency of those verses? But these are trifles to the third that followeth. Crux, coronae, spinae, flagellis, clavis, lanciae, marcellae, spongae, laqueae, columpilae, vesti purpuriae, a●…undinae, honorem impendamus. This is good Latin I warrant you, and as good as the matter every whit: and so good, that, says the rubric over it, Who soever say this Orison here following, shall have A lustio pardon. great grace of almighty God, and six thousand thousand and threescore and ten years of very pardon. This was lustily multiplied. Sit down Master Stapleton, sith you pretend to be so perfect an Arithmetrician, and cast your accounts, and you shall see a fair muster of pardons to comfort your spirits with all. Fear not (man) the Devil so long as these last, and many thousands more there are besides, but these are easily got, even for worshipping the jews Ropes, Halters, Hammers, R●…iues, sword, their Fists, yea their spittle and all. But if you be ashamed and think scorn to worship these things, as in deed you may well be ashamed of them: yet I have such holy Relics for you to worship, that you can hardly find any higher. But I tell you you must take up your hand and bliss you at the sight of them, and so they work marvels as your holy books record. And that not for the Images of All-Hallows, but of Christ's Image, or rather of himself, that you should know even the just length of him, as they pretend. Among the good prayers aforesaid, is this rubric: To know the length of Christ. Qui cupit cognoscere longitudinem, etc. He that desireth to know the length of Christ being God, let him take this line here drawn forth, two and thirty times measured, which line was brought out of the City of Constantinople, in a certain Gross of Gold. Which line who soever in the day doth devoutly look upon, and say the Antiphona with a Collect, and shall sign him thrice with the sign of the holy Cross, he shall not that day die any sudden death, nor be vexed with Devil, nor with any tempest, nor any evil nor any Creature shall hurt him. And this line was brought by an Angel to King Charles the great. This is a fair grace M. Stapl. for looking upon and worshipping a line of the length of Christ. But I have another length and rubric, that hath more jolly promises to stir us up to worship it. Which sayeth: This Cross fifteen times measured, is the length of our Lord jesus Christ, and that day you look thereon, bless you therewith. There shall no wicked spirit have power to hurt you: nor thunder, ne lightning, sleeping ne waking shall not hurt you: nor wind nor blasting, on land nor on water shall not hurt you: nor in battle you shall not be overcome with your enemies, bodily, ne ghostly: nor die no shameful death, nor sudden death, nor of the pestilence, nor in water be drowned, nor in fire be brent: and if ye be in deadly sin, you shall not die therein: and you shall increase in worldly goods: nor you shall not die of wounds, nor of stroke, nor without confession: nor you shall not be cumbered with no fiends: and if a woman have this Cross, and lay it on her womb when she traveleth with child, she shall soon be delivered, and the child shall have Christendom, and the mother purification of holy Church. S. Ciriake, and S. julite desired this gift of almighty God, and he granted them, as it is registered in Rome, at S. john Lateranence. Here are many more fair graces if all were true. But some of them your Papists themselves have ●…ounde stark lies. And some of them, as that he shall not be cumbered with no fiend, etc. I think may well be true, as you will grant I dare say, resolving them by your Equipollences, on which you stand so much in your fourth book. As for the assurance of the truth of these lengths, that, I remit to you M. St. to reconcile them together: how the one came from Constantinople, the other from Rome: how the one was granted of God to S. Ciriake, and S. julite: the other brought by an Angel to king Charles the great, and yet as appeareth by the prayer, it came first to S. Ciriake, and S. julite too. With other such circumstances as arise in the conference of them. Only I note the lengths themselves, and I pray you M. St. (if you have as good skill in Geometry, as in Arithmetic) to measure these two lengths, the one. xxxij. the other. xv. times as they require, and see how properly they will agreed. I think you shall find them differing, little lacking the length of both Crosses joined together. So that the one (light on which it shall) must needs be a very lie, and have no virtue in it at all, but those that worship it be Idolaters, worshipping a false thing. If you reply an inch breaks no square: although it break no square, yet it breaks length M. St. neither aught you to miss The one of th●…se two Crosses must needs be false one inch in this matter, wherein you pretend is such virtues, and so exactly take upon you to describe even the jump length, and say it came from God, and his Angel brought it, known not the Angel the jump length, or would he not give it truly, and would have it so precisely worshipped? surely than he was no good Angel. But the difference is more than an inch M. St. or. 6. or. 7. inches either. And would you have Christ cut shorter by the head, to make your lengths even? were it not better that a great many such liars as you hop●…●…edlesse before? which of these two shall we believe M. Stapleton? or is it not best, by your counsel, to let them both go in the ●…irrops name, and all their forged virtues with them, than for greediness of their gay promises, endanger to loose body and soul by worshipping a lie, and committing foul Idolatry? Well let them go for me, if you he agreed thereto, M. Stap●…. But yet you have one excuse as you think to mitigate the The Papists shifted that all this hindereth not the meditation of the mind. matter, that how soever they miss in the Figure, either of the Cross, or the Crucifix, of the which some was long, some was short: this hindered not the people's devout meditation thereon. Although M. Stapleton this nothing excuse the former manifest lie, where you miss of the length, that so justly you pretend to set out, and yet ascribe the virtue to the just length, saying, Per virtutem gloriosa longitud●…nis tuae. By the virtue of thy glorious length: yet to come to your meditations, that you teach us do come to us, by the beholding the Crucifix: If these were as fond, as the other worship idolatrous, what shall we then judge of the residue? Three things (says Discipulus) we must consider, first, Ser. de temp. 35. The Papists devout meditations in beholding the Crucifix. that Christ hangs down his neck on his shoulder, to kiss you (and hereupon your Capochini Friars hung their heads a wry, because the Crucifix is so set forth). Secondly, the Crucifix hath both his hands stretched abroad, to embrace you. Thirdly, his feet are both fastened to the Cross, to betoken that he will not start from you. Such toys you imagine the Crucifix to represent unto us, and thereout gather your mystical significations, that a man might look thereon till his eyes stare, and never think on kissing, colling, or any such things. Thus did you mock and deceive the simple people, and made them besides Idolaters very idiots indeed with these your idiots books. But the Book of God that setteth out to the eyes of our faith, the death and benefits of jesus Christ, you quite left out, and would not suffer that Crucifix to be looked upon. Wherein they should have seen and learned to know most fully Christ Crucified, without any danger of Idolatry at all. Now if you say all this hitherto infereth not yet Idolatry, The Papists shifted in distinction of worship. Latria. Dulia. Hyperdulia. so long as you give not to the Cross, the very worship that is due to God, but reserve that still to him alone, which you call Latriam, and give to the Cross Duliam, and Hyperduliam, although this shift be fully by others already confuted: yet admitting the same, it so little shifteth your manifest Idolatry, that it proveth you liars on your own heads, and Idolaters even by your own distinction. Sigh, not The Papists gave their chiefest kind of worship to the Crosse. only you gave Latriam the Cross, but also defend that it may be given thereto. Chief Thomas of Aquine your great schoolmaster, yea M. Doctor Saunders himself one of your chiefest Louvain writers, in his especial treatise of the defence of Images, can scarce tell what to defend herein. For first he saith, we defend it for the more probable, D. Saunders in his book of the defence of Images. that the same degree of hononr is not due to the Image of Christ, of our Lady or of other Saints, which is due to Christ, our Lady, and to other Saints themselves. But there is a certain proper honour, due to a good remembrance or monument. Thus says D. Sanders there. But in the end & conclusion of his whole book, one while he defendeth Thomas, and granteth the figure of the thing, to have the same honour done to it, that is done to the thing itself: and says the worship that is done to Christ, is done to his purple coat also. Then fleeth he touch again from that, saying D. Saunders inconstancy. that the Church never taught, nor doth teach, that the Image of Christ, must be adoured with the honour due to God. Then again he alloweth Thomas his natural reason. But after that flying as fast from Thomas, If Thomas (says he) have been deceived in this question, it is an error in Philosophy and not in Divinity. And why? because he allegeth Aristotle. I pray you M. Stapleton if you may be so bold, pull him by the ●…léeue, and desire him to be ware how he speaketh against Aristotle and his Metaphysikes. What? is Aristotle's Metaphysikes no good Divinity with him? if the Sorbonistes hear this, it is to be feared they will condemn him for an Heretic, as they served Ramus. Now when M. Saunders hath thus startle●… too and fro, in dock out nettle (for belike he was ne●…led with this question) notwithstanding (says he) I put it for an undoubted truth, that all Images be honoured in the Church, with an inferior honour to that which is due to the first samplars, and principal patterns. And yet by and by quite contrary D. Saunders contrariety to himself. to this, he saith: For whether, in any case, the honour of the Image may be the same with the honour of his truth or not, I neither will, nor can, nor am perfectly able thoroughly to discuss. And yet before he determined it Doctor like, and said, I put it for an undoubted truth that Images have inferior honour. But in conclusion, when he should defend the Papists from the peril of Idolatry, and fully determine how far Images may be honoured without Idolatry, he concludes they must be honoured with such honour, as is given without further curious discussing, D. Saunders giveth the people leave not to care how much honour they give to Images. whether any more may be given them or no. And telleth us that how much is dew to the Image, we need not care. When all this while, this was the chiefest thing in this point cared for, and that he himself so much hath laboured in, and one while denies, another while grants: one while determines, another while saith he will not, can not, nor is able to determine: thus standing in doubt, and yet putting us out of doubt: and all this ado is only for this question, how much or how little honour should be given to Images, lest we commit Idolatry to them, by giving the worship of Latria after his own distinction: and after all this ado, to lap up the doubt with saying, We need not care how much is dew, and we must honour Images with such honour as is given, with out further curious discussing, whether any more may be given or no: what is this but to open a gap to all Idolatry? But if M. D. Saund. may thus rid his hands of this matter, D. Saund. himself overthroweth his own distinction of three kinds of worshipping. by bidding the people not care how much worship they give to Images, whereto then should we care for this your shift of these three kinds of worships, sith it is not to be cared how much worship be given them? Thus ordered you the simple people then, bidding them honour, worship, cap, kneel, offer, pray unto, trust upon, and care not To what careless Idolatry the Louanists would reduce us. The Papists shift, that these are but the sub tilties of a few Schoolmen. how much they gave to the Image. And this careless Idolatry M. Stapleton would you and your complices bring us again unto. Neither are these things (as M. Sanders pretendes to mitigate the matter) Quiddities & subtleties imagined of Thomas, & a few Schoolmen only: but all your Schoolmen for the most part, handle and toss this question to and fro, having occasion by the exceeding great▪ Idolatry committed in the mean while by the people. Yea not only the Schoolmen held their opinions: but the Friars as fast preached the like worship, and cited the famous Scoolemen for them. Discipulus citeth Thomas. 3. part Quest. 25. Artic. 6. Discipulu●… sermon. 35. Crux Christi potest adorari adoratione Latriae, etc. The Cross of Christ may be worshipped with the worship of Latria (which you call Divine worship) because the Cross besprent with the blood of Christ, is the very Image of the Crucifix spread thereon: and the Image of it also, is every wood that is form after the fashion of a Crosse. And thus he not only proveth, that the Cross which Not only the Cross Christ died on, but every other cross, and every stick made like a cross is to be honoured. Christ died on, but every other Cross, yea every peer of wood form like a Cross, is to be worshipped, and that with divine honour. Although other make a great difference of worship between the Cross that christ died on, and other Crosses. Cardinal Uigeriu●… maketh this a principal argument, to have touched the ble●…d of Christ. And written thereon, being desired of the College of Cardinals & Bishops, at what time The Turks token to the Pope. Vigerius de instrumentis. A solemn question among the prelate's at Rome about Christ's coat, and the spearhed that wounded him. as the great Turk for a token of friendship had sent to the Pope (as he telleth) the spear head that wounded Christ, keeping still the coat of Christ with him in Turkey: Hereupon arose a question among all the Prelates, whether the Coat or the Spear head were more precious, and worthy greater honour. Uigerius reasoneth much of Christ's shirt, having touched his sweat and his 〈◊〉: of the Nails that pierced his hands: and the other instruments, posts, cords, rods; etc. and would have them worshipped more, as they touched him more near, or more principal parts of Christ. By which rule he might make the stones holy Relics, that he trod upon, and why not, since your foresaid prayers confess, that even the hands of the jews that s●…ote him, and the spittle that they spit on his face are holy Relics, and to be worshipped with divine honour also, because they touched Christ: if this kind of reasoning were good divinity. Alanus de Rupe saith, Imago Christi. etc. The Image of In pract orandi Psalterium Virgins. Christ is not to be worshipped with the worship of Latria: The Image of the virgin Mary, with the worship of Hyperdulia: the Images of other with the worship of Dulia. Attributing that worship to the Image of every thing in his What the Papists say we should conce●…ue when we stand 〈◊〉 fore Images. degree, that you attribute to the thing itself. And the reason is, as he saith: Cum stabu coram Imaginibu●…. etc. When thou standest before the most holy Images of Christ and the virgin Mary, thou oughtest to think that there is the blessed Trinity, and Christ, with Mary, which see thee under the eyes of the Image, and hear thee under the Images ears, and love thee under the Images heart, and speak with thee under the mouth of the Images, not according to the artificial essence of the Image, but according to the imaginative thereof, or the divinity of the Trinity, most blessed and present. And that there is such a power in this sight, hearing, understanding, love, and so of the other, as the most blessed Mary hath revealed: that if infinite worlds with all their power should see▪ thee, hear, love, understand, and conserve thee: they should not do so much unto thee, as is done unto thee by the representing of such an Image, etc. Therefore, before such Images, as being ordained by the divine ordinance of the Church, and of the holy fathers, and the especial ordinance of Angels, represent high things beyond other creatures: thou oughtest to behave thyself with all reverence, and fear, and all faith, and love, even as if the divine things represented, were there present. Neither do you make them bore representations, but that even in the Images, the things themselves represented, are. Yea saith Alanus: Tota Trinit as beata, per essentiam, praesentiam, & potentiam est in ●…a aequaliter, quantum est ex part deitatis, & non ex part operis, etc. The whole blessed Trinity is in the Image by essence, by presence, and by power, equally, so far forth as in respect of the deity, not in respect of the work. And by such a manner that is, in respect of the deity, with the Ideas or forms imagined, the virgin Mary is in such an Image, according to her whole life, her nature, her grace and her glory, most really, most truly, and most principally, by reason of her Idea, or imagined form and divine He means Augustinus de Ancona, the Scholeman. part, which is infinitely greater (after Albertus & Aug.) than is her creature itself. Therefore the most merciful Mary shall always be present, most really in such an Image, not by bodily presence, but by divine presence, according to Dionysius and Boëce. And this is the manner of worshipping the Images of saints, and of worshipping by signification the Image of the Lord jesus Christ, which is now whole, even the self same thing in his Image. Therefore in these Images, thou oughtest to believe, that the Lady Mary doth there see thee hear thee, love thee, and provoke thee to all goodness. Thus say your subtle Schoolmen with their ideities; essencies, realities, divinalities, quiddities, qualities, and such other Sim subtle title tumtatle●…ies: the effect whereof is this, that the Images must have the same honour, that the things should have which they represent & be Images of. Whereby not speaking of the manifest idolatry committed to saints & their images: but only of the image of Christ, to whom you say the same honour is due, that is due to Christ himself: But to Christ himself this honour is due, not only alexternall worship The image of Christ to have as much honour as himself. of the body; but invocation, faith, trust, hope, ascribing all our help & salvation, thanks giving. etc. all which you comprehend under Latria, as due to be rendered to Christ: the image therefore, besides the bodily worship, must be invocated, believed, trusted & hoped in: all our help, salvation, & thanksgiving, must be ascribed to the image of Christ, so well as to himself. How can you excuse this, M. Stap. from 〈◊〉 shameful idolatry, even by your own distinction. Was it now any marvel, The Schoolmen maintained as much idolatry as the people committed. if the people (that known not these scholepoynts, & were not acquainted with these distin●…tiōs, but went plainly to work, doing all the worship they could devife, & more would they have done, could they have devised more:) gave Duliam, Hyperduliam, Latriam. & all that you can else invent to Images: since your Schoolmen, even by the distinctions that they would cover and shifted off the matter withal, confess as gross idolatry aught to be done, as the people did commit to images? neither did your preachers blame them, but cite the schoolmen, & incite the people, setting them more a gogge. Yea yourselves from Lovayne send us over a licence, not to care how much honour is due unto them, nor curiously to discuss, whether any more may be given them than is given: when so much, both of the learned & unlearned was given, as more though you would, you can not devise to give, for you gave no more but all. Now where we cry out upon this, as apparent Idolatry: you cry out again upon us for heretics, and liken us to julianus the Apostata, writing against the Christians, for the Cross of Chryst. But like renegade Apostates yourselves, it is not we, but you that renie, forsake and deface, the virtue, effect, and merits of his death, that died upon the Crosse. Who offered himself a full, propitiatory, everlasting, and perfect sacrifice of redemption, and atonement, once for all our sins before or after Baptism. And you in his place, offer the Cross, and other his Images, to be thus worshipped of the ignorant people. Affirming that, Hoc modo (ut Dominus jesus reue●…auit Alanus de ●…upe. cuidam devoto) poterit venire in brevi ad amorem & timorem perfectum coelestium By this means (as the Lord jesus revealed to a certain devout man) he might in short time, come to a perfect love, and fear of heavenly things. But in the mean time, the people sticking in visible and earthly things, fallen without all fear or love of God's truth, even to a perfection of Idolatry. believing too much in such feigned revelations, and rejecting the word of God, wherein Christ hath, not to a certain devout man, but to all the world, revealed the express will of his heavenly father, in plain words, forbidding the worship of all Images, yea of all creatures, as heathen and wicked Idolatry. The Papists shifted that their Images are no thing like the heathen Idols. But you still cry, that your Images are not Idols, as the heathens Images were, and therefore your worship of them is not Idolatry, as was there's. I omit the examining of this sequel, M. Stapl. And will only as now deny the antecedent. The which though other more at large have improved, and I have somewhat touched it before, yet because at the very instant of the writing hereof, there came to my hands a paper, by a certain friend of yours (whom I spare to name) wherein was contained (as he affirmed) such reasons as were unanswerable, to prove that your Images are nothing like the Heathen Idols. Although, perusing the same by Doctor Saunders foresaid book of Images, it seemeth to be drawn from his collections, of the differences between Idols and Images, and so by some other already may be full answered: A popish libel of the differences between their Images and Heathen idols. yet I thought it not amiss, even here to set it down, and see, by this which already is spoken, how easily or hardly it is to be answered unto. The differences between the Idols of the Gentiles, and our Images, saith this Papists paper. First, some kind of Idols, had no truth at all in nature, The first lisserence▪ of proportion to the natural truth. but were feigned monsters: all our Images have that essential truth extant in the world, which they represent. I answer: first, for some of their Idols you say truth. Secondly, for all your Images you make a loud lie. As for ensample, the Image of S. Sunday pictured like a man, with all kind of 〈◊〉 about him, as though he had been john of all crafts. Whereas, for the being of any such man, there was no such essential truth at all extant in the world that it represented. And yet for your Images this is a general rule, that you must most firmly believe, Quod qualem imaginem Alanus de ●…upe. vides ad extra oculo corporali, ●…lem Christus habet similitudinem aed infra, secundum esse divinale & Ideale. That, what manner of Image thou seest outward with thy corporal eye, Christ hath the same similitude inward, according to his divine being, and conceived form. And the like he saith of the Virgin: ●…deò habeatur Imago Mariae virgins pulchra, quoniam turpis Imago (teste Maximo) non est vera Imago Ibidem. Mariae, sed falsa. Cum ipsa Maria sit totius pulchritudinis, decoris, amoris, regina, & domina. Let a fair Image be had of the virgin Mary, because a foul Image (as Maximus witnesseth) is not the true Image of Mary, but a false Image, sith Mary is the Queen and Lady of fairness, comeliness and love. And M. Saunders concluding this point, saith: For look what proportion is between thing and thing, the same proportion is between sign and sign of those things. By which rule of levelling the Image according to the essential truth extant in the world of the party represented by the Image: as many other Saints, yea Christ's, and the blessed Virgins may be proved Idols, being pictured amiss, and swerving from their truth represented: so by no means can you defend your consecrated cake, your three faced picture of God the father, your winged and feathered Angels, your pictures of Saint Saviour, and Saint Sunday, from being manifest Idols. And therefore between these some Images of yours, and those some Idols of there's, there is no difference in this first point. Secondly, all their Idols were without truth concerning The second difference, of Images and idols, of faith and religion. faith and religion: All our Images contain such a truth as belongeth to Christ's faith and religion. I answer: Not Images belong to the truth of Christ's faith & religion. As for religion, all the religion that Christ ordained, was without Images. Images in diverse places are forbidden to be worshipped, Custodi●…e vos à simulac●…ris. 1. john 5. Rom. 10. Keep yourselves from Images. And they are in no place bidden to be worshipped. As for faith, Fides ex auditu, auditus autem per verbum dei. Faith cometh by hearing, hearing by the word of God. But the worship of Images is without the word of god, yea (as is already showed by your schoolmen) it is but of the Church's ordinance: but no faith can be with out God's word: the worship then of Images is without the truth of Christ's faith & religion: & so likewise in this 2. point they differ not from the worship of the heathen Idols. Thirdly, sacrifice was done to their Idols, not so to our The. 3. difference, of sacrifice. Images, but only to God. I answer: first, in that you made such sacrifice to God, as God never ordained, and made more daily renewing of sacrifices to him, not contented with the only sacrifice that he made once for all: therein you committed plain Idolatry, and your massing sacrifice was the Idol. Secondly, where you say, you made sacrifice only to God: I have proved already, in plain confession of yourselves, that you made sacrifice to the blessed virgin also. Thirdly, that you say, they made sacrifice to their Idols, so do not you: If sacrifice be the worship of Latria, then so do you, by your own tales. but what matter maketh this, when you sacrificed to them, of whom the Images were the pictures: and what differed that from the Heathens doing, that sacrificed to jupiter, before the Image of jupiter, or honoured him by sacrifice in his Image? which things you did also, and therefore without any difference herein, both there's and your Images are Idols. Fourthly, their Images belonged many times to very wicked The. 4. difference, of wicked men and Saints. men: our Images which we worship, belong always to blessed Saints. Not always, M. St. to blessed Saints, except you jumble God & his Saints together. Yea some of those that you worship for blessed Saints, are doubted of yourselves to be damned spirits: belike they were little better than wicked men. But, how blessed saints some of them were whom you worshipped, read even your own writer, sir Thomas Mores works of Images & pilgrimages, & you shall see little difference between there's & yours, except yours were the worse, even in that simulata sanctitas est duplex iniquita, Their sergeant sainctship made them double hypocrites. Fourthly, some of the Gentiles professed themselves to adore The. 5. difference, of the worship of unsensible creatures. the unsensible wood and stone: we do not profess or teach any such thing, but rather the contrary. I answer, if some of the Gentiles did teach this among them: many, & those that are counted your chiefest schoolmen, do even the same, both professing & teaching to adore the very unsensible wood of the cross, & that with the same honour that you adore Christ himself: and all because he died thereon, and because it was besprent with his blood. Neither do you it for the form sake, as now and then you would shifted of the matter (which nevertheless, God wots, is but a poor shift, to save you from Idolatry, for why should you worship a figure, more than a substance?) but even the very wooden pieces, as you bear us in hand, of the cross, you worship, & many other unsensible substances, nails, ropes, pillars, thorns. etc. As for your gross worshipping of unsensible wood, stone, metal, and payntings: none is so unsensible, that he knoweth it not. And therefore in this point there is no difference: if there be, it is, that your worship was the more unsensible of the twain. Sixthly▪ other of the Gentiles thought a certain substance The. 6. difference of the substance of God. of God to lie privy in the Idol: we make our Images only remembrances of holy things, and not to contain any Godhead. I answer: First, that you make them only remembrances of holy things, is a manifest untruth. For besides the remembrances, you add worshippings to them: but to remember only a thing, is not withal to worship a thing. Secondly, you lie, in that you ascribed many helps to Images, many miracles to be done by them, and that life, blood, motion, speaking, virtue, pity, grace, and power was in them, as is already plainly showed by the ensamples of Discipulus, by the stories of your Legends, and by the doctrine of your Scholewriters. All which is far more, than only a remembrance of holy things. If you say you ascribe this, not to the material stocks or stones, or to the form and Image, but to the power and grace of God in them: sith the power and grace of God, is a certain substance of God: what differeth this also from that you say of the Gentiles, they thought a certain substance of God to lie privy therein, and do not you think even the same? yea, and that the very essential Idea of God, and his very Divinity Alanus de rupe. and Godhead, lyethand is, wholly, really, principally, and infinitely, and that not so much by his power, but by his grace, and his glory also in Images, as I have showed you out of Alanus, citing the Schoolmen for it: and which of the Gentiles went so far? in this point therefore you agree with the Heathens Idols, or rather you go beyond them. seventhly, the wisest of the Gentiles, adored by the Image The. 7. difference, of the governance of unreasonable creatures. of juno or of Vulcanus, unreasonable creatures, as the earth or the fire, and by them certain Gods who governed those Creatures: we adore, by our Images, no unreasonable creature, but only blessed souls, and one God their maker. I answer: first, by this your confession, that you adore blessed souls by Images, and as you said before in the fourth point, our ●…ages which we worship▪ belong always to blesled Saints, since both you worship them, and by them worship Sainct●…: you prove your seine●… liars, in saying in your fift point, we make them only remembrances of holy things. And so your points being not truly knit together, but tagged with lies, to trausse up your Images, to make them not seem Idols? you worship not only God and blessed souls, but even the Devil, for he is the Father john. 8. of lies. Secondly, to that you say, we adore by our Images no unreasonable creature: you are confuted by your adoration of the Cross, as is before alleged, unless you can prove the Cross to be a reasonable creature. Which except you can do, this also is a manifest vutruth, a●…appeareth by this argument: The cross the Christ died on is an unreasonable creature: But by other Crosses, you worshipped the Cross that Christ died on, as Images of it: Ergo, By your Images you worshipped an unreasonable creature. Which is contrary to that you say, by our Images we worship no unreasonable creature. Thirdly, where you say you worship only blessed souls and one God their maker: if you mean by souls, the more principal and the immortal part of man, as you seem to mean, and is commonly taken: then is this an other lie, for you worship the bodies also of diverse, yea and sundry parts of their bodies, arms, skulls, legs, etc. which are no souls. Or how soever, for part or whole, you take it: you escape not a lie, because, besides your pretended worship of God, and confessed worship of the blessed souls: you worship Angels also which are neither souls nor God. Fourthly, to the doing of the Gentiles in this point of worshipping certain Gods, who governed those creatures fire or earth▪ whereby they worshipped them: even the self same thing do you, not only in your relics, which are unreasonable Creatures, but for other unreasonable creatures also that serve to our use, as fire, earth, seas, prisen, fetters, corn, barrenness, fruitfulness, agues, pestilence, botches, etc. you gave to the Saints a governance of them. Yea, for cattles, pigs, horses, sheep, you ascribed to the Saints a protection of them, as your legend is full of such patrons for sundry things. If you say, you called them not Gods: I have proved that also, even by your legend. If you say, you gave not them the principal government of these things, nor that which they had, they had it not of themselves, but of God, that gave them such a grace & governance: what say you herein, that even the Heathens do not say? that all that the particular governances of their petit Gods, cometh à ●…oue summo, from the great jupiter, or à Primo motore, from the first mover, and so likewise herein, your Images are not different from the Heathens Idols. Eightly, The Devil ruled their Idols, the same Devils fear The. 8. difference, of the fear of devils. our Images which are set up in a right Faith. I answer: first, this in one sense is truly said, he fears those your Images which are set up in a right faith: but none of your Images, are set up in a right faith: he fears therefore none of your Images. A right faith is grounded (as is Rom. 10. said) on God's word: 〈◊〉 God's word▪ bids not Images to be set up to be worshipped: therefore your Images that are set up to be worshipped, are not set up in a right Faith. Secondly, that the Devil fears your Images: if you How the Devil is afraid of Images. mean he fears your Images should be taken away, you say true. If you mean they make him afraid to see them, or to come nigh them: you say untrue, for both he came nigh them, and was in them, and ruled them. But he feared them as he did holy-water, and as he did fear the great bell in the steeple when he sat upon it. But these are but childish bugs to fear the simple people with all. The birds bewrayed them, worms eat them, the spiders made cobw●…bs in them, and is the Devil afraid of them? the Devil he is as soon M. Stapl. Not, not, he delighteth in Idolatry. Excuse this Idolatry, that I have showed was committed to them, and then tell us he fears them. Which, except you can do, even as he ruled the Heathen Idols: so that he ruled yours, his very practices declared. He fears not deceit, juggling knacks, crafty conveyances, forgeries, & feigned miracles: but rather is the ruler of them. But many of your Images, yea the most famous Images, that could sweated, frown, smile, nod, move, go, speak, etc. were wrought by such crafty legerdemains: as the vices and devices of them, have since been openly seen, at the pulling down of them. Which argueth that the Devil feared them not, but ruled them, as he did the Heathens Idols. Ninthly, The Devils maintained their Idols, the same covet The. 9 Difference of the devils hate of Images. to throw down our Images. I answer: this is in effect, all one with the other. For Quem ●…etuuni oderunt, quem oderunt perisse expetunt. Whom they fear, they hate: whom they hate, they wish to perish. But (as is showed) he feared them not, but delighted in them. Ergo, he hated them not, nor coneted to throw them down, but maintaineth them, with all his might and main, with all his craft and illusions, and maketh such stir against the word of God, and the setters forth thereof, for them: that neither the Priests of Baal made the like against the Prophets, nor Alexander the Coppersmith against Paul, Act 19 and other Heathen Idolaters against the Christian martyrs: as your Pope, and you his Priests do, against the Gaspel and the Protestants, to maintain the worship of your Images. And to say the truth you have greater loss, by the decay of the worship of them, than ever the Coppersmith (which had gains for making the Images of Diana) had loss by S. Paul for speaking against them. Infinite was the gains that came toombling in by your Images. And all this fat is in the fire, by throwing them down: If then Images maintained such filthy lucre, their maintenance must needs be of the Devil. And God by his word is the very overthrow of them, as he was before of the Heathen Idols. Tenthly, to be short, their Idols were dedicated by Infidels, The. 10. difference, of a virtuous & good intent. to an Heathenish purpose: our Images be dedicated to a virtuous intent. Therefore our Images being so far different from the heathenish Idols, are injuriously called Idols. I answer: First, this common argument of good or virtuous intent, is not sufficient for to make a difference herein. Especially, the Heathen even in worshipping their Idols, having likewise as good an intent and virtuous, (as téemed unto them) as your good & virtuous intent seemeth unto you. They thought they did well, and so do you: & this virtuous intent, as it serveth you both, so it serveth all Idolaters. But you aught to make a distinction of good in deed, & good in appearance, else you are more unskilful than the Heathen, Two kinds of good. that made a difference between, Revera bonum, & that quod videtur bonum, That that is good in deed, and that that seemeth good. This distinction herein, aught you to have made: & not stand on the intent, which was in them, as good as yours, as they thought: for they purposed not to do ill, but good, though they did ill and not good. And why? because they did not order their purpose, by God's purpose, yea by God's commandment, not only in the worship of Images, which he stately forbiddeth, but even in the worship of God himself. We must not do that which seemeth good in our own eyes: but that which God hath commanded, we Deut. 12. should do, and in no point serve therefrom. If we do serve, the heathens good intent will no more bear us out, than it did the heathen, no more than it did Saul, or 1. Reg. 15. 2. Reg. 16. john. 16. Uza, no more than it shall do those that Christ says, shall kill the Prophets of God, and think they do God good service. All these are a like in good intent and virtuous purpose, but not in good matter nor virtuous cause. Wherein, you failing together with them, your intent maketh so little difference of your Images, from their Idols, that it maketh them more alike. And therefore the conclusion, for any of these ten points alleged, may well be inferred: your Images are not injuriously called Idols. Thus much, to answer one of your muttering Libels, that you scatter among the simple people, whining that we slander you with the term of Idols for Images. By this little, let them judge whether we slander you or no for Idolaters: and whether they be Idols or no: and how faint and feigned shifts you make to find out difference between their Images and yours. Wherein also you would blear the simple, for who denieth, but that there is a difference of the one from the other? but not such as may make either the one or the other no Idol. If they were no such Idols, they were as ill, if not worse, but were they not so ill, yet ye prove not them no Idols for all this. Well, you have spoken of the difference, and now might I, if I had not been overlong already, requited your ten differences, more than with twice ten likenesses of your Images and there's, to prove them Idols both. But you will say, all this is an outroad, neither properly your matter. Be it so for once, if you will, although in deed it be not, but is directly to your quarrel of Images. Yet to draw nearer to your charge of julianus the Apostata for the Crosse. If you affirm that in julianus time the Christians worshipped the Cross: then, as he slandered those Christians, so do you slander them. Helen, that you say found out the Cross, worshipped it not. Epiphanius that see the picture of Christ in a place prove to be worshipped, rend it in pieces. Cyrillus that answereth this slander of julianus, objecting to them that they worshipped the Cross, doth he grant that they worshipped it? He saith no such thing, he only mentioneth, how they had it as a memorial of Christ's death, and to move them to think of mortifying themselves. And where had they it, in their Churches? had they Roodlofts to set it in? set they it on an altar? had it any sensing to it? creeping, kneeling, capping, crouching, praying, offering to it? if there had been any such matters, we should by some of your side, have herded of it ere now. Not M. St. there was no such Idolatry then, as your Romish Church hath now, far passing the Idolatry even of the Emperor julianus. He was an open enemy to Christ, & for his sake, to his Cross, & to all that was his, but you are privy enemies and hypocrites, that under the pretence of The comparison between julianus and the Papists. friendship and honour, as it were with Herodes pretenced worship, & judas kiss, salute Christ & his Cross, & rob him of the price that he paid upon the Cross, spoil him of his glory, & bereave him of his people. Thus do you that pretend such worship of the Crosse. Which judas treachery and manifest Idolatry, only because we escry: you cry out upon us, that we be like julianus the Apostata, yourselves being worse than he. We remove these abuses from the wooden Cross, that Christ himself might be glorified, and we with S. Paul might truly say, Absit mihi gloriari, nisi in cruce domini Gala. 6. nostr●… jesu Christi, God forbidden I should glory, but in the Cross of our Lord jesus Christ: that is, in the merits & victory of his death & passion, & not in the wood that he was crucified upon. Which notwithstanding we hate not, but we speak against the confidence that you put therein, the worship that you make thereto, & the lies and fables that you forge thereon. Erasmus says, the Cross is so grown among you, & hath so many pieces, that if all were put together, a whole ship would not bear it, & yet when Christ suffered it was but one man's burden. How ioylylie the Cross is grown among the Papists. So iolily have you multiplied it since, by your lying Arithmetic. Now, all those pieces, by your doctrines, must have divine honour: yea to all your Images, we must not care, how much honour we give, & yet all this notwithstanding, there is no Idolatry committed, & we that speak against it, are heretics & apostates, & you forsooth are good & holy catholics' You ask us next, what we say to the Pelagians, affirming Stapl. 57 b Pelagians. that children not baptized shall be saved. I answer, if you had any regard of your salvation M. St. you would not still thus wittingly stain your conscience with slanderous and notorious untruths. We deny not baptism to infants, either as the Pelagians did, nor at Infant's baptism. all. Nor we make it to no purpose as did they, that held the infants were not born in sin: and that original sin was properly no sin. These are the Papists assertions not ours. And hereon did Pelagius reject baptism. But we say Psalm. 51. Our confession. with David the infant is conceived in sin, and born in iniquity. And that this original sin, is both his own sin, and very sin. And that he must be regenerate, or else he cannot be saved, and that this regeneration is especially wrought from about by the spirit of God, which Christ adjoineth to the water. And that the water is the outward sign ordained of Christ, as necessary to seal up unto our faiths, Gods spiritual adoption & regeneration. Only, we deny such absolute necessity of this outward sign, that god which ordained it to be the ordinary sign, is necessarily tied The Papists presumption in judging no infants saved that be not baptized. thereunto, as you Papists affirm. And there upon presumptuously determine, that no christian infants can be saved, except they have the outward sign also, and so you bury them out of the ordinary burial of Christians as damned. This hard and hasty judgement we reject and confute, even with your own school Doctors: that make three Three kinds of Baptism. kinds of baptism, Fluminis, flaminis, & sanguinis, Of water, which is ordinary: of the spirit, as where the ordinary baptism by water faileth: and of blood, that is to weet, by Martyrdom. Moreover baptism succéedeth circumcision, but the faithful jews, did not judge their children condemned, that died before the day appointed for circumcision, but rested in such cases on Gods promise' to Abraham. Vt sim deus tuus & seminis tui post te, That I might be thy God, and the God Gen. 17. of thy seed after thee. And if he be likewise now our God, that are the spiritual seed of Abraham and true Israelites, is he not also the God of our seed so well as of there's? why shall we then measure his grace or mercy (which is both ordinary, and extraordinary, and above all his works) by his ordinary sign? Chiefly when Christ the author of Baptism, and into whom by baptism we be not only initiate, but incorporate, testifying that he which believeth Marc. 16. and is baptized shall be saved: reversed not his sentence so hardly as you do: He that is not baptized shall be damned: but, he that believeth not shall be damned. So that the apprehension of salvation, is ascribed of Christ to faith. Which faith, the outward sign●… of baptism sealeth up unto us. As Saint Paul reasoneth of Abraham, in the fourth to the Romans. Beatus vir cui non imput●…it. etc. Rom. 4. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth no sin. Came this blessedness then, upon the circumcised, or upon the Baptism not the cause of salvation. uncircumcised? We say verily, how that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it reckoned in the time of circumcision, or in the time before he was circumcised? not in the time of circumcision, but in the time he was yet uncircumcised. And he received the sign of circumcision, as a seal of righteousness, which is by faith, which faith he had yet being uncircumcised, that he should be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised. And as Saint Paul reasoned thus, and Saint Stephen Act. 7. likewise maketh the same reason against the jews, that tied salvation to the Sacrament of circumcision: so do we use the self same reason against you, holding the error of the necessity of the outward sign of baptism, that the jews held of the sign of circumcision, saying that all were The Papists in the opinion of Sacraments very jews and Pharisies. damned that were uncircumcised, as you say, all are damned that are not baptized in water. Thus are you become very jews and Pharisees, that upbraid to us that we be Pelagians. But you say. Your Masters are in this point worse than the Pelagians, as well for that some of them have said, that Stapl. 57 b some infants though unbaptised shall be damned, and some other though unbaptised shall be saved. What mean you to reckon thus by sums, M. Stap? Were those some worse than the Pelagians, that said, some though unbaptised shall be damned? how much then are you worse than they, who say all that be unbaptised shall be The Papists worse than the Pelagians. damned? And if you may say all such shall be damned, may not we say some such shall be damned? as though all includeth not some, and so yourselves are worse than the Pelagians were. And I trow, it is yet somewhat surer, or at the lest less danger, to say some unbaptised shall be damned, than to affirm it on all. And do you think, this is so heinous a matter to affirm it on some? I pray you, how say you by the Turks, jews, and Heathens infants unbaptised, may we not say it of some of them, if we let ours pass? Now, if this be so sore a saying, belike you hold opinion, that none of their infants though unbaptised shall be damned: and if you do so, why sound you fault with us before, for saying some unbaptised shall be saved? If we may neither say some unbaptised shall be saved, nor yet some unbaptised shall be damned, what will you have us say Master Stap? But look how your own sayings hung together. All unbaptised shall be damned, and yet all unbaptised shall be saved. For what do you else say in condemning us, for saying, some not baptized shall be damned▪ the contradictory whereof must needs be this, all not baptized shall be saved. And so by your contradiction to us, you speak flat contraries to yourself immediately together. As for that you reprehend some of us, for saying, some unbaptised shall be damned, and some unbaptised shall be saved: neither is there between these sayings any repugnancy, both may be true well enough: neither is there anyflashood in either saying. For, as it is true to say, some uncir cumcised were damned: so is it true to say, some unbaptised shall be damned. And as some uncircumcised in the flesh, were saved: so some unbaptised in water, shall be saved. For, circumcision than was that to them, that baptism is now to us. Thus, as these some, that say either of these sayings or both, of some unbaptised, said nothing but the evident truth: so your warbling thereat showeth not only your falsehood, but your envy to be so spiteful, that whatsoever we say, you will control it be it true or false, only because we say it. Yea although The Papists care not what they say against us, so they say somewhat. yourself say the same, & much more to the same effect. But howsoever you contrary yourself & cannot tell what you say: yet so that you say somewhat against us, be it true or false, good or bad, wise or fond, all is wisely, well, and truly said. Thus hath pride sotted your affection on yourselves, & envy blinded your judgement on us. But you leave us not thus. And some of them (say you) especially calvin and other Stapl. 57 b sacramentaries say, that they shall come without baptism to the Kingdom of heaven, which the Pelagians dared not say, but that they should have the life everlasting, putting a difference, but peevishly, betwixt these two. In deed it was a very peevish putting of a difference betwixt Peevishe differences. coming to the kingdom of heaven, and to everlasting life, but I pray you M. Stap, do not yourself, and that even here full peevishly, put this self same peevish difference: you say, that some of us say, that infants unbaptised shall be saved. And some of them (say you, as though it were another manner of matter and far more heinous) specially calvin and other Sacramentaries say, that they shall come without baptism to the kingdom of heaven. What difference is there between these sayings, they shall be saved, and they shall come to the kingdom of heaven? Is not this as peevish a difference, as between the coming to the kingdom of heaven, & the having everlasting life? what differeth either of these from being saved▪ If you say, you make the difference between those that be unbaptised, & those that be without baptism, this is as peevish as the other, if not more peevish of the twain. Now, if there be no difference between these sayings, some though unbaptised shallbe saved, & that they shall come without baptism to the kingdom of heaven: is not this then most peevishly put of you, to say some of them say thus, & some of them, especially calvin and other Sacramentaries (for so you please to term us) say thus? and yet all these sums, special sums, and other sums, agree in one some, without any some or other special or not special difference at all, saving in bore words. Do ye not herein shew●… yourselves as peevish as the Pelagians? For what did calvin especially, or the other, in saying they should come to the Kingdom of heaven, more than the other before did say, that they should be saved? But that you would show a difference that you have of special spite to calvin, more than to any other. Are you able to prove this difference, that some shall be saved, & not come to the kingdom of heaven▪ or that any shall come to the kingdom of heaven, & not be saved? I have never read this difference before M. St. And therefore it soundeth like a very peevish difference in mine ears. I have herded and read of your peevish differences, between Lymbus Lymbus patium . patrum, and heaven, but what is that to this difference? for if they shall be saved, they shall come to the kingdom of heaven. Purgatory. Yea, you tell us that those that be in your Purgatory, which besides the continuance you say, differeth little or nothing from hell, yet say you, they shall all be saved that are there, that is to say, they shall come from thence to the kingdom of heaven. I have herded likewise on the other part, how you say there is a difference between being damned, and being in hell: but God wot a peevish difference also, feigned of Plato and Virgil, and that you shall find master Stap. if ever you come together. But God save the child as they say, the worst I wish you master Stap. is that you never feel that difference. But that God in time give you grace, to repent these your peevish and fond strivings against his truth, and malicious slanderings of his ministers. And so master Stapleton, you shall find no difference betwixt the being saved, and the coming to the kingdom of heaven. Now where you say, you will mount higher, to fetch the Stapl. 57 b Simon Magus. Martion. Manicheus. race of our generation, even to Simon Magus, to Martion and Manicheus of whom Luther and Caluine have learned their doctrine against free will. You did well master Stapleton, to mount higher betimes, for if you had go but one inch lower, when you objected Pelaganisme to us for Baptism, you had plunged into Pelagianisme yourself, even in your free will, as we shall see when we come thereto. But no marvel if your malice maketh you willing and free to slander us, with the opinions of Simon Magus, Martion, and Manes in free-will: you were suddenly mounted up so high, like a Buzzarde, that your eyes could not discern the great difference between The heresy of Martion and Manes, for fatal necessity and more God's 〈◊〉 one. those Heretics false fables, and the true doctrine of Luther and Caluine thereon. They ascribed all things to a fatal enforcing necessity proceeding from divers good and bad Gods as they said. And look you to it in the honouring of your Saints as I have showed, that you make not more Gods that they did, besides your other errors. And what is this Heresy of there's, like the godly doctrine taught by Luther & Calvin, out of the word of God, against your free will, making yourselves as it were Gods with Simon Magus, to mount up to heaven at your own free will & pleasure? But had you mounted a little higher, them should you in deed Luther and calvin's doctrine against free-will. have found out, of whom Luther and Caluine learned their doctrine against free will: even of the holy Apostle S. Paul, that confessed he had no such free-will, to do good or ill at his choice, not not being regenerate. In respect whereof, he had indeed a will to do good, according to the inward man: but by reason of the outwardman, this will was hindered, & so not free but unperfect, as he says of himself, S●… enim quod Rom. 7. What little freedom of will S. Paul had. lex, etc. For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin, because I wots not what I do. For what I would do, that I do not, but what I hate, that I do. If I do now that which I would not, I grant to the law that it is good. So then now, it is not I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me, that is to say, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing. To will is present with me, but I find no means to perform that which is good. For I do not that good thing, which I would: but that evil do I, which I would not. Finally, if I do that which I would not, than it is not I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me, doth it. I find then by the law, that when I would do good, evil is present with me. I delight in the law of God concerning the inward man: but I find another law in my members, rebelling against the law of my mind, and subduing me unto the law of sin, which is in my members. O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from this body of death? I thank God, through jesus Christ our Lord. So then, I may self in my mind serve the law of God, and in my flesh the law of sin. Lo M. St. this is all the will that S. Paul felt & confessed to be in himself, while he lived, even in respect of the inward man. But God wots, this is far from free will. If then the will of the Saints of God be thus hindered by the The infirmity of will in the regenerate man. 1. Cor. 2. The will of the unregenerate man. flesh, that it can not freely will nor work: what shall we think of the will of the fleshly man? forsooth saith S. Paul, Animalis homo non percipit ●…a quae sunt spiritus Dei, The fleshly man understandeth not those things, that are of the spirit of God, for they are folly to him, neither can he perceive them, because they are examined spiritually. But what will hath man in that, whereof he hath no perceiving? Yea, is he not rather altogether unwilling, to that, which seemeth folly to him? and for this cause, the flesh striveth Gal. 5. and rebelleth against the spirit. He hath therefore no will to any goodness at all. Where are then those Pura naturalia, the pure natural qualities of inclination, conversion, and will in man of himself, to move God with all, that you and your Schoolmen crack so much upon? The question here, is this, whereas our first parents The very question of free-will. before their fall, had in themselves free will to have sinned, or to have not sinned, and misusing themselves & their free will to sin, lost themselves and their free will to have not sinned also: whether, after this corruption of man's nature, it hath yet free will will to good, or not to sin, as it had before it fallen. To this question, if you had (as I said) mounted S. Paul's reasons against free-will. Eph. 2. so high as the Apostle: he would have answered you, that we were dead in sin. Cum mortui essetis in delictis & peccatis: When you were dead in offences and sins: but a dead thing hath no will at all: When therefore we were dead to sin, we had no will at all to goodness. He would have answered you that we are not able of ourselves, to think any 1. Cor. 3. good thought at all: but if we have a will to any good thing, we must needs think some thought thereon: we are not therefore of ourselves sufficient to have a will to any good thing. And if we have any good will, this cometh not of ourselves, but of God: not of old Adam, but of new Adam: it is not a natural virtue of man, but a supernatural gift of god. Deus est enim qui operatur●…n vobis & velle & perficere pro Philip. 2. bona voluntate. It is God that worketh in you both to will & to perform it, according to his good will. If then it be God's gift, Quid gloriaris quasi non acceperis? why boastest thou (O proud Papist) as though thou receivest it not of God, but thou hadst it of thy own, to move God as thou sayst, Ex congruo ex part liber●… arbit●…ij, of congruity, to deserve Antoninus' part. 4 tit. 9 cap. 7. §. 1. heaven for thy works in consideration of thy free will. If you had mounted thus high M. Stapl. you may see how S. Paul would have pulled down, this surmounting pride of yours. But, had you s●…oonke by him never so free, and mounted up to Christ, he would have told you in plain speech, that you were but thorns, briars, & ill trees of your Luc. 6. The reasons of Christ against free-will. john. 3. Math. 16. john. 8. selves, on which no grapes, nor 〈◊〉, nor any good fruit can be gathered. That you were but flesh, and that nothing but flesh could come of flesh, and that flesh and blood revealeth not Christ. He would for your free will, say unto you, as he said to the craking Phariseis▪ Uox ex patre Diabolo estis, & desideria patris vestr●… vultis facere. You are of your father the Devil, and your will is to do the lusts of your father. This is all the free will that he ascribeth to man of himself. And if he have any better will, it is not but of him that says, Sine me nihil potestis facere, without me you can john. 15. do nothing. We can not do, nor will, aught that good is without him. Yea we are (before he give us a will thereto) so unwilling, that we are even drawn thereto, Nemo venit john. 6. ad me nisi pater meus traxerit e●…m: Not man cometh to me (says Christ) unless my father draw him. Omnia traham ad john. 12. meips●…, I will draw all things to me. We came not then of our own free will if we were drawn to him. Ensample of this draft, even in S. Paul himself. I grant, our unwillingness Act. 9 is changed to an obedient willingness, & to a free will also. We are free, in respect of delivery from the chains of darkness & bondage of sin: S●… v●…s filiu●… liber averit vere liberi er●…is: If john. 8. the son make you●… free then are you free in deed: but this is the freedom of the spirit, & the spirit helpeth our infirmities, Rom. 8. which infirmities yet hinder the freedom of this will, even in the Saints of God, as I noted in Saint Paul's complaint before. Yea even Christ our Saviour who took our infirmities without sin, in his agony to his Father said, Non sicut ego vol●… sed sicut t●… vis, Not as I will, but as Math 26. thou will't, subduing his own will for our ensample, to his father's will, and will you wilful Papists crack of your free will? But if you let pass Christ also, as you use to do, and fetching a further race of all mankind's, mounting so high as Adam the first man of all: you should there have found in Alams will. deed this your free will. But there you should have seen it lost again, and in his loins, all our free wills with all, and himself and us also. Saving that a second Adam hath found us, quickened us, and made us free again, of his free mercy, not of our free-will works. So that what we have now either in will or work, to do any thing acceptable to his most blessed will and pleasure: the same in deed is in us, because his spirit is in us, but not of us, but of him, bringing forth in us, Uelle & perficere, Both to will and Phil. 2. to work, as fruits of his holy spirit within us. And if this agree with the pestiferous Fables and lies of Simon Magus, Martion, and Manes: than you have mounted fair and well. If not, had you mounted far higher than they writ Simon Magus did, yea than ever Lucifer did, yet as Simon Magus fallen down and broke his neck, as Lucifer was thrown down to hell fire: so must you M. Stapleton with shame come down again, for fear you be hurled down with them. Now, if as you rashly mounted up, you will orderly come down, through out all ages, as it were by steps, you may descend by this doctrine, even to your own time again. But I pray you M. Stapleton in your coming down, let The affinity of the Papists with Pelagius. Pelagius be your host. What, man, drink with him at lest, one free draft of his erroneous doctrine. He is a free companion, and will let you drink at will, freely, and he hath pleasannt liquor well sweetened with pure natural drugs, and brewed with strong spices of your own ability, perfection, and merits, delectable to the palace of man's self-love. But sweet sops must have sour sauce, they say▪ This pleasant error, is but a sugared poison, and as ill on the other part, as S●…non Magus fatal necessity was, if not a great deal worse. But you will come near us, and touch (you say) the very Stapl. 57 b foundation and well spring of this your new Gospel, which altogether is grounded upon justification without good works. In that also you draw very nigh to the said Simon Magus. Do we draw nigh him, M. St? God send grace you justification. draw not with him, and that many of your works, yea even of your good works, and such as you ascribe justification unto, be not such as Simon Magus and his disciples works were. We ground not upon justification without good Good works. works, you ground upon lies without good consciences, that thus do slander us. justification in deed may well be without your good works, yea, it can not be with them. The good works that God commandeth, justification bringeth forth, and therefore it can not be without them, because they be the necessary fruits of justification, we sever not them therefore from justification, but discern them from the Act of God in justifying. Not to make ourselves our own justifiers, in whole, or in part. We discern them from the causes of our justification, and ascribe the causes to the love, favour, and mercies of God the father, for Christ his sons sake, by the sanctification of his holy spirit. We discern our works from the merit and desert of justification, much more from the merit of our salvation, and say, it is only wrought by his merits, and given to us gratis, freely. All have sinned (saith S. Paul) and want Rom. 3. the glory of God, but they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption which is in jesus Christ, whom God hath appointed to be the reconciliation, through faith by his blood coming between. Which word freely, is contrary to merit, and excludeth it, as S. Paul reasoneth. S●… ex gratia Rom. 11. iam non ex operibus, alioquin gratia non est gratia. If it come of grace, then cometh it not of works, otherwise grace is not grace. That is to say, it is not free favour, but bond favour, as deserved or bought As Barnard said, Non Super cantic. Serm. 17. est quo gratia intre●…, ubi iam meritum occupavit. Where merit hath taken up the room, there is no place for grace to enter And so S. Aug Haec est electio gratia. etc. This is the election of grace, because all good merits of man are prevented. For Lib. de Patientia. cap. 2. if it were given by any good merits: then were it not given free, but rendered as aught. And by this means, it is not by a true name called grace, where reward is. As the same Apostle saith, it is not imputed according to grace, but according to duty, but if that it be true grace, that is to say, freely given, it finds naught in man, to whom it may be worthily owing. Infinite are the places that may be cited out of the fathers, and many are by others at large collected in this behalf: yea, I have showed you Thomas his judgement already therein, who is the prince of all your schoolmen. For merit of works therefore in justification, we are of S. Paul's mind. Arbitramur hominem justificari fide absque operibus Rom. 3. legis: we suppose that man is justified by faith without the works of the law. Thus, in the point of justification, works are excluded, as he said immediately before: Where is then thy boasting? it is excluded. By what law, of works? no, but by the law of faith. Although our How works are excluded, and how not. works are not at all excluded, in respect of the fruits of those that are already justified. For they are ipsius factura. etc. His workmanship, created in jesus Christ in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them. But Ephes. 2. before this workmanship of justification, we were but very enemies. And therefore, as saint Augustine says: Quae merita bona tunc habere poter amus, quando Deum non diligebamus? Contra Pelag. & Coelest. de gratia Christi. cap. 26. Faith. Rom. 11. Rom. 14. Phil. 1. What good merits could we then have, when as yet we loved not God? Without faith it is impossible to please God. And, what soever is not of faith, is sin. Now, this faith, (which likewise is not of us, but is the gift of God) we discern from works: because it hath relation to the only mercies of God, promised in Christ unto us. Which promises, faith catching hold upon, is the only means and instrument that God hath given us, to receive the free offer of his grace, and to apply to us forgiveness of our sins. And so steadfastly beléening the same, we are justified, by God only, as the efficient and active worker: by Christ only, as the formal cause, in whom our righteousness consists: and by faith only, as the instrument given of God unto us, whereby we receive the same. And this saith S Paul, exemplifying it by Abraham. Quid enim dicit scriptura? For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was imputed to Rom. 4. him for righteousness. But to him that worketh, reward is not imputed according to grace, but according to duty. But unto him that worketh not, but believeth in him that justifieth the wicked, his faith is imputed to righteousness, according to the purpose of the grace of God. And this is that we say, faith only justifieth, that How faith only justifieth. is, faith is the only eye that seeth, the only hand that catcheth hold upon, the only means whereby we receive, the only instrument wherewith we apply to ourselves the mercies of God, pardoning our sins, by not imputation: The favour and grace of God, offered in Christ unto us, by imputation, of his righteousness, works and merits, and not of ours: but the father accepting his as ours, because we are incorporated into him, & depend by faith on him, in whom the father is only well pleased, and this is our justification. Which is so sealed up in us, by the spirit of God, sanctifying us to do all true good works, that by the shining of them, God is glorified, the flesh subdued, the spirit quickened, our consciences appeased, our faith assured, our lives bettered, our fruits yielded, our duties discharged, our neighbours helped, the godly rejoiced, the weak confirmed, the mouths of the enemies stopped, God's commandment obeyed & practised, and the works of the devil, manifest evil, or hypocritical, detected, abandoned, and destroyed. Not that these things be perfectly done, but that we strive to perfection by them: not that we are clean dead to sin, as the Monks boasted, but that we die daily, as S. Paul saith, and still mortify the old 1. Cor. 15. man. Not that we fulfil all the law of God, or supererogate more, as the Papists vaunt, but that fight continually with Satan, with the world, with flesh and blood, all our works are unperfect. Much less, that by our good works, we satisfy for our ill works. But that when we have all done, we are unprofitable servants, for any satisfaction. Luc. 17. For how can any unperfect goodness (which notwithstanding is not ours, and so we can not boast thereon, Si accepisti, quid gloriaris, if thou hast received it, why boastest 1. Cor. 4. thou?) make satisfaction for perfect wickedness. Lest of all, that for any work we can do, or for any trouble we can suffer, that we should merit the fruition of God, the most perfect thing of all. Non sunt condignae passiones huius temporis Rom. 8. ad futuram gl●…riam quae revelabitur in nobis. The afflictions of this life are not answerable to the glory to come, that shall be revealed in us. But that all the goodness of our good works, & all the reward of them, is of him, that freely for Christ's sake, accepteth them: and for his sake will crown them, because we be Christ's, and Christ is his, and he is all in all in us. This is our doctrine of good works, M. Sta. discerning our own works from the fruits of the spirit of God, working in those, whom he hath justified, holiness and righteousness, all the days of their life, till time h●… glorify them. And thus in deed set we forth the doctrine of justification The ground of this our doctrine of justification. without all works, be they never so good, yea without ourselves too, in whom this justification is wrought. Confessing God to be all in all, and ourselves the workmanship of his hands. And this was the ground, the foundation, and wellspring, not of our new Gospel, as you term it, but of the new Testament, and ancient Gospel of jesus Christ. Upon which foundation we being grounded: farewell all your merits, your supererogatory more than merits, your masses, your justification is the overthrow of all Popery. Rom. 10. traditions, your ceremonies, relics, Images, miracles, invocations, vows, purgatory, & all this bag & baggage, & what soever your other not written verities, or rather false forgeries, which (being not subject to God's righteousness) you have sought before men, to justify yourselves withal. Thus much, M. St. to the heresies you charge us with, for Stapl. 57 b This shall suffice (you say) at this present, to make open to all the world, that they are no secret nor petit heresies, that you and your fellows maintain. What we maintain, M. St. is in deed not secret & hid, john. 18. Luc. 22. Luc. 12. Matth. 21. Math. 5. The word of God is the holy candle that can not be put out. Act 24. (as your mysteries & secret conspiracies are) but as Christ said of his doctrine, is daily taught openly in the temple, is proclaimed on the house top, the corner stone is not cast aside in a hole of our builders, but is made the head stone of the building. The candle is not hid under a bushel. The people may see it, and see by it (as thanks be to God they do more and more full sore against your wills) neither all the puffs of your counterblast can blow the light of this holy candle out. But you cry, all is heresy, heresy. In deed such as was laid to S. Paul's charge, is this heresy of ours. It is soon said, to call it heresy, as you have done all this while, but it would cumber you to prove it heresy, as yet you have not done. You have here laid many things unto us, where either we defend not any such thing at all, nor any such like thing. And yourselves for the most part defend them, or the like, or else a contrary as ill or worse. As for such doctrine as we in deed defend, except your slanderous railing, you have brought not one word against it, to prove any one heresy or error, apart or privy. Nevertheless, because of your instant crying, and importune craking, I have answered a great deal further, than either the principal issue about the princes supremacy, or the volume could well suffer, or than I minded or needed to have done. For, to say truth, you have not, nor you can, object any thing, that your masters have not objected before, and is not answered already by others, chief by that Reverend father in Christ, the Bishop of Sarisburie, whom you so often snatch and snurre at, and not you alone, but all the pack of you, as at him whom God hath raised up, as a singular jewel and instrument to open & confute all your falsehoods. Yet since your impudency is so extreme, still to cry out upon us, as though nothing were done or speaken in the matter, saying: Come forth once, and clear yourself of this Stapl. 57 b 58. a only objection, if you can, being so often pressed therewith. If you maintain old condemned heresies, what are you less than heretics themselves? if you maintain them not, or if they be not heresies that you maintain, clear yourself if you be able. I assure you master Horn, you and all your fellows will never be able to avoid this one only objection. etc. Since you thus still cry and call upon us, as though non●… The cause why I have thus largely answered these objections of the Papists. had answered to these objections, I have therefore thus much at your earnest entreaty, digressed thus far from the principal question, to satisfy, if plain truth (for rhetoric I leave to you and other) may satisfy your importunity: and fed withal your vain humour, that where you have made and translated many brave books, to the which your margin oftentimes sendeth us, to put us in remembrance what a jolly writer you be, and think you must needs be answered, or else all is marred, and then you might say with the Soluters daw, oleum & operam perdidi, I have lost all my cost and labour, if no man should regard my works: you still cry out therefore to be answered, and bid us come forth and we dare, as though it were Golias: and yet any one poor silly stone of our David's bag, will make you, M. Stap. so tottle up your heels, that we may safely cut off your head, the Pope, even with your own weapon, for all these your cries and cracks. But like a lusty champion, as though you had made a sufficient conquest, you say you will forbear at this time to speak Fol. 57 b. of the residue of our noble progenitors. Courageously said, M. St. when you have done the worst you can, and spit out all your poison, then tell us you will forbear us. Well then, at the length, thanks be to God, you have done with our ancestors, as you call them: & have been answered as you have herded. Now let others in gods name judge of us both, as they shall found the falsehood or verity of these matters. May it now please you (M. Sta.) to give me leave a Supra 56. b The ancient heresies and errors that the Papists maintain. The Pharisies Matth. 23. while to run at random the same race that you have done, and to use your own words: Good sir may it please you, favourably to hear your and your masters honourable pedigree, and of their worthy feats and prowess. First, what say you to the Phariseis, that severed themselves from all the people in their strange apparel, in their fastings, prayers, and other points of hypocrisy, described out by Christ, in so much that they preferred themselves above Luc. 14. & 18. Sects of religion. all men, & so were counted, as in whom religion did only or most consist: so like in every point to your Monks and Friars, divided from other men by their rules & profession, and esteemed & called only or chief religious men? What say you again to the Phariseis, that kept the key of Math. 23. Keeping the key of knowledge. knowledge among themselves, and would neither themselves enter in, nor suffer other to enter, but rather be blind guides and leaders of the blind: so like to your Prelates and you pretending to be the pastors of the people, and keepers of the word of God, but so to keep it, that not only you kept the people from it, but for the most part your Priests were ignorant of it, and blinder guides of the blind then ever the Phariseis were. What say you again to the Phariseis, that brought traditions into the Church, besides the word of God, and transgressed the word of God for their traditions sake? Wherein, Traditions. Math. 15. for one tradition of the Phariseis so brought in: the Papists have brought in a score at the lest, and if I should say, an hundredth, I spoke within my bounds. What say you to the same Phariseis, that defended a man Fulfilling of the law. might do all that the law commandeth, and obtain justification, and heaven thereby? But here the Papists go beyond them, that say, we not only may do all, but more than all that ever God commanded, works of counsel, of voluntary, & of supererogation, like to the Fox, with more Aesopi fab. than a thousand wiles, in comparison of the poor cat: but the Phariseis herein were nothing stored like the Papists. What say you to the Saducees, that said: we have power & saducees. joseph. li. Antiq. 13. cap. 8. Eseni. free will to do good or bad? What say you to the Esseni, that lived in woods and solitary places, and eat only roots and herbs, counting all righteousness to consist in straight rules of life: although herein, you be but counterfeits to them, and I do them iniviurie in this comparison to you, whose Friars, Monks, hermits, and Anachores, were nothing comparable but mere pharisaical hypocrites. What say you even to Simon Magus yourself, with Simon Magus. The●…doretus li. 1. hae●…t. fab. Act 8. The Pope rather the succes●…our of Simon Magus, than of Simon ●…eter. Act 8. whom you charge us? that first began to mingle the jewish and heathen ceremonies with Christianity. What say you again to Simon Magus, that would have made sales of the gifts of the holy ghost, as the Pope maketh sale of his Indulgences & graces? What say you again to Simon Magus, that came to Rome, and there was honoured as God? as the Pope not like God's vi●…ar, as he pretende●…, but like God himself, is there honoured, and claimeth here in earth to have the power of God, according as Simon Magus named himself the power of God. What say you once again to Simon Magus and all his offspring Fornication. that maintained filthy fornication, as the Pope doth stews, courteianes and Concubines? What say you to the Sethi●…ni. August▪ de Haeresib. Orders of Angels. Heretics called Sethiani? Of whom says S. Augustine, Multa de principatibu●… & potestatibus van●…ssima 〈◊〉. They feign many most vain things of principalities and powers: according as do your fabling books, of the celestial Hierarchies, in the name of Di●…nisius and other like. What say you to the Carpocratians? that to maintain Carpocratians Theodoretus & I●…naeus. Traditions. their wicked lives & false opinions, did say that jesus taught those things to his Disciples and Apostles apart from his written word, and delivered them by tradition to be kept: as the Pope and all the Papists say for defence of traditions and unwritten verities (as they call them) besides the written word of Christ. What say you to the Cainites that made invocation unto Caynites. Th●…odoret. I●…uocation of angels. Angels? but the Papists made inu●…cation not only to Angels, but to dead men and women also, yea and to things unsensible. What say you to the Theodotians? that would take from Theodotians. Theodoret. and put to the word of God, and that they had authority to correct th●…se things that were not well, and said they were therein wiser than the holy Ghost: as do the Papists add to the word of God their traditions, and suppress and ●…iminish Authority of God's word. the authority of God's word, saying, their Church is of greater authority by them, and they have further knowledge of God's spirit than is cont●…ined in the written word of God. What say you to the Basilidians, that to their Disciples 〈◊〉. Theodoret. Silence. commanded ●…ue years silence: as your Monks, Friars, hermits, Ana●…hores, etc. enjoined to their novices silence at certain times, and did all by becks and nods, and if a word were spoken, all their perfection were marred. What say you moreover to the Basilidians? that painted Theodoretus. The image of Christ. Cerdonia●…s, for rejecting ensamples of the old Testament. Montanistes▪ for superstitious laws of fasting. Unwritten veriti●…s. and carved the Image of Christ and worshipped it. As I have showed the Papists did, what kind of worship socuer you would excuse the matter withal. What say you to the Cerdoniaus? that rejected the ensamples of the old Testament: as you M. St. and M. Dorman in this controversy of supremacy do. What say you to Montanus? that first appointed laws of fasting, which before were free, as is showed already in the Article thereon. That said the holy Ghost taught him more, and better, & greater things than Christ taught in the Gospel: as your Papists say for their unwritten verities and works of supererogation. Ascribing a greater perfection to such voluntary works, than to the works expressed and commanded in the word of God. What say you again to the Montanistes? that abrogated Nicephor. Theodoret. The authority of God's word abrogated. Mysteries. the authority of God's w●…rde: as I have showed you in Pigghius and Alphonsus that the Papists do. What say you again to the Montanistes? that boasted much of mysteries, but nothing so many nor so misty, as the Papists were. That said to accuse and condemn themselves to be sinners, was to slander themselves, as the Papists that can not abide the Litany, for saying so often, Confession of ourselves to be sinful. Lord have mercy upon us miserable sinners, and for saying Amen to the curses recited against the wicked. Besides that I have showed already, how they justify themselves with purity of nature, with free-will, with preparative works, meritorious, more than m●…ritorious, & works of perfection, What say you to the same Montanistes? that under the Offerings. pretence of offerings craftily gathered and extorted of the people great sums of money. But not the hundredth part that the popish Priests offerings brought in. Blind prophec●…es. What say you again to the Montanistes? with whom the Prophicie●… of Priscilla and ●…aximilla were in greater honour, than the holy Gospels of jesus Christ: as likewise the blind Prophecies of the Papists, to the which they give more credit, than to the true Prophets, that have set forth God's word. Contempt and dissolution of matrimoni●… for religion. What say you once again to Montanus? that taught the dissolving & contemning of Matrim●…nie for religion sake: in all which thing●… how near your Papists follow Montanus steps, is very apparent to the easy conferrer. What say you to the Tessarescedecatitae? which used and The Tessarescedecatitae. Apocrypha. alleged forged books in the Apostles names, called Apocrypha: as the Papists make Canonical the books so called, besides that they allege and set out their S. Thomas gospel. Nichodemus gospel. The acts of S. Peter. The fables of Lazarn●…, the birth, life, death, and assumption Books forged in the father's names. of the blessed virgin, and many such other counterfeit books, to establish their Mass, Purgatory, Relics, Traditions, and other such errors by them. What say you to the Severiani of Severus? that said a Augustious. Severians. Inspirations, dreams, re●…elations, visions, trances, miracle●…. wench called Ph●…lumene was inspired with the holy ghost to foretell things to come, to whom declaring his dreams & burnings of his mind, she would warn him secretly as it were of things to come, and that she should see fantasies come unto her in the likeness of a child, which child appearing would now and then say he were Christ, now and then S. Paul, & that the spirit told her such things as she told the people, & that she wrought such miracles, of which this was the chief: that she would put a great loaf into a glass having a narrow mouth, and with the tip of her fingers take it out again unbroken, & that she eat nothing else but that, as sent her from God. Compare these things with the Popish practices in their visions, trances, and miracles of their she ●…incts. S. Bridgits Revelations, the trances of the holy maid in Kente, the P●…ell of France, the she saint that Sir Thomas More telleth of in his book of Pilgrimages, and see how much they differ. What say you to the Taciani? that would admit none The Ticiani. August. Renunciation of marriage. into their rules and orders, were they men or women, that renounced not Marriage: as none may be admitted to the Popish orders or rules of their religions, that have not vowed not to marry. The Alogiani. August. Unwritten verities. The Angelici. Worship of Angels. August. Apostolici. apostolic title. Refusal of marriage. Community of goods. August. What say you to the Alogiani, that as is said before stood upon unwritten verities, and rejected the written word of God? What say you to the Angelici, that bowed themselves down in the worship of Angels? What say you to the Apostolici which most arrogantly called themselves by this name (as do your Popes call themselves Apostolical) and they receive not into their communion, those that use wives (as your Papists will admit no married Priests to consecrated at their Mass) nor they received any that profess any propriety of their goods (as your Monks and Friars do p●…tende) of whom says S. Augustine, Quales habet Ecclesia & Monachos & Clericos plurimos: Such as the Church hath many Monks & Clerks, No marvel then if your Monks and Priests do so now, for the Heresy of your Apostolical (as you call it, but in deed apostatical Church herein) is of fair antiquity. The Manichei Forsaking marriage. Aug. con Faus. Manich. Abstinence. Continence. The forsaking of all things. Addition and diminution to the Scripture. The pretence of the Scripture. What say you to the Manichaei, with whom ere while you falsely charged us? They forbidden (as S. Augustine saith) marriage, so much as in them lieth. They said, that by chastity, Prayers and Psalms, they purged their lives & sent them to heaven. They craked of false Abstinency and Continency to deceive the simple. They boasted that they forsook all things for God, and did arrogate to themselves all the blessings mentioned in the Gospel. They added and took from the Scriptures so much as they pleased, pretending they had been or might be corrupted, and preferred the books called Apocrypha. They said the promise of jesus Christ, concerning the holy ghost the comforter, was fulfilled in their Archmanichée: as the Papists besides all the other aforesaid, say the same promise of the holy ghost, is fulfilled in their Arch prelate the Pope. And as Manicheus called himself the Apostle of jesus Christ, so your Pope in Authority Apostolical. Flesh and white meat. Propriety of goods. his Bulls prefixeth the authority Apostolical of Peter and Paul. Moreover they rejected flesh, eggs and milk, which the Papists d●… on certain days, they rejected also the propriety of goods, as due the begging Friars. What say you to the Hierachitae, that likewise as these would receive none into their society but unmarried men The Hierachitae. Single life. The Aerians, August. de Haere. The Psalliani & Euchi●…ae, Mumbling up of prayers. Idle Monks. and women? Such were also your Aerians, whom falsely you object to us, being more like to them yourselves, admitting none but such as were continent, as renounced the world, and would possess nothing of their own. What say you to the Psalliani and Euchitae? that were all given to mumbling up of prayers, and said that Monks aught not to labour to get their living, and therefore they professed themselves to be Monks, because they would do no work but pray. Whom Erasmus in his defence against the Sorbonists, being appeached only for saying, Christu●… in orando damnat multiloqu●…um. Christ doth condemn much Frasmus de Precatione vocali tit. 19 pro posi. 1. babbling in prayer) likeneth the Papists unto: Denique Psalliani sive Euchitae. etc. To conclude, the Psalliani or Euchitae have augmented the beadroll of Heretics, who living in idleness, dispatched up an heap of psalms, with a marvelous rolling of the tongue. Aug. de haere. The Pattalorinc●…ae. Silence. The Aquarij. August. ibidem, Wa●…er with the wine in the sacrament. August. ibidem. Barefoot hereukes. What say you to the Pattalorinchitae? which did so give themselves to silence, that at such times as they thought they must hold their peace, they would lay their fingers on their nose and lips, lest they should speak●… a word: as I noted before of the Basilidians, both whom herein your religious men resembled. What say you to the Aquarij, which mingled water with wine in the Sacrament, as all the Papist & do? What say you to the barefoot Heretics, that walked up and down barefoot, and would wear no shoes, like the barefoot Friars. The Priscillianistes. Dissembling and keeping no faith nor promise. What say you to the Priscillianists? that had this rule among them, jura periura secretum prodere nol●…. Swear and forswear, bewray not the secret: not only like the dissembling Papists practise among us, that will swear and forswear themselves to the Prince with false hollow hearts in truth▪ and yet in falsehood trusty to their confederates, nor will bewray their secret conspiracies: but also like the rule of your Pope, and all his perfect faithful one's, Nulla ●…ides tenenda Haereticis. No faith must be kept to Heretics, as you call us. But sith you protest to be so unfaithful, you might call them fools to, that would believe, either any open or dissembling Papist. What say you again to the Priscillianists? that say men August. ibid. Destiny of stars and pla nets. are tied to the destiny of the stars, and that our body is composed, according to the twelve Signs of heaven, placing (as those do that are called the Mathematics) a Ram to rule the head, a Bull in the neck, Twins in the shoulders, a Crab in the breast: and so running through the other Signs by name, they descend unto the soles of the feet, which they allot to Fish, which of the Astrologians is called the last sign. Upon these and such other fabulous, vain, and sacrilegious things, which were to long to prosecute is this Heresy compounded. Thus saith Saint Augustine. Now if this be so heinous an Heresy, as Saint Augustine maketh it, all your Popish Church are A Caveat against popish Almanacs. infected with it. And I would wish all good Christians to beware, how far they believe the blind Prophecies of many Almanacs, that fill the Papists brains with hopes and murmurings, and fear the silly people with doubtful expectations. All which by Saint Augustine's judgement is but Heresies, But God grant say I, it tend to nothing else. Sigeber●…ns, The Acephali What say y●… to the Acephali? that said women may be she Deacons (such as were your nuns.) Women Deacons. August. Sep●…on of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉. The books called Apocrypha authorised. Allegories. Theodoretus. The Messalians. Praying, sleeping, and eating. Revelations, Fleeing of hādycra●…s. Cells. ●…ightes. Purgatory. August. Epiphanius. The abbeys of idle Monks in the old time burned. What say you again to the Priscillianistes? that those whom they could persuade to their sect, they parted the man from his wife, against the wives will: and parted the wife from the husband, against the husbands will. And that although they refused not the canonical scripture, yet they joined there with the Books called Apocrypha, counting them likewise of authority: and in the canonical scriptures whatsoever overturneth their error, they turn it into allegorical senses. What say you to the Messaliani, with whom you burden us? but how near yourselves draw to them, appeareth in that they spent their life in monkish idle praying, sleeping and eating: not so like the foresaid Euchitae, as like the Papists. They craked that they saw revelations, and fled from all handy crafts and labour, and builded themselves Cells and Oratories, and Evening and Morning with many lights and Caudles burning gathered together, and deceived themselves with long prayers, & told strange fables of purging of souls. Epiphanius confuting them, imputeth all this to a fond and naughty zeal, wherewith they were so blinded, that they dared attempt such things contrary to the holy Scripture. This Heresy so increased in every place, that the fathers had much a do to ●…oote them out, yea diverse Monasteries were feign to be burned up, that were infected herewith. And yet all the Popish Abbeys, had even the self same lubberly devotion, and all the other errors, superstitions, and fables, if not an infinite number of worse, and therefore no marvel if God have rooted up, and do most justly destroy the dens of such ancient and so pernicious Heretics. Wherein the Papists differ from the Messalians. Epiphanius. In this point notwithstanding the Papists are contrary to the Messalians: who said, there are many Gods, and yet do worship but one GOD almighty. But the Papists will say, there is but one GOD almighty, and yet give such worship, as is only due to him, to many m●… besides. Of which contraries, it is hard to judge, which barrel is better herring. What say you to the Aëtians? that said, for a man to lie The Aetians. Epiphanius, Simple fornication. with a woman without matrimony, was no more a sin, than to pick his ear, so that he were of their religion: and doth your Pope make much more of the matter? so that you be a Catholic, and pay a fee for a whore, which is yet somewhat more than to pick his ear, for by such filthy gains the Pope did pick their purses. What say you to the Theophroniani? that travailed The Theophroniani. chief in Aristotle's Categories, & interpretation of words and propositions, in subtle and absurd disputations, in curious scanning of names and words in the scripture: like for all the world to your Thomists, Scotists, D●…camists, Sorbonists, and all the sects of schoolmen, making of Aristotle's The schoolemens subtle quiddities. The Aerians. Continency. Philosophy, good divinity: being altogether occupied in curious and subtle quiddities. What say you to the Aërians yourselves, with whom you charged us so fast? that as the other abovesaid Heretics, admitted none to their communion, but such as were continent, without wives, and forsook the world, and had no propriety of their goods: as all your cloisterers pretended. What say you to the Colliridiani? or Ladies chaplains The Colliridiani. Sacrificers and offerers to the blessed Virgin Marie. The Anthropomorphitae. The picture & form of god. Aug con. haer. A three form God. (as you term your Priests) that worshipped and offered sacrifice unto her: as the Papists doing the same or more, is showed sufficiently. What say you to the Anthropomorphitae, that held, that God had form and parts like a man? if you say you beleus not so, why then do you (contrary to your belief) picture out God in such a fashion? and so by your own rules, the figure not being like the truth, it implieth an Idol as is confessed. Yea, are you not like herein to those Heretics, that S. Augustine noteth to make triformem deum, a three-formed God? whereby if those Monks were by ignorance deceived, how much more were many thousands deceived by such pictures, taking God in deed to be even such an one, as he was portrayed out in the Image, You have called us Pelagians, and worse than Pelagians. The Pelagiā●… But do you not say we are worse because you like them well enough, but for the name sake only? Else, what say you to the Pelagians errors? The Pelagians held for original sin, that it can not Aug. li 1. ●…on. ●…ul cap. 5. Original sin Arbitrement and will. Pighius de orig. peccato. Aug. de peccatorum meritis cap. 19 Pighius ibidem. Free will. Hilarius Arela ad Aug. Prospero de ingratis. be sin, that is in infants, for because infant's want will: but sin cannot be where will doth want: Ergo, it is no sin. And is not this the Papists saying Uoluntas est sedes pecc●…: Will is the feat of sin: but infants have not will, nor liberum voluntatis arbitrium: The ●…ree arbitrement of will: infants therefore have no sin. For it cannot have the nature of sin that wanteth these. The Pelagians sayd●…, that sin can not infect, corrupt, change, nor be in the nature and substance of man. And is not this the very self same saying of Pigghius? As for free will, did not the Pelagians say, that if there remain by nature no free will in man▪ then all exhortation, preaching, and the law of God is commanded in vain? And that the taking away of free-will, taketh away the study and care of Godly life? And doth not Pigghius say even the Pighi. ibidem same, that we are not, nor can be bound to any law of God, to keep the commandments, where we have not faculty, free-will, and might, to satisfy and fulfil those things that are commanded: and that this doctrine of grace, destroyeth all good works, as taking away free election and will? Did not the Pelagians say that the law of God is easy to Hier. in epist. ad Ctesiphont. Fulfilling gods law. be fulfilled, and all the commandments of God are possible to be kept? And do not all Papists defend the self same doctrine, yea and say they can do more? As for grace, the Pelagians granted a first grace of God in our creation, even before any merits, likewise, a second Prospero▪ in Epist. ad Augu. de reliquijs Pelag. haereseos. Three sorts of Grace. grace of preaching, whereby God sendeth his word unto us, and either of these come without any merit or occasion in us. But the third grace of God, to hear his word, believe, and follow it, is prevented by our own preparatives, & dispositions, of seeking, ask, and knocking, and not to resist grace when it cometh, is in ourselves, & in our own nature from the creation of us: and doth not Alphonsus say the same, although many Papists be far worse, & say that the first grace & all, cometh Propter praevisa opera, For works that God foresaw? Of predestination, the Pelagians say, that the number of Predestination. Prospero ad August. Ibidem. Hilar. A relat. in epistola ad August. Aug. lib 2. de bono perseverantiae cap. 14. justification. Augu. cont. 2. epist. Pel. li. 1. cap. 21. Li. 4. ca 2. Faith. the elect, may be increased or diminished, and that God hath no determinate number. That God hath predestinate them, that he foresaw should deserve it, by their works. That the predestinate can be, or can not be saved: and lose or keep at their voluntary, the graces of God given unto them. And that the doctrine of predestination is not profitable to be preached. And what point is there of all these, that the Papists do not openly defend. The Pelagians said of justification, that althe Prophets, Apostles and Saints of the old and new Testament were saved for their virtuous life. The Pelagians said of saith, if thou believest thou shalt be saved, the one of these twain is commanded, the other is offered. That which is commanded is in man's power, that which is offered is in the power of God. The Pelagian concerning good works and evil, saith Hieron. in dialog advers. Pelag. Good works. thus. I have said, that a man can be without sin, if he will, not as some men slander me, without the grace of God, the which so much as to think is very sacrilege, but simply, that he can if he will, so that we understand it with the grace of God. And this I affirm, he that can one day abstain from sin, he can abstain also another day. And he that can abstain two days, can abstain three days. And he that can three, can thirty, and so by order can abstain three hundredth, and three thousand when he will. All this said Pelagius, and do not the Papists likewise say, that it lieth in their free will to abstain or not abstain, joining with their will the grace of GOD to help them? And although you confess (as you cannot choose) that every man is a sinner: yet for mortal or deadly sin, you Discip. serm. 162. Deadly sin. say: that every man can live clean without doing any deadly sin all his life long, and that to hold the contrary is an error and an Heresy. Where likewise you falsely object unto us, the saying of the Messalians, for that we say concupiscence is sin after baptism: The affirming that concupiscence is no sin, is the very saying of the Pelagian, that reasoned thus as Pigghius doth, concupiscence is natural, Ergo, it is no sin. In Pigghi. de peccato orig. all these points, besides many other, what say you (M. St.) to the Pelagians? But I trust you will say no hurt unto them, that are your eld friends and allies. I omit the Donatists; and their bands, till yourself come unto them. What say you to the Eutichians? that said the humanity The Eutychians. The co●…founding the properness of chri stes humanity with his divinity. Transubstantiation, the very doctrine of the Eutychians and an heresy patched up of many heresies. of Christ glorified, by reason of the personal union had also the properties of the divinity, to be in infinite places at once, to have no lineament, part, quantity, form, or circumscription. Which heresy i●… no simple nor small heresy, Theodoretus calleth the defender of it: Eranistes or Polymorphus as though it were made of sundry coloured patches, like a beggar's cloak, an Heresy botched up of all Heresies together. And what say you to your doctrine of transubstantiation, if it be even this Heretics doctrine, & his principal argument to maintain the Entichians heresy withal: and the contrary (by taking away of transubstantiation) be the true Catholics doctrine, to defend the verity of Christ's body against the Eutichians heresy▪ & in proof hereof, what say you to the heretic Cranistes his argument, reasoning thus? Even as therefore Theodoretus dial. 2. Inconfusus. the signs of the body & the blood, are other things in deed (that is to wit the nourishment of the sedes, bread & wine) before the Priest's invocation: but after the invocation, they The heretics argument of Transubstantiation to prove his heresy. are changed and are made other things, (that is to w●…te, the body and blood of Christ itself:) even so the body of the Lord after the assumption, is changed into a divine substance. Thus saith this beggarly patched Heretic to defend this heresy. But what replieth the true catholic to him again? The reply of the true catholic against Transubst●…tiatiō to prove the humanity of Christ to be unconfounded. Thou art taken (saith he) with the nets that thou hast knit thyself, for, as for the mystical signs, they go not from their nature, after the sanctification, for they remain in the same substance, figure, and form, and can be seen and felt, even as they could before the sanctification. This was then the Catholics doctrine against all transubstantiation, as the very argument and pillar for the Heretic, to maintain all his diverse coloured patches of Heresies withal. What say you now master Stapleton, to all this crew of Heretics? Is not here a fair pedigree of you and your Masters honourable progenitors? And yet there are many more behind, that (as you call for them hereafter) will come forth also, and show their faces: In the mean season, to borrow your own words, till I pay you again, If you, Stapl. 18. a Master Stapleton, maintain old condemned Heresies, what are you less than Heretics yourselves? And what is the doctrine of Popery, but a misshaped lump of sour dough, leavened and hotchpotched up together, of a number of old condemned Heresies? a good and catholic doctrine I warrant you, Master Stapleton. Now (say you coming to your fift part) as I have proved Stapl. fol. 58. a you and your companions open and notable Heretics, so shall I strait way purge M. Feck. to be no Donatist. I think the same Master Stap. As you have proved the one, so you will purge the other: but you have not hitherto proved the one, nor any one jot of it, nor have alleged any thing but slanders, and your bore sayings, after your ●…acing manner without any proves at all. Nevertheless, let us see, how you will purge the other. But now M. Ho●…e (say you) beware yourself, lest this Stap. fol. 58. a. injust accusation against M. Feckenham and the Catholics, whom you compare to the donatists causeless, most justly and truly redounded upon you and your fellows heads. Is this (M. Stapleton) his purgation to charge another? Master Stapletons' charge to us that we b●… Donatists. yet if your vain so serveth you, that you will needs charge us, it had been your duty, first to have cleared him, and then to have charged us. But go to, we must follow still your perverse order, especially ●…ith you giu●… v●… so fair a warning piece, saying: Beware I say, for I suppose, I will say more pregnant matter Sta. fol. 58. a. in this behalf, to your and their charge, than you have or possibly can do, to M. Feckenham or any other Catholic, whereof I dare make any indifferent reader judge. True indeed (M. Stapl.) without supposal, you h●…ue an head as it were a counting house, full of pregnant matter, such as these your vi●… and cracks, with other your common places of slanderous rayling●…are: wherein you excel all your com●…, 〈◊〉 wherein for my part I will not contend with you, but only set it 〈◊〉, that (as you say) every indifferent reader, whom you dare make your judge, may behold, judge, and co●…d, your pregnancy therein. And if you have any pregnant matter t●… charge us, as you vaunt, it shall suffi●… me aft●…r my h●…y manner, (not contending who hath more pregnant matter, wherein you grant you may be charged by us, in some pregnant matter,) to discharge ourselves of the charge if we can, and again if we can also, to return the charge on your necks, or else let it stand for me indifferent, to whom the readers indifferent judgement shall award it, whether you have more pregnant matter to charge us, or we have more and more true matters to recharge you, and discharge ourselves, in this heresy of the Donatists. They were all (you say) called first Donatists, but as they Sta. fol. 58. a. first●… fallen from the Church Catholic, so fallen they afterward from their own Church and master, into an horrible division of the Maximianists, Circumcellions, Rogatists, Circenses & others. A lively pattern of the sects sprung from your Apostle Luther, as in their pedigree in the Apology of Staphilus, M. Stapl. taketh witness of his fellow. every man may see. Every man may see M. St. that he is a good cocks●…re witness of your side, and therefore it is pregnantly done of you to send us to him, but saving your reverence M. Stapleton I have herded say ere this, that two false harlots need no broker. Your argument is vicious diverse ways, but chief it standeth of your common fallation, A non causa ut causa: & so doth the most of this your pregnant matter. For else, by the like argument, yè might make another lively pattern, from Christ's own words: Necesse est ut Scandala veniant, Matth. 18. It is necessary that offences come. And Christ himself (as Simeon said of him) is, Positus multis in ruina●…, Placed to Luc. 2. many to their ruin. And so he calleth himself a stumbling stone: and his gospel (as says S. Paul) is to the jews Matth. ●…1. 1. Cor. 1. an offence, and folly to the Gentiles. What a number of Heresies sprung up, even in the Apostles time, through false Apostles? of whom says S. John, They went out from 1. john. 2. De symbolo ad 〈◊〉. us, but of us they were not. Doth not S. Augustine (describing the Church of Christ) confess, H●…reses 〈◊〉 de illa exi●…runt tanquam sarmenta inutilia de vitè precisa, ipsa autem manet in radice sua. All Heresies went out of the Church as unprofitable boughs cut of from the vine, but itself remaineth still in the root thereof. You should discern between the sour of the wheat, and the sour of the darnel, M. Math. 13. St. and then your argument were answered. Although it be also a slanderoous lie, to Father those sects on the gospel, or from Luther, that are rather derived From whence these sects did spring. from Popish errors, with which they more agree, as sprung out of such superstitions and ignorance, as you had nuzzled them withal. But if you will fetch, in this point, an argument from the 〈◊〉: how forgot you the Secte●… of religions among the Papists. plentiful sects of your false Friars? all sprang first from Francis and Dominike, but what swarms full, not of the Friars only, who as Cha●…er telleth came driving like bees out of Sathanas tail, but of the diverse sects of Chaucer's opinion of Friars. them, that have sproug●… out since, the one not more like the other than an Apple is like an Oyster, and all agreeing The sects of Schoolmen. together like catt●… in a ●…tter. You might have told us of Peter Lombarde, of Thomas, of Scotus, etc. And of the sects sprung out of their loins, divided so bitterly among themselves, with great 〈◊〉 and ●…artakinges, and that in no small pointe●… of 〈◊〉: & 〈◊〉 you might have made a fit comparis●…n to the 〈◊〉. Such pregnant 〈◊〉 a●… your first charge is, such is your second charge. The Donatists (say you) would sometime crack & brag Stapl. 58. b of their multitude, and bring it as an argument that the truth was on their side, as doth your Apology▪ which being restrained by the emperors laws, and daily diminishing▪ them they cried, the truth rests with the few elected and choose people, than cried they, O little flock fear not, as you did, when you were as yet but in corners, rotten barns, and lusty lanes. If these be good arguments (M. Stapl▪) to pr●…ue a Donatist, The Donatists va●…t of multitude. to crack and brag of multitude, & to bring it as an argument that the truth is on their side: then are all Papists Donatists and we 〈◊〉 For it is your crack, & almost your only vaunt, of 〈◊〉 of greatest multitudes of people: ask us in contempt where our Church was, when for the The Papists Donatists in craking of multitude. most part (you said) all is ●…urs, as the Devil said when he looked in at the C●… 〈◊〉, as telleth the old by word. And if now it hath 〈◊〉 Go●…, by the preaching of his ●…lessed▪ word●… (〈◊〉 he pro●…ed) after t●… general defection, so to detect the man of sin, and to chain up Satan, that he should not so much dectine the world, but that we may 〈◊〉 and e●…race the glad and true tidings of our salvation: we do not crack nor brag thereof. Rejoice The joy of Christians in the gospels prosperity. Matth. 11. Luke. 10. Matth. 9 Psalm. 126. in the Lord we may, praising God, that he hath revealed these things to the simple: and to lift up our heads Christ biddeth us, when the harvest waxeth ripe and great, praying him to send more workmen into his harvest, to reap the sheane●… with joy, the seed whereof we sowed before in tears. This we may do, & be I trust no Donatists. As for craking of multitudes, it is proper to your Church M. St. we make no argument to or fro thereon. And if on the other part, in the time of persecution, when iniquity had the upper hand, we comforted ourselves with The consolation of Christians in the persecution of the Gospel. this consolation of Christ, Fear not O little flock, and the truth rests with the fe●…e ele●…ed and choose people: If you scoff at these words, and he●…vpon infer us to be Donatists, because they said the same: by this argument, you will ●…oue the author of them jesus Christ himself to be a Donatist to. The words are godly & true who soever use them. Only, you should have proved, that we applied them falsely as the Donatists did, or elsye prove nothing. You say we cri●…d thus when we were as yet but in corners, rotten barns, & lusky lanes. Were you never in corners, rotten barns, & lusty lanes M. Stapl? I will not say for what purposes, but God forgive you and I do, but I think you werenot there for Religion. And though it seemeth by these your lusty cracks, where you are n●…n at Louvain, that you would be thought no hedge●…réeper▪ nor ●…uedropper (as s●… of your brood, are peaking here in lus●…y lanes, and lurking in corners, and yet they court themselves no more Donatists than you): Notwithstanding it appeareth, for all your cracks & brags, you have not that stout courage f●…r your ra●…se, but that you like Louvain better than M. 〈◊〉 ●…ging, and had rather blow your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, like 〈◊〉 l●…ytorer in a lusky lane, or hide your head 〈◊〉 the corner of an old ●…otten barn, rather than warm yourself with a ●…aggot a●… a ●…ake in Smithfielde, such as was the cruelty of your Popish tyranny to those that constantly abode the terrible brunt thereof. And although other giving place to your fury, either of fleeing in persecution. their own infirmity, or that God preserved them to a better opportunity, did then flee or hide themselves: what did they herein, that christ gave them not licence, example, and commandment so to do? You might aswell object this, to those Saints of God, of whom S. Paul telleth, that they went about in the wilderness, of whom the world Heb. 11. 3. Reg 19 was unworthy. Why say you not, Elias lurked in lusky lanes, when he stead the face of jesabel? Why say you not, that Athanasius crept into corners, when he hid himself seven years in a Cistern, an harder harbour than a rotten barn? For shame M. Stap. learn to make a difference Distinction between persecution itself & the cause of it. between the perfecution, and the cause of it: or else this were an easy argument to make all Donatists, yea yourselves also. And would to God all corners, rotten barns, and lusty lanes, were well ransacked, some luskes (I think) would appear in their likeness, whom you would be loath should be found out, M. Stapleton. Stapl. 58. b Thirdly you say, The donatists, when they could not justify The Donatists leaving the doctrine fell to railing. their own doctrine, nor disprove the Catholics doctrine, leaving the doctrine, fallen to railing, against the vicious life of the Catholics. In this point, who be Donatists, I refer me to Luther's and calvin's books, especially to M. jewel, and to your own Apology. You n●…ede not, M. Stap. refer yourself so far, refer What a notable grace of railing M. Stapl. hath above all the Popish writers. yourself to yourself a God's name, yea, go no further than this your Counterblast. I warrant you, you blow such a blast herein, that you may well encounter master D. Harding, master D. Sa●…ders, M. Dorman, M. Martial, or any other of your writers, though they have all godly gifts in this point, yet this your Rhel horicall grace of railing, goeth so far beyond them all, that they are scarce worthy to carry the wisp after you, M. Stap. Only at this I marvel, that like the wiseman, when he told how many were in the company, he never reckoned himself, that you having so pregnant a vain herein, do still forget yourself. But belike it is for this cause, that as you surmount all your company: so you go beyond the Donatists also, who (as you say) railed only against the vicious lives. But you, where you find no vicious life to rail against the Protestants, fall to slandering and reviling, even their godly and virtuous lives. Fourthly you say, The donatists refused the open known Stapl. 58. b The Donatists refused the known church. catholic Church, and said, the Church remained only in those that were of their side, in certain corners of Africa. And sing not you the like song, preferring your Geneva & Wittenberg, before the whole Church beside? The Donatists (as you say M. St.) tied the Church to Africa, and wrested the scripture for it, forsaking the open known catholic Church in deed. But you should have proved your popish Church to be that open known catholic Difference betwenee the Church of Rome then, & the church of Rome now . Church now, which they refused then. If you say, you prove that, because they refused the church of Rome then, & your church is the church of Rome now: if you understand the church for the congregation of the faithful, you utter a double untruth. For they-refused not only the congregation then at Rome, but of all the world besides: and again your church or congregation of Rome now, is nothing the same, or like the same, in religion, that it was then. If you mean by the The Papists Donatists that tie the church to a place. church of Rome, the City of Rome, and the Pope's chair there: than you prove yourselves to be Donatists, that tie the church of Christ (dispersed every where) to the seat of Rome, as they did unto afric. And if you mean by the open known catholic Church, the multitude of people acknowledging your Pope's s●…ate at Rome: then again are you Donatists by your second point, in craking of multitude, depending on Rome a corner in Italy: as you say, the Donatists craked of their multitude, depending on their corners in Africa. As for us, we depend neither upon Geneva, nor Wittenberg, We depend not on Geneva and Wirtenberge, as the Papists depend on Rome. nor tie the Church of Christ unto them, nor prefer them, either before the whole catholic church, or any part thereof: nor refer men unto them, for the trial of the Church, or to any other place else: but allow them, and all and singular other places, where the word of God is sincerely set foo●…th: where Idolatry, errors, & superstition are abolished. We 〈◊〉 to the mountains, as chrysostom Chrysosto in Math. 24. homil. 49. expoundeth it, Qu●… sunt Christiani conferant se ad scriptura●…, They that are Christians, let them get them to the scriptures. And why not to Rome, jerusalem, and such other mountains, but only to the scriptures? Because, says he, since that heresy hath possessed the Churches there can be no trial of true christianity, nor refuge of Christians, that would try out the truth of faith, but the divine scriptures. Before, it could have been known divers ways, which was the Church, which was Gentility. But now there is none other ways to know, which is in deed the very church of Christ, but all only by the Scriptures. If they therefore set forth the Scriptures, we acknowledge them to be of the Church of Christ. Let Rome do this, and we will as gladly acknowledge Rome to be of the Church of christ, as either Dist. 23. Ca Legimus. Wittenberg or Gen●…ua▪ Yea as S Jerome saith, which is also put in the Pope's own decrees, Eug●…bium, Constantinople, Rhegium, Alexandrie, Thebes, Guarmatia, or any other place, if it profess the truth with Geneva and Wittenberg. For on this consideration (saith S. Augustine, Why the church is holy and catholic. the Church is holy and catholic, (not because it dependeth on Rome, or any other place, nor of any multitude obedient to Rome, both which are donatistical) but, quia recte credit in Deum, because it believeth rightly on God. This is our song, M. Stap. of Geneva, Wittenberg, Africa, yea, and of Rome too. And if you can sing any better note, I give you good leave for me, only I would wish you (howsoever you sing) to leave your flat lying tune in saying Fifthly say you: The donatists corrupted the father's Stapl. 58. b books wonderfully, and were so impudent in alleging them, that in their public conference at Carthage, they pressed much upon Optatus words, and laid him forth as an author making for them, who yet written expressly against them, and in all his writings condemned them. Is not this, I pray you, the usual practice of your Apostles, Luther and calvin of M. jewel and your own too in this book? as I trust we have, and shall make it most evident. And here let M, Daws bear you company too, in the crafty and false handling of his own dear brother's Sleidans story, where he leaveth out Alexander Farnesius Oration to the Emperor, wherein he showeth the Protestants dissensions. If this be an argument to prove a Donatist, belike your Popes, Boniface and Innocent, learned it of them, so impudently, in the public conference, and Council at Carthage, The Pope's donatistical impudency. to allege, lay forth, and press much upon the Nicene Council, as making for their superiority: though all the true Copies thereof condemned them, as impudent corrupters of the father's Decrees. What fathers books, and Counsels have these Pope's successors spared since to falsify, challenging authority over all fathers and Counsels, to do with them as they please? And as the Popes own sons, this is not only the usual, but the chief, and almost the only practice of all Popish writers, in the alleging of the fathers, even as the devil alleged the Psalms to Christ. Neither do you only corrupt the father's books, but father on them whole books of your own devisings, falsified in the father's names: as Erasmus exactly observing, hath found out many such evident corruptions. As for us (thanks be to God) you name not one father corrupted by Luther, calvin, the Bishop of Sarum, or of Wint. nor of any other as yet. Only you find fault with M. Dawes, for omitting an Oration in Sleydan, no ancient father, but a late historiographer. I know not his consideration in good sooth M. St. if I did, I would answer you. But he is a lives man, and can answer you himself. Your argument is very fond, to infer a Donatist hereupon, yea, be it that we were culpable in this behalf, as it is but your slanderous lie: and yet, be it further, that it were any argument to prove a Donatist, not only the parties whom you name, have proved your good master's Donatists, but yourself would prove yourself to be as great a Donatist as the best. Sixthly you say: The Donatists to get some credit to their 6. Stapl. 59 ●… The Donatists pretended many false visions. A tale devised of a dead man to slander the Gospel withal. doctrine, pretended many false visions and miracles, and they thought that God spoke to Donatus from heaven, and doth not M. Fox in his dunghill of stinking martyrs prettily follow them therein, trow you? So cleanly, M. St. your thethorike proceedeth from those sweet lips of yours. You challenge M. Fox with unsavoury terms, you prove or improve nothing against him. Only you scoff at Luther's visions: and tell us a tale of a man in Hungary (I can not tell where nor whom) feigning himself to be dead, and pretending to be raised again to life, to confirm the doctrine of the Gospel, but in conclusion was found to be dead in deed. Hath not (say you) the like practice been attempted of late Stapl. 59 a. In li. Teut. ad Senat. Germa. in Hungary, to authorize the new Gospel, by pretending to restore life to an holy brother, feigning himself to be dead, and by the great providence of God, found to be dead in deed? What witness of this, M. St? Forsooth ask your fellow if you lie. I warrant you he will say, all is true, and who shall prove him a liar, that the party would so have feigned himself to be dead, or would by such toys, go about to confirm the Gospel of christ? whom whispered he in the care, while he was on live, that he meant any such matter? Well, the party is dead, you say: then say I, it is easy for a false varlet (thereby to deface the Gospel) to devise a lie by a dead body, or so suborite or bribe another to witness a lie. For the party (you say) is dead, ●…us Le●… 〈◊〉 morde●… a dead Lion (they say) bites not. But if he be dead, (presupposing there were any such thing in deed) God send grace there were no false packing to murder him among you, & then to say so by him: I have herded of such Popish shifts ere now. But how soever the matter were, yea grant it had been so, that some noughty fellow had attempted such a wickedness, is the same to be objected to the Protestants, or the Gospel of Christ to be defaced thereby? or not rather the more to be confirmed thereby, that God abhorreth such false means to set out his truth, and destroyeth such dissemblers, as he did Ananias and Saphira: and will have Act. 5. his truth simply and plainly set forth, as (thanks be to God therefore) it is in many places, and with good success and increase he blesseth it. Not, not, M. St. and that you know full well, we use no such false visions, or feigned miracles, to further Gods truth: not, we seek no visions or miracles at all, but seek the truth it False visions is one of the chiefest practices and foundation of the Popish church, not of the protestants. self. It is the practice of your Church, to commend your false doctrine unto the simple, by pretending many false visions and miracles. What have you else for purgatory, but a number of revelations, that were showed forsooth to such or such a Monk or Friar? what else for devising all the sects of Friars and nuns, but such and such a revelation? What have you for your Lady's Psalter, for her rosary, for her feast days, for the invocation of Saints, for the most of all your trumpery in the Mass & Diriges, for Relics, shrines and pilgrimages, for worshipping this or that saint departed, but your feigned revelations, your false visions and miracles▪ Look your Legends who shall, your paltry Friars postils, your Lovanian schoolmen, look who shall on Marulus revelations, on Tundalus visions, on S. Bridgets revelations, on the miracles of the blessed Virgin set out in Latin and English. etc. He shall find for this point such stuff, that both his ears will glow to read it. And these practices are not devised by us against you in the name of a dead man: but they are set out in print, and published by yourselves in good sad earnest, to deceive the simple withal. If therefore this be an argument to prove Donatists by, then as it cleareth us, that seek no such means, so it proveth you to be Donatists, that in thus many points of your religion stand so much thereon. seventhly say you, Did not the donatists prefer and 7. Stapl. 59 a more esteem one National erroneous Council in Aphrica, than the great and general Council at Nice: keep not you also this trade, preferring your forged convocation libel, before the general Council of Trident. And this is set out with a Marginal note: They prefer a national Council, before the General. As for forged Libels is but your forged lie, master Sta. national and general counsels. if we prefer a national Council, before your General: no marvel, the leg of a lark is to be preferred before the body of a Kite. If you crack of Generality, for the multitude: once again you make yourself a craking Donatiste, although in deed, there were no such General assemblies, at your Trident Council, as you brag upon. If ●…e mean, for the free liberty and order of it: it was not only national of Italians in Italy, as the Donatists was of Aphricans in Aphrica, but also more partial, violent, and nothing but tongtyed bondage and compulsion, far worse than was the Donatists. Eightly say you, The donatists said, that all the world 8. Stap 59 a. was in an Apostasy before the coming of their Apostle Donatus: and is not Luther the same man to you, that Donatus was to them? We esteem Luther as a notable organ of God, to detect A general defection. your falsehoods and open his truth: although we grant he were not without his infirmities: but what doth that excuse your apostasy, or argue him to be a Donatist? Yea, though he had said such words now as then Donatus falsely said. M●…ght not an universal apostasy have been since, or be now, because there was none such then? and yet Luther charged not all the world, but all your popish Church with this Apostasy. And what doth he therein, that is not manifest? what said he, that the Apostle S. Paul foresaid not, there should come a defection before the coming of christ? 2. Thess. 2. what said he, that even at your last Trident council (that you craked on last) the French Legate did not openly say to your Prelate's faces? Verily we must even of necessity confess Sessione. 4. this (quoth he) whether it hath been perchance by man's infirmity, or by some negligence of the Prelates of the church, or else by their preposterous godliness, if I should name no grievouser thing, that there hath crept into the Church very many things, worthy to be abolished, abrogated or restrained. Yea, what said he, that even your Pope hath not confessed? We know (says Pope Adrian to the Princes Orthwinus Gratius in Fasciculo rerum sciendarum. of Germany, in his Cpistle, wherein he chief inveigheth against Luther) that even in this holy seat, many abominable things there have been already now certain years, abuses in spiritual matters, excesses in commandments, to conclude, all things have been changed into perversity: not it is marvel, if the sickness have descended from the head into the members, from the chief bishops into the inferior Prelates: all we, that is to say, the eccl▪ Prelates, have erred every one in his own ways, nor there hath been any this long while the which did good, not not one. This general apostasy (lo) your own Pope confesseth, both for himself, for his predecessors, for all other Prelates and Priests under him, and for all the Church besides. And weigh these words well, M. St. for they serve against you in many matters touched before, chief whether the Pope & all his Prelates, yea all the visible state of the Church may err, or no. But you were best make this Pope a Donatist too To the author of the harborough you are answered by other, as I hear say. And it is but your peevish quarrel. Ninthly, say you, The Donatists being charged and pressed 9 Stapl. 59 ●… The beginning, continuance and succession. to show the beginning and continuance of their doctrine, and the ordinary succession of their Bishops, were so encumbered, that they could never make any convenient answer. And are not you I pray you with your fellows Protestant Bishops fast in the same mire? If not, answer then to my third demand in the fortress annexed to Saint Bede. This is Satis proimperio, Moore than enough, for your authority, Master Stapleton, to command our Bishops to answer your vain demands, and pelting books, or else they must be Donatists. But even so played the Donatists with the godly Bishops then, as you play now with ours. Your humour is all on vain glory, to set out and vaunt your own works. But it is a sign you lack good neighbours at Louvain. For, one of them, not yourself, should have commended to us your Demands, Fortresses, and Translations. But yourself must be feign I see, to put us in mind of them, for your brethren seek their own glory likewise in their writings. And why then should not you seek yours as well as they? But for my part, as I have not your noble Fortress, so I think your Demand be not worthy the seeking for, much less the answering. I pray you pardon me, if I think amiss: for I measure it by many other Demands of this your Counterblast. As for the beginning of our doctrine, is already showed, The beginning of our doctrine. even he that is the beginning & the ending, the Alpha and Omega, he began our doctrine, and hath ever continued and preserved it. We say with chrysostom (as is before said) Ad montes, Let us flee to the mountains, that is to the scripture: Chrysost. in Matth. Cyprian. ad Pomp. Fsai. 8. Math. 11. we say with Saint Cyprian, And fontein, Let us go to the fountain, that is to the Scripture: we say with the Prophets, Ad legem & testimentum, To the law and testimony, that is, to the Scripture: we say with him that is the beginning himself, venite ad 〈◊〉, come unto me and we admit only that, Quod suit ab initio, rejecting that doctrine of which we may say, Non suit sic ab initio, It was not so at the beginning, this you say the Donatists being charged and pressed could not do: but we show you here the very beginning of all our doctrine. Now if a man should demand of you, to show the beginning Matth. 21. The beginning of the popish doctrines besides the Scripture. of all your doctrines, & ask you, as Christ teacheth us to demand of you, the originals, is it of God, or is it of men: then are you for a great many of them, bemyred fast with the Donatists, and can not tell how they came up, saving that they crept in by custom, and many retained of the old superstitions of the Pagans, little or nothing turquesed: but none of them all came up otherwise than by men, none were set forth of God in his holy word. And so again you are Donatists, or worse than they, and the worse, in that (as the French Kings Ambassador aforesaid, told your Sessione. 4. Trident Fathers) you hold fast with tooth & nail all things that you have received of long custom. But the old fathers tell you, from whom you father your customs: We must not follow the customs of man, but the truth of God. Yea your Cyprian. ad Pomp contr. ad cp●…. Steph. Dist. 2. Can. Si consuetudinem. Distin. 11. Hoc vestr. old Popes themselves, Felix, Gregory, Nicholas, & Leo, can tell you, that all customs should give place to the Scriptures, for Christ said not he was custom, but the way, the truth and the life. That we should not go one jote from the Apostles institutions. That such ill customs are no less to be avoided than a pestilent infection, which except it be taken out the sooner, the wicked will take hold of it, as duty of privileges. And that such transgressions and presumptions being not forthwith suppressed, will be reverenced for laws and celebrated like privileges for ever. Here is the coming up and beginning of the most of your doctrines, and therefore what able you of your Bishops, since your Bishops themselves say thus of your long customs beginning and continuance of them? As for the ordinary succession that you crack of, you have neither succession of Bishops nor Bishops at all, according Ordinary succession of Bishops. to the beginning and the Apostles orders. Which as it is now twice already proved, so is it easy to see, by conference of the Apostles rules and principles of a Bishop, with Succession of the person, and succession of the doctrine. your Popish Bishop's orders quite contrary thereunto. Where therefore you crack and brag so often of succession (although it be nothing in the person succeeding, except it be in the doctrine succeeding also) yet even for the person you neither can allege any ordinary succession but degenerate The Papists can not sufficiently prove so much as the succession of the person. succession, nor you have any certainty of that beginning thereof, that you pretend, not not of the Bishop of Rome's beginning and succession from Peter, which not only examined by the infallible Scripture, will so encumber you, that you can never make any convenient answer thereunto, but be fast in the same mire that you say the Donatists were. Tenthly you say, The Donatists finding fault with Constantine, 10. Stapl. 59 b Fleeing for succour to evil Princes. Theodosius, and other Catholic princes, ran for secure to julianus the renegade, and highly commended him: and doth not M. jewel I pray you, take for his precedent against the Pope's primacy Constantius the Arrian, against Images Philippicus, Leo, Constantinus and such like detestable Heretics by general Counsels condemned? do not yourself play the like part in the Emperor Emanuel as you call him, and in other as we shall hereafter declare? By this rule should Hosius, Staphilus, M. Harding, M. Dorman, and yourself also be Donatists: that take arguments from your adversaries, yea from Heathen men. So might you make S. Paul a Donatiste also. You had need therefore make your comparison more advisedly. And thus might you have fit it very well: The Donatists finding fault with Constantine, Theodosius, and other Catholic Princes, ran for secure to julianus the renegade and highly commended him: And doth not M. Stapleton, M. Harding, and other popish Priests, finding fault with their most Christian and natural sovereign Lady, ●…unne over to Louvain, and to Rome, to a foreign Apostatical usurper and highly commend him? this had been a fit and truer proportion M. St. of the twain. And what do you herein, that your grand Captain the Pope himself did The Pope running to a traitor got of him his supremacy. not? Pope Boniface ran to the cruel and detestable tyrant Phocas, that most traitorously had murdered his natural Emperor: and first obtay●…d of him this title of Primacy, that never any godly or lawful Prince did grant before this traitor Phocas, one usurper to another usurper, a good beginning of so good a claim. Again, did not Pope Gregory the third stir up all Italy to rebel against the Emperor? and he and after him Pope Zacharie ran from their natural Prince, to the Princes of France, Germany, and Italy, highly commending them, that maintained themselves against their sovereign Lord and Emperor, and after that bereaved him of the Empire of Rome also? did not Pope Stephan teach the nobles of France to forsake their liege King, and to run to Pepin an usurper, whom you highly commend as one of your chiefest patrons? Did not Pope Leo the fourth run from the true and lawful Emperor, to his Tygerlike & unnatural mother Irene the usurper, whom he highly commended for maintaining Images? and do not you M. St. even here for the same only cause, run unto, and highly commend her & her Council, crying out of the lawful Emperors, calling them detestable and condemned Heretics, because they abolished the worship of Images? but I reserve the examining of these donatistical doings, and the traitorous practices of your later Popes, to your several counterblastes thereon. In the mean season by this it appeareth who be more Donatists, we, that allege an example (by writing) of those Emperors, were they as ill or worse than you call them: or your Popes, that run in deed from their natural Princes, to detestable murderers, and traitorous usurpers. Thu●… had you fitte●… your comparison, you should lively have showed, who had been the very Donatists: the Protestants or the Papists. eleventhly you say. Now who are I pray you Donatists, St●…pl. 59 b 11. The Donatists' cruelty to the Catholics. for the defacing and overthrowing of altars, for villayning the Chrism, and the holy sacrament of the altar? which they cast unto dogs: which strait ways by the ordinance of God, fallen upon them, and being therein God's ministers, made them feel the smart of their impiety. It were a tragical narr●…tion, to open the great and incredible cruelty that the Donatists used toward the Catholics, especially their horrible ravishment of religious Nuns. And yet were they nothing so outrageous, as your Hugenotes have been of late in France and the beggarly Guets in Flaunders, namely about Tourney. First here master Stapleton, you show yourself a Donatist, after your first note, in corrupting the father's words, as though those holy Virgins, were such Nuns as your popish Church maintained. Again you corrupt Optatus Optatus wrested. words, in telling us of the sacrament of the altar, as though there ha●…ged in his time such a God in a Pire over the aultare: or as though there were then any such altar: to make the people conceive by your tale telling a great antiquity, in your later upstarted ●…olatrie and superstition. And this you do in several letters, as though they were the proper words of Optat●…, wherein you show yourself a Donatist Secondly, it is not alike to compare the rooting up of Idolatry, and abolishing of naughty superstitious customs (which even your Popes, as I have showed before, The Papists in horrible crueltie●… far pass the Donatists. allow not) to the naughty doing of the Donatists, for the outrages of souldiou●…, if any such were. And put case there were any such (as 〈◊〉 doubt, to slander the Gospel you aggravate many lies, & will make a mountain of a molehill) yet me thin●… you shoul●… remember that if cruelty be a rule of a Donatist, yourselves that show far passing cruelty and horrible outrages to the poor Hugenotes and beggarly Guets, as you term them, (having made them beggars, and made as many beggarly Papists to) such is the papists love to their own side, but chief their immortal hatred to the Protestants, murdering them by heaps, Put to this the horrible murder in France since this was written. burning, sacking, tormenting, yea even the Carcases of the dead, and sowing salt on the ground for spite, with infinite other unnatural and unspeakable cruelties besides your secret practices. Me thinks this might have been remembered also. But hem quoth sir Harry, harp no more on that string, for than were you Papists double and triple Donatists. Although you were worse than Donatists herein also, that so much perverted, altered, abused, & profaned hypocritically, all those things that you mention. And abused with so much filthy abomination even those your religious Nuns, that many of your side were ashamed & complained thereon, and therefore God hath justly rooted them out▪ Twelfthly say you. The Donatists said of the Catholics: Stapl. 59 b. 12. Vaun●… of scriptures, and cōplay●…t of the Prince●… Char●…. Ill●… portant multor●…m imperatorum saer●…. Nos sola portamus evangelia. They bring us many of the emperors letters, we bring them the only Gospels. And is not this the voice of all Protestants whatsoever? only Scripture, only the Gospel, only the word of God? and for the first part, what is more common in the mouths of the german Lutherans, of the French Caluinists, and now of the Flemish Guets, than this complaint, that we press them with the Emperor's diets, with the King's proclamations, and with the Prince's placards? to the which they obey as much as the Donatists, when they have power to resist. The allegation of the only Scripture for doctrine, no sufficien●…e argument of a Donatist. Remitting your railing Rhetoric (Master Stapleton) to your common places: your argument is very fond and faulty. First, if this be a simple and general proof of Donatists, to say we bring the only Gospels, you will make Christ a Donatist to, for he brought the only Gospels. And his Disciples and Apostles Donatist●…, for they brought the 1. Cor. 2. 1. Cor. 11. Gal. 1. only Gospels, and said they knew nothing but jesus Christ crucified, they delivered no other thing than that they had received, and accursed him that should bring any thing besides this only Gospel. You will make the father's Cyprian, chrysostom, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, etc. become Donatists: that will us in all trials of any point of doctrine, to bring the only Scripture, the only Gospels, the only word of God? Again, for the other part, if this were a proof of a Catholic, to bring, 〈◊〉 imperatorum sacra, the letters of many Emperors, and to complain hereon, the token of a Donatist: then was Athanasius & diverse other godly Bishop's Donatists also, & the Arrians Catholics. And yourself with M. Feck. allege the complaints of Athanasius, belike to prove him a Donatist. This therefore (M. St.) thus simply set forth maketh but a simple argument. You should either prove, that we do bring the only Gospel, and complain of your Prince's diets, Proclamations, & placards, after the manner that the Donatists did, or else you prove nothing but yourself a malicious slanderer. We bring the only Gospels to you, as Christ his Disciples and the holy fathers brought them to us, and yet bring we not the Gospel so alone, that we bring not also the father's writing thereon, we also bring both Prince's diets, Proclamations and placards, so far forth as they maintain, set forth and agree with the How webring the only Gospel. doctrine of the only Gospels. Otherwise, can you wite Athanasius, if he complained when he were pressed with them? Can you wite the poor Protestants in Germany, France, & Flaunders, if they so much as complain that you press them wrongfully, even as yourself in plain words confess th●…t you press them in deed, with the Emperor's diets, with the king's Proclamations, and with the Princes placardes? Nevertheless, if you pressed them lawfully, and as Constantinus pressed the Donatists, I warrant you no Protestant would once complain thereon. But you press & oppress them, with nothing but mere violence to maintain your errors, besides and against the word of God. How the Papists herein play the Donatists parts. And to this purpose, yourselves play the right parts of the Donatists, for as the Donatists perverted and wrested the scriptures, to shake the authority of princes from themselves, which otherwise they admitted so far as pleased them: so do the popish priests pervert and wrist the scriptures, to reject the Emperors and other Christian princes authority over them, and upbraid us saying, Ill●… por●…ant multorum imperatorum sacra, They bring many of the Emperor's letters, that is, we press them with the authority of princes, when we require that you give as much and no more authority unto Princes, than the only word of God doth warrant them. But you will give them no more, nor yet their sacra, their diets, proclamations, or placarts, than shall serve your turn. And thus yourselves are most Donatists in this point. Your last comparison, is of the Donatists murdering of 13. Mu●…hering & canonizing of saints. others and of themselves, and yet canonizing of such for Saints and Martyrs. This comparison you stretched out with large outroades, nothing against the Bishop, nor to the matter, and in deed nothing but extreme railing and scoffing against master Fox's book, to whom I remitt●… the quarrels that you lay unto him, who is able at the full to answer them. As for me I will answer, only to the comparison for murdering and canonizing, wherein the Papists excel all other. If you had master Stapleton alleged the Monk that poisoned himself, to poison his prince: the Pope that to poison his wealthy Cardinals drunk himself of the wrong Bottle: had you told that men said of the death of the two late Cardinals in England: or how good a medicine for the head ache your Popish Priests have made of the Sacrament of the aultare as you term●… it: and what Princes they have poisoned therewith: If you had told of your Italian perfumes and Spanish figs for the pip: you might well master ●…tapleton, have confirmed your comparisons from the Donatists' murders. But what need such prini●… tokens in so open a matter? Your hate charity, to heap burning coals on your adversaries hea●…s too many have felt, and all the world doth know. For murder, the Donatists be nothing comparable, nor yet Baraba●… the jew, nor near a thief in Newgate, to the bl●…dthirstie Papists. You say Saint Augustine saith of the Donatists viveb ant ut latrones, mor●…ebātur ut circumc●…liones, honorabantur ut martyrs. They lived like robbers, they died like Circumcelions (meaning they five themselves) they were honoured as martyrs. True in deed master Stapleton, and you put me in remembrance of another saying, that went in three parts to, I trow it was of an honest man of your religion, of whom Bonif 8. it was said, 〈◊〉 ut vulpes, regnabat ut Leo, moriebatur ut canis: He entered like a Fox, he reigned like a Lion, he died like a dog. And yet you count him one of God's holy vicar's. And I pray you call to mind another common saying, that went also on three parts, even of your Popish canon●…zed Saints, that some were worshipped a●… Saints in heaven, that lived full wickedly here in earth, and are now tormented with Devils in hell: this did men say master Stap. an●… they were Papists that said so to. You t●…ll us of the Montanists that worshipped one Alexander Stapl. 60. a for a worshipful martyr, though he suffered for no matter of religion, but for mischievous murder. What is this to the Donatists' master Stapleton? or that which you tell us of the Manichees worshipping the day The Papists and Donatists worship of the dead. What memorial of Saints we kep●…. of their master Manes death. The worship of dead men good or bad, or the keeping of solemn days as in the honour of them, is proper to you popish 〈◊〉 not to us. We keep a memorial I grant, but of these only whom we are most infallibly assured that they be the blessed Saints of GOD. Howbeit, we worship not them, nor the day for them, nor them by the day: we worship only john. 4. GOD in spirit and truth, as Christ hath taught us. But you that so worship dead men, will ye worship none for Martyrs, but those that died for matters of Religion? Why worshipped you then, and that with such high worship to, your solemn Saint Thomas Becket, that Thomas Beckets death no martyrdom. died for no matter of Religion at all? But either for his obstinacy against his liege Lord, and against all the Barons Spiritual and Temporal of the Realm: or if you colour it never so fair, yet was it but in maintaining his honour, and the privileges of the Clergy, and that contrary to the ancient custom of the Realm: except ye will grant that the Popish Religion doth consist herein. Which if you be ashamed to confess, upbraid not then for shame false Martyrs unto us, nor yet the canonizing of wicked Saints. We use no such Canonization of Saints. Canonization at all. It redoundeth on yourself, on your legend, on your Popes, and on your Pope holy Saints. Whom, by this rule, you make both Donatists, Montanists, Manicheans, or what soever Heretics you can object besides. As for all these Comparisons hitherto, between the Protestants, and the Donatists, wherein you think you have be stowed great cunning, there is not 〈◊〉 poy●… that is not violently wrested, to make it seem to touch us: and not one point, that (being returned on yourselves) doth not rightly and fully hit you home again. And therefore, I for my part am content, as you concluding say you be. To end this talk with the whole conference, leaving Stapl. 61. b. it to the indifferent Reader to consider, whether the (Popish) Catholics, or the Protestants, draw nearer to the Donatists. To come new at length to the sixt and last part of this Chapter, which consists in rem●…ing such motives, as the Bishop allegeth, to burthe●… Master Feckenham with the practice of the Donatists. First master Stapleton divideth these motives in twain. Let us then (saith master Stapleton) proceed forth, and consider upon what good motives you charge master Feckenham to be a Donatist, which are to say truth, none other but falsehood and folly. But, as you surmise, the one Stapl 61. b. The motives that moved the Bishop to challenge M. Feckfor following the Donatistes' practice. is because he craftily and by a subtle shift, refuseth the proves of the old Testament, as the Donatists did. The other, because he with the said Donatists should avouch, that secu●…er Prince●… have not to meddle in matters of Religion, or causes ecclesiastical: nor to punish any man for such causes. These two motives (you say Master Stapleton) are to say the truth none other but falsehood and folly. In deed they are the wors●…, by coming through so false a merchants hands as yours. For shame either tell the words as they ●…e, at lest the true and full effect of them: or never set them out in a distinct letter, sy●… you so often, but ever falsely, upbraid the Bishop hereof. Else all the folly and falsehood will prove to be in yourself, and not in the Bishop's motives. The Bishop sp●…ke not of Princes meddling or punishing for Ecclesiastical 〈◊〉, as though the Donatists' simpli●… denied that, an●… y●… granted Princes yet so much, as to meddle or punish for your Ecclesiastical causes, that is to say to be your executioners therein, as though the Emperors & other Christian Princes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 more upon them at that time. But the Bishop told how the godly father's craved aid & assistance of the magistrates and rulers, to reform them, to reduce them to the v●…itie of the church, & to repress their heresies, with their au thoritie & godly laws made for that purpose, to whom it belonged of duty, and whose especial service of Christ is, to see, care, and provide, The Princes especial service of Christ. that their subjects be governed, defended, and maintained, in the true and sincere religion of Christ, without all errors, superstitions and heresies. This is that the Bishop written, and to prove this he allegeth Saint Augustine. Thus did Christian Princes govern in Ecclesiastical causes then. This did the Donatists than deny unto them, and this do now the Papists deny: and you come sneaking in and tell us, the bishops motive was this, In charging Master Feckenham to follow the Donatists: by cause he with the Donatists, should avouch, that secular Princes have not to meddle in matters of Religion or causes Ecclesiastical, nor to punish any man for such causes. As though the controversy had b●…ne for any kind of meddling, or punishing: which you, s●…ming to grant to Princes, to be your servants and droils in such ecclesiastical causes, and so far as you assign them, might therefore seem not to play the Donatists, when you play their parts so lively as can be, and so subtly, that the Donatists were but Babes unto you: in seeming to give them some How the Papists play the Donatists' parts. meddling or punishing in Ecclesiastical causes. but if they meddle with or punish you, or any other, otherwise than you command and restrain them, you so little then suffer them to meddle in Ecclesiastical matters, that with solemn curses you debar them from meddling in any temporal and civil matters too, so far you pass the Donatists. For shame master Stapleton, tell your tale plainly, that we may see whether M. Feckenham played the Donatistes' part or no: or else your doubling will declare yourself to be a Donatist also for company. But let us see how you answer these motives even as yourself propound them. The one is (say you) because he craftily and by a subtle shift, refuseth the proves of the old Testament, as the Donatists did. Your Stolen jests M. Stapleton of a fine blast Stapl. 61. b of a horn▪ of a ●…oule slawe, of a blind beetle blunt shift, I over pass them. When M. Feckenham (you say) offereth to yield, if you can Stapl. 62. a prove this regiment, either by the order that Christ left behind him in the new Testament, either by the Doctors, either by Counsels, or else by the continual practice of any one Church, think you M. Horn, that this is not a large and an ample offer? The largeness of this offer is not here in question M. St. the offer is large and ample enough▪ & taken of the Bishop at his hands, and proved unto him at his own demand. It remains then that he stand to his promise, and yield to the truth, or else he showeth that he minded to offer more, than he purposed to perform. Only now it is examined, why here he specifieth the new Testament, and quite leaveth out the old Testament▪ This doing, in this point, says the B. smelleth of a Donatist. Nay say you, There is not so much as any conjecture, to gather Sta. fol. 61. b this upon, yea the old Testament is not by this offer excluded but verily included. For if the new Testament, which rehearseth many things out of the old, have any thing out of the old Testament, that make for this regiment: if any Doctor old or new, if any Council have any thing out of the old Testament that serve for this regiment, then is Master Feckenham concluded, yea by his own grant. For so the Doctor or Council hath it, he is satisfied according to his demand. Whereby it followeth, he doth not refuse, but rather allow and affirm the proofs of the old Testament. How M Feck. expressly denieth, and yet inclusi●… granteth the examples of the old Testament. It might in deed follow M. Sta. but it doth not always follow▪ A man may refuse manifest proofs of the old Testament and yet grant such things besides, that he may be concluded yea by his own grant▪ And so is M. Feckenham here concluded as granting the new Testament, the Counsels, and Fathers. For since all these allege he proofs of the old Testament: he is forced by conclusion of necessary consequence, to grant also to the old Testament. Except he be as peevish as the Donatists, that granted thus much also and yet refused the manifest proofs and examples of the old Testament. Although their own peevishness convinced them, but still they stood on the bore words as you do, and refused inclusive proofs followed they never so necessarily. And so did yourself before require the Bore title of this supremacy Supra pag. 344. to be showed in the examples of the old Testament, el●… you reject the examples, agree they never so much in matter. But now contrary, you say, M. Feckenham doth allow and affirm the proofs of the old Testament, because they may be included in those points that he allegeth, but he would be loathe they should be included, as thanks be to God they be: and so, Uolens, volens, beyond his expectation, is enforced with them. But what is this to excuse him more than the Donatists, if he had not of set purpose slonke from the manifest proof & examples of the old Testament? for otherwise, he might as soon have expressly named the old Testament, as he expressly named the new. And so should he have go directly & simply to work, & not indirectly with a Circumquaque, have referred the old Testament to such inclusions, as you here would shake off the matter withal: chief since the old Testament, having no included but express proofs, is so expressly urged of us. And yet if he would have included the old Testament, (as you say) under the name of the new Testament, why specifieth he the one so plain, & not the other at all? if he did it for brevity, he might most briefly have said, the Scriptures: which word had comprehended & included both, & so had he showed, that he allowed the proofs of the old Testament also. Ha' M. Stapl. Ueritas non querit angulos: The truth seeks no inclusive corners, go plainly man to work for very shame. For yet, for all your inclusions here to colour the matter: in other places where this is not laid unto your charge, both yourself and M. Dorman, quite excludeth the examples of the old Testament from the new, as not fit patterns for Princes to follow. Doing herein (what pretences so ever you here include) even as M. Feckenham doth, and the Donatists did before. And that Master Feckenham did no other, but even of purpose conceal the old Testaments examples, as foreseeing that they made against him: I will ask no better witness than your own self Master Stapleton that by all these covert inclusions go about to excuse him. But when you can not make any good excuse: in conclusion, yea in your next words, you bewray all the matter, you could hold it no longer for your life, blab it witted and out it must. And surely (say you) wise men use not greatly to show that Stap. 62. a M. Stapl. here bewrayeth the very cause why M. Feck. forsook the examples of the old Testament, because they made against him. maketh against them, but most for them. Hold your hand from the book M. St. you never said truer word in all your life. You hit the prick there in deed, and tell the very cause why he concealed the name of the old Testament and showed it not in his large and ample offer. Because (say you) wise men surely, use not greatly to show that maketh against them, but most for them: but M. Feckenham surely is a wise man: Ergo, he showeth not in his offer the name of the old Testament because the proofs thereof make against him, but only put the name of the new Testament, because he thought that made most for him. True, Master Stapl. thus do the children of this Luke. 16. world (being wiser in their generations than the children of light) not show▪ as you say, but conceal the truth of God, because they see, it maketh against them. But herein M. St. for all your jolly wit and wisdom, that you vaunt upon so often, your wisdom overshot itself. Surely you did not like one of these wise men, but rather like one of the wise men of Gotham, God turning your wisdom into folly, that confess those examples and proofs to make against M. Feckenham, or at lest wise that he so feared, and therefore he showeth not the name of the old Testament, but concealeth it. And thus, while your drift is to prove that he shifteth not of those proofs and examples, you confess that he of very purpose, (not minding, as you said before, to include them, but to exclude them) leaveth them out and showeth them not, but shifteth them of, and that of a shameful purpose, only because they make against him. Where if he had any spark of truth and conscience, he would not hide that in God's word that maketh against him. But perceiving that those prouses make against him, would withal perceive himself to be in a manifest error, and never let worldly wisdom so overcome him, that he should be ashamed openly to confess, that he striveth against the truth. And you M. Stapleton had you any grace, confessing the truth to be against him, (except you be a very Manichee, that set the old Testament against the new,) M. Stapl. defendeth Mast. Feck. against his own know ledge and conscience. would perceive, that if the old were against him, than the new were also against him: and would even here, hurl away the pen, that should defend such a shifter off, and hider of the truth, against your conscience. So far would you be from this impudency to writ that he affirmeth and comprehendeth that, which of wisdom as you call, it he purposely concealeth: and that he alloweth that, which he hides as making against him. Which is no point of wisdom M. Stapleton but rather of stark folly, and mere contradiction to itself, and to all your former excuses. And thus speaking of wise men, to show yourself in the number: you speak against him, whom you are hired and labour to defend: you speak against yourself, yea against your cause and all. So doth God make them show their own shame, that wittingly will be hired with Balaam to resist his open truth. Confusi sunt sapientes. etc. Hieremie. ●…. The wise men are confounded (saith the Lord) they shall be astonished and taken for lo, they have cast out the word of the Lord, what wisdom can be among them. And so hath God here infatuate M. St. that when he hath bewrayed the very cause why M. Feck. showed not in his offer, the name of the old Testament, so well as of the new, to be, because he thought it made against him, & therefore did like a wise man, to leave it out: he concludeth most fo●…dly, even the quite contrary. Wherefore (saith he) it is incredible that M. Feck should Stap. 62. a once imagine any such sifting or shifting, as you dream of, having won his purpose against you, even by the very old Testament, as we have declared. By your own declaration, M. Stap. (all your inclusive shifts for him not withstanding) you have declared the quite contrary: That he wisely (as he thought) left it out as against him, which (when you have said all that you can to salve the matter) is in very deed nothing else but sifting and shifting, and that full shameful too. Now where you urge your conclusion further, saying: And therefore it is spoken but in your dream, when you Stapl.. 62. a. say, you have thereby with marvelous force shaken M. Feck. hold, which surely is so forcible, as will not beat down a very paper brickwall. And marvel were it, if you should so batter his hold, when that these your great Cannons come not nigh his hold by one thousand miles. Have you measured the miles, that you reckon them so jump, M. Stap? else it is possible you might be deceived. For if the proves of the old Testament be against master Feckenhams cause (as you have confessed) there is no doubt but they would shake and beat it down all to fitters, if they were bend and shot against his hold were it never so strong: which in deed is nothing else but the very paper walls you speak of, as your M. D. Harding, while he was a Protestant, called Purgatory. And therefore M. Feck▪ more worldly wise than you his defender: like an old beaten soldier, knowing they were against him, or at lest so fearing, & mistrusting withal his paper walled hold dared not abide the battery of those great Camnons', the proofs and examples of the old testament, and therefore, as you confessed before, would not show that which made against him, but purposely left it out, wherein how wisely soever he did, yourself, I think, spoke and written all these follies & contradictions in your dreams, which, had you been well awake, you would never (I deem) have confessed for very shame. Again (say you) this accusation is incredible. For master Feck. is so far from this suspicion, that he himself bringeth Stapl. 62. b in against you▪ many and good testimonies of the old law (as fol. 109 and. 123.) by the force whereof only he may be thought to have shaken and overthrown to your rotten weak hold, underpropped with your sampson's posts, as mighty as Bulrushes. If the proofs and examples of the old Testament seem to you as mighty as bulrushes, how mighty then did M. Feckenham think your cause? much weaker belike than withered grass, that perceiving these bulrushes were against it, dared not abide the brunt and push of them, but like a wise man, that is to say, like a subtle Donatist, passed them over in silence. But as therein (labouring to show master Feckenham to be a wise man) you showed yourself not to be all the wisest: so haerein (going about to clear him of refusing the old Testament, and so to be no Denatist) you not only yourself with him refuse these proofs, like the Donatists, but worse than the Donatists, call the proofs of the old Testament in contempt, as mighty as Bulrushes. So did Golias account the might and slingstones of David, to give as small a 1. Reg. 17. stroke as a fillip, or as your bulrushes, master Stapleton, but yet the little stone of David rushed him top side turny. So did Holofernes captains esteem the Bethulians, saying, judith. 14. these mice are come out of their holes and dare provoke us to fight with them. But such a God is God, that by the 1. Cor. 1. weak things of the world he confounds the mighty, and even with his bulrushes overturueth all your bulwarks. You think, M. St. it is incredible that M Feck could be a Donatist, because he bringeth in many & good testmonies of the old law, as fol. 109. and. 123 by the force whereof only he may be thought to have shaken, and overthrown too, our rotten weak hold. etc. He may (as you say) be thought so, M. St. of some of your side. But the question might be demanded, what he hath done, and not what he may be thought to have done. You say his testimonies be many and good. But how many, you dared not tell for shame, nor the goodness of them to prove the Pope's supremacy, but wisely also let them alone, & say he may be thought by them to prove the Pope's title, whereas they make nothing for it, nor against the Prince's government any thing at al. But what is all this to the purpose, to clear M. Feck of a Donatist? if it be incredible that he is a Donatist, which refuseth all these proofs out of the old Testament, because he admitteth other proofs, such as he thinks make for his purpose: then is it incredible to believe, that How the Donatists and the Papists allege the old Testament alike. the Donatists themselves were Donatists, which is not only incredible, but impossible. Did not the Donatists for their Church in the corners of Africa cite the Canticles & other places in the old Testament, & they said they were many and good also, notwithstanding they refused these proofs & examples of prince's government. And yet no man thought it incredible nor impossible, that they should still be Donatistes. So, is it nothing incredible nor impossible, but that, for all your testimonies from Aaron's priesthood & ceremonies, which you allege out of the old testament, that bind us not: and yet refusing the manifest proofs & examples of Princes, that bind us: you may, for all this, be Donatists still. Yea herein also you play the Donatists parts. But I perceive (say you) by your good Logic, your law Stapl 62. b and like divinity, silence maketh a denial, and because M. Feckenham maketh no mention in this place of the matter to be proved by the old Testament, therefore he subtly refuseth the proves thereof. What need many words master Stapleton, yourself have confessed that this making no mention of the matter to be proved by the old Testaments ensamples: was a wise man's part, because they were against him. Which, what it is in Logic, let Logicians descant. What it is in law, (which is your profession) to play such wise men's parts: I commit to the Lawyers. But in divinity (Master Stapleton) of which you say you are now a student, if you study till your brains ache, you shall find this wisdom, that concealeth the truth, which maketh against it, to be nothing less than a subtle refusal, which is the fairest name you can cover the Donatists' error withal. But you should rather (say you) me think, induce the contrary, and that he consenteth to you for the old Testament: Quia qui tacet consentire videtur: (as the old saying is) for he that holdeth his peace, seemeth to consent: and so ye might have better forced upon him that all was yours, presupposing that you had proved the matter by the old Testament. Do you leave your Logic, Law, and Divinity, so soon, Silence argueth not always assent. and fall to proverbs master Stapleton, and old sayings? In deed it is an old saying, that he that holdeth his peace, seemeth to consent: But yet this (seemeth) proveth not that he doth consent. A man may refuse some things, and because he refuseth them, will not answer them. A man may (seeing a thing against him) of purpose hide it in silence, and Old sayings. so, thinking to slip the collar, he subtly refuseth it. A man may play coll under Candlestick, seest me, seest me not: and who is so blind as he that seethe & will not see? A man may lay his hand on his mouth, mumbudget, whust, not a word for a thousand pound, lest he open a gap, and rip up a matter against himself. And what doth he here, grant it or refuse it? doth he not of set purpose subtly refuse it, and thinks himself no small fool, yea, perhaps a great wise man, in so refusing it? and God wots, a full simple man is he that perceiveth not this to be a plain refusal. If leaving Logic, law and divinity, you run for secure to old sayings: These are no new sayings, M. St. I think you have herded also of another homely old saying: When the rain rains and the goose winks, little wottes the gosling what the goose thinks. And a full seely gos●…ing would you make yourself, M. St. if, seeing how M. Feck. as subtle as a goo●…e winks at these matters, & will not of purpose see them, when he is so pressed & urged with these examples & proves, that as it were they rain upon him: you think not that this is a refusal of them, but perhaps you will say, you be wiser than the gos●…ing, and that you perceived as much as did the winking goose, when you said, he seemeth to consent that holdeth his peace, for you tell not what he seemeth to consent unto. He seemeth in deed to consent unto this, that they be against him as you say, and for this cause like your wise man, he purposely refuseth them, in burying them in silence, so much as lieth in him, even as the Donatists did. Now that neither logic, law, divinity, old sayings, nor yet the wise man's shift, will serve to clear master Feck. from being a Donatist: master Stap. will once more (for an old grudge) have a ●…ing at us, and to see if he can fasten any thing on us, be saith: But you will needs drive your reason another way. Let Stapl. 62. b 63. a us see then, what we Catholics can say to you for your Apology by the like drift. You and your Colleges seeing themselves ●…arged with many heresies, to wipe away that blot, if it be possible, and for your better purgation, take upon you, to show your whole, full and entire belief. And thereupon you recite the articles of the common Creed. But now good sir, I ask you a question, what if by chance you had omitted any one of them, would you gladly be measured by this rule▪ you measure M. Feck. by? would you be content, that the catholics should lay to your charge, that you subtly refuse that article, that you have foreslowne to rehearse? If you would not, then must I say to you with Christ: Quod ●…ibi non vis fieri, alteri non facias. Do you not to another, that you would not have done to yourself. If you say that you are content to stand to the very same law, as if you be a reasonable and a constant man you must needs say: Lo then good sir, you have concluded yourself, and all your companions plain heretics, for the refusal of the articles, conceived of the holy Ghost, which you omit in the rehearsal of your Creed, which article, I am assured, you find not there. Then further, seeing the arch-heretic Eutiches, and before him Apollinarius in the reciting of the common creed ran in a manner the same race, you following them at the heels▪ as fast as may be, pretermitting also these words: Incarnatus est de spiritu sancto, here might we even by your own rule and example, cry out upon you all as Apollinarians and Eutichians, and that with more colourable matter, than you have, either to make M. Feck. a Donatist, or that your Apology hath to make the worthy and learned Cardinal Hosius, a Swenkfeldian: wherein your rhetoric is altogether as good, as is this yours here against master Feckenham. To let rhetoric go, M. St. with your law & logic, I will only come to your question, & then to your illation you infer thereon Your demand standeth on this presupposal. What if we, by chance, have omitted any article of the common creed? would we be charged, that we subtly refused that article? This similitude, M. St. is nothing alike, from any article, either M. Sta. unlike similitude to disburden M. Fecknham. by chance (as you say) omitted, or not required, or not in question at all, or not pertinent to the purpose & issue in hand, but granted & agreed upon of both parties, without any controversy: to a thing not by chance, but of purpose omitted, as yourself have confessed, M. Feck. did omit the proofs of the old testament, because he was a wise, otherwise called a subtle man: he being so much urged of his adversary therewith: the matter chief in question & properly belonging to the purpose & issue in hand: yea, & himself making a chalege to be tried by the scriptures, fathers, counsels & practice: & to strike off before hand (as it were a debar) the one half of the same scripture, or rather the part thereof, that setteth it out most plainly: & to do all this, only because it maketh against him: what can this be thought else but subtle refusing and shifting off, as did the Donatists? and to liken the other chance unto this, which (all the world may see, even by your own confession) is most unlike, what is this but another shameful kind of shifting off also? Thus you see, that you can rightly lay no such thing to our How falsely M. Sta. challengeth us for heretics, for leaving out an article of the common creed in the Apology . charge, although, as you say, by chance, some article of the common Creed had been by us forslowne. We refuse not the rule of Christ, in this or any other behalf: neither do we so to you, as you have done to us: but require you rather to do so to us, as we have done to you. But then, you say, we conclude ourselves and all our companions plain heretics. And how so, M. St? for that (say you) in the apology in the reciting of the common creed you omit these words, incarnatus est de spiritu sancto, conceived of the holy ghost. First & formast, M. St. this assertion of yours, is a wilful lie, & not a scape forslowne or overshot by chance: if you have seen the Apology yourself, as I dare say, you have done, & narrowly pried for the matter, & think you have espied more than your master could espy, or thought worthy to be noted. For where as you tell us, both in your text, and in your margin for failing, that the Apology reciteth the common creed: this is most evident false. And your M. D. Harding himself, I dare say, if he he a lives man, will say you err foully therein, who finds a peevish fault with Thapologie, even for this, that it reciteth not the common creed. But can you say your common creed, M. St? For it may How cunning M. Stap. himself ●…s in the common creed. be (to construe it to the best) that this your error is rather of ignorance. I think you say your common Creed in Latin oftener than in English, for in English you re●…ke not how few can say it, and yet you hit it truer in English, than in Latin. But you that reprehend the bishop and other for Grammar, in englishing of words so exactly, I pray you, by what new found figure of Grammar, do you M. Stap. notes the Bishop and other for grammar, and ●…o what a Grammarian he shows himself to be. english, Incarnatus est de spiritu sancto, He was conceived by the holy Ghost? In good sooth, M. Stap. you were here somewhat conceived amiss yourself. And this was a greater overshot than any of your common petit quarrels, besides this foil most of all, that you can not perfectly say the common Creed, nor writ it rightly in your book, that almost each plough boy can say without the book. You tell us Thapologie reciting the common creed, omitteth Incarnatus est de spiritu sancto, whereas those words are not in the common Creed. The words of the common Creed are these, Qui conceptus est de spiritu sancto, with which agreeth Damasus Creed, and not Qui incarnatus est de spiritu sancto. Thus have all the books that I have seen, and yet I have looked a good many, to see if any writ it as you do, whereby I might the rather hold you excused. The words that you recite are the words of the Nicene creed, which you have put in your Mass. But belike you sing Mass oftener than you say the common creed, & so took that which you commonly used, to be the common creed, Well, say you, howsoever it be, you have here omitted both incarnatus and conceptus too▪ And therefore by your own rule and example, here might we cry out upon you all, as Apollinarians and Eutichians. In deed M. Sta▪ no man can let you to cry out and crow out, that we be, what soever it please you to cry out upon us. But how well and truly you may cry it out, that is another matter. For, by the same rule and example, you might cry out also upon Ireneus, that omitteth this article in his creed. You might cry out of Tertullian, that Contr. Valent. lib. 1. cap. 2. & lib. 3. cap. 4. De prescript. haereticorum. likewise omitteth it. You might cry out upon S. Ambrose, and S. Augustine, that are said to have compiled the hymn Te ' Deum. You might cry out upon Athanasius Creed Quicunque vult: And upon diverse other, that omit this Article of the conception of Christ by the holy ghost. And yet are they neither Apollinarians nor Eutichians. But look you to it whether any of their Heresies touch your or not, even in maintenance of their heretical doctrine. You stretch the rule to far and to generally (M. Stap.) every forflowne omission by chance, as yourself say, where no special occasion is given, is not a subtle refusal: Nor so M. Feckenham is charged, yourself have showed he did it wittingly, yea wisely as you say, and he thought to omit that that he is chief charged withal, because it made against him. If the fathers, and the Apology did thus in their omission: then hardly lay it to their charges, and therein you shall do but well. For otherwise, as you would retort this on us: see how soon, and how sore it might be returned on you, yea and that in the self same place where of very purpose you say the common creed, and say to the Fol. 423. li. ●… Diuis. 159. cap. 4. M. Stap. taketh on him to teach the bishop his Catechism Bishop in your fo●…rth book about the number of the articles, that you will bring him to his Catechism, which unless you thought yourself a coming student in Divinity, and specially well traveled in your ab●…e, you would not else take upon you to teach a Bishop. In deed your Bishops were very blind, but thanks be to God our Bishops are no such blind guides, that they should need to learn their Catechism of you. But let us see how do you teach him when you come even to the common creed, & how you number the Articles, (although concerning your quarrel at the number of the articles) I will answer (God willing in his proper place. The first article than is (say you) I believe in God. The second, I believe in God the father. The. 3. I believe that he is Stap. fol. 423. omnipotent. The. 4. That he is the creator of heaven and earth. The. 5. I believe in jesus Christ. And here proceeding to M Sta. in saying the Common creed leaveth out these words. And in jesus Christ our Lord. other Articles, you leave quite out these words, his only son our Lord. Why do you thus M. Stapleton? do you not believe that jesus Christ is the son of God, and that he is the only son of God, and that he is our Lord? Look well to this gear M. St. here is first, after the manner of your accounting, three articles omitted, and one of them such a special point, as we charge you with, that you take away his Lordship, & now you take away his sonship too. Will you say this was overhipped by chance or forslowne? well be it-so, although, even in saying the common Creed, such a forslowne scape might deserve a jerking in a young scholar, but more shameful it is in a Divine, yea in such a Divine as will take upon him to teach a Bishop. But why not? would not the sow take upon her, to teach Minerva? but let us see your further teaching. The sixte, I believe that he was conceived of the holy Stapl. 423. a M. Sta. leaveth out again, in saying the common Creed, these words, crucified, dead, and buried. ghost. The seventh, that he was born of the virgin Mary. The eight, that he suffered under Pontius Pila●…us. Here once again, you omit these words, crucified, dead, and buried: containing also (after your reckoning) three other articles, and you leave them clean out. Whether it be, that you cannot say the creed perfectly, which were a foul blot: or which is worse, that you purposely leave them out, like the wise men, that use not greatly to show that, that maketh against them. For, the popish doctrine is so flat diverse ways, against the death of Christ: that it quite taketh away the virtue and effect thereof. And therefore the Papists seek to be saved, by so many means besides. But whether you leave it out for this, or any other privier cause or open: I remit it to your own purgation, and to other men's conjectures. You proceed and say. And the ninth, that he descended into hell. The tenth, that Stapl.. 423. a A●… other article left out by M. Sta. in saying the common creed, That he sitteth at the right hand of God the father almighty. he arose from death. The eleventh, that he ascended into heaven. And the twelfth, that he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. Thus again have you left out an other Article, that he sitteth at the right hand of God the father almighty. Which is also material, in the controversy between us of your transubstantiation, which error as it clean confuteth, so it argueth you to be the very Eutichians, yourselves, as is already proved out of Theodoretus. Moore things are to be noted about this your dealing in in the common Crede, only now I note, but these your shameful omissions, and that not once, nor twice, but thrice: and that in principal matters in controversy, and all in reciting even the common Creed, which almost every child with us of any discretion (thanks be to God) can say without book, and you master Stapleton, a shorn priest, a Bachelor of law, a student in divinity, a writer of Louvain, a translator of books, a doctors proctor, a defender of a quondam Abbot, & one that not only will teach and control all other, but crack that you will bring a Bishop to his catechism, and teach him his creed, and cannot say the common Creed aright yourself, but make so many 'scapes: surely, and you were a boy again in Winchester school, you were well worthy so many lashes, as you have left out words, and as well laid on, as the words are weighty and material. You may escape the lashes now you be adultus, but and you were a doltus to, you can not escape the shame. On the other part, if you say you left these articles out of purpose, and not of such truandly ignorance, even where of purpose you went about to leave out no article, and yet left out so many: how was not then your witting purpose, even a wilful refusal of those articles? Whereby, how many herelies you bewrappe yourself withal, well nigh every man may perceive and judge. And thus with too narrow sitting of small matters in other men, for the defence of M. Feckenham: you have not only not hurt them, nor helped him any thing, but brought yourself into the same and greater briars than he was in, and can not rid your hands of them, either without blemish of many Heresies, for wilful omitting such weighty matters, and that so near points in controversy, forcing that those articles were against your errors: or else (not to press you so sore, yet at the lest to impute all to ignorance or reckless foreslouth) it is a foul fault in so great a student, and the greater foil, the more you take upon you to control the Apology of so many excellent learned and famous men, and will teach the Bishop his Catechism and yourself can not your creed. If M. Feckenham hear of this his defenders foil, he will perchance of pity or charity pray for you, and have you in his Pater noster, that God would make you a better scholar, or a wiser man: but, and he would follow mine advice, you should never come into his creed, since you can not say your own. Now M. Stapl. cry out and yell upon us, that we be Heretics, so loud as you can, if for very shame you can open your mouth at all. You say you can do it to us, & that with more colourable matter than (we) have, either to make M. Feckenham a Donatiste or that (our) Apology hath to make that worthy and learned cardinal Hosius a Swenkfeldian. I think so even in deed M. St. that you may cry out upon us with more colourable matter. For other matter than colourable, to cry out upon us for Heretics, have you none. Whether Cardinal Hosi' be justly challenged to maintain the Swenk feldians heresi●… or no. But since it is but your painted colours, and not any matter at all in deed, the more you cry out, the more you show your shame. Cardinal Hosius, whom you so much commend, the matter wherewith he is charged to be a Swenkfeldian, or worse than a Swenkfeldian, is no colourable matter, but apparent, & confessed by himself. And if you make M. Feckenhams case to be such as his, you have well helpen him up M. St. then is this no colourable matter, that he is charged with, to be herein a Donatiste: but a very plain and true matter. And then is his case worse than it was before▪ when he of set purpose (thinking to play a wiseman's part) left out the old Testaments proofs, and therein showed himself a Donatiste: doth also with Hosius deface and blaspheme both old and new Testament, and therein show himself a Swenkfeldian also. And thus the further you wade to save M. Feckenham your client from the spot of one Heresy, you not only help him nothing therein, but go near to draw him into an other. It is best therefore M. Stapleton both for him and for yourself, let him crawl out himself so well as he can: for you do hitherto but hinder him, and bemyre yourself. Which when at length belike you begin to perceive: Neither (say you) do we greatly pass how the Donatists Stap. 63. 2. in this point demeaned themselves, and whether they openly or privily shunned proofs brought and deduced out of the old Testament. You should have told us thus much before M. St. and not all this while to have laboured so earnestly in and out with all these shifts, only for objecting this practice of the Donatists to M. Feckenham, & to remove the Bishop's motives, which now you see you can not do: you say, you greatly pass not how the Donatists in this point demeaned themselves. And I am even of the same opinion also that you greatly pass not of it. But if you took the Donatists to be Heretics in deed, and had not a certain affinity with them: you would not thus after all your stir, relent to the accusation, & say, you pass not how the Donatists in this point demeaned themselves, since you be charged with their demeanour in this point. Which, what is it else, than to say, you paste not in this point, whether you be Donatists or no. If you had a good zeal to the truth, or your conscience were clear of this crime: you would rather have said with Jerome, Errare possum, Hereticus esse nolo. Err I may, but I will not be an Heretic. As therefore you confessed right now, that all your defence hitherto hath been but colourable matter: so now you care not in this point, whether you be culpable or no. Yea you go about to defend and clear the Donatists, and to post off this accusation to the Manichées. For what mean you else to say? In deed the Manichees denied the Authority of the Stap. 63. ●… books of the old law and Testament, which I read not of the Donatists. Yea in the very same book and chapter by you alleged, Petilian himself, taketh his proof against the Catholics out of the old Testament, which you know could serve him in little steed, if he himself did reject such kind of Evidences. This now shall suffice for this branch, to purge M. Feckenham that he is no Donatist, or Heretic otherwise. How well all this sufficeth to M. Feckenh. purgation, either of the Donatistes' heresy, or rather of blemishing him with other Heresies, and how good a compurgatour you have been, or rather a partaker of his Heresies: we must both refer to the Reader (M. Stapleton) as judge in his conscience, to cast or aquitte M. Feckenham herein. You think by cleared the Donatists of this objection, you have cleared withal M. Feckenham. But while you go about to clear them, you accuse S. Augustine that is their accuser, who says, they did refuse the proofs of the old Testament. And you say you have not red it, had you red S. Augustine or so much as the words taken out of him that the Bishop citeth, and you take upon you to answer unto for Master Feckenhams defence, how could you not have red it? but you would slip off the matter under the colour of the Manicheans refusal, because the Donatists did not refuse it as they did, therefore they did not refuse it at all, whereas The D●…natists did not simply refuse the old●…▪ testament, as the Manichees did, but sub●…ly as the Papists do. the Manichées did simply and utterly refuse the old Testament, which the Donatists did not, but refused it like such wise men as the Papists, when they think it maketh against them▪ and admit & urge it when they think it maketh for them, thus did they, and thus do you: and therefore for this handling of the old Testament you be like the Donatists. But for your handling of the new Testament you be like the Manichées, of whom S. Augustine says, Ipsi●…sque nou●… Testaments, etc. And they so read the sentences Aug. de haere●…. Ad quod vult. of the new Testament, as though they had been falsified, that what they lust they take from thence, and what they like not they reject, and as though they contained not all the truth, they preferred many books that were Apocrypha: And said that in their Archemanichees the promise of the Lord jesus Christ was fulfilled, whereupon in his letters he called himself the Apostle of jesus Christ, because jesus Christ promised to send him, and sent in him jesus Christ. Which how near it toucheth your Pope's practice, look you to it, and clear him of it M. Stapleton, else you will not only prove Donatists I am afraid, but also Manicheans. Thus much then for the former motive that the B. had to charge M. Feckenham with the Donatists. And if this suffice (as you say) for this branch to purge M. Feckenham, content is pleased, and so am I, let it suffice in God's blessed name, I commit it to the reader's judgement. Now to the other motive. Concerning the other (say you) besides your falsehood, Stapl. 63. a. b The second motive that moved the Bishop to challenge M Feck. to follow the Donatiste●…. your great folly doth also show itself too, aswell as in the other, to imagine him to be a Donatiste. And to think or say as you say they did, that Civil Magistrates have not to do with Religion, nor may not punish the transgressors of the same. Master Feckenham says no such thing, and I suppose he thinketh no such thing. And further I dare be bold to say that there is not so much as a light conjecture to be grounded thereof, by any of M. Feckenhams words, unless M. Horn become suddenly so subtle, that he thinketh no difference to say, the Prince should not punish an honest true man in steed of a thief, and to say he should not punish a thief: or to say there is no difference betwixt all things and nothing. For though M. Feckenham and all other Catholics do deny, the civil Princes supreme government in all causes Ecclesiastical, yet doth not M. Feckenham nor any Catholic deny but that civil Princes may deal in some matters Ecclesiastical, as Advocates and Defenders of the Church, namely in punishing of Heretics, by sharp laws. Unto the which laws, Heretics are by the Church first given up, and delivered, by open excommunication and condemnation. Here first as you did in the other motive, so again you charge the Bishop with falsehood and folly, but take heed M. Stapleton the falsehood and folly light not on your own pate, as it did in the other. Whether it be folly in you or craft, let other deem: certainly falsehood it is, that when you come to the setting down of the Bishop's words in a distinct letter, you dare not for both ears on your head, set down the full words of the Bishop, nor of S. Augustine, nor yet of the Donatists, whereby it might have been known, what the donatists attributed or denied to Princes, and how near, or how far, you had come unto, or diffred from them. Thus dared you not do, and thus should you have done, which argueth your own falsehood. But you turn the cat into the pan, and say, that the Donatists said, Civil magistrates have not to do with religion, nor may not punish the transgressors of the same, but (say you) M. Feckenham says no such thing and you suppose he thinketh no such thing, and further you dare be bold to say there is not so much as a light conjecture to be grounded thereof by any of M. Feckenhams words, and hereon you conclude him to be no Donatiste. Now since you will be thus bold for M. Feckenham as to enter into his thought, you should not have been afraid with the Bishop, to have set down his plain written words, or so much as the full content thereof. Did you fear they would bite you? in deed they would have showed you to have been a Donatist, & they would have showed how you have altered the Donatistes' refusal, and S. Augustine's complaint on them, to make it seem you were none. You say M. Feckenham and you grant, Princes may deal with matters ecclesiastical. Why? M. Stapl. so di●… the Donatists too. Have not Supra pag. yourself confessed, that they ran for secure to julianus the Apostata, and highly commended him? And you know in Cecilians controversy, that they refused not the emperors dealing, till he dealt still against them, and therefore, as you say, you do not, no more did they simply deny, that princes might deal in matters of religion. You should therefore have adjoined the words that the Bishop reciteth out of S. Augustine, how, and after what manner they denied their dealing in matters of religion, and punishment of heretics. Whether they denied it as you d●…, that they should not dealing as supreme governors, as punishers by their own authority, yea or not, for this you deny. Now that Princes had and t●…ke upon them, and ought to have this kind of dealing, the Bishop proved out of S. Aug●…stine, Diuis. 18. pag. 11. that magistrates and rulers ●…ught to reform them, to reduce them to the unity of the Church, and to repress their heresies with their authority and godly laws made for that purpose, to whom it belonged of duty, and whose special service to Christ, is to see, care and provide, that their subjects be governed and maintained in the true and sincere religion of Christ, without all errors, superstitions and heresies. This was the manner of the Princes dealing then with religion, and this you now deny to Princes, to deal on this wise▪ And on this fashion said the Donatists. The secular How the Donatists and Papists deny the Prince's government in Ecclesiastical cau ses, and ref●…rie it only to the clergy. Princes have not to deal in matters of religion or causes eccl. That God committeth not the teaching of his people to kings, but to Prophets. Christ sent not soldiers, but fishers, to bring in, and further his religion. Pretending the ordering and disposing of all eccl. causes to be in the Clergy, and by the Clergy they meant themselves. As you do likewise when you say, heretics▪ are by the Church given up, and delivered. By the Church, that is, say you, only by What the Papists mean by the Church us that are the Priests. Heretics you say are first given up by the Church, unto the civil Princes sharp laws: do you not here make yourselves only the Church? Yea do you not make these two distinct members, the Church that giveth them up, and the Prince, to whose sharp laws the party condemned is given up, and so excl●…de the Prince from the Church, as no member at all thereof? And herein you agree, or rather are worse than they. So that still the similitude holdeth, between M. Feckenham and the Donatists, both of them refusing the old Testament for the proof of Princes supreme government. Yea although the Donatists had go further than the Papists do, where in deed the Papists go further than did the Donatists, what soever liberality you pretend to give Princes to deal in religion, wherein you dare be bold, you say. But yet for all that M. St. be not over bold, in allowing Princes a dealing in religion, for fear your friends (that allow not Princes so much as to talk of religion) count your boldness, to proceed of Bayards blindness. Although yourself espying by & by your over hardy and M. Sta. re●…oketh his grant. hasty boldness, step back again, and so qualify this your bold grant of Princes dealing in some eccl. matters, that in conclusion, you say as the donatists said, or rather give Princes less than they did, either making them the enrichers of your coafers, which you term by the name of advocates or defenders of the Church, or else the executioners of your cruelty, and to deal not one io●…e further. Which being no ecclesiastical matters at all (except to defend or put a man to death be an eccl. matter) your bold grant, that they should deal in some eccl. matters, is so cunningly resolved, that when all comes to all, they shall deal in none at all, but only be the defenders or executioners of them that are the only dealers there with. Thus do you play in words mockholiday with Christian princes. Do you think (M. St.) that Christian princes did nothing else, nor had any other authority but this, in punishing the Donatists in S. Augustine's time? the words of S. Augustine are against you, the story of Cecilians cause doth confute you, yea, even the ●…ning & refusal of the Donatists showeth the plain●… 〈◊〉. And think you if princes had at that time no f●…her authority to punish the Donatists, than you limit princes now, that the Donatists The Donatists exclaiming on the Princes for Ecclesiastical causes, argueth that the supreme government of them was in the Princes. would have refused and cried out upon the Emperor's authority therein, if they had been but the only executors of the father's judgements? Nay, they would then have cried, that the fathers, as principal, had had naught to do therein, and that the Princes were misruled by the fathers, and that the fathers had made the Princes their executioners: Thus no doubt would they, and needs must they have cried, if they would have cried out at all; presupposing Princes had then no more to do in matters of religion▪ than the fathers would permit, appoint, and allow them, as you order Princes now. But the Donatists cried not out so, nor in deed they could, but they cried out chief against the authority of the Princes: it arg●…th then the Prince●… had the chief authority, to s●…t forth the true religion, and to suppress●… there's, 〈◊〉 all other heresies, and not the fathers and Bishops▪ Now what difference is t●…ere between your cry and the D●…ies? Why? say you, is there no difference between all things, and nothing. Yes, M. Stap. there is something betwixt them. For Stap. 63. b who saith the Prince hath, or may have the doing of all thing? object it to them that say so. We say, the Prince hath under God the supreme government over all things ecclesiastical. That is to say, to oversee and direct, that all things be dutifully done by them, to whom they belong. Now in this behalf, you give the Prince not so much as any something, but bore nothing, under a name of something. Whether then it be something, or it be nothing, you still are like the Donatists about this matter in every thing. Is there no difference (say you) to say the Prince should Stapl. 63. b M. Stapl. example of the Princis punishing an honest man for a thief. not punish an honest true man 〈◊〉 stead of a thief, and to say, he should not punish a 〈◊〉? Yes for sooth, M. Stap. there is a great difference. But doth this example also make any thing against the Prince's supreme authority, in dealing in ecclesiastical matters? Go too then, let this stand for an example. As the Prince, though the right of his authority stretch not so far, that he should punish an honest true man, in steed of a thief, yet, to punish a thief, he hath authority: so although the right of the christian Princes authority stretch not so far, that he should punish a true and faithful Christian in steed A thief in christian religion. john. 10. of a false thée●…ishe Christian: (A thief in this behalf is he that followeth not the doctrine of Christ, of whom he says, Omnes qui venerunt ant●… me fures sunt, & latrones▪ All that came before me were thieves and robbers, because they rob God of his glory) yet to punish the very thief he hath authority. Now, M. Stapl. by what authority doth the M. Sta. similitude returned upon himself. Prince punish the thief, doth he not punish him by his own supreme authority next to God? you will say, he punisheth him by his laws. But who maketh the law forcible, doth not (next under God) the Prince's supreme authority? Yea, what though the Prince himself sat not on him, nor pronounced the sentence, nor executed the punishment of the thief, yet is not all this done, by there's, to whom these offices appertain, but by the Prince's supreme authority. The Prince is not the judges executioner, but the judge and the officer are the Princes. If then your similitude hold, even there where it should principally hold, and in the matter in controversy between us, than that authority, that the Prince hath to punish spiritual thieves, Idolaters, heretics, false Prophets. etc. is next under God, his own supreme authority. And though he himself pronounce not the sentence on the heretic, nor execute the punishment of him, yet is it done by his supreme authority: Nor the Prince is the Clergies executioner, but the Clergy therein and the officers, are rather the Prince's executioners. Thus you see how your own similitude directly and playvely applied, maketh clean against you. Now for the testimo●…ies that the bishop citeth out of S. M. Stapl. letteth go the testimonies of S Aug. alleged by the Bishop. Aug. to open and confu●…e the practices of the Donatists, which should hau●… shewe●… how like your doing had been to there's: as though you herded not on that ●…ide, or as though you would counterfeit the wise man yourself, that useth not greatly to show that that maketh against him, you quite omit them, saying: As for S. Augustine's testimonies they nothing touch M. Stapl. 63. b Feck. and therefore we will say nothing to them, but keep our accustomable tale with you. You do well to call your answer a tale, for you have hitherto told a fair tale, and a well told tale, and therefore I pray you, M. Stap. tell on your tale, till you have red us out this worthy chapter. And see that the residue of your tale be accustomable (as y●… say) to this you have hitherto told us. The. 19 Division. THe Bishop (for that M. Feck. with the Donatists) refuseth Winton. pag. 12. b. the proves of the old Testament ●…or Princes supreme government) joineth with Saint Aug. against the Donatists and the Papists, alleging out of S. Augus●…. many The special 〈◊〉 o●… christian princes. sentences: first, to prove this to be the very duty and special service of Princes unto God, to have an especial care, diligence and oversight, to see God's laws and true Religion set forth and kept, and to punish and remove all things to the contrary. Secondly, to confute this refusal of the Donatists and Papists, besides the foresaid proves and examples, he allegeth o●…te of Saint Augustine Further examples of the old Testament alleged by S. Aug. for princes dealing in ecclesiastical matters. the examples of the King of Ninive, of Darius, of Nabuchodonozor and others: proving thereby, that the Histories and testimonies cited out of the old Testament, are partly figures, and partly Prophecies of the power, duty and service, that Kings should own and perform in like sort, to the further●…uce of Christ's religion, in the time of the new Testament. Master Stapletons' answer to these testimonies is Stapletons' order to this di vision. threefold. First he laboureth to restrain all the testimonies of Saint Augustine, only to punishing of Heretics. Secondly he laboureth to prove that these testimonies make against us. Thirdly he goeth about once again, by the Bishop's illation on these testimonies, to clear master Fec●…enham of the crime that the Bishop charged him with, for refusing the examples of the old testament. The first part he parteth again in three. First he gathereth a contract and sum of all these testimonies, to the which he yieldeth. Secondly, he showeth that this was his old and former opinion. Thirdly, he limitteth all the matter only to punishment. And first of all he saith: ●…o, now have we more testimonies out of Saint August. to Stap. 65. a prove that, for the which he hath alleged many things out of S. Aug. already, and the which no man denieth. For what else proveth all this out of S. Aug. both now and before alleged, but that christian Princes aught to make laws and constitutions (even as M. Horn himself expoundeth it. fol. 12. b) for the furtherance of Christ's religion? Are you afraid M. Stap. to be oppressed with the number Number of testimonies. of testimonies? What man, and your cause be good, the more the merrier they say: but because your cause is nought, the fewer belike with you the better fare: although by your leave you make a pretty lie in the beginning, to say that he allegeth these testimonies of S. Augustine, to prove that, for the which he hath alleged many things out of S. Augustine already. For, the abovesaid allegations Whereto the former testimonies of S. Aug. were alleged. Whereto serve the authorities present. were directed to detect the Donatists, in refusing the Prince's authority, and the examples of the old Testament, and to see how like to there's, your dealings to Princes, and your refusal of the same examples were. But these testimonies present, are to confirm the Prince's authority, and the examples of the old Testament, for Princes, against both Donatists and Papists denial of their authority, and refusal of thexamples. But let this pass, sith whatsoever those or these be, you say no man denieth them. For what else (say you) proveth all this out of S. Aug. both now and before alleged, but that Princes ought to make laws and constitutions for the furtherance of Christ's religion? this thing no Catholic de●…ieth. Mean you plain dealing and speak you in good sadness Here M. Stapl. confesseth, that Princes aught to make l●…wes for the ●…rance of Christ's religion. M St? doth no Catholic deny, nor no man deny, that Princes may make laws for the furtherance of Christ's religion How chance than you run from the obedience of your own natural & most gracious sovereign, that maketh so godly laws and constitutions for the furtherance of Christ's religion? & deny that she hath authority to make any laws and constitutions in that behalf, but that she must only be obedient to your Popes and his Priests laws and The Papists denying the Queen to make laws, and say no catholic denieth it, deny themselves to be catholics. The Papists subtle meaning in their plain speeches. The hold of a Papists word, and the hold of a wet Eel by the tail . constitutions? And for this matter, you compile the most of your works. And now you say, no man nor catholic denieth it. By this rule you be no catholics, that you crack so much of. Nay you be no men neither, for it is most evident that you chief deny this thing. And yourself in your Preface, make it to be the most principal controversy of all other, and most to be denied. If you be a true Catholic, and a true man, deal plainly, For no doubt, you mean that there is a pad in the s●…rawe. You have a knack in your budget, whereby you think you may well grant this, which for shame in open words you dare not deny but grant. And yet you think we shall have no more hold by your grant, than he that holdeth a wet Eel by the tail. For in the end, you come in with such a qualification: as all the world may perceive a flat denial thereof. And yet at the first blush, no man would think, but that the matter between us and you were full concluded. We say, all the authority that the Queen hath is only to this end in effect, that she ought thereby to make How trimly the Papists and we do here agreed in words. laws and constitutions for the furtherance of Christ's religion. This (say you) no man denieth, but that they ought to make laws and constitutions, for the furtherance of Christ's religion. Here you agree with us, to a simple & plain dealing man's judgement. You are become a Protestant, I hope. But what will your good masters at Louvain, and your friends with us say to you, when they shall hear of this grant? they will affirm with one voice that they utterly deny it, and ask you, how you have defended master Feckenhams quarrel. Tush will you say to them, hold your peace sirs, all is See a subtle▪ Papist. well enough, there was no remedy but I must needs grasit to S. Augustine's words, they were so manifest, and so pressed, that there was no help but to grant it, yea and to bear down the matter that no body denied it. But I have At a dead life, well far a papists shifted. M. Stapl. renueth an old knack of Arrius. such a distinction for it, that they shallbe never the near, for all my grant. Did you never reed (may you say to them) the practice of Arrius? that when he was so urged, that he could not deny it: he yielded to the true believers, and written also, as I have done, deposing that he believed as he had written: but when his complices herefore expos●…ulated with him, he declared to them, that for all the show of his grant in words, in deed he had granted nothing. He said, he believed as he had written, and look here quoth he (pulling a paper out of his bosom containing his Heresy) this is the writing to the which I referred my words. And so may you say to your friends M. Stap. true in deed I have granted, that both I & you deny not this, that the Queen How finely M. Stapl. can turn his tale. aught to make laws and constitutions for the furtherance of Christ's Religion. And if you mark it, all this matter lies in this word furtherance. Furtherance I granted. But I warrant you, I raunced no f●…rder. I told not as yet how far nor how much, nor how little, this furtherance stretcheth. Do you not know that every thing, that ye●… any whit, be it never so little, is yet a furtherance? and every thing yekes quoth the wren when she pissed in the sea, as the old Proverb faith: and even as much furtherance in this matter (as you shall see me bring it about) have I granted Princes, and you know as good never a whit as never the better. They shallbe never the better for this my grant, no more than when I made them like the Heathen Princes. Only now, being pressed, it standeth me upon, to altar my words, and give them a Title of furtherance for a claw, but so cunningly handled, that they can go no further than we allow them. And so may you turn this furtherance to their hindrance, as you shall perceive anon will you say. In the mean season, you enter solemnly into your second parcel, to confirm this your strange grant, that might otherwise seem news to your friends and to us, saying: And for my part M. Horn, that you may not think I Stapl. 65. a. &. 65. b have now been first so advised upon sight of your book, I have forced that argument with many examples of godly Emperors and Princes in my Dedicatory Epistle to the Queen's Majesty, before the translated history of the venerable Bede. It seemeth you want good neighbours M. St. at Louvain, Belike M. Sta. wants good neighbours. that thus are driven to set out your worthy volumes. But belike they take you, if you have said as much there as you have done here, to be a false dissembler, pretending in cloaked words a furtherance, and in deed minding none but rather an empayring of their estate: and so perhaps you may go beyond them all. And thinking ●…eatly to defeat us, suppose that your friends will like well of this dalliance, and that we poor souls can not see how trim you dance naked in a net. Yes M. Stapleton thanks be to God our eyes be not so dim, but we may see this disobedience, yea all the world may see it. And i●… no man could espy it except it were declared, yourself will open your falsehood, you can not keep your own council, but by and by bewray all your former grant of making laws and constitutions and all the Prince's furtherance therein, in conclusion to come to nothing, or as good as nothing, or rather worse, if worse may be, than nothing. Briefly (say you) all ●…. Augustine's words force nothing Stapl. 65. b Here M. Stapl. bewrayeth all the ●…etche of his former grant. else but that Christian Princes may make laws to punish Heretics, and aught to fortify the Decrees of the Priests with the execution of the secular power, when obstinate Heretics will not otherwise obey. Lo Masters mine, may you say, to your fellows M. Stapleton, now you need not fear that I granted over much to Princes, when I denied not but that they might and aught to make laws and constitutions for the furtherance of Christ's religion, and yet is nothing lost from our Pope's religion by this grant, yea thus it serveth our turn very well say you. In deed M. Stapleton if you can bring all your jolly mighty grant to this: if you can thus quickly ●…hwite a post to a pudding-pricke: I will say also with you, you have turned it so well, that you have made it serve your turn very well. And that so well, that God wot, of all these laws▪ constitutions, and furtherance here is nothing left at all, the qualifying of your grant hath taken it clean away. For, if I should reply, that though you have taken away the making of laws and constitutions, for the setting forth of Christ's religion, yet have you left to Princes, laws for punishing Heretics, if they see any Bishops or Priests that be teachers of false doctrine, they may call them before them, they may examine them, and if they find them such, they may by their laws depose them, or otherwise punish them: Fie, no not, will you reply, you are quite deceived man, God's for●…ode, that I should have granted Princes to make laws, for punishing Heretics on that fashion, then as good have granted all unto them. Nay (will you say) you should have marked what followed, and how cunningly and warily I limited their making of laws. I said they aught to fortify the decrees of the How cra●…tyly M. Stap. limited the Princes making of laws. Priests. Which argueth that the Priests, not the Princes, must make in very deed all the laws of punishment. And (w●…te you well) if they make them, they be no babes, they can tell on which side their bread is buttered, they will so make them, that they will keep themselves harmless, be you sure. But soft M. Stapleton, said you not the Prince must make laws▪ yes, but the Priests must decree them, say you, & then a Go●…s name let the Prince make them, when the Priests have decreed them. In 〈◊〉 there you went beyond me an ace, M. Stapleton. But go to, yet the Princes (you say) aught to fortify the decree that is to say, they must establish and give force by their royal authority, unto that the Priests haus decreed to be convenient, and otherwise it is not of force. Nay, in any case (will you say) beware that, I mean not so, but thus I declare my meaning further, they shall fortify the priests decree, with the execution of the secular power, that All M. Stapletons' jolly grant to Princes, is now come to nothing, but to make them the clergies slaughtermen and droils. is to say, by their riches, armies, sword, and might, they shall put to death, or fight against, such as we Priests (that be the Church, shall decree and appoint them, being secular. Why M. Stapl. what is all this? this is nothing (in plain●… English) but to make Princes your very butchers, tormentors, and slaughtermen. Nay (say you) they shall not do thus much neither, when they will, but if you mark, I said in the end for failing, when obstinate Heretics will not otherwise obey, then will we assign Princes to hamper them. Now forsooth gramercy horse, that you can not, or will not do yourselves, that you thrust to Princes to be your drudges therein, are they not well helped up by this your liberal offer? they are much beholding to you for so large a charter. The text of your grant gave much, but your gloss takes all away again. But Maledicta glassa▪ (say I) qu●… corrumpit textum: M. Stapletons' fay●…e text, and foul gloze. all be shrewd be that gloss, that corrupteth the text, so long as you limit your text with such a gloze, you may give your grant to what Princes you shall, a fair catch they shall have thereof. They aught (saith your grant) to deal in Ecclesiastical matters, and make laws and constitutions for the furtherance of Christ's religion. That is to weet (says your gloss) to let the Priests make all decrees, and they with their sword, villes, bows, and guns, to lay on, and strike, only when the Priests bid them, and those only whom the Priests appoint to be slain. Now forsooth and forsooth M. St. this is a proper dealing of Princes in Ecclesiastical causes, and a goodly kind of making laws and constitutions for the furtherance of Christ's religion. Well whatsoever it be, this is all they are like to have of you, and yet will you keep touch with them in your grant to. But think you M. St. was this all that princes aught to do? and nothing else but to punish heretics on this fashion? nothing else, say you, for that was in deed the very occasion why S. Aug. written all this. A ●…a M. St. then I perceive S. Stapl. 65. b. Aug▪ wrote something more, than you would particularly answer unto. Well say you, what soever he written, this was the very occasion why he written it, to make laws for punishing Heretics, and nothing else. How M. St? to make the Emperor that then was, none other dealer in their punishment, than your Pope maketh the Emperor now? or than your Prelates made Q. Marry of late your executioner, and the Nobility your droils, whom soever you determine to prick, by your excommunication & condemnation? what fools were the Donatists then, to cry out upon the Emperor? This were like the fury of the angry Dog, that being bit with a stone, wreaketh his anger upon the stone, and not on him that hurled it. What felon is offended with the executioner, or layeth his death to the beheaders charge, when the Prince commandeth to behead him: but to the Prince? But in this case you are the Princes, that are the Priests, and the Prince is but, as it were the stone in your band, is but the executioner of your sentence. Why should the Donatists than have blamed the Prince, except the Prince then had been, not the priests instrument, but even the principal in making laws of punishment for them? And so did Saint August. acknowledge the Prince. He decreed not laws, for the Emperor to put in execution, but desired the Emperor to reforms them, by such sharp laws as seemed best to himself. And although this were the very occasion (as you say) why How S Augustine acknowledged the Prince. Saint Augustine written all this, Yea, though it were the only occasion to, of writing all that he written: what is that to this purpose? For whatsoever the occasion were, the occasion is not urged, but the words that he written. A particular occasion may have general proves. The occasion of Saint Augustine's writing (you say) was the punishing of the Donatists. And yet would Saint Augustine so have written, though they had been other Heretics. And it serveth against all Heretics. Why? because his proves are general, whatsoever were the occasion. And yet his occasion was not only about the punishing of the Donatists, for the Donatists denied more than his authority in punishing them, they denied his authority to ●…ette forth the true Religion, and to oversee that it be in all estates duly preserved. This said they, was committed to Fishers, not to Soldiers, to Prophets, not to Kings, as you now say the like, it was committed to the Apostles and Priests, not to Kings. This was another very occasion also, and many other besides might be, why Saint Augustine written all this. But what is this (All this) that you speak upon? I pray you tell us at M. Stap. telleth of all this that August. written, but what this (all this) is, he duist not utter. August. contr. Gaudent. epist. 2 li. 2. c●…. 26. Epist. 50. The testimonies of S. Aug. to prove the princes dealing in ecclesiastical causes to reach further than making laws for punishing heret●…kes. lest the sum of all this that saint Augustine written. And then shall we see, if it be all none other, but laws, of punishment for Heretics, that he laid and meant, or no. And whether you have hitherto truly said and meant or not, all your falsehood will then appear. Let us here therefore resume some of those Testimonies of Saint Augustine. God doth inspire (saith he) into Kings, that they should procure, the commandment of the Lord to be performed or kept in their Kingdoms. Is this only master Stapleton for punishing of Heretics? Again, In that he is also a King, he serveth in making laws of convenient force, for to command just things, and to forbid the contrary. Is this only meant of laws to punish Heretics? Again, The Ensample of the King of Ninive that it appertained to the kings charge, that the Ninivites should pacify God's wrath. Was this only ment of making laws, for punishing Heretics? What Heretics were in Ninive? Heathen Idolaters there were store, but of Heretics we read none. And who made the decree of their fasting and repentance? not the Prophet: he only denounced the wrath and justice of God: nor high Priest of Aaron's order was there any among them, that the Scripture mentioneth. Idolatrous Priests no doubt they had more than enough, but the law of that Ecclesiastical discipline, was not set out by them, but by the King. Generally to conclude, Saint Augustine saith: that Epist. 48. the ancient acts of the godly Kings, mentioned in the Prophetical Books, were figures of the like facts to be done by the godly Princes, in the time of the new Testament. Were now these their doings and ancient acts, nothing else but laws and constitutions, for punishing Here●…ykes, and false teachers? Were all the constitutions and doings of Moses, joshua, David, Solomon, josaphat, Ezechias, josias, and others, nothing else Master Stapleton, but this? O good GOD, that ever any that should profess the study of divinity, should be found so false and shameless, not only thus to dally with Princes, but also to delude the fathers and the Scriptures, and all to infringe and takeaway the Prince's interest and authority. Now that you have thus in your first part brought the M. Stapl. would return S. Augustine's words upon us. matter about, giving a grant in words, and expounding the words, have taken away the grant again: you enter into your second part, to set a fresh on us, as you did in your former Chapter, & would make these testimonies of S. Aug. to serve against us, which you go about two manner of ways. First, having now abridged the prince's authority to nothing else, but to make laws to punish Heretics, you cry out upon us that we be the heretics, and that they must punish us▪ Secondly, you would prove that we be the Heretics, to be punished, for denying even this title to Princes of punishing Heretics. And for the first part you say: But now that master Horn may not utterly lose all his Stapl 65 b. labour herein, let us see how these matters do truly and trimly serve against his dear brethren and master Foxes holy Martyrs. Here is all made sure on every side, every way prevented, How sure the Papists make all points against the Protestants. lest the poor ●…elie Protestants should escape your violence, by any starting hole. First, you yourselves our enemies, will only have the making of the decrees and laws, what shall be true religion, what shall be false. Secondly, the Prince shall have nothing to do in examining the matter between us, who have in deed the true religion, who have the false: but they must believe before hand, that that which you shall say against us, is all and only true, and all that we reply is stark false. Thirdly, the Prince must not condemn us, but you our enemies and accusers, must sit upon us and condemn us. Fourthly, the Prince must, as you bid him, put us to death, and for more assurance to catch us, you give him this liberty, that he may make any law to attach us, to emprison us, to head, hung, or burn us. Provided always, that this law be nothing else but for punishment, and that of those that you appoint, and will cry ou●… upon for heretics, and to deal no further. Here is all things made sure against the poor protestants. Who seeth not, that even as sheep appointed to the slaughter, they must needs die, if you but please to bid the prince to kill them, they must needs be heretics, if once you call them so And now that you have brought your matters to this pass, let us see how you cry out against us. Stap. 65. b We say with S. Aug. (say you) that princes may punish wicked depravers of religion. And we further say that you are those. O master St. that you would stand to your word & say as S. Aug▪ did. But it may be, you will say it with S. August. but will you also mean it with S. Augustine, for there is little trust to your saying without your meaning. Ensample right now, of your last grant, wherein you spared not to bely S. Aug. if you mean with S. Aug. plainly, that Princes may punish wicked depravers of religion, as did the Emperor How Princes punished depravers of religion in saint August. tyme. in S. Augustine's time: there is then yet good hope of equity, & that you shall not be your own judges, and our condemners to. But the Prince shall appoint delegates uprightly between us both, yea the matter may come to be heard and discussed before the prince himself, and to be judged of him, who are in the right, who are in the wrong: for thus did the Emperor in S. Augustine's time, and S. Augustine liked well of it, but of all things you cannot abide this, and yet you boast for fashion sa●…, that you say with S. August. Prince's may punish w●…, depravers of religion. But you add withal at the hard heels thereof, And we further say that you are those. Whereby you signify how far you will allow their punishing. And that the prince and all must be ruled by your bore saying, for you allege no reason or argument to prove it, but only avouch it, saying: And we further say that you are those. As though your bore so saying, were full proof of the matter, and reason good enough, to 'cause the prince to punish us. But if the Prince take that you have granted him, to punish the wicked depravers of religion, as Saint Augustine sayeth he aught, and the Emperor than did: then so fast as you shall say that we are those, we will also, not say only, but prove, that you are those. And a righteous Prince will punish as he seeth proves, and not as he heareth only sayings. Now therefore if you will say with S. Augustine thus, tell on your tale hardily, and we fear not your malice. We say with Saint Augustine (say you) that Christian Stapl. 65 b. Princes may make a decree, you à of death, as did Nabuchodonozor against the blasphemers of God, and carefully provide that God and his Sacraments be not lightly contemned. This is well said of you master Stapleton, and even the same with tongue and heart say we, and have proved it already with many ensamples. But you say it from the teeth outward, how chance else that you said not thus much before? Yea how chance you said that Saint Augustine The Prince's laws for blasphemers. meant no more but of their laws for punishing Heretics? Here are laws for blasphemers also. And though every Heretic be a blasphemer, yet is not every blasphemer an Heretic. And you know Nabuchodonozor's law was not of Heretics, but of Heathen blasphemers. And yet besides the l●…. of their punishing, how chance you forgot also this part of their authority, carefully to provide The Princes careful providing. that God and ic●… Sacraments be not lightly contemned? Is all this careful providing, nothing else but punishing Heretics? yes master Stapleton it importeth much more, and even as much as we ascribe to Princes, and as the queens Majesty taketh on her. And now that ye have once again granted thus much to Princes: spare not a God's name to charge us with the worst you can, only stand you to your tackling, as we will stand to ours. We say (say you) you are as great blasphemers as ever the Stap. 65. b Church of Christ had. How prove you that M. Stap. say we? why say you, we M. Stapletons' strong proves . say so, and that is proof good enough for us. In deed it is proof good enough for you, yea the best proof that you have. For bade you any better I know you would not spare to lay it in our dish. But remember master Stapleton, that ye have given the Prince that authority of punishing blasphemers, that Saint Augustine gave to the Emperor in his time. That is to weet, not to punish he wottes not what, but by his authority either to appoint Delegates, or himself to sit and here the trial, and judge who are the blasphemers, and who are not. So that now your saying we be, will not serve you in steed, unless you prove your saying. Else might we put it to a double post, and say pass to you, you are greater blasphemers, yea the greatest blasphemers, that ever the Church of Christ had. And to prove it not only on you, but even of your head also, your holy father the Pope: whose blessed lips can they blaspheme trow you? I pray you remember who said, he would eat Pork & despetto de d●…o, even in despite of GOD. But let this blasphemous Porkling go, and say you on master Stapleton. We say (say you) you be they that have contemned Stapl. 65. b. Contempt of Sacraments. Christ's sacraments, making of seven two, and using those two after such a sort, that the old proverb may (the more is the pity) in a manner take place, as good never a whit as never the better. Here is still nothing but we say, to answer therefore we say, with we say: we say again, that you are those Sophisters that by the art of multiplication, whereof you Popish Sophist●…e can make 7. of. 2. spoke in your Preface, have learned much more comning than had the scholar of Oxeforde that would make three eggs of two, you will make seven of two, and coming out with your five eggs (as the Preverbe also saith) every one of them are rotten: making of two Sacraments seven. But five of them are of your own hatching, Cocks, eggs without yolks, no sacraments at all. And two of them, the one, baptism foully profaned, the other hurled quite away, and an Idol (even by your own definition of an Idol) put in place. This lay we to your charge, prove us liars and you can. And to that you say we contemn Christ's Sacraments, we briefly say again you say untruth, except you can prove we do so. We say further (say you) that not only the general Stapl 65 b. Counsels. Council of Trent, but that the whole Church hath condemned your opinions, by general and national Counsels many hundredth years since. We say further also, that as your Council of Trent, so did the Priests, the Lawyers, Scribes, and Pharisees, assemble together & held a council against Christ in his absence, and Matth. 26. joho. 11. Caiphas gave judgement on him, that one man (meaning Christ) should die for the people. And so hath your Trident Council in their absence condemned Christ in his members. The residue of your saying is but your lying vaunt of the whole Church, where in deed you mean but the popish Church▪ you crack of many hundred years, but you tell not how many they be, nor what is condemned, nor by whom, nor where, nor when, nor what Council general nor provincial, The Papists maintain condemned doctrines. but carry away the matter in generalities. But we say to you again in general speech, that not only General and national Counsels have condemned many of your doctrines many hundredth years since: but even Christ himself and his Apostles, yea some of your own Popes, yea 1. Tim. 4. some of your own selves, habentes cauterizatam conscientiam, having their consciences marked with a hot iron have condemned them. And all this, partly hath been already sufficiently, and partly shall be further proved in particulars, as we descend thereto. And if we go no further than the present matter and issue in hand, concerning the Prince's authority: yea, even with your own mouth, or ever we have done, you shall yet more than once again condemn this your own saying, that the Prince's government in ecclesiastical matters stretcheth no further, than to make laws and constitutions to punish heretics. Now, when you have thus with bore sayings, charged us to be heretics, you would charm the Prince also in putting him in remembrance, that his duty stretcheth not now, to stand in examining all this that you lay to us, nor to judge thereupon, whether it be true or false, but on the credit of your bore honesties and words, to make forthwith some sharp laws of attaching, hanging, sacking, drowning, or burning us, for condemned Heretics, because you have so called 〈◊〉 To this purpose therefore say you: And that Christian Emperors, christian Princes, as well Stap. 65. b in other countries as in England, especially the noble and worthy king Henry the fift, have made sharp laws, yea of death against Heresies. We do not nor never did disallow these their doings, as repugnant either to the old or new Testament. Why then call you for this respect the Catholics, popish Donatists? The Bishop s●… called them M. St. not with Bore sayings How the Bishop called the Papists Donatists. as you have here called us, depravers, blasphemers, and condemned Heretics. But the ●…. hath so proved his sayings, that, as you have heard, all your improvinges were to no purpose, but to bring M. Feckenham more in the mire, and to prove him a greater Donatiste and yourself also in his defence. You say you do not, nor never did disallow, as repugnant to the old or new Testament, Christian Emperors and Princes doings, nor king Henry the fift his sharp laws, yea of death against heresies. If you do not so disallow them as repugnant, then be they conformable. But how chance then yourself excusing M. Feckenham, said he omitted them because they made against him? if they make against him, they are repugnant to him. And if you disallow them not as repugnant, then are you repugnant to him, and to your own excuse for him. How dark and subtly M. Stapl. speaketh. Yea, what repugnancy your words present do imply, or what doubtful understanding you mean, in saying, we do not, nor never did, I leave to your own expounding, whether you mean you did never, or ever, or sometimes disallow them: and in adding, as repugnant, whether you mean you disallow them in other senses or 〈◊〉. But interpret your own sayings as you lust, if you say to construe them to the best, you disallow them not as repugnant, that is, you allow them as agreeable in those doings of Princes in the old Testament▪ then, as King salomon displaced Abiathar the high Priest, so may the Emperor displace the Pope, and other Princes their Bishops, when they be unworthy of their rooms and offices. But, besides the punishing of false teachers and Heretics by their laws, that you allow in the Princes of the old Testament, for Princes under the new Testament to do the like, did they nothing else? made they no other laws and constitutions ecclesiastical? or do you allow them only for their laws in punishments, and disallow them for all other How far the examples of the old Testament stretch to direct christian princes. laws and constitutions that they made? Well, what soever you allow or disallow, God allowed them and liked well of them. And therefore to all Christian Princes, they aught to be patterns to do the like, not on●…ly in zeal of punishment of heretics, & abolishing Herefi●…, superstitions, Idolatries, and all errors: but also in setting forth the true and sincere religion of Christ's gospel, and overseeing that the Prelates and Pastors, the Nobility, the Magistrates, the people and all subjects what soever, do every one their duty, in receiving and advancing the same. But this you utterly disallow in Princes, if they go one inch further, than laws of punishment of those, whom you give up to them to punish, and the defence of your people and goods, making Princes either your weighting guard, or else your slaughtermen: and there is all, say you, that in these matters Princes have to deal. And for this respect, we not only call you, but prove you popish Donatists. Now that by crying out upon us, you think you have fully cleared yourself, you enter into your other point, to burden us with this crime of the Donatists, even to deny that little which you grant unto Princes. Which surely were a cunning poin●… 〈◊〉 do, to prove that we deny with M. Stapl. will prove that we deny that why che we affirm. the Donatists, that which we affirm against the Donatists and you too. First, we affirm that it appertaineth to the Princes supreme authority next under God, by the advise of their godly and learned estates, to make laws What it is that we affirm of the Prince's authority. and constitutions, to punish Heretics, ●…ismatikes, erroneous teachers, and to abolish all their false doctrines. And also to make laws and constitutions for the setting forth of all true doctrine, and to appoint godly learned setters out thereof. This say we before hand: if now you can make us believe we hold the contrary to this, that were worth the seeing. But will you know M. Horn (say you) who be in this point Stapl. 66. ●… in very deed the doltish devilish Donatists? harken on well, and you shall hear. On to M. Stapleton hitherto we hear nothing but your black Rhetoric not worth the hearing, which remitting to your common place thereon, tell on your tale and we will harken. Stap. 65. a Who be the true Donatist●… for saying Princes may not punish in causes of God●… religion. The Donatists as S. Augustine reporteth said it was free to believe or not to believe, and that faith should not be forced. Was not this I pray you the common song among the Lutherans in Germany and England at their beginning? was not this your Apostles Luther's opinion, that no man should be compelled to the faith? and as there are many dissensions, divisions, Schisms, betwixt you the Sacramentaries, and the Lutherans: so are you divided also in this point. For your Master calvin writeth that a man may lawfully and by God's law be put to death for heresy, as he practised himself also, burning Se●…etus the Arian at Geneva. See how yourself being blinded with pure envy M. M. Stapl. himself cleareth us of that he falsely burdeneth us. Stapleton, while you study with all bitterness of terms to deface us to the simple, to all wise men you clear acquit us of the crime you object against us. You say we are Sacramentaries and that calvin is our Master. You say further, that our Master calvin writeth, that a man may lawfully and by God's law be put to death for Heresy. I ask you here, if this were the opinion of the Donatists? if they than said the contrary to us, and we to them, then have yourself discharged us of this crime, that even contrary to your conscience and wittingly, you slander us with. Which is so evident a matter, that every man hereafter may justly take you for a common lying slanderer. Do not yourself also complain in many places even of this counterblast, that we would have the Prince execute more severity towards you, and that we seek your blood, and such other things? wherein, although in that matter you slander us, yet even your sclaundering purgeth us in this matter. And do you not say here present, we are divided in this point? and so again you clear us of this crime. But (say you) all Luther's scholars in Germany are not Stapl. 66. a so forward. I know not all Luther's scholars, for my part, M. Stapleton▪ and I guess you know them not all, neither. But suppose, (as you say) all be not so forward: yet if they be forward, they are again discharged of this your lying crime. Yet say you, this was Luther's opinion, and their common song in the beginning. If slandering were not your common song M. Stapleton you would never sing thus purposely out of tune. It is well known the reverence and obedience that Luther teacheth subjects to yield to their Princes even to the death. But wilfully you pervert and wrist his words: he spoke How Luther said, Faith can not be forced. not of faith simply, among professed Christians: but of some doubts of faith. He said, they should not be only forced without outward violence, but rather with persuasion and arguments if it might be: if not, than the Magistrate might lawfully punish the obstinate, for his error or Heresy. So he declared of Muncer and other Heretics (seeing their perverseness) that the Magistrate might lawfully punish him and his adherents, yea that he aught so to do, and thereto he vehemently excited them. This was Luther's opinion, and what fault find you therewith. In deed against those that are Infidels, Turks, jews, Heathen, or any any other not professed Christians, he said Christians aught not (being not provoked by them) to set on their realms, and provoke them, only of purpose, by force of arms, to make them become Christians. And in this behalf, he spoke much against the foul abuses of Croyses and Turkish wars. the Pope, in his Croyses and practices about the Turkish wars. But what is this to this purpose in hand? yea what is all this, either of Luther or Caluine (if there were such division in this point between them, as you, like a makebate, would set, where none is) to the matter in question. The question is, whether the Prince may punish heretics, The question whether Princes may punish heretics by death. and that by death. Which both Luther and Caluine grant you may. But the donatists denied this, because (they being apparent heretics) perceived it made against them, you should likewise have proved, that Luther and calvin, and that we were heretics, or else it toucheth us not at all. For, would you have the Prince put to death the faithful Christian? Luther & calvin might well (you know) and aught to speak against that. They saw the violent practices of you Papists, in murdering and devouring the poor sheep of Christ, and can you wit them if they complained thereof? You should have first proved us to be the heretics. But How the Papists prove us to be heretics you will say, that I have done already. You have done so in deed, M. St. after the Popish manner, that is to say, you have called us heretics, and stark heretics, and condemned heretics oft enough, and if that will do it. And you have told even right now, that you say, we be heretics, & all to naught, with we say, and we say, on the head of it. These sayings we have heard, as you bade us hearken, but we have heard never The Prince's duty where any are challenged to be heretics. a proof. Now what must the Prince here do? 〈◊〉 he not examine and search out both our proofs: and punish, not the faithful be léever, but whom he finds to be the heretic? And thus, if you will needs have death the punishment, in God's name even death be it. But then M. St. I think you will not be half so hasty: not, you had rather (I dare say) keep you still at Lovayne. Here entereth M. St. again into an invective against An invective 'gainst M. Fox. M. Fox's book. For that book, and the bishop of Sarisburies', are his chiefest eyesores, so that I blame him the less, that he startleth so often at them: as all his companions M. Fox's book and B. jewels, great eyesores to the Papists. and masters do besides. For, the one for their practices, and the other for their errors, have almost marred all their estimation with their friends. But his by matters I will not answer, only to the question now in argument. Yea (saith he) some of your holy martyrs avouch, that Stap. 66. a. Sir Thomas Hitton priest. the King can make no law to punish any manner of crime by death, and that all such laws are contrary to the Gospel. This was the opinion of sir Thomas Hitton priest. Where find you this master Stapleton? this is (you False slanders and malicious misseconstructions of the faithful. will say) an article laid unto him that he defended. Yea, but are you sure, master Stapleton, that he in deed defended this, as it is here set out: and that it is not rather altogether devised for malice, or perverted & misconstrued, as many other have been? the false witnesses wrested the sayings of Christ, that he should deny tribute to Cesar, that Luc. 23. Matth. 26. john. 19 Act. 6. he went about to destroy the temple, etc. Yea, the title let on his cross (if the Priests might have had their will) should not have been written as it was. The like wresting of his sayings used the jews with S. Steven. And in the primitive Church, were many articles objected to the poor Martyrs, of refusing obedience to magistrates, of licentious life, of unnatural commixtures, of murdering and eating children. And even such malicious misconstrued articles, the Papists devise on the Protestants: Hew the Papists deal with the Protestants and their articles. Math. 5. that in the mean while are gagged, nor suffered once to speak and declare their innocency. But blessed are you (saith Christ) when men revile you, and speak all evil on you for my name sake. But you say, this is no slander, it is of master Foxes own setting forth. I grant, M. St. he is the chronicler, & setteth down that he finds. Doth that argue that he acknowledgeth for true, every such article as he setteth down? nay, he maketh often exception to the contrary, that many of such articles are falsely objected, which nevertheless he setteth down. Yea, but there is more things laid unto him than this. By whom, M. Stap? Forsooth even by sir Thomas Moore. A trusty witness on your own side. But go to, be it, he said even so. Yet is this injustly done of you master Stapleton, to charge all Protestants with his opinion in The uneven dealing of the Papists. this point, when they manifestly maintain the contrary. We deal not so, with you, we burden not your whole Church (where you openly defend the contrary) with the several judgement of every writer: much less of every obscure author, and such an one, as of whom we have nothing but hearsay: and that such hearsay, as his adversaries love to report, and wrist, to make it odious to the hearer: this is not upright dealing. But yet for all this, you can not here upon fasten that which so fain you would, that therefore he is a Donatist. The donatists denied to Princes the punishment of heretics, and would have belief free, This man denieth neither of Sir Thomas Hitton priest no Donatist. these. First, his quarrel was not of faith alone, but as you tell it, for any manner of crime to be punished by death, and yet it follows no more hereon, that he would have faith free, to believe what each man would: then he would have it▪ free for any manner of crime, to do what each man would. Secondly, though he deny the punishment by death, yet he denieth not, but there●…▪ granteth, that Princes might make laws of other kind; of punishment, which if he grant them, yourself clear him of being a Donatist. But leaving him you tell us of greater business concerning Sir john Oldcastell. sir john Oldecastle, whom you rattle up with a susurravit, calling him traitor and detestable Donatist. And now (say you) all the weight rests to prove this substantially to you, and to master Fox. And to stop all your froward quarrelings, and accustomable elusions against our proofs. Well, I will bring you (as I think) a substantial and inevitable proof, that is master Fox himself, and no worse man. Here is a lusty crack M. Stap. to bombast the matter withal, out of doubt we shall here have some great foil. But let us see what all this heinous matter is. Forsooth M. Fox setteth down the articles, that the Papists have composed to be sir john Oldecastles articles, the tenth article whereof is this. That manslaughter, either by war, or by any pretended Stap. 66. b. ●… law of justice, or for any temporal cause or spiritual revelation, is expressly contrary to the new Testament, which is the law of grace and mercy. Why, M. Stap. is this your substantial and inevitable proof, that is, master Fox himself, and no worse man? this is none of master Foxes saying nor opinion, he doth but writ▪ plain and plat what soever articles it pleased his enemies your ancestors to devise, in the name of Sir john Oldecastles articles. Stap. 66. b. Lo thus he writeth (say you) of this worthy Champion, and that even in his own huge martyrologue, who doubteth but to the great exalting and amplification of this noble work and of his noble holy martyr. The worthy praise of this noble work in deed, and of this noble and holy martyr, are no whit blemished by these your sco●… & railings, M. St. but what kind of argument M. Stapletons' weak argument. call you this? he reciteth this article among the rest, and therefore out of doubt he alloweth it, and sets it out to his great exalting and amplification. By this argument yourself allow the article too, for you have here also recited it. Master Fox's sincerity in the Papists falsehoods. But what would you have said if he had subtracted it? and the one of the twain he must have done, either have left it out, or set it out as he found it. But how chance you left out that, which in many places of his work M. Fox noteth, of the Papists corrupting of those martyrs articles: & yet (which is in deed to his great exalting and amplification) he setteth them down, even as he found them. For, the thing, to any indifferent reader, will easily show itself. But yet go to once again. Were this article his or not Sir john Oldcastle proved no Donatist. his, it proves not him a Donatist. First, the donatists allowed manslaughter, though unlawfully done, as yourself have proved before of the Circumcelions. But here you grant that he utterly disalloweth all manslaughter, and so you clear him herein of being a Donatist. Again the Donatists utterly rejected (as yourself say) all the Prince's authority, and all punishment in false religion. Contrariwise Sir john Oldecastle allowed their authority, yea over the Pope and his Prelates, to punish them for their false religion. And though he disallowed manslaughter, yet can you not gather, that he allowed no punishment for false religion. unless (as you showed in the days of your late cruelty) there be no punishment with you but manslaughter. Whereby we may more justly gather that he acknowledged their authority, in willing Princes to punish, though not by death: than you can any way gather hereon, that he utterly denied all kind of punishment. And if you would deface his martyrdom for this, or count Sir Thomas More himself misliked the punishment of manslaughter in many offences. The ancient punishment of of heretics. it donatistical, of the same mind was even sir Thomas More himself your own merry martyr (whom you cited to witness a few lines before) as appeareth in his Utopia, although more covertly, yet he quite disalloweth manslaughter, and deviseth other punishments in stead thereof. Is he therefore a Donatiste? And I pray you, what was all the ancient order in banishing heretics, was it death? or were they donatists then, because they allowed not punishment by death? So was S. Augustine a Donatiste also, whom you cite against the Donatists. For it was long or ever he came to this opinion, that the Donatists might be slain, and upon what considerations, I will show you out of that learned clerk Erasmus, who for this matter also, had great conflict with your Sorbonistes. I deny (saith he) that ever I read that bishops Declar. Erasmi tit. de puniendis her. 76. 77. sholude have stirred up Kings to kill Heretics. For, this is not to warn Princes in general, but to appoint out unto them a kind of punishment. But I speak in my reprehension, not of these times, but of Saint Augustine, and the bishops of his age. For, now certain Abbots The mild spirit of popish Bishops and Abbots. and bishops think it a most acceptable sacrifice to God, if they may kill a great many with their own sword, and their own hand. And to confess the truth, in that they tell how Saint Augustine was first of that opinion, that he denied the Emperors power to be called upon, but when he saw the heresy succeeded, he changed his mind: even so is it as true that I written. But than had they to do S. August. opinion of the pu nishement of heretics. with donatists, that were more than heretics, who most perniciously raised up a schism of the whole Church, and had Circumcelions, both a mad and fierce kind of men, which murdered with sword, maimed with Sythes, and The Circumcelions. with lime mingled with Vinegar put out the eyes of the true believers. And what could the Emperor do, but chastise such, that deserved any punishment whatsoever, although they had held no heretical error besides? and yet notwithstanding even against these, the punishment of death was so little desired, that even S. Augustine did withstand the Sheriff, when he sent out a sharper edict, fearing that he should kill any. And so brought to pass, that a Punishment by the purse. more mild edict was set forth. For as then, all the emperors punishment consisted in a forfeit of money, in taking away their goods from the Donatists churches, & giving them to the churches of the true believers. And if the bishops could Banishment. not be corrected by any remedy, they were banished, but of kill there was no mention at al. And therefore against Pelagius, there was never any motion of craving the Emperor's aid, because he did not on this sort trouble the tranquillity of the common weal, yea and that is more (by the entreaty of the Bishop) they which had paid their forfeiture, had their money given them again: and their bishops retained their dignity still in their Churches, if they would change their opinions So great was the lenity of those days towards heretics, and that such heretics to. There are many kinds of punishing, besides the punishment of death. Very far in deed are they from this lenity, which now a days for every word The popish cruelty. that either is strange to them, or not understood, they cry forthwith, to the fire, to the fire. here therefore between these divines and me thereiss no dissension but this, that they considering what a great plague of religion it is, that the The difference herein between Erasmus and the Popish Bishops. church should be divided into such factions, seem more inclined to slaughter. On the other side I am more slow, considering whereto the parable of the Lord, whereto the most holy men's interpretations, whereto the lenity and mildness of the ancient Bishops, and of the Emperors, against heretics calleth us: then also thinking on this, how now and then men's affections mingle themselves in this business, and how often such remedies fall out otherwise: last of all that sometimes the truth is doubtful, and now and then it happeneth that he is in error himself, that layeth the heresy to an others charge many times neither party understandeth other, and they agreed in matter while they jar in words. neither doth S. Jerome speak rashly in the dialogue against the Luciferians (under the person of the true believer) S. hierom's opinion herein and the reasons moving him thereto. after this manner: no body (saith he) can take upon him Christ's victory, no body can judge of men before the day of judgement: if the Church be now cleansed, why reserve we the cleansing to the Lord? there is a way that to men seemeth right, but the ends of it lead even to the bottom of hell. In this error of judgement, what certain sentence can there be? etc. What Jerome meant by these words, is clear to the learned. Truly they have hitherto so moved me, that I am of opinion, that we ought not to come to the last remedy, before all means be tried. Lest perchance (either through a corrupt judgement) the innocent, or at the lest he that might be recovered, do perish: or else even that which is right be condemned for ever. Thus much and a great deal more writeth Erasmus on this matter. But by this, first we see Erasmus judgement, and yet is he not counted a Donatiste. Secondly, he so describeth the Donatists, that these two witnesses of jesus Christ (which most patiently took their death, nor invaded any others life) be fully cleared of this cri●… Thirdly, he so setteth the Donatists out, that beyond all the former comparisons, the Papists of all other room The Papists in cruelty come nearest the Donatists. nearest them, in cruel bloudsucking, in provoking, and setting upon other that prouoks them not, in far more cruel torments than of sword, scythes, lime, and vinegar, yea, they have left no unnatural cruelties, nor mischievous treacheries undevised and unpractised. Fourthly, he showeth (against this popish tyranny) even where they will not suffer the examination of the truth, how contrary it is to the fathers and ancient Bishops, whom they crack to succeed. Fifthly, where you M. Stap. falsely cite S. Augustine against us, Erasmus truly ●…iteth him against you, showing what clemency the Emperors used even to manifest heretics, and what cruelty you practise against the true believers. In times past (says Erasmus) the Ecclesiastical mildness Eras. decla. tit. de pun. h●…. did mitigate the severity of Princes. And now the cruelty of certain Monks, except it were mitigated by the mildness of Princes, would burst out into more than the Scythians unmerciful rage. Thus we séethese two that you ●…ayte at, are not alone, they shall have good company, if they be Donatists, for disallowing manslaughter. But now, what if these two rejected it not at all, but only showed the exact difference between the old law, or man●… politic laws, and the Gospel. The mercy of the Gospel. Will you deny that the Gospel (that is to say the glad tidings of reconciliation, forgiveness, and salvation wrought by jesus Christ) is the law of grace and full of mercy? I think M. St. you will not deny this, for shame. Though the Gospel taketh not away politic laws or punishments, yet is there a 〈◊〉 between them and the Gospel. The Sorbonistes confession. In declare. bras. tit. de pun. haer. Then should you consider, that the Gospel (in itself) killeth not, but laboureth to sa●…e, it sendeth kill to the law: the exercise, threats, and external punishment whereof, is not altogether taken away by the Gospel, but is forcible to the transgressors. Nor the Gospel taketh away civil or politic laws from Princes, nor the sword to execute them on the evil doers. And yet is there a manifest distinction beti●…éene the one and the other, and so are even your Sorbonists driven to yield to Erasmus: Quamuis evangelium, etc. Although the Gospel do not expressly and plainly show, that Heretics should be burned: yet the laws civil (which are conformed to the law natural) which the Gospel doth not abrogate, do decree that they should be put to death and burned. So that neither be such laws comprehended in the Gospel, nor otherwise allowed than indirectly, that is to say, for the importunity of the wicked. And in this sense their words are not amiss. But what sense soever you make of their words, you can not prove them Donatists. And yet if thus much also were granted you, doth this either charge us that we be Donatists, not allowing them therein, if they had any such opinion▪ or doth it clear you? Nay, it once again proveth you How the Papists yet nearer resemble the Donatists. more Donatists. For in very deed the Denatistes refused not simply, that the Prince should punish heretics, not nor by death neither, if he would have held with them, and at their bore instigations have punished the true believers by death: they would have then allowed it, & set him more on, yea, have laid to their own hands, and have thought they had done God good service too, so that he would have maintained them. And do not you even so? what else maketh you cry upon the Princes beyond the seas, with all kind of torments to destroy the Protestants? If Princes would advise themselves or ever they believed you so lightly, and would not destroy their subjects, till they had sit in iudgm●…t & herded & discussed both parties causes thoroughly: you would not be half so hasty. You would then cry to the contrary, that you must only be judges, they must only believe you, & strike only them whom you shall bid them strike. Contrariwise, where the Princes (espying your falsehood) forsake your errors, and set out even very mild laws against you: than you change your copy, and cry out, every thing is extreme cruelty, you are too too sore handled and oppressed, than you extol beyond the moon, lenity and sufferance, and winch like a galled horse at the lest thing that toucheth you. And thus every way do you still show yourselves, to be the very Donatists. Now that you have, as you conceive with yourself, given us so great a foil: you enter into your third part saying. We may now proceed to the remnant of your book, saving Stap. 66. b. &. 67. a that this in no wise must be overhipped, that even by your own words here you purge M. Feckenham, from this crime you laid unto him even now, for refusing the proufe●… taken out of the old Testament. Now for God (M. St.) since hitherto you have cleared him so sclenderly, that you have more bewrapped him, and yourself also in this crime, let nothing in any case be forgotten, or overhipped, that any ways may help the matter forward for hitherto it rather hath go backward, but now there is good hope, M. Feckenham shall take a good purgation, even of the Bishops own making, that you M. Stap. will minister to him which will so work upon him, & make him have so good a stool, that he shallbe clearly purged of this crime of donatists. ●…o to then M. Stapl, and let us see how apothecarylike you can minister the same. For if as you say (say you) the order & government Stap. 67. a that Christ left behind in the Gospel & new Testament, is the order, rule & government in ecclesiastical causes, practised by the Kings of the old Testament, then will it follow that M. Feckenham yielding to the government of the new, doth not exclude but ●…ather comprehend the government of the old Testament also, both being especially, as you say, all one. Is this the purgation M. St. that you will minister to M. Feckenham, would to God you could make him receive an●… brook this sentence, & if you would take it also, I warrent you it would so purge you of your old leaven & sour dough, that you should no more be Donatists nor Papists neither if you receive and well digest this little sentence. The order and government that Christ left behind in the new Testament is the order rule and government in Ecclesiastical causes practised by the kings of the old Testament: For then How M. Feck. yields not to the examples of the old testament, and yet yielding to the new Testa meant, is comprehended by it, though he comprehended it not. give you Princes that, that you have all this while denied them. But do you think M. Feckenham will wittingly and willingly receive this sentence, & that which in deed followeth necessarily thereon? The sentence is true, but M. Feck. for all that may be a liar and you another. For I warrant you M. Feck. granteth this no ●…urder, than (as the Donatists) he may temper it to make it seem to serve his turn. Why? say you, if he grant the on●…, he doth not exclude but rather comprehend the other. Nay M. St. M. Feck comprehendes it not, but shoonnes it, as against him by your own confession. But the old, being comprehended by the new, Master Feckenham is contrary wise, by force of argument, granting the new enforced by the old. Not that he comprehendeth it, but is comprehended of it, and driven to yield thereto of his adversary, by conclusion of reasoning, the one including the other. But rather than he will do this voluntarily, he will rather exclude them both, the old and the new testament also, and as he hath done, burn them both together. The. 20. Division. THe Bishop in this division, first, gathereth his full conclusion Pag. 14. a. of all these testimonies into this argument: What government, order, and dutifulness so ever belonging to any, God hath prefigured and promised before hand, by his Prophets in the holy scriptures of the old Testament, to be performed by Christ, & those of his Kingdom: that is the government, order and dutifulness, set forth and required in the Gospel or new testament. But that faithful Emperors, Kings, and Rulers, aught of duty, as belonging to their office, to claim and take upon them the government, authority, power, care, and service of God the Lord in matters of Religion, or causes Ecclesiastical, was an order and dutifulness for them, prefigured and forepromised of God by his Prophets, in the Scriptures of the old Testament, as Saint Augustine hath sufficiently witnessed: Ergo: Christian Emperors, Kings, and Rulers, own of duty as belonging to their office, to claim and take upon them the government, authority, power, care, and service of God their Lord, in matters of Religion or spiritual & ecclesiastical causes: is the government, order and dutifulness setforth and required in the Gospel or new Testament. The Bishop having thusfully concluded these Testimonies, he yet confirmeth them further with more authorities of the Prophet Esay, with Lyra his exposition thereupon, and the example of Constantine for proof of the same. At this master Stapleton, first carpeth by certain marginal M. Stapleton cap. 7. fol. 68 a notes, or ever he blow up the Chapter of his Counterblast thereto. The minor of the Bishop's conclusion for the Prince's government, authority, power, care, etc. he granteth, but not such supreme government (saith he) as the oath prescribeth. He granteth also Saint Augustine to witness this the Prince's government, but no such large and supreme government as we attribute now to them. Again, he granteth this supreme government is in causes ecclesiastical▪ but not in all causes ecclesiastical. And so granting that the Bishop concludeth well in some such thing, you conclude not (saith he) in all things and causes, and therefore you conclude nothing against us. Lastly, he granteth all the Bishop's testimonies concerning Constantine, but he denieth that it maketh any thing for us. Now after these marginal notes prefixed, he entereth M. Stapl. order in this division into his Chapter: pretending to open the weakness of the Bishop's conclusion, and of other his proves out of holy Scripture. And first, his answer to this division he divideth in three parts: First, he granteth all that the Bishop hath said, but denieth that it is sufficient. Secondly, he quarreleth about this, that the Bishop calleth the Emperor Constantine, a Bishop, as Eusebius nameth him. Thirdly, he challengeth him for calling Idol Image. Now to the first part, to see whether all these grants make sufficiently for us, and conclude against him yea or no. Now you may conclude (saith master Stapleton) that there Stapl. 68 a. M. Sta. now at the length is driven to gra●…t Princes some regiment in Ecclesiastical causes. is some regiment that Princes may take upon them in causes Ecclesiastical. Thanks be given to God (master Stapleton) that yet now at the length, contrary to all your fellows, & to all your own wranglings hitherto, the force of the truth hath enforced you to yield thus much to the B. you grant Now that Princes have some regiment in ecclesiastical causes, which hitherto (except the making a law of burning or punishing be an eccl. 'cause) you have altogether denied unto Princes. But what is this some regiment that you grant them now? for neither we grant them all regiment but some regiment also, that is to say a supreme regiment. And you also deny not in your marginal note, that they may take upon them in M. Stapleton granteth also to Princes supreme government in all ecclesiastical causes. ecclesiastical matters supreme government, authority, power, & care, but not (say you) such supreme government as the oath prescribeth, so that here, we both agree of supreme government, but the kind of supreme government is denied. And to specify your meaning herein, how large a kind you grant or deny, you add he should have concluded in all things and causes, else he concludeth not against you, signifying that you deny to them a supreme government in all things & causes ecclesiastical: but you grant them a supreme government, authority, power, and care in things and causes ecclesiastical. First M. Stap. this is but a jangling and shifting quarrel In natural and ordinary propositions, the indefinite betokens the universal. in words, about things and causes ecclesiastical, and all things and causes ecclesiastical. For not only the Bishop when he speaketh so indefinitely understandeth all, but also it is an ordinary speech, & allowed in Logic in all things that be natural or necessary, where the indefinite is counted as much as the universal. As to say, a man is a reasonable creature, or man is mortal, is as much as precisely to say, all men and every man is reasonable and mortal. And the saying in the next division, he came to fulfil the law, and the Prophets, is all one with this, he came to fulfil all the law, and all the Prophets. And likewise this, give unto God, that belongeth to God, and to Caesar, that belongeth to Caesar, is as much to say as this, give unto God all that belongeth to God, etc. and even yourself do commonly speak thus indefinitely, ecclesiastical matters, when you mean all ecclesiastical matters, though now when you be thus ●…iuen to grant the effect of the matter, yet would you found some shift of descant to frustrate all the matter, and say. If you mean of such regiment as you pretend (where you know Stap. 68 ●…. well enough none other is meant) you make your reckoning without your host, as a man may say, and conclude before you have brought any proof that they aught or may take upon them such government. Whether this some regiment be such regiment, or such government (for thus M. St. you love in terms to dally) though the Bishop hath proved it sufficiently, and you have granted it, standing only like a dainty Nicie besetter, on this acquaint point, in things, not in all things: yea whether this Nice restraint, defeat the full proof of the question in controversy between master Feckenham and the Bishop, shall appear (M. St.) by calling them ●…ath coram, to reckon better with their host, that is, (as you have like a thrifty tapster called upon so often before, though still you brought in false reckonings) to set before them, and mark the issue, that they M. Stap▪ confesseth that the Bishop hath proved the full issue in question between M. Fecknham and him. condescended upon, that is to we●…e, Any such government in ecclesiastical causes. Lo here the demand of the host himself, be requireth but, any such government, and that without putting in, all, in the reckoning. Where therefore you grant the B. hath proved it in some eccl. causes, which satisfieth the demand of any ecclesiast. causes even according to your own wrangling you confess the Bishop hath concluded the very issue that was concluded upon. Thus master St. even by your own reckoning, the B reckoned with his host, at the full, and hath paid and satisfied that he promised, and M. Feckenham required. But now look you, what reckoning you will make to your friends, that have here brought yourself so far in the lash, that taking upon you to impugn the Prince's government in ecclesiastical causes, you have granted and yielded to it. How will your credit hold with your friends? yea how will your reckoning hold with itself? here you have granted some regiment, yea supreme government, though not such supreme government in ecclesiastical causes. In the last Chap. you would grant them nothing but punishment of those whom you had condemned, which is no ecclesiastical matter at all, to hung or burn a man. And yet you gave them no regiment, much less supreme regiment, therein neither. For you would have all the appointing whom he shall punish, & the prince hath nothing else to do, but to execute him whom you deliver up unto him, which agreeth nothing with this that now you have granted, lest of all with that you further grant, saying: For though I grant you all your examples you have alleged, Stap. 68 a M. S●…apl. grant of all that the Bishop hath hitherto alleged. and that the doings of the old Testament were figures of the new, and the saying of Esay that kings should be nourishing fathers to the Church, and all things else that you here allege: yet all will not reach home, not not Constantine the great his example. How agreeth this grant (master Stap.) with all that you have done all this while? Why have you denied the Bishop's ensamples heretofore of Moses, joshua, David etc. and made such a long and earnest a do in the matter to be granted at length? Did you stand in it then, to dilate your book? or do you grant it now, to brag of your skill? or did you resist the truth then, contrary to your conscience, & repent you now? or be you forced to grant with some colour, that you cannot for shame in plain speech deny? howsoever it be, many odd reckonings will fall out in your account against yourself, although you never ●…ecken with your host for the matter. You grant the saying of Esay also, that Kings should be isaiah. 49. nourishing fathers to the Church, and all things else that the Whether the Bishop's examples and allegations being granted of M. Stapl. reach home or no. Bishop here allegeth, yet will not all reach home, not not Constantine the great his example. Will not all this reach home Master Stap. to prove the issue, that even yourself do confess the Bishop hath already proved? For that is the home that it aught t●… reach unto, by master Feckenhams demand. But go to, measure it with a true yard master Stap. and you shall see it fair and easily, without any stretching at all, reach even as full home The prince supreme governor of all and every ecclesiastical cause. as you besides can require, even for the supreme government of all manner ecclesiastical causes, look what you reckon most upon, and that is even the feeding with the word, under which the Sacraments also are comprehended, not that he is the Minister of the word and Sacraments (as What this supreme government is? you captiously gibe and cavil) for that belongeth not to supreme government. But that he is so the supreme governor in overseeing the consecration and delivery of the true food, wherewith the people of God aught to be fed: that even he overséeth the feeder himself. And for this cause, the King is called of the Prophet, Why kings & Queens are called Nourishers and Nurses of God's Church. the nourishing father, and Queens are named Nurses, that although the ministery of feeding pertain to the ministers, yet the provision for the food, the oversight that the children of God be duly fed, with the right milk, with the true bread and water of life, belongeth to the Princes. And therefore have they the name of nurses, not to nourish them in civil matters and corporal f●…de only: but as in civil, so in ●…acte verbi, in the milk of the word of God also. Is this only the cherishing of the good child, by giving lands, revenues, maintenance, and living to the Church? Is this only the displing of the froward child●…, or as you call it the punishing of the heretic. Not M. Stapleton Lyra his exposition and yours do not agree. He saith they are nurses, what to do? to feed, whom? the faithful one's, wherewith? with the milk of the word, whose word? even the word and sacraments of God. Whereof sith the ministry and execution belongeth not unto them, but to the ministers: it followeth necessarily thereupon, that the provision, direction, appointment, care, and oversight, which is the supreme government, belongeth to them. And this is that which Lyr●… confesseth & the B. urgeth of Constantine, that he was such another nurse, as did keep, defend, maintain, uphold, and feed the poor faithful one's of Christ, yea carried them in his bosom, as it were, and procured them to be fed, did set forth proclamations not only against false religion, but also to set forth, to exhort, and allure, unto the Christian faith, caused not only the Idolatrous religion to be suppressed, but caused also on the other part the true knowledge and religion of Christ to be brought in and planted among his people, and did not only make laws for punishing heretics and Idolaters, but also reform all manner abuses about God's service. Thus saith the Bishop out of Eusebius, did Constantine St●…p. 67. ●… play the nurses part. Now what say you to all this M. Stapleton? All this of Constantine (say you) is granted and maketh nothing for you. Whether it maketh for us or not, we will not contend. But it maketh for the matter, and being granted, it maketh up the matter. For and you will grant thus much from your heart inward, which you now grant from the teeth outward, by compulsion of the manifest truth: you might come home well enough with a wannion, and bestow your wit and travel better, than thus to grant unto, and yet with peevishness to withstand the manifest truth of the matter. The queens majesties oath requireth no more of you to give to her, than here you grant to give to Constantine, to M. St●…p. grants to Constantine this supreme government, and denieth it to the Queen's Majesty. set forth Christ's religion, to make laws and constitutions, not only of punishment, but of reformation of all manner abuses about God's service, to provide that the Church be fed with God's word, and in all points above said show herself a very nurse of the Church, committed to her government, as the child is to the nurse. What one thing ecclesiastical is not here comprehended? or can you show cause, why she aught not to have the same authority in her dominions, as well as Constantine (to whom you grant it) had in his? if you say she doth not this, but the contrary: this is but your wicked slander M. Stapleton. But grant her her interest, and then try that. Her right is one thing, and whether she dischargeth well the same or not, is another thing. Grant her her right, as you do to Constantine, and then spare not to improve, what you can prove amiss. Now, having granted thus much, which in deed concludeth M. Stap. goeth now about by wrangling to defeat all his former grant. up all the matter, lest he should utterly be discr●…dited of all his friends, he goeth about so much as he can, in wrangling of words, to defeat once again all his former grant, according to his practice in the Chapter before. For, where the Bishop by the example of Constantyne, proveth the Prince to be herein not only a nurse to the people, but also to be appointed unto them of God, as it were the common or universal Bishop, as Eusebius testifieth of Constantine, and Constantine to other Bishops calleth himself a Bishop, signifying his careful oversight over all his people, in setting forth God's true religion: Master Stapleton first snappeth at this word bishop, secondly he challengeth the bishop for curtailing Eusebius sentence. And when Eusebius (sayeth he) calleth him as it were a common or universal bishop: I suppose ye mean not, that he was a Bishop in deed. For yourself confess, that Princes & Bishop's offices are far distincted and dissevered, & that the one aught not to break into the office of the other. The Bishop's meaning is evident master Stap. and so The princebeing called Metaphorically, as it were a Bish. maketh no breach into the offico of a Bishop. are his words. But your meaning is to brabble, & to tickle in the Readers head a suspicion, that he confounded these offices. Is there no difference between these sayings, he was as it were a Bishop, and he was a Bishop in deed? Yes M. St. and you were not a very wrangler in deed, you might perceive by these words (as it were) he plainly meant, (and as it were) spoke it, that he was no B. in deed. And what though he were no Bishop in deed, in the function and office of a Bishop's ministery? no more was he also a nurse in deed, nor the people were suckling babes in deed, nor the word of God is milk in deed: yet, as these things be not falsely What these words Bishop and nurse betoken, although in deed the Prince be neither nurse nor Bishop. spoken, but being borrowed speeches, in their senses import not only a true, but a more excellent understanding than the bore words usually betoken: so the Emperor being named to be as it were a common or universal Bishop, and yet in deed, being no Bishop, it argueth that he had this name, because of his common and universal government oversight and care over all Bishops and causes Ecclesiastical. This shift therefore, to slink away from the manifest meaning of the words, by threaping on the Bishop this kindness, that he should mean to prove him a very Bishop in deed, is a very mean shift, though it have in deed a shrewd meaning Master Stapleton. And if you did so mean (say you) Eusebius himself would Stap. 68 a. soon confound you, if you rehearse Constantine's whole sentence that he spoke to the Bishops. What a good year mean you M. St. you urge this meaning further than needs, that the B. should mean to make the Emperor a Bishop in the Bishoply ministery, & therefore curtalled as you call it Eusebius sentences. If Eusebius sentence (set it down as whole as you list) confounded them that mean to confounded these offices: it will never soon or late confounded the B. the popish Bishops it may rather confound, for they confound their offices, turning Bishops not as it were into lay men but into lay men in deed. What the Bishop's words do mean is most plain to a man of mean wit, that list not to jangle about nothing, neither the words import any such meaning, nor this is any thing in question, the ministerial office, but the supreme government, which are two far different things. But since that to no purpose, you challenge the B. for curtailing Eusebius words: let us behold how you do set them down. For thus (say you) he says to the Bishops, Vos quidem Stapl. 68 b eorum quae intus sunt in Ecclesia agenda, ego vero eorum qua extra sunt Episcopus à Deo sum constitutu●…. You are Bishops (says he) of those things that are to be done within the Church, I am Bishop of outward things: which answer of his may satisfy any reasonable man, for all that you bring in here of Constantine, or all that you shall afterward bring in, which declareth him no supreme judge or chief determiner of causes Ecclesiastical, but rather the contrary, and that he was the overseer in civil matters. And the most that may be enferred hereof is, that he had the procuration and execution of Church matters, which I am assured all Catholics will grant. You would feign I see M. Stapl. revoke your grant and it could be cleanly conveyed, or so to limit it, that it might not appear you have granted that, that all your fellows deny. But this revocation is to late. Nevertheless fuli prettily you compass the matter, to defeat all these most plain not words but doings of Constantine, by shoving at this name B. shop in the Emperor, which in any case you can not abide. And therefore, as who though B. went about to M. Stapl. false translation of Constantine●… words. confound the offices of a Bishop and of a Prince, and thereto had concealed Eusebius words: you solemnly take on y●…n to set them out both in Latin and in English. But tell me by that false faith of yours M. Stapleton, why you have not translated the words aright in English, that you have set down in Latin? did you see in deed they made nothing for you, but rather much against you? is the English of intus in Ecclesia, within the Church? And the English of eorum quae extra, Outward civil things or matters? or, Ego vero, etc. Episcopus à ' Deo sum constitut●…. I am a Bishop? what is manifest corruption of plain words, and evident sense, if this be not? this is past cutting of the tail M. St. or slitting his nose, and paring his ears, to dress it like a perfect curtal, but even to cut both buttocks and head away, and make it a carrion carcase, this translating is trans I ordanem in deed. But the words of Constantine & the sense are plain: The sentence of Constantine and the true meaning thereof. Euseb. de vita Const. li. 4. You (says he speaking to the spiritual pastors) are Bishops of those things that in the Church are to be done within or inwardly. But I am appointed of God a Bishop of those things that are forthout, or outwardly. As who should say your Bishoply office in God's Church, is in the ministers of those things that work inwardly, that pierce the heart, enter into the soul, cleave the thoughts in sunder, and properly belong to the inward man: the lively word of God. My Bishoply office in God's Church, is distinguished from this, and is in things without, that is, in the outward setting forth, and public direction of God's word, to be duly taught by you. Thus both their offices were in God's Church, the matter and groundwork of both their bishoprics, was Gods true religion. But the doing of the one was pertaining to the inward man, the doing of the other to the outward man. And this is the very distinction that Constantine maketh which (being not falsely translated, as you do, and so misunderstood) may satisfy as you say any reasonable man. But How M. Stap. understandeth inward things and outward things, & how we understand them in Constantine's sentence. your understanding is very unreasonable, to understand by inward things, things ecclesiastical, and by outward things, only civil things, in deed they be out, and quite out of the consideration of the Church. But wherefore then called he himself a Bishop also with them, yea an universal Bishop, as Eusebius termeth him, but to declare that his oversight was in the same matter that was there's? the matter was God's truth and Religion in both, the manner was outward or inward, as either's Bishopric required. The matter & manner of either rhetoric Otherwise, if he had meant only of civil matters as you expound, he had been no more a Bishop thereby, than the very Soldan or great Turk, or any other Heathen Prince, that oversee their civil matters very circumspectly. And so as you did in your fourth Chapter, you make Constantine (for all these notable things in him, that yourself before have granted) no better than an infidel Prince in this behalf. For by outward you say, is meant civil matters. Stapl. 29. b. As M. Stapleton understands this sentence, the Turk is as good a bishop as a Christian▪ Prince. But the civil government (you say also) reacheth no further than the people's quietness, wealth, abundance and prosperous maintenance, & that these things are common as well to the heathen as to the Christian government. Think you M. Stapleton these Fathers meant no further government, nor in other matters than these, when they called Constantine an universal Bishop? and that Constantine measured his office no further, when he called himself by the name of a Bishop▪ for shame M. Stapleton deface not to Christian a Prince, after so Turkish a manner, nor thereto so manifestly falsify your author, nor abuse your reader with such a shameless impudence. Well say you, And the most that may be inferred thereof is, that he had the procuration and execution of Church matters, which I am assured all Catholics will grant. May we be assured M. Stapleton on your word, that all your popish Catholics will grant even thus much? For I verily fear they will grant it no further than it pleaseth them. And where you are so ready to assure us of others grants, what assurance have we had already of all your own liberal grants. when you were disposed to wrangle, as now again you do? for how agreeth this even with your former grant, that Princes might make laws and constitutions for the furtherance of Christ's religion, that Princes might take some regiment upon them in Ecclesiastical causes. yea, might do as much as all these ensamples specify: Procuration & execution of Church matters. and that now you make, the most to be but the procuration and execution of Church matters? Although, what you mean by these words you tell not, would you have them only the Churches (that is, as you mean by the Church, only the Priests) proctors and executioners? now truly The Papists would have Princes to be b●…t the Priests proctors and executioners▪ at the most. you limit them a full fair office. But think you the name of B. and universal B. did import nothing else? was that the most that may be inferred thereof? and yet that is more than only to be their executioner, (as you said before) to be, as you add here to it, their proctor also. Yea, it is much more than not to meddle in Church matters at all. But as you falsely expounded Eusebius before, so here you control and falsify your own saying, affirming that the most which may be enferred hereof is, that he had the procuration and execution of Church matters. If this be either the most or aught at all, than your former exposition of civil oversight, was at the lest a false corruption of you. But and you mark it well, you shall find (and never go to the most for the matter) that this title and other the doings of this noble Christian Emperor, comprehended much more th●…n either to be a priests proctor, or executioner in Church matters, yea to betoken in very deed a chief and supreme governor. Your third part of this division is altogether an impertinent quarrel of Images challenging the Bishop of an untruth and therefore (besides that is said already sufficiently, on the same argument) is answered in his proper place. The. 21. Division. THe Bishop having thus fully proved that the ensamples and prophecies of the old Testament, were figures Fol. 69. a. to be performed in the new: entereth into the confirmation thereof by the new Testament. And first, in this division proveth by two allegations of The Bishop's allegations ou●… of the new Testament. our Saviour Christ, that this authority of Princes in the old Testament, is confirmed by Christ to christian Princes in the new. But the Prince's authority in the old Testament, stretcheth not only to civil matters, but also to the oversight, maintenance, setting forth, and furtherance of religion, and matters ecclesiastical. Ergo, Christ hath confirmed in the new Testament, that christian Princes power stretcheth not only to civil matters, but also to the oversight, maintenance, setting forth, and furtherance of religion, and matters ecclesiastical. The minor is proved already, by these foresaid examples of the old Testament. The mayor the Bishop proveth by two testimonies of jesus Christ. The first generally in Matt. 5. that he came to accomplish the law and the Prophets. The second out of Math. 22. where he commanded all men to give that unto Cesar, that belonged to Cesar, and bounded the Prince's authority by the word of God. To the minor master Stap. saith not one word, neither in his marginal notes, nor Counterblast. Belike, that he relenteth to it, according to his own rule: Qui tacet cons●…re 62. b. videtu●…, he that holds his peace seemeth to consent. The mayor likewise he granteth, in saying: Master Horn goeth yet needlessly forward to prove that Stap. 69. a ●…. Sta. granteth the Bish. argument. Christ did not destroy the rule of Princes in Church causes, figured in the old law. Whereupon, till M. St. shall deny one of these two propositions, the conclusion followeth of necessary consequence against him. Only, M. St. thinketh it enough for him to everturne all the argument, if he deny the proves of the mayor granting to the other proof, and there upon bendeth all his answer against this sentence, Give unto Cesar that belongeth unto Cesar. But this no whit hindereth the argument, so long as he granteth the other proof, yea though he denied that also, so long as he granteth the mayor itself, to the confirmation whereof, both these allegations were brought forth. But let us see how properly he handleth them. And now at the length (saith M. St.) catcheth he one Stap. 69. a testimony out of the new Testament to prove his saying: which is, give unto Cesar, that belongeth unto him. Which place nothing at all serveth his turn, but rather destroyeth, I will not say any figure of the old Testament, but master Horns foolish figurative divinity. I fear me, master Stapleton, that you which upbraid others for foolish figurative divinity, will even in this division show, not the wisest divinity in Lovayne: I had almost said also, your own more than foolish divinity, without any figure at all. But first, let us see your false divinity. The Bishop here together citeth two testimonies M. Stapletons' divinity. out of the new Testament, and you come in, saying. Now at the length catcheth he one testimony out of the new Testament to prove his saying. But to wink at this false divinity, with what wise divinity do you improve this one testimony? For it is so far off (say you) that of this place master Stap. 69. ●…. Horn may make any ground for the ecclesiastical authority of Princes, that it doth not as much as infer that we aught to pay so much as tribute to our Princes, but only that we may pay it. Surely M. Stap. this is a trim divinity, and as trim logic as divinity. Christ commandeth us, saying, give that M. Stapleto●… up braiding the Bishop's divinity, see what good divinity he himself maketh. M. Stapl. Logic. unto Cesar, that belongeth unto Cesar: Ergo, we may, but we aught not to give it him. Where have you found this new logic and divinity M. Stap? Is it Lovayne stuff? a 〈◊〉 would have thought this reason better of the twain, that if we aught not then, of right we neither might nor should give unto every body, that belongeth to them, and so deny to the Prince that belongeth to him. But this we may not, nor should do, but to give him and all men their duty, therefore we aught to do it. But still see how you wrap your words in contradiction. You grant that this sentence, Give unto Cesar that belongeth Matth. 22. unto Cesar, doth not destroy any figure of the old Testament, if it do not destroy it, than it confirmeth it, and The new Testament confirmeth the figure of the old Testament. ratifieth to the Prince, that belonged to the Prince, and that the Prince had in the old Testament: but the Prince had then authority in ecclesiastical matters, as you confessed in the two last divisions: Ergo, by this sentence the same authority is now confirmed. How then say you here, it maketh no ground for the authority of Princes in ecclesiastical matters? since their authority was a figure, and this sentence you say doth not destroy it, but now you have made this sentence destroy the figure quite. For that duty That subjects may pay tribute▪ but they aught not. that belonged to Princes before, stood not on a may bawe, it lay not in the subjects choice to choose, whether they would yield the Prince that belonged to him, or not, as though they might if they would, they need not if they list, but they must and aught of necessary duty and obedience have yielded to the Prince whatsoever to him belonged, in the time of that figure of the old Testament. And this sentence, say you, hath not destroyed the figure, Ergo, This sentence now bindeth and confirmeth it, with as great duty and necessity, and not less. But say you, this sentence doth not so much as infer that we ought to pay so much as tribute to our Princes: Ergo, This sentence hath destroyed the figure, & set us at liberty, in that the figure bound us. And thus not only you speak quite contrary to yourself, and to all reason: but besides with your good divinity, have taken away all humanity. All humanity i●… destroyed by by M. Stapletons' good divinity. For what policy can consist in any sure estate, if their subjects be not bound of duetis, but at their pleasures may, or may not, yield their duties to their sovereign Lords? The Pope in deed dispenseth at his pleasure with subjects oaths and homages, to deny that duty to their natural Princes, that be longeth to them. But this is a case reserved to himself, except you can show your legacy à later. And yet this your licentiousness to subjects is more than his dispensation. But what good motive hath moved you here unto? how do you confirm it, that this sentence importeth not their duty, but their voluntary in rendering the Prince his own? For the question (say you) was framed of the captious Stap. 69. a The captious questions of the jews. jews, not whether they aught, but whether they might pay any tribute to Cesar. Here, M. Stap. you show yourself yet more captious than those jews. Is this any necessary cause of sequence, The flat and general answer of christ. the jews propounded their question, not whether they aught, but whether they might pay tribute to their Prince, or no: Ergo, Christ answering flatly, and generally, commanding them to pay all duty to their Prince, that appertaineth to him, must be understood, not that they aught, but that they might pay it? Which argument though follow nothing at all, let us yet go onward with M. St. and so see how he proves it. Cesar was then an external and an infidel Prince: Ergo, the question of the captious jews for paying him tribute, M. Stapl. dea le●…h as captiously as the jews. was not whether they aught, but whether they might pay tribute, or no. You had need make this argument more perfect, M. St. but to grant you, they propounded it as captiously as you can frame it, will you as captiously thereon conclude, that we must under stand the answer of Christ, to contain no more than their captious question propounded? You should prove that Christ's sentence infereth no more, than that they might pay tribute: and you like a captious sophister, run to the captious jews, that their sentence inferred no more. But kin will creep I see where it can not go. But whether you reason from their question, or Christ's answer, are these sufficient & reasonable reasons M. St? Because their prince was an external or an infidel prince, were they not therefore his lawful subjects? Was not the Emperor of Rome the Prince of many other Countries besides? all which in the natural situation of the provinces were external to him, An external Prince. might they therefore have reasoned that their obedience and tributes were not of duty to be paid? No Master Stap. they considered that though their country were external, yet because they were under his government, their policies and his were but one Monarchy, and therefore he was not to be counted an external prince unto them, no more than other princes, that have in their possession diverse Countries, and Realms under their signiory. But yet say you, there remaineth a greater matter, he An infidel Prince. was an Infidel: Ergo, they might, but they aught not to have paid him tribute. But I pray you master Stapleton, what was Nabuchodonozor any other (when he subdued Zedechias and the jews) than an Infidel Prince? And yet was it not lawful for Zedechias to deny him his Tribute. Mardocheus, Toby, Daniel, Esdras, and other godly fathers, had no skill of this Divinity, that they might, but not that they aught have paid their duties to Cyrus, Ahasuerus, Darius, and other Princes, because Luc. 2. they were Infidels. joseph and Marie travailed with all obedience to pay their tax to Augus●…us Cesar, as of duty: although they known well enough that he was an Infidel. But to return to master Sta. he proveth his consequence ab absurdo. For if (saith he) M. Horn will say these words import a Stap. 69. a. b precise necessity, he shall have much ado to excuse the Italians, Frenchmen, Spaniards, and our nation which many hundredth years since, have paid no tribute unto Cesar. The argument is thus made perfect. If these words give unto Cesar that belongeth to Cesar, be to be understood that he aught to have it, then the Italians Frenchmen, Spaniards & Englishmen, all which nations have paid tribute to Cesar, aught still to pay it. But these nations have paid no tribute to Cesar, many hundredth years, nor aught now to pay any to him: Ergo, The words of Christ import no necessity nor are to be understood that they aught, but that they might. For the minor I will not examine, how many, or how few hundredth years it is, since the Italians paid tribute to the Empire. And by what means, & whose practices they have left off paying it: may be better showed hereafter. Only for our nation, we have good cards to show, how the Romans themselves have remitted their tribute, and all their Empire over us. The mayor of this argument followeth not, the folly whereof By the name of Cesar, Christ comprehendeth all princes. consists, in the wilful misconstruing this word Cesar. Whereby Christ means not only the Emperor or state Imperial but he simply means the Prince, whosoever he were. As like wise saith S. Paul generally (though at the same time the Christians, to whom he written, were under an external and Infidel Prince) Cui tributum, tributum. etc. Pay tribute to him, to whom tribute is due. And so Christ, though he answer them with their own word, yet thereon he teacheth a general doctrine, not to them alone, but to all Subjects, towards all Princes, whom he comprehendeth by the name of Cesar, whom they had named to him. And not only all men's duty to their Prince, but all men's duty to God, and not the jews duty to God alone. And therefore, although he confuted their particular caption, yet his answer was general Christ's answer a general commandment. to them, and all other, both then and for ever. And so he spoke generally▪ not, give this penny, nor give tribute only, but give that (what soever it be) unto Cesar that belongeth unto Cesar, and that unto God that belongeth unto God whatsoever it be: reasoning on this. Every man not only may have, but aught to have that that is belonging to him. Which includeth withal the particular that yourselves testify, this belongeth unto Cesar, you aught therefore of good right give it him, as his own, and not you may give it him. This is the evident reason and doctrine of our saviour Christ, that every one aught to have his own. From the which, how far this doctrine of M. Stap. swerveth, besides the danger of it, that we may lawfully (if we please) give every one his own, but we be not bound of precise necessity, nor ought so to do: let every body judge, as he shall see occasion, what inconvenience might quickly breed béereon. But master Stap. thinking that he hath sufficiently proved the former part of Christ's sentence to import no more than he beareth us in hand: on the other part he endeavoureth to set on the Bishop, challenging him to have left out that part thereof, that is concerning our duty to God. But I pray you M. Horn (saith he) why have you defalked Stapl. 69. b. and curtalled Chrystes answer: why have ye not set forth his whole and entire sentence: Give to Cesar that belongeth to Cesar, and to God that belongeth to God? which later clause, I am assured, doth much more take away a supreme regiment in all causes ecclesiastical, than necessarily by force of any words bind us to pay, yea any tribute to our Prince. This quarrel, M. St. is an evident untruth, for the Bishop M. Sea. manifest vntru●… hath not left out the other part of the sentence, but mentioned it in the next words immediately following. Admonishing notwithstanding all princes and people, that Caesar's authority is not infinite, or without limits, (for such authority belongeth only to the king of all kings) but bounded and circumscribed within the bounds assigned in God's word. Which words of the bishop, not only make plain relation unto, but also comprehend the sentence following, & quae dei deo, and giving unto God that pertaineth to God. And this limitation yourself anon afterward confess, that the Bishop specifieth, though here you deny it according to the manner of your quarreling disposition. But whereto M. Stap. move you this quarrel? This latter clause I am assured (say you) doth much Stap. 69. B more take away a supreme regiment in causes ecclesiastical, than necessarily, by force of any words bind us to pay, yea any tribute to our Prince. Are you so well assured hereof, M. Stap? but by your leave, for all you be so well assured, if this sentence must be understood of may, and not of aught, than perchance it may neither take away that supremacy that belongeth to the Prince, nor that supremacy may hinder our duty to God. Yea what if this same may, or might, and aught not, may become an argument for all popish traitors against their Princes, teaching subjects that they may give them their duties, but they aught not? For I am assured on the other side, that the Priests and Bishops to their Princes, yea By M. Stapletons' exposition of Christ's, Sentence not all obedienc●… to Prince's 〈◊〉 se●…e at liberty, but all obedience to God. the Bishop of Rome himself to the Emperors, as you understand Cesar, have yéeded their service, obedience, yea and their tributes also ere this, how soever since they have wrong themselves from that old obedience that they aught to Cesar. And if to subtract this, you may thus dally on the former clause, why may not all Papists for the later clause of the sentence to uphold their honour of Images, their invocation of Saints, their own traditions, and unwritten verities, against God's express word and commandment, allege for them that they may give to God that, that belongeth to God, but not that they aught, as bound thereto The one part of the sentence bindeth asmuch as the other. necessarily by force of any words? For this I am sure of also, that these words of Christ do make no more mention of duty toward the one part of the sentence, than to the other, the one comprehendeth not may, and the other aught: but though the duty to God be greater, and more excellent than the duty toward the Prince, yea and boundeth it (as the Bishop said) yet duty belongeth unto hothe, and both aught to have it. And we be not here licensed, but flatly commanded to give that that is duty to either party. The words are manifest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Reddite, Tender you that Matth. 22. unto Caesar that is Caesar's, and that that is Gods to God. So that if reddite Caesari quae sunt Caesaris, be no more but this, you may give unto Cesar those things that are Cesar, then may reddite Deo qu●… sunt Dei, be also by as good Latin, you may give to God those things that are Gods. What figurative divinity, M. Stapletons' Grammar. yea what figurative Grammar call you this? whereof you crack so much, and find such fault in others, and can not see in yourself, how your Divinity either mars your Grammar, or your Grammar your Divinity. And yet both must go for excellent good, for why you are assured of the matter that the imperatine mode is in the one clause no more than the potential, commanding to do, is no more but to say you may do: though in the other clause, it retaineth still his force. Besides this good Divinity, that we be not necessarily, by force of any words bound to pay, yea any tribute to our Princes, and so may deny them both that, and all duties else, as do the Papists when they be disposed to refuse their lawful obedience to their sovereigns, as you & your Louanists do. This is a holy divinity. Did ever any of the ancient Divines, give this liberty to subjects against their Princes, or thus expound these words, and not rather all with one, consent, yea your popish writers hereon also, The judgement of the writers of this sentence clean contrary to master Stapleton. so many as I have read, gather here upon a necessary duty of all subjects obedience, tributes, honour & all other pre-eminences belonging to Princes? & chie●…y on this sentence, writ of purpose upon this common place, of subjects dutiful obedience to their magistrates: & you make so light a matter of it, that you say it bindeth us not so much, as to pay any tribute at all unto them. But that all the world may see how falsely you wrist the words of Christ, you shall see some of the father's judgements on these words, give unto Cesar that that is Caesar's: that they infer not that they may give, but that they aught to give them. Tertullian an ancient Father says: Alius est denarius Lib. de fug. in persecution. quem C●…sari debeo, etc. It is an other penny that I own to Cesar, that pertaineth to him, whereof it was then moved, that is to say, a tributary penny due to be paid of tributary, & not of free men. I pray you M. St. what is that English of Debeo & of debitus? Origen likewise an ancient Father says: In tempore ergo Christi, In Matth. 22. tract. 21. etc. In the time therefore of Christ, when they were commanded to give tribute to the Romans, there was a thought & counsel among the jews, Utrun deberent, whether they aught that were God's people & his portion, to give Prince's tribute, or rather take arms for their liberty, except they were suffered to live as they lusted. And the story telleth that one judas a Galilean, of whom Luke mentioneth in the Acts of the Apostles, The same says M. Stapl. drawing away the multitude of the jews, taught, Non oportere, they aught not to give tribute to Cesar, & call Cesar Lord. But he that was at that time the tetrarch hastened to persuade the people, & that they should regard the present state, & not wilfully take arms against the stronger. But be content to give tribute. And truly the word of this present gospel, not in deed manifestly, yet it shows these things. But he that diligently considereth the sense of the present words, shall find this, yea even in this place. For the Phariseis had not had occasion (being willing to take Christ in his speech, sending their disciples with the Herodians) to ask him whether it were lawful to give Cesar tribute or not, if it had been manifest amongst them, that they aught not to give it, & that there had been an agreement of all their wills, that they should not give it. etc. Thus we see that the question they moved to Christ, was whether they aught to pay tribute or no. And that this was a great question betwixt them. And that judas Oalileus a mover of conspiracy, & a rebellious traitor, & M. St. an English renegade, & a like mover of sedition: are of one opinion, the tribute aught not to be paid. But Christ was of a contrary opinion. & all true subjects aught to follow Christ's opinion, that tribute aught to be be paid. And so doth Origen expound Christ's Orig. ibid. words. When they showed Christ a penny, and Christ asked whose inscription it was, and they said it was Caesar's. He answered that they aught to tender unto Cesar the things that are Caesar's, and that they aught not to defraud him of those things that are his own, under the occasion of godliness. And likewise the same Origen says, Some think it simply In. 20. Luc. homil. 38. spoken of our Saviour, tender to Cesar that is Caesar's, that is to say, Tributum reddite quod debetis, tender the tribute that you own, Quis enim●…ostrū de tributis reddendis Caesari contradicit? for who gainesaith it that tributes aught to be paid to Cesar? Forsooth that doth M. Stapl. saying they might but they aught not. Hilary likewise an ancient Father says: Igitur In Mat. c●…. 23. In regula Monachorum. an violaret, etc. Therefore they try him, whether on the condition of the question propounded, he would violate the worldly power. An videlicet reddi tributum Caesari oportet, whether tribute aught to be rendered to Cesar, etc. And when they said it was Caesar's, he said, Caesari reddenda esse, etc. The things that are Caesar's, aught to be rendered to Cesar. And again, when he decreeth that the things that are Caesar's aught to be rendered to him: Likewise Basilius Magnus, When they had said Caesar's, he replied, tender, etc. wherein we be manifestly taught, that those are bound to the tribute of Cesar: with whom the money of Cesar is found, etc. Likewise In Matth. 22. homil. 71. chrysostom: That the things that are Caesar's ought to to be rendered to him: Likewise S. Ambrose, Et tu si vis. In Luc. lib. 9 cap. 20. etc. And thou if thou will't not be bound or thrall to Caesar, have thou not those things that are of the world, but if thou hast the riches of the world thou art bond to Caesar. If thou will't own nothing to the earthly King, forsake all things and follow Christ. And before, decern you well what things aught to be rendered to Caesar. Likewise S. Augustine: Sed quia Manichaei, etc. But because Contr. Faustum Manichaeu●… lib. 22. ca 74. the Manichei use openly to blaspheme john, let them hear even the Lord jesus Christ, Hoc stipendium iubente●… reddi Caesari, Commanding (not, permitting) this stipend to be rendered to Caesar. And on these words of S. Paul to the Romans, Omnis anima, Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. Si quis ergo: If therefore any body think, that because he is a Christian, he aught not to tender tax or tribute, or that honour aught not to be given due to those powers that care for these things: he falls in a great error. But that mean aught to be kept which God himself prescribeth, that we should give unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are of God. Likewise Theophilactus: Arbitrati se, etc. Thinking In. 22. Math. they should smooth him with praises, they flatter him, that being milked, he should say, Non deberi Caesari tributum, Tribute aught not to be paid to Caesar, and thereupon they might take him as a seditious man and moving the people against Caesar, and therefore they bring the Herodians with them that were the king's men, to apprehend him, as a stirrer of new things. Thou regardest not, say they, the person of any man, that speakest nothing to get the favour of Herode and Pilate. Tell us therefore, Debemus & hominibus. Aught we to be both tributary to men, and to give them tax, as well as to give tax to God, or shall we give to God only, or else to Caesar also? this they spoke (as I said) that he should say that tribute aught not to be given to Caesar, etc. Thus we see again their question whether they aught, or no. But jesus by this coin that was figured in the Image of Cesar▪ Persuadet illis debere Caesari, Persuadeth them that those things are owing to Cesar, that are his, (that is) those that have his Image. Both in corporal and in outward things we must obey the king, but in inward things and spiritual, only God. Thus all these ancient Fathers are flat against you M. St. Lyra in Matth. 22. and expound this saying, not that they might, but that they aught, and that we aught to obey our Princes. And thus do your own popish writers although partial to your Pope yet herein reprove you. Reddit etc. quia reddere debitum est bonum & justum. Tender, etc. because to tender that that is due, is good and just. And all the popish Postilles, that I have seen, Poligra●…, Ferus, Hofmeister, R●…yard. etc. affirm on these words, that tribute aught to begiven to Cesar, and obedience aught to be given to Princes. And none of them that I can yet find, found out this fine conceit, that they may, but not that they aught to do it. Now on their side, you stretch so far the other words, give that unto God that belongeth to God, that as though they were clean contrary to the former, you say: they take away a supreme regiment, but see how while you would seem so knuckle deep in Divinity, you quite take away your Pope's challenge & all. For if it take away a supreme regiment, how doth your Pope challenge a supremacy? in deed you spoke truer than you witted, for such a supremacy as he claimeth, is only due to Christ, God & Man: & to no simple Creature, Prince, Prelate, or any other. Wherefore he aught not to usurp it, but give it unto the owner. The supremacy that is due to godly Princes, is neither such as the Pope claimeth, nor is derogatory, in any jote, from the duty that is to be yielded to God. But is the ministery appointed by God, to govern and direct according to God's word, the bounds of God's Church that God hath limited to his rule and oversight. And therefore that which you allege out of Hosius of Spain, & S. Ambrose that used even these words, Et quae Dei Deo, against the Arian Emperor Constantius, and Valentinian the younger, are quite besides the purpose. Th●… Queen's majesty taketh not on her, nor claimeth any such absolute supremacy and dealings as they twain usurped, It is but your common slander. But sith you only touch it saying, whose words we shall have an occasion hereafter to rehearse, I will therefore with you refer the examining thereof to that your occasion of rehearsal, only here I note this your folly & contradiction in citing these father's allegations. If this sentence be only to be restrained to the jews M. Stapletons' contradictions. bore demand: if it meddle only with Tiberius Cesar then Emperor, and stretch no further: If it determine nothing but money: If it infer no necessity or duty but only give licence: how then did these Fathers allege & urge this sentence against these Princes? and how do you allege them against the Bishop? do you not see how you speak against yourself? but I forbear you till you come to your appointed place. Although further hear I might admonish you, since you rehearse here no words of those authors, but referr●… yourself to another fit occasion: not to stand dallying in so often preventions and rehersalls, and all to no purpose, but only to increase your volume. Much less, to triumph thereupon, till you have set down some proof, either of them, or of other to confute the Bishop: for else you do but triumph before the victory, and such commonly in the end do l●…se the victory. For hitherto you have alleged nothing against the Bishop's allegation, and yet say you: This ill hap hath M. Horn even with his first authority Stapl. 69. b. of the new Testament extraordinarily and impertinently I can not tell how chopped in, to 'cause the leaves and his book and his lies to make the more muster and show. This was an happy hap for you M. Sta. (to ruffle in your Rhetoric) that it happened the B. to have so ill an hap by alleging this sentence, for hereby you have showed first your truth & honesty. That where the Bishop citeth two plain sentences out of the new Testament together, to confirm his assertion, you say he allegeth here but one. Where the Bishop citeth this of Cesar the later of the twain, you quite omitting the other, say: this is his first authority of the new Testament. Good hap have you M. St. to have chopped in two lies so round together, to make the more muster of lies in your book, but happy man happy dole they say. With the like happiness have you found out this grammar rule, that Reddite is you may give. But chief this happy new Divinity to refuse your Princes lawful authority, that necessarily by force of any words, you be not bound to pay so much as any tribute to your Prince. All these haps was it your hap, first to find out. And therefore all your side have good cause M. St. to count you an happy man. But M. St. not content withal these haps, stormeth yet against the Bishop for adjoining these words: Admonishing not withstanding all Princes & people, that Caesar's authority is not infinite or without limits (for such authority belongeth only to the King of all Kings) but bounded and circumscribed within the bounds assigned in God's word. This M. St. calleth, a foolish and a frivolous admonition Stap. 70. ●…. without any cause or ground, & grounded on M. Horns fantastical imagination, and not upon Christ, as he surmiseth. Is this M. Stapl. a foolish and a frivolous admonition? a groundless fantastical Imagination, to say that the Prince's authority is not infinite, but circumscribed within the bounds assigned in God's word? what would you have had the Bishop to say? that it had been infinite without any bounds, & such as only belongeth to God? but how would you then have triumphed at the matter? and in deed you had had good cause. This admonition godly and necessary. Where now you have none, but that you be disposed to quarrel at every thing, be it never so well spoken. Neither was it without cause or ground, sith the words that immediately are joined so together, make an express limitation, that the former part of the sentence, is bounded with the later part: that the Prince aught to have such due belonging to him, as hindereth not the yielding of that due that belongeth to God. And therefore the Bishop's admonition was not only godly and true, but grounded on Christ's words, yea and comprehendeth them also, and was no less necessary for the Bishop to have used, both for that it maketh a distinction, of that supremacy that your Pope challengeth, intruding and encroaching on those things that are only due to God, and not suffering his authority to be limited by God's word, and would rule God's word, and go beyond the bounds thereof: And also for that, to the ignorant & simple of your side, you slander the B. and other setters forth of god's word, yea the queens majesty herself to take on her, and we to yield to her, such an absolute and indefinite authority, as taketh from god, from his word, from his ministers, that authority that belongeth unto them. Which sith it is your usual lying and malicious slander, to stir offence to the simple, to bring the Prince and Preachers in obloquy, and the authority in suspicion and hatred, it was not a frivolous & fantastical imagination, as your fantastical brain imagineth, but a most necessary cause for the B. to have given that admonition, to show what authority we allow in the prince, & the Prince taketh on her, agreeable to that, that Christ commands to tender. Nay (say you) it is not grounded upon christ. Who willeth that to be given to Caesar that is Caesar's and Stap. fol. 70. to God that is Gods: but determineth & expresseth nothing that is to be given to Caesar, but only payment of money. And yet if we consider, as I have said, what was the question demanded, it doth not determine that neither, though the thing itself be most true. Doth this M. St. determine nothing but money, yea not so much as that neither? why, what doth it determine then? nothing (say you) if we consider, as I have said, what was the question demanded. In deed M. Stap. if we considered as you have said, it would be a very mean determination of any thing. And yet if you would better have considered, even that you have said, you should have found this your saying, to have been said without your considering cap. For than you told us, that though it forced not that we aught to pay tribute, yet it forced that we might pay it, which enforceth yet somewhat more than bore nothing. What a proper determination M. Sta. maketh of Christ's sentence. And even here present you say, that Christ determineth & expresseth nothing that is to be given to Cesar, but only payment of money. And by & by you say, it doth not determine that neither. And so you tell us it doth determine nothing, and yet it determines something, and that something it doth determine, and yet it doth not determine it. If we consider it, as you have said it, how would you have us consider it, master Stap. when yourself so inconsiderately have said such contradictions? Besides this, as repugnant as the rest, before you said, his words imported only that they might, which is not to will a thing to be done, but to permit or licence that a thing may be done, or may not be done. And here you plainly say, he willeth that to be given to Cesar that is Caesar's, and to God that is Gods. But Christ's willing a thing to be done, is his commandment that it be done: and not a licence that may or may not be done. It lieth not in our will, that we may if we list, give God that that is Gods, but we must and aught so to do, because it is Gods will. And so likewise for the Prince's duty, he hath willed that he should have that belongeth to him, yea yourself say, it is most true, and therein you say truly: and it is most just and reason by all laws (except your Popish laws) that every man have that is his, and then much more the Prince to have that that is his: no body aught to take away another's right and due, much less his Princes: then if it be most true, most reasonable and just, and Christ's will, was not this most true, just, and reasonable will of Christ, a sufficient determination, that the Prince should have all that belonged to him, but that he might have it, if it pleased his subjects to give it him? Nay, it was not so much, say you, not not for so much as his own money, yea he determined nothing at all. What a strange answer of Christ had this been to the jews demand, or rather a dalliance to have determined nothing at all? but this is your most false and fantastical imagination, M. St. For upon their particular demand Christ giveth a determinate and general doctrine, that all Princes should have, not only money or tribute, (as they moved their question) but all things else that belong unto them, as likewise God, to have allthings belonging to God, and yet their demand mentioned not God at all. But Christ's answer determined that, and more than they demanded. And therefore he answered then not again, that it was lawful to give tribute to Cesar, but gave them flat commandment, for all things not only belonging to Cesar, but to Good also, because they pretended to be exempted from the emperors subjection and taxes, being Gods peculiar people, as the Popish prelates claym●… to be exempted from the government and tribute of their Princes, because they be (as they pretend) the spirituality. The residue of M. St. answer is nothing but words of course, and slanderous buy quarrels. First that this admonition of the bishop serveth him, and Stapl. 70. a his brethren for many and necessary purposes to rule and master their Princes by at their pleasure. That as often as their doings like them not they may freely disobey, and say it is not God's word, whereof the interpretation they refer to themselves. M. Stapleton measureth our doings by his own. Herein M. St. you measure us by yourselves, none seeketh another in the oven, they say, that hath not hid himself in the Oven before. This that you clatter against us, is the common practice of the Pope and his Prelates, so they use Princes, and so they use the word of God. So long as the Greek Emperors enriched the Popes, and The practice of the Popes with christian princes. suffered them to set up Idolatry, your Popes liked well of them, but when they began to pull down Images, than your Popes rebelled against them, add stirred up Pepia and Charles the great to invade the Empire. So long as the French Emperors endowed and defended the Pope's signiories, they were the Pope's chief and white sons. But so soon as they began to challenge their right in Italy, than your Pope's fearing the French power, bereft again the French Emperors of it, and gave it to the german Princes. But even in Germany, as any Princes would claim their right and interest of his estate, to be Emperor in deed of Rome, as he is called in name, than the Popes did excommunicate him, and stirred his people to rebellion against him. And thus likewise in England: so long as king john withstood the Pope, and his bishops practices, he was excommunicated, and his kingdom given to the French king's son, and the Dolphin willed to in●…ade England. But when king john had made himself the Pope's vassalle, and to hold the kingdom in Capite of the Pope, he was absolved, and the Dolphin forbidden and accursed. So long as king Henry the eight written against Luther, he had a golden Rose sent him, and was entitled, defender of the faith. But when he in deed began to defend the faith▪ and abolish the corrupter of the faith and his corrupt Idolatry, than he was excommunicate with book, bell & candle: and all Princes that the Pope might move, were set against him. And this practice he used with other christian Princes, calling one his elder son, another the most Christian king, another the Catholic king▪ etc. With such claws to master and rule Princes by, at his pleasure. But as often as any Prince's doings like him not, then to 'cause their subjects to disobey them, and renounce their oaths of allegiance. And whereto else serveth all this your present wrangling and wresting of this text, Reddite Caesar's quae sunt Caesaris: but to this purpose, that being not necessarily bound by force of any words to pay, yea any tribute to our Prince, and that it standeth only on a case of licence or possibility, we may if we please, it is lawful if we do it, but we ough●… not, we be not bound, it is not a precise necessity of subjects. What is a gap to all disobedience and rebellion, if this be not? and yet he objecteth this to us. No M. Stap. it is your own, we acknowledge it to be a command meant, due, and necessary, that the Prince have all things that belongeth to him, and what belongeth, in this controversy, is proved out of the old Testament, which Christ here confirmeth, and limiteth it by the duty given also to God, putting no mean of Pope nor Prelate between God and the Prince, as you do. And this limitation you can not deny to be good and godly, for all your scoffing at it, to limit the Prince's authority by God's word. Which we do, not to disobey our Prince, but rather to give to our Prince her own, knowing which is hers, & which is Gods, lest we should with you intermingle these duties that Christ hath severed, as your Pope usurpeth both Caesar's and God's also, because he will not have his power measured by God's word, but will rule the word of God, and referreth the interpretation thereof to himself. It is manifest in him that he doth so. To lay it to us, is but a manifest slander. And this is a greater matter of all on your side, than the refusal of a cap or a surplice (whereat you quarrel) in some Protestants on the other side, which doth nothing abase, but rather (in comparison) show the more your stubborn disobedience in all points to your Prince's authority, besides your abusing of God's word, whereof you say we make a very welshmans hose. Or but yet do you, M. St. and a great deal worse too, but you were best to cry, stop the thief by another, for fear you be espied to be the thief yourself. But I pray you how do you prove that we or the Bishop Sta pag. 70. ●… so use God's word? For (say you) we plainly say that this kind of supremacy is directly against God's holy word. Is this an argument M. St. that we abuse the word of God, because you plainly say, this supremacy is directly against God's word? In deed I hear you say it, and say it plainly, and as plain as you can say it, and that very often too, and make it a sufficient cause, saying: For we plainly say: But you should once at the lest prove it as plainly withal, and not so often tell us that you plainly say so, and then we should plainly see, and say also with you, that you used plain dealing, as well as plain sayings. The. 21. Division. IN this division the Bishop proceedeth further with other The bishops further testimonies of the new Testament, with the father's judgements thereon. testimonies out of the Apostles, with the father's expositions thereupon. First, where Saint Peter. ●…. Ep. cap. 2. and Saint Paul. Rom. 13. do not licence but command obedience unto Princes. Chrisostome stretcheth this obedience to every kind of Ecclesiastical person, so well as lay person. And maketh the object or matter wherein the Prince's government is exercised, to be for the furthering and advancing of all virtuous actions, the correcting and repressing of all vices: and that not only in all matters of the second Table, between man and man: but of all matters in the first table, between God & man, so well as of the other. To the confirmation whereof he citeth again S. Paul. 2. Timoth. 2. stretching the duty of Princes, not only to honesty of life, but also to godliness. Whereby Saint Augustine means, the chief or proper worship, service, and religion of God. Showing at large by Saint Augustine, (who reasoning on the thirteenth to the Rom. confuteth the Donatists herein) that Princes have authority for the furtherance and setting forth of true religion, and suppressing of all heresies, schisms, and other ecclesiastical abuses: so well as the furtherance and setting forth of civil justice, and the punishment of moral vices. To this M. Stapletons' answer is parted into four. The order of M. Stapletons' answer. First, gathering a contraction of the bishops allegations, he granteth unto them, and proveth that he and the Protestants agree hereupon. Secondly, he pincheth and restraineth his grant, and endeavoureth to prove contradiction in the Protestants. Thirdly, he entereth into the answer of certain words and testimonies by the Bishop alleged. Fourthly, he replieth on the bishop with other allegations out of chrysostom, and thereon frameth an argument on them, for his priests superiority. The residue of his answer to S. Augustine he passeth over in words of course. In the first saith M. Stapleton: here is nothing, M. Horn. that importeth your surmised Stap. pag. 71. b supremacy. The effect of your process is, Princes have authority to maintain, praise, and further the virtues of the first table, and to suppress the contrary, wherein only consists the true religion and spiritual service that is due from man to God And that he hath authority herein not only in the virtues or vices bidden or forbidden in the second table of God's commandments, wherein are contained the duties that one man oweth to another. This is granted M. Horn both of the Catholics, and of the soberer sort of the Protestants (for Carolostadius, Pelargus, Struthius, with the whole rabble of the Anabaptistes deny it) that Princes have authority both to further the observation, and to punish the breach of God's commandments, as well in the first table, as in the second, that is, as well in such actions as concern our duty to God himself, as in the duty of one man to another. This were meetly well said M. St. that here again thus liberally you grant, if it made any great matter what you M. Stapletons' manner at first to grant, aoon after by some wrangling distinction to revoke his grant. granted or denied. The bishop & you should soon agree saving for your instability, that after you have made your large grants, you still revoke them again with some pelting distinction or qualification of them. Your grant is this. Princes have authority both to maintain, praise & further the observation, and to suppress and punish the breach of God's commandments, aswell in the first table, as in the second that is, aswell in such actions as concern our duty to God himself (wherein only consists the true religion and spiritual service) as in the duty of one man to another. But thus well have Princes authority to maintain & further, or to suppress and punish in actions of the duty of one man to another contained in the second table: that no such actions be exempted from their authority, but they aught to praise, maintain, and further all such actions as are bidden, and suppress and punish all such actions as are forbidden, and that to do with most great care, diligence, and oversight, yea & supreme authority also under God therein: Ergo, They may do so, by like right, in all the actions of M. Sta. granteth the Prince hath the oversight as well of the first as the second table. the first table, concerning the true religion and spiritual service of God. Or else this (aswell) that you put in twice together for more confirmation, cometh an ace behind, and is belike as much to say, as not as well, the quite contrary to aswell. Thus if you stand to your own words that the Prince's authority is aswell in the one as in the other: they sufficiently import all that we demand, and are as much as this, The Prince is supreme governor, not only in all temporal▪ but also in all ecclesiastical causes. And therefore where you say that they be Anabaptistes that deny it, you conclude all the Papists to be Anabaptistes, for they deny it. And yourself are in the table also, that have pu●…te out this your Counterblast, chief to overturn it. Although, when you be pressed, you oftentimes grant that which ouerturnes yourself. Neither doth your distinction help▪ you, to the which you run for secure even to your enemies. But all this is (say you) as not only the Catholic writers, Stapl. pag. 72. but Melancthon himself, and calvin do expound: Quod ad externam disciplinam attinet: As much as appertaineth to external discipline. And the Magistrate is the keeper and defender of both Tables, saith Melancthon, but again he addeth. Quod ad externos mores attinet: As much as belongeth to external manners, behaviour and demeanour. You promise' here again to agree with calvin and Melancthon in all this, which you have granted, that the Prince hath authority as well in the first Table, as in the second, this only excepted as they except. Quod ad externam disciplinam & externos mores attinet. So long as appertaineth to outward discipline and outward manners. But all Ecclesiastical causes and orders for setting forth religion, are either outward disciplines or outward rites, manners, behaviours, or demeanoures, (for as for inward actions or thoughts the Prince meddleth not withal, but God alone: the minister only pronounceth God's threats or promises for them▪) Ergo, Even by this your own distinction you confess once again the Prince's supremacy in all eccl. causes. Neither doth your reason following help you any thing at all. For (say you) in the first Table are contained many offences Stap. pag. 72. and breaches, of the which the prince can not judge, & much less are by him punishable: As are all such crimes which properly M. Stapletons' shift of the court of conscience. belong to the court of conscience, to we●…e, misbelief in God, mistrust in his mercy, contempt of his commandments, presumption of ourselves, incredulity and such like. Which all are offences against the first table, that is, against the love that we own to God. Contrariwise, true belief, confidence Melancth. five▪ supra. in God, the fear of God, and such like, are the virtues of the first table, and of these Melancthon truly says, Haec sunt opera prime tabulae, These are the virtues of the first table. All this M. St. that you speak, is beside the question, concerning The Prince dealeth neither with the first nor second table, in respect of the court of conscience, but of the outward fact. such crimes or virtues of the first table properly belonging to the court of Conscience. What need you stand so long descanting on the first table? as though in the second table many such vices were not lurking in the hart●… of man, for which the Prince also can make no law. For, he can not compel his subjects to bear no hate nor wrath in their hearts: nor to lust or desire in their hearts unlawfully their neighbours wife and goods: nor to love another as themselves. All which are of the second table, properly also belonging to the court of conscience. You might as well have added these of the second, as the other of the first table, but then had your falsehood been espied, going about by this means to revoke all your grant for the first table, that because the Prince cannot punish such inward and peculiar breaches: therefore he can not judge upon the doctrine and open causes, and so you simply conclude: The punishing, correcting, or judging of these, appertain Stap. pag. 7●…. nothing to the authority of the Prince, or to any his laws, but only are judged, corrected and punished, by the special sword, of excommunication, of binding of sins, and enbarring the use of holy Sacraments, by the order and authority of the Priest only and spiritual Magistrate. You might M. St. as well conclude this of the second table also, and quite debar the Prince of all dealing in either table, because the inward action of either table, the Prince can not punish, & so defeat all your grant which before you confessed, that the furthering or punishing for both the tables as well of the first as of the second belongeth to the Prince's authority, Quod ad externam disciplinam & mores attinet: So far as belongeth to outward discipline and manners. And now you say the quite contrary, he can not punish nor judge the offences of the first table, if you mean▪ the open offences thereof he can do it by your own limitation, Quod ad externam disciplinam & mores attinet. And so you make a fallation, à secundum quid ad simpliciter except you mean (as your reason pretendeth) properly as yet belonging to the court of conscience between God & him. Then, whether it be in the first, or in the second table: the Prince in deed can not judge or punish the secret offence, not nor properly the minister but so God alone. The minister doth but pronounce God's sentence: and the Magistrate punisheth it, be it in the first or second table, come it once to the breach of external ●…tes & discipline, as yourself do limit their authority, & there in have promised to agree with Calvin and Melancthon. But as in this your first part you have granted so much as sufficeth all the matter, besides the referring yourself to Caluins and Melancthons' judgement: so in your second part, you wrist and wrangle about your grant, and labour to prove contradiction in them, though in deed you can find none, and yet (would you look on yourself) you should find an heap of fowl & manifest contradictions, besides those foresaid even in this present chapter. Again (say you) whereas, the chief virtue of the first table Stapl. 7●…. b. is to believe in God, to know him, and to have the true faith of him and in him, in external regiment (as to punish open blasphemy, to make laws against Heretics, to honour and maintain the true service of God) Princess especially Christians, aught to further aid, and maintain the same: but to judge of it, and to determine, which is the true faith in God, how and after what manner he aught to be served, what doctrine aught to be published in that behalf, the Prince hath no authority or power at all. See how you first pinch and wrist your former grant M. Stapl. after his pinching taketh clean away his own grant. M. Stapl. and inconclusion take it quite away. Before you said, Christian Princes had the regiment in external matters, now you come in with external regiment. Right now, the Prince had authority to further and punish, over the one table as well as the other: and now, he cannot determine so much as which table is which. Right now, he had authority, Quoad externos mores as much as belongeth to external manners: now, he must not judge how or after what manner God aught to be served. Right now, he had Externam disciplinam, the outward discipline: now, to know what doctrine or discipline aught to be published, he hath no authority or power at all. This gear hangs trimly together, and have we not got a fair grant? we thought as the Papists had wont to say, we had God in the Ambry, but, the Devil I see was in the Horologe. Now after he hath renoked his grant he beginneth to M. Stapleton would prove contradiction to Melancthon. quarrel with the Protestants, with whom before he said, he and all his fellowship would agree, and first he beginneth to prove contradiction in Melancthon. His argument is thus. Melancthon says, that Princes aught to look unto true Stap. fol. 72. b doctrine, to correct the Churches when the Bishop's fall of their duty, yea and to consider the doctrine itself. Again, the same Melancthon says, they must make no new doctrines in the Church, neither institute any worships. Ergo, Melancthon either recanteth as better advised, or writeth plain contraries to himself. How hath malice blinded you M St? can you see no lesser difference than contrary, between looking to the old and coining new, between considering and instituting worships? Surely, then can you never consider, nor well look unto (not the truth) but even your own folly, that dream of recanting and contradictions in other, having yourself scarce written a line before, wherein so plainly you contraried your own words, in recanting your former grant. Thus, as in vain you seek for contradiction in Melancthons' words, so as fond do you conclude thereon your purpose. Melancthon would not have Princes make new doctrines and worships of God, nor have the functions of both Magistrates spiritual and temporal to be confounded: Ergo, he taketh away all authority from Princes in judging and determining of doctrine. But what dealing call you this M. St? that in translating M. Stapl. subtle and false translating. Melancthons' sentences, you both falsely wrist them, & add●… of your own unto them. Where Melancthon says, Nec instituant cultus, Neither let them institute (or appoint of new) any worshipping of God, you translate it neither appoint any worshipping of God. As though they might not appoint that true worship of God, that God hath appointed himself to be worshipped by. Where Melancthon speaketh only of appointing other new devised worships, such as the Popish worships are. Likewise speaking of the functions, you clap in of your own these words (of both Magistrates) calling the ministers magistrates, which words Melancthon hath not. And thus you love al●…e to tell your tale falsely. And as you thus deal with Melancthon, so from him you run to M. Nowell, and say: Yea, M. Nowell himself with a great stomach biddeth Stap. fol. 73. a. M. Stapletons' cavil agayoste Mast. Nowell. us show where they deny that godly and learned Priests might judge according to the sincerity of doctrine. As though when the Prince and his successors are made supreme governors without any limitation, it fall not often out, that the Bishop be he never so learned or godly, shall not once be admitted to judge of true doctrine except the doctrine please the Prince. You will never leave your falsehood M. Stap. w●… saith that Princes made supreme governors without any limitation? Who says the Bishop be he never so godly or learned, shall not once be admitted to judge of true doctrine, except the doctrine please the Prince? I●… there any that says so, or doth so, except your Pop●…e He in deed challengeth a supreme governance without limits, in as large and ●…ple 〈◊〉 as belongeth unto Christ. He will suffer no doctrine but that which pleaseth him, and he will be the only chief Christian Prin ces claim not supreme go●…ement without limitation, but the Pope clamyeth it. judge thereof. This is not the governance that we ascribe to Princes, but such as is limited by God's word, such as stretcheth not further tha●… the 〈◊〉 of their dominions, such as suffereth godly and learned Priests according to God's word, to judge of the sincerity of doctrine, for this you confess that master Nowell saith, and therefore you confess yourself to be a 〈◊〉 liar, and to speak contrari●…, when you bring in th●… the Protestants, to acknowledge a limitation, and ●…t 〈◊〉 say, we make a government without any lymitation. Neither is 〈◊〉 any contradiction in master Nowels saying to be any more gathered, than of Melancthon●… words: Princes are supreme governors, Ergo, Prelates may not judge of true doctrine. Which is as wi●…e a sequel as the other against Melancthon. You might well conclude it against your Pope, that challengeth such as absolute 〈◊〉, that all the judgement of doctrine should 〈◊〉 to him to judge according as he please bot●… quite besides, and quite contrary to God's word. Stapl. 73. ●… The act of parliament. As though (say you) there had not been a statute made declaring and enacting the Queen's majesty, yea & her highness successors (without exception or limitation of godly and vng●…dly, and yet I trow no Bishops) to be the supreme governor in all things and causes as well spiritual as temporal. As though M. St. this were a good argument. The statute declareth her highness supreme government▪ without limiting it under the Bishop's government. Ergo, the Bishops can not judge of true doctrine, and the Prince's government is without all limitation. As though their were no difference between supreme government, and every other government, or between government and judgement. And as though the statute ex 〈…〉 not itself, what kind of supreme government is yielded in all things and causes Ecclesiastical, nothing debarring the Bishops and ministers of their judgement and ministery, but rather overseeing them to give their judgement and administration rightly. As though you master Horn (say you) had not written, Sta. pag. 73. ●… that in both tables the Prince hath authority to erect▪ and correct, to farther and restrain, to allow and punish, the virtue and vices thereto appertaining. As though yourself M. Stapl. had not written also, and granted the same even right now, and that not for yourself only, but for all your follows besides, to agreed with Melancthon and Calvin therein. Or as though (say you) the governor in all causes, is not Stap. pag. 73. a also a judge in all causes▪ Or as though M. St. his government or judgement were any prejudice to the government or judgement that belongeth to the pastors office. Or as though (say you) it were not commonly so taken and Stap. pag. 73. a understanded of a thousand in England, which have taken the oath to their great domna●…ion, but if they repent. Or as though not rather on the contrary, it were not your so wilful and malicious mistaking of it, with a peevish obstinacy to withstand the manifest truth, that refuse the oath of your dutiful obedience, to your great damnation in deed, but if ye repent betimes. And thus still answering your As though, with another as though: you can find no contradiction nor absurdity neither in Melancthon, Calvin, Master Nowell, nor the Bishop's sayings herein. As though▪ yourself i●… the mean time were clear aboard, and not in every one of your quarrels, either m●…st fond and absurd, or quite contrary to your own sayings and grants made so late before. The conclusion of this your second part, is this. You therefore master Horn▪ which talk so confusely and generally of the Prince's authority in both tables, do yet say nothing nor prove nothing this general and absolute authority in all things and causes, as lustily without exception the oath expresseth, and therefore you bring indeed nothing to prove your principal purpose, to the which all your proves should be directed. For general and confuse talk of the prince's authority, What manner of authority the oath of the supremacy requireth. you bely the Bishop master Stap. he made so plain and flat a limitation that you could not abide it▪ it is your Pope that challengeth such a general and absolute authority, and yourself that talk of the Prince's authority confusely, to deface Princes, as confounding and intermeddling▪ in the office and authority p●…rteyning to the clergy, which the oath requireth not, further than such supreme authority, as ouerse●…th, careth, provideth for, directeth, and governeth all matter people Ecclesiastical and temporal, so well in matters of the first table, as in the second, that is to say, so well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical matters, as temporal. Quod ad externam disciplinam, Quod externo●… mores attinet. So far as perteynes to external discipline, and belongs to external behaviour. And this is not only the issue in question, but also (as is proved) comprehendeth the oath and principal purpose, whereupon you call so fast, to have all the proves directed thereto, as the Bishop here hath done, and yourself hath granted the same. Your third part is a quarreling at the sentence of s. Paul cited by the B. Tim. 2. that kings and rulers are ordained of God for these two purposes, that their people might live a peaceable life, through their government, both in godliness, and in honesty, comprehending in these two words, whatsoever is commanded in the first or second table. Here as you see hath the Bishop cited once again another sentence out of the new testament: how fitly to the matter, & how effectual to the purpose, we shall see anon. Only now I note it to show your former untruth M. St. saying the Bishop only cited a sentence or two out of the new testament besides your froward blindness the more to be noted herein. For as there you could not, or would not see this sentence, as other that you omit likewise: so here you note particularly nothing so much as this only sentence, yea you will not let escape the advantage (as you conceived) of one word, & yet the word, and all, when all is done, maketh clean against you. For where, in citing this sentence, the B. (by the way of a parenthesis) M. Stapletons' quarrel at the Bishop's interpretation of this word godliness. alleged S. Augustine's interpretation for the word godliness, to import the true and chief or proper worship of God: M. Stap. objecteth falsehood and untrue report, or at lest mistaking of S. Augustine. And concludeth thereon a general 〈◊〉, so aptly and truly you allege your doctors. Alack master Stap. that you should be driven to these thiftes, that finding no just matter wherein to improve the Bishop, you run to such trifling quarrels as this: As though lib. 1. de trin. cap. 14. the Bishop had some great foil by Saint Augustine's words, or they had been so dark and mystical, that they could not lightly have been understood. Saint Augustine's S. Augustine's exposition. words are these: Sed loquemar de hominis sapientia, etc. But we will speak of the wisdom of man, howbeit of true wisdom, that is according to God the true chief worship of him, which in one word is in Greek called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which name our men (as we have already declared) willing also to interpret it in one word, called it godliness. When godliness among the Greeks is more usually called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because it can not perfitly be interpreted in one word, is interpreted better in two words, so that it is rather called God's worship. Thus far S. Augustine: and what is here that swerveth from the B. saying? That S. Augustine interpreteth godliness the true worship of God. Which as it is true in both words (for what signifieth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but ageed, just, lawful, and godly worship) so S. Augustine understood it in both words, although the one in usual speech want a proper Latin name, as hath the other. And likewise in our English tongue, while we would express God's worship, which is two words after the Latin, and would term it in one word, we call it Godliness, as S. Augustine telleth how the Latins called it Pietas. True it is that S. Paul useth the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Bishop denieth not. Neither have you any more fault to find with his, than with S. Augustine's, or any others translation calling it godliness. If you be so angry that the Bishop should say it means God's service, why be you not angry with yourself? Do you not see how like a blind hob about the house (as you merrily term it) you r●…p yourself upon the sc●…nce? for did not yourself both in the beginning of this Chap. tell us, that in the first table consisted the true religion and spiritual service that is due from man to God? And also even in this your further finding fault, you confess, that by their peaceable government we might with more quiet attend to God's service: and that this was S. Paul's only meaning, and no further: which were it so, yet thereby then ●…ement, not only godliness of life, but also God's service as yourself interpret it, & yet you blame the Bishop for saying S. Augustine s●… interpretes it. But the Bishop not only proved this to be S. Augustine's mind by this sentence alone, but by m●… sentences afterward, all which it pleased you to let alone, and go sneaking by them, and come peaking in with this. Howbeit, even in this to satisfy The exposition of other fathers. you further, you shall see that this is not only S. Augustine's exposition, by this word Godliness, to understand God's service and true religion: but the exposition of other fathers also. chrysostom understandeth this word Godliness so Chrysost. in 1. Tim. 2. bomil. 7 largely, that it comprehendeth all tru●…h offaith, doctrine, religion & integ●…itie of life also. Omne inquit dogma. etc. Every opinion (says he) is made perfect not only with godliness, but also with integrity of life. I or godliness is also to be sought for in that part. For, what availeth it, if keeping the godliness of faith, thou art wicked in works. Likewise S. Ambrose, Vt in pac●…. Amb●…osius in 1. Tim. 2. etc. That in peace, in tranquillity of mind, and quietly we might serve God the Lord. etc. That therefore these things might be kept, quietness is necessary, that acceptable obedience might be rendered unto God. So Hai●…o, Pietas ●…st ●…ulius & religio o●…nipotentis H●…ymo in. 1. Tim 2. des. etc. Godliness is the worship and religion of almighty God. So then gloss interlined. Cum omni pietate & castitate, with all godliness and chastity, id est, ●…ultu, & religione, Glossa interlineata. ●…ytanus. Hugo Card. & integritate fides, that is to say, the worship, and religion, and integrity of faith. And Lyra himself, In omni pietate, id est, cultu dei debite, In all godliness, that is to say, in the dut●…full worship of God. So likewise High the Car●…inall, In omni pietate, in cultu & religione divina▪ In all godliness, that is, in the worship and divine religion. Et 〈◊〉. integritate fides, hac duo sunt necessaria, ut fides interior servetur incorr●…pta, & cultiu exterior diuin●… in omnibus teneatur. And in chastity, that is, in the integrity of faith, these two are necessary, that the inward ●…ayth should be kept incorrupted▪ and that the outward worship should be held in all divine things. This sufficeth to clear the Bishop of wresting the signification of the word Godliness, affirming it to mean the true, chief, or proper worship of God, contrary to your peevish wresting, although therein you contrary your own self, confessing also that it means God's service, and yet you quarrel thereat in the Bishop, saying: As though Prince's having charge thereof, should also have authority to appoint such worship. If you mean by appointing such absolute authority as your Stapl. 73. b. Pope usurpeth: that the appointment, of what he please to appoint for a worship and service of God, belongeth to him: it is but your ordinary sur●…ised slander, and is the proper doing of your Pope. If you mean a charge to appoint or command, that the only true religion which God hath appointed, be set forth, and by the ministers of God observed: It is plain, the S. Paul and all these fathers meant no less. Nay say you, S. Paul speaketh here of no such, or of any authority Stap. fol. 73. b at all in Princes, but only that by their peaceable government, we might with the more quiet attend to God's service. What, M. St? speaketh S. Paul there of no authority at all in Princes? says he not in most plain words: for kings and all men that be in authority? Have those that be in authority, no authority at all? What a saying is this, and yet see how yourself confute yourself. Going about to embarre their authority, you say, he mē●…ioned their peaceable government▪ He did so in deed M. St. But what government, or what peaceable estate of government had they, if they had no authority at all. It seemeth that while you 〈◊〉 to say somewhat against their authority,)) you neyt●…, o●… regard nor can tell what you say of them, nor of the Apostles ●…eyther, to maintain your false quarrel. Now, as you further proceed, so still you bring yourself Stap. fol. 73. b. more in the briars. But will ye know (say you) M. Ho●…ne, why thapostles both Saint Peter and Saint Paul so earnestly taught at that time obedience to Princes? Ha', go to then M. St. belike they tau●…ht obedience to Princes, more earnestly than your Popish Prelates have taught or pract said since that time, or than yourself have her●… taught us, not over earnestly, but God wot full s●…enderly, or rather by all shifts and fetches of your wits, have sought to deface and impu●…nt their authority. But how agreeth this with S. Paul earnest teaching. Yea▪ how would you make Saint Paul agree to himself? To say that he speaketh there of no authority at all in Princes, and yet that here he taught obedience to Princes so earnestly. What obedience taught he, if he taught not their authority at all? What earnestness used he then therein? but let us see (as you would have us) what was the cause of the Apostles earnestness. This was the cause. In the beginning of the Church some Christians Sta. 73. b. The cause why the Apostles taught obedience so earnestly. were of this opinion, that, for that they were Christian men, they were exempted from the laws of the Infidel Princes, and were not bound to pay them any tribute, or otherwise to obey them. To repress and reform this wrong judgement of there's, the Apostles Peter and Paul by you named, diligently employed themselves. And was this a wrong opinion and judgement M. Stapleton, and with such earnestness and diligence employed of the Apostles Peter and Paul to be repressed and reform, that Christians, for that they were Christian men, were exempted from the laws of the Infidel Princes, and were not bond to pay them any tribute, or otherwise to obey them? What a right opinion and judgement than was this of him, that affirmed not only the same of Infidel Princes, but of Christian Princes to? that we be not bound by force of any words of Christ's sentence (which as ●…latly commandeth us, as any of these the Apostles sentences do) to obey or pay so much as tribute to our Christian Princes? Do you not know who this was that held this wrong opinion M. Stapleton? Well, who soever it was, I think be must with shame say that of himself which he spoke of another, that either he recanteth as better advised, or else writeth plain contrary to himself. Stap. fol. 72. b But now saith M. St. for the Apostles sentences. Whose sayings can not imply your pretenced government, Stapl. fol. 73 b unless you will say that Nero the wicked and heathenish Emperor, was in his time the supreme head of all the Church of Christ, throughout the Empire, as well in causes spiritual as temporal. As before (M. Stapleton) you captiously restrained Christ's general commandment of obedience to Princes, only to the Emperor: so do you here again, besides, that you stick also in the person, abusing his office, and let the duty of his office go. Whereas S. Paul writeth generally, not only for those then present, but for all kings or any other in authority both then and from thenceforth for ever. And A distinction between the the Prince's person or vices and his estate or office. so do all the Expositors gather a general rule, for all Christians towards their christian Princes, although Nero and other princes then, were wicked and Heathenish infidels. Yet in the duty of their estate, to the which God had called them, they aught neither to have been wicked nor Heathenish Infidels, but godly and faithf●…ll defenders and setters forth of Christ his true religion. To reason therefore from such people abuses, thereupon to deny from all princes the duty of their lawful authority: is as naughty an argument, as Nero himself was naughty. And chrysostom flatly confuteth this cavil of the Prince's person, Neque enin de quovis. etc. For neither I speak now (saith he) of Chrysost. in Rom. any one of the Princes, but of the matter itself. And again, Propterea non dicit, non enim princeps est. etc. Wherefore he saith not, there is no Prince but of God, but he disputeth of the matter itself, saying there is no power but of God. The powers that are, they are from God▪ As when any wise man saith, that the woman is knit of God unto the man: he saith no other thing, than that God hath ordained marriage, not that every man, how so ever he dwelleth together with a woman, is joined unto him of God, for, we see many dwelling together in evil, not according to the laws of marriage, which yet notwithstanding we impute not unto God. This cavillation therefore (how naughty soever the Prince were) restraineth not the Apostles meaning which tendeth to the office and not to the person, lest of all to those present people then living. For were they never so wicked, other were good, that known the duty of their estate & government, exercising it both in the direction of virtues & punishment of vices, as well of the first as of the second table, & this yourself have confessed to be the duty of Princes, and why had it not been Nero's duty to? And I pray you what lacketh this of all ecclesiastical causes, the virtues and vices of the first and second table? But you think to escape with this your common exception, saying: And yet in temporal and civil matters I grant we aught to be Stapl. 73. b. subject not only to Christians, but even to infidels also being our Princes, without any exception of Apostle, Evangelist, Prophet, Priest, or Monk, as you allege out of chrysostom. And do you think thus in deed M. St. as you say? and shall we have any better hold of you in your grant once again, be it even but for temporal & civil matters? And yet this faileth much of that you granted before, of the first as well as of the second table. Be Princes the Clergies superiors now? Before you sayds that Princes should take to much upon them to think themselves ecclesiastical people superiors, speaking simply of superiors without your distinction of civil and The Pope claimeth superiority in civil and temporal matters temporal or spiritual and ecclesiastical matters. But see M. St. what you have granted here. It is not unknown to you that the Pope in no case can abide, not not for civil and temporal matters, to be subject to any Christian Prince or Emperor, but contendeth even therein also to be the far superior: and weareth three crowns where the Emperor weareth but one: and that one he hath set on & turned off with his foot, and made him kiss his foot, and troad upon him with his foot, and as his page to hold his stirrup to his foot: and claims to give or take away his estate. And you say here (for all estates of the clergy,) We aught to be subject not only to Christians, but even to Infidels also being our Princes, without any exception of Apostle, Evangelist, Prophet, Priest, or Monk. What? and is your Pope none of these Master Stapleton? an Apostle he is not without a pseudo: nor he calls himself an Apostle, but Apostolical. Much less he is an Evangelist, and lest a Prophet, except a lying Prophet. Sometimes in deed he hath been a Monk, but is there any Pope not a priest? If he be a Priest, then aught he by your own confession, to be subject to the Emperor, and in refusing this subjection, what can you make of him, but, as yourself to your Prince: so he to his Prince, a very rebel and usurper against his prince. If you say the Emperor is not his prince: why is he then named the Emperor of Rome, is not the name of an Emperor, The Pope ought to be the emperors subject by M. Staplet. own grant. the name of the chiefest Principality? And then if he be Emperor or king of the Romans, how aught not the Pope (being a Roman, or dwelling at Rome within this Prince's kingdom or Empire) be subject to this king or Emperor at the lest (as you say) in temporal and civil matters? Do you think to escape, in saying, We aught to be subject to our Princes without exception, but he aught not? I had thought you had spoken of all Christiana, and had simply m●…nt as chrysostom did (to whom you refer yourself) who speaketh in general of every man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 fuer●…, or whosoever thou art, which words you dissemble and omit. So that if your Pope be of 〈◊〉 calling, and he be no more a Priest than Pope joane, 〈◊〉 he a soul, be he a body: he aught by your own grant to 〈◊〉 subject to the Emperor of Rome in these matters, 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 the Emperor to be subject unto him. Which 〈◊〉 the Pope shall understand, ●…owe for his 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉, and for all his civil and temporal matters, you would bring him to his old obedience 〈◊〉 the Emperor, as he hath been: I think he will 〈◊〉 s●…all thank Master Stapleton for your labour. But all this subjection (say you) is but granted in temporal and civil matters. Doth Saint Paul (Master Stapleton) allege this distinction, or chrysostom, to whom you reforro yourself? no M. St. they make no such restraint, but stretch this obedience, as to all ecclesiastical people, so principally to all ec●…l▪ matters, & to the setting forth God's religion▪ And so Pauledoth call the Prince God's minister▪ And chrysostom saith, Neque enim ista subiectio pi●…tatem subvertit, for neither this subjection overturneth godynesse. And upon these words, He is the minister of God, a revenger to him that doth evil: He says, Again, lest thou shouldst start back, Chrysosto. in Rom. 13. homil. 23. hearing of punishment, correction, and the sword: he mentioneth again that the Prince fulfilleth the law of God, for what though the Prince himself know it not? yet God hath so form and ordained it. If therefore either he punish or advance, he is the minister of God, maintaining virtue, abolishing wickedness, even because God would have it so. By what reason repugnest thou in striving against him, that bringeth such good things, and goeth before thee, and prepareth a way for thy affairs? for many there are, which at the first exercised virtue for respect of the magistrate, but at the length they cleaved thereunto even for the fear of God. For things Why the Prince is called gods minister. to come do not so move the grosser sort, as present things. He therefore that prepareth the minds of many both with fear and honour, that they may be made fit for the word of doctrine, is worthily called the minister of God. In which words he plainly showeth that the Prince's ministry, whereby he is called Gods minister, consists in making us fit & apt receivers of the word●… of doctrine, which the minister teacheth, & the Prince by punishing or rewarding goeth before, & prepareth a way, and bringeth to us, making us apt to receive, either for fear 〈◊〉 love this benefit by his minist●…rie. In which work as the Apostles & Preachers, for the utterance of the word of doctrine, are called the workers together with God: so the Prince in preparing this way to the word, & making us apt to it, is likewise said of Chrysostom, that he worketh together with the will of God. Wherein as we must not rep●…gne against the prince, so this obedience that we own unto him, is not only in temporal and civil matters: but in making us apt for the word of doctrine, in which all eccl. matters are comprehended. Now after M. St. hath thus stood quarreling in vain with the B. allegations, he fourthly entereth into a reply upon the B. with other allegations collected out of the same father Chrysost. & thereon frameth an argument against the Princes superiority. In the forehead whereof he prefixeth this marginal note, the priesthood is above a kingdom, which note as it is true in the sense that Chrysost. understandeth it: so maketh it nothing that he is abou●… him in the supreme government & direction of all eccl. causes, which is the present question, & the thing that M. 〈◊〉▪ calleth so often at other times upon. But now says M. St. As contrariwise the Prince himself is for ecclesiastical & spiritual causes, subject to his spiritual ruler. Which chrysostom himself, of all men doth best declare. Alij sunt termini. etc. The bounds of a Kingdom, and of Priesthood (saith chrysostom) are not all one: this Kingdom passeth the other: this King is not known by visible things, neither hath his estimation, for precious stones he glistreth withal, or for his gay golden glistering apparel. The other King hath the ordering of those worldly things: the authority of Priesthood cometh from heaven. Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon Stap. fol. 73. b. Chrysost. homil. 4. de eo qd scripsit Esa. earth, shall be bound in heaue●…. To the King those things that are here in the world are committed, but to me celestial things are committed: When I say, to me, I understand to a Priest. Andanon after he saith. Regi corpora. etc. The bodies are committed to the King, the souls to the priest. The King pardoneth the faults of the body, the Priest pardoneth the faults of the soul. The King forceth, the Priest exhorteth, the one by necessity, the other by giving council: the one hath visible armour, the other spiritual. He warreth against the barbarous, I war against the devil. This principality is the greater, and therefore the King doth put his head under the priests hands. And every where in the old scripture Priests did anoint the Kings. Among all other books of the said chrysostom, his book de sacerdotio, is freighted with a number of like and more notable sentences, for the priests superiority above the Prince. For the other sentences in chrysostom, I can not directly answer them master Stapleton, till you set them down. I think they will all come in the end, to the effect How M. Sta▪ citeth chrysostom. of this sentence here, so often by all yourside alleged. You cite chrysostom, as though it were at the full. Where in deed you cut off both the head the middle, and tail of his sentence, whereby (considering the occasion and purpose of his words) we might see that they should not be wrested from his meaning. chrysostom upon these words of the Prophet Esay, Factum est anno quo mortu●…s est Ozias rex. It came to pass in the year that king Ozias died: after a Preface made of priests marriage, taking occasion of the Prophet Esay's wife: telleth of Ozias presumption, Uerum hic Ozias, etc. but this Ozias, when he was a crowned King, because he was just, waxed haughty in mind, and conceiving a greater courage than was for his estate, entered into the temple. And what saith Esay? He entered into the holy of holies, and said I will offer incense. He being a King, usurpeth the principality of the priesthood. I will (saith he) offer incense because I am just. But abide within thy bounds. And so chrysostom proceedeth in the sentence cited by you, Alij sunt termini: The bounds of a kingdom, & of a priesthood are not all one. etc. Which sentence you truly cite, till you come to these words: When I say, to me, I understand a priest. And there you strike of m●… words of Chrysostam, than you cited. Which belike you do for two purposes. Partly, for that you could not abide to hear of any vices or discommendation in priests, & therefore you cull out only that, which soundeth to their praise & dignity. Partly, for that this would have made the purpose of Chrysost, plainer, reproving them that dis●…erne not, between the office, & the person. At which fault yourself so late did stumble in princes, not discerning between Nero's vices, & a prince's office. As in Chrysostoms' time, same despised the office of a priest, because of the faults of diverse priests. The words of chrysostom (following those you cite) are these: Therefore when thou seest an unworthy priest, slander not the priesthood. For thou oughtest not to condemn the things, but him that evil useth a good thing. Sith judas also was a traitor, howbeit, for this the order Apostolical is not accused, but the mind of him. Neither is it the fault of the priesthood, but of the evil mind. And thou therefore blame not the priesthood, but the priest, that useth evil a good thing. For if one dispute with thee, and say, seest thou yonder Christian●… answer thou: but I speak not to thee of the people, but of the things, or else, how many physicians have been made slaughtermen, & have given poisons for remedies? And yet I despise not the art, but him that evil useth the art. How many shipmen have guided evil their ships? yet is not the art of sailing evil, but the mind of them. If the Christian man be wicked, accuse not thou the profession & the priesthood, but him that evil useth a good thing. These are Chrysostom's words, which you omit, and then followeth as you recite, Reg●… corpora etc. The bodies are committed to the king and so forth, as you say, till you come to the knitting up of the sentence with Ozias, which again you omit. Verum rex. etc. But that king going beyond his bounds, and passing the measure of the kingdom, attempted to add somewhat more, and entered into the temple, willing with authority to offer incense. What therefore saith the priest? It is not lawful for thee Ozias, to offer incense. Behold liberty: behold a mind that knoweth not bondage: behold a tongue touching the heavens: behold liberty that cannot be restrained: behold the body of a man, & the mind of an angel: behold one that goeth on the ground, & is conversant in heaven. Thou sawest a king, thou sawest not a diadem. Tell not me it is a kingdom, where is the transgression of laws. It is not lawful for thee (O king) to offer incense. It is not lawful for thee to come into the holy of holies. Thou passest thy bounds: thou seekest things not granted to thee, & therefore shalt lose the things thou hast received. It is not lawful for thee to offer incense: but this is given unto the priests. This is not thy, but this is mine: have I usurped on me thy purple? usurp not thou my priesthood. It is not lawful for thee to offer incēs●… but only for the sons of Aaron. By this, it plainly appeareth whereupon Chrysost. speaketh, to weet, of the several functions of the spiritual pastor and the prince and that it is not lawful for the prince to intrude himself into the office of the divine minister. He may not more take upon him to administer the divine sacraments of christ his church now, although he be the prince (to the which not with standing you admitted women) than might Ozias sacrifice then. For as then God had appointed who should sacrifice, so hath he appointed who should now minister his sacraments. Now if you had showed that the supreme government over ecclesiastical causes, the oversight and direction of the setting forth of God's true religion, the abolishing of false religion, and the deposing of Idolatrous Priests, that obs●…inately maintain errors, against the express word of God, be the like doing to this fact of Ozias: if you had proved that the Prince hath ever done or doth, The fact of Czias wh●…me the Papists allege, maketh against themselves, not against us. or claimeth to do the like fact to this of Ozias, in ministering the sacrament: then had you alleged this sentence to some purpose, else maketh it nothing to the purpose, but maketh against your popish mid wives, they rather play the part of Ozias: It maketh not against the Q. Majesty, but most of all against your Pope himself, that thinketh he playeth the high priests part, and is so far therefrom, that none is more like than he to this usurper, entering into the holiest place, and usurping the priesthood, the sacrifice, the power and the honour that belongeth only to jesus Christ himself. As for the office of the true minister of God (which neither Wherein the Pastor, being the minist●…r of God, surmounteth the Prince being also the minist●…s of God. your Pope nor you his sha●…elings ar●…) is in deed as Chrysostom saith both a distinct function from the princes, and hath other bounds, and also we grant surmounteth far the bounds of the Prince's office, in respect of his spiritual ministery, of administering the sacraments, of preaching the glad tidings of salvation, of denouncing to the obstinate sinners, the threats of God's wrath and vengeance: to the penitent, the most comfortable promises of God's mercy & favour: whose sentence being rightly applied in earth, God hath promised to ratify the same in heaven. And for this cause doth Chrysost▪ so highly extol this priesthood, referring all his praises to the dignity of his ministery, in respect whereof, the Prince's ministers is but outward and earthly, meddling nothing with the administration of this high function, but only with the supreme charge, oversight, and government, to see that the Priest do not abuse this so excellent and spiritual ministery, but exercise rightly the same according to God's word. Who, so doing, the Prince so well as any other Christian, obeyeth his preaching & ministery, & submitteth his head (as Chrysos●…ome says) under the ministers hands, as to God's messenger, steward, and dispenser of his heavenly mysteries. But if the Priest be not such an one as chrysostom describeth: Wherein again the Prince's ministery surmounte●…h the pastors ministery. if he do not denounce God's promises, & threa●…es, nor his word at all, but as Christ says of the naughty servant, striketh his fellow servants, and subtrac●…eth their spiritual food of God's word from them, & would poison them with such erroneous food as he would give them, besides and contrary to the word of God: if he will not be centent with his own bounds, but will usurp also the dignity that is not due unto him, but belongeth to the Prince: shall the Prince suffer this at his hands, himself to be spoiled of his authority and royal estate, and his subjects peeled of their goods, yea both he and all his subjects, by such a false usurper & tyrant Priest, to be rob and spoilt of their soul's food & salvation? Here hath the Prince authority to suppress such wicked Balamites, such counterfeits, such Antichrists what soever they be, and to place in their places true and godly ministers, such as chrysostom here speaks of. From which kind of ministery your Pope M. St who is your great high Priest, & all the inferior rabble of Priests that depend on him, are so far different: that Chrysostoms' sentence not only maketh nothing for you, but is clean against you. For first, take your own words, that you cite out of chrysostom, lay them to your Pope & Prelates, and see how they agree together. This king (says Chrys●…stome of the minister or Priest) is not known by visible The sentence that the Papists cite out of chrysostom for their priests, maketh clean against them. things, neither hath his estimation for precious stones he glistereth with all, or for his gay golden ghstering apparel. Contrariwise your Pope and his prelate's (to get the more estimation thereby of the people) are not only known by visible things, but set out themselves, and all their ceremonies to the uttermost, in gay golden glistering apparel, with most gorgeous ouches of silver, of gold, of pearls, and precious stones. Again, this Priest says to the King, I have not usurped thy purple: contrariwise, the Pope hath usurped Emperors purple, the emperors Diadem, the emperors throne, the emperors Empire and all. Again, you tell us out of chrysostom, that the bodies are committed to the King, the souls to the Priest: the King pardoneth the faults of the body, the Priest pardoneth the faults of the soul: the King forceth, the Priest exhorteth: the one by necessity, the other by giving counsel: the one hath visible armour, the other spiritual: he warreth against the barbarous, I war against the Devil: Contrariwise the Pope warreth against Christ, and with the Devil, as his general vicar and Licuetenant, and taketh not only upon him the emperors part, by warring against the barbarous Turks and Saracens, but also the devils part by warring against the Saints & truth of God, and that with more horrible treasons, murders, and villainies, than ever was practised among the barbarous. And intermeddleth with faults of the body as whoredom and fornication, not only bodily to punish them: but also beastly for filthy lucre to maintain them, and condemneth in God's ministers godly and honourable wedlock: which besides the other is a manifest argument, that he is a Priest of no such kind as chrysostom here commendeth. For had you M. St. looked better even in the same Homely, but the leaf before: you should have seen what a notable commendation priests marriage. he maketh of the marriage of Priests upon the prophets words, Vidi dominum, etc. I see the Lord sitting Chrysosto. d●… verbis Esa. homil. ●…. in an high I hrone, etc. Quis hac loquitur, etc. Who (says he) spoke these things? Esay that beholdet of the celestial Scraphins, which had to deal with marriage, and yet extinguished not grace. You have hearkened to the Prophet, and you have herded the Prophet this day. Go thou out and lasuph thy son, neither must we overpass these things. Go thou out and thy son. Yea? had the Prophet a son? if he had a son, he had a wife also, that thou mayst understand that marriages are not evil, but whoredom is evil. But so often as we talk with any of the vulgar people saying, why livest thou not well? wherefore expressest thou not perfect manners? how can I (say they) except I should go from my wife, except I should bid my children farewell, except I should bid my business adieu? Wherefore canst thou not? doth matrimony hinder thee? a wife is given thee for an helper, not to lay a snare for thee. Had not the Prophet a wife? neither did wedlock hinder the grace of the spirit, and yet he kept company together with his wife, and was a Prophet nevertheless. Had not Moses a wife? and yet he broke the rock, he changed the air, he talked with God, he stayed the divine wrath. Had not Abraham a wife? and yet he was made a father of Nations, and of the Church: for he got his son Isaac, and he was to him a matter of notable affairs. Did he not offer his Son, the fruit of his marriage? was he not a father, and withal a lover of God? might not he see himself a sacrificer to be made of his own bowels? a sacrificer I say and a father withal: nature to be overcome, godliness to overcome: his bowels to be trodden down, & his godly deeds to surmount: the father to be cast down, and the lover of God to be crowned: hast thou not seen the whole man, both a lover of his son and of God? was matrimony here an hindrance? but what sayst thou to the mother of the Maccabees? Was she not a wife? added she not seven sons to the fellowship of the saints? did she not see them crowned with martyrdom▪ did she not stand by as a looker upon, and not ●…aint in her mind? stood she not by exhorting every one of them, and being the mother of the martyrs, suffered h●… self seven martirdoms? for while they were tormented she received the stroke. Neither yet without affections beheld she ●…he things that were done. She was the mother, and the violence done to nature, declared her proper virtue. But she was not overcome, etc. But what say we to Peter, the main pillar of the Church, that vehement lover of Christ: he that in speech was unlearned, & conqueror of Rhethoritians: he that was unskilful, & stopped the philosopher's mouths: he that dissolved the Greek wisdom, no otherwise than the web of spiders: he that travailed through the world, & cast the net into the sea and fished the world? but what says the Gospel? jesus entered unto Peter's wives mother, being sick of a fever. Where a wives mother is, there is a wife, and there is wedlock. But what say we to Philip, had he not four daughters? but where sour daughters were, there was both a wife and matrimony. But what then doth Christ? he was indeed born of a virgin, but he came to a marriage, and brought his gift with him. They have (says she) no wine, and he turned water into wine, with virginity honouring marriage: commending with his gift the thing that was done, that thou shouldst not abhor marriage▪ but shouldst hate whoredom. For at my peril I behoof the salvation, although thou shalt wed a wife. Look to thyself, a woman if she be good, is an helper to thee etc. All this & more says chrysostom, in the commendation of the ministers marriage, even in the same Homely cited by you M. St. which estate of marriage to be joined in, sith the Pope & his Priests can not abide, and allege such impediments as here chrysostom confuteth: it is an evident argument (by the way) that they 〈◊〉 nothing less than such Priests as chrysostom ascribeth this spiritual kingdom of the ministery of God's word and Sacraments unto. and where chrysostom (as yourself have cited him) says that the Princeforceth the Priest exhorteth: the one by necessity, the other by giving counsel: the one hath visible armour, the other spiritual: Contrariwise, your Pope not only exhorteth, but extorteth and forceth too not only by counsel, but by necessine & extreme violence. Not only pretending spiritual armour, such as he calleth his curses with book, bell, and candle: but also with visible armour, muironed about (where he rideth, or on men's backs is carried) with a guard of Swar●…trutters & Switchers, with guns, harquebuses, partesans, glaives, and weapons, as if it were judas with his armed band to take our Saviour Christ. And he claimeth thriurisoiction of ●…oth the swords, wresting thert●… the words of the Disciple: E●…ce 〈◊〉 gladi●… hic: Behold here are two sword: to the temporal and visible armour, so well as to the spiritual: Whereupon Eonifacius the eight, did not only hung seven keys at his girdle, in token of his spiritual power: but girt himself also with a sword, in token of his temporal power. These Prelates the refore are not such kind of Priests as chrysostom speaketh of. Neither not●… I this, as a fault●… in this or that person, but as errors defended and maintained by them, for the advancement of their naughty Priesthood. What maketh then this sentence of the excellency of the priests ministery, for the ministery of the Pope's Priesthood, that is all the quit●… contrary? Such false Priests therefore the Prince hath authority to remove them, and to place such●… Priests as chrysostom speaketh of, and so to bow his head under their hands, that is, to o●…ey their ministery, which is no derogation to the matter in hand of the Princes supreme government. Thus much M. Stap. to your sentence alleged out of chrysostom, upon the which you and all your side do harp so often, and yet (being well considered) it not only makes nothing for you, but much against you. Now to your argument that you gather here upon, saying: Now then M. Horn, I frame you such an argument. Stap. fol. 74. a The Priest is the Princes superior in some causes ecclesiastical: Ergo, The Prince is not the priests superior in all causes ecclesiastical. The antecedent is clearly proved out M. Stapletons' argument. of the words of chrysostom before alleged. Thus. The Priest is superior to the Prince in remission of sins by chrysostom▪ but remission of sins is a cause ecclesiastical or spiritual: Ergo, The Priest is the Princes superior in some causes ecclesiastical or spiritual. To this argument being thus framed (upon the which The answer to the argument. M. Stap greatly triumpheth,) I answer, it hath three fallations in it for failing. The first, in this word superior, being understood two ways, either in respect of the ministery or function, or in respect of the public oversight, ordering and direction. In the former sense the mayor is true. The Priest is superior to the Prince, in respect of his ministery or function. But this word superior, being thus understood in the conclusion, for superiority only in the ministery or function, concludeth nothing against the Prince's superiority, which is only the public oversight, ordering and direction, that this superior ministery and function be not abused. Now if the word superior be not thus understood, but simply to be the superior: or in the later sense, that is to say, the Priest is superior in the public oversight, ordering and direction, that the office be duly administered by the minister: then is this mayor false, for the Priest is not thus the Princes superior. The second fallation is in the words remission of sins. If he mean thereby the oversight to see such remission be duly made by the Priest: then is the mayor also false. The Priest is not the Princes superior therein. If he means by remission of sins, the action of remitting them, or the function of the office, in pronouncing them remitted: then is the mayor true, but the minor false: For so remission of sins is not a cause ecclesiastical, but an action or function ecclesiastical. Whereon ariseth the third fallation of these words ecclesiastical cause Which the statute and the title mentioning, that the Prince hath supremacy in all ecclesiastical causes, he wilfully wresteth, as though all actions and functions eccl. were yielded to the Prince's supremacy. Where neither the Prince requireth, nor the statute & title yieldeth any such supremacy in the actions, but only a supremacy in the causes, not to do them, but to see them rightly done. And thus by resolution of these words, it appeareth how the Priest in one sense, as chrysostom saith, is superior to the Prince, not only in this one thing of remission of sins: But in all other actions of his duty, and the Prince is far inferior to him: and yet the Prince in the other sense of the general direction, and public oversight, is in this and all other causes eccl. superior to the Priest, and the Priest far inferior unto him. And so the superiority of the Priest hindereth nothing the supremacy of the Prince. Master St. (having now as he thinketh by this mighty Stapl. 75. a. argument won the field, and quite confounded the Bishop) setteth out as a tropha●…m or monument of his history this marginal note. Evidently proved by S. chrysostom, the Prince not to be the supreme governor in causes ecclesiastical. And crieth out for joy: Which being most true, what thing can you conclude of all you have Stap. pag. 75. a or shall say to win your purpose, or that you here presently say? And thus on the triumph of this argument, M. St. rejecteth all that the B. hath said as insufficient, & would return upon him the sentence of S. Augustine against the Donatists, that the Bishop cited against M. Feck. Wherein he bringeth nothing a fresh, that is not before declared and answered unto, besides vain words of course, worthy no other answer, than to be returned upon themselves, to whom they properly appertain: who in deed deny both christ the head, and Christ the body, that is, his catholic Church. And that as the Donatistes' sect was condemned by Constantine, Honorius, and other Emperors, the high kings of Christendom. So have they withal condemned you master Stapl. that follow the Donatists, and so may and aught all christian Princes, & the Emperor now (whose high kingdoms, besides a bore name in any matter of Christianity, you make nothing) to pull down such usurpers of their high kingdoms, and set up true and godly ministers in their places: to whom they might and aught to submit their heads, under their spiritual ministery. To the which sort (as is showed plainly out of Chrisostome) your Popish Priesthood is clean contrary. And therefore to return your words upon yourself: You are Stap. 74. b. they that cut in sunder the unity and peace of Christ's Church, and rebel against the promises of his Gospel. Which Gospel you can not abide should come to light, and therefore the high kings of Christendom should remove and condemn you. Which is a better argument than yours, M. Stap. and is sufficient to infer the supremacy of these high Kings and Princes. The. 23. Division. THe Bishop in his division prosecuting still the words Fol. 75. a. of S. Paul Rom. 13. proveth further out of chrysostom and Eusebius, that as the Prince is God's minister: so this ministery consists not only in civil and temporal, but also in the well ordering of the Church matters, and their diligent rule and care therein. The effect of his argument is this. The Prince (as chrysostom saith) prepareth the minds of many to be made more appliable to the doctrine of the word, and is the great light and true preacher and setter forth of true godliness, as Eusebius saith: Ergo, His ministery consists as well in ecclesiastical as civil causes. The antecedent Eusebius proveth by the example of Constantine, that his ministery stretched to the setting forth of godliness to all countries, and that he preached God, and not only civil laws by his Imperial decrees and Proclamations. And this he confirmeth by Constantine's own confession, that he taught by his ministery the religion and law of God: that thereby he caused the increase of the true faith. And by the same put away and everthrewe all the evils that pressed the world. But the world in Constantine's time was pressed with divers schisms, errors, heresies, false religions, and many ecclesiastical abuses and superstitions, besides the heathen Idolatry: Ergo, His ministery stretched not only over temporal causes, but also ecclesiastical. Yea he counteth this his best ministery: Ergo. It belongeth to the Prince as well, if not more than the other. And so the Bishop's argument followeth hereupon, that the Apostles sentence (the Prince is God's minister) argueth the Prince's charge and government, in all manner causes ecclesiastical, so well as temporal. These proves of the Bishop being so evident, M. Stap. Stapl. cap. 19 fol. 75. b answereth they are all insufficient, saying: I see you not (master Horn) come as yet near the matter. I answer, who is so blind as he that seethe and will not see? Were you not of the number of those, of whom christ saith, I came to judgement into this world, that those that see not, should see, and those that see should be made blind: You might then both clearly see, that he both cometh john. 9 near the matter, and satisfieth it at large. Except you be as blind of the matter also, as you pretend to be of these the bishops proofs. But if you would have followed your own counsel, ever to have set before your eyes the state of the question in issue between them: you should well by this time have seen, that the Bishop digressed nothing from it. And that yourself of self will or malice, will not look aright thereon, but clean awry, still starting aside and swerving from the mark for the nonce, to pick occasions whereon to wrangle. For, wherefore I pray you do you not see, that the Bishop cometh not near the matter? I see not (say you) that Constantine changed religion, plucked down Altars, deposed Bishops, etc. But that he was diligent in defending the old and former faith of the Christians. Whatsoever you see or see not in Constantine, master Stapl. all the world may see false dealing in you: and how like an unnatural subject, to your natural Prince you be. As though you saw that the queens highness had changed religion, except you mean false religion, and that you might have seen in Constantine also. He changed the heathen religion of the Paynims, and abolished it, with all Constantine changed religion. their Altars, Bishops, Priests and temples, and set forth the true religion of jesus Christ. He changed likewise and abolished such superstitions, Idolatries, schisms, errors and heresies, as troubled the Church of Christ in his time. Which you might easily have seen in Constantine's own words by the Bishop cited, That he put away and overthre we all the evils that pressed the world. If you say, you can not yet see that he meant all spiritual and ecclesiastical evils, so well as temporal: put on a pair of spectacles, master Stapl that are not dymmed with affection, and then shall you see, that of such kind as the good things were, which he set forth, of such kind were the contrary evils, that he put away and overthrew: but the good things that he set forth, were true godliness, decrees of God, the religion of the most holy law, the most blessed faith. etc. All which are matters most spiritual and ecclesiastical: Ergo all the evils that he abolished, were so well spiritual and ecclesiastical as civil and temporal matters. If you say, yet you see nothing but that he was diligent in defending the old and former faith of the Christians. True in deed, neither can you see any other thing in the queens Majesty, nor any authority is given hereby to Princes, than as Constantine was, to be diligent in defending the old and former faith of the Christians, founded by Christ and taught by his Apostles. And if any other since that time, have brought in any things besides that old and former faith, to remove the same, and reduce us to the old and former faith of the Christians. For as Tertullian Tertull. saith: That is of the Lord, and that is truth, that was before delivered, but that which afterward was thrust in, is both strange and false. And so saith Constantine, I both called again mankind (taught by my ministery) to the religion of the most holy law, and also caused the most blessed faith should increase & grow under a better governor. Now seeing that many points of the Popish faith and The Queen's highness hath not altered, but restored the old and former faith. doctrine have cropen in since that time, and many of later years, besides and contrary to the old and former faith of the Cheistians, taught by Christ, and left us written by the finger of the holy ghost, sealed and confirmed by so many miracles, to endure to the world's end, and never to be altered, added unto, or taken from: all such novelties besides or contrary to the old and former faith, hath the Q. highness (god be thanked therefore) removed, as Constantine did, and all Princes aught to do: and hath called us again to the religion of the most holy law, as a most diligent defender of the old and former faith, from the Popish corruptions in faith that have sprung up since. And as Constantine What Bishops the Queen's Majesty hath deposed. deposed such Bishops as obstinately maintained those later errors, and not the old and former faith (except on their repentance & submission they were by him restored) so hath our most gracious sooner aigne, deposed such Popish Bishops and Pastors, as obstinately defended and maintained their later errors. Wherein she hath showed herself, a most diligent defender and recoverer, of the oldest and foremost faith of the Christians. Thus as her doings serve not herein from Constantine's▪ (as you pretend) so hath she no less right and authority in her dominion, than Constantine had in his, and all Princes aught to have in there's: being all (as S. Paul saith) Gods ministers in this behalf. To the which sentence of S. Paul, with Chrysostom's and Eusebius judgement thereon, full coldly, you say: If S. Paul call the civil Magistrate a minister, because Stap. foll. 7●…, b through fear he constraineth the wicked to embrace the godly doctrine, as by your saying S. chrysostom construeth it, we are well content therewith. Now well you be content therewith, as your obstinate refusal of this the Prince's ministery, the storms & counterblastes you raise agaynnst it, do declare: so also, that you be not half pleased with Chrysostom's construction thereon (how well soever you would seem to be contented) appeareth in this your pinching & wring of Chrysostom's sentence by the Bishop cited. For neither the Bishop cited him as you Why the prince is called the minister of God. say he doth, neither you cite chrysostom fully nor rightly, which argueth you are not very well contented therewith, chrysostom showeth not, that the prince is called the minister of God, only because through fear he constraineth the wicked to embrace the godly doctrine, but also he speaketh of honouring commending, or advancing, whereby he prepareth men's minds to be the more apt to receive the word of doctrine. Which phrase of chrysostom, the word of doctrine, The word of doctrine. you could not also abide, lest you should have overturned thereby, all those points of doctrine, that are not contained in the word of God, which nevertheless you term godly doctrine, though God in his word hath not allowed the same, but are the traditions and commandments of men. And thus making what doctrine it liketh you godly or ungodly, and reserving to yourselves the authority thereof, you say, you are well content that the civil magistrate be a minister, because through fear he constraineth, that is to say, you make him serve your turn, to hung, to draw, to burn, to rack, to banish, to emprison, and to force men to embrace what doctrine you appoint and tell him, is godly doctrine. This you be well content withal. This you call his best ministery. And that this is his setting forth of Christ's true religion, & that this is his preaching the same with his imperial decrees and proclamations. But if once he take upon him carefully to examine by the word of God, whether those doctrines and that religion that you pretend to be godly, and the old and former faith, be so or no: and finding them clean contrary, he remove them, & by force constrain his subjects to embrace the doctrine of God's word, and so prepare them to receive the truth, by punishing the wicked and obstinate seducers, by placing in their rooms, and honouring the godly setters forth of the word of doctrine: then in no case you are well content therewith, but rail at, and slander the doings of such a Prince, and devise all the treacheries that you can to his destruction. Nevertheless would you well consider what here once again M. St. you have granted, That the best ministery and Stapl. 75. b The Prince's best ministers and service. service of the great Constantine rested in the setting forth of God's true religion: Then if the setting forth thereof, be the Prince's best ministry and service: may he not judge of his best ministry and service? yea how shall he set forth that, whereof he shall not judge? Of other parts of his ministery he may judge, and may he not judge of his best ministery? are the setting forth of civil laws, properly a part of his office, because they be a good part of his ministery, & is the setting forth of true religion, being the best part (as you are content to call it) no part at all thereof? or not rather if it be his best ministery, it is the best part of his office also. And seeing the setting forth of true religion is not properly a civil matter, but distinct therefrom: then doth the best part of the Prince's office consist in the ministery of an ecclesiastical matter, and that of such an one, as contains the oversight of all other matters ecclesiastical. For as in true religion they are or aught to be all contained, so in the setting forth of them is contained their oversight & direction. For how can he well set forth any thing, that he ouer●…eeth not, nor directeth? which oversight and direction being the supreme government that the queens Majesty only claimeth and we ascribe unto her: how have you not granted withal (M. St.) that this supremacy over all causes Ecclesiastical, above all other things belongeth to her Majesty? But, for all this that he himself hath granted, or the Bishop hath inferred, says M. Stapleton: Neither this that you here allege out of place, nor all the residue Stap. fol. 75. b which you rehearse of this Constantine (with whose doings you furnish hereafter six full leaves) can import this superiority, as we shall there more at large specify. This is alleged out of place you say M. St. for Constantine. But who seethe not, that this is but a pelting quarrel? the Bishop on good consideration & order declareth, both by Chrysostoms' exposition, & Constantine's example, how this sentence of S. Paul, that the Prince is God's minister, stretcheth not only to his ministery, in civil, but also in causes Ecclesiastical. But this is alleged out of place▪ say you. It is no marvel M. Stap. if it seem out of place with you, for all is alleged out of place, that having any place displaceth your assertion. And thus pretending it is alleged out of place: you pass it over, & post us off●…il an other time, when you will declare it more at large, ad Calendas Graecas, when you shall have more leisure. But sir, had you any leisure at this time, you might better have satisfied your Reader, to have fully answered here, to that is here objected, and not thus to dally off the matter till another time. But there is no remedy, the reader must have patience, and wait your further leisure. Nevertheless, when you shall (M. St. vouchsafe to meet again, to common further of Constantine's doings, I M. Stapletons' shifting answer. pray you do not, as hitherto you have done in other answers, telling the reader you will specify it more at large in such a place hereafter, & when you come to the answering of that place, you tell him again, that you specified that more at large before, and so send your Reader from hence thither, and from thence again hither, to trot up and down, & he satisfied in neither place. Howbeit, this is a good ready answer for you, for by this shift, one answer serveth both places. Nevertheless what need any more large specifying either hers or there? For you tell us roundly to make a short tale of the matter that all is to short. Neither this, say you▪ that is here alleged, neither all the residue, which you rehearse of Constantine, (with whose doings you furnish hereafter six full leaves) can import this superiority. This is in deed a round answer and a short, and if it Stap. 75. b. were withal as true▪ you need not M. Stapleton promise' to specifi●… it more at large hereafter, but belike you thought this answer was to short, and therefore you do well to refer the Bishop further. As for the Bishop's present allegation out of Constantine, fully importeth this superiority, that the ministery of the Prince hath to set forth Ecclesiastical causes so well as Temporal, or rather much more, in so much as it is the Prince's best ministery, to set forth by his decrees the true religion, the law of God, and the most holy faith, and to remove and punish all evils, that trouble the world, such as chief are errors, Heresies, Schisms, superstitions, abuses, false or wicked pastors, etc. all which is evident by Constantine's own avouching. And I pray you M. St. mark all these things a little more advisedly, & tell me then what wanteth of the issue in question between these parties, that the Prince hath supreme government, so well in Ecclesiastical causes, as in Temporal. And whether these be face without proof or half proof in the world, as you say: or rather these be not your to to impudent face and brace, without any proof Stap. 75. b. or half proof or any jot of proof in the world, but say only it importeth it not, & neither tell▪ how nor why: and say it is here alleged out of place: and you will specify it there more a●… large: and so shifted it off here unanswered: and there say here you have answered to it: and neither here nor there meddle further withit. Doth (this trow) you import a full & sufficient answer? The. 24. Division. WHereas the Bishop on S. Paul's sentence declared before, out of Eusebius, commending Constantine, that the Prince's best ministery consists in setting forth all true Religion, and abolishing all false doctrine and errors: in this Division he confirmeth the same with the judgement of another later Ecclesiastical historier, Nicephorus, whom the Papists set out for Catholic: Comparing Nicephorus judgement of the Prince's supremacy. in these things, these two Emperors, the one with the other, Paleologus with Constantine, commending this Emperor of Gréece above all other things, for this his rule and dealing in reforming religion, as did Constantine. For which cause, as Constantine called it his best ministery, so Nicephorus calleth it, a virtue among all other belonging to an Emperor, and most seemly for his imperial dignity. which what it is, and wherein this ministery doth chief consist, the Bishop gathereth together diverse sentences, out of the Preface of Nicephorus to the Emperor, in his commendation, for his zeal, his defence, his chief authority, his governance, his restoring, his cleansing, his establishing, his setting forth of true religion, and pulling down the contrary: whereby Nicephorus (protesting that he speaketh nothing for fanor, or statterie) declareth his judgement to agree with Eusebius on Saint Paul's sentence, that the Princes supreme government in these things, is his best ministery, and most properly belonging to his charge and office. To this allegation of Nicephorus Master Stapleton divideth his Counterblast into two winds. The former blast proceedeth altogether out of his stinking breath of railing Rhetoric, to deface not only the Bishop his adversary, the Bishop of Sarum, and the Homilies set forth against Idolatry, challenging them for lies and forgeries: but also to deface the authority of Nicephorus and the Emperor, whom he affirmeth to be wicked and wretched Heretics. In the other blast, admitting the authority of Nicephorus, he bloweth as fast to overcome the force of the Bishop's allegations, as insufficient to prove his purpose. In his first part, to get the more credit for plain and true dealing with his Reader, and to blemish the Bishop with suspicion of cloaked dissembling, he promises, saying: But first, we will dissipate and discuss the mist that master Horn hath cast before thy eyes, where indeed none was, for the Bishop most clearly set down the words of Nicephorus. Stap. fol 76. b M. Stapletons' Mist. Master Stapleton himself of purpose raiseth a mist, whereby not only he dimmeth the Readers eyes, but also wandereth in his own mist up and down, slun●…bling at many impertinent matters, and all besides the purpose. For whereto else serveth all that he discourseth about the Gre●…ians Heresy of the holy Ghosts proceeding, or the Council of Lions, of Michael Pale●…logus that agreed with the Latins therein, of the ●…recians revolt, of the malicious spite of the Greek Bishops, of the denying Michael his burial, what need all these declarations? Which if the Bishop had set forth, as he had nothing thereby opened the matter, so had he given occasion to Master Stapleton of just reproving him for straying of purpose from the mark, and dal●…ying in vain circumstances. And now that he hath not stood in any such long 〈◊〉 and fodings off of the matter, master Stapleton sayeth he casts mists. And thus which way soever the Bishop take▪ Master Stapleton would find an occasion to pick a quarrel. And pretending to dissipate and discus●…e a mist, in the fair and clear Sun shine, he raiseth such a smoke, that blundering forth he wotteth not well whether, he st●…uibleth he can not tell on whom, and falls into a bitter innective at the author of the Homely▪ against Idolatry, only upon this occasion, that he chanced on the name of Michael Paleologus. Wherein he playeth, as I herded once of a ●…opishe Priest in Cambrige that in his Sermon naming Abraham in his discourse, to dissipate and discuss all mists, as he pretended, but most likely to stretch out his matter, began to tell what manner a man Abraham was, and having named his son, began to tell of Isaac, and so of jacob, and on a row of all the twelve patriarchs, and of egypt, of the land of promise, of the wilderness, and waded so far that he had quite lost himself in the Wilderness, and his theme be began withal. After which sort fareth Master Stapleton, because the Bishop mentioned Michael Paleologus, hereupon he entereth into an exclamation against the Author of the Apology. All which though it be a plain digression from the bishops answer, and the issue in question, being about Images and Idolatry: yet such is his importunity, we must follow master Stapleton, not whether the cause requireth, but whether his idle brain pleaseth to run at random. Otherwise, the principal part of this Counterblast being rejected to his common place of other impertinent bibblebables: he would cry out that he were not answered in such a weighty matter. And yet when all is done, as it is nothing to the present purpose, so is it to no effect in any other matter at all. For, all his quarrel consists in these two points. M. Stapletons' in●…ect ●…e aga●…nst the homily of images. The one, that the Homely wrongfully named Theodorus Lascaris, for Michael Paleologus. The other, for a decree of Ualence and 〈◊〉 against Images. For the former, what Authors the Author of that Homily followed, I know not, how be it he nameth not Theodorus Lascaris, as you say, master Stapleton, but only Theodorus, neither this missing of the emperors name (to him that would have regarded the matter contained in the Homely) might be thought worthy so great an outcry, except it were to you master Stapleton, that still use to stumble at a sirawe and leap over a block, like to the Phareseys, that Excolantes culicem Camelum glutiebant, Were stifled with a g●…atte, and Matth. 23. yet swallowed a Camel. Neither was this so great an oversight, sith Theodorus and Michael were both of one tyme. The one expelled the other, and both still retained the name of Emperor. For as Uolaterane sayeth, Michaeligitur Paleologus. etc. Michael Paleologus therefore Anthropol, lib. 23. at the same time invaded the Empire, which two most noble houses of Constantinople, that is to say, the house of the Lascarie, and the house of the Paleologie, the one decayed, the other lift up her head. Theodorus Lascaris being thus expelled from the City of Lascaris. Constantinople, yet reigned he still at Adrianople as the Emperor of Gréece. And it is not unlikely, the occasion of his exile to have been about Images, so well as other matters. Sith the Greek and Latin Church have strived The contention between the greek and Latin church for images. about the controversy of Images nothing more, and none so hot. For which matter chiefly, the Pope rebelled from his allegiance, and raised all the division of the Empire in the Church of Christ, that hath been the chief decay and ruin thereof, which only sprung of the question of Images. And yet saith master Stapleton, giving us no other warrantiss thereof, than this his bore word for Images: Which had customably continued in the Greek Church Stap. 76. b. many hundredth years before, and so reverently afterwards continued, even till Constantinople was taken by the great Turk, and yet this good Antiquary and Chronographer, will needs have the Gr●…cians above seven hundredth years together, to have been Iconomachees, that is, Image breakers. Are you not ashamed, master Stapleton, to speak such untruths even where yourself challenge other of lies? For, the author of the Homilies noteth not here, nor hereupon, the dealing against Images all that space, nor nameth any Iconomachees nor meddleth any thing there with those. 700. years that customably continued till Constantinople was taken by the Turk. But only of those years that customably continued from the primitive Church, till the time of the Empress Irene. The words of the Homely are these. These things In the homily against idolatry. were done in the Church about the year of our Lord 760. Note here I pray you in this process of the story, that in the Churches of Asia and Grece, there were no Images publicly, by the space of. 700. years, and there is no doubt but the primitive Church next the Apostles times was most pure. Now where the words and meaning of the Homily are most plain, and so true withal, that you could not gainsay it, nor your Master D. Harding could improve any point of B. jewels challenge, about the same article: you wittingly wrist the words of the Homily to the. 700. years preceding the taking of Constantinople by the great Turk, challenging the Homily to allege the Grecians to have been Iconomaches all that while, thinking to fasten as you call it a notorious lie on the Homily. But the Homilies truth is manifest, and the lie lighteth on yourself, besides your rashness to affirm without the book on your own fingers, that for many hundredth years before, Images customably continued in the Greek Church? and so reverently afterwards continued even till Constantinople was taken by the great Turk. For the which, though it would go hard with you to put you to your proof, and to let it hung in suspense of a lie till you haus confirmed it: yet letting it pass, I only demand, that if your Images have such great force as your Legends pretend, how chance they kept the City and their worshippers no better from the Turks? can they do no morethan the dumb Idols that the Prophet speaketh of? Habent gladium & securim Baruch. 6. in manu se autem de bello & latro●…ibus non liberant, they have a sword and an axe in their hand, but they deliver not themselves from war and from thieves. Or rather (if it be as you say) were the Grecians not delivered over to those enemies, as for their other vices, so chief for that their Idolatry, as the children of Israel for the like were led captive into Babylon? The other thing that Master Stapleton noteth in the Homely is this. Many other shameful lies are there (says he) to disgrace, deface, Stapl. 77. b. and destroy the Images of Christ & his Saints, especially one, whereas he saith that the Emperor Valence and Theodosius made a proclamation, that no man should paint or carve the cross of Christ. And thereupon gaily and iolily triumpheth upon the catholics'. whereas the Proclamation neither is, nor was, to restrain all use of the cross, but that it should not be painted or carved upon the ground. Which these good Emperors, not Valens (for he was the valiant captain and defend●…r of the Arians) but Valentinianus and Theodosius, did of great godly reucrence that they had to the cross, enact. And yet as gross, as soul, & as loud a lying fetch as this is, M. jewel walketh even in the very same steps, putting Valens for Valentinian: and alleging this edict, as general against all Images of the cross. You take upon you lustily M. Stapl. to challenge in your broad language both the Homily, & the B. of Sarum▪ But it is your manner, there is no shift, you must be born withal, chief in this your extravagant by quarrel. Otherwise if you had considered more indifferently the homilies & the B. allegation, no doubt you would have tempered your pen with more sobriety, you challenge either of them for two lies in this allegation, the one, for putting the name of Valens for Valentinian, the other for citing that simply that was conditional. which though it were as you pretend, yet neither of these the The Bishop of Sarum and the author of the homily discharged of M. Stapl. challenge B. or the Homilies author, are to be charged with any lie herein: who have both faithfully set down their author Petrus Crinitus, (except you will dally also about the Printers escape, that for Crinitus put Erinilus, placing E. for C. and l. for t.) and quoted the place, and cited his words. Which to your better contentation, lest you should say any thing is not fully satisfied, I will set down the whole ad verbum. Sed libitum est verba ex libris Augustalibus refer. etc. Petrus Crinit. l b. 9 cap. 9 de honest. di●…c. But it pleaseth me to declare the words out of the Imperial books, whereby the whole may be known, for because both Valens and Theodosius Emperors, did write on this wise unto their Governor the praetor, Sigh that we have a diligent care in all things, concerning the religion of the high godhead, we will suffer no body to carve, or engrave, or paint, the sign of our Saviour Christ either in colours, stone, or other matter, but whatsoever sign is found, we command it to be taken away, punishing them with most grievous punishment, whosoever shall attempt the contrary to our decrees and commandment. In the which saying, if perhaps any man require an author, let him read the Decrees and Edicts of the Emperors, which of the most learned men Tribunianus, Bassilides, Theophilus, Dioscorus, and other, are collected by Satira in the reign of this most noble Emperor justinian. Thus you see Crinitus worde●… (whom only and truly they allege) how simply he citeth it, and also in Ualens name. If you be so heinously offended at the matter, go and pick your quarrel against Crinitus, from whom they have it, challenge him, not them therefore. I warrant you Crinitus being a Papist, had it been otherwise, would not have set it down so simply against you: and being so famous a Lawyer among you, referring the Reader to the Edict itself, would not set it down otherwise than he had simply read it, howsoever your later false▪ juggling (as is more likely of the twain) hath thrust in such condicionalles, of the ground, to make it seem done of more Idolatry, and not to take away all occasion of Idolatry. But howsoever it were, both the Bishop and the Homily bring their warrantise with them, to clear them Te Papists offended at our Homilies. of making any lies therein, and ever the lies do light upon yourself. As for that you snatch occasion hereon, to digress further into one of your invective common places, against the Book of Homilies, and commends unto us your Homilies of Bede and others: neither is this a proper time and place of the trial of ours now, neither it appeareth ye can find any point of false doctrine in them. Which no doubt you would not have spared to have noted, that would quarrel at such petit matters as you do: neither do I utterlyd discemmende the Homilies of the venerable Bede, although otherwise Bedes Homilies. he smatc●…th of many corruptions of his cor●…upted time. But whatsoever his or others were, that you boast of so have been red in the Church by you, what I pray you was the Church the better by the reading of that, whereof they had no understanding, what was read? as they have in the Homilies now set forth unto them. But it is more than high tune M. Stapleton, that for shame at the length you remember yourself, your matter, your adversary, and your Reader. And not thus to run at random, and wander for the nonce in mists, having promised to dissiptae and discuss the mist that M. Horn hath cast before the Readers eyes. Here is hitherto no mist at all of the Bishop. At lest wise you have mist it, and not discussed it, or meddled any thing at all with the Bishops sayings to or fro. Go to therefore M. St. have the B. raised any mist, let us see how your counterblast will blow away and dissipate the same. Yes say you, M. Horn calleth ignorantly Emanuel, him whom Sta. 79. a. &. b he should call Andronicus. And here, to show your cunning, you enter into those Emperor's pedegrées. Mistaking the name of an Emperor. Why M. St. is this so sore a mist to have missed the Emperor's name? were all these circumquaques for this matter, to have foiled the B. for mistaking a name by ignorance? which were it so as you would have it, what prejudice is here done to the matter? for what soever this Emperor's name was, whom Nicephorus doth commend, it greatly for●…th not, but the matter forceth. The author setteth forth in this Emperor, such virtues, that as Langus noteth, aught to be Langus in pr●…fa. Niceph. in every good Christian Emperor. What mist was therefore in the matter cast before the reader's eyes, if by ignorance he had misnamed the man? Neither could you (if envy against the B. and pride of yourself pricked you not) upbraid this mistaking of the name to the Bishop, for unclerkly or unfaithful handling as you do: except you will do the like to the most, and most famous Historiographers, that have written thereupon. For the same author Uolaterane (whom you quote) Anthropolog. lib. 23. being a Papist, and imputing all their decay to their often forsaking of the Pope, saith of the Hystoriers of these Emperors, that almost all the writers do err●… in the most part of things, & take Caloiohannes for Andronicus the younger, and so confound all things, reckoning up. 16. or. 17. famous Greek writers, that do all disagree among themselves in the Treatise of the Emperors. No marvel then if the Bishop might mistake the name of one, without any his rebuke of unclerklinesse and ignorance, lest of all, of ani●… unfaithfulness, or casting of mists for the matter to the eyes of any indifferent Reader, except to the eyes bleared with malice, of such a counterblasting Momus, as is master Stapleton. Nevertheless to his further satisfying and contentation (if any thing may content him) he might well have seen the Bishop discharged, and to have followed good reason and authority, in alleging this Emperor by the name of Emanuel Paleologus, and not Andronicus Paleologus, had master Stapleton, either been so cunning as he maketh himself, or would have dealt justly, to have accused them The Papiste●… themselves call this Emperor as the Bishop did. of mists, unclerklinesse, ignorance, unfaithfulness, (being famous writers of his own side) that have so named him, and so set it cut in print, and that not by a escape, but of purpose, in setting out of the story, and are allowed and authorized. Whose judgement the Bishop following, the blame (if any blame be) lighteth on them, and not on him. For as the Bishop nameth him Emamuell, so also doth the volume of Nicephorus printed at basil by Io. Oporinus, and Heruagius, Anno domini 1555 Mense Martio, which print is set forth (lest you should reject it) Cum priu●…legio Rom. vegù Ferdinandi & Fra●…crum regis Hemi●…. 2. perused likewise and approved by the Doctors of the faculties of Sorbon and of Louvain, translated and set forth by Io. Langus, and commended as a worthy work to the Emperor Ferdenande by his honourable, learned, faithful and beloved Counsellor and historiographer▪ Wolfangus Lazius, if all this will be able to content you. Io. Langus, in his Preface Dedicatory to Ferdinandus hath these words. Uirtutes vero Maiestatis ●…uae, etc. I purpose not here to rehearse otherwise of your majesties virtues, both for that I have to small ability for so great a work, and better it were not to speak at all of a matter of weight, than not to be able to prosecute it, as the worthiness of it requireth. And also for that Nicephorus in his Preface, when he consecrateth the travail of this History to Emanuel Paleologus the Emperor of Constantinople, (for so being moved by conjectures I take him to be) he lively expresseth as it were in a Glass, the most of those self same virtues. Besides this, where Nicephorus in the beginning of his Preface Dedicatory, doth call the Emperor to whom he dedicateth his work, Pricipem omnium Christianissimum atque humanissimum, A most Christian and most courteous Prince: hereupon john Langus maketh his first marginal note, Uidetur is esse Emanuel Paleologus: This Prince seemeth to be Emanuel Paleologus. And after that in the same Preface, he addeth another note thereof, Emanuels nato praedones Turcae Constantinopoli eiecti sunt: When Emanuel was born the Turkish spoilers were driven out of Constantinople. And again, Imperatoris Emanuelis infanti●…: The infancy of Emanuel the Emperor. Likewise another. Successor eius in Imperio Constantinopolitan●… Emanuel filius: His successor in the Empire of Constantinople was Emanuel his son. Another. Divini numinis erga Emanuelem gratia & favour: The grace and favour of the divine godhead towards Emanuel. Another. Trib●…untur Emanueli praecipue Imperatoriae virtutes: The chief virtues of an Emperor are ascribed to Emanuel. Another. Palatium Imp●…riale ib idem ab Emanuele constructum. The emperors palace was built by Emanuel. Another. Eam videlicet Constantinopolim per Emanuelem Christiani retinuerunt: The Christians held it (that is to say Constantinople) by Emanuel. And yet another. Dedicatur Ecclesiastica hystoria Imperatori Emanueli, & veluti corona capiti cius imponitur. The Ecclesiastical history is dedicated to the Emperor Emanuel, and is set on his head as it were a crown. Now master Stapleton might not all these notes upon the Preface made by Langus a learned Papist, move the Bishop to name the Emperor, Emanuel Paleologus, and clear the Bishop of unfaithful dealing and raising of mists? And if he were deceived, he was deceived, for that he gave to much credit to such famous Papists, as Lazius and Langus, the Doctors of the faculties of Sorbone and of Lovayne, that take upon them Censoriam potestatem, To have the authority of Censors, in allowing and approving the most of all your Books. If therefore you blame the Bishop for this, (except you will show yourself over partial) you must needs condemn all these for the same. Now master Stapleton having (as he thinketh) about this name, got a great triumph, pretending to drive away the mist, and clear the coasts, doing nothing himself but trampling in the dust, and raising vain smokes about bore names, letting the matter alone unaunswered, the more to dim the Readers eyes: telleth us how this Andronicus the elder, son to Michael, after his father's death, summoned a Council of the Grecians, wherein he and they annulled and Stapl. 77. a. revoked that his Father had done at the Council at Lions, namely concerning the proceeding of the holy Ghost, and for the which Nicephorus Master horns Author, being also carried away with the common error, as with an huge raging tempest, doth so highly advance this Andronicus. And so withal you see upon how good a man, and upon how good a cause, master Horn hath builded his new supremacy to pluck down the Pope's old supremacy. For the infringing whereof, the wicked working of wretched Heretics is with him, here and else where, as we shall in place convenient show, a goodly and a godly Precedent, as it is also with master jewel for to maintain the very same quarrel, as I have at large in my return against his fourth article declared. What ye have there declared at large or at brief, (Master Stapleton) is not our matter, nor I have it to see, and I reck not to look, for I deem it by this: If I judge amiss, GOD forgive me. Only herein all the What a bragger M. Stapl. is world may see, what a jolly bragger you be. You are ever telling us of your For●…resle, your Translations, your Replies, your turns and returns, besides this your Counterblast, nothing must be forgotten of all your clerkly Pamphletes. If ye want good neighbours, you will not spare to commend them to us yourself. As for me, I will for this once, return your return empty to yourself, and answer only your present quarrels. The effect whereof is to deface the Bishop's allegation, as grounded upon the doings of an Heretic, and avouched out of the sayings of an erroneous author. And to this purpose, first you threape upon the Reader: the Prince to have been Andromens' the elder, and not Emanuel. And yet for all you would make it so clear a case: you see the Doctors doubt (as they say) and all your own Doctors, and that the chief in judgement. Secondly, you would make the fact and doings that are commended by Nicephorus in this Emperor, to be about the anulling and revoking of that Michael had done at the Council of Lions, namely concerning the proceeding of the holy ghost, whereas all your Doctors abovesaid, name it chief to be for expelling of the Turks, and preserving of the Christians in Constantinople, besides his other virtues. For the which cause not only Nicephorus so highly commends him, but also Lazius, Langus, and all your foresaid Sorbonistes and Lovanians. And yet you (to make the Emparor and the matter odious) say, that it was the denying of the proceeding of the holy ghost, for the which Niceph. doth so highly advance this Andronicus. Wherein as you slander them both, so, thirdly, do you great wrong to Nicephorus, to slander him with so great an heresy, and say that he was carried away with the common error, as with an huge raging tempest. But I doubt it will rather seen M. Stapleton, yourself were carried away with so huge a raging tempest, either of the heat of some choleric passion, or some melancholic envy, so cankered against the Bishop and the truth of his cause, that it maketh you fret and Nicephorus selaundered. rage's even against Nicephorus also. For and you were not carried away in the huge raging tempest of such a sustian fume, a man might then be the bolder to pull you by the slée●…e, and gently demand if you find any thing in this Nicephorus, wherefore you should so sore challenge him of this heresy, or wherefore he should so highly commend this Emperor for this heresy: I think you would be better advised, and mollify this sharp challenge of heresy in Nicephorus. Many superstitions and fabulous tales there be found, of many things in Nicephorus, I grant, but for my own part, I find not that any ever noted him of heresy in this point. And I think my opinion therein to be more true than yours, for proof whereof, I will be reported by such witnesses, as I think you will not except against, even by your College of Di●…es in Louvain. Who affirm in their censure upon this author, that, P●…a solum & religiosa come ●…endat etc. Nicephorus commendeth only godly and religious things, Nicepho●… historia ecclesia●…●…yois mand●… etc. not only the ecclesiastical history of faith and religion may be printed, but with much and public profit of the Church. This could not have been true, but an evident, false lie if that the author as you say, had so highly advanced the Emperor for restoring and maintaining of that heresy. Moreover in the very title of the book privileged by the Emperor Ferdinand, he is entitled with this Epithet, scriptor verè catholicus▪ a writer Catholic indeed: and so likewise by that name of a Catholic writer he is highly commended to the Emperor Ferdinand, both by Lazius a catholic, and Langus a catholic, (as you accept the name of catholic) who translated him out of Greek into Latin, at the said Emperor's commandment. Who also in plain speech to the Emperor, affirmeth, Volumen Nicephori de vera synceraque pietate conscriptum esse, the volume of Nicephorus is written even of true & sincere godliness. But what need we cite all these against you? when that herein you control yourself in your fourth book of this counterblast, for although you there say he is no Papist, nor a lib. 4. cap. 8. fol. 468. b Latin, but a Graecian, & infected also with their schism, yet notwithstanding you grant he is in all other things catholic, thus you mollify the matter with the name of schism, & dally with Nicephor there, which is yet somewhat gentler than to make him an heretic, & an high advancer of heresies, as here you do. And there ye promised to stand to his arbitrement about you Pope's praises, why then so storm you at him here, for his judgement in the Prince's praises? But still I see we must bear with you, & so must all your doctors, especially sith you be here carried away in so huge a raging tempest of your fury against the allegations of Nicephorus here cited by the B. And good cause you had to kick and winch thereat, for they rub you a little on the gall, and therefore you not only slander Nicephorus being the author, but fourthly also, and whereupon you chief stand, How M. Stap. revileth the Emperor. most 〈◊〉 you revile the Emperor, calling his doings, wicked working, and his person a wretched heretic, whom, notwithstanding this your railing, not only Nicephorus commends for a most godly Prince, but also Largus in his own preface, and his other notes to the Preface of Nicephorus, giving him as great a praise: saying he was an Emperor flourishing in all virtues and many ornaments. Again, An Emperor begotten by the very providence of God. Praefat, Langi in Eccl. histor. Niceph. Again, Godliness and religion was from the beginning of his Empire his greatest care. And that to him were given, the chiefest virtues of an Emperor▪ Again, In this Emperor being absolute almost in all virtues and ornaments, is portrayed apaterne of a most excellent Prince. Yea, that he was another No, another Moses. Again, This was the emperors chief praise that he attained all the whole virtues of the best ancient Princes. And that the emperors godliness and religion is commended chief among his other virtues. Thus doth your catholic Largus in his notes upon Nicephor preface set him out, contrary to that you say was a wicked worker and wretched heretic. But whereto in the end do you so revile this emperor? forsooth even to this end, by him not only to deface the B. allegation, but also to dash dawn the Prince's supreme government, as though it consisted altogether or chief hereupon. For so you make your conclusion of this part, saying: And, thus withal you see upon how good amam & upon how good a cause, M. Horn buildeth his new supremacy to pluck down the Pope's old supremacy. Stap. 77. b. As for the newness of this supremacy, and likewise the oldness of your Pope's supremacy, is now (M. Stapleton) not convenient place to discuss: it hath partly been touched before, & shall God willing be examined more hereafter. In the mean season, good leave have you to crack of old & upbraid new, at your pleasure, so long as you bring no new but old & rotten proves thereof, though here you allege neither new nor old at Whereon we build the Prin ces supremacy and whereon the Papists build the Pope's supromacie. all, you will never I perceive leave your old fashions, you threap on the B. that he buildeth this supremacy on this emperor. Not M. St. the B. buildeth on no such grounds, but on the word of God. It is you that build the Pope's supremacy on men's donations, & the most of your Popish doctrines & traditions of men's inventions. The ground of the Bishop's argument, as you have heard, was out of God's word, that the Prince is God's minister: only he showed it out of S. Augustine and chrysostom, and exemplified it by the example of Constantine, wherein this ministery doth chief consist. With whom sigh Nicephorus doth so agree in the description of a Princes chief ministery: were Nicephorus otherwise an heretic, or were he not, in this he showeth himself none: and were it Andronicus or Emanuel: and were he an heretic in that point, or were he sound: the Bishop meddleth not withal, nor groundeth or buildeth upon him. Only he setteth forth Nicephorus judgement, either what this Prince was, or what he aught to be. And proveth the the things which he commendeth him for, (whether he deserved such commendation or not, let other examine) are the principal points of a Princes chief ministery. And what hath the B. done here, that your Catholic Langus doth not? commending this Emperor to Ferdinandus, & likening Ferdinandus unto him, saying of him, that either he was, Sicut ●…um. etc. Such another as our historier depainteth him out in his ornaments, in the most Langi Epist. ad Ferdin. part of all virtue to be worshipped, most like your Majesty: or else in the person of him, declaring that he aught to be such an one as he described (which is the manner of some Philosophers, and also of Historiographers, composing orations and books of great Princes) he hath confirmed so many and so great ornaments of your Majesty, foreseeing as it were even then in his mind, that his work hereafter being turned into Latin, should at length be published under that Prince's name, whom he in Greek had most truly adorned with his praise. If it were lawful thus for your Langus to apply these Emperor's praises to the Emperor Ferdinand, may not the Bishop apply them in general, as a pattern of all good Prince's duties? and therefore, where you scoff at this, calling it in scorn a goodly and godly precedent: setting your mo●…kes aside, I may well answer with Langus, whatsoever the emperors judgement, or the emperors life were, or the author also of these commendations: these virtues so highly commended, are both a goodly and godly precedent, for all Princes to set before them. Thus much therefore to the former wind of your counterblast. M Stapleto●…s order. Now to the later, which after all these long discourses, draweth somewhat nearer to the matter, in admitting the author Nicephorus his testimonies, and the emperors doings, and answering to the Bishop's allegations thereon. The effect whereof, is to improve all that is alleged, as insufficient to infer this supremacy. And it is quartered into four parts. first, pr●…supposing this Prince to be Andronicus, & all 〈◊〉 doing about to be the revoking of Mich●…els yielding to the Pope at the Council at Lions: he 〈◊〉 to prove, that, not 〈◊〉, but the Priests (though wicked) had the chief ●…uperioritie. Secondly, he 〈◊〉 against the gathering and sorting of the Bishop's 〈◊〉. Thirdly, he entereth into the invalidity of the allegations. And fourthly here upon, he maketh his triumph and 〈◊〉 thanks for the victory. In the first parcel sayeth M. Stapleton. But now M. Horn what if these heretical doings do nothing Stapl. 77. b relieve your cause, nor necessarily induce the chief superiority in all causes, and perchance in no cause Ecclesiastical, concerning the final discussing and determination of the same? verily without any perchance, it is most plainly and certainly true, it doth not. For even in this Schismatical council, and heretical fynagog, the Bishops played the chief part, and they gave the final though a wrong and a wicked judgement Who also showed their superiority, though ungodly upon this man's Father, in that they would not suffer him to be interred Princelike: themselves much more worthy to have been cast after their decease, to the Dogs and Ravens, upon ●… dirty doonghill. What those Priests were worthy, we have your worthy judgement M. Stapleton, whereby we perceive your Priests can err, although they be massmongers, and by your former sayings, reverent worshippers of Images too. But all will not help, they are adjudged to be cast on a d●…rtje doonghill, to be devoured of Dogs and Raves, because they would not suffer▪ Michael Paleologus their Emperor (who notwithstanding intruded himself by violence) to be interred Prince like. I pray you M. Stap. be an upright judge. What then are those Priests much more worthy that would not suffer their living Princes to use their princely authority? what are those Popes more worthy▪ that have not only not suffered their predecessors, to be en●…orted Pope like, but have pulled them out of the ground again, and hacked and mangled them? What are those prelate's worthy that have caused the Priests and the people to renounce their obedience to their sworn Princes? I think you will not say these should be▪ call out on dirty doonghils: and yet their fault is as much as the other: & it is to be feared lest they shallbe cast out into utter darkness▪ But you do a little to much charge the Greek Priests, M. Sta. burdeneth the Greek priests to far. with the whole burden of this crime. It was not only they as Uolaterane says, but it was the whole nation, as Baptist Egnatius writeth, as is also noted in Laugus his margin, Ex qua tuntam ●…nuidiam▪ etc. Whereupon he got so great envy of the Greek notion, that neither they performed the obsequys of the dead, & also denied him the place of his Sepulchre. But you apply it only unto the Priests, that their superiority might the more appear. For which purpose you direct all your tale, to set forth their superiority, even in such as you call wicked and heretical doings: whereas the Prince's claim is not for any such superiority in wicked doings, but only in Godly and Christian causes. You drive all the matter to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the holy Ghosts proceeding, and to Andronicus cealing therein, against the dealing of his Father. In 〈◊〉 thus do the last editions of Nicephorus, Printed at Paris, 1562. and 1566. (whether truly or not, is doubtful to say) refer all to Andronicus, and ever in the place of Ema●…el, put Andronicus: and for dri●…ing away of the Turks, put in the anulling of the doings at Lion's Council. Which sentence soever be the truer, either the former which the Bishop followed, or the later which you follow: yet can you not go so round away with the matter, but that even Michael The supremecie of the Greek Emperors. which yielded to the Pope, mangre all his Priests, and made them perforce while he lived to acknowledge the Pope, showed therein a superiority ●…uer them, which I think you will not call a tiran●…y, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 gave it over to the Pope. And his son in doing the contrary (even in the Council you mention) showeth also a supreme dealing therein. And that supreme dealing that you most stiffly deny to Princes, to w●…te, the calling of Counsels, the Patriarch did it not, but the Prince, 〈◊〉 as yourself ha●… confessed before, that he after his Father's death, su●…moned a Council of the Grecians. And so sayeth Langus in the Margin of the Preface. Imperatori●… istius ductu, etc. By the guydance of this Emperor in the Council, the Eastern Bishops contrary to the Western, decreed, that the holy Ghost proceeded only from the Father. But not long after by his Nephew john Paleologus being Emperor, in the Synod at Florence held in the year of the Lord, 1439. the Grecians accorded to the determination of the Latins, in so much that they professed the holy The Grecians opinion in the holy Ghosts proceeding. Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Son, when they were persuaded, that the Latins believed God the Father to be the only cause of the Son, and of the holy Ghost, and that they accursed the being of two beginnings, or two causes in the consubstantial Trinity. Which sent●…nce, as it showeth the 〈◊〉 to be called by the 〈◊〉▪ so it showeth the cause of the Greeks di●…ision 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉, in this 〈◊〉, about which, here and in your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ●…e make so much a do, to have been rather of misunderstanding the one of the other, than any such 〈◊〉▪ as you here ●…o often charge them, ●…aunder Ni●…phorus, re●…ite this Prince, and afterwards 〈◊〉 ●…o us also. And withal it showeth, that this controu●…rsie was not so much though matter between them, as was the re●…enting unto the Pope's obedience, which the Greek Church could never abide, and to say the sooth, they of all other had chief cause▪ for the Pope was the chief ruin 〈◊〉 their Empir●…. But to return to my purpose. In this Council, the Prince hath this point of supremac●…e, that he sum●…oned and guided it▪ which M▪ Stapleton espying, dareth not fully affirm▪ that thi●… doing maketh ●…atly against the Prince's supremacy, but he cometh f●…intly in, with, what, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you 〈◊〉. And what if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 shalt we 〈◊〉 have larks▪ what 〈◊〉, ●…id▪ phie on Devil with his shifting if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 thou be Math. 7. the 〈◊〉 of God. And what if it do not necessarily induce the chief supe●… Stapl. 77. b. in all causes? And what if it did not necessarily, if it did it, what is here the necessity to or fro the matter? and what if it did some necessarili●… though not all? Yet you see here is somewhat got to help the matter for ward. You grant this doing argueth a supremacy in some Ecclesia●…call causes although not necessarily. But st●…pping back again, you▪ say: And 〈◊〉 in no 〈◊〉 Ecc●…siasticall concerning the 〈◊〉. 77. b 〈◊〉 discussing and determin●…cion of the same. Well, and what if this also were granted you, that concerning the final discussing and determination, he had supremacy in no cause ecclesiastical, yet might it follow that in all other points (except the final discussing and determination) he had the supremacy. Verily (say you, waxing somewhat bolder) without any Stapl. 77. b. perchance it is most plainly and certainly true, it doth not. And how prove you this M. Stap. For (say you) even in this sch●…maticall council and heretical Stapl. 77. b. synagogue the Bishops played the chief part▪ and they gave the final, thoughé a wrong and wicked judgement. And verily then (without any perchance) either yourself do make a foul lie, or else both in calling the Council, and giving the final sentence also, the Prince had the superiority. For, whatsoever you deni●… here, not. 16 lines before, you gra●…nted, that he ●…othe summoned the Council, and also that he and they annulled and revoked that his father had done at the Council at Lions. Lo here, in the annulling and revoking, which was the final discussing and determination▪ you both join hi●… with them, and place him before them. And thu●… unawares, while you speak against the truth, you wot not what, or care not how you wrap yourself in contradictions, and make yourself a liar. Your second parcel is only against the order of the sentences collected by the Bishop, ask him what honour he hath got for all his cra●…tie cooping or cunning▪ and smooth Stapl. 77. b. ●…oyning, combining, and incorporating a number of Nicephorus sentences together For all these words you use to outscoffe the mat●…er, and quarrel at the placing of them unorderly. But all this while you answer not one word to any one word in them, and yet set you down your marginal note with a solemn out●…rie. O what a crafty Cooper and smooth joiner is master Horn. But see how handsomely it falls out, and how orderly, even where you talk of order▪ For where you 〈◊〉 have set down this your marginal exclamation, at the coming to his second part, saying: what honour have you go: for all your crafty cooping, etc. You set it down for haste in the matter before answered, concerning the schismatical Council, and the bishops dealing therein, doing as the story telleth of Doctor shaw in his sermon of the praise of king Richard the third, that or ever the king was come to the sermon, had already said his part, that he should have said at his coming, and so with shame enough, out of place, and out of time, repeated the same. But you may say, thanks be to God, ink and paper can not blush, and although I think you can do as little yourself, yet a God's name, let it pass, be it but the Printers misplacing of the note, although it fallen out ill fauor●…dly, to light even there, where you reprehend the Bishop for ill joining together of his sentences, and your book joineth your marginal notes, all besides your matter. Now having thus stood trifling in reprehending the order of the bishop's collection of Nicephorus sentences, because he setteth them down together, being not so set together, but here & there dispersed, in the great & long Preface of Nicephorus: where the Reader now at the length should look that M. Stap. should come to answer some point material of all the bishop's allegations: as though he had fully answered them all (having said not so much as Buff unto any one sentence alleged) he repeateth his former vaunt full lustily, saying: What honour have you, I say, won by this or by the whole Stapl. 78●…. thing itself? little or nothing, furthering your cause, and yet otherwise plain schismatical, and heretical. For the which your handsome and holy dealing, the author of the foresaid Homily, and you, yea M. jewel too, are worthy exceeding thanks. Is not here a proper answer, thus to jest out the matter with scoffs, cracks & railings? Surely, M. St. what honour soever the bishop hath won by this, or not won (as he looketh for none at your hands, & your thanks you may reserve for your friends) you win much shame to yourself & your cause, thus shamefully to ●…umble up the matter, all only with out facing it. You say the B. hath patched up a number of Nicephorus sentences together. Why do you not ●…ip a sunder those patches ' If he hath used crafty cooping cunning, smooth joining, combining, and incorporating, it were your part to unhoope them, to dissolve them, to answer them. Tush say you, what need that? they are all little or nothing furthering your cause. Now, M. Sta? I think then they might be the easilier answered, & not so to skip over them like whip Sir john at his morrow Masie. But till you answer something to them, an upright judge will deem them much to further our cause. Although it is somewhat that you grant, that yet a little they further our cause: ●… I think by that the reader hath weighed them better, he shall see they so hinder your cause, that you thought it the best way to let them all alone. And that the Reader may the better behold both your dealing, and the bishops allegations, & so judge how much or how little they further the matter, and whether they might have been thought worthy the answering: as the bishop hath gathered them, so will I set them down. Who hath glorified God more, and showed more Pag. 17. b. fervent zeal (saith Nicephorus to the Emperor towards him in pure religion, without feigning, than thou hast done? Who hath with such fervent zeal sought after the most sincere faith much endangered, or cleansed again the holy table? When thou sawest our true religion brought into peril with new devices, brought in by counterfeit and naughty doctrines, thou didst defend it most painfully and wisely, thou didst show thyself, to be the mighty, supreme, and very holy anchor and stay in so horrible wavering and error, in matters beginning to faint, and to perish as it were with shipwreck. Thou art the guide of the profession of our faith. Thou haste restored the Catholic and universal Church (being troubled with new matters or opinions) to the old state. Thou hast banished from the Church all unlawful and impure doctrine. Thou hast cleansed again with the word of truth, the Temple, from choppers and chaungers of the divine doctrine, and from heretical depravers thereof. Thou haste been set on fire with a godly zeal for the divine Table. Thou haste established the doctrine. Thou haste made constitutions for the same. Thou haste entrenched the true religion with mighty defences. That which was pulled down, thou haste made up again, and haste made the same whole and sound again, with a convenient knitting together of all the parts and members. (To be short, thou haste, saith Nicephorus to the Emperor) established true religion and godliness with spiritual butresses, namely the doctrine and rules of the ancient fathers. These are the Bishop's allegations out of Nicephorus, for this Princes dealing in ecclesiastical matters. Wherein are comprehended (as each man may see) all the chief ecclesiastical The Bishop's proves that M. Stapl. passeth so slightly over prove the full matter. causes. The true religion, the sincere faith, the divine doctrine, godliness, making constitutions, the father's rules, the catholic & universal church. Neither ascribeth he to the Prince herein, a power Legantine from Priest, Bishop, Patriarch, or Pope: much less to be their only executioner: but under God he giveth him a supreme government, in calling him, not only the defender, but the mighty, supreme, and very holy anchor and stay, the guide, the restorer, the cleanser, the establisher, the entrencher and maker up of all these things. On the contrary: the puller down, and banisher of new devices, sergeant, naughty, unlawful, and impure doctrines, of horrible errors, and heretical depravers. And this, his chief dealing herein, to be most seemly for him, and chief belonging to his princely office. Doth all this M. Stap. little or nothing further our cause? if it do not, than it little or nothing hindereth yours. Why grant you not then unto it? if you grant but thus much, we will urge you little or nothing further: for what is not here contained, that is either contained in the issue between the Bishop and M. Feck: or in the oath of the O. majesties supremacy, that you refuse to take? But as light as y●… would seem to make of this, it pincheth you, and you dare not grant, nor answer any sentence thereof. Only you give a snatch at a word, and bait at the bishops marginal note upon these former allegations. Wherein M. Stapleton letteth go the principal matter, and quarrels at the margin. you play like Alciates dog, at whom when one hurled a stone, he let go him from whom the stone came, & wreaked his anger on the stone. So set you upon the marginal note, that in deed hitteth you a good sauce, but the allegations from whence the marginal note doth come, you let alone, and fall to tugging of the note. Only (as I said) you snatch at a word, as though all the weight of the marginal note were fetched only from thence, and not from all these sentences, But (say you) M. Home will not so lose his long allegation Stapl. 77. a. out of Nicephorus. He hath placed a note in the margin, sufficient (●… trow) to conclude his principal purpose. And that is this. The Prince's supremacy in repairing religion decayed. This is indeed a jolly marginal note. But where finds M Horn the same in his text? for sooth of this, that Nicephorus calleth the Emperor, the mighty, supreme, and very holy anchor, and stay in so horrible wavering, etc. of the word supreme anchor, he concludeth a supremacy. But O more than childish folly. Could that crafty Cooper of this allegation, inform you no better, master Horn? was he no better seen in Grammar, or in the profession of a school master, than thus foully and fondly to miss the true interpretation of the Latin word? for what other is suprema anchora in good English, than the last anchor, the last refuge, the extreme hold, and stay to rest upon? As suprema verba, do signify the last words of a man in his last will: as summa dies, the last day, supremum judicium, the last judgement: with a number of like Phrases. So suprema anchora is the last anchor, signifying the last hold and stay, as in the peril of tempest the last refuge is to cast anchor. In such a sense Nicephorus calleth this Emperor the last, the mighty, and the holy anchor or stay in so horrible wavering and error. Signifying that now by him they were stayed from the storm of schism, as from a storm in the sea, by casting the anchor, the ship is stayed. But by the metaphor of an anchor, to conclude a supremacy: is as wise, as by the Metaphor of a Cow to conclude a Saddle. For as well doth a saddle fit a Cow, as the quality of an anchor resemble a supremacy. But by such beggarly shifts a barren cause must be upholded. First all is said by the way of amplification to extol the Emperor: as in the same sentence he calleth him the sixt element, reaching above Aristotels fift body, over the four elements with such like: Then all is but a Metaphor: which were it true, proveth not nor concludeth, but expresseth and lighteneth a truth. Thirdly, the Metaphor is ill translated, and last of all, worse applied. A sirrah, M. St. here is a hot stir and high words. A man would think all is now answered to the full, and yet when all comes to all, here is nothing of all this a do, against any one sentence of the bishops allegations. But the poor marginal note, and one poor silly word, of all these long allegations, shall aby for this gear. First you say M. Stapl. that M. Horn will not so lose his long allegation out of Nicephorus. What you mean by losing, I know not. But it appeareth, he may le●…e or find them all, for any thing you will answer to them. You slink for the nonce to the marginal note, which is this: The Prince's supremacy in repairing religion decayed. This is in deed (say you) a jolly marginal note, but where finds M. Horn the same in his text? forsooth of this, that Nicephorus calleth the Emperor the mighty, supreme and very holy anchor and stay, in so horrible wavering of the word supreme anchor, he concludeth a supremacy. Is there nothing, M. Stap. in all these allegations, that you could see, wherefore the Bishop set down his marginal note, of the Prince's supremacy in repairing religion decayed, but only this sentence? yea only that word? do not all the other sentences import as much as this? that he is the guide of the profession of our faith: the restorer of the catholic and universal Church: the banisher from the Church of all unlawful and impure doctrine: the cleanser of the temple with the word of truth, from choppers and changers of the divine doctrine, and from heretical depravers thereof. That he is the entrencher of true religion, with mighty defences: That he is the establisher of the doctrine, and maker of constitutions for the same: that he is the maker up again, the maker whole and sound again of all that was pulled down. Might not all this to an indifferent reader, be thought sufficient, to answer the marginal note, and comprehend in all points as much as the note? yea though you quite set aside the sentence and word whereat you wrangle? And yet with M. Stap. this one sentence must bear the weight of all that the bishop alleged, the mighty, supreme, and very holy anchor and stay in so horrible wavering. But go to, let it do so, presuppose that the bishop alleged no more but this one sentence: or that all the other little or nothing further the cause. Yet doth this only sentence fully comprehend as much as this marginal note conte●…neth. (Yea set also aside the word supreme, that master St. quarrel is at) that in so horrible wavering and error, in matters beginning to faint, and to perish as it were with shipwreck, the Prince is the mighty and very holy anchor, or stay, Sacris simul & prophanis, both in holy and profane matters. Doth not this mighty stay, only or chief under God, of the Prince, for all kind of people, against errors, plainly argue a sovereign helping power, or supremacy in repairing of religion being decayed? But M. Stapl. letting go all this, girdeth only at this word supreme, because the bishop translated suprema anchora not the last anchor, but supreme anchor. Here first he falls out with a Cooper, I can not tell whom for missinforming the bishop. As though the interpretation of supremus were so high a point, that the bishop must be taught of some▪ Grammarian or schoolmaster, the English thereof. And because it is The englishing of the word supremus. not englished in good English, full schoolmaster like, he taketh upon him to expound the same. For, what other is (saith he) suprema anchora, in good English, than the last anchor, the last refuge, the extreme hold and stay to rest upon. Be it even as you would have it, M. Stap. And thanks be to God, that when you have nothing to say against the bishop's allegation: this is your last anchor, your last refuge and extreme stay to rest upon, to find fault with the bishops english, for not good english. Though here neither you can prove any false englishing (which is common with you) and when you have all done, supremus is both last, and chief, and which way soever you construe it, supremus is supreme, take it how you list. Although in the very proper der●…uation of the word, supremus coming of supra, signifieth the chief or hyest. And that it is called last, is but accessory and improperly spoken (for properly, ultimus is last, or extre●…) by reason that the last things, as added, & for the most part uppermost, and the last doings are commonly the chiefest. But what need contention here de lava caprina, of a matter of nothing? It were more fit you had reserved this your earnest answer, to some earnest matter. But as they say, In refrigidissima feru●…, in f●…entissima friges. In the coldest matters you be boiling ho●…te, and in the hottest matters you be key cold. To avoid therefore contention, as you aught not to control the Bishop's English, being not false: so am I for my part, content to admit your English, and I think so will the Bishop to●…. For (setting aside your quarreling) it co●…th not hi●…, but all in the end cometh to one effect. You say it signifieth the last anchor, the last refuge, the extreme hold, and stay to rest upon. Very well said M. St. 〈◊〉 is not that the chief, which we must flee unto, hold, stay, and rest upon, when all other helps do fayl●…? And so you grant the Prince under God to be the chiefest refuge and stay, both to the lay and Clergy, in all w●…rings of doctrine, and err●… of Religion▪ Is not this now as much, as the Bishops note contained, the Prince's supremacy in restoring Religion decayed? You exemplifi●… the matter thus. As suprema verba, do signify the last words of a man in his last will: as 〈◊〉 dyes, the last day: supremum judicium▪ the last judgement▪ with a number of the like phrases▪ True in deed M. St. but you should withal remember, ●…uen in these examples, that the last will is the chiefest will, The last taken for the chiefest and all the other former wills give place to the last will. And the last day is the chiefest day, and by a special prerogative called Dyes Do●…ni, the day of the Lord, and Dies magnus▪ the great day. And the last judgement, is the chiefest judgement, when all judges shall be judged: and therefore God the father hath only given it to Christ, bica●…se he is simply the chiefest of all. And here in earth also he is the chiefest judge, that is last appealed unto. Thus M. St. your own phrases, fit the Bishop well. And as it doth in these, so in this present phrase, Suprema anchora, say you, Is the last anchor, signifying the last hold & stay, as in the peril of tempest, the last refuge is to cast anchor. And is not this then also the chiefest refuge and stay? In such a sense (say you) Nicephorus calleth his Emperor the last, the mighty & the holy anchor, or stay so in horrible wavering and error, signifying that now by him they were stayed, from the storine of schism, as from a storm in the sea, by casting the anchor, the ship is stayed. This is in dée●… M. St. the meaning of Nicephorus. And The proportion between the stay of an anchor, and the stay of a Prince. do you not see what chief dealing it giveth above all other only to the Prince, in the storm of a schism or error, or other ecclesiastical matter, wavering? is not the anchor in a storm the chiefest and most principal stay? doth any thing stay the ship more or better than an anchor? or is there any other ordinary stay thereof? Then, by your own exposition, the Prince is made here, the chief, the principal, & the only stay in such cases, which fully concludeth all the matter, notwithstanding all your scoffs, & therefore where you conclude, saying. But by the metaphor of an anchor to conclude a supremacy, Sadli●…g ●… Cow. is as wise, as by the metaphor of a Cow, to conclude a Saddle. For aswell doth a saddle fit a Cow, as the quality of an anchor resemble supremacy. But by such beggarly shifts a barren cause must be upholded. You have saddled the Cow M. St. handsomely, & you are the fittest man that I see, to ride upon her, for this conclusion showeth you as wise a man, according to the old saying, as ever spurred a Cow for admitting the metaphor of an anchor, no further than yourself have said, that as by it the ship is stayed from storms in the seas, so by the Prince, all the people are stayed from Schism & wavering errors, in religion: if the anchor be the chiefest stay next to God's help in the one, is not the Prince the chiefest stay next to God's help in the other? although therefore, you ●…elie the B. to say he concluded only thereupon (for before you said he concluded on the word. Suprema. which he did not neither, but on all the whole allegations altogether) yet holdeth this conclusion, even by your own sayings better I ●…row, than you will hold on your saddled Cows back as fit a rider as you be, except you sit the faster, that the Cow cast not a calf as big as M. St. As for the B. shifts what they are, & what beggarly shifts they are, every reader will soon judge, that seethe how you shifted off the matter. You answer nothing to any sentence of the B. allegations: you run at random to other ●…lim flamtales: you find fault at other ●…thours about other matters: you pick quarrels about bore names: you snatch at the marginal note, & let go the matter: you def●…āt about the only word supremus, more like ●… beggarly Pedantie, than a grammarlike schoolmaster: & all but to raise mists & counterblasts, pretending to dissipate & discuss mists, & all but to carry the reader from the flat & round answering of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet are all these no beggarly shifts of yours. In deed M. St. these are no common Beggarly shifts. beggars shifts, these are 〈◊〉 shifts than all men use, or than every man can see, they are belike borrowed of the beggarly friars of Louvain, but from whence soever you have them, the cause is both beggarly & barren, that in steed of good plain answering, seeketh such shift of shifts, but hold your peace 〈◊〉 the beggar, it is a bad sack that can abide no clouting. Now having thus shifted of the B. allegations. with these shifts: you gather them up in a brief recapitulation, to excuse the matter. First, all is said by the way of amplification Stapl. 78. b Nicephorus his amplification. to extol, the Emperor (as in the same sentence he calleth him the sixt Element, reaching above Aristotels fift body, over the four Elements with such like.) As though this amplifying of his estate, were any argument for you to depress the same. And sith (as himself protesteth) he meant no flattery, this amplification, means yet a truth of his excellency, and supreme estate. Otherwise, he could not well have so called him, although he sayeth not altogether as you say, neither: for he micio●…eth not Aristotle at all, nor any his fift body, nor speaketh of the four Elements, but he says, Et ut ille ab utraque, etc. And that he receiving from both of them (speaking of godliness and s●…licitie) that which was proper to them both, might make perfect, to all men a new, and in very deed a marvelous commodity and help, to wo●…e, a certain stable firmament, and (as I might call it) a sixt and an eternal Element, in divine matters beginning to slide & perishing by shipwreck, offering thee the great, supreme, and in deed the holy Anchor, of so horrible a wavering, and error, both in holy and in profane matters. That in thee they might represent a sound stability, to others also that are with thee. This being the amplification of Nicephorus which is in deed a great amplification: it showeth that he meant to commend him very highly for his supreme dealing in religion, & not as M. St. would have it, any thing to abase the same, which is quite contrary to the authors meaning. But then (saith M. Stap.) all is but a metaphor, which Stap. fol. 78. b were it true, proveth not nor concludeth, but exprefleth and lighteneth a truth: Thirdly, the metaphor is ill translated, and last of all, worse applied. For the translation (M. St.) it is answered before, thanks be to God you can not prove it false. And yet (not to contend) yours is admitted, and maketh against you too, ●…uen by your own tale. But what hindereth this, that this word anchor is but a metaphor? doth a metaphor being a true metaphor, prove nothing, but lighten a truth? doth not a true The force of a metaphor. thing prove a truth, be it metaphor or what soever it be, be it true? as for a metaphor, doth it not prove the thing that it is resembled unto? Christ is called bread, a vine, a stone, a Lion, a way, a door, a shepherd: do not these metaphors prove and conclude in him, the reasons and proportions wherefore he is so called? do we not by these metaphors conclude, that he is our nourisher, our life, our stability, our strength, our guide and defence, our only means and entrance into heaven? The Emperor is called here the chief Anchor. Yet all is but a Metaphor say you. What then? we go not about to prove him an Anchor. But even as yourself expound it we prove him by the metaphor of an Anchor, to be a stay: and so being the chief Anchor, it proveth and concludeth that he is the chief stay. And this is enough, that that it proveth thus much. As for the Anchor take it to yourself, and get an Ass to your Cow, to carry it. Nevertheless, if this were also remitted to you, that being a metaphor, it proveth not, nor concludeth, but expresseth and lighteneth a truth. What 〈◊〉 this the matter? So the truth thereby be expressed and lightened, although the Bishop thereby, concluded not his matter, but only lightened and expressed the truth thereof. Were not this enough at lest to stop your brabbling and railing against him? Except 2. Tim. ●…. you be of I●…mbres and Membres disposition, that of purpose will resist the truth, and not express but suppress, not lighten but obscure the same, as the Pharisees did, and you Papists after them have done, and labour still to do. But you cannot oppress the truth for ever, yeaeven your striving against it, shall the more (against your wills) express and lighten the truth. Your small conclusion is very short. Last of all (say you) it is worse applied, but so long as you show, neither how, where, nor why: a man might answer you, a short horse is soon curried. And when you apply your mind to answer more substantially, I will take pains to reply, and cu●…rie your answer more smoothly. As for the rest of your Counterblast, it is but the blowing up of the victory before you have it. It answereth nothing to the matter, but is a crack of your triumph, that you ween you have got, much good do it you, master Stapleton. Now whereas (say you) in the beginning of your matter, Stapl. 78. b. the substance of your proves hereafter standing in stories, it have demeaned yourself so clerkly & skilfully here, the reader may hereof have a taste: and by the way of prevention and anticipation, have also a certain prejudicial understanding, what he shall look for at your hands in the residue. Wherefore God be thanked, that at the beginning hath so deciphered you, whereby we may so much the more, yea the boldlier without any fear of all your antiquity herfater to be showed, cheerfully proceed on. Thou seest here a jolly triumph (gentle Reader) and I doubt not, but thou seest what a great gain he hath won. Do but call for his cards, I warrant you, he will be ashamed to show them. But alas good man, give him leave, he must crack of something to comfort himself withal, and set a fair viser, on an ill favoured visage to outface the matter, when nothing else will help it. But God be thanked, indeed, that hath thus deciphered his noughty reckonings, and sophistical sums, filled up with bore Ciphers in algorithm, that furnished a place in stead of an answer, and were in deed no answer, nor any just account, but as they say, he that reckons without his host, must reckon twice. But a God's name (as master Stapleton crieth) let us cheerfully proceed on. We are almost at an end of this first book of his. The. 25. Division. AS the Bishop hitherto on the words of Saint Paul's Rom. 13. calling the Prince God's minister, hath by the father's chrysostom and S. Augustine, and by these Ecclesiastical historiographers Eusebius & Nicephorus, about these two Emperors, showed sufficiently how far this ministery stretcheth, and wherein it chief consists: so concluding this for the other testimony of S. Paul alleged, 1. Tim. 8. he showeth the ends and bounds of the Prince's government, not only to stretch to the conservation of civil peace & outward tranquillity, but also to the maintenance and preserving of God's true religion. To the confirmation of this sentence of the Apostle, he citeth Chrysost. concluding hereon, that these two parts and notes of a prince's government, are so knit together, that the one cannot be without the other, & therefore both are necessary to be required in a prince. And that thus, the ancient Christian Princes did consider of their duties, he citeth out of cyril, the testimonies of the Emperors, Theodosius and Valentinian. Master Stapletons' answer to this chief standeth in M Stapletons order to this division. three points. First, he querelleth with the Bishop, for calling these Emperors, Christian Emperors. Secondly, he yieldeth to the bishop allegation of Saint Paul and chrysostom, as rather for him, than against him, & thereto travaileth in bringing forth ensamples. thirdly, to the testimonies of Valentinian and Theodosius, he replieth with other testimonies of the said Emperors. All the first part is frivolous and to no effect, nor answering the argument of the Bishop's conclusion, which is this. All Christian princes notable and godly doings, that are necessarily belonging to their office, are patterns for other Princes to behold and do their duty to their subjects by. But these and such like Princes, are by the ecclesiastical writers commended for their notable doings in the maintenance and furtherance of Christian religion, as doings necessarily pertaining to their office: Ergo, they are patterns, examples, and glasses for other Christian Princes to behold, and to learn thereby to do their duty to their subjects, in the maintenance and furtherance of Christian Religion. To this master Stap. saith never a word, but falls a railing on the Bishop for calling this Emperor, Christian Emperor. And first, in his sum he sweareth by God, that he he will not fear the Bishop's conclusion, sith the antecedent was so nought. And shall we now M. Horn (saith he) your antecedent Stapl. 79 b matter being so nought greatly fear the consequent, and conclusion you will hereof infer? Nay pardie. Well sworn master Stapleton, you can not swear by a greater. But if one of your company would do so much for me, as to remember you but with a good philip, that your forehead smarted withal, you would not thus lightly take the name of God in vain, but it was done (in this your beginning ex abrupto, and shall we, etc.) to show your bold manhood. Shall we fear (say you) the Bishop's conclusion his antecedent being so nought? nay perdie. Not, in no wise, M. Stapl. fear it not: but stand to it even as you did to the other, that is to say, take your heels and run quite away from it. And be it nought, or be it good, answer not a word thereto. But only wrangle about some buy word or other, finding play with the Reader about other matters, and th●…n even as you answered the antecedent: so shall you show yourself constant in answering the conclusion. For what else is all your first part (where, if you fear not the Bishop's consequent, you should deny it, and show some reason thereof, or distinguish the same, or else you grant it) but a bore shifting off to other matters? as this, because the Bishop called the Emperor (on Nicephorus his commenmendation) a Christian Emperor, an example, a spectacle, a glass for other, as one that reformed Religion to the pureness thereof: This (say you) in such a parsonage as Stapl. 80. a. ye counterfey●…, can not be but a deadly and a mortal sin. hereupon you snatch occasion to fling at master Foxes bóoke of Martyrs once again, about M. Doctor Wesalian, of whom you say you spoke before. Here again you come to your former Cue (like the 〈◊〉 Pharisey) despising the Bishop as one that is far from the knowledge of Bishop White and Bishop Gardiner, these are Reverend fathers with you, as for the bishop now, Stapl. 80. a is a very poor silly Clerk, and how meet to occupy such a room, you leave it to others discrete and upright judgement. There is no doubt M. Stapleton, but that you mean some Comparison of learning between bishop Gardine●… bishop White, and Bishop Horn. discrete and upright judges, to judge this matter of both their learnings, you show yourself so upright between them. But what shall those discrete men judge of, your uprightness and discretion in answering? For what is any of these things to the purpose? although (setting aside this your impudent outfacing) what? man, it was well known what mighty great Clerks the better of these twain, Bishop Gardiner and Bishop White were, either for law or for versifying, either for a Sophister, or a schoolmaster. And yet in these points were they neither in primis, secundis, nor in ●…ertijs. As for any deep knowledge of Divinity, or of ecclesiastical stories, which had been fit for a Bishop I trow, Iwis, it was not so great but that a meaner man than the Bishop that now is, might hazard a comparison with them. But comparisons they say are odious. I speak it not to the dispraise of their learning, would God, such as it was, they had emploiedit better to the glory of God the giver, and the edifying of his Church, in setting forth his Gospel, as they aught to have done. For this is the chiefest thing in a bishop, although the other are also necessary, and, as you say, among other, this the knowledge of ecclesiastical stories, which you upbraid to the bishop, as a very poor silly clerk in them. But thus much your impudency driveth me to say, that neither of your two Reverend Fathers, have taken a quarter of the studious travel in this point, that the B. that now is hath done, and hath showed more fruit thereof, than ever they did, Scripture as they say, maketh mention of all three, let your discrete and upright men, or any other search and judge who list. But wherefore in conclusion is all this ado? forsooth the Bishop (on Nicephorus words) commends him, for a Christian Emperor, and saith he, was a spectacle and glass for others, and as one that reform religion to the pureness thereof, this can not be a venial but a deadly and mortal sin, says M. Stapleton. Whosoever be the discrete judge, you are no merciful judge M. Stapl. there is no pardon with you but present death I see well, I would at lest you were an upright judge, to judge uprightly of the matter. You have condemned the B. for saying an Ecclesiastical writer commends him for a Christian Emperor, but what will you say to the same writer, if he will call him the most Christian Emperor? is not this warrant enough for the B? he calleth him an example, a glass, or a spectacle for others. What if not only Nicephorus say the same, & a great deal more, but Langus your catholic Clerk say even the same also, and commend him like wise for a pattern and mirror to the Emperor Ferdinand? But Lord what a stir is here, for that the B. spoke Sta. 80. a. of reforming religion to the pureness thereof? Here is the Bishop and Master Foxe challenged both of them for heretics, more than any of their fellows. Here is Master Stapleton disposed to have his tongue roll, as though it had not walked and run at large before. And then (saith he) that I may a little roll in your railing Rhetoric, wherein you unjustly roar out against M. Feckenham, may I not for much better cause and ground say to you, than you did to him, to make him a Donatist, M. Horn? Let your friends now weigh with advisement, what was the erroneous opinion of the Grecians against the holy ghost, and let them compare your opinion and guileful defences thereof to there's, and they must needs clap you on the back, and say to you Patrisas (if there be any upright judgement in them) deeming you so like your great graundsiers the Grecians, as though they had spit you out of their mouth. How justly or unjustly, the Bishop proved Master Feck. of set purpose to follow the steps of the Donatists, is already declared at large, and also how teatly you have excused him, and brought him and yourself further into the self same briars: But how vnf●…tlye and unjustly here, you would return the Bishop's words upon himself, challenging him to deny (as the Grecians did) the proceeding of the holy ghost from the father and the son: is not only manifest to the contrary●…, to all that know, and often hear, in public place, the profession of his faith, to argue you to be a wilful malicious liar, Abhominatio est domino labia mendacia, prover. 12. lying lips are abominable to the Lord: but also the Bishops wordsminister no occasion, to gather any such surmise upon. Which showeth you to be a captious wrangling sophister, for the Bishop doth not flatly say, he was such an one as reform religion to the pureness thereof, which you make him here to say, but he said, Nicephorus in his Preface before his ecclesiastical story doth compare Emanuel Paleologus the Emperor to Constantine, for that he did so nearly imitate his dutifulness in ruling, procuring and reforming religion to the pureness thereof, in which words the Bishop sayeth, that Nicephorus commends him for this. And this have I proved at large that Nicephorus doth so, which is the bishops full discharge. How be it this you will not see, but make it the bishops flat assertion. Which yet notwithstanding were it so, no man, except he were set on gogge of pure malice, would wrist this sentence of the Bishop, to any other matter, than to the present controversy, of the Prince's duty and dealing in ecclesiastical matters, and not to every other opinion or vice, which was either in the Emperor, or in Nicephorus, or else in all the Grecians. And would you but limit yourself to the bounds of the question as the bishop doth: you could not have made this false extravagant challenge. And you should have seen that not only the bishop had discharged himself: but that, so far forth as this controversy stretcheth, both the Emperor, Nicephorus, and also all the Grecians (whatsoever they were in other points) in this controversy of the Princes supreme government, it appeareth, they were of a sound and true opinion, although you call it schismatical and heretical, whatsoever be against the Primacy of your Pope, but till you prove it so to be, no wise man will be moved with your bore so calling it. If you now deny that Nicephorus was of this opinion, Wherefore Nicephorus dedicated his ecclesiastical history to the Emperor. besides the Bishop's allegations that have proved it sufficiently: The same Preface of Nicephorus is full of other proves. First, Nicephorus dedicateth his ecclesiastical history to this Emperor, not only to have his public protection: but also to have the Emperor's censure and judgement, whether it were sound doctrine, agreeable to God's word, and meet to be set out among Christian people, or no. Inprimis vero si quid minus. etc. But chief (sayeth he) if Prefa. Niceph. anything should not have been declared of me in this work: that your mildness would pardon me, and by the sharpness of your judgement, you would cleanse my history, either by adding to, or taking therefrom. For whatsoever your judgement shall more exactly correct: that shall be accounted both to me and to all other, thankful and sure. Forbicause The princes exact judgement and censure in ecclesiastical matters. that, of all other which have been, unto thee it hath chief happened, by the readiness and quickness of nature, through the gift of God, to perceive and find out such things. And because thou knowest, both to reason and dispute with a just moderation, and also hast skill to expound divine matters with fear. And because thou canst excellently conceive in thy mind, and with an eloquent mouth declare that which thou thinkest good. And moreover canst in a manner give such judgement thereon, that one thing may be thoroughly known from the other. Neither is there any found so malapert or rash, that after thy correction and judgement, will abide to set his hand unto thy writing▪ etc. And the like sentence he hath towards the end of the Preface. Thus besides his authority, such an excellent judgement in determining and deciding divine and ecclesiastical matters, Nicephorus ascribeth to this Prince and commends him for: even as you would do to the Pope, or any of your most reverend holy fathers. All which you clean deny to Princes, to have any meddling, knowledge, judgement, or determination in them: but rather commend Princes for ignorance, and would have them only meddle with judging mere●…cuill matters. But Nicephorus, even where the Bishop left in citing his allegations (which were sufficient to any man, except to such a brabbler as you) saith to the Emperor. Moreover thou hast (with a fervent order) made more sincere and purer than gold, the priestly unction, which sounded of a certain corruption. And also both by setting out a law, and thy letters: thou hast taught a continency of manners, and contempt of money, by means whereof, the priestly ministry of the common weal is become holy, the which in former times by little and little, through a corruption of discipline and manners, was defiled and depraved. (And here noteth Langus in the Margin: Reformati●… Ecclesiae, The reformation The Prince's reformation of the priests, and of the Church. of the Church.) And thou conceiving always some more notable matter hast adorned the form, and state, and Image of the Church, most beautifully polishing it unto the primitive example. These things doth Nicephorus, over the Priests, the Bishops, and the whole Church, acknowledge in this Emperor, for their reformation as he says, so near as ●…e could to the primative Church. Which notwithstanding, as it was not true, in this error: so was it not (I grant also) in diverse other corruptions, agreeing some of them with the dregs of Popery. Yet for all this, he that saith Nicephorus saith so, neither lieth on him, nor thereupon fauou●…eth their errors. And he that saith so in this point of the princes supreme dealing, and delivering of the Grecians from that Thraldom to the Pope, into the which Michael perforce had brought them: shall not only say true in saying Nicephorus saith so: but also that therein, Nicephorus or any other, so saying, saith therein most true, he reform religion to the pureness thereof. But now that master Stapleton will have the Bishop clapped on the back, for an Heretic against the holy ghost, for showing only Nicephorus words, who shall clap on the back, Lazius, Langus, and all the doctors of Paris and Louvain, for setting out, allowing and approving this author to be very Catholic in all points, not making any exception of Heresy at all? If there be any upright judgement in yourself master St. let us see you roll in your railing rhetoric, and roar against them. Go clap them on the back and say patrisas, and you dare. You might so be clapped yourself by the heels, or have a faggot clapped on your shoulders if you did, to teach you to keep your clattering clapper better in your head. Your second part is somewhat better directed to the allegation of the Bishop out of S. Paul with Chrysostom's and Cyrils' judgement thereupon. Which you say is needless, and far from the matter, etc. That prosperity of the Stapl. 80. b common wealth and true religion springeth from good regiment or Magistrates, which we deny not (say you) and that the decay of religion destroyeth or deadly weakeneth the other which is also true. I●… you grant these to be true, master Stapleton, bow chance in your marginal notes, and store of untruths, you quarrel so sore thereat. There you say, there is no such words in Saint Paul and say: This would be noted how you rack S. Paul, he nameth not 79. ●…. religion at all, he doth not attribute religion to the rule and government of the civil Magistrate, but peace and tran●…llitie only in godliness. Thus you challenge the Bishop there for falsehood ●…nd M. Stapl. inconstancy and contradiction. racking. How truly shall appear in the answer to your bederoll of untruths. Only now I note yo●… unconstant dealing. For here you deny it not, but say it is ●…rue, all that the Bishop hath said thereon, and grant the ●…e as not prejudicial to your cause. But mark M. Stap. what here you grant, and confess to be true. That prosperity of the common wealth, and true religion, Stapl. 80. b springeth from the good regiment of Magistrates. If this be so as you say: then the Prince's regiment and direction in both these next under God (is simply the principal:) is the fountain of them both. And as the oversight, direction and chief authority of setting forth the one, so the oversight, direction, and the chief authority, of setting forth the other, floweth from the Prince, if either of those do spring from him. For how can that spring from him, which M Stap. granteth the good regiment of magistrates to be the spring of true religion. you neither make to be derived by any means from him, nor he to have any direction or government off, nor any taste, rellishe, care, or ●…edling therewith, as nothing belonging to him. Is this to be a spring or fountain of it? Which sith you grant unto the Prince (whether wittingly, or unadvisedly, I know not: nor by what cautel you ●…de to 〈◊〉 of the matter) it is 〈◊〉, simply to esta●… the Bishop's 〈◊〉, and to 〈◊〉 your cause, and 〈◊〉 your crafts, with your own plai●…e words, that here you say, it is true, and you will not deny it, the prosperity of the common weal, and true religion, springeth from the good regiment of Magistrates. Whereupon it followeth, that not only true religion belongeth to their regiment, out their regiment being a spring thereof, hath a superiority, and i●… the head as it were, in direction and setting forth true Religion among their subjects, as the spring hath a superiority, and is the head, in casting forth pure water into the brokes or rivers. Thus you see (master Stapleton) that the Bishop's allegation is so necessary and near●… to the matter, that both it concludeth the question in hand: and yourself in the end, are ●…ayne, or of force driven, to yield thereto in this point. And upon this, dependeth the other point, which you grant also to be true. That the decay of Religion destroyeth, or deadly weakeneth the other. Wherein you say we●…l Master Stapleton, if you grant it to the purpose wherefore it is alleged, that these two Prosperity & religion joined in a Prince things, prosperity and religion, are necessarily ●…o be combined in a Prince, whose regiment you have gra●…ed to be a spring, from whence both of these do come. For so, not only Saint Paul and chrysostom expounding him, & cyril also means: but even Nicephorus, the author last mentioned, in the said Prince doth commend: that Pr●…fa. Niceph. felicity, and the true worship of GOD were so knit●…e in him, that godliness by her force had drawn felicity to hi●…, or rather GOD had joined and tempered them together, to the end, that by the help of both these, he might become both in deed a marvelous help and succour, and also a steady stay, and firmament, as it were, to divine o●… Ecclesiastical matters beginning to fall away. And to this purpose are these two so joined together, in the Prince, that (as the Bishop sayeth, and you do not gainsay th●… same) The want of the one, (especially of religion) destroyth or deadly weakeneth the other. Sigh now therefore the B. and you agree that these point●… are true, (and how near either of these do comprehend the matter in controversy, is apparent) wherefore do you in peerless examples, and far from the matter, spend the time to prove that which neither the Bishop nor you ●…enye? As the utter ruin (say you) of the Empire of Greece proceeding Stap. 80. b. from the manifold heresies, especially that whereof we have discoursed, doth to well and to plainly testify. And therefore I would wish you and master Fox, with others, but you two above all others, with good advisement to note, that as the wicked jews that crucified Christ about the holy time of Easter, were at the very same time or thereabouts, besieged of the Romans, and shortly after brought to such desolation, and to such miserable wretched state, as in a manner is incredible, saving that beside the foreseeing and foresaying thereof by Christ, there is extant at this day a true & faithful report▪ even so your darlings the Grecians, whose error, but not alone, but accompanied with some other, that you at this day stoutly defend, yet especially rested in this heresy against the holy ghost, that you term with an unclean & an impure mouth, pure religion, were in their chief city of Constantinople, in the time of Constantinus son to john, nephew to Andronicus your Emanuels' Stapl. 85. ●…. father, even about Whitfontide (at which time the Catholic Church in true and sincere faith, concerning the holy ghost, keepeth a solemn festival day of the holy ghost, suddenly by the wicked Turks besieged, and shortly after the City and the whole Greek Empire came into the Turks hands and possession. Wherein God seemeth as before to the jews, so afterwards to the Grecians, as it were with pointing and notifying it with his finger, to show and to notify unto all the world the cause of the final destruction aswell of the one as of the other people. What is all this to the purpose M. Stapleton? what maketh this against the bishops matter, or to further yours, except to lengthen your tale? although it seemeth that your tale is false, neither you agree with yourself therein, it is false, because at that time the great Turk, besieged and won the Empire of Gréece, the Grecians had forsaken this heresy, yea, and that more is, acknowledged the Pope's supremacy (wherein the question lieth whether in so doing they fallen into another or not) for after their agreement at Lion's council by Michael Paleologus, and their revolt again under Andronicus the elder: john the son of Emanuel nephew to Andronicus the younger, whom before you mentioned, came to the council at Florence, that was called in spits of basil council, and agreed with Pope Eugenius, whom basil Council had deposed, and so continued in agreement with the Pope, till in Constantinus reign, brother to this john, the The Grecians fallen into the Turks captivity after this submission to the Pope. Turk besieged and overcame them. And so your tale is false, that say, they rested in this opinion till their captivity. Whereas, a good while before, they had quite forsaken it: after they fully understood the Latins opinion thereon, which before they did not. Secondly, you agree not with your own tale, for both in your Preface, and hereafter in many places, you ascribe the captivity of them, chief to their not acknowledging of the Pope: and so doth Uolaterane, which is as false as the other. For at that time they were fully agreed with him. And here (as one that had forgotten his former tale) you ascribe the chief cause of their captivity, to the heresy against the holy ghost, and so make your proportion between the jews bondage at Easter, and there's at Whitsuntide, at what time is celebrated the solemn feast of the holy ghost. And thereon, you take upon you (as though you were of God's secret counsel) to tell us how God pointed out the matter with his finger. But where to is all this so far fetched about? how is it brought into the purpose? For M. St. will have nothing here that is needless and far from the matter, forsooth this must be presupposed, that the Grecians are the B▪ darlings▪ and that the Bishop is of the same opinion, because he alleged Nicephorus, as is before said. And her upon he maketh his marginal note, a good advert cement for M. Horn, to consider the cause of the destruction of Constantinople. Where, by The Papists have as much cause or more, to beware by the Grecians captivity than the protestāns. this rule, he may say it is a good note for Langus, for Lazius, for the Sorbonistes of Paris, for his own Doctors, and good masters at Louvain (where he professeth himself a student in Divinity) to beware the same, for they have commended Nicephorus to all the world, and they allow his doctrine for pure religion in all points, not excepting this, and therforeal the Papists be belike the Grecians darlings, and deny the proceeding of the holy ghost from the father and the son, & so is it a fit admonition for the Popish catholics, than for the B. or any other Protestant, whose faith in this point, and all other concerning the holy ghost, the Papists can not blemish. And yet by your leave M. St. the Papists be not very sound in all points concerning the holy ghost, as I shall show you further when you require the same, and therefore they had more need of the twain, to beware of this ensample. But since M. Stapl. will so feign have this cause considered, of the Grecians captivity, I grant him, this their error might worthily be noted, a sufficient cause, or any oter error, or naughtiness of life, might well deserve the heavy hand of God, and the scourge of such a tyrant as the Turk. But, whatsoever they or we (to whom God be merciful) at God's hands do deserve: not entering into God's judgement, but speaking of men, the most likely and chiefest cause of this Empire's decay, is even the very The Pope the chief cause of the Greek emperors decay. The Pope also the chief cause of the West emperors decay. Pope himself, his ambitious treachery, first spoiled and divided the Empire into twain, and made all the West part forsake their sworn obedience. And hath also so spoiled this part of the Empire in the west, that besides the bore title of the Empire of Rome, the Emperor God wot, hath little or nothing, the Pope in effect hath all. And where the Emperor of Rome had wont to be Lord to the Bishop of Rome, and to other Bishops besides: The Bishop of Rome is now Lord to the Emperor of Rome, and to all other Princes besides, and to attain to his triple diadem over all Princes, he hath never ceased to stir and move such garboils, as all Christendom hath lost, only the Pope hath won thereby, and the barbarous nations have overrun all Europe, Asia, and Africa. No marvel then if at the length, Christian Princes powers being divided and weakened with continual war, and chief set on or maintained by the Pope, especially against the The Greek church never become captive to the Turk, till they become thrall to the Pope. Grecians: the Turks at the last have overcome the Empire, being destitute of foreign aid, and of themselves, given to wanton effeminateness. Although thus much I may justly note, they ever well enough defended and maintained themselves, till they acknowledged obedience to the Pope, who was the first cause of their ruin. Which done, they never throve after, but were in short time besieged & clean●… overcome. When they had once given their souls captive to the tyranny of the Pope, their bodies not long after become thrall to the slavery of the Turk. Which seemeth rather to be Gods just plague unto them, wherein (to use your own words) as it were, with pointing and notifying with his finger, he showeth to all the world, to beware of these two adversaries, the spiritual enemy the Pope, and the bodily enemy the Turk. Thus M. Stapleton, your needless admonition toucheth yourself and your Pope, nearer than you were a witted. Nevertheless, not so content, making as though you had (as in deed you have) overshot yourself, you pretend to draw nearer home. But what speak I of Greece (say you) we need not to run Stap. 81. a to so far years or countries, the case toucheth us much nearer: the Realm of Boheme, and of late years of France and Scotland, the noble Country of Germany, with some other that I need not name, be too too lively and pregnant examples, of this your true, but needless and impertinent admonition. How needless or impertinent the Bishop's admonition was, is seen already even by your own grant thereto. But how needless in deed, & impertinent altogether, are these your vain admonitions, which you call, a return: every body may see. And how fitly they return with a recumbentibus upon your own side: and how you control yourself for running to far: and yet you run at random further about the Countries, to Boheme, France, Scotland, Germany, and other nameless countries, to make them examples of your marginal note, Heresies the destruction of common weals. But thanks be to God, none of their common weals are destroyed, it is but your malicious slander on them. And if they have been troubled or weakened, the Papists practices have ever been the chief originals thereof, what soever you pretend, (to deface the Gospel) by calling all doctrine Heresy, be it never so pure and holy, if it be not by your popish Church allowed: calling all countries and common weals destroyed, how soever they flourish in prosperity, peace and godliness: if they refuse the Egyptian bondage of your spiritual Pharaoh the Pope. But why mention you not all that part of Hungary, The countries that obeyed the Pope, become thrall to the Turks cap tivitie. that acknowledging obedience to your Pope, nevertheless were overcome and conquered of the Turks? why forget you your mighty bulwark and holy knights of the Rhodes? I wisse they were the Pope's champions, and yet his blessing could not save them from the Turkish bondage. You say there is some other place that you need not name, what mean you thereby? Rome itself? that so many times hath been sacked, destroyed and left waste, and at this day the old City, for the most part, not inhabited, except of owls and vermin in the ruins thereof, and the new City deftled (besides Idolatry and superstition) with most notorious filthy fornication and stews of courtesans, your Pope himself being the vicar of bawds in maintaining his estate by such filthy lucre. And this is counted among you, the most holy common weal, yea such a mirror to all other: that those Cities which conform themselves to this common weal of Rome, can neither err, nor be in danger of destruction. But even so said Sodom and Gomor, till their destruction came suddenly upon them. M. Stapl. having thus puffed up his counterblast with Stapl. 81. ●… these discourses in both his foresaid parts, descendeth now to the third. And now might I here break of (sayeth he) from this, and go further forth, saving that I cannot suffer you to blear the reader's eyes, as though the emperors Theodosius, or Valentinianus sayings or doings should serve any thing for your pretenced primacy. In deed, M. Stapleton it is more than high time, that you had broken off long or this, except you would or could have answered▪ better to the purpose, and not to have driven your counterblast further forth, with such heaps of digressions, needless to the matter, but not needless to your purpose, to blear the reader's eyes, when otherwise▪ you Blearing the reader's eyes. needed a material answers. But here (such is your zeal) you can not suffer the Bishop to blear the reader's eyes. This zeal M. Stapleton were commendable in you, if you meant good sooth, or the Bishop had bleared the reader's eyes, and not simply and plainly set down the truth, that even the bleared eyes (if they were not clean blinded with overmuch affection) might well behold it. But it is rather to be feared, that as you played before, pretending to dissipate and discuss mists (where in deed none was) you raised mists and cast clouds, lest the reader should have espied the matter as it was: so here, though the reader's eyes were clear, you would blear and dim them, and if he were blear eyed any whit before, you would soon mend the matter and make him stark blind. For even as you there did, so eftsoons do you here. The Bishops alleging of these Emperors, stayeth you from breaking off, and from going further forth▪ you can not suffer the Bishop to blear the reader's eyes. And yet to any thing that the Bishop out of these Emperors allegeth (what soever the matter mean) you answer not one word. Except this be an answer (as they say) to set the Hare's head against the Goose iublettes, to set one allegation against another. If the Bishop hath bleared the reader's How M. Stapl. answers the Bishop's allegation. eyes, he cited as long an allegation as yours, show then where he bleared them. If he cited any thing false, name the place. But false or true, say something to it, or to some piece of it, and not thus slink away without any answer at all, to the whole, or any part thereof. What shall the reader judge (if he can see any thing) but that the Bishop goeth plainly to work, and it is you that would blear his eyes, and put them out, if you could, to keep the reader still in ignorance and wilful blindness. If the Bishop's allegation be such as deserveth no answer: at the lest you might have said so. Howbeit, that you should not so blear the reader's eyes, and that the reader should see both the Bishops plain dealing, and the plain truth of the matter, and how fully it proveth the Bishop's purpose, and the Prince's duty, care, charge, and supreme government over matters Ecclesiastical: I will set down not only so much as the Bishop alleged, but the whole Epistle. first, having showed, that the surety of the common weal dependeth upon God's religion, and what a great kindred and society is betwixt these twain, true Religion, and justice: ●…ith therefore we (sayeth the Emperor) are constituted of God to Cyril. epi. 17. ●…om▪ 4. be the Kings, and are the knitting together or jointure of godliness and prosperity in the subjects, we keep the society of these twain, never to be sundered: and so far forth as by our foresight we procure peace unto our subjects, we minister unto the augmenting of the common weal, but, as we might say, being servants to our subjects in all things, that they may live godly, and be of a religious conversation as it becometh godly one's. We garnish the Wherein the Emperors chief care consisted. common weal with honour, having care (as it is convenient) of them both, (that is peace and true religion) for it cannot be, that diligently providing for the one, we should not care in like sort, also for the other. But we travail earnestly in this thing above the rest, that the Ecclesiastical state may remain sure, both in such sort, as is seemly for God's honour, and fit for our times, that it may continued in tranquillity by common consent without variance, that it may be quiet through agreement in Ecclesiastical matters, that the godly religion may be preserved unreprovable, and that the life of such as are choose into the Clergy, and the great priesthood, may be clear from all fault. Thus doth the Emperor protest of the guidance, care & charge that he thought belonged to his high office, not only in providing, ordering, & directing public peace and justice but also as much, or rather much more, & most of all, godliness, true religion, Ecclesiastical matters, and Ecclesiastical people, to live blameless in their spiritual vocations, so well as the laity to live in peace and justice. And that in all these points the Prince is the knitting together & iointur●… of the one, so well as of the other. Which flatly argueth, that the direction and preserving of both causes & people, next under God, doth appertain to his government, being both knit alike to his authority. What false dealing? what blearing of eyes hath the Bishop here used? having faithfully set down the Emperors own words, which as they fully show Theodosius his mind: so they fully prove the present question, & conclude the Prince's supreme authority, so well in Ecclesiastical matters, as in temporal. To all this master Stap. thought best to answer not one word, but to let it go, telling us, that the emperors sayings or doings, serve nothing for our Obscurity. pretenced primacy: and that this is wandering in an ob scure generality. This may well be called a Counterblast, M. Stap. If this be sufficient answer to the bishop's allegation, let others judge. You complain it is obscure, it may perchance so appear to your eyes, bleared with affection, or rather blinded with wilfulness. So is the Gospel obscure to those that would not see, and the savour of death to 2. Cor. 2. those that perish. Clear light is noisome to dim sights. Every body save you, and such as are bleared by you, may easily see a far off the plainness of these proves. Now where you say, he wandereth in an obscure generality, whereof can not be enforced any certain particularity Stapl. 8 ●…▪ b of the principal question: Otherwhiles, M. St. you complain of particularities, & require the B. to prove generalities, or else you cry, it cometh Generalities. short. Here the Bishop having proved this generality, by your own confession, now you quarrel at generalities. I perceive nothing will content a froward brabbler, but any other that list not to quarrel, will soon perceive that this generality that you complain of, both comprehendeth the particulars, & also satisfieth that, that you call so often for, to prove a supreme government over all ecclesiastical matters in general, which fully answereth even to the oath likewise. Nevertheless, sith you would slip away by wandering Particularities . about particulars: This Epistle of the Emperor showeth his supreme direction and government even in particulars, and that principal particulars also. This Epistle being directed from the foresaid Emperors to Cyrillus, a chief ecclesiastical Prelate, and patriarch of Alexandria, after the Emperors (as is before said) have declared, this their general care and government▪ so well over ecclesiastical matters as temporal: But when (say they to Cyril) Cyril. epi. 17. tom. 4. we understood, both by our love to God, and our mind loving his truth, that these things might be obtained in those that are godly, we have now often thought it very necessary, by reason of those things that have happened luckyly, to have a Synod most dear unto God, of those most holy Bishops which be every where, etc. And so showing the cause of their delay, and the necessity of the Ecclesiastical matters: they command cyril, with other Bishops, not to fail, bu●… be ready at Ephesus, at Whytsontide next following. For (say they) the Copies of the same Synod are already sent out from our Majesties to the bishops beloved in GOD, throughout all the Metropolitan Cities, that this being done, both the trouble, which hath happened on these controversies be dislolued, according to the ecclesiastical rules, and those things corrected that are unseemly committed. And that godliness may be, towards God, and profitable establishment to public matters. Neither let any thing be severally innovate, in any matter of any person, before the holy Synod, and the common sentence of it to come. And we are fully persuaded, that every one of the Priests most dear to God, both forbecause of the ecclesiastical and public matters, being thoroughly moved by this our sanction or Edict: will speedily make haste towards this council, with diligent endeavour, and to their abilities consult upon these matters, being so necessary, and appertaining to the good pleasure of God. As for us, we having much care of these things, will suffer no man lightly to be wanting, neither shall he have any excuse before God, or before us if any out of hand do not diligently appear at the foresaid time, in the place determined etc. Thus even in this Epistle, in particularities also, doth Theodosius show his supreme authority. But you will say, these are not principal particulars, the principal particulars are to dispute upon the questions, to resolve the doubts, to debate the matter, and to indge and determine which part is the truth thereof. These parts (say you) are the principal, these parts belong not to the The discussing and debating Ecclesiastical matters, argueth not the supreme government of them. Prince, but to the Priests. That these things, master Sta belong to those, that for their function have the knowledge and profession of them, no man denieth, no more than that lawyers should have the like debating, trying, and determining the truth, of any doubt in the law. But this, nothing hindereth the Prince's supreme authority and government in his laws, no more doth it in the debating, trying, and determining doubts in any ecclesiastical matters (in the discussing whereof, the Prince is ignorant) debar his supreme authority and government, in all such cases debated or defined. These doings therefore though they be the principal in respect of the examining of such doubts, yet in respects of the ordering, directing, disposing, setting them out, and maintaining them; the Princes doings are far more principal particulars. As when a doubt in the law ariseth, to call all the Lawyers together, high and low what estate soever they be off, to appoint them the place and time of meeting, where, and when, to direct and order their assembly, and what they have judged to be the law therein, to ratify and allow it, to set it forth, and maintain it, this doing theweth the Prince to be the supreme governor in all Laive matters: though he neither debate nor determine the truth thereof. Scythe therefore Theodosius did thus much, as this that is here showed, and as that, hereafter (to which you refer yourself) shall further declare: this is enough to argue his supreme government in all Ecclesiastical matters, even by these particulars. If all this prove no supremacy, why grant you not thus much to Princes now, that you see these Emperors had then? how chance your Pope will neither suffer the Emperors now to summon a Council, to cite and call the Bishops together, to assign them a place whereto they shall resort and keep their Council, to appoint the time to meet and begin their Council in? How chance your Pope will not suffer Princes in their several dominions to have the like synods, but will do all, either general or Provincial, by himself, or by his Legates▪ Forsooth when he doth it, than it is a principal matter, it argueth his supremacy, and therefore none can do it but he. But now, when examples are found and alleged, that Christian Princes had wont to do it: Ergo, They were supreme then belike therein. Nay, than it argueth no supremacy, than it is no principal matter, nor any eccl. matter How the Papists elude the examples of christian princes. at al. Thus you play mockhalliday with us, and boe peep, as though we were children, it is, and is not. When the Pope doth it, than it argueth a supremacy, when the Prince doth it, than it argueth none. And why so? for sooth, than the case is altered. Thus do you dally out the matter, and when any substantial proof is brought against you, either you give it such a mock as this, or leap clean over it, as though you saw it not, or in steed of answer to that that is propounded, propound yourself an other allegation, which is, clau●…m clavo pellere, to drive out one nail by another. For to the allegation out of the emperors Theodosius and Ualentinianus Epistle, you answer nothing, but set a piece of another letter of Valentinian to Theodosius in the teeth of it. We, saith Valentinian to the Emperor Theodosius, Stapl. 81. b (say you) aught to defend the faith which we received of our ancestors, with all competent devotion, and in this our time preserve unblemished the worthy reverence due to the blessed Apostle saint Peter, so that the most blessed Bishop of the City of Rome, to whom antiquity hath given the principality of Priesthood above all other, may (O most blessed father and honourable Emperor) have place and liberty, to give judgement in such matters as concern faith and Priests. And for this cause the bishop of Constantinople hath according to solemn order of Counsels by his Libel, appealed unto him. And this is written (M. Horn) to Theodosius himself, by a common letter of Valentinian. And the Empresses Placidia & Eudoxia, which Placidia writeth also a particular letter to her said son Theodosius, and altogether in the same sense. Here you clap up a marginal note, The Pope's supremacy Proved by the Emperor Valentinian, alleged by M. Horn. And here again full triumphantly you cry out. hearken good M. Horn, & give good advertisement: I walk Stapl. 81. b. not and wander as you do here, alleging this Emperor, in an obscure generality, whereof cannot be enforced any particularity of the principal question. I go to work with you plainly, truly, and particularly. I show you by your own Emperor, & by plain words the Pope's supremacy, & the practice withal of appeals from Constantinople to Rome. Here is a jolly face of this matter, M. St. But yet here is not one word to answer the bishop's allegation, but to commend your own, that you set against it: and so think you answer it, because it is of the same Emperor Valentinian, whom the bishop alleged. But such answer as it is, sith you can make no other, we must take it, or none at your hands. Nevertheless, since you so crack, that you walk not and wander not in obscure generalities, but go plainly and particularly to work: if you meant as you say, how chance you open not any of the necessary particular circumstances of the matter, whereupon the Emperor written, which might have made this matter plain, & would have showed what, and wherein they commended the B. of Rome, and what authority belonged to the Emperor. Yea if you had but set down a little more largely, the self same Epistles that you cite: the matter had been a great deal more clear. You say also, you go truly to work, and yet you falsely translate, even those very words that you city, and so cut them off, ere you come to the period: that, that which should have showed the matter, to have been about a particular controversy of the faith then ris●…n, might seem to be generally spoken of all controversies. And therefore you leave out these words: For the controversy of the faith that is sprung up: And where the words of your allegation are, Locum habeat M. Stapl. false and subtle translation. ac facultat●…m, de fide & sacerdotibus judicare, that he may have place, and leave or faculty, to judge of the faith, and of the Priests: you captiously and falsely translate it, that he may have place and liberty to give judgement in such matters as concern faith and Priests. This subtle translation in general you use, to make it appear, that the Bishop of Rome hath a general authority, to be the chief judge to decide all doubts in matters of faith, and to be the chief judge of all Priests, where your text infereth no such thing. Likewise where the Emperor saith, of the Bishop of the City of Rome: to whom antiquity hath yielded the principality of Priesthood above all others: you conclude that by plain words is showed the Pope's supremacy, and so set up your Marginal note, The Pope's supremacy proved by the Emperor Valentinian. Where in your letter are no such plain words of supremacy, nor any proof thereof at all. Do you think that the Emperor acknowledged that supremacy, which your Pope now challengeth and usurpeth, not only over all Priests but over all Kings and Emperors also? No master Stapleton, it is evident, by the dealing of these Emperors, and that even in this matter, that the Pope, ●…ad no such supremacy, but the Emperor did those things then, that your Pope doth claim now: as further shall appear, in the proper treatise thereof. Your Pope now would be loath to be such an humble L●…, and fall down to the eagles feet, as the Pope did then to the Emperor, which now you make the Emperor do to the Pope's feet. For why, you may ●…ay, ●…empora mutantur, & nos mutamur in illis, the times are changed, and we are changed in them. All the plain words and proves you crack of, for this supremacy are these, that the Emperor saith, antiquity gave him the principality of Priesthood. But there Principality of priest ●…ode. is a great difference between the principality of Priesthood, and supreme head or chief governor of Priesthood, or that all Priesthood is derived out of the Pope's Priesthood, as divers of your writers affirm, that Christ made Peter only a Priest, and all the other Apostles had their Priesthood from him, and so Priesthood sprung not from Peter. all other from the Bishop of Rome, whom they call his successor. But as they err in the office of Priesthood (whereof God willing we shall speak hereafter) so whatsoever the office of their Priesthood was, their saying is manifest ●…alse. For if Peter were a man as he Gal. 2. confessed himself to be S. Paul saith, he had not his authority of men, but immediately of God, and Peter gave him nothing, neither yet james nor john. And here, if I might spur you a question, because master Heskins setteth out his Parliament, so solemnly before his book in pictures for the nonce, making s. james the first that said Mass, wherein he followeth the common opinion of the Papists: I demand (if Peter was made The Papists say S. james said the 〈◊〉 Mass. Peter no massing priest. the first priest, & all other from him) how s. james could say the first mass that was said? was Peter made Priest without singing or saying his first mass, or any mass at all? then belike Peter was no mass 〈◊〉 priest, & 〈◊〉 pope hath not h●… principality of priesthood from Peter, nor any priesthood at all from him, for Peter's was no massing Priesthood, such as the Pope's is, and pretendeth to be the principal of that order. But at your leisure answer this, only now I note, that there is a great difference between the principality of Priesthood, and the supremacy of all the Church of Christ, which is your conclusion, and that that your Pope challengeth. But the emperors words here do nothing prove it. And yet such principality or excellency of Priesthood, as it was, it neither came from God, nor from Peter, for any thing that either is plainly alleged, or proved here, but rather the plain words are to the contrary, that this principality was yielded and given to the Bishop of the City of Rome, by men, for so saith the Emperor, antiquit as contulit, antiquity gave it. Being partly moved with the opinion that Peter was bishop there, and partly for that Rome was the ancient and most famous City of the Empire, as appeareth in the next Epistle of Placidia, by you mentioned, who calleth it, Civitatem antiquam, the ancient City, and the City that is the Lady of all the emperors Cities. And therefore it become them to conserve the reverence thereof. For which considerations, that antiquity gave to it the principality, and to the bishop thereof. Which principality of priesthood, or bishoph●…, was not above, but under the principality of the emperors estate, as appeareth even by these Epistles cited by you. For first in the Epistle whereout you take your allegation, Ualentinianus telleth, how when he came to Rome, I was (saith he) both of the Roman Bishop, and also of other that were with him, gathered together out of divers provinces, entreated to writ to your mildness (says Valentinian to Theodosius, of the faith, which being the preserver of all faithful souls, is said to be troubled, which faith, being delivered us from our Elders, we aught to defend with all competent devotion, & in our times to conserve unblemished the dignity of the reverence proper to the blessed Apostle Peter, so that the most blessed B. of the city of Rome, to whom antiquity hath given a principality of Priesthood above all others, may (O most blessed Lord, Father, and honourable Emperor) have place and faculty to judge of the faith of the Priests, and for this cause according to the solemnity of Counsels the Bishop of Constantinople hath appealed to him by his Libels, for the contention that is sprung up of the faith, to him therefore (requesting and adjuring me by our common saving health) I denied not to grant thus much, as to move my petition to your mildness, that the foresaid Priest (meaning the Bishop of Rome) all the other Priests being also gathered together through all the world, within Italy (all other former judgement set aside) may with diligent trial, searching all the matter that is in controversy, from the beginning, give such sentence thereon, as the faith and the reason of the true divinity shall require. For in our times, the frowardness of multitudes aught not to prevail against religion, since hitherto the faith hath been conserved steadfast. And to the more perfect instruction of your worthiness, we have also directed the gests whereby your godliness may know the desires and outcries of them all. Thus far the Epistle. Which if you had withal set What manner of principality of priesthood Valentinian meant. down, it would have dashed your Marginal note and conclusion of the Pope's supremacy. It would have showed that this principality of priesthood, was so under the Prince's principality, that the Pope was feign to labour to Uale●…tinian, and the Empresses also, to writ to Theodosius, that he might have place & leave to judge the matter. And that the place of judging it, might be in Italy, and the Bishop of Rome might give sentence, not as he himself should please, but conditionally as the truth should require, and that thus he would admit the Bishop of Constantinoples' appeal to take place, and so he sendeth all the gests of the matter for the Emperor to peruse and know them, and to grant their petitions and desires. In all which things though there were a principality of the Priests and Bishops and chief of the Bishop of the chief imperial City, old Rome, so far as appertaineth to the debating, discussing, and judging the doubts in controversy: yet so far as appertaineth to the licensing thereto, the commanding, directing, ordering, setting out, and maintaining even of the same Synodical judgements, of the Bishop of Rome or any other: the supreme principality belonged to the Emperors. And this appeareth yet further by the other Epistles, that you mention. In the next Epistle of the Empress Placidia, to Theodosius the Emperor her Son, for the Bishops of Rome and of Constantinople: after she hath showed with what tears the Bishop of Rome moved her to writ, she showeth how all things were done unorderly at Ephesus, against Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople, because (sayeth she) he sent a libel to the Apostolical seat, and to Concil. tom. 1. all the Bishops of these parties, by those which were in the Council, directed from the most Reverend Bishop of The Epistle of Placidia to Theodosius. Rome. Who are accustomed (O most holy Lord my Son and reverent Emperor) to be put according to the Decrees of Nicene Council: and for this cause, let your mildness (withstanding so great troubles) command the truth of the Religion of the Catholic faith, to be kept undefiled. And so ascribing a principal prerogative to the Bishop of Rome, she desireth the Emperor, that the judgement of the matter may be sent over to him. Which showeth that the Bishop of Rome's principality was underneath the Emperors. Likewise in the next Epistle of Eudoxia to Theodosius, The Epistle of Eudoxia to Theodosius. after she hath praised the Emperor, saying: It is known unto all men, that your mildness hath a care and earnest heedfulness of Christians, and of the Catholic faith, in so much that you would command nothing at all to be done to the injury of it. And after she hath showed how the Bishop of Rome besought her in the foresaid matter, to direct her letters to the Emperor: saluting you (saith she) I desire right, that your tranquillity would vouchsafe to have care to the letters, and those things that are ill done you would command them to be amended, until that all things that also already are determined, be altogether revoked, the cause of the faith and Christian religion that is moved, in a Council gathered together in the parts of Italy, may be fetched out. For it is written that all this contention raised, cometh from hence that the Bishop Flavianus might be removed from the Ecclesiastical dealings. Thus do these Empresses writ for Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople, and for the Bishop of Rome. Wherein though they ascribe the dealings to the Council and to the Bishop of Rome, yet the licence and authority to do any thing, or to stay any thing, they all ascribe to the Emperor. And as they ascribe this, in these Epistles unto him (which argueth his supreme government in all these matters) so the Emperor in the answers to these Epistles, that are immediately set down to those by you cited, acknowledgeth and claims his supreme authority therein. In the answer to the first, from whence you bring your Theodosius Epistle to Valentinian. allegation for the Pope's primacy, he says: The Emperor Theodosius to my Lord Valentinian Emperor. In the beginning of your letters, it is signified by your Majesty both that your mildness came to Rome, and that a petition was offered up to you, by Leo the most reverend patriarch. As concerning your safe return to the City of Rome (O my Lord, my most holy Son, and honourable Emperor,) we tender thanks accordingly to the divine Majesty, but as concerning those things which the foresaid most reverend man hath spoken, it is already declared unto him more plainly and fully (as we suppose) and he knoweth that we serve in no part from the Religion of our fathers, and the tradition of our ancestors. We will, no other thing, than the father's sacraments delivered as by succession to keep them inviolably. For this cause therefore, having knowledge that certain people with hurtful novelty trouble the most holy Churches, we have decreed a Synod to be held at Ephesus. Whereas, in the presence of the most reverend Bishops, with much liberty, and with sound truth, both the unworthy were removed from their Priesthood, and those that were judged to be worthy were received. We therefore know nothing committed of them, contrary to the rules of faith, or justice. Therefore all the contention was examined of the holy Council, & Flavianus which was found guilty of hurtful newfangledness, hath received his dew, and he being removed, all peace and concord remains in the Churches, and nothing but truth doth flourish. Thus the dealing and determining of the controversy, Wherein the Emperor had the government of the council. remaining Synodically to the Priests and Bishops, the decreing of the Council, the assigning of the time and place thereto, the giving them in charge to bolt out the truth, the receiving intelligence from them of their judgements, the allowing and ratifying their determination, belonged to Theodosius. And in respect of this his supreme doing, though at other times he extol the Bishop of Rome: yet here he only calleth him, but, most reverend patriarch, and most reverend man, as he calleth other Bishops. The answer to the second Epistle hath the like. Theodosius to my Lady Placidia the honourable Empress: our highness understandeth by the letters of your mildness, what the most reverend patriarch Leo hath desired of your highness. To these your letters we declare, that concerning those things which are spoken of the most reverend Bishop, we have written often times already more fully and more at large, by which writing it is without doubt manifest, that we have defined or decreed or understood nothing besides the faith of the fathers, or the divine opinions, or the definitions of the most reverend Bishops, which were gathered together in the City of Nice, under Constantine of godly memory: or of late were gathered together at Ephesus by our precept. But this only we commanded to be ordained, that all people, which by noisome hurtfulness troubled the holy Churches, should worthily be removed. etc. Thus doth the Emperor command the Council to be held. He giveth a general charge to the Bishops to ordain that that they ordained, to weet, the expulsion or deposition of perturbers of the Church whatsoever they were, and in what matter ecclesiastical soever they were. And when the Bishops had according to the emperors commandment ordeynes this decree, and in their synodical discussing of the matter, found out Flavianus (though therein they did him wrong) to be culpable hereof: then the The Emperor decreeth the decree of the Council. Emperor peruseth, ratifieth and confirmeth the same their synodical judgement, and saith, he defined and decreed it himself, because he approved and confirmed their definition and decree. Which is a manifest argument of Thodosius supreme authority, over all the Bishops debating and determining of their ecclesiastical constitutions. To the same effect is the other Epistle to Eudoxia. Wherein he telleth the Empress flatly, that since these things were already decreed, it was not possible to determine of the matter No appeal after the emperors decree. any more. In which denial of suffering the matter to be tried any further, he showeth also his supreme authority of debarring and frustrating any appeals to Rome, that you make so great account upon. The Emperor will not only not suffer it to take place, and to infringe the Counsels and his own doing: but saith it is impossible to proceed on the matter already determined. And thus he rejecteth Flavianus appeal from the Ephe●…ine Council to the Bishop of Rome. Which Council notwithstanding should also have been held by the emperors leave and appointment. But he would not allow it, although Pope Lee laboured to him, and to Valentinian Emperors, to Eudoria and Placidia Empresses never so much therefore. Lo M. St. here are the generalities and the particularities also. Wherein you may see what belongeth to either party. Hearken good M. Stap. and give good advertisement thereto, since you will not utter it yourself, and yet would have us listen to you. You say you wander not in obscure generalities, but you go to work plainly, truly, and particularly. And yet of all this you speak not one word. You would neither answer●… the Bishop's allegation, but set another against it, which is no plain nor true kind of answering: neither yet for that you allege, you allege it either plainly or truly or particularly, as you pretend. But cull out a piece of that, that seemeth to set forth your cause, by extolling the Bishop of Rome, and when the matter is plainly, truly, and particularly sifted out, it neither proveth any supremacy for him: and in all points, showeth the Prince's supremacy against you. But you are the more to be born withal, for I think you read not the whole particulars, but either as your common places led you, or the title prefixed tickled you, that says In qua quoque Romani Pontifici●… authoritas com●…ndatur, Wherein also the authority of the Bishop of Rome is commended. And so greedily you snatched at that sentence, and let go all the residue. But, call you this plainly, truly, and particularly going to work, master Stapleton? The. 26. Division. THe Bishop having hitherto as master Feck required in his issue, proved by the Scriptures both by the old testament and the new, and by some such Doctors as have written thereon, and also (which was more than M. Feck. requested) by the ecclesiastical writers, & Nicephorus, and by some of those Emperors whom they commend for most godly, proved the like government in Church causes as the Queen's Majesty taketh upon her of duty to belong to civil magistrates: he concludeth there upon, by these two parts of the request so satisfied, that they may and aught to take the same upon them. Which done, he promises to enter into the other twain, to prove the same by the continual practice of like government in some one part of Christendom, and by the general Counsels. To this answereth M St. Hitherto you have not brought Stapl. 82. ●…. any one thing to the substantial proof of your purpose, worth a good straw, neither Scripture, nor Doctor nor Emperor. This is a short answer indeed, as if jacke straw had made it, and not a student of divinity. All is not worth a straw with you. Such was the judgement of Esop's dunghill Cock when he found the precious stone. Have you done nothing master Stapleton but scraped straws? though you esteem better of your own doings, whereupon (as it were an other Chaunticlere) you cr●…we and crack so often: yet set not so little by the doings of other men, and th●…se that are far your betters. But what are the Bishops proves the less worth, for this your strawish judgement. Your bolt M. St. is soon shot, but a railers tongue is they say no slander. Let others judge, that have more judgement, what the Bishops proves amount unto. And let them judge even by this your Counterblast, that you have blown out against these proves, to overturn them. Which, had they been as light as a straw, you might have easily done, and never have puffed up such a stormy Counterblast. But let them judge what your Counterblast hath done, and whether you have blown away so much as one straw breadth from the matter, one proof of all the Bishop's proofs. But lest I should also be like to you, I remit the judgement of the whole to other: yea, in God's name, to any of your own side, that with any indifferency will examine both. You quarrel further, at the lest to blemish the Bishop with suspicion of heresy, saying: Among your four Emperors by you named, you have juggled Stapl. 82. ●… in one that was a stark Heretic, but as subtly as ye thought you had handled the matter, you have not so craftily conveyed your galls, but that you are espied. You have told us of this often enough (master Stapleton) if that would help you, though you told it not so juglerlike as now, although with as much bitterness of gall, as ever the Act. ●…. juggler or sorcerer Simon Magus had. With Heretic, stark Heretic, wretched Heretic, etc. But you never tell how the Bishop cited him. For, were he Heretic or were he not, (as it is a question, by Saint Augustine's definition of an Heretic) yet in that point that the Bishop cited him, you can prove him no Heretic. But whatsoever he were, the B. is clearly discharged, to your own shame and to all your doctors of Louvain, where you learn your good divinity. And this is all that you have to say to the Bishops proves hitherto. Now, to that he promises to enter into the residue, there is yet one thing, that (after all your railings) you commend him for. Yet for one thing (say you) are you here to be commended, Stapl. 82. ●…. that now you would seem to frame us a certain fixed state of the matter to be debated upon, and to the which you would seem to direct your proofs, that you will bring. And therein you deal with us better than hitherto you have done, seeming to seek by dark generalities, as it were corners, to lusk & lurk in. Neither yet here walk you so plainly and truly as you would seem, but in great darkness, with a sconce of dim light, that the readers should not have the clear view & sight of the right way you should walk in, whom with this your dark sconce you lead far awry. For thus you frame us the state of the question These are but words M. Stap. to spend time and fill paper. You know best your own practices. You tell us before hand the Bishop will do so. Tell us so when you come to it. It seemeth he mindeth it not, even by your own confession, prefixing a state of the matter to be debated upon, & to direct his proves unto. This is not the way of one that would lu●…ke or lurk with dark sconces in corners, nor the B hitherto hath go thus to work, it is one of your ordinary slanders, his proves are evident, name one that is not directed to the issue set between him & M. Feck. & that fully proveth it not, but that sconce of your own hath left no corner unsought, to ●…usk and lurk in, and to lead the Reader about the bush, as besides this, your common place of impertinent matters, will (for the most part) declare. The. 27. Division. THe B. having proved his issue by the two foresaid parts, the scriptures, & the Doctors, being entered into the other twain, the Counsels & the practice: since the issue requireth the proof, of Any such government as the QUEEN'S majesty now taketh upon her: the B. first expresseth her majesties government, & thereon, according to the issue, maketh his general state, to level his proves unto, the B. words are these: The government that the Q. Majesty most Pag. 19 b. justly taketh upon her in ecclesiastical causes, is the guiding, caring, providing, ordering, and aiding the ecclesiastical state, within her dominions, to the furtherance, maintenance, and setting forth of true religion, unity, and quietness of Christ's Church, overseeing, visiting, refourming, restraining, amending, and correcting all manner people, with all manner errors, superstitions, heresies, schisms, abuses, offences, contemptes and enormities, in or about Christ's religion whatsoever. This same authority, rule, and government was practised in the catholic Church by the most Christian kings and Emperors, approved, confirmed, & commended by the best Counsels both general and national. The effect of M. Stapletons' answer to this, is all against the state of the question, that the Bishop here setteth down, M St. order to this division. and is divided chief into three points. In the first he challengeth the bishop to altar the state of the question in hand, and setteth himself down another state, to the which he would have the Bishop direct his proves. Secondly, he travaileth to show, that the Bishop concealed two clauses of the statute, that should chief have expressed the state and what inconvenience may ensue thereby. Thirdly, he allegeth the excuses of the Papists, for refusing the oath. In his first part, being deducted into these two members, to quarrel at the Bishop's state, and to set up his own: for the former, thus saith M. Stapleton. Here is a state framed of you M. Horn, but fane square Stapl. 82. b. cap. 20. from the question in hand. For the question is not now between M. Feckenham and you, whether the Prince may visit, reform and correct all manner of people, for all manner of heresies and schisms, and offences in Christian religion, which perchance in some sense might somewhat be born withal, if you mean by this visitation, the outward execution of the Church laws and decrees, confirmed by the civil magistrate, roborated with hisedicts, and executed with his sword. For in such sort many Emperors & Princes, have fortified & strengthened the decrees of Bishops made in Counsels both general & National, as we shall in the process see. And this in christian Princess is not denied but commended. What the state of the question in hand is, the reader hath often heard. How be it, such is your importunity, that you The state of the question. will never leave your old warbling. But for the full satisfying of the Reader berein, let him once again resort to the issue that M. Feck requireth of the bishop to direct all his four means unto, wherein he would be satisfied. And that is contained in these flat words. When your L. shall be able by any of these four Supra pag. 136. means, to make proof unto me, that any Emperor or Empress, King or Queen, may claim or take upon them any such government in spiritual or ecclesiastical causes: I shall herein yield. etc. This then is the state of the question between them: whether any Prince may take upon him any such government in spiritual or ecclesiastical causes, as the Queen's Majesty doth. Now wheresoever the B. proveth anything by the four fore said means, that any Prince hath taken upon him any such government, as doth the Queen's Majesty in causes ecclesiastical: there the bishop keepeth himself to the state of the question in hand, and satisfieth M. Fecknams issue. What the bishop hath done in the two foresaid means, is evident by that that is past, let others judge thereon. Here, the B. entering into the other two means, prefixeth this issue again before him to level his proves by. The issue is now, that by any of these two means remaining, he shall prove that any Prince may claim or take upon him any such government as the Queen's Majesty in Ecclesiastical matters doth. And where the B. by any of these two means, shall prove that any Princes have taken ●…pon them, any such government in ecclesiastical matters, as the Q. Majesty doth: there the B. digresseth nothing from his question, & also satisfieth M. Feck▪ demand. This then being the state of the question between them, the proof of any such government in ecclesiastical causes: the B. first setteth here down the particulars that plainly declare, what government this is that the Q. Majesty taketh on her, whereto he must direct his proves. So that now that question in hand is this. What is that government, & in what particulars consists it, that the Q. majesty taketh on her? Which when here the B. doth specify, & in the last Chapter M. Stapl. himself commended the bishop for his orderly going to work therein, and now crieth out, here is a state framed far square from the question in had: whether it be so or not, & whether it be not plain dealing of the B. and plain warbling of M. St. let any man be indifferent judge between them. But M. Stapl. saith: the question is not now between M. Feck. and you whether the Prince may visit, reform and correct all manner of people for all manner of schisms, heresies and offences in Christian religion. True in deed M. St. the question is not now whether the Prince may do these things that you rehearse or not, but the question that is now in hand, being deducted out of the words of the issue, (any such government) demandeth first, what kind of government that is, that the Q. majesty doth claim and take upon her? to the which question the B. answereth: the government that her highness taketh on her is such and such. etc. And so the state of the question is known, what kind of government the B. must prove. And look where he proveth any such government, there M. Feckenhams request is answered. And if he can not prove any such, then M. Feckenham may complain that he is not satisfied. And, as he is bound to perform his promise of thankful yielding: so have you no cause to warble at this the B. diligent enumeration of those particularities of the principal question, lest, both you should wander in an obscure generality, & also contrary your late vaunt, that you go to work plainly, truly, and particularly. But see your falsehood, how chance you set not down the Bishop's words as he spoke them, but abridge them, & 〈◊〉 of three parts of them and more, crying: Here is a state framed far square from the question in hand? Here is a false subtlety of you M. St. far square from any truth, in hand, or out of hand. The Bishop's words are these. The government that the Q. Majesty most justly taketh upon her in eccles. causes, is the guiding, caring, providing, ordering, directing, and aiding the ecclesiastical state within her dominions, to the furtherance, maintenance, and setting forth of true religion, unity, and quietness of Christ's Church: overseeing, visiting, refourming, restraining, amending and correcting all manner people, with all manner errors, superstitions, heresies, schisms abuses, offences, contemptes, and enormities, in or about Christ's religion whatsoever. In place of all these words, every one being material to show the particular things, wherein her government consists, that she claimeth: you only for all these, set down these words, The Prince may visit, reform, and correct, all manner of people, for all manner of heresies, schisines, and offences, in Christian religion. As though the Bishop's particular words, specifying the points of her government, contained no more but this. Nevertheless, had the bishop specified no more, but these words that you thus contract: yet had he not swerved from the issue between them, (Any such government:) nor from the direct●… answering to the question, declaring any such government, chief the chief points thereof, that the queens majesty claimeth, and you refuse to yield unto her. For even these particularities that you set out, you will not grant without an exception, and that is, in effect, utterly to deny them, although in dalliance of speech saying in some sense) you would only seem to mollify them. For what else mean these your words? Which perchance in some sense, might somewhat be Stap. 82. b. born withal, if you mean by this visitation and reformation the outward execution of the Church laws and decrees, confirmed by the civil magistrate, roborated with his edicts, and executed with his sword: for in such sort many Emperors and Princes have fortified and strengthened, the decrees of Bishops made in Counsels both general and national, as we shall in the process see. And this in Christian The supreme authority the Papists grant to Princes, and in what sense they grant it. Princes is not denied but commended. Christian Princes have here got affair catch by this your grant and commendation, to become your servants, your soldiers, & your slaughtermen, only executing with their swords, that you with your authority decree and appoint unto them. Now forsooth a fair supreme authoriti●…. But let us see how this doth hung together. You grant them to visit, reform, and correct all manner of people, for all manner of heresies, schisms, and offences in Christian religion. This is enough, M. St. for your part, to grant the Prince thus much. Nay soft you (say you) I grant this but with a perchance. What? doth so weighty a matter hung by so rotten a thread? Nay, I grant not this perchance neither, say you, but in some condition. This goeth hard with Princes (M. St. to stand at this small reversion. But go to, let us see, how many Princes visit, reform, and correct, all manner people, heresies, schisms and offences? What is the condition you will make? Forsooth the condition is this: look what manner laws and decrees the Priests will make, the Prince shall only confirm them by outward execution of them. Look what manner people the priests do say are heretics, ●…chismatikes, and offenders, the Prince shall execute them with the sword and kill them. Look what manner religion, doctrine and doings, the Priests and Bishops shall in their Counsels both general and national, decr●… to be heresy, schism, and offence: the Prince shall roborate, fortify, and strengthen them. And this is the only sense (saith M. St. that I mean, that they should visit, reform, and correct all manner people, heresies, schisms, and offences in Christian religion. Why? M. Stapl. this sense, and this grant, are quite contrary the one to the other. The Prince shall visit, reform and correct all manner of people, heresies, schisms, and offences: that is to say, he shall not visit, reform, nor correct, any manner of person, for any manner of all these things, but the Priest shall do it, and he shall only be the priests slave and executioner. Well, saith M. Stap. be it as be may, construe it as you will, this is the only some sense that we may grant it in, and in none other sense. And this in Christian Princes is not denied, but commended. Is not here a proper grant to Princes? and is not master Stap. to be commended for this some sense of christian Princes government? But who is so senseless, that he seethe not in this sense, that the Prince hath no government at all, but is made a very slave to the Popish priests authority. And in this some sense, could master Stapl. find in his heart to acknowledge a government to the Queen's majesty, and yet not without a perchance neither. But without perchance master Stap. your sense showeth, what good heart you bear her Majesty, and all other christian Princes. Now that M. Stap. hath thus challenged the state which the bishop framed, and yet granteth with a perchance thereto in some sense, which sense is as you have herded: he taketh upon him to set down the true state of the question in hand: and prefixeth these words in his margin: The state of the question: and so proceedeth, saying: But the question is here now, whether the Prince or lay Stap. 82. b. magistrate, may of himself, and of his own princely authority, without any higher eccl. power in the Church, within or without the Realm, visit, reform, and correct, and have all manner of government and authority in all things, & causes eccl. or no. As whether the Prince may by his own supreme authority, depose and set up Bishops and priests, make injunctions of doctrine, prescribe order of God's service, enact matters of religion, approve and disprove articles of the faith, take order for administration of Sacraments, command or put to silence Preachers, determine doctrine, excommunicate and absolve with such like, which all are causes eccl. and all appertaining not to the inferior ministery (which you grant to Priests and Bishops only) but to the supreme jurisdiction and government, which you do annex to the Prince only. This I say, is the state of the question, now present. For the present question between you and M. Feck. is grounded upon the oath comprised in the statute: which statute emplieth and concludeth all these particulars, I had thought (seeing your earnestness, M. St. when you What state of the question M. St. setteth down. came to mentioning the statute) that we should have herd all these things (that you have thus as it were on your finger's ends particularly named) expressed in the statute. But when all cometh to all, you knit up the matter with this: which statute implieth & concludeth all these particulars. But I see, you employ yourself (like yourself) still to false conclusions. And such as your conclusions are, such are your proves. You pretend here (after you have controlled the B.) to set down the true state of the question. But as you played in the beginning, so you hold out rubbers even to the ending. You are still the same man, that cried out of short & wide shooting, having set up new marks of your own making, by this doing, both to defeat the bishops profess, & also to deceive the reader. You would fain drive all to the oath, and make the oath the present question. And why so? because (say you) the present question is grounded on the oath. True in deed, both the present question, and all other The oath of the supremacy. questions about this controversy, and the issue also agreed upon between these parties: is grounded (as you say) upon the oath. And because the present question is grounded thereon, it is a good argument against you, that the oath is not then the present question, because the present question is grounded thereon, & a question is not grounded on itself. You should have marked, that though the original be of the oath, yet both the issue, & the present question in hand, being by degrees deducted from thence, make now an other state. To the which, & to this issue, if the bishop satisfy, you can not justly challenge him any further. As for that state of the question that you set down, and the particulars thereof, that you say are implied and concluded in the statute, & that all those things are appertaining not to the inferior, but to the supreme jurisdiction and government, that you say we annex to the Prince only: all these are your most manifest untruths & slanders, nor you can find them either specified, emplyed, concluded, comprised, or any ways to be meant in the oath, or in the statute, The oath and the statute sla●… de●…ed by the Papists. or in any part thereof. Neither the oath or the statute give, all manner of government and authority in all things and causes ecclesiastical to the Prince: but ascribe to the Prince the supreme government and authority in all things and causes ecclesiastical. True it is, that supreme government is Supreme government is not all manner of government. above & over them, but yet the one is not the other, supreme government is not all manner of government. Neither both the oath, or the statute, either in words, or effect of words, ascribe to this the Princes supreme government, the making of Priests, and Bishops, the making injunctions of doctrine, the determining of doctrine, the approving or disproving articles of the faith, excommunicating and absolving, the preaching of the word, and the administration of Sacraments. Where find you any of these things so much as to be gathered out of the oath or statute? Why say you, they all appertain not to the inferior ministery (which you grant to Priests and Bishops only) but to the supreme jurisdiction and government, which you do annex to the Prince only. In deed, these things you make to appertain to your Pope, to whom you give such supreme jurisdiction and government, as annexeth all this to his papal authority. But you do wickedly herein, and injury to our saviour Christ, to whom only such supreme jurisdiction and government belongeth, and under whom, the inferior ministers may do these things, not as they please, but as he hath prescribed them. The jurisdiction and authority appertaineth only to ministers, bishops, or priests, as you call them. To whom herein we do not (as you slander us) grant only an Inferior ministery, but even an higher ministery, than we How the ministers are higher or inferior. give to Princes. In their spiritual ministration they are higher ministers: but in governing them, overseeing them, directing, punishing, maintaining, placing, or displacing them, as they shall do their duties well or ill: the Prince therein is higher than they, and his government under God is supreme and chief in all such causes, as belongeth to the Ecclesiastical people, or any other in his territories. This is that the statute ascribeth, and the oath requireth far from your malicious and slanderous slate of the question that you have here devised. Which (as you say the truth therein) the Bishop proveth not, for it is no part for him to prove. But that, this is the ●…slue, he fully proveth. Yea and proveth the full contents of the Oath also, to the which you would so fain drive the question now in hand. After you have thus set up a false and wrong state, and quarreled at the very state of the question in hand, plainly and truly set down by the Bishop: you enter into your second part, wherein prefixing an other marginal note, Master Horns dissembling falsehood: you challenge the B. to omit Stapl. 83. a. two clauses of the statute, the one at the beginning thereof, the other at the end. The former is this. That no foreign person shall have any manner of authority Stapl. 83. a. in any spiritual cause within this realm. By which words is flatly excluded (say you) all the authority of the whole body of the Catholic Church without the realm, as in a place more convenient towards the end of the last book, it shall by God's grace be evidently proved. If that be a place more convenient, why do you anticipate it here not so conveniently? where it appertaineth not to the question in hand. The Bishop now meddleth not with that parcel that excludeth all foreign authority, but only with that part that expresseth what manner of authority it is, that the queens Majesty taketh upon her. And this the Bishop plainly and faithefully doth, not here intermeddling with other points of the statute. But where that convenient occasion is, there you shall see the Bishop touch that, that here you call for. And there a God's name answer him if you can. But your fingers itched, you could not hold your hand, but needs you must even now have a fling thereat for a farewell. Although therein you properly overturn yourself, and yet to make somewhat of the matter, ye play all the false play ye can. For where The statute e●… eluding any foreign people authority excludeth net the authority of the whole church. the Statute mentioneth only any foreign person to have no authority, you conclude, that it excludeth all the authority of the whole body of the Catholic Church without the Realm. Where as there the Statute mentioneth not the catholic Church at all. And besides, who seeth not a great difference between these twain, any person's authority, and the whole body's authority? And who seeth not withal, that if England be a parcel and member of the whole body of the Catholic Church of Christ, and all the membres make one united body: then neither is the whole body foreign to the members thereof, nor the particular membres foreign to the whole body? Nor in deed any part of this mystical body is excluded. But in that respect that one countryman is foreign to an other, such foreign authority of any foreign person, is thereby excluded. But in regard of the body of the Catholic church, (if you mean Christ's holy Catholic Church) there is neither jew nor Greek, Scythian, Gala. 3 Coloss. 3 Ephe. 2. nor Barbarian, nor any foreign Countryman: we are no strangers and foreigners, but Citizens of the Saints and of the household of God, and all compact in Christ, nor any is excluded out of this Church (if he be in, and of this Church) because he is not foreign. And where you say, the whole body of the Church without the Realm, your words imply a contradiction to themselves. For if the realm be a parcel of the body of the church, which perchance you will deny: or if the realm be a parcel of the body of the Church, which you will not deny: then that which is without the realm, is not the whole body, as you call it. But letting this go, what is that authority, be it of the most part, or be it (as you sa●…) of the whole body of the What authority it is that the true catholic church hath. Church without the realm, that you would have the realm allow? If it be the very Catholic church of Christ, then is it also the wife and spouse of Christ, and hath no authority to make any faith doctrine, or religion, besides that her husband hath appointed: neither England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, or any other part, or all the whole body of this spouse, hath authority to do it. And look what part doth not this, or presumeth to do otherwise, becometh foreign, and as foreign is cut off, even as a rotten and putrefied member severed from the body. Every branch john. 15. (saith Christ,) that beareth not fruit in me, my father will cut it away. But if this authority be for such ecclesiastical discipline, as Christ hath given thereof no express commandment: then every several part may receive or not receive the same, and yet is not estranged or made foreign from the whole corpse of Christendom, yea though the most part of the church besides, authorized and used the same. But every particular Church hath in itself authority to establish orderly, such disciplines as shall be thought best and fittest for their estate: and yet is there no division or schism from the whole, thereby. But sith you refer yourself to a more convenient place, where you say it shall by God's grace be evidently proved, it is not much convenient to stand any more hereon, sith it is here but accessory, and you confess yourself that you do not, but you will hereafter, by God's grace prove it evidently. But I doubt me of two things, the one of your evident proving thereof, the other, that you will do the same by the grace of God, the doing whereof, is against the grace of God. The other clause (say you) you omit, at the end of the Stap. 8●…. a statute, which is this: That all manner superiorities that have or may lawfully be exercised, for the visitation of people ecclesiastical, and correcting all manner of errors, heresies and offences, shall be for ever united to the crown of the realm of England: wherein is employed, that if (which God forbidden) a Turk or any heretic whatsoever, should come to the Crown of England, by virtue of this statute, and of the oath, all manner superiority in visiting and correcting ecclesiastical people in all manner matters, should be united unto him. Yea and every subject should swear that in his conscience he believeth so. M. Stapl. quarrel for uniting the supremacy to the crown. Is this a part also M. Sta. of the question in hand, for the omission of a part whereof you have so sharply reviled the Bishop for a false dissembler? Is there no difference between the kind of government itself, or the particulars thereof, & the perpetual uniting of that government▪ and the same particulars to the crown, or any other such clauses for the prefer●…ing of it? If the Bishop concealed any part of that government that the queens majesty taketh on her: then might you have séened to have had some cause, to have thus quarreled at the B. but than you should have set down what clauses of any point of government in ecclesiast matters, that the Queen claimeth the Bish. omitted. But this neither you do, nor you can do, but run about the bush, picking quarrels, that he let not down other clauses also, that be no parcel of the question in hand. The question is not now about the uniting to the crown the supremacy that her highness claimeth, but what that supremacy is, and what are the points, wherein it consists that are to be united. The thing itself is one thing, & the uniting of the thing is an other thing. The B. hath 〈◊〉 to set down the thing itself for his level, for so the question of the issue, demandeth to prove any such government as the Queen taketh on her, If now the B. tell what kind of government it is, & ●…o enter into his proves, to level them thereto: doth not the B. deal plainly and truly? and do you any other than keep your wont wrnggling, which way soever the B had go●… to work? For if, when he uniteth himself only to his matter, he cannot satisfy your brabbling quarrels, but even there, (such is your impudency) you chide because he straggleth not from his question: If he had united any thing else unto it, and spoken of this uniting also, as now you would have him do: then would you as fast have cried out on the other side, that he shot wide, and set up new states of the question in hand. And thus would nothing stop your mouth, you love of life to wrangle. But all these quarrels are but your starting holes pretending to find fault with the Bishop, where indeed your M. Stapl. at the end of his book would leave a scruple in the reader's head of misselyking the state. quarrel is at an other matter, to cast (for a farewell at the end of this your book) a bone for the reader to gnaw upon, to breed a suspicion in his head of a great inconvenience, and so to bring him in a misliking of the state. At lest to leave him stricken in the head with a doubtful scruple of the s●…qurle thereof: As who should say crack me this nutt●…, and there an end, answer me to this inconvenience that may follow hereon. If a Turk (say you) or any heretic whatsoever, should come to the Crown of England; by virtue of this statute, and of the Oath, all manner superiority in visiting and correcting Ecclesiastical people in all manner matters, should be united to him. You have a mischievous meaning M. St. all the world may see, but that you dare not utter it without an if. But (thanks be to God) they be no Turks, nor any heretics whatsoever, that you shoot at, and refuse to obey. God grant all be 〈◊〉 whom you wish in place: as for your Pope, whom you would give this supremacy unto, as he is no whit better than any heretic whatsoever, so is he a more perilous enemy than the Turk. A worse than he, can not be feared, except y●… will put your case of the Devil himself. And shall we leave the certainty of a present good state, for doubt of an ill to come? or for fear of a worse, run to the worst of all? Thanks be to God the queens Majesty, whom God of his merciful favour hath placed to reign over us, and to enjoy this supremacy, is neither Turk, nor heretic, but a most excellent and blessed christian Queen, a most sincere defender of the true faith of Christ, & a most godly nurse and mother of God's people. God for his mercies sake, vouchsafe to bless and long continued her over us, maugre all your spites. But go to, will you say, I stand not ●…n the state present. It is good for hereafter to forecast the wors●…e▪ What if this should happen (as God forbidden) that a Turk or an heretic should come to the crown of England? Since there is no remedy with you M. Stapleton, but The answer to M. Stapl. inconne●…ence of a Turk or an heretic to have this supremacy. Difference between a Turk and an heretic. we must needs answer this your wicked presupposal: for mine own part, I will answer you thus. First, there is a great difference between a Turk and an heretic, of both whom confusedly you put your case▪ A Turk is an open enemy to Christ's religion, professing Mahomet that seducers law. An heretic pretendeth to be a christian, but agreeth not with the truth of Christ's doctrine, so that there might be a more likelihood of the one than of the other. For this realm being Christian, and withal (God 〈◊〉 thanked therefore) so far from any danger of the Turk (between whom and us, both by land and water lie many Nations) that yet of the twain, the heretics, of which there be many and subtle ●…ortes, and all pretending to be membres of the Catholic Church of Christ, were more li●…ly to obtain that which you presuppose. Now if a Turk (a●… God forbade) should come to the crown: most likely he could not get it, but by tyramicall usurpation, as he doth other countries and then your question is answered for him, that of right neither this authority, nor any other united to the Crown itself, is due unto him. Neither will he, if he be a Turk in religion (although ●…e would take the Crown, neither colour be, if he would, take withal What a Turk would do, if he had the crown. this Christian kind of Supremacy upon him, which is the subversion of his false and 〈◊〉 Religion. Not, M. Stapl. he would not take, any su●…e kind of Regiment, as you yourself allow to Christian Princes, and unite unto their crowns. As for an heretic, might easilier creep in, to the obtaining the crown of England, (which also God forbidden) for no throne, chair, or city, place, or people, have any warrant against this presupposal▪ The holy temple of Jerusalem become a den of thieves, and their priests most wicked murderers of jesus Christ. And in the seat. of David sat many idolaters, yea far mother bad than good. Besides, that no nation is exempted from this threat, Propter peccata populi regnare job. 34. facit hypocritam, For the sins of the people, God maketh the hypocrite to reign▪ So that nothing is impossible. Our sins are such as may deserve, or God's trial may be such, as he may prove us with affliction under a Turk, or heretic, or any other tyrant or usurper. But what is all this to the purpose? Shall not lawful and godly Christian Princes, (as Gods blessed name be praised therefore, he hath so blessed England presently, with such a most happy Princess, for all his most gracious and rare gifts shining in her, that we may justly say, Non tal●…er fec●… Psalm. 147. omni nationi, he hath done the like in our days to no christian nation: I speak it not to flatter her, or to blemish any other estate, but to glorify God for her, to confirm us i●… our allegiance, and to confound your disobedience to hi●… The Princes certain and pray sent right ought not to be forsaken for fear of uncertain inconveniences that may be doubted to come. highness) shall not, I say, such Godly princes unite & ma●… sure to them and their heirs, all such lawful authority, as belongeth unto their estate, because it may be abused by other Princes hereafter? If you say, it is not their lawful authority, nor belongeth unto them of right: That would beproved first, Master Stapleton: for otherwise, this your presupposal, toucheth as well their authority over temporal matters, as over spiritual. If the one may be united because it is right, why may not the other being right als●…, be likewise united, without this vain casting beyond the M●…Wue, to let go a certainty of present right, for fear of an uncertain danger of some inconvenience to come? And yet if any such chance should come, you should Difference between a Prince's authority, and a Prince's tyranny. always consider a difference, between a Prince's authority, and a Prince's tyranny: between his duty, and his doing, whether he be Turk, jew, Heretic, Heathen, or whatsoever he be, or whatsoever he do, he ought to be a faithful Christian Prince, and he aught to do nothing, but that a christian Prince may lawfully do. Neither do any godly laws give the Prince that now is, or ever shall be, any other authority than lawful authority. And as for this clause of the statute, even yourself do confess that it giveth none other superiority, to be united to the crown of the Prince, whatsoever the Prince be, or shall be, or may be, but to do that that is lawful, and that that he ought to do. For the words which you cite are these. That all manner superiorities that have or may lawfully be exercised for the visitation of people ecclesiastical. And correcting all manner of errors, heresies, and offences, shall be forever united to the Crown of the Realm of England. These words you see unite no other authority, but such as may lawfully be exercised, and so lawfully it uniteth to the Crown, the correction of errors, heresies, and offences, not the maintenance of errors, heresies, and offences. Now, if you think the Turk would thus do, you think The Statute cleared from M. Stap. inconvenience. better of him than I can conceive, and make me to think worse of you than I thought. If you think the Turk (as is most likely) would not do these things that the statute yieldeth to the Prince, that is to say, he would usurp that superiority that may not be lawfully▪ exercised, he would maintain errors, heresies, and offences, he would set out the Koran and worship of Mahomet, and suppress and beat down the Testament and worship of jesus Christ: th●… the statute toucheth him not, nor he the statute, no●… any oath is here required, and your inconvenient presupposal is put forth in vain. For the statute yieldeth not all correction simply: but correction of errors, heresies, and off ences, & that he exercise it lawfully, which the Turk will not do, nor can do, being an open enemy to Christ's true religion. And therefore where you say on this clause of the statute: wherein is implied, that if a Turk, or any heretic whatsoever should come to the Crown of England, by virtue of this statute, and of the oath, all manner superiority in visiting and correcting eccl. people in all manner matters should be united unto him. This is your exceeding falsehood to the truth, and too much injury to the statute, and plain treachery to the crown, to say that the statute implieth this doing of the Turk, or this swearing and believing so in him. For the statute implieth nothing, but that belongeth to a very christian Prince. The statute implieth no such absolute superiority of correcting ecclesiastical people in all manner matters. This is (to borrow a word of your own rhetoric) too too Turkishly and spitefully put in of you, to make it appear ●… great inconvenience. Where the words that you cite of the statute, speak of correcting all manner of errors, heresies, and offences. And is there no difference trow you, between the correcting of all manner of errors, heresies, and offences, & the correcting all manner matters? The one no man will deny to be godly, to punish the evil. The other is so large in deed, that if a Turk, or an heretic, had the doing thereof, he might punish virtues in steed of vices, & truth in place of falsehood, and say that he punished some manner matters, except truth and virtue be no matter with you, as it appeareth by this your presuppesall, and your false implying on the statute, How much the Papists regard the crow●…e of 〈◊〉. that you make it no great matter, either what become of God's true religion, or of the Crown of England. It seemeth you care not greatle, whether a Turk or any heretic whatsoever had the Crown of England, or the Crown of any other Realm, so that your Pope might keep his triple Crown, and you the dignity of your shaven Crown. Which to maintain in honour, what danger heretofore you have brought the Realm in, other can tell, and England hath felt the popish practices, to bring this Realm in bondage, & the crown thereof to strangers. And on condition, that this clause of superiority were annexed, not to the Prince, but to the pope: M. St. could like it well, and would spend to have it so, the best penny in his pouch. Although a more perilous enemy to Christ and Christ's church, than How well the Pope wisheth to England. is the pope, is neither Turk, or any other heretic, or arch-heretic whatsoever: that would not care if the mo●…t royal crown of England and most christian Realm, were on a fishpool, because it hath rejected his superiority: and to show his good will thert●…, he hath abandoned it with his great curse, to any that will come, Christian, Heathen, Turk, jew, heretic, or whatsoever he be, that will either destroy it, or reduce it to his captivity, far more dangerous to the soul, than is the Grecians bodily slavery to the Turk. But all this M. Stap. will utterly deny, that there were any such bo●…dage, if that this clause were united to the Pope's triple Crown. Go to M. St. were this also granted you: will not your Whether M. St. inconvenience would not fall out, if the clause of supre macie were united to the Pope. own devised inconvenience as well come to pass, the pope having it for eu●…r united unto him, as if the Prince had it? What if there were an heretic Pope? what if there were a Pope, not only by his native country a Turk, but also one that practiseth privy conspiracies & leagues, yea ●…reasons with the Turk against christian Princes, & in all mischief of life, yea and errors of faith also, were worse than the Turk, and that the Turks erroneous Alcoran, speaketh yet more reverently of jesus Christ, than doth the pope, that pretendes to be his vicar? What if there were a jew pope, or one that would 'cause Christians to receive Iudais●…e, yea to cru●…e Christ again? What if there were a heathen Pope, or one that caused as gross Idolatry to be used, as did the Paynims, and believed as much of heaven or hell, of God or the devil, of the body's resurrection or of the soul's immortality, as the Epicures or the Saducees did. What if there were a whoremaster Pope, yea a whore Pope, a Sodomitical Pope, a judas Pope, a Neronian Pope, an Antichrist Pope, and such a Pope, as hath done more for the devils kingdom, than even the devil himself could have done? If this clause were for ever united unto the Pope: how should we do then master N-ab? I pray you help us here at a pinch out of the briars. If you shall deny there can come any such Popes: show why there may not come such hereafter, as well as there hath go such heretofore. If you deny there hath been any such Popes heretofore, and put me to my profess: well, than I must prove it, and God willing so will I, when you shall bid me. But if beforehand, you think I shall be able to do it, and you will prevent me with a shift of descant, that though they were such ill Popes, yet, in respect they were pope's, they were none of all these things, but in respect they were men (for so you afterward excuse the matter, to which distinction there you shall be answered God willing) yet here admitting also this distinction: why may not I reply, that what soever the person shall be that shall have hereafter the What the law respecteth in the statute. crown of this realm, the statute and the law respecteth not the man that shall have it, but the estate and authority that ●…e shall have, and intendeth not that he is a man, but that he is a king: and so meddling not with his vices and affections, setteth out his duty and office, what he ought to do, what manner of man he aught to be, & in this respect he hath this authority. And so every way your wicked and malicious presupposal is answered, simply, but truly I trust, howsoever other would answer it better, or (as i●… better deserveth) give it no answer at all. Now having cast forth your presupposition, as a snaring bait, to breed a scruple of some marvelous inconvenience: and after your false manner of concluding, having inferred that of the statute, that it implieth not: you begin to buskle up your feathers and crow, saying: This kind of regiment therefore, so large and ample, I am Stapl. 83. a. b. right well assured you have not proved, nor never shall be able to prove in the ancient Church, while you live. In deed for that kind of regiment master Stapleton, that you infer, and would as a ma●…e set up: it is a Papal, or Turkish regiment: and that the Bishop shall never be able to prove it, I bold well with you, nor be goeth about to prove it, but to improve it. But that kind of regiment that he here setteth down of the queens Majesty, that will he prove, and hath already proved it, for all this your Thrasonical crack, which I commit to muster in your common place thereon. And let this his fellow go with it for company. When I say (say you) this kind of regiment, I walk not Stapl. 83. b in confuse and general words as you do, but I restrain myself, to the foresaid particulars now rehearsed, and to that platform, that I have already drawn to your hand, and unto the which master Feckenham must pray you to refer and apply your evidences, otherwise, as he hath, so may he, or any man else (the chief points of all, being as yet on your side improved) still refuse the oath. For the which doings, neither you nor any man else, can justly be grieved with him. You may say, like a lusty Gentleman, what you please master Stapleton. I say this kind of regiment, and that kind of regiment, and tell us of your walks, of your restrayntes, of your platforms that you have drawn, but these are but peerless vaunts. Tell us of that regiment that is in question, walk there a God's name, restrain yourself to that, be content with the platform that is already drawn to your hands: otherwise master Feckenham, and all other, will see that you do but brabble. And as you would draw the Bishop to drive his proves thither, whether he is not bound to refer them: so you do not only deceive the Reader, but offer wrong also even to master Feckenham, whom you take in hand to defend, and here you make him such a child, that he knew not how to frame his issue, nor wherein he would be resolved But M. Feckenham (if you defend him thus) may bi●… you meddle with your Fortresses, and let him alone with his cause. And if the Bishop have not in these two means, satisfied the demand of his issue, then tell master Feckenham, that he may still refuse the oath. But if the Bishop have proved by any of these two points, the Scriptures, or the Doctors, master Feckenhams issue that he desired to be proved, that is, any such government as the Queens Maiestietaketh on her in ecclesiastical causes: then can not master Fecken. justly refuse the oath, but must with hearty thanks yield thereunto, as he hath promised by writing to the Bishop, or else he shall be held as an unjust man, and as obstinate a wrangling Papist, as you show yourself to be. Which wilful refusal, though it be a grief to all the godly affected, that behold your froward blindness, yet shall it be the less grief unto them, when they see that neither truth nor honesty will reclaim you. Here, after the vaunts of yourself, and the excusing of master Feckenham, you enter into your third part, of excusing all the Papists, calling it in your margin: A reasonable Stapl. ●…3. b. defence of the Catholics for refusing the oath. This reasonable defence hath two parts, the one, the excuse of the Papists: the other, the accusing of the Bishop. For the former saith master Stapleton. As neither with us (master Horn) aught you, or any man Stapl. 83. b. else, be grieved for declaring the truth in this point, as if we were discontented subjects or repining against the obedience we own to our gracious Prince and country. No man is grieved with you, master Stapleton (as you pretend) for declaring the truth in this point, or any other, The excuses of the Papists. but only for your not declaring the truth, but concealing the truth, and outfacing the matter with false countenances of the truth in this point and in so many other. Where in ye show yourself not only discontented subjects, but in heart very rebellions, nor repining only with discontented stomachs, but with open sayings, writings, and other seditions attempts against the obedience you own to our gracious Prince and Country. You call her gracious, but God defend her gracious person from your ungracious practices, and from all such judas kisses of hollow hearted flattering Papists. For, how ungraclously you mind her highness and your Country: all that hear your sugared wordesnowe, speaking as though that butter would not melt in your mealy mouth, and read your common place withal, collected of your most shameful and notorious slanders, that you raise upon so gracious a prince and your native Country: would marvel how that double tongue of yours could speak such contraries. But you are a Merchant for the nonce, you study Louvain divinity, that is to say, to bear fire in one hand, & water in another, to laugh in one's face, and strike him with a dagger to the heart, as joab did with Abner and Amasa. But let us see how trimly you cloak this gear. I dare say never a Friar in Louvain can play the sinoother hypocrite. For besides (say you) that we aught absolutely to obey God Stapl. 83. b more than man and prefer the truth (which our saviour himself protesteth to be, encouraging all the faithful to profess the truth, and giving them to wit, that in defending that, they defend Christ himself) before all other worldly respects whatsoever. What a godly pretence of zeal is here to God? were The Papists pretence of zeal to God to disobey their Prince. it not for pure love they hear to God, master Stapleton promises for them, as their spokes man, they would obey their Prince. Now surely this seemeth to proceed of an holy zeal. But what is that they mean here by this absolute obedience to God? God may be absolutely obeyed, and the Prince also next to God conditionally be obeyed, as the chief setter forth of God's absolute obedience. God The absolute obedience to God hindereth not the conditional obedience to the Prince. in his holy word never spoke any thing against obedience to the Prince, whereby any Hypocrite might pretend a scruple of disobeying God, if next under God, he obeyed his Prince, but God in his word commandeth us so to obey him. What mean they then to allege God for their disobedience? Forsooth here is a mystery, you must understand by God, the Pope, for so he is called, Dominus deus noster Papa, Our Lord God the Pope▪ and their obedience What the Papists mean here by God. to the Prince herein, is flat against this God's obedience. And because master Stapleton and his fellows, are priests of this Gods making, they must therefore disobey their Prince. And this is the very matter. So Thomas Becked How Thomas Becket died for God's cause. died for God's cause, and what was that? forsooth the franchisies of the Pope's Church. For all, that is for the Pope, and Popery, and the Popish priests honours, is only for God, for Christ, and for the truth, when it is for the Devil as soon, as indeed it is for him the Author of all such hypocritical disobedience, and for their own filthy lucre. But God is a good God, he must bear the name of all▪ The Papists being thus (by their Attorney master Stapleton) excused of their Disobedience: lest this should not be thought sufficient. There is yet behind one other proper way of excusing themselves, and that is to fall in accusing the Bishop, that thereby the papists may be thought the more excusable. Beside all this I say (saith master Stapleton) whosoever will but indifferently consider the matter, shall see that M. Horn himself in specifying here at large the Queen's majesties government by the statute intended, doth no less in effect abridge the same by dissembing silence, than the Catholics do by open and plain contradiction. You charge the B. here with abridging the Queen's majesties government by dissembling silence. This is your former quarrel, M. Stap. yet could you hitherto prove nothing omitted, concerning the very government itself, and therefore you wrangled about other clauses of debarring the government Sta. 83. b. The accusation of us. from any foreign person, and of uniting the government to the crown of England, which because the B. set not down as parcels of the government, which each man seeth are none, you challenge him of dissembling silence, and do as one that either hath nothing else to say, or that this is some such notable triumph, that you thought good to end your first book therewith, as it were a gird to the Bishop, and a prick fastened in the Readers mind to 'cause him mislike of the Bishop's dealing, and suspect the whole cause thereby. This indeed were somewhat oratorlyke, if it were not so apparent an untruth, that every body might behold the falsehood thereof, the malice of you, and the impertinency of the quarrel. But as you thereby are able (cry it out as fast and as loud as you will) to prove nothing in word or deed against the Bishop, and therefore run to byous quarrels of silence and abridging in effect: so yourself while you would excuse yourself, as not discontented nor repining subjects accuse yourself without any dissembling at all. And are not ashamed to confess, that you withstand her majesties government by open and plain contradiction. Though therefore your accusation of the Bishop be to any indifferent man to consider the matter, no excuse of your disobedience: yet any that shall indifferently consider the matter, yea, though he were some what partial on your side, sith so openly and plainly you dare open your contradiction thereto, will hold you altogether unexcusable, and judge you on your own mouth. But let us see why you are thus importune with the Bishop to accuse him so often, now in the end of this book, whether you have any new matter to lay to his charge, that you have not yet uttered, & how truly you accuse him. For (say you) whereas the statute and the oath (to the which all Stapl. 83. b must swear) expresseth a supreme government in all things and causes without exception: M. Horn taking upon him to specify the particulars of this general decree, and amplifying that little which he giveth to the Queen's Majesty, with copy of words full statutelike, he leaveth yet out, and by that leaving out, taketh The B. charged for omitting the Principal ecclesiastical cause. from the meaning of the statute the principal cause ecclesiastical▪ And what is that you ask, forsooth, judgement, determining, and approving of doctrine, which is true and good, and which is otherwise. For what is more necessary in the Church, than that the supreme governor thereof should have power in all doubts and controversies to decide the truth, and to make an end of questioning? this in the statute, by M. horns silence is not comprised. And yet who doubteth that of all things and causes ecclesiastical, this is absolutely the chiefest. Why M. St. are you now of a contrary opinion to that (if you be remembered) that you were before? for than you reasoned, that omission and silence was no denial, but concluded Cap. 63. b the contrary, Qui t●…cet consentire videtur, for he that holdeth his peace, seemeth to consent. Howbeit, I cry you mercy, the M. Stapletons' contradiction. case is altered. For there you defend your client, & here you oppugn your adversary. And belike you have some privilege from Rome, ever to turn the matter so, as may best serve your turn. But and it were not for this your privilege, surely I would further ask you how chance so soon you have forgotten your late vaunt, and even in this leaf wherein you crack, that you walk not in general words, but restrain yourself to particulars: & now stand quarreling about the general words of the statute, and mock the B. for particulars: if you shal●… lay forth your privilege to do this, when you think you may get some advantage thereby: yet I think your privilege stretcheth not, both to wrist the state of the question in hand, and of the issue, to the statute: and to wrist and bel●…e the statute as you please, and thereof to gather what false conclusion you list. For first, you do the Bishop wrong, ●…th Master Feckenham hath set up his issue to be proved, M. Stap. would drive the B from his issue. Any such government in Ecclesiastical causes, to drive the bishop from thence, to the words of the statute that express it, in all ecclesiastical causes. Herein you offer the bishop wrong. For by this issue between them, though the Bishop in every Prince continually allege not ensamples in every Ecclesiastical cause, but now and then in all, now and then in some (for your Popes daily encroached on Princes, and at length got the m●…st of all,) yet hath the Bishop proved and satisfied the virtue of this issue, Any such government in ecclesiastical causes. Howbeit, you do him further wrong, to challenge him here for leaving out any point of government, in any Ecclesiastical cause, that even the statute giveth her majesty, that is to say, A supreme government in all things and causes. Doth not the bishop set down this M. St? hath he not specified even the same words oftentimes already? and doth not his particular specifications contain as much here also? N●… say you, he leaveth out the principal cause ecclesiastical and most necessary, meet and convenient for a supreme governor Ecclesiastical. Soft M. St. stay here, or ever we demand what this cause should be. I demand only now why you say supreme governor Ecclesiastical? is this your honesty in handling the statute? The Prince and the statute sl●…undered. doth the Queen take upon her to be a supreme governor Ecclesiastical? or doth the statute give this title to her majesty, A supreme governor Ecclesiastical? the statute says A supreme governor in all Ecclesiastical causes▪ And is there no difference between an ecclesiastical governor, & a governor in eccles. Difference between ecclesiastical governor, and governor in ecclesiastical causes. causes? but you use this your false & captious speech, to make that people believe the slander that you raise on her Majesty, as though she took upon her to bean ecclesiastical person, to be a B. and a minister of the word & sacraments, and by her chief government over bishops, challenged to be a chief or head bishop of Bishops, like unto your Pope. And so having raised up this slander on the queens majesty & the statute, you challenge the Bishop for omitting a principal ecclesiastical cause. But what is that, you ask, forsooth judgement (say you) determining, and approving of doctrine, which is true and good, and which is otherwise. Here again M. Stapl. you speak as captiously, for, if by How judgement in ecclesiastical causes is ascribed to the Prince, how not. this judgement you mean an authority above the doctrine of God's word (as all your side maintaineth) & that the word of God receiveth his authority of the Church's judgement▪ (which Church you call the Priests) and is authentical, because they have ratified it so to be, otherwise it were not true nor good: then in deed as the Bishop hath set down no such judgement, determining, or approving of doctrine, neither so could he have done, for the queens Majesty ●…keth no such supreme government upon her, nor such supreme government is due to any other than to God alone, who hath by jesus Christ his son already fully determined in his holy word, what doctrine is good and true▪ And what doctrine soever is besides that, is neither true nor good, whosoever take upon him to judge, determine, and approve Gal. 1. the same, be it either your Pope, or your Church never so much, yea, were it an angel from heaven ●…e must 〈◊〉 held accursed. But if you mean by judging, determining, and approving of doctrine, such authority as only acknowledgeth, giveth testimony, admitteth, alloweth, setteth forth, and strengtheneth the doctrine of Christ's only word, not a●… ruler over it, but as servant unto it, and the rejecting or abolishing of all other doctrine, against or besides that word●… than hath the bishop not left out this ecclesiastical cause in the statute, though not judging in that manner, that the ecclesiastical governor, Bishop or Minister doth, in his sermons, or debating thereon, but for so much, as belongeth to a supreme governor. And so saith the bishop. The government that the Queen's Majesty most justly taketh on her in ecclesiastical causes, is the guiding, caring, providing, ordering, directing, and aiding the eccl. state, within her dominions, to the furtherance, maintenance, and setting forth of true religion, buitie and quietness of Christ's Church, visiting, reforming, restraining, amending, and correcting, all manner people, with all manner errors, superstitions, heresies, schis●…es, abuses, offences, contempts, and enormities, in or about Christ's religion, whatsoever. Mark these words a little better M. Stap. and I trust you shall see it was you, that overshot yourself, and left out good attention, being carried away in a cock brain ●…ume, with too hasty a prejudice. And that the bishop left out here no part of such judgement, determination, and approving of doctrine, which is true and good, & which is otherwise, as belongeth to such a supreme governor, as groundeth himself on God's judgement▪ determining, and approbation. What do you think? is true religion no good doctrine with you? If it be, the bishop hath not omitted it. Can he care and provide for it, direct and set it forth, without judgement? without the determining of it to be good and true? without the approbation of it? On the other side, are errors and heresies no false nor naughty doctrine with you? if they be, than the bishop named them, and think you the visiting, reforming, restraining, amending, and correcting, can be without a judgement and determination against them? Then sith he in plain speech ascribeth all this to the Prince, which fully answereth all this that you call for, (if as I said, you understand this judgement, determining, and approving a right) you show what a very continual wrangler you be, where no cause at all is given. But incontinent you declare what you mean by this judgement of doctrine. For what say you is more necessary in the Church, than that the supreme governor thereof, should have power in all doubts and controversies to decide the truth: and to make an end of questioning. This in the statute by master horns silence is not comprised. True in deed, M. Stapl. this kind of judgement is not The statute slandered. mentioned by the Bishop▪ but it is most falsely mentioned by you. For where you say, this in the statute most maliciously you slander the statute, for this in the statute is neither named, comprised, or can be gathered thereon. Neither the queens Majesty claimeth or taketh on her this kind of judgement. It is due only to God's word, and your Pope and popish Church violently snatcheth it from God's word, challenging it to themselves even above God's word itself, although they agree not herein together. For the popish Church will be above the Pope in this point of judgement, maugre his beard, and yet they grant the Pope to be their supreme governor ecclesiastical. Though they will not relent to him this supreme The Popish church claimeth superiority in iudgeging of doctrine above the Pope. judgement, but give it to the Church's judgement. And therefore they be of a contrary judgement to you, that say, this point is most necessary, meet, and convenient for a supreme governor ecclesiastical. By which point you will make your Pope either no supreme governor eccl. over you, or spoil him of a most necessary, meet and convenient point of the supreme government that you give him, but these are your jars, agree as you will (like cats in a glitter) about them. This popish churches or papal judgement the Q. Majesty taketh not upon her, nor the statute ascribeth it unto her, and therefore the B. had naught to do therewith. Yet have we one thing more, which after a couple of your slanders that I answer not, but refer to your common place thereon, you charge the Bishop once more for this omission. Again (say you) preaching the word, administration of Stap. 48. a. the sacraments, binding and losing▪ are they not things and causes eccl? How then are they here omitted by you master Horn? or how make you the supreme government in all causes to rest upon the Queen's Majesty, if these causes have no place there? What should a man use many words with such a brabbler? who though he have naught to say, yet will never l●…e saying, of that which is naught to purpose. You have been often enough, and fully enough, answered to this master St. if the queens Majesty taketh not these things upon her, than the B. omitteth not any thing, that her highness taketh on her, in omitting these things. Neither doth the▪ sratute yield unto her the doing of them. It is but your slanderous obtruding of the statute. It giveth a supreme government in all these things to the Q. Majesty. And so these causes have place there, so far as is needful to a supreme governor But from a supreme governor, which consists in caring for, ordering, directing providing, guiding, maynteining, & setting forth: to the executing doing, preaching and administering of those things: is as far from any good conclusion, as you & your matter are far from truth and honesty. Nevertheless, such is your great confidence in this your Counterblast, as though you had so puffed up the falsehood thereof, that no man could espy it: you lustily blow up the last blast of this your first book, saying: Which is now better I appeal to all good consciences, Stap. 48. b. plainly to maintain the truth, than dissemblingly to uphold a falsshod? plainly to refuse the oath, so generally conceived: than generally to swear to it, being not generally meaned▪ But now let us see, how M. Horn will direct his proofs to the scope appointed. Why may not you appeal to all good consciences, M. Stap. as well as that maiden Priest of yours, that might bid his maidenhead Goodmorrowe, and have as good a conscience for your own part, as he for his part had a maidenhead. And to show your good conscience for a farewell while you shake hands, at the very parting you lash▪ out a couple of slanderous untruths together. You have not many words to speak, and therefore you huddle them up. You say the oath is conceived so generally, that it giveth to the Prince your foresaid absolute power of determining all doubts and controversies of preaching the word, administration of the sacraments, binding and losing. This lie to lap up all in the end, was worth a whetstone M. Stapl. and his fellow that jutteth with him cheek by cheek, is as good as he: That the oath generally conceived is not generally meaned. But set aside your malicious meaning to wrist the oath: and the oath is plain and all one, both in words and meaning. But how soever the oath were not so generally conceived, your meaning is plainly to refuse the oath. And therefore here in the end for a remembrance to all the rest, you must needs strike up the stroke with ala lia, and desperately without all dissembling for thee, matter uphold a falsehood with falsehoods, even to the last breath. Et fiunt novissima illius hominis peiora prioris. Math. 12. And the latter end of that man is worse than the beginning. ¶ The answer to four Chapters in Doctor Saunders second book of the visible Monarchy of the Church, concerning the question here in hand of a Christian Princes supreme government in Ecclesiastical causes. First, of the difference of both powers, the civil and Ecclesiastical, in the original, in the use, and in the end of either. Secondly, whether the Prince be the Supreme governor immediately under Christ. Thirdly, whether the Prince may judge and define of ecclesiastical matters. Fourthly, whether Bishops may depose Princes from their estate, and take from the realm their power of electing their Prince, if they differ in religion from their Bishops. Which four chapters I thought good here to answer unto, both because he is the last writer, and chiefest now of account among the adversaries. And these chapters above all other in his volume, both draw nearest to the question of the Prince's estate, and show withal, the full drift of the Papists, not only striving against the Prince's supremacy, but into what extreme slavery they would reduce all Christian Kings and kingdoms. The argument of the first Chapter of the difference between the Civil and Ecclesiastical Magistrate, in the original, in the use, and in the end of both. MAster Saunders first beginning with the The original of both powers. Lib. 2. cap. 1. page 56. M. Saunders beginneth with contradictions to himself. original, lconfesseth, that both powers are of God, but not both immediately from God the civil power he granteth to be of God but by the law of Nations, or the consent of people and other means of man's wit put between. But straight he correcteth himself, that some thing in the civil authority was revealed immediately from God, yea, Per multa in lege Mosaica divinitus instituta suerunt, very many things (pertaining to the civil power) were in Moses law ordained of God. And thus at the first he speaketh contraries. Hereupon he concludeth thus. I think therefore, it is agreed upon, among all men, that the Saund. pag. 57 royal & imperial power which at this day is exercised in the church in every cause, whereof it is not otherwise disposed in the new testament, is to be held of the law of nations, or of law civil. To this I answer: First, this in part is true, but in part so false, that himself confutes himself, making exception of divers things in the civil power, that sprung immediately from God, neither were those things as he falsely saith, Circa res terrenas. about earthly matters but about ecclesiastical matters in the law of Moses. And although their ceremonial causes and judicials, pertaining to ecclesiastical matters in the civil power, be taken away with the ceremonial and indiciall law of the jews, yet the civil power hath like authority, in the like causes ecclesiastical of the new testament, as is showed out of S. Aug. against M. St. & the donatists. Secondly, where he sayeth all the civil power now of christian kings and Emperors is all of the law of nations, or civil, except in cases otherwise disposed in the new testament. I answer this may well be granted, and yet the civil power hath authority over ecclesiastical people, in causes ecclesiastical: for so, not only in the old testament, but also in the new Testament it is plainly disposed. Thirdly, to this division of the original of both these estates, that the ecclesiastical is from God immediately, the civil by other means: I answer, this distinction faileth, both by his own tale, saying: Civilis à deo plerunque est per media quaedam, Saund. 57 the civil power is oftentimes from God by certain means. If it be oftentimes by certain means, than it is not always, and but accidental, not of the nature of the estate, for so it is also immediately from God. And the like accident falls out likewise of the ecclesiastical estate, that although the power be immediately from God, yet many causes in it called Ecclesiastical, be also Per media quadam humani ingenij Saund. 57 interposita, by certain means of man's wit put between. For this cause (saith M. Sand.) the civil power among the Sand. pag. 57 heathen that know not god, is found to be the same that is extant with faithful kings, although Christ would not have such power in the ministers of his kingdom, for he said: the Princes of the nations rule over them, and they that are juniors exercise power over them, so shall it not be among you. I answer, first Master Saunders, this is a like slander Supra pa. 108. Difference between the civil power of heathen and christian Prin ces. to M. Stapletons'. fo. 29. a. b. The civil power is not found to be the same in heathen Princes that know not God, and in Christian Princes that know God, there is a very great difference between these so different estates, wherein the one acknowledgeth all his power to be of God, and hath it described and limited by God's word, & the other takes it all for hu main & natural, not so much as knowing God by your own confession, from whom the original of it springeth. Secondly, to that you say, such power is debarred by Christ from his ministers: If ye mean by such power, such power as is among the Heathen, such is not only debarred from them, but from christian Princes too: If Master Saunders contradictions. you mean such power as Christian Princes have, is debarred from the ministers of Christ, then say you true. But how then doth your Pope challenge and usurp, both such and the same also? Yea, yourself afterward reason most earnestly throughout all the fourth chapter following, that the ministers of Christ may have it: Wherein you speak clean contrary both to Christ, and to yourself. Thirdly, I note this either your gross ignorance, or your impudent falsehood, in altering the words of Christ. He saith not they that are juniors, or yongers, the Text is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they that are great, which are clean contrary. If M. Stapleton were your adversary, he would rattle you up (Master Saunders) for so foul a escape. Now to fortify a difference between the Ecclesiastical Saund. pag. 57 The kingdom of Christ in this world, but not of this world. power and the Civil, he urgeth that: the spiritual kingdom of Christ is in this world, but not of this world, as for the earthly kingdom is both in, and of this world: but the ecclesiastical power is the spiritual kingdom of Christ, therefore there is a difference, but the spiritual kingdom of Christ excels all worldly●… kingdoms, therefore they are stark fools that in any ecclesiastical thing to be administered prefer the earthly kings before the pastors of the Church. I answer, all these conclusions are impertinent. If there be any folly, it is to strive for that that is not in controversy. We grant a difference betwixt both powers and kingdoms, although a question is to be moved, what he means here by ecclesiastical power. If he take it as the Papists Ecclesiastical power. do, we deny that ecclesiastical power to be the spiritual kingdom of Christ. For their ecclesiastical power is overmuch not in the world, but of the world also. If he mean by ecclesiastical power, the spiritual kingdom of Christ, as he in his word hath ordained the fame: although there be a difference between the power in the kingdom, and the kingdom in the which the power is, yet we grant this gladly, that no wise man will prefer the earthly kings in any spiritual thing to be administered, before the pastors of the church. But this is nothing against the earthly king's preferment over the spiritual pastor, to oversee him rightly and spiritually to administer his spiritual things, in the ministration whereof, all earthly kings ought to give place unto him, which we did never deny. And sith there is no comparison between Christ the son Saund. pa. 57 of God, who is also God himself, and a creature of the law natural or civil, neither is there any comparison betwixt the power ecclesiastical, which is wholly give unto us by only Christ the mediator, & the power royal, which either altogether, or almost altogether is not ordained of God, but by the law of nations or civil: for although God hath revealed from heaven, that belongeth to the power royal, if notwithstanding that pertained not to eternal salvation which is hide in Christ, but to contain peace among men, that is to be reckoned, to be revealed no otherwise than to be a certain declaration which he had grafted in us by Nature, or else even necessity aught to have wrong out of us, or profit according to the seeds of nature aught to have brought to light. I answer, first we grant, that the ecclesiastical power How the royal power submitteth itself to the Ecclesiastical power. (not as the Papists stretch it, but as it is given unto us by only Christ the mediator, is far superior without all comparison, than the royal power of Princes. Howbeit, this hindereth not, but as the ministers are mediators thereof to us, the royal power of Princes hath again an other superior government, to oversee that there be no other ecclesiastical power exercised by the mediation of the Minister, than Christ the only mediator hath ordained. And to remove all popish ●…oysting in giving us quid pro quo, which when the royal power hath done, it submitteth itself to the true power ecclesiastical as not having a superiority of all ecclesiastical The distinction of In, & of. matters to exercise or do them: but having a superiority in all ecclesiastical matters to oversee them rightly done and exercised. And this distinction of of and In, M. Sanders himself used immediately before, and useth again in the fourth chapter following: which also is a common distinction, and therefore I may well use it, because it not only expresseth the manner of the Prince's Supremacy, but also detecteth the Papists common fallati●…n, as though by the name of Supreme governor, the Queen's Majesty took upon her the government Ecclesiastical, when she only taketh upon her (that is due unto her) a government in causes ecclesiastical. Secondly, I answer, that although there be no comparison between these two powers: yet is the royal power far above that which here he makes it, that nothing belonging to this power, hath b●…n revealed from heaven pertaining to eternal salvation hide in Christ, but only to matters that conserve peace among men, springing of the seeds of nature, either for profit or necessity. Herein he says in deed, as St. doth, but this is no less manifest untruth, than shameful Stapleton fol. 29. a. b. slander to all christian princes estates. The Scripture is evident to the contrary, as well in God's institution of the royal power, as in all the examples of godly Princes commended Deuter. 17. in the Scripture, not so much for their worldly policy, justice, peace and natural gifts, as for matters pertaining to eternal salvation, both hid in Christ, and revealed in Christ also. And let these things (saith he) be spoken for the original of either power. The second point of difference he maketh in the use and office, saying: But so far as belongeth to the use and office of those Saund. pa. 57 The use of both powers. things, we know that distinction to be observed in them, that he which had the full power ecclesiastical, might also have had in governing the people of God, without any especial consecration, as happened in No, in Melchizedech, in Abraham, in Moses, in Helie, and in Samuel, and in the Maccabees. howbeit, it was not onlyke sort true, that he which either by the Law of Nations, o●… the Civil, was king (which is the first degree of honour in this kind) should straightway have also the power Ecclesiastical, except that right had been given unto him by especial consecration. M. Saunders contradiction. Supra pag. 791. ye confonnde your own tale, Master Saunders, and speak contraries. Before you said (speaking of the Civil power of faithful Kings) Christus talem in sui regni Ministris esse noluerit, Christ in the Ministers of his his kingdom would have no such power. Now you say, He that had the one power, had (without any especial consecration) the other also. And hereto ye ●…ite these holy Fathers No, Melchizedech, Abraham, Moses, H●…lie, Samuel, and the Maccabees. Were none of these, Ministers in the kingdom of christ? Besides this you confo●…nde your distinction, heaping up confusedly these witnesses, of the which but one serveth properly to the purpose, of the former part of your distinction, for the Priests to have had the Civil How H●…lie had the civil and ecclesi●…sticall power. power: ●…nd that is Helie, to whom properly the Ecclesiastical power belonged, being the high Priest, and likewise had the Civil power, being the judge also. But yet this was not without some especial consecration or appointment of God thereunto. For else, either it had been ordinary to his predecessors, or he had usurped it, sith none was judge among the Israelites (all the while that the Civil power was directed by that kind of government) but those that were by especial calling appointed of God thereto. As for the other, were of diverse times and sorts. How No, Melchizedech, and Abraham had both powers. The holy patriarchs, No, Melchizedech, and Abraham, had I grant also, both powers, Ecclesiastical and Civil. But at that time before the law, when both estates pertained to them, by their birthright. And this maketh rather for the Civil magistrate to have had the ecclesiastical power, than for the Ecclesiastical magistrate to have had the civil power. For, the government descending to them by reason of their birthright, was a natural or civil government, as yourself before confessed, saying: E●…enim ut pater infilium. etc. For as the father hath a S●…und. pa. 56. certain power over his son, the grandsire over his nephew, and so forth, the elder over the younger, this verily god hath wrought by the law natural, while by the manner and order of my birth, he declareth him to be my superior, which either ministered the cause why I should be born, or else is joined in some kindred with him by whom I was born. And so these patriarchs by birthright, having the civil power, by the law of Nature, as you confess, had not the civil power, because they had the Ecclesiastical, but rather had the Ecclesiastical power, because they had Civil power by natural right, till these two offices were by the Law of Moses How Moses had both powers. severed. As for Moses and the Maccabees, were indeed of the tribe of Levi. Moses had power in both estates, but being before the Ecclesiastical power, was lotted to the tribe of Levi, and being the lawmaker, in appointing it to the race of his brother Aaron: his example maketh again for the Civil Magistrate, rather to have had the government in Ecclesiastical matters, than the Ecclesiastical How the Maccabees had them. in the Civil. The Maccabees by an extraordinary vocation had the Civil power. As for Samuel was also of the tribe of Levi, but yent no Prieve, although a How Samuel had them. Prophet, and the judge also, but by especial calling of God thereto. Now all these estates being thus divers, both in sorts and times, he confoundeth together to enforce his observation, that the priests ordinarylye may deal in the Prince's office, but in no case the Prince may deal with any thing belonging to the Priests, and yet his own examples make against him. But he addeth, without some especial consecration. But what especial Special consecration . consecration had David, had Solomon, had Ezechias, etc. to govern the Priests in their ecclesiastical matters? We read of no especial consecration, other than the duty of their royal power. But whereto tendeth all this? forsooth priests may deal with Princes, and take the Civil power upon them ordinarily, but Princes in no case may deal with Priests. Hereupon (say you) when Ozias would have offered incense Sau●…. pag. 57 upon the altar of incense, Azarias the Priest went in after him, and with him the Priests of the Lord resisted the king, and said: It is not thy office Ozia, to offer incense to the Lord, but it is the office of the Priests, that is to say, of the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to such mystery. The example of Ozias is often ●…rged of himself, and all Ozias example. his fellows, howbeit it is mere impertinent & flaundederous. The Prince taketh not upon her (as Ozias would have done) the power, nor office, nor administration ecclesiastical. But such power as Ozias did well take upon him (while he was a good king) in overseeing the Priests do their duties, and not himself intruding into the doing Supra pag. of their duties. But of this example we have herded somewhat already in answering master Stapleton, and we shall have more again in M. Saunders fourth Chapter, and therefore I reserve myself to the larger answer of it. To this he addeth an Item of josaphat, saying, Itemque, Sand. pag. 57 etc. And also josaphat the king of juda distinguishing both powers, said to the Levites and the Priests: Amarias the Priest and your Bishop, still govern in those things that pertain to God. Moreover Zabadias' the son of Ishmael, who is the captain in the house of juda, shall be over those works that pertain to the office of the king. Behold other things pertain to the office of the Bishop, and other to the the kings office. This we have beholden already in Master Stapletons' Supra pag. 670. objection of the same, and there may you M. Saunders behold the answer. And thus, much again for the use of both these powers. Now thirdly, for the end thereof, says M. Saunders. Of the end of both powers (not the last but the middle Sand. pag. 57 &. 58. The end of both powers. Math. 10. 1. Tim. 2. end) that the civil power toucheth naught but this life, Christ says: Fear not them that kill the body, but they can not kill the soul. And again, the Apostle willeth us to pray for kings, & those that are in authority, that we may hue a quiet and peaceable life. A quiet life therefore is the last end of the civil power, dwelling without the Church. But of that which is in the Church it is not the last, but yet the proper end it is. While in the mean time the eccl. power belongeth to the life to come, as Christ hath said, whatsoever you loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. To this distinction of the ends of these powers I answer, How far the end of the civil power stretcheth. it is false: not only the last end (as he granteth) but the meaner ends also of the civil power in the church of Christ, stretch further than this life. I appeal to the Prince's institution and office. Deuter. 17. I appeal to all the doings of the godly Kings, judges, and civil magistrates Supra. pag. 117. described in the scripture. I appeal to Constantine the great, that thought religion to be the chief end of his government. Yea, I appeal to the places, that even here M. Sanders citeth for his purpose▪ manifestly wresting ●… M. San. maymeth S. Paul's sentence. maiming that of S. Paul to Timothy. For he saith not only, Ut quietam & tranquillam vitam aga●…us. That we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, and there endeth: but he addeth further withal, in omni pietate & honestate, in all Supra pag. 669. godliness & honesty. In which two words, chief all godliness, what is included, is at large declared against master Stapleton. But before this place, M. Sanders citeth the testimony of Christ, that the prince can do no more but kill the body. I answer, Christ makes not the proper end of the Kill the ●…o die is not the proper end of the Prince's power. Prince's power, to kill the body, but rather (as you said before out of S. Paul) to save it. To kill it, is an accidental tude of his power, & yet Iwisse, Christ spoke not there only of civil Princes, but as much against the tyranny of the high Priests, or any other that would persecute the ministers of Christ to death, as your Pope & you his chaplains do. But I pray you M. Sand. may not an ill Prince An ill Priest kills the soul. wrist his authority to destroy the soul also, with maintaining Idolatry & false religion? In deed he can not kill the soul, for properly it can not be killed. But that kind of kill that the soul may suffer, which is sin, and damnation the reward of sin) with the one, stricken of the devil by malice, and wounded of himself by error: with the other, stricken of God by justice, and deserved of himself by sin) may not the ill Prince make his power be a mean thereto? and may not an ill priest on this wise kill the soul as well and sooner than he? I wots what your pope Pius. 2. was wont to say, Mal●… med●…ci corpus, imperiti sacerdotes Platina de sententijs. Pij. 2. animam o●…cîdunt. Ill Physicians kill the body, but unskilful Priests kill the soul. You say your power stretcheth to the life to come. In deed M Sand. the true eccl. power stretcheth to the life to come, I fear me yours doth stretch to life (as you say) but not to come, but only to the present life of the body: but, to death, of body and soul, both now and to come for ever. Besides all this, I appeal even to your own self, M. Sand. that affirm the civil power in the church of Christ, to stretch to far further & more proper ends than this life: for in your fourth chapter following you have this quotation: Christian●…rum regna le●…ularia non sunt. Christian kingdoms are not worldly. Whereon you have these words. Moreover the kingdoms of the faythf●…ll Princes, whose Pag. 80. people fear▪ God, are not altogether earthly or worldly, for in that part that they have believed in christ, they have, as it were left to be of the world, and have begun to be members of the eternal kingdom. For although the outward face of things, which is found in kingdoms mere secular, be in a Christian kingdom: Yet sith the spirit of man is far the most excellent part of him, and the whole spirit acknowledgeth Christ his king and only Lord, I see nothing why Christian kingdoms aught not to be rather judged spiritual, according to their better part, than earthly. And this is the cause why now so long since, those which governed the people of God were wont to be anointed of his ministers, not otherwise than were the Prophets and Priests. For even the kings themselves also are after a sort▪ partakers of the spiritual ministery, when they are anointed. Not that they should do those things that are committed to the only priests hereto orderly consecrated, but that those things which other kings refer to a profane and worldly end, these kings should now remember, that they aught to direct to an holy end. For when they themselves are mere spiritual, it is fit that they should will, that all their things should also be accounted as it were spiritual. Lo, M. Saunders, in these words you confess far M. Sanders contrarieth himself. other proper ends, and far other estates also, in the civil power of Christian Princes, than this life of the body, and the quiet tranquillity thereof. And therefore what need further witness, when yourself are not only contrary to yourself, but also bear witness against yourself? Now when M. Sanders hath thus prosecuted these three differences of these two estates, he collecteth his conclusion, saying: But if the ecclesiastical power differ from the civil, in the Sand. pag. 58. original in the use, and in the end: and so well the beginning of the ecclesiastical power, as the use and end is far the more worthy: shall they not of wise men be judged mad, which either confound these powers or else would have the royal, that is to say, the civil power, to be superior to the ecclesiastical? How madly for so wise a man, you have proved these differences, let wise men judge (M. Saunders) and how badly, if not madly, you make your conclusions against us, let wise men also judge. For we neither confound these What superior power we ascribe to the Prince . powers, nor give both to the Prince, nor make the Civil power simply superior to the ecclesiastical power, although we give the prince a superior power, in respect of the overseeing that the eccl. power (which in the administration thereof is higher, although not in the direction and maynteining thereof) be not abused by the ecclesiastical person. Now M. Saunders having said thus much of these three differences, setteth down a long sentence out of Chrisostome, wherein he extolleth the Priestly power, above the kings power, which notwithstanding, is nothing against this superiority that we attribute to Princes, although the office and administration of the ecclesiastical power, be granted to be never so much superior, and this is answered unto sufficiently already in M. St. Yet because we have hereafter to deal at large with M. Stapleton on the same sentence of chrysostom: I refer it to the proper and more fit consideration of it. And thus much hath M. Sanders for these three differences, which he saith he speaketh against three errors. The first error is of them that say the royal power in a Saund. pa. 5●…. christian Prince, is higher than any ecclesiastical power, which opinion the English Protestants defend. The second error is of them, that extend the power royal, to certain causes ecclesiastical, to be known and judged by the king's law. To conclude the third is of them that think a christian Prince, at the lest in all civil business, and in his own realm, always and without all exception, to be greater than any ecclesiastical Magistrate, nor that for any sin that he shall commit in the Church of God, he can be removed from the administration of the kingdom. I answer, neither these conclusions are sufficiently proved on these foresaid proves hitherto, nor some of them at all before mentioned. As the deposing of the Prince, which is another question, and here as madly thrust in, as maliciously and traitorously meant. Neither any of these conclusions touch the English Protestants, for they defend none such as you have here set down. Name the parties and their assertions. Else in stead of M. Saunders, you deserve to be rather called M. Slanders. The second Chapter. The argument whereof is this. Not Christian king in his kingdom is the supreme governor in ecclesiastical causes, immediately under Christ. IN this Chapter, as commonly else where, M. Saunders M. Sand. order in this chapter. rhethorically doth hide his method, howbeit for perspicuity sake. I will divide this Chapter into three parts▪ The first is his arguments why he thinketh the Prince can not be this governor. The second is the reasons why he thinketh us herein deceived. The third is the me●…nes to dissuade us from the acknowledging of it, by the event and evil success that hath ensued thereon. And first for the first part, his arguments are of two sorts, the one, à definitione, from the definition of a governor: the other, à dignitate, from the greater dignity of Priesthood, bring the argument, by comparing the dignity of both these estates, from the old testament to the New. His first argument beginneth thus. He that may be called a supreme head or chief governor, Sand. pag. 58. M. Saunders hath of necessity the power of doing all those things, which can be wrought by the inferiors to the magistrates of that Definition of a governor. congregation, by their office, or by any charge, belonging properly to the same congregation. This shall be made plainer by putting of example. He that i●… chieftayne in an army, hath M. Sand. examples to confirm his definition. not only the Imperial power over all Tribunes, and Centurions, but besides may lawfully challenge to himself to occupy the Tribunes place▪ or to be captain over an hundredth, if at any time he shall think it meet for himself to do it. He that can govern a whole common weal, can if he will, know of every mean man, and not only sustain the turn, and fulfil the offices of the Prince of them all, but also of his Mayor, or of the inferior judges. He that is a Bishop hath power of baptizing, and of shutting the Church doors, and of distributing the Church's treasure, although those things are wont to be done of the inferior ministers. To this definition, and these examples, I answer, the M. Sand. definition false. definition is false, the examples are insufficient. first, for the definition it is not true of every supreme governor, that he can or ought to work and execute all those things and duties, that every one of his inferiors can or aught to work and execute. For the government of things is one thing, and the execution of things governed is another thing. Yea, these two are relativa, and can not be confounded the one with the other, although they have respect the one to the other: for so, the governor should become the person governed. Secondly, these three examples are insufficient. For although M. Sand. examples insufficient. we admit these three, yet we may object a great many more examples, in which this definition holds not. Set aside the doing of all dyle and unseemly offices, for a far more mean estate than a Prince to do, of which he hath neither knowledge, nor it were tolerable he should divers instances against M. Sand. examples. ●…o them: I pray you M. Sand. how could a king ruling in his own realm, be his own ligire Ambassador in another realm? Will you say, he might make a deputy at home, and The instance of an Ambassador. be Ambassador to his deputy abroad, and so the deputy to the king, shall be the king, and the king the deputy to the king, that is the king's deputy? But perchance you will admit this absurdity, because you will not go from your word, and say, well, the king may be so and he wil Here what if one should do with you, as I herded once M. Feckenham tell the tale of a gentleman, M. Feck. tale of a gentleman defending that mustard was good with all meat. that defended, mustard was good with all meat. One said nay, it was naught with this meat, another with that, but look what any could reckon up: he still affirmed his saying, that mustard was good with every meat, were it never so unsavoury a sauce thereto. Now when every man had reckoned what he list, at length quoth his own man, that waited on him: I pray you master, and is a mess o●… mustard good with a mess of milk? Ha' (quoth his master)▪ thou haste marred all, thou shouldst have heldae thy peace. This was master Feckenhams tale. Now if master Feckenham that told this tale, should deal thus with you, M. Sanders, that as lustily affirm the king may lawfully do any thing, that any of his subjects may lawfully d●…, as the Gentleman said, mustard was good with all meat▪ If M. Feckenham would say: sir, and can the king do all that even his own wife, or any other man's wife, daughter or maid, in things pertaining to their duties and offices can and aught to do? Especially, sith yourself in The instance ●… of woman. prosecuting this argument, urge the example of a woman. All the women in his kingdom are his subjects, so well as the men. He hath a supreme government over all people in all causes, can he therefore do their duties? and yet he can have the supreme government to maintain all laws of matrimony, and to punish all whoredoms, and yet not like every somoner, or other executioner of their punishments. If you say a woman may be no inferior governor. That is false, a wife hath inferior government in her household, and many women have had inferior governments under kings in common weals, as the Lady regentes in Flaunders, etc. But what if she were not an undergovernour, yet if she be a subject governed, the words of your definition comprehend her, saying: A chief governor hath of necessity the power of doing all those things, which may be wrought of the inferiors to the magistrates of that congregation by their office, or by any charge belonging properly to the same congregation. But you will say perhaps, that women are of an other kind, so that the king can not do all their offices. As likewise for the ecclesiastical government, the Apostles might not lawfully do all those things, that the widows choose to serve in the congregation, might and aught to do: nor the civil magistrate of those congregations might or aught to do them. Then will M. Feckenham press you that your definition is false, a governor can not do all things that belongeth to a subject. If you say, a woman is not a subject, that is false. If you say she is not a subject in respect she is a woman, that is false also, for both men and women are subjects to their governors. If you say she is not a subject in respect she is a wife: although I grant, the word wife, hath an other relation than to the king (to wife unto her husband:) yet what availeth this, sith many offices have many other relations also, the son to his father, the servant to his master, the scholar to his schoolmaster, and yet all these be subjects to the Prince, although the Prince can not deal in all their several offices. But you think to salve all the matter with this exception. Sand. pag. 58. Master Saunders exception. I say not that he which is endowed with chiefest power, should strait ways have the knowledge of every lesser office, for this pertaineth to the fact and not to the right. Neither say I, it is always comely that he should execute the inferior office by himself, but I say there is no law to let him, no power wants, whereby the chief magistrate should not do those things, which the inferiors in the same common weal are wont to do. Go to, go to, M. Saunders, you will still be like the gentleman, that would fain have eaten his word if he dared for shame. You come in prettily, and begin to make some exceptions already: you admit he may want knowledge of many things pertaining not to his office, yea and that it is uncomely, he should do them. And in deed M. Saunders if you be think you of every subjects doings, you shall find many uncomely and unreverent things, for so high an estate to do, and many things that he knows no more how to do them himself, than that Cook that would put mustard into his milk to season it. What? and may the Prince do those things himself that are so vile, and whereof he hath no knowledge? He may, say you, and he will, what right or law may let him? If you talk (M. Saunders) of a wilful fool, that will cast himself and his kingdom away: if you talk of a tyrant, whose will is law, that saith as the Pope doth: Sic volo, sic jubeo, stet pro ratione voluntas: that is another matter. But if you talk of a king, and of a lawful power, The will and power of a king restrained by law. than I say, his will and power, ought to be restrained by law, to do nothing unskilfully nor uncomely for his estate. I grant he may abase himself to some inferior kind of offices to do them: but not to all, not not by the right of his royal estate. And yet by his government all those things are done, that are orderly done. Although he himself may not do them, though he would. Do you not remember S. Paul's similitude (so often used The similitude of a man's body. by yourself M. Saunders) of a common weal resembled to our body? The head (you say often) governeth all the parts and members, but the head itself doth not nor can not do all, that all the parts & members do. We stand not, we go not, we sit not on our heads, our head reacheth not, nor can reach every thing that our hand can reach & doth. Nor the head doth or can do the office of the shouloers, back or belly, & yet you grant the head hath supreme government over all these parts, & deviseth laws, orders, diets, provisions, & helps for all the parts and actions in the parts of all the body. Thus you see not only by similitudes & examples (in which I might be infinite against your th●… examples) but also by good reason, your definition of a supreme governor faileth, he may be a lawful supreme governor, & yet can not do all the offices of his inferiors. Yea it were unlawful for him to attempt many such things, and yet his lawful supreme government even over all those things, that he himself can not do, nor aught to do, is no whit thereby impaired. And therefore this is a false principle, to build, as you do, thereon. Now this being thus plainly proved a false groundeworke, let us see how you proceed to frame your argument on it. Which things being thus foretouched, I add unto Sand. 58. them that the supreme head or governor of any Church, is the supreme magistrate of that common weal, which no man having his right mind will deny. Therefore if the king may rightly and worthily be named the supreme head or governor of that Church, as now this good while is done in England: the same king shall also necessarily have the faculty of working all those things, which of that magistrate, of that Church may be wrought, otherwise he is not the governor of that Church, in respect it is a Church. But in every christian kingdom there are and aught to be many, that should preach the word of God, to the faithful, that should baptize in the name of the father, and of the Matth. 28. john. 20. 1. Cor. 11. son, & of the holy ghost, the nations converted: that should remit sins, that should make the sacrament of thanksgiving & distribute it: therefore he that is the supreme governor of any Church, aught to be endowed with such power, that no law should let, whereby he might the less fulfil & do all these things. But a secular king although he be a christian, can not do these things by the force of his royal power, o●… else a woman also might both teach in the Church, and also remit sins, and baptize orderly and solemnly, and minister the sacrament of thanksgiving. For scythe both by the law of nations it is received, that a woman may be admitted to the government of a kingdom, and in Moses Num 27. law it is written, when a man shall dye without a son, the inheritance shall pass to the daughter: but a kingdom cometh among many nations in the name of inheritance: And sith Deborah the Prophetess judged the people of Israel, jud. 4. 4. Reg. 11. and also Athalia and Alexandra have reigned in jury, it appeareth plainly that the kingly right appertaineth no less to women than to men. Which also is to be said of children, because according to the Apostle, the heir though Gal. 4. 4. Reg. 11. 4. Reg 22. he be a child is Lord of all. And joas began to reign, when he was seven year old: and josias reigned at the eight year of his age. But a child for the defect of judgement, a woman for the imbecility of her kind, is not admitted to the preaching of God's word, or to the solemn administration of the Sacraments: I permit not (saith the Apostle) a 1. Tim. 2. 1. Cor. 14. Gal. 4. woman to teach. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the Church, and the same Apostle saith, that the heir being a child, differeth nothing from a servant. But it is not the ecclesiastical custom, that he which remaineth yet a servant, should be a minister of the Church. Sigh therefore in the right of a kingdom, the cause is all one of a man, of a woman, and of a child: but of like causes there is like, and all one judgement: but neither child nor woman, and thereupon neither man also (that is nothing else but king) can do those things in his kingdom, which of other ministers of the church of God are necessarily to be done: therefore it cometh to pass, that neither the same king can rightly be called the supreme governor and head of the Church wherein he liveth. All this long argument standeth still on the foresaid principle M Saunders argument standeth all on a wrong principle. that a supreme head or governor must be such a person as may do all the actions of all the offices, belonging to all the parties governed. But this is a false principle, as already is manifestly declared, & therefore all this long driven argument is to no purpose. The Prince for all this may still be the supreme head or governor, over all Ecclesiastical people, so well as temporal, in all their ecclesiastical causes so well as in temporal, although he himself can not exercise all ecclesiastical functions, nor do himself all the ecclesiastical actions of all ecclesiastical people. For else he might also be debarred of all supremacy, over all civil and temporal people, in all their civil and temporal causes, because he can not himself exercise all the civil and temporal offices, nor do himself all the civil and temporal actions, of all the civil and temporal people neither. And so should ●…e clean be debarred from supremacy in either power, nor have any supreme government at all. Now taking this your false principle pro confesso▪ after M. Saunders examples of a woman and a child. your wont manner, you would drive us to an absurdity, as you suppose, by bringing in more examples of a woman, and a child, reasoning thus: A pari, from the like. A woman and a child may be as well a supreme governor as may a man, and hath as good right thereto. But a woman or a child can not be a supreme governor in causes Ecclesiastical: Ergo, A man can not be a supreme governor neither, in causes Ecclesiastical. For to this conclusion the force of both the M. Saund. argument not only excludeth a women and a child, but also a man from the supreme government. promises, naturally driveth the argument. I know you clap in a pair of parenthesis, saying in your conclusion: neither a man also (that is nothing else but a king:) But sith these w●…r des are neither in the maior nor the minor: the conclusion is plain▪ that a man can not be a Supreme governor in causes Ecclesiastical. And I pray you then tell me, who shall be the supreme governor in ecclesiastical causes, if neither man, woman, nor child may be? whereby are not only excluded civil Princes, but your Popes are debarred from it, Pope joane and Pope john also. For if they use that order in the election, to have a Cardinal feel that all be safe, if the versicle be said, Testiculos habet, how can the quyre merrily sing in the response Deo gratias? If he be found to be a man, he can not be supreme governor. Master Saunders therefore must needs mend this argument, or else the Popes, for whom he writes this book will con him small thanks, except that they be eunuchs. But Master Saunders not marking the sequel of his conclusion, fortifieth the parts of his argument. To confirm the mayor, A woman and a child may be as well a supreme governor as a man: he citeth the law, Num. 27. he citeth ensamples, Deborah, Athalia, and Alexandra for women. For children, he citeth the Apostle Gal. 4. and the ensamples of joas and josias. But these proves are superfluous, sith the controversy is not on the mayor, but on the minor. Which minor is the point in controversy, and denied of us: that a woman or a child can not be a supreme governor in causes ecclesiastical. To confirm this minor, for a woman, he allegeth that she can not be admitted to preach the word of God, remit sins, nor baptise orderly and solemnly, nor administer the lords Supper, both for the imbecility of her kind, and for Saint Paul's prohibition of teaching in the Church. For a child, he likewise can not do the same things, as well for defect of judgement in his nonage, as for saint Paul's witness that he differs not from a servant. But the Church's use is not for servants, to do these things: and so, not for children to do them. Here for confirmation of his minor, master Sanders rus●…s to his false former principle: that if the woman & the child be supreme governors in these things, then must they be able themselves to do these things. But they cannot do these things themselves: Ergo, they can have no supreme government in them. But this reason is already taken away, and therefore all this argument falls. We grant it is true that neither women, nor children can do these things. And therefore the Papists are to blame that suffer women to bapatize, and to say or sing in their quyres their ordinary service, and read the Lessons. We grant them also, that no men The Papists are culpable of women's doing. eccl. actions. neither, but such as be lawfully called thereunto, may themselves exercise and do these things: but doth this fellow they may not therefore have a government over those that do them in their orderly doing of them? if this were true, then take away all their government over all lay people, and divers things that women cannot well do themselves, and yet can well oversee them done by others. all civil causes too. For neither women can nor aught themselves to do all that men being their subjects can and aught to do. Will you have a woman wear a man's apparel? it is flat forbidden by God's word. Will you have a Queen fight herself in a battle, and break a spear as a king may do? In deed some mannish women as the Queen of Amazons, Thomyris, Semiramis and other have so done, but it is not sitting. And by your own reason, the imbecility of their kind doth clear them. And a number of such other things may be reckoned up. Shall we now say, the Queen is not supreme governor over these people and causes, because herself can not do them. Likewise for a king that is a child, you know he can not fight in battle himself, neither can he himself sit in judgement, and debate rights and wrongs in civil doubts, many more things can he himself not do, even because as you say, he hath a defect in judgement. Hath he therefore in these civil and temporal things no supreme government? Thus you see still your examples fail, yea they make clean against you: for as a supreme governor may well be a supreme governor, in those things that he himself can not do: so a christian princes supreme government over all ecclesiastical people, in all ecclesiastical causes, is nowhit hindered, although the prince, he or she, young or old, can not do the functions ecclesiastical, nor be an ecclesiast. person. The second argument is, (that he so often, and all the Papists use) of the excellency of the minister in his ministration above the Prince. To this he citeth the saying of Saint 1. Corinth. 4. Paul: Let men ●…o esteem us as ministers of Christ, and dispensers of his mysteries. To which ministery kings are not called. And here is again alleged the story of ●…ziae, that presumed to offer incense, and was punished with ●…eaprie. The effect of all the argument he knitteth up thus: Siergo minister. etc. If therefore the minister of the Church of Saunders. 59 Christ, exercise a greater and more divine ministery than the king, or any other prince: how is the king the Supreme head of that church, wherein he seethe certain ministers greater than himself? I answer, this is a fallation, secundum quid ad simpliciter. We grant, in the respect of his ministery, the minister is above all Princes. But this pertaineth to the actions and function of the minister, and not to the oversight and direction, that all those actions and functions be orderly done. Now this being but a common argument, Master Saunders urgeth it further by comparison of either estate, the Prince and the Priest, from the old Testament, to the new, saying: Ac nimirum illud. etc. And this namely I seem to take by Saunders. 59 my right, the authority of any Christian king in his christian kingdom, is not greater than was in times passed the authority of any jewish king among the people of the jews, for if the City of God to which christ of his own name, isaiah. 62. hath given a new name, may verily be the more worthy, but can not be inferior to the Church of the jews▪ Surely than it followeth, that a christian king over his christian kingdom, can not obtain more power than a king of the Hebrew nation did obtain among the Hebr●…wes. For how much the more any Common weal is subject too their earthly King, the authority of that common wea●…e is so much the less. But the authority of the Church of Christ is not less than the authority of the synagogue of the jews, because in the church of Christ those things Hebr. 10. 1. Conn. 10. were fulfilled to the very image of the things, which in the synagogue of the jews were scarce figured by the naked shadows. As the truth in deed in greater than the image, so again, the image is greater than the shadow: but this is evident, that the authority in times passed of the only king, is lesser than the authority of his christian kingdom, or of his Bishops. But if it be so, than the christian king, which is both less than the church, and the bishops of his kingdom, cannot be immediately under Christ, the head of the church. This argument is intricate, and full of many inversed cringle crangles, to show a face of deep and subtle knowledge, beyond the simple man's capacity: which kind of reasoning, is more suspicious than to edifying. The effect of the argument standeth all on this: The greater authority is given to a christian king, the lesser have the Priests and the church. But the priests and the church have not less authority, but above a christian king. Ergo, the king hath not supreme authority. To the Mayor, that the greater authority is given to a christian king, the lesser have the priests and the church: he sayeth nothing. And yet some what is to be said thereto, it is How the kings, or the priests, or the Church's authorities are greater or lesser in sundry respects. not so clear as he makes it. For sith either of these three, have their authorities in divers considerations: the Priest's authority may be greater than the king's authority in one respect, that is, of his divine actions and ministery: and yet in an other, of the government and public direction, the kings authority is greater than his. And so, although the Church's authority in one respect, be greater than both the Kings and the Priests, as they are both but membres and children of the Church: yet in regard that the one is a Pastor, and the other a governor, and both of them Fathers and guyders as it were unto the church, their authorities again are greater than the Churches. And this also showeth the falsehood of the Minor, that the Priests and the Church have not less authority, but are above the prince. Which is not true, but in such respects, as nothing hinder the supreme government that we give the prince. But Master Saunders to confirm this to be simply true, the prince to be inferior to the Priests and people, will prove it by his comparison of the state of the old and new Testament. And first he will have the state of the old Testament in the Church's government, to be a figure of the new. But in the estate of the old Testament, the Prince was under the priest and the people. Ergo, it must be so in the new. To the mayor, we grant M. Saunders granteth the governments of the Church in the old testa meant, to be a figure of the Church's government in the new testament. him, the government of the Church in the old testament, to be a figure of the church's government in the new testament. And remember this well, that here M. Saunders buyldes upon. For if he himself shall be found to serve from it afterward, when he finds it shall make against him, then let him blame himself, and let us note both inconstancy and cantradiction in him, who playeth the snail, putting in and out his horns, and will say, and eat his word, as he thinketh best to his advantage. And this is the fashions of them all, in the examples of the old testament, as we have seen the practice of M. Feckenham & M. Stapleton, which is a subtle, false, and unsteadfast kind of dealing. But go to we deny the minor, that in the state of the old testament, the Prince was otherwise (than in the foresaid respects) inferior to the Priest and people. It remains (saith he) that we prove the king of the Hebrew Saunders. 60. nation, to have been less than his nation, and his Bishop. Who shall be a better judge in this cause than even God himself? For he entreating of sacrifices for sin committed by ignorance, distinguisheth four sorts of men. For either the anointed priest sinneth, or the people, or the Prince, or the private person. Of these four sorts, the anointed Priest held the first place, the people of Israel the second place, the Prince the third place, the private man the last place levit. 4. If the Priest that is anointed shall have sinned, making the 1. people to offend, he shall offer for his sin, an unspotted ' Bullock 2. without blemish, unto the Lord. But if all the people of Israel shall have done of ignorance that which is contrary to the commandment of the Lord, and shall afterward understand their sin, the people shall offer a Bullock for their sin. If the Prince shall have sinned, and among many things 3. shall do aught by ignorance, that is forbidden by the Law of the Lord, and shall afterward understand his sin, he shall offer for an offering to the Lord, from among the she Goats an he Goat unspotted. But if any soul of the people of the 4. land shall have sinned through ignorance, he shall offer a she Goat unspotted. Lo four sacrifices, whereof the most worthy is the Bullock, which is offered as well for the Priest as for all the people. The he Goat is but of the next worthiness, the which the King offered. Therefore, even as the Prince is preferred before the private man, so all the people is preferred before the Prince, but the anointed Priest is preferred before them both. This argument is taken from the Sacrifices for sins in the old Testament, and is nothing pertaining to government, and therefore can infer no necessary but wrested conclusion thereunto. Now as this matter is nothing to the present purpose: so his arguments thereon, argue the greater folly, the more nicely he standeth on them. He driveth them to infer a superiority by two reasons, the one of the more worthy Sacrifice, the other of the order & placing the description of these Sacrifices. Of the Sacrifice he reasoneth M. Saunders argument of the more worthy beast offered in Sacrifice on the more worthy beast, as thus: He that offered the more worthy beast, was the more worthy in authority: But the high Priest and the people offered a more worth beast than did the Prince: Ergo, the high Priest and the people were more worthy in authority than the Prince. The Mayor he taketh for granted, after his manner▪ The Minor he proveth thus. A bullock is a more worthy beast than a Goat, But the high Priest and the people offered a Bullock, & the Prince but a Goat. Ergo they offered a more worthy beast. I answer to this worthy, if not rather beastly argument, made from a Bullock, as I remember once a Papist said in Cambridge of a right worthy Doctor of his own Popish Church, his name (quoth he) is Doctor Bullock, but per contractionem, it may be Doctor Block, and so this is a Bullockishe argument, but per contractionem, it is a very blockish argument, and far more fit for Doctor Bullock, than for Doctor Sanders to have made, except that he be made Bullatus Doctor. I grant there was great differences The difference in the things offered, made the difference of worthiness in the offerer. to be observed in the things offered, Howe beit the worthiness of the Sacrifice lay not in the things offered, but every Sacrifice had this or that kind of matter appointed to be offered, as the wisdom of God thought fittest to express the nature of that sin, or propitiation whereof it was a Sacrifice. A Lion is counted a more worthy beast than a Bullock, and yet was it counted an unclean beast. In the second chapter going before this alleged, God says of flower and Corn offered, which is not so worthy a thing levit. 2. as is a beast, it is the most holy of the offerings of the Lord made by fire. In the third Chapter he saith, if he offer a levit. 3 Lamb for his oblation: and afterward he saith, and if his offerings be a Goat. A Goat is a more worthy beast than Lamb. But what shall we conclude hereon, for the more worthiness of the People authority that offered all these and other more different things? But now if a Bullock be the most worthy beast, did not many Kings many times, offer many Bullocks? Did not also the high Priests offer other things for themselves, besides bullocks? in the. 8. chapter of levit. a bullock and Levit 8. ●… ram was offered for Aaron and his sons, but here the bullock is still placed before the ram, as a more worthy beast by master Saunders reason. But in the ninth chapter levit. 9 he saith, And in the. 8. day Moses called Aaron and his sons, and the elders of Israel, and then he said to Aaron take thee a young calf for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering, both without blemish, and bring them before the Lord, and unto the Children of Israel, saying, take you an he Goat for a sin offering, and a Calf and a Lamb, both of a year old without blemish for a burned offering, also a Bullock and a ram for a peace offering. here is a young calf preferred before a bullock, for the Priest's sin offering: and a ram before a Calf, yea, a bullock and a ram for the people, and but a young calf and a ram for the high Priest: and so the people (by this reason) should be more worthy than the high Priest, and equal at the lest they are made, even in this place that M. Saunders so narrowly examineth, for the Priest and the people offer a bullock both of them. Now if the dignity of the beast sacrificed, will not infer the dignity of the man offering the sacrifice: yet will master M. San. argument from the dignity of the former recital. Saunders enforce his argument further, from the dignity of the place, in the order of naming each person's sacrifice, as thus: He that is former placed, is former in dignity, and he that is placed later, is inferior in dignity. But the priest anointed held the first place, the people of Israel the second place, the Prince the third place, the private man the last place. Ergo, the Prince is inferior in dignity to the Priest and the people, and only superior to the private man. I answer, this is as mean, if not a worse argument M. Saunders confutes himself. than the other, from the former place in recital, to the former place in dignity. Master Saunders own order of his book in this self same treatise, confuteth himself. In his first book he examineth the people's authority. In his second book, the Prince's authority: in his third book, the Priest's authority: shall we v●…gehim hereupon, that he meant to give the people superior authority to Princes, and Princes superior authority unto Priests? he will say be meant it not, and that he confutes it, neither can we justly gather any argument of a former authority, from a former placing of the people or their names, which may now and then be placed the best in the last place, or the best in the middle place, so well as in the first place, and yet keep a good and decent order. And if Master Saunders may reason thus in his defence for placing the Priest last, why will not his own answer confute his own argument, that here he maketh of the Priest named in the first place? These arguments now being thus weak and childish to infer any necessary consequence of superior authority: M. Saunders laboureth to strengthen them with the authorities of witnesses. Although before hand, in so plain a matter, what need witnesses, or what could all the witnesses in the world do, to make these good consequences? not that we contemn these witnesses, nor yet altogether deny the matter, (as we have divers times affirmed) that the high priests office then, and all the Priests under him, and that all the Bishops and Ministers now, in respect of their divine ministery of the word and Sacraments, are to be preferred, as having in dignity a most high office before all other people, and so their office may well be placed before the Prince's office. But this, as it nothing hindereth▪ in other respects, a superior office of the Prince over them: so to enforce the dignity of the priests office by these b●…lde reasons, is rather to blemish it and bring it in contempt. But let us see Master Saunders testimonies. Whereupon Philo that of these matters (as one that was a Sand pag. 60. Philo in lib▪ de victimis. jew) was of necessity most cunning: it was fit (saith he) that the Prince be preferred before the private man, yea even in the Sacrifice, as likewise the people before the Prince, sith the whole is greater than part thereof. But the Bishop to be made equal to the people, in taking away and obtaining pardon of sins. But this honour is counted to the Bishop not for himself, but because he is the Minister of the people, making the vows and prayers publicly to be performed in the name of all the nation▪ The first witness here is Philo judeus, of whom I see The testimony of Philo judeus. no necessity Master Saunders that he should be most cunning in these matters, neither think I that he was most cunning in them, although that he were a jew, and a notable learned man. And yet herein, exception might be made against him, being rather a well liker of our Christian Religion than a professor of it, or one that showeth to have any great cunning in it. Writing so many books little or nothing of our Christian faith: save in his book de vita theoretica, where he commends it, and calleth it Divinam Philosophiam, divine Philosophy, and saith among other commendations of the Christians (as though himself were none) habent autem etiam disputationes quasdam et interpretationes Euseb. lib. 2. cap. 17. veterum viro rum, qui et authores ipsius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 extiterunt. But they have also certain dsiputations and interpretations of ancient men, who were also the authors of that heresy or sect, whereby Philo writing on this wise of the Christians how ever he favoured them, I think he was not the cunningest in our Religion. Neither do you ascribe that unto him, but say he was most cunning in these matters, meaning these jewish Sacrifices. But and he were not cunning in the faith of Christ, he could not have very much cunning in those sacrifices, that were all referred to Christ. But was not that cunning that he had too much? driving all the mysteries in gods word, to Cabalistical & Platonical numbers and figures, to allegorical and moral senses, being himself so great a Platoni●…e, that it grew to a proverb, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, either Plato imitateth Philo, or Philo imitateth Plato, so that, in cunning allegori●… he was cunning, and yet not so cunning as Origen, who likeneth Origenes in Levit 4. herein the priest to the sense of godliness and Religion, and the Prince unto the force of reason. But into what errors he ran by these conceits, is manifest, although he were a far more cunning Christian, than it should appear that ever Philo was. I speak not this in their dispraise, or altogether to reject their allegories, which may be admitted so Allegories. far forth, as they be sober and godly, and not contrary to the plain text, although they differ from the simple meaning of it. But although they may delight and edisie, they prove nothing of necessity, & therefore are not to be brought in controversies, whosoeu●…r the authors be, the writers of the holy Scripture only excepted. But let us admit Philoes' allegory, what are you (Master Saunders) thereby, even one whit the nearer of your purpose, if not the further from it? the Prince is here affirmed How Philo maketh the Prince inferior to the people. to be inferior to all the people. Howbeit, not simply inferior: but as he is a part of the whole, and a particular member of the body politic: if you stretch this so generally, that he hath not again a superior power, not only over every other part, but also over all the parts: you may quickly make a mad politic body▪ If you look but of your own example of a natural body (so often cited) do you not say the head rules The example of a body natural conferred with a body polit●…ke. all the body? and what say you by your own head, master Saunders? it seemeth by the head strong opinion of these your reasons, that it rules all your body to much out of square. Although it be but one part of you, yet hath it the supreme government of all your parts. So that, this makes nothing against the Prince's superiority. But now what maketh it for the superiority of the B. or rather maketh it it not inferior, & withal marreth all your first book against the authority of the people? Philo saith not that the B. is above the people, but the B. is made equal to the people, as who should say, of himself being but a man, he is not equal, but inferior, but is made equal to them, being made a Prince. Now, if the Prince have a supreme government of all the people, for all that he is but a man and a particular member, being a part under the whole, as likewise is the B. and so under the people to: yet as this man is above all the people, in regard that he is made a Prince, so is he above the B. to, that also of a private man is made a B. whereby (as Philo saith) he is made but equal to the people, whereas the Prince is made above the people. How answer you herein to Philo Master Saunders? Howbeit (say you) that he says the B may be made equal Sand. pag. 60. to the people, this in deed is to be understood, to have so come to pass in the thing offered, for both offered a Bullock. Why M. Saunders, and did you not before in your Bullockishe reason, make the thing offered, to be an argument of the authority of the offerer? the better thing offered, to argue the better authority in the offerer, the worse thing the worse authority? and why then not (by the like reason) the like thing to prove the like authority? But you wrists your author Philo. He says not they are equal in re immolata in the thing offered: for that the text says plain enough, but he says: the B. was made equal to them in the explation and Wherefore God ordained these diuersi●…ies of sacrifices. obtaining forgiveness of sins. Wherein he showeth in deed the proper meaning of God, in ordaining these things to be offered, not to disti●…guishe thereby the difference of authorities in the people offering, but rather to show the difference of their sins, and the obtaining pardon for them. Of which difference of sins and the difference of the offerings for them, the. 1▪ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. and the. 8. chapters of Leviticus do entreat. Now because the sins of the Priest (although ●…one by ignorance, which is a harder case in a Priest than any other, because his title professeth skill and learning give greater offence than the sins of other, therefore the Why the priests sins are first reckoned. levit. 4. Priests sins are reckoned first, as an original from whose offence, other men's offences spring. And so says the text, if the anointed Priest shall sin making the people to offend, for because (saith Lira your own commentar) the sin of the Priest is occasion of sinning to the people. Where to he allegeth Lyra. Gregory, when the pastor goeth by the broken ch●…es it falls out that the flock followeth to their hed●…ong downfall. What is this first place now Master Saunders to argue the Priest's authority and worthiness, or n●… rather his infirmity and unworthiness? Neither is the thing offered by the Priest appointed to be Why the priest offered the Bullock▪ L●…ra in Levi. 4 a bullock, to declare any authority in him: but (as Lyra says) a Bullock or a Calf, in remembrance of the molten calf or bullock which Aaron erected Exod. 22. What is this again for his authority? but rather to lay his shame before him, that as the beast was slain, so he deserved to be slain, for offending by the like beast. And so referring the sacrifice of the beast to Christ's sacrifice, that as the innocent beast was slain, so the innocent Messiah should be slain, the Sacrifice whereof (thus prefigured in the beast, offered and believed in the person offering) should turn the deserved slaughter from him, and be the propitiation for his sins. Why the people's sin is reckoned in the second place. And because all the people's sins, are great, and the greater the greater multitude, for the commonness of the error in an universal ignorance, as in the Popish Church, lesseneth not the error but makes it greater: (although they defend that the Church can have no universal ignorance or The Churches universal igraunce. common error, contrary to this manifest text of scripture) yet because it sprung of the Priests, that could not pretend ignorance so well as the people might, therefore the people's sin is placed next after the Priests, and is called a sin of ignorance, which was not said of the priests levit. 4. sin. I●… all the people of the sons of Israel (saith the text) shall be ignorant, and for lack of knowledge, do any thing that is contrary to the commandment of the Lord On which Gloss interlineata. words the gloss interlineth, of ignorance not of knowledge as the Priests, whereupon Peter says I know you did it by ignorance, but the priests sinned of knowledge, seeing all things foretold in the scriptures, and therefore sinned more heighnously. But yet because the people's offence was in the Why the people offered the like thing that the priest offered. same thing that Aaron's was, therefore the people also offered a Calf or Bullock, in remembrance (saith Lyra) of the molten Calf wherein the people sinned Exodus. 22. and hereto he citeth Hesichius: manifestum. etc. it is manifest that he means the sin of the people and the Priest to be all one, and therefore in both of them he ordained the same sacrifice. And here withal were to be noted (if the order were note worthy) that he placeth the people before the Priest, even where the text placeth the Priest before the people. And therefore neither Lira, Hesichius, nor the Popish Gloss were so precise in the order, as Master 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 dignity? but rather be ashamed of their greater sins, the more they are placed one before an other. And these causes (had Philo been of necessity so cunning in these matters, as Master Saunders saith he was) he would have alleged. Yea, had he been no cunninger herein, than even the necessary understanding of the place enforceth, he would not have wrested it to superiority. Howbeit all Master Saunders cunning, can not make Philo to serve his purpose, although he would never so feign wrest and wring him to it. For although Philo uncunningly wrest it unto dignity, yet that dignity that he maketh the Priest to have, is but equal to the people's dignity, and yet not for his own sake neither, but because he is the people's minister. Which Master Saunders foreseeing, we would object, he preventeth us saying: But thou will't say that Philo addeth, that that honour is yielded Sand. 60. to the B. not for himself but because he is the Minister of the people. I grant it is so, neither was Philo deceived in that, that he judged the B. to be the people's minister, but that which was was not revealed to Philo being a jew, we Christians ought not to be ignorant of it, to wit, that he was not only the people's minister, but also gods minister and moreover the figure of Christ. In granting this M. Saunders, you grant also contraries M. Saunders contrarieth himself. to your own tale. Before, Philo was of necessity most cunning in these matters while you thought his cunning would make for the Priest's advancement. Put now that his cunning makes against the Priest's advancement▪ and maketh the B. but equal to the people, now Philo is not cunning in these matters, now Philo is a jew and no Christian, now it was not revealed unto him, that the high Priest was gods minister, or a figure of Christ. Cunning is a fair thing I see, and surely you have great cunning (M. Saunders) in these matters, that can handle them so cunningly, one priest for an other Priest's preferment. But will every man (master Saunders) count this cunning, that is so broad before, and so extreme on either part, that right now Philo was not only cunning but most cunning in these matters, and now on a sudden he is so far from cunning in them, that he took not the high Priest to be gods minister. This was a very gross opinion for so learned a man, and declareth that he is leapt from most cunning to no cunning at all. Think you Philo known not thus much, Master Saunders? verily I think that he was a great deal cunninger than so, and that he was fully persuaded Aaron the high Priest was gods minister. But to infer such a superiority on the word ministery, as debarreth the Prince's supremacy, (which you would do) I take that Philo was not half so cunning. But what cunning soever Philo had: we Christians you say aught not Sand 60. to be ignorant of it (to wit) that he was not only the people's Minister, but also gods Minister, and moreover the figure of Christ. For this also is signified, when he is not only called Priest, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, the anointed priest. For Christ being named of anointing, would have his ministers called anointed. Whereupon is spoken that of David, touch not mine anointed. For if Moses, as the servant in the house of Psal. 104. Hebre. ●…. God, that is, in the jewish people, were faithful in the witness of those things that were to be spoken: truly sith the other Priests descending from the stock of Aaron, kept the law of Moses, even they also were servants in the house of God and of Christ, to witness those things that were to be spoken. But they were servants not only of the people, but much more of Christ. Whereupon God saith to Moses: Num. ●…. jerem. 33. the Levites are mine, I am the Lord, and unto jeremy, I will multiply the seed of David my servant and the Levites my Ministers. You run at random, Master Saunders. Who denieth that the Levites and Priests were gods Ministers, and his servants, and his anointed? we are not ignorant, (thanks be to God) of this, although many of them were ignorant of this their office and duty, and yourself show no small ignorance, to tell us that he would have his ministers called anointed, because his name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth anointed. As though Christ were anointed with such Anointing. external ointment, as Aaron and the high Priests were: or as though Christ's Ministers should be anointed with such external ointment: or as though the Popish Priests greasy anointing, were derived of Christ's anointing, which was only spiritual, Oleo letitiae prae consortibus, with the Psal 44. oil of gladness above his fellows, or as though the ministers of Christ were only Christians, and were only anointed with this spiritual oil of the comforter, and not all true Christians, that are members of Christ, of whom they take this name: or as though any of these things, the faithful service and the external anointing then of the Priests, and the spiritual anointing now of all Christians, hinder the Prince's superiority. These are such things M, Saunders, that where you say, we aught not to be ignorant that the high priest was Christ's Minister then, you that profess to be much more his Ministers now, aught to be ashamed that you are so ignorant of them. And see again how in this impertinent vaunting of yourselves, you show in your last sentence cited, the folly of your former argument, on the order of placing the name, to infer the greater authority. Is not here the seed of David, that is, the royal stock, placed before the Levites, even where he calleth them his ministers? And thus Master Saunders unawares hath marred his former argument. But still he proceedeth saying: Even as therefore the Bishops in that they were ministers of Saunders. 60. the synagogue, aught to have been less than the people to whom they ministered, so in that they were the ministers of Christ, and of him placed over the synagogue, they were also greater than the synagogue. For sith Christ was the true Lord as well john. 13. of the synagogue as of the Church: it was lawful for him to do with his own, that which seemed good to him, and to Math. 24. make a faithful servant over his house. Neither only the Lord himself, but also he whom the Lord placeth over his family, is greater than the same family. No man denieth you (Master Saunders) that the function of his office is greater. But as this hindereth not our matter, so these texts further not yours, although you wrist the sayings of the new testament to the old, to enforce then. We grant you, the Lord can do with his household as he will. Put that he will do as you will, and as you say he doth, prove that, and there an end. In the mean time, note here again M. Saunders granteth the ministers to be less than the people. your own confession, that the Bishops in that they be ministers to the people, are less than the people: which is more than Philo said, with whom you found fault because he made them equal, which as it declareth in you another contradiction, so it argueth lack of due consideration even in the high Priest dignity, that you would so feign extol, and yet because you can not have your own mind, you pettithely dash it down. For although the Bishop minister to the people, he is not therein their inferior, but rather in deed their superior. The Prince ministereth to them also, and yet even in his ministration he is superior to them, and in that they both minister to the people, they are gods ministers both of them. Yea the Bishop ministereth to the king the word and sacraments of God, yet is he not therein lesser, but superior to him. The king again ministereth to the Bishop the maintenance and direction of him, in overseeing the bishop do his duty, and yet he is not therein less than he, but his superior. Wherefore (says M. Saunders) the anointed priest (as Saunders. 60. the minister of Christ) is placed in the first place before the people, while in the mean season the king stands below in the third place, nor in the reason of sacrificing, differs much from the private man. You covet still the higher place (M. Saunders) like a proud Pharisee, and despise the Prince as though he were a Publican. But his cause shall be justified and he exalted, and you shall be brought down with shame, and go home condemned. Yea, your own mouth hath condemned you already, placing the seed of David before the levites and yet you have never dene with babbling of your former placing. Now when Philo will not serve: to confirm this argument better, you run to josephus, who was no more a Christian than was Philo, and had much less cunning in divinity than Philo, although a more notable historiographer. But alack it is a poor help you have of him but let us see it as it is. Whereupon josephus hath left thus written upon the Saunders. 60. josephus de Antiq. ●…udaic lib. 3. cap. 10. same matters. The Princes also when they Sacrificed for sin, do offer the same things that the common people do, only this is the difference that they bring for offering a bull and an he Goat, by words josephus signifies, that private men brought a cow and not a bull, a she goat and nota he goat to offering. What is this to the purpose Master Saunders? if the argument be good as you make it, it will make still against yourself, he that brought to offering, debilius animal & minus dignum the weaker beast and lest worthy, is himself the less worthy. Were this true, as it is false and foolish, let us I pray you view what either party brought to offering. The Priest brings vitulum, a calf or young bullock, the king brings taurum, a bull. I pray you now, which of these twain have brought the weaker and less worthy beast? is a calf in your judgement stronger than a bull, or a bull weaker than a calf? surely than you have a weak judgement. If you say, a bull is not so much worth as a calf, although then our butchers would rather buy bulls of you than calves, yet would they dame you but for a calf in so selling them, and for so telling them. So that by this rule, the king bringing to offering the stronger and more worthy beast, should be of greater authority than the Priest, yea the private man also should be of greater authority than the high Priest. For a cow although it be not so strong as a bull, yet is she stronger than a calf, and feeds the calf and is the calves dam. If you say, this is a gross reasoning for divine matters, it is so in deed Master Saunders, and I am ashamed such reasons should be used, but are they not your own? And do you not as grossly apply Christ's parable of a shepherd and his sheep? truly I know not your person Master Saunders, whether you be such another forepined ghost as Bishop Boner was, or not, that reasoning of the mysteries of the lords supper, compared the sacrament to a good fat Capon. But these your reasons, for your Pope's superiority, of a bull and a bullock, of a cow and a calf, of a strong stalfed and lusty beast, of a lean and weak unworthy beast, of the first the second and the third place, are not only more gross and homely stuff than Bishop Boners Capon, but a great deal more fond reason than was his. Yet will not Master Saunders give over this reason thus, but allegeth more authors for it, Theodoretus and Procopius, saying: But Theodoretus upon the same matter Sand. pag. 60. Theodoretus in Leviticum quest. 1. useth these words. He teacheth how great the dignity of the priesthood is, which he maketh equal to the people. But the Prince that shall have transgressed any law, he commandeth him to offer, not a calf, but an he goat or a goat of a year old: so far off is he from the Priestly dignity to whom the bodily government is committed. Last of all, Procopius Gazeus on the same place writeth thus: Hereupon we may gather▪ that the Priest is more honourable than the Prince, yea the people Procopius in Leviticum. to shine in greater dignity than the Prince. Wherefore in the old time certain Kings adorned themselves with the Priestly dignity. If therefore the Prince be as well inferior to the people as to the Priest, as he that after either of them is reckoned up in the last place and offers the weak and less worthy beast, how can he be esteemed the head of the Church immediately under Christ, who hath as well the Christian people as the bishops Christ's Ministers, between him and Christ? How this superiority either of all the Church, or of the Ministers of Christ, may well consist, and yet hinder not the supremacy of the Prince, being in other respects, both over the Ministers and the people: is divers times before declared, and therefore needless to be repeated, except we should follow this vain of Master Saunders in repeating so often one thing, and that so mean an argument, that he might rather be ashamed once to have penned, than thus with these father's slender sentences to have bolster●… it. And yet he can not drive it to his purpose, for still the priest is made but equal at the most unto the people for which M. Saunders shook of Philo before, as a jew and no Christian, and here he citeth Christians, & yet make they no better for him than Philo did. But sith the people are again under the prince and the Priest at the most is but equal to the people thou so ever his ministration be the more honourable, yet it argueth that he is under the Prince's supreme government, so well as are the people. And therefore for all these arguments, nothing yet is brought to the contrary out of the old testament, that the Bishops (notwithstanding all the excellency of their divine ministery) were not still under the supreme government of their Princes. Let us now see and you have any better argument. Besides this without all contradiction the Apostle says: That Sand pag. 61. Hebre. 7. levit. 9 which is less is blessed of the better. But Aaron stretching out his hand to the people, blessed the people: therefore Aaron was greater than the people. This argument (M. Saunders) is yet more handsome The Priest's blessing. and truer, than you other gross and wrested argument was, Neither deny we any parts or the conclusion of it. For first, it concludeth nothing with or against the Prince, but against the people. Secondly, it is altogether drawn from the action of the ministers function, which we confess belongeth not to the Prince. But to conclude simply a superiority in the person thereupon, were a presumptuous conclusion both against S. Paul's meaning, and against God himself, to make ourselves better than god because we bless him, For we say to God: Benedicimus tibi, we bless thee, we praise, etc. O all you works of the Lord bless you the Lord etc. You must Daniel. 3. make therefore your distinction of blessing, and show in what solemn action and signification, the high priest blessed them. This done, we grant you, that the high priest was therein the better, which nothing hindereth the Prince's supreme government. But now M. Saunders having espied where a king likewise blesseth the people, hath a shift also for this, saying. But if thou sayst, Solomon blessed the synagogue of Israel, and Saunders. 61. 3. Reg. 8. therefore was greater than the synagogue: Solomon was greater than the synagogue without all contradiction, for the scripture can not be broken, that says, the lesser is blessed of the better. But Hebre. 7. Solomon sustained a double parsonage, the one of a king, the other of a Prophet. But as he was a Prophet, he was the more notable minister of Christ, than for his kingly dignity, and by this reason was greater than they to whom he prophesied, and so he blessed the people not by his royal, but by his prophetical office. But the priests, not by an other office, but by the priestly office, blessed both all the people, and much more the king that is inferior to all the people. Here first let us note, that M. Saunders himself twice placeth The Papists shift for salomons blessing the people. the king and his office, before the prophet & his office. Solomon (says he) sustained a double parsonage, the one of a king the other of a prophet, and again he says, and so he blessed the people, not by the kingly office, but by the prophetical office. If then his former reason be good, the king is to be preferred before the Prophet. But now to his answer to the objection of Solomon, which is in deed but a very shift, and the common shift of M. Harding, Dorman, Stapleton and all the residue. But howsoever they dodge out with it, it will not serve M. Saunders at this time. For although it be true, that Solomon had also the gift of prophesy, yet Solomon did not this as Prophet, but as King. And in his blessing expressly prayeth for the reign of his posterity. Neither need M. Saunders run to this shift, for even Lyra says: et Benedixit. etc. and Lira in 3. ●…e. 8. he blessed all the congregation, not with that blessing that pertained to the priestly office, but by wishing good things unto the people, and rendering thanks to God for his good gifts received, saying: blessed be the Lord God. etc. And in the end of the Chapter, the people bless him also, but this declareth The people bless the king not their superiority, although the kings solemn action declares him their better in his royal office, for the establishing whereof he prayeth. The like shift you make for Moses and David, that they were also prophets. But what say you to Saul, that blessed David. 1. Reg. 26. he was in deed David's superior, and he had 1. Reg ●…6. been among the prophets too, whereof the proverb arose, num et Saul inter Prophetas, is Saul also among the Prophets? 1. Reg 20. But trow you he blessed him as a Prophet? and yet in blessing him, although he himself were accursed, he foretold the truth, that David should do great things. What say you to joshua that blessed Caleb. joshua. 14. yea he blessed two tribes joshua. 14. and a half, of Reuben, Gad, and Manasses. If you except that he was a prophet too, what say you to jehu that blessed jehonadab, and yet no prophet? to Raguel that blessed Tobias, and 4. Reg. 10. Tob. 7. judith. 13. yet no prophet? to Ozias the governor of Lethulia, and Achior the Ammanite that blessed judith, and yet no Prophets, nor all of them superiors? and therefore this argument serveth not to infer government, neither always to infer superiority, neither is this shift always true, that all the bless are priests or prophets. Although in priests (whom Saint Paul speaketh of) it argue a superiority of their function, as before is granted. But Master Saunders having got hold on this word blessing, as though he had found a new vain, proceedeth, saying. And truly when God had rather have had his people to Sand. pag. 61. have been blessed of the priests of the levitical kind, and of the prophets, than to have been governed of a king: yet the people asked a King against the will of God, which petition God in deed permitted to be fulfilled, howbeit he saw it did tend to the contempt of his name: whereupon he said to Samuel, 1. Reg. 8. they have not cast thee away but me, that I should not reign over them. For although God reigned over his people, even when the kings governed them: yet he had seemed to reign in better signification and plainer, if the people had obeyed any prophet or priest, or Levite. Now that Master Saunders former proves will fadge no better, he seeketh out all the ways he can, to deface the royal estate of a kings authority, in comparison of his Priest's government. He saith God had rather have had his people been blessed of the priests and the prophets, than governed of kings: despitefully making these two to be membraopposita, contraries the one to other. The government of kings▪ and M. Saunders would make the king government to be contrary to the priests and prophets blessings. the blessing of Priests and Prophets. As though the people were bereft of the Priests and Prophets blessings because not they, but kings did govern them. But if the people had still the Priests and Prophets blessings, when Kings governed them so well as before, then is this opposition no less false than malicious. And that they had still the Priests and Prophet's blessing, is apparent. But what means M. Saunders to name only their blessings▪ did the Priests and Prophets naught but bless? The Pope's blessing and cursing. would he by so sweet a name revoke us to the Pope's blessings? but he telleth us else where that the Pope hath cur▪ sed us: and no marvel, for the chiefest part of his power lieth in cursing. But he loveth cursing, and his cursing shall Psalm. 101. light upon himself, and God doth turn his cursings into blessings. But troweth he, the Priests & Prophets then, did curse and ban as the Pope doth now, by cause the kings were the supreme governors▪ or that the supreme government belonged first to them, and from them was translated to the Kings? Howbeit M. Saunders saith not so, but the the priests and prophets blessed the people. But what is that to government? the controversy is of the priests government, and the question here is driven to this, whether God The question. had rather have had the priests and the prophets to govern the Israelites, than the kings. Now M. Saunders, although this be his only meaning, doth not put, nor dare put, the question thus, as in plain speech he aught to do. For knowing that the state then of the Church's government, was not so much of the priests and prophets, as of other civil Magistrates called the judges, it had them appeared he had said little to his purpose. But as though all the state before of the kings had been of the priests and prophets, he covereth his falsehood with this fair●… mantel of the priests and prophets Blessings, and mentioneth not their government, which is the thing he shooteth at▪ Whereas, all that time from joshua the first judge, to Among all the judges but one priest and one prophet governed the Church of God. Saul the first King, among so many judges, we read but of one Priest which was Helie, of one Prophet which was Samuel, that governed the Church of God And yet these neither governed it in respect of priesthood or prophesying, or blessing, but in respect of that civil authority whereby they were called judges. Thus that estate that he pretendes maketh the more for him, maketh as much against him as the state of Kings that followed. For whether God had rather have had the one or the other, it still proveth God had rather have had the civil Magistrate, were he judge or king, to be the supreme governor, although at that time the supreme government happened (which it seldom did) to a person ecclesiastical. But God altered this estate, and brought it to Kings. Neither dare I say, as Master Saunders very boldly saith, that God had rather have had the other estate. For if he would, he might have kept it still, Voluntati eius quis resistit, who resisteth Rom. 9 his will? but it pleased God the state should be altered, and so it was. Master Saunders urgeth this, that God was much offended. I grant he was, understanding it not so grossly as Master Saunders seems to do, but like a Divine, so as we admit in God no perturbation nor change of mind, for God had purposed the change before, and liked well of his forepurpose. But his displeasure was against the sin Wherewith God was offended for the people's demanding a king. of the people, who distrusting of God's sufficient help in the former estate, inordinately did crave a King, and not that he either misliked the estate of a King, or thought it the worsser government: but rather commends the government of a King, as an estate so high, that God had reserved that unto himself, and would suffer them to have but judges, until that they importunately desired to have a king, being such a supreme kind of government, as they before had only given to God, and now they would needs have some person among them visibly to have the same, as other nations had. And for this cause saith God to Samuel, they have not cast away thee, but me. And as Samuel upbraided them: 1. Reg. 10. you said unto me, not so, but a king shall reign over us, when the Lord your God reigned over you. And so witnesseth Lyra. 1 reg. 10. Lyra, that the estate of a king is the best estate. But the reason of their sin was this, Quia deus. etc. Because God had choose the people of Israel to be especial and peculiar to him before all other peoples, according to that is said Deut. 7. The Lord thy God hath choose thee to be his peculiar people, & therefore he would be the immediate king of that people. Wherefore he also gave them a Law in Mount Sinai, by himself (that is) by an Angel speaking in his person, and not by man as mediator. For which purpose, he would that the men which were the governors of that people, should be ordained immediately from himself, as his Vicars, and not as Kings or Lords. As it appeareth in Moses and joshua, and the judges following, of whom is mentioned in the Book of judges, God raised up such or such a judge. Therefore the Children of Israel did contrary to the ordinance of God, desiring a mortal man to be king over them, ●…ith the Lord had always retained this to himself, and always governed and best protected them, to the people's profit, so long as they were good subjects: and still had so done, if the people had stood in that good subjection to the Lord. By these sayings, the first argument appeareth, that if the government of a king be the best government, it follows that the government is better, to have GOD to be the King immediately, how much God is better than man. And therefore to ask against this ordinance, is not good, but ill. In these words of Lyra, he doth not diminish the state of a king's authority, in comparison of the former estate of the judges authority above, or better than it: but extols the king's authority so far above the judges authority, that God reserved it only to himself, so that this high estate of a king over God's people, is not as M. Saunders falsely said before from God by other means between▪ but immediately The king's estate immediately from God, and above all other representeth him . from God, and above all other representeth him, and long it was ere God would suffer any to represent him in this estate, it was so high that God kept it to himself, and was offended that his people contented not themselves with their other inferior Magistrates, as were the judges, which M. Saunders extols above the King's estate. The judges I grant were as Lyra saith immediately from God also, and his Vicars in his Church above all others in their times. And here because one or two of them next before this alteration were ecclesiastical people, the one a Priest the other a Prophet, M. Saunders triumpheth▪ and commends their estate in representing God, to be so high and excellent. But either he was very reckless or wilful blind, that would look no further in this estate of the judges, but to these two when as so many judges went before, but he thought not best to think on them, because they were no priests nor prophets. And yet as Lyra saith, they were the immediate Vicars of God, and so above all the priests and prophets at their times, being no ecclesiastical Magistrates. This argument therefore is false, and all that follows thereon in M. Saunders saying. For neither any having his right wit did ever doubt, but Saunders. 61. that the priest of God doth more in government express and represent his God, whose priest he is called, than the king, whose name is rather referred unto the people that he ruleth, than to the God under whom he is. This is spoken more like an heathen than like a Christian, M. Sanders, that the priest representeth his God whose priest he is called, howbeit I think you are not so out of your right wit, but that you think, dij g●…ntium daemonia sunt, the gods of the gentiles Psalm 95. are but devils. And that you think there is but one God, and but one sort of those that are ●…is priests. But how these priests that are of the Popish stamp, represent God, may be called in question: if rather it be not out of question, that The Popis●…e priesthood hath no resem blance of God. both their life, their doctrine, and their order, hath no resemblance of him, but rather of Baal and Bace●…us, rather of Antichrist and Satan, than of God. As for their government, lest of all doth represent him. The Turk reigneth not with such cruel tyranny as the Pope and his inquisitors The tyranny of the Popish priests government. do. Godly Ministers represent him I grant, and that better than kings, but not in the visible and external government, but in the spiritual government of administering Gods word and sacraments. God therefore had reigned, if any priest or prophet reigned, Sand. 61. but the priest or the prophet being cast off yea even the government of God, to whom that priest or prophet obeyed, is understood to be cast off. Speaking thus indefinitely of any priest or prophet that God reigned when they reigned, God was cast off when they were cast off: you both wrest the Scripture, and stretch it to far, that was only spoken to Samuel: and also hereby would make the state of the jews to have been then best, when it was worst. For when was the state of the jews worse, than in the times mentioned in the books of the Machabées? when the evil high priests had gotten the civil government? and represented God in the government, (whose priests they bear the name to be) as much as Caiphas and Anna did, that put Christ himself to death. But you say: Moreover the King would lead the people to Idolatry, but Sand 61. the high priests and prophets, sacrificed duly to the Lord God in the only Temple of Solomon. Difference between the king's v●…ces & his office. You should discern (M. Saunders) betwixt the state and office of the king, and the faults or personal vices of the king. For, all kings did not lead the people to Idolatry, some lead the people out of Idolatry. Neither were all the high priests lead the people to Idolatry . priests clear of Idolatry, not not Aaron the first high priest of all▪ Did not he lead all the people into foul Idolatry, and that of a small occasion? But how is this your saying true, that they Sacrificed duly to God, in the only Temple of Solomon? what? man, you forget yourself, how could they Sacrifice only there, duly, or unduly, before the Temple itself was built, or Solomon was yet born? and yet there had passed thirteen high Pries●…s from Aaron to Abiathar, or The high Priests before the building of the temple. ever the Temple was built. And in the mean time, were all the priests, or the high priests either, clear from Idolatry? very much Idolatry was used before the state of kings among them. If the priests had then that supreme government, which you pretend: how chance they let it not, but rather let it alone? which if it were not as ill, was the next door by to leading to Idolatry. As for the priests that were after the Temple was The high Priests after the building of the Temple. built, till it was first destroyed, that is, from Sadocke the high priest, until josedech that was carried captive into Babylon, all which time, we have little mention of the high priests, for their restraint or speaking against Idolatry. But we have many outcries of the prophets, against Idolaters, yea against the priests high and low, as abetters to Idolatry. And how good soever you make them, jeremy makes them all in his time stark nought, and they again went about to procure his death for his labour. But as for the high priests that followed after the temple was re-edified, many of them were evil. Eliasib the high priest transgressed the law, in joining affinity with the heathen enemy of the jews Tobias, and building a lodging for him in the temple, which was the defile of it. N●…hem. 13. Wherefore Eliasib was worthily reproved of Nehemias'. john the high priest killed jesus his brother in the temple, josephus lib. 1●…▪ anti. ca 7. while they strove ambitiously for the Priesthood. After whom jaddi and Manasses contending for it, when Manasses Nehem. 13. was chased away by Nehemias', for marrying the daughter of the wicked heathen Sanballat: he erected another temple in the Mount Garrizin. Notiong after, Onias the son of Simon was so covetons (as josephus saith) josephus lib. 12 ca 4. that by denying the tribute paid before, the Temple and all jury was endanger. After whom succéeded josephus with no less bribery of the heathen Prince, than extortion and pylling of the people. Next to whom (or as some say, after Onias) succéeded jesus or jason, after much hurly burly betwixt Simon and Onias, the one appeaching the 2. Mach. 4. other to be a Traitor, till this jason stepped in between them, and by unlawful means obtained to be the high priest, by giving a hundredth and sixty talents of silver, and eighty talents of rent, and a hundredth and fifty talentes to set up such exercises among the jews, as were among the heathen Grecians, and contrary to the Law of God. After whom succéeded Menelans, who being sent of jason 2. Mach. 4. to Antiochus, betrayeth jason. And offering three hundredth talents of silver more than jason did, he got the high priesthood by bribery to himself, bysides that he was a Sacrilegious thief, and murderer. But Menelaus, not paying the excessive sums, that he promised, was feign to take his heels and run away, and left his brother Lysimachus priest in his stead, that for his wickedness and cruel tyranni●…, was slain in a tumult that he himself had raised. After whom, partly by reason of these monstrous traitors, partly by reason of the tyrant Antiochus rage and persecution: the temple lay waste, & was destroyed these 〈◊〉 time. When as for the space of 5. or 6. years there was no 〈◊〉 priest at all, neither better nor ●…orsse to gui●…e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Machabe●…s recovered Jerusalem, whose brother jonathes, & after him Simon, & Simons son Hircanus, were made both Princes & high priests also who, although they were good men, yet were they made high Priests by the heathen Monarch, under whom they governed, and were more like to valiant Captains (as the necessity of the time was driven unto) rather than like to learned priests or bishops. In whose time, an other Onias claiming the high Priesthood, builded in Egypt a Temple, like to the Temple at Jerusalem joseph. li. 13. ca 4. to sacrifice in. And at which time sprung up the sects of the Sadu●…es the Pharisies, and the Esseni, when the residue of the high priests, Aristobulus, Hircanus. etc. fallen to knocking one another, partly for the priesthood, partly for the kingdom, till Herode being a stranger got the kingdom from them. And they bought and sold the high priesthood, ●… kept it by courses, being clean degenerate from the Law of God, except some odd man amongst the rest were just, as Zacharie the Father of john Baptist, the most part were evil, and waxed worse and worse, till they had put Christ to death, and afterward destroyed themselves, and all their Country too. And yet see how impudently M. Saunders Whether the priests or the Prince's government among the jews were worse. vaunts and cracks of the priests, in comparison of the Princes, where the evil Princes having led the people (and that through the council of evil priests) into Idolatry and to captivity: the high priests led them to the murder of jesus Christ, to the utter overthrow of their estate, and to the clean casting them off from God, save that we hope some remnant shall be saved. judge now whether of these 〈◊〉 were worse, either the Priests or Princes. But Master Saunders (to show himself not partial for his priests) bringeth forth for witness, one that he ascribes this high●… priesthood unto, which is Pope Gregory, saying: Whereupon says Gregory entreating of this request of a king: worthily complaineth the L. that he is cast off, worthily Sand. 61. Gregorius in 1. reg. li. 4 ca 4. he granteth the royal dignity, being offended. For truly so great was the iniquity of the cravers, that si●…he they desired that whereby they should go from God, it might be permitted by the judgement of God to be forbidden (perchance it would be better read to be allowed or approved) it could not▪ And again, for those that lived under the spiritual government, to desire a king: what is it else, than to rejoice, to turn the same spiritual prelacy into secular government? This testimony of Gregory (Master Saunders) comes Gregory brought out of place. a little out of place, belike it should have been set before, when you spoken of Samuels government, of the people's desiring a king, and of god's offence therewith. For here this (unde Gregorius, wherevp●…n Gregory) hangs upon your last matter, of the Priests sacrificing only in the temple as though it were tied on with points, howbeit it hangs not so ill on the residue, as M. Saunders scarce can make it hung together with itself. For he not only corrects the sentence, Gregory's sentence contraries itself. saying, prohiberi to be prohibited, should better be read probari, or approbari, to be allowed or approved: but also he corrects it with a clean contrary exposition. For, to be prohibited is not to be allowed or approved, and to be allowed or approved, is not to be prohibited. And so, while he himself can not tell what to make of the sentence, and would expound it clean contrary: what should we make of it? as for the displeasure of God, we have showed already, by a large and plain sentence out of Lyra (which is for his life a more cock sure papist, than even this Pope Gregory was) the it was not because the king's estate was worse or more inferior than the state of the judges was, but because the king's estate, being higher, and so high, that God reserved it to himself: they disinherited the former estate as inferior, and desired a visible king among them. So that this, which you would draw to the dispraise, maketh in deed more to the praise of a king's estate. Neither do we deny Gregory's sentence, in respect of the How Gregory's sentenceis granted v●…to. spiritual prelacy: but the question now is of the outward government, of Priests or Princes. Which Gregory not only acknowledged with most humble obedience, calling the Emperor, and kings of Italy, his Lords & sovereigns, and lowly bowed himself unto them: but also that more is, Gregory acknowledged the prince's supremacy over himself. so much detested the claim that the Pope makes now, that he calleth the user of it a fore runner of Antichrist. And where you have this shift, that he condemns such titles of universal Prelacy, in the sea of other Bishops, but not of his own: this is a false shift, he condemns it in his own Bishopric of Rome, so well as in any other. For where Eulogius the Patriarch of Alexandria had saluted Gregory reproveth them that called him universal Pope him with such styles, he answereth: Ecce in praefatione, etc. Behold in the preface of the Epistle, the which you directed unto me, who forbade it, you thought to set in the word of a proud calling, naming me universal Pope, the which I beseech you that your most courteous holiness will no more do so. Because, that which is given to another more than rea●…on requireth, is subtracted from yourselves. I seek not to be advanced in titles but in manners. Neither count I that, honour, wherein I know my brethren lose their honour. For my honour is the honour of the universal Church. My honour is the sound force of my brethren. Then am I honoured, when to every particular person, the honour that is due unto him is not denied. For if your holiness call me universal Pope, he denieth himself to be, in that he calleth me universal, but God forbidden this. Let those words go that puff up truth and wound charity. Thus saith Gregory, and this is cited even in your own decrees, The title, chief of the priests, or chief priest improved in in the Pope's own decrees. not only about the word Universal Pope, but upon these titles, Princeps Sacerdotum vel summus sacerdos, the chief of the priests or the chief or high priest, or any other such titles. So far was this Pope Gregory then, from the pride of the late Pope Gregory's that have been since, for he both acknowledged himself to be but equal to other Bishops, and himself and all other Bishops to be under their natural Princes. The testimony therefore of Pope Gregory, is but wrested, to urge such superiority of bishops, as should de●… their Princes supreme government. Now M. Saunders having thus as he thinketh fully confirmed his proves, for the superiority of Priests in the old Testament abou●… Kings, gathereth altogether and knites up his conclusion, saying: Wherefore sith the institution of Priests proceeded, from the good will of God and from his free mercy: but God Saunder●…. 61. granted not the dignity of a king but in his anger, at the people's petition: lesser consideration is worthily had of the king than of the people, both because he is made king only for the people's cause, and also only at the people's petition. But the Priests, although they be made for the people's cause, yet neither only for the people's cause, but much more for the honour of Christ. Neither only at the petition of the people were they made, but rather of the free mercy of God, and that for that eternal predestination of God, which was ordained about our salvation, in the time appointed to be brought to effect. You make your comparison and your conclusion hung ill●…oredly together Master Saunders, your comparison is of the Princes and the Priest's estate: and you conclude, that therefore less consideration is worthily to be had of the king than of the people. How chance you say not of the king than, of the Priests? but belike you thought that that was out of controversy: the Priests were so far above the people, that much less consideration is to be had of the people than of the priests. But master Saunders, your beast sacrificed said not so, nor your authors Philo and josephus: but said, he was made equal to the people. But say you, the king was made for the people's cause. I grant you master Saunders, and was not the priest so too? yea do not yourself say●…, he was made for the people's The king and the priest made for the people's cause. cause also? if this than argue an inferiorship (as in deed it doth) in respect of the end: doth it not argue the priest to be inferior too, and lesser consideration to be had of him than of the people, that is to say, of the Church of God? But say you, the King was made only for the people's cause, and the priest was made for the honour of Christ also, & for the eternal predestination of God, which was ordained about salvation, in time appointed to be brought to effect: And I pray you Master Saunders, was not this another The king●…e. state made for the honour of Christ, and represented Christ, as well and better than the priests estate. cause of making the King also? did not his estate make to the honour of Christ, and represent Christ, so well as the priests estate? was not he called Christus Domini, The Lords anointed, so well as the Priest? yea and better to then, by your leave. For Christ was not only figured in the king's estate, so well as in the Priests: but also took his humanity of the race of the kings, and not of the Priests, and so is called the son of David, not the son of Aaron, the king of the jews, not the priest of the jews And though in respect of his priesthood, he was the only sacrifice of our redemption, whereby our sins are taken away, Christus mortuus Rom. 4. How far the kingdom of christ surmounteth his priesthood. est pro peccatis nostris, Christ died for our sins: yet notwithstanding, resurrexit pro justificatione nostra, he rose for ou●…●…ustification, by his kingdom, by his power, by his victory, by his resurrection, by his ascension, by his sitting at the right hand of his father, in all which, his kingdom is contained, so that it comprehendeth both our Predestination, and our salvation too. And therefore, we are taught by Christ to say, let Math. 6. thy kingdom come, and not, let thy priesthood come. And not only all our estate in this life, and the life to come, but all the grace, and mercy, and justice, and power, and glory of God is attributed, not so much to the priesthood, as to the kingdom of Christ. But you say God was angry with the people's request when he made the king's estate. I grant you Master Saunders, and told you the reason before out of Lyra, and the text is plain, because God himself was king unto them, which doth not abase, but so much the more advance it. But now when Master Saunders hath thus extolled the Priest's government of the old Testament, he abaseth them again by comparison of Bishops of the new Testament, saying. Sigh therefore the Bishops of the Church of Christ are of Saunders. 61. no less dignity than were in times past the Levitical priests, yea rather sith the Apostle, treating of the Ministers of the new Testament, & conferring them with the old Levites, 2. Corinth. 3. saith, that they ministered death, and the letter that killed, but these minister the spirit which quickeneth, and righteousness and therefore the ministers of the new Testament are more worthy than the old Levites, what manner of king shall we think him to be, which contemning the ministers of the new Testament, calleth himself the supreme head of his Christian kingdom, and that immediately under Christ? This comparison (Master Saunders) of the ministers of Comparison between the ministers of the old and new testament. the old and new Testament rightly understood, we acknowledge. The new is more worthy than the old, but the worthiness and glory of the new ministration that saint Paul speaks on, is spiritual and not outward glory. For although the ministers of the old Testament had outward glory, and some of them by especial calling, had the visible, supreme and civil government, although seldom: yet the ministers of the nue testament are by Christ (as your own self have confessed) flatly forbidden it, Vos autem non sic, but you shall not be so. And therefore, where you would have Math. 20. Mark. 10. Luke. 22. In outward glory the ministers of the new testament are inferior, in inward glory, superior. them of no less dignity (meaning of outward glory and government, or else your example holds not) they are of far less dignity therein, notwithstanding in a spiritual and inward glory, they are again of a far greater dignity than the old. Which spiritual dignity, if any King should contemn? you might then well demand, what manner of king he were: and we would answer you, he were a wicked King but as these are two distinct dignities, the spiritual dignity of the minister, and the visible supremacy of the King, so may they be, and are with us, well and godly used both of them. Where, both the Prince hath the outward dignity of supreme head or governor under Christ: and yet the ministers spiritual dignity is not only no whit contemned, but hath his honour yielded due unto him. And therefore we deny not that which followeth. For if he acknowledge not the Ministers of Christ over Sand pag. 61. him, he can not be blessed of them. Whereupon, neither can he be partaker of the sanctifying spirit, whose ministers they are. We grant (Master Saunders) that the Prince humbly receiveth their blessing, and is partaker of the holy spirit of God, whose ministers they are in these actions. Wherein the Prince acknowledgeth them to represent God, and is under them. But what hindereth this, that in other respects, they again are under him, and he their supreme governor? but Master Saunders proceedeth saying: David crieth: and now you kings understand, and be you Sa●…d. pag. 61. Psalm. 2. learned you that judge the earth, apprehended discipline, lest the Lord wax wroth, and you perish out of the right way. But if kings must be learned, then so far forth, they must be under. For he that is learned, is learned of some master, and is scholar to him of whom he is learned, the disciple is not above Math. 10. his master, but in that thing that he learneth of his master, of necessity he is inferior. That kings aught to be learned we gladly confess, and King's aught to be learned. are glad that you confess it, although against your wylls, for you would rather have them altogether unlearned, whom you have so long detained in blindness. But why would you have them now learned? forsooth, because you would only The Popish priests would be princes mai sters' and governors under pre●…ence of teachers. be their masters, and so they should be still your underlings, not only in learning such ill lessons as you would teach them, but under pretence of teachers, to be their governors too. True it is, in that the teacher teacheth, he is above, and in that the learner learneth he is under. ●…ut the teacher is not above, nor the learner under, in other things. Though Moses learned of jethro, yet in government How the teachers are above and under the princes whom they ●…eache. Exodus. 18. 2. Reg. 12. judith. 8. The Simlitude of a schoolmaster. How the prince though himself not learned, directeth laws for learning. Moses was above him. Though David learned of Nathan, yet in government he was above him. Though Ozias learned of judith, yet in government he was above her. And so all princes that are taught of their school masters, their schoolmaster may be the better in learning, but he is the worse in authority. And though he be the master in knowledge, yet he makes even his knowledge whereby he is master, to serve the Prince also. Yea although the Prince be not his master in learning, yet in all causes of learning, the Prince hath a general supreme government, to see by his laws every kind of learning maintained in his order, to forbidden naughty arts to be learned: to appoint such & such an order & method to be taught or learned, as learned men inform him, is good and easy to the attaining of learning: to appaynt schools and learned schoolmasters for learning: and to give them laws, statutes, and stipends, for the maintenance of learning: all this may the Prince do by his supreme authority, over all learned people, and in all causes of learning, although he himself be altogether unlearned, and can not one letter on the book. Although would to God all Princes were learned, not as the Papists would have them, but as David, was and exhorteth all Princes to be. And thus, as this sentence makes nothing in the world for him, so his example thereon makes very much against him. But for all this argument be thus simple, he will lo●…de us with further proves, saying. Scythe therefore it is said to the Apostles: Go teach you all Sand, page▪ 62. Math. 28. nations, and sith under the names of nations, the kings of them are comprehended: and Bishops and Priests have succeeded the Apostles in the office of teaching: truly in the office of teaching the bishop is greater than his king: so far is it off, that the king can be the Bishop's head in all things & causes. Which title notwithstanding is not only of these men given to a king, but also by public decree of late in England, giu●…n unto a Queen. To reason from teaching to governing, is no good teaching From teaching to governing is no good consequence. M. Saunders. If you teach this doctrine, them your Pope should have little government, for God wots he teacheth little, being often times unlearned, and always to proud to teach. If you say he teacheth by others: so can a prince too. And though he could himself teach, and would also teach the truth, and not suppress it: yet sith you say, he succeeds the Apostles but Succession of the Apostles consists in teaching. in the office of teaching, he is no further superior than he teacheth, by your own reckoning. Neither would this superiority be denied him, of any that he aught to teach, if he in d●…de succeeded the Apostles. But if the succession of the Apostles consist in teaching as here you confess: then hath not the Pope to crack much of succeeding Peter and Paul, that The Pope teaching not as Peter & Paul did, is not their successor. teacheth not as Peter and Paul did, as would to God he did and all priests or Bishops else. Which if they did and taught truly, this would augment and not diminish the Prince's supreme authority, yea and the Queens too, Master Saunders, for in government before you made a King & Queen alone. Now to this he addeth out of isaiah, saying. isaiah foretold that kings should be the nourishers of the Sand pag. 62. isaiah. 49. Church of Christ, and casting down their countenance to the earth shall worship her, and straight he adjoineth: thou shalt know that I am the Lord, for this verily is the sign that the Lord reigneth in us, if we yield so much unto his church, that the Ministers of Christ are greater than any King or Queen. As this sentence is placed both without all order and coherency: so the reason is very slender, and stands on this, that the Priests are the Church that isaiah here speaks on, which as it is apparent false, so it is not to this purpose. For, the supreme government of a godly Prince, giveth not only an honour to the Church, but to the Priests also, and yet his supremacy safe. But see how this sentence hits him, as the rest. For, if kings and Queens be likened to Nurses, The similitude of a nurse. and Nurses have charge not only of feeding, but also of governing: then do Kings & Queens both feed the Church, although not by teaching, yet by causing the truth to be taught, and govern the Church also. And if by the Church is chief meant the priests, than the same kind of Princes feeding and governing like to Nurses, stretcheth to priests also, and so the similitude makes against him. His other argument, of dispensing Gods mysteries and Sacraments to the king, is divers times already answered unto, and therefore as superfluous I pass it over. And thus far for his arguments of his priests superiority. Now secondly to the reasons he showeth why he thinks us deceived. But thus in this case deceiveth many, that they see the king Sand. 62. is a Christian and governeth Christians. For they know not, or at lest will not know, what difference it is, whether a man goveren a Christian, because he is a man, or because he is a Christian. The king indeed governeth Christian men, but not because they are Christians, but because they are men. And because the bishops also themselves are men, the kings also in part are above Bishops. The which hereby goeth clear See Chrysost. in C. 13. ad Rom. away, if we cons●…ider Christian kings, not only to govern Christian men, but even alike oftentimes jews, now and then Moors and Tartars, for this only that they are kings. But Bishops govern Christians, so as they can govern no other, as they are bishops. Sigh therefore the government of the king pertaineth to all men alike, but bishops principality is reached to only Christians: and sith the state of our Christianity excels the humane nature that is in us, with what sense is he endued, that pre●…erreth the governor of our bodily and fleshly nature, before the priest that watcheth for our souls, and that either loseth our sins, if we make worthy Hebr. 13. fruits of repentance, or bindeth them, if we bear about an impenitent heart? For the Ministers binding and losing, is an other question. Let us now keep us to this, of the Princes supreme government. We are deceived (you say) for lack of considering this difference, that the king. governeth Christians, not as Christians, but as men and we think you ar●… deceived yourself, M. Saunders, and would 〈◊〉 others for not considering this difference in the king himself, in whom The respects of a king of a Christian and of a man. we aught to consider, not only that he is a king but also a Christian king. In that he is a king he geverneth a●… his subjects (as you say) a like, (so far as the likeness, or 〈◊〉 of their s●…ates will permit) whether they be Christian, jews, Turks, Moors, ●…aitars, Ethniks or whatsoever religion they be of, not in respect of their religions, nor in the they are 〈◊〉 neither, but in respect they are his 〈◊〉. For, there are other men also that are none of his subjects. ●…ra every man in that he is a man, is no subject to another man, but free. Neither in that he is a christian. (to speak preperly of the abstract) he is under any other than Christ, in whom there is no difference of country, state, degree, or person, as yourself afterward confess in the 4. chapter. howbeit, as the king himself is of the Christian●… religion, and a Christian king of a christian kingdom (as all kings & kingdoms aught to be, although they be not:) so hath he an other charge and government of his christian subjects far above that they be natural men, or this or that cruntrey men, even that they be christians committed to his government. And therefore this charge was given the king of God's people, in his institution D●…ute. 17. That he should have God's Deut. 17. word always with him, and make religion the chief end of his government. And this yourself have granted already. pag. 80 except you will contrary yourself, as you often do. But this case is too apparent, that a christian Prince The Christian Prince regardeth further than the natural or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 regardeth further than the body, or than the natural or politic man. For being a christian Prince, he regardeth them as christian subjects, and not alike to such subjects as are Heathen, Turks, and Tartars, which is a shameful slander. For as the christian Prince hath a special regard to his christian subjects, before his Infidel subjects: so they being subjects of unlike condition, he governs them nothing a like. The one being out of the household of faith, although in the household of his kingdom: The other being of both the households, and therefore the faithful Prince hath fuller authority over them, as well for the religion of their souls, as for their goods and bodies. But (say you) the bishop bath respect only to the soul. I say still, would to God your Bishops had so. But doth this hinder the Princes superiorive, that hath respect to soul and body too? The arguments of Constantine, Theodosius, and Constantius, are somewhat touched already, and I reserve the further handling of them, to the practice and treatise of the stories. The 3. part of this chapter is a dissuasion from the Prince's M. Saunders would dissuade us how the Prin ces supremacy by the success thereof. supreme government, by the success thereof. Wherein first he gins with the most famous Prince King Henry the. 8 the Queen's Matesties' father, the noblest and most fortunate king, that ever bore crown in England. & now when his soul is crowned in the kingdom of heaven with eternal glory, his body with honour interred in his Sepulchre, & his immortal fame yet fresh & living, in the memory & mouths of all nations: see & these spiteful Papists will leave off, The Papists railing and s●…laundering of K. Henry. 8. Sand. 63. with more than villainous reproaches, most traitorously to rail upon him. Saying, that he first called himself the Chief head of the Church of England & Ireland immediately under Christ, Besides that, he was never the happier, but much more unhappy. Upbraiding his wives unto him. The counterfeiting of the money, and the pilling of his subjects. ●… wicked Papists, past all shame and grace. How truly did the Apostle Jude prophecy of you, that 〈◊〉 Epistola judae. ●…ulers, and blaspheme ●…hem that 〈◊〉 authority. Was K. Henry. 8. ●…claundered to 〈◊〉 his subjects King Henry the eight a pillar of his subject▪ under whom his subjects lived in such prosperity and abundance, in 〈◊〉 renown and glory, when all their 〈◊〉 ●…o dread them, for the●…oble conduct & government of such a Prince, as all things considered, we find not the like in all the ancient histories? Did he pill them, that delivered them from the greatest pillar and spoiler of them, & from all his insatiable Caterpillars, that had peeled the Prince, the S●…. biectes, and all the Realm, and had got almost, all the goods and l●…ndes into their clutches, yea, their bodies and souls also? Did he pill the realm, that brought the greatest riches into the Realm (the Gospel of christ, and Christian liberty) that ever the Realm could have? You quarrel at the baseness of the money. Hath there not been King Henry. 8 selaundered with counterfeiting the coy●…e. worse money in times passed in England? They say that we had money of leather, & have not the most of other Princes brazen coin? But I see you have a brazen face, and a fond malicious head. Is the Prince's coin counterfeit with you? and if it had been a great deal worse than it was, can you call it adulterate or forged? Not Saunders, (for here I must needs leave out Master) such Traitors as you be, are What coin the Papists counterfeited. counterfeiters of money, howbeit you are far worse traitors, and forge a naughty coin, in the stead of God's word, to give the people trifling traditions of your own stamp, and take good money for them. You object his wi●…es unto him. What mean you by this, King H. selandered with his wives. you wifeless and shameless generation, you despisers and defilers of Matrimony, would you have had him have lived like you? you caused him in deed unwittingly, while he ignorantly obeyed your Pope, to live with his brother's wife. Which when he knew, he adhorred and forsook, as flat against God's word: Thou shalt not uncover the secrets levit. 18. o●… thy brother's wife. And yet the Pope (contrary to God's express law, and the law of nature) dispensed with it, and you Papists maintain it tooth and nail, as a lawful marriage. This in deed was his greatest misfortune, to have taken her so long (through too much credit of false Papists) to be his lawful wife, which was not his wife at all, and yet both the parties ignorantly offended. A●… for his first true and lawful wife: we may say indeed he had misfortune in her too, that he so much credited the slanderoous undermining Papists, that never stinted to procure her d●…ath, for the hatred of the gospel that she professed. And so at length most subtly wrought it & made her a sweet sacrifice to God and a most holy martyr. No misfortune, but mosie happi●… hap to her, to sustain so sclaunderdus a death, in so innocent a cause, the misfortune was the king her husbands, to be so beguiled by such false Papists. And yet to us, this marriage was most fortunate, which God so blessed with such a fruit, as never the like did spring in England. As for all King Heuries other wives (save one) were as as virtuous, chaste, & godly Queens, as any Christian king could have. And yet the default of that one, is not to be imputed unto him, which to die, is more than cankered malice. Jest of all, aught it to be ascribed to the event of his supreme government. Should M. colsfolly be ascribed to David? 1. Paral. 15. yea, should a man's own faults be accounted for the event of his virtues? should misfortunes following, be deemed the effects of godliness going before? But you deny all this, that this was godly, to become this supreme governor, and say king Henry took it first upon him. But stay your haste Master Saunders. When we come to the practice of christian Kings before king Henry: you shall find it contrary, and King Henry not the first that took upon him this supre mac●…e. you shall find by that, that is already said to Master Stapleton, that in the old Testament David, Solomon, josaphat. etc. took upon them this supreme government in their kingdoms, that king Henry did. You say he was never the happier but the more unhappier King Henrie●… prosperity after he had expelled the Pope. after he took it on him. Whereas he never prospered better, than after he had expelled the Pope's usurped authority. For even then began he indeed to reign and rule other, where before he bore the name of a king, and was ruled by other, the Pope, his Prelates and Priests hearing all the 〈◊〉. Besides the happiest hap of all the knowledge of God, that by his supreme government, than began to flourish. Now after his railing on king Henry, he descendeth to king Edward the sixte, saying: And he being dead, God by a marvelous manner showed Sand. pag. 63. unto all the world, how little this Ecclesiastical Primacy and high calling, was agreeable to kings. For Henry the eight being dead, Edward his son a child almost nine year old, succeeded in his kingdom. If we look to the right that this child had in the kingdom, he was no less king than his father was. But if we turn our eyes unto the state of the church, verily there is a great difference, whether it be governed of a child, or of a man of perfect age. See the insatiable malice of these Papists, not only The Papists de face of K. Edward. against the living, but the dead, and that against their late most gracious sovereigns. It sufficeth not to have thus contumeliously railed on the queens majesties father of blessed memory, but also to deface her majesties brother, that most virtuous Prince, king Edward, saying, he took upon The Prince slandered to take an ecclesicall primacy. him this Ecclesiastical Primacy, as though he or his father took upon him, any ecclesiastical primacy, because they took upon them a supreme government in all ecclesiastical matters. But will he spare for spite to slander them, that presumeth to wrist and misconstrue Gods heavenly providence, in calling king Edward to the kingdom, while he was yet a child? He granteth he was as full king as his father was. Then say I, he had all the right and authority that his father If KING Edward were as full a king as his father, than he had all the right of his father. had. But saith he, there is a great difference between the right of a kingdom and the state of the Church, whether it be governed of a child, or of a man of perfect age. As though we talked not (M. Saunders) of such a kingdom as were the Church also, or as though a kingdom (consider it how you will) require not likewise to be governed of one of perfect age Or as though there be not also a great difference, between the right of authority belonging to the person, be he child, or man: and the personal governing of him. But let us hear M. Saunders arguments against a child. He maketh exception against a child for two reasons, first the example of Christ, secondly the saying of S. Paul Cal. 4. Of the first he says. For if even Christ took not on him the government of the Sand. 63. Church, before he attained to thirty years of age, how much less would he, that the Church should be governed of a child. I answer. First the government that Christ took at 30. Christ's age when he begun to preach. years of age, was in his personal exercise of the ecclesiastical function, whereto a mature age is requisite. But the king's Supremacy requireth no such personal exercise of ecclesiastical function, but is clean another matter: therefore this example of Christ's age is impertinent. Secondly we grant the Church should not be governed of a child, in that respect he is a child, in which consideration he is no king, as you distinguished before between a man and a christian man, Distinction be twen●… the kigs' nature and h●…s person and his office. and you must so again distinguish between his nature and his person, or his person and his office. Now, in regard of his office, the defect of his nature is supplied by those, that represent him in his office, and they being men of grave years and knowledge, you can not justly say, the government is committed to a child. The second argument is taken from S. Paul. 4. Gal. Moreover a child so long as he is a little one, liveth under Saunders. 6●…. Gal. 4. Tutors and governors, and so the Supreme Head of the Church, needeth another superior Head to govern and rule him, and that not so much by chance or fortune, as by imbecility of his proper nature, and the necessity of the thing itself. How can he therefore be the Supreme Head of the Church, that liveth under an other head? Ercept M. Saunders were bend pienishly to warble, he would not reason thus, knowing well enough, that those of ri●…er years which govern the king's person in his nonage, be not his head, and he a member or subject under them: but they representing him, he and they are but one in office, and their government is not properly there's, but is the The doings of the king's governors in his nonage at the kings own doings. kings own government. And so the head hath no head over him but only jesus Christ. But M. Saunders foreseeing that by this reason, he might make the child no king at all of his kingdom (which he before confessed, that king Edward was as full king as his father) he preventeth the objection, and seeketh a escape to shift it. For if you say by the same reason he is not king of his kingdom neither, because he is compelled to govern that also by Sand. 63. M. Saunders prevention & answer to our objection. others: the answer is easy, it is no marvel if the law of man, which placeth children over kingdoms by force of succession, be found imperfect. But it were greatly to be marveled if the law of Christ also, whereby he placeth pastors over his Church, could be accused in any part of imperfection. For as Moses law brought nothing to perfection, so on the contrary, the law of Christ left nothing unperfect, as whom it become to fulfil all righteousness. Therefore there shall be none, much less any chief head in the Church of Christ, the which by nature, can not do the office of an ecclesiastical head. But a child can neither teach, nor baptise, nor by any means assoil the harder questions of the Gospel. The answer (M. Saunders, as you say) is easy, but is it a good answer? it were an easy matter to answer, if such easy answers may serve, that you may say what you will (and contrary yourself too) when you find an inconvenience. And such an inconvenience, as wipes away all your former reasons. Neither can you sufficiently answer it, that if your reason hold, of the defect of the king's nonage while he is a child: he may then be no governor at all, not not in Temporal matters neither, because therein he is governed of others also, in that he is but yet a child, and so in his kingdom should become no governor at all. But for an easy answer to this, you say: this is a defect in the law of man. A child may be a king even by God's law. Why M. Saunders, do ye now make this the law of man, that a child might be a King? said you not before (and that more truly) it was gods law, Numeri. 27. and Gal. 4. and cited for examples joas and josias? and again, do you say, this is an imperfection in the law, that is an imperfection Imperfection of the person infereth not in perfection of the law. in the person? nay Master Saunders the law of succession was good and perfect. Neither your sentence that you cite of S. Paul, the law brought nothing to perfection, serves to this purpose. Neither was the fault in the law, but in the defect of the observer. But saint Paul speaks there of the moral law, and of justification, which the law of God given by Moses could not bring to perfection, confuting an other error which the Phariseis, the Pelagians, and the Papists hold. But what is this to the present purpose? Saint Paul complaineth not of the imperfection of the politic l●…w of the jews, & therefore this is manifestly wrested: You object that Christ's law is perfect, as though S. Paul's law Gal. 4. cited by yourself, for the kingdom of a child, be not also the law of Christ: and as for Christ's law for the pastors of his Church▪ we accuse it not to be imperfect, and yet in the pastors themselves there is no perfection, although Christ's law for them be most perfect. But what answereth this the purpose? The Prince takes not the pastoral office on him, nor to do the office of an ecclesiastical head, as you term it, nor to teach, or baptize, or astoyle the hard questions of the Gospel, either in his nonage or in his full age, either child or man. These are but your surmised slanders on the Prince. But to devise slanders, is with you an easy answer. Now upon these arguments against the supremacy of king Edward, he knits up his conclusion of the event, saying: therefore sith God, after not the best man, calling him Saunders. 6●…. self the head of the Church, did substitute a child: even by the things themselves he admonished us, that that honour did not rightly agreed to the father, that was so evil applied to his son. The more you d●… still unreverently carp at king Henry, calling him not the best man, the more you show your cankered stomach M. Saunders, & that yourself are one of the worst The more the Papists discommend king Henry, the more it redoundeth to his commendation. kind of men, whose malice no not death can satiate. But the more it redoundeth to the praise of that most noble and virtuous king, being held for so much the better man, of all good men, how much the worse man, such wicked men as you esteem him ab illaudatis vituperari laudabile est, it is commendable to be dscommended of discommendable men. Your interpretation of a child succeeding him, hath neither charity nor truth, neither can you frame any good argument on it, but rather on the contrary. Where God so blessed the reign of the The Papists argument of a child's succession to blemish the supremacy doth rather confirm it. child, that in so short a time, so long rooted superstitions & Idolatries were abolished, and the word of God so truly and freely set forth: it argueth that God not only liked the title of the father, but also confirmed it in the son, & showed well that the childhood of his person, was no impediment to the authority of his office, as you maliciously would wrist it. After King Edward you come to Queen Marie, saying: Moreover, when men neither thus awaked, and the child Saunders. 63. after the sixth year of his government being dead, God placed a woman over the kingdom of England, who also aught to have been further from governing the Church than a child, for even the kind, which at the last, displeased not in a child, so displeased the holy Ghost in a woman (so far as pertaineth to the government of the Church) that he in whom Christ spoke, doubted not to writ, I permit not a 1. Tim. 2. woman to teach in the Church. If you reckon the years of King Edward's reign, to infer, The shortness of King Edward's reign no argument against his authority. by the taking of him away so soon, Gods misliking of his government: as you still show your malicious and over saucy constructions of gods judgements: so you bewray withal the foudnesse of your arguments. Did not Queen Marie reign a shorter while than he? and why note you not the years of her reign also? but this you overpass Queen's Maries reign shorter than king Edward's. The supremacy of a woman. 1. Tim. 2. The understan ding of Saint Paul's sentence for woman's sil●…ee and subjection pag. 59 in silence, and turn your argument to her kind, in that she was a woman, to argue God's displeasure for the Prince's government of the Church, but you allege nothing that you alleged not before, out of Saint Paul: I permit not a woman to teach in the Church, neither to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. Trow you Master Saunders this is to be stretched to government, that no woman may have any authority to govern a man? if you construe it thus, how will you make your former saying good? that the right of a kingdom pertaineth no less to women than to men, alleging the examples of Deborah, Athalia, and Alexandra and the law Num. 27. you must needs therefore confess, that he speaketh there no otherwise, than ●…ée doth 1. Corinthians. 14. of women not simply, but of such women as are wives. Neither of all authority, but of authority over the husband. Neither of all speaking, exhorting or commanding: but of the public ministery of preaching. And thus doth your own Cardinal Caietane, expound it, Docere, Caietanus in 1 Tim. 2. suppling publice. etc. neque dominari, direct hoc respicit uxores, to teach, to wit publicly. etc. neither to rule, this is directly spoken of wives. And so Catharinus: hic locus manifest de coniugata Catharinus in 1. Tim. 2. intelligitur. etc. This place manifestly is understood of a wife, in the same sense wherein it is read in another place, let women hold their peace in the Churches, for it is not permitted to them to speak, but to be subject even as the 1. Cor. 14. law says. But by the way we must beware, that injury be done to none. Although by no means it be the office of any woman to teach, notwithstanding if any woman be endued with singular grace of God (for God is free from all law) that could be able to do these things when it should be thought meet, she were not to be hindered, chiefly having the gift of prophecy, but it were lawful for her to speak freely. As is read of Olda and Deborah that judged the people of Israel, as is apparent in the book of the judges. Doth not the Apostle also warn, that the former hold his peace, if it be revealed to another? For we know that that glorious, and one of the most dear spo●…ses of Christ, Saint Katherine of Senes taught in times pa●…e, and hath made sermons yea even in the public consisto●…e of the Pope, although she took not upon her these things but with good leave of Christ's own vica●…, who best knew in 〈◊〉 to be the true spirit of God, and the fervency of charity to be given her to edify the Church in those troublous times, when the schism reigned. etc. Thus far and further says this Popish Bishop, whereby it appeareth, that the Papists themselves understand not this sentence of Saint Paul, for a simple debar to all women, not not to preach in the open Church, if need so required, so that she have the Pope's leave. And can the Pope give leave in a time of schism to maintain his faction, when two or three Popes strive for the triple diadem, and to Saint her for her labour? And shall it not be lawful for a Christian Queen (not attempting herself to preach) to set forth, by the authority due to all princes, such laws whereby gods truth may be preached, by those that are lawfully called thereunto? may not a Quéen●… by virtue of her royal office, in the open assembly of her own subjects, speak, exhort, persuade, and command her people, being also the Church of Christ, to abolish all errors, and receive the only truth of God? was it lawful for the Empress Irene, to publish her decrees in the Church, for the erecting of Images, against the word of God? and is it not lawful for the queens Majesty, by public decrees to pull them down, and forbidden the worship of them, according to gods word? this sentence therefore even by their own witness is but wrested, to debar a woman's government of the Church. But Master Saunders proceeding on his argument for Queen Marie, says: To the same purpose it came, that the great goodness of Saunders. 63. God called such a Queen to the rule of the kingdom, that both saw this self same thing, and confessed it. For Queen Marie not only took not this proud title of the head of the Church, but also when she was admonished of others▪ that she would be like her father, she brought forth most weighty reasons, why she aught not to do it. Whereupon, she chiefly exhorting thereto, that title was omitted, and the proper honour restored to the successors of Peter. If the title (as you say M. Saunders) be proud, Queen Queen Mary's refusal of this title. Marie had done well to leave it, but your Pope not over well to take it, howbeit this title, as King Henry, and King Edward before took it, was no proud title, but a title of their charge and duty. And therefore she aught to have retained it, nor did well in leaving it, and rendering it to a foreign prelate, that had naught to do therewith. And in whom in deed it is both a proud, and an Antichristian title, both spoiling Christian Princes of their principal office in their particular estates: and also bereaving Christ of his glory over his universal Church. Neither can he claim it as successor of Peter: Peter never having the possession of it. And what weighty reasons soever she persuaded herself withal, to shake it off, she taking the kingdom on her, the weight and burden lay still on her charge before God. And if your reason be aught of the effect and sequel of this her refusal, into what If the reason of the sequel be aught, look on the events in Queen Mary's reign after her refusal of the supremacy. extreme misery was this Realm brought in so short a time, by the Legates spoiling, by the Prelates burning, by the Italians pilling, by the Frenchmens' winning, by the Spaniards oppressing, and by gods divine justice scourging the Realm with strange diseases, droughts, waters, & dearthes', to conclude the Queen herself and crown impoverished, & all the Realm in danger of perpetual thraldom and utter undoing, if God of his infinite mercy had not delivered us from it, and yet see if these Papists, that can so narrowly spy, and proll at every note in king Henry, and kings Edward's days, can in Queen Mary's days, espy any one of these great beams, that were such apparante tokens of gods wrath, that all men saw and felt what events succeeded the refusal of this title, and the yielding it to the Pope, nerehand the clean subversion of this Realm, if we may judge by sequels. Now after Queen Marie, he comes to the queens Majesty, that now (God be praised) most prosperously reigneth over us. But when very many given to heresies were offended at Saunders. 63. this notable modesty of the Queen, neither would they yet understand his Counsel in governing his Church: God brought to pass that Marie of happy memory being dead, the kingdom of England should deuolue to such a woman, as now writeth herself: The supreme governess in all matters and causes aswell ecclesiastical as secular. That yet so at the length, by the success itself, men of hard heart and obstinate neck, might mark, how evil king Henry took this office upon him, the which of his heir and successor could not duly and orderly be fulfilled. For to whom it is not permitted to teach, which is the most necessary office of an ecclesiastical Head: how shall she perform those greater offices, that are occupied in the chastisement and correction of them, that aught to teach the people? or shall she which is unworthy that she should herself teach publicly in the lowest degree, moderate and reprehend with lawful authority, other public teachers in the highest degree? or if she can not lawfully reprehend them, shall she yet be lawfully supreme governess of the Church? I omit here the things that in these years, which are last passed, have been (I know not how uncomely) done and preached in England, under such supreme heads of the Church. I spare the dignity of them that govern. Another time, if God will, I will handle them particularly, how greatly both from the law of God, and from the sentence of the ancient Church, and from right reason, that state of a common weal is far, in which any king arrogateth to himself, the office and name of the supreme head of the Church. Is your part so false and weak of proves (Master Saunders) that it can win no credit, but by discrediting of ours with slanders? and yet we would pardon this in you, ascribing it either to some passion of choler against your adversaries, or to blind affection of yourselves, that you call very many of us, given to heresies, hard hearted, and obstinate necked, which are terms fit to muster in M. Stapletons' common places, than to stuff up M. doctor Saunders volumes: how they redownde upon yourselves, let other judge▪ that How the Papists slander the Queen. will read and view of both. But if we forgive you this, for our parts, shall we still suffer you to rail upon, & slander the Lords anointed, saying: she arrogateth to herself the office and name of the supreme Head of the Church, speaking at random without limitation of the Church, as the Pope doth arrogate to himself, and taketh on her to be an ecclesiastical head and public teacher of other that should teach her? these are too too infamous slanders of her Majesty, that claimeth no such title, nor attempteth any such thing. What supreme government is ascribed to her highness, we have told you a thousand times, but I see you will not understand it, because you would of set purpose slander it. But to knit up your argument of the event and sequel of the queens majesties reign: you say, many things have been done and preached in England, you cannot tell how unseemly. ●… think even the same M. Saunders: you can not tell how ●…ndede. But how unseemly a thing is this for one of your ●…rofession, to challenge you cannot tell what nor how? you set own nothing, but under a pretence of sparing us, to breed ●…et a further slanderous suspicion, you threat us that you will ●…serue them till a further leisure, that is to say, ad Kalendas graecas, till ●…e shall first know them, and then be able to prove them, in the mean season, you take the wisest way, to say such there are, but what they are, you cannot now tell, you will learn them out, and tell us another time, but tell the worst you can, you shall never be able to tell, of any falls doctrine preached and by the Prince approved to be preached, nor of any wicked fact, allowed by public authority to be done. No Master Saunders in all the queens majesties reign, you can never be able to prove any such things, but in the reign of your Popes, we can prove many such things: as whoredom committed and maintained: murder done and maintained, Idolatry used and maintained, and infinite errors preached and maintained by public authority among the Papists. As for the queens majesties reign that now is, if the event The prosperous success of the Queen's majesties reign since her first taking on her this supremacy and sequel may make an argument, God hath so blessed it (maugre all your spites and practices) that no Realm christian hath flourished like, nor England more at any tyme. The Lord be praised for it, and for his mercy sake long continued it, that hath given so goodly a token, of his well liking her majesties supreme government. The third Chapter. The argument is, that Princes can not judge nor define in causes Ecclesiastical. OF those errors that are about the power of kings and magistrates ●…. Sand, pag. 64. the second error is of them that think kings are not in deed the chief heads of the Churches in which they reign but in certain causes ecclesiastial to be even as worthy members as Bishops▪ for although in one certain thing (as in the office of teaching) they prefer Bishops before kings, yet partly in another Ecclesiastical matter (as in deposing a Bishop from his seat, or in moderating any synod, they prefer kings before Bishops, partly they will have it free for kings, that almost in every ecclesiastical matter they may know and decern as judges. Of the confutation of which error, this is the reason, that I should show in every cause of the ecclesiastical law, that is to be known and judged, Kings to be so much in the place of private men, that this trial can not of the ecclesiastical judges be committed unto them, Although I deny not, but that of some fact that pertaineth to the eccl. law, the knowledge may be committed to Kings and Magistrates. But before the eccl. cause be known, the king may orderly intermeddle his authority, to that end that a quiet place may be granted, where the Bishops should judge. And also that the Bishops may be called at a certain day to that place. And that in the mean season, while the ecclesiastical cause is known, the public peace, yea even in the assembly of Priests may be conserved. To conclude, after the cause known and judged of the Pristes, the king either by the sword that he beareth not in vain, or by some other bodily punishment may correct him, if any man shall refuse to obey the priests sentence. Therefore we deny not, but that both before and about, and after the Bishoply judgement, there are some parts of kings, but in the office of judging, kings can do more than can private men. For either of them can both give counsel, and show what they think good: but neither of them can define, what the divine or eccl. law declareth in that matter. Which thing thus declared, let us now come to the proof of the matter itself. All this then either needeth none or little answer (M. Saunders) being barely anouched without any proof, to the which you are not yet come, but only declare what you will deny or grant to Princes. Your grant we take, and M. Saunders granteth to Princes to assign the time and place to Counsels. see you go not from it. But will all your fellows, yea will your Pope himself grant so much, that the Emperor shall by his authority appoint the certain place and day where and when the Bishops shall hold their Counsels? It was wont to be so in the old time. But will your Pope suffer this now, and that kings shall do the like in their kingdoms? Nay M. Sau●…ders, he will mislike of this, and say, you grant too large a thong of another man's leather: howsoever you would by qualification, eat your graunt●… again, clean contrarying yourself, ascribing no more to Princes than to private men. And yet again you grant, M. Saunders speaketh contraries. that both of them may give counsel, and show what they think good in ecclesiastical matters, although they can not determine them. Go to master Saunders, till you bring your proofs, we will take this grant also of your liberality, that Princes may give counsel and show what they think good. A good many of your side will not grant so much, nor you but for a countenance sake neither. Although The Papists make Princes but as private men in their Counsels. ye do them open injury, to compare them qualle (being public estates) to private men. As for your determination of God's law, what you mean thereby, when ye show your meaning plainer, we will answer to it. Now to your proofs. Master Saunders proofs in this Chapter keep this order, first he allegeth the reasons for his party. Secondly, he answereth our objections. His first reason is this. Those things that are of God, man can not dispose them Sand. 64. otherwise, than if God give unto them such authority▪ but the causes of faith chief of all other are of GOD, because faith is the most necessary gift of GOD, that no man can obtain to himself by any force, either of nature or art: the causes therefore of faith can not be judged of other than of them, to whom God hath given that power. I answer, the parts of this argument be true, 〈◊〉 M. Saunders a●…g. vicious. the conclusion nought, for there is more in the conclusion than in the premises▪ The conclusion should have 〈◊〉 Therefore 〈◊〉 can not dispose the causes of faith otherwise, Distinction of judging. than if God give them such authority. howbeit, we simply deny not M. Saunders conclusion: but would have him distinguish what he means by judging. 〈◊〉 he mean disposing causes of faith otherwise than God hath already in his word disposed them, (or else his argument hath no sense nor sequel:) then the conclusion, as it is not proved, so is it apparent false. Neither give we such judgement to Princes, or to any other creature, for such power God hath given to none. Although the Popish priests falsely claim such power, to dispose matters of faith otherwise, than God disposed them. But master 〈◊〉 will prove his, conclusion on thi●… wise: But God hath given such power to certain men, and Sand. 64. not at large to all Christian people. Therefore none have it but they. The antecedent he proves from Saint Paul, Ephesians the fourth. For God hath ordained, some Apostles, other Prophets, Sand. 64. Ephe. 4. other Evangelists, other Pastors, and Teachers, to the edi●…ying of his mystical body, which is the Church. But other he made as it were sheep and lambs, that they should be edified by their pastors and teachers, and too whom their pastors should attend, that they should not be carried away with every blast of doctrine by the subtlety of man. I answer again as before. If he mean by judging. ●…eaching with sound judgement, it is true, and this sen●…ence well applied: but if he mean as his principal ●…roposition was, whereon all depends. Disposing thin●…es of faith otherwise. Then we deny the antece●…ente and the con●…equence too. As for this sentence, ●…roues no such judgement given to any of these people, but rather confutes it, as not to edify, but to destroy, and to be carried away by the subtlety of men with every blast of doctrine if men might dispose otherwise of faith than God himself hath dispo●…ed. Now upon this sentence of S. Paul for Pastors, be reasoneth thus: But Pastors only judge what is fit or not fit for the sheep. Saun. 64. For, to conclude that sheep are endued with equal power to Pastors, this were nothing else, but to take away the difference that Christ hath set between the Pastors and the sheep, and the things that he hath distinguyshed, to mingle and confound them. kings therefore and Magistrates, if they be counted sheep in the flo●…ke of Christ (as in deed sheep they are) judge not together with the Pastors. The argument is thus made formal. judgement of Pastors. Pastors do only judge what is fit or not fit for the sheep. But Princes are not Pastors, but sheep of the flock of Christ. Ergo, Princes do not judge what is fit or not fit for them, The mayor he proveth thus. To conclude that the sheep have equal power with Pastors, is nothing else, but to mingle and confound and take away the difference that Christ hath set between the Pastors and the sheep. But if Princes should judge, the sheep should have equal power. Ergo, For Princes to judge were to mingle, confounded, and take away the difference that Christ hath set between the Pastors and the sheep. First, to the mayor I answer, he siftes the similitude of The similitude of a Pastor and sheep ●…irted too narrow. a shepherd and sheep too narrow. For although in some resemblances it hold, yet is it not simply true, that the Pastor only judgeth what is fit or not fit for this kind of sheep. He himself confesseth before, and after again confesseth, that the private man or Princes may give counsel and private judgement. And S. Paul speaking not of The iudgeme●…t of private men, much more of Princes. 1. Cor. 2. Math. 7. the pastor, but of the spiritual man, that is, of the sheep of God, saith: Spiritualis omnia judicat, the spiritual man judgeth all things. And Christ bids the people beware of false prophets, which can not be without judgement. Neither is this sufficient proof of the mayor that he allegeth: to contend that the sheep hath equal power, is to confound Christ's distinction. We grant this, it were so. But this we deny, that hereby the sheep is made to have equal power. For, judgement of the pastor, and power of the pastor are two several things. Some spiritual sheep have ●…ounder judgement than their spiritual shepherds. How even the pastors are sheep. john. 10. How the prince is a pastor. the judgement of the pastor is one thing, and the power of the pastor is another, although it ought to have judgement concurring with it. Neither ascribe we judgement alike to the pastors and the sheep, although in this spiritual kind of sheep, some of them have more sound and perfect judgement than their pastors. To the minor, I answer, it is not simply true neither, for in one sense, not only the pastors themselves are like wise sheep, but also the Princes themselves are pastors. In the former sense, every faithful Christian is a sheep v●…der Christ, the only shepherd, and must hear his voice. And so the Priest is a sheep also, or else he shall never be in the fold of the Church, nor placed at the right hand of Christ. In the other sense, not only the Prince is such a Pastor as Homer calleth Aga●…emnon, and rules and feeds the body (and so the Priests are his sheep, as well as other subjects:) but also in protection & setting forth of God's word throughout his Dominions: he is their pastor too, in appointing the pastors to feed the sheep only in God's pastures. And in this sense we ascribe supreme Pastorship unto him, over the Priest also. Although in the ministery of the word and Sacraments, the Priest again is his superior pastor, and the Prince is but his sheep. But master Saunders replies. But if they be counted as Pastors: I ask whence they Saund. 6 5. prove it that Christ gave them such power? for what have they that they have not received? but Christ, as he took not away or diminished the ancient power of kings, granted by the law of Nations, so neither annexed he unto them a new power of feeding his sheep. Moreover, the ancient power of kings, although it be of God, yet is it of him by the mean of the law of Nations, and the Civil, and not by any especial and chief constitution of the Gospel, as is before declared. If therefore Kings and politic Magistrates have any power in causes of faith, either they received it from the law natural, of Nations and of the Civil, or of the law of God, that is revealed to the Church. But (to begin with the later member first) by the law of God, that is revealed to the Church, no such thing is granted to kings. For nothing else is revealed in the new Testament concerning Princes, than that that is Math. 22. 1. Timoth. 2. 1. Peter. 2. Rom. 13. Caesar's should be given to Cesar, that tributes should be paid, that kings should be prayed for, that both the King and the governors sent from him should be obeyed, and finally, that all power proceedeth from God, & that every Magistrate bears not the sword in vain, but in that matter, is to be acknowledged to be God's minister. Moreover none of these places do bid the king by name dispose of the Church of Christ, or in causes of faith to arrogate aught to himself. The argument in brief is thus: If princes be counted as pastors, they have such power given them. But they have no such power given them. Ergo, They are not counted as pastors. I answer, first to the mayor, rightly understood it is true, that if princes may be counted as pastors, the authority is given them. But it is truly to be under stood by distinction of pastoral authority. Secondly, to the minor, that Princes have no pastoral authority given them, it is false. Neither do his proves prove it. If any were given them, it was given them, either by the law of Nations, or by the Civil, or by Christ in the new Testament: But it is given them by neither of these three: Ergo, they have none given them. To the mayor I answer, it is false. Because he leaveth Princes have pastoral authority given them of God. out the old Testament, which he confessed himself before, was a figure of the pastorship of the new Testament, & here he leaves out the old Testament quite. Which had he named as he aught to have done, he should both have seen Princes to have been ordained immediately of God, as Moses, joshua, all the judges, Saul, David, and Solomon: and not by the mean of the law of Nations, nor the law Civil coming between. And he should have ●…ounde that the Prince of God's people is appointed, namely to be a pastor or shepherd unto them. Num. 27. Moses spoke to the Num 27. Lord, saying: Let the Lord God of the spirit of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation, who may go out and in before them, and lead them out and in, that the congregation of the Lord be not as sheep without a Pastor. 2. Reg. 5. All the Tribes of Israel came to David 2. Reg. 5. unto Hebron, and said thus: Behold we are thy bones and thy flesh, and in times past when Saul was our king, thou leddest Israel in and out, and the Lord hath said unto thee, thou shalt feed my people Israel. In which words David was made their pastor or shepherd, which was resembled before in his keeping of natural sheep, as he confesseth of himself. He chose David also his servant, and took him away from Psal. 78. the sheep folds, as he was following the Ewes great with young one's, he took him that he might lead jacob his people, & Israel his inheritance. So he fed them with a faithful and true heart and ruled them prudently with all his power: Which word of feeding belonging to a pastor, God ascribeth also 2. Reg. 7. to all the judges, saying▪ When I commanded the judges to feed my people. And in. 1. Chro. 11. And the Lord said 1. Paral. 11. unto thee, thou shalt feed my people of Israel. and be the prince. etc. And in the. 3. book of the Kings, when Micheas described in his vision the king's destruction, he saith: I see 3. Reg. ult. Israel dispersed on the mountains, as sheep without a pastor, and the Lord said, these have no master. etc. By these and many other places it appeareth that God appointed the Prince to be a pastor in his office: but his office (as is proved at large before) stretchet●… to the setting ●…oorthe the law of God, and government of the priests so well as the laity: therefore his pastorshippe stretcheth so far also, although not to the taking upon him the office of the spiritual pastor. Secondly, I answer to the minor, it is false. For, not only by the law of Nations, and Civil, a politic pastorshippe is committed to the Prince: but also a Christian pastorshippe to a christian Prince, even in the new Testament also. Which as it is comprehended in these sentences that M. Saunders here sets down, so are there more sentences that declare the Prince's pastorship. But saith he, none of these do bid the king by name to dispose of the Church of Christ, or in causes of faith, arrogate aught to himself. This is a wrong conclusion, M. Saunders, from judgement & pastorship to infer disposing & arrogating. As for Arrogating. arrogating neither the Prince nor the Priest aught to do it, nor the Prince attempts it, although the Priests have and do attempt it. Likewise for disposing, if you mean Disposing. as you said before, disposing otherwise than Christ hath done: your Priests do so, but they aught not to do so. The Prince can not do it, nor he doth it, nor claims to do it, nor it is ascribed unto him. Yea, though you mean by disposing, no alteration: yet is this an hard phrase, to say that Princes or priests either, dispose of the Church of Christ, but rather dispose of matters in the Church of Christ. And this as the Priest may do in his vocation, so may the Prince in his estate. Which though it be not expressed by name, but comprehended in the new Testament: yet is it even by name expressed in the old Testament in divers places, of the disposing of Church matters by Moses, joshua, David, Solomon, josaphat, Ezechias. etc. And since yourself confess, the one government is a figure of the other. And that the government before Christ, he neither broke it nor diminished it: it followeth, that then he left it entire and confirmed it. And therefore although the Princes disposing of Church matters be not by name expressed, yet is it by your reason, necessarily comprehended, and so you answer yourself. Now after he hath thus (as he supposeth) debarred Princes from all warrant out of the law of God and the new Testament: he examineth the other laws, saying: Except therefore by the law of nature, the law of nations Saunders. 65 or the law civil such power be permitted too the king, it is clear, that he hath no power at all over these things: But certain it is, that those laws cannot give to the king any power over things, that are not subject to those laws. For no law can establish aught, either of other things, or people, or actions, than those things that fall under the compass of it. But Ecclesiastical matters do infinitely exceed the power of the law of Nature, of nations, and the civil. For of these three the law of nature is the first and greatest. But neither that (sith it begun in the earth) can decree aught upon the mysteries of Christ, which draw their original from heaven only. For, that I may Rom. 5. speak nothing of the force of nature being yet entire, truly after that the nature of all mankind by the sin of Adam 1. Cor. 1. was corrupted, and death entering by one man passed into all: it can not be, that from that infected original, any good thing should come forth. For an ill tree can not bring forth good fruits, neither doth the fleshly man (such as we all be, by nature) perceive those things that are of the spirit of God. All this labour is a need not (M. Saunders) to run (for confirmation of a Christian doctrine) from the law of God to the law of nature and the law of man, we use not so to do Neither desire we any doctrine to be admitted, that is not proved by the law of God revealed in his word unto us, it is you the Papists that stand on such proves and grounds, not we. Howbeit, you do injury to the law of nature, to measure The law of nature. it altogether by the corruption of our nature. For, howsoever we be degenerate from it, the law of nature remains in itself both good and perfect, and is called likewise the law of God. Neither can I think that every ecclesiastical thing (as ecclesiastical things are commonly understood) is infinitely above the power of the law of nature. By which reason many petit matters, would be far above great principles. Yea many great Ecclesiastical matters do fall within the compass of the law of nature. It is true that you say of the corruption of our nature, that by the fall of Adam sin hath The corruption of nature as much in a priest as in a Prince. infected the Mass of all mankind. Death by one man hath entered into all men. No goodness can come of such a corrupted original. An ill tree can not bring forth good fruit and that the fleshly man perceiveth not the things that are of the spirit of God. All this is true, but is it not as much against a Priest as a Prince? for the Priest in that he is a man is born in sin, and dieth by death the reward of sin, nor can bring forth any good fruits, nor perceive the things of the spirit of God. And the prince, in that he is a Christian, is washed from his sin. The sting of death hath no power over him, but is a passage to eternal life. He is regenerate by a new original from above. He is a good tree and bringeth good fruits, and is become a spiritual man, perceiving and working the things that are of the spirit of God, and that perchance a great deal better than many a good Priest, and without all doubt, far more spiritual than any Popish Priest. And therefore that you speak of the corruption of nature, is nothing to the purpose, except it be to confute your errors of pura naturalia, free-will, preparative works. etc. But Master Saunders drift is this, that only the Priests are spiritual men. and so may only judge of spiritual things, and Princes are but natural, fleshly and sinful men, and so can give no judgement of spiritual matters. But how untrue this is, how presumptuous on his party, and iniurions to all Christian Princes: and how contrary to his own self, that faith else where, Christian Princes are spiritual: I think any that have but mean judgement, may easily judge it. But Master Saunders proceedeth saying: But to judge of Ecclesiastical matters is no small good Saun. 65. thing but one of the chiefest that christ hath given unto his Church: because he hath given the power of feeding, of Math. 18. losing and binding to his Apostles, that is, to the chiefest Magistrates of his Church, even as the greatest gift, Which gift they could never well exercise but with judgement either going before or going with it. For he that shall bind nothing but that that should be bound, and shall loose nothing but that that should be loosed, must of necessity before hand deliberate and decree, that this is to be bound, and that is to be loosed. But to decree such a thing to be done, or not to be done, in Christian Religion, this is even that that we call, to judge in matters of Faith. Sith therefore a power so heavenly and notable, can not spring out of the beginnings of our corrupt nature: it followeth, that it cometh only of the free mercy of God. But that mercy of God is made manifest under the time of the new Testament, partly by the law written, partly not written: but neither way any power is given to Kings in Ecclesiastical causes. This argument (M. Saunders) is like the hopping of a reund, that from the law of the new Testament, went about to infirm it by the law of nature, and so fetching a circumquaque, cometh in again with this conclusion, that it is not by the law of the new Testament. So that where we thought we had proceeded ●…urder, we are now where we were before. But to let go the naughtiness of the argument. We grant, that to judge aright of Ecclesiastical matters, is a judgement in ecclesiastical matters, & power of binding and losing are two things. great gift of God, but that the judgement of ecclesiastical matters is only to be restrained to binding and losing (as you here define, what you mean by judging in matters of faith) this is a manifest falsehood. True it is, that binding and losing can not rightly be without judgement, nor without right judgement (and therefore your Pope and you do err so often herein) both binding that that should be loosed, and losing that that should be bond, errant clave, as you term it, your key erring: and erring also not only in things to be bound or loosed, but in the power itself of binding & losing too. Yet notwithstanding binding and losing, and the judgement requisite in binding and losing, are two distinct and several things: and judgement reacheth further to other things also, even in the Priest himself, besides the Prince's judgement. And therefore as this definition of judgement in matters of faith, is preposterously brought in (for you ought before to have defined, what you meant by judgement) so is it false, for other matters of faith require judgement besides binding and losing. Now where you say, this power cometh not of the principles of our corrupt nature, but of the free mercy of God: you say truth: But that you add, the mercy of God is made manifest under the time of the new testament, partly by the law written, partly not written: is spoken ambiguously. For, Princes judged in matters of faith. that Princes judged in matters of faith was also made manifest in the old Testament, but that Princes have power to bind and loose, we grant is neither manifest nor covert, neither in the old or new. As for the new law to be divided Law written & unwritten. into written and not written: is another error and impertinent to this question. Your unwritten law of the new Testament we stand not upon. But to affirm that by neither way written or unwritten, no power is given to kings in Ecclesiastical matters: that we deny, and yourself have rather confuted it, than hither to confirmed it. But to confirm it, you bring out this reason: Neither were thene at the beginning any Christian Kings Saunders. 65. to whom Christ should have committed any power, nor the Apostles gave any rule, according where unto the kings should judge of Ecclesiastical causes. That there were no Christian kings then, is not material. The Papists objection, the●… were no Christian kings in the Apostles time. For by this rule, they should be no defenders of the faith neither, because Princes were not then defenders of it. But that the Apostles gave no rule whereby they should judge, is false. For whosoever should judge, should judge by god's word, and this rule Christ and his Apostles gave in general. But that Princes might judge, is both proved from the old Testament, and by the text that M. Saunders himself citeth out of the new, yea by that he says immediately. For if any man say kings are appointed judges in a cause of Saunders. 65. the faith, only because by Baptism they are made spiritual men, who judge all things, and the spirits do try those things that 1. Cor. 2. are of God: this in deed I grant to be true in the kind and manner of the private, but not of the public judgement. For it is another thing, when thou art a member of the Catholic Church, nor preferrest thyself before thy pastors, what is necessary for thee privately to judge (and this the unction teacheth) and another thing to take upon thee power to teach others, and to prescribe to thy Pastors what they aught to do or teach, when thou art not called to the public ministery of the Church as Aaron was. We know there is a difference between private and public 1. Cor. 2. The Papists grant Princes private judgement. judgement. But that this place of S. Paul, The spiritual man judgeth all things, is only to be understood of private judgement: is but the private judgement of M. Saunders. But it is well that he granteth private judgement to every Christian man. Neither is it any reason then, it should be debarred irom any Christian Princes, neither is it any reason that the Prince (although in his private judgement▪) rightly judging a matter of faith to be true, should not approve & set forth the same publicly, by his princely authority. And so his private judgement, directs his public judgement. For a Prince is not only a private man, but a public man also, not that he may do all things of his own private or public judgement, nor take upon him the public ministery of the pastor in teaching, being not called, as Aaron was: for this is not ascribed to the Prince, because he giveth a public judgement in respect he is a public person: but his judgement is a public approbation and establishing of How the clergy and how the prince doc puqlikly judge that, that is already by others judgement▪ judged, to whom the discussing appertaineth. In which discussing, although the godly & learned clergy (being called as Aaron was) have the greatest skill and charge of judgement: yet the lay men, such as are also learned and godly, have a public judgement too. Or else, why says Panormitane, we should more believe a lay man alleging scripture, than the whole council besides? but now the truth being once found out, by these learned judgements: the Princes public judgement, as it called them together, as it gave them their charge, so it prescribeth what the pastors aught to do and teach therein, without any prejudice to the spiritual pastors judgement in the function of his doing and teaching. Now having thus set down his own assertions, he will enter on the other part, to confute our objections. And first he allegeth this reason of the protestants: In all the old Testament we see governors and Kings The protestāns objection. both to have prescribed to the priests what they aught to do in ecclesiastical matters, and also to have removed them from the ministery that have negligently done their duty. To this obiecton M. Saunders answer is this, that this The answer of the Papists. reason holds not from the old Testament to the new. If this came so to pass in the old Testament (says he) yet no reason should compel, that the same should be so in the new Testament, sith the reason of the eccl. government is changed. And are you changed too M. Saunders, that said before & after say, & make all your book of it, that the ecclesiastical kind of government hath been always one, and that is, a vi●…ble Monarchy, even from Adam to Pope Pius▪ 5. and said, that if the government be changed, the Church must needs be changed t●…o: and made the government of the old Testament, to be a figure of the new. But now that you are beaten with your own arguments, you say they hold not by reason the ecclesiastical government is changed. But I see Master Saunders you would deal with us, as the rich man dealt with his poor neighbour, When the poor man complained saying, I beseech your worship be good unto me, for my Cow hath gored your Bull. What hath he? (quoth the rich man) M. Saunders answers as the rich man did to the poor man the case is altered. I tell thee plain thou shalt pay for him then. I cry you mercy sir (quoth the poor man) I should have said, your bull hath gored my cow, tush quoth the rich man, the case is altered, that it is another matter. And so I perceive M. Saunders it is with you, when the Priest is said to have any authority in the old Testament, mark that (say you) that maketh for us, and why so? because the old Testament is a figure of the new, the government (& you mark it) was for the priest, but the government must not altar, the states must be a like, and all this gear. But now sir it is proved the king's government was above the priests. Is it so? say you, that is another manner of matter, tush, than the case is altered. If this came to pass in the old Testament, yet no reason should compel that the same should be so in the new Testament, sith the reason of the ecclesiastical government is changed. But as the proverb saith, the case is altered, but the matter is where it was. What a mockery is this in so weighty and plain a matter? But let us hear your reason's Master Saunders. Nor without cause (say you) for the synagogue of the jews, Sand. page 66. although it contained in it some true Israelits & just men, yet both it was, & was called a earthly rather than a heavenly kingdom in so much that Augustine doubteth whether in the old Testament the kingdom of heaven be ever named or not, much less that it is promised for reward. For those things that were done did signify in deed divine things (and so the law itself was also spiritual) but the things themselves were not in themselves so 2. Cor. 3. divine as our things are, in so much that the Apostle teacheth, that the glory of the synagogue was no glory at all, in respect of the excellent glory of that ministery, which now is exercised in the Church by the Ministers of the new Testament, not in the letter, but in the spirit. Therefore sith the people of God consists of a body and a soul or spirit, the carnal part obtained the principality in the old people, and was Exo. 19 &. 20 Hebre. 12. ordained to signify spiritual things. Whereupon, as mount Sinai, the kindled fire, the whirlwind, the darkness, the storm, and sound of the trumpet, and voice of the words, was only of the earth and carnal: so now all things are spiritual and internal. There reigned the servile fear of God, and the bodily sword: but here is most dear love, and the spiritual sword: they abuse therefore the holy Scriptures, that for those things that were done of the Kings in the old Testament: think now also that the kingdom of heaven (which is the Church) should be subject to earthly kings. This answer why the government is changed, is a depressing The comparison between the state of government in the old Testament and the new. of their estate in comparison of ours: that there's was more earthly, & ours more spiritual which, as in part we deny not, & yet repute not there's so grossly as here he makes it: yet is this comparison plainly wrested, to infer alteration of government thereupon, from the Princes over the Priests then, to the Priests over the Princes now. For this alteration maketh the old, not to prefigure the new: but to destroy it, as no comparison but a clean contrariety. But the true comparison being such, as the one estate prefigured the other: the excellency is in the difference of this above that, retaining still the same estate of government, so that, if those godly Princes, did so well order their government in those causes, that in comparison were but earthly, and not so divine as ours: then much more should our Christian Princes, order their government better, in much more excellent ecclesiastical matters. And thus, both the figure and the comparison holdeth. But M. Saunders turneth all, (as though the King and the Priest were compared together) that the king's government The earthly Princes in the old law, were more spiritual than the spiritu all priests now. was but earthly then, and the priests government now is spiritual. Whereas the comparison is of the things governed, and not of the governors. And yet to compare those with these governors, those earthly Princes were not so little spiritual then, but these spiritual Priests are ten times more earthly, gross, and carnal now. What S. Augustine doubteth I remember not, but we The godly Princes then hoped for the kingdom of heaven, so well as any priest now. without doubting know now, that the kingdom of heaven was promised then to them, so well as now to us, and they without doubting hoped for it, and undoubtedly did receive it, and do enjoy it. The comparison of glory that Saint Paul maketh, that there's was nothing to ours, is true But he speaketh not thereof, comparing visible glories, the one with the other, S. Paul's comparison between their outward glory and ou●… inward glory. such as the ministery of the Popish Church sets for the itself withal: For in such outward glory, the old Law passed the new, the Pharisies passed Christ, the Heatheus passed the Christians, both in the Apostles time, and long while after, till the glorious ministery of the Pope hath far excelled them all. The examples of the glory and terror in Mount Sinai, of the servile fear, of the bodily sword, are jumbled together disorderly, and are compared to spiritual resemblances or contraries, in the Gospel. But as they take not away the Christian Magistrates bodily sword nor glory, so meddle they not with alteration of Prince's government over Ministers in causes ecclesiastical, & therefore are mere impertinent. But if all these shifts will not serve, then says M. Saunders, see the inconveniences. Otherwise if the state of the old kings shall be drawn to 1. page 66. the time of the new Testament, shall not the state of the Bishops of the levitical tribe, by the same reason be drawn Num. 3. to our time also? let there be therefore one tribe appointed to the outward Priesthood, let there be one Temple in the M. Saunders ob●…ction, ●…f the ceremonial law be alte●…ed, why could not the civil government be alte●…ed also. world, let there be but one Bishop, and let blood sacrifices be restored. But if thou confes●…est these things are made void, wherefore grantest thou not also, that those things are void that kings have done about divine matters▪ are only the doings of kings eternal, nor could they be changed, so far as pertained to the disposing of holy things? What could or what could not be done (M. Saunders) we stand not upon, but what is, or what is not done, is the question And that the state of the civil government is not altered, your sel●… have often granted, that the government still was one, that the one was a figure of the other, that Christ took not away, nor diminished the Prince's authority. As for the levitical Law of the Priests, the scripture is plain in many places, that it is clean dissolved, you cannot therefore make these alike, except you will become a jewe. And so it seemeth by this your wicked reason, you had rather renounce the Priesthood & sacrifice of Christ, & bring M. Saunders had rather renounce the Priesthood & death of Christ than acknowledge the Prin ces supremacy in again the priesthood & sacrifice of the old law, than you would give Prince's authority over Priests in the new law. But now that M. Sanders hath thus answered the Protestants argument, from the government in the old law, by saying the case is altered, and the government changed: he preventeth the Protestan●…s reply, & setteth down an other objection in their name. If those things that were done in the old law, are not to be The Protestants objection Sand. pag. 66. drawn to the time of the new Testament, wherefore flee the Papists for the primacy of the B. of Rome, to the example of one levitical Bishop: and also for the outward sacrifice, M Saunders termeth himself and his side, Papists. to the old sacrifices. You put our objection amiss M. San. For although it be true that you Papists (as you term yourself) do flee to the examples of the levitical Bishops & sacrifices, for your Pope & Mass: M. Saunders reporteth our objection amiss. yet do not we in such an indefinite generality, draw these things that were done in the old law, in the time of the new Testament. But restrain ourselves to the present matter, & bring examples thereof, out of the old Testament, to prove the like authority in the time of the new. And thiss. Aug. doth, & yourself do the same, & it is not derogatory to the office of Christ, as are the other examples that you do stée unto. Neither do we make our objection so, as allowing it to be lawful for you to flee to the one: & why may not we likewise allege the other? for your refuge is altogether unlawful. As for our objection we make it thus: that if you make exception against our examples of Princes, because they were so in the old law, & are not dissolved in the new: with what face can you bring examples for your Pope & your Mass out of the old law, which for the points of external sacrificing priesthood, & external sacrifices, is clean abrogated? & thus the Protestants objection is good. But let us now see, what you answer there unto. What soever (say you) was excellent & perfect in the old The Papists answer. Sand. 66. law, that worthily we grant, aught to be much more in the church of God. For the state of the church is much more than the state of the synagogue. But externally to sacrifice unto god is a perfect thing, & therefore it was not only received in Moses law, but also in the law of nature being better. And that the people of God should be governed under one Bishop, is a point of perfection, for so both controversies were ended, & peace was conserved in the people of God. But the manner of the sacrifices, by the blood of beasts & external fire, was imperfect those things therefore being rejected that were of imperfection, we say well, that those things are to be retained which in times past belonged to perfection, not indeed those in the same kind and order, but in a higher. The argument is thus: What soever in the old law was perfect, aught to be retained. etc. But the external sacrifice, & but one B. to govern, was perfect, Ergo, external sacrifice and one B. to govern, is to be retained. Here M. Saunders, first we deny the mayor, for neither The continuance of perfect things. Sa●…d. pag. 65. every thing, although it were then more perfect, did still abide or is yet to be retained: neither your own former sayings agree here unto. You said erewhile, the state before the kings wae more perfect, and yet that state abode not then, nor holdeth now. And even here in this argument, you call the state before Moses Law, a state of a better nature, nevertheless that state abode not still, nor abideth now: and you know that the judicial law of the jews, if they had yet a politic government, might still remain among them. But the levitical and ceremonial law, might in no wise remain among them. And yet I am sure you will not say, the judicial law was the more perfect, and better than the Ceremonial was. Your rule therefore that you build upon, is not so perfect and general as you make it. To the minor likewise we deny it, which consists in ●…. The outward sacrifices in the old law no perfect thing. points the one, for that which you make perfect, the other unperfect. You make perfect the outward Sacrifice, and the government of one levitical Bishop. But neither of these were perfect, as S. Paul at large to the Hebrues proveth. Yea, yourself M. Saunders do prove it, and confute yourself. The outward sacrifice (say you) was a perfect thing, and yet before you called outward things earthly, carnal, corporal, and unperfect, and perfect things, only inward and spiritual: and that the state of the old law should be changed, because all things were outward and earthly with them, and so they were unperfect. But you think to excuse the master with this shift, not that the sacrifices were unperfect but the manner of sacrificing was unperfect, because they were done by the blood of beasts, and by outward fire. Why M. Saunders, what is this outward manner of sacrificing, but the outward sacrificing itself? except you mean the matter sacrificed, which was much more unperfect, so that neither in manner nor matter it was perfect. But all their outward sacrifices were by outward shedding of blood, and burning with outward fire: Not perfection than consisted in those outward sacrifices. And therefore God oftentimes rejecteth them, and preferred obedience and the inward sacrifice of the heart before them, even in that time that God appointed them to be used. Well, say you, yet the people to be governed by one Bishop was a point of perfection. The goue●…āce of one B in the old law no per sect thing. And why dare you not say it was perfection, you should prove this, that it was a perfect thing. But then s. Paul would soon prove you a liar. Yea, you would prove yourself a jew, and one that denieth the perfection of Chrystes bishopric. But say you: the succession of bishops according to flesh and blood was unperfect. And nothing else unperfect M. Saunders? if you had more perfectly marked S. Paul, you should have found their bishopric altogether unperfect, and therefore taken altogether away. But yet say you: Those things therefore of imperfection being cast away, we say well that these things are to be retained, which in times past belonged to perfection, not those things in the same kind and order, but in a higher sort. How the moral law remains. We grant you this M. Saunders, in respect of the moral law, which belonging to perfection (although man could not by reason of his imperfection attain thereto) remains still the same thing, in an other kind of order. And How one B. one sacrifice still rema●…eth. if you talk also of the high bishopric referred to Christ: one bishopric likewise remains in a higher kind of order, neither so is sacrifice taken away. For, as we have one Priest for ever which is Christ: so we have one propitiatory sacrifice, which is the death of Christ. But if you say this is not still done outwardly as it had wont to be: I answer it need not, because it was effectual once for ever, which argueth the perfection of it, for to be done daily argueth Hebr. 9 imperfection: neither lieth the perfection and excellency in the outwardnesse, but as yourself before and after confess, the more spiritual, the more excellent: but spiritual sacrifices we have, and therefore the other outward of the jews are go, as those that were unperfect, and with the outward sacrifices, is the outward priesthood go also. But still blundering on with your false principles, you go forward, to prove that you have taken the best, & left the wor●… in the priesthood and sacrifices of the jews: saying, For the high B. in the state of the Gospel, is not born after Sand. 66. the propagation of the flesh, but is elected according to the gifts of spiritual grace. And our sacrifices consist not in shedding of the blood of beasts, but in remembering the blood of the immaculate Lamb, and in daily setting forth after an unbloody manner, the substance of the Lamb. And so that which was spiritual & perfect in the la, we have not lost▪ but that which was unperfect and carnal we have not kept. You coin Maximies M. Sanders, & speak as one th●… might keep and leave what he list, standing still on you●… former presupposal, that to have one visible Bishop overall God's people, is a point of perfection, and to have outward sacrifices, is also a point of perfection. But neither of these i●… yet proved, which sh●…uld have first been done, and then y●… might have entered your comparison, whether those or the●… were better. You prefer your Pope, because he hath 〈◊〉 The election of the Pope. high bishopric (as you call it) not by birth, but by election, according to the gifts of spiritual grace: but as the election of the Pope very often hath fallen out with so small gifts of spiritual grace, that all the grace was either in the gifts of brybi●… money, of canvased factions, or of giving cuf●…es and dealing of hard blows for it: so the obtaining the high bishopric of the jews that descended by birth, was many●… times far the better. As for sacrifices, where you say, Shedding blood in safices. yours consist not in shedding the blood of beasts, wha●… availeth it, having imbrued your mouths with the bloud●… of Christ? for if as you pretend you drink his very blood, ●…owe are you not bloodsuckers, and your sacrifice worse than was the jews. Besides the cruel sacrifices that you daily make, in shedding the blood of men and Saints of john. 8. God, a far worse sacrifice than shedding the blood of beasts. For, of that, for the time, God was the appointer, but of this the Devil is the author, that was an homicide from the beginning. But you say your sacrifice of christ is not bloody. If unbloody s●… c●…fice. it be of blood, how is it not bloody? if it be not bloody, ●…owe is it of blood? It is (say you) in a remembrance of the ●…mmaculate Lamb. Would you stand to this, Master Saunders, then indeed it were not bloody, for the remem●…rance of blood is not blood itself. But strait ways you ●…onfute yourself, and come in with setting forth the substance of the Lamb. Whereas christ said not, his Dis●…iples Remembrance and subst●… o●… the bl●… of the ●…be. should set forth his substance, but they should ●…et forth his death. But the death of christ is one thing, ●…nd the substance of Christ another thing. Neither doth Christ make the Sacrament of his body, a sacrifice of his ●…odie, much less maketh he two sacrifices of himself, the Christ mad●… not two sacrifices of himself. ●…ne done once for all, the other daily done: the one for himself to exhibit, the other for them to exhibit: the ●…ne bloody, the other unbloody. These are the sacrifices of ●…our Popes making, profaning & deroga●…ing from the sa●…ifice of jesus Christ, and therefore worse than the jews ●…crifices, that were the figure of it, and for the time were ●…ood. Now such as is your sacrifice, such must needs your ●…crificing priesthood be. You have not therefore as you ●…ake, for your sacrifice and Priesthood, retained the bet●…r, but have devised the worse, and such as are stark ●…aught. As for the other part of the minor, for the estate of Prince's The perfection and imperfecti on of the P●…n ces estate. 〈◊〉 ●…aue been imperfect, and therefore abolished: you labour 〈◊〉 prove two ways. The one admitting the Prince 〈◊〉 have been greater than the Priest, in procuring ecclesiastical matters, what a great imperfection, for diuer●… causes it had been: the other by flat denial, that the Princes were the greater, in administering those things that pertained to ec●…l. matters. These are subtle speeches, M. Saunders, and may be doubtfully understood. As though we meant, the Prince were a more principal executer or doer of those things. Whereas we plainly affirm that in the Ministerial procuration, the Priest was the highest. But in respect of overseeing that even the highest Priest should do his duty: therein we say, the Prince was greater than he. And that is proved by the first objection, that yourself, M. Saunders, propound of the Protes●…ntes: neither do you deny the truth of the objection, but shake it of, in saying, the government now is changed, & that it was then unperfect. Else why do you accuse it of imperfection, if it were then as you would have it now, the Priest to be greater than the Prince? and so in challenging it of imperfection, you grant the thing. Neither do we deny that the state of those Princes, was not in all things perfect. (Although yourself have granted The state of the Prince in the old law, better than the state of the Priesthood. the state of a Monarchy to be a perfect state) but yet the state thereof was in his kind more perfect than was the Priesthood: both because it was over the Priesthood, as is objected, and you have granted, and because that the Prince's estate, although it be taken from jews, yet it remaineth still entire with us, which the Priesthood doth not, nor can do. But let us see your Reasons. First esay you, because Priesthood was more ancient than the kingly right. For the receiving of Priests was partly Sand. pag. 67. received from the beginning, under the law natural, yea, before the flood, when as yet there were no kings: partly it had the superiority certain ages after Moses, according to the law given by him, when as yet among God's people no king was extant, but how much more ancient a thing is in religion, it is worthily counted so much more the worthier. This argument standeth on Antiquity, which being The validity and invalidity of the argum●…t drawn from antiquity. drawn from the word of God, and truly applied, maketh a good argument. And would to God you would always make gods word the ground of your Antiquity, which would soon decipher many Popish errors, pretending great Antiquity, to be but late upstarts. But to reason from Antiquity, in things that are antiquate and outgrown, to retain them still being lawfully displaced: and that more is, to reason from Antiquity to worthiness: may be an ancient, but not overworthie reason. For, by this r●…le, an old cast coat may be better than a new. And although you restrain yourself unto antiquity in Religion, what helpeth this? sith the bloody sacrifice of a sheep, as pleading Antiquity from Abel, might by this reason become a more worthy worship of God, than Baptism or the Lord's Supper. Yea circumcision and the Passover should have been better Sacraments than ours, because they wore more ancient. If you yourself Master Saunders, had been ancient, many would have thought you had doted, but now they will think you were to young a divine when you made this reason of antiquity. But let go your reason, is your matter true? is Priesthood of more antiquity? you say it is even from the beginning under the law of nature. Were it so M. Saunders, Sand. pag. 56. Whether priest hood or the Civil power be more ancient. said you not in the first Chap. of this second book, that the Civil power sprung even of the law of nature also, whereby the father is superior to his son, the uncle to the cousin, the signior to the junior? is not this as ancient as priesthood yea we read of no creation of Priesthood so ancient. But you say, there were no Kings, as though we contended on the name, were he called King. Prince, Duke. etc▪ so he were a governor. As for the governors, for certain ages after Moses, & before the kings, trow you they were all priests? Nay, you shall find but one priest among them all▪ And yet you carry away the matter so smooth as though they were all priests and say, the creation of priesthood according to the law of Moses. You mean I know the common cited place for the judges determination in litigious doubts, Deut. 17. referring it only to the priest. But Moses there expressly Deut. 17. nameth the judge, besides the high priest. And to make you see how you confute your own error, in taking this judge to have only or chiefly been the high priest mark your own saying: that the state of government from Moses to the kings, was according to Moses' law. But all that while, of so many judges there was but one priest, therefore either it was not according to Moses' law, or else Moses' law meant not only nor chiefly the Priests. And trow you, Moses' law was broken of discerning difficulties all this while, and after the kings began to govern? I think you dare not say it was, nor accuse for the breach of Moses' law, so many godly Princes. If not, than the discerning of those difficulties, is impertinently alleged against the Prince's superiority. And thus not only your reason from Antiquity, ●…ut also your matter for antiquity, against the state of Princes, faileth. Now to your other reasons. Moreover (say you) the Priesthood was altogether necessary, Sand pag. 67. that the figure should at no time fail. Whereby we should be admonished of Christ's eternal priesthood. When notwithstanding the same people of God might so have wanted a king, that God complained that he himself was cast off, when Samuel his Levite being neglected, an earthly king was demanded. Priesthood (you say) at no time could be spared, so well as The state of a king as necessary as the state of a priest a king's estate. And why so? because it prefigured and admonished Christ's eternal priesthood. True in deed (Master Saunders) so it did. But was there nothing to be prefigured and admonished concerning Christ, but his eternal Priesthood? Kingdom pray figured in Christ so well as priesthood. hath he not an eternal kingdom too? or was not it 〈◊〉 necessary to be prefigured & admonished, as his priesthood So that by this rule, Kings, or (that is all one in effect wi●…e kings) Princes over gods people were even as necessary as priests. But say you gods people might so well have wanted kings, Sand. pag. 67. that God complained he was cast off, when (Samuel his levity neglected) an earthly king was demanded. Here is nothing left out the may seem to make for the defacing A Civil governor never wanted no more than ●… priest. of the state of kings. And yet that which he bringeth against it (as is already showed) doth the more commend the state thereof, and although they might have wanted the state of a king yet could they never want the state of a Civil governor, no more than they could have wanted priesthood. Howbeit, we say not, they might have wanted priesthood or did want it. For they always had priests among them, good or bad. But they always had not priests their governors, but very seldom, and that extraordinarily, till the Priest Hircanus was king and priest together. Besides this (says M. Saunders) the king was granted of Sand pag. 67. 1. Reg. 8. God, at the people's petition, to go out before the people to war, but not to administer ecclesiastical matters, for God had provided for them already by his Levites and priests. Is there nothing may be reckoned up (M. Saunders) besides The king's office stretcheth further than in going out to war. these twain, going out to war before the people, and administering ecclesiastical matters? in deed these two are not very agreeable, although your Popes & Prelates jumble them together. As for the administering eccl. matters, was and is the Priest's office, not the Princes. But besides this, there are many more things appointed to the Prince, than to go out before the people to war. For if there were no more, what should he do at home in time of peace? break peace, and still go out to war? Ha' M. Saunders there are other things than warfare, for a Prince in peace to look unto, and you could hit them. Moreover (says he) the jews might ascribe to the power Sand. pag. 67. of the king, the division of the people, the Apostasy of the kingdom of Samaria, and the Captivity of Babylon. Whereupon they being returned from the captivity, did not again choose unto them a king, that should be counted greater than the Bishop, but a Captain, that should rule no less in profane matters, than in holy things the Bishop should be are the principality. To ascribe the division of the people, the Apostasy of Samaria, The events of evil kings are not to be ascribed to the estate of the kingly power. and the Captivity of Babylon, to the kingly power: if it be not of wilful malice, is of great lack either of skill or consideration, and is a fallation ab accidenti. By the like reason, we might accuse the jews priesthood, because some of them were loiterers, some of them Idolaters, some of them ambitious, yea the most of them, in Christ's time and his Apostles, the extremest enemies of the Gospel. What: shall There have been as evil priests as kings and done as much mischief. we ascribe all this to the priesthood? Not, nor to any part thereof, but to the naughtiness of the Priests that abused their priesthood, even as much, if not much more than did those kings abuse their kingly power. The kingdom was lightly never worse governed, than when Helie being a Priest had the governance of it. And although Samuel himself were good and holy, yet his sons were wicked whom he made governors. But in the stock of the Machabées, when the priests ruled all, or the most, till the approaching of jesus Christ, and so till the dissolution of that state, what a number of wicked Imps were there? you can scarce fet the like patterns, except you rake hell, or search the Pope's bedroll and his Cardinals, for wicked government. But (says M. Saunders) the jews after their ret●…re Sand. pag. 67. The king greater than the Bishop before the captivity of Babylon by M. Sau. 〈◊〉. Why the 〈◊〉 h●…d no kings after their captivity. from Captivity, did no more choose a king that should be counted greater than the Bishop. Ha', go to then (M. Saunders) the king was counted greater than the Bishop before their Captivity. Yea but say you, they chose no more kings ofter their return. As though (M. Saunders) after their return, the matter lay in them, to have a king or not, and not rather in these kings that had subdued them: who although they appointed or suffered petit rulers over them, yet would they not suffer them to have a king. But while they had kings, we reason of those kings authority. But what reason have you else, for this is a very slender one. But this (say you) in this kind, I will make my principal Sand. pag. 67. reason, that Christ when he was in this world, and fulfilled the whole law and all righteousness, yet notwithstanding he would in things ecclesiastical, only that the Priest, and by no means that the earthly king should govern. This were a principal reason in deed, if you could prove this (M. Saunders) but as yet you have not proved it, and I think it will be harder than you ween, for you to do. Now to prove it, you reason thus: For he openly refused to administer an earthly kingdom, Sand. pag. 67. and therefore fled when he saw the people go about to make him a king. And he denied that he was ordained to be a divider between the brethren. But if so be that after the perfect reason and mind of Moses law, it had at lest been comely, either the Church or the Bishop to be governed of an earthly King, Christ would not have left that thing unfulfilled. For it was no hard matter for him to have administered a earthly kingdom for some very little time, the which when he did not, neither yet omitted he any thing that can justly be desired to the perfect government of his Church: It hath never been at any time, or yet is, of any perfection, that an earthly king should arrogate to himself any power in ecclesiastical matters, besides this, that with his sword he should defend and fight for that which is defined by the Priest▪ sentences. And is this necessary in the Church (M. Saunders) that M. Saund. reason from the personal fact of Christ, that he never took upon him to be a temporal king. the Prince may do thus much with his sword? But I pray you where did Christ thus much, as to fight for the Priests decrees with a sword? If your reason be good you must show this, or else, why reason you from the facts of Christ, while he was here on earth? if you can show, as you promised, that Christ would that the Priest, and by no means the prince should govern in eccl. matters: this were to the purpose. But this you show not, but would windelace it in with a bought, that if Christ would have had Princes govern in ecclesiastical matters, he would have been a Prince himself, but he would never be a Prince, and yet if he had would, he might: therefore he would not have Princes meddle in matters of his Church, sith he would not me●…le in matters pertaining to their government. If this were a good reason, I might reverse it thus, that sith be meddled in their matters, when he had tribute to be paid Math. 22. Math. 10. Luc 13. john. 19 to Cesar, when he bade his Disciples not fear them that kill the body, when he called Herode Fox, when he told Pilate he had no power but that was given him from above: therefore they again might meddle in his matters, because he meddled in there's. This is as good a reason as yours. But you say, Christ took not a kingdom upon him, nor would divide lands, & yet he took upon him all things necessary for his Church's government: what should you conclude hereon? Ergo, the Prince's government is not necessary in Church causes? is this the direct conclusion? Nay M. Saund. either the conclusion takes away the Prince's government from the Church of Christ, or else (which it doth in deed) it hitteth your Pope, if you mark it well, who pretending to follow Christ, taketh an earthly kingdom upon him, and divideth lands, which Christ refused to do. The argument is thus: Christ did all that was necessary, but Christ did not take upon him a kingdom: Ergo, he thought it not necessary. This is flat against the Pope, but nothing against christian Princes. The conclusion is good, for it was not necessary for Christ in his person, & yet for christian Princes it might well be necessary. It is necessary for christian Princes (as yourself confess) to use the temporal sword, in the church's defence, and yet Christ himself did never use it. Except you will say, he used it after a sort, when with a material whip & outward violence, he drove the byers & sellers out of the temple. But john. ●…. then I reply, that herein he exercised for the while, even the office of a Magistrate, & showed not only his own zeal & power of his kingdom, but also a pattern to all Magistrates & Princes, with what zeal & power they sh●…ld exercise their authority, in reforming abuses in the church of God. Although Christ himself did not personally handle the sword, as they personally may do Neither yet did Christ all those things, that his ministers did & aught to do. It is necessary for the ministers to baptize, & yet Christ himself (that we read of did never baptize any, he could have done it, if he had thought it necessary. What? shall we say with M. Sand he did all that was necessary, but he did not baptize, Ergo, to baptize is not necessary? This therefore is a wrong principle, that Christ must have done every thing personally himself, that is necessary to be done in his Church. True it is, that if Christ neither did it, nor taught it to be done, by himself, nor by his Apostles, but would the contrary, as M. Sand saith: then the argument were good, & so it confuteth a number of Popish traditions, that were neither done nor taught by Christ nor his Apostles, but rather that contrary. But as for this government of Princes (as M. Sanders himself confesseth) was practised in the old law, which law gave the Prince his charge therein. And Christ testi●…eth, that he came not to break Math. ●…. Christ broke not the la of obedience too Princes, but fulfilled it, though he himself would b●…●…o external Prince. the law, but to fulfil it. And although he become not a Prince himself (which might have seemed to have made ●…or the Pope's purpose) but rather condemneth it in his ministers: yet both he himself & his Apostles, obeyed the Prince then ruling, which now the Pope denieth stately to do. But you say, Christ & his Apostles obeyed them not in eccl. matters. Neither was it reason, M. San. both because Christ himself was the law maker, & his Apostles were the first teachers of it, & Princes than were Infidels. But to reason now from the like state in the princes that now are christiā●…, & to give in all things like authority to Bishops & pa●…ors with Christ and his Apostles, is as far from reason on the other side. Neither yet do we debar from Bishops and Pastors that superiority over Princes, that is given by Christ and his Apostles to them and their successors, of the administration of spiritual and ecclesiastical things: neither do we (as M. Saunders saith) give the government We give not the government of the Church to an earthly prince. Sand. pag. 80. of the Church of Christ to an earthly Prince. For both the Prince is Christian, and not earthly in this respect, as M. Saunders himself confesseth: neither bathe he the government of the Church, which is dispersed in many kingdoms, but is a governor of a part thereof, or of some particular Church. Now when M. Saunders hath thus proved (as he thinketh) the imperfection of the old law, saying: And thu●… Sa●…d. pag. 67. should these things be, if in the old time the kings of the jews had exercised any chief power in ecclesiastical matters and over the Bishops. He turneth himself on the other side, to the flat denial of this, which in the answer to our first objection he flatly granted, and fled then to thy●… shift, that the case was altered. But now (saith he) neither is it true, that the Kings of Sand. pag. 67. the jews were counted greater than the Priests of the levitical kind, in administering those things that pertained to ecclesiastical matters: which by piece meal I will not be gree●…ed to show. It will not grieve you to tell a lie, M. Saunders, but to tell the truth it would be a grief unto you. Where did we say, that the Kings of the jews were counted greater than the Priests, in administering those things that pertained to ecclesiastical matters? But go too, let us see what piecemeal proves you bring. And first (say you) Moses commanded, that after Sand pag. 67. the King was set in the seat of his kingdom, he should write out for himself in a volume another cop●…e of this law▪ taking the copy of the Priests of the ●…euiticall Tribe. But if not only other, but the king also him self must go to the Priests for writing out of the law, how was the king the prince in interpreting the law, the copy whereof he was compelled to crave of other? was he not herein admonished, that he should remember that the priests were his superiors in those things that pertained to the law? for as every Magistrate craving the sword of the king, & receiving it, doth in so doing declare the king in the right of the sword, to be greater than himself: after the same sort is it, when the king receiveth of the Pristes the copy of the divine law. Is this the copy of your piece meal proves M. Sand? The taking of the copy of God's law●…●…ō the Priests, infereth not the Priests to be greater in government. Supra. pa. 161. he that should take a copy of your arguments might per haps have need, but God wots should find full slender stuff in them. This argument is copied out of Stapleton, and your other collectors, and is already answered. Which if it were good, because the Prince taketh the copy of the law from the Priest, therefore in the government of matters pertaining to the law, the Priest is above the Prince: then is the Register above the Chancellor & the Bishop, then is the Clerk above the Steward, and the Prince, because he hath the keeping of the records. And this is a more like example than that you bring in, of a Magistrate craving and receiving the sword of the king: for in this example the King hath not only the keeping of the sword, but all the authority of and lawful exercise of the sword under God, dependeth on him, and such as he will give it unto. Wherefore he acknowleageth rightly the King to be his greater. But in the law of God, where the kings government is appointed to him, and by that appointment of God, he hath interest in matters of the law of God, by his kingly office, and therefore must have the law of God about him, to direct his giverment: and hath not this interest & authority given him of the Priest, as the subject hath the authority and exercise of the sword given him of the king: doth this argue a like, that the Priest is superior, because he must have the keeping of the law, and the king, that he may be sure he hath a true copy of God's law, must have it of the Priest? Doth the keeping argue the greater authority▪ The king must have the crown of the keeper of the crown, and the seal of the keeper of the seal, is the keeper therefore the greater? Nay it rather argueth (although in looking too, that those things be well kept, and truly declared, they have a more especial charge in their offices) yet are they rather inferiors, in that they have (for the king's behoof) the keeping and delivery of them. And so the priest hath an especial charge of keeping and delivering to the Prince the law of God, because of his especial vocation in the study, profession, and administration of it. Which argueth more cunning and learning, of duty to be looked for at his hands, than at the Princes. And therefore we ascribe not, (as you say) greater principality to Princes in the interpreting of the law of God. Princes commit that, to the interpreters. But to the Prince is committed a superior charge of governing all people, to oversee that the law of God be rightly interpreted and administered. And for this cause the Prince ought to have the copy of the law, not himself to interpret it, and whereto then? to lie idly by him? no, to govern himself and all his subjects by the prescription of it. After this he allegeth the examples of Moses, Samuel, joshua, David, Solomon, Constantius, and Theodosius. In Moses and Samuel, he hath nothing that is not common. To joshua, David, and Solomon, he useth Stapletons' answers, and there is answered. The examples of Constantius and Theodosius, are somewhat already answered, and shall be further God willing, when we come to the practice. And likewise to the Counsels that he citeth. The argument of the fourth Chapter. That Christian Princes may be deposed from their estates by the Bishops, and their kingdoms given to other, when their government hurteth the truth of the faith and the soul's health whereto they are ordained. IN this. 4 Chapter M. Saunders keepeth no perfect method, and therefore we must follow him as he proceedeth. First he maketh two kinds of men the earthly man, and the heavenly Sand. pag. 77. man, and so likewise two kingdoms the one earthly the other heavenly. The earthly kingdom chooseth their king by humane Two kind of kings & kingdoms. consent as Nimrod. etc. Of the heavenly kingdom that Christ hath in the earth, Christ is the king. Who although by the worthiness of his nature, he be king of all men, yet is he called only the king of the faithful. Who coming into the world, as he hath not taken away the former nature of man but renewed it, so hath he not destroyed the earthly kingdom, but amended it. Here upon he concludeth, that earthly kings may be made Citizens of gods Church, and use all their old right and most free government, in all those causes that di●…ishe not the faith and Religion of Christ. They may make whom they will fit Civil magistrates. They may appoint at their pleasure lawful punishments for malefactors, and freely do all other thing, that by the law Natural, national, Civil, or M●…nicipall shall be allowed. To all this, as we agreed with M. Saunders: (and therefore How f●…rre M. 〈◊〉 giveth 〈◊〉 most free principa●…. I gather b●…t a brief cōt●…ct thereof) so let this by the way be noted, that he giveth Prince's most free Principalive, 〈◊〉 tho●…e causes that 〈◊〉 not the faith and Religion of Christ. But to place good Bishops and pastors in gods Church, to remove evil Bishops and pastors from gods Church, ●…o pu●… Idolatry out of gods God's Church, to set forth su●…h 〈◊〉 service as is to edify gods church, to command the word of God to be read in the vulgar tongue, to reform Ecclesiastical abuses, to punish whoredoms, to allow (as honourable) matrimony in all men, to call counsels, to command the Sacraments to be used as Christ ordained them, to oversee all estates & degrees of people in gods Church to do in all things to the glory of God, to the public preservation of the Church, & to the faithful administration of their particular callings, doth not diminish the faith and Religion of Christ: Therefore Christian Princes have most free principality, that is to say supreme government, in all these eccl. so well as in civil causes. Now that he hath granted to Princes thus much, which comprehendeth all the question: he declareth on the other side, what he exempteth from the Bishops: but so subtilely, that under pretence of debarring them, from having authority in those things that he ascribeth to the Prince's principality, he both revoketh his former grant to Princes, and conveyeth all those things unto the Bishops. Neither Pastors of the Church (says he) do intermeddle Sand. pag. 77. their authority in those things, save now and then to admonish them and give them faithful counsel, neither do we defend, all dominions and kingdoms, to be given by god's law every where and in all things, to be subject to the pastors of the Church, but in those causes only which would hinder the faith and Christian salvation, except they were partly forbidden, as divorces, usuries, and such other sins, which the nations Math. 5. Luke. 6. Math. 25. isaiah. 60. Psalm. 2. commit without punishment: partly commanded, as giving of alms, the defence of neighbours and chief of the poor, the fortifying of the Church of Christ, and Christian Religion, and to conclude, all other things which the law of God commands and prescribeth as necessary to salvation. In these words Master Saunders speaketh clean contraries, M. Sand. spceketh contraries. the Princes have the most free principality, in all causes that diminish not the faith and Religion of Christ, and the Bishops do only admonish and give council: and yet he ascribeth all to the Bishops, both to punish all that would hinder the faith, and Christian salvation and to fortify all that would further it. What is not here again given to the Bishops, and what is not here again taken from the Princes, yea their Kingdoms and all in some places, and nothing left for Princes? for what else means he by this? we defend not all dominions and kingdoms to be given by M. Sand. maketh some king domes subject to Bishops in all things. god's law every where and in all things to be subject to the pastors of the Church. As who should say some are subject to them by the law of God, where the law of God is flat to the contrary, that no kingdoms are subject unto them. But as Master Saunders contrary to god's law maketh some kingdoms subject in all things unto Bishops, so maketh he all kingdoms subject unto them, in matters of divorces, usuries, Divorces and usuries. and such other sins (says he) as the nations commit without punishment. Which, as it is a slander to Christian Princes, as maintaining such sins, which rather they punish, and Popish Prelates both permit and commit without punishment of them: so he ascribeth these punishments to the Popish Prelates, for nothing but for advantage, as also the giving of Alms, defence of neighbours, and chiefly of the poor. As though that Princes did not, or could not do these things, but the Priests, who by such fetches, got all things into their clutches. Master Saunders having thus seemed at the first to yield unto Princes great authority, and straight to take away all again from them, and give it unto themselves, lest Princes might worthily think themselves abused, he mitigateth the matter with this reason. Neither aught it seem strange to any man that kings in Sand. pag. 77. these matters should obey Christ, for this standeth them chief upon, sith otherwise they cannot get eternal life. As though your Pope Master Stapleton and you his Obedience to Christ. ●…riests were Christ. Good reason it is they should obey Christ, otherwise (as you say most truly therein) they cannot get eternal life. But sith you are not Christ, this reason holdeth not. But you will say you be Christ's, and represent Christ. Wo●…ld to God you were M. Saunders and not rather ●…tichristes. For if you were Chrittes, you would o●…ey your Prince. And not have the Prince (in authority of government) obey you, whom you aught to obey, since a Christian Prince is Christ's also, and in authority ●…f government, immediately to Christians representeth Christ. Think you that Princes can not get eternal life, except they obey your Pope? so you tell them in deed, & make man●…e Princes afraid thereof, by which means you have gotten their government from them. And thus pr●…tending the name of Christ, you say: W●…en therefore we say, that earthly kings aught to be under Sand. pag. 77. Christ's ministers, we say only this, that they no otherwise can be saved, neither received of Christian people to a kingdom, or ought to be suffered in the administration of a kingdom, than i●… they both do and pretermit those things, that the law of Christ commandeth to be done and pretermitted. If you mean the obedience to the ministers of Christ, no further than this, to do and 〈◊〉 those things that ●…he law of Christ commandeth to be done and pretermitted: them were the controversy at an end, for this obedience was never denied. But before you went fur●…er, and would hau●… the Prince to do and prete●… those things that the law of the Pope and his Priests would have done and pretermitted. 〈◊〉 you rep●…e, they be 〈◊〉 of Christ & their 〈◊〉 is the 〈◊〉 of Christ this would be proved. M. Saunders, for it is 〈◊〉 of the chiefest points in controu●…sie. As for Christ's law, we grant, that except the Prince obey it, he can not be saved. But, that he which in any one point, doth any thing, which The do●…ng of every offence is not the loss of the king's king●…me . Christ's law commandeth n●…t, or 〈◊〉 any thing, that Christ's law commandeth is not to be received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 people to a kingdom or b●…ing received, aught not to be ●…tred in the administration of a kingdom: is a perilou●… doctrine. For who should th●… be a king, or who should no●… be turned out of his kingdom? For, who offendeth not herein (chiefly expounding the law of Christ as yourselves ●…ed in what danger and thralo●…me to you should kings become? so that it were better be a beggar and beg his bread than be a Christian king and rule and be ruled on this wise, if these your rules were true. But now to help the matter you will expound what you mean by the ●…aw of Christ. But what the law of Christ is, and what it commandeth. Sand. pag. 77. can nowhere better be known, than out of their mouth, to whom the saviour said: Go teach you all nations, and he that Math. 28. Luke. 10. 2. Cor. 5. heareth you heareth me, he that despiseth you despiseth me. For there never want in the Church, those that e●…oy the legacy for Christ, God exhorting as it were by them. For even as other men so well as earthly kings, are reconciled to Christ by his ministers, and by Christ to God: so they aught not only to be under God, as they were before, but also to Christ, yea and now to his ministers too, for in vain doth doth he subject himself to Christ that refuseth to obey Christ's ministers. This is true M. Saunders, in the true ministers of Christ, How Christ's ministers are to be he●…d and obeyed. that the Prince aught to obey them in their ministery, even as dispensers of the mysteries of Christ and as representers of Christ also. And true it is, they can or ought best to tell what is the law of God. But yet are they not so to be herded or obeyed, as they do not represent Christ, or tell their own ●…awe for the law of Christ. Wherein the Christian Prince ●…ath an oversight ever them, and is again the chief mini●…ter and representer of Christ, And as he obeyed them in the ●…ne, so must they obey him in the other, or else they teach ●…ot the law of Christ aright. Moreover (says M. Saunders) it is not enough for a Chri●…tian Sand. pag. 78. king to do those things that private men are wont to do ●…xcept also he do those things that properly belong to the 1. Cor. 7. ●…ffice and dig●…e of a Prince. Every man aught to serve the Ephe. 4. ●…ord and walk worthily in that vocation, wherein he is called. ●…rte thou called in the state of Matrimony? serve God, not only as a man, but also as an husband. Art thou called in the state of a king, thou must serve as thou art a king, and not only as thou art a man. But the offices of kings are other, and the offices of private men are other. Whereupon says Augustin elegantly: The king serveth otherwise because he is a man, & otherwise In Epist. 50. because he is a king. Because he is a man, he serveth him in living faithfully. But because he is a king he serveth with making (by convenient force) laws, commanding just things & forbidding the contrary. Even as Ezechias served, destroying 4. Reg. 18. the Temples of Idols, & the high places that were builded contrary to the commandments of God. Even as josias served, 4. Reg. 22. ●…ouae. 3. he also doing the like things. Even as the king of the Ninivites served, compelling all the city to appease the Lord. Even as Darius served, giving the Idol to the power of Daniel Dan. 14. Dan. 3. to break it, and casting his enemies to the Lions. Even as Nabuchodonozor served, in forbidding by a terrible law, all men placed in his kingdom, from blaspheming God. In this therefore kings do serve the Lord, in so much as they be kings, when they do those things to serve him, which none can do but 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 this we grant you (M. Saunders) kings have another The peculiar service of kings. more excellent & peculiar service of God, in that they be kings, than have other private men. But as this maketh nothing against our assertion, or the kings estate, but more commends it: so it both overturneth your principal question, for the kings authority in ec●…l. matters, & confuteth that you have said before, in defacing the king's estate, & also clean beateth you from that, which you drive your present drift unto, of deposing kings. First, you said before, that kings in that they are kings govern Sand. pag. 62. all men alike, so well jews, Moors, & Tartars as Christians, & have as equal government over the one as the other. M. Saund. examples clean overthrow him sel●…e. Here you confess that kings, in that they are kings, have 〈◊〉 especial service of God, and you specify this their service 〈◊〉 such examples, as declare a far more excellent service, 〈◊〉 is the government of Turks, of Moors, and Tartars. Secondly, this especial service, consisting in such things as these examples contain, it argueth the Prince's service, not only to intermeddle in eccl. matters, but to have the supreme government of them, and to have authority to reform eccl. abuses, and to make Laws to prohibit things contrary to the Law of God, and to command things commanded in God's law, which before you ascribed to Bishops, and took from kings. Thirdly, if none can do these things but kings, how dare you take them from kings, and kings from them? how dare you give them to Priests? how dare you give priests authority to depose kings? when rather hereby kings have authority to depose priests, and none can do these things but kings, by this your sentence cited out of Augustine. These things (say you) thus ordered, it shall now be made Sand. 7●…. plain, with how great equity we defend, that Christian kings which govern Christian people, aught to be under the ministers of Christ, at the lest, in those things that appertain to faith and religion. Yea under the pain of losing their kingdom, if first we shall propound this one thing. Hitherto then by your plain confession, this is not plain for it, but rather plain against it, that kings must lose their kingdoms, if they be not under the Priests, in things pertaining to faith and religion, that is to say, (to make it ●…plaine) except they believe, and do as you will have them, you will plainly turn them out of their kingdoms. Indaede this is a plain way, if you can do it, as you have attempted it. But it is an unnatural and a traitorous way, and of all other farthest from such ways as those should use, that profess themselves to be Christ's Ui●…ars, and Gods Ministers. Christ never used it, nor Peter, nor Paul, nor any of the Apostles, and yet were they under Princes, that were not under them in things that pertain to faith and religion. But you will prove this with great equity, if first you shall propound one thing. Go to, propound it M. Saunders, and let us see the greatness of your equity. First (say you) both the law Divine and natural equity Sand. pag. 78. teacheth manifestly, that no other king aught of Christians, of their own accord, to be called to administer the right of a kingdom, than he which is himself a Christian. ●…or this is that which the Lord said by Moses to the Israelites: When Deut. 17. thou shalt say, I will place a king over me, as have all other nations round about, thou shalt ordain him whom the lord thy God shall choose among the number of thy brethren, neither mayst thou make a King of an other nation, that is not thy brother. But by brother we understand, him that i●… a faithful one, and a Christian. And although Christians in times past were compelled to obey Ethnic Emperors, yet would they never have committed this, to have voluntarily called any such men, to the administration of the Empire. For who could suffer it, that the members of Christ, should place over them a limb of the Devil? Verily jovianus, when after Theod. lib. 4. cap. 1. the death of julianus, he was saluted Augustus and Caesar, I can not (quoth he) sith I am a Christian, govern the army of julian, that is infected with the precepts of the pestiferous doctrine. Then the soldiers answered, that they were not strangers from the Christian religion. But if there aught to be so great a likeness & coherency between the head & the members, that a christian Emperor would govern no soldiers but christians: how much more unequal & uncomely is it, that the Christian soldiers of their own voluntary, should call unto government an heathen, or heretical man? For what is this else, but to cast themselves in danger of losing their faith. All this again we grant you M. Sand. so long as you restrain yourself to voluntary election. And see that in all your In voluntary elections Chri stians should choose no Prince but a Christian. proves & examples you keep yourself thereto, for else you straggle from your own demands. But how many Princes in Christendom have you that be choose in that sort, of so fr●… voluntary choice as you speak of, or not rather their kingdoms belong unto them, by claim of right & succession, or otherwise? And shall these be debarred the right of their inheritance, Whether prere●…ce of religion may dispossess or debar the Prince's ●…nheritance. for pretence of religion? Well go to then, what if we say, such & such a Prince is a papist, a maintainer of false religion, differing from God's truth & our profession, therefore we will not have him to be our king, although by law he have good title to it, yea, & be in real possession of it? Will you allow this our refusal M. Sand. I trow you will not. If you will not, than you break this your own rule, that you would so feign have granted to you. Notwithstanding, where free election is t●… be had, there your rule is most true. Let Protestants there choose Protestants, & Papists there cho●…se Papists hardyly, & so the one shall the less encumber the other. But where men can not do as they would, there they must do as they may, & so near as they●…ā, choose whom they think fittest. But if it lie not in them thus voluntarily to choose, they How Christian subjects should behave the●…eleus where election is not. must take their lot, perchance of the worse, & pray to God to amend that is amiss, & receive their dutiful Prince with good & loyal hearts, yea, though he be an enemy to the Gospel, beseeching God to convert him, or to mollify him, to become enclinable, at the lest to be no persecuter of the truth, & so praying, for his success in goodness, obey him in truth, descent from him in ●…ull, but rebel against him in nothing, & commit the rest to God that sent him. And this me thinketh is a better rule of the twain, than that he having right, should wrongfully be refused. The example that you bring of jovianus The example of ●…ouianus r●… fusing to govern, is not like the example of subjects ruf●…sing to be governed. is not alike. Who refused the government over julianus soldiers. For there is a difference between Princes refusing to be governors, and the people's refusing to be subjects. If you can sh●…we, that the Christian soldiers of julianus, as this jovianus one of julian's chiefest Captains, and the Christian soldiers under his band, renounced their obedience to Iul●…an, or would not go to war against the Persians, and fight under his conduct, but revolt from him, because he was revolted from God: than you should show something to the purpose. But this you can not show, yea, we can show the ●…t contrary, that so long as julian Iouianu●…●…e u●…r rebelled against 〈◊〉 the Apostata. reigned, jovian would never rebel, nor forsake his obedience, although his Prince were an Apostata, and renied the faith of Christ. If you reply that jovian ●…id forsake his souldiorship in julian's time. True it is, that ●…eing a Captain ●…uer a thousand, when julian made a l●…w Hist. 〈◊〉. lib. 7 ca ●…. Socrates. for Soldiers: that either they should sacrifice, or for sake their Souldiorship: jovian chose rather to l●…se his girdle (which was the ornan ●…nt of his knighthood) than to obey the wicked pr●…cepts of the Emperor. Howbeit herein ●…e renounced not his obedience to his Prince's estate, but rather expressed his obedience, in obeying the penalty of his law. And when the Emperor for necessity of the war, chose him again: he refused not to become again his soulviour. Your example therefore of jovian, maketh clean against your purpose. This one petition being thus demanded, which we grant unto you in free elections, although you ask but one demand, yet now on this you will encroach an other, and set down the figure of 2. in your margin, as a second demand, saying: But the law of God, which commandeth none should Sand. pag. 78. 2 be placed over Christians, but a Christian: the same law commandeth, that none other should of Catholic people be received to the government of a kingdom, but a Catholic. For he that is a Catholic, although in word he call himself, notwithstanding he hath left of to be a lively member of the Church of Christ. You ask but one petition M. Saunders, and we have M. Saunders asketh but one demand and ●…ncrocheth ●…o granted it, but will you thereupon ask more? nay, than it is time to stop you. You spoke before of a Christian, and now you demand the same of a Catholic. What do you mean hereby? do you make a difference between a Christian and a Catholic? But how chance you say not, as you said A Catholic. before, a Papist? For I think by Catholic, you mean a Papist, but this we have gramited you already. Let a Papist in free election, if he will needs, chose a Papist: Qui ●…descit Apocal. 22. sordescat adhuc He that is filthy, let him be filthy still, and let a Turk choose a Tu●…ke, sith he will choose no better. Yet then, let a Protestant choose a Protestant, by your own rule. But that he that is no Catholic, that is to say, as you expound it, no Papist, is no lively member of the Church of Christ: This is an other question M. Saunders, and you desired to propound but one and will you now have so many? You said it should appear with how great equity you would defend your cause and will you now offer ●…o Many Christian Pri●…ces no popish catholics great injury to so many Christian Princes, both in the East Church, in the West, in the South, and in the North, that are no such Catho●…kes, that is to say, no Papists, and therefore be no lively members of Christ's Church? Nay M. Saunders, this must not be granted, there is no equity in it, except you be able to prove it. For you know that the title of Catholic, is not only called in question, whether it belong to you or no: but also in your sense thereof, for a Papist, it is so sore battered, that it will rather fall out, that the Catholic is no lively member of Christ's Church, than that the Protestant or gospeler (as you call us) is none. But let us see how you proceed. Which things sith they are thus, this is moreover to be Sand. 68 3. added. Although that any when he was first made king, was a Christian and a Catholic, if notwithstanding afterward he become an Apostata, or an Heretic, good reason requireth that he should be removed, from the administration of a kingdom among the Catholic people. They say the Devil (M. Saunders) if we give him an M. Saunders further enc●…oching. inch, will take an ell, and so play you. You demand one thing, and would take a number, yea, and snatch at all. If you were not impudent, you would not still encroach. first you desired that you might propound one thing of great equity, and you would make all plain, that Princes might be deposed. This one thing is granted. Then you desire a second thing, & for this second, clap down two together. That the same law should be also for the Catholics, that was for the Christians. This also is granted, to the which you add, that he that is no Catholic, is no lively member of the Church of Christ. And although this, in the true sense of Catholic, is likewise granted, yet in your sense of a Catholic, it is stark false and denied. Then you add your figure of 3. and say, moreover this must be added, that a Christian king being become an Apostata or an heretic, should be deposed. And this you will have granted you also, and all under the name of one thing, and this that you add last of all, is in deed the thing itself that you should prove. But you work a wise way, first demand it may be M. Sand. will first have the matter gran●…ed him, and then he will prove it granted you, and then promise' that you will prove it. What M. Sanders, have you go to Rome to learn that knack that the Proctor taught his client in the chancellor's court? who when a Maiden in suit of contract came to him for counsel, he being before hand feed on the otherpartis, grant (quoth be to her) thou madest him such a promiss, but ask him who is his witness. Now when the simple Maiden was thus instructed: I grant quoth she to the judge, I made him such a promiss, but who is his witness. And even thus would you dodge us M. Saunders. The question is, whether a Prince erring in faith, should be deposed? We deny it. You will prove it, but on this condition, that we will grant you this, that he should be deposed, and then you will prove it, that he should be deposed. But and if we will grant you this, you may easily prove it, or rather you need not prove it at all, for we do prove it for you. Either Master Saunders, you think▪ great folly in us, or this is great folly in you, to make such propositions to prove the matter, that are the matter itself. This is beyond the fallation called petitio principij, it is petitio totius, the request, not of a principle, but of altogether. There is no equity at all in these proves, for all the great equity that you promised. Not that the Apostasy or heresy of the king should be What subjects may and may not do in the case of the p●… ces heresy or Apostasy. bolstered or allowed, but earnestly improved and rebuked, if it be Apostasy and heresy indeed, and not as you call heresy and Apostasy, the forsaking of your heresies, and receiving the Gospel of Christ. But in this your case of Apostasy, how ever the Prince be worthy to be deposed: the deposition lieth not in any subject, or any foreign, but in God that placed that Prince, and in such means as he seeth good to chastise such Apostates withal, either of Extraordinary cases. the whole body of the Realm, or otherwise: but those are extraordinary cases, there can be no ordinary rule of all Prince's deposition, as you would here have granted, except the state of the Princes be thereafter, as it is in some Countries, of which sort ours is not. And therefore to coin such rules for us (although our Prince, God be praised, be not in this case of heresy and Apostasy, save in your malicious and erroneous conceit) is even the Trumpet and The Papists trumpet to rebellion. warning piece to your traitorous confederates, to pull down the Prince, and set up all Rebellion. And a means to keep all Princes at the beck of the Priests, for fear they charge them with Apostasy and heresy, and so strait ways depose them. But what reason have you for this hampering of them? For (say you) a faithful Prince and a godly, is a matter of Sand. 7●… such moment, that neither an unfaithful, should be placed over the faithful, neither an Apostata should remain the Prince of the faithful. What aught to be, & how it aught to be brought about to be, We must not only consider▪ what aught to be▪ but how it aught to be. are two things M. Saunders▪ A Prince aught to be faithful and Godly, and so to be, is (as you say) a matter of great moment. Neither aught an unfaithful Prince to be voluntarily placed of the faithful over them. Neither aught a Prince to be a renegade, neither aught such a renegade Prince (in the demerit of his fact) to remain a Prince over the faithful. But howsoever these things aught, or aught not to be in him: that the Bishops aught depose him, that God hath set up: that the faithful people aught to renounce their allegiance, and rebel against him, that God hath placed over them, & they have orderly sworn their homage unto him: I think M. Sand. you can not prove that these things aught to be. Neither are these cases alike, that you ●…umble together, of It is an other matter not to choose the unfaithful, and to disobey him that becometh unfaithful. an unfaithful man, not to be choose Prince and of a faithful man being choose Prince by the faithful, because he becomes unfaithful▪ not to be obeyed. For in the one case, the faithful are free from the unfaithful, & if they are bond, it is not to him, but rather to keep them free from him. In the other case, the faithful have bound themselves before hand to the king that was faithful, who afterward becometh unfaithful. In what case I think the sub iectes might better refuse obedience. Which bond if it were conditional, and the Prince of his own voluntary so bound expressly to them, and they interchangeably bond of their voluntaries, expressly to renounce him, becoming unfaithful: Then I think they might, so it were with one consent of those that chose him, refuse him with better reason. But where (as it is commonly) the Prince being a faithful, hath his claim by some kind of right, whom the people elect without such indenting, on good hope of continuance in his faithfulness, or rather being moved with his right, yield▪ him obedience, and bind themselves by oath to become his subjects, there although their souls and consciences be still free to God in religion, yet are their bodies, their goods, yea, and their consciences to, in respect of his estate and their duties, so firmly bound to remain loyal and faithful to the Prince's authority, Esopes' Fable of the horse, before and after he commit 〈◊〉 himself to ●…en of the man. that though he become unfaithful in the faith of his religion, yet may not they become unfaithful, in the faith of their allegiance. The Fable of Esopes ●…orse, when he strove with the Hart, can tell you, that there was a difference in the horses estate, before he gave the man an interest to ride upon him: and after that the man had bridled and saddled him, and was set on his back, and road him. Might the horse then, when he was weary with chasing the heart, compel the man to alight, and take off the saddle, and pull the bridle out of his mouth, and let him go at liberty? Nay soft, as you said right now, the case is altered. It must be then as the man will, and not as the horse will. Well may the horse like a stubborn jade, begin to fling and winch, assaying to cast the man, and recover his liberty: but the man with his spurs will tame him well enough, and now and then an ill rider spoileth many a good horse. What Esope meant hereby is easy to wit. Not that he allowed any Prince's tyranny, but that he disallowed all subjects rebellion. And so in Samue is declaration, he telleth of many injuries that kings shall do unto 1. Reg. 8. their subjects, as to take their wives, their daughters, and their goods from them, and to give them where it lykeeh them. Not that kings aught to do thus, or that God or his Prophet alloweth their so doing. But that they which were free before, and might have choose, should then not be free, and could not choose, but suffer even injuries at their hands. Neither could they, nor their Priests depose their Princes, although many of them become Apostates and tyrants. Yet those Apostates and tyrants continued still their princes, till God himself by some extraordinary means removed them. But (say you) there groweth no less danger to the subjects Sand. pag. 7●…. from him, who after he is placed in the royal Throne, falls to heresy: than from him that was an heretic before he was made king. I grant you this, M. Saunders: and the case may be How dangers may and may not be cut off. such, that there may grow far more danger too. But dangers must be cut off as we may, and not as we list. If we can undo Gordias his knot, we may not play Alexander's Gordias' knot. part, and draw out the sword, and strike it in ●…wayne. The knot of a subjects obedience is an harder knot, but by this remedy it might be soon untied. And yet peradventure tie ourselves faster in greater bondage, if the Princes used not Alexander's untying, and cut off such traitors heads from their shoulders, that would cut of him, being the head, from governing them, being but members of the body. But how prove you your consequence, M. Saunders? And truly (say you) if the Apostle took it in evil part Sand. pag. 78. 1. Cor. 6. that the Christians should go to law before ●…nsidell Magistrates, that were ordained before hand by public law: how much more unworthy would he have taken it, if they should either of their voluntaire have placed over them an Infidel, or have suffered an obstinate heretic to have reigned over them: for how can they worship him as their king without heinous sin, to whom they aught not to say so much as God speed, lest they should be partakers of his evil 2. joh. Epl. works? or is it not a greater matter to obey an heretic, than to salute him? These two places are wrested (M. Saunders) and the Why S. Paul rebuketh the Corinthians for pleading in law before heathen judges. Scripture abused, to make them serve for subjects deposing princes, and refusing of their obedience. S. Paul rebuketh the Corinthians, for that they being Christians contended in law for trifles, and chose heathen Arbitrers and judges, rather than Christians, and this in déedé was blame worthy, because not only they had free choice, but men also among themselves, that could with more quietness and less reproach, have taken up those matters. But doth S. Paul bid them in no matters, appeal to heathen judges, or being called of heathen Magistrates to their judgements, to refuse them, yea to refuse to come unto them, and to renounce them as incompetent Magistrates and judges, because they were not Christians, and to attempt to disobey them, or to depose them? At this you should prove (M. Sanders) if you will directly apply, and not wrist this place to your purpose. But this S. Paul never did nor taught. The contrary he both taught others, and himself practised. For S. Paul both appealed unto, and appeared in judgement before heathen Magistrates. Act. 2●…. he himself obeyed the authority of the heathen and wicked Magistrates. He refused not to come before the judgement seats of Felix, & Drus●…lla his wife, of Festus, of Agrippa & Bernice his sister. Yea he rejoiced that he came before them, saying: Above all things whereof I am accused of the jews, I count myself happy, O king Agrippa, that this▪ day I shall plead my cause before thee. Likewise he appealed to the wicked Nero his judgement and presence, when Festus offered him to go to Jerusalem, & be judged before him there. He answered: I stand at Caesar's judgement seat, where it behoveth me to be judged. And as he appealed to him, so he obediently was judged of him, & never refused the Prince's judgement as inconvenient, because he himself was a christian, & those princes were heathen: but because they were princes, & he was a subject▪ he obeyed their judgements even to death. And as he did himself▪ so exhorted he all other to the like obedience, & that also for conscience sake, although Rom. 13. those princes had little conscience, & were Infidels, yet he acknowledged them to have their power from God, & to be his ministers, & the resistance against them, to be against God himself. So far was S. Paul from attempting or exhorting, or thinking to depose them. Nay he rather prayed for them, & wisheth 1. Tim. ●…. other to pray. The like we may say for all the Apostles of Christ, whom Christ foretold that they should come before kings & princes, but he forewarned them not to refuse to come before them. This place therefore is manifestly wrested of Math. 10. you M. San. And that you should not suspect my judgement, I appeal here in even to the judgement of your own side. Lyra writing on this place, maketh this objection: Sed istud Apostoli dictum. etc. But this saying of the Apostle seemeth Lyra in. 1. Cor. 6. to be contrary to that which is said▪ 1. Pet. ●…. Be you subject to every creature of man for God, whether it be to the king, as to the chief, or to rulers as sent of him. etc. to the which is to be said, that the Apostle forbiddeth not this, that the faithful being placed under unfaithful princes, should not appear before them, when they are called: for this were contrary to the subjection that is due to princes. But he forbiddeth, that voluntarily they make not recourse to unfaithful judges in those matters, that may be determined by the faithful. Yea Catharinus that wresteth this place also to the priests prerogative, yet dared he not go thus far as you, M. Saunders, but maketh plain exception against you, saying: Insuper annotandum, etc. Moreover we must note, that the Catharinus in 1. Cor. 6. judgements of the unfaithful, are not here refused, sith they also have their power from God. Neither forbiddeth it that they should not obey their rulers, when they call them into law, or should the lest be under their jurisdiction. But only it forbiddeth this, that they should not of their own accord appeal and come to them, as before whom to plead, sith they have themselves a better power given them hereto of God. Thus by the judgement of your own side, this place serveth nothing for refusing the obedience of Princes, although they were Infidels, Apostates, or Heretics, as (thanks be given to God) the protestant Princes are not, against whom you shoot these traitorous books, but are true christians, & faithful christian Princes. As for the other sentence maketh less to your purpose▪ 2. Epi. joh. Princes although Heathen, may be saluted and honoured with civil honour. For he speaketh not there of princes, but of false teachers▪ as for princes, by S. Paul's doctrine▪ aforesaid, wi●… whom S. john agreeth, they should both be saluted, worshipped, and prayed for, that God would speed and pr●… per them in their governements. And this (as you say) i●… more than to salute them. But sith we are bound to 〈◊〉 the greater (to use your own reason) much less may 〈◊〉 debar the lesser from them, and not so much as say, 〈◊〉 speeds them, or give them ●…nce God morrow. Which as▪ is besides all civility (that you say Christ taketh not awa●… so were it wilfully to provoke the Prince's indignation▪ Abimelech was but an Heathen prince, and yet Abra●… Gen. 20. &. 21 dwelt with him, made a league with him, and gave him a present, and took a present of him. Pharaoh was an heathen Gen. 41. Prince, and yet joseph behaved himself most reverently unto him, and become a most faithful steward over his country. Ahasuerus was a heathen Prince, and yet both Mardocheus honoured him, and preserved his life from traiters, Hester. 2. and Hester was married unto him. Benadad the king of Syria was an heathen Prince, and yet Naaman his captain, 4. Reg. 5. after he was cleansed from his lepry, and was become a faithful believer in God, forsook not his obedience to his heathen Prince, and where he moved a scruple of suffering his Idolatrous Prince to lean upon him, the Prophet had him departed in peace, he had him not revolt from his Prince's obedience. Darius was an heathen Prince, & yet Daniel said Daniel. 14. unto him, O king, God save thy life for ever. Agrippa was an heathen Prince, and yet S. Paul both saluted him, and wished him even as himself, except his bonds. This therefore Act. 25. is not to be stretched unto Princes but to be taken, as it is spoken, against false teachers, as both the text is plain, & even the Popish writers to so understand it, although they misunderstand who the false teachers be. But who they be, False teachers are not to be wished well unto. 2. joh epist. S. John describeth by this note, Every one that goeth from & abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine he hath the father and the son: if any come unto you & bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house, neither say God speed unto him. For ●…e that says God speed, communicateth with his evil works. But this is apparent that the Who are the false teachers. Papists have made the doctrine of Christ insufficient, and brought in other doctrine besides the scripture of God: they therefore are these false teachers, that S. john so straightly forbiddeth us to communicate withal. If then God speed may not be said unto the false teachers (that is to say, we may not approve their doctrine, nor be familiar with them:) then must the Popish teacher's company be avoided, that are here so plain described. And it were to be wished▪ this were some what more straightly looked unto than it is▪ God grant that bearing A ●…ueat against bearing to much with Papists. ●…ccl. 13. to much with Papists, & bearing them company, yea and bearing them out also, do not only spice us with their false doctrine (he that toucheth pitch, says the wise man, shallbe defiled with it) & make us partakers of their evil works: but also provoke the heavy wrath of God upon us, & make the Papists whom we bear so much withal, become the very cutters of our throats. For I tell you, their faith will serve them, they have a ruled case for it, Nulla sides tenenda haereticis, no faith must The Papists call us 〈◊〉, but they are nu●…fidiaus. be kept with heretics, as they accounted us to be. But I learned once this rule in mine Accidence, ●…oelix quem faciunt aliena pericula cautum. Happy is he whom other men's harms do make to beware. Let us not think but they can look as fair, & think as foul, in England as in France, & deal as horribly, if (as God forbidden) they could get their opportunity. Which to compass the sooner, this good teacher M. Saunders setteth forth this doctrine, to stir the people to rebel & depose their sovereign, & hereto wresteth these places of the scripture, to make them seem to serve his purpose, where both (being better considered) make clean against it. Howbeit thinking he hath fully proved it. The matter (says he) is now brought to this point, that an Sand. pag. 78. heretical king must be removed from his kingdom, that he obtaineth over Christians. But how he hath brought the matter to this point, & with what proves not worth a point: I doubt not, but every reader will easily see, nor any subject be moved to remove his natural Prince, for any thing yet alleged, yea although (as he surmiseth) his Prince were in deed an heretic. But M. Saund. presupposing that he hath clearly, proved the Prince must needs be deposed will now prove that the deposing of him belongeth to the Bishop. And because (says he) the crime for the which he must be removed, Sand pag. 78. is committed against the faith: & a little before it is abundantly proved, that those causes should not be judged of the people, which is governed like sheep, but of the pastors, whose duty is to discern levit. 10. Malach. 2. between the clean & unclean, and whose lips do therefore keep knowledge, that the people should require the law of the Lord out of their mouth, verily it belongeth chiefly to the Bishops, both to pronounce even the king himself an heretic, or otherwise an Apostata, & also to declare that his subjects from thence forth are free from giving all obedience unto him, & that they aught to endeavour themselves, that another out of hand be choose in his room. Like lips, like lettuce, they say. Even a fit sentence for so The Priests keeping and uttering the law of God, licenseth him not to depose his Prince and set up another. fit Bishops to pronounce. Find you me this in the law of the Lord, (M. Saunders) that the priests should keep this know ledge? and yet better keep it than utter it, to make the Proclamation of rebellion. Is this the law, the people must fetch from the priest's mouth? well, this law made some of them be hanged at Durham not long ago, as all such lawless and rebel Priests deserve. Not, M. Saunders, you find not this fraitero●…s office appointed to the Priests in gods law. Out of their mouth in deed the law of God must proceed, & their lips must keep it, & they must discern between the clean and unclean. Although this be but here spoken Metaphorically, for that was a bodily cleanneste & uncleanness discerning who was a Leper who was none. But stretch it hardily to the soul, admit also he find the soul of the king infected with spiritual lepry, must be therefore pronounce him to be no king? nay, I trow, the priest served not Ozias so. Must the Priest depose him? must be assoil his subjects from their sworn obedience▪ must he bid them choose another▪ where found you this M. Saund▪ in what law? in Robin hoods law, or Robin's hoods law. jack straws law? surely it is some rebel's law, for in god's law you can not show it that Priests should do such things. Not? say you: It is a matter of faith, & who should deal therein but the Priests? Is this a matter of faith, M. Saunders, to stir the people to violate their Faith? cannot the Faith be kept to God, except we break our Faith to the Prince? you ask, who should do it rather than the Bishop? where of all other How, ready popish priests are to stu●…e up rebellion. he should least do it, & to say truth, none should do it. But if any will attempt rebellion, Popish Priests, I see, are readiest, and here M. Saunders offereth himself and his fellows. A meet office for such officers. But in god's word, we find no such office for Priests or for any other, we see there no such example, save of Corah, Dathan, and Abiron, of Absalon, joab, Achitophel, and Abiathar, and such other traitors, whom God punished accordingly. Godly Priests rebuked evil Princes, but they never offered them this injury. But if the subjects (says M. Saunders) look not in this matter Sand. pag. 79. to their duty, than it belongeth to the pastors, by what means so ever they can, to provide, that he that sits in the chair of pestilence, should not reign in the Church of God▪ Yea there M. Saunders there lo, if never a Captain for traitors can be found among subjects, the Priests will be their Captains, and will rebel alone, if none other will besides. The Prince's throne called the chair of pestilence. Do the Prince but once displease the Priests, than his royal throne, wherein God hath set him, is the Chair of pestilence and the Priests will provide another king, and that by all whatsoever means they can, they will attempt all waye●… The Popish Priests profess to remove the Prince by whatsoever means they can. possible, by practices, conspiracies, whisperings, murmurings, railings, blind prophecies, curses, treacheries, seditions, treasons, rebellions, murders, sorceries, p●…ysonings, 〈◊〉 to conclude, by what means soever they can, (for these be his own words) to depose the Lords anointed, and to set 〈◊〉 another of their confederacy, for all these means they 〈◊〉 practice, & have practised, & do practise, and therefore now they may plead practice for them. If this doctrine be not the chai●… of pestilence then out of doubt it is even the pestilence itsel●… A pestilent doctrine. All the deinls in hell can not devise to the slavery and confusion of all▪ kings, and to the maintenance of the Pope's 〈◊〉 ranie, sitting in the very chair of pestilence, a more 〈◊〉 & pestilent doctrine than this is. Now as though this wer●… so cl●…re a case that it were not to be so much as once spoke●… against: What (says he) is not the matter thus? what? do not pastors Sand. 78. Hebrs 13. watch for souls as well of kings, as of them that obey kings? Yes that they do (M. Saunders) as it appeareth by your tale, they watch for souls and bodies, and goods also, chief What the Popish priests watch for. 2. Pet. 5. of kings. The Devil watcheth not (as Peter saith) more narrowly, seeking whom he may devour, than do your Pastors keep both watch and ward, to devour both kings and subjects, and to rule all worldly kingdoms. Then (say you) it is their duty to let slip nought of those Sand. pag. 79. things, that they know are profitable for the soul health. This indeed is their duty (M. Saunders) which consists in preaching God's word. But this they can let slip well enough, howbeit the matter now in hand, is a worldly kingdom, and that they will not let slip in any wise, lest they should let slip those things, that they know are profitable to the body's health. But who seethe not (say you) that it abhorreth altogether Sand. pag. 7●…. from the soul's health, that he should be suffered to reign over the faithful, that is himself unfaithful? must not then also of necessity, the people become unfaithful? There is no necessity M. Saunders, but it is a shrewd The danger of evil Princes & commodity of godly Princes to their people likelihood. But firmum fundamentum Dei stat. etc. the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, God knoweth who are his, and God will preserve those that are his, from assenting to such Prince's unfaithfulness. Howe●…eit, the sway of the people, turn to much after the sway of the Prince, which is a perilous case, as we see where Popish ●…pishe Princes reign, and it is a just plague of God, propter job. 34. ●…eccata populi. etc. God maketh the Hypocrite to reign for the people's offences. But again, where the Prince doth favour and set forth the Gospel of jesus Christ, there redoundeth ●…s much commodity to the people, by the Godly Prince's government. But when (says M. Saunders) jeroboam the king of Sa●…aria, Sand. 79. 3. Reg. 12 erected two Idols in Dan and Bethel, we know that hereupon almost ten whole Tribes fallen into Idolatry, and by little and little cast off the faith of one God. Shall he therefore be worthy the name of a man, that shall affirm a wicked king aught not to be compelled to depose himself from his Magistracy? Can you make this conclusion on this example, M. Sand? then are you worthy the name, not of a man, but of a cunning man, I will not say of a traitor. But what can not you The example of jeroboam that M. Sand. allegeth maketh clean against him. make, quodlibet ex quolibet, what you please, of what you list, to serve your turn withal? jeroboam we grant did make the people fall to Idolatry. But did any Priest or Prophet, taking occasion hereupon, rebel, or provoke other to rebel against him, or did any of them depose him, or sought to set up an other? if you find this, you find somewhat for your purpose, if not, the example maketh clean against you. The Prophets indeed rebuked the king, and that sharply, & spoke 3. Reg. 13. 14 against his Idolatry, and told him how God would cut off his kingdom. Yet they themselves attempted not to cut it off, but peaceably & obediently lived under his government. Yea, this deposing of a Prince, whom God set up, was so 3. Reg. 12. far from any subjects authority, that it was not lawful for Roboam, to whom the kingdom before appertained, to attempt to recover it by law of Arms, but he and his people by God's especial commandment, were bidden go home again. So much this example maketh against you, and yet you are so impudent to allege it. And that hereupon the king must not only be deposed of other, but by other be compelled to depose himself, and that he which shall not affirm this, and that on this example of jeroboam, is not worthy He that will not become a traitor, is not worthy with M Sand. the name of a man. Sand. pag. 79. the name of a man. But he that will not play the rank traitor, and wrist the examples of the scripture for him, that make clean against him, hath no manhood in him, nor is worthy the name of a man with M. Sand. And now as though he had brought an invincible proof, he proceedeth, saying: But if he must needs be deposed, at lest for heresy, how shall that controversy be judged, without the knowledge of the doctors of the Church? who only of their office, have the ordinary & lawful power to look to the flock, in the which the holy Ghost hath placed them to guide the Church of God. Act. 20 But the pastors & doctors of the church, could not be judges of any king, except the king in that thing, were less & inferior to them. For neither the equal hath power over the equal, neither the inferior over the superior. Worthily therefore we affirm, that all christian kings, in those things that appertain to matters of faith, are so under bishops & priests▪ that when offending obstinately against the christian religion▪ they shall Tit. 3. persever after one two rebuking: both they may, and they aught for that cause, to be by the bishops sentence deposed from the government that they hold over the Christians. You conclude full worthily M. San. your argument is this, if the Prince must needs be deposed, he must be deposed by the Bishops & priests. This reason hangs all on this presupposal, that he hath so fully proved this, that the Prince now in all post haste must needs be deposed▪ And yet we have hitherto herded no such proves, that should enforce any such necessity, but rather necessary, for the bishops, priests, or any other subjects behalf, to let him remain still undeposed, for them, although he were an heretic. So that we may rather reverse the argument. If needs he must not be deposed: the must not the bishops & priests attempt to depose him. Howbeit there is no necessity in the consequence, that if he must needs be deposed & that for heresy, that the bishops & priests must depose hi. Yes, Not good argument from the Priests judging of the Prin ces doctrine to his judging of the Prince's diadem. says M. Sam. for how shall that controversy be judged without them, what though that controversy could not be judged without them M. Sand. must they therefore be deposers of him from his estate, because they judge of the doctrine he professeth? must they judge of his Diadem, because they judge of his religion? but what if they themselves have corrupt judgements therein? trow you priests & bishops have not had so ere now? yes, even this sentence of s. Paul that here you cite for the Bishops and priests authority giveth a plain warning of it. I know Act 20. priests corrupt and blind judgements. (saith he) that after my departure, shall come among you ravening Wolves, not sparing the flock, there shall rise up men from among yourselves, speaking perverse things to draw Disciples after them. But (say you) saint Paul says they must look to the flock, so much the more, in which the holy ghost hath placed them to guide the church of God. True in deed they must so do But what if they be blind themselves, how look they to it then? And did Christ never talk of blind guides? you post off that, to the Phariseis & jewish Bishops. Matth. 23. But if you were not more blind than they, you would see a great difference between looking to the flock, guiding the Church of God by teaching true doctrine, taking heed unto, and discerning of false doctrines and teachers, preaching the word of God with learned judgement: and between the claiming of authority to depose Kings and Princes from their royal estates. Why, say you, if they be judges, they are above them, and neither equal nor inferior. They may be equal, and above them too, in learned judgement, and also in the dispensation of their mysteries: & yet in public authority far inferior. And therefore your conclusion A secundum quid M. Sand. fallation a secundum quid ad simpli citer . ad simpliciter, faileth: that because they are inferior in one thing to Bishops, they be in all things, or in this thing inferior. Yea, say you, they are so under Bishops and Priests, that when offending obstinately against the Christian religion, they shall perfever after one or two rebuking, the Bishops may and aught to depose them from their government over Christians. This is a great inferiorship, M. Sand. to be so much under How far the Papists make kings inferior to Bishops. them. For by this rule, if a Prince (as commonly Popish Princes do) should keep a Paramour▪ a Popish Bishop may depose him. But they will not be over hasty, to reprove the Prince for that, which they use themselves, neither count they it an offence against christian religion, & yet in the christian religion i●… is forbidden, & so is against it, especially to defend it, & mainteing it as the Papists do. But if he do wrong to any of his subjects, & will not amend his wrong, after a B. hath once or twice given him warning of it: then by this rule the B. may straight depose him. And in deed so they have done, & would do, if the wrong touch them, if their lands and goods were diminished, then by & by it is against the Christian religion, it is plain heresy, & except by the second admonition, it be restored with a recumbentibus: the king must be in all the hast deposed, there is no remedy nor further respite, for not only the Bishops may, but plat & plain they aught to do it. Is not here a kingdom brought to a goodly state? The fable of the Lion and Fox. But he will say, he means by offences against the Christian religion, matters of faith. But what helpeth this? for, as when the Lion proclaimed, that all horned beasts should avoid out of the wood, although the Foxes pricked ears were no horns, neither needed he have go, you he wisely foresaw, that this was but a drift to pick a quarrel, & therefore he hied him out of the wood. For since all lay in the Lion's interpretation, what if the Lion had said, his prick ears had been horns, or as sharp as horns? surely than the Fox had drunk for it. And if the Bishops may have the like authority, to bid the Prince be packing out of his realm, if he offend the christian religion: what will it boot the Prince (if the Bishops be disposed to pick a quarrel against him) to say, he offendeth not against the Christian religion, but rather defendeth the true religion of Christ, against the corruptions of it? and in deed so he doth, but what availeth either his excuse, or the truth of the matter, if the Bishops shall say it is heresy, and against the christian faith, & the Bishops that so say, shall be the judges, whether it be so or no? were not the king as good get him out of his kingdom at the first, or else they will depose him & set him out with a heave & ho? But that Bishops may thus hamper Princes as they list, where found we authority or example in the scripture? yes says M. Saunders: For God, which at the first so severed the heavenly kingdom Sand. page 79 from the earthly kingdom, that he suffered the kings Psalm. 2. of the earth, to come together against the Lord, and against his anointed, and thereby notably declared his power, while 1. Cor. 2. by the base things of the world (thatis) by the poverty of the Apostles, and the torments of the Martyrs, he overcame the mighty things the same God within a while after, did so join together his heavenly kingdom, with the earthly kingdom, that there also he might show no less, both power and mercy: while some kings voluntarily made themselves subject to the poor Ministers of Christ: But other refusing at the first to be made subjects unto them, yet by the spiritual power of them, were either afterward converted to repentance, or else were hurled down from the high degree of the Empire they possessed that every way it should be true that God revealed to Dani. 2. 7. Daniel: In the days of those kingdoms, the God of heaven shall raise up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed, & his kingdom shall not be given to an other people, but it shall frush, and consume all kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. This truly is the kingdom of heaven, or the power of the Church of God. It is even so M. Sand▪ and therefore not such a worldly kingdom, as your Pope usurpeth, & you proule for him to maintain: but the heavenly kingdom of Christ, and the power of God, which is his Gospel, shall frush and consume your kingdom with the other. Nay (say you) they did indeed once jar, but now they agree, the heavenly and the earthly kingdom, are conjoined together. Agreement is a good hearing, M. Sand▪ but what mean you by this coniunctiō●… The heavenly and earthly kingdom are not so joined that the Bishops may be earthly kings. that the one is become the other, and not still distinguished from it? or that your Pope may be king, and his bishop's Princes of both? nay M. Sand. you find not that agreement and conjunction. For Christ hath put such a bar between them, that his spiritual Ministers, can not have earthly kingdoms, nor that earthly kings, should in the estate of their earthly kingdoms, become subject in such wise to his spiritual Ministers: otherwise than to yield their obedience to their spiritual ministery, representing the power & mercy of God unto them. But not to resign their crowns unto them, not to be trodden under their feet, not to be deposed of them, and driven out of their earthly kingdoms. The spiritual kingdom of Christ itself, (much less the spiritual ministers of that kingdom) dealeth not with earthly kings in such a fashion, which is not to agree or join with them, but to conspice against them. You tell us of some kings, that have voluntarily yielded themselves subjects, & some that were compelled and driven out of their kingdoms, but was this done (as you say) by the poverty of the Apostles, and the torments of the Martyrs? The Apostles and Martyrs deposed no kings. True it is that by these base things, God overcame the mighty things of the world. But trow you that they by their poverty deposed kings, & by their suffering torments, drove them out of their realm? that were a hard matter. But name the Apostle, name the martyr, name the king, name the kingdom & you can. Not, you can not▪ But you shall find the contrary, for if they were in poverty, than were they not richer than kings: if they suffered torments, them they put not men to torments they were tormented, not torments, sufferers, not doers of them. Neither suffered they as malefactors, for conspiring against kings, for going about to have deposed kings from their kingdoms. Are you not ashamed, your Pope's being richer than kings, & crueler than tirante, to tell how God overcame the might of the world, and increased his spiritual kingdom? this was Gods doing, not man's, and by clean contrary means to your doings, and to clean contrary purposes, not to storish in an earthly kingdom, or to dispossess kings, as all your drift doth tend. But you have examples hereof, how you brought kings to this thraldom, but for shame you dared not name them, the stories were so tragical. But now, this being contrary to Christ's prohibition, he propounneth an objection himself in our behalf, & answereth it. Thou wilt say, do therefore By▪ hops and Pastors of the Sand pag. 79. sheep of Christ, rule temporal kingdoms? properly indeed, and of itself, in no wise. But thus do Bishops rule temporal kingdoms, if so be such kingdoms do submit themselves to the Christian faith. For even in this, that Christian kings and nations do desire the faith & Sacraments of Christ, they promise' herein, that they will neither govern, nor obey any earthly government, further than the Christian faith and religion may suffer. If therefore either the government of the king, or the people's obedience, begin to serve otherways, either they may be deposed from their government, or most justly excluded from the power of choosing a king, by the force of the covert, or expressed covenant, which at the beginning they made with the Church of Christ. For what soever is so much of the nature of the thing that is done, that if To this purpose says Pomponius: ●…▪ Cum quid mutuum de reb. creditis by chance mention was made thereof at the beginning, it can not otherwise agreed, than by that one way: which although it were not expressed between the bargain makers, yet is it held for expressed: because it was necessarily contained in the nature of that that was done. For ensample. A man says to a woman: I take thee to my wise: she again making answer, I take thee to my husband: But that they shall live together, even till death, although this expressly is not uttered in the covenant, notwithstanding it is so contained in the nature of the thing, that it is necessarily under stood. After the same manner it is, when either the king, or any private man, is made a member of the church by faith & baptism. For even in that, that he renounceth the world & the pomps thereof, verily he promises, that he will never abuse the power of his earthly kingdom, against the faith and church of Christ. And if so be he shall do it, he will not refuse but that he may be deprived of the right of his kingdom. For I ask, if this namely should come in question. Soft, M. Sand▪ we must interrupt you, or else we cannot so conveniently answer you. To your question anon, now to your argument, and your 〈◊〉 there●…n. The obrection you made, was this: whether Bishops and M. Saunders objection and answer. Pastors of the sheep of Christ, may rule temporal kingdoms? You answer: properly, and of itself, in no wise. But as those kingdoms do subject themselves to the Christian saith. This is a proper elusion M. Saunders, think you to escape thus? is it all one to subject their kingdoms to●…e Christian faith, and to subject their kingdoms to the Bishops? Good 〈◊〉 it is that the faith should bear the ●…héefe rule. But the objection was, whether the Bishops should, or no? and therefore this ●…inction serveth not. For Christ simply, without this or the respect debar●…eth all his spiritual ministers from ruling of temporal kingdoms. Who knoweth not, that properly and of their own nature, temporal kingdoms should not be ruled of spiritual pastors, but of temporal king●…? None is so simple, to move such a fond objection. But the objection is, whether the one be coincident to the other. Whether a Bishop may take a kingdom upon him promise perly or unproperly. Whether a Bishop to whom properly by his Bishoply office, 〈◊〉 kingdom belongeth not, may take upon him the government of a kingdom, that properly by his kingly office belongeth to a king. This i●… the question. And you say, properly he can not, & I say much 〈◊〉 unproperly. But properly or unproperly, Christ hath clea●… debarred it, Vos autem non 〈◊〉, But you shall not do so. These words strike dead, master Sand▪ & therefore your unproper distinction may go pike him. But (say you) when they subjecteth them to the Christian The Prince's promise. faith, the kings promised no longer to reign, the people promised to obey no power further, than the christian faith will suffer: therefore if the king's power, or the people's obedience serve from this promise▪ the king may be deposed, and the people can choose no other●… ●…ll good promises (so 〈◊〉 as we may) are to be kept in●…iolate, master Saunders, especially the promise made to Christ, to keep his faith and religion incorrupted. And would to God, all men did keep it, chief the Popish Bishops, that have in so many points, swerved from the faith, and corrupted Christ's religion, & yet have made their The breach of the Popes and of his Prelate's promises. promise to keep it so well as others. And if they should be deposed for breaking their promise, your Pope should be deposed first, to begin withal, and all his Prelates & Priests should follow. And although it were to be wished they were in deed all deposed and those only that repent them, admitted, and reform to the true ministery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet can not the like be wished for in Princes, that they likewise The Prince's breach of promise, authorise●…h not Bishops to depose him. breaking their promises, should be deposed by their Bishops. For, although we have in God's word, an evident example for the Prince to depose the Bishop upon his demerits, as Solomon deposed Abiathar: yet have we not the like example for the Bishop to depose the Prince. For in the authority of deposing, the Prince is higher than the Bishop. Although it is not to be wished, the Princes should attempt without great and evident proof, to depose any. As for the Bishop to take upon him to depose his Prince, being his sworn subject, is both against his own faith and homage●…, and further than his authority reacheth. The Bishops and Priests had great injury offered them The example of Saul and David of king Saul, yet they never cursed him, nor attempted to depose him. Not, David (although he were himself also the Lords anointed) would never oppugn Saul, or rebel against him, but only stood at his defence, and when he had Saul in his danger, he would neither kill him, nor take him, nor depose him, but let him go, and committed his quarrel to the Lord, because Saul was not only likewise the Lords anointed, but then in lawful possession of the crown. And therefo●…e David would never take it from What bishops may do or not do to princes, having broken their promises. him, although he had good title to it. Much less may the Bishops, (that have no title to it) attempt to pull down their Prince. They may, yea they ought to exhort their Prince, having broken his promise, and rebuk●… him, and lay before him the terrible threats of God they may pray for him▪ but they can not lay hands upon him, nor curse him, nor revile him, nor take arms against him, nor in●…ite other to rebellion, to forsake him, and to set upon him, being their Liege and Sovereign. How Princ●… have been deposed. I am not ignorant, that Princes have been deposed of their subjects in divers countries, and divers times in England. And the like casualty may chance in every age and kingdom unto princes. But for those things, by what title What rule may be gathered by such deposing●… of Princes. they were done, God knoweth, & I will not descant now, but this I affirm in general, that in respect of the people, those things were more def●…cto, than the ●…ure▪ although in respect of God's justice, or of the Prince's chastisement, that ●…ad deserved (before God) so much and more, it was the ●…ure too. But the subjects can never justify such deeds to be done, how ever they be born out when they be done, nor such extraordinary deeds passed, may be drawn to ordinary examples of deeds to come, but be spectacles for princes in beholding such tragedies past, to learn for the present to ●…umble themselves, and to level their life to come the better. And alth●…gh many of these deposing of princes, have Deposing of Princes by the Prelate's practices. ●…ot come so 〈◊〉 by the v●…ce of their unnatural subjects, as by the practices of the Popish bishops: as the ensamples of king john in England, of Childerike in France, the Henry's and other in Germany, and in other countries, do testify: yet were these dealings of th●…se Bishops not allowable, but detestable, ye●… though it were granted that those prince●… ha●… deserved them, & broken their faith and promise▪ Which (if it were a good faith & promise) was no doubt an evil breac●…e of it, an●… God will take the vengeance of it, it belongeth not is the people, nor to the Bishops. Vengeance Heb. 10. is mine, saith God, and I will tender it. He saith not, my Bishops shall, but I will tender it. Yea but (sayt●… M. 〈◊〉) the Prince himself hath made a promise, to reign no longer, than the faith and religion of Christ alloweth. I answer if he ma●… this pr●…yse; it is a good promise, What subjects may do when the Prince breaks his promise. and he is bou●… in conscience to stand ther●…. But what if ●…e wickedly break his promise, shall the bishop rebel▪ and break their promise too? is there no remedy, but 〈◊〉 pellere, to drive out one mischief with another▪ Nay says S. Paul▪ Non faciamus malum, ut inde eueniatb●…nū, Let us not do evil Rom. 1. that good may come of i●…▪ Let us not●…bell against the Prince, that the Prince may be reform. Quorum damnatio justa est. If the Bishops do so, they heap I●…st damnation upon themselves. Were the Prince in deed such a one as the Bishops pretend, (if it be not rather their malicious pretence) as God hath given them no such violent means to reform him, which were to make him rather worse than better, and The right means that the B may use, when the prince breaketh his promise. The combat between the Cardinal of Column and the Pope. to bring all in a broil, and themselves (besides their sin) in danger▪ so God hath given them another mean, if they could see it, of preaching his word unto the Prince, which is another manner of sword, and more fit for them to fight withal, than to pull the temporal sword out of the Prince's hands. In deed so did Cardinal Column, when the Pope said he would pull of his Cardinal's hat, he soul the Pope word, if he pulled off his Cardinal's hatto, he would put on a helmet, and pull down his triple Crown. These Prelates have little skill of the spiritual sw●…rde, although they crack of it, and of S. Pet●…rs keys, but they neither know how to use them, nor what they be, that think they consist in deposing Princes and fight against them. But M. Saunders, not seeing the 〈◊〉 of his own Bishop's faith and promise▪ beginneth narrowly to ex●…mine the faith & promise of Princes▪ Go to th●…; let us see what he layeth to the Princes charge. He made promise' (says he) that he would be no longer king, than he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 faith of Christ. And the people promised to suffer 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them, furd●…●…han the faith of Christ. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they this promise▪ The princes promise' in the●… baptism The Bishop's promise in Paptisme is the same that the princes is. M. Saunders? ●…t Baptism●… (say you) where they promised to renounce the world, and the pomps thereof In deed M Saunders they made this promise▪ 〈◊〉 their Bapti●…▪ to ●…enounce th●…●…orld and the pomp●… ●… 〈◊〉 this, 〈◊〉 I suppose 〈◊〉 you an●… your Bishop's 〈◊〉 also. How you have kept it, not only God & you in your conscience know: but all the world seeth how you have broken it. And if your deposing lay on that promise in Baptism, surely you should all be deposed out o●… question. But I am sure, you will make The papists shifted to k●…pe their livings for all their promise broken. exception for your worldly kingdoms, pomps, and dignities, that here you writ for▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and keep: that you will not renounce them, for all that promi●…, and will say, there is ●…nt, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but the ambitious mind in getting and keeping of them. Wh●…h am●… although you still retain, with infinite other 〈◊〉 ●…pen 〈◊〉: yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not willingly depose your selu●… from those worldly: promotions, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deposed fro●… them. And can you make these exceptions, excuses and distinctions, for the retaining of yours 〈◊〉 your Bis●… 〈◊〉▪ poralties, and will not allow them in the Prince, for the retaining, The priests partiality. 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 yours are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cessorie▪ unto yours? 〈◊〉 is partial and 〈◊〉 dealing with Prin●… M. 〈◊〉▪ But how pr●…ue you, that Prin●…es 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, promised to 〈◊〉 their kingdom, if they should forsake the faith and that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 their 〈◊〉 promised to 〈◊〉 nounce their▪ 〈◊〉 & t●… rebel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i●… their Prince should might forsake the 〈◊〉 (say you) ●…t is contai●…ed in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the thing that is promised. And here you speak somewhat darkly, like a lawyer, & quote us up law out of Pomponius in your margin, and to make the matter plainer, you bring in the ensample of a contract in marriage, between the man and the woman: the man says, I take thee to my wife, the woman says, and I take thee to my husband. In these words here is no naming of continuance 〈◊〉 and ye●…●…o this contract it is comprehended●…▪ Your law rol●…, and your ensample are good, M. Saunders, but your 〈◊〉 is all. For in the nature of the promise at Baptism: ●…o 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of authority, or obedience, is either named 〈◊〉 ●…hended. There is, I grant a contract made for thef●…rmei of all their lives, to keep the faith of The contract made to christ in Baptism. Christ, and this all their lives they aught to keep. But that they promised either ●…o ●…nounce their own estates, or their Prince's estates, for the breach of this contract: that is neither spoken nor thought upon in baptism, nor is contained in the nature of it. For Christ●…, nor the compact with him, brakes not the Civil and po●…e ●…state, of men's government or obedience but rather 〈◊〉 it. As for Kings, are not ●…ommonly king●… at their Baptism, nor are made kings by Baptism, (except you speak of spiritual kings, as The king promised not to renounce his kingdom when he was baptized. they are mystical members of Christ.) and now and then, he that is a king, was a private people chr●…de, and no man known at his Baptism, that ●…uer he should become a king: as for thee▪ 〈◊〉, had least o●… all, any such intention: how could 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 th●…n of renouncing a kingdom, be intended in his promise at Baptism? and much less on the subject behalts: for if in their promise at Baptism, should be intended the condition of refusing obedience to their The subject promised not to renounce his Prince at Baptism. Prince then ●…daid be 〈◊〉 a thing, that neither lieth in their power to perform (for all subjects can not for sake their obedience, and they would never so ●…aine) neither if they would and could, they should refuse it. It is not (as Dottor Story, far unlike a lawyer, and far more unlike a Christian, said at his 〈◊〉) 〈◊〉 ●… subi●…s choice and D. Stories error in defending that subjects misliking their princes may forsake them. power to forsake his Prince's obedience and his country, and go whether he list, to live under what Prince he fansieth: for by this ●…anes, all policics may be soon dissolved, and subjects were even as good rebel against their Princes, as go their way from them, and forsake their subjection to them: They made no such promise at Baptism, to forsake their Prince's authority▪ ●…o though●… 〈◊〉 should be●…me an infidel: To forsake his and all others infidelity, & not to obey him, or any other, in his 〈◊〉▪ this they promised, but not to forsake him in his authority: but rather their authority, being an ordinance of ●…d, and their obedience to their magistrates, whatsoever they b●…, being also What we all promised in Baptism. gods commandment, they are 〈◊〉 by their Baptism, not to forsake it. Prince's also, & all subjects are ●…und in baptism, to renounce all other sin, & as long as they live to cleave to all other virtues, & this is directly comprehended in their covenant. If now the Prince or the people after Baptism, shall forsake any virtue, & clean●… to any ●…n, 〈◊〉 they be therefore deposed from their estates? who should not the●… be deposed? Let us take your own example of marriage, The man says The example of a contract in marriage. to the woman, I take thee to my wife, the woman says to the man, I take thee to my husband: here is (say you) no menction made of continuing together till death and yet it i●… comprehended. In deed M. Saunders in these words that you cite, it is not mentioned, but both in yours and our order of marrying, even those words also be by name expressed, till death us departed: & God hath expressed them saying: whom god hath joined, let not man Math. 14. separate. But there are other words also, not intended only, but expressed, as these, which the man promises, that he will love the woman comfort her, honour & keep her. etc. the Promise' breach in marriage . woman likewise to the man, that she will love, cherish, honour & obey him. These things either do promise to keep to other, & these things belong to the nature of the contract also. disobey her husband, or 〈◊〉 not, ●…r honour him, as she hath promised and aught to do: if agains the man love not her, or cherish her not, as he hath also promised and aught to do: neither only bracks fall ou●… between them, but also ●…he ●…ise coutinueth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the man 〈◊〉 forsake the other, 〈◊〉 the promise ma●…e in the contract is and yet they are (in the contract made between them) bond to as 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 those virtues, as to 〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉▪ Not, they are not ●…und ●…ther, ●…o forsake the one thi●… other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In which case they may forsake▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they may be ●…conciled, and continued together. ●…ut (you 〈◊〉) in this case of swerving from the 〈◊〉, the subject and the Prince may not continued together▪ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the man and the woman are by their contract in marriage, knit inseparably together, (especially as As the priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the man & the woman, so the B. cannot separate the prince & the subject. the Papists ma●…e the contract, that it is never undone, for any vice, not not for whoredom, although they grant, there may be in n●…ne, but 〈◊〉 deed a separation:) so the Prince and the ●…ubiect, being contracted together in the policy of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the one 〈◊〉 faithful government, the 〈◊〉 promising faithful obedience, notwithstanding all their vices, that fall out afterwards between them, may not be ●…ieane parted a sunder, the Prince from his authoritio; the su●…iect from his obedienc●…, but till their lives ends, most 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 together▪ and as the priest ●…an not 〈◊〉 but, by your own 〈◊〉 makes 〈◊〉 against you. But now ●…ay ●…n, and move your question, M. Saunders. I ask (say you) if this by name, should come in question, whether Sand. pag. 79. &. 80. this should, not necessarily be answered to that King, which would become a Christian? Let it be, that King Lucius come to Blessed Eleutherius the Pope, yea or else king Clodoveus to Blessed Remigius, and desire themselves to be admitted into the society of the Christian people. But let us suppose, that the Blessed Eleutherius or Remigius answer to either of them: we are glad (most dear Son) that thou desirest to be made a Citizen of the kingdom of heaven, but this thou oughtest to know for certainty, that the case is not ●…ke in the kingdom of heaven, as it is in the world. For in the Church, thou must live so, that thou make captive thy understanding 1. Cor 10. Math. 19 to the obedience of ●…aith. But thou, how greater thou art in the world, mayst so much the more hurt the Church of God, ●…f thou shalt abuse the right of thy sword, to the defence of heretics, contrary to the Catholic faith. Not otherwise therefore mayst thou have entry into the Church, than if thou shalt promise', that thou will't persist in that sa●…h, and defend that Church, with all thy force, which being received from the Apostles, is continued by the succession of Bishops until this day, and dispersed through out all the world. But if it shall chance thou dost otherwise, thou shalt not refuse, but shalt go from the right of thy kingdom, and promise' to lead a private life: here if the King Lucius make answer: I am ready to acknowledge the Christian faith, but I neither promise' that I will defend with my sword, the Catholic faith neither will I (for whatsoever I shall do) give over the right of my kingdom. Can the Bishop to this man thus affected, minister the Sacrament of Baptism, and deliver the sacrament of thanksgiving? can he therefore be a member of Christ, that will not submit his Sceptre unto Christ, and refuseth to serve him? Your example and your question hung not together, M. Saunders to your last question, I answer, that he can not be a member of Christ, that will not submit his Sceptre unto Christ, and refuseth to serve him. But what is this question to your former question, of submitting himself to the Bishop to depose him? there is greater difference, betwixt Christ's Sceptre, and the Bishop's Crosier, than between the King's Crown and the Bishop's Mitre. But to come to your examples which draw somewhat M. S●…ers examples of King Lucius & King Clodoue●…s. nearer to your purpose. First, trow you, that these two examples, of King Lucius and Clodoue●…, will answer all th●…se and serve for all Kings? I suppose they will not▪ For these kings received Baptism, being of lawful years, and ●…ight have made a voluntary grant, to all that you pr●…suppose, your Bishops would have demaū●…ed of them, & so might have snarled themselves in their briars and bondage. But yeutan The state of infants not like these Princes. not presuppose the like of infants, especially of those infants, whose parents were Christ●… Princes before, who are baptised long before they are kings. And although they might order the child, as ill as they ordered y● other, that other, yt●…o rawly came to Christendom: yet would not the parents being alread●…e Christened, bring their Children in such bondage. Neither could they demand it of a child, which was not a king, nor perchance born to a kingdom, but got it afterward by prowess. Secondly these be but vain presupposals & false. For although M. Saund presupposals of these two princes are false. King Lucius his baptism. Clodouen●… was baptized by Remigius: yet was not Lucius baptised by Eleutherius, but either by the two preachers which Eleutherius scent, or as it rather appeareth, by the content of Eleutherius letters, King Lucius was himself a Christian before, & therefore Eleutherius scent them not as Legates, nor sent any such conditions by them, nor any laws or ceremonies of the Church of Rome, but referreth the King to the word of God, and was so far from taking upon him to be gods Ui●…ar, over the King & his kingdom: that in plain words be yieldeth that authority & title to King Lucius. And as for Clodoveus, though he call Remigius his patron & author Aimonius li. 1 de gestis Francorum. ca 16. of the discipline and Religion, because he baptised him & in structed him therein: yet as for any such covenant or condition, not to admit him to the faith of Christ, except he would swear before hand, that if he would not defend the Bishops & their faith, he should forsake his kingdom, and promise' to lead a private life: Remigius conditioned no such thing, no more than Elentherins' before had done to Lucius. For when Clodoneus being an infidel, and yet having a Christian wise The order how King Clodoue●…s was bapti●…ed. which made him som●…hat more enclinable: & being in battle against the Almains, & making his vow to Christ in his distress, to receive the Christian faith, if he should get the victory: which being obtained, and he returned home with triumph, willing to receive the faith of Christ: his wise made haste to Remigius the Bishop of Rheims Lxhorting him (says ●…onius) forthwith to come to the Court, that while he wavered yet in suspense, he would open to him the way of truth, that leadeth to God: for (she said) she feared, lest his mind puffed up with prosperity, while he knoweth not the giver of these things, he should contemn him. For things that fall out as we would have them, fall out of our mind likewise, in continuance of rhyme, more easily than those things, that fall out otherwise than we would. The Bishop hasteneth to obey the admonishing of the Religious woman. He presenteth himself to the sight of the King, that now a pretty while had abode his coming. The faith is declared by the Bishop, the means of believing is taught. The King also acknowledging the faith, devoutly promises that he w●…l serve one God. As for the peers of his Realm & army, he will prove his opinion, which what it is of this matter, he affirmeth, that so much more denoutly they would submit their necks to Christ, how much more they should see themselves to be provoked with entreaties, rather than with terrors. The condition pleaseth, a public calling forth of the people is made by the King's commandment, to whom the King maketh an oration, & persuadeth the people to receive the faith of Christ, & moveth them to submit their necks to Christ, the priest rejoiceth, that the King not yet baptised, is become an Apostle of his own nation & so the King is baptized. What condition is here made by the Bishop unto the Here was no sech conditions of deposing exacted of the Bishop in the Prince's baptism. King, of giving over his realm, & deposing himself? which might have done more heart than good. In what cou●…nant did the people here bind themselves, to loo●…e the liberti●… of choosing their King, or promise' to forsake their King, if their King forsake the faith? here was no such bondage ●…red, ●…ther to the King by the Bishop, and the King thought good to offer none such to the people, but with gentle persuasions to all●…re them. So that these presupposals of these Bishop's speeches unto these Princes, are utterly false, and forged, only to drive in the reader's heads, a surmise of seem such conditional admission to the Christian faith, in these eld Princes days, which was nothing so nor so. And yet by these colourable presupposals, he enforceth his matter with a question, aying: Can the Bishop to this man thus affected minister the sacrament of Baptism and give the sacrament of thanksgiving? Why, M. Saunders, here was no such condition moved, & yet Remigius gave Clodoneus the sacrament of Baptism▪ In deed the sacrament of that k●…giuing, he gave not then unto him, neither was it necessary till he were instructed in the mystery of it. And therefore this is as fond added in this case, to the Sacrament of Baptism, as your case of Baptism is craftily and malicio●…sly devised, to bring Princes in bondage unto Bishops. But this King, though he and his people submitted their necks to Christ, yet did he not thus submit himself and his people to the Bishop. The long promises to 〈◊〉 one God, but not to 〈◊〉 either the Bishop of Rheims, or the Bishop of Rome▪ These knacks and conditions of bondage, for Princes to promise and ●…weare obedience to the Pope and to his Bishops, yea to swear to depose themselves and become p●…uate men, if they forscke this cons●…rained obedience: is of later times, as the Pope's power and tyranny hath grown, and hath 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to Christian Princes, & great hu●…lie but l●…s in many Christian kingdoms. But yet it never went thus for as it The s●…uerie that M. Saund. would bring Princes into pasieth the Spa nishe ●…quisition. now should do▪ if M. Saunders might have high mind, for it was never urged in their Christ●…dome before. This pasieth the slavery of the Spanish Inquisition, that no Prince nor people should be christened, except they swear to these exceptions. In the old time when the Prophets' anointed kings, they told them of the blessings of God to come upon them, and their posterity to sit in their seat after them, and that God would build them an house to continued, if they served him, and walked faithfully in his ways. And if they The promises and threats of God, that the ancient prophets declared unto kings. should do the contrary, how God would rend the kingdom from them, and give it to another. Of such promises and threats that the Prophets told the kings, we read, and of the promises that the kings made again to God, we read: but that any Prophet compounded with the king before, that he should renounce his kingdom, or that any king took either their circumcision or their kingdom on such condition, or that the king revolting from his promise, either voluntarily, or by compulsion deposed himself, or was deposed of the Bishop, Priest, or Prophet of God: these things y●… can not show us, but these things you should show us, if you will make good your sayings, and directly prove your purpose. You tell us here a tale of a tub, in the name of these kings & Bishops, that they never did, nor (I think) did ever think of any such devices. But go too, let us now presuppose with M. Saunders, M. Saunders presuppose admitted. even as he imagineth. A King would be baptized. The Bishop saith: We are glad (most dear son) that thou desirest to be made a citizen of the kingdom of heaven, but this thou oughtest to know for certainty, that the case is not like in the kingdom of heaven, as it is in the world, for in the Church thou must live so, that thou make captain thy understanding to the obedience of faith. But thou how greater thou art in the world, mayest so much the more hurt the Church of God, if thou shalt abuse the right of thy sword, to the defence of heretics, contrary to the Catholic faith. Not otherwise therefore thou mayest have entry into the Church, than if thou shalt promise', that thou wilt persist in that faith, and defend that Church, with all thy force, which being received from the Apostles, is continued by the succession of Bishops until this day, & dispersed through out all the world. But if it shall chance thou dost otherwise, thou shalt not refuse, but shalt go from the right of thy kingdom, and promise' to lead a private life. M. Saunders now presupposeth that the king (hearing the Bishop thus begin to indent with him) will begin his answer to the Bishop thus: I am ready to acknowledge the Christian faith. Why, M. Sand. is not this enough? if the Bishop seek The Popish Bishops seek more than the Christian fauh. something else besides the acknowledging of the Christian faith: Surely he neither seeketh the glory of God, nor the Prince's salvation, nor the increase of Christendom, but his own sucre & authority. Well, the Bishop will have him grant to all the residue of his conditions, or else he will not baptize him. here again he presupposeth the king to say further. But I neither promise, that I will with my sword defend the Catholic faith, neither will I (for whatsoever I shall do) give over the right of my kingdom. You tell the king's tale parcially, M. San▪ you should make it flatly to deny that, which the Bishop exacted of him to do. Which was, to promise' to defend, not the faith but that faith, & that Church, etc. Which the king denieth, to make promise unto the Bishop on such condition. Yea? says M. Sand. & saucily steppeth in for the B. can the B. to this man thus affected, minister the sacrament of baptism? etc. And why not (M. San.) if the bishop be not worse affected himself than this man is? for you grant yourself, that he is well affected towards the christian faith & would acknowledge it, which is all one with defending it. And if the bishop be not content with this promise, hath not the king good cause to suspect him? he telleth him of bonds & conditions to be made, to renounce the right of his kingdom, if he per●…e not in that faith with all his force, if he defend not that church, that was received from the Apostles, continued by succession of B. till this day and i●… dispersed throughout all the world. May not here the king (as it is likely, by M. Sand. tale, he hath wit & wisdom enough) begin to smell a rat, & think The king's examination of the Bishop's condition. with himself: what should he mean to put this differ●…ce? I freely offered to receive the Christian faith, and he will not take this offer, but will have me receive that faith, and that Church, that (he saith) was from the Apostles, and is continued by succession of Bishops till this day, and is dispersed throughout all the world. Why, and is not this the christian faith, and the christian Church? If it be, I offered myself to it before, but he refaseth my offer. Then surely this is not that faith and Church, that he means. And why should he rather have me bound to the Apostles, (if they were Christ's Apostles) than to jesus Christ himself? shall I be baptized in their names? why should I bind myself to Bishop's succestors which what they have been, & how ill, or how welsome of them have succeeded their predecessors, I know not, nor I will swear for them. And why should I then swear unto them, rather than unto the faith of Christ, who is the chief Bishop of our souls? And why should I bind myself to▪ Church dispersed throughout all the world? What means he by this? the greatest and mightiest multitude? or the little flock of Christ scattered in every Nation? or be it great or little, why should he bind me more to men, than unto jesus Christ? And why requireth he to these things, (as if it were, even to Christ himself, and to the faith of him) the defence of all my force, and what means he by this force? that I shall for all these things, gather all my power, and make sharp war, where, and when he commands me? and that I shall oblige myself to all these conditions, on the forfeiture of my kingdom, and depose myself from my ●…ght, & become a private man, and leave the office & charge that God hath called me unto, for leaving of these things. Yea & that if I should not wilfully do otherwise, but if I should chance to do otherwise. And what if he would threape upon me, that I chanced to do otherwise? Surely, surely, this is not plain dealing with me, nor any good meaning to me. He seeks not my salvation, but my kingdom, that thus would snarl me, and is not content that I freely offer to acknowledge the Christian faith. What if the King would cast all these conjectures, master Saunders? trow you he hath not good occasion ministered? yea, what if the King here upon, being thus refused of the Bishop, examined these things thoroughly? should he not find foul holes in your coat? I tell you, it would touch you to the quick. And perhaps it had been better for the Bishop to have taken the kings free offer, and without such conditions to have given him his baptism: for else he might have it of some other Bishop's hands, that had learned of Christ, not to break the bruised reed, nor to quench the smoking flax, nor to cast off, by such indentinge, this godly disposed Prince, but with all humility and diligence, to receive, instruct, & baptize him, yea and bewray all your Popish jugglings. And what had you got then, by these your proud conditions? hath not your pride and covetousness made you make a fair market, and lose so rich a prey? But now let us yet admit your presupposal further. M. Saunders presupposal admitted once again. The king would be baptised. The Bishop refuseth, except on these conditions, to admit him. The king seeth there is no remedy, he receiveth these conditions. What is his duty now to do, but with all his force to persist and defend them▪ What is that? for sooth, that faith and Church, which being received from the Apostles, is continued by the succession of Bishops, until this day, and dispersed throughout The kings diligent travel to discharge his charge, & perform the condition. all the world. Now sith this is his charge, and he is bound to observe it with all his force, on forfeiture of his kingdom: is it not g●… reason, that he examine and bolt out, which this faith and Church is. Especially since he heareth that there is great controversy about these matters, and that there are both wise, learned, & famous men of both sides. Yea? saith he, if the case be not clear, that I am so straightly bound in, it stands me upon, to look to this gear better, and to hear both parties say what they can, that I may know and be sure, that I keep my promise, and not to forfeit my bond. What now (for his better assurance) shall the prince do? must he not here, call both the parties before him, & say to The king●…●…ration. the Bishop that took thi●… promise' of him? ●…y Lord, you remember what promise' you made me make unto you, or ever you would baptize me. And now I hear say, the ●…oyntes that you made me promise, to defend with all my force, and to persist therein, are litigious. You hold them one way, and your adverfaries another way: you say, your faith and Church, is that faith and Church, that was received of the Apostles, for howsoever the succession of Bishops have held it, and wheresoever it hath been dispersed, the receit of the Apostles from Christ himself, I perceive, is the first and principal condition, that I promised to persist in, and to defend withal my force. The other twain must both depend on this I chief mind therefore to k●…pe this, & the other as they shall agree hereto. But here your adversaries, on the other p●…t, 〈◊〉 and offer to prove it, that your faith and Church is not that faith and Church that the Apostles received and delivered, but i●… a faith and Church ●…egenerate, and swarnedfromit. And therefore if you will not be yourselves the cause, t●… make me break the promise that you made me take: you must clear yourselves of that▪ your adversaries object against you, and confute them. And you she Bishop's adversaries, on the other side, must●… bring forth your proves, and defences of your faith and Church, and show good reason, why I should not impugn your faith and church, and defend there's against you. And here for equal dealing between you both, being parties plaintiff or defendant, neither of you yourselves shall be your own, or your adversaries judge (for the one were partiality, the other injury) neither I (whom the matter, both for my office, and for my promise and forfeiture, toucheth nearest) will be your judge, but an indifferent hearer of both parties. And because you both admit the Scriptures to be God's word, and both the Apostles faith, and the Apostles Church, is manifestly recorded in the Scriptures, and Christ also willeth us to search the Scriptures, for they bear record of him: the matter shall be determined by the Scriptures. Both of your fai●…hes and Churches shall be leveled by that platform, that shall be there apparently expressed. And as the Scripture shall strike the stroke between you, I will minister 〈◊〉 rightly, to save my promise. And will de●…ende w●…th all my force, that faith and Church, that I find in deed received from the Apostles, and will extirpate with all my force, that faith and Church that is degenerate from it. What if the King say thus, master Saunders? trow you the Bishop hearing this (which notwithstanding is but right and reason, and the King even of the Bishop enforced thereto) will he accept the offer? Not, master Saundess, the Bishop will cry out, and so will you, that the matter shall not go thus, and that the King may not do this, howsoever it stand him upon. But you will appeal from him, unto yourselves, as judges. Which when the King shall hear, will 〈◊〉 not judge this a mad appeal? and suspect your cause the worse? and think that you plainly would abuse him? And so, to keep his promise made unto you, turn his force justly against you? Have you not here made a rod for your own tail, if the Prince be but indifferent, and not too much, either of simplicity or dastardy abused by you? And thus by the righteous judgement of God, your own tyranny is the cause of your own plague: and that by the self means, whereby you would unjustly have hampered the Prince, he hath justly hampered you. I pray God all Christian Princes would once take these just occasions, to examine well, but even those duties and tyties that you put unto them, and would but minister justice to you, even as you ha●… forced them thereto. And thus much, M. Saunders, for your presupposed examples, between these Kings and Bishops▪ Let us now behold how you proceed upon them. How therefore said the Lord in Daniel? kingdom, and power, Sand page 80. Daniel. 7. and the might of kingdom, that is under all the heaven shall be given to the people of the Saints of the Hyest. Whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all Kings or powers shall serve and obey him. How said the Lord (as it is in Esay) unto his Church? The sons of strangers isaiah. 60. shall build thy walls, and the Kings of them shall minister unto thee, and their sons that have brought thee low, shall come and bow themselves to thee, and all those that spoke evil of thee, shall worship the steps of thy feet. How shall the word of Christ be true, wherein Luc. 10. Math. 16. he said too▪ his Disciples, he that despiseth you, despiseth me, or that that he said too Peter: Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build▪ my Church, and the ga●…, of Hell shall not prevail against it. You are a waster, Master Saunders, to make such lavish of your proves so impertinently, or rather, you are wrester too apply them so falsely. For the King that here refuseth the bishops conditions: offereth himself most freely too all obedience that is here mentioned, in offering himself to acknowledge the Christian saith. As for the lords sentence in Daniel▪ Daniels prophecy wrested. prophesying of the immortal glory, that after the judgement of Christ, shall be given to the Saints of the most highest, and of the obedience to Christ's everlasting kingdom: these are other matters, & are so wrested of you to the state of this life, that it will breed you some suspicion of being a millenary M Sand. to be suspected of being a Milenarie here ●…ke. heretic, except you say you meant it spiritually. But than it toucheth not the kings politic estate. But howsoever you mean it, you do great injury to kings, and show no less arrogancy in yourselves to apply that unto you, that is spoken of the Saints of the highest. This kingdom and power, that he speaketh of, is there's, yea kings, so well as any other be partakers of it, and you claim it allonly to your Priestly and Bishoply power: whereas it is rather to be doubted, that you shall have no parts at all thereof. But your portion in the kingdom of proud Lucifer, that not only apply this to yourselves: but also the glory and kingdom due to Christ, of the obedience to which, Daniel plainly speaketh, and you wrist it to the obedience of your Bishops. As for this obedience to Christ, the king did offer to yield it, in offering to acknowledge the Christian faith. But your Bishop was not content therewith. And you to help your bishop and to dismay the king, make the bishops demand such a necessary thing, that you ask, how did the Lord speak in Daniel, except kings should offer to renounce their kingdoms unto priests? What, master Saunders, wax you so saucy with God, to argue him of a lie, but the saying of God is true, and you are liars, and the king may still keep his kingdom from your Clutches. ●…say wrested. Your second text is a couple of texts, out of Esay, but no less wrested than the other, to make Princes stoop to Prelates, and kiss the ground they go upon, to give Bishops King's tre●…ures and dominions, and make kings to wait on Priests. In dée●…e on this wife your Pope did proudly wrist the Scripture, when he troad on the Emperor's neck, when he turned down hi●… Disdeme with his foot, when he made him dance attendance and blow his nails at his gate, when he made him hold his ●…lurrop, when he made him lead his horse, when he made him kiss his gouty, I should say his golden toa. But this was more than Nero's pride, & is most far from gods liking, from Christ's humility, from the Apostles steps, and clean from the The Prophet speaketh of the Church, & the Papists apply it to the priests Prophets' meaning. The Prophet speaketh of much honour and riches to be given, but to whom? tibi, oh thee. Who was this, the Priest or bishop have you any more she Bishops, or Pope joanes yet, M. Saunders? for the words of the Prophet begin thus: Surge, splendida esto. I trow you will not say this was a Bishop. Not, M. Saunders it was even the wife of Christ, the Church of God, whom he calleth Zion, that the Prophet speaketh unto. These texts therefore being spoken to the Church, that is, to all the faithful people, of whom kings themselves are part so well as any other: it is malapartly d●…ne of you Master Saunders, to ascribe it only to your Bishops. Howbeit, this arrogating the name of the Church to yourselves is not so sa●…cis, but your missunderstanding of this description in a literal sense, being spoken of a mystical The glory that the prophet understandeth mystically, the Papists understand it literally. estate, is no less gross than full of errors. The whole chapter hath many such pro●…ises, of shining, of glory, of glittering, of riches, of waters, of Camels, of colts, of gold, of frank incense, of sheep, of ramines, of do●…es, of ships, of buildings, of walls, of gates, of beech's, of Pines, of box, of sucking, of milk, of brass, of stones, of Iron, of light, of the Sun, of the Moon, of plants, of trees, & such other worldly things, whereby be describeth the beauty and flourishing estate of the Charche, according to the manner of the Hebrews phrases, and the capacity of the jews, that were moved by such worldly things Now cometh Master Saunders, and picketh me out two sentences, and sets them together, being in the text a sunder: That the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls & Kings shall serve thee. And to this he addeth the other sentence in the same Chap. And the sons of them that afflicted thee, shall come to thee humbly, and shall bow themselves even to the plants of thy feet, even all they that despised thee, and call thee the city of the Lord, Zion of the holy Israel. Had you set the sentence down thus far, you had marred all, Master Saunders▪ For than you had bewrayed your wresting of this unto the Bishops. And had you set down all the chapter, you had showed such inconveniences in understanding The Papists & the jews sored in one error of dreaming after worldly glory. this glory of the Church and service of Princes in the literal sense, and after a worldly fashion: that you must needs have confessed all these things, to have other spiritual meanings. Which the Jews not marking, in these and such like prophecies, of the kingdom of the Messiah, and the glory of Zion, but taking the same in the bore sense of the words, as you do, were so sotted on a worldly glory & kingdom, that they quite despised the poverty of Christ, and to this day despise it: looking for a Messiah that (as they sansie) shall reign in all worldly pomp, and subdue all kingdoms and people to him, and therefore they scrape up money so fast to help him. And so you Papists in these prophecies of the kingdom of Christ, and the glory of his Church, have as gross understanding as the jews: and despising the simplicity of the Gospel, nor beholding the spiritual ornaments of the spouse of Christ: think the worship of God lieth in such outward glory. And hearing of obedience & service of Kings to Christ and to his Church: think it consists in this, that Kings must swear to you to renounce their kingdoms, and hold them of the Pope, and be obedient to him, and he & his Prelates must flourish in all worldly pomp and riches. Is not this the jews error up and down? howbeit in oppressing of Kings you are worse than the jews, and in se●…ing 〈◊〉 honour here, very Cerinthians, and shall never have it else where, except you forsake your errors. Your third sentence, Luk. 10. he that despiseth you despiseth Christ's sentemcs wrested. Luc. 10. me: as it maketh nothing for you, being nothing such as those were, whom Christ did send, so being understood of those that are in deed sent of Christ, is nothing to this purpose. We grant that no godly ministers aught to be despised. And if they be, Christ their sender is despised. But as they aught not in their calling, to be despised of the Prince, so no more aught the Prince to be despised of them, much less to be trodden under their feet, and their kingdoms to be taken from them, as your Popes have used them, and you would have them here be spoilt. Whereby it appeareth, that you are not such as Christ doth send, but are of Satan's sending, to breed contempts, seditions, & treasons against Princes, to maintain your pride and carnal pleasures, of whom Saint Jude did jude. epist. prophecy, that defiling your flesh you despise authority, & r●…yle on the Majesty of your Sovereigns. Your fourth sentence, Mat. 16. of Christ saying to Peter, Christ's sentenc●… wrested. Math. 16. Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, is altogether besides the matter. It is your chief place wrested for your Pope's usurpation, but I see not how it is brought in here against the Princes authority, except you will make a king's estate to be the gates of hell. But as the Prince's estate is the ordinance of God, so I rather think the attempt to The gates of hell. depose the Prince, to be, if not the gates of hell▪ yet one of the readiest ways to hell, as we have example of Core, Dathan, and Abiron, that went not by the gate, nor by the postern, but were swallowed up and toombled in quick to hell. And although the rebellious Papists go not down that ways, yet shall they be sure to come to hell, and I think rebellion be one of the broadest gates that hell hath, for Papists on a plompe to enter. Now that M. Samders hath (as he thinketh) with thes●… texts, confirmed the Bishop's refusal of baptizing the king, he will admit the Bishop will baptize him, and see what inconvenience shall ensue. For (says he) if the Bishop will baptize him, whom he heareth Sand. page 80. by name, saying, that he will not submit his Diadem to Christ, or, that is all one, he not will make his kingdom subject to the ministers of Christ, even in the cause of faith: where is that obedience of faith, which the Apostles were sent to procure Rom. 1. in all nations? is it meet 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 sacraments of Christ, to lay the greater ambushments against his Church? for who doubteth, that there is greater danger of the domestical, than of the foreign enemy. Surely M. Saunders, I am of your opinion in this last sentence. Domestical & foreign enemies Out of doubt, there is greater danger of the domestical, than of the foreign enemy. We see the apparent experience in your Pope, that is so much the more perilous enemy to the Christian faith, as he pretendeth to be the vicar of Christ, the servant of the servants of God a father of fathers in Christ's What a perilous enemy the Pope is. Church (for so his name Papa, signifieth) & is in deed a robber of Christ's glory, a hider of Christ's Gospel, a setter up of his own decrees, a spoiler of all kings and kingdoms, a begniler of the people under a show of holiness, an Angel of darkness shining like an Angel of light, a ravening wolf in a sheeps clothing, a child of perdition himself, and pretending to save other from perdition, the man of sin, & calling himself a God. There is greater danger of such a puppet of the devil, thus disguised like a God, than is of the heathen, than is of the jews, than is of Mahomet, than is of the great Turk, than is of the Devil himself. And the like greater danger is of all dissembling Papists in the Courts and Realms of protestant Princes, than is of open Papists & apparent enemies. I beseech God, they may be looked unto, & removed from such places, that there may be less danger of them. Whether the king or the B. in M. Sand. presupposal be more enemy to the Church. As for this Prince and Bishop that M. Saunders maketh his presupposals upon, there is far greater danger to the Church of God in this Bishop, than in this Prince. For first the Prince, not of compulsion, but of his own voluntary, not of craft or malice, or any other sinister affection, but of good heart and mere devotion (for so king Lucius and Clodoveus did) cometh to the Bishop to be baptised, and humbly offereth to acknowledge the faith of Christ. What danger is here toward the Church of Christ by this good Princes offer, or not rather great benefit to the Church of Christ, to have so mighty a Realm as England or France to become Christian, by this offer? why is not this offer taken? for sooth, the B. refuseth it. Is not here a great injury offered to Christ's Church, by this B? but why doth the B. thus? because the Prince will not promise' obedience to the Prelates, and to renounce his kingdom, if he serve from his obedience to them. Is this a sufficient cause, for want of obedience to the Priest, to defeat christ of his obedience? Nay (say you) he made an exception that he would not submit his Diadem to Christ. By your leave M. Saunders, there you say not true. Look on your own presupposal once again, yea, on the words you made the Prince to speak, which although they were of your own devising, for you never, I suppose, herded or read of Prince desirous to be baptised, that spoke on that fashion, you do but tell the Prince's tale to your advantage: yet find you no such words, in the words that you speak for him, yea, he speaketh the contrary, in offering to acknowledge the faith of Christ. But (say you) he would not submit his Diadem & make his kingdom subject in the cause of faith, to the Ministers of Christ, and that is all one with denying to submit his Diadem to Christ. Yea, Master Sanders? were it admitted, you were ministers of Christ, is Christ & you all one? & the submission to Christ & to his ministers all one? Backare M. Sa●…. there is a great difference. And yet christ requireth no submission of Diadems or subjection of kingdoms, in such sort unto him, that he would have kings resign them up to him, and he would take them: not, he never used that practice. He might have had such kingdoms, if he had list, but he refused them, as yourself before have confessed. Although your Pope will have kings resign their kingdoms unto ●…pe can Christ's ●…er. him, and he will take them, and ruffle in greater pomp, than any king useth to do. Which argueth plainly that he is not Christ's minister. And therefore the king hardyly may refuse his unlawful demand, that he would in the name of Christ extort, as Christ's officer, which his master Christ both refused himself, and forbade in his ministers. And therefore the Prince doth christ no injury, because he will not bring his kingdom thrall to a false Priest, pretending to be Christ's Minister, being indeed the Minister of the tempter, that offereth worldly kingdoms. ●…tth. 4. But (say you) he must make his kingdom subject to them, in the cause of faith. As though the cause of faith were he cause of ●…aith. hindered, if the King made not his kingdom subject to the Priests? where as this were the reddiest way, both to destroy the kingdom and the faith? Not (Master Saunders) the faith of christ was never more sincere, than when the Ministers of christ were obedient subjects to their kings. And the cause of faith was never more weakened and corrupted, than sith Priests have wrong themselves out of their king's subjections, and that the Popes have made the Kings swear obedience unto them. But Master Saunders whines at this, crying out: where is the obedience of faith, that Christ sent his Apostles ●…edience of to procure in all the world? You do well (Master Saunders) to ask where it is? for surely it is not with you, nor in all your Popish kingdom, except here and there lurking, and dare not show her head, for fear your Popish Inquisitors, would get her by the poll. The obedience of faith was free, when Priests were subjects: and since Priests become Princes, they have taken her captive, and exiled her, and done all that they could to have killed her. But she is escaped your hands, and requicovereth that liberty, that the Apostles procured in all nations for her. And she doth so much the better, because she rereth not worldly subjection of Princes, but letteth Princes keep the estate of their kingdoms: and requireth not only obedience to her, in a more spiritual submission. Which the more Princes yield unto her, they bring not their kingdoms into more slavery, but into more liberty, renown and honour. So that I trust shortly, they will bring the Pope and his proud Prelates, to their old obedience again. Why (say you) this is to arm Princes against the Church. Nay Master Saunders, it is rather to strengthen the Church, to let Princes have that armour that is due unto them. What? (say you) to let them do what they will, and for nothing they shall do, to say they will not leave their Empire? No body Master Saunders, giveth Prince's authority to do what they will. The authority that is given them, is What thep●…inces will aught to be? only to do good. Their will must not be what they will, but what Law will. It is not with them, as it is with your Pope: Sic volo, sic jubeo, stet pro ratione voluntas. Thus I will, and thus I command, my will shall stand in stead of reason. The Law is not with them in scrinio pectoris, in the coffer of the breast, as your Pope saith it is in his. I grant, there are Princes that do thus, but that is not their duty: Neither do Princes make a profession (as you say) that for nothing they will give over their authority, nor it is required of them, nor presupposed. But their duty in their offic●… is required, and it is presupposed they will continued therein. Which if they do not, but break promise, shall the subjects depose them, or the Bishops deprive them? by which rule they may quickly set upon the Prince, for any enormity in civil matters too, for he promised to minister justice to all men: but he promised to none, to give up his crown, if he did not. Yea, though he had made them some such express promise also, and broke it: yet could no Bishop, nor any other private person, attempt to depose him, for the breach thereof, but commit the vengeance to God. But this Prince that here is presupposed, offereth enough unto the Bishop, which if he refuse, not the Prince, but the Bishop endamageth the Church of Christ. Now Master Saunders, presupposing in this supposal, that he hath clearly evicted the case, where the Bishop by express words maketh this condition with the king: he will pursue his victory that he thinketh he hath got, and prove that the king hath promised, and is bound even as much, where the bishop at his baptism saith no such words unto him. But if so be (says he) all men will confess, that no Bishop Sand. 80. can give baptism, without great sin, to that king, whom he seethe so proud: then truly although the Bishop by negligence, or forgetfulness, shall say nothing hereof unto the king, notwithstanding such is the obedience that the king himself giveth unto the Gospel of Christ, when he maketh himself a member of him, and desireth of him to be saved, that will he, nill he, this promise is contained in that fact, that he shall minister unto Christ, and to the Church of Christ, either in making laws for it, or in taking arms for it, or in giving his life for his brethren, and much more in yielding or giving up his kingdom for his salvation. If any man come to me (says Christ) and hate not his father and mother, 〈◊〉. 14. and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his life also, he can not be my disciple. But any kingdom aught not be dearer to a king, than his own life. Therefore sith every Christian aught to give his life for Christ: how much more aught any king rather to hate his kingdom, than that he should forsake Christ. But and if any man that cometh to Christ, think with himself otherwise than thus, he doth nothing but deceive himself. For in that that Christ hath set this law in his Gospel, that no man should come to him, that is to say, enter into his Church, but he that should be ready rather to forsake all the goods of this world, than leave the faith of Christ: then in that that any Christian king is made a Christian, he promises not only to fosake his kingdom, but his life also, rather than he should bring offence to his brethren. If therefore the same king shall so sin against the Christian faith, that by no means he will be amended: he may by the ministers of Christ be deprived of his kingdom. Not that all temporal kingdoms, are under the ministers of Christ: but because the kingdoms of all Christian Princes, by the nature of the thing that is done, are made subject to them, so oft as it is expedient for the salvation of the people, that the kingdoms should either this way, or that way, be translated. Here is a fair tale M. Saunders, but a foul conclusion. bishops translations of king domes this way or that way. The drift of all, is this, bishops may translate kingdoms either this way or that way, as they shall think expedient for the people's salvation How say you M. Saunders, is not this your conclusion? you make exception that all kingdoms be not under you▪ as though some were, as indeed you have got too many under you. Where Christ says, you shall have none under you, but you will needs have some. Yea, by this rule you will have all christian kingdoms under you. For how are they not under you, if they may be translated this way, or that way, and given to this man or to that man, as oft as you shall think it expedient? are not you then the Kings of Kings, when you may depose and set up Kings, and altar clean topsy-turvy) which you call translating) the state of every kingdom, at your pleasures? Indeed Master Saunders, the Bishop said not thus much before to the King that would be baptised. Well, say you, it was but his negligence, or forgetfulness. And what if he said nothing hereof? yet he meant it, yea, and the King Whether the kings promise' in baptism stretch to suffering the Bishop to depose him. himself promised it. Where find you that Master Saunders? Yes (say you) he promised that and more too, when he made himself a member of christ, and desired of christ to be saved. For in that doing (will he, nill he) this promise is contained, that he shall minister to Christ, and to the Church of christ, either in making Laws for it, or in taking Arms for it, or in giving his life for his brethren, and much more, giving up his kingdom for their salvation. You jumble many things together, Master Saunders. And yet, go to, we grant you all this, the King promised thus much, but not, will he, nill he, in spite of his beard: he did it willingly, in offering to acknowledge the faith of christ, wherein he promised to minister to christ, and to the Church of Christ, as you say. But whether you be Christ or no, I think the King will make no question. But perhaps he may move the question, whether you be the Church, yea, any part of the Church of Christ, or no. And if he find you to be (which I doubt me, will be an hard matter The kings mi nistration to Christ and his Church. to persuade the king, if it be well examined:) well then, the King shall minister unto you. But how shall he minister? as your slave, and be at commandment? I think (Master Saunders) you can not pick that out of his promise. Nay yourself expound the contrary, saying, that he shall make Laws for the Church. If you then be the Church (as you pretend to be) he must make Laws for you. But the Law maker to any body (by your own saying, and by good reason) is above the parties, for whom he maketh Laws, and therefore the king, not only in the ruling of you, but even in his ministering unto you, is above you. Now if he find you not to be of the Church: then must he make laws, and minister justice against you, for usurping that title, and deceiving of his people. But (say you) he must give his life for his brethren, much more his kingdom for their salvation. How the king ought to forsake his life or his kingdom. You say well (Master Sanders) he aught to do so, if the forsaking his kingdom or his life, would be his brethren's salvation. But you put a hard case, and not commonly seen, for I think the people's getting of salvation, lieth not upon the kings losing his life or kingdom, but only upon jesus christ. If you speak of other accidents and occasions: twenty to one, the people are oftener in more danger by the king's death or deposition, than by his life or government, except he be a very tyrant, and indeed his life and government may do much hurt, and it were better he were fair buried, or did resign, than he should govern God's people. But God knoweth best what he hath to do, and can take him away when he will, or can suffer him to scourge and exercise his people with affliction. The chaff and stubble will burn with fire, but the Gold is purified, the 1. Cor. 3. elect are tried, and are not damned by his tyranny, nor they consent unto his wickedness, nor yet they revolt from his obedience, nor rebel and depose him, but possess their souls in patience, and cry to God to succour them. Lucae. 21. Now as it falls out thus in the worst case that you can put, that no Bishop, nor other subject may depose his Sovereign: so in a good Prince no such thing is to be feared. And since it is to men uncertain, how the king will prove, they judge and hope the best, because they know not the worst, and extort no such promise of him. Much less aught they to make a rule, that he shall resign or suffer death, when the people will have him, and say, his life or government hinders their salvation: or when the Bishops shall say, it is hurtful to them: then at the Bishops so saying, the king must either loose his kingdom, or his life: this is a hard case, M. Saunders, for poor kings, and trow you, this is contained in their promise? Well (say you) Christ said, if any man come to me and hate not his father, his mother, his wife, his children, yea, his life for me, he can not be my Disciple, much more than must Luke. 14. he hate his kingdom, and be ready to leave his kingdom, and all the good in the world for Christ, or else he is no Christian. You say true, M. Sanders, he must forsake and hate all for Christ's sake. But that he must do this for your bishop's sakes, when they will say, it is expedient he should so do: that I find not in the words of Christ, and yet must you beware how you expound that saying. For he is bond also, to love and to keep to the uttermost, all these things, in their kinds, & not to renounce nor hate them, except they hinder him from Christ, whom he must prefer before all things. But this love to Christ in principal, may stand together with these loves well enough. Neither is he any more bound to resign his kingdom, than to resign his wife into the priests hands. Nor if he abuse his kingdom, the Priest can no more turn him out of it, than he can, if he abuse his goods and his wife, turn him not of his doors, and take his goods and his wife from him, and keep her himself, or give her unto an other. This can not the Bishop do, although the Prince and every man be bound to loose all for Christ's cause. Yea, the Bishop is bound hereto as well as any other. And God knows how some of them keep this bond, and yet will not they lose one halfpennie for Christ's sake, howsoever they break it. But the kingdom is a ●…oule moat in their eye, and therefore the King, poor soul, must loose all, and they must take it from him. But now to Master Saunders other arguments. Moreover the kingdoms of faithful Princes, whose people Sand. page 80. fear God, are not altogether earthly or worldly. For in that part that they have believed in Christ, they have as it were left to be of this world, and have begun to be members of the eternal kingdom, for although the outward face of things, which is found in kingdoms mere secular, be in a Christian kingdom: yet sith the spirit of man is far the more excellent part of him, and the whole spirit acknowledgeth Christ his King and only Lord: I see nothing, why Christian kingdoms Christian king domes are not mere secular. 1. Reg. 15. aught not rather to be judged spiritual, according to their better part, than earthly. And this is the cause why now long since, those which governed the people of God were wont to be anointed of his Ministers no otherwise than were 2. Paral. 26. the Prophets and Priests. For even the Kings themselves also are after a sort partakers of the spiritual ministery when they are anointed: not that they should do those things that are committed to the only Priests hereunto orderly consecrated, but that those things, which other Kings refer to a profane and worldly end, these Kings should now remember, that they ought to direct to an holy end. For when they themselves are made spiritual, it is fit they should will, that all their things should be counted as it were spiritual. But now are spiritual things, so under the Church of Christ that the Church may freely dispose and decree of them, to the profit of the whole mystical body. Sith therefore the people of Israel would needs desire a King to be given them: Samuel 1. Reg. 15. by the commandment of God, took a cruse of oil, and powered it upon the head of Saul, and kissed him, and said, behold God anointeth thee, to be the Prince over his inheritance. Which to me seemeth to signify, even as though it had been said, except the Lord anointed thee to be the Prince, thou couldst not rightly and orderly be the Prince over his people, which he hath choose, and reserved out of all the world to be as it were peculiar to himself. For in that that is gods, no man can take power to himself without God's permission. But God anointed Saul to be the Prince not by himself but by Samuel his minister: wherefore whosoever ruleth over the Christian people (which is no less acceptable to God, than was the people of the jews) he, besides the right, which he receiveth of God by the consent of the people, aught also to acknowledge his power to be of Christ by his Ministers, if so be that he be such an one that worshippeth the Faith of Christ. Whereupon to this day all Christian kingdoms are anointed of some Christian Bishop or some other Minister of God, referring therein their principality not only to the people, and so unto God, but that moreover by the Priests of Christ, they refer it unto Christ, whose Ministers they are. For Pope Leo written elegantly Leo in epist. 2●…. alias. 75. unto Leo the Emperor. Thou oughtest to mark steadfastly, the Kingly power not only to be given to thee, to the government of the world, but to be given thee chief for the succour of the Church, that in suppressing naughty attempts, thou shouldst both defend those things, that are well decreed, and restore the true peace, to those things that are troubled. If Master Saunders would go plainly to work, and make his arguments short and formal, and would rather show his Logic than his Rhetoric: the truth or falsehood would appear the sooner, the reader perhaps might be the less delighted, but without perhaps, he should be less beguiled, and the answer might be the clearer and the shorter. ●…ll this long argument in effect is this: All spiritual things are so under the Church of Christ, that the Church may freely dispose and decree of them to the profit of the whole mystical body. All Christian Kings and kingdoms are spiritual things. Ergo, all Christian Kings and Kingdoms are so under the Church of Christ, that she may freely dispose and decree of them, to the profit of the whole mystical body. And first Master Saunders travels in the Minor. To prove Christian Kings and Kingdoms spiritual, that because the better part of them is spiritual, therefore he seethe nothing why they ought not to be rather judged spiritual. Yea Kings were wo●…e to be anointed no otherwise than Prophets and Priests, not to do their actions, but to refer all their affairs to holy and spiritual dedes. And can you see this Master Sanders. Now? how chance Supra pag. you could not seeit before, when you made the Christian Princes civil power, to be no better than the Turks, or Tartars, to stretch no further than to the body & a quiet life? & have you now espied not only the ends whereunto they rule, but the estate also itself, by reason of the better part to be spiritual? what hath made you see so clearly now? forsooth now is now, and then was then. You were pleading then, that the Christian Princes civil estate, was so far different and unlike, that Princes might not meddle in spiritual matters, and therefore then was fit opportunity, to deny that Christian Princes Civil power, had any spiritual thing in it. But now we are in another argument, that Priests may order and dispose Kingdoms, and depose Kings as they shall think expedient: and to prove this▪ we must say they be in the Church's power, and to prove that, we must say they are spiritual▪ and so, spiritual men may deal with spiritual things. And for this reason, we can see no cause now, but that Christian Kingdoms are spiritual that we spiritual men, which are the Church, might have the M. Saunders contradiction and legerdemay●…. disposing of them. Well then I see also (Master Saunders) that for advantage you can, and you can not see. And play seest me, and seest me not. But who seethe not, that hath any indifferent eyes, that this is but legerdemain, and that you speak flat contraries in one thing, although you turn your tale to other purposes? But let go that you see not before, & let us look what you M. Saunders seethe now that Christian Princes are spiritual. see in Princes now. Now you see that they are spiritual. And why so? not because they do the spiritual actions of the Priests, but because of their better part, that is, of the spirit of God, and because of the end whereto they drive all their things, to become as it were spiritual. Why then M. Saunders your eyes might serve you (if your heart could serve you) to see this withal, that although the Prince can not do the spiritual actions of spiritual people, yet this hindereth not, that he may notwithstanding be a governor over ecclesiastical people, in causes ecclesiastical and may oversee them both. And if you can see the one and not the other, surely your sight is partial. But new M. Saunders looking another way, will have Princes no further spiritual, than in that they are under the Church. And here, making the Mayor the Minor, the former the later, by a figure called Hysteron proteron, the cart before the horse: he will prove, that all spiritual things are so much under the Church of Christ, that the Church may freely dispose and decree of them, to the profit of the whole mystical body: and so, Kings and Kingdoms, (as is said before) being spiritual things, are so much under the Church of Christ, that she may freely, to the profit of the whole mystical body, dispose and decree of Kings and kingdoms. But first Master Saunders we deny your Mayor. For although in certain things it be true, to wit, in such things as are left to the disposition of the Church, that is, to order and The Church's disposition of things indifferent. dispose such things, as of their nature are indifferent, to the profit of the whole mystical body, or any part thereof, (for these things, are called spiritual things, not properly, in their own nature, but as in spiritual causes the spiritual people use them) and yet all this is not so freely left to the Church's disposition, that some principal people in the Church (as the Prince, or the Pastors) have not the chiefest stroke in the disposition of them. For if they were so free, that every member in the Church should have his nay or yea in disposing of them, when would they be disposed? And if at To whom in the church the disposition of indifferent things belongeth. Things mere spiritual, and things spiritual in some respect. length they were, it would peradventure fall out in the end, so little to the profit of the whole mystical body, that it would be rather the hindrance and disquieting of it. But besides these spiritual things, there are a great many other, of which, some in deed are mere spiritual as the word of God, the Sacraments of Christ, the Articles of faith, the Commandments of life, and all such things as God hath either expressed in his word, or is necessarily contained in it. These things being spiritual, are not so under the church of Christ, that the church may freely dispose and decree of them. But they stately dispose and decree Mere spiritual things may not be otherwise disposed. of the church, and the church can not altar nor serve one jot from them. Which if she should, she should not profit herself, (for she is the whole mystical body) but destroy herself, and dissolve the whole body, and every part thereof. And such as these things are, is the estate of a King and kingdom, which although it be not so mere a spiritual thing, but so far forth spiritual as yourself confess: yet because it is the ordinance of God, and God hath in his word set forth the office of a King, and declareth What kind of thing the state of a King or kingdom is. that the setting up and pulling down of Kings, and the alterations of kingdoms, belongeth to himself, and never gave that authority to his Church, much less to his Ministers, to set up and depose Kings, and altar kingdoms: Kings therefore and their kingdoms, no more than other spiritual things, are not so under the church of Christ, that she may freely dispose and decree of them, to the profit of the whole mystical body. Neither hath the whole mystical body any more thraldom, or less freedom, that Kings and kingdoms are not so under her, or that she may not freely dispose and decree of them, as she shall think most profitable to the whole mystical body: than she hath more thraldom, or less freedom, because she can not altar nor dispose the other spiritual things. Yea in this case, the Church loseth less liberty than in the other, for the freedom of the Church▪ being a mystical The Church's freedom mystical . body, is clean another matter pertaining to the conscience, and is a mystical freedom, from the tyranny of Satan, from the curse of the law, from the bondage of sin, from ceremonies, and human constitutions: and not from obedience to kings, and to have superiority over them, and liberty to depose them, and to translate their kingdoms. Which freedom and superiority is not spiritual, but carnal and worldly. And if the Church had it, she would not only bring kings and kingdoms, but even herself in bondage, and therefore Christ hath barred it. Which freedom, because the Popish Church aspireth The Popish Church. unto, and claimeth, and holdeth over▪ kings and kingdoms: she is not the true Church of Christ, that they boast of, but rather a jewish synagogue, dreaming upon an earthly Messiah, or rather a Persian or Turkish Temple, that measureth the freedom and dignity of God's Church, by the pomp and might of the world, to depose kings, and dispose of their kingdoms at their pleasures. But to prove that kings and kingdoms pertain not to the free disposition of the Church, but of God: I will desire no better proves nor example than even M. Saunders here brings forth. Scythe therefore (saith he) the▪ people of Israel would needs desire a king to be given them, Samuel by the commandment of God, took a cruse of oil, and powered it upon the head of Saul, and kissed him▪ and said: 1. Reg. 15. behold God anoy●…teth thee, to be the Prince over his Inheritance which to me seemeth to signify, as though it had been said, except the Lord anointed thee to be the Prince, thou couldst not rightly and orderly be the Prince over his people, which he hath choose and reserved out of all the world to be, as it were, peculiar to himself. For in that that is Gods, no man can take power to himself, without God's permission. If this be true that here you say, M. Saunders (as it is The example of Samuels anointing of Saul. most true) if Samuels words do so sound in your ears, as though he had said, Saul could not be king over God's people, except the Lord anointed him: If the Lord reserve this prerogative to himself, to appoint Princes, and give kingdoms where he only pleaseth: how then is this true, that kings and kingdoms are so under the Church that she may freely dispose & decree of them as she pleaseth? Although the Church be the lords spouse and wife, yet is she not her M Saunders confutes himself. self the Lord, nor the Lord is ruled by her, but she by the Lord, neither hath he given her this prerogative, but as you here confess, it is a thing belonging only to him. And therefore by your own confession, Kings and kingdoms are not so under the Church, that she may dispose and decree as she thinketh good of them. And as your own witness thus beateth yourself, in your own example: So to consider this example further. Saul was appointed King of God, and though at the first he was a good King, yet afterward he become both a tyrant in life, and an Apostata in doctrine, by which occasion he was a great offence to the Church of God. What now? did the Church of God say, she had such freedom over him and his kingdom, that she might freely dispose and decree thereof as should be profitable for the whole▪ mystical body. Surely to the Church's judgement, it appeared more profitable, if this ill King had been deposed, and some other godly man placed in his steed, much more if David had been placed▪ whom GOD likewise had anointed to be their King. Did the Church this? Not, could they have done this? Not, they had no such freedom, but they let The Church could not depose Saul, though he were a tyrant and an Apostata. Proverb. 8. Dan. 2. Saul alone, and committed the case to God, who, at his good opportunity, as he only sent the king, so he only took him away, and sent them another. For only God transposeth kingdoms, and not the Church, as he himself testifieth (who is the best judge we can appeal unto) saying: Per me Reges regnant, kings rule by me, and not by my Church. And so confesseth Daniel: He changeth times and ages, he translateth kingdoms, and establisheth them. His Church therefore hath not the free disposition of them. But saith master Saunders: God anointed Saul to be Sand. 81. the Prince, not by himself, but by his Minister: wherefore whosoever ruleth over the Christian people (which is no less acceptable to God than was the people of the jews) he besides the right that he received by the consent of the people, aught also to acknowledge his power, to be of Christ by his Ministers, if so be that he be such an one, as worshippeth the faith of Christ. Whereupon to this day, all christian Kings are anointed of some christian Bishop, or some other minister of God, referring therein their principality, M. Saunders bious conclusion. not only to the people, and so unto God: But refer it besides, by the Ministers of Christ, to Christ, whose Ministers they are. Your argument is this: The King is anointed of God. But this is done by the ministery of God's Prophets or Ministers: Ergo, Not only God, but his Ministers have the free disposing and decreeing of Kings and kingdoms. Your conclusion is not in so plain English, but colourably you fetch the matter about the bush, saying: therefore they must refer their principality, not only to the people, and so to God: but refer it besides by the ministers of Christ, to Christ, whose ministers they are. What need this nice dalliance and circumquaques, M. Saunders? that almost men can scarce tell what you mean, but that you mean some falsehood. If you mean, they should refer it to the Ministers of Christ: that is an untruth. If you mean, they must refe●…e it so to Christ by his Ministers, that it takes the authority of the Ministers: that is another untruth. If you mean, it must be referred to Christ, that worketh it by the ministery of his Ministers (howbeit there is no such necessity neither, in the making The Bishop's ministery in the making of the king. of Kings, although it be orderly and ordinarily done by their ministery) yet what serveth this to the purpose? Speak plainly man, and say: the king is made king by the Bishops: Ergo, the Bishops may dispose and decree of him and his kingdom, and may depose him, and give the kingdom to another, as they shall think good▪ For this is your plain drift. But we deny your argument, for by the like you might make every man's baptism and saith to hung of the free disposition, decreeing and alteration of the Minister, sith these things are received by the Minister, but the force of them depends not on the minister. And much less that because such a Bishop crowned the King, therefore he may rule the King, and have free disposition to decree what the King shall do, and whether he shall continued King or no. Not, M. Saund. and if he had the authority to make the King: yet the King being made, it followeth not, that he may mar him too. But the most that you can make of the Minister in the King's Coronation▪ is but, Causa sine qua non, that he can not well be made without him, and yet in very deed, it is not so much, and therefore this is but a slender argument. But see, how you run here craftily from the Church, to the Bishop your argument was of the Church, and your conclusion is of the Bishop. Whereby you mean that your Prelates only are of the church▪ Which as it is most false, so is it rather to be examined, whether you be any ministers or parts of the church at all if you speak of the church of Christ. For (as was showed before) neither the church▪ nor the spiritual Ministers of Christ▪ did ever take upon them, this deposing of kings, and disposing of kingdoms that you challenge. Samuel whom you cite, had been a governor Samuel. by an extraordinary calling, being the last judge before the Kings, but after he had▪ anointed and declared Saul to be king he never took upon him, the public government of the kingdom. And though God sent him to tell Saul, how God would cast him off, and though also God had him anoint another: yet would he not med●…e in the government, nor depose Saul, nor incite David or the people to depose him, although God had cast him clean off, but only mourned for him. If you can show any example of the contrary, I am sure we shall hear it, but as yet we hear of none. You tell us of an elegante sentence of Pope Leo, to the Emperor Leo. But as there is no great elegancy in Pope Leo his sentenc●…. it, so it maketh nothing to this purpose: and the purpose that it maketh for, is rather for the Prince's government in ecclesiastical, causes than against it. Howbeit to allege a Pope, for the usurpation of the Pope, is to much partiality, besides that Leo is to be burdened with ●…oule crimes in this matter, for his practices against the Emperor, as we shall God willing see hereafter. But M. Sanders, to prove that the ministery of the minister, argueth he hath authority to dispose of the King and his kingdom, proceedeth thus. But that the government of a christian king ought to be Sand. pag. ●…. referred to Christ, it hath flowed from nothing, but from the mystery of the incarnation of Christ, that all Christian kings should acknowledge the human nature of Christ, to be above their principality, and therefore should understand, that they are inferior to the Ministers of Christ, in those things that pertain to the faith of Christ, or to eternal life. To what purpose otherwise belongeth, that solemn anointing and consecrating of Kings, which is Chrysost. Homil. 4. in verba Esaiae. wont to be done by the Priests of Christ? Greater (saith chrysostom) is the principality of the Priest, than of the King. Therefore the King submitteth his head to the hand of the Priest. And every where in the old Testament, the priests anointed the Kings. And truly if the people of God differ from all people, by the gift of faith, and as the Priests are the Ministers of setting forth the faith: so the blessing and consecration of the Priests, that they give to the Kings, is an especi●…ll token, whereby the mystery of the Incarnation of Christ, and the principality of his Ministers in dispensing that mystery is acknowledged. M. Saunders still beats upon his former argument, and drives his reason thus: If the anointing of the king hath a mystery of his obedience The kinge●… anointing. to the Incarnation and humanity of Christ: then the King must understand that he is inferior to the Ministers of Christ, in those things that pertain to the faith of Christ, or to eternal life, because they are the Ministers in dispensing that mystery. But the solemn anointing & consecrating of kings, which is wont to be done by the Priests of Christ, serveth to no other purpose, than to declare the obedience of Kings to the Incarnation and humanity of Christ: Ergo, The King must understand, that he is inferior to the Ministers of Christ, in those things that pertain to the faith of Christ, or to eternal life, because they are the Ministers in dispensing that mystery. First in this conclusion here is nothing pertaining to the present purpose, that the Ministers of Christ may depose Kings, and dispose their kingdoms▪ which is the thing that should be concluded. There is a great different between those things that ●…ayne to the faith of Christ, to eternal life, to the dispensati●… of the mystery of Christ's Incarnation and human nature: and the governing of a kingdom. In the dispensation▪ of the one, we grant the king to be inferior to the Ministers of Christ. But in the dispensation of the other, the Ministers of Christ are inferior to the king. So that this conclusion is not to the purpose▪ And although this answer is sufficient to this argument: yet let us see his handling the parts thereof. And first, we den●…e the sequel of the mayor, that if the kings anointing hath a mystery of his obedience, to the incarnation and humane nature of Christ, that then the king is inferior to the minister of Christ, in those things that pertain to the faith of Christ, and to eternal life, because he is the minister in dispensing that mystery. For this is no good reason: he is the Minister whereby the thing is done: Ergo, he is the superior in the thing that is done▪ We might better reason on the contrary: he is the Minister: Ergo▪ in that respect he is the inferior, for ministration is a service. howbeit we deny not the superiority of his ministery, but the noughtiness of this argument. For by this reason, see how his argument beats himself and his Pope. The Pope is ordinarily consecrated of a Cardinal or a Bishop: Ergo, the Pope is inferior▪ to the Cardinals and Bishops in m●…tters of faith and eternal life▪ because the Cardinals or Bishops are the Ministers in dispensing that mystery. Will the Pope allow of this? and yet this is master Saunders reason, yea it is the Popes own reason. For Bonifacius the eight (of whom the Proverb went. He came in like a Fox, and ruled like a Lion, and died like a dag) used this self same arguments, from whom In extravag de Maiorit. & obed. unam sanctam. master▪ Sanders borroweth it: that the Pope doth consecrated the Emperor: Ergo, the Pope is 〈◊〉 to the Emperor: that Bishops do consecrated Kings, Ergo, Bishops are superior to kings. Which argument as it is naught, so even the antecedent may be called in question. For it is not long that Popes have consecrated Emperors, neither always The Bishop's consecration of a king. have Kings been consecrated of Priests and Bishops, so that it is not simply so necessary a thing that a King is not ●… king if he be not consecrated of them. But as in Matrimony it is a godly and comely order, that, although the marriage be made in their betrouthing (as you said before, when the man said to the woman, I take thee to my wife, and the woman to the man, I take thee to my husband) yet for the avoiding of offence: for the more reverence and estimation of the estate, for the better calling upon God to bless it, it is done solemnoly the in temple, in the presence of the congregation, by the ministery, prayers, and blessing of the minister: The like and greater solemnity is in a Prince's consecration, for the avoiding of offences, for the greater reverence and estimation, and for the more effectual calling upon God for his blessing of the King's royal estate, although he were full and lawful King before. And so the King giveth the date of his reign not from his Coronation, but from the beginning of his calling to his regiment. And at his coronation, as the Bishop hath his peculiar office, so diverse other peers have there's likewise, requisite to the celebration thereof. But none of them do thereupon claim, to be the Prince's superior, although one give him his sword, another give him his Sceptre, another give him the Ball, another give him the Crown, to whom the keeping of th●…se things belong. And why should the Bishop more than all these, claim to be his superior, because he doth consecrated the King? but the ensample is evident to the contrary. For even at the King's coronation, the Bishops, so well as any other subjects, do their homage, & receive their temporal●…ies from the Prince, for all their consecration of him, and therefore they can no more dispose of the King's temporalities, and depose him from them, than any of the other subjects can. And thus much M. Saunders to the Mayor of your argument. To the Minor I answer, that whether the anointing of the King, signify any other thing, besides the King's obedience, to the incarnation and humane nature of Christ: it makes no matter. For this it signifieth not, that the King should be obedient, to the disposition of the humane minister of Christ, which is the question now in hand. And yet whether it signify this mystery, that you say it only doth, or no: may be called into question. For if it hath such a signification, it is a very dark mystery. And me thinks it might The diverse significations of oil in the scriptures. more easily signify other things. For oil sometimes signifieth mercy, sometimes plenty, sometimes remedy against poison, sometimes it is referred to the Priesthood, sometimes, to the kingdom of Christ, sometimes to the mystical members of Christ, as they are Kings & Priests with him: so that the anointing with oil (which especially was used to Priests and Kings, who therefore are called the sons of oil) is applied to sundry significations, and not only to the incarnation and humane nature of Christ. And yet is No necessity of anointing Kings. there no such necessity of anointing Christian Kings, as was of the jewish Kings. For they had commandment so to do, and it was a ceremonial figure of diverse things in Christ. Which commandment and ceremonies, Christian Princes are not bond unto. It is cropen up of a custom I cannot tell how, to imitate the jews herein. But as for the nature of a King's estate, he is never a whit the less King, if he want the anointing with oil, and as the Papists superstitiously do use it, it were much better away. But the Papists make a great matter of anointing Kings with oil, yea, saith Master Saunders, they were wont to be anointed no otherwise than were the Prophets and Priests: as though they should be so anointed still. And true it is in one sense, that they should no other wise be so anointed still, that is to say, neither of them should be anointed. Not? say you, should not the Priests be anointed▪ We are. In deed you be, Master Saunders, and all your order. But the Apostles and Disciples of Christ were not, and therefore your order is differing from there's, and all godly ministers should differ from yours, be you shorn, or be you anointed. But if it be true that you say kings should be no otherwise anointed than you: how chance than you are anointed otherwise than kings, as your gloss doth reason: that upon the King is powered oil, but upon the Bishop is powered Chrism. King's are anointed on the right shoulder, but Bishops and Priests are anointed upon their heads: but the head is better than the shoulder, and Chrism is better than oil: Ergo, Bishops and Priests are superior unto Kings. Were In Extanag de Maiorit. etc not they which anointed their pamphlets with such greasy arguments, to perch up their bald crowns, above the imperial crowns of their natural Sovereigns, worthy by the Princes commandment to be well anointed with unguentum baculinum, to make them acknowledge their due subjection, if they rather deserve not sharper justice? but let us proceed unto M. Saunders other arguments. Let us put the case, that Christ himself is at this day conversant Sand. pag. 81. in the earth, as he was conversant in times passed. Can any man doubt, but in that he is man, all Christian kings, aught to be under his government both in all eccl. and in those secular causes, that may promote the cause of the church: for he shall reign in the house of jacob for ever and there shall be no 〈◊〉. 1. end of his kingdoms. If therefore earthly Kings are part of the house of jacob, Christ shall reign over them, and shall subdue their Kingdoms to his spiritual Kingdom. But whatsoever power was necessary unto Christ to eternal salvation, he transformed the external and and visible ministery thereof unto the Apostles, when he said, as my father hath sent me so I sand you. The Apostles therefore and their successors, do no joh. 20. less rule in spiritual causes over Christian Kings, so far as the visible ministery, than Christ himself is in truth over them so far as the holy power of his humane nature. Whereupon saith Epiphanius: Christ hath given a kingdom to those Epiphanius in Hares. 29. that are placed under him, that it should not be said, he proceedeth from little things to greater. The throne of Christ abideth, and of his kingdom there is no end, and he sitteth upon the throne of David, so that he hath translated the kingdom of David together with the Bishopric, and hath given it unto his servants, that is, to the Bishops of the Catholic Church. Behold so well the priestly as the Kingly power, is 1. Cor. 15. communicated to the pastors of the Church of Christ, that by that means, Christ should be declared, to reign for ever, yea, even as a spiritual and heavenly man. And this truly doth that anointing testify that the Kings receive of Priests. The argument is thus: If Christ himself were conversant in earth, in his humane nature, as he hath been: he should have over all Christian kings, all eccl. and secular power, in those things that might promote the Church. But Christ hath given to his ministers in the visible ministery, all the power necessary to salvation over Christian kings, that belongeth to himself in his humane nature. Ergo, he hath given his Ministers in the visible ministery, all ecclesiastical and secular power in those things that may promote the Church. First this argument standeth upon another presupposal, M. Sand. case if Christ were here bodily conversant in the earth. which as it is no less false than the other: so is it more impossible, being flat contrary to the wort of God, and to the will of Christ. He puts a case that Christ would come again, and in his humane nature be conversant upon the earth as he was from his nativity till his death. Good Lord M. Saunders is your cause so bad and false, that you are still driven to these shifts, to put the cases, of false and forged presupposals? if your cause were good it would stand of itself, you might go plainly to work, and never reason upon such devised cases, as you know and believe shall never be true, except you be a millenary indeed, (as you gave before a shrewd suspicion of that heresy) to think Christ shall come again, and here for a thousand years in all worldly might and glory, reign in the earth, and then go devil in heaven. But perhaps you will say, what? will you let me to put what case I life? when the sky falls, they say, we shall have Larks. True, M. Saunders, we can not let you, to put what case you list, be it never so absurd and repugnant to the truth. But is this the readiest way to bolt out the truth, to put the case of an evident untruth, and to imagine that to come that never shall be, to infer that usurpation of your Priests, that is, and aught not to be? But see how soon your argument is overturned. For if your case be not admitted, then is all your labour lost, and you have won nothing for your Priests. But the Scripture is manifest, that this M. Saunder●… case unrtue. Act. 3. Math. 24. shall never come to pass. And that the heavens contain Christ, till the day of judgement, he is neither here nor there, in his humane nature, as Christ himself hath testified. Which as it dasheth this your case ye put: so it confuteth an other chief error of yours, that affirm ye have the humane nature of Christ, closed up in a box, and that ye Christ's humane nature not in the Sacrament. eat him up, or keep him up, till he wax mouldy, and then you burn him up. Is this the best honour you can afford to Christ, being conversant here in earth in his humane nature? If it be true that you say he is present, how chance ye serve him thus? is it because he appeareth not in his likeness, but looketh rather like a wafer? if it were Christ indeed: howsoever he looked, can you find in your hearts thus to order him? But you will say: that is an other matter, answer to this presupposal. We speak now of Christ appearing in his own likeness. How say you, if he were conversant in earth as he was, should he not over Christian Kings have superiority, in temporal causes so well as in ecclesiastical, that might promote his Church? I answer, if this were admitted to be true, that Christ again were conversant If Christ were in hi●… huma●…n nature in the earth, what superiority should be given him. on the earth, Christian Kings aught (no doubt) to give him all superiority, and be under him in all ecclesiastical and temporal causes, that might promote his Church, acknowledging all the power they have to proceed from him. But that Christ, if he were again on the earth, would reign over Kings, and in his humane nature rule Kings in their secular causes, or that he would think this a way to promote the Church, or that he would depose Princes, and make their subjects revolt from their obedience, or that he would cease their kingdoms into his hands, and make Kings to kiss his feet, to lead his Horse, to hold his sturrops, or that he would wear three Crowns, and Princely robes of gold fret with pearl and stone, or that he would keep such a princely port and pomp, as passed all other Princes: which things your Pope, pretending to be his vicar in the absence of his humane nature, doth: this would be hard for you to prove M. Saunders, although your case were granted, that Christ personally in his humane nature were conversant in earth again. For if he would have had any of these things, he might have had them when he was here on earth, as yourself confessed in the Chapter going before saying: This in this kind I will speak, as the chiefest argument, that Christ while he was here in earth, and fulfilled all the law and all righteousness: notwithstanding he would govern eccl. matters only, as a Priest, and by no means as an earthly King. For he openly refused to administer an earthly kingdom, & therefore fled, when he see the people go about to do this thing, that they might make him a king, & he denied that he was appointed a divider between the brethren. Are not these your own words M. Sand? I know you What kingdom Christ would take upon him & he were here in earth. wrist them to an other purpose, which there is answered unto. But how serve they not here against yourself▪ trow you Christ is now become of an other mind, than he was when he was here on earth? if he be still of the same mind, than would he not take upon him, if he were here again on earth, the estate of an earthly King, nor govern in secular causes. But trow you, your Pope pretending to be his vicar, would suffer this, & cheese the temporalties he possesseth, the kingdoms he hath got, the honour that is given him, or any thing else, that in eccl. & secular causes (under pretence of the Church's promotion, he usurpeth over all kings Christian? no, he would rather handle Christ worse (if he How the pope would order him. could lay hands upon him) then ever did the jews, he would not only crucify Christ again, but burn him clean to ashes for an here●…ike, rather than he would loose this honour, or any jot thereof. But and if Christ were here again, conversant on earth in his humane nature, would he suffer the Pope's intolerable pride and errors? would he allow him to abuse his name, as though he were his deputy and vicar general? I trow not. Not that I think he seeth it not, or suffers it not, or hath not, by his provident justice, ordained, 2. Thess. 2. that Satan should set up such an Antichrist, to delude strongly the Children of unbelief, and to exercise under the Cross of Christ his little elected flock. But that, if Christ should so come as he here supposeth, surely I would think the cause of his coming to be, even to destroy (spiritu oris eius 2. Thess. 2 with the breath of his mouth) this man of sin, & not to maintain him in his pomp, much less himself to take the like upon him. Not that Christ is not a king over the house of jacob, not that his kingdom is not eternal, as the Angel said to Marie, not that he should not subdue all earthly kingdoms to his spiritual kingdom: but that his kingdom is spiritual & not earthly, & the subduing of earthly kingdoms, is with a sword that conquereth the soul of man, that is, the word of God, & with a force from above, subduing the will of man, that is, the spirit & grace of God: and not such a subduing of their kingdoms, that it dissolveth their polycies & estates, or deposeth their kings, & maketh the people take Arms, and exerciseth▪ in secular causes, an earthly King's authority. M. Saunders pretendeth this is to promote the Church of Christ, but such promotion confounds devotion, and hath The Church's promotion. poisoned the Church of God, as they say a voice was herded, what time Constantine (although falsely) is supposed to have endowed the Church with such royal honour: hody venenum intravit in eccles●…n, This day entered poison into the Church. But Christ hath flatly forbidden it, and told his Disciples when they asked such promotion, that they knew not what Math 20. they asked. But afterward, they knew and found the saying of Christ to be true, that their promotion lay in their affliction, and not in their kingly honour. And thus we see the falsehood of the mayor forged upon this feigned presupposal, which is not to be granted, and yet if it were granted it would fall out, to the utter ruin of the Pope & all his Prelates. Such ill luck hath M. Sand still to light on such examples, as he conceineth to make for him, but being a little better examined, make most of all against him. Now to the minor: that Christ hath given to his Ministers in What power the ministers have. the visible ministery, all the power necessary to salvation, that he should have himself in his humane nature. Where found you this M. Sand? I think it will be over hard a matter for you to prove, that all the power necessary to salvation that he should have himself in his humane nature, in the visible ministery: he hath given it all to his ministers. All power Math. 28. (says Christ) is given to me in heaven and in earth: this is spoken in respect of his humane nature: but trow you he gave this prerogative to his Apostles? you allege john. 20. john. 20. As my father hath sent me, so send I you. But trow you, this is to be stretched to the visible ministery of all things belonging to his humane nature? His mediation belongeth to the ministery of his humanity, so well as to his Divinity: hath he given them the office of his mediation? The propitiatory sacrifice of his own body belonged to the visible ministery of his humane nature: gave he this power to the Disciples, that their bodies also in suffering death, should be propiciatoris sacrifices? The ordaining of Sacraments was in the visible ministery, & belonging not only to Christ's Divinity, but also to his humanity, gave he this power to his Disciples to make Sacraments? Christ therefore gave not his Ministers all the power, in the visible ministery, necessary to salvation, that belonged to him in his humane nature, but reserved many things peculiar to himself. Although all the power they have, he gave it them, yet all the power he hath▪ he gave them not. He gave them power in preaching the word, in binding and losing, in administering the Sacraments. Difference of power. And yet is there a great difference between that power that is proper of one's own, and that which is legantine and representeth but an others: between that, that is simple and absolute, and that that is bounded and conditional: between that that is principal, & that that is but ministerial. All which distinctions are your own Scholemens', and therefore these powers are nothing like, and yet are they so far unlike from such princely power of earthly honour, as you imagine, that they are rather clean against it, both in Christ, and in his ministers too. And this your own gloss out of your own Pope Gregory might have taught you: Sicut misit me pa●…er. Idest, ad passiones. etc Glossa in Lyra super joh. As my father sent me, that is to say, to troubles and afflictions, so sand I you to suffer persecution, not to reign like Kings, & rule kingdoms. And therefore sith this sentence of Christ is true, that he sent them as he was sent, & he was not sent in his humane nature to depose kings, nor to dispose of their kingdoms, nor to govern them: therefore his Disciples were not sent thereto. But the Pope says he is sent thereto, and takes it upon him: therefore he is neither minister of Christ, nor successor of his Disciples: but his Disciple that hath offered him worldly kingdoms, if he would fall down and worship him, as he hath done, and so hath got his kingdoms. As for the sentence of Epiphani●…, writing against the Nazarei, although as he hath culled it out, it seemeth to give the Priests the power of Kings: yet this is neither the meaning nor the words of Epiphanius. Epiphanius whole sentence is this: Our Lord jesus Christ is therefore a Priest for ever, according Epiphanius in Haeres. 29. to the order of Melchizedech, and also a King, according to the order from above, that he might translate the Priesthood together with the law. He is of the seed of David, because he came of Marry, sitting in the throne for ever, and of his kingdom thereiss no end. For now it behoved him to translate the order, both of the Priesthood, and of the kingdom. For his kingdom is not of the world, as he said in the Gospel to Pontius Pilate, my kingdom is not of this world. For sith Christ by hid speeches fulfilleth all things▪ the matters declared of him, came to a certain full measure. For he which always reigneth, came not to receive the increase of a kingdom but he gave a kingdom, to those that he hath appointed under him, that it should not be said, he proceeded from small things to greater. For his throne abideth, and thereiss no end of his kingdom. And he sitteth upon the throne of David. So that he hath translated the kingdom of David together with the Priesthood, and given it to his servants, that is to the Bishops of the Church. Whereby it appeareth plain, Epiphanius means not, that Christ hath given them an earthly kingdom, which he took not upon himself, and he flat debarreth from them, nor he ever gave to his Disciples, nor they ever exercised. But he means of a spiritual kingdom, which he himself keepeth ever, and yet he ever communicateth to all his faithful, but in especial to the Ministers of the Church, that set forth the mysteries of this heavenly, and not of an earthly kingdom. This sentence therefore of Epiphanius maketh nothing for Bishops to be depesers of Kings, or disposers and rulers of earthly kingdoms, which is the present question. Wherefore (saith●… Saunders) sith there is a double Sand. 81. 82. power in the Church, the one spiritual, of which ●…orte, is Math. 20. that of the ministers of Christ, to whom is commanded that they should teach & baptize all nations, but the other is mixed, that is to say, by the beginning thereof secular, howbeit to be now referred to a spiritual end: although in the original, in the use, & in a certain middle end, they differ, (as is before declared) yet do they both concur in one body of the Church, and are carried to one end of eternal salvation, for the which things, they are to be counted one certain under power ordained. For as in Christ, there is neither jew nor Gal. 5. Greek, neither bond nor free, neither male nor female, but they are all one in Christ. So in the kingdom of god, the powers are not as it were altogether distinguished either of the father over the son, or of the husband over the wife, or of the master over the servant, or of the Prince over his subject, or of the Pastor over his sheep, but all these powers are one in the Church of God. And among all men I take this to be agreed Hebr. 10. upon, that all these powers shall beswallowed up of that infinite glory, that in the life to come, shall be poured on the sons of adoption, in so much that there shall be no secular thing in the kingdom of God. And sith the Church of Christ is a certain lively Image of the life to come, although there remain (by reason of the mixed condition of this life) certain differences of these powers: yet notwithstanding. they are so among themselves disposed and placed in their orders, that even as every one of them draweth near, unto the life to come, so it aught more and moreto govern all the residue. But it is manifest, that every kingly or civil power, is also among them, that are not the members of Christ. Neither any whit less appeareth it, that the power of the Pastors and teachers is placed and appointed in the only Church of God, for the edifying thereof in jesus Christ. Whereupon it is Ephes. 4. evicted, that the spiritual power of the pastors of the church, draweth nearer to the state of the life to come, than any other power, or family, or earthly common wealth. For Pastors are placed in the Church to this purpose, that they should Hebr. 13. Math. 28. 1. Cor. 4. 1. Cor. 5. 2. Cor. 2 &. 7 Math. 16. watch for our souls, teach, baptize, dispense the mysteries of Christ, give open sinners unto Satan, and in the person of Christ to forgive them that are sorry for their sins, according to the Lord. To conclude, that they by their keys should bring so well earthly kings, as other men into the kingdom of heaven. Scythe therefore as Christ the Lord of all, worthily governeth so well the spiritual as the earthly power: and sith the spiritual power floweth not from Christ, but as he is redeemer of mankind, and that power is properly ordained and provided for the getting of eternal life: neither by any means can it be said or thought of a wiseman, that Christ would have the earthly power above the spiritual in his Church, which is all led by the spirit, and aught to be Rom. 8. lifted above all earthly things. Truly it is necessary that in the Church of Christ which is one, the only spiritual power should rule, and that the power of the father, the husband, the Lord, yea, and of the King himself should be altogether under the power of the Pastors appointed of Christ, when the matters of the life to come are handled. Except Master Saunders of vain glory, did either delight to much to hear himself, or of subtlety, went about to tire and wrap his Readers: he would never use so many words to so little purpose. Much of this is nothing but that he hath spoken before, and is here in vain repeated, much of it is clean besides the matter. The sum is this, that all estates (as touching spiritual matters) are altogether The difference and union of both powers temporal and spiritual. under the spiritual Pastors. The effect of all this long drift, standeth on these two reasons: the one of the difference of the two powers, to prove the spiritual to be the better: the other of the union of both powers, to prove the Priests alone to rule them both. What he hath told us heretofore of the difference, concerning the original, the use, and the end of both, we have heard already, and it is peerless to Supra. pag. 791. repeat. And likewise, that all civil and kingly power, is as well out of the Church of God, as in the Church of God, & the spiritual power only in the Church, is already answered unto. Supra. pag. And in all these actions, that he reckoneth up, the King is likewise granted the inferior. Howbeit here is nothing that the King is inferior, in things belonging to his kingdom. But what is all this to the present purpose, that the Priest may depole the King? he reasoneth of the ●…mon of these powers, & that they are all one in Christ, & that Christ hath both in him, and ruleth both, so well the secular as the spiritual▪ and this is likewise answered last unto. Put that here upon the power How the power of all estates are under the pastors power, and how not. How they are all under the king's power & how not. of all estates, is altogether under the pastors power: that is not hitherto proved. And yet we deny not, but that the power of all these estates, Father, Husband, Lord and King, is under the pastors power, but not altogether under it. And so we say that all these powers, yea the pastors and all, are under the King's power, but not altogether under it. All estates are under the pastors power, because he teacheth all estates of men, how to live in their vocations. All estates are under the Kings power, because he overséeth, in all estates, the maintenance of the same. So that (as Master Saunders rightly says) there is no difference and there is a difference, and there is a mixture of these powers. There is no difference, How ●…ere is no difference in these powers. in respect that all are partakers of the unity in Christ: in regard whereof, neither Priest nor Prince are better, the one than the other, or the people worse than both, sith all are one in Christ. There is a difference, in respect of the order How there is a difference in these powers. and government of the Church, which is so distinguished in difference of degrees and callings, that as the wife may not take upon her the husbands office: nor the son the fathers, nor the servant the masters: so neither the past or may take upon him the office of the King: nor the King the office of the pastor. And there is a mixture, in respect that the pastor directeth, The mixture of these powers. by teaching of all estates, and spareth not the Prince: and that the Prince directeth by governing of all estates, and spareth not the pastor. But this mixed power of intermeddling, confoundeth not the one power with the other: neither may the Prince usurp the authority due to the pastor, nor the pastor usurp the authority due to the Prince. As the one therefore is not confounded and yet meddled with the other: so the one hath both inferiorship and superiority over the other, and yet is neither altogether inferior, or altogether superior to the other, as here M. Saunders on the union and mixture, difference & no difference of these two powers, concludes, to exalt the pastor to such an absolute superiority over the Princes, that at their liking & misliking, they mighto depose them. But now M. Sand. to confirm this, that the pastor is altogether, in spiritual matters, above the Prince, proceedeth saying: For as the fleshly man perceiveth not the things that are of Sand. pag. 82. the spirit of God: so neither the fleshly power, governeth those things that are of the spirit of God. For although Kings govern 1. Cor. 2. the members of Christ, yet notwithstanding they govern them not, in respect that they are the inembers of Christ, but in that they are yet occupied in secular business. For the members of Christ may want a King, as in times past, almost for three thousand years, even from the beginning of the world, until the kingdom of Saul, they wanted an earthly King. But yet the members of Christ never wanted some pastor, because Rom. 10. faith is by hearing, & hearing by the word of God. But those that preached the word of Christ, they were the pastors of the flock. The argument is this, That which hath no perseverance of things that are of the spirit of God, aught to have no superiority in things that are of the spirit of God. But the Prince's power hath no perseverance, of things that are of the spirit of God: How prove you this M. Saunders? The fleshly power hath no perseverance. But the Prince's power is but a fleshly power. Prove this better, M. Saunders. Such as the man is, such is the power: But the Prince is but a fleshly man: Prove this t●…, M. Saunders. He which hath only respect to secular business, is but a fleshly man. But kings have only respect to secular business: Prove me this also, M. Saunders. Although Kings govern the members of Christ, yet they govern them not in respect that they are members of Christ, Ergo, they govern them only in secular business. Prove this too, M. Saunders. If Kings govern them, as members of Christ, then would they never have wanted the government of kings: but almost for 3000. years, they wanted the kings'gouernment until Saul came: Ergo, kings govern them not, in that they are members of Christ. Is all your drift come to this (M. Saunders) to run from Civil governors from the beginning & as ancient as spiritual pastors. the matter, to the name of kings? what if neither the name nor estate of kings were before the time of Saul? was not the people of God always governed even from the beginning with a civil or politic Magistrate? call him King or Prince, or Patriarch, or Duke, or judge, or what you will, do you inveigh here only against Kings? is it the name of King that you bear such spite unto, to call it, but a fleshly power? as though M. Sand. malice against the name of kings. Satan hadeven fleshed you against kings. For what more gross or bestial name, can you give the government of the Turks & infidels, than here you term the power & people of Christian kings? but all these arguments are false M. Saund. the Church of Christ never wanted magistrates: the magistrates were not only themselves (if they were good) the members of Christ (although they had a fleshly part, the old man in them, as even the pastors have also) but they had a special charge and regard to their subjects, even in that they were members of Christ. Not, that they took upon them the office of spiritual pastors, to preach gods word unto them, & administer the sacraments, except some of them were such people, as might not only, oversee it done of others, but might or aught themselves to do it: as all the patriarchs ordinarily, till Aaron's time, and some of the Priests and Prophets extraordinarily, and very seldom afterwards choose thereunto: but this was the duty of all the Magistrates, which all the good Princes, did principally look unto, howsoever other did neglect or abuse the same. This therefore (Master Saunders) is a foul slander, to speak so lewdly on Christian Princes, and also a contradiction to your former saying, that their estate Supra. 799. was spiritual. Yea how doth this agreed with your words next following. Wherefore (say you) sith Kings and pastors, do now come Sand. pag. 82. together into one body of the Church, and the powers of them before distinguished, ought now to serve one Christ, to wit, either of them in their place and order: but most certain it is, that the spiritual power, which is instituted for the church is knit more nearer with Christ, than the power of earthly Kings, which is appointed to defend men in earthly peace, not only within, but also without the Church of Christ: I see not, but that he hath lost his common sense in judging gods matters, if any man contend that the spiritual power of the Church is not above the earthly power of Kings▪ What soever you see, or see not (M. Saunders) I see you How M. Sand. esteems of all other men, that deny that which he affirms. have a great conceit of yourself: that thus in your conclusion almost of every argument, you make all men fools, & dolts, and mad, and out of their wits and to want reason & common sense and to be no better than beasts? if they deny that that you affirm. Whether it come of the contempt of others, or of the pride of yourself, that makes you to use these speeches so often, let other wiser judge, for we are fools and mad men in your opinion. But if you be not M. Sand. contradictions. blind in your own conceit, do you not see what contraries still you utter to make the Prince's power ●…oth fleshly and spiritual: to stretch to further ends than bodily peace, & yet to stretch no further? but these are your old contradictions. You tell us of a superiority, and a superiority we have granted. Neither have we so lost our common sense, but that we see your false packing, in charging us to contend, that the spiritual power of the Church, is not above the earthly power of Princes. For, neither do we deny the superiority Christion princes power is not only an earthly power. of the spiritual power of the Church: neither do we grant the power of Christian Princes, to be only an earthly power. But what is this for the priest to depose the Prince? God be thanked, we have not so lost our common sense, but that we see you straggle from the question. But let us see if you come any nearer to it. For if neither part be over the other, how in one body Sand. pag. 82. of the Church, do both powers abide, being not united: or how are they united, if they yet abide so distinguished, that one can not govern the other? or who ever saw in one body of a living creature, two members utterly distinguished, placed in one place and honour? who hath seen (except in a monstrous body) the foot made equal to the arm, the thigh to the neck, the leg to the fide? But and if the kingly and spiritual power are not altogether equal members, distinguished only in number, as two hands, two feet, and two eyes (for those that differ in original, in use, and in end, can never be equal) or else they be also things utterly severed, because they be united and filled together in one body of the Church: we must needs confess that they differ in the placing of them, and yet they are continued in the compass of one body. Here is Sim subtle, M. Saunders, of all that ever I see. A man had need have more than common sense, that shall understand this gear, although he study for it, you covet to speak so darkly. We go plainly to work, we grant that the ecclesiastical power, and the polytical power are two distinct powers. We grant, that they are joined together in one body of the Church of Christ. We grant also, that the one hath in some respects, a superiority, and in other respects an inferiority to the other. We do not confound them being thus joined, and yet distinguished) Not we but the Papists confounded both powers. the one in the same or like place with the other. It is yourselves that would thus confounded them, giving both the powers unto one person, and confound one member with another, and make a monstrous body. We attribute not both powers to the Prince, as you do to your Pope. We affirm that the Prince differeth from the Bishop, & the Bishop from the Prince. We affirm that both are members of the mystical body of the Church of Christ, and both rule the other members, and that as members too. We affirm the Bishop's power, in respect of his ministery, in exhorting and rebuking, is above the Princes: and the Princes in respect of his government, in maintaining & punishing, is above the Bishops. So that here is not one, or the like place and honour given to both: but both have such places as are fit for either. And thus as the head is superior in one respect, concerning judgement, invention, and memory: and the heart is superior in another respect, concerning life and will: so the Bishop may be granted a superior member in the body of the Church, in one respect, and the Prince superior in another. What monstrous body is here, or what confusion or rather not in your own dark speeches, instling & confounding these things together, that your Pope might have both powers in him, but still what is this to the purpose, that Bishops may depose Kings? Whether of these therefore (say you) shall obtain the chiefer Sand. pag. 82. parts in the body of the Church? shall not the spiritual power, which is given of God himself by jesus Christ, to that 2. Cor. 3. 1. Reg. 8. end that it might minister justice, spirit and life unto us? as for the kingly power came in deed from God, but not only & properly by Christ, as he is the Saviour: but also by the sense of the mind conspiring, & the will of the people, whether it were faithful or unfaithful: neither could of itself at any time pertain unto heaven, or minister life unto her subjects. If therefore the chief parts in the body of the Church belong to the spiritual power▪ truly that aught of right to govern and rule the kingly and all earthly power, that is found in the same body of the Church. Yet again, M. San. I think above twenty times we have granted you the due superiority of the true spiritual power. The due and true spiritual Power. I put to these words due, and true, because, neither is your spiritual power, the true spiritual power but rather an earthly and carnal power, and that spiritualness that it hath, is rather from the spiritual power of darkness, than of the spirit of truth, and was never of God, nor by Christ, nor administereth justice, spirit, nor life, but iniquity, sensuality, The Popish spiritual power. and death: nor pertaineth to heaven, but leadeth to hell, I mean the spiritual power of the Popish spirituality. The spiritual power of the Ministers of Christ, I grant doth all these things you speak of, and therefore it hath a superiority, but such as is due unto it, in the ministration of these aforesaid things, and not to encroach upon such superiority as belongeth to Christian Princes. But, to stain the Prince's power, you call it earthly, and so How the prince's power is earthly, how heavenly. Supra. 791. it is in some respect, but it is heavenly in other respects also, because it came from God, and it representeth the divine power of God. It came from God (you say) but not by Christ, but by the people's consent. How true this is, is partly answers before, and S. Paul saith, Omnis potestas The Prince's power came from Christ. Proverb. 8. Christ a saviour as well in that he is a king, as in that he is a Priest. est à Deo, all power is of God. Is not Christ God? how then came it not from Christ? And is not this spoken of the wisdom of God, which is Christ, Per me reges regnant, King's rule by me? You make exception, not by Christ, as saviour. Is not Christ aswell a saviour, in that he is king, as he is a saviour, in that he is Priest. Not that (say you) the Prince's power, of itself pertains to heaven, or ministereth life. What it doth of itself, we force not, M. Sand. we speak of Christian kings, representing Christ the saviour. Not that the kings power saveth, no more doth the priests power, but only the power of Christ, that is both King and Priest: but that by either of these, Christ worketh means towards our salvation. How both the Princes & the Bishops power pertain to heaven, and minister life. and so both pertain to heaven, and minister life also: the Bishop's power, in setting forth God's word and Sacraments: the Prince's power in overseeing that both the Bishops and clergy set them forth duly, and that the people dutifully recoyve them. But still what is this to the purpose, for the Bishop to depose Princes, shall we never come to our matter again? this is a long vagary. But go on M. Sand. even whether you list to wander. For as in the same body of man all the members aught to Sand. pag. 82. obey the commandment of reason only of the mind, because in the same body is nothing higher than the mind: so also in the Church, which is like a man's body, sith the spiritual Rom. 12. 1. Cor. 12. Ephes. 4. power governeth as the mind and reason: all other power that is found in the Church besides, aught of necessity to be subject to the spiritual power: Aught I say to be subject, not every where, nor altogether, but only in those things that pertain to the salvation of souls, and to the proper jurisdiction of the Church. And have you spied this now▪ M. Sanders, that the spiritual power in the church, is like to the rule of reason in our body, but only in these things? How then pertaineth it to depose kings, to dispose, translate, and occupy kingdoms, to 'cause subjects rebel, which is the proper question here in hand. Do these things, pertain to salvation, are these things the proper jurisdiction of the Church▪ than surely it is a proper Church, and it hath a proper jurisdiction, The Popish Church's jurisdictions. or we shall make a proper salvation of ●…oules, and you have made a proper piece of work, so properly to prove your argument of the Prince's deposition, for the which I s●…ill ●…rie for some proof, but you have belike forgotten it. For shame M. Saund. come once again to your matter: but go to, now at the length, you will draw nearer to it. For if the earthly power do injury to the spouse of Christ, Sand. pag. 82. &. 83. or do not defend it from the injury of other, when it may, or in any thing faint from justice and truth: those that govern the church of God, aught to admonish the civil Magistrate, that he should decline from evil and do good. But and if the civil Magistrate will not so amend himself, they must make haste to other remedies, for it can not be in a well ordered city, but that for every evil that may fall out, there is a remedy prepared. Now (M. Sand.) this gear begins to cotton. For remembering M. Sand presupposal of the Princes doing injury to the Church, or suffering it. at length your idle vagary, you draw nearer to your matters, for the Princes deposing. And here you presuppose three things: either that the Church hath injury offered her by the Prince: either that the Prince, where he may, defends her not from others injuries: either that he himself faynteth from justice and truth. Here, say you, what remedy? The Pastor's admonition to Princes doing evil. Those that govern the Church of God, aught to admonish the civil Magistrate, that he should decline from evil, and do good For the admonition, it is well and truly said, M. Sand. and would to God the Pastors would thus do in these your presupposed cases▪ But here is no deposition of the Magistrate. Howbeit craftily even here you have as good as deposed him already. For you make your The Prince, & not the Priests only, governeth the church of God. selves ●…ose only that govern the Church of God: and call the Prince▪ but the civil Magistrate, as though he governed not also the Church of God and had nothing to do therewith, but only with civil affairs, and that the Priests have all the governance of God's Church. But as this is false, neither have you, nor can you prove this, but still reason, à petitione principij, taking that for an undoubted true principle, that is chief denied, that you are the only governors of the Church of God. So now, that which you M. Saund. presupposal returned on the priests doing injury to the Prince, or suffering it. presuppose in the Prince, let us presuppose the like in you. If you that call yourselves the Church▪ have at any time done 〈◊〉 to the Prince: & trow you, you never did it? Did your Pope never injury to the Emperor? did your bishops never injury to kings? did your spirituality never injury to the laity? I think (for shame) you will not deny it. If you do, you shall have witnesses enough, of your own side against you. Again, did your Pope never suffer injury to be done to Princes, and might have helped it, and did not? deny it & you can for shame. Moreover, did your Pope & his Clergy never saint from justice and truth? you dare not seek to cover it, it is so open and confessed. What remedy now to amend these things? the governors of the Church (say you) must admonish them to decline from evil, and do good. Who The Popish Priests will only admonish themselves. are these governors of the Church that you speak of? ourselves, say you. Why then you must admonish yourselves. Would to God you had that grace, M. San. that you would enter into judgement with yourselves, and admonish yourselves. But now running headlong in your faults, and will not hear them told of any other, but think you do well, & he that shall tell you the contrary, you will tell him he is an heretic, & if he come in your claws, you will burn him, although he were some of your own company (for so you have served divers that have rebuked your faults & errors) yea, you are so sotted on yourselves, that you maintain you can not err: O how roughly will you admonish yourselves, How roughly the Popish Priests will admonish themselves. & how soon shall all the world look for your amendment? Is not this a plain mockery with the world world? is it not more than time for Christian princes, that are in deed the governors of the Church, to admonish you? I deny not, but you may, yea & aught to admonish the Prince also, if he be such an offender as you imagine. But that you ought to Difference between admonishing, governing & deposing. be the only admonishers of them, and not yourselves of them to be admonished▪ you see the inconvenience. And yet there is a difference between admonishing and governing, and a greater difference between admonishing & deposing. But by little and little you draw to wards it. The Priests over hasty remedy to amend the Prince. But what and if the Prince (say you) will not amend himself? And what (say I) if the Priests will not amend themselves? we must make haste (say you) to other remedies Yea, but not such haste (M. S●…) that you break your s●…nnes: and much less such haste, that you break the ordinance of God. For in such haste is more waste than speed, & the end of it never wanteth ●…o. We grant you, there are remedies in the Church of God for such inconveniences: but no such remedies, as for the subject to attempt to depose his Sovereign, and stir the people to rebellion. But if any (say you) being admonished, amend not him Sand. pag. 83. Math. 18. self, we are bidden to denounce him to the Church. Who if if he will not hear the Church, is to be accounted as an Ethnic or a publican. Are you bidden, M. Sanders, if he be your Prince, to renounce your civil & politic obedience that you aught him, yea although he were in deed an Ethnic? if you found this, you come somewhat nearer to the purpose: else you do not only wrist this, place, which is not spoken of Princes, but also straggle clean from the matter in question. But now (say you) if any King not hearing the Church, be Sand. pag. 8●…. permitted to hold and administer his kingdom over Christians: who seethe not, all the people, over whom that King ruleth, to come into most certain danger of losing the faith? for that saying is no less true than ancient. After the example of the king, the whole world is framed. So while only jeroboam (as I said before) worshipped two Calves, the one in Bethel, the other in Dan, and appointed 3. Reg. 1●…. Priests, not of the sons of Levi, but of the basest of the people: This thing become an offence to ten Tribes, and for the greatest part of Israel the faith perished. The danger and offence is great (we grant) of Princes Remedy against offences and dangers. thus offending. But for subjects to depose their Princes, for these dangers or offences: the danger and offence were not remedied but augmented. For what Prince were not then in danger if you would lay these offences to his charge, were he never so guiltless of them? if he never so little offended you, you might●… say, he did you injury, or he suffered other to do it, he helped you not, he fought not in your quarrel, against The inconveniences of the Popish remedies. those Princes, on whom you would have set him. If he swerved at any time from justice, or but spoken a word awry, yea if he but saynted from those things you would have him do, & would not acknowledge that he so did, who you reproved him for it, when you told it one to another (for you call yourselves the Church) then in all post haste the prince must be counted as an Ethnic, or a publican, & be deposed from his kingdom, & the people must rebel. In what The danger of the Popish doctrine. danger by this doctrine, both the Prince & the people stand, & yourselves also the teach this dangerous doctrine, is apparent. The example of jeroboam is a greater case, but as great as it was, neither the priests nor the prophets attempted to depose jeroboam, nor the people rebelled against him, not nor the tribe of juda, nor Roboam were permitted to war against him, for all this great loss & danger that the people received by him. Scythe therefore (say you) the wisdom of God hath not Sand. pag. 83. left the Church of God (which is a city excellently founded, and defenced without a medicine, which it may give to such a disease: neither is there any other medicine can help, than that which taketh away so evil a king from among the Psal. 86. Math. 16. people, and giveth the kingdom to a better man: we must believe, that such power is granted at the lest to the chief Pastor of the Church, in these words: feed my sheep: 1. Cor. 5. john. 21. Math. 16. and whatsoever thou bindest in earth, shall be bound also in heaven. So that the chief Pastor can not only excommunicate a wicked king, but also set his subjects free from all obedience of him. The wisdom of God (as you say M. Sanders) hath not The Church of God not left destitute of medicines for such diseases. left the Church of God without medicines for such diseases. God's word is even a storehouse of plasters, as well Consolidatives, as Corrosi●…es, for the Ministers of Christ's to apply them to any infected members. But these medicines that are taken out of the word of God, you despise and reject as too base simples, & vaunt of your own compoundes. There is a medicine in gods word called: In patientia Luc. 2●…. vestra possidebitis animas vestras, y●… shall possess your souls in patience, when a wicked Prince ●…oth vex them. There is another called In fide fundati & stabiles, being founded in Collos. 1 Psalm. 12●…. Psalm. 56. faith and stable. Another called: Ad te levaui oculos meos, I have lifted up mine eyes to thee. etc. Another, In Domino confido, non timebo quid mihi faciat hom●…. I put my confidence in the Lord, I will not fear what man can do unto me. Another called, beati qui persecutionem patiuntur propter justitiam, Blessed are they that suffer persecution for righteousness. And a number of Math. 5. such excellent medicine●… there are. And in deed there is such a medicine too, as you s●…y, ut auferatur de medio populi, that he should be taken from among the people. But there is but one Physician, that knoweth the right confection of the strong purgation, and that is God himself. Ministers of diverse sorts he hath by whom he giveth this medicine, but I never read that any godly Bishop or Priest or faithful subject, did ever minister it to his Sovereign. The text that you cite hereto, is not as you cite it, auferat M. Saund. corruption of the text against Princes. regem adeo malum de medio populi, that may take away so evil a king from among the people: but auferte malum ex vobis ipsis take away the evil from among you: not the Prince from among the people. For that were to take away one evil with another. And how should this evil be taken awa●…? Ne commisceami●…i fomicarijs. etc. be you not mingled together, or keep no familiarity with fornicators. He says not, deprive him of his life or living, but be not defiled with his wickedness. And Excommunication. the greatest censure that s. Paul speaketh of, is excommunication, pertaining properly not to the goods and bodies, but to the souls of men. Neither speaketh he there at all of Princes but of private men and equals in the Church of Christ, whō●…e calleth brethren. For the Kings and Princes at that time, were 〈◊〉 Christened. And he speaketh of such, as they might law●…y s●…un their company, such as Lyra calleth Ribaldes, or verlets, drunkards, whorehunters, Idolaters: but not such as Who should be avoided and how by Saint Paul's meaning. 1. Cor. 5. in the Civil policy they must needs obey, nor those that were out of the Church of Christ. I have written to you (says he) by an epistle, that you should not intermingle yourselves with fornicators: not utterly from fornicators of this world, or covetous people, or ravenous, or worshippers of Images, else should you go out of this world. But now I have written to you that you intermingle not your selves. If any which is called a brother be a whoremaster, or covetous person, or a worshipper of Images, or a slanderer, or a drunkard, or a ravener, with such an one we should not eat meat. For what have I to do, to judge them that are without? do not you judge of them that are within? as for those that are without, God judgeth. Take away the evil from among you. Now says M. Saunders, that S. Paul speaketh of taking away so evil a King from among the people, and this he setteth down in distinct letters, as though S. Paul had meant the Priests should depose an evil King from governing the people. Where he speaketh not to the Priests but to the people, and would have them shun the company of such false brethren as were among them. But M. Saunders will say, doth not this stretch to a king, so well as to any other, if he be a brother in the faith of Christ? I grant it doth, in that he is a brother. And if he be infected with such vices, he also is so far forth to be shunned. But How a vicious king is to be shunned and judged. not to be shunned in that he is a Prince and governor of the people: much less the people to forsake their obedience to his authority, because they must forsake their obedience to his vices. He may be so shunned privately, as the public government be not shunned, he may be judged of the faithful, in their court of conscience, concerning his crime, but he may not be judged in their Court of Consistory, concerning his worldly power: he may be taken heed of, but not taken away: he may be even excommunicated also by the ministers, but not by them deposed: because, howsoever he deserveth it, yet have they no authority that stretcheth so far. That remedy belongeth not to them, but unto God. But now sir, what and if the Prince be not only no such The testimony of S. Paul returned on the Popish Priests. malefactor, but goeth about to resorme these malefactors, where as other private men, can but shun their company, and the ministers of Christ can but excommunicate them, which though it be never so great a censure, yet they esteem it not: and that the Prince will punish such malefactors in their goods and bodies, yea and take them away from among the people by death, banishment, prisonment or otherwise, as his office requireth he should do, to whom the Rom. 13. sword is given against the malefactor? what now if it fall out, that the Popish Priests be the greatest malefactors in these notorious crimes? what if they be not only private whore masters, but also public maynteiners of banks and stews for whores, and despisers and restrainers of honourable matrimony? what if the Popish Priests be so covetous and ravenous, that they have got almost the wealth of all Christian kingdoms into their fingring, and are never satisfied with devising naughty means, to pick men's money out of their purses? what if the Popish Priests be worshippers of Images, and causers of them to be worshipped? what if many of them be common drunkards, and all of them drunken with spiritual drunkenness, which is a great deal worse? what if the Popish Priests be slanderers of those that be in authority, and would take the King's sword and Sceptre out of his hand, and pull his Diadem of his head, and pluck his robe from his back, and turn him quite out of his throne and Kingdom and bid him go shake his ears, and stir all his subjects to rebellion? what if all these, and an infinite sort of other horrible crimes, were found in the Popish priests themselves? ought not this rule of saint Paul to take place on them, and all Christians to abhor and shun them, and all Princes to depose and punish them. Now, whether the Popish Priests be culpable in these crimes or no: I think the cry of Sodom and Gomorre did not more astende up to heaven, than the cry of the Popish Gene. 18. Priest's abomination resoundeth in all the earth. And thus this sentence that Master Saunders thought to wrist against Princes, if it be well examined, falls more out against the Priests themselves. As for the other two sentences john. 21. & Math. 16. are no less wrested hereunto. We must believe (saith he) that this power, to take away the Prince, and give his Kingdom to a better▪ is granted at the lest to the chief pastor of the Church, in these words, feed my sheep, and whatsoever thou bindest in earth shall be bond in heaven also. In so much that the chief pastor may not only excommunicate a wicked King, but also set free his subjects from all obedience of him. And find you this in these two sentences Master Saunders? Peter not the chief pastor of the Church. we must believe it, say you, that this power is given at the lest to the chief pastor, in these words. How shall we believe it, Master Saunders, sith these words neither say, nor import any such matter, that Peter (to whom they were spoken) is the chief pastor of the Church, neither at the lest, nor at the most: lest of all, that in these words these things How M. Sand. ex oh ●…deth these words feed my sheep. are contained. Christ says to Peter, feed my sheep▪ you expound these words, that he gave him power, to take away Kings from their kingdoms, and to set the people at liberty from their sworn obedience. This is a proper feeding (M. Saunders to give them pap with an hatchet, as they say, to spoil Kings and s●…t their kingdoms in the uproars of rebellion▪ Christ 〈◊〉 not his sheep on th●… fashion nor we read that ever Peter 〈◊〉 them so, but with the word of How Peter fed the sheep of Christ. 1. Peter. 2. God, and with exhortation of obedience unto Princes. Peter fed the sheep of Christ on this wise: Be you subject to every humane creature, for the lords sake, whether to the King as excelling, or to his rulers, as those that are sent of him, to the punishment of malefactors, and to the praise of them that do well, for so is the will of God. For doing well, you stop the mouths of foolish and ignorant men. As free, and yet not having liberty for a cloak of malice, but as servants of God. Honour all men, love brotherhood, fear God, honour the King. Let servants be subject to the Lord with fear, not only if they be good and gentle, but if they be froward. etc. And so he entereth into an exhortation of patience, under wicked governors. This is the feeding that Peter feed the sheep of Christ withal: neither did h●…uer depose any Magistrate, or set at liberty any subjects, or usurp any kingly dominion, but dissuadeth the clergy from it. As for the other sentence of authorizing Peter to bind How M. Sand. applies binding & losing of Princes. and loose, is so far from giving him authority, to bind Princes in bondage and captivity, making them to loose their kingdoms, and losing their subjects from their bondage of subjection, setting them at liberty to rebel and choose another: that if Master Saunders were not too too shameless he would never thus apply it. And yet he says we must believe it▪ that in this sentence also, Peter hath this power given him, which neither Christ, nor Peter used at any time, but both of them flat deny it. But why should we believe this M. Saunders? For (say you) if whatsoever Peter or Peter's successor loseth Sand. pag. 83. in earth, is also loosed in heaven: then verily, when he loseth orderly the faithful subjects, from the obedience of a wicked King in earth: the subjects are in heaven loosed, from the obedience of that King. Besides, if whatsoever Peter's successor bindeth in earth, be bond also in heaven: then when soever the successor of Peter, rightly and well commandeth any King to go from his Magistracy, which (being thus affected) he unjustly holdeth: or commandeth him, by whatsoever means he can, to hinder another King, that hindereth the faithful people from eternal life, that he should not perish in doing wickedly: that King is bound also in heaven, that is to say before God and his Angels, to obey the decree of the chief Bishop, except he will have his own sins before God, to be retained and not remitted. Here is your sampson's post, M. Saunders, that you, and your Pope build upon, for his supremacy that he hath the keys of heaven and hell under his belt, but how grossly and shamefully this spiritual power of binding and losing, consisting in preaching the word of God, and pertaining only to the soul of the faithful believer, or the unfaithful refuser, is applied to the body & goods of men, to be taken from them: is wrested to commanding of Kings to get them packing from their kingdoms: to bidding of subjects take arms against their Princes: to bidding of one King, by whatsoever means he can, by defying fight, and making war, by shéeding Christian blood, by violating peace, by breaking leagues, by wasting one another's countries, to molest and persecute one another: & that all Princes & nations are bond before God and his Angels, to obey his bidding, yea, although he were such a chief B. or the successor of Peter, as he craketh, A shameful abusing of Christ's saying. & is not: is so horrible & shameful a wresting of Christ's saying, so evident a contradiction to all other sayings in the scripture, so open a gap to the dissolution of all estates, & to bring all tumult & confusion into the world: yea, this binding and losing were such a binding up of all godliness, and the very losing of the devil himself: that it is marvel that ever any Papist professing learning, would be so gross (in this age of greater learning) thus to expound it. Which exposition was never herded of by any godly father, till Pope Gregory. 7. set it a broach, and Pope Boniface. 8. following him, set all Christendom by the ears about it. And now that all the world seeth the folly and wickedness of it, M. Saunders so unpudently would renew it. But he hath a shifting restraint in this exposition, to M. Saunders shift. salve the matter. When the Pope (saith he) duly and orderly loseth the people from their obedience, and when he well and rightly biddeth the king give over his authority, them either of them are bond to obey his bidding. True, Master Saunders when he doth these things duly and orderly well and rightly: them it shall be granted you. But how can he do that, well and rightly, duly and orderly: that is most evil, and against all duty, right and order? can a thief steal well and rightly? can such extreme wickedness that passeth all private theft, and is the open breach of all due order, be duly and orderly done? But belike M. Saunders thinketh, if the Pope do it in his consistory, if he have on his Cope, and do it in his Pontificalibus, if the bells be rung & the candles put out: than it is well and rightly, duly and orderly done. Such toyish orders useth the Pope to blear the simple, as though, when it is done with book, bell & candle, it is done well and rightly, duly and orderly: but before God and his Angels in heaven, and before all wise and godly learned men in earth, as these orders are mere ridiculous: so these doings are most abominable. But now let us hear his reason for this doing. For if whatsoever power any king hath, he aught to convert Sand. pag. 8●…. and apply that wholly to the honour of Christ: then he that otherwise doth, shall in the day of doom, tender an account of sin, when even that sword itself (which in times paste he hath either drawn out against Christ, or else he would not draw for Christ) shall accuse him of disobedience. If therefore we shall follow reason aright, as the Minister of Christ aught not to consecrated him for Prince, whom he seethe not to be a Christian or a Catholic: so neither aught he, to suffer him to bear government any long while over Christians, whom by any lawful means he can remove. For the Lord hath subdued to his minister jeremy, jeremy. 1. as well the kingly people as their kingdoms, saying: Behold I have put my words in thy mouth, behold I have this day set thee over nations, and over kingdoms, to root up, to destroy, to lose, to scatter, to build and plant. Which words fall out most aptly on the person of Christ. But no Catholic doubteth, but from him, they are daily fulfilled in his Church by his ministers. That the Prince aught to convert and apply all his power The Prince's charge for misusing his sword. to the honour of Christ, we grant. And if he abuse his sword in drawing it against Christ, or not defending the saith of Christ thereby, we grant likewise, at the day of doom the Prince shall answer for it. And therefore Princes had need to be wise and learned, to look the better unto it. Which if Psalm. 2. they did, they must needs draw it out against your Pope and you in principal. But if their sword (that God gave unto them, and they have missused) shall accuse them: what shall the rust of the gold and riches do, that the Pope hath ill got and worse spent? what shall his triple crown and usurped title do, what shall the Cross keys do, that he pretends, he hath from Peter, and the sword from Paul, imbrued with so much blood of the Saints of God? shall not these things much more accuse the Pope, at that great day of reckoning? But how holdeth this conclusion here upon? If the Prince If the Prince abuse his sword the spiritual minister may not take it from him. abuse his sword, shall the Pope wring it from him? surely than the Prince's sword, that the Pope hath thus extorted, and he was forbidden to meddle withal, shall accuse him also. But Master Saunders says, he may take it from him, so that he take it by lawful means: as though a man may do another wrong, by lawful means: as though he may usurp by lawful means that, that by no means he ought to do: as though there can be any means lawful to do that, that is not lawful to be done. But that it is lawful, he citeth the saying of God to jeremy, The Papists wresting the sentence of god to jeremy. cap. 1. This sentence is also cited in the Extravagant of Pope Boniface, and applied, as here Master Saunders doth, that the Ministers of God may order kingdoms, as the words seem to specify, according to the letter. But where did jeremy rule any nations and kingdoms, root up houses, destroy Cities, pull down buildings, build and plant new in their places? I think, M. Saunders, you can not show that ever jeremy did this, neither can you in such sense apply it to Christ, on whose person, you say, aptly it falls out, sith Christ in his person, literally, did not these things neither. And then can it not serve your turns, to govern Nations & kingdoms, to root up houses, to destroy kings and depopulate their Countries, Towns, and Cities, and to translate at your pleasures the whole estate of Christendom. jeremy did never thus, nor Christ did ever thus, nor his Ministers did ever thus, and therefore you doing thus, can not bolster your doings from them. And if you will do this as jeremy did, and as Christ hath taught, and as his Ministers did, good leave have you. But how did they it? God saith to jeremy, Behold I have put my words How jeremy pulled down and set up kings and kingdoms. Lyra in jerem. 1 in thy mouth: whereupon saith Lyra: Because jeremy not only prophesied against the King of juda, but also against many other kingdoms, as shall appear. Therefore it followeth: Behold I have set thee. etc. that thou shouldst root up, that is, thou shouldst declare in rooting up, and translating from thence the Inhabiters, etc. And shouldst build and plant, that is, thou shouldst declare the jews to be re-edified and planted in their own Country. Which These things were done long after jeremies' time. was fulfilled in the time of Cyrus, that gave licence to the people, to return into their own Country, and re-edify the Temple: And in the time of Artaxerxes, who gave licence to Nehemias' to re-edify the Temple of jerusalem. So that this rooting up was not done by jeremy, nor this building again was done in his time: but was long after done by God, and by such Ministers as God appointed thereunto, which were no Priests, but Princes. Howbeit sith it was God's ordinance, he saith, jeremy should do it, because jeremy should foretell it. And therefore the learned jeremy is said to do them, because he fortold them. Uatablus expounds these words on this wise: I put my word in thy mouth, that is, I appoint thee to be a Prophet: behold, that is, mark those things that I shall tell thee, that thou shalt threaten my enemies, whom I have planted, placed, confirmed, and builded in their nations, that I will pull them out by captivities, except they repent: and contrariwise, I will build again and plant them, whom before I destroyed and pulled up▪ if they shall acknowledge their sins. The doer of them was only God, & such instruments as he used, which were no Priests not Prophets. jerem. 45. jerem. 42. And for confirmation hereof, that this which he ascribeth to jeremy, was Gods doing, and jeremy but the foreteller of it: he referreth us, first, to the. 45. chapter, where God saith to jeremy concerning Baruch: Thou shalt say thus unto him, Thus saith the Lord: Behold, those things that I have edified, I will pull down, and the things that I have planted, I will root up, yea all this land. And in the. 42. chapter: If you abide and inhabit in this land, I will build you, and will not pull you down, I will plant you, and will not pull you up, because it repenteth me of the evil that I have brought upon you. Thus we see that jeremy was not the doer of any of these things, he never deposed kings nor translated kingdoms in all his life, but only declared to them God's judgements to come upon them and destroy them, if they repented not, God's merciful promises to comfort them if they repented. Now on this fashion (if he will follow How the Pope should set up and pull down kings & kingdoms, if he will follow jeremy. jeremies' fashion) should the Pope and his Prelates pull down, and set up kings and kingdoms, not by deposing them from their estates, not by seizing kingdoms into their hands, not by translating the governements thereof, not by making subjects rebel against their Sovereigns, not by setting Princes by the ears together, not by putting all to fire, sword and famine: but by declaring to them the wrath and plagues of God, but by exhorting them to repentance, but by recomforting them with Gods most merciful promises, but by preaching, and teaching them the word of God: and thus only to pull down, and set up Kings and kingdoms. And further than this, the doing of jeremy stretched not, nor the Ministers of Christ may do. Now if you apply this sentence spiritually to Christ, The sentence spoken to jeremy, applied to Christ. and from him to his Ministers, we admit also your application. But where did Christ thus order worldly kingdoms? Now can you then from Christ, father these your doings? Your Gloss joined with Lyra, Glossa in Lyra in jerem. 1 hath these words: Multi bunc locum. etc Many expound this place on the person of Christ, for jeremy is interpreted, the high one of the Lord, who destroyed the kingdoms of the Devil, which he showed unto him on the top of the Mountain: he destroyed the adversary powers, blotting out the handewriting of error in his Crosse. Of whom next to the historical truth, it is said in a figure: Wherefore did the Nations fret, and the people imagine vain things, the Kings of the earth stood up, and the Princes came together in one. In the place of all these being destroyed, lost and pulled down into hell, the Church of God is builded up and planted. Thus says your own Gloss, in applying this sentence from jeremy to Christ, concerning Christ's pulling down and setting up of kingdoms. And on this wise How the Ministers of Christ ought to pull down & let up kingdoms. ought the Ministers of Christ, to pull down and set up kingdoms, that is, with the sword of God's word, to beat down▪ the power of Satan, the kingdom of error, the building on the sands, the works of sin, to root up vices, and to beat down (as S. Paul termeth them) all strong holds resisting the truth of God, and to set up the kingdom of Christ, to edify his Church, to build upon the rock, to plant virtues, and by doctrine and ensample instruct the faithful people. And so doth your own Gloss interpret it: Vt evellas mala, & destruas regna Diaboli: That thou shouldst pull up evils, and destroy the Lyra. Kingdoms of the Devil. etc. and shouldst edify the Church. Whereupon saith the Gloss: To four heavy things, two joyful things succeed, for neither can good things be builded, except the evil things be destroyed, neither can the best things be planted, except the worst things be rooted up. For every plant that my heavenly father hath not planted, shall be pulled up by the roots, and that building which is not builded on the rock, but upon the sands, is digged up and destroyed with the word of God. But that which the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, that is, all sacrilegious and perverse doctrine, he shall destroy it for ever, and those things that lift up themselves against the kingdom of God, and trust in their wisdom. Which before God is foolishness, he shall scatter and put them down, that for these the humble things might be edified. And in place of the former things that are destroyed and pulled up, those things may be builded and planted, that are convenient to the ecclesiastical truth, of whom it is said, you are the building of God, you are the tilth of God. Here, M. Sand. even by your own gloss, is described, what this building and pulling down is, that belongeth to the ministers of Christ, so far unlike your Popish building, that it showeth the overthrow and rooting up of your plants and building, and how your kingdom shall utterly be destroyed. In the overthrowing of which munitions and building the truth of God, the ministers of Christ must so set themselves against all worldly kingdoms, that fearing not their might and tyranny against the truth, they overcome them. As God said to jeremy: Gird up thy loins, and arise, and speak unto them all those jerem 1 things that I command thee. Fear not their faces, for I will make thee not to fear their faces. For I have made thee this day, a strong city, and an iron pillar, and a brazen brickwall over all the land, to the Kings of juda, and to the Princes thereof, and to the Priests, and to the people thereof, and they shall not prevail, for I am with thee, saith the Lord, and will deliver thee. If the kings of juda (saith the Gloss) which Glossa in Lyra. is interpreted, confession, and the Princes, and Priests, and people of it, to wit, the Bishops, the Priests and Deacons, and the vile and unnoble vulgar people will arise against an holy man: let him have a strong faith, and fear not, let him trust in God, and he shall conquer them. Here is the conquest of these kingdoms, whereby the What manner of conquest of kingdoms this is. true Ministers of God shall overcome all Kings and Princes, all Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, and all the people that resist them. But this is as far from deposing kings from their estates, from ruling, possessing, and translating earthly kingdoms: as you that seek after all these things, are far from Jeremy'S, from Christ's, and from his Ministers conquests. But (saith M. Saunders) the Protestants, who can not Sand. pag. 83. suffer, that the flesh give place unto the spirit, or the temporal kingdom to the spiritual (for every where they favour too much the flesh and the world) before all things john. 18. they allege against us the saying of Christ, my kingdom is not of this world, we must see therefore, what Christ in those words would have understood, For the Protestants wrist them hitherto, as though the Ministers Math. 13. of the Church of Christ (which is the kingdom of God) may have at any time no power over Christian Princes, or over their earthly kingdoms, and causes subject to them, because the kingdom of Christ himself, is not of this world. But in this thing they are too foully deceived: For it is another thing▪ not to be of this world: and far another thing that the Christian kingdom that is in this world, should not be subject to Christ, and to the Ministers of Christ. When Christ denieth his kingdom to be of this world, either by the name of this world is understood sin, and the tyranny of sin, and the mass of the reprobate (as the Lord otherwhere faith: you are not of the world, if you were of the john. 15. world, the world would love his own, but I have choose you out of the world) or else by the name of the world is understood, all this visible creature, whereof the faithful also are part so long as they live here. If therefore by the world we understand darkness and sin, and the reprobates of this world: certain it is, the kingdom of Christ is by no means of this world, because all the kingdom of Christ is light, and darkness is not in his kingdom, who lighteneth every man coming into this world. But if by the world, john. 1. we mean the visible creatures, and among them comprehend the Church of God: verily ●…e denieth not that those creatures are subject unto him, or that these temporal kingdoms that believe in him, are comprehended under his eternal kingdom. But he denieth that his kingdom is from hence, that is to say taketh his original of this world as other kingdoms are wont to do For the kingdom of Christ s●…rang not from the law of nations, as other kingdoms do, but from the divine and natural yea and from the supernatural law. Whereupon Augustine marked, that Christ said not, my In ca 18. joh. kingdom is not here, but it is not from hence, for in the world it is, but of the ●…orlde it is not, but of heaven. Here M. Sand. having as he thinketh, confirmed his opinion, M. Sand. answer to this objection, My kingdom is not of this world. john. 18. will now assay to confute our objection against it. And to this purpose, he chooseth out the saying of Christ is Pilate, My kingdom is not of this world. This he says, we allege before all things. I omit his slanders, that we can not suffer▪ that the flesh should give place to the spirit, that the spiritual Kingdom should rule the temporal, and that we favour to much the flesh and the world. All which are but mere slanders, and do fit serve to re●…urne upon the Papists. But let us come to his answer of this objection, which I grant is one of our objections unto them, although not (as he saith) the chief objection, but such an one, as master Sanders with all his shifts, is not able directly to answer The Pope's kingdom worldly. to it. First, what a worldly kingdom the Pope seeketh and possesseth, is apparent: in so much that few worldly Kingdoms in worldly might and glory are comparable unto it. Although (God be praised) it decayeth daily notwithstanding all his practices to repair and undershore the ruins thereof. Against this his worldly kingdom we object, that sith he pretendes to be the vicar of Christ, and Christ stately denieth his kingdom to be such a worldly kingdom: if the Pope he his Minister, he can not claim nor enjoy such a worldly kingdom. What fetch now can M. Sand. M. Sand 〈◊〉 by distinction of this wordr the world. find●…, or any in all the world to elude this plain argument? we must (saith he) distinguish of this word, the world▪ which sometime signifieth s●…ne, darkness, and the reprobate. In this sense Christ's Kingdom is not of the world. Sometimes the world signifieth all visible creatures: and in this sense, it is in the world, though it be not of the world, that is, it hath not his original of the world, but from God. But this hindereth not, but that being in the world, worldly kingdoms may be subject to it. And so we sore not marking these distinctions are f●…ly deceived. Whether we be deceived, or you, M. Sanders, or whether we or you would deceive others, all the world easily may perceive. We admit your distinction, of being in the 〈◊〉, but not of the world. Neither disallow we your significations of the world, although subtly you conceal those significations thereof, that it ought to have been further distinguished into. For the world signifieth often times, the glory, might, riches, power, and pleasures of worldly things, especially when this word Kingdom is joined to it. And this is the very natural sense The natural sense of world lie kingdom. of a worldly kingdom, that is to say, a state in or of the world, excelli●… in these worldly things. Now this, which is the very natural sense, you ●…yde, and run about the 〈◊〉, with this and that signification, to carry the reader's 〈◊〉 aw●…▪ from the proper signification of it. We deny not that the kingdom of Christ is in this world, neither deny we that Christian kings ought to submit themselves unto it. But we deny that this kingdom stretcheth to the worldly government and possession of kingdoms or Realms, to the deposing of Kings, and translating the states of Polycies, which is the proper question now in hand. And to show that this sentence of Christ, without all shifting or shuffling, is simply and plainly thus to be understood: I will desire none other (besides S. Augustine whom you cite, and the ancient Fathers) than even the Papists own judgements and interpretations on this sentence, My kingdom is not of this world, which the Gloss expoundeth thus: Quasi decepti estis. etc. As though he should say, you are deceived, for I hinder Glossa in Lyra. not your government in the world. And so saith Lyra: Non quaerit, etc. He seeketh not the temporal government of Lyra. in. joh. 18. this world. etc. My kingdom is not from hence, that is to say, so far as appertaineth to get these temporal things. But against this seemeth that which is said in the Psalm. 46. God is the King of all the earth: but he is very God, as he is very man, therefore his kingdom is of this world. We must say, that according to the verity of his divinity, all things are subject unto Christ, notwithstanding so far as appertaineth to his humanity, he came not in his first coming to govern temporally, but rather to serve & suffer. And so it appeareth, that he sufficiently excludeth that, that was laid to his charge, of usurping the kingdom of jewry, because there was no question of him, but in that that he was man, and for the present state that he was in, which appertained to his first coming. Ferus expounding this saying, My kingdom is not of Ferus in john. 18. this world. Quasi diceret. etc▪ As though (saith he) he should say, I grant (O Pilate) and acknowledge myself to be a King, this is even that that I have done, this is that crime Christ's kingdom expelleth no temporal Princes from their Dominions. that is laid unto me. Howbeit understand this thing aright, I am in deed a king, but so, that I neither usurp not diminish the power of thy Keysar, nor expel any of the Kings or Princes from their power or dominions. And that thou mayst understand the matter itself, I am not a worldly king, but an heavenly, in whose hands are the hearts of all Kings, although it seem not so to thee. My kingdom, that is, my principality The significations of the kingdom of Christ. or administration: or, my kingdom, that is my laws and rights: or, my kingdom, that is, my ministers and subjects: is not of this world, that is, not of man but of God. I (says he) am of him made King over his holy mount. To conclude, it is not of this world, that is, it is not temporal but eternal, for the world and the lust thereof doth pass away. Besides this, it is not of this world, because it is not corporal, but spiritual, and is administered after another sort, than is a worldly kingdom. For this is administered with a material sword, but The difference of these kingdoms. my kingdom hath no need of this sword, for the sword thereof is the word of God. The kingdom of the world hath Cities, Towers, Towns, Villages, Armies, Armour: my kingdom requireth only the hearts of men. The world ruleth the goods and the bodies, but I rule the hearts and the consciences. The world ruleth with a carnal power, but it yieldeth to the spiritual: but I rule spiritually against sin, death and hell. Thou seest how beautifully Christ describeth his kingdom. After the same manner almost doth Zacharias speak of the kingdom of Christ: Behold thy King cometh unto thee meek and poor. etc. Howbeit we must mark that he says not my kingdom is not in this world. For Christ also is the Lord of the world, for all things were made by him, all power is given to him in heaven and earth, now if the kingdom of Christ be not of this world, than it followeth, that there is yet another world. And therefore although thou seest not the promises of Christ fulfilled in this world, yet despair not, for there is another world, in the which is fulfilled, whatsoever here is not fulfilled. Again, because the kingdom of Christ is not of this world, we are bidden to pray, let thy kingdom come. In this first word therefore Christ delivereth Pilate from all fear, & moreover by this example proveth himself, to wit, that he is clear from desiring the Imperial or kingly power. If (says he) my kingdom were of this world▪ I would not lead unarmed Disciples about with me, but armed, yea, I would have counsellors, soldiers, armies, etc. who in this my necessity, should with swerd●… defend me as their Lord, yea offering themselves to death for me. Or if I coveted a worldly Kingdom, either the Angels should defend me from the violence of the jews: or rather I would have need, neither of Angels, nor of men, for my right hand should be able to help me. etc. Of these things therefore Christ concludeth, but now my kingdom is not from hence. Out of which argument persuade thyself most certainly, that my kingdom is not of this world. Whatsoever thou or thy Emperor hath, it shall for me remain whole unto you, I desire none of your things, I regard not the glory and riches of the world, that you esteem for the greatest goods. These things truly were spoken to Pilate, but they pertain to us. For, if the kingdom of Christ be not from hence, what dost thou Christian, seek for riches and honours of this world, if the kingdom of Christ be not of this world? Christians therefore aught to have tribulation in this world while in Christ they have the peace of conscience, marvel not therefore from whence so many troubles happen to the godly in the world. And with this word the godly man aught to comfort himself in adversity, and say, my kingdom is not from hence. Besides this, if The error of the Papists. the kingdom of Christ be not from hence, then err they that set the kingdom of Christ in outward things and elements of the world▪ etc. Thus doth your own friar Ferus expound this sentence, that the kingdom of Christ is not in such power & royalty as worldly kingdoms are, nor diminisheth, deposeth, nor taketh away from kings their kingdoms. And thus doth Ludolphus gather out of Chrisostome, and other ancient fathers. Ludolphus de vita Christi part. 2. cap. 61 Nihil denique monstravit tale. etc. To conclude, he never showed any such thing. He neither had soldiers nor Princes, nor horses, nor burden of mules▪ nor any such thing about him. But he led this life humble and poor, carrying about with him. 12. base men. According to his divinity all things were subject to Christ, howbeit as touching his humanity, in his first coming he came not to rule temporally, & to reign, but rather to serve and suffer. Whereupon he denieth not that he is a King, but rather granteth it. Because according to the truth, he was the King of King●…, but yet to take away occasion of escaping. he tempereth his answer saying, that he seeketh not the temporal dominion of this world, because his Kingdom is not of this world, so far as toucheth the seeking and having these temporal things, and therefore his kingdom was neither against the jews nor the Romans, nor hindered their authority, because they only regarded an earthly Kingdom, that is, of this world. As though he said to them, you are deceived, I hinder not your Empire in this world, least vainly you should fear and rage, but come you to the The Pope and his Prelate's kingdom confuted by the Papists themselves. heavenly kingdom by believing, that is not of this world, to the which by preaching I invite you. Christ said, my Kingdom is not of this world, but yet notwithstanding many Prelates, which are his vicar's, seem in their doing to say the contrary, in pomps making themselves equal to Princes, or rather exceeding them. Thus says again your Monk Ludolphus, and withal hitteth your Pope for his more than worldly kingdom. For whereto else tendeth all this drift, but that the Pope ruling all Christian Kingdoms (pretending a spiritual Kingdom of Christ) might get a carnal kingdom to himself? As for Saint Augustine who (you say) marked, that Christ August. in cap. 18. joan. said not▪ my Kingdom is not here, but it is not from hence: if you Master Stapleton also had marked this in Saint Augustine's exposition on this sentence: Audite judei. etc. Hear O you jew, and Gentiles, hear O thou Circumcised, hear O thou uncircumcised, hear O you earthly kingdoms, I hinder not your rule in this world: you might have marked with all, that although his kingdom be here in this world: yet is it not only not of the world▪ but also not a worldly kingdom nor hindereth their government, which it should do, if it might depose and altar them. Thus we see S. Augustine's S. Augustine thought not that the kingdom of Christ hindereth worldly kingdoms. mind was not, that the kingdom of Christ dispossesseth Kings or any estates of men of their possessions and temporal goods, whereto M. Saunders applieth him: and also that by S. Augustine's, and by his own friars judgements, this sentence is aptly objected of us, against that kingdom that the Pope claimeth & usurpeth, in the name of the Kingdom of Christ. Neither can all M. Saunders elusions shifted off the force of our objection. Neither doth this avail, that he says, by the world is meant darkness, sin and the reprobate. True it is, the world many times signifieth all these things. But what helpeth this, when even the Popish kingdom (as an evident token of reprobation) not only committeth, but maintaineth most abominable sins, and the darkness of ignorance is their chiefest cover. Howbeit the pride and tyranny of the Pope's earthly kingdom, was so apparent: that even themselves cry out upon it. But now to M. Saunders. And although Christ be born of the Virgin beyond the Sand. pag. ●…4. course of nature, yet notwithstanding he is both very man, & was verily born, and by nature, he aught to be the King and Prince of all, who in things of that kind, is the first, and only: I like their sentence very well, who teach that Christ, in that he is man, is the true King and Monarch of all mankind, although his kingdom be not such an one, that he ever mingled himself in earthly things, except whereas they might be profitable to a spiritual end. As you like very well of these men's sentence, so you have Christ a king as he is God & man. herded the judgement of your own side to the contrary, that Christ, as he is man, by his first coming, took no Monarchy nor Kingdom upon him, but a spiritual kingdom belonging to his divinity. Although I do not mislike their sentence neither, that refer also the kingdom of Christ unto his humanity, so that they refer not (as you do) an humane kingdom to it. He is very man we grant, although you, in the doctrine of transubstantiation to confounded the The Papists confounded the verity of his manhood. verity of his manhood, he was also verily born, and is the only chief of all that are born, and he was born of the stem of worldly Kings also, and he was truly called even by his parentage the King of the jews, but because his kingdom consisted not in that, he was not born to be such a King. And this appeareth even in these words following unto Pilate, after he had denied his kingdom to be of this world: when Pilate replied, Art thou then a King? he answered, joan. 18. thou sayst that I am a King. Ne tamen. etc. which notwithstanding (saith Ferus) lest Pilate should be more offended Ferus in ●…o. 1●… with the name of a King: Christ proceedeth to declare his kingdom more plainly, as though he should say: Pilate, understand thou this for troth, and cast out of thy mind all suspicion, of a worldly kingdom, or of tyranny. This is the case, I will not at all deny my spiritual kingdom, The manner of Christ's kingdom. whether it be before thee, or before Caesar. Only know thou this thing, that it is not my purpose to invade any man with Arms, or after the manner of other Kings, to reign pompously: but to erect and establish in earth, the Divine truth. To this purpose was I born▪ and to this purpose came I into the world, that I might bear witness to the truth. Therefore I say came I, therefore was I born, not to fight with the sword, but that I might teach and declare the truth, and the Gospel, which is the power of God to salvation, to all that believe. And as I declare the Gospel, so I rule by the How Christ ruleth. Gospel in the hearts of the believers, over sin, death, and the Devil and for sin will I give righteousness, for death life, for the Cross, joy, for hell I will give heaven, these are The feoftments of Christ's kingdom. feofments of my kingdom. Of these things none can be partaker, except he hear my voice, and believe in his heart. I every not mine with riches, with cities and other feofments, but by my words I communicate unto them joy, life, peace, and to conclude, heaven itself. The Gospel therefore is the Sceptre of my kingdom. But what are these things against the Emperor of Rome? Thus again we see that Christ is not such a King, nor his kingdom such, as you dream of. Which in the end, yourself, contrary to yourself confess, that his kingdom is not such an one, that he ever mingled himself in earthly things. Then (Master Saunders) those things belonged not to his Kingly office, nor to his kingdom. For in such things every King aught not only to mingle, but chief to occupy himself. But straight you have an exception at hand: that he mingled not himself in earthly things, except whereas they might be profitable to a spiritual end, and this yourself before confessed, was the final end of all the civil Supra. 797. power, and that all faithful Kings, aught to direct all those things in their kingdoms, unto spiritual ends, because they themselves are spiritual. And so what letteth, but that Christ should have reigned as a worldly King, and governed an earthly kingdom? But say you: This kingdom of Christ therefore both came from heaven, Sand. 84. Math. 28. Rom. 14. Psal. 8. & tendeth unto heaven. For both all power is given unto▪ him, as he was man, and died and rose again, that he should rule over the living and the dead, and that he should be set over the works of the hands of God, and that all things should be cast under his feet, sheep and Oxen, and moreover, the beasts of the field: And also Saint cyril says, that even the In joan. li. 4. ca 12. wicked in the last day shall arise to their punishment for Christ, who rose first, and contained, as man, all men in himself. Sigh therefore earthly Kings administer those things that pertain to sheep and Oxen and beasts of the field: although they remain E●…hnikes and Infidels, yet are they truly under Christ the King, as the most worthy man▪ that hath received the principality over all things of this world, not from the earth, but from heaven, and for the same, shall give an account to him, of their common weal evil ordered, because they referred not their kingdoms to a spiritual end, that is, to the glory of one God. But Christ so far as appertineth to his humane ●…atūre, being less than Angels, seemeth to me to have Psal. ●…. received that kingdom (that Adam first should have administered among all creatures, to the glory of one God, if he had not fallen from grace) and to have renewed it in himself, and to have directed it to a spiritual end, that when all things should be subject to the Son of man, than should the Son 1. Cor. 15. also be subject unto him, that hath subdued all things to him, that God might be all in all. Sigh therefore Christ by his humane nature is the King of all, he truly directeth all things to a spiritual end, that is, to the glory of God, for God deserue●…h glory, yea, even in those that are damned, both for his Rom. 9 power and for his justice. The effect hereof is this, that God hath given to the human nature of Christ, as to the principal of all his creatures, all power & judgement, to direct them to a spiritual end, that is The government of Christ to his glory. But what is this to the purpose that Christ's kingdom is after the fashion of a worldly kingdom? he governeth all creatures, we grant, with his power and providence, yea, the sheep, Oxen, and cattle that he speaketh on. But doth the kingdom of Christ consist in these things? Numquid Deo cura de bobus? hath God (says saint 1. Cor. ●…. Paul) care of Oxen, in the consideration of his heavenly kingdom? He telleth us, how all Kings shall answer (for the ●…busing of their kingdoms) unto Christ at the day of doom, because they refer them not to a spiritual end: But he telleth not how much more the Pope shall answer for ●…surping kingdoms, and abusing the spiritual kingdom of Christ to worldly ends. But shall this judgement of Christ, be in a worldly consistory? He telleth us, how he thinketh that Christ received that kingdom that Adam should Adam's kingdom. have had, had he not fallen. But thinketh he that Christ should have ruled in an earthly Paradise, or that Christ came to restore us to no better kingdom, than Adam was in before he sinned? He telleth us, All things shall be made subject to Christ, and Christ to God, and God shall be all in all. But thinketh he this kingdom shall be in this world and militant Church, while the evimies strive and are not yet all subdued? he telleth us the glory and justice of Christ shines in the condemnation of them that are damned. But doth he think, this is a worldly glory, and humane justice? it is true, that the glory and justice of Christ shall shine over them. And so shall it in the righteous condemnation of the Popish Church, that seeketh such a worldly kingdom, and calleth it the spiritual kingdom of Christ to cloak their pride withal. But what can Master Saunders conclude hereon, for Bishops to possess kingdoms, to rule Kings, to set up, or to depose them? Neither say I these things (saith he) to show hereupon Sand. 84. that power is over the universal world given to the Bishops of the Church, as though they in all things are the Ministers and Vicars of Christ, in that he is man: for they have not received the whole power of Christ to administer it, but that part that properly belongeth to believers. For it was said unto the first Pastor, feed not all men, but my sheep, and to thee I give the keys, not of all the world, but of the kingdom of heaven. Scythe therefore Christ hath received a certain Io●…. 21. Math. 16. celestial kingdom, which kingdom useth also earthly things unto the glory of God, and sith out of the things of the world, he hath choose a certain society of men, which in a certain especial sort, worshippeth God in faith and love: in this only second kind of things, Christ hath ordained Pastors to be his Vicars. You say, that you say not these things, to show that hereupon, power is given to Bishops over all the universal world. But what soever you say, your Pope says contrary, applying this saying of Christ to himself and his successors: all Math. 28. power is given to me in heaven and in earth. You say, that Bishops have only that power, that properly belongeth to the believers, because Christ said unto the first Pastor, feed, not all men, but my sheep. That Peter was the first Pastor, is another question Master Saunders. But that the Peter not t●… first Pastor. the Apostles had not in charge to go and preach to those that were not believers, yea, to all men, so far as they could, besides the feeding of them that were believers, and so were become already the sheep of the fold of Christ, is a manifest untruth. For the Apostles had this general charge, go Marci. 16. you into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. So that they fed (besides the faithful) the Infidels dispersed through out the whole world, for those Christ also calleth his, because they should be his sheep, & alias oves joan. 10. babeo. etc. I have also other sheep that are not of this fold, those must I bring also. etc. But whereto run you to this so evident falsehood? forsooth to prove that the Bishops have full power over all the believers, in a their earthly possessions, & so might have power to depose Kings, & to occupy their kingdoms & seize upon all men's goods that are Christians, because they are their Pastors. And to this purpose is it that you say, Christ hath received a certain celestial kingdom, which useth also all earthly things unto the glory of God. Which Christ useth not a worldly kingdom by the Administration of the spiritual master's. saying in this sense may well be granted, the kingdom of Christ useth all earthly things that it useth, to the glory of God: but this would be proved that the Kingdom of Christ useth, by the administration of the spiritual ministers thereof, a worldly or earthly kingdom, which use is so far from the glory of God, that it is contrary to his celestial kingdom. Which consists (as you say) in feeding the sheep of Christ, in the keys of God's word, and in that especial sort of worshipping God in faith and love: and not in deposing kings, or governing of earthly kingdoms, wherein they can not be (as you term them) Vicars or deputies of Christ sith Christ the King, neither took himself such use of power upon him, & flatly forbade the same unto his Ministers. Therefore the whole kingdom of Christ came from Sand. 84. heaven, that is, from the dignity which is given unto his humane nature, for the union of the Divine nature. Neither by any means the kingdom of him, drew his original from the law of nations or the civil. For he refused to be created Io●…n. 6. Luke. 1●…. King, or to divide the inheritance between the brethren, saying: who hath made me a judge or divider over you? As though he should say: neither the common weal, neither the Emperor hath made me a judge, & yet notwithstanding, these brethren thought of such a judge. But in that part that Christ was appointed of God to be judge, by his incarnation, concerning that, he said unto those brethren: beware of all covetousness. For he saw that they drove not their inheritance to a spiritual end, that they might bear the heavenly judgement of Christ. This is a shameful wresting of the Scripture, and inverting M. Sand. shifting off the examples of Christ's fleeing from being a worldly King, and refusing to be a ●…vorldly judge of the manifest doings of our Saviour. Here are two other plain examples of Christ, against Master Saunders, the one of his refusal to be a worldly King, the other to be a'vvorldly judge. The former he shifteth off in this sort●…, Christ would not receive an earthly kingdom into his hands not because he would none of it, but because he would not take it of their gift, lest it should seem to come of them. For his kingdom is of heaven, and notin the original, from the la of nations, or of the civil. As though our disputation The cause of Christ's refusal was not on lie in the original, lest it should seem to come of them were so much of the original, as of the use and having of it: as though Christ respected nothing but the original, or as though, if he would have had such a kingdom, he could not have had it if they had not given it him: or as though, even the first original of earthly kingdoms, came not from God also. But to confute you with your own mouths, I will cite once again friar Ferus against you, that allegeth not only this cause of the original, but many other causes directly to this purpose. Christ fled (saith he) because he Ferus in. 10. 6. The causes why Christ fled from a worldly king doom. received not a kingdom of men, but gave a kingdom unto men. He fled, because his kingdom is not of this world, it is not carnal, it consists not in external riches, power, pomp. etc. Yea, he rather came, that he might teach to contemn these things. But his kingdom is a kingdom of truth, justice, peace, and eternal life. For although he govern in all the world, yet he governeth not after the manner of the world, nor he affecteth such a kingdom. He s●…edde therefore, not because he would not reign over the faithful, but because he deferreth the express tokens of reigning for the time to come. He fled, because he came to minister, not that it should be ministered unto him. He fled, for he came not to kill Kings, but to preach to Kings the knowledge of reigning justly, not to press the kingdoms of the world with tributes and taxes, but that which Kings so well as the people wanted, to give them gifts of life eternal, out of the treasure of the kingdom of heaven, going about to vanquish in war, a far other manner of enemy, than Tiberius Caesar, and to take an other manner of beast than Rome, which at that tyme. was Lady of the jews. Besides this he fled, that he would not give to the people an occasion of sedition against Caesar, Christ would not give any occasion of sedition. and so withal an occasion of sin and perdition. For he that moveth sedition against the power (as here in your writing you M. Sand▪ do, and your Pope doth in his Bulls against Christian Princes) sinneth and justly perisheth for it. Which Christ himself hath spoken: he that taketh the sword, shall perish with the sword. To conclude, he fled, lest he should give the adversaries occasion of sclaundering him. For if they, yea, even without this, persecuted him as a seditious person, how much more would they have persecuted him, if he had accepted the kingdom offered of the people. Thus even till this day fleeth he from those, that only seek carnal things in him, because no part of his spiritual gifts looketh on them, & he despiseth them that are occupied about vile bags▪ to wit, being given to their belly & filthiness. He only giveth himself to them that seek spiritual things in him, & that can say our conversation is in heaven. Not without cause therefore Christ here fled being sought for unto a kingdom, who being sought for unto death, offered himself freely. For first by this, he condemned our pride, or covetousness, or ambition, or daintiness. Secondly, he taught to contemn the glory of the world, than the which nothing is more vain, and not to fear the adversity of the world, than the which nothing is more short. Thirdly, he taught herein, that those things are but small, that in the world seem to be mostegreat. They thought they had offered Christ a great thing, but he despised it as a little thing. We are far of an other judgement. Whom he means by this, we: look a little The Popish Prelates of an other judgement than Christ. before concerning them that offered the kingdom to Christ. This fact (says he) declareth what the flesh seeketh in Christ, even his own Cousins, that is to say, fleshly & humane things. Christ is set forth before us, that in him we should seek the forgiveness of sins, righteousness, eternal life. But the carnal man seeketh nothing in him but licence, carnal liberty, and the filling of the paunch. For he that is of the earth, speaketh and thinketh of earthly things, yea, such is the nature of the flesh, that it abuseth all the gifts of God, and seeketh far other things in them, than God would. So the fleshly man in the creatures that are given to our use, and to this that God might be known and feared, seeketh no other thing than pleasure. And when by them he aught to be carried unto the creator, he sticketh in them, and worshippeth them, So, in the law which was given of God, for the knowledge of sin, the carnal jews sought righteoushesse (even as the The Papists compared to the carnal jews. Papists do) and so now also, all those carnal men, that in the power of the sword, seek not that that God will, but only ambition, pride, etc. yea, and that in these things that appertain to the spiritual government, those carnal Pastors seek only honour, riches, idleness, delights: when as Christ ordained them to be teachers, guides, Apostles. etc. For no other Carnal pastors cause, than for the edifying of his body. Thus says friar Ferus against his own fleshly spirituality seeking in Christ's spiritual kingdom a worldly kingdom, which for these causes abovesaid, and not only for the original, (that Master Saunders here only mentioneth) he refused to be made a King. The like shift Master Saunders useth to the other place Luc. 12. of Christ's refusal to be a judge, between the brethren M. Saunders shift to Christ's refusal to be a judge Luc. 12. for the division of their inheritance, saying who made me a judge, or divider, over you? as though he should say, neither the common weal hath made me a judge, neither the Emperor hath made me a judge. As though Christ refused to be their judge, not for that he would not be such a judge, ●…ut for that he was not made such a judge by humane authority. For of such a judge (says he) these brethren thought, whether What the man thought of Christ ●…hat would have him a judge. they thought him to be such a judge or not, i●… not apparent, Master Saunders, and if we may go by conjectures & probabilities, it rather seemeth the contrary. For neicher could they see any such tokens in him, to have been authorized from those that were ●…hen the Magistrates, & his words going before do argue they could not conveniently so think of him, both rattling up the Phariseis that had the humane authority: & bidding his Disciples not to mistrust what to answer when they should come before the powers & Magistrates, which these brethren hearing, might easily conceive that Christ himself was no such earthly Magistrate. But to the causes wherefore Christ refused it, & that as before) even of the Papists Hofmeister. in Luc●…. 12. mouths themselves. Hofmeister one of your sloutest champions, hath these words: Truly those things that have been spoken and herded from the beginning of this Gospel, do enough declare the kingdom of Christ not to be of this world, neither that he would reign temporally in the world, sith he taketh not soldiers that can oppugn others, but fishermen readier to suffer than to strike. And so in this place, with most manifest words Christ declareth, that he came not for this purpose, Why Christ took not on him the 〈◊〉 of a Magistrate to take upon him the office of a Magistrate, but rather that he might reign in our hearts, so that it might be our hap to come to the eternal goods, whatsoever happened of our tem porall goods. Therefore when he was interrupted of a certain jew, that he would help him in recovering his inheritance: he answered, Man, who hath made me a judge or divider over you? As though he should say, hath not this world judges, that may decide so base controversies? it is not appointed unto me, that this or that man should wax rich by inheritance, but that all men should come to the inheritance of life immortal. But in these words Christ would betoken many things, to wit, that he which hath an Apostolical office, aught not to be wrapped with profane and filthy affairs. For so the Apostle says otherwhere, No man going to warfare under God entangleth himself with worldly business. And the Apostles say all at once, it is not meet for us to leave the word of God, and attend on the tables. Christ also by this reproving would declare, that his doctrine taketh not away the Magistrates offices, but rather confirmeth them. Whereupon he says also else where tender to Cesar, that that is Caesar's. And when his Disciples strived for pre-eminence, he said▪ the kings of the nations govern them, & so forth. Whereby he declared, that neither he himself, nor his, aught (as they call them) to be secular judges: neither Christ abolished not the Magistrates office, though he himself refused it. did he by this refusing, abolish the order of the Magistrate, but much more (as we have said) confirmed it. Thus far your own Doctor Hofmeister against you, that the intent of Christ refusing to be a judge herein, was chiefly against such usurpation of worldly Magistracy, as the Pope and his Prelates do exercise. But (say you) Christ in that he was appointed of God to be judge by his incarnation, concerning that part, he said unto them, that they should beware of covetousness, for he see that they drove not as yet their inheritance to a spiritual end, that they might bear the judgement of Christ. As who should say, if they had been Christians he would then have been a temporal judge over them, that is to say, if they had done their duty, he would then have broken his. Not M. Saund▪ that was not the cause why Christ refused to judge the matter, but because he counted it no part of his office, neither was he appointed of God thereto, but it belongeth to the Civil Magistrate. As for such judgement, as vydding the brethren to beware of covetousness, was in deed appointed of God to Christ, & of him to all his Ministers, to judge of vices, & in such sort, as by preaching to them their ●…ties, to All judgement of all temporal matters not vtte●…ly debarred from the spiritual Ministers▪ What kind of judging is debarred. judge of all estates, & of all things also. Neither is all ●…on of Civil controuersi●…s, or judging temporal matters ●…ply debarred from the spiritual Minister, nor the use of temporal things. But that the kingdom of Christ confis●…es in these things, or that the ministers of Christ be in such Ci●…ill judgements above Kings, or may judge▪ Kings, & give their inheritance from them, or if they have any authority too in Civil matters, that it is properly by their office, or belonging properly to Christ's kingdom and that they have it not from the Prince▪ is clean confuted by this example. Neither can all these shifts defeat it, much less that that followeth in M. Saunders, saying. Declaring therefore to what end all things that are in the Sand. pag. 84. world aught to be re●…rred: seek (says he) the kingdom of God, & all these things shall be cast unto you. Where he denieth not that even worlldy things pertain to the kingdom of Luc●…. 12. God: but he would not have those sought, for themselves, but only for the kingdom of God. But the kingdom that believeth in Christ, it hath left in that part, to be of the world, in which part Christ denied his kingdom to be of this world. Whatsoever (says S. Augustine) is from henceforth regenerate in Christ, is made a kingdom, not now of the world. Though all things all to be referred to god's kingdom yet the kingdom c●…nsists not in all things. 1. Co●…. 10. Rom. ●…4. That all things ought to be referred to the kingdom of God, we grant, but that the kingdom of God consiste●… in all things we deny. Meat & drink aught to be referred to the kingdom of God, whether you eat or drink (says S. Paul) o●… whatsoever you do▪ do it all to the praise & glory of God, but the kingdom of God is not meat and drink. Yo●… say, worldly things pertain to the Kingdom of God. Which although it is much better said, than that the kingdom should appertain to worldly things, as the Papists here would drine it, to the state of a worldly kingdom: yet is it but an improper saying, that worldly things belong to the kingdom of God. In deed the faithful (which are the kingdom of God) How worldly things belong to the kingdom of God. have them, and they belong unto them, and they are necessary and convenient for them, as meat, drink, cloth, house, fire, water, propriety and possession of temporal & worldly goods, to each faithful man in his degree, and also to the ministers of the Church of Christ, & that to have these worldly How the spiritual ministers of Christ may have a b●…ance of worldly things. In what respect they belong to them & to all the faithful & in what respect they belong not unto them. How the Popish●…●…relates would have worldly things. things belonging to them (according as their gifts and travails require) with double honour, yet do they not belong unto them, nor to any of the faithful, as he is a member of this kingdom but as he is a man and subject to infirmities, and these gifts of God are made for his use, so well the ministers as any others. But yet there is a difference in the having of these worldly things, and the being a Prince in the having of them: for such Princely having of them, is expressly forbidden unto the spiritual minister of Christ, and permitted only unto the Civil Magistrate. The Pope and his Prelates will not only have them, but they will be kings, and excel kings, in the having of them, and will have them in the name of the Church, and of the kingdom of Christ, and not as from the Prince, to whose authority properly, although not to whose propriety, they belong: for the minister may have the propriety of those worldly things so well as another, and perhaps better than many another, & more abundance of them too, with which he may do more goodsundry The Papists have no measure in having, & the cormorants no measure in pulling away. ways, than divers other in God's Church. But there is a difference between stark ●…aring▪ and stark blind. Ther●… are some cormorants that hunt for the spoi●…e, and would have the ministers earthly things clean taken from them, as though they were only spiritual. The Papists on the other side, were not only cont●…t to have them, but they would (besides their to much excess of them) be exempted with privileges from the Prince's authority in the having of them, and the Pope did claim not only a kingdom of them, but that all kings held their kingdoms of him. And this is the thing that we deny the Papists. For Christ hath plain debarred it, and denied his kingdom to be a worldly kingdom. Yea but (saith M. Sanders) in that part that a kingdom In what part and respect the believer in Christ hath left off to be of the world. believeth in Christ, it hath left off to be of this world▪ We grant you, M. Sanders, in respect of the belief in Christ and the soul that believeth: but yet hath it not left off to be of this world, in respect of the body, in respect of the civil government, in respect of having and using orderly Gods creatures, in respect of maynteining our lives, our goods, our families & our countries: all which earthly things, the kingdom of God, that is, the faythfull●…, may enjoy, and have far better use of them than any other, referring them to spiritual ends, howbeit, every man in his degree such earthly things as are competent to his estate, and are not debarred from his use, as the having of an earthly kingdom, is from the spiritual Minister. As for the sentence of S. Augustine, is not to this purpose, S. Aug. wrested by master Sanders. but wrested thereto, for he speaketh not there of a kingdom, as we here do, that is to say, of a civil power governing a Realm, or of a Realm and policy governed by How faithful kingdoms lea●…e off and how not to be of the world. a King, as though because it received the faith o●… Christ, it were not of the world, that is, it were not governed after a worldly manner. In which sense (as we have showed) Christ denied his kingdom to be of the world. For although it be become a faithful kingdom▪ yet maintaineth it still the former state, which is no●… diss●…lued by the kingdom of Christ, but rather bettered and confirmed. Of whi●…he estate S. Augustine there speaketh not. His words are these: Aug▪ in tractatu, ●…n loa. 11●…. Therefore they were of the world, when they were not of his kingdom, but pertained to the prince of the world, That therefore is of the world, whatsoever is in deed created of the true God, but is born of the corrupted and damned stock of Adam. But that which is regenerate in Christ, is made a kingdom now not of the world, for so God hath pulled us out of the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of the son of his brightness. By which sentence it appeareth, he speaketh not of the world, in the sense of the might and glory thereof, but in the sense of the power of sin and Satan: neither of a kingdom, in the sense of a policy governed by a king, but in the sense of the spiritual gifts of Christ. In which How every faithful is a king in a mystical sense, but not in a literal sense. sense, every faithful man, woman, and child, is not only a member of his kingdom, but is a king. Howbeit he is not a king, in that sense that Christ denied his kingdom to be of the world, that is, to be a Magistrate, and governor of God's people: which estate is only granted vn●… Princes, and as flatly ●…ebarred from any ecclesiastical person, as from any other private man. Si●…he therefore we say not, that other kingdoms ought Sand. pag. 84. to be under the Ministers of the Church of Christ, than those that already believe in Christ, or at any time have believed: truly this is most foolishly objected to us, that Bishops have no power over Christian kings and their kingdoms, because it is written, the kingdom of Christ (which is committed to his Ministers, for the part whereby he worketh here) is not of this world. For we seek it not of those kingdoms that are of this world, but of those, which although they be in this world, yet by faith in Christ they have left to be of this world. M. Sand▪ still wrists of purpose this word, the world, M. Sand. still wrists this word, the world●…. to sin, and to the state of the unfaithful. As though Christ only meant, My kingdom is not a kingdom of sin, and such as are the kingdoms of those Princes, over whom the Prince of darkness reigns. Whereas the words of Christ are plain, that his kingdom is not such a kingdom, as ruleth in worldly glory, whether it were of the The simple & literal meaning of Christ in ●…aying▪ His kingdom is not of this world. faithful kings, or the unfaithful. For the jews that would have made him a king, did not doubt of this, that he would become a tyrant, or an unfaithful Prince, they hoped he would be a better Prince unto them▪ than he was that then oppressed them: they trusted he would govern them, as David, Solomon, and other godly princes had done: they reckoned that their Messiah should rule in all worldly glory, as a most mighty king. But this opinion The opinion o●… the jews that offered him the kingdom. Christ denieth, in his fléeing from their offer. And so he said to Pilate, If my kingdom were of this world, my ministers would fight for me, that is, I could, not by tyranny, but by worldly and lawful power and force maintain my kingdom. Neither did his Disciples when they desired His Disciples opinion in cra ●…ng pre●…erment in his kingdom. Math. 20. such pre-eminence in his kingdom, think his kingdom was a kingdom of sin, or a rule of unfaithfulness: but thought of a very worldly government, shining in all might and glory, which they took to be good and lawful, and him to be most worthy of it. And this is that that Christ reproveth in them, affirming that neither he nor they should reign in such sort as worldly Princes do, whether they were faithful or unfaithful Princes. Not that Christ governeth not the faithful Princes. For they obediently submit How Christ ruleth Christian Princes. their earthly kingdoms to his spiritual kingdom, yea and to the ministers of his kingdom too, in things belonging to the ministery of his spiritual kingdom. But that the Ministers of the spiritual kingdom of Christ, have such How M. Sand. would have all Christendom and a great part of heathenness subject to the Pope. power over any Christian Prince that believeth in Christ, that they may take his estate from him, that they themselves may rule in his estate, that they may make him hold his estate of them, that they ought not to be subject to his estate: this is the thing that M. San. laboureth in, and would bring all kings and their kingdoms unto, that either have the faith of Christ already, or at any time have had it, as jerusalem, Syria, Gréece, Asia, egypt, Africa, and divers other countries, so well under the Turk and Saracens, as all Christian kingdoms in the world, to be subject to the Pope's authority, to receive or forsake their kingdoms at his pleasure. But this and such other worldly glory of rul●…g kingdoms is flatly debarred by Christ's saying: My kingdom is not of this world: neither all the john. 18. wisdom of the world can co●…nteruayle this sentence, how foolishly soever we seem to M. Sanders to object it. But this is his old song, all are rooles and dolts with him, that object any thing against the Pope's worldly wise Dominion. But this foolishness we need not be ashamed of, that is the decree of Christ, who is the father's wisdom. If therefore we see such a kingdom, as is dedicated to Sand. pag. 84. Christ, thus governed, that the King by abuse of the sword which he carrieth, carry away the Christian Citizens into most grievous sins, yea into schisms and heresy, if he say Christ is but a creature, if every where he permit divorces, if he affirm usuries to be lawful, shall it be a wicked deed, first after one or two admonitions, to remove this King from Tit. 3. the fellowship of the faithful: and then if he yet amend not himself, by the help of other Princes, to expel him utterly from the government of his kingdom? If a Christian King were such an other wicked King, Whether it were a wicked deed for Bishops to depose a wicked king. as here you imagine: you ask if it were a wicked deed thus to order him? I answer you, it were a wicked deed. For and he were ten times more wicked, that excuseth not the Bishop's treason, to incite other to expel him. None of the ancient godly Bishops did ever attempt that tre●…heris against such wicked Princes, were they Arians, Tyrants, Though the subject be not bond to obey the vices, yet he is bound to obey the state. or whatsoever they were, till the later Popes did set abroach this traitorous practice. For, a Bishop being but a subject, although he is not bound to obey the Prince's vices, yea he is bound both to disobey the vices, and to reprove the Prince for them, and to terrify him with the threats of God's wrath, although it cost him his life for his labour: yet is he not bound to rebel, or 'cause other to rebel, or to practise conspiracies with other against his Prince, whereby effusion of Christian blood ensueth. Yea he is bound to the contrary, to obey his civil government, and not he to abuse his estate also, because the Prince abuseth his estate, but to use all lawful means he can to reform him, committing the rest to God, who placed him, and whom he representeth in his calling, though he serve from him in his ruling. As for the Bishops have no such calling to depose Though Bishops can not depose Princes yet Princes can depose Bishops. him, nor any such ruling as worldly Princes, good or ill do exercise. And therefore if they take this usurpation upon them, though they ought not to depose Princes, yet aught Princes to depose them, especially being infected with those vices, that M. San. su●…niseth are in these Princes. Have not Popes made schisms, when two or three, or four at once strived for the Papacy? have not Popes maintained, Christ is a creature▪ as Liberius that was an Arian? and a sinful creature, yea alyer, as Leo the tenth objected to Bembus, Quidmibi narras de Christo fabulas? What The vices that he surmiseth on Princes, are apparent in the Pope and his Prelates. tellest thou me the fables of Christ? Hath not the Pope not only permitted divorces for many other causes than God permitteth, but also by force and against the consent of both the parties severed those that God hath joined, and joined those that God hath forbidden to be joined? Doth not the Pope maintain the greatest usuries that be, to wit, the jews to pill and poll the Christians, and all for his own lucre, besides his most filthy and unlawful gain by fornication? Doth not the Pope by the abuse of the sword & keys that he says he carrieth, carry away the Christian citizens into most grievous sins, yea, and say he may carry away with him at the world to the devil, & no man must be so hardy as to say, sir, why do you thus? Shall it now be a wicked deed, to remove the Pope from the fellowship of the faithful, after one or two admonitions, & then if he amend not himself, that all Christian Princes help to expel him utterly from the usurpation of this his worldly kingdom. But M. Sa. not seeing these vices in his holy father, & surmising the worst in Princes, supposeth we will answer his objection thus: But one will say, no power is given unto the Church of punishing Sand. pag. 85. or of removing the kings from their office, & therefore if the kings will not of their own accord be amended, they are altogether to be born withal, neither can any other thing be lawfully attempted against them. This truly do many preach. Who they be that preach this, I know not, I think it but your slander. Ill will never said well. And yet whosoeso What the preacher may do against a wicked Prince. Not bodily punishment of the King belongeth to the Bishop. preacheth this, preacheth far better than you do, whose sermon is all of treason & rebellion. As for us we preach this, that the preacher or spiritual pastor may in such extremities, use a spiritual punishment, of denouncing the sentence of God's wrath against him. But to punish him with bodily punishment, or with expelling him from his kingdom, is no more belonging to the Bishop, than to put him to death. The state of some kingdoms are such, I grant that the Prince's regiment is but conditional, and he so well What may be done in removing an evil Prince in some estates. bound to the electors of him, & other peers or estates in his Signiory, as they to him, and either parties sworn in his Coronation, not only to observe those conditions, but to persecute or remove the violater of them. In such cases, what those Electors, Peers, & Estates may do, & how they may, or may not do it, is an other matter. But that even in these estates, the Bishops can do it, & do it in that they are Bishops: this we deny (M. Sand) and as yet you have not proved it. But I doubt not, but that every necessary and profitable Sand. pag. 85. power is given to the Pastor over his sheep, whether they be lambs, or lambs dams, or rams, and that to this purpose, Ezech. 34. that he should strengthen that, that is weak: that he should heal that, that is sick: that he should bind up that, that is broken: that he should bring again that, that is cast away: that he should seek that, that is lost, so that he rule not with austerity and power. You doubt not (M. Sand.) but I doubt of this, that every Whether every necessary and profitable power be given to the Pastor over his sheep. necessary and profitable power is given to the Pastor over his sheep. The eccl. power is both necessary and profitable. But the Prince is a pastor, and the people are his sheep. And yet by your own confession, the ecclesiastical power is not given to the Prince. Had you marked this, you might have doubted, that every necessary and profitable power, is given to the pastor over his sheep. Again, the power of the sword, and putting to death malefactors, is a necessary and profitable power. But the Bishop is a pastor, and the people are his sheep. And yet by your own confession, the power of the sword, and putting to death, is not given to the Bishop. Had you seen this also, you might have doubted, that every necessary and profitable power, is given to the Pastor over his sheep. This lack of doubting, made you to●… rash of deeming, and to pronounce your sentence over general. And as you see in these two cases a flat exception, that you will gladly revoke: so we must drive you to grant the other powers also pertaining to a King, which notwithstanding they are necessary and profitable, are yet not given unto a Bishop, although he be a Pastor. I pray you remember, Vos autem non sic, if it will not make you sick to remember it. Luke. 22. The duties of good pastors that you cite out of Ezech. 34. The popish Pastors far from the duties described in. Ezech. 34. God (we grant) hath given them power thereto. But the Popish pastors are as far from all these points, & much farther, than the jewish pastors were, of whom the Lord complaineth, saying: Woe be to the pastors of Israel, that feed themselves: are not ●…he sheep fed of the shepherds? you did eat the milk, & were clad with the will▪ that that was fat, you killed: but my flock you fed not▪ that that was weak, you strengthened not: that that was sick, you healed not: that that was broken, you bond not up: that that was cast away, you brought not in, that that was lost you sought not, but you ruled them with bitterness, & with power. how this directly toucheth the Pope, and his Prelates, even the popish enterlined Gloss doth testify. Hoc proprie. etc. Glossa in Lyra in Ezech. 34. This properly is spoken of the pride of Bishops, which shame with their works the dignity of their name, for humility, taking pride: who think they have got heaven, and not a burden. Whose loitering idleness, whose vain glorious pride, whose bitter tyranny, & more than kingly power was so intolerable, that it was marvel that ever you dared for shame recite this place. But you thought it served to your purpose, that you might under the name of sheep punish & drive out Princes at your pleasures. But this place giveth not Pastor's power to weaken them that be strong, to make them sick that be hole, to break that that is bond up, to cast out that that is brought in, to lose that that was sought for, to kill & devour both the fat & the lean, both the Prince & the people, to rule with bi●…ternesse & with power: all which by your pope's practice is done, & by your exposition is defended. For is not that to rule with bitterness, if you expel your To expel Prin ces from their kingdoms, is to rule with bitterness. Princes from their kingdoms? can you be any bitterer to them? what earthly power can you claim higher, than to seize upon & rule their kingdoms, or to have them rule them after your rules, whom you will appoint, to ●…olde them in chief from you. This place of ezechiel giveth you not such power, but condemneth in Pastors the usurpation of it. But what will not impudency wrist to serve his turn. Moreover, to the mind and to reason, power is given over Sand. pag. 85. all the members of the body, insomuch that it biddeth that rotten member to be ●…ut from the body, of the which it may be feared, lest it should infect the other members. But the In Orat. de moderate. in disputat servanda. The similitude of cutting of a rotten ●…eber. pastors in the Church are as the mind is in the body of man, as S. Gregory Nissene hath noted. I answer▪ First, this is but a similitude, and therefore con●…inceth nothing, how oft soever you allege it. We grant that the Pastors are, as it were, the mind of the Church, in the reasoning and discussing the faith of Christ, How the pastors are as it were the mind or reason in the head. How the Prince again is as the mind o●… reason in the head. the word of God, the sacraments and mysteries of Christ's Church. But again, in the maintenance and setting forth, in the oversight and public direction, in the punishment and correction of the trespasses, the Prince is the mind, the reason, and the head also, and a pastor in gods Church too. And therefore this belongs not only to the Bishops. But be it the Prince be not the mind and reason, whose place is in the head. Were the King but as the heart, or as the will whose place is in the heart, yet as the mind doth but either devise by invention, or discern by judgement, or remember by memory, and not assent or descent, like or mislike, choose or refuse, for that belongeth to the will: so the spiritual pastor may devise wholesome remedies, or remember the Prince The Prince compared to the will in the har●…e. of them, or discern in controversies between this and that, which we deny not. But the refusal or receiving, the liking or misliking, the bidding or forbidding, that lies in the faculty of the Prince. Not that the Prince hath faculty to will every thing, no more than the head may devise every thing, for both aught to will and devise only good things▪ but that the authority to put them in execution, and willing the members to do them, as it proceeds principally next to God, from the will: so the setting forth of godly Religion, taught by the persuasion of the pastor as the reason in the head, proceeds principally next to God from the Prince, as the will in the heart. But now as M. Saunders hath for stalled the head for the Priest, so if he will not relent the heart to the Prince: yet I If the Prince were but come pared to the lungs, lights or liver, yet must ●…e not be cut off because he is infected. trust he will be thus good unto him, to compare him at the lest to some principal member in the body, as to the lights, the lungs, the liver. etc. If now the lights, the lungs, or the liver, be infected, by whose infection diverse others parts of the body would become also infected, will the head therefore, will the mind or reason bid cut them off, and hur●…e them out of the body, lest they infect the other members? were it not an unreasonable reason that would reason thus, to have those rotten members cut off from the body, of which remaining it may be feared lest they should infect the other members, when the cutting them away strait killeth all the members, both head and heart and all? and thus you see M. Saunders if we shall reason by similitudes, how they make more for us, than for you. But similitudes may delight or lighten a matter, they are not of force to urge it. But M. Saunders will press it with stronger arguments. Besides this S. Paul by name doth teach, that power is given Sand. pag. 85. to the Church over the goods & over the bodily things of the faithful. For he persuadeth the Corinthians, that if they 1. Cor. 6. will needs go to law, they should go to law before Christians, and not before ethnics. And because it might be said, there were no public Magistrates or judges ordained among the Christians: he warneth the faithful that they should appoint judges among themselves: and if perhaps there were not wisemen in that kind (which notwithstanding was not likely) yet at the lest they should rather appoint contemptible people, than to go to law before the infidels. This place is alleged before and there is answered. The drift of it here, consists on this argument. The Church hath power over the goods and bodily things of the faithful: But the Pastors are the Church: Ergo, the pastors have power over the goods and bodily things of the faithful. To the Mayor I answer, the Church hath power, but a How the Church hath power over the goods and bodily things of the faithful. limited power. Such power as confoundeth not or taketh away the goods or bodily things of any of the faithful, which are members of the Church. Such power as is competent to every member of the Church, to possess, to use, and dispose his own goods and bodily things, according to his private or public calling. To the Minor, I deny it: the pastors are not the Church, The pastors are not the Church, but members of the Church. but members of the Church, and have power only over such goods and bodily things as belong to them. And yet in that power that they have of the propriety of their own goods, they may so little spoil the Prince of his goods or bodily things, that they hold them from the Prince, and have by him the The pastors have the power and propriety of bodily goods from the power of the Prince. 1. Cor. 6. peaceable possession of them. For all that power under God is from the Prince, to them & to all other. Neither the Bishops nor any in the Church, nor all the Church together, hath power to take the Prince's goods or his bodily things from him. But M. Saunders to enforce his argument, citeth the sayof S. Paul. 1. Cor. 6. In that he would have Christians, go to law (if they will needs go to law) before Christians, and not before ethnics. Why, M. Saunders are Christian Princes and faithful M. Sand. maketh priests only Christians, and Christian Princes ethnics . Magistrates no better with you than ethnics? and are you Priests only Christians? for else how can you apply this to the present purpose? that Priests should have power over the goods of the faithful: that the faithful should run for decision of their controversies to the Priests, not to the Princes? that the Bishops may judge of the Prince's goods aod kingdom, and give it away to another: trow you this was the meaning of S, Paul? But you excuse the matter with this, S. Paul meant not that the Corinthiaus should go to law before the pastors for temporal matters. that they had then no Christian Magistrates. As though therefore he had bidden such law matters to be determined by their pastors. Not M. Saund. this was neither the words nor the meaning of him. For he knew, the pastors had another power and enough to do therein, although they busied not themselves in the law matters that fell out among the Christians. Not that s. Paul thought they might have no power of any bodily things, nor propriety of temporal goods, or that he thought they might in no case be peacemakers in such brabbling matters: but that Saint Paul would have the pleading and decision of such things to be rather belonging ordinarily, to some faithful and honest man, choose among themselves, than to run to heathen judges. Which words among themselves, do as it were declare, that he meant such as was of their own calling, and not their ●…astor▪ Which is more evident in that he says, is there no wise man among you? what, not one, that can judge between brother and brother? so that he speaketh in general, and not only of the pastor. And where he says, chose a contemptible person. Except you will make the pastor contemptible▪ it argueth, he meant not this judge should be the pastor. So that this place, as it maketh nothing for the power of the Priests over the goods and bodily things of the faithful, so it maketh much here in against them. For if S. Paul in such matters of goods and bodily things, rather than they should not have a Christian judge, would have them choose among themselves even a contemptible person: how much more now when the Church hath faithful judges and Christian Princes, it aught in such controversies, to run to them for justice, rather than to the Priests and Bishops, that are of another calling. Moreover, lest any should say, that the Church of Christ Sand. pag. 85. hath nothing to do with the business of this world: he saith expressly, do you not know that the saints shall judge of this world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are you unworthy 1. Cor. 6. to judge of small things? know you not that we shall judge the Angels, how much more worldly things. Behold the Apostle reasoneth from the spiritual power to the temporal, on this wise: To whom that which is more, is lawful, to him is lawful that which is less: But we Christians shall judge of the world, and we shall judge the renegade Angels and the Devils themselves, the which cometh by the spiritual power▪ whereby we be made the sons of God, and the coinheritors Rom. 8. of Christ: much more therefore may we exercise secular judgements. Whereby it appeareth that secular things are both inferior ●…o spiritual, and are not estranged from the spiritual power, but may light under it, chiefly then, when the matter is in hand of punishing or judging those men, that are the members of the Church of Christ. 〈◊〉 say not (Master Saunders) that the Church of How the ministers have & have not to do with worldly business. Christ hath nothing to do with the business of this world, this is but your slander. We say that the spiritual Ministers of the Church of Christ, have not so to do with such worldly business, that they may turquise all the world, and altar the states of worldly kingdoms, and occupy themselves about worldly affairs, in such worldly dominion as you pretend they may. Whereto you abuse shamefully Saint Paul's sayings. He speaketh there of worldly matters, S. Paul wrested by Master Sand. and you apply it to all judgements, yea, to the judging of a kingdom▪ But you replle, he says the Saints shall judge the world and the Angels, which are greater things than kingdoms, how much more than kingdoms, that are lesser things. Trow you) Master Saunders (he speaketh there, of such How the saints shall judge the world. judging the world, that they should judge like chief Iusti●… of realms and kingdoms, whether this or that Prince shall enjoy them, or shall be dispossessed of them? Not (M. Saunders) she speaketh of no such thing. The world shall be judged in them, as chrysostom well noteth: judicabunt Chrysost. in. 1. Cor. 6. non ipsi judices. etc. They shall judge▪ not they themselves sitting in judgement, & exacting an account. God forbidden, but they shall condemn the world, the which signifying he says, and if in you. etc. He says not of you, but in you As who should say, the just condemnation of these that are the worldlings, shall shine in the salvation of you that are the Saints. This therefore proveth 〈◊〉 such worldly judgement as you pretend Secondly you abuse S. Paul, as though in speaking of S. Paul speaking of Saints means not only spiritual Pastors. the Saints, he spoke only of the spiritual Pastors, whereas he speaketh in general of the whole congregation. Are Saintes and Christians only Priests with you? this is both manifest wresting of S. Paul, and shameless arrogancy in yourselves. But you say the Church hath it, by the spiritual power whereby we be made the sons of God, and coinheritors of Christ. We grant you Master Saunders. But doth this spiritual power belong only to Priests? you say it appeareth hereby, we may exercise secular judgements, whom mean you by this we, (Master Saunders) yourselves that are the Priests? But S. Paul speaketh of Christian people, and not of the Pastors only, yea, lest of all of the Pastors. Whereupon says Haimo out of Gregory, on these words, choose him that is contemptible. Secundum Gregorium. etc. According Haimo in. 1. Cor. 6. to Gregory, by contemptible people we may understand secular men, having the knowledge of humane laws, and in their personages being honourable, who in comparison of them that understand the divine laws, and pierce the mysteries of the holy Trinity, are contemptible and simple, although they be faithful▪ And according to this sense we must read it affirmatively, because such are to be appointed, which of the Canons are called, the Sons of the Church. I sprake it to your shame, because although I command it not, you aught to have done it. And therefore he commandeth such to be ordained, because they that aught to serve on the altar, and meditate Divine Sermons, and give the word of preaching to the people, aught to estrange themselves from secular business and judgements. Likewise saith your Cardinal Hugo. The gloss calleth them Hugo in. 1. Cor. 6. contemptible, that are not apt to great offices in the Church, as to preach and teach. And this is an argument that my lord The Pope reproved. the Pope aught not to appoint Masters of Divinity, to be judges of temporal things. To your shame (says the gloss) that those should examine earthly causes, that have got the wisdom of outward things. But those that are enriched with spiritual gifts, aught not to be entangled with earthly business, that while they be not driven to inferior goods, they may be able to attend on the higher goods. Howbeit this must greatly be cared for, that they that shine in spiritual goods, forsake not utterly the business of their weak brethren. Thus your Papists themselves are of a contrary judgement to you, M. Saunders, (besides all your Popes, and Counsels Canons) that the spiritual Pastors should not be these judges in secular things, that here Saint Paul speaks on. To wrist therefore these words spoken of any faithful Christian, only to your Priests: to wring this sentence from the state of the Church, then being without any faithful Magistrate, to the time now, when they have many, and those not choose of themselves, but ordained of the higher Magistrate: to writhe it from the judgements and taking up of their petit quarrels, to the deposing or setting up of Kings, or altering kingdoms: is clean beyond the meaning of S. Paul, & an evident violence & injury to God's word. Now upon this sentence thus wrested, you proceed to your argument, saying: For their goods are so much subject to the ecclesiastical Sand. 85. power, that it is lawful for the Church, of private men, to ordain Magistrates, that should judge of secular causes, and De regulis juris. not only of ecclesiastical. But no man can pass more right to an other, than he hath himself. Therefore the Church which hath power to make them judges, that were private Hebr. 5. men before: hath much more itself over those secular causes, received power, by the Ministers of God, that as Aaron, 2. Cor. 5. are called to the public ministry of jesus Christ. For whatsoever is of Christ, given in common to the Christian common weal, is given by them that exercise the Legacy for Christ, and are Stewards of his mysteries. Your argument is this. Whatsoever is given in common of Christ to his Church, he gives it by the Pastors. But power to make Magistrates and judges, is given in common of Christ to his Church: Ergo, it is given by his Pastors. But no man can pass more right to an other, than he hath himself. The Pastors pass this right, and power of being Magistrates and judges in secular matters to another: Ergo, the Pastors have right and power of being Magistrates, and judge themselves in secular matters. All these parts & conclusions of these reasons I utterly deny (Master Saunders.) First the 〈◊〉 is fall 〈◊〉 ●…nsample, Christ gives not all his gifts by his Pastor. Christ gives temporal peace, in common to his Church: he give▪ plenty of fruits, and seasonable weather, in common to his Church: he gives health and strength of body, in common to his Church he gives good Magistrates, Kings and Princes, in common to his Church: he gives good laws, natural, civil, and municipal, in common to his Church: all these are powers given of Christ in common to the Christian common weal, so well as to any other common weal not Christian: but they are not given by the ministery of the spiritual Pastors. The mayor therefore is not true. Secondly, the minor is also false: that Christ giveth power The Church hath not always power to make their Magistrates. to his Church, to make Magistrates and judges over secular matters. To some Churches indeed he hath given this power, and doth give it, where they orderly do choose their own Magistrate. But this can not be spoken of the Church indefinitely. For the Church in most places thereof, hath not the choice of Princes, but God (either by ordinary succession, or by extraordinary means) placeth them over the Church, and those Prince's place the judges. Thirdly, by the Church is not meant, either the ecclesiastical power, or the Pastors that have that power. For the power is but God's gift for the Church's use and benefit, and the Pastors are but parts and members of the Church. Fourthly, this is false also, that they can not pass a right, to another that they themselves have not. For even in the dispensation The Pastors pass a right to the Prince and have not the right in themselves. of their mysteries, we may receive faith and grace by their ministery, and yet they be graceless, and have no faith themselves. And in the solemnisation of Matrimony, although the Pastor have no right to the bride, yet he transferreth the having of her, from her friends, to the bridegroom: & so may they be Ministers in the intronizing a Prince, passing a power from God to him, which yet themselves have not, except you will make them Kings. And thus all your rules are false, and hold not, besides that they be all wrested and clean from the sense of the sentence cited, and therefore no good argument can be framed on them that that can rightly conclude the present purpose. But now Master Saunders will apply this better, and here in the margin he setteth down in great letters. Nota, Note, to stir up the Readers attention to note his application. Sand. 8●…. But now (says he) if that new judges must be made of the Church, rather than we should go to law in secular causes before the Infidels, are not new Kings also rather to be made of the Church, than that we should be compelled to plead our causes, before heretical and scismatical Kings? Now you begin handsomely to frame your argument to your purpose, for all this while you did but dally. But if the Reader note this matter, as you require him to do, as he shall find no consequence in your argument, so shall he find The Corinthians might not choose new public Magistrates, because they might choose new private arbiters. rank treason in your conclusion. If the argument were good, then because the Church in Saint Paul's time might choose among themselves arbiters, to judge and take up their petite matters: therefore they might have choose new Kings also to govern them. But this could they not have done without treason and rebellion, therefore this argument is false. Is there no difference (Master Saunders) between the choosing of an umpire, or an arbyter choose between two parties of their own voluntary, to judge and descide their private controversy, and the choosing of a supreme & public Magistrate to govern their whole estate? Who seeth not that this they might in no wise do. The other they might do well enough. And so may any of us do also, to avoid the charges and troubles of the law, although we have Christian Princes and faithful judges too, neither troubling those estates, nor ourselves, and save our money in our purses, and better nourish charity in not going to law, but taking up the matter at home among our neighbours quietly. May we therefore subtract ourselves, from the judgement Seat of the public Magistrate, when we are called or enforced by law thereto? and why might we not, if we might choose a new King, when we misliked the old? Not, Master Saunders, this is further from Saint Paul's meaning than was the other. Saint Paul gives not the Corinth's leave nor power, to erect up among themselves a public Magistrate, to flee unto in their contentions, & utterly to forsake the judgement seats of the heathen judges and Princes that did govern them. Saint Paul speaks of their own voluntary taking up of matters, by some indifferent man among them, to be choose as judge in this or that brawl between them, and would not have them of their own self will, in matters that might be well taken up among themselves, to run to Law before heathen Magistrates. Wherein although he disallow the disorderly contention of the one, yet he disalloweth not withal the orderly authority of the other, which he confesseth to be S. Paul alloweth the authority of heathen Magistrates in his time. given of God, and he exhorteth all subjects to obey, and that for conscience sake, even the government of the heathen Princes, notwithstanding they were Christians that were subjects. Whereas if he had meant otherwise, he had not only contraryed himself, but confirmed the slander of the heathen people, that the Christians were Rebels to their estates. And he might have been accused of sedition, as stirring the people to make new Magistrates, which for them being subjects, was above their power to do. And although this crime was laid to Saint Paul's charge, of sowing sedition: yet could they never justly prove it on him, his doings and writings testified the contrary, with what care he laboured to keep the Christians in obedience. Who otherwise might here upon have had great occasion of choosing new Princes, pretending they were Christians, and made free by Christ, and therefore aught not have suffered themselves to live in the heathen Prince's bondage. Which freedom of Christian liberty, lest they should have thus abused, to carnal licentiousness, and disturbed the order and quietness of their estate: Saint Paul so often and so earnestly exhorteth them unto obedience. Neither they did so ever understand this present exhortation, to have the liberty or power to forsake the heathen Magistrates obedience and judgements, and to erect a new Magistrate and judge to rule among them. For this had been the ready path to all Rebellion. And to prove that this is the readiest way to Rebellion, see how Master Saunders gathereth hereon, that new Kings are to be made of the Church, rather than we Master Saunders 〈◊〉 S. Paul to all rebellion. should be compelled to plead our causes before heretical and schismatical Kings. So that if the Priest shall say, the King is an heretic or a schismatic: not only the people must so accounted him, but they must accounted him no longer to be their King, they must not be compelled to appear in his Courts and Consistories, they must plead no cause at all before him or his justices, but must forthwith choose a new King to be their governor. How far this is differing from Saint Paul's doctrine, from this sentence, from subjects obedience, and how near to set all the world in an uproar: I doubt not but if this Nota, that M. Sand. sets it out withal be well noted, it will not only breed in the Readers minds, a note of suspicion, of privy conspiracies & traitorous packing, but openly show a manifest proclamation of plain rebellion. Now to prove that the subjects should thus rebel, he showeth the dangers that should ensue, if they should remain in their obedience. For certain it is, that there is more danger of heretical Sand. pag. 85. Kings, than is of unfaithful judges. For unfaithful judges do not judge, but of matters of this world and that according to the law either of nature, which is always right or civil, which is seldom wrong. Moreover, what if I suffered wrong at the tribunal of a pagan judge? the loss is small, to suffer the spoil of temporal goods, which good men bear with joy. But heretical Kings compel their subjects, casting away the catholic faith, to embrace their heresy, the which can not be done without the detriment of eternal salvation. It is altogether lawful to the Church of Christ, to remove from his government an heretical, a scismatical, a symoniacal King, and to conclude, to remove him, that will not amend himself, and to place another among the Christians in his room. This argument is drawn from the danger of suffering the king, & is already answered divers times. The lawyers Better suffer a mischief than an inconvenience. would briefly say to this, better suffer a mischief, than an inconvenience, but were this an inconvenience too, we may not take away one inconvenience with an other greater inconvenience: for there are convenient remedies of patience & constancy, against these inconveniences, and not rebellion, although the inconvenience were much greater than M. Sand. makes it. And yet to aggravate the same, he makes comparison One inconvenience not to be helped with an other inconvenience. of a King and a judge, as though the judge represented not the King. He compareth the danger of the loss by the one, and by the other: as though the heathen judges and Princes dealt not also in cases of Religion. Who (although they were deceived herein) yet they convented people before them for Religion, to drive them from the worship of God, to the worship of their Idols, and laboured by all persuasions and means they could, to bring them to their Religion. And very many they brought to their Idolatry, which was The heathen judges del●… not only in temporal matters. more than the loss of temporal goods: even the detriment of eternal salvation. Neither did they use their judgements always according to the la of nature or the civil: neither doth the one judge always right, considering the great corruption of nature, chief in the heathen: neither did the other seldom wrong, but often wrong among them: neither meddled the civil Law of the Pagans, only with matters of temporal goods, and of this world, but also with matters of the world to come, and therefore there was further danger of the judgements of those heathen Princes and unfaithful judges, than here Master Saunders would seem to acknowledge there was, mitigating all that he can, the danger ensuing from them: to aggravate the greater dangers from naughty Christian Princes. But he need not run to these untruths, to aggravate his comparison. For we deny not, but that if the Prince were such a wicked Prince as he speaketh of, it were in deed very dangerous to the faithful subjects under him, and so much the more dangerous that he pretendeth to the faithful, to be a faithful Prince, and is not. But what a dangerous doctrine The danger of M. Saund. doctrine is this, that the people should therefore rebel, and revolt unto another. Might the Christian people in the primitue Church for all the danger of eternal life that they and all the faithful were in, when the heathen Princes would have them worship Idols, which is as ill as heresy: & when the heretical & schismatical Emperors being Arians, Monothelites. etc. in the ancient time, compelled their subjects, casting away the Catholic faith, to embrace their heresies, might they remove them from their government, and place another in his room over the Christians? and that that should straight be heresy, which the B▪ of Rome should say were heresy, & he should be a schismatic that should not consent to him? Yea, & he must be deposed for simony too▪ & by simony forsooth we must understand, that if the Prince do appoint and invest a Bishop, then straight he is a simoniake, and must out of hand be depesed. What a greater danger is here, not only to Christian Princes, but to all the Church of Christ, whose safeguard is here pretended? But if we reason of dangers, the greatest danger The greatest danger of all is of the Pope & his prelate's. of all is of the Pope himself & his prelate's, & the more danger, that Princes & people be thus beguiled by them, and yet the king may not meddle with them, although his duty never so much require, & he hath good warrant in the scripture 〈◊〉 remove them, & so have not they of him, were they never 〈◊〉 good, and were he a great deal worse than M. Saunders makes him. But Master Saunders will now prove that the Bishops have warrant out of the scripture for them, and once again he allegeth the example of King Saul and Samuel. For if the kingdom of Saul stood not, even for this that he Sand. pag. 85. observed not the precept of Samuel, in waiting for him seven days before he sacrificed. Yea if the Lord cast off Saul that he 1. Reg. 10. &. 1●…. should not be the king, because he fulfilled not also another precept of the Lord declared by the ministery of Samuel in kill 1. Reg. 15. Agag: if for this disobedience of Saul, while he yet reigned, Samuel was bidden to anoint David, to be the King of the jews: and Samuel did it privily in Bethleem: Neither after the holy Ghost sent down from heaven, the spiritual power of 1. Reg. 16. the Church can now be less, than in times past was in the synagogue: we must now also confess, that that King, which shall despise to hear the Lord speaking by the mouth of the highest Bishop, may so be deprived of the right of his kingdom, that another may in the mean season be of the same Bishop anointed for King, and that from that day forward, he truly shallbe the King whom the Bishop orderly anointed, or other wise did consecrated, and not he that being armed with a band of soldiers, occupieth the seat. For of such the Prophet says: Osee. 8. they have reigned, and not by me, the which thing is so true, that lo●…athas the son of Saul acknowledged that the Kingdom 1. Reg. 23. should fall unto David, after the death of his Father. And all that were in need fled unto David, and he become their Prince, and there were with him as it were four hundredth 1. Reg. 22. men, and when Achimelech the Priest asked Counsel of the Lord for David, and Saul having intelligence thereof, commanded his servants to fall upon the Priests of the Lord: no man dared execute so cruel a commandment, besides only Doeg the Idumean. The effect of this reason is threefold. first, that the Pope may depose a King and set up another. Secondly, that the King so deposed by the Pope, is no longer lawful King nor to be obeyed, but the subjects aught to go to the other whom●… the Pope sets up. Thirdly that although the Pope may depofe a King: yet no King may depofe or touch the Pope or his Priests. For the first point, are all aged these arguments: The spiritual power is as great now in the Church, since the holy Ghost was sent from heaven, as it was before in the synagogue. But Kings were then deposed, and other set up, by the spiritual power: Ergo, Kings may now likewise be deposed by the spiritual power, and other set up. But the spiritual power belongeth to the highest Bishop: The Bishop of Rome is the highest Bishop. Ergo, the Bishop of Rome may depose Kings and set up other. The later argument, which we utterly deny, and here he proveth not, but taketh for confessed, that there is in earth a highest Bishop over all other, and that the Pope is he: is belonging to another controversy. To the former argument, we grant the Mayor. The spiritual power is as great now, after the holy Ghost was sen●…e from heaven, as it was before in the synagogue. But we deny the Minor. That the deposing of Kings and sitting up of other in their steed was not done then in the synagogue by the spiritual power, that is, by the spiritual authority of the spiritual pastor. For proof hereof, M. Saunders infereth an instance of Saul and Samuel. Saul lost his Kingdom because he observed not the precept of Samuel. And therefore Samuel ordained another King. I answer. First this fact was not a matter ordinarily Deposing of Kings was never belonging to the spiritual power. belonging to the spiritual power of Samuel, but an especialty of gods singular appointing. It was not a thing belonging to the bishops office, to depose Kings and set other in their places, it was but a particular act done by gods especial commandment, so that it could not, nor was ever drawn into any ordinary rule of their spiritual power then: and much less is any thing belonging to the Bishop's spiritual power now, which is an ordinary power, and consists in setting forth the word of God, in administering the sacraments of God, and in binding or losing the conscience of the obstinate or repentant sinner. Which things sith none of them pertain to the deposing of a Prince or any other man, from his temporal possessions and worldly estate: it is apparent that this extraordinary doing of Samuel, was neither then nor now ordinarily pertaining to the spiritual power of pastors. Secondly it is false that Saul lost his kingdom for not observing the precept of Samuel. For although Samuel pronounced Samuel was but the minister of declaring gods precept. it, yet it was the Lord's precept, as like wise the other precepts, of which M. Saunders confesseth: that he fulfilled not the precept of the Lord, declared by the ministery of Samuel. So that Samuel was but the Minister of declaring it. But say you, then must not the King despise to hear the Lord speaking by the mouth of the highest Bishop. We grant you M. Sanders the King must not despise to hear the Lord speaking by the mouth of any Bishop. As for any highest B. besides jesus Christ, we deny. And the King aught to despise Not highest B. of the Church besides Christ. to hear him which claimeth that highest room. For it is an evident argument that the Lord speaketh not by such a blasphemous month, as exalteth itself into Christ's bishopric. As for Samuel took not upon him to be the highest Priest or Bishop, nor was any B. or Priest at all, nor spoke any thing at all, that he had not the especial and express commandment of God thereto. Let your Pope and his Bishops show the express commandment of God, either especial or ordinary, that they be bidden to depose Kings and set up other, or else you wrist this example, and do no less abuse God, than you would abuse Princes by it. Thirdly, this is false also, that Samuel either deposed Samuel deposed not Saul. Saul, or ●…et up David. Concerning Saul, he declared to him, how his kingdom should not continued, but he deposed him not. The words of Samuel are these: Thou haste 1. Reg. 13. do●… foolishly, that thou haste not observed the commandments of the Lord thy God, that he commanded thee. If thou hadst not done this thing, the Lord had even now established thy kingdom over Israel for ever. But thy kingdom shall arise no further. The Lord hath sought him a man according to his heart, and hath commanded him, that he should be captain over his people, because thou haste not kept the things the Lord commanded thee. First, here Samuel referreth all to the Lords commandment. A●…d as Caietanus a Papist noteth thereon, This commandment Caietanus in 1. Reg. 13. The Lord's commandment by Samuel to Saul, was especial, and served but for that turn. ●…yra in. 1. Reg. 13. of the Lord, violated by Saul, was not a commandment of the law, but a particular commandment declared to Saul by Samuel. An especial commandment (says he) for that turn. Secondly, he referreth the punishment, not to his removing of him, but to the doing of God. Thirdly, he doth not (neither in his own name, nor in Gods) depose him at all from his estate, but telleth him how his kingdom shall not continued. Vltrate (saith he) It shall continued no further after thee. Because his son Isboseth reigned not over all Israel, neither yet over 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 demerit of Saul: yet was it the Lords everlasting purpose. The purpose of God (says he) is certain & infallible. Lyra in. ●…. Reg. 13. It was before ordained of God, that the kingdom should be given to the tribe of juda, as appeareth Gene. 49. The Sceptre shall not be taken from juda. But the Pope can not show the like purpose of God, that such or such a Prince should now be deposed or placed: therefore he doth but wrist this example. As for the placing of David: Although (saith Lyra) this was yet to come, he speaketh notwithstanding, as though it Samuels doing to Saul and David, was but a declaration of God's purpose to come. were paste, for the certainty of the divine providence. So that yet no act was ●…ast against Saul, or unto David, but only a declaration of God's purpose to come. Here 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 saith: For that thou hast cast off the word 1. Reg. 15. of the Lord, the Lord hath cast of thee, that thou shouldst not be king. And yet he saith not here, I depose thee▪ or the Lord deposeth thee, from thy estate, and from henceforth thou shalt neither be king, nor be reputed and taken of the Church of God for king any longer. Samuel saith not thus, nor meant thus, nor Saul understood him thus, but desired Samuel to return with him, and worship the Lord. And Samuel (repeating his words) said: I will not return with thee, because thou hast cast of the commandment of the Lord, the Lord hath cast of thee. And Samuel turned to go away, but he caught hold of the skirt of his cloak, and it rend. And Samuel said to him, the Lord hath rend the kingdom of Israel this day from thee, and hath given it to thy neighbour, a better than thou. And yet in all these so effectual words, Samuel saith not here, In Dei nomine, Amen, etc▪ In the name of God Amen. I do here presently depose thee, and so forth, as the Pope useth to do. Not, all this was but a declaration of the time to come, as Lyra saith: Dicunt autem Hebraei, etc. Some Hebrnes say, that Samuel then Lyra in. 1. Reg. 15. The token to Saul who should succeed him. 1. Reg. 14. Glosla in Lyra. gave a sign unto Saul, that he should reign for him, that should cut off the hem of his garment. Which David did, as is contained. 1. Reg. 24. Whereupon Saul seeing the hem of his garment in David's hand: said, now I know for certain that thou shalt reign. And so the Gloss titeth Saint Augustine Iste cui dixit. etc. This man to whom the Lord said, the Lord despiseth thee, that thou shouldst not be King of Israel, and the Lord hath rend this day the kingdom out of thy hand: Soul reigned forty year after this sent●…ce of Samuel. ruled forty years, to wit, even as long as David reigned. And yet this thing he heard the first time of his reign. Therefore we understand▪ it to be spoken to this end, that none of the stock of him should reign. He rent it (saith the Gloss) although he reigned forty years afterward. The cutting off of saul's kingdom was ment by his posterity, not by himself. But as then he des●…rued that the kingdom should be rent from him, and given to a better▪ etc. Thus these sayings and doings of Samuel, were not the real deposing of Saul from his Royal throne. For both he took himself still as King, and desired Samuel to honour him before the Elders of his people, and before Israel. But now (saith he) honour me. Sinon, etc. Although Lyra in. 1. Reg. 15. (saith 〈◊〉) not for my people sake, yet do this thing for the honour of my royal dignity. And so Samuel assented to him. willing (saith Lyra) to give it unto Saul, so long as he was of God suffered in the kingdom. Now as for David, Samuel in deed anointed him, David's privy anointing betokeneth it was no public act. and that (as you say) privily. Which argueth against you, that it was no public act of making him king, but as it were a preparative unto it, and a privy forewarning of God's purpose to come. Secondly it was a thing of God's especial appointing, or else Samuel would not, nor could have ever done it. Thirdly (saith ●…yra) Aduertendum est, etc▪ We must mark, that David was anointed to be king, not to this purpose, that he should straight possess the kingdom. But when the acceptable will of God should come. But God did suffer Saul in the possession of Saul was never deposed so long as he lived. the kingdom, even until his death. And thus we see upon this act of the Lord by Samuel, as well to Saul, as to David▪ here was yet no such deposing of the one, nor setting up the other, as Master Sanders claimeth here, reasoning from the example of Samuels doing to Saul and David: for the Pope to 〈◊〉 Christian Princes offending, and to set up others in the ●…places. The second thing that he gathereth hereupon, is this: that M. Sand. reasons that he is to be obeyed whom the Pope sets up, and he to be forsaken that the Pope deposeth . the king by the Pope being deposed, is now no longer true & lawful king▪ but a plain usurper, and a wrongful occupier of the king's sea●…e, being armed with a band of soldiers. but the other that is anointed, or otherwise consecrated by the Bishop in his place: shall truly from this day forward be the king, and the people aught to go to him, and not obey the other. And for this, he allegeth three reasons. First, the saying of God by the Prophet Osée. Secondly, the acknowledging of jonathas saul's son. Thirdly, the gathering of divers people unto David. First, for the words of the Prophet which are these: They have reigned, and not by me. They were Princes, I Osee. 8. How wicked kings are of God, and not of God. know them not. I answer. First these wor●… are God's complaint against the wickedness of those kings of Israel▪ that directed not their government by God's law: not that they were not kings, but that they were wicked kings. Not that they were by no means ordained of God, for 〈◊〉 potestas est à Deo, all power is of God, and God saith in Rom. 13. Pronetb. 8. loa●… 19. general, per m●… reges regnant, King's rule by me, so well heathen as faithful kings▪ Pilates power was from above: These kings of Israel, jeroboam, Achab, jehu. etc. were of Gods ordaining. Yeà jehu, whose house here God complained upon, and said, he and his offspring reigned not by him▪ were yet notwithstanding made kings, and reigned by him. In respect of their ambition and private affections, their reign was not of him. In respect of God's ordinance, of his justice, of his providence, it was not only permitted, but also especially appointed of him. As both the▪ text is 〈◊〉, and your own gloss confesseth for Hieroboam the elder, that it was done by God's will, although it were done also by the people's sin, that regarded not the will of God; but ●…llowed their own selfewil. And so in some respect, it was not the work of God, and yet in other respects, it ●…as the work of God. And so here 〈◊〉 himself, and saith: I know them not. Not that The Prophets after they had declared God's wrath to wicked kings, did still obey their civil government. he was ignorant of them, but he acknowledged not their doings. Secondly, neither the prophet Osee, nor any other prophet, took upon them to depose any of those wicked kings, but to declare the wrath and vengeance of God to come upon them. After which declarations, they did not subtract from them their civil obedience, & count them from that day forward no longer to be their kings, or exhorted the Church of God to forsake their politic government: but having declared their message from God, they let them alone, till either God himself did strike them, or stirred up by some especial and extraordinary means, some foreign or domestical persecu●… of them. Thirdly, this maketh nothing to prove that those kings, 〈◊〉 the Pope taketh upon him to pronounce they be no Kings, are no longer Kings: except he will make himself God, yea and above God too. For although God say, They ●…gne not by me▪ yet he calleth them kings. But the Pope calleth them v●…urpers, that reign not by him. Secondly he allegeth the acknowledging of jonathas jonathas acknowledged not David to be king, but that he should be king. 1. Reg. 23. saul's son, & the people's gathering unto David For Io nathas, it is true, that he acknowledged the kingdom should be devolved unto David after his father's death▪ And so he says: Tu regnabis super Israel, Thou shalt reign over Israel, & I shall be next to thee, and this my father knoweth. But this infereth not, that he took David then presently to be king, and his fa●…her from that day forward no longer to be king, neither revolted he from the obedience of his father, to David's obedience, neither could his father lay this treason to his charge, that he forsook his due subjection, although most bitterly 〈◊〉 rated him, and said: Thou son of the wicked 1▪ Reg. 20. rebellious woman, do not I know that thou haste choose the son of Isai to thy confusion, & to the confusion and shame of thy mother? For as long as the son of Isai liveth upon the earth, thou shalt not be established nor thy kingdom. Whereon (saith Caietane) the cause is made manifest, because Caietan●… in 1. Reg. 20. he was an impediment to the succession of the kingdom, and verily Saul had a true judgement, as the event of the matter proved. And thus the acknowledging of jonathas proved not David's kingdom to be in esse (as they say) but in futuro, not that he was King, but that he should be King. Nor the confederacy between David and jonathas, was any conspiracy to depose Saul, or to set up David, but a confirming of the love between them and their houses, when God should make him king. Now for the people's gathering unto David about the Why the people flocked unto David. number of, 400. this was not to assemble a rebellious multitude, to invade king Saul, & to depose him from the crown to set up himself. For neither they came for any such purpose, but for their succour, being in debt & trouble, or otherwise vexed: neither did David sand for them, nor incite any to take his part, not proclaimed himself to be king, or published the Lords anointing of him, or ever used that multitude that came unto him for any such purposes. And yet the question is moved both by Caietanus and Lyranus hereupon. The question (saith Caietanus) atiseth, whether it Caietanus question whether David did well to receive this people to the prejudice of their creditors. were lawful for David to receive these debtor, in the prejudice of the creditors that had lent them? The solution is, that if these men had house, field, or vineyard they are understood to have left their goods unto them. But if they were utterly unable to pay their debts: they were excused for their unability, until their better ability. For, that David excellently instructed all them that came unto him, while he ●…aried in that cave, the Psalm restifieth: I will praise the Lord at all time. Containing (according to the letter) a doctrine given there of David unto the soldiers. Therefore David received not these men in prejudice of their creditors. And thus as he did not receive them to the prejudice of any private man, so he received them not to the prejudice of the king and public state. Whereon Lyra month the other question, Lyra his question whether he did well to become their captain, and received them to the prejudice of the publi●…e state. saying: In that he become their captain, it seemeth he sinned, in receiving such as Abimelech received: the needy and vagabonds, assembling them unto him as is contained, jud. 9 We must say, that he gathered them not, to slay the innocent, as did Abimelech to slay his brethren, neither to spoil the faithful. For we read not that he spoiled the people of Israel. But rather kept their goods, as is contained afterward. 1. Keg. 25. of nabal. But he gathered them, to persecute the Infidels, as is contained afterward in many cases. And to keep his own body from the ambushementes of Saul. The which he might do in such a necessity, chief when he was now anointed king. By reason whereof, in such a case, he might prolong the payment of the debts, and in many the forfeiture is released in the case aforesaid. Thus see it was not for that the people took David actually to be king, but for their own refuge, that they fled to him. But whatsoever their intent was good or ill, David assembled them not to hinder or hurt any private or public person. And although he received them, and used them for his defence, which he might do, being in the state he was: yet would he never suffer them to enter meddle in the quarrel of his right to the kingdom, nor yet he himself would ever take it upon him, and impugn king Saul, not not when he had him in his danger, until the Lord by other means took Saul away, and gave the kingdom in real possession unto David. Before which time David never called himself king, nor the time of his reign is reckoned, but Saul David never took himself nor was taken of any other to b●…●…ng till S●…ule was d●…d. counted and called, and his reign reckoned, as king, till his death, and never shortened, disturbed, nor once gain said by David for all these folks assemblies. For example. When God sent king Saul (as it were of purpose) even into David's hands, and the soldiers moved David to kill him: he would neither himself hurt 1. Reg. 24. him, nor suffer any other to do it, nor yet take him prisoner, & so depose him, or 'cause him to resign. But only cut off privily a flap of his garment, for a testimony how he spared him, & yet his heart throbbed, that he had done so much against him. His conscience reproved him (saith Lyra) in that Lyra. he had done unreverently to Saul, who was to be honoured so long as he was of God suffered in the kingdom. A certain remorse of conscience (saith Caietane) is described in David, Caietane. in that he had cutoff the skirt of saul's cloak. For it is the property of good minds, even there to fear a fault, David's remorse of conscie●…ce even for cutting but a flap of saul's garment where fault is not found. The reason of his remorse was, because the cutting of the cloak was in his proper kind injurious. Howbeit it was without fault, both because it was given unto him, by God's authority, to do with Saul that which seemed good in David's own eyes: and also good reason moved, that David might show a sign of his benevolence towards How this cutting was and was no●… injurious to Saul. Saul, by a most evident testimony convicting Saul: that yet at the lest, Saul might leave off from so wicked persecution. But a better testimony he could not show, than the skirt of his garment there cut off: the action therefore naturally injurious, was not done in the form of an injury, but of a necessary sign, to witness the truth of David's right mind to Saul▪ And this good mind David himself expresseth: The Lord keep me from doing this thing unto my Lord, 1. Reg. 24. the Lords anointed, to lay mine hand on him, for he is the Lords anointed. And here Caietanus giveth this note: He toucheth two reasons. The one, in that he says: to my Lord: The other, To the lords anointed. But because that was the chiefest reason, for that Saul was anointed of the most high God, that only he nameth twice. Whereby we see, he accempted Saul still as his lawful king, and himself David's reverence and humility to Saul. to be his dutiful and obedient subject. And so he acknowledged himself to Saul, when he cried after him, saying: O my Lord the king▪ and when Saul looked behind him, David enelined his face to the earth and bowed himself. And David said to Saul: wherefore givest thou ear to men's words that say, behold David seeketh evil against thee. Behold this day thy eyes have seen, that the Lord hath delivered thee this day into my hand in the cave, and some bad me kill thee. But I had compassion on thee, and said, I will not lay my hand on my Master. For he is the lords anointed. Moreover (my father) behold, I say, the lap of thy garment in my hand. For when I cut off the lap of thy garment, I killed thee not. Understand and see that there is no evil nor wickedness in me, neither have I sinned against thee. According to the Hebrew (says Caietane) neither is rebellion in me. etc. He excludeth all David purgeth himself of all rebellion and sin against Saul. sin, by repeating his work backward. For last of all, he excludeth sin against Saul: and before, rebellion against the King: and first of all, evil universally. And upon these words, The Lord be judge between thee and me: And the Lord avenge me of thee, and let not my hand be on thee. This he said (says Lyra) in the zeal of justice, and not of revengement. For no body aught to take vengeance on his own injury, by himself, except it lie upon him by his office, and even then it were better that he did it by another. All these words (says Caietane) David wisheth no revengement to Saul. are not of him that wisheth, but foretelleth and expecteth. For they are, in the Hebrew text, of the future tense and the indicative mode. He shall judge, and he shall avenge. So far is David from wishing any evil unto the king. And he so humbleth himself unto him: that he calleth himself, in comparison of the King, a dead dog and a fly: Sigh I am (says Lyra) of no moment (or nothing worth) in regard of thee: Thus far was David from ever attempting to depose King Saul, after Samuel had anointed him. And that not only where Saul confesseth David should reign, not that he did reign. jonathas, but even where Saul himself acknowledged, that David should be K●…ng after him, saying: and now I know of a certainty, that thou shalt reign and the kingdom of Israel shall be established in thy hand. But yet he says not, that he then presently reigned, neither doth he resign unto him, but make a covenant and take an oath of David, that Saul resigned not to David. when he should reign, he should not destroy his seed after him, nor take away his name from his father's house, & this, David sworn unto him. Wherein he acknowledgeth though a state to come, yet no state in present. The like occasion falling out again. 1. Reg. 26. David behaved 1. Reg. 16. himself to Saul in semblable wise. For when he might have killed him, and Abisai would have killed him ●…he not only would not do it, nor suffer it to be done. But he saith to Abisai, destroy him not. For who can say his hands on the Lords anointed and be guiltless. David (saith Lyra) would give this to the person of him, so long as he was suffered of God in the Kingdom. Always (saith Caietane) David had fixed in his heart, and in his mouth the honour of the most high God, in so much that he thought none innocent, that stretched his hand upon the anointed of God. As the Lord liveth (says he) either the Lord shall smite him, or his day shall come to dye, or he shall descend into battle and perish. The Lord keep me from laying my hand upon the Lords anointed. By this (says Lira) David intended, that by no means, he would be the efficient David would ●…e no efficient cause of saul's death. cause of his death, except perhaps in defending himself, so that he could not otherwise escape. And when David called to Abner, he challenged him to be worthy of death, for keeping the King's person no better, and when Saul knowing his voice said, is this thy voice my son David? and David said, it is my voice, my Lord O King. And he said, wherefore doth my Lord thus persecute his servant? for what have I done, or what evil is in my hand? Now therefore I beseech thee, let my Lord the King hear the words of his servant. etc. thus humbleth he himself in his purgation, and saith, the King of Israel is come out to seek a fly, as one would hunt a Partridge in the mountains. So lowly abasing himself in comparison of Saul, whom he calleth the King of Israel. Neither dissembled he but spoke Bona fide, even as he thought in his heart. So far was David from not acknowledging Saul to be still his sovereign Lord and lawful King, so far from gathering any unlawful assemblies against him, so far from any privy conspiracy or open rebellion, so far from so much as thinking to depose him: that when he had him in his danger, he would not only not hurt him, nor suffer other to doeit, but gave him so great honour, as any subject can give his Prince. How then is not the story of Saul and David wrested, for a Christian subject that hath no such authority, as David had, to depose, or take arms against his Christian Prince, or to go from the obedience of him, as no longer lawful King, after the Bishop shall say, he hath deposed him, and to obey any other, that the Bishop shall appoint for King? The third thing that Master Saunders infereth, is this, that although the Pope and his Bishops may do thus to Princes: yet Princes were very tyrants, if they should do ought to them. And hereto he allegeth, that when the high Priest Achimelech, asked counsel of the Lord for David, & Saul having intelligence thereof, commanded his servants to fall upon the Priests of the Lord: no man dared execute so cruel a commandment, besides only Doeg the Idumean. For Achimeleches ask counsel of the Lord for David, Wh●… 1. Reg. 21. Whether Achimelech asked counsel of the Lord for David, or not, when David fled unto him. Lyra. David fled unto him: first, the case (Master Saunders) is not so clear, but that (as Lyra confesseth) a question is made thereon: for there appeareth no such thing in the. 21. Chapter. Although Doeg so accused him, and Achimelech standeth not to the denial thereof, but upon his innocency. Lyra saith, Dicunt aliqui. etc. Some say that he lied, as tale bearers are wont to say more than is in deed, but the contrary seemeth rather to be true. So that this is not so clear a case, as you make it. But what is all this story to the purpose, or not rather against you? especially that that followeth, of Achimelech the high priest inferior to Saul. saul's putting the Priests to death. Wherein although he did a wicked and tyrannous act, yet it argueth that he had authority over the Priests. first, in that he cited them to come before him. Secondly, in that they obeyed his citation and came before the King. Thirdly, in that the high Priest calleth the King his Lord, saying: here I am my Lord Fourthly, when the King laid treason to his charge, he replieth not, that he could be no traitor to the King, being his superior: but as inferior, pleadeth he was no traitor. Fiftly, he acknowledgeth both David to be saul's servant, & himself also, saying: be it far from me, let not the King ●…. Reg. 22. impute any thing unto his servant, nor to all the house of my father, for thy servant known nothing of all this, less or more. Whereby it appeareth that the high Priest and all his family, were under the King's obedience, and so still continued, after that Samuel had declared, how that the Lord had rend his kingdom from him. As for that the Prince abused his authority, to the cruel murdering of innocentes: we grant it was so detestable, that his soldiers did well, in refusing to execute his wicked commandment. We defend no such authority in Princes, nor such obedience in subjects, as murdereth innocents The Popish & not the protestant Princes imitate saul's cruelty, or rather exceed it. without all law and justice, and that after such a cruel sort, as did the doggish Doeg, being not content to murder the innocent ministers of God: but besides, to put to the edge of these word, all the men and women in their City, yea the Children & sucking babes also. You can find no protestant Prince (M. Saunders) that ever did the like deed. But Popish Princes have not only done the like, but far surmounted, both Saul and Doeg, and all other cruel Princes, in such unnatural Tragedies. So fit all Master Saunders ensamples serve his purpose, that every one maketh clean against him. But now (says he) lest any man should think, at the lest Sand. pag. 86. the power of those Kings that sprung from David, to be greater than the spiritual power of the synagogue: let him besides this consider, that Ahias the Silonite, while Solomon was yet alive, foretold that jeroboam should govern the ten tribes. 3. Reg. 11. Whereupon is understood, that either the whole kingdom, or some part thereof, may be taken away from a wicked King, by Eph●…. ●… the spiritual power of the Church. For what power was in times past, in the Priests and Prophets: the same is now in the pastors and teachers, whose duty it is so to consult for the soul's health, that they suffer not, by the disobedience and tyranny of a wicked King, the people of an infinite multitude, to be compelled and drawn to schism and heresy. The argument is still as before, from the spiritual power in Priests & Prophets then in the synagogue, to the spiritual power of popish pastors & teachers in the Church now. To this besides the former answer, I answer again: first, the popish pastors & teachers, being false pastors & false teachers, except it be from such Priests & Prophets as were of Baal, Balaam, Bel. etc. can frame no good conclusion. Secondly, admit they were (which they pretend) true pastors & teachers: yet the argument is not true, from any particular & especial charge, given unto some one or two of them, by gods express commandment, to foretell this or that thing to come: to conclude thereupon an ordinary spiritual power, in all the priests & prophets then, and the like to succeed in the pastors & teachers now. Thirdly, neither any such thing is described or meant by S. Paul●… Ep●…e. 4. in the office of pastors & teachers now: neither this example of the old testament. 2, Reg. 11. infereth any such thing done by the priests or prophets then. The example of 〈◊〉, he alleged before, but he thinketh here to frame it better to his purpose. His argument is thus. The prophet Ahias while King Solomon lived, foretold jeroboam The example of the prophet Ahias foretelling jeroboam that he should reign. that he should reign over ten Tribes. Ergo, either the whole kingdom or a part thereof, may be taken from a wicked King by the spiritull power, that is, by the pastors and teachers of the Church. I deny the argument (M. Sand.) from foretelling the taking away thereof, to the taking away thereof in deed. The foretelling belonged to that Prophet, to whom God not only revealed it, but commanded to foretell it. The taking away thereof either in part or in whole, belonged only to God, working by his secret or open justice, and to those (as instruments of his wrath) whom he ordained to do it: that is, by jeroboam and such as rebelled with him. And, howbeit The specialty of this fact not to be drawn to example. this fact, when▪ it was done, was such a specialty, as can not be drawn to an example, no more than can the attempt of Abraham to kill his son: yet was not this fact done in Salomons days. Who all his life long reigned King of the whole kingdom notwithstanding all this Prophecy. In deed jeroboam which was a wicked man, lift up his hand and rebelled against Solomon, not tarrying the Lords opportunity as David did, but following his own ambition, he abused the prophets message. Who although he told him that God would give him ten tribes, yet he told him that How jeroboam was a traitor how he was not. Solomon should reign all his life time. But I will take the kingdom (saith God by the Prophet unto jeroboam) out of his sons hand, and will give ten Tribes to thee. etc. so that this serveth not Master Saunders purpose, to dispossess the present estate of the Prince living. Neither saith the Prophet, he will do it: neither biddeth he jeroboam to rebel, either against Solomon or his son, but he saith, God himself would do it. To the which sentence and work of God, jeroboam aught to have obeyed. Which in so much as he did not, he disobeyed God, and was a traitor to his Prince, and deserved death. Although God by his secret justice, so punished Salomons seed, that he confirmed the Kingdom in jeroboams hands, and made him a lawful King. But in all these things here was nothing done by the Prophet, but the foretelling of God's purpose. Which notwithstanding, was enjoined him, by The Prophet did but foretell this fact, & that by especial commandment. God's especial commandment. For otherwise, had he presumed thus of his own head, by reason of the authority of his Prophetical office, whatsoever Salomen had deserved, he had for his part been but a ●…rayterous Prophet, and so are all those Popish Pastors and teachers, that teach subjects to rebel against their Sovereigns, on pretence of these examples. True Pastors and teachers by this An admonition for Christian Princes not to join in marriage & leagues with infidel Princes. 3. Reg. 11. 3. Reg. 16. 3. Reg. 21. 2. Paral. 20. particular example, may learn thus much in general, to teach Princes to fear God and dread his justice, to beware of Idolatry and of joining themselu●…s in marriage, or in other leag●…es of friendship, with the enemies of gods truth. As Solomon ●…ell to Idolatry by marrying of Infidels. Achab for joining in friendship with Benadab, was punished: and marrying the wicked jesabel did even ●…ell himself to wickedness. Yea the good King josaphat, for joining in league with the wicked King Ochozias Achabs son, was reproved sharply and his ships perished. These examples and such other, aught good pastors and reachers to teach their Princes, and to set the wrath of God before them, how he will root up their houses, and destroy their kingdoms, if they fear not him. Thus ought good teachers by these examples to do, but not they themselves to depose their Princes, or to set up other, and stir the people to rebellion. But Master Saunders hath yet more examples. To the same purpose pertaineth that Elias anointed Asael Sand. 86. King over Syria, and jehu King over Israel, and Elizeus to be Prophet for himself, on that condition, that if any escaped the 3. Reg. 1●…. hands of Asahel, him should jehu kill: But if any escaped the hands of jehu, him should Elizeus kill. If this ensample pertain to the same purpose, that do the other of Samuels anointing David, and of Ahias foretelling jeroboam that he should reign: then pertaineth it not to your purpose, (Master Saunders) for bishops to depose Christian Princes, and to make their subjects rebel against them. For the other (as we have already plainly seen) are but manifestly and shamefully wrested thereunto. But now let us see, if The examples of Elias anointing Asahel, jehu▪ and Elizeus. this example of Elias will serve your turn any better. The argument is driven to both these purposes, the one, for the anointing of a new king: the other, for punishing of the former king. For the anointing of a new king, is alleged, that Elias anointed Asael King over Syria, and jehu King over Israel, and Elizeus to be the prophet for himself. First I answer, as before, these are again the express & particular commandments, of the Lord unto Elias, giving him a particular charge, that he should anoyut all these three. To stretch therefore the Lords particular charge to him, unto a general rule, without any express commandment of y Lord thereunto, is a dangerous & presumptuous abusing of God's commandment. For without this especial charge of God, Elias had no ordinary authority, by virtue of his prophetical office, to have done any thing herein, as the popish Bishops, without any particular commandment of God, take upon them to do, by virtue of their Bishoply office. Secondly I answer, that this anointing of these Kings, was not the real investing of them, in their royal estate, neither yet done by Elias himself, as even your own gloss noteth thereon. Vnges Asahel. etc. Thou shalt anoint Azahel: not Glossa in Lyrano in. 3. Reg. 19 otherwise but that he foretold him, that he should be king in time to come. He anointed Elizeus no otherwise, than by casting his cloak on him. The two Kings, neither he by himself, neithor Elizeus his disciple anointed them, but one of the Prophets was sent to anoint jehu. And this Prophet in deed 4. Reg. 9 powered oil on jehu his head, and said, Thus says the Lord God of Israel, I have anointed thee King, over the people of the Lord of Israel. etc. Which fact and saying, as the Popish Bishops can not imitate, having no such commission: so the other anointing of Asael, was but a forewarning, like as 4. Reg. 8. the former fact of Ahias was to jeroboam, and therefore serveth not this purpose, lest of all the anointing of Elizeus, who was no King but a Prophet, and therefore is alleged clean out of place, to infer the present purpose of anointing Kings. But M. Sanders hath a further fetch in naming Elizeus. For thereby, as in Elias he thinks to prove the setting up of kings: so in Elizeus he would infer their pulling down. For (saith he) Elias anointed Asael, jehu, and Elizeus, on that condition, that if one escaped the hands of Asael, him should jehu kill: but if any escape the hands of jehu, him should Elizeus kill. You falsify the Scripture (M. Sanders) the words are not, that they should be anointed on that condition, that they should do these things: but the Lord stately foretelleth, that they shall do these things. Et erit quicunque fugerit. etc. And 3. Reg. 19 it shall be, that whosoever escapeth from the sword of Asael, him shall jehu kill: and he that escapeth the sword of jehu, him shall Elizeus kill. Whereupon saith Lyra, that Asaell Lyra in. 3. Reg. 19 and jehu killed many Idolaters of Israel, is enough expressed after in the fourth book. But that Elizeus killed any, is not read, but of two and forty whom he cursed, whereupon the Bears did tear them. But saith Caietane, notwithstanding Caietanus in 3. Reg. 19 nothing letteth, but that these things were fulfilled, even as the letter foundeth, although the execution be not written. So that if this slaughter of Elizeus be meant spiritually, than it serveth not for bodily punishment, which is now the question. If it be meant bodily, as was the slaughter Exod. 32. made by the Levites, when they slew above. 20000. for Idolatry, and as Phinees stabbing with his dagger Num. 25. Zambri and Cozbi for their whoredom: then either of these, being particular charges, and especial commandments, can not be stretched to the like example of bodily slaughter, to be committed by the Clergy now. Neither the popish Priests (although they be the chiefest authors of it) will pr●…tende that they will meddle therein, but say with the Priests that put Christ to death, It is not lawful john. 18. for us to kill any man. And to this purpose of a figurative kill, M. Sand driveth this example. By which figure (saith he) what else is signified, than that Sand. 86. many powers are set up, and erected in the Church of God, that that which is not done by one of them, may be done by another. Of which powers, the last and chiefest is that which belongeth to the Prophets, that is, towards them that are the Pastors and teachers of the Church of God. For as the sword of Elizeus is reckoned in the last place, as which no man can escape, although he escape the sword of Asaell, or of jehu: so the censure of the spiritual power can by no means be avoided, although any escape the sword of the secular power. For the spiritual power useth not the bodily or visible sword, which by certain means may be let, but useth the sword of the spirit, that passeth through all places, and pierceth even to the soul of him whom it reacheth. First, M. Sanders, you do more than you can well justify, How the Prophets did kill these Idolaters. to wring this fact, to this figurative signification of this spiritual sword. For if Elizeus did strike, or cause to be stricken the remnant of those Idolaters with a bodily sword, as did Asael and jehu, having for warrant Gods especial commandment thereunto: then is your figure dashed. But whether he did this or not, you see the judgement of Cardinal Caietane, and we see the examples of the Levites, of Phinees, and the kill of Agag by Samuel. And 3. Reg. 18. the like of Elias, in kill the Priests of Baal. even in the Chapter going before. He brought them to the brook ●…ison, and killed them there. Elias (saith Lyra) killed them by the people, that to this purpose assisted him, or perhaps he killed some of them, with his own hand, by the zeal of God's justice, and so Samuel is read to have killed Ameleck. But understanding the kill thus, because these especialties are not to be drawn by any ordinary example in the spiritual pastors: let us now admit the figure of the spiritual sword that M. San. driveth this kill unto. Do you know what this spiritual sword is (M. Sand) that you speak on. Think you it is to command others to fight against kings, and to murder their subjects? If it be true (which you affirm) that none can escape it, & that it pierceth the soul: they It belongeth not to Pastors to punish with the bodily sword. might escape this sword by many means, as you say. So that it is not the exercise of such a sword, nor the bidding of such a sword to be exercised. And how chance then your pope's do exercise it, & you contend here for it, and allege all these examples, & yet pretend (clean contrary hereunto) the only spiritual sword? Whereas in very deed, you aught to use none other, even as your own Gloss says hereon▪ Nocentes justitia. etc. The divine justice causeth some offenders to be punished with the edge of the sword, by kings: other it striketh through with the tongue, by Prophets and Priests. To punish therefore with the bodily sword, belongeth only to Princes & their officers, and not to the Pope & his Prelates. Wherefore your Pope both lieth and usurpeth in claiming both swords: and yourself confute him, that say, you have the only spiritual sword: and also contrary yourself, sith the deposition of Princes from their royal estate, belongeth to the secular, not to the spiritual sword. Which belongeth to the spirit, & is only of the soul, & is such as none can escape. M. Sand. confutes himself. And therefore your own self confute yourself, applying the power of the spiritual pastors, to the deposing of princes from their kingdoms. For they may well enough escape your pope's tyranny, as they do (God be praised for it) better than heretofore some Princes have done. And as for his curses, which also he calleth his spiritual sword, being not only nothing like the spiritual sword that God hath appointed, but clean contrary thereunto: Princes shall escape them well enough: yea, God himself doth belsse them, as fast as the pope doth curse them. But master Sanders, to prove that they can never escape this sword, saith Elizeus sword is reckoned in the last place, and the last he calleth here the chiefest. But how agreeth this, with that he said before, of the first place? There, he would prove the Priest's authoriti●… chiefest, because he is reckoned in the first place. And here he would prove the Priest's sword chiefest, because it is reckoned in the last place. And if it were reckoned in the middle place than would be have proved it also the chiefest, because that In medio consistit virtus, Virtue consists in the middle place. And thus be the Priest, or any thing belonging to the Priest, reckoned in the first place, in the middle place, or in the last place, that is still an argument with M. Sanders, of the best and chiefest place. But now to prove yet better the force of this sword, M. Sand. proceedeth, saying: Moreover to this spiritual sword, the other material sword Sand. pag. 86. obeyeth, which also taketh punishment of him, that setteth himself against the spiritual sword. For Elias by the sword of the spirit, that is, by his prayers, commanded the fire to descend from heaven, and consume those captains of fifty, that despising the spiritual power of the Prophet, said unto him in the name of the earthly power: thou man of God, the king commandeth thee to descend. And again: thus says 4. Reg. 1. the king, make haste and come down. For these Captains of fifty trusted so well in their earthly power, that is, so well in the number of soldiers that were under them, as in the authority of the King, for whom they were sent on message, and in respect of this power, they despised that spiritual power, that Elias was endued withal, And therefore with mocking saluted him, the man of God. But when at the word of Elias the fire came down from heaven, and devoured those 4. Reg. 1. two Captains, and their twice fifty men that were with them: the third Captain of fifty being sent of Ochozias the king, acknowledged the sword of Elias, and therefore commanded not him (as the other had done) but besought him, and said: O man of God, despise not my life, and the lives of thy servants that are with me. But what is it, that the Prophet regarded not to obey the king's commandment, but that he himself in that cause was greater than the king, and that he taught, even by the things themselves, the spiritual power of the Church to be greater than the earthly? For neither yet, being most humbly desired of the third Captain of fifty, he came down to the king, before the Angel of the Lord bade him not fear, but go down. For he sat in the top of a mountain (that is) in the chiefest place of the Church. Which place the earthly king ●…ughte rather to have honoured for Christ, whose person Elias did bear, than by authority to command, that the man of God, leaving his chair, should come as a subject to the king. For we read also that Ambrose complained, that he being a Bishop, stood Ambro. lib. 5 Epist. 27. among them of the Consistory. And said unto the Emperor: if thou hadst acknowledged me, thou wouldst not see me in this place. Not that I deny the Prophets and Pastors of the Rom. 13. Church to be subjects to the king, so far as their goods and bodies: but I contend, that their power is not only equal, but higher than the kings own jurisdiction is, so often as the soul's salvation is in hand. For neither must we be ignorant of that, that Elias therefore would not obey Ochozias the king, but rather killed his captains and his soldiers, because the king being sick asked counsel, not of the Lords Prophet, but of Beelzebub the God of Accaron. If therefore 4. Reg. 1. any king fall obstinately into heresy or schism, the Bishop and Prophet shall not only not obey him, but also punish him, not only denying unto him the spiritual goods▪ but also in taking away his corporal goods, after a due sort and order. But it was unworthy for the person of Elias, for to kill with his own hands, a hundred and two soldiers of the kings: and therefore with his only word he spoke, and fire came down from heaven, that devoured those two Captains of fifty with their soldiers. Master Sanders having now referred this sword of Elizeus, The superiority of the spiritual sword, is not the present question. to the figure of the spiritual sword: will prove both that it is above the kings s●…cular power, and also destroyeth them that resist it. But first his proves for the superiority of th●…se sword, is neither belonging to this present purpose, nor we contend about it, but willingly grant the stroke of the word of God, to be the greater stroke, & Elias in that case to be greater than the king also, and the spiritual power to be greater than the earthly power, and that the spiritual power may spiritually punish the resisters of it. But that the ordinary spiritual power of the Priests or Prophets, may depose the ordinary secular power of Kings & Princes: that the pastors spiritual sword, may strike the secular sword out of the Magistrates hand, to whom it is of God committed: that the spiritual power may of his own nature punish Princes with bodily punishment, and take their state and kingdoms from them, and 'cause their subjects to rebel against them: This we utterly deny, and this is the very question. Now héerto is alleahed The present question is, whether the spiritual power of pastors may depose he secular power of Princes. 4 Reg. 1. King Ochozias representeth not the Protestant, but the popish Princes. the fact of Elias, sitting in the mount, who prayed to God that fire might consume the wicked kings messengers that derided the Prophets, and would by force have fetched him to the king. To this I answer, first, for this king, he resembleth no protestant Prince, but rather the popish Princes, who not only being sick as Ochozias was, but also in health, (as though there were no God in Israel) seek not to the only living Lord, to Christ the only saviour and mediator, but to Idols, as Ochozias did to Eeelzebub: and would murder the Prophets of God, that reprove them for it, as Elias did. Secondly, for Elias, he sat not on the top of the mountain, to signify the chiefest place of the church, which chiefest Elias took not upon him the chiefest place in God's Church . place he took not upon him. And do not yourself ascribe the chiefest place of the Church to the high Priest or Bishop? Or was the Prophet then above the chief Priest, or intruded he into the high Priests place? or were both in the chiefest place, and so your Pope claims the chiefest place of the church from both of them? True it is, that in his time Elias was the chiefest instrument that God used in the r●…formation of the Church, yet neither took he upon him the chiefest place of the Church, nor exalted himself above the king, nor deposed him, or his father, or any other prince, how wicked soever they were, nor incited other to rebel against them. And this you should prove that Elias did, or else you stray from your question. Thirdly, for this fact of Elias, I answer as before. It is no ensample for us to follow the like. Neither did Elias Elias his fact not to be drawn to any example to follow. use it ordinarily in his defence, but upon especial occasion God by his justice defended thus his Prophet, and revenged the contumely, wherewith they scorned not only him, but God, in destroying those wicked deriders after such a terrible & miraculous sort. Not for that they were the king's ministers, but for that they assented to the kings cruelty: and besides (being Idolaters) they scorned the power of God in him, in calling him in derision, The man of God. For Lyra in .. 4 Reg. 1. so saith Lyra: Cognovit autem. etc. Elias knew by revelation, that in mockage he called him the man of God, and was consenting to the king in the sin of Idolatry, and in the punishment of Elias, and likewise they that were with him, and that hereupon by the sentence of God they were to be punished: for the which cause he pronounced the divine sentence. So that the striker here was God, Elias only pronounced the sentence of God's justice. Neither did he any thing herein, but by the especial motion of God. He would not come down (as master Saunders therein saith true) no not at the most humble entreaty of the third Captain, till the Angel of GOD bad him not fear, but go down. Whereupon saith Caietane: Vide, actiones Eliae. Caieta●…us in 4. Reg. 1. etc. See, the actions of Elias are governed by the Angel's direction in every point, that is to say, so well his outward as his inward motions. Whereby we may see that he did not this fact by any ordinary jurisdiction of his Prophetical office, but by the especial direction of God, which can not, nor ought to be drawn into example, for other to do or wish the like. Fourthly, this example to follow Elias herein, is of all The imitation of th●… fact of Elias expressly forbidden to the Disciples of Christ. Luke. 9 other flatly forbidden to the Disciples of Christ. For when the Samaritans would not receive Christ into their City, james and Io●…n said, Lord, wil●…e thou that we command that fire come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But jesus turned about, a●…d rebuked them, and said: you know not of what spirit you are. For the son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. Now this example of the severe justice of God, thus desired of them, and they reproved by Christ for desiring the like, M. Sanders resumeth for his Bishop's authority. Whereby it appeareth, he knoweth not of what spirit Christian Bishops Popish Bishops of a contrary sp●…rite to Christ. aught to be, and that Popish Bishops are of another spirit than Christ is of. For Christ came not to kill Princes, to fire their towns, to burn their people, and depose Kings from their kingdoms: to which drift all this is spoken. Lastly, I deny this drift & consequence of the example. Elias prayed that fire might consume them from heaven. Ergo, Christian Bishops aught to take away the corporal goods of Heretical and Schismatical Princes. If the conclusion had been thus: Ergo, they might pray that God would take their corporal goods away: it had been a more likely and a more tolerable conclusion. Howbeit this also is forbidden, to pray to have their corporal goods taken away. It were their duty rather to pray, the they might better use them, & that God would either convert them, or otherwise at his good pleasure, stop their tyranny. They aught not to pray for the taking away of any man's goods, much less their Sovereign's goods, to whom yourself confess, that they themselves are subject, ●…o far as their goods and bodies. And then be they not over the goods and bodies of their Princes, being their subjects, lest of all aught they, either by themselves or by any other, to take their M. Sand. proveth his Bishops to be traitors. Prince's goods and bodies from them: For that is not a subjects but a traitors and a rebels part. But says M. Saunders they may take his bodily goods from their King so they do it, debito modo & ordine, after a due manner and order. He told us thus before, but it is clean beyond all good ma●…er, & against all due order, to take away any man's goods, chiefly the Princes, yea and that the Bishops or priests to do it. The example of S. Ambrose, complaining that the Emperor The example of S Ambrose. mis●…sed him, is clean against M. Saund that allegeth it for him. For S. Ambrose took not the Emperor's goods away, nor deposed him, nor caused other to rebel against him: but for all the Emperor's missusage of him, he continued still in his obedience to the Emperor. Howbeit he told the Emperor of his duty, and so should all godly Bishops do, and not attempt to depose their Princes, nor to stir up other to depose them. Let us now put the case (says M. Saunders) that some man Sand. pag. 8●…. &. 87. which was a Prince was present with Elias, who having received the power of the sword, would have offered himself to use it for Elias. Or else let us put the case, that it is said of Elias unto him: because these soldiers contemn me, and in me God, whose prophet I am: rush thou on them and kill them. Had now that Prince sinned, if at the word of Elias, he had killed the King's subjects? either else could not an earthly sword have performed the same thing, that the ministery of fire did yield Of like things it makes no matter what is done. from heaven? Truly with wise men it makes no matter, what is done of those things, that are of the same weight and moment. If fire be the more noble element than earth, yea, or those metals that are digged out of the earth: I see not but that he, who called fire down from heaven, which should satisfy his commandment, much more could have spoken to a Magistrate bearing the sword, that he should pull out and draw that sword for him against any King. Whatsoever you see not (Master Saunders) you make all the world to see that you be of a viperous generation and adders brood, that cannot creep forward by lying strait, but wynding and crooking in and out, hither and thither. M. Sand ●…alles to putting of cases again, contrary to the Scripture. See how you s●…ill seek shifts whereby to proceed, when by the direct Scripture your cause will not go forward. You fall to putting of cases once again. Put case the scripture had said thus: Put case Elias had done this: Put case another had done that. What a warbling is this? If you will allege the Scripture, take the Scripture directly as it lies. Put no more cases to the Scripture, than the Scripture puts. Are you wiser than God, or not as Gen 3. false as the old Serpent, that in tempting Eve, altered the words of God? But this argueth, that the Scripture itself fitteth not your turn, except you may turn and altar it as you will. You pretend it is no matter with wise men what is done of those things, that are of the same weight and moment. As whether these men were killed by the fire or by the sword, Difference of punishments. sith they were killed. But are these punishments all one (Master Saunders) to have been stricken with the sword of a man, and to be consumed with fire from God? in deed as you say, here is death in both, which is the same thing: but are their kinds of death, and punishments, of the same weight and moment? When the four Kings slew the Sodomites, Gen. 14. Gen. 19 1. Reg 22. levit. 10. and when God reigned down ●…ire and brimstone from heaven to s●…ay the Sodomites: when Saul (as Master Saunders said before) killed the Priests, and when God killed the Priests with fire from heaven: is here nothing in these deaths, but the difference of the more noble element? Surely it seemeth Master Saunders you have been so long in Rome, that you are become Inglese Italia nato, so worldly wise, that you have no fear of God's vengeance, that thus measure it by man's punishment. There is a great difference (Master Saunders) in the weight and moment of these punishments, not only to show the heavier wrath of God, but also to show, that although Elias desired This punishment of fire, was an especial pu●…shment proceeding from God, not from Elias. it, on such specialties as is aforesaid: yet the punishment was only from God, not from Elias, he had not the fire at his commandment, but God sento the fire upon them, which maketh another greater difference of the case, besides other sundry differences, that clean do altar it. For it is not likely that Elias would ever have set another Prince, upon his own Princes subjects, or stir any rebellion against his Prince, how sharply soever he rebuked him for his sins. He neither spared King Achab, nor Queen jesabel, nor their son Qchozias, but boldly reproved them. But as for deposing them or moving other Princes to depose them, or to kill either them or their people: he never did it, nor ever showed any t●…ken of liking such doing, and therefore we ought not to presuppose any 3. Reg. 18. Lyra super Luc. 9 such thing of him. These things he did, he killed the Pries●…s of Baal, either by his bidding them to be killed, or as Lyra saith, propriamanu, he killed some of them with his own hand. And here he besought God take this vengeance on these wicked soldiers, and this he did by the ●…stincte of God. The other, that you put the case for, we find no such deed, nor have any such warrant, and without such warrant from God, they should savour of treason to the Prince, and so make a great alteration of the case, to serve your purpose, and wrest the Scripture, and therefore are not to be admitted. But although (says M. Sand.) Princes of this world see not Sand. 87. the power of this spiritual sword, notwithstanding if at the prayer of Elizeus, God vouchsafe to open their eyes▪ they shall see more armies with the B. than with any Emperor. For behold 4. Reg. 6. the mountain full of horses & of fiery charets round about Elizeus. But when the King of Israel seeing the greatness of the fa●…ine, swore that the head of Elizeus should not stand upon him that day: Elizeus that knew this oath of the King to be unlawful, foreseeing in the spirit, the messenger to be at hand, that should execute the King's commandment: Ibidem. he said unto the elders that were with him, know you not how this murderers son hath sent to take away mine head: take he●…de therefore, when the messenger cometh, shut the door, and set him not enter. Yea Sanctes Pagninus so expounds these later words, oppress him in the door. By which words, not only the shutting out of the King's messenger is signified, but also a certain violence done unto him. All which I have brought to this end, that I might show that the pastors of the Church, have power not only over the souls of the faithful, but also over their bodies and goods, so often as the soul's health may be promoted thereby. For we know also, that two bears coming out of the 4. Reg. 2. wood, did ●…eare in pieces ●…ortie and two of those Children that mocked Elizeus. Whereby also is declared, that all the creatures of God arise, to revenge their injuries, whom God hath adorned with spiritual power. And truly when good Kings wanted, that would revenge the contumely 4. Reg. 1. done to the pastors of the Church, the element of fire and the wild beasts took that care on them. We had before, the example of Elias, and then of Elizeus, The example of Elizeus. and then again of Elias, and now again of Elizeus. Of whom three things are here alleged. The first, that Elizeus had greater power to defend him, than the King of Syria to oppugn him. The second, when the King of Israel sent to kill him, he caused the messenger violently to be kept out of the door. The third, when the children of Bethel mocked him, he cursed them, and strait wild bears destroyed them. To the first I answer, it is impertinent to the purpose of Elizeus defence of ●…rie charets against the army of the king of Syria. deposing Princes, or seizing on their temporal goods & kingdoms, or causing their subjects to revolt from their obedience. Elizeus did none of these things, neither can this defence of Elizeus without racking, be drawn hereto. But M. Sand. ●…aith, he bringeth it to this end, to show that the Pastors of the Church have power, not only over the souls of the faithful, but also over their goods & bodies. If you bring it to this end, M. Sand. then as you bring it about the bush, and not directly to the question in hand: so here youfoully over shoot yourself. For this Prince was not a faithful, but an Infidel Prince, and the enemy of the Prince of Israel. And therefore invading with open hostility the Prince's dominion of Israel: it was lawful for any Israelite, to do the worst he could to destroy the Syrians army. Howbeit, Elizeus gathered no power, nor useth any worldly violence against this foreign Prince's army, as the Pope doth against foreign Princes, to come upon them with horses and charets, and with a mighty army, like to this infidel Prince of Syria, to besiege Christian Princes and the true Israelites, and to destroy the Prophets of jesus Christ, that give Christian Princes warning of the Popish practices. So that if a figure may be drawn from this history, to our times: the Pope more resembleth Benedab, than Elizeus. As for Elizeus, gathered no worldly power, but with steadfast confidence commended himself to God, and God protecte●… him with Millions of Angels. He had power indeed to defends him, and more Armies than hath any Emperor, as M. Saunders ●…aith. But this power was spiritual, and not such as the Pope exerciseth over Princes. Would the Pope seek 〈◊〉 other power than Elizeus did: then might you M. Sanders put up your pipes, this controversy were at an end, for deposing Princes. Not, M. Saunders, The Pope like to Benadab. all Princessée, yea, even those that are blinded with affection towards him, do see, that he seeketh & hath such power, as Benadab had, and greater worldly power also. For the maintenance whereof, you here do contend by writing, as fast as he contends by fight. But this was not the power of Elizeus●… If you will see a platform of Elizeus power, The protestāns like 〈◊〉 Elizeus look upon the poor Ministers of the gospel, environed round about with your popish armies, horses, & charets, in so much that the poor simple man, crieth out as Elizeus servant did: Alas master how shall we do? the Popish Benadab hath besieged the poor Protestants with such mighty aru●…es, that all the world would have thought ere this, they should have been clean swallowed up. But God be blessed, poor Elizeus hath more armies▪ the poor preachers of the Gospel have more Legions of Angels, and more spiritual fiery char●…ts and horsemen to assist them, against all that assault them, than that yet they could ever prevail, but are (as was the host of Benadab, stricken more and more with blindness. For & they 〈◊〉 not blinded, they must needs see this mighty work of God, that all whose eyes God hath opened, do behold, and glorify God, and fear not any more the host of this Benadab, for they that be with us are more, than they that be with them. But see how this Captain of Benadab that is blind himself, wolo so blind us with him, that he would make us believe, that even Benadab himself were Elizeus. But doth the Pope use his captives as Elizeus did, who suffered The Pope's cru 〈◊〉 to his cap tiue●…, unlike the cu●…sie of Elizeus. not them to be killed nor spoiled, but comforted and refreshed them, & set them again at liberty? Not, M. Sand. we are not so blind, but we & all the world doth see, that as the Pope fights with other man●… of armies, than did Elizeus: so he useth to his captives no such mercy, but more tygerly cruelty, than we should find at the Turks hands, than the Turks found at the hands of Tamerlanes the Scythian, than is to be found among the Cannibals, that roast men on a spit being killed before, and not ●…rye them at a stake alive: yea, than a man shall find among the Savage Bears and Lions that would quickly devour him. Such despite hath the Pope showed even to his own Cardinals, where Elizeus showed this goodness to his enemies. And when he had them in his free choice to have killed them, he let them go free. Whereas the Pope to kill his 〈◊〉 being free, hath violated all safecondui●…, and broken all oaths, bends, promises, faith and honesty. And is the Pope yet like Elizeus? But how holds this argument? Elizeus had more power than the host of the Syrians: Ergo, bishops have power to depose Princes. The second thing that M. Sand▪ noteth in Elizeus, is the Elizeus caused the king's messenger to be kept out of the 〈◊〉 4. Reg. 6. excluding of King jorams Messenger, that was scute to cut off his head. This factdrawes somewhat nearer to the purpose in respect of the King, for he was the King of Israel, to whom Elizeus was a subject: but this again is as far from the purpose, in respect of the King's cruelty and Idolatry, wherein joram figureth Popish, & not Protestant Princes. But in respect st●…l of the present controversy, it is nothing to the purpose at all for the kings deposing. For how followeth this? He bade them keep the King's servant out, that would have come to cut off his head: Ergo, he bade them depose the King from his royal estate. And here M. Sanders urgeth the force of Elizeus words. Sanctes Pagninus (says he) translateth thus these later words, oppress him in the door. In which words is not only signified, a shutting out of the King's Messenger, but also a kind of violence done unto him. You need not run to Pag●… M. Sanders, our translations confess as much: premite eum in ostio, reprimite illum in ostio, press him in the door, or rather repress him, than oppress him. For oppressing draweth nearer to the murdering of him, which was far from Elizeus meaning, and is nearer to the Popish violence. But the plain meaning is, keep him out of the doors, as the comm●…n translation hath it. Neither is it material, though he were shut out before he came, or thronging in before y● 〈◊〉 were ●…ul shut, he were violently thrust out again. For this was not done of them to resist ye●…ings authority, nor 〈◊〉 to be done of him 〈◊〉 show that he had such powero●… his goods & body, that he might take his goods or his life fro●… him: but this that was here done, was to preserve himself being the Prophet of God, from the King's unjust violence, and from the hasty fury of the cruel murderer, whom the King sent to kill him, without all law, justice, or reason, only upon the sudden passion of his outrage. As for the Prophet, he had especial warrant by God's especial reucaling, so to bid them, and therefore the Prophet bid nothing amiss herein. Yea, he knew well enough, that although he resisted the King's messenger, yet he resisted not the King, but even therein obeyed the King, and did that he Elizeus resisted not the King in keeping out his Mes●…anger would have had him to do. For the King immediately repenting him of his wicked oath and hasty cruelty, came himself (as it seemeth by the text) in all haste after the Messenger, to stay his hand, and to let the Prophet of God alone, acknowledging his offence, and that his punishment was even the hand of God. Now Elizeus (by revelation) knowing of all this: what did he in bidding them resist the Messenger, but even obey the Kings will? and therefore when he had them keep him out, or offer him violence, if you will needs so expound it: he saith withal, is not the sound of his master's feet behind him? and this was the very cause why he bade them do so. Let him enter, cuius causa subditur. etc. (says Lyra) Lyra in. 4. Reg. 6. the cause whereof is annexed, for behold the sound of his Master's feet is after him, for after the departure of the Messenger, joram repented, and therefore he followed him to revoke the precept. And faith Caitane, That they should boldly Cale●…anus in. 4 Reg. 6. resist the King's messenger, he foretelleth them, that the King followed his Messenger, repenting that he sent him. And therefore the King followed the Messenger, because he repented that he had commanded, that Elizeus head should be cut off, for he came to himself again, and came personally to move his complaint before Elizeus. Now all this that should have lightened the master, M. Sand▪ concealeth, and cuts off this sentence of Elizeus in the middle, taking no further thereof, than he thought he might wrest to seem to serve his purpose, after such manner as the Devil cited scripture against Christ. Whereas the whole sentence set down, and the story considered, it maketh clean against him. Nevertheless had Elizeus, on the especial will and revealing of God, done otherwise, it had made nothing for him. The third example of Elizeus, maketh lest of all to the Elizeus cursed the children that mocked him and the Bears devoured them. 4. Reg. 2. purpose. Because Elizeus cursed the children that scorned him, and they by God's just vengeance, were destroyed by Bears: that therefore he ever attempted to depose the King, or solicited his subjects to rebel against him. This conclusion is to far fetched. And yet that which Elizeus there did, doing it in the name of the Lord, and by revelation of the Lord, pronouncing the sentence of God's justice upon them (as Lyra says) can no more be leveled to an ordinary rule, than the fire that came down at the petition of Elias. Neither doth the Popish●… gloss, or Lyra gather thereon, that Bishops might 'cause their Prince's subjects to be destroyed that mock them: but they make this a figure of Christ. Mystice exponendo. etc. In expounding this mystically, Glossa cum 〈◊〉 ●…a in 4. Reg. ●…. Elizeus going up to bethel, signifieth jesus Christ ascending to his Cross, whom the Iewes mocked, according to the text of the Gospel. For the vengeance whereof, two Bears came afterward into jury, to wit, Titus and Vespasian, and killed the people forty years after the passion of the Lord, for revenge of the contu●…elie done unto him. This figure your own commentaries make hereon But I have not read, that any maketh it serve for Bishops to depose Princes, but for Princes to depose wicked bishops, that crucify Christ in his members, and deride the simplicity of the Gospel. Who rather than they should remain unpunished, God will stir up heathen Princes to punish them, as he did these Bears, and flash down fire from heaven to destroy all those Priests, that offer strange fire to God: and will stir up all his creatures, to revenge the injuries done to his Saints & Ministers, where good Princes want, (as you say) that should revenge the same. But then frevible you, you cruel papists, that have done so many outrages to God's Ministers, and have shed so much blood of his Saints, that you shall never flee Gods héavie vengeance, howsoever good kings do want. Though you abuse Kings to be executioners of your cruelties, whose duty (by your own confession) were to punish such injuries. Which if they would better look unto, and put in practice, they should so little fear your deposing of them, that they would depose every one of you. And thus, as all your examples make nothing for you, so every one of them maketh so much against you, that it séeineth as these Syrians were so blinded, that seeking to take Elizeus, they were led they witted not whither, even into Samaria, and were themselves taken of their enemies: so you seeking to take the Ministers of God, & to take the Christian Princes power from him, to bring all to your holy father Benadab, are so blinded in framing your arguments, that you blunder on such examples, as still make clean against you. But now after the acceptable time is come, wherein are S●…nd. 87. many Christian Kings, of whom some always obey the Vicars of Christ: there is now no need of miracles, or of the ministery of creatures wanting reason, sith there want not faithful Princes, which may perform and execute this. For sith Zacharie the Prophet of God hath foretold, that so Zacha. 13. great a fountain of grace should be opened to all, after the coming of Christ, that even one's father & mother should thrust him through, whom they should understand to speak a lie: how much more at this day, shall there not want those, that shall not suffer him to live, whom they shall perceive, that he will not obey the high Priests commandment. For the power Deut 17. of the Ministers of Christ is so much higher, than the power of the Priests of the Levitical kind, by how much difference, 2. Cor. 3. justice, Spirit, & life, that we minister, excel damnation, the letter, & death, which things the levitical priests by occasion ministered. If there wanted Christian Kings and faithful Princes then, and yet the Prophets than deposed not the wicked Princes, nor set up new Princes, but rather, committed the vengeance Where faithful princes wanted 〈◊〉 Prophet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 m●…nt to ●…od. to God, that punished Idolaters, by the ministery of creatures wanting reason, where there wanted faithful Princes to do it: with what face can you (M. Sanders) allege these examples, for the Pastors deposing of Kings? which are so flat arguments against it, that where Christian Kings, and faithful Prince's want, to punish Idolaters and deriders of God's Ministers, there Christian Pastors should commit the vengeance to God, rather than attempt to depose those unfaithful Princes, which no faithful Prophet did. But now (say you) are many Christian Princes, of whom some always obey the Vicar of Christ. For so you call your Pope. The obedience to the 〈◊〉 o●… nee 〈◊〉 to Christianity. by M Sand. are gument. Whether the Pop●… be Christ's, or Satan's vicar, is an other question, M. Sano. Whether any Christian Kings obey him, is somewhat nearer to the purpose, although not directly to the question here in hand. But if this be true, that there are many Christian Kings, of whom some always obey the Pope: then are there also many Christian King, of whom some never obey the Pope. And if they may be Christian Kings; that never obey the Pope, as were the Emperors of Greece, the Christian Kings in Asia, Africa, and the North-east parts of Europe, that never obeyed him, and yet are Christian Kings: then is not the obedience of the Pope necessary to christianity, else, not some, but all Christian kings obey him, & he that obeyed him not, were no Christian King. But now (say you) there is no need of miracles. Then (say I) there is no need of such examples. But if you No need of miracles. deny the need of miracles, why doth your Church plead upon them, & abuse the world so much by them? what? be you become a Bogomile M. Sant? nay then, I wilturne you loose to M. Stapl. But why will you not stand on miracles now? Now (say you) want not faithful Princes, which may perform and execute all this. Then (say I) faithful Princes have authority to destroy false Pastors, and not false Pastors, not nor true Pastors, to destroy neither faithful, nor yet unfaithful Princes. You cite the Prophecy of Zacharie, That so great a fountain Zacha. 13. of grace should be open to all, after the coming of Christ, that even one's father and mother should thrust him through, whom they should understand to speak a lie. Tru●…, M. Saunders, such a prophecy there is in deed. But had yourself not been guilty in your conscience, to have been one of these liars that the Prophet speaketh of, you would not thus have snatched at the sentence, here and there a piece, like the Egyptian Dog that M. Stapleton telleth us of, drinking in Nilus' river, and dare not drink a full draft, for fear he be caught by the lips. And so would you be caught by those lying lips of yours, if you had so fully set down the prophecy, that the Reader might have perceived who the liar is. The words are these: In that Zacha. 13. The prophecy for punishing of false Prophets. day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin, and for uncleanness. And in that day, says the Lord of Hosts, I will cut off the names of the Idols out of the land, & they shall no more be remembered. And I will 'cause the Prophets and the unclean spirits to departed out of the land. And when any shall yet prophecy, his father and his mother that begat him, shall say unto him, thou shalt not live, for thou speakest lies in the name of the Lord. And his father and his mother that begat him, shall thrust him through, when he prophesieth, and in that day shall the Prophets be ashamed every one of his vision, when he hath prophesied. Neither shall they wear a rough garment to deceive, but he shall say, I am no Prophet, I am a husbandman. For man taught me to be an herdman, from my youth up. And one shall say unto him, what are these wounds in thy hands? then shall he answer, thus was I wounded in the house of my friends. By this sentence it appeareth, that by this liar, is not meant The punishment of false Prophets belongeth to the Prince. a Prince, but a false Prophet. Whereby you can not infer the present question, that Priests may punish Princes, but the contrary, that Princes may punish priests, may well be inferred thereon. For by the fathers & mothers thrusting through, is not meant private punishment, each one to kill another, nor yt●…his thrusting through belongeth to the Priests, who take upon them to be the Prophets themselves, & to whose calling kill belongeth not, but it appertaineth to Kings & queens, to civil Princes & Magistrates, that are the fathers & mothers. of god's people, & ●…o whom of right (as having the sword from The popish clergy be such false prophets as Zacharie prophesied of. God) the punishment of false Prophets appertaineth. But who be these false prophets (M. Saunders) that the Prince shall punish? First, all they which deny that fountain of grace, to be the only washing away of sin and uncleanness. Whether your Pope, your Prelates, and you, seek not other The fountain of grace. things, besides this fountain of grace, for the washing away of sin & uncleanness: all the world knoweth, and your own practice & confessions (as is before proved to M. Stapleton) charge you therewith. Secondly, these false prophets are those Idolatry. that maintain Idolatry: which whether the popish Priests maintain or not, as it is so apparent, that no fig lease can hide it, so we have hard your own testimonies openly confess it. Thirdly, the false prophets are they, that teach lies in Teaching of lies. the name of the Lord, which what is it else, but to teach other doctrines, as necessary to salvation, than Christ and his Apostles taught, their own traditions and constitutions in the stead of the word of God. How this also toucheth the Popish pastors, besides the appearance thereof, we have hard already their own witness. Fourthly, these false Prophets were such, that for their blind, and gross ignorance Ignorance. they were more fit to go to cart than to school, to hold the plough than to hold the place of a pastor, such blind guides leading the blind, that a Child scarce seven year old, can give more readily a better answer of the Christian faith, than many a Popish Priest, yea than some Doctors in divinity, of twenty years continnance could Hipocris●… of rough garm●… have done. Fiftly, these false Prophets were such hypocrites as with sergeant austerity with sack & hearecloth, with linsywoo●…ie, with long & grave disguised & prescribed rough garments, have born to the simples eyes the counse●…ance of holy fathers and only religious men. These (M. Saunders) these are the liars, these are the false prophets, that the true Prophet Zatharie here describeth, & foretelleth of their destruction: How the fountain of grace should be opened that you had stopped: how the death of Christ, & not such means as you had devised, should wash away all sins and uncleanneste: how your Idolacrie should be pulled down, & the very names of your Idols become odious: How your lies & forgeries should be espied: how Princes should punish you even to death: how you should be so athamed The detection and punishment of popery prophesied by Zacharie. of your lies & trumperies, that you should cast of your cowls & hide your marks for shame, & say you were never Priests, Monks, nor Friars, but husbandmen▪ All which how it hath come to pass, all the world seeth, and many of your own side have confessed, and be ashamed, and cry God mercy, and have forsaken their superstitious prelaties, and have choose rather to live like husbandmen, than to deceive the people and abuse gods name with lies any longer. And if this prophecy have not wrought this effect in you, but that you remain yet a shameless lying Prophet, and would obstinately ●…naintaine these things: it is a shrewd token you be given up to a reprobate sense, & are blinded by gods righteous justice, for refusing his mercy, and that godly Princes should run you through, and execute the severity of god's justice upon you. Now all this that detected you to be these lying prophets, and that showed the Prince's authority and office to punish you, as you steightly pass it over, so you wrest it clean to another purpose, as though they should be run through that would not obey the Pope. For so you apply it, saying: How much more shall there not want at this day, that will not suffer him to live, whom they shall perceive will not obey the commandment of the highest Priest. And as you put this in distinct letters, so you quote for it, Deut. 17. The wresting of the com●…on alleged place. Deut. 17. This place is often alleged, and answered already unto in M. Stapleton, and is so shamefully wrested here by you, that if there were no other argument, even the wresting of this prophe●…ie would argue you to be one of these lying prophets, that should be run through for abusing the word of God. As though that law took yet place among us, that was appointed for that time to the jews: or as though those matters between blood and blood, plea and plea, plague and plague, in causes of controversy among the jews, were matters of Religion then, or are to be stretched to all matters of faith now: or as though those matters were determined by the only high priest then, and not by the judge and Civil Magistrate, ask counsel of the Priests, and giving judgement by his own authority, make not rather for the obedience to the Civil Magistrates, than to the obedience of the Priests: or as though Zacharie prophesying of the state after the coming of Christ, did mean there should be one chief B. besides Christ, whose commandment all Princes, all Bishops, all people in Christendom should obey, or else they should be thrust through and killed. In deed (M. Saunders) Zacharie speaketh a little before of a pastor that should come which lively describeth your Pope. And the Lord (says Zacharie) said unto me, take yet unto Zacharie. 11. Zacharies prophecy of the Pope. thee, the instrument of a foolish shepherd. For lo I will raise up a shepherd in the land, which shall not look for the thing that is lost, nor seek the tender lambs, nor heal that that is hurt, nor feed that that standeth. But he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws▪ in pieces. O Idol shepherd, that leaveth the flock, the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye, his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened. Who exerciseth this tyranny over all the people and the Princes too, eating them to the bones yea bones and all, deposing them, destroying them, and pilling their kingdoms with insatiable extortions, but the Pope▪ the Popish glosses ascribe it to Antichrist, but they describe the Pope's practices. Lyra in Za. 11. A pastor in the land, (says Lyra▪) that is, Antichrist to rule therein: that shall not visit the forsaken, that is, he shall do no work of Godliness, but shallbe of greatest cruelty toward the just, and therefore he says: and shall eat the flesh of the fa●…e, that is, by spoiling of their goods: and tear their claws, by afflicting and kill them. Again what Pastor may better be called in Idol than this Antichrist the Pope? That is The Pope an Idol. called an Idol (says Lyra) that is worshipped for God, and is not God. And so shall it be of Antichrist, that shall sit in the Temple of God, as though he were God. 2. These, 2. O Pastor and Idol (says the Gloss) thou art so wicked, that thou shalt Glossa cum Lyra. not be called a worshipper of Idols, but shalt be called an Idol, while thou will't be worshipped of men. Who leavest the flock to be denoured of beasts, that the Lord had always kept. This pastor shall therefore arise in Israel, because the true pastor had said, I will not feed you. This pastor by another name is called, the abomination of desolation, that shall sit in the temple of God, as though he were God. Therefore the sword of the Lord shallbe upon his right arm, and upon his right eye, that the force of him & all the boasting of his might, might be dried up & withered away, & the knowledge that under a false name, he promised to himself, shallbe obsenred with eternal darkness. Here it is apparent, that Zacharie meant your high B. the Pope, but he so little threateneth them that obey him not, that he curseth him & all them that obey him, & threateneth the vengeance of God upon him, to pull down his tyranny, and to blind him. But I think (M. Sand.) that your right eye was blinded also, that saw not this, or else you blinked at it, and would not see it. For this would have told you another manner of matter, than that be should be killed, that obeyed not the Pope's commanding and would, hau●… made you afraid, lest this killing should light both upon him and you. But you go on and tell us, that the authority of the ministers Sand. pag. 87. Deut. 17. 1. Cor. 3. of Christ, is so much greater than the Priests of the levitical kind, how much justice, peace, and life, that we do minister, is better than damnation, the letter, and death, that the levitical Priests ministered by occasion. That the authority of Christ's ministers is greater, we grant, in such things as belong to their ministery, that are Christ's ministers. But whether it be greater in outward glory, is another matter. But be it great or less, where you thrust yourself in the number, and say, that we do minister, you are but an intruder, M. Sand. For neither you, nor any popish Priests, are any of Christ's ministers, The ministration of the popish ministery. as is already proved, even by your own last allegation out of Zacharie. And if the ministration of justice, the spirit and life, be the trial: your contentionn is here for sedition and rebellion, contrary to justice: for a worldly glory and earthly kingdom, contrary to the spirit: for deposing, kill and thrusting through of all those that will not obey your Pope, contrary to life. And so is your ministration worse, than the ministration of the levitical Priests, who (you say) ministered these thing not of purpose, but by occasion, but you seek of purpose all occasion, thut you can find, or snatch at and wrist, to minister matter for the deposing of Princes, for the rebellion of subjects, ●… the murder of all estates, only to maintain the pride and tyranny of your Pope, above all Christian kings & kingdoms. Now that none of all these examples and testimonies will fadge no better, we shall have once again the example of Ozias. And yet (saith M. Sand. in the levitical Priesthood such Sand. pag. 87. height of the Ecclesiastical power is figured, that even then also we may see, that kings were compelled of Priests, whereby they gave up their Magistracy. For when Ozias was waxen 2. Para●… 26. strong, his heart was lift up to his destruction, and he neglected the Lord his God, and entering into the temple of the Lord, he would burn incense upon the altar of Incense. Then Azarias the Bishop, and other Priests that were strong men, entering after him, resisted the king. And when he notwithstanding, holding the Censor in▪ his hand, threatened the Priests: straightway a lepry sprung in his forehead, which the Priests beholding, they quickly expelled him. What followed therefore? Ozias dwelt in a house apart, being full of lepry▪ for the which he was cast out of the house of the Lord Moreover joatham his son governed the house of the king, and judged the people of the Lord. Who seethe not the bodily casting forth of the king out of the house of the Lord, clearly to express that ecclesiastical power, whereby kings taking upon them the offices of Priests, may be cast out of the kingdom of heaven, by the excommunication of the highest Bishop. Moreover, if because the king was made a Leper, the administration of the king's house, and the government of all the people, was devolved unto the kings son: how much more the infection of heresy, which (as S. Augustine saith) is signified by the lepry, aught to bring Aug. Quest. lib. 2. q. 40. to pass, that a Prince being driven to the state of a private life, may be compelled to leave his house void unto his successor. This story of king Ozias, as it is already cited by M. The example of king Ozias, attempting to offer incense. Stapleton, and was not before forgotten of M. Sanders, so here and in divers other places it is recited. Neither is there any one Popish writer on this question of Supremacy, but he allegeth this example. And as they thus often allege it, so is it often by us answered, and in deed it is easy to be answered, for it is not to the purpose, and but their malicious slander, to burden the Protestant Princes with it, who take not upon them to do the offices, belonging to the Bishops and Ministers of God's word and Sacraments, as here Ozias attempted to do. If you can name any such Prince, and such things, name them hardly, M. Sand, but prove it withal, else you are but a slanderer of those that be in authority. But here M. Sand. applies this example to this, that the highest Bishop may excommunicate such a Prince, and cast him out of heaven. Whether your Pope be the highest Bishop, or not, is still The pope readier to cas●…e Princes out of heaven, than to bring the into heaven. another question. But this is out of question (M. Sand.) that he is always more ready to cast a Prince o●…t of heaven, than to bring him into heaven, and to cast him out of his kingdom too, than to let him enjoy it, especially if he deal with him, although he do not as Ozias did, but do the duty of a godly Christian king. But who denieth this (M. Sand.) that In what case a Bishop may excommunicate a ●…icked Prince. a godly Bishop may upon great & urgent occasion, if it shall be necessary to edify God's Church, and there be no other remedy, to flee to this last censure of excommunication against a wicked king? although you can not infer any such necessary conclusion upon the allegory of this example. But what is this for the expelling him out of his kingdom▪ and for deposing him from his estate? Can you prove that Azarias and his Priests did handle Ozias thus? For this is the present question, but this you can not find they did, and therefore this example serveth not your purpose. Well, say you, they used a bodily casting out of the king, out of the house of the Lord. Trow you (M. Sand.) they The Priests withstood the king, but not with any bodily violence▪ 2. Pa●…al. 26. took him by the heels, & cast him out, or by the head and the shoulders▪ & thrust him out? I trow not, that they laid any violent hands upon him. They withstood him, but it followeth how, they said unto him, It pertaineth not to thee to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the priests, the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to offer incense. Go forth of the Sanctuary, for thou hast transgressed, & thou shalt have no honour of the Lord God. This was no resistance (M. San.) to blame him for his wickedness: & when he regarded not their sayings, but was wroth with them, & was even ready to offer the incense, God struck him with the lepry. So that it appeareth they laid no violent hands on him, but rebuked him, & yet in his fury he had done it, had not God himself with his sudden vengeance stopped him. If they had been so disposed (being forty valiant men, besides the high Priest) they might have wrong the Censor out of his hand, and might have pulled off the Priestly garments from his back (for so josephus telleth how he came into the Temple) howbeit they resisted him not in such violent ●…rte. But say you, when they espied God had once stricken him with the lepry, then quickly they thrust him out. But not with violence (M. Sanders) Non explicatur expulsio, Caietanus in 2 Pa●…al. 26. etc. (saith your Cardinal of Caieta) thrusting him out is not expressed, but the Priests, when they saw the lepry, warned the leprous king to go forth. Neither needed he then any great warning, Sed & ipse, etc. For the king himself being terrified, made haste to get out, because he felt forth with the stroke of the Lord, so that he was not only moved of the priests, but also moved of himself, feeling the 〈◊〉 of God, to go out of the Temple. What great violence was here done of the Priests to the King, except their rebuking or warning of him, either before his presumptuous attempt, or after? Did they strike him? Not, God struck him, M. Sanders, and not the Priests, for all they were so many tall fellows, and had might enough to have stricken him. If your Pope therefore and his Prelates will take The Pope dealeth not with Princes as Azarias did. 1. Tim. 3. this Bishop and his Priests for their example, they must be (as S. Paul saith) not strikers, nor fighters, chief not not against their Princes: they must be mighty, but not in blows, but potentes sermon, mighty in the word, to reprove the wickedness of Princes, and so resist them, as S. Paul saith, he resisted Peter to his face, not that he buffeted or Gal. 2. p●…meld him with his fist about the face, as Bishop Boner did his prisoners. But he resisted him, in speech reprehending him, and with such resistance these Priests resisted the king▪ and all Bishops may and aught to resist all wicked princes: but this is far from deposing them, or sollicit●…ng other Princes to make war upon them, or moving their subjects to rebel against them. But master Sanders brgeth further what followed. The king being a ●…eper, dwelled in a house apart, till the day of his death, and his son governed the king's house, and judged the people of the land. What is this (M. Sand) to the Priests deposing of him, This king was never deposed for all this offence. that he dwelled apart? For, being a Leper, God in his law had so appointed levit. 13. Neither did the contagion of his disease suffer the administration of his office. Howbeit neither for his offence, nor for his punishment thereof, was he deposed from his kingdom, & his son made king but the son as his father's deputy▪ administered the affairs of his father's kingdom, & so, for all this Ozias continued king even till the day of his natural death, which was a longer time (if your Gloss be true, after this fact, than he had been king before this fact committed▪ For (says your own gloss) Volunt Hebraei. etc. The Hebrues will have it, that this hap●…ed in the 25. year of Ozias, whose years remaining are. 27. And so he reigned as the text saith. 52. years. But whether this computation be true, or not, it plainly appeareth that he continued king still, and was buried as a king and his son began not to reign till his father were dead. Which argueth, that for all this heinous fact, which God so marvelously and dreadfully revenged insomuch that josephus Commestor, the Gloss, Lyra, and divers other say, that the terrible earthquake, mentioned in Amos 1. and in Zacharie. 14. was done at that present instant, when God struck the king for attempting this deed) not withstanding he retained still his estate, though he could not, for his sickness 〈◊〉 himself the office. So little did God suffer the Priests, or any other to depose h●…m, howsoever the king deserved it, or rather a worse punishment. Thus this example of Ozias, that is so often alleged, & so much triumphed upon, as it is meer●… slanderous so maketh it nothing for the Papists, but clean confu●…es them, & playn●…g argueth, that how fervently soever the Ministers of Christ may reprove and rebuke a wicked Prince for his offences, yet be his offences never so great, the Bishop hath no such authority that he may depose his Prince, but must commit the punishment unto God. But now of this example of Ozias lepry, we shall have another argument. And as Lepers should be discerned of the Priests, whether Sand. pag. 87. they be whole or infected: so the judging of heresy, pertaineth to the only Priests of God. Therefore by the manifest testimony of divine scripture, it is evicted that an heretic king both may be, and aught to be deposed, lest he infect all his subjects, with that kind of disease. For he can not seem to have his common senses, that will think this to be yielded to the infection of the mind, that he granteth is to be denied to the infection of the body. Of the corporal lepry it is Levit▪ 13. thus written: whosoever shall be infected with any lepry, & is severed at the will of the Priest, all the time that he is a leper and unclean, he shall devil alone without the tents. All which things, sith they happened to the jews in a figure, but are written to us for our learning: the matter must thus be taken, 1. Cor. 10. that the cohabitation of them with the faithful, must be denied to be permitted, that bring strange doctrine, streaked as it were with spots of lepry into the Church. Now if neither private men alone, but also kings were bound by this law (as the holy scripture testifieth of king Ozias) truly kings also being spotted with heretical wickedness, are by the judgement of the Priests, to be driven both from the use and administration of the kingly power. The former argument of example, is now drawn to another 2. Paral. 26. The similitude of lepry compared to heresy. Aug. ●…. Quest. 2. Q. 40. of a similitude, the lepry being compared unto heresy. To this argument, first, I answer, that although I deny not the proportion of the similitude, being rightly applied, as S. Augustine useth it, comparing heresy to a lepry, in respect of the filth and contagion of it: notwithstanding, where we have not the express use of the scripture for it, I deny that any argument of a similitude made of man, is 〈◊〉 sufficient force to evicte a controversy in the school of A similitude of man is no manifest testimony of the word of God. God, And therefore this is a manifest untruth, that by the manifest testimony of divine scripture it is evicted, that an heretic king may and aught to be deposed. Name that manifest testimony, for as yet you have not, and here you make but an argument of a similitude. But neither a similitude, much less a collection of yourself, to frame an argument from a similitude thereon, is a manifest testimony of divine scripture. therefore this is a manifest false assertion. Secondly, I answer. This similitude (as you here apply This similitude is applied of the Papists to other things it) is of less force, in that you wrist the same similitude to other things, as to auricular confession, and to assoiling from sins, and therefore it serves not properly, but is wrested, to deposing of Princes. Thirdly, I answer, if this similitude were admitted of The Priest did but discern of the disease, and not dispossess men of their goods. the Priest's desce●… the lepry then, and the Priests discerning heresy now: yet cometh it not home enough to depose the Prince, & to exclude him from his kingdom. For the Priest had no such authority given him ●…uer a leper, to dis●… him of his goods & inheritance. Only the Priest found out whether it were a lepry, or not, & pronounced him a Leper, if he were found so to be. Which done, the law took place of such a person, to be excluded from company. The execution of which law was not done by the Priest, but by the Magistrates and the people, as appeareth Num. 5: And the The excluding of the Leper from company belongeth not to the Priest. Num. 5. Lord spoke unto Moses, saying: Command the children of Israel, that they put out of the Host every leper, and every one that hath on issue, & whosoever is defiled by the dead. etc. So that the 〈◊〉 of lepers, was not by the authority of the priest, but by the princes authority or cōmādem●…t, & the people's execution, only the priest discerned & declared, who was, & who was not a 〈◊〉. And therefore this law reacheth not so far, as to the judgement of deposition, much less to the taking away of any ma●… 〈◊〉 & ●…heritance, lest of all of the Princes. Fourthly, I answers to the words that you cite, for the The tex●… of scripture 〈◊〉 alleag●…d. Priest's authority herein, out of Levit 3. Whosoever shall 〈◊〉 spotted with a lepry, & is severed at the will of the Priest, all the time that he is a Leper and unclean, he shall devil alone without the tents. This sentence (as you have set it down in distinct letters) is not in all that Chapter, nor any other that I find, so that, except you quote some other place, I doubt it will prove a lie, and a shameful abusing of the holy scripture. If you think it be holy, as you call it, how dare you thus hack and pervert it? and where find you these words, separatus est ad arbitrium Sacerdotis, He is separated at the will of the Priest? as though it were at his wi●… or arbitrement whereas he did but as the law commanded him, and was prescribed in every thing, what he should do therein. Fiftly, I answer, this law was pertaining to the judicial This law was judicial, and so we are not bound to it, nor it is any figure to us. law of the Israel●…ts. But the judicials in the old law touch not us, nor be any figures of our judicial laws, and therefore this is wrested hereunto▪ Sixtly▪ I answer●…, the application of S. Paul's sentence ●…. Co●…. 〈◊〉. is no less manifestly wrested▪ For S. Paul speaketh nothing there of this matter, but of other matters. ●…ther : S. Paul wrested. Haymo in 1. Cor. 10. but Haec autem omnia, All these things▪ Haec autem omnia superius 〈◊〉, saith Ha●…o▪ All 〈◊〉 things aforesaid. And therefore▪ 〈◊〉 do ●…ll to apply this in general, I deny 〈◊〉 but as Rom. 15. ●…or ou●… 〈◊〉 or instruction. But not for our descanting or construction▪ to make 〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉 list upon them. For that 〈◊〉 both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the literal sense, & you would ▪ . thus ▪ must streaked If the matter of Christ's parable, of the Cockle growing together Math. 13. with the wheat. I grant that we aught to avoid such cohabitation as may conveniently be avoided. But such cohabitation, as cannot be avoided without the incurring of another greater sin, must not be denied. As the husband to deny 1. Cor. 7. c●…habitation with his wife, though he be faithful and she an I●…fidell yet if she will tarry and devil with him, he can not put her away for ●…ir infidelit●…e: Nor likewise can the faithful▪ woman forsake the man, though he be an Infidel: neither can the child deny his natural obedience to his parents & cohabitation with them, though he be faithful and they be Infidels: Neither can the faithful servant deny his civil obedience and cohabitation with his Master, although his master be an Infidel, as were the most in S. Paul's time, and yet he would have none deny cohabitation with their masters, not though they were rough and cruel, besides their infidelity. And shall the subject then deny his politic cohabitation▪ and ci●…ill obedience to his liege Sovereign and lawful Prince, for pretence of diversity in religion? Eightly▪ I answer, if you will needs apply this separation The moral or mystical signification of separating the leper separareth not the ●…king from his kingdom . of the Leper to a moral or mystical signification, yet serveth it not to the deposing of the person from his C●…ill estate, or to his exel●…sion from a common weal, but to his exclusion of moral virtue, or to his expulsion ●…ute of the 〈◊〉 of grace, from being a ●…ber of the mystical com●… weal, which letteth not, but that he may remain 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. N●…thly. I answer, your conclusion that you make for The example of king Oz●…s confu●…es M. Sand. figure. king●…, so well ●…s o●…h 〈◊〉 men, faileth ●…n this example of king Oz●…s. ●…or neither was he deposed by the Priest or by any other man, but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 king▪ so long as he , is of king Ozias, . ●…thly, I answe●…e, that all this 〈◊〉 ●…ere admitted maketh nothing against protestant Princes but it maketh much This figure maketh against popish priests, not against protestant Princes. against popish priests. For if unto all that bring into the Church, strange doctrine, streaked as it were with the spots of Lepry, cohabitation must be denied. Then the Pope and all your popish Priests, being found to bring into the Church, other doctrine than God hath taught in his holy Scripture, are to lie thrust out of God's Church, if worse should not happen unto you, by the figure (if you will go to figures) of Nadab & Abiu, that offered strange fire before the Lord, and were consumed with fire from heaven, but beware you of a fire in hell. And thus much to your figure of the lepry for deposing Princes, which if we deny, you say (as is your common saying) we have not our common senses. But had you had your private senses, when you made this argument, you would have been better advised, ere ever you had made it common, and had Printed it, but you did but as other had done before, for the argument before was common. But what do I reason (saith Master Saunders) Athalia Sand. pag. 87. 3. Reg. 11. the Mother of Ochozias murdered all the Kingly seed, except joas whom josaba had hid in the house of the Lord Moreover Athalia reigned over the land seven years. But in the seventh year, joiada the Bishop taking to him Centurions, Captains and soldiers, made a covenant with them, and sworn them in the house of the Lord, and showed unto them the king's son, and gave them in charge what they should do, and brought out the son of the King, and set the Crown upon him, and the testimony, and made him King & anointed him. But Athalia when she saw the King standing upon the Tribunal, according to the manner: she cried out, treason, treason, But joiada the high Priest commanded the Centurions and said: carry her out without the bounds of the Temple. And whosoever followeth hi●…, let him be stricken with the sword. And Athalia was killed in the kings house. joiada therefore made a covenant between the Lord and the King and between the people. And joas did that which was right 3. Reg. 12. before the Lord, all the days wherein joiada the Priest did teach him. Do we not here plainly see the whole knowledge of the kings cause, to have been belonging towards one high Priest. He calleth the soldiers, judgeth the Queen that had ruled seven years, to have raigneduniustly, and commanded her both to be deposed and killed, and in her place did substitute joas to be King, and subjecteth him under the Lord, and placed him above the people. All which things sith they were well done, is it not now true, according to the sentence of the divine Scripture, that the Bishop ought to know of the causes of Kings and Emperors, whether they be just or unjust. For what so ever the Bishop in this kind doth, whether he define the King to be deposed or to be placed: he is no other than the Angel of the Lord, out of Malach. 2. whose lips, as well Kings as private men, ought to require the law of the Lord. The high Priest is as it were a sequester, as between the Lord and the King, so between the King and the People. So while one judge in the Church is ordained, both between Kings themselves, stirred up with mutual contentions, and also between them and their People: infinite occasions of wars and tumults are cut off, Master Saunders here first asketh, what he doth reason? The example of joiada the high priest that caused Athalia to be killed. & joas to be made king. If he can not tell, what he doth reason, surely I know not. But this I know that it was but a very weak reason, and therefore belike he was weary of it, and will return again to urge us with example. And here to knit up the old Testament, he allegeth the example of joiada the high Priest, for the killing of Athalia, and the substituting of joas to be King. But this example, which beareth yet a face to come far nearer to the purpose than any thing spoken hitherto, notwithstanding if it be well considered, is as far from the purpose and as much wrested unto it, as the other. I omit that he still keepeth his old practice, M. Sand. confuse citing of the scripture. in jumbling together diverse pieces of the scripture, and not to set down the text as it lieth, and yet he maketh a distinction of letter, as though it were all the text. Which and it were not his common v●…age of the scripture, were the better to be born withal, and might be imputed to the ●…ters negligence, as it often falls out, but in so often handling thus of the scripture, it is not tolerable. But to the example. First, I answer, this pertaineth nothing No king is here deposed but an usurper killed. to the question in hand for the deposing of a King. Here is no King deposed. Here is an usurper, that had no right so the kingdom killed. And to your own expositor Lyra says: usurpavit sibi regnum juda, & prius describitur ●…uiusonodi usurpatio. Lyra in 4. Reg. 11. She usurped to herself the kingdom of jury, and this kind of usurpation is first described. And the text is plain that she had no right. The right King was joas, when his brethren were sl●…ine. Therefore here was no deposing of her. Neither dared you say that joiada deposed her, but he commanded her both to be deposed and killed. Although for commandment of deposing her, you find no such thing, for she was not their lawful governor, this therefore serveth not to the purpose of deposing a lawful Prince, and that for heresy, which was not laid to her charge, neither was she killed for that cause, but as a traitress to the Crown, as a murderer of her own blood, and as a mere usurper of the kingdom that belonged nothing to her. And therefore joiada did but as a good and faithful subject should do to his liege Lord, and to his heirs after him, and not as one that by his Priestly office, had power over the royal estate. Secondly, I answer, that the doings of joiada herein, The doings of joiada were upon such occasionn that they can not be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 example. were upon such especial occasions & necessities, that it is evil drawn of you to an ordinary example. For none of the Priests either did the like, or could claim to do the like to their kings, as joiada had done, much less to be drawn to an example for the ministers of Christ to follow. First, Io ada was the uncle by affinity unto joas, for joiada the high Priest's wife, was sister unto King Dehozias, whose children Athalia being their Grandmother, did murder, save that joas (being a new born babe) was privily conveyed away, by his Aunt josaba the high priests wife, where he was closely nourished in the Temple, till he was six or seven years old. Good reason had joiada to keep the young King The close now rishment of so as by the high priest his uncle in the Temple was extraordinary. his Cousin, and more right thereto than any other, not by virtue of his Priestly office, but being thus of God sent unto him, by his wine's industry, for the child's close and safer preserving in the Temple. And yet this nourishing a child and his nurse in the Temple, could so little be drawn to any ordinary example, that if necessity had not enforced it, it had not been allowable. As even Lyra noteth out of Rabbi Solomon. Quod puer & nutrix sua. etc. That the Child and Lyra in 3. Reg. 11. his Nurse were kept in the fit of the Temple of the Lord, where nobody dared approach, but the Priests and the Levites, that kept the holy vessels there laid up, to the intent they might there the better be hidden. And although it was otherwise unlawful for a woman and a child to be there, yet in such a necessity it was lawful. As David and his men did eat the Priestly bread, being driven in necessity, which notwithstanding otherwise, had been unlawful for him. Thus can not this deed of joiada for the nourishment of The close doing of joiada argueth he had no ordinary authority. joas; be drawn to any ordinary example. Neither dared joiada be known of this deed, that no doubt had cost him his life, had it been but suspected. Which argueth he had no ordinary authority to put down the Princes, not, not this very usurper, being also a murderer, and an Idolater. In all which cases, if he had had any ordinary power and right thereto, be would no doubt have openly professed, and avouched his doing, and not have kept it so long close, and privily watched his opportunity. But now, the child being thus by the high Priest and his wife preserved and nourished, which child had the only to the crown, lay it not him upon, was it not his duty, yea In what respect this doing belonged chief to the high Priest. & his obedience too, both that he aught before to his brother in law deceased, and to this his young nephew extant, that the child should have his right inheritance? and to whom belonged the procurement hereof, rather than to him that had the child in custody, besides that he was his uncle? & sith no man of any countenance knew hereof but he, how should the child have got his right but by him? But did he make the child King by his priestly authority, as though the Priests had had the interest, to appoint and make such Kings as they pleased? Not, but it was the duty of the one to procure it, and the right of the other to have it. And yet that he did not this of himself, the text says plain: he took and brought Centurions and Soldiers to him into the Temple. Here consequently (says Lyra) is described the Institution Lyra in. 3. Reg. 11. That which joiada did, he did it not by his own authority, but by consent of the princes & nobility of the true heir, by the carefulness of loiada the high priest. seeking to this the assent of the Princes & nobles of the kingdom. So that he sought their assent & help, or ever he would detect the Child unto them. And for this present necessity, he broke the order also of the priests courses that King David had appointed, for the sons of Aaron & Levi, to minister weekly, & then to give place to other. These he stayed for the more number & strength, to establish the young King in his right, & so by these extraordinary means, he crowned him king, & caused the murderer and usurper to be killed. This fact therefore of joiada, can not be drawn to an ordinary Wherein joiadaes' fact may be drawn to an example. example, except in these points, that every good subject, so much as in him lieth, should preserve the lawful King's children and heirs, & not suffer any other to whom the inheritance belongeth not, to usurp the crown, but the right and lawful heir thereof to enjoy it, & to expel all intruders & usurpers, chief such tyrants as seek their usurpation by execrable murdering, especially such as against nature destroy their own blood, and all such as by any other traitorous means aspire to the kingdom, and so far forth as they conveniently can, to help to restore the lawful heir thereto, as to whom only they own their homage, and are sworn. This is all godly subjects, and so all godly Bishops & priests duties in every Christian kingdom. Thus may this doing of joiada be drawn to an ordinary example, which we deny not. But what is this for Bishops to give kingdoms from the right heir, to him that hath no claim thereto, but by the Bishop's gift, who gives a large thong of another man's leather, as doth the Pope give kingdoms from one to another, having no more right to give them, than the other to take them. Which is not to expel an usurper, but for one usurper to set up an other usurper, which is no more like this example, than an apple is like an ●…yster. Thirdly, I answer●…, for joiadaes' knowledge of the king's In what respect ioiada had knowledge of the King's causes. causes, he had them not in respect, he was the high Priest, but in respect he was the uncle, the guardian, the nourisher and protector of the 〈◊〉 person, being a child: and yet this is spoken by M. 〈◊〉 without the book, that after the coronation he had the knowledge of the king's causes Neither yet if he had the knowledge of them, the king being in such estate, & somuch beholding to his uncle, a general rule could be made there, or was made among the Jews, or can be made among Christians, that either the bishops of any kingdom, much less the B. of Rome for all kingdoms, aught to know the causes of kings & Emperors, whether they be just or unjust. This generality can not justly be inferred on such a specialty. For neither all king's estates 〈◊〉 like to this king's estate, nor all Bishop's estates like to this Bishop's estate, as by the causes aforesaid appeareth. Fourthly, I answer, that as here is inferred no ordinary The King might have knowledge in the bishops causes. 2. Paral. 23. rule, for Bishops to have knowledge in kings & Emperor's cau says, from the contrary, here is inferred an ordinary rule for kings & Emperors to have knowledge of B. causes. For even at the king's 〈◊〉 (although he were an infant, & had no more skill of religion than of government) the text says: they put the crowne●… upon him, and gave him the law in his hand. And so saith Lyra, the testimony, that is, the law wherein he was ordained, aught to study and meditate, and keep it, and 'cause it to be kept. True it is, that the high Priest did teach him, and the King did well, so long as he was taught of so godly a father. And thereupon may well be inferred that Bishops may teach Kings that which is right before the Lord. But this teaching of the King, infereth no public government of the King, which the Pope claimeth, and M. Saunders pleadeth for. The authority of teaching the King, and the authority of governing the King, are ●…arre different authorities. That of teaching we grant to joiada, and to all Godly Bishops: not to teach what they will, but that which is right before the Lord And to see that they do this, the Prince hath the law of God given into his hands, so well as the crown set on his head, to show, that although the bishops must●… teach true doctrine, and Godly exhortation, yet must the King have knowledge to oversee that it be taught▪ as well & much more than any other matters of his kingdoms. What shall we say then to the popish Bishops, which will not give the law of God into the Prince's hands, but wring it out of his hands, that he should not know it, but blindly follow such false doctrine and naughty examples, as they would teach him? are these Bishops like to the Bishop joiada? And if this king fell to Idolatry, when he wanted this good teacher, how shall that King do that never had such a teacher? and yet for all this teaching of joiada, that was as it were a father to the King: the King notwithstanding, while he continued good, both commanded all the Priests, and taught them, how they should deal in their oblations, collections, reparations, and other things belonging to the Temple. 4. Reg. 12 And joas said to the Priests, all the silver of things dedicated, that be brought to the house of the Lord. etc. Let the How the king dealt with the priests for their ●…blations. Priests take it unto them, every one of his acquaintance, and they shall repair the broken places of the house, wheresoever any decay is found. And in the 23. year of King joas the Priests had not amended that which was decayed in the Temple. Then King joas called for joiada the Priest, and the other Priests, and said unto them. Why repair you not the ruins of the Temple? Now therefore receive no more money of your acquaintance, except you deliver it to repair the ruins of the Temple. Thus did the King not only know of the priests causes, but called them before him, yea, even his uncle joiada the high Priest also, & appointed an order unto them how to bestow their offerings. And when they were negligent therein, he rebuked them, & revoked his former ordinance, except on their amendment. Neither did the Priests, not nor his uncle joiada the high Priest grudge or grumble hereat, nor said that the offerings were there's, not his, to dispose, nor told him they were his superiors: but as his inferiors, most humbly obeyed his ordinances. All which things fithe they were well done: is not now true, according to the sense of the divine Scripture, that we may make a better ordinary rule her●…on, for Kings and Emperors to know of bishops causes, than for Bishops to know of Kings and Emperors causes? If you reply this was but a money matter: I answer yet was this money, oblations and offerings. But will you grant Princes thus much, to make ordinances how all your money offerings shall be used, when you shall gather them, and when not, of whom you shall take them, and how you shall bestow them: ●…ay, 〈◊〉 will never do this, for money is the chiefest thing you shoot at, no penny, no pater noster: all your e●…cl. causes depend so on money offerings, Gloss●… in Lyra. that as good you gave the prince authority in all ecclesiastical matters, as let him deal thus with your money offerings, joas government over the priests stretched f●…ther than to money matters. as joas did with there's. But doth your own gloss expound this no further than to money matters? joas (saith your gloss) both in this name and in this work signifieth Christ, for it is interpreted the strength of the Lord. He commandeth the teachers, that they should take all the money that is offered into the lords house of the passers by, to wit, whatsoever spiritual knowledge or good work is brought into the Lord's treasury, that by the offices of the preachers, it may be bestowed on the repairing of the spiritual Temple, that whatsoever he shall find torn by error, or hurt by Vices, they should repair lest the multitude of hearers should perish by the doctor's negligence▪ Here this fact of the King is compared to the representation of Christ, and to the oversight of all eccl. matters. So that if Kings will accounted the study of the Law of God, as well to belong unto them as their crown, if they will look unto, know, and examine the causes of the Bishops and their revenues, and appoint them orders to repair the ruins of the Lords temple, and see that the preachers lay out their talents, of spiritual knowledge & good works towards the building: then should kings truly represent Christ, and be indeed the strength of the Lord, because they have the lord's power & authority thereunto. And thus this example better considered, maketh more for the King's authority over the Bishops, than for the Bishops over the King's authority. Fiftly I answer, that although a Godly Bishop be a How the B. is a sequester between God & the Prince. sequester between God & the Prince, & between the Prince and the people, in prayer, in the Sacraments, and in preaching: yet▪ is he not a sequester between God and the Prince, or between the Prince & the people, in matters of the kingdom, The B the lord's Angel or Messenger and the Prin●…es the Lords Christ or anointed. lest of all, he may sequester him from his kingdom. And though he be the Angel of the Lord in his message, if he be a Godly bishop, for otherwise he is the Angel of Satan: yet is the King the lords anointed, or the Lords Christ in authority: but the Lords Christ in authority, is above the lords Angels in message: therefore the King is yet above the Bishops. And although the King so well as the private man, aught to require the law of the Lord, out of the priests lips, yet if the Priest inst●…ade of the Lords law, will give his own la, the king aught to rebuke or punish him. For if the King aught to require it of the B. then as it is the bishops duty to yield it, so is it the Prince's duty and of●…ce to call upon him, & to see to it, that the B. faithfully give it to him, & to all the private men in his kingdom. Which again proveth so little the bishops authority over the King, that it plainly proveth the King's authority over the B. in requiring of them to preach the la of God, which is their proper office & calling, and not to govern Kings, and translate kingdoms. Sixtly and lastly I answer, that if this were granted The event of 〈◊〉 of all w●…rres and ●…umults, if the Pope might depose and set up all Princes. to the Pope, which M. Sand. would so feign conclude, that one judge in the Church should be ordained between Kings themselves, and them and their peoples, & that this one judge should be the Pope: where he pretendeth, it would cut off infinite occasions of wars and tumults: as this conclusion can not be gathered on this example, so this effect of peace to ensue by this means, is but an imagination in M. Sand. opinion, we should find another manner of effect thereof, that would be the very wellspring of infinite wars and tumults. And lest he should think that I speak partially against the Pope, as he doth for the Pope, I report me to the experience of it, and not to vain imaginations, what tragedies hath the Pope raised between the Greek & german Emperors, chief to the Henry's the 4. & the ●…▪ to Fredrick the 2. to Lewis the 4. to the tumults of King john in The hurly-burlies that the Pope ha●…h made. England, to the Pope's practices between Germany, France, & Spain, for the kingdoms of Sicily & Naples, for the Duchy of Apulia & Milan, to the maintenance of the factions in Italy, between the Guelphs and Gebellines, the white sect, and the black sect, the French & Imperials, the Uenetians and the Genoese, the Florentines and the Pisans, & all the states of Italy. All which and infinite more wars and tumults in Christendom, have been raised, nourished & abetted, chief by this one judge the Pope, and yet would M. Sand. have him to be the only judge and definer, whether any King should be deposed, or be placed. Were not this the readiest way to set all Princes by the ears? chief if he would change his mind upon displeasure, or his successor should favour an other, or there were two or three Popes at once, then should all Christendom be in a broil by the ears together, and the Pope would clap them on the back, and win by the spoil of all countries, and no country should have their lawful and natural Prince, but either foreign or perjured usurpers, nor any Prince have his royal authority, but be the Pope's Tenants at will. If the world were come to this pass as it appeareth the Papists would have it, were not this a goodly quiet world trow you? But than it were a golden world for the Priests, when all men else should find it a bloody world, and every man wer●…●…eadie to cut an others throat, and all things run to havoc. But were it admitted that none of these mischiefs should The pope's wi●… k●…d peace if it were admitted ensue, but that all occasions of war and tumults would be cut off: yet sith this calling to rule all Christian Kings and kingdoms, is unlawful for any Bishop (besides Christ) to have: what were this peace but as the wicked say, Pax, pax, ubi non est pax, peace, peace, where God says there is no peace? what were this peace, but the worlds peace, yea, the devils peace? where the strong man held all things in his house in peace, where antichrist ruled in quiet prosper●…tie, till Christ a stronger than he, would come and break his peace. Rather than tumults should be cut off, with such a shameful peace, and peace bought with such a wicked condition: it were far better for Princes to strive to the death for the truth against such peace, and to cut off such an arbiters head, who to maintain his pride for worldly peace, would make open war with Christ. And thus we see the effect would be nought, and yet as naughty as this peace would be, we should not have it peaceably neither, if the Pope might set in his foot, & take upon him to depose kings, and translate kingdoms. But this example of joiada giveth him no such authority. M. Saund. having now gathered together all the proves M. Sand arguments out of the new Testament. Mar. 5. john. 2. 1. Cor. 5▪ 1. Tim 1 & examples that he could wrist with any colour to his purpose, leaveth the ol●…e Testament, & falls to the like proves and wrestings of the new Testament: How Christ for the salvation of one man, let the devils drown two thousand hogs: How Christ drove the buyers and sellers out of the Temple. How S. Paul gave the incest●…ous fornicator at Corinth, and Hymene●… and Alexander, to Satan: How Peter reproved Ananias and his wife for lying to the Act. 5. holy Ghost, & they fallen down dead. But how all these things are wrested, is app●…ant. For in all this, here is no king deposed, and therefore they serve not to this question. But how every one of them serveth to confute the Papists, because the volume is risen too large already, in these answers, and chief in the answer to Master Stapleton, I am constra●…ned here to break off & stay. As for that which followeth of the Fathers & of the Histories, and how those also are wrested as ●…oulie as these: I purpose to reserve (God willing) to another volume. In the mean time, let us conjecture the residue by these arguments, & the rest of all the Papists by these two M. Stapleton and M. Saunders, who are now their principal writers. Whereby as we may easily weigh the poise of their stuff, so we may●… evidently see the dri●…te of their malice, Thirsting blood, breathing treasons, practising conspiracies, procuring seditions, & blowing out as it were a trumpet to open rebellion, against the Queen's Maiesti●…, their Natural Sovereign and our most Gracious Governor, against all the states of the Realm, and to make ha●…e of the whole congregation of Christ, and all to maintain the pride, the tyranny, the errors and superstitions of the Pope. But with what weak and selender reasons, how impudently wrested, how shamefully applied, how unfitly concluded: All the world may see, and themselves be ashamed, if they be not past shame: All the children of God may clearly behold, and not be afraid but the fullier confirmed in the truth thereby: All Christian Princes may the better perceive, and the more abhor the Popish practices, & with all their power repress them, as the utter ruin●… of their sstates, and considering their high calling, may zealously look to the duty of their authority, and as their Titles put them in mind, be in deed most Christian Princes, and earnest defenders of the faith and Church of Christ: And all true subjects may stick the faster in all dutiful obedience to their natural Princes, detesting the foreign usurpation of the Pope, and all the traitorous seducing of these his chaplains: That Antichrist may have the overthrow, the Prince may have the regiment, the truth may●… have the victory, the reader may have the benefit, and God above all things may have for ever the glory, through jesus Christ's our only Lord and Saviour. So be it. FINIS. Psalm. 2. Wherefore, be you now advised O you Kings, be you learned you that are judges of the earth: serve you God with fear, and rejoice unto him with reverence, kiss the son leàst he be angry and so you perish from the right way, if his wath be kindled yea but a little, blessed are all they that put their trust in him. Faults escaped in the prince. Faults. Corrections. good ministers good ministers. 232. 〈◊〉. 24. the summ●… the 〈◊〉. 316. 〈◊〉. 23. the reas●… the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 377. 〈◊〉. 8. secund●… secund●…m. 386. lin. 12. tamen 〈◊〉 tamen▪ 391. lin. 14. also ●…ll 〈◊〉. 403. lin. 21. renowned 〈◊〉. 408. lin. 16▪ that is that it is▪ 408. lin. 34. in the in 〈◊〉. 410. in the 〈◊〉. trea●…ise 〈◊〉. 432. lin. 24. peccatum peccati. 469. lin. 10. together thither. 512. lin. 10. godly 〈◊〉. 541. lin. 32. let hi●… to let him. 577. lin. 12. dealing deal. 581. lin. 20. whom against whom. 593. lin. 14▪ yvo you. 599. lin. 2. et despetto de di●… in dispetto di dio. 599. lin. 9 yemay he may. 605. lin. 19 causes: is causes: as. 617. lin. 5. as who though B. as though the B. 625. lin. 31. though follow though it follow. 632. lin. 28. giving giu●…. 636. lin. 9 reddit reddite. 641. lin. 10. not not only. 636. in the margin. but yet ●…r els●…. 649. lin. 1. so long so far. 652. lin. 22. Emperors the Emperors. 674. lin. 11. about about it. 705. l●…n. 12. as are. 717. lin. 2. that that that yet. 721. lin. 8. is simply ●…s simply. 731. lin. 19 grautned granted. 732. lin. 19 or if the or if in the. 767. lin. 30. prioris prioribus▪ 788. lin. 22. which was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was not. 824. lin. 5. you you●…. 83●…. lin. 16. ●…ereth 〈◊〉. 955. lin. 10. not only 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. lin. 12. the breast their breast. 〈◊〉. lin. 34. can do more c●… do no more. 865. lin. 22. qualle equally. 866. 〈◊〉. 15. thereof th●…, of. 881. lin. 21. authority of 〈◊〉 authority and. 897. lin. ●…4. is a Catho●… 〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉. ●…08. lin. 26. inconuen●…t incompetent. 915. lin. 14. you the yet he. 925. lin. 16. that 〈◊〉 that it is. 928. lin. 25. and in deed and then in deed. 959. lin. 20. or covetousness our covetousness. 1024. lin. 2. or ambition our ambition. ibidem. lin. 2. or dainte●…es our dainteynes. ibidem. lin. ●…. sprake speak. 1042. lin. 17. that that that. 1045. lin. 2. the that. 1056. lin. 1. there thereon. 1107. lin. 22. from so from. ibidem. lin. 32. Many other faults are escaped in the printing by reason the author was not always present: but they are such as thou mayst (gentle reader) thyself correct them.