This title the Bishop noteth to conteine an vntrue re­porte and ambiguous guile. You pretend (saith the B.)Winchester Fol. Diuisiō. 1. and would haue your frendes to thinke, that the first foure chiefe pointes set forth in your booke, were deuised by you, put in writing, and so deli­uered vnto me, as the matter and ground. Wher­vpon the conference to be had betwixt me & you should stande, and that I made therevnto none other but such resolutions, as it pleased you vn­truly to reporte. In the first parte you conuaye an vntruth vnder a colourable and ambigious mea­ning, in these wordes, as M. Iohn Feckenham by writing did deliuer vnto the Lord B of VVinchester. In the other parte you make vntrue report with out any colour at all.

Thus saith the B. to M. Feckenham, for the false title of his Booke. To this M. Stapl▪ counterblast consisteth on foure points, the first is, that It is a by matter, which whetherSt. fol. 6. b.it be true or false, doth nothing either preiudicate or touche the principall question.

To the which I answere, it is in déede but the very title, but I feare me, it is somwhat preiudiciall to the parties ho­nestie, [Page 42] & also to his whole treatise, to be entituled with a ma­nifest lie. Howbeit M St. doth wisely for himselfe to set the matter so light, that it should not force whether this title be true or false so long as it doth not touche the principall que­stion, for by this rule M. Stapl. counterblast, being almost litle els, than by matters nor touching the principall questiō, when soeuer (as it will fall out very often) he shalbe sounde to make a lie, the matter may quickly be salued, with this his first rule, it is a by matter which whether it be true or false, doth nothing either preiudicate or touche the principall question. And so this one answere may serue to defend not onely M. Feck but the best parte of M. Stapl. counterblast. But if he had any great regard of his owne, or M. Feck. ho­nestie, or would winne credite to his booke & cause, he would haue more regarde, then, euen of the thing that is first of all chalenged, for a manifest falshood, to protest that he recketh not whether it be true or false. It is a signe either of a very rechlesse defender that careth not for truth: or of a very false client and cause that must be defended with falshood. & that, euen in the very title & front of the treatise. But alas, what should M. St. els do, in so euident a case, & yet I may say to you, he setteth a good face on the matter, leauing out nothing that may séeme not only to make y^e matter lesse haighnous, but also to proue that M. Feck. vsed simple dealing herein.

And so secondly entring into the excuse of M. Feck. VVhat incōuenience (saith he) is it I pray you, though M. Feck wroteSt. fol. 7. a.in the towre, that which he deliuered to M. Horne at walthā ▪ what inconuenience foloweth I pray you, if he minded first to deliuer the same to his examiners in the Tower, or els where as occasion should serue? is this sufficient to disproue him, to condemne him, to slaunder him of surmised vntruth? it is ra­ther to be thought of such as are not malicious, to be playne dealing▪ not to dissemble with you, but euen as he had penned the writing before, so without any alteratiō to deliuer it▪ who neuerthelesse afterwarde hauing occasion to exhibite and pre­sent [Page 43] the same writing to others, did simply without guile or deceipt signifie it to be deliuered vnto you at walthā ▪ and was it not so? denie it if you cā. Euery childe by this may see, how fonde and foolish your cauill is. But euery childe M. St. (you thought) should not see the couneyance of your Sophi­strie, in fetching the matter thus about the bush to clere M. Feck. of the falshood of his title. And yet many childrē know that captiō wel inough à pluribus interrogat [...]s, by asking ma­ny things togither confusedly, to make vs graūt vnawares what ye please to conclude. We graunt ye, that M. Feck. wrote that in the Tower, that he deliuered to the B [...]at walthā, he did so, and might do so without any inconuenience. We graunt ye also, he minded first to deliuer the same to his exa­miners, in the tower or els where, as occasiō should serue, this might he also haue done conueniently. You aske againe, if this be sufficiēt to disproue him, to condemne him, to slaūder him of surmised vntruth? We graunt ye also it is not M. St. nor y^e B. or any other goeth about so to do, here in you do but slaunder y^e B. with surmised vntruth. Ye procéede, that it was plaine dealing, and not to dissemble with the B. euen as he had penned the writing before, so without any alteration to deliuer it. We graunt it might be so also M. Stapl. if he meant good sothe, but what is all this to the matter, where­with the B. chargeth him? It followeth, VVho neuertheles afterwarde, hauing occasion to exhibite and present the same in writing to others, did simply without guile or disceit, signi­fie it to be deliuered to you at Waltham.

Yea forsooth M. St. now ye come to the purpose, where­with the B. chargeth him, for the falshood of his title Proue now that this treatise, thus made by M. Feck. in the tower, di­rected to the cōmissioners, & after that, without any alteration deliuered to the B. at waltham: had the same title which this his treatise set out, hath, & then you cléere M. Feck. But this you can not do, and therefore you speake in [...]ious speaches, saying, VVho neuerthelesse afterwardes hauing occasion to [Page 44] exhibite and present this same writing, to others did simplie without guile or deceit, signifie it to be deliuered vnto you at waltham. The writing ye say, is the same writing, howe chance then it hath not the same title? why say you, neuer­thelesse? meane you not thereby he altered either somthing therein, or at least the title thereof? why dare ye not speake it in plaine english? But say he did signifie it to be deliuered to the B [...]at waltham? If he had let the treatise kéepe his true title, and then haue made such signification, then might ye haue said he did it simplie without guile or disceit, then might ye haue concluded plaine dealing. But since M. Feckenham first en [...]ituled his booke, an Answere &c. to the Queenes Highnes commissioners &c. and after scrapeth out that title, & in place thereof entituleth it, Scruples &c. to the Lorde B. of VVinchester: if ye had concluded that M. Feck vsed plaine dubling, this had bene a plaine conclusion. And the more ye trauaile to excuse his dubling, ye shew your owne guile and disceit, with your captious argumēt & ambiguous speaches, and to couer his falsehood bewraye your owne vntruth. Which M. Stap. wisely fearing, letteth go the furder excu­sing of M. Feckenham and retorning to his former rule.

Be it false or be it true what is al this (saith he) to the mat­terSt. fol. 7. a.and thing now in hande? it is (as your selfe confesse) but a circumstance. And here thirdly after his defence of M. Feck▪ he falleth to accuse the B. for not obseruing of due circumstances. But I reserue the answere, to some instance hereof, & also his marginal note that M. Horne keepeth not his owne rule. But sith this hath neither coūterblastical, nor marginal, nor any [...] of proofe at al: till it shal [...]e proued, let it go as woordes of course among his common places.

M St. hauing thus labored to excuse the title of M. Feck, booke, and that now it is so clere of all faulte, that he might procéede to his next diuision without furder daliā [...]e, as one that all this while, was not well aduised, nor remembred his matter, nor him selfe, but wrote this excuse of M. Feck. [Page 45] halfe a sléepe, sodenly calleth to minde one greate poynte, wherin the title of M. Feckenhams treatise may be counted faultie. And here fourthly, he entreth into a great and so­lemne counterblast, almost full true sides of his booke, the summe whereof is very muche forsoothe appertayning to the question, and therefore in no case mus [...]e so lightely be forgotten.

But novv (sayth he) that I remember and aduise my selfeStap. 7. a.a little better, I suppose I can not altogither excuse M. Feck. for this title, but muste rase out thereof foure vvords, and in steade of L. B. of VVinchester, set in M. Robert Horne.

This is a sore fault in deed M. Stap. and M. Feckenham worthy great blame for it, and you worthy much commen­dation, for calling to your remembraunce so seene, a matter that so muche toucheth the state of the question betweene them, whether the B. of Winchester were well called L. Byshop, or M. Horne, yea or no, a very highe poynte, and worthy so clerkly a declamation, as ye haue made there [...]. But since, as ye confesse, he is so in the estimation of many, and so called after the vsuall sorte, let vs sée after what vsu­all or vnusual sort, you esteeme and gather to the contrarie, agaynst M. Feck. and the B. herein. But first, remembring also in time, that this is not the way to defende M. Feck. to finde faulte with him, and that he hath already founde a faulte in this title of his treatise, and can not eate agayne his worde: though he defende him not, yet will he not be ouer harde an aduersarie to him, but mitigate at the least the cause of his defaulte, saying: M. Feckenham dissemblingStap. 7. b.and winking at the common errour. &c. of his great mode­stie and ciuilitie, willing the lesse to exasperate you & others, though he well knewe ye vvere no right B. yet after the vsual forte, calleth and termeth you L. B. of VV. But I muste be so bolde by your leaue, as playnly and bluntly to go to worke with you, as I haue done before with M. Grindall, and M. Iuell, your pewfellowes, and to remoue frō you this glorious [Page 46] glittering pecocks tayle, and to call a fig a fig, and a horne a horne, and to say that most truely, ye are no L. B. of VVin­chester, or else where, but onely M. Robert Horne.

And is there no remedie M. Stap. but you muste be so bolde and blunt, as to chaunge M. Feck. title onely, for say­ing L. B. of. VVinchester? But since ye must néedes, who can let you, ye do but after your blunt kinde, ye are a plaine mā, brought vp at home, & who so bold as blind bayard. Yet is your b [...]unt boldnesse herein y^t more to be borne withall, that while ye would shew your bolde spite agaynst the B. your aduersarie, ye excuse M. F. your clyēt with very blunt termes also: whō ye entituled before with smooth flattring clawes, The right Reuerent father my L. Abbot of VVestm. Now he is distembling M. Feck. and winking M. Feck. at the common error. But the B. and M. Feck. must néedes beare with you at this time, bicause ye must néedes be so bolde as to go plainly and bluntly to worke. But howsoeuer they must beare with you for your blunt spéeches, must we also beare with you, that would make dissembling at errours, to procéede of great modestie, and vertue to be the mother of vice? except dissēbling be also a vertue in you, as it is much vsed amongst a number of dissembling Papists at this day with vs, & was wont to be proper to friers & monks aboue al other, to dissemble, & that with most fayned modestie and humilitie to. But al was but hypocrisie, & an hypocrites end it hath come vnto. Therefore howsoeuer we muste beare with your bluntnesse, as ye cal a fig a fig, & a horne a horne, so I pray you call dissembling dissembling & falshod falshod, ye can neuer call it modestie, great or little, howe boldely, bluntly and immodestly so euer ye out face the matter. And thus once againe, while ye would excuse M. Feck. title, to conteine no ralshod ye not only accuse it, but also accuse M. Feck. to be a false dissembler, and a winkapipes, so pro­perly ye defende him. But still ye must be borne withall, for bicause ye go bluntly to worke.

[Page 47]And were it not that for this phyne bluntnesse, ye muste be borne withal, some blunt playne fellow woulde perad­uenture call for some reason. Let vs heare therefore howe bluntly you proceede to proue, that ye haue so bluntly spokē.

For (say you) albert the Prince may make a Lorde at hirStap. 7. b.gratious pleasure, whom she liketh, yet can she not make you L. B. of VVinchester, considering you are not L. but in respect of some baronages and temporalties belonging and annexed to the See of VV. But you vsurping the See, as ye are no B. so for the consideration aforesayde ye are no L. nor Prelate of the Garter. For ye can be no Prelate of the Garter, beeing no Prelate at all, that beeing a prerogatiue appropriate to the Prelate and B. of VVinchester.

Soft M. St. if ye be so playne & blunt a man as ye pretr̄d,The title of L. Bishop. ne sutor vltra crep [...]da, hew not t [...] hye, least chips fall in your eye: blunder not so rudely with princes. must the Q. Maie­stie beare with you to, bicause you must needs go bluntly to worke? ye presume to determine what the Q. highnes may do. She can make him [...]. but she can not make him L. B. of VV. And why so M. St? considering he is not Lorde, but in respecte of some baronage and temporalties belonging and annexed to the See of VVinchester. Erg [...], then ye graunt him to be Lorde B. by your owne words, to whom the Q. highnesse (as you graunt she may, in respect of the tempo­ralties and baronies belonging therto) hath graunted and gi­uen him them. Wherby she hath made him Lord, except ye wil denie, that hir highnesse authoritie, which euen al your popish bishops, did receiue before at hir graces progenitors hands, neither the baronies and temporalties onely (whe [...]by they were named Lords, but their inuestiture also, wherby they were Byshops,) at the Princes handes.

But see stil how bluntly ye go to worke against your self, & for hast to remoue this title of Lord from the B. of W. ye ouerturn y^e glory of your own prelats. For if this your rule be true, y^t he is not called Lord, but in respect of some baro­nies [Page 48] & temporalties belonging and annexed to the See how many Cardinals, Bishops, Suffraganes, Abbots, & Priors, euen in Italie (that haue neither baronies nor muche tem­poralties) should léese their title of Lorde & honour? thinke you all these will be pleased with this your rule?

We must beare with you there is no remedie, and well may M. Feck. of friendship, & the B. of pitie beare with you also, & the Quéenes maiestie of hir gracious clemencie bea­reth with your saucie bluntnesse. But assure your selfe, and ye were as blunt & playne as euer were your Marcolphus, those Italian prelates, if ye stayne their honour, will neuer beare with you one iot. And I rede you beware this blunt­nesse for they can do much with your holy father the Pope, except ye be so blunt ye care not for him neither. But deale with them as ye may, ye are blunt inoughe in your owne conceite, for the finest of them all. Let vs sée what reasons moueth you to be so blunt with the B.

He is not L. Byshop of VVin. nor Prelate of the Garter. Sta. fol. 7. b. Why so? bicause he is no B. or Prelate at all. How proue ye that? he is an vsurper, he is an intruder, he is called therto by no lawfull vocation nor canonicall consecration &c. he is no true B. &c. his vocation is direct contrarie to the canons and constitutions of the Churche, and to the vniuersall custome and maner heretofore, vsed and practised not onely in Eng­lande, but also in all other Catholike countreys and Chur­ches, deliuered to vs from hande to hande, from age to age, euen from the first gra [...]fing and planting of the fayth, espe­cially in Englande.

Here are many blunt & playne words in déede M. St. and many great crakes, but here is no proofe of any: do not think ye muste still be thus borne withall: your to muche presu­ming of eche mans pacience, to beare with your rudenesse, will hazarde your credite to farre, excepte ye alledge some reason of your sayings. Let vs heare therefore what proues ye bring.

[Page 49] For the which I referre me (say you) to all autentike andStap. S. [...].auncient▪ recordes, as well of Englande as of other Nations concerning the ordinary succession of Bishops, namely in the foresayde Sea of VVinchester, for there was not, no not one, in that Sea, that did not acknowledge the supremacie of the Sea of Rome, and that was not confirmed by the same, vntil the late time of M. Poynet, who otherwise also was an vsur­per, the true B. then liuing, and by no lawfull or ecclesiasticall order remoued or depriued. Ye are therefore the first B. of this sewt and race, and so consequently no B. at al. As not able to shew to whom ye did ordinarily succede, and any good or customable either vocation or cōsecration. VVhich point be­ing necessarily required in a B. and in your Apostles Luther, and Caluin & other lacking, (as I haue otherwhere sufficiētly proued, though you by depesilence thinke it more wisdome, vtterly to des [...]emble, than once to answere) they being ther­with pressed, were so messhed and bewrapped therein, that they coulde not in this worlde witte what to say thereto, an­swearing this and that, they wiste neare what, nor at what poynt to holde them, yea Beza was fayne at the last as­semblie at Poysie, with silence to confesse the inuincible truth.

Setting aside these vaine crakes, & manifest lying slaun­ders which I referre to your common places M. St. I will answeare onely to your inuincible argument. Which stan­deth vpon your common bragge of succession.

Your argument is this, ye succeede no Bishop of VVin­chester:The papistes argument of B. succession.Ergo, ye are no Bishop of VVincester. I answere: First, if he meane succession of the person in the roome, your antecedent is euident false. He succeded the persons of Popishe Bishops in the same roome. And the consequent followeth not. For then, the first Bishop of that Sea, was no B. bicause he succeded none, but was the first ther [...]f. And if the first was none, then the second was none, and so there was neuer any at all. If ye meane sucession of the doctrine, [Page 50] and the Apostles rules: then neyther Bishoppe Gardiner whom ye call the true B. nor any popishe Bishops, haue succession, but digression and defection from them. And our Bishoppes haue the true succession, that is to say followe the doctrine and orders of the Apostles, prescribed in the worde of god, for a Bishops office. But howe do ye proue your an­tecedent?

Of all the Bishops not onely in Englande, but in other na­tions, namely, in the Sea of VVinchester. From hand to hand, from age to age, euen from the first grafting and planting of the fayth in Englande, not one of them all, no not one, that did not acknowledge the supremacie of the sea of Rome, and that was not confirmed by the same.

But you do not acknowledge the supremacie of the Sea of Rome, nor are confirmed by the same.

Ergo, ye are the first Bishop of this sewt and race, and so consequently no bishop at all, as not able to shew to whome ye did ordinarily succeede, or any good and customable ey­ther vocation or consecration.

This argument (M. Stapleton) is of a newe sewt and race, it succedeth neither good nor customable moode or figure, and therfore can make no good successe. Howbeit l [...]t vs sée the partes of it. The minor we graunt, as euident on the Bishops part. For the maior we must put you to your proufe. We affirme it to conteyne many euident falshoodes. For proufe hereof, you say, for the which I referre me to all autentike and auncient recordes as well of Englande, as of other nations. Ye say well herein master Stapleton, and we take your offer.

And fi [...]st let vs sée for other Nations. Did Iames euen the first Bishop of Hierusalem, acknowledge the suprema­cie of the Sea of Rome? Was he confirmed by the same Sea? when as yet the same Sea was not to be acknowledged or be confirmed by? If (as you say) the B. can be no prelate of the Ga [...]ter, being no prelate at all: how could that Sea be [Page 51] acknowledged, that was not at all? Moreouer do ye thinke that Timothie Bishoppe of Ephesus, or Titus of Cr [...]ta, and all other Bishoppes of Asia or Grece, that Sainte Paule made, acknowledged the supremacie of the Sea of Rome, or were confirmed by the same, when SainteGalat. 2. Paule that ordeyned them sayeth, he receyued his authori­tie of no man? And when he came to Rome, he neyther came to haue his Bishops confirmed of the Sea of Rome, nor he founde anye Sea there, nor sought Peter for the saide purpose else where, nor thought himselfe any whitte inferiour to him: much lesse thought he of any suche supre­macie, eyther of his Sea or him.

Nowe, if the first and originall of all those Bishop­rikes Eastwarde, neyther acknovvledged anye suprema­cie of that Sea, nor were confirmed by the same: What plea can you make of theyr succession? If they swarued from theyr predecessours and first founders, your selfe confesse it is no good succession, but a newe sewte and race. And if it be good and lawfull succession, that the Bishops of the East Churches succeded by, then, neyther acknow­ledged they anye supremacie of the Sea of Rome, nor were confirmed by the same, euen which not onelye the true autentyke and auncient recordes doe testifie, howe they agréed, although in sayth, yet nothing lyke in dis­ciplines, rytes and orders, to whiche the Romaine Sea doth sweare all those Bishoppes, that are confyrmed by it, and acknowledge obedience therevnto: But also euen to this daye (thoughe one or two Bishoppes, nowe and then of late time, for verye necessitie and hope of reliefe) haue runne to the Sea of Rome, yet by theyr ordinarie and customable succession, euen from the Apostles times, so long as they continued Christian, neuer acknowledged they the supremacie of the Sea of Rome, nor were confir­med by the same.

The like recordes for the Churches southward, remaine, [Page 52] not only of their beginnings from the other Apostles, & not from the Sea of Rome, but also of their continuance, howe they woulde not admitte anye supremacie of the same Sea, ouer them, and what contention they had thereabout. As for their confirmations, that they had them not from the sea of Rome, but euen from the Emperour, yea the Bishop of Rome himselfe, and other, from their princes: the practise when we come thereto shall shewe.

And as east warde and southwarde, so may we like wise reason of the Church westward, where S. Paule (after he had bene two yeare at Rome) by the space of tenne yeares trauelled in Italie, Spaine, and Fraunce, as witnesse Eu­sebius, Epiphanius, Ierome, Euthalius Diaconus, Nice­phorus, Beda, Platina, yea Frier Perionius, that wrote the other daye de vit [...]s Apostolorum: that in Langue do [...] he made a Bishoppe at Narbona, who trauelled after with him in Spaine. And if in all that space (as it is most likely) he made other Bishops, shall we suppose they were not full Bishops, till they had their Bulles from the Sea of Rome? And if the first B. did not so, your reason of suc­cession fayleth.

So that your maior is false concerning other Nations. Now let vs briefly sée howe it likewise fayles for England. And as you say.

Namely in the foresayde Sea of VVinchester, that from the first grafting and planting of the fayth in England, there was not, no not one in that Sea, that did not acknowledge the supremacie of the Sea of Rome, and was not confirmed by the same, vntill the late time of master Poynet: who o­therwise also was but an vsurper, the true Bishop then liuing, & by no lawful or ecclesiasticall order remoued or depriued.

The lawfull order and sufficient causes of B. Gardeners depriuation is extant, and sette out in the booke of Monu­mentes. Howe true a Bishop (as ye call him) he was, if the acknowledging of obedience to the Sea of Rome, bée [Page 53] an argument of a true Bishop, his booke de vera obedientia, of true obedience, doth declare, and almost all the time of his bishopriche, he neuer acknowledged the supremacie, to apperteine to the Sea of Rome, but to the prince, as the Bi­shop now doth, there néede no recordes for the matter. And as for olde recordes, since the first grafting and planting of the faythe in Englande, whiche is farre longer, than ey­ther from your Apostle, monke Augustine, or from Biri­nus Bishop of Winchester: the recordes do testifie, howe the Christians, whome your Augustine and his mates founde in thys Realme, neyther kept the ceremonyes and rytes of the Romaine Churche, nor admitted the Legan­tine authoritie, of your sayde Apostle, which argueth that theyr Bishoppes acknowledged not (as you saye) the su­premacie of the Sea of Rome, nor were confirmed by the same, euen from Lucius till almost King Arthures tyme. when the Heathen Sarons so preuayled, in the west parts, that euen in Winchester, in King Arthures reigne, Cer­dicius erected a Temple of Heathen Idolles falsely called yet to this daye the Temple of Dagon, as the olde re­cordes doe mention. And therefore your maior is false for Englande also.

Now M. St. séeing the falsenesse of this argument of suc­cession to be such, that he dare not abide the triall of his re­cordes, he flyeth from it, and graunteth at the length, the B. vocation to be good and sownd. Yet hath he a stronger rea­son to disable him, which is this:

No heretike ought to be admitted to a Byshops roome,Stap. fol. 8. [...]or if he be, he forthwith ought to be remoued. But for that yee are yoked, or as ye pretende maryed, ye are no doubt an Heretike, Ergo were your vocation good and sounde, yet haue you disabled your selfe to occupie that roome, and eyther ought not to be admitted, or forthwith ought ye to be remoued.

I aunswere the maior i [...] true, and if it were as truely [Page 54] executed, none should better féele it, than the popish prelates, who confesse them selues not only for other Seas, but euen for their hed and mother sea of Rome, that diuers here [...]ikes haue bene B. thereof. Who being so admitted, I demaunde with Piers Plowmā of you M. St. by this your maior, who shall hang the Bell about the rattons necke? who shall re­moue an heretike Bishop of Rome? I thinke it will belong or euer he remoue him selfe.

The minor of this argument is of the diuels sophis [...]rie, so S. Paule calleth it doctrinam daemoniorum, and sayth, let a1. Tim. 4. 1. Tim. 3. B. be the husbande of one wife, and so was Saint Peter (who ye say was your first Bishoppe of Rome.) And yet neither was Saint Peter therefore an here [...]ike, nor saint Paule woulde haue B. to be here [...]ikes. But herein your owne Canons answere and confute you.

And yet here to proue vs heretikes, for defence of mari­age, he saith he will referre vs to the olde Canons of the fa­thers. What fathers meane you, the Apostles, Master Sta­pleton, that sayd mariage was honourable among all men?Hebr. 13. Meane ye the Canons that beare those fathers titles, and say, Episcopu [...] aut Presbiter vxorem propriam nequaquam subCanon. 6.obtentu religionis abijciat, si vero reiecerit excommunicetur, sed si perseuerauerit deijciatur? Let not a Bishop or a Priest putte awaye his owne wyfe vnder the pretence of Religion, and if he put hir away, let him be excomunicate, and if hee continue (in his fault) let him be put out of his office.

If you meane these fathers, your selues heare their ver­dict agaynst you. Dr meane ye the fathers of Nicene coun­cell, that agréed to the reuerent father Paphnutius? but, for some of the fathers, ye name whom ye meane, specially S. Augustine and Epiphanius, whom ye call poore Catho­likes, in déede master Stapleton they are very poore hel­pes, that ye can wring from them, to maintaine Poperie withall: but thinking we will reiect them, M. St. will wrap vs euen in our owne confessions.

[Page 55] Your owne famous Apologi [...] (sayth he) sayth that Epipha­niusStap. fol. 8. bnumbreth. 80. heresies, of the which it is one, for a man after the order of Priesthood to mary. But I trust you wil not be agaynst your owne Apologie. Ergo ye are heretikes by your owne confession that marie after Priesthood.

The cōsequence of this argumēt goeth hard M. St. to rea­son from y^e Apollogies reciting of Epiphanius, to the Apol­logies allowing of all thinges that either he hath, or they recite out of him. But letting go your logike, I aunswere to the maior. The Apologie sayth truely that Epiphanius numbreth 80. heresies, and the Apologie vs [...]th this tearme Heresies, in the same sense that Epiphanius did, as appeareth plainly by the example, of heresies that are therein rehear­sed. Epiphanius entituling his booke contra. 80 hereses, mea­neth not 80. perticular and seuerall false opinions, for so he should haue doub [...]ed at the least that number, but he mea­neth by 80. heresies, so many head or chief [...]ectaries or sects, whereof euery one maintayneth many seuerall perticular opinions hereticall, this is the plaine meaning of Epipha­nius, as appeareth most manifestly through out his booke, which argueth that M. St. séeking this poore shift, full lyke a poore Catholike and poore clearke also, neuer read Epi­phanius himselfe, but hearing tell that Epiphanius wrote a­gaynst 80 heresies [...] at 80▪ perticular opinions here­ticall. Of the which heresies taken after Epiphanius his v­sage, sect or sectarie, either for a perticular opinion hereti­call, he reckeneth this for none, (that I can finde) for a man after the order of priesthood to marie. If he had reckened this for any, be sure M. Stap. would hane reckened vp hys wordes and quoted the place.

Master Sta [...]leton now imagining with himselfe that he hath quite foyled vs, and that we must runne from the fa­thers, yea and ea [...]e our owne wordes, cryeth out, what then haue you to iustifie your cause?

But againe to help vs in this distresse, he conceyueth that [Page 56] there is yet one poore and s [...]elye helpe behinde, and that is to flie vnder the defence (as he contumeliouslye tear­meth it) of our brickle Bulvvarke of actes of Parlia­ment.

And here for raging after many impertinent things he cō ­cludeth thus. Such and such articles are commaunded to be set forth by the authoritie of Parliament. Ergo our fayth hangeth onely on the authoritie of Parliament.

Item, such and such articles of religion are not namely expressed in the actes of Parliament, Ergo they are heretical, and vnlawfull. The follie of these arguments néede none other answere but to shew them. But all this while where were your eyes fixed, that they once looked not to the que­stion in controuersie doe ye obserue your owne rule, so well M. Stapleton? howbeit, sith ye doe it of bluntnesse, agaynst these wordes of M. Feckenhams title, the Lord Bishop of VVinchester, Ye must be borne withall.

The seconde Diuision. Fol. 1. b

THe B. to proue this chalenge of M. Fecken­hams title to conteyne manifest guile and fals­hoode, sheweth the whole processe, fyrst of Master Feckenhams treatise composed in the Tower, and directed to the Queenes high­nesse Commissioners: and afterwardes howe he scrapeth out those phrases, and pretendeth as thoughe the treatise had beene composed at Waltham, and directed to the Bishop. Secondly, for his pretence of scruples as deliuered to the B. by writing, to be resolued in them, and of the B. resolutions there vnto, the B. sheweth the whole dealing of the cōferēce betwene thē. First that by [Page 57] mouthe, not by wryting, they reasoned on these poynts, and that M. Feckenham seemed resol­ued in them, and vpon what occasion afterwarde he fell to wrangling agayne from them, & what a doe the Byshop had, to haue master Fecken­ham write some positions or assertions in for me of propositions, to the ende they mighte cer­tenly goe forwarde, whiche the Byshop coulde not bring him vnto, tyll at the lengthe, at his owne requeste the Byshop putte in wryting the woordes of the othe, with the sense or in­terpretation added therevnto, that master Fec­kenham considering therevppon, mighte deuise the fourme of his propositions, wherevppon they mighte afterwarde debate. Whereby ap­peareth bothe howe vntrue it is, that he had deliuered vnto the Byshoppe any suche scruples of his in wryting, for then the Byshop needed not haue soughte any propositions of hys as­sertions: and also how [...] vntrue that is, that the interpretation of the othe, whiche the Byshop wrote at his requeste, before he euer sawe any writing of master Feckenham, was to answere hys scruples and stayes deliuered to the Bishop in writing.

To these the Byshoppes chalenges of master Fecken­hamsStap. 10. b. false tytle, master St [...]pletons answere is thréefolde. First (sayth he) here is no matter effectuall, but that maye seeme already by our former ansvvere sufficiently dischar­ged. Howe this matter is before of you discharged, is yet freshe in the Readers memorie. I thinke he will not giue [Page 58] ye your quietus est, so lightly, except ye bring better proues, and agrée better to your owne tale. For here, where ye say, ye haue ansvvered suffyciently before, to all that is effectu­all, this argueth that he was charged with somewhat that was effectuall, else haue ye answered to no effectual thing. And yet your answere before was, that y^e matter wherwith the B. charged M. F. for his false title, was but a bie matter, which, whether it were true or false doth nothing preiudicate or touch the principal question: and so the whole charge is a matter nothing effectuall. But let go this to your contra­dictions, and let the reader iudge howe sufficiently ye haue discharged M. Feck. or not rather charged him, with as muche, or more than the B. did.

The secōd part of M. St. answere, is a gathering togither of such matters, as he noteth in the B. for vntruthes, which I referre to his common place theron.

Thirdly, where the B. speaking of the occasion of M. Fe.The disputa­tion at West. An. 1. Eliz. wrangling in his conference with the B: mentioned hys shrinking from his confederates in the conference at W. in the. 1. yere of the Q. maiestie: Herevpon, though he cōfesseth, saying, I might now passe forth to the residue of M. HornesStap. 12. a.booke, yet must he not in any wise let slip this occasion of digression, for otherwise, he should want matter to s [...]uffe vp his connterblast. And so at large entreth to proue, that they were vneuenly delt withall, for proofe wherof, he alledgeth diuers reasons. First, they were disaduantaged to be putStap. 12. a.to the profe of that, wherof they were in possessiō. I answer, they were in possession of possessions in [...]éede, not of the truth, vnlesse they had it in their possession of imprisonmēt.

Secondly, they gaue ouer the disputatiō, not bicause they had not, or did not shevve suffycient euidence, but bicause they were very muche strayted for shortnesse of tyme: and so belike coulde not finde it out.

Thirdly, it was a fruitlesse and superfluous enterprise, toStap. 12. a. b dispute of those three matters only, whether the seruice may [Page 59] be in the mother tong. VVhether any one realme may alter and change the rites and ceremonies in the Church, & make new. VVhether the masse▪ be a sacrifice propiciatorie, seeing that the. 1. and. 2. question, be no questions of fayth And the 3. dependeth vpon the questiōs of transubstantiation, & the reall presence, vvhich ought first to haue bene discussed and then this as accessorie therevnto.

What a nūber of starting holes the papists had to auoide the disputation? they were farre better armed to find excu­ses to giue it ouer, than prouided to go throughstitche ther­with. But had they had such euidence ready as ye pretende M. St. what néede they finde fault with the time? although they had as much time, as their aduerfaries had, to prepare them selues. And if they were strayghted for shortnesse of time, to dispute onely of three matters, and those as ye say not the weightiest neither: why complayne ye of their que­stions to haue bene but three onely, in so many and weigh­tie matters, as nowe stande in controuersie?

Could they dispatch so many great matters, in so straight a time, and would they whine to be straited, for only three lesse matters? Ha M. St. this is to broade before. But ye wrythe the excuse an other way, not so muche for the number, as the lightnesse of the matters, to be dependant and accessory to other questions, a [...]d to be no matters of fayth. How light so euer ye woulde séeme to make them now, ye haue made thē as waightie an other time before. But let thē be as light as ye would haue them, & lesse to, did ye not agrée on them, yea did you not your selues deuise them, vnwitting to the other parties? Did ye not prepare for them? & might ye not the easelier haue answered vnto them? these are but chil­dishe excuses, let vs heare what more ye haue.

Fourthly, it was made before lay men as Iudges. YeaStap. 12. b. there M. St. ye hitte the nayle on the head. Ye woulde be disputers and Iudges too your selues.

His example of the Anabaptists disputation at Monster, [Page 60] which he likeneth to this at VVestminster, I passe ouer to his raylings and slaunderous common places.

Fifthly, they should haue bene suffred to haue replied toStap. 13. a.their aduersaries, which they could not be suffred to do. If ye had put in disorderly, ye had said true. But would they haue kept the order by them selues deuised and agreed vpon, they might haue replied at the full: the doing was not in hucker mucker, inowe heard it that can tell. And your owne other excuses do plainly argue, not that ye coulde not be suffred, but that ye could not for the time, or would not for the mat­ter, and néeded not pleading possession, and thought not good, for bicause of the Iudges, with such other excuses, that as your selfe confesse, moued you to giue ouer the disputa­tion. Which howe it agréeth with this fifth excuse, that ye could not be suffred to replie: is easie to discerne, and to take a lyer tardie in his owne tale.

Sixtly & last say you, surely amōg al other, concerning theStap. 13. a.supremacie of the Prince in causes eccle. &c. there shoulde haue ben much more mature deliberation. Deliberation is good in al things, M. St. but wilfull prolonging & foding on the time, is neither good nor godly, chiefly in Gods matters, wherein we are bidden, hodie si vocem [...] andieritis, nolite ob­durarePsal. 95.corda vestra. But when would your deliberation be ripe M. St? it appeareth by these your excuses, y^t your selfe would be rotten, or euer it would be ripe. Ye would go to it with ripe deliberation, that is to say, as a beare goeth to the stake: ye would aduise your self long or euer ye would wil­lingly come to try your doctrine & religion by disputation, if ye could otherwise chose. Howbeit by your owne tale, these matters néede no such long protracting the time, béeing so few, & so light, as here in your excuses you pretend they be.

Yea but surely (say you) among al other things cōcerningStap. 13. a.the supremacy of the Prince in causes ecclesiastical. &c there would haue ben much more mature deliberation. Why M. St. here was neither al causes, nor the cause of supremacie [Page 61] debated. But onely (as your selfe say) three accessarie mat­ters, and matters nothing touching faith. And therefore ye ouershoote your selfe once againe, to put in this excuse. But what is your small drift of all these excuses? forsooth this: The Popes legate should haue bene president at the dispu­tation of these matters, and then it had bene a formall dispu­tatiō. Then the Catholikes had ben indifferently delt with­all. Then would ye haue refused no controuersie. Then would ye not haue complained of the straightnes of time. Nor desired furder delaye. Nor refused either to haue an­swered or replied, if the Popes legate had bene president at it. But who seeth not that this is no indifferencie? but what argument bring ye to proue that the Popes legate should be president thereof?

Especially considering (say you) that aboue ten hundrethStap. fol. 13. a.yeares past, in disputations of matters of faith, whereto the Catholikes were prouoked in Aphrica, the saide Catholikes required, that at the saide disputations should be present the Legates of the sea of Rome, as the chiefe and principall sea of Christendome. Ye forget M. St. that in Aphrica likewise, the Catholikes refused the B. of Rome his anthoritie, and detected his falshoode in forging of Canons therefore. Wel, let that now go as forgotten. And let vs sée your argument, which in effect is this:

Aboue ten hundreth yeres past, when the sea of Rome flo­rished in more perfect religion and faith, the Catholickes of Aphrica, in their disputations of faith, required that at the sayd disputations, should be present the Legates of the sea of Rome, as the chiefe & principall sea of Christendome. Ergo:

We now, in all our disputations of causes Ecclestastical, especially concerning the supremacie, should acknowledge the Pope by his Legates, to be president thereof.

This argument followeth not M. Stapl. reasoning, from that tune to this, from their requiring to our submission, from Aphrike to England, from presence to presidence, from cer­taine [Page 62] questions to all questions, from matters of saithe to these in hande, which your selfe say are nons. From the chiefe and principall sea then, to the vniuersall supremacie that the Pope claymeth now, in all which pointes there is no sequele, and therefore your argument is starke naught, nor all your vayne excuses, will hide their frowarde disobe­dience, or strengthen the weaknesse of their naughtie cause in the saide disputation.

But let vs now (saith M. St.) returne to M. Horne, for these matters were [...], M. Stapleton looked quite besides his marke.

The third Diuision.

THe third Diuision sheweth the cause and oc­casion,Fol. 13. a. why M. Feck. deliuered this his trea­tise to the Bishop, not as he pretendeth to be re­solued at the Bishops handes, for he had sayd be­fore that the matter it selfe was grounded here (pointyng to his brest) that shall neuer go out. But, beyng charged of the B. herefore, that he had neither conscience nor constancie, M. Fecken­ham shewed and deliuered this his treatise to the B. to shew what he had suffred for the same, and how it was grounded and setled in him long be­fore. Which argueth first his falshood in preten­ding to haue offred the booke before to the B. as scruples by him to be resolued in: And also his fur­der falshood, in setting forth of his owne bald re­solutions to his scruples, vnder the B. name.

To the former parte M. Stapleton replieth it is an vn­likelyStap. fol. 13. b.tale, and referreth it to his score of vntruthes. Where it is answered vnto. The later parte for the resolutions, he [Page 63] leaueth it to a place more apropriate, where the matter shal­beStap. fol. 13. b.more conueniently and more fully discused. And this is all that he saith for the cléering of M. Feckenhams false title.

The fourth Diuision.

MAster Feckenham in the beginning of his trea­tise,Fol. 14. a.propounding one chiefe purpose and en­tente (as he saithe) of this Othe, to be for a more saue­garde to be had of the Queenes royall person, and her highnesse most quiet and prosperous raigne: Offreth to sweare thus muche, that her Highnesse is the onely supreme gouernour of this Realme, and of all other her Highnesse dominions and Countries, according as the expresse woordes are in the beginning of the sayde Othe. And offreth yet furder to sweare: That her Highnesse hath vnder God the souerainetie and rule, ouer all manner of persons, borne within these her Highnes realmes, of what estate either Ecclesiasti­call or Temporall soeuer they be.

To this the B. of Winchester answereth, that this beyng one chiefe entent of the Othe, as is graunted: whosoeuer denieth the chiefe parte of the Othe, what soeuer in wordes he pretende, in his deedes denieth withall the chiefe entent ther­of. But M. Feckenham doth thus, Ergo: How soeuer by woordes he would seeme to tender her Maiesties safetie, his deedes declare his mea­nyng to be cleane contrarie.

The Minor that M. Feck. denieth the princi­pall [Page 64] parte of the Othe, he proueth thus:

The principallest parte of the Othe, is the Q. Highnes supremacie in causes Ecclesiasticall so well as Temporall, but about this M. Feck. da­lieth with dominions and persons, & denieth the causes, which is the matter it selfe, wherein the gouernance doth consist: Ergo, He denieth the chiefest parte of the Othe.

The Maior, that the gouernance in Ecclesiasti­call causes is the chiefest thing that the Othe doth purporte, is euident.

The Minor, as it appereth by this nice dali­ance of M. Feck. so the B. furder proueth it, by this his treatise, by his deepe sighes & grones, desiring a change, and ascribing to the Pope this principall parte of the Othe.

M. St. to counterblast these the B. arguments, blowethCap. 3. fol. 14. b. apace with bothe his chéekes. With the one breathing out dispitefully all riffe raff [...], that he coulde gleane togither, to deface, as he thought, the protestantes with disobedience. With the other he laboreth to qualifie the disobedience of the Papists, namely of M. Feckenham.

But before these two partes, wherein the most of his re­plie consisteth, he prefixeth yet one page, declaring first that this parcell of the Othe, is no parte of the Princes royall power, and wherefore the Papists refuse the same.

First saith he, There haue bene many kings in this realmeStap. fol. 14. bbefore our time, that haue raigned vertuously, quietly, pros­perously, most honorably, and most victoriously, which ne­uer dreamed of this kinde of supremacie, and yet men of such knowledge, that they could soone espie, wherein their autho­ritie was empayred, and were of such courage and stoutnesse, that they would not suffer at the Popes handes, or at any [Page 65] other, any thing done derogatorie to their Royall power. This argument standeth vpon the opiniō of Princes here­tofore, and is framed thus.

What soeuer the noble and prosperous Kinges to fore, tooke to be so, or tooke not to be so, the same was and is so, or was not and is not so.

But many noble and prosperous Kings heretofore, tooke this kinde of supremacie to be no parte of their royall power: Ergo, It was not, nor is any parte thereof.

The Maior, which God wote is very fonde and weake, he would furnishe and strengthen with their wisedome and stoutnesse, if it had b [...]ne iniuriou [...] to their authoritie, they were so wise they could soone espie it, & were so stoute they would not suffer it. But who seeth not, that they could not very soone espie it, in that palpable darknesse of poperie: and that worldly politike wisedome, is no good proofe of soone espying the spirituall wisdome of God and his worde, and of their dutie in setting forth thereof? This knowledge was not so clerely espied then, as thanks be to God now it is, being pulled frō vnder the bushell, wherewith it was co­uered,Matth. 5. 2. Cor. 11. and the Angel of darknesse, being stripped out of that shape of the Angell of light, that when he was cladde with­all, be bleared many wise Princes eyes. And though many of them were coragious & stoute, yea & espied to, what belon­ged vnto them, & attempted also to get it, yet who seeth not, that the Popes tirannie ouermatched them? And yet suche Princes were there many, wise, stoute, and vertuouse, that dreamed not as you say, but well saw this their authoritie, and tooke it on them, and withstood the Popes vsurpation. Which improueth your Maior, that ye would séeme to ca­ry away so cléere. And withall ouerturneth your argument, by the like: Some Princes thought it was no parte of their royall power: Ergo, it was not. Some Princes thought it was parte of their royall power: Ergo, it was. Neyther of these argumentes (ye sée) doth holde, for still the matter is [Page 66] where it was, who thought so, or who thought not so, and yet bothe of them politike, stout, and prosperous Princes.

But whereto doth M. St. thus colourably, so highly extoll the vertuous, quiet, prosperouse, most honorable, and most vi­ctorious estate, of those noble, wise, stoute, and coragious princes, that (he saith) neuer heretofore dreamed of this kinde of supremacie? can he dreame out this so drylie, against his most gratious soueraigne, the Q. Maiestie now, that not on­ly of right claymeth, but most godly directeth this suprema­cie, to blemish her highnesse with her noble auncesters, and thinketh he this his byiouse nippe, could not easily be espi­ed? Yes M. Stapleton, it is easie to sée your good harte, and what opinion ye haue of her highnesse.

But albeit comparisons be odious, chiefly of the liuing with the dead, De quibus nil nisi bonum, whom we ought to speake reuerently vpon: yet notwithstanding, thus muche may I say, without derogating from them, or [...]lattrie of her, (for he flattreth not that saith that which eche true man fin­deth true) her highnesse in no point that you recken, is infe­riour to any her royall progenitors, & in many farre greater pointes, that ye recken not, doth farre surmount them all. Which I speake not to boast of, but that God, whose giftes they are, make her thankful for them, & vs thankful for her. And therefore, go the matter by wisedome, fortitude, quiet­nes, vertue, honorable, prosperous and victorious raigne, her Maiestie that claymeth this title, her Brother, and Father before her also, haue as good plea for them, as any other princes of England can haue, that neuer claymed the same. And therefore leaue this crake M. St. of vpbrayding to her highnesse, the good giftes of her predecessours, for thankes be to God (that hath giuē hir all the same or more) hir grace hath had hitherto a most quiet, prosperous and victoriouse raigne, and yet hath claymed and enioyed this supreme go­uernment withall, yea, the one hath strengthned the other: And God for his mercy cōtinue & prosper hir maiestie long [Page 67] therein. And in déede this is that ye whine at, that God stil so prospereth the successe of his Gospell by her: [...] so God hath promised, Q [...]cun (que) honori ficauerit me▪ glorificabo eum, &1. Reg. 2. [...]. Reg. 3. thus he glorified Salomon, when he sought the wisedome & truth of God, before the riches & might of worldly Princes, & so hath God blessed her Highnesse aboue many Christian princes, for that she directeth all her gouernment, to the set­ting forth of his glory. Peccator videbit & irascetur, all youPsalm. 112. Popish enimies beholding and gnashing your téeth thereat. But who would thinke M. Stapl. were one, or the Papists any, they haue of him so swéete and fine a proctor, with so fayre wordes to couer so foule disobedience.

And albeit (saith he) the Catholikes wishe to the Q. Maie­stie,Stapl. 14. b.as quiet, as prosperous, as lōg▪ & as honorable an Empire, to the glory of God, as euer had Prince in the world, & are as wel affected to her highnes, as euer were good subiectes to their noble Princes aforesaide: Ye recken not vp so many times as as as, as as as as, as he were a very asse, that would beleue you for all your goodly wishes and painted affections, such faire wordes may make fooles faine, and beleue that all is golde that glistreth. But what in harte you wishe, and in déede you attempt, her grace hath tried throughly, & all men well perceyue. But God sendeth a curst cow short hornes: & God sende her Maiestie long safetie, frō the fained teares of such wel wishing Crocodiles. And thē with y^e grace of God, she shall do wel inough, maugre all hollow harted Papists. But go to now, tell on M. Stap. if ye wish her highnes thus wel as ye wold séeme, why refuse ye your duetiful obediēce?

Albeit (say you) the catholikes wishe thus, yet can they notStapl. 14. b.finde in their harts to take the Othe, not for any sinister affe­ctiō &c. but onely for conscience sake, groūded vpon the Ca­nons and lawes of the holy church, and the continuall practise of all christian and Catholike realmes, finally vpon holy Scri­pture; namely that saying of S. Peter, O portet obedire Deo ma­gisAct. 5.quàm hominibus, God must be obeyed more than men.

[Page 68]Is not here a fayre cloke to couer the Papists disobediēce to their Prince withall? all whose open stubbornesie, and priuie practises against their Prince & countrie, are not for­sooth of any sinister affection, but euen for conscience sake. A Papists cō ­ [...]cience. But what manner a conscience is this that ye do it for M. Stapl.? is it not such an other conscience, as Sir Thomas More telleth the Wolfe had? to whom when the Foxe his ghostly father enioyned him penance for his rauening, that he should neuer after, deuoure any thing that he thought in his conscience was aboue the value of sixe pence, the peni­tent Wolfe afterward, seing a fat cow with her calfe feeding in a medow, being hungrie and gréedie of his pray, yet durst he not breake his ghostly fathers rule, till he had examined in his conscience the price of them: On my conscience (ꝙ the Wolfe) this cowe is but worth a groate, and then of conscience can her Calie be hardly worth halfe as muche. Now if you M. Stapl. and your fellowes haue this woluish conscience, to deuoure the shéepe of Christ, the cow and calfe and all, to burne the people of God, to persecute his truth, to betray your countrie to strangers, to disobey your naturall Prince, and so can set your conscience, that all is done for conscience: then, as, many haue to little consciences, so you haue a great deale to much. And such large consciences God defend vs frō. But to shew that your conscience is no better, I pray ye whereon is it grounded? Grounded vpon the Ca­nons & lawes of the holy Church, and the cōtinual practise of all Christian and catholike realmes. Do ye ground your con­sciences vpon the Canons & lawes of the church, that is, vpō the practise of man? this is but a sandie groūd, (M. St.) for a christian cōscience (in a matter of religiō, that ye say, is the waightiest of all points in controuersie, & the fountaine of al o­ther) to be builded & founded vpon. And yet the one of these groundes, is a manifest lying crake, of the continuall pra­ctise of all Christen realmes, which ye haue not yet proued, crake of it, and grounde your conscience on it, when ye haue [Page 69] proued it, for before, ye do but set your conscience on the tenterhookes, to presume of that ye haue not proued. The other is euen the wolues conscience vp and downe, that grounded his conscience of his owne gréedie desire, so you grounde your conscience on the canons and lawes of the ho­ly Church. And what is the holy Church with you, on your conscience? Forsooth on our conscience holy Church, is our selues, that be the Bishops, Monkes, Friers, and priestes. We (say you) are the holy Churche, and our owne lavves and canons, are the lawes and canons of holy Church, and all that is giuen to vs, is giuen to holy Churche. And so ye grounde your consciences after your owne lawes and Can­nons, as the wolfe did after his. Are not these good woluishe consciences? But haue ye no better grounde of your con­science than these two? yes, say you, finally we ground our consciences vpon holy Scripture, namely that saying of S. Peter, oporte [...] obedire deo magis quam hominibus, God must beAct. 5.obeyed more than men.

In déede M. St. if ye can make this a grounde, it is a much surer grounde than the other twayne, the sacred worde of God, and the obedience that ye owe to God. Howbeit sithe euery pretence of obedience to God, and euery wresting of Gods worde, is no good grounde of conscience: neither the worde of God, nor the obedience to God, taketh away the obedience that is due to the Prince: Howe do ye frame your argument, from S. Peters saying? God muste be o­beyed more than man. Ergo, the Q. Maiestie can not be obeyed for supreme gouernour vnder God, in all ecclesia­sticall causes within hir dominions. This argument is so fonde, it might serue any traytor, or any other to disobey his Prince, vnder pretence of conscience: and therefore can not cleare you from the sighes and grones, that ye make for your foresayde change, where with the Bishop rightly cha­lengeth M. Feckenham.

These arguments nowe pretending conscience, béeing [Page 70] not sufficient to discharge the Papistes of disobedience, M. St. addeth to them two more, the one, by obiecting the like to vs: that we sighe and grone for the change of other prin­ces, nor affected in religion as we be. And so he thinketh to put away this reason from them selues, that the B. maketh agaynst them: The Papistes do not obey but im­pugne the Q. Maiesties authoritie, Ergo, they wishe and looke with diepe sighes and groanes, for a change therof. The other argument that M. St. maketh agaynst this, he frameth thus: diuers papists haue lost their goods, and are ready to lese their life, Ergo, they wishe not for this change. This argument as it serueth no more their cause, than any other heretikes: so it followeth not, but rather the contrarie, that the more they léese, the more they wishe the change. And to shew this, as one that had forgotten himselfe, whyle he craketh what witte, body, and lyfe, he would employ for his prince and countrey, ad­ding withall this exception, if the case so require: he bur­steth out into a diepe sighe and groane for a change, saying: And for my parte I pray God hartily the tryall once wouldeStap. 15. a.come.

What case is this ye speake off so doubtfully master. St. if it be not a change? that leauing your argumente, ye fall thus deuoutly to your beades, & pray so hartily, promising to employ your pregnant witte, your proper body, yea ven­ture your life and all, that once it might come, if it be not a change? if ye meane well, why be you not at home, and in your natiue countrey employ your witte & body, like a good subiect as ye ought to do, but subtract your bodie, and bende your witte, your body, and all your endeuour, by all mali­cious practises, agaynst hir Malesties authoritie herein▪ abusing dayly, not onely by suche your inuectiue Pamph­lets dispearsed abroade in hucker mucker, hir Maiesties subiectes here quiet at home, to make them mislike hir Highnesse regiment: but also to slaunder hir abroade to [Page 71] other Nations, besides your continuall whisperers, whom ye sende aboute, instilling into the peoples heades, a hope or feare of a chaunge to come: bearing the people in hand, euen from hir Maiesties first raigne, that the nexte Ea­ster, the nexte Midsomer, the nexte Michelmas, the nexte Christmas, the nexte quarter, the nexte halfe yeare, the nexte yeare, we shall haue a chaunge. And thus from yere to yeare ye fode them on, with vayne hope, nourishing pri­uie rebellion in their hearts, or at least, to make the people to faynt and murmure, as the searchers of the lande of pro­mise,Num. 13. did to the children of Israell. But God be blessed, that hitherto hath defeated all your blinde prophesies. He willIob. 8. confounde the hypocrites hope, and establishe his truthe for euer.

Nowe to put away this cryme from the Papists, and toStap. 15. [...]. charge vs therewith, he alledgeth first, the practise of the Paynims and Ievves, and Heretikes. The effecte of hys argument is this:

Diuers Heretykes vsed greate cruelties and seditions, for that they misliked the contrarie religion to theirs: Ergo; the Papistes misliking the Quéenes maiesties au­thoritie, and wishing a chaunge thereof, make not in so dooing, a preparation to sedition, but we that acknow­ledge the same, do make it.

I answere, [...] est. A false Papiste is a perillous beast. And if hotte burnyng, cruell hande­ling, trayterous poysoning, pitifull murdering, horrible tragedies, tragicall enormities, priuie and great conspiracies, (all which he obiecteth to vs in the sustian fumes of his boy­strous Rhetorike) be arguments of Paynims Iewes, or He­retikes: then [...]one better than the Papistes haue deserued those titles.

And here, as he thinketh, béeing gotten into a plentyfullStap. 15 16. [...]ayne, he runneth into Germanie, Denmarke, Swethlande, Englande, Fraunce, and Scotlande, frō these to the low coun­treys [Page 72] of Brabant, Hollande, Flaunders, and Lukelande, from thence to Monster, then to the Duke of Saxonie, and the Lantgraue of Hesse, agayne to Denmarke and Swethlande, and for his witnesse, he bringeth in one as good as him selfe, Frederike Staphilus. From thence sodenly to Charing crosse and to Towre hill, then haue ouer the water agayne to Fraunce, Piemont, Geneua, Gascoigne, Rhone, Orleance, Lions, skipping in and out, and it were a Iacke of Bedlam, raking euery corner to picke quarels, and deuise lyes by the Protestants. And what proofe of all this alledgeth he? for­sooth, I referre you M. Horne, to an oration made of this mat­terStap. 16. [...].expressely, and pronounced here in Louayne, and transla­ted eloquently, and printed in our Englishe tongue. Naye, then it must néedes be true M. St. who dare gainesay it, if suche a man of credence as you, will referre all these dis­courses vnto that oration, yea and that it was pronounced among you in Louayne, where, God wot, neuer lye is pro­nounced, yea, and besides all this, it is translated eloquently in our Englishe tongue, and printed too: these are sore argu­ments I promise you, as euer I heard so wise a man make, to proue the truth of all th [...]se accusations, that ye lay to the protestants charge. But M. Stap. and ye would follow my councell, ye should let all these by quarels go, and referre your selfe to your matter.

But ye wil first make an other vagarie, and sée the coun­treysFol. 16. 17. 18 19. 20. 21. once agayne, so may ye write vs ouer lies [...]owe by authoritie, as ye do full handsomly, for after ye haue bene at Scotlande, and are returned to your lovve countreys of Flaunders, we haue fiue leaues togither entituled the rebel­lion of Flaunders, with a swarme of reprocheful staunders, to deface the Gospell with sedition, hurli [...] b [...]rlies, and dis­obedience: when all the world séeth, the authors of al those tumults, to be the Papists them selues.

At length remembring him selfe that all these lyes, are no good purgation for the Papists, for the ful proofe of their [Page 73] obedience. Now for the purgation of the Catholikes (saythStap. 21. [...]. he) agaynst whom this man so falsly and malitiously blo­weth his horne, it may seeme a good and conuenient proofe of their quietnesse and obedience, that all this eyght yeres & more, there hath not bene in this realme, no not one that I can heare of, that hath bene conuicted of any disloyaltie, for worde or deede, concerning the Princes ciuil regiment: which they all wishe were as large and ample, as euer was our noble countrymans the great Constantines.

You blow your pipe like a subtile flatterer, howsoeuer he bloweth his horne, M. St. The ioly ciuill regiment, that ye wishe hir highnesse, is in the ende no better, as your selfe af­terwarde shew, when ye come to the definition therof, than ye can aforde to the very Turke, and therfore hir Maiestie is much beholding to you, and hath very loyall subiectes of you. Yea you are (as ye commende your selfe, if we may beléeue you on your owne reporte) suche obedient subiects, that all this eyght yere and more there hath not bene, no not one conuicted of any disloyaltie, for word or deede, that you can heare of. Ye do wisely, M. Stap. to mitigate the mat­ter by your owne hearing: ye coulde heare all things that sounded agaynst the Protestants, wherein you were as quicke of telling as of hearing. But for any thing, that should sounde agaynst the Papists, although it rang in the eares of all men, ye haue on your haruest eares. But and if ye coulde haue heard on that side the eare, that sheweth out the Papistes practises, ye shoulde haue hearde of ma­ny their conspiracies, and other their wicked attempts, by­sides their muttrings that they dare not vtter, which if they durst, no doubte ye shoulde heare thereof. Did ye ne­uer heare of one that wrote, Quod non est tutum scribereStap. 21. [...].contra eos qui possun [...] prescribere? Well, it was written and printed at Louayne also, no doubt of an obediente subiecte, but he Englished it not, for feare all Englishemen shoulde haue séene his Diuels Paternoster, and haue espied hys [Page 74] trayterous heart, that no will wanted in him, to directe his penne, so farre as he durst, against his most gratious soue­raigne: and shall we thinke, if he could with safetie attēpt further agaynst his prince, that he woulde spare his vtter­moste? Well, ye knowe him, I dare say, at least ye haue heard of him, for he taketh him selfe a nere friend of yours, and spake it, besides many mo trecherous wordes agaynst his Prince, euen within this your limitation of eight yeres, and lesse: but I will not bewray him, although your par­tiall dealing be not to be borne withall. To diffame the Protestants, ye haue runne at randon, and raked togither, all that ye could deuise, from Paynims, lewes, and heretikes, and all other, true or false, for this. 1000▪ yeres, and chiefly for this. 40. or. 50. yeres, in euery countrey, all that ye could heare of, or inuent any thing to slaunder the Gospel by. On the contrarie, for your owne partie, ye could rem [...]ber your selfe, but of eight yeres onely in Englande. Where euen in your sayd eight yeres, had ye but opened your other eare, to vnderstande but those Frenche and Flemmishe matters, that were done harde by you, you might haue heard of such fetches, practises, murthers, conspiracies, and other suche horrible enterprises of the Papists: that your eares would haue glowed on your head, to haue heard but a quarter of them reported truely.

But letting go these eight yeres, may it please ye to rem [...] ­ber, if not of olde times, the continuall broyles, seditions, conspiracies, and rebellions, that your Pope & Popelings, haue exercised christian princes and their realmes withall: as in Germanie, Henry the. 4. Henry the. 5. Lewes the. 4. Frederike the. 2. In Fraunce, king Childeprik, Philip le Beaw, Philip de Ualois. In Apulia and Cicill, Con­radus, Manfrede. &c. In Naples, Charles, Alphonsus. &c. In Italie, the factiōs of the Guelphes, & Gibellines, the Al­bi & Nigri. In Rome, the hurlie burlies with the Consull & people for their auncient libertie. In England, the troubles [Page 75] of king Iohn, and king Henry the. 8. If not all these & many moe: yet I pray you remember the late rebellions of the North, of Lincolne shire, of Deuonshire, & the attempts ofPut to these the late trea­sons and re­bellions of the Papists in [...]ng land, their hor­rible murders and cruelties in Fraunce and Flaunders. cardinall Poole, in the time of king Henry the eyghte, of Kettes rebellion, of the Westerne mens vprores in king Gowardes time. All moued by the Papists, good paternes of Popishe obedience and loyaltie to their Princes I war­rant you.

But al this M. S. could neuer heare of, nor any other thing else that soūded against thē. And here, as though they were so cleare and innocent from all disobedience, returning a­gayne to his former pretēce of conscience and religion, as though he were the proctor of the Papists:

VVe poore Catholikes (sayth he) most humbly vpon ourStap. 21. [...].knees, desyre hir highnesse, that we may vvith moste lovvly submission, craue and require to be borne vvithall.

And were ye downe on your marybones in déede, M. St. when ye wrote this? but why shuld we not thinke so? since that (to haue hir highnesse the better behold you, how hum­bly ye knéele) ye are run to Louayne, belike that she might sée you knéeling ouer y^e seas, bicause she could not sée you so néere as here at home. What a mockerie is this, most stub­bornely to disobey hir gouernement, to forsake hir Maie­sties dominions, and your natiue coūtrey, and liue in other Princes territories, as subiect to them, not to your natural Soueraigne, to sollicite, not onely by priuie whisperers, hir Highnesse subiects to a misliking of hir gouernement, but by open writing to deface, to slaunder, and inueighe agaynst the same: and all the while moste humbly knee­ling, vvith most lovvly submissiō, desiring, crauing, & requi­ring. If this be your most humilitie, and most lovvly sub­mission if this be your maner of desiring, crauing, requi­ring, how intollerable and tyrannicall, was your violent and proude authoritie? when Emperours were fayne to go barefoote, knéele vnto, and kisse the feete of your Pope, and [Page 76] with muche adoo and great labour, obtayne thus muche fa­uour at his holynesse, to lye prostrate and be troden vnder his féete, when al Princes and people créeped, crouched, and stoode in dreade, of almoste euery pelting Priest. The N. highnesse requireth only of you & your complices. M. St. to come home, and doe your duetie, as good subiectes ought to do. Shewe that lowly submission, that is necessarie, and then craue that is requisite, and so may ye easily finde hir highnesse mercifull and gratious to you. But what is it, that after this mocking sort ye pretende to craue so ear­nestly?

To be borne withall, if we can not vpon the sodayne, andStap. 21. a. We abandon not the fayth we were bap­tised in bicause we abandon the Pope.without sure and substantiall grounds, abandon that faythe that vve vvere baptised in. Sée what a wicked slaunder to couer your disobediēce, ye charge your most gratious prince withall: as though she went about to make you renie that fayth ye vvere baptised in. And this ye doe euen where ye pretende to kneele on your knees, vvith moste humble and lowely submission. Sée what cankred hearts ye beare, for all your counterfayte crouching. If ye knowe, M. Stap. the fayth ye were baptised in, at least, if ye were rightely baptised, and be a true Christian man, it is not in the name, fayth, or obedience of the Pope, but in the name, fayth, and obedience of the father, the sonne, and the holy ghost, and this fayth, the Q. maiestie goeth so little about, to haue you abandon, that hir Graces supreme gouernemēt is chiefly directed to this end, to haue ye without any super­stition, error, idolatrie, or any other pollution therof, kéepe & maintein it inuiolate, as in baptisme ye promised to do, and therfore this is not subiect like, though ye be on your knees neuer so muche, to accuse hir highnesse, as to cause ye to abandon the fayth ye were baptised in. She requireth ye to kéepe it, not abandon it, neither on the soden, nor at leisure. And if this were all the cause of your refusall of obedience, as hir Grace neuer denied you it, ye doe but slaunder hir: [Page 77] so néeded ye not haue runne away, nor shew yet such disobe­dience to hir authoritie, since she euer graunted and mayn­teined the thing ye séeme to craue.

Howbeit your counterfeite humilitie detecteth it selfe, to be very stubborne disobedience. And that while ye pretende to craue one thing, ye entende another thing. And that is, ye would be borne with, still to refuse her graces supreme au­thoritie ouer you in Ecclesiasticall causes, this is the thing in deede ye meane: and ye would the rather be borne with­all, bicause it is a matter that commeth vpon the sodaine, & therefore ye can not vpon the sodaine graunt it. In déede M. St. ye pretende reason. Weightie matters require not to be done on a sodeyne passion, but with deliberation▪ But is this so sodeyne a matter yet vnto you? did ye neuer heare of this questiō before? haue ye not had leasure to deliberate there­on? but who seeth not, that and ye had neuer so much lea­sure, this matter would still come vpon the sodeyne to you? and of reason ye must haue time to take aduisement vpō it, which you will take all at your leasure, and so for feare ye should become an obedient subiect vpon the sodeyne, ye craue to remayne still vpon deliberation an obstinate enemie. But M. St. pretēding this refusall to be for the abandoning of the faith that we were Christened in, procéedeth:

And as we are assured all our auncetours, and her MaiestiesStapl. 21. a. b.owne most noble progenitours, yea her owne most noble fa­ther King Henrie the eight, yea that faith, which he in a clerk­ly booke hath most pithily defended, and thereby atchieued to him and his, and transported as by hereditarie succession, the worthie title and stile yet remayning in her Highnesse, of the Defendour of the Faith.

As ye slaunder most wickedly the Quéenes Maiestie, to cause ye to abandon the faith of your baptisme▪ so ye slaun­der not only al our auncestors but that most famouse Prince her highnesse Father K. Henrie the 8. as christened in the faith of the Popes obedience: & hereof ye say, ye are assured, [Page 78] when it is most assured & most euident false. For although our fathers, & the Q. Maiesties father also, yea many of vs our selues, & the Q. Maiestie also her selfe, were borne and baptised, when all the errours of poperie, or many of them did chiefly abounde: yet can no more any one of these, be said now, to be baptised in those errours, that they helde which baptised them, (if they kept the right & formall words of ba­ptisme, I baptise thée in the name of y^e Father, of the sonne, & of the holy Ghost:) thā in the old time any of their childrē, or they themselues, could be saide to be baptised in such er­rours, as they helde that were Nouatians, Donatists, Roga­tists, Pelagians, or any other Heretikes, that notwithstāding kept the right element & formal words of baptisme. Neither can any Papist say now to any, that dissuadeth him from his popish errours, that he goeth about to will him, to abandon the faith wherein he was baptized: any more thā a Pelagian, or any such Heretike, being moued to forsake his heresie, could pretēd he were moued to forsake the faith, he was ba­ptised in, bicause they that baptised him, yea & his auncesters before him, were Pelagians, &c. Ye should therefore M. St. make your distinction, betwene the faith of your baptisme, and the faith that your popish Church putteth in diuers er­ronious pointes of doctrine.

As for the faith that K. Henrie the 8▪ the Q. Maiesties mostThe booke of K. Henrie the eyght.noble Father, set out in the Booke that ye mencion, & therby labour to stayne the Q. Maiestie, as setting out a contrarie faith to her father: as you for your parte M. St. shew your extreme malice, nothing subiectlike, to blemish her highnesse with the famous renown of her father, which notwithstan­ding ye cā not do: so for the King her father, I answere you, howbeit his booke were clerkly, yet clerklines is one thing, & truth is an other. & what maruel if he thē wrote, in defence of your doctrines, whē your popish prelates hid y^e very truth frō him, & bore him in hand, that your falshoodes were truth? till it pleased God, not to suffer so noble a Prince, to be any [Page 79] longer deluded by such false prelates, but first in this que­stion, & after in other, according to the measure of his merci­ful riches, reueled the truth vnto him: how chance, ye speake not of his faith then, & what clerkly & sincere doctrine he set out thē, against your Pope? And as for the Q. Maiestie here­in, (which is the proper questiō now in hād) followeth most zealously the steppes of her highnesse father, not wherein he was abused, as many other princes were, by false teachers, but in that he forsooke those errours, he abolished those false teachers, & their captaines vsurped authoritie, in y^t he obeyed the truth reueled to him, before all his own clerkly bookes, before all worldly glory & securitie, & aduentured himselfe & his kingdome, against all his enemies, in setting forth the truth, & gouerning his subiects after y^e word of God. Which though it were not so plentifully set forth then, nor all wée­des so thoroughly rooted vp, by reason of some false Gardi­ners, whom he trusted ouer much (howbeit at lēgth thanks be to God he espied them also, & had procéeded furder if God had lent him furder life) yet is he rather to be commended for that he did, than to be euil spoken or euell thought of, for that he could not throughly bring to passe in his time, but left his most vertuouse Sonne King Edwarde, to bring to more perfection. And herein hath the Quéenes highnes fol­lowed, as ye say, both her Fathers and Brothers faith also.

But ye wring al to that faith, wherein he was before be­guiled, as though she should follow him in that he was de­ceiued, & not wherein he founde out & forsoke the deceyuers, that you with your painted wordes might likewise deceyue her Highnes now, as they dece [...]ued her Maiest father then. But sée how God turned their deceyt agaynst them selues. That where your Pope, to flatter K. Henrie withall, ascri­bedThe title of Defender of the Faith. to him this title (as it were the prophecie of another Cai­phas) Defender of the faith, the King espying the falshood of y^e Pope, became the very defender of the true faith in déede, abolishing the Pope the very impugner & peruer [...]er therof, [Page 80] and so (as you say truer than ye wist, M. Stap.) atchieued to him and his, and transported as by hereditarie succession, the worthy title and stile yet remaining in her Highnesse, of the defendour of the faith. Neither as you faintly say, this title onely remayneth in her Highnes, but the thing that the title doth entende, her highnesse is in very déede, not in a [...]aked name, the defender thereof: And hath defended her subiects, not from foreyne power of straungers onely, brought in by the Papistes, and from all bodily iniurie and oppression of Popish firebrandes, or any other tirannie: but defendeth e­uen our faith from all errours, heresies, superstitions, and Idolatries. And this it is for a Prince to be a defender ofThe title, de­fender of the Faith, inferreth supremacie. the faith in déede: which argueth a plaine supremacie. Now after M. Stapl. hath thus flattred, and on his knees humbled him selfe, to obtayne a placard of their disobedience: vp he starteth once againe, and geueth another fling at vs, to re­uerse this crime of disobedience on vs, thinking so to excuse this disobedience of the Papistes thereby.

And first he setteth on those, whome he calleth round capThe Papistes obiection of apparell. Ministers, howbeit if he remembred, that within this hun­dreth yeres and vpward, the popish priestes themselues did weare round cappes, he would not be so hastie to giue that nick name. He asketh who are those that haue preached with a chaine of golde about their neckes, in steade of a tip­pet? St. fol. 21. b. Assoyle your question your selfe M. Stapl. I know no such protestant. What slaunderous reporte you haue heard of any singuler person I know not, no such order is alowed. Although it be common among your popish Cardinals, Bi­shops, Abbottes, Deanes, Canons, and other beyonde the Seas, so to ruffle as ye speake, not onely with a chayne of golde, but with hatte and feather, cappe and agglets, rapier and cloke, hawke and houndes, ruffians & fooles wayting on them, and oftentimes in complete harneys on a great cour­ser, or on a palfrey with a courtisane behinde them, thus go the chiefest of your fleshly spiritualtie: belike they learned [Page 81] it of that royster Pope Iohn. 13. howbeit no Pope doeth a­mende this disorder. Upbrayd not therefore such petit and perticular things to vs, which is so great and so common a fault with you.

But Master Stapleton will go more certainely to worke, and charge the Protestantes ex scripto wyth their owne writings.

VVho are those I pray you (sayth he) that write, sint sanèStap. 22. [...]. Magdeb. p [...]ef. cent. 7.& ipsi Magictratu [...] membra, & paries, & ciues ecclesi [...]dei, imo vt ex toto corde sint, omnes precari decet. Flagrent quo (que) ipsi zelo pietatis, sed non sint capita Ecclesi [...], quia ipsis non compe­tit iste [...]. Let the Magistrates also be members, and partes, and citizens, of the Church of God, yea and that they maye bee so it behoueth vs all wyth all our heart to praye. Let them bee feruent in the godly zeale of Religion, but they may not be heades of the Churche, in no case, for thys supremacie doth not appertaine to them. These are no Pa­pists I trow M. Horne, but your owne dere brethren of Mag­deburge, in their new storie ecclesiasticall, by the which they would haue all the worlde directed. Yea in that storie wherof one percell, Illiricus and his fellowes haue dedicated to the Queenes maiestie, that beare the worlde in hande they are the true and zelous schollers of Luther.

Thus triumpheth M. Stapleton against the wryters of the storie of Magdeburge. The effect of his argument is this. These wryters do say that Princes may not be hea­des of the Church, Erg [...] no prince ouer all Ecclesiasticall persons & causes in his owne dominions, may be supreme gouernour. Howe euill this argument followeth is easie to perceyue, and the better, in beh [...]lding howe impudently master Stapleton wresteth these wryters. But he forcethThe Magde. burgen [...]es wrested. not thereof, bicause they be his aduersaries. For that which they write, not simplie agaynst the supremacie of princes in Ecclesiasticall causes, but agaynst suche supre­macie of princes, as the Pope vsurped: that wresteth he as [Page 82] spoken agaynst such supreme gouernment, as the Quéenes maiestie claymeth and vseth.

The writers hereof, hauing set forth two [...]nsamples of that age, the one of a godly princes gouernmet, by Constan­tinus Pogonotus: the other of a wicked tyrant, by [...]eracli­us: to declare what kinde of supremacie they disalow. Th [...]y she we that this is the scope of the matter, iste est scopu [...]res, ꝙ magistratibu [...] politicis, non sit licitum cudere forma [...] religionū,Histo. Magde. pref. cent. 7.in perniciem veritatis, ita vel cōcilietur verita [...], & mēda [...]ium, vel vtra (que) simul sopiant, id quod tandem [...]um habet exitum, vt re­gnent errores, veritas crucifigatur, & sepeliatur. This is the [...]cope of the matter, that it is not lawfull for politike magi­strates to coyne formes of religion, to the destruction of the truth, so that thereby truth and falsehoode should be reconci­led togither, or both of them togither quayled: VVhich at the length commeth to this ende, that errors raigne, the truth is crucified & buried. And so followeth the sentence that M. St. citeth, let the magistrates also be mebers. &c. but let them not be heades of the Church. Whereby appeareth plainly what maner of heades they meane.

And this they do not once nor twise, setting forth the do­ings of the wicked [...]yrant Heraclius for ensample, that wasThe tyrannie of Heraclius. altogither led by affection, and not indifferent to heare [...]i­ther party, nor called in counsell lerned and faithfull men, nor called any synode to trie the matter, nor serched y^e truth diligently, but being puffed vppe with pride, and deuising o [...]ely with a flattring Monke (that after set vp the false fayth of Mahomet) determineth in a corner of a moste weightie controuersie, and afterwardes will haue the mat­ter neuer called into question. This Emperour they call Architectum religionis, and demaund what man well in his wittes, woulde alowe such attempts, processe and execu­tions? concluding it is not lawfull form as religionum con­flare. &c. To make newe formes of religions, and obtrude them to the Church without all kind of godly, honest, modest [Page 83] and comely gainsaying & refuting therof. All this and much more, say they, of that kinde of supreme gouernement in Princes that they mislyke, and is in déede to be vtterly mis­lyked of all Christians. But as this is a plaine description of your Popes supremacie, that playeth in all these poynts Heraclius part, so it nothing toucheth that supremacie that the Quéenes maiestie claymeth. It is but your wicked malice to slaunder hir, with such tyrannicall vsurpation of Heraclius as they condemne.

Whie doe ye not rather take theyr other comparison,The godly su­preme gouern­ment of Con­stanti [...]us Po­gonotus. from Constantinus Pogonotus, to al other godly Princes, and referre that to hir regiment? With what care, and singuler diligence, trauaile, and godlinesse, when the Chur­ches were horibly deformed, and torne, by the sect of the Monothelites, He summoned the sixt generall Councell, he ouerwhelmed not the debating of the controuersie of do­ctrine by might or preiudice. He willed the Ministers of the Churche, and preachers of the worde of God, to searche out which opinion was, and which was not agreable to holye writte. He regarded not the ensamples of hys auncesters, who by publike Edictes had approued the doctrine of the Monothelites, which was harde for him to abolishe. Ney­ther did the authoritie of the Patriarches and Bishoppes, in Constantinople and all ouer the East (that stifly helde that opinion) any thing moue him. Nor he suffred himselfe to be made afrayde, although he heard that the pryde of the By­shop of Rome was incredible, as one that wickedly chalen­ged a dignitie and authoritie aboue other Bishops and tea­chers. But sent his letters to him, exhorting him to come or sende some other in his place. Neyther gaue he him any prerogatiue, nor craueth licence of hym to call the Coun­cell, but of hys owne duetie, he defineth him selfe for the appoynting of the Councell. He louingly biddeth the Ro­maine and other Bishoppes, not to bee absent at so neces­sarie matters, and concerning the Churches publike weale. [Page 84] The Emperour himselfe is present at the Synode, not as a dumbe or deafe person (like a cifer in Algorisme) or recey­uing the decrees without iudging of them, or placing the B. of Romes Legates in the chiefest place, and receyuing them without all contradiction (as oracles from them, as it were from Apollos triuet) but modestly, reuerently, and godly, as much as became his calling, he gouerned the Sy­node, propounding to them the state or scope of the cause, and enquiring on a rowe, gathered their sentences togither, least ought should be done rashly or confusedly. He com­maunded not the one partie, but the contrarie partie also, plainly and without subtilties to declare their opinions, and what groundes they had of their sentences, out of the holye scriptures, and what autenticall witnesse of the approued fa­thers. And so forth, they declare, howe indifferently he dealt with either partie, knowing, that he must not condemne any before he knewe the full matter. And when it was euidently found out, that the Monothelites could not defend their opi­nion, by the clere testimonies of the scripture, nor any sen­tences of the doctours allowed, yea when it was founde out, they hacked of purpose certaine of the Doctours sayings, and in place of them cited certeyne sayings falsly fathered in the Doctors names, thē the Emperor subscribed to the iudgemēt of al those that thought aright, and earnestly and stoutly exe­cuted the condemnation made in the name of them all.

Here these wryters commend this Emperor, & the more for that he had about him, no doubt say they, such parasites, as woulde tickle in his eare, that these thinges were vnsitting fo [...] his maiestie to intermeddle him selfe, with the brawles of the Churches pelting Doctours. It were a blemish to him, to condemne his ancesters, & to cal into doubt or retract things already decreed. This were not the safest way. Let the bishops alone with the matter, for euen they are able to make lawes agaynst the Emperors estate, and abase it. The Emperour by his authoritie may do no more than commaund silence, sende [Page 85] into exile, or punish with other violence, those that make cla­mors, or disobey the councels decree. But the Emperor not re­garding these fancies, thought it honorable to him to be pre­sent, in the midst of the teachers of gods worde, assisting not a little the triall and iudgement of the cōtrouersie. This en­sample these wryters thus set out, for a princes gouernmēt, dealing, & ouersight in the chiefest ecclesiastical causes. And thus before they determined in generall, that God or deined not Princes to spoile their subiects, and make themselues [...]at. Neither onely to attende to outward discipline, and that men may liue in honest tranquilitie, for (say they) seing that ma­gistrates are in the scriptures called Gods, this ought to bee their first and chiefest care, that their subiects serue God after such a sorte, that his kingdome in their dominions may bee knowne, encreased, and conserued, that is to were, sincere do­ctrine. &c. may be deliuered, remaine, & passe frō thē to their posteritie. To this end tendeth all politike administration, all defence of peace and neighborhod, & that laborsome care of getting the liuing & gathering goodes: that these spirituall & euerlasting goodes both of the body & of the mind, should be gotten. Thus do they stretch out, further than doth M. St. the bounds of a princes gouernment to al ecclesiastical can­ses. And all that they write on the other part, is against such a popish supremacie, as establisheth & maketh a new religiō quicquid imperita [...]erit re [...]. And yet sée howe spitefully and falsly M. St. wresteth it, as writtē against the Q. maiestie. When as he confesseth himselfe, they cōmend hir, & euen by the ensample of Constantine, they allow that supreme go­uernment that she doth take vpon hir. Now M. St. after his maner presupposing, we will reiect these writers, as though they spake against the supreme gouernmēt of the Quéene:

In case ye thinke (sayth he) theyr testimonie not to haueSt. Fol. 22. aweight ynough, then herken to your & their Apostle Luther,Contra a [...]tic. Louani. tom. 2who writeth that it is not the office of kings & princes, to cō ­firm no not the true doctrine, but to be subiect and serue the [Page 86] same. The effect of this argument is this, princes must not take on them, so to confirme the true doctrine, that they be not subiect therevnto, nor serue, but rule the same: Ergo Princes may not set forth the true doctrine, nor be supreme gouernors in their dominions, ouer all ecclesiastical persons and causes. This argument is like to his fellowe aboue.Luther wre­sted. And as ye wrested the former writers, so wrest ye Luthers saying also, whose sētence as it is nothing against the godly gouernment of our most noble soueraigne, subiect to y^e prin­cipall authoritie of Gods word, & that it might be of chiefest authoritie, subduing thereto the authoritie of all other wri­ters, & remouing those superstitions, that exalted them sel­ues in authoritie equall, or aboue Gods worde: so this sentence is eftsones, as the other, agaynst such vsurpation, as is euident that your Pope taketh vpon him.

But M. Stapleton dreaming that he hath so sore pressedStap. fol. 22. a vs, and this is so harde and straunge a case, that now Luther can take no place amongst vs: he obiecteth another vntoAndr Modre. de Eccl. li. 1. ca. 10. vs, one Andreas Modrenius. And yet his saying also, ma­keth (God wote) ful little for the Papists herein. Who saith there ought to be some one to be taken for the chiefe and su­preme head in the whole Church in all causes ecclesiasticall. What conclude ye M. St. herevpon? Ergo it must be your Pope? or no christian prince? And here as though all these were not yet sufficient testimonies, ye bring in Caluin. But since ye doe it but to fill vp your booke, with that common allegation of your side, which being also not omitted of M. Feckēham, is to be referred, to be propounded and answe­red vnto in his proper place: I therefore remit you thither. Onely to that ye say, he so spitefully handled King Hen­rieSt. fol. 22. b.the eyght, as hee neuer handled the Pope more spite­fully, I aunswere: this is but your spitefull lie, to deface the Protestantes. Else why doe ye not proue the same? And as for your Pope it is euident also, he neuer handled him spitefully, but onely reproued his vyces and errours [Page 87] by the worde of God. But howe spitefullie your Pope and popishe Prelates, so farre as they coulde, handeled him, and howe spitefully they handle all Protestantes, that they maye once sette their spitefull spirituall fingers vppon, all the worlde doeth sée. And yet the silie Protestantes muste beare all the blame, it is not ynoughe for them to beare the iniuryes. This lesson ye learned of the Diuell of Dowgate, to bite and whine also, or rather ye doe as E­sops Woolfe did, chalenge the poore Lambe for troubling his water, and to misuse him spitefully, but thys mercifull Woolfe, deuoured this spitefull Lambe.

He vrgeth vs farther in great outcryes, with a sentence of one Anthonie Gilbie, our own Countriman. The summeStap. 23. a. b. of his argument is this. Anthonie Gilbie an Englishe man, speaketh verie vnreuerently, and vnreligiously, of King Henrie the eight: Ergo the Protestantes now in England, whatsoeuer they pretende and dissemble in wordes, in heart mislike the Quéenes maiesties gouernment.

How doth this follow M. St? and yet ye wrest Anthonie Gilbies sentence also. He speaketh not of this supremacie neyther, but in plaine wordes, of such a supremacie in Eng­land, as y^e Pope chalengeth all ouer Christendome. Though therefore he be greatly to be blamed, for his vnreuerent speach, and for his vnaduised mistaking of hys Princes lawfull authoritie: yet is he not to be belyed, as though he spoke of all kinde of supremacie in all princes simplie. It is a shame (as they say M. St.) euen to belie the Diuell. But sée how the matter falleth out. Ye haue brought Anthonie Gilbyes sentence, agaynst vs and the Quéenes maiesties authoritie. Haue ye not wel holpē your self, if this sentence also make flat agaynst your pope? For if (as he sayth, & ther­in truely) Christ ought onely to be the head of the church, & the placing of any other displaceth him: then is not the pope the head also, but the placing of him displaceth Christ. But the Pope chalengeth to be the heade of the Churche also, [Page 88] which our prince doth not: Ergo not our prince, but your Pope displaceth Christ. And thus thinking to beate vs, ye still make a rodde for your owne Popes tale.

And here sodenly calling to mind, how far he hath straied in forraging out these sentences, he returneth a little to the Bishop, setting on him for calling the Pope the Papists godStap. 24. a.in earth, the archeheretike of Rome and that M. Fec. would haue him reigne in the Queenes place. Besturring himselfe with a heape of arguments, to defende his Pope. Besides his scoffes, raylings, and other rhetoricall floures quoted in his common places. But first for his Pope sayth he, VVeThe Popes goodnesse. Stap. fol. 24.make no God of the Pope, and sometimes perhaps no good man neyther. In déede M. Stap. ye should haue more than both your handes full, to make your Pope sometimes a good man▪ ye néede not put perhaps to the matter. It would pose him selfe, and all the Diuels in hell, and that oftentymes, to worke such a miracle on him, as, that man of sinne, that childe of perdition, and aduersarie of God, to become a good man. But yet I say beware, howe ye speake such buggishe words of him, as not to be a good man. Whose wil is law, whose law is all power, in heauen, in earth, in hell. Nowe can this be an ill man. Beware least this come to his earesThe Pope cal­led God. Extrau. Ioh. 22 cum inter in glosia. Cardinalis Zirabella. M. Stap. and withall, that ye make him not a God in earth. Are not you of theyr religion, that beléeue and confesse this principle, [...] deus noster Papa: Our Lorde God the Pope? Yea and as some say, he is Plus (que) deu [...]. If ye be: be­ware his thunderbolt. If ye be not: whie defende ye him, and his errors, against the truth of God? whie forsake you your most vertuous Prince, to follow a straunger, and that an yll man? but you answere:

And yet we reuerence him, for his office, and authoritie,Stap. 24. 2that Christ so amply and honourably gaue him, for preserua­tion of vnitie and quietnesse in his Church.

That ye reuerence him in déede, and that is more, adoreThe Popes patent. him to, is manifest. But the patent of that his office and [Page 89] authoritie, that ye crake Christe so amplie and so honorably gaue your Pope, ye shewe none, nor where, nor how, nor when he gaue it: Only ye tell vs of the endes, wherefore he gaue it. For the preseruation of vnitie and quietnes in hisThe Vnitie that the Pope maketh.Church. But if these were the endes M. St. he hath forfeited his patent long ago. That not onely disagreeth from the ex­presse wordes and commaūdement of Christ, but swerueth, one Pope from another. And how chance he setteth his own scholemē, & his Canonists at no better vnitie? his Thomists and his Scotistes, his sects of Religions, at no better quiet­nes, than a t [...]ade & a snake togither? how chance he agreeth no better with his Bishops, & his own colledge of cardinals? How chance he falleth out so often with Emperours and kings, & setteth Princes & their subiectes by the eares togi­ther? why fighteth he so fast with both his swordes, like king Arthures dubble sworded knight? why had he rather at this day, that al christendome were in a broyle, & so much bl [...]ud were cruelly shedde, than he would relent one inche of his honour, one penie of his filthie gaine, one i [...]te of his errors, Idolatries, & false dectrines, that euē are cōfessed of his own secte, & giue place to the worde of God? is this his preseruing of vnitie and quietnes, in the Church of Christ? or had he any such patent giuen him, hath he not lost and lost it againe? and will ye still reuerence and adore him, for it?

Secondly, where the Bishop calleth your Pope, the arch­heretikeStapl. 24. [...].of Rome. Your wisedome (say you) with like truth also appeareth, in that ye call the Pope the Archeheretike of Rome, naming no man, and so your wordes so liberally & wā ­tonly cast out, do as well comprehende S. Peter, S. Clement, and other holy Martyrs, and Bishops there, as any other.

The summe of this argum [...]t is this, The Pope now aliue, or to come, (for the B. speaketh of one, that they would haue raigne in the Queenes place) is called an archeheretike: Ergo, S. Peter, S. Clement, and other holy Martyres, are called arch­heretickes. His answere to this is thus,

[Page 90] I promise you a well blowen blast and handsomly handled,

I answere ye againe M. Stapl. I promise ye this is a well Stapl. 24. a. made argument, and handsomly answered.

Ye bragge much for your Pope of S. Peter, and S. Clement, and other holy martyres. Your Pope doth well M. Stapl to bragge of them, for that is all the neerenesse that he cōmeth to them. S. Peter and those Martyrs were as like your Pope, and he as like them, as Caiphas was like to Christ. If they saw his deings and his craking of them, they would neuer crake againe of him, but call him archeheretike to. But he may crake of these holy martyrs, as y^e Earle of Warwick craked in king Edward y^e fourths daies, that it was a iolierHallus in vita Edvv. 4. thing to make Kings, than to be him self a King: and so may your Pope bragge, that it is a iolier matter to make mar­tyrs, than to be a martyr him selfe. He can make saintes he saith, & I beléeue it, & the poore saintes féele it dayly, whoseApoc. 7. How the Pope can in deede make sainctes and martyrs. stoles he dippeth in their bloud. So like is he to s. Peter, S. Clement & other holy Martyrs, that where he is none him selfe as were they, yet in that defect, he will re [...]ōpence God, with store of martyrs of his owne making. And for this re­semblaunce, if the Pope be now touched, S Peter by & by is touched, and he that speaketh generally of the Popes now a dayes, if he name not one certaine Pope, casteth out his wordes wantonly, at S. Peter, S. Clement and other holy Mar­tyrs of the old time. But and ye had not bene wantonly dis­posed M. St. your self, you might wel haue perceyued whom the B. meant, nothing the old Bishops of Rome (of whome whether S. Peter were euer any or no, is an other question, and ye are well stripped out of that Lions skinne.) But he spake plainely, of such Bishops as now vsurping the sea of Rome, ye would haue to raigne in the Queenes place. But let not the matter go so M. Stapleton.

VVith like finenesse (say you) ye call him archeheretickeStap. 24. a.that is supreme iudge of all heretickes and heresies to.

I answere with the like finenesse ye take that for graun­ted, [Page 91] that is chiefly denied. By this fine Sophisticall figure Petitio principij, your finenesse M. St. will hurt you, euery boy in the scooles would hisse out such fine reasoning.

Ye call him archeheretike, (say you) that hath alreadyStapl. 24. a.iudged you and your Patriarches, for archeheretikes. I wiste as well might the fellon at the barre in VVestminster hall, to saue his life if it might be, call the iudge, the strongest theese of all. And doubtlesse had he a Prince on his side, his plea were as good as yours is. Let go the Prince M. Stapleton, that is to much trecherie, and more than felonie, though ye liken vs to the fellon, to resemble the Quéenes most excel­lent Maiestie to an abbettour of theeues and fellons: & then I will answere your I wiste, with an other I wiste. I wiste as well the strongest theefe of all, might crie stoppe theefe, by any true man, to saue the pursuite from him selfe, and his crie were as good as the Popes crie, that we, not he, are the archheretikes: and doubtlesse, hauing such confederates on his side as you, to helpe to crie so with him, the theeues crie might séeme more true, than the true mans. Especially if as you would haue the matter go, that the theefe should be made iudge in his owne case to, when would this theefe condemne him selfe trowe you? do ye not perceyue M. Sta­pleton, that your comparison fayleth of the indge in VVest­minster hall against a fellon? when saw ye there a iudge sit, and giue sentence in his owne cause, him selfe beyng on the one side the principall partie? what Iustice or lawe call you that? you should therefore let VVestminster hall alone, and say, at Rot [...] in Rome, or in the Popes cōsistorie, and where he will si [...]te as Iudge on him selfe and vs. There in déede, he hath Iudged vs to be the archeheretikes, but euen this vn­iust doyng, sheweth him selfe to be the very archeheretike. Otherwise if his cause were good, he durst come downe from the bench, and pleade with his aduersaries, the truth or falshood thereof: Which till he do, he plaieth the parte of an archetyrant also.

[Page 92] Now (say you) where ye say we would haue the Pope, toStapl. 24. a.raigne here in the Queenes place, proceedeth from your like truth and wisedome. For albeit the Popes authoritie was euer chiefe for matters Ecclesiasticall, yet was there neuer any so much a noddie, to say and beleue the Pope raigned here, the Pope and the King, being euer two distinct persons, farre dif­ferent the one from the other, in seuerall functions and admi­nistrations, and yet well concurrant and coincident togither, without any imminution of the one or the others authoritie.

I answere, with the like truth and wisdome, as ye reaso­ned before, so ye frame also this reason. Ye say (say you) we would haue the Pope to raigne in her place: Ergo, ye say we would haue the Pope to be King. Hereupon ye make your distinction of raigning, and hauing supreme authoritie, and so ye conclude there was neuer any so much a noddie, to say and beleeue the Pope raigned here.

First your argument is faultie, for, putting the case, yeThe Popes reigne in En­glande. will not for shame say, that ye would haue him King here, yet if he tooke from her a principall parte of her royall power, did he not then raigne in her place, though he clay­med not to be King? and since ye vaunt of wisedome, what a wise distinction is this, of raygning and hauing supreme authoritie, to bleare the simples eyes with woordes? for so farre forth, as he claymeth the supreme authoritie, which he doth in all supreme matters, as are Ecclesiasticall, and that ouer her, so well as any other: so farre foorth he claymeth, to raygne ouer her. Nowe this being a parte of her royall power, deth he not clayme to raigne euen ouer the princi­pall parte, and so is King thereof?

But say you who was euer so much a noddie as to say he raygned here? Sir this noddie is euen your Pope, that ma­keth this clayme, & you your selfe for him. Do you not here say, (although you greatly lie therin) that he was euer chiefe for matters Ecclesiasticall, and do not all your complices say, that he raigneth for spirituall matters, both here & all ouer [Page 93] Christendome? Yea, I wil go further, for the temporalties to. I pray you (sauing the reuerence of your noddie) who raygned heere, when for certayne dayes the Popes legate, kept the crowne of Englande from king Iohn, and gaue it him agayne, making the king become vassall & feodatarie to the Pope, and to holde the crowne and realme of him in fee farme, and pay. 700. marks a yere for England, and. 300. for Irelande? And hath not the Pope chalenged other king­domes also: yea doth he not clayme to be the chiefe Lorde and Prince of all kingdomes? and to set vp, and depose, what king or prince he pleased? And he that beléeued not this, was not counted a noddie, but an heretike. And yet sayth M. St. was there euer any so much a noddie, to say and beleeue the Pope raigned here? but all Papistes muste be noddies with him, yea his owne Pope in steade of a triple crowne, muste weare a cockes combe, and him selfe for companie will beare the bell.

But here he leapeth backe agayne to M. Gilbie, not for the matter of supremacie, but for his misliking of certayne orders of religion in king Edwards dayes, and here vpon plea­deth,Stap. 24. b. that the Papistes are nowe more to be borne withal, if they can not beare the seruice, and the title set foorth.

I answere, first (M. St.) another mans faults excuse not yours. Neither Anthonie Gilbies and yours are alike. For were his greater, or any of those Protestants, that ye vp­brayde vnto vs afterwards, yet are they lesse, in that they obstinately maynteyned not the same, nor persisted therin, nor attempted any conspiracies, nor would haue a foraigne supreme, nor suche an other as your Pope, the father of er­rors, and so on their submission or repentaunce, their fault is pardoned or made lesse. But you obstinately maynteine a playne refusall of obedience, would haue a foraigne vsur­per be your supreme, and not onely subdue the realme and our bodies to his tyrannie, but our soules to his errors: nei­ther do ye repente therof, but perseuer in it, and by wicked [Page 94] Libels, priuie conspiracies, and all other meanes that ye can, deface Gods worde, your natural prince, & natiue coun­trey: your fault therfore, is much greater thā his, or theirs. And therfore your wilful obstinacie is not to be borne with­al, especially since after so long and gentle tollerance of the Quéenes moste gracious lenitie towards you, ye encrease your malice, and harden your hearts with Pharao, abusing hir highnesse lenitie.

Now, where the Bishop sayd, these dealings were a pre­paration to rebellion agaynst the Queenes person, M. Stap.Stap. 24. b. sayth, that it nothing toucheth hir person, nor hir crowne. And that without the ecclesiasticall authoritie, the crovvne hath continued and flourished moste honorably many hun­dreth yeres▪ and shall by Gods grace continue full well, and full long agayne, when it shall please God.

Why M. Stap. what meane ye by this? dothe not the crovvne flourishe and continue, euen nowe also, God be praysed for it? why say you then, it hath flourished, and shal agayne, when it shall please God, as though it dyd not now. And the state of the Crovvne were nowe no estate, or a ve­ry ill estate, in the reigne of the Quéenes maiestie. If this be not a preparation to rebellion, to make the Sub­iectes mislike the estate of the Crovvne, is it not then, euen a rebellious Proclamation it selfe? but let vs sée your ar­gument, that ye make hereon, to excuse your selues.

Diuers Princes haue continued and flourished hono­rably of long time without the ecclesiasticall authoritie.

Ergo, it is nowe no preparation to rebellion, agaynst the Quéenes person, to refuse hir authoritie ouer all causes ec­clesiasticall, and to defende that it apperteyneth not to hirEcclesiasticall authoritie, and authoritie o­uer eccl. mat­ters are not all one. person or Crowne.

I answere. First the worde ecclesiasticall authoritie, is very subtilly and doubtfully spokē, as though hir highnesse went about to play the minister. If ye meane so, the antece­dent is then true. The ecclesiasticall authoritie nothing [Page 95] toucheth hir person or crowne▪ without the whiche it hath most honorably continued and flourished many hundreth yeres, and shall by Gods grace continue, ful wel, and ful long agayne, when it shal please God. But then is this your most spitefull slaunder, to say, that the Quéene now taketh vpon hir eccl. authoritie, and that it is now vnited to hir person or crowne, which is most euident false. And therefore the crowne flourisheth, (for any suche matter) so well as euer it did. And God graunt it neuer to flourish worsse, than it doth vnder hir Maiestie now. But the antecedent béeing so farre foorth true, as is declared, then the consequent follo­weth not, that it is now no preparation to rebelliō to refuse hir authoritie ouer all eccl. causes, and to defende that it per­teyneth not to hir person or crowne.

But if in the antecedent by ecclesi. authoritie ye meane authoritie ouer ecclesiasticall matters, then the antecedent is false, and so to be proued, by the issue of the practise in this Realme: Neither is it any good argument.

Bicause many tooke it not on them: Ergo, none may?

Bicause they did not vse it: Ergo, they ought not?

Bicause they had worldly prosperitie without it: Ergo, it was not necessarie to them?

Bicause the denial was no preparation to rebellion then: Ergo, it is none nowe?

None of these causes are sufficient, M. St. and therefore your subtile and false reason fayleth.

Now when ye sée nothing will fadge this way, eyther to defende you, or to accuse vs, ye will set vpon vs for other matters, that we are those that make this prepara­tion to rebellion.

Let this title and eccl. iurisdiction goe (say you) which allStap. 24. b.good princes haue euer forgone, as nothing to them apper­teyning: let vs come to the very temporall authoritie, and let vs consider who make any preparation of rebellion, the Ca­tholikes, or the Protestants.

[Page 96]In letting that go, M. Stap. that appertayneth to this title and ecclesiasticall iurisdiction, ye let go your matter, and after your maner, make so many impertinent discour­ses, contrarie to that ye called vpon before, neuer to swerue from the question in hande, and nowe your selfe swerue of purpose from it. Howebeit, shall we let you go so rounde a­way, with suche a heape of notorious lyes, that all good Princes haue euer forgone this title and ecclesiasticall iuris­diction, as nothing to them appertayning? that not some or many, but all good Princes, haue forgone, and euer forgone, both this title, and also ecclesiasticall iurisdiction, and so euer forgone it, as nothing pertayning to them? If ye coulde haue shewed this, ye should haue well spent your time, and kept ye nearer your matter, ye néeded not haue fisked about so many by quarels. But this could ye not proue, and ther­fore it was necessarie, ye should runne to them, picking quarels at vs, not marking your owne wicked defacing of your Prince, whome otherwhiles so fauningly ye flatter. For whereto else tendeth this saying, all good princes haue euer forgone this tytle and ecclesiasticall iurisdiction, as no­thing perteyning to them, but to inferre, that all those prin­ces that take on them, or will at any time not forgoe thys title & eccl. iurisdiction, as apperteyning to them, are ill and wicked Princes? What else can be made of your saying? And so not onely ye playnly reuile the Lordes anoynted, the Quéenes most excellent maiestie, but also hir highnesse brother and father, whom so muche ye praysed before. For neither of them did forgo it, no not Quéene Mary hir selfe, that dyd forgoe it, did euer forgoe it, & so ye rayle at hir also. Besides many other godly princes, of this & other realmes, for the eccl. iurisdiction, as ye call it, whiche some of them did neuer, some of them did not euer forgoe. And therfore ye both reuile them, and belye thē, but chiefly the Quéenes highnesse, and is not this neither a preparation to re­bellion?

[Page 97]But M. Stap. muste néedes be let goe, whether he list to range: and therefore let him goe. First, he asketh, vvho vvere they that set foorth deuises of their ovvne, for the suc­cessionSt. 24. b. 25. aof the crovvne, vvithout the Princes knovvledge? Surely (sayth he) no Catholikes, but the very Protestantes them selues. Ye doill, M. Stap. to make a generall con­clusion, of the Protestantes simply, from the priuate doo­inges of some. Should a man say that the pedigrée, that M. Christoferson set from Iohn of Gaunt, for king Philips title to the Crowne of Englande, prouing him to be, euen nearer than Quéene Mary hir selfe, was the dooing of all the Papistes? No, the Papistes mystiked and corrected it. Howebeit, when it was best corrected, it tended to a farre worsse ende, (which ende was all their dooings and fetche, to bring this Realme to perpetuall slauery and bondage of Aliens) than dyd these mens facte, in deuising for the suc­cession: which though it were not lawfull to be done, vvith­out the Princes knovvledge, as ye say: yet was their entent farre otherwise than to make a preparation to rebellion, yea rather to stoppe all gappes (as they thought) the bet­ter from Popishe rebellion, althoughe they medled further than became them to do. But what excuseth this the Pa­pistes disobedience? thinke ye these faultes of the Prote­stantes be couerings large inoughe to hyde the Papistes wickednesse? but to stretche them further, he discourseth on the writinges of master Knox, and master Goodman. For we shall haue all layde in our dishe, noughte shall beThe commo­ditie that we haue of Pa­pists. lefte behinde concealed, that any Protestants vnaduisedly euer dyd or spake. And it is good to sée our owne fa [...]ts and follies, this profite of foes Plutarche teacheth vs, to be one of the greatest commodities, for that that our friendes would not tell vs, our enimies will not layne, but sp [...]e out all that they knowe, to our shame, good and badde, false and true togither. And therfore we had néede beware, that pro­fesse the word of God, how circumspectly we lead our liues, least we giue occasion to the aduersarie, and his ministers, [Page 98] to slaunder the Gospell, and that the vncircumcised Phili­stians rayle not of the God of Israell, by reason of our de­faults, as héere this enimie dothe. Howbeit his argument is all insufficient, either to proue any disobedience in vs, or to excuse the Papistes disobedience: the argument is this.

M. Knox, and M. Goodman wrote agaynst the raygne ofStap. 25. a. b. 26. a. b. women: Ergo, the Protestantes acknowledge not the Quéenes supremacie in all causes ecclesiasticall.

Such slender arguments he gleaneth togither agaynst vs, séeking bye matters. But what should he do? else should he haue nought to furnishe his counterblast withall.

At last, giuing ouer the pursuite of the Protestantes, he returneth to the defence of his clyent, that this can be layde of all men least to M. Feck. And héere lyke a wel enstructed proctor, he reckneth what good déedes he did in Q. Maries dayes, and appealeth to certayne Right honorables, as the Lorde Earle of Leicester, the lorde Earle of Bedforde, the lorde Earle of VVarwike, Sir VVilliam Cecill secretarie. Yea the Queenes maiestie hir selfe, to defende and purge him. The good déedes that he reckneth vp are these two. First, that sir Iohn Cheekes life, landes and goodes, by his trauayle and humble suite were saued. The other: His hope is, that the Queenes highnesse, his soueraigne good Lady, will thus muche reporte of hym, how in the beginning of hir high­nesse trouble, hir highnesse then beeing imprisoned in the Court at VVestm. and before hir committie to the Towre, his good hap was to preache a sermon before Queene Mary, and hir honorable councell in the Courte, where he moued hir highnesse and them also to mercy, and to haue considera­tion of the Queenes highnesse that now is, then in trouble, and newly entred in prison. VVhat displeasure he susteined therfore, I do heere (saith M. St.) omit to expresse, but this I certenly know that he hath reported, and hath most humbly thanked almightie God, and hir highnesse, that hir highnesse had the same in remēbrance, at the first & last talke that euer [Page 99] he had with hir in hir palace at VVestin. before hir highnes coronation. I trust these are suffycient personages for M. Feck, purgation and discharge, against your false [...]. And so he concludeth with a prayer, that M. Feck. may be made partaker of the like dooinges, as he then shewed to other men.

That downe, M. St. God hath graunted him long time, & M. Fec. hath felt it: nor (if he be not too vnthākful) can deny it: yea, your selfe graunt that he confesseth the Q. highnesse to be his soueraigne good lady, & reported, that hir highnesse forgot not the same, & I warrant you, forslacked not y^e large recompence of his sermon, not only if he would haue reuo­ked his errars & super [...]titions, but also, euen as he wilfully refused hir highnes fauourable inclinatiō towards him, & I haue herd him oftē times my selfe, publikely & priuately ac­knowledge, what the Q. maiestie most liberally gaue him, at the reducing of the Minster to the former estate. But what doth this Pharisaicall repetition of his former good déedes then, excuse his obstinate disobedience now? or proue that his booke set foorth agaynst the Queenes maiesties au­thoritie, & dispersed among hir subiects, is notnowe a very preparation to rebellion? if he did any thing then, to deserue fauour now, let him now so behaue him selfe, that he may finde it, the Quéenes maiestie is most mercyful and benefi­ciall. What hindreth him then, but his owne rebellions obstinacie? and yet he hathe founde since (what little fa­uour so euer he got for other then) tenfolde muche more doubled to him agayne. Little fauoure (God knoweth, and hir Highnesse felte) founde she in that hir trouble, and streight imprisonment, after M. Feck. sermon. But ye will not expresse, what displeasure M. Fec. susteined for mouing Quéene Mary and hir Councell to mercy, and to haue but consideration of the Queenes highnesse that now is. What?How farre the Papists are frō mercy and cō ­sideration. gotte he so great displeasure for thus much, M. St? was it so sore a matter, to moue them to mercy and consideration [Page 100] of their doinges? I had thought they had done all thinges with mercy and great consideration. But why will ye not expresse it? forsooth, ye should then expresse, what excéeding crueltie, (whiche can hardly be expressed) what inconsi­derate doings, the Papistes vsed then, neither coulde they be moued from them. And neuer so little a motion (for M. Feckenham went not ouer farre I warrant you) coulde not be made of mercy and consideration, without great dis­pleasure taken. Ye haue well described the state of your Popes raigne (M. Stap.) so vnmercyfull an estate and in­considerate, that for description thereof ye doe best, as dyd Timantes, when he paynted the mourners at the sacrifice of Iphigenia, setting out one wéeping, another with this, a­nother with that heauie visage, when he could not deuise a more dol [...]rous coūtenance, he paynted Agamemnon hiding his face with a kerchiefe: so you, whē ye can not sufficiently set foorth those dolefull tymes, ye do wisely, in that ye omit to expresse them, and therein ye expresse them most of all.

And woulde ye haue lyke mercy and consideration she­shed nowe to the Papistes, as the Papistes shewed then to the Protestantes? Alas, master Stap. if but halfe a quar­ter of suche extremitie were shewed nowe, as was shewed then, it woulde goe harder with master Feckenham, and other his complices, than it dothe. No, no, M. Stap. theirA difference betweene a Pap [...]st and a Protestant. chambers, their walkes, their libertie, their ease, their fare, is nothing like your dōgeōs, your stockes, your colehouses, your famine, your racks, your gaggs, your whipping there, & rostmeate at a stake, that ye gaue the protestants. I war­rant ye M Fe. lookes not like a ghost, nor like a poore schol­ler of Cambridge or Oxford, & perchaunce fares better than some studēts of diuinitie in Louayne. It is easy to discern [...] M. St. what spirite either religion is of, the protestants and the papists, euen by this your own note of vnmercifulnesse and mercy: and now (saith M. St.) let vs proceede on to the residue of your booke.

The fifth Diuision.

THe Bishop of Winchester, after he hath shewed (on M. Feckenhams wordes) the entent of the Othe, and the entent of M. Feckenh. booke to be contrarie: and therefore, what soeuer he offreth in wordes, he denieth the same in déedes: and in the beginning for ensample, dalieth with y^e Oth about dominions & persons, thinking ther­by, he escapeth the principall ende of the Othe: in this diui­sion sheweth first, how doublie he dealeth, in pretending as though the Bishop had forced him to sweare: but there was no such Othe offred or required betwéene them: [...]rgo, A man might well mar [...]aile, that he shamed not to pretende such a lie.

Secondly the Bishop sheweth, how M. Feckenham is taken in his owne dalia [...]ce. The Bishops reason is this. In that ye graunt to her Highnesse the onely su­preme rule ouer the Laye and Ecclesiasticall per­sons, you haue all ready proued withall the cau­ses also, euenby a supreme gouernors definition.

A supreme gouernour or ruler, is one who hathA supreme gouernour. to ouerse [...], guide, care, prouide, order, and directe the thinges vnder his gouernment & rule, to that ende and in those actions, which are appointed, & properly belong, to the subiect or thing gouerned: But the Queenes Highnesse is, by your own cō ­fession, the only supreme gouernour ouer al man­ner persons Ecclesiasticall, &c. Ergo, Hir highnes hath to ouersee, guide, care, prouide, order and di­rect, to that ende, and in those actions, which are appointed, & do properly belong to persons Ec­clesiasticall.

And thus concludeth, that M. Feckenham graūting thus [Page 102] much for fashion sake in generall speache, is but a dissem­bler, and in déede denieth the obedience of the person also: or els he péeuishly standeth on the distinction of the cause, which in full effect he hath graunted alreadie.

To the first parte M. Stapleton answereth. Here is first a worshipfull reason, and cause to meruaile at M. Feckenham.Stapl. 2 [...]. b.that he should by writing presently offer him selfe to receyue an Othe, bicause he neuer made mention of any suche othe before, neither any suche was at any time of him required, surely this is as great a cause to wonder, as to see a goose go barefoote.

Ye plainly falsifie the Bishops woordes M. Stapl▪ he said not, that M. Feckenham neuer made mencion of any suche othe before, but he saide, that he neuer made any mo­tion of such an offer to him. So that this declareth both a double dealing of him, & also a wresting of you. But this in eyther of you, muste not be wondered at, as a rare dealing, that in lying and wresting ye be shamelesse, bi­cause it is as common to you, as to sée a goose go barefoote, and as rare, as to heare a barefoote Foxe, preach to shod géese in Louaine.

Secondly to the Bishops argument he saithe:

But now will he play the worthy Logitian, and M. Fecken­hamStapl. 28. b.will he, nill he, shalbe driuen by fine force of a Logicall definition, to graunt the Queene to be supreme head in all causes Ecclesiasticall, for that he graunteth hir to be supreme head of all persons both Ecclesiastical and Temporal. Bicause (saith he) the supreme gouernour or ruler is he, that ordereth and directeth all actiōs, belonging and appointed to the sub­iectes, and thereby enferreth that the Queenes Maiestie is su­preme and onely gouernour, euē in those actions that belong to Ecclesiasticall persons, which are causes Ecclesiasticall. But as good skill as this man hath in Logike (which is correspon­dent to his diuinitie) he hath brought vs forth a faultie and a vitiouse definition. For a supreme gouernour is he, that hath [Page 103] the chiefe gouernment of the thing gouerned, not in those a­ctions that may any way, properly belong to the subiect or thing gouerned, (as M. Horne saithe) but in those actions that belong to the ende, whereunto the gouernour tendeth. VVhich may well be, although he haue not the chiefe go­uernment in all the actions of the thing gouerned, but in such actions as properly appertaine to him, as a subiect to that go­uernour.

Although M. Stapl. arguments hitherto haue shewed some tast of his owne great skill in Logike, and what a wor­thie student of Diuinitie he is him selfe (the want of which two he vpbraydeth to the Bishop after his prowde & scorne­full manner) yet in this his coūterblast to the Bishops only reason of a supreme gouernours definition, he wil further shew what a passing subtile Logitian, & déepe Deuine he is. But alas the mans ill lucke, for while he clerkly laboreth & striues to bring M. Feck [...]ham out of the briers, he not only wrappeth him the faster in them: but so snarleth & entan­gleth him selfe withall, that as one all amased, he speaketh he wottes not what. And goyng about the Bushe wonder­fully to worke, when he hath all done, he hath not onely left the matter where it was, against M. Feckenham, but hath made it more playne against him selfe also. First, he re­prehendeth the Bishops definition of a gouernour as faul­tie, but his guiltie conscience was so striken, that he durst not, or he well wist not, how to report the definition as it laie, but saith that the Bishop defined, A supreme gouer­nour, to be one, that ordreth and directeth all actions, belon­ging and appoynted to the subiecte: Which the B. said not, but M. St. who hath altered, hacked, and cut halfe away of the Bishops definition, which within eight lines after (though nipping and wresting the woordes, yet some what more truly than before) he expresseth, saying: in those acti­ons that may any way properly belong to the subiecte or thing gouerned. Wherein he séemeth vnskilfully, or as one [Page 104] astonnied, to make no difference betwixt the subiect which is the person, and the obiect, which is the matter and action, or not to vnderstande that properly the gouernour, is not said to order and direct the obiect, but the subiect, in or about the obiect. In which point as the Bishops definition is di­stinct and cleere: so M. Stap. finding fault therewith, but not able to saie here lieth the faulte, nor to amende it, and yet going about to amende it: either in conclusion, maketh one, nothing differing in matter, or farre worsse so much as it differeth from it.

A supreme gouernour (saith M. Stapl.) is he, that hath theStapl. 23. b.chiefe gouernment of the thing gouerned, not in those actiōs that may in any wise belong to the subiect, or thing gouerned (as M. Horne saith) but in those actions, that belong to the ende whereunto the gouernour tendeth.

This is your perfect definition M. St. which either is Idē per Idem, a gouernour is he that gouerneth in those actions, wherein he is a gouernour: and so your fautles definition is very faultie it selfe: or els it is in effect and matter all one, with the Bishops definition, that ye reprehende, though ye would in wordes séeme to make some difference: & so againe it is the more vitious, the more obscure it is.

But this may well be (say you, to confirme your definitiō)Stapl. 28. b. although he haue not the chiefe gouernment in al the actions of the thing gouerned, but in such actions as properly apper­taine to him as a subiect to that gouernour.

M. St. we stande not now in question what may well be, but what is of necessarie consequence. But ye séeke out cor­ners and darke speaches to wrappe the truth in such obscu­ritie, after the Popishe manner, that your readers might ra­ther meruayle at ye than vnderstand ye. Which if they did, they should sée your folly and contradictions, and that your selfe scarce vnderstād your owne wordes (if they were your owne) for if ye vnderstoode your selfe, when ye say, he hath chiefe gouernment, in such actions as properly pertayne to [Page 105] him, as a subiect to that gouernour: then would ye also sée, how it followeth that being a subiect to him (as M. Fec­kenham hath confessed) as well in that he is an Ecclesiasti­call person, as Temporall: he is also a subiect to him in such actions, as are so well Ecclesiasticall as Temporall. The ar­gument is euident. He that is subiect to the Princes su­preme gouernment, is vnder him in all such actions as ap­pertaine to him, as a subiect to that gouernour. But euery manner person so well Ecclesiasticall as Temporal, borne in the Princes dominiōs, is subiect to the Princes supreme gouernment: Ergo, The Prince hath the supreme gouern­ment ouer euery manner person borne in his dominions, in all such actions as are Ecclesiasticall so well as Temporal.

And thus his owne darke speaches being brought to light, make flatte agaynst him selfe.

But to make the Reader vnderstande his meaning bet­ter, and to vnwrappe him selfe out of this obscuritie, in the which he hath rather hindred than bettered his cause: he set­teth out the same with sundrie ensamples, of a Master and his Seruaunt, a Father and his Sonne, a Mayor and a Ci­tizen, the Prince and his subiect, a Schoolemaster and his scholers, the Shipmaster and the Mariners.

For in one man (saith he) many rulers may and do daylyStapl. 28. b. & 29. a.concurre, which in some sense may euery one be called his su­preme gouernour. As if he be a seruant, the Maister: and if he be a sonne, in that respect the father, and if his father and Ma­ster dwell in a citie, the Mayor also, is the fathers & maisters, & so his chiefe gouernour to, for things concerning the chiefe gouernment of the citie, and of all these the Prince, chiefe and supreme gouernour, as they be subiects. Otherwise the Prince doth not intermeddle with the fathers office, in duetifulnesse dewe to him by his sonne: nor the Master for that gouernmēt he hath vpō his seruant, no more than with the scholemaster, for the gouernment of his schollers, and their actions, or the maister of the ship, for the actions & doings of the mariners, [Page 106] otherwise than any of these offende the positiue lawes of the realme, and so hath the Prince to do with him as his subiect, or when he shal haue neede to vse them for the cōmon welth, wherein as subiects and members of the said common welth, they must to him obey. Much like is it with the spiritual men, which be also members of the said common welth, and there­fore in that respect, subiect to the Prince and his lawes: and so is it true, that the Prince is supreme gouernour of all persons as well spirituall as temporall. But that therefore he should al­so be supreme gouernour in al their actions, will no more fol­low than of the actions of thē before rehersed, yea much lesse.

M. St. thinketh he hath now clered the coast, & that by all these ensamples, the matter goeth cléere with him. Shew­yng first how euery one of these rulers, master, father, mayor, and Prince, may in some sense be called supreme gouernours. But yet, either he doth not or wil not sée withal, how in the sense now in controuersie, all these ensamples are also flat against him. For as the father, in all causes that haue re­spect from the father as father, to the sonne as sonne▪ is the sonnes supreme gouernour, as he saith: and as the master in all causes that haue respect from the master as master, to the seruant as seruant, is likewise the seruants supreme go­uernour: and as the mayor in all causes that haue respect frō the mayor in that he is mayor, to y^e citizen in that he is a ci­tizen, is also the citizens supreme gouernour: so the supreme gouernour of ecclesiasticall persons, in all causes that haue respect from him, in that he is a supreme gouernour, to eccle­siasticall persons in that they be ecclesiasticall persons, is in all those causes their supreme gouernour: but the causes in respecte whereof they be called ecclesiasticall persons, beyng no other than ecclesiasticall causes, it followeth that he is not onely supreme gouernour of the persons, but also in the cau­ses belonging to the persons, as the father or master is not onely supreme gouernour of the sonnes or seruaunts per­sons, but also in those causes in respect whereof he is the [Page 107] sonne or seruant.

Yea, but saith M. St. though the Prince be supreme go­uernour to these and all other persons in the realme, yet as he entermedleth not with father, schoolemaster, shipmaster, &c. in their seuerall actions of their offices or vocations: so though the Prince be supreme gouernour of all persons ec­clesiasticall, yet is he not supreme gouernour in all their a­ctions of their offices or vocations.

Ye conclude not a like M. Stapl. but subtilly and falsely ye alter the state of the conclusion: if ye made your argu­ment aright, ye should make it thus: as the Prince inter­medleth not in the seuerall actions of his temporall subiects offices or vocations, so he intermedleth not in the seuerall actions of his Ecclesiasticall subiectes offices or vocations. This is the right illation of the s [...]militude, and thus it ma­keth nothing against vs. Which you espying, in the place of intermedling, thrust in, gouerning, concluding [...]alsely, bicause he is no intermedler in the one, that therefore he is no gouernour of the other. But the [...]urder ye wade in this similitude, the more ye labour against the streame. For as, although the Prince intermedle not with the Fathers, the Masters, the Schoolemasters, the Pilotes seuerall actions, in their offices or vocations: yet he ought to ouersée, that e­uery one of these, and all other his subiects, do their owne proper actions, belonging to their vocations, and offices du­tifully: yea not onely to make lawes for them all, as sub­iectes, but also for their seuerall estates and degrées besides, not for him selfe to exercise, but for them to worke in their vocations: so the Prince beyng likewise gouernour of Ec­clesiasticall persons, so well as of any other aforesaide, al­though he intermedle not with the seuerall actions of their vocations, yet ought he to ouersée them, that euery Eccle­siasticall estate do their proper actions dutifully, and also to make Lawes and Orders, not for him selfe, but for them in their degrées and vocations to exercise and [Page 108] obserue the same. And thus your similitude euery way ma­keth quite against you M. Stapl. how be it you will proue it better ye say.

For the better vnderstanding whereof it is to be knowne,Fol. 29. a. b.that before the comming of Christe, Kings were there many, but Christian Kings none. Many cōmon wealths were there, but no Christian common welth, nor yet godly cōmon welth, properly to speake, sauing among the Iewes, but cluill and politike. The ende and finall respect of the which ciuill com­mon wealth, was and is vnder the regiment of some one or moe persons, to whome the multitude committed them selfe to be ordered and ruled by, to preserue themselues, from all inwarde and outwarde iniuries, oppressions and enemies, and furder, to prouide not onely for their safetie and quietnes, but for their wealth and abundance, and prosperous maintenance also. To this ende tendeth and reacheth, and no furder, the ciuill gouernment: And to the preseruation, tuition, and fur­derance of this ende, chiefly serueth the Prince, as the princi­pall and most honorable person of the whole estate, whiche thing is common as well to the Heathenishe, as to the Chri­stian gouernment.

Is this all that ye will aforde christian Princes M. Stap.The Papists make the go­uernment of christian prin­ces, no better than the Turkes go­uernment. what a heathenish doctrine is this, to make Christen prin­ces and Heathen princes gouernment all one? What if Christen princes (as they haue right good cause) beginne to startle at this, that ye make their estate no better before God than is the great Turkes? And what if one should an­swere, that ye not onely sclaundered reprochfully, all the estates of Christendome nowe liuing, or that shalbe, or haue bene since Christes comming: but also wickedly de­face all the godly Kings and rulers before Christes com­ming, Melchisedeck, Dauid, Salomon, &c. beléeuing in Christ to come, as Christen Princes now beare the title of Christ already come. And yet dare you saie, that be­fore the comming of Christ, Kinges were there many, but [Page 109] Christian kinges none. Do [...] ye dallie on the tytle and name of Christian, or meane ye the tytle and effecte of christianitie? if ye meane so (as ye must néedes meane, if ye meane any thing materiall to the purpose) ye are very in­iurious, not onely to those Kings, but to their subiects, yea, to their common weale also. And yet ye say further, their common wealth was but ciuill and politike, and vvente no further, than outwarde peace, tranquillitie, welthe, and pro­sperous maynteinance, which is the onely ende of their go­uernement, and that it reacheth not any iote further.

What if one should bidde you looke further in the scripture,Deut. 13. 17. Rom. 13. 1. Tim. 3. and so ye should finde it stretche somewhat further, than to be common with the great Turkes gouernement? What if a man should presse you with your owne wordes after­warde, that yet catche it more than one inche further, for assisting of the Churche vvith the temporall svvorde, which the great Turke, the great Chan, the Persian Sophie, doth not, but drawe their swordes agaynst it? What if a man should referre this among your contradictions? What if he should ioyne another withall, that where yet ye confesse, the Iewes common vvealth was godly before Christes comming, and other common wealthes were not godly and yet the ciuill gouernement of Christian princes, reacheth no further, than the ciuill gouernement of heathen princes, and one finall ende is common to bothe, and so eyther the Heathens common vveales were godly also, or else the Iewes were vngodly too? yea, what if the heathens cōmon vveale, and heathen Princes fell out to be in better estate of the twayne, if only quietnesse, vvealth, abundance, and pro­speritie, were the onely and finall ende of bothe? if ye were well vrged in all these thinges, thinke ye, M. Stap. these your principles would be able to defende you? yea lastly, if one woulde denie these your Heathen and Turkishe maximies, bring ye any thing to proue them, than your owne bare saying, that it is to be knovvne? But no true [Page 110] Christian knovveth it, M Stap. nor will euer acknowledge this, which with suche bolde impudencie, ye grounde vp­pon, that christian Princes gouernement reacheth no fur­ther, than ciuill and outvvarde safetie, vvealth, abundaunce, and prosperitie, and is common asvvell to heathen, as to Christian princes. Neuerthelesse, M. Stap. taking it for a rolled case, and out of question, rolleth vp the matter as graunted. And as he hath thus determined the boundes of Christian Princes gouernement, so (as it were by com­mission from his holy father) he descrybeth the Popes kingdome.

But ouer and besides (sayth he) yea, and aboue this, isStap. 29. b.there an other gouernment instituted and ordeyned by Christ, in a spirituall and a mysticall body, of such as he gra­ciously calleth to be of his kingdome▪ which is the kingdome of the faythfull, and so consequently of heauen, wherevnto christian fayth dothe conduct vs. In whiche spirituall body, commonly called Christes catholike Church, there are other heades and rulers than ciuill Princes, as Vicars, Parsons, By­shops, Archbyshops, Patriarkes, and ouer them al the Pope. VVhose gouernement chiefly serueth, for the furtherance and encrease of this spirituall kingdome, as the ciuill Prin­ces doe for the temporall.

That there is another mysticall body, the kingdome of the faythful directed by an other spiritual gouernement, this is a true principle, M. Stap. and truer than you wéene or would haue it. But as you are deceiued, and would deceiue others, with the title of that spirituall Churche, so on thys principle, you gather a moste false assumption. That the heads of this spiritual or mystical body, the church of Christ, are vicars, parsons, byshops, archbyshops, patriarkes, and ouer them all the Pope. In which assumption, ye take for true & graūted, sundry manyfest errors, flatly of vs denied, chiefly foure. The first about the spirituall and mysticall body of Christ. Wherin ye shew great vnskill, not knowing what [Page 111] is ment by the spiritual & mystical body. For in that respect, as there are no ciuil princes, emperours, kings, or quéenes,Gal. 3. so there ar no Bishops neither, no not Greke nor Scythian, Gentile nor Iew, neither male nor female, but all the elect that haue bene, are, or shall be, either in heauen aboue, or here dispersed in any parte of the earth, without any respect of person, are al members, and Christ the only head. And so M. St. your selfe also call it, the kingdome of the faythfull, so that if any bishop be vnfaithful, he is so far from beeing a head in this misticall corporation, that he is no member or any part therof. And your selfe confessed before, that now & thē your Pope was no good mā neither, & therfore vnfaith­ful, hauing not the true, liuely, & effectual faith in Christ, as they only haue y^t be mēbers of this body, wherby he is quite excluded frō it. Your first error therfore is, in not discerning betwéene the inuisible and visible estate of the Church.

Secondly, taking it (as after, contrarie to your former sayings, ye seeme to expounde it) to be the visible estate of the church, saying, cōmōly called Christes catholike church: then erre ye, in that ye say, vicars, parsons, bishops, archby­shops, and popes, be rulers and heades of it. For excepting parsons (taking them for pastors) & Bishops, the scripture knoweth none of th [...]se rulers. The other titles haue come in since, with deanes, arch [...]eacōs, abbots, priors, cardinals, patriarches. &c. although I speake not against the names of thē, no not of the name of Pope neither, which béeing well vsed, I reuerīce & admit, but against the Popish hierarchie, & proud abuse of them. And therfore thirdly, where ye say, the Pope is ouer them all, that he is so ouer all those de­grées in your Churche, I graunte ye, but that he is so ouer those, or any other degrées, in the true visible Churche of Christ, it is but your facing maner, to take that for confessed that is chiefly denyed. Fourthly, that ye affirme the Pope, and his Prelates gouernemente chiefly to serue for the furtheraunce and encrease of the Spirituall kyng­dome [Page 112] of Chryst: where it is euident to the contrarie, what hauocke and decrease, so muche as they can, these Rulers make of the members of Christes Churche, to maynteine infidelitie, and exautorate the worde and kingdome of Christ thereby.

M. Stap. now presupposing, that the christian Princes gouernement is only outward and for the body, and cōmon with the heathen and stretcheth no further: and that on the other parte, the Pope ouer al, and his fleshly chaplens vnder him, are the heades and mēbers of the spiritual and mysticall body of Christ: nowe he will proue (and God before) that this gouernement of the pope, & his chaplaines, is far aboue the kings gouernement, and that kings he subiect therto.

Now (sayth he) as the soule of man incomparably passethStap. 29. b.the body, so doth this kingdome the other, and the rulers of these the rulers of the other. And as the body is subiecte to the soule, so is the ciuill kingdome to the spirituall. His rea­son is thus:

The soule or spirite incomparably passeth the body:

The kings gouernement is onely for the body, and the Priests gouernement onely is for the soule and spirite:

Ergo, the Priestes gouernement incomparably passeth the Kinges.

As this argument is noughte, so the conclusion béeing rightly vnderstoode, dothe noughte infirme the Princes su­preme gouernement ouer all ecclesi. causes. For thoughe the maior be true, the minor is moste false, that the kinges gouernement is onely for the body. Yea though the spiri­tuall gouernement be onely the Priestes, yet the gouerne­ment ouer spirituall matters, and matters apperteyning to the soule, may still for all that, and dothe belong, euen ouer the Priests to the Prince. Neither dothe M. St. proue the cōtrarie, or alledge ought for his minor, than as we haue heard, the foresaide principles, of limiting the Princes go­uernement, to be all one with the Turkes. But you might [Page 113] haue done well M. Stap. to haue e [...]sed your paynes euen here, and haue troubled your selfe no further to proue your matter, if these your vaine presupposals, be such true and vndoubted principles. But as though we had alredy graun­ted them, M. St. still goeth on.Stap. 22. b.

To the which kingdome (sayth he) as well Princes as o­ther, are engrafted by baptisme, and become subiects to the same by spirituall generation, as we become subiectes to our princes, by course and order of natiuitie, which is a terrestrial generation.

The argument is thus. As the childe that is borne by a terrestriall generation, in the earthly Princes kingdome, is subiect to the earthly Prince: so, euen the Prince being borne againe by spirituall generation, is become subiect to the spirituall kingdome.

But the rulers of the spirituall kingdom are the pope. &c.

Ergo the Prince is become subiect to them.

Thus fondly still ye reason on your principle, in so much that we can say nothing agaynst you. But nowe, while ye thinke ye may say what ye will, sodenly see how ye haue o­uerturned these your mightie principles, with a trippe of your owne contrarie sayings, euen in the same place.

Furthermore (say you) as euery man is naturally bounde,Stap. 29. b.to defende, mainteyne, encrease, adorne▪ and amplifie, his na­turall countrey, so is euery man bounde, and much more, to employ himselfe, to his possibilitie, towarde the mition and defence, furtheranee and amplification, of this spiritual king­dome, and most of all the princes themselues. As such which haue receyued of God, more large helpe and facultie, toward the same, by reason of their great authoritie, and temporall sworde, to ioyne the same as case requireth, with the spirituall sworde.

Thinke ye this to be true indéede M. St. may we trust you on your wordes? then is religion an ende of the Prin­ces gouernment, which a little before ye not onely most vn­truly [Page 114] denyed, but buylded as ye thought iolye arguments therevpon. All whiche come nowe downe of themselues with an heaue and hee, your selfe pulling awaye the soun­dation, wherevppon they were buylt. And nowe ye make an other platforme, contrarie to the former, which is, that Princes moste of all are bounde (as those that haue receyued of God more large helpe, and facultie towarde the same) to employ them selues to their possibilities, to these endes, to defende, mainteyne, encrease, adorne, and amplifie, not onely the ciuill peace and prosperitie, but much more the spirituall kingdome. And ioyne the temporall sworde with the spiri­tuall sworde, as the case requireth.

Upon this, as a better platforme than the other, I build this argument euen according to your owne definition of a supreme gouernour, and master Feckenhams offer.

A supreme gouernour is he (say you) that hath the chiefe gouernment of the thing gouerned, in those actions that be­long to the ende, wherevnto the gouernor tendeth:

But the actions of Ecclesiasticall persons (ouer whome the Prince is supreme gouernour, as master Feckenham hath graunted) doe belong properly to the ende, wherevnto the Prince tendeth: to wete, not onelye to mainteyne the common peace and tranquilitie, but also to sée that Gods re­ligion and seruice be purely and syncerely had and kept a­mongst the subiects: Ergo

In these actions the prince is supreme gouernour, and so by consequence in all causes and actions ecclesiasticall.

To proue the minor: first, that all the trauayle of all godly Preachers in the worlde, is to this ende, is playne and manifest. That this is also the chiefe ende of the Prin­ces gouernement, both your selfe master Stapleten at length haue confessed, centrarie to your former heathen limitation, and also the verye heathen and prophane wry­ters themselues: so well as Christian, haue acknowled­ged. Wherein master Stapleton both sheweth his great [Page 115] follie, in reasoning that heathen Princes did not regarde religion, Ergo they ought not especially to haue regarded it: and also bewrayed his ignorance in the antecedent of this his vaine reason: for the heathen though they erred in mistaking religion, yet they knewe and taught that it was an especiall care, and ende of the Princes gouernment. I speake not howe Plato in his bookes de rep. & legib. rec­konethHeathen prin­ces care and gouernment tended to re­ligion. the care of Religion, to be a chiefe ende of theyr au­thoritie: And yet will I note two sentences out of Aristotle, whome to denie your Sorbonistes make more than petit heresie. [...]) sayth he) [...] Aristot. Polye. 3. ca. 10. Cap. 11. in the other Cityes the sacry­fices are left onely to the Kinges. And agayne, [...]. For the Capitaine was [...]oth King and Iudge and Lorde of the deuine matters.

And to proue this by the storyes of heathen Princes. Numa Pompilius hath his chiefest commendation not so muche for making ciuill lawes and pollicies to the Ro­maynes, as for his lawes about theyr religion, theyr Prie­stes, theyr Nunnes, theyr Sacrifices. The Magistrates of Athens, did sitte in iudgement and condemned Socra­tes when Anitus and Melitus accused him for false religi­on. The Romaine Princes them selues woulde labour principally for the office of the chiefe Bishoppe, whiche terme Pontifex. Maxim [...] the Bishoppe of Rome nowe chalengeth. Tiberius promoted to the Senate of Rome, (as to those that had the care and gouernement of theyr re­ligion) that Christ might be accounted among theyr Gods.

Yea, in the Scripture is declared that Nabucha [...]nezarDaniel. 1. the King of Babylon, an Heathen Prince, and vt­terly destitute of the truthe, before God gaue him some spar [...]kes thereof, yet made hée a lawe of worshipping hys owne Image. And King Darius of Persia made aDaniel. 6. decrée that none shoulde worship God in certayne dayes.

[Page 116]In all which matters although these heathen Princes crred from the truth: yet they thought, that religion (which they mistooke for truth) to be a principall part belonging to their gouernment.

Although therefore master Stapleton ye doe great iniu­rie to Christian Princes to make their state common with the Paganes: yet do you more iniurie herein to them, thanThe Papistes more iniurious to Christ an Princes than to Heathen. the heathen did to their heathen princes. Was it lawfull for them in their heathen gouernment to haue so especiall a care aboute their heathen and false religion, and is it not lawfull for godly Christian Princes, to haue the like or more aboute Chrystes true Religion? Is the ende of their gouernment common to both alyke, as ye say, and yet the Heathens stretched further than doeth the Christian Princes?

Iohannes de Parisus affirmeth, that this is a false sup­positionIohannes de Parisi [...]s de po­ [...]estate reg. & p [...]. ca. 18. of yours Master Stapleton. Quod potest as rega­l [...]. &c. That the kingly power is corporall and not spiri­tuall. That the Kingly power hath the cure of the bodie and and not of the soules. Sithe it was ordeyned to the common profite of the Citizens, not euery profite, but that profite which is to liue according to vertue. Herevpon sayth the Philosopher in the Ethikes, that the intention of the law­maker, is to make men good, and to enduce them to ver­tue. And also in the Politykes he sayth, that as the soule is better than the bodie, so a lawmaker is better than a Physi­tion, bicause the lawmaker hath care for the soules, and a Physition for the bodie.

Nowe as the Philosophers ascribed this ende (in the Heathens false religion, in vertues of lyfe, and care of the soule) to the gouernement of Heathen Princes: Doth not Saint Paule shewe as muche and more trowe you, for the ende of Christian Princes gouernement in these thinges? Ut [...] & tranquillam vitam degamus in omni pietate & honestate. That we may leade (sayth he)1. Tim. 1. [Page 117] a quiet and peaceable life in al godlinesse and honestie. Was this no further master Stapleton than safetie, quietnesse, worldly wealth, aboundance and prosperous maintenance? Did the great Constantine stretche the ende of his gouern­ment no further when he sayde, [...] debere ante [...]useb. lib. [...]. de vit. Const.omnta scopum esse [...]udicaus, &c. I iudged that this oughte before all other thinges to be my scope, that among the most holye multitudes of the Catholike Churche, one fayth and syncere charitie and godlinesse agreeing togither towardes almightie God, might be conserued?

Did the whole assemblye of Byshoppes, in the firstConcil Con­stantin. 1. generall Councell at Constantinople, limitte no further the endes of Theodosius gouernment, when they confessed that God instituit imperiu [...] Theodos [...] ad communempacem ecclesiarum, & sanae fid [...] confirmationem? God did or­day ne the gouernement of Theodosius for the common peace of the Churches, and the confirmation of the sounde fayth? Did Saint Augustine beléeue that Princes go­uernementAug. epist. 48. reached no further, when he sayde, Reges in ter­ris seruiunt Christo faciendo lege [...] pro Christo? Kinges in the earth doe serue Christe in making lawes for Christe? Did Iustinian suppose, hys authoritie tended no further, when he wrote, Legum Authoritas & diuinas & humanas res bene disposuit? The authoritie of the lawes hath well disposed both the deuine and humaine matters? Did the m [...]ste Christian King of Spaine Richaredus, thinke that the ende of hys gouernement stretched no further, when he sayde openly in the thirde Councell at Tolet, be­foreConcil. Tola. 3 all the Bishoppes there assembled, Quanto subdito­rum gloria Regali extolli [...]r, tanto prouidi esse debemus in his quae ad Deum sunt, &c? Howe muche more we bee exalted in royall glorie ouer our subie [...]es, so muche more ought wee to bee carefull, in those matters that appertayne to God, eyther to augment our owne hope, or else to looke [Page 118] to the profite of the people committed to vs of GOD. And as ye see me in verie deede inslamed wyth the feruen­cie of fayth, God hath styrred mee vp to this ende, that the obstinacie of infidelitie beeing expelled, and the furie of discorde remooued, I shoulde reuoke the people to the knoweledge of faythe, and to the [...]eloweshippe of the Catholyke Churche, who serued errour vnder the name of Religion.

Lo master Stapleton, here ye sée farre other endes, of the ciuile gouernment of Christian Princes, than (as you most falsely and iniuriouslye alleage to preserue them from all outwarde iniuryes, oppressions and enemyes, and fur­ther to preserue them for theyr safetie and quietnesse, for theyr wealth, abundaunce, and prosperous maintenaunce, and that it tendeth and reacheth no further. And that thys is common as well to the heathenishe as the Christian go­uernement. Fye for shame master Stapleton that euer suche heathenishe woordes shoulde procéede out of your ca­tholyke lips.

But ye are halfe ashamed I sée, and woulde mollifie the matter so muche as ye can with a proper qualification: that those thinges which these godly Princes did, although they did them: yet therein were they no more but Ad­uocates: and so saye you, All good Princes doe and haueStap. 30. a.done, ayding and assisting the Churche decrees made for the repression of vice and errors, & for the maintenance of vertue & true religion: Not as supreme gouernors themselues in allThe papistes shift that prin­ces are the cler­gies aduocates.causes spirituall and temporall: but as faythfull Aduocates in ayding and assisting the spirituall power, that it may the sooner, and more effectually take place.

As ye bring this shifting distinction of Aduocate to late, M. Stap. hauing before quite debarred the Princes Ciuill gouernement, of goyng anye iote further than ye there did bounde it, to meddle no further wyth ayding and assisting the spirituall power, than a Saracene doeth ayde and as­sist [Page 119] it: gyuing Princes no more leaue to be Aduocates thereof than ye make the Turke or Souldan, saying this theyr so limitted gouernement is common as well to both Heathen as Christian: euen so this your office of Aduocate­shippe came to late into the Churche by manye yeares, to debarre anye of these forenamed Princes, in theyr owne supreme gouernement aboute [...] mat­ters, to make it sownde, as though they onely had béene the ayders, assisters, or Aduocates vnto others, and not them selues the doers. Whereas on the contrarie, they were the verye doers, thoughe not of those actions that appert [...]yned to the Ministers offices, yet of the gouer­ning and directing bothe the Ministers and their actions, yea and the principall ouerséers and supreme rulers of them, as euen their déedes and wordes before rehearsed plainly declare.

As for thys shyft of Aduocation, was long sithence, af­ter theyr tymes deuysed. Whiche office of Aduocate­shippe, séemeth to bée de [...]yued, from this fonde errour of the Papistes, that the seculer power is immediately and primarelye (as they terme it) in the Pope, but he hath not also immediatelye the exercise or execution of it, but gyueth that to the Prince, and so the Prince becom­meth the Popes Aduocate, or rather his executioner.

And thus was first (say they) Carolus Magnus Pope Adrians Aduocate, executing the Byshoppe of Romes will, agaynste Desiderius King of Lumbardie. Where­vpon Charles was made Emperour by the Pope, not­withstanding Michaell the Emperour was then lyuing at Constantinople. Propter hoc dicunt (sayeth DantesDantes Ale­gherius. li. 3.Aligherius) quòd omnes qui fuerunt Romanorum imperatores, post ipsum & ipse, Aduocat [...] Ecclesiae sunt, & debent ab Ecclesia aduocari. For thys thyng, all that were Em­perours of Rome after hym, and hee hym selfe, are Aduocates of the Churche, and oughte of the Churche to [Page 120] be called vpon.

Lupolous de Babenberge also telleth, that Pope Za­charieLupold. de Babenb. ca. 15. declarauit. &c. declared or pronounced, that Childe­ricus Pepins master, shoulde be deposed, and Pepine be made the King of Fraunce, whome when Pope Steuen the seconde annoynted, with his sonnes Carolus and Ca­rolomanus, French Kings: Ipsos specialiter elegit (sayth Lu­poldus) ad sedem Apostolicam defendendam. Ex hac electio­ne puto (que) reges & imperatores Romanorum, sint vs (que) in hodi­ernum diem ecclesia Romanae aduocati, de qua Aduocatia lo­quuntur iura canonica. He chose them especially to defende the Apostolicall Sea. Of this election I thinke it com­meth, that Kinges and Emperours of the Romaynes are euen to this daye the Aduocates of the Romayne Churche, of whiche Aduocacie, speake the Canonicall lawes.

Thus you sée the originall of your deuised Aduocate­ship, commeth nothing neare the examples of the sayde godly Princes, béeing themselues supreme gouernours in Ecclesiasticall matters before your Aduocateshippe was first hatched. No reason therefore the Punie shoulde de­barre the Seniour. And yet it is but a sielie shift of your Canonistes descant, rather detecting the vnlawfull en­croching of the Pope, than defeating anye parte of the Princes authoritie, in this hys supreme gouerne­ment.

As for those Princes Carolus Magnus, his sonnes and other Emperours since theyr tymes, were nothing suche Aduocates as your Pope and you woulde nowe pretende, that is to say, to be your onelye executioners: But as these stories testifie, euen these Aduocates also, were the chiefe directours and supreme gouernours, of all those things they did. Yea the Pope hym selfe so well as anye other Byshoppe in theyr territoryes was subiecte to them. They ayded and assisted the Byshoppe of Rome I graunt, when he humblie [Page 121] aduocated, then he called vppon them for ayde and assys­tance, agaynst the wrongers of him. But the Pope by com­maundement called them not, and they obeyed his calling, and so became his aduocates, which is cleane contrarie to an aduocates office. And therefore once agayne your argu­ment is nought. They were aiders and aduocates, Ergo, not supreme gouernours.

But M. St. will further proue, by his former ensamples, why this supreme gouernement can not appertayne to the Prince.

For this supreme gouernement (sayth he) can he not haue,Stap 30. a.vnlesse he were him selfe a spirituall man, no more than can a man be master of a shippe, that neuer was a mariner: A maior, that neuer was a citizen. Hys principal gouernement resting in ciuill matters, and in that respecte as I haue sayde, he is supreme gouernour of all persons in his Realme, but not of all their actions, but in suche sense as I haue specified, and least of all the actions of spirituall men, especially of those which are most appropriate to them, which can not be vnlesse he were him selfe a spirituall man.

You frame your similitude very vnproportionably, M.Though the Prince be not an eccl. person, yet hath he su­premacie in eccl. causes. Stap▪ from the master of a shippe, or the maior of a citie, to a Prince or supreme gouernour. Either of these béeing par­ticuler offices vnder a supreme gouernour, that maketh lawes, euen both for maiors in cities, and masters of shippes also▪ And albeit no argumēt builded on similitudes, is firme to proue or improue any controuersie, though rightly ap­plied, they may lightē the matter, to him that assenteth, but not enforce it to him that denieth (notwithstanding your similitudes, as they proue nothing, so they nothing lighten, but more obscure the matter) yet if these your similitudes were admitted, frō maior and pilot, to supreme gouernour, what true conclusion can ye inferre vpon them? when both the ensamples that ye make your similitude from, and the matter that ye apply them too, are false. For a man may be [Page 122] master of a shippe, though he neuer was a maryner in the shippe: and also [...]e made the Maior of the towne, where­in he was neuer citizen before. As many a noble or gentle­man, is made the captayne of a forte, of a towne, or an ar­mie, that neuer was prest before a souldier, and yet a good captayne to, hauing the knowledge howe to gouerne soul­diers, though he him selfe were none.

Yea, to draw néerer than mariners, Maiors & captaines, reade ye not, that S. Ambrose was neuer so much as any of the clergie, and that more is, no not baptized, & yet he was a better byshop, than the best bishop of the Romish making now, or than the byshop of Rome him selfe? yea your holy Pope Felix. 5. was he before he was Pope any other than (as ye call it) a méere lay man, neither Cardinall, Byshop, Priest, nor had so much (that we reade of) as your benet & collet? and therfore your examples are not true of Maior & Pilot, that they must haue bene citizen & mariner before. And yet, where herevpon, ye would néedes haue christian Princes to be spirituall men, if they should be supreme go­uernours of spiritual matters: it is graunted you, and so they be. And if you thinke godly christian Princes not to be spi­ritual, but vtterly voyde of spiritualnesse: then is this in you a lying and carnall spitefulnesse. All godly Princes, y [...]a all godly persons are spiritual, and that muche better than any shaued or oyled massing Priest. But if ye meane, after the common distinction, those that haue any spirituall office in the ministerie of the worde and sacraments, as deacons, el­ders, byshop [...]: &c. then your similitude, as is before declared, fayleth. Such Offices are not necessarie to haue gone before in a Supreme gouernour ouer them, although the know­ledge is necessarie how to gouerne them.

Besides this, the proportion of your similitude fayleth, in that to proue a supreme gouernour should withall be a spi [...]i­tuall man, yo [...] alledge ensamples of suche gouernours, as be not, but haue bene, suche or suche persons before: and so from the master, which hath bene a maryner, and nowe i [...] [Page 123] [...] master, you conclude, the prince béeing a gouernour in spi­ritual matters, should withal be a spiritual person. Neither doth the proportion hold, in the necessarie relation of the si­militude, from a Ma [...]or to his citizen, from a master of a ship to a mariner seruing in the ship (which hath relation frō the gouernours, to the parties in their offices gouerned) to any like relation betwéene a supreme gouernour, ouer eccl. causes & persons, to a spirituall person▪ but from a spirituall gouernour, to a spirituall subiect, this were the right relati­on. Now the Prince néedeth neither to haue bene a spiritual subiect, nor yet a spirituall person, in your common sense of spiritualtie: neither so claymeth he to be a spirituall gouer­nour. And therefore, neither the ensamples of your simili­tude, nor the proportion holdeth.

But sée how still your owne tale ouerturneth your selfe. For if his principall gouernement resteth in ciuil matters (as immediatly ye say) & that, in that respect he is supreme go­uernour, of al persons in his realme, but not of their actions: why is he not of their actions also, syth they be ciuil or tem­poral matters in which respect he is their supreme gouernor? is it not bicause, though he be their supreme gouernor, yet he professeth not all their seueral offices, sciēces, handy crafts, mysteries, or vocations, and so is not a dealer in their acti­ons? which hindreth nothing his principal gouernemēt ouer them al, that he is, nor euer was, a prentise of any of their sciences, nor practiseth the actions of their callings, being all ciuill matters. And yet say you truely, he hath the prin­cipall gouernement in ciuill matters. But why then also, notwithstanding the prince dealeth not with the actions of spirituall men, may he not haue a principall gouernement in spirituall matters, thoughe him selfe haue not the spi­rituall function, or office of a spirituall man? Doe ye not [...]ée, by your owne wordes, that to haue a principall go­uernement, or to be a supreme gouernor ou [...]r all persons and matters▪ is one thing: and to do all the particuler actions, of those persons or matters, is another thing, not requisite in [Page 124] the supreme gouernour? and why then wilfully confounde ye them so often, as though we made the Prince the doer of the actions, bicause we acknowledge the Prince the gouer­nour of the matters. And why sayde ye before in your last similies, that he coulde not be a principall gouernour of any ciuill matters excepte he had bene a doer of the actions, and as it were, a prentise to the occupation before? concluding the like for a gouernour of spiritual persons and causes, that he must be a spirituall man, and do the spirituall actions. But if now, béeing better aduised, ye perceiue that a man may be a gouernour in ciuil matters and yet be not the doer of the ciuill actions, I then conclude likewise for spirituall matters, that the Prince may be a supreme gouernour in spirituall causes, and yet the same not the doer of the spiri­tuall actions.

The two vntruthes therfore M. Stap. that ye gather of the Byshop, saying: VVherefore we haue heere two vn­truthes, the one, in an vntrue definition, the other in saying the Prince is supreme gouernour in all causes spirituall, are no vntruthes. The Byshops definition is clearer and truer than yours. Neither haue ye, or hitherto coulde ye, improue his conclusion, with all your ensamples, or your simili­tudes, Yea, euery similitude that ye haue made, béeing throughly weyed, hath proued the Byshops conclusion, and confuted and contraried your selfe.

But beside al this, we haue, sayth M. St. a playne contra­dictionStap. 30. b.of M. Horne, directly ouerthrowing his owne asser­tion heere. The Bishoply rule and gouernementWinchester. fol. 96. 97. of Gods Church (sayth M. Horne) cōsisteth in three poyntes: to feede the Church with Gods word, to minister Christes Sacraments, and to bynde and lose. to gouerne the Churche (sayth he) after this sorte, belongeth to the onely office of By­shops and Church ministers, and not to Kinges, [Page 125] Queenes, and Princes. The like he hath afterwarde. Now then, these being, by his owne confession, the actions that properly belong to Ecclesiasticall persons, and the Prin­ce by his sayd confession, hauing nothing to do therewith: how is it then true, that the Prince is the onely supreme head and gouernour in causes Ecclesiasticall. Yea in those, that do properly belong to persons Ecclesiasticall? or by what colour may it be defended, that this saying, is not plaine contradi­ctorie and repugnant, to this later saying, which we haue al­leaged, and whereof we shall speake more largely, when we come to the saide place?

There is no doubt M. St. but ye will recken it vp there at large, and here also, and in many other places, ye still sing Decies repetita placebunt, for so your booke will growe to a welfauoured volume. The outcrie is here, for a contradi­ction. But ye should first cléere your selfe, of your own foule contradictions before committed, and then obiect contradi­ction to the Bishop. But let vs sée what a sore contradiction it is: Princes can not do certaine Ecclesiasticall actions. Prin­ces are supreme gouernours in Ecclesiasticall causes. Here M. St. ye labour to shew where the Bishop saith so, but ye should labour to proue them cōtradiction [...], but that ye take for manifest, being manifest false. Neither néede there any colour to defende these sayings from contradiction, for it was euen the last thing that your selfe defended, in putting a difference betwene a principal gouernment of matters and that gouernment that is exercised in doyng the actions of those matters. And thus easily your self reconcile this great contradiction, and a [...]were your owne argument, that ye make of the Bishop sayings, reasoning thus: He confesseth, that those actions do not belong to the persons of Princes, Ergo, he confesseth, that Princes are not supreme gouernours to direct and ouersee them. This argument your owne di­stinction answereth. And therefore where ye lappe vp the matter, saying, Thus ye see M. Horne walketh like a bareStapl. 30. b.[Page 126] footed man vpon thornes, not knowing where to treade, ye should remember your selfe M. Stap. that you haue walked all this while like your barefooted goose that ye spoke of before, not knowing what last ye creaked.

The sixth Diuision.

MAster Feckenham offreth to sweare to obserue andFol. 30. b.performe that obedience to the Queenes hignesse now, that he did before vnto Queene Mary.

The Bishop sheweth how therein he was forsworne, & as he had helped to spoyle Q. Mary, of a principall parte of hir royall power, so would he with no lesse di­sloyaltie spoile the Queenes Maiestie now.

M. Stapl. taking after his fashion, Non concedenda proStap. fol. 30. b.concessis, saith the othe is vnlawfull: likeneth it to wicked King Herodes othe, denieth this gouernment to be any part at all of the Queenes royall power, and auoucheth that if the Bishop can once by any meanes, proue this gouernment to be a principall parte or any parte at all of the Queenes royall power, he dare vndertake that not only M. Fek. but many mo, that now refuse, shall most gladly take the saide othe, he were surely no good subiect that would wish hir highnes any wrōg.

To wishe wrong to any body, is naught in déede M. St. & worse to do it, but worst of al to wish and do it against your liege and soneraigne. What wrong ye wishe and do by all trecherous practises, vnto the Q. Maiestie, is apparant, and therefore your owne iudgement be on your owne head. Ye liken hir highnesse to wicked King Herode, euen here pre­sent, & yet ye say ye wishe hir no wrong. But what reasons should moue ye M. St. to thinke this open wrōg no wrong?

Neyther can (say you) the maintenance of the CatholikeSta. fol. 30. b.faith, wherof she beareth a title of a defender, be counted any iniurie to hir highnesse, neither is it to be thought but if there had bene any wrong or iniurie herein done to the Crowne, [Page 127] some Christian Prince or other in the worlde haue ere this, once in this 1000. yeres & more espied it, and reformed it to.

This later argument of former Princes, is answered a [...] Supra Diuis. 4. fol. 65. large alreadie. The other argument, standeth on M. Stap. former presupposall, that the Popes supreinacie is the Ca­tholike faith. His reason is this.

The maintenance of the Catholike faith, is no iniurie to the Queenes Highnesse.

But our refusall of the othe is the maintenance of the Ca­tholike faith:

Ergo, our refusall of the othe is no iniurie to the Q. Highnes.

Here where M. St. should proue the Minor being mani­fest false, he letteth that go, presupposing it is most true, and confirmeth the Maior which none denieth.

She beareth a Title of defender of the Catholike faith:

Ergo, The maintenance of the Catholike faith is no iniurie to [...]ir highnesse.

Of this Title we spake also before, onely now I note hisSupra fol. 80. argument that here couertly he séemeth to make thereon.

The Qu. highnesse Title calleth hir defender of the faith:

Ergo, If she should also haue the Title of supreme gouer­nour in all causes Ecclesiasticall, then were the former Title iniurie to hir highnesse.

But the former Title of defender of the faith can not be counted any iniurie to hir highnesse.

Ergo, She can not haue the other Title also.

This bald reason standeth vpon a presupposal in M. St. head, that this is a principall article of the Faith. The Pope is onely head of the Catholike church: But graunt not M. St. this his faithlesse principle, and he wil proue but a sielie Defender of this. His simple reason.

The seuenth Diuision.

MAster Feck. pretending that he was by the Bishop re­quiredFol. 31. [...]. & prouoked to sweare, refuseth that parte of the [Page 128] Othe that toucheth the Quéenes supremacie in the causes Ecclesiasticall, vnlesse the Bishop shew him the meanes how he may sweare without periurie.

The Bishops answere stands on two points: the one, toWinchester, Fol. 31. b. 32. a detect his false dealing to pretende that the Bishop required the othe. The other, that this his refusall of the later parte of the Othe, is but his nice daliance in woords, hauing graun­ted alreadie the matter in effect. The B. reasoneth thus:

Euery Ecclesiasticall person is called Ecclesi­asticall onely in respect of ecclesiastical functions, things and causes belonging to ecclesiasticall per­sons.

But ye haue graunted that the Queenes high­nesse is supreme gouernour ouer al persons in hir realmes so well ecclesiasticall as temporall:

Ergo: ye haue graunted that she is the supreme gouernour ouer them in those their ecclesiasticall functions, things and causes also.

M. Stapletons counterblast is thréefold: the first againstCap. 5. fol. 32. a. b. the Bishops argument. The seconde as he calleth it, is an heape of vntruthes wherewith M. Feckenham is falsly char­ged. The thirde his shamefull sclaunders, that the plague, was sent of God to punish the doings of the Parliament: that bicause the Bishop required the Othe of D. Bonner, he ther­fore sought his bloud. That our Bishops were no Churche Bishops, nor parliament Bishops neither. But these too fri­uolous partes I omitte, it sufficeth to haue quoted the slann­ders in their common place. As for the vntruthes, are an­swered in their proper bedroll. I will answere onely now, that which is materiall, and that counterblasteth the argu­ment.

Yet once againe (saith M. St.) M. Horne taketh in handeStapl. 32.M. Feckenhams graunt, which may well be graunted, and by▪ [Page 129] his great cunning and skilfulnesse will thereof inferre as be­fore, that may not be graunted. But now he spitteth in his hande, and taketh faster holde as he thinketh, and seing the lightnesse of his former reason, woulde nowe giue greater weight to it with a new fetche, but yet as light and as weake as the other, and employing manifest contradiction as be­fore, and to be answered as before. For albeit, a man is not called an Ecclesiasticall person but in respect of some church cause and function, which we freely graunt to M. Horne, yetFol 32. b.is he neuer a whit the nearer of his purpose, vnlesse he can proue that there were also no other respect, why he should be vnder the Prince, but for causes Ecclesiasticall. For as we haue saide, he is a subiect also as other Laye men are, and a member beside of the ciuill common wealth, in consideration whereof the Prince hath to do with him, and not properly as he is a spirituall man, though both respects be concurrant in one person, and he be named of the worthier.

As the Bishops argument is plaine and formall against M. Feckenham, so here M. Stapleton stepping out to helpe him, as it were clapping him on the backe, recomforts him, saying, his graunt of the Minor, That the Queenes highnesse is s [...]preme gouernour of all persons in hir realmes so well Ecclesiasticall as temporall, may be well graunted. And he will also freely graunte to the Bishop the Maior, A man is not called an Ecclesiasti­call person but in respect of some church cause, and function, which is all one with the Bishops affirmatiue: Euery ec­clesiasticall person is called Ecclesiasticall onely in respect of Ecclesiasticall functions thinges or causes belonging to Ecclesiasticall persons: what now can rightly follow hereof, but the Bishops flatte con­clusion, that the Queenes highnesse is supreme gouernour of them, in those their functions, things and causes also?

[Page 130]Nay saith M. St. I will graunt him al this freely, and yet is he neuer a whitte the neerer of his purpose, vnlesse he can proue that there were also no other respect, why he should be vnder his Prince, but for causes ecclesiasticall: for he is a sub­iect also as other lay men are.

Ha M. St. I sée you would faine slippe the coller, deui­sing a new diuersitie of respects betwéene ecclesiasticall per­son and subiect, when the question is, and M. Feckenham hath confessed, that he is a subiect euery way, whether he be lay subiect or ecclesiasticall subiect▪ Otherwise, whē M. Fec­kenham saide, ouer all persons either ecclesiasticall or temporall of what estate so euer they be: if he had ment as you say ouer ecclesiasticall persons in déede, but not in that respect that they be ecclesiasticall but temporall and lay persons, then had he plainly dalied in coloured speach & foo­lish meaning, as thus: ouer al persons ecclesiasticall and tem­porall, that is to say ouer all persons temporall and temporall▪ if he meant ecclesiasticall persons, not in that respect they be so called, but in that respect they be temporall and lay as o­ther subiectes be. But this is your owne wilie deuice which in effect is nothing but wilie beguild him selfe. M. Fecken­ham ment plaine & therefore twice togither saith, either ec­clesiasticall (on the one partie) or temporall persons (on the other partie) and to make the matter plainer, of what estate (saith he, that is to say of what condition kinde or degrée of subiects) soeuer they be. And did not your selfe say before and freely graunt it, that an ecclesiasticall person hath not his name of ecclesiastical person for any other respect but for ec­clesiasticall causes and functions? why say you now contra­ry to your self, he is named here ecclesiasticall person▪ not in any respect of any ecclesiastical causes or functions, but in re­spect he is a lay and temporal subiect? how hangs this togi­ther M. Stapletē? will ye denie so soone that so late ye freely graunted? then I perceyue (as ye here say the Bishop doth) I must be fayne also to spitte on my handes and take faster [Page 131] holde on yours and M. Feckenhams graunt.

M. Feckenham hath graunted and you also, thus much: that the Queenes Highnesse is supreme gouer­nour ouer all persons borne within hir realmes, either ecclesiasticall or temporall, of what estate soeuer they be. That is to say, they are all subiect to hir, all persons gouerned, or vnder hir supreme gouernment, but the vsuall worde is subiect. Subiect here is the Generall worde or Genus, comprehending two members deuiding thē selues vnder it, that is, ecclesiasticall person and temporall person. Either of these is comprehended a like in the gene­rall woorde subiect, for it is neither nearer the one nor the other, nor may be more properly spoken of the one than of the other. The temporall person is as much subiect and no more, than the ecclesiasticall person, the ecclesiasticall as much and no more than the temporall, nor these two can be confounded togither, nor the one taken for the other, Mem­bra diuidentia non confunduntur, but as the one is temporall in respect onely of the temporall functions, so the other (as ye say well therein) is ecclesiasticall, only in respect of fun­ctions ecclesiasticall, & bothe are comprehended vnder their generall worde subiect: & thus doth M. Feckenham plain­ly set them foorth as it were in a table. Now commeth our student M. St. & seing all this so manifest plaine, that him selfe is euē forced to graunt it: he hath studied out this shift, first to iumble them altogither iugglerlike, & then deuides or rather breakes them, making ecclesiasticall and subiect to be Membra diuidentia, the one to ouerthwart y^e other, which they do not, but the one cōprehendes the other. And maketh this worde person, to be general to them both, which here is al one with subiect. And thus when he hath plaied Cole vn­der y^e candlestick, chopping & chaūging the words, now saith he, ye shall sée the Bishop is neuer the nearer of his purpose,Stapl. 32. b.vnlesse he cā proue that there were also no other respect, why [Page 132] he should be vnder the Prince, but for causes Ecclesiasticall, for as we haue said he is a subiect also. As who should say in that respect he is a subiect, he is not Ecclesiasticall, in that respect he is ecclesiasticall, he is no subiect bicause he suppo­seth these two are contrary respects, ecclesiastical & subiect. But this he doth by presupposall, that ye will graunt him al that he saith, or els he would neuer so freely haue graunted the Bishop, that which after made against him selfe. For who seeth not that ecclesiasticall and subiect may well agrée togither, which M. Feck. saw well inough, whē he graunted as well the ecclesiasticall person as the temporall to be the princes subiect? And againe, who seeth not that this is but a fonde shifte of M. Stapl. to say that the Bishop is neuer the nerer of his purpose, onlesse he can proue there were also no other respect, why he would be vnder the prince but for cau­ses ecclesiasticall. For, graūting him againe, there are other respects wherefore he is also vnder his prince. What is M. St. the nerer of his purpose? doth it follow bicause he is sub­iect also in other respects, that therefore he is not subiect in this respect? he should haue proued this, but this he lettes alone, and thinks all is safe if he be subiect in other respects. But what other respects so euer there be, him selfe hauing freely graunted▪ that this name of person ecclesiasti­call hath no other respect, but to the causes ecclesiasticall: and being gouerned or subiect, as M. Feckenham hath graun­ted, in respecte of eyther parte of this diuision, temporall or ecclesiasticall: if fellowes that in all respectes what soeuer, of causes or persons ecclesiasticall or temporall, the Prince is supreme gouernour. Nor all M. Stapl. crooked shiftes, and crabbed respects, to hinder the sequele of this argumēt, are any more to be respected, than [...]ere trifles, and toyes to delude the Readers withall.

But M. St. will not giue ouer the matter thus, but will bring his darke respects, to the aspect and light of all mens eyes, by a familiar though somwhat an homely sim [...]

[Page 133] As if master Robert Horne were a lay man and a paynter, Stap. 32. b. (sayth he) the Queene properly hath not to do with him as a paynter (vnlesse it were for some lavve or order concer­ning paynters) but as Robert Horne hir highnesse subiect, and borne vnder hir obeysance. Sée how enuye hath blyn­ded this man, that whereas for very spite he likeneth the reuerent and godly learned father in Christ, to a paynter, this his paynted similitude maketh also flat agaynst him. For, as he confesseth, the Prince hath to doe vvith a payn­ter, not onely in that he is simply hir highnesse subiecte, borne vnder hir obeysance, but also in respect he is suche a subiecte, in whiche regarde (he saythe) she maketh lavves and orders also concerning paynters, thoughe she entermed­dle not with the Paynters pencell, in drawing lynes, and laying colours, and other their perticuler actions: euen so hath hir highnesse to do with all ecclesiasticall persons, not onely in that they be simply, subiectes borne vnder hir obeysance, but also euen in that they be suche manner of ecclesiasticall subiects, in which respect she may also make lawes and orders concerning ecclesiastical persons, though she entermeddle not with preaching, ministring the sacra­mentes, and other their particuler actions. Thus as God would haue it, doth your owne similitude (M. Stap.) which of pure enuye ye bring foorth to deface the byshop withall: so liuely in euery poynt make agaynst you, as any simili­tude can do. At length ye discende from your similitude, to your playne purpose, saying.

So shoulde the Queene haue also to doe with you, yea inStap. 32. b.case ye were the true Byshop of VVinchester, but not pro­perly as Byshop, or for your byshoply function, for the whiche ye are immediatly vnder your Archbyshop and the Pope, but considering you as a subiecte othervvyse, or as Byshop either, touching your temporalties, and no further. For the which the true Byshops also to their Prince do their homage.

[Page 134]With muche adoe (for it sticketh in your throte lyke a boane) ye admitte at length this case, that the Bishop were the true Byshop of VVinchester, but without any stay at the matter ye could compare him to a paynter) but now beeing a Bishop, he is (as you say) vnder his Archbishop and the Pope, and vnder the Queene onely for his temporalties. Here is no argument, M. Stapleton, but your bare asser­tions, as though the matter were cleare and all out of que­stion. I ye had still reasoned from the similitude of the paynter and paynted it out in his true meaning, ye had con­cluded another maner of tale, that as the Prince mighte meddle euen with lawes and orders for paynters, so she hath to do with Byshops, not onely concerning their temporal­ties, but euen cōcerning that they be Byshops. And so agayn your similitude excludeth your Pope. And where ye say, in that he is byshop, he is immediatly vnder his Archbyshop and the Pope, what if his Archbishop be not vnder the Pope neither, is he not then also béeing immediatly vnder him, exempted likewise from your Pope? and thus ye stam­mer euen in your owne false principles.

Now when ye haue thus without any reasoning deter­mined the Byshop to be vnder the Pope, and that he dothe homage to the Quéene onely for his temporalties and no farther, ye conclude the matter, saying:

But what should I further reason with this man, vvhicheStap. 32. b.(as I haue sayde) hathe remoued the Prince from all su­perioritie, concerning the meere Byshoply or Priestly fun­ction, and so with a notable contradiction hathe full vvorshipfully concluded agaynst hym selfe, and eased hys aduersarie of any other proofe, and eased master Fecken­ham also, for taking any othe, that the Queene is supreme head in all causes temporall and spirituall.

This notable contradiction is so sore a matter, that you muste néedes haue a fling at it once agayne, the contradi­ction is this:

[Page 135]The Prince hath not the iurisdiction of the meere Priestly or Byshoply functions:

The Prince hath the superioritie ouer the priest­ly or Byshoply functions:

Is not héere a notable contradiction, and worthy to make thys finall conclusion thereon? The Prince hathe not the iurisdiction of the meere Priestly or Byshoply functions:

Ergo, He is remoued from all superioritie ouer the same functions?

Full vvorshipfully concluded, to vse your owne termes master Stapleton. What should ye reason further with this man? but in steade of reasoning, fall to making prin­ciples, or sit downe and ease you with master Feckenham without any further proofe. But, mighte it please you to starte vp agayne, and looke better aboute ye: ye shoulde sée, that betwéene euen that superioritie (which worde not­withstanding the Byshop sayde not, but power or iuris­diction) of the meere byshoply or priestly function, that is to saye, his office, and the proper actions of his office, prea­ching, binding and losing, the ministring of the Sacra­mentes: and betwéene the superioritie, that is, the ouer­sight and supreme gouernement, in caring for, directing, and prouiding, that all those functions and actions be dueti­fully done on their partes, to whome they properly belong: there is a great difference, as all your similitudes hitherto haue proued and concluded agaynst you. And that betwéene the dooing of the one, and the not dooing of the other, is no contradiction or opposition at all. And therefore ye be not so eased yet, but that ye muste take a little more paynes, or else where ye had thought to haue wonne the spurres, ye may happe to lose the saddle.

The eight Diuision.

MAster Feckenham standeth on foure poyntes, where­byFol. 34. [...]. he thinketh he should periure himselfe, if he should sweare to this laste parte of the othe, in eccl. causes. The first point is, that he muste testifie it on a booke othe. But to testifie any thing on a booke othe, and not to knovve the same, is periurie. Then for him selfe he pleadeth ignoraunce, that he neither knovveth it, nor knovves any meanes hovv to come to the knovvledge of it. Whervpon he ioyneth an issue with the Byshoppe, which issue is this: If the Byshop make proofe to him, that any Emperour or Empresse, King or Queene, may clay me or take vpon them any suche gouernement in spirituall or ecclesiasticall causes, then he will yéelde and receiue the othe. The meanes whereby he will haue this issue proued, are these foure. Either by suche order of gouernement, as our sauiour Christ hath lefte be­hinde him in his Gospell and nevve Testament: Ei­ther by the vvritinges of suche learned doctors bothe olde and nevve, vvhich haue from age to age vvitnes­sed the order of eeclesiasticall gouernement in Chri­stes Church: Either by the generall councels, vvher­in the right order of ecclesiasticall gouernement in Christes Churche hath bene moste faythfully decla­red, and shevved from time to time: Or else by the continuall practise of the like ecclesiasticall gouerne­ment, in some one Church or parte of all Christen­dome. The issue and state of the question be­tvveene the B. and M. Feck.

By these foure meanes, this issue aforesaide (as the state of the controuersie betwéene bothe parties) must be tryed. That, by any of these foure meanes, proofe be made [Page 137] to him, That anie Emperour or Empresse, King or Queene, may claime or take vpō them, anie such go­uernment in spirituall or ecclesiasticall causes.

This requireth master Feckenham to be prored. The satisfaction whereof to be proued by the Bishop is this:

That by some of these foure meanes, proufe may be made to him, that some Emperour, Em­presse, King, or Queene, may clayme or take vp­pon them, some such gouernment in spirituall or ecclesiasticall causes. If the B. shall be founde to haue proued thus much to M. Feck. he hath fully satisfyed his re­quest, and M. Feckenham according to his promise, ought to sweare with humble thankes, notwithstanding master Sapletons quarelling Counterblast.

The Bishop reducing M. Feckenhams first poynt, to aFol. 34. b. forme of argument, repeateth it:

No man may restifie any thing by a booke oth, whereof he is ignorant and knoweth nothing, without committing manifest periurie:

But you neyther knowe that the Queenes highnesse is the onely supreme gouernour of this Realme, as well in all spirituall or ecclesiasticall things or causes, as temporall: neither yet know ye anye waye or meane, whereby to haue anye knowledge thereof.

Ergo ye cannot testifie the same on a boke oth, without manifest periurie.

To this the B. replieth, that although he might flatly de­nie the minor, that M. Feck. is not without all knowledge, and vtterly ignorant of y^e matter, nor destitute of al meanes to attaine therto: yet he sayth he wil answere by distinc­tion of ignorance, to shew how M. Feck. is ignorāt, how he is not. He alleageth a thréefold deuision of ignorance out [Page 138] of Thomas of Aquine the chiefe of the Popish scholemen▪ Three kindes of ignorance▪ Ignorance of simplicitie, Ignorāce of wilfulnes, and ignorance of malice. Prouing that he is not igno­rant of the first sort, hauing in king Henries and king Ed­wards reignes, continually knowne, acknowledged & con­fessed it, and therfore his ignorance is either of wilfulnesse, or of malice, or of both of them.

M. St. Counterblast standeth chiefly on thrée matters, first his answere to Thom. distinction, with an obiecting againe to the B. the opinion of Tho. in this cōtrouersie. Se­condly a quarrelling & chalenging of the B. for vntruthes. Thirdly, an excuse of master Feckenham for setting forth this supremacie. With a quarell ioyned thereto that the B. citing a sentence out of the booke of wisdome, called it a sen­tence of the holy ghost, concluding thereon a discorde of our doctrine. But or euer he enter into his first part, he noteth this for a generall warning before.

Now are maister Feckenham, and master Horne come toStap. 35. [...].couple and ioyne togither in the principall matter.

If this forewarning be true M. St. that this their cou­pling and ioyning togither on this issue (to wete, whether any princes haue takē any such gouernmēt on them) be nowe by your confession the principall matter contro­uersed, betweene the partyes standing in variaunce, whiche (as ye sayde before) is conuenient and necessarie to haue be­fore Supr▪ [...]o. 3. a. b (our) eyes, and then deligently to see howe the proufes are of eche partie applied, for the confirming of their as­sertions: Then all those sixe principles, whiche ye sette vp before your Counterblast as markes to fixe the eye of the Reader vppon, were but false markes and not the prin­cipall matter, wherein the parties coupled them selues togi­ther to proue or improue the same. Then were almost all that hitherto M. Stap. hath sayde (as the Reader marking this well shall sée) and the most of that which he hath to say in this great Counterblast, nothing else but a running [Page 139] about the Bushe, and wresting of euerye thing, from the principall matter in which they ioyned, to some other mat­ters wherein they coupled not. Whiche is plaine to be­guile and abuse, not rightly to direct the eye of the Reader, as the Reader fixing his eye on thys issue, shall soone espie your falsehoode.

This issue then, being the principall matter (as ye say) and the Bishop coupling and ioyning herein togither withSupra. fol. 4. master Feckenham (as ye also say) and the Bishop hauing proued that which he endeuoured himselfe to proue (which ye likewise haue confessed) what remayneth by your owne tale telling, but that the Bishop hath fully proued the prin­cipall matter in question? Neither will you (as you say) nor any other Catholikes greatly contend with him for that he hath proued: and he hath proued that that he laboured in: he laboured in that he coupled: he coupled in this issue: thys issue is the principall matter betwéene them: whie then do ye so fiersely contende? but that ye woulde shewe your selfe a vaine sophisticall and brabling quarrellour, that haue no great cause to contende, nor anye cause at all, and yet will so greatly contende, onely of wylfull malice, con­fessing your selfe the thing to be proued, that is the princi­pall matter.

Master Stap. hauing giuen this forewarning, commeth to his first part, which he deuideth thréefold.

First he iesteth out the matter with scoffes, which I referre to his common place thereon. Secondly, he denieth master Feckenham to haue any ignorance in this poynt ex­cept it were inuincible ignorance, by no study or diligence a­bleStap. 36. a.to be put away, and therfore pardonable. Since ye admit the distinction M. Stap. ye bring out of time your other in­uincible ignorance. How pardonable it is, is another que­stion. But sée how ignorantly, while ye would defende M. Fec. you ouerthwart him, he pleadeth ignorance for his de­fence, and you say he is not ignorant and woulde put the B. [Page 140] to proue that he should be ignorant of wilfulnesse and ma­lice, which the B. hath done alreadie, and so ye debarre M. Feckēham of his refuge, and make him to haue knowledge of this poynt. Which not only he himself denieth, but which your selfe afterwards denie also, yea that he could not haue knowledge of this poynt. But you thinke to escape cleare, with helping the matter by a newe pertition of ignorance, adding a fourth part of inuincible ignorance.

Surely (say you) if there were any ignorance in this point it were such as S. Tho. and other call inuincible ignorance. Except (M. St.) ye confound this fourth ignorance with one of the thrée before named, ye quite exclude M. Fec. from the whole distinction of Thomas, and yet ye say the distinction may be true, & ye will not stick with him for that distinction. So that eyther ye sticke at that ye will not sticke, and make that false that ye graunt true, or else ye proue master Feck. not to be ignorant, contrarie to his defence, and all the rest of your owne défence of him, as we shall sée your wordes afterwarde. In the meane time let vs sée howe pretily ye shift off the matter, onely bicause the Bishop names Tho. of Aquine a schole Papist, for the diuision of Ignoraunce, thinking ye haue gotten a wonderfull aduauntage thereby, for the Popes supremacie.

But nowe (sayth M. Stap.) the verye authour broughtStap. 36. a.forth by master Horne, so fullie and effectually dischargeth M. Feck. of all three, and chargeth M. Horne, with the worst of them three, that is wilfulnesse and malice, as he shal winne small worship by alleaging of S. Thomas. For S. Tho. sayeth plainely, that we are obliged and bounde vpon paine of euer­lasting damnation to beleeue that the Pope is the onely su­preme heade of the whole Church.

Nowe fearing (as not without good cause) that the B. would in this matter reiect the authoritie of this Thomas, whom our Thomas calleth a late latine writer, and to much affectionate to the Pope: as it were by preuention, He can [Page 141] not well reiect his authoritie (sayeth he) vsing it him selfe. Stap. 36. a And why so Sir I pray you? must euery one that citeth him in any one poynt, receyue and admit his authoritie to in eue­rie poynt? Is it lawfull for the Sorbonistes, the Schole­men, and the whole rabble of the Papistes, yea for Tho­mas Stapleton him selfe, to accept Thomas of Aquines authoritie in some poyntes, and to reiect his authoritie in other some poyntes: and is it not lawfull for the Bishop or anye other to vse the same libertie? The Sorbonistes af­firme of this Thomas, Illa doctrina non potest esse in omnibusIn erroribus Parisi [...] con­demna [...]s.sic approbata, &c. That doctrine can not in all thinges be so approued, that conteyneth many thinges erronious in fayth: but as they say the foresayde doctrine of Saint Thomas, not onelye in the matter of the absolute necessitie of a crea­ture, &c. but also in manye other thinges conteyneth ma­nye matters erronious in fayth. And againe, Non opor­tetIbidem.credere. &c. VVee muste not beleeue that the doc­trine it selfe is in no parte thereof erronious or hereticall, wherein are conteyned manye contrarieties and repugnan­cies, yea euen in the matter perteyning to the sayth▪ but manye suche contrarieties and repugnancies are contey­ned in the doctrine of Saynt Thomas: Agayne. [...] dicuntIbidem.aliqui. &c. And some saye for thys, that manye maye de­nye the glosses of the decrees and Decre [...], when the glosse doeth openlye denye the texte, and lykewyse some saye of the ordinarye glosses of the Byble, that notwith­standing seeme to bee of greater authoritie (when they are alleaged for authoritie) than is the Doctryne of Saint Thomas.

The sixte example maye bee giuen of certayne Doc­tours whiche are not canonized Saintes, as the venerable Anselme Byshoppe of Cant. Hughe of Saint Victor, and certayne other, whose sayinges or wrytinges are in cer­tayne poyntes founde erronious, and yet theyr doctrine seemeth to bee no lesse authenticall, than the doctrine of [Page 142] Saint Thomas, sithe they are of the skilfull in their scola­sticall actes alleaged for authoritie, nor are wonted to bee denyed, but their sayinges reuerently to be glosed and ex­pounded, whiche notwythstanding the Schoolemen are not woont to doe on the sayinges of Saint Thomas, and there­fore it seemeth presumptuous so to extoll hys Doctrine ouer them and other Doctours, that wee maye not be­leeue and affirme that hee erred in fayth, euen as other also haue erred.

And after this as likewise before, reckoning vp diuerse errours, these spéeches are common: Ista locutio est de vir­tute sermonis falsa & multum impropria. &c. This speech in the force of the wordes is false and verie improper. Ista doctrina multos errores continet. &c. This Doctrine con­teyneth manie errours. Uidetur multipliciter erroneum. &c. It seemeth diuerse wayes erroneous. Deficit in multis. &c. If fayles in many poyntes. Non est verum. &c. It is not true. Et breuiter haec & alia multa erronea falsa & impropriè dicta, vidētur multis in praedicta doctrina contineri quae, tamen ex taedi [...] pertransimus. And briefly these and many other erronious, false, & improper sayings, seeme to many to be conteyned in the foresaide doctrine, the which notwithstanding we ouer­passe for tediousnesse. And from hence they discend to ma­nifest errours in diuinitie. And in conclusion write thus of him. They say also that in verie many places of his doctrine he erred by reason of this, that he applied to much the prin­ciples of philosophie or rather certaine wordes of Philoso­phers to the conclusions of Diuinitie.

Thus say the great Censors of the Popish doctrine a­gaynst Thomas of Aquine, so well they agrée togither in v­nitie of doctrine, obiecting discorde vnto vs. Yea the whole swarme of Papists, not excepting our Thom. St. here him selfe (vnlesse he be returned to the truth since he wrote his booke) reiecteth and condemneth Thom▪ of Aquines iudge­ment and authoritie, in one of the most necessarie matters [Page 143] of Christian religion, namely the doctrine of iustification. For expounding this sentence of S. Paule: Arbitramur he­m [...]nēTho. Aquin. super Tit. ca. 3iustificari absque operibus legis: Arbitramur enim nos, &c. For we being taught of Christ, thinke (sayth Thomas) accor­ding to the truth of the Apostle, that euerie man, whether he be Iewe or Gentile is iustified by faith. Actes. 15. By fayth purifying their hearts, & that without the workes of the law, and that not onely without the ceremoniall works, which did not giue grace: but also without the works of the moral com­mandements, according to that saying to Titus. 3. Not of the works of the righteousnes that we haue wrought. The reason is presumed, that we are saued for our merits, the which he ex­cludeth when he sayth, not of the works of the righteousnesse which we haue done: But the true reason is the onely mercy of God. There is not therefore in them the hope of iustifica­tion, sed in sola fide, but in fayth alone. VVorkes are not theSola fide.cause that any bodie is iust before God, but they are rather executions and the manifestings of righteousnesse. Executiones & manifesta­tiones.

Where Tho. of Aquine thus according to Gods worde speaketh the truth, as in this poynt here of iustification: the Bishop and all other faythfull, receyue his iudgement and admit the same, with better reason than the Papists reiect it. But where as, in many other poyntes he swarueth from the truth: though the Papists saint him neuer so much, yet there all true saintes, with good reason refuse him. As in this that master Stapleton citeth out of him, who confes­seth him selfe that Thomas being a late latine writer, wrote partiallye in this poynte, bycause hée was to muche af­fectioned to the Pope, and shall we beléeue such an affectio­nateStap. 36. a wryter in hys partiall affection? Or shall we beléeue master Stapleton no lesse affectioned than Thomas, tel­ling vs that Thomas sayeth plainly, that we are obliged andFol. 36. a.bounde vpon paine of euerlasting damnation, to beleeue that the Pope is the only supreme head of the whole Church. And yet when he hath all done, Thom. plainly sayth not so, it is [Page 144] but our Thomas his plaine lye. And though Thomas him selfe in that he sayde, made also a plaine lye, as [...] affectioned to the Pope, yet shoulde you haue [...] wordes more truely master Stapleton, if ye [...] pressed the Bishop with his authoritie. But for [...] Thomas his partialitie woulde soone be [...], [...]o [...] more weight thereto, ye say:

Saint Thomas proueth his assertion by Cyrill and M [...]xi­mus, two notable and auncient wryters among the G [...] ­ans. VVherefore it followeth that neyther master Fecken­ham,Stap. 36. a.nor master Horne, nor any other Christian man, can knowe the contrarie, beeing such an euident and daungerous falsehood as importeth eternall damnation.

Sée howe one Thomas here (were it but for name­sake) woulde still helpe another Thomas, he careth not by what meanes, hooke or crooke, both belying Thomas and these notable fathers also. Where sayd Thomas your wor­des aboue alleaged? Where had he them out of Cyrill and Maximus? where haue Cyrill and Maximus that assertion? Shew it and then you cleare your selfe. In deede ThomasContra errores Grecorum. being a late & affectioned writer herein, alleageth proufes out of both Cyrill & Max. but they proue no such assertion. Cyrill hath no such wordes in his booke of Thesaurus, and that epistle of Maximus is not extant for ought that I can learne, and yet Thomas doth but wrest both their sayings to proue his title, that it is of necessitie of saluatiō to be vn­der the B. of Rome. The sentence that he fathereth out of Cyril to proue his saying, and yet notwithstanding proueth it not, is this: Ita (que) fratres, &c. Therefore brethren, if wee followe Christ, let vs as his sheepe, heare his voyce, abyding in the Churche of Peter, and let vs not be puft vp with the winde of pryde, least peraduenture the winding serpent cast vs out for contētion, as long since it cast Eue out of paradise. Can you, or Thomas, or any other, cōclude your assertion, or anything for your Pope on this saying? ye wil vrge these [Page 145] wordes the Church of Peter Thinke ye he ment the church to be S. Peters patrimonie, as ye terme it? or the Church of S. Peters dominion? if ye so thinke, S. Peter hym self gaynsayth it, saying that he is him self but [...] consenior, a fellowe Elder, or Priest, and witnesse of Christes passions, and not the Lord, but Christ the Lorde of his Church, and him selfe with other not to be rulers and princes among the clergy, but they be only pastors & formes of the flocke, Christ alone being the Prince of the Pastors. So that if you meane hereby S. Peter to be the owner and Lorde of the Church (as your Pope at this day taketh on him to be) this sentence maketh nothing for him, but quite agaynst him. For neither doth the Pope followe the humilitie of Christ, nor heare his voyce, as Cirill willeth, neither followeth he Peter, of whome he craketh, but is puft vp with the winde of pride. Whiche Cirill forbiddeth, and therfore is cast out with the winding serpent.

But what Cirill meaneth by y^e church of Peter, euen the other sentence following may declare of Maximus: Coad­unatam & fundatam super Petram confessionis Petri dicimus vniuersalem ecclesia [...], sicundum definitionem saluatoris, in qua necessario salutis animarum nostrarū est remanere, & ei obedire, suam seruantes fidem & confessionem. VVe call that the vniuer­sall Church, according to the definition of our Sauiour, the which is vnited togither, and founded vpon the Rocke of Pe­ters confession, in the which it is necessarie to remayne, for the saluation of our soules, and to obey it, keeping the fayth and confession thereof. This sentence well expoundeth the other. The Church of S. Peter, that is to say, the Church vnited and founded vpon the rocke of Peters confession, not of Peters rule and patrimonie, but of his confession, which Rocke is onely Christe the corner stone, on whome onely the Churche is founded, and in whome as liuely stories of the buylding we are vnited. To this Churche in déede muste we be obedient, and remayne in it, kéeping [Page 146] the fayth and confession thereof. But what doth this proue for the obedience to the Pope & his Church? dothe it not ra­ther detect his church, not to be the vniuersal Church, wher­of Maximus speaketh, that Christ hath defined (howsoeuer the Papistes crake of the vniuersall church) syth it is not vnited togither on the rocke, but on the sands of mens tra­ditions, and founded as you say, vpon Peter, & not as Christ sayd, vpon the Rocke▪ Since it kéepeth not this faith & con­fession, nor remaineth in it, nor obeyeth it, it is not Christes true vniuersall Church, neither ought we to remayne in it, or obey it. But as the Angell calleth vs, exite de illa populusApoc. 18.mens. &c. Come out of hir my people, and be not partakers of hir offences, least ye taste also of hir plagues. And thus by Maximus saying (howsoeuer Thomas as an affectionate late writer doth wrest the same to the obedience of y^e Pope and his Churche) when we examine Christes true defini­tion, and Peters confession, we finde that we are obliged and bounde, to renounce the Pope and his Churche, and that vpon payne of euerlasting damnation. But nowe M. Stapl. let vs also sée your owne proper argumentes oute of Thomas.

Thomas sayth, the Pope is the only supreme head of the whole Church (wherin he quite excludeth Christ:)

Ergo, we are obliged and bound to beleeue the same vpon payne of euerlasting damnation.

Thomas sayth, we are obliged and bounde to beléeue the Popes supremacie vpon payne of damnation: Ergo, the B. is to be charged with malicious and wilfull ignoraunce.

Thomas sayth, we are obliged and bounde to beleeue the Popes supremacie, vpon payne of damnation: Ergo, M. Feckenham is fully and effectually discharged of malicious and wilfull ignorance.

Thomas his distinction of ignoraunce is alledged of the Byshop: Ergo, the Byshop is bounde to allowe his autho­ritie simply in all matters, or in this of the Byshop of [Page 147] Romes supremacie.

Thomas cyteth Cirill and Maximus to proue his assertion: Ergo▪ the matter is so playne that the Byshop nor any other can know the contrarie.

These writers say so (or rather as is shewed are wrested to say that they say not:) Ergo, it is suche an euidente and dangerous falshood, as importeth eternall damnation.

These are the wise and worshipfull conclusions (to re­peate your owne termes) that ye gather on the authoritie of Thomas, bicause the byshop cited him in the sayde diui­sion of ignoraunce: wherefore ye say, he shall vvinne small vvorship by alleaging of S. Thomas. Howbeit you to win much worship and great honor by alleaging him, haue ad­uentured to lay all your honestie to pledge.

M. Stapletons seconde parte about vntruthes is answe­red sufficiently in his bedroll.

In the third part be confesseth that, wherwith the byshop chargeth M. Feck. that in king Henries dayes he set foorth this supremacie in his open sermons. But withall to excuse him, he saith, it was not vpon knowledge but vpon very ig­noranceStap. 37. b.and lacke of true knowledge, and due consideration of the matter▪ What ignorance cal ye this M. St? if it be not malicious, it is of simplicitie, yea and wilfull carelesnesse withal▪ & yet before ye sayde he was discharged of all three, and héere contrarying your own selfe, ye charge him again with two of them at the least, besides that ye there sayde: Surely if there were any ignorance in this poynt, it vvere in­uincibleStap. 35. b.ignorance, by no studie or diligence able to be put away, and therfore pardonable. But is this suche ignorance, when héere ye confesse that he studied not for it, but did it without due cōsideratiō of the matter? & therfore it was not pardonable euē by your own saying. Thus, while ye would excuse him of ignorānce, do not only accuse him of ignorance, but also declare such great ignorāce in your self, y^t it séemeth ye neither well wot, nor muche care what ye say, so that ye [Page 148] may contende. Neither shame you in this poynt, whyle ye would mitigate M. Feckēhams fault, to accuse with him of ignoraunce, no fewer than all, yea the beste learned of the realme then, to whom it was not so well knowne (ye saye)Stap 37. b. as it is nowe to euery man, beeing but of meane learning. To the proofe whereof, ye cite sir Thomas More, that tyll his latter time, did neuer of many yeres beléeue the Popes supremacie to be prouided by God, and therefore M. Feck. with many other good and well learned men otherwise, wasStap. 38. a. caried away among them, with the violence of this common storme and tempest, for lacke of mature and deepe conside­ration. Where as nowe all Papistee, suche as haue trauel­ledStap. 38. b.in these latter controuersies do beleeue, that the Popes primacie was immediatly instituted of God, and that it is Iure diuino, by Gods lawe, and not the Princes supreme go­uernment, which is now knowne clerely to stand agaynst it.

Héere is no argument all this whyle for it, but onely defacing of their predecessors learning and knowledge, to aduaunce their owne, which notwithstanding it be nothing comparable in all wyse mens iudgements, yet is it worthy to beholde the grosse presumptuous impudencie of these Louanistes, that as though they came from the newe In­dies, that say, other men are blinde or haue but one eye, and they onely haue two: so these wryters pretende they haue suche knowledge nowe, yea, the meane learned among them, as the very best learned before them, had not the lyke, who were not resolued herein, nor sawe so muche as theyThe Louanists bost they haue now foūd out the Popes title to be lure di­uino. now do, in the Popes authoritie. For they haue espied now at the lēgth with their Linxes eyes, that the Pope his pri­marie is de lure diuino of the law of God, which thing euen Sir Thomas More did not sée, who a great whyle was so blinde herein, that he thought it but the Churches institu­tion: at length, full dimly God wot, he thought that he saw, it was prouided of God. But nowe euery meane lear­ned Louanist, hath espied through a milstone (to vse M. [Page 149] Stapletons owne phrase) and cleerely seeth and knoweth, it is ex lure diuino, instituted by God immediatly. Who would haue thought they had bene then so blinde, vnlesse M. Stapl. had told vs they were so? or that our Louanistes had bene waxen so cunning, to haue found out of late, that they could neuer sée before? no doubt they had turned ouer and ouer, both the Old and the New Testament many a time, and I warrant ye, all to haue found out this imme­diate institution of God, and yet was it neuer their happe (vnfortunate blinde buzzardes that they were) to light on the place of this Institution. But now the Bible and Te­stament hath bene so turned and tossed once againe at Lo­uaine, and that with such cléere eye sights, that it is plainly founde out, yea and so cléere, that euery man of meane lear­ning knoweth it, that the Pope is supreme head ouer all the whole Church, instituted by God immediatly, to be obeyed vnder the paine of eternall condemnation. O happie man for the Pope (whose estimation and welth began so fast to decay) that yet at the last hath founde out this institution. I warrant ye like to weare a Cardinals hatte M. Stap if you haue had so good lucke, to finde this out. But I pray you (since it is so plaine a place, that all your side now cléerely séeth it) shew where aboutes in the Bible or Testament it is. I haue of purpose turned them ouer ere now also, yet could I neuer haue the hap to sée this. But I hope your sight be better than mine, I pray you tell vs where it is, do but quote the place, is it not peraduenture on the backe side of your booke? for in your booke it is to be doubted ye shal finde no more, than could those learned men before you, finde out. That it was ordayned but Iure humano, by the law of man. And where ye crake so much, that ye haue now founde it in­stituted lure diuino, by the law of God, I am afrayd it will in the ende be found out, to haue ben forged [...] & frau­de Diabol [...]ca, by the iniurie and craft of Sathan.

That it is not Iure diuino, by Gods lawe, your selfe allea­ging [Page 150] no place or proofe besides your onely vaunt, fearing ye should be put to the proofe of your crake, ye starte from it againe by admitting that if ye could not (as ye cā not) proue so much as ye haue made boast of, though the Popes prima­cie Stapl. 38. b. (say you) were not ordeyned of God, yet could it not be reiected by any one realme. And although the Popes pri­macie were not grounded directly vppon Goddes worde, but ordeyned of the Churche, yet could it not be abrogated by the priuate consent of any one or fewe realmes, no more than the Citie of London can iustly abrogate an acte of Parlia­ment.

The sequcle of this argument M. Stapleton is nought by thrée wayes. First by presupposing an impossible absur­ditie that the true Churche of Christ should ordeyne any o­ther necessary doctrine to saluation, than God hath ordey­ned or is grounded on his woorde. The spouse of Christ hea­reth hir husbande, my sheepe (saith Christ) heare my voice,Iohn. 10.and not the voice of a straunger.

Secōdly if this absurditie were admitted, that the church of Christ should or could (as it cā not) ordeine other things, yet should not we be bounde to follow it, no though an An­gell came from Heauen, to teach vs any thing that is notGal. 1. onely contrarie, but euen praeter besides the woorde of God. And thus the Fathers of the Church thē selues haue taught vs, to reiect it as easily as to receyue it, what soeuer hath notHieronimus super Mat. Ambrosius li. 1 de officijs. Aug. contra Faustum li. 23his authoritie out of the Scriptures. And what so-euer wee finde not in the Scriptures, we may vse them euen as we list our selues. Why may we not say as S. Augustine saide, Quia Canonicum non [...]st, non me astringit. Bicause it is not the Canonicall Scripture it bindeth me not to beleue or re­ceyue it? but of this matter furder as ye giue furder oc­casion.

Thirdly your argument of proportion from a Parlia­ment to London fayleth, standing on your olde and vayue presupposals, that we haue graunted or must graunt you, [Page 151] that your Popish Church is the true Churche. That Chri­stian realmes haue the same respect to your Popish church, that a Citie in any Realme hath to the whole estate of the same Realme, and againe that your Popes violent Coun­cels, are as frée, lawfull, and generall, and enact onely as Godly decrées and constitutions, to the directing of the true Churche, as the Parliaments of a realme be frée, lawfull and generall, and enact godly lawes and constitutions, for their policies and estates. All these things beyng nothing proportionable, we must graunt you to be true and fitte, or else this your argument, and your former crake, neyther barell better herring, may go togither a Gods name.

The rest of your counter blast to this diuision, as it is no­thing materiall, so it is eyther altogither wordes of course, or else a petit quarell that ye lappe vp all the matter with­all, bicause the Bishop called this sentence, a sentence of the Holy Ghost, In male [...]lam animam non [...] sa­pientia:Sap. 1.VVisedome shall not enter into a frowarde soule: which bicause it is mere impertiuent and friuolous, I haue reiected it to your common places. Discorde on our doctrine can ye gather none thereon, but you would faine sowe dis­corde where none is, and yet ye boast of vnitie. But if ye remembered, (setting all other discordes aside) how well as is afore sayd, your Sorbonists, and your Louanists, and you Thomas Stapleton agrée euen with your owne swéete S. Thomas of Aquine, and how your tale agreeth with it selfe, how it excuseth and accuseth M. Feckenham, ye should then sée who they be, that as ye say, in place of vniforme tu­ningStapl. 39. [...].ruffle vs vp a blacke Sanctus, who they be that chaung­ing their shapes like Proteus, haue so often altred their re­ligion, and whether they touch M. Feckenham and you, or any of your chiefe Masters yea or no.

The ninth Diuision.

THe Bishop hauing by Thomas his distinction of igno­rance answered M. Feckenhams argument: descen­deth to cope with M. Feckenham in his issue, and to proue the same by all the sayd meanes that he requireth. And first to the issue, whiche was: That any Emperour or Em­presse, King or Queene, may claime or take vpō them any suche gouernment in spirituall or Ecclesiasticall causes: The Bishop answereth that they ought to take such gouernment, Ergo: they may lawfully do it. For his antecedēt that they ought, he referreth to the foure meanes of the issue, that M. Feckenham would haue it tri­ed by.

M. Stapl. picking by quarels, of other pretended answers,Stapl. Cap. 7. fo. 39. b. 40. a made by the Bishop before, & falsely surmising that he then denied, or mollified the woordes of the othe, and that now he answereth, without any molli [...]iyng or restiaint, that the Queene ought to take vpon hir such kinde of regiment: these answeres he calleth so [...]arring, variable, diuerse, and so con­trary the one to the other, that if the one be true, the other must be false, and so concludes they be false and deceiueable both of them.

But M. St. this is a false and a deceiuable point of your owne deuising, from the which I perceyue by the tenour of your whole counterblast, ye will neuer iarre nor varie one iote, except God sende you hereafter better grace and iudge­ment, than thus still to ground your self and your writings, on manifest lies and forgeries, and then presuppose them in your nod [...]le, for manifest principles and truthes. Thus do ye all your booke ouer, & so ye play here. First ye ground your selfe on a forged answere, that the Bishop should be­fore haue made: imagining it must néedes be true, bicause you say ye certainly vnderstande, that M. Feckenham hath so [Page 153] reported to some of his friendes, that the Bishop made then another resolute answere. This is all that ye all age for proofe of it, ye haue it but by heare say, at the hande of some partiall tale bearer, some tolde you, that M. Feckenham told some, that the Bishop tolde him, that this was his re­solute answere, and you beleue it for a certentie, and write it solemnly in your booke, to deface the Bishop as it were with doubble and contrary answering, your selfe in the meane season answering nothing to the argument, nor to y^e Bishops present and printed answere. And therfore I neede returne no other answere to you, than, that one tolde me, that another told him, that he told you, that ye were to light of credence, to beleue euery flimme flamme tale, and to rash of Iudgement, to clap downe such tales in your booke, of whiche ye had no better proufe, than that all the worlde should see, claw me claw thee, two false marchants néede no broker they say.

The tenth Diuision.

THe Bishop entring into his proufes of the issue, that Princes ought to take vpō them such gouern­ment in Ecclesiasticall causes, as the Queenes Maiestie doth chalenge and take vppon hit, among other properties belonging to the Princely office, to beginne with all, auoucheth out of Deut. the 17. and the 13. with some expositoures vpon the same, that the Prince is commaunded to haue by him the booke of the lawe, to reade in it diligently, to this ende that he himselfe may learne the feare of God, and cause his subiects to become Israelites by his princely authoritie, redressing the peruersnesse of such a [...] swerue from the ordinances and ceremonies appointed of God. The which beyng true, the conclusion consequently followeth thereuppon.

[Page 154]M. St. answere to this argument, resteth on foure faultsStapl. ca. 8. that he findeth with the Antecedent, which he calleth vn­truthes, & so reckoneth them vp also in his score, but bicause they are the principall materiall pointes whereon his an­swere dependes, I thought it more fitte to note them here.

But first after his scoffing, & craking maner he saith to y^e Stapl. 40. b. Bishop: Go on I saie in Gods name, M. Horne, and prosecute your plea stoutly: God sende you good speede. And so he doth, euē such as ye, & the honestie of your cause deserue. &c.

But all these his fromps and vaunts I ouerpasse and re­ferre them to his common places, and will onely answere to that which he chargeth the Bishop withall, which is no lesse than infidelitie and vnskilfulnesse. And to beginne with the later, bicause he saith it is the least matter and note [...]h it for the former vntruth.

Your vnskilfulnesse (saith he) whiche is the least matter,Stap. 40. b.standeth in that ye say the King is commaunded to haue by him the booke of the lawe, your texte sayth not so [...]ir, but Describet sibi Denteronomium legis huius in volumine: he shallDeut. 17.write out this second law in a booke; as Edmund Beck, a man of your sect truly hath translated.

This is the least matter, saith M. Stapl. and yet this is so great a matter, that as a notable reproche, he fasteneth it also in the margine as it were with a tenne penny nayle (to vse his own phrase) M. Hornes vnskilfulnesse▪ But if M. St. did not play the vnskilfull hypocrite him selfe, but had pulled the beame of vnskilfulnesse out of his owne eye, he should then haue cleerely séene, that the Bishop vsed good skill in citing his text faithfully, and he in thus repr [...]hēding the Bishop hath shewed so litle skill, and so much infidelitie, that though he him selfe be paste shame, yet M. Feckenham, and all his fréendes may well [...]e ashamed of him.

Ye say (saith M. Stapleton) the King is commaunded, to haue by him the booke of the lawe, your text saith not so sir. Forsooth sir the text saith so by your leaue, the text hath [Page 155] bothe, and therefore it is not the Bishop but you that lie, both vnskilfully and also vnfaithfully therein. Put on your spectacles, reade your text againe, and I dare say, except your lippes hang in your lighte, ye shall within sixe woordes following, finde these woordes, Et habebit secum, and he shall haue it with or by him, or as Munsterus translateth it, Erit (que) illud pen [...]s e [...]m, and it shalbe about him, or ap­pertayning vnto him. So that here appeareth plainly your skilfull fidelitie, (if it be not done rather of peruersitie and malice, to vse your owne woordes) in deniyng the Scri­pture to say that, which in plaine woordes it saithe, and in calling that an vntruth in translation, which euidently is a very true translation. This vntruth therefore must be cutte of from your talie, and nicked vpon your score.

The second fault founde with the Bishop in his antece­bent, is an vntruth (as M. Stapleton hath scored it vp) in leauing out a parte of the sentence materiall. Wherein heStapl. 40. b. noteth the Bishop of infidelitie. Your infidelitie (saith he) appeareth in the curtalling of your texte, and leauing out the woordes that immediatly go before those that ye alleage. What were these woordes that the Bishop did alleage? That he haue by him the Booke of the lawe. Say ye me so M. Stapleton? then, if the Bishop haue left out the wordes of Moses, that immediatly go before those that he alleaged, euen by your owne confession these wordes alleaged, do come immediatly after those that ye say the Bishop left out. D [...]ye not sée what a manifest lier your owne testi­monie proueth you. Within sixe lines folowing, ye affirme that the text hath not these wordes, and here ye say they fol­low immediately. You are full of gathering contradictions, what call ye this, it followeth in the text immediatly, and, it is not in the text at all. Where is your Logike that ye boaste of? are not these contradictories? so that vnlesse ye cā [...]ake two contradictions true, ye haue made your selfe in the one an open lier. Alacke M. Stapleton where was [Page 156] your remembrance? Mendacem memorem esse oportet a lier should haue a good memorie least he faulter. Well will you say, here ye tooke me tardie. But how say ye to this, the Bi­shop hath leaft out a parte of the sentence materiall, he hathStapl. 40. b.curtalled his▪ text. The later worde he hath (bicause they make directly against him) quite least out. Hath he so M. St.? ve­rily that were a foule faulte, and infidelitie in deede. But what againe if he haue not done so, if he haue left out no parte of the sentence which he cited, & what if those wordes which M. Stapleton would adde out of another sentence, would not make any thing against the Bishop, were he not then cléered of this faulte, and might it not redounde to the faultfinder? And by your leaue M. Stapl. though I will not herein charge ye with infidelitie, vnlesse ye wist it, but im­pute it rather to want of knowledge, yet at the least, it is one of your vnskilfull lies, for the sentence, Et habebit se­ [...]um, &c. and he shall haue it by him, and shall reade it all the daies of his life, that he may learne to feare the Lorde, his God, and keepe his woordes and ceremonies, whiche are commaunded in the Lawe, is an whole and perfect sentence, and as the Hebrues call it a Pasuk. which, if not so much as perusing the Hebrue or Chaldee text, yet if, meaning a truth, ye would haue looked vpon the translation of Sanstes Pagninu or Munsterus, ye should haue séene it to be a full period and sentence of it selfe. So that the Bishop is suffici­ently discharged of all vnfaithfulnesse, nor hath curtalled any sentence that he alleaged, nor left out any later, for­mer, or middle parte, materiall, or not materiall thereof. But now M. Stapleton, looke you to it, least you be founde herein a passing vnfaithfull lyer, not onely on the Bishop, but on the holy Scripture also.

Ye say he hath curtalled his text. What was his text? he shall haue by him the booke of the lawe. What woordes follow immediatly after? and he shall reade it all the dayes of his lyfe, to the ende that he may learne to feare the Lorde [Page 157] his God, and keepe all his wordes and ceremonies that are commaunded in the lawe. All this the Byshop cited and ex­pounded also: hath he then curtalled his text, M. Stap. that so throughly and so largely hath set out the same? Tushe, saye you, he lefte oute the wordes that immediatly go be­fore those that he alledged. Why, M. Stay. call ye that cur­talling? curtalling is to cut off those wordes that come be­hinde. To cut off those wordes that immediatly go before, was rather to behead his text, than to curtall it. And do ye not sée withall how contrarie ye speake to your selfe, they be the latter wordes and they be the words that immediatly go before? If they be the wordes that go before, they be not the latter wordes, if they be the latter, they be not those that went before, vnlesse they come twise bothe before and after, and so the head and the tayle of the sentence is al one, and the byshop cutteth off both head and tayle away, accor­ding to your popishe vsage of the Scripture. But then where ye say, he leaueth out a material parte of the sentence, ye should haue sayde he tooke away, all that is materiall, and not one materiall parte thereof. But the byshop citeth the full sentence. And those words which ye say come after, and that the byshop leaueth them out, bicause (ye say) they make directly agaynst him, they come not after at all, but playnly are set before. And I muche maruell with what impudent face ye durst chalenge the byshop for curtalling his texte, when he telleth all the wordes that followe, both of the sentence he cited, and of that whiche commeth after also: and yet your selfe so flatly belye the Scripture, for malice to the byshop, in saying, suche wordes that the by­shop lefte out do followe which neither followe at all: and your selfe before confessed, they went immediatly before.

Sée, see, howe enuie hath blinded this mans sighte. Lesse maruell it is that ye sawe not the period, for although those wordes whiche ye cite, as lefte oute, taking a copie of the Priest, and the Leuiticall tribe, [...]e wordes going before the [Page 158] bishops sentence, and he shall haue by him. &c. yet is there a ful period betweene them, which you saw not, or would not sée, so that those former words are no materiall part of the sentence following cited by the byshop, but a material part of the sentēce going before, which the byshop cited not. But M. St. citeth & falsly threapeth that the bishop did cite it, and in citing it, lefte out a materiall parte thereof, charging the byshop in these wordes, after suche order as your owne textStap. 41. [...].appoynteth▪ saying: VVhen he is set vpon the seate of hys kingdome, he shal write him out this second law in a booke, taking a copie of the Priestes of the Leuiticall tribe. VVhich latter wordes ye haue, bicause they make directly agaynst you, quite lefte out. Why, M. Stap. he left out bothe the lat­ter, middle, first wordes, and all of this sentence, he mentio­ned it not at all, ye doe but threapen kindnesse on him, to fasten withall vpon him your chalenge of infidelitie. One­ly he alleaged the nexte sentence, and that expounding it so fully, that he leaueth oute neither former, latter, or any materiall poynte at all thereof.. And thus muche doth your selfe also witnesse agaynst your selfe, saying, that he lefte o [...]t vvordes that immediatly goe before the vvordes vvhich he alleadged. And what were those? he shall haue by him. &c. This then was the texte that he alleaged by your owne confession. And therfore when ye vrge him with the former texte that he alleaged not, to proue infidelitie in him: ye contrarie your selfe, ye cleare him, ye shewe your owne excéeding vnfaythfull dealing, bothe to the scripture, and to him also.

But wherefore should the Byshop haue left out (as ye charge him) any materiall parte of his texte? bycause (say you) it maketh directly agaynst him. In déede that were a shrewde cause, and would iolily cloke M. St. infidelitie, and cause men to suspect infidelitie in the bishop, if he had con­cealed any thing in his text, that directly made against him. Which infidelitie who vseth, and who approueth it, for the [Page 159] poynt of a wise man, to conceale that, that maketh agaynst him, shal after wel appeare. But now, although it be plain­ly proued, that the byshop in his text left out no part therof: Yet for further tryall of this also, let vs take not onely the latter wordes of the next period going before, which words he complayneth are lefte out, but euery worde also of the same sentence, concluding two or thrée periodes vnder one, bicause we would haue nothing left out, and ioyne them to the sentence following cited by the byshop, and then behold what maner of conclusion either directly, or indirectly they make agaynst him. Wherin shall appeare, that M. St. hath so besotted himselfe in diuinitie, that he had quite forget the logike that so ofte he crakes vpon. These textes are these: VVhen he is set on the seate of his kingdome, he shall writeDeut. 17.for him selfe out of this seconde law in a booke, taking a co­py of the Priests of the Leuiticall tribe. And he shall haue it with him, and he shall reade of it all the dayes of his life that he may learne to feare the Lorde his God, and keepe all the wordes and ceremonies that are written in the lawe. Upon these words, M. St. frameth his argument.

The king shal write out this second law in a booke, taking a copy of the Priestes of the Leuiticall tribe:

Ergo, a king ought not to take vpon him suche gouerne­ment in ecclesiasticall causes, as the Quéenes maiestie doth chalenge and take vpon hir. For this is the conclusion that directly maketh agaynst the bishop: but as herein his logike is altogither vnskilfull, so is his diuinitie yet more vnfaith­full. For, hauing chalenged the bishop for leauing out these words, taking a copie of the priests of the Leuiticall trybe, as directly against him: and thē immediately foloweth (sayth he) how he shall busily reade the sayde booke, and so foorth. In which words he maketh another toto manifest lie, falsi­fying the text yet once againe. For these words, Et habebit sec [...], he shal haue with him, which word he leaueth quite out, go betwéene, & therfore followe not (as he sayth) immedi­atly. [Page 160] But sée héere (whether it be of malice to the byshop, or to the Scripture) that all this while in quarelling with this little poore text, & habebit secum, he shall haue with him, he findeth fault with translating, he accuseth the byshop of infidelitie and vnskilfulnesse, he complaineth of leauing out wordes going immediatly before, of curtalling the texte, and leauing out latter wordes, of leauing out a material part, of words following immediatly: he citeth and reciteth these and those wordes in Latin and Englishe, he scanneth and descanteth on translations, and all this while those onely three wordes, & habebit secum, which the byshop alleaged, wrinching and wresting, he euer glaunceth by them, he will not once name them, but leaueth them quite out, which was the materiall thing that the byshop alleaged. And yet all the while he whineth of leauing oute, and leaueth oute him selfe that he should chiefly answere. What shall we thinke is the cause that he dothe thus? surely there is some force in those wordes, that he sawe were more directly a­gainst him, or else he would neuer do so for very shame. But I remember a tale that he hath patched vp into his coun­terblast, of the Simoniacall Priest, that béeing commaun­ded to say In nomine patris, & filij, & spiritus sanct [...], could re­hearse all well inough, till he came to spiritus sancti: as for that, he could not pronounce it in any maner of wise. But sée your chance M. Stap. that ye there fabled, howe here your selfe haue playde the like part. The byshop vrgeth you with thrée wordes, & habebit secum▪ ye will not onely an­swere nothing thereto, but ye will not in any wise, whyle ye repeate the sentences, so muche as name those wordes, and yet ye goe rounde about them. On the other side, those wordes that the bishop cited not, as no parte of his sentence alleaged, Lorde what a doe ye make of curtalling, of lea­uing out, of infidelitie, vnskilfulnesse, peruersitie, malice, and I can not tell what. Onely bicause ye thinke those wordes séeme to make for your massing Priests authoritie, bicause [Page 161] they name Priests: and yet God wot they make nothing for you, nor agaynst the byshop directly or indirectly.

But you thinke this sentence maketh thus much for your priestes, that if the Prince hereon will clayme by the one sentence, to haue the knowledge of the lawe and worde of God: ye wil enforce of the other, that he shall haue no more therof, nor no otherwise, than it pleaseth you to licence him. And so farre ye dare aduenture to say: VVell let the kingStap. 40. b.reade in Gods name, not only that booke, but all the whole Byble beside, it is a worthy and cōmendable studie for him. But let him beware that this sweete honie be not turned into poyson to him, and least vnder this pleasant bayte of Gods worde, he be sodenly choked with the topicall and pestife­rous translation, wherewith ye haue rather peruerted than translated the Byble printed at Geneua, and in many other places, with your false dangerous damnable gloses, wherwith you haue corrupted and watred the same, and made it as it were of pleasaunt wine, moste sowre vineger. The onely remedie and helpe to eschue and auoyde this daunger, is to take this booke, and other holy writings faythfully transla­ted at the Priestes handes, as they from tyme to tyme haue receyued them.

Howe fitly ye apply your metaphors in making one thing in the same respect to be sweete hony, & yet sowre vinegar, let others descāt, How properly ye rap your friers & monks on the balde, in vpbrayding gloses wherwith the worde of God hath bene watered and corrupted, let euen the Pa­pistes be iudge them selues, whether it toucheth you or vs more néere. How notably ye haue confuted the translation of the Geneua Byble, shall be declared, when ye shall set downe some one or other false worde or sentence translated in it. Howe well you like that kinges should read the By­ble, as a worthy and commendable studie for them, appea­ [...]h, in that ye can away with no translation, nor yet your [...]e wyll set out any for them. But howe well so­euer [Page 162] you like it, or at least dissemble for to lyke it, the moste of your complyces lyke it neuer a deale: Full sore agaynst whose willes it was translated in the mother tong of any prince or people. But if it were so worthy and com­mendable a studie for Princes, why were not Christian Princes permitted to studie in it? why kepte ye them in ignoraunce? why limit ye them within the studie of [...]ill affayres, of martiall policies, of hunting and hauking pa­stimes: But as for the worde of God not one word, no not to moue any talke thereof, sayth Cardinall Hosius. And thinke ye they might then make the same their studie? but how soeuer ye ordered Princes as other people then: now that ye sée there is no remedie, Princes will be no longer deluded, but make it their studie in déede: with a false heart God knoweth, ye say, well let the king reade in Gods name, not onely that booke, but all the whole Byble beside. It is a worthy and commendable studie for him.

If ye be thus liberall (master Stapl.) to Princes from your heart nowe, why did ye quarell with the byshop so muche before, for saying, he should haue by him the booke of the lawe, should he reade and studie the same, and yet not haue it by him? But I perceiue ye are halfe wéerie of your owne wrangling, and therfore in the end, ye not onely graunt that he shall haue it by him, but also shall make the same his studie. Now here if your fellowes aske ye, what ye meane to be thus liberall to princes, in permit­ting them to studie in the worde of God, in suche tonges asHow subtilly the Papistes graunt princes to studie in Gods word. they vnderstand, which thing many of your felowes would stifly gaynsay: be content my masters may you say, it is not now time to striue to muche with princes, since they will néedes haue thus muche, let them haue it a Gods name, yea let vs séeme to giue it them franke and frée, but euer pre­supposed they muste haue it of our giuing, and then go [...]d inough, they were as good and perchaunce better without it▪ For here, after ye haue seriously warned princes to beware [Page 163] of our false gloses and translations: The onely remedie and helpe (say you) to eschue and auoyde this danger, is to take this booke and other holy writings faythfully translated, at the Priests hands, as they frō time to time haue receiued thē.

Some simple man, that heard ye, M. Stapleton, thus demurely preache of translations and glosinges, woulde perhappes thinke ye coulde not glose and translate so false­ly & so impudently as ye do, euen here, where ye reprehende the same in others. Dothe your texte that ye beate so much vpon, mention these words, receiuing of it translated at the Priests hands, as they from time to time haue receiued it? or is there any suche meaning? First, there is no mention of any translating at all, but the text sayth, accipiens exemplarDeut. 17.à sacerdotibus Leuitic [...] tribus: taking a copie of the priestes of the Leuiticall tribe: Or as other haue it, describet sibi ex­emplar huius legis, in librocoram sacerdotibus Lenitici generis. He shall write out for him selfe a copie of this law in a booke before the Priestes of the Leuiticall tribe. He speaketh not héere of any translation, for why, the lawe was wryt­ten in their owne mother tongue. Nowe bicause to other Princes it is giuen translated, can ye inferre hereon, the Priests onely should haue the translating of it? or béeing translated, it should be receiued onely at the Priests handes, as they from time to time haue receiued it? wherby it should follow, that had the translation passed any continuāce from time to time, it should be forced on vs for a faythful transla­tiō, were it neuer so false: which is apparāt in the old tran­slation that hath long time frō time to time continued falsly vnder S. Hieroms name, as both appeareth by S. Hieroms works, & also S. Hierom cōfuteth this fond reason. Neither was he moued with y^e outcries of those in his time, yea euen of S. Austine, y^t cried on him as you do now on the learned trāslators in our time. Neither might y^e word of god hereby be trāslated into any other tōg, thā it hath ben trāslated into of long cōtinuance frō time to time, & thus should princes be [Page 164] debarred of the word of God, in which ye would haue them studie except you popish priests would translate it, & per ad­uenture, to kéepe them from it, ye would say you should not deliuer any other translation, than hath bene vsed from time to time. And yet to what prescription of time, ye wold driue vs off, it is vncerteyne.

This is false therfore, and ful of absurdities, that ye prat­tle of receyuing it translated at the Priestes handes, as they from time to time haue receiued it. No (M. St. to borrowe your own termes) your text sayth not so sir, nor meaneth so. But only that the prince should receiue it of the Leuiticall priests, as they had faythfully kept the word of God, from the first original setting out therof. So noteth Uatablus the great learned Hebritian. Curabit sibi describ [...] exemplar legisVatablus in Deut. 17.huius. vulgo transumptū. Ung double de ceste loy▪ ad exemplum libri sacerdotū Leuitarū. Quasi dicat ad exēplū castigatiss [...]ū, ad exemplum eorū qui sunt periti in ea lege, quales sunt Leuitae. He shall prouide for him selfe, that of this lawe there be dra­wen out a coppie, commonly called a transumpt. One couple of this law. According to the examples of the priests beeing Leuites (as who should say) after the best corrected copy, af­ter their copie that are skilfull in the lawe, suche ones as the Leuites are. But to receiue it after such a simple sorte, as in processe of time the Rabines and the Priests too, from time to time had watred it with their false gloses: & as since that time, the popish Rabines of the schole friers, monkes, and priestes, from time to time with their false dangerous dam­nable gloses, haue corrupted and watred the same, and made it as it were, of pleasant wine moste sowre vineger: ye had néede to ryse betimes, M. Stap. or euer ye shall proue this vntimely consequence, by the text that you vrge so sore, or yet by any other. Your argument is this:

The king in the olde lawe, should receiue the coppie of the booke of the lawe, at the handes of the Priestes of the Leuiticall tribe:

[Page 165] Ergo▪ If Princes now will haue the Bible, they must re­ceyue it of such, and after such manner, as the popish priests will from time to time deliuer it to them.

Now, not seing y^e extreme folie of your sequele, ye runne on headlong as though all were yours, and say: if this orderStapl. 41. a.had of late yeares bene kept, and that Princes and other had taken the Bible as it is and euer hath bene of the Priestes of the Catholike churche (orderly and lawfully succeeding one the other as the Leuites did) read, taught, and expounded, as well in Greke and Hebrue as in Latine, these errours and he­resies should neuer haue taken so deepe a roote as they haue now caught.

Here is bibble babble inough but no argument, and all runnes vppon his wonted presupposals, that our doctrine is heresies and errours, that they be the Priestes of the Catho­like churche. That they orderly and lawfully succeede one the other, as did the [...]e Leuites. That they haue euer redde taught and expounded the Scripture, in Greeke, Hebrewe, and Latine. That their translation is onely true and faithful. And that this their order from time to time, hath euer bene, till of late. Let all these thinges be graunted to M. Stapl. for vndoubted principles, and then let him alone. But if a man denied all these things (beyng euery one so apparant false) & proued that our doctrine were not those dangerous gloses, errours, or heresies, but the expresse infallible worde of God: if he denied that their Church were the Catholike Churche, otherwise than in that sense that the scholler ofIn what sense the popishe Church may be graunted Catholicke. Oxford, by a certeine woman whom other praysed, did me­rily say, she was a Catholike woman, meaning a common queane, so the Popishe church in like sense is a Catholike church, that is to say, a common strumpet prostitute to all Idolatrie, and not the chaste espouse of Iesu Christe: if he denied not onely such orderly succession in your Pope, his Bishops, and Priests now, as was of the Leuites then, they beyng expresly ordeyned of God, you beyng not ordeined [Page 166] of God at all: but also proue that suche succession as it is, (whiche in dede may better be called degeneration) is alto­gether vnorderly and vnlawful: If hée denyed that they did alwayes reade, teache and expound the scripture in Hebrue, Greke and Latine, when euen among the moste of theyr greate Schoole doctours, in that blynde tyme, they had v­neth any meane skill in Latin, muche lesse, or nene at all in gréeke or Hebrue: As for the moste of their morrow Masse Priestes lyke blynde guydes, were so farre from reading, teaching, and expounding the Scriptures to the people, out of any other tongues, that euen in their mother toung they scarse knewe one worde thereof themselues: If he denyed that they woulde haue the Scripture redde, taughte and ex­pounded at all, but on the contrarie woulde haue no tran­slation, other than their common latin translation, which howe corrupte it is, is manyfeste: as Besides the Prote­stantes, Caietanus, Erasmus, Pagninus, Catharinus, and others of themselues are enforced to confesse it: If he denied that the Popishe handling of Gods woorde, hathe bene the order that hath euer bene, but is quite contrary to the origi­nall Institution, to the aunciente order, and is of muche later tymes, as corruption from tyme to tyme hathe taken deeper roote. If a man thus denyed all these his Prin­ciples, til tyme be that M. Stapleton shall proue them bet­ter, than onely by dreamyng that wée graunte them for true, whyche are called into greate question, and denyed of vs for manyfest false: Then is all the fatte in the fire, and thys Mast. Stapletons solemne processe aunswered and confuted.

Neuerthelesse, M. Stapleton styll procéedyng on, as thoughe all these thynges were out of question: NeytherStapl. 41. a.is this place onely mente (sayeth he) that the King shoulde take the bare letter, but rather the exposition vvithall, of the sayde Priestes. For vvhat vvere the king the better, or any man else for the bare letter, if hee hadde not also as ordi­narie [Page 167] a vvaye for his direction in his vnderstandyng, as hee had prouided him for to receyue a true and an incor­rupted copie? VVhereof wee may see the practise in all ages in the catholike Churche, whereof this place is the very sha­dow and figure. And herewithal he setteth vp in his margin this note: bothe the bookes of the Scripture, and the exposi­tion muste be taken at the priestes handes.

The argumente is this: The king in the olde lawe must receiue not only the bare letter of the priestes handes, but the exposition withall:

Ergo, Christian Princes muste receyue that sense of the Scripture, that the Popishe priestes doe please to expounde vnto them.

As there is none I truste so simple, that séeth not the fondnesse of this argumente, so agayne eche man may per­ceyue, that the more M. Stapleton trauayleth on these wor­des (whiche he sayth be vnfaithfully lefte out,) hée shall not onely shewe the more his owne vnfaithfulnesse: but detecte also the vnfaithfull dealing of all his Romishe priestes and Churche. For where as this place sayeth, that the Le­uiticall Priestes shall delyuer to the Kyng a perfecte and true Coppie of the Lawe of God, whyche hée shall vvrite oute and haue it by him. And that the Priestes shoulde not delyuer onely the bare letter, but withall the exposi­tion therof, not expounded after their fantasies, as dyd the Scribes and Phariseis, in one place by the bare letter, whi­che Christ confuteth Math. 5. 6. 7. In an other place, by their owne inuentions and traditions, but one place truly expoū ­ded by an other, and so deliuer it faithfully to their Prince: And that this order then was the verye shadowe and figure of the true Churche novv: But then is it most euident that the Popishe Churche is not the true Churche, nor was fi­gured hereby at all.

For first the popishe Prestes deliuered not a coppie of the [Page 168] lawe of God, to wete, of the Old and New testament vp in­to their Kings, Queenes and Princes handes, to write it out and haue it alwaies by them to studie vppon: but rather do the contrary as did the Pharisies, keping the key of know­ledge away from them of purpose, telling them it appertai­neth not to their estates: but that they may go play them, or employ them selues in other foreigne matters, onely the worde of God they must in no case meddle withall, which belongeth alonely to the Priests. Nor they will be bounde to deliuer vp to their Princes any coppie thereof at all. But thus much yet they will do for their Princes, to giue them a péece here and there, and that either must be the bare letter as M. Stapleton calleth it, or els such expositions, as it shall please them to leauen the dough withall. And is this now the perfect bodie of that shadow, the veritie of that figure set forth in Moses order? or not rather the full accomplishing of the Scribes and Pharisies doings? whom they haue so followed in not giuing vp a coppie to their Princes, in wre­sting, defacing and taking away Gods worde, that theirs may better be said to be a very shadow and figure of the Po­pish priests dealings herein. And that we rather expresse the veritie of that figure and shadow of Moses order, rendring vp to our Princes a full, perfect, and sincere coppie of Gods lawe, that they may write it out, set it forth, haue it by them and meditate therein day and night (as King Dauid coun­sayleth)Psalm. 1. 2. to learne thereby to be wise and feare the Lord their God: and by them all their subiects. And thus his impor­tune vrging of this place hath so properly helpt his matter forwarde, that where he saith, the Bishop left it quite out as making directry against him, what soeuer the Bishop did, it had bene better for M. Stapl. to haue left it quite out, also: or not to haue triumphed so much on that, which at the better view thereof, so directly maketh against all his popishe Priestes.

But for all this, M. Stapleton will proue, that the popish [Page 335] priestes must not onely haue the handling of Gods worde: but also that they can not be deceyued, nor erre in the sense thereof. And this will he proue euen by the Pro­testants them selues.

For (sayth he) as the Protestants them selues are forcedStap. 41. [...]by plaine wordes to confesse, that they knowe not the true worde or booke of God, but by the Churche: whiche from time to time deliuered these bookes, euen so by all reason and learning they shoulde also confesse that the Churche can no more be deceyued, in deliuering the sense of the sayde worde, than in deliuering the worde it selfe. VVhich seeing they will not confesse, (for then we were forthwith at a point and ende with all their errours and heresies) they must nedes continue in the same.

The argument is this. The Protestants confesse that they know not the worde of God but by the Churche (of Christ) that kéepeth, witnesseth and agnizeth the same from time to time.

Ergo the Protestants must néedes confesse, that the Church (he meaneth the Popishe priestes) in deliuering of the worde can not be deceyued in the sense thereof.

In stéede of aunswere hereto, master Stapleton him selfe maketh a preoccupation, for perceyuing the falsenesse and follie thereof woulde soone be reiected: VVhich seeing (sayth he) they will not confesse (for then we were at a point with all their errours and heresies) they must needes conti­nue in the same.

Do we not confesse, master Stapleton that ye woulde haue vs confesse? why then haue ye reasoned all this while thus fondly, taking that for confessed which your selfe now are forced by plain wordes to confesse, that we confesse not, but vtterly denie, that you be the Catholike Church, that you haue deliuered these bookes from time to time, (which you haue rather hid away) that you can not erre in the sense [...]f the scripture, and such like wrong principles. Which in [Page 336] déede if we shoulde falsely confesse with you, then all the matter were at a poynt and ende, as ye saye. But since we denie it, and reiect your fonde reasoning, à petitione princi­pij, it is tyme that ye séeke out other arguments more sub­stantiall, or else as your cause is at a poynte, or not worth a poynt: so in conclusion ye stande on this poynt, to slaun­der vs, as following euery man his owne heade, and thatStapl. 41. b. we shal neuer haue done, and errours will neuer cease more and more to encrease and multiplie, vnlesse we take forth (say you) the lesson I haue shewed you. And what lesson is that? Forsooth that we must graunt and confesse to be most true, all these your false principles. And then we shall be your white sonnes, and good scholers I dare say, if once we would conne that lesson. Ye would giue vs a fat remedie, and leaue to play the fooles & truands all day long, if we would learne that lesson of yours. But such scholemasters as y [...] are, such schollers ye desire to haue, and suche lessons ye take them forth. Caecus autem si caeco ducatum prestet, ambo in foueam ca­dunt.Math. 13.If the blinde leade the blinde, both of them fall into the ditch. Thus ye deceyued the princes and people in tymes past. But God be praysed both Princes and people haue now taken forth that lesson, out of Gods holy word, that ye could not, or neuer would teach, read or expound vnto them.

Nowe when ye haue redde this lesson vnto vs, with so false a glosse and commentarie vpon the text, (as ye com­plaine) left out: ye determine that the best remedie were theStap. 41 b.exact obseruation of this place that ye haue (say you) so wily­ly and sleightly slipt ouer. This is but a poynt of your ap­parant impudencie master Stapleton, to set a be [...]de face on the matter, for God knoweth ye would nothing lesse, than that the diligent reader shoulde exactly obserue this place. Whiche if he did, this place alone, (were there no more) woulde sufficiently shewe howe ye haue haled and racked it, and all the lawe of God besides. That this place there­fore (if the exact obseruation thereof be the best remedie [Page 337] to your cause, as ye say) might remedie your cause the bet­ter, I haue somewhat the more exactly obserued it, and if your cause haue founde any remedie thereby, muche good doe it you, ye shall haue more of it. So that I trust yée shall not néede to complaine of ouerslipping any thing ma­teriall. Which least ye should doe, the Chapter shall be yet more exactly obserued than perchaunce ye would haue it to be. And to begin with that ye quarrell at next, as wilily and sleightly slipt ouer.

But most of all (say you) another sentence in the verie saidStap. 41. b.Chapter. And euen the next to this ye alleage that the king as soone as he is chosen shall bestowe his studie vppon the reading of the Deuteronomie. VVhere Moses sayth that in doubtfull causes, the people shoulde haue their recourse to the sayde Priestes, and to the iudge for the time being mea­ning the highe Priest, of whome they shoulde learne the truth: and are commaunded to doe accordingly, euen vnder paine of death.

All this ye say the Bishop wilily and sleightly slipt ouer, and yet in the verie sayde Chapter it was euen the next to that he alleaged. Alacke master Stapleton that euer yée should for shame haue thus ouerslipt your selfe. Were ye not halfe a sléepe, when ye made this slippe? For I will not recharge you so harde wyth wylinesse and sleight, but with palpable grosnesse, and marueylous negligent igno­raunce, in a student of diuinitie, to beate so much vppon a text as you doe here, charging your aduersarie wyth wy­linesse, sleight, vnfaythfulnesse, vnskilfulnesse, leauing out, curtalling, and ouerslipping, and your selfe shewe so little skil, or regarde, in citing your text, that eyther ye know not, or ye care not what commeth before, what commeth after, what commeth next, what commeth not next, nor nere it. Ye saye that the sentence of the Priestes and the Iudges iudgements on doubtfull cases, commeth euen the next, to that the Bishop alleaged in the verie sayde Chapter.

[Page 338]Turne your booke to the Chapter once againe M. Stap. reade the wordes that come next, yea all the wordes that follow in that Chapter. Nor his heart shall be lifted vp in pride aboue his brethren, neyther shall he turne to the rightDeut. 17.hande or to the left, that both he and his childe may raigne long time ouer Israell. Doth not this follow next and is not this the last sentence of the sayde Chapter? Then if it be in that verie Chapter, it commeth not as you say next vn­to it, but must néedes go before, and so doth it. Neyther yet the next before, for there commeth betwene them fiue or six periods at the least. And as they are two diuerse places, so are they two sundrie matters. Ye charge therefore the Bishop amisse, with wilie and sleight ouerslipping, where nothing is ouerslipped, though the former sentence be not alleaged. And ye falsely ioyne them togither saying. The King shall bestow his studie vpon the reading of the Deute­ronomie, where Moyses sayth that in doubtfull causes. &c. When as Moses there, sayth not so. Ye falsely say it com­meth next to it, which it doth not, but goeth before, in ano­ther matter, and diuerse sentences betwene. What a foule ouerslippe was this of you, that could prie so narrowly to séeke a slippe ouer a slipper in anothers footing, where was not so muche as any tripping awrie, and your selfe vna­wares haue slipt into a foule lie ouer the sloppes and all.

But if we let slippe this, as but a grosse ouerslippe, yet maye we not so let slip M. Stapletons slipperie and false exposition, for all he sayeth, that their priestes can not ex­pounde the scripture amisse. For where the text sayth, the people sholde haue their recourse to the priestes, and to the iudge for the time beeing: meaning (sayth M. Stapleton) the high priest: In déede so doth his popishe glosse interline it, and yet euen Lyra that woulde shift of the matter, as much as he might, for his Pope, with his morall or rather marre all gloses hereon: both noteth in his margin that these be twaine, summ [...] sacerdos, & iudex, the high Priest [Page 339] and the Iudge. And sayth, in his casibus, &c. In these and theLyra in Deut. 17.like cases, they must runne vnto the higher Iudges, that is to say▪ to the high Priest, and to the chiefe Iudge of Israell. And althoughe sometime it chaunced, that one person had both these offices as appeareth by Hely, who was both chiefe1. Reg. 4. Iudge, and chiefe Priest, yet for the most part, as they are distinct offices, so were they commonly in distinct and se­uerallThe highe priest and the chiefe iudge mentioned Deut. 17. were two distinct persons. persons.

And to proue this further by the penaltie, which as you say was vnder the paine of death, the which iudgement ap­perteyned to the Iudge, but ordinarily it was not lawfull for the high priestes, to iudge any man to death, as euen the wicked priestes, to cloke their murther, when Pilate sayde vnto them, Accipite eum vos. &c. Take you him and iudgeIohn 18.him according to your law, coulde replie (like to the papisti­call Priestes, that post of the bodyes death to the temporall power) Nobis non licet quem (que) interficere, It is not lawfull for vs to kill any man: but the Iudge that this place speaketh of, should ordinarily condemne to death the refuser, Ex in­dicis decreto moriatur homo ille, Let that man die by the iud­ges decree. Ergo he meaneth not that this ordinarie Iudge shoulde be the high priest.

Besides this the very text is plaine, in making this distinc­tion, to the Priestes, and to the Iudge, not to the Iudge mea­ning the Priest. Againe, The commandement of the high Priest, and the decree of the Iudge. Which fully importeth that he meaneth not the one by the other, but expresseth two diuerse persons, and two seuerall offices distinctly. Wherfore master Stapleton apparantly wresteth the text, thus flatly to say, that he meaneth the high Priest by the name of Iudge, to proue that his Pope hath no péere, but all iudgement remayneth in him alone, in euery difficult matter of religion.

And here againe appeareth another of his false and pur­posed ouerslippes. Moses (sayth he) doth say that in doubt­full [Page 340] causes the people should haue their recourse to the priests. Whie doe ye here master Stapleton forget your former marginall censure, of leauing out anie materiall partes of the sentence? telling vs of doubtful causes, but not telling vs what those doubtfull causes were, and speake as doubtfully as though they were matters of doctrine, religion, and ec­clesiasticall ordinaunces, (which are the matters in questi­on betwéene the partyes) when this place speaketh onely, of decyding a difficult or doubtfull matter, betweene bloud and bloud, plea and plea, plague and plague, in matters of stryfe: But none of these specifications, what maner of doutfull causes hée ment, woulde you expresse, for feare it woulde then bée to soone espyed, that this sentence made nothing at all for the supreme iudgement of your Pope. And yet after these two sleightes, the one of remoouing the ciuill Prince or iudge from this iudgement with the Priestes, and ascribing all to the Priestes alone, to make it serue your purpose the better: The other by slipping o­uer all these doubtfull causes, in the sentence expressed, as thoughe it were simplie spoken wythout anye specifica­tion, to make it serue for the Priestes absolute iudge­mente in all ecclesiasticall ordinaunces: When ye haue wyth thys dubble sleyght and wylinesse thus wrested the Text, then come yée in ruffling lyke a lustye Rutter­kin, and swappe mée downe hereon this iolie marginall note.

An other sentence in the sayde Chapter by master HorneStap. 41. balleaged that ouerthroweth all his boast. God saue al master Stapleton, here is no small boast I trowe. We had nowe néede to beware betymes, for feare the Bishoppe be here quite ouerthrowne, since that master Stapleton maketh so prowde a chalenge. Let vs therefore take héede to hys argument on thys place. VVhiche place (sayeth he) well weighed and considered, serueth to declare that I haue sayde, that the King and others, shoulde receyue not one­lyeStapl. 41. b.[Page 341] the letter, whiche as Saint Paule sayeth doeth kyll, but the true and syncere meaning withall, wherein standeth the lyfe of the letter, as the lyfe of man wythin hys bodie, yea the eternall lyfe (whereof by following lewde lying expositions of holye w [...]itte, wee are spoyled) at the Priestes handes.

Is this the conclusion of all this great crake M. St. that the B. should be quite ouerthrowne by this sentence? what one word is here, not only of this sentence, but euen of your owne well weighed and considered conclusion theron, which hath come nere vnto, much lesse ouerthrowne the Bishops assertion? Which if ye would haue ouerthrowne, ye should haue concluded agaynst it, and thus haue reasoned.

Moses sayde to the people of Israell, if any hard or doubt­fullDeut. 17.thing in iudgement rise vp with thee, betwixt bloud and bloud, plea and plea, plague and plague, in matters of strife within the Citie. &c. Go to the Priestes and vnto the Iudge that shall be in those dayes. &c. Ergo a Christian king ought not to chalenge or take vpon him any such supreme gouern­ment in ecclesiasticall matters as doth y^e Queenes maiestie. This conclusion in déede, quite ouerthroweth the Bishops assertion. But who séeth not that this sentence is to farre fetched to inferre any such conclusion? And therfore master Stapleton thoughe this was his butt [...] on whiche his ey [...] shoulde haue béene fixed, and brought his proues to haue improued this: yet durst he not once touche or come nighe it for very shame, for if he had, he sawe that euery boye in the scholes would haue hissed out his argument. And there­fore wilyly weighing and considering howe he might make it séeme to serue to some purpose, that he had craked on so much. This place (sayth he) well weighed and considered ser­ueth to declare that I haue sayd, that Kings and others should receyue not onely the bare letter, but the true and sincere meaning withall. &c. at the priestes handes.

And is this all that this place serueth to, M. Stapleton? for [Page 342] I dare say you haue well weighed and considered the matter, that from so great a boast, are so sodenly fallen in­to so déepe a consideration, of the bare letter killing, and the true quickening sense therof. Wheras that text if ye would but meanely weigh and consider it once againe, neyther talketh of any killing letter, or liuing sense at all: but of cer­taine doubtfull cases of strife, nor can serue to confirme those sayings of Christ and Saint Paule, without manifest wresting of it. But to what purpose doe ye so well weigh and consider that, whiche is nothing in question, and that which is in question, & denyed, and you should proue: with­out any weighing or considering ye take it for confessed? Who doubteth of this that Princes should not onely receyue the bare letter, but the true sense and meaning withall at the priestes handes? This Princes in déede should do, which if they had alwayes done, they shoulde not haue receyued so many of their lewde lying expositions, as they haue done here to fore, at the priestes hands, who herein deceyued prin­ces, and gaue them not the true meaning and sense togither with the copie of Gods worde: but debarred Princes of copie thereof, of letter, sense, and all: féeding them wyth the vayne fables, and lewde lying expositions, of theyr owne deuisings.

Wherefore Lyra noteth here vppon the Hebrue glosse,Lyra in Deut. [...]7. Hic dicit glossa Hebraica. &c. Here sayth the Hebrue glosse, if the priest shall say vnto thee that thy right hande, is thy left hande, or thy left hande, is thy right hande, this saying must be vpholden, which thing is manifest false. For the sentence of no maner of man, of what authoritie so euer he be, is to be vpholden, if it conteyne a manifest falsehoode or errour. And this appeareth by this, which is set before in the text. They shall iudge vnto thee the truth of Iudgement: and afterward is set vnder: And they shall teach thee according to his lawe: whereby it appeareth that if the Priestes speake that which is false, or swarue from the law of God, they are not to be heard. [Page 177] Thus sayth Lyra in (confuting the Hebrue glosars) of their hye Priests, that sayde they could not erre, and therefore what soeuer they taught must be beléeued. And do not your Papistes say the same of the Pope, and your selfe holde the same of your Priestes expositions, that theirs alwayes muste be taken for the true sense? else wherto bring ye out this conclusion? In doubtfull cases of bloud, and ciuill acti­ons of strife, the highe Priest, and the chiefe Iudge muste determine a finall sentence:

Ergo, Princes muste receiue, not the letter of the scrip­ture, but suche sense as the Popish priestes and the Pope, shall determine for the true sense in all controuersies of religion.

For this is the ful drift of your reason, though ye dare not for shame speake so playne. But this argument, the more it is wayed, wayeth lyke a fether in the winde: and there­fore ye turne the conclusion into generall words and say: Ergo, Princes and others muste receiue at the Priestes hands not onely the bare letter that killeth, but the true and sincere meaning therof withall.

Which cōclusion is not in controuersie, but on both parts graunted they oughtso to do, the Priests to deliuer to their Princes and others, the worde of God, and the true sense therof: and the Prince and others oughte so to receiue of them the same word of God, and the true sense thereof, and not the priests owne deuises and expositions.

But since that none haue euer done more cōtrarie to this rule, sythe it was first giuen by Moyses, then haue the Po­pishe priestes: had not Christian princes great néede to be­ware of Popishe Priests gloses, and follow the councell of Lyra in reiecting them, & as other good Princes haue done, to displace those false glosing priestes, and place faythfull disyensers of Gods mysteries in their roomes, and ouersée that their people be not deceiued in receiuing at the priests handes, quid pro quo? And for this cause the priest shoulde [Page 178] deliuer to his prince a perfect copy of the law, which M. St. wickedly termeth the bare letter that killeth, and thereto wresteth S. Paule, & wresteth this sentence of the iudiciall law, among the Iewes for their time, in the foresaide ciuill controuersies: to be a simple rule for all christian common weales, in all ecclesiastical causes, excluding quite al iudge­ment from the prince, & including it in his Pope & Priests alone, iumbling the Prince and the people togither vnder the priests absolute determination. Where this place ioy­neth togither as colleages, the prince with the priest, or ra­ther ascribeth the skil in suche doubtes to be defined by the learned and faythfull priest, and the full authoritie to giue iudgement, and to ratifie the Priestes sentence, in con­demning the refusers to death, and in approuing the recey­uers, to consist, not in the high Priest, but in the Iudge or Prince. And thus this place, that he would so fayne wrest euery way agaynst Christian Princes, and for his Pope and popelings, béeing well wayed and considered according to his owne request: maketh nothing for his matter, nor for his shauelings, but cleane agaynst them. And béeing better wayed and considered, maketh nothing against the Bishops cause, nor against christian Princes supreme gouernment, in ouerséeing & correcting such false priests: but very muche for their duetie and chiefe authoritie therin.

M. St. hauing thus shamefully counterblasted the By­shops allegatiō, to set a good face on an euilfauorde matter: biddes the byshop go on, and crieth out that he hath go [...]ten the victorie, & that the bishop is at his first encoūtring ouer­blowneStap. 42. a.and discomfited euen with his owne blast. And that it is not likely hereafter, that he shall bring any thing to re­solue his aduersarie. But as God would haue it, all these wordes are no blowes, nor arguments, but vayne triūphes before he haue gotten the victorie: of the which he recko­neth him selfe so sure, that he graunteth the Byshops other allegation. Deut. 13.

[Page 179] For as for the next place (sayth he) it enforceth no supre­macie,Fol. 42. a.we freely graunt you, that princes may sharply punish teachers of false and superstitious religion and Idolatrie (bee­ing therof by the Priests instructed) whiche is the matter of your texte.

This parenthesis, M. St. (beeing therof by the priests in­structed) is the levvde lying glose of your owne forge. The text hath no such matter of the priests instruction but what thinke you, doth enstruction more enforce an authoritie in the priest, than powre to punish & correct doth enforce an au­thoritie in the prince? or doth this follow, that bicause the prince by the priests enstruction doth punish false teachers: Ergo he punisheth thē by the priests authoritie? but as you fréely graunt that the prince may punish noughtie, false, and idolatrous priests, so that the priests instructiō is any mat­ter of the byshops text, or that his instruction should more enforce authoritie ouer the prince, than the princes punish­ment doth ouer false teachers: is both euident false, & this we as flatly deny, as you do fréely graunt the other.

Howbeit, presupposing that we would also graūt him this, that all things must still be done by the priests instruction: But then (sayth master Stap.) take heede to your selfe ma­sterStap. 42. a.Horne) and as though he him selfe were this instruc­tour, for I say to you (sayth he) that ye and your fellowes teache false and superstitious religion, many and detestable heresies, and so withall playne idolatrie.

In déede sir, so ye say, & that full stoutly, braying out with I say to you, but thanks be to God, ye do but say it to vs, ye do not proue it to vs, but and it were put to a double post, might it not proue a worde of course? and then take heede to your selfe master Stapl. for we not onely say to you, but by the worde of God proue it to you, that you and your felowes teach false and superstitious religion, many and dete­stable heresies, & so withal plaine idolatrie. &c. and so haue ye giuen sentence agaynst your selfe, & haue told the magistrate [Page 180] his office to punishe you as false teachers, that care not how ye falsifie & wrest the scriptures to deface your aduersarie, the vnskilfulnesse and vnfaythfulnesse wherwith ye falsly charge him, euer double or treble, redounding vppon your selfe. The residue of your proces on these two chalenges of vnskilfulnesse & vnfaythfulnesse, I referre to your common places of rayling, scoffes, and slaunders, and will answere to the thirde great faulte that ye finde in this diuision.

Nowe that ye bring out of Glossa ordinaria, (say you) thatStap. 42. b.the Prince is commanded by his princely authoritie to cause his subiectes to become Israelites, it may perhaps be in some ordinarie glose of Geneua his notes, Bales, or some such like, but as for the olde ordinary Latin glose, I am right sure (M. Horne) it hath no suche thing.

Are ye right sure therof, M. Stap? and hath it no suche thing in déede? will ye venter your poore honestie thereon? I dare say ye would haue vs thinke, that ye haue looked on the ordinarie glose, whether any suche thing were there or no, else would ye neuer for shame so boldly affirme it. But what speake I of shame in so shamelesse a face, that boldly dare auouche he is right sure there is no suche thing, when if he had looked in y^e ordinary glose, except he would of pur­pose looke from it, he could scantly misse it, euen at the first viewe. The wordes of the glose vpon super Israel, are these: Benedictio est regnare super Israel. 1. regnando facere Israel. s. deum videntes. It is a blessing to raigne ouer Israell, that is to saye, by raigning (which the Byshop Englished, by his Princely authoritie) to make or cause to become Israelites, that is to wete, folkes seeing God. The Bishop Englished the sentence playnly, by his Princely authoritie to cause his subiectes to become Israelites. And what is here that is not onely in summe of sentence, but in the very emphasis or force of the bare wordes, all one with the glose? and yet this moste impudent, what should I call him, vnskilfull or vnfaythfull lyer, or both, chalengeth the [Page 181] Bishop of vntruth, and sayth he is right sure there is no such thing. In what thing wil this man stick, to outface the sim­ple & vnlearned, that dare thus deale with such a lerned fa­ther? and cōmit it to print to be examined of any lerned rea­der, and crake of such assurance, as though he had poared o­uer al the booke for it, & euen at the first chop, he is found an open lyer. But I doubt whether euer he looked on the booke at all, but trusted some retchelesse superuisor. For if he had looked but ouer the head of the verie texte, Ut longo temporeDeut. 17.regnet, That he might long time reigne, hée shoulde haue founde noted on this worde Regnet, corporaliter & spiritua­liter, That hee shoulde reigne or exercise his Princely autho­ritie a long tyme, Bodily and spiritually, not onely to haue a regiment in lay, temporall and ciuile matters, as M. St. affirmeth, but euen in spirituall matters also. And had he but looked a little higher on these wordes, Leget (que) illud om­nibus diebus vitae su [...]. He should read it all the days of his life, He should haue found, Vsus reddit magistrum, the vse (of rea­ding the worde of God) makes the king a maister (in Gods worde) that is to say, a setter forth or teacher thereof as it were. Upon whiche the ordinarie Glose sayth, Nota quan [...] assid [...]itate legere debent Sacerdotes, c [...] assidue legant reges. Le­ctio ipsa est lux & vit [...]: vnde verba qua ego loquor spiritus & vita sunt. Note with howe muche continuaunce the Priestes ought to reade the worde of God, when Kings should reade it continually: The reading is it selfe the lyghte and the life, whereuppon sayth Christe, the words which I speake are spi­rite and life. Here M. Stapleton, the lyfe lyes not (as you sayde right nowe) in the Priests exposition, but in the word it selfe, and the continuall reading thereof: wherein not onely the Priest, but the Prince, is a kynde of Maister: But are ye not right sure, none of this is there neyther? ye were best to say so, for I perceyue ye haue an excellente grace to face downe a matter, bée it neuer so playne and open.

Let vs nowe come to the fourthe and laste fault, that he [Page 182] gathereth against the Bishop in this diuision whiche is also an vntruth (as he saith in his margin) the place of the Deute­ronomie flady belied and adding this vnto the other before, he saith, This therfore may wel stand for an other vntruth, as also that which immediatly you alleage out of Deu. 13. for inSt. fol. 42. bal that chapter or in any other of that booke, there is no such worde to be founde as you talke of.

Uerily I beléeue our student M. St. had for studied him­self in a lasie slumber, and wrote this nodding half a sléepe, for ful awake for pure shame, he would neuer haue suffred such lewd lyes to scape his pen, & come in dropping thus one in an others necke, as though he were at a poynte, he cared not what he sayd, neither against the playne truth, nor a­gainst himselfe, much lesse against the bishop: Euery worde that the B. rehearseth in the last end of this diuision, is f [...]ūd plainly exprest in the . xiij. and▪ 17. of Deut. which chapters y^e Bishop quoted: The wordes of punishing teachers of fal [...]e and superstitious religion and idolatrie, in the former side ofFol. 42. a the leaf, he graūteth himself to be in Deut. the. 13. Notwith­standing he forgetteth straight wayes what he sayd, & affir­meth on y^e other side of the leaf, that there is no such word to be found. But as he trippeth on the truth in the first side, so on the other side of the same leaf, he flatly falleth into a flat lye, & in both he tumbleth into a foule contradiction. More­ouer in both sides he graunteth, that by the. 13. of the Deut. The prince by his authoritie may punish teachers of fal [...]e re­ligion, superstition and idolatrie. And may he do it withoute examining, whether the doctrine wherewith the teacher is charged be true or false, and being false whether he taught it or no? Suche may be the order in the Popes consistorie, but in Gods Courtes it is farre otherwise. For God com­maundeth Deut. 17. (as the Bishop auouched) the Prince, when any is denounced vnto him, to haue taught any false religion, that he make diligent examination, Quia no [...] estLyra in Deute. 17.procedendum ad sententiam (sayth Lyra vpon these wordes) [Page 183] fine diligēti examinatione praeuia, bicause he must not procede to giue sentence without diligent examination had before. And this beeing found by the Princes diligent examination that he hath taughte false religion: he shall be put to deathe. The Bishoppes woordes comprehende all this. The laste wordes also of the Bishops diuision, to wete, Et auf [...]res ma­lum de medio tui, And thou shalt take away euil from among thee: Are they not plainly set foorth in both those chapters? So that a man might wonder that knewe not well Master Stapletons impudencie (seeing that all the poyntes that the Bishoppe speaketh of in the later parte of this Diui­sion, in the places of the Deuter▪ aboue mencioned, are so manifestly expressed) with what face M. Stapleton can so boldly affirme, that in al the▪ 13. chapter, or any other of that boke, ther is no such word to be found as the bishop talketh of. And thus with more than a full messe of notorious vn­truthes Sta. 42. b (to returne your owne conclusion M. Stapl. moste worthyly vpon your selfe, ye haue furnished the firste ser­uice, brought yet to the table, concerning the principal mat­ter: howbeit perhappes though this be verie course, yet you haue fine dishes and dayntie cates comming after. Lette vs then proceede. And as he sayth in the entrance of this diui­sion, Go on I say in Gods name (M. St.) and prosecute yourSupra. 40. bplea stoutely, God send ye good speede, and so he doth euen such as you and the honestie of your cause deserue, and at the first entrie of your plea, causeth you and your clerkly and ho­nest dealing, forthwith to your high commendation so to ap­peare, that euen the firste authoritie that ye handle of all the holy Scripture, playnly discouereth you and causeth you to be espied, and openeth as well your fidelitie, as the weakenes of youre whole cause, the which euen with youre owne firste Counter blast is quite ouerblowen. So fitly (M. St. al these your owne words do serue against your selfe.

Diuision. 11.

IN this diuision the Byshop bringeth for his purpose two [...]ol. 42. b things, first he alleageth generally that the beste and moste godly princes that euer gouerned Gods people, did perceiue and rightly vnderstand, that to be Gods will, that they haue an especiall re­garde and care, for the ordering and setting foorth of Gods true Religion, and therefore vsed great diligence, with feruent zeale, to performe and accomplishe the same.

Secondly, for proofe héereof, he entreth into his ensam­ples of the olde Testament, beginning with Moyses, that he was not the chiefe Priest or Byshop, but the supreme gouernour or Prince, and as chiefe gouernoure had the ordering of religion, whiche he dutifully executed with great zeale and care.

To the former parte and generall assertion of the Bi­shop,Chap. 9. M. Stapleton only answereth by a marginall note, saying:

Regarde, and chiefe rule, care and supreme gouerne­ment,Fol. 43. bare two diuers things▪ Nowe forsoothe a solemne stu­died answere of a student in diuinitie, he is a silly wise man that vnderstoode not thus muche before without this mar­ginal note. Too simple were he in déed that séeth they be not al one, as he hath simply set them out. But he that complai­ned so late of curtalling and leauing out a materiall parte of the sentence, whiche dooing he calleth vnfaithfulnesse, sée howe vnfaithfully he hoffeth and curtalleth the Bishoppes sentence. The Bishop spake not of simple care and re­regarde, but of an especiall care and regarde for the ordering & setting foorth of Gods true religion. With which assertion M. Stap. findeth no fault, neither [...]y [Page 367] any worde goeth about to improue it, and so sheweth him­selfe to agrée therewith, and by silence to confesse the truth thereof. Now therefore let vs resolue the Bishops asserti­on, and then consider thereon. The Bishops assertion hath these thrée partes. First that godly Princes ought to order and set forth Gods true religion. Secondly, that they ought to doe this with an especiall regards and care. Thirdely, they perceyue and rightly vn­derstande, that it is Gods will they shoulde so doe. Now since that this by master Stapletons déepe silence, is agréed vpon betwixt the Bishop and him: I make hereon this argument. To order and set forth Gods true religion with especiall regarde and care is the Princes duetie.

But the only sort of gouernment that the Quéenes Ma­iestie doth chalenge and take vpon hi [...] in ecclesiasticall cau­ses, is to order and set forth Gods true Religion with an es­peciall regarde and care. Ergo

Prin [...] ought to take vpon them such gouernment, as the Quéenes Maiestie doth claime and take vpon hir in ec­clesiasticall causes.

And thus is the Bishops antecedent directly proued, and so consequently the principall matter of M. Feck. issue.

Nowe as the former part being the generall assertion to all the ensamples following, is no whitte impeached by any aunswere of master Stap. to it, but by silence (whiche with him is an argument of confession) graunted: so like a very Counterblaster in déed, he blus [...]reth and puffeth at the seconde part, as though he would all to blast it.

Moses (sayth the Bishop) was supreme gouer­nour ouer Gods people, and was not chief priest or Bishop, for that was Aaron.

Here master Stapleton denyeth not Moses to be the supreme gouernour, but that he was not chiefe priest or Bi­shop he vtterly gainsayeth it. It is an vntruth (sayth he in his [Page 368] score) for Moses was the chiefe priest as shall be prooued. Stap. 42. b & 43. a Here is a flat promise of proufe, but I feare me it wil neuer be perfourmed, neyther doth master Stapleton here go a­bout the perfourmance of it. And therefore the Bishops de­nial of Moses to be the chiefe Priest, must stand for a truth, till by prouing Moses to be the chiefe Priest, he haue pro­ued it to be an vntruth. And in the meane time, his pro­mise must stande but for a crake, as also his prowde en­tra [...]nte into his Chapter. That the Scripture by the Bi­shop alleaged reacheth nothing home, but rather infrin­gethStap. 43. a.and plainely marreth the Bishoppes purpose, and ful­lye standeth on our syde, sayeth this student, so greatly hath arrogancie sotted him. He fareth as did the Souldiour, who when his aduersarie had manye tymes in wrastling hurled him downe in the sighte of euerie stander by, yet woulde hée neuer confesse that hée had anye fall, yea, most arrogantlye▪ he styll affyrmed that hée had [...]ast the other. And euen so playeth this student (for this of wrast­ling is one of his common similitudes) he contendeth to wrastle with the Bishoppe, whiche is in verys déede as hée sayeth in this Chapter, Impar congressus Ach [...]lls Troilus. An vneuen matche betweene Troylus and Achilles. What a number of [...]oule falles hée hath had, yea, howe hée hath béene ouerturned in hys [...]wne trippes, is apparaunt to euery Readers eyes, and goe no further but euen to hys last Chapter. And yet sée howe hée craketh, that all the Byshoppes allegations, marre hys owne cause, and fully stande on hys syde. Where contraryewyse they haue drie beaten him backe, bellie, side and all.

And as hée thus fondely maketh vaunt of his formerStap. 43. a. victorie: [...]o I doubt nothing (sayth he) it will fare with his ex­amples. Well sayd of a student, like an other Gawin, he doubteth nothing. But sée a sodaine qualme of hys incon­stancie, for euen streyght wayes, after he hath cryed out, all comes to shor [...]: he sayth, but here am I shrewedly [...]n­combred, [Page 369] and in a great doubt what to doe. Whie masterStap. 43. a. Stapleton, are ye now so soone in a great doubt, and right nowe as doeth bolde Bayarde doubted nothing, and haue before alreadie without any stammering thereat, clapped downe your marginall note for a full resolute aunswere, that Moyses was the chiefe Priest, and nowe doubt ye what to answere?

But master Stapleton hath so many weapons that he is shrewdly encombred with them, as it were another armed Golias, and yet one smal poebble stone, will soone ease him of this encombrance. He telles vs he hath so many aun­sweres, that he doubteth with which he should beginne, for I could (sayth he) make a short but a true aunswere that these ensamples are fully aunswered alreadie by master D. Harding and master Dorman. In déede master Stapleton this were a short aunswers, but I sée your selfe feare (as ye sayde be­fore) it woulde come to short, and not reache home to the matter. Yet, say you, if ye shoulde referre the Reader thi­ther,Stapl. 43. [...] to his and your great ease, it should be to the sparing, not only of penne, ynke, and paper, but of the time also, which of all thinges is most precious. It séemeth master Staple­ton ye are a man of déepe casting, these are good considera­tions of penne, ynke, paper and tyme. But whie followe ye not your owne councell, whiche if ye had obserued, and left out so many impertinent vagaries, and other your tri­fling common places, ye had saued more paper, penne, ynke, and tyme, by thrée halues than ye haue done. And here as séeming full resolued to follow this aduise, ye clappe downe another marginall note. All master Hornes examples out of the olde Testament aunswered alreadie, by master Doctour Harding, and master Dorman. Here, sayth he, is a shorte but a true aunswere. To this shorte aunswere, I aunswere againe.

All M. Doctor Hardings and M. Dormans answeres, confuted alreadie by the B of Sarum, and M. Nowell.

[Page 370]Here is another as short an answere as yours M. Stap. and a great deale truer, whiche I remitte to the indifferent viewers of both their answeres.

Nowe might we both rest, and breath vs, from further answering of these ensamples, and spare penue, ynke paper, and time also, that he séemeth to accompt most precious. But another thing was more precious vnto him, and that was master Feckenhams hyre, and his friendes largesse, for so much Paper penne ynke and time spent about his booke, and the gaine of the printed copies, which the bigger volume it came vnto (for he woulde not séeme a thréehalfepennie stu­dent) the fatter exhibition it should yéelde, and he séeme the greater clerke, yea to go beyonde his masters. And there­fore there is no remedie, he will spare neyther penne ynke paper time. nor paynes also, but that his Counterblast shall be blowne vp to so large and full a volume, that it may en­counter euen the best of theirs.

To whose answeres if he shoulde referre himselfe, and saye no more thereto: Then I feare me (sayth he) wouldeStap. 43. a.steppe forth if not master Horne (a good simple plaine man in his dealings) yet some other ioly fine freshe pregnant wit­tie fellowe, yea and bring me to the streightes which way so euer I did treade.

You are loath I perceiue master Stapleton to be brought into the streight way to treade aright therein, for then your wrie treading woulde soone be espied. But ye séeke crookes and shifting answeres for the nonce. And lyke the vayne talkatiue Arrian Philosopher, ye dispise the right reue­rende and learned father, calling him in contempt a good simple plaine man in hys dealings. Whose wisedome, iudge­ment, learning and estimation, not onelye all godly lear­ned that knowe him both on this side and beyonde the seas, acknowledge wyth reuerence: but euen the chiefe syre [...] on your syde, and your good masters master Stapleton doe confesse, thoughe they groyne thereat, and be of contrarie [Page 371] opinion vnto him, and agrée therein with you, yet are they ashamed of this your light demeanour. And which of them séeth not that yet it is muche better, to be a good simple plaine man in his dealings, then to be a vaineglorious, wic­ked, craftie, dissembling man, in his dealings, as you haue shewed your selfe throughout all your Counterblast to be? And if he be a good simple playne dealing man, are not you agayne (that durst counterblast his dealinges) a naughtie, false, and dubble dealing man? If he be a good simple plaine man in hys dealinges, than he hath dealt well sim­plie and plainely wyth master Feckenham, who ought to receyue the othe by his promise, if he ment also good truth▪ simple and playne fayth in his dealinges. And then what ment you master Stapleton, thus to bende your studie, to spende your paper, penne, ynke, paynes and tyme, agaynst a good simple and plaine dealer? Though ye haue Balaams marke▪ man, and tread the way of Balaam. (Qui mercedem2. Pet. [...].iniquitat is am [...]it, That loued the rewarde of iniquitie.) Be­yng hyred for lu [...]re to wryte agaynst him: did ye thinke that d [...]bling false [...] woulde preuayle agaynst honest, playne and simple dealing? Or that the truth is to be dis­pised bycause it is playne and simple? And that your false craft woulde not be espy [...], except some iolie, fine, freshe,Stap. 43. a.pregnaunt, wittie fellowe, woulde steppe forth and bring yee to the streightes? Ye are muche deceyued master Staple­ton, in your owne concepte, and thinke your selfe a iolyer fellows than any man else takes you, that ye must néedes bée matched [...]th some suche [...]ie pregnaunt wittie fel­lowe, or else ye can not be dryu [...]n to the streightes. But were your memorie as good as [...] take your witte to be, ye would [...] not forgette, that euen that Balaams Asse, whereon your Balaams mynde do [...]th ryde, hath brought your selfe to the streyght [...] manie tymes before thys. And as Saint Peter sayeth of hym, Correptionem vero ha­buit2. Pet. [...].s [...] vesani [...]. &c. Hee was rebuked for hys iniquitie, [Page 372] for the dumme Asse speaking with mans voyce forbad the foolishnesse of the Prophete: so your owne tongue hath di­uerse times so confounded you, that there is lesse néede than ye wene of some suche iolye fellow. I wisse a good simple plaine dealing man, will bring ye to the streightes soone y­nough, howe wittie, pregnant, fresh, fine, and ioly, so euer ye estéeme your selfe. Nowe say you:

If I should (as I sayde) sende the Reader to them, thenStap. 43. a.shoulde I heare a foole, a dolt, an Asse, that can say nothing of his owne. As though ye had not alreadie sent the Reader to them, when ye say it is a true and a short answere, and set it forth with a solemne note in the margine, as it were a marke for the nonce set vp, for the Reader to resort vnto them. Doth your conscience giue ye therefore, that ye de­serue suche homely termes as you conceyue ye shoulde heare, if ye did so? Whie did ye not then auoyde the doing so, that ye might there by a [...]oyde those termes? But ye maye well heare in déede, (if not suche termes as your guiltie conscience fancieth you deserue) yet this, that yee can say nothing of your owne, but theyr aunsweres in ef­fect, turquesed in your flaunting liuery wordes.

Then shoulde the cause be slaundered also (saye you)Stap. 43. a. b as so poore and weake, that it coulde beare no large and ample Treatise, and that their aunsweres were suche as I was ashamed of them, and therefore wylilye and wiselye forbeared them, wyth manye suche other triumphant try­fling toyes.

Would ye in good sadnesse master Stapleton auoyde all triumphant tryfling toyes? Whie then stande ye try­fling in these excuses? If master Harding and master Dor­man haue aunswered these ensamples alreadie, lease you a­ny estimation (vpon the whiche ye stande so muche) béeing yet but a yong student in diuinitie to them, to referre the matter to their aunsweres? If they haue answered ho [...] ▪ your surplus [...]age is but tryfling toyes. If it be any other, [Page 373] then their aunsweres reached not home. And so your an­swere makes your selfe a lyer, that say they haue aunswe­red the Bishoppe alreadie. Againe, is your cause slaunde­red as poore and weake, if it haue aunswered alreadie by suche famous Rabines? Or is it the richer and stronger for the addition of your néedelesse toyes? Lastly, doth the honestie of your cause lie, in bearing a large and ample Treatise? Nowe truelye then it is a false cause, that dare not abide shorte plaine and simple dealing, but must bée flourished [...] embossed out with a large and ample▪ Trea­tise. [...]. And herein you haue done in déede your parte, ney­ther wyll I speake it to flatter you (thoughe I woulde notWherein ma­ster Stapleton excelleth al the Lou [...]in write [...] ▪ haue you waxe to prowde thereof) your aunsweres are farre beyonde all your fellowes, or maisters, or anye of your syde, for rayling, scoffing, lying, slaundering, quar­relling digressions, and other your common places, ye may [...]eare the pricke and prise. Yea the best of them all here­in, are but benchewhi [...]lers to you, that of so poore and weake, of so false and naughtie a cause, coulde make it beare so large and ample a Treatise. But when all is done, a good playne simple manne in hys dea­ling, woulde tell yée in plaine Englishe, that all these flourishe [...] are nothing else, but tryumphaunt trys [...]ing toyes.

Againe, (say you) if I shoulde repeate or inculcate theirStap. 43. [...].aunsweres, then woulde master Nowell or some other rushe in vpon mee, with his ruffling rhetorike that he vseth against master Dorman, and master Doctor Harding, with a precise account and calculation what eyther master Dorman o [...] ma­ster doctor Harding borowed of Hosius, or either of them two of the other, and what I haue no we borowed of them both, or of eyther of them.

It were maruayle, had master Stapleton any shame, that he would for shame mention those broade borowings. [Page 374] Howbeit that this is but a craftie preoccupation, borowing likewise from them, the most of his stuffe, and would not be vpbrayded therefore, nor called to account: a good simple plaine dealing man may soone espie this preuention.

Nowe that he hath cast all his doubts that encumbred him, like a circumspect man, bicause he woulde haue hys aunswere large and ample: and hath made his preoccupa­tion, vnder the name of borowing, to steale hereafter what he will from his fellowes, knowing he might be bolde with them, who had by like borowing [...] the s [...]ne from o­thers: leauing the short aunswere that he chose before, hée chooseth two for more suretie, that if the one fayle him, the other may helpe at a pi [...]che.

But on the one syde (sayeth he) least anye of the goodStap. 43. b.brethren, shoulde surmile vppon my silence any suche dis­trust▪ I will compendiously as the matter shall require ab­bridge their aunsweres, and that master Horne shall thinke that our stuffe is not all spent▪ I shall on the other syde for a surplussage, adioyne some other things to our opponent accomodate. An Almonde for Parate, so finely our student begins to speake, that a good plaine simple man can scarce vnderstande his [...] termes.

But this is the effect of it, we shall now haue new stuffe of some olde store, (good stuffe and God will) for all their stuffe as he crakes, is not yet spent, but I perceyue it goeth harde with them in their store house, and that this stuffe is some of the last cast, God sende it be not such stale stuffe, when it comes to the view, as Cardinall Campeius moiles did bring into Englande, and vttered in Cheape side. But such as it is we must take it in good worth, it is the best he hath to answere the Bishops ensample withall.

The first ensample is of Moses, in whome the By­shopThe example of Moses and the Papistes shift [...] about it. noteth thrée things. First that he was the supreme gouernour of Gods people. Secondly, that hée ordred and set forth Gods true Religion, wyth [Page 193] great regarde and care, prescribing aswell to Aaron and the Leuites, as to the people. Thirdly, that he was not the chiefe priest, & therfore could not do them in suche res­pect, but as he was supreme gouernour.

The first and the seconde propositions that Moses was the supreme gouernour, and that he did order and direct all things, M. St. graunteth. The thirde parte he denieth, and affirmeth that Moses was the chiefe priest, and in that respecte dyd all these foresayde thinges. This assertion he sayth he will proue, bothe by his masters olde, and by his owne surplusage of newe stuffe also. His argument of both these stuffes is this.

I say with M. D. Harding, and S. Augustine, that MosesStap. 43. b.was a Priest aswell as a Prince, I say the same with M. Dor­man▪ with Philo Iudeus, with S. Hierome, and with S. Hie­roms master, Gregorie Nazianzene:

Ergo, Moses was the chiefe Priest.

By the like reason, if M. St. be a priest, he might proue him selfe to be the Pope of Rome. He is a Romish priest: Ergo, he is the chiefe Romish priest, which is the pope. The one reason is as good as the other. But here he will cry out, and say I do him wrong to change his conclusion, for he in­ferreth no such words, but these:

And so consequently Moses ensample serueth not yourStap. 43. b.turne, but quite ouerturneth your assertion.

True it is in déed, this is your cōclusion, M. St. but what was the bishops assertion, which this ye say, quite ouertur­nes was not this his assertion, that Moses was not the chiefe priest, and did not you denie this assertion, & affirme it to be an vntruth, saying, for Moses was the chiefe priest, as shal be proued? did ye not héere make promise to proue it? did ye not say, that to answere this example, ye had other freshe stuffe, not yet spent? must not then this stuffe be directed to this ende & conclusion, to fulfill your promise, & ouerturne the bishops assertion, which was, that Moses was not [Page 194] the chiefe priest, but Aaron? and you should proue as ye haue freshly promised, that Moses was the chiefe Priest. And therfore if this be not your conclusion, ye subtilly & fal­sly swerue frō the cōclusion that ye ought to haue cōcluded: ye performe not your promise to proue Moses the chiefe priest: nor your conclusion, as ye crake, ouerturnes the by­shops assertion: which was that Moyses was not the chief priest, but Aaron. And therfore either this is your argument, Moses was a Priest, Ergo, he was chiefe Priest, or else ye conclude not agaynst the bishops assertion.

If ye say ye conclude this, al the world séeth what a fonde conclusion it is. And if ye haue a poleshorne priests crowne of your owne (as I doubt not but ye haue a faire one) ye may aswell conclude to your self the Popes triple crowne. And if ye cōclude it not, ye conclude not agaynst the bishop, nor fulfill your promise, for all your proues stande on this profe, that Moses was a priest. Nowe the question was not whether Moses was a priest, or no, which is another que­stion in controuersie. But the question is, whether he or Aaron were the chiefe priest.

Yet will ye peraduenture say, though I haue herein (as ye haue proued) swarued from the directe conclusion in hande, that Moses was not the chiefe priest, nor kepte my promise, yea and made a scape in saying, that I ouerturned the bishops assertion, when I did not, or if I went about it, yet mine argument proued but a fonde reason, from priest to chiefe priest: yet in the ende I haue proued Moses a priest, and so consequently it serueth not your turne (vnlesseStap. 43. b.ye will king Henry the eight, and his sonne king Edwarde, yea & our gratious Queene to be a priest to) but rather quite ouerturneth your assertion: and think you M. Horne, that the Queenes authoritie doth iumpe agree with the authoritie of Moses in causes ecclesiasticall? then may she preache to the people as Moses did: then may she offer sacrifices as Moses did: then may she consecrate priests, as Moses did consecrate [Page 195] Aaron and others: then may it be sayde of the imposition of handes, as was sayde of Moyses, Iosua the sonne of Nun wasDeut. 34.full of the spirite of wisdome, for Moses had put his hande vpon him. It must needes therefore followe that Moses was a priest, and that a high priest, whiche ye heere full peeuish­ly denie.