The supremacie of Christian princes ouer all persons throughout theor dominions, in all causes so wel ecclesiastical as temporall, both against the Counterblast of Thomas Stapleton, replying on the reuerend father in Christe, Robert Bishop of VVinchester: and also against Nicolas Sanders his uisible monarchie of the Romaine Church, touching this controuersie of the princes supremacie. Ansvvered by Iohn Bridges.

The seconde Chapter.

The argument vvherof is this. No Christian king in his kingdome is the supreme go∣uernour in ecclesiasticall causes, im∣mediatly vnder Christ.

IN this Chapter, as commonly else where, M. Saunders rhethorically dothe hide his methode, howbeit for perspi∣cuitie sake. I will deuide this Chapter into three partes▪ The first is his arguments why he thinketh the Prince can not be this gouernour. The seconde is the reasons why he thinketh vs heerein deceyued. The thirde is the me•…•…∣nes to dissuade vs from the acknowledging of it, by the e∣uent and euill successe that hath ensued thereon. And first for the first parte, his argumentes are of two sortes, the one, à definitione, from the definition of a gouernour: the other, à dignitate, from the greater dignitie of Priesthood, bring the argument, by comparing the dignitie of bothe these estates, from the olde testament to the Newe. His first argument beginneth thus.

He that may be called a supreme head or chief gouernour, hath of necessitie the power of doing all those things, which

can be wrought by the inferiours to the magistrates of that congregatiō, by their office, or by any charge, belōging pro∣perly to the same cōgregation. This shal be made playner by putting of example. He that i•…•… chieftayne in an armie, hath not only the Imperial power ouer al Tribunes, and Centu∣rions, but besides may lawfully chalēge to himself to occupie the Tribunes place▪ or to be captayne ouer an hundreth, if at any tyme he shall thinke it meete for him selfe to do it. He that can gouerne a whole common weale, can if he will, knowe of euery meane man, and not onely sustayne the turne, and fulfill the offices of the Prince of them all, but also of his Maior, or of the inferiour Iudges. He that is a Bishoppe hathe power of baptising, and of shutting the Churche dores, and of distributing the Churches treasure, although those thinges are wonte to be done of the inferiour ministers.

To this definition, and these examples, I answere, the definition is false, the examples are insufficient. Fyrste, for the definitiō it is not true of euery supreme gouernour, that he can or oughte to worke and execute all those things and duties, that euery one of his inferiours can or ought to worke and execute. For the gouernment of thinges is one thing, and the execution of thinges gouerned is another thing. Yea, these two are relatiua, and can not be confoun∣ded the one with the other, although they haue respecte the one to the other: for so, the gouernour shoulde become the person gouerned.

Secondly, these thrée examples are insufficient. For al∣though we admitte these thrée, yet we may obiecte a great many moe examples, in which this difinition holdes not. Set aside the doing of all dyle and vnséemely offices, for a farre more meane estate than a Prince to doe, of which he hath neither knowledge, nor it were tollerable he should •…•…o them: I pray ye M. Sand. howe could a king ruling in his own realme, be his own ligire Embassadour in another

realme? Wil ye say, he might make a deputie at home, and be Embassadour to his deputie abroade, and so the deputie to the king, shall be the king, and the king the deputie to the king, that is the kings deputie?

But perchaunce ye will admitte this absurditie, bicause ye will not go from your worde, and say, well, the king may be so and he wil. Here what if one should do with you, as I heard once M. Feckenham tel the tale of a gentlemā, that defended, mustard was good with all meate. One sayd nay, it was nought with this meate, another with that, but looke what any coulde recken vp: he still affirmed his saying, that mustard was good with euery meate, were it neuer so vnsauery a sauce therto. Nowe when euery man had reckoned what he liste, at length quoth his owne man, that wayted on him: I pray you master, and is a messe o•…•… mustard good with a messe of milke? Ha (quoth his master)▪ thou haste marde all, thou shouldest haue heldae thy peace. This was master Feckenhams tale. Nowe if master Fec∣kenham that tolde this tale, shoulde deale thus with you, M. Sanders, that as lustily affirme the king may lawful∣ly do any thing, that any of his subiectes may lawfully d•…•…, as the Gentleman sayd, mustard was good with al meate▪ If M. Feckenham would say: sir, and can the king do all that euen his owne wife, or any other mans wife, daugh∣ter or mayde, in things perteyning to their duties and of∣fices can and ought to doe? Especially, sithe your selfe in prosecuting this argument, vrge the example of a woman. All the women in his kingdome are his subiects, so well as the men. He hath a supreme gouernment ouer all persons in all causes, can he therfore do their duties? and yet he can haue the supreme gouernment to maynteine all lawes of matrimonie, and to punishe all whordomes, and yet not like euery somoner, or other executioner of their punishe∣ments. If ye say a woman may be no inferiour gouernour. That is false, a wife hath inferiour gouernment in hir hou∣sholde,

and many women haue had inferiour gouernments vnder kings in common weales, as the Lady regentes in Flaunders, &c. But what if she were not an vndergouer∣nour, yet if she be a subiect gouerned, the words of your de∣finition cōprehend hir, saying: A chiefe gouernour hath of necessitie the power of doing all those thinges, which may be wrought of the inferiours to the magistrates of that congre∣gation by their office, or by any charge belonging properly to the same congregation. But you will say perhaps, that women are of an other kinde, so that the king can not do al their offices. As likewise for the ecclesiastical gouernment, the Apostles might not lawfully do all those things, that the widdowes chosen to serue in the congregation, mighte and ought to do: nor the ciuill magistrate of those congre∣gations might or ought to do them. Then will M. Fecken∣ham presse you that your definition is false, a gouernour can not do all things that belongeth to a subiect. If ye say, a woman is not a subiecte, that is false. If ye say she is not a subiect in respect she is a woman, that is false also, for both men and women are subiectes to their gouernours. If ye say she is not a subiecte in respect she is a wife: although I graunt, the worde wife, hath an other relation than to the king (to wife vnto hir husbande:) yet what auayleth this, sithe many offices haue many other relations also, the sonne to his father, the seruant to his master, the schol∣ler to his scholemaster, and yet all these be subiects to the Prince, although the Prince can not deale in all their seue∣rall offices.

But you thinke to salue all the matter with this ex∣ception.

I say not that he which is endowed with chiefest power, should straight wayes haue the knowledge of euery lesser of∣fice, for this perteyneth to the fact and not to the right. Nei∣ther say I, it is alwayes comely that he should execute the in∣feriour offyce by him selfe, but I say there is no lawe to let

him, no power wants, whereby the chiefe magistrate shoulde not do those things, which the inferiours in the same com∣mon weale are wonte to doe.

Go to, go to, M. Saunders, ye will still be like the gen∣tleman, that would fayne haue eaten his worde if he durst for shame. Ye come in pretily, and beginne to make some exceptions already: you admitte he may wante knowledge of many things perteyning not to his office, yea and that it is vncomely, he should do them. And in déede M. Saun∣ders if you be thinke ye of euery subiectes doings, ye shall finde many vncomely and vnreuerent things, for so highe an estate to do, and many things that he knowes no more howe to do them him selfe, than that Cooke that would put mustarde into his milke to season it. What? and may the Prince do those things him self that are so vile, and wherof he hath no knowledge?

He may, say you, and he will, what righte or lawe may let him? If ye talke (M. Saunders) of a wilfull foole, that will caste him selfe and his kingdome away: if ye talke of a tyraunt, whose will is lawe, that sayth as the Pope doth: Sic volo, sic iubeo, stet pro ratione voluntas: that is another matter. But if ye talke of a king, and of a lawfull power, then I say, his will and power, oughte to be restrayned by lawe, to do nothing vnskilfully nor vncomely for his estate. I graunt he may abase him selfe to some inferiour kinde of offices to do them: but not to all, no not by the right of his royall estate. And yet by his gouernment all those thinges are done, that are orderly done. Although he him selfe may not do them, though he would.

Do ye not remember S. Paules similitude (so oftē vsed by your selfe M. Saunders) of a cōmon weale resembled to our body? The head (ye say often) gouerneth all the parts and mēbers, but the head it selfe doth not nor can not do al, that al the parts & members do. We stande not, we go not, we sit not on our heads, our head reacheth not, nor cā reach

euery thing that our hande can reache & doth. Nor the head doth or can do the office of the shouloers, back or belly, & yet ye graunt the head hath supreme gouernment ouer al these parts, & deuiseth lawes, orders, diets, prouisiōs, & helpes for all the parts and actions in the parts of all the body. Thus ye sée not only by similitudes & examples (in which I might be infinite agaynst your th•…•… exāples) but also by good rea∣son, your definition of a supreme gouernour faileth, he may be a lawful supreme gouernour, & yet can not do al y^e offices of his inferiours. Yea it were vnlawful for him to attempt many such things, and yet his lawfull supreme gouernmēt euen ouer all those things, that he him selfe can not do, nor ought to do, is no whit therby empayred. And therfore this is a false principle, to builde, as ye do, thereon.

Nowe this béeing thus playnly proued a false grounde∣worke, let vs sée howe ye procéede to frame your argu∣ment on it.

VVhich things beeing thus foretouched, I adde vnto them that the supreme head or gouernour of any Church, is the supreme magistrate of that cōmon weale, which no man hauing his right minde will denie. Therfore if the king may rightly and worthily be named the supreme head or gouer∣nour of that Churche, as nowe this good whyle is done in Englande: the same king shall also necessarily haue the fa∣cultie of working all those things, which of that magistrate, of that Churche may be wrought, otherwyse he is not the gouernour of that Church, in respecte it is a Church. But in euery christian kingdome there are and ought to be many, that shoulde preache the worde of God, to the faythfull, that shoulde baptise in the name of the father, and of the sonne, & of the holy ghost, the nations cōuerted: that should remitte sinnes, that shoulde make the sacrament of thanks∣giuing & distribute it: therfore he that is the supreme gouer∣nour of any Church, ought to be endowed with such power, that no law should let, wherby he might the lesse fulfil & do

al these things. But a secular king although he be a christian, can not do these things by the force of his royall power, o•…•… else a woman also might bothe teache in the Churche, and also remitte sinnes, and baptise orderly and solemnly, and minister the sacrament of thankesgiuing. For sithe bothe by the lawe of nations it is receyued, that a woman may be admitted to the gouernment of a kingdome, and in Moses lawe it is written, when a man shall dye without a sonne, the enheritance shall passe to the daughter: but a kingdome commeth among many nations in the name of enheritāce: And sithe Debora the Prophetesse iudged the people of Is∣raell, and also Athalia and Alexandra haue reigned in Iurie, it appeareth playnly that the kingly right appertayneth no lesse to women than to men. VVhich also is to be sayde of children, bicause according to the Apostle, the heire though he be a childe is Lorde of all. And Ioas began to raygne, when he was seuen yere olde: and Iosias reigned at the eight yere of his age. But a childe for the defecte of iudgement, a woman for the imbecillitie of hir kinde, is not admitted to the preaching of Gods worde, or to the solemne administra∣tion of the Sacraments: I permit not (sayth the Apostle) a woman to teache. For it is a shame for a woman to speake in the Churche, and the same Apostle sayth, that the heire be∣ing a childe, diffreth nothing from a seruant. But it is not the ecclesiasticall custome, that he which remayneth yet a ser∣uaunt, shoulde be a minister of the Churche. Sith therefore in the right of a kingdome, the cause is all one of a man, of a woman, and of a childe: but of like causes there is like, and all one iudgement: but neither childe nor woman, and therevpon neither man also (that is nothing else but king) can do those things in his kingdome, which of o∣ther ministers of the churche of God are necessarily to be done: therfore it commeth to passe, that neither the same king can rightly be called the supreme gouernour and head of the Church wherin he liueth.

All this long argument standeth stil on the foresayd prin∣ciple that a supreme head or gouernour must be such a per∣son as may do all the actions of all the offices, belonging to all the parties gouerned. But this is a false principle, as al∣redy is manifestly declared, & therfore al this long driuen ar∣gument is to no purpose. The Prince for all this may stil be the supreme head or gouernour, ouer all Ecclesiastical per∣sons, so well as temporall, in all their ecclesiasticall causes so well as in temporall, although he himselfe can not exercise all ecclesiasticall functions, nor doe himselfe all the ecclesia∣sticall actions of all ecclesiastical persons. For else he might also be debarred of all supremacie, ouer all ciuill and tem∣porall persons, in all their ciuill and temporall causes, bi∣cause he can not himselfe exercise all the ciuil and temporall offices, nor do himselfe all the ciuill and temporall actions, of all the ciuill and temporall persons neyther. And so shoulde •…•…e cleane be debarred from supremacie in either power, nor haue any supreme gouernment at all.

Nowe taking this your false principle pro confesso▪ after your wonted maner, ye would driue vs to an absurditie, as ye suppose, by bringing in more examples of a woman, and a chyld, reasoning thus: A pari, from the like.

A woman and a child may be as well a supreme gouernor as may a man, and hath as good right thereto.

But a woman or a childe can not be a supreme gouernour in causes Ecclesiasticall: Ergo,

A man can not be a supreme gouernour neither, in causes Ecclesiasticall. For to this conclusion the force of bothe the promisses, naturally driueth the argument. I know ye clap in a paire of parenthesis, saying in your cōclusion: neither a man also (that is nothing else but a king:) But sith these w•…•…r des ar neither in the maior nor the minor: y^e cōclusion is plain▪ that a man can not be a Supreme gouernor in causes Eccle∣siasticall. And I pray ye then tell me, who shall be the su∣preme gouernour in ecclesiasticall causes, if neyther man,

woman, nor chyld may be? wherby are not only excluded ciuill Princes, but youre Popes are debarred from it, Pope Ioane and Pope Iohn also. For if they vse that or∣der in the election, to haue a Cardinall féele that all be safe, yf the Uersicle be sayde, Testiculos habet, howe can the quyre meryly syng in the responce Deo gratias? If hée be founde to bée a man, he can not be supreme gouernoure.

Maister Saunders therefore muste néedes mende thys ar∣gumente, or else the Popes, for whome he writes this boke wyl con him small thanks, except that they be Eunuches.

But Master Saunders not marking the sequele of hys conclusion, fortifieth the parts of his argument. To confirme the maior, A woman and a childe may be as wel a supreme go∣uernour as a man: he citeth the lawe, Num. 27. he citeth en∣samples, Debora, Athalia, and Alexandra for women. For children, he citeth the Apostle Gal. 4. and the ensamples of Ioas and Iosias. But these proues are superfluous, sith the controuersie is not on the maior, but on the minor. Which mi∣nor is the point in controuersie, and denied of vs: that a wo∣man or a childe can not be a supreme gouernour in causes ec∣clesiastical. To confirme this minor, for a woman, he alleageth that she can not be admitted to preache the woorde of God, remit sinnes, nor baptize orderly and solemnely, nor admi∣nister the Lordes Supper, bothe for the imbecillitie of hir kinde, and for Saint Paules prohibition of teaching in the Church. For a chyld, he lykewise can not do the same things, as well for defect of iudgement in his nonage, as for Sainte Paules witnesse that he differs not from a seruant. But the Churches vse is not for seruantes, to doe these things: and so, not for children to do them.

Here for confirmation of his minor, master Sanders rus•…•…s to his false former principle: that if the woman & the chyld be supreme gouernors in these things, then muste they be able themselues to do these things. But they cannot do these thin∣ges themselues: Ergo, they can haue no supreme gouernmēt in them.

But this reason is alreadie taken away, and therfore al this argumēt falles. We graunt it is true that neither wo∣men, nor children can do these things. And therfore the Pa∣pistes are to blame that suffer women to bapatize, and to saye or sing in theyr quyres theyr ordinarie seruice, and reade the Lessons. Wee graunte them also, that no men neyther, but suche as bée lawfully called therevnto, maye themselues exercise and do these things: but doth this fellow they may not therfore haue a gouernment ouer those that doo them in their orderly doing of them? if this were true, then take away all their gouernement ouer all lay persons, and all ciuil causes too. For neyther women can nor ought them selues to do all that men béeing their subiects can and ought to doo. Will ye haue a woman weare a mans apparell? it is flat forbidden by Gods worde. Will ye haue a Quéene fight hir self in a battaile, and breake a speare as a king may do? In déed some mannish women as the Quéene of Amazons, Thomyris, Semiramis and other haue so doone, but it is not sitting. And by your owne reason, the imbecillitie of theyr kynde doth cléere them. And a number of such other things may be reckoned vp. Shall we now saye, the Quéene is not supreme gouernour ouer these persons and causes, bicause hir selfe can not doe them. Likewyse for a king that is a chylde, you know he can not fight in battell himselfe, ney∣ther can he himselfe sit in iudgement, and debate rights and wrongs in ciuil doubtes, manie mo things can he himselfe not doe, euen bicause as ye say, he hath a defect in iudgemēt. Hath he therfore in these ciuill and temporall thyngs no su∣preme gouernment? Thus ye sée still your examples faile, yea they make cleane agaynst you: for as a supreme gouer∣nor may wel be a supreme gouernor, in those things that he himself can not do: so a christē princes supreme gouernmēt ouer al ecclesiastical persons, in al ecclesiastical causes, is no∣whit hindred, although the prince, he or she, yong or old, can not do the functions ecclesiastical, nor be an ecclesiast. person.

The second argument is, (that he so often, and al the Pa∣pists vse) of the excellencie of the minister in his ministra∣tion aboue the Prince. To this he citeth the saying of Saint Paule: Let men •…•…o esteeme vs as ministers of Christ, and di∣spensers of his mysteries. To whiche ministerie kings are not called. And here is againe alledged the storie of •…•…ziae, that presumed to offer incense, and was punished with •…•…ea∣prie. The effect of all the argument he knitteth vp thus: Siergo minister. &c. If therfore the minister of the Church of Christ, exercise a greater and more diuine ministerie than the king, or any other prince: howe is the king the Supreme heade of that churche, wherein he seeth certaine ministers greater than himselfe?

I answere, this is a fallation, secundum quid ad simplici∣ter. We graunt, in the respect of his ministerie, the mini∣ster is aboue all Princes. But this pertayneth to the acti∣ons and function of the minister, and not to the ouersight and direction, that all those actions and functions be order∣ly done. Nowe this béeing but a common argument, Master Saunders vrgeth it further by comparison of eyther estate, the Prince and the Priest, from the olde Testament, to the newe, saying:

Ac nimirum illud. &c. And thys namely I seeme to take by my right, the authoritie of any Christian king in his christian kingdom, is not greater than was in tymes paste the autho∣ritie of any Iewishe kyng among the people of the Iewes, for if the Citie of God to whyche Chryste of his owne name, hathe giuen a newe name, maye verily bee the more woor∣thie, but can not be inferiour to the Churche of the Iewes▪ Surely then it followeth, that a christian king ouer his chri∣stian kingdome, can not obtaine more power than a kyng of the Hebrue nation did obteyne among the Hebr•…•…wes. For howe muche the more any Common weale is subiecte too their earthly Kyng, the authoritie of that common wea•…•…e is so muche the lesse. But the authoritie of the Churche of

Christe is not lesse than the authoritie of the Synagoge of the Iewes, bycause in the churche of Christe those thinges were fulfilled to the verie image of the things, whiche in the Synagoge of the Iewes were scarce figured by the naked sha∣dowes. As the truthe in deede in greater than the image, so a∣gaine, the image is greater than the shadowe: but this is eui∣dent, that the authoritie in times past of the only king, is les∣ser than the authoritie of his christian kingdome, or of hys Bishops. But if it be so, then the christian king, which is both lesse than the church, and the bishops of his kingdom, cannot be immediatly vnder Christ, the head of the churche.

This argument is intricate, and full of many inuersed cringle crangles, to shewe a face of déepe and subtill know∣ledge, beyonde the simple mans capacitie: whyche kynd of reasonyng, is more suspicious than to edifying. The effecte of the argument standeth all on this:

The greater authoritie is giuen to a christian king, the les∣ser haue the Priestes and the churche.

But the priestes and the churche haue not lesse authoritie, but aboue a christian king.

Ergo, the king hath not supreme authoritie.

To the Maior, that the greater authoritie is giuen to a chri∣stian king, the lesser haue the priests and the churche: he say∣eth nothing. And yet some what is to be sayde thereto, it is not so cléere as he makes it. For sith eyther of these thrée, haue their authorities in dyuers considerations: the Priests authoritie may be greater than the kings authoritie in one respecte, that is, of his diuine actions and ministerie: and yet in an other, of the gouernement and publike direction, the kinges authoritie is greater than his. And so, althoughe the Churches authoritie in one respecte, be greater than bothe the Kings and the Priestes, as they are bothe but membres and children of the Churche: yet in regarde that the one is a Pastour, and the other a gouernour, and both of them Fathers and guyders as it were vnto the church,

their authorities againe are greater than the Churches.

And this also sheweth the falshood of the Minor, that the Priestes and the Churche haue not lesse authoritie, but are aboue the prince. Which is not true, but in suche respectes, as nothing hinder the supreme gouernement that we giue the prince. But Maister Saunders to confirme this to bée simply true, the prince to be inferior to the Priests and peo∣ple, will proue it by his comparison of the state of the olde and newe Testament. And first he will haue the state of the olde Testament in the Churches gouernement, to be a fi∣gure of the newe. But in the estate of the old Testament, the Prince was vnder the priest and the people.

Ergo, it must be so in the new. To the maior, we graunte him, the gouernment of the Church in the old testament, to be a figure of the churches gouernment in the new testamēt. And remember this well, that here M. Saunders buyldes vpon. For if he himselfe shal be found to swarue from it af∣terwarde, when he findeth it shall make agaynst hym, then let him blame himselfe, and let vs note bothe inconstancie and cantradiction in him, who playeth the snayle, puttyng in and out his hornes, and will say, and eate his worde, as he thinketh best to his aduantage. And this is the fashions of them all, in the examples of the old testament, as we haue séene the practise of M. Feckenham & M. Stapleton, which is a subtile, false, and vnstedfast kind of dealing. But go to we denie the minor, that in the state of the olde testament, the Prince was otherwise (than in the foresayde respects) inferiour to the Priest and people.

It remaineth (sayth he) that we proue the king of the He∣brue nation, to haue ben lesse than his nation, and his Bishop. VVho shall bee a better iudge in this cause than euen God himselfe? For he entreating of sacrifices for sinne commit∣ted by ignorance, distinguisheth foure sortes of men. For ei∣ther the anoynted priest sinneth, or the people, or the Prince, or the priuate person. Of these foure sortes, the anoynted

Prieste helde the firste place, the people of Israell the seconde place, the Prince the third place, the priuate man the last place

If the Prieste that is anoynted shall haue sinned, making the people to offende, he shall offer for his sinne, an vnspotted 'Bul∣locke without blemishe, vnto the Lorde. But if all the people of Israell shall haue doone of ignorance that whiche is contrarie to the commaundement of the Lorde, and shall afterwarde vn∣derstande their sinne, the people shall offer a Bullocke for their sinne. If the Prince shall haue sinned, and among many thinges shall doe ought by ignorance, that is forbidden by the Lawe of the Lorde, and shall afterwarde vnderstande his sinne, he shall offer for an offering to the Lorde, from among the she Goates an he Goate vnspotted. But if any soule of the people of the lande shall haue sinned through ignorance, hee shall offer a shee Goate vnspotted.

Loe foure sacrifices, whereof the moste worthy is the Bul∣locke, whiche is offered as well for the Prieste as for all the people. The hee Goate is but of the nexte worthynesse, the which the King offered. Therefore, euen as the Prince is pre∣fered before the priuate man, so al the people is preferred be∣fore the Prince, but the anoynted Prieste is preferred before them both.

This argument is taken from the Sacrifices for sinnes in the olde Testament, and is nothing pertayning to go∣uernment, and therfore can infer no necessarie but wrested conclusion therevnto. Nowe as this matter is nothing to the present purpose: so his argumentes thereon, argue the greater follie, the more nicely he standeth on them. He driueth thē to infer a superioritie by two reasons, the one of the more worthy Sacrifice, the other of the order & placing the discription of these Sacrifices. Of the Sacrifice he rea∣soneth on the more worthy beast, as thus: He that offered the more worthy beast, was the more worthy in authoritie:

But the highe Prieste and the people offered a more worthe beaste than dyd the Prince:

Ergo, the highe Priest and the people were more worthy in authoritie than the Prince.

The Maior he taketh for graunted, after his manner▪

The Minor he proueth thus.

A Bullocke is a more worthie beast than a Goate,

But the highe Priest and the people offered a Bullocke, & the Prince but a Goate.

Ergo they offered a more worthie beaste.

I aunswere to this worthy, if not rather beastly argu∣ment, made from a Bullocke, as I remember once a Pa∣piste sayde in Cambridge of a righte worthie Doctor of hys owne Popishe Church, his name (quoth he) is Doctor Bul∣locke, but per contractionem, it maye be Doctor Blocke, and so this is a Bullockishe argument, but per contractionem, it is a very blockishe argument, and farre more fitte for Doctour Bullock, thā for Doctor Sanders to haue made, except that he be made Bullatus Doctor. I graunt there was great diffe∣rences to be obserued in the thinges offered, howe beit the worthynesse of the Sacrifice laye not in the things offered, but euery Sacrifice had this or that kynd of matter appoin∣ted to be offered, as the wisdome of God thoughte fittest to expresse the nature of that sinne, or propitiation whereof it was a Sacrifice. A Lyon is counted a more worthy beast than a Bullocke, and yet was it counted an vncleane beast. In the second chapter going before this alledged, God saith of flower and Corne offered, which is not so worthy a thing as is a beast, it is the most holy of the offerings of the Lorde made by fire. In the thirde Chapter he saithe, if he offer a Lambe for his oblation: and afterwarde he sayth, and if his offerings be a Goate. A Goate is a more worthy beast than Lambe. But what shall we conclude hereon, for the more worthynesse of the Persons authoritie that offered all these and other more different things?

But nowe if a Bullocke be the moste worthy beast, dyd not many Kings many times, offer many Bullockes? Did

not also the high Priests offer other things for themselues, besides bullockes? in the. 8. chapter of Leuit. a bullocke and •…•… ram was offered for Aaron and his sonnes, but here the bullocke is still placed before the ram, as a more worthie beast by maister Saunders reason. But in the ninth chap∣ter he sayth, And in the. 8. daye Moyses called Aaron and his sonnes, and the elders of Israel, and then he said to Aaron take thee a yong calfe for a sinne offering, and a ram for a burnte offering, both without blemishe, and bring them before the Lorde, and vnto the Children of Israel, saying, take ye an hee Goate for a sinne offering, and a Calfe and a Lambe, both of a yeare olde without blemishe for a burnt offering, also a Bul∣locke and a ram for a peace offering. here is a yong calfe pre∣ferred before a bullocke, for the Priests sin offering: and a ram before a Calfe, yea, a bullocke and a ram for the peo∣ple, and but a yong calfe and a ram for the high Priest: and so the people (by this reason) shoulde be more worthie than the high Priest, and equall at the least they are made, euen in this place that M. Saunders so narrowly examineth, for the Priest and the people offer a bullocke both of them.

Now if the dignitie of the beast sacrificed, will not inferre the dignitie of the man offering the sacrifice: yet wil master Saunders enforce his argument furder, from the dignitie of the place, in the order of naming eche persons sacrifyce, as thus:

He that is former placed, is former in dignitie, and hee that is placed later, is inferior in dignitie.

But the priest annointed held the first place, the people of Israel the second place, the Prince the thirde place, the priuate man the last place.

Ergo, the Prince is inferior in dignitie to the Priest and the people, and onely superior to the priuate man.

I answere, this is as meane, if not a worser argumente than the other, from the former place in recitall, to the for∣mer place in dignitie. Maister Saunders owne order of his

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

〈1 page duplicate〉〈1 page duplicate〉

booke in this selfe same treatise, confuteth himselfe. In hys firste booke he examineth the peoples authoritie. In his se∣conde booke, the Princes authoritie: in his thirde booke, the Priests authoritie: shall wee v•…•…gehim herevpon, that he ment to giue the people superior authoritie to Princes, and Princes superior authoritie vnto Priests? he will saye be ment it not, and that he confutes it, neither can we iustlye gather anye argumente of a former authoritie, from a for∣mer placing of the persons or theyr names, whiche maye nowe and then bée placed the beste in the laste place, or the best in the middle place, so well as in the firste place, and yet kepe a good and decent order. And if Maister Saunders may reason thus in hys defence for placing the Priest laste, why will not hys owne answere confute hys owne argu∣ment, that here hée maketh of the Priest named in the firste place?

These argumentes now being thus weake and childishe to inferre any necessarie consequēce of superior authoritie: M. Saunders laboureth to strengthen thē with the authori∣ties of witnesses. Althoughe before hande, in so playne a matter, what néede witnesses, or what coulde all the wit∣nesses in the worlde doe, to make these good consequences? not that wée contemne these witnesses, nor yet altogether denye the matter, (as wée haue diuers tymes affyrmed) that the high Priestes office then, and all the Priestes vn∣der hym, and that all the Bishoppes and Ministers nowe, in respecte of theyr diuine Ministerie of the worde and Sa∣cramentes, are to bée preferred, as hauyng in dignitie a moste highe office before all other persons, and so their office maye well bée placed before the Princes office. But this, as it nothing hindreth▪ in other respectes, a superior office of the Prince ouer them: so to enforce the dignitie of the Priestes office by these b•…•…lde reasons, is rather to ble∣mishe it and bring it in contempte. But let vs sée Maister Saunders testimonies.

VVherevpon Philo that of these matters (as one that was a Iewe) was of necessitie moste cunning: it was fit (sayth he) that the Prince bee preferred before the priuate man, yea euen in the Sacrifice, as likewise the people before the Prince, syth the whole is greater than parte thereof. But the Bishop to bee made equall to the people, in taking awaye and obtay∣ning pardon of sinnes. But this honour is counted to the Bi∣shop not for hym selfe, but bicause he is the Minister of the people, making the vowes and prayers publikly to be perfor∣med in the name of all the nation▪

The firste witnesse here is Philo Iudeus, of whome I sée no necessitie Maister Saunders that he shoulde bée moste cunning in these matters, neyther thinke I that he was most cunning in them, althoughe that he were a Iewe, and a no∣table learned man. And yet herein, exception might be made against him, being rather a well liker of our Christian Re∣ligion than a professor of it, or one that sheweth to haue anye great cunning in it. Writing so manye bookes little or nothing of our Christian fayth: saue in his booke de vita theo∣retica, where he commendes it, and calleth it Diuinam Phi∣losophiam, diuine Philosophie, and saythe among other com∣mendations of the Christians (as thoughe himselfe were none) habent autem etiam disputationes quasdam et interpretatio∣nes veterum viro rum, qui et authores ipsius 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 extiterunt. But they haue also certaine dsiputations and interpretations of auncient men, who were also the authours of that heresie or secte, whereby Philo writing on this wise of the Christiās howe euer he fauoured them, I thinke hée was not the cun∣ningest in our Religion. Neither doe you ascribe that vnto hym, but saye he was most cunning in these matters, mea∣ning these Iewish Sacrifices. But and he were not cunning in the faith of Christ, he could not haue verie muche cunning in those sacrifices, that were all referred to Christ. But was not that cunning that he had too muche? driuing all the my∣steries in gods word, to Cabalistical & Platonical numbers

and figures, to allegoricall and morall senses, being himself so great a Platoni•…•…e, that it grewe to a prouerbe, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, either Plato imitateth Philo, or Philo imitateth Plato, so that, in cunning allegori•…•… he was cunning, and yet not so cunning as Origen, who like∣neth herein the priest to the sense of godlynesse and Religi∣on, and the Prince vnto the force of reason. But into what er∣rors he ran by these conceits, is manifest, although he were a farre more cunning Christian, than it should appeare that euer Philo was. I speake not this in their dispraise, or alto∣gether to reiecte their allegories, which may be admitted so farre forth, as they be sober and godly, and not contrarie to the plaine texte, although they differ from the simple mea∣ning of it. But althoughe they may delight and edisie, they proue nothing of necessitie, & therefore are not to be brought in controuersies, whosoeu•…•…r the authors be, the writers of the holy Scripture onely excepted.

But let vs admit Philoes allegorie, what are you (Mai∣ster Saunders) therby, euē one whit the nerer of your pur∣pose, if not the furder from it? the Prince is here affirmed to be inferior to all the people. Howbeit, not simply inferi∣or: but as he is a parte of the whole, and a particular mem∣ber of the body politike: if ye stretch this so generally, that he hath not againe a superiour power, not onely ouer euery other part, but also ouer all the parts: ye may quickly make a madde politike body▪ If ye loke but of your owne example of a natural body (so often cited) do ye not say the head rules all the body? and what say you by your owne head, maister Saunders? it séemeth by the heade strong opinion of these your reasons, that it rules all your bodye to muche oute of square. Although it be but one part of you, yet hath it the su∣preme gouernement of all your partes. So that, this makes nothing againste the Princes superioritie. But now what maketh it for the superioritie of the B. or rather maketh it it not inferior, & withall marreth al your first booke against

the authoritie of the people? Philo sayth not that the B. is a∣boue the people, but the B. is made equall to the people, as who should say, of himself being but a man, he is not equall, but inferior, but is made equall to thē, being made a Prince. Now, if the Prince haue a supreme gouernment of all the people, for al that he is but a man and a particular member, being a parte vnder the whole, as likewise is the B. and so vnder the people to: yet as this man is aboue all the people, in regarde that he is made a Prince, so is he aboue the B. to, that also of a priuate man is made a B. whereby (as Philo saythe) he is made but equall to the people, whereas the Prince is made aboue the people. How answere ye herein to Philo Maister Saunders?

Howbeit (say you) that he saith the B may be made equall to the people, this in deede is to bee vnderstoode, to haue so come to passe in the thing offred, for both offred a Bullocke.

Why M. Saunders, and did ye not before in your Bul∣lockishe reason, make the thing offred, to be an argument of the authoritie of the offerer? the better thing offered, to ar∣gue the better authoritie in the offerer, the worser thing the worser authoritie? and why then not (by the like reason) the like thing to proue the like authoritie? But ye wrests your author Philo. He saith not they are equall in re immolata in the thing offred: for that the text saith plaine ynough, but he saith: the B. was made equall to them in the explation and obtaining forgiuenesse of sinnes. Wherein he sheweth in déede the proper meaning of God, in ordayning these things to be offered, not to disti•…•…guishe thereby the difference of authorities in the persons offering, but rather to shewe the difference of their sinnes, and the obtaining pardon for thē. Of which difference of sinnes and the difference of the offe∣rings for them, the. 1▪ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. and the. 8. chapters of Leui∣ticus do entreate. Now bicause the sinnes of the Priest (al∣though •…•…one by ignorāce, which is a harder case in a Priest than any other, bicause his title professeth skil and learning

giue greater offence than the sinnes of other, therefore the Priests sinnes are reckoned first, as an original from whose offence, other mens offences spring. And so saith the texte, if the annoynted Priest shall sinne making the people to offend, for bycause (sayth Lira your owne commentar) the sinne of the Priest is occasion of sinning to the people. Where to he al∣ledgeth Gregorie, when the pastor goeth by the brokē ch•…•…es it fals oute that the flocke followeth to their hed•…•…ong downe∣fall. What is this firste place nowe Maister Saunders to argue the Priests authoritie and worthinesse, or n•…•… rather his infirmitie and vnworthinesse?

Neither is the thing offred by the Priest appoynted to be a bullocke, to declare anye authoritie in him: but (as Lyra saith) a Bullocke or a Calfe, in remembraunce of the molten calfe or bullock which Aaron erected Exod. 22. What is this againe for his authoritie? but rather to lay his shame before him, that as the beast was slaine, so he deserued to be slaine, for offending by the like beast. And so referring the sacrifice of the beast to Christs sacrifice, that as the innocent beaste was slaine, so the innocent Messias should be slaine, the Sa∣crifice wherof (thus prefigured in the beast, offered and bele∣ued in the person offring) should turne the deserued slaughter from him, and be the propitiation for his sinnes.

And bicause all the peoples sinnes, are great, and the grea∣ter the greater multitude, for the commonnesse of the error in an vniuersall ignorance, as in the Popishe Church, lesse∣neth not the error but makes it greater: (although they de∣fende that the Churche can haue no vniuersall ignorance or common error, contrarie to this manifest texte of scripture) yet bicause it sprang of the Priests, that coulde not pretend ignoraunce so well as the people mighte, therefore the peo∣ples sinne is placed nexte after the Priestes, and is called a sinne of ignoraunce, whiche was not sayde of the Priestes sinne. I•…•… all the people of the sonnes of Israell (sayth the text) shall be ignoraunt, and for lacke of knowledge, doe any thing

that is contrarie to the cōmaundement of the Lord. On which words the glosse interlineth, of ignorance not of knowledge as the Priestes, wherevpon Peter saith I knowe ye did it by ignoraunce, but the priestes sinned of knowledge, seyng all things fore tolde in the scriptures, and therefore sinned more heighnously. But yet bicause the peoples offence was in the same thing that Aarons was, therefore the people also of∣fered a Calfe or Bullocke, in remembrance (sayth Lyra) of the molten Calfe wherein the people sinned Exodus. 22. and hereto he citeth Hesichius: manifestum. &c. it is manifest that he meaneth the sinne of the people and the Priest to bee all one, and therefore in bothe of them he ordayned the same sa∣crifice. And here withall were to be noted (if the order were note worthie) that he placeth the people before the Priest, euen where y^e text placeth the Priest before the people. And therefore neither Lira, Hesichius, nor the Popishe Glosse were so precise in the order, as Maister Saunders is.

But what makes it matter whether he name the Priest before the people or the people, before the Priest? what hath either Priest or people here to boast of dignitie? but rather bée ashamed of their greater sinnes, the more they are pla∣ced one before an other. And these causes (had Philo bene of necessitie so cunning in these matters, as Maister Saun∣ders sayth he was) he woulde haue alledged. Yea, had hée béen no cunninger herein, than euen y^e necessarie vnderstan∣ding of the place enforceth, he woulde not haue wrested it to superioritie. Howbeit all Maister Saunders cunning, can not make Philo to serue his purpose, although he would neuer so faine wreste and wring him to it. For althoughe Philo vncunningly wreste it vnto dignitie, yet that dignitie that he maketh the Priest to haue, is but equall to the peo∣ples dignitie, and yet not for his owne sake neyther, but bi∣cause he is the peoples minister. Whiche Maister Saun∣ders foreséeyng, wée woulde obiecte, hée preuenteth vs saying:

But thou wilt say that Philo addeth, that that honour is yel∣ded to the B. not for him selfe but bicause he is the Minister of the people. I graunt it is so, neither was Philo deceiued in that, that he iudged the B. to be the peoples minister, but that which was was not reuealed to Philo being a Iewe, we Chri∣stians oughte not to be ignorant of it, to wit, that he was not onely the peoples minister, but also gods minister and more∣ouer the figure of Christ.

In graunting this M. Saunders, ye graunt also contraries to your owne tale. Before, Philo was of necessitie most cun∣ning in these matters while ye thought his cunning woulde make for the Priests aduancement. Put now that his cun∣ning makes against the Priests aduancement▪ and maketh the B. but equall to the people, nowe Philo is not cunning in these matters, now Philo is a Iewe and no Christiā, now it was not reuealed vnto him, that the high Priest was gods minister, or a figure of Christe. Cunning is a faire thing I sée, and surely you haue great cunning (M. Saūders) in these matters, that can handle them so cunningly, one priest for an other Priests preferment. But will euery man (maister Saunders) count this cunning, that is so broade before, and so extreme on either parte, that right nowe Philo was not onely cunning but most cunning in these matters, and now on a sodaine he is so farre from cunning in them, that he toke not the high Priest to be gods minister. This was a verye grosse opinion for so learned a man, and declareth that he is lepte from moste cunning to no cunning at all. Thinke ye Philo knew not thus much, Maister Saunders? verely I thinke y^t he was a great deale cunninger thē so, and that hée was fully persuaded Aaron the high Priest was gods mini∣ster. But to inferre such a superioritie on the word ministe∣rie, as debarreth the Princes supremacie, (which you would doe) I take that Philo was not halfe so cunning. But what cunning soeuer Philo had: we Christians ye saye ought not to be ignorant of it (to wit) that he was not only the peoples

Minister, but also gods Minister, and moreouer the figure of Christ. For this also is signified, when he is not onely called Priest, but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, the annoynted priest. For Christ be∣ing named of annoynting, would haue his ministers called an∣noynted. VVherevpon is spoken that of Dauid, touche not mine annoynted. For if Moyses, as the seruaunt in the house of God, that is, in the Iewishe people, were faithfull in the wit∣nesse of those things that were to bee spoken: truely sith the other Priests descending from the stocke of Aaron, kepte the lawe of Moyses, euen they also were seruauntes in the house of God and of Christ, to witnesse those things that were to be spoken. But they were seruauntes not onely of the people, but muche more of Christ. VVhereupon God sayth to Moy∣ses: the Leuites are mine, I am the Lorde, and vnto Ieremie, I will multiplie the seede of Dauid my seruaunte and the Le∣uites my Ministers.

Ye runne at randon, Maister Saunders. Who denyeth that the Leuites and Priests were gods Ministers, and his seruauntes, and his annoynted? wée are not ignoraunte, (thankes be to God) of this, althoughe many of them were ignoraunt of this their office and dutie, and your selfe shewe no small ignoraunce, to tell vs that he would haue his mini∣sters called annoynted, bycause his name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifyeth annoynted. As though Christ were annoynted with suche externall oyntment, as Aaron and the high Priests were: or as though Christes Ministers shoulde be annoynted with such externall oyntment: or as though the Popishe Priests greasie annoynting, were deriued of Christes annoynting, which was onely spirituall, Oleo letitiae prae consortibus, with the oyle of gladnesse aboue his fellowes, or as thoughe the mini∣sters of Christ were onely Christians, and were onely an∣noynted with this spirituall oile of the comforter, and not al true Christians, that are members of Christ, of whome they take this name: or as though any of these things, the fayth∣full seruice and the externall annoynting then of y^e Priests,

and the spirituall annointing now of all Christians, hynder the Princes superioritie. These are such things M, Saun∣ders, that where ye say, we ought not to be ignorant that the high priest was Christs Minister then, you that professe to be much more his Ministers now, ought to be ashamed that ye are so ignorant of them. And sée againe how in this imperti∣nent vaunting of your selues, ye shew in your last sentence cited, the follie of your former argument, on the order of pla∣cing the name, to infer the greater authoritie. Is not here the sede of Dauid, that is, the royall stocke, placed before the Le∣uites, euen where he calleth them his ministers? And thus Maister Saunders vnawares hath mard his former argu∣ment. But still he procéedeth saying:

Euen as therfore the Bishops in that they vvere ministers of the Synagog, ought to haue been lesse tha the people to whō they ministred, so in that they vvere the ministers of Christ, and of him placed ouer the Synagog, they vvere also greater than the Synagog. For sith Christ vvas the true Lord as well of the Synagog as of the Church: it vvas lavvfull for him to do vvith his ovvne, that vvhich seemed good to him, and to make a faithfull seruaunt ouer his house. Neither onely the Lord himselfe, but also he vvhom the Lord placeth ouer his familie, is greater then the same familie.

No man denieth you (Maister Saunders) that the functi∣on of his office is greater. But as this hindreth not our mat∣ter, so these texts furder not yours, although ye wrest y^e say∣ings of the new testament to the olde, to enforce then. We graūt ye, the Lord can do vvith his houshold as he vvill. Put that he vvill doe as you vvill, and as you saye he doth, proue that, and there an ende. In the meane time, note here againe your owne confession, that the Bishops in that they be mi∣nisters to the people, are lesse than the people: which is more than Philo sayde, with whome ye founde fault bicause hée made them equall, which as it declareth in you another con∣tradiction, so it argueth lacke of due consideration euen in

the high Prieste dignitie, that ye would so faine extoll, and yet bicause ye can not haue your owne minde, ye pettithely dashe it downe. For althoughe the Bishop minister to the people, he is not therin their inferior, but rather in dede their superior. The Prince ministreth to them also, and yet euen 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 ministreth to the king the worde and sacraments of God, yet is he not therin lesser, but superior to him. The king againe ministreth to the Bishop the main∣tenance and direction of him, in ouerseing the Byshoppe doe his duetie, and yet he is not therein lesse than he, but his su∣perior.

VVherefore (saith M. Saunders) the annointed priest (as the minister of Christ) is placed in the first place before the people, vvhile in the meane season the king standes belovv in the third place, nor in the reason of sacrificing, differs muche from the priuate man.

You couet stil the higher place (M. Saūders) like a proude Pharisee, and dispise the Prince as though he were a Publi∣can. But his cause shall be iustified and he exalted, and you shall be brought downe with shame, and goe home condem∣ned. Yea, your owne mouth hath condemned you already, placing the seede of Dauid before the Leuits and yet ye haue neuer dene with babling of your former placing.

Now when Philo will not serue: to confirme this argu∣mente better, ye runne to Iosephus, who was no more a Christian than was Philo, and had muche lesse cunning in diuinitie than Philo, althoughe a more notable historiogra∣pher. But alacke it is a poore helpe ye haue of him but let vs sée it as it is.

VVherevpon Iosephus hathe lefte thus written vpon the same matters. The Princes also when they Sacrificed for sinne, doe offer the same things that the common people doe, one∣ly this is the difference that they bring for offering a bull and

an hee Goate, by words Iosephus signifies, that priuate men brought a cowe and not a bull, a she goate and nota he goate to offring.

What is this to the purpose Maister Saunders? if the argument be good as you make it, it will make still against your selfe, he that brought to offring, debilius animal & minus dignum the weaker beast and leste worthie, is him selfe the lesse worthie. Were this true, as it is false and foolishe, let vs I pray ye viewe what either partie brought to offering. The Priest brings vitulum, a calfe or yong bullocke, the king brings taurum, a bull. I praye ye nowe, which of these twaine haue brought the weaker and lesse worthie beast? is a calfe in your iudgement stronger than a bull, or a bull weaker than a calfe? surely then ye haue a weake iudge∣ment. If ye say, a bull is not so muche worthe as a calfe, al∣thoughe then our butchers woulde rather bye bulles of you than calues, yet woulde they deme you but for a calfe in so selling them, and for so telling them. So that by this rule, the king bringing to offering the stronger and more worthie beast, should be of greater authoritie than the Priest, yea the priuate man also shoulde bée of greater authoritie than the high Priest. For a cowe althoughe it be not so strong as a bull, yet is she stronger than a calfe, and féedes the calfe and is the calues damme. If ye say, this is a grosse reasoning for diuine matters, it is so in déede Maister Saunders, and I am ashamed suche reasons shoulde be vsed, but are they not your owne? And doe ye not as grossely apply Christs para∣ble of a shepherd and his shéepe? truely I knowe not your person Maister Saunders, whether ye be such another fore∣pined ghost as Bishop Boner was, or no, that reasoning of the mysteries of the Lordes supper, compared the sacrament to a good fat Capon. But these your reasons, for your Popes superioritie, of a bull and a bullocke, of a cow and a calfe, of a strong stalfed and iustie beast, of a leane and weake vnwor∣thie beast, of the first the second and the third place, are not

onely more grosse and homely stuffe than Bishop Boners Capon, but a great deale more fonde reason than was his.

Yet will not Maister Saunders giue ouer this reason thus, but alledgeth more authors for it, Theodoretus and Procopius, saying: But Theodoretus vpon the same matter vseth these words. He teacheth how great the dignitie of the Priesthode is, which he maketh equall to the people. But the Prince that shall haue transgressed any lawe, he commaundeth him to offer, not a calfe, but an he goate or a goate of a yeare olde: so farre off is he from the Priestly dignitie to whom the bodily gouernment is cōmitted. Last of all, Procopius Gazeus on the same place writeth thus: Herevpon we may gather▪ that the Priest is more honorable than the Prince, yea the people to shine in greater dignitie than the Prince. VVherfore in the olde time certayne Kings adorned themselues with the Priest∣ly dignitie. If therfore the Prince be as wel inferior to the peo∣ple as to the Priest, as he that after eyther of them is reckoned vp in the laste place and offers the weake and lesse worthye beast, howe can he be esteemed the head of the Church im∣mediatly vnder Christ, who hath as well the Christian peo∣ple as the Byshoppes Christes Ministers, betweene him and Christ?

How this superioritie eyther of all the Churche, or of the Ministers of Christ, may well consist, and yet hinder not the supremacie of the Prince, beyng in other respectes, both o∣uer the Ministers and the people: is diuers tymes before declared, and therefore néedlesse to bée repeated, excepte we should followe this vayne of Maister Saunders in repea∣ting so often one thing, and that so meane an argument, that he might rather be ashamed once to haue penned, than thus with these fathers sclender sentēces to haue bolster•…•… it. And yet he cā not driue it to his purpose, for still the priest is made but equall at the moste vnto the people for which M. Saun∣ders shooke of Philo before, as a Iew and no Christian, and here he citeth Christians, & yet make they no better for him

than Philo did. But sith the people are again vnder y^e prince and the Priest at the most is but equall to the people thow so euer his ministration be the more honorable, yet it argueth that he is vnder the Princes supreme gouernment, so well as are the people. And therefore for all these argumentes, nothing yet is brought to the contrarie out of the olde testa∣ment, that the Bishops (notwithstanding al the excellencie of their diuine ministerie) were not still vnder the supreme gouernement of their Princes. Let vs now sée and ye haue any better argument.

Besides this without al contradiction the Apostle saith: That which is lesse is blessed of the better. But Aaron stretching out his hand to the people, blessed the people: therfore Aaron was greater then the people.

This argumente (M. Saunders) is yet more handsome and truer, than you other grosse and wrested argument was, Neither denie we anye partes or the conclusion of it. For first, it concludeth nothing with or against the Prince, but a∣gainst the people. Secondly, it is altogether drawne from the action of the ministers functiō, which we confesse belon∣geth not to the Prince. But to conclude simply a superiori∣tie in the person thervpon, were a presumptuous conclusion both against S. Paules meaning, and against God himselfe, to make our selues better thā god bicause we blesse him, For we saye to God: Benedicimus tibi, we blesse thee, we praise, &c. O all ye workes of the Lord blesse ye the Lord. &c. Ye muste make therfore your distinction of blessing, and shew in what solemne action and signification, the high priest blessed them. This done, we graūt you, that the high priest was therin the better, whiche nothing hindreth the Princes supreme go∣uernement.

But now M. Saunders hauing espied where a king like∣wise blesseth the people, hath a shift also for this, saying.

But if thou saist, Salomon blessed the Synagog of Israel, and therfore was greater than the synagog: Salomon was greater

than the synagog without al contradictiō, for the scripture can not be broken, that saith, the lesser is blessed of the better. But Salomon sustayned a dubble personage, the one of a king, the other of a Prophete. But as he was a Prophet, he was the more notable minister of Christ, than for his kingly dignitie, and by this reason was greater than they to whom he prophecied, and so he blessed the people not by his royall, but by his propheti∣call 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 vs note, that M. Saūders himselfe twise pla∣ceth the king and his office, before the prophet & his office. Sa∣lomon (saith he) sustained a duble personage, the one of a king the other of a prophete, and againe he saith, and so he blessed the people, not by the kingly office, but by the propheticall of∣fice. If then his former reason be good, y^e king is to be prefer∣red before the Prophet. But now to his answere to the ob∣iection of Salomō, which is in déede but a very shift, and the commō shift of M. Harding, Dormā, Stapletō and al the re∣sidue. But howsoeuer they dodge out with it, it wil not serue M. Saūders at this time. For although it be true, that Salo∣mon had also the gift of prophesie, yet Salomon did not this as Prophet, but as King. And in his blessing expressely pray∣eth for the raigne of his posteritie. Neither neede M. Saun∣ders run to this shift, for euen Lyra saith: et Benedixit. &c. and he blessed al the congregation, not with that blessing that per∣tained to the priestly office, but by wishing good things vnto the people, and rendring thanks to God for his good gifts re∣ceaued, saying: blessed be the Lord God. &c. And in the ende of the Chapter, the people blesse him also, but this declareth not their superioritie, although the kings solemne action de∣clares him their better in his royall office, for y^e establishing whereof he prayeth.

The like shifte ye make for Moyses and Dauid, that they were also prophetes. But what say ye to Saule, that blessed

Dauid. 1. Reg. 26. he was in dede Dauids superior, and he had béen among the prophetes too, whereof the prouerbe arose, num et Saul inter Prophetas, is Saule also among the Prophetes? But trow ye he blessed him as a Prophete? and yet in bles∣sing him, although he himselfe were accursed, he foretold the truth, that Dauid shoulde doe great things. What saye ye to Iosue that blessed Caleb. Iosue. 14. yea he blessed two tribes and a halfe, of Rubē, Gad, and Manasses. If ye except that he was a prophete too, what say ye to Iehu that blessed Iehona∣dab, and yet no prophet? to Raguel that blessed Tobias, and yet no prophete? to Ozias the gouernour of Lethulia, and Achior the Ammanite that blessed Iudith, and yet no Pro∣phetes, nor all of them superiors? and therefore this argu∣mente serueth not to inferre gouernement, neither alwayes to inferre superioritie, neither is this shifte alwayes true, that all y^e blesse are priests or prophetes. Althoughe in priests (whome Saint Paule speaketh of) it argue a superioritie of their function, as before is graunted. But Maister Saun∣ders hauing gotten hold on this word blessing, as though he had founde a newe vaine, procéedeth, saying.

And truely when God had rather haue had his people to haue bene blessed of the priests of the Leuiticall kinde, and of the prophetes, than to haue bene gouerned of a king: yet the people asked a King against the will of God, which petition God in dede permitted to be fulfilled, howbeit he sawe it dyd tend to the contempt of his name: whervpō he said to Samuel, they haue not cast thee away but me, that I should not raigne ouer them. For although God raigned ouer his people, euen when the kings gouerned them: yet he had seemed to raigne in better signification and plainer, if the people had obeyed any prophet or priest, or Leuite.

Now that Maister Saunders former proues will fadge no better, he séeketh oute all the wayes he can, to deface the royall estate of a Kyngs authoritie, in comparison of his Priests gouernment. He sayth God had rather haue had his

people ben blessed of the priests and the prophets, thā gouer∣ned of kings: dispitefully making these two to be mēbraopposi∣ta, contraries the one to other. The gouernment of kings▪ and the blessing of Priestes and Prophets. As though the people were berefte of the Priestes and Prophetes blessings bicause not they, but kings did gouerne them. But if the people had still the Priestes and Prophets blessings, when Kings gouer∣ned them so well as before, then is this opposition no lesse false than malicious. And that they had stil the Priests and Prophets blessing, is apparant.

But what meanes M. Saunders to name onely their blessings▪ did the Priestes and Prophetes nought but blesse? would he by so swéete a name reuoke vs to the Popes bles∣sings? but he telleth vs else where that the Pope hath cur▪ sed vs: and no maruell, for the chiefest parte of his power lyeth in cursing. But he loueth cursing, and his cursing shall light vpon himselfe, and God dothe turne his cursings into blessings. But troweth he, the Priests & Prophets then, did curse and ban as the Pope dothe nowe, by cause the kings were the supreme gouernours▪ or that the supreme gouern∣ment belonged first to them, and from them was translated to the Kings? Howbeit M. Saunders sayth not so, but y^e the priestes and prophets blessed the people. But what is that to gouernement? the controuersie is of the priestes gouerne∣ment, and the question here is driuen to this, whether God had rather haue hadde the priestes and the prophetes to go∣uerne the Israelites, than the kings. Nowe M. Saunders, although this be his onely meaning, dothe not put, nor dare put, the question thus, as in plain speach he ought to do. For knowing that the state then of the Churches gouernement, was not so much of the priestes and prophetes, as of other ciuil Magistrates called y^e Iudges, it had thē appeared he had said little to his purpose. But as though all the state before of the kings had ben of the priestes and prophets, he couereth his falsehoode with this fair•…•… mantell of the priests and pro∣phets

Blessinges, and mentioneth not their gouernemente, whyche is the thing hee shooteth at▪

Whereas, all that time from Iosue the firste Iudge, to Saule the fyrste King, among so many Iudges, we reade but of one Prieste whiche was Helie, of one Prophete which was Samuel, that gouerned the Church of God And yet these neither gouerned it in respect of priesthood or pro∣phecying, or blessing, but in respecte of that ciuill authoritie whereby they were called Iudges.

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 haue had the one or the other, it still proueth God had rather haue had the ciuil Magistrate, were he iudge or king, to be the supreme gouer∣nor, although at that time the supreme gouernment hapned (whiche it seldome dyd) to a person ecclesiasticall. But God altered this estate, and brought it to Kings. Neyther dare I saye, as Master Saunders very boldly saythe, that God had rather haue had the other estate. For if he wold, he myght haue kepte it still, Voluntati eius quis resistit, who re∣sisteth his will? but it pleased God the state should bée alte∣red, and so it was.

Master Saunders vrgeth this, that God was muche of∣fended. I graunt he was, vnderstanding it not so grossely as Master Saunders séemes to doe, but like a Diuine, so as we admit in God no perturbation nor change of mynde, for God had purposed the chaunge before, and liked well of his forepurpose. But his displeasure was agaynste the sinne of the people, who distrusting of Gods sufficient helpe in the former estate, inordinately dyd craue a King, and not that hée eyther mislyked the estate of a King, or thoughte it the worsser gouernement: but rather commendeth the go∣uernement of a King, as an estate so highe, that God hadde reserued that vnto himselfe, and woulde suffer them to haue but Iudges, vntill that they importunately desired

to haue a king, béeing such a supreme kynd of gouernement, as they before had onely giuen to God, and nowe they wold needes haue some person among them visibly to haue the same, as other nations had.

And for this cause saithe God to Samuell, they haue not cast away thee, but mee. And as Samuell vpbrayded them: ye sayde vnto me, not so, but a king shall raygne ouer vs, when the Lorde your God raigned ouer you. And so witnesseth Lyra, that the estate of a king is the best estate. But the rea∣son of their sinne was this, Quia deus. &c. Bycause God had chosen the people of Israel to be especial and peculiar to him before all other peoples, according to that is sayde Deut. 7. The Lord thy God hath chosen thee to bee his peculier peo∣ple, & therefore he would be the immediate king of that peo∣ple. VVherefore hee also gaue them a Lawe in Mounte Sinai, by himselfe (that is) by an Angell speaking in his per∣son, and not by man as mediatour. For whiche purpose, hee woulde that the men whiche were the gouernours of that people, shoulde bee ordeyned immediately from hymselfe, as his Vicars, and not as Kings or Lordes. As it appeareth in Moses and Iosue, and the Iudges following, of whome is mentioned in the Booke of Iudges, God raysed vp suche or suche a Iudge. Therefore the Chyldren of Israell dyd contrarie to the ordinaunce of God, desiring a mortall man to be king ouer them, •…•…ith the Lord had alwayes retayned this to himselfe, and always gouerned and best protected them, to the peoples profit, so long as they were good subiects: and stil had so done, if the people had stoode in that good subiection to the Lorde. By these sayings, the firste argument appea∣reth, that if the gouernement of a king bee the beste go∣uernemente, it followes that the gouernemente is better, to haue GOD to bee the King immediately, howe muche God is better than man. And therefore to aske againste this ordi∣naunce, is not good, but yll.

In these wordes of Lyra, he doth not deminishe the state

of a kings authoritie, in comparison of the former estate of the Iudges authoritie aboue, or better than it: but extolles the kings authoritie so far aboue the Iudges authoritie, that God reserued it only to himselfe, so that this high estate of a king ouer Gods people, is not as M. Saunders falsly sayde before from God by other meanes betwene▪ but immediately from God, and aboue all other representeth him, and long it was ere God woulde suffer any to represent him in this estate, it was so high that God kept it to himselfe, and was offended that his people contented not themselues wyth their other inferior Magistrates, as were the Iudges, which M. Saunders extolles aboue the Kings estate. The Iudges I graunt were as Lyra sayth immediatly from God also, and his Uicars in his Church aboue al others in their times. And here bycause one or two of them next before this alteration were ecclesiasticall persons, the one a Prieste the other a Prophete, M. Saunders triumpheth▪ and commends their estate in representing God, to be so high and excellent. But either he was very rechlesse or wilful blind, that would loke no further in this estate of the Iudges, but to these two when as so many Iudges went before, but he thoughte not beste to thinke on them, bycause they were no priestes nor prophetes. And yet as Lyra saythe, they were the immediate Vicars of God, and so aboue all the priestes and prophetes at their times, being no ecclesiastical Magistrates.

This argument therefore is false, and all that followes thereon in M. Saunders saying.

For neyther any hauing his right wit did euer doubte, but that the prieste of God dothe more in gouernement expresse and represent his God, whose prieste hee is called, than the king, whose name is rather referred vnto the people that hee ruleth, than to the God vnder whome he is.

This is spokē more like an heathen than like a Christian, M. Sanders, that y^e priest represēteth his God whose priest he is called, howbeit I think you are not so out of your right wit,

but that ye think, dij g•…•…ntium daemonia sunt, the gods of the gen∣tiles are but diuels. And that ye thinke there is but one God, and but one sort of those that are •…•…is priests. But how these priests that are of the Popishe stampe, represent God, maye be called in question: if rather it be not out of question, that both their life, their doctrine, and their order, hath no resem∣blance of him, but rather of Baal and Bace•…•…us, rather of An∣techrist and Sathan, than of God. As for their gouernment, least of all dothe represent him. The Turke raigneth not with suche cruell tyrannie as the Pope and his inquisitors doe. Godly Ministers represent him I graunt, and that bet∣ter than kings, but not in the visible and externall gouern∣mente, but in the spirituall gouernement of administring Gods worde and sacraments.

God therefore had raigned, if any priest or prophete raig∣ned, but the priest or the prophete being cast off yea euen the gouernement of God, to whome that priest or prophet obey∣ed, is vnderstood to be cast off.

Speaking thus indefinitely of any priest or prophete that God raigned when they raigned, God was cast off when they were cast off: ye bothe wreste the Scripture, and stretch it to farre, that was onely spoken to Samuell: and also here∣by woulde make the state of the Iewes to haue bene then beste, when it was worste. For when was the state of the Iewes worsse, than in the times mentioned in the bookes of the Machabées? when the euil high priests had gottē the ciuil gouernement? and represented God in the gouernemente, (whose priests they beare the name to be) as much as Cai∣phas and Anna did, that put Christe himselfe to deathe. But ye say:

Moreouer the King would leade the people to Idolatrie, but the high priests and prophetes, sacrificed duely to the Lorde God in the only Temple of Salomon.

Ye shoulde descerne (M. Saunders) betwixt the state and office of the king, and the faultes or personall vices of the

king. For, al kings dyd not lead the people to Idolatrie, some lead the people out of Idolatrie. Neyther were al the high priests cleare of Idolatrie, no not Aaron the first high priest of al▪ Did not he lead al the people into foule Idolatrie, and that of a small occasion? But howe is this your saying true, that they Sacrifised duely to God, in the only Temple of Sa∣lomon? what? man, ye forget your selfe, howe coulde they Sacrifice only there, duely, or vnduely, before the Temple it selfe was builte, or Salomon was yet borne? and yet there had passed thirtene high Pries•…•…s from Aaron to Abiathar, or euer the Temple was builte. And in the meane time, were all the priestes, or the high priestes eyther, cleare from Ido∣latrie? very muche Idolatrie was vsed before the state of kings among them. If the priestes hadde then that supreme gouernement, which ye pretende: howe chaunce they let it not, but rather let it alone? which if it were not as yll, was the nexte dore by to leading to Idolatrie.

As for the priestes that were after the Temple was builte, till it was firste destroyed, that is, from Sadocke the highe prieste, vntill Iosedech that was caryed captiue into Babylon, al which time, we haue little mention of the high priestes, for their restrainte or speaking againste Idolatrie. But we haue many outeries of the prophetes, against Ido∣laters, yea against the priestes highe and lowe, as abetters to Idolatrie. And how good soeuer you make them, Ieremie makes them all in his time starke naught, and they agayne went about to procure his death for his laboure.

But as for the highe priestes that followed after the tem∣ple was reedified, many of them were euill. Eliasib the high prieste transgressed the lawe, in ioyning affinitie with the heathen enimie of the Iewes Tobias, and building a lod∣ging for him in the temple, whiche was the defyling of it. Wherefore Eliasib was worthely reproued of Nehemias. Iohn the high priest killed Iesus his brother in the temple, while they straue ambitiously for the Priesthoode. After

whome Iaddi and Manasses contending for it, when Ma∣nasses was chased awaye by Nehemias, for marrying the daughter of the wicked heathen Sanballat: he erected ano∣ther temple in the Mount Garrizin. Notiong after, Onias the sonne of Simon was so couetons (as Iosephus saythe) that by denying the tribute payde before, the Temple and all Iury was indanger. After whome succéeded Iosephus with no lesse bryberie of the heathen Prince, than extortion and pylling of the people. Next to whome (or as some saye, after Onias) succéeded Iesus or Iason, after muche hurly burly betwixte Simon and Onias, the one appeaching the other to be a Traytor, till this Iason stept in betwene them, and by vnlawfull meanes obtayned to be the high prieste, by giuing a hundreth and sixtie talents of siluer, and eightie talents of rente, and a hundreth and fiftie talentes to sette vp suche exercises among the Iewes, as were among the heathen Grecians, and contrarie to the Lawe of God. After whome succéeded Menelans, who being sent of Iason to Antiochus, betrayeth Iason. And offering thrée hundreth talents of siluer more than Iason did, he got the high priest∣hoode by bryberie to himselfe, bysides that he was a Sacri∣legious théefe, and murtherer.

But Menelaus, not paying the excessiue summes, that he promised, was faine to take his héeles and runne away, and left his brother Lysimachus priest in his steade, that for his wickednesse and cruell tyranni•…•…, was slaine in a tumulte that he himselfe had raysed.

After whom, partly by reason of these monstrous traitors, partly by reason of the tyrant Antiochus rage and persecuti∣on: the temple lay waste, & was destroyed these 〈◊〉〈◊〉 time. When as for the space of 5. or 6. yeares ther was no 〈◊〉〈◊〉 priest at al, neither better nor •…•…orsse to gui•…•…e 〈◊◊◊〉〈◊◊◊〉 Machabe•…•…s recouered Hierusalē, whose brother Ionathes, & after him Simō, & Simons son Hircanus, were made both Princes & high priests also who, althogh they were good mē,

yet were they made high Priests by the heathen Monarke, vnder whome they gouerned, and were more like to vali∣ant Captaines (as the necessitie of the tyme was driuen vnto) rather than like to learned priestes or Byshoppes. In whose time, an other Onias claiming the high Priesthoode, builded in Aegipt a Temple, like to the Temple at Hierusa∣lem to sacrifice in. And at which time sprang vp the sectes of the Sadu•…•…es the Pharisies, and the Esseni, when the residue of the high priestes, Aristobulus, Hircanus. &c. fell to knoc∣king one another, partly for the priesthoode, partely for the kingdome, till Herode being a stranger got the kingdome from them. And they bought and sold the high priesthoode, •…•… kept it by courses, being cleane degenerate from the Law of God, except some odde man amongst the rest were iust, as Zacharie the Father of Iohn Baptist, the most part were e∣uill, and waxed worsse and worsse, till they had put Christe to death, and afterwarde destroyed themselues, and all their Countrey too. And yet see howe impudently M. Saunders vauntes and crakes of the priests, in comparison of the Prin∣ces, where the euill Princes hauing led the people (and that through the councell of euill priestes) into Idolatrie and to captiuitie: the high priests led them to the murther of Iesus Christe, to the vtter ouerthrowe of their estate, and to the cleane casting them off from God, saue that we hope some remnant shal be saued. Iudge now whether of these 〈◊〉〈◊〉 were worsse, eyther the Priestes or Princes. But Master Saunders (to shewe himselfe not partiall for his priestes) bringeth forth for witnesse, one that he ascribes this high•…•… priesthoode vnto, which is Pope Gregorie, saying:

VVherevpon saith Gregorie entreating of this request of a king: worthily complaineth the L. that he is cast off, worthely he graunteth the royal dignitie, being offended. For truely so greate was the iniquitie of the crauers, that si•…•…he they desired that wherby they should go from God, it might be permitted by the iudgment of God to be forbidden (perchance it would

be better read to be allovved or approued) it could not▪ And againe, for those that liued vnder the spirituall gouernment, to desire a king: vvhat is it else, than to reioyce, to turne the same spirituall prelacie into secular gouernment?

This testimonie of Gregorie (Maister Saunders) cōmes a little out of place, belike it shoulde haue béene set before, when ye spoke of Samuels gouernment, of the peoples de∣siring a king, and of gods offence therewith. For here thys (Vnde Gregorius, vvherevp•…•…n Gregorie) hangeth vpon your last matter, of the Priests sacrificing onely in the temple as though it were tyed on with points, howbeit it hanges not so il on the residue, as M. Saunders scarce can make it hang together with it self. For he not onely correctes the sentence, saying, prohiberi to be prohibited, should better be read probari, or approbari, to be allovved or approued: but also he corrects it with a cleane contrarie exposition. For, to be prohibited is not to be allovved or approued, and to be allovved or ap∣proued, is not to be prohibited. And so, while he himselfe can not tell what to make of the sentence, and woulde ex∣pounde it cleane contrarie: what should we make of it? as for the displeasure of God, wee haue shewed alreadye, by a large and plaine sentence out of Lyra (which is for his life a more cocke sure papist, than euē this Pope Gregorie was) y^e it was not bicause the kings estate was worse or more infe∣rior than the state of the Iudges was, but bicause the kings estate, being higher, and so high, that God reserued it to him∣selfe: they distrusted the former estate as inferior, and desi∣red a visible king among them. So that this, which you wold draw to the dispraise, maketh in deede more to the praise of a kings estate.

Neither do we denie Gregories sentence, in respect of the spirituall prelacie: but the question nowe is of the outwarde gouernment, of Priests or Princes. Which Gregorie not onely acknowledged with most humble obedience, calling the Emperour, and kings of Italy, his Lords & soueraignes,

and lowly bowed himselfe vnto them: but also that more is, so much detested the claime that the Pope makes now, that he calleth the vser of it a fore runner of Antichrist.

And where ye haue this shift, that he condemnes such ti∣tles of vniuersal Prelacie, in the sea of other Bishoppes, but not of his owne: this is a false shifte, he condemnes it in hys owne Bishopricke of Rome, so well as in anye other. For where Eulogius the Patriarke of Alexandria had saluted him with suche stiles, he answereth: Ecce in praefatione, &c. Be∣holde in the preface of the Epistle, the which you directed vn∣to me, who forbad it, ye thought to set in the word of a proud calling, naming me vniuersall Pope, the which I beseeche you that your most curteous holinesse wil no more do so. Bicause, that which is giuē to another more thā rea•…•…ō requireth, is sub∣tracted from your selues. I seeke not to be aduaunced in titles but in maners. Neither counte I that, honour, wherein I know my brethren leese their honour. For my honour is the honour of the vniuersall Churche. My honour is the sounde force of my brethren. Thē am I honored, whē to euery particular per∣son, the honor that is due vnto him is not denyed. For if your holynesse call me vniuersall Pope, he denyeth himselfe to be, in that he calleth me vniuersall, but God forbid this. Let those wordes goe that puffe vp truth and wounde charitie. Thus sayth Gregorie, and this is cited euen in your owne decrées, not onely about the word Vniuersall Pope, but vpon these ti∣tles, Princeps Sacerdotū vel summus sacerdos, the chief of the priests or the chiefe or high priest, or any other such titles. So farre was this Pope Gregorie then, from the pride of the late Pope Gregories that haue bene since, for he both acknow∣ledged himselfe to be but equall to other Bishoppes, and him selfe and all other Byshops to be vnder their naturall Prin∣ces. The testimonie therefore of Pope Gregorie, is but wrested, to vrge suche superioritie of Byshoppes, as shoulde de•…•… their Princes supreme gouernmente. Now M. Saun∣ders hauing thus as he thinketh fully confyrmed his proues,

for y^e superioritie of Priests in the olde Testamente abou•…•… Kings, gathereth altogether and knites vp hys conclusion, saying:

VVherefore sithe the institution of Priests proceeded, from the good wyll of God and from his free mercie: but God graunted not the dignitie of a king but in his anger, at the peo∣ples petition: lesser consideration is worthily had of the king than of the people, both bicause he is made king onely for the peoples cause, and also onely at the peoples petition. But the Priests, although they be made for the peoples cause, yet nei∣ther onely for the peoples cause, but muche more for the ho∣nour of Christe. Neither onelye at the petition of the peo∣ple were they made, but rather of the free mercie of God, and that for that eternall predestination of God, whiche was or∣dayned aboute oure saluation, in the tyme appoynted to be brought to effect.

Ye make your comparison and your conclusion hang ill∣•…•…oredly together Maister Saunders, your comparison is of the Princes and the Priests estate: and ye conclude, that therefore lesse consideration is worthily to be had of the king than of the people. How chaunce ye say not of the king than, of the Priests? but belike ye thoughte that that was oute of controuersie: the Priests were so farre aboue the people, that much lesse consideration is to be had of the people than of the priests. But maister Saunders, your beast sacrificed said not so, nor your authors Philo and Iosephus: but sayde, he was made equall to the people.

But say you, the king was made for the peoples cause.

I graunt ye maister Saunders, and was not the priest so too? yea doe not your selfe say•…•…, he was made for the peoples cause also? if this then argue an inferiorship (as in déede it doth) in respecte of the ende: 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 saye you, the King vvas made onely for the peoples

cause, and the priest was made for the honor of Christ also, & for the eternall predestination of God, vvhich vvas ordained about saluation, in time appoynted to be broughte to effect:

And I pray ye Maister Saunders, was not this another cause of making the King also? dyd not his estate make to the honour of Christe, and represent Christ, so well as the Priestes estate? was not he called Christus Domini, The Lordes annoynted, so well as the Priest? yea and better to then, by your leaue. For Christ was not onely figured in the kings estate, so well as in the Priests: but also toke his hu∣manitie of the race of the kings, and not of the Priests, and so is called the sonne of Dauid, not the sonne of Aaron, the king of the Ievves, not the priest of the Ievves And though in respect of his priesthoode, he was the onely sacrifice of our re∣demption, whereby our sinnes are taken away, Christus mor∣tuus est pro peccatis nostris, Christ dyed for our sinnes: yet not∣withstanding, resurrexit pro iustificatione nostra, he rose for ou•…•… •…•…ustification, by his kingdome, by his power, by his victorie, by his resurrection, by his ascention, by his sitting at y^e right hand of his father, in al which, his kingdome is contained, so that it comprehendeth both our Predestinatiō, and our salua∣tion too. And therefore, we are taught by Christ to saye, let thy kingdome come, and not, let thy priesthoode come. And not onely all our estate in this life, and the life to come, but all the grace, and mercie, and iustice, and power, and glory of God is attributed, not so muche to the priesthoode, as to the kingdome of Christ.

But ye saye God was angrie with the peoples request when he made the kings estate.

I graunt you Maister Saunders, and tolde ye the reason before out of Lyra, and the texte is plaine, bicause God him selfe was king vnto them, which doth not abase, but so much the more aduaunce it.

But now when Maister Saunders hath thus extolled the Priests gouernmēt of the old Testamēt, he abaseth thē again

by comparison of Bishops of the newe Testament, saying.

Sith therefore the Bishops of the Churche of Christ are of no lesse dignitie than vvere in times past the Leuitical priests, yea rather sith the Apostle, treating of the Ministers of the nevve Testament, & conferring them with the olde Leuites, sayth, that they ministred death, and the letter that killed, but these minister the spirit which quickneth, and righteousnesse and therfore the ministers of the nevve Testament are more vvorthie than the olde Leuites, vvhat maner of king shal vve thinke him to bee, vvhiche contemning the ministers of the nevve Testamente, calleth himselfe the supreme head of his Christian kingdome, and that immediatly vnder Christ?

This comparison (Maister Saunders) of the ministers of the olde and nevve Testament rightly vnderstood, wée ac∣knowledge. The nevve is more vvorthy than the olde, but the vvorthinesse and glory of the nevv ministration that saint Paule speakes on, is spirituall and not outvvard glory. For although the ministers of the olde Testament had outwarde glory, and some of them by especiall calling, had the visible, supreme and ciuill gouernement, although seldome: yet the ministers of the nue testament are by Christ (as your owne selfe haue confessed) flatly forbidden it, Vos autem non sic, but you shall not be so. And therefore, where ye woulde haue them of no lesse dignitie (meaning of outvvard glory and go∣uernment, or else your example holdes not) they are of farre lesse dignitie therein, notwithstanding in a spirituall and in∣vvarde glory, they are againe of a farre greater dignitie than the olde. Which spirituall dignitie, if any King shoulde con∣temne? you might then well demaunde, vvhat maner of king he were: and we woulde answere you, hée were a wicked King but as these are two distinct dignities, the spirituall dig∣nitie of the minister, and the visible supremacie of the King, so may they be, and are with vs, well and godly vsed both of them. Where, both the Prince hath the outward dignitie of supreme head or gouernour vnder Christ: and yet the mi∣nisters

spirituall dignitie is not onely no whit contemned, but hath his honor yelded due vnto him. And therefore we denie not that which followeth.

For if he acknowledge not the Ministers of Christe ouer him, he can not be blessed of them. VVherevpon, neither can he be pertaker of the sanctifying spirite, whose ministers they are.

We graunt (Maister Saunders) that the Prince humbly receiueth their blessing, and is partaker of the holy spirite of God, whose ministers they are in these actions. Wherein the Prince acknowledgeth them to represent God, and is vnder them. But what hindreth this, that in other respectes, they againe are vnder him, and he their supreme gouernour? but Maister Saunders procéedeth saying:

Dauid cryeth: and nowe ye kings vnderstande, and be ye learned ye that iudge the earth, apprehend discipline, least the Lorde waxe wroth, and ye perishe oute of the right waye. But if kings must be learned, then so farre forth, they must be vn∣der. For he that is learned, is learned of some maister, and is scholler to him of whome he is learned, the disciple is not a∣boue his maister, but in that thing that he learneth of his mai∣ster, of necessitie he is inferior.

That kings ought to be learned we gladly confesse, and are glad that you confesse it, althoughe againste your wylls, for ye would rather haue them altogither vnlearned, whom ye haue so long detained in blindnesse. But why woulde ye haue them nowe learned? forsothe, bicause you would one∣ly be their maisters, and so they shoulde be still your vnder∣lings, not onely in learning suche ill lessons as you woulde teache them, but vnder pretence of teachers, to be their gouernours too. True it is, in that the teacher teacheth, he is aboue, and in that the learner learneth he is vnder. •…•…ut the teacher is not aboue, nor the learner vnder, in other things. Thoughe Moyses learned of Iethro, yet in gouerne∣ment Moyses was aboue him. Thoughe Dauid learned of

Nathan, yet in gouernement he was aboue him. Thoughe Ozias learned of Iudith, yet in gouernement he was aboue hir. And so all princes that are taughte of their schole mai∣sters, their scholemaister maye be the better in learning, but he is the worser in authoritie. And thoughe he be the maister in knowledge, yet he makes euen his knowledge wherby he is maister, to serue the Prince also. Yea although the Prince be not his maister in learning, yet in all causes of learning, the Prince hath a generall supreme gouerne∣ment, to sée by his lawes euery kinde of learning maintay∣ned in his order, to forbid naughtie artes to be learned: to appoint such & suche an order & methode to be taught or lear∣ned, as learned men enforme him, is good and easie to the at∣taining of learning: to appaynt scholes and learned schole∣maisters for learning: and to giue them lawes, statutes, and stipendes, for the maintenance of learning: all this may the Prince doe by his supreme authoritie, ouer all learned per∣sons, and in all causes of learning, althoughe he himselfe be altogether vnlearned, and can not one letter on the booke. Althoughe woulde to God all Princes were learned, not as the Papistes woulde haue them, but as Dauid, was and exhorteth all Princes to bée. And thus, as thys sentence makes nothing in the worlde for him, so hys example there∣on makes verye muche againste him. But for all thys ar∣gumente be thus simple, he wyll lo•…•…de vs with further proues, saying.

Sithe therefore it is sayde to the Apostles: Go teache ye all nations, and sith vnder the names of nations, the kings of them are comprehended: and Byshops and Priests haue succeeded the Apostles in the office of teaching: truely in the offyce of teachyng the Byshoppe is greater than his king: so farre is it off, that the king can be the Bishops hed in all things & causes. VVhich title notwithstanding is not onely of these men giuen to a king, but also by publique decree of late in Englande, gi∣u•…•…n vnto a Queene.

To reason frō teaching to gouerning, is no good teaching M. Saūders. If ye teach this doctrine, thē your Pope should haue little gouernment, for God wot he teacheth little, be∣ing often times vnlearned, and alwayes to proud to teache. If ye say he teacheth by others: so cā a prince too. And though he could himselfe teache, and would also teach the truth, and not suppresse it: yet sith ye say, he succedes the Apostles but in the office of teaching, he is no furder superior than he teacheth, by your owne reckoning. Neither would this supe∣rioritie be denyed him, of any that he ought to teache, if he in d•…•…de succeded the Apostles. But if the succession of the Apo∣stles consist in teaching as here ye confesse: then hath not the Pope to crake muche of succeeding Peter and Paule, that teacheth not as Peter and Paule did, as woulde to God he did and all priests or Bishops else. Whiche if they did and taught truely, this woulde augment and not diminishe the Princes supreme authoritie, yea and the Quéenes too, Mai∣ster Saunders, for in gouernement before ye made a King & Quéene alone. Now to this he addeth out of Esai, saying.

Esai foretolde that kings shoulde bee the nourishers of the Church of Christe, and casting dovvne their countenance to the earth shall vvorship hir, and streight he adioyneth: thou shalt knovv that I am the Lord, for this verely is the signe that the Lord raigneth in vs, if vve yelde so much vnto his church, that the Ministers of Christe are greater than any King or Queene.

As this sentence is placed both withoute all order and co∣herencie: so the reason is very sclender, and standes on this, that the Priests are the Churche that Esai here speakes on, which as it is apparāt false, so it is not to this purpose. For, the supreme gouernment of a godly Prince, giueth not one∣ly an honour to the Churche, but to the Priests also, and yet his supremacie safe. But sée how this sentence hits him, as the rest. For, if kings and Quéenes be likened to Nourses, and Nourses haue charge not onely of féeding, but also of go∣uerning:

then do Kings & Quéenes both féede the Church, al∣though not by teching, yet by causing the truth to be taught, and gouerne the Church also. And if by the Church is chief∣ly ment the priestes, then the same kind of Princes feeding and gouerning like to Nourses, stretcheth to priestes also, and so the similitude makes against him.

His other argument, of dispensing Gods mysteries and Sacramentes to the king, is diuers times alreadie aunswe∣red vnto, and therefore as superfluous I passe it ouer. And thus farre for his argumentes of his Priestes superio∣ritie. Nowe secondly to the reasons he sheweth why he thinkes vs deceyued.

But thus in this case deceiueth many, that they see the king is a Christian and gouerneth Christians. For they knowe not, or at least will not know, what difference it is, whether a man goueren a Christian, bycause hee is a man, or bycause hee is a Christian. The king indeed gouerneth Christian men, but not bycause they are Christians, but bycause they are men. And bycause the Byshoppes also themselues are men, the kings al∣so in part are aboue Byshops. The which hereby goeth cleare away, if wee cons•…•…ider Christian kings, not onely to gouerne Christian men, but euen alike oftentimes Iewes, now and then Moores and Tartars, for this onely that they are kings. But Byshops gouerne Christians, so as they can gouerne no other, as they are Byshoppes. Sith therefore the gouernement of the king pertaineth to all men alike, but Byshops principalitie is reached to onely Christians: and sith the state of our Christia∣nitie excelleth the humaine nature that is in vs, with what sence is he endued, that pre•…•…erreth the gouernoure of our bo∣dily and fleshely nature, before the prieste that watcheth for our soules, and that either loseth our sinnes, if wee make wor∣thie fruites of repentance, or bindeth them, if we beare about an impenitent heart?

For the Ministers binding and loosing, is an other questi∣on. Let vs nowe kepe vs to this, of the Princes supreme

gouernment. We are deceyued (you say) for lacke of consi∣dering this difference, that the king. gouerneth Christians, not as Christians, but as men and we thinke you ar•…•… decey∣ued your selfe, M. Saunders, and would 〈◊〉〈◊〉 others for not considering this difference in the king him selfe, in whō we ought to consider, not onely that he is a king but also a Christian king. In that he is a king he geuerneth a•…•… his sub∣jects (as ye say) a like, (so farre as the likenesse, or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of their s•…•…ates will permit) whether they be Christian, Iewes, Turkes, Mores, •…•…aitars, Ethniks or whatsoeuer religiō they be of, not in respecte of their religions, nor in y^e they are 〈◊〉〈◊〉 neither, but in respect they are his 〈◊〉〈◊〉. For, ther are other men also that are none of his subjectes. •…•…ra euery man in that he is a man, is no subiect to another man, but frée. Neither in that he is a christian. (to speake preper∣ly of the abstracte) he is vnder any other than Christe, in whom there is no difference of countrey, state, degrée, or per∣son, as your selfe afterwarde cōfesse in the 4. chapter. How▪ beit, as the king himselfe is of the Christian•…•… religion, and a Christian king of a christian kingdome (as al kings & king∣domes ought to be, although they be not:) so hath he an o∣ther charge and gouernement of his christian subiectes farre aboue that they be naturall men, or this or that crūtrey mē, euen that they be christians committed to his gouernment. And therefore this charge was giuen the king of Gods peo∣ple, in his institution D•…•…ute. 17. That he should haue Gods worde alwayes with him, and make religion the chiefe end of his gouernement. And this your selfe haue graunted al∣readie. pag. 80 excepte ye will contrary your selfe, as ye of∣ten doe. But this case is too apparant, that a christian Prince regardeth further than the body, or than the naturall or po∣lytike man. For being a christian Prince, he regardeth them as christian subiectes, and not alike to such subiectes as are Heathen, Turkes, and Tartars, which is a shameful sclander. For as the christian Prince hath a speciall regarde to his

christian subiectes, before his Infidell subiects: so they being subiects of vnlike condition, he gouerns them nothing a like. The one being out of the houshold of fayth, although in the housholde of his kingdome: The other being of bothe the housholdes, and therefore the faythfull Prince hath fuller authoritie ouer them, as wel for the religion of their soules, as for their goodes and bodies. But (saye you) the Byshoppe bath respecte only to the soule. I say still, would to God your Byshops had so. But doth this hinder the Princes superioriue, that hath respect to soule and bodie too? The argumentes of Constantine, Theodosius, and Constantius, are somewhat touched alreadie, and I reserue the further handling of thē, to the practise and treatise of the stories.

The 3. part of this chapter is a dissuasiō from the Princes supreme gouernment, by the successe thereof. Wherin first he begins with the most famous Prince King Henrie the. 8 the Queenes Matesties father, the noblest and moste fortu∣nate king, that euer bare crowne in England. & now when his soule is crouned in the kingdome of heauen with eternal glorie, his body with honor interred in his Sepulcher, & his immortal fame yet fresh & liuing, in the memorie & mouthes of al nations: sée & these spitefull Papistes will leaue off, with more than villanous reproches, moste traiterously to rayle vpō him. Saying, that he first called himself the Chief head of the Church of England & Ireland immediately vnder Christ, Besides that, he was neuer the happier, but much more vnhappie. Upbrayding his wiues vnto him. The coūterfeting of the money, and the pilling of his subiects.

•…•… wicked Papistes, past all shame and grace. Howe truely dyd the Apostle Iude prophecie of you, that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 •…•…ulers, and blaspheme •…•…hem that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 authoritie. Was King Henrie the eight a pyller of his subiecte▪ vnder whom his subiectes lyued in suche prosperitie and abundance, in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 renoune and glorie, when all their 〈◊〉〈◊〉 •…•…o dradde them, for the•…•…oble conduct & gouernment of such a Prince,

as all things considered, we finde not the like in all the an∣cient histories? Did he pill them, that delyuered thē from the greatest piller and spoiler of them, & frō al his insatiable Caterpillers, that had pilled the Prince, the S•…•…. biectes, and all the Realme, and had gotten almoste, all the goodes and l•…•…ndes into their clutches, yea, their bodies and soules also? Did he pill the realme, that brought the greatest ryches into the Realme (the Gospell of Chryste, and Christian libertie) that euer the Realme could haue?

Ye quarel at y^e basenesse of the money. Hath ther not bin worsse money in times past in Englande? They saye that we had money of lether, & haue not the most of other Prin∣ces brasen coyne? But I sée you haue a brasen face, and a fonde malicious head. Is the Princes coine counterfet with you? and if it had bene a great deale worsse than it was, can ye call it adulterate or forged? No Saunders, (for here I must néedes leaue out Master) such Traytors as you be, are counterfeiters of money, howbeit you are farre worsse tray∣tors, and forge a naughtie coine, in the steade of Gods word, to giue the people trifling traditions of your owne stampe, and take good money for them.

You obiecte his wi•…•…es vnto him. What meane ye by this, ye wiuelesse and shamelesse generation, ye dispisers and de∣filers of Matrimonie, wold ye haue had him haue liued like you? ye caused him in deede vnwittingly, while hée igno∣rantly obeyed your Pope, to liue wyth his brothers wife. Whiche when he knewe, he adhorred and forsoke, as flatte againste Gods worde: Thou shalte not vncouer the secretes o•…•… thy brothers wife. And yet the Pope (contrarie to Gods expresse lawe, and the lawe of nature) dispensed with it, and you Papistes maynteine it tooth and nayle, as a lawful ma∣ryage. This in déede was his greatest misfortune, to haue ta∣ken hir so long (through too much credite of false Papistes) to be his lawfull wife, whiche was not his wife at all, and yet both the parties ignorantly offended. A•…•… for his firste

true and lawfull wife: we maye saye indéede he had misfor∣tune in hir too, that he so muche credited the sclanderous vn∣dermining Papists, that neuer stinted to procure hir d•…•…ath, for y^e hatred of the gospel that she professed. And so at length most subtilly wrought it & made hir a sweet sacrifice to God and a most holy martyr. No misfortune, but mosie happi•…•… hap to hir, to sustaine so sclaunderdus a death, in so innocent a cause, the misfortune was the king hir husbandes, to be so beguiled by such false Papistes. And yet to vs, this maryage was most fortunate, which God so blessed with such a fruit, as neuer the like did spring in Englande.

As for all King Heuries other wiues (saue one) were as as vertuous, chast, & godly Quéenes, as any Christian kyng coulde haue. And yet the default of that one, is not to be im∣puted vnto him, which to die, is more than cankred malice. Lest of al, ought it to be ascribed to the euent of his supreme gouernment. Shoulde M. colsfolly be ascribed to Dauid? yea, shoulde a mans owne faults be accounted for the euent of his vertues? should misfortunes following, be déemed the effectes of godlynesse going before? But you denie all this, that this was godly, to become this supreme gouernour, and say king Henrie tooke it first vpon him. But stay your haste Master Saunders. When we come to the practise of christi∣an Kings before king Henrie: ye shall finde it contrarie, and ye shall finde by that, that is alreadie sayde to Master Sta∣pleton, that in the olde Testament Dauid, Salomon, Iosa∣phat. &c. toke vpon them this supreme gouernement in their kindomes, that king Henrie dyd.

Ye say he was neuer the happier but the more vnhappier after he tooke it on him. Whereas he neuer prospered bet∣ter, than after he had expelled the Popes vsurped authori∣tie. For euen then began he indéed to raigne and rule other, where before he bore the name of a king, and was ruled by other, the Pope, his Prelates and Priestes hearing all the 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Besides the happiest happe of all the knowledge of

God, that by his supreme gouernement, then beganne to florishe.

Nowe after his rayling on king Henrie, he descendeth to king Edward the sixte, saying:

And he beeing deade, God by a maruellous manner shew∣ed vnto all the world, how litle this Ecclesiasticall Primacie and high calling, was agreeable to kings. For Henrie the eight being deade, Edwarde his sonne a childe almost nine yere old, succeeded in his kingdome. If wee loke to the right that this childe had in the kingdome, hee was no lesse king than his fa∣ther was. But if we turne our eyes vnto the state of the church, verily there is a great difference, whether it be gouerned of a childe, or of a man of perfecte age.

Sée the insaciable malice of these Papistes, not onely against the lyuing, but the deade, and that against their late most gratious soueraignes. It suffiseth not to haue thus cō∣tumeliously railed on the Quéenes Maiesties father of bles∣sed memorie, but also to deface hir Maiesties brother, that most vertuous Prince, king Edwarde, saying, he toke vpon him this Ecclesiasticall Primacie, as though he or his father toke vpon him, any ecclesiastical primacie, bicause they toke vpon them a supreme gouernement in all ecclesiasticall mat∣ters. But will he spare for spite to sclaunder them, that pre∣sumeth to wrest and misconster Gods heauenly prouidence, in calling king Edward to the kingdome, while he was yet a child? He graunteth he was as ful king as his father was. Then say I, he had al the right and authoritie that his father had. But sayth he, there is a great difference betwéene the right of a kingdome and the state of the Church, whether it be gouerned of a child, or of a man of perfect age. As though we talked not (M. Saūders) of such a kingdome as were the Churche also, or as though a kingdome (consider it howe ye will) require not likewise to be gouerned of one of perfecte age Or as though ther be not also a great differēce, betwene the right of authoritie belonging to the person, be he child, or

mā: and the personal gouerning of him. But let vs heare M. Saunders arguments against a child. He maketh exception against a child for two reasons, first the example of Christe, secondly the saying of S. Paule Cal. 4. Of the first he saith.

For if euen Christ toke not on him the gouernment of the Church, before he attained to thirtie yeres of age, how much lesse would he, that the Church should be gouerned of a child.

I answere. First the gouernment that Christ tooke at 30. yeares of age, was in his personal exercise of the ecclesiasti∣call functiō, wherto a mature age is requisite. But the kings Supremacie requireth no such personall exercise of ecclesi∣asticall function, but is cleane another matter: therfore this example of Christes age is impertinent. Secondly we graūt the Churche shoulde not be gouerned of a childe, in that res∣pecte he is a childe, in which consideration he is no king, as you distinguished before betwene a man and a christiā mā, and ye must so againe distinguishe betwéene his nature and his person, or his person and his office. Nowe, in regarde of his office, the defecte of his nature is supplyed by those, that represent him in his office, and they béeing men of graue yeares and knowledge, you can not iustly say, the gouerne∣ment is committed to a childe.

The second argument is taken from S. Paule. 4. Gal.

Moreouer a childe so long as hee is a little one, liueth vn∣der Tutors and gouernours, and so the Supreme Heade of the Churche, needeth another superior Head to gouerne and rule him, and that not so muche by chaunce or fortune, as by im∣becillitie of his proper nature, and the necessitie of the thing it selfe. Howe can he therefore be the Supreme Head of the Church, that liueth vnder an other head?

Ercept M. Saunders were bent pienishly to warble, he would not reason thus, knowing well inough, that those of ri•…•…er yeres which gouerne the kings person in his nonage, be not his head, and he a member or subiecte vnder them: but they representing him, he and they are but one in office,

and their gouernemente is not properly theirs, but is the kings owne gouernemente. And so the head hath no head o∣uer him but onely Iesus Christ. But M. Saunders fore∣seeing that by this reason, he might make the childe no king at all of his kingdome (which he before confessed, that king Edwarde was as full king as his father) he preuenteth the obiection, and séeketh a scape to shifte it.

For if ye say by the same reason he is not king of his king∣dome neither, bicause he is compelled to gouerne that also by others: the answere is easie, it is no maruell if the lawe of man, which placeth children ouer kingdomes by force of successi∣on, be founde imperfecte. But it were greatly to be marueled if the lawe of Christ also, whereby he placeth pastors ouer his Church, coulde be accused in anie parte of imperfection. For as Moses lawe brought nothing to perfection, so on the con∣trarie, the lawe of Christ lefte nothing vnperfect, as whome it became to fulfill all righteousnesse. Therefore there shall bee none, much lesse anie chiefe head in the Churche of Christe, the which by nature, can not doe the office of an ecclesiastical head. But a childe can neither teach, nor baptize, nor by anie meanes assoile the harder questions of the Gospell.

The answere (M. Saunders, as ye say) is easie, but is it a good answere? it were an easie matter to answere, if such easie answeres may serue, that ye may say what ye will (and con∣trarie your selfe too) when ye finde an inconuenience. And such an inconuenience, as wipes away all your former rea∣sons. Neither can ye sufficiently aunswere it, that if your reason hold, of the defecte of the kings nonage while he is a chylde: he may then be no gouernor at all, no not in Tem∣porall matters neither, bycause therein he is gouerned of o∣thers also, in that he is but yet a chylde, and so in his king∣dome shoulde become no gouernour at all. But for an easie answere to this, ye saye: this is a defecte in the lawe of man. Why M. Saunders, doye nowe make this the lawe of man, that a chylde myght be a King? sayde ye not before (and

that more truely) it was gods lawe, Numeri. 27. and Gal. 4. and cited for examples Ioas and Iosias? and againe, doe ye saye, this is an imperfection in the lawe, that is an im∣perfection in the person? nay Maister Saunders the lawe of succession was good and perfecte. Neither your sentence that ye cite of S. Paule, the lawe brought nothing to perfection, serues to this purpose. Neither was the fault in the law, but in the defecte of the obseruer. But saint Paule speakes there of the morall law, and of iustification, which the lawe of God giuen by Moyses could not bring to perfection, confuting an other error which the Phariseis, the Pelagians, and the Pa∣pistes holde. But what is this to the present purpose? Saint Paule complaineth not of the imperfection of the politike l•…•…w of the Iewes, & therfore this is manifestly wrested: Ye obiect y^t Christs law is perfect, as though S. Paules law Gal. 4. cited by your selfe, for the kingdome of a child, be not also the law of Christ: and as for Christs law for the pastors of his Church▪ we accuse it not to be imperfecte, and yet in the pa∣stors themselues there is no perfection, althoughe Christes law for them be most perfect. But what answereth this the purpose? The Prince takes not the pastorall office on him, nor to doe the office of an ecclesiasticall head, as ye terme it, nor to teache, or baptise, or astoyle the hard questions of the Gospell, either in his noneage or in his full age, either childe or man. These are but your surmised sclaunders on the Prince. But to deuise sclaunders, is with you an easie an∣swere.

Nowe vpon these argumentes against the supremacie of king Edward, he knits vp his conclusion of the euent, say∣ing: therefore sith God, after not the best man, calling him selfe the heade of the Churche, did substitute a childe: euen by the things themselues he admonished vs, that that honour did not rightly agree to the father, that was so euill applied to his sonne.

The more ye d•…•… still vnreuerently carpe at king Henry,

calling him not the best mā, the more ye shew your cankred stomak M. Saunders, & that your selfe are one of the worst kind of mē, whose malice no not death cā satiate. But y^e more it redoundeth to the praise of that moste noble and vertuous king, being holdē for so much the better man, of all good men, how much the worse man, such wicked men as you esteeme him ab illaudatis vituperari laudabile est, it is commendable to be dscommended of discommendable men. Your interpretatiō of a child succéeding him, hath neither charitie nor truth, nei∣ther can you frame anye good argumente on it, but rather on the contrarie. Where God so blessed the raigne of the childe, that in so shorte a time, so long rooted superstitions & Idolatries were abolished, and the word of God so truely and fréely set forth: it argueth that God not onely liked the title of the father, but also confirmed it in the sonne, & she∣wed well that y^e childhood of his person, was no impediment to the authoritie of his office, as you maliciously woulde wrest it.

After Kyng Edwarde ye come to Queene Marie, say∣ing:

Moreouer, when men neither thus awaked, and the childe after the sixth yeare of his gouernement beyng deade, God placed a woman ouer the kingdome of Englande, who also ought to haue bene furder from gouerning the Church than a childe, for euen the kinde, whiche at the laste, displeased not in a childe, so displeased the holy Ghost in a woman (so farre as pertaineth to the gouernment of the Church) that he in whom Christ spake, doubted not to write, I permitte not a woman to teach in the Church.

If you recken the yeares of King Edwardes raigne, to in∣ferre, by the taking of him awaye so soone, Gods misliking of his gouernement: as you still shewe your malicious and ouer saucie constructions of gods iudgementes: so ye be∣wray withall the foudnesse of your argumentes. Did not Quéene Marie raigne a shorter while than hée? and why

note ye not the yeares of hir raigne also? but this you ouer∣passe in sylence, and turne your argumente to hir kynde, in that shee was a woman, to argue Gods displeasure for the Princes gouernemente of the Churche, but ye alleage no∣thyng that ye alledged not before, oute of Sainte Paule: I permitte not a vvoman to teache in the Churche, neyther to vsurpe authoritie ouer the man, but to bee in sylence. Trow you Maister Saunders this is to bée stretched to gouerne∣mente, that no woman maye haue anye authoritie to go∣uerne a man? if ye construe it thus, howe will ye make your former saying good? that the ryghte of a kingdome pertayneth no lesse to vvomen than to men, alledging the examples of Debora, Athalia, and Alexandra and the lawe Num. 27. ye muste néedes therefore confesse, that he spea∣keth there no otherwyse, than •…•…ée dothe 1. Corinthians. 14. of women not simply, but of suche women as are wiues. Neyther of all authoritie, but of authoritie ouer the hus∣bande. Neyther of all speaking, exhorting or commaun∣ding: but of the publique ministerie of preaching. And thus doth your owne Cardinall Caietane, expounde it, Docere, supple publice. &c. neque dominari, directe hoc respicit vxores, to teach, to wite publikly. &c. neither to rule, this is directly spo∣kē of vviues. And so Catharinus: hic locus manifeste de coniugata intelligitur. &c. This place manifestlye is vnderstoode of a vvife, in the same sence vvherein it is read in another place, let vvomen holde their peace in the Churches, for it is not permitted to them to speake, but to bee subiecte euen as the lavve saith. But by the vvaye vvee muste bevvare, that in∣iurie be done to none. Although by no meanes it be the of∣fice of anye vvoman to teache, notvvythstanding if anye vvoman bee endued vvith singular grace of God (for God is free from all lavve) that coulde bee able to doe these thyngs vvhen it shoulde bee thought meete, shee vvere not to be hin∣dred, chiefelye hauing the gifte of prophecie, but it vvere lavvfull for hir to speake freelye. As is read of Olda and

Debora that iudged the people of Israell, as is apparant in the booke of the iudges. Doth not the Apostle also warne, that the former holde his peace, if it be reuealed to another? For we know that that glorious, and one of the most deere spo•…•…∣ses of Christ, Saint Katherine of Senes taught in times pa•…•…e, and hath made sermons yea euen in the publique consisto•…•…e of the Pope, although she toke not vpon hir these things but with good leaue of Christs owne vica•…•…, who best knewe in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to be the true spirite of God, and the feruencie of charitie to be giuen hir to edifie the Churche in those troublous tymes, when the scisme raigned. &c. Thus farre and furder saith this Popishe Bishop, whereby it appereth, that the Papists thē selues vnderstande not this sentence of Saint Paule, for a simple debarre to all women, no not to preache in the open Churche, if neede so required, so that she haue the Popes leaue. And can the Pope giue leaue in a time of scisme to maintaine his factiō, when two or thrée Popes striue for the triple diademe, and to Saint hir for hir labour? And shall it not be lawfull for a Christian Quéene (not attempting hir selfe to preache) to set forth, by the authoritie due to all prin∣ces, suche lawes whereby gods truth maye be preached, by those that are lawfully called therevnto? may not a Quéen•…•… by vertue of hir royall office, in the open assemblye of hir owne subiects, speake, exhort, persuade, and commaunde hir people, being also the Church of Christ, to abolish al errors, and receiue the onely truth of God? was it lawfull for the Empresse Irene, to publishe hir decrees in the Churche, for the erecting of Images, against the worde of God? and is it not lawfull for the Quéenes Maiestie, by publique decrées to pull them downe, and forbid the worship of them, accor∣ding to gods worde? this sentence therefore euen by theyr owne witnesse is but wrested, to debarre a womans gouern∣ment of the Church.

But Maister Saunders procéeding on his argument for Quéene Marie, saith:

To the same purpose it came, that the greate goodnesse of God called such a Queene to the rule of the kingdome, that both sawe this selfe same thing, and confessed it. For Queene Marie not onely toke not this proude title of the head of the Church, but also when she was admonished of others▪ that she would be like hir father, she brought forth most weightie rea∣sons, why she ought not to do it. VVhervpon, she chiefely ex∣horting therto, that title was omitted, and the proper honour restored to the successors of Peter.

If the title (as ye saye M. Saunders) be proude, Quéene Marie had done wel to leaue it, but your Pope not ouer wel to take it, howbeit this title, as King Henry, and King Ed∣warde before toke it, was no proude title, but a title of their charge and duetie. And therefore she ought to haue retained it, nor did well in leauing it, and rendring it to a foraigne prelate, that had nought to do therwith. And in whō in deede it is both a proude, and an Antichristian title, both spoyling Christian Princes of their principall office in their particu∣lar estates: and also bereauing Christ of his glory ouer his vniuersall Churche. Neither can he claime it as successor of Peter: Peter neuer hauing the possessiō of it. And what waigh∣tie reasons soeuer she persuaded hir selfe withall, to shake it off, she taking the kingdome on hir, the waight and burden lay still on hir charge before God. And if your reason be ought of the effect and sequele of this hir refusall, into what extréeme miserie was this Realme broughte in so shorte a time, by y^e Legates spoyling, by the Prelats burning, by the Italians pilling, by the Frenchmēs winning, by the Spani∣ardes oppressing, and by gods diuine Iustice scourging the Realme with strange diseases, droughts, waters, & dearthes, to conclude the Quéene hir selfe and crowne impouerished, & all the Realme in daunger of perpetuall thraldome and vt∣ter vndoyng, if God of his infinite mercie had not deliuered vs from it, and yet sée if these Papistes, that can so narrowly spie, and proll at euery note in king Henry, and kings Ed∣wards

dayes, can in Quéene Maries dayes, espie anye one of these great beames, that were such apparante tokens of gods wrath, that all men sawe and felt what euents succee∣ded the refusall of this title, and the yéelding it to the Pope, nerehand the cleane subuersion of this Realme, if we may iudge by sequels.

Now after Quéene Marie, he comes to the Quéenes Ma∣iestie, that now (God be praised) most prosperously raigneth ouer vs.

But vvhen very many giuen to heresies vvere offended at this notable modestie of the Queene, neither vvould they yet vnderstande his Counsell in gouerning his Churche: God brought to passe that Marie of happie memorie being dead, the kingdome of England should deuolue to such a vvoman, as novve vvriteth hir selfe: The supreme gouernesse in all matters and causes asvvell ecclesiasticall as secular. That yet so at the length, by the successe it selfe, men of hard harte and obstinate necke, mighte marke, hovv euill king Henry tooke this office vpon him, the vvhiche of his heire and successour could not duely and orderly be fulfilled. For to whom it is not permitted to teach, vvhich is the most necessarie office of an ecclesiasticall Head: hovv shal she performe those greater of∣fices, that are occupied in the chastisement and correction of them, that ought to teache the people? or shall she vvhich is vnvvorthie that she should hir selfe teache publiquely in the lovvest degree, moderate and reprehend vvith lavvful autho∣ritie, other publique teachers in the highest degree? or if she can not lavvfully reprehend them, shall she yet be lavvfully supreme gouernesse of the Church? I omit here the things that in these yeares, vvhich are last passed, haue bene (I knovv not hovv vncomely) done and preached in Englande, vnder such supreme heads of the Church. I spare the dignitie of thē that gouerne. Another time, if God vvill, I vvill handle them particularly, hovve greatly both from the lavve of God, and from the sentence of the auncient Churche, and from righte

reason, that state of a common vveale is farre, in vvhiche any king arrogateth to himselfe, the office and name of the su∣preme head of the Church.

Is your part so false and weake of proues (Maister Saun∣ders) that it can win no credite, but by discrediting of ours with sclaunders? and yet we woulde pardon this in you, as∣cribing it either to some passion of choler against your aduer∣saries, or to blinde affection of your selues, that ye call verie manie of vs, giuen to heresies, hard harted, and obstinate nec∣ked, which are termes fitter to muster in M. Stapletons cō∣mon places, than to stuffe vp M. doctor Saunders volumes: howe they redownde vpon your selues, let other iudge▪ that will reade and view of both. But if we forgiue you this, for our parts, shal we stil suffer you to raile vpō, & sclander the Lordes annoynted, saying: she arrogateth to hir selfe the of∣fice and name of the supreme Head of the Church, speaking at randon withoute limitation of the Churche, as the Pope doth arrogate to himselfe, and taketh on hir to be an eccle∣siasticall head and publique teacher of other that should teach hir? these are too too infamous sclaūders of hir Maiestie, that claimeth no such title, nor attempteth any such thing. What supreme gouernement is ascribed to hir highnesse, we haue tolde you a thousand times, but I sée ye will not vnderstand it, bicause ye would of set purpose sclander it.

But to knit vp your argument of the euent and sequele of the Quéenes Maiesties raigne: ye say, many things haue bin done and preached in England, ye cannot tell hovv vnsemely. •…•… thinke euen the same M. Saunders: ye can not tell howe •…•…ndede. But howe vnseemely a thing is this for one of your •…•…rofession, to chalenge ye cannot tell what nor howe? ye set owne nothing, but vnder a pretence of sparing vs, to bréede •…•…et a furder sclaunderous suspition, ye threat vs that ye will •…•…serue thē til a furder leisure, y^t is to say, ad Kalendas graecas, til •…•…e shall first know them, and then be able to proue them, in the meane seasō, ye take the wisest way, to say such ther are,

but what they are, ye cannot now tell, ye wil learne thē out, and tell vs another time, but tell the worste ye canne, ye shal neuer be able to tell, of any fals doctrine preached and by the Prince approued to be preached, nor of anye wicked facte, allowed by publike authoritie to be done. No Maister Saunders in all the Quéenes Maiesties raigne, ye can ne∣uer be able to proue any suche things, but in the raigne of your Popes, we can proue many such things: as whordome committed and maintained: murder done and maintained, Idolatry vsed and maintained, and infinite errors preached and maintained by publique authoritie among the Papists. As for y^e Quéenes maiesties raigne that now is, if the euent and sequele may make an argument, God hath so blessed it (maugre all your spites and practises) that no Realme chri∣stian hath florished like, nor Englande more at anye tyme. The Lord be praised for it, and for his mercie sake long con∣tinue it, that hath giuen so goodly a token, of his well liking hir Maiesties supreme gouernment.

Notes

• M. Sand. order in this chap∣ter.
• Sand. pag. 58. M. Saunders
• Definition of a gouernour.
• M. Sand. ex∣amples to cō∣firme his defi∣nition.
• M. Sand. defi∣nition false.
• M. Sand. ex∣amples insuf∣ficient.
• Diuers instan∣ces against M. Sand. exāples.
• The instance of an Embas∣sadour.
• M. Feck. tale of a gentleman defending that mustard was good with all meate.
• The instance •…•… of woman.
• Sand. pag. 58. Maister Saun∣ders exceptiō.
• The vvill and povver of a king restray∣ned by lavve.
• The similitude of a mannes body.
• Sand. 58.
• Matth. 28. Iohn. 20. 1. Cor. 11.
• Num 27.
• Iud. 4. 4. Reg. 11.
• Gal. 4. 4. Reg. 11. 4. Reg 22.
• 1. Tim. 2. 1. Cor. 14. Gal. 4.
• M Saunders argumēt stan∣deth all on a vvrong prin∣ciple.
• M. Saunders examples of a vvoman and a chylde.
• M. Saund. ar∣gument not only excludeth a vvomen and a chylde, but also a man from the su∣preme go∣uernement.
• The Papistes are culpable of womens do∣ing. eccl. acti∣ons.
• Diuers thinges that women cannot wel do themselues, and yet can well ouersee them done by others.
• 1. Corinth. 4.
• Saunders. 59.
• Saunders. 59.
• Esaie. 62.
• Hebr. 10. 1. Conn. 10.
• How the kin∣ges, or the pre∣stes, or the Churches au∣thorities are greater or les∣ser in sundrye respects.
• M. Saunders graunteth the gouernmentes of the Church in the old testa ment, to bee a figure of the Churches go∣uernment in the new testa∣ment.
• Saunders. 60.
• Leuit. 4.
• 1.
• 2.
• 3.
• 4.
• M. Saunders argument of the more wor∣thy beast offe∣red in Sacrifice
• The difference in the things offred, made the difference of worthinesse in the offerer.
• Leuit. 2.
• Leuit. 3.
• Leuit 8.
• Leuit. 9.
• M. San. argu∣ment from the dignitie of the former recital.
• M. Saunders confutes him∣selfe.
• Sand pag. 60. Philo in lib▪ de victimis.
• The testimo∣nie of Philo Iudeus.
• Euseb. lib. 2. cap. 17.
• Origenes in Leuit 4.
• Allegories.
• How Philo maketh the Prince inferior to the people.
• The example of a body na∣turall conser∣red with a bo∣die polit•…•…ke.
• Sand. pag. 60▪
• Wherfore God ordayned these diuersi•…•…ies of sacrifices.
• Why the prists sinnes are first reckoned. Leuit. 4.
• Lyra.
• Why the priest offered the Bullocke▪ L•…•…ra in Leui. 4
• Why the peo∣ples sinne is reckoned in the secōd place.
• The Churches vniuersall ig∣raunce.
• Leuit. 4.
• Glosse inter∣lineata.
• Why the peo∣ple offered the like thing that the priest offe∣red.
• Sand. 60.
• M. Saunders contrarieth himselfe.
• Sand 60.
• Psal. 104. Hebre. •…•….
• Num. •…•…. Ierem. 33.
• Annoynting.
• Psal 44.
• Saunders. 60.
• Iohn. 13.
• Math. 24.
• M. Saunders graunteth the ministers to be lesse than the people.
• Saunders. 60.
• Saunders. 60. Iosephus de Antiq. •…•…udaic lib. 3. cap. 10.
• Sand. pag. 60. Theodoretus in Leuiticum quest. 1.
• Procopius in Leuiticum.
• Sand pag. 61. Hebre. 7. Leuit. 9.
• The Priests blessing.
• Daniel. 3.
• Saunders. 61. 3. Reg. 8.
• Hebre. 7.
• The Papistes shifte for salo∣mons blessing the people.
• Lira in 3. •…•…e. 8.
• The people blesse the king
• 1. Reg •…•…6.
• 1. Reg 20.
• Iosue. 14.
• 4. Reg. 10. Tob. 7. Iudith. 13.
• Sand. pag. 61.
• 1. Reg. 8.
• M. Saunders woulde make the king go∣uernement to be contrarie to the priests and prophets bles∣sings.
• The Popes blessing and cursing.
• Psalme. 101.
• The question.
• Among all the Iudges but one priest and one prophete go∣uerned the Churche of God.
• Rom. 9.
• Wherewith God was of∣fended for the peoples de∣manding a king.
• 1. Reg. 10.
• Lyra. 1. reg. 10.
• The kings es∣tate immediat∣ly frō God, and aboue al other representeth him.
• Saunders. 61.
• Psalm 95.
• The Popis•…•…e priesthoode hath no resem blance of God.
• The tyrannie of the Popishe Priestes go∣uernment.
• Sand. 61.
• Sand 61.
• Difference be∣tweene the kings v•…•…ces & his office.
• Priestes leade the people to Idolatrie.
• The highe Priestes before the building of the temple.
• The highe Priestes after the building of the Temple.
• N•…•…hem. 13.
• Iosephus lib. 1•…•…▪ anti. ca. 7.
• Nehem. 13.
• Iosephus lib. 12 ca. 4.
• 2. Mach. 4.
• 2. Mach. 4.
• Ioseph. li. 13. ca 4.
• Whether the priests or the Princes go∣uernment a∣mong the Iewes were worse.
• Sand. 61. Gregorius in 1. reg. li. 4 ca. 4.
• Gregorie brought out of place.
• Gregories sen∣tence contra∣ries it selfe.
• Howe Grego∣ries sentenceis graunted v•…•…to.
• Gregorie ac∣knowledged the princes su∣premacie ouer himselfe.
• Gregorie re∣proueth them that called him vniuersal Pope
• The title, cheif of the priests, or chiefe priest improued in in the Popes owne decrees.
• Saunder•…•…. 61.
• The king and the priest made for the peoples cause.
• The king•…•…e. state made for the honor of Christ, and re∣presented Christe, as well and better than the priests e∣state.
• Rom. 4. How farre the kingdome of christ surmoū∣teth his priest∣hood.
• Math. 6.
• Saunders. 61.
• 2. Corinth. 3.
• Comparison betwene the ministers of the olde and new testamēt.
• Math. 20. Mark. 10. Luke. 22. In outward glory the mi∣nisters of the new testament are inferior, in inward glory, superior.
• Sand pag. 61.
• Sa•…•…d. pag. 61. Psalm. 2.
• Math. 10.
• Kings ought to be learned.
• The Popishe priestes would be princes mai sters and go∣uernors vnder pre•…•…ence of teachers.
• How the tea∣chers are aboue and vnder the princes whom they •…•…eache. Exodus. 18. 2. Reg. 12. Iudith. 8. The Simlitude of a schole∣maister. Howe the prince thoughe himselfe not learned, direc∣teth lawes for learning.
• Sand, pag▪ 62. Math. 28.
• From teaching to gouerning is no good cō∣sequence.
• Succession of the Apostles consistes in teaching.
• The Pope tea∣ching not as Peter & Paule did, is not their successor.
• Sand pag. 62. Esai. 49.
• The similitude of a nource.
• Sand. 62.
• See Chrysost. in C. 13. ad Rom.
• Hebr. 13.
• The respectes of a king of a Christian and of a man.
• Deut. 17.
• The Christian Prince regar∣deth further thā the natural or 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉
• M. Saunders would dissuade vs hō the Prin ces supremacie by the successe thereof.
• The Papistes rayling and s•…•…laundering of K. Henry. 8. Sand. 63.
• Epistola Iudae.
• K. Henry. 8. •…•…claundered to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 his subiects
• King Henry. 8 selaundered with counter∣feyting the coy•…•…e.
• What coyne the Papistes counterfeited.
• King H. selan∣dered with his wiues.
• Leuit. 18.
• 1. Paral. 15.
• King Henrie not the firste that toke vpon him this supre mac•…•…e.
• King Henrie•…•… prosperitie af∣ter hee had ex∣pelled the Pope.
• Sand. pag. 63.
• The Papists de facings of K. Edwarde.
• The Prince sclaundered to take an ecclesi∣call primacie.
• If K Edwarde were as full a king as his fa∣ther, then he had all the right of his father.
• Sand. 63.
• Christes age when he begā to preach.
• Distinction be twen•…•… the kigs nature and h•…•…s person and his office.
• Saunders. 6•…•…. Gal. 4.
• The doings of the kings go∣uernors in his nonage at the kings owne doings.
• Sand. 63. M. Saunders preuention & answere to our obiection.
• A childe maye be a king euen by Gods lawe.
• Imperfectiō of the person in∣ferreth not im perfection of the lawe.
• Saunders. 6•…•….
• The more the Papistes discō∣mende king Henrie, the more it redoū∣deth to his cō∣mendation.
• The Papistes argument of a childes succes∣siō to blemishe the supremacy doth rather confirme it.
• Saunders. 63.
• 1. Tim. 2.
• The shortnesse of King Ed∣wards raigne no argument against his au∣thoritie.
• Queenes Ma∣ries raigne shorter than king Edwards. The suprema∣cie of a wo∣man. 1. Tim. 2. The vnderstan ding of Saint Paules sentence for womans sil•…•…ee and subiection pag. 59.
• Caietanus in 1 Tim. 2.
• Catharinus in 1. Tim. 2.
• 1. Cor. 14.
• Saunders. 63.
• Queene Ma∣ries refusall of this title.
• If the reasō of the sequele be ought, loke on the euents in Queene Ma∣ries raigne af∣ter hir refusall of the supre∣macie.
• Saunders. 63.
• How the Pa∣pists sclander the Queene.
• The prospe∣rous successe of the Queenes Maiesties raign since hir first taking on hir this supremacy