A Retentive to Stay Good Christians, Chapter 2
The seconde Chapter.
THat there is a certaine primacie of spirituall gouernment in the church of Christ (though not properly a Lordlynesse Sander.or heathenish dominion) And in what sort this E…clesiasticall primacie differeth from the Lordly gouernmēt ofseculer princes, and how it is practised by the Bishop of Rome. Also the Apostles strife concerning superioritie is declared. That there …as one greater amonge the Apostles to be a ruler and as a minister doe not repugne. The preheminence of Priestes aboue Kings. A King can not be supreame gouernour in all Ecclesiasticall causes, because by right and law he can not practise all Ecclesiasticall causes. The high Priest is preferred before the King, by Gods law. The euill life of a Bishop taketh not away his authoritie. The differences betwene the Bishop of Rome and temporall Princes. That Moyses was a Priest.
THe Ecclesiasticall gouernment of the Church is a Fulke.ministery, or seruice, by the authoritie of Christ and his Apostle Peter: & therefore neither properly nor vnproperly a Godlines or Hethenish dominion, but altogether as vnlike to it, as our Sauiour Christ the paterne of all true ministers, was vnlike to an earthly Lorde or an Heathen Prince. But whereas M. Sander in the first sentence of this chapter sayth (That no man properly can t…e Lord among the Christians where all are seruaunts indifferently, vnderunder the obedience of one true Lord and Maister Iesus Christ.) he sheweth him selfe not only to be a Papist, …ut also an Anabaptist. For the cōmon seruice that we o…e vntounto Christ hindereth not, but that a Christian man …ay be Lord & King ouer his fellow seruaunts and thren in Christ, as properly as euer he might be before the incarnation of Christ: who saith himselfe that his kingdome is not of this worlde: who himselfe was obedient and taught obedience both to God and Caesar, to eche in things that belonged to them: & that dominion which he forbiddeth vntounto his Apostles, like to the princes of the nations. Luc. 22. Matth. 20. and which S. Peter forbiddeth the elders of the church. 1. Pet. 5. is not prohibited to all Christians, but to the ministers of the Church onelyonly in respect of their ministery. And yet that there ought to be a gouernment of the church, & some kind of primacy also, it is cleerer by the scriptures, then that it neede any proofe, especially such slender proues as M. San. bringeth, & namely where he citeth this text, Feed my sheepe, to signifie that Peter should giuegive eueryevery man his dewe portion & iust measure of victuals in cō uenient time: which thing neither Peter did, nether was he able to doe. And much lesse any man in succession to him, which is not equal in gifts with him. And therefore the example of a stuarde, who may prouide for a competent number of one family, is fondly applyed to make one Stewarde ouer al the worlde, beside him that is almightie. For although the Apostles were not lymited to any certaine congregation, but were generall Embassadors into all partes of the worlde: yet were they not appoynted to giuegive to eueryevery man his dewe portion, but to appoynt Pastors in eueryevery Church and towne for that purpose. Tit. 1. Actes 14. verse. 23, & they them selues to proceed in matters pertayning to their generall Commission.
And therefore although M. Sander in applying these woordes of Ieronime Cont. Luciferanos, which hee calleth, Exortem quandam & eminentem potestatem. A certaine peerelesse and highe power. And of Cyprian lib. 1. Ep. 3. Of one priest in the Church for that time &c. True. EueryEvery seuerall Pastor, or as he tearmeth them parrishe priest, dealeth more honestly then other Papists that drawe the same testimonyes, as proper to the Popes soueraigne auctority, yet in that he argueth, that the like should be in the whole church militant, which is in eueryevery parish, it is out of all compasse of reason. For that which is possible in the one, is altogeather impossible in the other. And the argument is no better, then if we should say, there is one steward in eueryevery Colledge, or greate house: therefore there is is one steward ouer all the world. And wheras he would proue his matter good, by that S. Mat. cap. 10. rehearsing the names of the Apostles, calleth Peter the first: it is to childish & friuolous. For in eueryevery nomber, one or other must be the first & it seemeth that Peter was first called to the office of Apostleship: therefore his primacy was of order & not of auctority. Nether is he alwaies first named, for Gal. 3. 9. where the question is, of the dignity of the Apostles, Iames is named before Cephas, or Peter as he was indeede elected to be the principall minister at Hierusalem, by consent of most auncient writers, neither doeth it folow, that because the high Priest of the old law was called Princeps populi, A prince of the people, therefore Peter was made prince of all Christian men. For neither was the high Priest alone called the prince of the people, as M. S. seemeth to say: neither had Peter by those wordes (feede my shope) any auctority committed vntounto him, more then to the rest of the Apostles. As for the name of Lord, or tearme of dominiō, sometime geuē by ecclesiasticall writers to the Bishop or his gouernment, we striue not about it, so there be no such dominion by him excercised, as Christ & his Apostles forbiddeth, & as we see to be vsurped and practised by the Pope of Rome, & his clergy, howsoeuer M. Sander in tearmes of distinction, would seeme to shadow it. But he will shewe out one of these places which we alleadge, as if it did vtterly forbid all superiority amonge the Disciples, luc. 22 that the ecclesiasticall primacy is cleerely establyshed and confirmed.
First he sayth most vntruly, that we deny all superiority amonge the Discyples of Christe as though we denyed all gouernmente amonge Christians, excepte hee doe childishly vnderstande the Disciples of Christ for Ministers ecclesiasticall onelyonly: and yet wee denye not all superioritie among them, but that kinde of primacie which the Pope claymeth, and tyrannically vsurpeth. Secondly he maketh a longe preamble before he come to the matter, that althoughe the Apostles did diuerse times striue for the primacie, as in the way to Capharnaum Mark. 9 vponupon the request of Zebedees wife. Mark. 10. & after his last supper Luk. 22. yet Christ neuer denyed, that there should be one greater among them, and often signifyed, that the same shoulde be S. Peter, especially when he sayde, thou arte Peter, and vppon this Rock I will builde my Church. If you demaunde why they stroue for supremacie, when hee had determined it, he yeeldeth a substantial reason: because while Christe lyued vponupon Earth, it was in his free choise to hauehave appoynted it otherwise, vntill at the last in the 21. of Iohn, he saide vntounto him, Simon thou sonne of Iona. &c. By these it appeareth, that M. Sander confesseth that no text of Scripture proueth the supremacie of Peter more directly and playnely then this of Iohn 21. which when eueryevery Childe seeth howe little force it hath to proue it, you may easily iudge that the Papists them selues againste their owne consciences, doe inforce all other Textes vttered before to establishe it. And namely this of Luke 22. in which he sayth, that Christ taking vppe the strife that was among his Apostles about the primacie, ended his talke at laste with Simon Peter, shewing him to bee that one that was greater then the rest.
What Asse if he coulde speake with mans voyce, would reason thus? that because Christe conuerting his speache from exhorting all his Apostles to admonishe Peter of his speciall daunger he stoode in by his infirmitie: signifyed that Peter was greater then all the Apostles. But wee muste heare him compare these words of Christe. Luke 22. with the words of S. Mathew and Marke in other places, which he sayth the Magdeburgen. cent. doth huddle vp, as they were alone, wheras they differ much.
The wordes of Christ Mat. 20. and Mar. 10. are these: VVhosoeuer among you wil be greater, let him be your seruitor. And whosoeuer among you will be first, shall bee your seruant. In Sainct Luke 22. He that is greater among you, let him be made as the younger: and he that is chiefe, as he that ministereth. M. Sander will hauehave greate difference to be in these sayings. First generally that the former sentence speaketh not of the greatnesse among ecclesiasticall officers, but all Christians, which is vtterly false, because this kinde of greatnes is prescribed vntounto them to whome external dominion is forbidden, But that is not to all men, but vntounto the Apostles onelyonly and their successors: therefore this kinde of greatnes, is proper only vntounto them. For he speaketh not of greatnes by humilitie onelyonly, but of greatnes without forraine dominion and worldly dignity, and ioyned with seruice, which is peculier to the ministery ecclesiasticall. Secondly he maketh sixe friuolous differences, which either are false or else make no diuersitie in the sence of the places.
The first, Mathew and Mark speake of any man. VVho soeuer, S. Luke of one man, which by the article foreign is pointed out. If the article foreign doe alwaies pointe one certaine man, it is somwhat that M. Sand. saith, but If, ten thousād times and more, (as eueryevery man meanely learned in the Greeke toung doth know) it signifieth not one certaine man: then is this a fond difference.
The second, the other speake of a desire to be great, VVho so would be great, S. Luke of the effect already present, he that is greater. But the the words of S. Matth. 18. ver. 4. ouerthrow this differēce, with the former: for ther foreign the greateste, is taken for any one that shall humble himselfe, as a Childe, and not for one made primate of the Church.
The third difference is, that the letter speake of him that would be foreign great. S. Luke of him that is foreign greater, by which is mente the greatest of all after the Greeke phrase. But that foreign in the others signifyeth the greatest according to the Hebrue phrase, it is manifest by the word vsed by both, which call him also foreign the first or chiefest of all. Therfore these three differences are not worth three chippes.
The fourth, S. Matthew calleth him that woulde be great foreign a seruaunte. S. Luke giueth no name of seruice to him that is greater, but he is willed to be yoū ger or vnderling. Yet S. Luke in another place. Cap. 9. vers. 48. calleth him foreign the least which shall be the greatest. But what fonde quarrelling is this? Doth not the Pope call himselfe seruaunt of the seruantes of God by which he acknowledgeth that the greatest seruice belongeth to him that claimeth the greatest dignitie. though indeede, he yeelde no seruice, but vsurpeth all tyranny. Is M. Sander nowe ashamed of that seruice: that the Pope by solemne title hath so longe professed? As for a preeminence of order, we deny not but it was among the Apostles, & must be in eueryevery seuerall company: although it be not necessary, that it should be perpetual in one man, but as eueryevery Church shall ordaine: but a primacy of authoritie ouer all the Church, we vtterly deny that euer it was graunted to Peeter or any man by our Sauiour Christe. M. Sand. citeth Ambrose in Luke 22. to proue it Qui lapsus es &c. Thou which didst slide before thou didst weepe, after thou haste wepte, art set vpright, that thou shouldesirule others, who before haddest not ruled thy selfe. Loe (sayth he) Peter did rule others. A great myrracle, but doth it follow, that either he ruled al mē, or that he ruled his equals the Apostles, of whome the same Ambrose sayth, De spiritu Sancto lib. 2. cap. 12. Nec Paulus inferior Petro quamuis is ecclesiae fundamentum & hic sapiens architectus s…iens vestigia credentium fundare populorum. Neither was Paule inferiour to Peter although hee was the foundation of the church, & Paul a wise builder, knowing howe to founde the steps of the people beleuing. And again in his boke de incarnatione Domini ca. 4. Hic inquam vbi audiuit vos …utem quid me dicitis? Statim loci non immemor sui Primatum egit. Primatum confessionis vtique, non honoris, primatum fidei non ordinis. This Peter I say, when he hearde, but what doe you say that I am? immediatly not forgetting his place, executed his primacie. Verely the primacie of confession not of honor, the primacie of faith not of degree. By these places of Ambrose it appeareth, what gouernment and primacie was graunted to Peter, and how he exercised the same.
The fift differēce, is that the other Euangelists say absolutely let him be a minister & a seruau…t, in S. Luke it is said, with a great moderation, let him be made as the younger and as he that ministreth. If this be a good argument, to proue that the ministery is more truly a greatnesse then a ministerie: the Arrians may deny by the like, that Christ is more truely a man then the sonne of God: because Sainct Iohn sayeth: we sawe his glorie as the glorie of the onelyonly begotten sonne of God: O beastly absurdity: and yet he sayeth: if any man say, that there was not one certeyne man greater amonge the Apostles, who might be as the younger, it is playne contradiction to Christ and he is Antechrist. But where on Gods name sayeth Christ, that there is one certeyne man greater among the Apostles?
The last & the least difference is, that the greater man is euidently named a litle after, when Christ sa…th to S. Peter, Simon Simon beholde Satan hath desired to sift you as it were wheate, but I hauehave prayed for thee, that thy faith shall not faile. And thou being once conuerted confirme thy brethren. Maister Sander asketh what other thing it is for Peter to confirme his brethren, but to practise and exercise his greatnesse ouer them? for euerie one that confirmeth is greater, then they which are confirmed. Who euer did reade such impudent assertions? Peters faith was confirmed by Marie Magdalen: therefore she was greater then Peter. Paule was confirmed by Ananias, therefore he was greater then Paule. Aquila & Priscilla confirmed Apollo: therfore they were greater then he. To conclude if foreign in S. Luk. 22. do necessarily proue that there was one certeine man among them greatest: thē foreign in the 9. of Luk. 48. doth proue that there was one least among them. He that is least among you al (saith our Sauiour Christ) euen he shalbe the greatest. And least M. Sander should renue his differēce of foreign, it may please him to vnderstand, that the contention was among the Apostles, foreign which should be the greater or greatest of them. Which question our Sauiour Christ doth not decide, if M. Sanders difference of foreign and foreign in this place may stande. Wherefore hitherto Peter hath found no supremacie, and muche lesse the Pope by prerogatiue of his chaire, who can not be sayd to sit in Peters chaire, except he taught Peters doctrine, which if he did teach as he doth ye contrarie, yet Peters auctority could no more be deriued to him, then the auctority of Moses to eueryevery one of ye Scribes & Pharizees wc did sit in Moses chaire.
He citeth Ambrose to proue, that there is a prelacie or preferrement in the church, because he forbiddeth contention thereabout, as though there could not be a prelacy or preferremēt of eueryevery Bishop ouer his church but there must be one Bishop ouer all the church. The like he alleageth out of Bede, which speaketh expressely of al the teachers of the church, & not of one Pope ouer all. The conclusion of his disputation is, that the ecclesiastical primacy doth in al points resemble (as much as it possible may) the primacy of Christ, & therefore he that denyeth the primacie among the Apostles to be a true primacy in his kinde is blasphemous against Christ him selfe. Nay rather, he that communicateth with any man, that which is peculiar to our Sauiour Christ, that he only shoulde, be as S. Paule speaketh of him foreign himselfe the primate in al things Col. 1. 18. which is ye head of his body, which is, the church is foūd a manifest blasphemer of our Sauiour Christ. But that they wc excel among ye Apostles, & their successors the Bishops, may be humble and yet great after the example of our Sauiour Christ is no question at all. But that any hath suche greatnes in auctoritie, as our Sauiour Christ hath cuer his whole Churche, is the thinge we denye. If Gregorie affirme that Peter by Gods commission had the primacie of the holy church, and was growne in power aboue the rest: it is no maruel, seeing he was so nere to the open manifestation of Antechrist, which succeeded him the next saue one: whose tyranny beganne to encrease longe before Gregories time: yet was he in his pretended primacie more modest, then any that followed him to this day: Vtterly refusing and condemning as prophane, proude & blasphemous against Christ, the title of vniuersall Bishoppe: which Ihon of Constantinople did vsurpe, and other Bishoppes would hauehave geuen to him.
And whereas M. Sander frameth an obiection of our part, that no man can be both a minister & a gouernour: therfore no ecclesiasticall minister can be a gouernour, he playeth with his owne shadow. For we deny not but a minister of the church which is a seruaunt, is also a gouernour. But we affirme that his gouernmēt is spiritual, not worldly: vnlike to the earthly gouernment of this worlde, euen as the kingdome of Christ is not of this worlde. But it followeth not, because that eueryevery Bishop & shepherd is a gouernour: therefore there must be one Bishop and shepherd gouernour of them all, other then our Sauiour Christ the arch or head shepherd & Bishop of our soules. 1. Pet. 5. 4. & 1. Pet. 2. 25 M. Sander cōmendeth ye saying of Leo B. of Rome to Anastasius B. of Thessalonica. Qui se &c. He that knoweth him seife to be set ouer some men, let him not disdaine to hauehave some man preferred before him. But he proceedeth: sed obedientiam quam exigit etiam ipse dependat. But such obedience as he requireth of other, let him yeeld himselfe. By this saying it appeareth, that although Leo take much vpō him, as to heare the cōtrouersies ye can not be determined by the Metropolitans, yet he acknowledgeth, that in equitie, he was b…d to yeelde that obedience to others, which he required of others, if he him selfe were in fault.
But M. Sander maketh an other obiection for vsus, on this maner. The Princes of the Gentiles, doe also serue their subiectes in conseruing peace, keeping out their enemies &c. but the clergie must be altogether vnlike to temporal gouernours: therfore there must be no primacie or gouernment among them, although it be ioyned with seruice. Once againe I say, we make no such obiection, but we answere the Anabaptists that so obiect, that the gouernment of the clergy, as it differeth in matter which is spirituall, so also it differeth in forme & maner from the regiment temporall, wc is with outward pompe of glory & with the material sword: & this with all humility & with the sword of the spirit. Contrariwise M. Sander answereth this obiectiō so as he both strengtheneth the hands of the Anabaptistes, & sheweth him selfe litle to differ from their opinion. First therefore he saith that Christ forbiddeth his Apostles and Bishops such a dominion, as is vsed among the Princes of the earth, not altogether such as ought to be amōg them. But that he speaketh not of tyrannical dominion, it appeareth by the title of foreign benefactors, which their subiectes did giuegive them, for their bountifulnes towards them in preseruing them from enemies, in peace and wealth. Secondly he sayth, that although the King be neuer so good, yet it is not the Kingly, but the Priestly power, which God chose frō the beginning to rule his people withal. And although Kings serue Gods eternal purpose, & they are commaunded to be obeyed, yet the making of Kinges ouer Gods owne people at the first came not of God by way of his mercifull election, but by way of his angrie permission. What Anabaptist could speake more heretically or seditiously against the lawfull auctority of Kings & Princes? But let vsus see his reason. Nemrod he sayth, was the first King we reade of: which either by force vsurped, or was aduanced by euell men. I aunswere: if Nemrod was the first that vsurped auctoritie as a tyrant: yet was he not the first that exercised Kingly auctority lawfully nether was he ruler ouer Gods people. But what wil h…ouy of Melchisedech, King of Salem, was not he elected of God at the first, both to be a King & a figure of the King of Kings, who should not hauehave had that dignity, if it had not bene of it selfe both lawfull and godly? Secondly he sayth God was angrie with his people for asking a King, when they had a Priest to rule them. I aunswere, he was not angrie for their asking of a King, but for refusing of a Prince ordeyned by him, which was Samuel a Leuite in deede, of the familie of Cohath, but no Priest of the familie of Aaron. For in his dayes were high Priestes, Eli, Achitob, Achimelech. But after the dayes of Eli, which was both high Priest and Iudge. Samuel was ordeyned Prince or Iudge of the people, hauing auctoritie aboue Achitob or Achimelech the high Priestes in his time, which were sufficient to decide the controuersie of the supremacie, if M. Sander, would geue place to the Scriptures. But who can discharge him of Anabaptistrie, where he deny eth the making of a King to be Gods institution, affirming it to be, the fact and consent of men allowed in deede by God, when the Apostle expresly sayeth, it is Gods ordinaunce Rom. 13? And where he sayth that Abel, Noe, Abraham, were directly from God chosen to be Priestes as Aaron, he sayeth most vntruly, for they had in their familie, the principalitie of ciuill gouernment as directly, as they had the Priesthoode. But neither of both in suche sorte, as Aaron had the Priesthoode: in whom the one was distincted from the other. And of Abrahā it is testified that he was a Prince ordeyned of God Gen. 23. 6. He setteth foorth the excellēcy of Priests by their auctority in making Christs body, with their holy mouth, as Hierom speaketh. But that proueth not the supremacy of one Priest aboue al men, nor of one Priest aboue an other. As for the ordeining of Peter to be generall shepherd, and high Bishoppe of the whole flocke, by commaunding him to feede his shepe: when he can conclude it out of that Scripture, in any lawfull forme of argument, we will yeelde vntounto it. But this is intollerable impudencie, that pretending to shew howe much the Pope is more excellent then any king, he asketh to what Christian king did Christ euer saye? As my father sent me I send thee. as though Christ had euer sayde so to Peter in singular, and not to all his Apostles in generall. As my father sent me, so I send you. Ioan. 20. Concerning the rocke that he woulde builde his Church vponupon, and the feeding of Christes sheepe, and lambes: we shall hauehave more proper place to examine afterward, what supremacie they giuegive to the Pope or to Peter ether. His farther rauing against the dignitie of kinges, who list to see, let him turne to the 57. page of his booke, cap. 2. And yet I can not omit that he sayth, that the pompe of a king is most contrary of all other degrees to the profession of Christian faith: and maketh worldly pompe as vnmeete for a king as for a Bishop. But the Scripture (he sayth) neuer calleth any king head of the Churche, nether doe we call any Kinge heade of the Church, but onelyonly Christ: but in eueryevery particular Church, the Scripture alloweth the king to be the chiefe Magistrate, not onelyonly in gouerning the common wealth, but also in making godly lawes for the furtherance of religion, hauing all sortes of men as well Ecclesiasticall as ciuill, subiect vntounto him, to be gouerned by him, and punished also, not onelyonly for ciuill offences, but also for heresie, and neglect of their duties in matters pertayning to the religion of God. For although many ciuill Magistrats at the first, were enemies of the Gospel: yet was it prophecyed, that kings should be nursing fathers and Queenes nursing mothers vntounto the Church. Es. 49. Againe it is an impudent and grosse lye, when he sayth that God was angry because the gouernmēt of the high Priest was reiected, & a kingly gouernment called for. For they reiected not ye gouernmēt of the high Priest, but of Samuel ye Iudge: who was no high Priest, although he was a Prophet, nether was there euer any high Priest Iudge but only Eli.
But if all supremacie be forbidd…n ouer the whole Church militant (sayth M. Sander) it is forbidden likewise, that there should be any superior in any one part of the Church. And this he proueth by a iolly rule of Logicke. For the partes (according to their degree) are of the same nature whereof the whole is. O subtile reason by which I wil likewise cōclude, there may not be one scholemaister for all the children of the worlde: therefore there may not be one schoolemaster for one towne in all the world. There can not be one Phisicion for all the world: therefore there may not be a Phisicion for eueryevery citie: yea there can not be one Priest for all the Churches in the world: therefore there may not be a Priest in eueryevery parishe. Againe he reasoneth thus: If a king be supreame head ouer his owne Christian Realme. it must be by that power which he ether had before his christianitie or beside it. For by his christianitie it is not possible, that he should hauehave greater power then the Apostles had. I aunswer: the kinges supremacie is perfectly distinct from any power the Apostles had. For although he hauehave authoritie ouer Ecclesiasticall persons, and in causes Ecclesiasticall, according to Gods word: yet is he no Ecclesiasticall officer, but a ciuill Magistrate, hauing chiefe authoritie in all causes, not absolute to doe what he will, but onelyonly what God commaundeth him: namely to prouide by lawes, that God may be truely worshipped, and all offences against his religion may be punished. And whereas M. Sander inferreth, that an Ethnike Prince or Turke may be supreame heade of our Church, we vtterly denye to any such the name of an head, which can not be a member, but euen an Ethnicke Prince or a Turke may be chiefe Magistrate ouer the faithfull, and make lawes for the mayntenance of Christian religion, as an hypocrite Christian may. They are also to be obeyed in all things that are not contrary to God. Nabuchadnezer, Darius, Cyrus, Artaxerxes, which were heathen Princes, made godly lawes for the true worship of God & furtherance of his people: as in the prophecie of Daniel, the bookes of Ezra and Nehemiah, it is manifest. S, Paule appealed to Nero the Emperor. Eusebius testifieth lib. 7. cap. 24 that the Christians in a matter of a Bishopps election, and for a Bishops house, were directed by the decree of Aurelianus an heathen Emperour. And this notwithstanding, the Church is alwayes vnderunder the soueraigne authoritie of Christ, and the spirituall gouernment of her seuerall pastors and teachers, when Christ ascending into heauen, ordayned for her edification and vnitie, and not one Pope ouer all. Eph. 4. 13.
But now he will enter one degree farther, and suppose, that a king may be as good as it is possible for any mortall man to be, or as any Bishop and Priest is, yet he can nether baptize, consecrate, forgiue sinnes, praise, excommunicate, blesse, nor be Iudge of doctrine by his kingly authoritie. If he can doe none of those: he can not be supreame gouernour in all Ecclesiasticall causes. I denye this argument. For his supremacie is not to doe those thinges, or any of them, but to prouide and commaund, that they may be doon as they ought to be. But he riseth vp againe and sayth, that whosoeuer hath soueraigne authoritie, either in ciuill matters or Ecclesiasticall, he may in his owne person execute any of those thinges, which any of his inferiours may do. So he saith, the king if he wil, may be Iudge in VVestminster hall, shrieue and constable, yea he may play the tayler, maister Carpenter or tanner. It is maruell he sayth not that he may be both a king and subiect. Likewise the primate, (he might as wel say the Pope) may helpe a Priest to Masse, cary the crosse in procession, digge a graue, &c. I deny this rule to hold in all thinges. For there are some thinges, that the Prince may not doe for lacke of knowledge, and some thinges for lacke of calling, and yet he may commaund both to be done. For controuersies of lawe he may not decyde, except he hauehave knowledge of the law, nor minister Phisick, except he hauehave knowledge in phisicke, yet he may command both Lawyers & Phisitions to doe according to their knowledge, likewise to preache, baptize, &c. he may not, because he lacketh calling, for none may doe those thinges lawfully, but he that hath a speciall calling, but he may commaund those thinges to be done, & to be well done, according to Gods lawe, whereof he ought not to be ignorant, and for that purpose is especially commaunded to study in the booke of Gods lawe, that not onelyonly in matters concerning his owne person, but in matters concerning Gods honor, he may cause all men to doe their duetie. Deut. 17. 18. So did Dauid, Salomon, Iehosaphat, Ezechias, Iosias, commaund the Priestes to offer vp the sacrifices and to doe their duetie, which it was not lawfull for their kinges to execute.
And is it so straunge a matter, that a popish king may not commaund his Chaplayne to saye Masse, or to saye his Masse reuerently, and orderly as the lawes of popery doe require? if he may commaund ouer tho e matters, which yet he may not doe him selfe, let M. Sander see how his rule holdeth, that whosoeuer hath authoritie in any matters, may doe all thinges him selfe, which any of his inferiours may doe, or which he may commaund to be done, whereupon he concludeth, that the king hath no right or supreame power at all in Ecclesiasticall causes, (vnlesse it be committed to him from the Bishop) so that a king if he be a Bishops commissary, may doe that by M. Sanders exception, wc nether by commaundement of God, nor his kingly power he hath auctoritie to doe.
Another argument he bringeth as good as this, that the lesser authoritie doth not comprehend the greater, and therefore M Horne must aunswer him, whether to preache, baptize, forgiue sinnes &c. be greater or lesser ministerie then the kinges authoritie. If it be greater: then it can not be comprehended in the kinges authoritie, which is lesser. What that reuerend father the Bishop of Winchester hath aunswered, it may be seene in his booke against M. Feckenham. But to talke with you M. Sander, what if I graunt, that the Ecclesiasticall ministery, is not comprehended in the kinges authoritie? will you thereupon inferre, that the kinges authoritie is not to commaund the ministers of the Church in these matters, to doe their dueties according to the worde of God? In deede you conclude so, but your argument is naught. For the king is Gods Lieuetenant, to see both the Church and the common wealth to be wel ordered. And the same thing may be greater and lesser then another in diuers respectes. As in authoritie of commaunding, the king is greater then the Phisition: in knowledge & practise of phisicke, the king is lesse then the Phisition. So in authority of cōmaunding the prince is greater then the minister: but in authoritie of ministration he is lesse, and no inconuenience in the world, to the dignitie of other estate or calling.
The Bishop of Winchesters examples, M. Sander saith are euil applyed. For they only shew what was done, and not what ought to hauehave bene done: and so for many circumstāces are subiect to much wrangling. 1. For either he was no good Prince which medled with disposing of holy matters, 2. or in that deede he was not good. 3. or he did it by cōmission from a Prophet or an high Priest, 4. or he was deceiued by flatterers, 5. or he was inforced by necessitie. But all these quarells notwithstanding, the examples of Scripture are so many, and so playne, that M. Sanders …angling can not obscure them. Dauid a good Prince, did well in appoynting the Leuits and Priestes to their seuerall offices, and forbidding the Leuits to cary the arke and the vessells thereof without any cōmission from Priest or Prophet, but onelyonly by the word of God, not deceyued by flatterers, nor enforced by necessitie, 1. Chron. 23. 25. Salomon did the like about the temple. He deposed Abiathar the high Priest, & set Zadoc in his roome. 1. Reg. 2. 27. & 35. And such are ye examples of all the godly kinges of Iuda. which being cōmended in the Scripture, are not vncertayne, deceitful, or vnknown in their circumstances: but much more certaine arguments for the authoritie of Princes in Ecclesiastical matters, then this text wc he citeth (Feede my sheepe) to forbid them. But here he will aske whether a Christian king be Peters sheepe or no? I answer by propriety no but a sheepe of Christes as Peter is. Neuerthelesse, admit Peter to be a sheepeheard, and the king to be his sheepe, what then? forsooth it is against the lawe of nature, for a sheepe to rule his sheepeheard. I graunt in those thinges in which the one is sheepeheard, and the other a sheepe. But I aske of him, is not a king also in some respect called in Scripture a sheepeheard? if he doubt, Esa. 44. 28. and Iere. 23. 4. may resolue him, and is not Peter and Paule in this respect also sheepe? If he deny it: let the Apostles speake for them selues: let eueryevery soule be subiect, &c. Rom. 13. If nowe I shoulde reason that it is against the lawe of nature, that the sheepe should rule his sheepeheard: I am sure he would answer with making a diuersitie of respectes. You may then see what a wise argumēt he hath made, that may be turned backe on his owne head Wherefore here is no such impossibility as he inferreth, but that a King in some respect of ecclesiasticall gouernment may be aboue his owne pastor, as in other respect he is vnderunder him.
M. Sander will goe forward for all this, & putteth case that a Bishop shoulde come to a Christian King, as Ambrose did Ep. 33. to the Emperour Valentinian offering his body and goods to his pleasure, but the thing which the Emperour vnlawfully required, he would not yeeld vntounto, what could the Emperour doe to him? He coulde not excommunicate him. And if he imprisoned him or put him to death: he did but as Nero or the Turke might doe. Therefore if the King be neuer so much Christened, hee hath no power ouer the Byshops soule. If it were possible for the Pope to require an vnlawfull thing: I might put the like case of his holinesse. What if a Christian man should come to him &c. he might excommunicate him as Cayphas did all that confessed Christe: hee might imprison him, as Annas did the Apostles: hee might commaund him to be smiten as Pashur did Ieremy, and Ananias Paule &c. Therefore if hee were neuer so much a Pope, he hath no power ouer a Christian mans soule. Marke the pith of M. Sand. arguments.
But if Auxentius the Heretike shoulde hauehave come to the Emperour, had the Emperour none authoritie to call a synode to inquire of his heresie, & he being found an heretike, to hauehave condemned him therefore? In these doings he had done as Constantine about Arius, and Donatus, and not as Nero with Peter and Paule. But Ambrose his authoritie is cited Ep. 32. Sivel scripturarum seriem &c. If we call to mind ether the processe of holy Scriptures, or the auncient times, who can deny, but that in a cause of faith, in a cause I saye of fayth, Bishops are wont to iudge of Emperours, not Emperours of Bishops.
And who sayth the contrarye, but that in causes of faith, the Emperour is ordinarily to be instructed of the Bishops, and not the Bishops of the Emperour? Or that the Prince hath absolute authoritie in matters of religion, to doe what he will, when we say that in all thinges he mnst follow the direction of Gods worde, the knowledge whereof, especially in difficult matters, he is to receyue of the Ministers of the Church, as of the Lawyers the knowledge of law, although he be bownd to see iustice executed.
But M. Sander will know how a king shall correct or depose a Bishop. I aunswer, if his cryme be apparant, euen as Salomon deposed Abiather, if it be doubtfull, by order of iudgement and tryall according, of ciuill Iudges, if it be a ciuill cryme, and Ecclesiasticall if it be heresie that he is accused of, if he can not be condemned vponupon iust tryall, he is to be absolued, if this will not satisfie the king, he hath no farther lawfull authoritie by any supremacy, and if he proceede further, he exerciseth tyranny. And Augustine doth iustly complayne of the importunitie of the Donatists, which when the cause had bene decyded by certayne Bishops, deputed by the Emperour, they would neuer be satisfied, but still appealed to the Emperour, & accused the Bishops that were appoynted their Iudges before the earthly king. M. Sander vrgeth that word vehemently, that he calleth Constantine an earthly king, and yet he is so blinde, that he will not see, that the same earthly kinge, which assigned those Bishops to be Iudges, was still acknowledged of all partes, to be the supreame gouernour, Ep. 48.
But omittinge the wordes of men, he will proue the dig nitie of highe Priestes aboue faithfull Princes, by the authoritie of God in the olde Testament. Leuit. 4. Because there God assigneth a sacrifice for the sinne of eueryevery degree of men, according to their dignitie. And first beginneth with the highe Priest, next whom is the whole people, thirde the Prince, and last of all eueryevery priuate man. There is no doubt but the highe Priest, as he was an image and figure of Christ, was chiefe in dignitie. Although in other respectes he was inferior to the Prince, as Aaron was to Moses, Achitob or Achimelech to Samuel, Abiather and Zadoc to Dauid and Salomon. The like is confessed of eueryevery minister of the Gospell, and therefore the authoritie of Philo and Theodoretus which he vseth in this poynt, might hauehave bene spared. And yet may a wicked minister be deposed by a godly Prince. Abiathar in the temple, at the altar, in the holiest place, and sacrificing, was greater then Salomon, yet was he iustly deposed by Salomō for his treason.
Maister Sander chargeth vsus to affi…me, that the euill life of a Bishop, taketh away his authoritie, wc he denieth to be so, as long as the Church doth tollerate and permitte them in their places, whereupon he concludeth, that though the Bishop of Rome hauehave neuer so much abused his office, yet he can not leese his primacye. In deede the abuse of the man, taketh not away the authoritie of the office, but if the office be peruerted from the right vse, and degenerated into an heathenish tyrannye, as the Bishop of Romes place hath bene many hundreth yeares, the name of a Bishop onelyonly and that scarsely remayning, we iustly affirme that such dignitie as that sea had by consent of men, it hath cleane lost, by abuse of their authoritie.
Moreouer he sayth, it hath no coullour of truth, that we affirme the Pope to gouerne, not as a Pastor, but to beare a soueraintie, as Princes of the worlde, and that he will shewe by six differences, which he will consider in order.
First no man succeedeth in that chayer, by right of 1.inheritance. The like I may say of the Germane Emperour, therefore this is no difference.
Secondly it is not obtayned by right of battaile, inuasion 2.or otherwise, but by election. So is the Emperour at this daye, onelyonly by election. And if Maister Sanders be not to impudent, he wil not deny, but there hath bene bickering and intruding by force, into that chayre, and that is worse entering, by symony, murder, treason and deuilish sorcery.
The thirde, nether childe, nor woman, nor Infidell, 3.nor Catechumeni can be chosen Bishop of Rome. No more can any suche be chosen Emperour by the golden bull and lawe of the election. And yet seeing boyes are made Cardinalls, which be electours of the Pope, and elegible, there is none impossibilitie, but a boye may be chosen Pope, as well as a woman hathe beene Pope, Ione I meane. Iohn the 23. was condemned in the councell of Constans for an Infidell, which denied the immortalitie of the soule.
The fourth, the election of the Bishop of Rome as of 4.all other Bishops, pertayneth onelyonly to Ecclesiasticall persons, a king may be chosen by the people without the Clergie. To this I saye, that the Bishop of Rome was wont to be chosen as well by the people as by the Clergie. And so is the Emperour chosen by as many Bishops as ciuill Princes, except in case of equalitie of voyces. Nether is the Clergye euer excluded in any lawfull election of any kinge where he is made by election.
The fift, to omit the Bishop of Romes temporall dominion, 5.which he confesseth to be but accessory to his Bishoprike, in his Ecclesiasticall gouernment, he vseth not that force and power which worldly Princes do. He compelleth none, no not ye Iewes in Rome to baptisme. No more doth the Emperour. But what meanes vseth he to depose kinges, & absolue their subiects from their othe of obediēce, where he iudgeth them for heretikes, how maketh he warres and setteth all the worlde in an vprore, to defend his vsurped dignitie & false doctrine? Doth he not by force compell Christians to his filthy Idolatrye, or els cruelly murdereth and tormenteth them?
The 6. the Bishop of Rome (as Bishop) neuer punisheth them with the materiall sword, which forsake his 6.Church, No, but as Antichrist and a tyrant he imprisoneth them, hangeth them, drowneth them, burneth them, not as a Bishop sayth M. Sander, but as a temporall Prince and Lorde, as Moses being one of the Priestes of our Lord was also maister of ciuill gouernment. Behold, this deuisor of differēces at length maketh him a ciuill Prince and temporall Lorde, from whom he had labored by so many differences to distingush before. But now lest you should espye his impudent conclusion, he draweth into a new controuersie, whether Moses were a Priest. And first he will proue that Moses was a Priest, by the Scripture Psal. 98. Where it is sayd, Moses & Aaron in sacerdotibus eius. If he will not allowe the Hebrue worde Cohanim to signifie Princes, as it doth, in diuerse other places, yet sayth not the Psalme that Moses and Aaron were both Priestes, but that amonge his Priestes they were suche as called vponupon his name, and were hearde, and Samuel who follow…th in the same verse, confessed nowe by Maister Sander to be a Leuit, forgetting that before he made him highe Priest. But farther to proue that Moses was a Priest, he citeth Augustine, Ieronym, Gregor. Naz. Dionys. and Philo, but all to small purpose for his cause.
It must needes be confessed, that Moses as all the Patriarkes before him, in their families, was a Priest, before the distinction of the two offices was made, when Aaron and his posteritie onelyonly were choosen …to bee Priestes.
After which tyme he was no longer a Priest, nether did he any thing as a Priest, but as a Prophet, and as a Prince. But admit, he were both a Prince and a Priest, yet he commaunded Aaron as a Prince and not as a Priest. For Aaron was highe Priest, and therefore coulde hauehave no Priest aboue him. By which it is inferred, that the office of a Prince is to commaunde the highe Priest, and so was it alwayes practised by all godly Princes. But Maister Sander returning to his last and least difference, affirmeth that the Bishop of Rome neuer condemneth any man for herefie or schisme to corporall death in his owne person, nor teacheth that they may be condemned of other Ecclesiasticall persons. But who vnderstandeth not this mockerie? for as well it may be sayde, the Kinge neuer hangeth any man in his owne person, therefore none are executed by his authoritie, as the Pope neuer condemneth any to death in his owne person, therefore he perswadeth not his religion with fire and sworde. But will the Pope and the Bishoppe, that are so mylde and gentle, suffer them whome they condemne for heresie to escape their hands, before they hauehave deliuered them to death? O cruell and shameles hypocrites.
Neuertheles Maister Sander sayth, they hauehave power ouer mens soules by that which our Sauiour sayd to Peter. To the I will giuegive the keyes of the kingdome of heauen. &c. which wordes are deryued to the Bishop of Rome, by meanes of the chayre of S. Peter. A straunge kinde of deriuation neuer touched in the Scripture, to which words the sayde Bishop referreth all his power, where as worldly Princes appeale to the lawe of the Gospell nether in getting, nor gouerning, nor establishing their dominion and power. Marke well this English Anabaptist. Is not this the lawe of the Gospell?
There is no power but of God, and the powers that be are ordayned of God. Rom. 13. 1. for getting of deminion and power. And is not this the lawe of the Gospell for their gouerning? that gouernours are sent of God for the punishment of euil doers, and for the prayse of them that doe well. 1. Pet. 2. vers. 14.
And for the establyshing of theyr dominion, is not this the law of the Gospel, giuegive vntounto Caesar the thinges that belong to Caesar. Matthew 22. verse 21. And againe, we muste be subiect of necessitie, not onelyonly for feare but euen for conscience Rom. 13. verse. 5.
As for the Popes pietie and lenitie, wherewith hee ruleth, when all the world seeth how proudely and tyrannicall yhe behaueth him selfe, it were folly to spend many wordes about it. As for his gentle tearmes of sonnes and brethren, wherewith hee saluteth Princes, and Byshops, and the seruaunt of the seruants of God, which he calleth him selfe: be simple and shorte clokes to hide his horrible presumption and tyranny, wherewith he not only most shāefully reuileth most Christian Princes, as it appeareth in that trayterous Bul, which came from him against our moste gracious soueraigne Lady, but also taketh vponupon him to depose them from their estate royall, vsurping to him felfe the name of holynesse, of heade of the Church &c. of Christe, of God him selfe, and calleth Princes his vassalles. &c. of which blasphemies his Cannon Lawes are stuffed full. And therefore it is too farre in the day, for M. Sander to make vsus thinke there is no difference betweene white and black, Pride and Humilitie, Gentlenesse and Crueltie, Holynesse and hypocrisie, fayth and falshode, vice and vertue.