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 answere to foure Chapters in Doctor Saunders se∣conde booke of the visible Monarchie of the Churche, concerning the question here in hande of a Christian Princes supreme go∣uernment in Ecclesiasticall causes.

First, of the difference of both povvers, the ciuill and Ecclesiastical, in the original, in the vse, and in the end of eyther.

Secondly, vvhether the Prince be the Supreme gouernour immediatly vnder Christ.

Thirdly, vvhether the Prince may iudge and de∣fine of ecclesiasticall matters.

Fourthly, whether Bishops maye depose Princes from their estate, and take from the realme their po∣vver of electing their Prince, if they differ in religion from their Bishops.

VVhich foure chapters I thought good here to an∣swere vnto, both bicause he is the last writer, and chie∣fest novve of accompte among the aduersaries. And these chapters aboue al other in his volume, both draw neerest to the question of the Princes estate, and shew vvithall, the full drift of the Papists, not only striuing agaynst the Princes supremacie, but into vvhat ex∣treme slauerie they vvould reduce all Christian Kin∣ges and kingdomes.

The argument of the fyrst Chapter of the difference betweene the Ciuile and Ecclesiasti∣call Magistrate, in the originall, in the vse, and in the ende of bothe.

MAster Saunders firste beginning with the original, lconfesseth, that both powers are of God, but not both immediatly from God the ciuile power he granteth to be of God but by the lawe of Nations, or the consent of people and other meanes of mans wit put betweene. But streight he correcteth himselfe, that some thing in the ciuill authoritie was reuealed immediatly from God, yea, Per multa in lege Mosaica diuinitus instituta suerunt, verie ma∣nie things (pertaining to the ciuill power) were in Moses law ordeyned of God. And thus at the fyrst he speaketh contra∣ries. Herevpon he concludeth thus.

I thinke therfore, it is agreed vpon, among all men, that the royal & imperial power which at this day is exercised in the church in euery cause, wherof it is not otherwise disposed in the new testament, is to be holden of the law of nations, or of lawe ciuil.

To this I answer: First, this in part is true, but in part so false, that himself confutes himself, making exceptiō of di∣uers things in the ciuill power, that sproong immediatly frō God, neither were those things as he falsly saithe, Circa res terrenas. about earthly matters but about ecclesiasticall mat∣ters in y^e law of Moyses. And although their ceremonial cau∣ses and iudicials, pertayning to ecclesiasticall matters in the ciuil power, be taken away with the ceremoniall and indi∣ciall lawe of the Iewes, yet the ciuil power hath like au∣thoritie, in the like causes ecclesiastical of the new testamēt, as is shewed out of S. Aug. against M. St. & y^e Donatistes.

Secondly, where he sayeth all the ciuil power nowe of

christian kings and Emperors is all of the law of nations, or ciuil, except in cases otherwise disposed in the new testa∣ment. I answer this may well be graunted, and yet the ciuil power hath authoritie ouer ecclesiasticall persons, in causes ecclesiastical: for so, not only in the old testament, but also in the newe Testament it is playnly disposed.

Thirdly, to this diuision of the original of both these esta∣tes, that the ecclesiastical is from God immediatly, the ciuil by other meanes: I answere, this distinction faileth, both by his own tale, saying: Ciuilis à deo plerun{que} est per media quae∣dam, the ciuil power is oftentimes from God by certain mea∣nes. If it be oftentimes by certaine meanes, then it is not al∣wayes, and but accidentall, not of the nature of the estate, for so it is also immediatly from God. And the like accident falleth out likewise of the ecclesiastical estate, that although the power be immediatly from God, yet many causes in it called Ecclesiastical, be also Per media quadam humani inge∣nij interposita, by certain meanes of mans wit put betwene.

For this cause (sayth M. Sand.) the ciuil power among the heathen that know not god, is found to be the same that is ex∣tant with faithful kings, although Christ wold not haue such power in the ministers of his kingdom, for he said: the Prin∣ces of the nations rule ouer them, and they that are iuniors ex∣ercise power ouer them, so shall it not be among you.

I answere, first Maister Saunders, this is a like slander to M. Stapletons. fo. 29. a. b. The ciuil power is not found to be the same in heathen Princes that knowe not God, and in Christian Princes y^t know God, there is a very great diffe∣rence betwene these so different estates, wherin the one ac∣knowledgeth all his power to be of God, and hath it descri∣bed and limited by Gods word, & the other takes it al for hu main & naturall, not so much as knowing God by your own confession, from whome the originall of it springeth.

Secondly, to that you saye, suche power is debarred by Christe from his ministers: If yée meane by suche power,

suche power as is among the Heathen, suche is not onely debarred from them, but from christian Princes too: If ye meane suche power as Christian Princes haue, is de∣barred from the ministers of Christ, then say ye true. But howe then dothe youre Pope chalenge and vsurpe, bothe suche and the same also? Yea, your selfe afterwarde reason moste earnestly thoroughout all the fourth chapter follo∣wing, that the ministers of Christe may haue it: Wher∣in ye speak cleane contrary both to Christ, and to your self.

Thirdly, I note this eyther youre grosse ignoraunce, or your impudent falshood, in altering the wordes of Christe. He sayth not they that are iuniors, or yongers, the Texte is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they that are great, whiche are cleane contrarie. If M. Stapleton were your aduersarie, he would rattle ye vp (Master Saunders) for so foule a scape.

Nowe to fortifie a difference betwéene the Ecclesiastical power and the Ciuill, he vrgeth that: the spiritual kingdom of Christ is in this worlde, but not of this worlde, as for the earthly kingdome is bothe in, and of this world: but the ec∣clesiasticall power is the spirituall kingdome of Christ, ther∣fore there is a difference, but the spirituall kingdom of Christ excelleth all worldly•…•… kingdomes, therfore they are stark foo∣les that in any ecclesiasticall thing to be administred preferre the earthly kings before the pastors of the Churche.

I answere, all these conclusions are impertinent. If there be any follie, it is to striue for that that is not in controuer∣sie. We graunt a difference betwixt both powers and king∣domes, althoughe a question is to be moued, what he mea∣neth here by ecclesiasticall power. If he take it as the Papi∣stes do, we denie that ecclesiasticall power to be the spiritual kingdome of Christ. For their ecclesiasticall power is ouer∣much not in the worlde, but of the worlde also. If he meane by ecclesiasticall power, the spirituall kingdome of Christ, as he in his word hath ordeyned the fame: although there be a difference betwene the power in the kingdom, and the king∣dome

in the which the power is, yet we graunt this gladly, that no wise man will preferre the earthly kings in any spiri∣tual thing to be administred, before the pastors of the chur∣che. But this is nothing againste the earthly kings prefer∣ment ouer the spirituall pastor, to ouersée him rightly and spiritually to administer his spirituall things, in the mini∣stration whereof, all earthly kings oughte to giue place vnto him, which we did neuer denie.

And sith there is no comparison betwene Christ the sonne of God, who is also God himself, and a creature of the law na∣tural or ciuill, neither is there any comparison betwixt the po∣wer ecclesiastical, which is wholly giue vnto vs by only Christ the mediator, & the power royall, which either altogether, or almost altogether is not ordeined of God, but by the lawe of nations or ciuill: for although God hath reuealed frō heauen, that belongeth to the power royall, if notwithstandyng that pertained not to eternall saluation which is hid in Christ, but to contein peace among men, that is to be reckned, to be re∣uealed no otherwise than to be a certain declaration which he had grafted in vs by Nature, or else euen necessitie ought to haue wroong out of vs, or profite according to the seedes of nature ought to haue brought to light.

I answere, first we graunt, that the ecclesiastical power (not as the Papists stretche it, but as it is giuen vnto vs by only Christ the mediator, is farre superior without all com∣parison, than the royal power of Princes. Howbeit, this hin∣dreth not, but as the ministers are mediators thereof to vs, the royall power of Princes hath againe an other superior gouernment, to ouersée that there be no other ecclesiasticall power exercised by y^e mediation of the Minister, than Christ the only mediator hath ordeyned. And to remoue all popish •…•…oysting in giuing vs quid pro quo, whiche when the royall power hath done, it submitteth it selfe to the true power ec∣clesiasticall as not hauing a superioritie of all ecclesiasticall matters to exercise or doe them: but hauing a superioritie

in all ecclesiastical matters to ouersée them rightly don and exercised. And this distinction of of and In, M. Sanders him selfe vsed immediatly before, and vseth againe in the fourth chapter folowing: which also is a common distinction, and therfore I maye well vse it, bycause it not onely expresseth the manner of the Princes Supremacie, but also detecteth the Papistes common fallati•…•…n, as thoughe by the name of Supreme gouernour, the Queenes Maiestie tooke vppon hir the gouernement Ecclesiasticall, when shée onely ta∣keth vpon hir (that is due vnto hir) a gouernement in cau∣ses ecclesiasticall.

Secondly, I answere, that although there be no compari∣son betwene these two powers: yet is the royall power farre aboue that which here he makes it, that nothing belonging to this power, hath b•…•…n reuealed from heauen pertaining to eternal saluation hid in Christ, but only to matters that con∣serue peace among men, springing of the seedes of nature, ei∣ther for profite or necessitie. Herein he saith in dede, as St. doth, but this is no lesse manifest vntruth, than shamefull slaūder to all christian princes estates. The Scripture is e∣uident to the contrarie, as well in Gods institution of the royall power, as in all the examples of godly Princes com∣mended in the Scripture, not so much for their worldly po∣licie, Iustice, peace and naturall giftes, as for matters per∣taining to eternall saluation, both hidde in Christe, and reuea∣led in Christe also.

And let these things (sayth he) be spoken for the originall of either power. The seconde point of difference he maketh in the vse and office, saying:

But so farre as belongeth to the vse and office of those thynges, wee knovve that distinction to bee obserued in them, that he which had the full power ecclesiasticall, might also haue had in gouernyng the people of God, vvithoute any especiall consecration, as happened in Noe, in Melchi∣zedech, in Abraham, in Moyses, in Helie, and in Samuel,

and in the Machabees. Howebeit, it was not onlyke sorte true, that hee vvhiche eyther by the Lawe of Nations, o•…•… the Ciuil, was kyng (whiche is the firste degree of honour in this kynde) shoulde streightway haue also the power Ec∣clesiasticall, except that right had ben giuen vnto him by es∣peciall consecration.

Yée confonnde your owne tale, Maister Saunders, and speake contraries. Before ye sayde (speakyng of the Ci∣uil power of faythfull Kinges) Christus talem in sui reg∣ni Ministris esse noluerit, Christe in the Ministers of his his kingdome woulde haue no suche power. Now ye say, He that hadde the one power, had (vvithout any especiall consecration) the other also.

And hereto yée •…•…ite these holye Fathers Noe, Melchi∣zedech, Abraham, Moyses, H•…•…lie, Samuel, and the Ma∣chabees. Were none of these, Ministers in the kingdome of Chryste? Besydes this ye confo•…•…nde your distinction, heaping vp confusedly these wytnesses, of the whych but one serueth proprely to the purpose, of the former part of youre distinction, for the Priestes to haue had the Ci∣uil power: •…•…nd that is Helie, to whome proprely the Ecclesiasticall power belonged, being the high Priest, and likewise had the Ciuil power, béeing the Iudge also. But yet this was not without some especiall consecration or appoyntment of God thervnto. For else, eyther it had ben ordinarie to his predecessours, or he had vsurped it, sithe none was Iudge among the Israelites (all the whyle that the Ciuil power was directed by that kinde of gouerne∣ment) but those that were by especiall calling appointed of God thereto.

As for the other, were of dyuerse tymes and sortes. The holye Patriarkes, Noe, Melchizedech, and Abra∣ham, hadde I graunte also, bothe powers, Ecclesiasti∣call and Ciuil. But at that tyme before the lawe, when bothe estates pertayned to them, by their birthrighte.

And this maketh rather for the Ciuill magistrate to haue had the ecclesiastical power, than for the Ecclesiastical ma∣gistrate to haue had the ciuill power. For, the gouernment descending to them by reason of their birthright, was a na∣turall or ciuill gouernment, as your selfe before confessed, saying: E•…•…enim vt pater infilium. &c. For as the father hath a certain power ouer his sonne, the grandsier ouer his nephew, and so foorth, the elder ouer the yonger, this verily god hath wrought by the lawe naturall, while by the maner and order of my birth, he declareth him to be my superiour, which ei∣ther ministred the cause why I should be borne, or else is ioy∣ned in some kindred with him by whome I was borne. And so these Patriarkes by birthright, hauing y^e ciuil power, by the law of Nature, as ye confesse, had not the ciuil power, by∣cause they had the Ecclesiasticall, but rather had the Eccle∣siasticall power, bycause they had Ciuile power by natural righte, till these two offices were by the Lawe of Moy∣ses seuered. As for Moyses and the Machabees, were indeed of the tribe of Leui. Moyses had power in bothe estates, but béeing before the Ecclesiasticall power, was lotted to the tribe of Leui, and béeing the lawemaker, in appoynting it to the race of his brother Aaron: his example maketh a∣gayne for the Ciuile Magistrate, rather to haue hadde the gouernement in Ecclesiasticall matters, than the Ecclesia∣sticall in the Ciuill. The Machabees by an extraordinarie vocation had the Ciuile power. As for Samuell was also of the tribe of Leui, but yēt no Prieue, althoughe a Prophet, and the Iudge also, but by especiall calling of God thereto.

Nowe all these estates béeyng thus diuers, bothe in sortes and tymes, hee confoundeth together to enforce his obseruation, that the Priestes ordinarylye maye deale in the Princes office, but in no case the Prince maye deale with any thing belonging to the Priests, and yet his owne examples make agaynst him. But he ad∣deth,

without some especiall consecration. But what es∣peciall consecration had Dauid, had Salomon, had Eze∣chias, &c. to gouerne the Priests in their ecclesiasticall mat∣ters? We reade of no especiall consecration, other than the dutie of their royall power. But wherto tendeth all this? forsooth priests may deale with Princes, and take the Ciuil power vpon them ordinarily, but Princes in no case may deale with Priests.

Herevpon (say you) when Ozias woulde haue offred in∣cense vpon the altar of incense, Azarias the Priest wente in after him, and with him the Priestes of the Lorde resisted the king, and sayde: It is not thy office Ozia, to offer incense to the Lorde, but it is the office of the Priests, that is to say, of the sonnes of Aaron, that are consecrated to suche my∣sterie.

The example of Ozias is often •…•…rged of himselfe, and al his fellowes, howbeit it is méere impertinent & flaunde∣derous. The Prince taketh not vpon hir (as Ozias woulde haue done) the power, nor office, nor administration eccle∣siasticall. But suche power as Ozias did well take vpon him (while he was a good king) in ouerséeing the Priestes do their dueties, and not him selfe intruding into the doing of their duties. But of this exāple we haue heard somwhat already in answering master Stapleton, and we shal haue more agayne in M. Saunders fourth Chapter, and therfore I reserue my selfe to the larger answere of it.

To this he addeth an Item of Iosaphat, saying, Item{que}, &c. And also Iosaphat the king of Iuda distinguishing both powers, sayde to the Leuites and the Priests: Amarias the Priest and your Bishop, stil gouerne in those things that per∣teine to God. Moreouer Zabadias the sonne of Ismaell, who is the captayne in the house of Iuda, shal be ouer those wor∣kes that perteyne to the office of the king. Beholde other thinges perteyne to the office of the Bishop, and other to the the kinges office.

This we haue beholden alreadie in Master Stapletons obiection of the same, and there may you M. Saunders beholde the answere. And thus, muche agayne for the vse of both these powers. Now thirdly, for the end therof, saith M. Saunders.

Of the ende of both powers (not the last but the middle ende) that the ciuill power toucheth nought but this lyfe, Christ saith: Feare not thē that kil the body, but they can not kill the soule. And agayne, the Apostle willeth vs to pray for kings, & those that are in authoritie, that we may hue a quiet and peaceable life. A quiet life therefore is the last ende of the ciuill power, dwelling without the Churche. But of that which is in the Church it is not the last, but yet the proper ende it is. VVhyle in the meane time the eccl. power belon∣geth to the lyfe to come, as Christ hath sayde, whatsoeuer ye lose on earth, shall be loosed in heauen.

To this distinction of the endes of these powers I an∣swere, it is false: not only the laste ende (as he graunteth) but the meaner endes also of the ciuill power in the church of Christ, stretche further than this lyfe. I appeale to the Princes institution and office. Deuter. 17. I appeale to all the doings of the godly Kings, Iudges, and ciuill magi∣strates described in the scripture. I appeale to Constantine the great, that thought religion to be the chiefe ende of hys gouernment. Yea, I appeale to the places, that euen héere M. Sanders citeth for his purpose▪ manifestly wresting •…•… mayming that of S. Paule to Timothie. For he sayth not onely, Ut quietam & tranquillam vitam aga•…•…us. That we may leade a quiet and peaceable life, and there endeth: but he addeth further withall, in omni pietate & honestate, in all godlynesse & honestie. In which two words, chiefly al god∣linesse, what is included, is at large declared against master Stapleton.

But before this place, M. Sanders citeth the testimonie of Christ, that the prince can do no more but kill the body.

I answere, Christe makes not the proper ende of the Princes power, to kill the body, but rather (as you said be∣fore out of S. Paule) to saue it. To kill it, is an accidentall tude of his power, & yet Iwisse, Christ spake not there on∣lye of ciuil Princes, but as muche agaynst the tyrannie of the highe Priests, or any other that woulde persecute the ministers of Christ to death, as your Pope & you his chap∣laynes do. But I pray you M. Sand. may not an ill Prince wrest his authoritie to destroy the soule also, with mayn∣teyning Idolatrie & false religion? In déede he can not kill the soule, for properly it can not be killed. But that kind of killing that the soule may suffer, which is sinne, and dam∣nation the rewarde of sinne) with the one, striken of the deuil by malice, and wounded of him selfe by errour: with theother, striken of God by Iustice, and deserued of him selfe by sinne) may not the ill Prince make his power be a meane therto? and may not an ill priest on this wise kill the soule as wel and sooner than he? I wot what your pope Pius. 2. was wont to say, Mal•…•… med•…•…ci corpus, imperiti sacer∣dotes animam o•…•…cîdunt. Ill Phisitions kil the body, but vnskil∣full Priests kill the soule. You say your power stretcheth to the life to come. In déede M Sand. the true eccl. power stretcheth to the life to come, I feare me yours doth stretch to life (as ye say) but not to come, but onely to the present life of the body: but, to death, of body and soule, both nowe and to come for euer.

Besides al this, I appeale euen to your owne selfe, M. Sand. that affirme the ciuil power in the church of Christ, to stretch to farre further & more proper endes thā this life: for in your fourth chapter folowing ye haue this quotation: Christian•…•…rum regna le•…•…ularia non sunt. Christian kingdomes are not worldly. Wheron ye haue these words.

Moreouer the kingdomes of the faythf•…•…ll Princes, whose people feare▪ God, are not altogither earthly or worldly, for in that parte that they haue beleeued in Chryst, they haue,

as it were lefte to be of the worlde, and haue begonne to be members of the eternall kingdome. For although the out∣warde face of thinges, which is founde in kingdomes meere secular, be in a Christian kingdome: Yet sithe the spirite of man is farre the moste excellent parte of him, and the whole spirite acknowledgeth Christ his king and onely Lorde, I see nothing why Christian kingdomes ought not to be rather iudged spirituall, according to their better parte, than earth∣ly. And this is the cause why now so long since, those which gouerned the people of God were wont to be anointed of his ministers, no otherwise than were the Prophetes and Priests. For euen the kings them selues also are after a sort▪ partakers of the spiritual ministerie, whē they are anoynted. Not that they shoulde do those thinges that are committed to the onely priestes hereto orderly consecrated, but that those thinges whiche other kinges referre to a prophane and worldly ende, these kinges shoulde nowe remember, that they ought to directe to an holy ende. For when they them selues are meere spirituall, it is fitte that they shoulde wyll, that all their thinges shoulde also be accounted as it were spirituall.

Loe, M. Saunders, in these wordes ye confesse farre other proper endes, and farre other estates also, in the ciuill power of Christian Princes, than this lyfe of the body, and the quiet tranquillitie therof. And therfore what néede fur∣ther witnesse, when your selfe are not onely contrarie to your selfe, but also beare witnesse agaynst your selfe?

Now whē M. Sanders hath thus prosecuted these three differences of these two estates, he collecteth his conclu∣sion, saying:

But if the ecclesiasticall power differ from the ciuill, in the originall in the vse, and in the ende: and so well the begin∣ning of the ecclesiasticall power, as the vse and ende is farre the more worthy: shall they not of wise men be iudged mad, which either confounde these powers or else woulde haue

the royall, that is to say, the ciuill power, to be superiour to the ecclesiasticall?

Howe madly for so wise a man, ye haue proued these differences, let wise men iudge (M. Saunders) and howe badly, if not madly, ye make your conclusions agaynst vs, let wise men also iudge. For we neither confounde these powers, nor giue bothe to the Prince, nor make the Ciuill power simply superiour to the ecclesiastical power, although we giue the prince a superiour power, in respect of the ouer∣séeing that the eccl. power (whiche in the administration therof is higher, although not in the direction and mayntei∣ning therof) be not abused by the ecclesiasticall person.

Nowe M. Saunders hauing sayde thus muche of these three differēces, setteth downe a long sentence out of Chri∣sostome, wherein he extolleth the Priestly power, aboue the Kinges power, which notwithstanding, is nothing agaynst this superioritie that we attribute to Princes, although the office and administration of the ecclesiasticall power, be graunted to be neuer so muche superiour, and this is an∣swered vnto sufficiently already in M. St. Yet bicause we haue hereafter to deale at large with M. Stapleton on the same sentence of Chrysostome: I referre it to the proper and more fitter consideration of it. And thus much hath M. Sanders for these thrée differences, which he sayth he spea∣keth agaynst thrée errours.

The first errour is of them that say the royall power in a christian Prince, is higher than any ecclesiasticall power, which opinion the Englishe Protestantes defende. The se∣conde errour is of them, that extende the power royall, to certayne causes ecclesiasticall, to be knowne and iudged by the kings law. To conclude the thirde is of them that thinke a christian Prince, at the least in all ciuill businesse, and in his owne realme, alwayes and without all exception, to be greater thā any ecclesiastical Magistrate, nor that for any sin that he shall commit in the Church of God, he can be remo∣ued

from the administration of the kingdome.

I answere, neither these conclusions are sufficiently pro∣ued on these foresayd proues hitherto, nor some of them at all before mentioned. As the deposing of the Prince, which is another question, and héere as madly thrust in, as mali∣ciously and trayterously ment. Neither any of these conclu∣sions touche the English Protestants, for they defend none suche as you haue héere set downe. Name the parties and their assertions. Else in steade of M. Saunders, ye deserue to be rather called M. Slaunders.

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.

The thirde Chapter.

The argument is, that Princes can not iudge nor define in causes Eccle∣siasticall.

OF those errors that are about the povver of kings and ma∣gistrats the secōd error is of thē that thinke kings are not in dede the chief heads of the Churches in vvhich they raigne but in certaine causes Ecclesiastiall to bee euen as vvorthie members as Bishops▪ for although in one certaine thing (as in the office of teaching) they preferre Bishops before kings, yet partly in another Ecclesiasticall matter (as in deposing a By∣shop from his seat, or in moderating any synode, they preferre kings before Bishops, partly they vvill haue it free for kings,

that almoste in euery ecclesiasticall matter they may knowe and decerne as Iudges. Of the confutation of whiche errour, this is the reason, that I should shewe in euery cause of the ec∣clesiastical lawe, that is to be knowne and iudged, Kinges to be so muche in the place of priuate men, that this trial can not of the ecclesiasticall Iudges be committed vnto them, Al∣though I denie not, but that of some facte that perteyneth to the eccl. lawe, the knowledge may be committed to Kinges and Magistrates. But before the eccl. cause be known, the king may orderly intermeddle his authoritie, to that ende that a quiet place may be graunted, where the Bishops should iudge. And also that the Bishops may be called at a certayne day to that place. And that in the meane season, whyle the ecclesia∣sticall cause is knowne, the publique peace, yea euen in the assembly of Priestes may be conserued. To conclude, after the cause knowne and iudged of the Pristes, the king either by the sworde that he beareth not in vayne, or by some other bo∣dily punishment may correct him, if any man shall refuse to obey the Priestes sentence. Therefore we denie not, but that bothe before and about, and after the Bishoply iudgement, there are some partes of kinges, but in the office of iudging, kings can do more than can priuate men. For either of them can bothe giue counsell, and shewe what they thinke good: but neither of them can define, what the diuine or eccl. lawe declareth in that matter. VVhiche thing thus declared, let vs nowe come to the proofe of the matter it selfe.

All this then either néedeth none or little answere (M. Saunders) béeing barely anouched without any proofe, to the whiche ye are not yet come, but onely declare what ye will denie or graunt to Princes. Your graunt we take, and sée ye go not from it. But will all your fellowes, yea wyll your Pope him selfe graunt so muche, that the Emperour shall by his authoritie appoynt the certayne place and day where and when the Bishops shal holde their Councels? It was wont to be so in the olde time. But will your Pope

suffer this nowe, and that kinges shall do the lyke in their kingdomes? Nay M. Sau•…•…ders, he will mislike of this, and say, ye graunt too large a thong of another mans leather: howesoeuer you would by qualification, eate your graunt•…•… agayne, cleane contrarying your selfe, ascribing no more to Princes than to priuate men. And yet agayn you graunt, that bothe of them may giue counsell, and shewe what they thinke good in ecclesiasticall matters, although they can not determine them.

Goe to master Saunders, till you bring your proofes, we will take this graunte also of your liberalitie, that Princes may giue counsell and shewe what they thinke good. A good manie of your side will not graunt so muche, nor you but for a countenaunce sake neither. Althoughe yée doe them open iniurie, to compare them qualle (bee∣ing publique estates) to priuate menne. As for your determination of Gods law, what you meane thereby, when yée shewe your meaning playner, we will aunswere to it. Nowe to your proofes.

Master Saunders proofes in this Chapter kéepe this or∣der, first he alleageth the reasons for his partie. Second∣ly, he aunswereth oure obiections. Hys firste reason is this.

Those things that are of God, man can not dispose them otherwyse, than if God gyue vnto them suche authoritie▪ but the causes of faythe chiefly of all other are of GOD, bycause faythe is the moste necessarie gyfte of GOD, that no man can obtayne to him selfe by any force, either of nature or arte: the causes therefore of fayth can not be iud∣ged of other than of them, to whome God hath giuen that power.

I aunswere, the partes of thys argument be true, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the conclusion noughte, for there is more in the conclusion than in the premisses▪ The conclusion shoulde haue 〈◊〉〈◊〉

Therefore 〈◊〉〈◊〉 can not dispose the causes of fayth other∣wyse, than if God giue them suche authoritie. Howebeit, we simply denie not M. Saunders conclusion: but would haue him distinguish what he meanes by iudgeing. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 he meane disposing causes of fayth otherwise than God hath already in his word disposed them, (or else his argumente hathe no sense nor sequele:) then the conclusion, as it is not proued, so is it apparant false. Neyther giue we suche iudgement to Princes, or to any other creature, for suche power God hath giuen to none. Althoughe the Popishe priestes falsly clayme suche power, to dispose matters of fayth otherwyse, than God disposed them.

But master 〈◊〉〈◊〉 will proue hys, conclusion on thi•…•… wyse:

But God hath giuen suche power to certayne men, and not at large to all Christian people. Therefore none haue it but they.

The antecedent he proues from Saincte Paule, Ephe∣sians the fourth.

For God hathe ordeyned, some Apostles, other Prophets, other Euangelistes, other Pastors, and Teachers, to the edi∣•…•…ying of his mysticall body, whiche is the Churche. But other hee made as it were sheepe and lambes, that they shoulde bee edifyed by their pastors and teachers, and too whome their pastors shoulde attende, that they should not be caried awaye with euerie blaste of doctrine by the subtiltie of man.

I answere agayne as before. If he meane by iudgeing. •…•…eaching with sounde iudgement, it is true, and this sen∣•…•…ence well applyed: but if he meane as his principall •…•…roposition was, whereon all dependes. Disposing thin∣•…•…es of faythe otherwise. Then wée denie the antece∣•…•…ente and the con•…•…equence too. As for thys sentence, •…•…roues no suche iudgement giuen to any of these persons,

but rather confutes it, as not to edifie, but to destroy, and to be caried away by the subtiltie of men with euery blast of doctrine if men might dispose otherwise of fayth than God him selfe hath dispo•…•…ed.

Nowe vpon this sentence of S. Paule for Pastors, be reasoneth thus:

But Pastors only iudge what is fit or not fit for the sheepe. For, to conclude that sheepe are indued with equal power to Pastors, this were nothing else, but to take away the differēce that Christ hath set betweene the Pastors and the sheepe, and the thinges that he hath distinguyshed, to mingle and con∣founde them. Kinges therefore and Magistrates, if they be counted sheepe in the flo•…•…ke of Christ (as in deede sheepe they are) iudge not togither with the Pastors.

The argument is thus made formall.

Pastors do onely iudge what is fit or not fit for the sheepe. But Princes are not Pastors, but sheepe of the flocke of Christ.

Ergo, Princes do not iudge what is fit or not fit for them, The maior he proueth thus.

To conclude that the sheepe haue equall power with Pa∣stors, is nothing else, but to mingle and confounde and take away the difference that Christ hath set betweene the Pastors and the sheepe.

But if Princes should iudge, the sheepe should haue equall power.

Ergo, For Princes to iudge were to mingle, confound, and take away the difference that Christ hath set betweene the Pastors and the sheepe.

First, to the maior I answere, he siftes the similitude of a shepherde and shéepe too narrowe. For although in some resemblaunces it holde, yet is it not simply true, that the Pastor onely iudgeth what is fitte or not fitte for this kinde of sheepe. He him selfe confesseth before, and after agayne confesseth, that the priuate man or Princes may giue coun∣sell

and priuate iudgement. And S. Paule speaking not of the pastor, but of the spiritual man, that is, of the sheepe of God, sayth: Spiritualis omnia iudicat, the spiritual man iud∣geth all thinges. And Christe biddes the people beware of false prophets, which can not be without iudgement.

Neyther is this sufficient proofe of the maior that he al∣leageth: to contende that the sheepe hath equal power, is to confounde Christes distinction.

Wée graunte this, it were so. But this wée denie, that héereby the sheepe is made to haue equall power. For, the iudgement of the pastor is one thing, and the power of the pastor is another, althoughe it oughte to haue iudgement concurring with it. Neither ascribe wée iudge∣ment alike to the pastors and the sheepe, although in this spirituall kinde of sheepe, some of them haue more sounde and perfect iudgement than their pastors.

To the minor, I answere, it is not simply true neyther, for in one sense, not onely the pastors them selues are lyke wyse sheepe, but also the Princes them selues are pastors. In the former sense, euery faythfull Christian is a sheepe v•…•…der Christe, the onely shepehearde, and must heare his voyce. And so the Prieste is a shéepe also, or else he shall neuer be in the folde of the Churche, nor pla∣ced at the righte hande of Christe. In the other sense, not onely the Prince is suche a Pastor as Homer calleth Aga∣•…•…emnon, and rules and féedes the body (and so the Prie∣stes are his sheepe, as well as other subiectes:) but also in protection & setting foorth of Gods worde throughout his Dominions: he is their pastor too, in appoynting the pa∣stors to féede the sheepe onely in Gods pastures. And in this sense we ascribe supreme Pastorship vnto him, ouer the Priest also. Althoughe in the ministerie of the worde and Sacramentes, the Prieste agayne is his superiour pa∣stor, and the Prince is but his sheepe. But master Saun∣ders replies.

But if they be counted as Pastors: I aske whence they proue it that Christe gaue them suche power? for what haue they that they haue not receiued? but Christ, as he tooke not awaye or diminished the auncient power of kinges, graunted by the lawe of Nations, so neither annexed he vn∣to them a newe power of feeding his sheepe. Moreouer, the auncient power of kinges, althoughe it be of God, yet is it of him by the meane of the lawe of Nations, and the Ciuill, and not by any especiall and chiefe constitution of the Gospell, as is before declared. If therefore Kinges and polytike Magistrates haue any power in causes of faythe, either they receiued it from the lawe naturall, of Nations and of the Ciuill, or of the lawe of God, that is reuealed to the Churche. But (to beginne with the later member firste) by the lawe of God, that is reuealed to the Churche, no suche thing is graunted to kinges. For nothing else is reuealed in the newe Testament concerning Princes, than that that is Cesars shoulde be giuen to Cesar, that tributes shoulde be payde, that kings should be prayed for, that bothe the King and the gouernours sent from him should be obeyed, and fi∣nally, that al power proceedeth frō God, & that euery Magi∣strate beares not the sworde in vaine, but in that matter, is to be acknowledged to be Gods minister. Moreouer none of these places do bid the king by name dispose of the Churche of Christ, or in causes of fayth to arrogate ought to him self.

The argument in briefe is thus:

If princes be counted as pastors, they haue suche power giuen them.

But they haue no suche power giuen them.

Ergo, They are not counted as pastors.

I answere, firste to the maior, rightly vnderstoode it is true, that if princes may be counted as pastors, the authoritie is giuen them. But it is truely to be vnder stoode by distinc∣tion of pastorall authoritie.

Secondly, to the minor, that Princes haue no pastorall

authoritie giuen them, it is false. Neither doe his proues proue it. If any were giuen them, it was giuen them, either by the lawe of Nations, or by the Ciuill, or by Christ in the new Testament:

But it is giuen them by neither of these three:

Ergo, they haue none giuen them.

To the maior I aunswere, it is false. Bycause he lea∣ueth oute the olde Testament, whiche he confessed hym selfe before, was a figure of the pastorship of the new Testa∣ment, & here he leaues out the old Testament quite. Which had he named as he ought to haue done, he should both haue séene Princes to haue bene ordeyned immediately of God, as Moyses, Iosue, all the Iudges, Saule, Dauid, and Salo∣mon: and not by the meane of the lawe of Nations, nor the lawe Ciuill comming betweene. And he should haue •…•…ounde that the Prince of Gods people is appoynted, namely to be a pastor or shepheard vnto them. Num. 27. Moses spake to the Lorde, saying: Let the Lorde God of the spirite of all fleshe, appoynt a man ouer the congregation, who maye go oute and in before them, and leade them out and in, that the congregation of the Lorde be not as sheepe without a Pa∣stor. 2. Reg. 5. All the Tribes of Israell came to Dauid vnto Hebron, and sayde thus: Beholde we are thy bones and thy fleshe, and in times past when Saule was our king, thou leddest Israell in and out, and the Lorde hath sayde vnto thee, thou shalt feed my people Israel. In which words Dauid was made their pastor or shepherd, which was resēbled be∣fore in his kéeping of natural shéepe, as he confesseth of him self. He chose Dauid also his seruant, and toke him away frō the sheepe foldes, as he was following the Ewes great with yong ones, he tooke him that he might leade Iacob his peo∣ple, & Israel his inheritance. So he fed thē with a faythfull and true heart and ruled thē prudently with al his power: Which worde of féeding belonging to a pastor, God ascribeth also to al the Iudges, saying▪ VVhen I commaunded the Iudges

to feede my people. And in. 1. Chro. 11. And the Lorde sayde vnto thee, thou shalt feede my people of Israell. and be the prince. &c. And in the. 3. booke of the Kings, whē Micheas described in his vision the kings destruction, he sayth: I saw Israel dispersed on the mountaynes, as sheepe without a pa∣stor, and the Lorde sayde, these haue no master. &c. By these and many other places it appeareth that God appoynted the Prince to be a pastor in his office: but his office (as is proued at large before) stretchet•…•… to the setting •…•…oorthe the lawe of God, and gouernement of the priests so well as the laytie: therefore his pastorshippe stretcheth so farre also, although not to the taking vpon him the office of the spiri∣tuall pastor.

Secondly, I aunswere to the minor, it is false. For, not only by the lawe of Nations, and Ciuill, a politike pastor∣shippe is committed to the Prince: but also a Christian pa∣storshippe to a christian Prince, euen in the newe Testa∣ment also. Which as it is comprehended in these sentences that M. Saunders here sets down, so are there more senten∣ces that declare the Princes pastorship.

But sayth he, none of these do bidde the king by name to dispose of the Church of Christ, or in causes of fayth, arro∣gate ought to him selfe.

This is a wrong conclusion, M. Saunders, from iudge∣ment & pastorship to inferre disposing & arrogating. As for arrogating neither the Prince nor the Priest ought to do it, nor the Prince attemptes it, althoughe the Priestes haue and do attempte it. Likewyse for disposing, if you meane as ye sayde before, disposing otherwyse than Christ hath done: your Priestes do so, but they ought not to do so. The Prince can not do it, nor he dothe it, nor claymes to doe it, nor it is ascribed vnto him. Yea, thoughe you meane by disposing, no alteration: yet is this an harde phrase, to say that Princes or priestes either, dispose of the Churche of Christe, but rather dispose of matters in the

Church of Christ. And this as the Priest may doe in his vo∣cation, so may the Prince in his estate. Which though it be not expressed by name, but comprehended in the newe Testa∣ment: yet is it euen by name expressed in the olde Testa∣ment in diuers places, of the disposing of Church matters by Moyses, Iosue, Dauid, Salomon, Iosaphat, Ezechias. &c. And since your selfe confesse, the one gouernment is a figure of the other. And that the gouernment before Christ, he nei∣ther brake it nor diminished it: it followeth, that thē he left it entire and confirmed it. And therfore although the Princes disposing of Churche matters be not by name expressed, yet is it by your reasō, necessarilie comprehended, and so you an∣swere your selfe.

Now after he hath thus (as he supposeth) debarred Prin∣ces from all warrant oute of the law of God and the newe Testament: he examineth the other lawes, saying:

Except therefore by the lawe of nature, the law of nations or the lawe ciuill such power be permitted too the king, it is cleare, that he hath no power at all ouer these things: But cer∣taine it is, that those lawes cannot giue to the king any power ouer things, that are not subiect to those lawes. For no law can establishe ought, either of other things, or persons, or actions, than those things that fall vnder the compasse of it. But Eccle∣siasticall matters do infinitly excede the power of the lawe of Nature, of nations, and the ciuill. For of these three the law of nature is the first and greatest. But neither that (sith it begā in the earth) can decree ought vpon the mysteries of Christe, which draw their originall from heauen onely. For, that I may speake nothing of the force of nature being yet entire, truely after that the nature of all mankynd by the sinne of Adam was corrupted, and death entring by one man passed into al: it can not be, that from that infected originall, any good thing shoulde come forth. For an ill tree can not bring forth good fruites, neither doth the fleshely man (such as we all be, by na∣ture) perceiue those things that are of the spirite of God.

All this labor is a néede not (M. Saunders) to run (for con∣firmation of a Christian doctrine) from the law of God to the lawe of nature and the lawe of man, we vse not so to doe Nei∣ther desire we anye doctrine to be admitted, that is not pro∣ued by the lawe of God reuealed in his worde vnto vs, it is you the Papists that stand on such proues and grounds, not we. Howbeit, you do iniurie to the law of nature, to measure it altogether by the corruption of our nature. For, howsoe∣uer we be degenerate from it, the law of nature remaineth in it selfe both good and perfect, and is called likewise the law of God. Neither can I thinke that euery ecclesiasticall thing (as ecclesiasticall things are commonly vnderstoode) is infi∣nitely aboue the power of the law of nature. By which rea∣son many petit matters, would be farre aboue great princi∣ples. Yea many great Ecclesiasticall matters doe fall with∣in the compasse of the lawe of nature. It is true y^t you say of the corruption of our nature, that by the fall of Adam sin hath infected the Masse of all mankinde. Death by one man hath entred into all men. No goodnesse can come of such a corrup∣ted originall. An ill tree can not bring forth good fruite and that the fleshely man perceiueth not the things that are of the spirit of God. All this is true, but is it not as much against a Priest as a Prince? for y^e Priest in that he is a man is borne in sinne, and dyeth by death the reward of sinne, nor cā bring forth any good fruites, nor perceiue the things of the spirit of God. And the prince, in that he is a Christiā, is washed from his sinne. The sting of death hath no power ouer him, but is a passage to eternall life. He is regenerate by a newe origi∣nall from aboue. He is a good tree and bringeth good fruits, and is become a spirituall man, perceiuing and working the things that are of the spirite of God, and that perchaunce a great deale better than many a good Priest, and without all doubt, farre more spirituall than any Popishe Priest. And therefore that ye speake of the corruption of nature, is no∣thing to the purpose, excepte it be to confute your errors of

pura naturalia, fréewill, preparatiue workes. &c. But Maister Saunders drist is this, that onely the Priests are spirituall men. and so may onely Iudge of spiritual things, and Princes are but naturall, fleshely and sinnefull men, and so can giue no Iudgement of spirituall matters. But howe vntrue this is, how presumptuous on his partie, and iniurions to all Chri∣stian Princes: and how contrary to his owne selfe, that faith else where, Christian Princes are spirituall: I thinke anye that haue but meane Iudgement, may easily Iudge it. But Maister Saunders procéedeth saying:

But to Iudge of Ecclesiasticall matters is no small good thyng but one of the chiefest that Christe hath gyuen vnto his Church: bycause he hath gyuen the power of feeding, of losyng and bynding to his Apostles, that is, to the chiefest Magistrates of hys Churche, euen as the greatest gifte, VVhich gifte they coulde neuer well exercise but wyth Iudge∣ment eyther goyng before or goyng with it. For he that shall binde nothing but that that shoulde be bounde, and shall lose nothing but that that shoulde be losed, must of necessitie be∣fore hande deliberate and decree, that this is to bee bounde, and that is to bee losed. But to decree suche a thing to bee done, or not to be done, in Christian Religion, this is euen that that we call, to Iudge in matters of Faith. Syth therfore a power so heauenly and notable, can not spring oute of the beginnings of our corrupte nature: it followeth, that it com∣meth onely of the free mercie of God. But that mercie of God is made manifest vnder the time of the new Testament, partlye by the lawe written, partly not written: but neyther waye anye povver is gyuen to Kyngs in Ecclesiasticall cau∣ses.

This argumēt (M. Saūders) is like the hopping of a reūd, that from the law of the new Testament, went about to in∣firme it by the lawe of nature, and so fetching a circumqua∣que, commeth in again with this conclusion, that it is not by the law of the newe Testament. So that where we thought

we had procéeded •…•…urder, wée are nowe where wée were be∣fore. But to let goe the naughtinesse of the argument. We graunt, that to iudge aright of Ecclesiasticall matters, is a great gift of God, but that y^e iudgemēt of ecclesiasticall mat∣ters is onelie to be restrained to binding and losing (as you here define, what you meane by iudging in matters of faith) this is a manifest falsehood. True it is, that binding and lo∣sing can not rightly be withoute iudgement, nor withoute right iudgement (and therefore your Pope and you doe erre so often herein) both binding that that should be losed, and losing that that should be bound, errante claue, as ye terme it, your key erring: and erring also not onely in things to be bounde or losed, but in the power it selfe of binding & losing too. Yet notwithstanding binding and losing, and the iudge∣ment requisite in binding and losing, are two distinct and se∣ueral things: and iudgement reacheth furder to other things also, euen in the Priest himselfe, besides the Princes iudge∣ment. And therefore as this definition of iudgement in mat∣ters of faith, is preposterously brought in (for ye oughte be∣fore to haue defined, what ye ment by iudgemente) so is it false, for other matters of faithe require iudgement besides binding and losing.

Now where you say, this power commeth not of the prin∣ciples of our corrupt nature, but of the free mercie of God: you say truth: But that ye adde, the mercie of God is made manifest vnder the time of the newe testament, partlye by the law written, partly not written: is spoken ambiguously. For, that Princes iudged in matters of faith was also made ma∣nifest in the olde Testament, but that Princes haue power to binde and lose, we graunt is neither manifest nor couert, neither in the olde or newe. As for the newe lawe to be de∣uided into written and not written: is another error and im∣pertinent to this question. Your vnwritten lawe of the new Testament we stand not vpon. But to affirme that by nei∣ther way written or vnwritten, no power is giuen to kings

in Ecclesiasticall matters: that we denie, and your self haue rather confuted it, thā hither to confirmed it. But to confirme it, ye bring out this reason:

Neither were thene at the beginning any Christian Kings to whom Christ shoulde haue committed any power, nor the Apostles gaue any rule, according where vnto the kings should iudge of Ecclesiasticall causes.

That there were no Christian kings then, is not materi∣all. For by this rule, they should be no defenders of the faith neither, bicause Princes were not thē defenders of it. But y^t the Apostles gaue no rule whereby they should iudge, is false. For whosoeuer should iudge, shuld iudge by gods word, and this rule Christ and his Apostles gaue in generall. But that Princes mighte iudge, is both proued from the olde Testa∣ment, and by the text that M. Saunders himselfe citeth out of the new, yea by that he saith immediatly.

For if any man say kings are appointed iudges in a cause of the faith, only bicause by Baptisme they are made spiritual mē, who iudge all things, and the spirites do trie those things that are of God: this in dede I graunt to be true in the kynde and maner of the priuate, but not of the publique iudgement. For it is another thing, when thou art a member of the Catholike Church, nor preferrest thy selfe before thy pastours, what is necessarie for thee priuately to Iudge (and this the vnction tea∣cheth) and another thing to take vpon thee power to teache others, and to prescribe to thy Pastors what they ought to do or teache, when thou art not called to the publique ministerie of the Church as Aaron was.

We know there is a difference betwéen priuate and pub∣lique Iudgement. But that this place of S. Paule, The spiri∣tuall man Iudgeth all things, is only to be vnderstoode of pri∣nate Iudgement: is but the priuate iudgement of M. Saun∣ders. But it is well that he graunteth priuate iudgement to euery Christian man. Neither is it any reason then, it shuld be debarred irom any Christian Princes, neither is it anye

reason that the Prince (although in his priuate Iudgement▪) rightly iudging a matter of faithe to be true, shoulde not ap∣proue & set forth y^e same publiquely, by his princely authori∣tie. And so his priuate Iudgement, directs his publique Iudge∣ment. For a Prince is not only a priuate man, but a publique man also, not that he may doe all things of his owne priuate or publique Iudgement, nor take vpon him the publique mi∣nisterie of the pastour in teaching, being not called, as Aaron was: for this is not ascribed to the Prince, bicause he giueth a publique Iudgement in respect he is a publique person: but his Iudgement is a publique approbation and establishing of that, that is alreadie by others Iudgement▪ iudged, to whome the discussing appertaineth. In which discussing, althoughe the godly & learned clergie (being called as Aaron was) haue the greatest skill and charge of Iudgement: yet the lay men, suche as are also learned and godly, haue a publique Iudge∣ment too. Or else, why saith Panormitane, we shoulde more beleue a lay man alleaging scripture, than the whole coun∣cell besides? but nowe the truth being once founde out, by these learned Iudgements: the Princes publique Iudgement, as it called them together, as it gaue them their charge, so it prescribeth what the pastors ought to doe and teache therin, without any preiudice to the spirituall pastors Iudgement in the function of his doing and teaching.

Now hauing thus set downe his owne assertions, he will enter on the other part, to confute our obiections. And first he alleageth this reason of the protestantes:

In all the olde Testamente we sée gouernors and Kings both to haue prescribed to the priests what they ought to doe in ecclesiasticall matters, and also to haue remoued them frō the ministerie that haue negligently done their dutie.

To this obiecton M. Saunders answere is this, that this reason holdes not from the olde Testament to the new.

If this came so to passe in the olde Testament (saith he) yet no reason shuld compell, that the same shuld be so in the new

Testament, sith the reason of the eccl. gouernment is changed.

And are you changed too M. Saunders, that saide before & after say, & make all your booke of it, that y^e ecclesiastical kind of gouernment hath bene alwayes one, and that is, a vi•…•…ble Monarchie, euen from Adam to Pope Pius▪ 5. and said, that if the gouernement be changed, the Churche must needes be changed t•…•…o: and made the gouernement of the olde Testa∣ment, to be a figure of y^e new. But now that you are beaten with your owne arguments, you say they hold not by reason the ecclesiasticall gouernment is changed. But I see Maister Saūders you woulde deale with vs, as the riche man dealt with his poore neighbor, When y^e poore mā complained say∣ing, I beseeche your worship be good vnto me, for my Cowe hath goared your Bull. What hath he? (quoth the riche mā) I tell thée plaine thou shalt pay for him then. I cry you mer∣cy sir (quoth the poore mā) I should haue said, your bull hath goared my cowe, tushe quoth the rich mā, the case is altered, that it is another matter. And so I perceiue M. Saūders it is with you, when the Priest is said to haue any authoritie in the olde Testament, marke that (say you) that maketh for vs, and why so? bicause y^e olde Testament is a figure of the new, y^e gouernement (& ye marke it) was for the priest, but y^e gouernment must not alter, the states must be a like, and all this geare. But now sir it is proued the kings gouernement was aboue the priests. Is it so? say you, that is another ma∣ner of matter, tush, thē the case is altered. If this came to passe in the olde Testament, yet no reason shoulde compell that the same should be so in the new Testament, fith the reason of the ecclesiasticall gouernement is changed. But as the prouerbe sayth, y^e case is altered, but y^e matter is where it was. What a mockerie is this in so waightie and plaine a matter? But let vs heare your reasons Maister Saunders.

Nor without cause (say you) for the Synagog of the Iewes, although it cōtained in it som true Israelits & iust mē, yet both it was, & was called a earthly rather thā a heuēly kingdōe in so much

that Augustine doubteth whether in the olde Testament the kingdome of heauen be euer named or no, much lesse that it is promised for rewarde. For those things that were done did signifie in dede diuine things (and so the lawe it selfe was also spirituall) but the things themselues were not in themselues so diuine as our things are, in so much that the Apostle teacheth, that the glorie of the Synagoge was no glory at all, in respect of the excellente glorye of that Ministerie, whiche nowe is exercised in the Church by the Ministers of the newe Testa∣ment, not in the letter, but in the spirite. Therfore sith the peo∣ple of God consisteth of a bodie and a soule or spirite, the car∣nall part obtained the principalitie in the olde people, and was ordained to signifie spirituall things. VVhervpō, as mount Sy∣nai, the kindled fire, the whirlewind, the darknesse, the storme, and sounde of the trumpet, and voyce of the words, was onely of the earth and carnall: so nowe all things are spirituall and internall. There raigned the seruile feare of God, and the bo∣dily sworde: but here is moste deare loue, and the spirituall sworde: they abuse therfore the holy Scriptures, that for those things that were done of the Kings in the olde Testamente: thinke now also that the kingdome of heauen (which is the Church) should be subiect to earthly kings.

This answere why the gouernement is changed, is a de∣pressing of their estate in comparisō of ours: that theirs was more earthly, & ours more spirituall which, as in part we de∣nie not, & yet repute not theirs so grossely as here he makes it: yet is this comparison plainely wrested, to inferre altera∣tion of gouernement thervpon, from the Princes ouer the Priests then, to the Priests ouer the Princes nowe. For this alteration maketh the olde, not to prefigure the newe: but to destroy it, as no comparison but a cleane contrarietie. But the true comparison being such, as the one estate prefi∣gured the other: the excellencie is in the difference of this aboue that, retaining still the same estate of gouernment, so that, if those godly Princes, did so well order their gouerne∣ment

in those causes, that in comparison were but earthly, and not so deuine as ours: then muche more shoulde our Christian Princes, order their gouernment better, in much more excellent ecclesiasticall matters. And thus, both the fi∣gure and the comparison holdeth.

But M. Saunders turneth all, (as though the King and the Prieste were compared togither) that the kings go∣uernement was but earthly then, and the priestes gouerne∣ment now is spiritual. Wheras the cōparison is of y^e things gouerned, and not of the gouernors. And yet to compare those with these gouernors, those earthly Princes were not so litle spirituall then, but these spirituall Priestes are ten times more earthly, grosse, and carnall nowe.

What S. Augustine douteth I remember not, but we without doubting know now, that the kingdome of heauen was promised then to them, so well as nowe to vs, and they without doubting hoped for it, and vndoubtedly did receiue it, and do enioy it.

The comparison of glorie that Saint Paule maketh, that theirs was nothing to ours, is true But he speaketh not thereof, comparing visible glories, the one with the other, such as the ministerie of the Popishe Church settes for the it selfe withall: For in such outwarde glorie, the olde Lawe passed the new, the Pharisies passed Christe, the Heatheus passed the Christians, both in the Apostles time, and long while after, till the glorious ministerie of the Pope hath far excelled them all. The examples of the glorie and terror in Mount Synai, of the seruile feare, of the bodily sword, are iumbled togither disorderly, and are compared to spirituall resemblances or contraries, in the Gospell. But as they take not away the Christian Magistrates bodily sword nor glorie, so meddle they not with alteration of Princes go∣uernement ouer Ministers in causes ecclesiasticall, & there∣fore are méere impertinent. But if all these shiftes will not serue, then saith M. Saunders, sée the inconueniences.

Othervvise if the state of the olde kings shall be drawne to the time of the newe Testament, shall not the state of the Byshops of the Leuiticall tribe, by the same reason be drawne to our time also? lette there be therefore one tribe appointed to the outwarde Priesthoode, let there be one Temple in the world, let there be but one Byshop, and let bloud sacrifices be restored. But if thou confes•…•…est these things are made voyde, wherefore grauntest thou not also, that those things are voide that kings haue done about diuine matters▪ are only the do∣ings of kings eternal, nor could they be changed, so farre as pertained to the disposing of holy things?

What could or what could not be done (M. Saunders) we stande not vpon, but what is, or what is not done, is the question And that the state of the ciuill gouernement is not altered, your sel•…•… haue often graunted, that the gouernment still was one, that the one was a figure of the other, that Christe toke not away, nor diminished the Princes authori∣tie. As for the Leuiticall Law of the Priests, the scripture is plaine in many places, that it is cleane dissolued, you cannot therefore make these alike, except you wil become a Iewe. And so it seemeth by this your wicked reason, you had ra∣ther renounce the Priesthoode & sacrifice of Christe, & bring in againe the priesthoode & sacrifice of the olde law, than you woulde giue Princes authoritie ouer Priestes in the newe lawe. But now that M. Sanders hath thus answered the Protestantes argument, from the gouernement in the olde law, by saying the case is altered, and the gouernment chan∣ged: he preuenteth the Protestan•…•…s replie, & setteth downe an other obiection in their name.

If those things that were done in the old lawe, are not to be drawne to the time of the newe Testament, wherefore flee the Papists for the primacie of the B. of Rome, to the exam∣ple of one Leuiticall Byshop: and also for the outwarde sacri∣fice, to the olde sacrifices.

You put our obiectiō amisse M. San. For althogh it be true that you Papists (as you terme your self) do flée to y^e exāples

of y^e Leuiticall Bishops & sacrifices, for your Pope & Masse: yet do not we in suche an indefinite generalitie, drawe these things that were done in the old law, in the time of the new Testament. But restrain our selues to the present matter, & bring examples therof, out of the old Testament, to proue y^e like authoritie in the time of the new. And thiss. Aug. doth, & your self do the same, & it is not derogatorie to the office of Christ, as are the other examples that you do stée vnto. Nei∣ther do we make our obiection so, as allowing it to be lauful for you to flée to y^e one: & why may not we likewise alledge y^e other? for your refuge is altogither vnlawful. As for our ob∣iection we make it thus: that if you make exception against our examples of Princes, bicause they were so in y^e old law, & are not dissolued in the new: with what face can you bring exāples for your Pope & your Masse out of y^e old law, which for the points of external sacrificing priesthood, & external sa∣crifices, is cleane abrogated? & thus the Protestants obiectiō is good. But let vs nowe sée, what you answere there vnto.

VVhat soeuer (say you) was excellent & perfect in the old law, that worthily we graunt, ought to be much more in the church of God. For the state of the church is much more thā the state of the Synagog. But externally to sacrifice vnto god is a perfect thing, & therfore it was not only receiued in Mo∣ses lawe, but also in the lawe of nature being better. And that the people of God shuld be gouerned vnder one Byshop, is a point of perfection, for so both controuersies were ended, & peace was conserued in the people of God. But the maner of the sacrifices, by the bloud of beastes & external fire, was im∣perfect those things therfore being reiected that were of im∣perfection, we saye well, that those thinges are to be retained which in times past belonged to perfection, not indede those in the same kinde and order, but in a higher.

The argument is thus: VVhat soeuer in the old law was perfect, ought to be retained. &c. But the external sacrifice, & but one B. to gouerne, was perfecte, Ergo, externall sacrifice and one B. to gouerne, is to be retained.

Here M. Saunders, first we deny the maior, for neither euery thing, although it were then more perfecte, did still a∣byde or is yet to be retained: neither your own former say∣ings agrée here vnto. You said erewhile, the state before the kings wae more perfecte, and yet that state abode not then, nor holdeth nowe. And euen here in this argument, you call the state before Moses Law, a state of a better nature, neuer∣thelesse that state aboade not still, nor abydeth nowe: and ye knowe that the Iudiciall lawe of the Iewes, if they had yet a polytike gouernement, might still remaine among them. But the Leuiticall and ceremoniall lawe, might in no wise remaine among them. And yet I am sure you will not say, the Iudiciall lawe was the more perfecte, and better than the Ceremoniall was. Your rule therefore that you builde vpon, is not so perfect and generall as you make it.

To the minor likewise we deny it, whiche consistes in •…•…. pointes the one, for that which you make perfecte, the other vnperfect. You make perfect the outwarde Sacrifice, and the gouernement of one Leuiticall Byshop. But neither of these were perfect, as S. Paule at large to the Hebrues proueth. Yea, yourselfe M. Saunders doe proue it, and confute your selfe. The outvvarde sacrifice (say you) vvas a perfect thing, and yet before you called outvvarde things earthly, carnall, corporall, and vnperfecte, and perfecte things, onely inward and spirituall: and that the state of the olde lawe shoulde be chaunged, bycause all thinges were outvvarde and earthly with them, and so they were vnperfecte. But you thinke to excuse the master with this shift, not that the sacrifices were vnperfect but the manner of sacrificing vvas vnperfecte, by∣cause they were done by the bloude of beastes, and by out∣warde fire. Why M. Saunders, what is this outwarde man∣ner of sacrificing, but the outward sacrificing it selfe? except you meane the matter sacrificed, whiche was muche more vnperfect, so that neyther in manner nor mater it was per∣fecte. But all their outwarde sacrifices were by outwarde

shedding of bloude, and burning vvith outwarde fire: No perfection then consisted in those outwarde sacrifices. And therefore God oftentimes reiecteth them, and preferred o∣bedience and the inwarde sacrifice of the heart before them, euen in that time that God appointed them to be vsed.

Well, say you, yet the people to be gouerned by one By∣shop was a point of perfection.

And why dare you not say it was perfection, you shoulde proue this, y^t it was a perfect thing. But then s. Paule wold soone proue you a lyer. Yea, you woulde proue your selfe a Iewe, and one that denyeth the perfection of Chrystes By∣shoprike.

But saye you: the succession of Byshoppes according to fleshe and bloude was vnperfecte.

And nothing else vnperfecte M. Saunders? if you hadde more perfectly marked S. Paule, you shoulde haue founde their Byshoprike altogither vnperfect, and therefore taken altogither away.

But yet say you: Those things therefore of imperfection being cast away, we say well that these things are to be retay∣ned, whiche in times past belonged to perfection, not those things in the same kinde and order, but in a higher sorte.

We graunt you this M. Saunders, in respecte of the mo∣rall lawe, whiche belonging to perfection (althoughe man coulde not by reason of his imperfection atteine thereto) re∣maineth still the same thing, in an other kind of order. And if ye talke also of the high Byshoprike referred to Christe: one bishoprik likewise remaineth in a higher kind of order, neyther so is sacrifice taken awaye. For, as we haue one Prieste for euer which is Christ: so we haue one propitiato∣rie sacrifice, which is the death of Christ. But if you say this is not still done outwardly as it had wont to be: I answere it néede not, bycause it was effectuall once for euer, whiche argueth the perfection of it, for to be done dayly argueth imperfection: neyther lyeth the perfection and excellencie

in the outvvardnesse, but as your selfe before and after con∣fesse, the more spiritual, the more excellent: but spiritual sa∣crifices we haue, and therefore the other outvvarde of the Iewes are gone, as those that were vnperfect, and with the outwarde sacrifices, is the outward priesthood gone also. But still blundring on with your false principles, you goe for∣ward, to proue that you haue taken the best, & left the wor•…•… in the priesthoode and sacrifices of the Iewes: saying,

For the high B. in the state of the Gospell, is not borne af∣ter the propagation of the fleshe, but is elected according to the giftes of spirituall grace. And our sacrifices consist not in shedding of the bloud of beastes, but in remēbring the bloud of the immaculate Lambe, and in dayly setting forth after an vnbloudie manner, the substance of the Lambe. And so that which was spiritual & perfecte in the lavv, vve haue not lost▪ but that vvhich was vnperfect and carnal we haue not kept.

You coine Maximies M. Sanders, & speake as one th•…•… might kéepe and leaue what he liste, standing still on you•…•… former presupposall, that to haue one visible Byshop ouerall Gods people, is a pointe of perfection, and to haue outwarde sacrifices, is also a point of perfection. But neither of these i•…•… yet proued, which sh•…•…uld haue firste bene done, and then y•…•… might haue entred your comparison, whether those or the•…•… were better. You preferre your Pope, bycause he hath 〈◊〉〈◊〉 high Byshoprike (as you cal it) not by byrth, but by election, according to the giftes of spirituall grace: but as the election of the Pope verie often hath falne out with so small giftes of spiritual grace, y^t al y^• grace was either in the gifts of brybi•…•… money, of canuased factions, or of geuing cuf•…•…es and dealing of harde blowes for it: so the obtayning the highe By∣shoprike of the Iewes that descended by byrth, was many•…•… times farre the better. As for sacrifices, where you saye, yours consist not in shedding the bloude of beastes, wha•…•… auayleth it, hauing imbrued your mouthes with the bloud•…•… of Christ? for if as you pretende you drinke his very bloude,

•…•…owe are you not bloudsuckers, and your sacrifice worsse than was the Iewes. Besides the cruell sacrifices that you dayly make, in shedding the bloude of men and Saintes of God, a farre worsse sacrifice than shedding the bloude of beastes. For, of that, for the time, God was the appointer, but of this the Deuill is the authour, that was an homicide from the beginning.

But you say your sacrifice of Chryste is not bloudie. If it be of bloude, howe is it not bloudie? if it be not bloudie, •…•…owe is it of bloude? It is (say you) in a remembrance of the •…•…mmaculate Lambe. Woulde you stande to this, Maister Saunders, then indéede it were not bloudie, for the remem∣•…•…rance of bloud is not bloud it selfe. But straight ways you •…•…onfute your selfe, and come in with setting forthe the sub∣stance of the Lambe. Whereas Chryste sayde not, his Dis∣•…•…iples shoulde sette forthe his substance, but they shoulde •…•…et forth his death. But the death of Chryste is one thing, •…•…nd the substance of Christe another thing. Neither dothe Christe make the Sacrament of his bodie, a sacrifice of his •…•…odie, muche lesse maketh he two sacrifices of himselfe, the •…•…ne done once for all, the other dayly done: the one for himselfe to exhibite, the other for them to exhibite: the •…•…ne bloudie, the other vnbloudie. These are the sacrifices of •…•…our Popes making, prophaning & deroga•…•…ing from the sa∣•…•…ifice of Iesus Christe, and therfore worsse than the Iewes •…•…crifices, that were the figure of it, and for the time were •…•…ood. Now such as is your sacrifice, suche muste needes your •…•…crificing priesthoode be. You haue not therefore as you •…•…ake, for your sacrifice and Priesthoode, retained the bet∣•…•…r, but haue deuised the worsse, and suche as are starke •…•…aught.

As for the other part of the minor, for the estate of Princes 〈◊〉〈◊〉 •…•…aue bene imperfecte, and therfore abolished: you labour 〈◊〉〈◊〉 proue two wayes. The one admitting the Prince 〈◊〉〈◊〉 haue bene greater than the Prieste, in procuring

ecclesiasticall matters, what a great imperfection, for diuer•…•… causes it had bene: the other by flat denyall, that the Prin∣ces were the greater, in administring those thinges that per∣tained to ec•…•…l. matters.

These are subtill spéeches, M. Saunders, and maye be doubtfully vnderstoode. As thoughe we ment, the Prince were a more principall executer or doer of those thinges. Whereas we plainely affirme that in the Ministeriall pro∣curation, the Priest was the highest. But in respect of ouer∣seeing that euen the highest Priest shoulde doe his duetie: therein we say, the Prince was greater than he. And that is proued by the first obiection, that your self, M. Saunders, propounde of the Protes•…•…ntes: neyther doe you denie the truth of the obiection, but shake it of, in saying, the gouerne∣ment now is changed, & that it was then vnperfect. Else why do you accuse it of imperfection, if it were then as you wold haue it nowe, the Prieste to be greater than the Prince? and so in chalenging it of imperfection, you graūt the thing. Neyther do we deny that y^e state of those Princes, was not in all things perfect. (Althoughe your selfe haue graunted the state of a Monarchie to be a perfect state) but yet the state thereof was in his kinde more perfecte than was the Priesthoode: both bycause it was ouer the Priesthoode, as is obiected, and you haue graunted, and bycause that the Prin∣ces estate, althoughe it be taken from Iewes, yet it remay∣neth still entier with vs, whiche the Priesthoode doth not, nor can do. But let vs sée your Reasons.

First esay you, bycause Priesthoode was more auncient than the kingly right. For the receiuing of Priests was partly receiued from the beginning, vnder the lawe naturall, yea, be∣fore the floude, when as yet there were no kings: partely it had the superioritie certaine ages after Moses, according to the lawe giuen by him, when as yet among Gods people no king was extant, but howe much more auncient a thing is in religion, it is worthily counted so much more the worthier.

This argumente standeth on Antiquitie, whiche beyng drawne from the word of God, and truely applied, maketh a good argumēt. And would to God you would alwayes make gods word the ground of your Antiquitie, which would sone decipher manie Popishe errors, pretending great Antiqui∣tie, to be but late vpstarts. But to reason from Antiquitie, in things that are antiquate and outgrowne, to retaine them still being lawfully displaced: and that more is, to reason from Antiquitie to worthinesse: maye be an anciente, but not ouerworthie reason. For, by this r•…•…le, an olde caste coate may be better than a new. And although you restraine your selfe vnto antiquitie in Religiō, what helpeth this? sith the bloodie sacrifice of a shéepe, as pleading Antiquitie from Abel, might by this reason become a more worthie worship of God, than Baptisme or the Lords Supper. Yea circum∣cision and the Passouer should haue bene better Sacramen∣tes than ours, bicause they wore more auncient. If you your selfe Maister Saunders, had béene auncient, many woulde haue thoughte you had doated, but nowe they will thinke you were to yong a diuine when you made this reason of an∣tiquitie.

But let goe your reason, is your matter true? is Priest∣hoode of more antiquitie? you say it is euen from the begin∣ning vnder the lawe of nature. Were it so M. Saunders, said you not in the first Chap. of this seconde booke, that the Ciuil power sprang euen of the law of nature also, wherby the father is superior to his sonne, the vncle to the cosin, the senior to the Iunior? is not this as auncient as Priesthode yea we read of no creation of Priesthoode so auncient. But you saye, there were no Kings, as thoughe we contended on the name, were he called King. Prince, Duke. &c▪ so he were a gouernor. As for y^e gouernors, for certaine ages after Moy∣ses, & before the kings, trow you they were al priests? Nay, you shall finde but one priest among them all▪ And yet you carie awaye the matter so smooth as thoughe they were all

priests and saye, the creation of priesthood according to the law of Moyses. You meane I know the common cited place for the Iudges determination in litigious doubts, Deut. 17. referring it onely to the priest. But Moyses there expressely nameth the Iudge, besides the high priest. And to make you see how ye confute your owne error, in taking this iudge to haue onely or chiefely béen the high priest marke your owne saying: that the state of gouernement from Moyses to the kings, was according to Moyses lawe. But all that while, of so many Iudges there was but one priest, therefore eyther it was not according to Moyses lawe, or else Moyses law ment not onely nor chiefely the Priests. And trow you, Moyses law was broken of discerning difficulties all this while, and af∣ter the kings beganne to gouerne? I thinke you dare not say it was, nor accuse for y^e breach of Moyses law, so many godly Princes. If not, then the discerning of those difficul∣ties, is impertinently alleaged against the Princes superio∣ritie. And thus not onely your reason from Antiquitie, •…•…ut also your matter for antiquitie, against the state of Princes, faileth. Now to your other reasons.

Moreouer (saye you) the Priesthoode was altogether ne∣cessarie, that the fygure shoulde at no time fayle. VVhere∣by we shoulde be admonished of Christs eternall priesthood. VVhen notwithstandyng the same people of God myght so haue wāted a king, that God complayned that he himself was cast off, when Samuel his Leuite beyng neglected, an earthly king was demaunded.

Priesthood (you say) at no time could be spared, so well as a kings estate. And why so? bicause it prefigured and admo∣nished Christes eternall priesthoode. True in déede (Maister Saunders) so it did. But was there nothing to be prefigured and admonished concerning Christe, but his eternall Priest∣hood? hath he not an eternall kingdome too? or was not it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 necessarie to be prefigured & admonished, as his priesthood So that by this rule, Kings, or (that is all one in effect wi•…•…e

kings) Princes ouer gods people were euen as necessarie as priests.

But say you gods people might so well haue wanted kings, that God complained he was cast off, when (Samuel his leuite neglected) an earthly king was demanded.

Here is nothing left out y^e may seme to make for the defa∣cing of the state of kings. And yet that which he bringeth a∣gainst it (as is alreadie shewed) doth the more commend the state therof, and although they might haue wanted the state of a king yet could they neuer want the state of a Ciuil go∣uernor, no more than they coulde haue wanted priesthoode. Howbeit, we say not, they might haue wanted priesthood or did want it. For they alwayes had priests among them, good or bad. But they alwayes had not priests their gouernors, but very seldome, and that extraordinarily, till the Priest Hircanus was king and priest together.

Besides this (saith M. Saunders) the king was graunted of God, at the peoples petition, to goe out before the people to warre, but not to administer ecclesiasticall matters, for God had prouided for them alreadie by his leuites and priests.

Is there nothing maye be reckoned vp (M. Saunders) be∣sides these twaine, goyng out to warre before the people, and administring ecclesiasticall matters? in déede these two are not very agréeable, although your Popes & Prelats iumble them together. As for the administring eccl. matters, was and is the Priests office, not the Princes. But besides this, there are manie moe things appointed to the Prince, than to go out before the people to warre. For if there were no more, what should he do at home in time of peace? breake peace, and still go out to warre? Ha M. Saunders there are other things than warfare, for a Prince in peace to loke vn∣to, and ye could hit them.

Moreouer (saith he) the Iewes might ascribe to the power of the king, the diuision of the people, the Apostacie of the kingdome of Samaria, and the Captiuitie of Babilon. VVher∣vpon

they beyng returned from the captiuitie, did not againe chose vnto them a king, that shoulde be counted greater than the Bishoppe, but a Captaine, that shoulde rule no lesse in pro∣phane matters, than in holy things the Bishop shoulde be are the principalitie.

To ascribe the diuision of the people, the Apostacie of Sa∣maria, and the Captiuitie of Babilon, to the kingly power: if it be not of wilfull malice, is of great lacke eyther of skill or consideration, and is a fallacion ab accidenti. By the like rea∣son, we might accuse the Iewes priesthood, bicause some of them were loyterers, some of them Idolaters, some of them ambitious, yea the most of them, in Christs time and his A∣postles, the extremest enemies of the Gospell. What: shall we ascribe all this to the priesthood? No, nor to any parte therof, but to the naughtinesse of the Priests that abused their priesthood, euen as much, if not muche more than did those kings abuse their kingly power. The kingdome was light∣ly neuer worse gouerned, thā whē Helie being a Priest had the gouernance of it. And although Samuel himselfe were good and holy, yet his sonnes were wicked whome he made gouernours. But in the stocke of the Machabées, when the priests ruled all, or the moste, till the approching of Iesus Christ, and so till the dissolution of that state, what a num∣ber of wicked Imps were there? you can scarce fet the lyke paterns, excepte you rake hell, or serche the Popes bedroll and his Cardinals, for wicked gouernment.

But (saith M. Saunders) the Iewes after their ret•…•…re from Captiuitie, did no more chose a king that shuld be coun∣ted greater than the Bishop. Ha, go to then (M. Saūders) the king was counted greater than the Byshop before their Cap∣tiuitie. Yea but say you, they chose no more kings ofter their returne. As thoughe (M. Saunders) after their returne, the matter lay in them, to haue a king or no, and not rather in these kings that had subdued them: who althoughe they ap∣pointed or suffered petit rulers ouer them, yet woulde they

not suffer them to haue a king. But whyle they had kings, we reason of those kinges authoritie. But what reason haue you else, for this is a very slender one.

But this (say you) in this kinde, I will make my principall reason, that Christ when he was in this worlde, and fulfilled the whole law and all righteousnesse, yet notwithstanding he would in thinges ecclesiasticall, onely that the Priest, and by no meanes that the earthly king should gouerne.

This were a principall reason in déede, if you could proue this (M. Saunders) but as yet you haue not proued it, and I thinke it will be harder than you wéene, for you to doe. Now to proue it, you reason thus:

For he openly refused to administer an earthly kingdome, and therfore fled when he sawe the people go about to make him a king. And he denied that he was ordeyned to be a de∣uider betweene the brethren. But if so be that after the per∣fecte reason and minde of Moses lawe, it had at least beene comely, either the Churche or the Bishop to be gouerned of an earthly King, Christ would not haue left that thing vnful∣filled. For it was no harde matter for him to haue admini∣stred a earthly kingdome for some very little time, the which when he did not, neither yet omitted he any thing that can iustly be desired to the perfect gouernement of his Churche: It hath neuer beene at any time, or yet is, of any perfection, that an earthly king shoulde arrogate to him selfe any power in ecclesiasticall matters, besides this, that with his sworde he shoulde defende and fight for that whiche is defined by the Prieste▪ sentences.

And is this necessarie in the Churche (M. Saunders) that the Prince may do thus much with his sworde? But I pray you where dyd Christ thus muche, as to fight for the Priests decrees with a sworde? If your reason be good you muste shewe this, or else, why reason you from the factes of Christe, whyle he was héere on earth? if you can shewe, as you promised, that Christe woulde that the Priest, and by no

meanes the prince shuld gouerne in eccl. matters: this were to the purpose. But this you shew not, but would windelace it in with a bought, that if Christ would haue had Princes gouerne in ecclesiasticall matters, he woulde haue bene a Prince him selfe, but he would neuer be a Prince, and yet if he had would, he might: therefore he woulde not haue Princes meddle in matters of his Church, sithe he woulde not me•…•…le in matters pertayning to their gouernement. If this were a good reason, I might reuerse it thus, that sithe be medled in their matters, when he had tribute to be paide to Cesar, when he bad his Disciples not feare them that kill the body, when he called Herode Foxe, when he tolde Pi∣late he had no power but that was giuen him from aboue: therefore they agayne might meddle in his matters, bicause he medled in theirs. This is as good a reason as yours. But ye say, Christ tooke not a kingdome vpon him, nor woulde deuide lands, & yet he tooke vpon him all things necessarie for his Churches gouernment: what shoulde you conclude hereon? Ergo, the Princes gouernment is not necessarie in Church causes? is this the direct cōclusion? Nay M. Saund. either the cōclusion takes away the Princes gouernmēt frō the Church of Christ, or else (which it doth in déed) it hitteth your Pope, if you marke it well, who pretending to follow Christ, taketh an earthly kingdome vpon him, and deuideth landes, which Christ refused to do. The argument is thus: Christ did al that was necessary, but Christ did not take vpō him a kingdome: Ergo, he thought it not necessary. This is flat agaynst the Pope, but nothing agaynst christian Prin∣ces. The cōclusiō is good, for it was not necessary for Christ in his person, & yet for christian Princes it might wel be ne∣cessarie. It is necessarie for christian Princes (as your selfe cōfesse) to vse the tēporal sword, in the churches defence, and yet Christ him selfe did neuer vse it. Except you wil say, he vsed it after a sort, when with a materiall whip & outwarde violēce, he draue the byers & sellers out of the temple. But

then I replie, that herein he exercised for the while, euē the office of a Magistrate, & shewed not onely his owne zeale & power of his kingdome, but also a paterne to al Magistrates & Princes, with what zeale & power they sh•…•…ld exercise their authoritie, in reforming abuses in y^e church of God. Although Christ him self did not personally handle the sworde, as they personally may do Neither yet did Christ all those thinges, that his ministers did & ought to do. It is necessarie for the ministers to baptise, & yet Christ him selfe (that we read of did neuer baptise any, he could haue don it, if he had thought it necessarie. What? shal we say w^t M. Sand he did al y^t was necessary, but he did not baptise, Ergo, to baptise is not neces∣sarie? This therefore is a wrong principle, that Christe must haue done euery thing personally him selfe, that is ne∣cessarie to be done in his Church. True it is, that if Christe neither did it, nor taught it to be done, by him self, nor by his Apostles, but would the contrarie, as M. Sand sayth: then the argument were good, & so it confuteth a nūber of Popish traditions, that were neither done nor taught by Christ nor his Apostles, but rather y^t contrary. But as for this gouern∣ment of Princes (as M. Sanders him selfe confesseth) was practised in the olde lawe, whiche lawe gaue the Prince his charge therin. And Christ testi•…•…eth, y^t he came not to breake the lawe, but to fulfill it. And althoughe he became not a Prince him self (which might haue seemed to haue made •…•…or the Popes purpose) but rather condemneth it in his mini∣sters: yet both he him self & his Apostles, obeyed the Prince then ruling, which now the Pope denieth statly to do.

But ye say, Christ & his Apostles obeyed them not in eccl. matters. Neither was it reason, M. San. both bicause Christ him selfe was the law maker, & his Apostles were the first teachers of it, & Princes then were Infidels. But to reason now from the like state in y^e princes that now are christiā•…•…, & to giue in all things like authoritie to Bishops & pa•…•…ors with Christ and his Apostles, is as farre from reason on

the other side. Neither yet do we debarre from Bishops and Pastors that superioritie ouer Princes, that is giuen by Christe and his Apostles to them and their successours, of the administration of spirituall and ecclesiastical things: neither do we (as M. Saunders sayth) giue the gouerne∣ment of the Churche of Christe to an earthly Prince. For bothe the Prince is Christian, and not earthly in this res∣pect, as M. Saunders him selfe confesseth: neither bathe he the gouernement of the Churche, which is dispersed in many kingdomes, but is a gouernour of a parte therof, or of some particular Churche.

Nowe when M. Saunders hath thus proued (as he thin∣keth) the imperfection of the olde lawe, saying: And thu•…•… should these thinges be, if in the olde time the kinges of the Iewes had exercised any chiefe power in ecclesiasticall mat∣ters and ouer the Bishops. He turneth him selfe on the o∣ther side, to the flat deniall of this, which in the answere to our first obiection he flatly graunted, and fled then to thy•…•… shifte, that the case was altered.

But nowe (sayth he) neither is it true, that the Kinges of the Iewes were counted greater than the Priestes of the Le∣uiticall kinde, in administring those thinges that pertayned to ecclesiasticall matters: whiche by peece meale I will not be gree•…•…ed to shewe.

It will not greeue you to tell a lye, M. Saunders, but to tell the truthe it woulde be a greefe vnto you. Where dyd we say, that the Kings of the Iewes were counted grea∣ter than the Priests, in administring those thinges that per∣tayned to ecclesiasticall matters? But go too, let vs sée what peecemeale proues you bring.

And firste (saye you) Moyses commaunded, that af∣ter the King was sette in the seate of hys kingdome, hee shoulde wryte oute for him selfe in a volume another co∣p•…•…e of this lawe▪ taking the copie of the Priestes of the •…•…e∣uiticall Tribe. But if not onely other, but the king also him

selfe muste go to the Priests for writing out of the lawe, how was the king the prince in interpreting the lawe, the copie whereof he was compelled to craue of other? was he not here∣in admonished, that he should remember that the priests were his superiours in those things that pertayned to the law? for as euery Magistrate crauing the sworde of the king, & receiuing it, doth in so doing declare the king in the right of the sword, to be greater than him selfe: after the same sorte is it, when the king receyueth of the Pristes the copie of the diuine law.

Is this the copie of your piece meale proues M. Sand? he that should take a copie of your argumentes might per haps haue néede, but God wot shoulde finde full slender stuffe in them. This argument is copied out of Stapleton, and your other collectors, and is already answered. Which if it were good, bycause the Prince taketh the copie of the lawe from the Priest, therefore in the gouernment of mat∣ters pertayning to the lawe, the Priest is aboue the Prince: then is the Register aboue the Chauncelor & the Bishop, then is the Clarke aboue the Stewarde, and the Prince, bi∣cause he hath the kéeping of the recordes. And this is a more like example than that you bring in, of a Magistrate crauing and receyuing the sworde of the king: for in this example the King hath not onely the kéeping of the sworde, but al the authoritie of and lawfull exercise of the sworde vnder God, dependeth on him, and suche as he will giue it vnto. Wher∣fore he acknowleageth rightly the King to be his greater. But in the lawe of God, where the kinges gouernement is appoynted to him, and by that appoyntment of God, he hath interest in matters of the lawe of God, by his kingly office, and therefore must haue the lawe of God about him, to di∣recte his giuerment: and hath not this interest & authorie giuen him of the Priest, as the subiect hathe the authoritie and exercise of the sworde giuen him of the king: doth this argue a like, that the Priest is superiour, bicause he muste haue the kéeping of the lawe, and the king, that he may be

sure he hath a true copie of Gods lawe, muste haue it of the Priest? Dothe the keeping argue the greater authoritie▪ The king must haue y^e crowne of the kéeper of the crowne, and the seale of the keeper of the seale, is the keeper there∣fore the greater? Nay it rather argueth (althoughe in loo∣king too, that those thinges be well kepte, and truely decla∣red, they haue a more especiall charge in their offices) yet are they rather inferiours, in that they haue (for the kings behoofe) the kéeping and deliuery of them. And so the priest hathe an especiall charge of keeping and deliuering to the Prince the lawe of God, bicause of his especiall vocation in the studie, profession, and administration of it. Whiche argueth more cunning and learning, of duetie to be looked for at his handes, than at the Princes. And therefore we ascribe not, (as you saye) greater principalitie to Princes in the interpreting of the lawe of God. Princes commit that, to the interpreters. But to the Prince is committed a superiour charge of gouerning all persons, to ouersee that the lawe of God be rightly interpreted and administred. And for this cause the Prince oughte to haue the copie of the lawe, not him selfe to interprete it, and whereto then? to lye idly by him? no, to gouerne him selfe and all his sub∣iectes by the prescription of it.

After this he alleageth the examples of Moyses, Sa∣muell, Iosue, Dauid, Salomon, Constantius, and Theodosius. In Moyses and Samuell, he hathe nothing that is not com∣mon. To Iosue, Dauid, and Salomon, he vseth Stapletons answeres, and there is answered. The examples of Con∣stantius and Theodosius, are somewhat already answered, and shall be further God willing, when we come to the practise. And likewise to the Councels that he citeth.

The argument of the fourth Chapter. That Christian Princes may be deposed from their estates by the Bishops, and their kingdomes giuen to other, when their gouernment hurteth the truth of the faith and the soules health whereto they are ordayned.

IN this. 4 Chapter M. Saūders kepeth no perfect method, and therfore we must follow him as he procéedeth. First he maketh two kinds of men the earthly man, and the heauenly man, and so likewise two kingdoms the one earthly the other heauenly. The earthly kingdome choseth their king by hu∣maine consent as Nimrod. &c. Of the heauenly kingdom that Christ hath in the earth, Christ is the king. Who although by the worthinesse of his nature, he be king of all men, yet is he called onely the king of the faithfull. Who comming into the world, as he hath not taken away the former nature of mā but renued it, so hath he not destroyed the earthly kingdome, but amended it. Here vpon he concludeth, that earthly kings may be made Citizens of gods Church, and vse all their olde right and most free gouernement, in all those causes that di∣•…•…ishe not the faith and Religion of Christ. They may make whome they will fit Ciuil magistrates. They maye appoint at their pleasure lawfull punishments for malefactors, and freely do al other thing, that by the law Naturall, Nationall, Ciuil, or M•…•…nicipall shall be allowed.

To all this, as we agree with M. Saunders: (and therfore I gather b•…•…t a briefe cōt•…•…ct therof) so let this by the way be noted, y^t he giueth Princes most free Principaliue, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 tho•…•…e causes that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not the faith and Religion of Christ. But to place good Bishops and pastors in gods Churche, to remoue euill Bishops and pastors from gods Church, •…•…o pu•…•… Idolatrie out of gods Gods Church, to set forth su•…•…h 〈◊〉〈◊〉 seruice as is to edifie gods church, to cōmand y^e word of God

to be read in the vulgar tongue, to reforme Ecclesiasticall abuses, to punishe whordoms, to allow (as honorable) matri∣monie in all men, to call councels, to commaund the Sacra∣ments to be vsed as Christ ordeined thē, to ouersée al estates & degrées of persons in gods Church to do in al things to the glory of God, to the publique preseruation of the Church, & to the faithful administratiō of their particular callings, doth not diminishe the faith and Religiō of Christ: Therfore Chri∣stian Princes haue most free principalitie, y^t is to say supreme gouernment, in al these eccl. so wel as in ciuil causes.

Now y^t he hath granted to Princes thus much, which cō∣prehendeth all the question: he declareth on the other side, what he exempteth from the Bishops: but so subtily, that vn∣der pretence of debarring them, from hauing authoritie in those things that he ascribeth to the Princes principalitie, he both reuoketh his former graunt to Princes, and conueyeth all those things vnto the Bishops.

Neither Pastors of the Church (saith he) doe intermeddle their authoritie in those things, saue nowe and then to admo∣nishe them and giue thē faithfull counsell, neither doe we de∣fend, all dominions and kingdomes, to be giuen by gods lawe euery where and in all things, to be subiect to the pastors of the Church, but in those causes onely which would hinder the faith and Christian saluation, except they were partly forbid∣den, as diuorces, vsuries, and such other sinnes, which the natiōs committe without punishment: partly commaunded, as giuing of almes, the defence of neighbours and chiefly of the poore, the fortifying of the Church of Christ, and Christian Religi∣on, and to conclude, all other things which the lawe of God commandeth and prescribeth as necessarie to saluation.

In these wordes Maister Saunders speaketh cleane con∣traries, the Princes haue the moste frée principalitie, in all causes that diminishe not the faith and Religion of Christe, and the Bishops doe onely admonishe and giue councel: and yet he ascribeth all to the Bishops, both to punishe all that

would hinder the faith, and Christian saluation and to forti∣fie all that would furder it. What is not here againe giuen to the Bishoppes, and what is not here againe taken from the Princes, yea their Kingdomes and all in some places, and nothing left for Princes? for what else meaneth he by this? we defend not all dominions and kingdomes to be giuen by gods lawe euery where and in all things to be subiecte to the pastors of the Church. As who should say some are subiect to them by the law of God, where the lawe of God is flat to the contrarie, that no kingdomes are subiect vnto them. But as Maister Saunders contrarie to gods law maketh some king∣domes subiect in all things vnto Bishops, so maketh he all kingdomes subiect vnto them, in matters of diuorces, vsuries, and such other sinnes (saith he) as the nations commit without punishment. Which, as it is a sclaunder to Christian Prin∣ces, as mainteining such sinnes, which rather they punishe, and Popishe Prelates both permit and commit without pu∣nishment of them: so he ascribeth these punishmentes to the Popishe Prelates, for nothing but for aduauntage, as also the gyuing of Almes, defence of neighbours, and chiefely of the poore. As thoughe that Princes did not, or could not doe these things, but the Priestes, who by suche fetches, gat all things into their clutches.

Maister Saūders hauing thus séemed at the first to yelde vnto Princes great authoritie, and streight to take away all againe from them, and giue it vnto themselues, least Prin∣ces might worthily thinke themselues abused, he mitigateth the matter with this reason.

Neither ought it seeme strange to anye man that kings in these matters should obey Christ, for this standeth thē chiefly vpon, sith otherwise they cannot get eternall life.

As thoughe your Pope Maister Stapleton and you hys •…•…riests were Christ. Good reason it is they shuld obey Christ, otherwise (as you say most truely therein) they cannot get eternall life. But sith you are not Christ, this reason holdeth

not. But you will say you be Christs, and represent Christ. Wo•…•…ld to God you were M. Saunders and not rather •…•…∣tichristes. For if you were Chrittes, you woulde o•…•…ey your Prince. And not haue the Prince (in authoritie of gouerne∣ment) obey you, whom you ought to obey, since a Christian Prince is Christs also, and in authoritie •…•…f gouernment, im∣mediatly to Christians representeth Christ. Thinke you that Princes can not get eternall life, excepte they obey your Pope? so you tel them in dede, & make man•…•…e Princes afraid therof, by which meanes you haue gottē their gouernement from thē. And thus pr•…•…tending the name of Christ, you saye:

VV•…•…en therefore we say, that earthly kings ought to be vn∣der Christes ministers, we say onely this, that they no other∣wise can be saued, neither receiued of Christian people to a kingdome, or oughte to be suffred in the administration of a kingdome, than i•…•… they both doe and pretermit those things, that the lawe of Christ commaundeth to be done and preter∣mitted.

If you meane the obedience to the ministers of Christ, no furder than this, to doe and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 those things that •…•…he law of Christ commaundeth to be done and pretermitted: thē were the controuersie at an end, for this obedience was ne∣ver denied. But before you went fur•…•…er, and would hau•…•… the Prince to doe and prete•…•… those things that the lawe of the Pope and his Priests would haue done and pretermitted. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 you rep•…•…e, they be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Christ & their 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Christ this would be proued. M. Saunders, for it is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the chiefest pointes in controu•…•…sie. As for Christs lawe, we graunt, that excepte the Prince obey it, he can not be saued. But, that he which in any one poynt, doth any thing, which Christs lawe commaundeth n•…•…t, or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 any thing, that Christs lawe commaundeth is not to be receiued 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 people to a kingdome or b•…•…ing receiued, ought not to be •…•…tred in the administration of a kingdome: is a perilou•…•… doctrine. For who should th•…•… be a king, or who shoulde no•…•…

be turned oute of his kingdome? For, who offendeth not herein (chiefely expounding the law of Christ as your selues •…•…ed in what daunger and thralo•…•…me to you should kings become? so that it were better be a begger and beg his bread than be a Christian king and rule and be ruled on this wise, if these your rules were true. But now to helpe the matter you will expound what ye meane by the •…•…aw of Christ.

But what the lawe of Christ is, and what it commaundeth. can no where better be knowne, than oute of their mouth, to whom the sauiour said: Go teache you all nations, and he that hereth you hereth me, he that dispiseth you dispiseth me. For there neuer want in the Churche, those that e•…•…oy the legacie for Christ, God exhorting as it were by them. For euen as o∣ther men so well as earthly kings, are reconciled to Christ by his ministers, and by Christ to God: so they ought not onely to be vnder God, as they were before, but also to Christ, yea and now to his ministers too, for in vaine doth doth he subiect himselfe to Christ that refuseth to obey Christs ministers.

This is true M. Saunders, in the true ministers of Christ, that the Prince ought to obey them in their ministerie, euen as dispensers of the mysteries of Christ and as representers of Christ also. And true it is, they can or oughte best to tell what is the lawe of God. But yet are they not so to be heard or obeyed, as they do not represent Christ, or tell their owne •…•…awe for the law of Christ. Wherein the Christian Prince •…•…ath an ouersight euer them, and is againe the chiefe mini∣•…•…ter and representer of Christ, And as he obeyed them in the •…•…ne, so muste they obey him in the other, or else they teache •…•…ot the law of Christ aright.

Moreouer (saith M. Saunders) it is not inough for a Chri∣•…•…tian king to do those things that priuate men are wont to do •…•…xcept also he doe those things that properly belong to the •…•…ffice and dig•…•…e of a Prince. Euery man ought to serue the •…•…ord and walke worthily in that vocation, wherin he is called. •…•…rte thou called in the state of Matrimonie? serue God, not

onely as a man, but also as an husband. Art thou called in the state of a king, thou must serue as thou art a king, and not one∣ly as thou art a man. But the offices of kings are other, and the offices of priuate mē are other. VVhervpō saith Augustin ele∣gātly: The king serueth otherwise bicause he is a mā, & other∣wise bicause he is a king. Bicause he is a man, he serueth him in liuing faithfully. But bicause he is a king he serueth with making (by conuenient force) lawes, commaūding iust things & forbidding the contrarie. Euen as Ezechias serued, destroy∣ing the Temples of Idols, & the high places that were builded contrarie to the cōmaundementes of God. Euen as Iosias ser∣ued, he also doing the like things. Euen as the king of the Ni∣niuites serued, compelling all the citie to appease the Lorde. Euen as Darius serued, giuing the Idol to the power of Da∣niel to breake it, and casting his enemies to the Lions. Euen as Nabuchodonozor serued, in forbidding by a terrible lawe, all men placed in his kingdome, from blaspheming God. In this therfore kings do serue the Lord, in so much as they be kings, whe they do those things to serue him, which none can do but 〈◊〉〈◊〉.

〈◊〉〈◊〉 this we graūt you (M. Saunders) kings haue another more excellent & peculiar seruice of God, in y^t they be kings, than haue other priuate men. But as this maketh nothing a∣gainst our assertiō, or y^e kings estate, but more commendeth it: so it both ouerturneth your principall questiō, for y^e kings authoritie in ec•…•…l. matters, & cōfuteth y^t you haue said before, in defacing the kings estate, & also cleane beateth you frō that, which you driue your present drift vnto, of deposing kings.

First, you said before, that kings in that they are kings go∣uerne all mē alike, so well Iewes, Mores, & Tartars as Chri∣stians, & haue as equall gouernment ouer y^e one as the other. Here you confesse that kings, in that they are kings, haue 〈◊〉〈◊〉 especiall seruice of God, and you specifie this their seruice 〈◊〉〈◊〉 such examples, as declare a farre more excellent seruice, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is the gouernment of Turkes, of Mores, and Tartars.

Secondly, this especiall seruice, consisting in such thinges as these examples containe, it argueth the Princes seruice, not onely to intermeddle in eccl. matters, but to haue the su∣preme gouernmēt of them, and to haue authoritie to reforme eccl. abuses, and to make Lawes to prohibite things contra∣rie to the Lawe of God, and to commaunde thinges com∣maunded in Gods lawe, whiche before you ascribed to By∣shops, and toke from kings.

Thirdly, if none can do these things but kings, howe dare you take them from kings, and kings from them? how dare you giue them to Priestes? howe dare you giue Priestes au∣thoritie to depose kings? when rather hereby kings haue au∣thoritie to depose priestes, and none can do these thinges but kings, by this your sentence cited out of Augustine.

These things (say you) thus ordered, it shal novv be made plaine, vvith hovve great equitie vve defende, that Christian kings vvhiche gouerne Christian people, ought to be vnder the ministers of Christ, at the least, in those things that apper∣tain to faith and religion. Yea vnder the paine of losing their kingdome, if fyrst vve shall propounde this one thing.

Hytherto then by your plaine confession, this is not plaine for it, but rather plaine againste it, that kings muste loose their kingdomes, if they be not vnder the Priestes, in thinges pertaining to faithe and religion, that is to saye, (to make it •…•…plaine) excepte they beléeue, and do as you will haue them, you will plainely turne them out of their kingdomes. In∣daede this is a plaine waye, if you can doe it, as you haue at∣tempted it. But it is an vnnaturall and a traytorous waye, and of all other farthest from such ways as those should vse, that professe themselues to be Christes Ui•…•…ars, and Gods Ministers. Christe neuer vsed it, nor Peter, nor Paule, nor any of the Apostles, and yet were they vnder Princes, that were not vnder them in things that pertaine to faith and re∣ligion. But you will proue this with great equitie, if first you shall propounde one thing. Goe to, propounde it M. Saun∣ders,

and let vs sée the greatnesse of your equitie.

First (say you) both the lavve Diuine and naturall equitie teacheth manifestly, that no other king ought of Christians, of their ovvne accorde, to be called to administer the right of a kingdome, than he vvhich is himself a Christian. •…•…or this is that vvhich the Lord saide by Moses to the Israelites: VVhen thou shalt saye, I vvill place a king ouer me, as haue all other nations round about, thou shalt ordeine him vvhom the lord thy God shall choose among the number of thy brethren, neither mayste thou make a King of an other nation, that is not thy brother. But by brother vve vnderstande, him that i•…•… a faithfull one, and a Christian. And although Christians in times past vvere compelled to obey Ethnike Emperours, yet vvoulde they neuer haue committed this, to haue voluntarily called any such men, to the administration of the Empire. For vvho could suffer it, that the members of Christ, should place ouer them a limme of the Deuil? Verily Iouianus, vvhen af∣ter the death of Iulianus, he was saluted Augustus and Caesar, I can not (quoth he) sithe I am a Christian, gouerne the armie of Iulian, that is infected with the precepts of the pestiferous doctrine. Thē the souldiors answered, that they wer not strā∣gers from the Christian religion. But if there ought to be so great a likenesse & coherencie betwene the head & the mem∣bers, that a christian Emperor wold gouerne no souldiors but christians: how much more vnequal & vncomly is it, that the Christian souldiors of their owne voluntarie, should call vn∣to gouernment an heathen, or heretical man? For what is this else, but to cast themselues in danger of losing their faith.

Al this againe we graunt you M. Sand. so long as you re∣strain your self to voluntarie election. And sée that in al your proues & examples you kepe your selfe thereto, for else you straggle frō your own demaūdes. But how many Princes in Christendome haue you y^t be chosen in that sort, of so fr•…•… voluntarie choice as you speake of, or not rather their king∣domes belong vnto them, by claime of right & succession, or

otherwise? And shall these be debarred y^e right of their enhe∣ritance, for pretence of religion? Well goe to then, what if we say, such & such a Prince is a papist, a mainteiner of false religion, differing frō Gods truth & our profession, therefore we wil not haue him to be our king, although by law he haue good title to it, yea, & be in reall possession of it? Wil you al∣lowe this our refusall M. Sand. I trowe you wil not. If you wil not, then you breake this your own rule, that you would so faine haue graunted to you. Notwithstanding, where free election is t•…•… be had, ther your rule is most true. Let Protes∣tants there choose Protestants, & Papistes there cho•…•…se Pa∣pists hardyly, & so the one shal the lesse encomber the other. But where men can not do as they would, there they must do as they may, & so nere as they•…•…ā, choose whom they think fittest. But if it lie not in them thus volūtarily to chose, they must take their lot, perchance of the worsse, & praye to God to amend that is amisse, & receiue their duetiful Prince with good & loyal hearts, yea, though he be an enimie to the Gos∣pel, beséeching God to conuert him, or to mollifie him, to be∣cōme enclinable, at the least to be no persecuter of y^e truth, & so praying, for his successe in goodnesse, obey him in truth, dissent from him in •…•…ull, but rebel against him in nothing, & cōmit y^e rest to God that sente him. And this me thinketh is a better rule of the twaine, than that he hauing right, should wrongfully be refused. The example that you bring of Io∣uianus is not alike. Who refused the gouernmēt ouer Iuli∣anus souldiors. For there is a difference betwéene Princes refusing to be gouernors, and the peoples refusing to be sub∣iectes. If you can sh•…•…we, that the Christian souldiors of Iuli∣anus, as this Iouianus one of Iulians chiefest Captaines, and the Christian souldiors vnder his band, renounced their obedience to Iul•…•…an, or woulde not goe to warre against the Persians, and fight vnder his conduct, but reuolt from him, bycause hee was reuolted from God: then you shoulde shew something to the purpose. But this you can not shew,

yea, we can shewe the •…•…t contrarie, that so long as Iulian raigned, Iouian woulde neuer rebell, nor forsake his obe∣dience, althoughe his Prince were an Apostata, and renied the faithe of Christe. If you replye that Iouian •…•…id for∣sake his souldiorship in Iulians time. True it is, that •…•…eing a Captaine •…•…uer a thousande, when Iulian made a l•…•…w for Souldiors: that either they shoulde sacrifice, or for sake their Souldiorship: Iouian chose rather to l•…•…se his girdle (which was the ornan •…•…nt of his knighthoode) than to obey the wicked pr•…•…cepts of the Emperor. Howbeit herein •…•…e renoūced not his obedience to his Princes estate, but ra∣ther expressed his obedience, in obeying the penaltie of his lawe. And when the Emperour for necessitie of the warre, chose him againe: he refused not to become againe his soul∣viour. Your example therefore of Iouian, maketh cleane against your purpose.

This one petition being thus demaunded, whiche we graunt vnto you in frée elections, although you aske but one demaunde, yet nowe on this you will encroch an other, and set downe the figure of 2. in your margine, as a seconde de∣maunde, saying:

But the lavve of God, vvhich commaundeth none should be placed ouer Christians, but a Christian: the same lavve commaundeth, that none other should of Catholike people be receiued to the gouernement of a kingdome, but a Catho∣like. For he that is a Catholike, althoughe in vvorde he call himselfe, notvvithstanding he hath lefte of to be a liuely mē∣ber of the Church of Christ.

You aske but one petition M. Saunders, and we haue graunted it, but will you therevpon aske more? nay, then it is time to stop you. You spake before of a Christian, and now you demaunde the same of a Catholike. What do you mean hereby? do you make a difference betwéene a Christian and a Catholike? But howe chaunce you saye not, as you sayde before, a Papist? For I thinke by Catholike, you meane a

Papist, but this we haue gramited you alreadie. Lette a Pa∣pist in free election, if he will needes, chose a Papist: Qui •…•…∣descit sordescat adhuc He that is filthie, let him be filthie stil, and let a Turke choose a Tu•…•…ke, sithe he will choose no better. Yet then, let a Protestant choose a Protestant, by your own rule. But that he that is no Catholike, that is to saye, as you expounde it, no Papist, is no liuely member of the Church of Christ: This is an other question M. Saunders, and you desired to propounde but one and will you now haue so ma∣ny? You sayde it shoulde appeare vvith hovve great equitie you woulde defende your cause and will you nowe offer •…•…o greate iniurie to so many Christian Princes, bothe in the East Church, in the Weast, in the South, and in the North, that are no such Catho•…•…kes, that is to say, no Papistes, and therefore be no liuely members of Christes Church? Nay M. Saunders, this must not be graunted, there is no equi∣tie in it, excepte you be able to proue it. For you knowe that the title of Catholike, is not onely called in question, whe∣ther it belong to you or no: but also in your sense thereof, for a Papist, it is so sore battered, that it will rather fal out, that the Catholike is no liuely member of Christes Church, thā that the Protestante or Gospeller (as you call vs) is none. But let vs sée howe you procéede.

VVhiche thinges sithe they are thus, this is moreouer to be added. Although that any vvhen he vvas first made king, was a Christian and a Catholike, if notvvithstanding aftervvarde he become an Apostata, or an Heretike, good reason requi∣reth that he shoulde be remoued, from the administration of a kingdome among the Catholike people.

They saye the Deuill (M. Saunders) if we giue him an inche, will take an ell, and so playe you. You demaunde one thing, and woulde take a number, yea, and snatch at all. If you were not impudent, you would not still encroch. Firste you desired that you might propounde one thing of greate e∣quitie, and you woulde make all plaine, that Princes mighte

be deposed. This one thing is graunted. Then you desire a seconde thing, & for this second, clap downe two togither. That the same lavve shoulde be also for the Catholikes, that vvas for the Christians. This also is graunted, to the whiche you adde, that he that is no Catholike, is no liuely member of the Church of Christ. And although this, in the true sense of Catholike, is likewise granted, yet in your sense of a Ca∣tholike, it is starke false and denyed. Then you adde your fi∣gure of 3. and say, moreouer this must be added, that a Chri∣stian king being become an Apostata or an heretike, shoulde be deposed. And this you will haue graunted you also, and al vnder the name of one thing, and this that you adde laste of all, is in déede the thing it selfe that you should proue.

But you worke a wise waye, first demaunde it maye be graūted you, and then promise that you wil proue it. What M. Sanders, haue you gone to Rome to learne that knacke that the Proctour taught his client in the chancellors court? who when a Maiden in sute of contract came to him for coū∣sell, he being before hande féed on the otherpartis, graunte (quoth be to her) thou madest him such a promisse, but aske him who is his witnesse. Nowe when the simple Mayden was thus enstructed: I graunt quothe she to the Iudge, I made him such a promisse, but who is his witnesse. And euē thus woulde you dodge vs M. Saunders. The question is, whether a Prince erring in fayth, shoulde be deposed? We denie it. You will proue it, but on this condition, that we wil graunt you this, that he should be deposed, and then you will proue it, that he should be deposed. But and if we will graunt you this, you may easily proue it, or rather you néed not proue it at all, for we do proue it for you. Either Maister Saunders, you thinke▪ great follie in vs, or this is greate follie in you, to make such propositions to proue the matter, that are the matter it selfe. This is beyonde the fallation called petitio principij, it is petitio totius, the request, not of a principle, but of altogither. There is no equitie at all in

these proues, for all the great equitie that you promised.

Not that the Apostacie or heresie of the king shoulde be bolstered or allowed, but earnestly improued and rebuked, if it be Apostacie and heresie indéede, and not as you call heresie and Apostacie, the forsaking of your heresies, and re∣ceiuing the Gospell of Christe. But in this your case of A∣postacie, howe euer the Prince be worthie to be deposed: the deposition lyeth not in any subiect, or any foreyne, but in God that placed that Prince, and in suche meanes as he séeth good to chastice suche Apostataes withall, eyther of the whole bodie of the Realme, or otherwise: but those are extraordinarie cases, there can be no ordinarie rule of all Princes deposition, as you woulde here haue graunted, ex∣cepte the state of the Princes be thereafter, as it is in some Countries, of which sort ours is not. And therefore to coyne such rules for vs (although our Prince, God be praysed, be not in this case of heresie and Apostacie, saue in your mali∣cious and erroneous conceyte) is euen the Trumpet and warning piece to your trayterous confederates, to pull downe the Prince, and sette vp all Rebellion. And a means to kéepe all Princes at the becke of the Priestes, for feare they charge them with Apostacie and heresie, and so straight wayes depose them. But what reason haue you for this hampering of them?

For (say you) a faithfull Prince and a godly, is a matter of such momēt, that neither an vnfaithful, should be placed ouer the faithfull, neither an Apostata shoulde remaine the Prince of the faithfull.

What ought to be, & how it ought to be brought about to be, are two things M. Saunders▪ A Prince ought to be faithfull and Godly, and so to be, is (as you say) a matter of great mo∣ment. Neither ought an vnfaithfull Prince to be volunta∣rily placed of the faithfull ouer thē. Neither ought a Prince to be a renegate, neither ought such a renegate Prince (in the demerite of his facte) to remaine a Prince ouer the faithfull.

But howesoeuer these things ought, or ought not to be in him: that the Byshops ought depose him, that God hath set vp: that the faithfull people ought to renounce their alle∣geance, and rebell againste him, that God hath placed ouer them, & they haue orderly sworne their homage vnto him: I think M. Sand. you can not proue that these things ought to be. Neither are these cases alike, that you •…•…umble togither, of an vnfaithful man, not to be chosen Prince and of a faithful man being chosen Prince by the faithful, bicause he becōmes vnfaithful▪ not to be obeyed. For in y^e one case, y^e faithful are free frō the vnfaithful, & if they are bound, it is not to him, but rather to kéepe them fre from him. In the other case, the faithfull haue bounde themselues before hande to the king that was faithfull, who afterwarde becommeth vnfaithfull. Whiche bonde if it were conditionall, and the Prince of his own voluntarie so bounde expressely to them, and they interchangeablie bound of their voluntaries, expresly to re∣nounce him, becomming vnfaithfull: Then I thinke they might, so it were with one consent of those that chose him, refuse him with better reason. But where (as it is common∣ly) the Prince being a faithfull, hath his claime by some kinde of right, whome the people electe without such inden∣ting, on good hope of continuance in his faithfulnesse, or ra∣ther being moued with his right, yelde▪ him obedience, and binde themselues by othe to become his subiectes, there al∣thoughe their soules and consciences be still free to God in religion, yet are their bodies, their goods, yea, and their con∣sciences to, in respect of his estate and their duties, so firme∣ly bounde to remaine loyall and faithfull to the Princes au∣thoritie, that though he become vnfaithfull in the faith of his religion, yet may not they become vnfaithfull, in the faythe of their allegeance. The Fable of Esopes •…•…orse, when he straue with the Hart, can tell you, that there was a diffe∣rence in the horsses estate, before he gaue the mā an enterest to ride vpon him: and after that the man had bridled and

sadled him, and was set on his backe, and rode him. Might the horse then, when he was wéerie with chacing the hart, compell the man to alight, and take off the saddle, and pull the bridle out of his mouthe, and let him goe at libertie? Nay softe, as ye sayde right nowe, the case is altered. It muste be then as the man will, and not as the horse wyll. Well may the horse like a stubborne Iade, beginne to fling and winche, assaying to cast the man, and recouer his liber∣tie: but the man with his spurres will tame him well i∣noughe, and nowe and then an ill ryder spoyleth many a good horse. What Esope ment héereby is casie to wit. Not that he allowed any Princes tyrannie, but that he disa∣lowed all subiectes rebellion. And so in Samue is declara∣tion, he telleth of many iniuries that kinges shall doe vnto their subiectes, as to take their wyues, their daughters, and their goodes from them, and to giue them where it lykeeh them. Not that kinges ought to do thus, or that God or his Prophet alloweth their so doing. But that they which were frée before, and might haue chosen, should then not be frée, and could not choose, but suffer euen iniuries at their hands. Neither could they, nor their Priestes depose their Prin∣ces, although many of them became Apostataes and tyrāts. Yet those Apostataes and tyrants continued stil their prin∣ces, till God him selfe by some extraordinarie meanes re∣moued them.

But (say you) there groweth no lesse daunger to the sub∣iects from him, who after he is placed in the royall Throne, falleth to heresie: than from him that was an heretike be∣fore he was made king.

I graunt you this, M. Saunders: and the case maye be suche, that there may growe farre more daunger too. But daungers must be cut off as we may, and not as we list. If we can vndoe Gordias his knotte, we may not play Alex∣anders parte, and drawe out the sworde, and strike it in •…•…wayne. The knotte of a subiectes obedience is an harder

knotte, but by this remedie it might be soone vntied. And yet peraduenture tye our selues faster in greater bondage, if the Princes vsed not Alexanders vntying, and cutte off suche traytors heades from their shoulders, that would cut off him, béeing the head, from gouerning them, béeing but members of the body. But howe proue you your conse∣quence, M. Saunders?

And truely (say you) if the Apostle tooke it in euill parte that the Christians shoulde go to lawe before •…•…nsidell Magi∣strates, that were ordeyned before hande by publike lawe: howe muche more vnworthy would he haue taken it, if they shoulde either of their voluntaire haue placed ouer them an Infidell, or haue suffred an obstinate heretike to haue raigned ouer them: for howe can they worshippe him as their king without haynous sinne, to whom they ought not to say so much as God speede, least they should be partakers of his euil workes? or is it not a greater matter to obey an heretike, than to salute him?

These two places are wrested (M. Saunders) and the Scripture abused, to make them serue for subiects deposing princes, and refusing of their obedience. S. Paule rebuketh the Corinthians, for that they beeing Christians contended in law for trifles, and chose heathen Arbitrers and Iudges, rather than Christians, and this in déedé was blame wor∣thy, bicause not onely they had frée choyce, but men also a∣mong themselues, that could with more quietnesse and lesse reproche, haue taken vp those matters. But doth S. Paule bidde them in no matters, appeale to heathen Iudges, or beeing called of heathen Magistrates to their iudgementes, to refuse them, yea to refuse to come vnto them, and to re∣nounce them as incompetent Magistrates and Iudges, bi∣cause they were not Christians, and to attempt to disobey them, or to depose them? At this you should proue (M. San∣ders) if you will directly apply, and not wrest this place to your purpose. But this S. Paule neuer did nor taught. The

contrarie he both taught others, and him selfe practised. For he himselfe obeyed the authoritie of the heathen and wicked Magistrates. He refused not to come before the iudgement seates of Felix, & Drus•…•…lla his wife, of Festus, of Agrippa & Bernice his sister. Yea he reioyced that he came before thē, saying: Aboue all things wherof I am accused of the Iewes, I counte my selfe happie, O king Agrippa, that this▪ day I shall pleade my cause before thee. Likewise he appealed to the wicked Nero his iudgement and presence, when Festus of∣fred him to go to Jerusalem, & be iudged before him there. He answered: I stand at Cesars iudgemēt seate, where it be∣houeth me to be iudged. And as he appealed to him, so he obediently was iudged of him, & neuer refused the Princes iudgement as inconuenient, bicause he him selfe was a chri∣stian, & those princes were heathen: but bicause they were princes, & he was a subiect▪ he obeyed their iudgements euen to death. And as he did him selfe▪ so exhorted he all other to the like obedience, & that also for conscience sake, althoughe those princes had little conscience, & were Infidels, yet he acknowledged thē to haue their power frō God, & to be his ministers, & the resistance against thē, to be against God him selfe. So farre was S. Paul frō attempting or exhorting, or thinking to depose thē. Nay he rather praied for them, & wi∣sheth other to pray. The like we may say for al y^e Apostles of Christ, whom Christ foretolde that they should come before kings & princes, but he forewarned thē not to refuse to come before them. This place therfore is manifestly wrested of you M. San. And that you shuld not suspect my iudgemēt, I appeale here in euen to the iudgement of your owne side.

Lyra writing on this place, maketh this obiection: Sed istud Apostoli dictum. &c. But this saying of the Apostle see∣meth to be cōtrarie to that which is said▪ 1. Pet. •…•…. Be ye subiect to euery creature of mā for God, whether it be to the king, as to the chiefe, or to rulers as sent of him. &c. to the which is to be said, that the Apostle forbiddeth not this, that the faithfull

being placed vnder vnfaithful princes, shuld not apeare before them, when they are called: for this were cōtrarie to the sub∣iectiō that is due to princes. But he forbiddeth, that volūtari∣ly they make not recourse to vnfaythfull Iudges in those mat∣ters, that may be determined by the faythfull. Yea Catha∣rinus that wresteth this place also to the Priestes prero∣gatiue, yet durst he not goe thus farre as you, M. Saun∣ders, but maketh playne exception agaynst you, saying: Insuper annotandum, &c. Moreouer wee muste note, that the iudgementes of the vnfaythfull, are not heere refused, sithe they also haue their power from God. Neither forbiddeth it that they should not obey their rulers, when they call them into lawe, or shoulde the leste be vnder their iurisdiction. But onely it forbiddeth this, that they shoulde not of their owne accorde appeale and come to them, as before whome to pleade, sithe they haue them selues a better power giuen them heereto of God. Thus by the iudgement of your owne side, this place serueth nothing for refusing the obe∣dience of Princes, although they were Infidels, Apostataes, or Heretikes, as (thankes be giuen to God) the protestant Princes are not, agaynst whome ye shoote these trayterous bookes, but are true christians, & faithful christian Princes.

As for the other sentence maketh lesse to your purpose▪ For he speaketh not there of princes, but of false teachers▪ as for princes, by S. Paules doctrine▪ aforesayde, wi•…•… whome S. Iohn agréeth, they should bothe be saluted, wor∣shipped, and prayed for, that God would spéede and pr•…•… per them in their gouernementes. And this (as ye say) i•…•… more then to salute them. But sithe we are bounde to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the greater (to vse your owne reason) muche lesse may 〈◊〉〈◊〉 debarre the lesser from them, and not so muche as say, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 speeds them, or giue them •…•…nce God morrowe. Which as▪ is besides all ciuilitie (that you say Christ taketh not awa•…•… so were it wilfully to prouoke the Princes indignation▪ Abimelech was but an Heathen prince, and yet Abra•…•…

dwelte with him, made a league with him, and gaue him a present, and toke a present of him. Pharao was an heathen Prince, and yet Ioseph behaued himselfe most reuerently vnto him, and became a moste faithfull stewarde ouer his countrey. Ahasuerus was a heathen Prince, and yet both Mardocheus honored him, and preserued his life from trai∣ters, and Hester was maried vnto him. Benadad the king of Syria was an heathen Prince, and yet Naaman his cap∣taine, after he was clensed from his leprie, and was become a faithfull beleuer in God, forsoke not his obedience to his heathē Prince, and where he moued a scruple of suffring his Idolatrous Prince to leane vpō him, the Prophet had him depart in peace, he had him not reuolt frō his Princes obe∣dience. Darius was an heathen Prince, & yet Daniel sayde vnto him, O king, God saue thy life for euer. Agrippa was an heathen Prince, and yet S. Paule both saluted him, and wished him euen as himselfe, except his bondes. This ther∣fore is not to be stretched vnto Princes but to be takē, as it is spoken, against false teachers, as both the text is plaine, & euen the Popish writers to so vnderstand it, althoughe they misvnderstand who the false teachers be. But who they be, S. Ihon describeth by this note, Euery one that goeth from & abideth not in the doctrin of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine he hath the father and the sonne: if any come vnto you & bring not this doctrine, receiue him not into the house, nei∣ther say God spede vnto him. For •…•…e that saith God spede, com∣municateth with his euill workes. But this is apparant that y^e Papists haue made the doctrine of Christ insufficient, and brought in other doctrine besides the scripture of God: they therfore are these false teachers, y^t S. Iohn so straightly for∣biddeth vs to communicate withall. If then God spede may not be saide vnto the false teachers (y^t is to say, we may not approue their doctrine, nor be familiar with them:) thē must the Popish teachers companie be auoided, y^t are here so plain described. And it were to be wished▪ this were some what

more straightly loked vnto thā it is▪ God graunt y^t bearing to much with Papists, & bearing thē company, yea and bea∣ring thē out also, do not only spice vs with their false doctrin (he that toucheth pitch, saith the wise mā, shalbe defiled with it) & make vs partakers of their euill workes: but also pro∣uoke the heauie wrath of God vpon vs, & make the Papists whom we beare so much withall, become the very cutters of our throates. For I tell you, their faith will serue them, they haue a ruled case for it, Nulla sides tenēda haereticis, no faith must be kept with heretiks, as they accoūt vs to be. But I learned once this rule in mine Accidence, •…•…oelix quem faciunt aliena peri∣cula cautū. Happie is he whō other mens harms do make to be∣ware. Let vs not thinke but they can loke as faire, & thinke as foule, in England as in Fraunce, & deale as horribly, if (as God forbid) they could get their oportunitie. Which to compasse the sooner, this good teacher M. Saunders setteth forth this doctrine, to sturre the people to rebel & depose their soueraigne, & hereto wresteth these places of the scripture, to make them seme to serue his purpose, where both (being bet∣ter considered) make cleane against it. Howbeit thinking he hath fully proued it.

The matter (saith he) is nowe brought to this point, that an hereticall king must be remoued from his kingdome, that he obteyneth ouer Christians.

But how he hath brought the matter to this point, & with what proues not worth a point: I doubt not, but euery rea∣der wil easilie sée, nor any subiect be moued to remoue his na∣turall Prince, for any thing yet alleaged, yea although (as he surmiseth) his Prince were in déede an heretike. But M. Saund. presupposing that he hath cléerely, proued y^e Prince must nedes be deposed will now proue that the deposing of him belongeth to the Bishop.

And bicause (saith he) the crime for the which he must be remo∣ued, is cōmitted against the faith: & a little before it is abundantly proued, that those causes shuld not be iudged of the people, which

is gouerned like sheepe, but of the pastors, whose dutie is to dis∣cerne betwen the cleane & vncleane, and whose lippes do therfore kepe knowledge, that the people should require the lawe of the Lorde out of their mouth, verily it belongeth chiefely to the Bi∣shops, both to pronounce euen the king himself an heretike, or o∣therwise an Apostata, & also to declare that his subiects frō thence forth are free frō giuing all obedience vnto him, & that they ought to endeuor themselues, that another out of hand be chosen in his roome.

Like lippes, like lettyse, they say. Euen a fit sentence for so fit Bishops to pronounce. Finde you me this in the law of the Lord, (M. Saunders) that the priests should kepe this know ledge? and yet better kepe it than vtter it, to make the Pro∣clamation of rebellion. Is this the law, the people must fetch from the priests mouth? well, this lawe made some of them be hanged at Durham not long ago, as all such lawlesse and rebell Priests deserue. No, M. Saunders, ye finde not this fraitero•…•…s office appointed to the Priests in gods lawe. Out of their mouth in deede the law of God must procéede, & their lippes must kepe it, & they must discerne betwene the cleane and vncleane. Although this be but here spokē Metaphorical∣ly, for that was a bodily cleanneste & vncleannesse discerning who was a Leper who was none. But stretch it hardily to the soule, admit also he finde the soule of the king infected with spiritual Leprie, must be therefore pronounce him to be no king? nay, I trow, the priest serued not Ozias so. Must the Priest depose him? must be assoile his subiectes frō their sworne obedience▪ must he bid thē chose another▪ where find you this M. Saund▪ in what law? in Robin Hoodes lawe, or Iack strawes law? surely it is some rebels lawe, for in gods law you can not shew it that Priests should do such things. No? say you: It is a matter of faith, & who should deale there∣in but y^e Priests? Is this a matter of faith, M. Saunders, to sturre the people to violate their Faith? cannot the Faith be kept to God, except we breake our Faith to the Prince? you

aske, who should do it rather thā the Bishop? where of all o∣ther he should least do it, & to say truth, none should do it. But if any will attempt rebellion, Popish Priests, I sée, are rea∣diest, and here M. Saunders offereth himselfe and his fel∣lowes. A méete office for such officers. But in gods word, we finde no such office for Priests or for any other, we sée there no such example, saue of Corah, Dathan, and Abiron, of Ab∣solon, Ioab, Achitophel, and Abiathar, and suche other tray∣tors, whom God punished accordingly. Godly Priests re∣buked euil Princes, but they neuer offred them this iniurie.

But if the subiects (saith M. Saunders) loke not in this mat∣ter to their duetie, then it belongeth to the pastors, by what meanes so euer they can, to prouide, that he that sittes in the chaire of pestilence, should not raigne in the Church of God▪

Yea there M. Saunders there lo, if neuer a Captaine for traitors can be found among subiectes, the Priestes will be their Captaines, and will rebell alone, if none other will be∣sides. Do the Prince but once displease the Priests, then his royall throne, wherin God hath set him, is the Chaire of pes∣tilence and the Priests will prouide another king, and that by all whatsoeuer meanes they cā, they wil attempt al waye•…•… possible, by practises, conspiracies, whisperings, murmu∣rings, railings, blind prophecies, curses, treacheries, sediti∣ons, treasons, rebellions, murders, sorceries, p•…•…ysonings, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to conclude, by what meanes soeuer they can, (for these be his owne words) to depose the Lords annoynted, and to set 〈◊〉〈◊〉 another of their confederacie, for all these meanes they 〈◊〉〈◊〉 practise, & haue practised, & do practise, and therfore now they may pleade practise for thē. If this doctrine be not the chai•…•… of pestilence then out of doubt it is euē the pestilence itsel•…•… All the deinls in hell can not deuise to the sclauerie and con∣fusion of al▪ kings, and to the maintenance of the Popes 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ranie, sitting in y^• very chaire of pestilence, a more 〈◊〉〈◊〉 & pestilent doctrin thā this is. Now as though this wer•…•… so cl•…•…re a case that it were not to be so much as once spoke•…•… against:

What (saith he) is not the matter thus? what? do not pastors vvatch for soules as vvell of kings, as of thē that obey kings?

Yes that they do (M. Saunders) as it appeareth by youre tale, they vvatch for soules and bodies, and goods also, chiefly of kings. The Deuill vvatcheth not (as Peter saithe) more narrowly, seeking vvhome he maye deuoure, than doe your Pastors kepe bothe vvatche and warde, to deuoure bothe kings and subiectes, and to rule all wordly kingdomes.

Then (say yeu) it is their duetie to let slip naught of those things, that they knowe are profitable for the soule health.

This indéede is their duetie (M. Saunders) whiche con∣sisteth in preaching Gods worde. But this they can let slip well inough, howbeit the matter now in hand, is a world∣ly kingdome, and that they will not let slippe in any wise, least they should let slip those thinges, that they knovve are profitable to the bodies health.

But vvho seeth not (say you) that it abhorreth altogither from the soules health, that he should be suffered to raigne o∣uer the faithfull, that is himselfe vnfaithfull? must not then also of necessitie, the people become vnfaithfull?

There is no necessitie M. Saunders, but it is a shrewde likelyhoode. But firmum fundamentum Dei stat. &c. the foundation of God standeth sure, hauing this seale, God knovveth vvho are his, and God will preserue those that are his, from assenting to such Princes vnfaithfulnesse. Howe∣•…•…eit, the swaye of the people, turne to much after the swaye of the Prince, whiche is a perilous case, as we sée where po, •…•…pishe Princes raigne, and it is a iust plague of God, propter •…•…eccata populi. &c. God maketh the Hypocrite to raigne for the peoples offences. But againe, where the Prince doth fauour and set forth the Gospell of Iesus Christ, there redoundeth •…•…s much commoditie to the people, by the Godly Princes gouernment.

But vvhen (saith M. Saunders) Ieroboam the king of Sa∣•…•…aria, erected tvvo Idols in Dan and Bethel, vve knovve that

herevpon almost ten whole Tribes fell into Idolatrie, and by litle and litle cast off the faith of one God. Shal he therfore be worthy the name of a man, that shall affirme a wicked king ought not to be compelled to depose himselfe from his Ma∣gistracie?

Can you make this conclusion on this example, M. Sand? then are you worthy the name, not of a man, but of a cun∣ning man, I wil not say of a traytor. But what can not you make, quodlibet ex quolibet, what you please, of what you liste, to serue your turne withall? Ieroboam we graunt did make the people fal to Idolatrie. But did any Priest or Prophete, taking occasion herevpon, rebell, or prouoke other to rebell against him, or did any of them depose him, or sought to set vp an other? if you finde this, you finde somewhat for your purpose, if not, the example maketh cleane against you. The Prophets indéed rebuked the king, and that sharply, & spake against his Idolatrie, and tolde him how God would cut off his kingdome. Yet they themselues attempted not to cut it off, but peaceably & obediently liued vnder his gouernment. Yea, this deposing of a Prince, whome God set vp, was so far from any subiectes authoritie, that it was not lawful for Roboam, to whom the kingdome before appertained, to at∣tempt to recouer it by law of Armes, but he and his people by Gods especial commaundement, were bidden go home a∣gaine. So much this example maketh against you, and yet you are so impudent to alleadge it. And that herevpon the king muste not onely be deposed of other, but by other be compelled to depose himselfe, and that he which shal not af∣firme this, and that on this example of Ieroboam, is not vvor∣thy the name of a man. But he that will not play the rancke traytor, and wrest the examples of the scripture for him, that make cleane against him, hath no māhood in him, nor is worthy y^e name of a mā with M. Sand. And now as though he had brought an inuincible proofe, he procéedeth, saying:

But if he must needs be deposed, at least for heresie, hovv

shall that controuersie be iudged, without the knowledge of the doctors of the Church? who only of their office, haue the ordinarie & lawful power to loke to the flocke, in the whiche the holy Ghost hath placed thē to guide the Church of God. But the pastors & doctors of the church, could not be Iudges of any king, except the king in that thing, were lesse & infe∣rior to thē. For neither the equal hath power ouer the equal, neither the inferior ouer the superior. VVorthily therfore we affirme, that al christiā kings, in those things that appertaine to matters of faith, are so vnder bishops & priests▪ that when offending obstinately against the christiā religion▪ they shall perseuer after one two rebukings: bothe they maye, and they ought for that cause, to be by the Byshops sentence deposed from the gouernement that they holde ouer the Christians.

You conclude ful worthily M. San. your argument is this, if the Prince must needes be deposed, he must be deposed by the Bishops & priestes. This reason hangeth all on this pre∣supposall, y^t he hath so fully proued this, that y^e Prince nowe in all post hast must nedes be deposed▪ And yet we haue hi∣therto heard no such proues, y^t should enforce any suche ne∣cessitie, but rather necessarie, for y^e bishops, priests, or any o∣ther subiects behalfe, to let him remaine still vndeposed, for them, although he were an heretike. So y^t we may rather re∣uerse y^e argument. If nedes he must not be deposed: the must not y^e bishops & priests attempt to depose him. Howbeit ther is no necessitie in y^e cōsequence, y^t if he must nedes be deposed & that for heresie, y^t y^e bishops & priests must depose hi. Yes, saith M. Sā. for how shal that cōtrouersie be iudged without thē, what thogh that cōtrouersie could not be iudged without thē M. Sand. must they therefore be deposers of him frō his estate, bicause they iudge of the doctrine he professeth? must they iudge of his Diademe, bicause they iudge of his religiō? but what if they thēselues haue corrupt iudgements therein? trow you priests & bishops haue not had so ere now? yes, euē this sentence of s. Paule that here you cite for y^e Bishops and

Priestes authoritie giueth a plaine warning of it. I knowe (saithe he) that after my departure, shall come among you rauening VVolues, not sparing the flocke, there shall rise vp men from among your selues, speaking peruerse thinges to dravve Disciples after them. But (say you) saint Paule saith they must looke to the flocke, so much the more, in vvhiche the holy ghost hath placed them to guide the church of God. True in déed they must so do But what if they be blind thē∣selues, how loke they to it then? And did Christ neuer talke of blind guides? you post off y^t, to the Phariseis & Iewish Bi∣shops. But if you were not more blind thā they, you would sée a great difference betwéene loking to the flocke, guiding the Church of God by teaching true doctrine, taking heede vnto, and discerning of false doctrines and teachers, preching the worde of God with learned iudgement: and betwéene the clayming of authoritie to depose Kings and Princes frō their royal estates. Whie, say you, if they be Iudges, they are aboue them, and neither equall nor inferior. They may be equal, and aboue them too, in learned Iudgement, and also in y^e dispensation of their misteries: & yet in publike autho∣ritie far inferior. And therfore your conclusion A secūdum quid ad simpliciter, faileth: that bicause they are inferior in one thing to Bishops, they be in al thinges, or in this thing inferior.

Yea, say you, they are so vnder Bishops and Priestes, that when offending obstinately againste the Christian religion, they shall perfeuer after one or two rebukings, the Bishoppes may and ought to depose them from their gouernment ouer Christians.

This is a great inferiorship, M. Sand. to be so much vn∣der them. For by this rule, if a Prince (as cōmonly Popishe Princes doe) shoulde kepe a Paramour▪ a Popishe Byshop may depose him. But they wil not be ouer hastie, to reproue the Prince for that, which they vse themselues, neither coūt they it an offence against christiā religion, & yet in y^e christiā religion i•…•… is forbidden, & so is against it, especially to defend

it, & mainteing it as the Papistes do. But if he do wrong to any of his subiectes, & wil not amende his wrong, after a B. hath once or twise giuē him warning of it: then by this rule the B. maye straighte depose him. And in déede so they haue done, & would do, if the wrong touch them, if their lands and goods were diminished, then by & by it is against y^e Christiā religion, it is plaine heresie, & except by the seconde admoni∣tion, it be restored with a recumbentibus: the king must be in al the hast deposed, there is no remedie nor further respit, for not only the Bishops may, but plat & plaine they ought to doe it. Is not here a kingdome brought to a goodly state?

But he wil say, he meaneth by offences against the Chri∣stian religion, matters of faith. But what helpeth this? for, as whē the Lion proclaimed, y^t al horned beasts shuld auoyd out of the wood, although the Foxes pricked eares were no horns, neyther néeded he haue gone, ye he wisely foresaw, y^t this was but a drifte to picke a quarel, & therefore he hied him out of the wood. For since al lay in the Lions interpreta∣tiō, what if the Lion had said, his prick eares had bin horns, or as sharp as hornes? surely then the Fox had dronke for it. And if the Byshops may haue the like authoritie, to bid the Prince be packing out of his realme, if he offend the christi∣an religion: what will it boote the Prince (if the Bishops be disposed to picke a quarel against him) to saye, he offendeth not againste the Christian religion, but rather defendeth the true religion of Christ, against the corruptions of it? and in déede so he doth, but what auayleth eyther his excuse, or the truth of the matter, if the Bishops shall say it is heresie, and a∣gainst the christian faith, & the Bishops that so say, shal be the Iudges, whether it be so or no? were not the king as good get him out of his kingdome at the first, or else they will depose him & set him out with a heaue & ho? But that Bishops may thus hamper Princes as they list, where find we authoritie or example in the scripture? yes saith M. Saunders:

For God, which at the firste so seuered the heauenly king∣dome

from the earthly kingdome, that he suffered the kings of the earth, to come togither against the Lorde, and againste his anoynted, and thereby notably declared his power, while by the base things of the worlde (thatis) by the pouertie of the Apostles, and the tormentes of the Martyrs, he ouercame the mightie things the same God within a while after, did so ioin togither his heauenly kingdome, with the earthly kingdome, that there also he might shewe no lesse, both power and mer∣cie: while some kings voluntarily made themselues subiect to the pore Ministers of Christ: But other refusing at the first to be made subiects vnto thē, yet by the spirituall power of thē, were either afterwarde conuerted to repentance, or else vvere hurled downe from the high degree of the Empire they pos∣sessed that euery waye it should be true that God reuealed to Daniel: In the dayes of those kingdomes, the God of heauen shall rayse vp a kingdome, which shall neuer be destroyed, & his kingdome shall not be giuen to an other people, but it shall frush, and consume al kingdomes, and it shall stande for euer. This truely is the kingdome of heauen, or the power of the Church of God.

It is euen so M. Sand▪ and therefore not suche a worldly kingdome, as your Pope vsurpeth, & you proule for him to mainteine: but the heauenly kingdome of Christe, and the power of God, which is his Gospell, shall frush and consume your kingdome with the other. Nay (say you) they did indéed once iarre, but now they agrée, the heauenly and the earthly kingdome, are conioyned togither. Agréement is a good hearing, M. Sand▪ but what meane you by this coniunctiō•…•… that the one is become the other, and not still distinguished from it? or that your Pope may be king, and his Byshoppes Princes of bothe? nay M. Sand. you finde not that agrée∣ment and coniunction. For Christ hath put such a barre be∣twene them, that his spiritual Ministers, can not haue earth∣ly kingdomes, nor that earthly kings, shoulde in the estate of their earthly kingdomes, becōme subiecte in such wise to his

spirituall Ministers: otherwise than to yelde their obedience to their spirituall ministerie, representing the power & mer∣cie of God vnto them. But not to resigne their crownes vn∣to them, not to be troden vnder their feete, not to be deposed of them, and driuen out of their earthly kingdomes. The spirituall kingdome of Christ it selfe, (much lesse the spiri∣tuall ministers of that kingdome) dealeth not with earthly kings in such a fashion, which is not to agrée or ioyne wyth them, but to conspice against them.

You tel vs of some kings, that haue voluntarily yeelded thē selues subiectes, & some that were compelled and driuen out of their kingdomes, but was this done (as you saye) by the pouertie of the Apostles, and the tormentes of the Martyrs? True it is that by these base things, God ouercame y^e migh∣tie things of the world. But trow you y^t they by their pouer∣tie deposed kings, & by their suffering tormēts, draue thē out of their realme? that were a harde matter. But name the Apostle, name the martyr, name y^e king, name the kingdome & you can. No, you can not▪ But you shal finde the centrarie, for if they were in pouertie, then were they not rycher than kings: if they suffered tormentes, thē they put not mē to tor∣mēts they were tormēted, not tormēters, sufferers, not doers of thē. Neither suffered they as malefactors, for cōspiring a∣gainst kings, for going about to haue deposed kings frō their kingdomes. Are you not ashamed, your Popes being rycher thā kings, & crueller than tirante, to tel how God ouercame the mighte of the worlde, and increased his spirituall king∣dome? this was Gods doing, not mans, and by cleane con∣trarie meanes to your doings, and to cleane contrarie pur∣poses, not to storish in an earthly kingdome, or to dispossesse kings, as al your drifte doth tende. But you haue examples hereof, howe you broughte kings to this thraldome, but for shame ye durst not name thē, y^e stories were so tragical. But now, this being cōtrarie to Christes prohibition, he propoū∣neth an obiection himselfe in our behalfe, & answereth it.

Thou vvilt say, do therefore By▪ hoppes and Pastors of the shepe of Christ, rule temporal kingdomes? properly indeed, and of it selfe, in no vvise. But thus do Byshops rule temporal kingdomes, if so be such kingdomes do submit themselues to the Christian faith. For euen in this, that Christian kings and nations do desire the faith & Sacraments of Christ, they pro∣mise heerein, that they vvill neither gouerne, nor obey any earthly gouernment, further than the Christian faith and re∣ligion may suffer. If therefore either the gouernement of the king, or the peoples obedience, begin to svvarue othervvayes, either they may be deposed from their gouernment, or most iustly excluded from the povver of choosing a king, by the force of the couert, or expressed couenāt, which at the begin∣ning they made vvith the Church of Christe. For vvhat soe∣uer is so much of the nature of the thing that is done, that if by chaunce mention vvas made thereof at the beginning, it can not othervvise agree, than by that one vvaye: vvhich although it were not expressed betvvene the bargain makers, yet is it holden for expressed: bicause it was necessari∣ly contained in the nature of that that was done. For ensam∣ple. A man saith to a vvoman: I take thee to my vvise: she a∣gaine making answere, I take thee to my husbande: But that they shall liue togither, euen till death, although this expresly is not vttered in the couenant, notwithstanding it is so con∣tained in the nature of the thing, that it is necessarily vnder stood. After the same maner it is, when either the king, or any priuat man, is made a member of the church by faith & bap∣tisme. For euen in that, that he renounceth the worlde & the pomps thereof, verily he promiseth, that he will neuer abuse the power of his earthly kingdome, againste the faithe and church of Christ. And if so be he shall do it, he wil not refuse but that he may be depriued of the right of his kingdome. For I aske, if this namely should come in question. Softe, M. Sand▪ we must interrupt you, or els we cānot so cōuenient∣ly answere you. To your question anon, now to your argu∣ment,

and your 〈◊〉〈◊〉 there•…•…n.

The obrection you made, was this: whether Bishops and Pastors of the sheepe of Christ, may rule temporall king∣domes? You answere: properly, and of it selfe, in no wise. But as those kingdomes do subiect them selues to the Chri∣stian sayth. This is a proper elusion M. Saunders, thinke you to escape thus? is it all one to subiecte their kingdomes to•…•…e Christian fayth, and to subiect their kingdomes to the Bishops? Good 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it is that the fayth should beare the •…•…héefe rule. But the obiection was, whether the Bishops should, or no? and therfore this •…•…inction serueth not. For Christ simply, without this or y^• respect debar•…•…eth al his spi ritual ministers frō ruling of tēporal kingdomes. Who kno∣weth not, that properly and of their owne nature, temporall kingdomes should not be ruled of spirituall pastors, but of tē∣poral king•…•…? None is so simple, to moue such a fond obiectiō. But the obiection is, whether the one be coincident to the o∣ther. Whether a Bishop to whō properly by his Bishoply of∣fice, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 kingdome belongeth not, may take vpon him the go∣uernment of a kingdome, that properly by his kingly office belōgeth to a king. This i•…•… y^e question. And you say, proper∣ly he can not, & I say muche 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vnproperly. But properly or vnproperly, Christ hath clea•…•… debarred it, Vos autem non 〈◊〉〈◊〉, But you shall not do so. These words strike dead, master Sand▪ & therfore your vnproper distinctiō may go pike him.

But (say you) when they subiected them to the Christian fayth, the kings promised no longer to raygne, the people promised to obey no power further, than the christian fayth wil suffer: therefore if the kings power, or the peoples obe∣dience swarue from this promise▪ the king may be deposed, and the people can choose no other•…•…

•…•…ll good promises (so 〈◊〉〈◊〉 as we may) are to be kept in∣•…•…iolate, master Saunders, especially the promise made to Christ, to kéepe his fayth and religion incorrupted. And would to God, all men did kéepe it, chiefly the Popishe By∣shops, that haue in so many poyntes, swarued from the

fayth, and corrupted Christes religion, & yet haue made their promise to keepe it so well as others. And if they shoulde be deposed for breaking their promise, your Pope should be de∣posed first, to begin withal, and all his Prelates & Priestes should followe. And althoughe it were to be wyshed they were in déede all deposed and those onely that repent them, admitted, and reformed to the true ministerie 〈◊◊◊〉〈◊◊◊〉 yet can not the like be wished for in Princes, that they like∣wise breaking their promises, shoulde be deposed by their Bishops. For, althoughe we haue in Gods worde, an euident example for the Prince to depose the Bishoppe vpon his demerites, as Salomon deposed Abiathar: yet haue we not the like example for the Bishop to depose the Prince. For in y^e authoritie of deposing, the Prince is high∣er than the Bishop. Although it is not to be wished, y^e Prin∣ces should attempt without great and euident proofe, to de∣pose any. As for the Bishop to take vpon him to depose his Prince, béeing his sworne subiecte, is bothe agaynst his owne fayth and homage•…•…, and further than his authoritie reacheth.

The Bishops and Priests had great iniurie offred them of king Saule, yet they neuer cursed him, nor attempted to depose him. No, Dauid (although he were him selfe also the Lords anoynted) would neuer oppugne Saule, or rebel agaynst him, but only stode at his defence, and when he had Saule in his daunger, he would neither kill him, nor take him, nor depose him, but let him go, and committed his qua∣rell to the Lorde, bicause Saule was not onely likewise the Lordes annoynted, but then in lawfull possession of the crowne. And therefo•…•…e Dauid woulde neuer take it from him, althoughe he had good title to it. Muche lesse may the Bishops, (that haue no title to it) attempte to pull downe their Prince. They may, yea they oughte to exhorte their Prince, hauing broken his promise, and rebuk•…•… him, and lay before him the terrible threates of God they may pray

for him▪ but they can not lay handes vpon him, nor curse him, nor reuile him, nor take armes agaynst him, nor in∣•…•…ite other to rebellion, to forsake him, and to set vpon him, beeing their Liege and Soueraigne.

I am not ignoraunt, that Princes haue bene deposed of their subiects in diuers coūtreys, and diuers times in Eng∣lande. And the like casualtie may chaunce in euery age and kingdome vnto princes. But for those things, by what title they were done, God knoweth, & I will not descant nowe, but this I affirme in generall, that in respect of the people, those things were more def•…•…cto, than de •…•…ure▪ although in res∣pecte of Gods iustice, or of the Princes chastisement, that •…•…ad deserued (before God) so muche and more, it was de •…•…ure too. But the subiects can neuer iustifie such deedes to be done, howe euer they be borne out when they be done, nor such extraordinary deedes past, may be drawne to ordinarie examples of deedes to come, but be spectacles for princes in beholding suche tragedies past, to learne for the present to •…•…umble them selues, and to leuell their life to come the bet∣ter. And alth•…•…gh many of these deposings of princes, haue •…•…ot come so 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by the v•…•…ce of their vnnatural subiects, as by the practises of the Popish bishops: as the ensamples of king Iohn in Englande, of Childerike in Fraunce, the Henries and other in Germanie, and in other countreys, do testifie: yet were these dealings of th•…•…se Bishops not al∣lowable, but detestable, ye•…•… though it were graunted that those prince•…•… ha•…•… deserued them, & brokē their faith and pro∣mise▪ Which (if it were a good faith & promise) was no doubt an euill breac•…•…e of it, an•…•… God will take the vengeance of it, it belongeth not is the people, nor to the Bishops. Ven∣geance is mine, sayth God, and I will render it. He sayth not, my Bishops shall, but I will render it.

Yea but (sayt•…•… M. 〈◊〉〈◊〉) the Prince himselfe hathe made a promise, to raigne no longer, than the fayth and reli∣gion of Christ alloweth.

I aunswere if he ma•…•… this pr•…•…yse; it is a good promyse, and he is bou•…•… in conscience to stand ther•…•…. But what if •…•…e wickedly breake his promise, shall the Bishope rebell▪ and breake their promise too? is there no remedie, but 〈◊〉〈◊〉 pellere, to driue out one mischiefe with another▪ Nay saith S. Paule▪ Non faciamus malum, vt inde eueniatb•…•…nū, Let vs not do e∣uill that good may come of i•…•…▪ Let vs not•…•…bell against the Prince, that the Prince may be reformed. Quorum damnatio iusta est. If the Bishops do so, they heape I•…•…st damnation vpō themselues. Were the Prince in déede such a one as the Bi∣shops pretend, (if it be not rather their malicious pretence) as God hath giuen them no such violent meanes to reforme him, which were to make him rather worse than better, and to bring all in a broyle, and themselues (besides their sin) in daunger▪ so God hath giuen thē another meane, if they could see it, of preaching his word vnto the Prince, which is ano∣ther maner of sword, and more fitte for them to fight with∣all, than to pull the temporall sworde oute of the Princes hands. In dede so did Cardinall Columne, when the Pope said he woulde pull of his Cardinals hatte, he soul the Pope word, if he pulled off his Cardinals hatto, he would put on a helmet, and pull downe his triple Crowne. These Prelates haue little skill of the spirituall sw•…•…rde, although they crake of it, and of S. Pet•…•…rs keyes, but they neither know how to vse them, nor what they be, that thinke they consist in depo∣sing Princes and fighting against them.

But M. Saunders, not seyng the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of his owne Bi∣shops faith and promise▪ beginneth narrowly to ex•…•…mine the faith & promise of Princes▪ Go to th•…•…; let vs sée what he lay∣eth to y^e Princes charge. He made promise (saith he) that he would be no longer king, thā he 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 faith of Christ. And the people promised to suffer 〈◊◊◊◊〉〈◊◊◊◊〉 them, fur∣d•…•… •…•…han the faith of Christ. 〈◊◊◊〉〈◊◊◊〉 they this pro∣mise▪ M. Saunders? •…•…t Baptism•…•… (say you) where they pro∣mised to renounce the world, and the pompes therof In dede

M Saunders they made this promise▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 their Bapti•…•…▪ to •…•…enounce th•…•… •…•…orld and the pomp•…•… •…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉 this, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 I suppose 〈◊〉〈◊〉 you an•…•… your Bishops 〈◊〉〈◊〉 also. How you haue kept it, not onely God & you in your conscience know: but all the world séeth how you haue broken it. And if your deposing lay on that promise in Baptisme, surely ye shoulde all be deposed out o•…•… question. But I am sure, you wil make exception for your worldly kingdomes, pompes, and digni∣ties, that here you write for▪ 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 and kepe: that you will not renounce them, for all that promi•…•…, and will say, there is •…•…nt, not 〈◊◊◊〉〈◊◊◊〉, but the ambitious mind in getting and keping of them. Wh•…•…h am∣•…•… although you still retaine, with infinite other 〈◊〉〈◊〉 •…•…pen 〈◊〉〈◊〉: yet 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 not willingly depose your selu•…•… from those worldly: promotions, 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 deposed fro•…•… them. And can you make these exceptions, excuses and di∣stinctions, for the retaining of yours 〈◊〉〈◊〉 your Bis•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ poralties, and will not allow them in the Prince, for the re∣taining, 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈◊◊◊◊◊〉〈◊◊◊◊◊〉, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 yours are 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 cessorie▪ vnto yours? 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is partiall and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 dealyng with Prin•…•… M. 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪

But how pr•…•…ue you, that Prin•…•…es 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉, pro∣mised to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 their kingdome, if they should forsake the faith and that the 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 their 〈◊〉〈◊〉 promised to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 nounce their▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 & t•…•… rebell 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉, i•…•… their Prince shoulde 〈3 lines〉〈3 lines〉 might forsake the 〈5 lines〉〈5 lines〉 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (say you) •…•…t is contai•…•…ed in 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 of the thing that

is promised. And here you speake somewhat darkly, like a lawyer, & quote vs vp lawe out of Pomponius in your mar∣gin, and to make the matter plainer, you bring in the ensam∣ple of a contract in mariage, betwen the man and the womā: the man saith, I take thee to my wife, the woman saith, and I take thee to my husband. In these wordes here is no naming of continuance 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and ye•…•… •…•…o this contract it is compre∣hended•…•…▪

Your law rol•…•…, and your ensample are good, M. Saūders, but your 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is all. For in the nature of the promise at Baptisme: •…•…o 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 of authoritie, or obedience, is either named 〈◊〉〈◊〉 •…•…hended. There is, I graunte a con∣tract made for thef•…•…rmei of all their liues, to kepe the faith of Christ, and this all their liues they ought to kepe. But that they promised either •…•…o •…•…nounce their owne estates, or their Princes estates, for the breach of this contract: that is nei∣ther spoken nor thought vpon in baptisme, nor is contained in the nature of it. For Christ•…•…, nor the compacte with him, brakes not the Ciuill and po•…•…e •…•…state, of mens gouern∣ment or obedience but rather 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it. As for Kings, are not •…•…ommonly king•…•… at their Baptisme, nor are made kings by Baptisme, (except you speake of spiritual kings, as they are mysticall members of Christ.) and now and then, he that is a king, was a priuate persons chr•…•…de, and no man knew at his Baptisme, that •…•…uer he should become a king: as for the▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉, had least o•…•… all, any suche intention: howe could 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 th•…•…n of renouncing a kingdome, be en∣tended in his promise at Baptisme? and muche lesse on the subiecte behalts: for if in their promise at Baptisme, should be entended the condition of refusing obedience to their Prince then •…•…daid be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a thing, that neither lyeth in their power to performe (for all subiectes can not for sake their obedience, and they woulde neuer so •…•…aine) neither if they would and could, they should refuse it. It is not (as Dot∣tor Story, farre vnlike a lawyer, and farre more vnlike a

Christian, said at his 〈◊〉〈◊〉) 〈◊〉〈◊〉 •…•… subi•…•…s choice and power to forsake his Princes obedience and his countrey, and goe whether he lyst, to liue under what Prince he fan∣sieth: for by this •…•…anes, all policics may be soone dissolued, and subiects were euen as good rebell against their Princes, as goe their way from them, and forsake their subiection to them: They made no suche promise at Baptisme, to forsake their Princes authoritie▪ •…•…o though•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉 should be•…•…me an in∣fidel: To forsake his and all others infidelitie, & not to o∣bey him, or any other, in his 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ this they promi∣sed, but not to forsake him in his authoritie: but rather their authoritie, being an ordinance of •…•…d, and their obedi∣ence to their magistrates, whatsoeuer they b•…•…, beyng also gods commaundement, they are 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by their Baptisme, not to forsake it. Princes also, & all subiects are •…•…ūd in bap∣tisme, to renounce all other sinne, & as long as they liue to cleaue to al other vertues, & this is directly comprehended in their couenant. If now the Prince or the people after Bap∣tisme, shall forsake any vertue, & clean•…•… to any •…•…n, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 they be therfore deposed from their estates? who should not the•…•… be deposed?

Let vs take your owne example of mariage, The mā saith to the womā, I take thee to my wife, the womā saith to the mā, I take thee to my husband: here is (say you) no menction made of cōtinuing togither till death and yet it i•…•… comprehended. In dede M. Saunders in these words y^t you cite, it is not mē∣tioned, but both in yours and our order of marying, euē those words also be by name expressed, till death vs depart: & God hath expressed them saying: whō god hath ioyned, let not man separate. But there are other wordes also, not entended one∣ly, but expressed, as these, whiche the man promiseth, that he will loue the woman comfort hir, honor & kepe hir. &c. the woman likewise to the man, that shée wyll loue, cheryshe, honour & obey him. These things eyther do promise to kepe to other, & these things belong to y^e nature of y^• contract also.

〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 disobey hir husband, or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not, •…•…r honour him, as she hath promised and ought to do: if agains the man loue not hir, or cherishe hir not, as he hath also promised and ought to doe: neither onely brackes fall ou•…•… betwéene them, but also •…•…he •…•…ise coutinueth 〈◊◊◊〉〈◊◊◊〉, the man 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 forsake the other, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the promise ma•…•…e in the contract is 〈2 lines〉〈2 lines〉 and yet they are (in the contract made betwene them) bound to as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 those vertues, as to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that 〈◊〉〈◊〉▪ No, they are not •…•…und •…•…ther, •…•…o forsake the one thi•…•… other 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉. In which case they may forsake▪ 〈◊◊◊〉〈◊◊◊〉, they may be •…•…conciled, and con∣tinue together. •…•…ut (you 〈◊〉〈◊〉) in this case of swaruing from the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, the subiect and the Prince may not continue toge∣ther▪ 〈2 lines〉〈2 lines〉 〈◊◊◊〉〈◊◊◊〉 the man and the womā are by their contract in mariage, knit inseparably togither, (especially as the Papists ma•…•…e the contract, that it is neuer vndone, for any vice, no not for whordome, although they graunt, there may be in n•…•…ne, but 〈◊〉〈◊〉 déede a separation:) so the Prince and the •…•…ubiect, being contracted togither in the polycie of a 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 the one 〈◊〉〈◊〉 faithfull gouernement, the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 promising faithfull obedience, notwithstanding all their vices, that fall out afterwards betwene them, may not be •…•…ieane parted a sunder, the Prince from his authori∣tio; the su•…•…iect from his obedienc•…•…, but till their liues endes, most 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 together▪ and as the priest •…•…an not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 〈2 lines〉〈2 lines〉 but, by your owne 〈◊〉〈◊〉 makes 〈◊〉〈◊〉 againste you. But now •…•…ay •…•…n, and moue your question, M. Saunders.

I aske (say you) if this by name, should come in questiō, whe∣ther this shoulde, not necessarily be aunswered to that King, which would become a Christian? Let it be, that King Lucius come to Blessed Eleutherius the Pope, yea or else king Clo∣doueus to Blessed Remigius, and desire them selues to be ad∣mitted into the societie of the Christian people. But let vs suppose, that the Blessed Eleutherius or Remigius answere to eyther of them: we are glad (most deere Sonne) that thou de∣sirest to be made a Citizen of the kingdome of heauen, but this thou oughtest to knowe for certaintie, that the case is not •…•…ke in the kingdome of heauen, as it is in the worlde. For in the Church, thou must liue so, that thou make captiue thy vnder∣standing to the obedience of •…•…aith. But thou, how greater thou arte in the world, maist so much the more hurt the Churche of God, •…•…f thou shalt abuse the right of thy sworde, to the defence of heretikes, contrarie to the Catholike faithe. No otherwise therfore maist thou haue entrie into the Church, than if thou shalte promise, that thou wilt persist in that sa•…•…h, and defende that Church, with all thy force, which being receiued from the Apostles, is continued by the succession of Bishops vntill this daye, and dispersed throughe oute all the world. But if it shall chance thou doest otherwise, thou shalt not refuse, but shalt go from the right of thy kingdome, and promise to lead a priuate life: here if the King Lucius make answere: I am ready to ac∣knowledge the Christiā faith, but I neither promise that I will defend with my sword, the Catholike faith neither will I (for whatsoeuer I shall do) giue ouer the righte of my kingdome. Can the Bishop to this man thus affected, minister the Sacra∣ment of Baptisme, and deliuer the sacrament of thanksgiuing? can he therfore be a member of Christ, that will not submit his Scepter vnto Christ, and refuseth to serue him?

Your example and your question hang not together, M. Saunders to your last question, I answere, that he can not be a member of Christe, that will not submit his Scepter vnto Christ, and refuseth to serue him. But what is this question

to your former question, of submitting himselfe to the By∣shop to depose him? there is greater difference, betwixte Christs Scepter, and the Bishops Crosier, than betwéene the Kings Crowne and the Bishops Miter.

But to come to your examples which drawe somewhat nerer to your purpose. First, trow you, that these two exam∣ples, of King Lucius and Clodoue•…•…, will answere al th•…•…se and serue for all Kings? I suppose they will not▪ For these kings receiued Baptisme, being of lawfull yeares, and •…•…ight haue made a voluntarie graunt, to all that you pr•…•…suppose, your Bishops would haue demaū•…•…ed of thē, & so might haue snarled themselues in their briers and bondage. But yeutā not presuppose y^e like of infants, especially of those infantes, whose parents were Christ•…•… Princes before, who are bap∣tized long before they are kings. And althoughe they might order y^• child, as ill as they ordered y^• other, y^t •…•…o rawly came to Christēdome: yet would not the parentes being alread•…•…e Christened, bring their Children in such bondage. Neither could they demand it of a childe, which was not a king, nor perchaunce borne to a kingdome, but gat it afterwarde by prowesse.

Secondly these be but vaine presupposals & false. For al∣though Clodouen•…•… was Baptized by Remigius: yet was not Lucius baptized by Eleutherius, but either by the two prea∣chers which Eleutherius sent, or as it rather appéereth, by y^e content of Eleutherius letters, King Lucius was himselfe a Christian before, & therfore Eleutherius sent them not as Le∣gates, nor sent any such conditions by them, nor any lawes or ceremonies of the Church of Rome, but referreth y^• King to the word of God, and was so farre from taking vpon him to be gods Ui•…•…ar, ouer the King & his kingdome: that in plain words be yeldeth that authoritie & title to King Lucius. And as for Clodoueus, though he call Remigius his patrone & au∣thor of the discipline and Religiō, bicause he baptized him & in structed him therin: yet as for any such couenant or condi∣tion,

not to admit him to the faith of Christ, except he woulde sweare before hand, that if he would not defend the Bishops & their faith, he shoulde forsake his kingdome, and promise to leade a priuate life: Remigius conditioned no such thing, no more than Elentherins before had done to Lucius. For when Clodoneus being an infidel, and yet hauing a Christian wise which made him som•…•…hat more enclinable: & being in bat∣taile against the Almaines, & making his vowe to Christ in his distresse, to receiue the Christiā faith, if he should get the victorie: which being obtained, and he returned home with triumph, willing to receiue the faith of Christ: his wise made hast to Remigius y^e Bishop of Remes Lxhorting him (saith •…•…onius) forthwith to come to the Court, that while he wa∣uered yet in suspence, he would open to him the way of truth, that leadeth to God: for (she said) she feared, least his minde puffed vp with prosperitie, while he knoweth not the giuer of these things, he should contemne him. For things that fall oute as we would haue them, fall out of our minde likewise, in con∣tinuance of ryme, more easilie than those things, that fall out otherwise than we would. The Bishop hasteneth to obey the admonishing of the Religious woman. He presenteth himself to the sight of the King, that nowe a prettie while had aboade his cōming. The faith is declared by the Bishop, the meanes of beleuing is taught. The King also acknowledging the faith, de∣uoutly promiseth that he w•…•…l serue one God. As for the peeres of his Realme & armie, he will proue his opinion, which what it is of this matter, he affirmeth, that so muche more denoutly they wold submit their neckes to Christ, how much more they should see thēselues to be prouoked with intreaties, rather thā with terrors. The condition pleaseth, a publike calling forth of the people is made by the Kings cōmaundement, to whom the King maketh an oratiō, & persuadeth y^e people to receiue the faith of Christ, & moueth them to submit their neckes to Christ, the priest reioyceth, that the King not yet baptized, is becōe an Apostle of his owne natiō & so the King is baptised.

What condition is here made by the Bishoppe vnto the King, of giuing ouer his realme, & deposing himselfe? which might haue done more hart thā good. In what cou•…•…nant did the people here binde themselues, to loo•…•…e the liberti•…•… of cho∣sing their King, or promise to forsake their King, if their King forsake the faith? here was no such bondage •…•…red, •…•…∣ther to the King by the Bishop, and the King thought good to offer none such to the people, but with gentle persuasions to all•…•…re them. So that these presupposals of these Bishops speaches vnto these Princes, are vtterly false, and forged, onely to driue in the readers heads, a surmise of seme suche conditionall admission to the Christian faith, in these elde Princes dayes, whiche was nothing so nor so. And yet by these colourable presupposals, he enforceth his matter with a question, aying:

Can the Bishop to this man thus affected minister the sacra∣ment of Baptisme and giue the sacrament of thanksgiuing?

Why, M. Saūders, here was no such condition moued, & yet Remigius gaue Clodoneus the sacrament of Baptisme▪ In deede the sacrament of that k•…•…giuing, he gaue not then vnto hym, neyther was it necessarie till he were instructed in the mysterie of it. And therefore this is as fondly added in this case, to the Sacrament of Baptisme, as your case of Baptisme is craftily and malicio•…•…sly deuised, to bring Princes in bon∣dage vnto Bishoppes. But this King, thoughe he and his people submitted their neckes to Christe, yet did he not thus submit himselfe and his people to the Bishoppe. The long promiseth to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 one God, but not to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 eyther the Bi∣shop of Remes, or the Bishop of Rome▪ These knackes and conditions of bondage, for Princes to promise and •…•…weare obedience to the Pope and to his Bishops, yea to sweare to depose themselues and become p•…•…uate men, if they forscke this cons•…•…rained obedience: is of later times, as the Popes power and tirannie hath growne, and hath 〈◊◊◊〉〈◊◊◊〉 to Christian Princes, & great hu•…•…lie but l•…•…s in manye

Christian kingdomes. But yet it neuer went thus for as it now should do▪ if M. Saunders might haue hie minde, for it was neuer vrged in their Christ•…•…dome before. This pasieth y^e slauerie of the Spanish Inquisitiō, that no Prince nor peo∣ple shuld be christened, except they swere to these exceptiōs.

In the olde time when the Prophetes anoynted kinges, they tolde them of the blessings of God to come vpon them, and their posteritie to sitte in their seate after them, and that God woulde buylde them an house to continue, if they serued him, and walked faythfully in his wayes. And if they should do the contrarie, howe God woulde rende the king∣dome from them, and giue it to another. Of suche promises and threates that the Prophetes tolde the kinges, we reade, and of the promises that the kinges made agayne to God, we reade: but that any Prophet compounded with the king before, that he shoulde renounce his kingdome, or that any king tooke either their circumcision or their kingdome on suche condition, or that the king reuolting from his pro∣mise, either voluntarily, or by compulsion deposed him selfe, or was deposed of the Bishop, Priest, or Prophet of God: these thinges y•…•… can not shewe vs, but these thinges ye shoulde shewe vs, if ye will make good your sayings, and directly proue your purpose. You tell vs heere a tale of a tubbe, in the name of these kinges & Bishops, that they ne∣uer dyd, nor (I thinke) dyd euer thinke of any such deuises.

But go too, let vs nowe presuppose with M. Saunders, euen as he imagineth. A King would be baptised. The Bi∣shop sayth: VVe are glad (most deare sonne) that thou desi∣rest to be made a citizen of the kingdome of heauen, but this thou oughtest to knowe for certayntie, that the case is not like in the kingdome of heauen, as it is in the worlde, for in the Churche thou muste liue so, that thou make captine thy vnderstanding to the obedience of fayth. But thou how grea∣ter thou art in the worlde, mayest so muche the more hurte the Churche of God, if thou shalte abuse the righte of thy

sworde, to the defence of heretikes, contrarie to the Catho∣like fayth. No otherwise therefore thou mayest haue entrie into the Churche, than if thou shalt promise, that thou wilte persist in that fayth, and defende that Churche, with all thy force, which beeing receiued from the Apostles, is continued by the successiō of Bishops vntil this day, & dispersed through out all the world. But if it shall chaunce thou doest other∣wise, thou shalt not refuse, but shalte go from the right of thy kingdome, and promise to leade a priuate life.

M. Saunders nowe presupposeth that the king (hearing the Bishop thus beginne to indent with him) will beginne his answere to the Bishop thus:

I am ready to acknowledge the Christian fayth.

Why, M. Sand. is not this inough? if the Bishop séeke something else besides the acknowledging of the Christian fayth: Surely he neither séeketh the glory of God, nor the Princes saluation, nor y^e encrease of Christendome, but his owne sucre & authoritie. Well, the Bishop will haue him graunt to all the residue of his conditions, or else he will not baptise him. Heere agayne he presupposeth the king to say further.

But I neither promise, that I will with my sworde defende the Catholike fayth, neither will I (for whatsoeuer I shall do) giue ouer the right of my kingdome.

Ye tel the kings tale parcially, M. San▪ you should make it flatly to denie that, whiche the Bishop exacted of him to do. Which was, to promise to defend, not the faith but that faith, & that Church, &c. Which the king denieth, to make promise vnto the Bishop on suche condition. Yea? saith M. Sand. & saucely steppeth in for the B. can the B. to this man thus affected, minister the sacrament of baptisme? &c.

And why not (M. San.) if the bishop be not worse affected him selfe than this man is? for you graunt your selfe, that he is wel affected towards the christiā faith & would acknow∣ledge it, which is al one with defending it. And if the bishop

be not content with this promise, hath not y^e king good cause to suspect him? he telleth him of bondes & conditions to be made, to renounce the right of his kingdome, if he per•…•…e not in that faith with al his force, if he defēd not that church, that was receiued from the Apostles, continued by successiō of B. till this day and i•…•… dispersed throughout all the world.

May not here the king (as it is likely, by M. Sand. tale, he hath witte & wisedome inough) begin to smel a rat, & think with him selfe: what should he meane to put this differ•…•…ce? I freely offered to receiue the Christian fayth, and he wyll not take this offer, but wyll haue me receiue that faith, and that Churche, that (he sayth) was from the Apostles, and is continued by succession of Bishops till this day, and is disper∣sed throughout all the worlde. Why, and is not this the christian fayth, and the christian Churche? If it be, I offe∣red my selfe to it before, but he refaseth my offer. Then surely this is not that fayth and Church, that he meaneth. And why should he rather haue me bounde to the Apostles, (if they were Christes Apostles) than to Iesus Christ him selfe? shal I be baptised in their names? why should I binde my selfe to Bishops succestors which what they haue ben, & how ill, or how welsome of them haue succeeded their pre∣decessors, I knowe not, nor I will sweare for thē. And why shoulde I then sweare vnto them, rather than vnto the fayth of Christ, who is the chiefe Bishop of our soules? And why should I binde my selfe to ▪ Church dispersed through∣out all the worlde? What meaneth he by this? the grea∣test and mightiest multitude? or the lyttle flocke of Christ scattered in euery Nation? or be it greate or little, why should he bind me more to men, than vnto Iesus Christ? And why requireth he to these things, (as if it were, euen to Christe him selfe, and to the fayth of him) the defence of all my force, and what meaneth he by this force? that I shall for all these thinges, gather all my power, and make sharpe warre, where, and when he cōmaundes me?

and that I shal oblige my selfe to al these conditions, on the forfeyture of my kingdome, and depose my selfe from my •…•…ght, & become a priuate man, and leaue the office & charge y^t God hath called me vnto, for leauing of these things. Yea & that if I should not wilfully do otherwise, but if I should chaunce to do otherwise. And what if he would threape vpon me, that I chaunced to do otherwise? Surely, surely, this is not playne dealing with me, nor any good meaning to me. He seekes not my saluation, but my kingdome, that thus would snarle me, and is not content that I fréely offer to acknowledge the Christian fayth.

What if the King would cast all these coniectures, ma∣ster Saunders? trow you he hathe not good occasion mini∣stred? yea, what if the King héere vpon, béeing thus refused of the Bishop, examined these thinges throughly? shoulde he not finde foule holes in your coate? I tell you, it would touche you to the quicke. And perhaps it had béene better for the Bishop to haue taken the kinges frée offer, and with∣out suche conditions to haue giuen him his baptisme: for else he might haue it of some other Bishops hands, that had learned of Christ, not to breake the broosed reede, nor to quenche the smoking flaxe, nor to caste off, by suche inden∣tinges, this godly disposed Prince, but with all humilitie and diligence, to receiue, instruct, & baptise him, yea and bewray all your Popishe iuglinges. And what had ye got∣ten then, by these your proude conditions? hathe not your pride and couetousnesse made you make a faire market, and loose so riche a pray?

But nowe let vs yet admitte your presupposall further. The king would be baptized. The Bishop refuseth, except on these conditions, to admitte him. The king séeth there is no remedie, he receyueth these conditions. What is his du∣tie nowe to do, but with all his force to persist and defende them▪ What is that? for sooth, that fayth and Church, which beeing receyued from the Apostles, is continued by the suc∣cession

of Bishops, vntill this day, and dispersed throughout all the worlde. Nowe sithe this is his charge, and he is bounde to obserue it with all his force, on forfeyture of his kingdome: is it not g•…•… reason, that he examine and boulte out, which this fayth and Churche is. Especially since he heareth that there is great cōtrouersie about these matters, and that there are both wise, learned, & famous men of both sides. Yea? sayth he, if the case be not cleare, that I am so strayghtly bounde in, it standes me vpon, to looke to this geare better, and to heare bothe parties say what they can, that I may know and be sure, that I keepe my promise, and not to forfayt my bonde.

What now (for his better assurance) shal the prince do? must he not here, call bothe the parties before him, & say to the Bishop that tooke thi•…•… promise of him? •…•…y Lorde, you remember what promise you made me make vnto you, or euer you would baptise me. And nowe I heare say, the •…•…oyntes that you made me promise, to defende with all my force, and to persist therein, are litigious. You holde them one way, and your aduerfaries another way: you say, your fayth and Church, is that faith and Church, that was receiued of the Apostles, for howesoeuer the succession of Bishops haue helde it, and whersoeuer it hath bene dispersed, the re∣ceipte of the Apostles from Christ himselfe, I perceiue, is the first and principal condition, that I promised to persist in, and to defende withall my force. The other twayne must both depende on this I chiefly minde therfore to k•…•…pe this, & the other as they shal agrée hereto. But here your aduer∣saries, on the other p•…•…t, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and offer to proue it, that your faith and Church is not that faith and Church that the Apostles receiued and deliuered, but i•…•… a faith and Church •…•…egenerate, and swarnedfromit. And therefore if you will not be youre selues the cause, t•…•… make me breake the pro∣mise that ye made me take: ye muste cléere your selues of that▪ your aduersaries obiect against you, and confute them.

And you she Bishops aduersaries, on the other side, must•…•… bring foorthe youre prooues, and defences of youre faythe and Churche, and shewe good reason, why I should not im∣pugne your fayth and churche, and defende theirs agaynst you. And héere for equall dealing betweene you bothe, bée∣ing parties playntife or defendaunt, neither of you your selues shall be your owne, or your aduersaries Iudge (for the one were partialitie, the other iniurie) neither I (whom the matter, bothe for my office, and for my promise and forfeyture, toucheth nearest) will be your Iudge, but an in∣different hearer of bothe parties. And bicause you bothe ad∣mitte the Scriptures to be Gods worde, and both the Apo∣stles fayth, and the Apostles Church, is manifestly recor∣ded in the Scriptures, and Christ also willeth vs to search the Scriptures, for they beare recorde of him: the matter shall be determined by the Scriptures. Both of your fai•…•…hes and Churches shall be leueled by that platforme, that shall be there apparantly expressed. And as the Scripture shall strike the stroke betwéene you, I will minister 〈◊〉〈◊〉 rightly, to saue my promise. And will de•…•…ende w•…•…th all my force, that fayth and Churche, that I finde in déede receyued from the Apostles, and will extirpate with all my force, that faith and Churche that is degenerate from it.

What if the King saye thus, master Saunders? trowe you the Bishop hearing this (whiche notwithstanding is but righte and reason, and the King euen of the Bishop enforced thereto) will he accepte the offer? No, master Saundess, the Bishoppe will crie oute, and so will you, that the matter shall not goe thus, and that the King may not doe this, howsoeuer it stande him vpon. But you will appeale from him, vnto your selues, as Iudges. Whiche when the King shall heare, will 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not iudge this a madde appeale? and suspecte your cause the worsse? and thinke that you playnely woulde abuse him? And so, to kéepe his

promise made vnto you, turne his force iustly agaynst you? Haue you not heere made a rodde for your owne tayle, if the Prince be but indifferent, and not too muche, either of simplicitie or dastardie abused by you? And thus by the righteous iudgement of God, your owne tyrannie is the cause of your owne plague: and that by the seife 〈◊〉〈◊〉 meanes, whereby you woulde vniustly haue hampered the Prince, he hathe iustly hampered you. I pray God all Christian Princes woulde once take these iuste occasions, to examine well, but euen those dueties and tyties that you put vnto them, and woulde but minister iustice to you, euen as you ha•…•… forced them thereto. And thus muche, M. Saunders, for your presupposed examples, betwéene these Kings and Bishops▪ Let vs nowe beholde howe you pro∣céede vpon them.

How therfore said the Lord in Daniel? kingdome, and po∣wer, and the mighte of kingdome, that is vnder all the hea∣uen shall be giuen to the people of the Saincts of the Hyest. VVhose kingdome is an euerlasting kingdome, and all Kings or powers shal serue and obey him. Howe saide the Lorde (as it is in Esay) vnto his Churche? The sonnes of straun∣gers shall buylde thy walles, and the Kinges of them shal minister vnto thee, and their sonnes that haue broughte thee lowe, shal come and bowe them selues to thee, and all those that spake euill of thee, shall worshippe the steppes of thy feete. Howe shall the worde of Christe be true, where∣in hee sayde too▪ his Disciples, hee that despyseth you, despyseth mee, or that that hee sayde too Peter: Thou arte Peter, and vppon thys Rocke wyll I buylde▪ my Churche, and the ga•…•…, of Hell shall not preuayle a∣gaynst it.

You are a waster, Master Saunders, to make suche lauishe of youre prooues so impertinently, or rather, you are wrester too applye them so falsely. For the Kyng that héere refuseth the Bishoppes conditions: of∣fereth hym selfe moste freely too all obedience that is

héere mentioned, in offering himselfe to acknowledge the Christian saythe. As for the Lordes sentence in Daniel▪ prophecying of the immortal glorie, that after the iudgemēt of Christ, shal be giuen to the Saintes of the most highest, and of the obediēce to Christes euerlasting kingdome: these are other matters, & are so wrested of you to the state of this lyfe, that it will breede you some suspition of being a Mil∣lenarie heretike, except you say you ment it spiritually. But then it toucheth not the kings polytike estate. But howsoe∣uer you meane it, you doe great iniurie to kings, and shew no lesse arrogancie in your selues to applie that vnto you, that is spoken of the Saincts of the highest. This kingdom and power, that he speaketh of, is theirs, yea kings, so well as any other be partakers of it, and you claime it allonly to your Priestly and Bishoply power: whereas it is rather to be doubted, that ye shall haue no parts at all therof. But your portion in the kingdome of proude Lucifer, that not onely apply this to your selues: but also the glorie and king∣dome due to Christe, of the obedience to whiche, Daniell playnely speaketh, and you wrest it to the obedience of your Bishoppes. As for this obedience to Christe, the king did offer to yelde it, in offering to acknowledge the Chri∣stian fayth. But your Bishop was not content therewith. And you to helpe your bishop and to dismay the king, make the bishops demaunde suche a necessarie thing, that you aske, howe dyd the Lorde speake in Daniell, except kinges should offer to renounce their kingdomes vnto priestes? What, master Saunders, waxe you so sawcie with God, to argue him of a lye, but the saying of God is true, and you are lyers, and the king may still keepe his kingdome from your Clutches.

Your seconde texte is a couple of textes, out of Esay, but no lesse wrested than the other, to make Princes stoupe to Prelates, and kisse the grounde they goe vpon, to giue Bishops Kings tre•…•…ures and dominions, and make kings

to waite on Priestes. In dée•…•…e on this wife your Pope did proudly wrest the Scripture, when he troad on the Empe∣rors necke, when he turned downe hi•…•… Disdeme with his foote, when he made him daunce attendance and blowe his nailes at his gate, when he made him hold his •…•…lurrop, whē he made him leade his horse, when he made him kisse hys gowtie, I should say his golden toa. But this was more than Neroes pride, & is most farre from gods liking, from Christs humilitie, from the Apostles steppes, and cleane from the Prophetes meaning. The Prophet speaketh of much honor and riches to be giuen, but to whom? tibi, o thee. Who was this, the Priest or Bishope haue you any moe shée Bishops, or Pope Ioanes yet, M. Saunders? for the wordes of the Prophet begin thus: Surge, splendida esto. I trow you will not saye this was a Bishop. No, M. Saunders it was euen the wife of Christ, the Church of God, whome he calleth Sion, that the Prophet speaketh vnto. These texts therfore being spoken to the Churche, that is, to all the faithfull people, of whom kings themselues are part so well as any other: it is malapartly d•…•…ne of you Maister Saunders, to ascribe it on∣ly to your Bishops.

Howbeit, this arrogating the name of the Church to your selues is not so sa•…•…cis, but your missunderstanding of this description in a literall sense, being spoken of a mysticall estate, is no lesse grosse than full of errors. The whole chap∣ter hath many suche pro•…•…ises, of shyning, of glory, of glitte∣ring, of riches, of waters, of Camels, of coltes, of golde, of frank insence, of shepe, of ramines, of do•…•…es, of ships, of buil∣dings, of walles, of gates, of beeches, of Pines, of boxe, of suc∣king, of milke, of brasse, of stones, of Iron, of light, of the Sunne, of the Moone, of plantes, of trées, & such other world∣ly things, whereby be discribeth the beautie and florishing estate of the Charche, according to the manner of the He∣brewes phrases, and the capacitie of the Iewes, that were moued by suche worldly things Nowe commeth Maister

Saunders, and picketh me out two sentences, and sets them togither, being in the text a sunder: That the sonnes of stran∣gers shall build vp thy walles & Kings shall serue thee. And to this he addeth the other sentence in the same Chap. And the sonnes of them that afflicted thee, shall come to thee humbly, and shall bowe themselues euen to the plantes of thy feete, euē all they that dispised thee, and call thee the citie of the Lorde, Sion of the holy Israell.

Had you set the sentence downe thus farre, you had mar∣red al, Maister Saunders▪ For then you had bewrayed your wresting of this vnto y^e Bishops. And had you set downe all the chapter, you had shewed suche inconueniences in vnder∣standing this glory of the Church and seruice of Princes in the literall sense, and after a worldly fashion: that you must néedes haue confessed all these things, to haue other spiritu∣all meanings. Which the Iewes not marking, in these and such like prophecies, of the kingdome of the Messias, and the glory of Sion, but taking the same in the bare sense of the words, as you doe, were so sotted on a worldly glory & king∣dome, that they quite dispised the pouertie of Christ, and to this day dispise it: looking for a Messias that (as they sansie) shall raigne in al worldly pompe, and subdue all kingdomes and people to him, and therefore they scrape vp money so fast to helpe him. And so you Papists in these prophecies of the kingdom of Christ, and the glory of his Church, haue as grosse vnderstanding as the Iewes: and dispising the sim∣plicitie of the Gospell, nor beholdyng the spirituall orna∣mentes of the spouse of Christ: thinke the worship of God lyeth in suche outwarde glory. And hearing of obedience & seruice of Kings to Christ and to his Church: thinke it con∣sistes in this, that Kings muste sweare to you to renounce their kingdomes, and holde them of the Pope, and be obedi∣ent to him, and he & his Prelats must florishe in all world∣ly pompe and ryches. Is not this the Iewes error vp and downe? howbeit in oppressing of Kings you are worse than

the Iewes, and in se•…•…ing 〈◊〉〈◊〉 honor here, verie Cerinthiās, and shall neuer haue it else where, excepte you forsake your errors.

Your third sentence, Luk. 10. he that dispiseth you dispiseth me: as it maketh nothing for you, being nothing suche as those were, whō Christ did sende, so being vnderstood of those that are in deede sent of Christe, is nothing to this purpose. We graunt that no godly ministers ought to be dispised. And if they be, Christ their sender is dispised. But as they ought not in their calling, to be dispised of the Prince, so no more ought the Prince to be dispised of them, much lesse to be tro∣den vnder their féete, and their kingdomes to be taken from them, as your Popes haue vsed them, and you woulde haue thē here be spoiled. Wherby it appéereth, y^t you are not such as Christ doth sende, but are of Sathans sending, to bréede contempts, seditiōs, & treasons against Princes, to maintain your pride and carnall pleasures, of whome Saint Iude did prophecie, that defiling your fleshe you despise authoritie, & r•…•…yle on the Maiestie of your Soueraignes.

Your fourth sentence, Mat. 16. of Christ saying to Peter, Thou art Peter, and vpon this rocke will I build my Churche, and the gates of hell shall not preuaile againste it, is altoge∣ther besides the matter. It is your chiefe place wrested for your Popes vsurpatiō, but I sée not how it is brought in here against y^e Princes authoritie, except you will make a kings estate to be the gates of hell. But as the Princes estate is the ordinaunce of God, so I rather thinke the attempte to depose the Prince, to be, if not the gates of hell▪ yet one of the readiest wayes to hell, as we haue example of Core, Dathan, and Abiron, that went not by the gate, nor by the posterne, but were swallowed vp and toombled in quicke to hell. And although the rebellious Papists go not downe that wayes, yet shall they be sure to come to hell, and I thinke rebellion be one of the broadest gates that hell hath, for Pa∣pists on a plompe to enter.

Nowe that M. Samders hath (as he thinketh) with thes•…•… texts, confirmed the Bishops refusall of Baptising the king, he will admitte the Bishop will Baptise him, and see what inconuenience shall ensue.

For (saith he) if the Bishop will baptise him, whom he hea∣reth by name, saying, that he will not submit his Diademe to Christ, or, that is all one, he not will make his kingdom subiect to the ministers of Christ, euen in the cause of faith: where is that obedience of faith, which the Apostles were sent to pro∣cure in all nations? is it meete that he which denounceth, that he will not want his empire for no fault at all, should notwith∣standing be armed with the name of a Christian, and with the sacramentes of Christ, to lay the greater ambushments against his Church? for who doubteth, that there is greater daunger of the domesticall, than of the foraigne enemie.

Surely M. Saunders, I am of your opiniō in this last sen∣tēce. Out of doubt, there is greater daūger of the domesticall, than of the foraigne enimie. We sée y^e apparāt experience in your Pope, that is so much the more perilous enimie to the Christiā faith, as he pretēdeth to be the Uicar of Christ, the seruant of the seruāts of God a father of fathers in Christes Church (for so his name Papa, signifieth) & is in dede a robber of Christs glory, a hider of Christs Gospell, a setter vp of his owne decrees, a spoyler of all kings and kingdomes, a begni∣ler of the people vnder a shew of holinesse, an Angel of dark∣nesse shyning like an Angell of light, a rauening wolfe in a shéepes clothing, a child of perdition himself, and pretending to saue other from perdition, the man of sin, & calling himself a God. There is greater daūger of such a puppet of y^e deuill, thus disguised like a God, than is of the heathen, thā is of the Iewes, than is of Mahomet, than is of the greate Turke, than is of the Deuill hymselfe. And the like greater daun∣ger is of all dissemblyng Papistes in the Courtes and Realmes of protestant Princes, than is of open Papists & apparant enemies. I beseech God, they may be loked vnto, &

remoued frō such places, y^t there may be lesse danger of thē. As for this Prince and Byshop that M. Saunders maketh his presupposals vpon, there is farre greater daunger to the Church of God in this Byshop, than in this Prince. For first the Prince, not of compulsion, but of his owne voluntarie, not of crafte or malice, or any other sinister affection, but of good hearte and méere deuotion (for so king Lucius and Clodoueus did) commeth to the Byshop to be baptized, and humbly offereth to acknowledge the faithe of Christe. What danger is here towarde the Church of Christ by this good Princes offer, or not rather gret benefite to the Church of Christe, to haue so mightie a Realme as Englande or Fraunce to become Christian, by this offer? why is not this offer taken? for sooth, the B. refuseth it. Is not here a great iniurie offered to Christs Church, by this B? but whie doth the B. thus? bycause the Prince will not promise obedience to the Prelates, and to renounce his kingdome, if he swarue from his obedience to them. Is this a sufficient cause, for want of obedience to the Prieste, to defeate Chryste of his obedience?

Nay (say you) he made an exception that he vvoulde not submit his Diademe to Christ.

By your leaue M. Saunders, there you say not true. Loke on your own presupposall once again, yea, on the words you made the Prince to speake, whiche althoughe they were of your owne deuising, for you neuer, I suppose, heard or read of Prince desirous to be baptized, that spake on that fashion, you do but tell the Princes tale to your aduantage: yet finde you no such wordes, in the wordes that you speake for him, yea, he speaketh the contrarie, in offering to acknow∣ledge the faith of Christ.

But (say you) he would not submit his Diademe & make his kingdome subiecte in the cause of faithe, to the Ministers of Christ, and that is all one vvyth denying to submit his Di∣ademe to Christ. Yea, Master Sanders? were it admitted,

ye were ministers of Christ, is Christ & you al one? & the sub∣missiō to Christ & to his ministers al one? Backare M. Sa•…•…. there is a great difference. And yet Chryst requireth no sub∣mission of Diademes or subiection of kingdoms, in such sort vnto him, that he wold haue kings resigne them vp to him, and he woulde take them: no, he neuer vsed that practise. He might haue had such kingdomes, if he had list, but he re∣fused them, as your selfe before haue confessed. Althoughe your Pope will haue kings resigne their kingdomes vnto him, and he will take them, and ruffle in greater pompe, than any king vseth to doe. Whiche argueth playnely that he is not Christes minister. And therefore the king hardyly may refuse his vnlawfull demaunde, that he woulde in the name of Christ extort, as Christes officer, which his master Christe both refused himselfe, and forbad in his ministers. And therefore the Prince dothe Chryste no iniurie, by∣cause he will not bring his kingdome thrall to a false Prieste, pretending to be Christes Minister, béeing indéede the Minister of the tempter, that offereth worldly king∣domes.

But (say you) hee muste make his kingdome subiecte to them, in the cause of faith. As though the cause of faith were hindered, if the King made not his kingdome subiecte to the Priestes? where as this were the reddiest way, bothe to de∣stroye the kingdome and the faith?

No (Master Saunders) the faithe of Chryste was neuer more sincere, than when the Ministers of Chryst were obe∣dient subiectes to their kings. And the cause of faythe was neuer more weakened and corrupted, than sithe Priestes haue wrong themselues out of their kings subiections, and that the Popes haue made the Kings sweare obedience vn∣to them.

But Maister Saunders whines at this, crying out: vvhere is the obedience of faith, that Christ sent his Apostles to procure in all the vvorlde?

You do well (Master Saunders) to aske vvhere it is? for surely it is not with you, nor in all your Popishe kingdome, except here and there lurking, and dare not shewe hir head, for feare your Popishe Inquisitors, woulde gette hir by the polle. The obedience of fayth was frée, when Priests were subiectes: and since Priestes became Princes, they haue ta∣ken hir captiue, and exiled hir, and done all that they coulde to haue killed hir. But she is escaped your hands, and requi∣couereth that libertie, that the Apostles procured in all na∣tions for hir. And she doth so much the better, bicause she re∣reth not worldly subiection of Princes, but letteth Princes kéepe the estate of their kingdomes: and requireth not onely obedience to hir, in a more spirituall submission. Whiche the more Princes yelde vnto hir, they bring not their kindomes into more slauerie, but into more libertie, re∣nowne and honour. So that I truste shortely, they will bring the Pope and his proude Prelates, to their olde obe∣dience againe.

Whie (saye you) this is to arme Princes agaynste the Church.

Nay Master Saunders, it is rather to strengthen the Church, to let Princes haue that armor that is due vnto them.

What? (say you) to lette them doe vvhat they vvill, and for nothing they shall doe, to saye they vvill not leaue their Empire?

No bodie Master Saunders, giueth Princes authoritie to do what they will. The authoritie that is giuen them, is onely to doe good. Their vvill must not be what they will, but what Lawe vvill. It is not with them, as it is wyth your Pope: Sic volo, sic Iubeo, stet pro ratione voluntas. Thus I vvill, and thus I commaunde, my vvyll shall stande in steade of reason. The Law is not wyth them in scrinio pectoris, in the cofer of the brest, as your Pope sayth it is in his. I graunt, there are Princes that doe thus, but that is not their dutie:

Neither do Princes make a profession (as you say) that for nothing they will giue ouer their authoritie, nor it is requi∣red of them, nor presupposed. But their duetie in their offic•…•… is required, and it is presupposed they will continue therein. Which if they do not, but breake promise, shall the subiectes depose them, or the Byshops depriue them? by whiche rule they may quickly set vpon y^e Prince, for any enormitie in ci∣uil matters too, for he promised to minister iustice to al mē: but he promised to none, to giue vp his crowne, if he did not. Yea, though he had made them some suche expresse promise also, and brake it: yet coulde no Byshop, nor any other pri∣uate person, attempte to depose him, for the breach thereof, but commit the vengeance to God. But this Prince that here is presupposed, offereth inough vnto the Bishop, which if he refuse, not the Prince, but the Byshop endamageth the Church of Christ.

Nowe Master Saunders, presupposing in this suppo∣sall, that he hath clearely euicted the case, where the Byshop by expresse wordes maketh this condition with the king: he will pursue his victorie that he thinketh he hath gotten, and proue that the king hath promised, and is bounde euen as muche, where the Byshoppe at his baptisme saithe no suche wordes vnto him.

But if so be (saith he) all men vvill confesse, that no By∣shop can giue baptisme, vvithout great sinne, to that king, vvhom he seeth so proude: then truely although the Byshop by negligence, or forgetfulnesse, shall say nothing hereof vn∣to the king, notvvithstanding suche is the obedience that the king himselfe giueth vnto the Gospell of Christe, vvhen he maketh himselfe a member of him, and desireth of him to be saued, that vvill hee, nill hee, this promise is contained in that facte, that he shall minister vnto Christ, and to the Church of Christe, either in making lavves for it, or in taking armes for it, or in giuing his life for his brethren, and much more in yel∣ding or giuing vp his kingdome for his saluation. If any man

come to me (saith Christ) and hate not his father and mother, and vvife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his life also, he can not be my disciple. But any kingdome ought not be deerer to a king, than his ovvn life. Therfore sith eue∣ry Christian ought to giue his life for Christe: hovve muche more ought any king rather to hate his kingdome, than that he shoulde forsake Christ. But and if any man that commeth to Christ, thinke vvith himselfe otherwise than thus, he doth nothing but deceiue himselfe. For in that that Christ hath set this lavve in his Gospell, that no man shoulde come to him, that is to say, enter into his Church, but he that should be rea∣die rather to forsake al the goods of this vvorld, thā leaue the faith of Christ: then in that that any Christian king is made a Christian, he promiseth not only to fosake his kingdome, but his life also, rather than hee shoulde bring offence to his brethren. If therefore the same king shall so sinne against the Christian faithe, that by no meanes he vvill be amended: he may by the ministers of Christ be depriued of his kingdome. Not that all temporall kingdomes, are vnder the ministers of Christe: but bycause the kingdomes of all Christian Princes, by the nature of the thing that is done, are made subiecte to them, so ofte as it is expedient for the saluation of the people, that the kingdomes should either this vvay, or that vvay, be translated.

Here is a faire tale M. Saunders, but a foule conclusion. The drift of all, is this, Byshops maye translate kingdomes either this vvaye or that vvaye, as they shall thinke expedient for the peoples saluation Howe say you M. Saunders, is not this your conclusion? you make exception that all kingdoms be not vnder you▪ as though some were, as indéede you haue gotten too many vnder you. Where Christe saith, you shall haue none vnder you, but you will néedes haue some. Yea, by this rule you wil haue al christian kingdomes vnder you. For howe are they not vnder you, if they maye be transla∣ted this vvay, or that vvay, and giuen to this man or to that

man, as ofte as you shall thinke it expedient? are not you then the Kings of Kings, when you may depose and sette vp Kings, and alter cleane topsie turuie) which you call transla∣ting) the state of euery kingdome, at your pleasures? In∣déede Master Saunders, the Byshop sayde not thus muche before to the King that woulde be baptized. Well, say you, it was but his negligence, or forgetfulnesse. And what if he sayde nothing heereof? yet he ment it, yea, and the Kyng himselfe promised it. Where finde you that Master Saun∣ders?

Yes (say you) he promysed that and more too, vvhen he made himselfe a member of Chryste, and desired of Chryste to be saued. For in that doing (vvill he, nill he) this promise is contained, that hee shall minister to Christe, and to the Churche of Chryste, eyther in making Lavves for it, or in taking Armes for it, or in giuing his life for his brethren, and muche more, giuing vp his kingdome for their sal∣uation.

You iumble many thinges togyther, Master Saunders. And yet, goe to, we graunte you all this, the King promised thus muche, but not, vvill he, nill he, in spite of his bearde: he did it vvillingly, in offering to acknovvledge the faythe of Chryste, wherein he promised to minister to Chryste, and to the Church of Christ, as you say. But whether you be Christ or no, I thinke the King will make no question. But per∣haps he may moue the questiō, whether you be the Church, yea, any parte of the Churche of Christ, or no. And if he finde you to be (whiche I doubte me, will be an harde mat∣ter to persuade the king, if it be wel examined:) well then, the King shall minister vnto you. But howe shal he mini∣ster? as your slaue, and be at commaundemente? I thinke (Maister Saunders) you can not picke that out of his pro∣mise.

Nay your selfe expounde the contrarie, saying, that he shall make Lavves for the Churche. If you then bée the

Churche (as ye pretende to be) he muste make Lavves for you. But the Lavve maker to any body (by your owne say∣ing, and by good reason) is aboue the parties, for whome he maketh Lavves, and therefore the king, not onely in the ruling of you, but euen in his ministring vnto you, is aboue you. Nowe if he finde you not to be of the Churche: then muste he make lavves, and minister iustice againste you, for vsurping that title, and deceiuing of his people.

But (say you) he must giue his life for his brethren, much more his kingdome for their saluation.

You say well (Master Sanders) he ought to doe so, if the forsaking his kingdome or his life, woulde be his brethrens saluation. But you put a hard case, and not commonly séene, for I thinke the peoples getting of saluation, lyeth not vpon the kings losing his life or kingdome, but onely vpon Iesus Chryste.

If you speake of other accidentes and occasions: twen∣tie to one, the people are oftener in more danger by the kings death or deposition, than by his life or gouernemente, excepte he be a very tyrant, and indéede his life and gouerne∣ment may doe much hurte, and it were better he were fayre buried, or did resigne, than he should gouerne Gods people. But God knoweth best what he hath to doe, and can take him awaye when he will, or can suffer him to scourge and exercise his people wyth affliction. The chaffe and stub∣ble wyll burne with fyre, but the Golde is purifyed, the electe are tryed, and are not damned by his tyrannie, nor they consent vnto his wickednesse, nor yet they reuolt from his obedience, nor rebell and depose him, but possesse their soules in pacience, and crye to God to succor them.

Nowe as it falleth out thus in the worste case that you can put, that no Byshop, nor other subiecte may depose his Soueraign: so in a good Prince no such thing is to be feared. And since it is to men vncertaine, how the king will proue,

they iudge and hope the best, bycause they knowe not the worst, and extorte no such promise of him. Much lesse ought they to make a rule, that he shall resigne or suffer death, whē the people will haue him, and say, his life or gouernmente hinders their saluation: or when the Byshops shall say, it is hurtfull to them: then at the Byshops so saying, the king must either lose his kingdome, or his life: this is a hard case, M. Saunders, for poore kings, and trowe you, this is contai∣ned in their promise?

Well (say you) Christ saide, if any man come to me and hate not his father, his mother, his vvife, his children, yea, his life for me, he can not be my Disciple, much more then must he hate his kingdome, and be readie to leaue his kingdome, and all the good in the vvorlde for Christe, or else hee is no Christian.

You say true, M. Sanders, he must forsake and hate al for Christes sake. But that he must do this for your Byshoppes sakes, when they will say, it is expedient he should so do: that I finde not in the words of Christe, and yet muste you be∣ware howe you expounde that saying. For he is bound also, to loue and to kéepe to the vttermost, all these thinges, in their kindes, & not to renounce nor hate thē, except they hin∣der him from Christ, whom he must prefer before al things. But this loue to Christe in principall, maye stande togither with these loues wel inough. Neither is he any more bounde to resigne his kingdome, than to resigne his vvife into the Priestes hands. Nor if he abuse his kingdome, the Prieste can no more turne him out of it, than he can, if he abuse his goods and his vvife, turne him not of his dores, and take his goodes and his vvife from him, and kéepe hir himself, or giue hir vnto an other. This can not the Byshop do, although the Prince and euerie man be bounde to lose al for Christes cause. Yea, the Byshop is bounde hereto as well as any other. And God knowes how some of them kepe this bonde, and yet wil not they léese one halfpennie for Christes

sake, howsoeuer they breake it. But the kingdome is a •…•…oule moate in their eye, and therefore the King, poore soule, must lose all, and they must take it from him. But now to Master Saunders other arguments.

Moreouer the kingdomes of faithfull Princes, whose people feare God, are not altogether earthly or worldlye. For in that part that they haue beleued in Christ, they haue as it were lefte to be of this worlde, and haue begonne to be members of the eternall kingdome, for although the outwarde face of things, which is founde in kingdomes meere secular, be in a Christian kingdome: yet sith the spirite of man is farre the more excel∣lent parte of hym, and the whole spirite acknowledgeth Christ his King and onely Lorde: I see nothing, why Christian king∣domes ought not rather to be Iudged spirituall, according to their better part, than earthly. And this is the cause why nowe long since, those which gouerned the people of God were wont to be annoynted of his Ministers no otherwise than were the Prophetes and Priestes. For euen the Kings them selues also are after a sort partakers of the spirituall Ministerie when they are annoynted: not that they should do those things that are committed to the onely Priestes herevnto orderly conse∣crated, but that those things, which other Kings referre to a prophane and worldly ende, these Kings should now remem∣ber, that they oughte to directe to an holye ende. For when they themselues are made spirituall, it is fitte they should will, that all their things should be counted as it were spirituall. But nowe are spirituall things, so vnder the Church of Christ that the Church may freely dispose and decree of them, to the pro∣fite of the whole mysticall body. Syth therefore the people of Israell woulde needes desire a King to be giuen them: Sa∣muel by the commaundement of God, toke a cruse of oyle, and powred it vpon the heade of Saule, and kissed him, and sayd, beholde God annoynteth thee, to be the Prince ouer his inheritaunce. VVhich to me seemeth to signifie, euen as though it had bene sayde, except the Lord annoynted thee to

be the Prince, thou couldest not rightly and orderly be the Prince ouer hys people, whiche hee hathe chosen, and re∣serued out of all the worlde to be as it were peculiar to hym∣selfe. For in that that is gods, no man can take power to him selfe without Gods permission. But God anoynted Saul to be the Prince not by himselfe but by Samuel his minister: wher∣fore whosoeuer ruleth ouer the Christian people (which is no lesse acceptable to God, than was the people of the Iewes) hee, besides the right, which he receyueth of God by the con∣sent of the people, ought also to acknowledge his power to be of Christe by his Ministers, if so be that he be suche an one that worshippeth the Fayth of Christe. VVherevpon to thys day all Christian kingdomes are annoynted of some Christi∣an Bishop or some other Minister of God, referring therein their principalitie not onely to the people, and so vnto God, but that moreouer by the Priests of Christ, they referre it vn∣to Christ, whose Ministers they are. For Pope Leo wrote ele∣gantly vnto Leo the Emperour. Thou oughtest to marke sted∣fastly, the Kingly power not onely to bee giuen to thee, to the gouernement of the worlde, but to be giuen thee chiefly for the succour of the Churche, that in suppressing naughtie attemptes, thou shouldest bothe defende those things, that are well decreed, and restore the true peace, to those things that are troubled.

If Maister Saunders woulde goe plainely to woorke, and make his argumentes shorte and formall, and woulde rather shewe his Logike than his Rethorike: the truth or falsehoode woulde appéere the sooner, the reader perhappes mighte be the lesse delyghted, but withoute perhappes, hee shoulde be lesse beguyled, and the aunswere mighte bée the clearer and the shorter. •…•…ll this long argument in effect is this:

All spirituall things are so vnder the Church of Christ, that the Church may freely dispose and decree of them to the pro∣site of the whole mysticall body.

All Christian Kings and kingdomes are spirituall things.

Ergo, all Christian Kings and Kingdomes are so vnder the Church of Christ, that she maye freely dispose and decree of them, to the prosite of the whole mysticall body.

And firste Maister Saunders trauels in the Minor. To proue Christian Kyngs and Kyngdomes spirituall, that by∣cause the better parte of them is spirituall, therefore hée seeth nothyng why they oughte not to bee rather iudged spirituall. Yea Kings were wo•…•…e to bee annoynted no o∣therwyse than Prophetes and Priestes, not to doe theyr actions, but to referre all theyr affayres to holy and spiri∣tuall dedes.

And can you sée this Maister Sanders. Now? how chance you coulde not seeit before, when you made the Christian Princes ciuill power, to be no better than the Turkes, or Tartars, to stretch no furder thā to the body & a quiet lyfe? & haue you now espied not onely the endes wherevnto they rule, but the estate also itselfe, by reason of the better parte to be spirituall? what hath made you see so cléerely nowe? forsooth now is now, and then was then. You were pleading then, that the Christian Princes ciuill estate, was so farre different and vnlike, that Princes might not meddle in spi∣rituall matters, and therfore then was fitte oportunitie, to denie that Christian Princes Ciuill power, had any spiritu∣all thing in it. But nowe we are in another argument, that Priestes maye order and dispose Kingdomes, and depose Kings as they shall thinke expedient: and to proue this▪ we must saye they be in the Churches power, and to proue that, wee must saye they are spirituall▪ and so, spirituall men may deale with spirituall thyngs. And for this reason, we can sée no cause nowe, but that Christian Kingdomes are spirituall that we spirituall men, which are the Church, might haue the disposing of them. Well then I see also (Maister Saunders) that for aduantage you can, and you can not see. And play

seest me, and seest me not. But who seeth not, that hath any indifferent eyes, that this is but legerdemain, and that you speake flat contraries in one thing, although you turne your tale to other purposes?

But let go that you saw not before, & let vs loke what you see in Princes now. Nowe you see that they are spirituall. And why so? not bicause they doe the spirituall actions of the Priests, but bicause of their better part, that is, of the spirite of God, and bicause of the end wherto they driue al their things, to become as it were spirituall.

Why then M. Saunders your eyes mighte serue you (if your hart could serue you) to see this withall, that although the Prince can not do the spirituall actions of spirituall per∣sons, yet this hindreth not, that he may notwithstanding be a gouernor ouer ecclesiasticall persons, in causes ecclesiasti∣call and maye ouersee them both. And if you can see the one and not the other, surely your sight is partiall.

But newe M. Saunders loking another way, will haue Princes no furder spirituall, than in that they are vnder the Church. And here, making the Maior the Minor, the former the later, by a figure called Hysteron proteron, the carte before the horse: he will proue, that all spirituall things are so much vnder the Churche of Christ, that the Church may freely dis∣pose and decree of them, to the profite of the whole mysticall body: and so, Kings and Kingdomes, (as is sayde before) beyng spirituall things, are so muche vnder the Churche of Christ, that she may freely, to the profit of the whole mysti∣call body, dispose and decree of Kings and kingdomes.

But first Maister Saūders we denie your Maior. For al∣though in certaine things it be true, to wit, in such things as are left to the disposition of the Church, that is, to order and dispose such things, as of their nature are indifferent, to the profite of the whole mysticall body, or any part thereof, (for these things, are called spirituall things, not properly, in their owne nature, but as in spirituall causes the spirituall persons

vse them) and yet all this is not so freely lefte to the Chur∣ches disposition, that some principall persons in the Church (as the Prince, or the Pastors) haue not the chiefest stroke in the disposition of them. For if they were so free, that euery member in the Churche shoulde haue his nay or yea in disposing of thē, when would they be disposed? And if at length they were, it would peraduenture fall out in the end, so little to the profite of the whole mysticall body, that it woulde be rather the hinderaunce and disquieting of it. But besides these spiritual thinges, there are a great many other, of whiche, some in déede are méere spirituall as the worde of God, the Sacramentes of Christ, the Articles of fayth, the Commaundementes of life, and all suche thinges as God hathe either expressed in his worde, or is necessarily conteyued in it. These thinges béeing spiritual, are not so vnder the churche of Christ, that the churche may freely dis∣pose and decree of them. But they statly dispose and decree of the churche, and the churche can not alter nor swarue one iote from them. Whiche if she shoulde, she shoulde not profite hir selfe, (for she is the whole mysticall body) but destroy hir selfe, and dissolue the whole body, and euery part therof. And such as these things are, is the estate of a King and kingdome, whiche althoughe it be not so méere a spirituall thing, but so farre foorthe spirituall as your selfe confesse: yet bicause it is the ordinaunce of God, and God hath in his worde set foorthe the office of a King, and decla∣reth that the setting vp and pulling downe of Kinges, and the alterations of kingdomes, belongeth to him selfe, and neuer gaue that authoritie to his Churche, muche lesse to his Ministers, to set vp and depose Kinges, and alter king∣domes: Kinges therefore and their kingdomes, no more than other spirituall thinges, are not so vnder the churche of Christe, that she maye freely dispose and decree of them, to the profite of the whole mysticall body. Neither hathe the whole mysticall body any more thraldome, or lesse fredome,

that Kings and kingdomes are not so vnder hir, or that she maye not freely dispose and decree of them, as she shall thinke moste profitable to the whole mysticall body: than she hathe more thraldome, or lesse freedome, bicause she can not alter nor dispose the other spirituall things. Yea in this case, the Churche léeseth lesse libertie than in the o∣ther, for the freedome of the Churche▪ béeing a mysticall body, is cleane another matter pertayning to the consci∣ence, and is a mysticall freedome, from the tyrannie of Sa∣than, from the cursse of the lawe, from the bondage of sinne, from ceremonies, and humayne constitutions: and not from obedience to kinges, and to haue superioritie ouer them, and libertie to depose them, and to translate their kingdomes. Whiche freedome and superioritie is not spiri∣tuall, but carnall and worldly. And if the Churche had it, she woulde not onely bring kinges and kingdomes, but euen hir selfe in bondage, and therefore Christe hathe barred it. Whiche freedome, bicause the Popishe Churche aspireth vnto, and claymeth, and holdeth ouer▪ kinges and king∣domes: she is not the true Church of Christ, that they boast of, but rather a Iewishe Synagoge, dreaming vpon an earthly Messias, or rather a Persian or Turkishe Temple, that measureth the freedome and dignitie of Gods Church, by the pompe and mighte of the worlde, to depose kings, and dispose of their kingdomes at their pleasures.

But to proue that kings and kingdomes pertayne not to the free disposition of the Church, but of God: I will de∣sire no better prooues nor example than euen M. Saunders heere brings foorthe. Sithe therefore (sayth he) the▪ people of Israell would needes desire a king to be giuen thē, Samuel by the commaundement of God, tooke a cruse of oyle, and powred it vpon the head of Saule, and kissed him▪ and sayde: beholde God anoy•…•…teth thee, to be the Prince ouer his In∣heritaunce which to me seemeth to signifie, as though it had bene sayde, except the Lorde anoynted thee to be the Prince,

thou couldest not rightly and orderly be the Prince ouer his people, whiche he hathe chosen and reserued out of all the worlde to be, as it were, peculiar to him selfe. For in that that is Gods, no man can take power to him selfe, without Gods permission.

If this be true that héere you say, M. Saunders (as it is moste true) if Samuels words do so sounde in your eares, as though he had sayde, Saule coulde not be king ouer Gods people, except the Lorde anoynted him: If the Lorde reserue this prerogatiue to him selfe, to appoynt Princes, and giue kingdomes where he onely pleaseth: howe then is this true, that kings and kingdomes are so vnder the Churche that she may freely dispose & decree of thē as she pleaseth? Although the Church be the Lordes spouse and wyfe, yet is she not hir selfe the Lorde, nor the Lorde is ruled by hir, but she by the Lorde, neither hathe he giuen hir this prerogatiue, but as you héere confesse, it is a thing belonging onely to him. And therefore by your owne confession, Kinges and king∣domes are not so vnder the Church, that she may dispose and decree as she thinketh good of them.

And as your owne witnesse thus beateth your selfe, in your owne example: So to consider this example fur∣ther. Saule was appoynted King of God, and thoughe at the firste he was a good King, yet afterwarde he became bothe a tyrant in lyfe, and an Apostata in doctrine, by which occasion he was a great offence to the Churche of God. What nowe? did the Churche of God saye, she had suche freedome ouer him and his kingdome, that she might free∣ly dispose and decree thereof as should be profitable for the whole▪ mysticall body. Surely to the Churches iudge∣ment, it appeared more profitable, if this ill Kyng hadde béene deposed, and some other godly man pla∣ced in hys steede, muche more if Dauid hadde beene placed▪ whom GOD likewyse had anoynted to be their King. Dyd the Churche this? No, coulde they haue

done this? No, they had no suche fréedome, but they let Saule alone, and committed the case to God, who, at his good oportunitie, as he onely sent the king, so he only tooke him away, and sent them another. For onely God trans∣poseth kingdomes, and not the Churche, as he him selfe te∣stifieth (who is the best Iudge we can appeale vnto) say∣ing: Per me Reges regnant, Kinges rule by me, and not by my Churche. And so confesseth Daniel: He chaungeth times and ages, he translateth kingdomes, and establisheth them. His Church therefore hathe not the free disposition of them.

But sayth master Saunders: God anoynted Saule to be the Prince, not by him selfe, but by his Minister: wherefore whosoeuer ruleth ouer the Christian people (whiche is no lesse acceptable to God than was the people of the Iewes) he besides the right that he receyued by the consent of the peo∣ple, ought also to acknowledge his power, to be of Christe by his Ministers, if so be that he be suche an one, as worship∣peth the fayth of Christe. VVherevpon to this day, all chri∣stian Kinges are anoynted of some christian Bishop, or some other minister of God, referring therein their principalitie, not onely to the people, and so vnto God: But referre it besides, by the Ministers of Christe, to Christe, whose Mini∣sters they are.

Your argument is this: The King is anoynted of God.

But this is done by the ministerie of Gods Prophetes or Ministers:

Ergo, Not onelie God, but his Ministers haue the free dis∣posing and decreeing of Kings and kingdomes.

Your conclusion is not in so playne English, but colou∣rably you fetche the matter about the bushe, saying: there∣fore they muste referre their principalitie, not onely to the people, and so to God: but referre it besides by the ministers of Christ, to Christ, whose ministers they are.

What néede this nice daliaunce and circumquaques, M. Saunders? that almoste men can scarse tell what you

meane, but that you meane some fal shode. If you meane, they shoulde referre it to the Ministers of Christ: that is an vntruth. If you meane, they must refe•…•…e it so to Christe by his Ministers, that it takes the authoritie of the Ministers: that is another vntruthe. If you meane, it muste be referred to Christe, that worketh it by the ministerie of his Mini∣sters (howbeit there is no suche necessitie neither, in the ma∣king of Kinges, althoughe it be orderly and ordinarily done by their ministerie) yet what serueth this to the purpose? Speake playnely man, and say: the king is made king by the Bishops: Ergo, the Bishops may dispose and decree of him and his kingdome, and may depose him, and giue the king∣dome to another, as they shall thinke good▪ For this is your playne drifte. But we denie your argument, for by the like you mighte make euery mans baptisme and sayth to hang of the free disposition, decreeing and alteration of the Mini∣ster, sithe these things are receyued by the Minister, but the force of them dependes not on the minister. And much lesse that bicause suche a Bishop crowned the King, therefore he may rule the King, and haue free disposition to decree what the King shall doe, and whether he shall continue King or no. No, M. Saund. and if he had the authoritie to make the King: yet the King beeing made, it followeth not, that he may marre him too. But the moste that you can make of the Minister in the Kings Coronation▪ is but, Causa sine qua non, that he can not well be made without him, and yet in very déede, it is not so muche, and therefore this is but a slender argument.

But sée, how you runne héere craftily from the Church, to the Bishop your argument was of the Church, and your conclusion is of the Bishop. Wherby you meane that your Prelates only are of the church▪ Which as it is most false, so is it rather to be examined, whether you be any ministers or parts of the churche at al if you speake of the churche of Christ. For (as was shewed before) neither the church▪ nor

the spirituall Ministers of Christ▪ did euer take vpon them, this deposing of kings, and disposing of kingdomes that you chalenge. Samuel whome you cite, had béene a gouernour by an extraordinary calling, béeing the laste Iudge before the Kings, but after he had▪ anoynted and declared Saule to be king he neuer tooke vpon him, the publike gouernment of the kingdome. And though God sent him to tell Saule, how God would cast him off, and though also God had him anoynt another: yet would he not med•…•…e in the gouernmēt, nor depose Saule, nor incite Dauid or the people to depose him, althoughe God had caste him cleane off, but onely mourned for him. If you can shewe any example of the contrarie, I am sure we shall heare it, but as yet we heare of none.

You tell vs of an elegante sentence of Pope Leo, to the Emperour Leo. But as there is no greate elegancie in it, so it maketh nothing to this purpose: and the purpose that it maketh for, is rather for the Princes gouernment in ecclesiasticall, causes than agaynst it. Howbeit to alleage a Pope, for the vsurpation of the Pope, is to muche partiali∣tie, besides that Leo is to be burdened with •…•…oule crimes in this matter, for his practises agaynst the Emperour, as we shall God willing see hereafter. But M. Sanders, to proue that the ministerie of the minister, argueth he hathe autho∣ritie to dispose of the King and his kingdome, procéedeth thus.

But that the gouernment of a christian king oughte to be referred to Christ, it hathe flowed from nothing, but from the mysterie of the incarnation of Christe, that all Chri∣stian kinges shoulde acknowledge the humayne nature of Christe, to be aboue their principalitie, and therefore should vnderstande, that they are inferiour to the Ministers of Christe, in those thinges that pertayne to the fayth of Christ, or to eternall lyfe. To what purpose otherwyse belongeth,

that solemne anoynting and consecrating of Kings, which is wonte to be done by the Priestes of Christ? Greater (saythe Chrysostome) is the principalitie of the Priest, than of the King. Therefore the King submitteth his head to the hande of the Priest. And euery where in the olde Testamente, the Priestes anoynted the Kinges. And truely if the people of God differ from all people, by the gifte of fayth, and as the Priestes are the Ministers of setting foorthe the faythe: so the blessing and consecration of the Priestes, that they giue to the Kinges, is an especi•…•…ll token, whereby the my∣sterie of the Incarnation of Christe, and the principalitie of his Ministers in dispensing that mysterie is acknow∣ledged.

M. Saunders still beates vpon his former argumente, and driues his reason thus:

If the anoynting of the king hath a mysterie of his obedi∣ence to the Incarnation and humanitie of Christ: then the King must vnderstande that he is inferior to the Ministers of Christ, in those things that pertayne to the faith of Christ, or to eternall life, bicause they are the Ministers in dispensing that mysterie.

But the solemne anoynting & consecrating of kings, which is wont to be done by the Priests of Christe, serueth to no o∣ther purpose, than to declare the obedience of Kinges to the Incarnation and humanitie of Christ:

Ergo, The King must vnderstand, that he is inferior to the Ministers of Christ, in those things that pertayne to the fayth of Christ, or to eternall life, bicause they are the Ministers in dispensing that mysterie.

First in this conclusion héere is nothing pertaining to the present purpose, y^t the Ministers of Christ may depose Kings, and dispose their kingdomes▪ which is y^e thing that should be concluded. There is a great differēte betwéene those things

that •…•…ayne to the faythe of Christe, to eternall life, to the dispensati•…•… of the mysterie of Christes Incarnation and humayne nature: and the gouerning of a kingdome. In the dispensation▪ of the one, we graunt the king to be infe∣riour to the Ministers of Christ. But in the dispensation of the other, the Ministers of Christ are inferiour to the king. So that this conclusion is not to the purpose▪ And although this answere is sufficient to this argument: yet let vs sée his handling the partes thereof. And first, we den•…•…e the se∣quele of the maior, that if the kinges annoynting hath a my∣sterie of his obedience, to the incarnation and humaine na∣ture of Christe, that then the king is inferiour to the mini∣ster of Christe, in those things that pertaine to the faithe of Christe, and to eternall life, bicause he is the minister in dis∣pensing that mysterie. For this is no good reason: he is the Minister wherby the thing is done: Ergo, he is the superior in the thing that is done▪ We mighte better reason on the contrarie: he is the Minister: Ergo▪ in that respecte he is the inferiour, for ministration is a seruice. Howebeit we denie not the superioritie of his ministerie, but the noughti∣nesse of this argument. For by this reason, sée howe hys argument beates him selfe and his Pope. The Pope is ordinarily consecrated of a Cardinall or a Bishop: Ergo, the Pope is inferiour▪ to the Cardinals and Bishops in m•…•…tters of faithe and eternall life▪ bicause the Cardinals or Bishops are the Ministers in dispēsing that mysterie. Will the Pope allowe of this? and yet this is master Saun∣ders reason, yea it is the Popes owne reason. For Bo∣nifacius the eyghte (of whome the Prouerbe wente. He came in lyke a Foxe, and ruled lyke a Lyon, and dyed lyke a dagge) vsed this selfe same arguments, from whom master▪ Sanders borroweth it: that the Pope dothe conse∣crate the Emperour: Ergo, the Pope is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the Em∣perour: that Bishops do consecrate Kings, Ergo, Bishops are superior to kings. Which argumēt as it is nought, so euē

the antecedent may be called in question. For it is not long that Popes haue consecrated Emperors, neither alwayes haue Kings bene consecrated of Priests and Bishops, so that it is not simply so necessary a thing that a King is not •…•… king if he be not consecrated of them. But as in Matrimonie it is a godly and comely order, that, althoughe the mariage be made in their betrouthing (as you said before, when the mā sayd to the woman, I take thee to my wife, and the woman to the man, I take thee to my husbande) yet for the auoyding of offence: for the more reuerence and estimatiō of the estate, for the better calling vpō God to blesse it, it is done solemno∣ly the in temple, in the presence of the congregation, by the ministerie, prayers, and blessing of the minister: The like and greater solemnitie is in a Princes consecration, for the auoyding of offences, for the greater reuerēce and estimati∣on, and for the more effectuall calling vpon God for his bles∣sing of the Kings royall estate, althoughe he were full and lawfull King before. And so the King giueth the date of hys reigne not from his Coronation, but from the beginning of his calling to his regimēt. And at his coronation, as the Bi∣shop hathe his peculiar office, so diuerse other peeres haue theirs likewise, requisite to the celebration thereof. But none of them do therevpon claime, to be the Princes supe∣rior, althoughe one giue him his sworde, another giue him his Scepter, another giue him the Ball, another giue him the Crowne, to whome the kéeping of th•…•…se things belong. And why shoulde the Bishop more than all these, claime to be his superior, bicause he doth consecrate the King? but the ensample is euident to the contrarie. For euen at the Kings coronation, the Bishops, so well as any other subiectes, doe their homage, & receiue their temporal•…•…ies from the Prince, for all their consecration of him, and therefore they can no more dispose of the Kings temporalities, and depose him frō them, than any of the other subiects can. And thus much M. Saunders to the Maior of your argument.

To the Minor I answere, that whether the annoynting of the King, signifie any other thing, besides the Kings obedi∣ence, to the incarnation and humaine nature of Christe: it makes no matter. For this it signifieth not, that the Kyng should be obedient, to the disposition of the humaine mini∣ster of Christ, which is the question nowe in hande. And yet whether it signifie this mysterie, that you say it onely doth, or no: may be called into question. For if it hath such a sig∣nificatiō, it is a very darke mysterie. And me thinks it might more easilye signifie other things. For oyle sometimes signifieth mercie, sometimes plentie, sometimes remedie a∣gainst poyson, sometimes it is referred to the Priesthoode, sometimes, to the kingdome of Christ, somtimes to the my∣sticall members of Christ, as they are Kings & Priests with him: so that the anoynting with oyle (which espetially was vsed to Priests and Kings, who therefore are called the sons of oyle) is applyed to sundry significations, and not onely to the incarnation and humaine nature of Christe. And yet is there no suche necessitie of anoynting Christian Kings, as was of the Iewishe Kings. For they had commaundement so to doe, and it was a ceremoniall figure of diuerse things in Christ. Which commaundement and ceremonies, Christi∣an Princes are not bound vnto. It is cropen vp of a custome I cānot tel how, to imitate the Iewes herein. But as for the nature of a Kings estate, he is neuer a whit the lesse King, if he wante the anoynting with oyle, and as the Papistes superstitiouslie doe vse it, it were muche better away. But the Papistes make a great matter of anoynting Kings with oyle, yea, sayth Maister Saunders, they were wont to be an∣noynted no otherwise than were the Prophetes and Priestes: as thoughe they shoulde be so anoynted still. And true it is in one sense, that they shoulde no other wise be so annoynted still, that is to say, neyther of them shoulde be anoynted. No? say you, should not the Priestes be annoynted▪ We are. In deede you be, Maister Saunders, and all your order.

But the Apostles and Disciples of Christe were not, and therefore your order is differing from theirs, and all god∣ly ministers should differ from yours, be ye shorne, or be ye anoynted.

But if it be true that you say kings should be no otherwise anoynted than you: howe chaunce then ye are anoynted o∣therwise than kings, as your glosse doth reason: that vpon the King is powred oile, but vpon y^e Bishop is powred Chrisme. Kings are anoynted on the righte shoulder, but Byshops and Priestes are annoynted vpon their heads: but the heade is better than the shoulder, and Chrisme is better than oyle: Ergo, Bishops and Priests are superior vnto Kings. Were not they which anoynted their pamphlets with such greasie argumentes, to perch vp their balde crownes, aboue the im∣periall crownes of their natural Soueraignes, worthy by y^e Princes commaundemente to be well anoynted with vn∣guentum baculinum, to make them acknowledge their due sub∣iection, if they rather deserue not sharper instice? but let vs procéede vnto M. Saunders other arguments.

Let vs put the case, that Christ himselfe is at this day con∣uersant in the earth, as he was conuersant in times paste. Can any man doubt, but in that he is man, al Christian kings, ought to be vnder his gouernment both in all eccl. and in those secu∣lar causes, that may promote the cause of the Chruche: for he shall raigne in the house of Iacob for euer and there shal be no ende of his kingdomes. If therefore earthly Kings are parte of the house of Iacob, Christ shall raigne ouer them, and shall sub∣due their Kingdomes to hys spirituall Kingdome. But whatso∣euer power was necessarye vnto Christe to eternall saluation, he transformed the externall and and visible ministerie thereof vnto the Apostles, when he said, as my father hath sent me so I send you. The Apostles therefore and their successors, doe no lesse rule in spiritual causes ouer Christian Kings, so far as the visible Ministerie, than Christ himselfe is in truth ouer them

so farre as the holy power of his humaine nature. VVherevp∣on sayth Epiphanius: Christ hath giuen a kingdome to those that are placed vnder him, that it should not be sayde, he pro∣ceedeth from little things to greater. The throne of Christ a∣bideth, and of his kingdome there is no ende, and he sitteth vpon the throne of Dauid, so that he hath translated the king∣dome of Dauid together with the Bishoprike, and hath giuen it vnto his seruaunts, that is, to the Bishops of the Catholike Church. Beholde so well the priestly as the Kingly power, is communicated to the pastors of the Churche of Christe, that by that meanes, Christ shoulde be declared, to raigne for euer, yea, euen as a spirituall and heauenly man. And this true∣lye dothe that annoynting testifie that the Kings receyue of Priests.

The argument is thus: If Christ himselfe were conuer∣sant in earth, in his humaine nature, as he hath bene: he shoulde haue ouer all Christian kings, all eccl. and secular power, in those things that might promote the Church.

But Christ hath giuen to his ministers in the visible mini∣sterie, all the power necessarie to saluation ouer Christian kings, that belongeth to himselfe in his humaine nature.

Ergo, he hath giuen his Ministers in the visible ministerie, all ecclesiasticall and secular power in those things that maye promote the Church.

First this argument standeth vpon another presupposal, which as it is no lesse false than the other: so is it more im∣possible, being flat contrarie to the worte of God, and to the will of Christ. He puttes a case that Christ woulde come a∣gaine, and in his humaine nature be conuersant vpon the earth as he was from his natiuitie till his death.

Good Lord M. Saūders is your cause so bad and false, that you are still driuen to these shiftes, to put the cases, of false and forged presupposals? if your cause were good it woulde stand of it selfe, you might go plainely to worke, and neuer reason vpon suche deuised cases, as you knowe and beleue

shall neuer be true, except you be a Millenarie indéede, (as you gaue before a shrewde suspition of that heresie) to think Christ shall come againe, and here for a thousand yeares in all worldly might and glorie, raigne in the earth, and then go dwell in heauen.

But perhaps you wil say, what? wil you let me to put what case I lyft? when y^e sky falles, they say, we shal haue Larkes.

True, M. Saunders, we can not let you, to put what case you lyst, be it neuer so absurde and repugnant to the truth. But is this the rediest way to boult out the truth, to put the case of an euident vntruth, and to imagine that to come that neuer shall be, to inferre that vsurpation of your Priestes, that is, and ought not to be? But sée howe sone your argu∣ment is ouerturned. For if your case be not admitted, then is all your labour loste, and you haue wonne nothing for your Priestes. But the Scripture is manifest, that this shall neuer come to passe. And that the heauens containe Christ, til the day of Iudgement, he is neither here nor there, in his humaine nature, as Christe himselfe hath testified. Which as it dasheth this your case yée put: so it confuteth an other chiefe errour of yours, that affirme yée haue the humaine nature of Christe, closed vp in a boxe, and that yée eate him vp, or kéepe him vp, till he waxe mouldie, and then you burne him vp. Is this the best honor you can affoorde to Christe, being conuersant heere in earth in his humaine nature? If it be true that you say he is present, how chance yée serue him thus? is it bycause he appeareth not in his like∣nesse, but looketh rather like a wafer? if it were Christe in∣déede: howsoeuer he loked, can you finde in your hearts thus to order him? But you will saye: that is an other matter, answere to this presupposal. We speake nowe of Christ ap∣pearing in his owne likenesse. How say you, if he were con∣uersant in earth as he was, shoulde hee not ouer Christian Kings haue superioritie, in temporall causes so vvell as in ec∣clesiasticall, that might promote his Churche? I answere, if

this were admitted to be true, that Christ againe were con∣uersant on the earth, Christian Kings ought (no doubt) to giue him all superioritie, and be vnder him in all ecclesiasti∣call and temporall causes, that might promote his Churche, acknowledging all the power they haue to procéede from him. But that Christ, if he were againe on the earth, woulde raigne ouer Kings, and in his humaine nature rule Kings in their secular causes, or that he woulde thinke this a way to promote the Church, or that he would depose Princes, and make their subiectes reuolt from their obedience, or that he woulde cease their kingdomes into his handes, and make Kings to kisse his féete, to leade his Horsse, to holde his stur∣rops, or that he would weare thrée Crownes, and Princely roabes of gold frette with perle and stone, or that he would kepe suche a princely porte and pompe, as passed all other Princes: which things your Pope, pretending to be his Ui∣car in the absence of his humaine nature, doth: this would be harde for you to proue M. Saunders, although your case were graunted, that Christ personally in his humaine nature vvere conuersant in earth againe. For if he would haue had any of these thinges, he might haue had them when he was here on earth, as your selfe confessed in the Chapter going before saying: This in this kinde I vvill speake, as the chiefest argument, that Christe vvhile he vvas here in earth, and ful∣filled all the lavve and all righteousnesse: notwithstanding he would gouern eccl. matters only, as a Priest, and by no means as an earthly King. For he openly refused to administer an earthly kingdome, & therfore fled, when he saw the people go about to do this thing, that they might make him a king, & he denied that he was appointed a deuider betwene the brethrē.

Are not these your own wordes M. Sand? I knowe you wrest them to an other purpose, whiche there is answered vnto. But howe serue they not here against your selfe▪ trow you Christe is now become of an other mynde, than he was when he was here on earth? if he be still of the same mind,

then would he not take vpon him, if he were here againe on earth, the estate of an earthly King, nor gouerne in secular causes. But trowe you, your Pope pretending to be his Ui∣car, would suffer this, & seese the temporalties he possesseth, the kingdomes he hath gotten, the honor that is giuen him, or any thing else, that in eccl. & secular causes (vnder pre∣tence of the Churches promotion, he vsurpeth ouer all kings Christian? no, he would rather handle Christ worsse (if he could lay hands vpon him) then euer did the Iewes, he wold not onely crucifie Christe againe, but burne him cleane to ashes for an here•…•…ike, rather then he would lose this honor, or any iote thereof. But and if Christe were here againe, conuersant on earth in his humaine nature, woulde he suffer the Popes intollerable pride and errours? would he allowe him to abuse his name, as thoughe he were his deputie and Uicar generall? I trow not. Not that I thinke he séeth it not, or suffers it not, or hath not, by his prouident iustice, ordei∣ned, that Sathan should set vp such an Antichrist, to delude strongly the Children of vnbeleefe, and to exercise vnder the Crosse of Christ his litle elected flocke. But that, if Christe should so come as he here supposeth, surely I woulde thinke the cause of his cōming to be, euen to destroy (spiritu oris eius with the breath of his mouth) this man of sin, & not to main∣teine him in his pompe, muche lesse himselfe to take the like vpon him. Not that Christe is not a king ouer the house of Iacob, not that his kingdome is not eternal, as the Angel said to Marie, not that he should not subdue al earthly kingdoms to his spiritual kingdome: but that his kingdome is spiritual & not earthly, & the subduing of earthly kingdomes, is with a sword that conquereth the soule of man, that is, the word of God, & with a force from aboue, subduing the will of man, that is, the spirite & grace of God: and not such a subduing of their kingdomes, that it dissolueth their polycies & estates, or deposeth their kings, & maketh the people take Armes, and exerciseth▪ in secular causes, an earthly Kings authoritie.

M. Saunders pretendeth this is to promote the Churche of Christ, but suche promotion confoundes deuotion, and hath poysoned the Church of God, as they say a voyce was heard, what time Constantine (although falsly) is supposed to haue endowed the Church with such royall honor: Hodie venenum intrauit in eccles•…•…n, This day entered poyson into the Church. But Christ hath flatly forbidden it, and tolde his Disciples when they asked such promotion, that they knewe not what they asked. But afterwarde, they knewe and founde the say∣ing of Christ to be true, that their promotion lay in their af∣fliction, and not in their kingly honor.

And thus we sée the falsehood of the maior forged vpon this fained presupposall, whiche is not to be graunted, and yet if it were graunted it would fall out, to the vtter ruine of the Pope & all his Prelates. Such ill lucke hath M. Sand stil to light on such examples, as he cōceineth to make for him, but being a litle better examined, make most of al against him.

Now to the minor: that Christ hath giuen to his Ministers in the visible ministerie, all the povver necessarie to saluation, that he should haue himselfe in his humaine nature. Where find you this M. Sand? I thinke it will be ouer hard a mat∣ter for you to proue, that all the povver necessarie to saluatiō that he shoulde haue himselfe in his humaine nature, in the visible ministerie: he hath giuē it al to his ministers. Al power (saith Christe) is giuen to me in heauen and in earth: this is spoken in respecte of his humaine nature: but trowe you he gaue this prerogatiue to his Apostles? you alledge Iohn. 20. As my father hath sent me, so sende I you. But trowe you, this is to be stretched to the visible ministerie of al things be∣longing to his humaine nature? His mediation belongeth to y^e ministerie of his humanitie, so wel as to his Diuinitie: hath he giuen thē the office of his mediatiō? The propiciatorie sa∣crifice of his owne bodie belonged to the visible ministerie of his humaine nature: gaue he this power to the Disciples, that their bodies also in suffering deathe, shoulde be propiciatoris

sacrifices? The ordeining of Sacraments was in the visible ministerie, & belonging not only to Christes Diuinitie, but also to his humanitie, gaue he this power to his Disciples to make Sacramentes? Christe therefore gaue not his Mini∣sters all the povver, in the visible ministerie, necessarie to sal∣uation, that belonged to him in his humaine nature, but re∣serued many things peculiar to himselfe. Althoughe all the power they haue, he gaue it thē, yet all the power he hath▪ he gaue them not. He gaue them power in preaching the worde, in binding and losing, in administring the Sacra∣mentes. And yet is there a great difference betwéene that power that is proper of ones owne, and that whiche is le∣gantine and representeth but an others: betwéene that, that is simple and absolute, and that that is bounded and conditi∣onall: betwéene that that is principall, & that that is but mi∣nisteriall. All whiche distinctions are your owne Schole∣mens, and therefore these powers are nothing like, and yet are they so farre vnlike from such princely power of earthly honor, as you imagine, that they are rather cleane against it, both in Christ, and in his ministers too.

And this your own glosse out of your own Pope Gregorie might haue taught you: Sicut misit me pa•…•…er. Idest, ad passiones. &c As my father sent me, that is to say, to troubles and afflictiōs, so send I you to suffer persecution, not to raigne like Kings, & rule kingdomes. And therfore sith this sentence of Christ is true, that he sent them as he was sent, & he was not sente in his humaine nature to depose kings, nor to dispose of their kingdomes, nor to gouerne them: therefore his Disciples were not sent thereto. But the Pope saith he is sent therto, and takes it vpon him: therefore he is neither minister of Christ, nor successor of his Disciples: but his Disciple that hath offered him worldly kingdomes, if he would fal downe and worship him, as he hath done, and so hath gotten his kingdomes.

As for the sentence of Epiphani•…•…, writing againste the

Nazarei, although as he hath culled it out, it séemeth to giue the Priestes the power of Kings: yet this is neither the meaning nor the wordes of Epiphanius. Epiphanius whole sentence is this:

Our Lorde Iesus Christe is therefore a Prieste for euer, ac∣cording to the order of Melchizedech, and also a King, accor∣ding to the order from aboue, that hee mighte translate the Priesthoode togither vvith the lavve. He is of the seede of Dauid, bycause he came of Marie, sitting in the throne for euer, and of his kingdome thereis no ende. For novve it be∣houed him to translate the order, bothe of the Priesthoode, and of the kingdome. For his kingdome is not of the vvorld, as hee saide in the Gospell to Pontius Pilate, my kingdome is not of this vvorld. For sith Christe by hidde speaches fulfil∣leth all things▪ the matters declared of him, came to a certaine full measure. For he vvhich alvvays raigneth, came not to re∣ceiue the encrease of a kingdome but he gaue a kingdome, to those that he hath appointed vnder him, that it should not be said, he proceeded from smal things to greater. For his throne abideth, and thereis no ende of his kingdome. And hee sitteth vpon the throne of Dauid. So that he hath translated the kingdome of Dauid togither vvith the Priesthoode, and giuen it to his seruantes, that is to the Bishops of the Church. Wherby it appeareth playn, Epiphanius meaneth not, that Christ hath giuen them an earthly kingdome, which he toke not vpon himselfe, and he flat debarreth from them, nor he euer gaue to his Disciples, nor they euer exercised. But he meaneth of a spirituall kingdome, which he himself kéepeth euer, and yet he euer communicateth to all his faithfull, but in especiall to the Ministers of the Church, that set forth the mysteries of this heauenly, and not of an earthly kingdome. This sentence therefore of Epiphanius maketh nothing for Byshops to be depesers of Kings, or disposers and rulers of earthly kingdomes, which is the present question.

VVherefore (saith•…•… Saunders) sithe there is a double

povver in the Churche, the one spirituall, of vvhich •…•…orte, is that of the ministers of Christ, to whom is commaunded that they should teach & baptise all nations, but the other is mixt, that is to say, by the beginning thereof secular, howebeit to be now referred to a spirituall end: although in the originall, in the vse, & in a certaine middle end, they differ, (as is before declared) yet doe they bothe concurre in one bodie of the Church, and are caryed to one ende of eternall saluation, for the vvhich thinges, they are to be counted one certaine vnder povver ordeined. For as in Christe, there is neither Ievve nor Greeke, neither bonde nor free, neither male nor female, but they ar al one in Christ. So in the kingdōe of god, the powers are not as it were altogither distinguished either of the father ouer the sonne, or of the husbande ouer the vvife, or of the master ouer the seruāt, or of the Prince ouer his subiect, or of the Pastor ouer his sheepe, but al these powers are one in the Church of God. And among all men I take this to be agreed vpon, that all these povvers shall besvvallovved vp of that infinite glorie, that in the life to come, shall be poured on the sonnes of adoption, in so much that there shall be no secular thing in the kingdōe of God. And sith the Church of Christ is a certaine liuely Image of the life to come, although there remaine (by reason of the mixte condition of this life) certain differences of these povvers: yet notvvithstanding. they are so among themselues disposed and placed in their orders, that euen as euery one of them dravveth neare, vnto the life to come, so it ought more and moreto gouerne all the residue. But it is manifest, that euerie kingly or ciuill povver, is also among them, that are not the mēbers of Christ. Neither any vvhit lesse appeareth it, that the povver of the Pastors and teachers is placed and appointed in the only Church of God, for the edifying thereof in Iesu Christe. VVherevpon it is euicted, that the spiritual power of the pastors of the church, dravveth nearer to the state of the life to come, than any o∣ther povver, or familie, or earthly cōmon wealth. For Pastors

are placed in the Churche to this purpose, that they shoulde vvatche for our soules, teach, baptise, dispence the mysteries of Christe, giue open sinners vnto Sathan, and in the person of Christe to forgiue them that are sorie for their sinnes, according to the Lorde. To conclude, that they by their keys should bring so vvel earthly kings, as other mē into the king∣dome of heauen. Sithe therefore as Christe the Lorde of all, worthily gouerneth so wel the spiritual as the earthly power: and sith the spirituall power floweth not from Christe, but as he is redeemer of mankinde, and that power is properly or∣deined and prouided for the getting of eternall life: neither by any meanes can it be saide or thought of a vviseman, that Christe vvoulde haue the earthly povver aboue the spirituall in his Church, vvhich is all led by the spirite, and ought to be lifted aboue all earthly things. Truely it is necessarie that in the Churche of Christe vvhiche is one, the onely spirituall povver shoulde rule, and that the povver of the father, the husbande, the Lorde, yea, and of the King himselfe shoulde be altogither vnder the povver of the Pastors appointed of Christ, vvhen the matters of the life to come are handled.

Except Master Saunders of vaine glorie, did either de∣light to much to heare himself, or of subtletie, went about to tyre and wrappe his Readers: he woulde neuer vse so ma∣ny wordes to so litle purpose. Muche of this is nothing but that he hath spoken before, and is here in vaine repeated, much of it is cleane besides the matter. The summe is this, that all estates (as touching spirituall matters) are altogy∣ther vnder the spirituall Pastors. The effecte of all this long drift, standeth on these two reasons: the one of the difference of y^e two powers, to proue the spiritual to be the better: the other of the vnion of bothe powers, to proue the Priestes alone to rule them both. What he hath tolde vs heretofore of the difference, concerning the original, the vse, and the end of bothe, we haue hearde alreadie, and it is néedelesse to repeat. And likewise, that all ciuill and kingly povver, is as

well out of the Church of God, as in the Church of God, & the spirituall power only in the Church, is alredy answered vnto. And in al these actiōs, that he reckoneth vp, the King is like∣wise graunted the inferior. Howbeit here is nothing that the King is inferior, in things belonging to his kingdome. But what is al this to y^e present purpose, that the Priest may de∣pole the King? he reasoneth of the •…•…mon of these powers, & that they are all one in Christ, & that Christ hath both in him, and ruleth both, so well the secular as the spirituall▪ and this is likewise answered last vnto. Put that here vpon the power of all estates, is altogether vnder the pastors power: that is not hetherto proued. And yet we denie not, but that the power of all these estates, Father, Husband, Lorde and King, is vnder the pastors power, but not altogether vnder it. And so we say that all these powers, yea the pastors and all, are vnder the Kings power, but not altogether vnder it. All e∣states are vnder the pastors power, bycause hée teacheth all estates of men, how to liue in their vocations. All estates are vnder y^e Kings power, bycause he ouerséeth, in al estates, the maintenance of the same. So that (as Master Saunders rightly saith) there is no difference and there is a difference, and there is a mixture of these powers. There is no diffe∣rence, in respect that all are partakers of the vnitie in Christ: in regarde wherof, neither Priest nor Prince are better, the one than the other, or the people worse than both, sith all are one in Christ. There is a difference, in respecte of the order and gouernment of the Church, which is so distinguished in difference of degrées and callings, that as the wife maye not take vpon hir the husbandes office: nor the sonne the fathers, nor the seruant the maisters: so neither the past or maye take vpon him the office of the King: nor the King the office of the pastour. And there is a mixture, in respect that the pastor di∣recteth, by teaching of all estates, and spareth not the Prince: and that the Prince directeth by gouerning of all estates, and spareth not the pastor. But this mixte power of enter∣medling,

confoundeth not the one power with the other: neither maye the Prince vsurpe the authoritie due to the pa∣stor, nor the pastor vsurpe the authoritie due to the Prince. As the one therefore is not confounded and yet medled with the other: so the one hath both inferiorship and superioritie ouer the other, and yet is neither altogether inferior, or alto∣gether superior to the other, as here M. Saunders on y^e vnion and mixture, difference & no difference of these two powers, concludes, to exalt the pastor to such an absolute superioritie ouer the Princes, y^t at their liking & misliking, they mighto depose thē. But now M. Sand. to confirme this, that y^e pastor is altogether, in spirituall matters, aboue the Prince, procéedeth saying:

For as the fleshely man perceiueth not the things that are of the spirit of God: so neither the fleshly power, gouerneth those things that are of the spirite of God. For althoughe Kings go∣uerne the members of Christe, yet notwithstanding they go∣uerne them not, in respect that they are the inēbers of Christ, but in that they are yet occupied in secular businesse. For the members of Christ may want a King, as in times past, almost for three thousand yeares, euē frō the beginning of the world, vntill the kingdome of Saul, they wanted an earthly King. But yet the members of Christ neuer wanted some pastor, bicause faith is by hearing, & hearing by the word of God. But those that preached the word of Christ, they were the pastors of the flocke.

The argument is this, That which hath no perceuerance of things that are of the spirit of God, ought to haue no superio∣ritie in things that are of the spirit of God.

But the Princes power hath no perceuerance, of things that are of the spirit of God:

How proue you this M. Saunders?

The fleshly power hath no perceuerance.

But the Princes power is but a fleshly power.

Proue this better, M. Saunders.

Such as the man is, such is the power:

But the Prince is but a fleshly man:

Proue this t•…•…, M. Saunders.

He which hath only respect to secular busines, is but a flesh∣ly man. But kings haue onely respect to secular businesse:

Proue me this also, M. Saunders.

Although Kings gouerne the members of Christ, yet they gouerne them not in respect that they are members of Christ, Ergo, they gouerne them onely in secular businesse.

Proue this too, M. Saunders.

If Kings gouerne thē, as mēbers of Christ, then would they neuer haue wanted the gouernement of kings: but almost for 3000. yeares, they wāted the kings'gouernmēt vntil Saul came: Ergo, kings gouerne thē not, in that they are mēbers of Christ.

Is all your drift come to this (M. Saunders) to run from the matter, to y^e name of kings? what if neither the name nor estate of kings were before y^e time of Saul? was not the peo∣ple of God alwayes gouerned euen frō the beginning with a ciuil or politike Magistrate? cal him King or Prince, or Pa∣triark, or Duke, or Iudge, or what you will, do you inueygh here onely againste Kings? is it the name of King that you beare such spite vnto, to call it, but a fleshly power? as though Sathan hadeuen fleshed you against kings. For what more grosse or bestiall name, can you giue the gouernment of the Turkes & infidels, than here you terme the power & persons of Christiā kings? but al these argumēts are false M. Saund. the Church of Christ neuer wanted magistrats: y^e magistrates were not only themselues (if they were good) the members of Christ (although they had a fleshly part, the old man in thē, as euen the pastors haue also) but they had a speciall charge and regard to their subiects, euē in y^t they were mēbers of Christ. Not, that they toke vpon them the office of spirituall pastors, to preach gods word vnto thē, & administer the sacraments, except som of them were such persons, as might not only, o∣uersée it done of others, but might or ought thēselues to do it:

as all the Patriarches ordinarilye, till Aarons time, and some of the Priests and Prophets extraordinarily, and very seldome afterwardes chosen therevnto: but this was the duetie of all the Magistrates, which all the good Princes, did principallie looke vnto, howsoeuer other did neglecte or abuse the same. This therefore (Maister Saunders) is a foule sclaunder, to speake so lewdly on Christian Princes, and also a contradiction to your former saying, that theyr e∣state was spirituall. Yea howe doth this agree with your words next following.

VVherefore (say you) sith Kings and pastours, do now come together into one body of the Church, and the powers of thē before distinguished, oughte nowe to serue one Christe, to wit, eyther of them in their place and order: but most certaine it is, that the spirituall power, which is instituted for the church is knit more nerer with Christe, than the power of earthlye Kings, which is appoynted to defende men in earthly peace, not onely within, but also without the Churche of Christe: I see not, but that he hath loste his common sense in iudging gods matters, if any man contende that the spirituall power of the Church is not aboue the earthly power of Kings▪

What soeuer you see, or see not (M. Saunders) I see you haue a great conceite of your selfe: that thus in your conclu∣sion almost of euery argumente, you make all men fooles, & doltes, and madde, and out of their wits and to want reason & common sense and to be no better than beasts? if they denie that that you affirme. Whether it come of the contempte of others, or of the pride of your selfe, that makes you to vse these speaches so often, let other wiser Iudge, for we are fooles and madde men in your opinion. But if you be not blinde in your owne conceite, doe you not see what contra∣ries still you vtter to make the Princes power •…•…oth fleshely and spirituall: to stretch to furder endes than bodily peace, & yet to stretch no furder? but these are your olde contradicti∣ons. You tell vs of a superioritie, and a superioritie we haue

graunted. Neither haue we so loste our common sense, but that we see your false packing, in charging vs to contende, that the spirituall power of the Churche, is not aboue the earthly power of Princes. For, neither do we denie the su∣perioritie of the spirituall power of the Churche: neither do we graunt the power of Christian Princes, to be onely an earthly power. But what is this for the priest to depose the Prince? God be thanked, we haue not so loste our com∣mon sense, but that we see you straggle from the question. But let vs sée if you come any néerer to it.

For if neither parte be ouer the other, howe in one body of the Churche, do bothe powers abide, beeing not vnited: or howe are they vnited, if they yet abide so distinguished, that one can not gouerne the other? or who euer sawe in one body of a liuing creature, two members vtterly distingui∣shed, placed in one place and honor? who hathe seene (ex∣cept in a monstruous body) the foote made equall to the arme, the thighe to the necke, the legge to the fide? But and if the kingly and spirituall power are not altogither equall members, distinguished onely in number, as two handes, two feete, and two eyes (for those that differ in originall, in vse, and in ende, can neuer be equall) or else they be also thinges vtterly seuered, bicause they be vnited and filled togither in one body of the Churche: we must needes confesse that they differ in the placing of them, and yet they are continued in the compasse of one body.

Héere is Sim Suttle, M. Saunders, of all that euer I sée. A man had néede haue more than common sense, that shall vnderstande this geare, althoughe he studie for it, you couet to speake so darkely. We go playnely to worke, we graunt that the ecclesiastical power, and the polytical power are two distinct powers. We graunt, that they are ioyned togither in one body of the Churche of Christ. We graunt also, that the one hathe in some respects, a superioritie, and in other respectes an inferioritie to the other. We do not

confounde them béeing thus ioyned, and yet distinguished) the one in the same or like place with the other. It is your selues that woulde thus confound them, giuing bothe the powers vnto one person, and confounde one member wyth another, and make a monstrous body. We attribute not both powers to the Prince, as you do to your Pope. We af∣firme that the Prince differeth from the Bishop, & the Bi∣shop from the Prince. We affirme that bothe are members of the mysticall body of the Church of Christ, and bothe rule the other members, and that as mēbers too. We affirme the Bishops power, in respect of his ministerie, in exhorting and rebuking, is aboue the Princes: and the Princes in respect of his gouernment, in maynteyning & punishing, is aboue the Bishops. So that héere is not one, or the like place and honor geuen to bothe: but bothe haue suche places as are fitte for either. And thus as the head is superior in one respect, cōcer∣ning iudgement, inuention, and memorie: and the harte is superior in another respect, concerning lyfe and will: so the Bishop may be graunted a superior member in the body of the Church, in one respect, and the Prince superior in ano∣ther. What monstrous body is héere, or what confusion or rather not in your owne darke spéeches, instling & confoun∣ding these things togither, that your Pope might haue both powers in him, but still what is this to the purpose, that Bi∣shops may depose Kings?

VVhether of these therfore (say you) shal obtaine the chie∣fer parts in the body of the Churche? shall not the spirituall power, which is giuen of God himself by Iesus Christ, to that end that it might minister iustice, spirite and life vnto vs? as for the kingly power came in deede frō God, but not onely & properly by Christ, as he is the Sauior: but also by the sense of the minde conspiring, & the will of the people, whether it were faithful or vnfaithful: neither could of it self at any time pertaine vnto heauē, or minister life vnto hir subiects. If ther∣fore the chiefe parts in the body of the Church belong to the

spirituall power▪ truely that ought of righte to gouerne and rule the kingly and all earthly power, that is founde in the same body of the Church.

Yet again, M. San. I think aboue twentie times we haue graunted you the due superioritie of the true spiritual power. I put to these words due, and true, bicause, neither is your spiritual power, the true spiritual power but rather an earth∣ly and carnall power, and that spiritualnesse that it hathe, is rather from the spirituall power of darknesse, than of the spirite of truthe, and was neuer of God, nor by Christ, nor administreth iustice, spirite, nor lyfe, but iniquitie, sensuali∣tie, and death: nor pertayneth to heauen, but leadeth to hell, I meane the spirituall power of the Popishe spiritual∣tie. The spirituall power of the Ministers of Christe, I graunte dothe all these thinges you speake of, and therefore it hathe a superioritie, but suche as is due vnto it, in the ministration of these aforesayde things, and not to encroche vpon suche superioritie as belongeth to Christian Princes. But, to stayne the Princes power, you call it earthly, and so it is in some respecte, but it is heauenly in other respects al∣so, bicause it came from God, and it representeth the diuine power of God. It came from God (you saye) but not by Christe, but by the peoples consent. Howe true this is, is partly answeres before, and S. Paule sayth, Omnis pote∣stas est à Deo, all power is of God. Is not Christ God? howe then came it not from Christ? And is not this spoken of the wisedome of God, which is Christ, Per me reges regnant, Kings rule by me? You make exception, not by Christ, as sauiour. Is not Christ aswel a sauiour, in y^t he is king, as he is a saui∣or, in y^t he is Priest. Not that (say you) the Princes power, of it selfe pertaynes to heauē, or ministreth life. What it doth of it selfe, we force not, M. Sand. we speake of Christian kinges, representing Christe the sauior. Not that the Kinges pow∣er saueth, no more doth the Priestes power, but onely the power of Christ, y^t is both King and Priest: but that by either

of these, Christ worketh meanes towardes our saluation. and so bothe pertayne to heauen, and minister life also: the Bishops power, in setting foorthe Gods worde and Sacra∣mēts: the Princes power in ouerséeing that both the Bishops and clergie set them foorthe duely, and that the people due∣tifully recoyue them. But still what is this to the purpose, for the Bishop to depose Princes, shall we neuer come to our matter agayne? this is a long vagarie. But go on M. Sand. euen whether you list to wander.

For as in the same body of man all the members ought to obey the commaundement of reason onely of the minde, bi∣cause in the same body is nothing higher than the minde: so also in the Churche, whiche is like a mans body, sithe the spi∣rituall power gouerneth as the minde and reason: all other power that is founde in the Churche besides, ought of neces∣sitie to be subiect to the spirituall power: Ought I saye to be subiect, not euery where, nor altogither, but onely in those things that pertaine to the saluation of soules, and to the pro∣per iurisdiction of the Churche.

And haue you spyed this nowe▪ M. Sanders, that the spi∣rituall power in the churche, is like to the rule of reason in our body, but onely in these things? How then pertayneth it to depose kinges, to dispose, translate, and occupie king∣domes, to cause subiects rebell, which is the proper question héere in hande. Do these thinges, pertaine to saluation, are these thinges the proper iurisdiction of the Churche▪ then surely it is a proper Churche, and it hath a proper iurisdic∣tion, or we shall make a proper saluation of •…•…oules, and you haue made a proper péece of worke, so properly to proue your argument of the Princes deposition, for the whiche I s•…•…ill •…•…rie for some proofe, but you haue belike forgotten it. For shame M. Saund. come once agayne to your matter: but go to, nowe at the length, you wil drawe neerer to it.

For if the earthly power do iniurie to the spouse of Christ, or do not defende it from the iniurie of other, when it may,

or in any thing faynte from iustice and truthe: those that gouerne the church of God, ought to admonish the ciuil Ma∣gistrate, that he should decline from euill and do good. But and if the ciuill Magistrate will not so amende himselfe, they must make haste to other remedies, for it can not be in a wel ordered citie, but that for euery euill that may fall out, there is a remedie prepared.

Nowe (M. Sand.) this geare beginnes to cotten. For re∣membring at length your idle vagarie, you drawe neerer to your matters, for the Princes deposing. And héere you pre∣suppose thrée things: either that the Church hath iniurie of∣fred hir by y^e Prince: either that the Prince, where he may, defendes hir not from others iniuries: either that he himself faynteth from iustice and truthe. Héere, say you, what re∣medie? Those that gouerne the Church of God, ought to ad∣monishe the ciuill Magistrate, that he shoulde decline from euill, and do good For the admonition, it is well and tru∣ly sayde, M. Sand. and would to God the Pastors woulde thus do in these your presupposed cases▪ But héere is no de∣position of the Magistrate. Howbeit craftily euen héere you haue as good as deposed him already. For you make your selues •…•…ose only that gouerne the Church of God: and call the Prince▪ but the ciuill Magistrate, as thoughe he gouer∣ned not also the Church of God and had nothing to do ther∣with, but onely with ciuill affaires, and that the Priestes haue all the gouernaunce of Gods Churche. But as this is false, neither haue you, nor can you proue this, but still rea∣son, à petitione principij, taking that for an vndoubted true principle, that is chiefly denied, that you are the onely go∣uernors of the Church of God. So nowe, that whiche you presuppose in the Prince, let vs presuppose the like in you. If you that call your selues the Church▪ haue at any time done 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to the Prince: & trow you, ye neuer did it? Did your Pope neuer iniurie to the Emperour? did your bishops neuer iniurie to kings? did your spiritualtie neuer iniurie to

the laytie? I thinke (for shame) you will not denie it. If you do, you shall haue witnesses inow, of your owne side against you. Agayne, did your Pope neuer suffer iniurie to be done to Princes, and might haue helped it, and did not? denie it & you can for shame. Moreouer, did your Pope & his Clergy neuer saynt from iustice and truth? you dare not séeke to co∣uer it, it is so open and confessed. What remedie now to a∣mend these things? the gouernors of the Church (say you) must admonish thē to decline from euill, and do good. Who are these gouernors of the Churche that ye speake of? our selues, say you. Why then you must admonish your selues. Would to God you had that grace, M. San. that you would enter into iudgement with your selues, and admonishe your selues. But now running headlong in your faults, and wil not heare them tolde of any other, but thinke you do well, & he that shal tel you the contrarie, you wil tell him he is an heretike, & if he come in your clawes, you will burne him, although he were some of your owne companie (for so you haue serued diuers that haue rebuked your faults & errors) yea, you are so sotted on your selues, that you maintein you can not erre: O how roughly wil you admonish your selues, & how soone shall all the worlde looke for your amendment? Is not this a plaine mockerie with y^e world world? is it not more than time for Christian princes, that are in déede y^e gouer∣nors of the Churche, to admonishe you? I denie not, but you may, yea & ought to admonish the Prince also, if he be suche an offender as you imagine. But that you oughte to be the onely admonishers of them, and not your selues of them to be admonished▪ you sée the inconuenience. And yet there is a difference betwéene admonishing and gouerning, and a greater difference betwéene admonishing & deposing. But by little and little you drawe to wards it.

But what and if the Prince (say you) will not amend him selfe? And what (say I) if the Priestes wil not amend thē selues? we must make hast (say you) to other remedies Yea,

but not suche haste (M. S•…•…) that you break your s•…•…nnes: and much lesse such hast, that you breake the ordinaunce of God. For in such haste is more waste than spéede, & the end of it neuer wanteth •…•…o. We graunt you, there are remedies in the Church of God for such inconueniences: but no such remedies, as for the subiect to attempt to depose his Soue∣raigne, and stirre the people to rebellion.

But if any (say you) beeing admonished, amende not him selfe, we are bidden to denounce him to the Church. VVho if if he will not heare the Church, is to be accounted as an Eth∣nike or a publicane.

Are you bidden, M. Sanders, if he be your Prince, to re∣nounce your ciuil & polytike obedience that you ought him, yea although he were in déede an Ethnike? if you find this, you come somwhat néerer to y^e purpose: else you do not on∣ly wrest this, place, which is not spoken of Princes, but also straggle cleane from the matter in question.

But now (say you) if any King not hearing the Church, be permitted to holde and administer his kingdome ouer Chri∣stians: who seeth not, all the people, ouer whome that King ruleth, to come into most certaine danger of losing the faith? for that saying is no lesse true than auncient.

After the example of the king, the whole world is framed.

So while only Ieroboam (as I sayd before) worshipped two Calues, the one in Bethel, the other in Dan, and appoyn∣ted Priestes, not of the sonnes of Leui, but of the basest of the people: This thyng became an offence to tenne Tribes, and for the greatest parte of Israell the faythe pe∣ryshed.

The danger and offence is great (we graunt) of Princes thus offending. But for subiects to depose their Princes, for these dangers or offences: the danger and offence were not remedied but augmēted. For what Prince were not then in danger if you would lay these offences to his charge, were he neuer so giltlesse of them? if he neuer so little offended you,

ye might•…•… say, he did you iniurie, or he suffered other to do it, he helped you not, he foughte not in your quarell, agaynst those Princes, on whome you woulde haue set him. If he swarued at any time from iustice, or but spoke a worde awrie, yea if he but saynted from those things you woulde haue him do, & would not acknowledge y^t he so dyd, who you reproued him for it, when you tolde it one to another (for you call your selues the Church) then in all poste haste the prince must be coūted as an Ethnike, or a publicane, & be de∣posed frō his kingdome, & the people muste rebell. In what danger by this doctrine, both the Prince & the people stand, & your selues also y^e teach this dangerous doctrine, is apparāt. The exāple of Ieroboam is a greater case, but as great as it was, neither y^e priests nor y^e prophets attēpted to depose Ie∣roboā, nor the people rebelled agaynst him, no nor the tribe of Iuda, nor Roboā were permitted to war against him, for all this great losse & danger that the people receiued by him.

Sithe therefore (say you) the wisdome of God hathe not lefte the Churche of God (whiche is a citie excellently foun∣ded, and defenced without a medicine, which it may giue to suche a disease: neither is there any other medicine can helpe, than that which taketh away so euill a king from among the people, and giueth the kingdome to a better man: we muste beleeue, that suche power is graunted at the least to the chiefe Pastor of the Churche, in these wordes: feede my sheepe: and whatsoeuer thou bindest in earth, shall be bounde also in heauen. So that the chiefe Pastor can not onely excommuni∣cate a wicked king, but also set his subiectes free from al obe∣dience of him.

The wisedome of God (as you say M. Sanders) hathe not lefte the Church of God without medicines for suche disea∣ses. Gods worde is euen a storehouse of plaisters, as well Cōsolidatiues, as Corrosi•…•…es, for the Ministers of Christs to apply them to any infected members. But these medi∣cines that are taken out of the worde of God, you despise

and reiecte as too base simples, & vaunt of your owne com∣poundes. There is a medicine in gods word called: In pati∣entia vestra possidebitis animas vestras, y•…•… shall possesse your soules in patience, when a wicked Prince •…•…oth vexe them. There is another called In fide fundati & stabiles, beyng founded in faith and stable. Another called: Ad te leuaui oculos meos, I haue lifted vp mine eyes to thee. &c. Another, In Domino confido, non timebo quid mihi faciat hom•…•…. I put my confidence in the Lorde, I will not feare what man can doe vnto me. Another called, beati qui persecutionem patiuntur propter iustitiam, Blessed are they that suffer persecution for righteousnesse. And a number of such excellent medicine•…•… there are. And in déede there is such a medicine too, as you s•…•…y, vt auferatur de medio populi, that he should be taken from among the people. But there is but one Phisition, that knoweth the right confection of y^e strong purgation, and that is God himselfe. Ministers of diuerse sortes he hath by whom he giueth this medicine, but I neuer read that any godly Bishop or Prieste or faithfull subiecte, did euer minister it to his Soueraigne.

The texte that you cite hereto, is not as you cite it, auferat regem adeo malū de medio populi, that may take away so euil a king from among the people: but auferte malum ex vobis ipsis take a∣waye the euill from among you: not the Prince from among the people. For that were to take away one euill with ano∣ther. And how should this euill be taken awa•…•…? Ne commisceami∣•…•…i fomicarijs. &c. be you not mingled together, or kepe no fa∣miliaritie with fornicators. He saith not, depriue him of hys life or liuing, but be not defiled with his wickednesse. And y^e greatest censure that s. Paule speaketh of, is excōmunica∣tion, pertaining properly not to the goods and bodies, but to the soules of men. Neither speaketh he there at all of Princes but of priuate men and equals in the Church of Christ, whō •…•…e calleth brethren. For the Kings and Princes at that time, were 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Christened. And he speaketh of such, as they might law•…•…y s•…•…un their companie, such as Lyra calleth Ribaldes,

or verlets, drunkards, whorehunters, Idolaters: but not such as in the Ciuill polycie they muste néedes obey, nor those that were out of the Church of Christ.

I haue written to you (saith he) by an epistle, that you should not intermingle your selues with fornicators: not vtterly from fornicators of this world, or couetous persons, or rauenous, or worshippers of Images, else should ye go out of this world. But nowe I haue written to you that ye intermingle not your sel∣ues. If any which is called a brother be a whoremaister, or co∣uetous person, or a worshipper of Images, or a sclaunderer, or a drunkerd, or a rauener, with suche an one we shoulde not eate meate. For what haue I to do, to iudge them that are without? do not you iudge of them that are within? as for those that are without, God iudgeth. Take away the euill from among you. Nowe saith M. Saunders, that S. Paule speaketh of taking away so euill a King from among the people, and this he set∣teth downe in distinct letters, as though S. Paule had ment the Priests should depose an euill King from gouerning the people. Where he speaketh not to the Priestes but to the people, and would haue them shunne the company of suche false brethren as were among them.

But M. Saunders will say, doth not this stretch to a king, so well as to any other, if he be a brother in y^e faith of Christ? I graunt it doth, in that he is a brother. And if he be infected with such vices, hée also is so farre forth to be shunned. But not to be shunned in that he is a Prince and gouernor of the people: muche lesse the people to forsake their obedience to his authoritie, bycause they must forsake their obedience to his vices. He maye be so shunned priuately, as the publique gouernement be not shunned, he may be iudged of the faith∣full, in their courte of conscience, concerning his crime, but he maye not be iudged in their Courte of Consistorie, con∣cerning his worldly power: he maye be taken héede of, but not taken awaye: he maye be euen excommunicated also by the ministers, but not by them deposed: bicause, howsoe∣uer

he deserueth it, yet haue they no authoritie that stret∣cheth so farre. That remedie belongeth not to them, but vn∣to God.

But now sir, what and if the Prince be not onely no such malefactor, but goeth about to resorme these malefactours, where as other priuate men, can but shunne their companie, and the ministers of Christ can but excommunicate them, which though it be neuer so great a censure, yet they estéeme it not: and that the Prince will punishe suche malefactors in their goods and bodies, yea and take them awaye from a∣mong the people by death, banishmente, prisonment or o∣therwise, as his office requireth he should do, to whom the sworde is giuen against the malefactor? what now if it fall oute, that the Popishe Priestes be the greatest malefactors in these notorious crimes? what if they be not only priuate whore maisters, but also publike maynteiners of bankes and stewes for whores, and dispisers and restrainers of honora∣ble matrimonie? what if the Popish Priests be so couetous and rauenous, that they haue gotten almoste the wealth of all Christian kingdomes into their fingrings, and are neuer satisfied with deuising naughtie meanes, to picke mens mo∣ney out of their purses? what if the Popishe Priests be wor∣shippers of Images, and causers of them to be worshipped? what if manye of them be common drunkardes, and all of them drunken with spirituall drunkennesse, which is a great deale worse? what if the Popishe Priestes be sclaunderers of those that be in authoritie, and woulde take the Kings sworde and Scepter oute of his hande, and pull his Dia∣deme off his heade, and plucke his roabe from his backe, and turne hym quite oute of hys throne and Kingdome and byd hym goe shake hys eares, and styrre all hys subiectes to rebellion? what if all these, and an infinite sorte of other horrible crymes, were founde in the Popishe priests themselues? oughte not this rule of Sainte Paule to take place on them, and all Christians to abhorre and

shunne them, and all Princes to depose and punishe them. Nowe, whether the Popishe Priestes be culpable in these crimes or no: I thinke the crie of Sodome and Gomorre did not more astende vp to heauen, than the crie of the Po∣pishe Priests abhomination resoundeth in all the earth. And thus this sentence that Maister Saunders thought to wrest against Princes, if it be well examined, falleth more out a∣gainst the Priests themselues.

As for the other two sentences Iohn. 21. & Math. 16. are no lesse wrested herevnto. VVe must beleue (sayth he) that this power, to take away the Prince, and giue his Kingdome to a better▪ is graūted at the least to the chief pastor of the Church, in these wordes, feede my sheepe, and whatsoeuer thou bin∣dest in earth shall be bound in heauen also. In so muche that the chiefe pastor maye not onely excommunicate a wicked King, but also set free his subiectes from all obedience of him.

And finde you this in these two sentences Maister Saun∣ders? we must beleeue it, say you, that this power is giuen at the least to the chiefe pastor, in these wordes. Howe shall we beleeue it, Maister Saunders, sith these wordes neither say, nor import any such matter, that Peter (to whom they were spoken) is the chief pastor of the Church, neither at the least, nor at the most: least of all, that in these wordes these things are contained. Christ saith to Peter, feede my shepe▪ you ex∣pounde these wordes, that he gaue him power, to take away Kings from their kingdomes, and to set the people at liber∣tie from their sworne obedience. This is a proper feeding (M. Saunders to giue them pappe with an hatchet, as they say, to spoyle Kings and s•…•…t their kingdomes in the vprores of rebellion▪ Christ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not his shepe on th•…•… fashion nor we reade that euer Peter 〈◊〉〈◊〉 them so, but with the worde of God, and with exhortatiō of obedience vnto Princes. Peter fead the shéepe of Christ on this wise: Be ye subiect to euery humaine creature, for the Lordes sake, whether to the King as

excelling, or to his rulers, as those that are sent of him, to the punishment of malefactors, and to the prayse of them that do well, for so is the will of God. For doyng well, you stoppe the mouthes of foolishe and ignorant men. As free, and yet not hauing libertie for a cloake of malice, but as seruantes of God. Honor all men, loue brotherhood, feare God, honor the King. Let seruants be subiect to the Lord with feare, not only if they be good and gentle, but if they be froward. &c. And so he en∣treth into an exhortation of pacience, vnder wicked gouer∣nors. This is the féeding that Peter fead the shéepe of Christ withall: neither did h•…•…uer depose any Magistrate, or set at libertie any subiects, or vsurpe any kingly dominion, but dissuadeth the clergie from it.

As for the other sentence of authorizing Peter to bynde and lose, is so farre from giuing him authoritie, to bynde Princes in bondage and captiuitie, making thē to lose their kingdomes, and losing their subiectes from their bondage of subiection, setting them at libertie to rebell and chose ano∣ther: that if Maister Saunders were not too too shamelesse he would neuer thus apply it. And yet he saith we must be∣leue it▪ that in this sentence also, Peter hath this power gy∣uen him, which neither Christ, nor Peter vsed at any time, but both of them flat denie it. But why shoulde we beleeue this M. Saunders?

For (say you) if whatsoeuer Peter or Peters successor loseth in earth, is also losed in heauen: then verily, when he loseth orderly the faithfull subiects, from the obedience of a wicked King in earth: the subiects are in heauen losed, from the obe∣dience of that King. Besides, if whatsoeuer Peters successor bindeth in earth, be bound also in heauen: then when soeuer the successor of Peter, rightly and well commaundeth anye King to go from his Magistracie, which (being thus affected) he vniustly holdeth: or cōmaūdeth him, by whatsoeuer meanes he can, to hinder another King, that hindreth the faithful peo∣ple from eternal life, that he should not perishe in doyng wic∣kedly:

that King is bounde also in heauen, that is to saye be∣fore God and his Angels, to obey the decree of the chiefe Bi∣shop, except he will haue his owne sinnes before God, to be re∣tained and not remitted.

Here is your Sampsons poste, M. Saūders, that you, and your Pope builde vpon, for his supremacie that he hath the keyes of heauen and hell vnder his belte, but howe grossely and shamefully this spirituall power of bynding and losing, consisting in preaching the word of God, and pertaining on∣ly to the soule of the faithfull beleuer, or the vnfaithfull re∣fuser, is applied to the body & goods of men, to be taken from them: is wrested to cōmaunding of Kings to get thē packing from their kingdomes: to bydding of subiectes take armes a∣gainst their Princes: to bidding of one King, by whatsoeuer meanes he can, by defying fighting, and making warre, by shéeding Christiā blood, by violating peace, by breaking lea∣gues, by wasting one anothers coūtries, to molest and perse∣cute one another: & that all Princes & nations are bound be∣fore God and his Angels, to obey his bidding, yea, althoughe he were such a chiefe B. or the successor of Peter, as he cra∣keth, & is not: is so horrible & shameful a wresting of Christs saying, so euident a contradiction to all other sayings in the scripture, so open a gappe to the dissolution of all estates, & to bring all tumult & confusion into the world: yea, this bin∣ding and losing were such a binding vp of all godlynesse, and the verie losing of the deuill himself: that it is maruaile that euer any Papist professing learning, would be so grosse (in this age of greater learning) thus to expounde it. Which ex∣position was neuer heard of by any godly father, till Pope Gregorie. 7. set it a broach, and Pope Boniface. 8. following him, set all Christendome by the eares about it. And nowe that all the worlde séeth the follie and wickednesse of it, M. Saunders so unpudently would renue it.

But he hathe a shifting restrainte in this exposition, to salue the matter. When the Pope (sayth he) duely and or∣derly

loseth the people from their obedience, and when he well and rightly biddeth the king giue ouer his authoritie, thē either of them are bound to obey his bidding.

True, Maister Saunders when he doth these things du∣ly and orderly well and rightly: thē it shall be graunted you. But how can he do that, well and rightly, duely and orderly: that is most euil, and against all dutie, right and order? can a théefe steale well and rightly? can such extreme wickednesse that passeth all priuate thefte, and is the open breach of all due order, be dulie and orderly done? But belike M. Saūders thinketh, if the Pope do it in his consistorie, if he haue on his Cope, and do it in his Pontificalibus, if the belles be roong & the candels put out: then it is well and rightly, duely and or∣derly done. Such toyishe orders vseth the Pope to bleare the simple, as though, when it is done with booke, bell & candle, it is done well and rightly, duely and orderly: but before God and his Angels in heauen, and before all wise and godly lear∣ned mē in earth, as these orders are mere ridiculous: so these doyngs are most abhominable. But nowe let vs heare his reason for this doyng.

For if whatsoeuer power any king hath, he ought to conuert and applie that wholly to the honor of Christ: then he that o∣therwise doth, shall in the day of doome, render an account of sin, whē euen that sword it selfe (which in times paste he hath either drawē out against Christ, or else he would not draw for Christ) shall accuse him of disobedience. If therfore we shall follow reasō aright, as the Minister of Christ ought not to cō∣secrate him for Prince, whom he seeth not to be a Christiā or a Catholike: so neither ought he, to suffer him to beare gouern∣mēt any long while ouer Christiās, whō by any lawful meanes he cā remoue. For the Lord hath subdued to his minister Iere∣mie, as wel the kingly persons as their kingdomes, saying: Be∣hold I haue put my words in thy mouth, behold I haue this day set thee ouer nations, and ouer kingdomes, to roote vp, to de∣stroy, to leese, to scatter, to build and plant. VVhich wordes fall oute moste aptly on the person of Christe. But no Catholike

doubteth, but from him, they are dayly fulfilled in his Church by his ministers.

That the Prince ought to conuert and apply all his power to the honor of Christ, we graunt. And if he abuse his sword in drawing it againste Christe, or not defending the sayth of Christ thereby, we graunt likewise, at the day of doome the Prince shall answere for it. And therefore Princes had nede to be wise and learned, to looke the better vnto it. Which if they did, they must néedes draw it out against your Pope and you in principall. But if their sworde (that God gaue vnto them, and they haue missused) shall accuse them: what shall the rust of the gold and riches do, that the Pope hath ill got∣ten and worse spent? what shall his triple crowne and vsur∣ped title doe, what shal the Crosse keyes do, that he pretends, he hath from Peter, and the sworde from Paule, embrued with so much blood of the Saintes of God? shall not these things muche more accuse the Pope, at that greate daye of reckoning?

But how holdeth this conclusion here vpon? If the Prince abuse his sword, shall the Pope wring it from him? surely then the Princes sworde, that the Pope hath thus extorted, and he was forbidden to meddle withall, shall accuse him al∣so. But Maister Saunders saith, he may take it from him, so that he take it by lawfull meanes: as though a man may doe another wrong, by lawful meanes: as though he may vsurpe by lawfull meanes that, that by no meanes he oughte to doe: as though there can be any meanes lawfull to doe that, that is not lawfull to be done.

But that it is lawfull, he citeth the saying of God to Iere∣mie, cap. 1. This sentence is also cited in the Extrauagant of Pope Boniface, and applyed, as here Maister Saunders doth, that the Ministers of God may order kingdomes, as the wordes seme to specifie, according to the letter. But where did Ieremie rule any nations and kingdomes, roote vp houses, destroy Cities, pull downe buildings, builde and plante

newe in their places? I thinke, M. Saunders, you can not shewe that euer Ieremie did this, neither can you in suche sense applie it to Christe, on whose person, you say, aptly it falleth out, sithe Christ in his person, literally, did not these thinges neither. And then can it not serue your turnes, to gouerne Nations & kingdomes, to roote vp houses, to destroy kinges and depopulate their Countreys, Townes, and Ci∣ties, and to translate at your pleasures the whole estate of Christendome. Ieremie did neuer thus, nor Christe did euer thus, nor his Ministers did euer thus, and therefore you do∣ing thus, can not bolster your doings from them. And if you will do this as Ieremie did, and as Christe hath taught, and as his Ministers did, good leaue haue you. But how dyd they it? God sayth to Ieremie, Behold I haue put my words in thy mouthe: wherevpon sayth Lyra: Bicause Ieremie not onely prophecied agaynst the King of Iuda, but also a∣gaynst many other kingdomes, as shall appeare. Therefore it followeth: Beholde I haue set thee. &c. that thou shouldest roote vp, that is, thou shouldest declare in rooting vp, and translating from thence the Inhabiters, &c. And shouldest buylde and plante, that is, thou shouldest declare the Iewes to be reedified and planted in their owne Countrey. VVhich was fulfilled in the time of Cyrus, that gaue licence to the people, to returne into their owne Countrey, and reedifie the Temple: And in the time of Artaxerxes, who gaue licence to Nehemias to reedifie the Temple of Ierusalem. So that this rooting vp was not done by Ieremie, nor this buylding agayne was done in his time: but was long after done by God, and by suche Ministers as God appoynted therevnto, whiche were no Priestes, but Princes. Howbeit sithe it was Gods ordinaunce, he sayth, Ieremie shoulde do it, bi∣cause Ieremie shoulde foretell it. And therefore the learned Uatablus expoundes these wordes on this wise: I put my worde in thy mouthe, that is, I appoynt thee to be a Prophet: beholde, that is, marke those thinges that I shall tell thee, that

thou shalt threaten my enimies, whome I haue planted, pla∣ced, confirmed, and buylded in their nations, that I will pull them out by captiuities, excepte they repent: and contrary∣wise, I wil builde againe and plante them, whome before I de∣stroyed and pulled vp▪ if they shall acknowledge their sinnes. And for confirmation héereof, that this whiche he ascribeth to Ieremie, was Gods dooing, and Ieremie but the foretel∣ler of it: he referreth vs, first, to the. 45. chapter, where God sayth to Ieremie concerning Baruch: Thou shalte say thus vnto him, Thus saithe the Lorde: Beholde, those things that I haue edified, I wil pul downe, and the thinges that I haue planted, I wil roote vp, yea al this lande. And in the. 42. chap∣ter: If you abide and inhabite in this lande, I wil builde you, and wil not pul you downe, I wil plante you, and wil not pul you vp, bicause it repēteth me of the euil that I haue brought vpon you. Thus we sée that Ieremie was not the doer of any of these thinges, he neuer deposed kinges nor translated kingdomes in all his lyfe, but onely declared to them Gods iudgementes to come vpon them and destroy them, if they repented not, Gods mercifull promises to comforte them if they repented. Nowe on this fashion (if he will followe Ieremies fashion) shoulde the Pope and his Prelates pull downe, and set vp kinges and kingdomes, not by deposing them from their estates, not by seazing kingdoms into their handes, not by translating the gouernementes thereof, not by making subiects rebell agaynst their Soueraignes, not by setting Princes by the eares togither, not by putting all to fyre, sworde and famine: but by declaring to them the wrathe and plagues of God, but by exhorting them to re∣pentaunce, but by recomforting them with Gods moste mercifull promises, but by preaching, and teaching them the worde of God: and thus onely to pull downe, and sette vp Kinges and kingdomes. And further than this, the doing of Ieremie stretched not, nor the Ministers of Christ may do.

Now if you applye this sentence spiritually to Christe, and from him to his Ministers, we admitte also your ap∣plication. But where dyd Christe thus order worldely kingdomes? Nowe can you then from Christe, father these youre dooinges? Youre Glosse ioyned wyth Lyra, hathe these wordes: Multi bunc locum. &c Many expounde this place on the person of Christe, for Ieremie is inter∣preted, the highe one of the Lorde, who destroyed the kingdomes of the Diuell, whiche he shewed vnto him on the toppe of the Mountayne: hee destroyed the aduersa∣rie powers, blotting out the handewriting of errour in his Crosse. Of whome nexte to the hystoricall truthe, it is sayde in a figure: VVherefore did the Nations frette, and the people imagine vayne thinges, the Kinges of the earthe stoode vp, and the Princes came togither in one. In the place of all these beeing destroyed, loste and pulled downe into hell, the Churche of God is builded vp and planted.

Thus saith your owne Glosse, in applying this sentence from Ieremie to Christe, concerning Christes pulling downe and setting vp of kingdomes. And on this wyse oughte the Ministers of Christe, to pull downe and set vp kingdomes, that is, with the sworde of Gods worde, to beate down▪ the power of Sathan, the kingdome of errour, the buylding on the sandes, the workes of sinne, to roote vp vices, and to beate downe (as S. Paule termeth them) all strong holdes resisting the truthe of God, and to set vp the kingdome of Christ, to edifie his Church, to builde vpon the rocke, to plante vertues, and by doctrine and ensample enstruct the faythfull people. And so dothe youre owne Glosse interprete it: Vt euellas mala, & destruas regna Dia∣boli: That thou shouldest pull vp euils, and destroy the Kingdomes of the Diuell. &c. and shouldest edifie the Churche. Wherevpon saythe the Glosse: To foure heauie thinges, two ioyfull thynges succeede, for neyther can good thinges be buylded, except the euill thinges be de∣stroyed,

neither can the best thinges be planted, excepte the worste thinges be rooted vp. For euery plante that my hea∣uenly father hathe not planted, shall be pulled vp by the rootes, and that buylding whiche is not buylded on the rocke, but vpon the sandes, is digged vp and destroyed with the worde of God. But that which the Lorde shall consume with the spirite of his mouthe, that is, all sacrilegious and peruerse doctrine, he shall destroy it for euer, and those things that lifte vp them selues agaynst the kingdome of God, and truste in their wisedome. VVhiche before God is foo∣lishnesse, he shall scatter and put them downe, that for these the humble thinges mighte be edified. And in place of the former thinges that are destroyed and pulled vp, those things may be buylded and planted, that are conuenient to the ecclesiastical truth, of whom it is saide, you are the buyl∣ding of God, you are the tilth of God.

Héere, M. Sand. euen by your owne glosse, is described, what this building and pulling downe is, that belongeth to the ministers of Christ, so farre vnlike your Popishe buyl∣ding, that it sheweth the ouerthrowe and rooting vp of your plantes and buylding, and howe your kingdome shall vt∣terly be destroyed. In the ouerthrowing of whiche muni∣tions and buylding the truth of God, the ministers of Christ muste so set themselues agaynst all worldly kingdomes, that fearing not their mighte and tyrannie agaynst the truthe, they ouercome them. As God sayde to Ieremie: Girde vp thy loynes, and arise, and speake vnto them all those thinges that I commaunde thee. Feare not their faces, for I wil make thee not to feare their faces. For I haue made thee this day, a strong citie, and an yron piller, and a brasen wall o∣uer al the lande, to the Kings of Iuda, and to the Princes ther∣of, and to the Priests, and to the people thereof, and they shall not preuaile, for I am with thee, saithe the Lorde, and wil de∣liuer thee. If the kinges of Iuda (sayth the Glosse) whiche is interpreted, confession, and the Princes, and Priestes, and

people of it, to witte, the Bishops, the Priestes and Deacons, and the vile and vnnoble vulgar people will arise agaynst an holy man: let him haue a strong faithe, and feare not, let him trust in God, and he shall conquere them.

Héere is the conquest of these kingdomes, whereby the true Ministers of God shall ouercome all Kings and Prin∣ces, all Bishops, Priestes, and Deacons, and all the peo∣ple that resist them. But this is as farre from deposing kings from their estates, from ruling, possessing, and tran∣slating earthly kingdomes: as you that séeke after all these things, are farre from Ieremies, from Christes, and from his Ministers conquests.

But (sayth M. Saunders) the Protestantes, who can not suffer, that the fleshe giue place vnto the spirite, or the tem∣porall kingdome to the spirituall (for euery where they fa∣uour too muche the fleshe and the worlde) before all thinges they alleage agaynst vs the saying of Christe, my king∣dome is not of this worlde, we muste see therefore, what Christe in those wordes woulde haue vnderstoode, For the Protestantes wrest them hitherto, as thoughe the Mini∣sters of the Church of Christ (which is the kingdom of God) may haue at any time no power ouer Christian Princes, or ouer their earthly kingdomes, and causes subiect to them, bi∣cause the kingdome of Christ himselfe, is not of this worlde. But in this thing they are too fouly deceyued: For it is ano∣ther thing▪ not to be of this worlde: and farre another thing that the Christian kingdome that is in this world, shoulde not be subiect to Christ, and to the Ministers of Christ. VVhen Christ denieth his kingdome to be of this worlde, either by the name of this world is vnderstoode sinne, and the tyrannie of sinne, and the masse of the reprobate (as the Lorde other∣where faithe: you are not of the worlde, if you were of the worlde, the world would loue his owne, but I haue chosen you out of the worlde) or else by the name of the worlde is vnderstoode, all this visible creature, whereof the faythfull

also are parte so long as they liue heere. If therefore by the worlde we vnderstand darknesse and sinne, and the reprobates of this world: certaine it is, the kingdome of Christ is by no meanes of this world, bicause all the kingdome of Christe is lighte, and darknesse is not in his kingdome, who lightneth euery man comming into this worlde. But if by the worlde, we meane the visible creatures, and among them comprehēd the Churche of God: verily •…•…e denieth not that those crea∣tures are subiect vnto him, or that these temporal kingdomes that beleeue in him, are comprehended vnder his eternall kingdome. But he denieth that his kingdome is from hence, that is to say taketh his originall of this world as other king∣domes are wonte to do For the kingdome of Christe s•…•…rang not from the law of nations, as other kingdomes do, but from the diuine and naturall yea and from the supernatural lawe. VVherevpon Augustine marked, that Christe saide not, my kingdome is not heere, but it is not from hence, for in the worlde it is, but of the •…•…orlde it is not, but of heauen.

Héere M. Sand. hauing as he thinketh, confirmed his o∣pinion, will now assay to confute our obiection agaynst it. And to this purpose, he chooseth out the saying of Christ is Pilate, My kingdome is not of this world. This he saith, we alleage before all things. I omit his sclanders, that we can not suffer▪ that the flesh should giue place to the spirit, that the spiritual Kingdome should rule the temporal, and that we fa∣uour to much the fleshe and the worlde. All whiche are but méere sclanders, and do fitter serue to re•…•…urne vpon the Pa∣pists. But let vs come to his answere of this obiectiō, which I graunt is one of our obiections vnto them, althoughe not (as he saythe) the chiefe obiection, but suche an one, as ma∣ster Sanders with all his shiftes, is not able directly to an∣swer to it. First, what a worldly kingdome the Pope séeketh and possesseth, is apparant: in so muche that fewe worldly Kingdomes in worldly mighte and glorie are comparable vnto it. Although (God be praysed) it decayeth dayly not∣withstanding

al his practises to repayre and vndershore the ruines therof. Against this his worldly kingdome we obiect, that sithe he pretendes to be the Uicar of Christ, and Christ statly denieth his kingdome to be such a worldly kingdome: if the Pope he his Minister, he can not clayme nor enioy suche a worldly kingdome. What fetche now can M. Sand. find•…•…, or any in all the worlde to elude this playne argu∣ment? we must (sayth he) distinguish of this worde, the worlde▪ which somtime signifieth s•…•…ne, darknesse, and the re∣probate. In this sense Christes Kingdome is not of the world. Sometimes the worlde signifieth all visible creatures: and in this sense, it is in the worlde, though it be not of the world, that is, it hathe not his originall of the world, but from God. But this hindreth not, but that beeing in the world, worldly kingdomes may be subiect to it. And so we sor not marking these distinctions are f•…•…ly deceiued.

Whether we be deceyued, or you, M. Sanders, or whe∣ther we or you would deceiue others, all the worlde easily may perceiue. We admitte your distinction, of beeing in the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, but not of the worlde. Neyther disallowe we your significations of the worlde, althoughe subtilly you con∣ceale those significations thereof, that it oughte to haue béene further distinguished into. For the worlde signi∣fieth often times, the glorie, mighte, riches, power, and pleasures of worldly thinges, especially when this worde Kingdome is ioyned to it. And this is the very natural sense of a worldly kingdome, that is to say, a state in or of the worlde, excelli•…•… in these worldly thinges. Nowe this, which is the very naturall sense, you •…•…yde, and runne a∣bout the 〈◊〉〈◊〉, with this and that signification, to carrie the readers 〈◊〉〈◊〉 aw•…•…▪ from the proper signification of it. We denie not that the kyngdome of Christe is in this worlde, neyther denie wée that Christian kinges oughte to submitte them selues vnto it. But we denie that thys kingdome stretcheth to the worldly gouernment

and possession of kingdomes or Realmes, to the deposing of Kings, and translating the states of Polycies, whiche is the proper question now in hande. And to shewe that this sen∣tence of Christe, without all shifting or shuffling, is simply and playnely thus to be vnderstoode: I will desire none o∣ther (besides S. Augustine whome you cite, and the aun∣cient Fathers) than euen the Papists own iudgements and interpretations on this sentence, My kingdome is not of this worlde, whiche the Glosse expoundeth thus: Quasi decepti estis. &c. As though he should say, ye are deceiued, for I hin∣der not your gouernment in the worlde. And so sayth Lyra: Non quaerit, &c. He seeketh not the temporall gouernment of this worlde. &c. My kingdome is not from hence, that is to say, so farre as appertaineth to gette these temporall things. But agaynst this seemeth that which is sayd in the Psalme. 46. God is the King of all the earth: but he is very God, as he is very man, therefore his kingdome is of this worlde. VVe must say, that according to the veritie of his diuinitie, all thinges are subiect vnto Christe, notwithstanding so farre as apper∣tayneth to his humanitie, he came not in his first comming to gouerne temporally, but rather to serue & suffer. And so it appeareth, that he sufficiently excludeth that, that was laide to his charge, of vsurping the kingdome of Iewry, bicause there was no question of him, but in that that he was man, and for the present state that he was in, whiche appertayned to his first comming.

Ferus expounding this saying, My kingdome is not of this worlde. Quasi diceret. &c▪ As though (sayth he) he shoulde say, I graunt (O Pilate) and acknowledge my selfe to be a King, this is euen that that I haue done, this is that crime that is laide vnto me. Howbeit vnderstand this thing aright, I am in deede a king, but so, that I neither vsurpe not diminish the power of thy Keysar, nor expell any of the Kings or Prin∣ces frō their power or dominiōs. And that thou mayst vnder∣stande the matter it selfe, I am not a worldly king, but an

heauenly, in whose handes are the hartes of all Kings, although it seeme not so to thee. My kingdome, that is, my principali∣tie or administration: or, my kingdome, that is my lawes and rightes: or, my kingdome, that is, my ministers and subiects: is not of this worlde, that is, not of man but of God. I (saith he) am of him made King ouer his holy mount. To conclude, it is not of this worlde, that is, it is not temporall but eternall, for the world and the lust therof doth passe away. Besides this, it is not of this world, bycause it is not corporall, but spiritu∣all, and is administred after another sorte, than is a worldly kingdome. For this is administred with a materiall sword, but my kingdome hath no neede of this sword, for the sword ther∣of is the word of God. The kingdome of the worlde hath Ci∣ties, Towers, Townes, Villages, Armies, Armor: my kingdome requireth onely the harts of men. The world ruleth the goods and the bodyes, but I rule the hartes and the consciences. The world ruleth with a carnall power, but it yeeldeth to the spiri∣tuall: but I rule spiritually against sinne, death and hell. Thou seest how beautifully Christ describeth his kingdom. After the same maner almost doth Zacharias speake of the kingdome of Christe: Beholde thy King commeth vnto thee meeke and poore. &c. Howbeit we must marke that he saith not my king∣dome is not in this world. For Christ also is the Lorde of the world, for all things were made by him, all power is giuen to him in heauen and earth, now if the kingdome of Christ be not of this world, then it followeth, that there is yet another worlde. And therfore although thou seest not the promises of Christ fulfilled in this world, yet despaire not, for there is ano∣ther world, in the which is fulfilled, whatsoeuer here is not fulfilled. Againe, bicause the kingdome of Christ is not of this world, we are bidden to pray, let thy kingdome come. In this first word therefore Christ deliuereth Pilate from all feare, & moreouer by this example proueth himselfe, to wit, that he is cleare from desiring the Imperiall or kingly power. If (saith he) my kingdom were of this world▪ I would not lead vnarmed

Disciples about with me, but armed, yea, I would haue coun∣sellours, souldiors, armies, &c. who in this my necessitie, should with swerd•…•… defende me as their Lord, yea offring themselues to death for me. Or if I coueted a worldly Kingdome, eyther the Angels should defend me from the violence of the Iewes: or rather I would haue nede, neither of Angels, nor of men, for my right hand should be able to helpe me. &c. Of these things therefore Christ concludeth, but nowe my kingdome is not from hence. Out of which argument persuade thy selfe moste certainly, that my kingdom is not of this world. VVhatsoeuer thou or thy Emperor hath, it shall for me remaine whole vnto you, I desire none of your things, I regarde not the glorye and riches of the worlde, that you esteeme for the greatest goods. These things truely were spoken to Pilate, but they pertaine to vs. For, if the kingdome of Christ be not from hence, what dost thou Christiā, seke for riches and honors of this world, if the kingdome of Christ be not of this world? Christians ther∣fore ought to haue tribulatiō in this world while in Christ they haue the peace of conscience, maruell not therfore frō whence so many troubles happen to the godly in the world. And with this word the godly man ought to comfort himselfe in aduer∣sitie, and say, my kingdome is not from hence. Besides this, if the kingdome of Christe be not from hence, then erre they that set the kingdome of Christe in outwarde things and ele∣mentes of the world▪ &c.

Thus doth your owne frier Ferus expound this sentence, that the kingdome of Christ is not in such power & royaltie as worldly kingdomes are, nor diminisheth, deposeth, nor ta∣keth away from kings their kingdomes. And thus doth Lu∣dolphus gather out of Chrisostome, and other auncient fa∣thers. Nihil denique monstrauit tale. &c. To conclude, he neuer shewed any suche thing. He neither had souldiers nor Princes, nor horses, nor burden of mules▪ nor anye suche thing about him. But he led this lyfe humble and poore, carying aboute with him. 12. base men. Accordyng to his diuinitie all things

were subiect to Christ, howbeit as touching his humanitie, in his first comming he came not to rule temporally, & to raigne, but rather to serue and suffer. VVherevpon he denieth not that he is a King, but rather graunteth it. Bicause according to the truth, he was the King of King•…•…, but yet to take awaye occa∣sion of escaping. he tempereth his aunswere saying, that he seeketh not the temporall dominion of this worlde, bycause his Kingdome is not of this world, so farre as toucheth the see∣king and hauing these temporal things, and therfore his king∣dome was neither against the Iewes nor the Romaines, nor hindred their authoritie, bycause they only regarded an earth∣ly Kingdome, that is, of this worlde. As thoughe he saide to them, ye are deceyued, I hinder not your Empyre in this world, least vainly ye should feare and rage, but come ye to the heauenly kingdome by beleuing, that is not of this worlde, to the which by preaching I inuite you. Christe saide, my King∣dome is not of this world, but yet notwithstanding many Pre∣lates, which are his vicars, seme in their doyng to say the con∣trarie, in pompes making themselues equall to Princes, or ra∣ther exceeding them.

Thus saith agayne your Monke Ludolphus, and withall hitteth your Pope for his more than worldly kingdome. For whereto else tendeth all this drift, but that the Pope ruling all Christian Kingdomes (pretending a spirituall King∣dome of Christ) might get a carnall kingdome to himselfe? As for Saint Augustine who (you saye) marked, that Christe saide not▪ my Kingdome is not here, but it is not frō hence: if you Maister Stapleton also had marked this in Saint Au∣gustines exposition on thys sentence: Audite Iudei. &c. Heare O ye Iewe, and Gentiles, heare O thou Circumcised, heare O thou vncircumcised, heare O ye earthly kingdomes, I hin∣der not your rule in this world: you might haue marked with all, that althoughe his kingdome be here in this worlde: yet is it not onely not of the world▪ but also not a worldly king∣dome nor hindreth their gouernment, which it shuld do, if it

might depose and alter them. Thus we sée S. Augustines minde was not, that the kingdome of Christe dispossesseth Kings or any estates of men of their possessions and tempo∣rall goods, wherto M. Saunders applieth him: and also that by S. Augustines, and by his owne Friers Iudgementes, this sentence is aptly obiected of vs, against that kingdome that the Pope claimeth & vsurpeth, in the name of the King∣dome of Christ. Neither can all M. Saunders elusions shift off the force of our obiection. Neither doth this auaile, that he saith, by the world is ment darknesse, sinne and the repro∣bate. True it is, the worlde many times signifieth all these things. But what helpeth this, when euen the Popish king∣dome (as an euident token of reprobation) not onely com∣mitteth, but maintaineth most abhominable sinnes, and the darknesse of ignorance is their chiefest couer. Howbeit the pride and tyrannie of the Popes earthly kingdome, was so apparant: that euen themselues crie out vpon it. But nowe to M. Saunders.

And although Christe be borne of the Virgin beyonde the course of nature, yet notwithstanding he is both verie man, & was verily borne, and by nature, he ought to be the King and Prince of all, who in things of that kinde, is the first, and onely: I like their sentence very well, who teach that Christ, in that he is man, is the true King and Monarch of all mankinde, al∣though his kingdome be not such an one, that he euer mingled himselfe in earthly things, except whereas they might be pro∣fitable to a spirituall ende.

As you like verie well of these mens sentence, so you haue heard the iudgement of your owne side to the contrarie, that Christ, as he is man, by his first comming, toke no Monar∣chie nor Kingdome vpon him, but a spirituall kingdome be∣longing to his diuinitie. Althoughe I doe not mislike theyr sentence neither, that referre also the kingdome of Christe vnto his humanitie, so that they referre not (as you do) an hu∣maine kingdome to it. He is very man we graunt, althoughe

you, in the doctrine of transubstantiation to confound the veritie of his manhoode, he was also verily borne, and is the only chiefe of al that are borne, and he was borne of the stem of vvorldly Kings also, and he was truely called euen by his parentage the King of the Ievves, but bycause his kingdome consisted not in that, he was not borne to be suche a King. And this appeareth euen in these wordes following vnto Pilate, after he had denied his kingdome to be of this world: when Pilate replyed, Arte thou then a King? he answe∣red, thou saist that I am a King. Ne tamen. &c. vvhiche not∣vvithstanding (saithe Ferus) least Pilate should be more of∣fended vvith the name of a King: Christe proceedeth to de∣clare his kingdome more plainely, as thoughe he shoulde say: Pilate, vnderstande thou this for troth, and cast out of thy mynde all suspition, of a vvorldly kingdome, or of tyrannie. This is the case, I vvill not at al denie my spiritual kingdome, vvhether it be before thee, or before Caesar. Onely knovve thou this thing, that it is not my purpose to inuade any man vvith Armes, or after the manner of other Kings, to raigne pompously: but to erecte and establishe in earth, the Diuine truth. To this purpose vvas I born▪ and to this purpose came I into the vvorlde, that I might beare vvitnesse to the truth. Therfore I say came I, therfore was I borne, not to fight with the svvorde, but that I might teach and declare the truth, and the Gospell, vvhiche is the povver of God to saluation, to all that beleeue. And as I declare the Gospell, so I rule by the Gospell in the heartes of the beleeuers, ouer sinne, death, and the Deuill and for sinne vvill I giue righteousnesse, for death life, for the Crosse, ioye, for hell I vvill giue heauen, these are feofments of my kingdome. Of these things none can be per∣taker, excepte he heare my voyce, and beleeue in his heart. I enrich not mine vvith ryches, vvith cities and other feofmēts, but by my vvords I communicate vnto them ioye, life, peace, and to conclude, heauen it selfe. The Gospell therefore is the Scepter of my kingdome. But what are these things against

the Emperor of Rome?

Thus againe we sée that Christe is not such a King, nor his kingdome suche, as you dreame of. Whiche in the ende, your selfe, contrarie to your selfe confesse, that his kingdome is not suche an one, that he euer mingled himselfe in earthly things. Then (Master Saunders) those thinges belonged not to his Kingly office, nor to his kingdome. For in suche things euery King ought not onely to mingle, but chiefly to occupie himselfe. But strait you haue an exception at hand: that he mingled not himself in earthly things, except whereas they might be profitable to a spirituall ende, and this your selfe before confessed, was the finall ende of all the ciuill power, and that all faythfull Kings, ought to directe all those thinges in their kingdomes, vnto spirituall endes, bicause they themselues are spirituall. And so what letteth, but that Christe should haue raigned as a worldly King, and gouer∣ned an earthly kingdome? But say you:

This kingdome of Christ therfore both came from heauen, & tendeth vnto heauen. For both al povver is giuē vnto▪ him, as he vvas man, and died and rose againe, that he shoulde rule ouer the lyuing and the deade, and that he should be set ouer the vvorkes of the handes of God, and that all things should be cast vnder his feete, sheepe and Oxen, and moreouer, the beastes of the fielde: And also Saint Cyrill saith, that euen the wicked in the laste daye shall arise to their punishement for Christe, vvho rose firste, and contained, as man, al men in him self. Sith therefore earthly Kings administer those things that pertain to sheepe and Oxen and beasts of the fielde: although they remaine E•…•…hnikes and Infidels, yet are they truely vnder Christe the King, as the most vvorthy man▪ that hath receiued the principalitie ouer all thinges of this vvorlde, not from the earth, but from heauen, and for the same, shall giue an accoūt to him, of their common vveale euil ordered, bycause they re∣ferred not their kingdomes to a spirituall ende, that is, to the glorie of one God. But Christ so far as appertineth to his hu∣maine

•…•…atūre, being lesse than Angels, seemeth to me to haue receiued that kingdome (that Adam first should haue admi∣nistred among all creatures, to the glorie of one God, if he had not falne from grace) and to haue renued it in himselfe, and to haue directed it to a spiritual end, that vvhen all things should be subiect to the Sonne of man, then should the Sonne also be subiecte vnto him, that hath subdued all thinges to him, that God might be all in all. Sith therefore Christ by his humaine nature is the King of all, he truely directeth al things to a spiritual end, that is, to the glorie of God, for God deser∣ue•…•…h glorie, yea, euen in those that are damned, bothe for his povver and for his iustice.

The effecte hereof is this, that God hath giuen to the hu∣main nature of Christ, as to the principal of al his creatures, al povver & iudgement, to direct them to a spiritual end, that is to his glorie. But what is this to the purpose that Christes kingdome is after the fashion of a vvorldly kingdome? he gouerneth all creatures, we graunt, with his power and pro∣uidence, yea, the sheepe, Oxen, and cattail that he speaketh on. But dothe the kingdome of Christe consiste in these things? Numquid Deo cura de bobus? hath God (saith Sainte Paule) care of Oxen, in y^e cōsideration of his heauenly king∣dome? He telleth vs, howe all Kings shall answere (for the •…•…busing of their kingdomes) vnto Christ at the day of dome, bycause they referre them not to a spirituall ende: But he telleth not howe muche more the Pope shall aunswere for •…•…surping kingdomes, and abusing the spirituall kingdome of Christe to vvorldly endes. But shall this iudgemente of Christ, be in a vvorldly cōsistorie? He telleth vs, how he thin∣keth that Christe receiued that kingdome that Adam should haue had, had he not falne. But thinketh he that Christe should haue ruled in an earthly Paradise, or y^t Christ came to restore vs to no better kingdome, than Adam was in be∣fore he sinned? He telleth vs, Al things shal be made subiect to Christe, and Christe to God, and God shall be all in all.

But thinketh he this kingdome shall be in this worlde and militant Church, while the euimies striue and are not yet al subdued? he telleth vs the glorie and iustice of Christ shineth in the condemnation of them that are damned. But dothe he thinke, this is a vvorldly glorie, and humaine iustice? it is true, that the glorie and iustice of Christe shal shine ouer thē. And so shal it in the righteouse condemnation of the Popish Church, that séeketh such a vvorldly kingdome, and calleth it the spiritual kingdome of Christe to cloake their pryde with∣all. But what can Master Saunders conclude hereon, for Byshops to possesse kingdoms, to rule Kings, to sette vp, or to depose them?

Neither say I these thinges (saithe he) to shevve herevpon that povver is ouer the vniuersal vvorld giuen to the Bishops of the Chnrch, as though they in all things are the Ministers and Vicars of Christe, in that he is man: for they haue not re∣ceiued the vvhole povver of Christe to administer it, but that part that properly belongeth to beleeuers. For it vvas sayde vnto the first Pastor, feede not all men, but my sheepe, and to thee I giue the keyes, not of all the vvorlde, but of the king∣dome of heauen. Sithe therefore Christe hath receiued a cer∣taine celestiall kingdome, vvhich kingdome vseth also earth∣ly things vnto the glorie of God, and sith out of the things of the vvorld, he hath chosen a certaine societie of men, vvhiche in a certain especial sort, vvorshippeth God in faith and loue: in this onely seconde kynde of things, Christe hath ordeined Pastors to be his Vicars.

You say, that ye say not these things, to shevve that here∣vpon, povver is giuen to Byshops ouer al the vniuersal world. But what soeuer you say, your Pope saith contrarie, apply∣ing this saying of Christe to himselfe and his successors: all povver is giuen to me in heauen and in earth. You say, that Byshops haue onely that povver, that properly belongeth to the beleeuers, bycause Christe sayde vnto the firste Pastor, feede, not all men, but my sheepe. That Peter was the firste

Pastor, is another question Master Saunders. But that the the Apostles had not in charge to go and preach to those that were not beleeuers, yea, to all men, so farre as they could, be∣sides the feeding of them that were beleeuers, and so were become alreadie the shéepe of the folde of Christe, is a mani∣fest vntruth. For the Apostles had this generall charge, goe ye into all the vvorlde, and preach the Gospell to euery crea∣ture. So that they fedde (besides the faithfull) the Infidels dispersed through out the whole world, for those Christe also calleth his, bycause they shoulde be his shéepe, & alias oues babeo. &c. I haue also other sheepe that are not of this folde, those must I bring also. &c. But whereto run you to this so euident falshood? forsooth to proue that the Byshops haue ful power ouer al the beleeuers, in a their earthly possessions, & so might haue power to depose Kings, & to occupie their king doms & sease vpō al mens goods that are Christians, bycause they are their Pastors. And to this purpose is it that you say, Christe hath receiued a certaine celestiall kingdome, vvhiche vseth also all earthly things vnto the glorie of God. Whiche saying in this sense may well be graunted, the kingdome of Christe vseth all earthly thinges that it vseth, to the glorie of God: but this woulde be proued that the Kingdome of Christe vseth, by the administration of the spirituall mini∣sters thereof, a vvorldly or earthly kingdome, which vse is so far from the glorie of God, that it is contrarie to his celestial kingdome. Whiche consisteth (as you say) in feeding the sheepe of Christe, in the keyes of Gods worde, and in that especiall sort of vvorshipping God in faith and loue: and not in deposing kings, or gouerning of earthly kingdomes, wher∣in they can not be (as you terme them) Vicars or deputies of Christ sith Christ the King, neither tooke himselfe such vse of power vpō him, & flatly forbad the same vnto his Ministers.

Therefore the vvhole kingdome of Christe came from heauen, that is, from the dignitie vvhich is giuen vnto his hu∣maine nature, for the vnion of the Diuine nature. Neither by

any meanes the kingdome of him, drue his originall from the lavve of nations or the ciuile. For hee refused to be created King, or to deuide the inheritance betwene the brethren, say∣ing: vvho hath made me a Iudge or deuider ouer you? As though he shoulde say: neither the common vveale, neither the Emperor hath made me a Iudge, & yet notwithstanding, these brethren thought of such a Iudge. But in that part that Christe vvas appointed of God to be Iudge, by his incarnati∣on, concerning that, he saide vnto those brethren: bevvare of all couetousnesse. For he savv that they draue not their in∣heritance to a spirituall ende, that they might beare the heauenly iudgement of Christe.

This is a shamefull wresting of the Scripture, and in∣uerting of the manifest doings of our Sauiour. Here are two other plaine examples of Christ, against Master Saunders, the one of his refusall to be a vvorldly King, the other to be a'vvorldly Iudge. The former he shifteth off in this sort•…•…, Christ would not receiue an earthly kingdom into his hands not bycause he would none of it, but bycause he woulde not take it of their gifte, least it shoulde séeme to come of them. For his kingdome is of heauen, and notin the originall, from the lavv of nations, or of the ciuile. As though our disputatiō were so much of the originall, as of the vse and hauing of it: as though Christe respected nothing but the originall, or as though, if he woulde haue had such a kingdome, he could not haue had it if they had not giuen it him: or as thoughe, euen the first original of earthly kingdomes, came not from God also. But to confute you with your owne mouthes, I will cite once againe Frier Ferus againste you, that alledgeth not onely this cause of the originall, but many other causes directly to this purpose. Christe fled (saithe he) bycause he receiued not a kingdome of men, but gaue a kingdome vn∣to men. He fled, bycause his kingdome is not of this vvorld, it is not carnall, it consisteth not in externall riches, povver, pompe. &c. Yea, he rather came, that he might teach to con∣temne

these things. But his kingdom is a kingdome of truth, iustice, peace, and eternall life. For although he gouerne in all the vvorlde, yet hee gouerneth not after the manner of the vvorlde, nor he affecteth suche a kingdome. He s•…•…edde therefore, not bycause he vvoulde not raigne ouer the faith∣full, but bycause he deferreth the expresse tokens of reig∣ning for the time to come. Hee sledde, bycause hee came to minister, not that it shoulde be ministred vnto hym. Hee fledde, for hee came not to kill Kings, but to preach to Kings the knovvledge of raigning iustly, not to presse the king∣domes of the world vvith tributes and taxes, but that vvhich Kings so vvell as the people vvanted, to giue them giftes of life eternall, out of the treasure of the kingdome of heauen, going about to vanquishe in vvarre, a farre other manner of ennimie, than Tiberius Caesar, and to take an other man∣ner of beaste than Rome, vvhyche at that tyme. vvas Ladie of the Ievves. Besides this hee fledde, that he vvoulde not giue to the people an occasion of sedition against Caesar, and so vvithall an occasion of sinne and perdition. For hee that moueth sedition againste the povver (as héere in your writing you M. Sand▪ do, and your Pope doth in his Bulles against Christian Princes) sinneth and iustly perisheth for it. VVhich Christe himselfe hath spoken: he that taketh the svvorde, shall perishe vvith the svvorde. To conclude, he fled, least hee should giue the aduersaries occasion of sclaundering him. For if they, yea, euē vvithout this, perfecuted him as a se∣ditious person, how much more would they haue persecuted him, if he had accepted the kingdome offered of the people. Thus euen til this day fleeth he frō those, that only seeke car∣nall things in him, bycause no parte of his spiritual giftes lo∣keth on thē, & he despiseth them that are occupied about vile bags▪ to vvit, being giuen to their belly & filthinesse. He only giueth himselfe to them that seeke spirituall things in him, & that can say our cōuersation is in heauen. Not without cause therfore Christ here fled being sought for vnto a kingdome,

vvho being sought for vnto deathe, offered himselfe freely. For first by this, he condemned our pryde, or coueteousnesse, or ambition, or deintinesse. Secondly, he taught to contemne the glorie of the vvorlde, than the vvhiche nothing is more vaine, and not to feare the aduersitie of the vvorlde, than the vvhiche nothing is more shorte. Thirdly, he taught heerein, that those things are but small, that in the worlde seeme to be mostegreat. They thought they had offered Christe a great thing, but he despised it as a litle thing. VVe are far of an o∣ther iudgement. Whom he meaneth by this, vve: loke a litle before concerning thē that offered the kingdome to Christ. This fact (saith he) declareth what the flesh seeketh in Christ, euen his ovvn Cosins, that is to say, fleshly & humaine things. Christe is set forth before vs, that in him we should seeke the forgiuenesse of sinnes, righteousnesse, eternal life. But the car∣nall man seeketh nothing in him but licence, carnall libertie, and the filling of the paunche. For hee that is of the earth, speaketh and thinketh of earthly thinges, yea, suche is the nature of the fleshe, that it abuseth all the giftes of God, and seeketh farre other things in them, than God woulde. So the fleshely man in the creatures that are giuen to our vse, and to this that God might be knowne and feared, seeketh no o∣ther thing than pleasure. And when by thē he ought to be ca∣ried vnto the creator, he sticketh in thē, and worshippeth thē, So, in the lawe which was giuen of God, for the knowledge of sinne, the carnall Iewes sought righteoushesse (euen as the Papistes doe) and so nowe also, all those carnall men, that in the power of the sworde, seeke not that that God wil, but on∣ly ambition, pryde, &c. yea, and that in these thinges that ap∣pertaine to the spirituall gouernement, those carnall Pastors seeke onely honor, ryches, idlenesse, delightes: when as Christ ordeined them to be teachers, guides, Apostles. &c. For no o∣ther cause, than for the edifying of his bodie. Thus saith Fri∣er Ferus againste his owne fleshely spiritualtie séeking in Christes spirituall kingdome a worldly kingdome, which for

these causes abouesaide, and not onely for the originall, (that Maister Saunders here onely mentioneth) he refused to be made a King.

The like shift Maister Saunders vseth to the other place Luc. 12. of Christs refusall to be a iudge, betwene the brethrē for the diuision of their inheritance, saying who made me a iudge, or deuider, ouer you? as though he shoulde say, neither the common weale hath made me a iudge, neither the Empe∣ror hath made me a iudge. As thoughe Christ refused to be their iudge, not for that he would not be such a iudge, •…•…ut for that he was not made such a iudge by humaine authoritie. For of such a iudge (saith he) these brethren thought, whether they thought him to be such a iudge or no, i•…•… not apparant, Maister Saunders, and if we may go by coniectures & pro∣babilities, it rather séemeth the contrarie. For neicher could they sée any such tokens in him, to haue bin authorised from those that were •…•…hen the Magistrats, & his words going be∣fore do argue they could not conueniently so thinke of him, both ratling vp the Phariseis that had the humaine authori∣tie: & bidding his Disciples not to mistrust what to answere when they shoulde come before the powers & Magistrates, which these brethren hearing, might easily conceiue y^t Christ himselfe was no such earthly Magistrate. But to the causes wherfore Christ refused it, & that as before) euen of the Pa∣pists mouthes themselues. Hofmeister one of your sloutest champions, hath these words: Truely those things that haue bin spokē and heard from the beginning of this Gospel, do y∣nough declare the kingdom of Christ not to be of this world, neither that he would raigne temporally in the world, sith he taketh not souldiors that cā oppugne others, but fishermē rea∣dier to suffer thā to strike. And so in this place, with most ma∣nifest wordes Christ declareth, that he came not for this pur∣pose, to take vpon him the office of a Magistrate, but rather that he might raigne in our harts, so that it might be our hap to come to the eternal goods, whatsoeuer hapned of our tem

porall goods. Therfore when he was interrupted of a certaine Iewe, that he would helpe him in recouering his inheritance: he aunswered, Man, who hath made me a ludge or deuider ouer you? As though he shoulde say, hath not this worlde iudges, that may decide so base controuersies? it is not appointed vn∣to me, that this or that man shoulde waxe rich by inheritance, but that all men should come to the inheritance of life immor∣tall. But in these words Christ woulde betoken many things, to wit, that he which hath an Apostolicall office, ought not to be wrapped with prophane and silthie affaires. For so the Apo∣stle saith otherwhere, No mā going to warfare vnder God en∣tangleth himselfe with worldly businesse. And the Apostles say all at once, it is not meete fōr vs to leaue the word of God, and attend on the tables. Christ also by this reprouing woulde de∣clare, that his doctrine taketh not away the Magistrates offices, but rather confirmeth thē. VVhervpon he saith also else where render to Cesar, that that is Cesars. And whē his Disciples stri∣ued for preheminēce, he said▪ the kings of the nations gouerne them, & so forth. VVhereby he declared, that neither he him∣self, nor his, ought (as they call thē) to be secular iudges: neither did he by this refusing, abolishe the order of the Magistrate, but much more (as we haue said) confirmed it. Thus far your owne Doctor Hofmeister againste you, that the entent of Christe refusing to be a iudge herein, was chiefely against such vsurpation of worldly Magistracie, as the Pope and his Prelates do exercise.

But (say you) Christ in that he was appoynted of God to be iudge by his incarnation, concerning that parte, he saide vnto them, that they should beware of couetousnes, for he saw that they draue not as yet their inheritance to a spirituall ende, that they might beare the iudgement of Christ.

As who should say, if they had béen Christians he would then haue béen a temporall iudge ouer them, that is to say, if they had done their duetie, he woulde then haue broken his. No M. Saund▪ that was not the cause why Christ refused to

iudge y^• matter, but bicause he counted it no part of his office, neither was he appointed of God therto, but it belongeth to the Ciuill Magistrate. As for suche iudgement, as vydding the brethren to beware of couetousnesse, was in dede appoin∣ted of God to Christ, & of him to al his Ministers, to iudge of vices, & in such sort, as by preaching to them their •…•…ties, to iudge of all estates, & of all things also. Neither is all •…•…∣on of Ciuil controuersi•…•…s, or iudging temporal matters •…•…∣ply debarred from the spiritual Minister, nor the vse of tem∣porall things. But that the kingdome of Christ confis•…•…es in these things, or that the ministers of Christ be in such Ci•…•…ill iudgements aboue Kings, or may iudge▪ Kings, & giue their inheritance from them, or if they haue any authoritie too in Ciuil matters, that it is properly by their office, or belōging properly to Christes kingdome and that they haue it not frō the Prince▪ is cleane confuted by this example. Neither can all these shiftes defeate it, much lesse that that followeth in M. Saunders, saying.

Declaring therefore to what ende all things that are in the worlde ought to be re•…•…rred: seke (saith he) the kingdome of God, & al these things shal be cast vnto you. VVhere he deny∣eth not that euen worlldy things pertaine to the kingdome of God: but he would not haue those sought, for themselues, but onely for the kingdome of God. But the kingdome that bele∣ueth in Christ, it hath left in that parte, to be of the worlde, in which part Christ denied his kingdome to be of this worlde. VVhatsoeuer (saith S. Augustine) is from henceforth regene∣rate in Christ, is made a kingdome, not now of the world.

That all things oughte to be referred to the kingdome of God, we graunt, but y^t the kingdome of God consiste•…•… in all things we denie. Meate & drinke ought to be referred to the kingdom of God, whether ye eate or drink (saith S. Paule) o•…•… whatsoeuer ye do▪ do it all to the praise & glory of God, but the kingdome of God is not meate and drinke. Yo•…•… say, world∣ly things pertaine to the Kingdome of God. Which although

it is much better said, than that the kingdome shoulde apper∣taine to worldly things, as the Papists here would drine it, to the state of a worldly kingdome: yet is it but an impro∣per saying, that worldly things belong to the kingdome of God. In dede the faithfull (which are the kingdome of God) haue them, and they belong vnto them, and they are necessa∣rie and conuenient for them, as meate, drinke, cloath, house, fire, water, proprietie and possession of temporall & worldly goods, to each faithfull man in his degree, and also to the mi∣nisters of the Church of Christ, & that to haue these world∣ly things belonging to them (according as their giftes and trauailes require) with dubble honor, yet do they not belong vnto them, nor to any of the faithfull, as he is a member of this kingdome but as he is a man and subiect to infirmities, and these giftes of God are made for his vse, so well the mi∣nisters as anye others. But yet there is a difference in the hauing of these worldly things, and the being a Prince in the hauing of thē: for such Princely hauing of them, is expresly forbidden vnto the spirituall minister of Christe, and per∣mitted onely vnto the Ciuill Magistrate. The Pope and his Prelates will not onely haue them, but they will be kings, and excell kings, in the hauing of them, and will haue them in the name of the Church, and of the kingdome of Christe, and not as from the Prince, to whose authoritie properly, although not to whose proprietie, they belong: for the mini∣ster may haue the proprietie of those worldly things so well as another, and perhaps better than many another, & more abundance of them too, with which he may do more goodsun∣dry wayes, than diuers other in Gods Church. But there is a difference betwene starke •…•…aring▪ and starke blind. Ther•…•… are some cormorants that hunt for the spoi•…•…e, and wold haue the ministers earthly things cleane taken from them, as though they were onely spirituall. The Papistes on the o∣ther side, were not only cont•…•…t to haue them, but they would (besides their to muche excesse of them) be exempted with

priuileges from the Princes authoritie in the hauing of them, and the Pope did clayme not onely a kingdome of them, but that al kinges helde their kingdomes of him. And this is the thing that we denie the Papistes. For Christe hathe playne debarred it, and denied his kingdome to be a worldly kingdome.

Yea but (sayth M. Sanders) in that parte that a king∣dome beleeueth in Christ, it hath left off to be of this world▪

We graunt you, M. Sanders, in respecte of the beleefe in Christe and the soule that beleeueth: but yet hathe it not left off to be of this world, in respect of the body, in respect of the ciuill gouernment, in respect of hauing and vsing order∣ly Gods creatures, in respecte of maynteining our liues, our goodes, our families & our countreys: all which earthly thinges, the kingdome of God, that is, the faythfull•…•…, may enioy, and haue farre better vse of them than any other, referring them to spirituall endes, howbeit, euery man in his degrée suche earthly thinges as are competent to his e∣state, and are not debarred from his vse, as the hauing of an earthly kingdome, is from the spirituall Minister.

As for the sentence of S. Augustine, is not to this pur∣pose, but wrested therto, for he speaketh not there of a king∣dome, as we héere do, that is to say, of a ciuill power gouer∣ning a Realme, or of a Realme and Polycie gouerned by a King, as thoughe bicause it receiued the fayth o•…•… Christ, it were not of the worlde, that is, it were not gouerned af∣ter a worldly maner. In whiche sense (as we haue shewed) Christe denied his kingdome to be of the worlde. For al∣though it be become a faythfull kingdome▪ yet mayntey∣neth it still the former state, which is no•…•… diss•…•…lued by the kingdome of Christ, but rather bettered and confirmed. Of whi•…•…he estate S. Augustine there speaketh not. His words are these:

Therefore they were of the world, when they were not of his kingdome, but pertayned to the prince of the worlde,

That therfore is of the worlde, whatsoeuer is in deede created of the true God, but is borne of the corrupted and damned stocke of Adam. But that which is regenerate in Christe, is made a kingdome now not of the worlde, for so God hathe pulled vs out of the power of darknesse, and translated vs in∣to the kingdome of the sonne of his brightnesse.

By whiche sentence it appeareth, he speaketh not of the worlde, in the sense of the mighte and glorie thereof, but in the sense of the power of sinne and Sathan: neyther of a kingdome, in the sense of a Polycie gouerned by a king, but in the sense of the spirituall giftes of Christ. In whiche sense, euery faythfull man, woman, and childe, is not onely a member of his kingdome, but is a king. Howbeit he is not a king, in that sense that Christ denied his kingdome to be of the worlde, that is, to be a Magistrate, and gouernour of Gods people: which estate is onely graunted vn•…•… Prin∣ces, and as flatly •…•…ebarred from any ecclesiasticall person, as from any other priuate man.

Si•…•…he therefore we say not, that other kingdomes oughte to be vnder the Ministers of the Church of Christ, than those that already beleeue in Christe, or at any time haue belee∣ued: truely this is most foolishly obiected to vs, that Bishops haue no power ouer Christian kings and their kingdomes, bicause it is written, the kingdome of Christ (which is com∣mitted to his Ministers, for the parte whereby he worketh heere) is not of this world. For we seeke it not of those king∣domes that are of this worlde, but of those, which althoughe they be in this worlde, yet by fayth in Christe they haue lefte to be of this worlde.

M. Sand▪ still wrestes of purpose this worde, the worlde, to sinne, and to the state of the vnfaythful. As though Christ onely ment, My kingdome is not a kingdome of sinne, and such as are the kingdomes of those Princes, ouer whome the Prince of darknesse raygnes. Whereas the wordes of

Christe are playne, that his kingdome is not suche a king∣dome, as ruleth in worldly glorie, whether it were of the faithfull kinges, or the vnfaythfull. For the Iewes that would haue made him a king, dyd not doubte of this, that he would become a tyrant, or an vnfaythfull Prince, they hoped he would be a better Prince vnto them▪ than he was that then oppressed them: they trusted he woulde gouerne them, as Dauid, Salomon, and other godly princes had done: they reckoned that their Messias shoulde rule in all worldly glorie, as a moste mightie king. But this opinion Christe denieth, in his fléeing from their offer. And so he sayde to Pilate, If my kingdome were of this worlde, my ministers would fighte for me, that is, I could, not by tyran∣nie, but by worldly and lawfull power and force maynteine my kingdome. Neyther did his Disciples when they desired suche preheminence in his kingdome, thinke his kingdome was a kingdome of sinne, or a rule of vnfaithfulnesse: but thought of a very worldly gouernment, shining in all might and glory, which they tooke to be good and lawfull, and him to be most worthy of it. And this is that that Christ repro∣ueth in them, affirming that neither he nor they shoulde raigne in suche sorte as worldly Princes do, whether they were faithfull or vnfaithfull Princes. Not that Christ gouer∣neth not the faythfull Princes. For they obediently submit their earthly kingdomes to his spirituall kingdome, yea and to the ministers of his kingdome too, in thinges belonging to the ministerie of his spirituall kingdome. But that the Ministers of the spirituall kingdome of Christ, haue suche power ouer any Christian Prince that beléeueth in Christ, that they may take his estate from him, that they thē selues may rule in his estate, that they may make him holde his estate of them, that they oughte not to be subiect to his e∣state: this is the thing that M. San. laboreth in, and would bring all kings and their kingdomes vnto, that either haue the faithe of Christe already, or at any tyme haue had it,

as Ierusalem, Syria, Gréece, Asia, Egypte, Africa, and di∣uers other countreys, so well vnder the Turke and Sara∣cens, as all Christian kingdomes in the worlde, to be sub∣iecte to the Popes authoritie, to receyue or forsake their kingdomes at his pleasure. But this and suche other world∣ly glory of rul•…•…g kingdomes is flatly debarred by Christes saying: My kingdome is not of this worlde: neither all the wisdome of the worlde can co•…•…nteruayle this sentence, how foolishly soeuer we seeme to M. Sanders to obiect it. But this is his olde song, all are rooles and doltes with him, that obiecte any thing agaynst the Popes worldly wyse Domi∣nion. But this foolishnesse we néede not be ashamed of, that is the decrée of Christ, who is the fathers wisedome.

If therefore wee see suche a kingdome, as is dedicated to Christe, thus gouerned, that the King by abuse of the sworde whiche he carrieth, carrie away the Christian Citizens into moste greeuous sinnes, yea into schismes and heresie, if he say Christe is but a creature, if euery where he permitte diuorces, if he affirme vsuries to be lawfull, shall it be a wicked deede, first after one or two admonitions, to remoue this King from the felowship of the faythfull: and then if he yet amende not him selfe, by the helpe of other Princes, to expel him vtterly from the gouernment of his kingdome?

If a Christian King were suche an other wicked King, as héere you imagine: you aske if it were a wicked deede thus to order him? I answere you, it were a wicked deede. For and he were ten times more wicked, that excuseth not the Bishops treason, to incite other to expell him. None of the auncient godly Bishops did euer attempt that tre•…•…heris agaynst such wicked Princes, were they Arians, Tyrants, or whatsoeuer they were, til the later Popes did set abroche this trayterous practise. For, a Bishop beeing but a subiect, althoughe he is not bounde to obey the Princes vices, yea he is bounde bothe to disobey the vices, and to reproue the Prince for them, and to terrifie him with the threates of

Gods wrathe, althoughe it coste him his life for his labor: yet is he not bounde to rebell, or cause other to rebell, or to practise conspiracies with other agaynst his Prince, wherby effusion of Christian bloud ensueth. Yea he is bounde to the contrarie, to obey his ciuill gouernment, and not he to abuse his estate also, bicause the Prince abuseth his estate, but to vse all lawfull meanes he can to reforme him, com∣mitting the rest to God, who placed him, and whom he re∣presenteth in his calling, thoughe he swarue from him in his ruling. As for the Bishops haue no suche calling to de∣pose him, nor any suche ruling as worldly Princes, good or ill do exercise. And therfore if they take this vsurpation vp∣on them, thoughe they oughte not to depose Princes, yet ought Princes to depose them, especially béeing infected with those vices, that M. San. su•…•…niseth are in these Prin∣ces. Haue not Popes made schismes, when two or thrée, or foure at once striued for the Papacie? haue not Popes maynteined, Christ is a creature▪ as Liberius that was an Arian? and a sinfull creature, yea alyer, as Leo the tenthe obiected to Bembus, Quidmibi narras de Christo fabulas? VVhat tellest thou me the fables of Christ? Hath not the Pope not onely permitted diuorces for many other causes than God permitteth, but also by force and agaynst the con∣sent of bothe the parties seuered those that God hathe ioyned, and ioyned those that God hath forbidden to be ioy∣ned? Dothe not the Pope maynteine the greatest vsuries that be, to wit, the Iewes to pill and poll the Christians, and al for his own lucre, besides his most filthy and vnlaw∣full gayne by fornication? Doth not the Pope by the abuse of the sword & keyes that he saith he carrieth, carrie away the Christian citizens into most greeuous sinnes, yea, and say he may carrie away with him at the world to the diuel, & no mā must be so hardie as to say, sir, why do you thus? Shal it now be a wicked deede, to remoue the Pope from the felowship of the faithful, after one or two admonitions, & then if he amend

not him selfe, that all Christian Princes helpe to expell him vtterly frō the vsurpation of this his worldly kingdome. But M. Sa. not séeing these vices in his holy father, & surmising the worst in Princes, supposeth we will answere his obiec∣tion thus:

But one wil say, no power is giuē vnto the Church of puni∣shing or of remouing the kings frō their office, & therfore if the kings wil not of their own accord be amēded, they are al∣togither to be born withal, neither cā any other thing be law∣fully attempted agaynst them. This truely do many preache.

Who they be that preach this, I know not, I think it but your slaunder. Ill will neuer sayde well. And yet whosoe∣so preacheth this, preacheth farre better than you do, whose sermon is all of treason & rebellion. As for vs we preache this, that the preacher or spirituall pastor may in suche ex∣tremities, vse a spirituall punishment, of denouncing the sentence of Gods wrath agaynst him. But to punishe him with bodily punishment, or with expelling him from his kingdome, is no more belonging to the Bishop, than to put him to death. The state of some kingdomes are such, I graūt that the Princes regiment is but conditional, and he so wel bounde to the electors of him, & other péeres or estates in his Signiorie, as they to him, and either parties sworne in his Coronation, not onely to obserue those conditions, but to persecute or remoue the violater of them. In suche cases, what those Electors, Péeres, & Estates may do, & howe they may, or may not do it, is an other matter. But y^t euē in these estates, the Bishops cā do it, & do it in that they are Bishops: this we denie (M. Sand) and as yet you haue not proued it.

But I doubte not, but that euery necessarie and profitable power is giuen to the Pastor ouer his sheepe, whether they be lambes, or lambes dammes, or rammes, and that to this pur∣pose, that he shoulde strengthen that, that is weake: that he should heale that, that is sicke: that he shoulde binde vp that, that is broken: that he should bring againe that, that is caste

away: that he should seeke that, that is loste, so that he rule not with austeritie and power.

You doubt not (M. Sand.) but I doubt of this, that euery necessarie and profitable power is giuen to the Pastor ouer his sheepe. The eccl. power is both necessarie and profitable. But the Prince is a pastor, and the people are his sheepe. And yet by your owne confession, the ecclesiasticall power is not gi∣uen to the Prince. Had you marked this, you mighte haue doubted, that euery necessarie and profitable power, is giuen to the pastor ouer his sheepe. Agayne, the power of the sworde, and putting to death malefactors, is a necessarie and profitable power. But the Bishop is a pastor, and the people are his sheepe. And yet by your own confession, the power of the sworde, and putting to death, is not giuen to the Bishop. Had you séene this also, you might haue doubted, that euery necessarie and profitable power, is giuen to the Pastor ouer his sheepe. This lacke of doubting, made you to•…•… rashe of déeming, and to pronounce your sentence ouer general. And as you sée in these two cases a flatte exception, that you wil gladly reuoke: so we muste driue you to graunte the other powers also pertayning to a King, whiche notwithstan∣ding they are necessarie and profitable, are yet not giuen vn∣to a Bishop, although he be a Pastor. I pray you remember, Vos autem non sic, if it will not make you sicke to remember it.

The duties of good pastors that you cite out of Ezech. 34. God (we graunt) hath giuen them power thereto. But the Popish pastors are as farre frō all these points, & much far∣ther, than the Iewishe pastors were, of whome the Lorde cōplayneth, saying: VVo be to the pastors of Israel, that feed thēselues: are not •…•…he sheepe fed of the shepherds? ye did eate the milk, & were clad with the wol▪ that that was fat, ye killed: but my flock ye fed not▪ that that was weak, ye strēgthned not: that that was sick, ye healed not: that that was brokē, ye boūd not vp: that that was cast away, ye brought not in, that that was lost ye sought not, but ye ruled them with bitternesse, & with power.

how this directly toucheth the Pope, and his Prelates, euen the popish enterlined Glosse doth testifie. Hoc proprie. &c. This properly is spoken of the pride of Bishops, which shame with their works the dignitie of their name, for humilitie, ta∣king pride: who thinke they haue gotten heauen, and not a burthen. Whose loytring idlenesse, whose vaine glorious pride, whose bitter tyrannie, & more than kingly power was so intollerable, that it was maruell that euer you durst for shame recite this place. But you thought it serued to your purpose, that you might vnder the name of sheepe punishe & driue out Princes at your pleasures. But this place giueth not Pastors power to weaken them that be strong, to make them sicke that be hole, to breake that that is bound vp, to caste out that that is brought in, to leese that that was sought for, to kil & deuour both the fat & the leane, both the Prince & the people, to rule with bi•…•…ternesse & with power: al which by your popes practise is don, & by your exposition is defen∣ded. For is not that to rule with bitternesse, if ye expel your Princes frō their kingdomes? can ye be any bitterer to them? what earthly power can ye clayme higher, than to seaze vpō & rule their kingdomes, or to haue thē rule them after your rules, whom you will appoynt, to •…•…olde them in chiefe frō you. This place of Ezechiell giueth you not suche power, but condemneth in Pastors the vsurpation of it. But what will not impudencie wrest to serue his turne.

Moreouer, to the minde and to reason, power is giuen ouer all the members of the body, insomuche that it biddeth that rotten member to be •…•…ut from the body, of the which it may be feared, least it should infect the other members. But the pastors in the Church are as the minde is in the body of man, as S. Gregorie Nissene hath noted.

I answere▪ First, this is but a similitude, and therefore con•…•…inceth nothing, howe ofte soeuer you alleage it. We graunt that the Pastors are, as it were, the mynde of the

Churche, in the reasoning and discussing the fayth of Christ, the word of God, the sacraments and mysteries of Christes Church. But againe, in the maintenance and setting forth, in the ouersight and publike direction, in the punishement and correction of the trespasses, the Prince is the minde, the reason, and the head also, and a pastor in gods Church too. And therefore this belongs not onely to the Bishops. But be it the Prince be not the minde and reason, whose place is in the head. Were the King but as the hart, or as the will whose place is in the harte, yet as the minde dothe but eyther de∣uise by inuention, or discerne by iudgement, or remember by memorie, and not assent or dissent, like or mislike, choose or refuse, for that belongeth to the will: so the spirituall pa∣stor may deuise holsome remedies, or remember the Prince of them, or discerne in controuersies betwéen this and that, which we denie not. But the refusall or receiuing, the liking or misliking, the bidding or forbidding, that lyes in the facul∣tie of the Prince. Not that the Prince hath facultie to will euery thing, no more than the head may deuise euery thing, for both ought to will and deuise onely good things▪ but that the authoritie to put them in executiō, and willing the mem∣bers to do them, as it procéedes principally next to God, from y^• wil: so the setting forth of godly Religiō, taught by the per∣suasiō of the pastor as the reason in the head, procéedes prin∣cipally next to God from the Prince, as the will in the hart. But nowe as M. Saunders hath for stalled the head for the Priest, so if he will not relent the harte to the Prince: yet I trust he will be thus good vnto him, to compare him at the least to some principall member in the body, as to y^e lightes, the lunges, the lyuer. &c. If nowe the lightes, the lunges, or the liuer, be infected, by whose infection diuerse others parts of the body would become also infected, will the head there∣fore, will the minde or reason byd cut them off, and hur•…•…e thē out of the bodie, least they infect the other members? were it not an vnreasonable reason that would reason thus, to haue

those rotten mēbers cut off frō the body, of which remaining it may be feared least they should infect the other members, when the cutting them awaye straight killeth all the mem∣bers, both head and hart and all? and thus you sée M. Saun∣ders if we shal reason by similitudes, howe they make more for vs, than for you. But similitudes may delight or lighten a matter, they are not of force to vrge it. But M. Saunders will presse it with stronger arguments.

Besides this S. Paule by name doth teach, that power is gi∣uen to the Churche ouer the goods & ouer the bodily things of the faithfull. For he persuadeth the Corinthians, that if they will nedes go to law, they should go to lawe before Christians, and not before Ethnikes. And bicause it mought be said, there were no publike Magistrates or iudges ordayned among the Christians: he warneth the faithfull that they should appoynt iudges among themselues: and if perhaps there were not wise∣men in that kind (which notwithstanding was not likely) yet at the least they should rather appoint contemptible persons, thā to go to law before the infidels.

This place is alleaged before and there is aunswered. The drift of it here, consistes on this argument.

The Church hath power ouer the goods and bodyly things of the faithfull:

But the Pastors are the Church:

Ergo, the pastors haue power ouer the goods and bodily things of the faithfull.

To the Maior I answere, the Churche hath power, but a limited power. Such power as confoundeth not or taketh a∣way the goods or bodily things of any of the faithfull, which are members of the Church. Such power as is competent to euery member of the Church, to possesse, to vse, and dispose his owne goods and bodily things, according to his priuate or publike calling.

To the Minor, I denie it: the pastors are not the Churche, but members of the Church, and haue power onely ouer such

goods and bodily things as belong to thē. And yet in that po∣wer that they haue of the proprietie of their own goods, they may so little spoyle the Prince of his goods or bodily things, that they holde them from the Prince, and haue by him the peaceable possession of them. For all that power vnder God is from the Prince, to thē & to al other. Neither the Bishops nor any in the Church, nor all the Church together, hath po∣wer to take the Princes goods or his bodyly things frō him.

But M. Saūders to enforce his argument, citeth the say∣of S. Paule. 1. Cor. 6. In that he would haue Christians, go to law (if they will nedes go to law) before Christians, and not before Ethnikes.

Why, M. Saunders are Christian Princes and faithfull Magistrates no better with you than Ethnikes? and are you Priestes onely Christians? for else howe can you apply this to the present purpose? that Priests should haue power ouer the goods of the faithfull: that the faithfull should run for de∣cision of their cōtrouersies to the Priests, not to the Princes? that the Bishops may iudge of the Princes goods aod king∣dome, and giue it away to another: trow you this was the meaning of S, Paule? But you excuse the matter with this, that they had then no Christian Magistrates. As though ther∣fore he had bidden such lawe matters to be determined by their pastors. No M. Saund. this was neither the words nor the meaning of him. For he knewe, the pastors had another power and inough to do therin, although they busied not thē∣selues in the law matters that fel out among the Christiās. Not that s. Paule thought they might haue no power of any bodily things, nor proprietie of temporall goods, or that he thought they mighte in no case be peacemakers in suche brabling matters: but that Saint Paule woulde haue the pleadyng and decision of suche things to be rather belon∣ging ordinaryly, to some faithfull and honest manne, cho∣sen among them selues, than to runne to heathen Iudges. Which words among themselues, do as it were declare, that

he ment such as was of their owne calling, and not their •…•…a∣stor▪ Which is more euident in that he saith, is there no wise man among you? what, not one, that can iudge betwene bro∣ther and brother? so that he speaketh in generall, and not onely of the pastor. And where he saith, chose a contempti∣ble person. Except ye will make the pastor contemptible▪ it argueth, he ment not this iudge should be the pastor. So that this place, as it maketh nothing for the power of the Priests ouer the goods and bodily things of the faithfull, so it maketh much here in against them. For if S. Paule in such matters of goods and bodily things, rather than they should not haue a Christian iudge, woulde haue them chose among themsel∣ues euen a contemptible person: how much more now when the Church hath faithfull iudges and Christian Princes, it ought in such controuersies, to run to them for Iustice, ra∣ther than to the Priests and Bishoppes, that are of another calling.

Moreouer, least any shoulde say, that the Churche of Christ hath nothing to do with the businesse of this worlde: he sayth expressely, do ye not know that the saintes shall iudge of thys world? and if the world shal be iudged by you, are ye vnwor∣thy to iudge of small things? know ye not that we shall iudge the Angels, how much more worldly things. Behold the Apo∣stle reasoneth from the spirituall power to the temporall, on this wise: To whom that which is more, is lawfull, to him is lawfull that which is lesse: But we Christians shall iudge of the world, and we shall iudge the renegate Angels and the De∣uils themselues, the which commeth by the spirituall power▪ wherby we be made the sonnes of God, and the coinheritors of Christ: much more therefore may we exercise secular iudge∣ments. VVherby it appeareth that secular things are both in∣ferior •…•…o spirituall, and are not estranged from the spirituall power, but may light vnder it, chiefely then, when the matter is in hand of punishing or iudging those men, that are the mē∣bers of the Church of Christ.

〈◊〉〈◊〉 saye not (Master Saunders) that the Churche of Christ hath nothing to doe vvith the businesse of this world, this is but your sclaunder. We say that the spirituall Mini∣sters of the Churche of Christe, haue not so to do with such vvorldly businesse, that they maye turquise all the vvorlde, and alter the states of vvorldly kingdomes, and occupie them selues about vvorldly affaires, in such vvorldly dominion as you pretende they maye. Whereto you abuse shamefully Saint Paules sayings. He speaketh there of vvorldly mat∣ters, and you applye it to all iudgementes, yea, to the iudging of a kingdome▪ But you replle, he saith the Saints shall iudge the worlde and the Angels, vvhiche are greater thinges than kingdomes, howe muche more then kingdomes, that are lesser things.

Trowe you) Master Saunders (he speaketh there, of such iudging the vvorlde, that they should iudge like chiefe Iusti∣•…•… of realmes and kingdomes, whether this or that Prince shall enioye them, or shall be dispossessed of them? No (M. Saunders) she speaketh of no suche thing. The worlde shall be iudged in them, as Chrysostome well noteth: Iudicabunt non ipsi iudices. &c. They shal iudge▪ not they themselues sitting in iudgemēt, & exacting an accoūt. God forbid, but they shal cōdemne the vvorld, the vvhich signifying he saith, and if in you. &c. He saith not of you, but in you As who should say, the iust condemnation of these that are the vvorldlings, shall shine in the saluation of you that are the Saints. This there∣fore proueth 〈◊〉〈◊〉 such worldly iudgemēt as you pretend

Secondly you abuse S. Paule, as though in speaking of the Saints, he spake onely of the spirituall Pastors, wheras he speaketh in generall of the whole congregation. Are Saintes and Christians only Priestes with you? this is both manifest wresting of S. Paule, and shamelesse arrogancie in your selues.

But you say the Churche hath it, by the spirituall povver vvherby vve be made the sonnes of God, and coinheritors of

Christe. We graunt you Master Saunders. But doth this spirituall povver belong onely to Priestes? you say it appea∣reth hereby, vve maye exercise secular iudgementes, whome meane you by this vve, (Master Saunders) your selues that are the Priestes? But S. Paule speaketh of Christian peo∣ple, and not of the Pastors only, yea, least of al of the Pastors. Wherevpon saith Haimo out of Gregorie, on these wordes, choose him that is contemptible. Secundum Gregorium. &c. Ac∣cording to Gregorie, by contemptible persons vvee may vn∣derstande secular men, hauing the knovvledge of humaine lavves, and in their personages being honorable, who in com∣parison of them that vnderstand the diuine lawes, and pierce the mysteries of the holy Trinitie, are contemptible and simple, although they be faithful▪ And according to this sense vvee muste reade it affirmatiuely, bicause suche are to be ap∣pointed, vvhiche of the Canons are called, the Sonnes of the Church. I sprake it to your shame, bycause althoughe I com∣maunde it not, you ought to haue done it. And therefore he commaundeth such to be ordeyned, bycause they that ought to serue on the altare, and meditate Diuine Sermons, and giue the vvorde of preaching to the people, ought to estraunge themselues from secular businesse and iudgements. Like∣wise saithe your Cardinall Hugo. The glosse calleth them contemptible, that are not apt to great offices in the Church, as to preach and teach. And this is an argument that my lord the Pope ought not to appoint Masters of Diuinitie, to be Iudges of temporall things. To your shame (saith the glosse) that those should examine earthly causes, that haue gotten the vvisedome of outvvarde things. But those that are enryched vvith spirituall giftes, ought not to be entangled vvith earth∣ly businesse, that vvhile they be not driuen to inferior goods, they may be able to attende on the higher goods. Hovvebeit this must greatly be cared for, that they that shine in spiritual goods, forsake not vtterly the businesse of their vveake bre∣thrē. Thus your Papists thēselues are of a contrarie iudge∣ment

to you, M. Saunders, (besides all your Popes, and Councels Canons) that the spirituall Pastors should not be these Iudges in secular things, that here Saint Paule speaks on. To wrest therefore these wordes spoken of any faithfull Christian, only to your Priestes: to wring this sentence from the state of the Churche, then being without any faithfull Magistrate, to the time now, when they haue many, and those not chosē of thēselues, but ordeyned of the higher Magistrate: to wrythe it from the iudgements and taking vp of their pe∣tit quarels, to the deposing or setting vp of Kings, or alte∣ring kingdomes: is clean beyond the meaning of S. Paule, & an euident violence & iniurie to Gods word. Now vpō this sentence thus wrested, you procéed to your argumēt, saying:

For their goodes are so muche subiecte to the ecclesiasticall povver, that it is lavvfull for the Churche, of priuate men, to ordeine Magistrates, that should iudge of secular causes, and not only of ecclesiasticall. But no man can passe more righte to an other, than he hath himselfe. Therefore the Churche vvhich hath povver to make them Iudges, that vvere priuate men before: hath much more it selfe ouer those secular cau∣ses, receiued povver, by the Ministers of God, that as Aaron, are called to the publike mynisterie of Iesu Christ. For vvhat∣soeuer is of Christe, giuen in common to the Christian com∣mon vveale, is giuen by them that exercise the Legacie for Christe, and are Stevvards of his mysteries.

Your argument is this. VVhatsoeuer is giuen in com∣mon of Christ to his Church, he giues it by the Pastors.

But povver to make Magistrates and Iudges, is giuen in cō∣mon of Christ to his Church: Ergo, it is giuen by his Pastors.

But no man can passe more right to an other, than hee hath himselfe. The Pastors passe this right, and povver of being Magistrates and Iudges in secular matters to another:

Ergo, the Pastors haue right and power of being Magi∣strates, and iudge themselues in secular matters.

Al these parts & cōclusions of these reasons I vtterly deny

(Master Saunders.) First the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is fall 〈◊〉〈◊〉 •…•…nsample, Christe giues temporall peace, in common to his Churche: he giue▪ plentie of fruites, and seasonable weather, in com∣mon to his Churche: he giues health and strength of bodie, in common to his Church he giues good Magistrates, Kings and Princes, in cōmon to his Church: he giues good lawes, natural, ciuill, and municipall, in common to his Churche: all these are povvers giuē of Christ in cōmon to the Christiā common vveale, so well as to any other common vveale not Christian: but they are not giuen by the ministerie of the spirituall Pastors. The maior therefore is not true.

Secondly, the minor is also false: that Christ giueth power to his Church, to make Magistrates and Iudges ouer secular matters. To some Churches indéed he hath giuen this power, and dothe giue it, where they orderly doe choose their owne Magistrate. But this can not be spoken of the Church indefi∣nitely. For the Church in most places thereof, hath not the choice of Princes, but God (either by ordinarie succession, or by extraordinarie means) placeth them ouer the Church, and those Princes place the Iudges.

Thirdly, by the Church is not mēt, either the ecclesiastical power, or the Pastors that haue that povver. For the povver is but Gods gift for the Churches vse and benefite, and the Pastors are but parts and members of the Church. Fourth∣ly, this is false also, that they can not passe a right, to another that they themselues haue not. For euen in the dispensation of their mysteries, we maye receiue faythe and grace by their ministerie, and yet they be gracelesse, and haue no faith themselues. And in the solemnization of Matrimonie, although the Pastor haue no right to the bryde, yet he trans∣ferreth the hauing of hir, frō hir friends, to the brydegrome: & so may they be Ministers in the intronizing a Prince, pas∣sing a power frō God to him, which yet thēselues haue not, except you will make them Kings. And thus all your rules are false, and holde not, besides that they be all wrested and

cleane from the sense of the sentence cited, and therefore no good argument can be framed on them that that can rightly conclude the present purpose. But nowe Master Saunders will applye this better, and here in the margine he setteth downe in great letters. Nota, Note, to sturre vp the Rea∣ders attention to note his application.

But novve (saith he) if that nevve Iudges must be made of the Churche, rather than vve shoulde goe to lavve in secular causes before the Infidels, are not nevve Kings also rather to be made of the Churche, than that vve shoulde be com∣pelled to pleade our causes, before hereticall and scismatical Kings?

Nowe you beginne handsomely to frame your argument to your purpose, for al this while you did but dallie. But if the Reader note this matter, as you require him to doe, as he shal finde no consequence in your argument, so shal he finde rancke treason in your conclusion. If the argument were good, then bycause the Church in Saint Paules time might choose among themselues arbiters, to iudge and take vp their petite matters: therefore they might haue chosen nevv Kings also to gouerne them. But this coulde they not haue done without treason and rebellion, therefore this argu∣ment is false. Is there no difference (Master Saunders) be∣twéene the choosing of an vmpier, or an arbiter chosen be∣twéene two parties of their owne voluntarie, to iudge and descide their priuate controuersie, and the choosing of a su∣preme & publike Magistrate to gouerne their whole estate? Who séeth not that this they might in no wise doe. The o∣ther they might doe well inoughe. And so may any of vs doe also, to auoyd the charges and troubles of the lawe, although we haue Christian Princes and faithfull Iudges too, neither troubling those estates, nor our selues, and saue our money in our purses, and better nourishe charitie in not going to lawe, but taking vp the matter at home among our neygh∣bours quietly. May we therefore subtracte our selues, from

the Iudgement Seate of the publike Magistrate, when we are called or enforced by lawe thereto? and whye mighte we not, if we might choose a newe King, when we mislyked the olde? No, Master Saunders, this is further from Saint Paules meaning than was the other. Saint Paule giues not the Corinths leaue nor power, to erecte vp among them selues a publike Magistrate, to flée vnto in their contenti∣ons, & vtterly to forsake the iudgement seates of the heathen Iudges and Princes that did gouerne them. Saint Paule speakes of their owne voluntarie taking vp of matters, by some indifferent man among them, to be chosen as Iudge in this or that brawle betwéene them, and woulde not haue them of their owne selfe will, in matters that might be well taken vp among themselues, to runne to Lawe before hea∣then Magistrates. Wherein although he disalow the disor∣derly contention of the one, yet he disaloweth not withall the orderly authoritie of the other, which he confesseth to be giuen of God, and he exhorteth all subiectes to obey, and that for conscience sake, euen the gouernement of the heathen Princes, notwithstanding they were Christians that were subiectes. Whereas if he had ment otherwise, he hadde not onely contraryed himselfe, but confirmed the sclaunder of the heathen people, that the Christians were Rebelles to their estates. And he might haue bene accused of sedition, as styrring the people to make nevve Magistrates, whiche for them being subiectes, was aboue their power to doe. And although this crime was layde to Saint Paules charge, of sowing sedition: yet could they neuer iustly proue it on him, his doings and writings testifyed the contrarie, with what care he labored to kepe the Christians in obedience. Who otherwise might here vpon haue had great occasion of choo∣sing nevve Princes, pretending they were Christians, and made frée by Christe, and therefore ought not haue suffered themselues to liue in the heathen Princes bondage. Which fréedome of Christian libertie, least they should haue thus a∣bused,

to carnall licenciousnesse, and disturbed the order and quietnesse of their estate: Saint Paule so often and so ear∣nestly exhorteth them vnto obedience. Neither they did so euer vnderstande this present exhortation, to haue the liber∣tie or power to forsake the heathen Magistrates obedience and iudgements, and to erecte a nevv Magistrate and Iudge to rule among them. For this had bene the readie pathe to all Rebellion. And to proue that this is the readiest way to Rebellion, sée howe Master Saūders gathereth hereon, that nevve Kings are to be made of the Churche, rather than vve shoulde be compelled to pleade our causes before hereticall and scismaticall Kings. So that if the Prieste shall say, the King is an heretike or a scismatike: not only the people must so account him, but they muste account him no longer to be their King, they muste not be compelled to appeare in his Courtes and Consistories, they must pleade no cause at all before him or his Iustices, but must forthwith choose a nevv King to be their gouernour. Howe far this is differing from Saint Paules doctrine, from this sentence, from subiectes obedience, and howe neare to set all the world in an vprore: I dout not but if this Nota, that M. Sand. sets it out withal be wel noted, it wil not only bréede in the Readers mindes, a note of suspicion, of priuie conspiracies & trayterous pack∣ing, but openly shew a manifest proclamatiō of plain rebel∣liō. Now to proue that y^e subiects should thus rebel, he shew∣eth y^e dangers y^t should ensue, if they should remaine in their obedience. For certaine it is, that there is more danger of he∣retical Kings, thā is of vnfaithful Iudges. For vnfaithful Iud∣ges do not iudge, but of matters of this world and that accor∣ding to the law either of nature, which is alwayes right or ci∣uil, vvhiche is seldome vvrong. Moreouer, vvhat if I suffered vvrong at the tribunall of a Pagane Iudge? the losse is small, to suffer the spoyle of tēporal goods, vvhich good men beare vvith ioye. But heretical Kings compel their subiects, casting away the catholike faith, to embrace their heresie, the whiche

can not be done vvithout the detriment of eternall saluation. It is altogither lavvfull to the Churche of Christe, to remoue from his gouernement an heretical, a scismatical, a symoniacal King, and to conclude, to remoue him, that vvill not amende himselfe, and to place another among the Christians in his rome.

This argument is drawne from the danger of suffering the king, & is alreadie answered diuers times. The lawiers woulde briefly say to this, better suffer a mischiefe, than an inconuenience, but were this an inconuenience too, we may not take away one inconuenience with an other greater in∣conuenience: for ther are conuenient remedies of pacience & constancie, against these inconueniences, and not rebellion, althoughe the inconuenience were muche greater than M. Sād. makes it. And yet to aggrauate y^e same, he makes cōpa∣rison of a King and a Iudge, as though the Iudge represented not the King. He compareth the daunger of the losse by the one, and by the other: as thoughe the heathen Iudges and Princes dealt not also in cases of Religion. Who (although they were deceiued herein) yet they conuented people before them for Religion, to driue them from the worship of God, to the worship of their Idols, and laboured by all persuasi∣ons and meanes they coulde, to bring them to their Religiō. And verie many they brought to their Idolatrie, which was more thā the losse of temporal goods: euē the detriment of e∣ternal saluatiō. Neither did they vse their iudgemēts always according to the lavv of nature or the ciuil: neyther doth the one iudge alvvayes right, considering the great corruption of nature, chiefly in the heathen: neyther did the other sildome wrong, but often wrong among them: neither medled the ciuill Lawe of the Pagans, onely with matters of tem∣porall goodes, and of this vvorlde, but also with matters of the worlde to come, and therefore there was further daunger of the iudgementes of those heathen Princes and vnfaythefull Iudges, than here Maister Saunders

woulde séeme to acknowledge there was, mitigating all that he can, the daunger ensuing from them: to aggrauate the greater daūgers from naughtie Christian Princes. But he nede not run to these vntruthes, to aggrauate his compa∣rison. For we denie not, but that if the Prince were such a wicked Prince as he speaketh of, it were in dede very daun∣gerous to the faithfull subiects vnder him, and so muche the more daungerous that he pretendeth to the faithfull, to be a faithfull Prince, and is not. But what a daungerous doctrine is this, that the people should therfore rebell, and reuolt vn∣to another. Might the Christiā people in y^e primitue Church for all the daūger of eternall life that they and all the faithfull were in, when the heathen Princes would haue them wor∣ship Idols, which is as ill as heresie: & when the heretical & scismaticall Emperors being Arians, Monothelites. &c. in the ancient time, compelled their subiectes, casting away the Ca∣tholike faith, to embrace their heresies, might they remoue thē from their gouernment, and place another in his roome ouer the Christians? and that y^t shoulde streight be heresie, which the B▪ of Rome should say were heresie, & he should be a scis∣matike that should not consent to him? Yea, & he must be de∣posed for symonie too▪ & by symonie forsooth we must vnder∣stand, that if the Prince do appoint and inuest a Bishop, then streight he is a simoniake, and must out of hande be depesed. What a greater daūger is here, not onely to Christiā Prin∣ces, but to all the Church of Christ, whose sauegarde is here pretended? But if we reason of daūgers, the greatest daūger of all is of the Pope himselfe & his prelates, & the more daun∣ger, that Princes & people be thus beguiled by them, and yet the king may not meddle with them, although his duetie ne∣uer so much require, & he hath good warrant in the scripture 〈◊〉〈◊〉 remoue them, & so haue not they of him, were they neuer 〈◊〉〈◊〉 good, and were he a great deale worse than M. Saunders makes him. But Maister Saunders will nowe proue that the Bishops haue warrant out of the scripture for them, and

once againe he alleageth the example of King Saul and Sa∣muel.

For if the kingdome of Saul stoode not, euen for this that he obserued not the precept of Samuel, in wayting for him seuen dayes before he sacrificed. Yea if the Lord cast off Saul that he shuld not be the king, bicause he fulfilled not also another pre∣cept of the Lorde declared by the Ministerie of Samuel in kil∣ling Agag: if for this disobedience of Saul, while he yet raig∣ned, Samuel was bidden to anoynt Dauid, to be the King of the Iewes: and Samuel did it priuily in Bethleem: Neither after the holy Ghost sent downe from heauen, the spirituall power of the Church can now be lesse, than in times past was in the Sy∣nagog: we must now also confesse, that that King, which shall dispise to heare the Lord speaking by the mouth of the high∣est Bishop, maye so be depriued of the right of his kingdome, that another may in the meane season be of the same Byshop anoynted for King, and that from that day forwarde, he truely shalbe the King whome the Bishop orderly anoynted, or other wise did consecrate, and not he that being armed with a bande of souldiers, occupieth the seate. For of such the Prophet saith: they haue reigned, and not by me, the which thing is so true, that lo•…•…athas the sonne of Saul acknowledged that the King∣dome shoulde fall vnto Dauid, after the death of his Father. And al that were in nede sled vnto Dauid, and he became their Prince, and there were with him as it were foure hundreth men, and when Achimelech the Priest asked Counsell of the Lorde for Dauid, and Saul hauing intelligence thereof, com∣maunded his seruaunts to fall vpon the Priests of the Lorde: no man durst execute so cruel a commaundement, besides onely Doeg the Idumean.

The effecte of this reason is thréefolde. Firste, that the Pope maye depose a King and set vp another. Secondly, that the King so deposed by the Pope, is no longer lawfull King nor to be obeyed, but the subiectes ought to go to the o∣ther whom•…•… the Pope sets vp. Thirdly that althoughe the

Pope maye depofe a King: yet no King maye depofe or touch the Pope or his Priests. For the first point, are alle a∣ged these arguments:

The spirituall power is as greate nowe in the Church, since the holy Ghost was sent from heauen, as it was before in the Synagog.

But Kings were then deposed, and other set vp, by the spi∣rituall power:

Ergo, Kings may now likewise be deposed by the spirituall power, and other set vp.

But the spirituall power belongeth to the highest Bishop:

The Bishop of Rome is the highest Bishop.

Ergo, the Bishop of Rome maye depose Kings and set vp other.

The later argument, which we vtterly denie, and here he proueth not, but taketh for confessed, that there is in earth a highest Bishop ouer all other, and that the Pope is he: is belonging to another controuersie.

To the former argument, we graunt the Maior. The spi∣rituall power is as great nowe, after the holy Ghost was sen•…•…e from heauen, as it was before in the Synagog. But we denie the Minor. That the deposing of Kings and sitting vp of other in their steede was not done then in the Synagog by the spiri∣tuall power, that is, by the spirituall authoritie of the spiritu∣all pastor.

For proofe hereof, M. Saunders inferreth an instance of Saul and Samuel.

Saul loste his Kingdome bycause he obserued not the pre∣cepte of Samuel. And therefore Samuel ordayned another King.

I aunswere. First this facte was not a matter ordinarily belonging to the spirituall power of Samuel, but an especial∣tie of gods singular appointing. It was not a thing belōging to the Byshops office, to depose Kings and set other in their places, it was but a particular acte done by gods especiall cō∣maundement,

so that it could not, nor was euer drawne in∣to any ordinarie rule of their spirituall power then: and much lesse is any thing belonging to the Bishops spirituall power nowe, which is an ordinarie power, and consisteth in set∣ting forth the word of God, in administring the sacraments of God, and in bynding or losing the conscience of the obsti∣nate or repentant sinner. Which things sith none of them pertaine to the deposing of a Prince or any other man, from his temporall possessions and worldly estate: it is apparant that this extraordinarie doing of Samuel, was neither thē nor now ordinarily pertaining to the spirituall power of pa∣stors.

Secondly it is false that Saul lost his kingdome for not ob∣seruing the precepte of Samuel. For althoughe Samuel pro∣noūced it, yet it was the Lords precept, as like wise the other precepts, of which M. Saunders confesseth: that he fulfilled not the precept of the Lorde, declared by the ministerie of Samuel. So that Samuel was but the Minister of decla∣ring it.

But say you, then muste not the King dispise to heare the Lord speaking by the mouth of the highest Bishop. We graūt you M. Sanders the King must not dispise to heare the Lorde speaking by the mouth of any Bishop. As for any highest B. besides Iesus Christ, we denie. And the King ought to dispise to here him which claimeth that highest roome. For it is an euident argument that the Lord speaketh not by such a blas∣phemous month, as exalteth it selfe into Christes Bishop∣prike. As for Samuel tooke not vpon him to be the highest Priest or Bishop, nor was any B. or Priest at al, nor spake any thing at all, that he had not the especiall and expresse com∣mandement of God therto. Let your Pope and his Bishops shewe the expresse commaundement of God, either especiall or ordinary, that they be bidden to depose Kings and set vp other, or else you wrest this example, and doe no lesse abuse God, than you would abuse Princes by it.

Thirdly, this is false also, that Samuell either deposed Saule, or •…•…et vp Dauid. Concerning Saule, he declared to him, howe his kingdome should not continue, but he deposed him not. The wordes of Samuell are these: Thou haste do•…•… foolishly, that thou haste not obserued the commaun∣dementes of the Lorde thy God, that he commaunded thee. If thou haddest not done this thing, the Lorde had euen nowe established thy kingdome ouer Israell for euer. But thy king∣dome shall arise no further. The Lorde hathe soughte him a man according to his heart, and hathe commaunded him, that he shoulde be captayne ouer his people, bicause thou haste not kepte the thinges the Lorde commaunded thee. First, héere Samuell referreth all to the Lords commaundement. A•…•…d as Caietanus a Papist noteth thereon, This commaun∣dement of the Lorde, violated by Saule, was not a commaun∣dement of the lawe, but a particular commaundement decla∣red to Saule by Samuel. An especiall commaundement (saith he) for that turne. Secondly, he referreth the punishment, not to his remouing of him, but to the dooing of God. Third∣ly, he dothe not (neither in his owne name, nor in Gods) depose him at all from his estate, but telleth him howe his kingdome shall not continue. Vltrate (saythe he) It shall con∣tinue no further after thee. Bicause his sonne Isboseth rayg∣ned not ouer all Israell, neither yet ouer that peaceably, and that for a small time. And this purpose of God (as Lyra nateth) although it were then declared, by reason of the pre∣sent demerite of Saule: yet was it the Lordes euerlasting purpose. The purpose of God (saith he) is certain & infallible. It was before ordeined of God, that the kingdome should be giuen to the tribe of Iuda, as appeareth Gene. 49. The Scep∣ter shal not be taken from Iuda. But the Pope can not shew the like purpose of God, that suche or such a Prince should nowe be deposed or placed: therefore he dothe but wrest this example.

As for the placing of Dauid: Although (sayth Lyra) this

was yet to come, he speaketh notwithstanding, as thoughe it were paste, for the certeintie of the diuine prouidence. So that yet no acte was •…•…ast agaynst Saul, or vnto Dauid, but onely a declaration of Gods purpose to come. Héere was therefore no deposing of the one, nor placing of the other. As for Samuels other sentence. 1. Reg. 15. is more dest∣nite, when he saythe: For that thou hast caste off the worde of the Lorde, the Lorde hath caste off thee, that thou shoul∣dest not be king. And yet he sayth not héere, I depose thee▪ or the Lorde deposeth thée, from thine estate, and frō hence∣foorth thou shalte neither be king, nor be reputed and ta∣ken of the Churche of God for king any longer. Samuell sayth not thus, nor ment thus, nor Saule vnderstoode him thus, but desired Samuel to returne with him, and worship the Lorde. And Samuell (repeating his words) sayd: I wil not returne with thee, bicause thou hast cast of the comande∣ment of the Lord, the Lorde hath cast off thee. And Samuell turned to go away, but he caught holde of the skirte of his cloake, and it rent. And Samuell sayde to him, the Lorde hath rent the kingdome of Israell this day frō thee, and hath giuen it to thy neighbour, a better than thou. And yet in all these so effectuall words, Samuell sayth not héere, In Dei nomine, Amen, &c▪ In the name of God Amen. I do héere presenly de∣pose thée, and so foorth, as the Pope vseth to do. No, all this was but a declaration of the time to come, as Lyra saythe: Dicunt autem Hebraei, &c. Some Hebrnes say, that Samuel then gaue a signe vnto Saule, that he shoulde raigne for him, that shoulde cutte off the hemme of his garment. VVhiche Da∣uid did, as is conteyned. 1. Reg. 24. VVherevpon Saule see∣ing the hemme of his garment in Dauids hande: sayde, nowe I knowe for certayne that thou shalte raygne.

And so the Glosse titeth Sainct Augustine Iste cui dixit. &c. This man to whome the Lorde sayde, the Lorde des∣piseth thee, that thou shouldest not be King of Israell, and

the Lorde hathe rent this day the kingdome out of thy hand: ruled fortie yeres, to wite, euen as long as Dauid raigned. And yet this thing he hearde the first time of his raigne. Therefore wee vnderstande▪ it to be spoken to this ende, that none of the stocke of him shoulde raigne. He rente it (saythe the Glosse) althoughe he reygned fortie yeres after∣warde. But as then he des•…•…rued that the kingdome shoulde be rente from him, and giuen to a better▪ &c.

Thus these sayinges and doinges of Samuell, were not the reall deposing of Saule from his Royall throne. For bothe he tooke him selfe still as King, and desired Samuel to honor him before the Elders of his people, and before Israell. But nowe (sayth he) honor me. Sinon, &c. Although (sayth 〈◊〉〈◊〉) not for my persons sake, yet do this thing for the honor of my royall dignitie. And so Samuell as∣sented to him. willing (sayth Lyra) to giue it vnto Saule, so long as he was of God suffred in the kingdome.

Nowe as for Dauid, Samuell in déede anoynted him, and that (as you saye) priuilie. Whiche argueth agaynst you, that it was no publike acte of making him king, but as it were a preparatiue vnto it, and a priuie forewar∣ning of Gods purpose to come. Secondly it was a thing of Gods especiall appoynting, or else Samuell would not, nor coulde haue euer done it. Thirdly (saythe •…•…yra) Ad∣uertendum est, &c▪ VVe muste marke, that Dauid was anoynted to be king, not to this purpose, that he shoulde streighte pos∣sesse the kingdome. But when the acceptable wyll of God shoulde come. But God did suffer Saule in the possession of the kingdome, euen vntill his death. And thus we sée vpon this acte of the Lorde by Samuell, as well to Saule, as to Dauid▪ héere was yet no suche deposing of the one, nor setting vp the other, as Master Sanders claymeth héere, reasoning from the example of Samuels dooing to Saule and Dauid: for the Pope to 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Christian Princes of∣fending, and to set vp others in the •…•…places.

The second thing y^t he gathereth héerevpon, is this: that the king by the Pope béeing deposed, is now no longer true & lawful king▪ but a playne vsurper, and a wrongful occupier of the kings sea•…•…e, beeing armed with a bande of souldiers. but the other that is annoynted, or otherwise consecrated by the Bishop in his place: shall truely from this day forward be the king, and the people ought to go to him, and not obey the other. And for this, he alleageth three reasons. First, the saying of God by the Prophet Osée. Secondly, the acknow∣ledging of Ionathas Saules sonne. Thirdly, the gathering of diuers persons vnto Dauid.

First, for the wordes of the Prophet whiche are these: They haue raygned, and not by me. They were Princes, I know them not. I answere. First these wor•…•… are Gods complaynt agaynst the wickednesse of those kinges of Is∣rael▪ that directed not their gouernment by Gods law: not that they were not kings, but that they were wicked kings. Not that they were by no meanes ordeyned of God, for 〈◊〉〈◊〉 potestas est à Deo, all power is of God, and God sayth in generall, per m•…•… reges regnant, Kings rule by me, so well hea∣then as faythfull kinges▪ Pilates power was from aboue: These kinges of Israell, Ieroboam, Achab, Iehu. &c. were of Gods ordeyning. Yeà Iehu, whose house héere God com∣playned vpon, and sayde, he and his ofspring raigned not by him▪ were yet notwithstanding made kinges, and rayg∣ned by him. In respecte of their ambition and priuate af∣fections, their raigne was not of him. In respecte of Gods ordinaunce, of his iustice, of his prouidence, it was not on∣ly permitted, but also especially appoynted of him. As bothe the▪ texte is 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and your owne glosse confesseth for Hieroboam the elder, that it was done by Gods will, al∣thoughe it were done also by the peoples sinne, that regar∣ded not the will of God; but •…•…llowed their owne selfewil. And so in some respecte, it was not the worke of God, and yet in other respects, it •…•…as the worke of God. And so héere

〈◊〉〈◊〉 himselfe, and sayth: I know them not. Not that he was ignorant of them, but he acknowledged not their do∣ings. Secondly, neither the prophet Osee, nor any other pro∣phet, tooke vpon them to depose any of those wicked kinges, but to declare the wrath and vengeance of God to come vp∣on them. After which declarations, they did not subtract frō them their ciuill obedience, & count them from that day for∣ward no longer to be their kings, or exhorted the Church of God to forsake their polytike gouernment: but hauing de∣clared their message from God, they let them alone, till ey∣ther God him selfe did strike thē, or stirred vp by some espe∣ciall and extraordinarie meanes, some forren or domestical persecu•…•… of them. Thirdly, this maketh nothing to proue y^t those kings, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Pope taketh vpon him to pronoūce they be no Kings, are no longer Kings: except he will make him selfe God, yea and aboue God too. For althoughe God say, They •…•…gne not by me▪ yet he calleth them kinges. But the Pope calleth them v•…•…urpers, that raygne not by him.

Secondly he alleageth the acknowledging of Ionathas Saules sonne, & the peoples gathering vnto Dauid For Io nathas, it is true, that he acknowledged the kingdome shold be deuolued vnto Dauid after his fathers deathe▪ And so he saith: Tu regnabis super Israel, Thou shalt raigne ouer Israell, & I shall be next to thee, and this my father knoweth. But this inferreth not, that he tooke Dauid then presently to be king, and his fa•…•…her from that day forwarde no longer to be king, neither reuolted he from the obedience of his father, to Da∣uids obedience, neither could his father lay this treason to his charge, that he forsooke his due subiection, although most bitterly 〈◊〉〈◊〉 rated him, and sayde: Thou sonne of the wicked rebellious woman, do not I knowe that thou haste chosen the sonne of Isai to thy confusion, & to the confusion and shame of thy mother? For as long as the sonne of Isai liueth vpon the earth, thou shalt not be established nor thy kingdome.

Whereon (sayth Caietane) the cause is made manyfest, bi∣cause he was an impediment to the succession of the king∣dome, and verily Saule had a true iudgement, as the euent of the matter proued. And thus the acknowledging of Io∣nathas proued not Dauids kingdome to be in esse (as they say) but in futuro, not that he was King, but that he should be King. Nor the confederacie betwéene Dauid and Ionathas, was any conspiracie to depose Saule, or to set vp Dauid, but a confirming of the loue betwéene them and their houses, when God should make him king.

Nowe for the peoples gathering vnto Dauid about the number of, 400. this was not to assemble a rebellious mul∣titude, to inuade king Saule, & to depose him frō the crowne to set vp him selfe. For neither they came for any such pur∣pose, but for their succor, béeing in debt & trouble, or other∣wise vexed: neither did Dauid send for them, nor incite any to take his part, not proclaimed him selfe to be king, or pub∣lished the Lords anoynting of him, or euer vsed that multi∣tude that came vnto him for any suche purposes. And yet the question is moued bothe by Caietanus and Lyranus héere∣vpon. The question (saythe Caietanus) atiseth, whether it were lawfull for Dauid to receiue these debters, in the preiu∣dice of the creditors that had lent them? The solution is, that if these men had house, field, or vineyard they are vnderstoode to haue lefte their goodes vnto them. But if they were vtter∣ly vnable to pay their debts: they were excused for their vn∣habilitie, vntill their better habilitie. For, that Dauid excel∣lently instructed all them that came vnto him, while he •…•…aried in that caue, the Psalme restifieth: I will prayse the Lorde at all time. Conteyning (according to the letter) a doctrine giuen there of Dauid vnto the souldiors. Therfore Dauid re∣ceiued not these men in preiudice of their creditors. And thus as he did not receiue them to the preiudice of any priuate man, so he receiued them not to the preiudice of the king

and publike state. Wheron Lyra moneth the other questiō, saying: In that he became their captain, it seemeth he sinned, in receiuing suche as Abimelech receiued: the needie and vagabounds, assembling thē vnto him as is contayned, Iud. 9. VVe muste say, that he gathered them not, to slay the inno∣cent, as did Abimelech to slay his brethren, neither to spoyle the faythfull. For we reade not that he spoyled the people of Israell. But rather kepte their goodes, as is contayned after∣warde. 1. Keg. 25. of Naball. But he gathered them, to perse∣cute the Infidels, as is contayned afterwarde in many cases. And to keepe his owne body from the ambushementes of Saule. The which he mighte do in suche a necessitie, chiefly when he was nowe anoynted king. By reason whereof, in suche a case, he might prolong the payment of the debtes, and in many the forfeyture is released in the case aforesayde.

Thus sée it was not for that y^e people tooke Dauid actu∣ally to be king, but for their owne refuge, that they fled to him. But whatsoeuer their intent was good or ill, Dauid assembled them not to hinder or hurte any priuate or pub∣like person. And althoughe he receiued them, and vsed them for his defence, whiche he mighte do, béeing in the state he was: yet woulde he neuer suffer them to enter medle in the quarell of his righte to the kingdome, nor yet he him selfe woulde euer take it vpon him, and impugne king Saule, no not when he had him in hys daunger, vntyll the Lorde by other meanes tooke Saule away, and gaue the kingdome in reall possession vnto Dauid. Before whiche time Dauid neuer called him selfe king, nor the time of his raygne is reckoned, but Saule counted and called, and his raigne reckoned, as king, till his death, and neuer shortned, disturbed, nor once gayne sayd by Dauid for all these folkes assemblies.

For example. When God sent king Saule (as it were of purpose) euen into Dauids handes, and the souldiers

moued Dauid to kill him: he would neither him selfe hurt him, nor suffer any other to do it, nor yet take him prisoner, & so depose him, or cause him to resigne. But only cut off pri∣uily a flap of his garment, for a testimonie howe he spared him, & yet his heart throbbed, that he had done so muche a∣gaynst him. His conscience reproued him (sayth Lyra) in that he had done vnreuerently to Saule, who was to be honored so long as he was of God suffred in the kingdome. A certaine remorce of conscience (sayth Caietane) is described in Da∣uid, in that he had cutoff the skirte of Saules cloake. For it is the propertie of good mindes, euen there to feare a fault, where faulte is not found. The reason of his remorce was, bi∣cause the cutting of the cloake was in his proper kinde iniu∣rious. Howbeit it was without fault, both bicause it was giuen vnto him, by Gods authoritie, to do with Saule that whiche seemed good in Dauids owne eies: and also good reason mo∣ued, that Dauid mighte shewe a signe of his beneuolence to∣wardes Saule, by a most euident testimonie conuicting Saule: that yet at the least, Saule might leaue off from so wicked per∣secution. But a better testimony he could not shewe, than the skirte of his garment there cut off: the action therfore natu∣rally iniurious, was not done in the forme of an iniurie, but of a necessarie signe, to witnesse the truthe of Dauids right mind to Saule▪ And this good minde Dauid him selfe expresseth: The Lorde keepe me from doing this thing vnto my Lorde, the Lords anoynted, to lay mine hande on him, for he is the Lords anoynted. And héere Caietanus giueth this note: He toucheth two reasons. The one, in that he saith: to my Lorde: The other, To the Lordes anoynted. But bicause that was the chiefest reason, for that Saule was anoynted of the most highe God, that onely he nameth twyse. Whereby we sée, he accempted Saule still as his lawfull king, and himselfe to be his dutifull and obedient subiect. And so he acknowled∣ged him selfe to Saule, when he cried after him, saying: O my Lord the king▪ and when Saule looked behind him, Dauid

enelined his face to the earth and bowed himselfe. And Dauid sayd to Saul: wherefore giuest thou eare to mennes words that say, beholde Dauid seeketh euill against thee. Beholde this day thine eyes haue seene, that the Lorde hath deliuered thee this day into my hand in the caue, and some badde me kill thee. But I had compassion on thee, and sayd, I will not lay my hande on my Maister. For he is the Lordes anoynted. Moreouer (my fa∣ther) behold, I say, the lappe of thy garment in my hande. For when I cut off the lappe of thy garment, I killed thee not. Vn∣derstande and see that there is no euill nor wickednesse in me, neither haue I sinned against thee. According to the Hebrue (saith Caietane) neither is rebellion in me. &c. He excludeth all sinne, by repeating his worke backwarde. For last of all, he ex∣cludeth sinne against Saul: and before, rebellion against the King: and first of all, euill vniuersally. And vpon these words, The Lord be iudge betwen thee and me: And the Lord auenge me of thee, and let not my hand be on thee. This he said (saith Lyra) in the zeale of Iustice, and not of reuengement. For no body ought to take vengeance on his own iniurie, by himself, except it lye vpon him by his office, and euen then it were bet∣ter that he did it by another. All these words (saith Caietane) are not of him that wisheth, but foretelleth and expecteth. For they are, in the Hebrue texte, of the future tence and the in∣dicatiue mode. He shall iudge, and he shall auenge. So farre is Dauid from wishing any euil vnto the king. And he so hum∣bleth himselfe vnto him: that he calleth himselfe, in compa∣risō of the King, a dead dogge and a flie: Sith I am (saith Lyra) of no moment (or nothing worth) in regarde of thee: Thus farre was Dauid frō euer attempting to depose King Saul, after Samuel had anoynted him. And that not onely where Ionathas, but euen where Saul himselfe acknowledged, that Dauid shoulde be K•…•…ng after him, saying: and nowe I know of a certaintie, that thou shalt raigne and the kingdome of Israel shall be established in thy hand. But yet he saith not, that he then presently raigned, neither doth he resigne vnto

him, but make a couenant and take an othe of Dauid, that when he should raigne, he shoulde not destroy his séede after him, nor take away his name from his fathers house, & this, Dauid swore vnto him. Wherin he acknowledgeth though a state to come, yet no state in present.

The like occasion falling out againe. 1. Reg. 26. Dauid be∣haued himselfe to Saul in semblable wise. For when he might haue killed him, and Abisai would haue killed him •…•…he not onely woulde not doe it, nor suffer it to be done. But he sayth to Abisai, destroye him not. For who can laye his handes on the Lords anoynted and be giltlesse. Dauid (sayth Lyra) wold gyue this to the person of him, so long as he was suffered of God in the Kingdome. Alwayes (sayth Caietane) Dauid had fixed in his harte, and in his mouth the honour of the moste high God, in so muche that he thoughte none innocent, that stretched hys hande vpon the anoynted of God. As the Lorde lyueth (saith he) either the Lord shall smite him, or his day shall come to dye, or he shall descende into battell and perishe. The Lorde keepe me from laying my hand vpon the Lords anoynted. By this (saith Li∣ra) Dauid entended, that by no meanes, he would be the efficient cause of his death, excepte perhaps in defending himselfe, so that he could not otherwise escape. And when Dauid called to Ab∣ner, he challenged him to be worthy of death, for keping the Kings person no better, and when Saul knowing his voice said, is this thy voyce my sonne Dauid? and Dauid sayd, it is my voyce, my Lorde O King. And he sayde, wherefore doth my Lord thus persecute his seruant? for what haue I done, or what euil is in my hand? Now therefore I beseeche thee, let my Lorde the King heare the wordes of his seruaunt. &c. thus humbleth he him∣selfe in his purgation, and sayth, the King of Israell is come out to seeke a flie, as one woulde hunte a Partridge in the moun∣taynes. So lowly abasing himselfe in comparison of Saul, whome he calleth the King of Israel. Neyther dissembled he but spake Bona fide, euen as he thought in his hart. So farre was Dauid from not acknowledging Saul to be still hys

soueraigne Lorde and lawfull King, so farre from ga∣thering anye vnlawfull assemblyes againste him, so farre from any priuie conspiracie or open rebellion, so farre from so much as thinking to depose him: that when he had him in his daunger, he woulde not onely not hurt him, nor suffer o∣ther to doeit, but gaue him so great honour, as any subiecte can giue his Prince. How then is not the storie of Saule and Dauid wrested, for a Christian subiect that hath no such au∣thoritie, as Dauid had, to depose, or take armes against his Christian Prince, or to go from the obedience of him, as no longer lawfull Kyng, after the Byshop shall saye, he hathe deposed him, and to obey any other, that the Bishop shal ap∣point for King?

The third thing that Master Saunders inferreth, is this, that althoughe the Pope and his Bishops may doe thus to Princes: yet Princes were very tyrants, if they should doe oughte to them. And hereto he alleageth, that when the high Priest Achimelech, asked counsell of the Lord for Dauid, & Saul hauing intelligence thereof, commaunded his seruants to fall vp∣on the Priests of the Lord: no man durst execute so cruell a com∣maundement, besides onely Doeg the Idumean.

For Achimelechs asking counsell of the Lord for Dauid, Wh•…•… Dauid fled vnto him: first, the case (Maister Saunders) is not so cléere, but that (as Lyra confesseth) a question is made theron: for there appéereth no such thing in the. 21. Chapter. Althoughe Doeg so accused him, and Achimelech standeth not to the deniall thereof, but vpon his innocencie. Lyra sayth, Dicunt aliqui. &c. Some saye that he lyed, as tale bearers are wont to saye more than is in deede, but the contrary seemeth rather to bee true. So that this is not so cleare a case, as you make it. But what is all thys storye to the purpose, or not rather againste you? especially that that followeth, of Saules puttyng the Priestes to death. Wherein although he dyd a wycked and tyrannous acte, yet it argueth that he had authoritie ouer the Priestes. Firste, in that he cyted

them to come before him. Secondly, in that they obeyed his citation and came before the King. Thirdly, in that the high Priest calleth the King his Lord, saying: here I am my Lord. Fourthly, when the King layde treason to his charge, he re∣plyeth not, that he could be no traitor to the King, beyng his superior: but as inferior, pleadeth he was no traytor. Fift∣ly, he acknowledgeth both Dauid to be Saules seruaunt, & himselfe also, saying: be it farre from mee, let not the King impute any thing vnto his seruaunt, nor to all the house of my father, for thy seruaunt knew nothing of all this, lesse or more. Wherby it appeareth that the high Priest and all his fami∣lie, were vnder the Kings obedience, and so still continued, after that Samuel had declared, how that the Lord had rent his kingdome from him.

As for that the Prince abused his authoritie, to the cruell murdering of innocentes: we graunt it was so detestable, that his souldiors did well, in refusing to execute his wicked commaundement. We defend no suche authoritie in Prin∣ces, nor such obedience in subiectes, as murdereth innocents without all lawe and Iustice, and that after suche a cruell sort, as did the doggishe Doeg, being not content to murder the innocent ministers of God: but besides, to put to the edge of thes worde, all the men and women in their Citie, yea the Children & sucking babes also. You can finde no protestant Prince (M. Saunders) that euer did the like déede. But Po∣pishe Princes haue not onely done the like, but farre sur∣mounted, both Saul and Doeg, and all other cruel Princes, in such vnnaturall Tragedies. So fitte all Maister Saun∣ders ensamples serue his purpose, that euerye one maketh cleane against him.

But now (saith he) least any man should thinke, at the least the power of those Kings that sprang from Dauid, to be grea∣ter than the spirituall power of the Synagog: let him besides this consider, that Ahias the Silonite, while Salomon was yet aliue, foretolde that Ieroboam should gouerne the ten tribes.

VVhervpon is vnderstood, that either the whole kingdome, or some part therof, may be taken away from a wicked King, by the spirituall power of the Churche. For what power was in times past, in the Priests and Prophets: the same is now in the pastors and teachers, whose duetie it is so to consulte for the soules health, that they suffer not, by the disobedience and ty∣rannie of a wicked King, the people of an infinite multitude, to be compelled and drawne to scisme and heresie.

The argument is still as before, from the spirituall power in Priests & Prophets then in the Synagog, to the spiritual po∣wer of popishe pastors & teachers in the Church now. To this besides the former answere, I answere againe: first, the po∣pishe pastors & teachers, being false pastors & false teachers, except it be from such Priestes & Prophetes as were of Baal, Balaam, Bel. &c. can frame no good conclusion. Secondly, ad∣mit they were (which they pretend) true pastors & teachers: yet the argument is not true, from any particular & especial charge, giuē vnto some one or two of them, by gods expresse commaundement, to foretell this or that thing to come: to conclude therevpon an ordinarie spirituall power, in all the priests & prophets then, and y^e like to succéede in the pastors & teachers now. Thirdly, neither any such thing is described or ment by S. Paul•…•… Ep•…•…e. 4. in the office of pastors & teachers now: neither this example of the old testament. 2, Reg. 11. in∣ferreth any such thing done by the priests or prophets then. The example of 〈◊〉〈◊〉, he alleaged before, but he thinketh here to frame it better to his purpose. His argument is thus.

The prophet Ahias while King Salomon liued, foretold Ie∣roboam that he should raigne ouer ten Tribes.

Ergo, either the whole kingdome or a part therof, may be ta∣ken from a wicked King by the spiritull power, that is, by the pastors and teachers of the Church.

I denie the argument (M. Sand.) from foretelling the ta∣king away thereof, to the taking away thereof in déede. The foretelling belonged to that Prophet, to whō God not onely

reuealed it, but commaunded to foretell it. The taking a∣way therof either in part or in whole, belōged only to God, working by his secrete or open Iustice, and to those (as in∣struments of his wrath) whom he ordained to do it: that is, by Ieroboam and such as rebelled with him. And, howbeit this fact, when▪ it was done, was such a specialtie, as can not be drawne to an example, no more than can the attempt of Abraham to kill his sonne: yet was not this facte done in Salomons dayes. Who all his life long raigned King of the whole kingdome notwithstanding all this Prophecie. In dede Ieroboam which was a wicked man, lifte vp his hand and rebelled against Salomon, not tarying the Lords opor∣tunitie as Dauid did, but following his owne ambition, he abused the prophetes message. Who although he tolde him that God woulde giue him ten tribes, yet he tolde him that Salomon shoulde raigne all his life time. But I will take the kingdome (saythe God by the Prophete vnto Ieroboam) oute of his sonnes hande, and will giue tenne Tribes to thee. &c. so that this serueth not Maister Saunders pur∣pose, to dispossesse the presente estate of the Prince lyuing. Neyther sayth the Prophet, he will doe it: neyther byddeth he Ieroboam to rebel, eyther against Salomon or his sonne, but he sayth, God him selfe would doe it. To the which sen∣tence and worke of God, Ieroboam ought to haue obeyed. Which in so much as he did not, he disobeyed God, and was a traytor to his Prince, and deserued death. Althoughe God by his secrete iustice, so punished Salomons séede, that he confirmed the Kingdome in Ieroboams handes, and made him a lawfull King. But in all these things here was no∣thyng done by the Prophete, but the foretelling of Gods purpose. Which notwithstanding, was enioyned hym, by Gods especiall commaundemente. For otherwyse, had he presumed thus of his owne heade, by reason of the authori∣tie of hys Propheticall office, whatsoeuer Salomen had de∣serued, he had for his parte béene but a •…•…rayterous Pro∣phete,

and so are all those Popishe Pastors and teachers, that teache subiectes to rebell against their Soueraignes, on pre∣tence of these examples. True Pastors and teachers by thys particular example, maye learne thus muche in generall, to teache Princes to feare God and dreade his Iustice, to be∣ware of Idolatrie and of ioyning themselu•…•…s in mariage, or in other leag•…•…es of friendship, wyth the enimyes of gods truth. As Salomon •…•…ell to Idolatrie by marying of Infi∣dels. Achab for ioyning in friendshippe with Benadab, was punished: and marying the wicked Iesabell did euen •…•…ell him selfe to wickednesse. Yea the good King Iosaphat, for ioyning in league with the wicked King Ochozias Achabs sonne, was reproued sharpely and his ships perished. These exam∣ples and suche other, ought good pastors and reachers to teach their Princes, and to set the wrathe of God before them, howe he will roote vp their houses, and destroye their king∣domes, if they feare not hym. Thus oughte good teachers by these examples to doe, but not they themselues to de∣pose theyr Princes, or to sette vp other, and stirre the people to rebellion. But Maister Saunders hath yet more examples.

To the same purpose pertayneth that Elias anoynted Asael King ouer Syria, and Iehu King ouer Israel, and Elizeus to be Prophet for himself, on that condition, that if any escaped the handes of Asahel, him should Iehu kill: But if any escaped the hands of Iehu, him should Elizeus kill.

If thys ensample pertayne to the same purpose, that doe the other of Samuels anoynting Dauid, and of Ahias foretellyng Ieroboam that he shoulde raygne: then per∣tayneth it not to your purpose, (Maister Saunders) for Byshoppes to depose Christian Princes, and to make their subiectes rebell againste them. For the other (as we haue alreadye playnely séene) are but manifestly and shamefully wrested therevnto. But nowe let vs sée, if thys example of Elias wyll serue your turne any better.

The argument is driuen to both these purposes, the one, for the anoynting of a new king: the other, for punishing of the former king. For y^e anointing of a new king, is alleaged, that Elias anoynted Asael King ouer Syria, and Iehu King ouer Is∣rael, and Elizeus to be the prophet for himselfe.

First I answere, as before, these are againe the expresse & particular cōmādemēts, of the Lord vnto Elias, giuing him a particular charge, that he should anoyut all these three. To stretch therfore the Lords particular charge to him, vnto a generall rule, without any expresse cōmandement of y Lord thervnto, is a daungerous & presumptuous abusing of Gods cōmandement. For without this especiall charge of God, E∣lias had no ordinarie authoritie, by vertue of his prophetical office, to haue done any thing herein, as the popish Bishops, without any particular commandement of God, take vpon them to do, by vertue of their Bishoply office.

Secondly I answere, that this anointing of these Kyngs, was not y^e real inuesting of them, in their royall estate, nei∣ther yet done by Elias him selfe, as euen your owne glosse noteth theron. Vnges Asahel. &c. Thou shalt anoynt Azahel: no otherwise but that he foretold him, that he shoulde be king in time to come. He anoynted Elizeus no otherwise, than by casting his cloake on him. The two Kings, neither he by him self, neithor Elizeus his disciple anoynted them, but one of the Prophets was sent to anoynt Iehu. And this Prophet in déede powred oyle on Iehu his head, and said, Thus saith the Lorde God of Israel, I haue anoynted thee King, ouer the people of the Lord of Israel. &c. Which fact and saying, as the Popish Bishops can not imitate, hauing no suche commission: so the other anoynting of Asael, was but a forewarning, like as the former facte of Ahias was to Ieroboam, and therefore serueth not this purpose, least of all the anoynting of Eli∣zeus, who was no King but a Prophete, and therefore is al∣leaged cleane oute of place, to inferre the present purpose of anoynting Kings.

But M. Sanders hathe a further fetche in naming Eli∣zeus. For thereby, as in Elias he thinkes to proue the set∣ting vp of kings: so in Elizeus he would inferre their pul∣ling downe. For (sayth he) Elias annoynted Asael, Iehu, and Elizeus, on that condition, that if one escaped the handes of Asael, him shoulde Iehu kill: but if any escape the handes of Iehu, him shoulde Elizeus kill.

You falsefie the Scripture (M. Sanders) the words are not, that they shoulde be anoynted on that condition, that they should do these things: but the Lord statly foretelleth, that they shall do these things. Et erit quicun{que} fugerit. &c. And it shall be, that whosoeuer escapeth from the sworde of Asael, him shall Iehu kill: and he that escapeth the sworde of Iehu, him shall Elizeus kill. Wherevpon sayth Lyra, that Asaell and Iehu killed many Idolaters of Israell, is inough expressed after in the fourth booke. But that Elizeus killed any, is not read, but of two and fortie whome he cursed, wherevpon the Beares did teare them. But sayth Caietane, notwithstan∣ding nothing letteth, but that these thinges were fulfilled, euen as the letter foundeth, althoughe the execution be not written. So that if this slaughter of Elizeus be ment spiri∣tually, then it serueth not for bodily punishment, whiche is nowe the question. If it be ment bodily, as was the slaugh∣ter made by the Leuites, when they slewe aboue. 20000. for Idolatrie, and as Phinees stabbing with his dagger Zambri and Cozbi for their whoredome: then either of these, béeing particular charges, and especiall commaunde∣mentes, can not be stretched to the like example of bodily slaughter, to be committed by the Clergie nowe. Neyther the popishe Priestes (althoughe they be the chéefest authors of it) will pr•…•…tende that they will medle therein, but saye with the Priestes that put Christ to death, It is not lawfull for vs to kill any man. And to this purpose of a figuratiue killing, M. Sand driueth this example.

By which figure (sayth he) what else is signified, than that

many powers are set vp, and erected in the Churche of God, that that which is not done by one of them, may be done by another. Of whiche powers, the laste and chiefest is that whi∣che belongeth to the Prophets, that is, towards them that are the Pastors and teachers of the Churche of God. For as the sworde of Elizeus is reckoned in the laste place, as whiche no man can escape, althoughe he escape the sworde of Asaell, or of Iehu: so the censure of the spirituall power can by no meanes be auoyded, althoughe any escape the sworde of the secular power. For the spirituall power vseth not the bodi∣ly or visible sworde, whiche by certayne meanes may be let, but vseth the sworde of the spirite, that passeth throughe all places, and pierceth euen to the soule of him whome it rea∣cheth.

First, M. Sanders, you do more than you can well iusti∣fie, to wring this facte, to this figuratiue signification of this spirituall sworde. For if Elizeus did strike, or cause to be striken the remnāt of those Idolaters with a bodily sword, as dyd Asael and Iehu, hauing for warrant Gods especiall commaundement therevnto: then is your figure dashed. But whether he did this or no, you sée the iudgement of Cardinall Caietane, and we sée the examples of the Le∣uites, of Phinees, and the killing of Agag by Samuel. And the like of Elias, in killing the Priests of Baal. euen in the Chapter going before. He brought them to the brooke •…•…i∣son, and killed them there. Elias (sayth Lyra) killed them by the people, that to this purpose assisted him, or perhaps he killed some of them, with his owne hande, by the zeale of Gods iustice, and so Samuel is read to haue killed Ameleck. But vnderstanding the killing thus, bicause these especial∣ties are not to be drawne by any ordinary exāple in the spi∣ritual pastors: let vs now admit the figure of the spirituall sworde that M. San. driueth this killing vnto. Do you know what this spiritual sworde is (M. Sand) that you speake on. Thinke you it is to cōmaund others to fight against kings,

and to murther their subiects? If it be true (whiche you af∣firme) that none can escape it, & that it pierceth the soule: they might escape this sworde by many meanes, as you say. So that it is not the exercise of such a sword, nor the bidding of such a sworde to be exercised. And howe chaunce then your popes do exercise it, & you contende héere for it, and alleage all these examples, & yet pretend (cleane cōtrarie herevnto) the only spiritual sword? Whereas in very déede, ye ought to vse none other, euen as your owne Glosse saith hereon▪ No∣centes iustitia. &c. The diuine iustice causeth some offenders to be punished with the edge of the sword, by kings: other it stri keth through with the tongue, by Prophets and Priests. To punish therfore with the bodily sworde, belongeth onely to Princes & their officers, and not to the Pope & his Prelats. Wherfore your Pope both lieth and vsurpeth in clayming both swords: and your selfe confute him, that say, you haue the onely spiritual sword: and also contrarie your selfe, sithe the deposition of Princes from their royall estate, belongeth to the secular, not to the spiritual sword. Which belongeth to the spirite, & is only of the soule, & is suche as none can es∣cape. And therfore your own self cōfute your self, applying y^e power of the spiritual pastors, to the deposing of princes frō their kingdomes. For they may well inoughe escape your popes tyrannie, as they do (God be praised for it) better thā héeretofore some Princes haue done. And as for his curses, which also he calleth his spiritual sword, béeing not only no∣thing like the spiritual sword that God hath appointed, but cleane contrarie thervnto: Princes shal escape them well inough: yea, God himself doth belsse them, as fast as y^e pope dothe curse them. But master Sanders, to proue that they can neuer escape thys sworde, saythe Elizeus sworde is reckoned in the laste place, and the laste he calleth héere the chiefest. But howe agréeth this, with that he sayde before, of the firste place? There, he woulde proue the Priests authoriti•…•… chiefest, bicause he is reckoned in the first

place. And héere he would proue the Priests sworde chie∣fest, bicause it is reckoned in the laste place. And if it were reckoned in the middle place then would be haue proued it also the chiefest, bicause that In medio consistit virtus, Vertue consisteth in the middle place. And thus be the Priest, or a∣ny thing belonging to the Priest, reckoned in the first place, in the middle place, or in the last place, that is still an argu∣ment with M. Sanders, of the best and chiefest place. But nowe to proue yet better the force of this sworde, M. Sand. procéedeth, saying:

Moreouer to this spiritual sword, the other material sword obeieth, whiche also taketh punishment of him, that setteth him selfe agaynst the spirituall sworde. For Elias by the sword of the spirite, that is, by his prayers, commaunded the fire to descende from heauen, and consume those captaines of fiftie, that despising the spirituall power of the Prophet, saide vnto him in the name of the earthly power: thou man of God, the king commaundeth thee to descende. And agayne: thus saith the king, make haste and come downe. For these Captaynes of fiftie trusted so well in their earthly power, that is, so well in the number of souldiors that were vnder them, as in the authoritie of the King, for whome they were sent on message, and in respect of this power, they despised that spiritual po∣wer, that Elias was endued withall, And therefore with moc∣king saluted him, the man of God. But when at the worde of Elias the fire came down from heauen, and deuoured those two Captaynes, and their twice fiftie men that were with them: the thirde Captayne of fiftie beeing sent of Ochozias the king, acknowledged the sworde of Elias, and therefore commaunded not him (as the other had done) but besoughte him, and sayde: O man of God, dispise not my life, and the lyues of thy seruauntes that are with me. But what is it, that the Prophet regarded not to obey the kings commaunde∣ment, but that he him selfe in that cause was greater than the king, and that he taught, euen by the thinges them selues, the

spirituall power of the Church to be greater than the earthly? For neither yet, beeing moste humbly desired of the thirde Captaine of fiftie, he came downe to the king, before the Angell of the Lorde bad him not feare, but go downe. For he sat in the toppe of a mountaine (that is) in the chiefest place of the Church. VVhich place the earthly king •…•…ughte rather to haue honored for Christ, whose person Elias did beare, thā by authoritie to commaunde, that the man of God, leauing his chaire, should come as a subiecte to the king. For we reade also that Ambrose complayned, that he being a Bishop, stoode among them of the Consistorie. And said vnto the Emperor: if thou haddest acknowledged me, thou wouldest not see me in this place. Not that I denie the Prophets and Pastors of the Churche to be subiects to the king, so farre as their goodes and bodies: but I contende, that their power is not onely e∣quall, but higher than the kings owne iurisdiction is, so often as the soules saluation is in hande. For neither must we be ig∣norant of that, that Elias therefore would not obey Ochozi∣as the king, but rather killed his captaynes and his souldiors, bicause the king beeing sicke asked counsell, not of the Lords Prophet, but of Beelzebub the God of Accaron. If therefore any king fal obstinately into heresie or schisme, the Bishop and Prophet shall not onely not obey him, but also punishe him, not only denying vnto him the spiritual goods▪ but also in taking away his corporal goods, after a due sort and order. But it was vnworthy for the person of Elias, for to kill with his owne handes, a hundred and two souldiors of the kinges: and therefore with his onely worde he spake, and fire came downe from heauen, that deuoured those two Captaines of fiftie with their souldiors.

Master Sanders hauing now referred this sworde of E∣lizeus, to the figure of the spirituall sworde: will proue both that it is aboue the kinges s•…•…cular power, and also destroy∣eth them that resiste it. But firste hys proues for the su∣perioritie of th•…•…se swordes, is neyther belonging to this

present purpose, nor we contende about it, but willingly graunt the stroke of the worde of God, to be the greater stroke, & Elias in that case to be greater than the king also, and the spirituall power to be greater than the earthly power, and that the spirituall power may spiritually punish the resisters of it. But that the ordinary spirituall power of the Priests or Prophets, may depose the ordinary secular power of Kings & Princes: that the pastors spiritual sword, may strike the secular sworde out of the Magistrates hande, to whome it is of God committed: that the spiritual power may of his own nature punish Princes with bodily punish∣ment, and take their state and kingdomes from them, and cause their subiects to rebel agaynst them: This we vtter∣ly denie, and this is the very question. Now héerto is allea∣hed the facte of Elias, sitting in the mount, who prayed to God that fire might consume the wicked kings messangers that derided the Prophets, and would by force haue setched him to the king.

To this I answere, first, for this king, he resembleth no protestant Prince, but rather the popish Princes, who not onely beeing sicke as Ochozias was, but also in healthe, (as thoughe there were no God in Israell) séeke not to the onely liuing Lorde, to Christ the onely sauiour and mediatour, but to Idols, as Ochozias did to Eeelzebub: and woulde murther the Prophets of God, that reproue them for it, as Elias did.

Secondly, for Elias, he sat not on the toppe of the moun∣taine, to signifie the chiefest place of the church, which chie∣fest place he tooke not vpon him. And do not your selfe as∣cribe the chiefest place of the Church to the highe Priest or Bishop? Or was the Prophet thē aboue the chiefe Priest, or intruded he into the high Priests place? or were both in the chiefest place, and so your Pope claymes the chiefest place of the church from both of them? True it is, that in his time Elias was the chiefest instrument that God vsed in the r•…•…∣formation

of the Church, yet neither tooke he vpon him the chiefest place of the Churche, nor exalted him selfe aboue the king, nor deposed him, or his father, or any other prince, howe wicked soeuer they were, nor incited other to rebell agaynst them. And this you should proue that Elias did, or else ye stray from your question.

Thirdly, for this facte of Elias, I answere as before. It is no ensample for vs to followe the like. Neither did Elias vse it ordinarily in his defence, but vpon especiall occasion God by his iustice defended thus his Prophet, and reuenged the contumelie, wherwith they scorned not onely him, but God, in destroying those wicked deriders after suche a ter∣rible & miraculous sorte. Not for that they were the kings ministers, but for that they assented to the kinges crueltie: and besides (béeing Idolaters) they scorned the power of God in him, in calling him in derision, The man of God. For so sayth Lyra: Cognouit autem. &c. Elias knewe by reuelation, that in mockage he called him the man of God, and was con∣senting to the king in the sinne of Idolatry, and in the punish∣ment of Elias, and likewise they that were with him, and that herevpon by the sentence of God they were to be punished: for the which cause he pronounced the diuine sentence. So that the striker héere was God, Elias onely pronounced the sentence of Gods iustice. Neither dyd he any thing héere∣in, but by the especiall motion of God. He woulde not come downe (as master Saunders therein saythe true) no not at the moste humble entreatie of the thirde Captayne, tyll the Angell of GOD badde hym not feare, but goe downe. Wherevpon saythe Caietane: Vide, actiones E∣liae. &c. See, the actions of Elias are gouerned by the An∣gels direction in euery poynt, that is to saye, so well his out∣warde as his inwarde motions.

Wherby we may sée that he did not this facte by any or∣dinarie iurisdiction of his Propheticall office, but by the

especiall direction of God, whiche can not, nor oughte to be drawne into example, for other to do or wishe the like.

Fourthly, this example to follow Elias héerein, is of all other flatly forbidden to the Disciples of Christ. For when y^e Samaritanes would not receiue Christ into their Citie, Iames and Io•…•…n sayde, Lorde, wil•…•…e thou that we commaunde that fire come downe from heauen, and consume them, euen as Elias did? But Iesus turned about, a•…•…d rebuked them, and sayde: ye knowe not of what spirite you are. For the sonne of man is not come to destroy mens liues, but to saue them. Nowe this example of the seuere iustice of God, thus desired of them, and they reproued by Christ for desiring the lyke, M. Sanders resumeth for his Bishops authoritie. Wherby it appeareth, he knoweth not of what spirite Christian Bi∣shops ought to be, and that Popishe Bishops are of another spirite than Christ is of. For Christ came not to kill Prin∣ces, to fire their townes, to burne their people, and depose Kinges from their kingdomes: to whiche drifte all this is spoken.

Lastly, I denie this drift & consequence of the example.

Elias prayed that fire might consume them from heauen.

Ergo, Christian Bishops ought to take away the corporall goodes of Hereticall and Schismatical Princes.

If the conclusion had béene thus: Ergo, they mighte pray that God would take their corporal goods away: it had béene a more likely and a more tollerable conclusion. Howbeit this also is forbidden, to pray to haue their corporal goodes taken away. It were their dutie rather to pray, y^e they might better vse them, & that God woulde either conuert them, or otherwise at his good pleasure, stoppe their tyrannie. They ought not to pray for the taking away of any mans goodes, much lesse their Soueraignes goods, to whō your self•…•… con∣fesse, that they them selues are subiect, •…•…o farre as their goods and bodies. And then be they not ouer the goodes and bo∣dies of their Princes, béeing their subiectes, least of all

ought they, either by thēselues or by any other, to take their Princes goods and bodies from them: For that is not a sub∣iects but a traitors and a rebels part.

But saith M. Saunders they may take his bodily goods from their King so they doe it, debito modo & ordine, after a due maner and order.

He told vs thus before, but it is cleane beyond all good ma∣•…•…er, & against al due order, to take away any mannes goods, chiefely the Princes, yea and that the Bishops or priests to do it.

The example of S. Ambrose, complaining that y^e Empe∣ror mis•…•…sed him, is cleane against M. Saund that alleageth it for him. For S. Ambrose tooke not the Emperors goods a∣way, nor deposed him, nor caused other to rebell against him: but for all the Emperors missusage of him, he continued stil in his obedience to the Emperor. Howbeit he told the Em∣peror of his dutie, and so should al godly Bishops do, and not attempte to depose their Princes, nor to stirre vp other to depose them.

Let vs now put the case (saith M. Saūders) that some man which was a Prince was present with Elias, who hauing recei∣ued the power of the sword, would haue offred himself to vse it for Elias. Or else let vs put the case, that it is said of Elias vnto him: bycause these souldiors contemne me, and in me God, whose prophete I am: rushe thou on them and kill them. Had now that Prince sinned, if at the word of Elias, he had killed the Kings subiectes? eyther else coulde not an earthly sword haue performed the same thing, that the ministerie of fire did yelde from heauen? Truly with wyse men it makes no matter, what is done of those things, that are of the same waight and mo∣ment. If fire be the more noble element than earthe, yea, or those metals that are digged oute of the earth: I see not but that he, who called fyre downe from heauen, which shoulde satisfie his commaundement, muche more coulde haue spo∣ken to a Magistrate bearing the sword, that he should pull out

and drawe that sword for him against any King.

Whatsoeuer you see not (Maister Saunders) you make all the world to see that you be of a viperous generation and adders broode, that cannot créepe forward by lying straight, but wynding and crooking in and oute, hether and thether. Sée howe you s•…•…ill séeke shiftes whereby to procéede, when by the directe Scripture your cause will not goe forward. You fall to putting of cases once agayne. Put case the scrip∣ture had sayde thus: Put case Elias had done this: Put case another had done that. What a warbling is this? If you will alleage the Scripture, take the Scripture direct∣ly as it lyes. Put no more cases to the Scripture, than the Scripture puttes. Are you wyser than God, or not as false as the olde Serpent, that in tempting Eue, altered the wordes of God? But this argueth, that the Scripture it self fitteth not your turne, except you may turne and alter it as you will.

You pretende it is no matter wyth wise men what is done of those things, that are of the same waight and moment. As whether these men were kylled by the fire or by the sword, sith they were killed. But are these punishmentes all one (Maister Saunders) to haue bene striken with the sworde of a man, and to be consumed with fire from God? in déede as you saye, here is death in both, which is the same thing: but are their kindes of death, and punishmentes, of the same waight and moment? When the foure Kings slewe the So∣domites, and when God raigned downe •…•…ire and brimstone from heauen to s•…•…ay the Sodomites: when Saul (as Maister Saunders sayde before) killed the Priests, and when God kylled the Priests with fire from heauen: is here nothing in these deathes, but the difference of the more noble ele∣ment? Surely it séemeth Maister Saunders you haue bene so long in Rome, that you are become Inglese Italia nato, so worldly wyse, that you haue no feare of Gods vengeance, that thus measure it by mannes punishment. There is a

great difference (Maister Saunders) in the waight and mo∣ment of these punishmentes, not onely to shewe the heauier wrathe of God, but also to shewe, that althoughe Elias de∣sired it, on suche specialties as is aforesayde: yet the punish∣ment was onely from God, not from Elias, he had not the fire at his commaundemente, but God sento the fire vpon them, which maketh another greater difference of the case, besides other sundry differences, that cleane do alter it. For it is not likely that Elias woulde euer haue set another Prince, vpon his owne Princes subiectes, or styrre anye rebellion against his Prince, howe sharpely soeuer he re∣buked him for hys sinnes. He neither spared King Achab, nor Quéene Iesabell, nor their sonne Qchozias, but boldly reproued them. But as for deposing them or mouing other Princes to depose them, or to kill either them or their peo∣ple: he neuer dyd it, nor euer shewed anye t•…•…ken of lyking suche doyng, and therefore we oughte not to presuppose any such thing of him. These things he did, he killed the Pries•…•…s of Baal, eyther by his bydding them to be killed, or as Lyra sayth, propriamanu, he kylled some of them with his owne hande. And here he besoughte God take this vengeance on these wicked souldiers, and this he dyd by the •…•…stincte of God. The other, that you put the case for, we finde no suche dede, nor haue any such warrant, and without such warrant from God, they should sauor of treason to the Prince, and so make a great alteration of the case, to serue your purpose, and wreste the Scripture, and therefore are not to be ad∣mitted.

But although (saith M. Sand.) Princes of this world see not the power of this spirituall sworde, notwithstanding if at the prayer of Elizeus, God vouchsafe to open their eyes▪ they shal see moe armies with the B. thā with any Emperor. For behold the mountaine full of horses & of firie charets round aboute Elizeus. But when the King of Israel seeyng the greatnesse of the fa•…•…ine, sware that the heade of Elizeus shoulde not

stande vpon him that daye: Elizeus that knewe this othe of the King to be vnlawfull, foreseyng in the spirite, the messen∣ger to be at hande, that shoulde execute the Kings commaun∣dement: he sayde vnto the elders that were with him, knowe ye not how this murtherers sonne hath sent to take away mine heade: take he•…•…de therfore, when the messenger cōmeth, shut the dore, and set him not enter. Yea Sanctes Pagninus so ex∣poundes these later woordes, oppresse him in the dore. By which wordes, not onely the shutting out of the Kings messen∣ger is signified, but also a certayne violence done vnto him. All which I haue broughte to this ende, that I mighte shewe that the pastors of the Churche, haue power not onely ouer the soules of the faythfull, but also ouer their bodyes and goods, so often as the soules health maye be promoted there∣by. For we know also, that two beares comming out of the woode, dyd •…•…eare in peeces •…•…ortie and two of those Chil∣dren that mocked Elizeus. VVhereby also is declared, that all the creatures of God aryse, to reuenge their iniuries, whome God hath adorned with spirituall power. And truely when good Kings wanted, that woulde reuenge the contume∣ly done to the pastors of the Churche, the element of fire and the wilde beasts toke that care on them.

We had before, the example of Elias, and then of Eli∣zeus, and then againe of Elias, and nowe agayne of Eli∣zeus. Of whom three things are here alleaged. The first, that Elizeus had greater power to defende hym, than the Kyng of Syria to oppugne hym. The seconde, when the Kyng of Israell sente to kill him, he caused the messenger violentlye to be kept oute of the dore. The thirde, when the children of Bethel mocked him, he cursed them, and straight wild beares destroyed them.

To the first I answere, it is impertinent to y^e purpose of deposing Princes, or seazing on their tēporall goods & king∣domes, or causing their subiectes to reuolte from their obedi∣ence. Elizeus did none of these thinges, neither can this de∣fence

of Elizeus without racking, be drawne hereto.

But M. Sand. •…•…aith, he bringeth it to this ende, to shevve that the Pastors of the Churche haue povver, not onely ouer the soules of the faithfull, but also ouer their goods & bo∣dies.

If you bring it to this ende, M. Sand. then as you bring it about the bushe, and not directly to the question in hande: so here youfoully ouer shoot your selfe. For this Prince was not a faithfull, but an Infidell Prince, and the enimie of the Prince of Israell. And therefore inuading with open hostili∣tie the Princes dominion of Israell: it was lawfull for any Israelite, to do the worste he could to destroye the Syrians armie. Howbeit, Elizeus gathered no power, nor vseth any worldly violence against this foraine Princes armie, as the Pope doth against foraine Princes, to come vpō them with horsses and charets, and with a mightie armie, like to this infidell Prince of Syria, to besiege Christian Princes and the true Israelites, and to destroy the Prophetes of Iesus Christ, that giue Christian Princes warning of the Popish practises. So that if a figure may be drawne from this histo∣rie, to our times: the Pope more resembleth Benedab, than Elizeus. As for Elizeus, gathered no worldly power, but with stedfast confidence commended himselfe to God, and God protecte•…•… him with Millions of Angels. He had power indéede to defends him, and moe Armies than hath any Em∣peror, as M. Saunders •…•…aith. But this power was spirituall, and not such as the Pope exerciseth ouer Princes. Woulde the Pope séeke 〈◊〉〈◊〉 other power than Elizeus did: then might you M. Sanders put vp your pipes, this controuersie were at an ende, for deposing Princes. No, M. Saunders, all Princessée, yea, euen those that are blinded with affec∣tion towardes him, do sée, that he séeketh & hath such power, as Benadab had, and greater worldly power also. For the maintenance whereof, you here do contende by wryting, as fast as he contends by fighting. But this was not the power

of Elizeus•…•… If you will sée a platforme of Elizeus power, looke vpō the poore Ministers of the gospel, inuironed round about with your popish armies, horses, & charets, in so much that the poore simple man, cryeth out as Elizeus seruant did: Alas master hovve shall vve doe? the Popishe Benadab hath besieged the poore Protestantes with such mightie aru•…•…es, that all the world would haue thought ere this, they should haue ben cleane swallowed vp. But God be blessed, poore Elizeus hath moe armies▪ the poore preachers of the Gospell haue moe Legions of Angels, and moe spirituall fyrie cha∣r•…•…ts and horsmen to assist them, against al that assault them, than that yet they coulde euer preuaile, but are (as was the hoste of Benadab, striken more and more with blindnesse. For & they 〈◊〉〈◊〉 not blinded, they must néeds sée this migh∣tie worke of God, that all whose eyes God hath opened, doe beholde, and glorifie God, and feare not any more the hoste of this Benadab, for they that be vvith vs are moe, than they that be vvith them. But sée howe this Captaine of Benadab that is blind himself, wolo so blind vs with him, y^t he would make vs beléeue, that euen Benadab himself were Elizeus. But doth the Pope vse his captiues as Elizeus did, who suf∣fered not them to be killed nor spoyled, but comforted and refreshed them, & set them againe at libertie? No, M. Sand. we are not so blind, but we & al the world doth sée, that as y^e Pope fights with other man•…•… of armies, than did Elizeus: so he vseth to his captiues no such mercie, but more tygerly crueltie, than we should finde at the Turks hands, than the Turkes found at y^e hands of Tamerlanes the Scithian, thā is to be found among the Canibals, that roast men on a spit being killed before, and not •…•…rye them at a stake aliue: yea, than a man shal finde among the Sauage Beares and Lyons that woulde quickly deuoure him. Suche dispyte hath the Pope shewed euen to his owne Cardinalles, where Elizeus shewed this goodnesse to his enimies. And when he had them in his frée choyce to haue kylled them, he

let them goe frée. Whereas the Pope to kill his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 be∣ing frée, hath violated all safecondui•…•…, and broken all othes, bends, promises, faith and honestie. And is the Pope yet like Elizeus? But how holds this argument? Elizeus had more povver than the hoste of the Syrians: Ergo, Byshoppes haue power to depose Princes.

The second thing that M. Sand▪ noteth in Elizeus, is the excluding of King Iorams Messanger, that was scute to cut off his head. This factdrawes somewhat nearer to the pur∣pose in respect of the King, for he was the King of Israel, to whom Elizeus was a subiect: but this again is as far from the purpose, in respecte of the Kings crueltie and Idolatrie, wherein Ioram figureth Popish, & not Protestant Princes. But in respect st•…•…l of the present cōtrouersie, it is nothing to y^e purpose at al for the kings deposing. For how foloweth this?

He bad them kepe the Kings seruant out, that vvould haue come to cut off his head:

Ergo, he bad them depose the King from his royal estate.

And here M. Sanders vrgeth the force of Elizeus words. Sanctes Pagninus (saith he) translateth thus these later words, oppresse him in the dore. In vvhich vvordes is not only signi∣fied, a shutting out of the Kings Messanger, but also a kinde of violence done vnto him.

You néede not run to Pag•…•… M. Sanders, our translati∣ons confesse as much: premite eum in ostio, reprimite illum in ostio, presse him in the dore, or rather represse him, than oppresse him. For oppressing draweth nearer to the murthering of him, which was farre from Elizeus meaning, and is nearer to the Popish violence. But the plaine meaning is, kepe him out of the dores, as y^e cōm•…•…n translation hath it. Neither is it material, though he were shut out before he came, or throng∣ing in before y^• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 were •…•…ul shut, he were violently thrust out again. For this was not done of thē to resist y^e •…•…ings au∣thoritie, nor 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to be done of him 〈◊〉〈◊〉 shew that he had such powero•…•… his goods & bodie, y^t he might take his goods or his

life fro•…•… him: but this that was here done, was to preserue himselfe being the Prophete of God, from the Kings vniust violence, and from the hastie furie of the cruell murtherer, whome the King sent to kill him, without all lawe, iustice, or reason, onely vpon the suddain passion of his outrage. As for the Prophete, he had especiall warrant by Gods especial reucaling, so to bidde them, and therefore the Prophete bid nothing amisse herein. Yea, he knewe well inough, that al∣thoughe he resisted the Kings messanger, yet he resisted not the King, but euen therein obeyed the King, and did that he would haue had him to do. For the King immediatly repen∣ting him of his wicked othe and hastie crueltie, came himself (as it séemeth by the text) in all hast after the Messanger, to stay his hande, and to let the Prophet of God alone, acknow∣ledging his offence, and that his punishment was euen the hande of God. Nowe Elizeus (by reuelation) knowing of all this: what did he in bidding them resiste the Messanger, but euen obey the Kings will? and therefore when he had them kéepe him out, or offer him violence, if ye will néedes so ex∣pounde it: he sayth withall, is not the sounde of his masters féete behinde him? and this was the verie cause why he bad them do so. Let him enter, cuius causa subditur. &c. (saith Lyra) the cause vvhereof is annexed, for beholde the sounde of his Masters feete is after him, for after the departure of the Mes∣sanger, Ioram repented, and therefore he followed him to re∣uoke the precept. And faith Caitane, That they should bold∣ly resist the Kings messanger, he foretelleth thē, that the King follovved his Messanger, repenting that hee sent him. And therefore the King follovved the Messanger, bycause he re∣pented that he had commaunded, that Elizeus head shoulde be cut off, for he came to himself againe, and came personally to moue his complaint before Elizeus. Nowe all this that should haue lightned the master, M. Sand▪ concealeth, and cuts off this sentence of Elizeus in the middle, taking no further thereof, than he thought he might wreste to séeme to

serue his purpose, after such maner as the Deuill cited scrip∣ture against Christ. Whereas the whole sentence set down, and the storye considered, it maketh cleane against him. Ne∣uerthelesse had Elizeus, on the especiall will and reuealing of God, done otherwise, it had made nothing for him.

The thirde example of Elizeus, maketh least of all to the purpose. Bycause Elizeus cursed the children that scorned him, and they by Gods iust vengeaunce, were destroyed by Beares: that therfore he euer attempted to depose the King, or sollicited his subiectes to rebel against him. This conclu∣sion is to farre fetched. And yet that whiche Elizeus there did, doing it in the name of the Lorde, and by reuelation of the Lorde, pronouncing the sentence of Gods iustice vpon them (as Lyra saith) can no more be leuelled to an ordinarie rule, than the fire that came downe at the petition of Elias. Neither dothe the Popish•…•… glosse, or Lyra gather thereon, that Byshops might cause their Princes subiectes to be de∣stroyed that mocke them: but they make this a figure of Christe. Mystice exponendo. &c. In expounding this mystical∣ly, Elizeus going vp to Bethell, signifieth Iesus Christe ascen∣ding to his Crosse, vvhome the levves mocked, according to the texte of the Gospell. For the vengeance vvhereof, tvvo Beares came aftervvarde into Iurie, to vvit, Titus and Vespa∣sian, and killed the people fortie yeres after the passion of the Lorde, for reuenge of the contu•…•…elie done vnto him. This figure your owne commentaries make hereon But I haue not read, that any maketh it serue for Byshops to depose Princes, but for Princes to depose wicked Byshoppes, that crucifie Christe in his members, and deride the simplicitie of the Gospel. Who rather than they should remaine vnpu∣nished, God will styrre vp heathen Princes to punishe thē, as he did these Beares, and flashe downe fyre from heauen to destroye al those Priestes, that offer strange fyre to God: and will styrre vp all his creatures, to reuenge the iniuries done to his Saints & Ministers, vvhere good Princes want,

(as you say) that should reuenge the same. But then freuible you, ye cruel papists, y^t haue done so many outrages to Gods Ministers, and haue shed so much blood of his Saintes, that ye shall neuer flée Gods héauie vēgeance, howsoeuer good kings do vvant. Though you abuse Kings to be executioners of your cruelties, whose duetie (by your owne confession) were to punish such iniuries. Whiche if they woulde better looke vnto, and put in practise, they should so litle feare your deposings of them, that they would depose euery one of you.

And thus, as all your examples make nothing for you, so euery one of them maketh so muche againste you, that it sée∣ineth as these Syrians were so blinded, that séeking to take Elizeus, they were ledde they wist not whither, euen into Samaria, and were themselues taken of their enimies: so you seeking to take the Ministers of God, & to take y^e Christi∣an Princes power from him, to bring all to your holy father Benadab, are so blynded in framing your arguments, y^t you blunder on such examples, as still make cleane against you.

But novve after the acceptable time is come, vvherein are many Christian Kings, of vvhom some alvvays obey the Vi∣cars of Christe: there is novve no neede of myracles, or of the ministerie of creatures vvanting reason, sithe there vvante not faithfull Princes, vvhich may performe and execute this. For sith Zacharie the Prophete of God hath foretolde, that so great a fountain of grace should be opened to al, after the cō∣ming of Christ, that euē ones father & mother should thrust him through, vvhom they should vnderstand to speake a lye: hovv muche more at this day, shal there not vvant those, that shall not suffer him to liue, vvhom they shall perceiue, that he vvill not obey the high Priests cōmandement. For the power of the Ministers of Christ is so much higher, than the povver of the Priests of the Leuitical kind, by how much difference, Iustice, Spirit, & life, that we minister, excel dānatiō, the letter, & deth, which things the leuitical priests by occasiō ministred.

If there wanted Christian Kings and faithful Princes thē,

and yet the Prophets then deposed not the wicked Princes, nor set vp new Princes, but rather, cōmitted the vengeance to God, that punished Idolaters, by the ministerie of crea∣tures vvanting reason, vvhere there vvanted faithfull Princes to do it: with what face can you (M. Sanders) alledge these examples, for the Pastors deposing of Kings? whiche are so flat arguments against it, that where Christian Kings, and faithfull Princes vvant, to punishe Idolaters and deriders of Gods Ministers, there Christian Pastors should commit the vengeance to God, rather thā attēpt to depose those vnfaith∣full Princes, which no faithfull Prophete did.

But now (say you) are many Christiā Princes, of vvhō some alwayes obey the Vicar of Christe. For so ye call your Pope.

Whether the Pop•…•… be Christes, or Sathans Uicar, is an other questiō, M. Sano. Whether any Christian Kings obey him, is somwhat nearer to the purpose, although not directly to the question here in hande. But if this be true, that there are many Christian Kings, of whome some alwayes obey the Pope: then are there also many Christian King, of whome some neuer obeye the Pope. And if they maye be Christian Kings; that neuer obey the Pope, as were the Emperors of Greece, the Christian Kings in Asia, Affrica, and the North∣east partes of Europe, that neuer obeyed him, and yet are Christian Kings: then is not the obedience of the Pope ne∣cessarie to christianitie, else, not some, but al Christian kings obey him, & he y^t obeyed him not, were no Christian King.

But novv (say you) there is no neede of myracles.

Then (say I) there is no need of such examples. But if you deny the need of myracles, why doth your Churche pleade vpon them, & abuse the world so much by them? what? be you become a Bogomile M. Sant? nay then, I wilturne you lose to M. Stapl. But why wil you not stand on myracles now?

Nowe (say you) want not faithful Princes, whiche may per∣forme and execute all this.

Then (say I) faithfull Princes haue authoritie to destroy false Pastors, and not false Pastors, no nor true Pastors,

to destroy neyther faythfull, nor yet vnfaythfull Princes.

You cite the Prophecie of Zacharie, That so great a foū∣taine of grace shoulde be open to all, after the comming of Christe, that euen ones father and mother should thrust him through, vvhome they should vnderstande to speake a lye.

Tru•…•…, M. Saunders, suche a prophecie there is in déede. But had your selfe not bene giltie in your conscience, to haue bene one of these lyers that the Prophete speaketh of, you would not thus haue snatched at the sentence, here and ther a piece, like the Egiptian Dogge that M. Stapleton telleth vs of, drinking in Nilus ryuer, and dare not drinke a full draught, for feare he be caught by the lyppes. And so woulde you be caught by those lying lippes of yours, if you hadde so fully set downe the prophecie, that the Reader might haue perceiued who the lier is. The wordes are these: In that day there shall be a fountaine opened to the house of Dauid, and to the inhabitants of Hierusalem, for sinne, and for vn∣cleannesse. And in that daye, saith the Lord of Hostes, I vvill cut off the names of the Idols out of the land, & they shall no more be remembred. And I vvil cause the Prophetes and the vncleane spirites to depart out of the lande. And vvhen any shall yet prophecie, his father and his mother that begat him, shall say vnto him, thou shalt not liue, for thou speakest lies in the name of the Lorde. And his father and his mother that begat him, shall thrust him through, vvhen he prophecieth, and in that daye shal the Prophetes be ashamed euery one of his vision, when he hath prophecied. Neither shall they weare a rough garment to deceiue, but he shal say, I am no Prophet, I am a husbandman. For man taught me to be an herdman, from my youth vp. And one shall say vnto him, vvhat are these vvoundes in thy handes? then shall he ansvvere, thus vvas I vvounded in the house of my friendes.

By this sentence it appeareth, that by this lier, is not ment a Prince, but a false Prophete. Whereby you can not infer the present question, that Priestes may punishe Princes,

but y^e contrary, y^t Princes may punish priests, may wel be in∣ferred theron. For by y^e fathers & mothers thrusting through, is not ment priuate punishment, eche one to kil another, nor y^t •…•…his thrusting through belongeth to the Priests, who take vpon thē to be the Prophets themselues, & to whose calling killing belōgeth not, but it appertaineth to Kings & Quéens, to ciuil Princes & Magistrats, that are the fathers & mothers. of gods people, & •…•…o whom of right (as hauing the sword from God) the punishment of false Prophets appertaineth. But who be these false prophets (M. Saunders) that the Prince shall punishe? First, all they which denie that fountayne of grace, to be the only washing away of sinne and vncleannesse. Whether your Pope, your Prelats, and you, seke not other things, besides this fountain of grace, for the washing awaye of sin & vncleannesse: all the world knoweth, and your owne practise & confessions (as is before proued to M. Stapleton) charge you therwith. Secondly, these false prophets are those that mainteine Idolatrie: which whether the popishe Priests maintaine or no, as it is so apparant, that no figge lease can hyde it, so we haue harde your owne testimonies openly cō∣fesse it. Thirdly, the false prophets are they, that teach lyes in the name of the Lorde, which what is it else, but to teache o∣ther doctrines, as necessarie to saluation, than Christ and his Apostles taught, their owne traditions and constitutions in the steade of the worde of God. Howe this also toucheth the Popishe pastors, besides the apparance therof, we haue hard alreadie their owne witnesse. Fourthly, these false Pro∣phetes were such, that for their blinde, and grosse ignorance they were more fitte to goe to carte than to schole, to holde the plowe than to holde the place of a pastor, suche blinde guides leadyng the blynde, that a Childe scarce seuen yeere olde, can giue more readily a better aunswere of the Chri∣stian fayth, than many a Popishe Priest, yea than some Doctors in diuinitie, of twentie yeares continnance coulde haue done. Fiftly, these false Prophetes were such hipocrits

as with counterfeit austeritie with sacke & hearecloth, with linsywoo•…•…ie, with long & graue disguised & prescribed rough garments, haue borne to the simples eyes the counse•…•…ance of holy fathers and onely religious men.

These (M. Saunders) these are the lyers, these are y^e false prophets, that the true Prophet Zatharie here describeth, & foretelleth of their destruction: How the fountaine of grace should be opened that you had stopped: howe the death of Christ, & not such meanes as you had deuised, should wash a∣way all sinnes and vncleanneste: how your Idolacrie should be pulled downe, & the very names of your Idols become odious: How your lyes & forgeries should be espied: howe Princes should punishe you euē to death: how you should be so atha∣med of your lyes & trumperies, that you should cast of your cowles & hyde your markes for shame, & say you were neuer Priests, Monkes, nor Friers, but husbandmen▪ All which how it hath come to passe, all the worlde séeth, and many of your owne side haue confessed, and be ashamed, and cry God mercie, and haue forsaken their superstitious prelaties, and haue chosen rather to liue like husbandmen, than to deceiue the people and abuse gods name with lies any longer. And if this prophecie haue not wrought this effect in you, but that you remaine yet a shamelesse lying Prophet, and would ob∣stinately •…•…naintaine these things: it is a shrewd token you be giuen vp to a reprobate sense, & are blynded by gods righte∣ous Iustice, for refusing his mercie, and that godly Princes should runne you through, and execute the seueritie of gods iustice vpon you.

Now all this that detected you to be these lying prophets, and that shewed the Princes authoritie and office to punishe you, as you steightly passe it ouer, so you wreste it cleane to another purpose, as though they shuld be runne through that would not obey the Pope. For so you apply it, saying: How much more shall there not want at this day, that will not suffer him to liue, whom they shall perceiue will not obey the com∣maundement

of the highest Priest. And as you put this in di∣stinct letters, so you quote for it, Deut. 17.

This place is often alleaged, and answered alreadie vnto in M. Stapleton, and is so shamefully wrested here by you, that if there were no other argument, euen the wresting of this prophe•…•…ie would argue you to be one of these lying pro∣phetes, that should be runne through for abusing the worde of God. As thoughe that lawe tooke yet place among vs, that was appointed for that time to the Iewes: or as though those matters betwéene blood and blood, plea and plea, plague and plague, in causes of controuersie among the Iewes, were matters of Religiō then, or are to be stretched to all matters of faith now: or as though those matters were determined by the onely high priest then, and not by the iudge and Ciuil Magistrate, asking counsel of the Priests, and giuing iudge∣ment by his owne authoritie, make not rather for the obedi∣ence to the Ciuill Magistrates, than to the obedience of the Priests: or as though Zacharie prophecying of the state af∣ter y^e comming of Christ, did meane there should be one chief B. besides Christ, whose commaundement all Princes, all Bishops, al people in Christendome should obey, or else they should be thrust through and killed. In déede (M. Saunders) Zacharie speaketh a little before of a pastor that shuld come which liuelie discribeth your Pope.

And the Lord (saith Zacharie) said vnto me, take yet vnto thee, the instrument of a foolishe shepherd. For loe I will rayse vp a shepherd in the lande, which shall not looke for the thing that is lost, nor seke the tēder lābes, nor heale that that is hurt, nor feed that that standeth. But he shall eate the flesh of the fat, and teare their clawes▪ in pieces. O Idoll shepherde, that lea∣ueth the flocke, the sworde shall be vpon his arme, and vpon his right eye, his arme shal be cleane dried vp, and his right eye shal be vtterly darkned.

Who exerciseth this tirannie ouer all the people and the Princes too, eating them to the bones yea bones and all, de∣posing

them, destroying them, and pilling their kingdomes with insatiable extorsions, but the Pope▪ the Popishe glosses ascribe it to Antichrist, but they describe the Popes practi∣ses. A pastor in the land, (saith Lyra▪) that is, Antichrist to rule therein: that shall not visite the forsaken, that is, he shall do no worke of Godlynesse, but shalbe of greatest crueltie towarde the iust, and therefore he saith: and shall eate the fleshe of the fa•…•…e, that is, by spoyling of their goods: and teare their clawes, by afflicting and killing them. Againe what Pastor may bet∣ter be called in Idol than this Antichrist the Pope? That is called an Idol (saith Lyra) that is worshipped for God, and is not God. And so shall it be of Antichrist, that shall sitte in the Temple of God, as though he were God. 2. Thes, 2. O Pastor and Idol (saith the Glosse) thou arte so wicked, that thou shalt not be called a worshipper of Idols, but shalt be called an Idol, while thou wilt be worshipped of men. VVho leauest the flock to be denoured of beastes, that the Lorde had alwayes kepte. This pastor shall therfore arise in Israel, bicause the true pastor had said, I will not feede you. This pastor by another name is called, the abhominatiō of desolation, that shall sit in the tēple of God, as though he were God. Therefore the sworde of the Lord shalbe vpō his right arme, and vpō his right eye, that the force of him & al the boasting of his might, might be dried vp & withered away, & the knowledge that vnder a false name, he promised to himself, shalbe obsenred with eternall darkenesse. Here it is apparant, that Zacharie ment your high B. the Pope, but he so little threatneth thē that obey him not, that he curseth him & all thē that obey him, & threatneth the ven∣geance of God vpon him, to pull downe his tirannie, and to blind him. But I thinke (M. Sand.) that your right eye was blinded also, that sawe not this, or else you blinked at it, and would not sée it. For this would haue tolde you another ma∣ner of matter, than that be should be killed, that obeyed not the Popes commanding and would, hau•…•… made you afrayd, least this killing should light both vpon him and you.

But you go on and tell vs, that the authoritie of the mini∣sters of Christe, is so muche greater than the Priestes of the Leuiticall kinde, howe muche iustice, peace, and life, that we do minister, is better than damnation, the letter, and deathe, that the Leuiticall Priests ministred by occasion.

That the authoritie of Christes ministers is greater, we graunte, in suche things as belonge to their ministerie, that are Christes ministers. But whether it be greater in out∣warde glorie, is another matter. But be it great or lesse, where you thrust your selfe in the number, and say, that we do minister, you are but an intruder, M. Sand. For neither you, nor any popishe Priestes, are any of Christes mini∣sters, as is already proued, euen by your owne laste allega∣tion out of Zacharie. And if the ministration of iustice, the spirite and life, be the triall: your contentiōn is héere for se∣dition and rebellion, contrarie to iustice: for a worldly glo∣ry and earthly kingdome, contrarie to the spirite: for depo∣sing, killing and thrusting throughe of all those that wil not obey your Pope, contrarie to life. And so is your ministra∣tion worsse, than the ministration of the Leuiticall Priestes, who (you say) ministred these thinge not of purpose, but by occasion, but you séeke of purpose all occasion, thut you can finde, or snatche at and wrest, to minister matter for the de∣posing of Princes, for the rebellion of subiects, •…•… the mur∣ther of all estates, onely to mayntayne the pride and tyran∣nie of your Pope, aboue all Christian kings & kingdomes. Nowe that none of all these examples and testimonies will fadge no better, we shall haue once agayne the example of Ozias.

And yet (sayth M. Sand. in the Leuiticall Priesthood such heigth of the Ecclesiasticall power is figured, that euen then also we may see, that kings were compelled of Priests, wherby they gaue vp their Magistracie. For when Ozias was waxen strong, his heart was lifte vp to his destruction, and he neg∣lected the Lorde his God, and entring into the temple of the

Lord, he would burne incense vpon the altar of Incense. Thē Azarias the Bishop, and other Priests that were strong men, entring after him, resisted the king. And when he notwith∣standing, holding the Censor in▪ his hande, threatned the Priests: straightway a leprie sprang in his forehead, whiche the Priests beholding, they quickly expelled him. VVhat fol∣lowed therfore? Ozias dwelte in a house aparte, beeing full of leprie▪ for the which he was cast out of the house of the Lord. Moreouer Ioatham his sonne gouerned the house of the king, and iudged the people of the Lorde. VVho seeth not the bodily casting foorthe of the king oute of the house of the Lorde, clerely to expresse that ecclesiasticall power, whereby kings taking vpon them the offices of Priests, maye be caste out of the kingdome of heauen, by the excommunication of the highest Bishop. Moreouer, if bicause the king was made a Leper, the administration of the kings house, and the go∣uernment of all the people, was deuolued vnto the kinges sonne: howe muche more the infection of heresie, which (as S. Augustine saythe) is signified by the leprie, ought to bring to passe, that a Prince beeing driuen to the state of a priuate life, maye be compelled to leaue his house voyde vnto hys successor.

This storie of king Ozias, as it is already cited by M. Stapleton, and was not before forgotten of M. Sanders, so héere and in diuers other places it is recited. Neither is there any one Popishe writer on this question of Supremacie, but he alleageth this exāple. And as they thus often alleage it, so is it often by vs answered, and in déede it is casie to be answered, for it is not to the purpose, and but their malici∣ous slaunder, to burden the Protestant Princes with it, who take not vpon them to do the offices, belonging to the Bishops and Ministers of Gods word and Sacramentes, as héere Ozias attempted to do. If you can name any suche Prince, and such things, name them hardly, M. Sand, but proue it withal, else you are but a slaunderer of those that be

in authoritie. But here M. Sand. applies this exāple to this, that the highest Bishop may excommunicate such a Prince, and cast him out of heauen.

Whether your Pope be the highest Bishop, or no, is still another question. But this is out of questiō (M. Sand.) that he is alwayes more ready to cast a Prince o•…•…t of heauen, thā to bring him into heauen, and to caste him out of his king∣dome too, than to let him enioy it, especially if he deale with him, although he do not as Ozias did, but do the dutie of a godly Christian king. But who denieth this (M. Sand.) that a godly Bishop may vpon great & vrgent occasion, if it shall be necessarie to edifie Gods Church, and there be no other remedie, to flée to this last censure of excōmunicatiō against a wicked king? although you can not inferre any suche ne∣cessarie conclusion vpon the allegorie of this example. But what is this for the expelling him out of his kingdome▪ and for deposing him from his estate? Can you proue that Azarias and his Priests did handle Ozias thus? For this is the present question, but this you can not finde they dyd, and therfore this example serueth not your purpose.

Well, say you, they vsed a bodily casting out of the king, out of the house of the Lorde. Trow you (M. Sand.) they tooke him by the héeles, & cast him out, or by the head and the shoulders▪ & thrust him out? I trow not, that they layde any violent hands vpon him. They withstoode him, but it follo∣weth how, they saide vnto him, It pertayneth not to thee to burne incēse vnto the Lord, but to the priests, the sons of Aa∣ron, that are cōsecrated to offer incense. Go foorth of the Sāc∣tuary, for thou hast trāsgressed, & thou shalt haue no honor of the Lord God. This was no resistāce (M. San.) to blam him for his wickednesse: & whē he regarded not their sayings, but was wroth w^t thē, & was euē ready to offer the incense, God stroke him w^t y^e leprie. So y^t it appeareth they laid no violēt hands on him, but rebuked him, & yet in his fury he had done it, had not God him self with his sodayn vengeance stopped

him. If they had béene so disposed (béeing forty valiant men, besides the highe Priest) they might haue wroong the Cen∣sor out of his hande, and might haue pulled off the Priest∣ly garments from his backe (for so Iosephus telleth how he came into the Temple) howbeit they resisted him not in suche violent •…•…rte.

But say you, when they espied God had once striken him with the leprie, then quickly they thrust him out.

But not with violence (M. Sanders) Non explicatur ex∣pulsio, &c. (saythe your Cardinall of Caieta) thrusting him out is not expressed, but the Priests, when they sawe the Le∣prie, warned the leprous king to go foorth. Neither néeded he then any great warning, Sed & ipse, &c. For the king him∣selfe beeing terrified, made haste to get out, bicause he felte foorth with the stroke of the Lorde, so that he was not only moued of the priests, but also moued of him selfe, féeling the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of God, to go out of the Temple. What great vio∣lence was here done of the Priests to the King, except their rebuking or warning of him, either before his presumptu∣ous attempt, or after? Did they strike him? No, God stroke him, M. Sanders, and not the Priests, for all they were so many tall fellowes, and had mighte inough to haue striken him. If your Pope therefore and his Prelates will take this Bishop and his Priests for their example, they muste be (as S. Paule sayth) no strikers, nor fighters, chiefly not not agaynst their Princes: they must be mightie, but not in blowes, but potentes sermone, mightie in the word, to reproue the wickednesse of Princes, and so resist them, as S. Paule sayth, he resisted Peter to his face, not that he buffeted or p•…•…meld him with his fiste aboute the face, as Bishop Bo∣ner did his prisoners. But he resisted him, in spéeche repre∣hending him, and with such resistance these Priests resisted the king▪ and all Bishops may and ought to resist all wyc∣ked princes: but this is farre from deposing them, or solli∣cit•…•…ng other Princes to make warre vpon them, or mouing

their subiects to rebell agaynst them. But master Sanders brgeth further what followed.

The king beeing a •…•…eper, dwelt in a house apart, til the day of his death, and his sonne gouerned the kings house, and iud∣ged the people of the lande.

What is this (M. Sand) to the Priests deposing of him, that he dwelt aparte? For, beeing a Leper, God in his lawe had so appoynted Leuit. 13. Neyther dyd the contagion of his disease suffer the administration of his office. Howbeit neither for his offence, nor for his punishmēt therof, was he deposed frō his kingdom, & his sonne made king but y^e sonne as his fathers deputie▪ administred y^e affaires of his fathers kingdome, & so, for al this Ozias continued king euen til the day of his naturall deathe, whiche was a longer time (if your Glosse be true, after this fact, than he had beene king before this fact cōmitted▪ For (saith your owne glosse) Volunt Hebraei. &c. The Hebrues will haue it, that this hap•…•…ed in the 25. yere of Ozias, whose yeres remayning are. 27. And so he raygned as the text sayth. 52. yeres. But whether this com∣putation be true, or no, it playnly appeareth that he conti∣nued king still, and was buried as a king and his sonne be∣gan not to raygne til his father were dead. Which argueth, that for all this haynous facte, which God so maruellously and dreadfully reuenged insomuche that Iosephus Cōme∣stor, the Glosse, Lyra, and diuers other say, that the terrible earthquake, mentioned in Amos 1. and in Zacharie. 14. was done at that present instant, when God stroke the king for attempting this deede) not withstanding he retayned stil his estate, though he could not, for his sicknesse 〈◊〉〈◊〉 himselfe the office. So little did God suffer the Priests, or any other to depose h•…•…m, howsoeuer the king deserued it, or rather a worsse punishment. Thus this exāple of Ozias, that is so often alleaged, & so much triūphed vpon, as it is meer•…•… slan∣derous so maketh it nothing for the Papists, but cleane cō∣fu•…•…es them, & playn•…•…g argueth, that howe feruently soeuer

the Ministers of Christe may reproue and rebuke a wic∣ked Prince for his offences, yet be his offences neuer so great, the Bishop hathe no suche authoritie that he may de∣pose his Prince, but muste commit the punishment vnto God. But nowe of this example of Ozias leprie, we shall haue another argument.

And as Lepers should be discerned of the Priests, whether they be whole or infected: so the iudging of heresie, pertay∣neth to the onely Priests of God. Therefore by the manifest testimonie of diuine scripture, it is euicted that an heretike king both may be, and ought to be deposed, least he infect all his subiects, with that kinde of disease. For he can not seeme to haue his common senses, that will thinke this to be yelded to the infection of the minde, that he graunteth is to be deni∣ed to the infection of the body. Of the corporall leprie it is thus written: whosoeuer shall be infected with any leprie, & is seuered at the will of the Priest, all the time that he is a le∣per and vncleane, he shall dwell alone without the tentes. All which things, sithe they hapned to the Iewes in a figure, but are written to vs for our learning: the matter must thus be ta∣ken, that the cohabitation of them with the faithfull, must be denied to be permitted, that bring strange doctrine, straked as it were with spottes of leprie into the Church. Nowe if ney∣ther priuate men alone, but also kings were bounde by thys lawe (as the holy scripture testifieth of king Ozias) truely kings also beeing spotted with hereticall wickednesse, are by the iudgement of the Priests, to be driuen bothe from the vse and administration of the kingly power.

The former argument of example, is now drawn to an∣other of a similitude, the leprie béeing compared vnto here∣sie. To this argument, first, I answer, that although I denie not the proportiō of the similitude, béeing rightly applied, as S. Augustine vseth it, comparing heresie to a leprie, in res∣pecte of the filthe and contagion of it: notwithstanding, where we haue not the expresse vse of the scripture for it,

I denie that any argument of a similitude made of man, is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sufficient force to euicte a controuersie in the schoole of God, And therefore this is a manyfest vntruthe, that by the manyfest testimonie of diuine scripture it is euicted, that an heretike king may and ought to be deposed. Name that ma∣nyfest testimonie, for as yet you haue not, and héere you make but an argument of a similitude. But neither a simi∣litude, much lesse a collection of your self, to frame an argu∣ment from a similitude theron, is a manyfest testimonie of diuine scripture. therfore this is a manyfest false assertion.

Secondly, I answere. This similitude (as you here apply it) is of lesse force, in that you wrest the same similitude to other things, as to auricular confession, and to assoyling frō sinnes, and therfore it serues not properly, but is wrested, to deposing of Princes.

Thirdly, I answere, if this similitude were admitted of the Priests desce•…•… the leprie then, and the Priests discer∣ning heresie nowe: yet commeth it not home inough to de∣pose the Prince, & to exclude him frō his kingdome. For the Priest had no such authoritie giuen him •…•…uer a leper, to dis∣•…•… him of his goods & inheritance. Only the Priest foūd out whether it were a leprie, or no, & pronounced him a Le∣per, if he were founde so to be. Whiche done, the lawe tooke place of such a person, to be excluded from cōpanie. The exe∣cution of which law was not done by the Priest, but by the Magistrates and the people, as appeareth Num. 5: And the Lorde spake vnto Moses, saying: Commaund the children of Israel, that they put out of the Host euery leper, and euery one that hath on issue, & whosoeuer is defiled by the dead. &c. So that y^e 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of lepers, was not by y^e authoritie of y^e priest, but by y^e princes authoritie or cōmādem•…•…t, & the peoples exe∣cutiō, only y^e priest discerned & declared, who was, & who was not a 〈◊〉〈◊〉. And therefore this law reacheth not so farre, as to the iudgemēt of deposition, much lesse to the taking away of any ma•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉 & •…•…heritance, least of all of the Princes.

Fourthly, I answers to the words that you cite, for the Priests authoritie herein, out of Leuit 3. VVhosoeuer shal 〈◊〉〈◊〉 spotted with a Leprie, & is seuered at the will of the Priest, all the time that he is a Leper and vncleane, he shall dwell alone without the tents. This sentence (as you haue set it downe in distinct letters) is not in all that Chapter, nor any other that I finde, so that, except you quote some other place, I doubte it will proue a lie, and a shamefull abusing of the holy scrip∣ture. If you thinke it be holy, as ye call it, how dare you thus hacke and peruerte it? and where finde you these wordes, separatus est ad arbitrium Sacerdotis, He is separated at the will of the Priest? as though it were at his wi•…•… or arbitrement wher∣as he did but as the law commaunded him, and was prescri∣bed in euery thing, what he should do therin.

Fiftly, I answere, this lawe was pertaining to the Iudi∣ciall law of the Israel•…•…ts. But the Iudicials in the olde lawe touch not vs, nor be any figures of our Iudiciall lawes, and therefore this is wrested herevnto▪

Sixtly▪ I answer•…•…, the application of S. Paules sentence •…•…. Co•…•…. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. is no lesse manifestly wrested▪ For S. Paule spea∣keth nothing there of this matter, but of other matters. •…•…∣ther 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉: but Haec autem omnia, Al these things▪ Haec autem omnia superius 〈◊〉〈◊〉, sayth Ha•…•…o▪ All 〈◊〉〈◊〉 things aforesayde. And therefore▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 do •…•…ll to applye this in generall, I denie 〈◊〉〈◊〉 but as 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 •…•…or ou•…•… 〈◊〉〈◊〉 or instruction. But not for our descan∣ting or construction▪ to make 〈◊〉〈◊〉 as 〈◊〉〈◊〉 liste vpon them. For that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 both 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 of the literal sense, & you would 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉▪

〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 thus 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉▪ must 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 straked 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 If the 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉

matter of Christes parable, of the Cockle growing togither with the wheate. I graunt that we ought to auoyde such co∣habitation as may conueniently be auoyded. But such coha∣bitatiō, as cannot be auoyded without y^e incurring of another greater sinne, must not be denyed. As the husband to denie c•…•…habitation with his wife, though he be faithfull and she an I•…•…fidell yet if she will tarie and dwell with him, he can not put hir away for •…•…ir infidelit•…•…e: Nor likewise can the faithful▪ woman forsake the man, thoughe he be an Infidell: neyther can the childe denie his naturall obedience to his parentes & cohabitation with thē, though he be faithfull and they be In∣fidels: Neither can the faithfull seruaunt denie his ciuill obe∣dience and cohabitation with his Maister, although his mai∣ster be an Infidell, as were the most in S. Paules time, and yet he would haue none denie cohabitation with their mai∣sters, no thoughe they were rough and cruell, besides their infidelitie. And shal the subiect then denie his politike coha∣bitation▪ and ci•…•…ill obedience to his liege Soueraigne and lawfull Prince, for pretence of diuersitie in religion?

Eightly▪ I answere, if you will néedes apply this separa∣tion of the Leper to a morall or mysticall signification, yet serueth it not to the deposing of the person from his C•…•…ill estate, or to his exel•…•…sion from a common weale, but to hys exclusion of morall vertue, or to his expulsion •…•…ute of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of grace, from beeing a •…•…ber of the mysticall com∣•…•… weale, whiche letteth not, but that he maye remayne 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉.

N•…•…thly. I answere, your conclusion that you make for king•…•…, so well •…•…s o•…•…h 〈◊〉〈◊〉 men, fayleth •…•…n this exam∣ple of king Oz•…•…s. •…•…or neither was he deposed by y^• Priest or by any other man, but 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 king▪ so long as he 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉, is 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 of king Ozias, 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉.

•…•…thly, I answe•…•…e, that al this 〈◊〉〈◊〉 •…•…ere admitted ma∣keth

nothing against protestant Princes but it maketh much agaīst popish priests. For if vnto all y^t bring into the Church, straunge doctrine, straked as it were with the spots of Lepry, cohabitation must be denied. Then the Pope and all your popish Priests, being founde to bring into the Church, other doctrine than God hath taught in his holy Scripture, are to lie thrust out of Gods Churche, if worse should not happen vnto you, by the figure (if you will go to figures) of Nadab & Abiu, that offred straunge fire before the Lorde, and were consumed with fire from heauen, but beware you of a fire in hell. And thus much to your figure of the Leprie for deposing Princes, which if we denie, you say (as is your common say∣ing) we haue not our common senses. But had you had your priuate senses, when you made this argument, you woulde haue béen better aduised, ere euer you had made it common, and had Printed it, but you did but as other had done before, for the argument before was common.

But what doe I reason (sayth Maister Saunders) Athalia the Mother of Ochozias murdered all the Kyngly seede, ex∣cepte Ioas whome Iosaba had hidde in the house of the Lord. Moreouer Athalia raigned ouer the lande seuen yeares. But in the seuenth yeare, Ioiada the Byshop taking to him Centuri∣ons, Captaynes and souldiors, made a couenant with them, and swore them in the house of the Lorde, and shewed vnto them the kings sonne, and gaue thē in charge what they should doe, and brought out the son of the King, and set the Crowne vpon him, and the testimonie, and made him King & anoyn∣ted hym. But Athalia when she sawe the King standing vpon the Tribunall, according to the maner: she cryed out, treason, treason, But Ioiada the high Priest commaunded the Centuri∣ons and saide: carie hir out without the boundes of the Tem∣ple. And whosoeuer followeth hi•…•…, let him be striken with the sworde. And Athalia was killed in the Kyngs house. Ioiada therefore made a couenant betweene the Lorde and the King

and betweene the people. And Ioas dyd that which was right before the Lorde, all the dayes wherein Ioiada the Priest dyd teache hym. Doe we not here playnely see the whole know∣ledge of the Kyngs cause, to haue bene belonging towardes one high Priest. He calleth the souldiors, Iudgeth the Queene that had ruled seuen yeares, to haue raignedvniustly, and com∣maunded hir both to be deposed and killed, and in hir place dyd substitute Ioas to be King, and subiected hym vnder the Lorde, and placed hym aboue the people. All which things sithe they were well done, is it not nowe true, according to the sentence of the diuine Scripture, that the Byshop oughte to knowe of the causes of Kings and Emperours, whether they be iuste or vniust. For what so euer the Byshop in thys kynde doth, whether he define the King to be deposed or to be placed: he is no other than the Angell of the Lord, out of whose lyppes, as well Kyngs as priuate men, oughte to re∣quyre the lawe of the Lorde. The hygh Priest is as it were a sequester, as betweene the Lorde and the Kyng, so be∣tweene the Kyng and the People. So whyle one Iudge in the Churche is ordayned, bothe betweene Kings themselues, sturred vp wyth mutuall contentions, and also betweene them and theyr People: infinite occasions of warres and tumults are cutte off,

Maister Saunders here firste asketh, what he doth rea∣son? If he can not tell, what he doth reason, surely I know not. But this I knowe that it was but a very weake rea∣son, and therefore belyke he was wearie of it, and wyll re∣turne agayne to vrge vs wyth example. And here to knit vp the olde Testament, he alleageth the example of Ioiada the high Priest, for the kylling of Athalia, and the substi∣tutyng of Ioas to bée King. But this example, whiche bea∣reth yet a face to come farre nerer to the purpose than any thyng spoken hetherto, notwythstandyng if it be well con∣sidered, is as farre from the purpose and as muche wrested

vnto it, as the other. I omit that he still kepeth his old prac∣tise, in iumbling together diuerse pieces of the scripture, and not to set downe the text as it lyeth, and yet he maketh a di∣stinction of letter, as though it were all the text. Which and it were not his common v•…•…age of the scripture, were the bet∣ter to be borne withall, and might be imputed to the •…•…∣ters negligence, as it often falleth out, but in so often hand∣ling thus of the scripture, it is not tollerable.

But to the example. First, I answere, this pertayneth no∣thing to the questiō in hand for the deposing of a King. Here is no King deposed. Here is an vsurper, that had no righ so the kingdome killed. And to your owne expositor Lyra saith: vsurpauit sibi regnum Iuda, & prius describitur •…•…uiusonodi vsurpatio. She vsurped to hir selfe the kingdome of Iurie, and this kinde of vsurpation is first described. And the text is plaine that she had no right. The right Kyng was Ioas, when his brethren were sl•…•…ine. Therefore here was no deposing of hir. Ney∣ther durst you say that Ioiada deposed hir, but he comaunded hir both to be deposed and killed. Although for commaunde∣ment of deposing hir, you finde no suche thing, for she was not their lawfull gouernour, this therfore serueth not to the purpose of deposing a lawfull Prince, and that for heresie, which was not layde to hir charge, neither was she killed for that cause, but as a traytresse to the Crowne, as a murderer of hir owne bloode, and as a mere vsurper of the kingdome that belonged nothing to hir. And therfore Ioiada did but as a good and faithfull subiect should do to his liege Lord, and to his heyres after him, and not as one that by his Priestly of∣fice, had power ouer the royall estate.

Secondly, I aunswere, that the doyngs of Ioiada herein, were vpon such especiall occasions & necessities, that it is e∣uill drawne of you to an ordinarie example. For none of the Priests either did the like, or coulde claime to doe the like to their kings, as Ioiada had done, muche lesse to be drawne to an example for y ministers of Christ to follow. First, Io ada

was the vncle by affinitie vnto Ioas, for Ioiada the highe Priests wife, was sister vnto King Dehozias, whose childrē Athalia being their Grandmother, did murther, saue that Ioas (being a new borne babe) was priuily conueyed away, by his Aunt Iosaba the highe Priestes wife, where he was closely norished in the Temple, till he was sixe or seauen yeares olde. Good reason had Ioiada to kéepe the yong King his Cousin, and more righte thereto than any other, not by vertue of his Priestly office, but being thus of God sent vn∣to him, by his wines industrie, for the childes close and safer preseruing in the Temple. And yet this nourishing a childe and his nourse in the Temple, coulde so litle be drawne to any ordinarie example, that if necessitie had not enforced it, it had not béene allowable. As euen Lyra noteth out of Rab∣bi Solomon. Quod puer & nutrix sua. &c. That the Childe and his Nourse vvere kept in the loft of the Temple of the Lord, vvhere nobodie durst approche, but the Priestes and the Le∣uites, that kept the holy vessels there layde vp, to the entent they might there the better be hidden. And althoughe it vvas othervvise vnlavvfull for a vvoman and a childe to be there, yet in such a necessitie it vvas lavvfull. As Dauid and his men did eate the Priestly breade, being driuen in necessitie, vvhich notvvithstanding othervvise, had bene vnlavvfull for him.

Thus can not this déede of Ioiada for the nourishment of Ioas; be drawne to any ordinarie example. Neyther durst Ioiada be knowne of this déede, that no doubt had cost him his life, had it bene but suspected. Whiche argueth he had no ordinarie authoritie to put downe the Princes, no, not this very vsurper, being also a murtherer, and an Idolater. In al whiche cases, if he had had any ordinarie power and right thereto, be woulde no doubt haue openly professed, and a∣uouched his doing, and not haue kept it so long close, and pri∣uilie watched his oportunitie.

But nowe, the childe being thus by the highe Priest and his wife preserued and nourished, which childe had the onely

to the crowne, lay it not him vpon, was it not his dutie, yea & his obedience too, bothe that he ought before to his brother in lawe deceassed, and to this his yong nephewe extant, that the childe should haue his right inheritance? and to whome belonged the procurement hereof, rather than to him that had the childe in custodie, besides that he was his vncle? & sith no man of any countenance knewe hereof but he, howe should the childe haue gotten his right but by him? But did he make the child King by his priestly authoritie, as though the Priestes had had the interest, to appoint and make such Kings as they pleased? No, but it was the duetie of the one to procure it, and the right of the other to haue it. And yet that he did not this of himselfe, the text saith plaine: he toke and brought Centurions and Souldiors to him into the Tē∣ple. Here consequently (saith Lyra) is discribed the Institutiō of the true heire, by the carefulnesse of loiada the high priest. seking to this the assent of the Princes & nobles of the king∣dome. So that he sought their assent & help, or euer he would detect the Childe vnto them. And for this present necessitie, he brake the order also of the priests courses that King Da∣uid had appointed, for the sonnes of Aaron & Leui, to mini∣ster wéekely, & then to giue place to other. These he stayed for the more number & strength, to establish the yong King in his right, & so by these extraordinarie meanes, he crowned him king, & caused the murtherer and vsurper to be killed.

This fact therfore of Ioiada, can not be drawne to an ordi∣narie example, except in these points, that euery good subiect, so much as in him lyeth, shoulde preserue the lawfull Kings childrē and heires, & not suffer any other to whom the inhe∣ritance belongeth not, to vsurp the crown, but the right and lawful heire thereof to enioy it, & to expell al intruders & v∣surpers, chiefly such ty ants as séeke their vsurpation by ex∣ecrable murthering, especially suche as against nature de∣stroy their own bloud, and al such as by any other trayterous meanes aspire to the kingdome, and so far forth as they con∣ueniently

can, to helpe to restore the lawfull heire ther∣to, as to whom only they owe their homage, and are sworn. This is al godly subiects, and so all godly Bishops & priests duties in euery Christian kingdome. Thus may this doing of Ioiada be drawne to an ordinary example, which we de∣nie not. But what is this for Bishops to giue kingdomes from the right heire, to him that hath no clayme therto, but by the Bishops gifte, who giues a large thong of another mans leather, as doth the Pope giue kingdomes frō one to another, hauing no more right to giue them, than the other to take them. Which is not to expel an vsurper, but for one vsurper to set vp an other vsurper, whiche is no more lyke this example, than an apple is like an •…•…yster.

Thirdly, I answer•…•…, for Ioiadaes knowledge of the kings causes, he had them not in respect, he was the high Priest, but in respecte he was the vncle, the guardian, the norisher and protector of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 person, béeing a childe: and yet this is spoken by M. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 without the booke, that after the corona∣tion he had the knowledge of the kings causes Neither yet if he had the knowledge of thē, the king béeing in such estate, & somuch beholding to his vncle, a general rule could be made there, or was made among y^e Iewes, or can be made among Christiās, y^t either the bishops of any kingdom, much lesse y^e B. of Rome for al kingdomes, ought to know the causes of kings & Emperors, whether they be iust or vniust. This ge∣neralitie can not iustly be inferred on such a specialtie. For neither al kings estates 〈◊〉〈◊〉 like to this kings estate, nor all Bishops estates like to this Bishops estate, as by the causes aforesayd appeareth.

Fourthly, I answer, that as here is inferred no ordinary rule, for Bishops to haue knowledge in kings & Emperors cau ses, frō y^e cōtrarie, here is inferred an ordinary rule for kings & Emperors to haue knowledge of B. causes. For euē at the kings 〈◊〉〈◊〉 (althogh he wer an infāt, & had no more skil of religiō thā of gouernmēt) y^e text saith: they put the crowne•…•… vpon him, and gaue him the lawe in his hande. And so saythe

Lyra, the testimonie, that is, the law wherein he was ordeined, ought to studie and meditate, and keepe it, and cause it to be kept. True it is, that the high Prieste did teach him, and the King did well, so long as he was taught of so godly a father. And therevpon maye well be inferred that Byshops maye teach Kings that vvhich is right before the Lorde. But this teaching of the King, inferreth no publike gouernement of the King, which the Pope claimeth, and M. Saunders plea∣deth for. The authoritie of teaching the King, and the autho∣ritie of gouerning the King, are •…•…arre different authorities. That of teaching we graunt to Ioiada, and to al Godly By∣shops: not to teach what they will, but that vvhiche is right before the Lord. And to sée that they do this, the Prince hath the lavve of God giuen into his handes, so well as the crowne set on his head, to shewe, that although the Byshops must•…•… teach true doctrine, and Godly exhortatiō, yet must the King haue knowledge to ouersée that it be taught▪ as well & much more than any other matters of his kingdoms. What shall we say then to the popishe Byshops, which will not giue the lavve of God into the Princes handes, but wring it out of his handes, that he should not knowe it, but blindly followe such false doctrine and naughtie examples, as they woulde teache him? are these Byshops like to the Byshop Ioiada? And if this king fel to Idolatrie, when he wanted this good teacher, how shall that King doe that neuer had suche a teacher? and yet for all this teaching of Ioiada, that was as it were a fa∣ther to the King: the King notwithstanding, while he conti∣nued good, bothe commaunded all the Priestes, and taught them, how they should deale in their oblations, collections, reparations, and other thinges belonging to the Temple. And Ioas saide to the Priestes, all the siluer of thinges dedi∣cated, that be brought to the house of the Lorde. &c. Let the Priestes take it vnto them, euery one of his acquaintance, and they shall repayre the broken places of the house, vvheresoe∣uer any decaye is founde. And in the 23. yeare of King Ioas

the Priestes had not amended that vvhich vvas decayed in the Temple. Then King Ioas called for Ioiada the Priest, and the other Priests, and saide vnto them. VVhy repaire ye not the ruines of the Temple? Novv therefore receiue no more mo∣ney of your acquaintance, except ye deliuer it to repaire the ruines of the Temple.

Thus did the King not only knovv of the Priestes causes, but called them before him, yea, euen his vncle Ioiada the high Priest also, & appointed an order vnto them how to be∣stow their offerings. And when they were negligent there∣in, he rebuked thē, & reuoked his former ordinance, except on their amendement. Neither did the Priests, no nor his vn∣cle Ioiada the highe Prieste grudge or grumble hereat, nor sayde that the offerings were theirs, not his, to dispose, nor told him they were his superiors: but as his inferiors, most humbly obeyed his ordinances. Al vvhich things fithe they vvere vvell done: is not novve true, according to the sense of the diuine Scripture, that we may make a better ordinarie rule her•…•…on, for Kings and Emperors to knovve of Byshops causes, than for Byshops to knovve of Kings and Emperors causes? If you replye this was but a money matter: I an∣swere yet was this money, oblations and offerings. But will you graunt Princes thus much, to make ordinances howe all your money offerings shall be vsed, when ye shall gather them, and when not, of whom ye shal take them, and howe ye shall bestowe them: •…•…ay, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 will neuer doe this, for money is the chiefest thing ye shoote at, no penie, no pater noster: all your e•…•…cl. causes depende so on money offerings, that as good ye gaue the prince authoritie in al ecclesiastical matters, as let him deale thus with your money offerings, as Ioas did with theirs. But doth your own glosse expound this no further than to money matters? Ioas (saithe your glosse) both in this name and in this vvorke signifieth Christ, for it is interpreted the strength of the Lorde. He commaun∣deth the teachers, that they should take all the money that is

offered into the Lordes house of the passers by, to vvit, what∣soeuer spirituall knovvledge or good vvorke is brought into the Lords treasorie, that by the offices of the preachers, it may be bestovved on the repayring of the spirituall Temple, that vvhatsoeuer he shall finde torne by errour, or hurte by Vices, they should repaire least the multitude of hearers should pe∣rishe by the doctors negligence▪ Here this facte of the King is compared to the representation of Christe, and to the ouer∣sight of all eccl. matters. So that if Kings will account the studie of the Lawe of God, as well to belong vnto them as their crowne, if they will looke vnto, know, and examine the causes of the Byshops and their reuenues, and appoint them orders to repair the ruines of the Lords temple, and sée that the preachers lay out their talents, of spirituall knowledge & good workes towards the building: then should kings truely represent Christe, and be indéede the strength of the Lorde, bycause they haue y^e Lords power & authoritie thervnto. And thus this example better considered, maketh more for the Kings authoritie ouer the Byshops, than for the Byshops ouer the Kings authoritie.

Fiftly I answere, that althoughe a Godly Byshop be a sequester betwéen God & the Prince, & betwéene the Prince and the people, in prayer, in the Sacramentes, and in prea∣ching: yet▪ is he not a sequester betwéen God and the Prince, or betwene the Prince & the people, in matters of the king∣dome, least of all, he may sequester him from his kingdome. And though he be the Angell of the Lord in his message, if he be a Godly byshop, for otherwise he is the Angell of Sathā: yet is the King the Lordes anoynted, or the Lordes Christe in authoritie: but the Lords Christ in authoritie, is aboue the lordes Angels in message: therefore the King is yet aboue the Byshops.

And although the King so well as the priuate man, ought to require the lavve of the Lord, out of the priestes lippes, yet if the Priest inst•…•…ade of the Lords lavve, will giue his owne

lavv, the king ought to rebuke or punish him. For if the King ought to require it of the B. then as it is the Byshops duetie to yelde it, so is it the Princes duetie and of•…•…ce to call vpon him, & to sée to it, that the B. faithfully giue it to him, & to all the priuate men in his kingdome. Whiche againe proueth so litle the Byshops authoritie ouer the King, that it playnely proueth the Kings authoritie ouer the B. in requiring of thē to preach the lavv of God, which is their proper office & cal∣ling, and not to gouerne Kings, and translate kingdomes.

Sixtly and lastly I answere, that if this were graunted to the Pope, which M. Sand. woulde so faine conclude, that one Iudge in the Church should be ordeined betvvene Kings themselues, and them and their peoples, & that this one Iudge shoulde be the Pope: where he pretendeth, it woulde cut off infinite occasions of warres and tumults: as this conclusiō can not be gathered on this example, so this effecte of peace to ensue by this meanes, is but an imagination in M. Sand. opinion, we should finde another manner of effecte thereof, that would be the very welspring of infinite warres and tu∣mults. And least he shoulde thinke that I speake partially a∣gainst the Pope, as he doth for the Pope, I report me to the experience of it, and not to vaine imaginations, what trage∣dies hath the Pope raysed betwene the Gréeke & Germaine Emperors, chiefly to the Henries the 4. & the •…•…▪ to Fre∣derike the 2. to Lewis the 4. to the tumults of King Iohn in Englād, to y^e Popes practises betwene Germanie, Fraūce, & Spaine, for the kingdomes of Cicil & Naples, for the Du∣chie of Apulia & Millaine, to the maintenance of the factions in Italy, betwene the Guelphes and Gebellines, the white sect, and the blacke secte, the French & Imperials, the Uene∣tians and the Genowaies, the Florentines and the Pisans, & al the states of Italy. Al which and infinite moe warres and tumults in Christendom, haue ben raysed, nourished & abet∣ted, chiefly by this one Iudge the Pope, and yet would M. Sand. haue him to be the onely Iudge and definer, whether

any King should be deposed, or be placed. Were not this the readiest way to set al Princes by the eares? chiefly if he wold change his mynd vpon displeasure, or his successor should fa∣uour an other, or there were two or thrée Popes at once, thē should al Christendome be in a broyle by the eares togither, and the Pope would clap them on the backe, and win by the spoyle of all countries, and no countrie shoulde haue their lawfull and naturall Prince, but either foraine or periured vsurpers, nor any Prince haue his royall authoritie, but be the Popes Tenants at will. If the world were come to this passe as it appeareth the Papistes would haue it, were not this a goodly quiet world trow you? But then it were a goldē world for the Priests, when all men else shoulde finde it a bloudie world, and euery man wer•…•… •…•…eadie to cut an others throate, and all things runne to hauocke.

But were it admitted that none of these mischieues should ensue, but that al occasions of vvarre and tumults vvould be cut off: yet sith this calling to rule all Christian Kings and kingdomes, is vnlawfull for any Byshop (besides Christe) to haue: what were this peace but as the wicked say, Pax, pax, vbi non est pax, peace, peace, where God saith there is no peace? what were this peace, but the worldes peace, yea, the Diuels peace? where the strong man helde all things in his house in peace, where Antichriste ruled in quiet prosper•…•…tie, till Christe a stronger than he, woulde come and breake his peace. Rather than tumults shoulde be cut off, with suche a shamefull peace, and peace bought with suche a wicked con∣dition: it were far better for Princes to striue to the death for the truth against such peace, and to cut off suche an arbi∣ters head, who to maintaine his pryde for worldly peace, would make open warre with Christe. And thus we sée the effecte would be naught, and yet as naughtie as this peace woulde be, we shoulde not haue it peaceably neyther, if the Pope might set in his foote, & take vpon him to depose kings, and translate kingdomes. But this example of Ioiada gi∣ueth

him no such authoritie.

M. Saund. hauing now gathered together all the proues & examples that he coulde wrest with any colour to his pur∣pose, leaueth the ol•…•…e Testament, & falleth to the like proues and wrestings of the newe Testament: Howe Christe for the saluation of one man, let the deuils drowne two thou∣sande hogges: How Christ draue the buyers and sellers out of the Temple. How S. Paule gaue the incest•…•…ous fornica∣tor at Corinth, and Hymene•…•… and Alexander, to Sathan: How Peter reproued Ananias and his wife for lying to the holy Ghost, & they fell downe dead. But how al these things are wrested, is app•…•…ant. For in all this, here is no king de∣posed, and therfore they serue not to this question. But how euery one of them serueth to confute the Papistes, bicause the volume is risen too large alreadie, in these answeres, and chiefly in the answere to Maister Stapleton, I am constra•…•…∣ned here to breake off & stay. As for that which followeth of the Fathers & of the Histories, and how those also are wre∣sted as •…•…oulie as these: I purpose to reserue (God willing) to another volume. In the meane time, let vs coniecture the re∣sidue by these arguments, & the rest of al y^e Papists by these two M. Stapleton and M. Saunders, who are nowe their principall writers. Whereby as we may easily weighe the peise of their stuffe, so we may•…•… euidently sée the dri•…•…te of their malice, Thirsting blood, breathing treasons, practising conspiracies, procuring seditions, & blowing out as it were a trumpet to open rebellion, against the Queenes Maiesti•…•…, their Natural Soueraigne and our most Gracious Gouer∣nour, against all the states of the Realme, and to make ha•…•…e of the whole congregation of Christ, and all to main∣taine the pride, the tyrannie, the errors and superstitions of the Pope. But with what weake and selender reasons, how impudently wrested, how shamefully applyed, how vnfitly concluded: All the world may sée, and themselues be asha∣med, if they be not past shame: All the children of God may

cléerely beholde, and not be afraide but the fullier confirmed in the truth thereby: All Christian Princes may the better perceiue, and the more abhorre the Popishe practises, & with all their power represse them, as the vtter ruin•…•… of their s∣states, and considering their high calling, may zealously loke to the dutie of their authoritie, and as their Titles put them in minde, be in déede most Christian Princes, and earnest defenders of the faith and Church of Christe: And all true subiectes maye sticke the faster in all duetifull obedience to their naturall Princes, detesting the foraigne vsurpation of the Pope, and all the traiterous seducings of these his chap∣laines: That Antichrist may haue the ouerthrow, the Prince may haue the regiment, the truth may•…•… haue the victorie, the reader may haue the bene∣fite, and God aboue all things may haue for euer the glory, through Iesus Christs our onely Lord and Sauiour. So be it.

FINIS.

Psalme. 2.

VVherfore, be ye now aduised O ye Kings, be ye lear∣ned ye that are Iudges of the erth: serue ye God vvith feare, and reioyce vnto him with reuerence, kysse the sonne leàst he be angrie and so ye perishe from the right vvay, if his vvath be kindled yea but a little, bles∣sed are all they that put their trust in him.

Notes

• The original of bothe po∣wers. Lib. 2. cap. 1. pag 56. M. Saunders beginneth with contra∣dictions to himselfe.
• Saund. pag. 57
• Saund. 57.
• Saund. 57.
• Sand. pag. 57.
• Supra pa. 108. Difference be∣twene the ci∣uill power of heathen and christian Prin ces.
• Maister Saun∣ders contra∣dictions.
• Saund. pag. 57 The kingdom of Christe in this world, but not of this worlde.
• Ecclesiasticall power.
• Saund. pa. 57.
• How the roy∣al power sub∣mitteth it selfe to the Ecclesi∣asticall power.
• The distincti∣on of In, & of.
• Stapleton fol. 29. a. b.
• Deuter. 17.
• Saund. pa. 57. The vse of both powers.
• M. Saunders contradictiō. Supra pag. 791.
• Howe H•…•…lie had the ciuil and ecclesi•…•…sti∣call power.
• Howe Noe, Melchizedech, and Abraham had both po∣wers.
• S•…•…und. pa. 56.
• Howe Moyses had bothe po∣wers.
• How the Ma∣chabees had them.
• Howe Samuel had them.
• Speciall conse∣cration.
• Sau•…•…. pag. 57.
• Ozias exam∣ple.
• Supra pag.
• Sand. pag. 57.
• Supra pag. 670.
• Sand. pag. 57. &. 58. The ende of both powers. Math. 10. 1. Tim. 2.
• How farre the ende of the ci∣uill power stretcheth.
• Supra. pag. 117.
• M. San. may∣meth S. Paules sentence.
• Supra pag. 669.
• Killing the •…•…o dy is not the proper ende of the Princes power.
• An ill Priest killes the soule.
• Platina de sen∣tentijs. Pij. 2.
• Pag. 80.
• M. Sanders contrarieth him selfe.
• Sand. pag. 58.
• What superi∣our power we ascribe to the Prince.
• Saund. pa. 5•…•….
• 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
• •…•…. Sand, pag. 64.
• M. Saunders graunteth to Princes to as∣signe the tyme and place to Councels.
• M. Saunders speaketh con∣traries.
• The Papistes make Princes but as priuate men in their Councels.
• Sand. 64.
• M. Saunders a•…•…g. vicious.
• Distinction of iudging.
• Sand. 64.
• Sand. 64. Ephe. 4.
• Saun. 64.
• Iudgement of Pastors.
• The simili∣tude of a Pa∣stor and shepe •…•…irted too nar∣row.
• The iudge∣me•…•…t of pri∣uate men, much more of Princes. 1. Cor. 2. Math. 7.
• Iudgement of the pastor, and power of the pastor are two seueral things. Some spiritual sheepe haue •…•…ounder iudg∣ment than their spirituall shepheards. How euen the pastors are sheepe. Iohn. 10. How the prince is a pastor.
• Saund. 6 5.
• Math. 22. 1. Timoth. 2. 1. Peter. 2. Rom. 13.
• Princes haue pastorall au∣thoritie giuen them of God.
• Num 27.
• 2. Reg. 5.
• Psal. 78.
• 2. Reg. 7.
• 1. Paral. 11.
• 3. Reg. vlt.
• Arrogating.
• Disposing.
• Saunders. 65
• Rom. 5.
• 1. Cor. 1.
• The lawe of nature.
• The corruptiō of nature as much in a priest as in a Prince.
• Saun. 65.
• Math. 18.
• Iudgemente in ecclesiasticall matters, & po∣wer of bin∣ding and lo∣sing are two things.
• Princes iudged in matters of faith.
• Law writtē & vnwritten.
• Saunders. 65.
• The Papistes obiection, the•…•… were no Chri∣stian kings in the Apostles time.
• Saunders. 65.
• 1. Cor. 2.
• 1. Cor. 2. The Papistes graunt Princes priuate iudge∣ment.
• How the cler∣gie and how the prince doc puqlikly iudge
• The protestāts obiection.
• The answer of the Papistes.
• M. Saunders answeres as the rich man did to the poore mā the case is altered.
• Sand. pag 66.
• 2. Cor. 3.
• Exo. 19. &. 20 Hebre. 12.
• The compari∣son betweene the state of go∣uernment in the old Testa∣ment and the newe.
• The earthly Princes in the old law, were more spiritual than the spiritu al priests now.
• The godly Princes then hoped for the kingdome of heauen, so wel as any prieste nowe.
• S. Paules com∣parison be∣tweene their outward glo∣ry and ou•…•… in∣ward glory.
• 1. pag 66.
• Num. 3.
• M. Saunders ob•…•…ction, •…•…f the ceremoni∣al lawe be al∣te•…•…ed, whye coulde not the ciuil gouern∣ment be alte∣•…•…ed also.
• M. Saunders had rather renounce the Priesthoode & death of Christ than acknow∣ledge the Prin ces supremacie
• The Protes∣tantes obiectiō Sand. pag. 66.
• M Saunders termeth him∣selfe and his side, Papistes.
• M. Saunders reporteth our obiection amisse.
• The Papistes answere. Sand. 66.
• The continu∣ance of perfect things. Sa•…•…d. pag. 65.
• The outwarde sacrifices in the olde lawe no perfect thing.
• The goue•…•…āce of one B in the old law no per sect thing.
• How the mo∣rall lawe re∣maineth.
• How one B. one sacrifice stil rema•…•…eth.
• Hebr. 9.
• Sand. 66.
• The election of the Pope.
• Shedding bloud in sa∣fices.
• Iohn. 8.
• Vnbloudie s•…•… c•…•…fice.
• Remembrance and subst•…•… o•…•… the bl•…•… of the •…•…be.
• Christ mad•…•… not two sacri∣fices of him∣selfe.
• The perfectiō and imperfecti on of the P•…•…n ces estate.
• The state of the Prince in the olde lawe, better than the state of the Priesthoode.
• Sand. pag. 67.
• The validitie and inualiditie of the argum•…•…t drawne from antiquitie.
• Sand. pag. 56. Whether priest hood or the Ciuil power be more anci∣ent.
• Deut. 17.
• Sand pag. 67.
• The state of a king as neces∣sarie as the state of a priest
• Kingdom pre figured in Christ so well as priesthoode.
• Sand. pag. 67.
• A Ciuil go∣uernor neuer wanted no more than •…•… priest.
• Sand pag. 67. 1. Reg. 8.
• The kings of∣fice stretcheth furder than in going out to warre.
• Sand. pag. 67.
• The euents of euil kings are not to be as∣cribed to the estate of the kingly power.
• There haue been as euill priests as kings and done as much mischef.
• Sand. pag. 67. The king gre∣ter thā the Bi∣shop before the captiuity of Babilō by M. Sau. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. Why the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 h•…•…d no kings after their cap∣tiuitie.
• Sand. pag. 67.
• Sand. pag. 67.
• M. Saund. rea∣son from the personall facte of Christ, that he neuer tooke vpon him to be a temporall king.
• Math. 22. Math. 10. Luc 13. Iohn. 19.
• Iohn. •…•….
• Math. •…•…. Christe brake not the lavv of obedience too Princes, but fulfilled it, thoughe he him self vvold b•…•… •…•…o external Prince.
• We giue not the gouerne∣ment of the Churche to an earthly prince. Sand. pag. 80.
• Sa•…•…d. pag. 67.
• Sand. pag. 67.
• Sand pag. 67.
• The taking of the copie of Gods lavv•…•… •…•…ō the Priests, in∣ferreth not the Priests to bee greater in go∣uernment. Supra. pa. 161.
• Sand. pag. 77.
• Two kind of kings & king∣domes.
• How f•…•…rre M. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 giueth 〈◊〉〈◊〉 most free principa∣•…•….
• Sand. pag. 77.
• Math. 5. Luke. 6. Math. 25. Esai. 60. Psalm. 2.
• M. Sand. spce∣keth contra∣ries.
• M. Sand. ma∣keth som king domes subiect to Bishops in all things.
• Diuorces and vsuries.
• Sand. pag. 77.
• Obedience to Christ.
• Sand. pag. 77.
• The do•…•…ng of euery offence is not the losse of the kings king•…•…me.
• Sand. pag. 77.
• Math. 28. Luke. 10. 2. Cor. 5.
• How Christs ministers are to be he•…•…d and obeyed.
• Sand. pag. 78.
• 1. Cor. 7.
• Ephe. 4.
• In Epist. 50.
• 4. Reg. 18.
• 4. Reg. 22. •…•…ouae. 3.
• Dan. 14. Dan. 3.
• The peculiar seruice of kings.
• Sand. pag. 62.
• M. Saund. ex∣amples cleane ouerthrow him sel•…•…e.
• Sand. 7•…•….
• Sand. pag. 78.
• Deut. 17.
• Theod. lib. 4. cap. 1.
• In voluntarie elections Chri stians shoulde chose no Prince but a Christian.
• Whether pre∣re•…•…ce of re∣ligion may dispossesse or debarre the Princes •…•…nhe∣ritance.
• How Christi∣an subiectes shoulde be∣haue the•…•…eleus where electiō is not.
• The example of •…•…ouianus r•…•… fusing to go∣uerne, is not like the exam∣ple of subiects ruf•…•…sing to be gouerned.
• Iouianu•…•… •…•…e u•…•…r rebelled a∣gainst 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Apostata.
• Hist. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. lib. 7 ca. •…•…. Socrates.
• Sand. pag. 78. 2
• M. Saunders asketh but one demaunde and •…•…ncrocheth •…•…o
• A Catholike.
• Apocal. 22.
• Many Christiā Pri•…•…ces no po∣pish catholikes
• Sand. 68. 3.
• M. Saunders further enc•…•…o∣ching.
• M. Sand. will first haue the matter gran•…•…ed him, and then he wil proue it
• What subiects may and may not do in the case of the p•…•… ces heresie or Apostacie.
• Extraordinarie cases.
• The Papistes trumpet to re∣bellion.
• Sand. 7•…•…
• We muste not only consider▪ what ought to be▪ but how it ought to be.
• It is an other matter not to chose the vn∣faithful, and to disobey him that becometh vnfaithfull.
• In what case I thinke the sub iectes might better refuse obedience.
• Esopes Fable of the horsse, before and af∣ter he commit 〈◊〉〈◊〉 himselfe to •…•…en of the man.
• 1. Reg. 8.
• Sand. pag. 7•…•….
• Howe dangers may and may not be cut off.
• Gordias knot.
• Sand. pag. 78. 1. Cor. 6.
• 2. Ioh. Epl.
• Why S. Paule rebuketh the Corinthians for pleadyng in law before heathen Iud∣ges.
• S. Paule bothe appealed vnto, and appeared in iudgement before heathen Magistrates. Act. 2•…•….
• Rom. 13.
• 1. Tim. •…•….
• Math. 10.
• Lyra in. 1. Cor. 6.
• Catharinus in 1. Cor. 6.
• 2. Epi. Ioh. Princes al∣though Hea∣then, may be saluted and honored with ciuill honor.
• Gen. 20. &. 21
• Gen. 41.
• Hester. 2.
• 4. Reg. 5.
• Daniel. 14.
• Act. 25.
• False teachers are not to be wished well vnto. 2. Ioh epist.
• Who are the false teachers.
• A •…•…ueat agaīst bearing to much with Papistes. •…•…ccl. 13.
• The Papistes call vs 〈◊〉〈◊〉, but they are nu•…•…fidi∣aus.
• Sand. pag. 78.
• Sand pag. 78.
• Leuit. 10. Malach. 2.
• The Prists ke∣ping and vt∣tering the law of God, licen∣ceth him not to depose his Prince and set vp another.
• Robins hoods lawe.
• How, readie popishe priests are to stu•…•…e vp rebellion.
• Sand. pag. 79.
• The Princes throne called the chaire of pestilence.
• The Popishe Priests professe to remoue the Prince by whatsoeuer meanes they can.
• A pestilent doctrine.
• Sand. 78. Hebrs 13.
• What the Po∣pishe Priestes watch for. 2. Pet. 5.
• Sand. pag. 79.
• Sand. pag. 7•…•….
• The danger of euil Princes & commoditie of godly Princes to their people
• Iob. 34.
• Sand. 79. 3. Reg. 12
• The example of Ieroboam that M. Sand. alledgeth ma∣keth cleane a∣gainst him.
• 3. Reg. 13. 14
• 3. Reg. 12.
• He that will not become a traytor, is not worthy with M Sand. the name of a mā. Sand. pag. 79.
• Act. 20
• Tit. 3.
• No good argument from the Priestes iudg∣ing of the Prin ces doctrine to his iudging of the Princes di∣ademe.
• Act 20. Priestes cor∣rupt and blind iudgements.
• Matth. 23.
• M. Sand. falla∣tion a secundū quid ad simpli citer.
• Hovv far the Papistes make kings inferior to Byshops.
• The fable of the Lyon and Fox.
• Sand. pag 79
• Psalm. 2.
• 1. Cor. 2.
• Dani. 2. 7.
• The heauenly and earthly kingdome are not so ioyned that the By∣shops may be earthly kings.
• The Apostles and Martyrs deposed no kings.
• Sand pag. 79.
• To this pur∣pose saith Pō∣ponius: •…•…▪ Cum quid mutuum de reb. creditis
• M. Saunders obiection and answere.
• Whether a Bi∣shop may take a kingdome vpon him pro perly or vn∣properly.
• The Princes promise.
• The breach of the Popes and of his Prelates promises.
• The Princes breach of pro∣mise, authori∣se•…•…h not Bi∣shops to de∣pose him.
• The example of Saule and Dauid
• What bishops may do or not do to princes, hauing bro∣ken their pro∣mises.
• Howe Princ•…•… haue bene de∣posed.
• What rule may be gathe∣red by suche deposing•…•… of Princes.
• Deposing of Princes by the Prelates prac∣tises.
• Heb. 10.
• What subiects may do when the Prince breakes his promise.
• Rom. 1.
• The right meanes that the B may vse, when the prince brea∣keth his pro∣mise. The combate betwene the Cardinall of Columne and the Pope.
• The princes promise in the•…•… baptisme The Bishops promise in Paptisme is the same that the princes is.
• The papistes shift to k•…•…pe their liuings for all their promise bro∣ken.
• The priestes partialitie.
• The contracte made to christ in Baptisme.
• The king pro∣mised not to renounce his kingdome when he was Baptised.
• The subiect promised not to renounce his Prince at Baptisme.
• D. Stories er∣ror in defen∣ding that sub∣iects misliking their princes may forsake them.
• What we all promised in Baptisme.
• The example of a contracte in mariage.
• Math. 14.
• Promise brech in mariage.
• As the priest 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 the man & the woman, so the B. cānot sepa∣rate the prince & the subiect.
• Sand. pag. 79. &. 80.
• 1. Cor 10. Math. 19.
• M. S•…•…ers examples of King Lucius & King Clo∣doue•…•…s.
• The state of infants not like these Princes.
• M. Saund pre∣supposals of these two princes are false. King Lucius his baptisme.
• Aimonius li. 1 de gestis Fran∣corum. ca. 16.
• The order how King Clodoue•…•…s was bapti•…•…ed.
• Here was no sech conditiōs of deposing exacted of the Bishop in the Princes bap∣tisme.
• The s•…•…uerie that M. Saund. woulde bring Princes into pasieth the Spa nishe •…•…quisi∣tion.
• The promises and threates of God, that the auncient pro∣phets declared vnto kinges.
• M. Saunders presuppose admitted.
• The Popishe Bishops seeke more than the Christian fauh.
• The kings ex∣amination of the Bishops condition.
• M. Saunders presupposall admitted once agayne.
• The kings di∣ligent trauell to discharge his charge, & performe the condition.
• The king•…•… •…•…ration.
• Sand pag 80. Daniel. 7.
• Esai. 60.
• Luc. 10. Math. 16.
• Daniels pro∣phecie wre∣sted.
• M Sand. to be suspected of beeing a Mi∣lenarie here •…•…ke.
• •…•…say wrested.
• The Prophete speaketh of the Church, & the Papists applie it to the priests
• The glory that the prophet vnderstandeth mystically, the Papists vnder∣stand it lite∣rally.
• The Papistes & the Iewes sored in one error of drea∣ming after worldly glory▪
• Christs sentēcs wrested. Luc. 10.
• Iude. epist.
• Christes sen∣tenc•…•… wrested. Math. 16.
• The gates of hell.
• Sand. pag 80.
• Rom. 1.
• Domesticall & forain enimies
• What a peril∣lous enimie the Pope is.
• Whether the king or the B. in M. Sand. presupposal be more enimie to the Church.
• •…•…pe can Christes •…•…er.
• •…•…tth. 4.
• he cause of •…•…aith.
• •…•…edience of
• What thep•…•…in∣ces will ought to be?
• Sand. 80.
• 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 14.
• Byshops tran∣slatiōs of king domes this way or that way.
• Whether the kings promise in baptisme stretch to suf∣fering the Bi∣shop to depose him.
• The kings mi nistration to Christ and his Churche.
• Hovv the king oughte to for∣sake his life or his kingdom.
• 1. Cor. 3.
• Lucae. 21.
• Luke. 14.
• Sand. pag 80.
• Christian king domes are not mere seculer. 1. Reg. 15.
• 2. Paral. 26.
• 1. Reg. 15.
• Leo in epist. 2•…•…. alias. 75.
• Supra pag.
• M. Saunders contradiction and legerde∣may•…•….
• M. Saunders seeth now that Christiā Prin∣ces are spiritu∣all.
• The Churches disposition of things indiffe∣rent.
• To whome in the church the disposition of indifferent things belon∣geth. Things meere spirituall, and things spiri∣tuall in some respect.
• Meere spiritu∣al thinges may not be other∣wise disposed.
• What kinde of thing the state of a King or kingdome is.
• The Churches freedome my∣sticall.
• The Popishe Churche.
• 1. Reg. 15.
• The example of Samuels anoynting of Saule.
• M Saunders confutes him selfe.
• The Churche coulde not de∣pose Saule, though he were a tyrante and an Apo∣stata. Prouerb. 8. Dan. 2.
• Sand. 81.
• M. Saunders bious conclu∣sion.
• The Bishops ministerie in the making of the king.
• Samuel.
• Pope Leo his sentenc•…•….
• Sand. pag. •…•….
• Chrysost. Ho∣mil. 4. in ver∣ba Esaiae.
• The kinge•…•… anoynting.
• In Extrauag. de Maiorit. & obed. Vnam sanctam.
• The Bishops consecratiō of a king.
• The diuerse significations of oyle in the scriptures.
• No necessitie of anoynting Kings.
• In Extanag de Maiorit. &c
• Sand. pag. 81.
• 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 1.
• Ioh. 20.
• Epiphanius in Hares. 29.
• 1. Cor. 15.
• M. Sand. case if Christ were here bodily conuersant in the earth.
• M. Saunder•…•… case vnrtue. Act. 3. Math. 24.
• Christes hu∣maine nature not in the Sa∣crament.
• If Christ vvere in hi•…•… huma•…•…n nature in the earth, vvhat su∣perioritie shoulde be giuen him.
• What kingdōe Christ vvoulde take vpon him & he vvere here in earth.
• How the pope vvould order him.
• 2. Thess. 2.
• 2. Thess. 2
• The Churches promotion.
• Math 20.
• What povver the ministers haue.
• Math. 28.
• Iohn. 20.
• Difference of povver.
• Glossa in Lyra super Ioh.
• Epiphanius in Haeres. 29.
• Sand. 81. 82.
• Math. 20.
• Gal. 5.
• Hebr. 10.
• Ephes. 4.
• Hebr. 13. Math. 28. 1. Cor. 4. 1. Cor. 5. 2. Cor. 2 &. 7 Math. 16.
• Rom. 8.
• The difference and vnion of both povvers temporall and spirituall.
• Supra. pag. 791.
• Supra. pag.
• Hovv the po∣vver of all e∣states are vnder the pastors po∣vver, and hovv not. Hovv they are all vnder the kings povver & hovv not.
• How •…•…ere is no difference in these po∣vvers.
• Hovv there is a difference in these povvers.
• The mixture of these po∣vvers.
• Sand. pag. 82.
• 1. Cor. 2.
• Rom. 10.
• Ciuil gouer∣nors from the beginning & as auncient as spirituall pa∣stors.
• M. Sand. ma∣lice against the name of kings.
• Supra. 799.
• Sand. pag. 82.
• How M. Sand. esteemes of al other men, that denie that which he af∣firmes.
• M. Sand. con∣tradictions.
• Christion prin ces power is not onely an earthly po∣wer.
• Sand. pag. 82.
• Not we but the Papistes confound both powers.
• Sand. pag. 82.
• 2. Cor. 3. 1. Reg. 8.
• The due and true spiritual Power.
• The Popishe spiritual pow∣er.
• How the prin∣ces power is earthly, howe heauenly. Supra. 791.
• The Princes power came from Christ. Prouerb. 8. Christ a sauior as well in that he is a king, as in that he is a Priest.
• How both the Princes & the Bishops pou∣er pertayne to heauen, and minister life.
• Sand. pag. 82.
• Rom. 12. 1. Cor. 12. Ephes. 4.
• The Popishe Churches iu∣risdictions.
• Sand. pag. 82. &. 83.
• M. Sand pre∣supposall of the Princes doing iniurie to the Church, or suffering it.
• The Pastors admonition to Princes doing euil.
• The Prince, & not the Priests onely, gouer∣neth the chur∣che of God.
• M. Saund. pre∣supposall re∣torned on the Priestes doing iniurie to the Prince, or suf∣fering it.
• The Popishe Priestes will only admo∣nishe them selues.
• How roughly the Popishe Priestes will admonishe them selues.
• Difference be∣tweene admo∣nishing, go∣uerning & de∣posing.
• The Priestes ouer hastie re∣medie to amēd the Prince▪
• Sand. pag. 83. Math. 18.
• Sand. pag. 8•…•….
• 3. Reg. 1•…•….
• Remedie a∣gaynst offen∣ces and dan∣gers.
• The inconue∣niences of the Popish reme∣dies.
• The danger of the Popishe doctrine.
• Sand. pag. 83.
• Psal. 86. Math. 16.
• 1. Cor. 5. Iohn. 21. Math. 16.
• The Churche of God not left destitute of medicines for suche dis∣eases.
• Luc. 2•…•….
• Collos. 1. Psalm. 12•…•…. Psalm. 56.
• Math. 5.
• M. Saund. cor∣ruption of the text against Princes.
• Excommuni∣cation.
• Who should be auoyded and how by Saint Paules mea∣ning. 1. Cor. 5.
• How a vitious king is to be shunned and iudged.
• The testimony of S. Paule re∣turned on the Popish Priests.
• Rom. 13.
• Gene. 18.
• Peter not the chiefe pastor of the Church.
• How M. Sand. ex o •…•…deth these wordes fede my shepe.
• How Peter fed the shepe of Christ. 1. Peter. 2.
• How M. Sand. applies bin∣ding & losing of Princes.
• Sand. pag. 83.
• A shameful a∣busing of Christs saying.
• M. Saunders shift.
• Sand. pag. 8•…•….
• Ieremie. 1.
• The Princes charge for misusing his sworde.
• Psalm. 2.
• If the Prince a∣buse his sword the spirituall minister maye not take it frō him.
• The Papistes wresting the sentēce of god to Ieremie.
• How Ieremie pulled downe and set vp kinges and kingdomes. Lyra in Ierem. 1.
• These thinges were done lōg after Ieremies time.
• Ieremie is said to doe them, bicause he for∣tolde them.
• The doer of them was on∣ly God, & such instruments as he vsed, which were no Prie∣stes not Pro∣phets. Ierem. 45. Ierem. 42.
• How the Pope shoulde set vp and pul down kings & king∣domes, if he will followe Ieremie.
• The sentence spoken to Ie∣remie, applyed to Christe.
• Glossa in Ly∣ra in Ierem. 1.
• How the Mi∣nisters of Christ oughte to pull downe & let vp king∣domes.
• Lyra.
• Ierem 1.
• Glossa in Ly∣ra.
• What maner of conquest of kingdomes this is.
• Sand. pag. 83.
• Iohn. 18.
• Math. 13.
• Iohn. 15.
• Iohn. 1.
• In ca. 18. Ioh.
• M. Sand. an∣swere to this obiection, My kingdome is not of thys worlde. Iohn. 18.
• The Popes kingdome worldly.
• M. Sand 〈◊〉〈◊〉 by distinction of this wordr the worlde.
• The naturall sense of world ly kingdome.
• Glossa in Ly∣ra.
• Lyra. in. Ioh. 18.
• Ferus in Iohn. 18.
• Christes king∣dom expelleth no temporall Princes from their Domi∣nions.
• The significa∣tions of the kingdome of Christ.
• The difference of these king∣domes.
• The error of the Papists.
• Ludolphus de vita Christi parte. 2. cap. 61
• The Pope and his Prelates kingdom con∣futed by the Papists them selues.
• August. in cap. 18. Ioan.
• S. Augustine thought not that the king∣dome of Christ hindreth vvorldly king∣domes.
• Sand. pag. •…•…4.
• Christ a king as he is God & man.
• The Papistes confound the veritie of his manhoode.
• Ioan. 18.
• Ferus in •…•…o. 1•…•…
• The manner of Christes kingdome.
• Hovv Christ ruleth.
• The feoftmēts of Christes kingdome.
• Supra. 797.
• Sand. 84. Math. 28. Rom. 14. Psal. 8.
• In Ioan. li. 4. ca. 12.
• Psal. •…•….
• 1. Cor. 15.
• Rom. 9.
• The gouerne∣ment of Christ
• 1. Cor. •…•….
• Adams king∣dome.
• Sand. 84.
• Io•…•…. 21. Math. 16.
• Math. 28.
• Peter not t•…•… first Pastor.
• Marci. 16.
• Ioan. 10.
• Christe vseth not a vvorldly kingdome by the Admini∣stration of the spirituall mi∣sters.
• Sand. 84.
• Io•…•…n. 6. Luke. 1•…•….
• M. Sand. shif∣ting off the examples of Christes flee∣ing from be∣ing a vvorldly King, and re∣fusing to be a •…•…vorldly Iudge
• The cause of Christes refu∣sal vvas not on ly in the ori∣ginall, least it should seeme to come of thē
• Ferus in. 10. 6. The causes vvhy Christe fled from a vvorldly king dome.
• Christe vvould not giue any occasion of se∣dition.
• The Popishe Prelates of an other iudge∣ment than Christe.
• The Papistes compared to the carnall Ievves.
• Carnal pastors
• M. Saunders shift to Christs refusall to be a iudge Luc. 12.
• What the man thought of Christ •…•…hat vvould haue him a iudge.
• Hofmeister. in Luc•…•…. 12.
• Why Christ tooke not on him the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of a Magistrate
• Christ aboli∣shed not the Magistrats of∣fice, though he himselfe refu∣sed it.
• All iudgement of all temporal matters not vt∣te•…•…ly debarred from the spiri∣tual Ministers▪ What kind of iudging is de∣barred.
• Sand. pag. 84.
• Luc•…•…. 12.
• Though all things all to be referred to gods kingdom yet the kingdō c•…•…nsists not in all things. 1. Co•…•…. 10. Rom. •…•…4.
• How worldly things belong to the king∣dome of God.
• How the spi∣rituall mini∣sters of Christ may haue a b•…•…ance of worldly things. In what re∣spect they be∣long to thē & to al the faith∣full & in what respect they belong not vnto them. How the Po∣pish•…•… •…•…relates would haue worldly thīgs.
• The Papistes haue no mea∣sure in hauing, & the cormo∣rants no mea∣sure in pulling away.
• In what parte and respect the beleeuer in Christ hathe left off to be of the world.
• S. Aug. wre∣sted by master Sanders.
• How faithfull kingdomes lea•…•…e off and how not to be of the world.
• Aug▪ in trac∣tatu, •…•…n loa. 11•…•….
• Howe euery faythfull is a king in a my∣sticall sense, but not in a li∣terall sense.
• Sand. pag. 84.
• M. Sand. styll vvrestes thys vvorde, the vvorld•…•….
• The simple & literall mea∣ning of Christ in •…•…aying▪ Hys kingdome is not of thys vvorlde.
• The opinion o•…•… the Ievves that offred him the kingdome.
• His Disciples opinion in cra •…•…ng pre•…•…er∣ment in hys kingdome. Math. 20.
• Hovve Christe ruleth Christi∣an Princes.
• Hovv M. Sand. vvould haue al Christendome and a greate parte of Hea∣thenesse sub∣iecte to the Pope.
• Iohn. 18.
• Sand. pag. 84.
• Tit. 3.
• Whether it vvere a vvicked deede for Bi∣shops to de∣pose a vvicked king.
• Thoughe the subiect be not bound to obey the vices, yet he is bounde to obey the state.
• Thoughe Bi∣shops can not depose Princes yet Princes can depose Bishops.
• The vices that he surmiseth on Princes, are apparante in the Pope and his Prelates.
• Sand. pag. 85.
• What the prea cher may do agaynst a vvic ked Prince. No bodily pu∣nishment of the King be∣longeth to the Bishop.
• What may be done in remo∣uing an euill Prince in som estates.
• Sand. pag. 85.
• Ezech. 34.
• Whether euery necessarie and profitable po∣vver be giuen to the Pastor ouer his shepe.
• Luke. 22.
• The popishe Pastors farre from the due∣ties described in. Ezech. 34.
• Glossa in Lyra in Ezech. 34.
• To expel Prin ces from theyr kingdomes, is to rule vvyth bitternesse.
• Sand. pag. 85.
• In Orat. de moderat. in disputat ser∣uanda. The similitude of cutting of a rotten •…•…eber.
• Hovv the pa∣stors are as it vvere the mind or reason in the head. Hovve the Prince againe is as the minde o•…•… reason in the head.
• The Prince compared to the vvill in the har•…•…e.
• If the Prince vvere but com pared to the lungs, lights or lyuer, yet must •…•…e not be cut off bicause he is infected.
• Sand. pag. 85.
• 1. Cor. 6.
• Howe the Church hath power ouer the goods and bodily things of the faithfull.
• The pastors are not the Church, but members of the Church.
• The pastors haue the po∣wer and pro∣prietie of bo∣dily goods frō the power of the Prince. 1. Cor. 6.
• M. Sand. ma∣keth priests only Christiās, and Christian Princes Eth∣nikes.
• S. Paule ment not that the Corinthiaus should go to law before the pastors for tē∣porall mat∣ters.
• Sand. pag. 85.
• 1. Cor. 6.
• Rom. 8.
• Howe the mi∣nisters haue & haue not to do with worldly businesse.
• S. Paule wres∣ted by Maister Sand▪
• How the saints shall iudge the world.
• Chrysost. in. 1. Cor. 6.
• S. Paule spea∣king of Saints meaneth not only spirituall Pastors.
• Haimo in. 1. Cor. 6.
• Hugo in. 1. Cor. 6.
• The Pope reproued.
• Sand. 85.
• De regulis iuris.
• Hebr. 5.
• 2. Cor. 5.
• Christe giues not al his gifts by his Pastor.
• The Churche hath not al∣wayes power to make their Magistrates.
• The Pastors passe a right to the Prince and haue not the right in thē selues.
• Sand. 8•…•….
• The Corinthi∣ans might not choose newe publike Ma∣gistrates, by∣cause they might choose newe priuate arbiters.
• S. Paule allow eth the autho∣ritie of heathen Magistrates in his time.
• Maister Saun∣ders 〈◊〉〈◊〉 S. Paule to al rebellion.
• Sand. pag. 85.
• Better suffer a mischiefe than an inconueni∣ence.
• One inconue∣nience not to be helped with an other in∣conuenience.
• The heathen iudges del•…•… not only in tempo rall matters.
• The daunger of M. Saund. doctrine
• The greatest daunger of all is of the Pope & his prelates.
• Sand. pag. 85.
• 1. Reg. 10. &. 1•…•….
• 1. Reg. 15.
• 1. Reg. 16.
• Osee. 8.
• 1. Reg. 23.
• 1. Reg. 22.
• Deposing of Kings was ne∣uer belonging to the spiritu∣all power.
• Samuel was but the mini∣ster of declarīg gods precept.
• No highest B. of the Church besides Christ.
• Samuel depo∣sed not Saule.
• 1. Reg. 13.
• Caietanus in 1. Reg. 13. The Lords cō∣maundement by Samuell to Saule, was es∣pecial, and ser∣ued but for that turne. •…•…yra in. 1. Reg. 13.
• Lyra in. •…•…. Reg. 13.
• Samuels doing to Saule and Dauid, was but a declaration of Gods pur∣pose to come.
• 1. Reg. 15.
• Lyra in. 1. Reg. 15. The token to Saule who should succede him. 1. Reg. 14. Glosla in Lyra.
• Soule raygned fortie yere af∣ter this sent•…•…ce of Samuel.
• The cutting off of Saules kingdome was mente by his posteritie, not by him∣selfe.
• Lyra in. 1. Reg. 15.
• Dauids priuy anoynting be∣tokeneth it was no pub∣like acte.
• Saule was ne∣uer deposed so long as he ly∣ued.
• M. Sand. rea∣sons that he is to be obeyed whom the Pope settes vp, and he to be forsaken that the Pope de∣poseth.
• Osee. 8. How wicked kings are of God, and not of God.
• Rom. 13. Pronetb. 8. loa•…•… 19▪
• The Prophets after they had declared Gods wrath to wic∣ked kings, dyd still obey their ciuill gouern∣ment.
• Ionathas ac∣knowledged not Dauid to be king, but that he should be king. 1. Reg. 23.
• 1▪ Reg. 20.
• Caietan•…•… in 1. Reg. 20.
• Why the peo∣ple flocked vn∣to Dauid.
• Caietanus que stion whether Dauid did wel to receiue this people to the preiudice of their creditors.
• Lyra his que∣stion whether he did well to become their captayne, and receyued them to the preiu∣dice of the publi•…•…e state.
• Dauid neuer tooke him self nor was taken of any other to b•…•… •…•…ng tyll S•…•…ule was d•…•…d.
• 1. Reg. 24.
• Lyra.
• Caietane.
• Dauids re∣morce of con∣scie•…•…ce euen for cutting but a flap of Saules gar∣ment
• How this cut∣ting was and was no•…•… iniu∣rious to Saule.
• 1. Reg. 24.
• Dauids reue∣rence and hu∣militie to Saule.
• Dauid purgeth himselfe of all rebellion and sinne against Saul.
• Dauid wisheth no reuenge∣ment to Saul.
• Saul cōfesseth Dauid shoulde raign, not that he did raigne.
• Saul resigned not to Dauid.
• 1. Reg. 16.
• Dauid woulde •…•…e no efficient cause of Saules death.
• 1. Reg. 21. Whether A∣chimelech as∣ked counsel of the Lord for Dauid, or no, when Dauid fled vnto him. Lyra.
• Achimelech the high priest inferior to Saul.
• •…•…. Reg. 22.
• The Popish & not the protes∣tant Princes imitate Saules crueltie, or ra∣ther excede it.
• Sand. pag. 86.
• 3. Reg. 11.
• Eph•…•…. •…•…
• The example of the prophet Ahias foretel∣ling Ieroboam that he should raigne.
• The specialtie of this fact not to be drawne to example.
• How Ieroboā was a traytor how he was not.
• The Prophete did but foretel this fact, & that by especiall cōmandement.
• An admonitiō for Christian Princes not to ioyne in mari∣age & leagues with infidell Princes. 3. Reg. 11. 3. Reg. 16. 3. Reg. 21. 2. Paral. 20.
• Sand. 86.
• 3. Reg. 1•…•….
• The examples of Elias anoin∣ting Asahel, Iehu▪ and Eli∣zeus.
• Glossa in Ly∣rano in. 3. Reg. 19.
• 4. Reg. 9.
• 4. Reg. 8.
• 3. Reg. 19.
• Lyra in. 3. Reg. 19.
• Caietanus in 3. Reg. 19.
• Exod. 32.
• Num. 25.
• Iohn. 18.
• Sand. 86.
• How the Pro∣phets dyd kill these Idolaters.
• 3. Reg. 18.
• It belongeth not to Pastors to punish with the bodily sworde.
• M. Sand. con∣futes him self.
• Sand. pag. 86.
• 4. Reg. 1.
• 4. Reg. 1.
• Ambro. lib. 5 Epist. 27.
• Rom. 13.
• 4. Reg. 1▪
• The superio∣ritie of the spi∣ritual sworde, is not the pre∣sent question.
• The present question is, whether the spiritual po∣wer of pastors may depose he secular power of Princes. 4 Reg. 1. King Ochozias representeth not the Prote∣stant, but the popish Prin∣ces.
• Elias toke not vpon him the chiefest place in Gods Church.
• Elias his facte not to be dra∣wen to any example to followe.
• Lyra in.. 4 Reg. 1.
• Caieta•…•…us in 4. Reg. 1.
• The imitation of th•…•… facte of Elias expresse∣ly forbidden to the Disci∣ples of Christ. Luke. 9.
• Popish Bi∣shops of a con∣trary sp•…•…rite to Christ.
• M. Sand. pro∣ueth his By∣shops to be traytors.
• The example of S Ambrose.
• Sand. pag. 8•…•…. &. 87.
• Of like things it makes no matter what is done.
• M. Sand •…•…alles to putting of cases againe, cōtrarie to the Scripture.
• Gen 3.
• Difference of punishmentes.
• Gen. 14. Gen. 19. 1. Reg 22. Leuit. 10.
• This punishe∣ment of fire, was an especi∣all pu•…•…shmēt proceding frō God, not from Elias.
• 3. Reg. 18. Lyra super Luc. 9.
• Sand. 87.
• 4. Reg. 6.
• Ibidem.
• 4. Reg. 2.
• 4. Reg. 1.
• The example of Elizeus.
• Elizeus defence of •…•…rie charets against the ar∣mie of the king of Siria.
• The Pope like to Benadab.
• The Protestāts like 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Elizeus
• The Popes cru 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to his cap tiue•…•…, vnlike the cu•…•…sie of Eli∣zeus.
• Elizeus caused the kings mes∣sanger to be kept out of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 4. Reg. 6.
• Elizeus resisted not the King in keeping out his Mes•…•…anger
• Lyra in. 4. Reg. 6.
• Cale•…•…anus in. 4 Reg. 6.
• Elizeus cursed the children that mocked him and the Beares deuou∣red them. 4. Reg. 2.
• Glossa cum 〈◊〉〈◊〉 •…•…a in 4. Reg. •…•….
• S•…•…nd. 87.
• Zacha. 13.
• Deut 17.
• 2. Cor. 3.
• Where faithful princes wan∣ted 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Pro∣phet 〈◊◊◊〉〈◊◊◊〉 m•…•…nt to •…•…od.
• The obedience to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 o•…•… nee 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to Christianitie. by M Sand. ar gument.
• No neede of myracles.
• Zacha. 13.
• Zacha. 13. The prophecie for punishing of false Pro∣phetes.
• The punish∣ment of false Prophetes be∣longeth to the Prince.
• The popishe clergie be such false prophetes as Zacharie prophecied of.
• The fountaine of grace.
• Idolatrie.
• Teaching of lyes.
• Ignorance.
• Hipocris•…•… of rough garm•…•…
• The detection and punishmēt of popery pro∣phecied by Za∣charie.
• The wresting of the com•…•…ō alleaged place. Deut. 17.
• Zacharie. 11. Zacharies pro∣phecie of the Pope.
• Lyra in Za. 11.
• The Pope an Idol.
• Glossa cum Lyra.
• Sand. pag. 87. Deut. 17. 1. Cor. 3.
• The ministra∣tion of the po∣pish ministe∣rie.
• Sand. pag. 87.
• 2. Para•…•… 26.
• Aug. Quest. lib. 2. q. 40.
• The example of king Ozias, attempting to offer incence.
• The pope rea∣dier to cas•…•…e Princes out of heauen, than to bring the into heauen.
• In what case a Bishop maye excommuni∣cate a •…•…icked Prince.
• The Priestes withstoode the king, but not with any bo∣dily violence▪ 2. Pa•…•…al. 26.
• Caietanus in 2 Pa•…•…al. 26.
• The Pope dealeth not with Princes as Azarias did. 1. Tim. 3.
• Gal. 2.
• This king was neuer deposed for all this of∣fence.
• Sand. pag. 87.
• Leuit▪ 13.
• 1. Cor. 10.
• 2. Paral. 26. The similitude of leprie com∣pared to he∣resie. Aug. •…•…. Quest. 2. Q. 40.
• A similitude of man is no ma∣nifest testimo∣nie of the vvorde of God.
• This simili∣tude is applied of the Papistes to other things
• The Priest did but discerne of the disease, and not dis∣possesse men of their goods.
• The excluding of the Leper from cōpanie belongeth not to the Priest. Num. 5.
• The tex•…•… of scripture 〈◊〉〈◊〉 alleag•…•…d.
• This law was Iudicial, and so vve are not bounde to it, nor it is any figure to vs.
• S. Paule vvre∣sted. Haymo in 1. Cor. 10.
• Rom. 15.
• 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉.
• Math. 13.
• 1. Cor. 7.
• The morall or mysticall signification of separating the leper separa∣reth not the •…•…king from his kingdome.
• The example of king Oz•…•…s confu•…•…es M. Sand. figure.
• This figure maketh agaīst popish priests, not against protestant Princes.
• Sand. pag. 87. 3. Reg. 11▪
• 3. Reg. 12.
• Malach. 2.
• The example of Ioiada the high priest that caused Athalia to be killed. & Ioas to be made king.
• M. Sand. con∣fuse citing of the scripture.
• No king is here deposed but an vsurper killed.
• Lyra in 4. Reg. 11.
• The doings of Ioiada were vpon such oc∣casiōn that they can not be 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉 ex∣ample.
• The close nou rishment of so as by the high priest his vncle in the Temple was extraordi∣narie.
• Lyra in 3. Reg. 11.
• The close do∣ing of Ioiada argueth he had no ordinarie authoritie.
• In what re∣spect this do∣ing belonged chiefly to the high Priest.
• Lyra in. 3. Reg. 11. That which Ioiada did, he did it not by his owne authori∣tie, but by con∣sent of the prin ces & nobilitie
• Wherein Ioia∣daes facte may be drawne to an example.
• In what re∣spect ioiada had know∣ledge of the Kings causes.
• The King might haue knowledge in the Byshops causes. 2. Paral. 23.
• 4. Reg. 12
• How the king delt with the priests for their •…•…blations.
• Gloss•…•… in Lyra.
• Ioas gouerne∣ment ouer the priestes stret∣ched f•…•…ther than to money matters.
• Howe the B. is a sequester be∣tweene God & the Prince.
• The B the Lords Angell or Messanger and the Prin∣•…•…es the Lordes Christe or an∣noynted.
• The euent of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 off al w•…•…rres and •…•…u∣mults, if the Pope might de pose and set vp all Princes.
• The hurlie burlies that the Pope ha•…•…h made.
• The popes wi•…•… k•…•…d peace if it were admitted
• M. Sand argu∣ments out of the new Testa∣ment. Mar. 5. Iohn. 2. 1. Cor. 5▪ 1. Tim 1.
• Act. 5.